Federal Reports

The OIG investigated an allegation that a National Park Service (NPS) biologist had coerced at least two interns into having a sexual relationship, and that the biologist misused his position to lead interns to believe he could influence their chances of gaining employment at the NPS.We found no evidence that the biologist manipulated any NPS interns, or that he misused his position. We determined that the biologist had a personal relationship with one former intern, but the intern was not an NPS employee at the time and the relationship did not violate any NPS policies. The biologist and former intern ended their relationship and the former intern is now an NPS employee. We found no evidence, however, that the biologist influenced the former intern’s selection for Federal employment.

We completed our work for the second part of our series evaluating the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR’s) operational and technical practices for protecting hydropower dams categorized as critical infrastructure from emerging cyber threats. The second part of this evaluation was limited to another USBR industrial control system that provides monitoring, alarming, and process control to ensure the safe and reliable operations of the water and power facilities for another dam. We determined that additional efforts on this project are not needed. Further, the recommendations in our first report in this series – to improve the USBR’s account management and personnel security practices – apply to all of USBR’s hydropower dams.

At the request of the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), we audited Cooperative Agreement No. R16AC00087 between the USBR and the Panoche Drainage District. This agreement was awarded under the statutory authority of the San Luis Act of 1960 (Pub. L. No. 86-488 § 5) to fund operation and maintenance of the San Luis Demonstration Treatment Plant (Demo-Plant) located in the San Luis Unit of California’s Central Valley Project. The purpose of the Demo-Plant is to remove salts and selenium from agricultural drain water in the San Joaquin River Water Quality Improvement Project area. The period of performance for this agreement is June 14, 2016, through December 31, 2018.As of October 10, 2017, the original agreement had been modified three times and amounted to $4.38 million. Of this amount, the USBR had paid $1.23 million to the District. We audited $772,974 in costs claimed by the District for the period June 14, 2016, through May 4, 2017. We identified $20,077 as unsupported and $193,814 as unallowable for a total of $213,891 in questioned costs.In addition to the questioned costs, we identified other issues with the District’s management of the cooperative agreement. Specifically, we found missing and unacceptable single audits, unreliable financial records, an absence of clearly written accounting policies and procedures, personal use of District-owned vehicles, questionable employee qualifications, and questionable wage rates.We made 22 recommendations to the USBR to resolve questioned costs and to communicate the other issues we identified to the District. The Acting USBR Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Water and Science responded to our draft report on May 9, 2018, and concurred with our recommendations. Based on the USBR’s response, however, we consider Recommendations 1 through 17 to be unresolved and not implemented and Recommendations 18 through 22 to be resolved and not implemented.We will refer the recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for resolution and implementation tracking.

We audited the Joint Programs of the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes of the Wind River Reservation’s Tribal Transportation Agreement (Agreement No. A13AP00014) with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to determine whether: 1) the costs claimed by the Wind River Tribes were allowable, allocable, and reasonable according to applicable Federal laws and regulations and BIA guidelines; and 2) the BIA oversaw the agreement in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations and BIA guidelines.We determined costs claimed by the Wind River Tribes on their Tribal Transportation Program were not allocable to Agreement No. A13P00014. This occurred because the Tribes’ accounting system and procedures are not configured to manage Federal funds.As a result, the Wind River Tribes could not support expenses claimed on Agreement No. A13AP00014. We question $6.2 million in costs claimed by the Wind River Tribes—specifically, $3.6 million in unapproved capital expenditures, $2.6 million in indirect costs claimed without an approved indirect cost rate, and $7,422 in unallowable costs.In addition, we determined the BIA did not oversee the agreement in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations and BIA guidelines. This occurred because BIA management overseeing the Tribes’ transportation program did not provide staff with sufficient training to fulfill their responsibility to provide oversight and administration to the Tribes since 2013.We made 11 recommendations to help the BIA oversee the Wind River Tribes’ transportation program and resolve questioned costs.

Seek link below for the full report, report summary, multimedia or any agency follow-up.