Performance audit, Arizona Game and Fish Department heritage fund

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
State o f Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
ARIZONA GAME
and FISH DEPARTMENT
Heritage Fund
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Douglas R. Norton
Auditor Genera
August 1996
Report 96- 13
-
STATE OF ARIZONA
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA OFFICE OF THE
4UDlTOR GENEInL
AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY A" D, TOR GENER# L
August 15,1996
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Mr. Duane Shroufe, Director
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Heritage
Fund programs at the Arizona Game and Fish Department The performance audit was
conducted pursuant to the provisions of Session Laws 1992, Second Regular Session, Chapter
III, Section 4.
The report addresses how the Department can better fulfill its Heritage Fund mandate of
acquiring sensitive habitat for threatened and endangered species. In addition, the report
recommends several means to enhance the Department's accountabdity for Heritage Fund
activities and expenditures.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clalrfy items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on August 16,1996.
Sincerely,
owa as R. Norton
Auditor General
Enclosure
2 9 1 0 NORTH 44TH STREET I SUITE 4 1 0 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 8 5 0 1 8 m ( 6 0 2 ) 5 5 3 - 0 3 3 3 - FAX ( 6 0 2 ) 5 5 3 - 0 0 5 1
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of Heritage Fund
programs at the Arizona Game and Fish Department ( AGFD). This audit was conducted
pursuant to the provisions of Session Laws 1992, Second Regular Session, Chapter 111,
Section 4.
Heritage Fund Purpose
and Accomplishments
The Heritage Fund was established through a ballot initiative in 1990 to provide monies
for preserving, protecting, and enhancing Arizona's natural and scenic environment. The
initiative, which was supported by 62 percent of voters, requires that $ 10 million in state
lottery proceeds be allocated to AGFD each year for Heritage Fund activities. These
activities, outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 517- 298, include 1) identification,
inventory, protection, acquisition, and management of sensitive habitat; 2) habitat
evaluation and protection; 3) urban wildlife programs; 4) environmental education; and
5) improving public access to public lands.
Since passage of the Heritage initiative, AGFD has received a total of $ 45.9 million for the
program through fiscal year 1995. The Department expended $ 28.6 million of this money
from fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and has budgeted an additional $ 11.1 million for use
in fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year 1995, the equivalent of 87 permanent full- time employees
and 31 full- time limited, seasonal, and contract employees were allocated to the
Department's Heritage Fund programs.
The Department has undertaken a wide range of projects and activities with Heritage
monies, both within AGFD and through grants to external parties. The Department has
used Heritage monies to further promote environmental education, increase staff
responsible for evaluating the impact of land management decisions on Arizona's wildlife,
expand research concerning threatened and endangered wildlife species such as the
Goshawk and Bald Eagle, and acquire habitat for sensitive species, such as the Little
Colorado Spinedace, a threatened native fish species. In addition, AGFD has awarded
nearly $ 5 million in grants since the inception of the Heritage Fund. More than 300 grants
have been awarded to public agencies such as school districts, universities, and federal
land management agencies for purposes such as environmental education, research, and
trail construction.
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Needs to Be More Proactive in
Acquiring Sensitive Habitat
( See pages 7 through 15)
AGFD has been slow to acquire habitat for threatened and endangered species because of
its reactive approach to land acquisition. To alleviate concerns about AGFD acquiring
private lands, the Department has adopted a reactive process in which properties are
considered for acquisition only when they have been offered to the Department by a
landowner. As a result, in the six years since the Heritage Fund was established, AGFD
has purchased only four properties. Until recently, the Department's land acquisition
efforts have focused primarily on securing protection for 2 of the 110 sensitive animal
species in Arizona. Approximately $ 4 million of the money designated for habitat
acquisition remains unspent. The Department has spent $ 9.3 million of the $ 13.4 million
received for land acquisition through fiscal year 1996.
The Department needs to be more proactive in its efforts to secure and protect sensitive
habitat. To improve program effectiveness, AGFD needs to develop a long- term land
acquisition plan, which identifies and prioritizes the best available habitat, to guide its
acquisition efforts. Other states have successfully used this approach. Eleven of the 15
states we surveyed had a more proactive approach to land acquisition than Arizona.
Furthermore, the Department possesses the resources used by other states to identify and
prioritize lands, such as staff expertise, databases and mapping systems, and detailed
knowledge of threatened and endangered species.
Increased use of alternative protection strategies could enable the Department to protect
significant portions of both public and private land without outright acquisition of
property. Conservation easements, legal agreements by which AGFD pays private
landowners to restrict the type and amount of development that can occur on their
property, and other less formal agreements with private and public landowners, are less
expensive land protection options and may require less oversight and management than
acquisition. For instance, a nonprofit conservation group in Arizona paid $ 164,000 to
acquire a conservation easement on a 360- acre parcel valued at approximately $ 300,000.
The easement restricts construction and prohibits subdivision of the property while
allowing the owner to continue ranching. Agreements that protect land without requiring
acquisition of property also could work to foster better relations between the Department,
landowners, and industry groups.
AGFD Can Enhance Its Accountability
to the Legislature and the Public
( See pages 17 through 20)
The Department can take several steps to ensure greater accountability for its Heritage
Fund programs. First, expanded reporting of Heritage Fund activities and expenditures
could be required. Although annual reporting requirements have been added twice since
1990, AGFD must report detailed information to the Arizona Legislature only on its grant
and land acquisition programs, which account for less than 40 percent of the $ 10 million
the Department receives each year. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. 517-
298 to require AGFD to report annually on all Heritage Fund program areas, summarizing
the projects and activities undertaken and the amount of Heritage Fund money expended
for these efforts.
Second, accountability could be enhanced through periodic review of Heritage Fund
programs. Statutes exempt Heritage Fund monies from the appropriations process and,
therefore, minimize legislative review and oversight. In addition, the Heritage Fund is not
covered by the Sunset review process. To ensure adequate oversight of Heritage Fund
programs, the Legislature could consider requiring a performance audit of AGFD's
Heritage Fund every ten years. Such a review could be performed in conjunction with
AGFD's Sunset review. The Department should also use consultants or its internal audit
staff to monitor program performance and identify areas needing improvement.
Finally, the Department could provide more opportunities for public input. Public
involvement in AGFD's Heritage Fund planning and oversight has been restricted
primarily to participation in commission meetings and responding to department surveys.
To encourage greater public involvement, the Department should consider establishing
public advisory committees like those used by the Arizona State Parks Board in its
Heritage grants and natural areas programs.
Other Pertinent Information
( See page 21)
This report also presents other pertinent information concerning AGFD's acquisition of the
Sipes White Mountain Wildlife Area, as well as several appendices that detail Heritage
Fund expenditure information.
iii
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background ..........................
Finding I: Arizona Game and Fish
Department Needs to Be More
Proactive in Securing
Sensitive Habitat ..................................
Heritage Fund Legislation
Requires Acquisition of
SensitiveHabitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGFD Slow to Acquire
and Protect Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
More Proactive
ApproachNeeded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGFD Should Increase
the Use of Alternative
Protection Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finding II: AGFD Can Enhance
Its Accountability to the Legislature
and the Public ....................................
Department Can Expand Reporting of
Heritage Fund Expenditures ....................................
Periodic Review of Heritage
Fund Programs Could Also
Enhance Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Advisory Committees Can Increase
Public Input in Heritage
Program Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paae
1
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table of Contents ( Concl'd)
Other Pertinent Information ...........................
Paae
21
Agency Response
Appendices
Appendices Overview ......................................... a- i
AppendixA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a- ii
AppendixB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b- i
AppendixC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c- i
Figure and Table
Figure 1
Table 1
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund Statutory Apportionment
of $ 10 Million Annual Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund Properties Acquired ............... 8
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Ofice of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of Heritage Fund
programs at the Arizona Game and Fish Department ( AGFD). This audit was conducted
pursuant to the provisions of Session Laws 1992 Second Regular Session, Chapter 111,
Section 4.
Heritage Fund Purpose
In 1990, Arizona voters approved a ballot initiative requiring that $ 20 million of lottery
proceeds each year be earmarked for preserving, protecting, and enhancing the State's
natural and scenic environment. The initiative, which was supported by 62 percent of
voters, allocates $ 10 million of these monies to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission1
and the other $ 10 million to the Arizona State Parks Board. State Parks must use its
Heritage monies primarily for developing state, local, and regional parks, developing
natural areas, and preserving state historic sites. The initiative also specifies the program
areas for which Game and Fish Heritage monies are to be used, and the amount of money
that is to be allocated to each program area. These program areas are summarized in
Figure 1 ( see page 2) and the text below.
Identification, inventory, protection, acquisition, and management of sensitive
habitat ( IIPAM) - Sixty percent of AGFD's Heritage Fund monies are designated for
monitoring, managing, and protecting threatened, endangered, and sensitive Arizona
native wildlife and its habitat. 2 At least 40 percent of this money must be used for
acquiring habitat used by these species.
Habitat evaluation and protection- Fifteen percent of Heritage Fund monies are
designated for assessing the status, condition, and ecological value of habitats and
making subsequent recommendations concerning management, conservation, and
protection efforts. These monies are also to be used for protecting the quality, diversity,
abundance, and serviceability of habitats for the purposes of maintaining or recovering
populations of Arizona wildlife.
1 The Arizona Game and Fish Commission is a five- member body that is appointed by the Governor to
oversee the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Species and habitat are classified as " sensitive" by the Department when they are in scant supply or when
they have special management needs. Most of the species are federally listed as endangered or threatened,
or on the Department's list of Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona. Others are candidates for such lists.
Figure 4
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund
Statutory Apportionment of $ 10 Million Annual Allocation
Environmental
General Education
Urban Wildlife
and Protection
a IIPAM is an acronym for identification, inventory, protection acquisition, and management. Land
acquisition is part of IIPAM; however, it is shown separately for presentation purposes.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of Heritage Fund statutes.
Urban wildlife- Fifteen percent of Heritage monies are to be used for conserving,
enhancing, and establishing wildlife and wildlife habitat within, or in close proximity
to, urban areas.
Environmental education- Five percent of Heritage monies are to be used for
educational and public awareness programs dealing with 1) basic ecological principles,
2) the effects of man and natural processes on the environment, and 3) the importance
of safeguarding natural resources.
Public access- The Department is required to use 5 percent of Heritage monies to
provide increased public access to publicly held lands for recreational uses. This can
be accomplished through constructing or improving roads, trails, and fishing piers.
Increased access might also be achieved by purchasing private land or entering into
agreements with landowners to allow access through their properties.
Efforts to provide alternative funding for programs to manage nongame wildlife and
protect natural areas are not unique to Arizona. A 1991 survey of states conducted by a
national conservation group found that 36 states had earmarked monies for programs
similar to those required in the Heritage Initiative. At least one other state ( Alabama) has
passed an initiative since this survey was completed. In addition, proposals are being
developed for legislative or voter consideration in two more states ( Alaska and Oregon)
that would provide funding for programs like those mandated by Arizona's Heritage
Initiative. Funding for these programs has come from a variety of sources including real
estate transfer taxes, cigarette taxes, vanity license fees, bond issues, lottery proceeds, and
direct appropriations.
Heritage Accomplishments
The Arizona Game and Fish Department has used Heritage Fund monies for a wide variety
of projects and activities. Some examples of AGFD's Heritage Fund program efforts and
accomplishments are highlighted below.
The Department has awarded nearly $ 5 million in grants since initiating the Heritage
grant program in fiscal year 1992. During fiscal years 1992 through 1995, more than
300 grants were awarded to public agencies such as school districts, universities, and
federal land management agencies for such purposes as developing wildlife habitat
at schools for use as outdoor learning laboratories, surveys of sensitive species such
as the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ( a native Arizona bird), and trail construction
to provide access for the physically impaired. The Mary E. Dill Elementary School in
the Altar Valley School District used a department grant when it built and maintained
an aquatic habitat to raise the Desert Pupfish, a native Arizona fish, on the school
campus.
The Department has completed a statewide inventory and mapping of Arizona riparian
habitats, which include all stream sides, marshlands, and wet areas in the State. These
habitats are important because they are used by a majority of threatened and
endangered species in Arizona, and are a high protection priority. This effort was part
of a multi- agency initiative required by legislation passed in 1992.
Department personnel and volunteers teamed up to survey urban hawks and owls in
the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. Inventories of urban wildlife habitats will
provide information needed to incorporate habitat conservation into urban planning.
Heritage monies have been used in a variety of ways to expand AGFD's environmental
education efforts. The Department renovated the wildlife building at the Arizona State
Fairgrounds for use during the Arizona State Fair, Maricopa County Fair, and other
meetings and educational events. Heritage monies have also been used to support an
annual 13- week series of television programs concerning wildlife topics. The
Department uses Heritage monies to provide free copies of its Arizona Wildlife Vims
magazine to all public school libraries in the State. Finally, AGFD uses Heritage monies
to enhance Project WILD, an environmental education program for educators. In fiscal
year 1994, more than 1,650 educators attended the Department- sponsored Project WILD
teacher- training programs.
Heritage monies have been used to acquire habitat used by sensitive species. Four
properties, comprising more than 2,500 acres, have been acquired with Heritage Fund
monies. In addition, the Department has used Heritage Fund monies to obtain special
use permits with the Apache Sitgreaves National Forest to protect riparian habitat used
by the threatened Apache Trout, a native Arizona fish.
As part of AGFD's efforts to improve public access to public lands and solve many of
the conflicts between recreational users and landowners, the Department initiated the
" Adopt a Ranch" program, which establishes a mechanism for recreational groups to
participate in maintaining public access to a particular ranch. For example, groups may
pick up trash and repair damage caused by vandals to encourage landowners to allow
public access to their land.
Heritage Fund monies have been used to expand the Habitat Evaluation and Protection
program. Six regional habitat coordinator and two urban habitat specialist positions,
responsible for assessing the impact of proposed land management decisions ( e. g.,
timber sales, road construction, grazing allotments, etc.) on wildlife, have been added
to AGFD's regional offices. A computer mapping system was purchased with Heritage
monies to facilitate analysis of potential impacts.
The Department uses a comprehensive planning and management system to direct the
use of Heritage monies. This system has been approved by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service for oversight of federal funds. Five- year plans, identifying program
objectives, have been developed for each program area. Department staff also prepare
annual work plans and performance reports for each program area.
Budget and Staffing
Heritage Fund monies make up a significant portion of the Department's total revenues.
The $ 10 million AGFD receives annually for Heritage programs accounts for approximately
one quarter of its total revenues each year. In fiscal year 1995, the Department received
$ 17 million ( 37 percent) from the State Game and Fish Fund, $ 13.9 million ( 30 percent) from
federal funds, $ 10.9 million ( 24 percent) from the Heritage Fund, and $ 4.4 million ( 9
percent) from other sources.
As shown in Appendix A ( see page a- ii), AGFD has received a total of $ 45.9 million for
Heritage Fund programs since the initiative passed in fiscal year 1991. ( The Department
only received $ 5.9 million in fiscal year 1991 because the initiative did not pass until
November.) The Department has also earned $ 2.5 million interest on its Heritage Fund
monies.
The Department spent a total of $ 28.6 million of its lottery proceeds for Heritage programs
and $ 2.2 million in interest income for administrative expenses from fiscal years 1991
through 1995. The appendices presented at the end of the report contain information
concerning AGFD's Heritage Fund expenditures. Appendix B ( see page b- i) presents
Heritage Fund spending by major expenditure categories such as salaries, grants, land
purchases, and equipment. The largest portion of the Departmenfs Heritage Fund
expenditures over the past 5 years ($ 12.3 million, or 43 percent) was for salaries and other
employee- related expenditures. Appendix C ( see pages c- i through c- v) gives an overview
of the types of projects and activities for which Heritage dollars have been used. For
example, the Department has spent almost $ 200,000 for the operation and maintenance of
the Robin's Butte Wildlife Area.
As of June 30,1995, the Department had a Heritage Fund balance of $ 17.6 million. Of this
amount, $ 10 million was received in fiscal year 1995 and is designated for use in fiscal year
1996. The remaining $ 7.6 million was received prior to fiscal year 1995 and has yet to be
expended by AGFD for Heritage Fund programs.
In fiscal year 1995, AGFD used Heritage Fund monies to fund the equivalent of 87 perma-nent
FTEs for its Heritage Fund programs. These 87 positions include field staff such as
wildlife managers and administrative and technical support staff. The Department also uses
a substantial number of contract, seasonal, and limited employees in its Heritage programs.
In fiscal year 1995, the equivalent of 31 contract, seasonal, and temporary FTEs were paid
with Heritage Fund monies. Most of these employees were involved in wildlife identifica-tion,
inventory, protection, and management efforts.
Audit Scope
and Methodology
This performance audit focuses on AGFD's land acquisition program and the expenditure
of Heritage Fund monies. To assess AGFD's Heritage Fund land acquisition program, we
reviewed files for more than 70 properties that have been proposed to the Department. In
addition, land acquisition officials in 15 other states, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Arizona State Parks Board, and a nonprofit conservation organization were
surveyed to learn about their acquisition process and habitat protection strategies. We also
examined a number of major expenditure categories, such as vehicle and other equipment
purchases. Furthermore, the findings of recent studies regarding the Department's Heritage
grants and land acquisition programs conducted by an independent consulting firm were
reviewed.
Our audit report of the Arizona Game and Fish Department's Heritage Fund programs
presents findings and recommendations in two areas:
The need for a more proactive approach to land acquisition and protection efforts.
The need to enhance accountability through more comprehensive reporting, periodic
program reviews, and establishment of public advisory committees.
In addition to these audit areas, other pertinent information regarding Heritage- funded
acquisition of the Sipes White Mountain Wildlife Area is presented ( see page 21). This re-port
also contains several appendices with tables summarizing the Arizona Game and Fish
Department's Heritage Fund revenues and expenditures.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Arizona Game and Fish Commis-sion,
and the Director and staff of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, for their cooper-ation
and assistance throughout the audit.
FINDING I
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
NEEDS TO BE MORE PROACTIVE IN
SECURING SENSITIVE HABITAT
The Arizona Game and Fish Department ( AGFD) needs to adopt a more proactive approach
toward its land acquisition program. In the six years since the Heritage Initiative was
passed, the Department has purchased only four properties. A reactive acquisition process,
which relies on landowners to approach the Department with properties for sale, has im-peded
acquisition efforts to date. A proactive approach for idenbfying and prioritizing sites
would be more effective and could be implemented with AGFD's existing resources. The
Department could also increase its use of alternative protection strategies to achieve re-source
protection, which are less expensive and do not require purchasing land.
Heritage Fund Legislation
Requires Acquisition of
Sensitive Habitat
Heritage Fund legislation states that a significant portion of the Game and Fish Heritage
Fund be spent for the acquisition of sensitive habitat. Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 517-
298 requires that at least 24 percent of Game and Fish Heritage Fund monies, or $ 2.4 million
of the Department's $ 10 million annual allotment, be spent annually to acquire habitat for
species covered under the Endangered Species Act. The Attorney General's Office, in an
internal opinion, has interpreted this statute to include outright purchase of land, as well
as legally binding restrictions or enhancements to land without AGFD acquiring title, in-cluding
conservation easements and special use permits. Therefore, many diverse protection
strategies are available that would enable the Department to fulfill its acquisition mandate.
AGFD Slow to Acquire
and Protect Habitat
AGFD has been slow to acquire and protect habitat with Heritage Fund acquisition monies.
The Department has purchased only four properties with Heritage Fund monies to date.
Furthermore, these acquisitions have focused on protecting only a few sensitive species
within Arizona. Due to the small number of properties purchased, the balance in the land
acquisition fund has accumulated to $ 4.1 million, and was as high as $ 6.5 million through-out
most of fiscal year 1996.
As shown in Table 1, AGFD has purchased only four properties since the inception of the
Heritage Fund.
February 12, 1993
October 8,1993
February 14,1995
May 31,1996
Table 1
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund Properties Acquired
Pro~ ertv Acres Price
Wenima Wildlife Area 205 $ 795,500 "
Sipes White Mountain
Wildlife Area 1,362 2,992,909
Slade Wildlife Area 152 555,121
Upper Verde Croll
Wildlife Area 800 4,617,600
Total - 2,519 $ 8,961,136
a The Wenima Wildlife Area purchase price of $ 894,500 included $ 795,500 of Heritage Fund monies and
$ 99,000 of waterfowl conservation monies.
The Sipes White Mountain Wildlife Area purchase price of $ 3,792,909 included $ 2,992,909 of Heritage Fund
monies and $ 800,000 in federal aid and waterfowl conservation monies.
Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department purchase requisition, escrow, and title information.
The first three properties acquired by AFGD with Heritage Fund monies are all in Apache
County and contain tributaries of the Little Colorado River. The Department acquired these
properties primarily to secure habitat for the Little Colorado Spinedace, a native fish species
classified as " threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act. In addition, in May
of 1996 the Department acquired the Upper Verde Croll Wildlife Area in Yavapai County.
This property contains critical habitat for several sensitive species including the Spikedace
and the Razorback Sucker, which is classified as endangered by the federal government.
Fair market value, as determined by independent appraisals, was paid for each property.
In addition, AGFD has entered into agreements with the U. S. Forest Service to fence 11
sections of streamside habitat in Apache County to minimize the effect of grazing on ripar-ian
areas. The cost of fencing these areas was approximately $ 339,602. These agreements
are intended to protect the Apache Trout, also a federally threatened species.
The Department has also investigated the possibility of acquiring properties from the State
Land Department At the request of members of the Legislature, the Department generated
a priority list of trust lands managed by the State Land Department that would qualify for
Heritage Fund acquisition. In February 1994, AGFD informed the State Land Commissioner
of 19 parcels that contained sensitive habitat and warranted further investigation. However,
the State Land Department felt that selling these lands to AGFD would jeopardize the long-term
income from trust lands managed by the State Land Department. In December 1994,
the two agencies amended their Memorandum of Understanding, agreeing to meet at least
annually to review and identify state trust lands that could potentially be acquired by
AGFD.
Few sensitive species protected- Prior to AGFD's recent acquisition of property on the Up-per
Verde Rver, the Department's protection efforts have focused primarily on protecting
2 of the 110 threatened species within Arizona. The Sipes, Wenima, and Slade purchases
help secure protection for the Little Colorado Spinedace. This species of native fish is found
only in tributaries of the Little Colorado Rver. The Department hopes that acquisition mea-sures
taken to protect Spinedace habitat will enable the Spinedace to be removed from the
Endangered Species List by the year 2000. In addition, agreements with the U. S. Forest Ser-vice
to protect the Apache Trout have enabled AGFD to predict that this species will be
removed from the list by 1999.
While acquisition efforts have focused on the Little Colorado Spinedace and Apache Trout,
the properties also contain habitat for other sensitive species. The Department reports that
a total of 17 other sensitive species have been found on properties acquired with Heritage
Fund monies. For instance, the Bald Eagle, Osprey, and Ferruginous Hawk occasionally
use habitat at the Sipes White Mountain Wildlife Area. In addition, the recently acquired
Upper Verde Croll Wildlife Area provides habitat for additional sensitive species such as
the Spikedace and the Razorback Sucker. According to the Department, all of the properties
acquired with Heritage monies also contain habitat that could potentially be used by other
sensitive species.
Lmtd a q r r i s i t i o s ~ $ sa ccm~ zulating- T he balance in the land acquisition fund has steadily
increased since fiscal year 1991. The Department has spent only $ 9.3 million of the $ 13.4
million received for land acquisition as of June 30,1996. This leaves a balance of $ 4.1 million
in unspent acquisition monies. Voter intent when establishing this Fund was to protect sen-sitive
habitat Although the exact $ 2.4 million may not be spent each year and accumulating
funds make larger purchases possible, the current accumulation appears excessive given
the absence of a long- term plan for the Department's acquisition and protection program.
More Proactive
Approach Needed
AGFD needs to develop a more proactive approach to better fulfill its land acquisition re-sponsibilities.
The Department currently employs a reactive approach, which relies upon
landowners to offer properties for sale. A proactive approach would be more effective in
idenwing lands that require protection and ensuring that the Department is acquiring the
most critical habitat with the highest potential for preserving wildlife. In addition, the De-partment
has the tools and resources needed to implement a proactive acquisition strategy.
Other states surveyed identify and prioritize sites for acquisition.
Process reactive- The Department has adopted a reactive approach to its land acquisition
program. AGFD will consider acquiring properties only if they are offered to the Depart-ment
by the landowner. Lands offered then go through a lengthy evaluation process to
survey biological resources, assess the feasibility of purchase, and consider possible site
designs and management scenarios. This reactive approach has three major disadvantages:
Best land possibly not evaluated- Although the properties purchased by AGFD meet
statutory criteria due to the presence of endangered species, the Department cannot be
sure that these were the best properties available. Other properties containing habitat
used by more threatened or endangered species may have been available. However,
without a more proactive acquisition approach, the Department is limited to only those
parcels that are brought to its attention.
Many properties do not qualify- Landowners have offered 75 properties to the Depart-ment
Four of these have been acquired. However, 76 percent of the remaining properties
were dropped from consideration after initial screening by AGFD staff because they did
not meet the program objectives. Most of these properties were eliminated because they
did not contain habitat used by species protected by the Endangered Species Act.
Resources not used most effectively- Because many properties proposed do not meet
the qualifications to receive Heritage Fund monies, staff time spent evaluating these
properties is not being used to its full potential. Approximately $ 678,000 has been spent
on land acquisition efforts. Staff time would be better used evaluating properties that
have been identified as qualifying for Heritage acquisition funds.
The Department has adopted this reactive acquisition process in an effort to minimize oppo-sition
to the program. Government acquisition of private land can be controversial, particu-larly
in western states, where a significant portion of land is already under public owner-ship.
In Arizona, 82 percent of all land is publicly owned, including Indian reservations.
Because there is relatively little private land in the State, opposition has arisen to AGFD's
use of Heritage monies to purchase these lands. Since passage of the Heritage Initiative in
1990, several bills have been introduced to restrict the Department from buying private
land. To avoid controversy concerning private land acquisition, the Commission has limited
the properties that AGFD can consider. Only properties offered to the Department can be
considered. In addition, AGFD has attempted to minimize the negative impacts of its pri-vate
land acquisitions by making payments in lieu of property taxes to counties for
Heritage- acquired properties.
Proactive approach more eflective and feasible- A proactive approach with long- term ac-quisition
and protection goals could more effectively protect sensitive habitat than the cur-rent
process. This long- term plan would involve identifying which species and areas of the
State are most in need of protection. The Department could then evaluate which lands best
fit acquisition and protection criteria and how to get the highest return for Heritage monies
spent, Once priorities are set, the Department could contact the appropriate landowners
to n o w them of the sensitive habitat on their properties, assess their interest in protecting
this habitat, and, if interested, discuss various protection options. These discussions should
not focus solely on land acquisition, but should include consideration of alternative protec-tion
strategies such as conservation easements and stewardship agreements, as discussed
on page 14. Many states use letters of interest or phone contacts to communicate this infor-mation
to landowners.
The Department has the expertise and information it needs to prioritize acquisition and
protection efforts. Staff could draw on a variety of resources to identify program priorities,
including:
Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project- As a result of a 1992 request by the Legisla-ture,
AGFD developed an extensive inventory and mapping of riparian areas in the State.
A majority of threatened and endangered species in Arizona use riparian areas, making
riparian habitat a high protection priority. The Department now has detailed information
on the location and condition of these habitats throughout the State.
Heritage Data Management System ( HDMS) - The HDMS database has existed in the
Department since it was transferred from the Nature Conservancy in 1981. The database
contains information on documented occurrences of sensitive species in Arizona. Re-searchers
from AGFD, federal agencies, universities, and private firms supply survey
and sampling information to the database. The Agencfs Geographic Information System
( GIS) could utilize HDMS data and information from other sources to generate detailed
maps showing where threatened and endangered species exist in the State.
Diversity reviews - In conjunction with HDMS, the Department is in the process of com-piling
diversity reviews for all sensitive species. These reviews detail the biology, range,
population trends, habitat, and protection actions taken for each species.
Department staff - The Department has a number of staff experienced in evaluating
specific species and habitats. In fact, several branches within the Department study and
monitor endangered species. In addition, the Department's wildlife managers are respon-
sible for overseeing wildlife- related issues on every acre of land in the State, excluding
tribal lands. Input from these groups regarding which lands need to be protected and
which landowners would be receptive to acquisition or protection arrangements could
help AGFD identify acquisition priorities.
In addition to these existing resources, AGFD is currently working with staff at the Univer-sity
of Arizona and Northern Arizona University to develop a data system that contains
statewide information on such things as vegetation patterns and land ownership, as well
as data concerning the distribution of sensitive species. Such an integrated system would
make it easier to identify and prioritize sites needing protection.
0 t h states are proactive- Other states have used proactive techniques to establish priori-ties
for their land acquisition efforts. We surveyed 15 states and found that 11 used a more
proactive approach than Arizona, such as statewide inventory of lands and their wildlife
values, and the use of existing databases and information on endangered species to priori-tize
and rank land parcels.' Some examples of the approaches implemented in other states
are detailed below.
Arkansas- The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission has an inventory program that
gathers data on sensitive species and identifies areas to protect through acquisition. Spe-cies
surveys are conducted by staff biologists. Lands are then ranked according to endan-gered
species' occurrence on the property. These rankings generate a priority list of sites
to acquire and protect.
California- The California Department of Fish & Game's regional personnel are respon-sible
for identifying individual land parcels as well as long- range area acquisition plans
consisting of several parcels. Each proposal is evaluated, ranked, and given a priority
score. Statewide priorities are then established through comparison of proposals from
all regions.
Missouri- The Missouri Conservation Department conducted an inventory of lands
statewide. Department personnel reviewed reports, field notes, maps, and aerial photo-graphs.
More than 100 sites per county were identified as desirable for protection. In
addition, they determined how much of each habitat type was available and selected
the best properties. Finally, the Department made phone calls and visits to landowners
to inform them of the wildlife and important habitat on their property and the Depart-ment's
willingness to protect these resources. The program's goal is to acquire one or two
high- quality examples of each habitat type for each region in Missouri.
a States surveyed include Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mon-tana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin.
AGFD Should Increase
the Use of Alternative
Protection Strategies
The Department should focus more on protection strategies other than acquisition. Methods
such as conservation easements, special use permits, and stewardship agreements could
aid AGFD in protecting both public and private land without the cost and maintenance of
purchase. These alternative protection methods typically cost less to obtain and maintain
than acquisition. In addition, these protection arrangements could foster better cooperation
between the Department, private landowners, and interest groups.
Protect without purchase- Resource protection, in some instances, can be accomplished
through methods other than property acquisition. Alternative arrangements such as special
use permits protect resources on public land, while conservation easements and steward-ship
agreements protect resources on private land.
Since public land accounts for a significant portion of the State, increased use of special use
permits could help the Department protect vast amounts of critical habitat. Special use per-mits
are intergovernmental agreements designed to protect land owned by other govern-ment
agencies. For example, within the last year the Department entered into agreements
with the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forest to fence riparian areas on National Forest land,
thereby minimizing the impacts of grazing and logging activities. The cost of these permits
is generally limited to the materials and labor involved to complete the project. AGFD paid
for the fence materials and installation costs. This particular agreement is projected to pro-tect
61 miles of riparian habitat within the National Forest.
Protection of private land could also be enhanced by using conservation easements. Land-owners
may be interested in protecting resources on their property without having to sell
their land. A conservation easement is a legal agreement by which the Department pays
a landowner to restrict or limit the type and amount of development that may take place
on a piece of property. For instance, AGFD could purchase an easement to prohibit subdivi-sion
of a property while allowing the landowner to continue using the land for ranching
or agriculture. Flexibility is one advantage of these easements. Each easement's restrictions
are tailored to the particular piece of property, the interests of the individual landowner,
and the resource being protected. Six of the states we surveyed used conservation easements
in their land protection programs. An official in Montana stated that these easements are
particularly useful on large ranches since they can preserve habitat while minimizing the
interruption of ranching activities on the land. To date, the AGFD has not entered into any
conservation easements. By not using conservation easements, the AGFD could be neglect-ing
significant opportunities to protect wildlife.
Stewardship agreements, which are non- legally binding agreements with private
landowners, could also work to protect resources on private land. The landowner does
not receive any payment in this arrangement; however, AGFD pays for enhancements
necessary to protect resources on the property. Many private landowners prefer these
agreements to conservation easements because of their more informal, non- legal nature.
Through fiscal year 1996, the Department has entered into six stewardship agreements with
private landowners.
Alternative methodsflextble and Zess expensive- The cost of alternative protection methods
is less expensive than acquisition in two ways. First, the initial costs are less than acquisition
and can provide the same level of protection. The examples below illustrate two alternative
methods used by a nonprofit conservation group in Arizona.
w An easement costing $ 22,500 was purchased on an 11- acre parcel valued at approxi-mately
$ 100,000. The easement restricts construction and prohibits any subdivision on
the property. The landowner did not want to see this property subdivided and
developed in the future. The intent of preserving this parcel as a natural area has been
accomplished through this agreement.
w An easement costing $ 164,000 was entered into on a 360- acre property with a fair market
value of $ 300,000. This agreement prohibits subdivision of the property and restricts
future construction of residences, but allows the landowner to continue ranching. The
easement preserves native vegetation and riparian habitat containing two species of
federally endangered fish. The landowner was willing to enter into the easement because
he also did not want this property subdivided and developed in the future. The easement
ensures that the property will always be maintained as a natural area.
The above easements also entitle the holder to access the property, to enforce the purposes
of the easement, and to conduct research. The second advantage of these arrangements is
that future costs associated with managing and maintaining the property may be less, since
title still rests with the landowner.
Alternatives could promote landowner cooperation- Relying less on outright purchase
of property and increasing the use of alternative protection methods could work to foster
better cooperation between the Department, private landowners, and interest groups. As
discussed previously, AGFD has experienced opposition to its acquisition of private lands.
Making use of other protection tools gives options to landowners who wish to protect
resources on their property without giving up property ownership. By increasing
cooperation through these alternative methods, the Department increases the chance that
more land will be protected.
I RECOMMENDATIONS
1. AGFD needs to better fulfill its statutory responsibilities to acquire and protect sensitive
habitat by:
I proactively identifying and prioritizing lands needing protection; and
increasing the use of conservation easements, special use permits, and stewardship
agreements.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING II
AGFD CAN ENHANCE ITS ACCOUNTABILITY
TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE PUBLIC
AGFD can ensure greater accountability for its Heritage Fund programs. Legislative
oversight and public involvement in the Heritage Fund programs administered by AGFD
has been limited. Several steps can be taken to improve accountability including expanded
reporting of program activities and expenditures, conducting periodic performance reviews
of Heritage program activities, and establishing advisory committees to increase public
involvement.
Department Can Expand Reporting
of Heritage Fund Expenditures
Increased reporting of Heritage Fund activities and expenditures could increase the
Legislature's and the public's understanding of how funds are used and improve
accountability. Since the Heritage Irutiative passed in 1990, the Legislature has twice added
reporting requirements to Heritage Fund statutes. Legislation passed in 1991 required
AGFD and the Arizona State Parks Board to prepare annual reports for the Legislature
concerning Heritage land acquisition program efforts. In 1992, the statutes were further
modified to require reporting of grants awarded and the number of FTEs funded in all
Heritage Fund programs.
Although these reporting requirements have been established, information provided by
AGFD still covers only a portion of its Heritage activities. For instance, the Department
is required to provide detailed information only on its grants and land acquisition
programs, which account for less than 40 percent of the $ 10 million AGFD receives each
year. Many of the Department's Heritage Fund activities are not covered by current
reporting requirements, including most work in the following program areas: 1)
identification, inventory, protection, and management of sensitive species; 2) habitat
evaluation and protection; 3) urban wildlife; 4) environmental education; and 5) public
access. As a result, questions concerning Heritage Fund programs continue to surface. In
1993, a special legislative committee was formed to review Heritage Fund expenditures.
During the course of our audit, some legislators had further questions about the use of
Heritage Fund monies.
More comprehensive reporting of Heritage Fund program activities and expenditures is
feasible. As part of the Department's comprehensive planning and management system,
annual performance reports are developed for all AGFD programs and are presented to
the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. These reports identify the projects and activities
performed to meet Heritage objectives, and the cost of these efforts. The Department also
maintains detailed Heritage Fund expenditure data on its cost accounting system. For
instance, AGFD can generate information regarding monies spent on Mexican Wolf surveys,
the Heritage Data Management System, and Little Colorado Spinedace management.
Appendix C ( see pages c- i through c- v) illustrates further the expenditure information the
Department can provide. This information could be used to provide the Legislature and
public with a more complete picture of AGFD's Heritage Fund programs. To ensure
comprehensive reporting, the Legislature should consider amending Heritage Fund
reporting requirements contained in A. R. S. 517- 298 to require an annual report that
summarizes projects and activities in all major program areas and the cost of these efforts.
Periodic Review of Heritage
Fund Programs Could Also
Enhance Accountability
Review of Heritage Fund programs has also been limited and could be expanded.
Independent performance reviews can provide external assurance to the Legislature and
to the public that Heritage Fund monies are being administered efficiently and effectively.
The Department should also use its internal audit staff to perform program reviews to
identify areas for improvement.
External review - Independent review of the Heritage Fund is needed to assure the
Legislature and the public that these monies are being used effectively and efficiently.
A. R. S. 517- 297( B) specifies that Heritage monies are not subject to appropriation. In
addition, the Sunset review as it applies to AGFD does not cover the Heritage Fund. As
a result, external review of the Heritage Fund has been limited to this special performance
audit. To address this lack of review and ensure a review consistent with most other state
agencies and programs, the Legislature could consider requiring a performance audit of
the Heritage Fund every ten years. If this process began in fiscal year 2001, the timing of
this audit would coincide with AGFD's next Sunset review and would occur at the end
of the Department's next five- year planning period. The Department develops five- year
plans, called program narratives, to guide its programs. Reviewing Heritage Fund
programs at the end of this planning period would facilitate comparison of planned and
actual outcomes.
Internal review - Internal reviews could complement any external reviews conducted.
Internal program reviews are beneficial because they allow agencies to monitor compliance,
assess program performance, and identify areas for improvement. For instance, the
Department hired a consultant in 1994 to perform a limited review of Heritage programs.
The consultant identified several problems, including a lack of clear priorities to guide land
acquisition efforts and a failure to adequately monitor compliance with grant requirements.
In addition to hiring consultants, the Department could conduct periodic program reviews
using AGFD's own internal audit staff. If additional internal audit resources are needed,
the Department could use a portion of its Heritage Fund interest earnings to pay for these
positions.
Advisory Committees Can
Increase Public Input in
Heritage Program Decisions
Opportunities for public involvement in Heritage programs can be expanded. Heritage
programs and decisions have largely been developed and administered internally, with
public involvement limited primarily to participating in Arizona Game and Fish
Commission meetings and responding to the Department's public attitude surveys.
Other entities use advisory committees to increase public involvement. For instance, the
Arizona State Parks Board has created four advisory committees to obtain public input in
its Heritage grant selection and land acquisition processes. Members of the Natural Areas
Advisory Committee, which advises the Board on land acquisitions, are required to have
scientific expertise in areas such as ecology and hydrology. Committees on historic
preservation, trails, and outdoor recreation advise the State Parks Board on grants awarded
in these areas. These committees consist of members with expertise in the subject area as
well as members from the general public who have experience in outdoor recreation.
Arizona State Parks management believes the outside perspective provided by advisory
boards has had a positive effect on their grant program. The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources also has established an advisory committee to provide oversight and
guidance to its scientific and natural areas program. This committee is comprised of
scientists, educators, and laypersons who are knowledgeable about and dedicated to natural
area protection.
The Department should consider using advisory committees to increase opportunities for
public involvement in its Heritage programs. The Department has established some advisory
committees to encourage public involvement. For instance, habitat partnership committees
were created to obtain public input regarding habitat issues primarily involving game
species, such as elk. The Department also established the Landowner/ Lessee/ Sportsman
Relations Committee to advise AGFD on methods to reduce and resolve conflicts between
sportsmen and private landowners, lessees of public land, and land management agencies.
This Committee now provides input on the Heritage public access program. The Department
could establish similar committees for other Heritage Fund programs. For example, the
Department could establish an advisory committee of educators to review grant applications
for projects that encourage wildlife education on school sites through the development or
enhancement of urban wildlife habitats. In addition, AGFD could establish a land acquisition
advisory committee to participate in long- term program planning and review proposed
acquisitions. These committees could provide recommendations and advice for commission
consideration.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. § 17- 298 to require more comprehen-sive
reporting of Heritage programs including, at a minimum, an annual performance
report that identifies the projects and activities carried out to meet Heritage objectives,
and the cost of these efforts.
2. The Legislature should also consider requiring a performance audit of the Heritage
program every ten years, timed to coincide with AGFD's Sunset review.
3. AGFD should use advisory committees to increase public involvement in its Heritage
programs.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During our audit we obtained other pertinent information regarding the Sipes White
Mountain Wildlife Area purchase.
Questions have arisen concerning the Department's use of Heritage Fund monies to
purchase the White Mountain Hereford Ranch, now known as the Sipes White Mountain
Wildlife Area. The ranch is located southeast of Springerville in Apache County. Concerns
focused on the justification for the use of Heritage monies to purchase this ranch, and the
appropriateness of the purchase price.
Although the former property owner and AGFD were involved in a dispute prior to the
Department's acquisition of the property, the Department reports that the property was
purchased to protect the Little Colorado Spinedace rather than to avoid further controversy.
The property owner was seeking payment of damages from Game and Fish for its alleged
failure to control the elk population in the area, leading to a loss of forage for his cattle.
The owner considered legal action against the Department. Game and Fish acknowledges
that the former owner was considering legal action over elk depredation, but denies this
was the reason for purchasing the land. Instead, Game and Fish states that its primary
concern was protecting the riparian habitat on the ranch for the Little Colorado Spinedace.
Because the Spinedace is a threatened species, use of Heritage monies to protect its habitat
meets the requirement of the law.
Game and Fish identified several reasons for acquiring all, rather than a portion, of the
1,362- acre ranch. Although only part of the property contains sensitive habitat used by the
Spinedace, the Department purchased the entire ranch for $ 3,792,909. The Department
reports that the property owner would only agree to sell the entire property. In addition,
AGFD found that the property also contained valuable habitat for other wildlife species
such as elk and waterfowl. The Department paid $ 800,000 in waterfowl and federal aid
monies toward the purchase price for these purposes.
The purchase price of the property was determined to be fair market value through an
independent appraisal. This appraisal was then reviewed by a separate party, who also
determined this to be fair market value. Furthermore, an adjacent parcel is now on the
market for a price per acre slightly above what Game and Fish paid for the White Mountain
Hereford Ranch.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Agency Response
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FISH DEPARTMENT
2221 West Greenway Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85023- 4399 ( 602) 942- 3000
Governor
Fife Symington
Cornrnis. sio~~ rr.~:
Chairman, Nonie Johnson, Snowflake
Michael M. Golightly. Flagstaff
Herb Guenther, Tacna
Fred Belman. Tucson
M. Jean Hassell. Scottsdale
D l r r c r r ~ r
Duane L. Shroufe
Drpury Dirrcror
lhomas W. Spald~ ng
August 8, 1996
I Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
2910 North 44th St., Suite 410 I Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Mr. Norton:
We have reviewed the revised preliminary report draft of the
performance audit of the Heritage Fund programs at Arizona Game
and Fish Department ( AGFD). Our Agency is always striving to
improve all aspects of our Department and appreciate the time and
effort expended by your staff to develop recommendations
regarding the two findings contained in the report.
As you requested, below are our written comments regarding the
two findings outlined in this final draft report.
Finding I: ~ rizona Game and Fish Department Needs to be More
Proactive in Acquiring Sensitive Habitat by:
* proactively identifying and prioritizing lands needing
protection;
We concur that being proactive is a viable alternative to the
more measured and cautious approach currently being utilized,
however, we also recognize benefits to each approach. AGFD has
been involved in development of a broad scale biodiversity
assessment that would assist in identifying and prioritizing
conservation programs on a statewide basis.
In addition, it would be very important to establish that there
is broad support for a more aggressive lands protection process,
or work on developing this broad support prior to implementing
such a dramatic change in approach.
* increasing the use of conservation easements, special use
permits, and stewardship agreements.
An Equal Opportunity Reasonable Accommodations Agency
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
August 8, 1996
Page two
Again, we concur that these are viable alternatives which we have
been involved in and will continue to include in the Lands
Acquisition Program, as we develop more and more experience in
these areas.
Finding 11: AGFD Can Enhance Its Accountability to the
Legislature and the Public.
1. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. S17- 298
to require more comprehensive style reporting of Heritage
programs including, at a minimum, an annual performance
report that identifies the projects and activities carried
out to meet Heritage objectives and the cost of these
efforts.
Throughout the body of this draft the term " expanded reporting"
versus " more comprehensive reporting", is used. It would be less
confusing to continue using the same terminology used in the
document. Also, in the body of the draft, there is discussion
regarding the use of our existing documents, developed as part of
our Comprehensive Management System. We would obviously prefer
offering this existing documentation, rather than creating new
and additional reporting requirements.
2. The Legislature should also consider requiring a
performance audit of the Heritage program every ten years,
timed to coincide with AGFD1s Sunset review.
We concur that it is always good management to have an outsider's
perspective and review. Every 10 years seems very reasonable,
and it would be much less disruptive to an agency to have the
audits timed with the Departments Sunset review. We will
continue complying with the Single Audit Act, doing our internal
Performance Audits, utilizing our internal audit staff to audit
our processes and utilizing external auditors.
3. AGFD should use advisory committees to increase public
involvement in its Heritage programs.
The Department appreciates the suggestion to use advisory
committees to increase public involvement. We feel advisory
committees can compliment our ongoing outreach efforts and they
will be utilized when it is deemed to be the appropriate tool.
Again, we appreciate the time and effort involved in developing
positive recommendations to help us to continue to improve our
management of the AGFD's Heritage Fund.
Sincerely,
L Z
Duane L. Shroufe
Director
APPENDICES
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
APPENDICES OVERVIEW
The following appendices depict how the Department has spent Heritage Fund monies.
These appendices present Heritage Fund expenditure information in three different ways:
Appendix A Presents the annual transfer of lottery proceeds to the Heritage Fund
and its subsequent expenditure and the fiscal year- end balances. It also
presents interest earned on Heritage Fund monies, its expenditure for
administrative expenses, and fiscal year- end interest balances.
Appendix B Presents costs by the type of expenditure incurred for each fiscal year.
Appendix C Presents the costs associated with various projects undertaken by the
Game and Fish Department with Heritage Fund monies. Projects are
generally grouped under the applicable program area ( e. g. habitat
evaluation and protection, urban wildlife, and public access).
However, common expenditure categories such as publications, motor
pool, and grants are presented together at the end of the Appendix.
a- i
Fiscal
- Year
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund
Schedule of Accumulated Fund Balance
Fiscal Years 1991 through 1995
( Unaudited)
Lottery Proceeds1
IIPAW
Total from
Environmental Public Urban Habitat Land Lottery
Education Access Wildlife Evaluation General Acquisition Proceeds
1991 Revenues $ 295.000 $ 295,000 $ 885,000 $ 885,000 $ 2,124,000 $ 1,416,000 $ 5,900,000
Expenditures ( 29,509) ( 28,971) ( 31,400) ( 28,753) ( 28,239) ( 1 46,872)
Fund Balance, June 30,1991 266,491 266,029 863,600 886,000 2,096,247 1,387,761 6,763,128
1992 Revenues 500,000 500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,600.000 2,400,000 10,000,000
Expenditures ( 251.9621 ( 200.550) ( 671,945) ( 740,992) ( 1,543,691) ( 3,409,140)
Fund Balance, June 30,1992 613,629 666,479 1,681,666 1,644,008 4,161,666 3,787,761 12,343,988
1993 Revenues 500,000 500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,600,000 2,400,000 10,000,000
Expendilures ( 370.8691 ( 340.8151 ( 1 .238.6181 ( 1.336.7 191 P. 022.79Q ( 801.273) ( 7.111.0851
Fund Balance, June 30,1993 642,660 724,664 1,943,037 1,807,289 4,728,766 6,386,488 16,232,903
1994 Revenues 500,000 500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,600,000 2,400,000 10,000,000
Expendilures ( 444.3011 L337.5661 ( 1.349.8011 ( a( 3.3 96.3441 ( 3.089.888). ( 10.027.336)
Fund Balance, June 30,1994 698,369 887,098 2,093,236 1,897,863 4,932,421 4,696,600 16,206,667
1995 Revenues 500,000 500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,600,000 2,400,000 10,000,000
Expenditures 1513.773) ( 388.9351 ( 1.486.7251 ( 1 .409.0981 ( 3.506.78Q ( 561,177) g. 866.4901
Fund Balance, June 30,1995 t684.586 5998.163- 51.988.755tS. 025.63956.535.423-
Total revenues
Total expenditures
Fund Balance, June 30,1996
' Lottery proceeds for a given fiscal year are not considered available for expenditure until the subsequent fiscal year.
Identification, Inventory. Protection, Acquisilion, and Management Program. Land acquisition is part of IIPAM; however, it is separated here for presentation purposes.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of revenue and expenditure data obtained from Game and Fish Department Independent Computer System job cost reports.
Interest
Income
Adminis-tration
- Total
APPENDIX B
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund
Schedule of Expenditures by Type
Fiscal Years 1991 through 1995
( Unaudited)
Ex~ enditureT vpe
Payroll and employee benefits
Internal and external grants1
Land purchases
All other operating
Equipment
Y Vehicles
+. Travel
SUBTOTAL
Administration
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
TOTALS
l These amounts include expenditures to match federal Endangered Species Act monies.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of expenditure data obtained from Game and Fish Department Independent Computer System job cost reports.
APPENDIX C
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund
Schedule of Expenditures by Program and Project
Fiscal Years 1992 through 1995
( Unaudited)
Totals
1992 1%
Initial Planning in 1991
Totals
$ 146.872
lnformation and Education
Environmental Education
Public Education
Public Access lnformation and Education
Urban Wildlife Education
Transfer to Department of Education
Total Information and Education
3
ci. Public Access
Enhancements
lnventory
Projects
Total Public Access
Urban Wildlife
Administration
Wildlife Management
Enforcement and Protection
Planning and Management
Clerical Support
Arizona Wildlife Viewing Guide
Colorado River Engineering Study
Ecotourism Research
lnventory and Research
Landscaping for Desert Wildlife Booklet
Lower Salt River Nature Trail Rehabilitation
New Residents Wildlife Brochure
North Mountain Park Wildlife Viewing Area
Papago Butte Wildlife Area
Phoenix Peregrine Ecological Survey
Pima County GIs Mapping
Prescott Urban Javelina Project
Urban Harris Hawk Ecological Study
Urban Wildlife Management Symposium
Total Urban Wildlife
APPENDIX C
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund
Schedule of Expenditures by Program and Project
Fiscal Years 1992 through 1995
( Unaudited)
( Continued)
Species Identification, Inventory,
Protection, and Management
Planning and Management
Clerical Support
Landowner Stewardship Program
Endangered Species Act Matching Funds
Heritage Data Management System
Heritage Grant Administration
Amphibians and Reptiles Inventory, Monitoring,
and Management
Bald Eagle Management
Bat Management
Bird Inventory, Monitoring, and Management
Black- Footed Ferret Management
Cluff Ranch Wildlife Area Operation and Maintenance
Desert Rosy Boa Habitat and Population
Desert Tortoise Health Assessment and Management
Ecosystems Inventory, Monitoring, and Management
Farmlands Restoration
Fish Inventory, Monitoring, and Management
Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Research
Goshawk and Spotted Owl Management
Gould Turkey Reintroduction
Mammal Inventory, Monitoring, and Management
Mexican Spotted Owl Management
Mexican Vole Management
Mount Graham Red Squirrel Management
Native Fish Statewide Survey, Monitoring,
and Management
Navajo Nation Biological Survey
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Page Springs Nature Trail
Parasites and Disease in Razorback and Squawfish
Peregrine Falcon Monitoring and Survey
Pintail Lake Access
Ranid Frogs Management
Riparian and Candidate Birds Management
Robin's Butte Wildlife Area Operation and Maintenance
Seed Distribution Project
434,659
67,236
180,555
26,515
73,784
71,181
22,471
196,083
35,814
199,771
8,915
( Continued)
APPENDIX C
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund
Schedule of Expenditures by Program and Project
Fiscal Years 1992 through 1995
( Unaudited)
( Continued)
Totals
Sonoran Pronghorn Ecology
Statewide Riparian lnventory and Mapping
Tavasci Marsh Restoration Project
Thick- billed Parrot Management
Tonto Forest Riparian lnventory and Mapping
Total Species Identification, Inventory, Protection,
and Management
Land Acquisition
Acquired Properties
Acquisition Related Expenditures 3
HH.. Property Operation and Maintenance
H. Total Land Acquisition
Habitat Evaluation and Protection
Habitat Evaluation
Habitat Protection
Habitat Coordination
Clerical Support
Field Operations
Geographic Information System
Land Access Program
Total Habitat Evaluation and Protection
Grants1
External Grants
Environmental Education
Species Identification, Inventory, Protection,
and Management
Public Access
Schoolyard Habitat Projects
Urban Wildlife
Total External Grants
l In its Heritage Fund Annual Report, the Game and Fish Department provides further detail on grants awarded.
( Continued)
APPENDIX C
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund
Schedule of Expenditures by Program and Project
Fiscal Years 1992 through 1995
( Unaudited)
( Continued)
Internal Grants
Access to Wenima and Sipes Wildlife Areas
Apache Trout Stream Renovation
Bat lnventory in Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge
Big Springs Environmental Study Area Upgrade
Bird Census in Greer Valley
Cluff Ranch Signage
Colorado River Information Signs
Effects of Habitat Destruction on Herpetofauna
Flat- tailed Horned Lizard lnventory and Monitoring
Forest Dwelling Bats Roost Site Characteristics
Habitat Characteristics of Forest Breeding Birds
Little Colorado Spinedace Management Project
Mexican Wolf Planning and Surveys
Mittry Lake Handicap Fishing Jetties
Northern Goshawk Genetic Variation and Demographics
Osprey Nest Monitoring
OX Date Creek Riparian Project
Parasites and Disease in Razorback and Squawfish
Rainbow Trout Movement on Verde River
Reprint Landscaping for Desert Wildlife
Sonoran Topminnow and Desert Pupfish Brochure
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Status Survey
Statewide LANDSAT Satellite Imagery
The Changing Mile Revisited
Urban Bird Watching Guide to Tucson
Urban Fisheries in Salt River Project Canals
Urban Lake Law Enforcement Compliance Research
Urban Wildlife Public Attitude Survey
Wildlife Survey of Urban Residential Habitats
Wildlife Viewing Guide to Tucson
Total Internal Grants
Total Grants
Totals
( Continued)
APPENDIX C
Publications
Audio Visual
Motor Pool
Total Expenditures from Lottery Proceeds
3
C
Administration supported by interest income
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund
Schedule of Expenditures by Program and Project
Fiscal Years 1992 through 1995
( Unaudited)
( Continued)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
- 1992 - 1993 - 1994 - 1995 Totals
$ 67,850 $ 61,070 $ 98,667 $ 227,587
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of expenditure data obtained from Game and Fish Department Independent Computer System job cost reports.