Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Natural Resource Programs Assessment

Conduct an independent review of the program's management.

Collect performance data to evaluate the program based on performance results and take corrective action as necessary.

Measure: Percent of milestones completed that are necessary to meet all court schedules in Indian water rights litigation cases

Explanation:Milestones consist of technical information and expert witness services (PIA Assessments, Hydrological Reports, Water Use, Availability, Future Use Reports, etc.) specified by the Department of Justice or the Court to meet court deadlines in Indian water rights actions. Court deadlines are time certain deadlines established by the Court for whom the United States must provide information to support the Indian water right claimed. The Water Program manager determines, based on information provided by individual water rights project managers, if the annual milestone was accomplished. Although ideal, 100% completion of milestones is not necessary to meet 100% of the court imposed deadlines annually due to the fact the court schedules often run out over a period of 5 or more years. FY 2005 Baseline: 26 Milestones Identified/20 Milestones Accomplished=77%

Measure: Percent of milestones completed that are necessary to advance Indian water rights negotiations to meet court and other mandatory schedules.

Explanation: Milestones consist of technical information and expert witness services that were funded to support the Indian water rights negotiations and meet court and other scheduled deadlines in Indian water rights negotiations. Court deadlines and other schedules are time certain deadlines established by the Courts and other institutions (Water Masters) for which the United States must provide information to support the Indian water right claimed. The Water Program manager determines, based on information provided by individual water rights project managers, if the annual milestone was accomplished. Although ideal, 100% completion of milestones is not necessary to meet 100% of the court imposed deadlines annually due to the fact the court schedules and deadlines dictated by other institutions often run out over a period of 5 or more years. FY 2005 Baseline: 18 Milestones Identified/18 Milestones Accomplished= 100%

Measure: Percent of total acres of agricultural and grazing land that have resource management plans completed.

Explanation:Increase percentage of trust land covered by an approved resource management plan. Measure is calculated by dividing the total number of trust agriculture and range acres with approved management plans by the total number of agricultrue and range acres. Baseline is 6,490,000/45,825,000=14%

Measure: Percent of habitat acres in the Midwest region that have been restored/enhanced within the reporting year.

Explanation:Increase the acres of habitat restored/enhanced annually. Baseline year is FY 2005.

Measure: Percent of tribes that have completed resource management plans

Explanation:Number of tribes with IRMP's or resource management plans divided by the number of tribes with BIA FW&P 638 contracts. Baseline = 67/104= 64%

Measure: Percent of tribes in the Midwest region that have restored/enhanced habitat acres by the end of the reporting year

Explanation:Number of tribes completing habitat restoration work divided by the number of tiribes with BIA FW&P 638 contracts. Baseline is 39/104=38%

Measure: Average cost per hatchery fish produced

Explanation:Maintain an average cost of between 3.0 and 3.5 cents per hatchery fish produced. Baseline is 3.2 cents per fish in FY 2005. The measure is calculated by dividing the total cost of producing hatchery fish of specific size by the total number of viable hatchery fish produced.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Natural Resource Protection Programs are concentrated in four areas - water and water rights protection; agriculture and range management; fish, wildlife and parks; and forest management. The later area was PARTed separately and this PART evaluation covers the remaining three programs. All of these programs support the Department of the Interior's trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes and Alaska Natives by assisting these entities to protect and use their property, natural resources, water, fish and wildlife, gathering rights, and other rights contained in water right settlements, Presidential Executive Orders. Treaty protected resources within ceded land, and where court decisions establish, culture and traditions. Within this context, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): 1) Defends or acquires titles held by the water rights, management and use of water resources; 2) leases or permits land for agriculture and range under sustainable management practices; 3) conserve protected natural resources for subsistence and recreation. In addition, these programs promote and maintain tribal self-determination and self-governance.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Winters v. U.S., U.S., United States Supreme Court, 1908, 207 U.S. 564, Department of the Interior Letter to the Honorable Morris K. Udall, August 3, 1988, Department of the Interior Letter to the Honorable Jeff Bingaman, August 2004 (signed version available upon request), Fort Mojave Indian Tribes v. United States, July 1, 1991, No. 169-89L, 170-89L, Fort Mojave Indian Tribes v. United States, September 9, 1994, No. 169-89L, 170-89L Document: "Technical Criteria for Indian Water Claim Review Process". Initiated by President Jimmy Carter July 12, 1978 in his Water Policy Message. Document: Department of the Interior: Working Group in Indian Water Settlements; Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of the Federal Government in Negotiations for the Settlements of Indian Water Rights Claims, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 48, Monday, March 12, 1990. Document: Final Guidelines for Comprehensive Indian Water Rights Protection and Management, attached to Memorandum from Deputy Commissioner - Indian Affairs to All Area Directors, dated June 4, 1991. Document: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests, Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 201, Wednesday, October 19, 2005. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AREA: Snyder Act of 1921 and the American Indian Agriculture and Resource Management Act of 1993 (AIARMA) , numerous treaties, statutes and executive orders FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: BIAM 56, court case documents (U.S. v. WA, U.S. v. OR, U.S. v. MI, Lac Courte Oreilles Band v. State of WI, Grand Portage Band v. MN, Hoh v. Baldrige, Parravano v. Babbitt, Mille Lacs Band v. MN, Fond du Lac Band v. Carlson, NM v. Mescalero Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe v. AZ, U.S. v. Winters, U.S. v. Winans, Worcester v. Georgia and related "Marshal trilogy), P.L. 93-638.

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

Explanation: The Department provides technical information and expert witnesses necessary for the defense of Indian water rights in general stream adjudications and other actions where parties make a claim to water for which the United States holds title. The program also provides technical support for water rights negotiations and for Indian water rights settlements.. Additionally, the Bureau is the primary agency responsible for managing trust resources for 561 federally recognized Indian tribes, with a membership of 1.5 million individuals covering a land area of 56 million acres principally located in the West. Over 10 million acres belong to individual Indians and 46 million are held in trust for Indian tribes. On these lands the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) manages over 100,000 leases for uses such as farming, grazing, and oil and gas production on behalf of individual Indians and Tribes. Most of the land, 44 million acres, is rangeland or forest grazing land and 3 million acres are dry and irrigated farmland. Included with these lands are provisions for fish, wildlife and parks, to ensure tribal and Alaska natives access to fish, wildlife and plant resources promoting conservation and enhancement, in a manner consistent with the culture and traditions of the tribal communities involved.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Winters v. U.S., U.S., United States Supreme Court, 1908, 207 U.S. 564, Department of the Interior Letter to the Honorable Morris K. Udall, August 3, 1988, Department of the Interior Letter to the Honorable Jeff Bingaman, August 2004 (signed version available upon request), Fort Mojave Indian Tribes v. United States, July 1, 1991, No. 169-89L, 170-89L, Fort Mojave Indian Tribes v. United States, September 9, 1994, No. 169-89L, 170-89L, Presidents "10-Year Plan" from 1980- 1990and revised 1990 guidelines, Bureau of Indian Affairs Mission Statement. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AREA: AIARMA P.L. 103-177, 25 USC, chap 39, sec 3701. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Numerous treaties and executive orders, court orders/stipulations, related portions of green book, public record from congressional testimony (oversight hearings), tribal natural resource management plans, tribal conservation/land use codes, interagency agreements, intertribal agreements/protocols, tribal harvest monitoring reports

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

Explanation: In general, the program areas do not duplicate other federal, state or local efforts on tribal lands The Water program area is the only program that provides support to the Department of Justice to defend or secure title to Indian water rights. In addition, Interior's Water rights negotiations occur in conjunction with water rights litigation and require the same information that supports the legal effort. The BIA supports the Department's Indian Water Rights Office in providing technical advice and analysis. This program area does not carryout water related infrastructure, construction activity, nor funds to exclusively address water pollution or other water issues if other agencies have responsibility. The Agriculture and Range Management program area is the only program to: 1) determine the desire of Indian trust land beneficiaries to use that land for agriculture or range (grazing) purposes; 2) ensure the sustainability of that land when under a lease or permit for agriculture or grazing. Although, the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and some states have range programs, they do not service this population. The Fish, Wildlife and Parks program area is the only Federal program to provide base funding for tribal capacity and infrastructure for treaty obligations related to tribal fish, wildlife and plant resources. Intertribal organizations perform multiple functions through Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that prevent redundancy and duplicative effort by coordination and centralized services, and economy of scale.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Department of the Interior Letter to the Honorable Morris K. Udall, August 3, 1988, Department of the Interior Letter to the Honorable Jeff Bingaman, August 2004, Fort Mojave Indian Tribes v. United States, July 1, 1991, No. 169-89L, 170-89L, Fort Mojave Indian Tribes v. United States, September 9, 1994, No. 169-89L, 170-89L, DOI/Bureau of Indian Affairs: Performance and Accountability Report (Fiscal Year 2005) Comprehensive Trust Management Plan (CTMP) American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act (1994 AGRICULTURE AND RANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AREA: 25 CFR 166.217 describes obtaining a grazing permit through the tribal allocation process, 25 CFR 166.219/220 describe obtaining a grazing permit through the negotiation process, 25 CFR 166.221 describes obtaining a grazing permit through the competitive bidding process. 25 CFR 166.423/424 describe the process for distributing the grazing fees to the individual Indian landowners. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: BIAM 56, Treaties, MOU's, Pacific Salmon Treaty (specific role of tribes), court orders and related co- management protocols and agreements, intertribal organizations' charters, and the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's Strategy for the Protection and Restoration of the Great Lakes

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

Explanation: In general, the management and execution of these program areas are free of major flaws. The Water program area funding is distributed via an established process that was published in the Federal Register in 2005 that ensures Congressional and court mandates are supported and sets forth water rights litigation support as the highest priority, followed by negotiation of Indian water rights settlements and then, if possible tribal water management and planning is supported. The water program ensures that the Department of Justice is effective in their efforts to defend Indian water rights (17 ongoing adjudications). Negotiations are adequately supported by BIA resources and staff. If courts become more demanding for faster evidence production, funding levels would be inadequate. Current resources do not fully support tribal water resources management and planning; therefore not all tribes are informed and active in managing and planning for utilizing their water resources. There is no evidence that a different approach would be a more efficient or effective way to manage the agriculture and range program area. The fish, wildlife and parks program area is designed to accomplish its mission in a manner that is consistent with the principles of self- determination; i.e., ensure tribes enjoy maximum involvement in the management of their natural resources. Currently, more than 99% of program funding goes to tribes under 638 contracts in an expedient and efficient manner.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Federal Register Notice, Wednesday, October 19, 2005 (Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests); AGRICULTURE AND RANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AREA: 25 CFR 161, 162, 166, 167, and 168 (developed to implement the programs as specified in AIARMA). FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Annual reports from tribal contractors, percent of program funds passed on to tribes under Self-Determination Act, green book, FFS, tribal harvest monitoring reports, and the regularity of tribal ceremonies related to the services provided by the program.

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

Explanation: The three program areas target resources for very specific beneficiaries - federally recognized tribes and their members. These include tribes whose water is subject to litigation in general stream adjudications or under other encroachment by other parties, Indian land that has been designated for use for agricultural purposes by the beneficiaries and tribes who have treaty protected resources that require them to manage those resources under various court decisions. Water program funding is distributed via a process published in the Federal Register in 2005; this ensures Congressional and court mandates are supported--water rights litigation support is highest priority, followed by negotiation of water rights settlements and then, if possible tribal water management and planning support. Approximately 37 % of agriculture and range management funds are spent via Indian self- determination contracts and self-governance compacts. These contracts have specific deliverables to meet the program's purpose. 63% of the agriculture program funds are allocated to BIA agencies. Nearly all of the funds are subject to Tribal Priority Allocation--tribes set priorities spending. The process is on a yearly basis; priorities can change from year to year based on the wishes of the tribal government. More than 99% of fish, wildlife and parks program funds are sent to tribes in the form of 638 contracts, pursuant to Congressional designation.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Federal Register Notice, Wednesday, October 19, 2005 (Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests); Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division Summary of Litigation Accomplishments Fiscal Year 2005, Page 9, 10, & 20. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AREA: Executed budget documents, sub-allotments, tribal contracts as reported in data call March 2006. See attached example of data-call. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS: Annual Congressional appropriations spreadsheets, P.L. 93-638 annual reports, annual audits, tribal publications, annual tribal reports, FFS, budget distribution documents, tribal harvest monitoring reports, which demonstrate that the tribes' need to feed people, sustain culture and provide economic activities are being addressed.

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: The programs have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that support the Department's goal of serving communities and fulfilling trust responsibilities to Indian tribes through outcome oriented measures. The water programs measure the percent of Indian water rights litigation cases where technical information and expert witnesses, provided by funds from the programs, met court schedules, and compare favorable and unfavorable court rulings or other decisions in water rights litigation. The program also measures the percent of Indian water rights negotiations where technical information and expert witnesses were provided to advance negotiations and monitors the number of settlements in principle were acquired annually. Finally the program monitors the number of Indian tribes who developed tribal water standards that are recognized as federal standards and/or have water management plans. The agriculture and range management programs have the long-term measure and goal to increase the percent of grazing and agriculture leases and permits achieving desired condition where the condition is known and where specified in management plans consistent with applicable environmental laws and regulations. The fish, wildlife and parks program measures include the acres of habitat restored and the percent of tribes contributing to habitat restoration and our annual target of increasing that number by 5% each year.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Annual GPRA reports, annual PAR reports, and annual spreadsheets identifying funding distributions. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Department's FY 2003-08 Strategic plan and BIA President's performance budget for FY 2006. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS: Integrated resource management plans, forest management plans (which cover management of other resources), court-ordered management plans (Puget Sound Recovery Plan), and recovery plans (NOAA fisheries), annual green book, and 638 contract language.

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

Explanation: The programs have ambitious targets and time frames for the long-term measures. The water programs measure the ability to provide adequate litigation support through technical information and expert witnesses necessary to meet court deadlines and advance negotiations. Additionally, the programs measure the increase in the number of Indian tribes who develop water management capabilities such as water management plans and tribal water standards that are eligible for recognition as federal standards. The agriculture and range management program seeks to increase the percent of agriculture and grazing leases achieving desired condition, where the condition of the land is known and specified in management plans consistent with environmental law and regulation. The targets and timeframes for the program's long-term measures for the fish, wildlife and parks program are reflected in Table 1.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: The Department of the Interior Strategic Plan, FY 2003-2008; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Strategic Implementation Plan, 2004-2008 (2005); Annual GPRA reports; and annual PAR reports. AGRICULTURAL AND RANGE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: Department's FY 2003-08 Strategic Plan, and the BIA President's performance Budget for FY 2006. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: With the large number of tribes involved, achieving a 25% increase over the next five years is ambitious and would be reflective of the program achieving significant progress in management of the use of treaty protected natural resources.

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 water programs measure their ability to provide adequate litigation support through technical information and expert witnesses necessary to meet court deadlines and advance negotiations. Additionally, the programs measure the increase in the number of Indian tribes who develop water management capabilities such as water management plans and tribal water standards that are eligible for recognition as federal standards. The specific annual performance measures are identified as a percentage of targeted activities that are funded sufficiently to advance the programs' goals. BIA has developed the specific annual performance measures to meet the program's long-term goal to increase the % grazing land meeting desired condition from 13% in 2006, to 14% in 2007, to 15% in 2008, and increase the % agriculture land meeting desired condition from 50% in 2006, to 51% in 2007, to 52% in 2008. See Table 1. The program also uses elements of 638 contracts, statements-of-work, annual reports, and annual program reviews as performance measures of the program's success in achieving the goals identified in the Green Book and in regional and national GPRA goals.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: The Department of the Interior Strategic Plan, FY 2003-2008; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Strategic Implementation Plan, 2004-2008 (2005); Annual GPRA reports; and annual PAR reports. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: The Department's FY 2003-08 Strategic Plan and the President's Performance Budget for FY 2006. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM: PFMC/North of Falcon process and other harvest management plans/processes (court-approved/mandated), Magnuson-Stevens (crab), Nisqually (plants), harvest management reports, 638 contracts, annual reports, and annual reviews, annual Green Book, and GPRA goals.

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

Explanation: The water programs have established baselines and measures for water rights litigation and water rights negotiations advancement and for tribal support of water management, planning and pre-development activities. The agriculture and range program has an annual baseline established for grazing land meeting desired condition at 13%, and agriculture land meeting desired condition at 50%. In FY 2006, the Bureau established baseline measures for fish production and acres of habitat restored/enhanced. The Bureau believes the future goals for these measures are ambitious but achievable.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: The Department of the Interior Strategic Plan, FY 2003-2008; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Strategic Implementation Plan, 2004-2008 (2005); Annual GPRA reports; and annual PAR reports. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: FY 2006 Strategic Plan, and recent BIA President's Performance Budget for FY 2006. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: 638 contracts statements-of-work, annual reports, annual reviews

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: The three program areas are managed to achieve annual and long-term performance goals. The criteria developed in the BIA's Revised Procedures for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests considers the scoring of tribal and agency accomplishment of annual and/or long-term goals in the water program. As grantees, tribes often have joint funding agreements (cost sharing) with other federal agencies to carry out water program needs that benefit all parties. For example, the need to develop and maintain baseline and changes in stream flow data is shared by the tribes/BIA and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). These 50/50 shared funding projects can include stream gauging, aquifer studies and hydrologic modeling. All BIA and tribal agriculture/range programs under self-determination contracts report accomplishments to BIA and GPRA coordinators. The fish, wildlife and parks programs' P.L. 93-638 contracts' statements-of-work (self-determination w/tribes as partners) define the program goals for each tribe. Because each tribe has different staffing due to differential funding, each tribe has different goals. Tribal goals support the overall program goals. Other partners (other governmental entities) generally support the overall goals of the program. BIA and tribes work cooperatively with other management agencies toward common goals. Partnerships are generally based on achieving program goals and, as a result, increase efficiency and leverage additional funds.

Evidence: Document: Federal Register Notice, Wednesday, October 19, 2005 (Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests); Data: In FY 2006, at least 15 stream gauging operations have been supported by water programs funding and most of these are carried out as tribal/USGS or BIA/USGS agreements. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Reporting requirements under BIA and GPRA, along with 638 contracts and self- governance funding agreement reporting language. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Shared Salmon Strategy, integrated resource management plans, forest management plans, court-ordered management plans (Puget Sound Recovery Plan), recovery plans (NOAA fisheries), PFMC/North of Falcon process and other harvest management plans/processes (court-approved/mandated), Magnuson- Stevens (crab), Nisqually (plants), harvest management reports, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's Strategy for the Protection and Restoration of the Great Lakes, and Wetlands/Waterfowl Management (Circle of Flight).

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 conducted internal reviews and outside interests have conducted reviews, the program does not have an independent review of its management of the program on a regular basis. For example, the water program area funding provided to the tribes via Public Law 93-638 contracts are subject to the review and oversight by a designated Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR). Additionally, water program funds that are awarded to compact tribes are subject to accountability requirements by the Office of Self Governance (OSG). Water program projects are typically included in annual program trust reviews of compact tribes. The agriculture and range program area has limited independent review. National level BIA teams have been created to conduct regional internal BIA reviews periodically. Fish and wildlife program reviews are conducted by interagency teams, coordinated, regionally, by the BIA. Other independent reviews have been conducted of tribal/intertribal programs, as needed, or appropriate. The reviews examine the tribal fish and wildlife programs, program goals and accomplishments and program efficiency. Recommendations are made by the reviewers and subsequent reviews determine the efficacy of the recommendations.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Public Law 93-638 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975); Public Law 103- 413, Indian Self -Determination Act Amendments of 1994; 25 CFR 273, Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Program. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Reports located in Regional/Central offices, example: Navajo Area Agriculture - Range Assessment 1998. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM: Hatchery Scientific Review Group, Fish and Wildlife Service/Great Lakes Fishery Commission recovery report, and expert reports and testimony in legal proceedings; Honoring Nations -- Harvard review of tribal programs (excerpts).

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: One program area tie's performance measures to demonstrate accomplishments, but the others do not. Specifically, Water programs budget requests include a description of their purposes and actual accomplishments with the requested funding. The budget narrative indicates the funding needs of active water rights litigation/negotiation activities. Agriculture and range budget requests are justified by program narrative and actual accomplishment reports that are tied to the annual GPRA reports by relating levels of performance to funding. Fish, wildlife and parks budget requests and funding allocations have historically been developed to meet requirements of court decisions and Federal obligations that follow. One hundred percent of program funding is congressionally earmarked. However, proposed specific PART goals are being developed for inclusion in the FY2008 budget proposal.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Annual President's Budget Requests; Annual "Green Book" Budget Justifications and Performance information. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Budget narratives in 2003-06 green books. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAMS: NWIFC Core Program & Work Plan, Congressional testimony, tribal reports, Green Book, and Congressional appropriation spreadsheets.

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

Explanation: The program takes steps from its internal reviews to identify planning deficiencies and to take corrective action. For example, for the water program area, two milestones were identified in the BIA's Strategic Implementation Plan for 2004-2008, to further the task of securing and protecting the trust resource water for use by Indian beneficiaries. The two milestones were to: 1) develop and communicate the guidance for submitting Indian water rights funding requests, and 2) develop a formal process for non-subjective evaluation and prioritization of Indian water rights funding requests. The due dates of 3/31/06 for the two milestones were met with draft documents that were subsequently finalized for use in the FY 2006 funding cycle. An additional agriculture and range measure has been developed for FY2006; these new measures will be tracked using Activities Based Costing (ABC) that has recently been implemented. Fish, wildlife and parks emphasis is on contracting with tribes. Many of the contractors (tribes and intertribal organizations) have strategic plans (self-determination, including tribes' resource management plans and strategic plans, including those of the intertribal commissions). The program's established reliance on cooperative management incorporates adaptive management strategies. In addition, the program is constrained by obligations imposed by court decisions and Congressional earmarks. The program has also established long-term and annual performance goals that relate to the strategic goals and outcomes of the DOI Strategic Plan.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Strategic Implementation Plan, 2004-2008 (2005); Memorandum from BIA Director to Regional Directors, dated June 22, 2005, transmitting Instructions and Checklist for FY 2006 Funding Requests for the Water Management, Planning and Pre-Development (34020) and the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation (34420) Program Funds; Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests, Federal Register, Vo. 70, No. 201, October 19, 2005. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Development of ABC activity definitions and implementation of time recording based on the activities defined. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS: Intertribal commissions, in consultation with tribes & BIA, annually review/update work plans and program budgets (allocation of) to promote efficiency and reflect tribal priorities. Court orders and Congressional appropriations spreadsheet.

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 regional office water program coordinators maintain files on all funded activities. Program performance information is available in these files and a format is being developed to collect and collate these data at Central Office. Another source of performance data collected on water program activities is the annual funding proposal requests from tribes and the regions. One of the required elements in any funding proposal submitted is the inclusion of status of previous project performance and past history of funding. Performance data is collected on an annual basis from all regions of BIA and tribes who have contracted or compacted BIA agriculture and range programs. Performance data is frequently used to adjust annual allocations of TPA and non- recurring project-based funding. Fish, wildlife and parks contractors provide annual performance reports, as required (and limited to) by P.L. 93-638; program collects a host of performance-related documents from participating tribes. BIA ensures compliance with 638 contracts by conducting annual program reviews and reporting results to tribe.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Memorandum from BIA Director to Regional Directors, dated June 22, 2005, transmitting Instructions and Checklist for FY 2006 Funding Requests for the Water Management, Planning and Pre-Development (34020) and the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation (34420) Program Funds; Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests, Federal Register, Vo. 70, No. 201, October 19, 2005. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Reporting requirements under BIA and GPRA, along with reporting requirements in 638 contracts and self governance funding agreements. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: P.L. 93-638 and reports, tribal reports (broadly defined) including publications. Program review findings summary from BIA to tribe.

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: Under Indian Self Determination, tribes have the ability to redirect a small portion of their program funds to other BIA programs that they believe are a higher priority. In the case of the Agriculture and Range Management area, it is possible for Tribes to redirect BIA grant funds away from the program to address more urgent needs identified by its Tribal Counsel. This can make it difficult for BIA to meet its performance requirements. In general, the program areas operate as follows: The water program's revised funding procedures require the inclusion of past funding and performance data that are considered in the scoring of any submitted funding proposals. Water program coordinators are responsible to verify these data prior to submission. A major responsibility of the water program coordinators is to track cost, schedule and performance results for agency and tribal water projects. Federal program managers, including those in agriculture and range management, are reviewed and evaluated annually, using performance criteria that measure their success in such areas as staying within budget, and efficiency in completing tasks, including timely transfer of funds and fulfillment of program review obligations. Managers face potential punitive measures associated with failure to achieve established standards in these areas. In addition, this occurs through the P.L. 93-638 contract process. Indian tribes operate more than 99% of BIA-funded fish and wildlife programs under non-competitive contract agreements (P.L. 93-638). Model agreements require tribes to conform to BIA personnel, training, program regulations and standards, including record keeping and performance evaluation. In FY05 specific language was added to 638 contracts to ensure greater accountability and access to performance. Once this PART is established, we envision program performance measures incorporated into the performance standards of BIA program managers.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Memorandum from BIA Director to Regional Directors, dated June 22, 2005, transmitting Instructions and Checklist for FY 2006 Funding Requests for the Water Management, Planning and Pre-Development (34020) and the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation (34420) Program Funds; Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests, Federal Register, Vo. 70, No. 201, October 19, 2005. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Examples of performance plans and standards for agriculture and range managers, also reporting provision in contracts and compacts with tribes. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Number of programs reassumed, copy of P.L. 93-638 contract language, contract review-correction prescriptions. Single-audit. Annual program personnel performance reviews.

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

Explanation: In general, all program areas obligate funds in a timely manner and track spending. For example, water program funds are obligated as soon as all steps of the revised funding prioritizations process have been completed. The sub-allotted funds to the regions are processed through 638 contracts to the tribes or use by the region. Self-governance tribes receive their funds through the Office of Self-Governance (OSG). Funds are obligated and expended timely and for the intended purposes. Grantees and partners are required to meet the standards set forth in OMB Circular A-133 which require audits of organizations with greater than $500,000 in federal expenditures. A large proportion of agriculture and range work is seasonal and dependent upon weather conditions; therefore, some project obligations do not occur until the second year of the two-year budget cycle. For this reason we have the two-year budget cycle, which allows tribes to contract and compact BIA responsibilities without the constraint of a one-year funding cycle. Non-competitive funds in the fish and wildlife programs are disbursed to tribes within 30 days of final appropriation and success in this task is evaluated during managers' annual performance reviews. Annual reports are received from contracted reports and program reviews are conducted annually, which compare program accomplishments to requirements set forth in the 638 contract statements-of-work. In this manner, as well as through annual audits, it is possible to determine if funds are being spent for their intended purpose. During continuing resolutions, funds are disbursed as required to keep programs operational.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Regional 638 contract files; 638 contract audit reports; OSG annual trust review reports; Document: Tribal Self-Governance 2003 Annual Report to Congress (pursuant to Section 405 of Public Law 103-415). AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Self-governance and BIA contracting annual reports. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Sub-allotment documents, draw-downs, single-audit documents, annual reports, annual reviews, and managers' annual performance reviews.

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 areas have procedures in place that have been enhanced by this PART review to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. The water programs include two criteria; 1.) Cost Effectiveness and 2.) Efficiency and Accomplishment, in the list of criteria used to evaluate and rank proposed funding requests now can influence the scoring outcome of proposals. Cost effectiveness and efficiency and accomplishments are rewarded which ensures funds to be more effectively used. The majority of the non-TPA agriculture and range funds are distributed to tribes based on competitive bidding to contractors specializing in range inventory and noxious weed control. In the fish, wildlife and parks program 99% of program funds are sent to tribes in 638 contracts which eliminates competitive sourcing. OMB Circulars (that requires using most competitive sources) are followed. Program activities are largely the product of court orders and Congressional earmarks, with program execution constrained by stipulations from the same. However, court orders have spawned intertribal consortiums and co-management relationships that have increased efficiency and effectiveness and have helped leverage additional funding. The program has developed a measure of efficiency (cost per fish) in hatchery fish production as compared to similar efficiency in other government agencies, particularly as that production addresses the recovery of fish listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests, Federal Register, Vo. 70, No. 201, October 19, 2005. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 98-638), as amended and Tribal Self-governance Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-413). Sub-allotment documents, annual reviews, and annual reports. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: P.L. 93-638 and applicable portions of 638 contract stipulations, court orders, Congressional appropriations spreadsheet, annual program reviews, annual program reports.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: By statue and Executive Orders, the BIA is required to coordinate its activities with Tribes and to solicit Tribal input into their decision making. Specifically, the water programs coordinate with other federal agencies to provide, specific services where needed. Tribes and BIA contract with USGS, BOR, and other agencies for water resources data collection and technical studies. The agency and tribes may use Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) or Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) instruments to carry out specific activities. Collaborations occur regularly with the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for soil mapping and conservation activities on reservations. BIA collaborates with many other federal agencies including, BLM, FWS, NPS, and BOR to control and eradicate invasive species in places where landownership patterns warrant cooperation among all owners in order to achieve success in the most cost efficient manner. BIA collaborates with the Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in controlling livestock pests and diseases, protecting crops from grasshoppers and Mormon crickets and biological controls of invasive plants and animals. The fish and wildlife program is dictated by treaties, statutes, executive orders, court rulings and intergovernmental agreements that have institutionalized co-management structures, which include joint planning, cooperative resource assessment, joint determination of allowable harvest levels, exchange of harvest data, and resolution of scientific and policy issues. These collaborations often cross multi-disciplinary lines, include technical, legal and policy levels, and involve local, state, regional, national, and international interests. With respect to federal programs, funds provided to tribes for these purposes are used to obtain supplementary and complimentary (matching, for example) funds from fish and wildlife programs. Self-determination act expressly allows for use of funds as matching funds. BIA staff participates on various committees (whaling, CWD, Great Lakes 5-agency committee).

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Various MOAs and MOUs in regional office files AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAMS: MOU's and cooperative agreements between BIA, NRCS, APHIS, Tribes, and other federal, state, and local agencies. DOI invasive species cross-cut budgets for South Florida, Northern Great Plains, and Middle Rio Grande. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Forests and Fish Report (tribes, feds, state, private landowners), forest management plans, co-management plans, Great Lakes fishery plans, Pacific Salmon Treaty plans, Shared Strategy (Puget Sound), Casting Light Process, Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (tribes, feds, and states), Wetlands Management (Circle of Flight), TWIG (USFWS), TLIP, HHS/ANA grants, roles of BIA employees on committees and ESA consultation, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's Strategy for the Protection and Restoration of the Great Lakes

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The administration of the water programs funds to tribes through 638 contracting requires that financial statements be filed with the Office of Contracting and that the rules of the Single Agency Audit Act be followed. Also, the tribe is required to have Financial, Property, and Procurement Policies and Procedures in place that meet the requirements of Public Law 93-638. BIA programs managers are required to create a Budget Execution Model (BEM) that identifies the planned and execution of expenditures by budget object class. Grantees and partners are required to meet the standards set forth in OMB Circular A-133. The FY 2002 Audited Financial Statement shows a BIA-wide material weakness for inadequate controls over financial reporting. However, the material weakness is not directly related to the Agriculture/Range program. We are currently developing ABC for the Agriculture and Range program that will help us determine if we are using program funds in an effective manner. As previously discussed, the fish, wildlife and parks program disburses funds to tribes within 30 days of receipt (ensure compatibility with above). Tribal Fish and Wildlife programs are independently audited (single audit) annually, according OMB Circular A-133. Results of these audits must be submitted to the Secretary and financial deficiencies must be addressed promptly. In addition, program evaluations, including financial reviews, are conducted annually by the BIA, as required by P.L. 93-638, and any deficiencies noted must also be corrected. Follow-up reviews are conducted to ensure deficiencies have been addressed. Programs that have failed to adhere to acceptable financial management practices have seen their 638 programs reassumed, or programs have been compelled to make repayment of funds that were not appropriately used.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Various BEM documents in the regional offices and in Central Office; 25 CFR 273, Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act Program; OMB Circular-133. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: FY 2002 Audited Financial Statements. FY 2004/05 ABC program reports for agriculture and range. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Annual A-133 Audits, and 638 reviews, tribal and BIA accounting policies and procedures, contract (program) resumptions.

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

Explanation: When the results of program reviews, Tribal views, and other comments on BIA program areas come to light, the Bureau takes steps to address comments and recommendation to make the program areas work better and as a result, more efficiently. For example, projects funded by the two water programs are managed by the water programs staff in the regional offices, with policy guidance and funding distribution processes provided by the Central Office staff. Financial management occurs between the regional programs coordinators and the regional 638 coordinators for the funds distributed to tribes and between the programs coordinators and the regional contracting officers for the funds provided to the Department of Justice for litigation cases and for expert consultant contracts for negotiation studies. The revised annual funding procedures for the two programs and the additional water programs instructions to the regions are continuing steps for addressing any management deficiencies. The revised procedures were developed with regional staff, Solicitor's Office, and tribal input to improve the overall management of the funding distribution. Measures for improving management deficiencies are identified and agreed to at annual agriculture/range meetings. Measures include establishing an annual report, and taking steps to obtain baseline data, which supports program planning and prioritization. When managers in fish, wildlife and parks programs are found to be performing at a substandard level, as reflected during the annual personnel performance review, corrective measures are prescribed. For contracted programs, where deficiencies have been noted during annual program reviews, corrective actions have been prescribed. In some instances contracted programs that failed to achieve acceptable performance standards have been reassumed.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Memorandum from BIA Director to Regional Directors, dated June 22, 2005, transmitting Instructions and Checklist for FY 2006 Funding Requests for the Water Management, Planning and Pre-Development (34020) and the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation (34420) Program Funds; Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests, Federal Register, Vo. 70, No. 201, October 19, 2005 AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Annual reports and minutes from annual agriculture/range meetings. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Correspondence from program to tribal program reporting results of annual program review, resumption correspondence, annual personnel performance review.

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

Explanation: The water programs strive to support all active water rights litigation cases and formal water rights negotiations efforts by active federal negotiation teams. The higher ranking tribal water management, planning and pre-development projects are supported when possible. Grazing acres achieving desired condition was planned at 13% and the actual performance was 13% The Bureau of Indian Affairs FWP program has been working under the following long term goal: "By 2005, the Bureau will provide support for Tribes to exercise their off-reservation hunting and fishing rights, to manage and conserve fish and wildlife resources on Indian lands, and for the operation of tribal fish hatcheries, and operation and maintenance programs". The Bureau has developed new long term goals, performance measures, baselines, and annual targets for the Fish, Wildlife and Parks program, as reflected in Table 1. The program can also provide evidence of achieving Wildlife and Parks goals by tribes. Tribes have contracted BIA Wildlife and Parks funding through the 638 process and successfully operated intertribal resource management agencies to: 1) Implement court mandates; 2) retain self-regulatory authority over their members' off-reservation treaty activities; 3) and comply with inter-governmental agreements. This has been accomplished by intertribal Commissions agencies for many years (implementation of the Boldt decision since 1976, and implementation of the Voigt decision since 1984, as examples).

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: annual "Green Book" Budget Justifications and Performance Information for past several years; FY 2005 GRPA report. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: BIA President's Performance Budget FY 2006 and FY 2005 GPRA report. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Annual and other periodic reports from tribes; reductions in court cases/injunctions as a result of greater collaboration efforts.

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

Explanation: The two water programs have generally achieved annual performance goals during the past several years but have been less successful during fiscal years 2005-2006 in assisting tribes with planning and general water management needs. Implementation of the revised procedures for prioritizing and distributing funds help the achievement of annual goals by more effectively utilizing limited funds. Grazing acres achieving desired condition was planned at 13% and the actual performance was 13% The program achieved most of its former performance goals, during the period from 2000 to 2005. The program has now developed new goals for FY06 and beyond, as well as the baseline data needed to measure success in achieving those goals.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: annual GPRA reports; annual "Green Book" Budget Justifications and Performance Information for past several years. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE AREA: BIA President's Performance Budget FY 2006 and FY 2005 GPRA report. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: 638 contracts' SOW, annual performance reviews, annual reports, GPRA reports and budget documents from FY 2000 - 2005

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

Explanation: Although the water programs currently lack performance data that demonstrates improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals, all of the more critical water rights litigation/negotiation activities continue to be supported as are all of the most critical tribal proposals for water management and protection. The revised funding procedures, implemented in FY 2006, include two criteria, 1) Cost Effectiveness and 2) Efficiency and accomplishment, that can influence the evaluation and ranking of funding proposal requests and should allow for the effective use of funds. A new financial accounting system (TAAMS) is being implemented throughout BIA. This new system will accurately track the number of lease and permits completed, the number of compliance checks completed, and much additional lease and permit data. This along with the ABC data that has been collected over the past 2 years, and the quick time and attendance data that has just been implemented will show if we are improving efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals from year to year. Intertribal organizations associated with the fish and wildlife programs improve efficiency through the pooling of resources and the elimination of duplication. Tribal initiatives, consortiums, and co-management relationships have leveraged additional funding from other sources. Program involvement in cooperative projects has increased.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: Memorandum from BIA Director to Regional Directors, dated June 22, 2005, transmitting Instructions and Checklist for FY 2006 Funding Requests for the Water Management, Planning and Pre-Development (34020) and the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation (34420) Program Funds; Notice of Revised Instructions for Preparing and Prioritizing Water Program Funding Requests, Federal Register, Vo. 70, No. 201, October 19, 2005. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: TAAMS data is not available nationally at this time; it is currently being implemented region by region. FY2004 and 2005 ABC report. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: 638 contract statements-of-work showing increased work over time and annual funding appropriations, which have decreased over time. Various documents which demonstrate resource pooling, including those that established tribal consortiums and co-management relationships. The percentage of tribes achieving successful annual program reviews.

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

Explanation: The Water Program is the BIA is responsible for providing technical information and expert witnesses necessary to secure and protect Indian water rights and assist the tribes in the management and use of their water resources. The Agriculture and Range Program has not made a comparison because other federal and state agencies that manage agriculture and range programs design their programs with much different goals and objectives than those used in Indian country. The cultural, social, traditional, and economic needs of the Tribes guide the agriculture and range program in Indian country, and would make it difficult to compare with other state and federal agencies where these issues are of no concern. The Fish, Wildlife and Parks program's unique mission is to monitor and promote the Federal government's fulfillment of its trust responsibility to tribes, meeting treaty obligations and supporting other reserved rights, including numerous those dictated by court orders, agreements, and statutes, as well as the traditional, cultural and spiritual connection between the tribes and their lands makes comparison of this program's performance to others impractical. No other entity is tasked with a comparable mission.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act. AGRICULTURE AND RANGE AREA: Navajo Region Range Assessment 1997, Position and Land Analysis Survey 1990. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: Court orders/stipulations, related portions of green book, public record from congressional testimony (oversight hearings), tribal natural resource management plans, tribal conservation/land use codes, interagency agreements, intertribal agreements/protocols, organizational charts of tribal programs showing the biological, enforcement and administrative personnel involved, and numerous books and articles.

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

Explanation: For the most part, systematic independent program management evaluations are not done. For example, for the water programs, while no formal independent evaluations have been conducted, there have been internal program reviews in previous years and the program components continue to be supported with reducing budgets. Continuing advances in the water rights litigation/negotiation activities provide evidence of achieving results. Water program funding provided to tribes via 638 contracts and through the Office of Self Governance is subject to the internal reviews required by the appropriate program regulations. No independent review has been done for agriculture and range programs management. No evaluation has been conducted at the national level. However numerous reviews have been conducted at the component level, including interagency team reviews, coordinated by BIA regional personnel, who have conducted program reviews. Under the Fish, Wildlife and Parks program, numerous tribes, tribal entities, and tribal employees have been recognized for outstanding contributions in the fish and wildlife field. Independent reviews have been conducted of tribal/intertribal programs, as needed, or appropriate. In addition, tribal programs remain under the scrutiny of Federal courts for implementation of court orders. The national program's effectiveness in supporting the tribal programs' success in fulfilling the requirements of court orders constitutes an indirect affirmation that the program is effective and achieving results.

Evidence: WATER PROGRAM AREA: 25 CFR 273, Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Program; Tribal Self- Governance 2003 Annual Report to Congress (pursuant to Section 405 of Public Law 103-415). AGRICULTURE AND RANGE PROGRAM AREA: Navajo Region Range Assessment - 1997, Position and Land Analysis Survey - 1990. FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA: HSRG review; Honoring Nations -- Harvard review of tribal programs (excerpts), cite examples of awards received by tribes and commissions.