Detailed Information on the
US Geological Survey - Biological Information Management and Delivery Assessment

Continue to refine efforts to maximize access to research and data and provide timely reports on the status and trends of the nation's biological resources

Develop state of knowledge indices for additional avian focal species with completed FWS action plans, to further coordinate research with management needs.

Continue to refine efforts to maximize access to research and data and provide timely reports on the status and trends of the nation's biological resources

Independent contractor to conduct a comprehensive and independent review for all of the Biological research, monitoring, and information management activities

Developing a plan with Biological Research and Monitoring to maximize access to research and data and provide timely reports on the status and trends of the nation's biological resources.

Developing performance measures with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to improve coordination for conservation of fish and wildlife populations of management concern.

Implementing regular, comprehensive, and independent reviews for the all Biological research, monitoring and information management activities.

Identify barriers and pilot potential solutions as part of the plan to maximize access to research and data and provide timely reports on the status and trends of the nation's biological resources.

Develop and provide access to a suite of data and information, including baseline state of knowledge indices, for US Fish and Wildlife Service-designated focal species of management concern to improve coordination for conservation.

Conduct an alternatives analysis and establish approach for conducting comprehensive and independent reviews for all of the Biological research, monitoring, and information management activities.

Develop a plan with Biological Research and Monitoring to maximize access to research and data and provide timely reports on the status and trends of the nation's biological resources.

Develop performance measures with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to improve coordination for conservation of fish and wildlife populations of management concern.

Implement comprehensive and independent programmatic reviews for all of Biological research, monitoring, and management activities.

Measure: % of US land with land characterization and species distribution info available for resource management decision-making updated in the last 5 years.

Explanation:Indicates the % of US with basic information necessary for conservation planning and performance assessment.

Measure: % of focal migratory bird populations for which species pages are available through the NBII

Explanation:The US Fish & Wildlife Service maintains a list of Migratory Bird Program Focal Species for which there is management concern. The numerator represents the number of these species for which NBII has created special web sites bringing together specific and agreed-upon resources, including the FWS Action Plan (where completed) for the species. Generally, USGS tries to do about 10 per year, counting completed pages only, not the updates. The data is cumulative.

Measure: % of North American amphibians and reptiles for which scientific information on their status (species distribution) are available in a standardized and exchangeable format, to improve conservation plans of federal and state agencies.

Explanation:The USGS leads a coordinated effort by Federal, State, and academic partners to determine the status of amphibian populations nationwide and investigate potential causative factors for their decline. This measure focuses on the information management and online availability of status and distribution data for North American reptile and amphibian species. The percentage of species (at least North American species) for which data and information are available is important because USGS can then assess how well USGS is able to support science-based decision-making regarding management of species and management of land resources. DOI manages one out of every 5 acres in the US. The Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management especially have heavy resource managent responsibilities and need to have access to reliable, scientifically credible data to aide them in carrying out those responsibilities. Others as well rely on this data and information.

Measure: % of North American mammals for which scientific information on their status (species distribution) are available in a standardized and exchangeable format, to improve conservation plans of federal and state agencies.

Explanation:% of North American mammal species with basic information available for decisionmaking.

Measure: Amount of fire-related data and information available online via the NBII, to assist land managers in fire management decision making.

Explanation:Indicates increasing amount of information available for understanding of the impacts of fire on ecological, economic and human systems. Supported through partnership with the interagency Fire Research and Management Exchange System (FRAMES) (http://frames.nbii.gov). Partners include Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, NOAA, National Association of State Foresters, The Nature Conservancy, Universities of Idaho, Washington, and Montana, and others.

Measure: % of US federally listed threatened and endangered fish species for which species profiles, occurrence data and maps are available through the NBII.

Explanation:Access to data on threatened and endangered species supports interagency priorites related to resource management and statutory/regulatory issues.

Measure: Average cost per gigabyte of data available through servers under Program control.

Explanation:Does not include data residing on partners' servers made available through Program leveraging efforts.

Measure: Amount of invasive species data and information available online via the NBII, to assist in modeling and forecasting the spread of invasives.

Explanation:Indicates accessibility of information that is needed to assess the risk of invasive species.

Measure: # of systematic analyses and 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 NBII Clearinghouse metadata records

Explanation:Metadata are data about the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of data. The National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) Metadata Clearinghouse follows the Federal Geographic Data Committee standard and provides access to over 40 distributed biological metadata clearinghouse nodes. The Clearinghouse's search feature allows users to quickly locate metadata records of interest, many of which contain links to the data products being documented.

Measure: # of gigabytes managed and distributed cumulatively

Explanation:Gigabytes are the unit of measure quantifying the amount of data accumulated in long-term, multipurpose databases. The cumulative data in these databases require data management and distribution. Data management includes maintaining metadata (information about the source, quality and other characteristics of data in the database), creating catalogs and websites, and developing partnerships that foster data management.

Measure: % satisfaction with scientific and technical products and assistance

Explanation:The measure represents customer satisfaction with science information and products of the USGS programs and is tracked by a survey of customers and partners. The different aspects of each product for which satisfaction ratings are sought are clearly and simply defined on the questionnaire and all results are fully documented. Customers and partners surveyed are anyone who uses USGS resources, products, or services including both internal customer (anyone within DOI) and external customers (e.g. the American public, representatives of the private sector, academia, other government agencies). The target is a threshold below which performance would indicate a problem that would require corrective action. As long as the actual result is above the target level, the process is under control and no corrective action is needed although feedback may lead to product improvements.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Biological Information Management and Delivery budget subactivities are conducted by the USGS Biological Informatics Program. The Program has a clear mission statement: The Biological Informatics Program provides researchers, resource managers, decision-makers, educators, and the public with access to relevant knowledge to support the understanding and stewardship of our Nation's biological resources. This Program is dedicated to ensuring easy accessibility to biological data and information in subject areas ranging along a continuum from genomes to biomes, as they relate to natural resources.

Evidence: "The program's purpose is well-published and available to all. Clarity of this purpose is evidenced by continued support from Congress, as well as from stakeholders and partners; USGS Biological Informatics Draft Program 5-Year Plan. Statement of program mission and purpose; DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information, U.S. Geological Survey (Greenbook). Detailed description of mission and related planned expenditures; National Research Council (2001). Future Roles and Opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey. Describes as a major responsibility USGS obligation to make scientifically credible data and information accessible. "

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

Explanation: "In order to understand and address the significant biological challenges faced by our nation such as invasive species, loss of critical habitat, and fire, scientists, resource managers, decision makers, and interested citizens need access to scientifically reliable data and information. That accessibility is both a scientific and an informatics challenge in that in some areas, much data exists (i.e., vertebrate species and plants) but is largely inaccessible, while in other areas, little work has been done (i.e., conservation status of land on a landscape/habitat level) resulting in little data and information to be made available. The USGS Biological Informatics Program works to make a broad array of high quality natural resource data and information available, ranging from the genomic level to the biome level. The four major components of this Program, Gap Analysis, Vegetation Characterization, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, and the National Biological Information Infrastructure, work together to in harmony to provide decision-makers with access to data and information along the entire continuum. They do so by working with partners to provide a framework in which the vast storehouse of otherwise uncoordinated biological data and information can be made accessible through the World Wide Web, regardless of its source. This is done primarily through the NBII. And, in areas where little data and information exist, such as landscape-scale land cover and conservation status, other Program components such as GAP and Vegetation Characterization enter the picture to do the on-the-ground work necessary to generate needed data and information. To maximize the usefulness of the data and information that are made accessible, they must be organized according to standards. To this end, ITIS serves as the taxonomic standard and authority, and Vegetation Characterization continues its work, along with partners, on the National Vegetation Classification Standard. And finally, to enable users to interact with the data and information, tools including models and geographic information systems capabilities are provided through the NBII."

Evidence: "The Biological Informatics Program addresses a specific and existing problem, interest or need as evidenced in the following: USGS Biological Informatics Program 5-Year Plan. Program Implementation - describes how the components of the Biological Informatics Program work together to accomplish the Program's mission; National Research Council (1993). A Biological Survey for the Nation. Recommended that DOI develop a national biological information system to meet societal needs of addressing biological challenges; FY 1994 Interior Appropriations Act. Included in DOI's mission the requirement: "To gather, analyze, and disseminate the biological information necessary for the sound stewardship of our nation's natural resources??" Reaffirmed through targeted funding increases in 2001, 2002, and 2004; President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) (1998). Teaming with life: Investing in Science to Understand and Use America's Living Capital. Calls for the Government to "promote and support rapid development of the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) to bring the most up-to-date scientific research available into local, regional, and national conservation strategies." National Research Council (2001). Future Roles and Opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey. Places an emphasis on the USGS as an information agency and specifies the NBII as meeting a critical need in this arena of service; National Science Foundation (2003). Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century. Indicates the need for cyber infrastructure to archive, mine, integrate, and interpret vast amounts of data; Smithsonian Institution (2001). Biodiversity: Connecting with the Tapestry of Life. States that, "The environmental data needed to associate the causes and effects in biodiversity decline are sparse at best and must be improved." U.S. Department of the Interior (2003). Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008. Includes the End Outcome Goal, "Advance knowledge through scientific leadership and inform decisions through the applications of science." "

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

Explanation: "The Biological Informatics Program makes data and information accessible in a web-based, standards-based format. The Program works with organizations in all sectors to ensure the broadest possible availability of data and information about our nation's natural resources. No other biological informatics initiatives are dedicated at a national level to the sound management and integration of data and information on natural resources. While other information networks, such as EPA's Environmental Exchange Information Network (EEIN), exist, their focus is on environmental information such as air and water quality at the federal level. Other programs within EPA, such as the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), are research programs aimed at developing and using tools to monitor status and trends of resources rather than making data available and accessible. One of the primary strategies of the Program is the formation of partnerships with other government programs such as these, as well as non-government efforts, both domestic and international, to ensure that the collection and management of biological information is complementary. This partnership strategy also results in leveraged funding, more complete information, and increased interoperability through the promulgation of standards. "

Evidence: "The Program's unique mission, role, and business model are reflected in numerous documents and agreements: National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06); President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) (1998). Teaming with life: Investing in Science to Understand and Use America's Living Capital. Calls for the emergence of public-private partnerships to facilitate usability of biological and environmental data and information, and specifically highlights the NBII (under this program's management) as the appropriate vehicle for this role; Partnership lists for Program components: National Biological Information Infrastructure - www.nbii.gov/about/partner/ Integrated Taxonomic Information System - www.itis.usda.gov/organ.html Gap Analysis Program - www.gap.uidaho.edu/ Vegetation Characterization - biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/contacts.html; National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure; Cooperative Agreements to establish liaison positions with NatureServe, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and NSF/Long Term Ecological Research, to ensure complementarity of information systems; Designation by the State Department as the U.S. Focal Point for the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network - www.iabin.net/english/governance/nfp.shtml; Designation by the State Department as the U.S. Focal Point for the Clearing-house Mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity - www.biodiv.org/chm/nfp.asp; U.S. role in Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)??NBII serves as U.S. node - gbif.nbii.gov/. "

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

Explanation: "The Program design does not have any major flaws. By design, within each of the Program's components, stakeholders are included in the process of determining programmatic direction, ensuring that their information needs are met. The built-in flexibility of the design allows for an adaptive approach to all aspects of program management. Basic tenets of each program component, however, are critical to the operational success of the Program and are never compromised. The Program's draft 5-year Plan, as listed among the evidence, below, illustrates the interconnected nature of this Program's components. Following current "best practices," such as Federal Geographic Data Committee standards, the Program's technical infrastructure is compliant with and nested within the enterprise architecture models of the USGS, DOI, and the federal government. This improves coordination among programs with shared missions and objectives. For example, within the Biology Discipline of the USGS, the six elements of the Biological Research and Monitoring (BRM) Program are used as guidelines for the priorities with BIMD.

Evidence: "The Program's design has been shown to be free of major flaws and to be effective and efficient through the following: Proceedings and minutes of meetings documenting both the requirements of stakeholders, partners, and customers and feedback from them regarding meeting those requirements: Minutes of and reports from NBII All-Nodes and GAP meetings; Minutes of interorganizational working groups hosted by this Program: geospatial information systems technology, education; Minutes of the NBII Science Committee meetings; Minutes of USGS customer listening sessions; (www.usgs.gov/customer/conversation); GPRA Periodic Reports and examples of quarterly verification. Shows periodic measures of progress toward GPRA targets. o National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06); The promulgation of Program standards at national and international levels; NBII Access articles and memos reporting the election or appointment of Program personnel to positions of leadership in national and international; National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure. Contains detailed information about the leveraging capabilities of the program and the resulting leveraging ratio."

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

Explanation: "The Biological Informatics Program's directions are determined with the input of stakeholders, in alignment with the DOI One-Plan goal of "Serving Communities" by increasing the knowledge base. The Program's resources are targeted to five complementary lines of effort: increase content, implement tools, develop infrastructure, advance research, and empower users. Expenditures are targeted toward existing and emerging issues that are of high priority to USGS, its stakeholders, and partners, and they support services critical to stakeholders as enumerated in the Federal Enterprise Architecture Service Reference Model. Within each line of effort, the Program staff is in daily contact with partners who provide both input into the requirements gathering process, as well as feedback on the acceptability of outputs. Additionally, the Program periodically conducts surveys and focus groups aimed at obtaining similar feedback from stakeholders, who are our intended beneficiaries, including those from Federal, state, local and tribal governments, universities, non-government organizations and the private sector. Currently, we are meeting our goal of 80% or greater in customers reporting satisfaction with timeliness of service and ease of use of online products available through BIMD activities."

Evidence: "Evidence that Biological Informatics resources are effectively targeted: USGS Biological Informatics Program 5-Year Plan. Describes Program mission, goals and strategies; National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06) - Enterprise Architecture; USGS BASIS+ financial and management tracking system project entries from USGS Science Centers. Describe informatics accomplishments of prior year investments and plans for coming year activities addressing center priorities (funded through BIMD); John Peine et al, "Bioscience Evaluation for USGS-NBII Applied to the Texas NAFTA Highway T&E Species Digitization Project; Cooperative Agreements to establish liaison positions with NatureServe, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and NSF/Long Term Ecological Research, to ensure complementarity of information systems. Promotes partnership effectiveness and ensures benefits to customers and stakeholders from these partnerships; USGS customer listening sessions

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

Explanation: The Program has instituted a meaningful set of metrics aimed at "measuring what matters." Program metrics are directly linked to mission and goals and fall broadly into three categories: outputs, efficiencies, and outcomes. Outputs selected for measurement are those that are representative indicators of program progress toward goals. Outcome measures are generally long term and are designed to measure the usefulness of Program products and services to users (e.g., % of US with land characterization and species distribution data information available for resource management decision making updated in the last 5 years) as well as progress toward providing access to a body of knowledge required by Program users (e.g., percent of biological museum specimen records available through NBII to enable worldwide remove access to museum holding for research). Taken together, these metrics provide an indication of the impact of Program activities on the constituencies served by the Program.

Evidence: "Program metrics are being transitioned from the set that has traditionally been used, which were largely output oriented, to the more meaningful set of metrics described here. These are articulated in: USGS Biological Informatics Program draft 5-Year Plan, Section IV??Program Five-Year Goal, Metrics. Contains a list of metrics pertaining to all Program components and general program operation; National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06), Section 1-C??Performance Goals and Measures. Lists all Program measures applicable to the NBII, with baselines, current status and projected targets. "

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

Explanation: Long-term measures, noted in 2.1 above, have targets and timeframes and described in the PART 'Performance Measures' section. These have been developed with input from OMB and DOI during the PART process.

Evidence: "Long term measures are detailed in the USGS Biological Informatics Program draft 5-Year Plan, Section IV??Program Five-Year Goal, Metrics. Contains a list of metrics pertaining to all Program components and general program operation; U.S. Department of the Interior (2003). Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008. Includes the End Outcome Goal, "Advance knowledge through scientific leadership and inform decisions through the applications of science." "

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

Explanation: The Program's annual performance measures are designed to focus efforts in specific areas critical to improvingthe body of knowledge essential for conservation decision- makers. The anual measures ensure that continuous improvement is made in the subject areas of migratory birds, amphibians, reptiles and mamals as well as fish species. this will allow planners and managers to make better decisions reagrding land use and the management of these resources, which is the primary goal of our long term measure. Additionally, the program measures the improvement of availability of data on fire becasue of its significant impact on species and landscape each year and to better allow decision makers to demonstrate resource change over time.

Evidence: "Annual measures for the Biological Informatics Program are detailed in the following: USGS Biological Informatics Program 5-Year Plan, Section IV??Program Five-Year Goal, Metrics. Contains a list of metrics pertaining to all Program components and general program operation; National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06), Section 1-C??Performance Goals and Measures. Lists all Program measures applicable to the NBII, with baselines, current status and projected targets."

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

Explanation: The Biological Informatics Program currently reports annual measures of outputs in a number of documents including annual budget justifications and the NBII business case. Annual targets are established considering trends, efficiencies expected through the implementation of new techniques and technologies, and expected funding levels. Partnerships are key to meeting the Program's annual targets. While the annual performance measures in place for the past few years will continue to be tracked, beginning this year, they will be combined with reconfigured and new measures to create a more complete picture.

Evidence: "The Biological Informatics Program's suite of metrics, including annual performance measures, are described and reported in the following: USGS Biological Informatics Program 5-Year Plan, Section IV??Program Five-Year Goal, Metrics. Contains a list of metrics pertaining to all Program components and general program operation; DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information, U.S. Geological Survey (Greenbook); National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06), Section 1-C??Performance Goals and Measures. Lists all Program measures applicable to the NBII, with baselines, current status and projected targets; GPRA Periodic Reports. "

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

Explanation: "The Biological Informatics Program places a premium on partnerships. A primary factor in structuring these partnerships is ensuring mutual benefit so that all participants have appropriate incentives to work toward common goals. Further, the Program attempts to measure the benefit derived from the partnerships, on the premise that good metrics linked to good incentives produce good results. To that end, recipients of funding are required to demonstrate how their efforts contribute towards the specific Program mission, vision, and long-term goals. This is done through a proposal process whereby the plan and purpose of each project is justified and scrutinized prior to funding. Additionally, deliverables must be described and quantified in the proposal, along with a timeline and anticipated completion date. Proposed projects are prioritized and reviewed for their potential contribution to the Program's goals, objectives, and overall relevance. Additionally, past successes and deliverables are considered before funding decisions are reached. Accepted proposals become measures for performance contracts. Failure to perform in accordance with such contracts jeopardizes future funding."

Evidence: "Creation and review of proposals for major Program efforts ensure that funded activities are appropriately targeted and have demonstrable results. The proposal processes of BI Program components can be found in: USGS Biological Informatics Program 5-Year Plan; National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure. The NBII is heavily reliant on partnerships and as such advances partnerships as a major strategy. USGS BASIS+ financial and management tracking system - describes USGS Science Centers informatics activities to advance long-term Biological Informatics Program goals; NBII Node partner participation in Strategic Planning and Guidance."

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: In the past, BIMD has reviewed program subcomponents but these reviews were not regularly scheduled, did not meet scope requirements or in some cases independence. Reviews vary in scope and intensity, based on USGS and BIMD policy, the need for feedback, and good program management practice. At the highest level, a Program-wide review is mandated by USGS policy every 5 years, however, there was not evidence to suggest that this was followed. A plan for program review hasbeen put in place with the first review scheduled for FY 2007. The review panel will consist of both internal and external experts, and will cover the full range of Program activities, focusing on the Program's overall effectiveness.

Evidence: "NBII Science Committee Terms of Reference (Charter); USGS BRD Program Review Process; Biological Informatics Program Review Process--FY 07; National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure; External Peer Review of the Gap Analysis Project; Vegetation Characterization Peer Review (1998)."

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Budget requests are developed in alignment with Program goals, and are designed to help facilitate needed next steps in advancement toward those goals. However, the measures listed in the GPRA table are not clearly tied to descriptions of actual acitvities within the text of the budget justifications. Further outcome oriented and measurable long term performance measures did not exist, and accordingly could not be tied to the budget. The measures developed and implemented as part of this review, will help to draw more obvious links between budget initiatives and goals in the future.

Evidence: "DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2006, U.S. Geological Survey (Greenbook); Biological Resources Discipline (March 2005) "Science Accomplishment and Product Reporting". Draft statistical mid-year GPRA product analysis; USGS BASIS+ financial and management tracking system - describes USGS Science Centers informatics activities to advance long-term Biological Informatics Program goals."

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

Explanation: The Program has a draft 5-Year Plan to provide a framework that guides its strategic direction of the overall Program, as well as provides direction for strategic planning at the Program's component level. The sub-activities are currently developing or revising customer-based strategic plans. The most advanced of these individual sub-activity strategic plans are for the Pacific Basin Information Node (http://pbin.nbii.gov) and the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Information Node (http://far.nbii.gov). Customer-based strategic plans have been initiated for all other NBII nodes and for the aquatic GAP program. These plans will be clearly tied to long term program goals. Individual sub-activity strategic plans integrate information from the DOI, USGS and Program plans and focus on building customer supported guidance teams to help identify priorities.

Evidence: "National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure. This document formalizes the strategic direction of the NBII; NBII Node-specific Strategic Plans. Examples: Pacific Basin Information Node (PBIN), Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (FAR). Demonstrates Strategic Planning activities at the field level; Biological Resources Division, US Geological Survery (1996), "Strategic Science Plan"; Biological Resources Division, US Geological Survery (1996), "Implementation Plan for the Strategic Science Plan"."

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: "The Biological Informatics Program places great emphasis on performing actions that further goals in high priority biological issue areas, such as invasive species, high priority geographic regions such as sage habitat, and high priority technological requirements such as establishment of regional collaboration capabilities. Priorities are determined through participation in the development of national level framework documents such as USGS Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources, NatureServe Precious Heritage??The Status of Biodiversity in the United States, and the Heinz Foundation State of the Nation's Ecosystems. Such documents help to guide our decision process in determining broad candidates for resource expenditures - for example, focus on invasive species because the extended community of stakeholders has declared that this is a critical challenge, rather than place a major focus on salmon decline, which is important to a much smaller subset of stakeholders. Within each major focus area, decisions must be made as to how to direct resources among potential projects. To ensure that our selected activities optimize Program benefits to society, we routinely assess alternative approaches and perform relative cost/benefit analyses. Examples of such analyses range from relatively informal technological comparative evaluations among several species distribution models, to a formal, documented analysis of alternative implementation options for the NBII. Whether or not a formal cost-benefit analysis is performed is based on the potential expenditures over the life cycle of the project, with average BIMD expenditures of $1M annually serving as a general threshold triggering a documented analysis. (We also take into consideration the offset provided by the relative return on this investment from partner activities that can be leveraged.)"

Evidence: "Published documents used by the Program that lay out the framework for addressing national issues and provide priority setting guidance include the following: Society for Conservation Biology (2001). Conservation Biology: Research Agenda for the Next Decade; CENR Subcommittee on Ecological Systems (2001). Ecological Forecasting: Agenda for the Future; National Research Council (1999). Monitoring Ecosystems; The Nature Conservancy and NatureServe (2002). Precious Heritage - The Status of Biodiversity in the United States; US Geological Survey (1998). Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources; US Geological Survey (ongoing). Future Science Directions; Heinz Center (2002). State of the Nation's Ecosystems. Documents that describe the process by which such national priorities are incorporated into Biological Informatics Program activities include the following: National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure, Section 1: Strategic Plan??National Objectives. Describes the process through which Biological Informatics participates with other internal and external organizations in prioritizing and framing national biological issues; National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06), Section I-E??Alternatives Analysis. Describes the Program's consistent comparison of three alternatives for implementing the NBII, with full cost/benefit analysis. "

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

Explanation: "The Program places great emphasis on performing actions that further goals in high priority biological issue areas, high priority geographic regions, and high priority technological requirements, and engages in a number of planning activities that provide a decision-making context for prioritizing and linking funding to Program objectives. As described above in the explanation of 2.RD.1, priorities are determined through participation in the development of national level framework documents which help guide our decision process in determining broad candidates for resource expenditures. The Program stays abreast of and participates in framing the natural science priorities of the research and management communities. Within each major focus area, decisions must be made as to how to direct resources among potential projects. Recommendations from both internal and external reviews have significantly influenced funding allocation decisions. In addition, the Program's 5-Year Plan provides a template for ensuring that priority work is conducted. These priorities are then reflected in the ongoing development of Program components including NBII, GAP, and Vegetation Characterization, as well as in the choice of topics for thematic nodes and the decision to fund certain projects over others. Many stakeholders participate in this prioritization process including USGS, DOI and others. In this way, the Program ensures that its activities are appropriately targeted to the data and information needs of those stakeholders. Activities conducted by the Biological Informatics Program within BIMD align with activities conducted within the multiple programs of Biological Research and Monitoring program.

Evidence: "Published documents used by the Program that lay out the framework for addressing national issues and provide priority setting guidance include the following: Society for Conservation Biology (2001). Conservation Biology: Research Agenda for the Next Decade; CENR Subcommittee on Ecological Systems (2001). Ecological Forecasting: Agenda for the Future; National Research Council (1999). Monitoring Ecosystems; The Nature Conservancy and NatureServe (2002). Precious Heritage - The Status of Biodiversity in the United States; US Geological Survey (1998). Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources; US Geological Survey (ongoing). Future Science Directions; Heinz Center (2002). State of the Nation's Ecosystems. Documents that describe the process by which such national priorities are incorporated into Biological Informatics Program activities include the following: National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure, Section 1: Strategic Plan??National Objectives. Describes the process through which Biological Informatics participates with other internal and external organizations in prioritizing and framing national biological issues; National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06), Section I-E??Alternatives Analysis. Describes the Program's consistent comparison of three alternatives for implementing the NBII, with full cost/benefit analysis."

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: DOI, USGS, and USGS BRD 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. Examples of feed back include ongoing NBII user surveys via the NBII website. Also, USGS Customer Listening sessions are conducted annually, cited below as evidence, customers noted that while the NBII was both useful and critical to their own operations, the size and configuration of the Program's office staff had not kept pace with the system's growth, and was therefore inadequate to support the needs of the growing customer base. In response, the Biological Informatics Program realigned some of its resources to hire additional key staff to fill in gaps in the skill mix and to expand the number of staff available to customers. The presence of additional staff has resulted in the Program's improved ability to provide management oversight and tracking of resources, project activity, customer requirements, budgets, and schedules.

Evidence: "USGS Strategic Plan. Shows long term goals, measures and annual GPRA targets; GPRA Periodic Reports and examples of quarterly verification. Shows periodic measures of progress toward GPRA targets; Director's 03 Listening Session Report showing recommendations and actions taken. Includes examples of how information has been used from evaluations and listening sessions to make changes in Biology programs; Bureau Science Planning Handbook. Includes performance requirements for Program five year plans and mandates collecting performance information in the BASIS+ system; U.S. Geological Survey (ongoing). Future Science Direction. Defines Director's areas of emphasis; includes "Environmental Information" as a Future Science Direction. "

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: Accountability for Program performance is assigned to USGS senior managers through performance evaluations, management process controls, and performance guidance. Measures within these plans flow down, as applicable, to all Program personnel via evaluation mechanisms, and to partners through contractual agreements. Measures for GPRA, financial management and the President's Management Agenda are in all USGS SES performance agreements. Regional Executives and Program Coordinators are accountable for achieving performance as part of the USGS Planning Model and as part of their performance agreements. It is possible to see how performance goals cascade from the Associtate Director to the Program Director, but it is not clear how goals then cascade to the Program coordinator. Performance standards, particularly for program coordinators, are not sufficiently measureable to understand how performance goals cascade.

Evidence: "SES Performance Plan Guidance Memo for DOI (April, 2004) and USGS (December, 2004) for new FY2005 performance plan including cascading GPRA goal requirement; FY2005 performance plan examples for Assoc. Chief Biologist for Information and senior Program managers. Shows cascading goals in individual performance plans; National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure. Describes levels and types of accountability for cost and schedule performance."

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

Explanation: Obligations are recorded at the point of origin and comply with Title 31, Section 15 requirements. The USGS has budget, allocation and spending processes that include annual planning, quarterly and monthly reviews and review of any funds allocation changes that exceed $25 thousand. USGS has management controls and measures to ensure dollars are allocated and obligated timely and spent for intended purposes. Budget planning by object class is done in the bureau's BASIS+ . Budget allocation tables are developed in BASIS+, transmitted to the FFS where actual spending is tracked on a real-time basis. The USGS uses the FFS for funds control tracking and reporting. The controls are such to prevent deficiencies at the appropriation level. 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. From 2004-2005, the BIMD Program carried over a balance of approximately 1.6%. Of BIMD's current 2-year funding (FY 04-05), 100% has been obligated.

Evidence: "USGS Budgeting and Finance diagram; Allocation Process Memo; Program and administrative office allocation tables to cost centers, projects, and accounts; Spending progress by object class; Summary of Program quarterly obligations for FY03/Final Spending report for all FY03 Programs; Instructional Memos APS-2003-11 and 13 (www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/im/aps-2003-11.html) ; Note APS-2003-11 is superseded by APS-2004-09) www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/im/aps-2003-13.html; USGS FY 2004 Annual Financial Report (audited); Comparison of Requirements Listed in Instructional Memoranda"

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: Projects executed within this Program are subject to various levels of vetting and review as appropriate. In some cases, stakeholders are involved in the original design of the project to ensure that their information needs are being met with regard to on-the-ground biological resource management work. In other cases, the process calls for peer review of project proposals after they are drafted. In all cases, stakeholders are engaged to design and perform work aimed at helping to resolve local or regional natural resource challenges. Also, within the Program, all IT development activities are subject to specific procedures within USGS, DOI and OMB designed to ensure cost effectiveness and measure efficiency. An example of this is the cost/benefit analysis of alternatives performed for the implementation of the NBII, as described in the National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06). Performing cost/benefit analyses helps to ensure efficiency. This will be measured in the future and expressed as a cost per gigabyte ratio.

Evidence: "DOI Capital Asset Guidance, Guidance For Exhibit 300 and 300 - 1 - Capital Asset Plan and Business Case and Project Profile. DOI's Guidance is located on the web at: www.doi.gov/ocio/cp/300guidance.DOC; National Biological Information Infrastructure Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (FY06), Section I-E??Alternatives Analysis. Describes the Program's consistent comparison of three alternatives for implementing the NBII, with full cost/benefit analysis; Office of the Chief Information Officer, US Department of the Interior (2004). Information Technology Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide; USGS Web Compliance with DOI Directives"

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: "The components of this program are built on collaborations within and beyond the federal government. This program partners with federal, state, local and tribal government agencies, non-profit and academic sector organizations, and private sector entities that need access to critical natural resources data and information for a variety of reasons. Many of these entities are themselves data-aggregating or data-integrating networks, focused on assembling, organizing, and serving data and information about a particular region or issue, or from a specialized group of contributors. The Program plays a central role in bringing together stakeholders across multiple sectors to create a truly national picture of the status, health, and use of our nation's natural resources. Examples of critical relationships of this nature include those with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Organization of Fish and Wildlife Information Managers, NatureServe, The Nature Conservancy, and others. Additionally, the Program is a significant contributor to other national efforts including The National Map, Science.gov, and Geospatial One-Stop. We also coordinate activities, priorities, and goals with BRM as appropriate, extending the NBII infrastructure as an existing mechanism for distribution of critical research findings, though the objectives of these coordinated activities could be more formal to improve strategic planning on shared goals. For other USGS programs, we share architecture development resources, technologies, tools, and data as needed. For example, GEODE, now in its early stages of development, can leverage the GIS capabilities already implemented within several NBII nodes and the Open GIS Harvester for its own use. It is possible the National Geospatial Programs Office's state mapping partnership state based field staff could extend the capabilities on the ground of the bioinformatics program. "

Evidence: "Cooperative Agreements to establish liaison positions with NatureServe, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and NSF/Long Term Ecological Research, to ensure complementarity of information systems. Promotes partnership effectiveness and ensures benefits to customers and stakeholders from these partnerships; National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure. Demonstrates NBII's close collaboration with USGS Disciplines, DOI Bureaus, and other organizations; USGS-FWS Future Challenges project. Shows high level coordination on science need issues; Annual USGS-DOI Science Planning Meeting."

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: "The bureau received an unqualified opinion on its FY2004 Annual Financial Report (included in the PAR) which included two reportable conditions: Internal Controls over Accounts Receivable and Deferred Revenue and Non-Compliance with Laws and Reportable Conditions related to FFMIA (internal controls over IT). We believe this demonstrates the bureau's commitment to implementing and standardizing strong financial management practices. We have continued the statistical sampling for quality assurance review of payment, travel and charge card transactions, which are reported to bureau management. We have also formalized routine analyses of various financial performance measures and providing trend analyses to senior management (including billings and collections, charge card related activities, overtime reports and fund status reports). We have established an Office of Internal Controls and Quality Assurance with responsibility for implementing revised A-123 provisions. This year we have completed five internal control reviews at various locations through-out the bureau; based on these completed reviews, our internal controls and financial management practices are working. The remaining reviews are scheduled for May and June."

Evidence: "USGS FY 2004 Annual Financial Report (audited); Instructional Memo APS 2003-13 (http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/im/aps-2003-13.html); Travel Charge Card (FY2003 Analysis); 1st Quarter Performance Results for Financial Operations Monthly report to the Office of Financial Management; FY 2005 Financial and Accounting Operating Schedule (http://internal.usgs.gov/ops/finance/yearend.html(http://internal.usgs.gov/ops/finance/yearend.html); Quarterly Financial Statements (FACTSII Submission) (Available to OMB via FACTSII); Draft Report on Internal Control and Quality Assurance Reviews "

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

Explanation: "The USGS has taken significant steps to resolve management deficiencies including conducting management control reviews across various programs and participating in Departmental Functional Reviews for prompt payment, erroneous payments, and property management. The USGS has taken steps to improve IT systems controls, resulting in better security and management of critical infrastructures. The bureau has strengthened its financial management organization and practices as evidenced by the unqualified opinion on the FY 2004 Annual Financial Report (included in the PAR). USGS was the first DOI bureau to complete and publish the FY2004 PAR and was able to provide assistance to the Department on completion of the consolidated PAR. The USGS also provides support to various departmental financial forums, including the Finance Officers Partnership and the deployment of the Financial and Business Management System (FBMS). Additionally, USGS has instituted a performance-based management system that ensures valid measurement of accomplishment and performance goals. This system, BASIS+, is used to track funding and resources and links to program goals. Within the Biological Informatics Program, we are currently developing a project management information system to manage and track project activities at the work package level of the work breakdown structure of each project. This system will be available through the NBII portal, ensuring its accessibility to Program managers regardless of their location, and providing them with a virtual collaboration capability that will be interoperable with USGS wide systems."

Evidence: "USGS FY 2004 Annual Financial Report (audited); FY 2005 Financial and Accounting Operating Schedule; (http://internal.usgs.gov/ops/finance/yearend.html(http://internal.usgs.gov/ops/finance/yearend.html; Corrective Action Plan for FMFIA Material Weakness and Noncompliance Issues."

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 engages in planning activities that provide a decision-making context for linking funding to Program objectives. Beginning in 2003, the Program instituted a cross-disciplinary approach to the review of proposed work activity across all Program components whereby Program managers with expertise in distinct fields are involved in the decision process for resource allocation. Through this process, staff with specific expertise are invited to review component level proposals for future work. For example, staff from GAP or vegetation characterization are invited to review NBII proposals for work involving land characterization or stewardship. This ensures that the work being proposed is appropriate (based on expert opinion); the most appropriate techniques and latest protocols will be used to carry out the work; and work activities are integrated across program components by ensuring that staff in each component are aware of work undertaken in other areas. Such quality can be characterized in terms of effectiveness in responding to priority issues. The emergence of Chronic Wasting Disease on the landscape represents an example of such a priority issue. The Biological Informatics Program responded by focusing resources across Program components to ensure the availability of data and information on this disease in affected parts of the country. "

Evidence: "USGS common business practices memo and policies on peer and policy review; USGS Biological Informatics Program draft 5-Year Plan and other Program 5 year plans; President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) (1998). Teaming with life: Investing in Science to Understand and Use America's Living Capital; National Research Council (1993). A Biological Survey for the Nation.

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

Explanation: The BIMD Program components did not have measureable long term goals. However, the program can demonstrate progress such as: the Gap Analysis Program is approaching its goal of a 30m resolution national land cover map with complementary, ecosystem-wide species distributions and stewardship data layers, the Vegetation Characterization Program continues to increase coverage of detailed, computerized maps of vegetation for some 278 park unit, and NBII is recognized as a primary organizer of biological information and standard setting.

Evidence: "Minutes of NBII All-Node Meeting; "Creating a Shared Vision of Conservation" 2003 GAP Annual Meeting; Minutes of ITIS Steering Group; Minutes of IABIN Council Meeting; Veg. Characterization Park Progress; DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2006, U.S. Geological Survey (Greenbook). Performance measures showing target and actual long-term goals. "

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

Explanation: "The Program has met its annual performance goals. New partnerships have resulted in greater than expected increases to the content, tools, and infrastructure available to users through Program resources. Advances in information technology have provided opportunities for increased efficiencies, in some cases greater than anticipated. Partner contributions are key to the Program's ability to achieve its annual targets; in years of level or reduced funding, extending the partnerships network has been a critical strategy to achieve performance goals. "

Evidence: "DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2006, U.S. Geological Survey (Greenbook). Performance measures showing target and actual annual goals; USGS Biological Informatics Program 5-Year Plan; National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure. Provides lists of NBII partners."

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

Explanation: "Implementation of state-of-the-art technologies, best practices, and novel protocols and methodologies have allowed the Program to realize increased efficiencies, increasing output even during years of level or reduced funding. An example of this is the application of the NBII portal technology to facilitate virtual collaboration across global geopolitical boundaries. In 2005, the Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISIN) used the NBII portal to plan their annual meeting, exchange documents in a password protected, secure environment available only to GISIN Committee members, conduct live chat sessions and threaded discussions, survey potential attendees, and perform version control. This capability allowed the Committee to craft a well-targeted agenda and identify focus areas for the breakout groups at the meeting. This pre-meeting activity eliminated the necessity for travel to a pre-meeting planning session, and an extra meeting day to sort out the group's priorities. This resulted in time savings and costs avoidance equivalent to approximately $75,000, and higher-level meeting quality due to the ability of all members to participate virtually in the planning. In addition to improving the efficiency of the Program, the outcomes of Program activities??e.g., the promulgation of a new information model or data analysis tool??increase the efficiency of the Program's users, by reducing the time, effort and expense to achieve the same level of understanding. This will be measured in the future and expressed as a cost per gigabyte ratio."

Evidence: "National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure. Demonstrates how the investment in NBII reduces costs and improves efficiency; DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2006, U.S. Geological Survey (Greenbook). "

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

Explanation: "The program did not receive an outright ""yes"" for this question because there are no known surveys or analyses that directly compare the performance of the BRM with other programs. No other Federal program is focused on organizing and providing access to the biological resources knowledge-base. The major federal information programs, of which Biological Informatics is one, all collaborate and cooperate in the accomplishment of their respective missions through an organization known as CENDI. (The acronym was derived from the names of the original member agencies - Commerce, Energy, NASA/NLM/NAL, Defense Information.) Later, as other organizations joined the group, the "E" came to include EPA and the "I" came to represent Interior and the Intelligence Community.) This organization provides a forum for the principles of member programs to engage in joint projects, share best practices, and leverage each other's resources. Members include the national libraries (National Library of Medicine, National Agricultural Library) which have a similar mission to Biological Informatics in providing access to knowledge in a particular thematic area. The content, tools, infrastructure and user care provided by the Program parallel those services provided by traditional libraries. However, unlike traditional libraries, the Biological Informatics Program is a virtual digital library. Other CENDI members include Federal scientific and technical information agencies including the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), and EPA's Environmental Exchange Information Network (EEIN). These programs share the Program's mission to increase access to Government information. However, the content of interest to this Program is broader than Government information and comprises data sets, databases, and other "raw" digital data in addition to the technical reports, journal articles, and other information products that are the primary focus of DTIC, OSTI and others. Many of these programs have been in existence for decades and have therefore had more time to accumulate content. However, NBII is included at the same level as these long-established programs. "

Evidence: "CENDI (Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group) publications; Awards from CENDI (Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group); Participation in science.gov; Numerous Awards and recognition (see list in evidence); Comparison to major informatics programs regarding the relative maturity (longevity) of each program as well as its annual budget.

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

Explanation: Various review mechanisms and studies indicate that that the various program components are achieving results, though a score greater than small extent is not warranted due to weaknesses of evalutions identified in 2.6. The next Program review will be completed in 2007.

Evidence: "National Biological Information Infrastructure (2005). USGS Response to Congress on the National Biological Information Infrastructure. Results of peer review. External Peer Review of the Gap Analysis Project Report of Vegetation Mapping Review Team on the USGS Biological Resources Division Vegetation Mapping Program (1998)"