a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2005 KLAMATH RIVER 

BASIN 

CONSERVATION 

AREA RESTORATION 

PROGRAM

Limited Assurance 

Regarding the Federal 

Funding Requirements

GAO-05-804
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-804.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact McCoy 

Williams at (202) 512-6906 or 

williamsm1@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-804, a report to 

congressional requesters 

September 2005

KLAMATH RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION 

AREA RESTORATION PROGRAM 

Limited Assurance Regarding the Federal 

Funding Requirements 

The Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

have taken a number of actions to formulate, establish, and implement the 

Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program, including 

designating a conservation area, establishing the management council and 

the task force, formulating a long-term plan, and funding restoration projects 

in the Klamath River Basin. The restoration program reports receiving a little 

over $9.8 million in cash and noncash contributions during fiscal years 2000 

through 2004 from federal and nonfederal sources. The federal portion 

totaled almost $6.3 million and consisted of about $5.1 million from FWS’s 

lump-sum resource management appropriation account, and almost 

$1.2 million in cash and noncash contributions from federal entities that 

participated in restoration projects with FWS, according to FWS records. 

FWS records also show that the nonfederal portion consisted of almost 

$3.6 million in cash and noncash contributions from nonfederal entities that 

participated in restoration projects. 

During the same 5-year period, the restoration program spent about $7.6 

million in cash and noncash contributions for restoration projects, about 

$200,000 for travel reimbursements, about $1.1 million for administrative 

expenses, and about $491,000 for overhead, according to information 

provided by FWS officials. Information was not available on technical 

support expenses incurred by the restoration program. 

The management council and the task force serve solely in an advisory 

capacity and do not directly select or manage projects. FWS officials told 

GAO that they paid about $800,000 to cover operating costs of the 

management council and the task force for the 5-year period. 

 

Regarding the financial requirements of the Act, FWS officials have correctly 

identified the need to fund some Restoration Program expenditures from 

monies that are not subject to the Act’s restrictions, and FWS officials told 

GAO they believe they are in compliance with these provisions. However, 

FWS has not yet incorporated into their accounting procedures and recordkeeping sufficient controls to provide reasonable assurance of compliance 

with those provisions of the Act. 

In addition, the Act requires that half of the restoration program’s costs be 

funded by nonfederal sources. FWS officials collect some information on 

restoration projects regarding any nonfederal contributions, but they do not 

distinguish between cash and noncash contributions in project documents, 

document their valuation decisions regarding the noncash contributions, or 

take steps to verify that nonfederal contributions meet the Act’s criteria. 

Incorporating these additional controls into the Restoration Program’s 

operations would not be difficult or costly, and would provide reasonable 

assurance of compliance with those provisions of the Act. 

The Klamath River Basin Fishery 

Resources Restoration Act (Act), 

passed in October 1986, required 

the Secretary of the Interior to 

establish and restore a 

conservation area in that river 

basin, created a management 

council and a task force to assist 

and advise the Secretary, and 

authorized $21 million until 

September 30, 2006. The 

restoration program reports that it 

had been appropriated over $17 

million by September 2005. In 

anticipation of the authorization’s 

expiration, GAO was asked to 

provide information for fiscal years 

2000 through 2004, the most recent 

5-year period for which complete 

information is available, about 

(1) funding for the program; (2) 

expenditures by the program for 

restoration projects, travel 

expenses, administrative expenses, 

overhead, and technical support; 

(3) expenditures by the 

management council and the task 

force; and (4) whether the 

Secretary complied with certain 

requirements of the Act. GAO 

obtained funding and expenditure 

information from FWS but did not 

audit that financial information. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes five recommendations 

to enhance compliance with the 

Act. Interior generally agreed with 

the recommendations but stated 

that there would be added 

administrative costs. 
Page i GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 7

Funds Received by the Restoration Program 12

Purposes for which the Restoration Program Spent Funds 15

Purposes for which the Task Force and the Management Council 

Spent Funds 21

No Reasonable Assurance of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions 21

Conclusions 26

Recommendations 26

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology 30

Appendix II: Funding of Restoration Projects by Type of Participant 

Entity 35

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior 37

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 39

Tables

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.

Table 1: Sources and Amounts of Funding Received by the 

Restoration Program Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 14

Table 2: Purposes and Amounts of Restoration Program 

Expenditures from FWS Appropriations for Fiscal Years 

2000 through 2004 16
Page 1 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 19, 2005 Letr

Congressional Requesters

In October 1986, to assist in restoring the Klamath River’s fish resources, 

Congress passed the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration 

Act1

 (the Act). The Act authorized $21 million to be appropriated to the 

Department of the Interior and charged the Secretary with implementing a 

20-year program to designate and restore a conservation area within the 

Klamath River Basin.2

 To assist the Secretary, the Act also established the 

Klamath Fishery Management Council to monitor the fish population and 

recommend annual fish harvest limits, and the Klamath River Basin 

Fisheries Task Force to advise the Secretary regarding implementation of 

the Restoration Program.

Because the 1986 Act established a 20-year program and provided that the 

$21 million authorization would expire on September 30, 2006, you asked 

us to gather and analyze financial information about the Klamath River 

Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program (Restoration Program), the 

Management Council, and the Task Force for the most recent 5-year period 

for which complete information is available. Specifically, you asked us to 

provide information about (1) the sources and amounts of funding received 

by and for the Restoration Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2004; 

(2) how much of the funds received by and for the Restoration Program for 

fiscal years 2000 through 2004 were spent for restoration projects, travel 

reimbursements, administrative expenses, overhead, and technical 

support; (3) the amounts of funding received by the Task Force and 

Management Council for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 that were spent for 

restoration projects, travel reimbursements, administrative expenses, 

overhead, and technical support; and (4) whether the Secretary of the 

Interior complied with specific requirements contained in the Act.

To answer these questions, we obtained and analyzed information from 

officials of the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), the Task Force, and the Management Council. We reviewed the 

Klamath Act, Task Force meeting minutes, Management Council meeting 

1

 Pub. L. No. 99-552, 100 stat. 3080 (Oct. 27, 1986) (codified, as amended, at 16 U.S.C. §§ 

460ss - 460ss-6).

2

 The Klamath River is located partly in northern California and partly in southern Oregon.
Page 2 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

minutes, Federal Advisory Committee Act3 reports prepared by FWS 

officials for the Task Force and the Management Council, budget and 

accounting records maintained by FWS officials, and reports of studies and 

other documents issued by the Task Force and the Management Council. 

Regarding the information on funding for the Restoration Program, 

expenditures by the Restoration Program, and expenditures made on 

behalf of the Management Council and the Task Force, we noted that the 

Restoration Program’s financial information for the 5-year period has not 

been subject to any external audit. Furthermore, the funding and 

expenditure information for the program are maintained by FWS on several 

different systems designed for various management purposes. As discussed 

with your staff, we did not perform a financial audit on the financial 

information we collected from FWS officials for various reasons. For 

example, FWS’s appropriations do not contain a discrete line item for the 

Restoration Program and this prevented us from doing an independent 

verification of the appropriated amounts. Likewise, limitations in FWS’s 

record-keeping systems for restoration projects, employee time and 

attendance, and cost accounting prevented us from validating some project 

and expenditure information. However, we did discuss the financial 

information extensively with FWS officials, perform certain analytical tests 

on the information, and in some cases, receive revised financial 

information from the FWS officials. Based on these procedures, we 

concluded that the financial information was sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report.

In addition to not auditing the financial information, we did not evaluate 

the efficiency or effectiveness of the Restoration Program, of individual 

restoration projects, or of actions taken by the Task Force and the 

Management Council. For the most part, we limited the scope of our work 

to fiscal years 2000 through 2004; however, some compliance information 

and some historical financial information we gathered included earlier 

years, going back to the passage of the Act in 1986. We performed our work 

primarily at the headquarters offices of the Department of the Interior, and 

the FWS in Washington, D.C. We also traveled to FWS’s Yreka, California, 

field office, which administers the Restoration Program, to gather 

3

 The Federal Advisory Committee Act, codified, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. Appx., and 

implementing governmentwide regulations, codified at 41 C.F.R. pt. 102-3 (2004), set out 

certain reporting requirements for all federal advisory committees.
Page 3 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

information. Additional details of our scope and methodology are 

presented in appendix I to this report. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the 

Interior or her designee. Written comments from the Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks are included as appendix III to 

this report. We also received a number of technical comments which we 

considered and incorporated into the report as appropriate but did not 

include as part of appendix III. We conducted our work from June 2004 

through June 2005 in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government 

auditing standards.

Results in Brief The Secretary of the Interior delegated responsibility for formulating and 

implementing the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration 

Program to the Director of FWS. In fiscal year 1987, the Director 

established a new Fish and Wildlife office in Yreka, California, to manage 

the operations of the Restoration Program and any FWS appropriated 

funds used for those operations. For fiscal years 1988 through 2005 the 

Restoration Program reports having received more than $17 million from 

FWS’s Resource Management appropriations. 

For fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the most recent 5-year period for which 

complete expenditure information is available, the Restoration Program 

reports receiving a total of about $9.8 million in cash and noncash 

contributions4

 from federal and nonfederal sources. Information provided 

by FWS officials shows that the federal portion, which totaled $6.3 million, 

included about $5.1 million from FWS’s Resource Management 

appropriations that FWS has allocated for anadromous fish management 

activities.5

 Most of this funding came from about $5 million in 

appropriations FWS allocated for the Restoration Program established by 

the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act and the rest, a 

little over $135,000, came from other appropriations FWS allocated to 

anadromous fish management activities for purposes related to the goals of 

4

 The Act specifically permits noncash contributions to count as financial contributions, 

including the value of real and personal property and of services, including the services of 

volunteers. See 16 U.S.C. § 460ss-5(b)(2).

5

 Anadromous fish are born in the river, migrate to the ocean or inshore waters, and then 

return to the river to spawn. Species of anadromous fish in the Klamath River include Fallrun and Spring-run Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, lamprey, and shad. 
Page 4 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

the Restoration Program. In addition, according to FWS records, the 

Restoration Program also received almost $1.2 million in cash and noncash 

contributions during this period from other federal entities that 

participated in restoration projects. The nonfederal portion consisted of 

almost $3.6 million6

 in cash and noncash contributions from nonfederal 

entities that participated in restoration projects, according to the FWS 

records.

Of the about $5.1 million received by the Restoration Program from FWS’s 

fiscal years 2000 through 2004 Resource Management appropriations, FWS 

records show that about $2.9 million, or 57 percent, went to restoration 

projects; about $615,000, or 12 percent, was used by FWS to manage 

restoration projects, including planning, contracting, tracking agreements, 

complying with environmental requirements, and providing technical 

assistance to projects; about $1.1 million, or 23 percent, was spent on 

program administration, including administrative and technical support 

provided by FWS to the two federal advisory committees created by the 

Act; and the remaining about $443,000, or 9 percent,7

 was used for 

overhead expenses incurred at the FWS headquarters and regional office 

levels. Our analysis of the various cost categories maintained by Yreka 

FWO officials and the office expenses that are allocated to the Restoration 

Program by FWS officials showed that about $48,000 could be classified as 

overhead expense incurred at the field office level. Using that analysis, and 

other financial information provided by FWS officials shows the total 

overhead expense incurred at the headquarters, regional office, and field 

office levels for the Restoration Program was about $491,000 for the 5-year 

period, or about 10 percent of the $5.1 million received by the Restoration 

Program during that time period from FWS’s Resource Management 

appropriations.

The $4.7 million in cash and noncash contributions contributed to the 

Restoration Program by other federal and nonfederal entities that 

participated with FWS in restoration projects, according to FWS officials, 

remained in the control of the participating entities for use on those 

restoration projects in which they participated. Combining that $4.7 million 

in cash and noncash contributions brought to restoration projects by 

6

 Due to the rounding of amounts, the sum of federal contributions and nonfederal 

contributions seems to exceed total contributions.

7

 Due to the rounding of percentage amounts, the sum of the percentages for expenditure 

types exceeds 100 percent.
Page 5 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

participating entities with the $2.9 million that FWS officials reported FWS 

provided to projects from its Resource Management appropriations brings 

the total amount provided to restoration projects during the 5-year period 

to a little over $7.6 million. FWS’s $2.9 million in project funding provided 

almost $700,000 to three federal entities to help fund 26 restoration 

projects, and nearly $2.2 million to 18 nonfederal entities to help fund 100 

restoration projects, according to FWS officials.

The Klamath Fishery Management Council and the Klamath River Basin 

Fisheries Task Force were chartered by the Secretary of the Interior as 

federal advisory committees, and most of their operating costs8

 are covered 

by the Resource Management appropriations FWS has specifically 

allocated to implement the Restoration Program, with some additional 

funding coming from the same Resource Management appropriations that 

FWS has allocated for other related anadromous fish management 

activities but not pursuant to the Act. The FWS field office in Yreka, 

California, which administers the Restoration Program, receives and 

expends funds to pay for the committees’ operating costs. According to 

FWS officials, about $800,000 of the almost $5.1 million received by the 

Restoration Program from FWS appropriations for fiscal years 2000 

through 2004 was used to pay for operating costs of the committees, for a 

yearly average of about $160,000.

The Secretary of the Interior and FWS have taken a number of actions to 

formulate, establish, and implement the Restoration Program, including 

designating a conservation area, establishing the Management Council and 

the Task Force, formulating a long-term plan, and funding over 350 

restoration projects in the Klamath River Basin. However, Interior cannot 

provide reasonable assurance that it has complied with all the financial 

requirements of the Act. The Act required the Secretary to establish by 

regulation the experience, training, and other qualifications volunteers 

must have for their services to count as noncash contributions, and the 

standards for determining the value of all types of noncash contributions. 

According to an Interior official, the Secretary interpreted these provisions 

of the Act to require Interior to follow its existing grants management 

regulations, which address some aspects of those areas. Because of this 

interpretation, new regulations specific to the Restoration Program were 

8

 Operating costs for the Management Council and the Task Force primarily consist of the 

salaries of federal staff who provide them with administrative and technical services, travel 

costs for committee members and federal staff, and meeting costs. 
Page 6 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

not issued, and FWS officials maintain that it is not necessary to issue any. 

However, inadequate internal controls impair FWS’s ability to provide 

reasonable assurance of compliance with the existing Interior regulations.

The Act also places certain limitations on the use of appropriated funds. 

For example, the Act precludes use of appropriations authorized by the Act 

to reimburse federal employees who incur travel expenses as members of 

the Task Force or the Management Council or to reimburse the federal 

employees’ agencies for salaries earned by the federal employees while 

performing duties as members of the Task Force or the Management 

Council. FWS officials have correctly identified the need to fund some 

Restoration Program expenditures, such as certain travel and salary 

expenses for FWS officials who are members of the Management Council 

or the Task Force, from monies that are not subject to the Act’s restrictions. 

Furthermore, they told us they believe they are in compliance with these 

provisions “because 1) the salary and travel of the FWS official who serves 

as chair of the Task Force are charged to another account, and 2) funds 

provided to the Restoration Program from other FWS sources exceed the 

salary and travel costs related to the duties of the FWS official who serves 

on the [Management] Council.” However, compliance with these provisions 

of the Act can be reasonably assured only by implementing adequate 

control mechanisms, and they have not yet incorporated into their 

accounting procedures and record-keeping practices sufficient controls to 

provide reasonable assurance of compliance with those provisions of the 

Act. For example, their accounting records do not distinguish between 

expenditures made from funds allocated by FWS for the Restoration 

Program and expenditures made from funds allocated by FWS for related 

purposes and thus not subject to the Act’s restrictions. As a result, 

compliance cannot be demonstrated.

Also, the Act requires that 50 percent of the cost of the development and 

implementation of the Restoration Program be provided by nonfederal 

sources. FWS officials routinely collect information on nonfederal 

contributions to restoration projects; however, they do not evaluate 

whether 50 percent of the cost of the development and implementation of 

the Restoration Program has been provided by nonfederal sources. In 

addition, neither direct nor indirect contributions of federal funds by a 

state or local government can be counted as contributions by a nonfederal 

source in determining compliance with the 50 percent provision contained 

in the Act. However, FWS officials have not formulated a methodology for 

determining whether state or local government funds used for a restoration 

project originated as federal money. Therefore, FWS officials cannot make 
Page 7 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

a determination on whether the Restoration Program is in compliance with 

these provisions.

We are making five recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior to 

address compliance with the financial-related requirements and limitations 

in the Act. Interior generally agreed with our recommendations but noted 

that there were costs associated with the added controls contemplated by 

our recommendations. These efforts should not, if effectively implemented, 

be overly burdensome. In our view, implementing these controls would be 

beneficial to Interior and Congress as part of any deliberations on 

extending the Restoration Program because these controls were an integral 

part of the Program’s statutory funding structure.

Background Congress passed the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration 

Act (the Act)9 in October 1986 to assist in restoring the Klamath River’s fish 

resources. The Act authorized $21 million to be appropriated to the 

Department of the Interior, and it charged the Secretary of the Interior with 

implementing a 20-year program to designate10 and restore a conservation 

area within the Klamath River Basin. The Secretary, in turn, delegated 

responsibility for implementing the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area 

Restoration Program (Restoration Program) to the Director of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), a bureau-level unit within the Department of 

the Interior. To facilitate implementation and management of the 

Restoration Program, FWS established under its Portland, Oregon, 

Regional Office a new field office in Yreka, California.

The Act also established the Klamath Fishery Management Council 

(Management Council) to monitor the fish population and recommend 

annual fish harvest limits, and the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task 

Force (Task Force) to advise and assist the Secretary regarding 

implementation of the Restoration Program. To implement these provisions 

in the Act, the Secretary chartered the Management Council and the Task 

9

 Pub. L. No. 99-552, 100 Stat. 3080 (Oct. 26, 1986) (codified, as amended, at 16 U.S.C. §§ 

460ss - 460ss-6).

10 The Act requires the Secretary to designate “the anadromous fish habitats and resources 

of the Klamath River basin as the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area.” 16 U.S.C. § 

460ss-1(a). The Secretary complied with this requirement in December 1987 through a final 

rule published in the Federal Register promulgating the designation. See 52 Fed. Reg. 45,694 

(Dec. 1, 1987).
Page 8 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Force as federal advisory committees. Neither the Management Council 

nor the Task Force receives or spends funds.11 Since their inception, the 

Fish and Wildlife Office (FWO) at Yreka, California, has provided the 

financial resources to cover the Management Council’s and the Task 

Force’s operational expenses. In addition, staff from the Yreka FWO, along 

with staff from the State of California’s Department of Fish and Game, have 

provided technical and administrative support to the Management Council 

and the Task Force as required by the Act.12

Management Council In accordance with its charter, the Klamath Fishery Management Council 

functions only in an advisory capacity and reports to the Secretary of the 

Interior. The Management Council is responsible for making 

recommendations to various federal, state, local, and Indian tribal 

authorities regarding fish-harvesting regulations. In addition, the 

Management Council was assigned responsibility to establish a 

comprehensive long-term plan and policy for the management of the inriver and ocean harvesting that affects or may affect Klamath and Trinity 

River Basin anadromous fish populations.13 The Management Council’s 

long-term plan, published in 1992,14 lays out goals and objectives for fish 

populations in the Conservation Area and strategic plans for meeting the 

goals and objectives.

As prescribed by the Act, the Management Council is composed of 11 

members, including representatives appointed by the Governors of 

California and Oregon, Hoopa Valley Business Council, non-Hoopa Indians, 

the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Commerce. The term of a 

member is 4 years. The Management Council usually meets three or four 

times a year (usually in February, March, April, and October) at various 

11 The Task Force, through its Budget Committee and its Technical Work Group, assists FWS 

officials in budgeting and allocating Restoration Program funds for program administration 

and restoration projects.

12 The Act requires the Secretary and the Department Director to provide sufficient technical 

and administrative support to the Management Council and Task Force to enable them to 

function effectively.

13 Non-anadromous fish, such as resident trout, are not covered in the Management 

Council’s plan or recommendations.

14 Klamath Fishery Management Council, Long-Term Plan for Management of Harvest of 

Anadromous Fish Populations of the Klamath River Basin (Final Plan, 1992).
Page 9 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

locations in California and Oregon. The Management Council publishes 

notices of meetings in the Federal Register, posts its meeting agenda on the 

Yreka FWO Internet Web page 2 to 3 weeks before each meeting, and 

invites the public to attend its meetings.

From fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 2004, the Management Council 

held 73 meetings. Each meeting lasts from 3 to 5 days. The members 

discuss ongoing fish population monitoring activities. They also discuss 

and make recommendations on the regulation of ocean harvesting, 

recreational harvesting, and harvesting in the Conservation Area by the 

Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe and by non-Hoopa Indians. The Management 

Council’s recommendations must be consistent with its long-term plan and 

policy and must pass the Management Council by unanimous vote. The 

public is invited to attend all Management Council meetings, and public 

comment periods are scheduled on the agenda throughout the meetings. 

Sometimes speakers are invited to the meetings to make presentations on 

fish population studies. 

The Management Council is provided with biological and statistical 

expertise by the Technical Advisory Team, a subgroup created by the 

Management Council, whose membership consists of individuals from 

entities represented on the Management Council. The Technical Advisory 

Team advises the Management Council on the status of anadromous fish 

stocks and the impacts of fishery management options. This includes the 

development of annual projections of fish stock size and development of 

fishery models for use in the management of fish populations.

Task Force The Act provides for a 16-member Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task 

Force to advise and assist the Secretary of the Interior in the development 

and implementation of the Restoration Program. The Task Force consists 

of members who represent a broad range of stakeholder interests from 

throughout the Klamath River area. Members are appointed by, and 

represent, the Governors of California and Oregon; the Secretary of the 

Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Agriculture; the 

California counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Trinity; Klamath 

County, Oregon; the Hoopa Valley, Karuk, Yurok, and Klamath Tribes; inriver sport anglers; and commercial salmon fishermen.

According to its charter, the Task Force also functions only in an advisory 

capacity and reports to the Secretary of the Interior. The charter states that 

the Task Force has four objectives: (1) to assist the Secretary of the Interior 
Page 10 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

in the formulation, coordination, and implementation of the Restoration 

Program; (2) to assist and coordinate its activities with federal, state, local 

government, and private anadromous fish restoration projects; (3) to 

conduct any other activity necessary to accomplish the objectives of the 

Restoration Program; and (4) to act as advisor to the Management Council. 

The Task Force works by consensus to coordinate restoration planning, 

recommend restoration project proposals for funding, and express 

opinions on issues affecting the Klamath River Basin. In 1991, in 

conjunction with an independent contractor, the Task Force developed the 

Long Range Plan for the Restoration Program.15

The Task Force usually meets three times per year (in February, June, and 

October) at various locations in California and Oregon. Like the 

Management Council, the Task Force publishes notices of meetings in the 

Federal Register, posts its meeting agenda at the Yreka FWO Internet Web 

page 2 to 3 weeks before each meeting, and invites the public to attend its 

meetings. Each meeting session lasts from 2 to 3 days. The members 

discuss needs for managing Klamath River fish, ongoing and proposed 

Klamath River Basin restoration projects, and the technical information 

needs of the Management Council. They also discuss and make 

recommendations regarding the funding of restoration projects.

Each spring the Task Force, in conjunction with FWS, issues a Request for 

Proposals for restoration projects to be funded in the following fiscal year 

with Restoration Program funds. When the project proposals are received, 

they are evaluated for technical merit and scored by the Task Force’s 

Technical Work Group,16 using criteria published in the Request for 

15 Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force, Long Range Plan for the Klamath River Basin 

Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program (January 1991).

16 The Technical Work Group, a subgroup created by the Task Force, consists of the same 

number of members as the Task Force. Each member of the Task Force either serves on the 

Technical Work Group or selects an individual, often from the entity that the member 

represents on the Task Force, to serve, without pay, on the Technical Work Group.
Page 11 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Proposals.17 Then, using the amount of expected funding for the following 

year as a guide for determining how many new restoration projects can be 

funded, the Technical Work Group presents its analysis to the entire Task 

Force. At its June meeting, the Task Force considers the Technical Work 

Group’s analysis, and by unanimous vote, selects the project proposals it 

will recommend to the Secretary of the Interior18 for funding in the next 

fiscal year. Approximately 25 projects were funded annually for fiscal years 

2000 through 2004.

Yreka FWO The Yreka FWO was established in fiscal year 1987 to facilitate 

implementation and management of the Restoration Program. The Yreka 

FWO is involved in administering several other FWS programs and 

activities, but the Restoration Program comprises about one-half of the 

office’s annual funding. The Yreka FWO has 1 full-time contract employee 

who performs administrative functions and 15 employees: a field 

supervisor, an assistant field supervisor, 2 supervisory biologists, 6 staff 

biologists, 1 administrative supervisor, 2 administrative staff, and 2 parttime staff biologists.

Eight of these individuals provide technical and administrative services to 

the Management Council and the Task Force, perform restoration project 

management functions, or have Restoration Program administration duties. 

Two of the employees (a supervisory biologist and one part-time staff 

biologist) spend almost all of their time on Restoration Program activities. 

The Field Supervisor, three administrative employees, one staff biologist, 

and the contract employee spend part of their time on Restoration Program 

activities. The assistant field supervisor, a supervisory biologist, five staff 

17 The RFP soliciting project proposals for fiscal year 2004 funding lists six criteria for 

scoring the proposals along with the maximum score that can be awarded for each of the 

criteria. The six criteria with maximum scores in parentheses are (1) Employment of target 

groups (10 points); (2) Benefits to priority fish species and stocks (10 points); (3) Ability of 

the proposer to successfully implement the proposed project (10 points); (4) Scientific 

validity and technical quality (25 points); (5) Conforms to sub-basin objectives (25 points); 

and (6) Cost effectiveness; including: pricing, resource benefits/costs, development of 

matching funds, and willingness of the proposer to contribute funds or in-kind 

goods/services (20 points). The RFP also states: “Proposals that do not meet the goals and 

objectives of the Restoration Program... will not be evaluated or ranked. These criteria are 

mandatory for all project proposals.”

18 The Secretary of the Interior does not actually receive the Task Force’s list of 

recommended project proposals. Instead, an FWS official, who has been delegated 

authority, approves the projects for funding.
Page 12 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

biologists, and one part-time staff biologist do not spend any of their time 

on Restoration Program activities. Until fiscal year 2004, Yreka FWO was 

supervised by FWS’s Portland Regional Office, but it is now supervised by 

FWS’s California-Nevada Operations Office.

Funds Received by the 

Restoration Program

There are a number of uncertainties in determining the amount of funds 

received by the Restoration Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. 

First, FWS’s appropriations do not contain a discrete line item for the 

Restoration Program. This prevented us from doing any independent 

verification of the appropriated amounts. Second, FWS’s restoration 

project database does not distinguish between cash and noncash 

contributions provided to the restoration project by project participants. 

The restoration project database shows a single amount, called the costshare amount, which is the sum of all contributions made by the project 

participant to the project. For some projects, we could determine the 

amount of cost share that consisted of cash and the amount that consisted 

of noncash by looking in the contract file at the project agreement, or at 

supporting documents, or even at the final report if the project had been 

completed. However, for some restoration projects, even those documents 

did not contain adequate information for us to make a distinction between 

cash and noncash contributions. As a result, we were unable to determine 

how much of contributions made by project participants was cash and how 

much was noncash. Third, Restoration Program officials did not routinely 

perform independent analysis to determine the value that should be 

assigned to noncash contributions as called for by good financial 

management practices. Rather, according to FWS officials, they typically 

accepted the values assigned by the project participant as long as the 

values appeared reasonable. They did this for various reasons, including 

their lack of formal criteria for making such evaluations, and their 

uncertainty about their authority to question the values. Therefore, the 

composition and value of cost-share amounts maintained in FWS records 

are subject to question.

For the 5 years from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 through the end of 

fiscal year 2004, according to FWS officials, the Klamath River Basin 

Conservation Area Restoration Program received about $9.8 million in cash 

and noncash contributions: almost $6.3 million from federal sources and 
Page 13 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

almost $3.6 million from nonfederal sources.19 The federal funds included 

about $5.1 million in appropriations derived from FWS’s Resource 

Management appropriation account,20 which includes a lump-sum 

appropriation that FWS allocates to various program activities, including 

the Fisheries Program.21 FWS operates several subprograms within the 

Fisheries Program, including the Fish and Wildlife Management Program, 

which administers several subactivity program elements, including 

Anadromous Fish Management.

During the 5 years under review, FWS allocated about $5 million22 in 

appropriations to the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration 

Program established under the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources 

Restoration Act. In addition, according to FWS officials, FWS provided 

about $135,000 more to the Restoration Program during the 5-year period 

from appropriations FWS has allocated to support the Anadromous Fish 

Management subactivity of the Fisheries Program’s Fish and Wildlife 

19 Due to the rounding of amounts, the sum of federal contributions and nonfederal 

contributions seems to exceed total contributions.

20 In fiscal year 2004, for example, FWS’s Resource Management appropriation stated: “For 

necessary expenses of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as authorized by law, and 

for scientific and economic studies,...general administration, and for the performance of 

other authorized functions related to such resources by direct expenditure, contracts, 

grants, cooperative agreements, and reimbursable agreements with public and private 

entities, $963,352,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005,...” Department of the 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-108, 117 Stat. 1241, 

1245 (Nov. 10, 2003).

21 In the Budget of the United States Government—Appendix, Fiscal Year 2006, the 

Department of the Interior describes the Fisheries Program as follows: “The Fisheries 

Program consists of 69 national hatcheries, 9 Fish Health Centers, 7 Fish Technology 

Centers, 64 Fishery Resources Offices, and a Historic National Fish Hatchery. Working with 

partners, the Fisheries Program recovers, restores and maintains fish and other aquatic 

resources at self-sustaining levels; provides technical assistance to States, Tribes and 

others; and supports Federal migration programs for the benefit of the American public.” 

Id. at 613.

22 According to FWS officials, the amount of the Resource Management appropriation FWS 

allocated for the Restoration Program for each of the 5 years was $1 million, less a 

rescission that varied between 0.38 percent and 1.82 percent. The actual total amount 

received for the 5 years, according to the FWS officials, was $4,955,716. We could not verify 

this amount because the appropriations for FWS do not contain a discrete line item for the 

Restoration Program. Instead, funding for the Restoration Program is combined with other 

funding within the “General Program Activities” sub-element of the “Anadromous Fish 

Management” program element, which can be found under the “Fish and Wildlife 

Management” activity of FWS’s “Fisheries Program” account.
Page 14 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Management Program. Also, according to FWS records, the Restoration 

Program benefited during that same time period from the almost 

$1.2 million in cash and noncash contributions23 from federal entities that 

participated in restoration projects. The almost $3.6 million from 

nonfederal sources came to the Restoration Program as cash and noncash 

contributions from nonfederal entities that participated in restoration 

projects, according to FWS records. See table 1 for a year-by-year 

breakdown of the Restoration Program funding, based on unaudited 

financial information provided by FWS officials.

Table 1: Sources and Amounts of Funding Received by the Restoration Program Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004

Source: GAO computations based on unaudited FWS data.

a

The term net appropriations refers to the amount received after accounting for any rescissions.

In addition to gathering financial information on the Restoration Program’s 

sources of funds for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, we gathered the same 

information going back to the passage of the Act in 1986. Specifically, from 

23 FWS records show a “cost-share” amount for restoration projects. We could not determine 

from the records the amount of cost share that consisted of cash contributions and the 

amount that consisted of noncash contributions.

Fiscal years

Source of funding 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Total

funding

Fisheries Program 

allocation designated for 

the Restoration Program 

- net appropriationsa $996,200 $994,008 $996,200 $987,547 $981,761 $4,955,716

Fisheries Program 

allocation not designated 

for the Restoration 

Program (appropriations) 16,196 22,243 34,950 26,374 35,478 135,241

Cost share provided to

restoration projects

by federal entities 135,937 248,469 226,160 235,678 318,714 1,164,958

Cost share provided to

restoration projects by 

nonfederal entities 581,471 783,226 647,856 656,581 906,351 3,575,485

Total Restoration 

Program funding from 

all sources $1,729,804 $2,047,946 $1,905,166 $1,906,180 $2,242,304 $ 9,831,400
Page 15 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

the beginning of fiscal year 1988 through June 2005,24 FWS records show 

that the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program 

received over $17.0 million in funding from the Resource Management 

appropriations that FWS has allocated for the Restoration Program 

established by the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act 

and another $188,000 from FWS’s Resource Management appropriations 

that FWS allocated for other activities funded by the Fisheries Program. In 

addition, according to FWS officials, the Restoration Program benefited 

during that same time period from about $1.7 million in cash and noncash 

contributions from federal entities that participated in restoration projects 

and from $5.8 million in cash and noncash contributions from nonfederal 

entities that participated in restoration projects. Although the Act was 

passed on October 27, 1986, the Restoration Program did not receive 

designated appropriations for fiscal year 1987. However, some 

expenditures for the Restoration Program, amounting to about $57,000, 

were funded during fiscal year 1987 from appropriations available to FWS 

for Fisheries Program expenditures.

Purposes for which the 

Restoration Program 

Spent Funds

According to FWS records, the Restoration Program funded 126 restoration 

projects during fiscal years 2000 through 2004, in addition to supporting the 

operations of the Management Council and the Task Force, providing for 

FWS project management services, paying for program administration 

expenses, and contributing to the operational costs of FWS’s Yreka field 

office, Portland regional office, and Washington, D.C. headquarters office.

Of the about $5.1 million received by the Restoration Program from FWS’s 

fiscal years 2000 through 2004 Resource Management appropriations, 

FWS’s records show about $2.9 million, or 57 percent, went to restoration 

projects; about $615,000, or 12 percent, was used by FWS to manage 

restoration projects, including planning, contracting, tracking agreements, 

complying with environmental requirements, and providing technical 

assistance to projects; about $1.1 million, or 23 percent, was spent on 

program administration, including administrative and technical support 

provided by FWS to the two federal advisory committees created by the 

24 For fiscal year 2005, the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program 

received $970,928 in appropriations through June 30, 2005 ($1 million less a rescission of 

$29,072) for a total appropriation of over $17 million for fiscal years 1988 through 2005.
Page 16 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Act; and the remaining about $442,000, or 9 percent,25 was used for 

overhead expenses incurred at the FWS headquarters and regional office 

levels. 

In addition, the $4.7 million contributed to the Restoration Program by 

federal and nonfederal project participants that participated in restoration 

projects remained in the control of the project participants. The project 

participants used the $4.7 million of cash and noncash contributions on 

those restoration projects in which they participated. We were not able to 

obtain adequate information on the project participants’ contributions to 

describe the purposes for which those amounts were spent. See table 2 for 

a year-by-year breakdown of the purposes and amounts of Restoration 

Program expenditures paid from FWS appropriations.

Table 2: Purposes and Amounts of Restoration Program Expenditures from FWS Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2000 through 

2004

Source: GAO computations based on unaudited FWS data.

a

We used obligated amounts for restoration projects costs because the amount is obligated for a 

restoration project from a single year’s funds but may be expended over a multiyear period. Therefore, 

the obligated amount for a particular year better represents the amount from that year’s funds that is 

spent on projects than would the expended amount for that year, which might consist of expenditures 

on several different years’ projects.

25 Due to the rounding of percentage amounts, the sum of the percentages for expenditure 

types exceeds 100 percent.

Fiscal years

Purpose of

expenditure 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Total 

expenditures

Restoration projects (obligated)a

 $571,838 $578,700 $578,700 $578,709 $578,130 $2,886,077

Project management 116,273 118,935 130,209 124,361 125,010 614,788

Support of federal advisory 

committees 165,085 159,835 160,837 153,395 156,244 795,396

Program administration 70,339 69,693 72,762 69,439 70,313 352,546

FWS Washington office 

overhead 9,962 10,439 33,926 73,759 87,542 215,628

Regional officeb

overhead 78,899 78,649 54,716 14,258 0 226,522

Total annual expenditures $1,012,396 $1,016,251 $1,031,150 $1,013,921 $1,017,239 $5,090,957
Page 17 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

b

FWS’s Portland Regional Office oversaw the operations of the Yreka FWO for fiscal years 2000 

through 2003. This responsibility was transferred to the California-Nevada Operations Office in fiscal 

year 2004. However, neither the Portland Regional Office nor the California-Nevada Operations Office 

received an assessment from the Restoration Program appropriations for fiscal year 2004.

We used the expenditure categories in table 2 to report how FWS’s 

Resource Management appropriations were spent because they represent 

the major functions for which the Restoration Program spends funds and, 

with the exception of overhead, are the major categories FWS officials use 

to track the Restoration Program budget. However, to fulfill our 

engagement objectives, we also sought to provide information about what 

amounts of the FWS’s Resource Management appropriations received by 

and for the Restoration Program from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 

through the end of fiscal year 2004 were spent for the purposes of 

restoration projects, travel reimbursements, administrative expenses, 

overhead, and technical support.

Restoration projects. Table 2 shows that almost $2.9 million was 

committed to restoration projects from FWS’s Resource Management 

appropriations for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. Combining that amount 

with the $4.7 million in cash and noncash contributions provided to 

restoration projects by project participants brings the total invested by the 

Restoration Program directly to restoration projects during the 5-year 

period to a little over $7.6 million. 

Of the $2.9 million in project funding from FWS’s Resource Management 

appropriations, the Restoration Program provided almost $700,000 to three 

federal entities to help fund 26 restoration projects carried out by those 

federal entities, and provided almost $2.2 million to 18 nonfederal entities 

to help fund 100 restoration projects carried out by those nonfederal 

entities.26 The three federal entities that carried out the 26 restoration 

projects are the same ones that brought cash and noncash contributions 

totaling almost $1.2 million to the Restoration Program, and the 18 

nonfederal entities that carried out the 100 restoration projects are the 

same ones that brought cash and noncash contributions totaling almost 

$3.6 million to the Restoration Program. Thus, according to FWS records, 

total investment from federal and nonfederal sources in restoration 

projects amounted to a little over $7.6 million that funded 126 restoration 

projects from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 through the end of fiscal 

26 For more information on the types of entities that received project funding from the 

appropriations that FWS allocated to the Restoration Program, see appendix II.
Page 18 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

year 2004. It should be recognized, however, that in addition to Restoration 

Program projects, other restoration projects are undertaken in the Klamath 

River Basin with funding from FWS through its other programs; and other 

restoration projects still are undertaken in the Klamath River Basin with 

funding from other federal entities, the states of California and Oregon, and 

other nonfederal entities.

Travel reimbursement expenses. Travel reimbursement expenses are 

contained in each of three expenditure categories (project management, 

program administration, and support of federal advisory committees) 

shown in table 2, but they can be segregated. Specifically, total Restoration 

Program travel reimbursement expenses amounted to about $200,000 for 

the 5-year period, for an average of about $40,000 per year. This includes 

travel by members of the two federal advisory committees,27 federal staff 

who support the committees, and FWS officials who perform project 

management and program administration activities.

Program administration expenses. Table 2 shows program 

administration expenses for the 5-year period of about $350,000. Table 2 

also shows expenditures of about $800,000 in support of the two federal 

advisory committees. Based on our discussions with FWS officials, we 

consider the expenditures made in support of the federal advisory 

committees to also be administrative expenses for the Restoration 

Program. Summing the amounts for those two categories produces a total 

of about $1.1 million for Restoration Program administrative expenses 

during fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

Overhead expenses. To provide information about what amounts of the 

funds received by and for the Restoration Program from the beginning of 

fiscal year 2000 through the end of fiscal year 2004 were spent for the 

27 The Act permits Management Council members and Task Force members, while away 

from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the 

Management Council or the Task Force, to receive an allowance for travel expenses, 

including a per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons 

employed intermittently in the government service are allowed travel expenses under 

section 5703 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. However, the Act excludes from such eligibility for 

travel expenses any Management Council member or Task Force member who is an 

employee of an agency or governmental unit and is eligible for reimbursement of travel 

expenses from that agency or unit for performing services for the Management Council or 

the Task Force. This latter group’s travel expenses are reimbursed by their federal agencies. 

The costs of travel for FWS officials who are members, which is reimbursed from FWS’s 

appropriations allocated for purposes related to the Restoration Program’s goals, are 

included in this report as Restoration Program expenses.
Page 19 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

purposes of overhead expenses, we examined the use of Restoration 

Program funds at the FWS Washington, D.C., office level, the FWS regional 

office level, and the Yreka FWO level. Each year during the 5-year period, 

the FWS headquarters in Washington, D.C., received varying amounts of the 

Restoration Program appropriations for “Cost Allocation Methodology,” a 

process through which rent and other FWS administrative costs are shared 

by the programs. As can be seen in table 2, we considered the amount 

received by FWS headquarters, about $216,000, to be Restoration Program 

overhead.

The Portland Regional Office oversaw the operations of the Yreka FWO for 

most of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and during the first 4 of those years 

it received a total of about $227,000 of Restoration Program appropriated 

funds. According to an FWS official, an 8 percent assessment is applied by 

the regional office to all Fisheries Program funds and used to pay for office 

management, staff expertise, and support costs, including data 

management; program oversight of the field office; budget and finance 

services; human resources, external affairs, and employee assistance 

services; as well as development and implementation of fisheries policies, 

operating plans, evaluation methods, and administrative procedures for 

field offices. Again, as seen in table 2, we considered the amount received 

by the FWS regional office, about $227,000, to be Restoration Program 

overhead.

To identify any Restoration Program overhead expenses incurred at the 

Yreka FWO level, we analyzed the various cost categories maintained by 

Yreka FWO officials and the office expenses that are allocated to the 

Restoration Program. After discussing our analysis with the Yreka FWO 

officials, we decided that Restoration Program overhead incurred at the 

Yreka FWO level could best be represented by four categories of 

expenses.28 During fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the amounts of these 

expenses allocated to the Restoration Program by FWS totaled about 

$48,000. This amount is not shown separately in table 2 because, like the 

travel expenses category, components of this amount are contained in each 

of three expenditure categories (project management, program 

administration, and support of federal advisory committees). Adding 

28 The four categories of Yreka FWO expenses that we added together to represent 

Restoration Program overhead incurred at the Yreka FWO level were allocated amounts of 

(1) utilities expenses, (2) computer maintenance and repairs expenses, (3) training and 

tuition expenses, and (4) capitalized property expenses.
Page 20 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

together the Restoration Program overhead incurred at each of the three 

FWS organizational levels (almost $216,000 at the FWS Washington, D.C., 

office level; almost $227,000 at the FWS regional office level; and about 

$48,000 at the Yreka FWO level), we found that Restoration Program 

overhead was about $491,000 during fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

Technical support expense. We also attempted to provide information 

about what amounts of the funds received by and for the Restoration 

Program from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 through the end of fiscal 

year 2004 were spent for technical support. As provided for in the Act,29

staff from the Yreka FWO, along with staff from the State of California’s 

Department of Fish and Game, provide technical and administrative 

support to the Management Council and the Task Force. The technical 

support from FWS comes primarily from three staff: the supervisory 

biologist and the part-time staff biologist in the Yreka FWO, who spend 

almost all of their time on Restoration Program activities, and the staff 

biologist in the Yreka FWO, who spends part of his time on Restoration 

Program activities. FWS is reimbursed from Restoration Program funds for 

the portion of FWS staff salaries that is attributable to providing 

administrative and technical support services30 to the two federal advisory 

committees. The State of California is not reimbursed for its employees’ 

salaries for the time they spend providing administrative and technical 

support to the committees. Neither FWS officials nor the Restoration 

Program’s representatives from the State of California could provide us 

with estimates of the value of technical support they provide. In addition to 

the support provided by FWS and the State of California, both the Task 

Force, through its Technical Work Group, and the Management Council, 

through its Technical Assistance Team, receive technical assistance from 

many of the entities represented by the Task Force members and the 

Management Council members, but information was not available on the 

value of those technical services either.

29 The Act directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the California Department 

of Fish and Game to provide the Management Council and the Task Force with relevant 

information concerning the Conservation Area and with such administrative and technical 

support services as are necessary for their effective functioning. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 460ss-3(g), 

460ss-2(h).

30 We could not calculate the amount of technical support costs for the 5-year period 

because FWS’s records do not distinguish between administrative support and technical 

support provided to the committees.
Page 21 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Purposes for which the 

Task Force and the 

Management Council 

Spent Funds 

According to FWS officials, about $800,000 has been used to pay for the 

committees’ operating costs from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 through 

the end of fiscal year 2004, a yearly average of about $160,000. The two 

committees’ operating costs are funded from FWS’s Resource Management 

appropriations. Officials in FWS’s Yreka, California, field office, who 

administer the Restoration Program, receive and expend the funds that pay 

for the committees’ operating costs. They provided us with information 

that shows that the approximately $800,000 expended for the committees’ 

operating costs was spent for salaries of federal staff (about $520,000); 

travel for committee members and federal staff (about $120,000); and office 

costs, including vehicles, supplies, copies, and meeting rooms (about 

$150,000). Neither of the advisory committees makes expenditures for 

restoration projects, and as mentioned earlier, we consider all expenditures 

for the operations of the advisory committees to represent Restoration 

Program administrative expenses.

The Task Force and the Management Council submit Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) reports each year showing expenditures related to 

their operations. We obtained FACA reports produced by FWS officials for 

the Task Force and the Management Council for fiscal years 2000 through 

2004 for purposes of determining the types and amounts of expenditures 

made by the Task Force and the Management Council. However, after 

conducting some analytical testing procedures, and discussing the FACA 

report financial information with the Designated Federal Officers for the 

two federal advisory committees, we concluded that due to changes in 

interpretations of the reporting instructions, the FACA data were not 

reported on a consistent basis during the 5-year period. For example, some 

amounts contained in the FACA reports for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, but 

not for the other years, likely included some Restoration Program-related 

expenses incurred and paid by the Department of Commerce and the 

Department of Agriculture. 

No Reasonable 

Assurance of 

Compliance with the 

Act’s Provisions

The Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act imposes 

several requirements upon the Secretary of the Interior as part of the 

Secretary’s responsibility for implementing the Restoration Program. It 

also places certain limitations on the use of funds appropriated under the 

Act’s authorization. We considered whether the Secretary and the 

Restoration Program administrators have complied with the Act’s financialrelated requirements and limitations. We found that more complete and 

timely action in complying with the Act’s requirements would better assure 
Page 22 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

that the requirements are fulfilled and that compliance with the Act’s 

limitations can be reasonably assured only by implementing control 

mechanisms and record-keeping practices which are not yet in place.

Needed Actions Not Yet 

Taken on Nonfederal Match 

and Noncash Contributions 

Requirements

In 1987, FWS officials drafted proposed regulations to address the 

nonfederal match and noncash contribution provisions contained in the 

Act, but the draft regulations were never formally promulgated. The Act 

requires that 50 percent of the cost of the development and implementation 

of the Restoration Program be provided, on a basis considered by the 

Secretary of the Interior to be timely and appropriate, by one or more 

nonfederal sources. The Act specifies that for purposes of determining 

whether 50 percent of the cost is being provided by nonfederal sources, the 

Secretary of the Interior should include the contributions of state and local 

governments as long as such contributions do not entail the expenditure of 

federal monies received by the state or local government. The Act also 

directs the Secretary to consider as financial contributions by nonfederal 

sources the value of noncash contributions (that is, services, including 

volunteer services, and real and personal property) provided by the 

nonfederal sources for the purposes of implementing the Restoration 

Program. 

The Act further requires the Secretary to establish by regulation (1) the 

training, experience, and other qualifications that volunteers must have in 

order for their services to be considered as noncash contributions; and 

(2) the standards under which the Secretary will determine the value of 

noncash contributions, that is, services, and real and personal property.31

We found evidence that the Task Force, which is responsible for assisting 

and advising the Secretary on the development and implementation of the 

Restoration Program, had extensive discussions regarding the nonfederal 

match and noncash contribution provisions of the Act, and the need for 

regulations, during its public meetings in 1987, 1988, and 1989. We also 

found that FWS officials drafted proposed regulations to address the 

nonfederal match and noncash contribution provisions during that same 

31 16 U.S.C. § 460ss-5(b)(4). (“The Secretary shall by regulation establish—(A) the training, 

experience, and other qualifications which such volunteers must have in order for their 

services to be considered as in kind contributions; and (B) the standards under which the 

Secretary will determine the value of in kind contributions and real and personal property 

for purposes of paragraph (2).”)
Page 23 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

time period and that the Task Force reviewed and approved of the draft 

regulations. However, according to Interior officials, the draft regulations 

were never formally promulgated because Interior decided it was not 

necessary to issue separate regulations regarding qualifications for 

volunteer services and the standards for valuing noncash contributions. 

The Department of the Interior based this decision, according to the 

Interior officials, on its determination that existing Interior grants 

management regulations, which prescribe rules Interior must follow to 

meet cost-share requirements in federal grants and other federal awards,32

provided sufficient guidance. 

Because of Interior’s interpretation, new regulations specific to the 

Restoration Program were not issued, and FWS officials maintain that it is 

not necessary to issue any. However, inadequate internal controls impair 

FWS officials’ abilities to be reasonably assured of compliance with these 

existing Interior regulations. For example, FWS officials told us that they 

have not rejected any restoration project proposal due to the proposal’s 

lack of information on the values assigned or the methods for valuing the 

proposed noncash contributions, even though our review of project files 

identified several approved projects whose project documents lacked such 

information. In addition, FWS officials told us that they typically accept the 

values assigned to noncash contributions by those who propose projects as 

long as the values appear reasonable, and that they do not have formal 

criteria for making this reasonableness evaluation. This lack of reasonable 

assurance of compliance prevents both congressional overseers, who may 

seek information about program funding, and Restoration Program 

administrators from being able to make consistent, reliable decisions about 

when volunteers’ services should count as noncash contributions and how 

to value all types of noncash contributions to the Restoration Program. 

In addition to the potential problems associated with FWS’s current 

practices related to acceptance of volunteer services as noncash 

contributions and valuation of noncash contributions, FWS officials have 

not developed a methodology, or mechanism, for measuring whether 

50 percent of the cost of the development and implementation of the 

Restoration Program is being provided by nonfederal sources. In our 

discussions with FWS officials, they expressed uncertainty about whether 

certain nonfederal financial initiatives should be counted toward the costshare requirement. For example, if the State of California provides funding 

32 See 43 C.F.R. §§ 12.64, 12.923 (2005).
Page 24 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

for restoration projects that have the same goals as the Restoration 

Program’s projects, but that do not involve any FWS participation, FWS 

officials are unsure of whether the funding for those projects should be 

counted toward meeting the nonfederal cost-share requirement. 

Furthermore, even though expenditures of federal money by a state or 

local government to carry out the Restoration Program do not qualify for 

meeting the Act’s criteria that 50 percent of costs be provided from 

nonfederal sources, FWS officials have not developed a methodology for 

determining whether state or local government contributions to the 

Restoration Program actually constitute expenditure of federal money for 

purposes of the Act’s cost-share provision. Without having established such 

methodologies, FWS officials cannot determine whether the Restoration 

Program is in compliance with the nonfederal cost-share provision of the 

Act. 

FWS officials have requested and collected limited financial data on each 

restoration project funded by the Restoration Program. For example, 

FWS’s Request For Proposals (RFP) for restoration projects to be funded 

during fiscal year 2004 states: “The Klamath Act recognizes in-kind 

contributions33 by volunteers as contributions to the Klamath Restoration 

Program.” However, our review of documents in FWS’s project files, 

including project proposals, proposed budgets, project agreements, and 

final reports, showed that the documents often do not contain detailed 

information needed to determine (1) the amount of cash contribution, 

(2) the type of noncash contribution, (3) the value of the noncash 

contribution, and (4) the method of valuing the noncash contribution.

In addition, we found no indication in the project files that the data are 

routinely analyzed and recorded concerning (1) the amount of a state or 

local government’s contribution that should be counted as nonfederal, 

(2) whether the services of volunteers qualify as a noncash contribution, 

and (3) whether the noncash contributions are properly valued. FWS 

officials told us that they typically accept the values assigned to nonfederal 

contributions by project participants. In their project records, FWS officials 

record a single “cost-share” amount for each project, which they extract 

from the project proposals submitted by project participants. The costshare amount represents total contributions brought to the project by 

project participants, but it does not distinguish between monetary 

33 In-kind contributions are noncash contributions.
Page 25 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

contributions and noncash contributions in the combined amount. In 

addition, FWS officials do not maintain records on the value of any 

nonfederal contributions to the Restoration Program that are not project 

related, such as the State of California’s contribution of technical services 

to the Management Council and the Task Force. As a result, FWS officials 

are not able to demonstrate that the Restoration Program is in compliance 

with the Act’s nonfederal match provision. 

Improved Accounting 

Needed to Assure 

Compliance with the Act’s 

Restrictions

Although FWS officials told us they believe they are in compliance with 

other provisions of the Act that restrict reimbursing certain travel 

expenses, such compliance cannot be assured or demonstrated because 

the FWS accounting system does not distinguish between Resource 

Management appropriations allocated for the Restoration Program and 

funds from the same lump-sum appropriation allocated for related 

purposes. The Act places some limitations on the purposes for which the 

money it authorizes to be appropriated can be spent. For example, the 

funds appropriated for the Restoration Program may not be used to 

reimburse any agency or governmental unit whose employees are 

Management Council members or Task Force members for time spent by 

any such employee performing Management Council or Task Force duties. 

Likewise, the Act precludes the funds’ use for reimbursing travel expenses 

to federal employees who travel as members of the Management Council or 

Task Force.

Both the Management Council and the Task Force have members who are 

federal employees, and each has at least one member who is a FWS 

employee. Our work did not find any instance of noncompliance with the 

above restrictions. However, FWS offices that receive Restoration Program 

funds also receive some funds FWS has allocated to the Anadromous Fish 

Management activity of the Fisheries Program which are designated by the 

same account code (1331) as the Restoration Program funds. Although, as 

mentioned above, the Restoration Program funds may not be used for 

certain purposes, the Anadromous Fish Management funds can be and are 

used for those purposes. Since neither the Restoration Program funds nor 

the Anadromous Fish Management funds are designated by an additional 

subactivity or project code that would distinguish between the two types of 

funds, the source of funds that have been used for specific expenditures 

cannot be determined or verified from the accounting records. As a result, 

FWS’s accounting records do not provide the detailed information needed 

to assure that the restrictions on the use of Restoration Program 

appropriated funds are being complied with.
Page 26 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Conclusions Since passage of the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration 

Act in 1986, the Restoration Program established to carry out the Act has 

received about $24.7 million in cash and noncash contributions. Of the 

$24.7 million, the Restoration Program received about $9.8 million during 

fiscal years 2000 through 2004. The Secretary of the Interior and the 

Director of FWS have taken a number of actions to formulate, establish, 

and implement the Restoration Program, including designating a 

conservation area, establishing the Management Council and the Task 

Force, formulating a long-term plan, and funding over 350 restoration 

projects in the Klamath River Basin. Regarding the financial requirements 

of the Act, FWS officials have correctly identified the need to fund some 

Restoration Program expenditures, such as certain travel and salary 

expenses for FWS officials who are members of the Management Council 

or the Task Force, from monies that are not subject to the Act’s restrictions. 

However, they have not yet incorporated into their accounting procedures 

and record-keeping practices sufficient controls to provide reasonable 

assurance of compliance with those provisions of the Act. In addition, 

concerning the Act’s requirement that 50 percent of the Restoration 

Program’s costs be provided by nonfederal sources, FWS officials do 

collect some information regarding nonfederal contributions to restoration 

projects, but they do not distinguish between cash and noncash 

contributions in project documents, document their valuation decisions 

regarding the noncash contributions, or take steps to verify that nonfederal 

contributions meet the Act’s criteria. Incorporating these additional 

controls into the Restoration Program’s operations would not be difficult or 

costly, and would provide reasonable assurance of compliance with those 

provisions of the Act. 

Recommendations In order to enhance compliance with the Act, we recommend that the 

Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to 

• modify the standard project agreement language to distinguish between 

cash and noncash contributions from the project participant; 

• include a requirement in the standard project agreement that if any 

contributor to the project is a state or local government, that contributor 

must attest to how much, if any, of the contribution is from federal 

monies received by that state or local government; 
Page 27 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

• develop standard operating procedures for reviewing and validating 

contributor-supplied information regarding the determination and 

valuation of noncash contributions and determination of nonfederal 

sources of funds; 

• track Restoration Program funds requested and received through the 

appropriations process by specifically identifying Klamath Restoration 

Program funds; and 

• track Restoration Program funds expenditures through FWS’s Federal 

Financial System by assigning a project code to the Klamath Restoration 

Program funds.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

Interior generally agreed with the report’s findings and recommendations 

and stated that implementation of some recommendations has already 

begun. Interior pointed out, however, that incorporating some of the Act’s 

requirements into the Restoration Program will likely require increased 

staff involvement in negotiation and verification of noncash values, which 

would cause increased diversion of restoration project funds to 

administrative work. We agree that some increased staff involvement will 

likely be necessary to determine the values of noncash contributions in 

order to fully comply with the Act’s key funding requirement that 50 

percent of the cost of the development and implementation of the program 

be provided by nonfederal sources. We encourage Interior to closely 

monitor the costs associated with implementing the Act’s requirements so 

that it will be in a position to provide this information to Congress when 

Congress considers reauthorization of appropriations for, or an extension 

of, the 20-year Restoration Program. 

Interior’s comments are included as appendix III to this report. Interior 

officials also provided some technical suggestions to our draft report, 

which we did not reprint. We incorporated those technical suggestions as 

appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior, the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other interested parties. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report is available to others at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.
Page 28 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Should you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-6906 or williamsm1@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 

may be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this 

report are acknowledged in appendix IV.

McCoy Williams

Director, Financial Management and Assurance
Page 29 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

List of Congressional Requesters

The Honorable Richard W. Pombo

Chairman

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives

The Honorable Darrell Issa

Chairman

Subcommittee on Energy and Resources

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Charles H. Taylor

Chairman

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

and Related AgenciesCommittee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable John T. Doolittle

House of Representatives

The Honorable Wally Herger

House of Representatives

The Honorable Greg Walden

House of Representatives
Page 30 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

The objectives of this engagement were to provide information about 

(1) sources and amounts of funding received by and for the Restoration 

Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2004; (2) amounts of funds received 

by and for the Restoration Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 spent 

for restoration projects, travel reimbursements, administrative expenses, 

overhead, and technical support; (3) amounts of funding received by the 

Task Force and Management Council for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 

spent for the purposes of restoration projects, travel reimbursements, 

administrative expenses, overhead, and technical support; and (4) whether 

the Secretary of the Interior has complied with specific requirements 

contained in certain provisions of the Klamath River Basin Fishery 

Resources Restoration Act.

For the most part, we limited the scope of our work to fiscal years 2000 

through 2004; however, some compliance information and some historical 

financial information we gathered included earlier years, going back to the 

passage of the Act in 1986. We performed our work primarily at the 

headquarters offices of the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Washington, D.C. We also traveled to FWS’s 

Yreka, California, field office, which administers the Restoration Program, 

to inspect files and gather information. We gathered additional information 

from other locations through telephone contacts with FWS officials in 

FWS’s Portland Regional Office and its California-Nevada Operations 

Office. We also interviewed by telephone Task Force and Management 

Council members who represent various entities in California and Oregon.

To provide information about what total amount of funding was received 

by and for the Restoration Program from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 

through the end of fiscal year 2004, and what were the sources of that 

funding, we first defined the boundaries of the Restoration Program 

because there were numerous restoration-type activities undertaken by 

federal and nonfederal entities in the Klamath River Basin during the 5-year 

period we reviewed. After reviewing the provisions of the Act, having 

preliminary discussions with FWS officials, and visiting the Klamath River 

area, we defined the Restoration Program, for purposes of our work, as 

consisting of all activities and projects that are at least partially funded by 

appropriations FWS allocated for the Restoration Program pursuant to the 

Act. Under the definition we adopted, the Restoration Program funding 

also includes any cash or noncash contributions provided by federal or 

nonfederal sources to those same activities and projects.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Having defined the Restoration Program, we interviewed FWS 

headquarters, regional office, and field office officials to determine the 

types of Restoration Program funding and expenditure information 

routinely collected and the location and accessibility of that information. 

To obtain information on the amount of Resource Management 

appropriations that FWS allocated to the Restoration Program established 

pursuant to the Act, we reviewed budget request documents and 

appropriations act documents for FWS and the Department of the Interior, 

but did not find information on funding specifically for the Restoration 

Program in those documents. We discussed this with FWS headquarters, 

regional office, and field office budget officials and were told by them that 

the appropriations for FWS do not contain a discrete line item for the 

Restoration Program. Instead, funding for the Restoration Program is 

combined with other funding within the “General Program Activities” subelement of the “Anadromous Fish Management” program element, which 

can be found under the “Fish and Wildlife Management Program” activity of 

FWS’s Fisheries Program account, which is funded through an allocation 

from FWS’s Resource Management appropriation. A Portland Regional 

Office budget official, who oversaw funding for the Yreka Fish and Wildlife 

Office (FWO), told us that FWS considers there to be an appropriation for 

the Restoration Program for each of the 5 years of $1 million, less a 

rescission each year that varied between 0.38 percent and 1.82 percent. We 

obtained Office Fund Target documents from the Yreka FWO that 

supported those amounts.

To provide information about the amounts and sources of other funding 

contributed by federal and nonfederal sources to activities and projects 

that are at least partially funded by those appropriations allocated by FWS 

to the Restoration Program, we obtained from FWS officials an electronic 

copy of their Restoration Projects Database, maintained in FWS’s Yreka, 

California, office. That database contains information on only those 

restoration projects that are at least partially funded by appropriations 

FWS allocated for the Restoration Program pursuant to the Act. It also 

contains, among other things, information on the cost-share contributions 

provided to those restoration projects by federal and nonfederal entities. 

We also obtained and reviewed for some funded restoration projects the 

project proposals and project completion reports that had been prepared 

by the cooperators to determine if the amounts of cost share reported in 

those documents are consistent with the information in FWS’s Restoration 

Projects Database.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

To provide information about whether other amounts of monetary funding 

or noncash contributions are provided to any of the Restoration Program’s 

nonproject activities, we obtained FWS budget and expenditure 

information to identify the other activities and interviewed Yreka FWO 

officials, Task Force members, and Management Council members to learn 

of any other funding. We were told that no other cash contributions are 

received by the Restoration Program’s nonproject activities but noncash 

contributions, in the form of technical services, are provided by some 

federal and nonfederal sources to the Task Force and the Management 

Council. However, FWS officials do not maintain records on the value of 

those technical services.

To provide information about what amounts of the funds received by and 

for the Restoration Program from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 through 

the end of fiscal year 2004 were spent for the purposes of restoration 

projects, travel reimbursements, administrative expenses, overhead, and 

technical support, we obtained budget and expenditure documents from 

the Yreka FWO. We had several discussions with Yreka FWO officials to 

gain an understanding of how the various financial amounts are derived 

and the availability of source documents that support the amounts. 

Through analysis of the financial information, we identified which items on 

the financial documents represent the Restoration Program’s restoration 

projects, and which items represent travel reimbursements, administrative 

expenses, and overhead. Through discussions with Yreka FWO officials, 

we confirmed our interpretations of these amounts and confirmed Yreka 

FWO officials do not maintain records on the value of technical services.

To provide information about what amounts of funding received by the 

Task Force and Management Council from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 

through the end of fiscal year 2004 were spent for the purposes of 

restoration projects, travel reimbursements, administrative expenses, 

overhead, and technical support, we obtained through the Internet, from a 

Web site maintained by the General Services Administration, Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) reports produced by the Task Force and 

the Management Council showing expenditures related to those two 

federal advisory committees for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. We 

considered using the FACA report financial information for determining the 

amounts of Restoration Program funds that were spent by the Management 

Council and the Task Force for the purposes of restoration projects, travel 

reimbursements, administrative expenses, overhead, and technical 

support. However, after conducting some analytical testing procedures and 

discussing the FACA report financial information with the Designated 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Federal Officers for the two federal advisory committees, we concluded 

that the FACA report data would present a misleading picture of 

Restoration Program expenditures.

Our discussions with the Designated Federal Officers for the two federal 

advisory committees, Management Council members, Task Force 

members, and Yreka FWO officials, coupled with our review of 

Management Council and Task Force meeting minutes, charters, and 

operating procedures, showed that the Management Council and the Task 

Force do not actually receive or expend any federal or nonfederal funding. 

The funding that covers the Management Council’s and the Task Force’s 

operational expenses comes from FWS appropriations, and FWS officials 

in the Yreka FWO retain control of that funding and pay those expenses.

To determine whether the Secretary of the Interior, the Management 

Council, and the Task Force complied with specific duties and limitations 

contained in the Act, we reviewed the Klamath River Basin Fishery 

Resources Restoration Act and all of its amendments and identified the 

provisions that require or prohibit specific actions or activities. We then 

analyzed those provisions that contain mandates and restrictions to 

identify the financial-related requirements and limitations contained in the 

Act.

For each provision that contains a financial-related requirement, such as 

the issuance of regulations to establish qualifications which volunteers 

must have in order for their services to be considered as noncash 

contributions, we asked FWS officials whether the required action had 

been taken, and if so, for evidence of the action. For each provision that 

contains a financial-related restriction, such as the limitations on the 

purposes for which money appropriated pursuant to the Act’s authorization 

can be spent (for example, restricted money may not be used to reimburse 

any agency or governmental unit whose employees are Management 

Council members or Task Force members for time spent by any such 

employee performing Management Council or Task Force duties), we 

asked FWS officials and the Chairmen of the Task Force and Management 

Council whether they are aware of the legal restrictions and whether they 

believe the restrictions have been complied with.

To find corroborating or contradicting evidence regarding compliance with 

the Act’s financial-related provisions, we reviewed Federal Register notices 

and existing Interior grants management regulations related to cost-share 

requirements to determine if the necessary regulations had been issued. We 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Page 34 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

also inspected the Management Council’s and Task Force’s charters, 

operating procedures, and minutes of meetings to identify any discussions 

of the Act’s provisions and any indications of an activity that indicates 

compliance or noncompliance with the provisions. Where we identified any 

indications of noncompliance, we discussed these indications with FWS, 

Management Council, and Task Force officials for their explanations. We 

also asked the Management Council’s and Task Force’s members if they are 

aware of any instances of noncompliance with the Act or of improper use 

of Restoration Program funds.

We did not perform a financial audit on the financial information collected 

from FWS officials. In addition, we did not evaluate the efficiency or 

effectiveness of the Restoration Program, of individual restoration 

projects, or of actions taken by the Task Force or the Management Council. 

Finally, we did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable 

to this engagement but limited our tests of compliance to financial-related 

provisions contained in the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources 

Restoration Act. We conducted our work from June 2004 through June 2005 

in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the 

Interior, or her designee. Interior generally agreed with the report’s findings 

and recommendations and stated that implementation of some 

recommendations has already begun. Agency comments are included as 

appendix III to this report. Interior officials also provided some technical 

suggestions to our draft report, which we did not reprint in appendix III. 

We incorporated those technical suggestions as appropriate.
Page 35 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Appendix II

Funding of Restoration Projects by Type of 

Participant Entity ApendxiI

Fiscal year Type of Participant

Number of

projects

Funded by

appropriations

Participants’

cost share

2000 Federal agencies 3 $80,127 $135,937

State governments 1 15,106 5,000

Local governments 0 0 0

Indian tribes 6 204,575 299,458

Not-for-profit organizations 6 138,771 231,087

Higher education entities 0 0 0

Business organizations 5 127,737 44,626

Individuals 1 5,522 1,300

Subtotal fiscal year 2000 22 $571,838 $717,408

2001 Federal agencies 5 $159,270 $ 248,469

State governments 1 17,809 11,556

Local governments 1 31,448 150,591

Indian tribes 6 133,812 61,091

Not-for-profit organizations 6 108,042 353,559

Higher education entities 0 0 0

Business organizations 4 128,319 206,429

Individuals 0 0 0

Subtotal fiscal year 2001 23 $578,700 $1,031,695

2002 Federal agencies 5 $140,169 $226,160

State governments 1 17,809 11,556

Local governments 1 32,109 133,622

Indian tribes 7 121,675 65,010

Not-for-profit organizations 7 167,803 265,559

Higher education entities 1 25,593 34,800

Business organizations 4 73,542 137,308

Individuals 0 0 0

Subtotal fiscal year 2002 26 $578,700 $874,015

2003 Federal agencies 5 $107,749 $235,678

State governments 1 16,617 3,800

Local governments 1 22,180 190,344

Indian tribes 10 230,421 177,049

Not-for-profit organizations 7 156,954 130,909
Appendix II

Funding of Restoration Projects by Type of 

Participant Entity

Page 36 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Source: GAO computations based on unaudited FWS data.

Higher education entities 0 0 0

Business organizations 3 44,788 154,479

Individuals 0 0 0

Subtotal fiscal year 2003 27 $578,709 $892,259

2004 Federal agencies 8 $160,553 $318,714

State governments 1 29,866 7,216

Local governments 1 34,250 116,685

Indian tribes 7 188,545 403,770

Not-for-profit organizations 11 164,916 378,680

Higher education entities 0 0 0

Business organizations 0 0 0

Individuals 0 0 0

Subtotal fiscal year 2004 28 $578,130 $1,225,065

2000-2004 Federal agencies 26 $647,868 $1,164,958

State governments 5 97,207 39,128

Local governments 4 119,987 591,242

Indian tribes 36 879,028 1,006,378

Not-for-profit organizations 37 736,485 1,359,795

Higher education entities 1 25,593 34,800

Business organizations 16 374,386 542,842

Individuals 1 5,522 1,300

Totals fiscal years 2000-2004 126 $2,886,077 $4,740,443

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year Type of Participant

Number of

projects

Funded by

appropriations

Participants’

cost share
Page 37 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiI
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 38 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances
Page 39 GAO-05-804 Klamath River Program Finances

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact McCoy Williams (202) 512-6906 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

In addition to the contact listed above, Polly Cheung, Cherry Clipper, Lisa 

Crye, Francis Dymond, Lauren Fassler, Michael Koury, Tarunkant Mithani, 

and Debra Rucker made important contributions to this report.

(195040)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548