U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey

Performance and Accountability Report 

Fiscal Year 2008 
Performance and Accountability Report

Limited copies of the FY2008 Performance and Accountability Report were printed in black and white.

The FY2008 Performance and Accountability Report is available at: http://www.doi.gov/pfm/bur_annual_rpt/

index.html.

On the Cover

The front cover portrays the USGS at work on current science topics and national issues in the form of puzzle 

pieces, with the pieces falling into place to form an image of the USGS delivering mission -- the”finished picture” 

with all puzzle pieces in place is on the back cover. 

The USGS provides sound science that matters to America, whether: 

•	 working with rescue and recovery efforts or investigating the coastal impacts after Hurricanes Gustav and Ike; 

•	 monitoring the melting of sea ice and glaciers and the subsequent effects on the population of Arctic wildlife; 

•	 creating a geologic map of the Circum-Polar region; 

•	 monitoring for avian influenza; 

•	 planning the “Great Southern California Shakeout” which will highlight the importance of emergency 

preparedness and response in southern California;

•	 conducting ground-water measurements to assess national and regional trends in groundwater quality; 

•	 assessing 26 years of wildland fire impacts;

•	 making 35-years of Landsat satellite image data available over the Internet for free to support planning, 

research, and assessment activities to inform decisionmaking.

As an unbiased, multi-disciplinary science organization that focuses on biology, geography, geology, geospatial 

information, and water, we are dedicated to the timely, relevant, and impartial study of the landscape, our natural 

resources, and natural hazards.

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey

Performance and Accountability Report 

Fiscal Year 2008 
i

How to Read This Report: From Mission to Measurement

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) FY2008 

Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) will 

reach many people who have specific needs for 

the information it contains. We have designed our 

presentation to serve multiple audiences, with 

varied approaches, points of view, and levels of 

interest. 

Our PAR contains an introduction, three sections, 

and an appendix. Combined, these elements 

provide an accurate and thorough accounting of 

the USGS stewardship of critical resources and 

services to the American people. 

The Introduction contains a letter from our Director 

highlighting our mission, accomplishments, 

reliability of financial and performance data, and 

Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) 

assurances, followed by a depiction of the bureau 

at a glance.

Section I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis

is a high-level overview of the USGS’ performance 

in FY2008. It is designed for the public, 

legislators, officials from Federal, State, and local 

governments, and other interested parties.

After a brief discussion of our mission and 

organizational structure, Section I summarizes our 

performance for the year by highlighting results 

of our most important performance measures 

and discusses our procedures to ensure their 

relevance and reliability, along with a description 

of difficulties experienced in measuring 

performance.

Section I includes a brief discussion of our 

financial statements, key financial related 

measures, and stewardship information.

In addition, Section I presents the USGS’ 

compliance with legal and regulatory 

requirements, such as the FMFIA, Federal 

Financial Management Improvement Act, and the 

President’s Management Agenda. 

At the end of Section I, we share forward-looking 

information on the current and future challenges 

facing the USGS. 

Section II: Performance Data and Analysis 

presents an evaluation of our performance budget, 

the USGS’ performance results in detail, and 

program evaluation and procedures undertaken to 

validate and verify our performance results. 

This will be most useful to Congressional members 

and staff, program examiners with the Office 

of Management and Budget, analysts with the 

Office of the Inspector General, the Government 

Accountability Office, and interested citizens and 

customers. 

Section III: Financial Information will interest 

anyone who is concerned with tracking the 

bureau’s financial performance. 

This section presents financial statements, 

footnotes, required supplemental information, and 

required supplemental stewardship information. It 

also contains an assessment of our consolidated 

financial statements by an independent certified 

public accounting firm. 

The objective of a financial statement audit is to 

determine whether the consolidated financial 

statements are free of material misstatement. It 

examines, on a test basis, evidence supporting 

the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated 

financial statements. An audit also includes an 

assessment of the accounting principles used and 

significant estimates made by management, as 

well as an evaluation of the overall consolidated 

financial statement presentation. 

The Appendix contains a list of acronyms.
 

ii

Introduction

Message from the Director. .............................................................................................................iv

The Bureau at a Glance..................................................................................................................viii

SECTION I - Management’s Discussion and Analysis Overview of the Organization ...........................................................................................................2

Performance Summary......................................................................................................................5

Analysis of Our Financial Statements ...........................................................................................18

Limitations to Our Financial Statements .......................................................................................22

Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements ..............................................................22

Looking Forward................................................................................................................................30

SECTION II - Performance Data and Analysis

Message from the Director, Office of Budget and Performance..............................................34

Performance Improvement .............................................................................................................36

Performance Measure Results ......................................................................................................40

Validation and Verification of Performance Data........................................................................76

Program Evaluation Data.................................................................................................................78

Table of Contents
 

iii

SECTION III - Financial Information

Message from the Chief Financial Officer. ...................................................................................82

Audit Information

 Inspector General Transmittal Letter........................................................................................84

 Independent Auditors’ Report ...................................................................................................86

Financial Statements Information

 Consolidated Balance Sheet ...................................................................................................100

 Consolidated Statement of Net Cost ......................................................................................101

 Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position...........................................................102

 Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources ....................................................................104

 Notes to the Financial Statements..........................................................................................107

Required Supplementary Information

 Combining Statements of Budgetary Resources by Major Budget Accounts ................138

 Deferred Maintenance .............................................................................................................140

 General Stewardship Information...........................................................................................141

 Heritage Assets – Museum Collections Condition...............................................................142

 Heritage Assets – Library Collections Condition..................................................................144

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information

 Research and Development Investments..............................................................................148

Appendix

Glossary of Acronyms....................................................................................................................158
 Message from the Director

iv

As a planet and a Nation, we face unprecedented challenges related 

to: increasing loss of critical and unique ecosystems, increasing effects 

of climate change, increasing demand for limited energy and mineral 

resources, increasing vulnerability to natural hazards, increasing effects 

of emerging diseases on wildlife and human health and growing needs 

for clean water, all of which impact our health and safety, national 

security, economy, and quality of life.

At the USGS, our goal is to provide scientific information and tools 

to help decisionmakers at all levels anticipate and address these 

challenges. Our diversity of scientific expertise enables us to work at 

national, regional, and local scales and provide timely, unbiased science 

information needed to build and maintain a sustainable society.

In 2007, the USGS issued a new science strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey 

Science in the Decade 2007–2017.” This strategy is helping us to better target our science toward some of 

the Nation’s most pressing natural-science issues. Under the guidance of this report, we are focusing on six 

strategic science directions:

•	 understanding ecosystems and predicting ecosystem change;

•	 climate variability and change;

•	 energy and minerals for America’s future;

•	 a national hazards risk and resilience assessment program;

•	 the role of environment and wildlife in human health; and

•	 a water census in the United States. 

This Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year (FY) 2008 highlights examples of USGS science that 

fulfill our science strategy and mission and demonstrate the extent and value of USGS science to the Nation. 

The following are just a few of our many accomplishments.

Understanding Impacts of a Changing Climate

Climate change and its impacts are a key concern for the world. For many of our external partners at Federal, 

State and local levels, there is an urgent need for a better understanding of the effects of current and future 

climate changes on the landscape in order to develop effective strategies for adapting to and mitigating them. 

During FY 2008, the USGS began to build a comprehensive National Climate Effects Science and Monitoring 

Network that will track environmental indicators linked to climate change causes and effects and facilitate 

adaptation and mitigation by resource managers. Additionally, the USGS began efforts to establish a “virtual 

center” on National Climate Change and Wildlife to better understand the impacts of climate change on wildlife. 

Also in 2008, the USGS began to establish methodologies for a geologic assessment of our national capacity to 

store and sequester carbon dioxide in geologic structures. 

Energy and Minerals for American’s Future

As demand for natural resources has continued to grow, so too has demand for USGS’ natural resource 

assessments. In 2008, the USGS delivered several new assessments on potential energy sources, including 

the first ever publically available circum-Arctic oil and gas assessment, a new oil assessment of the Bakken 

Formation in North Dakota and Montana, the first assessment of the Nation’s geothermal resources in more 

than 30 years, and a geophysical and photographic survey to locate potential sources of natural resources in 

Afghanistan. These and other assessments are helping us to build a better understanding not only of the United 

States’ but of the world’s energy portfolio.
 

v

Understanding Ecosystem Changes

The USGS worked with several Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus for the 2008 Colorado River high-flow 

experiment. The goal of the experiment was to better understand whether higher flows can be used to rebuild 

eroded beaches downstream of Glen Canyon Dam by moving sand accumulated in the riverbed onto sandbars. Grand 

Canyon sandbars provide habitat for wildlife, serve as beaches for campers, and help to protect archaeological sites. 

High flows also create backwaters used by young native fishes, particularly endangered humpback chub. For about 

60 hours, the DOI released up to 41,500 cubic feet of water per second from the Glen Canyon Dam, a rate that would 

fill the Empire State Building within twenty minutes. The USGS monitored the effects not only during and immediately 

after the flow, but for months following the release. The new data is helping us to learn more about whether high 

flows can be used to boost the ecosystems and improve important natural, cultural, and recreational resources in 

Glen and Grand canyons.

Monitoring and Preparing for Natural Hazards

As the United States weathered hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, and volcanoes, the USGS provided critical 

information to help protect lives and property and to guide recovery and conservation efforts. As Hurricanes bore 

down on the Gulf Coast, the USGS had gauges and monitoring efforts in place to help us to better understand the 

full impact that these storms have on our landscape. When Kasatochi volcano in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands went 

from quiet to explosive within a 24-hour period, USGS seismic networks installed on nearby volcanoes provided 

early warning of the imminent eruption which helped our colleagues from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service safely 

evacuate the area. Building on our multi-hazards efforts, the USGS has been a key player in the planning and 

development of the Great Southern California “ShakeOut”—the largest earthquake drill in U.S. history. In preparing 

for this event, the USGS helped to develop the most comprehensive analysis ever of the potential effects of a major 

Southern California earthquake. 

Environmental and Wildlife Impacts on Human Health

In 2008, the USGS continued to monitor and provide science needed to develop solutions for diseases transmitted 

to humans by wildlife and vectors such as mosquitoes, as well as health concerns related to water contamination, 

airborne contaminants, and contaminants that accumulate in the food chain, such as mercury. The USGS has 

continued monitoring birds for avian influenza and strengthened partnerships around the world to improve the 

tracking of this disease. A study of the Great Lakes revealed that beach sand contains high concentrations of E. 

coli and other bacteria, often greatly exceeding the concentration in beach water. The USGS and the University 

of Wisconsin at Madison created the Global Wildlife Disease News Map, which uses digital pushpins to show the 

location of news stories of wildlife diseases such as West Nile virus, avian influenza, chronic wasting disease, 

and monkeypox, allowing users to browse the latest reports of nearly 50 diseases and other health conditions by 

geographic location.

Competing Demands for Water

Decisionmakers working on water disputes in the Southeast sought out USGS science to guide their negotiations. 

In two water basins in the Southeast, many demands are competing for limited water resources, including demands 

for public drinking water, power generation, recreation, and aquatic ecological needs. Using streamgaging and 

biological information in the Flint River basin, the USGS is developing linked watershed and ecological models to help 

water resource managers understand the resources available, balance the demands of users, and sustain a healthy 

aquatic ecosystem. 

In this report, you will find that the USGS also had many successes in the areas of leadership and business 

management. To better integrate our science to address the complex challenges we face, in 2008 the USGS 

reorganized its regional leadership. This new leadership structure helps us to bring all of our scientific expertise 

together to address challenging issues. In 2008, the USGS used the results of a survey taken in 2007 to improve our 

leadership training. A more comprehensive supervisory development program was designed, and a major component 
 Message from the Director

vi

on “transitioning into a leadership role” was added. The USGS also developed standardized financial training that will 

be offered on an annual basis to all parts of the Bureau. 

To improve our energy efficiency and reduce our environmental impact, the USGS conducted an assessment to 

increase the sharing of vehicles and the use of alternative fuels. At the USGS headquarters, measures to reduce 

energy consumption included the installation of a high-efficiency air compressor system, reflective white roofing, 

energy-efficient cafeteria equipment, and photovoltaic low-flow faucets. 

As you read this report, you will see the bigger picture of our accomplishments from the perspective of our 

customers. This year, the USGS met all three of the representative measures that the Department of the Interior 

identified for the USGS. For example, regarding our End Outcome Goal of improving the understanding of national 

ecosystems and resources through integrated interdisciplinary assessment, surveys showed that more than 90 

percent of our targeted science products were used by partners for making land or resource management decisions. 

The accomplishments in this report show the many ways that we fulfilled our mission in 2008. In 2009, the USGS will 

continue to provide our leaders with the scientific data, tools, and expertise they need to address the natural-science 

challenges we face not only as a Nation, but as a planet.

Mark D. Myers

Director
 

vii
 

viii

╒════════════The Bureau 

History and Enabling Legislation

The USGS, a bureau within the Department of the Interior (Interior), was created by federal legislation 

(43 U.S.C. 31 (a)) for the “classification of the public lands, and examination of the geological structure, 

mineral resources, and products of the national domain.” 

Mission

The USGS serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the 

Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.

Strategic Goals

Resource Protection: Protect the Nation’s natural, cultural, and heritage resources

Resource Use: Manage resources to promote responsible use and sustain a dynamic economy

Serving Communities: Safeguard lives, property and assets, advance scientific knowledge, and 

 improve the quality of life for communities we serve

Organization

Regions: Eastern, Central, and Western 

Scientific Disciplines: Biology, Geology, Geography, and Water

Support Entities: Geospatial Information, Facilities, and Science Support

 

Employees

The USGS has scientists, technicians, and support staff in every State and several foreign countries with 

a total of approximately 8,800 employees.

Budget

The Bureau’s FY2008 budget, including transferred and supplemental appropriations, was $1 billion.

Internet

The Bureau’s Internet address is http://www.usgs.gov. 
 

ix

at a Glance════════════╕

 Programs

• Biological Informatics

• Coastal and Marine Geology

• Contaminant Biology

• Cooperative Research Units - Biology

• Cooperative Water

• Earth Surface Dynamics

• Earthquake Hazards

• Energy Resources

• Enterprise Information

• Facilities

• Fisheries: Aquatic and Endangered Resources

• Geographic Analysis and Monitoring

• Geomagnetism

• Global Seismographic Network

• Global Change

• Ground Water Resources

• Hydrologic Networks and Analysis

• Hydrologic Research and Development

• Invasive Species

• Land Remote Sensing

• Landslide Hazards

• Mineral Resources

• National Cooperative Geologic Mapping

• National Geospatial

• National Streamflow Information 

• National Water-Quality Assessment

• Priority Ecosystems Science

• Science Support

• Status and Trends of Biological Resources

• Terrestrial, Freshwater, and Marine Ecosystems

• Toxic Substances Hydrology

• Volcano Hazards

• Water Resources Research Act

• Wildlife and Terrestrial Resources

Biology

Geography

Geology

Water
 Message from the Director

x

USGS seismic site. 
1

Section I

Management’s 

Discussion 

and Analysis

Contents

Overview of the Organization ...........................................................................................................2

Performance Summary......................................................................................................................5

Analysis of Our Financial Statements ...........................................................................................18

Limitations to Our Financial Statements .......................................................................................22

Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements ..............................................................22

Looking Forward................................................................................................................................30
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of the Organization 2

Who We Are and What We Do

T

he USGS serves the Nation as an independent 

fact-finding agency that collects and analyzes 

natural resource data and provides scientific 

understanding about conditions, issues, and problems. 

The USGS is the science provider of choice for 

information and understanding to help resolve complex 

natural resource problems across the Nation and 

around the world. 

The USGS was created 

by an act of Congress 

in 1879. When the USGS 

was established, the 

Federal government 

held title to more than 

1.2 billion acres of land, 

nearly all of it west of the 

Mississippi River, and only 

200 million acres of this 

land had been surveyed. John Wesley Powell, who 

led one of the great western surveys that preceded 

the creation of the USGS and who later served as the 

second USGS Director, suggested that very little of the 

remaining public land was suitable for conventional 

farming and that only a small fraction of the arid 

land was irrigable using known resources. Powell 

proposed radical changes in the land system, including 

organization of irrigation and pasturage districts, to 

improve management of water and natural resources 

by sociopolitical institutions, based on natural science. 

One hundred and twenty-eight years later, the USGS 

continues to provide the scientific foundation to ensure 

the best planning and the best decisionmaking. 

Today, the USGS is sought out by thousands of partners 

and customers for its natural science expertise and 

its vast earth and biological data holdings, and is the 

only integrated natural resources research bureau 

in the Federal government. The value of the USGS to 

the Nation rests on its ability to carry out studies on a 

national scale and to sustain long-term monitoring and 

assessment of natural resources. Because it has no 

regulatory or managerial mandate, the USGS provides 

impartial science that serves the needs of our changing 

world. Its diversity of scientific expertise enables 

the USGS to carry out large-scale, multi-disciplinary 

investigations that build the base of knowledge 

about the Earth. In turn, decisionmakers at all levels 

of government and citizens in all walks of life have 

information available to them for their needs to address 

pressing societal issues.

The thousands of scientists, technicians, and support 

staff of the USGS are located in nearly 400 offices in 

every State and in several foreign countries. With an 

annual budget of approximately $1 billion, the USGS 

leverages its resources and expertise in partnership 

with more than 2,000 agencies of Federal, State, local, 

and Tribal governments; 

the academic community; 

non-governmental 

organizations; and the 

private sector. Field 

investigations, direct 

observations of natural 

science processes 

and phenomena, and 

monitoring and data 

collection are the 

scientific hallmarks of the USGS.

The USGS is proud of its outstanding history of public 

service and staying at the forefront of advances 

in understanding the Earth, its processes, and its 

resources. USGS scientists pioneered hydrologic 

techniques for gaging the discharge in rivers and 

streams and modeling the flow of complex groundwater systems. Innovative ventures with the private 

sector have given the world access to digital images of 

neighborhoods and communities in one of the largest 

data sets ever made available online. 

Modern-day understanding of the formation and 

location of energy and mineral resource deposits 

is rooted in fundamental scientific breakthroughs 

by USGS scientists. USGS biologists revolutionized 

thinking about managing wildlife resources, providing 

a sound scientific basis for waterfowl conservation 

and recreational hunting to work in tandem as adaptive 

management, not as conflicting interests. Advances in 

seismology are making early warnings of earthquakes 

a reality that will give the needed alert time to save 

lives. The future of the global community presents 

unprecedented opportunities for the science of 

the USGS to continue to make substantive and lifeenhancing contributions to the betterment of the Nation 

and the world.

Vision
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of the Organization 3

The USGS addresses both national program priorities 

and local science needs on the landscape through a 

matrix-management approach. (See organizational 

chart below.) 

Regional Directors, Regional Executives, and Regional 

Science Coordinators are deployed across the Nation, 

bringing bureau leadership and programs closer to 

customers and their issues. Together, they ensure the 

quality of our science and its relevance to the needs 

of land and resource management decisionmakers. 

National programs are overseen by Associate Directors 

for each discipline and administered by Program 

Coordinators at Headquarters in Reston, Virginia. 

Together, they offer holistic science solutions by 

bringing to bear the expertise of scientists from 

multiple disciplines, integrating science to confront the 

complexity of a continually changing world. 

USGS resources and science benefit not only the 

immediate needs of partners and customers but also 

the Nation as a whole through application of the results 

to similar issues across the country and into the future. 

Strategic Direction

The USGS will combine and enhance our diverse 

programs, capabilities, and talents and increase 

customer involvement to strengthen our science 

leadership and contribution to the resolution of 

complex issues.
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of the Organization 4

How We Are Organized

The USGS has major field centers for the three regions 

in Reston, Virginia (Eastern), Denver, Colorado (Central), 

and Menlo Park, California (Western). The USGS rents 

4.2 million square feet of space in about 181 GSA 

buildings nationwide and owns 34 installations with 1.2 

million square feet of space in 263 owned buildings. The 

USGS operations include:

•	 a global earthquake monitoring network consisting 

of 150 stations distributed worldwide, contributing 

data in real-time to the USGS National Earthquake 

Information Center in Golden, Colorado, to support 

rapid earthquake assessments, impact and loss 

estimates, and scientific research supporting 

earthquake hazard reduction;

•	 14 geomagnetic observatories;

•	 a landslide network and the National Landslide 

Information Center;

•	 a volcano hazards network and volcano 

observatories in five States to monitor 52 U.S. 

volcanoes;

•	 approximately 7,000 streamgages and water quality 

monitors, the National Water Quality Laboratory,

and the Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility;

•	 affiliation with 40 Cooperative Research Units and 

54 State Water Resources Research Institutes.

•	 Map products and services that provide 24/7 online 

accessibility (when DOI’s ESN is operational) 

to over 187 gigabytes of geospatial data in The 

National Map, over 55,000 unique hard-copy 

topographic maps that cover all 50 States, U.S. 

territories and Federated states, more than 25,000 

electronically accessible scientific and technical 

publications, and an average of over 20 million 

SPAM and virus-infected messages blocked 

monthly by USGS IT security operations.

The USGS also owns 8 research vessels, all of which 

are at least 45 feet in length, have accommodations 

for overnight use by more than one person, and are 

manned by licensed Captains. Many of these vessels 

also contain operating laboratories.

The Eastern Region is situated east of the Mississippi 

River and is composed of 175 sites in 26 States, the 

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and has a combined 

workforce of approximately 2,549 individuals (to include 

students, volunteers, and contractors) distributed 

across duty stations throughout the region. 

The Central Region is composed of 15 States between 

the Mississippi River and the western slope of the 

Rocky Mountains. Approximately 2,050 employees and 

900 onsite contractors are distributed in 76 cities and 21 

field offices across the Central region. 

The Western Region is composed of 9 Western States, 

Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 

Mariana Islands. Approximately 2,281 employees are 

distributed in 33 cities and 64 field offices across the 

Western region. 

The Headquarters location in Reston, Virginia, is within 

the District of Columbia metropolitan area and has 

approximately 1,908 employees stationed in Reston and 

41 employees in several foreign countries.

Realignment

The USGS Science Strategy identifies needs for 

structural change in implementation strategies — an 

examination of the best organizational structure both 

to continue to meet our science responsibilities and 

to more effectively conduct the ecosystem-based 

science required to meet the challenges of the 21st 

Century. A long-term evaluation had been underway to 

assess our traditional organizational structure, which is 

primarily discipline-based. After careful evaluation, in 

2008 the USGS regional structure consisting of regional 

directors and discipline-specific regional executives 

was modified, and functions and responsibilities 

reallocated in order to facilitate cross-discipline 

science, allow closer collaboration with our customers, 

and provide a simplified coordination process via a 

single USGS point of contact for all science disciplines. 

The three existing regions — Central, Eastern, and 

Western — were maintained and geographic areas 

within each region were created to enhance the 

multidiscipline science.

The Focus of Our Science

The USGS vision, mission, and strategic direction focus 

on responsiveness and customer service, underscoring 

the application of science to customer, partner, and 

other stakeholder needs; directing the combined 

expertise of the bureau’s scientific disciplines; and 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 5

defining its commitment to pursuing an integrated 

approach to providing science for a changing world. 

Information— about natural hazards, resources, 

and the environment— is the key to understanding 

the Earth. USGS science provides comprehensive, 

high-quality, and timely scientific information to 

decisionmakers and the public. The information 

holdings of the USGS offer an amazing gateway to 

rich data bases, manipulatable maps, newly acquired 

satellite images, real-time information, and a wealth 

of reports spanning more than a century of science. 

The growing global population lives in an information 

age that is becoming incredibly complex. Scientific 

information is increasingly essential to an everwidening— and demanding— customer base. 

The challenges associated with observing, 

understanding, interpreting, and managing natural 

resources require broad thinking and concerted 

action. In response to this need, in 2007, the USGS 

developed a Science Strategy USGS Circular 1309, 

Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey 

Science in the Decade 2007-2017, outlining the major 

natural science issues facing the Nation in the next 

decade. The Science Strategy is based on input from 

diverse stakeholders regarding their science needs 

and on the results of a bureau-level National Research 

Council review of USGS roles and responsibilities. Six 

strategic science directions were identified to be of 

critical importance, unified by a focus on technology 

and data integration, and recognition of where we can 

make a substantial contribution to the well-being of the 

Nation and the world: 

•	 Understanding Ecosystems and Predicting 

Ecosystem Change: Ensuring the Nation’s 

Economic and Environmental Future,

•	 The Role of the Environment and Wildlife in Human 

Health: A System that Identifies Environmental Risk 

to Public Health in America,

•	 A Water Census of the United States: Quantifying,

Forecasting, and Securing Freshwater for 

America’s Future,

•	 A National Hazards, Risk, and Resilience 

Assessment Program: Ensuring the Long-Term 

Health and Wealth of the Nation, 

•	 Climate Variability and Change: Clarifying the 

Record and Assessing the Consequences, and 

•	 Energy and Minerals for America’s Future: 

Providing a Scientific Foundation for Resource 

Security, Environmental Health, Economic Vitality, 

and Land Management.

The six strategic science directions are themselves 

interrelated. Their interaction, correlation, and interplay 

reveal the complexity of the Earth’s natural, physical, 

and life systems. Developing new understanding 

therefore requires a “systems” approach that calls 

upon the full range of USGS capabilities. The USGS, 

with its breadth of scientific expertise, can provide an 

important perspective on the entire web of interrelated 

natural processes that affect national and global 

well-being. Each strategic direction contains an 

associated set of recommended strategic actions 

that are designed to achieve this systems approach 

and enhance the USGS tradition of science in service 

to the Department of the Interior and the Nation. The 

bureau is using the Science Strategy to help identify 

the most significant opportunities for advancement and 

benefit to society to help the USGS establish its science 

priorities for the next decade.

A key aspect of implementing our Science Strategy 

is creating and sustaining a work environment and 

culture that is more conducive to collaborative, 

interdisciplinary scientific research. The realignment of 

the Regional Executives was one step toward building 

our capacity for interdisciplinary science. Another part 

of our commitment toward achieving the goals of our 

Science Strategy is to implement a common bureau 

science planning process. The Regional Executives 

and the discipline Chief Scientists have been charged 

with developing and refining a bureau science planning 

model that takes advantage of our new regional 

management structure and enhances our ability to 

achieve the Science Strategy goals.

The Focus of Our Strategic Plan

The Department of the Interior’s GPRA Strategic Plan 

2007-2012 can be found at http://www.doi.gov/ppp/

Strategic%20Plan%20FY07-12/strat_plan_fy2007_2012.

pdf.

Science lies at the foundation of Interior programs. The 

USGS programmatic outcomes directly contribute to 

the Resource Protection, Resource Use, and Serving 

Communities mission areas and indirectly, as a 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 6

The following pages describe how our performance 

measures support tracking of progress toward 

achieving Interior goals. After describing the three 

mission areas and goals applicable to the USGS, the 

performance data verification and validation process 

is noted. The Department has identified representative 

measures for each bureau to encapsulate their 

contribution to achieving Interior’s goals. These select 

performance measures were chosen on the basis of 

their relatively broad scope, compared to other more 

specifically defined performance measures, and 

their potential to represent the Department’s overall 

performance. As such, they are not meant to capture 

the detail available in the Part II performance tables. 

Interior’s intent is to routinely use these representative 

measures to readily track yearly progress with each 

subsequent PAR performance assessment overview. 

For the USGS, three end outcome measures were 

selected as representative measures, one for each 

goal. In this section the results for these three 

measures will be presented for each end outcome 

goal by Mission Area. Tables and graphs present 

the performance status with related funding for 

the representative Strategic Plan measures. Each 

performance table will be followed by a brief illustration 

of the performance captured by the measure. Results 

and a more comprehensive and detailed presentation 

for all of the measures that appear in the USGS 

performance budget are included in Section II: 

Performance Data and Analysis. 

To demonstrate the integration of performance and 

financial information, our financial results, discussed 

later in the Management Discussion and Analysis 

(MD&A), are reported and directly correlated to the 

strategic plan and outcome goals.

GPRA Goals

DOI is the Nation’s principal conservation agency, 

conserving Federally managed lands and waters, 

protecting fish and wildlife, and preserving public 

lands for future generations to enjoy. Science is key to 

byproduct, support Recreation goals. The USGS goals 

are designed “to improve understanding of” —

•	 National ecosystems and resources (Resource 

Protection) 

•	 Energy and mineral resources (Resource Use) 

•	 Natural hazards (Serving Communities)

The USGS also supports Management Excellence 

goals through two budget activities (Science Support 

and Facilities), as well as infrastructure functions 

of Enterprise Information. Interior’s science mission 

has clearly defined goals and performance measures 

to gage progress in achieving this mission. Several 

of these performance measures derived their 

origin from the PART evaluation process, making 

a close linkage of the plan to the programs and 

performance budget. In the construct of the strategies 

to achieve the end outcome goals for science, the 

Administration’s Research and Development criteria 

are the accountability premise for science investments. 

These criteria are performance, quality and relevance. 

Therefore, the first strategy for each science goal 

focuses on performance and the second strategy on 

quality and relevance with standardized language as 

follows:

Performance: 1. Ensure availability of ... scientific 

 data and information...

Quality and

Relevance: 2. Ensure the quality and relevance 

 of science information and data to 

 support decisionmaking.

Mission Area of Resource Protection: 

Protect the Nation’s Natural, Cultural, and Heritage 

Resources

Standard Customer Satisfaction and Usage/Outcome 

Surveys

To ensure quality and relevance of USGS products and services the 

Office of Budget and Performance conducts Standard Customer 

Satisfaction/Outcome Surveys. Since first begun in 2001, more than 

3600 customers – mostly scientists and resource managers – have 

described their usage and satisfaction with various aspects of more 

than 100 different science products. In response to the expressed 

needs of customers, the USGS has made many enhancements to 

these products. The surveys all follow the same format, although 

each is modified to meet a specific program’s customer information 

needs. As a result, the final outcome of each survey is immediately 

useful to the program manager, yet can be aggregated to support 

Bureau level performance reporting. The Office follows up with the 

managers to ascertain how survey results were applied.
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 7

making decisions on how to best conserve the Nation’s 

natural resources. The USGS plays an important role in 

accomplishing DOI’s mission to administer programs on 

thousands of upland, wetland, and aquatic parcels, and 

protecting native plant and animal species.

The USGS produces scientific assessments and 

information on the quality and quantity of our Nation’s 

water resources; collects, processes, integrates, 

archives, and provides access to geographic, 

geospatial and natural resource data; and conducts 

multi-purpose natural science research to promote 

understanding of earth processes. The USGS’ multiple 

scientific disciplines combine their expertise in 

interagency ecosystem initiatives across the United 

States, from South Florida to the Puget Sound, where 

scientists are working together to understand, 

evaluate, and provide options for better resource 

management decisions. 

USGS science programs work collaboratively with 

many organizations across the country to provide 

critical information to assist land and resource 

management agencies, partners, stakeholders, 

customers, and the general public with timely 

information to inform their decisionmaking.

Resource Protection End Outcome Goal: Improve the 

understanding of National ecosystems and resources 

through integrated interdisciplinary assessment. 

The USGS met the representative performance 

measure monitored during FY2008 related to this end 

outcome goal. 

Managing the vast resources of America’s public 

lands has been a core DOI responsibility since the 

Department was founded in 1849. Lands and water 

managed by DOI produce resources critical to the 

Nation’s economic health. Science is a key foundation 

upon which DOI bases management decisions that 

promote natural resource use to sustain a dynamic 

economy while maintaining healthy lands and waters. 

The USGS plays an important role in accomplishing 

DOI’s mission to administer programs providing 

information on millions of square miles of land across 

all of the United States. 

The USGS is the primary provider of earth science 

energy resource information and assessments for a 

variety of stakeholders in addition to Interior, including 

Federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, the Department of Energy, 

local and State agencies and coal and electric power 

producers. The USGS Energy Resources Program 

conducts national and global energy research on and 

assessments of oil, natural gas, coalbed methane, 

gas hydrates, coal, geothermal resources, oil shale, 

and uranium; evaluates environmental and human 

health impacts associated with production, use, 

and occurrence of energy resources; and provides 

information for the Nation to make sound decisions 

regarding increases or changes in domestic energy 

production or mix with an understanding of potential 

impacts on the environment. The USGS Mineral 

Resources Program is the sole Federal provider 

of scientific information for objective resources 

assessments and unbiased research results on mineral 

potential, production, consumption, and environmental 

effects. Land managers and policymakers use this 

information to support resource use decisions to 

enhance public benefit, promote responsible use, and 

ensure optimal value. 

USGS research on and assessments of undiscovered 

non-fuel mineral and energy resources assist Interior’s 

land management bureaus in their goal of providing 

responsible management of resources on Federal 

lands.

Resource Use End Outcome Goal: Improve the 

understanding of energy and mineral resources to 

promote responsible use and sustain the Nation’s 

dynamic economy. 

The USGS met the representative performance 

measure monitored during FY2008 related to this end 

outcome goal. 

Mission Area of Resource Use: 

Improve Resource Management to Assure Responsible Use 

and Sustain a Dynamic Economy
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 8

DOI’s responsibility to serve communities extends 

well beyond the lands and resources it manages. 

Interior is responsible for protecting lives, resources, 

and property, and providing scientific information 

for better decisionmaking. Science is at the heart of 

performing these tasks. The USGS plays a critical role 

in accomplishing DOI’s mission to protect communities 

by providing scientific information to reduce risks from 

earthquakes, landslides, and volcanic eruptions.

USGS geologic hazards programs conduct targeted 

research, gather long-term data, operate monitoring 

networks, perform assessments and modeling, and 

disseminate findings to the public, enabling the 

Nation’s emergency management capabilities to warn 

of impending disasters, better define risk, encourage 

appropriate response, and mitigate damage and loss. 

When earthquakes strike, the USGS delivers realtime information, providing situational awareness 

for emergency-response personnel. For volcanoes, 

the USGS has made steady annual progress on both 

monitoring and hazard-assessment efforts. Hazard 

research on landslides concentrates on understanding 

landslide processes, developing and deploying 

instruments that monitor threatening landslides, and 

forecasting the onset of catastrophic movement of 

future landslides. These programs are designed to 

produce information and understanding that will lead to 

a reduced impact of natural hazards and disasters on 

human life and the economy. 

Serving Communities End Outcome Goal: Improve 

understanding, prediction, and monitoring of natural 

hazards to inform decisions by civil authorities and the 

public to plan for, manage, and mitigate the effects of 

hazard events on people and property. 

The USGS met the representative performance 

measure monitored during FY2008 related to this end 

outcome goal. 

GPRA Performance Data Validation and 

Verification 

In keeping with Departmental and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) policy for performance 

data validation and verification (V&V), the USGS 

complies with requirements for performance data 

credibility. 

Our approach to achieving performance data credibility 

includes providing Budget and Performance Integration 

and Activity Based Cost (ABC) Management training, 

tying organizational performance measures to individual 

performance plans, and implementing the Department 

Data V&V Assessment Matrix. During FY2008, the USGS 

continued to include USGS-specific measures, outputs, 

Management Excellence, and all Program Assessment 

Rating Tool performance measures in the Data V&V 

process. This extends the assurance credibility to more 

performance data, ensuring usability for management 

decisionmaking and oversight. A more detailed 

discussion of Data V&V is in Section II: Performance 

Data and Analysis.

Performance Measurement Challenges

Measuring performance of science is inherently 

difficult, and the USGS has customized the methods of 

measurement in order to make the results meaningful. 

Any performance data limitations are documented in 

the following pages and no corrective actions were 

needed. 

How We Performed in FY2008

The USGS met all three of the representative measures 

that were identified by the Department of Interior for 

the USGS. The following sections will describe progress 

in each Mission Area. Each representative Strategic 

Plan performance measure is plotted for 2008 with a 

projection into 2009 along with the trend from the past 

several years. Each measure is also accompanied by 

the corresponding trend in cost that contributes toward 

performance. In this manner, the reader can see the 

performance and cost realized thus far, along with 

planning proposed in the 2009 Continuing Resolution. 

The annual cost devoted to the program or activity is 

calculated based on the ABC/M methodology and is 

also listed in the table. For a full report of all USGS 

performance measures, see Section II: Performance 

Data and Analysis. 

Mission Area of Serving Communities: 

Improve protection of Lives, Property, and Assets; Advance 

the Use Scientific Knowledge; and Improve the Quality of Life 

for the Communities We Serve
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 9

Resource Protection 

End Outcome Goal: 

Improve the understanding of National ecosystems and resources through integrated interdisciplinary assessment.

Percent of targeted science products that are used by partners or customers 

for land or resource management decisionmaking

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Plan

Target ≥80% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90%

Performance 80% 90% 93% 93% 93% NA

Total Cost * $1,255,351,787 $1,235,042,130 $1,251,015,129 $1,224,776,955 $1,258,289,675 $1,258,289,675

* Costs correspond to the End Outcome Goal

The ultimate outcome of USGS research, 

monitoring, and assessment is its use by a partner 

or customer in land and resource decisionmaking. 

Usage as measured by customer surveys has been 

holding steady and slightly improving in some 

areas while the USGS has maintained costs at 

a fairly constant level. Program managers have 

achieved cost efficiencies in many areas in 2008 

including:

•	 a decrease in the average cost for selected, 

high priority environmentally available 

chemical analyses as a result of installing 

new instruments, reducing steps needed for 

analysis, and eliminating interferences which 

would have required additional analysis. The 

decrease realized was tempered by Increased 

costs for chemicals used in the analyses due to 

increases in manufacture of all petrochemical 

products and shipping costs;

•	 a decrease in the number of hours for 

fieldwork, compilation and publication of a 

typical geologic map as a result of deploying 

recent advances in handheld computers and 

mobile-computing technology which also 

minimizes errors and time in processing while 

protecting data from loss by ensuring data 

backup throughout the process;

•	 an increase in data acquisition cost for The 

National Map being funded by partners 

through increased liaison, one of the benefits 

of regionalization efforts; and

Performance vs. Funding

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Plan

$1,200,000,000

$1,250,000,000

$1,300,000,000

$1,350,000,000

Percent of targeted science products used for land or resource management decision making $
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 10

•	 a decrease in the cost of collection and 

processing of airborne remote sensing data 

for coastal characterization and impact 

assessments. A greater efficiency was 

targeted but may fall slightly short as of third 

quarter as a result of delays in deploying a 

hyperspectral scanner.

The USGS’ strategy to “Improve Understanding,” 

is to “ensure availability of scientific data and 

information.” While holding costs down, USGS 

programs have made many major improvements 

in availability, accessibility, and usability of 

our science in 2008 and have implemented 

improvements aligned with PART evaluations to 

ensure that underlying programs are optimized for 

customer service and value. Included among these 

positive changes for Resource Protection, the 

USGS:

•	 made the 35 year Landsat satellite image 

archive available over the Internet for free, as 

of September 30, 2008;

•	 released an online user-friendly map that 

tracks flood conditions, ensuring timely 

and uninterrupted water information for 

forecasters, emergency managers, scientists 

and the general public;

•	 released a new online Wildlife Disease News 

Map to track news about disease outbreaks 

that threaten the health of wildlife, domestic 

animals, and people around the world, a 

collaborative effort with the University of 

Wisconsin-Madison;

•	 assembled an international team of scientists 

to conduct a series of analyses to help inform 

the Secretary’s decision on whether to list 

polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. 

The USGS is continuing long-term studies to 

evaluate and test models that were developed;

•	 completed an outline of study by the GroundWater Resources Program to improve 

estimates of regional ground-water availability 

across the Nation;

•	 incorporated recently available land use/land 

cover and USDA nutrient (fertilizer) data in 

model and analyses supporting the Mississippi 

River Basin/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force 

and EPA plans to target resources to reduce 

nitrogen and phosphorous in 100 Mississippi 

River Basin watersheds;

•	 completed first ever 30-meter cell land cover 

data for Alaska accessible for download from 

the National Land Cover Database;

•	 redesigned the National Biological Information 

Infrastructure (NBII) Clearinghouse to make 

searching metadata records more efficient;

•	 improved alignment between State and USGS 

geologic mapping projects in support of 

Federal initiatives, and

•	 developed an interagency strategic plan for 

Extended Continental Shelf Mapping which led 

to NOAA/USGS effort this summer to map the 

Arctic in cooperation with the Canadians.

In 2009, the USGS will continue to search for 

more efficient methods to evaluate ground water 

resources, assess status and trends of surface 

water quality within 8 major river basins in the 

US, continue updating land cover and species 

distribution in the Northwest and Northeast US, 

inventory species and habitat, monitor and assess 

water resources and monitor change as energy 

resources are developed in southwest Wyoming, 

and improve hazard models for US territories in 

the Caribbean that have experienced and will 

experience tsunamis.

The USGS also commissions external evaluations 

to improve program efficiency and effectiveness. 

In response to the National Research Council’s 

recommendation for The National Map to advance 

integration of highly diverse data from State and 

local agencies in a consistent, national framework. 

The USGS has begun to engage data-contributing 

partners to the National Hydrography Dataset into 

data maintenance activities in their areas while 

the USGS facilitates the overall process, providing 

national coordination, standards, training, quality 

assurance, archival and data distribution. This 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 11

will accelerate availability and timeliness of 

downstream flow data that are critical to pollution 

control analysis by EPA and others.

The USGS continuously surveys customer 

satisfaction with programs, and products. 

Surveys include questions regarding different 

types of usage. Data are compiled for program, 

project, and organization managers to help guide 

program and product improvement. The annual 

target is a threshold below which performance 

would indicate a problem and would mean that 

some sort of corrective action is needed. As long 

as the actual result is above the target level, 

the process is under control and no corrective 

action is needed, although enhancements could 

be implemented as a result of feedback. Two 

examples of the types of information obtained 

through this process (for Landsat Search and 

Discovery Systems and for the Cooperative 

Research Units Program) demonstrate the utility 

of our products and programs for a wide variety of 

decisionmaking and outcomes.

The USGS asked 238 recent users of the search 

and discovery systems [Earth Explorer and USGS 

Global Visualization (GloVis) Viewer of the Earth 

Resources Observation and Sciences Center 

(EROS)] about their satisfaction with and use of 

these systems. Reported uses for the imagery and 

data obtained from EROS follow:

•	 visual simulation for aircraft simulators; 

•	 accessing and planning for petroleum 

exploration; 

•	 defining and visualizing sites or regions that 

are impacted by environmental contaminants in 

relation to human populations; 

•	 assessing environmental quality of a river basin 

(vegetation, soils, and land use), and

•	 assessing plant health (for example, change 

detection on 23,000-acre tree farm).

127 partners in Cooperative Research Units 

Program projects, with an end completion date 

of September 2007, were asked about their 

satisfaction with and use of the delivered science 

products. 

Examples of uses reported by partners follow: 

•	 “In addition to contributing to a breeding 

population estimate for golden eagles and 

long-term trends in that part of its breeding 

range, the work will be important in dealing 

with wind energy companies in that area, 

evaluation of depredation permit requests, and 

assessment of impacts of the disappearance of 

eagles due to human interference ;”

•	 “Research results have been and will continue 

to serve as the primary basis for decisions 

on whether and how to manage hatchery 

operations and angler use in a manner that 

does not spread an invasive pathogen;”

•	 “We have already used the results of this study 

during our annual review of this candidate 

species; we expect to use the results to 

prioritize habitat restoration and protection 

efforts.” 

Uses for Imagery

24

43

8

3

19

23

5

16

10

34

3

12

24

13

0 10 20 30 40 50

Other

Environ.

Defense

Park mgmt.

Map backgrnd.

Commerce

Telecomm.

Education

Student project

Water mgmt.

Insurance

Disaster

Agriculture

Personal

Percentages
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 12

The USGS continues to: 

•	 seek customer and stakeholder requirements 

in science product development;

•	 proactively engage customers in product 

application through technical assistance 

workshops; and 

•	 seek customer and stakeholder feedback 

through surveys and listening sessions 

to continue improvement in usability and 

usefulness of products and services.

Resource Use 

End Outcome Goal: 

Improve the understanding of energy and mineral resources to promote responsible use and sustain the Nation’s 

dynamic economy.

Percent of targeted science products that are used by partners or customers for land 

or resource management decisionmaking

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Plan

Target ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥90% ≥90%

Performance 80% 86.5% 87.5% 99% 95% NA

Total Cost * $94,429,073 $96,883,040 $94,898,465 $99,256,515 $103,482,332 $103,482,332

* Costs correspond to the End Outcome Goal

Reasons for using Coop Unit Program

24

25

14

71

25

24

25

63

41

44

57

0 20 40 60 80

Price

Personalities

Interact with students

Expertise

Research facilities

Technical assistance

Involvement at Fed level

Ease of agreement

Reputation

Quality of past research

Affiliation

Percentages

Performance vs. Funding

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Plan

$90,000,000

$95,000,000

$100,000,000

$105,000,000

Percent of targeted science products used for land or resource management decision making $
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 13

The ultimate outcome of USGS research, 

monitoring, and assessment is its use by a partner 

or customer in land and resource decisionmaking. 

Usage as measured by survey has been 

increasing and costs fairly constant. In 2008, the 

Mineral Resources Program (MRP) decrease 

proposed in the President’s Budget request was 

restored so the projected performance impact 

was not realized. Average costs of Energy and 

Minerals systematic analyses and investigations 

increased this year with an Arctic assessment 

requiring additional resources for extreme 

conditions. However, program managers have 

achieved cost efficiencies in performing their 

research. An example is demonstrated in the 

Mineral Resources Program which as a result 

of the PART evaluation developed improvement 

plans to “target program funds on activities 

that support long term land use and economic 

policy decisions and improve accessibility and 

application of mineral resource information.” 

Based on their experience with USGS soil 

geochemical data, USGS stakeholders (Bureau 

of Land Management, National Park Service, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, U.S. Forest Service, National 

Resource Conservation Service, Department of 

Defense, Center for Disease Control, State, and 

local departments of environmental protection and 

health departments) have requested consistent, 

comprehensive, National-scale geochemical 

data that are easily available to any interested 

user and permit comparison between sites 

anywhere in the country. They use these data to 

establish or evaluate background in environmental 

impact statements and for remediation of sites 

contaminated by natural events (hurricanes, 

wildfires) or man-made causes (industrial 

activities, agricultural practices, urban run-off). 

The most expensive component of such a project 

is the labor cost to physically go to the designated 

spot and collect representative samples following 

established protocols. The program manager 

analyzed three strategies for collecting samples: 

•	 permanent full-time USGS staff, 

•	 geology students hired on short term 

appointments, or 

•	 State agency partnerships in each State. 

The USGS determined that the savings achieved by 

using student samplers with USGS training and QA/

QC covers the cost of analyses, making a Nationalscale program for geochemical data feasible. 

The Minerals Program established milestones to 

complete the conterminous 48 states by the end of 

2011 pending continuous funding.

The USGS’ strategy to “Improve Understanding,” 

is to “ensure availability of scientific data and 

information.” While holding costs down, USGS 

programs have made many major improvements 

in availability, accessibility, and usability of our 

energy and mineral resource data and science in 

2008 and have implemented improvements aligned 

with PART evaluations to ensure that underlying 

programs are optimized for customer service and 

value. Included among these positive changes for 

Resource Use, the USGS:

•	 streamlined release of mineral production data; 

•	 improved analytical methods to make it 

possible to routinely detect low levels of 

cyanide-cobalt complexes to improve water 

treatment and site remediation at active and 

abandoned mine sites;

•	 released the first publicly available petroleum 

resource estimate of the entire area north of 

the Arctic Circle accounting for about 22% 

of the undiscovered, technically recoverable 

resources in the world;

•	 released the results of the most comprehensive 

gas hydrate field venture in the world. 

Conducted in cooperation with India’s Ministry 

of Petroleum and Natural Gas, this research 

is a huge step in realizing gas hydrates as a 

viable alternative energy source;

•	 released an inventory of oil and natural gas 

resources on Federal lands and extent and 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 14

nature of restrictions or impediments to 

resource development in collaboration with 

BLM, US Forest Service, Department of Energy, 

and the Energy Information Administration, 

a product called for in the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act;

•	 implemented a new Energy Program website 

template to improve navigation, layout, and 

data accessibility;

•	 developed a strategy to improve user familiarity 

with recently developed electronic forms to 

improve utilization, and

•	 involved stakeholders in identifying highest 

priority frontier lands in Alaska and highest 

priority critical minerals. 

•	 In 2009, the USGS will publish a summary 

assessment of all technically recoverable 

petroleum resources for the entire northern 

Alaska province, complete mineral resource 

studies in support of economic development 

and land management in rural Alaska. conduct 

research in support of an assessment of the 

undiscovered petroleum resources within 

the Gulf Coast region, and complete methods 

required for quantitative assessment of 

undiscovered mineral deposits.

The USGS also commissions external evaluations 

to improve program efficiency and effectiveness. 

In response to a National Academy of Science 

recommendation, the Minerals Program made 

the data produced for the Federal Reserve index 

of industrial production available in the same 

form to the public. These domestic mineral data 

are collected by the USGS through voluntary 

cooperation of the mineral industry and are 

available through no other source.

This measure is tracked through surveys that 

document usage and collect anecdotal information 

about use. An example of the types of information 

obtained through this process (for the Energy 

Resources Program newsletter) demonstrates 

the utility of our products and programs for a 

wide variety of decisionmaking and outcomes. 

The USGS asked 250 subscribers to the Energy 

Resources Program newsletter about their 

satisfaction with and use of the newsletter. More 

than three-quarters of subscribers reported having 

accessed Web links in the newsletter. Subscriber 

statements about their use of the newsletter 

follows: 

•	 “I provide a newsletter to the industry and your 

newsletter lets me know of new publications 

my readers might be interested in knowing 

about.”

•	 “I use the ERP newsletter as one of many 

vehicles to stay abreast of progress and 

available data related to natural gas and coal 

research and development.”

•	 “It is a source of background geological info 

that keeps me in touch with the advances in 

various fields.”

•	 “My role of providing decision support to the 

top management has been greatly facilitated by 

your ERP newsletter.”

•	 “The ERP newsletter provides a muchappreciated synopsis of higher-profile activities 

that can be quickly scanned, thus saving 

time that would otherwise be spent crawling 

through multiple Internet resources.”

•	 “Will use the ERP newsletter as an overview 

for basin analysis to study potential plays in the 

midcontinent.”

An additional survey of users of the annual USGS 

Mineral Commodity Summaries report is currently 

underway and will be reported in 2009. 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 15

The USGS continues to: 

•	 seek customer and stakeholder requirements 

in science product development;

•	 proactively engage customers in product 

application through technical assistance 

workshops; and 

•	 seek customer and stakeholder feedback 

through surveys and listening sessions 

to continue improvement in usability and 

usefulness of products and services. 

Serving Communities

End Outcome Goal: 

Improve the understanding, prediction, and monitoring of natural hazards to inform decisions by civil authorities and 

the public to plan for, manage and mitigate the effects of hazard events on people and property.

Percent of communities/Tribes using DOI science on hazard mitigation, 

preparedness and avoidance for each hazard management activity

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Plan

Target 37% 46% 48% 51% 53% 53%

Performance 43% 45% 48% 50% 53% NA

Total Cost * $107,436,102 $110,733,990 $118,005,777 $125,913,313 $130,869,528 $130,869,528

* Costs correspond to the End Outcome Goal

Primary areas of interest

22

42

58

58

18

22

22

18

24

20

42

27

36

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Uranium

Oil Shale

Oil/Gas - International

Oil/Gas - Domestic

Geothermal

Geophysics

CO2 Sequestration

Geochemistry

Gas Hydrates

Environ./Health

Coal Methane

Coal Quality

Coal

Performance vs. Funding

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Plan

$100,000,000

$110,000,000

$120,000,000

$130,000,000

$140,000,000

Percent of communities/Tribes using DOI sc ience on haz ard mitigation, preparedness, and avoidance $
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 16

The ultimate outcome of USGS research, 

monitoring, and assessment is its use by a 

partner or customer in land and resource 

decisionmaking. Communities and tribes using 

USGS geologic hazards data continue to grow 

while costs increase slightly as we reach out to 

more communities at risk. While areas at risk for 

earthquakes and volcanoes are fairly discrete, 

distribution of landslide risk is dispersed across 

the Nation. Program managers have achieved cost 

efficiencies in at least one area, data processing 

and notification costs per unit volume of input data 

from earthquake sensors in monitoring networks

The USGS’ strategy to “Improve Understanding,” 

is to “ensure availability of scientific data and 

information.” While holding costs down, USGS 

programs have made many major improvements 

in availability, accessibility, and usability of our 

geologic hazards data and science in 2008 and 

have implemented improvements aligned with 

PART evaluations to ensure that underlying 

programs are optimized for customer service and 

value. Included among these positive changes to 

Serve Communities, the USGS:

•	 made earthquake information available in 

Google Earth TM although huge databases of 

earthquake occurrences have been available 

publicly for a long time, the interactive graphic 

display of Google Earth TM makes it easy to 

understand the context and significance of 

each quake, with pop-up windows giving the 

user more information about the earthquake’s 

magnitude, date, location and depth;

•	 worked closely with local authorities, 

emergency responders, schools, civic groups 

in the earthquake Country Alliance partnership 

for the November 13, 2008 Great Southern 

California ShakeOut, the largest earthquake 

drill in US history; 

•	 helped FEMA improve loss estimation 

capabilities by incorporating USGS geologic 

hazards information, and

•	 coordinated with partners on deploying joint 

debris/flow/flash flood warning systems.

In 2009, the USGS will produce a uniform hazard 

spectra for a broad range of structures and 

maps that portray the degree of certainty and 

resolution of seismic hazard estimates nationwide, 

complete a hazard assessment of Mount Lassen 

and geologic maps for Mount Hood in Oregon 

and Glacier Peak in Washington, and continue to 

provide landslide assessments for areas burned by 

the extensive rash of California wildfires.

The USGS also commissions external evaluations 

to improve program efficiency and effectiveness. 

In response to an American Association for the 

Advancement of Science the Volcano Hazards 

Program has begun to respond to 15 new 

recommendations including those to improve 

and increase real-time web-based information 

dissemination, more international components in 

projects, and development of agreements with 

more State and academic partners.

Research impact is tracked by each geologic 

hazard for its respective communities at risk. 

Results are documented in the performance 

budget for each hazard and as an aggregate 

average to give an indication of the level of usage 

of Interior’s data for all geologic hazards. In 

addition, surveys like those for the other goals’ 

products are conducted to further document 

usage and collect anecdotal information from the 

users. The 152 subscribers to the Alaska Volcano 

Observatory (AVO) notification service were asked 

about their satisfaction with and use of the AVO 

Web site. Examples of reported uses from civilian 

government agencies follow: 

•	 “During the Mt. Spurr eruption, the Web site 

provided information and links that were 

critical to the decisionmaking that occurred in 

the Emergency Operations Center.”

•	 “I use the automatic e-mail update from AVO 

to monitor activity up and down the Alaska 

Peninsula, as all 17 of Lake and Peninsula 

Borough’s villages are in the zone for impacts 

from one or more volcanoes.”
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Summary 17

The USGS continues to: 

•	 seek customer and stakeholder requirements 

in science product development; 

•	 proactively engage customers in product 

application through technical assistance 

workshops; and 

•	 seek customer and stakeholder feedback 

through surveys and listening sessions 

to continue improvement in usability and 

usefulness of products and services.

•	 “I use the information to determine if the 

Kenai Peninsula Borough schools should take 

appropriate actions.”

•	 “Information is used to relay early warnings to 

potentially affected jurisdictions.”

•	 “Review to make predictions of air quality in 

Anchorage.”

•	 “Used extensively during St. Augustine 

eruptions for daily decisions, including plans of 

action for schools, elderly, etc.”

Satisfaction with AVO Website

65

69

56

57

63

35

31

42

42

35

0

0

2

2

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall satisfaction

Usefulness

Topic titles

Links

Layout

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Analysis of Our Financial Statements 18

(In Thousands) % Change 2008 2007

Condensed Financial Statement Data:

 Fund balance with Treasury +5% $ 310,832 $ 294,729

 Accounts and interest receivable, net +11% 122,195 110,074

 Property, plant, and equipment, net -2% 128,899 132,040

 Other -6% 3,107 3,289

Total Assets $ 565,033 $ 540,132

 Accounts payable -2% $ 45,459 $ 46,165

 Employee related liabilities +7% 146,543 136,409

 Other -4% 66,419 69,406

Total Liabilities +3% $ 258,421 $ 251,980

Total Net Position +6% $ 306,612 $ 288,152

Total appropriations received - SBR +3% $ 1,025,128 $ 990,859

Total costs +3% $ 1,492,641 $ 1,449,947

Total revenue +7% 444,937 415,886

Total net cost of operations +1% $ 1,047,704 $ 1,034,061

T

he USGS principal financial statements, which 

are included in Section III of this report, are 

prepared in accordance with the U.S. Generally 

Accepted Accounting Principles using guidance issued 

by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

(FASAB), OMB, and USGS accounting policies. While 

the financial statements have been prepared from 

the USGS books and records in accordance with the 

formats prescribed by OMB, they are different from the 

financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary 

resources that are prepared from the same books and 

records. The financial statements should be read with 

the realization that they are a component of the U.S. 

Government, a sovereign entity.

The DOI Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is 

responsible for auditing the principal financial statements 

of the USGS and has satisfied their responsibility by 

contracting these services to KPMG LLP. 

This analysis of the financial statements contains 

highlights on selected aspects of the accompanying 

principal financial statements. 

Assets – What We Own

The Fund Balance with Treasury of $311 million at 

September 30, 2008 is primarily composed of appropriated 

funds available to make authorized expenditures. 

It increased from FY2007 primarily due to timing of 

expenditures.
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Analysis of Our Financial Statements 19

The total net Accounts Receivable (A/R) of $122 million 

at September 30, 2008 is represented by 42 percent 

of amounts owed from other Federal agencies and 

58 percent owed from the public. The majority of the 

accounts receivable is established to cover the direct 

and indirect costs for reimbursable services performed 

in support of surveys, investigations, and scientific 

research.

Most of the receivable balance is unbilled: $51 

million is from Federal agencies and $42 million is 

from the public. The large unbilled balance is a result 

of agreements that were written for survey and 

research work. The revenue is recognized as work is 

completed, but the receipt of payment is often not due 

until completion of the survey or research report. The 

balance of unbilled A/R remained consistent in FY2008 

due to overall operations being generally consistent 

with the prior year.

The general property, plant, and equipment (PP&E), net 

of accumulated depreciation, amounted to $129 million 

at September 30, 2008. The PP&E decrease from FY2007 

is primarily due to current year depreciation expense.

Liabilities – What We Owe

The USGS is a scientific service organization where the 

majority of its liabilities are payroll and benefits related.

At September 30, 2008, the accrued payroll and benefits 

of $42 million, Federal Employees Compensation Act 

(FECA) liabilities, and annual leave due to employees 

represents 56 percent of USGS total liabilities of $258 

million. 

Accounts payable of $45 million consists of 11 percent 

due to other Federal agencies and 89 percent due to 

the public. 

Deferred revenue, credits, and the deposit fund liability 

of $9 million consists primarily of amounts advanced 

to the bureau to cover reimbursable services to be 

provided at a future date.

Unfunded liabilities represented a significant portion 

of the total outstanding liabilities in FY2008. The 

largest liabilities in this balance consists of $62 million 

of unfunded annual leave and $43 million for FECA 

liabilities. The other significant unfunded liability is 

USGS abandoned sites of $22 million.

Budgetary Resources – What We Receive

The USGS received approximately 53 percent, or $1 

billion, of its total budgetary resources of $1.9 billion 

through appropriations received in FY2008.

The approved budget for the USGS was modestly 

increased from FY2007. Other major sources of 

budgetary resources include unobligated balances 

carried over from FY2007 and spending authority from 

offsetting collections, totaling $382 million and $551 

million respectively. As of September 30, 2008, $1.5 

billion of budgetary resources have been obligated.

The offsetting collections from the bureau’s 

reimbursable programs include the following: 

reimbursements from non-Federal sources such as 

States, Tribes, and municipalities for cooperative 

efforts and proceeds from the sale of photographs and 

record copies; proceeds from sale of personal property; 

reimbursements for permits and licenses of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission; and reimbursements 

from foreign countries and international organizations 

for technical assistance. Reimbursements from 

other Federal agencies are for mission-related work 

performed at the request of the financing agency.

Appropriations represent the vast majority of the 

budgetary financing sources of the bureau. Other major 

financing sources are comprised of $425 thousand of 

transfers-in without reimbursement from other Federal 

agencies, $4 million in donations, and $57 million in 

imputed financing from costs absorbed by others. 

Imputed financed costs represent expenses paid by 

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for USGS 

retirement, health, and insurance benefits of USGS 

employees and Treasury’s Judgement Fund on the 

behalf of the USGS.

Net Costs – What We Spend

In FY2008 and FY2007, net cost of operations totaled 

approximately $1 billion each year. 

As mentioned in the previous budgetary resources 

discussion, the USGS budget was relatively flat 

from FY2007 to FY2008. Although the USGS instituted 

many changes in specific programs and operations 

at the cost center level during FY2008, there were 

generally no significant changes experienced in overall 

operations at the bureau level. As such, the total costs 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Analysis of Our Financial Statements 20

presented on the FY2008 Statement of Net Cost are 

generally consistent with the prior year amounts. 

Key Financial Metrics – What We Measure

Delinquent Debt Referred to Treasury over 180 Days 

Past Due

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 

requires that delinquencies older than 180 days be 

referred to the Department of the Treasury’s Financial 

Management Service (FMS), which was established 

as the Federal government’s debt collection center. 

The USGS reports the status of accounts receivable 

quarterly through the Treasury Report on Receivables 

(TROR). As of September 30, 2008, the USGS referred 

to Treasury for cross servicing $101 thousand, or 

100 percent, in delinquencies over 180 days past 

due. In FY2008, the USGS again surpassed the DOI’s 

performance goal of referring 95 percent of the total 

amount eligible for referral to Treasury.

USGS billed accounts receivable due from the public 

increased from $24 million in FY2007 to $29 million in 

FY2008. Delinquent amounts from the public over 180 

days past due decreased from $334 thousand in FY2007 

to $266 thousand at the end of FY2008.

Employee Bankcard Use and Delinquencies over 60 

Days Past Due

The use of government issued bankcards for official 

employee travel has been required for several years 

within the USGS. Emphasis has also been placed 

internally on paying the balance due in full by the due 

date established on the bankcard statements, as well 

as requiring supervisors to closely review and approve 

bankcard statements for their employees.

The DOI set a performance goal of maintaining no more 

than 2 percent of the total balance due past 60 days old. 

The USGS averaged about 1 percent of 60 days past 

due throughout FY2008. We attribute this success in 

part to our implementation during FY2005 of centralized 

billing of lodging cost, which significantly reduced the 

amount due by the individual traveler to the bankcard 

issuer and also increased the amount of rebate earned 

by the DOI from the credit card vendor. The rebate is 

available to the Secretary until expended for initiatives 

deemed appropriate and necessary.

Vendor Payments Made On Time

The Prompt Payment Act requires interest to be paid on 

invoices that are not paid on time in accordance with 

the Act. The USGS strives to pay vendors on-time and 

to avoid paying late payment interest penalties. DOI 

established a performance goal for bureaus to maintain 

98 percent of the number of payments not requiring 

interest over the total number of payments subject to 

the Prompt Payment Act. The USGS again exceeded 

the DOI’s performance goal by paying 99 percent of 

vendor invoices on-time and without penalty. The 

USGS will continue to monitor payment performance to 

ensure our timely vendor payment percentage stays on 

target.

Vendor Payments Made Via Electronic Funds Transfer 

(EFT)

During FY2008, the USGS continued its efforts to 

maximize the use of payment mechanisms compliant 

with EFT as required by the Debt Collection 

Improvement Act of 1996. The DOI established a 

performance goal to maintain over 96 percent of the 

number of vendor payments paid via electronic means 

over the total vendor payments made. During FY2008, 

the USGS exceeded the DOI’s performance goal by 

maintaining 99 percent of payments made via EFT for 

vendor payments.

Other Bureau Financial Performance Metrics

During FY2008, the USGS continued to closely evaluate 

the financial operations of the bureau through sampling 

and other tests of compliance and performance. The 

results of internal performance metrics are distributed 

bureau-wide and have helped to maintain high quality 

processing of bureau transactions.

Stewardship Information

The USGS serves American citizens as a steward 

for a large, varied, and scientifically important body 

of heritage assets, and in conducting research and 

development that is critical to the health of our country 

and in understanding the Earth. Each year the USGS 

makes a substantial investment while fulfilling its 

stewardship responsibilities for the benefit of the 

Nation.
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Analysis of Our Financial Statements 21

The USGS has heritage assets in two categories: 

museum collections and scientific library collections. 

The museum collection includes a widespread 

collection of natural history specimens and cultural 

objects in many science and administrative centers 

throughout the United States. The USGS library 

holdings, collected during more than a century of 

providing library services, are an invaluable legacy to 

the Nation. 

Costs associated with stewardship initiatives are 

treated as expenses in the financial statements in 

the year the costs are incurred. However, these 

investments in stewardship are intended to provide 

long-term benefits to the public and are included as 

supplemental information to highlight their long-termbenefit nature and to demonstrate our accountability 

over them. Stewardship resources are not required to 

be included with the assets reported in our financial 

statements; however, heritage assets are disclosed in 

the footnotes to the financial statements. Additional 

information regarding the condition of our heritage 

assets is reported in the Required Supplementary 

Information and information regarding the USGS’ 

stewardship investments is reported in the Required 

Supplementary Stewardship Information.

Improper Payments Act

The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (P.L. 

107-300) requires Federal agencies to carry out a 

cost-effective program for identifying payment errors 

and recovering any amounts overpaid. An improper 

payment includes any payment that should not have 

been made, or that was made in an incorrect amount 

under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other 

legally applicable requirement. Incorrect amounts 

include: overpayments; underpayments (including 

inappropriate denials of payment or service); any 

payment made to an ineligible recipient or for an 

ineligible service; duplicate payments; payments 

for services not received; and payments that do not 

account for credit for applicable discounts. 

In accordance with Department policy, the USGS 

concluded that our programs have a low risk for 

making improper payments and converted our annual 

risk assessments for all programs meeting OMB’s 

criteria for significant erroneous payments to a threeyear rotating cycle. Internal reviews are conducted 

annually to prevent, detect, and recover overpayments 

to vendors resulting from payment errors.
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Limitations to Our Financial Statements 22

Limitations to Our Financial Statements

The principal financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results of operations 

of the USGS, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515(b). 

While the statements have been prepared from the books and records of USGS in accordance with U.S. 

generally accepted accounting principles for Federal entities and the formats prescribed by the Office of 

Management and Budget, the statements are in addition to the financial reports used to monitor and control 

budgetary resources which are prepared from the same books and records. 

The financial statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the United States 

government, a sovereign entity. 

Management Assurances:

T

he Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 

1982 (FMFIA) and the OMB require all cabinetlevel Federal agencies to annually review their 

internal control system. The objectives of DOI’s internal 

control system are to provide reasonable assurance 

that: 

• The Department’s obligations and costs are in

compliance with applicable laws;

• The Department’s assets are safeguarded against

waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation; 

• The revenues and expenditures applicable to

agency operations are properly recorded and 

accounted for to permit the preparation of reliable 

financial reports and to maintain accountability 

over assets; 

• All programs are efficiently and effectively carried

out in accordance with applicable laws and 

management policy.

The efficiency of the DOI’s operations are continually 

evaluated using information obtained from reviews 

conducted by GAO, OIG, bureau reviews, and/or 

specifically requested studies. On a yearly basis, DOI 

requires all of its bureaus to conduct self-assessments 

of their FMFIA compliance. These diverse reviews 

provide a high level of assurance that Department 

systems and management controls comply with 

standards established by the FMFIA.

In support of the annually required DOI bureau 

reviews, the Associate Directors of Biology, Geology, 

Geography, Enterprise Information, and Water; the 

Regional Directors of Eastern, Central, and Western 

Region; the Associate Director of Administrative 

Policy and Services; the Associate Director of Human 

Capital; and the Chief Information Officer provided 

signed assurance statements to the Director that their 

areas of responsibility had assessed the systems of 

management, administration, and financial controls in 

accordance with standards, objectives, and guidelines 

prescribed by the FMFIA and the OMB Circular A-123, 

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control. 

The objectives of the assessments ensured that:

• programs achieved their intended results;

• resources were used consistent with the bureau’s

mission;

• resources were protected from fraud, waste and

mismanagement;

• laws and regulations were followed; and

• reliable and timely information was maintained,

reported, and used for decision making.

In performing this assessment, the USGS relied on 

the knowledge and experience management has 

gained from the daily operations of its programs and 

systems of accounting and administrative controls, and 

information obtained from sources such as internal 

control assessments; OIG and GAO audits; program 

evaluations and studies; audits of financial statements; 

performance plans and reports; and other information. 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements 23

Fiscal Year 2008 Assurance Statement

Based on the results of an external audit, the USGS identified one material weakness in its control over 

the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, to 

include FMFIA, as of September 30, 2008. The USGS was not in compliance with OMB Circular A-11, 

Preparing, Submitting, and Executing the Budget by not recording authority for the entire amount of 

multi-year reimbursable agreements and by drawing this authority down at year-end to equal obligations 

and expenditures. SFFAS No. 7, Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources references OMB 

Circular A-11 and states “Recognition and measurement of budgetary resources should be based on 

budget concepts and definitions contained in OMB Circular A-11”. Other than the exception noted, the 

internal controls were operating effectively and no other material weaknesses were found in their design 

or operation.

In addition, the USGS conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial 

reporting, which includes safeguarding of assets and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, 

in accordance with the requirements of Appendix A of OMB Circular A-123 and the Chief Financial Officer 

Councils Implementation Guide dated July 31, 2005, as implemented by the Department of the Interior. 

The assessment focused on the specific financial reports and the related financial statement line items 

identified by the Department as material to the consolidated Department of the Interior financial reports. 

Based on the results of this assessment, the USGS can provide reasonable assurance that its internal 

control over the financial reports and related line items were suitably designed and operating effectively 

as of June 30, 2008, and no material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of the internal 

control over financial reporting. However, an external audit identified a material weakness in the internal 

controls over budgetary resources. The existence of this weakness does not prevent the USGS from 

providing reasonable assurance for its internal controls over financial reporting.

I also conclude that the USGS information technology systems generally comply with the requirements of 

the Federal Information Security Management Act, and Appendix III of OMB Circular A-130, Management 

of Federal Information Resources.

Further, I conclude that the USGS can provide reasonable assurance that its financial systems 

substantially comply with the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act and with the component 

requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act.

Mark D. Myers

Director, USGS

September 2008
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements 24

The President’s Management Agenda:

In an effort to make government more citizen-centered 

and results-oriented, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) instituted the President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA) in 2001, which heralded a strategy for 

improving the management of the federal government. 

OMB grades agency progress and provides status 

reports through the use of the Executive Branch 

Management Scorecard using a green, yellow, red 

grading system. A score of green identifies an agency 

as meeting all standards of success for a goal. A 

yellow score identifies an agency as achieving an 

intermediate level of performance for all criteria within 

a goal. The final rating of red defines an agency as 

having one or more weaknesses. The USGS recognizes 

the importance of the PMA and follows the PMA 

criteria to strengthen its management practices, 

increase transparency and accountability, and improve 

program performance. 

In FY2008, the USGS continued to improve in areas 

targeted in the PMA, which focuses on improving 

Federal management and program performance. 

Organized around the mutually reinforcing components, 

the PMA applies to every agency. The initiatives are:

•	 Strategic Management of Human Capital;

•	 Competitive Sourcing (renamed Commercial 

Services Management in 2008);

•	 Expanding Electronic Government (E-Gov);

•	 Budget and Performance Integration (renamed 

Performance Improvement in 2008);

•	 Improved Financial Performance;

In addition to the five governmentwide management 

initiatives, the PMA also presents agency-specific 

program initiatives. The four departmental program 

initiatives that the USGS reports to are:

•	 Real Property Asset Management;

•	 Transportation Management;

•	 Energy Management; and

•	 Environmental Stewardship.

These initiatives share a common goal of enhancing 

citizen-centered governance focused on delivering 

results that matter to the American public. The USGS 

strived to make progress in all initiatives during FY 2008: 

the USGS ended the year “green” for progress on eight 

of the nine initiatives, the exception being “yellow“ on 

Environmental Stewardship; “green” for status on the 

E-Gov, Commercial Services Management, Improved 

Financial Performance and Energy Management 

initiatives; “yellow” for status on Performance 

Improvement, Strategic Management of Human Capital 

and Real Property Asset Management initiatives; 

and “red” for status on the Energy Management and 

Transportation Management initiatives. Current year 

accomplishments are discussed below.

Strategic Management of Human Capital

Workforce Planning—The USGS developed a 

bureauwide workforce plan that incorporates our 

10-year strategic science plan and identifies staffing 

strategies that address the needed skills for achieving 

long-term science and science-support goals. The 

USGS was recognized by the Department of the 

Interior and Office of Personnel Management for its 

bureau workforce planning process and plan and has 

since developed a proposal to take the next steps 

with the workforce planning process and incorporate 

succession development and planning via a small pilot 

planned for the future (tentatively targeted for 2009). 

Leadership Training— As a result of a 2007 supervisory 

development review by a group of USGS managers 

and supervisors, in 2008, significant changes were 

made to the current Supervisory Challenge course 

(first 40 hours of supervisory training) and a more 

comprehensive supervisory development program 

was designed. The Supervisory Challenge course 

now includes a major component on “transitioning 

into a supervisory role” and also focuses on 

leadership competencies. These competencies 

are communicated as foundational for any 

employee moving into supervisory or management 

positions. Another major improvement was the 

identification, tracking, and much more precise 

targeting of probationary supervisors, in order to 

facilitate development of solid supervisory skills 

and competencies early in their supervisory tenure. 

In early 2008, the USGS underwent a realignment 

of responsibilities for Regional Executives. These 

Executives formerly managed along scientific discipline 

lines and are now managing all science activities 

within geographic areas. As part of the realignment, 

a concerted effort was made to rotate individuals 

through developmental assignments to expand their 

competencies and increase their knowledge of a 

broader base of USGS science. 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements 25

The Office of Human Capital worked to redesign and 

align developmental programs for employees to ensure 

that there is a focus on essential core, leadership, 

supervisory, and management competencies that 

begins as soon as a new employee comes on board 

with the USGS. 

The USGS is developing a competency model 

for collaboration to support the assessment of 

competencies, gap analysis, hiring, and development 

of employees. A communication plan to introduce 

the concept of competencies and how competencies 

will be used in the assessment of workforce needs 

is in development. The communication plan will 

also address the bureau action plans to implement 

programs to help employees develop the competencies 

needed at all levels in the organization.

Competition Management Services

The USGS continued execution of its Business 

Strategy Review (BSR) process, outlined in the USGS 

Competitive Sourcing Green Plan FY 2005–2008. The 

USGS performs scientific and support activities 

through a combination of Federal employees and 

external capabilities and staff. Maintaining an effective 

workforce balance for all scientific and administrative 

activities is crucial to our continued mission success 

and is represented in our commitment to accurate 

reporting in the Federal Activities Inventory Reform 

(FAIR) Act. 

Recognizing that agencies have broader means to 

fulfill the goals of the PMA initiative, in 2008, the Office 

of Management and Budget changed the name of the 

initiative from “Competitive Sourcing” to “Commercial 

Services Management.” Competitive Sourcing involved 

using job competitions—between contractors and 

Federal employees—to determine whether Federal or 

private-sector employees could perform a government 

function more efficiently. Commercial Services 

Management, however, includes other forms of 

business reorganization that do not involve the private 

sector. The commercial services management initiative 

recognizes that agencies are working to improve the 

operation of their commercial functions and using a 

variety of techniques to do so. 

Whereas the management initiative includes the use 

of competitive sourcing, it also calls for agencies to 

create high-performing organizations (HPOs) and to 

seek alternative means to re-engineer their business 

processes. Public-private competition, HPOs and 

business process re-engineering all rely on the same 

common-sense management processes, such as 

cost and workload analysis, to achieve efficiencies. 

In 2009, the USGS will continue to support OMB and 

Department of the Interior objectives for Commercial 

Services Management as they are defined.

Expanding E-Government

Geospatial One-Stop (GOS) —The USGS GOS portal is 

the official means for accessing metadata resources 

managed in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

Clearinghouse Network. In 2008 the portal, geodata.

gov, continued its steady growth. With more than 

190,000 individual metadata records contributed by 

392 publishers, the portal saw a 27 percent increase 

in records from 2007. The number of portal users 

increased over 40 percent (now averaging 80,000 users 

per month) from 2007 levels. The USGS continued to 

focus on outreach and increasing participation with 

local governments and related associations, resulting 

in more Web mapping services becoming available 

primarily from major US cities and metropolitan areas. 

The portal also achieved several key enhancements, 

primarily focused on improving the quality of the 

links to live map services and providing reports 

to publishers. New enhancements also provided 

value to the data partnership “Marketplace,” which 

provides a site where organizations can advertise 

their interest or intent in collecting geospatial data 

and seek partners for cost-sharing. About 2,500 

Marketplace records were discoverable in 2008, and an 

estimated 250 contacts were made regarding possible 

partnerships for data acquisition. Communities of 

interest for geospatial data on GOS continued to 

expand in 2008. Communities are specialized areas 

for sharing information in specific data categories, 

such as administrative boundaries, agriculture, and 

the environment. Some of the improved dynamic new 

content on the site features the ocean and coastal 

data, fire mapping, and hurricanes. 

Information Security—In 2008 the USGS ensured that 

effective information security practices were carried 

out by: (1) publishing information security standards, 

guidelines, and procedures; (2) providing general, 

role-based, and specialized IT security training; and (3) 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements 26

continuing improvements to management, technical, 

and operational security controls. The transition of the 

security architecture to the Department’s Enterprise 

Services Network is now complete (described in ESN, 

below) and the goal of establishing a comprehensive 

network security infrastructure across the U.S. 

Department of the Interior has been achieved. 

Security Certification and Accreditation (C&A)—In 

2008, all USGS systems remained certified and 

accredited. In 2008, security weaknesses that were 

identified through routine assessments were corrected, 

mitigated to an acceptable Risk, or placed on the Plan 

of Action and Milestones report for future resolution. 

Other C&A related activities were planned and 

executed, including continuous monitoring, internal 

control reviews, contingency plan tests, role based and 

awareness training, and compliance reviews. Planning 

began and a contract initiated to accomplish six C&A 

activities scheduled for 2009. 

Security Operations — In 2008, the USGS deployed 

an Enterprise Vulnerability Management System 

(eVMS), migrated the USGS Web servers behind 

application firewalls, updated Computer Security 

Incident Response Team (CSIRT) operating procedures 

to reflect current Departmental policy, and migrated to 

the Department’s Enterprise Services Network (ESN) 

Security Architecture. The eVMS provides vulnerability 

management for the USGS including reporting, 

tracking, and managing system-level vulnerabilities. 

This service provides the USGS with bureauwide 

security controls outlined in NIST 800-53a. The bureau 

migrated about half (~200) of its Web servers behind 

enterprise Web application firewalls, thus providing 

protection against malicious attacks including SQL

injections, remote code execution, and hacking 

attempts. The USGS used both internal controls such 

as the Enterprise Symantec Anti-virus (eSAV) and 

external reporting groups to meet new requirements 

outlined in the DOI IT Security Policy Handbook for 

incident response. The USGS responded to 86 percent 

of incidents within the timeframe established by DOI 

policy. Due to several factors including reduction in 

staff, increase in number of reported incidents, and 

delays in responses back from several groups outside 

the authority boundary of the bureau, certain incidents 

were not closed according to policy. In 2008, the USGS 

completed the full migration of its IT systems to the 

ESN Security Architecture providing an enterprisewide 

intrusion detection and prevention capability.

Enterprise Services Network (ESN) — By the end of 

2008, the USGS completed all three telecommunications 

milestones for full use of ESN networking services: 

ESN Transition, ESN Migration, and ESN Connection to 

Security Architecture. Finished in 2007, the Transition 

milestone resulted in the transition of all USGS-owned 

routers and wide area networking switches moving to 

the Department’s ESN Network Operations and Security 

Center (NOSC) management. All sites now have 24x7 

proactive networking monitoring from NOSC. The 

USGS completed the second milestone, ESN Migration, 

in June 2008, resulting in all USGS locations being 

migrated to the VerizonBusiness “very Broadband 

Network Service” (vBNS). The migration included 

installation of new circuitry and equipment. By having 

all the bureau’s locations under vBNS, the achievement 

will ensure compliance with DOI security edits. The 

third and final ESN milestone, ESN Connection to the 

Security Architecture, was completed in August 2008 

and thus moved the USGS completely behind the DOI 

ESN Security Architecture.

The USGS continues to move forward on the Remote 

Access and Virtual Private Network (VPN) services 

with testing of the electronic Remote Access Service 

(eRAS) in 2008 and continuing into 2009. If all tests 

prove successful, the USGS plans to fully adopt eRAS 

in 2009.

Performance Improvement

Whereas integrating performance information into the 

budget may facilitate making performance more of a 

factor in budget deliberations, the goal of the initiative 

has always been to improve program performance. 

Recognizing that the name of an initiative should 

convey the goals of the initiative, in 2008, OMB changed 

the name of the Budget and Performance Integration 

initiative to the Performance Improvement Initiative. 

Since 2002, the USGS has worked with the Department 

and the Administration to establish accurate and 

meaningful performance measures for its programs 

and to tie the performance to resources in accordance 

with the President’s Management Agenda. The USGS 

Budget and Performance teams work directly with 

bureau program staff to understand, evaluate, and 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements 27

plan the science programs’ budget and performance 

levels, ensuring responsiveness to USGS executive 

management decisions, departmental concerns, 

and Administration policies. The USGS has been 

commended for outstanding program management 

as evidenced in the consistently high ratings that the 

USGS has received from the PART. PART outcome 

and continuous program improvement being major 

criteria for defining scorecard success, the USGS has 

consistently scored well. 

In 2008, the USGS was rated Green for Progress 

and Yellow for Status of Performance Improvement 

on the basis of criteria provided in July of this year. 

Over the course of the past year, the USGS has many 

Performance Improvement accomplishments to be 

proud of: the USGS was referenced as a model for 

PART program improvement plan status reporting 

by OMB’s Associate Director for Administration 

and Government Performance, Robert Shea, in his 

first quarter report, dated January 31, 2008: “The 

Department of the Interior’s 2007 PART Fall Update 

Assessment of its US Geological Survey—Energy 

Resource program is a good source on how to monitor, 

update and report on improvement plan actions.” 

The details of this improvement action plan can 

be reviewed at: http//www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

expectmore/detail/10001078.2993.html 

The USGS improved integration of budget and 

performance information in budget process and 

materials and performance reports and cited PART 

ratings and improvement plan actions in support of 

funding requests in all phases of the budget cycle. 

The USGS facilitated senior management’s focus 

on performance improvements by identifying select 

measures and areas for attention and improved 

senior-level involvement in oversight of the PART 

and the strategic plan reporting process while also 

improving tracking and monitoring of PART Program 

Improvement Plans that are developed to address PART 

recommendations. Actual evaluation of programs 

concluded in 2006 with 9 programs rating moderately 

effective and 1 effective.

Improving Financial Performance

In 2008, the USGS was rated Green for improved 

Financial Management. The Bureau is continuing 

to work with the Department and OMB to assist 

the Department in meeting the “getting to green” 

requirements by demonstrating successful usage of 

management reports for decisionmaking purposes 

in the Cooperative Water Program. Additionally, the 

USGS was able to report to the Department that the 

USGS has effective internal control over financial 

reporting. The USGS held a 2-day meeting early in fiscal 

year 2008 to prepare current year guidance for the 

A-123 Internal Control Reviews Plan and developed its 

Risk Assessment Methodology to identify where future 

Internal Control Reviews will occur. 

The USGS will continue to pursue excellence in 

financial management, identify opportunities to 

streamline and automate functions, and improve 

internal controls. The USGS has refined reporting to 

senior managers on financial progress in several areas 

to reflect the results down to the cost-center level. 

These financial status reports include statistical results 

of internal audits on bankcard and invoice charges, and 

on travel and reimbursable agreements. The Bureau’s 

financial managers use this information to identify 

problems and implement correct actions. These 

financial status reports formed the basis for the USGS’ 

2008 assurance statement to the Department that it 

has effective internal controls over financial reporting. 

In 2009, the USGS will work with the Department to 

implement a new Department-wide, comprehensive, 

integrated, risk-based internal control program.

During 2008, the USGS formed a team to develop 

standardized financial training that will be offered on 

an annual basis to all cost centers in the Bureau. This 

training provided attendees a detailed “hands-on” 

experience. The first training sessions for the Beginner 

AO/Budget Analysts and Administrative Technicians 

were completed in February 2008. The training session 

for the Advance AO/Budget Analysts was completed in 

July 2008. 

Financial and Business Management System—The 

USGS continues to dedicate significant resources to 

the development of DOI’s new Financial and Business 

Management System (FBMS). The DOI began work 

with a new integrator, IBM, during March 2006 and 

successfully implemented two bureaus in November 

2006 with core finance and limited executive 

management information system functionality. A third 

bureau will be implemented into FBMS in November 

2008.
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements 28

In 2008, the USGS began its deployment of the new 

Department-wide FBMS. The FBMS deployment 

schedule outlines approximately 28 months of 

preparation time for the bureau-wide implementation. 

Tasks include blueprinting of current USGS business 

practices to the capability of the FBMS and to the 

prescribed policy and procedure standards set 

by DOI, data preparation for conversion, testing, 

procedures development, system configuration, and 

establishing roles and responsibilities. A significant 

difference for the USGS deployment is our current 

highly decentralized organization with over 160 offices 

and 400 locations with remote access to the various 

administrative systems for transaction processing and 

reporting. During 2008, the USGS completed the project 

preparation phase, identified roles and responsibilities 

in FBMS, and began data cleansing.

Real Property Asset Management

In December 2007, the USGS completed the 

requirement to provide 24 specific data elements for all 

USGS owned, leased and State or foreign governmentowned assets into the Federal Real Property Profile 

(FRPP) as required by the Federal Real Property 

Council (FRPC). The inventory included 56 land, 368 

buildings, and 274 structures records. The DOI Asset 

Management Plan Three-Year Rolling Timeline and the 

OMB Real Property Score Card require each Interior 

bureau to establish a verification and validation 

strategy to ensure accurate and complete reporting 

into the FRPP. The USGS strategy requires an annual 

25 percent sample review of its FRPP inventory. In May 

2008, the USGS completed this review.

Transportation Management

In 2008, the USGS began taking steps to implement the 

long-term goals of the Fleet Management Strategic 

Plan (FMSP). The fleet inventory and utilization data 

validation, completed in 2007, was utilized in 2008 to 

conduct an assessment and provide recommendations 

to optimize the placement of vehicles to increase 

vehicle sharing and the use of alternative fuels. A 

memorandum was issued to field offices to encourage 

the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and 

hybrid vehicles. The Office of Administrative Policy 

and Services provided $15,000 to offset the cost of 

two hybrid vehicles for field use in the Eastern Region. 

Additionally, a Fleet Acquisition and Replacement Plan 

will be implemented as a strategy for reducing fleet size 

and acquiring higher fuel economy vehicles. In 2009, 

the USGS will continue implementing the long-range 

goals of the FMSP, focusing on reducing fleet costs 

and size, the average age of the fleet, and fossil fuel 

consumption.

Energy Management

In 2008, the USGS awarded a new contract for a 

Web-based system to assist in capturing, storing, and 

analyzing utility cost/consumption data. This contract 

replaces a utility bill analysis contract that has been 

in place for the previous 6 years. The contractor 

collects required energy data for USGS facilities that 

pay utility providers directly. Currently, 250 invoices 

are processed monthly through this system. In 2008, 

Energy Conservation Measures at the National Center 

located in Reston, Va., included installation of a highefficiency air compressor system, reflective white-roof 

installation, and energy-efficient equipment for the 

cafeteria renovation. The energy program coordinator 

also worked with the National Center’s IT Technical 

Service Team to arrange for the automatic shutdown 

of computers during nonworking hours. The USGS 

also implemented water conservation measures 

at the National Center that included replacing all 

bathroom faucets with photovoltaic low-flow faucets 

and changing the cooling water for several pieces 

of scientific equipment from domestic water to the 

closed-loop chilled water system.

Environmental Stewardship

Agencies and offices are required to implement 

sustainable practices in order to meet the goals 

and objectives outlined in Executive Order (EO) 

13423 by utilizing Environmental Management 

Systems (EMS). The EO is designed to further 

strengthen environmental, energy, and transportation 

management. The Environmental Management (EM) 

Council plans to take aggressive action in order to 

successfully implement EO 13423. The EM Council is 

in the process of creating a bureauwide EMS in lieu of 

continuing with center-specific EMSs. The bureauwide 

EMS would encompass all the centers not currently 

designated as EMS-appropriate centers, and those 

EMS- appropriate centers that choose to discontinue 

their center-specific EMSs. However, the following 

factors pose a challenge in creating the bureauwide 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements 29

EMS: an EMS that follows the ISO 14001 standard and 

has an EMS database to house all the EMS data is 

required, new policies must be developed, and center 

participation across the bureau must be ensured. Each 

EMS-appropriate center that chooses to continue with 

its EMS must conform to the EO by December 2008. A 

center is in full conformance when it has been the 

subject of a formal external audit, audit findings have 

been recognized by the appropriate level of the agency 

implementing the EMS, and the appropriate senior 

manager accountable for implementation of the EMS 

has declared conformance to EMS requirements. The 

USGS is committed to promoting procurement of green 

products in accordance with the Department’s draft 

affirmative procurement plan, comporting requirements, 

and internal directives on drafting procurement 

specifications that specifically invoke the Resource and 

Recovery Act and other statutes and Executive Orders 

on pollution prevention and greening the government. 

USGS Contracting Officers receive training in 

environmental purchasing requirements through the 

governmentwide CO mandatory training curriculum, and 

promote environmental stewardship through Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Part 23 requirements.

The USGS promotes GSA’s online green purchasing 

training in our online list of qualifying COR training. In 

addition, green purchasing objectives are emphasized 

in government charge card holder instructional 

materials. DOI has adopted the USGS’ request that 

green purchasing objects be added to DOI’s annual 

online training for card holders departmentwide. 

The USGS also maintains an internal Web page on 

Environmental Purchasing that includes links to 

recycled and biobased-content product information and 

sources. The USGS recognizes current shortcomings 

in and advocates upgrading Department- and 

Government- wide systems in the future to capture 

recycled and biobased-content data in order to 

advance visibility and reporting capability. 

The USGS actively participates as a member of the 

DOI Sustainable Buildings Work Group (SBWG). This 

multi-bureau group reviewed and conducted a gap 

analysis of the existing Federal Leadership in High 

Performance and Sustainable Buildings Implementation 

Plan. The USGS plans to pattern the bureau plan after 

the DOI Sustainability plan. Regional Sustainability 

Coordinators meet monthly with the Regional Energy 

managers to provide updates and action items. 

The present strategy calls for a 30-day review period of 

the final SBWG plan prior to the Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, Management and Budget’s signature. OMB will 

then receive the final DOI Plan. The USGS developed 

draft Sustainability clauses for all construction and 

renovation projects. The Sustainability clauses 

address adherence to the guiding principles listed in 

the Implementation plan, and require projects to aim 

for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) Silver certification. Modifications were made 

to each Condition Assessment tasking with the same 

requirements. In FY 2008, the USGS formalized the 

bureau-specific Sustainable Buildings Implementation 

Plan. The USGS will continue to incorporate new 

technologies and materials into building designs and 

renovations. In 2008, the USGS continued to participate 

in the DOI Electronic Stewardship Task Force. The 

DOI Electronic Stewardship Implementation Plan has 

been drafted and the USGS will approve this document 

in conjunction with other DOI bureaus. In 2009, this 

document will be used as the foundation to draft the 

USGS Electronic Stewardship Plan. In 2008, the USGS 

implemented an Electronics Disposal Policy. The 

Compliance Management Plan is managed through the 

USGS Inspection and Abatement System (IAS). Internal 

environmental compliance audits are performed 

annually at all locations and documented within the 

IAS. This system allows all organizational levels to self 

assess environmental compliance, inclusive of tracking 

findings through final abatement action. The IAS was 

updated in 2008 to provide a better environmental 

auditing tool. 
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Looking Forward 30

Looking Forward:

Where’s the Data?: The Challenge of Managing and 

Sharing Invasive Species Information

The economic and environmental costs associated 

with the management of invasive species in Hawaii 

are staggering. It has been estimated that invasive 

pests result in over $150 million in annual economic 

damage and that 20 to 50 new non-native species 

arrive in Hawaii every year. Managing and effectively 

communicating the vast amount of information 

generated from the battle against invasive species is 

a serious challenge. Programs, which are focused on 

prevention, early detection, and control generate data; 

however, there is the need to have this information 

synthesized, organized, and presented in a meaningful 

way on a county and statewide level. Without this, 

legislators, managers, scientists, and the public find 

it difficult to assess and respond in battle against 

invasive species. For example, how does one facilitate 

the efficient flow of information about incipient invasive 

species locations to the appropriate agencies? 

How does one measure the efficacy of a particular 

management strategy or specific survey and treatment 

efforts? For too long, the answer to these questions in 

Hawaii has been “not very well.”

Recognizing this situation, the USGS, under the 

National Biological Information Infrastructure, has 

implemented several critical technology and data 

management projects to address these issues. The 

Maui County Invasive Pest Early Detection Project 

http://pbin.nbii.gov/reportapest/maui/ is an evolving 

Web-based system that facilitates public involvement 

with invasive species early detection efforts. This 

system educates on how to identify, collect, and 

report on certain target species. In FY 2008, 20 public 

workshops were held and a 60-page, full-color invasive 

pest field guide was published. This system will expand 

to other islands in Hawaii in 2009.

The Hawaii Island-based Invasive Species Committee 

Statewide Reporting System is a system of documented 

data collection and reporting standards, guidelines, 

and protocols that result in the aggregation and sharing 

of invasive species information statewide. In 2008, 

this system has evolved to include early detection and 

nonplant control efforts. 

HSPD-12

By October 27, 2010, all USGS employees, contractors, 

and other affiliates are required to be issued a 

DOI-Access card under the Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12). DOI selected 

the GSA Managed Service Office (MSO) to provide 

enrollment and card issuance services. In order to 

facilitate issuance, the Human Resources Offices 

have verified background investigations for current 

USGS employees and input the appropriate data into 

the Federal Personnel Processing System (FPPS). For 

current employees, required data is extracted from 

FPPS and combined with five additional data fields. 

The resulting data is then uploaded via a batch import 

process to sponsor an employee. The process to 

manage the sponsorship of current contractors, other 

affiliates, and all new individuals who need a card has 

been challenging to define and remains undocumented. 

The DOI HSPD-12 Implementation Team began defining 

these business processes in early June 2008. Another 

challenge has been determining the deployment 

schedule for rollout. The DOI HSPD-12 Implementation 

Team documented the phase one deployment solution 

and began to gather data on the phase two and phase 

three solutions, but additional time and analysis, as well 

as information from the GSA MSO is needed to finalize 

this document. A final area of concern is determining 

how to fund the costs for the new cards, what the exact 

charges will include, and how to account for the costs 

at the appropriate cost center. 

Enhancing USGS Information Security

The USGS has significant challenges in keeping pace 

with a robust IT security infrastructure and posture. IT 

security weaknesses, if they remain unaddressed, can 

jeopardize USGS science programs. Examples include 

internal and external threats, Internet shutdown, 

compromises to sensitive information and Privacy Act 

and FISMA violations, Continuity of Operations plans 

and reviews, and permanent loss of the legacy of USGS 

science data. The Bureau is also an active enterprise 

partner with the Department’s Office of the Chief 

Information Officer and looks to the OCIO staff to guide 

and assist with IT security issues and developments.
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Looking Forward 31

Achieving an Integrated Information Environment

The conduct of science is changing worldwide. 

Evolving tools and technologies are revolutionizing 

processes, extending or replacing research 

techniques, and sparking new discovery. The nature 

of scientific collaboration also is changing. As the 

complexity of scientific questions grows, the need 

for integrated expertise and data from multiple 

disciplines grows as well. This realization, coupled 

with advances in information technology, is fueling 

a worldwide movement to connect the data and 

research techniques of the world’s scientists, making 

them accessible to a global science community, and 

transforming the way in which research, engineering, 

and education are conducted. Over the next decade 

and beyond, USGS technological and collaboration 

capabilities must advance in parallel with its scientific 

goals and capabilities. To address increasing 

complexity and to enhance collaboration, the USGS 

will integrate its data and participate in the emerging 

efforts to build a global, integrated science-computing 

and collaboration platform. In partnership with the 

earth and environmental science community, the USGS 

will develop new approaches to index data holdings 

by subject, place, and time, and make them available 

to all through Internet portals. Developing a fully 

integrated science data environment will improve the 

accessibility of science data and information within 

the USGS, across DOI, and with scientific partners, 

collaborators, and customers in other Federal agencies 

and the public. The challenge is to keep pace with and 

begin to accomplish this paradigm shift in science data 

management and capability under constrained budgets.

Electronic Records Management

The E-Government Electronic Records Management 

(E-Records Management) Initiative, for which National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the 

managing partner, will provide a significant benefit to 

citizens by increasing data accessibility and reducing 

the cost of delivering those services. In order to 

achieve this goal, significant effort is required by 

agencies to develop the supporting infrastructure 

that will ensure success. An investment by the 

USGS in electronic records management supports 

improving the management of electronic records, 

increasing the efficiency of the application of USGS 

information to support timely and effective decisionmaking. Additionally, this investment supports USGS 

requirements for vital records management to prevent 

the loss of information that is critical to the continuing 

operation of the USGS in the most efficient and 

economic manner possible. 

The USGS faces significant challenges in supporting 

NARA’s vision of an Electronic Records Archive (ERA). 

The depth and breadth of the USGS’ rapidly growing 

volumes of electronic records creates a complex 

information environment. This information complexity, 

coupled with computer hardware, application 

software, and even storage media obsolescence, 

contributes to loss of valuable information. 

Addressing the challenge of preserving USGS 

electronic records and its legacy of science data will 

require the investment in significant organizational 

capabilities and the development of policies, plans, 

and practices to guide the USGS migration from 

paper-based to electronic records management.
USGS water contaminant samples.
33

Section II

Performance 

Data and Analysis

Contents

Message from the Director, Office of Budget and Performance............................................. 34

Performance Improvement ............................................................................................................ 36

Performance Measure Results ..................................................................................................... 40

Validation and Verification of Performance Data....................................................................... 76

Program Evaluation Data................................................................................................................ 78
 Performance Data and Analysis

Message from the Director, Office of Budget and Performance 34

I am pleased to communicate the progress that the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) has made in the advancement of scientific understanding during 

the past year. Every day the more than 8,000 highly dedicated scientists, 

technicians, and support staff of the USGS are working in more than 400 

locations throughout the United States to deliver science for a changing world. 

We value this report as an integral part of our efforts to further accountability 

to our stakeholders and customers, as well as the American public. This year’s 

report builds on our efforts to increase transparency, improve efficiency and 

more effectively communicate our goals. We believe our commitment to deliver 

high performance translates to success for all of our stakeholders. The bureau’s 

considerable and multifaceted responsibilities are reflected in the pages that 

follow, where you will learn of the exceptional accomplishments that make a 

positive impact on the quality of life in America. 

After starting the fiscal year operating under a continuing resolution, in December the President signed the 

2008 Omnibus bill, thereby enacting funding for most of the Federal Government, including the Department of 

the Interior and the USGS. For FY 2008, Congress allowed the USGS to exercise 2-year budget authority. For the 

first time in the 129-year history of the USGS, our appropriations topped the billion dollar mark at $1,006,482,000. 

As Director of the Office of Budget and Performance (OBP), I am extremely proud of this accomplishment and 

attribute this success to the exceptionally talented individuals that I am fortunate enough to work with on a daily 

basis. Working with programs and regions, my office conducts a variety of Management Control Surveys and 

Customer Satisfaction/Outcome Surveys that have led to many enhancements in products and improvements 

in management. Since 2001, more than 3,600 customers—mostly scientists and resource managers—have 

described their usage and satisfaction with various aspects of more than 100 different science products. 

Our scientists dedicate themselves to impartial study of the landscape, our natural resources, and the hazards 

that threaten health and livelihoods, furthering the Department’s Strategic Plan Goals for Resource Protection, 

Resource Use, and Serving Communities. Building on our ever-growing knowledge base, the people of the 

USGS have created a treasure trove of information that America’s decisionmakers can use to protect the people 

of the United States and the health of their economy and environment. Continuous improvement in program 

quality and service to the public is rigorously pursued and achieved. In 2008, the USGS addressed a total of 30 

specific program improvement actions with 79 milestones; 76 milestones and 27 actions were achieved and 

the 3 remaining actions and milestones have recovery plans. The USGS was also cited as a model for program 

improvement plan status reporting by OMB This is but one example of the many performance accomplishments 

we are proud to have achieved during the past year.

In FY 2008, we also made significant strides in advancing the Department’s record for Management Excellence 

goals in both financial and performance management. The USGS continued to meet existing and new 

requirements under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, including travel card and 

Improper Payments Information Act requirements. I am proud to report that the USGS fully implemented the 

requirements to assess and report on internal controls this year—a noteworthy accomplishment given the 

scope of our activities and the complexity of our mission. The financial and performance information presented 

herein is complete and accurate, and in accordance with the OMB guidance and the Reports Consolidation Act 

of 2000. 

Message from the Director, Office of Budget and Performance
 Performance Data and Analysis

Message from the Director, Office of Budget and Performance 35

For the past 7 years, the President has challenged us to meet rigorous performance standards through the 

President’s Management Agenda (PMA). The PMA is the focal point for the bureau’s effort in management 

improvement. The USGS is steadfast in pursuing the goals of the PMA as evidenced in the “green” progress 

scores received at the end of FY 2008 for all five of the governmentwide Presidential initiatives. The USGS has 

demonstrated innovation and leadership in performance management by streamlining performance systems, 

sharing lessons learned, and working collaboratively to manage for results. To effectively manage the bureau, 

executive and senior leaders meet regularly to prioritize activities, discuss emerging issues, and review longterm strategies. Quarterly Status of Funds and Performance Reviews and quarterly Investment Review Board

(IRB) meetings for IT and facilities assets maintain senior officials’ cognizance of and accountability for the 

infrastructure supporting science, expenditures, and results. 

In these times of fiscal uncertainty, the USGS is facing considerable challenges in maintaining the level of 

service the American public deserve; however, our progress has been steady and our outcomes continue to 

make a positive impact on the Nation. The coming fiscal year promises many challenges, including transitioning 

into a new Administration. We expect to see our hard work pay off with a smooth transition as we continue 

to provide sound science for decisionmaking and meaningful management data in the months to come. As 

for the prosperity of the Nation, science drives that too; whether energy and mineral resources studies to fuel 

the country, water and biological information to increase agricultural production and the public’s sense of 

health and well-being, geologic mapping and geospatial information to guide infrastructure improvements and 

landscape understanding, our science is here to serve society. We will continue to promote sound business 

practices and further accountability while fulfilling our mission in service to the American public through the 

advancement of scientific knowledge of a changing world.

Carla M. Burzyk

Director, Office of Budget and Performance

October 2008
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Improvement 36

FY2007 Criteria FY2008 Criteria

Agency achieves planned improvements in program performance 

and efficiency in achieving results each year.

Effectiveness and efficiency improved as a result of agency 

implementation of plan to fulfill the EO to improve program 

effectiveness each year and utilizes agency best practices identified 

by the Performance Improvement Council.

Strategic plans contain a limited number of outcome-oriented 

goals and objectives. Annual budget and performance documents 

incorporate measures identified in the PART and focus on the 

information used in the senior management report described in the 

first criterion. 

Agency strategic/annual plans contain at least one outcomeoriented measure for each strategic goal and program.

Reports the full cost of achieving performance goals accurately in 

budget and performance documents and can accurately estimate 

the marginal cost of changing performance goals. Has at least one 

efficiency measure for all PARTed programs.

Annual budget and performance documents consistently incorporate 

performance measures, and include: 

•	 At least one outcome-oriented measure covering each major 

programmatic area or initiative;

•	 At least one efficiency measure for each program. 

•	 A discussion of performance gains and shortfalls;

•	 The full cost of achieving performance goals including marginal 

cost analyses; and

•	 Evaluation study results including independent and impact 

program evaluations.

Uses PART evaluations to direct program improvements, and PART 

ratings and performance information are used consistently to justify 

funding requests, management actions, and legislative proposals. 

Less than 10% of agency programs receive a Results Not 

Demonstrated rating for two years in a row. 

Performance Improvement Officers coordinate quarterly meetings 

with senior agency officials to examine demonstrated achievements 

in using financial and performance information to make periodic 

program management decisions in each strategic goal area. 

Agencies implement best reporting practices identified by PIC.

Completes program improvement actions informed by analyses 

of annual program results, regular program assessments, impact 

evaluations, and other performance information. Ensures managers 

are held accountable for completing those improvements on time.

has been particularly successful in this endeavor, 

owing to the physical integration of its budget, regional, 

and planning and performance teams in its Office of 

Budget and Performance.

Performance Improvement

The integration of budget and performance is critical 

to the planning for and evaluation of success achieved 

by the USGS in the application of its science to building 

long-term bodies of data and information ensuring their 

relevance to partner and customer needs. The USGS 
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Improvement 37

FY2008 Status

•	 USGS implemented the Department’s plan to fulfill the EO by using Representative Performance Measures (RPMs). Met or exceeded 

targets and tracked expenditures in 2007. In 2008 performance improved in Serving Communities, sustained in Resource Protection, and 

lower but not significantly so for Resource Use. 

•	 64% of PART efficiency measures are met or exceed the plan in 2008. 29% did not meet target but were improving and 7% did not meet 

the appropriate target but have explained cause for the slight deviation which does not impact overall program performance.

•	 OMB referenced the USGS Energy Resource program as a model for PART program improvement plan status reporting — “a good 

source on how to monitor, update and report on improvement plan actions.” The details of this improvement action plan can be 

reviewed at: http//www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10001078.2993.html

•	 Throughout the FY 2009 budget process, USGS documented full cost of achieving performance goals, demonstrated the costing 

relationship of intermediate and outcome measures, and cited marginal cost and incremental performance in program initiative funding 

requests. 

•	 Program evaluations are cited in the performance budget.

•	 In the Interior Strategic Plan, USGS has an outcome-oriented measure identified as a RPM for each relevant end-outcome goal for each 

mission area. USGS PART measures were used in revision of the Strategic Plan to directly link bureau program performance to the 

Department’s strategic planning.

•	 Performance Budget/annual plan includes long-term, outcome oriented, and efficiency measures for each program that has been 

evaluated with PART (does not include administrative programs) and end outcome oriented measures stepped down from goal level to 

many programs.

•	 The USGS Annual Performance Budget/annual plan fully describes the relationship between relevant Strategic Plan intermediate and 

end outcome goals and bureau performance measure targets.

•	 The USGS Annual Performance Budget/annual plan has an outcome-oriented measure identified as a RPM for each relevant endoutcome goal for each mission area.

•	 Each program has an efficiency measure documented in the Performance Budget and reported in the PAR.

•	 Performance gains/decreases have been used in the Performance Budget/annual plan to justify program changes.

•	 Quarterly Status of Funds and Performance Reviews with the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and quarterly Investment Review Board

(IRB) meetings for IT and facilities maintain senior officials’ cognizance of and accountability for the infrastructure supporting science, 

expenditures, and results. The executive leadership periodically reviews program and regional 5-year plans for approval and follows 

progress with briefings on accomplishments. Special ELT sessions are also conducted for financial decisionmaking. 

•	 Refined reporting to senior managers on financial progress in several areas to reflect the results down to individual science center 

level. 

•	 Quarterly post cost of work activities by goal, program, and region on the intranet for availability to all employees for their tracking of

progress and for management decisionmaking.

•	 Regularly scheduled meetings held to discuss costing the intermediate measures, common/shared bureau measures, and marginal cost 

issues and processes (e.g., tracking marginal cost associated with investment plans/WCF).

•	 Completed 96% of 79 milestones established to complete 27 program improvement actions. 

•	 Continued to focus senior management on targeted areas for performance-improvement in this year’s budget planning process.

Working in constant contact, these teams jointly 

develop and produce budget and performance 

documents that are fully integrated with respect to 

description of base programs and analyses, their 

funding and FTE implications, what the standards 

of their performance will be and how they will be 

evaluated. The three teams work closely with bureau 

program staff to understand, evaluate, and plan 

the science programs’ budget and performance 

levels, ensuring responsiveness to USGS executive 

management decisions, departmental concerns, and 

Administration policies. 
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Improvement 38

PART

With program evaluations and peer review integral 

to our culture, the USGS has particularly focused 

on program improvement through OMB’s Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process. Using 

R&D criteria, OMB completed the assessment of all 

USGS major programs in 2006 where they earned 

“Moderately Effective” or better. The effort in FY2008 

focused on continuous improvement relative to original 

findings in the assessments. To this end, the USGS 

created and implemented annual improvement plans 

that consist of follow-up actions and milestones. In 

FY2008, the USGS had 79 milestones associated with 

30 follow-up actions, of which 76 milestones and 27 

actions were completed. 

Activity Based Cost/Management

General ABC reports and data can be extracted 

by all managers at all levels on a daily basis for 

verifying and validating and for performing analyses 

for decisionmaking. Continued efforts are being 

applied to standardize processes, ensure consistency 

of interpretation and meet the need for costing 

representative performance measures of outcomes. 

Processes and reports are being refined to aid in the 

need for better tracking of full unit cost. Mapping of 

ABC codes to programs is now being implemented for 

the future FBMS system.

USGS Activities

The USGS conducts research, monitoring, and 

assessments to contribute to understanding the 

natural world—America’s lands, water, and biological 

resources and processes as well as its natural 

hazards. By combining biology, geology, hydrology, 

and geography expertise in one agency, the USGS is 

uniquely positioned to provide science information and 

conduct scientific research that ensure an integrated 

approach to advance scientific knowledge, improved 

understanding and utilize the latest technologies to 

provide timely answers and products and improve the 

quality of life for the communities we serve. 

The USGS provides reliable, impartial information to 

the citizens of this country and to the global community 

in the form of maps, data, and reports containing 

analyses and interpretations of water, energy, mineral, 

and biological resources; land surfaces; marine 

environments; geologic structures; natural hazards; 

and dynamic processes of the Earth. The USGS 

provides scientific information to understand issues 

such as coastal erosion and pollution, sea-level rise, 

loss of wetlands and marine habitats, the geological 

processes controlling the invasion of cheat grass, and 

the role of dust in desert ecosystem health. Armed 

with this understanding, decisionmakers can respond 

better to both natural and human-induced changes. 

Through the application of science, decisionmakers 

are able to address complex issues concerning public 

safety, our environment, and natural resources; to 

address public health questions; and to promote 

public prosperity for the future well being of our 

country. USGS data and information are used daily 

by managers, planners, and citizens to understand, 

respond to, and plan for changes in the environment. 

Examples of the multitude of users are provided in the 

Management Discussion and Analysis section. USGS 

research and data products support the Department’s 

resource and land management needs and provide 

the science information needed by other Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local government agencies; industry 

groups; agricultural interests; academia; non-profit 

organizations; and the American public to guide 

planning, management, and regulatory programs.

Strategic Plan

The Department of the Interior’s Strategic Plan for 

Fiscal Year 2007-2012 integrates and aligns bureau 

responsibilities under four major mission areas and 

documents our commitment to achieving results 

through the use of rigorous performance measures 

and management excellence. For the USGS, a single 

science goal is repeated for each of our mission areas 

(Resource Protection, Resource Use, and Serving 

Communities). While programs may support more 

than one mission area, they have been identified with 

the primary area that they support. Therefore, most 

Geography, Geology, Biology, and Water Resources 

programs as well as Enterprise Information’s National 

Geospatial Program are aligned with Resource 

Protection. Geology’s Energy and Minerals programs 

are aligned with Resource Use and Geologic Hazards 

programs with Serving Communities. Science Support 
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Improvement 39

and Facilities budget activities and the Enterprise 

Information resource, security and technology 

subactivities sustain the organization and are treated 

as indirect costs, being distributed to all measures to 

achieve full cost of performance.

The Department’s Strategic Plan frames organizational 

responsibilities and operational assumptions, and 

converts them into expectations for performance and 

accomplishment. Essentially, it provides a high-level 

overview of performance, setting large mission goals 

and broad program objectives. Its greatest value, dayby-day, comes from connecting that larger view with 

each day’s ground-level work. The USGS outcomes 

and measures focus on providing science to customers 

for solving the Nation’s complex land- and resource 

-management problems and to minimize the loss of 

life and property from natural disasters. Performance 

measures serve as stepping stones to the goal and the 

outcome, keeping the program on track, on time, and 

within budget.

The Strategic Plan structure is built on a logic model 

focused on end outcomes; each mission area has its 

own end outcome goals. Supporting the end outcome 

goals are intermediate outcome goals and measures, 

with outputs that verify progress toward outcome 

achievement. Performance targets are set at every 

level, providing numerical measures of the USGS 

accomplishment that vary with inputs (financial and 

human resources).

Outputs are typically quantifiable products of work 

processes or activities. Activity-based costing 

connects outputs to costs and creates a powerful 

management tool for identifying efficiencies, focusing 

attention on achievement and innovation, and moving 

more quickly to spread best practices throughout the 

organization.

The Management’s Discussion and Analysis section 

focuses on end outcome measures. The ultimate 

outcome related to providing scientific information is 

that our customers and partners use the information 

to make informed decisions. The Performance Data 

and Analysis section expands USGS performance 

data and accomplishments to include all performance 

measures that were used to request funding and to 

match achievement of these metrics against the targets 

that were set for the President’s Budget request. Some 

variance in performance is due to funding actually 

received in the 2008 enacted appropriation.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 40

Results

SP = Strategic Plan key measures

RPM = Representative Performance Measure

PART = PART Measure

BUR = Bureau specific measures

The PART and bureau level performance measures 

and their performance results are included with the 

strategic plan measures within the tables to follow. 

The following legend applies:

√ Targets Met or Exceeded

▲ Targets Not Met but Improving

▼ Targets Not Met

■ Targets Rebaselined

Each analysis of results begins with Target Met or 

Exceeded; Target Not Met but Improving; or Target Not 

Met. 

The Department’s Strategic Plan is available at 

the following address: http://www.doi.gov/ppp/

Strategic%20Plan%20FY07-12/strat_plan_fy2007_2012.

pdf

How We Performed in FY2008:

The USGS met the representative measures monitored 

during FY2008. Summary results for all performance 

measures are presented on the next page.

This structure depicts the four mission areas of the Department and the supporting pillars of partnerships and management. Science is presented as the 

foundation for informed resource-management decisions.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 41

Summary of Performance Measure Results in FY2008:

√ Targets Met or Exceeded ▲ Targets Not Met but Improving ▼ Targets Not Met ■ Targets Rebaselined 

End Outcome Goal

Total 

Number of 

Measures

Number of 

Measures 

Met or 

Exceeded

Number of 

Measures 

Not Met but 

Improving

Number of 

Measures 

Not Met

Number of 

Measures 

Rebaselined

Number of 

Measures 

Estimated

Resource Protection: Protect the Nation’s Natural, Cultural, and Heritage 

Resources

Improve the understanding 

of National ecosystems and 

resources through integrated 

interdisciplinary assessment. 

71 58 4 7 2 0

Resource Use: Manage Resources to Promote Responsible Use and Sustain a 

Dynamic Economy

Improve the understanding of 

energy and mineral resources 

to promote responsible use 

and sustain the Nation’s 

dynamic economy.

16 14 0 2 0 0

Serving Communities: Improve Protection of Lives, Property, and Assets; 

Advance the use of Scientific Knowledge; and Improve the Quality of Life for

the Communities We Serve

Improve the understanding, 

prediction, and monitoring 

of natural hazards to inform 

decisions by civil authorities 

and the public to plan for, 

manage, and mitigate the 

effects of hazard events on 

people and property. 

24 23 0 1 0 0

Totals 111 95 4 10 2 0

In the following pages, we present each of our performance measures with historical and current year results in 

relation to their applicable mission area and end outcome goals. For those measures that did not meet expected 

results, comments are provided immediately following the tables results. Highlights of significant accomplishments 

illustrating our work performed are also included in the following pages.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 42

Resource Protection: Protect the Nation’s Natural, Cultural, and Heritage Resources

End Outcome Goal: 

Improve the understanding of National ecosystems and resources through integrated interdisciplinary assessment. 

√ Targets Met or Exceeded ▲ Targets Not Met but Improving ▼ Targets Not Met ■ Targets Rebaselined 

GPRA End Outcome Measure

1 Percent of targeted science products that are 

used by partners for land or resource management 

decisionmaking (DOI strategic plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

90% 93% 93% ≥90% 93%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. This measure is tracked by survey of customers and partners. The target is a threshold 

below which performance would indicate a problem that needs corrective action. So long as the actual result is above 

the target level, the process is under control and no corrective action is needed.

Intermediate Outcome: Ensure availability of long-term environmental and natural resource information, data and 

systematic analyses needed by land and resource managers for informed decisionmaking

2 Percent of North American migratory birds for 

which scientific information on their status (species 

distribution and number) and trend are available 

(PART measure) (DOI strategic plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

26% 26% 26.6% 26.6% 26.6%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

3 Percent of targeted fish and aquatic populations 

for which information is available regarding limiting 

factors (PART measure) (DOI strategic plan key 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

31% 31% 38.66% 41% 41%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

4 Percent 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 

(PART measure) (DOI strategic plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

51.6% 51.6% 54% 54% 54%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

5 Percent improvement in detectability limits for 

selected high-priority environmentally available 

chemical analyses (PART Efficiency measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

n/a 6% 12% 19% 19%

√ Target Met or Exceeded
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 43

6 Increase long-term 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 (PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008 

Actual

n/a .0008 .0008 .008 .008

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Note that the 2008 target was corrected from 0.0008 to 0.008 due to earlier typographical 

error. The bias is derived from a statistical formula.

7 Percent of Cooperative Research Units students 

that work on subsequent fish and wildlife science 

advanced degrees or obtain employment in the fish 

and wildlife or other natural resources field, within 

targeted dates post-graduation

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

n/a 95% 95% 95% 95%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

8 Percent of focal migratory bird populations for which 

scientific information is available to support resource 

management decisionmaking (USGS in coordination 

with FWS) (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

n/a 56.88% 57.02% 57.16% 55.18%

■ Targets Rebaselined. These figures are based on an average of the ‘state of knowledge’ for the USFWS 

focal species considered to date. When the 2008 target was set, the six species included American Oystercatcher, Marbled Godwit, American Woodcock, Common Eider, Laysan Albatross, and Black-footed Albatross. In 2008, another species, the Cerulean Warber, was added to the species list to calculate the ‘state of 

knowledge’ for the focal species. When this species was included, the average was brought down, essentially recalibrating the target and will require baselining. 

9 Percent of US land with land characterization 

and species distribution information available for 

resource management decisionmaking updated in the 

last 5 years (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

23.3% 42.3% 36.4% 37% 39%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

10

Old

Percent of North American migratory birds for 

which scientific information on their status (species 

distribution and number) and trends are available in 

a standardized and exchangeable format, to improve 

conservation plans of Federal and State agencies) 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

20% 25% 30% 31% *

* Measure replaced with below measure with OMB approval. The word change is being proposed to make 

the measure more specific and therefore more meaningful.

10

New

Percent of focal migratory bird populations for which 

species pages are available through the NBII (BIMD)

(PART)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

na na 8% 15% 15%

√ Target Met or Exceeded
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 44

11 Percent 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 (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006 

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

90% 91% 92% 93% 93%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

12 Percent 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 (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

93% 94% 94% 95% 95%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

13

Old

Percent of US Federally-listed threatened and 

endangered or indicator fish species for which 

scientific information on a species status is available 

in a standardized and exchangeable format, to 

improve conservation plans of Federal and State 

agencies (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

7.5% 12.4% 17.5% 20% *

* Measure replaced with below measure with OMB approval. Simplified wording. Targets remain the same.

13

New

Percent of US Federally-listed threatened and 

endangered fish species for which species profiles, 

ocurrence data and maps are available through the 

NBII (BIMD)(PART)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

na na 17.5% 20% 20%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

14 Percent of river basins that have streamflow stations 

(PART measure) (DOI strategic plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

82% 81% 81% 84% 79%

▼ Targets Not Met. Net loss of streamgages is due to funding erosion and changing requirements. Metric and 

requirements are being rebaselined using an automated process.

15 Percent of the Nation’s 65 principal aquifers with 

monitoring wells used to measure responses of water 

levels to drought and climatic variations to provide 

information needed for water-supply decisionmaking 

(PART measure) (DOI strategic plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007 

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

61% 61% 60% 60% 58%

▼ Targets Not Met. Cost increases for operation and maintenance resulted in a reduction of one monitoring well that could be supported with available funding.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 45

16 Percent of targeted contaminants for which methods 

are developed to assess potential environmental 

and human health significance (PART measure) (DOI 

strategic plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006 

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

20% 85% 41% 33% 35.7%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. In addition to 83 chemicals on the target list, methods were developed for an additional 55 

chemicals that were not on the target list, raising the total chemicals for which environmental data was published to 

138.

17 Percent of streamflow stations with real-time 

measurement/reporting of water quality (PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

7% 9% 11% 11% 11.6%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

18 Percent of ground-water stations that have real-time 

reporting capability in the ground-water climate 

response network (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

67% 47% 52% 53% 54%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

19 Percent of U.S. with ground-water quality status and 

trends information to support management decisions 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

39% 58% 68% 70% 76%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Selected well networks planned for sampling in 2009 were completed in 2008 due to cost 

efficiency.

20 Percent of States with Web-based streamflow 

statistic tools to support water management 

decisions (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

10% 14% 18% 26% 28%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. 1 State had additional resources that permitted faster deployment of streamflow statistics 

tools.

21 Percent of U.S. ground-water availability status and 

trends information to support resource management 

decisions (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

7% 8% 9% 11% 11%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

22 Percent improvement in accuracy of watershed 

(SPARROW) model prediction for total nitrogen and 

total phosphorus (measured as reduced error) (PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

31% 24% 20% 20% 20%

√ Target Met or Exceeded
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 46

23 Percent of proposed streamflow sites currently in 

operation that meet one or more Federal Needs 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

61% 61% 62% 64% 62%

■ Targets Rebaselined. Target for the number of streamgages was met and exceeded, with the excess being due in 

part to additional (unanticipated) funding provided by Federal and non-Federal partners in the streamgaging program. 

In 2008 there was a National Academy of Science review recommended an increase in the proposed number of 

National Streamflow Information Program Federal-needs streamgages (the denominator for this measure).

24 Percent of surface area of the coterminous U.S. 

for which high-resolution geospatial datasets are 

cataloged, managed, and available through the 

National Map (DOI strategic plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

n/a n/a 99.71% 100% 100%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Determined that high-resolution geospatial data would not be made available for one 

sensitive area. Measure is complete with 699 areas.

25 Percent of the area of 11 Western States for which 

orthoimagery have been acquired through a FSA/

USGS partnership with other entities to achieve a 

5-year cycle for 1-meter NAIP imagery

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

43% 23% 100% 100% 100%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

26 Percent of total cost FSA and USGS saved through 

partnering with other entities for imagery acquisition 

of 1-meter NAIP orthoimagery

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

44% 41% 32% 36% 27%

▼ Targets Not Met. State and Federal partners contributed less amounts than expected.

27 Percent of data acquisition costs for the National 

Map funded by partners

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

47% 74% 59.3% 60% 71%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

28 Percent of surface area with contemporary 

land cover data needed for major environmental 

monitoring and assessment programs (DOI strategic 

plan key measure and PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006 

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

65% 94% 95% 100% 99.3%

▲ Targets Not Met but Improving. Late delivery of products from cooperators has delayed processing and 

completion of the land cover database. One of three layers of data, completion of metadata, and posting to 

the web for one State remains and will be completed by the end of first quarter 2009.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 47

29 Percent of surface area with temporal and spatial 

monitoring, research, and assessment/data 

coverage to meet land-use planning and monitoring 

requirements (number of completed eco-region 

assessments out of 84 eco-regions) (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

37% 48% 61% 69% 71%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

30 Percent of data accessible: Percentage of satellite 

data available from archive within 24 hours of capture 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

97.2% 98.7% 95% 95% 95%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

31 Percent of US with regional geologic map coverage 

that is available to customers through the National 

Coopertive Mapping Database (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

53% 55% 60.4% 63% 64.6%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Due to improved collection of information pertaining to geologic map publication.

32 Percent of geologic investigations in NPS units that 

are cited for use by the NPS within three years of 

delivery (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

80% 80% 100% 80% 92%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Due to higher than anticipated number of NPS users of NCGMP publications.

33 Percent of EDMAP students that work on subsequent 

geoscience degrees or obtain a job in a geoscience 

field (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

94% 95% 94% 95% 100%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

34 Percent of US with geologic maps that are being 

integrated into ground-water availability status and 

trends to support resource management decisions 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

5% 6% 8% 10% 12%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Because an opportunity with southern Nevada public lands management led to additional 

work on basin and range carbonate aquifers.

35 Number of counties or comparable jurisdictions that 

have adopted hazard mitigation measures based 

in part on geologic mapping and research (PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

10 12 14 14 17

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Due to several unanticipated communities using USGS geologic mapping information and 

research.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 48

36 Percent of NPS units for which envionmental 

characterization based on airborne remote sensing 

is provided as digital GIS products and for which 

products are cited or use by NPS within two years 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008 

Actual

50% 50% 60% 75% 75%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

37 Percent of regional and major topical studies for 

which interpretive and synthesis products are cited 

by identified partners and users within three years of 

study completion (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

Intermediate Outcome: Ensure the quality and relevance of science information and data to support 

decisionmaking

38 Percent of studies validated through appropriate peer 

review or independent review (DOI strategic plan key 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

39 Percent satisfaction with scientific and technical 

products and assistance for environmental and natural 

resource decisionmaking (DOI strategic plan key 

measure)

2005 

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

96% 91% 90% ≥90% 93%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Customer satisfaction measures are a type of statistical quality control - with the target 

being the threshold level. That is, an actual result below the target would indicate a problem that needs corrective action. 

So long as the actual result is above the target level, the process is under control and no corrective action is needed.

PART Efficiency and Other Output Measures

40 Average cost per sample for selected, high priority 

environmentally available chemical analysis (PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

$700 $680 $680 $650 $660

▲ Targets Not Met but Improving. Automation of methods and reduction in solvent use, salary (time) and 

supply costs (adjusted for inflation) reduced average cost. Increased costs of chemicals for analyses due to 

increases in manufacture of all petrochemical products and shipping costs prevented attainment of target.

41 Number of cumulative gigabytes managed (Biology) 2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

791 1,134 931 1,000 710

▼ Targets Not Met. Actual 2008 aggregated total is lower than the target due to elimination of duplicates.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 49

42 Number of annual gigabytes collected (Enterprise 

Information)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

6,023 76,550 94,802 24,344 133,452

√ Target Met or Exceeded. While the number of geospatial features increased in the database, software upgrades to 

ArcSDE version 9.2 decreased the size of the database.

43 Number of cumulative gigabytes managed (Enterprise 

Information)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

108,035 187,842 278,646 249,679 410,713

√ Target Met or Exceeded

44 Number of annual terabytes collected (Geography) 2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

438.8 537.9 96 278 535.2

√ Target Met or Exceeded

45 Number of cumulative terabytes managed (Geography) 2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

2,887.4 3,425.3 4,255.9 3,556.6 3,840.6

√ Target Met or Exceeded

46 Number of annual gigabytes collected (Geology) 2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

117.8 218.8 1,570 210.8 686.8

√ Target Met or Exceeded

47 Number of cumulative gigabytes managed (Geology) 2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

1,016 1,235 2,824.6 2,981.4 3,457.4

√ Target Met or Exceeded

48 Number of systematic analyses and investigations 

delivered to customers

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

2,127 2,157 2,879 2,530 5,513

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Due to unanticipated requests for additional products, and due to rebaselining needed 

during implementation of a new enterprise-wide information product tracking system that came online part way through 

the year.

49 Number of formal workshops or training provided to 

customers

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

403 313 392 195 386

√ Target Met or Exceeded. USGS had unexpectedly high demand from customers for workshops and/or training 

sessions.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 50

50 Number of data standards used in implementing The 

National Map (NGP) (PART Measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

22 22 22 22 22

√ Target Met or Exceeded

51 Number of students who completed degree 

requirements for MS, PhD, and post-doctoral programs 

under the direction and mentorship of cooperative 

research unit scientists

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

100 103 95 90 83

▼ Target Not Met. The number of students declined consistent with the decline in the number of research 

scientists that can be supported by the program. Productivity per scientist has not decreased.

52 Amount of fire-related data and information available 

on-line via the NBII, to assist land managers in fire 

management decisionmaking (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

1.5 gb 15.42 gb 23.3 gb 30 gb 35 gb

√ Target Met or Exceeded. In 2008, the US Forest Service provided resources for the upgrade and enhancement of 

software and content for the Fire Research and Management Exchange System (FRAMES), resulting in more content 

than expected.

53 Number of Natural History Museum specimen data 

records available on-line via the NBII, to assist 

researchers in identifying and addressing threats to 

human and animal health (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008 

Planned

2008

Actual

20M 57.6M 59.3M 60M 60M

√ Target Met or Exceeded

54 Amount of invasive species data and information 

available on-line via the NBII, to assist in modeling and 

forecasting the spread of invasives (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

800 mb 1,137 mb 1,441 mb 1,441 mb 1,542 mb

√ Target Met or Exceeded

55 Number of NBII Clearinghouse metadata records 

(BIMD) (PART Measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

NA NA 29,170 41,000 41,000

√ Target Met or Exceeded

56 Average cost per gigabyte of data available through 

servers under program control (PART Efficiency 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

$63,000 $17,155 $3,794 $3,794 $3,794

√ Target Met or Exceeded

57 Number of real-time streamgages reporting in NWIS 

Web (PART measure)

2005 

Actual

2006 

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

6,246 6,496 6,728 6,830 6,936

√ Target Met or Exceeded
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 51

58 Number of real-time ground-water sites reporting in 

NWIS Web

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

796 917 983 984 1,120

√ Target Met or Exceeded

59 Number of real-time water-quality sites reporting in 

NWIS Web

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

1,125 1,102 1,249 1,249 1,402

√ Target Met or Exceeded

60 Percent of WRD streamflow stations with 30 or more 

years of record (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

58% 59% 59% 58% 60%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

61 Percent of daily streamflow measurement sites with 

data that are converted from provisional to final status 

within 4 months of day of collection (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

10% 20% 24% 29% 28%

▲ Targets Not Met but Improving. Due to delay in implementing new system in the Northeast States. 

62 Average cost per analytical result, adjusted for 

inflation, is stable or declining over a 5-year period 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

$8.63 $8.34 $8.08 $8.64 $7.87

√ Target Met or Exceeded. 

63 Cost variance and scheduled variance for the LDCM 

project remained with +/- 10% tolerance

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

n/a 8% 44% 8%/0% 10%/0%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

64 Number of hours for fieldwork, compilation, and 

publication of a typical geologic map (PART Efficiency 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

3,070 2,980 2,890 2,810 2,786

▼ Targets Not Met. The performance goal was set at an appropriate target level, and the deviation from that 

level is slight. There is no effect on overall program or activity performance.

65 Number of State Geological Surveys that add geologic 

map information to the National Cooperative Mapping 

Datatbase (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

48 49 50 51 51

√ Target Met or Exceeded. All 50 States and Puerto Rico have added information to the NGMDB. Measure is complete; 

2008 is the last year for this measure.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 52

66 Number of EDMAP students trained each year (PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

62 66 58 60 44

▼ Targets Not Met. Due to reduced number of proposals received from universities.

67 Number of digital geographic information products 

for priority NPS units that provide environmental 

characterization based on airborne remote sensing 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

10 8 10 10 10

√ Target Met or Exceeded

68 Fraction of significant landfalling hurricanes for which 

post-storm assessment of impact are developed (PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

3/3 ≥ 3/4 0/1 ≥ 3/4 2/2

√ Target Met or Exceeded. USGS responded to both major hurricanes of the 2008 season, that is Hurricanes Gustav and 

Ike.

69 Percent of open ocean and great-lakes shoreline of 

coterminous US for which up-to-date characterization 

of the shoreline is provided (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008 

Planned

2008

Actual

62% 80% 80% 90% 90%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

70 Cost of collection and processing of airborne remote 

sensing data for coastal characterization and impact 

assessments (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

.56 .55 .57 .35 .50

▲ Targets Not Met but Improving. Hyperspectral sensor could not be added to the Experimental Advanced Airborne 

Research Lidar (EARRL) suite until later than planned this year. Currently purchasing new laser which will result in cost 

reduction in 2009.

71 Number of environmental products in marine protected 

and managed areas provided for resource management 

and restoration planning (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

54 63 76 75 75

√ Target Met or Exceeded
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 53

Examples of Resource Protection Goal 

Accomplishments

What’s the Buzz? – A Gateway to Pollinator Resources 

on the Web

Over 4,000 species of bees, the primary pollinators 

of plants and agricultural crops, can be found in 

North America. Yet our knowledge of pollinators, 

their habitat needs, and the threats they are facing 

is limited. Successful monitoring, management, and 

conservation of pollinators and their habitats depend 

on the availability and accessibility of pollinator data 

and information. The National Biological Information 

Infrastructure (NBII) Pollinators Web site combines 

ecological and biological information on pollinator 

species including, bees, bats, hummingbirds, 

butterflies, and moths; pollination and related issues; 

and provides increased exposure and access to other 

important pollinator information sources.

In 2008, two areas of the Website in particular, the 

Pollinator Species area and the Conservation area, 

have been significantly enhanced with the addition 

of comprehensive information about representative 

U.S. native pollinator species and leading pollinator 

conservation initiatives and organizations. An 

additional content area, Threats, has also been 

developed to accommodate information and resources 

about Colony Collapse Disorder, Invasive Species, 

and other threats to pollinator conservation. Content 

areas being delivered in 2008 and in 2009 include 

those providing access to USGS research and the 

resulting datasets (where available), and on specific 

or taxonomic groups of bees found in North America. 

The site provides an education and communication 

conduit to USGS scientists for pollinator research, 

recommendations, and other information.

The NBII Pollinators Website was developed in 

partnership with the Ecological Society of America, 

North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, 

USDA, FWS, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, 

universities, the Duke Lemur Center, and by numerous 

private pollinator photographers. 

Invasive Plant Atlas of New England used as Model for 

Initiatives Nationwide

Often, non-native invasive species become established 

without anyone taking immediate notice; however, 

the public may take notice once a species becomes 

established and widespread. “Early Detection and 

Rapid Response” is one of the critical components of 

the National Invasive Species Council’s Management 

Plan, “An Action Plan for the Nation,” which 

stresses the importance of coordinated efforts of all 

stakeholders. A methodology for dealing with early 

detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response 

has been established as part of the Invasive Plant 

Atlas of New England (IPANE). IPANE serves as the 

model regional network of a broader national level 

invasive species framework for early detection, rapid 

assessment, and rapid response. IPANE products are 

now being used as templates for enhancements to a 

National Early Detection Toolbox. The toolkit includes 

basic information on forming invasive plant species 

interest groups gleaned from work pioneered by 

IPANE. Parts of the toolkit are built on the New England 

States’ aquatic programs and will use IPANE aquatic 

information. IPANE has trained over 700 volunteers 

throughout New England on scientifically sound 

methods for collecting and reporting invasive species 

plant occurrences on the Web.

A bumble bee (Bombus sp.) forages for pollen on the flower of 

a musk or nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) in an abandoned 

agricultural field. The thistle flower is approximately 3 inches in 

diameter. Banshee Reeks Nature Preserve, Loudoun County, Va., 

USA.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 54

A collaborative effort between IPANE, the USDA, 

and the Appalachian Mountain Club establishes a 

“localized early detection network” for partner agency 

staff and citizen scientists working in new incursions 

of invasives reported shortly after the kick-off training 

session for the White Mountain Early Detection 

Network (WMEDN). IPANE and USDA personnel 

instructed over 100 participants on the identification 

of the 12 species of invasive plants and 4 species of 

invasive insects chosen as the focus of the training. 

The USGS collaborates with the Center for International 

Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at 

Columbia University, as well as with Discover Life, on 

this effort.

The Connecticut State Legislature recently cited 

IPANE for its valuable contribution to the prevention 

of invasive plant invasions, including the development 

of an official invasive species plant list. Connecticut 

Governor M. Jodi Rell also commended IPANE as 

one of five organizations in Connecticut “working 

diligently to educate the public on the identification, 

management, and use of native plants and other noninvasive alternatives that can be planted instead of 

invasive plants...”

USGS NBII Releases Improved Interface for Metadata 

Clearinghouse

The NBII Clearinghouse is a critical portal for record 

and data discovery through the use of metadata 

records. Originally, the Clearinghouse focused on 

servicing data providers. It organized metadata to 

highlight the contributors. The focus changed as 

metadata became an accepted and highly supported 

standard of effort for data management and sharing 

within the science community. The NBII refocused 

the Clearinghouse to respond more specifically to the 

research needs of the data user while continuing to 

recognize data providers. A new second generation 

user interface was designed to organize metadata 

records in such a way that benefits both users and 

providers. It now presents relevant records through a 

ranking and filtering system controlled by the user. 

In 2008, the NBII (in conjunction with DOE’s Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory) released the new enhanced 

version of the NBII Clearinghouse with powerful 

search capabilities and updated features. With over 

40,000 records from 41 partners, users can search 

geographically or by specifying particular data 

providers (i.e., all USGS records), then bookmark or 

e-mail record results. Users can view search results 

in a combined view from all providers, or use filters 

to dynamically sort search results. A user can be 

informed about new metadata records in their interest 

areas as the data in the Clearinghouse grows. The 

new release can be accessed on the Internet at http://

mercury.ornl.gov/nbii. The NBII is one of the principal 

organizations in the ORNL Mercury Consortium, along 

with NASA, DOE, and others, in support of making data 

and information available to all sectors. 

Users of the NBII Clearinghouse range from biologists 

in Federal and State Agencies, land managers, data 

managers, research scientists, and the public. Our 

most recent monthly usage counts show increasing 

user numbers and burgeoning search hits via the 

Website.

 

Polar Bear Survival in a Vanishing Sea Ice 

Environment

With changes in sea ice recently observed in Alaska, 

many are concerned that U.S. polar bear populations 

will be adversely affected. USGS scientists have 

already documented one change in polar bear behavior, 

a shift in maternal dens from pack ice to land. Working 

with Canadian scientists, they also have documented 

declines in the survival rates and population size of 

polar bears in western Hudson Bay in connection with 

the melt of sea ice in that region, an event that now 

occurs 3 weeks earlier than in past years. 

The USGS assembled an international team of 

scientists to conduct a series of analyses to help inform 

the Secretary’s decision on whether to list polar bears 

under the Endangered Species Act. Partners included 

FWS, Canadian Wildlife Service, USDA, Ontario 

Ministry of Natural Resources, University of Alaska, 

Fairbanks, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution, Wildlife Conservation 

Society, and Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

The USGS team produced nine technical reports 

within 6 months to assist the Secretary in finalizing his 

decision. The collective work had three broad goals: 
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 55

to document the current status of polar bears in the 

Beaufort Sea and southern Hudson Bay based on long 

time series of unanalyzed data; to predict how polar 

bear demographics in the Southern Beaufort Sea and 

sea ice habitat in the polar basin will change based on 

forecasts from global climate models; and to forecast 

the future status of polar bear populations across their 

geographic range. 

The studies project a decline in polar bear populations 

throughout their range during the 21st century; 

however, the severity of the decline will depend on 

local sea ice conditions. In areas like Alaska where 

sea ice recedes far north of the continental shelf 

each summer and fall, extinction by mid-century will 

most likely be the outcome. Polar bears are predicted 

to persist longer in areas of northern Canada and 

Greenland where sea ice is expected to be more stable. 

On the basis of the science, the Secretary listed 

the polar bears as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act and issued administrative 

guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact 

in order to protect the polar bear while limiting 

unintended harm to the U.S. society and economy.

The USGS is continuing its long-term studies of polar 

bears to evaluate and test the models it developed in 

the nine reports. This work is critical as seasonal sea 

ice continues to recede at unprecedented rates in the 

Arctic. 

Geologic Maps Aid Park Service, Forest Service, and 

State Agencies in Missouri

Publication of geologic maps of the Piedmont Hollow 

(http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2979/) and the Cedar Grove 

quadrangles in 2008 mark delivery of a total of 14 

geologic quadrangle maps on or in the vicinity of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways Park (ONSR; NPS) 

and the Mark Twain National Forest. Issues that are 

positively impacted by these data include (1) inventory 

of geologic databases mandated by the NPS for its 

parks, (2) studies of potential impacts on ground-water 

quality as a result of proposed base-metal prospecting 

in the Mark Twain National Forest, and (3) ecologic 

land-type classification and soil studies being done 

by the Missouri Department of Conservation and the 

Missouri Cooperative Soil Survey on State lands and in 

the ONSR. Ecologic land-type maps are used on State 

and Federal lands to manage activities such as land 

access, hunting seasons, and controlled underbrush 

burning. Investigators with these agencies also use 

USGS digital geologic data as an aid to their field 

activities. 

Emerging Contaminants in the Nation’s Ground Water 

and Untreated Drinking-Water Sources

A recent USGS report on emerging contaminants 

in the Nation’s streams received widespread 

acknowledgement for getting the issue of 

pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, and other 

emerging contaminants on the radar screen as an 

important new environmental issue (http://toxics.

usgs.gov/highlights/whatsin.html). In 2008, the USGS 

published two followup studies that collected baseline 

information on the environmental occurrence of 

pharmaceuticals, personal-care products, surfactants, 

flame retardants, naturally occurring sterols, and other 

organic contaminants commonly associated with 

human- and animal-waste sources in ambient ground 

water and in untreated sources of drinking water 

(both from wells and at stream intakes). Forty-seven 

wells in 18 States, and 74 sources of drinking water 

(25 wells and 49 streams) in 25 States were sampled. 

More information and the data from these studies are 

available on the Internet at http://in preparation.

Research to support Polar Bear finding under the Endangered 

Species Act.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 56

USGS Tackling Fish Endocrine Disruption

USGS scientists continue to make significant 

contributions to the understanding of endocrine 

disruption in fish. Intersex, the presence of internal or 

external female characteristics in male fish, is being 

observed in more stream sites across the Nation. 

Studies have demonstrated that exposure to chemicals 

that are endocrine active can cause these effects 

on a fish and can have catastrophic effects on fish 

populations. A study of endocrine disruption in fish in 

Boulder Creek, Colorado, demonstrated how a complex 

mixture of endocrine-active chemicals in wastewater 

effluents can have an additive effect on local fish. 

Another study documented complex effects of fish 

exposure to nonylphenol, a surfactant used in large 

quantities in commercial and household detergents. 

They found that behavior of exposed males versus 

those not exposed varied significantly with exposure 

level. Low doses “primed” the males for breeding 

competition, whereas higher exposures inhibited their 

breeding behavior. In still another study, scientists 

studying fish health and intersex in the Potomac River 

in Virginia and West Virginia documented intersex in 

smallmouth bass and are continuing to evaluate the 

potential linkage to endocrine-active chemicals. More 

information on these studies can be found on the 

Internet at http:// in preparation.

USGS Responds to the Floods of 2008 with 

Technologies that Realize the Bureau’s Vision for 

Better, Faster, Safer, and More Efficient Means of 

Water-Resources Data Collection and Dissemination

Repeated flooding of the Mississippi and Ohio River 

valley over the winter and spring of 2008 was met by 

a highly motivated and well-equipped and trained 

workforce of USGS hydrologists and hydrologic 

technicians. Their job is to (1) collect water-resources 

data to verify streamflow ratings and models; (2) 

maintain the field streamgaging and telemetry 

equipment vital to putting timely information into the 

hands of first responders, National Weather Service, 

emergency management agencies, water management 

agencies, and other users of the information; and 

(3) to analyze and document extreme hydrologic 

conditions (floods and droughts) for long-term waterresource management decisions. The widespread use 

of new technologies by the USGS such as real-time 

satellite telemetry, global positioning systems (GPS) 

enabled-field computing technologies, and acoustic 

Doppler current profiler (ADCP) streamflow-discharge 

measurement equipment, has transformed how the 

USGS responds to these extreme events. Record 

numbers of high-quality measurements are being made 

with smaller crews, more fuel-efficient vehicles, with 

less safety risk and timelier reporting of results. Stories 

and testimonials can be accessed at: http://www.usgs.

gov/homepage/science_features/flooding_june08.asp. 

Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Earthworms: USGS 

Makes the Connection

Animal manure and biosolids (the solid byproduct of 

wastewater treatment) often are applied to agricultural 

crops to provide nutrients for plant growth and to 

improve the quality of soil. Earthworms studied in 

agricultural fields where manure and biosolids were 

applied were found to contain organic chemicals 

from household products and manure. Earthworms 

continuously ingest soils and may accumulate soil 

contaminants in their bodies. The chemicals detected 

included the active ingredients commonly found 

in a variety of household products—including the 

disinfectant found in antibacterial soaps, fragrances 

USGS geologist enters data into a global-positioning-systemenabled hand-held computer while conducting field work on the 

upper Jacks Fork River, Mo., in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

Park.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 57

used in perfumes and detergents, and an antibiotic. 

These results were published in the Journal 

Environmental Science and Technology. These 

results build upon two recent studies that found that 

household chemicals were detected in biosolids and 

that pharmaceuticals were found in soil irrigated with 

reclaimed water. More information on these studies 

is available on the Internet at http://toxics.usgs.gov/

highlights/earthworms.html. The information is very 

valuable to those who are looking at alternative ways of 

handling wastes intended for use as fertilizer. It is also 

useful to a wide range of scientists who are studying 

the potential adverse ecological health effects of the 

release of emerging contaminants to the environment.

USGS Completes the National Land Cover Database for 

Alaska

The USGS, on behalf of the interagency MultiResolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium, 

released the 2001 National Land Cover Database (NLCD 

2001) for Alaska. This is the first time 30-meter-cell land 

cover has been produced for the State. The “2001” 

refers to the year which most of the Landsat imagery 

was captured. The NLCD 2001 for Alaska contains 

19 land-cover classes, including three (dwarf scrub, 

sedge/herbaceous, and moss) that were specifically 

developed for the State. The NLCD 2001 products 

include land cover identified for all 30-meter cells 

across the State, and for the percentage of urban 

imperviousness and tree canopy for select 30-meter 

cells. NLCD information is essential for addressing a 

wide variety of issues, such as assessing ecosystem 

status and health, understanding spatial patterns 

of biodiversity, understanding climate change, and 

developing land management policy. Information from 

the original NLCD produced for the conterminous 

United States with 1992 imagery (NLCD 1992) has been 

used in thousands of applications in the private, public, 

and academic sectors, and the national consistency 

of the information is especially valuable for regional 

and national applications. Future updates of NLCD 2001 

are planned to provide a way to monitor and assess 

land-cover change across the Nation. NLCD products 

are Web enabled and available for download from the 

MRLC Web site at http://www.mrlc.gov. 

Extraordinary Response to the Landsat Image Mosaic 

of Antarctica (LIMA)

In stunning, up-close, and personal detail, the 

Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica (LIMA) brings 

Antarctica to life, both for the scientific community 

and the general public at large. The USGS led the 

effort, in cooperation with the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration and the British Antarctic 

Survey, to produce LIMA, the most geometrically 

accurate, virtually cloudless, seamless, and highest 

resolution image map of Antarctica. The National 

Science Foundation funded the project. Created from 

over 1,000 Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus 

(ETM+) Antarctica scenes, LIMA went live online in 

late November 2007 to an extraordinary public reaction. 

The LIMA Web site (http://lima.usgs.gov) received 4 

million hits in the first 12 hours after LIMA became 

available. The USGS was contacted by news media 

from around the world. 

With such worldwide focus on the poles and their 

effect on global climate change, LIMA plays a critical 

role in supporting and fulfilling USGS science strategy 

and International Polar Year (IPY) goals. LIMA is an 

international effort, supports current scientific polar 

research, encourages new projects, and helps the 

general public visualize Antarctica and changes 

happening to this southernmost environment. LIMA 

has become available at a crucial moment when 

polar research is more critical and more projects are 

commencing or are in the planning stage (see http://

lima.usgs.gov/documents/LIMAFactSheet.pdf).

Imagery from the Natural-Color, Pan-Sharpened LIMA (bands 3,2,1). 

A slender glacier tongue feeds into Radok Lake, a 6-kilometer 

(4-mile) meltwater lake near the Amery Ice Shelf.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 58

Biscayne Bay

In 2007, USGS scientists completed the development 

and calibration of an integrated surface- and groundwater model of Biscayne National Park (BNP) and 

surrounding areas. This calibrated modeling tool was 

utilized to assist in the determination of potential 

sources of hypersalinity in Biscayne Bay. The analysis 

of the model results and statistical analysis of data to 

determine the sources of hypersalinity to Biscayne 

Bay, which indicated that the hypersaline events were 

potentially a combination of canal operations and 

declines in rainfall, will be documented in a journal 

article in 2008. This work was jointly funded by Interior 

and the South Florida Water Management District. The 

model is also being used to provide insight into the 

causes of ecosystem degradation and to predict the 

effects of Everglades Restoration on future freshwater 

inflows to the bay.

Partnerships for Geospatial Data for The National Map

The National Geospatial Program has developed 

partnerships through its National Spatial Data 

Infrastructure (NSDI) Liaison network to acquire, 

maintain, and steward geospatial data for The 

National Map at a cost of $5.6 million. By acting as 

a coordinator with other agencies, the USGS has 

leveraged the $5.6 million investment to a total value of 

about $35 million. After quality assurance and control, 

the data will be made publicly available online for a 

myriad of government and private uses. Examples of 

leveraging funding between levels of government for 

maximizing geospatial data acquisition are as follows:

Boston Orthoimagery Agreements Exceed All 

Expectations

Thirty Boston area municipalities have partnered with 

the USGS for new four-band color, 0.15-meter (about 

6-inch) pixel-resolution orthoimagery. The project 

meets local needs while greatly benefitting all levels 

of government, including USGS science programs 

and USGS geospatial program goals for the NSDI. By 

cooperating in this way, data costs were reduced 

across all levels of government.

As an outgrowth of the Imagery for the Nation 

Initiative, the Boston Upgrade project is a collaboration 

to put high-quality geospatial data into the public 

domain, utilizing Federal and State efficiencies and 

economies of scale while reducing costs at each level 

of government. It eliminates redundant procedures, 

contractor mobilization costs, contract management, 

as well as minimizes impacts on administrative 

resources. The USGS had previously negotiated a 

contract for new 2008 orthoimagery over the Boston 

Urban Area, funded by NGA. Learning of this, the 

directors of Massachusetts’ Office of Geographic 

and Environmental Information (MassGIS) offered to 

Antarctica—a frozen dream comes to life through the extraordinary 

focus of LIMA. This section of the Natural-Color, Pan-Sharpened 

LIMA (bands 3, 2, 1) includes McMurdo Station (United States), the 

largest research base in Antarctica, at the tip of Hut Point Peninsula 

on Ross Island. Also visible are the Koettlitz and Ferrar Glaciers, and 

the Royal Society Range.

Imagery from the Natural-Color, Pan-Sharpened LIMA (bands 3,2,1). 

Oblique view of McMurdo Dry Valleys.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 59

work with the USGS to negotiate “buy up” agreements 

for individual municipalities to pay for more detailed 

imagery over their parts of the Boston Urban Area 

footprint. The USGS liaison to Massachusetts helped 

negotiations between MassGIS and the USGS. 

This is the largest collaborative geospatial project 

accomplished by the USGS and demonstrates the level 

of interest for the data and for such cooperation. The 

USGS processed all 30 Joint Funding Agreements in 

a narrow timeframe necessitated by the window of 

opportunity for the spring 2008 flight.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has three 

significant uses of the National Hydrography Dataset 

(NHD). One is the addressing of events such as the 

location of impaired water, assessed water, permitted 

discharges, drinking-water intakes, and other points 

collected by the EPA and its State environmental 

partners. In this role, many individual water program 

databases managed by the EPA become integrated 

when linked to the NHD’s common geospatial reference 

system. Over 8 million events in more than a dozen 

major water-program databases are now linked to 

the NHD. A second use is the communication of this 

information to the public through data displays on 

the Web such as the EPA’s EnviroMapper for Water. 

The third use is in analysis involving the relationship 

between water uses and the quality of water supplying 

those uses. An important issue is the location of water 

classified as impaired for a particular use, designated 

as Impaired Water and known by the designation 

303(d) after the relevant section of the Clean Water 

Act. These waters are identified in the NHD with an 

address locating the beginning point downstream 

and ending point upstream where the water has been 

given this designation. If water is designated as being 

impaired for use as drinking water, for example, then 

its relationship to drinking water intakes is of critical 

importance

At the Institute of Fisheries Research in Michigan 

the NHD is an important part of decision support for 

understanding the impact of dams and barriers on 

fish migration. Michigan has over 5,000 dams, and 

many of Michigan’s inland waters are not accessible 

by fish species dependent upon upstream habitat for 

spawning. One of the benefits of a fish barrier, such 

as a dam, is the ability to block the passage of invasive 

species. For example, Lake Michigan contains over 

160 invasive species, many brought in from around the 

world by discharged ballast tank water in ships. Many 

of these nonnative species can move upstream and 

infest the inland waters of a State such as Michigan. 

Scientists use GIS to analyze those waters directly 

connected to the Great Lakes and those isolated by 

dams or other barriers. While dams are blocking some 

invasive species from moving to inland waters, they 

are also blocking the movement of native species such 

as sturgeon, which need to swim upstream to spawn. 

So studies are underway to assess the impact of dams 

on fish migration, passage, and spawning within the 

Great Lakes Basin. A balance between protecting 

inland waters from invasive species and providing 

fish passage opportunities needs to be achieved, and 

a GIS using data such as the NHD is an important 

part of the analytical process. In studying this issue, 

fisheries scientists in Michigan recognize that not all 

streams can support sturgeon spawning, and accurate 

measures are necessary when weighing the balance 

between the positive and negative environmental 

and economic impacts of dams. Removing a dam 

may open up many miles of streams to migration and 

potentially restore a fishery. However, if only a small 

portion of those streams provide quality sturgeon 

habitat, then perhaps removing the dam may not be as 

beneficial as originally thought. The NHD network, in 

concert with dam and stream-habitat event data, is a 

critical component to advancing fisheries science and 

management in the Great Lakes region.

GIS map depicting upstream dams and fish passage routes in the 

area around Little Sable point and Muskegon, western Michigan.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 60

The Landsat Legacy Continues...

Currently, NASA and the USGS are engaged in a 

partnership to continue to acquire Landsat-quality 

data that meet both NASA and USGS scientific and 

operational requirements for observing land use and 

land change. The LDCM activities transitioned from a 

planning phase into a full-fledged development effort to 

support a 2011 target launch date for the next Landsat 

mission – the 8th in a long, successful legacy of remote 

sensing missions. In accordance with the Project’s 

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), the Project has 

completed six element-level requirement reviews for 

the LDCM Ground System. In addition, the contracts 

needed to support development – the Landsat Data 

Continuity Contract (LDCC) and the Technical Support 

Services Contract (TSSC) -- were awarded in March 

2008 and contract transition was accomplished during 

April 2008. The USGS also funds the Landsat Science 

Team (LST), which serves in an advisory capacity to 

NASA and the USGS on issues associated with the 

mission development.

GeoMAC Wildland Fire Support

GeoMAC is an interactive web application that the 

USGS developed and maintains for users to view fire 

locations and fire perimeters integrated with satellite, 

weather and historic fire data. After logging onto geomac.gov the user can use the ‘Jump to Fire’ tool to go 

directly to the fire of interest. This brings up the fire at 

a larger scale and allows the user access to more data 

layers. Data layers can be turned ‘on and off’ for viewing by checking the box in front of the layer. Users can 

access data from the Remote Access Weather Stations 

data, the National Interagency Fire Center, and fire 

weather warnings with just a few mouse clicks. GeoMAC has received 40 million requests so far this year. 

By far the busiest month was July, during the height of 

the California fires, with 18 million requests.

The weekend of June 21-22, a dry low-pressure system 

crossing through California produced dry lightening and 

ignited nearly 2000 fires across 17 counties causing one 

of the earliest starts to fire season in recent years. As 

of July 11, it was reported that a total of 793,483 acres 

had burned, exceeding the number of acres burned in 

the California Wildfires of 2007 and 2003. The National 

Preparedness Level quickly went to Level 5 (http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_preparedness_level), 

which meant that the USGS and BLM personnel would 

process and load the wildland fire perimeter data into 

GeoMAC seven days a week. To date, over 5,000 perimeters have been loaded into the application, no small 

task when compared to 2,000 plus that were loaded 

in the 2007 fire season. The GIS Standard Operating 

Procedures on Incidents directs the GIS Specialists 

on a fire to upload their daily fire perimeters to the 

ftp.nifc.gov site so they would be available outside 

of the Incident. Perimeters are loaded into GeoMAC 

for public viewing but they are also made available to 

researchers, fire response personnel, NORTHCOM, the 

Red Cross, FEMA, academia and a host of other organizations and interested parties through a download site 

and an interactive data delivery system.

Comment from a GeoMAC user:

Thanks to all for putting together a great mapping 

site for fire information! Your mapping site works 

well, is easy to navigate, and appears to be 

exceptionally timely. 

Comment from a homeowner in an area 

threatened by fire.

As a resident of Seiad Valley, California, your site 

has taken on new importance with the recent (late 

August 2008) "SLICKARD" fire which is just a few 

miles from our home. Somehow you folks have 

managed to provide up-to-date information which is 

often significantly delayed from other sources. 

Additionally, I have been able to keep out-of-town 

friends up to date on progress of the fire by 

comparing your mapping data to personal 

observations from various locations surrounding the 

fire. Reports they are most interested in because of 

their homes very close proximity to the northwest 

fire perimeter.

2008 California wildland fire complexes displayed in GeoMAC.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 61

Resource Use: Manage Resources to Promote Responsible Use and Sustain a Dynamic 

Economy

End Outcome Goal: 

Improve understanding of energy and mineral resources to promote responsible use and sustain the Nation’s 

dynamic economy.

√ Targets Met or Exceeded ▲ Targets Not Met but Improving ▼ Targets Not Met ■ Targets Rebaselined 

GPRA End Outcome Measure

72 Percent of targeted science products that are 

used by partners for land or resource management 

decisionmaking (DOI strategic plan key measure)

2005 

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

86.5% 87.5% 99% ≥ 90% 95%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. This measure is tracked by survey of customers and partners. The target is a threshold 

below which performance would indicate a problem that needs corrective action. So long as the actual result is above 

the target level, the process is under control and no corrective action is needed.

Intermediate Outcome: Ensure availability of energy and mineral resources information and systematic analyses 

needed by land and resource managers for informed decisionmaking 

73 Number of targeted basins with energy resource 

assessments available to support management 

decisions (DOI strategic plan key measure and PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008 

Actual

7 6 5 5 5

√ Target Met or Exceeded

74 Percent of targeted non-fuel mineral commodities 

for which up-to-date deposit models are available 

to support decisionmaking (DOI strategic plan key 

measure and PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

n/a n/a 0% 7% 7%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

75 Baseline Information: Average square miles of the 

United States with non-energy mineral information 

available to support management decisions (PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006 

Actual

2007

Actual

2008 

Planned

2008

Actual

3,097,647 3,318,208 3,346,000 3,346,000 3,346,000

√ Target Met or Exceeded. This measure was completed at the end of 2007.

Intermediate Outcome: Ensure the quality and relevance of science information and data to support 

decisionmaking 

76 Percent of studies validated through appropriate peer 

review or independent review (DOI strategic plan key 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

√ Target Met or Exceeded
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 62

77 Percent satisfaction with scientific and technical 

products and assistance for natural resource 

decisionmaking (DOI strategic plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

n/a n/a 97% ≥ 80% 97%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Customer satisfaction measures are a type of statistical quality control - with the target 

being the threshold level. That is, an actual result below the target would indicate a problem that needs corrective 

action. So long as the actual result is above the target level, the process is under control and no corrective action is 

needed.

PART Efficiency and Other Output Measures

78 Number of annual gigabytes collected (Energy) 2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

97.793 158.048 37.409 20.038 1.173

▼ Targets Not Met. The shortfall is due to the untimely passing of key personnel related to data collection. The Energy 

Program will revisit this target in future planning to synchronize the target metric with realistic expectations of gigabyte 

growth.

79 Number of cumulative gigabytes managed (Energy) 2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

351.289 509.338 546.747 544.864 547.920

√ Target Met or Exceeded

80 Number of cumulative gigabytes managed (Minerals) 2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

16.131 16.221 16.3 16.3 16.3

√ Target Met or Exceeded

81 Number of systematic analyses and investigations 

delivered to customers

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

10 11 11 8 8

√ Target Met or Exceeded

82 Number of formal workshops or training provided to 

customers

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

16 15 15 14 14

√ Target Met or Exceeded

83 Percent of targeted analyses/investigations delivered 

which are cited by identified partners within 3 years of 

delivery (Energy) (PART measure) 

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

86% 82% 82% ≥ 80% 87%

√ Target Met or Exceeded
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 63

84 Average cost of a systematic analysis or investigation 

(PART measure) (ERP)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

$2.73M $1.98M $1.3M $2.75M $2.46M

√ Target Met or Exceeded

85 Number of mineral commodity reports available for 

decisions (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

746 690 717 700 649

▼ Targets Not Met. Consolidated some topics that had been reported individually, lowering the total number of 

reports without changing the information reported. In addition, 2008 is the first year of implementation of the Most 

Efficient Organization (MEO) in the minerals information data collection function. The transition to the MEO required 

hiring and training new staff, as well as redefinition of workflow. As a result, a series of reports that are usually monthly 

were temporarily published with several multi-month reports with no loss of information (but a considerable decrease 

in timeliness). Finally, consolidation in the steel industry resulted in consumption data for molybdenum and vanadium 

being reported incorrectly. USGS analysts caught the errors before publication and are working with the newly merged 

company to have them corrected. When this process is complete, eleven reports that have been held up will be released.

86 Percent of targeted analyses/investigations delivered 

that are cited by identified partners within 3 years of 

delivery (Minerals) (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

87% 93% 93% ≥ 80% 100%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

87 Average cost of a systematic analysis or investigation 

(PART measure) (MRP)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

$4.18M $4.3M $3.7M $4.9M $4.7M

√ Target Met or Exceeded

Examples of Resource Use Goal Accomplishments

The First-Ever Assessment of Technically Recoverable 

Gas-Hydrate Resources – Alaska North Slope

Gas hydrate is a crystalline solid formed of water and 

natural gas (usually methane) and is potentially one 

of the most important energy resources for the future. 

Gas hydrate looks much like ice, but contains abundant 

amounts of methane (natural gas) in a solid form. Gas 

hydrates are known to exist in huge quantities in marine 

sediments several hundred meters below the sea floor 

and are also found in association with permafrost in the 

Arctic. The amount of natural gas resources projected 

to be contained in gas hydrates is huge and represents 

an enormous potential domestic resource. If we can 

understand how to produce this energy source safely, 

in an environmentally sound manner, gas hydrate 

production could significantly diversify the supply of 

our domestic energy resources. With the recognition 

of potentially vast gas hydrate accumulations beneath 

the sea along the outer continental margins of the 

world’s oceans and in terrestrial permafrost regions of 

the Arctic, interest in the potential of gas-hydrates as 

an energy resource has grown in the last decade. 

In the United States, almost all of the gas-hydrate 

potential lies under Federally managed lands or waters. 

However, the precise magnitude and producibility of 

an accumulation at a given site remains very much 

in question. Future contributions from gas-hydrate 

to world energy supplies depend on these issues 

pertaining to the availability, producibility, and cost 

of extracting methane from the hydrate phase. In 

2008, the USGS released a first-ever assessment of 

technically recoverable gas-hydrate resources. This 
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 64

assessment addresses the recoverability and potential 

production characteristics of onshore natural gas 

hydrates and associated free-gas accumulations. This 

work is being done in cooperation with the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM).

The major USGS customers for this effort [BLM and 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR)] are 

responsible for oil and gas development that takes 

place on Alaskan and Federal public lands, as well 

as for most pipeline right-of-ways. The research 

that the USGS produces through this cooperative 

study will provide the BLM and the Alaska DNR 

with the knowledge of where potential gas-hydrate 

development may take place. For more information on 

USGS domestic and international gas-hydrate research 

activities, please visit http://energy.usgs.gov/other/

gashydrates/.

Improved Understanding to Responsibly Meet 

America’s Energy Resource Needs

The third phase of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA) Inventory of oil and natural gas resources 

was delivered to Congress and released to the public 

in May 2008. This inventory is the culmination of a 

multi-agency collaborative effort that includes the 

USGS, BLM, the U.S. Forest Service, the Department 

of Energy, and the Energy Information Administration. 

This effort is in response to legislative mandates in 

Section 604 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

of 2000, and further amended by Section 364 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. These mandates called for 

an inventory of all onshore Federal lands to identify 

“the United States Geological Survey estimates of the 

oil and gas resources underlying these lands; and the 

extent and nature of any restrictions or impediments 

to the development of the resources...” This EPCA 

Phase III Inventory report, entitled Inventory of Onshore 

Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions 

to Their Development, represents the first true national 

assessment of the restrictions and impediments to 

oil and gas exploration and development. The basis 

for the inventory came from USGS assessments for 

undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas.

This EPCA report includes all onshore Federal lands 

within the United States, and areas covered in detail 

by the Phase II inventory of 2006, which were updated 

where needed, and six additional areas (Central and 

Southern Alaska, Eastern Oregon-Washington, and 

the Ventura, Williston, and Eastern Great Basins) are 

analyzed in detail. The results show that 279 million 

acres of Federal lands are within areas mapped as 

having oil and natural-gas potential. These lands 

contain an estimated 31 billion barrels of oil and 231 

trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The report provides 

an inventory of the extent and nature of limitations 

to development of these resources and does not 

make any policy recommendations in response to its 

findings. Federal land and resource managers use this 

information to develop Resource Management Plans 

and Environmental Impact Statements. Organizations 

and Federal and international agencies studying 

domestic and international energy markets use this 

information to make projections regarding future oil 

and gas supplies, as well as policy regarding energy 

resources and supply.

Central Colorado Assessment Project: Geoscience for 

Mineral Resource and Environmental Assessments of 

Public Lands

Central Colorado remains one of the fastest growing 

regions in the western United States. Population 

growth has caused tremendous pressure on a variety 

of natural resources and has created many land 

management issues for local, State, and Federal 

government agencies. One of the principal land 

management agencies in the area, the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service (FS), requested studies of 

four National Forests in central Colorado in preparation 

for their cyclic forest planning efforts. Compilation of 

newly acquired data and the results of past studies 

has provided the FS with accurate and up-to-date 

earth science data that are compatible with existing 

FS GIS (Geographic Information Systems) layers used 

in the planning process. Selected spatial data layers 

delivered include geology (seamless geologic maps 

at the scale of 1:100,000), geochemistry (rock and 

stream-sediment data), geophysics (magnetic, filtered 

magnetic, gravity, filtered gravity, airborne radiometric), 

remote sensing, locations of known mineral deposits 

with claim history, and rock age determinations. The FS 

will use this new geoscience data to better understand 

the distribution of metallic, industrial mineral resources 

that may have potential for development, as well 

as the geochemical and environmental effects of 
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 65

historic mining activity on surface and ground water 

and aquatic life. The study area includes much of the 

Colorado Mineral Belt, a northeast-trending zone in 

central Colorado that has provided much of Colorado’s 

historical metal production and continues to provide 

most of the State’s metal production.

USGS research improves cyanide management

Cyanide is an effective metallurgical agent that 

liberates gold cheaply and efficiently from mined 

ores, but it can also be toxic to wildlife. Recently 

completed USGS research demonstrates that the 

environmental risk posed by using cyanide to process 

gold ores might be diminished if closer attention were 

paid to monitoring and remediation of cyanide-cobalt 

complexes. These complexes result from the trace 

amounts of cobalt that are found in many gold ores, and 

appear under some circumstances to be longer lived 

than other cyanide-metal complexes. 

In case studies of mining operations in three western 

states, improved analytical techniques developed in 

USGS laboratories allowed recognition of a cyanidecobalt complex that older methods could not detect. 

Toxicity tests using rainbow trout and freshwater 

crustaceans revealed that the cyanide-cobalt complex 

is not especially hazardous to aquatic life, but that 

exposure to sunlight causes the complex to break down 

and then release cyanide in a highly toxic form.

Domestic gold production, which in 2007 placed the 

United States fourth among gold-producing nations, 

relies heavily on mines located on both Federal 

and private lands that employ cyanide heap leach 

technology to extract gold from ore. Because cyanide 

presents possible environmental consequences to 

wildlife, regulations require removal of cyanide from 

waters discharged from both active and inactive mine 

sites. The improved analytical methods developed 

at the USGS make it possible to routinely detect low 

levels of cyanide-cobalt complexes as part of improved 

water treatment and site remediation at active and 

abandoned mine sites. 

Significant Potential for Undiscovered Resources in 

Afghanistan

Afghanistan has significant amounts of undiscovered 

non-fuel mineral resources according to the 

USGS’ 2007 assessment. USGS scientists worked 

cooperatively with the Afghanistan Geological Survey 

of the Afghanistan Ministry of Mines, between 2004 

and 2007, to compile existing information about 

known mineral deposits and evaluate the possible 

occurrence of undiscovered deposits of non-fuel 

mineral resources. This assessment will be used in 

rebuilding Afghanistan’s natural resources sector, 

provide valuable new information to the global business 

and mining communities, and serve as a foundation 

for future work on areas of mineral resource potential. 

“Afghanistan’s natural resources have a quality 

comparable to the highest-class minerals of the entire 

region,” said Afghanistan’s Ambassador to the United 

States Said T. Jawad. “We are grateful to the efforts 

of the USGS and our Ministry of Mines in allowing 

global investors an opportunity to receive the latest 

information on their assessment for more informed 

business decisions.” The USGS was commissioned 

by the U.S. Agency for International Development 

and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to develop 

this assessment. Results of the 2007 preliminary 

assessment of non-fuel mineral resources of 

Afghanistan are available at the USGS Afghanistan 

Web site (http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov) and at the 

Afghanistan Geological Survey Web site (http://www.

bgs.ac.uk/afghanminerals/). 

Map of Afghanistan showing mineralized areas recommended for 

further study (rectangular areas), known non-fuel mineral deposits 

and prospects (small dots), and selected mineral deposits for which 

resources have been published in the past (various symbols).
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 66

Serving Communities: Improve Protection of Lives, Property, and Assets; Advance the Use 

of Scientific Knowledge; and Improve the Quality of Life for Communities We Serve

End Outcome Goal:

Improve the understanding, prediction, and monitoring of natural hazards to inform decisions by civil authorities and 

the public to plan for, manage, and mitigate the effects of hazard events on people and property. 

√ Targets Met or Exceeded ▲ Targets Not Met but Improving ▼ Targets Not Met ■ Targets Rebaselined 

GPRA End Outcome Measure

88 Percent of communities/Tribes using DOI science on 

hazard mitigation, preparedness, and avoidance for 

each hazard-management activity (Hazards) (DOI 

strategic plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

45% 48% 50% 53% 53%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

Intermediate Outcome: Provide information to assist communities in managing risks from natural hazards

89 Number of areas for which detailed hazard 

assessments are completed (DOI strategic plan key 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

n/a 49 51 53 53

√ Target Met or Exceeded

90 Number of urban areas for which detailed seismic 

hazard maps are completed (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

3 3 3 4 4

√ Target Met or Exceeded

91 Number of metropolitan regions where Shakemap 

is incorporated into emergency procedures (PART 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

5 5 5 5 5

√ Target Met or Exceeded

92 Percent of potentially hazardous volcanoes with 

published hazard assessments (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

62.8% 64.3% 65.7% 67.1% 67.1%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

93 Use Rate — Earthquakes: Percentage of communities 

using DOI science on hazard mitigation, preparedness, 

and avoidance for each hazard management activity 

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

63.4% 63.9% 67% 67% 67%

√ Target Met or Exceeded
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 67

94 Use Rate — Landslides: Percentage of communities 

using DOI science on hazard mitigation, preparedness, 

and avoidance for each hazard management activity 

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

3.9% 4.4% 4.9% 5.4% 5.4%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

95 Use Rate — Volcanoes: Percentage of communities 

using DOI science on hazard mitigation, preparedness, 

and avoidance for each hazard management activity 

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

66.4% 74.2% 76.6% 85.9% 85.9%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

96 Use Rate — Landslide Hazards: Number of responses 

to inquiries from the public, educators, and public 

officials to the National Landslide Information Center 

on hazard mitigation, preparedness, and avoidance 

strategies for landslide hazards 

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

5,200 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600

√ Target Met or Exceeded

Intermediate Outcome: Ensure the quality and relevance of science information and data to support 

decisionmaking

97 Percent of studies validated through appropriate peer 

review or independent review (DOI strategic plan key 

measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

98 Percent satisfaction with scientific and technical 

products and assistance for natural hazard planning, 

mitigation, and emergency response (DOI strategic 

plan key measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

n/a n/a 87% ≥ 80% 87%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Customer satisfactiion measures are a type of statistical quality control - with the target 

being the threshold level. That is, an actual result below the target would indicate a problem that needs corrective 

action. So long as the actual result is above the target level, the process is under control and no corrective action is 

needed.

PART Efficiency and Other Output Measures

99 Number of systematic analyses and investigations 

delivered to customers

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

6 4 248 239 221

▼ Targets Not Met. Resources were directed to developing the earthquake components of the multi-hazards 

demonstration projects in California and the Pacific NW. Additional workshops were held (see above). As 

a result of the demonstration projects, 2008 R&D activities have produced new research results that will be 

published in 2009. 
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 68

100 Number of real-time ANSS earthquake sensors 

(reported yearly and cumulative at the end of the year) 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

40

cuml 563

160

cuml 723

63

cuml 786

17

cuml 803

19

cuml 805

√ Target Met or Exceeded

101 Percent of earthquake monitoring global seismic 

network stations that have telemetry (increase 

reporting speed from one hour to 20 minutes)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

86% 89% 96% 93% 96%

√ Target Met or Exceeded. 

102 Number of formal workshops or training provided to 

customers

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

19 15 14 12 19

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Resources were directed to developing the earthquate components of the multi-hazards 

demonstration projects in California, the Pacific NW, and the Central U.S.; these activities required additional 

coordination workshops.

103 Number of sites (mobile or fixed) monitored for ground 

deformation to identify volcanic activity 

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

88 94 159 170 174

√ Target Met or Exceeded

104 Number of areas or locations for which geophysical 

models exist that are used to interpret monitoring data 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

4 1⁄3 4 2⁄3 5 5 1⁄3 5 1⁄3

√ Target Met or Exceeded

105 Number of volcanoes for which information supports 

public-safety decisions (PART measure)

2005 

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

51 51 52 52 52

√ Target Met or Exceeded

106 Percent of potentially active volcanoes monitored 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

72.9% 72.9% 74.3% 74.3% 74.3%

√ Target Met or Exceeded
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 69

107 Number of counties, or comparable jurisdictions, that 

have adopted improved building codes, land-use plans, 

emergency response plans, or other hazard mitigation 

measures based on USGS earthquake-hazards 

information (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

565 569 593 593 593

√ Target Met or Exceeded

108 Number of counties, or comparable jurisdictions, 

that have adopted improved building codes, land-use 

plans, emergency-response plans, or other hazardmitigation measures based on USGS landslide hazards 

information (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

71 80 89 98 98

√ Target Met or Exceeded

109 Number of counties, or comparable jurisdictions, that 

have adopted improved building codes, land-use plans, 

emergency-response plans, or other hazard-mitigation 

measures based on USGS volcano-hazards information 

(PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

170 190 196 220 220

√ Target Met or Exceeded

110 Percent data availability for real-time data from the 

GSN (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

89% 88% 88% 86% 87%

√ Target Met or Exceeded

111 Data processing and notification costs per unit volume 

of input data from earthquake sensors in monitoring 

networks (in cost per gigabyte) (PART measure)

2005

Actual

2006

Actual

2007

Actual

2008

Planned

2008

Actual

.79 

$k/Gb

1.3 

$k/Gb

1.19 

$k/Gb

1.33 

$k/Gb

.89

$k/Gb

√ Target Met or Exceeded. Efficiency was achieved by replacing a higher-cost contractor with a lower-cost 

government employee, and by continuing to leave one position unfilled. Unexpected year-end porcessing of tape data 

also contributed to high performance.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 70

Examples of Serving Communities Goal 

Accomplishments

Ground-Motion Models Predict Shaking Intensity

The USGS has developed a new set of ground-motion 

prediction relations that uses a global dataset of 

earthquakes containing important close-to-rupture 

recordings for recent earthquakes, including the 

magnitude-7.5 Izmit (Turkey) and magnitude-7.6 ChiChi (Taiwan) earthquakes. The new relations are used 

to predict ground shaking for future earthquakes in a 

variety of applications that help reduce earthquake 

risk and ensure public safety. They are applied in the 

2008 update of the USGS national seismic hazard maps, 

which are used by engineers for earthquake provisions 

in building codes throughout the Nation, as well as for 

earthquake loss estimation and setting premiums for 

earthquake insurance. The new relations are also key 

components for assessment of earthquake hazard for 

critical facilities in the western United States.

Earthquake Scenario for Southern San Andreas Fault 

Released

In May 2008, the USGS Multi-Hazards Demonstration 

Project released a scenario describing the expected 

impacts that a magnitude-7.8 earthquake on the 

Southern San Andreas Fault would have on southern 

California and the Nation. Information in the scenario 

can be used to reduce lifeline vulnerability, retrofit 

critical structures, improve monitoring systems, 

plan emergency response, and educate our citizens. 

This November, the scenario will be the basis of the 

Golden Guardian exercise, which is to be the largest 

emergency drill ever planned in California. It is 

being organized by FEMA and the California Offices 

of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. 

This professional emergency response drill will run 

concurrent with a public preparedness exercise 

called the Great Southern California ShakeOut that 

will engage local school districts and businesses to 

practice earthquake safety drills. The public exercise 

is being organized as part of a major Dare to Prepare 

campaign by the Earthquake Country Alliance, a broad 

public-private coalition of organizations. 

USGS researchers led the construction of the scenario 

to represent a realistic example of what a future 

large earthquake on the San Andreas fault might 

look like. Using the predicted fault displacements 

from the scenario earthquake, as well as established 

methodologies to predict the shaking levels throughout 

southern California, enables USGS researchers 

and stakeholders to consider in detail the potential 

impact of a future “Big One” in California. The total 

impact of this scenario earthquake is estimated to be 

approximately 1,800 fatalities and about $200 billion in 

losses. Among its findings, this work has highlighted 

significant lifeline vulnerabilities at key transportation 

arteries that cross the fault. USGS researchers have 

been in close communication with lifeline operators to 

discuss results and concerns.

Seattle Urban Hazard Maps Used for Prioritized 

Retrofitting

The City of Seattle has completed a study of problems 

posed by earthquake ground motions to unreinforced 

masonry buildings, using the new USGS Urban 

Seismic Hazard Map as the key input for earthquake 

hazards. The detailed USGS maps include geological 

details ranging from local site conditions to the threedimensional structure of the Earth beneath Seattle. 

Ground motions on the USGS maps are particularly 

high in several parts of Seattle with a large number of 

unreinforced masonry buildings. Seattle has a history 

of such buildings failing during the 1949, 1965, and 

2001 earthquakes in Puget Sound. The City of Seattle 

study identified nearly 1,000 unreinforced masonry 

buildings, including a public high school, that are at 

very high risk in the next earthquake. Because only 

about 15% of such buildings have been seismically 

retrofitted, the City is using the new study to formulate 

policy to reduce the danger to the population. The 

Mayor of Seattle has called the results of the study 

Using USGS Earthquake Science to Inform Mitigation Efforts

On July 8, 2008, almost 19 years after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, San Francisco’s current 

Mayor announced legislation to speed up the retrofitting of soft-story construction which was 

especially vulnerable to the earthquake and resulted in substantial damage and loss of life. The 

legislation would expedite the review and wave associated fees for permits to retrofit soft-story 

buildings which have more windows and doors than solid wall on the first floor. 

About 2001, the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection established a Community 

Advisory Panel for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) to recommend mitigation strategies for the City’s 

soft-story construction. The Applied Technology Council (ATC) conducted an impact assessment 

of likely damage with USGS providing information on expected ground motions and amplification 

based on soil type. The panel did not conclude their effort, but their work was restarted by the 

current Mayor to improve the City’s preparedness on the centennial of the 1906 San Francisco 

earthquake. The USGS was a leading participant in the vigorous outreach efforts for the 

centennial.

The USGS is currently conducting another major public awareness campaign, focused on the 

140th anniversary of the 1868 Hayward Fault earthquake in October. The occurrence of the 

past five earthquakes on the Hayward Fault averaging 140 years apart is providing motivation to 

retrofit buildings throughout the San Francisco Bay area.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 71

“a public safety issue.” The use of the Seattle Urban 

Seismic Hazard maps as underpinning a major local 

policy decision is a clear indicator of the importance 

developing these maps can have in our cities with high 

earthquake hazards and risks.

Supporting Rapid Earthquake Response

Within 30 minutes of the magnitude-7.9 (M7.9)

earthquake that struck Sichuan province in China, 

the USGS National Earthquake Information Center 

used data from stations of the Global Seismographic 

Network to deliver results showing the estimated 

population exposed to potentially damaging shaking 

using its newly released Prompt Assessment for Global 

Earthquake Response (PAGER) system. These results 

were used by the Chinese, as well as by disaster relief 

organizations, to identify the hardest-hit areas, even 

before reports emerged from the region. In the ensuing 

weeks, the USGS EROS Data Center coordinated the 

U.S. Government’s response to Chinese requests for 

imagery. USGS scientists analyzed the changes in 

the crustal stress field induced by the M7.9 Sichuan 

China earthquake to forecast the location of hazardous 

aftershocks, as part of the science and humanitarian 

response to the disaster. The analysis was provided to 

the Chinese government to mitigate further loss of life 

in the epicentral region. 

Updated National Seismic Hazard Maps

In April 2008, the USGS released an updated version 

of the National Seismic Hazard Maps showing that 

earthquakes remain a serious threat in 46 States of the 

United States. This revision incorporates new seismic, 

geologic, and geodetic information on earthquake 

rates and the manner in which the energy released in 

earthquakes dies off with distance from the rupture. 

National-scale maps of earthquake-shaking hazards 

provide information essential to creating and updating 

the seismic design provisions of building codes 

used in the United States. The timing of the National 

Seismic Hazard Map release is tied to the schedule for 

revising model building codes that are developed by 

international code committees and then considered by 

State and local governments for adoption. Cities and 

counties rely on seismic design provisions in building 

codes to ensure that structures such as buildings, 

bridges, highways and utilities are earthquake 

resistant. 

The National Seismic Hazard Maps consist of a 

series of maps and databases describing ground 

shaking at many points across the country and have 

many applications in addition to building codes. They 

are used by insurance companies to set rates for 

properties in various areas of the country, by civil 

engineers to estimate the stability and landslide 

potential of hillsides, by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to set construction standards that 

ensure the safety of waste-disposal facilities, and by 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency to plan 

the allocation of assistance funds for earthquake 

education and preparedness. The geologic and 

geophysical data-collection, research, and modeling 

results that underpin the maps have been generated 

by USGS scientists, as well as by their colleagues in 

academia, State government, and the private sector, 

funded by external grants from the USGS Earthquake 

Hazards Program. 

Coordinated Response to California Wildfires

The Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project coordinated 

the USGS response to the catastrophic 2007 southern 

California firestorms as well as the subsequent debris 

flows that threatened fire-burned steep slopes and 

downstream populations. Upon the onset of the 

fires, the USGS funded collection of new airborne, 

remotely sensed data, enhanced the debris-flow 

mapping project with extra staff, and coordinated the 

fire response with the California Office of Emergency 

National seismic hazard map for 50 states showing the levels of 

horizontal shaking that have a 2-in-100 chance of being exceeded 

in a 50-year period. Shaking is expressed as a percentage of the 

acceleration of gravity.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 72

Services and FEMA officials at the Joint Field Office 

and later Multi-Agency State and Federal task force. 

Just in time for the first round of post-fire rains, the 

USGS and FEMA were able to complete and release 

a series of flood inundation and debris-flow maps 

showing the areas within the 11 burned areas that 

may be impacted by flooding and debris flows. These 

maps illustrated to Federal, State and local emergency 

responders the volume of debris flows that can be 

expected from specific areas, and identified the areas 

prone to impact by floods and debris flows. The maps 

were provided to forecasters as part of the joint NOAAUSGS flash flood and debris-flow warning system for 

recently burned areas in southern California. “These 

maps are designed to provide emergency managers 

with tools to implement protective measures to 

preserve values at risk, including life and property,” 

said Lee Rosenberg, a member of the Multi-Agency 

Support Group that represents Federal and State 

agencies. At the site of the Canyon fire in Malibu, Calif., 

newly installed USGS instruments and streamgages are 

helping to keep emergency responders and the public 

informed and alert. USGS scientists also released an 

“ash advisory” before the rains based on preliminary 

results of ash samples taken immediately from burn 

sites in suburban and wildland areas. 

The USGS conducted assessments of some critically 

endangered species within the fire footprints. Several 

aquatic species were in extreme peril of complete 

destruction from flooding, debris flows, and dry ravel. 

For example, half of the remaining populations of the 

endangered tidewater goby south of Los Angeles 

County downstream from the Ammo Fire were taken 

into captivity by the USGS to ensure their persistence 

through the winter. Several populations of genetically 

pure southern California steelhead may have been 

destroyed when dry ravel filled the few remaining pools 

that the species occupies.

An American Helping Hand for Volcano Disasters

In 2008, the U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia and the 

Head of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources’ 

(MOE) Geological Agency of Indonesia signed an 

agreement whereby the USGS Volcano Disaster 

Assistance Program (VDAP) would work with MOE’s 

Center for Volcanology and Geologic Hazard Mitigation 

to establish a regional volcano observatory on North

Sulawesi and the Sanghe Islands. Some 500,000 

people are at risk from explosive eruptions in this part 

of Indonesia. By the end of a visit by the VDAP team 

in March 2008, 14 real-time seismic stations were in 

operation. This capacity-building project, which also 

includes technical training and scientific exchange, 

is scheduled for completion in 2011. In May 2008, 

a very large and unexpected eruption from a long 

dormant volcano caused the evacuation of about 8,000 

people and destroyed the town of Chaite’n in southern 

Chile. The U.S. Ambassador to Chile offered help in 

establishing telemetered monitoring equipment, and 

the USGS’ VDAP quickly responded with equipment 

and a field team. VDAP also provided advice to its 

Chilean counterpart on data interpretation, managing 

the ash hazard to aviation, and in developing a national 

volcano monitoring system. In ensuing discussions that 

included a briefing by USGS scientists to the president 

of Chile, plans are being developed for scientific 

exchange that will bring the scientific, monitoring, and 

hazard lessons learned back to the United States.

Completion of a combined rainfall-infiltration and 

slope stability model for unsaturated soils, which can 

be used to predict debris flow initiation locations and 

conditions in Oregon

Fast-moving debris flows can be lethal (they kill 

hundreds worldwide yearly), and understanding debris 

flow initiation and conditions is essential to reduce 

losses from landslides and debris flows. The Landslide 

Hazard Program (LHP) completed a combined rainfallMethods for the emergency assessment of debris-flow hazards 

from basins burned by the fires of 2007, southern California. 
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 73

infiltration and slope stability model for unsaturated 

soils, which can be used to predict debris flow initiation 

locations and conditions in Oregon. The model was 

released as Open File Report 2008-1159, “TRIGRS—A 

Fortran program for transient rainfall infiltration and 

grid-based regional slope-stability analysis.” The 

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

plans to use this model along with other USGS methods 

and models for analysis of debris flow potential. 

Near-real time monitoring data of the Florida River 

landslide area in Colorado

The Landslide Hazard Program continued to maintain 

monitoring equipment and public web pages to provide 

near-real time monitoring data of the Florida River 

landslide area in Colorado. Florida Water Conservancy 

District and La Plata County used this information for 

emergency management and reservoir management 

planning purposes. Informed emergency management 

and reservoir management planning is essential in 

safeguarding water sources.

Landslide emergency alerts posted through DOI 

Common Alert Protocol (CAP)

The Landslide Hazard Program continued to issue 

landslide emergency alerts posted through DOI 

Common Alert Protocol (CAP). Two CAP alerts were 

issued in Southwest CA for the counties of San 

Diego, and Orange. These alerts, which were given 

for previously burned areas, were also issued by the 

National Weather Service. Alerts give residents time to 

evacuate and in some cases will lead to lives saved.

USGS landslide research project used by the City of 

Seattle

A study of how the City of Seattle used information 

from the USGS-focused landslide research project was 

completed by the Planwest Partners, Inc and the USGS. 

Findings from the study that documented widespread 

use of USGS-generated landslide hazard information 

was presented at a Roundtable discussion with USGS 

landslide experts in Golden, CO and at the American 

Planning Association national convention in Las 

Vegas, Nevada. USGS scientists will use information 

from this study to ensure that their research findings 

are incorporated into local decision making that will 

ultimately lead to the reduction of losses and damage 

due to landslides.

Examples of Management Excellence Goal 

Accomplishments

Successful management is imperative to meet 

strategic mission goals. To succeed, the USGS is 

holding managers as well as scientists accountable 

for results, more effective means of leveraging 

available resources, and the continuous introduction 

and evaluation of process, structural, and technology 

improvements. The Department’s management 

approach is guided by the Secretary’s key business 

principles: accountability and modernization/

integration. In the Interior Strategic Plan, our goals 

of Accountability and Modernization/Integration 

and the President’s Management Agenda converge 

to form a non-mission area of the strategic plan - 

Management Excellence. Like the programmatic 

mission areas, Management Excellence is structured 

to include outcome goals and strategies with 

associated performance measures. Each aspect of the 

President’s Management Agenda is reflected within 

Chaite’n vent - May 2008: Aerial view, looking northwest, showing 

the vent area within the caldera of Chaite’n volcano, southern Chile. 

A lava dome is visible behind and to the left of jetting steam and ash 

plumes. 
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 74

this framework. The USGS supports Management 

Excellence goals throughout the organization with 

dedicated funding in Science Support and Facilities 

as well as the information security, technology, and 

resource components of Enterprise Information. 

Performance is reported by the Department as an 

aggregate of Bureau performance. Five examples of 

management accomplishments follow:

Science Planning

A key aspect of implementing our Science Strategy 

is creating and sustaining a work environment and 

culture that is more conducive to collaborative, 

interdisciplinary scientific research. The realignment 

of the Regional Executives was one step toward 

building our capacity for interdisciplinary science. 

Another part of our commitment toward achieving 

the goals of our Science Strategy is to implement 

a common bureau science planning process. The 

Regional Executives and the discipline Chief Scientists 

have been charged with developing and refining a 

bureau science planning model that takes advantage of 

our new regional management structure and enhances 

our ability to achieve the Science Strategy goals. 

Two-year Funding

The USGS’ FY 2008 appropriation contained language 

that would provide the USGS with two-year authority for our SIR appropriation. Previously, the USGS 

received its appropriations for three types of funding, 

annual, and two-year and ‘X’ year. At the start of FY 

2008 the House appropriation for the USGS contained 

language that would provide the USGS with two-year 

authority; however this same language was not included on the Senate side. OMB provided guidance to the 

USGS that if two-year money was appropriated during 

the course of Fiscal Year 2008, the USGS would have to 

report the entire fiscal year as if it started the year with 

two-year funding. So, to circumvent a need to “convert” funding mid-year, the USGS made a determination 

to start FY 2008 as if it had two-year money. The USGS’ 

accounting system allowed us to configure the system 

to have accounts set-up for two year availability, but 

with the Fund Code assigned to our annual appropriation symbol. By doing this, when we received two-year 

money during FY 2008, it was a simple matter of changing our Fund Code assignment to the two-year appropriation. As a result, we were able to avoid the need to 

reprocess transactions that occurred while we were 

under a continuing resolution.

2008 Managers Meeting

The 2008 Managers Meeting was held June 17-19 in 

Tulsa, OK, and nearly 275 managers from across the 

Bureau participated. The purpose of the meeting was 

to create a shared vision among all USGS leaders for 

implementing the USGS Science Strategy. Attendees 

met with their counterparts, networked, learned 

about the latest science activities, and heard from 

and provided input to senior executives about our 

strategic direction, budget, priorities, new policies, 

and organizational change. In an effort to make 

the meeting more transparent and accessible to 

all employees, key sessions were videotaped and 

PowerPoint presentations and short summaries for 

each session were available to employees via the Web. 

During the meeting, podcasts and blogs from Program 

Coordinators, Regional Executives, and Chief Scientists 

were posted throughout each of the 3 days.

Facilities Budget Allocation 

In 2008, the USGS initiated a review of allocating and 

managing facilities funding for both rent and operations 

and maintenance (O&M) allocations which resulted in 

recommendations to improve processes and to design 

a facility cost savings strategy to promote and maximize 

Bureau-wide cost savings. These recommendations 

were submitted to the USGS Investment Review Board, 

which approved them for implementation in 2009. 

The recommendations include equally distributing 

shortfalls across the bureau; retaining a percentage of 

the regional allocation to handle unforeseen facilities 

funding problems throughout the fiscal year; making 

one facilities allocation at the beginning of the fiscal 

year to stabilize center’s budgeting and expenditures; 

and defining a facilities savings strategy which 

promotes corporate behavior geared to reduce costs in 

all areas of facilities—rent, O&M, energy, etc.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Performance Measure Results 75

Standard Internal Control Surveys

To ensure quality and relevance of internal USGS 

products and services to USGS employees, the Office 

of Budget and Performance (OBP) conducts a variety of 

standard management control surveys.

•	 Administrative Support Service Surveys are 

conducted prior to administrative reviews at USGS 

science centers. Since 2002, 65 surveys have been 

conducted.

•	 Information Technology Support Service Surveys 

are conducted prior to IT reviews at USGS science 

centers. Since 2002, 16 surveys have been 

conducted.

•	 Meeting Evaluations are conducted after the 

conclusion of USGS conferences/workshops. 

Since 2003, 11 surveys have been conducted.

•	 Hiring Assistance Surveys provide employee input 

to the selection process for USGS management 

positions. Since 2008, 6 surveys have been 

conducted.

•	 Employee Satisfaction Surveys are conducted on 

specific internal products, services, and websites. 

Since 2001, 30 surveys have been conducted.

•	 Organizational Assessment Surveys provide a 

broad review of operations and conditions at a 

science center or office. Since 2002, 17 surveys 

have been conducted.

In response to the expressed needs of employees, the 

USGS has made many enhancements to its internal 

products and services. Each type of survey follows a 

standard format, although each is modified to meet 

a specific science center’s or office’s customer 

information needs. As a result, the final outcome of 

each survey is immediately useful to science center or 

office management, and can be aggregated to support 

Bureau level performance reporting. OBP follows up 

with the managers to ascertain how survey results 

were applied.

Creating efficiencies in administrative reviews

Since 2004, employee opinions have been sought in 

advance of administrative reviews and science 

centers. At least 10 versions of an on-line 

questionnaire have been used to gather employee 

opinions. Starting in 2008, a single standard 

questionnaire has been adopted for use in all 

regions. The standardization reduces the time 

required to create the on-line questionnaire from an 

average of one hour to no more than ten minutes. 

The new standard questionnaire eliminates 

duplicative questions from the most common 

previously used version, reducing by half the 

average time required to complete the questionnaire 

and to analyze the results. Total savings are 

estimated as about 200 hours per year.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Validation and Verification of Performance Data 76

I

n keeping with Departmental and OMB policy for 

performance data verification and validation (V&V), 

the USGS has complied with requirements for 

performance data credibility. 

During FY 2008, the USGS GPRA coordinators for 

each Budget Activity/scientific discipline completed 

and certified a validation checklist comprised of 

criteria in the DOI V&V Assessment Matrix for all DOI 

Strategic Plan, bureau specific, and PART performance 

measures. This included assessing data accuracy, 

completeness, consistency, availability, and internalcontrol practices that serve to determine the overall 

reliability of the data collected. GPRA coordinators 

document any inconsistencies, inaccuracies or 

anomalies in performance data to ensure integrity of 

the performance data.

The USGS demonstrated accountability by establishing 

a clear connection among mission, work activities, 

and what work accomplishes for the funds that have 

been authorized and appropriated. V&V criteria include 

scrutiny to determine that goals are realistic and 

measurable, understandable to users, and ultimately 

used in decisionmaking. This added documentation 

and assurance of creditability and usability of 

USGS performance measures for management 

decisionmaking.

Peer review is a Fundamental Science Practice at the 

USGS, one of 3 OMB R&D investment criteria, and a 

performance measure for all programs. In FY 2008, the 

USGS began using the A-123 Internal Control Review 

process to validate the peer review process. In the first 

year of implementation, the USGS tested peer review 

for four programs:

•	 Geographic Analysis and Monitoring

•	 Geologic Hazard Assessments

•	 Cooperative Water Program

•	 Biological Information Management and Delivery

Peer review addresses:

•	 Scientific Excellence, Integrity and Objectivity

•	 Conflict of Interest

•	 Impartiality and Nonadvocacy

•	 Methodology and Documentation

•	 Public Benefit and Access

•	 Natural Hazards and/or Public or Wildlife Health

•	 Accessibility and Corporate Identify

Roles and responsibilities of those in the review and 

approval process were tested and were generally 

found to be working as intended. In addition to 

validating the process, the control testing identified 

areas that could be further improved and these 

recommendations were provided to the Fundamental 

Science Practice Advisory Council for consideration.

Data Validation and Verification 

Element

Explanation

1. Extent to which data 

V&V criteria have been 

disseminated throughout the 

bureau activity area units

Data V&V criteria have been disseminated to all USGS GPRA coordinators 

for each Budget Activity/scientific discipline and to program coordinators 

throughout the bureau.

2. Extent to which protocols 

have been implemented in 

units providing performance 

data

Program coordinators and/or performance measure owners have documented

and signed performance data verification and validation process criteria for

each measure included in the performance budget.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Validation and Verification of Performance Data 77

Data Validation and Verification 

Element

Explanation

 a) Are collection standards 

followed?

Performance measure names, terminology and DOI performance definition 

templates are understood and being followed. There is no common enterprisewide data entry system for the bureau. The data entry point for collection of 

performance data is in the Office of Budget and Performance (OBP). An example

 of how program coordinators collect data for program performance is given for

 a biological resources discipline that they provide to OBP for consolidation.

 The Biological Information Management and Delivery Web site requires

 common collection standards to report quarterly accomplishments. Reporting

 stations are notified at the same time of a reporting requirement, and all use the

 same procedure for reports. For Biological Research & Monitoring, new GPRA

 guidance was communicated to center directors and Regional Executive (REX)

 staff. This guidance establishes collection and review and editing procedures

 involving REX staff, with headquarters follow-up. Consistent reporting

 procedures, including database formats are used by centers and regions.

 b) Are data entry and transfer 

rules used?

Systems used to track performance data do not have extensive editing

 capabilities, but standard processes are used to capture performance data.

 Program offices understand how to obtain information about performance

 data and maintain data currency. For example, Water procedures for data

 entry, data sources and assumptions, and methods are documented by OBP

 discipline coordinator and are available to other OBP staff. 

 c) Are data security measures 

implemented?

1) Firewalls, password protection, etc. are established according to bureau

 information system requirements.

2) Access to the databases and/or Excel spreadsheets are only available to

 registered, logged-on USGS users. 

3. Does the bureau conduct 

oversight and certification of 

data?

USGS GPRA coordinators for each budget activity/scientific discipline provide

 oversight and standards to be followed, verify performance data accuracy, 

ensure documentation is maintained, and certify performance data reported.

 OBP provides a second level of oversight. 

4. Are other relevant actions 

taken to insure credibility of 

performance data?

Yes, for example, OBP makes comments in the DOI database, if for any reason;

the data is changed after it has been entered. 

Data Source(s) Data sources such as large databases, local files, Excel spreadsheets, reference 

files, and hardcopy files are documented. For example, the Water Discipline 

uses a software query to extract the performance data from the National Water 

Information System (NWIS), a database and user interface through which the 

streamgages, ground-water sites, and water-quality sites report their hydrologic 

data on the Internet. 

Data Limitations Any data limitations are documented. 

Corrective/Improvement Actions 

(Needed, In Progress, or 

Recently Completed)

DOI’s contracted evaluation made four recommendations for improvement 

and USGS developed an Action Plan to address recommendations. USGS has 

implemented all the recommendations and will encourage Program Coordinators 

to take DOI training when it becomes available. 
 Performance Data and Analysis 

Program Evaluation Data 78

Program evaluations are an important tool in 

analyzing the effectiveness and efficiency of 

our programs and evaluating whether they 

are meeting their intended objectives. Our programs 

are evaluated through a variety of means, including 

performance audits, PART, financial audits, internal 

control reviews, and external reviews from Congress, 

OMB, OIG, and other organizations, such as the 

National Academy of Public Administration and the 

National Academy of Science. 

These reviews, which may take several years to 

complete, are critical to maintaining the USGS’ 

reputation for scientific excellence and credibility as 

well as providing guidance for future research needs. 

The evaluations improve the accountability and quality 

of programs, but also identify and address gaps in 

programs; redirect or reaffirm program directions; 

identify and provide guidance for development of new 

programs; and review and/or motivate managers and 

scientists. 

The USGS conducts both internal and external peer 

and management reviews to improve the accountability 

and quality of programs; identify and address gaps 

in programs; redirect or reaffirm program directions; 

identify and provide guidance for the development of 

new programs; and review and/or motivate managers 

and scientists. 

Reviews are both internal and external, conducted 

by the USGS and non-USGS scientists, technicians, 

or specialists who are not involved in the specific 

proposal, project, program, or product under review. 

The USGS goal is to conduct an independent external 

peer review of ongoing programs about every 5 years, 

combined with more frequent independent internal 

management reviews.

Program Strategic Plan 

Mission Area

Purpose of Program Evaluation Actions Taken in Response to Evaluation

Mineral 

Resources

Resource Use To determine the importance to 

the U.S. economy of information 

on production and consumption 

of nonfuel mineral commodities. 

The National Research Council (NRC)

report, Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the 

U.S. Economy released in October 2007, 

concludes that minerals are indeed critical 

to the U.S. economy and suggested a new 

methodology for determining the extent to 

which any particular mineral is critical at any 

time, called a criticality matrix.

USGS is working with members of the 

NRC panel to improve understanding of 

their proposed method and seek advice 

on specifics of application of their findings 

to the revision of the National Mineral 

Resource assessment, scheduled to begin in 

2012. The primary use of this tool is expected 

to be in identifying priority commodities for 

both minerals information and research 

and assessment studies. This prioritization 

process will maximize the likelihood that 

the updated National Mineral Resource 

assessment is an unbiased, efficient, 

and cost-effective source for information 

required by decision-makers to ensure 

supply of critical mineral materials to meet 

the Nation’s civilian and defense needs.
 Performance Data and Analysis

Program Evaluation Data 79

Program Strategic Plan 

Mission Area

Purpose of Program Evaluation Actions Taken in Response to Evaluation

Volcano Hazard Serving 

Communities

•	 Review response of the 

Volcano Hazards Program 

(VHP), to the 2000 National 

Research Council (NRC) 

review (Fink et al., 2000).

•	 Review degree to which VHP 

met the goals of its previous 

5-year plan.

•	 Evaluate the soundness of 

the current 5-year plan.

•	 Provide input on the National 

Volcano Early Warning 

System (NVEWS) (Ewert et 

al., 2005).

The American Association for the 

Advancement of Science panel found that 

the VHP did an adequate job of responding 

to the previous review and meeting 

its previous five-year-plan goals. The 

panel strongly praised NVEWS, and had 

approximately 15 recommendations toward 

improving the initiative and other aspects of 

the VHP, including suggestions for the next 

five-year plan. The VHP has begun action 

on these recommendations, including better 

and more real-time web-based information 

dissemination, requests for projects with 

more of an international component, and 

development of agreements with more state 

and academic partners.
Reconnaissance mapping in the Alaska Range.
Section III

Financial 

Information

Contents

Message from the Chief Financial Officer................................................................................... 82

Audit Information ............................................................................................................................. 84

Financial Statements....................................................................................................................... 99

Notes to the Financial Statements.............................................................................................. 107

Required Supplementary Information ........................................................................................ 135

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information ................................................................ 147
82 Message from the Chief Financial Officer

 Financial Information 

In Fiscal Year 2008, the USGS continued its journey towards 

management excellence through the improvements and 

accomplishments made over the Bureau’s financial management 

and administrative programs. Our continued progress towards 

management excellence is presented in the FY2008 Performance 

and Accountability Report (PAR). The PAR discloses the USGS’ most 

important financial and program performance information. It is our 

chief publication to Congress and the American people. This report 

details program leadership and stewardship over the public funds to 

which we have been entrusted.

I am pleased to report that for the fifth consecutive year we have received an unqualified (“clean”) 

opinion on the Bureau’s consolidated financial statements from our independent auditors. This is 

the best possible audit result. With it the American people can have confidence that the financial 

statement information presented here is both accurate and reliable. In addition to our opinion, the 

USGS achieved a number of other noteworthy accomplishments in FY2008. The USGS:

•	 Developed a Bureau-wide administrative core competency and training plan that is available to 

managers and employees. The plan is available through the Bureau’s intranet site;

•	 Commenced activities in support of the USGS deployment of the FBMS that included completion 

of project preparation and continued to provide senior subject matter experts to the Department’s 

FBMS Project Management Office. The USGS is scheduled to deploy the FBMS in November 2010;

•	 Completed preparations for converting to a new Department-wide charge card sevice provider, 

JPMorgan;

•	 In response to OMB’s mandate that the Department fully comply with GSA’s E-Travel solution, on 

behalf of the Department, the USGS piloted the selected vendor’s software solution. Based on the 

success of this pilot, the Bureau was the first bureau to fully implement. The E-Travel system is 

fully automated, providing an end-to-end travel solution with electronic signature capabilities;

•	 Exceeded the goal of 40% for performance based acquisitions by awarding 57% of total eligible 

contracts as performance-based acquisitions;

•	 Significantly improved the Bureau’s utilization of space. In FY2008, the USGS negotiated collocation 

agreements with the DOI Office of the Secretary and in collaboration with GSA, an agreement 

with the Department of Homeland Security. The Bureau achieved further reduction in space used 

by returning unused square footage to the GSA and by consolidating science center space into a 

single facility;

Message from the Chief Financial Officer
83 Message from the Chief Financial Officer

 Financial Information

•	 Developed standardized financial training for administrative technicians, accountable officers, and 

budget analysts. This annual training will provide cost centers detailed “hands-on” experience; and

•	 Met and/or exceeded our annual performance goals.

Our number one resource in the USGS is our employees. This PAR and the achievements that it 

describes are the result of these extraordinarily dedicated and exemplary folks. It is with their ongoing 

commitment and dedication that the USGS will continue its journey towards management excellence. 

Our mission, performance metrics, and management will continue to be the foundation on which we 

achieve results.

Karen D. Baker

Chief Financial Officer 

October 2008

 
84 Inspector General Transmittal Letter

 Financial Information 

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Washington, DC 20240

APR 1 7 2009

Memorandum

To:

From:

Subject:

Director, U.S. Geological Survey

Kimberly Elmore .ftr~ ~ ~ Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Inspections and Evaluations

Independent Auditors' Report on the U.S. Geological Survey Financial Statements

for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2007 (Report No. X-IN-GSV -00 I6-2008)

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum transmits the KPMG LLP (KPMG) auditors' report of the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) financial statements for fiscal years (FYs) 2008 and 2007. The Chief

Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 10 I-576), as amended, requires the Inspector

General or an independent auditor, as determined by the Inspector General, to audit the

Department of the Interior (001) financial statements.

Under a contract issued by 001 and monitored by the Office of Inspector General (OIG),

KPMG, an independent public accounting firm, performed an audit of the USGS FY2008 and

FY2007 financial statements. The contract required that the audit be performed in accordance

with the "Government Auditing Standards" issued by the Comptroller General of the United

States and Office of Management and Budget Bulletin No. 07-04, "Audit Requirements for

Federal Financial Statements" as amended.

RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT AUDIT

In its audit report dated April 7, 2009 (Attachment 1), KPMG issued an unqualified

opinion on the USGS financial statements. However, KPMG identified four significant

deficiencies in internal controls over financial reporting, one of which was considered to be a

material weakness. In addition, KPMG identified one instance in which USGS did not comply

with laws and regulations. KPMG made 12 recommendations that, if implemented, should

resolve the findings.

STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

In its March 10, 2009 response (Attachment 2) to the draft report, USGS agreed with all

five findings and all 12 recommendations. USGS also addressed each of the 12

recommendations, stating that it implemented 6 recommendations and was in the process of
85 Inspector General Transmittal Letter

 Financial Information

implementing 6 recommendations. We will refer the six unimplemented recommendations to the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for tracking of implementation (see 

Attachment 3, “Status of Audit Report Recommendations”). 

EVALUATION OF KPMG AUDIT PERFORMANCE 

To ensure the quality of the audit work performed, the OIG: 

x reviewed KPMG’s approach and planning of the audit;

x evaluated the qualifications and independence of the auditors; 

x monitored the progress of the audit at key points; 

x coordinated periodic meetings with USGS management to discuss audit progress, 

findings, and recommendations; 

x reviewed and accepted KPMG’s audit report; and 

x performed other procedures we deemed necessary. 

KPMG is responsible for the attached auditors’ report dated April 7, 2009, and the 

conclusions expressed in it. We do not express an opinion on USGS financial statements nor on 

KPMG’s conclusions regarding 1) effectiveness of internal controls, 2) compliance with laws 

and regulations, or 3) substantial compliance of USGS financial management systems with the 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. 

REPORT DISTRIBUTION 

 The legislation, as amended, creating the OIG requires semiannual reporting to the 

Congress on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement audit recommendations, and 

recommendations that have not been implemented. Therefore, we will include the information in 

the attachment in our next semiannual report. The distribution of the report is not restricted, and 

copies are available for public inspection. 

 We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of USGS personnel during the audit. If you 

have any questions regarding the report, please contact Robert Romanyshyn at 202-208-5512. 

Attachments (3) 

cc: Assistant Secretary, Water and Science 

 Audit Liaison Officer, Water and Science 

 Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Geological Survey 

 Audit Liaison Officer, U.S. Geological Survey 

 Director, Office of Financial Management 

 Associate Director, Office of Financial Management 

 Audit Liaison Officer, Office of Financial Management
86 Independent Auditors’ Report 

 Financial Information 

KPMG LLP 

2001 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. 

member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. 

Independent Auditors’ Report 

Director of the U.S. Geological Survey and Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of the Interior: 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a 

component of the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, and the 

related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net position, and combined statements of 

budgetary resources (hereinafter referred to as “consolidated financial statements”) for the years then 

ended. The objective of our audits was to express an opinion on the fair presentation of these consolidated 

financial statements. In connection with our fiscal year 2008 audit, we also considered USGS’s internal 

controls over financial reporting and tested USGS’s compliance with certain provisions of applicable laws, 

regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that could have a direct and material effect on these 

consolidated financial statements. 

Summary 

As stated in our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, we concluded that USGS’s consolidated 

financial statements as of and for the years ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, are presented fairly, in all 

material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. 

As discussed in Note 17, USGS restated the fiscal year 2007 combined Statement of Budgetary Resources, 

which relates to the material weakness listed as item A below. 

As discussed in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements, in fiscal year 2008 USGS changed its 

method of accounting for and reporting of heritage assets to adopt changes in accounting standards. 

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting resulted in the following conditions being 

identified as significant deficiencies: 

Significant Deficiencies

A. Budgetary Controls 

B. Controls over Abandoned Sites Liability 

C. General and Application Controls over Financial Management Systems 

D. Controls over Property, Plant, and Equipment 

We consider the first significant deficiency, above, to be a material weakness. 

The results of our tests of compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant 

agreements, exclusive of those referred to in the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996

(FFMIA), disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported herein 

under Government Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal 

Financial Statements.

ATTACHMENT 1
87 Independent Auditors’ Report 

 Financial Information

2

The results of our tests of FFMIA disclosed an instance, listed in the item E below, where USGS’s 

financial management systems did not substantially comply with applicable Federal accounting standards. 

The results of our tests of FFMIA disclosed no instances in which USGS’s financial management systems 

did not substantially comply with the Federal financial management systems requirements and the United 

States Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. 

E. Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) 

The following sections discuss our opinion on USGS’s consolidated financial statements; our consideration 

of USGS’s internal controls over financial reporting; our tests of USGS’s compliance with certain 

provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements; and management’s and our 

responsibilities. 

Opinion on the Financial Statements 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a 

component of the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, and the 

related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net position, and combined statements of 

budgetary resources (hereinafter referred to as “consolidated financial statements”) for the years then 

ended.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material 

respects, the financial position of the USGS as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, and its net costs, changes 

in net position, and budgetary resources for the years then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally 

accepted accounting principles. 

As discussed in Note 17, USGS restated the fiscal year 2007 combined Statement of Budgetary Resources, 

which relates to the material weakness listed as item A below. 

As discussed in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements, in fiscal year 2008 USGS changed its 

method of accounting for and reporting of heritage assets to adopt changes in accounting standards. 

The information in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis, Required Supplementary Information, and 

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information sections is not a required part of the consolidated 

financial statements, but is supplementary information required by U.S. generally accepted accounting 

principles. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of 

management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of this information. However, we 

did not audit this information and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 

Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the consolidated financial statements 

taken as a whole. The information in the Introduction, Performance Data and Analysis, and Appendix, as 

reflected in the 2008 Performance and Accountability Report, is presented for purposes of additional 

analysis and are not required as part of the consolidated financial statements. This information has not 

been subjected to auditing procedures and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 

Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in 

the Responsibilities section of this report and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in the internal 

control over financial reporting that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. 
88 Independent Auditors’ Report 

 Financial Information 

3

A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or 

employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements 

on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, 

that adversely affects USGS’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably 

in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote 

likelihood that a misstatement of USGS’s consolidated financial statements that is more than 

inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by USGS’s internal control. A material weakness is a 

significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote 

likelihood that a material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or 

detected by USGS’s internal control. 

In our fiscal year 2008 audit, we consider the deficiencies, described below, to be significant deficiencies 

in internal control over financial reporting. We believe that the first significant deficiency described below 

is a material weakness. Exhibit I presents the status of prior year significant deficiencies. 

A. Budgetary Controls 

Unfilled customer orders should be promptly recorded, properly classified, and accounted for in order to 

prepare timely and reliable reports. USGS did not record the total budget authority provided by the 

customer order at its commencement. In addition, USGS incorrectly reduced unfilled customer orders at 

the end of each fiscal year and then recorded the same customer orders at the beginning of the following 

fiscal year because of accounting system limitations and USGS not fully understanding the accounting 

standards. This resulted in USGS understating budgetary resources in the year the USGS received the 

customer order. As a result of our observations, USGS analyzed and increased its unfilled customer orders 

by $244 million, $246 million, and $260 million in 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that USGS implement policies and procedures which include the following: 

1. Establish agreement funding levels in the general ledger system at the full dollar amount reflected on 

the agreement. 

2. Ensure all agreements signed in the current fiscal year with a period of performance in the current 

fiscal year will be entered into the general ledger system when they are received. Create an accrual 

process that will allow USGS to capture agreements that may be signed but not able to be entered into 

the general ledger system in time for year-end. 

3. Ensure Federal agreements citing the Economy Act use the USGS treasury account symbol (TAS) that 

mirrors the TAS of the agency providing the funding. 

4. Ensure funding for agreements with non-Federal customers is recorded in the first year of a two-year 

TAS and confirm that the balances are rolled forward into the subsequent two-year TAS. 

Management’s Response 

Management has prepared an official response presented as a separate attachment to this report. In 

summary, management agreed with our findings and its comments were responsive to our 

recommendations. We did not audit USGS’s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
89 Independent Auditors’ Report 

 Financial Information

4

B. Controls over Abandoned Sites Liability

We inquired of management as to the process and controls surrounding the creation of the abandoned sites 

liability. USGS utilizes a deferred maintenance database to track the abandoned sites liability. USGS 

management stated that there is no centralized process or internal controls surrounding the addition and 

deletion of sites to or from the deferred maintenance database. 

Recommendation 

We recommend USGS develop policies and procedures to properly initiate, authorize, record, process, and 

report the abandoned sites liability. 

Management’s Response 

Management has prepared an official response presented as a separate attachment to this report. In 

summary, management agreed with our findings and its comments were responsive to our 

recommendations. We did not audit USGS’s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 

C. General and Application Controls over Financial Management Systems 

USGS did not have adequate information technology controls to protect one of its financial information 

systems as required by OMB Circular No. A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources. These 

conditions could affect USGS’s ability to prevent and detect unauthorized changes to financial information, 

control electronic access to sensitive information, and protect its information resources. 

1. Entity-wide Security Program and Planning 

The Certification and Accreditation (C&A) package lacked specific information related to the security 

controls and compliance requirements. Specifically, the System Security Plan (SSP) did not identify 

specific access and logging controls and the SSP’s table of applications did not include the financial 

system. 

2. Access Control 

USGS has not implemented a process to formally monitor logs of changes made to user security profiles. 

3. System Software 

USGS’s service provider has not implemented a mechanism to identify and monitor inappropriate changes 

to the system software. Additionally, the process by which USGS’s service provider documents approvals 

for system software changes is not reliable. Also, USGS’s service provider did not implement appropriate 

patches for the system software. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that USGS: 

1. Entity-wide Security Program and Planning 

a. Ensure that the C&A package is updated to include specific access and logging controls. 
90 Independent Auditors’ Report 

 Financial Information 

5

2. Access Control 

a. Implement a process to formally monitor logs of changes made to user security profiles. 

3. System Software 

a. Work with their service provider to: 

1. Implement a mechanism to identify and monitor inappropriate changes to the system software. 

2. Improve the process to document approvals for system software changes. 

3. Implement appropriate patches for the system software. 

Management’s Response 

Management has prepared an official response presented as a separate attachment to this report. In 

summary, management agreed with our findings and its comments were responsive to our 

recommendations. We did not audit USGS’s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 

D. Controls over Property, Plant, and Equipment 

During the fiscal year, we performed control test work over the USGS annual physical inventory process, 

additions to capitalized property, and disposals of capitalized property. We noted issues as a result of our 

test work in all areas. 

Annual Physical Inventory Process 

In performing interim control procedures over the existence of USGS’s personal property detail listing as 

of April 30, 2008, we noted five instances out of sixty sample items tested where the property listed in the 

fixed asset subsystem could not be physically located in the field. The effect of these errors was an 

overstatement in gross property, plant, and equipment (PP&E) of $138 thousand, an overstatement in 

accumulated depreciation of $91 thousand, and an understatement in losses on disposal of $51 thousand. 

As a result of the exceptions noted above, we performed substantive test work over the existence of USGS 

real and personal property as of 6/30/08. We selected a statistical sample of real property and personal 

property from the fixed asset subsystem detail. Two of the ninety-eight assets in our personal property 

sample were determined to no longer be in existence. Since these assets were fully depreciated, but not 

written off, the effect of the above errors was a known overstatement in gross PP&E and accumulated 

depreciation of approximately $1.5 million and a projected error of $2.4 million. 

Additions to Capitalized Property 

In performing our interim dual-purpose procedures over a substantive sample of additions to capitalized 

property, we noted one asset addition that was acquired by USGS through a donation from a state agency. 

USGS incorrectly accounted for the asset, valued at $124 thousand, as a transfer-in rather than a donation. 

In performing our year-end dual-purpose procedures over a judgmentally selected sample of additions to 

capitalized property, we noted that two of the five items selected were recorded as 2008 additions to fixed 

assets but were received in a prior fiscal year. These assets were acquired for $418 thousand. 
91 Independent Auditors’ Report 

 Financial Information

6

Disposals of Capitalized Property 

In performing our interim dual-purpose procedures over a judgmental sample of dispositions of capitalized 

property, we noted 2 instances out of 45 sample items tested where the disposal documents were prepared 

and approved in March 2003 and May 2007, but the items, acquired for $34 thousand and fully 

depreciated, were removed from FAS during the current fiscal year. 

Heritage Assets – Museum Collections

USGS has not established policies and procedures to ensure implementation of Statement of Federal 

Financial Accounting Standard (SFFAS) No. 29, Heritage Assets and Stewardship Land. USGS 

incorrectly reported two additions to museum collections during FY 2008 which should have been reported 

in the beginning balance. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that USGS: 

1. Improve its communication with the Custodial Property Officers (CPOs) in the field and update their 

policies and procedures over management of fixed assets. Specifically, the policies and procedures for: 

a. The annual inventory should be more specific when instructing the cost centers in generating and 

distributing property listings to ensure that they account for all items. 

b. Accounting for donations from non-Federal entities. 

c. Processing disposals of assets should be more explicit in describing the routing of documents to the 

Regional Branches of Property Management. 

d. Processing additions to ensure that they are recorded in a timely manner and the proper budget 

object class codes are used. 

2. Provide training to all CPOs to re-enforce the policies and procedures over the addition and disposal of 

capitalized property. 

3. Ensure the accession process over museum collections is in accordance with the Departmental Manual 

and SFFAS No. 29. 

Management’s Response 

Management has prepared an official response presented as a separate attachment to this report. In 

summary, management agreed with our findings and its comments were responsive to our 

recommendations. We did not audit USGS’s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 

Compliance and Other Matters 

The results of our tests of compliance described in the Responsibilities section of this report, exclusive of 

those referred to in FFMIA, disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to 

be reported herein under Government Auditing Standards or OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. 

The results of our tests of FFMIA disclosed an instance, described below, where USGS’s financial 

management systems did not substantially comply with applicable Federal accounting standards. The 
92 Independent Auditors’ Report 

 Financial Information 

7

results of our tests of FFMIA disclosed no instances where USGS’s financial management systems did not 

substantially comply with Federal financial management systems requirements or the United States 

Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. 

E. Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) 

USGS is required to prepare its financial statements in accordance with Federal accounting standards. As 

discussed in the Internal Control over Financial Reporting section of this report, we identified a material 

weakness that affected USGS’s ability to prepare its combined Statements of Budgetary Resources and 

related disclosures in accordance with Federal accounting standards. As a result, USGS does not 

substantially comply with the accounting standard indicators of FFMIA. 

Recommendation 

We recommend USGS management address the control weakness described in the Internal Control over 

Financial Reporting section of this report. 

Management’s Response 

Management has prepared an official response presented as a separate attachment to this report. In 

summary, management agreed with our findings and its comments were responsive to our 

recommendations. We did not audit USGS’s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 

* * * * * * * 

Responsibilities

Management’s Responsibilities. Management is responsible for the consolidated financial statements; 

establishing and maintaining effective internal control; and complying with laws, regulations, contracts, 

and grant agreements applicable to USGS. 

Auditors’ Responsibilities. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the fiscal year 2008 and 2007 

consolidated financial statements of USGS based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance 

with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to 

financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the 

United States; and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. Those standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04 require that 

we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial 

statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control over 

financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but 

not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of USGS’s internal control over financial 

reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. 

An audit also includes: 

x Examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated 

financial statements; 

x Assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management; and 

x Evaluating the overall consolidated financial statement presentation. 

We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 
93 Independent Auditors’ Report 

 Financial Information

8

In planning and performing our fiscal year 2008 audit, we considered USGS’s internal control over 

financial reporting by obtaining an understanding of USGS’s internal control, determining whether internal 

controls had been placed in operation, assessing control risk, and performing tests of controls as a basis for 

designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the consolidated financial 

statements. We did not test all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982. The objective of our audit was not to express an 

opinion on the effectiveness of USGS’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not 

express an opinion on the effectiveness of USGS’s internal control over financial reporting. 

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether USGS’s fiscal year 2008 consolidated financial 

statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of USGS’s compliance with certain 

provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a 

direct and material effect on the determination of the consolidated financial statement amounts, and certain 

provisions of other laws and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, including the provisions 

referred to in Section 803(a) of FFMIA. We limited our tests of compliance to the provisions described in 

the preceding sentence, and we did not test compliance with all laws, regulations, contracts, and grant 

agreements applicable to USGS. However, providing an opinion on compliance with laws, regulations, 

contracts, and grant agreements was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such 

an opinion. 

______________________________ 

We have also noted certain additional matters involving internal control over financial reporting and its 

operation that we have reported to management of USGS in a separate letter dated April 7, 2009. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of Interior’s Office of Inspector General, USGS’s 

management, Interior’s management, OMB, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and the U.S. 

Congress and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. 

April 7, 2009 
94 Independent Auditors’ Report 

 Financial Information 

Exhibit I 

9

U.S, Geological Survey 

Status of Prior Year Finding 

September 30, 2008 

Reference Condition Status

A General and Application Controls over Financial 

Management Systems 

This condition has been partially 

corrected. See finding C. 
95 Independent Auditors’ Report — USGS Response

 Financial Information

ATTACHMENT 2
96 Independent Auditors’ Report — USGS Response

 Financial Information 
97 Independent Auditors’ Report — USGS Response

 Financial Information

ATTACHMENT 3 

STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Recommendation Status Action Required

A.2., A.4., C.2., C.3., 

D.2., E. 

Resolved; not 

implemented. 

Recommendations will be referred to the 

Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and 

Budget for tracking of implementation. 

A.1., A.3., B., C.1., D.1., 

D.3.

Resolved and 

Implemented 

No action required. 
USGS scientists collecting emerging contamients in Broadhead Creek, PA.
99

This part of the Section III Financial 

Information contains our principal 

financial statements.

Contents include:

Balance Sheet.................................................................................100

Statement of Net Cost....................................................................101

Statement of Changes in Net Position ........................................102

Statement of Budgetary Resources ............................................104

Financial Statements 
 Financial Information

Principal Financial Statements—The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 100

U.S. Geological Survey

Balance Sheet

As of September 30, 2008 and 2007

(in thousands)

Assets (Note 2): 2008 2007

Intragovernmental Assets:

Fund Balance with Treasury (Note 3) $ 310,832 294,729

Accounts and Interest Receivable (Note 4) 51,009 45,390

Other 2,586 2,713

Total Intragovernmental Assets 364,427 342,832

Accounts and Interest Receivable, Net (Note 4) 71,186 64,684

Inventory and Related Property, Net (Note 5) 485 489

General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net (Note 6) 128,899 132,040

Other 36 87

Total Assets $ 565,033 540,132

Stewardship Assets (Note 11)

Liabilities (Notes 7 and 17):

Intragovernmental Liabilities:

Accounts Payable $ 5,052 6,400

Other (Notes 7 and 8) 29,557 34,216

Total Intragovernmental Liabilities 34,609 40,616

Accounts Payable 40,407 39,765

Federal Employee and Veteran Benefits (Note 8) 35,780 35,644

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 10) 510 108

Other:

Unfunded Annual Leave 61,799 59,622

Abandoned Sites Liabilities 22,122 20,757

Grants Payable 20,440 20,194

Other Liabilities 42,754 35,274

Total Liabilities 258,421 251,980

Commitments and Contingencies (Notes 10 and 12)

Net Position:

Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds 205,447 192,712

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Note 16) 2,583 2,466

Cumulative Results of Operations - Other Funds 98,582 92,974

Total Net Position 306,612 288,152

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 565,033 540,132
 Financial Information

Principal Financial Statements—The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 101

U.S. Geological Survey

Statement of Net Cost

For the Years Ended September 30, 2008 and 2007

(in thousands)

(Notes 13 and 17) 2008 2007

Resource Protection

Improve the Understanding of National Ecosystems and Resources

Costs $ 1,258,290 1,224,777

Less: Earned Revenue 427,420 401,817

 Net Costs 830,870 822,960

Resource Use

Improve the Understanding of Energy and Mineral Resources

Costs 103,482 99,257

Less: Earned Revenue 6,884 5,985

 Net Costs 96,598 93,272

Serving Communities

Improve the Understanding, Prediction, and Monitoring of Natural Hazards

Costs 130,869 125,913

Less: Earned Revenue 10,633 8,084

 Net Costs 120,236 117,829

Total

Costs 1,492,641 1,449,947

Less: Earned Revenue 444,937 415,886

 Net Cost of Operations $ 1,047,704 1,034,061
 Financial Information

Principal Financial Statements—The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 102

U.S. Geological Survey

Statement of Changes in Net Position

For the Year Ended September 30, 2008 

(in thousands)

(Note 16)

Earmarked All Other 2008

UNEXPENDED APPROPRIATIONS:

Beginning Balances $ 192,712 - 192,712

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Received, General Funds 1,022,430 - 1,022,430

Appropriations Transferred In/(Out) 5,100 - 5,100

Appropriations Used (991,625) - (991,625)

Other Adjustments (23,170) - (23,170)

Net Change 12,735 - 12,735

Ending Balances - Unexpended Appropriations $ 205,447 - 205,447

CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF OPERATIONS:

Beginning Balances $ 2,466 92,974 95,440

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Used 991,625 - 991,625

Non-Exchange Revenue and Other - 158 158

Transfers In/(Out) Without Reimbursement (5) 263 258

Donations and Forfeitures of 

 Cash and Cash Equivalents 2,617 2,617 - 

Other Financing Sources:

Donations 1,670 - 1,670

Transfers In/(Out) Without Reimbursement (37) 204 167

Imputed Financing from Costs 

Absorbed by Others (Note 9) 56,934 - 56,934

Total Financing Sources 1,050,854 2,575 1,053,429

Net Cost of Operations (1,045,246) (2,458) (1,047,704)

Net Change 117 5,608 5,725

Ending Balances - Cumulative Results

 of Operations $ 2,583 98,582 101,165
 Financial Information

Principal Financial Statements—The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 103

U.S. Geological Survey

Statement of Changes in Net Position

For the Year Ended September 30, 2007

(in thousands)

(Note 16)

Earmarked All Other 2007

UNEXPENDED APPROPRIATIONS:

Beginning Balances $ 192,658 - 192,658

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Received, General Funds 988,050 - 988,050

Appropriations Used (981,327) - (981,327)

Other Adjustments (6,669) - (6,669)

Net Change - 54 54

Ending Balances - Unexpended Appropriations $ 192,712 - 192,712

CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF OPERATIONS:

Beginning Balances $ 2,548 68,669 71,217

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Used 981,327 - 981,327

Non-Exchange Revenue and Other - 20 20

Transfers In/(Out) Without Reimbursement (3) 6,382 6,379

Donations and Forfeitures of 

Cash and Cash Equivalents 2,709 2,709 - 

Other Financing Sources:

Donations 1,408 - 1,408

Transfers In/(Out) Without Reimbursement - 95 95

Imputed Financing from Costs 

Absorbed by Others (Note 9) 66,346 - 66,346

Total Financing Sources 1,055,578 2,706 1,058,284

Net Cost of Operations (1,031,273) (2,788) (1,034,061)

Net Change (82) 24,305 24,223

Ending Balances - Cumulative Results

 of Operations $ 2,466 92,974 95,440
 Financial Information

Principal Financial Statements—The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 104

Restated

2008 2007

Budgetary Resources (Notes 14 and 17):

Unobligated Balance:

Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 382,297 367,395

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 6,373 7,802

Budget Authority:

Appropriations Received 1,025,128 990,859

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:

Earned:

Collected 515,000 523,393

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 12,304 (17,224)

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:

Advance Received 312 (2,007)

Without Advance from Federal Sources 23,681 229

Total Budget Authority 1,576,425 1,495,250

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net 5,100 6,159

Permanently Not Available (23,170) (6,669)

Total Budgetary Resources $ 1,947,025 1,869,937

Status of Budgetary Resources:

Obligations Incurred:

Direct $ 992,029 999,058

Reimbursable 528,040 488,582

Total Obligations Incurrred 1,520,069 1,487,640

Unobligated Balance Available:

Apportioned 411,132 361,572

Unobligated Balance Not Available 15,824 20,725

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 1,947,025 1,869,937

Obligated Balance:

Obligated Balance, Net:

Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 313,175 305,785

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources,

 Brought Forward, Beginning of Fiscal Year (408,474) (425,468)

Total Unpaid Obligated Balances, Net, Beginning of Fiscal Year (95,299) (119,683)

Obligations Incurred, Net 1,520,069 1,487,640

Less: Gross Outlays (1,503,973) (1,472,449)

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (6,373) (7,802)

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (35,985) 16,995

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Fiscal Year (121,561) (95,299)

Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period - by Component:

Unpaid Obligations 322,897 313,175

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (444,458) (408,474)

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Fiscal Year (121,561) (95,299)

Net Outlays:

Gross Outlays 1,503,973 1,472,449

Less: Offsetting Collections (515,312) (521,386)

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts (1,796) (2,401)

Net Outlays $ 986,865 948,662

U.S. Geological Survey

Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Years Ended September 30, 2008 and 2007

(in thousands)
 Financial Information

Principal Financial Statements—The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 105
USGS scientist measuring volcanic gases, Anatahan Volcano.
107

This part of the Section III Financial 

Information contains our accompanying 

notes, which are an integral part of the 

financial statements.

Contents include:

 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies........................108

 2 Assets Analysis..........................................................................114

 3 Fund Balance with Treasury ....................................................114

 4 Accounts and Interest Receivable .........................................115

 5 Inventory......................................................................................116

 6 General Property, Plant, and Equipment................................117

 7 Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources.................118

 8 FECA Liabilities...........................................................................120

 9 Imputed Financing Costs ..........................................................120

10 Contingent and Environmental and Disposal Liabilities ......121

11 Stewardship Assets...................................................................122

12 Leases and Occupancy Agreements .....................................123

13 Statement of Net Cost by Segment.........................................124

14 Budgetary Resources................................................................126

15 Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget............128

16 Earmarked Funds .......................................................................129

17 Restatement................................................................................132

Notes to the 

Financial Statements
108 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Note 1 Summary of Significant Accounting 

Policies

A. Reporting Entity

The USGS, a bureau within the Department of the 

Interior, was established on March 3, 1879, by an act 

of Congress to conduct systematic and scientific 

“classification of the public lands, and examination 

of the geological structure, mineral resources, and 

products of the national domain.” The mission of the 

USGS is to serve the Nation by providing reliable 

scientific information to describe and understand the 

earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; manage water, biological, energy and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality 

of life. 

The USGS accomplishes its mission through integrated 

science programs consisting primarily of

• the Geography program, which meets the Nation’s

needs for accurate, nationally-consistent base 

geospatial data by ensuring access to and 

advancing the application of these data and related 

natural science information for users;

• the Geologic Program, which provides Earth

science information used to evaluate resource 

potential, define risks associated with natural 

hazards, and characterize the potential impact of 

natural geologic processes on human activity, the 

economy, and the environment; 

• the Water Resources program, which continuously

assesses the Nation’s water availability and quality, 

provides geographic and cartographic information, 

and addresses flood hazards by moderating the 

impacts of floods and improving flood disaster 

response; and 

• the Biological Research program, which generates

and distributes information needed in the 

conservation and management of the Nation’s 

biological resources.

B. Basis of Presentation

These financial statements have been prepared to 

report the financial position, net cost of operations, 

changes in financial position, and budgetary resources 

of the USGS, consistent with the Chief Financial 

Officers’ Act of 1990 and the Government Management 

Reform Act of 1994. These financial statements have 

been prepared from the books and records of the 

USGS in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted 

Accounting Principles using guidance issued by 

the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

(FASAB), OMB, and USGS accounting policies, which 

are summarized in this note. These financial statements 

present proprietary and budgetary information, while 

other financial reports also prepared by the USGS 

pursuant to OMB directives are used to monitor and 

control the USGS use of Federal budgetary resources. 

The Statement of Budgetary Resources is presented 

on a combined, rather than consolidated basis, and 

therefore intra-entity eliminations were not made for 

the purposes of this statement. 

C. Basis of Accounting

Financial transactions are recorded on an accrual 

accounting basis and a budgetary basis. Under the 

accrual method, revenues are recognized when 

earned and expenses are recognized when a liability 

is incurred, without regard to receipt or payment of 

cash. Budgetary accounting facilitates compliance with 

legal requirements and mandated controls over the use 

of Federal funds. It generally differs from the accrual 

basis of accounting in that obligations are recognized 

when new orders are placed, contracts are awarded, 

and services are received that will require payments 

during the same or future period. Except for the 

Statement of Budgetary Resources, all statements are 

presented on a consolidated basis and use eliminating 

entries to avoid overstatement of balances caused by 

intra-entity activity.

D. Assets

Assets presented on the USGS’ Balance Sheet include 

both entity and non-entity balances. Entity assets 

are assets that the USGS has authority to use in its 

operations. Non-entity assets are held and managed by 

the USGS, but are not available for use in operations. 

Intragovernmental assets arise from transactions 

between the USGS and other Federal entities.

E. Fund Balance with Treasury

Fund balance with Treasury is a cash balance 

remaining as of fiscal year-end from which the 

USGS is authorized to pay liabilities resulting from 

operational activity, except as restricted by law. Fund 

balance with Treasury includes funds received from 

direct appropriations, transfers, offsetting receipts, 

recoveries, and funds held in budget clearing accounts. 
109 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

The USGS is permitted by law to use appropriated 

funds to finance its working capital fund.

F. Accounts and Interest Receivable

Accounts receivable consist of amounts owed to 

the USGS by other Federal agencies and the public. 

Unbilled accounts receivable represent amounts that 

have been earned but not yet billed to reimbursable 

customers. Receivables from Federal agencies 

result from reimbursable services performed, and 

from joint funding agreements with State, local, and 

regional agencies for cooperative work in support 

of the “Surveys, Investigations, and Research” (SIR) 

appropriation. Receivables also include balances 

owed for credit sales of products and maps to Federal 

agencies and the public and for interest, administrative 

costs, and penalties due on delinquent receivables. The 

majority of USGS accounts receivable are generated 

from the water resource and national mapping 

programs. 

Amounts due from Federal agencies are considered 

fully collectible. Receivables due from the public are 

stated net of an allowance for estimated uncollectible 

amounts, determined by considering the debtor’s 

current ability to pay, the debtor’s payment record and 

willingness to pay, and an analysis of aged receivable 

activity.

G. Inventory

Inventory includes maps and map products that are 

held for sale. All inventory products and materials are 

valued at historical cost, using a method of averaging 

actual costs to produce like-kind scale maps within the 

same fiscal year. The USGS estimates an allowance for 

excess, spoiled, or obsolete map inventory to arrive at 

a net realizable value, based on inventory turnover and 

current stock levels.

H. Property, Plant, and Equipment

Property, plant, and equipment consist of land, 

structures, facilities, leasehold improvements, 

facilities under construction, equipment, and software 

purchased or developed for internal use. There are 

no restrictions on the use or convertibility of property, 

plant, and equipment.

The USGS capitalizes property, plant, and equipment 

purchases with an acquisition cost in excess of 

$100 thousand for land, structures, facilities, and 

software, and $15 thousand for all other capital assets. 

Depreciation or amortization is computed using the 

straight-line method over the assets’ useful lives of 30 

years for structures and facilities, and ranging from 3 to 

25 years for equipment and 2 to 10 years for software. 

Internal use software includes purchased commercial 

off-the-shelf software (COTS), contractor-developed 

software, and software that was internally developed 

by USGS employees. Internal use software is 

capitalized at cost if the acquisition cost is $100 

thousand or more. For COTS software, the capitalized 

costs include the amount paid to the vendor for the 

software; for contractor-developed software it includes 

the amount paid to a contractor to design, program, 

install, and implement the software. Capitalized 

costs for internally developed software include 

the full cost (direct and indirect) incurred during 

the software development stage. Amortization of 

capitalized software begins on the date of acquisition, 

if purchased, or when the module or component has 

been successfully tested if developed internally. 

Costs for construction projects are recorded as 

construction-in-progress until completed. Depreciation 

expense begins once the asset is placed into service.

The USGS leases the majority of its office space and 

vehicles from the General Services Administration 

(GSA). The lease costs approximate commercial lease 

rates for similar properties and vehicles.

I. Other Assets: Advances and Prepayments

Payments in advance of the receipt of goods and 

services are recorded as prepaid charges at the time of 

prepayment and recognized as expenditures/operating 

expenses when the related goods and services are 

received.

J. Stewardship Assets

Stewardship assets consist of museum and library 

collection heritage assets that have been entrusted to 

the USGS to be maintained in perpetuity for the benefit 

of current and future generations. The stewardship 

heritage assets managed by the USGS are considered 

priceless and irreplaceable. Because of this, the USGS 

assigns no financial value to them and the property, 

plant, and equipment capitalized and reported on the 

Balance Sheet excludes these assets in accordance 

with Federal accounting standards. Any purchases of 

new stewardship assets are expensed in the year they 

were incurred.
110 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

K. Liabilities

Liabilities covered by budgetary or other resources are 

those liabilities of the USGS for which Congress has 

appropriated funds or funding is otherwise available to 

pay amounts due. Liabilities not covered by budgetary 

or other resources represent amounts owed in excess 

of available Congressionally-appropriated funds or 

other amounts. The liquidation of liabilities not covered 

by budgetary or other resources is dependent on 

future Congressional appropriations or other funding. 

Intragovernmental liabilities are claims against the 

USGS by other Federal entities. 

L. Contingent Liabilities

A contingency is an existing condition, situation, or set 

of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible 

gain or loss. The uncertainty will ultimately be resolved 

when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. 

The USGS recognizes a contingent liability when a 

past event or exchange transaction has occurred 

and a future outflow or other sacrifice of resources is 

measurable and probable. A contingency is disclosed 

in the Notes to the Financial Statements when any of 

the conditions for liability recognition are met and when 

the chance of the future confirming event or events 

occurring is more than remote but less than probable. 

A contingency is not disclosed in the Notes to the 

Financial Statements when any of the conditions for 

liability recognition are not met and when the chance of 

the future event or events occurring is remote. 

M. Environmental and Disposal Liabilities

The USGS has responsibility to remediate its sites 

with environmental settlements or decisions that 

are adverse to the Federal government. The USGS 

has accrued environmental liabilities where losses 

are determined to be probable and the amounts 

can be estimated. The liability for future cleanup 

of environmental hazards is probable when the 

government was legally responsible for creating the 

hazard or was otherwise related to it in such a way that 

it is legally liable to clean up the contamination.

N. Other Liabilities: Deposit Fund

The deposit fund liability represents receipts of 

funds held on deposit prior to completion of a signed 

agreement to provide reimbursable services to Federal 

and public entities. The deposit fund liability also 

consists of monies that were not obligated prior to the 

agreement expiration that are funded by annual year 

appropriations, which will be returned to the customer.

O. Accrued Annual, Sick, and Other Leave and 

Compensatory Time

Annual leave and other compensatory leave time are 

accrued when earned. The accrual is presented as 

a component of other liabilities with the public on 

the Balance Sheet and is adjusted for changes in 

compensation rates and reduced for annual leave 

taken. Sick leave is provided to employees on a use or 

lose basis and is expensed when taken.

P. Workers’ Compensation

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act provides 

income and medical cost protection to covered Federal 

civilian employees injured on the job, to employees who 

have incurred work-related occupational diseases, 

and to beneficiaries of employees whose deaths are 

attributable to job-related injuries or occupational 

diseases. The FECA program is administered by the 

Department of Labor (DOL), which pays valid claims 

and subsequently seeks reimbursement from the 

Federal agencies employing the claimants.

The FECA liability consists of two components. The 

first component is based on actual claims paid by 

DOL but not yet reimbursed. The USGS reimburses 

DOL for the amount of the actual claims as funds are 

appropriated for this purpose. Reimbursements to the 

DOL on payments made occur approximately two years 

subsequent to the actual disbursement. As a result, the 

USGS recognizes a liability for the actual claims paid 

by DOL and to be reimbursed by the USGS. Budgetary 

resources for this intra-governmental liability are 

made available to the USGS as part of its annual 

appropriation from Congress in the year in which the 

reimbursement to the DOL takes place.

The second component is the estimated liability for 

future benefit payments as a result of past events. 

This liability includes death, disability, medical, and 

miscellaneous costs. DOL determines this component 

annually, as of September 30, using a method that 

considers historical benefit payment patterns, wage 

inflation factors, medical inflation factors, and other 

variables. The projected annual benefit payments are 

discounted to present value using OMB’s economic 

assumptions for 10-year Treasury notes and bonds. To 

provide for the effects of inflation on the liability, wage 

inflation factors (i.e., cost of living adjustments) and 
111

Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

medical inflation factors (i.e., consumer price index 

medical adjustments) are applied to the calculation 

of projected future benefit payments. These factors 

are also used to adjust historical benefit payments to 

current-year constant dollars. A discounting formula is 

also used to recognize the timing of benefit payments 

as thirteen payments per year instead of one lump sum 

payment per year. Based on information provided by 

the DOL, the Department allocates the actuarial liability 

to its bureaus and Departmental offices based on the 

payment history for the bureaus and Departmental 

offices. The estimated liability is not covered by 

budgetary resources and will require future funding.

DOL also evaluates the estimated projections to 

ensure that the estimated future benefit payments are 

appropriate. The analysis includes three tests:

(1) a comparison of the current-year projections to the 

prior-year projections; (2) a comparison of the prioryear projected payments to the current-year actual 

payments, excluding any new case payments that had 

arisen during the current year; and (3) a comparison of 

the current-year actual payment data to the prior-year 

actual payment data. Based on the outcome of this 

analysis, adjustments may be made to the estimated 

future benefit payments.

Q. Revenues, User Fees, and Financing Sources

Appropriations. The USGS receives the majority of 

the funding needed to support its programs through 

Congressional appropriations. Financing sources 

are received in annual, multi-year, and no-year 

appropriations that may be used, within statutory limits, 

for operating and capital expenditures. 

Upon expiration of an annual or multiple-year 

appropriation, the obligated and unobligated balances 

retain their fiscal year identity, and are maintained 

separately within an expired account. The unobligated 

balance can be used to make adjustments to existing 

obligations, but is otherwise not available for 

expenditures. Annual and multiple-year appropriations 

are canceled at the end of the fifth year after 

expiration. No-year appropriations do not expire. 

Appropriations of budget authority are recognized as 

used when a liability for goods and services or benefits 

and grants are incurred.

Non-Exchange Revenue. These revenues generally 

result from donations to the Federal government and 

from the Federal government’s sovereign right to 

demand payment, including taxes, fines and penalties. 

These revenues do not reduce the cost of the USGS’ 

operations and are reported on the Statement of 

Changes in Net Position.

Exchange Revenues. Additional funds are obtained 

through reimbursements for services performed 

for other Federal agencies and the public, and fees 

charged for surveys, investigations, and research. 

Revenue and intra-governmental reimbursements 

are recognized as earned when the goods have 

been delivered or services rendered by the USGS. 

Revenues earned from public sources are derived 

from States and municipalities for making cooperative 

topographic and geologic surveys and water resource 

investigations; proceeds from the sale of photographs, 

maps, and records; proceeds from the sale of personal 

property; and reimbursements from permits and 

licenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

Revenues from certain cooperators represent about 

half of the total cost; the USGS pays the remaining 

half of the total cooperators cost. Revenues earned 

from other Federal agencies are derived from specialpurpose mapping and investigations. Revenues are also 

received through the Department of State, from foreign 

countries, and international organizations for scientific 

and technical assistance.

The USGS has specific legislative authority to receive 

revenue from non-Federal reimbursable customers 

as budgetary resources. The USGS also has authority 

to receive contributions from outside organizations to 

perform work desired mutually by multiple parties. In 

addition, the USGS receives rental receipts for quarters 

provided at remote locations.

Deferred Revenue. Deferred revenue consist of 

advances received from Federal and public entities for 

goods and services that will not be fully earned until 

the related goods or services have been provided by 

the USGS. The majority of the USGS deferred revenue 

is generated from the Water Resources Program. 

Revenue is recognized as reimbursable costs are 

incurred, and the deferred revenue balance is reduced 

accordingly. 

User Fees. User fees are set at a level that will recover 

the full costs associated with the services for specific 

customers. Prices for information products that are 

sold on a retail basis are set at a level that will recover 

the full costs of reproduction and dissemination, or 
112 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

costs incurred after the mission related information is 

collected and archived. User fees and product prices 

are developed in accordance with cost components 

of OMB Circular A-25, User Charges with review and 

approval by the Director, or a delegated party. The 

annual Cost Recovery Report and regularly scheduled 

independent pricing reviews by product line are among 

the methods used to monitor compliance with the USGS 

policies.

Imputed financing sources. In certain cases, operating 

costs of the USGS are paid for by funds appropriated 

to other Federal entities. For example, pension benefits 

for most USGS employees are paid for by the OPM 

and certain legal judgments against the USGS are 

paid from the Judgment Fund maintained by Treasury. 

OMB indicates that imputed costs to be recognized by 

Federal entities include the following: (1) employees’ 

pension benefits; (2) health insurance, life insurance, 

and other benefits for retired employees; (3) other 

post employment benefits for retired, terminated, and 

inactive employees, including severance payments, 

training and counseling, continued health care, and 

unemployment and workers’ compensation under the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act; and (4) losses 

in litigation proceedings. The USGS also records 

intra-departmental imputed costs in accordance with 

Department policy and FASAB’s Interpretation Number 

6, Accounting for Imputed Intra-departmental Costs: 

An Interpretation of SFFAS Number 4. The USGS 

includes applicable imputed costs on the Statement 

of Net Cost. In addition, an imputed financing source 

is recognized on the Statement of Changes in Net 

Position. 

R. Retirement Plans 

Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and Federal 

Employees Retirement System (FERS). All USGS 

employees with permanent status participate in either 

the CSRS or FERS defined-benefit pension plans. FERS 

went into effect on January 1, 1987. FERS automatically 

covers most employees hired after December 31, 1983. 

Employees hired prior to January 1, 1984, could elect to 

either join FERS or remain in CSRS.

OPM is responsible for administering and reporting 

CSRS and FERS assets, accumulated plan benefits, 

and liabilities applicable to federal employees 

governmentwide. 

For CSRS-covered employees, in both FY2008 and 

FY2007, the USGS was required to make contributions 

to the plan matching the employee’s contribution, 

which was 7 percent of the employee’s basic pay. For 

each fiscal year, OPM calculates the U.S. government’s 

service cost for covered employees, which is an 

estimate of the amount of funds that, if accumulated 

annually and invested over an employee’s career, 

would be enough to pay that employee’s future 

benefits. Since the U.S. government’s estimated service 

cost exceeds contributions made by employer agencies 

and covered employees, this plan is not fully funded by 

the USGS and its employees. 

The USGS has recognized an imputed cost and imputed 

financing source for the difference between the 

estimated service cost and the contributions made by 

the USGS and its covered employees.

FERS contributions made by employer agencies and 

covered employees exceed the U.S. Government’s 

estimated service cost. For FERS-covered employees, 

the USGS was required in FY2008 and FY2007 to make 

contributions of 11.2 percent of basic pay. Employees 

contributed 0.8 percent of basic pay. Employees 

participating in FERS are covered under the Federal 

Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), for which the USGS 

contributes a matching amount to the Social Security 

Administration.

Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Employees covered by 

CSRS and FERS are eligible to contribute to the 

U.S. Government’s TSP, administered by the Federal 

Retirement Thrift Investment Board. A TSP account is 

automatically established for FERS-covered employees, 

and the USGS makes a mandatory contribution of 1 

percent of basic pay. FERS-covered employees are 

entitled to contribute up to $15,500 of basic pay to 

their TSP account, with the USGS making matching 

contributions up to 5 percent of basic pay. Employees 

covered by CSRS are entitled to contribute up to 

$15,500 of basic pay to their TSP account. The USGS 

makes no matching contributions for CSRS-covered 

employees.

Federal Employees’ Health Benefit (FEHB) Program.

Most USGS employees are enrolled in the FEHB 

Program, which provides post-retirement health 

benefits. OPM administers this program and is 

responsible for the reporting of liabilities. Employer 

agencies and covered employees are not required 
113 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

to make any contributions for post-retirement health 

benefits. OPM calculates the U.S. government’s service 

cost for covered employees each fiscal year. The 

USGS has recognized the entire service cost of these 

post-retirement benefits for covered employees as an 

imputed cost and imputed financing source.

Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) 

Program. All USGS employees with permanent 

status can elect to participate in the FEGLI Program. 

Participating employees can obtain basic term life 

insurance, with the employee paying two-thirds of 

the cost and the USGS paying one-third. Additional 

coverage is optional, to be paid fully by the employee. 

The basic life coverage may be continued into 

retirement if certain requirements are met. OPM 

administers this program and is responsible for the 

reporting of liabilities. For each fiscal year, OPM 

calculates the U.S. Government’s service cost for the 

post retirement portion of basic life coverage. The 

USGS contributions to the basic life coverage are fully 

allocated by OPM to the pre-retirement portion of 

coverage, and accordingly, the USGS has recognized 

the entire service cost of the post-retirement portion 

of basic life coverage as an imputed cost and imputed 

financing source.

S. Earmarked Funds

Earmarked funds are financed by specifically identified 

revenues and other financing sources. These funds are 

required by statute to be used for designated activities 

or purposes and must be accounted for separately from 

the General Fund.

T. Allocation Transfers

The USGS is a party to allocation transfers with 

other Federal agencies as a receiving (child) entity. 

Allocation transfers are legal delegations by one 

department of its authority to obligate and outlay funds 

to another department. A separate fund (allocation 

account) is created by Treasury as a subset of the 

parent fund account for tracking and reporting 

purposes. All allocation transfers of balances are 

credited to this account, and subsequent obligations 

and outlays incurred by the child entity are charged to 

this allocation account as they execute the delegated 

activity on behalf of the parent entity. Generally, all 

financial activity related to these allocation transfers 

is reported in the financial statements of the parent 

entity from which the underlying legislative authority, 

appropriations, and budget apportionments are derived. 

The USGS receives allocation transfers, as the child, 

from the U.S. Agency for International Development 

and the Office of the Secretary, Department of the 

Interior.

U. Income Taxes

The USGS, as a Federal agency, is not subject to 

Federal, State, or local income taxes and, accordingly, 

no provision for income taxes has been recorded in the 

accompanying financial statements.

V. Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in accordance 

with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 

requires management to make certain estimates and 

assumptions in reporting assets, liabilities, revenues, 

expenses, and financial sources; and in the related 

note disclosures. Actual results could differ from 

these estimates. Significant estimates underlying 

the accompanying financial statements include 

accounts payable; grants payable; the allowance for 

doubtful accounts receivable; property, plant, and 

equipment useful lives and impairments; contingent 

and environmental liabilities; abandoned sites; the 

FECA actuarial liability; and the allowance for obsolete 

inventory. 

W. Reclassifications

Certain reclassifications have been made to the 2007 

balances to conform to the 2008 presentation.
114

Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Note 2 Assets Analysis

The USGS assets are considered entity assets, except for a portion of accounts receivable which consist of accrued 

interest and penalties from delinquent debt. At September 30, 2008 and 2007, this amount was $157 and $102 

thousand respectively. The USGS has no entity restricted assets. 

Note 3 Fund Balance with Treasury

Fund Balance with Treasury as of September 30, 2008 and 2007 is as follows:

The fund types and their purpose are described below:

General funds. These funds consist of expenditure accounts used to record financial transactions arising from 

Congressional appropriations.

Special funds. These accounts are credited with receipts from special sources that are designated by law for a 

specific purpose. When collected, these receipts are available immediately for expenditure for special programs, 

such as providing housing for employees on field assignments, operations and maintenance for the temporary 

housing, cleanup associated with the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and operating science and cooperative programs.

Revolving funds. These funds consist of cash flows to and from the government resulting from the operation of the 

Working Capital Fund and do not fund the Bureau’s normal operating expenses. These funds are restricted to the 

purposes set forth in the legislation that established the Working Capital Fund and related investment plans. 

Trust funds. These funds are used for the acceptance and administration of funds contributed from public and private 

sources and programs in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies or private donors.

Other Fund Types. These funds include miscellaneous receipt accounts, transfer accounts, performance bonds, 

deposit and clearing accounts, and disbursements awaiting proper classification. 

Unobligated, unavailable fund balance represents amounts from appropriations for which the period of availability for 

obligation has expired. These balances remain available for upward adjustments of obligations incurred during the 

period for which the appropriation was available.

2008 2007

General Funds $ 197,729 187,419

Special Funds 125 133

Revolving Funds 106,192 98,223

Trust Funds 1,351 1,226

Other Fund Types 5,435 7,728

Total Fund Balance with Treasury by Fund Type $ 310,832 294,729
115

Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

Status of Fund Balance with Treasury as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, is as follows:

Note 4 Accounts and Interest Receivable, Net

Accounts receivable consist of amounts owed to the USGS by other Federal agencies and the public. Unbilled 

accounts receivable represent amounts that have been earned but not yet billed to reimbursable customers. Unbilled 

accounts receivable function much like a “work-in-progress” record. Due to the nature of certain reimbursable 

agreements that require invoicing upon completion of the work, the USGS can bill customers years after the project 

was initiated. This procurement practice results in most accounts receivable being comprised of unbilled balances.

Accounts receivable are reduced to net realizable value by an allowance for doubtful accounts. The allowance for 

public receivables is estimated quarterly based on specific identification of delinquent receivables, an analysis of 

aged receivable activity and historical trends, as well as management’s judgment regarding the debtor’s willingness 

and ability to pay. Federal receivables are considered fully collectible. 

Interest receivable represents interest income earned on outstanding receivables that has not yet been collected. 

Interest accrues on a daily basis beginning thirty days from the date the notice of amount due was sent. Interest is 

charged at the rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Accounts and Interest Receivable from Public Agencies as of September 30, 2008 and 2007 are as follows:

2008 2007

Unobligated:

Available * $ 143,788 115,236

Unavailable 15,824 20,725

Obligated not Yet Disbursed * 145,785 151,037

Subtotal 305,397 286,998

Fund Balance with Treasury Not Covered by Budgetary Resources:

Clearing and Deposit Accounts 5,435 7,731

Total Status of Fund Balance with Treasury $ 310,832 294,729

* Unfilled Customer Orders, Without Advance, were not included for FY 2008 as only funds available

 relate to the Fund Balance with Treasury. This is a prospective change to DOI's crosswalk.

2008 2007

Accounts and Interest Receivable from the Public:

Current $ 23,446 16,129

1 - 180 Days Past Due 5,867 7,585

181 - 365 Days Past Due 176 231

1 to 2 Years Past Due 90 103

Total Billed Accounts and Interest Receivable - Public 29,579 24,048

Unbilled Accounts and Interest Receivable - Public 41,810 41,072

Total Accounts and Interest Receivable - Public 71,389 65,120

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts - Public (203) (436)

Total Accounts and Interest Receivable - Public, Net of Allowance $ 71,186 64,684
116 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Accounts and Interest Receivable from Federal Agencies as of September 30, 2008 and 2007 are as follows:

Note 5 Inventory and Related Property, Net

Inventory as of September 30, 2008 and 2007 is as follows:

The USGS disseminates earth, water, and biological science information through various media, including maps, 

reports, digital data sets, and general interest publications of the USGS and other Federal agencies. Maps and map 

products are located at the USGS Rocky Mountain Mapping Center in Denver, Colorado, and at several Earth Science 

Information Centers across the United States. The USGS maintains an inventory of maps and map products that are 

available to respond to national emergencies and resource management needs, as well as governmental requests. 

Below are examples of maps included in inventory available for sale.

2008 2007

Accounts and Interest Receivable from Federal Agencies:

Billed $ 285 189

Unbilled 50,724 45,201

Total Accounts and Interest Receivable - Federal $ 51,009 45,390

2008 2007

Inventory:

Published Maps Held for Sale $ 7,770 7,378

Allowance for Obsolescence (7,285) (6,889)

Net Inventory and Related Property $ 485 489
117

Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

Note 6 General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net

Property, plant, and equipment as of September 30, 2008 is as follows:

Property, plant, and equipment as of September 30, 2007 is as follows:

Depreciation and amortization expense amounted to approximately $16 million and $18 million, for the years ended 

September 30, 2008 and 2007 respectively. 

Acquisition Accumulated Net Book 

Cost Depreciation Value

Land and Land Improvements $ 300 - 300

Buildings 105,010 77,566 27,444

Structures and Facilities 13,340 10,819 2,521

Leasehold Improvements 24,534 13,600 10,934

Construction in Progress - General 3,362 - 3,362

Equipment and Vehicles 348,009 266,706 81,303

Internal Use Software:

In Use 11,870 8,962 2,908

In Development 127 - 127

Total Property, Plant, and Equipment $ 506,552 377,653 128,899

Acquisition Accumulated Net Book 

Cost Depreciation Value

Land and Land Improvements $ 300 - 300

Buildings 104,678 75,369 29,309

Structures and Facilities 13,340 10,437 2,903

Leasehold Improvements 30,344 13,649 16,695

Construction in Progress - General 3,227 - 3,227

Equipment and Vehicles 342,972 267,182 75,790

Internal Use Software:

In Use 10,783 7,717 3,066

In Development 750 - 750

Total Property, Plant, and Equipment $ 506,394 374,354 132,040
118 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Note 7 Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources

Liabilities not covered by budgetary or other resources represent amounts owed in excess of available Congressional 

appropriated funds or other amounts. The liquidation of liabilities not covered by budgetary or other resources is 

dependent on future Congressional appropriations or other funding source.

Liabilities as of September 30, 2008 is as follows:

Covered by

 Budgetary Resources

Current Current Non-Current 2008

Intragovernmental Liabilities:

Accounts Payable $ 5,052 - - 5,052

Other:

Advances and Deferred Revenue 1,645 - - 1,645

Deposit Funds - 68 - 68

Accrued Employee Benefits 7,562 237 3,304 11,103

Unfunded FECA Liability - 2,710 4,066 6,776

GSA Tenant Improvement Loans - 2,771 6,982 9,753

Other Miscellaneous Liabilities 55 157 - 212

Total Other Intragovernmental Liabilities 9,262 5,943 14,352 29,557

Total Intragovernmental Liabilities 14,314 5,943 14,352 34,609

Public Liabilities:

Accounts Payable 40,407 - - 40,407

Federal Employee and Veterans' Benefits:

FECA Actuarial Liability - - 35,780 35,780

Total Federal Employee Veterans' Benefits - - 35,780 35,780

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities - 510 - 510

Other:

Unfunded Annual Leave - 3,090 58,709 61,799

Abandoned Sites Liabilities - 976 21,146 22,122

Grants Payable 20,440 - - 20,440

Other Liabilities:

Accrued Payroll and Benefits 31,085 - - 31,085

Advances and Deferred Revenue 1,803 67 - 1,870

Deposit Funds - 5,367 - 5,367

Contract Holdbacks 133 - 4,299 4,432

Total Other Liabilities 33,021 5,434 4,299 42,754

Total Other Public Liabilities 53,461 9,500 84,154 147,115

Total Public Liabilities 93,868 10,010 119,934 223,812

Total Liabilities $ 108,182 15,953 134,286 258,421

Budgetary Resources

Not Covered by 
119 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

Liabilities as of September 30, 2007 is as follows:

Covered by

 Budgetary Resources

Current Current Non-Current 2007 

Intragovernmental Liabilities:

Accounts Payable $ 6,400 - - 6,400

Other:

Advances and Deferred Revenue 809 - - 809

Deposit Funds - 1,252 - 1,252

Accrued Employee Benefits 5,985 214 3,056 9,255

Unfunded FECA Liability - 2,741 4,112 6,853

GSA Tenant Improvement Loans - 4,021 11,852 15,873

Other Miscellaneous Liabilities 72 102 - 174

Total Other Intragovernmental Liabilities 6,866 8,330 19,020 34,216

Total Intragovernmental Liabilities 13,266 8,330 19,020 40,616

Public Liabilities:

Accounts Payable 39,765 - - 39,765

Federal Employee and Veterans' Benefits:

FECA Actuarial Liability - - 35,644 35,644

Total Federal Employee Veterans' Benefits - - 35,644 35,644

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities - - 108 108

Other:

Unfunded Annual Leave - 2,981 56,641 59,622

Abandoned Sites Liabilities - 915 19,842 20,757

Grants Payable 20,194 - - 20,194

Other Liabilities:

Accrued Payroll and Benefits 25,036 - - 25,036

Advances and Deferred Revenue 2,327 285 - 2,612

Deposit Funds - 6,476 - 6,476

Contract Holdbacks 124 - 1,026 1,150

Total Other Liabilities 27,487 6,761 1,026 35,274

Total Other Public Liabilities 47,681 10,657 77,509 135,847

Total Public Liabilities 87,446 10,657 113,261 211,364

Total Liabilities $ 100,712 18,987 132,281 251,980

Budgetary Resources

Not Covered by 
120 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Note 8 FECA Liabilities

The USGS recorded an estimated, unfunded liability for the expected future cost for death, disability, and medical 

claims under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. This estimated liability is calculated by DOL using a method 

that considers historical benefit payment patterns, wage inflation factors, medical inflation factors, and other 

variables. These actuarially computed projected annual benefit payments are discounted to present value using 

the OMB’s economic assumptions for 10-year Treasury notes and bonds. The USGS also recorded an estimated, 

unfunded liability for the expected future payments to the DOL in payment of outstanding workers compensation 

claims.

FECA liabilities for the years ended September 30, 2008 and 2007 are as follows:

Note 9 Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others

Imputed financing sources are recorded in the financial statements for amounts paid or to be paid on behalf of the 

USGS by other Federal agencies. The OPM paid expenses relating to Federal employee pension and other future 

retirement benefits on behalf of the USGS. The intra-departmental imputed costs relate to expenses the Department 

of the Interior Solicitor’s Office incurred on behalf of the USGS. 

Imputed financing costs for the years ended September 30, 2008 and 2007 are as follows:

2008 2007

Department of Labor:

FECA Actuarial Liability $ 35,780 35,644

FECA Workers Compensation Liability 6,776 6,853

Total FECA Liabilities $ 42,556 42,497

2008 2007

Office of Personnel Management:

Pension Expense $ 19,615 20,742

Federal Employees Health Benefits 36,962 39,584

Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program 90 87

Total OPM 56,667 60,413

Intra-Departmental Imputed Costs 228 5,867

Non-Reimbursable Claims Paid by Treasury's Judgment Fund 39 66

Total Imputed Financing Costs $ 56,934 66,346
121 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

Note 10 Contingent and Environmental and Disposal Liabilities

The USGS has the responsibility to remediate sites with environmental contamination and is a party to various 

administrative proceedings, legal actions, environmental suits, and claims that may result in settlements or decisions 

adverse to the Federal government. The USGS accrued liabilities where losses are determined to be probable and 

the amounts can be estimated. In addition, the USGS disclosed liabilities where the conditions for liability recognition 

were not met but the likelihood of unfavorable outcome is more than remote. 

Estimated contingent and environmental disposal liabilities as of September 30, 2008 and 2007 are as follows:

2008

Accrued

Liabilities

Lower End of 

Range

Upper End of 

Range

Contingent Liabilities

Reasonably Possible $ - 379 379

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities

Probable 510 510 955

2007

Accrued

Liabilities

Lower End of 

Range

Upper End of 

Range

Contingent Liabilities

Reasonably Possible $ - 289 699

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities

Probable 108 108 128

Estimated Range of Loss

Estimated Range of Loss

General Contingent Liability

General contingent liabilities consist of lawsuits and claims against the USGS which are awaiting adjudication. They 

typically relate to Federal Tort Claims Act administrative and judicial claims, contract related actions, and personnel 

and employment matters. At this time, the USGS has no contingent liabilities deemed to have a probable loss. 

However, the USGS does have two Equal Employment Opportunity actions that are deemed to have a reasonably 

possible loss.

Environmental and Disposal Liability

The USGS is subject to environmental laws and regulations regarding air, water, and land use, the storage and 

disposal of hazardous materials, and the operations and closure of facilities at which environmental contamination 

may be present. Responsible parties, which may include Federal agencies under certain circumstances, are required 

to remove releases of hazardous substances from facilities they own, operate, or at which they arranged for the 

disposal of such substances. At this time, the USGS has only one liability that relates to two monitoring wells which 

are deemed to have a probable loss.
122 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Note 11 Stewardship Assets

The USGS serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth. The 

USGS serves American citizens as a steward for a large, varied, and scientifically important body of heritage assets, 

and in conducting research and development that is critical to the health of our country and in understanding 

the Earth. In FY2008, the USGS reclassified heritage assets from Required Supplementary Information to basic 

information which is disclosed below, as required by SFFAS 29, Heritage Assets and Stewardship Land. Information 

relating to the condition of our heritage assets remains in the RSI.

Library Collections

The USGS considers its library collections to be heritage assets which provide scientific information needed 

by Interior researchers, as well as researchers of other government agencies, universities, and professional 

communities. Besides providing resources for the USGS scientific investigations, the library collections provide 

access to geographical, technical, and historical literature in paper and electronic formats for the general public and 

the industry. The USGS manages these assets to the standards set in the Survey Manual and uses the Environmental 

Guidelines for the Storage of Paper Records published by the National Information Standards Organization as a guide 

to maintaining their condition. The USGS utilizes a library classification system designed for earth science libraries. 

The USGS library holdings, collected during more than a century of providing library services, are an invaluable 

legacy to the Nation. Congress established the library in the 1879 legislation that founded the USGS. The Act decreed 

that copies of reports published by the USGS should be given to the library to exchange for publications of State 

and national geological surveys and societies. The USGS Library built from this notable and cost-effective exchange 

program, plus purchases and gifts, has become the world’s largest collection of earth science information. The library 

was originally located in Washington, D.C.; however, the library collection is now housed in four libraries across the 

country in Reston, VA, Menlo Park, CA, Denver, CO, and Flagstaff, AZ.

Library collections as of September 30, 2008 are as follows:

10/1/2007 Additions Withdrawals 9/30/2008

Library Collection Units:

U.S. Geological Survey Facilities 4 - - 4

Total 4 - - 4

Museum Collections

The USGS also considers its museum collections, comprised of collections of natural history specimens and 

cultural objects, to be heritage assets. Natural history specimens are important as they contribute reliable scientific 

information to our research activities, while our cultural objects provide educational and informational services on 

the history of the bureau through museum and other exhibits of historical activities/events. The USGS endeavors to 

manage these assets to the standards set in the Departmental Manual 411, Policy and Responsibilities for Managing 

Museum Property, and other Federal authorities. 

The USGS manages a widespread collection of natural history specimens and cultural objects that support the 

mission of the bureau in many science and administrative centers throughout the United States. These unique 

collections serve to illustrate important achievements and challenges to the Earth Sciences, to document the 

history of the USGS, and to enlighten those who use the collections. The collections also provide the public with an 

interpretive demonstration of the history and enterprise of the USGS. 
123 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

Museum collections as of September 30, 2008 are as follows:

10/1/2007 Additions Withdrawals 9/30/2008

Museum Collection Units:

Held at Interior Bureau Facilities 6 - - 6

Held at Non-Interior Bureau Facilities 2 - - 2

Total 8 - - 8

Note 12 Leases and Occupancy Agreements

The USGS has many cancelable occupancy agreements with the GSA, primarily for office space. Some of these 

agreements do not have a stated expiration. The USGS also has many operating leases, primarily for storage and 

housing for employees working on location, with public entities. There were no personal property lease agreements 

with the public exceeding one year as of September 30, 2008.

The USGS has estimated its future minimum liability for GSA occupancy agreements by adding OMB approved 

inflationary rate increases per year to the FY2008 lease rental expense. Public operating leases were calculated 

based on lease agreement terms. 

Future estimated minimum operating lease payments as of September 30, 2008 are as follows:

Rental expenses for occupancy agreements, operating leases, and exhibit hall space during FY2008 and FY2007 were 

approximately $79 and $78 million, respectively.

In some cases, the USGS secures funds from GSA’s building fund to finance improvements made to space where 

the USGS is the tenant. Because these improvements are made to convert the existing structures into workable 

space tailored to USGS needs, the USGS is required to repay GSA the cost of the improvements over the term of the 

occupancy agreement, which is incorporated into the total rent payments billed to the USGS by GSA. The principal 

loan balance of approximately $10 and $16 million at September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, is recorded as a 

liability and the corresponding leasehold improvements are recorded in Property, Plant & Equipment, which are 

amortized over the period of the occupancy agreements.

Personal Prop

Federal Public Federal Total

FY2009 $ 66,128 2,196 7,122 75,446

FY2010 61,180 1,878 7,300 70,358

FY2011 56,705 1,850 7,483 66,038

FY2012 37,663 1,781 7,670 47,114

FY2013 18,447 1,699 7,862 28,008

Thereafter 86,929 2,005 88,934 - 

Total Future Operating Lease Payments $ 327,052 11,409 37,437 375,898

Real Prop
124 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Consolidating Schedule of Net Cost

For the Year Ended September 30, 2008

(in thousands)

Global

Water Geology Geography Biology GIO Change Eliminations Total

Intragovernmental Costs $ 196,293 29,566 18,783 74,237 18,362 3,188 (55,009) 285,420

Public Costs 468,605 96,431 102,327 247,266 55,601 2,640 972,870 -

Total Costs 664,898 125,997 121,110 321,503 73,963 5,828 1,258,290 (55,009)

Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 146,021 11,858 23,713 72,516 14,247 (55,009) 245 213,591

Public Earned Revenue 184,323 6,826 2,735 7,168 12,774 3 213,829 -

Total Earned Revenue 330,344 18,684 26,448 79,684 27,021 (55,009) 248 427,420

Net Costs 334,554 107,313 94,662 241,819 46,942 5,580 830,870 -

Intragovernmental Costs 31,676 - - - - (3,005) - 28,671

Public Costs 74,811 - - - - - 74,811 -

Total Costs 106,487 - - - - (3,005) - 103,482

Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 8,555 - - - - (3,005) - 5,550

Public Earned Revenue 1,334 - - - - - 1,334 -

Total Earned Revenue 9,889 - - - - (3,005) - 6,884

Net Costs 96,598 - - - - - 96,598 -

Intragovernmental Costs 27,430 - - - - (1,189) - 26,241

Public Costs 104,628 - - - - - 104,628 -

Total Costs 132,058 - - - - (1,189) - 130,869

Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 9,546 - - - - (1,189) - 8,357

Public Earned Revenue 2,276 - - - - - 2,276 -

Total Earned Revenue 11,822 - - - - (1,189) - 10,633

Net Costs 120,236 - - - - - 120,236 -

Total

Intragovernmental Costs 196,293 88,672 18,783 74,237 18,362 3,188 (59,203) 340,332

Public Costs 468,605 275,870 102,327 247,266 55,601 2,640 1,152,309 -

Total Costs 664,898 364,542 121,110 321,503 73,963 5,828 1,492,641 (59,203)

Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 146,021 29,959 23,713 72,516 14,247 (59,203) 245 227,498

Public Earned Revenue 184,323 10,436 2,735 7,168 12,774 3 217,439 -

Total Earned Revenue 330,344 40,395 26,448 79,684 27,021 (59,203) 248 444,937

Net Cost of Operations $ 334,554 324,147 94,662 241,819 46,942 5,580 1,047,704 -

Improve the Understanding of National 

Ecosystems and Resources

Improve the Understanding of Energy

and Mineral Resources

Improve the Understanding, Prediction, 

and Monitoring of Natural Hazards

Note 13 Statement of Net Cost by Segment

The USGS’ Statement of Net Cost is summarized into a format that aligns with the Department of the Interior’s primary 

mission areas, as outlined in the DOI Strategic Plan. The USGS further displays its net cost under the Department’s 

end outcome goals, a level of detail one layer beneath the primary mission areas.

The USGS reported five responsibility segments in its FY2007 Consolidating Schedule of Net Cost. This represented 

the major operating segments by which the USGS’ missions and goals were measured. These responsibility 

segments were Water, Geology, Geography, Biology, and Geospacial Information Office (GIO). Based on the USGS’ 

FY2008 enacted budget, a sixth responsibility segment, Global Change, was added to the FY2008 Consolidating 

Schedule of Net Cost. Dollars appropriated to Global Change will continue to increase in the coming fiscal years.

The following table reflects USGS’ net cost by responsibility segment for the year ended September 30, 2008:
125 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

The following table reflects USGS’ net cost by responsibility segment for the year ended September 30, 2007:

Consolidating Schedule of Net Cost

For the Year Ended September 30, 2007

(in thousands)

Water Geology Geography Biology GIO Eliminations Total

Intragovernmental Costs $ 198,397 32,875 28,931 78,335 14,242 (60,930) 291,850

Public Costs 446,603 93,289 120,948 237,639 34,448 932,927 - 

Total Costs 645,000 126,164 149,879 315,974 48,690 (60,930) 1,224,777

Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 142,295 11,388 26,587 73,972 8,810 (60,930) 202,122

Public Earned Revenue 168,017 9,579 3,674 6,342 12,083 199,695 - 

Total Earned Revenue 310,312 20,967 30,261 80,314 20,893 (60,930) 401,817

Net Costs 334,688 105,197 119,618 235,660 27,797 822,960 - 

Intragovernmental Costs 30,600 - - - (2,983) - 27,617

Public Costs 71,640 - - - - 71,640 - 

Total Costs 102,240 - - - (2,983) - 99,257

Intragovernmental Earned Revenue - 7,926 - - (2,983) - 4,943

Public Earned Revenue - 1,042 - - - - 1,042

Total Earned Revenue - 8,968 - - (2,983) - 5,985

Net Costs 93,272 - - - - 93,272 - 

Intragovernmental Costs 29,317 - - - (2,145) - 27,172

Public Costs 98,741 - - - - 98,741 - 

Total Costs 128,058 - - - (2,145) - 125,913

Intragovernmental Earned Revenue - 8,991 - - (2,145) - 6,846

Public Earned Revenue - 1,238 - - - - 1,238

Total Earned Revenue 10,229 - - - (2,145) - 8,084

Net Costs 117,829 - - - - 117,829 - 

Total

Intragovernmental Costs 198,397 92,792 28,931 78,335 14,242 (66,058) 346,639

Public Costs 446,603 263,670 120,948 237,639 34,448 1,103,308 - 

Total Costs 645,000 356,462 149,879 315,974 48,690 (66,058) 1,449,947

Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 142,295 28,305 26,587 73,972 8,810 (66,058) 213,911

Public Earned Revenue 168,017 11,859 3,674 6,342 12,083 201,975 - 

Total Earned Revenue 310,312 40,164 30,261 80,314 20,893 (66,058) 415,886

Net Cost of Operations $ 334,688 316,298 119,618 235,660 27,797 1,034,061 - 

Improve the Understanding of National 

Ecosystems and Resources

Improve the Understanding of Energy 

and Mineral Resources

Improve the Understanding, Prediction, 

and Monitoring of Natural Hazards
126 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Note 14 Budgetary Resources

The USGS receives budgetary resources from appropriations, offsetting receipts, and reimbursable activities. At 

September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, approximately $427 and $382 million of the budgetary resources were 

unobligated. These amounts include expired budget authority of $16 and $21 million at September 30, 2008 and 2007, 

respectively. The expired funds remain available for up to five years to pay expenses against obligations incurred. 

Recoveries of prior year obligations are comprised of canceled or downward adjustments of obligations incurred in 

prior years that were not subsequently disbursed. Undelivered orders as of September 30, 2008 and 2007 totaled $221 

and $218 million, respectively.

Apportionment categories of obligations incurred

Apportionments are categorized as either A, B, or C. Category A apportionments are those where OMB makes a 

distribution of budgetary resources by calendar quarters; category B apportionments are made by other specified 

time periods, programs, activities, projects, or combinations thereof; and category C represents budgetary resources 

that are not subject to apportionment. USGS obligations incurred during FY2008 and FY2007 were all category B and 

were subject to apportionment. 

Obligations incurred balances as of September 30, 2008 and 2007 are as follows:

Permanent Indefinite Appropriations

Permanent indefinite appropriations refer to the appropriations that come from permanent public laws, which 

authorize the USGS to retain certain receipts rather than a specific annually appropriated amount. These funds do 

not require annual appropriation action by Congress as they are subject to the authorities of the permanent law. The 

USGS has three permanent indefinite appropriations. The majority of funding is from the “Surveys, Investigations, 

and Research” appropriation used to conduct operations in topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and mineral 

resources.

Appropriations Received

Appropriations received on the Statement of Changes in Net Position differ from that reported on the Statement of 

Budgetary Resources because appropriations received on the Statement of Budgetary Resources do not include 

available receipt funds.

Legal Arrangements Affecting Use of Unobligated Balances

Unobligated balances whose period of availability has expired are not available to fund new obligations but are 

available to pay for adjustments to obligations incurred prior to expiration. For a no-year account, the unobligated 

balance is carried forward indefinitely until (1) specifically rescinded by law; or (2) the head of the agency concerned 

or the President determines that the purposes for which the appropriation was made have been carried out and 

disbursements have not been made against the appropriation for 2 consecutive years. 

2008 2007

Obligations Incurred:

Direct $ 992,029 999,058

Reimbursable 528,040 488,582

Total Obligations Incurred $ 1,520,069 1,487,640

Apportioned, Category B
127 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

For a fixed appropriation account, the balance can be carried forward for five fiscal years after the period of 

availability ends. At the end of the fifth fiscal year, the account is closed and any remaining balance is canceled. 

Canceled authority is returned to the U.S. Treasury at the end of the 5th year of availability for annual and multi-year 

funds under Public Law 101-510. Resources permanently not available were adjusted pursuant to Public Law 114 Stat 

2763A-214, SEC 1403. 

Explanation of Differences between the Statement of Budgetary Resources and the Budget of the United States 

Government

The Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) has been prepared to coincide with the President’s Budget (PB), the 

Budget of the United States Government. The FY2008 actual amounts as shown on the FY2010 President’s Budget 

were not available at the time the financial statements were prepared. The FY2010 President’s Budget is expected to 

be available in February 2009 and will be located at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb.

The USGS had differences that existed between the FY2007 Statement of Budgetary Resources and the FY2007 actual 

amounts reported in the President’s FY2009 budget request. These amounts include expired amounts and canceled 

authority, working capital fund obligation balances, and offsetting collections. 

Below is a table with significant differences and explanations between the FY2007 Statement of Budgetary Resources 

and the FY2007 actual amounts reported in the President’s FY2009 budget request.

Amount per 

PB

Amount per 

SBR as 

Restated

Expected

Differences

Unobligated Balance, Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 100 367 (A) (B) 267

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations $ (3) 8 (A) 11

Unobligated Balance Available and Not Available $ 116 382 (A) (B) 266

Offsetting Collections $ (394) (521) (A) 127

(A) Amount of expired authority included in the SBR but not in the PB.

(B) Prior period adjustment to the SBR but not included in the PB.
128 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Note 15 Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget 

SFFAS Number 7 requires a reconciliation of proprietary and budgetary information. The objective of this information 

is to provide an explanation of the differences between budgetary and financial (proprietary) accounting. This is 

accomplished by a reconciliation of budgetary obligations and non-budgetary resources available to the USGS with 

its net cost of operations. 

The following table contains the Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget (formerly, the Statement of 

Financing) for the years ended September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007.

Restated

2008 2007

Resources Used to Finance Activities

Current Year Gross Obligations $ 1,520,069 1,487,640

Budgetary Resources from Offsetting Collections:

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:

Earned:

Collected (515,000) (523,393)

Change in Receivable from Federal Sources (12,304) 17,224

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders (23,993) 1,778

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (6,373) (7,802)

Offsetting Receipts (1,796) (2,401)

Other Financing Resources:

Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement 167 95

Donations/Forfeitures of Property 1,670 1,408

Imputed Financing Sources 56,934 66,346

Total Resources Used to Finance Activity 1,019,374 1,040,895

Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations

Budgetary Obligations and Resources not Part of the Net Cost of Operations:

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders 23,993 (1,778)

Change in Undelivered Orders (2,385) (3,461)

Current Year Capitalized Purchases (19,733) (18,693)

Offsetting Receipts that do not Affect Net Cost of Operations 1,796 2,401

Other Resources/Adjustments that do not Affect Net Cost of Operations (57,320) (66,569)

Components of the Net Cost of Operations which do not Generate or 

Use Resources in the Reporting Period

Revenues Without Current Year Budgetary Effect:

Change in Off-Budget Receivables 158 88

Costs Without Current Year Budgetary Effect:

Depreciation and Amortization 16,116 17,535

Disposition of Assets 1,292 1,252

Future Funded Expenses 7,410 (711)

Imputed Costs 56,934 66,346

Bad Debt Expense 27 18

Other Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources 42 (3,262)

Net Cost of Operations $ 1,047,704 1,034,061
129 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

Note 16 Earmarked Funds

Earmarked funds are financed by specifically identified revenues, are required by statute to be used for designated 

activities or purposes, and must be accounted for separately from the Government’s general revenues. The following 

funds have been designated as earmarked funds: 

14X5055— Quarters

5 U.S.C. 591 allows the USGS to provide an employee stationed in the United States with quarters and facilities when 

conditions of employment or the availability of quarters warrant the action. In 1985, 5 U.S.C. 591 was amended to 

allow for rental rates for the provided quarters to be collected into a special fund. The collections are then available 

until expended for the maintenance and operation of the quarters. The collections are accounted for as offsetting 

receipts that do not affect the net cost of operations.

14X8562— Contributed funds

43 U.S.C. 36C allows the USGS to accept lands, building, equipment, and other contributions from public and private 

sources and to participate in projects in cooperation with other agencies, Federal, State, or private. Contributions 

come from donations received from private individuals, Technical Assistance Agreements, and Consortiums for 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements. The contributions received via agreement are dedicated to 

specific projects and are accounted for as offsetting receipts that do not affect the net cost of operations.
130 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Earmarked funds as of September 30, 2008 are as follows:

Contributed

Fund

Quarters

Fund 2008

Balance Sheet

Assets

Fund Balance with Treasury $ 1,352 125 1,477

Accounts Receivable, Net 67 - 67

 1,344 - 1,344

Total Assets $ 2,763 125 2,888

Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 112 9 121

Other Liabilities 184 - 184

Total Liabilities 296 9 305

Net Position

Cumulative Results of Operations 2,467 116 2,583

Total Net Position 2,467 116 2,583

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 2,763 125 2,888

Statement of Net Cost

Gross Costs 2,443 97 2,540

Earned Revenue - (82) (82)

Net Cost of Operations $ 2,443 15 2,458

Statement of Changes in Net Position

Net Position, Beginning Balance $ 2,333 133 2,466

Other Financing Sources

 2,617 2,617

 (40) (2) (42)

Net Cost of Operations (2,443) (15) (2,458)

Change in Net Position 134 (17) 117

Net Position, Ending Balance $ 2,467 116 2,583

General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net

Transfers In/(Out) Without Reimbursement 

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash

 and Cash Equivalents
131 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

Earmarked funds as of September 30, 2007 are as follows:

Contributed

Fund

Quarters

Fund 2007

Balance Sheet

Assets

Fund Balance with Treasury $ 1,225 133 1,358

Accounts Receivable, Net 284 - 284

 1,344 - 1,344

Total Assets $ 2,853 133 2,986

Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 71 - 71

Other Liabilities 449 - 449

Total Liabilities 520 - 520

Net Position

Cumulative Results of Operations 2,333 133 2,466

Total Net Position 2,333 133 2,466

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 2,853 133 2,986

Statement of Net Cost

Gross Costs 2,794 92 2,886

Earned Revenue - (98) (98)

Net Cost of Operations $ 2,794 (6) 2,788

Statement of Changes in Net Position

Net Position, Beginning Balance $ 2,421 127 2,548

Other Financing Sources

 2,709 - 2,709

 (3) - (3)

Net Cost of Operations (2,794) 6 (2,788)

Change in Net Position (88) 6 (82)

Net Position, Ending Balance $ 2,333 133 2,466

General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net

Transfers In/(Out) Without Reimbursement 

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash

 and Cash Equivalents
132 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information 

Note 17 Restatement

Unfilled Customer Orders

In prior years, the USGS recorded the authority for multi-year reimbursable agreements into our financial 

management system based on projected current year obligations and expenditures rather than the full amount 

of the agreements. At the end of the fiscal year, these reimbursable agreements were drawn down to equal the 

corresponding actual obligations and expenditures. Per OMB Circular A-11, Preparing, Submitting, and Executing the 

Budget, the USGS should have recorded authority for the entire amount of the agreement and the remaining balance 

at the end of the fiscal year should not have been drawn down unless the funds expired. 

To correct the misstatement of the FY2007 Statement of Budgetary Resources, the USGS recorded an adjusting entry 

that increased the Budgetary Resources beginning balance by $244 million and decreased the Change in Unfilled 

Customer Orders by $2 million. The effect of this adjustment increased the Budgetary Resources ending balance, the 

Unobligated Balance Available, and the Status of Budgetary Resources ending balance by $246 million respectively. 

No other financial statements were changed by this adjusting entry, however, it did cause a $2 million decrease 

to Change in Unfilled Customer Orders in Note 15, Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget. This line 

changed from $4 million to $2 million. In addition, this adjusting entry changed the reconciliation of the FY2007 SBR 

to the President’s Budget in Note 14, Budgetary Resouces. The reconciling difference for both Unobligated Balance, 

Beginning of Fiscal Year and Unobligated Balance Available and Not Available increased by $244 million. The 

reconciling difference for Unobligated Balance Beginning of Fiscal Year was $23 million, now it is $267 million. The 

reconciling difference for Unobligated Balance Available and Not Available was $22 million, now it is $266 million.

The following table shows the financial statement impact of the adjusting entry for Unfilled Customer Orders:

2007 SBR

as Previously 2007 SBR

Reported Correction Restated

Budgetary Resources:

Unobligated Balance, Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 123,303 244,092 367,395

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders, Without Advance from Federal Sources (2,015) 2,244 229

Total Budget Authority 1,493,006 2,244 1,495,250

Total Budgetary Resources $ 1,623,601 246,336 1,869,937

Status of Budgetary Resources:

Unobligated Balance Available, Apportioned 115,236 246,336 361,572

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 1,623,601 246,336 1,869,937

Obligated Balance:

Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources,

Brought Forward, Beginning of Fiscal Year (181,376) (244,092) (425,468)

Total Unpaid Obligated Balances, Net, Beginning of Fiscal Year 124,409 (244,092) (119,683)

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 19,239 (2,244) 16,995

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Fiscal Year $ 151,037 (246,336) (95,299)

Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period - by Component:

Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (162,138) (246,336) (408,474)

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Fiscal Year $ 151,037 (246,336) (95,299)

Upon learning of the misinterpretation of OMB Circular A-11, the USGS informed personnel of this issue and notified 

them of future guidance that will be issued to meet the Circular requirements and of corresponding training that will 

take place in FY2009.
133 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information
134 Notes to the Financial Statements—As of September 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands)

 Financial Information

USGS scientist stands astride seismic sensors.
135

Required 

Supplementary 

Information

(Unaudited; see Independent

Auditors’ Report)

This part of the Section III Financial 

Information contains our required 

supplementary information disclosures.

Contents include:

SBR by Major Budget Accounts ..................................................136

Deferred Maintenance ..................................................................140

General Stewardship Information................................................141

Museum Collections Condition.....................................................142

Library Collections Condition........................................................144
136 Required Supplementary Information— SBR by Major Budget Accounts

 Financial Information 

Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

(Treasury Symbol (0804):

T

he USGS is primarily funded by the SIR 

appropriation. The SIR appropriation is for 

expenses necessary for the USGS to perform 

surveys, investigations, and research covering 

topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the 

mineral and water resources of the United States, its 

territories and possessions, and other areas authorized 

by law; classify lands as to their mineral and water 

resources; give engineering supervision to power 

permittees and FERC licensees; administer the minerals 

exploration program; and to conduct inquiries into the 

economic conditions affecting mining and materials 

processing industries and related purposes as 

authorized by law; and to publish and disseminate data 

relative to the foregoing activities. [Department of the 

Interior, Environment, Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 2008]

The following activities are funded by the SIR 

appropriation: Geographic Research, Investigations, 

and Remote Sensing; Geologic Hazards, Resources, 

and Processes; Water Resources Investigations 

Activity; Biological Research; Enterprise Information; 

Science Support; and Facilities. The following 

paragraphs describe each activity.

Geographic Research, Investigations and Remote 

Sensing

The Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote 

Sensing activity seeks to observe the earth at various 

scales using remote sensing to understand the human 

and environmental dynamics of land change. The 

Geography Program also provides scientific information 

to describe and interpret America’s landscape by 

mapping the terrain, monitoring changes over time, and 

analyzing how and why these changes have occurred. 

The knowledge gained through these activities is used 

to model the processes of change and to forecast 

future changes. 

The Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote 

Sensing activity has two subactivities: Land Remote 

Sensing and Geographic Analysis and Monitoring.

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes

The Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes 

activity provides the Earth science information needs 

for a wide variety of partners and customers, including 

Federal, State, and local agencies, non-government 

organizations, industry, and academia. This information 

is used by the USGS and its partners, cooperators, and 

customers in evaluating resource potential, defining 

and mitigating risks associated with natural hazards, 

and characterizing the potential impact of natural 

geologic processes on human activity, the economy, 

and the environment. 

The USGS programs improve the safety of the United 

States from natural disasters and include efforts to 

(1) increase the USGS ability to rapidly determine 

the location, size, and depth of large earthquakes, 

(2) discriminate kinds of earthquakes and geologic 

areas of the Pacific and Caribbean likely to cause 

tsunamis, (3) improve landslide models, assessments, 

and alert systems, (4) improve monitoring of the most 

dangerous volcanoes, and (5) work with Federal, local, 

and foreign partners to improve coordination, ensure 

timely warnings can be issued for all geologic hazards, 

and provide information so that informed community 

response plans can be developed and put in place. 

The Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes 

activity includes three subactivities: Geologic Hazard 

Assessments, Geologic Landscape and Coastal 

Assessments, and Geologic Resource Assessments. 

Water Resources Investigations Activity

The Water Resources Investigations activity funds work 

on issues related to water availability, water quality, 

and flood hazards. Over 4,000 scientific and support 

staff in offices located in every State support and/or 

perform work involving collection, management, and 

dissemination of hydrologic data; analysis of hydrologic 

systems through modeling or statistical methods; and 

research and development leading to new methods and 

new understanding. 

The USGS programs involve operating streamgages 

that measure the flow of rivers and provide data that 

are used in resource planning and dispute resolution, 

performing water-quality studies that have a strong 

connection to human health issues, and collecting 
137 Required Supplementary Information— SBR by Major Budget Accounts

 Financial Information

and providing data that enables citizens, communities, 

businesses, and local emergency-response agencies 

to make the best possible decisions about protecting 

lives and property in floods. The Water Resources 

Investigations activity supports three subactivities: 

Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and Research, 

Cooperative Water Program, and the Water Resources 

Research Act Program. 

Biological Research

The Biological Research activity generates and 

distributes information needed in the conservation 

and management of the Nation’s biological resources. 

Biological Research activities contribute to achieving 

improved management of the Nation’s water resources, 

availability of maps and map data, and improved 

decision making regarding land and water use. 

The USGS programs provide scientific information 

through research, inventory, and monitoring 

investigations, and increase the quantity of biological 

information available by improving access to and 

interactions with biological data. The USGS biologists 

and information scientists, in partnership with many 

others, provide the scientific understanding and 

technologies necessary to support sound management 

and conservation of the Nation’s biological resources. 

Biological studies develop new methods and 

techniques to identify, observe, and manage fish 

and wildlife, including invasive species, and their 

habitats; inventory populations of animals, plants, and 

their habitats; and monitor changes in abundance, 

distribution, and health of biological resources through 

time. 

The Biological Research activity is broken down 

into three subactivities: Biological Research and 

Monitoring, Biological Information Management and 

Delivery, and Cooperative Research Units.

Support Services: Enterprise Information, Science 

Support, and Facilities

The Enterprise Information activity supports 

bureau-level activities and investments in the areas 

of information technology, information security, 

information management, information policy and 

standards, and information science. In 2007 a 

budget restructure moved the National Map from 

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote 

Sensing to Enterprise Information. The National 

Geospatial Program is focused on improving, 

geospatial data access, integration, and applications 

through implementation of the National Map and the 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Partnerships 

with other Federal, State, and local agencies and the 

private sector and academia are the keystone for 

accomplishing this mission. Enterprise Information 

is broken down into three subactivities: Enterprise 

Information Security and Technology, Enterprise 

Information Resources, and the National Geospatial 

Program.

The Science Support activity provides resources for 

the executive and managerial direction of the bureau 

and support services to all USGS scientific programs. 

Science Support is broken down into two subactivities: 

Bureau Operations and Payments to the National 

Business Center.

The Facilities activity provides workspace and 

facilities for accomplishing the bureau mission. The 

Facilities activity supports three subactivities: Rental 

Payments, Operations and Maintenance, and Deferred 

Maintenance and Capital Improvement.

Working Capital Fund (Treasury Symbol 4556):

The Working Capital Fund was established by law 

to provide the USGS with the ability to finance a 

continuing cycle of operations in two components: 

Investments and Fee-for-Service. The Investment 

Component provides funding for Telecommunications, 

Equipment, Facilities, and Publications. The fee-forservice component provides continuing funding for 

the National Water Quality Laboratory, the USGS

Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility, Publications, 

bureau laboratories, the National Training Center, 

drilling, Landsat 7, and GSA delegated buildings.

Other Aggregated Accounts:

The USGS also receives a variety of other funding. 

Other funding includes donations and contributions, 

reimbursables, miscellaneous receipts, and operations 

and maintenance of quarters. 
138 Required Supplementary Information— SBR by Major Budget Accounts

 Financial Information 

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Year Ended September 30, 2008

(in thousands)

Fund 0804 Fund 4556

Other

Budgetary

Accounts 2008

Budgetary Resources (Notes 14 and 17):

Unobligated Balance:

Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 296,961 84,653 382,297 683 

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 5,772 548 53 6,373

Budget Authority:

Appropriations Received 1,022,430 - 1,025,128 2,698

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:

Earned:

Collected 443,348 71,652 515,000 - 

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 12,304 - 12,304 - 

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:

Advance Received 312 - - 312

Without Advance from Federal Sources 23,681 - 23,681 - 

Total Budget Authority 1,502,075 71,652 1,576,425 2,698

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net 5,100 - - 5,100

Permanently Not Available (23,170) - (23,170) - 

Total Budgetary Resources $ 1,786,738 156,853 1,947,025 3,434

Status of Budgetary Resources:

Obligations Incurred:

Direct $ 989,399 - 2,630 992,029

Reimbursable 459,230 68,810 528,040 - 

Total Obligations Incurrred 1,448,629 68,810 1,520,069 2,630

Unobligated Balance Available:

Apportioned 322,285 88,043 411,132 804 

Unobligated Balance Not Available 15,824 - 15,824 - 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 1,786,738 156,853 1,947,025 3,434

Obligated Balance:

Obligated Balance, Net:

Unpaid Obligations, Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 298,931 13,570 674 313,175

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources,

 Beginning of Fiscal Year (408,474) - (408,474) -

Total unpaid obligated balances, net, beginning of fiscal year (109,543) 13,570 674 (95,299)

Obligations Incurred 1,448,629 68,810 1,520,069 2,630

Less: Gross Outlays (1,436,750) (64,644) (1,503,973) (2,579)

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (5,772) (548) (53) (6,373)

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (35,985) - (35,985) - 

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Fiscal Year (139,421) 17,188 (121,561) 672 

Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period - by Component:

Unpaid Obligations 305,037 17,188 322,897 672 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (444,458) - (444,458) - 

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Fiscal Year (139,421) 17,188 672 (121,561)

Net Outlays:

Gross Outlays 1,436,750 64,644 1,503,973 2,579

Less: Offsetting Receipts (443,660) (71,652) (515,312) -

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts - - (1,796) (1,796)

Net Outlays $ 993,090 (7,008) 986,865 783 
139 Required Supplementary Information— SBR by Major Budget Accounts

 Financial Information

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Year Ended September 30, 2007

(in thousands)

Fund 0804 Fund 4556

Other

Budgetary

Accounts

Restated

2007

Budgetary Resources (Notes 14 and 17):

Unobligated Balance:

Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 294,404 71,899 1,092 367,395

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 7,018 769 15 7,802

Budget Authority:

Appropriations Received 988,050 - 2,809 990,859

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:

Earned:

Collected 452,161 71,232 523,393 - 

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources (17,224) - (17,224) - 

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:

Advance Received (2,007) - - (2,007)

Without Advance from Federal Sources 229 - - 229

Total Budget Authority 1,421,209 71,232 1,495,250 2,809

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net 6,159 - - 6,159

Permanently Not Available (6,669) - - (6,669)

Total Budgetary Resources $ 1,722,121 143,900 1,869,937 3,916

Status of Budgetary Resources:

Obligations Incurred:

Direct $ 995,825 - 3,233 999,058

Reimbursable 429,335 59,247 488,582 - 

Total Obligations Incurrred 1,425,160 59,247 1,487,640 3,233

Unobligated Balance:

Apportioned 276,236 84,653 361,572 683 

Unobligated Balance Not Available 20,725 - 20,725 - 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 1,722,121 143,900 1,869,937 3,916

Obligated Balance:

Obligated Balance, Net:

Unpaid Obligations, Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 290,376 15,117 292 305,785

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources,

 Beginning of Fiscal Year (425,468) - (425,468) -

Total Unpaid Obligated Balances, Net, Beginning of Fiscal Year (135,092) 15,117 292 (119,683)

Obligations Incurred 1,425,160 59,247 1,487,640 3,233

Less: Gross Outlays (1,409,588) (60,025) (1,472,449) (2,836)

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (7,018) (769) (15) (7,802)

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 16,995 - 16,995 - 

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Fiscal Year (109,543) 13,570 (95,299) 674 

Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period - by Component:

Unpaid Obligations 298,931 13,570 313,175 674 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (408,474) - (408,474) - 

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Fiscal Year (109,543) 13,570 674 (95,299)

Net Outlays:

Gross Outlays 1,409,588 60,025 1,472,449 2,836

Less: Offsetting Receipts (450,154) (71,232) (521,386) -

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts - - (2,401) (2,401)

Net Outlays $ 959,434 (11,207) 948,662 435 
140 Required Supplemental Information— Deferred Maintenance

 Financial Information 

T

he Office of Management Services (OMS) at the 

USGS provides for safe, functional, and highquality workspace for accomplishing the bureau’s 

science mission and ensuring that workspaces are 

maintained in compliance with applicable safety and 

other standards set by GSA and the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration. 

The USGS has key science facilities that are mission 

critical, including those that are fundamental to 

providing timely warnings of geologic hazards, as well 

as scientific understanding and technologies needed 

to support the sound management and conservation 

of the Nation’s biological, energy, water, and mineral 

resources. The USGS is committed to improving the 

maintenance of existing facilities to ensure the health 

and safety of the public and employees, protection of 

cultural and natural resources, and compliance with 

building codes and standards. 

The USGS developed a “Five-Year Deferred 

Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan” to provide 

necessary up-keep on property and equipment and 

to provide facilities that will best fulfill our mission. 

Deferred maintenance is work that was not performed 

when it was or should have been scheduled, often 

because of funding or priority ranking of work, and was 

thus delayed to a future period. Capital improvements 

include the construction of new facilities or the 

alteration of an existing facility to accommodate a 

change of function or unmet programmatic need. All 

capital improvement components of projects were 

excluded from the estimate in this report. 

The Five-Year Plan is re-evaluated annually pursuant 

to the budget process and is subject to adjustments 

at that time depending on funding levels and revised 

priorities. 

Estimations on deferred maintenance are based on 

condition assessment surveys that are conducted 

every 5 years at each USGS site to determine the 

current condition of facilities and the estimated cost 

to correct deficiencies. These surveys are conducted 

by an independent architect/engineering firm and are 

supplemented by annual condition surveys performed 

by USGS personnel. These installation-wide, building 

specific assessments are the linchpin of the DOI 

program to establish core data on the condition of the 

Department’s constructed assets. 

The FY2010 budget formulation process was used to 

establish the base from which the FY2008 deferred 

maintenance priority listing was derived. OMS, 

which formulates the bureau’s deferred maintenance 

budget, collected project proposals from regional and 

headquarters facilities projects for possible inclusion 

in the bureau plan for FY2009 – FY2013, which were 

then ranked to reflect the criticality of the health 

and safety deficiencies being addressed. A project 

that addressed a critical health and safety deferred 

maintenance need received a higher ranking than one 

addressing a critical mission deferred maintenance 

need. Teams of regional and headquarters facility and 

safety specialists reviewed the ranked proposals to 

confirm the accuracy of rankings and otherwise ensure 

the adequacy of the project proposals. Due to funding 

constraints, The USGS addresses the most critical 

maintenance and capital improvement needs first.

A summary of the USGS deferred maintenance 

estimate at September 30, 2008, is reflected below. 

The method used to calculate this estimate was 

modified in FY2008. The USGS now estimates deferred 

maintenance to an accuracy level of minus 15 percent 

to plus 25 percent of the facility maintenance backlog. 

This revision was directed by Interior management with 

input from OMB to ensure deferred maintenance is 

consistently estimated among Interior bureaus.

(in thousands)

Low High

Buildings $ 29,657 43,613

Other Structures 11,427 16,804

Total $ 41,084 60,417
141 Required Supplementary Information— General Stewardship Information

 Financial Information

T

he USGS serves the citizens of the United 

States as steward for a large, varied, and 

scientifically important body of heritage assets, 

and in conducting research and development 

that is critical to the health of our country and in 

understanding the Earth. Each year the USGS makes a 

substantial investment while fulfilling its stewardship 

responsibilities for the benefit of the Nation.

Costs associated with stewardship initiatives are 

treated as expenses in the financial statements in 

the year the costs are incurred. However, these 

investments in stewardship are intended to provide 

long-term benefits to the public and are included 

as Required Supplementary Information (RSI) 

reporting to highlight their long-term-benefit nature 

and to demonstrate our accountability over them. 

Stewardship resources are not required to be included 

in the assets reported in our financial statements; 

they are, however, important to understanding the 

operations and financial condition of USGS. 

Stewardship assets often have physical properties 

that resemble those of the general property, plant, 

and equipment that is traditionally capitalized in the 

financial statements of Federal entities. However, 

due to the nature of these assets, valuation would be 

difficult and matching costs with specific periods would 

not be meaningful. Heritage assets have one or more 

of the following characteristics: historical or natural 

significance; special cultural, educational, or aesthetic 

value; or significant architectural characteristics. 

USGS has heritage assets in two categories: museum 

collections and scientific library collections. The 

mission-related importance of these assets is 

described in the following pages.

Making science fun is the first requirement 

when communicating science to youngsters. 

Science Camp, a partnership between the 

USGS and Reston Association, offers 8-to12-year-old children an opportunity to meet 

scientists, participate in science experiments, 

learn and practice new computer skills, create 

a newspaper, take field trips, and participate in 

swimming, boating, crafts, and sports. Science 

Camp demonstrates the many exciting scientific 

activities in which the USGS is involved. 

Meeting real scientists and specialists working 

at the USGS is a vital part of our camp program, 

providing opportunities for children to think 

about pursuing a career in science.
142 Required Supplementary Information— Museum Collections

 Financial Information 

T

he USGS museum collections are intimately 

associated with the lands, cultural, and 

natural resources for which the USGS shares 

stewardship responsibilities as a bureau within 

the Department of the Interior. The USGS museum 

collections are divided into two major categories: 

historical and zoology.

Historical Collections:

The USGS manages hundreds of historical objects 

that are loaned to other institutions for exhibits and 

placed on exhibit in the USGS National Center in 

Reston, VA, hallways or lobbies in regional offices, and 

science centers around the country. These collections 

are evidence of the resources, events, and people 

associated with USGS activities, and are studied by 

historians and scientists alike.

Our collection includes many special objects related to 

the cultural history of the USGS, including a hat worn 

by geologist Levi Noble while attending the 3rd PanPacific Science Congress held in Tokyo, Japan, in 1927; 

oil paintings of many historical figures; a 1930 Model 

A Ford (pictured below) used to successfully map the 

geology of California deserts through the 1960s; and the 

Lunar Rover used in the southwestern deserts to train 

astronauts in the lunar landing program through the 

1970s. The USGS had previously loaned the lunar rover 

to NASA to conduct space suit ergonomic studies, 

fuel-cell power system studies, and vehicle operational 

capability studies in advance of NASA’s planned Mars 

exploration.

Other interesting objects in the collection include 

John Wesley Powell’s commission, one of the few 

documents signed by President James A. Garfield, 

appointing Powell as the second director of the USGS; 

an oak arm chair used by John Wesley Powell in his 

office when he served as the USGS director from 

1881 to 1894; geologic field mapping equipment from 

Arnold Hague’s late 19th Century expedition to map 

Yellowstone National Park; a field desk used in the 

American West shortly after the turn of the century; and 

Director Thomas Nolan’s field equipment and academic 

robe from St. Andrew’s University in Scotland.

Zoology Collections:

Our zoology objects, which represent over 40,000 

natural specimens, are housed at the Biological 

Research Arid Lands Field Station of the Fort Collins 

Science Center. These zoological specimens were 

collected to document the status of the environment 

on our public lands. A USGS wildlife research biologist 

and USGS zoology museum specialist stationed at the 

University of New Mexico’s Museum of Southwestern 

Biology maintain this collection under a joint agreement 

between the USGS and the University of New Mexico 

at Albuquerque.

Of primary importance in our collection is the unique 

natural history collection of vertebrates that were 

used in support of food habit studies by researchers 

at the USDA’s Food Habits Laboratory in Denver, CO. 

Transferred to Fort Collins in the mid-1970s and then 

to the University of New Mexico in the 1990s, this 

collection (pictured on next page) includes over 8,000 

fluid-preserved specimens of amphibians and reptiles, 

as well as mammal and avian skeletons and skins. 

Specimens have continued to be acquired as a result of 

the research emphasis to document mammal species 

from public lands in the West.

Condition Evaluations:

Cataloging efforts have also been a priority within the 

USGS, as 100 percent of our museum collections have 

been catalogued. During the cataloging process, the 

USGS evaluates the condition of each collection object. 

“Good” is considered to show little or no sign of aging 

or wear; “fair” applies to objects that are showing 

signs of deterioration such as faded color of fabric or 

1930 Model A Ford used to map the deserts of California
143 Required Supplementary Information— Museum Collections

 Financial Information

Public Information:

The public has been granted access to view these 

collections through a new Web site (www.usgs.

gov/aboutusgs/who_we_are/museum) and can visit 

the USGS facilities to see them on exhibit. During 

FY2008, the USGS responded to dozens of requests for 

information on our museum collections. 

wood, and “poor” objects that have missing parts or 

are extremely worn. Additions to the collection in the 

current year were transferred within the USGS. No 

deferred maintenance is necessary for our museum 

collections.

The USGS also evaluates the condition of the 

locations housing the collections in accordance with 

Departmental guidelines. The evaluation is based on a 

lengthy list of conditions. Regarding the non-storage 

facilities housing our collections, a good condition 

rating means it met more than 70% of standards in 

Departmental Manual Chapter 411, Museum Property. 

Per Department policy, the condition of storage 

facilities is not required to be assessed.

The following chart presents the condition assessments 

of the USGS facilities housing museum collections as of 

September 30, 2008:

Museum collections Good Fair Poor Unkn

Held at USGS facilities - 3 - 3 

Held at non-USGS facilities 2 - - - 

Fluid-preserved amphibian and reptile specimans storage

USGS personnel evaluating the condition of natural specimans
144 Required Supplementary Information— Library Collections

 Financial Information 

T

he USGS is steward to a large, unique, and 

diversified collection of library holdings. The 

library materials are acquired from extensive 

exchange agreements with institutions and agencies 

worldwide, from research projects, and purchases from 

a wide variety of publishers and institutions.

Since its beginning, the library has administered a 

major program of international and domestic exchange 

of earth science publications authorized by the 

legislation that established the USGS. The exchange 

program, with national and foreign geological surveys 

and research organizations, has enabled the library 

to collect materials published in small numbers, never 

widely distributed, and never reprinted. 

While responding to the current and anticipated 

subject interests of USGS researchers, such as those 

in ecology, geology, hydrology, health, and biology, the 

library maintains its heritage collection of core science 

publications dating back to the 17th century, providing 

a unique historical record of the progress of natural 

science. Besides providing resources for scientific 

investigations, the library’s multi-disciplinary collection 

provides access to geographical, technical, and 

historical literature in paper and electronic formats for 

the general public and industry. 

Library users bring their questions to the library daily, 

in person or by phone or e-mail, and expert librarians 

assist them in using the wealth of well-organized 

information to find answers. 

During a century of collecting, the library has acquired 

many treasures such as the George F. Kunz collection. 

George F. Kunz was a former employee of the USGS, a 

vice-president of Tiffany & Co., and one of the world’s 

preeminent gem experts at the time of his death in 1932. 

The Kunz collection includes rare books on gemology, 

the lapidary arts, the folklore of gemstones through 

history, and archival gem trade records, including the 

original provenance of the Hope diamond. 

Another unusual acquisition was the group of books 

and maps known as the Heringen collection. These 

military geology texts and maps were looted by the 

Nazis from European libraries, including Russia, and 

hidden in a potash mine in Heringen, Heese, Germany. 

At the end of World War II they were transported by the 

U.S. military to the United States and are now part of 

the USGS library.

The map collections include an archival and working 

collection of USGS topographical maps, plus thematic 

and topographical maps of the United States and 

the World. These maps have provided invaluable 

aid to authorities and scientists in times of disasters 

and military interventions. Maps, photographs, and 

literature in the USGS library have provided evidence to 

solve boundary disputes and water rights litigation, to 

trace geographic names, and to research natural and 

man-made changes in an area over time.

Our Field Records collection in Denver includes 

items such as field notes, field maps and sketches, 

and project-related correspondence created or 

collected by USGS scientists during official project 

work. The Photographic Archive provides the public 

with access to over 19,000 photographs and original 

sketches dating from 1868 to the present. Additionally, 

the USGS maintains a collection of over 500,000 

photographs taken during geologic studies of the U.S. 

and its territories dating from 1868 to present. Some 

photographs have been used to illustrate publications, 

but most have never been published.

The Library supports the research of the DOI and other 

government agencies, universities, and professional 

communities. Libraries throughout the world, including 

the largest and most renowned, borrow from our 

library’s unique collection. The USGS library has loaned 

The reception desk at the National Center Library in Reston, Virginia.
145 Required Supplementary Information— Library Collections

 Financial Information

scientific publications and objects to thousands of 

libraries in every State and in over 37 foreign countries 

that were public, State, Federal, nonprofit, company, 

and academic libraries. Although not defined by 

Congress as a national library, the library is recognized 

as the premier national collection of geologic and 

hydrologic publications, supplementing the Nation’s 

large library collections in major universities and 

government agencies. 

Condition Evaluations:

Careful consideration is given to assessing the 

condition of the facilities housing the USGS library 

collections. The USGS evaluates the condition of the 

facilities in accordance with Departmental guidelines. 

Those guidelines require the use of the national 

Information Standards Organization’s “Environmental 

Guidelines for the Storage of Paper Records” 

(NISO TR01-1995) as the official standards for the 

measurement of the physical condition of our facilities. 

The standards address four primary considerations 

in the storage of paper documents; temperature 

and relative humidity, exposure to light, gaseous 

contaminants, and particulates. Acceptable levels in 

each of the four areas are specified as well as overall 

condition assessment ratings when the four areas are 

combined. A Fair rating is achieved when 50% of the 

standards are met. Under these guidelines all four 

of the USGS library facilities are reported as Fair. No 

deferred maintenance is necessary for our library 

collections. 

The following chart presents the condition assessments 

of the USGS library facilities as of September 30, 2008:

Library Facilities Good Fair Poor

National Center 1 - -

Denver Branch 1 - -

Flagstaff Branch 1 - -

Menlo Park Branch 1 - -

Map collection at the National Center Library in Reston, Virginia.
USGS scientists conducting a geophysical survey on the Dunard Creek in Pennsylvania.
147

Required 

Supplementary 

Stewardship

Information

(Unaudited; see Independent

Auditors’ Report)

This part of the Section III Financial 

Information contains our required 

supplementary stewardship information 

disclosures.

Contents include:

Research and Development Investments...................................148
148 Required Supplementary Stewardship Information— Research and Development

 Financial Information 

T

he USGS is the earth and natural science 

research bureau of the Department and the 

only integrated natural science bureau in the 

Federal government. By combining biology, geology, 

hydrology, and geography in one agency, the USGS 

is uniquely positioned to provide science information 

and conduct scientific research that ensures an 

integrated approach to advance scientific knowledge 

and utilize the latest technologies to provide timely 

answers and products, and improve the quality of life 

for the communities we serve. The USGS research 

and data products support the Department’s resource 

and land management needs and provide the science 

information needed by other Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local government agencies to guide planning, 

management, and regulatory programs.

The USGS reviews Research and Development (R&D) 

investments and weighs the value of existing programs 

against changing needs and priorities. The Director 

prioritizes new initiatives on the basis of the following 

criteria: interdisciplinary science; collaboration 

and partnerships with Department bureaus, other 

government agencies, and universities (relevance, 

first of OMB’s three R&D investment criteria); results 

of program evaluations; and demonstration of progress 

toward meeting the Department’s performance (second 

of three OMB R&D criteria) goals and objectives. 

The Director then selects from among the prioritized 

initiatives those that can be accommodated within the 

funding target. 

Peer review has been the quality (third OMB R&D 

criteria) standard for USGS scientific publications and a 

documented component of USGS policy throughout our 

129-year history. Our programs are cyclically evaluated 

to ensure the quality and timeliness of our science. The 

evaluations not only improve the accountability and 

quality of programs, but also identify and address gaps 

in programs; redirect or reaffirm program directions; 

identify and provide guidance for development of new 

programs; and review and (or) motivate managers and 

scientists. All of USGS programs evaluated by OMB’s 

PART process have received a “moderately effective” 

rating or better. 

Investments in research and development are 

expenses incurred to support the search for new or 

refined knowledge and ideas, the application or use 

of such knowledge and ideas, and the development 

of new or improved products or processes with the 

expectation of maintaining or increasing national 

economic productive capacity or yielding other future 

benefits.

In accordance with OMB Circular No. A-11, USGS 

research activities are classified as basic, applied, or 

developmental research. A definition of each of the 

categories is below.

Basic – defines activities as systematic studies 

directed toward fuller knowledge or understanding 

of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of 

observable facts without specific applications toward 

processes or products in mind.

Applied – defines activities as systematic studies 

to gain knowledge or understanding necessary for 

determining the means by which a recognized and 

specific need may be met.

Developmental – defines activities as systematic 

application of knowledge or understanding, directed 

toward the production of useful materials, devices, and 

systems or methods, including design, development, 

and improvement of prototypes and new processes to 

meet specific requirements.

Our science is being used more and more in decision 

making, and this is essential to our success in 

demonstrating relevance. That doesn’t mean that all 

of what we do needs to be applied; as former Director 

Walter C. Mendenhall said, “There can be no applied 

science unless there is science to apply.” 

Research and development activities are a vital part of 

work performed in accomplishing our mission.

Summary Information:

Total research and development investments were $765 

and $755 million during FY2008 and FY2007, respectively.

A summary table reflecting R&D stewardship 

investments by GPRA goal is presented at right.
149 Required Supplementary Stewardship Information— Research and Development

 Financial Information

DOI Mission Areas, End Outcome Goals, and R&D Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Resource Protection 

Improve the understanding of National ecosystems and resources 

through integrated interdisciplinary assessment

$

Data not available by GPRA end outcome goals.

 Basic research 60 54 33 46

 Applied research 550 489 487 519

 Developmental research 51 61 68 45

Total Resource Protection 661 604 588 610

Resource Use

Improve the understanding of energy and mineral resources 

to promote responsible use and sustain the Nation’s dynamic 

economy

 Basic research 15 14 16 16

 Applied research 63 58 64 66

 Developmental research 1 - 1 1

Total Resource Use 79 72 81 83

Serving Communities

Improve the understanding, prediction, and monitoring of natural 

hazards to inform decisions by civil authorities and the public to 

plan for, manage, and mitigate the effects of hazard events on 

people and property

 Basic research 4 4 14 3

 Applied research 45 42 67 43

 Developmental research 20 20 5 26

Total Serving Communities 69 66 86 72

Total research and development

 Basic research 71 79 72 63 65

 Applied research 740 658 589 618 628

 Developmental research 72 72 81 74 72

Total $ 883 809 742 755 765
150 Required Supplementary Stewardship Information— Research and Development

 Financial Information 

scientists are developing new lab methods to 

measure environmental levels of contaminants and 

applying these methods to provide information on 

their environmental occurrence and behavior that 

is key to assessment of potential health effects and 

establishment of priorities for additional research. 

USGS scientists: (1) developed methods to measure 

the pharmaceutical antidepressants called Selective 

Seronin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs); (2) developed 

methods to measure the fungicide chlorothalonil and 

three of its environmental degradation byproducts in 

sediments, and then applied these methods to field 

studies in Texas and Oklahoma; and (3) measured 

the occurrence of pyrethroid insecticides in bed 

and suspended stream sediments in California. The 

publications presenting this information, as well as 

information on other new methods and environmental 

data, are available on the Internet at http://toxics.usgs.

gov.

The National Atlas Delivers the World

The USGS staff of The National Atlas of the United 

States of America® has compiled new, more detailed 

sets of basic digital cartographic data covering 

America. These new frameworks (fundamental map 

information) serve as the basis of an innovative suite of 

geospatial information products that promote national 

self-awareness and greater geographic understanding 

through nationalatlas.gov. All of this new data directly 

facilitates national, continental, even worldwide 

investigations and specifically supports all aspects of 

the USGS Science Strategy.

These new data were compiled for use in national, 

continental, and global applications at a scale of 

1:1,000,000. They replace earlier frameworks that had 

been produced at 1:2,000,000-scale. These data satisfy 

a United States obligation to the International Steering 

Committee for Global Map and serve as fundamental 

layers in a new Atlas of North America. The Global 

Map assists resource managers, environmental 

planners, and public policy decisionmakers as 

they seek solutions to global sustainability and 

environmental challenges.

The data sets include revised: surface waters, roads, 

railroads, airports, population centers, national 

boundaries, international boundaries, and county 

Below are output and outcome examples of how our 

research and development activities demonstrate 

results that are consistent with their intended purpose, 

and highlights from each science discipline’s FY2008 

research and development activities describing the 

research program. 

Additional outputs and outcomes demonstrating results 

that are consistent with the intended research program 

purpose beyond the examples provided are presented 

in Section II: Performance Data and 

Analysis – Performance Measure Results. 

Basic Research Outputs and Outcomes

Geologic Framework of Rio Grande Basins

USGS geologic and geophysical studies in basins of the 

Rio Grande rift of New Mexico and Colorado provide 

important information for scientific management 

of natural resources in several locations. South of 

Albuquerque, N.Mex., a new 1:50,000-scale geologic 

map provides natural resource information for 

environmental officers for management of Tribal lands 

of the Isleta Pueblo (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2913/). 

In the Espanola basin near Santa Fe, N.Mex., USGS 

geophysicists and geologists developed threedimensional geology models of the southern Espanola 

basin in collaboration with scientists from the New 

Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources 

and Los Alamos National Laboratory. These geology 

models have been incorporated into ground-water 

management models developed by consulting firms 

(CDM, Interra) for the City and the County of Santa 

Fe. In southern Colorado, new reports and geologic 

maps provide information defining ancient Lake 

Alamosa within the San Luis basin (http://pubs.usgs.

gov/sim/2963/). Results of the studies, presented at a 

February 2008 Colorado Field Institute lecture series 

at Alamosa, Colo., garnered strong interest from local 

residents, as well as from academic researchers and 

land management agencies, such as the BLM and NPS.

USGS, the Source of Environmental Information on 

New Contaminants

As part of continuing efforts to provide information 

on new and understudied contaminants to resource 

managers, regulators, and the public, USGS 
151 Required Supplementary Stewardship Information— Research and Development

 Financial Information

boundaries. These were produced to specifications of 

the National Atlas, the Atlas of North America, and the 

Global Map. Specific products include the following:

•	 individual shapefiles (a common format supported 

by desktop mapping and geographic information 

systems) for all map layers to meet Atlas and Global 

Map standards;

•	 trilingual documentation that adheres to 

international and Federal Geographic Data 

Committee standards;

•	 Web map services that comply with Open 

Geospatial Consortium standards for openness and 

access; 

•	 a separate, fully networked cartographic 

database of America’s surface waters that retains 

information about streamflow and direction; and

•	 another new dataset at 1:10,000,000 scale that 

delineates the watersheds of North America.

The USGS has bilateral agreements in place with 

Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics, Geography, 

and Informatics and with the Atlas of Canada to 

collaboratively produce an atlas of North America. 

The Bureau’s initial data offerings were compiled and 

documented at a scale of 1:10,000,000. Completion of 

these new frameworks enables the creation of a new 

continental dataset of much greater detail. In 1996, 

the United States made a commitment to support the 

international global map effort, wherein each nation 

would produce digital cartographic frameworks using 

a single, shared set of specifications, also at 1:1,000,000 

scale. The National Atlas of the United States® 

assumed responsibility for this endeavor in 2007 and 

delivered all new data in 2008.

National Atlas of the United States® and The National 

Atlas of the United States of America® are registered 

trademarks of the United States Department of the 

Interior.

USGS Supports Geographic Names Projects

The USGS provides Secretariat and staff support to 

the interagency U.S. Board on Geographic Names, 

and its Domestic Names, and Antarctic Names 

Advisory Committees. This entails overall guidance on 

policy matters, research on individual feature name 

proposals, leading the U.S. delegation at International 

Conferences on applied toponymy, and all aspects of 

conducting the various monthly and quarterly meetings. 

In 2008, the USGS concluded a 4-year contract 

to collect administrative features, buildings, and 

structures within the footprints of the top 46 of 133 

urban areas, with over 70,000 new feature names being 

added to the Geographic Names Information System 

(GNIS), the names layer of The National Map, helping 

enhance homeland security and emergency response.

In 2008, the USGS completed a project with the U.S. 

Census Bureau to verify, synchronize, and recode 

incorporated places and populated places, thereby 

providing a link between GNIS and the Tiger file for 

those records for harmonizing current and future 

standardization efforts and maintenance. 

Interagency Cooperation in support of using the 

USGS National Hydrography Dataset, the USGS 

has developed a tool called ICWater (Incident 

Command Tool for Protecting Drinking Water) that 

quickly provides incident commanders with critical 

information for directing first responders to protect 

the public during spill emergencies. The tool covers 

all 50 States at 1:100,000 scale and draws on EPA’s 

inventory of all public drinking-water intakes that use 

surface water. This tool integrates the RiverSpill tool, 

Early efforts to align U.S. surface-water features with Canadian 

streams and water bodies. Source: National Atlas of the United 

States®.
152 Required Supplementary Stewardship Information— Research and Development

 Financial Information 

initially developed by EPA, with the USGS’ Real-time 

Streamgaging Network, called NWISWeb (http://

waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). ICWater rapidly analyzes 

the downstream flow of hazardous materials and 

produces maps and reports that are readily usable by a 

broad range of incident responders. The tool contains 

a database of levels of concern for over 300 chemical, 

biological, and radioactive toxic agents and predicts 

the path that contaminants will follow downstream 

from a spill to surface water. Drinking-water intakes 

are identified, and the time-of-travel to the intakes is 

calculated. The tool also estimates the concentration 

of the contaminant at the intake and compares it with 

the level of concern for human consumption. The tool 

uses a special form of the NHD called the NHDPlus, 

which contains value-added attributes providing 

estimated streamflow and velocity estimates. ICWater 

is being distributed to Federal, State, and local 

government agencies by the Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency (DTRA), which also sponsors training courses 

on its use. 

An Improved Understanding of National Geothermal 

Resource Potential

In 2006, in support of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(P.L. 109-58 §226), the USGS began a 3-year project to 

produce a new national assessment of geothermal 

resources capable of producing electric power, 

with a focus on the western United States, including 

Alaska and Hawaii. (For more information on USGS 

science in response to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

please visit the following Web site: http://energy.usgs.

gov/energypolicyact2005). A partnership with the 

DOE, BLM, National Laboratories, universities, State 

agencies, and a consortium of the geothermal industry 

underpins the USGS geothermal resource assessment.

The USGS geothermal resource assessment is focused 

on the moderate and high temperature geothermal 

resources capable of generating electricity and will 

highlight geothermal energy resources located on 

public lands. The USGS geothermal assessment 

will include a detailed estimate of electrical-powergeneration potential and an evaluation of the major 

technological challenges and environmental effects 

of increased geothermal development. A summary 

report of the assessment findings was delivered to 

Congress in 2008. Support products include online 

geospatial databases of regional and system-specific 

geological, geophysical, geochemical, and hydrological 

information relevant to geothermal resources, as well 

as research publications.

This information resulting from this assessment effort 

will be utilized by energy agencies, Federal and State 

land and resource managers, industry and academia, 

and also the international energy community, as this 

assessment will also satisfy one of the U.S. Government 

pledges (“geothermal resource studies”) made to 

the Secretariat of REN21 (Renewable Energy Policy 

Network for the 21st Century (REN21), available on 

the Internet at http://www.ren21.net/wiap/detail.

asp?id=151, a global policy network that provides a 

forum for international leadership on renewable energy. 

Applied Research Outputs and Outcomes

Maui County Invasive Pest Early Detection Project 

Goes Public

The Hawaiian Islands are in the midst of an attack 

of invasive species that threaten the State’s unique 

plants and animals, costs millions in agricultural and 

tourism losses, as well as pose a threat to human 

health. As part of a comprehensive statewide plan to 

address invasive pest issues, the early detection of 

new infestations of known invasive plants and animals 

before they become established is considered a critical 

step to preventing costly long-term management 

problems. A new tool (http://pbin.nbii.gov/reportapest/

maui/) has been introduced to help support countywide 

teams of individuals to search for new invaders. 

The online tool and supporting Web site allows the 

public and other collaborators to learn about the most 

threatening, incipient pests to be on the alert for, 

to submit reports of pests found, and to have those 

findings assessed and passed on to the appropriate 

agency for rapid response. 

The USGS is collaborating with the Hawaii Invasive 

Species Council and the Maui Invasive Species 

Committee to engage the public in the search for 

plants and animals that are known to negatively impact 

neighboring islands. In 2008, 15 community pestidentification workshops and educational presentations 

were held, and a 60 page full-color field guide, Web 

site, and an online system for reporting suspect 
153 Required Supplementary Stewardship Information— Research and Development

 Financial Information

organisms have been created to support the flourishing 

early detection network in Maui County. Statewide 

partners are using this educational outreach to engage 

the public as “the eyes and ears of Maui.” The online 

reporting database acts as a conduit for reports among 

interagency entities involved in invasive species 

management throughout the State. A 2008 gap analysis 

of statewide early detection programs will further guide 

efforts in 2009 to implement similar approaches in other 

Hawaiian counties (islands).

Statewide partners are using this educational outreach 

tool to engage the public as “the eyes and ears of 

Maui.” Fifteen workshops and a 60-page pamphlet 

assist the public in the identification and reporting of 

target species (defined by the Maui County Invasive 

Species Committee as species of high risk). Soon 

after the first workshop, the first two alien species 

reports were received and appropriate rapid response 

was conducted. These efforts led to the eradication 

of the last known occurrence of Macaranga mappa 

(Bingabing) on Maui. The online reporting database 

acts as a conduit for reports among interagency 

entities involved in invasive species management 

throughout the State. The State is interested in 

expanding the system to other Hawaiian counties to 

create a statewide system beginning in 2009. 

Science for CERCLA: USGS Contributions to DOI 

Damage Assessment and Restoration Program

The DOI Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

and Restoration Program authorized under 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), restores 

DOI trust resources that were injured as a result of 

oil spills or the release of hazardous substances into 

the environment. In partnership with State, tribal, and 

Federal trustee agencies (including FWS, NPS, BLM, 

BOR, and BIA), USGS scientists have been and are 

currently involved in over 50 cases. Settlement funds 

from NRDAR cases provide trustees with the ability to 

restore populations and habitat. For example, in 2008, 

scientists from the Columbia Environmental Research 

Center and the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 

provided expert witness and rebuttal reports that were 

instrumental in reaching successful resolution of two 

cases. The expert testimony and reports were based 

on scientific information on the exposure and effects of 

contaminants on DOI trust species, developed in USGS 

laboratories and at the sites. DOI will use settlements 

in excess of $85 million to restore natural resources 

in the Southeast Missouri Mining District and Tristate 

Mining District of Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas. 

Cooperative Water Program – Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery Projects

USGS scientists recharged water through 400 feet of 

Mojave Desert soil to demonstrate the feasibility of 

using deep ground-water basins to help ensure the 

long-term sustainability of regional water supplies. 

The new findings, published in the May 2008 issue of 

the scientific journal “Ground Water,” demonstrated 

that aquifer storage and recovery techniques could be 

applied to these deep ground-water basins previously 

thought unavailable for municipal water storage. A 

Victorville, California Council Member noted that 

“recharging our basins is critical to our future. We have 

to think beyond traditional answers and take advantage 

of scientific strategies to provide the needed water 

for our growing region.” The Mojave Aquifer Storage 

and Recovery (ASR) project is just one example 

of numerous ASR studies that the USGS is jointly 

conducting with municipalities and regional water 

authorities to provide the scientific information needed 

to assess the feasibility of this innovative water-supply 

strategy. ASR, also commonly called “water reuse,” 

typically entails injecting or infiltrating surplus surface 

water into ground-water aquifers where it is stored 

for withdrawal during periods of water shortage. ASR 

is often a cost-effective and environmentally sound 

alternative to building dams and reservoirs for water 

All certified pest busters receive a Maui invasive pest field guide.
154 Required Supplementary Stewardship Information— Research and Development

 Financial Information 

storage, and ASR allows communities the ability to 

store water in areas where dam sites are unavailable. 

USGS science is important for understanding the 

physical and chemical characteristics of both the 

source water and the regional aquifer system to assess 

the feasibility and optimal design of an ASR project.

Assessing Societal Vulnerability to Tsunamis

As the 2004 Indian Ocean disaster demonstrated, 

tsunamis are significant threats to the safety, 

economic well-being, and natural resources of coastal 

communities. Although high-hazard areas have been 

identified for tsunamis in many parts of the United 

States, little is known on potential impacts of these 

tsunamis to coastal communities. Understanding 

societal vulnerability to tsunamis is critical if publicand private-sector decisionmakers are to reduce 

risks and increase the resilience of threatened 

coastal communities. Through innovative uses of 

GIS technology and workshops, USGS researchers 

are helping local and State managers and the public 

understand community vulnerability to tsunamis. 

Results from this applied research indicate that there 

are tens of thousands of people who live, work, and 

play in areas prone to tsunami inundation from various 

seismic sources. These areas also contain critical 

infrastructure and significant portions of local and 

regional economies. These studies are the first in the 

Nation to summarize regional variations in community 

vulnerability to tsunamis. USGS researchers have 

worked in collaboration with State emergencymanagement offices to provide geographic information 

that helps local officials make informed and realistic 

decisions on mitigation, outreach, preparedness, 

response, and recovery strategies for increasing 

community resilience to tsunami threats. USGS 

researchers have briefed local and State managers 

and State-level tsunami working groups in Hawaii, 

Oregon, and Washington. Results of the Oregon study 

were featured in an article in The Oregonian (Portland 

daily newspaper) and are being used by city, county, 

and State emergency managers and land managers 

to develop mitigation plans and to develop emergency 

operation plans. For example, results of the Hawaii 

study were incorporated into the recently updated 

State of Hawaii Hazard Mitigation Plan. Developing 

and applying new approaches for understanding 

community vulnerability to natural hazards helps the 

Nation improve its ability to reduce risk and increase 

resilience. 

Improving the Understanding of Global Petroleum 

Resources – the Circum-Arctic Petroleum Resource 

Appraisal

An improved understanding of the potential resources 

of the Arctic, an area of tremendous resource potential, 

environmental sensitivity, technological risk, and 

geological uncertainty, is critical to the understanding 

of natural resources and of future energy supplies 

for the United States and the world. A large part of 

remaining global oil and gas resources is thought to 

exist in the high northern latitudes of Russia, Norway, 

Greenland, United States, and Canada. However, the 

quality, quantity, and distribution of these resources 

are insufficiently known and understood in many 

areas. The primary objective of the current USGS 

Circum-Arctic petroleum Resource Appraisal (CARA) 

effort, conducted in collaboration with several 

U.S. and international entities, is to produce a new 

comprehensive, unbiased probabilistic estimate of 

undiscovered petroleum resources in the high northern 

latitudes. 

For the first time, in 2008, the USGS CARA provided an 

estimate of the undiscovered petroleum resources of 

the Circum-Arctic in the public domain. The approach 

used in the CARA study is compatible with that utilized 

in the USGS World Petroleum Assessment 2000 and 

subsequent petroleum assessments, and will augment 

the understanding of the global petroleum resource 

Land-cover maps (NLCD 2001) showing tsunami-inundation zones 

for the (A) City of Lakeside, (B) City of Newport, and (C) City of 

Seaside, Oregon.
155 Required Supplementary Stewardship Information— Research and Development

 Financial Information

endowment. The USGS has completed and released 

separate assessments for several geologic provinces 

from the CARA study, including the East Greenland 

Rift Basins Province, the Laptev Sea Shelf Province, 

North and East Margins of the Siberian Craton, and 

the West Greenland, East Canada Province. These 

results and more information on the USGS CARA study 

are available at http://energy.usgs.gov/arctic/. This 

information is and will be used in energy forecasts, in 

international and domestic energy policy, and by land 

and resource managers of Arctic resources. 

Developmental Research Outputs and Outcomes

Achieving Efficiencies in Seismic Monitoring

To improve the efficiency and performance of the 

California Integrated Seismic Network (a regional 

network within the Advanced National Seismic 

System), the network has begun shifting away from 

data transmission using older, more costly Internetbased technologies to transmission using commercial 

cellular-phone networks. To improve the performance 

of the network, monitoring equipment is also being 

modernized at network sites. In particular, newly 

available instrumentation allows more data processing 

to be done more quickly at individual network sites, 

and for data to be transmitted more quickly to central 

processing sites. This new instrumentation will 

improve the overall performance of the network, and 

solve formerly significant logistical barriers to the 

development of effective early warning systems. The 

USGS upgraded and added stations close to active 

strands of the Southern San Andreas Fault System 

in order to improve delivery of ShakeMap (a product 

of the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program) to rapidly 

growing urban areas, obtain crucial data on groundshaking, and lay groundwork for a prototype early 

warning system.

Improved Caribbean Earthquake and Tsunami 

Warnings

In December 2007, the USGS completed a 3-year 

project to establish a modern earthquake monitoring 

network across the Caribbean region. The 2004 

Sumatra-Andaman earthquake led to development 

of a Presidential initiative to enhance earthquake 

and tsunami monitoring in the Caribbean through 

the installation of seismic stations, Deep Ocean 

Assessment of Reporting Tsunamis (DART) buoys, and 

tide gauges. These stations extend existing coverage 

provided by the Global Seismographic Network (GSN). 

With additional stations installed in 2008 in Spain, 

Mexico, and Kirabati, the GSN will reach its design goal 

of 150 stations worldwide. The USGS also installed the 

first “next generation” data acquisition systems at GSN 

sites in California and New Mexico. This kicked off a 

multiyear process of refreshing the technology of the 

network, to support reliable earthquake alerts in future 

decades.

ShakeCast System Enables Users to Define Earthquake 

Impacts to Their Facilities

The USGS released ShakeCast Version 2, which 

offers improved capabilities for users to overlay USGS 

ShakeMaps with their own inventories of buildings, 

infrastructure, and other facilities. The California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has been 

widely promoting ShakeCast as a post-earthquake 

response tool for utilities, resulting in several key, new 

utility users in California. Caltrans is working on an 

expanded scope for ShakeCast by funding the USGS to 

do further development for allowing liquefaction and 

landslide assessment within ShakeCast. Many other 

new users include national and international business, 

education, responders, and other agencies. To help 

new users, ShakeCast now imports facility-vulnerability 

data directly from Rapid Observation of Vulnerability 

and Estimate of Risk (ROVER), a new software and 

tablet PC system by the Applied Technology Council 

that implements FEMA guidelines for pre-earthquake 

building inspection. A single inspector can quickly 

assess numerous buildings per day, providing a 

ShakeCast user with vulnerability assessments for their 

inventory.
Northern Diamondback Terrapin found while 

performing a gravity survey near Cape Charles, VA.
Section IV

Appendix

Contents

Glossary of Acronyms................................................................................................................... 158
 Appendix

Glossary of Acronyms 158

AAG American Association of Geographers

AAAS American Association for Advancement of Science

ABC/M Activity-Based Costing/Management

ACWI Advisory Commitee on Water Council

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profile

ANSS Advanced National Seismic System

APA American Planning Association

APS Administrative Policy and Services

A/R Accounts Receivable

ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

AVO Alaska Volcano Observatory

BASIS+ Budget and Science Information System

BBS Biology Breeding Survey

BFC Big File Cabinet

BIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices

BNP Biscayne National Park

BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

BRD Biological Resources Discipline

BUR Bureau specific measure

CA Condition Assessment

CAP Cooperative Agreements Program

CARA Circum-Arctic petroleum Resource Appraisal

CBP Chesapeake Bay Program

CD Compact Disc

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act

CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

CIESIN Center for International Earth Science Information 

Network

CINDI Center for Integration of Natural Disaster Information

CISN California Integrated Seismic Network

CLICK Center for LIDAR Information Coordination & Knowledge

CMGP Coastal and Marine Geology Program

COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf 

CPIC Capital Planning and Investment Control

CREW Cascadia Regional Earthquake Workgroup

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System

CTM Cooperative Topographic Mapping

DCIA Debt Collection Improvement Act

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DNR Department of Natural Resources

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DSS Decision Support System

EFT Electronic Funds Transfer

EHP Earthquake Hazards Program

EMS Environment Management Systems

EM Energy Management

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act

ERA Electronic Records Archive

EROS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center

ERP Energy Resources Program

ESN Enterprise Services Network

ETM+ Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus

FAIR Federal Activities Inventory Reform

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

FBMS Financial Business Management System

FBWT Fund Balance with Treasury

FCI Facilities Condition Index

FECA Federal Employee Compensation Act

FEGLI Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance

FEHB Federal Employees’ Health Benefit

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FERS Federal Employees’ Retirement System

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

FICA Federal Insurance Contributions Act

FISC Florida Integrated Science Center

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982

FMMS Facilities Maintenance Management System

FMS U.S. Treasury’s Financial Management Service

FPPS Federal Personnel Processing System

FRPC Federal Real Property Council
 Appendix

Glossary of Acronyms 159

FRPP Federal Real Property Profile 

FS Forest Service

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

FTP File Transfer Protocol

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY Fiscal Year

GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

GAM Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program

GAO Government Accountability Office

Gb Gigabtye

GCP Global Change Program

GIO Geospatial Information Office

GIS Geographic Information System

GNIS Geographic Names Information System

GOS Geospatial One Stop

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GPS Global Positioning Satellite

GSA General Services Administration

GSN Global Seismographic Network

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HVO Hawaiian Volcano Observatory

HPAI Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

HSPD Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12

IAS Inspection and Abatement System

IP Investment Plan

IPANE Invasive Plant Atlas of New England

IRIS Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology

InSAR Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar

JWP John W. Powell

KSAs Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities

IT Information Technology

LEED Leadership Energy and Environment Design

LIDAR Light Detecting and Ranging

LIMA Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica

LHP Landslide Hazard Program

LMV Lower Mississippi Valley

LRS Land Remote Sensing

LTRMP Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program 

LUPM Land Use Portfolio Model

M Million

MD&A Management’s Discussion and Analysis

MITS Management Initiatives Tracking System

MMS Minerals Management Service

MOE Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resourcees

MRERP Mineral Resources External Research Program

MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics

MRP Mineral Resources Program

NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program

NARA National Archives and Records Administration

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment

NBC Dept. of Interior - National Business Center

NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure

NCGMP National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NEIC National Earthquake Information Center

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

NGA National Geospatial Intelligency Agency

NGIC National Geomagnetic Information Center

NHSS Natural Hazards Support System

NHWC National Hydrologic Warning Council

NLCD National Land Cover Database

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS U.S. National Park Service

NRC National Research Council

NRCS National Resouces Conservation Council

NRDAR Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Fund

NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure

NSF National Science Foundation

NSIP National Streamflow Information Program

NVEWS National Volcano Early Warning System

NWIS National Water Information System

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

NWQLC National Water Quality Monitoring Council

NWS National Weather Service

OAFM USGS Office of Accounting and Financial Management

OBP USGS Office of Budget and Performance 

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OMS Office of Management Services

ONSR Ozark National Scenic Riverways Park
 Appendix

Glossary of Acronyms 160

OPM Office of Personnel Management

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

PAR Performance and Accountability Report

PAGER Prompt Assessment for Global Earthquake Response 

System

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool

PB President’s Budget

PGV Peak Ground Velocity

P.L. Public Law

PMA President’s Management Agenda

PP&E Property, Plant, and Equipment

PTWC Pacific Tsunami Warning Center

R&D Research and Development

REX Regional Executive

RMGSC Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center

RLA Resource Lands Assessment

RSI Required Stewardship Information

RSSI Required Supplementary Stewardship Information

RTS Reports Tracking System (Water Resources)

SAFOD San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth

SAIN Southern Appalachian Information Node

SBR Statement of Budgetary Resources

SBWG Sustainable Buildings Work Group

SCEC Southern California Earthquake Center

SES Senior Executive Service

SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

SFFAS Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards

SFMP Strategic Facilities Master Plan

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District

SLC Scan Line Corrector

SGL Standard General Ledger

SIR Surveys, Investigations, and Research

Sparrow Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed 

Attributes

SPRESO South Pole Remote Earth Science Observatory

SRTM Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission

SSRIs Selective Seronin Reuptake Inhibitors

SST Science Strategy Team

STEP Short-Term Earthquake Probability

TBLM The Biotic Ligand Model

TCUs Tribal Colleges and Universities

TES Threatened and Endangered Species

TLSA Teshekpuk Lake Special Area

TNM The National Map

TRIP The Road Indicator Project

TROR Treasury Report on Receivables

TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

TSP Thrift Savings Plan

TWRA Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

USCOE U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VAN Volcano Activty Notices

VHP Volcano Hazards Program

VPN Virtual Private Network

V&V Validation and Verification

VDAP Volcano Disater Assistance Program

VONAs Volcano Observatory Notifications for Aviation

WAN Wide Area Network

WCF Working Capital Fund

WMEDN White Mountain Early Detection Network

WNV West Nile Virus

WRD Water Resources Discipline

WPA World Petroleum Assessment 2000

WRIR Water Resources Investigation Report

WSC Water Science Center

YVO Yellowstone Volcano Observatory
161

We Welcome Your Comments!

Thank you for your interest in the U.S. Geological Survey’s FY2008 Performance and Accountability Report. We 

welcome your comments on how we can make this report a more informative document for our readers. We 

are particularly interested in your comments on the usefulness of the information and the manner in which it is 

presented. Please send your comments to: 

 U.S. Geological Survey

Office of Internal Control and Reporting

Mail Stop 272

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive 

Reston, VA 20192