Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Reclamation - Recreation and Concessions Assessment

Identify gaps in existing recreation authorities, policies, and directives and standards.

Develop tools to assist current Federal, State, and local partners and encourage other potential partners in managing Reclamtion's recreation sites.

Develop baseline performance data for FLREA program measures.

The agency is aggressively developing a plan to use the newly-authorized recreation user fee authority.

Integrate management of Reclamation's recreation facilities with the Department of the Interior's broader efforts on recreation.

Measure: Percent of universally accessible facilities in relation to total number of recreation areas.

Explanation:Tracks how many facilities meet accessibility standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Measure: Percent of recreation areas with community partnerships.

Explanation:Tracks the number of recreation areas run by non-Federal managing partners.

Measure: Percent of concession activities with performance based contracts

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of recreation fee receipts spent on fee collection at FLREA designated recreation sites.

Explanation:This measure tracks the efficiency of the fee collection program.This measure is part of the DOI Rec Fee program. Reclamation is currently assessing the applicability of a recreation fee collection at its owned and operated recreation facilities.

Measure: Percent of customers satisified with the value for fee paid at FLREA designated sites.

Explanation:Measures customer satisfaction relative to the price of the recreation experience.

Measure: Percent of fee revenue obligated to maintenance projects at FLREA designated sites.

Explanation:Tracks the allocation of revenues from the recreation user fee program.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: While the core mission of the program is clear, program authorization provides inadequate guidance to the agency as to how it should manage facilities for which is cannot provide a managing partner. Program authority states that Reclamation should get partners to manage its recreation facilities, yet there is no clear direction for what Reclamation should be doing in those instances where it cannot find project partners, or where partners have returned management back to Reclamation. Reclamation staff maintain that the purpose of the program is to (1) provide minimum recreation facilities which are required for public health, safety and accessibility; (2) provide the opportunity for others, such as managing partners and concessionaires, to provide and promote activities on Reclamation areas at little or no cost to Reclamation; and (3) minimize the risk of turn back of Reclamation recreation areas by existing managing partners. Reclamation reservoirs attract recreationists, yet the provision of recreation facilities is not part of its core mission.

Evidence: Reclamation will revise its policy statements and directives and standards covering the construction and management of recreation facilities to reflect the purposes listed. There are many project-specific legislative authorities authorizing the construction of recreation facilities; e.g. Section 8 of P.L.84-485 Colorado River Storage Project (43USC 620g): P.L.105-277, Title X, The Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana Act: and Title IV of P.L. 93-493 for Lake Berryessa, and general recreation legislation such as P.L. 89-72 as amended by Title XXVIII of P.L. 102-575 (16USC 4601-31). Presently Reclamation has 57 areas with minimum facilities. There are 126 management agreements with non-Federal partners and 28 with Federal partners to manage over 275 recreation areas located in Reclamation projects.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Reclamation's recreation facilities address the fact that the public flocks to the reservoirs and surrounding lands associated with BuRec water storage facilities. The program reflects the intent under section 3 of P.L. 89-72 that absent a cost sharing/managing partner, Reclamation's responsibility is limited to providing "minimum facilities for the public health and safety." In recognition of the growing demand for water-based recreation in the West, Reclamation aggressively seeks partners to assume the cost and management of recreation facilities. (A national survey conducted by the Forest Service concluded that water-based sports and activities are among the four most popular outdoor recreation activities in the U.S. and interest is growing.) Reclamation reservoirs are a magnet for those wishing to swim, fish, or boat. Recreation-related improvements, including features that are accessible to persons with disabilities, are critical to providing recreation opportunites for all people.

Evidence: From 1990 to 2000, the population of the 17 Reclamation states increased by 15 million people. Reclamation reservoirs, including those managed by Reclamation and the managing partners, are among the most popular travel destinations, attracting 90 million visits a year. Forty-six percent of these visits are to areas managed by Reclamation or non-Federal partners. Many Reclamation facilities are close to major urban areas and provide substantial recreation benefits. As a macro-estimator of potential recreational demand growth, a Forest Service Study estimates the total projected recreational activity trips in the United States per year to increase from 1.5 billion in year 2000 to 1.8 billion in year 2020. Reclamation and its partners provide opportunity for about 225 commercial concessions on Reclamation lands to provide a wide range of outdoor services and facilities for water-related and open-space recreation uses. Comparison of Population in 17 Western States.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Other entities provide recreation opportunities, and Reclamation's strategy for managing its recreation facilities is predicated on the assumption that others may be able to do a better job of managing its recreation facilities. In terms of physical excludability, the program is not redundant; e.g., there is only one Lake Mead, and only one agency can manage it. Even when others develop areas in proximity to Reclamation projects, Reclamation's facilities are still unique to the area. However, other agencies have recreation as their core mission recreation, and many other entities, governmental and non-governmental, are capable of managing Reclamation's recreation facilities. Of Reclamation's 300-plus recreation areas, only about 50 are directly managed by Reclamation. The program design could be improved, possibly by making another federal entity (such as the Park Service of Bureau of Land Management) responsible for managing Reclamation's recreation facilities.

Evidence: Where possible, the recreation facilities are turned over to other Federal, State, or local public entities to manage. For example, the 57 recreation areas managed by the Forest Service are adjacent to or within a National Forest. The Fish and Wildlife Service manages 11 areas as National Wildlife Refuges and the National Park Service has jurisdiction over 10 areas as National Recreation Areas. More than 200 areas are managed by the States as State Parks.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The recreation program design is flawed (although the concessions program design is well-designed because concessions provide the types of facilities and activities the public wants, investing private dollars for construction and activities that would otherwise be taxpayer funded). Recreation on Reclamation projects is tangential to Reclamation's core mission, therefore it has not been a high priority for funding; as a result, the quality and extent of recreation facilities varies from project to project. The extent of recreation facilities is often not aligned with demand; for instance, Reclamation may not have the resources to provide the facilities demanded, or project partners may overbuild recreation facilities, then find they do not have the financial resources to operate and maintain them; the facility is then turned back to Reclamation for management. When there is inadequate oversight of the partner by Reclamation, the facilities may become deteriorated and the partner not able or willing to make repairs. That may also result in the turn back of the area to Reclamation.

Evidence: Twenty nine recreation areas have been returned to Reclamation from State or local entities due to deterioration of facilities, inability to meet current building and safety codes, or insufficient funding. Failure to closely hold managing partners to the terms of the managing agreements contribures to this problem. When areas are returned, Reclamation often assumes the management of the resource including hiring staff and funding 100% of the recreation O&M costs. It is not feasible to close some areas because they are often adjacent to dams with interstate traffic or because, without constant law enforcement patrols, the public would continue to use the water and adjacent lands. The major reason that areas are turned back to Reclamation is that the non-Federal partner elects not to renew an expired contract, because facilities are inadequate and/or have deteriorated and upgrades will cost too much. The non-Federal partner does not want to pay for the upgrade because of limited budgets and lack of revenues generated from the facility to offset development costs. List of Areas Turned Back

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Although the program mission is unclear in terms of Reclamation's strategy and goals, the program design is effectively targeted in terms of reaching project beneficiaries. When completing Resource Management (Land Use) Plans (RMP's), local needs and the public's desire for recreation are determined before changes in management direction are considered. Reclamation has recently completed the "Resource Management Plan Guidebook" that provides direction for developing, monitoring, and updating Resource Management Plans. Reclamation has completed 31 RMP's, 19 are ongoing and 32 are planned. Reclamation managers seek out managing partners to cost share the expense of minimum facilities and to operate and maintain the facilities in the future. Often the managing partner is an entity that already manages resources in the area. Management agreements are for a specific amount of time and are renewable. Reclamation has adopted a 10-year plan to comply with universal accessibility standards by retrofitting the appropriate facilities, including Reclamation-managed recreation facilities, to provide accessibility for all persons.

Evidence: RMP's are prepared for each Reclamation area. There is extensive public involvement in this process through public meetings and opportunities for submission of written comments before final decisions are made. Before any recreation construction can begin, a written agreement or letter of commitment with a non-Federal entity must be in place including all cost-sharing requirements. Commercial Services Plans (CSP) are prepared for new concession operations and for existing operations with expiring concession contracts. There is public involvement in this planning process. Once the CSP is completed, a prospectus is developed and issued through a competitive bid process. All new concessions contracts are reviewed by technical experts. Assigned resources for improving access are tracked in the Accessibility Data Management System (ADMS) and monitored quarterly to ensure that measureable results are obtained. Resource Management Plan. Commercial Services Plan. Management Agreement. "Resource Management Plan Guidebook"

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Reclamation has outcome-oriented performance measures for this program. These measures link to Reclamation's goals to encourage cost sharing partners, prevent turn backs, and permit concessionaires to offer recreation services to the public; i.e., "Percent of recreation areas with community partnerships" and "Percent of concession activities with performance-based contracts." The latter measure is not an ideal long-term goal, because the infrequency of contract turnover does not allow for ready tracking of progress. The program also has long-term measures for handicapped accessibility, and customer satisfaction. All of these measures focus on outcomes.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The goals for the long-term measures are ambitious, given the low priority of this program and the difficulty of achieving these goals. The goal of maintaining the current level of partnerships is very aggressive given the economic pressures facing State and local entities across the West. Achieving performance goals for concessions contracts is delayed until the contract is renewed and is established at 39% of concession activities in FY 2008. The long-term goals for accessibility are similarly ambitious. For customer satisfaction, this is a new measure that is still establishing its baseline.

Evidence: The annual performance plan for 2005 and beyond is stated in the FY 2005 Budget Justifications. Reclamation is working on a draft "Operating Plan" to meet targets included for FY 2004-2008 as stated in the FY 2005 Budget Justifications. Reclamation has designed a computer data base called the Accessibility Data Management System (ADMS) and uses that system to track inventories, assessments, retrofits, and the recreation sites/components in compliance with accessibility standards. The Accessibility Program's 10-year plan established interim targets and detailed guidance for calculating percent compliance of area components. Improving access to recreation uses specifically targeted resources to directly benefit the public. The program focuses on three steps: (1) Evaluation of facilities to determine where barriers exist, (2) preparation of action plans to estimate costs and scheduling required retrofits; and (3) budgeting for and completion of retrofits. Contracting office and recreation planners will review the current concession contracts to determine the extent of performance-based elements.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program has some solid annual performance measures that link to the long-term measures, several of which it shares with other Interior recreation programs. The program has an efficiency measure associated with the Recreation User Fee Demonstration Program. Two measures reflect the purpose of the program to provide minimum recreation facilities required for public health, safety and accessibility; i.e., "Percent of universally accessible facilities in relation to the total number of recreation areas" and " Facilities are in fair to good condition as measured by the Facilities Condition Index." This latter measure is still undergoing baseline development. For universal accessibility, the FY 2008 target is ensuring accessibility at 34% of Reclamation recreation areas. For the facility condition measure, the FY 2008 target will depend on targets set in the 2004 baseline, which is not yet established.

Evidence: The annual performance measures are shown in the DOI Strategic Plan and the FY 2005 Budget Justifications. The target for FY 2005 for universal access is 21% of Reclamation recreation areas. The target for FY 2005 for facilities condition will depend on the baseline presently being established.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Assesement of baseline data and targets for this program yields mixed results. The program has established baselines for some measures, but has not completed them for others, some of which are new. Because this program is a low priority for funding, the targets for facility condition and accessibility are reasonably ambitious. Collection of baseline data for the Facilities Condition Index is underway.

Evidence: Non-Federal Partners Study. ADMS Inventory/Data Base. Commissioner's Annual Report on the Status of Reclamation's Universal Accessibility Program.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All partners and concessionaires are committed to the goal of providing at least a minimum level of facilities. In addition, in most instances, the partner's goal is to provide more facilities and services to serve their public and recoup their expenses. However, some management agreements still provide for Federal cost sharing of recreation enhancements. Management agreements typically range from 25 years to 40 years. Existing concession agreements do not contain performance elements. Concession agreements range from 5 years to 50 years depending on the scope of operations and the concessionaire investment. The agreements and contracts reflect Reclamation's goals for recreation at the time they were executed but often do not reflect current goals. Because project partners are motivated by their own financial interests, they do not necessarily agree with Reclamation's goal to get project partners to manage facilities.

Evidence: Management Agreement. Concession Contract

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Although the program has had some reviews of its operations, these do not meet the standards necessary for a 'yes'. Evaluations of the concessions program have been done by the Inspector General and GAO and changes have been made in concessions management as a result; however, these evaluations are not periodic, and do not regularly assess program performance. They also only apply to concessions, not recreation. Field staff receives feedback from managing partners and the public as part of the public outreach efforts or in preparation of Resource Management plans or Commercial Services Plans; while these may be useful planning tools, they are neither objective nor regularly scheduled, and do not meet the standards for a 'yes'. Accessibility follow-up compliance reviews are conducted to verify and validate work accomplished as an accountability measure and for reporting quarterly. These latter reviews may be useful for assessing whether the program is meeting a certain subset of its goals, but they are not independent.

Evidence: Reclamation periodically performs recreation reviews, in conjunction with the managing partners and other stakeholders (i.e. water user entities) at each reservoir area. The overall goal is to visit each reservoir area every 3 to 5 years for such in-depth reviews, which address recreation management, basic facilities condition, land issues such as trespass and fencing needs, sensitive and endangered species (if any), invasive species and water quality. Concession reviews include OIG audits in 1995, 2000, and 2004 (ongoing). Health and safety reviews are conducted by county health services, fire marshals, and private consulting firms (such as that done on Lake Berryessa). Follow-up compliance access reviews are conducted after retrofits are completed. OIG audit reports. Reclamation reviews of managing partners and concessionaires. ADMS Action Plan.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Recreation budget requests are submitted in the overall Reclamation project budget, and not identified as a specific line item for recreation in total; there is no clear linkage between budget requests and performance. However, recreation funds are requested and allocated to meet the primary goals for recreation: provide minimum facilities, encourage partnerships, and take measures to prevent the risk of facility turn back. Starting in FY 2006, project funds will be tied to the strategic plan outcomes and strategies, demonstrating project linkages and support of recreation outcomes and strategies. Funds are requested for the completion of Resource Management Plants (RMPs) in specific project line items. Reclamation requires performance schedules from cost sharing partners as part of the budget process before requesting the Federal cost share portion. Progress is reviewed to ensure funds are being spent in accordance with schedules and funds are shifted elsewhere if performance goals are not being met.

Evidence: Strategic Plan Outcomes and Strategies are: Improve Capacities to Provide Access to Recreation -Manage Recreation Activities Seamlessly -Enhance Quality of Recreation -Promote Quality Service FY 2005 Budget Estimates. FY 2005 Budget Justifications.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Interior has taken meaningful steps to correct strategic planning deficiences, including establishing three new goals in the DOI Strategic Plan to address some of Reclamation's deficiences. Procedures are being put in place to try to stop the number of turn backs and the percent of areas managed by State and local partners is being tracked. The non-Federal Partners Study will identify the conditions that may result in a project being turned back; this might lead to providing some relief to the partner. There was no measurement of the number of performance-based concession contracts nor was there any measurement for the condition of facilities. Efforts are now in place to gather baseline data on the condition of facilities under Reclamation management. This information will be used to prioritize needs and prepare budget requests. In the past, there were no consistent facility design standards, resulting in design duplication and failure to meet accessibility guidance. This problem was remedied by the production and distribution of the "Recreation Facility Design Guidelines."

Evidence: In addition to the Non-Federal Partners Study to identify possible projects being considered for turn back, Reclamation has tried to negotiate some kind of assistance to managing partners to encourage them to stay. An example in the PN region is Potholes Reservoir which was/is managed by the State of Washington. The State was losing money (not covering their O&M costs) at the area but they were also not collecting any use or entrance fees (as their policy is not to collect entrance fees at any of their parks). Reclamation required that they collect fees in an amendment to their agreement with us. Throughout the Resource Management Plan process, local entities are approached as possible managing partners but are evaluated more thoroughly before acceptance. U. S. Department of the Interior Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2003-2008. FY 2005 Budget Justifications and Performance Information. 10-Year Plan for Universal Accessibility. "Recreation Facility Design Guidelines". "Sign Guidelines"

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: Alternatives have been assessed on a project-by-project basis, but not program-wide. When recreation developments or accessibility improvements are made they result in some capital asset construction, but not at the level which would require large, meaningful credible analyses. Alternatives are weighed when different levels of recreation development are considered (cost, number and length of trails, campground or number of campgrounds), but the ability of the prospective partner to provide the long-term financial and managerial resources for construction and O&M is not considered. New management agreements require an RMP to be done by Reclamation, the managing partner, or jointly. There has been no analysis of different ways to meet Reclamation's recreation goals. Although analyzing alternatives may not appear to apply to Reclamation's core recreation mission of finding project parnters to manage the facilities, it should apply to those facilities that Reclamation must manage itself.

Evidence: Management Agreement

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Reclamation regularly collects information from its managing partners and concessions and uses it to manage the program and improve performance. Reclamation collects information about recreation demand and use. The Non-Federal Partners Study will identify factors that result in projects being turned back to Reclamation for management. The Recreation Use Data Report collects information from managing partners and concessions on the facilities and opportunities available at the area, the fees charged and the revenues collected, and the annual visitation. Where existing management agreements provide for cost sharing, internal budget procedures require that Reclamation work with its partners to identify needed maintenance activities and potential enhancements, and to develop the priority of those actions at each site. The Reclamation activity/program manager develops a request as part of the internal budget process for the work justified. This request is further reviewed and, if approved, eventually becomes part of the request to the Department.

Evidence: Progress information on accessibility measures and other GPRA performance goals is collected quarterly. Reclamation collects and reports data on four DOI Strategic Plan recreation goals quarterly. Management reviews performance results and makes adjustments to programs/priorities to ensure targets are met or informs upper management that targets will not be met. In addition to budgeting for the routine operational costs and in collaboration with area offices representatives, the program managers prioritize the potential projects with health, safety, and accessibility improvement and upgrades being the high priority. Recreation Use Data Report. Non-Federal Partners Study

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Program partners have not always been held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results; although this appears to be changing, many existing contracts still do not hold people accountable. For example, at Lake Berryessa, Reclamation constructed Monticello Dam in the late 1950's. The National Park Service produced a plan for recreation development but Napa County, the original managing partner, did not follow the plan and allowed long-term exclusive use. When the county turned the facility back in 1975, Reclamation continued this practice and is only now developing a long-term Visitor Services Plan for more equitable use of Lake Berryessa. Plans are underway to correct this type of situation. Senior level managers are responsible for accomplishing GPRA goals. SES performance agreements now require GPRA goals and, by June 2004, 25% of Reclamation employees will be required to link their performance to a GPRA goal; however, evidence does not indicate that such a linkage is in place for the recreation program. For the most part, recreation managing partners and concessionaires are held to management agreements and contracts. Usually, Federal cost sharing is only provided as work is accomplished.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan Goals. GPRA Employee Performance Results (PB No. 04-5(430). Concessions Policy and Directives and Standards.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Although the poorly-designed program purpose leads to challenges, the intended purpose of providing funds to particular projects, and to recreation beneficiaries, is clear. Based on this, funds are obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose. Reclamation managers work closely with partners to develop operating and action plans and identify the timing of funding needs. Reclamation only provides funds to other Federal partners through interagency contracts as authorized under FAR regulations. Standard cost-sharing agreements are included in the financial assistance guidelines. Reclamation uses templates for grants and cooperative agreements provided in the Financial Assistance Guidelines. This question is not applicable to concessions as there is no authority to financially assist or cost-share directly with concessionaires.

Evidence: Funds are obligated by an Interagency Agreement or through a Cooperative Grant. If the funds are provided through an interagency agreement to a Federal partner, funds are usually disbursed as the Federal entity requests reimbursement - generally on either a monthly or quarterly basis. If the funds are provided through a grant to a non-Federal managing partner, disbursement is made when the partner submits an SF-270 to Reclamation. The managing partner is required to provide the appropriate documentation for review to ensure that Reclamation is paying only the allowable costs as provided for in the agreement. For areas managed directly by Reclamation, funding is requested through the established budget and priority ranking system. Activity plans are developed and implemented. Less than 5 percent of Title 28 funds were available for carryover into FY 2004. FAR

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program does not presently have procedures to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness, and the program does not have an efficiency measure. However, in meeting Reclamation's goals for its recreation and concessions programs, it is implementing several actions to achieve these goals. Before constructing minimum facilities, Reclamation will perform a demand analysis to ascertain the size, if, any, of the facility needed. Before accepting a partner, Reclamation will encourage competition among possible managing partners to obtain the best contract for the Government. Reclamation will also ensure the partner has financial and managerial capability to live up to the terms of the proposed agreement and that the partner does not build more facilities than demand requires. Budget reviews are done frequently to ensure the maximum use of limited resources. Starting in FY 2004, Activity Based Costing started tracking the cost of certain recreation activities.

Evidence: Four ABC recreation activities. ABC plan. ADMS Inventory and Quarterly and Annual Results. Recreation.gov data base at www.recreation.gov. Competively Bid Concessions Contracts.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Reclamation collaborates and coordinates with its managing partners and concessionaires to provide a quality recreation experience to the public. Often, the project partners participate in the development of an RMP and use the information to help prepare the State Park Master Plan. For example, Reclamation is assisting the State of Nebraska Parks Department with the construction of boat ramp extensions, using Title 28 cost-share funding. The actions were considered as part of the reservoir RMP. Even though the greater part of the individual facility may be paid for, constructed and operated by partner or concessionaire, Reclamation retains an oversight and stewardship responsibility for the area. Reclamation collaborates with other DOI Bureaus, the Forest Service, and the Corps of Engineers to share resources and technical expertise related to accessibility, and for training. All concessions at partner-managed areas are provided by non-Reclamation contractors.

Evidence: Participation in various program such as the Tread Lightly! Inc land stewardship program; Take Pride in America, and National Public Lands Day events to obtain volunteer help for facility restoration and maintenance; and the Healthier US initiative to promote physical and mental health through recreation on public lands. Reclamation has agreements with non-Federal entities to manage natural resources such as wildlife management areas. Examples are Prineville Reservoir and Canyon Ferry Reservoir. Section 3 of P.L. 98-552 allows Reclamation to contract with other Federal regulatory or law enforcement entities in connection with resource protection and administration of the use and occupancy of land and waters within a project. This statute allows Reclamation to cooperate in the "enforcement of the laws or ordinances of such State or political subdivision", and to provide reimbursement for expenditures incurred with resource protection and administration.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Budget requests are initiated at the field level, reviewed by subject-matter expert teams and priortized as part of the Budget Review Committee process before submission to the Department, OMB, and Congress. Concessionaires file annual financial reports and Reclamation policy requires financial feasibility analysis for new concessions. Funds are monitored on a monthly basis to ensure obligations are made on a timely basis, that the funds available are adequate to cover anticipated expenditures, and that other financial requirements such as accurals of contract earnings are identified and costs recorded appropriately. In addition, periodic internal financial reviews of agreements are conducted as well as periodic procurement reviews to ensure the financial assistance agreements have been written in accordance with FAR and that agreement terms are being honored.

Evidence: Unqualified Financial Audit Opinion. Annual Financial Reports for Concessions. Department Accounting Manual

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Reclamation has taken numerous actions to address previously identified management deficiencies. Reclamation continues to update recreation and concession-related Directives and Standards and guidance. New management agreements now require the partner to provide Reclamation a two-year notice of intent to turn the facility back instead of the previous 30-90 days. This permits Reclamation time to consider relief, seek a new partner or include funds in the budget request to Congress for project operation. Alternative managment control reviews recommended the development of RMP's. Fifty RMP's have been done or are underway. The OIG audit found that no inspection of concession operations was being performed, and these have begun. Oversight reviews of new concession contracts have begun in accordance with the OIG audit direction. Accessibility reviews are ongoing. Area office representatives make site visits during the planning, construction and ongoing management of the project, including visits to verify in-kind services. Reclamation also reviews compliance with building, health and safety codes.

Evidence: The 2000 OIG concession audit revealed that there was no oversight of new or amended concession contracts in Reclamation to ensure compliance with existing 1998 Concession Policy and Directives and Standards. Newly revised Concession Policy and D&S meet the requirements of the 2000 audit. The audit also required inspections of concession operations and the new Policy and D&S require annual inspections. Updated Directives and Standards. Resource Management Plans

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: Consistent with existing management agreements, Reclamation requires performance schedules from cost sharing partners as part of the budget process before requesting the Federal cost share portion. Progress is reviewed to ensure funds are being spent in accordance with schedules and funds are shifted elsewhere if management agreement conditions are not being met. Partners bill Reclamation for work completed and Reclamation sends funds to them. Depending on what the program manager has negotiated, there may be performance measures that are required and agreed upon. Each agreement is handled differently as the scope of work is different for each. Cost share terms are set by negotiation with the partner. Cost-share contracts are standardized with the exception of the negotiable terms.

Evidence: GPRA goal for performance-based contracts. Established Reclamation Budget Review Committee procedures and process for funds transfers during fiscal year. Concessions and Managing Partner agreements.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: There is some data that indicates progress toward reaching long-term goals; however, as many of those long-term goals have recently been revised, this is of limited relevance. The Criteria for Facility Condition Reviews are being reviewed before they can be implemented. The Accessibility Program is completing action plans and retrofits for FY 2004 have been initiated to the extent that resources are available to make progress towards the long-term goal. One concession contract modification is underway now to include performance-based standards. The Non-Federal Partners Study will be used to obtain advance warning of projects slated to be turned back so that available preventive measure can be taken. Any prevention of turn backs will help strengthen the goal for community partnerships. When RMP's are contemplated, Reclamation approaches State or local entities to determine possible interest as managing partners.

Evidence: Draft Facility Condition criteria. ADMS Action Plans Inventory

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program largely achieved its annual performance goals in FY 2003, although some of the annual performance goals were inadequate, and have been revised during the PART process. The annual goal/performance measure for accessibility was "By the end of FY 2003, provide access for the disabled by ensuring that Reclamation's recreation and public areas meet accessibility standards"; the target was 7 percent and the result was 12.8 percent. However, the target was exceeded because it was set based on incomplete baseline data, which was still being gathered during FY 2003. For the goal of completing recreation management reviews to establish baseline data on facility condition at all recreation facilities, Reclamation achieved 98 percent of the performance target (157 reviews). This was a cumulative goal and included the number of reviews completed between FY 2000 and FY 2002. Reclamation also exceeded the performance target to implement corrective actions on deficient facilities by completing over 95 improvements to address accessibility and maintenance issues. Three new goals have been established for 2004-2008. In FY 2004, Reclamation is evaluating facilities it operates with a "Facility Condition Index" as "poor", "fair", or "good", and is setting goals for maintaining/obtaining community partnerships and creating performance-based concession agreements. Because FY 2004 will be the first year Reclamation has measured goals on community partnerships, facility conditions, and concession performance-based agreements, no data exists yet.

Evidence: Concessions Directive and Standards. FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Accomplishments

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Reclamation has made some changes that will result in improved efficiency; it does not have a baseline for its new efficiency measure. Use of BLM's Sign Shop by Reclamation may ultimately result in savings that exceed $1 million every three years. Reclamation has joined the National Recreation Reservation System on-line campground service at New Melones, which will reduce time spent in taking reservations. Concession training has been held to cover evaluation of concessions and issuing RFP's for better bids. A Marina Management class covered the administrative and operational aspects of managing a marina. Negotiations are underway with the National Association of State Park Directors to develop methods to manage recreation at 200+ Reclamation areas more efficiently. Recreation-related accessibility program efforts collaborate with other Federal agencies and State, city and county governments in providing training and expertise. This has resulted in efficient sharing of resources and completion of evaluations and access improvements with managing partners.

Evidence: One of the National Recreation Lakes Leadership Council pilot projects was the development of the Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS), a tool to allow planners and managers a framework and procedure for making better decisions for conserving high quality and diverse water recreation opportunities. WROS is being used by other Federal agencies such as the BLM and Forest Service. Memorandum of Agreement with the BLM for Construction of Signs. Concessions Policy. WROS Guidebook. Service Agreement with BLM for Accessibility Services.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: This question is not applicable for this program, because the principal goal for this program is to transfer management responsibilities of these facilities to others to manage. There has been no comparison done for those facilities that Reclamation is forced to manage because it cannot find managing partners.

Evidence: Of the 300+ designated recreation areas, only about 50 are currently managed by Reclamation and 29 of the 50 are those which were originally managed by others, but were turned back to Reclamation.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Evaluations have been of insufficient scope and quality to determine whether the program is effective and achieving results. There is some improvement associated with concessions performance, based on OIG audits in 1995 and 2000. An OIG audit of the accessibility program related to Deferred Maintenance in 1999 conveyed that the program was on track.

Evidence: OIG Accessibility Audit. Concession policy

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Program goals were achieved within the funds allocated through the budget process. Performance goals in 2003 were exceeded for increasing access to recreation areas. For the goals for recreation reviews, Reclamation achieved a 98 percent of performance target. Thirty-one RMP's were budgeted and all but one were completed within budgeted costs and within deadlines. Facility condition criteria are being developed now. The measures and actuals reported in the Meaures Tab do not indicate that program goals were achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules.

Evidence: Area office representatives reconcile the managing partner expenditures at the time Reclamation is billed, usually 2 to 3 times during the life of the project. Less than 5% of Title 28 funds were available for carryover into FY 2004.