* UNITEDSTATES " WASHINGTON, c D C 20548 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DIWSION o%%--~~~ GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AUG 4 1977 The Honorable Robert L. Herbst Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wlldllfe and Parks Department of the Interior Dear Mr. and Water Herbst We recently completed a survey of certain aspects of the Land Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant program to the States Our work was performed to determine whether the program is being effectively adminIstered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) We noted several matters which we believe would be of Interest to you and which warrant your attention These relate primarily to the BOR site lnspect-ron program for grant proJects which, as you know, has oeen establlshed to help insure that Federally supported proJects are properly selected, developed and adequately maintained During our work we contacted officials of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in Washington, D C , San Francisco, California, and Ann Arbor, Michigan We also met with State and local park officials In California, Nevada, and Illlnols, and visited about 100 LWCF proJect sites in these States. I In addition, we malled questlonnalres to sponsors of about 850 LWCF grant proJects in Arizona, California, and Nevada pnmarlly to determine if the propertIes were being used for outdoor recreation use in accordance with the grant proJect agreements with BOR The detailed information which we obtained through the use of the questionnaire may be of some assistance to BOR in its adtilnlstratlon of the grant program and should you or members of BOR wish to discuss this data we will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements . BACKGROUND c io As you are aware, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, was enacted to slxmulate a natlonwlde program for high-quality Under the act, funds are provided outdoor recreation areas and facllltles for (1) the acqulsltlon of land for federally administered recreation areas, and (2) matching grants to State and local governments for the planning, acquisition , and development of recreation lands and facllltles The 1976 amendments to the act increased the amount of funds authorized sixty from $300 ml1 1ion to $900 mllllon annually by fiscal year 1980 percent of the funds are allocated for grants to States for State and local recreation proJects, and the remalnlng 40 percent 1s given to Federal landSince managing agencies to purchase land and water areas for Federal use Inception of the program, through fiscal year 1976, BOR approved nearly 18,000 State and local outdoor recreation proJects and had granted over $1.4 bllllon in Federal funds for these proJects BOR Should Evaluate Tts Project Site Inspection Program Property acquired or developed with LWCF assistance must be retained To help insure that and used for public outdoor recreation purposes properties are properly selected, developed, and marntalned, t30R has entered Into agreements with the States to conduct site lnspectlons--pre-award, The lnspectlons progress, flnal, and post-completion--of the proJects are made to determine --that the site acquisition, --the --if progress IS suitable that 1s being for the proposed development the proJect, with the and/or made to develop the proJects approved plans, have been completed and ln accordance --whether the properties are retained recreation purposes, ln accordance the act and used for outdoor with the provlslons of Generally speaking, the BOR/State agreements g'rve the responsibility However, BOR's role does for conducting site lnspectlons to the States vary from State to State BOR offlclals told us they rely heavily on the and added that BOR only conducts "penodlc" States to carry out inspections, inspections to determine lf the States are fulfllllng their responsiblllties -2- We noted that all of the required BOR or the States Although the Impact was only minima?, the potential exists occur inspections are not being made by of not performing such inspections for more serious deflclencles to BOR requires that pre-award, progress, and final lnspectlons be performed on every LWCF development proJect, and that a pre-award lnspectlon Post-completion inspecbe made on every LWCF land acquisition proJect tions are required on all proJects During our survey, we found that only flnal lnspectlons were being made on a regular basis States were not regularly conducting pre-award inspections In cases where they provided the matching funds State offlclals said to make pre-award inspections on proJects that they had planned and which they were famlllar with is, 7n their view, unnecessary They further stated that a conflict of interest question could be raised because State inspectors are asked to Inspect State-supported proJects State offlclals also sa-rd that If pre-award lnspectlons are necessary on State funded proJects, then they should be performed by BOR, and not by the State Progress lnspectlons on State and locally made on a "hit or miss" basis and were usually inspector was performing some other work at or State offlclals said, in their view, the penodlc by proJect sponsors-State and local--could be progress inspections supported proJects were performed only if an near the proJect site progress reports submitted used in lieu of the site c i3OR regional offlce officials agreed that the "obJectivity" of States conducting pre-award, as well as other type of inspections, on their own proJects 1s somewhat questionable The officials added that they are not In their oplnlon, final convinced that progress lnspectlons are needed BOR reglonal officials said lnspectlons are the most Important lnspectlons they would revlew the need to continue making progress lnspectlons BOR requires that post-completion lnspectlons be made within three years after completion of the proJect and at least once every five years thereafter The States we vIsIted were not always conducting these lnspectlons and we found that BOR has no system to 7nsure that the lnspectlons are made at the required Intervals California offlclals said they have not been performing all the required post-completion lnspectlons and admltted that this area 1s in need of improvement They said that under a January 1977 reorganlzatlon wlthln their Department of Parks and Recreation a full time staff has been asslgned to work on LWCF actlvltles and they said this ~111 allow the State to increase its inspections in the future -3- Nevada offlclals said that they have not made required post-completion They said they are considering inspections because of the lack of funds for the cost of administering assessing local sponsors a "service charge" "overhead rate" with the Department the grant program, and negotlatlng an of the Interior to obtain addltlonal funds, so that more emphasis can be placed on site lnspectlons Unauthorized at proJect construction sites During our site visits, we noted five proJects where local sponsbrs Conhad constructed buildings on the proJect sites without BOR approval struction of such buildings, as you know, IS permitted only if compatible with authorized outdoor recreation uses and only if BOR has given its prior approval In these cases, BOR's approval was not requested and local offlclals sponsoring the proJects said they were not even aware that When we brought these proJects to BOR's attention, BOR approval was needed we were advised that the buildings "appeared" to be compatible with the intended use of the site, and we were told also that in all llkellhood, BOR would have approved the construction if it. had been requested of buildings that were not compatible with planned outuses has occurred in other locations For example, BOR recently noted that a large community center and two school district build1 nqs were consIructed on a proJect site The construction occurred without BOR's knowledge and constituted a conversion of the property to other than recreation uses The sponsor of the proJect acknowledged that the two school district buildings were on the proJect site and replacement property must, therefore, be provided But the sponsor contended that 1-t does not have to replace the community center property because that land was purchased without LWCF assistance BOR maintains that the entire area was assisted by LWCF and we were told that BOR IS taking action to have the sponsor provide suitable replacement property Construction door recreation Leasing outdoor of land recreation acquired for purposes Another potential problem area related to the leasing of proJect land to third parties prior to development of the site for approved outdoor recreation use Under certain condlt-rons BOR will allow, with prior approval, interim leasing of land before It IS developed--but usually for not more than three years We identified several proJects where leasing was occurring without BOR approval For example, one proJect, a 150 acre tract of land acquired in 1971 with a $90,700 LWCF grant, was to be developed for picnicking, hiking, golfing, and general playground actlvltles At the time of our visit, in January 1977, the site was still undeveloped and a large part of the land was being leased for agricultural purposes and as such, was not available for outdoor recreation use BOR offlclals advised us that they would review this sltuatlon and would take correct-rve action as is necessary -4- * Corlcluslons We found that lands acquired and/or developed with LWCF assistance are not being consistently Inspected by the States or BOR to assure that the properties are properly selected and developed, and adequately maintained in accordance with the LWCF act Although the adverse effect of not making required lnspectlons was relatlvefy minor, we believe that the results of this survey clearly polnted out the need 'for BOR to evaluate Its site inspection program requirements An effective lnspectlon the general public IS recelvlng gram and also to make certain continue to be avallable for not agree with the States that sponsors would be a sultable proJect development In our portant since they can prov-rde deficiencies before a slgnlflcant program 1s basically essential to insure that maximum benefits from the LWCF grant prothat the properties acquired and developed We do their approved outdoor recreation use perIodI c progress reports by proJect substitute for actual site inspections during view, these inspections are particularly imBOR the opportunity to correct proJect amount of Federal funds have been expended or - - As previously discussed, we noted several instances where local sponsors were not aware of the Federal requirements and restnctlons on LWCF-assisted properties, 1 e , obtalnlng BOR approval before leasing proJect land to a third party prior to development, or before constructing buildings on LWCF property This situation could result In LWCF property being converted to nonoutdoor recreation uses We believe that BOR should periodically inform local sponsors that their LWCF-assisted propertIes are subJect to certal n Federal restnctlons In this regard, BOR could periodically ldentlfy the LWCF propertIes under lndlvldual sponsor's Junsdiction and request that they verify that the properties are, in fact, being used for approved outdoor recreation purposes This procedure would alert local sponsors of their LWCF proJect responslbllltles and could also be used by BOR In connectlon with its performance of the required site inspections. Recommendatl ons you have BOR evaluate its current and take action to insure that the Implemented that site inspection approved program We recommend program requirements IS being properly We also recommend that BOR be required to penodlcally 'notify LWCF sponsors of the LWCF assisted proJects under their Junsdlction and requl re the sponsors to verify that the propert-res are, in fact, being used for approved outdoor recreation purposes We are sending copies of thus letter to the AssIstant Secretary, Policy, Budget, and Admlnlstratlon , and the Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation We would appreciate recelvlnq your views and comments within 30 days on any actions you have taken or plan to take on the above matters Should you or your staff desire any addltlonal lnformatlon, please let me know Sincerely -45~ yours, LA * Frank V. Subalusky Assistant Director -6-