Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Land Management - Resource Management Assessment

Supporting an agency-wide monitoring strategy to improve the collection, reporting, and analysis of monitoring data and track trends over time for overall resource conditions

Working to improve the consistency of existing performance data so that the agency has accurate and up-to-date baseline data and is able to set meaningful annual targets.

Developing consistent efficiency measures across the Department for similar restoration activities.

Measure: Percent of DOI stream/shoreline miles that have achieved desired conditions where condition is known and as specified in management plans.

Explanation:This measure helps to show the progress that the BLM is making in maintaining and improving the health of the watershed, while also using resources at a sustainable rate. Through inventories and monitoring the BLM is able to measure the current condition as well as the effectiveness of our management and treatments in achieving and maintaining this overall health. BLM minimum desired condition for riparian areas is achieving proper functioning condition (PFC) and functioning at risk with an upward trend.

Measure: Percent of DOI acres that have achieved desired conditions where condition is known and as specified in management plans.

Explanation:This measure helps to show the progress that the BLM is making in maintaining and improving the health of the watershed, while also using resources at a sustainable rate. Through inventories and monitoring the BLM is able to measure the current condition as well as the effectiveness of our management and treatments in achieving and maintaining this overall health. BLM minimum desired condition for wetlands is achieving proper functioning condition (PFC) and functioning at risk with an upward trend. Desired condition for uplands is achieving Land Health Standards developed by the BLM State offices and approved by the Secretary in accordance with Title 43 CFR 4180.2.

Measure: 1.2.01 Percent of baseline acres infested with invasive plant species that are controlled.

Explanation:This measure helps to show the progress that the BLM is making in sustaining the biological communities we manage. Included in this measure is all land and aquatic habitat targeted for conrol and/or invasive species management. (this measure excludes habitat restoration activities occurring after control and management of invasive plant treatment.) The BLM has estabished the acres of land infested with invasive plant species that are targeted for control and is monitoring the amount of change over time.

Measure: 1.2.03 Number of conservation actions implemented from recovery plans for ESA-listed species.

Explanation:This measure helps to show the progress that the BLM is making in sustaining the biological communities we manage to minimize the number of species ultimately listed under the ESA.

Measure: 1.2.04 Number of miles (stream/shoreline) restored or enhanced that directly support ESA listed and Bureau sensitive species conservation or recovery.

Explanation:This measure helps to show the progress that the BLM is making in sustaining the biological communities we manage to minimize the number of species ultimately listed under the ESA.

Measure: 1.2.05 Number of acres restored or enhanced that directly support ESA listed and Bureau sensitive species conservation or recovery.

Explanation:This measure helps to show the progress that the BLM is making in sustaining the biological communities managed to minimize the number of species ultimately listed under the ESA

Measure: Number of DOI riparian (stream/shoreline) miles restored to the condition specified in management plans.

Explanation:This measure helps BLM show progress in returning degraded areas to a condition considered suitable to support healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish, wildlife, and/or plants. BLM minimum desired condition for riparian areas is achieving proper functioning condition (PFC) and functioning at risk with an upward trend.

Measure: Number of DOI upland acres restored to the condition specified in management plans.

Explanation:This measure helps BLM show progress in returning degraded areas to a condition considered suitable to support healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish, wildlife, and/or plants. BLM desired condition for uplands is achieving Land Health Standards developed by the BLM State offices and approved by the Secretary in accordance with Title 43 CFR 4180.2.

Measure: Number of DOI wetland acres restored to the condition specified in management plans.

Explanation:This measure helps BLM show progress in returning degraded areas to a condition considered suitable to support healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish, wildlife, and/or plants. BLM minimum desired condition for wetlands is achieving proper functioning condition (PFC) and functioning at risk with an upward trend.

Measure: Percent of populations of species of management concern that are managed to desired condition.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The primary authorizing statute for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. FLPMA establishes that BLM administered public lands are to be managed for multiple uses and sustained yield. Specifically, the BLM's mission is "To sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations". BLM's resource protection activities are central to BLM's mission as defined by FLPMA. Through these activities, BLM provides for the protection of resource values; preservation of certain lands in their natural condition and compliance with pollution control laws. These activities contribute to the Department of the Interior's outcome goals to improve the health of watersheds and landscapes and to sustain biological communities (1.2). Activities included under the BLM resource protection umbrella include: Soil, Water, and Air Management; Rangeland Management ; Forest Management (including forests in both the "public domain" lands and Oregon and California grant lands); Riparian Management; Wild Horse and Burro Management; Wildlife Management; Fisheries Management; Threatened and Endangered Species Management; Challenge Cost Share (1770);. BLM's objectives in each of these affected areas are further defined by specific authorizing legislation and specific goals within BLM's 2004-2008 Operating Plan.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008 Bureau of Land Management Operating Plan 2004-2008 The specific purpose of each Sub-Activity is described in the President's 2007 Budget. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, Oregon and California Act P.L. 75-405, August 28, 1937 E.O. 13112 of February 3, 1999, (Invasive Species) Emergency Wetlands Resource Act of 1986 as amended (16 U.S.C. Sect 3901-3932) Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) Healthy Forest Initiative of 2002 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) (P.L. 108-148) of 2003 Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004, 7 USC 7701 et seq., Subtitle E Plant Protection Act, June 20, 2000, PL 106-224 (supersedes the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, except Sections 11 and 15) Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901-1908) Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315) as amended by the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181d) Water Quality Act of 1987, as amended from the Federal water Pollution Control Act (Clean water Act) of 1977

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

Explanation: Maintaining the health and integrity of BLM-managed lands is central to the agency's mission and represents an ongoing challenge. Resource protection programs are designed to maintain or improve desired resource conditions while providing for sustained use of public lands for a variety of activities, including recreation, grazing, timber, and oil and gas development. These programs also help the agency adapt to meet current and predicted threats to resource health such as the impact of historic management practices (i.e., exclusion of wildfire), prolonged drought, the spread of invasive species, habitat fragmentation, urban growth and catastrophic events such as insect or disease epidemics. A key component in meeting these objectives is ensuring that BLM has accurate information about the actual and predicted impacts of specific agency management decisions.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008 President's 2007 Budget Bureau of Land Management Operating Plan 2004-2008 2006 Annual Work Plan Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, Oregon and California Act P.L. 75-405, August 28, 1937 Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 A Resource Protection program area design example for implementing the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 is provided. Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act Healthy Forest Restoration Act Annual Report on Performance Accountability FY 2005 The State of the Nation's Ecosystem (The Heinz Center Report) National Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring Strategy

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

Explanation: Under FLPMA, BLM is the principle party responsible for management of that part of the public domain known as "the public lands". BLM operates under a different statutory framework than other Federal land management agencies (NPS, FWS, and USFS), and BLM's resource protection programs reflect its unique requirements. Many of BLM's habitat restoration functions, for instance, address the need to monitor, mitigate the effects of, and regulate authorized uses that would not be permitted elsewhere in the Federal estate. In other instances, BLM's mandate is quite unique and crosses land management boundaries. For example, the BLM has the primary management responsibility to manage wild and free roaming horse and burro animal populations and habitat on public lands in order to attain a thriving natural ecological balance across landscapes.

Evidence: FLPMA, ESA, NEPA, HFRA, PRIA, WFHBA, and Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004. Bureau of Land Management Operating Plan 2004-2008 2006 Annual Work Plans for 1000, 1100 and 6000 programs demonstrate the programs purpose and design. IM2003-035, Implementing the President's Healthy Forest Initiative IM2004-127 (Issuance of Healthy Forest Restoration Act Field Guide) The BLM CCS program funds approximately 400 projects each year. Every federal dollar invested in this program is matched by two non federal dollars, delivering three dollars to on the ground conservation. 2003 - 2004 Challenge Cost Share Evaluation Report, IM2006-114 (State Wildlife Action Plans), Sage-grouse MOU (WAFWA, USFS, USFWS, BLM), BLM Manual 6521 - State Agencies (partnership with states), BLM Manual 6840 Special Species Management (ESA coordination with states and USFWS), IM2005-024 (The National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (Action Item #4)), Multiple Partnership MOU's, an example being the Sage-grouse MOU (WAFWA, USFS, USFWS, BLM).

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

Explanation: There is no strong evidence that another approach (e.g., regulation) would be more efficient or effective in meeting the program goals and objectives or that another mechanism would better accomplish this work on BLM-administered lands. The BLM's Resource Protection program areas are designed to develop and implement actions to meet legislative mandates and work toward DOI's strategic plan goals, BLM does this by implementing, monitoring and evaluating how actions taken accomplish these overall goals. The BLM has recognized the need to strategically guide its efforts to meet these overall goals by developing a National Vegetation Strategy and a National Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring Strategy. These efforts will enhance the BLM's efficiency and effectiveness by: establishing common vegetation descriptions across program areas; establishing and using a limited number of resource condition indicators; standardizing data collection, evaluation and reporting, and integrating an annual plan of work across Resource Protection activities, including hazardous fuels management efforts within the multi-bureau DOI wildland fire program. These efforts will enhance the Bureau's decision making process related to maintenance or improvement of resource conditions through actions taken under Resource Protection program areas. The BLM's resource protection programs monitor to ensure that actions are implemented as designed and are meeting defined objectives and performance goals. In recognition of the importance of monitoring, the BLM has established a team to develop a National Monitoring Strategy comprised of an interdisciplinary committee involving various BLM programs. Members of this committee will ensure that the strategy includes effectiveness monitoring as an interdisciplinary effort and that future actions will lead toward meeting BLM resource protection and ultimately land use plan goals/objectives.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan Goal 1.1.01-03 and 1.2.01, BLM Operating Plan Goals 1.1.01-03 and 1.2.01 2006 Annual Work Plan Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 1995 Grazing Reform Rule Making BLM Manual 4180 Rangeland Health. National Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring Strategy National Vegetation Strategy

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The BLM's Resource Protection programs are effectively designed to target actions that maintain or improve the health of BLM lands and waters. The programs are designed to allow the BLM the flexibility to prioritize protection efforts that meet targeted beneficiaries and to proceed with the watershed level resource protection process in an orderly, efficient manner. Projects that are funded must meet established selection criteria that reflect the program's purpose and priorities. The BLM must have up-to-date environmental documentation to implement management actions on public lands and to comply with legal mandates. The BLM builds the required consultation and environmental review requirements into the process of specific actions to ensure that stakeholders have input into the process and that issues can be addressed in a timely manner. This provides balance to supporting and competing interests among the many external beneficiaries of BLM programs, including the users of the BLM public lands; the general public; local, State, and Tribal governments; and other Federal agencies. In addition, to ensure that Resource Protection program area resources reach the intended beneficiaries, Bureau policy (IM2004-084) states that the "benefiting subactivity" will make sure expenditures are coded to the program or subactivity that drives the BLM to accomplish the work.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan Goal 1.1.01-03 and 1.2.01, BLM Operating Plan Goals 1.1.01-03 and 1.2.01 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, Oregon and California Act P.L. 75-405, August 28, 1937 IM2006-39 FY 2006 AWP Directives (1040 an example of workload targets), IM 2006-139 FY 2007 PTA analysis (and 1040 example) IM2004-84 FY 2004 AWP (pg.7, benefiting subactivity definition) FY 2005 BLM / NFWF Evaluation report Annual Report on Performance Accountability FY 2005

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: BLM has refined its existing long-term outcome measures and complemented these measures with several new ones. Collectively, these measures reflect the key goals of the agency's resource protection activities to ensure proper functioning condition of BLM lands and waters and to maintain healthy and sustainable wildlife populations on BLM lands. However, BLM faces challenges in fully implementing some of these measures due to difficulties in maintaining up-to-date information on resource conditions on many BLM lands. An underlying factor is that lack of adequate monitoring data in many places. The relationship of annual outputs to long-term program outcomes is also unclear in most cases. BLM is currently in the process of refining and implementing a National Monitoring Strategy to improve the consistency and quality of the monitoring data it collects and improve performance reporting in the future. BLM is currently in the process of refining and implementing a National Monitoring Strategy to improve the consistency and quality of the monitoring data it collects and improve performance reporting in the future.

Evidence: FY 2007 BLM Congressional Budget Justifications; DOI Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008: BLM Operating Plan 2004-2008;Annual Report on Performance and Accountability Fiscal year 2005 page ii, 2-3, 9-12 and 69-73.

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

Explanation: BLM's data on three existing measures (addressing the proper functioning condition of BLM lands and waters) is not updated in a regular, systematic fashion to ensure that the overall data that is being reported each year is truly accurate. Therefore, it is unclear how the data is being used by BLM and one cannot say that BLM's targets are ambitious. BLM has not yet established baseline data or targets for its new measures.

Evidence:

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: BLM uses the same outcome measures to report annual performance as it uses to report its performance toward its long-term goals. As previously noted, BLM faces challenges in fully implementing some of these measures due to difficulties in maintaining up-to-date information on resource conditions on many BLM lands. The agency reports on a number of annual outputs, but they are not clearly prioritized and the link between these outputs and the program's long-term outcome goals has not been adequately established.

Evidence: FY 2007 BLM Congressional Budget Justifications; DOI Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008; BLM Operating Plan 2004-2008; Annual Report on Performance and Accountability Fiscal year 2005 page ii, 2-3, 9-12 and 69-73.

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

Explanation: As previously noted, BLM's data on three existing measures (addressing the proper functioning condition of BLM lands and waters) is not updated in a regular, systematic fashion so it is unclear how the data is being used by BLM and one cannot say that BLM's targets are ambitious. BLM has not yet established baseline data or targets for its new measures.

Evidence:

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: BLM partners with many organizations interested in habitat restoration activities and other land health improvement projects, and the agency gives priority to projects that have multiple cost-sharing sources. Partners include historic trail organizations, the Forest Service and the National Park Service, the Nature Conservancy, the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, the governments of Mexico and Canada, educational institutions, and the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. For example, BLM and the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation jointly review and approve public land restoration projects funded through the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation and produce an annual report on accomplishments. Grantees and BLM's many partners report via the terms and conditions of their agreements on performance in a manner that allows BLM to tie accomplishments to annual and long-term goals. Many contracts and agreements include performance based outcomes for resource protection. Within the National Wildlife Foundation Projects (NWFP) area, eight federal agencies coordinate the monitoring of resources across 25 million acres, most of which is managed by the USFS, the BLM and the NPS. Success of the regional monitoring program relies on strong partnerships with federal and state agencies, research organizations, universities, and on public involvement. Counties and other local governments participate in the Partners Against Weeds program and other programs, and often collaborate in the inventory and treatment of noxious weeds. BLM's Challenge Cost Share program leverages non-federal dollars at a 1:1 ratio for every federal dollar spent in the program.

Evidence: FY 2005 BLM / NFWF Evaluation Report; Wild Horse and Burro Interagency Agreement with the Forest Service ; Wild Horse and Burro Interagency Agreement with USDA APHIS Veterinary Services; 2003-2004 CCS / CCI Evaluation Report; 2003-2004 CCS / CCI Project list; Example CCS project 38344-Sharptail Habitat Restoration; Pesticide Use Reports (PURs); MOU (BLM-MOU-WO200-2004-03), between the USFS and BLM for the National Riparian Service Team (NRST), Izaak Walton League Assistance agreement; Within the NWFP area, an annual Interagency Regional Monitoring Report is prepared (2001-2004);The Declaration of Cooperation, January, 2006 Oregon Biomass Energy Facility.

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: No independent evaluations (GAO, IG, etc.) of sufficient scope have been conducted to address the wide breadth of BLM's resource protection efforts and how they relate to the agency's long-term goal of maintaining the health of BLM lands and waters. A number of independent evaluations have been conducted by GAO, OIG and other entities on certain components of BLM's resource protection programs, but collectively they do not provide an overall picture of how the agency is doing at achieving its long-term resource protection objectives.

Evidence: There have been several GAO audits addressing resource protection issues including fisheries-related restoration issues in western Oregon and the BLM's Biomass Utilization and Stewardship Contracting programs, however, these audits were limited in scope and very specific. The IG has also conducted one audit of BLM's "Rangeland Improvement Program" (IG Report 99-1-677) that could be considered a component of BLM's habitat restoration/protection activities. Under the Stewardship Contracting program, BLM used the CESU (Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit) network at Northern Arizona University to conduct a third-party monitoring and evaluation assessment as required by the stewardship contracting legislation (P.L. 108-7). The BLM conducts its own internal program-specific evaluations, but these are not independent. Historically, program evaluations have been more output-oriented rather than outcome-oriented. In 2005, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation contracted with an independent third party, Hardner and Gullison to evaluate the BLM / NFWF program. The objective of the evaluation was to measure outcome performance and cost effectiveness of the program. This evaluation was specific to the joint work of BLM and the Foundation, although many of the findings and results may be applicable to resource protection and conservation projects elsewhere.

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: Budget documents are not directly linked to performance, in part due to the lack of an adequate connection between program outputs and the agency's outcome-based performance measures. In most cases, BLM does present with the budget the outputs it expects to achieve at the proposed budget level, but the requests do not typically present any unit cost information and do not report the indirect costs (such as program overhead) of achieving program outputs.

Evidence: FY 2007 BLM Congressional Budget Justifications; BLM Operating Plan 2004-2008; Annual Report on Performance and Accountability FY 2005.

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

Explanation: DOI continues to work with OMB to improve its long-term and annual performance measures to better gauge the performance of the program in the future. Also, BLM has recognized the need for improved collection, reporting, and analysis of monitoring data among its many programs and has established a Monitoring Coordinator position to help facilitate the interdisciplinary committee that coordinates BLM's National Monitoring Strategy. Better coordination will help improve BLM's monitoring information base. Effective monitoring will help ensure that BLM leadership and managers have all of the information necessary to establish more meaningful resource protection goals and track progress toward those goals over time. The BLM is also developing a vegetative strategy that spans all programs in an effort to define and describe an integrated set of goals and objectives for managing vegetative communities. In addition the BLM is in the final steps of completing a Vegetative EIS that will help streamline the tools for restoration.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008(refer to evidence 2.1); BLM Operating Plan 2004-2008 (refer to evidence 2.1); Creeks and Communities: A continuing Strategy for accelerating cooperative Riparian Restoration and Management, December 2002 plus the original 1997 Strategy; Proposed changes to Performance Measures 1.2.02 (Threatened and Endangered Species), 1.2.03 (Habitat Restoration - stream/shoreline miles), and 1.2.04 (Habitat Restoration - acres).

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: The BLM uses its Management Information System (MIS) to track program performance against workload/output targets throughout the year. MIS provides cost information that is generally up-to-date and accurate. The Bureau has 35 established workload measures (e.g., acres treated, miles treated) to track resource protection accomplishments. Occasionally, the MIS performance data is supplemented with individual data calls to the States. For example, the range, forestry, wildlife, and wild horse and burro management program staff request qualitative and quantitative information to document work accomplished, partners, and project benefits. During the development of the Annual Work Plan, funding allocations and workload targets are established by each State Director and negotiated with the Director for all resource protection activities. Each States' progress toward meeting workload targets is reviewed at midyear, third quarter and end-of-year using the ABC (Activity Based Costing) side of MIS. Adjustments are made when workload targets are not being met for other than accepted reasons. For example, 2007 funding and workload targets for the individuals States are being adjusted using 2005 performance data. In addition, the Bureau has processes to track contractor and partner accomplishments.

Evidence: Performance and Workload Measure Reporting (IM 2006-110). Performance, Cost Management and Evaluation Review for FY2006 Planning Target Allocations (IM 2005-141). FY2005 Third Quarter Review (IM 2005-221). Performance-Based Service Contracts (IM 99-043). Guide to Best Practices for Past Performance (IM 97-91). 2004 Challenge Cost Share Evaluation Report. Stewardship Contracting Assessment Study (IB 2005-022).

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: BLM indicates that program managers are held accountable through the personnel appraisal system, but BLM has not provided evidence that managers' appraisals are sufficiently linked to broader program goals or performance measures. Performance expectations should be clearly identified in managers' appraisal documents in a way that an individual manager's contributions toward meeting the program's broader performance workload/output targets can be assessed.

Evidence: Sample BLM Manager's Performance Appraisal. 2006 Guidance on Establishing Performance Plans for General Workforce (IM 2006-028). DOI Performance Appraisal Handbook (370 DM 430).

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

Explanation: The BLM's budget allocation process reinforces responsibility and accountability for all offices. The development of the Planning Target Allocation (PTA), which precedes the formulation of the BLM's Annual Work Plan; determines funding levels for the States, national centers and headquarters; identifies projects or issues which will be centrally funded; and distributes the remaining funds to the highest priority projects. Funds must be obligated to allow no more than a 2 percent carryover without any overspending. This strategy allows for reasonable flexibility for unplanned events while ensuring tight fiscal control. The BLM formally reviews each State's progress toward meeting planning targets at midyear, third quarter, and the end of each fiscal year. Reviews are conducted using the Management Information System to obtain up-to-date budgetary, financial, and fund status information. These reviews analyze unliquidated obligations to track overall plans and spending, comparing actual expenditures and their intended use. All offices provide information for programs where demands are exceeding capabilities, and identify programs where funds are surplus to needs. Any surplus funds are then redistributed to other offices to meet high priority needs.

Evidence: BLM End of Year Obligations by Subactivity. Unliquidated Obligation Reviews for Procurement Awards (IM2006-076). IM2005-221 outlines the decisions of the third quarter review for FY 2005. A sample third quarter review for the riparian/wetland program. Two examples of the MIS Reports for the wild horse and burro program. The 2004 Challenge Cost Share Evaluation Report states that overall the CCS program is working as it is intended. Funding is being spent on appropriate activities and projects. Projects were well designed and developed cooperative partnerships, with few exceptions. Review of the projects show that CCS funds are spent on approved projects and funds accounting is accurate, with few exceptions.

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 meet the criteria for this question because it currently has no formal efficiency measures in place (along with baselines and targets for such measures). However, the Bureau does track unit costs for many program components, including for the determination of the appropriate management level (AML) of wild horses and burros within herd management areas. (AML equates to the population that will provide for a healthy herd while protecting the natural resources of a given area.) BLM routinely examines the cost of gathering wild horses and burros ($/animal) in order to reach AML. Likewise, the costs of other protection activities are routinely examined, such as the cost of treating weeds ($/acre). The Bureau has put in place management systems to improve performance measurement and compare performance across BLM offices although BLM has had some difficulty in quantifying the savings that have resulted from these efforts. The resource protection programs are examining the architecture of their IT systems to improve operations and reduce costs. To date, BLM has made limited use of competitive sourcing authorities within its resource protection programs.

Evidence: FY 2007 Congressional Budget Justifications. MIS data on the cost of determining AML for the Wild Horse and Burro Program. Paper on the business study of IT systems for Planning and Renewable Resources and the WO-200 IT Applications Review.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The BLM routinely coordinates, and where appropriate, actively partners with appropriate federal, state, local, and tribal governments to develop the land use plans that guide the agency's resource protection efforts. This includes federal agencies that have adjoining boundaries such as the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. In some cases, BLM has even partnered with these agencies to develop a single land use plan for an area to be managed jointly by the two agencies. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is a frequent Cooperating Agency for BLM plans, and the development of species recovery plans is often coordinated with BLM's broader planning efforts. Since 2001, the BLM and the Forest Service have been expanding the use of "Service First," so that managers have reciprocal delegations of their authorities, duties and responsibilities to promote customer service and efficiency across landscapes. Resource staff work together to establish management objectives for multiple programs. The 2008 program of work will also include other resource protection programs. The BLM has implemented "counterpart regulations" with the FWS and the NOAA - Fisheries since 2004. The BLM Fish, Wildlife, and T&E program manuals direct the programs to establish coordination efforts of land and species management with federal, State, tribal governments, NGO's (non-governmental organizations) and the public. Many MOU's have been signed with federal, state, tribal governments, NGO's and the public that establish a general framework for cooperation and participation to ensure coordinated efforts are achieved. BLM strongly encourages its offices to work with State Wildlife Agencies to implement Wildlife Action Plans (known as Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies) in land use and conservation planning on BLM-administered lands. Collectively, the strategies provide a solid foundation for promoting wildlife conservation, and afford an opportunity for the states, federal agencies, and other conservation partners to strategically address their individual and coordinated roles and responsibilities in conservation efforts.

Evidence: The 1994 NW Forest Plan, a plan amendment signed by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture. BLM's Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and list of current agreements with partners. Several agreements with other agencies: "Service First" with the Forest Service, the National Riparian Service Team with the Forest Service; burro management with the National Park Service; counterpart regulations with the Forest Service, NOAA Fisheries and FWS; sage-grouse conservation with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Forest Service and FWS; and forest inventory with the Forest Service. Instructions for developing a 2007 program of work for both the fuels and forestry programs (IM 2006-098). Instructions for training to implement the counterpart regulations (IM 2004-178). Direction to consider State Wildlife Action Plans.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: BLM has received seven consecutive unqualified audit opinions, of which the agency's resource protection programs represent a significant component. The availability of timely and accurate financial information made available to all employees through its MIS is an important factor. BLM has also met or exceeded its goals under the Prompt Payment Act and goals to reduce or eliminate erroneous payments. There are no current material weaknesses identified in the program, and the program has no direct relationship to identified agency-wide material weaknesses.

Evidence: Independent Auditors' Report on the bureau of Land Management's Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2004 (Report No. X-IN-BLM-0012-2005) 2005 Annual Assurance Statement on Management Controls, dated 9/28/05.

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

Explanation: The resource protection programs routinely conduct internal reviews to evaluate management deficiencies. Results of the evaluations are used to relay findings and recommendations to the appropriate BLM manager, and further evaluations are conducted to verify implementation of the recommendations. In addition, the BLM takes steps to implement recommendations from external reviews BLM is in the process of developing a new monitoring strategy in response to recommendations from a previous PART completed in 2002. Evaluations by third parties of both the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and CCS programs have resulted in recommendations to strengthen the programs. The BLM and NFWF have or are in the process of implementing the recommended changes. Additional program evaluations are planned in the CCS, riparian, range and weeds programs. The NFWF has implemented an entire evaluation program, so that each project will have an evaluation component, and the aggregate will yield information on program outcomes and effectiveness. In 2006-2008, the BLM will review its stewardship contracts and agreements to evaluate compliance and efficiency, as wells as the effectiveness of national policy and guidance for the stewardship contracting authority. An internal evaluation of the Fish, Wildlife and Botany programs was conducted in 2003. An in-depth program analysis for the Soil, Water and Air Program has identified management deficiencies in some States where insufficient levels of expertise and skill are available to address all priority soil, water and air resource management issues. In response to this workforce analysis, plans are being prepared to develop and deliver training that will assure availability of expertise for high priority work. A review of the grazing program in seven States focused on conducting Rangeland Health assessments and issuing grazing permits.

Evidence: Habitat Restoration Activities PART (2002). Internal and External Evaluations Summary. An evaluation of the Forestry program. An evaluation of the Fish, Wildlife, Botany and Special Status Species Program. Action plan for the Fish, Wildlife Botany, and Special Status Species program (IM 2005-130). Guidance for Stewardship Contracting (IM 2006-058), The direction for an internal evaluation of the stewardship projects (IM 2006-012).

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

Explanation: Despite some concerns about the adequacy of BLM's data for its existing long-term outcome measures, the agency appears to be making some limited progress toward meeting its performance targets and achieving its long-term resource protection goals.

Evidence: FY 2007 BLM Congressional Budget Justifications; DOI Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008: BLM Operating Plan 2004-2008;Annual Report on Performance and Accountability Fiscal year 2005 page ii, 2-3, 9-12 and 69-73.

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

Explanation: Despite some concerns about the adequacy of BLM's data for its existing annual performance measures, the agency appears to be making some limited progress toward meeting its performance targets and achieving its annual goals.

Evidence: FY 2007 BLM Congressional Budget Justifications; DOI Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008: BLM Operating Plan 2004-2008;Annual Report on Performance and Accountability Fiscal year 2005 page ii, 2-3, 9-12 and 69-73.

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

Explanation: The program does not meet the PART criteria for Question 3.4 because it does not currently have an efficiency measure in place. However, BLM does appear to have made modest progress in some respects toward improving the efficiency of its resource protection efforts. The BLM does not yet have procedures in place to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness across all programs within the broad category of "Resource Protection". The BLM's MIS allows the agency to track cost per output unit. In limited instances, this may be a good indicator of efficiency within a specific program across the organization and from one year to the next. In many cases, unit costs may have large fluctuations from year to year that may be easily explainable (e.g., market fluctuations, differences in methodology for accomplishing the unit, etc.), but that prevents the unit cost information from being useful as a measure of efficiency. Based on MIS data, the BLM has made some changes in the implementation of certain resource protection activities and has been adopting best management practices from one state to another to allow for improved efficiencies. However, BLM has been challenged in quantifying the savings that have resulted from these efforts.

Evidence: Riparian program newsletter, "Full Stream Ahead"; 1737-14 Technical Reference; 1734-6 Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health; the Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems; 4180 handbook and manual; FY2004 Technical Program Review-Utah, 2006 Annual Work Plan Program directives.

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

Explanation: There are few other programs with which fair comparisons to BLM's resource management programs can be made both because BLM's multiple-use mission differs from that of most other natural resource management agencies and because consistent, reliable data upon which to make comparisons is often scarce. Based on limited available data and studies, BLM's resource protection programs appear to compare favorably with other agencies involved in ecological restoration and protection. In addition, the BLM shares the same three DOI 'resource protection" performance goals (1.1.01, 1.1.02, and 1.1.03) with the FWS and the NPS. Finally, the Bureau annually shares costs with state governments and other agencies to complete resource protection projects. In several instances, GAO has found that BLM programs compare favorably to those of the Forest Service. A 2003 GAO report gave favorable reviews to BLM's performance accountability systems relative to those of the Forest Service. Another report found that unlike the Forest Service, the BLM had eliminated its reforestation backlog and is minimizing any potential adverse effects that could result from carrying a backlog of unattended needs.

Evidence: FY 2003-2008 Department of the Interior Strategic Plan; GAO Report: "Forest Service: Little Progress on Performance Accountability Likely Unless Management Addresses Key Challenges" (GAO-03-503), May 2003; GAO Report: "Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs" (GAO-05-374) April 2005, page 35-39.

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

Explanation: There has not been an independent evaluation of sufficient scope completed to gauge the overall effectiveness of BLM's resource protection activities. GAO, OIG, and other entities have conducted a number of independent evaluations on select components of BLM's resource protection activities; the results of these reviews have been somewhat mixed, but most reviews have not found critical flaws that would suggest that BLM's programs are ineffective. In most cases where opportunities for improvement were identified, the BLM has taken positive steps to improve management.

Evidence: An Evaluation of the Performance of Conservation Projects Funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Bureau of Land Management General Call (1995-2002)" Prepared by: R.E. Gullison, PhD and J. Hardner, MS December 21, 2005; "Rangelands Improvement Program, BLM" (IG Report 99-1-677, July 1999); Stewardship Contracting Assessment Study, NAU, February 2005, and follow-up Instruction Memorandum 2005-022, section 3.1; "Forest Service, Better Data are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs" (GAO-05-374, April 2005) see the evidence 2.6; "Restoring Fish Passage Through Culverts on Forest Service and BLM Lands in Oregon and Washington Could Take Decades" (GAO-02-136) and follow-up Instruction Bulletin No. OR-2003-036 - Monitoring of Fish Passage Culvert Projects, BLM Independent Evaluation Table 2000-2006.