III. Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B

This section identifies the goals, defines the performance indicators used to measure performance, identifies the baseline, describes how the data is collected, and identifies how the data is verified and validated.

 
 
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition  Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
1.1.1 By September 30, 1999, an increase of 2 %, above the baseline, of regional migratory bird populations of management concern (for which adequate population information is available) demonstrate improvements in their populations status because of management actions that have either increased their numbers or, in come cases, reduced the number of conflicts due to 
overabundance. 
 
 
1.1.1(1) % increase of regional migratory bird populations of management concern with improved status. 

This measure documents changes in the number of regional migratory bird populations of management concern that exhibit improvements in their population status, as measured by quantifiable statistical trend data.  
 
 

 1.1.1(1) The baseline data consist of 250 regional migratory bird populations of management concern which adequate population information is available.  Information on the population status of regional migratory bird populations of management concern is gathered annually by means of a variety of standardized survey methodologies. These include: 
  • Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), 
  • Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey,
  • Dove Survey, Woodcock Survey,
  • Arctic Goose Surveys

  •  
With the exception of the BBS, all information is collected, analyzed, and reported by the Migratory Bird Management Office. 
 
 
The significance of observed changes in regional migratory bird populations will be evaluated using generally accepted statistical procedures.
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
1.1.2 By September 30, 1999, an increase of 2% of regional migratory bird populations of management concern will have baseline information available for establishing reliable population levels, and monitoring programs will be initiated or continued for those species.  1.1.2 (1) % increase in baseline information for regional migratory bird populations of management concern. 

The measure indicate the number of regional migratory bird populations of management concern for which available information on populations is of sufficiently high quality to allow a statistical assessment of changes in status and trends over time. 

(2)# of regional migratory bird populations of management concern 

This measure provides a tally of the total number of regional migratory bird populations that are deemed to be of management concern

1.1.2 (a) Same as 1.1.1 above. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2)FY 1997 regional migratory bird populations of management concern is 400. 
 
 
 
 
Increases in monitoring capabilities for regional migratory bird populations of management concern will be achieved by increasing geographical coverage of existing surveys, improving survey methodology, or implementing new surveys for selected populations. With the exception of the Breeding Bird Survey, all information for assessing the adequacy of population survey information is housed by the MBMO. The BBS is coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Research Division, with summary information on populations trends available on the BBS home page. The reliability and adequacy of existing and newly implemented survey programs for monitoring regional migratory bird population trends will be evaluated using generally accepted statistical procedures.
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
1.1.2 Continued The measure documents increases in the number of regional migratory bird populations of management concern for which suitable  

high quality information is available for monitoring changes in population status and trends  

(3) # baseline monitoring programs initiated for regional migratory bird populations of manage-ment concern.

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(3) FY 1997 monitoring programs initiated for regional migratory bird populations of management concern is 0. 
   
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
1.2.1 - By September 30, 1999, 10% of endangered and threatened species populations listed a decade or more are stabilized or improved and 10 species in decline are precluded from the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 1.2.1(1) % of listed species populations listed a decade or more improving and/or stable. 

1.2.1 (2) # of species approved for removal from candidacy. 

1.2.1 (3) # of species approved for removal from candidacy as a result of conservation agreements precluding the need to list. 

1.2.1 (4) # of species included in proposed rules to delist or downlist published in the Federal Register. 
 
  

1.2.1(5) # of species included in final rules to delist or downlist.

1.2.1(1) Listed species populations listed a decade or more = 636 
 
 
1.2.1(2) FY 1997 species approved for removal from candidacy is 11. 

1.2.1(3) Need the # of candidates as of FY 1997 baseline need for baseline . 
  

1.2.1(4) FY 1997 species included in proposed rules to delist or downlist published in Federal Register is 0. 
 

1.2.1(5) FY 1997 species included in final rules to delist or downlist is 0.

(1,4&5) Performance measure data will also be obtained through annual Regional reports on recovery planning, implementation accomplishments, and the status of species which will be compiled and held in the DTE recovery database. This data will be managed by the Branch of Recovery and Consultation, Division of Endangered Species in the Washington Office. Data is reported by field office employees accomplishing the work 

(2 & 3) Performance measure data will be obtained through annual Regional reports on: 

  • candidate conservation agreements
  • conservation practices, 
  • Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment forms,
  • candidate species, candidate conservation agreement and
  • Federal Register databases. Regional and field office staff.
Compiled data from all Regions are reviewed by the Washington Office staff, and data discrepancies are resolved with the Regional and field office staff.
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
1.2.1 Continued 1.2.1(6) # of total acres protected, restored, or enhanced under HCPs. 

1.2.1(7) # of listed/candidate species covered by those HCPs.

1.2.1(6) Baseline not available 
 
 
1.2.1(7) Baseline not available
  
 
 
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
1.3.1 - By September 30, 1999, baselines for interjurisdictional fish populations are established.  1.3.1 (1) Develop status & trends baseline for interjurisdictional fish populations. 

Interjurisdictional Fish - Populations of fish that are managed by two or more states or national or tribal governments because of the scope of their geographic distributions or migrations

Stable - Species known to have stable numbers over the recent past and whose threats have remained relatively constant or diminished in the wild.

1.3.1 Baseline to be determined. Reporting will be against the established baseline. 
 
 

Baseline to be determined. 
Reporting will be against the established baseline.

1.3.1 Status and trend database for interjurisdictional fish populations is collected in the Accomplishment module of the Fishery Information System---data source manager is the Deputy AD- 1.3.1 Fisheries data is initially assembled at field stations, then forwarded to Regional offices for quality control and consistency checks, and then subsequently forwarded to the Washington office for final editing and national roll-up. Regional inspections of field stations also include review of data collection and management efforts. 
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
1.4.1 - By September 30, 1999, 100% of marine mammal populations over which the Service has jurisdiction will be at sustainable population levels or protected under conservation agreements. 1.4.1(a) % of marine mammal populations at sustainable levels or protected under conservation agreements. 

Under the MMPA, optimum stainable populations is defined as the number of marine mammals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.  
 
 

1.4.1 (a) FY 1997 baseline 100%. 

A total of 6 nonlisted marine mammal populations were under the jurisdiction of the Service. All 6 populations were at sustainable population levels or under conservation agreements . 

1.4.1 Fisheries. - Marine mammal population data is collected in the Accomplishment module of the Fishery Information System (data source manager is the Deputy AD - Fisheries). 1.4.1 Data is initially assembled at field stations, then forwarded to Regional offices for quality control and consistency checks, and then subsequently forwarded to the Washington office for final editing and national roll-up. Regional inspections of field stations also include review of data collection and management efforts.
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
1.5.1 By September 30, 1999, 19% of transborder species over which the Service has jurisdiction will benefit from improved conservation efforts. 

1.5.2 By September 30, 1999, an 22 priority species of international concern will benefit from improved conservation efforts. 

1.5.1(1) % transborder international species benefitting from improved conservation efforts. 
 
 
 
 
  

1.5.2(1) # priority international species benefitting from improved conservation efforts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

1.5.2(2) Establish a baseline for priority international species. 
 

Transborder species of international concern: Those species addressed by well-established, multinational mechanisms to conserve species of greatest importance and benefit to the American people, and that spend a portion of their life history within the U.S. 

Conservation projects: A specific effort, conducted abroad and under an international mandate or protocol that contributes to the enhancement or survival of an international species or ecosystem of common interest.

1.5.1 (1) FY 1997 the complete list of transborder international species with improved conservation status is 400. 
 
  

1.5.2(1) the is an estimate of species that are of a high priority to the United States and cooperating international countries. The FY 1997 level of 15 species. However, there is no fixed baseline of all agreed upon priority international species. . 

1.5.2(2) Establish Baseline of all priority international species. 
 
 
 
 

1.5.1 Annual reports from grantees document field work accomplished under individual grants. They contain the established methodology through which conservation field work under the signed grant is accomplished. They also reference the species and areas that are protected through application of methodologies developed for the project.  1.5.1 Grants are issued competitively using peer review groups of scientists from the Service, USAID, and related agencies. Once approved, grant recipients report on their progress through an annual report mechanism, which validates that the work promised at the onset of the project is being carried out as agreed. As reports are submitted, the project manager reviews them for compliance with the original project plan, and then uses the accomplishments as a basis to spot check effectiveness via site visits. Criteria for site review is established by the project manager, who uses it to target the areas to visit. The results of the spot checks serve as feedback against which to cross-check the validity of the annual reports, and are written up as trip reports, which are retained in the files 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
2.1.1 By September, 30, 1999, meet the identified habitat needs of the Service lands by ensuring that 93,567,296 acres (total acreage managed by the FWS) are protected, of which 3,303,341 acres will be enhanced or restored. 2.1.1 (1) # total acres managed by FWS 
 
 

2.1.1 (2) # acres enhanced/restored in NWRS 

Acres protected reflects the total area of lands and waters under management of the Service. 

Protect habitat is defined as maintaining the current quality or preventing degradation to habitat. It is the act of ensuring that habitat quantity and quality do not change, most often as a result of human activities but sometimes in response to unwelcome natural processes or phenomena. 

Acres enhanced or restored refers to direct management actions to improve fish and wildlife habitats.

2.1.1 (a) FY 1997 baseline for acres protected is 92,873,832 acres. 

2.1.1 (b) FY 1997 baseline for acres enhanced or restored is 2,698,156 acres. 

2.1.1 Protected acres, data is collected in the Real Property Management Information System and an annual fiscal year report entitled "Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" is prepared (data source manager - Division of Realty). 

Enhanced or restored acres, data is assembled as the total acres enhanced or restored during the fiscal year and comes from three sources: 

1) activities funded by Refuge Operations and Maintenance funds are reported in the Refuge Comprehensive Accomplishment Report, a module of the Refuge Management Information System (data source manager - Division of Refuges.

2.1.1 Protected acres, initial data is maintained in Regional Realty offices and then forwarded to the Washington Office Division of Realty for quality control, final editing and assembly of the published report. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Enhanced or restored acres accomplishment reports are initially assembled at field stations, then forwarded to Regional offices for quality control and consistency checks, and then subsequently forwarded to the Washington office for final editing and national roll-up. Regional inspections of field stations also include review of data collection and management efforts. 

 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
2.1.1 Continued Enhancing habitats is defined as the alteration, treatment, or other land management of existing habitat to increase habitat value for one or more species without bringing the habitat to a fully restored or naturally occurring condition 

Restoring habitat is returning the quantity and quality of habitat to some previous naturally occurring condition, most often some baseline considered suitable and sufficient to support self-sustaining populations of fish and wildlife. 

  2) activities funded or coordinated under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan are reported in the International Tracking System (data source manager - North American Waterfowl Management Plan Office); 

3) activities carried out on National Fish Hatcheries are reported in the Fisheries Management Information System (data source manager - the Division of Fish Hatcheries). 

Data are collected from submitted proposals and entered into several databases maintained by NAWWO. Final project information is submitted in reports which delineate actual acreage involved (acquisition, restoration, enhancement, creation).

For the NAWWO, selected projects submit periodic progress reports and a final report. Information is included in the FWS International Tracking System.
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
2.1.2 In 1999, complete 80% of scheduled contaminant cleanup projects on Service lands. 2.1.2(1) # of cleanup projects scheduled for the year 

2.1.2 (2) # of cleanup projects completed 

Contaminants cleanup projects refers to projects identified in the Refuge Operating Needs. 

Baseline is the ratio of contaminant projects cleanup to the project comprising the total annual list. 

FY 1997 baseline for contaminants cleanup projects scheduled is 50. 

Data is reported annually 

2.1.2 Contaminant cleanup projects are identified by Regional offices and a project selection process applied at the beginning of each fiscal 
year to fund projects.  
 
 

In FY 1999, reporting element will be incorporated into the Refuge Comprehensive Accomplishment Reporting System. (data source manager - Division of Refuges)

2.1.2 Accomplishment reports are initially assembled at field stations, then forwarded to Regional offices for quality control and consistency checks, and then subsequently forwarded to the Washington office for final editing and national roll-up. Regional inspections of field stations also include review of data collection and management efforts.
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
2.2.1. - By September 30, 1999, collect field data on the initial real property baseline data set and complete maintenance management update.  2.2.1 (1) develop & field test standardized real property inventory database by April, 1999. 

2.2.1(2)verify real property inventory database with regions/field stations by Sept. 1999. 

2.2.1(3) collect maintenance management system data including cross link for all property numbers by June, 1999. 

2.2.1(4) peer review & finalize MMS data set by August, 1999. 

The Facility Condition Index is the ratio of accumulated deferred maintenance to the replacement cost for a facility or item of equipment or group of facilities or items of equipment.  

.

2.2.1 (a) No baselines are established for current replacement values of facilities and equipment. 

The Division of Realty is in the process of developing this essential information on replacement values. 

Long-Term Goal Target was established based on partial baseline data. 

2.2.1 Deferred maintenance needs data is collected by field managers at individual stations near the end of each fiscal year and reported in the Maintenance Management 
System. 

Data on real property are collected annually by field managers and reported in the Real Property Management Information System (data source manager - Division of Realty). The update of databases to be completed at the beginning of FY 2000 will include property numbers in all databases and a method to estimate replacement values will be developed for both Real/Personal property items.

2.2.1 Data is initially assembled at field stations, then forwarded to Regional offices for quality control and consistency checks, and then subsequently forwarded to the Washington office for final editing and national roll-up. Regional inspections of field stations also include review of data collection and management efforts.
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
2.3.1 - By September 30, 1999, improve the fish and wildlife populations focusing on trust resources, threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern by enhancing and/or restoring 47,400 acres of wetland habitat, restoring and/or enhancing 78,140 acres of upland habitat, and enhancing and/or restoring 676 riparian or stream miles of habitat off-Service lands through partnerships and other identified conservation 
strategies.
Wetlands: 
2.3.1(1) # acres of wetlands habitat enhanced/restored  

2.3.1(2) # acres of wetlands habitat protected through the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. 

Uplands: 

2.3.1(3) # acres of upland habitat enhanced/restored.  

2.3.1(4) # acres of upland habitat protected through the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. 

Riparian Habitat

2.3.1(5) # miles of riparian or stream habitat enhanced/ restored. 

2.3.1(6) # acres of riparian habitat protected through the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. 

Definitions for Restore and Enhanced Habitats see 2.1.1 

2.3.1(1) FY 1997 acres of wetlands , enhanced and/or restored is 108,000 acres 
2.3.1 (2) FY 1997 acres of wetlands habitat protected through the NAWCF is 17,004. 
 
  

2.3.1(3) FY 1997 acres of upland habitat enhanced/ restored is 109,290 acres 

2.3.1 (4) FY 1997 acres of upland habitat protected through the NAWCF is 52,054 acres. 
 
  

2.3.1(5) FY 1997 miles of riparian or stream habitat enhanced/restored is 
646 miles. 
2.3.1 (6) FY 1997 acres of riparian habitat protected through the NAWCF is 57 acres.

Wetland acreage and stream miles for the Fisheries program is collected in the Accomplishment module of the Fishery Information System (data source manager is the Deputy AD- Fisheries). 
Data are collected from submitted proposals and entered into several databases maintained by NAWWO. Final project information is submitted in reports which delineate actual acreage involved (acquisition, restoration, enhancement, creations). 

Performance measure data will be obtained via annual Regional reports on Partners for Wildlife, Project Planning and Coastal program performance measures. The data will be managed by the Chief, Branch of Habitat Restoration in the Washington Office. Data are reported by Field Office employees accomplishing the work. 

Data is initially assembled at field stations, then forwarded to Regional offices for quality control and consistency checks, and then subsequently forwarded to the Washington office for final editing and national roll-up. Regional inspections of field stations also include review of data collection and management efforts. 

Selected projects submit periodic progress reports and a final report. Information is included in the FWS International Tracking System. 

Compiled data from all Regions are reviewed by Washington Office staff, and data discrepancies are resolved in conference with Regional and Field Office staff. Coastal Barrier Resources System data are provided by a contractor; a subset of the data is spot checked.

 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
3.1.1 By September 30, 1999, interpretive, educational and recreational visits to National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries are annually increasing by 2%. 3.1.1(1)% increase in interpretive, educational and recreational visits.  3.1.1(1) FY 1997 visitation to the Refuge System was 30,746,000 & Fish Hatchery System was 3,000,000.  Visitation data for the Refuge System is collected in the Public Education and Recreation module of the Refuge Management Information System. 

Visitation data for the Hatchery System is collected in the Accomplishment module of the Fishery Information System.

Annual reports are initially assembled at field stations, then forwarded to Regional offices for quality control and consistency checks, and then subsequently forwarded to the Washington office for final editing and national roll-up. Regional inspections of field stations also include review of data collection and management efforts.
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
3.2.1 By September 30, 1999, volunteer participation hours in Service programs increased by 30% and refuges and hatcheries have 66 new friends groups from 1997 levels. 3.2.1(1) % increase in volunteer participation hours. 
 
 
 
  

3.2.1(2 )# new friends groups. 

Friends groups are non-profit citizens groups that share in the goal of enhancing public education and recreation on refuges and hatcheries and furthering fish and wildlife management goals.

3.2.1 (1) FY 1997 1,335,738 hours of volunteer time was devoted to assisting with field station programs. 

3.2.1(2) The baseline for Friends groups is FY 1997 data = 63 Friends Groups; 1 Friends group was in place on National Fish Hatcheries and 62 were in place on National Wildlife Refuges.

Data on volunteer contributions is collected in the Refuge Comprehensive Accomplishment Report, a module of the Refuge Management Information System. 

Regional volunteer coordinators assure that non-refuge reports are captured through either the Refuge Comprehensive 

Accomplishment Report or an alternate method.

Annual reports are initially assembled at field stations, then forwarded to Regional offices for quality control and consistency checks, and then subsequently forwarded to the Washington office for final editing and national roll-up. Regional inspections of field stations also include review of data collection and management efforts.
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
3.3.1 By September 30, 1999, 86% of all Federal Aid state grant monies are used consistent with the enabling legislation. 3.3.1 (1) # of states & territories eligible to participate in the Federal Grant program. 
  

3.3.1(2) % of states found in compliance after audit resolution. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3.3.1 (1) FY 1997 56 states and territories eligible to participate in Federal Grant program. 

3.3.1 (2) FY 1997 36% or 20 states found in compliance after audit resolution. 

Data is reported annually. 

Federal Aid Audit Reports, Regional Federal Aid programs. The FWS Federal Aid program will schedule and coordinate audits of State Grantees, ensuring all states are audited at least once every five years.
 
 
 
Performance Measures and Verification Exhibit B
Annual Performance Goal Performance Measure and Definition Baseline Data Collection Methodology/Sources Validation
3.4.1 By September 30, 1999, 95% of mitigation hatchery production requirements are satisfied relating to federal water development projects.  3.4.1% of mitigation hatchery production requirements that are satisfied. 
 
 

Fishery Mitigation - The act of stocking fish in environments that have been altered by human activities, such as the construction and operation of dams and which can no longer support self-sustaining populations of native fish. 
 

3.4.1 In FY 1997, 85% of mitigation hatchery production requirements related to federal water development projects were satisfied. The amounts and numbers of production requirements are tracked in the Accomplishment module of the Fishery Information System. Fish distribution data are initially assembled at field stations, then forwarded to Regional offices for quality control and consistency checks, and then subsequently forwarded to the Washington office for final editing and national roll-up. Regional inspections of field stations also include review of data collection and management efforts. 
 
 
Appendix
Index of Common Terms

Goal Category, this optional classification exists only to provide a common way of grouping the major themes of an organization.

Mission Goal is a classification identifying outcome oriented goals that define how an organization will carry out its mission.

Long-Term Goals are the "general performance goals and objectives" identified in the Government Performance and Results Act. They define the intended result, effect, or consequence for what the organization does. They provide a measurable indication of future success by providing target levels of performance and a time frame for accomplishment. Long-term goals should focus on outcomes rather than outputs (products and services).

Annual Goal is a one-year increment of the long-term goal. It contains a targeted level of performance to be achieved for a particular year. It is to be expressed in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form. OMB approval of an alternative form of evaluating the success of a program is required if the annual goal cannot be expressed in an objective or quantifiable manner.

GPRA Program Activity, is described as the consolidation, aggregation or disaggregation of program activities that are covered or described by a set of performance goals, provided that any aggregation or consolidation does not omit or minimize the significance of any program constituting a major agency function or operation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


For Further Information, Contact Al Zara at: al_zara@fws.gov

Table of Contents:FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Home Page