Detailed Information on the
US Geological Survey - Biological Research and Monitoring Assessment

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.

Developing a plan with the Biological Information program 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 U.S. 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.

Measure: % of targeted invasive species for which scientific information and decision support models are available to improve early detection (including risk assessments) and invasive species management

Explanation:Partner natural resource agencies (other DOI, Federal, State, Tribal, regional and NGO's) need sound scientific information on invasive species to make informed, science based management or policy decisions. This measure indicates progress toward delivering key scientific information and technical assistance to natural resource managers to make decisions regarding management of high priority invasive species. Indicator (measure) is based on critical factor analysis (state of available knowledge on) of five criteria: management & control plans; control measures; detect new populations/spread; identify/manage pathways; and scientific knowledge

Measure: % of targeted fish and aquatic populations for which information is available regarding limiting factors, including migratory barriers, critical habitat for at-risk species, and effects of disturbance (fire, flood, nutrient enrichment)

Explanation:Partner agencies (other DOI, Federal, state, Tribal, regional, NGOs) identify fish and aquatic populations that lack sufficient scientific information to support informed, science-based management or policy decisions. The measure indicates progress toward delivering key scientific information and technical assistance to natural resource managers to support decision-making regarding high priority fish and aquatic populations. Indicator (measure) is based on critical factor analysis (state of available knowledge on) of five criteria: partner needs; basic species biology; complex biological processes; scientific synthesis & modeling; & delivery of science-based managmenet and decision-making tools.

Measure: % of North American migratory birds for which scientific information on their status (species distribution and number) and trend are available to inform and improve conservation

Explanation:Partner natural resource agencies (other DOI, Federal, State, Tribal, NGO's, and the public) need sound scientific information on migratory bird population status and trends to make informed, science based conservation and management decisions. Measure is based on the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), where extending the number of routes monitored with qualified volunteers increases the amount and quality (detectability/sensitivity) of status and trend data for an increasing proportion of migratory bird species.

Measure: % of targeted science products that are used by partners for species, habitat and land management, and (or) regulatory decisionmaking

Explanation:Measure tracks the specific decision-making outcome of BRM research and technical assistance products and information under high priority natural resource managment categories (e.g., regulatory, species management, resource management, decision support), integrated over all BRM subprograms.

Measure: Average cost per sample for selected, high priority environmentally available chemical analyses

Explanation:Measure tracks outcome of improvements in efficiency in methodologies, instrumentation, and processes, on the costs of analysis for high priority toxic, environmentally available chemical compounds: PCB congeners; polyaromatic hydrocarbons; selenium; pesticides; and dioxins. Improving analytical cost-savings (reducing cost per sample) has significant compounded effects on ability to support partner contaminated site restoration management actions, population-level analyses of contaminant effects, and linkages to molecular and sub-cellular (genetics, endocrine disrupters) roots of toxicology for fish and wildlife populations.

Measure: Increase long-term trend precision (decrease bias) for existing species monitored through the Breeding Bird Survey to enable a detection of 50% population decline of relevant species within 20 years

Explanation:The cost per unit of survey data collected/generated is reduced when bias is decreased leading to more precise population estimates and robust trends. Reducing bias would provide population trend data for >100 bird species not currently covered in BBS, and improve population estimates for >150 migratory bird species currently covered. Such improvements in the data collection/availability efficiency, cascade to more effective and efficient management decisions (improved data quality minimizes wasteful erroneous management recommendations) of key federal (USFWS) and non-federal (State Natural Heritage) partners.

Measure: % of focal migratory bird populations for which scientific information is available to support resource management decision-making (USGS) to improve % of populations at healthy and sustainable levels (FWS)

Explanation:DOI bureaus responsible for managing birds and bird habitat require scientific-based information from USGS in order to draft and execute effective management and species recovery plans. This measure will provide an indication of the increase in delivery of scientific information and technical assistance available to natural resource managers to make decisions regarding management of migratory birds (Birds of Management Concern). Indicator (measure) is based on critical factor analysis (state of available knowledge on) of five biological factors: distribution/status; life history/demography; habitat; breeding biology; and conservation and management limitations.

Measure: Number of systemmatic analysis (research products) delivered to customers

Explanation:The measure tracks the production of scientific information delivered to customers. Systemmatic analyses represent, on an annual basis, the core production unit of information resulting from BRM scientific activities. The annual measure integrates products over all subprograms and feeds the long-term outcome measures defined for each specific subprograms - all of which are based on delivering scientific information to support management decision-making on high priority natural resource issues (e.g., invasives, fisheries, ecosystems, wildlife).

Measure: customer satisfaction: % satisfaction with scientific and technical products and assistance"

Explanation:The customer satisfaction annual output proportion evaluates the effectiveness of scientific products that support management decsion-making. Satisfaction is a short-term, annual measure which indicates progress toward achieving long-term outcome goals for use of BRM research and technical assistance products and information for resource management decision-making for high priority issues: regulatory, species management, resource management, decision support.

Measure: % improvement in detectability limits for selected, high priority environmentally available chemical analytes

Explanation:Measure tracks analytical quality and outcome of improvements in efficiency in methodologies, instrumentation, and processes, on increases (proportional from baseline) in detectability (reduced detection limits) for high priority toxic, environmentally available chemical compounds: PCB congeners; polyaromatic hydrocarbons; selenium; pesticides; and dioxins. Improving detectability (reducing detection limits) has significant compounded effects on ability to support partner contaminated site restoration management actions, population-level analyses of contaminant effects, and linkages to molecular and sub-cellular (genetics, endocrine disrupters) roots of toxicology for fish and widllife populations.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: "The U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Research and Monitoring (BRM) program has the principal responsibility within the federal government to provide biological resources information and understanding needed by the Department of the Interior, to achieve best use and management of over 504 million acres of public land and for thousands of species inhabiting trust lands, including migratory waterfowl, endangered species, and species of consequence for Native American cultural and subsistence use. The USGS BRM program assists in maintaining healthy ecosystems and natural resources by providing scientific information to aid in management decision-making regarding species, land, and habitat management so these resources can continue to provide food, energy, medicine, transportation, and recreation for the Nation. The USGS will continue to serve the biological research needs of DOI bureaus and others by providing scientific information through research, inventory, and monitoring investigations. Information generated by the BRM program contributes to achieving DOI bureau goals for improved management of the Nation's land and water resources, and improved decision-making regarding land and resource use and sustaining biological communities. The BRM program supports the following two DOI Strategic Plan end outcome goals, under the Resource Protection mission areas: PEO.l (GPRA Goal 1) - Improve the health of watersheds and landscapes and marine resources that are DOI managed and influenced land and waters in a manner consistent with obligations regarding the allocation and use of water. PEO.2 (GPRA Goal 2) - Sustain biological communities on DOI-managed and influenced lands and waters in a manner consistent with obligations regarding the allocation and use of water. "

Evidence: "Legislative mandates - Organic Act (FY2006 Budget Justifications, p. A-1); Additional legislation - Authorizations pertaining to research investigations (FY2006 Budget Justifications, p. D1-D13) DOI Strategic Plan (front matter, p. 12-15) "

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

Explanation: Decisions about land and species management must be based on sound understanding of biological processes so that outcomes of these decisions can be effectively predicted. Poor understanding of biological populations, habitats, and landscapes and poor predictions of the outcomes of decisions can lead to the over-development of natural resources and or the creation of regulatory policies that are ineffective or have undesired consequences. Decision support is needed by Federal, state and local agencies, tribes, the private sector, and the public. The BRM program provides science and research support for national, and regional natural resource management. Scientific need for the BRM Program is based largely on externally-driven biological science priorities, many of which support national and regional natural resources management challenges identified by the Administration.

Evidence: "(a) BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms); (b) Strategic Science Center plans (examples: GLSC; NWRC) BRD Analysis of FY2003 Reimbursable Funding, March, 2005, (p 2., 5) BRM Analysis of EIS use of BRD program information summary in regulatory context; e.g., estuaries, invasives; (b) Table summarizing BRD references in EIS analyzed from June, 2004 to March, 2005 BRD 2001-2002 Customer Survey Analysis, December, 2004 (p. 1, 65% and 66% of products influenced decisions in 2001 and 2002) Authorizing language of three resource laws: MBTA (16 USC Section 704); FPCA (Section 105 ); ESA (b.B.(2), (3)(A)) - all identify a science and research need to support regulatory requirements Examples of BRM science supporting regional and national priority issues: (a) Great Lakes research; (b) US Global Change Progam as linked to USGS BRM Ecosystem subpgrogram priorities; (c) Contaminants Biology subprogram support on NRDAR, USGS BRM program personnel at CERC developed EPA Cadmium criteria, testimony of Robyn Thorson, FWS Region 3 Director regarding role of USGS BRM contimanants program; (d) Mercury Roundtable web site http://minerals.usgs.gov/mercury/, evidence of USGS BRM contaminants program science in support of Mercury research; (f) EPA Mercury Research Strategy (p. 16 - section 4.2.3 explains role of USGS) NRC NEON Report 2004 - Addressing the Nation's Environmental Challenges (p. 58 - Climate Change; p. 59 - Infectious Diseases, makes specific reference to the USGS NWHC role in assessing wildife diseases; p. 61 - Invasive Species); (b) CENR 2001, Subcommitte on Ecological Systems Report, Ecological Forcasting, Agenda for the Future (p. 2, 3 - Invasive Species, Climate Change) Fact sheets for the six BRM subprograms; Priority Ecosystems subprogram added in FY2005 to BRD Examples of BRM work on high prirotiy natural resource challenges and science capacity; Fact Seets for: (a) Range-wide conservation assessement of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats; (b) SAGEMAP; (c) Conte Anadromous Fish Research Branch; (d) Invasive species - Snakeheads; (e) CFER; (f) NWHC overview; (g) USGS/BRD/ITR - 2003-2006 Framework for Long-Term Monitoring in Olympic Park: Prototype for the Coniferous Biome and companion document front pages Examples of collaboration with partners: ER Science Center collaborative science support with partners (a) Leadership execellence award given by FWS to USGS BRM researchers (manatees); (b) USGS BRM marine ecologist received award from US Coral Reef Task Force Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (p. I, ii - USGS BRM scientist core author) Meeting minutes for Lake Superior Technical Committee (p. 2, 3 - summaries of USGS presentations; p. 4 - LSTC supports USGS sampling efforts); committee meeting results in specific action items that are identified priorities for BRM program (FAER and Status and Trends) "

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

Explanation: Changes in living resources, from individual species to overall ecosystem health, can only be detected and evaluated through careful, long-term monitoring and a continuing research commitment that come together to form the baseline of the environmental and ecological health of the Nation. The BRM Program has 365 research grade (four factor) scientists having the primary federal responsibility to provide science and research support to DOI resource agency management of over 504 million acres of public land (23% of US Land Base). The BRM research role is clearly defined and unique from other Federal, state, local, or private entities. Inter-agency coordinating committees guarantee that duplication of effort is minimized. BRM research fills a unique niche within the biological-research community through three essential elements of its infrastructure: (1) Long-term stability: the ability to implement long-term field-based approaches, including maintenance of long-term field research science centers (e.g., 17 national Science Centers), coordination of large interdisciplinary research teams and provision of long-term support for methods and models that are developed for and provided to stakeholders across the Nation; (2) National consistency: development and use of reliable and consistent research methods and biological data collection on extensive regional and National scales (e.g., BEST program, BBL, BBS); and (3) National research challenges: an extensive focus of program work on independently-identified global and national priority science challenges, such as Global Climate Change, invasive species, and inter-agency fire science.

Evidence: "BRD Analysis of FY2003 Reimbursable Funding, March, 2005, (p 2., 5) USGS BRD FY2005 Cyclical Allocation Support Table - lists funded science projects by cyclical source - shows partner and study title (theme) Example of science capacity: (a) avian disease; (b) vanadium effects on waterfowl; (c) CWD Fact Sheets and web site; (d) Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes - CWD - (p. 10 - describes role of USDA in eradication program; p. 6, 8. - Action Items describe research related to USGS BRM capacity; p. 4 - details USGS role); (e) 2002 National CWD Implementation Plan (p. 3 - outlines collaboration between USDA and DOI); (f) 2003 CWD Progress Report for the Implementation Plan (p. 11 - USGS workshop on surveillance, shows positive progress toward surveillance Goals); (g) Bird Banding Laboratory, Breeding Bird Survey, BEST program website - programs are unique to USGS BRM program, and provide one-of-a kind support to key natural resource challenges USGS Science brief (2003-06) - www.pwrc.usgs.gov - PWRC Contaminant related activities in support of client agencies in DOI (b) EPA - Water Quality Criteria Development - www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqlife.html; (c) Proposed revisions to EPA National Water Quality Guidelines (p. 3 - lists issues included as priority objectives in Contaminants Biology 5-year plan) BRD 2001-2002 Customer Survey Analysis, December, 2004 (p. 1, 65% and 66% of products influenced decisions in 2001 and 2002) BRD Newsletter, Jan, 2005 - Section 3 - describes collaborative USGS BRM work with FWS on National Wildlife Refuges Bird Banding Laboratory FACA Committee Membership (DRAFT) (a) National Invasives Species Council Management Plan, 2001; (b) DOI guidance on multi-Bureau invasive plant budget submissions; (c) Inter-Bureau FY2006 Budget Guidance on Invasive Plants (p. 2 - lists USGS participation on teams with partners); (d) 2004 DOI Initiatives: Northern Great Plains, South Florida Brazilian Pepper Tree Control, Rio Grande Basin; (e) Cross-cutting budget tables showing USGS BRM participation; (f) NISC summaries relating budget to performance March, 2005 letter from NOAA inviting USGS BRM scientist to support coral disease outbreak Examples of USGS BRM research grade scientist accomplishments Letter describing complimentary role of USGS FAER subprogram and FWS fisheries program (a) Grand Canyon Monitoring Research Center (gcmrc.gov/) listing participating stakeholders in adapative management program; (b) GCMRC Fact Sheet (a) USGS Fact Sheet - Chesapeake Bay - identifies striped bass as key resource (species of research focus for USGS BRM); (b) USGS Circular 1220 - Chesapeake Bay - role of science in environmental restoration - identifies key BRM program science themes; (c) EPA 2004 The Sate of the Chesapeake Bay (www.chesapeakebay.net) uses BRM research to communicate to public on state of Bay resources USGS BRM Federal role (FY2006 Budget Justifications, p. K-3) USGS - Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources - Volumes 1 and 2 "

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

Explanation: The BRM program is designed to optimize the delivery of its mission to provide scientific information and research support to inform natural resource, land, species, and habitat management of DOI trust resources. The program is funded by a single line item, which supports seven subprograms that are thematically designed to address and relate explicitly to key DOI bureau partner science needs. Local, regional, and national DOI bureau partner science priorities are met through research conducted at 17 Science Centers distributed across the national landscape. Each subprogram develops its own goals/objectives and 5 year plans, which are synthesized at the program level to improve understanding of the cumulative impact of the entire program and to provide a holistic view of accomplishments. The BRM program uses an integrated funding approach (e.g., cyclical funds) and provides financial incentives for DOI bureaus (preferred cost share rates) to effectively focus scientific resources to primary DOI bureau partner science priorities and issues. The effectiveness of the program design is evidenced by the range and scope of reimbursable funding agreements executed with a variety of federal (DOI and Non-DOI) and non-federal partners that directly relate to the BRM program science mission. The BRM program's administrative design provides local to national scale science support to partners thereby supporting DOI's 4 C's mission.

Evidence: "BRD Analysis of FY2003 Reimbursable Funding, March, 2005, (p 2., 5) BRD 2001-2002 Customer Survey Analysis, December, 2004 (p. 1, 65% and 66% of products influenced decisions in 2001 and 2002) (a) FY2005 Allocation Table for USGS BRD showing funding distribution to Science Centers by subprogram; (b) FY2005 BRD Cyclical Funds Allocation Table; (c) Regional cyclical detail Table Overview of BRD Cyclical Program, EMT meeting Sacramento, CA, March, 2005 Summary of USGS Project Support Funds Categories Websites of BRM Science Centers showing science capacity, focus research issues Map of BRD Science Center locations (a) Synopses of Listening Sessions (www.usgs.gov/customer/conversation/2001survey/synopses.html) (p. 6, 11, 12, etc. - show partner needs that are priority research areas of BRM program; (b) November, 2004 USGS Customer Listening Session (p. 5 - participants identify BRM program areas such as CWD, ESA species as partner priroties) (a) USGS-FWS Future Challenges Project; (b) USGS-FWS Future Science Challenges Literature Review, 2004 (a) USGS BRM Contaminant Program Review, February, 2002; (b) Regional Science Management Review: GLSC, May, 2004 "

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

Explanation: The BRM research subprogram 5-year plans describe science goals and the intended beneficiaries that include tribal, Federal, State, and private land and resource managers. Regardless of the nature of the various BRM subprograms, the beneficiaries are ultimately the same and include federal and state natural resource management agencies, tribal governments, state and local governments, and private industry. These entities who require unbiased biological resources science information of all types for management and regulatory decision-making, and who may enter into reimbursable agreements to study specific natural resources management problems. Each of the BRM subprograms address a subset of the biological science issues that have specific scientific characteristics and specific beneficiaries. This breakdown enables USGS to target resources to the intended purpose and beneficiary. Targeted, partner-driven science themes are used by the BRM program to focus research on high priority biological issues, such as amphibian decline, National Park monitoring, and outer continental shelf resources. Collaborative efforts between the BRM program and partners ensures that science results and data sources are made available to decision-makers and that actions are designed for continual improvement in data flow (e.g., Great Lakes - Lake Superior Technical Committee). Through partnerships, the BRM program is ensuring the development and maintenance of base biological science information for the Nation. Implementation of the program is tracked to ensure it is benefiting intended beneficiaries through an extensive, multi-scaled process of customer feedback (local, regional, national), incorporating intended beneficiaries into science center and subprogram reviews, and through the development and maintenance of partner-driven science prioritization processes.

Evidence: "BRD Analysis of FY2003 Reimbursable Funding, March, 2005, (p 2., 5) BRM Analysis of EIS use of BRD program information summary in regulatory context; e.g., estuaries, invasives; (b) Table summarizing BRD references in EIS analyzed from June, 2004 to March, 2005 BRD 2001-2002 Customer Survey Analysis, December, 2004 (p. 1, 65% and 66% of products influenced decisions in 2001 and 2002) USGS BRD FY2005 Cyclical Allocation Support Table - lists funded science projects by cyclical source (a) BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms); (b) Strategic Science Center plans (examples: GLSC; NWRC) Meeting minutes for Lake Superior Technical Committee (p. 2, 3 - summaries of USGS presentations; p. 4 - LSTC supports USGS sampling efforts); committee meetings result in specific action items that are identified priorities for fisheries and status and trends subprograms (a) USGS-FWS Future Challenges Project; (b) USGS-FWS Future Science Challenges Literature Review, 2004 (a) Synopses of Listening Sessions (www.usgs.gov/customer/conversation/2001survey/synopses.html) (p. 6, 11, 12, etc. - show partner needs that are priority research areas of BRM program; (b) November, 2004 USGS Customer Listening Session (p. 5 - participants identify BRM program areas such as CWD, ESA species as partner priroties) "

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: BRM developed a set of specific performance measures through the PART process. These measures are based on the BRM sub-program 5-year plans. The measures are described in the PART 'Performance Measures' section. Unlike previous measures which focused on outputs such as the number of investigations, the new measures focus on achievement of providing improving the body of knowledge required by program users and proportion of scientific products used by partners for species, habitat and land management and regulatory decision making.

Evidence: "See 1.2.1 - BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms) Draft implementation plan for BRM program, including performance measures, process, baselines & targets FY2006 Budget Justifications & Performance Information (p. K-1 to K-18) "

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: "See 2.1.2 - Draft implementation plan for BRM program, including performance measures, process, baselines & targets See 2.1.3 - FY2006 Budget Justifications & Performance Information (p. K-1 to K-18) "

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: BRM has established new annual performance measures to quantify progress towards long-term goals, and will continue to rely on existing performance measures such as customer satisfaction. BRM's long term outcome performance goals focus on providing scientific information to support management decision making, which is based on and achieved through the annual measure of systematic analyses delivered to customers. Annual customer satisfaction surveys on the timeliness and quality of information delivered to customers relates directly to the long term outcome performance goal of improving the proportion of scientific products used by partners for species, habitat, and land management and regulatory decision making

Evidence: "See 2.1.3 - FY2006 Budget Justifications (p. K-8 to K-11) (a) FY2004 Release of Annual Planning Guidance from Director (June 2, 2003); (b) FY2005 Release of Annual Planning Guidance from Director (May 20, 2004) BPC FY2006 proposed operational plan (measures by BASIS+ project) BRM CS memo to field on BASIS+ updates (May 13 due date) Summary of BRM Annual Planning Process (December, 2004) (a) USGS Annual Planning Time table (flow chart); (b) Planning Handbook "

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

Explanation: As described under the performance measures tab, baselines and targets were established for annual measures developed during the PART process. Some baselines and targets are described and updated in GPRA plans. Additionally, GPRA baselines and targets are shown in the FY2005 Budget justification.

Evidence: "See 2.1.3 - FY2006 Budget Justifications & Performance Information (p. K-1 to K-18) See 1.2.4 - BRD 2001-2002 Customer Survey Analysis, December, 2004 (p. 1, 65% and 66% of products influenced decisions in 2001 and 2002) See 2.1.2 - Draft implementation plan for BRM program, including performance measures, process, baselines & targets See 2.3.3 - BPC FY2006 proposed operational plan (measures by BASIS+ project) "

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: Program 5-year plans list strategic goals and objectives, which were vetted and reviewed by partners. The BRM program builds relationships with partners to support management decision-making to leverage resources, which are codified in MOUs (e.g., FWS, Science Support Partnership (SSP) and NPS, Park-Oriented Biological Support (POBs)). Cooperative research agreements with more than 950 in total (FY2003) federal DOI and Non-DOI and non-federal partners across the Nation entail close coordination through joint goal setting, including istening sessions. Contractors performing collection and analysis work are required to use standard methods and protocols to ensure data support BRM program goals. Progress reports are used to assess contractor performance and to regularly assess the relevance of contract work. The BRM program uses peer-review processes to evaluate partner-based, cyclically funded research (e.g., NPS POBs) to ensure planned research is consistent with program goals. Existing and new long-term goals of the BRM program focus on the outcome of providing information to support management decision-making. Evidence of the common commitment of the BRM program and its partners to work toward this annual and/or long-term program goal, is the high proportion of partner decisions (regarding species, land, and habitat management, and regulatory actions) influenced by BRM program products. The BRM wildlife and status and trends subprograms and FWS migratory bird program developed a joint long-term outcome performance measure through the PART process.

Evidence: "See 1.2.1 - BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms) See 1.2.2 - BRD Analysis of FY2003 Reimbursable Funding, March, 2005, (p 2., 5) See 1.2.4 - BRD 2001-2002 Customer Survey Analysis, December, 2004 (p. 1, 65% and 66% of products influenced decisions in 2001 and 2002) POBs memo April 13, 2004 (peer review selection) (a) USGS GCMRC contractor delivery operating standards: www.gcmrc.gov/files/pdf/data_standards_and_delivery_requirements_20020125.pdf..; (b) Status and Trends subprogram contractor summary of SOPs, etc. "

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: BRM relies on a variety of mechanisms for evalutions, however the comination of mechanisms does not appear to meet the scope and independence criteria for a YES. For many subprogram reviews BRM largely relies on evaluations conducted by scientists within USGS, primarily from the Biological resources division. While evaluations are conducted by scientists from different subprograms there would appear to be a potential or at least perceived conflict of interest that would prevent the reviews from being considered independent. USGS has guidance that requires subprograms are reviewed every 5 years but there was not evidence to support that reviews occur every five years. Only one program was reviewed by entirely independent group but this only covered a relatively small percent of the program, other reviews included external reviewers but also included biology program leadership. Further, program reviews are largely focused on the goals of a subprogram rather than the biological research enterprise, which may limit the ability to identify areas for improved coordination and establishment of common knowledge goals.

Evidence: "See 1.4.10 - (a) USGS BRM Contaminant Program Review, February, 2002; (b) Regional Science Management Review: GLSC, May, 2004 (a) ARMI Management Control Study & results; (b) BBS website customer satisfaction survey Eastern Region Annual Review Book - (2001 to 2004) See 1.2.13 - Meeting minutes for Lake Superior Technical Committee (p. 2, 3 - summaries of USGS presentations; p. 4 - LSTC supports USGS sampling efforts); committee meetings result in specific action items that are identified priorities for fisheries and status and trends subprograms October, 1999 BRD Guidelines for National Program Review Draft Schedule for Status and Trends Program Review FY2005-2006 (a) NRC (2005) - The Geological Record of Ecological Dynamics, Understanding the Biotic Effects of Fugure Environmental Change (p. 150, 151); (b) NRC (1993) - A Biological Survey for the Nation; ( c) NRC (1993) Research to Protect, Restore, and Manage the Environment (p. 9) Supporting material for OMB PART questions 2.6 and 4.5 - Overview of USGS BRM review/survey's used for program management. Review/surveys organized by programmatic scope/scale, and include approximate values for monetary reach. "

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

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

Evidence: "See 2.1.3 - FY2006 Budget Justifications & Performance Information (p. K-1 to K-18) (a) FY2005 BRD GPRA Guidance, March, 2005; (b) Draft statistical mid-year GPRA product analysis See 1.3.8 - (a) National Invasives Species Council Management Plan, 2001; (b) DOI guidance on multi-Bureau invasive plant budget submissions; (c) Inter-Bureau FY2006 Budget Guidance on Invasive Plants (p. 2 - lists USGS participation on teams with partners); (d) 2004 DOI Initiatives: Northern Great Plains, South Florida Brazilian Pepper Tree Control, Rio Grande Basin; (e) Cross-cutting budget tables showing USGS BRM participation; (f) NISC summaries relating budget to performance See 2.3.2 - (a) FY2004 Release of Annual Planning Guidance from Director (June 2, 2003); (b) FY2005 Release of Annual Planning Guidance from Director (May 20, 2004) See 2.3.5 - Summary of BRM Annual Planning Process (December, 2004) See 2.3.3 - BPC FY2006 proposed operational plan (measures by BASIS+ project) "

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

Explanation: The BRM program has taken steps to correct strategic planning deficiencies by completing 5-year strategic plans for five of the six subprograms. The strategic plan of the sixth subprogram is currently under development and planned for completion in FY2005. Regional Science Centers are updating 5-year strategic plans that tier goals and objectives to the national program strategic plans. A BRM wide strategic science plan is under development that synthesizes individual subprogram plan objectives across research activities. This synthesis is used for science priority objective setting to meet long-term outcome performance measure goals. Selected BRM subprograms also provide key science support to peer-reviewed, national strategic science priorities, such as Global Climate Change, invasive species, fire science, and avian and mammalian disease research.

Evidence: "See 1.2.1 - (a) BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms); (b) Strategic Science Center plans (examples: GLSC; NWRC) See 2.1.2 - Draft implementation plan for BRM program, including performance measures, process, baselines & targets (a) BRD - Strategic Science Plan (October, 1996); (b) BRD Implementation Plan for the Strategic Science Plan (September, 1996) BRM Program Wiring diagram "

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 BRM subprograms have a long-term, national-scale interest in the development and maintenance of biological science investigations, research, decision support models for the well being of the public and the Nation. Internally, decisions regarding science priorities are based on strategic 5 year subprogram science plan goals and objectives, and an integrated annual planning processes that links field identified needs with national research priorities. Specific decisions regarding priority science are determined in an annual planning context, which integrates available funding, national priorities, and explicit science needs of partner Bureaus. The BRM program has established a science plan implementation framework to identify, compare, and select priority research objectives across programs that feed subprogram performance goals, synthetically linked to the overall long-term performance goal of the BRM program. Relative to other programs, by design, BRM has a specific and unique role of providing science and research support to DOI management bureaus. Decisions to use external science providers (e.g., Universities) are generally limited to highly specific areas, where independent external expertise is sought , and where achieving goals requires methodological capacity not internally housed. Several DOI bureaus maintain topical and focused research capacity supporting discrete issues, which when exceeded leads partners to engage the BRM program in reimbursable agreements (e.g., FWS, SSP; MMS, OCS). Where applicable, the BRM program works in concert with other programs having similar goals when broader biological scientific capacity is convened to solve National natural resources challenges (e.g., Global Climate Change). In these cases, the program's benefits and areas of greatest potential impact are assessed under the broader science need area, as compared to other programs having similar goals and objectives.

Evidence: "See 1.1.3 - DOI Strategic Plan (front matter, p. 12-15) See 1.2.1 - (a) BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms); (b) Strategic Science Center plans (examples: GLSC; NWRC) See 1.3.14 - USGS BRM Federal role (FY2006 Budget Justifications, p. K-3) See 1.3.15 - USGS - Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources - Volumes 1 and 2 April, 2004 - 5th Annual Performance Report Scorecard: which federal agencies best inform the public? For FY2003 - (Mercatus Center, GMU) (p. 6 Table 1; p. 23-25, 36). "

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

Explanation: The USGS Director establishes program priorities for the budget year and issues a call for new initiatives in response to these priorities. Specific biological science priorities that have tiered from DOI, to the USGS Director, BRM program, and have been implemented as research projects by scientists include invasive species and fire science research. For strategic planning, the program operates under the broader context of DOI and the Bureau's strategic planning approaches. The BRM program's planning process tiers from that of the Bureau to ensure that the BRM program's goals and targets feed the Bureau's strategic direction, goals, and timetable. If there is a change in funding, BRM bases research program enhancement or reduction decisions on national strategic plans working through the regional science center matrix. Funding decisions are based on linking planned work directly with BRM subprogram strategic goals. The USGS has drafted a Bureau-level science planning handbook, which demonstrates the relationships between the process for Annual Guidance Development and decision-making for regional executives and national program coordinators. The process includes regional meetings with DOI bureaus and other stakeholders, which also serve as elements that contribute to the BRM budget and science prioritization process. Cyclical funding opportunities are prioritized either through competitive peer-review processes or by working with external partners who aide in setting priority research areas.

Evidence: "See 1.1.3 - DOI Strategic Plan (front matter, p. 12-15) See 1.2.1 - (a) BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms); (b) Strategic Science Center plans (examples: GLSC; NWRC) See 2.3.2 - (a) FY2004 Release of Annual Planning Guidance from Director (June 2, 2003); (b) FY2005 Release of Annual Planning Guidance from Director (May 20, 2004) See 2.3.6 - (a) USGS Annual Planning Time table (flow chart); (b) Planning Handbook See 2.3.3 - BPC FY2006 proposed operational plan (measures by BASIS+ project) "

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. Progress on GPRA are verified quarterly and reported and updated annually. The USGS Director convenes annual listening sessions, recording needs of partners and informing them of his response. The BRM program collects internal performance information and combines it with that contained in BASIS+ in annual program reviews, project planning, execution, and reporting. The BRM program annualy collects and reports customer service statistics to improve performance. Customer surveys are also an important source of program performance, including identification of specific decisions regarding management decision-making. Specific examples of the use of performance information to improve management include improving the breeding bird survey web site and communication of data to the public based on customer survey feedback and feedback from subpgrogram reviews being used to frame strategic 5 yr plan goals and objectives

Evidence: "See 2.1.3 - FY2006 Budget Justifications & Performance Information (p. K-1 to K-18) See 1.2.4 - BRD 2001-2002 Customer Survey Analysis, December, 2004 (p. 1, 65% and 66% of products influenced decisions in 2001 and 2002) See 1.2.13 - Meeting minutes for Lake Superior Technical Committee (p. 2, 3 - summaries of USGS presentations; p. 4 - LSTC supports USGS sampling efforts); committee meetings result in specific action items that are identified priorities for fisheries and status and trends subprograms See 1.4.8 - (a) Synopses of Listening Sessions (www.usgs.gov/customer/conversation/2001survey/synopses.html) (p. 6, 11, 12, etc. - show partner needs that are priority research areas of BRM program; (b) November, 2004 USGS Customer Listening Session (p. 5 - participants identify BRM program areas such as CWD, ESA species as partner priroties) See 2.3.5 - Summary of BRM Annual Planning Process (December, 2004) Example BASIS+ BRM project "

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The FY05 planning process is documented and makes the regional biologists and program coordinators responsible for final decisions of specific annual objectives. The USGS holds senior management and program partners accountable for performance through performance evaluations, management process controls, and performance guidance provided in agreements, contracts, and grants. 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. All Program personnel have cascading GPRA Goal measures in their performance plans, including science center managers and scientists.

Evidence: "See 2.3.2 - (a) FY2004 Release of Annual Planning Guidance from Director (June 2, 2003); (b) FY2005 Release of Annual Planning Guidance from Director (May 20, 2004) See 2.3.6 - (a) USGS Annual Planning Time table (flow chart); (b) Planning Handbook (a) December 2004, DOI memo New Performance Management System; (b) USGS BRM employee Performance Plans with GPRA goals "

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 monthly review and quarterly certify unliquidated obligations. Historically, the bureau has had a less than 1% unobligated balance remaining at year-end in its annual direct appropriation. For example, as of May 23, 2005, the unobligated carryover from FY2004 was less than 7%, and 33% of FY2005 funds have been obligated to date.

Evidence: "USGS Budgeting and Finance diagram Allocation Process Memo See 1.4.3 - (a) FY2005 Allocation Table for USGS BRD showing funding distribution to Science Centers by subprogram; (b) FY2005 BRD Cyclical Funds Allocation Table; (c) Regional cyclical detail Table Close out memos from fiscal services Summary of Program quarterly obligations for FY04 See 3.3.5 - Final Spending report for all FY04 Programs Instructional Memos APS-2003-11 and 13 www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/im/aps-2003-11.html ; Note APS-2003-11 is superceded by APS-2004-09) USGS FY 2004 Annual Financial Report (www.doi.gov/pfm/annrept/gs_04_par.pdf) Comparison of returns - billed, unbilled obligations Cost Share Policy Memo "

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 currently evaluates or implements efficiencies in several ways: (1) cost, time, and effort of chemical analyses are assessed to reduce workforce time (time per analysis), reduce analytical supply costs (cost per analysis), expand the number of chemicals analyzed (number of chemicals detected per analysis), and improve detectability (at low concentrations); (2) leveraging appropriated dollars with partner reimbursable funds to reduce (by upwards of 50%) the cost per unit of science products delivered; (3) use of the BASIS+ project tracking system to improve management efficiencies for science planning and budgeting; (4) use of post-doctoral fellows (NRC and others) to conduct high priority research (mentored) at lower salary costs; and (5) IT improvements such as enhancing websites including breeding bird survey (BBS) data provided online. To achieve efficiencies, new strategic 5 yr science plans include provisions (as high priority goals/objectives) to continually review, evaluate, and coordinate monitoring activities, protocols, methods, and practices (e.g., status and trends subprogram, Goal 1, Objectives 1a-c) and to develop monitoring frameworks among partner agencies (Goal 2, Objective 2a-b); goals focus on producing more statistically robust data per unit of effort (time, money, FTE). For example, through improved volunteer training for BBS, reducing observer bias and increasing the number of routes will improve the trend precision for 83% of existing species monitored, resulting in reduced costs for BBS, ability to acquire more information at the same cost, and provide for more cost effective management decisions.

Evidence: "Contaminant Biology Subprogram toxicological analysis efficiency summary See 2.3.5 - Summary of BRM Annual Planning Process (December, 2004) See 1.2.2 - BRD Analysis of FY2003 Reimbursable Funding, March, 2005, (p 2., 5) See 1.2.1 - (a) BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms); (b) Strategic Science Center plans (examples: GLSC; NWRC) USGS Employee Intranet; USGS Web Infrastructure Inventory and Procedures See 2.5.4 - POBs memo April 13, 2004 (peer review selection) (a) Competitive sourcing plan; (b) Green Plan (2005-2008); (c) Update on competitive sourcing "

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The BRM program works collaboratively with federal, state, local governments, industry, academia, and tribes towards the achievement of complimentary goals. However, a more formal coordination effort is lacking between BRM and Biological Informatics (BIMD) program, particularly for moving research and monitoring information into publicly available information systems. Similarly a more formal coordination with other DOI bureaus on biological monitoring could help to increaseamount of information available for decision making. The BRM subprogram 5-year plans describe areas of collaboration for example, monitoring the status and trends of the Nation's living resources. Major partners are identified in the subprogram 5-year plans and include DOI Bureaus (FWS, NPS, BLM, etc.), federal Non-DOI partners (DOD, EPA, DOT), and state and local resource agencies and tribes. Examples of the program's collaborative and coordinated work include participation in cross-cutting science priority research through the National Invasive Species Council, providing science support for ecosystem research priorities under the Global Change Program, participation in coordinating councils with the EPA (e.g., Mercury Roundtable), completion of studies funded by the Joint Interior-Agriculture Fire Science Program (and invited to join the Wildlife Fire Leadership Council), and providing science support to diverse stakeholders of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. Specific collaboration and coordination with related programs include the establishment of the Future Science Challenges Forum, a FWS and USGS Director-level joint initiative to address pressing natural resource management challenges. USGS hosts an annual partner meeting in conjunction with the regional executive - program coordinator meeting where partners reinforce general science theme areas.

Evidence: "See 1.2.1 - (a) BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms); (b) Strategic Science Center plans (examples: GLSC; NWRC) (a) MOUs with US National Park Service; (b) US Fish and Wildlife Service See 1.3.8 - (a) National Invasives Species Council Management Plan, 2001; (b) DOI guidance on multi-Bureau invasive plant budget submissions; (c) Inter-Bureau FY2006 Budget Guidance on Invasive Plants (p. 2 - lists USGS participation on teams with partners); (d) 2004 DOI Initiatives: Northern Great Plains, South Florida Brazilian Pepper Tree Control, Rio Grande Basin; (e) Cross-cutting budget tables showing USGS BRM participation; (f) NISC summaries relating budget to performance See 1.2.6 - Examples of BRM science supporting regional and national priority issues: (a) Great Lakes research; (b) US Global Change Progam as linked to USGS BRM Ecosystem subpgrogram priorities; (c) Contaminants Biology subprogram support on NRDAR, USGS BRM program personnel at CERC developed EPA Cadmium criteria, testimony of Robyn Thorson, FWS Region 3 Director regarding role of USGS BRM contimanants program; (d) Mercury Roundtable web site http://minerals.usgs.gov/mercury/, evidence of USGS BRM contaminants program science in support of Mercury research; (f) EPA Mercury Research Strategy (p. 16 - section 4.2.3 explains role of USGS) See 1.3.12 - (a) Grand Canyon Monitoring Research Center (http://gcmrc.gov/) listing participating stakeholders in adapative management program; (b) GCMRC Fact Sheet See 1.4.9 - (a) USGS-FWS Future Challenges Project; (b) USGS-FWS Future Science Challenges Literature Review, 2004 October, 2004 - Annual USGS - DOI Science Planning Meeting Summary "

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). This demonstrates the bureau's commitment to implementing and standardizing strong financial management practices. USGS has continued the statistical sampling for quality assurance review of payment, travel and charge card transactions, which are reported to bureau management; and 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). An Office of Internal Controls and Quality Assurance has been established with responsibility for implementing revised A-123 provisions. This year there will be five internal control reviews this year at various locations through-out the bureau; to date based on two completed reviews, our internal controls and financial management practices are working. The remaining reviews are scheduled for May and June.

Evidence: "See 3.3.8 - USGS FY 2004 Annual Financial Report (www.doi.gov/pfm/annrept/gs_04_par.pdf) See 3.3.7 - Instructional Memos APS-2003-11 and 13 www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/im/aps-2003-11.html ; Note APS-2003-11 is superceded by APS-2004-09) Travel Charge Card (FY2003 Analysis) 2 cnd Quarter Performance Results for Financial Operations Monthly report to the Office of Financial Management FY 2005 Financial Operating Schedule (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 (attached) "

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 report on performance and accountability or 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). BRM program issued guidance to reduce acceptable carryover limits by FY2005 to 7% (which were met in FY2004) and has met interim targets to improve within-year obligation and use of funds. Improved guidance and collaboration has resulted in a high proportion (83%) of headquarters cyclical dollars distributed on initial allocation.

Evidence: "See 3.3.8 - USGS FY 2004 Annual Financial Report (www.doi.gov/pfm/annrept/gs_04_par.pdf) See 3.6.6 - FY 2005 Financial Operating Schedule (internal.usgs.gov/ops/finance/yearend.html) Corrective Action Plan for FFMIA Analysis showing 82.5% of HQ cyclical funds distributed on initial allocation (2004: 71.5%; 2005: 82.5%) (a) Biological Resources carryover procedures (targets); (b) FY2004 carryover overview (5% carryover in FY2004) "

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

Explanation: "The BRM Program has several mechanisms to maintain program quality, including allocating funding based on priorities set by independent, peer review focusing on national natural resource challenges. Approximately 14% of the BRM appropriated budget is cyclical funding of which ~39% is competitively (peer review panelled) granted internally and ~34% is granted based on partner DOI bureau prioritization of science needs and peer review. Remaining cyclical and based funds are awarded based on internal annual planning processes focusing on strategic 5 yr plans, merit, and the collaborative headquarters-regional review of peer-review proposed projects in BASIS+. The BRM subprogram's 5-year plans provide the strategic template for ensuring that priority work is conducted; all projects are linked to subprogram goals. BASIS+ is used in conjunction with the Bureau planning model to allocate funds to approved projects and review financial results to help maintain program quality. Documented, regular communication between regional staff and program coordinators and the Chief Scientist have improved the quality of BASIS+ project entries and linkages to strategic subprogram direction. The maintenance of program quality is evidenced in the consistently high customer satisfaction scores maintained by the program, and the high proportion of products supporting critical management decision-making by partners. The BRM program has developed a draft, integrated 5 yr science plan implementation process that explicitly provides the decision-making context for linking funding to priority program objectives to budget-sensitive performance measures tracking progress toward short- and long-term outcomes. To maintain program quality all four-factor (N=365) research grade scientists are required to regularly submit Research Service Record's/Research Grade Evaluations packages for scientific peer review. The system is used to examine strengths and weaknesses in scientific achievement and impact (publication record and scientific contribution to the Bureau and Nation). The USGS recently established new guidelines for research grade evaluations for four-factor scientists that are consistent with OPM policy. The BRM Program complies with existing USGS common business practices for the conduct of peer review and policy review. The USGS is developing common business practices for the conduct of peer review and policy review as per OMB's new Information Quality Act Guidelines on Scientific Peer Review. "

Evidence: "See 1.2.1 - (a) BRM 5-year strategic science plans (five subprograms); (b) Strategic Science Center plans (examples: GLSC; NWRC) (a) Memo from USGS Director on new RGEG guidance; (b) November, 2004 USGS Research and Development Evaluation Process Handbook See 2.3.5 - Summary of BRM Annual Planning Process (December, 2004) See 2.1.2 - Draft implementation plan for BRM program, including performance measures, process, baselines & targets USGS Common Business Practices Re: Peer Review (DRAFT) BRM CS Memo regarding OMB Peer Review Policy See 2.3.6 - (a) USGS Annual Planning Time table (flow chart); (b) Planning Handbook Central Region Annual Science Center Report, 2004 "

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

Explanation: BRM has not had specific long term performance goals however it has demonstrated progress toward its long-held goal of managing and distributing biological resources data and information to support management decision-making and in the application of scientific information for conservation and management, as evidenced by customer satisfaction measures. These strategic objectives are included in the 1996 implementation plan for the Biological Resourced Division.

Evidence: "See 2.8.3 - (a) BRD - Strategic Science Plan (October, 1996); (b) BRD Implementation Plan for the Strategic Science Plan (September, 1996) See 1.2.4 - BRD 2001-2002 Customer Survey Analysis, December, 2004 (p. 1, 65% and 66% of products influenced decisions in 2001 and 2002) See 2.1.3 - FY2006 Budget Justifications & Performance Information (p. K-1 to K-18) USGS, BRD (1996) - Developing effective and responsive partnerships; State Natural Resource Agency Biological Science Information Needs and the BRD, USGS. 37 pp. "

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

Explanation: The BRM program has both output and outcome annual performance goals. The USGS BRM program targets for systematic analyses (output) are met and the data are provided on the Internet. Science and application performance goals are met for the number of systematic analyses and investigations, peer-reviewed studies, and decision support systems that improve the science impact and synthesis of biological data and information. Annual outcome performance goals related to forging effective partnerships, and customer satisfaction have shown (since 2002) sustained high proportions (>80%) for actual data. New annual outcome performance goals were added through PART, which tier from existing annual performance goals.

Evidence: "See 2.1.3 - FY2006 Budget Justifications & Performance Information (p. K-1 to K-18) "

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

Explanation: The program currently has various methods for looking at improved efficiencies however Anecdotal information which show that the BRM program achieves efficiencies by the extensive collaborative efforts the program engages in with partners to prioritize and deliver critical scientific information (e.g., science to support sagegrouse conservation analysis). Improvements in chemical method efficiencies result in 40% annual reduction in personnel time resulting in savings of 25-$40,000 per year starting in FY 2004. A new efficiency measure was developed in the PART process against which improved effectiveness and efficiencies for chemical analyses can be measured in the future.

Evidence: "See 3.4.1 - Contaminant Biology Subprogram toxicological analysis efficiency summary See 2.1.3 - FY2006 Budget Justifications & Performance Information (p. K-1 to K-18) "

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. The BRM program is a recognized leader in biological science and research, particularly in support of key DOI trust resource challenges. Other agencies conduct biological science research, such as USDA FS and NOAA, but none serve the key role for long-term data collection and analysis provided by the USGS BRM program. For example, the breeding bird survey (N=5100 routes surveyed) and bird banding laboratory (N>1.1 M birds banded annually) have provided status and trends (population trend) bird population data on a National scale for over 40 years. Other programs, such as NOAA Fisheries, conduct survey and monitoring programs for biological resources (e.g., Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS)) that are comparable in geographic and temporal scale (annual data collection) to BBS and BBL, but are temporally less mature (<20 years old). Other organizations that conduct biological science research in state and local government, private sector (site specific) and in other agencies (federal, state and local) look to the BRM for direction and standards through cooperation (e.g., status and trends subprogram, monitoring protocols and standards; contaminants biology subprogram, toxicological analyses methodologies, standards, and protocols). BRM program scientists are recognized leaders in biological science fields, and publish in internationally noted peer-review science journals on par with USDA and DOC counterparts. For example, NOAA fisheries contracts USGS BRM program fisheries scientists to provide needed researchers on significant and inter-jurisdictional species.

Evidence: "See 1.3.14 - USGS BRM Federal role (FY2006 Budget Justifications, p. K-3) See 1.3.15 - USGS - Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources - Volumes 1 and 2 See 1.2.12 - Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (p. I, ii - USGS BRM scientist core author) NOAA Fisheries - Coverage of Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/survey/mrfss_coverage.html) "

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

Explanation: Various review mechanisms and review entities indicate that the program is achieving results, though a score greater than small extent is not warranted due to weaknesses of evalutions identified in 2.6.

Evidence: "See 1.4.10 - (a) USGS BRM Contaminant Program Review, February, 2002; (b) Regional Science Management Review: GLSC, May, 2004 See 1.2.4 - BRD 2001-2002 Customer Survey Analysis, December, 2004 (p. 1, 65% and 66% of products influenced decisions in 2001 and 2002) See 1.4.8 - (a) Synopses of Listening Sessions (www.usgs.gov/customer/conversation/2001survey/synopses.html) (p. 6, 11, 12, etc. - show partner needs that are priority research areas of BRM program; (b) November, 2004 USGS Customer Listening Session (p. 5 - participants identify BRM program areas such as CWD, ESA species as partner priroties) See 1.3.7 - Bird Banding Laboratory FACA Committee Membership (DRAFT) See 2.6.2 - (a) ARMI Management Control Study & results; (b) BBS website customer satisfaction survey See 2.6.8 - Supporting material for OMB PART questions 2.6 and 4.5 - Overview of USGS BRM review/survey's used for program management. Review/surveys organized by programmatic scope/scale, and include approximate values for monetary reach. May 18, 2005 memo from DOI ASWS re: Research and Development Council "