PART Qs _ Section Scoring

Document Sample
PART Qs _ Section Scoring Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                   OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
                                                                                   Direct Federal Programs

Name of Program:           PARTNERS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE
Section I: Program Purpose & Design (Yes,No, N/A)
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Weighted
       Questions             Ans.                                Explanation                                                                Evidence/Data                                   Weighting    Score
1 Is the program purpose     Yes    The Partners program purpose is to provide technical and financial             Legislation: Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 gives the Service               20%         0.2
  clear?                            assistance to private landowners who voluntarily wish to restore fish          general authority to conduct fish and wildlife projects, FWS
                                    and wildlife habitat on their lands. Fish and wildlife habitat restoration     Policy: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Fish and Wildlife
                                    projects are limited to habitat for Federal trust species by law. There        Service Manual Chapters (interim operating draft since 1997)
                                    is no specific legislative declared purpose for the Partners Program           (Chapters 640 FW 1, 504 FW 1, 504 FW 2, 504 FW 4, 504 FW 5,
                                    (the program is authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956);           504 FW 10) . Federal Trust Species: A wide range of federal
                                    however, the program's purpose, as described in Partners' program              legislation and executive orders provide the Service with principal
                                    policies, has consensus among interested parties. The program                  trust responsibility to protect and conserve migratory birds,
                                    purpose is not to acquire interests in the land but to facilitate private      threatened and endangered species, certain marine mammals,
                                    land treatments that have a durable impact on Federal trust fish and           and inter-jurisdictional fisheries (see authorizing statutes pages 26-
                                    wildlife species.                                                              34 of FY2003 budget justification). Solicitor's Opinion on
                                                                                                                   Private Lands: May 29, 1996 Memo from Director to Directorate
                                                                                                                   transmitting to the field the Solicitor's Opinion on authorities
                                                                                                                   permitting FWS to obligate public funds for private land habitat
                                                                                                                   restoration projects.


2 Does the program           Yes    Loss or degradation of habitat is a leading cause of declining Federal         Scientific Documentation of Degraded Habitats: e.g., Status                20%         0.2
  address a specific                trust species populations (i.e., migratory birds, inter-jurisdictional fish,   and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous US 1986-1997.
  interest, problem or              threatened and endangered species). For example, nationwide 53%                United States Shorebird Conservation Plan 2001. Status of the
  need?                             of all wetlands have been lost, 90% of native prairie is gone, 70% of          States: Innovative State Strategies for Biodiversity Conservation
                                    riparian (streamside) habitat has been lost, and 3.6 million miles of          2001. Our Natural Legacy Delaware's Biodiversity Conservation
                                    streams have been degraded. Additionally, there are water quality and          Partnership 2001, Stream Steward Restoration Guide, U.S. FWS
                                    supply problems, invasive species, habitat fragmentation, and                  Waterfowl Population Status 2002, The State of Our Environment
                                    declining watershed health which all lead to declining population health       Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2000, Kentucky Alive Report of
                                    due to limited available habitat. With over 70 percent of our Nation's         the Kentucky Biodiversity Task Force 1995, The Landscape
                                    land in private ownership, most of the Federal trust species the FWS is        Project NJ Endangered and nongame Species Program, The North
                                    charged with conserving for future generations live on or use private          American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States: A
                                    lands. Fortunately, many private landowners are interested in                  Vision of American Bird Conservation 2000. WAITING LIST: Over
                                    providing fish and wildlife habitat on their own lands. The Partners           2000 landowners on the waiting list each year show public interest
                                    Program provides one-on-one technical assistance and financial                 in the program.
                                    assistance (cost-sharing) to private landowners who undertake habitat
                                    restoration projects on their land.




                                                                                                                                                                                      FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                     1                                                                                    Fall Review
3 Is the program designed      Yes   The Partners program plays a significant part in efforts to restore       Leveraging: The program is designed to focus funds and              20%      0.2
  to have a significant              habitat on private lands that are used by federal trust species. This     resources on habitat restoration on private lands; the program
  impact in addressing the           significant impact is a direct reflection of the programs ability to      works with landowners and other contributing partners to leverage
  interest, problem or               successfully leverage program funds with private land owners' financial   funds and resources. Program has maximum flexibility to cost-
  need?                              and in-kind contributions. By meeting and exceeding Partners goal of      share with multiple parties on any project. FWS Policy: Partners
                                     leveraging of Federal dollars one-to-one with private landowner           for Fish and Wildlife Program, Fish and Wildlife Service Manual
                                     contributions, the Partners program has a significant impact on habitat   (Chapter 640 FW 1) establishes goal of at least 50 percent cost-
                                     restoration on private lands. Without the Partners Program, private       share and in-kind services. No funds are released to the
                                     landowners would not have access to state-of-the-art restoration          landowner until the project is certified complete and correct. FY
                                     expertise and custom-made restoration plans and they would not have       2001 Partners Accomplishment Report: 1:1 cost-share goal
                                     the financial means to restore habitat. The thousands of individual on-   achieved (value of $25 million in partner funds and in-kind
                                     the-ground restoration projects contribute significantly to the           contributions); 3,036 landowner agreements entered into during
                                     achievement of the project's output goals as well as long-term            year; 48,800 wetland acres restored/enhanced; 335,000 uplands
                                     outcome related habitat restoration goals.                                restored/enhanced; 1,022 miles of riparian and instream habitat
                                                                                                               restored/enhanced.


4 Is the program designed      No    ######################################################## Other Conservation Programs: Currently WHIP offers some of                           20%      0.0
  to make a unique                                                                            these services but the program applicant must be knowledgeable
  contribution in addressing                                                                  about restoration techniques in order to prepare the application
  the interest, problem or                                                                    and there are limits on partnerships. WRP 10-year agreements
  need (i.e., not needlessly                                                                  offer some of these services but only for wetlands and only if your
  redundant of any other                                                                      land has an agricultural history. Related Program
  Federal, state, local or                                                                    Appropriations for FY 2002: Partners=$37M ($26M excluding
  private efforts)?                                                                           earmarks), WHIP=$15M, Coastal program=$11M. Other relevant
                                                                                              programs include WRP and CRP. State Summaries: Each State
                                                                                              describes their unique methods of working with landowners to
                                                                                              restore habitat. Testimonials: Private landowners have written
                                                                                              letters and emails to the Service indicating that they preferred
                                                                                              working with the Partners Program rather than the USDA
                                                                                              programs. Waiting List: Accomplishment reports identify unmet
                                                                                              need (i.e., waiting list).




                                                                                                                                                                              FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                  2                                                                               Fall Review
5 Is the program optimally     Yes    The current flexible, cost-shared program design has proved to be a         FWS Policy: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Fish and          20%         0.2
  designed to address the             logical method for encouraging habitat restoration and conservation on      Wildlife Service Manual Chapters (interim operating draft since
  interest, problem or                private lands while ensuring accountability and performance. When           1997) (Chapters 640 FW 1, 504 FW 1, 504 FW 2, 504 FW 4, 504
  need?                               the program was first created in the 1980s many states wanted the           FW 5, 504 FW 10). Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program,
                                      program to be designed as a grant program to the states. After more         Program Activities: State Summaries identifying the tailoring of
                                      than 15 years, however, the cost-share design has proved to be logical      projects. Monitoring report for Wisconsin: Survey of program
                                      and successful. Great care is taken to design restoration on working        participants in Wisconsin indicated that 89% of the landowners
                                      lands. Decades of biological expertise and track record of restoration      intended to maintain the restored habitat after the agreement
                                      enables the program to tailor restoration to the site, the landowner's      period expired.
                                      needs, and the ecological community.




Total Section Score                                                                                                                                                                   100%        80%


Section II: Strategic Planning (Yes,No, N/A)
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Weighted
       Questions               Ans.                               Explanation                                                             Evidence/Data                              Weighting    Score
1 Does the program have a      Yes    The Program's goal is to facilitate the restoration of habitat on private   Strategic Plans: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic Plan       20%         0.2
  limited number of                   lands in a sufficient quantity, quality and location to ensure that         9/30/1997 - 9/30/2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic
  specific, ambitious long-           Federal trust species continue to exist for future generations. To          Plan FY2000-FY2005. Annual Plans: FY02 Annual Performance
  term performance goals              achieve this outcome, the program has set 5-year output goals, and          Plan & FY00 Annual Performance Report, FY03 Annual
  that focus on outcomes              annual output goals described in terms of acres and miles of priority       Performance Plan & FY01 Annual Performance Report. PFW
  and meaningfully reflect            habitats to be restored through voluntary agreements. The 5-year            State Sheets: show accomplishments by State and long-term
  the purpose of the                  goals appear to be overly ambitious as currently stated in FWS              goals by State. GPRA Regional Targets: breakout of
  program?                            Strategic Plans. The program contributes substantially to DOI               performance targets and accomplishments for FY01 & FY00.
                                      Outcome Goal 1.2 - Sustained biological communities on DOI
                                      managed and influenced lands and waters. As part of the                     See section IV, question 1 for goals.
                                      Environment/Wetlands Common Measures activity, an efficiency-
                                      based goal may be developed. Output goals are used in part because
                                      of the difficulty in obtaining measurable outcome data.


2 Does the program have a      Yes    The Program has annual performance measures stated in terms of              Strategic Plans: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic Plan       20%         0.2
  limited number of annual            acres and miles of restored wetlands, uplands, riparian, and in-stream      9/30/1997 - 9/30/2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic
  performance goals that              habitat achieved through voluntary agreements. Annual targets are           Plan FY2000-FY2005. Annual Plans: FY02 Annual Performance
  demonstrate progress                set each year based on previous year accomplishments. The program           Plan & FY00 Annual Performance Report, FY03 Annual
  toward achieving the long-          contributes substantially to DOI Outcome Goal 1.2 - Sustained               Performance Plan & FY01 Annual Performance Report. PFW
  term goals?                         biological communities on DOI managed and influenced lands and              State Sheets: show accomplishments by State and long-term
                                      waters. As part of the Environment/Wetlands Common Measures                 goals by State. GPRA Regional Targets: breakout of
                                      activity, an efficiency-based goal may be developed.                        performance targets and accomplishments for FY01 & FY00.

                                                                                                                  See section IV, question 2 for goals.




                                                                                                                                                                                FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                     3                                                                              Fall Review
3 Do all partners (grantees,   Yes   Landowners and NGO's that contribute to the projects support the long- FWS Policy: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Fish and                  20%     0.2
  sub-grantees,                      term and annual goals of the program. All contributors (financial or       Wildlife Service Manual Chapters (interim operating draft since
  contractors, etc.) support         technical assistance) are required to sign an agreement that               1997) (Chapters 640 FW 1, 504 FW 1, 504 FW 2, 504 FW 4, 504
  program planning efforts           specifically identifies by project the number of acres of miles, location, FW 5, 504 FW 10). Testimonials from landowners and other
  by committing to the               habitat type to be restored, timetable, and duration of agreement.         partnering organizations. Landowner Agreements. Cooperative
  annual and/or long-term            NGO's have expressed their support for the goals by contributing to        Agreements. Memoranda of Understanding.
  goals of the program?              the projects and sending letters of support. Policy requires Landowner
                                     Agreements to include accountability information such as acres to be
                                     restored, funds committed, timetable for completion. Partners Policy
                                     requires all projects to be certified complete by the Partners biologist
                                     prior to the dispersal of any cost-share. Obligating documents refer to
                                     specific projects. Accomplishment reports are based on actual acres
                                     restored by a project not the anticipated acreage. Partners Policy
                                     requires monitoring periodically during the agreement period. The
                                     Habitat Information Tracking System (HabITS) includes obligating
                                     dates and project completion dates.


4 Does the program             Yes   The Partners Program began in 1987 and has worked with 27,000                  MOU with NRCS for WRP delivery. FWS Policy: Partners for             8%      0.1
  collaborate and                    landowners and 100's of other contributing partners. One of our                Fish and Wildlife Program Fish and Wildlife Service Manual
  coordinate effectively             biggest partners is USDA which has numerous conservation                       Chapters (interim operating draft since 1997) (Chapters 640 FW 1,
  with related programs              programs. The Partners Program, through guidance, limits                       504 FW 1, 504 FW 2, 504 FW 4, 504 FW 5, 504 FW 10) describes
  that share similar goals           redundancy and strives for complementary activities when operating in          in detail how Partners coordinates with NRCS and FSA to
  and objectives?                    the same watershed or site. At the state level, the program enters into        implement the conservation provisions of the Farm Bill. Farm
                                     arrangements whereby the Service, an NGO, and NRCS jointly hire an             Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 PL 107-171 enacted
                                     individual to deliver all three programs; that individual is able to use the   May 13, 2002, also known as the "Farm Bill": WRP legislation and
                                     most applicable program to the issue at hand.                                  regulations identifies FWS role. New York Reimbursable
                                                                                                                    Agreement between FWS and NRCS for WRP. Agreement
                                                                                                                    between Wisconsin Waterfowl Assoc & NRCS & FWS for WRP.
                                                                                                                    Testimonials from non-government organizations show support
                                                                                                                    and coordination. State sheets showing partners.


5 Are independent and          No    The program does not have regularly scheduled objective,                       Management Control Review. IG Audit 1997. Chemung County             13%     0.0
  quality evaluations of             independent evaluations to examine how well the program is                     Soil and Water Conservation District Legislative Briefing (Program
  sufficient scope                   accomplishing its mission and meeting its long-term goals. Gaps in             Report Cards), Wisconsin-Assessment of landowner
  conducted on a regular             performance are generally addressed informally among program                   Participation and Habitat Accomplishments, One Acre at a Time
  basis or as needed to fill         managers and FWS planning staff. However, this process doesn't                 Video of landowner testimonials.
  gaps in performance                appear to capture larger strategic planning issues that regular
  information to support             evaluations may have identified such as the program's overly
  program improvements               ambitious 5 yr goal. The Partners program recently volunteered to
  and evaluate                       undergo an in-depth program review of management and
  effectiveness?                     administration through the FWS's Management Control Review
                                     process during 2002. In 1997, the IG reviewed the Partners Program
                                     and found that it was accomplishing its goals. Recommendations for
                                     improving management and administration of the program have been
                                     written into policy or guidance and adopted.




                                                                                                                                                                                   FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                      4                                                                                Fall Review
6 Is the program budget      No     While the implications on program performance can be determined             FWS Policy: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Fish and          8%          0.0
  aligned with the program          based on various funding levels, budgeting and performance planning         Wildlife Service Manual Chapters (Chapters 640 FW 1, 504 FW 1,
  goals in such a way that          are not integrated. Annual budgeting for the program is not based on        504 FW 2, 504 FW 4, 504 FW 5, & 504 FW 10) (interim operating
  the impact of funding,            a determination of the level of financial resources needed to obtain        draft since 1997) specifies that funding will be used only for
  policy, and legislative           annual and long-term goals. Since the program knows the costs of            restoration on private lands. Allocation formulas for funding
  changes on performance            restoring habitats in different parts of the country, it can predict        increases. Annual FWS Budget Justification.
  is readily known?                 acreage accomplishments by habitat type based on available funding.
                                    Program budget requests to the FWS generally reflect an effort to
                                    achieve program output goals over an extended timeframe but not the
                                    current five year long-term goal.


7 Has the program taken      No     While the Service has informal procedures for adjusting targets for the     The Program exercises close coordination with the FWS Planning       13%         0.0
  meaningful steps to               long-term goals in its current strategic plan, the current long-term goal   Office and provides or confirms planning activities and annual
  address its strategic             has not been adjusted to realistic program expectations. The initial        accomplishment targets. The Program conducts Regional and
  planning deficiencies?            long-term goal targets were set by Service management teams, who            Field Office reviews of the program on a regular basis. The
                                    were program experts in the particular goal area. At the end of each        Program is currently undergoing a Management Control Review.
                                    reporting year, the Planning and Evaluation Staff reviews the final year    The FWS conducts stakeholder meetings and sends out
                                    data and compares it to the long-term goal targets to determine if the      questionnaires to stakeholders every 3 years to identify
                                    targets are attainable. Recommendations for adjusting the long-term         stakeholder priorities and concerns and to incorporate them into
                                    targets are discussed with the appropriate program manager, who             strategic planning.
                                    reviews the suggestion with senior management who has responsibility
                                    for the goal. However, during the PART process it became obvious
                                    that this process was not working as expected as it was acknowledged
                                    that the current LT goal target is overly ambitious, unlikely to be
                                    attained, and not consistent with the Program's expectations. Recent
                                    actions will likely help to address this deficiency (e.g. incorporating
                                    performance goals/measures into SES managers performance plans).
                                    Also, the
                                    Partners Program is currently undergoing an
                                     indepth review of program management and administration
                                     via the Service's Management Control Review process.




Total Section Score                                                                                                                                                                 100%        68%


Section III: Program Management (Yes,No, N/A)
                                                                                                                                                                                               Weighted
      Questions              Ans.                               Explanation                                                            Evidence/Data                               Weighting    Score




                                                                                                                                                                              FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                   5                                                                              Fall Review
1 Does the agency            Yes   Annual accomplishment reports quantitatively and qualitatively            Annual Partners Program Accomplishment Reports. Habitat               14%      0.1
  regularly collect timely         describe program accomplishments by region. Tables and narrative          Information Tracking System (a web-based data system that
  and credible performance         explanations explain the benefits and significance of the projects. All   allows field personnel to enter project data into the national
  information, including           accomplishment reports identify partners and their contributions and      database any time). Landowner Agreements. Allocation
  information from key             performance. The performance reports are used by the Program to           formulas.
  program partners, and            adjust priorities and activities in a watershed. Once a habitat goal is
  use it to manage the             met in one watershed, the Program moves on to another watershed.
  program and improve              Landowner agreements are very specific with respect to performance.
  performance?                     The program uses the information to adaptively manage the program
                                   by adjusting priorities based on accomplishment of goals in a
                                   watershed. For example, the Program has shifted invasive species
                                   funds from Alaska (which doesn't have many opportunities) to another
                                   Region with better opportunities and replaced Alaska's funds with fish
                                   habitat funds (for which they do have opportunities).




2 Are Federal managers       No    While SES level managers and landowners are held directly              Landowner Agreements, Cooperative Agreements, SES                        14%      0.0
  and program partners             accountable for performance results, field managers are not.           Managers Performance Plan; Program Manager Performance
  (grantees, subgrantees,          Recently, the FWS included GPRA performance goals/measures in          Plans
  contractors, etc.) held          the performance plans of all SES managers. This provides a layer of
  accountable for cost,            accountability for setting and accomplishing long-term and annual
  schedule and                     performance goals. Field managers, however, are simply charged in
  performance results?             their official Performance Plans to administer the Partners Program to
                                   optimize accomplishments and cost efficiencies. While these field
                                   managers must submit accomplishment reports there are no criteria or
                                   processes to ensure cost, schedule, or performance results are
                                   accomplished. Landowner & cooperative agreements contain specific
                                   performance measures (acres and miles of habitat to be restored),
                                   costs, timetables, and agreement duration. Landowners are not issued
                                   the cost-share until the project is certified complete by the Partners
                                   biologist. Landowners who remove the restoration before the end of
                                   the agreement period are required to refund the cost-share to the
                                   government.




                                                                                                                                                                              FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                 6                                                                                Fall Review
3 Are all funds (Federal       Yes   For FY 2001, the Partners program unobligated balance at the end of         Appropriated funds status reports show Partners (1121) funds       14%     0.1
  and partners’) obligated           the year was roughly 3%. FWS allocates funds to the 7 Regions within        are obligated in a timely manner, Management Control Review
  in a timely manner and             30 days of the Interior appropriations bill being signed. The Regions       evaluated Regional fund allocations and expenditures. Financial
  spent for the intended             allocate these funds to the Field Offices within 30 days of receiving       reports indicate low unobligated balances. Financial reports and
  purpose?                           them (60 days from the Interior appropriations bill being signed). The      accomplishment reports help verify funds are spent on intended
                                     Partners policy states that at least 70% of the habitat restoration funds   purposes.
                                     must be used for on the ground habitat restoration work and no more
                                     than 30% for overhead and support. Regional Partners Coordinators
                                     review financial system statements and accomplishment reports to
                                     ensure that funds are being used by the field appropriately. Cost-
                                     sharing funds are released to the cooperator as soon as the project is
                                     certified complete and according to standards and specifications.


4 Does the program have        Yes   The program has de-layered the management structure and has                 FWS Policy: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Fish and        14%     0.1
  incentives and                     enabled field offices to make on-the-spot decisions on funding. The         Wildlife Service Manual Chapters (interim operating draft since
  procedures (e.g.,                  program has a cost-share goal of 50% nationwide. The program                1997) (Chapters 640 FW 1, 504 FW 1, 504 FW 2, 504 FW 4, 504
  competitive sourcing/cost          requires annual reports on accomplishments and leveraging. Program          FW 5, 504 FW 10). Common Measures Efficiency Goal.
  comparisons, IT                    is designed to partner with almost anybody or any organization in an
  improvements) to                   effort to reduce program costs and focus skills and resources on
  measure and achieve                community selected projects. Program flexibility allows field offices to
  efficiencies and cost              use the most effective methods for accomplishing restoration (e.g., in-
  effectiveness in program           kind services). New common measures efficiency goal may assist
  execution?                         program in improving efficiencies and cost effectiveness.




5 Does the agency              No    Although the Department of the Interior complies with managerial cost FWS Budget Justification, FY 2003.                                       14%     0.0
  estimate and budget for            accounting standards, it does not yet have a financial management
  the full annual costs of           system that fully allocates program costs and associates those cost
  operating the program              with specific performance measures. This requirement might be met
  (including all                     through Activity Based Costing (ABC), which DOI is adopting for each
  administrative costs and           of its bureaus. While the FWS has a cost allocation methodology to
  allocated overhead) so             ensure that general administrative costs are allocated in a consistent
  that program                       manner to all activities and all appropriations of the FWS, this still
  performance changes are            does not cover the full costs of the program. The FWS is scheduled to
  identified with changes in         begin implementing ABC in FY 2004.
  funding levels?




                                                                                                                                                                              FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                    7                                                                             Fall Review
6 Does the program use           No     While the FWS generally employs sound financial management                 Audit Report: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Shared                  14%         0.0
  strong financial                      practices to administer all of its programs, including the Partners        Commitments to Conservation 2001 Accountability Report of the
  management practices?                 Program, a January 2002, independent auditor's report identified four      U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Independent Auditors' Report,
                                        material internal control weaknesses and one reportable condition. Of      KPMG, January 21, 2002; FWS Policy: Financial Management
                                        these, two apply to service-wide processes and systems that the            System, FWS policy. Division of Finance - General Operations
                                        Partners program uses. The first applicable weakness cited was             Budget Fiscal Year 2001 vs. Fiscal Year 2002.
                                        untimely and inaccurate financial reporting. The second weakness
                                        was inadequate security and controls over financial Management
                                        Systems. The FWS financial management system has specific
                                        system controls in place to minimize the risk of erroneous payments.
                                        In addition, the Regional Partners Coordinators review payment
                                        transactions recorded in the financial system to ensure that they are in
                                        accordance with the program's goals and objectives. The auditors
                                        found no significant problems with improper, duplicate or erroneous
                                        payments.

7 Has the program taken          Yes    The Partners Program has taken action to correct management                2002 Management Control Review is underway. FWS Policy:              14%         0.1
  meaningful steps to                   deficiencies identified in the 1997 IG report. Additionally, Partners      Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Fish and Wildlife Service
  address its management                Program managers requested the program undergo an in-depth                 Manual Chapters (interim operating draft since 1997) (Chapters
  deficiencies?                         program management and administration review by the FWS's                  640 FW 1, 504 FW 1, 504 FW 2, 504 FW 4, 504 FW 5, 504 FW
                                        Service's Management Control Review process to help identify               10). IG Audit 1997. FWS memo addressing IG Audit. For
                                        additional deficiencies.                                                   example, FWS provided Regional and Field staff with guidance
                                                                                                                   that (1) ensured that cooperative agreements are prepared and
                                                                                                                   signed for all program projects, (2) ensured that project files
                                                                                                                   contain adequate documentation to fully support project
                                                                                                                   expenditures, and (3) clarified the types of costs that are
                                                                                                                   considered when calculating cost-share.



Total Section Score                                                                                                                                                                    100%        57%


Section IV: Program Results (Yes, Large Extent, Small Extent, No)
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Weighted
       Questions                Ans.                                Explanation                                                           Evidence/Data                               Weighting    Score
1 Has the program               small Based on trend analysis of historic and current Partners' program            FY02 Annual Performance Plan, FY03 Annual Performance Plan,          20%         0.1
   demonstrated adequate        extent targets and results, the Partners program will not achieve its long term    FY00 Annual Performance Report, FY01 Annual Performance
   progress in achieving its           goals. While annual goal are routinely exceeded, even these actual          Report, PFW State Sheets showing accomplishments by State,
   long-term outcome goal(s)?          accomplishment levels would fail to achieve the long term goal targets.     Regional breakout of targets and accomplishments FY01 & FY00.
                                       Data for common measures exercise is being collected and may lead
                                       to an efficiency goal.

            Long-Term Goal I: Improve fish and wildlife populations by restoring wetlands, uplands, and riparian and stream habitat.
                       Target: FY01-FY05 targets = restore 330,000 acres of wetlands, 900,000 acres of uplands, and 4,900 miles of riparian and stream habitat.
     Actual Progress achieved Accomplishments through FY2002 = 103,309 acres of wetlands, 441,782 acres of uplands, 1,414 miles of riparian and stream restored.
                  toward goal:



                                                                                                                                                                                 FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                        8                                                                            Fall Review
           Long-Term Goal II: Improve fish and wildlife populations through efficiencies as evidenced by acres of wetlands established, re-established, rehabilitated, enhanced, or protected/maintained per
                               $1 million in total costs.
                       Target: Targets currently being determined as part of the common measures exercise.
     Actual Progress achieved
                  toward goal:

2 Does the program              large The Program exceeded its annual targets in FY 2001 but only met two          FY02 Annual Performance Plan, FY03 Annual Performance Plan,          20%           0.1
   (including program           extent of its three targets in FY 2002. In FY 2001, the Program greatly            FY00 Annual Performance Report, FY01 Annual Performance
   partners) achieve its               exceeded its target for upland restoration because of unprecedented         Report, PFW State Sheets showing accomplishments by State,
   annual performance goals?           partnerships in Regions 2 and 6 and a great demand for better range         Regional breakout of targets and accomplishments FY01 & FY00.
                                       management. Based on trend analysis of targets and recent program
                                       results, the annual targets are not being set high enough to achieve
                                       the long term goals. Annual goals are set annually and not based on a
                                       strategic plan to achieve long-term goals.


                  Key Goal I: Improve fish and wildlife populations by restoring wetlands, uplands, and riparian and stream habitat.

         Performance Target: FY01 targets = 39,700 acres of wetlands, 65,979 acres of uplands, 324 miles of riparian and stream restored.
                               FY02 targets = 33,395 acres of wetlands, 179,467 acres of uplands, 593 miles of riparian and stream restored.
         Actual Performance: FY01 accomplishments = 45,787 ac wetland, 283,606 ac upland, 888 miles of riparian and stream.
                               FY02 accomplishments = 57,522 ac wetland, 158,176 ac upland, 526 miles of riparian and stream.
                 Key Goal II: Acres of wetlands established, re-established, rehabilitated, enhanced, or protected/maintained per $1 million in total costs.
         Performance Target: Targets currently being determined as part of the common measures exercise.
         Actual Performance:



3 Does the program              large Annual accomplishments have continued to increase because of a               Performance: FY02 Annual Performance Plan, FY03 Annual               20%           0.1
  demonstrate improved          extent concerted effort by the program to increase the number and scope of         Performance Plan, FY00 Annual Performance Report, FY01
  efficiencies and cost                the partnerships and to better leverage funds and resources. The            Annual Performance Report. PFW State Sheets showing
  effectiveness in achieving           program is flexible enough to incorporate new techniques and                accomplishments by State, Regional breakout of targets and
  program goals each                   materials to lower costs. Program leverages funds and uses in-house         accomplishments FY01 & FY00. Monitoring: biological results
  year?                                expertise to deliver on-the-ground projects. The Program is flexible        based on monitoring reports. Testimonials from landowners
                                       enough to skip over project sites that are unsuitable for restoration.      working in more than one Federal conservation program.
                                       Decision-making at the field level, with respect to project selection and   Wisconsin-Assessment of landowner Participation and Habitat
                                       design, enables the program to make the best possible fit of resource       Accomplishments. Habitat Information Tracking System.
                                       management and restoration techniques for the specific site. Partners       Documents showing Washington Office expenditures covering
                                       Program representatives receive training to maintain skills and             training of Field personnel for stream restoration techniques.
                                       understanding of state-of-the-art restoration techniques. Periodically
                                       the program coordinators meet to exchange success and failure case
                                       studies to pass on lessons learned to other coordinators. New
                                       common measures efficiency goal may help manage for more
                                       efficiencies. The "Large Extent" is provided rather than a "Yes"
                                       because of lack of evidence of leverage and cost efficiencies.




                                                                                                                                                                                FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                      9                                                                             Fall Review
4 Does the performance of       large FWS provided data as part of the wetlands common measures                Performance: FY02 Annual Performance Plan, FY03 Annual             20%      0.1
  this program compare          extent exercise, however, no other agency in the exercise provided data so     Performance Plan, FY00 Annual Performance Report, FY01
  favorably to other                   we cannot say how the Partners program compares to others               Annual Performance Report. PFW State Sheets showing
  programs with similar                performing similar wetlands activities. There is not a comprehensive    accomplishments by State, Regional breakout of targets and
  purpose and goals?                   evaluation or documentation comparing similar habitat restoration       accomplishments FY01 & FY00. Monitoring: biological results
                                       programs, such as USDA programs such as Wildlife Habitat                based on monitoring reports. Testimonials from landowners
                                       Improvement Program or Wetlands Reserve Program, however, the           working in more than one Federal conservation program.
                                       FWS has testimonials that indicate users believe the Partners program   Wisconsin-Assessment of landowner Participation and Habitat
                                       is better than similar USDA programs.                                   Accomplishments, One Acre at a Time Video of landowner
                                                                                                               testimonials. Monitoring reports. Testimonials from non-
                                                                                                               government organizations.

5 Do independent and             Yes   In 1997, the IG reviewed the Partners Program and found that it was     Management Control Review, IG Audit 1997, OMB review 2001,         20%      0.2
  quality evaluations of this          accomplishing its goals. Recommendations for improving                  Chemung County soil and Water Conservation district Legislative
  program indicate that the            management and administration of the program have been written into     Briefing (Program Report Cards), Wisconsin-Assessment of
  program is effective and             policy or guidance and adopted. Through the Service's Management        landowner Participation and Habitat Accomplishments, One Acre
  achieving results?                   Control Review process the Partners Program is currently undergoing     at a Time Video of landowner testimonials. Monitoring reports.
                                       an in-depth review of program management and administration.            Testimonials from non-government organizations.




Total Section Score                                                                                                                                                              100%     67%




                                                                                                                                                                             FY 2004 Budget
                                                                                                  10                                                                             Fall Review