Game & Fish
Introduction
A. Scope
The focus of our research was on the Department's land
acquisition process as a whole, not on individual
transactions
W.S. 28-8-107 (b) authorizes the Legislative Service Office
to conduct program evaluations and performance audits. The
general purpose of a program evaluation is to provide a base
of knowledge from which policy makers can make informed
decisions.
In September 1995, the Management Audit Committee chose the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department's land acquisition program
as the subject of a review. The research in this report
centered around the following questions:
ú Is the extent of oversight for the Department's land
acquisition program adequate?
ú Does the Department's selection criteria and selection
process enable the Department to defensibly rank and pursue
appropriate types and quality of property?
ú Does the Department obtain adequate information to
justify its acquisition price?
ú To what extent has the Department made use of
alternatives to fee simple acquisitions?
The focus of our research was on the Department's
acquisition process as a whole, not on individual
transactions.
B. Methodology
This evaluation was conducted according to statutory
requirements and appropriate program evaluation standards
and methods. We conducted our research between October and
December 1995.
We reviewed relevant federal and state statutes, rules,
regulations, policies, annual reports, budget documents,
professional literature, and a variety of other reports and
studies. In addition, we reviewed records of 29 Department
land transactions involving acquisitions and dispositions
since 1987. We examined other records pertaining to
Department easements and leases.
We attended a Game and Fish Commission meeting, interviewed
Department managers and field personnel, Commissioners,
Attorney General staff, federal officials from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and Forest Service, members of interest
groups, and professional appraisers.
Finally, we conducted telephone interviews and reviewed
documentation from several neighboring states, including
Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, and Nebraska.
C. Acknowledgments
The Legislative Service Office would like to express
appreciation to all the individuals who assisted us in our
research on this project, and especially to the staff of the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department and members of the Wyoming
Game and Fish Commission.
Background
Wildlife management is the statutory responsibility of the
Department
As the state's wildlife management agency, the Game and Fish
Department is responsible for the control, propagation,
management, protection, and regulation of all wildlife in
Wyoming. Under Titles 9 and 23, the Department functions as
an independent agency whose policies, operations, and budget
are subject to the supervision of the Game and Fish
Commission. The Commission has seven members, who are
appointed by the Governor for six-year terms with Senate
confirmation. The Governor serves as an ex-officio member
of the Commission. The Department is made up of the
Director's Office and four divisions: Wildlife, Fish,
Services, and Fiscal.
During FY95, the Department received 95 percent of its
revenues from three sources: license revenues (64 percent),
federal aid (18 percent), and interest (13 percent).
Federal funds are not earmarked for specific purposes,
instead they are co-mingled with state dollars in the Game
and Fish Fund. In recent years, revenues have been
insufficient to cover all of the Department's budgeted
expenditures. This is primarily due to fewer sales of
hunting and fishing licenses. According to Department
records, its revenues declined from $36.5 million in FY92 to
$30.5 million in FY95. Declining revenues resulted in a
shortfall of approximately $2 million for FY95, which the
Department made up from its cash reserves.
To address this problem, the Commission reduced the
Department's annual land acquisition budget to $300,000 and
eliminated the $2.5 million capital facility budget. The
acquisition budget had been as high as $5.5 million in 1992.
Additionally, the Department reports cutting permanent
personnel by nine percent and temporary personnel by 33
percent. Figure 1 provides a five-year budget and staffing
summary.
Figure 1: Budget and Staffing History
Fiscal Years 1992 through 1996
Fiscal Approved Permanent Temporary
Year Budget Staff Staff
1992 $41.6 million 339 162
1993 $39.8 million 346 210
1994 $40.9 million 346 163
1995 $35.8 million 323 152
1996 $34.6 million n/a n/a
Source: Game and Fish Department
Land Acquisition Program
Lands Administration acquires property considered critical
to sustain wildlife
The Lands Administration Branch, which is part of the
Services Division, acquires and manages property rights
which the Department considers critical to sustain wildlife
populations. These properties increase big game winter
range, waterfowl production, and hunting and fishing
opportunities.
Since 1917, the Department has purchased a total of 165,953
acres in 18 of Wyoming's 23 counties (Appendix B) at a cost
of $15.1 million. These acquisitions vary in size from a
just a few acres, which may provide strategic access to
large tracts of public lands, to major wildlife habitat
units consisting of tens of thousands of acres. Department
owned land includes 106 miles of streams, and its easements
provide access to another 113 miles of streams.
The Department also leases 119,331 acres and cooperatively
manages another 127,266 acres with federal government
agencies. In total, it owns, leases, and cooperatively
manages 412,550 acres, which represents seven-tenths of one
percent (0.7%) of the entire state. The Department makes
payments in lieu of taxes and pays assessments to counties
for its land holdings, which totaled $206,155 in 1994.
Figure 2 shows the Department's acquisition budgets for FY92
through FY96.
Figure 2: Land Acquisition Budget Summary
Fiscal Years 1992 through 1996
Fiscal Acquisition Acquisition Personnel Allocated
Year Budget Expenditures Budget Staff
1992 $5,528,492 $5,450,493 $150,749
3 FTE
1993 $3,000,000 $2,801,591 $164,902
3 FTE
1994 $2,715,000 $ 42,428 $205,182
3 FTE
1995 $ 300,000 $ 55,932 $186,607
3 FTE
1996 $ 300,000 n/a $178,400 2 FTE
Source: Game and Fish Department
Because the Department is primarily supported by revenues
generated from hunting and fishing license sales, hunters
and anglers have formed the Department's traditional
constituency. However, its land acquisition practices also
affect groups outside this traditional customer base, such
as landowners. This constituency also has a direct stake in
how the Department manages its land program.
Land Selection Process
The Department developed two computer-based systems to score
and rank potential land acquisitions
The Department has developed two computer-based systems for
scoring and ranking potential land acquisitions. The first
of these systems was implemented in 1987 to aid in the
selection of properties with significant habitat values.
Known as the Wildlife Land Use Management Plan (WLUMP), this
system scores possible acquisitions based on biological
values, economic return to the state from increased
recreational days, and departmental control over mineral
development. WLUMP favors properties with critical winter
habitat and "blue-ribbon" fishing streams.
The Department implemented a second system, called the
Wyoming Recreational Access Evaluation Plan (WRAEP), in
1988. WRAEP aids in the selection of strategically placed
lands important for access. Scores generated from this
system are based on the projected economic return from
increased recreational days, the percent of public to
private lands in the county, and the size of the property
being accessed. Properties which open up large land tracts
in areas where there are few public lands receive the
highest scores.
Under Commission policy, the Department may pursue the
acquisition of property which ranks within the top one-third
of all available properties. In order to be eligible for
acquisition, a property must rank in the top third for
either habitat or access. There is no correlation between a
property's score or rank and the type of property rights to
be pursued.
Acquiring Interests in Land
The Department exercises several methods of acquiring rights
and influence over property, including purchasing land in
fee simple, obtaining easements, and leasing federal, state,
or private land. Also, the Department may enter into
cooperative management agreements with federal and state
agencies or private landowners interested in voluntarily
conserving wildlife values. Under such agreements,
ownership is not transferred, but the Department obtains
certain rights and responsibilities relative to the land.
Fee simple is the most extensive land ownership option
recognized by law. It includes the rights of possession,
use, and unconditional power to convey. The primary
advantage of fee simple ownership is that the owner has the
greatest possible flexibility in managing the property.
Another option for acquiring an interest in land is to
obtain an easement. An easement is a limited property right
authorizing the holder to use another's land for a specific
purpose. Easements can take a wide variety of forms to meet
the needs of the parties involved. The main difference
between an easement and fee simple ownership is that an
easement does not permit possession of the property.
Finally, leases are agreements to transfer possession of
land, or a specific right to land, for a period of time.
Leases commonly give the right of exclusive possession and
use of property, but they may be limited to certain rights
such as access to land for public hunting and fishing.
Leases can be especially useful in public land management
when program goals can be achieved in a limited period of
time, or when only limited funds are available.
Figure 3: Key Stages of the Selection Process
According to staff, these are the minimum required steps to
acquire property rights
Phase I:
ú Individuals, agencies, or Department staff may nominate
properties to be considered for acquisition. No preliminary
selection criteria are applied. Proposed properties are
ranked simultaneously for habitat values by WLUMP and for
access values by WRAEP.
ú Using professional judgment, Department staff decide
which of the properties ranked in the top one-third for
habitat or access will be brought to the Commission for
consideration. The Commission receives these
recommendations in executive session.
Phase II:
ú If the Commission concurs with the recommendation, and
if the landowner is interested in selling, staff verifies
("ground truths") the WLUMP and WRAEP results. Because the
Department does not have the power of condemnation, it
operates on a willing buyer, willing seller basis.
ú Staff recommends which property rights will be
necessary to meet the Department's habitat or access goals.
Also, staff conducts a courthouse search and prepares a
preliminary estimate of value. The results of Phase II are
presented to the Commission in executive session.
Phase III:
ú If there is continued Commission support, the process
proceeds with an appraisal of the property, compliance with
federal aid requirements, and public notice and hearing.
The Attorney General's Office reviews the contracts and
title insurance.
The Commission meets in open session for final discussion
and to vote. Closing occurs after the Commission votes to
approve the acquisition.
Thunderhead is Still Controversial
We heard many questions about the Department's handling of
the Thunderhead acquisition
As a part of our review, we contacted neighboring states for
information about their land acquisition programs. We found
that Wyoming is unique among them in having developed a
computer ranking system for prioritizing potential
acquisitions. For this technical advance, officials in
other states consider the Department an innovator.
However, within our state, we heard many questions and
criticisms about the Department's land acquisition program.
Frequently, these questions involved the 1991 acquisition of
the Thunderhead, Bear Creek, and Mountain Meadow Ranches
(the Thunderhead property). Outstanding by virtue of its
size (28,865 acres) and expense ($7.28 million), this
purchase is still causing controversy more than four years
after its acquisition. Relative to all of the Department's
fee simple acquisitions since 1917, the Thunderhead
acquisition represents 17 percent of the total acreage and
48 percent of all funds expended.
Concerns about the lands program, and the Thunderhead
acquisition in particular, lead to heated debate during the
1995 legislative session over a bill which would have
required legislative approval of all new acquisitions.
Although the bill was defeated, it appears from our
interviews that an undercurrent of doubt and dissatisfaction
remains. Allegations have been made that the Department
paid too much for the property, and that good business
procedures for obtaining the appraisal were not followed.
Critics also contend that large in-holdings and various
property rights were handed over or negotiated away, too
much of the process occurred in secret, and more.
Supporters of the acquisition counter that Thunderhead is a
prime property and future generations in Wyoming will be
grateful to own it. They see it as crucial winter range for
a large elk herd, supporting multiple wildlife species, and
opening up access to other valuable habitat. The Department
says a certified appraiser determined fair market value and
staff followed standard, acceptable procedures during
contract negotiations.
In the following findings, we discuss aspects of the
Thunderhead transaction and point out some deficiencies in
the acquisition process. Our purpose, however, was not to
look solely at one contentious acquisition, or to settle
disagreements about it, but to examine the Department's
overall process for acquiring land. Since 1917, the
Department has consistently acquired relatively small, non-
controversial properties.
Considered in this context, the Thunderhead acquisition
emphasizes the importance of having good procedures and
adhering to them, regardless of the size of a project. A
stronger process could improve public confidence in future
land acquisitions.
Finding 1: The Land Program Could Benefit From
Improved Oversight and Direction
The Game and Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service are the primary sources of program oversight
Two entities oversee the Department's land acquisition
program: the Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). However, neither provides comprehensive
oversight or direction. The Commission has not established
a purpose and expectations for the program, and the USFWS
does not provide comprehensive, detailed reviews of each
transaction.
Without goals to guide the Department and without these
elements of oversight, the Commission risks purchasing
properties which do not meet their needs. Citizens also
lack assurance that Department acquisitions are made in the
best public interest.
Existing Oversight Mechanisms
Game and Fish Commission. The Department operates as a
relatively autonomous agency, and is not required to obtain
legislative approval for each proposed acquisition. Thus,
the Commission provides the primary source of guidance over
program activities. However, the Commission has not
formally adopted goals for the program, to give the staff
direction. According to the Land Trust Alliance, a national
land conservation coalition which helps establish community
land trusts, everyone connected with the program should have
a similar understanding of the organization's goals.
We found that direction for the program is not well defined
and is not mutually understood by the Department and the
Commission. The current acquisition program appears to be
driven not so much by goals, as by the availability of
funding. The present system allows the Department to spend
up to their budget authorization for land acquisition,
without having a long-term strategy for what the funds
should accomplish.
The Commissioners and many Department staff stated they were
not aware of any established goals for the program. One
Commissioner stated, "We need to seriously ask ourselves why
we are buying the land, and what we hope to achieve through
the program." Another Commissioner said, "We get so caught
up in the process that we haven't thought about why we're
doing it."
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The USFWS oversees the
Department's expenditure of federal funds received from
excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment. This federal
agency has allowed the Department to use the Comprehensive
Planning Option, and to operate on a five-year planning
cycle to account for the expenditure of federal funds,
rather than a project-by-project approach.
States which account for funds in this manner must
demonstrate that they have a strong process, and the USFWS
expects them to regulate themselves. Federal wildlife
officials allow very few states to operate with this much
autonomy.
Consequently, the USFWS plays a limited oversight role.
Thus, the USFWS approves the Department's acquisition
process, rather than every element of land transactions.
Consequently, not every land acquisition receives a federal
review. In 1993, the USFWS conducted a field review of
recently purchased Department acquisitions. Federal
wildlife officials said this effort consisted of a
biological site review of Department properties, not a
comprehensive review of the Department's land acquisition
process.
Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office
contributes to the process by reviewing the legal documents
associated with Department land acquisitions. Staff at the
Attorney General's Office noted they review documents for
legal sufficiency, and do not comment on the merits of a
transaction.
The Commission Has Not Taken a Leadership Role in the
Acquisition Program
Governing bodies must have accurate and sufficient
information on which to base decisions.
Since the Department operates under a Comprehensive Planning
Option with the USFWS, that agency does not provide regular,
day-to-day oversight for the land acquisition program. As a
result, more responsibility for oversight rests with the
Commission; its role as a policy and final decision maker is
an important one. However, we found the Commission has not
taken the lead in overseeing the land acquisition program.
In part, this may be due to a lack of information.
Because Commissioners are part-time appointees, they must
necessarily delegate a great deal of authority and
responsibility to the professional staff. Generally, staff
provide little or no written analysis of projects to the
Commission. Typically, staff prepares a short summary of
previous Commission actions on a project, but relies more
heavily on verbal briefings or updates during executive
session.
To fulfill management responsibilities, the Land Trust
Alliance Standards and Practices Guidebook states that
governing bodies must have accurate and sufficient
information on which to base decisions. The Commission has
not directed staff to provide detailed, written reports on
the properties under consideration. Many Commissioners said
they did not receive enough information from the Department
to make informed decisions, and noted they did not have
sufficient time to review transaction materials they were
given. A Commissioner stated, "I wouldn't be comfortable
making decisions for my business based on the information
I'm given to make decisions for Game and Fish."
The Commission Needs More Information to Evaluate
Acquisitions
The Commission lacks a system for obtaining enough
information to enable members to make informed decisions.
The Commission lacks a system for obtaining enough
information to enable members to make informed decisions
about potential acquisitions, and to evaluate the
performance of existing properties. Specifically,
Commissioners believe they need more information about:
ú The WLUMP process. Most Commissioners were not very
familiar with the WLUMP process, and several wanted to know
more about the assumptions which went into the system's
design. Commissioners also had questions about how
Department officials decide which of the many properties in
the top one-third of WLUMP to bring before them.
ú Future management plans. Commissioners wanted to know
more about how the Department planned to manage the property
in the future to meet intended objectives.
ú Long-term maintenance costs. Commissioners noted that
the costs of maintaining Department properties can be much
higher than the initial purchase price. However, they said
staff rarely provide cost estimates for managing the
property in the future.
ú Pros and cons of each property. Many of the
Commissioners did not believe the Department routinely
provides information about the potential disadvantages of a
project.
ú Performance of properties after purchase. Several
Commissioners wanted to know how Department properties are
contributing to the goals they were purchased to achieve.
One Commissioner stated, "Once the Department purchases a
piece of property we never hear about it again."
Reporting System Needed. According to the Land Trust
Alliance, it is critical to maintain a reporting system to
assure the regular flow of information, to aid decision
makers in fulfilling their management responsibilities in a
fully informed manner. The USFWS established federal aid
guidelines to help evaluate potential acquisitions.
Similarly, the Commission could require information from
Department staff which would:
ú Clearly identify the need for the action.
ú Define objectives for the property, stated in
quantitative terms.
ú Estimate the potential costs and benefits. Costs
should include initial and ongoing maintenance costs.
ú Determine potential threats to the habitat which
necessitate Commission action.
ú Establish alternative methods of meeting habitat
objectives, and consider the consequences of each
alternative.
Describe conceptual management strategies for the property.
Recommendation: The Department should provide more
comprehensive information to support effective Commission
oversight.
Long-term goals and improved reporting are needed to ensure
improved Commission oversight and better program
performance.
The Commission needs to firmly set in place a purpose for
the land acquisition program. To ensure that it is
fulfilling its oversight responsibilities in a fully
informed and competent manner, the Commission should, in
consultation with the Department, establish a direction for
the program. The Department should also establish a system
for gathering information and reporting on performance to
the Commission.
The Commission can establish the direction for the program
by developing written long-term goals. Guided by the
Commission's goals, the Department should complete a
comprehensive, statewide evaluation of habitat and access
needs, identifying general habitat protection and public
access priorities in each region.
The Department should routinely provide Commissioners with a
wide range of information about each potential transaction.
In addition to the items suggested by the USFWS model, the
Commission should have the WLUMP score and rank, the
appraisal, contracts, and draft management options at hand.
This information will help the Commission ensure that
properties acquired meet stated goals and priorities, in
addition to achieving a high rank through the WLUMP process.
The Department should report annually to the Commission on
each property in its portfolio, regarding how objectives for
each property are being met. In the late 1980s, the
Department used the WLUMP and WRAEP systems to evaluate its
entire land portfolio to identify property that was no
longer meeting its land management objectives. Several
parcels were designated as surplus and sold. The Department
should periodically re-rank current Commission holdings
through the WLUMP system, to aid the Commission in
determining the relative value of each of its holdings.
These procedures will help Commissioners establish the
program's direction for the future.
Finding 2: Land Selection Procedures Could Benefit
From a Comprehensive Review
The Department's land selection systems, known as WLUMP and
WRAEP, have not undergone a comprehensive review since their
development in the mid 1980s. Although many Department
officials believe these systems have been helpful in
providing an objective basis for land acquisition decisions,
others have questions. Several individuals we spoke with,
including Department staff and Commissioners, were unclear
about these systems' operations and their underlying
assumptions, referring to them as "black boxes."
Additionally, our review showed that the following
weaknesses exist in the current operations of the WLUMP and
WRAEP systems. We believe the problems are significant
because they tend to undermine confidence in these important
systems.
Internal Control Systems are Lacking
The Department lacked sufficient internal controls to ensure
the reliability and accuracy of data entered into WLUMP and
WRAEP.
We found the Department could benefit from a stronger data
verification process. The Department does not have the
strong internal controls necessary to ensure the reliability
and accuracy of the data entered into the WLUMP and WRAEP
systems. Good management practices require public officials
to establish effective systems to ensure that organizational
goals and objectives are being carried out. In this case,
the Department's objective is to acquire those property
rights critical to sustain wildlife populations, and to
provide public access and recreation.
During our review of acquisition records, we found no
documentary evidence to indicate that data entered into the
WLUMP and WRAEP systems is reviewed to ensure accuracy.
Although supervisory personnel explained this information is
reviewed informally, we believe a more formal system is
needed. Moreover, the lack of clearly documented reviews
pose a risk that faulty data could lead to inaccurate scores
and rankings and inappropriate decisions concerning
properties might be pursued. For example, several staff
told us the Department has experienced problems with some of
the fisheries data. Specifically, they found the current
system automatically assigns zero values to all blank
spaces. Thus, scores and ranks can be thrown off.
According to one manager, this problem went unnoticed for a
couple of years.
Our review also indicated field staff have been an
overlooked resource for the review of WLUMP and WRAEP scores
and ranks. In the past, the Department has not requested
feedback from field staff about this information. Most
field staff we talked with told us they were not provided
with sufficient information to determine if scores and ranks
were accurate. They said they were only given a total
score and rank, not information detailing how scores and
ranks were calculated. Department staff indicated more
detailed information has been provided to field staff in
recent acquisitions, through the use of regional team
reviews. We encourage this practice for future
acquisitions.
Property Ranking System is Problematic
The Department uses a relative ranking system to determine
which of the currently available properties should be
considered for acquisition.
The Department does not require that properties receive an
absolute minimum score before considering them for
acquisition. Rather, the Department uses a relative ranking
system to determine which of the currently available
properties should be considered for acquisition.
WLUMP and WRAEP were designed to evaluate, score, rank, and
prioritize proposed properties. The two systems start by
scoring a property based on habitat and access values.
Total scores are converted into a per mile score to evaluate
large properties against smaller ones. The scores are then
compared to other previously scored properties in the group
of potential acquisitions at that time. Thus, the WLUMP and
WRAEP ranks are relative.
The pool or universe against which a proposed property is
comparatively ranked is constantly changing. Properties are
added to the systems as they are proposed for acquisition.
Similarly, properties which rank too low, which are not
available for purchase, or which have been purchased, are
removed from the systems at irregular intervals. Thus, the
size of the universe is constantly fluctuating. The highest
number of properties we identified in the universe was 3,660
in January 1992. In early January 1996, the universe was
104.
The fluctuating size of the universe, coupled with the
differing qualities of properties in the universe, can
affect whether a proposed property ranks high enough to be
considered for acquisition. For example, we found that the
first time one particular property was ranked by WRAEP, it
ranked in the middle one-third of all properties that were
available for access. Thus, it was not considered for
acquisition. When the same property was ranked by WRAEP two
years later, it ranked in the top one-third of all available
properties for access. The change in rank was attributed to
the property being ranked against a different pool of
properties. The quality of the property had not
significantly changed between rankings. Game and Fish
acquired this property based on the second ranking.
We also identified a property which was acquired based on
its rank in the upper one-third of all available properties
for access; it later ranked in the middle one-third. Again,
the quality of the property did not change; the quality of
properties it was ranked against did.
The Department's relative ranking system does not ensure
that properties meet an objective minimum standard before
they are considered for acquisition.
There are disadvantages to using the current system to
decide which properties are worth acquiring. The
Department's relative ranking system does not ensure that
properties meet an objective minimum standard before they
are considered for acquisition. Rather, the system forces a
selection from the best properties proposed at any one time,
regardless of the objective quality of the properties.
Thus, depending on the quality of properties in the
comparative universe at the time, Game and Fish might be
selecting from the best of the worst properties available.
Conversely, it could be selecting from among the best of the
best properties available at the time.
One means of reducing these risks would be for the
Department to set a minimum numerical score below which a
property, even though in the top one-third, would not be
pursued. The Department could consider establishing a
minimum score based upon the scores of properties it already
owns. Also, the Department could maintain a larger
comparative universe. By increasing the size of the
comparative universe, the Department is more likely to
eliminate the risk of properties' ranks significantly
changing.
Recommendation: The Department should conduct a
comprehensive review of its WLUMP and WRAEP systems.
Although a Department TQM Access Committee is already
reviewing WLUMP and WRAEP systems, we believe this is a good
time for an even more comprehensive review by a broader
range of professionals from within and outside the
Department. Game and Fish is to be commended for putting
these systems in place to provide an objective basis for
land acquisition decisions. However, after nearly a decade
of operating without significant updating, these systems are
due for a comprehensive review.
A review could help pinpoint system weaknesses, such as the
need for supervisory review of data input. A review team
might consist of a variety of professionals, including
internal experts on WLUMP and WRAEP and contractors in such
fields as statistics and information systems development.
Insights for improvements could be important in helping the
Department increase confidence in the validity of its land
selection process. For example, the review team might
recommend criteria to guide staff when deleting properties
from the ranking universe. Finally, to enhance confidence
in this important program, we encourage the Department to
take this opportunity to make changes that are easily
understood and clearly supported by its stake holders.
Finding 3: Stronger Appraisal Procedures are Needed to
Improve Fiscal Responsibility
Background and Description
A solid appraisal report can stand up to critical and legal
scrutiny
An appraisal is a written statement, independently prepared
by an impartial appraiser, stating an opinion of property
value that is supported by an analysis of market
information. According to professional literature, an
appraisal by a qualified appraiser is the surest, most
credible way to determine a property's fair market value. A
solid appraisal report can stand up to critical and legal
scrutiny and can convince a skeptical reader that it
represents a fair evaluation of the property.
We reviewed appraisal records for the Department's fee
simple land transactions since 1987, the year the Department
implemented its WLUMP priority ranking system. This sample
consisted of 29 transactions, including acquisitions by
purchase and donation, sales of surplus property, and land
exchanges (Appendix C). In total, these transactions
increased the Department's land portfolio by 46,810 acres at
a net cost of $8.77 million. The median size and cost of
the parcels involved was 78 acres and $3,000. The largest
transaction was the 1991 acquisition of the Thunderhead
property, which added 28,865 acres and cost $7.28 million.
Appraisal Program is in Need of Change
Documentation and procedural problems have resulted in
questions about the fairness of some valuations.
Our review showed the Department has not sufficiently
documented the evidence which supports the purchase price of
all its land acquisitions. We found the Department either
conducted or contracted for appraisals in most land
transactions. However, documentation and procedural
problems have resulted in questions about the fairness of
some valuations. We believe it is important for the
Department to strengthen its appraisal procedures to show
improved fiscal responsibility.
Based on our assessment of the Department's appraisal
program, we identified three problem areas: first, the
Department has inconsistent standards for in-house and
contract appraisers; second, some Department appraisals were
not reviewed by an independent qualified reviewing
appraiser; and third, the Department does not have formal
procedures in place to control and instruct contract
appraisers. We discuss each of these problems in the
following sections.
Inconsistent Appraiser Standards
Stronger appraisal procedures could improve public
confidence in the Department's land acquisitions.
Following the national savings and loan crisis of the mid-
1980s, Congress enacted legislation requiring the licensing
or certification of real estate appraisers in all states.
In 1989, the Wyoming Legislature opted for a voluntary
system of appraiser certification which became effective on
July 1, 1991. Although the Legislature allowed non-
certified appraisers to continue to practice in the state,
federal requirements bar them from participation in
transactions involving federal funds. It is important to
note that in practice, the Department uses federal funds in
most lands transactions.
Department officials told us they hire only certified
appraisers as contractors for their land acquisitions
involving federal funds. However, they do not apply this
same standard to staff, even though in-house appraisers
conduct most of the Department's appraisals. The Department
has encouraged its staff to become certified, but has not
made this a requirement. At the time of our review, two
Department staff were responsible for appraisal work. Both
had experience and training, but one had not achieved state
certification in the more than four years since the
implementation of certification in 1991.
We contacted wildlife officials in Wyoming's six neighboring
states to see how they handled the question of staff
certification. All of these states acquire land for
wildlife and access. They reported the following:
ú Officials from three states, Idaho, South Dakota, and
Utah, told us they did not use in-house appraisers to value
land they purchased.
ú In prior years, Utah used staff appraisers but
discontinued this practice due to a perception of a lack of
objectivity.
ú Nebraska officials told us they use both contract and
staff appraisers, but all of its in-house appraisers are
state certified.
ú Only Colorado and Montana permitted uncertified staff
to conduct appraisals; however, Colorado's uncertified staff
appraisers were limited to valuing parcels worth under
$100,000.
In summary, of the six neighboring states, four use only
private appraisal contractors or certified staff, one allows
uncertified staff to appraise minor properties, and one
placed no restrictions on its uncertified staff.
Appraisal Reviews Were Lacking
We found no evidence of appraisal review in several of the
files we examined.
Congress has authorized professional appraisal standards to
be issued as Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP).
These standards require organizations to have an appraisal
review process. To ensure the adequacy and appropriateness
of an appraisal report, reviews must be conducted by a
competent and qualified appraiser. Reviewers are
responsible for verifying the soundness of the original
appraiser's logic, methodology, and supporting market
information.
We found no evidence of appraisal review in several files we
examined, including the Department's largest acquisition,
the $7.28 million Thunderhead property. The official in
charge told us he reviewed the contractor's work, discussed
it with supervisory personnel, and noted no problems. The
official could not recall if he had documented his review.
In other cases we reviewed, both the appraisal and appraisal
review were conducted in-house. In one of these instances,
we determined that the Department's uncertified appraiser
served as appraisal reviewer. This was a 1992 land swap
where the Department deeded 787 acres of land it owned for
an access easement on 3,514 acres of privately held land and
paid the owner $8,000 for a Department determined difference
in value.
We discussed appraisal review practices with land
acquisition personnel in neighboring states. Officials in
four of the six states contacted, including Montana, South
Dakota, Nebraska, and Utah, told us they require an
independent appraisal review by a qualified contractor or
another government agency prior to accepting an appraisal.
Colorado and Idaho officials described informal review
processes.
Department personnel told us they have no written policy
establishing minimum qualifications for appraisers or
appraisal reviewers. Additionally, they defended the
coupling of appraisers and reviewers within the Department
as a common industry practice. Other states, however, have
chosen to avoid the potential for a perceived conflict-of-
interest in the appraisal review process. They have done so
by hiring qualified independent contractors to review all in-
house appraisals.
Instruction Procedures Are Needed
A professional appraisal reviewer for a major financial
institution informed us instructions are a critical part of
the appraisal process. Client-issued instructions identify
the exact real estate and the property interests being
appraised. They also guide the appraiser by determining the
purpose and intended use of the appraisal. To avoid
potential pressure on appraisers, the professional reviewer
explained it would not be considered good practice for a
buyer to accept a seller's appraisal.
Land acquisition officials in all six of Wyoming's
neighboring states told us they provide their contract
appraisers with written instructions, at least part of the
time. South Dakota and Colorado officials told us they
include instructions in signed contracts for appraisal
services. Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, and Montana officials
described informal systems in which they give contractors
written instructions, but the instructions are not always
included in appraisal contracts.
A Department administrator told us the Department allows
landowners to select and instruct contract appraisers, with
the stipulation that the appraiser has to be certified.
This was the case on the Thunderhead acquisition. Officials
acknowledged that one of the property's owners hired and
instructed the certified appraiser who prepared the
appraisal on this property. Department personnel told us
they had no direct contact with the appraiser.
Others Have Expressed Concerns
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended "a more
professional approach to the appraisal process."
Concerns about the Department's appraisal practices are not
new. In 1989, during a federal aid review, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service evaluators noted "a more professional
approach to the appraisal process and increased attention to
federal laws, rules, and regulations is recommended for
future real property acquisitions with federal aid funds."
Although the Department reported making some changes to
their appraisal procedures, we found ongoing problems.
Additionally, there were no indications of follow-up by the
federal officials who made this recommendation, nor did we
find evidence of any further direct review of the
Department's appraisal program.
We talked individually with each of the seven Game and Fish
Commissioners about the Department's land acquisition
program and specifically about real estate appraisals.
Although most of the Commissioners said they were unfamiliar
with details of the appraisal process, several noted
general concerns. As one Commissioner put it, "I think the
entire appraisal process has problems, but I don't know
enough about it to place my finger on it." Three
Commissioners had particular concerns with the Thunderhead
appraisal. We believe this lack of confidence, together
with the appraisal problems noted earlier, are sufficient
reasons for to Department to develop and implement stronger
appraisal procedures.
Recommendation: The Department should strengthen its real
estate appraisal procedures.
The Department could take a variety of actions to improve
its appraisal program.
There are a variety of actions the Department could take to
improve its appraisal program. First, we believe the
Department should develop a draft policy for the
Commission's consideration, outlining the minimum
qualifications for appraisers and appraisal reviewers. Such
a policy should apply to both in-house and contract
appraisers.
Second, the Department and Commission should consider
requiring an independent appraisal review by a qualified
individual for transactions which exceed a certain defined
dollar threshold. This could be accomplished by an hiring a
contractor or by a cooperative agreement with another
government agency, such as the Department of Transportation
or the USFWS.
Third, the Department needs to develop formal procedures to
control and instruct contract appraisers. Other states have
accomplished this by issuing written instructions in letters
or by including them in contracts with private appraisers.
Finding 4: Stronger Documentation is Needed to Minimize
Doubts About Land Purchases
Without a clear, documented project selection process, an
agency risks becoming bogged down with internal conflicts,
difficult land management issues, or public criticism.
The Department has not maintained sufficient written
documentation to support its assertion that selection
criteria and procedures are consistently adhered to. Had we
found complete documentation during our review of files, we
might have been able to state with more confidence that the
Department routinely follows a standard selection and
acquisition process. Because many files lacked important
evidence, we cannot make that assurance and Game and Fish
cannot justify or defend with confidence the necessity of
all its acquisitions.
According to the Land Trust Alliance, agencies should
develop a well-defined process and establish criteria to
ensure that the projects they select are sound, viable, and
are consistent with the agency's mission. Selection
criteria are guidelines used to determine whether a project
meets minimum acceptable standards that qualify the property
for the agency's consideration. This should be one of the
first steps in the selection process. A selection process
is an established set of steps to be followed and
information to be gathered when handling a project from
beginning to end.
Without a clear, documented project selection process, an
agency risks becoming bogged down with internal conflicts,
difficult land management issues, or public criticism. It
also risks accepting projects which do not make wise use of
its finances or which do not significantly further its
goals.
Acquisition Decisions Are Not Always Supported By Enough
Documentation
The Department can defend the merits of its acquisitions by
documenting adherence to prescribed practices.
Although some files were well documented, this was not true
for most files and we cannot confirm that staff have
routinely been following the selection criteria and process.
We reviewed the Department's 29 fee simple property
transactions from the implementation of WLUMP in 1987 to the
present. Also, we interviewed Department personnel familiar
with the land acquisition process.
Selection Criteria. Only 14 of the 29 files had
documentation indicating the property had been scored or
ranked by WLUMP or WRAEP prior to acquisition. Only 9 of the
29 files included the actual WLUMP or WRAEP rank. Although
all 9 ranked in the top one-third for either habitat or
access, there was no evidence of a ranking for the remaining
20 properties. Without written documentation, we could not
determine whether the Department complied with the
Commission's policy of only acquiring properties that rank
in the top one-third for either habitat or access.
Overall Selection Process. The Department has developed a
checklist to record its actions throughout the process.
However, these checklists were not regularly included in the
files. Without this, or similar documentation, it is
difficult to determine whether the Lands Administration
staff followed prescribed steps on each transaction. Many
field staff we interviewed said they were not heavily
involved or well informed during the acquisition process and
thus, were unable to comment on whether procedures were
consistently followed.
Lack of Documentation Controls. Although the Department has
developed selection criteria and a selection process, as
well as forms and checklists to support them, it does not
have controls in place to ensure staff follow them. Program
staff told us they had improved their process as a result of
the Thunderhead acquisition, but files did not contain
evidence to support this assertion.
Absent documentation, it is impossible to determine whether
the selection criteria and process were regularly followed.
Consequently, the Department leaves its program and the
process open to criticism. It cannot demonstrate that each
acquisition was selected on its merits and was acquired
using the designated process.
Recommendation: The Department should more fully document
use of selection criteria and process.
The Commission and Department have demonstrated they
recognize the value of having selection criteria and a
selection process. While they should be commended for
developing these standards, the Department needs to develop
controls to ensure that staff adhere to the standards. In
addition, staff need to improve their documentation
practices. This is not simply a paperwork exercise.
Standardized, complete documentation of adherence to
prescribed practices can be a tool for the Department in
demonstrating the merits of each acquisition.
Finding 5: Budget Constraints Call For Considering Other
Acquisition Methods
The Department has done relatively little in the area of
conservation easements.
Historically, the Department's land acquisition emphasis has
been primarily on fee simple purchases. From 1987 to 1995,
it spent $8,773,905 for such acquisitions. The Department
purchases easements for road right-of-ways, parking, public
access, and conservation purposes. By contrast, during the
same nine-year period, the Department spent only $524,420 to
purchase easements.
Because the Commission has cut program funding severely, the
Department needs to seek out other less expensive means than
fee simple purchases for controlling property and property
rights.
Conservation Easements Not Widely Used
One alternative which has not been heavily used is
conservation easements. Since 1988, the Department has
purchased three conservation easements totaling 8,300 acres.
With conservation easements, a landowner limits (without
relinquishing ownership) the development of property, and
grants the right to conserve the natural resources, open
space, or habitat values.
Fee Simple. Fee simple ownership has both advantages and
disadvantages when compared to purchasing easements. On the
one hand, ownership is clearly established. Owned lands may
be easier to manage since the Department avoids potential
conflict down the road with second or third owners who may
not like restrictions that came with the land. On the other
hand, fee simple is usually the most expensive option in
terms of purchase price, long term maintenance costs, and
property taxes (or payments in lieu of taxes) paid. Also,
it can give rise to perceptions of empire building and
questions about the propriety of public ownership of land.
Conservation Easements. Compared to fee simple
acquisitions, conservation easements usually cost less to
purchase. Depending on land values in the area, a
conservation easement may save as much as 80 percent of the
fee simple cost. Conservation easements offer certain
advantages to the Department, such as the private owner's
presence on the land as a long-term steward, and willingness
to monitor for trespass. The landowner benefits by being
able to keep the land, and may reap long-term tax benefits.
However, easements may not always be a strong enough tool to
reasonably ensure the long-term protection of the property's
resources. Also, it can be difficult to acquire conservation
easements. Idaho's Department of Fish and Game told us many
landowners want to maximize their profits when selling and
don't want to put up with a lot of restrictions. Landowners
often do not want to contend with the volume of people who
will use the land once it is opened for public access.
Legal Challenges
There are questions about how the Department will monitor
and enforce easements.
Complicated management and enforcement difficulties can be
associated with conservation and access easements.
Currently, the Department is party to a lawsuit concerning
its 50 foot easements on both sides of the Wind River in
Fremont County. The easements were originally negotiated in
the 1960s, but since that time, much of the area has been
subdivided. New landowners have built decks and buildings
which the Department views as encroachments on its
easements. This matter raises questions about how the
Department will monitor and enforce easements. Until this
precedent-setting case is decided, the Department may be
reluctant to pursue more easements.
Other Methods Could Be Emphasized
Several staff and Commissioners told us in order to have an
effective lands acquisition program, it is necessary to have
an annual budget of several million dollars. If purchasing
fee title ownership continues to be the Department's primary
focus, this is probably correct. However, since funding and
legal obstacles exist with respect to the purchase of new
lands and easements, other alternatives for action need to
be more fully developed.
It is important that the Department match biological and
recreational values with property rights and acquire only
those property rights necessary to meet habitat and access
objectives. Options which suit this approach, but which
have not been fully developed, include not only conservation
easements, but also partnerships and management agreements
with private landowners. Coalitions can be formed for
making purchases, and management agreements with other
organizations and agencies can be entered into. Other
states' experiences can be a model for the Department.
ú South Carolina joined a coalition with the Nature
Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to protect and conserve Ace Basin, a large area with
diverse and valuable wildlife and aquatic habitat.
ú South Dakota's department went to a number of nonprofit
organizations (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks
Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and others) and asked for
their help acquiring land. For the past four to five years,
they told us, every land purchase made has involved other
groups' funds.
Acquiring crucial habitat and expanded access can remain the
top priorities for the Services Division. However, without
a new focus and plan for accomplishing these objectives,
this important program could languish. If the Division were
to become less active, or focus exclusively on acquiring
road rights-of-way while waiting for the Commission to
allocate more funding, opportunities to acquire an interest
in important habitat might slip by.
Recommendation: The Commission should consider emphasizing
alternatives to fee simple acquisitions.
Decreased funding calls for a departure from the traditional
ways of doing business.
Sharply decreased funding for land acquisition calls for a
departure from the Division's traditional ways of doing
business. Instead of focusing on purchases, the Commission
needs to make it clear the Department will go after the
least restrictive, most cost-effective means of acquiring an
interest in critical land.
A Commission policy supporting alternative ways of acquiring
influence over wildlife habitat areas could establish new
objectives for the program. The policy would direct staff
to work to obtain influence over critical land by means in
addition to fee title purchase. Such a message would set a
new tone for the program and send a message of openness and
cooperation to potential partners.
Conclusion
Building on existing strengths can help preserve an
important program.
The Game and Fish Department's lands program is changing
because of budget cuts and public pressure. Decreased
funding dictates that the Department, at least for the
present, not be in the business of buying multi-million
dollar properties. The public is demanding increased access
for hunting and fishing opportunities, yet at the same time,
some continue to voice dissatisfaction over the Thunderhead
acquisition. Given these pressures, the status quo is not
an option.
A re-assessment of program purpose and methods is called
for. The Department needs a stronger system to ensure that
future acquisitions help achieve the Commission's goals.
The Commission needs a system to ensure that available funds
are being spent strategically, to accomplish its identified
priorities. These changes should lead to a more effective
and credible land acquisition program, and may help prevent
future problems.
With Commission direction, the Department can make a subtle
but important shift in lands program emphasis. This could
lead to replacing the concept of "acquisitions" (fee title
interest) with different language and approaches. A new,
expanded focus could be on "land in which the Department
acquires an interest."
This focus would encourage cooperative management agreements
with willing landowners. Such agreements could help protect
and enhance wildlife habitats and promote soil and water
conservation, while maintaining lands in agricultural or
timber production, when compatible with those purposes. The
development of multiple goals for desirable properties would
take on a new importance. For example, protecting and
enhancing wildlife habitat while maintaining the economic
productivity of the land would be encouraged.
Regional staff should continue to be responsible for
determining which wildlife habitats are seriously
threatened, and identifying where opportunities exist to
enhance habitat and expand access through partnerships.
However, the Commission's policy could acknowledge that
sometimes the mission of the habitat program can be
effectively and efficiently accomplished with other parties.
The policy would represent a willingness to work with
landowners in flexible and creative ways.
A December 1995 report by the Wildlife Management Institute
made similar recommendations to the Department. It stressed
the importance of working with landowners, not against them.
It recommended establishing an advisory group for each
Commissioner's district, to better frame the issues and
concerns of affected parties. Finally, it recommended
aggressive support for cooperative management programs.
The Division already has in place several elements which
would support this shift in emphasis. Traditionally, the
Department's efforts to preserve wildlife habitat and to
open up access for sports people have involved working with
a wide variety of federal, state, and local governmental
agencies as well as private organizations. Our review of
agency files revealed many instances of negotiation,
cooperation, and informal partnering between Game and Fish
and other agencies and organizations. The Department
already has a landowner outreach and award program which
could be expanded; also, the idea of creating landowner
incentive rewards could be explored. Building on existing
strengths such as these can help preserve an important
program through lean budget years and help it adapt for the
future.
APPENDIX A
Selected Statutes
9-2-1010. Duties of the budget division; biennial
budgets and appropriations.
(a) The department through the budget division shall:
(iii) Consult with each entity which will require
a legislative appropriation either directly or indirectly,
excluding the Wyoming highway and game and fish departments,
in submitting budget estimates or requests for funds, or for
instituting, recording and reporting all financial and
budget transactions of the state.
23-1-103. Ownership of wildlife; purpose of
provisions. For the purpose of this act, all wildlife in
Wyoming is the property of the state. It is the purpose of
this act and the policy of the state to provide an adequate
and flexible system for control, propagation, management,
protection and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife. There
shall be no private ownership of live animals classified in
this act as big or trophy game animals.
23-1-302. Powers and duties.
(a) The commission is directed and empowered:
(iii) To acquire lands and waters in the name of
Wyoming by purchase, lease, agreement, gift or devise, not
including powers of eminent domain, and to develop, improve,
operate, and maintain the same for the following purposes:
(A) Fish hatcheries, rearing ponds, game
farms, and bird farms;
(B) Management of game animals, protected
animals and birds, furbearing animals, game birds, fish, and
their restoration, propagation, or protection;
(C) Public hunting, fishing, or trapping
areas as places where the public may hunt, trap, or fish in
accordance with law.
(iv) To acquire easements and construct suitable
access roads leading to public lands and department lands
and waters acquired pursuant to W.S. 23-1-302(a)(iii);
(v) To sell or exchange land, water, or other
property which is no longer of any practical use to the
commission;
(xi) To enter into cooperative agreements with
federal agencies, corporations, associations, individuals,
and landowners for the development of state control of
wildlife management and demonstration projects;
23-1-502. Financial policy; budget; fiscal year;
debts.
(a) The commission shall govern its financial
policies, subject to the written approval of its budgets by
the governor. The commission shall fix the budgets for the
operation and maintenance of the department and its
divisions for each fiscal year at its first stated meeting
of each fiscal year, and shall submit its budget estimates
for the following fiscal year as provided by W.S. 9-2-1012.
APPENDIX B
Game and Fish Department
Fee Simple Property Inventory by County
County Acres
Albany 6,330
Big Horn 7,746
Campbell 0
Carbon 24,755
Converse 40
Crook 284
Fremont 48,290
Goshen 2,525
Hot Springs 12
Johnson 12,223
Laramie 0
Lincoln 2,173
Natrona 111
Niobrara 0
Park 6,109
Platte 40
Sheridan 8,507
Sublette 9,395
Sweetwater 35,395
Teton 1,557
Uinta 0
Washakie 464
Weston 0
Totals 165,953
Source: Game and Fish Department
APPENDIX C
Game and Fish Department
Fee Simple Property Transactions 1987-1995
File Review Summary
# Property Unit Year Acres Cost ($)
1 North Platte River, DLS 1987 82.83 0.00
2 East Allen Lake 1987 2.00 291.71
3 Gelatt Lake 1987 197.40 28,792.76
4 Meeboer Lake 1987 143.40 20,916.32
5 North Platte River, 1987 (50.00) 0.00
Pick Bridge
6 North Platte River, 1987 50.00 0.00
Pick Bridge
7 Wick Brothers 1988 1,374.89 495,000.00
8 Laramie Peak 1988 (5,328.81) 0.00
9 North Platte River 1989 2.63 5,000.00
10 Big Horn River 1990 12.00 120,000.00
11 Sheep Mountain 1990 949.74 342,000.00
12 Story Fish Hatchery 1990 92.10 172,688.00
13 North Platte River, 1990 2.88 3,000.00
Ft. Steele
14 Story Fish Hatchery 1990 (10.00) 0.00
15 Ocean Lake 1991 (5.20) (8,360.00)
16 Red Rim 1991 10,253.00 343,120.00
17 Red Rim 1991 4,962.00 166,055.00
18 Cow Creek Mountain 1991 683.00 130,000.00
19 Thunderhead 1991 28,865.00 7,279,355.00
20 Grey's River 1992 (46.25) (55,500.00)
21 Miles 1992 (787.44) 0.00
22 Sunshine Ranch 1992 4,500.00 0.00
23 Grey's River 1992 (31.68) (38,000.00)
24 Grey's River 1992 (65.84) (377,000.00)
25 Harnett Public Access 1992 7.51 0.00
26 Springer 1993 231.14 90,000.00
27 Thunderhead 1993 440.00 36,000.00
28 North Platte River, 1994 205.46 20,546.00
Rochelle, Ft. Steele
29 Rawhide Unit 1995 78.07 0.00
Total 46,809.83 $8,773,904.79
Source: Game and Fish Department
Recent Program Evaluations
Wyoming Law Enforcement October
1989
Commission on Aging January
1990
Personnel System November
1990
Link Deposit Program
February 1991
Wyoming State Hospital December
1991
Economic Development
October 1992
Community Corrections Facilities
December 1992
A&I Purchasing June 1993
Public Defender Office
November 1993
JJDP Program November
1993
Wyoming Water Development Commission
January 1994
Ad Valorem Tax System February
1994
Health Care Facilities Licensure and Certification
June 1994
State Employees' and Officials' Group Insurance
October 1994
Tax Enforcement in Wyoming May
1995
Facilities Management
October 1995
Youth Treatment Center November
1995
Evaluation reports can be obtained from the Legislative
Service Office, 213 Capitol Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming
82002, 307/777-7881.
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)