Detailed Information on the
US Geological Survey - Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing Assessment

Maintain Landsat data continuity

Complete 2001 NLCD product and promote the use of land cover trends data and ecosystem services information by decision-makers.

Define requirements for Landsat-type data and expand access to remote sensing data.

USGS will focus the activities of Land Remote Sensing (LRS) to make remote sensing imagery and data more useful to land managers.

The USGS will continue to focus on land cover mapping and eco-region assessments in support of the DOI goals of resource protection and resource use.

Developing priorities in the new research plan.

Transitioning the National Land Cover Dataset from a research endeavor into an operational effort that provides updates every 5 years.

Working with National Aeronautics and Space Administration and land observation data users to develop a plan to achieve technical, financial, and managerial stability for land surface observations.

Focus geographic research in the following high priority areas: landscape status & trends; causes & consequences of landscape change; vulnerability & risk analysis; and vulnerability & risk reduction.

Measure: % of US surface area with contemporary land cover data needed for major environmental monitoring and assessment programs.

Explanation:Indicates the national availabilty of landcover information necessary for land use planning and monitoring.

Measure: % of nation with ecoregion assessments to meet land use planning and monitoring requirements (# of completed eco-region assessments divided by 84 eco-regions)

Explanation:Indicates the national availabilty of ecological assessments information by ecoregion necessary for land use planning and monitoring.

Measure: % of satellite data available from archive within 24 hrs. of capture

Explanation:Indicates how quickly USGS is able to make satellite information availabe to the public after it has been received from a satellite.

Measure: % of studies validated through appropirate peer review or independent review

Explanation:Indicates that quality of USGS is verified through peer review or independent review.

Measure: # of systematic analyses and investigations delivered to customers

Explanation:Indicates the number of analyses provided to customers (usually takes 2 years to complete an analyses.

Measure: Annual % of data acquisition costs for The National Map funded by partners.

Explanation:Indicates whether USGS is leveraging efforts at the State and local level to increase access to high quality and timely geospatial information.

Measure: # of data standards used in implementing the National Map

Explanation:Indicates whether information used to build the national map can be easily verified for its quality and content.

Measure: % of surface area of the coterminous U.S. for which high-resolution geospatial datasets are cataloged, managed, and available through The National Map.

Explanation:Indicates the % of essential geospatial information that is easily accessible and cooperatively funded.

Measure: % of surface area of the coterminous U.S. for which high-resolution geospatial datasets are cataloged, managed, and available through The National Map

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Geography Program ensures access to a common set of current, accurate, and consistent basic geospatial and remotely sensed data and scientific information that describes the Earth's land surface to help inform decisions by policymakers, resource managers, researchers, citizens, and the private sector.

Evidence: USGS Budget Justification & Performance Information for FY05, p 149-216. Implementation Plan for The National Map, v 1.0 10/18/03. PART Improvement Action Plan for The National Map (FY04 2nd qtr update). EO 12906 Coord Geog Data Acquisition & Access: The NSDI 4/11/94 (providing access to geospatial data is a critical element for Fed agencies). OMB A-16, Coord of Geog Info & Related Spatial Data Activities, rev 8/19/02. (lead Fed agency for geospatial data themes p 17-19, 21). Land Remote Sensing Policy Act 1992 (15 USC chap 82 PL 102-555). DOI Strategic Plan 2003-28.

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

Explanation: The Nation has a need for high quality geospatial data and applications that are integrated, easily accessible, nationally consistent, and publicly available to meet a variety of decision-making needs. While there are many sources of geospatial data, the information is often dispersed, sometimes not publicly available, often out of date, or is proprietary and in formats that cannot be combined and integrated with other data for analysis. Reasons for this situation include markets being insufficient to cause the private sector to invest in data, organizations collecting data on a project basis and not subsequently maintaining them, and organizations concentrating on developing data for their jurisdictions and purposes and not providing for integration of data from neighboring jurisdictions.

Evidence: USGS, 2001, The National Map: Topographic Mapping for the 21st Century: Final Report, 11/30/01. Draft National Response Plan, 2/25/04. : DOI/USDA, Joint Fire Science Plan (6-agency partnership to develop land use information (p 7) & monitoring tools (p 13) for managers & specialists who deal with wildland fuels issues). Chair, JCS Contingency Plan 0500 Annex M (requires USGS to provide geospatial products & analytical support to Fed entities charted with preparing for & responding to natural or human-induced catastrophic events). NGA/USGS/FGDC MOU (USGS responsible for providing The National Map as the base geospatial data for homeland security applications). USFS fact sheet, Partnership for Development of High-Res NHD on USFS Lands, 8/7/03 (adopts NHD). EPA fact sheet, Announcing Ver 2.0 of the Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environ. Results (WATERS) 6/02 (adopts NHD). Comm on Civil Applications of Classified Overhead Remotely Sensed Data charter, 1975 rev 2000 (coordination group established by Dir Central Intelligence Agency, Dir OMB, National Security Advisory to the President, & Secretary of Interior).

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

Explanation: The USGS is the Nation's civilian mapping agency. It is the only source of topographic map content that is integrated, nationally consistent, and publicly available. The USGS' approach is to use existing geospatial data where they exist, and provide data for places for which data are not available, and so avoid duplicating others' work. Other organizations' mapping efforts focus on topics of limited thematic and geographic interest, are not maintained beyond the immediate needs of a project, or are not consistent over large areas. Through partnerships, The National Map brings together and integrates geospatial data from great numbers of Federal, State, and local agencies and the private sector, to ensure availability and integration of these data, promote the use of NSDI standards, and to prevent duplication of effort.

Evidence: USGS, 2001, Issues & Actions: The National Map, p 4-9. H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics & Environment, 2002, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, p 10-13 (requirements analysis for indicators of ecosystem characteristics validating program land cover information). NRC, 2003, Weaving a National Map. OMB A-16, Coord of Geog Info & Related Spatial Data Activities, rev 8/19/02 (lead Fed agency for geospatial data themes, p 17-19, 21). USGS Partner Agreements supporting The National Map. FGDC, 1997, A Strategy for NSDI (USGS helping to achieve goal 3 to 'use community-based approaches to develop & maintain common collections of geospatial data for sound decision-making). MRLC MOU, USGS/EPA/NOAA, 3/10/95 (represents needs of 8 Fed agencies for nationally consistent remote sensing & land cover information). Land Remote Sensing Policy Act 1992 (15 USC chap 82 PL 102-555). US Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy 2003 (White House policy to ensure maximum use of commercial remote sensing data in gov't-funded programs). USGS/USFS IAA for Production & Maintenance of Single-Edition Primary Series Quadrangle Maps 7/14/98.

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

Explanation: The Geography Program has been significantly strengthened through the development and use of The National Map Implementation Plan and by adopting previous PART review recommendations. To carry out the goals of The National Map Implementation Plan: CTM program coordinates the activities that ensure the development, maintenance, and availability of base geographic data layers; LRS program provides for the collection, archiving, and dissemination of remotely sensed data for use in applications such as LANDFIRE; and GAM program conducts geographic research and analysis and develops applications to address rates, causes, and consequences of landscape change over time. The Landsat satellites have been developed satellite by satellite causing uncertainty of the effort as the end of life as each satellite neared. USGS is working with partners to develop a long-term plan operational plan to provide continuity for Landsat type data.

Evidence: Implementation Plan for The National Map, v 1.0, 10/18/03. USGS Buyout Justification, 9/03 (enabled freeing up funds for partnerships, contracting, retraining the remaining workforce with new skills along with limited new hires). AmericaView Bylaws & Articles of Incorporation 2003 (enables consortium members to get near real-time imagery for remote sensing applications & technology). NRC/NAS, Review of The National Map Concept 10/1602. USGS, 2001, Issues & Actions: The National Map, p 4-9. USGS, 2004, Ex 300'Capital Asset Plan & Business Case for Landsat, FY04 1st & 2nd qtr report.

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

Explanation: The Geography Program resources are addressing not only the program's purpose but also reaching intended beneficiaries through competitively awarded partnerships with Federal, State, and local governments and academia. Through partnerships, the CTM program is ensuring the development and maintenance of base geographic information for the Nation. Through the LRS AmericaView program, participating States are acquiring satellite data from USGS and are making these data available at little or no added cost to researchers and educators. The goal of these grants is to advance the science of remote sensing and developing research projects and applications for public use. However the majority of LRS benefits have been to expert user communities and have not been as successful at making Landsat and other data sources used by land managers and decision makers. The GAM program is working closely with other USGS and DOI programs to synthesize and integrate geographic research activities in areas such as water quality and quantity, global change, and threatened and endangered species.

Evidence: Implementation Plan for The National Map, v 1.0 10/18/03. Comprehensive Urban Ecosystems Studies Draft Concept Paper, 2004, (provides framework & intent for linking all 7 study areas). US Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy: Civil Agency Implementation Plan (IPWG includes 17 major agency users of civilian remotely sensed data). A-31: AmericaView Bylaws & Articles of Incorporation, 2003, (members & affiliates in 28 States). USGS, 2003, Program Guidance for FY 2004, memo from CTM, LRS, & GAM Program Coordinators. USGS, 2004, Preliminary Program Guidance for FY 2005, 3/25/04 memo from Chief Scientist. 2004 NSDI CAP Announcement 4/8/04 (reporting requirements stated in solicitation). MRLC MOU 1995 (consortium represents needs of 8 Fed agencies for nationally consistent remote sensing & land cover information). USFS fact sheet Partnership for Dev of High-Res NHD on USFS Lands 8/7/03 (adopts NHD). EPA fact sheet Announcing Version 2.0 Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS) 6/02 (adopts NHD). US Board on Geographic Names, PL 80-242, 1947. NGA/USGS/FGDC MOU (USGS responsible for providing The National Map as the base geospatial data for homeland security applications). USGS, 2004, Ex 300' Capital Asset Plan & Business Case for The National Map Reengineering Project, FY04 1st & 2nd qtr report. USGS, 2004, Ex 300'Capital Asset Plan & Business Case for Landsat, FY04 1st & 2nd qtr report.

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 Geography Program has 5 of these types of specific long-term performance measures supporting the program's purpose and focusing on outcomes. They are key components of the DOI GPRA goal of 'Serving Communities.' Key strategic plan measures, bureau-specific measures, and FY 2004 PART measures are documented in the Bureau's FY 2005 Congressional Budget document. The USGS is working with DOI and OMB to refine a long-term performance measure for the Land Remote Sensing that reflects the contribution of this program.

Evidence: USGS Budget Justification & Performance Information for FY04, p 99-162. USGS Budget Justification & Performance Information for FY05, p 149-216. FY04 PART findings for The National Map. Implementation Plan for The National Map, v 1.0 10/18/03. Geography Discipline 5-Year Program Goals, Measures & Accomplishments, 2004. Geography Discipline 5-Year Program Plans. From Observation to Action'Achieving Comprehensive, Coordinated, & Sustained Earth Observations for the Benefit of Humankind: Framework for a 10-Year Implementation Plan (for improved observations of the Earth; USGS participation in & documentation & purpose of GEO). Geography Research Prospectus call, 2003 (for long-term USGS science & applications targets). Geography Research Prospectus call, 2004 (for long-term USGS science & applications targets). Priority Ecosystem Science (draft guidance for USGS long-term science & applications targets). Geography Discipline Science Planning Team Charter, 2004.

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

Explanation: Measures in the FY 2006 PART reflect adjustments of previous goals and targets to better reflect the current direction of the program and its implementation.

Evidence: Implementation Plan for The National Map, v 1.0 10/18/03. USGS Budget Justification & Performance Information for FY04, p 99-162. USGS Budget Justification & Performance Information for FY05, p 149-216.

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 USGS submits routine progress reports to DOI that measure incremental achievement of its metrics, including Exhibit 300 quarterly reports, PART Improvement Action Plan quarterly reports on implementing PART recommendations, and GPRA metrics semi-annual progress reports. In addition, there are several internal program documents, especially annual program guidance, that provide specific performance expectations. Performance measures are included in annual guidance documents and are tools used by USGS Program Coordinators during both informal (periodic) and formal (annual) program reviews.

Evidence: USGS Budget Justification & Performance Information for FY05, p 149-216. PART Improvement Action Plan for The National Map (FY04 2nd quarter update). USGS, 2002, Release of Annual Program Direction, 6/5/02 memo from Bureau Director. : USGS, 2002, FY03 Prospectus for the Geography Discipline, 6/7/02 memo from Chief Scientist. USGS, 2003, FY04 Research Prospectus for the Geography Discipline, 3/25/03 memo from Chief Scientist. USGS, 2004, Geography Discipline Annual Program Planning Process document & schedule, 2/12/04 memo from Chief Scientist (implemented for FY05 planning). USGS, 2004, Preliminary Program Guidance for FY05, 3/25/04 memo from Chief Scientist. USGS, 2004, Ex 300'Capital Asset Plan & Business Case for The National Map Reengineering Project, FY04 1st & 2nd qtr report. USGS, 2004, Ex 300'Capital Asset Plan & Business Case for Landsat, FY04 1st & 2nd qtr report. USGS, 2004, Instructions for CTM Reports, (internal document).

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

Explanation: Detailed baseline geospatial data coverage information is contained in USGS data holdings and in The National Map catalog for data held by partners that are made available through The National Map. With respect to remotely sensed data, targets are established for both the in-house components of the remote sensing program, such as NSLRSDA and Landsat data capture rates, and for external partners for whom USGS funding is made available. This applies to both mapping contractors and grantees (AmericaView).

Evidence: USGS Budget Justification & Performance Information for FY05, p 149-216. USGS, 2004, Preliminary Program Guidance for FY05, 3/25/04 memo from Chief Scientist. USGS, 2002, FY03 Prospectus for the Geography Discipline, 6/7/02 memo from Chief Scientist. USGS, 2003-04, Semi-annual CTM Report on Key Performance Measures. The National Map national & partner holdings (http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm). Completion of draft 2003 GOS Standards for Digital Orthoimagery, Elevation, & Hydrography. Geography Discipline 5-Year Program Goals, Measures, & Accomplishments, 2004. USGS, 2004, Ex 300'Capital Asset Plan & Business Case for The National Map Reengineering Project, FY04 1st & 2nd qtr report. USGS, 2004, Ex 300'Capital Asset Plan & Business Case for Landsat, FY04 1st & 2nd qtr report.

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: USGS personnel services and CSCII contracts are designed to support the goals of the Geography Program including The National Map. CSCII awards are based on past performance rating factors such as quality, timeliness, and efficiency. Grants to the AmericaView consortium require reporting based on a SOW that derives its goals and measures from the LRS 5-year program plan and the DOI Strategic Plan. The USGS Partnership Fund and 'Category 6' of FGDC's CAP fund require that activities contribute to annual and long-term USGS goals, comply with applicable standards, and provide interim and final reports documenting outcomes against identified performance measures. In addition, USGS agreements with Federal, State, and local partners to collect data for The National Map require partners to adhere to the applicable NSDI standards (or national map standards when NSDI standards are not yet available). It is part of the normal USGS and FGDC processes to vet new standards with partners to gain consensus. USGS has two FACA-chartered Advisory Committees to help implement remote sensing goals. Research is performed in response to the Research Prospectus efforts & methodology, identifying research goals. USGS also coordinates & oversees MRLC 2001 progress with partner agencies.

Evidence: USGS EDC Personnel Services Contract. USGS Cartographic Services Contract II. 2004 NSDI CAP Announcement 4/8/04 (reporting requirements stated in solicitation). USGS/USFS IAA for Production & Maintenance of Single-Edition Primary Series Quad Maps 7/14/98. Sample agreements that support implementation of The National Map. USGS, 2003-04, Semi-annual CTM Report on Key Performance Measures. MOU's with NSGIC, NACo, & URISA (reference common goals). AmericaView SOW (includes report template).: MRLC Consortium MOU 3/10/95. National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive Advisory Comm charter. Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center fact sheet.

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: External advice is regularly solicited on major program initiatives through public reviews or external participation on study teams. Regular program reviews include information from outside parties through surveys and direct participation. In addition, Geography relies upon independent evaluations to evaluate program effectiveness. In 2002, USGS conducted a peer review of its program 5-year plans to ensure that each articulated program goals, priorities, outcomes, measures of success, products, and how they link to each other. In 2003, the Cost-Benefit Analysis of The National Map was peer reviewed.

Evidence: Great Lakes Science Plan. NRC, 1990, Spatial Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping Program. NRC, 1993, Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. NRC, 1994, Promoting the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Through Partnerships. NRC, 1995, A Data Foundation for the NSDI. NRC, 1997, The Future of Spatial Data & Society. NRC, 2002, Research Opportunities in Geography at the USGS. NRC, Weaving a National Map (provided program direction & pointed out the need for an implementation plan for The National Map). RAND Corp, 2004, Mapping the Risks: Assessing the homeland security implications of publicly available geospatial information. National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive Advisory Comm charter. Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center fact sheet. USGS, 2001, Issues & Actions: The National Map, p 4-9 (external review comments & suggestions on design of The National Map). NRC Comm on Licensing Geog Data & Services (study to be completed in FY04). Draft Proposal: Developing a National Digital Orthophoto Program Strategy (to externally evaluate the field of orthoimagery, roles & responsibilities; expected completion date 12/04). USGS State Cooperator Workshops sample report (regularly conducted by regions to gather external feedback & future directions about geospatial needs). Bernknopf, Richard, & others, 2003, A Cost-Benefit Analysis of The National Map. GAM Integrated Science Workshop Feedback Panel Comments, draft 11/03, (external feedback on science portfolio & research directions). GAM Customer Focus Group Report, Lead Alliance, 2002.

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: The FY 2005 budget justification provides clear links between performance measures that are significant to the program, including those used in the FY 2004 PART; and provides information on expected performance changes as a direct result of proposed budget levels.

Evidence: USGS Budget Justification & Performance Information for FY05, p 149-216. FY06 budget initiative (example). USGS, 2004, Geography Discipline Annual Program Planning Process document & schedule, 2/12/04 memo from Chief Scientist (implemented for FY05 planning). USGS, 2004, Preliminary Program Guidance for FY05, 3/25/04 memo from Chief Scientist.

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

Explanation: The Geography Program has defined and adopted a systematic approach for moving from existing business practices to those necessary for accomplishing the vision of The National Map, including considerations relating to strategic planning. In the Implementation Plan, a systematic process (called the Unified Development Process) to guide this transformation is being instituted. The Program has acquired and installed a tool suite (the IBM Rational Team Unifying Platform) which includes a specific implementation of this process, the Rational Unified Process. The tool suite has been deployed and needed training begun. USGS identified a strategic planning deficiency in assuming a continuous flow of moderate resolution satellite imagery from Landsat 7. Interagency coordination has begun with the LDCM and the IWG for implementation of CRSSP. USGS recognizes a strategic deficiency in the lack of a backup to Landsat 7 and is pursuing options. The Geography Program has a long-term science team that will create a national strategy to define, organize, manage, and grow scientific activities.

Evidence: Implementation Plan for The National Map, v 1.0 10/18/03. USGS Geography Discipline Charge to the Science Planning Team 2/1/04.A-29: U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy 2003. Land Remote Sensing Policy Act 1992 (15 USC chap 82, PL 102-555).

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program to other efforts that have similar goals?

Explanation: The USGS recently completed a peer-reviewed Cost-Benefit Analysis for The National Map. Results indicate that effort will bring a net present value of benefits of $2.05 billion in 2001 dollars. The CBA measures the value of scientific applications that have utilized the geospatial data of The National Map.

Evidence: USGS, 2001, Issues & Actions: The National Map. USGS, 2001, The National Map: Topographic Mapping for the 21st Century: Final Report, 11/30/01. Bernknopf, Richard, & others, 2003, A Cost-Benefit Analysis of The National Map. NRC, 1994, Promoting the NSDI Through Partnerships, (recommend partnership-based approaches for USGS geospatial data). For examples of business partners alternate strategies for data distribution, see http://mapping.usgs.gov/partners/viewonline.html. NSLRSDA Advisory Committee report. LP DAAC Science Advisory Panel report.

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

Explanation: For strategic planning, the program operates under the broader context of DOI and the Bureau's strategic planning approaches. To improve planning integration across the organization, the Bureau developed and implemented a detailed 5-year program planning process and issues annual initiative guidance that ensures that long-term plans for individual programs are closely linked with strategic goals of the organization, and program implementation and performance measurement. The Geography Program has a planning process that mirrors that of the Bureau to ensure that Geography Program goals and targets feed the Bureau's strategic direction, goals, and timetable. As part of The National Map Implementation Plan, the program has undertaken the Federal Enterprise Architecture approach to program planning. As part of the annual planning process, Geography programs solicit prioritized project activities. As part of the FY 2005 budget process, USGS prioritized its funding initiatives to include an increase for partnerships to further enhance implementation of The National Map. Within the Geography Program, the SOI process is used to prioritize how partnership funds will be allocated.

Evidence: Implementation Plan for The National Map, v 1.0 10/18/03 (for Fed Enterprise Architecture process documentation). Geography Discipline 5-Year Program Plans. USGS Planning Model 2/4/04. USGS, FY04 Director's Annual Guidance. USGS, 2004, Annual Program Direction: Integrated Science Directions for FY05. USGS Office of Budget annual call for initiatives (sets Bureau priorities). USGS, 2003, Program Guidance for FY04, memos from CTM, LRS, & GAM Program Coordinators. USGS, 2004, Preliminary Program Guidance for FY05, 3/25/04 memo from Chief Scientist.

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 Geography Program collects internal performance information semi-annually and combines it with that contained in BASIS+ in annual program reviews, project planning, execution, and reporting. Quarterly reports are received from AmericaView member universities and the Consortium's semi-annual meetings provide input for USGS from the AmericaView Board of Directors. The remote sensing program routinely collects customer service statistics to improve performance. The USGS routinely tracks contractor performance for various types of contractual activities. For example, under CSCII, as paper maps or digital databases are updated, records are kept of quality and timeliness of output. Customer surveys are also an important source of program performance, including recipients of the 'Category 6' funds in CAP. Results of those surveys directly influence the direction and management of the program. USGS chartered a team in 2003 to do an in-depth analysis of its financial and workforce structure and determined the need to decrease the overall size of the government workforce and transition to new skills needed to meet future requirements. Results of the analysis provided the foundation for the USGS early out/buyout action for 2004. Geography needs to improve collection of user data for Landsat type (medium resolution) data, in order to accurately assess demand and justify options for managing this type of data.

Evidence: Customer Satisfaction/Outcome Survey on The National Map 4/8/04. USGS, 2001, Issues & Actions: The National Map Report. USGS Eastern Region Geography State Cooperators Forum report 11/12-14/02. USGS/NSGIC Listening Sessions results 9/03. USGS, 2003, Annual Report of Data Sales (customer statistical compilations). USGS, 2004, Ex 300'Capital Asset Plan & Business Case for The National Map Reengineering Project, 1st & 2nd qtr report for FY04. USGS, 2004, Ex 300'Capital Asset Plan & Business Case for Landsat, 1st & 2nd qtr report for FY04. USGS, 2003-04, Semi-annual CTM Report on Key Performance Measures. Responsibilities of the USGS COR & COTR for the CSCII & EDC contracts. 2004 NSDI CAP Announcement 4/8/04 (reporting requirements stated in solicitation). GAM, 2003, FY04 Program Reporting Structure & Requirements. GAM Integrated Science Workshop Feedback Panel Comments, draft 11/03. AmericaView SOW (includes report template). USGS EDC Quarterly Project Status Report template. USGS Preliminary User Assessment Survey form for NSLRSDA vendors. USGS 2003, Geography Discipline Workforce Plan 9/3/03 (supported the FY04 buyout)

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: The FY05 planning process is documented and makes the Regional Geographers and Program Coordinators responsible for final decisions of specific annual objectives. The SES Performance contracts hold them responsible for execution of the plan. USGS personnel services and CSCII contracts have the requisite performance and incentive clauses. The solicitation for 'category 6 CAP' grants includes the requirement to provide information about past performance. In addition, IA's and AmericaView grants define roles, responsibilities, and deliverables.

Evidence: SES Performance Contract sample (used to hold USGS program managers personally accountable for achievement of program results). USGS EDC Personnel Services Contract. USGS, 2004, Geography Discipline Annual Program Planning Process document & schedule, 2/12/04 memo from Chief Scientist (implemented for FY05 planning). USGS Cartographic Services Contract II. USGS Planning Model 2/4/04 (Bureau Program Planning Committee). Customer Satisfaction/Outcome Survey on The National Map, 4/8/04.

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

Explanation: The Geography program planning process establishes specific deadlines for the review and approval of the annual program of work through the SOI process. Upon approval from the Bureau, funds are authorized into BASIS+ for all approved projects. Project chiefs and management officials monitor monthly the status of funds. PC's extract obligation status from FFS and discuss status at monthly telecoms with Regional managers and at Quarterly Meetings with Geography Senior Staff. For contracts, certified COTR's are responsible for overseeing and certifying that contract funds are spent for their intended purpose. For AmericaView and CAP grants, USGS uses the HHS payment system for direct payment of grant funds to grantees. In FY03, Geography's obligations accumulated as follows: Oct 7.5%, Nov 16.3, Dec 22.3, Jan 28.8, Feb 45.9, Mar 54.2, Apr 61.0, May 75.7, June 80.0, July 86.6, Aug 86.6, Sept 100.0 For FY04 to date, Geography's obligations accumulated as follows: Oct 5.5%, Nov 14.1, Dec 25.6, Jan 34.4, Feb 40.2, Mar 52.4.

Evidence: FFS report of obligations/expenditures for Geography programs & facilities, 4/20/04. USGS, 2004, Geography Discipline Annual Program Planning Process document & schedule, 2/12/04 memo from Chief Scientist (implemented for FY05 planning).

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: Estimates for production-related activities provided with annual guidance are based on unit cost estimates. Internal activities are funded on the basis of competing proposals (SOI's and research prospectus) to achieve specific program goals. This includes competition between researchers that is based not only on scientific merit but also on leveraging resources with other programs. Semi-annual reporting from organizational units includes cost information. Awards of external cooperative agreements are competitive. The government is benefiting from partnerships and successfully leveraging funds, and so resources are being added to this approach. Also, BASIS+ is designed to help achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness. The Department has streamlined the IT procurements for all IT acquisition and licensing agreements. As an incentive example, by making joint funding available, USGS was able to garner State and Federal partners sharing a common interest in mapping the Nation's watersheds, thus enabling the creation of a successful high-resolution follow-on to the medium-resolution NHD. http://nhd.usgs.gov.newsletter_list.html

Evidence: USGS, 2003, FY04 Research Prospectus for the Geography Discipline, 3/25/03 memo from Chief Scientist. USGS, 2004, Geography Discipline Annual Program Planning Process document & schedule, 2/12/04 memo from Chief Scientist (implemented for FY05 planning). DOI Software Licensing Agreements. NHD partnership

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Collaboration & coordination is an important tenet of The National Map & involvement with other organizations in the geospatial community. Ex include: DOI high priority (collaborating to determine highest priorities for data collection among bureaus); Civil Applications Comm (collaboration among Fed agencies on the collection of geospatial data from classified sources); the FS Single-Edition Program (FS collects data to USGS specs, using no USGS funds); MRLC Consortium (acquires critical Landsat data for Fed partners); USGS Venture Capital Research (competitively awards interdisciplinary research); NHD (where FS, EPA, and DOI bureaus collaborate with USGS to provide funds & coordinate with other partners to develop one seamless hydrography database for the Nation); USGS leadership & support of IWG to implement the President's CRSSP ; GeoMAC program (a fire mapping website to coordinate & manage emergency fire response activities); NDOP (collaboration among Fed agencies & the NSGIC on national orthoimagery requirements); NDEP (collaboration among Fed agencies & NSGIC on national elevation requirements); & partnerships with State /local gov'ts for The National Map projects (partners may provide the Internet services, data collection, data integration, data maintenance or other in-kind services). The GAM prog. has 'affiliate' status with the UCGIS & sponsors research with consortium universities. It also collaborates with NRC to sponsor post-doc candidates conducting geographic research.

Evidence: USGS/USFS IAA for Production & Maintenance of Single-Edition Primary Series Quad Maps, 7/14/98. USGS/NASA MOU for Land Remotely Sensed Data Processing, Distribution, Archiving, & Related Science Support. MRLC Consortium MOU between USGS, EPA, NOAA, 3/10/95. GeoMAC Wildland Fire Support fact sheet. National Digital Elevation Program fact sheet. National Digital Orthophoto Program fact sheet. Shuttle Radar Topography Mission fact sheet (collaborative collection & distribution of dataset with NASA, JPL, NGA). US Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy 2003 ( White House policy to ensure maximum use of commercial remote sensing data in gov't-funded programs). Land Remote Sensing Policy Act 1992 (15 USC chap 82, PL 102-555). NGA/NASA/USGS IAA for verification/validation of commercial & civil satellite data. Committee of Earth Observation Satellites (international collaborations). Landsat Ground Station Operations WG, p 18-19 (international cooperation). USGS Partner Agreements that support The National Map. maps.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: USGS has: taken corrective actions for IT security (target date 6/30/04); taken necessary steps to ensure that all staff performing accounting functions comply with Circ. A-123; perform appropriate reviews of the financial statements; developed procedures to ensure accounting adjustments are handled properly; established policies and procedures for proper accounting for all property; established inventory controls to ensure compliance with SFFAS No. 3; and has in place a model for maintaining WCF investments. USGS exceeded DOI's goal for electronic funds transfer compliance, consistent with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and promptly paid its invoices, again exceeding DOI's goal of 97% (consistent with the Prompt Payment Act). For the revenue cycle control issue, USGS has implemented a corrective action plan and is having monthly reviews conducted by cost center managers. No material internal control weaknesses exist related to USGS' Geography programs.

Evidence: Independent Auditors Report 12/9/03.

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

Explanation: The USGS has taken significant steps to resolve management deficiencies such as improved IT systems controls resulting in better security and management of critical infrastructures. The Bureau has strengthened its financial management organization and practices as evidenced by the unqualified opinion on the FY03 Consolidated Balance Sheet, the ability to meet DOI and other Federal regulatory agency reporting schedules, improved management of its accounts receivable and deferred revenue, and hiring of key positions for its professional and administrative staffs. Consistent with the Implementation Plan's Stage I, USGS is making available via the Web the critical eight base data layers of geospatial data in addition to natural science, applications, and data derived from the use of these layers. Through the PART Action Plan, USGS has taken steps to improve the characterization of its program in relationship to others. The National Map Implementation Plan uses a systematic approach for moving from existing business practices to those necessary for accomplishing the vision of The National Map.

Evidence: Independent Auditors Report 12/9/03. USGS Status of FY02 Findings 9/30/03. Implementation Plan for The National Map, v 1.0 10/18/03.C-21: USGS Planning Model 2/4/04. USGS, 2004, Geography Discipline Annual Program Planning Process document & schedule, 2/12/04 memo from Chief Scientist (implemented for FY05 planning). USGS, 2004, Preliminary Program Guidance for FY05, 3/25/04 memo from Chief Scientist.PART Improvement Action Plan for The National Map (FY04 2nd quarter update).

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

Explanation: Program research funds are allocated through a number of processes and managed to ensure quality results. The program uses collaborative review of research project proposals both by teams in the Regional offices, and then a second level of HQ review by PC's and Chief Scientist to ensure that the best quality and highest priority projects are funded. BASIS+ is used in conjunction with the Bureau planning model to allocate funds to approved projects and review financial results to help maintain program quality. Research funds are allocated using a Prospectus process that has been in place for four years. Peer review of prospectus-funded research projects follows the NSF model. The program also supports the National Academies' Research Associate Program to help administer post-doc research awards. For research conducted under AmericaView grants, the USGS COTR has developed a performance requirement for the A/V corporate office to develop a grants administration policy and system that comports with Federal grant procedures.

Evidence: USGS, 2002, FY03 Prospectus for the Geography Discipline, 6/7/02 memo from Chief Scientist. USGS, 2003, FY04 Research Prospectus for the Geography Discipline, 3/25/03 memo from Chief Scientist. NSF Survey of Fed Funds for R&D (3/04). USGS Geography Discipline Charge to the Science Planning Team, 3/1/04. AmericaView project status report template.

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

Explanation: Geography has made progress in achieving its long-term performance goals for this program for maintaining high and medium resolution imagery, implementing data standards, and updating the national land cover dataset. However, as stated in question 2.1, the program should have a measure to assess the long-term goal of the Land remote sensing archive and dissemination element of Geography. As this goal reflects one of the primary purpose of the program, the agency has received a "large extent" regarding its long-term progress.

Evidence: Geography Program 5-year plans Implementation Plan for The National Map PART Improvement Action Plan for The National Map USGS, 2004, Summary list of CTM achievements towards long-term goals USGS, 2004, Summary list of GAM achievements towards long-term goals September 2003 NSGIC Listening sessions results documentation US Forest Service fact sheet, 'Partnership for Development of High Resolution National Hydrography Dataset on Forest Service Lands, August 7, 2003 [adopts NHD] EPA fact sheet, 'Announcing Version 2.0 of the Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS), June 2002 [adopts NHD] 2005 USGS Budget Justification and Performance Information (see Activity Summary table, p. 156 to 159 for documentation of progress in achieving long-term performance goals)

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

Explanation: USGS GPRA geospatial data coverage targets are met and the data are provided on the Internet. The National Map PART Action Plan has documented achievements in USGS annual performance goals, crafted as part of the FY 2004 PART review. GOS standards for othoimagery, elevation, and hydrography were developed on schedule. USGS employs open standards that have been accepted by industry and requires all partners to use these standards as a condition of participating in The National Map. Landsat data collection goals have been consistently met during the life of the mission, with the exception of the few weeks during FY 2003 when the collection activities were suspended as the agencies tried to solve the SLC malfunction. Images are still being collected, archived, and used. Science and application performance goals are met for the number of systematic analyses and investigations, peer-reviewed studies, and decision support systems that improve the science impact and synthesis of geographic data and information. Annual goals are set in annual program plans against which project managers bid for activity.

Evidence: 2003 Semi-annual CTM Report on Key Performance Measures The National Map national and partner holdings (view through http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm) and other sites) Requirements that National Map participants use open standards Completion of 2003 GOS standards for imagery, elevation, and hydrography GAM, 2003, FY 2004 Program Reporting Structure and Requirements PART Improvement Action Plan for The National Map USGS EDC statistical output reports

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

Explanation: The Geography Program developed a cost efficiency measure for The National Map, involving costs avoided by making geospatial data available through its partnerships. The Geography Program has demonstrated other instances of reducing costs such as producing and distributing geospatial and imagery data. In FY04 USGS leveraged $1.0M in Federal funds with $1.58M in State and local funds to enable collection of high-resolution imagery over 13 critical urban areas. From August 2003 to April 2004, USGS has systematically documented the immediate delivery of over 3 million maps from The National Map catalog service at no cost to customers (this averages about 12,000 map images per day). The AmericaView project has increased the number of States that directly receive Landsat data (28 States) and has enabled satellite data to be made available at no added cost to researchers, educators, agencies, and the public, significantly reducing costs to end users. USGS reduced unit costs to produce high-resolution hydrography data. Consolidation of printing activities and staff with that of FAA, achieved in 2004, will improve cost efficiencies in later years.

Evidence: Geography Program 5-year plans Implementation Plan for The National Map PART Improvement Action Plan for The National Map USGS, 2004, Summary list of CTM achievements towards long-term goals USGS, 2004, Summary list of GAM achievements towards long-term goals September 2003 NSGIC Listening sessions results documentation US Forest Service fact sheet, 'Partnership for Development of High Resolution National Hydrography Dataset on Forest Service Lands, August 7, 2003 [adopts NHD] EPA fact sheet, 'Announcing Version 2.0 of the Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS), June 2002 [adopts NHD] 2005 USGS Budget Justification and Performance Information (see Activity Summary table, p. 156 to 159 for documentation of progress in achieving long-term performance goals)

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 Geography Program with other geography and mapping programs operated by other governmental or educational entities. Because the program is a recognized leader in topographic mapping, however, it warrants a score of "large extent." There are other programs that undertake large scale mapping activities such as NOAA which focuses on bathymetry. Other organizations that undertake mapping and remote sensing in state and local government, private sector (site specific) and in other agencies (federal, state and local) looks to Geography for direction and standards through cooperation.

Evidence: OMB, PART findings for The National Map CEOS/WGISS pamphlet Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15 USC, Chap 82; PL 102-555) CRSSP of 2003

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

Explanation: USGS has routine reviews by NRC, such as the detailed program analysis, 'Weaving a National Map.' External advice is routinely solicited on major program initiatives through public reviews and external participation on study teams. Routine program reviews include information from outside parties through surveys and direct participation, such as listening sessions. USGS regional offices conduct program reviews with key stakeholders. A March 2004 customer survey result shows that 81% of respondents are satisfied with USGS efforts to foster partnerships. Comments from partners and customers have been addressed by USGS, such as by establishing MPO's and co-locating staff closer to customers. The program has two FACA-chartered advisory committees which provide ongoing objective review and evaluation of the imagery archive and the USGS DAAC. USGS also receives external evaluations from and participates in other formal and informal advisory groups, including those with FGDC, GOS, and The National Atlas steering committee. A review of Geography research indicated that their research efforts could be improved through increased interaction with the academic community.

Evidence: NRC, 1990, Spatial Data Needs: The future of the National Mapping Program. NRC, 1993, Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure. NRC, 1994, Promoting the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Through Partnerships. NRC, 1995, A Data Foundation for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. NRC, 1997, The Future of Spatial Data and Society. NRC, 2002, Research Opportunities in Geography at the USGS, 130 p. NRC, Weaving a National Map (provided program direction and pointed out the need for an implementation plan for The National Map)