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)
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
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
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)
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).
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)
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
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.
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
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)
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.
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
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.
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-
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