Detailed Information on the
US Geological Survey - National Cooperative Geological Mapping Assessment

Increase integration of geologic mapping efforts by State geological surveys with USGS efforts

Conducting regular, independent reviews of the program.

Increasing integration of geologic information to facilitate analysis and decision making.

Setting standards for data collection, preservation and exchange.

Complete first independent review of the program

Increasing availability of EDMAP project information on the internet.

Complete standards for preservation of USGS paleontological specimens.

Implement findings from FY 2007 AAAS review

Develop plans for publishing NCGMP-funded legacy data

Measure: Percent of United States with regional geologic map coverage that is available to customers through the NGMDB.

Explanation:The measure shows an ever increasing amount of high-priority areas in the United States that have geologic map information available to customers/decision makers. This directly addresses Goal 1 of Program 5-year plan.

Measure: Percent of geologic investigations in National Park Service units that are cited for use by the National Park Service within three years of delivery.

Explanation:The National Park units (National Monuments, National Parks, National Preserves, National Recreation Areas, National Reserves, and National Seashores) for which NCGMP provides assistance are selected through participation in National Park Service's Geologic Resource Evaluation annual scoping sessions and through discussions with NPS Geologic Resources Division, Water Resources Division, and Resource Managers. The type of NCGMP products delivered to each park depends upon the needs of the park and may include, but not be limited to, geologic maps, geologic reports, 3-D interpretations, assistance with park displays, and interpretive signs. Of the 270 park units designated for Inventory and Monitoring, 52 already have geologic maps, and 21 have maps in progress.

Measure: Percent of U.S. with geologic maps that are being integrated into ground-water availability status and trends to support resource management decisions.

Explanation:This measure was developed to complement the USGS Water Resources Discipline measure: percent of principal aquifers of the U.S. with ground-water availability status and trends information to support resource management decisions. WRD cannot meet this goal without geologic maps provided by NCGMP scientists. The geologic formations mapped in the subsurface by NCGMP define 1) the shape of the aquifers (the vessels that hold the ground water), 2) how much water can be stored in them, and 3) parameters for water movement through the ground. NCGMP will supply the geologic maps that are used in hydrogeologic models for a percentage of the total 65 principal aquifers of the U.S.

Measure: Number of counties or comparable jurisdictions that have adopted hazard mitigation measures based in part on geologic mapping and research.

Explanation:All hazard susceptibility maps are derived directly from basic geologic maps. These susceptibility maps are one piece of the mitigation process, which also involves political decisions made by the communities, such as zoning regulations and building codes.

Measure: Number of State Geological Surveys that add geologic map information to the NGMDB.

Explanation:This measure addresses the importance NCGMP places on having every geologic map product ever produced in the United States listed, with its metadata and information on how to obtain the map, in the National Geologic Map Database catalog. Successful accomplishment of this goal helps NCGMP achieve Goal 2 in its 5-year plan, and requires both extraordinary coordination between USGS and AASG, and diligence in annual maintenance. Puerto Rico is #51.

Measure: Percent of EDMAP students that work on subsequent geoscience degrees or obtain a job in a geoscience field.

Explanation:Indicates continued availability of geologic mapping expertise in the geoscience field. Information is gathered through questionnaires that are sent to students 3 years after they complete their EDMAP experience.\

Measure: Number of EDMAP students trained each year.

Explanation:Indicates a continued pool of students with geologic mapping capabilities.

Measure: Number of hours for fieldwork, compilation, and publication of a typical geologic map.

Explanation:Increased use of recently developed digital techniques reduces the time it takes to produce a geologic map from the time the geologist goes out into the field to the time the map is available to customers. This saves hours and money as well as gets products to the customers sooner, makes the products more accessible through digital means, and makes data more secure with multiple backups through the entire process. The number of hours includes the entire process from start to final publication, including the 4 months that the map is in a queue waiting for editing and digital cartography.

Measure: # of systematic analyses & investigations delivered to customers

Explanation:

Measure: # of formal workshops or training provided to customers

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: As mandated by the National Geologic Mapping Act (NGMA) of 1992, the purpose of this program is to "expedite the production of a geologic-map data base for the Nation, which can be applied to land-use management, assessment, and utilization, conservation of natural resources, groundwater management, and environmental protection." According to the 2001 NRC report, "the most important of all geological records are geologic maps. Geologic maps are the primary foundation for a broad range of science investigations, from mineral exploration to hydrogeologic investigations to land use planning." The report also calls for new products that "are interoperable, three-dimensional digital databases". The FEDMAP and STATEMAP geologic mapping components of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) are designed to accomplish this mission. Historically, the FGDC geologic theme data committee has been managed by the NCGMP. The EDMAP component of the Program trains a new generation of geologists who have the skills to use and produce geologic maps.

Evidence: "1. The NGMA and its subsequent reauthorizations explain the purpose of the program ncgmp.usgs.gov/ncgmpabout/ 2. Architecture diagram - From NCGMP to the President's Business Reference Model 3. The President's Management Agenda www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/a-3-brm.html 4. The Organic Act of March 3, 1879, established the USGS. 5. DOI Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008 www.doi.gov/gpra/strat_plan_fy2003_2008.pdf 6. USGS Strategic Plan 2000-2005 www.usgs.gov/stratplan/stratplan_rev.pdf 7. Geology for a changing world: a science strategy for the Geologic Division of the USGS, 2000-2010, 1998, USGS Circular 1172 - pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1172/ 8. NCGMP Implementation Plan 1996 9. NCGMP 5-Year Plan 2000-2005 10. NCGMP 5-Year Plan Outline 2006-2010 11. Future roles and opportunities for the USGS, 2001, NRC Report (see question 2.6) 12. OMB Circular A-16, Revised 2002 www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a016/a016_rev.html "

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

Explanation: Geologic maps are necessary for making informed decisions regarding the effects of climate change, earthquakes, ecosystem changes, flooding, landslides, and volcanoes, and the availability of aggregate, energy, mineral, and water resources in the United States. In 1987, the National Research Council report "Geologic Mapping in the U.S. Geological Survey" noted that less than 20 percent of the nation is mapped at regional scales. After passage of the NGMA, a vehicle for leveraging Federal dollars with equal amounts of state dollars, geologic map production more than doubled, and 50% of the Nation now has geologic map coverage at regional scales. NCGMP also has increased availability of geologic maps through grants, education, and development of standards and information exchange tools.

Evidence: "1. NGMA 2. National Geologic Mapping Program, goals, objectives, and long-range plans, 1987, USGS Circular 1020 3. Geologic mapping in the USGS, 1987, NRC Report 4. Geologic Mapping-Future Needs, 1988, NRC Report 5. Societal value of geologic maps, 1996, USGS Circular 1111 6. Economic benefits of detailed geologic mapping to Kentucky, 2000, Illinois State Geological Survey 7. New dimensions in geologic mapping, 2000, Geotimes June 8. USGS science supports NPS in managing park resources, NPS Natural Resource Year in Review-2001 9. National Park Service letter 10. Hasn't Colorado already been mapped?, 2004, Colorado Geological Survey Rock Talk, vol. 7, no. 4 11. Geologic maps and geologic issues in Kentucky: a citizen's guide, 2003, Kentucky Geological Survey Special Publication 3 12. AASG Position Statement 2005 13. Meeting Challenges with Geologic Maps, 2004, AGI 14. Justifications for FEDMAP geologic mapping 15. Justification for STATEMAP geologic mapping 16. NCGMP primary societal drivers for geologic mapping. "

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

Explanation: "The NCGMP, as designed and mandated in the NGMA, is not duplicative of any other effort. The NCGMP supports the production of almost all geologic maps in the United States through its FEDMAP, STATEMAP, and EDMAP components. Each partner in this effort has a clearly defined role, and the Program's Federal Advisory Committee, FEDMAP, STATEMAP, and EDMAP Review Panels, the Association of American State Geologists (AASG), and the individual State Mapping Advisory Committees meet to set priorities and coordinate mapping activities in order to avoid duplication and to leverage funds for greatest efficiency. Forty-nine states have participated in STATEMAP since it began in 1993, and 122 universities have participated in EDMAP since it began in 1996. Geologic mapping that the Program supports is at a regional scale (commonly 1:24,000 and 1:100,000), whereas private industry routinely hires geotechnical consultants who may need to produce very detailed geologic maps over much smaller areas in the course of their work. They use NCGMP-funded maps as a database upon which they then add their more detailed information. Typically, industry-produced geologic maps are of a very limited geographic area, are used to address only one specific issue, and are not made available to a broader audience."

Evidence: "1. NGMA - http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ncgmpabout/ 2. National Geologic Mapping Program, goals, objectives, and long-range plans, 1987, USGS Circular 1020 3. Societal Value of Geologic Maps, 1996, USGS Circular 1111 4. STATEMAP funding 1993-2005 - http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ncgmpabout/statemap/statemapfunding/document_view 5. Statement of John W. Shomaker of Shomaker & Associates, 2004 6. Statement of William Siok, American Institute of Professional Geologists, 2004 7. Resolution of Interstate Mining Compact Commission, 2004 8. Statement of Robert Corbett, American Institute of Professional Geologists, 2004 9. State Fact sheets: http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ncgmpabout/statemap/statefs 10. FEDMAP and STATEMAP Letters of support notebook "

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

Explanation: "The Program's original design was dictated by the NGMA, and its subsequent re-authorizations provide an effective mechanism for correcting any design flaws. The Program's Federal Advisory Committee, three review panels, and the Association of American State Geologists evaluate the Program annually, and their recommended changes are incorporated into the Program's design and the NGMA. The three Program components each have a different focus and work cooperatively to avoid redundancy, share expertise, and maximize geologic map production. Through the grant process, Federal dollars are matched 1:1 with state and university dollars. The mandatory use of GIS technology for Program-funded geologic maps decreases paper consumption and allows customers to add information layers, which expands the practical uses of these maps. The National Geologic Map Database is a central source for all geologic map information in the United States and creates and promotes geologic map standards development in conjunction with FGDC, AASG, and the international community. Quality of map products and efficiency of map delivery are directly linked to standards development and program effectiveness. "

Evidence: "1. NGMA http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ncgmpabout/ 2. FAC Reports - 1996, 1998, 2000 3. What are Geologic Maps Worth?, 2000, - summary sheet for Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3 4. Economic benefits of detailed geologic mapping to Kentucky, 2000, Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3 5. Societal value of geologic maps, 1996, USGS Circular 1111 6. Statement of John Steinmetz, State Geologist of Indiana and President of AASG, 2004 7. Statement of Roy Breckenridge, State Geologist of Idaho, 2004 8. Statement of Sarah Robinson, former EDMAP student, 2004 9. AASG Annual Meeting agenda 2004 10. Notes on development of standards and guidelines for geologic maps and databases 11. FGDC Annual Report to OMB, 2004 11. NCGMP Website questionnaire fact sheet, 2004 12. EDMAP questionnaire and report of results, 2005 13. Espanola Basin Technical Advisory Group (EBTAG) information 14. Espanola Basin fact sheet"

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

Explanation: "The NCGMP geologic mapping efforts, while maintaining consistency with DOI, USGS, and Program goals, target high priority areas as determined by State Mapping Advisory Committees, the NCGMP Federal Advisory Committee, the National Park Service Needs Assessment Survey, the Water Resources Discipline, and recommendations of regional stakeholder forums. The NCGMP external grant programs (STATEMAP and EDMAP) target beneficiaries through the annual Program Announcements on the Internet and specific email solicitations. Panels evaluate and score all project proposals to ensure that only the best proposals are funded and that continued funding is only obtained through documentation of continued productivity. Geologic map standards are being developed by those who will use them. This includes private industry, universities, states, and federal agencies. In addition, Canada, Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia and Africa are involved in the process, as is the IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information. Once standards are developed, they are approved by the FGDC and become the standard for all federal agencies. In 2003, a questionnaire that was sent to a representative sample of NCGMP web site users asked how the site, which includes the NGMDB, meets their needs, and what are their suggestions for improving the usefulness and effectiveness. These suggestions were used to develop the new web site."

Evidence: "1. NCGMP 2006-2010 5-Year Plan 2. SMAC Letters 3. Shared goal with GWRP & NPS Inventory & Monitoring Requirements. 4. Scientific and Technical Exchange with Stakeholders: -Digital Mapping Techniques Workshop Reports -Middle Rio Grande Basin Study Fact Sheet -Fourth Bald Head Island Conference Report -Seattle Emergency Responders Forum -Middle Rio Grande (EBTAG) workshops 5. STATEMAP RFP and Cooperative Agreement - www.usgs.gov/contracts/STATEMAP/index.html 6. EDMAP RFP and Cooperative Agreement www.usgs.gov/contracts/EDMAP/index.html 7. FEDMAP, STATEMAP, and EDMAP evaluation criteria 8. FEDMAP Outcomes 9. STATEMAP Outcomes 10. Funding chart for 3 program components 11. FEDMAP and STATEMAP Letters of Support Notebook 12. Website questionnaire and NCGMP response (see question 4.5) "

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 NCGMP's new 5-year program plan establishes long-term measures that are consistent with the guidelines found in the NGMA and the goals of the Geologic Discipline, USGS, and DOI. These measures, which apply to all components of the Program, address (1) increasing geologic map production for the Nation, (2) how these geologic maps contribute to NPS resource management, ground-water management, and mitigation of natural hazards, (3) one-stop shopping for all the Nation's geologic maps, and (4) assuring the continued availability of geologic mapping expertise. Since 1997, the Program has been operating and is being measured under similar long-term goals through it previous 5-year plan, GPRA, and currently under the DOI Strategic Plan where the Program is contributing to five specific outcome and output measures that evaluate the productivity and extent of geologic mapping.

Evidence: "1. NGMA 2. DOI Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008 - www.doi.gov/gpra/strat_plan_fy2003_2008.pdf 3. USGS Strategic Plan 2000-2005 - www.usgs.gov/stratplan/stratplan_rev.pdf 4. Geology for a changing world: a science strategy for the Geologic Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2000-2010, 1998, USGS Circular 1172 - pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1172/ 5. NCGMP 5-Year Plan 2006-2010 outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program 6. NGMDB statistics 7. State Geological Surveys contributing to NGMDB 8. FEDMAP Outcome statements 9. STATEMAP Outcome statements 10. EDMAP questionnaire information "

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

Explanation: All long-term measures and GPRA goals listed in question 2.1 have long-term targets, timeframes, baselines, and specific annual targets and types of expected products for the next five years that are consistent with the goals of the Program as found in its new five-year plan. These targets are attainable, yet challenging, especially with anticipated lower funding levels. If necessary, targets can be adjusted to reflect any significant funding changes. Detailed information on products and annual targets is provided in annual project plans and link directly to the goals and objectives of the five-year plan. These annual plans are rigorously reviewed for progress and performance.

Evidence: "1. Evidence demonstrating progress in meeting the Program's long-term goals can be found in the Measures tab. 2. NCGMP 5-Year Plan (2006-2010), outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program, time frames, and long-term targets. 3. Budget Justification and Performance Information for FY06 "

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: Previously, annual goals were focused on the number of mapping projects funded by NCGMP. One five-year plan included a measure of area mapped though this is not reflected in the performance table within justifications. New annual and long-term measures make the link clear between annual and long-term goals. Each of the Program's long-term measures and GPRA goals has associated annual performance measures. Detailed information on products and annual targets is provided in annual project plans and link directly to goals and objectives of the 2006-2010 five-year plan. To drive performance on increasing the availability of geologic map information in high-priority areas, the Program measures the % of the U.S. that is geologically mapped each year, prioritizing areas that are significant for ground water, impacted by geologic hazards, and managed by the National Park Service.

Evidence: "1. GPRA performance measure documentation 2. NCGMP 5-Year Plan (2006-2010), outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program 3. Annual list of FEDMAP published products 4. Annual list of STATEMAP published products 5. State Geological Surveys contributing to NGMDB 6. List of FEDMAP cooperators, collaborators, and clients 7. EDMAP student statistics 8. USGS FY2005 Annual Director's Guidance"

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

Explanation: All of the Program's annual measures have baselines and annual targets for the next five years that are consistent with the goals of the Program as found in its new five-year plan. These targets are attainable, yet challenging. If necessary, targets can be adjusted to reflect any significant funding changes. Detailed information on products and annual targets is provided in annual project plans and link directly to the goals and objectives of the five-year plan. These annual plans are rigorously reviewed for progress and performance.

Evidence: "1. Evidence demonstrating progress in meeting the Program's long-term goals and baselines for all measures can be found in the Measures tab. 2. NCGMP 5-Year Plan 2006-2010 outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program 3. Budget Justification and Performance Information for FY06 "

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

Explanation: All STATEMAP and EDMAP project efforts, as detailed in annual proposals, must be consistent with NCGMP annual and long-term goals. These goals are either presented in the Program announcement or through web site links. Once the NCGMP has distributed funding amounts to each project, principal investigators modify their proposals and promised products to reflect any differences from requested funding. All funded STATEMAP and EDMAP projects are evaluated annually by the NCGMP for performance and delivery and quality of promised products. Products not meeting acceptable standards are returned for improvement. The STATEMAP Panel evaluates previous year's performance through quality and timeliness of products. STATEMAP projects report annually on customer use of these products.

Evidence: "1. STATEMAP 2005 RFP 2. EDMAP 2005 RFP 3. National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-148) 4. NCGMP 5-Year Plan 2006-2010 outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program 5. STATEMAP Outcome statements 6. Colorado Rock Talk, 2004, v. 7, no. 4, p. 7. 7. State Long-Range Plans (as an example from proposal package) 8. FAC Reports"

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: NCGMP primarily relies on annual reviews from a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC), but this body does not meet the independence criteria as the Associate Director for Geology is on the FAC, and there are two State Geological Survey members on the FAC. These members either make funding decisions about the program or directly receive funding from the program. Most of the reports coming out of the FAC do not address the "Scope" criteria required for a YES. Other reviews recognized the value of the program but did not have sufficient scope to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness. For example, an independent cost-benefit study showed that the benefit of geologic maps exceeds the costs, but the study did not address specific aspects of the NCGMP. In addition, two NRC studies in 2001 and 2000, which focused on the USGS as a whole and another on a water research program, recognized the value of NCGMP. However, these studies do not meet the scope criteria.

Evidence: "1. Economic benefits of detailed geologic mapping to Kentucky, 2000, Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3 2. What are Geologic Maps Worth?, 2000, - summary sheet for Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3 3. Societal Value of Geologic Maps, USGS Circular 1111, 1996 4. FAC Reports and NCGMP response to recommendations 5. Geologic Maps as Public Goods (Illinois Geological Survey Special Report 3) 6. Geologic Mapping in the USGS, 1987, NRC Report 7. Geologic Mapping-Future Needs, 1988, NRC Report 8. Eastern Earth Surface Processes Team Review 9. FEDMAP Project evaluations: BRASS and GLASS 10. NCGMP Website Questionnaire 11. Geologic Mapping - 18 years of Review 12. Investigating groundwater systems on regional and national scales, 2000, NRC Report 13. Future roles and opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, NRC Report "

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 requests are not clearly tied to long-term performance goals. The items listed in the GPRA table are not clearly tied to descriptions of actual acitvities within the text of the budget justifications. Further outcome oriented and measurable long-term performance measures did not exist, and accordingly could not be tied to the budget.

Evidence: "1. Budget Justification and Performance Information for FY06 2. FY 2005 USGS Annual Science Plan for Geology 3. FAC reports 4. NCGMP 5-Year Plan (2006-2010), outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program 5. Architecture diagram - From NCGMP to the President's Business Reference Model (see question 1.1) 6. GPRA Strategic Mission Criteria for Employee Performance Plans table "

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

Explanation: "The Program is drafting a new five-year plan, which has three ambitious goals. This new plan, like its predecessor, links annual targets (project work plans) to these goals. The outline of the five-year plan shows how all Program measures are linked to these goals. The Program is consistently attentive and responsive to changes identified by Congress, customers, cooperators, AASG, FAC, and evaluation panels. When designing the much-needed new Program website, all responses from a customer-based questionnaire sent out in 2003 were addressed where practical. After the EDMAP component had been functioning for a few years, it became apparent that the addition of undergraduate students would not only be more cost effective, but would also expose students to geologic mapping before they made a career specialty decision. Beginning in 2002, the NCGMP began implementing (1) increased cooperation among the three components when developing long-range plans, (2) increased connection between performance and funding for all three components, (3) better record keeping, and (4) formalization of Program interactions and development of performance measures with the National Park Service and Water Resources Discipline. "

Evidence: "1. NCGMP 5-Year Plan 2006-2010 outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program, and annual targets 2. NCGMP 5-Year Plan 2000-2005 3. EDMAP 1999 RFP - showing addition of undergraduates 4. FAC reports 5. NCGMP-WRD Shared Goal 6. NPS cooperation letter "

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and (if relevant) to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals?

Explanation: "Program funding decisions within the program respond to two main drivers: (1) cost effectiveness and (2) responsiveness to the highest priorities in its 5-year plan, program reviews, and the Mapping Act. An example of a cost-effective decision where comparison of potential benefits was made was the decision to require that all new geologic maps must be digital products that become immediately accessible on-line. Not only did this reduce the costs that would have been incurred by producing the more expensive paper products, but it responded to the need for more accessible data. Paper maps are now only done for selected special interest, recreational, and educational projects, which allows better tailoring of these products to specific needs. Another example is the strategic change implemented as part the 5-year plan that shifted scientific focus and increased funding for mapping projects that address specific high-priority issues such as fractured rock aquifer research. The AIPG, which represents many of the Nation's private consulting geoscientists, supports regional mapping conducted by the Program (both USGS and State Geological Surveys), so that it can more effectively do its site- specific studies for a whole host of land uses (e.g., siting of waste facilities, new quarry operations, new production plants, and community zoning). "

Evidence: "1. What are Geologic Maps Worth? 2000, - summary sheet for Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3 2. Societal value of geologic maps, USGS Circular 1111, 1996 3. Letter from AIPG 4. GD Policy Memo on Digital Geologic Maps 5. Investigating groundwater systems on regional and national scales, 2000, NRC Report "

Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?

Explanation: The Program is on track to map the high priority areas of the Nation. The FAC annually evaluates Program priorities and direction. As required by the NGMA, State Mapping Advisory Committees in 48 states determine highest priority needs for geologic mapping in their states. The National Park Service, WRD, and the Hazards Program have mechanisms to designate high priority areas. FEDMAP, STATEMAP, and EDMAP components provide feedback on the Program and project proposals. Weighing the merits of the above information within the context of the Program's 5-year plan, the NCGMP Program Coordinator makes the final decisions for budget requests, program plans, and funding allocations. In FY 2005, 51% of the Program budget supports water related efforts, 30% goes to hazard mitigation efforts, and 15% is for National Park investigations, all in five high-priority areas: Northwest (WA, OR), Pacific (CA), Southwest (AZ, NV, UT), Rocky Mountains (CO), South Central (TX), and Mid-Atlantic (MD, NC, VA).

Evidence: "1. SMAC prioritization letters 2. NCGMP-WRD Shared Goal 3. NPS prioritization process letter 4. FAC Reports 5. FY 2005 Annual GD Science Plan 6. NCGMP 5-Year Plan 2006-2010 outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program"

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: "DOI, USGS, and its Programs regularly collect performance information through customer and partner reviews and surveys. USGS conducts science product surveys quarterly, but any given program has products surveyed intermittently with at least one product surveyed every three years. Feedback is incorporated into Program plans, and specific actions are taken. DOI and Bureau Strategic Plans include partner and customer reviewed long-term goals and annual performance and GPRA measures. Progress on GPRA is verified quarterly and reported & updated annually. NRC recommendations for NCGMP are reviewed by its FAC, which makes a report on changes adopted. All projects are required to record detailed work plans, products, and budgets in the Bureau-wide system BASIS+. NCGMP has 3 panels that review the FEDMAP, STATEMAP, and EDMAP work plans annually. Written feedback on performance is provided to project chiefs who must correct deficiencies. For example, the FEDMAP project "Great Lakes Investigations", because of inefficiency and low productivity, was down-sized and redirected to focus on delivering its most important products. NCGMP reviews all cooperative grant products upon delivery and shares this evaluation with the USGS Office of Acquisition and Federal Assistance. NCGMP conducts selected site visits/reviews of projects annually. Failure of STATEMAP and EDMAP grant recipients to provide deliverables makes the recipient ineligible for future funds until situation is rectified (e.g., Connecticut was in- eligible for funding for 3 years until products were received)."

Evidence: "1. Bureau Strategic Plan shows long term goals, measures and annual GPRA targets (p. 9-15) 2. GPRA update memo for FY05, GPRA Reports for FY05 and example of quarterly verification 3. USGS Planning Model process shows performance requirements in program 5-year plans (p.9) and collecting performance information in BASIS+ (p.12-13) 4. USGS Geology strategic planning and review chart GD strategic plan 5. GD long-range scientific planning document 6. Annual project planning, review, and budget cycle for FEDMAP projects: 2 examples given "

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: "USGS holds senior management and program partners accountable for performance through performance evaluation, management process controls, and performance guidance provided in agreements, contracts, and grants. Measures for GPRA, financial management, and the Presidents Management Agenda are in all USGS SES performance agreements, and the appropriate program measures for NCGMP are cascaded down to all line managers and scientists using specific guidance tied to NCGMP GPRA and other measures. Regional Executives and Program Coordinators are also accountable for achieving performance as part of the USGS Planning Model. STATEMAP and EDMAP grant programs have specific performance guidance and include rigorous review panels and budgetary penalties for non-performance. Cooperative agreements with State Geological Surveys and university geoscience departments include specific requirements, products, and time schedules. Non-compliance with any of these requirements makes the recipients ineligible for a cooperative agreement in future years until requirements are met. STATEMAP and EDMAP contracts for services are competed and contain specific quality and performance requirements and time schedules for services (examples presented in evidence)."

Evidence: "1.SES Performance Plan Guidance for 2005 2.Procurement specifications 3.Obtaining products and services 4.STATEMAP Program Announcement (RFP's) contains a substantial number of requirements that must be met by all applicants. Through the years these requirements have been modified several times to ensure better products and performance. Example of STATEMAP Cooperative Agreement can be found in evidence for question 1.5. 5.EDMAP RFP and Cooperative Agreement example can be found in evidence for question 1.5. 6. Evidence from 3CO2 contains examples of contracts. 7. GPRA Strategic Mission Criteria for Employee Performance Plans table (see question 2.7)."

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

Explanation: "The USGS has an established budget, allocation, and spending process that includes annual planning, quarterly and monthly reviews, and review of funds allocation change over 25K. It has implemented management measures to ensure dollars are allocated and obligated in a timely manner and spent for intended purposes. Budget planning to object class is done in the BASIS+ system, which ties budget to intended use. Allocation tables are constructed from BASIS+, and FFS is used to provide monthly and quarterly spending information, review obligation and debt, and take corrective action. Programs review projects and their budgets monthly. USGS conducts quarterly review of status of funds against performance measures. A certified COR annually reviews and verifies that contract funds are obligated and spent for intended purposes. The Bureau also requires program managers to review monthly and certify quarterly unliquidated obligations. Historically, the Bureau has had a less than 1% unobligated balance remaining at year-end in its annual direct appropriation. The NCGMP unobligated balance carryover from 2004 was $7,000 (0.03% of total Program appropriation), and as of April 30, 2005, 52% of funds have been obligated. In 2004, 100% of NCGMP grants were obligated before their start dates, and allocations to FEDMAP projects were completed 3 weeks after appropriations by Congress."

Evidence: "1.Diagram of USGS Budgeting and Finance 2. FY05 Allocation Process Memo shows appropriation actions and allocation requirements 3. FY05 Allocation tables by Programs and administrative office give allocations to cost centers, projects, and accounts. Numbers consistent with budget numbers in FY04 Geology Annual Science Plan 4.Administering allocation of funds memo 5. New policies and procedures 6. Comparison of requirements 7. Form 424 for STATEMAP and EDMAP 8. DI-1 for STATEMAP and EDMAP"

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 Bureau has an approved competitive sourcing plan and in the past two years has completed competitive sourcing for two functions and is actively engaged in the studies for visual information services, science technicians, and geospatial technical operations. These competitions will improve cost and timeliness of program publications, such as geologic maps, that we use for major program assets. NCGMP is working with the NSF-funded Geosciences Network (GEON) to develop integrated data sets to analyze complex earth systems (see 2005 NRC report). Several NGMDB-managed data sets, e.g., paleontology and geochronology, will be incorporated into GEON, which will use GRID technology and make the data more accessible for real time use in modeling. Since 1996, Geology Programs have conducted internal competitive project proposal and review processes and project-based costing using a prototype of the BASIS+ system now in use across the Bureau. Scientists are required to submit annual project work plans and budgets for review of progress, performance, and cost. Using BASIS+ information, the 2004 FEDMAP panel ranked highest the "Pacific Northwest Urban Corridor Geologic Mapping" project, which then received additional Program funding. DMT annual workshops provide a forum for discussion and sharing of the latest efficiencies in geologic map production from around the world."

Evidence: "1. Memo from Robert Doyle announcing the new Competitive Sourcing Green Plan and copy of the USGS 2005-2008 Green Plan 2. Competitive Sourcing Green Plan, 2005-2008 3. February 2005 update on competitive sourcing 4. Changes in USGS geologic map compilation and production (NCGMP efficiency measure) 5. Notes on development of standards and guidelines for geologic maps and databases 6. Chart showing FY 2005 NCGMP ABC function areas by task 7. The geological record of ecological dynamics, 2005, NRC report "

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Geologic maps and the information they contain are critical underpinnings for and form the foundation of much geoscience research. Within the USGS, NCGMP has successfully collaborated in jointly planned, funded, and staffed projects with every program in the Geologic Discipline, as well as the Ground Water Resources Program (GWRP) in WRD. The Program has closely collaborated with National Park Service Geologic Resources Discipline for more than a decade on a joint project whose long-term goal is to inventory all 270 Natural Area parks for geologic map information. High-priority areas for mapping are determined on an annual basis. The federal, state, and university components of the Program also carefully coordinate their efforts, and one of the evaluation criteria used by all 3 of Program review panels is determining how well project work is coordinated. NCGMP has been the lead on the Geologic data theme in OMB circular A-16, but could do more outreach to provide guidance to producers of geologic information on standards and data access, and use of geologic infomation by non-experts.

Evidence: "1. Document showing collaborations for all FEDMAP projects. Also refer to Section 3.1 which has several examples of FEDMAP project work plans from BASIS+. These plans describe important collaborations. 2. Explanation of water availability goal that is shared by NCGMP and GWRP 3. Document showing how NCGMP collaborates with NPS on an Inventory and Monitoring Protocol "

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: "The Bureau received an unqualified opinion on its FY04 Annual Financial Report (included in the PAR), which included two reportable conditions: Internal Controls over Accounts Receivable and Deferred Revenue and Non-Compliance with Laws & Reportable Conditions related to FFMIA (internal controls over IT). This shows the Bureau's commitment to implementing and standardizing strong financial management practices. USGS has continued statistical sampling for quality assurance review of payment and travel and charge card transactions, which are reported to Bureau management. USGS has formalized routine analyses of financial performance measures and provides trend analyses to senior management (e.g., billings and collections, charge card activities, overtime reports, and fund status reports). USGS has established an Office of Internal Controls and Quality Assurance, which implements revised A-123 provisions. This year, USGS will complete 5 internal control reviews at various locations throughout the Bureau. Based on 2 reviews, internal controls & financial management practices are working. For the revenue cycle control issue, USGS has implemented a corrective action plan and is having monthly reviews conducted by cost center managers. BASIS+ is set up to reflect financial trans- actions in system on a 24 hour update cycle. BASIS+ reports afford review of budget trans- actions at all levels of financial management. "

Evidence: "1. Independent Auditors Report on the US Geological Survey's Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2004 2. Second Quarter Performance Results for Financial Operations 3. Travel Charge Card (FY2003 Analysis) 4. Draft Report on Internal Control and Quality Assurance Reviews 5. USGS FY 2004 Annual Financial Report (www.doi.gov/pfm/annrept/gs_04_par.pdf) 6. Instructional Memo APS 2003-13 (www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/im/aps-2003-11.html) 7. FY 2005 Financial Operating Schedule (internal.usgs.gov/ops/finance/yearend.html) 8. Monthly report to the Office of Financial Management 9. Quarterly Financial Statements (FACTSII Submission) (Available to OMB via FACTSII)"

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

Explanation: "The Bureau has strengthened its financial management and practices as evidenced by the unqualified opinion on the FY 2004 Annual Financial Report (included in the PAR). USGS was the first DOI bureau to complete and publish the FY2004 PAR. Through the USGS GIO, the USGS has taken steps to improve IT systems controls of critical infrastructures. The USGS also provides support to various departmental financial forums, e.g., the Finance Officers Partnership and deployment of the FBMS. The USGS has strengthened its financial management organization and leadership and established policies & procedures for improved controls over financial reporting through the use of regularly updated Administrative Instructional memos and annual training. The USGS has responded promptly and successfully to past audits, and all target dates for compliance are being met. Geology programs use annual review process and BASIS+ system to review program work and correct deficiencies (described in 3.4 and 3.RD1). The FAC conducts reviews of Program management and scientific direction that the Program addresses. Where appropriate, the program has addressed recommendations of the FAC and the NRC."

Evidence: "1. Status Report and Corrective Action Plan for Issues identified in the FY-2004 Audited Financial Statements 2. USGS FY 2004 PAR (Annual Financial Report) (audited) 3. FY 2005 Finance and Accounting Operating Schedule 4. Geologic Mapping - 18 Years of Review (see question 2.6) 5. Investigating groundwater systems on regional and national scales, 2000, NRC Report (see question 2.6) 6. Future roles and opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, NRC Report (see question 2.6) 7. The geological record of ecological dynamics, 2005, NRC report (see question 3.4) "

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: "Program announcements (RFPs) describe eligibility and evaluation process and list criteria used to score proposals. All geoscience or related departments at accredited U.S. colleges and universities are eligible for EDMAP. At the time Program Announcements are issued, emails are sent to all universities, along with instructions to begin the proposal process. Announcements also are issued through the Federal Government grants process at www.grants.gov. To further outreach each year, the Associate Program Coordinator visits several universities that have not participated in EDMAP to educate them about the Program. Approximately 20% of the EDMAP awards are to new universities each year. The EDMAP component has a peer review panel of 8-10 scientists who serve overlapping 3-year terms. Panel members score each proposal based on a 100 point maximum, and the average score is used to rank all proposals. If a panel member has submitted a proposal, they must leave the room during its discussion and scoring. Evaluation criteria for EDMAP consist of coordination with State or USGS projects (15%), justification of geologic mapping (15%), technical quality of the proposal (40%), budget clarity and justification (15%), and mentorship (15%). All (100%) awards are distributed through a competitive process."

Evidence: "1. Description of awards process, percentage of funds earmarked and percentage of funds subject to peer review. 2. Relative number of new awardees per award cycle and technical assistance and outreach efforts of the agency 3. RFPs, evaluation criteria in RFPs, minutes to EDMAP panel meetings, list of panel members, databases showing scoring, URL to Program Announcements (www.usgs.gov/contracts/) showing open access to apply, Grants.gov website 4. Emails announcing Program Announcement and site visit to non EDMAP universities "

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Program oversees technical quality and tracks deliverables of the grantees through Excel spreadsheets to make sure promised products are delivered. The quality of the delivered maps is evaluated by the Associate Program Coordinator, and a rating is reported to the Office of Acquisitions and Federal Assistance (OAFA). The Program works closely with the OAFA to ensure budget and deliverables are consistent. Associate Program Coordinator performs periodic site visits (as many as 12 per year) to evaluate performance and share Program information with those responsible for the geologic mapping. These visits often include in-field reviews. If a grantee does not deliver products described in the grant, they cannot receive future grants. Any changes to the budget or promised deliverables during the grant period must be approved by the Associate Program Coordinator and OAFA. The grantee must submit a Financial Status Report at the end of the year showing the budget activities of the award.

Evidence: "1. Examples of deliverables (maps) 2. Letters of transmittal accepting deliverables 3. Mapping in progress database 4. Parallel files of budgetary documents with Office of Acquisitions and Grants 5. Example of revisions sheets for OAG signed by Program Coordinator 6. Documentation of site visits 7. Letters of rejection based on performance 8. Financial Status Report Form 269 9. Status of Open Accounts Form 285"

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Information on current and past EDMAP mapping activities is available at the Program web site. Grantees are required to submit their agreed upon deliverable map products within one year of their start date. Information on all promised geologic map deliverables are also available as "Mapping in Progress" through the NGMDB so the public can see the status of the geologic mapping. The Associate Program Coordinator rates the quality of the deliverables, which is recorded in a transmittal letter that is filed in the Program Office and OAFA.

Evidence: "1. Listing and status of project on web 2. National Geologic Map Database (http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmdb/ngm_catalog.ora.html) 3. Example transmittal letter with rating 4. EDMAP fact sheet 5. EDMAP awards 6. Mapping in progress database 7. Annual list of EDMAP projects on the web"

For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain program quality?

Explanation: NCGMP issues an annual call for proposals. The annual plan uses the Geology Science Strategy and Program 5-year plans for its organizing framework. For FEDMAP, scientists are required to submit annual project proposals into the BASIS+ system where they are evaluated and ranked by a panel of scientific peers and external stakeholders for strong scientific merit, reasonable budgets and staffing, and productivity. Using these results and the Program's 5-year plan as guidance, the Program Coordinator allocates appropriate levels of funding. For STATEMAP, all proposals are submitted through www.grants.gov. A panel of 5 State geologists and 3 USGS research geologists evaluates each proposal on the relevance of the SMAC, purpose of geologic mapping, technical quality of the proposal, budget clarity and justification, and timeliness and quality of deliverables. Amount of funding to each State is linked directly to the panel scores.

Evidence: 1. Overview diagram of Geology Planning Process demonstrating management and review process. See also answers to 3.1 and 3.3 on planning and allocation processes. Scientists propose work based upon the Geology Annual Science Plan that contains guidance for all projects within the framework of Geology Goals and Objectives and provides information on new opportunities and funding targets. Scientists submit annual project proposals and work plans for Program review to determine progress, performance, and scientific soundness. The system is used to examine staffing, scientific methodology, progress on goals, budgetary structure, use of funds and capital investments, and formulate final allocations. Reviews are conducted by scientific peers and include external scientific or stakeholder review depending on the nature of the project.

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

Explanation: "In previous years, most of the long-term measures used by the Program were output oriented. Last year, a new long-term performance measure, which indicates how geologic mapping contributes to development of ground-water status and trend indicators, was added and baselined. This will be the first year to track whether targets are met. New measures were also added regarding mapping of National Park Service lands, continuation of EDMAP students in geoscience careers, and contribution of geologic mapping to improving geologic hazard mitigation efforts by communities. The Program has historical data to relfect that it is making progress in meeting the long-term goals of (1) increasing geologic map coverage of the U.S. and increasing availability of these maps, (2) the National Geologic Map Database being the one-stop shopping location for geological map products, and (3) increasing the pool of individuals with geologic mapping experience. For the past 2 years, the Program has required all projects to report societal outcomes based on direct use of geologic research and maps in policy and management. "

Evidence: "1. Evidence demonstrating progress in meeting the Program's long-term goals can be found in the Measures tab. 2. NCGMP GPRA FY 2004 Information 3. NCGMP 5-Year Plan 2006-2010 outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program 4. FEDMAP and STATEMAP Outcome statements 5. Budget Justification and Performance Information for FY06 6. NGMDB statistics 7. NCGMP-WRD shared goal 8. Hazard goal information 9. EDMAP statistics 10. Eastern Earth Surface Processes Team Review 11. FEDMAP regional project reviews 12. FEDMAP project product tracking and Basis+ example 13. FEDMAP work plan/timeline, example 14. State Geological Surveys contributing to NGMDB 15. "Linking outcome measures to long-term output 16. NPS Geologic Resource Evaluation Program fact sheet "

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

Explanation: Most of the long-term measures used by the Program were output oriented, and GPRA annual performance goals are baselined and measured annually. The annual performance goals have been consistently met or exceeded. Last year, a new long-term performance measure, which indicates how geologic mapping contributes to development of ground-water status and trend indicators, was added and baselined. This will be the first year to track whether annual targets were met. New long-term measures were baselined and annual targets established regarding mapping of National Park Service lands, continuation of EDMAP students in geoscience careers, and contribution of geologic mapping to improving geologic hazard mitigation efforts by communities. Additional ambitious annual goals for projects and their accomplishments, found in BASIS+ work plans, are also consistently met. For example, the promised 3-D water model was delivered on time to the Edwards Aquifer Authority, the water manager for the city of San Antonio.

Evidence: "1. Evidence demonstrating progress in meeting the Program's annual goals can be found in the Measures tab. 2 NCGMP 5-Year Plan 2006-2010 outline - Includes performance measures related to goals and objectives of the Program 3. Annual list of maps/reports 4. Annual list of square miles mapped 5. Mapping in Progress Database, 2003 6. List of FEDMAP cooperators, collaborators, and clients 7. State Geological Surveys contributing to NGMDB 8. EDMAP student statistics 9. GPRA documentation 10. Customer letters of support for one year "

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

Explanation: The largest Program expenditure goes toward production of geologic maps, a lengthy and labor intensive process. Since 1995, the Program has been streamlining all aspects of the process in order to deliver geologic maps to our customers in a more efficient manner. For example, more than 60% of geologic mappers are now using digital data collection techniques when doing field work, and over the next five years this number should increase to 100%. An efficiency measure - "number of hours for fieldwork, compilation, and publication of a typical geologic map" has been developed, baselined, and provides annual and long-term targets for future improvements. Improvements in geologic map publication have occurred and will continue to be implemented in the USGS Geology Publications Office through the A-76 process to become a High Efficiency Organization. Since 2000, geologic map production has decreased 690 hours, and over the next five years, we expect these techniques to decrease the time of geologic map production an additional 350 hours. Distribution of new geologic maps via the Internet has increased from 35% in 1998 to 65% in 2004, providing easily downloadable GIS layers that can be combined with many other datasets.

Evidence: "1. Evidence demonstrating progress in meeting the Program's efficiency goal can be found in the Measures tab. 2. FEDMAP geologic map production fact sheet 3. New Mexico geologic map production fact sheet 4. Example publications plans from 1997-2004 5. Example cartography work order 6. DMT table of contents 7. Getting our field data into a digital map, Colorado Geological Survey Rock Talk, vol. 7, no. 4 8. "Guidance for managing visual information," April 26, 2005 Deputy Director's memo "

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

Explanation: "The program did not receive an outright ""yes"" for this question because there are no known surveys or analyses that directly compare the performance of the NCGMP with other programs that primarily use grants to further availability of natural resource information. NCGMP is an acknowledged leader in geologic mapping in the United States and the world. The Program leads in setting the standards for other mapping programs in government and is currently working with all the U.S. states and thirteen countries to complete development and adoption of geologic map standards. Since 1992, NCGMP has leveraged over $60M in state and university dollars to match federal dollars awarded to those partners. Only one other natural resource program in USGS (Federal-State Cooperative Water Program) leverages partner money or partner commitment as effectively to achieve its long-term goals. As a result of this leveraging, the amount of mapping coverage in the country has doubled since the Program started. No other natural resource program in the USGS has this level of coordination across all the states on a national basis. "

Evidence: "1. Economic benefits of detailed geologic mapping to Kentucky, 2000, Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3 (p. 24 cited) 2. What are Geologic Maps Worth?, 2000, - summary sheet for Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3 3. Societal Value of Geologic Maps, USGS Circular 1111, 1996 4. NRC report entitled "Geologic Mapping??Future needs", 1988 5. Letter from AIPG Executive Director 6. Geologic mapping - 18 years of review 7. Investigating groundwater systems on regional and national scales, 2000, NRC Report 8. Future roles and opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, NRC Report"

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

Explanation: Independent reviews by the NRC report that the Program maintains effective cooperative partnerships that have national interest implications, and that a NCGMP project was a successful model to be followed. Such reviewes suggest that the program is effective and achieving results, though a score greater than small extent is not warranted due to weaknesses of evalutions identified in 2.6.

Evidence: "1. "What Are Geologic Maps Worth?", 2000, Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3-summary 2. FAC Reports 3. Geologic Mapping in the U.S. Geological Survey, by NRC, 1987 4. Geologic Mapping-Future Needs, by NRC, 1988 5. Congressional Re-authorizations, Sen. Craig's comments in 2004 6. Web site questionnaire and NCGMP response to comments 7. SMAC letters 8. Eastern Earth Surface Processes Team Review 9. Customer letters of support for one year (OMB has notebook) 10.Geologic Mapping - 18 years of review (see question 2.6) 11. Investigating groundwater systems on regional and national scales, 2000, NRC Report 12. Future roles and opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, NRC Report"