Detailed Information on the
US Geological Survey - Coastal and Marine Geology Assessment

Use USGS-wide objectives and performance measures for Ocean Research Priorities Plan (ORPP) to determine effectiveness of USGS coastal ecosystem studies with regional alliances

Further develop interagency objectives and performance measures for ORPP priority studies through interagency collaboration in study design, review, and implementation.

Document enhancements in delivery and availability of coastal and ocean mapping information from federal agencies and their partners

Establishing USGS-wide performance measures for priority coastal activities along with program partners.

Establishing and implementing procedures for engagement of federal resource management agencies in planning of program activities, design of products, and setting of joint priorities.

Increasing coordination and provision of coastal and ocean mapping activities and information across federal/non-federal agencies.

Establish USGS-wide objectives and performance measures for Ocean research Priorities Plan (ORPP) priority coastal ecosystem studies through regional and program collaboration in study design, review, and implementation.

Establish interagency objectives and performance measures for ORPP priority studies through interagency collaboration in study design, review, and implementation.

Develop measures for enhancements in provision of coastal and ocean mapping information across federal and non-federal agencies.

Measure: # of systematic analyses & investigations completed

Explanation:A systematic analysis is the product of research and/or assessment that constitutes a body of knowledge that improves the understanding of natural processes, resources, and ecosystems typically resulting from several years of study. Peer reviewed publications include the following USGS publications: Bulletins, Circulars, Scientific Investigations, Reports and Maps, Professional Papers, Open-File Reports (only if delivering scientific results), Models (techniques and methodologies). Systematic analyses also include external publications such as journal articles and books or book chapters. It does not include conference proceedings, abstracts, posters, or web pages (unless a web page is the only means of publishing scientific results). Status is complete when approved by the Director of the USGS for publication.

Measure: # of formal workshops or training provided to customers

Explanation:Formal workshops, training seminars, and individualized assistance are provided to aid customers' use of USGS science products and information to support land and resource management decisionmaking.

Measure: % of studies validated through appropriate peer review

Explanation:A study is a systematic analysis, a significant body of knowledge that improves the understanding of natural process, resources, and ecosystems typically resulting from several years of research assessment activity. Peer review is a criterion for OMB Results Not Demonstrated investment. This measure acknowledges this requirement. The numerator and denominator are studies and peer reviewed studies. This measure acknowledges adherence by all USGS scientists to fundamental science practices and the OMB quality criterion for R&D investments. The population it covers is the systematic analyses and investigations -- output/products -- of the programs' research .

Measure: Number of digital geographic information products for priority National Park Service units that provide environmental characterization based on airborne remote sensing.

Explanation:This measure reports on the specific number of products generated for the National Park Service and is used as the basis for the measure that demonstrates NPS use in planning.The Coastal and Marine Geology Program (CMGP) works collaboratively with National Park Service national and regional staff to determine priorities for mapping of coastal and marine park units. On the basis of priorities agreed upon the CMGP will prioritize data collection and processing to meet those needs systematically. Targets reflect realistic resource availability within the CMGP and from the NPS. Targets represent an ambitious commitment to systematically provide environmental characterization to the NPS. Products may include elevation and canopy height models and interpretive products suchas geomorphic and land-cover classification and indices of vulnerability. This measure ensures that core program competencies in coastal mapping and interpretation are translated to a key intended beneficiary through continued development of useful and applicable products and that products are responsive to the beneficiary's critical needs.

Measure: Percent of National Park Service units for which environmental characterization based on airborne remote sensing is provided as digital GIS products and for which products are cited for use by National Park Service within 2 years.

Explanation:This measure is designed to show that the remote sensing products delivered by the USGS to specific National Park Service units are indeed useful for Park management and decisionmaking. To meet this measure, the products must have been evaluted by park employees and cited in resource management plans. The two year timeframe was selected after consultation with NPS managers on the normal planning horizons. If products are delivered at the beginning of a fiscal year, the probability is high that the remotely- sensed information will be included within two years. If products are delivered past the first quarter of a fiscal year, imfromation may not be included in a revised or newly developed resource plan for three years.

Measure: Fraction of significant landfalling hurricanes (coterminous US) for which post-storm assessments of impact are developed and made accessible on the internet.

Explanation:This measure tracks Program responsiveness and commitment to documenting and understanding hazard impacts. Impact assessments herein are based on pre- and post-storm airborne mapping information. "Significant" hurricanes includes all those category 2 or higher hurricanes for which, based on landfall site, substantial coastal change to beaches, barriers, and coastal communities is expected so that post-storm assessments contribute to Program science goals and outcome goals to provide research products for coastal managers and other users. Post-storm assessment development is essential to Program long-term science goals and is an integral part of CMGP development of a National Assessment of Coastal Change Hazards. Assessment activities and products also have demonstrated utility for post-storm response and recovery activities and developing assessments of changing vulnerability due to storm modifications of the coastline. The fraction rather than a percentage is reported here to document the number of category 2 hurricanes making landfall relative to the number studied because although we target an average incidence, there will be years when there are fewer or no cat 2+ hurricanes making landfall to study.

Measure: Percent of open Ocean and Great-Lakes shoreline of coterminous United States for which up-to-date characterization of the shoreline is provided.

Explanation:A goal of the CMGP efforts on coastal change hazards is to ensure that the Nation has a consistent measure of shoreline position and form (including adjacent beaches and dunes) for research on coastal change and for development of assessments of coastal hazard vulnerability. The CMGP uses airborne LIDAR mapping to maintain such a shoreline - ensuring that the shoreline is updated to reflect major change events (hurricanes in the East, El Nino cycles in the West) and long-term change (as measured by the CMGP shoreline change assessment). The appropriate repeat interval is determined by assessments of extreme change and long-term change rates. In the absence of major change events (hurricanes for example) repeat intervals are nominally 5 years for the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and 10 years elsewhere. Working collaboratively with other Federal partners we are now committing to providing appropriate information for the Great Lakes and thus the target level has increased. An example of shoreline characterization is provided for Long Bay, South Carolina, a heavily populated coastal region that supports a large tourism industry. Sand resources are important for both recreation and coastal habitat. Study results indicate that currents in the area are strongly influenced by both tidal motion and wind driven setup / setdown. The presence of the offshore sand feature alters the residual flows in the region. Sediment transport is more significant during periods of sustained strong winds that generate local waves. Wind direction plays a key role in determining the direction and magnitude of sediment transport. Coastal managers are guided by this characterization when developing mitigation strategies for critical habitat that is eroding.

Measure: Cost of collection and processing of airborne remote sensing data for coastal characterization and impact assessments.

Explanation:Data collection and processing supporting characterization of the geologic and environmental condition of the Nation's coastal and marine lands is the most expensive element of Program-supported projects and is an element of virtually all Program activities. The USGS coastal change hazards studies, and basic environmental characterization related to coastal and submerged ecosystems including corals, depends on collection and processing of mapping data from a variety of airborne sensors. The CMGP has worked with NASA to a) develop and deploy new sensors that utilize inexpensive aircraft and return greater data volumes, b) integrate multiple sensors to increase data volume and support generation of a variety of products while reducing requirements for repeat flights or ground-based data collection, and c) improve processing time through adoption and development of improved processing capabilities. This measure combines data collection costs (aircraft costs) and man-hour costs required for processing to measure dollar cost per unit data volume. In developing and applying improved technologies the CMGP has avoided costs for multiple data collection (for instance, repeat flights for photography and field surveys for shallow bathymetry) as well as improving the quality of the data and the potential for data integration. Those efficiencies are not explicitly captured herein. Costs are calculated as $/MB data.

Measure: Percent of regional and major topical studies for which interpretive and synthesis products are cited by identified partners and users within three years of study completion.

Explanation:Regional and topical studies, addressing specific critical issues, are the basic implementation unit of the CMGP. These studies provide data and information products but are designed to synthesize information and knowledge into research products that advance understanding broadly and inform decision making with respect to the programmatic and regional priorities of the National Coastal Program Plan. This measure is designed to ensure that large-scale studies supported by CMGP benefit partners and stakeholders through the development and application of research products thus directly assessing CMGP success consistent with Program objectives. Studies are defined as those that are either a) inherently regional in scope or b) topical studies (often with a regional focus) that are substantial in scope and persistent in implementation. CMGP supports about 30 regional or topical studies at any one time. Project chiefs compile letters, e-mail messages, conference reports, citations of reports in others work, and formal evaluations to understand which of their products are used and are directly applied to advancing understanding of regional or topical issues or informing decisionmaking especially during the three years after a study has been completed. This work is in addition to new responsibilities as they engage in starting new studies .

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of the Coastal and Marine Geology Program (CMGP) is to develop scientific information and knowledge of the geological structure and processes that create, modify, and maintain the Nation's coastal and marine environments. In pursuit of its mission the CMGP supports bureau and DOI strategic goals and those of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Coastal Program which has as its goal "to provide the scientific information, knowledge, and tools required to ensure that decisions about land and resource use, management practices, and future development in the coastal zone and adjacent watersheds can be evaluated with a complete understanding of the probable effects on coastal ecosystems and communities, and a full assessment of their vulnerability to natural and human-driven changes."

Evidence: The CMGP purpose is clearly stated in the National Coastal and Marine Geology Program 5-Year Plan (http://marine.usgs.gov/natplan97/natplan97.html) and USGS Budget Justifications and Performance Information FY 2007 (pgs H71-H90) and supports the mission and goals of the Department of Interior (DOI) Strategic Plan www.doi.gov/gpra/strat_plan_fy2003_2008.pdf, the USGS Strategic Plan www.usgs.gov/stratplan/stratplan_rev.pdf), the USGS Geologic Division Science Strategy, "Geology for a Changing World" (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1172), and the USGS National Coastal Program Plan "A Plan for a Comprehensive National Coastal Program" (http://marine.usgs.gov/coastal-plan/usgs-ntl-coastal-plan.pdf ). The relationship of the CMGP to the President's Business Reference Model and DOI, USGS, and Geologic discipline strategic plans is schematically described in the attached architecture diagram. The National Research Council (NRC) review "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309065844/html)specifically states that the role of the CMGP is clearly defined, fulfills a mission essential to the USGS and the Federal government, and is unique with respect to other Federal agencies.

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

Explanation: The CMGP addresses specific, existing, and critical needs. With 50% of the population living in coastal counties, and that number rising each year, the pressures on coastal resources are increasing and coalsatal comunities and investments are increasing vulnerable to coastal hazards and change. The CMGP addresses the growing need for unbiased scientific information, including data, maps, research products and models to inform management coastal areas. Critical society issues include: natural hazard vulnerability (erosion, coastal storms, earthquakes, tsunami and landslides), environmental consequences of natural and human processes (habitat and ecosystem health, contaminant impacts), and resource availability (gas hydrates, non-energy mineral resources, groundwater).

Evidence: The CMGP addresses strategic mission goals described by the DOI Strategic Plan (www.doi.gov/gpra/strat_plan_fy2003_2008.pdf), the USGS Strategic Plan (www.usgs.gov/stratplan/stratplan_rev.pdf), and the USGS Geologic Discipline Science Strategy "Geology for a Changing World" (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1172 ). Broad evidence for Program relevance to identified and existing needs is provided by the USGS Budget Justification and Performance Information FY 2007, the report and recommendations of the U.S. Commission for Ocean Policy "An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy" (http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html ), the Administration's U.S. Ocean Action Plan(www.ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf) , and the needs assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (2006 Governor's Action Plan: Implementation Activities Matrix). The NRC review of the CMGP "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999 - http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309065844/html) clearly identifies critical issues that require, and are addressed, by CMGP expertise and activities. The need for geospatial products generally is identified by the NRC report "A Geospatial Framework for the Coastal Zone: National Needs for Mapping and Charting" (fermat.nap.edu/books/0309091764/html) and, specifically for fisheries management, in the American Fisheries Society Symposium proceedings "Benthic Habitats and the Effects of Fishing".

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

Explanation: The CMGP, as designed and implemented, is not duplicative of any other effort. CMGP fulfills a Federal role in providing a national perspective and approach to addressing the need for unbiased geologic information and knowledge relevant to diverse issues in coastal and marine settings. The CMGP is unique amongst Federal programs in its focus on geologic characterization and processes. It is the sole Federal program that develops, maintains, and applies the capabilities and expertise required for coastal and marine geologic research and investigations. The NRC, in its review of the CMGP (1999) emphasized the unique nature of the CMGP, both within the USGS and across the Federal sector. The NRC found that the CMGP uniquely provided needed geologic expertise relevant to coastal and marine systems and the breadth of issues arising therein and, in contrast to other Federal programs, provided a critical regional and national approach and perspective otherwise lacking. The NRC also found that the CMGPs position within the USGS gave it the unique capability to work cooperatively to address complex environmental issues that require integrative scientific approaches. The CMGP further ensures that its efforts are not duplicative through collaborative program planning and implementation with other Federal and State entities. CMGP research fills a unique niche through a) maintenance and application of geologic expertise and capabilities relevant to broad and persistent issues of national importance, b) through development of regional and national geologic context for decision-making, c) through persistent focus on identified national research challenges, including Coral Ecosystems, Gas Hydrates, Global Climate Change and Coastal Hazards, and d) through development of integrated and multi-disciplinary efforts in concert with other Federal, and external partners.

Evidence: The NRC review of the CMGP "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309065844/html) explicitly states that the CMGP "occupies a unique niche by providing the capability to conduct research and assessments of the geologic processes impacting the Nation's coasts". The unique capabilities of the CMGP are recognized through joint planning and implementation as described in and validated in the NRC review of the Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrates Program "Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States" (2004, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309092922/html" The complementary and essential role of the CMGP, its responsiveness to issues of national and regional importance, and its unique ability to provide unbiased scientific assistance are indicated in "Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership: Support for the Puget Sound Partnership's Response to Governor Gregoire's Five Charges." (http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org)

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

Explanation: The CMGP is designed to effectively and efficiently address national and regional priorities requiring geologic research and information products to respond to the diversity of issues in coastal and marine environments. Through development, maintenance, and application of capabilities to define the regional geologic framework (mapping), to monitor and understand geologic processes, and to model change due to natural and human processes, the CMGP provides information relevant to specific issues of immediate local, regional, and national concern. The CMGP is implemented primarily by science center staff and management in Woods Hole, Massachusetts; St. Petersburg, Florida, and Menlo Park/Santa Cruz, California. Program and project development includes coordinated maintenance and enhancement of expertise and capabilities across the three science centers to ensure resources effectively support capabilities required to achieve national program goals. The Program maintains essential capabilities and flexibility to adapt to emerging priority information needs on a year-to-year basis as directed by the Administration, Department, Bureau and Congress. This capacity has proven crucial to, for example, effective Program response to changing priorities in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2004-2005 hurricanes. CMGP activities are leveraged extensively across several USGS programs and with contributions from other Federal, State, and local institutions.

Evidence: CMGP is guided in program development and implementation by the DOI Strategic Plan (www.doi.gov/gpra/strat_plan_fy2003_2008.pdf), the USGS Strategic Plan (www.usgs.gov/stratplan/stratplan_rev.pdf ), and the USGS Geologic Discipline Science Strategy "Geology for a Changing World" (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1172). The USGS National Coastal Program Plan (http://marine.usgs.gov/coastal-plan/usgs-ntl-coastal-plan.pdf) provides strategic guidance along with prior geologic discipline CMGP plans, "National Coastal and Marine Geology Program 5-Year Plan"(http://marine.usgs.gov/natplan97/natplan97.html). Annual program direction is developed within the Geologic Discipline Annual Science Plan. Independent external review of Program goals and operations are provided by the NRC report "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309065844/html/). Topical reviews by the NRC identify broad needs and validate Program roles (NRC report "A Geospatial Framework for the Coastal Zone: National Needs for Mapping and Charting", 2004, (http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309091764/html/). Program priorities and direction reflect broad assessment of national needs such as those identified by the NRC in "Drawing Louisiana's New Map: Addressing Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana" (2006, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309100542.html//)

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

Explanation: CMGP resources are effectively targeted, following the direction of national, Bureau, Departmental and Program strategic plans to reach intended beneficiaries and directly address the Program's purpose. Targeted, partner-driven science themes are used by the CMGP to focus research on high priority issues, such as land-loss in Louisiana and coastal change hazards. Priority beneficiaries include state natural resource and coastal zone management agencies, State geological surveys, and Federal agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, Eepartement of Energy, National Park Service, Mineral Management Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. Integration of the needs of these beneficiaries is an integral element of CMGP regional and topical studies. CMGP workplans, budget management, operations, and collaborative relationships provide flexibility to deploy resources in response to extreme events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis as was demonstrated subsequent to Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Internal and external reviews of CMGP projects guide Program allocation of resources to ensure productivity, relevance, and responsiveness to beneficiaries. Alignment of Program goals and activities with stakeholder needs is demonstrated by leveraged funding and in-kind services support from beneficiaries to CMGP projects.

Evidence: "A Plan for a Comprehensive National Coastal Program" (http://marine.usgs.gov/coastal-plan/usgs-ntl-coastal-plan.pdf ) provides strategic guidance along with prior geologic discipline CMGP plans "The National Coastal and Marine Geology Program 5-Year Plan - March 1997) (http://marine.usgs.gov/natplan97/natplan97.html). (CMGP Reimbursable Funding for FY 2005 and FY 2006 and the South Carolina Coastal Erosion Studies BASIS+ workplan)NRC Report, "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309065844/html), found that: "Existing efforts to collaborate with State agencies and municipalities are important and appear to have been successful. The information provided to the states by the USGS appears to have been used to great advantage to make resources decisions and to establish and update resource management policies." by direct stakeholder input (Letter from David A. Balton, U.S. Department of State (DOS) dated January 20, 2006; Letter from John C. Cruden, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), dated June 21, 2001; Letter from Carmen R. White, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, dated February 27, 2006; Letter from Andrea Rex, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority dated March 2, 2006; Letter from David Shaver, National Park Service (NPS).

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: New CMGP long-term outcome measures were developed in the PART process, which apply to all components of the Program, address (1) quality of Program products as demonstrated by peer review and independent review; (2) demonstrated and validated application of Program products provided for resource management of National Park Service (NPS) units as a critical resource management beneficiary; and (3) availability, application and benefits resulting from interpretive and synthesis products from CMGP regional and major topical studies represnting long-term progress towards established program goals across all major program elements. These measures reflect the purpose of the Program as established through strategic planning at all levels. These measures include and enhance similar annual measures established and tracked through Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the DOI Strategic Plan. These measures focus on enhancing the science and knowledge base as demonstrated by their application by beneficiaries to support resource management and policy goals.

Evidence: Outcome goals of the DOI Strategic Plan (Serving Communities) include advancing knowledge through scientific leadership and informing decisions through the application of science (DOI Strategic Plan, (www.doi.gov/gpra/strat_plan_fy2003_2008.pdf). The USGS National Coastal Program Plan (http://marine.usgs.gov/coastal-plan/usgs-ntl-coastal-plan.pdf ) defines priorities and strategies for the provision of data, information, and research products that inform decision-making leading to healthy and sustainable coastal communities and ecosystems. All CMGP-funded projects support these goals and outcome measures assess the quality of products and their application by intended beneficiaries Measures section: (M3, M5, M7, and M9). Documentation for baselining and assessing measures is provided by internal statistics and input from identified users (for example, letters from State (Letters from Andrea Rex, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, dated October 20, 2003 and March 7, 2006) and Federal (Letter from John C. Cruden, U.S. Department of Justice, dated June 21, 2001) agencies verifying the application of research products and the benefits resulting).

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

Explanation: All long-term measures and GPRA goals referenced in response to 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 current operations and goals of the CMGP. These targets are attainable, yet challenging, and are consistent with current and projected funding levels. Targets represent an ambitious commitment to maintain and enhance program efficiency in providing relevant and applicable research products while responding to specific beneficiaries. Targets reflect a commitment, through continued engagement with stakeholders, to enhance the capability of end-users to apply results and enhance effectiveness of information transfer and external application. Detailed information on projects and expected annual and long-term targets is provided in annual project plans and reflects directly the goals and objectives of the CMGP. These annual plans are routinely and rigorously reviewed for progress and performance.

Evidence: Evidence demonstrating progress in meeting the Program's long-term goals can be found in the Measures section (M3, M5, M7, and M9). Program activities, performance, and annual performance expectations are provided in the USGS Budget Justification and Performance Information FY 2007. Project workplans provide information on project objectives and targets relevant to long-term outcome measures.

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: Annual goals have been routinely tracked through the GPRA process including annual GPRA goals (# of systematic analyses and investigations delivered to customers; # of formal workshops and training provided to customers). New annual and long term measures (evaluated annually) provide for yearly assessments of progress toward Program goals by linking annual output goals to provide data, information and research products to long term outcome goals to achieve benefits through the application of Program products. For example, the annual measure, number of environmental products in marine protected and managed areas provided for resource management and restoration planning contributes to the long term goal of increasing use of scientific products to manage coastal systems as measured by the long term goal, percent of regional and major topical studies which are cited by identified partners and users within three years of study completion. Detailed information on products and annual expectations are provided in the annual project plans that place activities and outputs in the context of Program goals. Annual plans are routinely and rigorously reviewed for progress and performance.

Evidence: Baselines and evidence for progress in meeting Program's goals for all measures can be found in the Measures section (M1, M2, M4, and M6). Annual Program activities, accomplishments, and projected accomplishments are described in the USGS Budget Justification and Performance Information FY 2007. Project workplans provide information of project objectives and targets relevant to annual and long-term performance measures and program goals.

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 leading to achievement of long-term goals. These targets are ambitious, yet achievable. Targets are consistent with current operations and projected funding levels and ambitious - requiring the program to maintain or enhance activities in these areas consistent with long-term program goals. Targets represent an ambitious commitment to maintain and enhance program efficiency in providing relevant and applicable research products while responding to evolving priorities of specific beneficiaries. Targets reflect a commitment to enhance the capability of end-users to apply results and enhance effectiveness of information transfer and external application. Detailed information on products and annual targets is provided in annual project workplans and link directly to the goals and objectives of the program. These annual plans are routinely and rigorously reviewed for progress and performance.

Evidence: Evidence demonstrating progress in meeting the Program's long-term goals and baselines for all measures can be found in the Measures Section (M1, M2, M4, and M6). Annual program activities, accomplishments, and projected accomplishments are described in the USGS Budget Justification and Performance Information FY 2007. Project workplans provide information of project objectives and targets relevant to annual and long-term performance measures and program goals.

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 CMGP-funded activities directly support CMGP long-term, annual and program goals. Partners commit to achieve project goals that are, in turn, linked to Program goals. Cooperators roles and expectations are established through collaborative project planning and implementation and described in project workplans, MOUs and cooperative agreements. Project workplans, including cooperator roles and performance are reviewed annually. Partnerships and cooperative efforts are covered by formal documents outlining duties, expectations, and performance targets. All contracts must have a statement of need and be directly tied to a CMGP-funded project for approval. As shown in publications and progress reports, partner contributions toward program goals are substantial. Progress reports are used to assess contractor performance and to regularly assess the relevance of contract work.

Evidence: Established MOUs, contracts and agreements identify expected performance and link activities to CMGP requirements (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) Between the U.S. Geological Survey and American Geological Institute, USGS/South Carolina Sea Grant Request for Proposals, respondent proposal/request for Federal assistance) (2.5.a). Agreements include in-kind agreements to share expertise and collaboratively pursue common objectives and others that establish cost-sharing or funds-provision mechanisms. Collaborative relationships are identified in project workplans and progress reports are provided to assess performance consistent with agreements (South Carolina Coastal Erosion Studies BASIS+ workplan and annual Progress Report) (2.5.b) (see also 1.4.n).

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: CMGP acquires and responds to independent and quality evaluations that encompass the scope of Program activities. Comprehensive, independent reviews covering the breadth of Program activities are conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) on a periodic basis. The NRC reviews Program direction, emphasis, and operations. Reviews are used to identify needed changes in Program structure, operations, and priorities. As needed, and generally through a collaborative request with other Federal agencies or at the independent request of other agencies, the NRC reviews specific issues or technologies that represent substantial CMGP interests or investments. Future program reviews, by the NRC or other independent expert bodies (AAAS), will be identified in the 2008 time frame following completion of the national Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy and initial priority development by regional ocean alliances. These activities, in response to the Administration's Ocean Action Plan (OAP), will define broad priorities and ensure reviews target identified needs and shortcomings across the federal ocean research sector including CMGP. All CMGP projects are reviewed annually, including external input from partners/end-users and technical reviewers to ensure progress on project and Program goals and to adjust workplans and resource allocations as needed to meet long-term goals, customer needs, and emerging issues. Strategic plans for major Program elements are submitted for external review prior to approval and adoption. The operational and scientific effectiveness of the science centers that implement the CMGP are subject to annual review and periodic strategic review including evaluation by external reviewers. The USGS requires peer-review of all publications. Feedback from beneficiaries of Program activities validates Program relevance and provides critical data for modifying Program priorities and operations.

Evidence: NRC program reviews provide the broadest scope independent review of the Program. The most recent Program review "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309065844/html) led to substantial changes in Program structure and emphasis and continues to provide substantial guidance for the Program. USGS/NOAA/EPA funded an NRC review of coastal mapping and charting (NRC report "A Geospatial Framework for the Coastal Zone: National Needs for Mapping and Charting", 2004, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309091764/html), the recent NRC review on ecosystem effects of future environmental change (2005, The Geological Record of Ecological Dynamics, Understanding the Biotic Effects of Future Environmental Change, http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309095808/html), and the DOE funded review of the DOE Hydrates Program (Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States, 2004, (http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309092922/html). Annual project reviews are based on input from internal and external stakeholders and technical reviewers (Annual Project Reviews). External reviews of Program plans ensure that Program efforts are consistent with the needs and capabilities of a broader research and user community (USGS Gas Hydrates 5-Year Research Plan, Agenda for USGS Gas Hydrate Science Planning, List of Reviewers, Response to Reviews of the USGS Gas Hydrates 5-Year Research Plan, Letter from Thomas Williams, Maurer Technology dated November 14, 2002). Science center reviews provide for external evaluation of the operations and scientific productivity by stakeholders and members of the broad research community (Woods Hole Science Center Strategic Review: Final Report). Where funding is through an open proposal process National Science Foundation (NSF)/Office of Naval Research (ONR) standard peer-review protocols are followed (National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), reviewer's response to USGS collaborative proposal).

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 2007 budget justification was imrpoved to link fudning changes to annual performance targets, program goals and the Departments strategic goals. The justification also identifies changes that redistribute within-base resources to new priorities. However, sufficient long term performance measures and targets did not exist and could not be tied to funding or annual targets.

Evidence: Activities, budget justifications and performance information are provided in the USGS Budget Justification and Performance Information FY 2007. Project budgets and justifications are provided in annual workplans (example workplans).

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

Explanation: The NRC review of the CMGP identified a number of challenges for the Program, which have been aggressively addressed. The CMGP led the development and adoption of a USGS-wide strategic plan, The USGS National Coastal Program Plan, that responded to the NRC finding that "Successful execution of a national investigative program will require a systems-science approach (broad interdisciplinary and integrated studies) rather than single-discipline-based or geographically localized projects." Subsequently the CMGP has collaborated with other USGS programs to plan and implement comprehensive priority studies as identified in the strategic plan. Further, the CMGP responded to the NRC recommendations to a) develop a national knowledge bank and b) develop a predictive capability based on the geologic knowledge developed by the Program by instituting substantial collaborative (with internal USGS and external partners) projects focused on those goals. Across the CMGP, the number of projects was reduced, resulting in more explicit linkage of Program-supported activities and long-term goals and a near-term focus on topics with highest partner and stakeholder needs. Finally, the Program accepted the challenge of providing national assessments based on geologic knowledge with establishment of the National Assessment of Coastal Change Hazards project.

Evidence: CMGP acted upon the recommendations of the NRC report "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309065844/html) and currently supports projects in priority areas identified as near-term opportunities and long-term challenges (National Assessment of Coastal Change Hazards (http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/national_assessment), National Knowledge Bank (schematic with web-links provided), and Community Sediment Transport Modeling (http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/sediment-transport/). Specifically, the Program followed NRC guidance in the development of The National Coastal Program Plan (http://marine.usgs.gov/coastal-plan/usgs-ntl-coastal-plan.pdf). and has implemented priority studies in Tampa Bay (http://gulfsci.usgs.gov/tampabay/index.html), Puget Sound, and Coral Ecosystems (http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/coralreefs/ ). Collaborative planning is exemplified by the USGS Gas Hydrates plan, developed with the Energy Resources Program and reviewed externally (USGS Gas Hydrates 5-Year Research Plan, Agenda for USGS Gas Hydrate Science Planning, List of Reviewers, Response to Reviews of the USGS Gas Hydrates 5-Year Research Plan, Letter from Thomas Williams, Maurer Technology dated November 14, 2002)and the multi-disciplinary implementation of the Puget Sound Integrated Science Study (Puget Sound Integrated Science Study Basis+ Workplan w/Budget). External collaboration and responsiveness is highlighted by input from the NPS in the development of Program performance measures (NPS/USGS Interagency Agreements) (see also Measures Section (M4, M5)).

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: YES, through extensive collaboration and cooperation with other programs with complementary goals, the CMGP assesses the effectiveness and benefits of Program activities relative to other programs. These benefits are demonstrated through collaborative efforts, partner feedback, and direct and indirect support of CMGP activities. CMGP review and evaluation processes are designed to ensure efforts result in high-quality and beneficial products and guide within-Program prioritization and funding. The Program modifies project focus in response to presence or absence of successful outcomes. For example, the CMGP no longer supports regional contaminant assessments having found from past performance that studies targeted on specific contaminant issues (e.g. Boston Harbor clean-up, California Shelf DDT mitigation) result in more immediate and direct benefits and more clearly reflect the unique role of CMGP relative to other agencies such as EPA. The Program seeks out avenues to collaborate with other programs to ensure that CMGP and overall effectiveness are enhanced and that CMGP activities complement rather than duplicate those of other agencies. As a specific example the CMGP is taking a leadership role in the coordination of ocean and coastal mapping across all Federal agencies. The CMGP co-chairs the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Interagency Working Group on Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IWG-OCM). This provides a forum for the CMGP to assess and compare benefits of its efforts. As a result the CMGP has developed cooperative approaches to mapping the Nation's coastline at cost savings to the Program and with the result that essential data are more reliably and effectively collected.

Evidence: The unique and valued role of the CMGP, specifically relative to other Federal programs, is identified in the NRC review of the CMGP "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999, http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309065844/html ). CMGP collaboration to increase benefits by utilizing the capabilities of other programs is demonstrated by joint support of the Ocean-Bottom Seismometer Facility (Joint Ocean Bottom Seismometer (OBS) Facility Proposal, Enhanced Monitoring and Rapid Response Plans for Ocean Bottom Seismometers (OBS) Basis+ Workplan w/Budget) and by joint support for development of a Community Sediment Transport Model, a Program priority, with the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (NOPP Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)). Efforts to coordinate ocean and coastal mapping, in response to CMGP leadership, are demonstrated by the formation of the IWG-OCM (IWG-OCM Draft Charter) and results are indicated by the increased provision of coastal mapping information by non-USGS sources (External Data Provision figure).

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

Explanation: YES, Program budget requests and funding decisions are the result of a prioritization process. Program budget requests and funding decisions respond to a variety of drivers, including: (1) long-term science goals and priorities as identified in the National Coastal Program Plan, Bureau and DOI strategic plans; (2) short-term needs identified by stakeholders and beneficiaries; (3) cost-effectiveness including leveraging opportunities that support Program goals; (4) DOI, Administration and Congressional direction; and (5) Program and project performance as indicated by annual and external reviews. The USGS Director establishes bureau program priorities for the budget year and issues a call for new initiatives in response to these priorities. Specific CMGP priorities that have tiered from DOI, to the USGS Director and the CMGP and have been implemented as research studies include gas hydrates, coral ecosystems, ecosystem studies in Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay, and tsunami and hurricane hazard investigations. Annual project workplans are reviewed by internal and external reviewers and stakeholders to help determine prioritization, evaluate performance, and directions, and identify required adjustments. Within-project and cross-program adjustments respond to stakeholder needs and leveraging opportunities while maintaining progress toward long-term project and Program goals. The USGS has drafted a Bureau-level science planning handbook that describes the process for Annual Guidance Development and decision-making for Regional Executives and National Program Coordinators.

Evidence: Long-term priorities are provided by the Program strategic plan, "A Plan for a Comprehensive National Coastal Program" (http://marine.usgs.gov/coastal-plan/usgs-ntl-coastal-plan.pdf ), discipline, (USGS Geologic Discipline Science Strategy "Geology for a Changing World", http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1172 ), bureau, (USGS Strategic Plan, www.usgs.gov/stratplan/stratplan_rev.pdf), and DOI strategic plans, (DOI Strategic Plan, www.doi.gov/gpra/strat_plan_fy2003_2008.pdf). Annual priorities reflecting Bureau, DOI, Administration, and Program priorities are reflected in the USGS Budget Justification and Performance Information FY 2007, and communicated to research and management staff through the USGS Annual Science Plan for Geology (FY 2006 USGS Annual Science Plan for Geology. Program direction is also substantially set by direction from the Administration, Department and Congress (through appropriations). (CMGP Program Funding Changes - FY 2001-2006). Annual project plans are reviewed rigorously and funding decisions based on stakeholder and technical reviews (list of reviewers, sample review forms and responses). The USGS science-planning process is described in Program Planning in the USGS.

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 agency regularly collects timely and credible performance information and uses it to manage the Program and improve performance. DOI, USGS, and its programs regularly collect performance information through customer and partner reviews and surveys. Feedback is incorporated into Program plans and specific actions are taken in response. For example, the CMGP has completed several regional studies on marine contaminants. Feedback from expected beneficiaries indicated that several of these studies had substantial impact on subsequent efforts to remediate and mitigate contaminant impacts. In contrast, two regional studies were not cited as significantly informing or leading directly to substantial actions. As a result, after evaluation of the elements that led to or hindered successful application of study results, the program no longer supports broad inventories of contaminants and only develops contaminant studies in response to specific needs identified by agencies with defined mitigation/remediation objectives and responsibilities. Program activities addressing wetland loss and coastal erosion have similarly been modified in response to assessment of the application and impact of study products.

Evidence: USGS Strategic Plan (www.usgs.gov/stratplan/stratplan_rev.pdf) shows long-term goals, measures and annual GPRA targets (p. 9-15). GPRA measures (targets and actuals) are provided in the USGS Budget Justification and Performance Information FY 2007 (pages H86-H90), and in Geology GPRA reports (USGS Targets for GPRA Strategic Plan Measures - FY 05 Targets and Actuals and FY 06 Targets, Geology FY 05 GPRA Report, FY04-08 Coastal and Marine Geology GPRA, and FY04 Coastal and Marine Geology Performance Data). Verification/Validation procedures for performance measures are established and accepted by accountable personnel. Periodic Director's listening sessions provide for external assessment of bureau programs' performance (http://www.usgs.gov/customer/conversation, Report from 2004 listening session). Independent reviews provide guidance to the Program and Program response is detailed in the response to PART question 2.8. The USGS Planning model is provided and describes Program performance and planning requirements (p. 9) and utilization of BASIS+ for performance information collection (p. 12-13).

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: Federal managers and Program partners are held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results. 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 Senior Executive Service (SES) performance agreements, and the appropriate Program measures for CMGP are cascaded down to all line managers and scientists using specific guidance tied to CMGP GPRA and other measures. Regional Executives and Program Coordinators are also accountable for achieving performance as part of the USGS Planning Model (see pages 4-7). Cooperative and other agreements with states and universities include specific requirements, products, and time schedules with payment penalties for non-performance. Contracts for services are competed and contain specific quality and performance requirements and time schedules for services.

Evidence: Evidence includes SES Performance Plan Guidance for FY 2006, GPRA Strategic Mission Criteria for CMGP Employee Performance Plans table and performance plans for (Chief Scientist for Geology, Program Coordinator, Team Chief Scientist, and Project Chief) illustrating cascading performance requirements. Bureau policies for accountability are established in the USGS Planning Model (Roles and Responsibilities Section, pages 4-7), the USGS Manual Chapter 402.5 "Procurement Specifications", and the USGS Manual Chapter 405.7 "Obtaining Products and Services from other Federal Agencies". All CMGP partners are held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results. As an example, we provide the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium for the cooperative South Carolina Coastal Erosion Study. The RFP sets objectives and performance expectations (pages 9-10), includes requirements for data and project management (page 7), and provides guidance for budget and work plan submissions (pages 15-19). Provisions establish that future funding may be withheld if annual or final project reports are not received on a timely basis.

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

Explanation: YES. Funds are obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose, and accurately reported. The USGS has an established budget, allocation, and spending process that includes annual planning, quarterly and monthly reviews, and review of funds allocation changes over $25,000. It has implemented management measures to ensure dollars are allocated and obligated in a timely manner, spent for intended purposes, and accurately reported. Budget planning to object class is done in the BASIS+ system, which ties budget to intended use. Allocation tables are constructed from BASIS+, and Federal Financial System (FFS) is used to provide monthly and quarterly spending information, review obligation and debt, and take corrective action. Projects and their budgets are reviewed monthly by line managers and annually by Programs. Program awards are reported promptly and accurately in the Federal Assistance Award Data System (FAADS) and the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation (FPDS-NG). USGS conducts quarterly review of status of funds against performance measures. Cooperative agreements identify reporting, including fiscal reporting, requirements and establish conditions and procedures for budgetary changes. A certified Contracting Officer's Representative annually reviews and verifies 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 CMGP unobligated balance from 2005 was $25,213 (0. 1% of total Program appropriation). USGS complies with the Improper Payment Act. In 2005, based upon analysis following Departmental and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, USGS was determined to have had no improper payments. USGS accounting procedures are independently audited for accuracy. In FY 2005, the auditors found the financial statements to be "presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America."

Evidence: The USGS Budget Formulation, Allocation, and Execution process is described in the diagram included (3.3.a) and processes and guidance are further described in a) FY06 Distribution of available funds memo and supporting tables (September 26, 2005) (3.3.b) and b) USGS Instructional Memorandum APS 2003-06: Administering the Allocation of Funds (3.3.c) which shows appropriation actions and allocation requirements. The FY 06 Geology Discipline Annual Science Plan (3.3.d) (See 1.4.f) shows project science and funding targets and FY 06 Allocation tables (3.3.e) (by Program and administrative offices) shows allocations to cost centers, projects, and accounts consistent with the Geology Discipline Annual Science Plan. Starting FY 2006 memo (September 14, 2005) and USGS Financial Operating Procedures Handbook Sections on Standard Fiscal Year Start Up Procedures and Rates (3.3.f) highlight changes in financial management, policies, and procedures for FY 2006. 3.1.m shows spending reports for the Tsunami Risk Assessment and the North Carolina Coastal Erosion Studies projects. RFP for cooperative agreement (South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium) (3.3.g) (See 3.2.g) identifying reporting, including fiscal reporting, requirements and establishing conditions and procedures for budgetary changes is provided. USGS Office of Acquisitions and Grants Policy and Procedures memorandum 2005-05 outlines USGS procedures for completing FPDS reports (3.3.h). The USGS FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report (http://www.doi.gov/pfm/annrept/gs_05_par.pdf, (pages 94-102) (3.3.i), shows compliance with the Improper Payments Act and demonstrates the accuracy of USGS financial reporting.

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

Explanation: The Program has procedures to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in Program execution. Geology mission critical information systems have submitted Capital Asset Plans to DOI and are in the certification and accreditation process. CMGP has developed Activity Based Costing. Scientists are required to submit annual project work plans and budgets for review of progress, performance, and cost. Project workplans are reviewed for budget, performance and effectiveness and funding allocations are based on review results. The Geology Discipline has completed a discipline wide workforce planning effort, culminating in a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP)/Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) offering in FY 2006 to ensure that the current and future workforce reflect the resources and objectives of the discipline programs including CMGP. The CMGP has worked collaboratively with other agencies to a) cost-share essential data collection and b) reduce the cost of USGS-funded data collection and processing. The former directly contributes to the Program long-term output measure for maintenance of an up-to-date characterization of the Nation's shoreline. The latter efficiency is incorporated in the long-term efficiency measure described in the Measures section which captures persistent program efforts, supported through long-term project planning, to a) adapt emerging technologies to new areas of application critical to program performance; b) merge distinct technologies to increase effectiveness in data collection; and c) continually enhance procedures for data management, analyses and product generation to ensure that cost-effectiveness is enhanced and timeliness in provision is improved. The program interacts with the broad technical community and supports internal development efforts to achieve increasing efficiencies. The CMGP has also entered into a CRADA agreement that provides access to otherwise unobtainable or prohibitively costly seismic data currently held by the private sector.

Evidence: USGS competitive sourcing activities are describe in the attached memo (from Robert Doyle announcing the new Competitive Sourcing Green Plan), the USGS 2005-2008 Green Plan (April 2005) and amendment to the Green Plan (March 7, 2006). CMGP example project workplans, project reviews, and Program response to project leadership (Tsunami Risk Assessment) illustrates Program direction and funding provision are responsive to performance evaluations. As a result of collaborative planning the CMGP has developed substantial cost-sharing for data collection efforts required to provide and maintain an up-to-date characterization of the U.S. coastline, a Program long-term output measure. Mapping to document long-term change is now largely funded by external sources, with increasing proportion of the required data provided at no cost to the CMGP. Cost-savings associated with data collection and processing associated with coastal mapping is shown in development of a long-term efficiency measure (Measures Section, See M8). The attached Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) agreement and press release (3.4.k) describes CMGP efforts to recover Program-critical data previously held in the private sector.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Program collaborates and coordinates effectively with related programs. Geology Programs collaborate with Federal, State, and local governments, industry, and academia towards the achievement of complimentary goals. Major partners include the Department of Defense (DOD), NSF, DOE, EPA, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), DOI, State Geological Surveys, State and local resource agencies, and major consortia of academic, governmental, and industry groups. In general, USGS provides the broad scientific framework that provides context and support for partners to conduct work on a more specific or local basis. Within USGS, CMGP led the effort to develp a bureau-wide coastal plan. Planning and implementation of the activities have begun, but there are not bureau level targets on all the actions to ensure long-term progress is measured. CMGP collaborative efforts include joint development and maintenance of capabilities as well as joint planning and implementation of science projects. These cooperative efforts lead to more effective utilization of CMGP and partner resources and facilitate application of USGS science by partners. A significant result of collaborative efforts is that ship time, a significant expense for marine operations, is substantially provided by cooperators in NOAA, the Coast Guard, and State agencies. The NRC found that geospatial imagery and information for the coastal zone was not coordinated sufficiently across federal agencies and states, both in the procurement of data and in the management and use of the information. While some coordination has occurred in the collection of data, there is still a need for improved coordination of planned acquisistions and management and use of coastal information.

Evidence: Effective collaboration between CMGP and others is evidenced by working agreements CMGP has with others. Included are gas hydrate research with the USGS Energy Resources Program and DOE (USGS joint plan for Hydrates Research), agreements with State and local agencies (example, funding agreement with Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), Interagency Agreements with the National Park Service, collaboratively funded efforts (National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) and Ocean Bottom Seismometer facilities plan, and agreements with non-governmental organizations (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement Between the U.S. Geological Survey and American Geological Institute). The CMGP also provides technical evaluation and review to support diverse Federal agencies including the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of State (Letter from David A. Balton, Department of State, dated January 20, 2006).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Program uses strong financial management practices. The Bureau received an unqualified opinion on its FY 2005 Annual Financial Report. The independent auditor did not identify any reportable matters involving internal controls and operations. USGS was found to be in compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that are required to be reported by the Comptroller General and OMB. This report effectively cleared two previously reportable conditions that were identified in the Independent Auditor's Report for FY 2004 (Internal Controls over Accounts Receivable and Deferred Revenue Related to Reimbursable Agreements and Internal Controls over IT Data Security) and demonstrates the Bureau's continued 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.

Evidence: The Independent Auditors Report on the US Geological Survey's Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2005 (USGS FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, http://www.doi.gov/pfm/annrept/gs_05_par.pdf, pages 94-102) indicates the USGS is in compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that are required to be reported by the Comptroller General and OMB. Analyses of payment and travel and charge card transactions show substantial compliance with both charge card and Federal travel regulations. The attached memo (Upcoming Internal Site Visits in Support of OMB's Revised Circular A-123, "Management's Responsibility for Internal Controls") outlines actions to implement Circular A-123. Also included are: Instructional Memo APS 2003-13, Monthly review of billed accounts receivable (http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/im/aps-2003-11.html). Monthly report to the Office of Financial Management, and Quarterly Financial Statements (FACTSII Submission) (Available to OMB via FACTSII).

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

Explanation: The Program has taken meaningful steps to address management deficiencies. Over the past few years, USGS has worked hard to improve its financial management deficiencies. Management control performance measures have been incorporated into all SES Performance Evaluations. In 2005, the USGS successfully cleared the two reportable conditions and the only instance of noncompliance with laws and regulations identified in the Independent Auditor's Report for FY 2004. The Geology Discipline has taken the following actions to address management issues: completed a discipline-wide workforce planning effort, culminating in a VSIP/VERA offering in FY 2006 to ensure that the current and future workforce reflect the resources and objectives of the CMGP, (2) required all projects to include a data management task to ensure appropriate management and preservation of data resources developed, and (3) taken substantial steps to reduce the number of funded projects, with the objective of improving project management and better aligning the Program portfolio of projects with the major themes and objectives of the Program. The Program reviews all work plans annually. Where deficiencies are identified through the annual review process or otherwise the Program seeks internal and external evaluations to rectify deficiencies. For example, the South Carolina Coastal Erosion Study (Phase I) was identified as under performing. In response to that review, the CMGP a) changed the project managers and b) established a process for cooperator funding that ensured cooperator accountability, and enhanced CMGP oversight for definition and evaluation of cooperator workplans and performance targets.

Evidence: Evidence of the adequacy and improvement in USGS management practices is provided in the Independent Auditors Report on the US Geological Survey's Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2005 (USGS FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, http://www.doi.gov/pfm/annrept/gs_05_par.pdf, pages 94-102). Documentation is provided to describe Geology Discipline workforce planning activities and resulting VSIP/VERA application. An example of Program review leading to corrective action is provided by the review report for the South Carolina Coastal Erosion Study (Phase I). As a result of this review subsequent work in South Carolina was redesigned to focus on primary products, mechanisms for oversight of cooperator activities were improved, and management oversight and funds for the project were transferred from the St. Petersburg Science Center to the Woods Hole Science Center.

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

Explanation: The Program allocates funds and uses management processes that maintain Program quality. Since 1996, Geology Programs have been a leader in conducting a discipline-wide competitive project workplan process using a prototype of the BASIS+ system now in use across the Bureau. Geology issues an annual call for project workplans called the Annual Science Plan for Geology which contains scientific and funding guidance for all projects. The annual plan uses the Geology Science Strategy and Program five year plans for its organizing framework. Scientists are required to submit annual project workplans into the BASIS+ system for Program review. Workplans explicitly identify cooperator roles and responsibilities, which are evaluated as part to the review process. The system is used to examine strengths and weaknesses in staff, 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. Earmarked funds are not excluded from review. Funding to cooperators is through cooperative agreement or other formal agreement that includes provisions for performance failures.

Evidence: 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 Annual Science Plan for Geology 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 workplans 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 and/or stakeholder review depending on the nature of the project. Conditions for cooperator funding are exemplified by the attached RFP (South Carolina Consortium Request for Proposal).

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

Explanation: The CMGP can demonstrate progress in achieving its long-term goals, but there were not commonly available quantitative measures to demonstrate that adequate progress was made. New measures were developed during the PART process which better reflect goalsand breadth of the program. Data compiled in developing the new measures indicates that the program made progress towards long-term goals. For example, the program increased the percent of coastline with geologic characterization from 53% in 2001 to 62% in 2005.

Evidence: The NRC review of the CMGP "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999) led directly to the development of Program efforts to produce national assessments of coastal change hazards and predictive modeling capabilities. In response to the NRC review the CMGP led the development of a bureau-wide "A Plan for a Comprehensive National Coastal Program" (http://marine.usgs.gov/coastal-plan/usgs-ntl-coastal-plan.pdf) which responds to NRC and congressional direction to develop a strategic plan for integrated and multi-disciplinary science addressing critical coastal issues. This plan includes identification of priority regional studies that have been the basis for CMGP implementation of the National Plan. Program progress towards long-term goals is demonstrated by progress towards production of a National Assessment of Shoreline Change (Part I: National Shoreline Changes and Associated Land Loss Along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Coast, (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1043); Part 2: National Shoreline Changes and Associated Land Loss Along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic Coast, (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1041). Progress towards CMGP goals to develop predictive models has been substantial and will be further validated with award of a joint USGS, Office of Naval Research (ONR), National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) funded partnership project (NOPP BAA) to continue development of a community sediment transport model. USGS leadership in prior efforts is demonstrated in attached publications, Program websites, and assessments by independent reviewers of USGS collaborative proposal for continued model development (EOS articles, Fact Sheets, website: http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/sediment-transport/, reviewer's response to USGS collaborative proposal) and it is expected that USGS leadership will be confirmed with the USGS as the major participating Federal partner in the resulting project following standard ONR/NSF peer review of submissions. Measures have been developed and evaluated for long-term performance goals and information is provided in the Measures Section (M3, M5, M7, and M9).

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

Explanation: The Program has established annual output and outcome performance goals that it regularly achieves. GPRA annual performance goals are baselined and measured annually. Most of the targets have been consistently met. For example, in 2005 the program met its target of 8 systematic analyses. The CMGP has established and baselined additional annual output goals that track products produced for the National Park Service in response to their top priorities and products that characterize coastal impacts of major hurricane events and are used by a variety of stakeholders. Long-term output measures related to characterization of the Nation's shoreline have been established and are tracked annually. All annual goals contribute to long-term Program goals.

Evidence: Evidence demonstrating progress in meeting the Program's annual goals can be found in the Measures Section (M1, M2, M4, and M6). Monthly listings of publications from Program projects are available online via Soundwaves, the USGS coastal newsletter (examples provided: Nov-Dec 2005, Jan-Feb 2006, see also http://soundwaves.ugsg.gov). BASIS+ workplan for FY 2006 includes identification of products planned (BASIS+ Workplan - National Assessment of Coastal Change Hazards) and promised products are delivered (Part 2: National Shoreline Changes and Associated Land Loss Along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic Coast, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1041). An example of a program plan, including milestones and timelines is given by the Gas Hydrates Research Plan.

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

Explanation: The Program demonstrates improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving Program goals each year. For example, historical data from thenewly developed efficiency measure deonstrates that the program has improved efficiency of data collection and processing costs from $14.99 per megabyte in FY 2000 to $.56 per megabyte in FY 2005. These savings are important because data collection/processing supporting characterization of the geologic and environmental condition of the Nation's coastal and marine lands is the most expensive element of Program-supported projects and is an element of virtually all Program activities. The program achieved the savings by a) adapting emerging technologies to new areas of application; b) merge distinct technologies to increase effectiveness in data collection; and c) continually enhance procedures for data management, analyses and product generation; and d) used cooperative agreements that provides access to otherwise unobtainable or prohibitively costly seismic data currently held by the private sector.

Evidence: Agreements for cost-effective recovery of proprietary industry data resources are described in the attached Cooperative Research and Development Agreement Between the U.S. Geological Survey and American Geological Institute and associated press releases. Data from industry sources (Chevron-Texaco, Western Geophysical) are being made available to a wide community and are supporting ongoing Program studies and achievement of Program goals (National Archive of Marine Seismic Surveys website, http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/NAMSS). Efficiencies in collection and processing of airborne coastal mapping data are the basis for the CMGP long-term efficiency measure (see Measures Section) (M8). A figure is provided indicating the increasing provision of such data by non-CMGP agencies.

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

Explanation: Although there are not specific performance data to compare with other programs the CMGP, as asserted by the NRC, is unique amongst Federal agencies in its focus on geology and geologic process as the basis for understanding coastal and marine regional systems. The CMGP mission is complementary to those of other programs. The Program has established a leadership role in a variety of areas, particularly with respect to geologic mapping/characterization of coastal and marine systems, regional studies, sediment transport modeling, and integrated science studies. CMGP capabilities in marine and coastal mapping are in many respects unique and more cost-effective than what is available elsewhere. For instance, airborne mapping capabilities developed cooperatively with NASA, are unmatched in data quality and cost by either the private sector or within other governmental programs. CMGP shallow-marine mapping capabilities exceed those found elsewhere, as demonstrated by significant funding support provided by State, Federal, and local entities to CMGP to deploy those capabilities.

Evidence: The NRC review of the CMGP "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999) recognized the unique and essential role of the CMGP. Continued and significant external funding provided to CMGP reflects the value and effectiveness of CMGP activities (CMGP Reimbursable Funding for FY 05 and FY 06). Comments from the external community, including the academic community, provides independent validation of Program value and performance (Letter from Charles Fletcher et al. to U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, dated June 2, 2004). Reviews of CMGP roles in collaborative endeavors where agency missions are complementary indicate the unique role and effective performance of CMGP (NRC Review of DOE Hydrates Program, 2004, "Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States", "http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309092922/html.

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

Explanation: Regular and independent reviews of the CMGP and its activities by various groups have found the Program to be effective and achieving results. NRC reviews of the Program, and specific Program elements (for example, gas hydrates) uniformly find the CMGP to be effective and achieving results. Unsolicited input from academic leaders to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy also speaks to the value and effectiveness of CMGP. More targeted evaluations of Program activities are provided through annual project review, including technical and stakeholder reviewers, who validate the effectiveness of CMGP projects. External review of Program science centers, responsible for implementation of the Program and Program-supported projects, also acknowledge the effectiveness of the Program. Testament to CMGP's effectiveness is the substantial volume of feedback given in the form of e-mails, letters, verbal communications and requests for access to Program products and technical expertise. Also indicative of Program effectiveness is the support given to the Program by beneficiaries, including financial support maintained over many years. The rigor and quality of scientific work across all aspects of the Program, including relevance and contribution to scientific advancement, is evaluated through standard peer-review processes prior to publication in leading scientific journals.

Evidence: The NRC review of the CMGP "Science for Decisionmaking - Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey" (1999) (4.5.a) (See 1.1.h) provides the broadest evaluation of the Program's long-term direction and operations. More targeted NRC reviews, focused on specific Program elements (2004, Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States, synopsis provided) (4.5.b) also indicate the effectiveness of CMGP. Comments from academic leaders validating the effectiveness and critical role of the CMGP are found in the included letter from Charles Fletcher et al. to U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, dated June 2, 2004 (4.5.c). Evaluations provided through the annual project review and science-center review processes are included (list of reviewers, sample review forms and responses) (4.5.d). Sample communications from partners and users indicate Program effectiveness and impact (Letter from David A. Balton, U.S. Department of State (DOS) dated January 20, 2006; Letter from John C. Cruden, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), dated June 21, 2001; Letter from Carmen R. White, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, dated February 27, 2006; Letter from Andrea Rex, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) dated October 20, 2003; Letter from Andrea Rex, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority dated March 2, 2006; Letter from David Shaver, National Park Service (NPS), dated March 7, 2006; Letter from Robert Hanson, State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, dated July 12, 2005; Letter from George Kaminsky, Washington Department of Ecology, dated September 18, 2003; Letter from Samuel Lemma, State of Hawaii, Department of Lands and Natural Resources, dated March 29, 2006) (4.5.e). A demonstration of Program effectiveness is provided by the most recent USGS-Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) cooperative agreement; continuing a relationship the MWRA has found it beneficial to support for over 15 years (4.5.f).