Detailed Information on the
Minerals Management Service - Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Studies Assessment

The 2004 Budget provides funding at the 2003 Budget level.

The Administration will work to quantify the measures, while being sensitive to the difficulties that research programs face in attempting to predict progress.

Work with the Administration to get approval of the new Performance Assessment Tool that has been developed to monitor the extent to which research projects fulfill information needs.

Measure: Percent of Environmental Studies Program projects rated "Moderately Effective" or better by MMS internal customers

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of projects delivered on time

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: MMS's mission statement is "To manage the mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an environmentally sound and safe manner ??" Resources include oil, gas, and other marine minerals. Currently, only oil, natural gas, and limited amounts of sand and gravel are extracted from the OCS. The Environmental Studies Program (ESP) provides the necessary environmental information for MMS decision makers and states, and local governments to ensure that offshore activities are conducted in an environmentally safe manner.

Evidence: The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) established policy for the management of the OCS natural gas and oil-leasing program and for the protection of marine and coastal environments: 1) establish information needed for assessment and management of environmental impacts; 2) predict impacts on the marine biota; and 3) monitor human, marine, and coastal environments to identify significant changes.

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

Explanation: MMS oversees energy and mineral extraction from the OCS. The ESP supports the MMS OCS leasing program by providing environmental information that is used by decision makers to develop Interior's 5-year OCS leasing program and other OCS activities without harming the environment. In the context of the DOI Strategic Plan (draft) for supporting a society capable of responsibly meeting its resource needs to sustain a dynamic economy, the ESP directly supports the Departments Goal of managing resources to enhance public benefit, promote responsible use, and ensure optimal value. Furthermore, the ESP supports the President's Energy Policy which directs the Secretary of the Interior to continue OCS oil and gas leasing and approval of exploration and development plans on predictable schedules.

Evidence: The production of oil and gas on the OCS accounts for over 25 percent of both the Nation's annual oil and natural gas production. In addition, MMS estimates that in FY2003 they will collect nearly $4 billion in OCS revenues from leasing activities. The ESP's annually revised Studies Development Plan "publicly" outlines issues for proposed research for the next FY in its "Identification of Information Needs" section and strategically lays out potential future issues for FY+ 2 years and further out. The ESP focuses on the collection of information and conduct of research to address information needs of other Interior OCS oil and gas and marine minerals programs. The program activities and schedules (e.g. leasing schedule, development plans) are reviewed annually to establish the specific information needs that can be addressed through the ESP.

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: "The environmental studies program is unique because it is focused on oil, gas and marine mineral extraction on the OCS. MMS alone has the mandate to develop environmental assessment information in support of offshore oil and gas leasing and development activities. The OCSLA directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the OCS offshore oil and gas program, and this responsibility has been delegated to the MMS. Furthermore, the President's Energy Policy directs the Secretary of the Interior to continue OCS oil and gas leasing and approval of exploration and development plans on predictable schedules. Other Federal regulatory agencies review and comment on MMS's environmental study findings. In addition, other Federal agencies study and monitor marine and coastal environments but have different missions. The ESP coordinates extensively with other Federal research programs to minimize duplication of effort and to maximize opportunities for collaboration and cost sharing. "

Evidence: The MMS conducts regular public meetings and workshops to: 1) identify current and future program issues -- emerging concerns, issues, and directions; and 2) identify the means with which to acquire the information and/or resolve the issues. Information needs or issues which cannot be resolved through other means (such as information from other sources/programs) are then developed as topics for research. To avoid the potential of performing redundant research, the ESP coordinates extensively with both stakeholders and researchers. Such coordination, for example, led to the MMS study "Research on Sperm Whales and their Responses to Seismic Exploration in the Gulf of Mexico". The study is being conducted cooperatively with several academic institutions, government agencies, and industry and is leading to the resolution of multiple aspects of an issue with numerous facets and with significant cost leveraging.

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: Over 90 percent of the research is conducted externally through competitive contracts, cooperative agreements and interagency agreements. The ESP coordinates extensively with other Federal research programs, states, and industry to: 1) minimize duplication of effort: 2) maximize opportunities for collaboration and cost sharing, and 3) to prioritize research efforts.

Evidence: The scope of the interest or "problem" could be defined in the context of revenues received and energy produced from offshore oil and gas activities. Environmental research represents a relatively small but highly cost effective investment. MMS created an independent Minerals Advisory Board which provides a formal mechanism for consultation with affected states and other interested parities on all aspects of leasing, exploration, development, and protection of offshore resources. As part of this Board, the OCS Scientific Committee advises MMS on the feasibility, appropriateness, and scientific value of the ESP; reviews the information produced by the ESP and may recommend changes in scope, direction or emphasis; and reflects, through its membership, a balance of scientific and technical disciplines considered important to the management of the ESP.

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The ESP supports MMS's offshore oil, gas, and marine minerals program which provides multiple benefits to the public and does so in a safe and environmentally sound manner. It directly supports DOI draft Goal 2.1 Manage Resources to enhance Public Benefit, Promote Responsible Use, and Ensure Optimal Value. The ESP is one means by which the MMS demonstrates its commitment to environmental protection through the use of the highest quality science for decision making.

Evidence: OCS program benefits are articulated in the 5 Year EIS, including its research. It is communicated through multiple meetings with stakeholders (e.g. Information Transfer Meetings, workshops, and web information). Publicly distributed documents such as the budget and GPRA publications articulate that activities on the OCS significantly contribute to our national energy supply. OCS activities provide more than 25% of the natural gas and oil produced in the United States and accounting for approximately $4 billion in revenue annually. MMS recently released a study on the 2000 assessment of conventionally recoverable hydrocarbon resources, reserves, production and geologic data. This study forecasts that over half of the oil and natural gas total endowment of the Gulf of Mexico, for example, remains to be discovered, The OCS has also provided 13.1 million cubic yards of sand for beach renourishment to the States of Florida, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina. These statistics were recently provided in public testimony to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

Does the program effectively articulate potential public benefits?

Explanation: The ESP supports MMS's offshore oil, gas, and marine minerals program which provides multiple benefits to the public and does so in a safe and environmentally sound manner. It directly supports DOI draft Goal 2.1 Manage Resources to enhance Public Benefit, Promote Responsible Use, and Ensure Optimal Value. The ESP is one means by which the MMS demonstrates its commitment to environmental protection through the use of the highest quality science for decision making.

Evidence: OCS program benefits are articulated in the 5 Year EIS, including its research. It is communicated through multiple meetings with stakeholders (e.g. Information Transfer Meetings, workshops, and web information). Publicly distributed documents such as the budget and GPRA publications articulate that activities on the OCS significantly contribute to our national energy supply. OCS activities provide more than 25% of the natural gas and oil produced in the United States and accounting for approximately $4 billion in revenue annually. MMS recently released a study on the 2000 assessment of conventionally recoverable hydrocarbon resources, reserves, production and geologic data. This study forecasts that over half of the oil and natural gas total endowment of the Gulf of Mexico, for example, remains to be discovered, The OCS has also provided 13.1 million cubic yards of sand for beach renourishment to the States of Florida, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina. These statistics were recently provided in public testimony to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

If an industry-related problem, can the program explain how the market fails to motivate private investment?

Explanation: OCS program benefits are articulated in the 5 Year EIS, including its research. It is communicated through multiple meetings with stakeholders (e.g. Information Transfer Meetings, workshops, and web information). Publicly distributed documents such as the budget and GPRA publications articulate that activities on the OCS significantly contribute to our national energy supply. OCS activities provide more than 25% of the natural gas and oil produced in the United States and accounting for approximately $4 billion in revenue annually. MMS recently released a study on the 2000 assessment of conventionally recoverable hydrocarbon resources, reserves, production and geologic data. This study forecasts that over half of the oil and natural gas total endowment of the Gulf of Mexico, for example, remains to be discovered, The OCS has also provided 13.1 million cubic yards of sand for beach renourishment to the States of Florida, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina. These statistics were recently provided in public testimony to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

Evidence:  

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Long term goals for the ESP are consistent with the OCSLA and the DOI Strategic Plan (draft). This long-term performance goal supports Goal 4.2 of the DOI Strategic Plan (Draft): advance knowledge through scientific Leadership and inform decisions through the application of science. To meaningfully implement Interior's goal, the ESP focuses on the needs of the overall OCS Program, by gathering information from all OCS regions concerning industry trends, leasing and development schedules and plans, environmental issues, and environmental information needs on a 5-year horizon.

Evidence: The Five Year ESP Strategic Plan (1998-2002) and the annually revised Studies Development Plans The latest version documents the information needs to be addressed by the MMS ESP through 2005. Also, Goal 4.2 of the DOI Strategic Plan (Draft) articulates 3 Strategies, all of which are supported by the ESP: expand the scientific knowledge base, enhance the quality and objectivity of DOI science, and lead and facilitate exchange and use of knowledge.

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: The ESP National Studies List is developed annually based on long-term goals articulated in OCSLA and other program documents such as the annually, revised Studies Development Plan. ESP uses the list to prioritize study efforts. The MMS is drafting goals to support the DOI Strategic Plan (draft), measures for improving assessment and information for decision making .

Evidence: The National Studies List represents the short-term goals of the ESP. The DOI Strategic Plan (draft) establishes the measure for the use of ESP research in decision documents (Strategy 4.2.a).

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Partners (contractors) receive financial support for the sole purpose of carrying out MMS mission related research. Some partners (e.g. Coastal Marine Institutes and others involved in cooperative agreements associated with the ESP) may engage with MMS and revise their research plans to support MMS goals in an effort for both parties to effectively address mutual information needs.

Evidence: The ESP does not enter into contracts, agreements, etc. unless they are supportive of annual (NSL) and long-term goals .

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: There are no other federal, state or private sector organizations that have the same goals as articulated by OCSLA . However, the ESP takes advantage of mutual research interests and coordinates around those interests resulting in cost-sharing and leveraging of scarce financial resources.

Evidence: Interagency Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, Cooperative Agreements, etc. For example, noise in the sea is a complicated issue with various facets for multiple stakeholders. To avoid performing redundant research, the MMS ESP coordinated extensively with stakeholders and researchers leading to the study "Research on Sperm Whales and their Responses to Seismic Exploration in the Gulf of Mexico". The study is being conducted cooperatively with several academic institutions, government agencies, and industry at considerable cost-savings (leveraging).

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: Periodically, MMS requests program/discipline reviews from the NRC/NAS. Annually the program is reviewed by the Scientific Committee of the MMS Advisory Board, individual program disciplines are reviewed/advised by Scientific Committee Subcommittees, and individual projects are reviewed by contractually mandated Scientific/Quality Reviewed Boards. Furthermore, OMM Strategic Plan (draft) articulates a strategy to enhance the quality and objectivity of DOI science.

Evidence: NRC/NAS reports (1990, 1992, 1993), annual Scientific Committee letters to the MMS Director and Subcommittee Charters; and individual studies contract reviews by Scientific/Quality Review Boards; internal program reviews including two Alternative Management Control Reviews (AMCR) (1993, 1999) of the Environmental Studies Program which specifically focused on program effectiveness and studies management processes and procedures. The AMCR's included recommendations for program improvements particularly in the area of communicating with internal customers and several steps have been taken to address this issue.

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: The program is research, and as such, cannot precisely measure the effect of small funding increases or decreases on overall program performance. However, annual budgets are based on assessments of needs developed through the annual public review Studies Development Plan and National Studies List processes. Funding affects the ability to conduct scheduled research necessary for informed decision making. Delays (financial, policy, or legislative) in leasing or development milestones could negatively impacts future energy production and revenue to the Treasury.

Evidence: Historically the ESP budget declined as increased numbers of OCS areas were dropped from leasing consideration. However, funding increases have been made to support deepwater research in support of OCS development in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. ESP funding has fluctuated and this can be associated with many factors including number of acres offered for leasing, advancement of leasing in frontier areas, and identification of new program demands such as beach renourishment (sand and gravel).

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

Explanation: Regular discussions with internal and external program stakeholders are carried out to ensure that the process effectively considers all relevant research issues. Annually, the ESP develops its Studies Development Plan putting out for discussion with these stakeholders proposed research for the next FY and topics for research being discussed for the years to come.

Evidence: Discussions with stakeholders held in conjunction with the development of the annual Studies Development Plan, Information Transfer Meetings, Workshops, meetings with both the Policy and Scientific Committees of the OCS Advisory Board and their various chartered Subcommittees, and making such materials and discussions available via the internet.

Is evaluation of the program's continuing relevance to mission, fields of science, and other "customer" needs conducted on a regular basis?

Explanation: Accomplished through the annual Studies Development Plan Process and annual development of the National Studies List. Specifically to develop research to advance knowledge through scientific leadership and inform decisions through the application of science necessary to safeguard property and financial assets and improve quality of life for communities and trust beneficiaries (draft DOI Strategic Plan Goal 4).

Evidence: Annual Scientific Review Committee meeting and HQ Memorandum (with guidance) to the OCS Regions to initiate annual Studies Development Plan process and subsequent correspondence between HQ and the Regions. The process emphasizes Strategy 3 of the DOI Strategic Plan (draft) Goal 4: Serving Communities: Lead and Facilitate Exchange and Use of Knowledge.

Has the program identified clear priorities?

Explanation: Research priorities are established through the annual Studies Development Plan (SDP) process and the annual development of the National Studies List (NSL); the SDP is the stakeholder input document and the NSL is the MMS senior management approval document. The process is accomplished through intensive discussions with the Scientific Committee of the MMS Advisory Board and its Subcommittees with additional input from other internal and external stakeholders. While the Program has an annual set of established "milestones", it also has the flexibility to address and respond "tactically" in the event of unanticipated information needs.

Evidence: The annual Studies Development Plans, and the final annual National Studies List; and the publicly available annual Program Prospectus. An example of a more "tactical" issue was the accelerated industry activity in the deep and "ultra-deep" water of the Gulf of Mexico. To develop the appropriate research, the ESP coordinated the necessary input from both internal and external stakeholders through a public workshop, with peer-view provided by a Deepwater Subcommittee charted by the OCS Scientific Committee. More recently, with the public concern of mercury in the marine environment, the Scientific Committee chartered a Mercury Subcommittee to examine the issue and to provide MMS advice on any necessary new research.

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: Overall, the ESP does collect timely and credible performance information, but it does not have a basic automated system to summarize project manager and research contractor performance that could be used by upper management, on a daily bases, to identify program problems before they become critical. On a project by project basis, information from contractors used to authorize the disbursement of funds. Individual projects frequently have Scientific/Quality Review Board reviews throughout the course of the research - projects can, and are, modified as appropriate.

Evidence: Program summary information is developed manually causing a time lag. However, monthly/quarterly reports from contractors and final deliverables and reports from Scientific/Quality Review Boards are prepared and reviewed by management and corrective action is taken if necessary.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: An integral part of project management is financial and technical oversight to assure performance consistent with stated cost, schedule, and objectives.

Evidence: Evaluation criteria for contract awards includes consideration of past performance.

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

Explanation: The ESP has consistently obligated funds in a timely manner with the exception of FY 2001. The procurement award process was disrupted by the events of September 11th and no-year funds were carried over into FY 2002. Program funds are obligated only for projects that have been approved by MMS's Associate Director of Offshore Minerals Management on the annual National Studies List.

Evidence: MMS Annual Financial Reports.

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: While the ESP uses a competitive procurement process for most of its contracted research, it strives to bring in new researchers. This is accomplished by frequent public meetings and workshops to inform potential researchers and to increase their familiar

Evidence: Along with the MMS as a whole, the ESP is exploring components for competitive sourcing and is participating in the Bureau's e-Gov and Activity Based Costing development and implementation programs. These efforts support the electronic government initiative in the Secretary's plan for citizen centered government to use information technology to provide the public information uniquely available in the Department.

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: Although DOI complies with managerial cost accounting standards, it does not yet have a financial management system that fully allocates program costs and associates those costs with specific performance measures. This requirement might be met through Activity Based Costing (ABC), which DOI is adopting for each of its bureaus.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: "ESP has been reviewed and had been found to free of material internal control weaknesses. Although MMS has been cited for inadequate security and controls over information technology systems. This relates to ongoing Indian trust fund litigation. Procedures are in place to ensure that payments are made properly for the intended purpose. The Financial Management Branch Quality Assurance Program requires that a review be performed each month of all invoices paid in an amount equal to or greater than $250,000. The program also requires that a random sample of the remaining invoices paid during the month be performed. The purpose of the MMS quality assurance review is to: ??h Ensure that invoices entered into the MMS Advanced Budget/Accounting Control and Information System (ABACIS), meet the criteria of 5 CFR Part 1315; ??h Ensure that Federal resources are used consistent with agency mission; ??h Ensure that the invoices recorded by MMS are both, accurate and timely; ??h Ensure that interest was paid if an invoice was paid late; and ??h Ensure the imaged document matches the original document. "

Evidence: The Minerals Management Service Financial Management Branch has written procedures that require persons responsible for scheduling payments of commercial invoices to verify the company name, address, and DUNs number prior to scheduling any invoice for payment. Once these items have been verified, the invoice is scheduled for payment. Prior to the schedule being transmitted to Treasury authorizing the disbursement of funds, the MMS Certifying Officer again reviews all invoices and payments to ensure accuracy. In addition to the above reviews, MMS has an established Quality Assurance Review Program that encompasses commercial payments.

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

Explanation: MMS uses Alternative Management Control Review (AMCR) on a recurring basis to evaluate program management activities. For example, the need to improve communication of program goals and objectives, scope and strategy to a diverse customer base within MMS was identified in the 1993 AMCR. Since that time the ESP has aggressively sought customer input from the many offices who are responsible for various facets of the offshore oil and gas and marine minerals program. Through its internet web pages the program office now communicates program information including goals, objectives, scope and strategy - not only to its internal customer base, but to the general public.

Evidence: One deficiency identified through the AMCR's was the accessibility of Environmental Studies Program information. Over the last few years the ESP has launched web-based information for all active projects and has identified a goal of updating the web-information for all ongoing projects on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ESP has established a web-based repository for all reports so this information is freely available to the general public.

Does the program allocate funds through a competitive, merit-based process, or, if not, does it justify funding methods and document how quality is maintained?

Explanation: Over 95 percent of the ESP research is conducted through a merit based award process and more than 90 percent is awarded through competitive contracts and cooperative agreements. The ESP utilizes a mix of funding to maximize achievement of program objectives through the use of competitive awards, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements and joint industry projects. Quality of research is maintained through establishment of Scientific/Quality Review Boards and encouragement of contractors to publish in the peer-reviewed literature.

Evidence: All proposals considered for funding are subjected to merit review by MMS scientists, and sometimes scientists from other federal agencies and/or co-sponsoring industry partner.

Does competition encourage the participation of new/first-time performers through a fair and open application process?

Explanation: While the ESP uses a competitive procurement process for most of its contracted research, it strives to bring in new researchers. This is accomplished by frequent public meetings and workshops to inform potential researchers and to increase their familiarity with ESP goals, objectives, and procedures.

Evidence: Many ESP awards are conducted via an open, advertised competitive process encouraging creativity. In recent years the ESP, in conjunction with the MMS Procurement Office, has conducted pre-RFP meetings to ensure that all potential researchers understand the specific issues to be addressed in an upcoming procurement. MMS also reviews planned acquisitions to determine whether any are suitable for set-aside for small and disadvantaged businesses to encourage participation of new businesses in the ESP. Finally, the ESP encourages senior researchers to use and mentor the next generation of scientists. For example during the first six years of the MMS/State of Louisiana Coastal Marine Institute cooperative agreement to jointly address information needs of the MMS and the State, 14 postdoctoral associates, 26 doctoral candidates, 22 master's candidates, and 38 undergraduate students were involved with, and supported by, 50 MMS/State of Louisiana research projects.

Does the program adequately define appropriate termination points and other decision points?

Explanation: The ESP is predicated on the continuation of the offshore oil and gas and marine minerals programs. Individual ESP projects have set schedules and budgets with defined final deliverables specified in award documents. These schedules are established to ensure that the information is available for specific decision-making endpoints.

Evidence: Delivery schedules are specified in individual contracts. The delivery of scientific information is critical to the mission of the ESP as its supports both the draft Department's Goal of managing resources to enhance public benefit, promote responsible use, and ensure optimal value. This timeliness is critical in light of the President's Energy Plan which includes the continuation of "...OCS oil and gas leasing and approval of exploration and development plans on predictable schedules."

If the program includes technology development or construction or operation of a facility, does the program clearly define deliverables and required capability/performance characteristics and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: Multiple program reviews have given the ESP high marks while offering constructive criticism. The goals of the ESP, as established by the OCSLA, are in direct support of the MMS in its role as manager of the Nation's OCS energy and nonenergy mineral resources. MMS's long-term strategy seeks to: assess the availability of OCS energy and nonenergy resources; determine, in consultation with affected parties, if the resources can be developed in an environmentally sound manner; and regulate all operations activities when leasing occurs to ensure safety and environmental protection. The rating reflects the lack of adequate quantification of measures. However, it is recognized that establishing practical and meaningful performance measures for research is inherently difficult.

Evidence: "Independent evaluations by the NRC/NAS and internal evaluations such as the PMAT and the AMCR provide the benchmarks by which the program has been assessing its progress in achieving its goals. The goals of the ESP were established by the OCSLA and include: 1) to establish the information needed for assessment and management of environmental impacts from OCS activities; 2) to predict impacts on the marine biota which may result form chronic, low level pollution or large spills associated with OCS production from drilling fluids and cuttings discharges, pipeline emplacements, or onshore facilities; and 3) to monitor human marine and coastal environments to provide time series and data trend information. Also, findings of adequacy of information available for resource management decisions demonstrates progress in achieving long term goals. "

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

Explanation: Performance goals are achieved through assessment and prioritization of information needs, execution of procurement award process (initiation of new research), and technical oversight of ongoing research. The resulting research is specifically intended to advance knowledge through scientific leadership and inform decisions through the application of science necessary to safeguard property and financial assets and improve quality of life for communities and trust beneficiaries (DOI Strategic Plan Goal 4). The rating reflects the lack of adequate quantification of measures. However, it is recognized that establishing practical and meaningful performance measures for research is inherently difficult.

Evidence: Annual establishment of research priorities through the Studies Development Plan (SDP) process; development of the National Studies List for Senior MMS Management review and approval; and finally, the awarding/initiation of new research (primarily through an open competitive procurement process).

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

Explanation: This is not easily demonstrated in the context of conducting research. However, the ESP disseminates information on its research program including proposed research areas. In some cases, entities conducting related research will propose to partner with MMS to share resources thereby reducing costs to both. Also, MMS thoroughly reviews existing research from all sources to identify information gaps, to avoid duplication of effort. The rating reflects the lack of adequate quantification of measures. However, it is recognized that establishing practical and meaningful performance measures for research is inherently difficult.

Evidence: Increasing our use of the internet to disseminate information on the ESP, public meeting, Science Committee, etc.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The environmental studies program is unique because it is focused on oil, gas and marine mineral extraction on the OCS. MMS alone has the mandate to develop environmental assessment information in support of offshore oil and gas leasing and development activities. The OCSLA directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the OCS offshore oil and gas program, and this responsibility has been delegated to the MMS. Furthermore, the President's Energy Policy directs the Secretary of the Interior to continue OCS oil and gas leasing and approval of exploration and development plans on predictable schedules. Other Federal regulatory agencies review and comment on MMS's environmental study findings. In addition, other Federal agencies study and monitor marine and coastal environments but have different missions. The ESP coordinates extensively with other Federal research programs to minimize duplication of effort and to maximize opportunities for collaboration and cost sharing. The rating reflects the lack of adequate quantification of measures. However, it is recognized that establishing practical and meaningful performance measures for research is inherently difficult.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The GAO review of the ESP (1988) found that customers were satisfied with the usefulness, timeliness, and quality of the program studies. In 1986 the MMS requested that the NAS undertake a review of the ESP which lasted six years, cost approximately $1 million and produced six reports on various technical disciplines, information adequacy for certain OCS areas, and ESP program management. The NAS (1993) review included the following conclusions/recommendations: (1) The ESP has provided important and useful information to inform decisions about the OCS and has contributed significantly to the accumulation of knowledge about the continental shelf; (2) MMS should strengthen the role and place more importance on advice from the Scientific Committee; (3) MMS should increase emphasis of post-lease studies and consider increasing the priority for studies in the Gulf of Mexico; (4) MMS is commended for increasing academic involvement in the ESP, and is commended for its cooperative programs with other federal agencies.

Evidence: GAO review (1988), NAS/NRC reviews (1990, 1992, 1993), letter to the MMS Director from the OCS Scientific Committee of the MMS Advisory Board on the excellent progress concerning ESP activities in initiating deepwater studies; findings of two Alternative Management Control Reviews (1993, 1999). Evaluations by the Scientific Committee (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002) indicate commendations for information technology initiatives and continued support for ESP efforts which synthesize existing information. The full Scientific Committee endorsed the MMS Deepwater Studies Plan (1998-99) and endorsed the continued development of new starts for the 1999-2000 plan providing additional endorsement of the ESP. The Scientific Committee conducted a review of MMS responsiveness to the NAS recommendations at its 1995 meeting and passed a resolution indicating satisfaction with MMS progress towards addressing those recommendations.

If the program includes construction of a facility, were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation:  

Evidence: