ACWI acwi_bar new

Task Force to Review the Federal-State Cooperative Water Program


October 3, 2001

Mr. Emery Cleaves
Member, Advisory Committee on
Water Information
U.S. Geological Survey
417 National Center
Reston Virginia 20192

Dear Mr. Cleaves:

Thank you for your letter of March 28, 2001, transmitting the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Circular 1192 entitled "External Task Force Review of the United States Geological Survey Federal-State Cooperative Water Program, August 1999." Your letter, written on behalf of the Advisory Committee on Water Information, requested my response to the recommendations of the Task Force as described in the report.

The enclosed document, prepared by Robert M. Hirsch, the Associate Director for Water, USGS, provides a response to each of the Task Force recommendations. In reviewing the recommendations and our responses to them, I am struck by the strong support for the Cooperative Water Program voiced by the Task Force and the numerous useful recommendations it provided. I am confident that these recommendations and our proposed actions to address them will result in many program improvements and a stronger partnership with cooperating agencies nationwide.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,        

 

/Signed/,          

Gale A. Norton


U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESPONSES TO
"EXTERNAL TASK FORCE REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATIVE WATER PROGRAM, AUGUST 1999"

  1. Findings and Recommendations.

    The findings and recommendations that follow have the consensus acceptance and support of the entire Task Force. These findings and recommendations are organized in this section as answers to questions raised by the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) in the Terms of Reference for the Task Force. The Cooperative Water Program is vital to the Nation in terms of assuring adequate quantity and quality of water for a wide variety of uses, mitigating the impacts of floods and other water-related hazards, and understanding short-term and long-term changes in water resources. Nonetheless, the Task Force finds that there are opportunities to improve the Cooperative Water Program and makes recommendations in the following areas:

    Is the Cooperative Water Program Meeting Its Mission? Is the Mission Still Valid? And, if not, How Should It Be Altered?

    The Cooperative Water Program is critical to improving the management of the Nation's water resources. It is important to the Nation because the Program acknowledges the keen shared-interest of Federal, State, Tribal, and other government agencies in appraising the Nation's water resources and seeking solutions to water-related problems. In today's climate of growing demands on, and increasing competition for, the Nation's water resources, there is an increased need for all types of water-related data and analyses in the future. The Cooperative Water Program offers the highest level of scientific knowledge, objectivity, and technical expertise. The Cooperative Water Program is integral to providing long-term data collection and analysis of water quantity, quality, and use on a national basis. Without the Cooperative Program, the Nation would not have information vital to the routine management of the Nation's water resources and critical in the management of water-related emergencies.

    The ACWI provided the Task Force with this description of the Cooperative Water Program: "Historically, the Cooperative Water Program has been designed to develop hydrologic data and technical analyses needed to assist in meeting the USGS mission of continuously assessing the Nation's water resources, and to provide technical assistance to State, Tribal, and local water management agencies in seeking solutions to water resource issues of national concern through a matched funding arrangement."

    Finding 1: The Cooperative Water Program is meeting its Mission, and the Program Mission is still valid.

    Because no specific mission statement exists for the Cooperative Water Program, the Task Force derived the following Mission Statement:

    The Mission of the USGS Cooperative Water Program is to provide reliable, impartial, and timely information needed to understand the Nation's water resources through a program of shared efforts and funding with State, Tribal, and local partners to enable decision makers to wisely manage the Nation's water resources.

    Recommendation 1.1: The Task Force recommends that this Mission statement be adopted as the Mission Statement of the Cooperative Water Program, or that this be used as an initial attempt in the formulation of such a Mission Statement.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that the Cooperative Water Program should have a Mission Statement, and the USGS agrees with the wording of the proposed statement and will adopt it.

    Recommendation 1.2: The Task Force recommends that the words "Federal-State" be removed from the USGS Cooperative Water Program title in recognition of the broader range of cooperative partners involved in the program.

    RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation to remove the words "Federal-State" from the program title. We acknowledge that the Program includes many cooperative efforts with organizations other than States, such as Tribes, cities, counties, and regional commissions. Currently, we have worked with the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress to change the name to the "Cooperative Water Program." This name change is reflected in our fiscal year (FY) 2002 budget submission to the Congress.

    Finding 2: The Cooperative Water Program has been a very successful part of the USGS's "on-going" mission of continually assessing the Nation's water resources.

    The Cooperative Water Program is successful as a result of the pooling of support and resources. There is a mutual benefit to all levels of government and public data users alike. There is a need to recognize the importance of the Cooperator, partner, and stakeholder in what the USGS accomplishes through the Cooperative Water Program.

    Does the Cooperative Program adequately contribute to the broad USGS Mission while keeping abreast of emerging water-resources issues at the State and local level?

    Finding 3: The Cooperative Water Program makes a vital contribution to the broad USGS mission by collecting and archiving large volumes of water supply data, by intergovernmental cooperation and coordination, and by keeping abreast of emerging water resources issues at the State and local level.

    Given that there is more funding available from the State and local side than there is matching Federal funding, are matching funds applied to the most important topics and issues?

    Finding 4: There are significant levels of cooperative funds for worthy proposals that the USGS cannot match. Many Cooperators are bound by agency policies and budgets to not provide more than 50 percent matching funds in cooperative agreements. At the same time, for Cooperators that are not constrained, the unmatched funds demonstrate the increasing demand for Cooperative Water Programs and services.

    Data collected from the Cooperative Water Program are used for hydrologic studies, water planning, water administration, allocation, interstate river compact administration, flood forecasting, snowmelt forecasting, watershed management and water quality assessments. Interpretive studies provide important information for many water-resources management decisions. The water community places great value on the independent, objective products of the Cooperative Water Program, a point that was heard over and over again from Cooperators and other users of the information produced.

    Current (1999) funding for the Cooperative Water Program is not adequate to satisfy all the needs identified for additional streamflow data, regional ground water information, updated hydrologic models, and technical publications. There is also little doubt that the program has not achieved its full potential and that there have been some loss of benefits due to inadequate funding. Funding levels have not kept pace with inflation. At the same time, there has been increased demand for the services of the program due to the additional need for water-resources data, tools, and information, mainly to satisfy growth while meeting new environmental challenges.

    The main impact of the reducing levels of funding, when compared to inflation, has been on the streamgaging network, which has seen a continuing loss of critical long-term stations and consequent loss of information vital to Federal State, Tribal, and local agency interests. However, technology development and interpretive studies have also been affected.

    Although some gains may be achieved by increased efficiency, effectiveness, and more judicious choice of programs, the conclusion is inescapable that additional funds will improve the program and benefit all sides.

    Recommendation 4.1: The funds for the Cooperative Water Program should be increased to a level sufficient to achieve a full match for the current and future Cooperator offerings and should be indexed for inflation.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that funding for the Cooperative Water Program is currently inadequate to meet the joint needs of the Federal Government and the Cooperators. The USGS will work with the DOI and OMB to seek consideration for increased funding for this program. The needs of the Cooperative Water Program will have to be considered in light of the many other priorities of the Federal Government and the Department. The success of this request will largely rest with Cooperators and other stakeholders and the input they provide to the Administration and Congress regarding the funding of the Cooperative Water Program.

    Recommendation 4.2: Projects that are appropriately funded 100 percent by a cooperating agency should be reported separately. These projects should nonetheless meet the criteria of WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 to prevent the appearance or reality of competition with the private sector.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees to track and report separately project funding for projects that are supported totally by unmatched Cooperator funds. All projects in the Cooperative Water Program are now required to meet WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 criteria and will continue to do so in the future.

    Finding 5: There is no consistent, documented process for setting priorities at the District, regional, or national levels. Current allocation of Cooperative Water Program funds to regions and to Districts appears to be based on historical patterns.

    Recommendation 5.1: District Chiefs should include the following considerations in setting priorities for individual projects and in determining the percentage of match that the USGS puts into a given project:

    1. Availability of funds;
    2. Ability of the project to clearly meet the USGS's Congressional mandate to work within the national domain or on issues determined by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior to be in the national interest;
    3. Ability of the project to meet Cooperator needs consistent with national priorities that are established in the USGS Strategic Plan, the Water Resources Strategic Plan, and the memorandum issued annually by the Chief Hydrologist concerning Cooperative Water Program priorities; and
    4. Ability of the project to meet multiple goals among the eight outlined in WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 (with the understanding that generally a project that meets more of these goals will have a higher priority than one that meets fewer).

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with the guidance for setting priorities for individual projects within a District and will communicate the guidance to the District Chiefs through a memorandum.

    Recommendation 5.2: Establish a special panel to meet at least every 5 years to review lessons learned and to provide improvements to the process for allocating funds to Districts.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with the recommendation to establish a committee to review the process for allocating cooperative funds to Districts. The USGS proposes that this panel be composed of the four Regional Program Officers and four District Chiefs.

    Finding 6: In 1995, the USGS discontinued an internally competitive merit program for addressing high-priority research needs with partial funding from the Cooperative Water Program.

    Recommendation 6.1: The USGS should consider establishing a program on a regional basis to address high-priority national needs using a small percentage of Cooperative Water Program funds. The objective of this program is to fund pressing needs without permanently reallocating funds between Districts.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that a portion of the Cooperative Water Program funding should be targeted to address high-priority national issues. The USGS proposes the establishment of a synthesis enhancement fund that would come from programmatic increases to the Federal matching funds in the Cooperative Water Program as part of our annual budget. The national priority issues selected each year will be tied to topics for a synthesis compilation with the intent of accomplishing the compilation after completion of the individual projects. The approach used in the individual projects would be partially guided by the information needs of the national synthesis project. The four Regional Program Officers will establish and maintain the synthesis enhancement fund process with input from District Chiefs and from USGS National Program Coordinators. The synthesis enhancement revolving fund should not exceed 1 percent of the total Federal matching funds in the Cooperative Water Program.

    What changes could be made in the approach to project selection to help ensure maximum effectiveness for the program?

    Recommendations 5.1, 5.2, and 6.1 are also applicable to this question.

    Finding 7: The effectiveness of the USGS Cooperative Water Program is constrained by institutional and political boundaries.

    Recommendation 7.1: Improve collaboration between regional and District offices on water issues that cross-jurisdictional boundaries.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with the recommendation and has actively been working to improve collaboration through various mechanisms, such as affinity groups of Districts. An affinity group is an association of a few Districts that meet periodically to share information about the activities of each District and to coordinate and plan for work that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. There are an increasing number of projects in the Cooperative Water Program that extend across State lines. The USGS will strive to increase that further in the future.

    Recommendation 7.2: Annually review and report all cooperative projects for the purpose of identifying emerging issues that cross-institutional and political boundaries and include these issues in the Chief Hydrologist.s annual memorandum on Cooperative Water Program priorities.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and is already, to a great extent, accomplishing the recommended activity through the process of annual District Program Reviews that form the basis for issuing the annual Cooperative Water Program priorities memorandum. The USGS is considering the creation of a national coordinator staff position for the Cooperative Water Program. This individual would be responsible for providing this annual review and report.

    Is there proper balance between funding of long-term data collection and short-term interpretative studies?

    Finding 8: The number of streamgaging stations involved in the Cooperative Water Program has decreased over the recent history of the Program. In nearly all cases, long-term streamgaging stations have been lost because of the lack of funds.

    The costs for operation and maintenance of streamgaging stations have increased over time with insufficient increases in Congressional appropriations for the Cooperative Water Program. This funding approach to the Cooperative Water Program has resulted in fewer net dollars being available for long-term data collection sites and interpretive studies. The number of long-term stations is declining at an alarming rate. Many stations are lost due to Cooperator budget cuts.

    Of the total number of nearly 35,000 long-term data-collection stations (streamgaging, water quality, sediment, and ground water) in the Cooperative Water Program, nearly 26,000 stations were funded through the Cooperative Water Program in 1997.

    Recommendation 8.1: Produce a report of how the USGS derives current billable costs of the streamgaging network.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees to produce a report that documents how the USGS derives costs for the streamgaging network. Producing this report will be one of the first tasks assigned to the Cooperative Water Program.s national coordinator.

    Recommendation 8.2: Utilize the Streamgaging Task Force to determine feasibility of billing Cooperators for data-collection activities that are based on actual costs.

    RESPONSE: The USGS has operated under this approach in the past and based on a recent conceptual and financial analysis, most USGS offices have changed to the practice of charging an "equalized" or average cost per station. Most of the USGS data collection stations serve multiple purposes and are at least partially funded through cooperative agreements. When cooperating organizations, whether Federal, State, or local, provide funds to help support USGS data collection stations, they are also supporting a part of the entire integrated network. For this reason, these organizations are billed on the basis of the average cost of operating the station within that State, rather than the actual cost. This approach is similar to "postage stamp pricing," in which the same price is charged to deliver a letter regardless of how far it travels. This procedure generally benefits these organizations and the USGS in two ways. Administrative costs are typically reduced because financial transactions are simplified; and definitive cost information is available to all parties for planning purposes at the beginning of the fiscal year. This arrangement also assures that data collection in the remote areas or at stations that incur non-routine costs (for example, damage from floods, vandals, etc.) does not become prohibitively expensive, causing the network to emphasize only those areas close to USGS offices.

    Finding 9: A network of continually operated streamgaging stations is critical to management of water resources. Long-term data collection has strong support from all user groups. The need for continued support of long-term streamgaging stations was stressed as a priority.

    This network serves a number of purposes with immediate importance, including: real-time forecasting; water management; water-quality modeling; flood and drought frequency analysis; stream/aquifer interaction; and hydroclimatological studies related to the impact of natural climate variability and potential global climate change.

    Recommendation 9.1: Establish an adequate and permanent streamflow-monitoring network in the national interest. Funding for long-term data collection should be stressed as a national priority. The Task Force supports the concept that the Federal government should provide 100 percent funding for a national streamgaging network, and that the funding for this network should not come at the expense of the Cooperative Water Program.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and is working toward developing the concept and requirements for a Federally funded national streamgaging network. Our recent report to Congress "A New Evaluation of the USGS Streamgaging Network" highlighted the need for such a network. The USGS has published a plan based on these concepts. This is known as the "National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP)." The USGS has participated in stakeholder meetings in the last year regarding these concepts at the National, regional, and State levels. The USGS has received increases in Federal funding for NSIP in FY 2000 and 2001. The primary determinants of success or failure in reaching the goal described in the recommendation will most likely be related to the input the Administration and Congress receives for or against this program from the streamgaging stakeholders.

    Recommendation 9.2: ACWI (or its Streamgaging Task Force) should make a specific finding regarding the number, distribution, and character of long-term data sites necessary to meet national data-collection objectives. Similar findings should be developed for ground-water and water-quality data sites.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will provide ACWI the information we have developed relating to a National Streamflow Information Program network of stations. We also will provide information to the ACWI on the status of long-term ground-water level monitoring and any similar information developed in the future related to water quality.

    Recommendation 9.3: The USGS should work to limit the loss of long-term streamgaging stations funded by the Cooperative Water Program until the ACWI Streamgaging Task Force has presented its findings.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and is very proactive in working to minimize the loss of gaging stations. When the USGS learns that a gaging station is to be discontinued, the USGS actively looks for other options for funding the gage, such as finding a different Cooperator for the gage. Funding increases in FY 2000 and 2001 have provided the USGS with more flexibility to prevent loss of important gages.

    Recommendation 9.4: Supplement the national data networks with additional stations funded through the Cooperative Water Program to address State, Tribal, and other governmental water management needs.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that it is appropriate to have portions of the gaging network supported by both the federally funded program and by the Cooperative Water Program. We plan to augment the network with support from both of these sources as funds become available in the future.

    Finding 10: The emphasis and level of need for the two components (data collection and interpretive studies) of the Cooperative Water Program vary from Cooperator to Cooperator. The distribution of funds has evolved over time to approximately 55 percent for long-term data collection and approximately 45 percent for interpretive studies.

    Recommendation 10.1: The emphasis of the Cooperative Water Program should be on long-term data-collection activities. Data collection should not be sacrificed for interpretive studies.

    RESPONSE: The USGS places a high value on long-term data-collection activities. The USGS also greatly values interpretive studies because they are an integral part of understanding the need for, uses of, and ways to improve our networks, as well as stimulating the development of new data-collection techniques. The proportion of data-collection activities versus investigative activities in any State is a function of many variables which causes the role of the USGS in data collection to vary accordingly. The USGS greatly values long-term data, but does not think it is appropriate to place an increasingly greater emphasis on data to the exclusion of a reasonable and complementary number of interpretive studies in the Cooperative Water Program.

    However, the USGS realizes that growth in Federal (solely USGS) funding for hydrologic monitoring has not been adequate during the past two decades. The strategic directions document for Water Resources states "WRD will work with DOI, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress to begin to shift the overall program to increase the funds available for long-term data collection." In the past two fiscal years (2000 and 2001), the USGS has received an increase of $12 million in Federal funding for activities supporting the collection and dissemination of streamflow data, through its newly instituted National Streamflow Information Program.

    What is the appropriate relationship with the private sector, States, universities, etc? Could this arrangement be improved without sacrificing its benefits?

    Finding 11: The majority of the hydrologic data in the USGS national database has been collected by and quality assured by USGS staff. Data collected by others are sometimes entered into the database, but not always quality assured by the USGS.

    Recommendation 11.1: USGS should take advantage of all available expertise and technology, regardless of where it resides, provided that the USGS certifies final quality.

    RESPONSE: The USGS understands and appreciates that there is high-quality data from sources outside the USGS that can be of assistance to us in accomplishing our work. The USGS takes advantage of these data sources when it is cost effective and promotes the quality of work. For example, most of the data used in the USGS compilation of water-use information every 5 years are collected by State water-resource agencies.

    Recommendation 11.2: USGS should consider employing outside contractors and cooperating agencies for data collection under strict USGS supervision when doing so can reduce costs.

    RESPONSE: In considering activities that are prudent for contracting out, the USGS typically does not include data-collection activities because:

    Recommendation 11.3: Increase the use of in-kind services to maintain data collection stations and provide the data to USGS for quality assurance and publication.

    RESPONSE: The USGS does currently match in-kind services to a limited extent, especially in water use activities and in limited data monitoring activities, such as water quality monitoring in New Jersey and streamflow monitoring in Virginia. From a practical standpoint, however, the Cooperative Water Program is significantly under funded, as indicated by the large amount of unmatched funds provided by Cooperators ($37 million unmatched in FY 1999). Nonetheless, the USGS will seek to expand its use of direct services when doing so enhances long-term relationships with Cooperators, maximizes the use of hydrologic data, and is consistent with USGS standards for quality assurance.

    Finding 12: There is a significant amount of non-USGS data that could contribute to assessing the Nation's water resources.

    Recommendation 12.1: Establish guidelines for accepting and disseminating data from non-USGS sources, and include appropriate data from other sources in USGS data bases.

    RESPONSE: The USGS policy for accepting and including appropriate data from non-USGS sources in USGS data bases is stated in WRD Memorandum No. 92.59, as follows: "The policy that all WRD data will be stored in the National Water Information System (NWIS) is expanded to include data from outside sources that are used in support of WRD published conclusions and are not archived or published elsewhere." Implicit in this statement is the requirement that all data from outside sources stored in NWIS must meet USGS standards for completeness and quality assurance.

    Recommendation 12.2: Be aware of data collection efforts of other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture, and strive for compatibility with their databases.

    RESPONSE: The USGS has been assigned the responsibility of leading the Federal government's Water Information Coordination Program (OMB Memorandum M-92-1). The USGS, through ACWI, is actively working with other agencies toward this end for water-quality and sedimentation data. The USGS is working with ACWI's Streamgaging Task Force to identify streamgaging operations of other agencies as a first step toward coordination of these activities. The USGS arranges periodic information sharing and coordination meetings with other Federal agencies, such as the National Weather Service, Corps of Engineers, and EPA, to improve data sharing activities. For example, the USGS is working with EPA to coordinate changes to EPA's STORET database with changes to the USGS's NWIS database in order to make them more compatible. In some cases, the USGS has individuals co-located with these agencies to improve information sharing and transfer.

    Finding 13: In some Districts, Cooperator panels have been convened to review program implementation issues. This has proven to be very beneficial to all parties.

    Recommendation 13.1: USGS should continually strive to increase their awareness of Cooperators. needs.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation. Our District offices have frequent contact with many Cooperators. District staff organizes periodic program review and program planning meetings with Cooperators, and actively participate in multi-agency State and regional conferences on water resource issues. Cooperators are often asked to participate in meetings of Water Resources headquarters, regional, and field managers. We recognize that strengthening the Cooperative Water Program can be done only through conscientious interaction with the agencies in each State.

    Recommendation 13.2: Promote increased collaboration with Cooperators in data-collection work, interpretive work, report preparation, and presentation activities consistent with maintaining the objective nature of the work.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will continue to work toward increasing collaboration with Cooperators. We also recognize that collaboration implies a balance between the needs of the Cooperator and the mission of the USGS to fulfill Federal responsibilities and to maintain its long-standing reputation for objectivity.

    Recommendation 13.3: At the District level, annually convene a general meeting of all Cooperators and interested parties to review overall progress, critique quality of work, assist in development of priorities, and offer feedback on water resources issues present or development within the District.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that there should be opportunity for review of USGS work. We suggest that this review is more appropriately conducted individually with Cooperators or in small groups of stakeholders that have a common interest in a particular project or topic. For example, District staff will typically meet with Cooperators to discuss the status of their projects. Most Districts have annual meetings with those interested in the streamgaging program to share information, set priorities, and deal with problems. Experience has shown that these types of meetings generally result in more constructive and effective interaction on the Cooperative Water Program than the type of large meeting suggested in the recommendation. However, we also acknowledge that should the major cooperating agencies in a State be interested in holding such a large meeting, it would be incumbent on the District Chief in that State to accommodate their interest. The USGS strongly supports the creation of water monitoring councils in each of the States as forums to discuss the data needs and scientific issues and programs related to the water issues of the State. The USGS Districts are actively working with key State agencies to create and maintain such councils. These groups provide an opportunity for the kind of exchange that the recommendation calls for, but does so in a broader context.

    Recommendation 13.4: Each cooperative agreement should contain an explicit and detailed scope of work including tasks, timelines, costs, staffing levels, and identification of Project Chief.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that Cooperators should receive the detailed project information they need to make a decision regarding the USGS's proposed implementation, execution, and successful completion of a project. Most Districts typically provide the recommended information as part of the project proposal submitted to the Cooperator. The USGS agrees to make this a more formal process by attaching the detail information contained in the project proposal to the Joint Funding Agreement submitted to the Cooperator for signature. The USGS will provide the appropriate level of detailed information in proportion to the complexity of the activity as needed by the Cooperator. For example, an agreement to operate one streamgaging station would require a minimal amount of information to describe the work effort. Providing names of staff permanently assigned to work on specific projects is problematic, however, because of the freedom employees have through the Federal Personnel System to apply for and move to new jobs.

    Recommendation 13.5: Improve technology transfer to Cooperators through joint effort in the field, laboratory and office work, topical seminars, and training center offerings.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation. Current examples of technology transfer include taking staff from cooperating agencies on field surveys, holding workshops on technical issues such as flow in fractured rock, inviting Cooperators to National Water Quality field meetings, and holding training courses such as those held on several topics in hydrology for Native Americans. We agree these types of activities should be expanded and will continue to look for ways to improve technology transfer to Cooperators.

    Finding 14: Although most cooperative projects address national issues, a small number of projects appear to meet only local interests and are not appropriate for the USGS Cooperative Water Program.

    Recommendation 14.1: In project proposals and in project information that is available to the public, Districts should document how each project is in the national interest, and specifically meets the applicable criteria outlined in WRD Memorandum No. 95.44.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and has distributed a policy memorandum to District Chiefs requiring all project proposals to include a "Benefits and Relevance" section that documents how the project meets the criteria outline in WRD Memorandum No. 95.44

    Finding 15: The private sector has raised issues relating to work performed by the USGS under the Cooperative Water Program that could be more appropriately performed by the private sector. This problem is reported to be increasing. Nonetheless, competition is a concern in only a small number of projects nationwide.

    Recommendation 15.1: Partnering with private-sector and university practitioners should be encouraged. This would enhance technology transfer to those who apply these investigative tools. It would also help to engage the best and brightest experts on particular projects.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and has been actively working to increase partnering with the private-sector and university practitioners on a fair and equitable basis. We have a growing number of examples of projects where USGS staff and staff from private consulting firms work side-by-side. The USGS has a long history of seeking collaboration with universities. Most recently, we have been actively pursuing opportunities to co-locate water resources offices on university campuses as a very promising mechanism to enhance interaction.

    Recommendation 15.2: The Cooperative Water Program should concentrate on its core competency. The Program should continue to advance its capabilities in long-term data collection and analysis, technology and model development, and the transfer of technology to end-users.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will increase our efforts to concentrate on our core competencies, as listed above.

    Recommendation 15.3: The USGS must refrain from unfairly competing with or giving the impression of unfairly competing with the private sector.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation. The USGS Water discipline has a policy that prohibits competition with the private sector (WRD Memorandum No. 95.44). We have frequently communicated with our managers the concerns that have arisen about competition with the private sector to ensure that they are sensitive about the issue. We have also redistributed WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 as a reminder to our management of our policy prohibiting competition.

    Finding 16: WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 addresses the issue of competition with the private sector. The Task Force endorses the criteria specified in WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 for project selection.

    Recommendation 16.1: WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 should be amplified to include specific examples of activities that have been deemed inappropriate for USGS involvement (for example, routine site-specific investigations of bridge scouring, wellhead-protection-area delineation, and groundwater).

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees to add examples of inappropriate work and situations to amplify WRD Memorandum No. 95.44.

    Recommendation 16.2: Convene ad hoc committees by project type, and which are composed of private sector, other agencies, and Cooperators to resolve emerging competition issues, and to help determine what types of projects are appropriate for the USGS to undertake.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees to pilot test the concept by working through ACWI to convene an ad hoc committee to address emerging issues where competition may be a factor.

    Recommendation 16.3: Create and convene biennially a review panel to update WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 as necessary.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and, working through ACWI, will convene a panel of USGS staff and external stakeholders to review and revise the memorandum. We suggest that this process be repeated every 5 years.

    Recommendation 16.4: Produce a biennial report for ACWI on successful collaborative work efforts with the private sector, as well as a listing of projects the USGS deemed inappropriate based on WRD Memorandum No. 95.44. Include a description of projects that are impacted by competition issues.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees to produce a biennial report on collaborative work efforts with the private sector. However, including in this report a list of rejected projects is problematic. Projects are usually rejected informally and verbally by District managers; no records of these project ideas are kept and we consider it imprudent to attempt to do so. Rather we suggest that actions taken to address recommendations 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 (to clarify the types of projects that are deemed inappropriate for USGS to undertake and to highlight examples of successful collaboration with the private sector) will be more successful in avoiding competition than will an attempt to track rejected projects.

    Finding 17: Public knowledge of USGS Cooperative projects is important. Currently the USGS posts the project title, the problem statement, objectives, and approach on the Internet at the time that the Cooperator and the District Chief sign the joint funding agreement.

    Recommendation 17.1: This information should be posted on the public Internet at the time the proposal is forwarded to the Regional Hydrologist for approval. The Regional Hydrologist should consider comments, but not lengthen the timeframe in which projects are approved. The decision shall be communicated to the District and to all those who submitted written comments. The information should include a Statement of how the project is in compliance with WRD Memorandum No. 95.44.

    RESPONSE: USGS project proposals are currently available on the Web at:http://wwwoper.er.usgs.gov/wais/WAIS.ntis.html. They are posted after they are approved by Cooperators and by USGS. For several reasons, we do not think it is appropriate to post the proposals before they are approved. Most Cooperators consider the project proposal to be a confidential document that should not be shared publicly until the funding agreement is signed. The USGS agrees with this position. Federal agencies are protected from the requirement to release "pre-decisional" material to the public by Exemptions 4 and 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). According to these provisions, project proposals are part of a "deliberative process" and thereby exempt from being released to the public. For project proposals, the deliberative process ends when the funding agreement is signed.

    In light of this information, we propose an alternative plan whereby project proposals are released for public comment after the funding agreement is signed. Any comments received would then be factored into the review process for future proposals and into the process of developing guidance of what work is appropriate for USGS under recommendation 16.1 and 16.2. In this way, confidentiality is maintained during proposal development, and public comments become an important factor in planning and approving future work.

    Recommendation 17.2: Copies of WRD Memoranda Nos. 95.44 and 84.21, and any future updates to them, should be posted on the Web for easy reference.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation. These policy memorandums are now posted on the USGS web pages. They can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/WRD/auto.html.

    Finding 18: USGS management and scientists interact with State, Tribal, and local water resource experts on a frequent basis. USGS personnel attend and participate in water-resource planning and management meetings at the request of State, Tribal, and other governmental water authorities.

    Recommendation 18.1: Continue to be active in, conduct regular project reviews at, and have a greater visible presence at State, Tribal, and other governmental water workshops, forums, and seminars to share knowledge, technology advancements, and data access.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will continue to be active in and increase our visible presence at water resources related meetings. This type of activity is important and valuable, but must also be balanced against our need to get the agency.s programmatic work done.

    Recommendation 18.2: Increase involvement in professional and local scientific society forums.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and repeatedly encourages its staff to become more active in professional societies as funding allows.

    Recommendation 18.3: Annually assess emerging water-resources issues, and include these issues in the memorandum referred to in Recommendation 7.2.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and is already, to a great extent, accomplishing the recommended activity through the process of issuing the annual Cooperative Water Program priorities memorandum.

    Recommendation 18.4: Prepare and publish on the Internet a national summary of projects to increase public awareness of the USGS role in water resources.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and has already made project information available on the web at http://wwwoper.er.usgs.gov/wais/WAIS.ntis.html. Some active projects have only minimal information on the web; the description of these active projects will be expanded. Each project description on the web for active projects will include the project title, problem statement, project objectives, approach summary, and the relevance and benefits of the project.

    What would be the implications of altering current work arrangements on the unique qualities of the Cooperative Water Program and water management nationwide?

    Finding 19: The perceived quality and objectivity of USGS data and studies, together with the USGS cost share, are the primary reasons many entities become Cooperators.

    Finding 20: The USGS is nationally recognized as providing the highest quality, long-term water-resources data available.

    Finding 21: Any activity that appears to reduce the objectivity of the USGS might negatively impact potential Cooperator interest and confidence.

    Recommendation 21.1: The USGS must continue to act professionally and objectively to preserve its respected reputation.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will continue to act professionally and objectively to maintain our reputation.

    To what extent should the products of the Cooperative Water Program support: (1) national level needs, as compared to (2) the needs of Cooperators and other information users?

    Finding 22: In general, the products of the program meet Cooperator and other information users needs while contributing to the national interest. The balance between data collection and interpretive studies is currently meeting the needs of Cooperators and national needs and is in overall proper balance.

    Recommendation 22.1: The Cooperative Water Program should be driven by the needs of the users (State, Tribal, and local users and other Federal agencies), where those aggregate interests form a basis for meeting the national interest.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will continue to direct the Cooperative Water Program to comply with the USGS mission and Federal interests (WRD Memorandum No. 95.44) while meeting Cooperator needs.

    Recommendation 22.2: Establish core data collection networks (streamgaging , water quality, sediment transport, and ground water) to serve the national interest. (See also Recommendation 9.1)

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and is working toward the goal of establishing Federally funded core data collection networks. We are actively pursuing this, at the current time, for the streamgaging and ground water networks.

    Are the products meeting the needs of the primary users as well as the multiple needs of ancillary parties?

    Finding 23: The Cooperative Water Program products are well regarded, credible, reliable, unbiased and generally of excellent quality (for example, technical correctness, thoroughness, graphics, innovation, and use of new technologies such as the Internet).

    Recommendation 23.1:Continue to develop products that are effective in communicating to the diverse audiences concerned with water-management issues. Products being produced by the program, such as fact sheets and fast-read summaries are excellent examples. To continue to improve in this area, develop a program to subject such products to a critical review by non-scientists to assure understandability.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and, as noted, has worked to develop lay-reader products. We will continue to stress the need to produce program products that are understandable to the target audience. We will explore the possibility of using non-scientist groups such as the extension service, the League of Women Voters, The Ground Water Foundation, USGS outreach staff, etc. to review products for understandability.

    Finding 24: Maintaining a strong objective scientific program is essential to create products that meet Cooperator and user needs.

    Recommendation 24.1: Maintain high standards of unbiased, credible products of superior quality through assignment of experienced professionals, quality control/quality assurance techniques, and peer review.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will work to guard and protect our reputation for high-quality, unbiased, credible products. We feel that this reputation is one our most valuable assets and will continue to work diligently to protect it.

    Finding 25: Timely issuance of some products (for example, in adherence to deadlines in agreements), particularly interpretive project final reports, has been and remains a significant problem in the program. Achieving the high standard of current products is inherently time consuming. USGS staff has made significant progress in correcting this important problem, in part, by revising the peer review process and establishing review authority at the regional and District level.

    Recommendation 25.1: To facilitate continued improvement in achieving deadlines for the release of products, especially interpretive reports:

    1. Secure agreement between Cooperator and USGS staff up front as to the date for the receipt of deliverables;
    2. Improve efforts to explain to Cooperators the process for report preparation, review and release;
    3. Continue to cultivate approaches to provide information to Cooperators when they need it (for example, "Open-file" reports, real time data, Cooperator staff serving as peer reviewers);
    4. Develop the capability to be prepared for and respond to situations when USGS staff, who are serving as report authors, are disengaged from the responsibility (for example, retirement, resignation, transfer or other action); and
    5. Take appropriate action to transfer knowledge and experience to others in the organization to reduce the degree of corporate knowledge loss.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and continues to work at improving the timeliness of products generated from the Cooperative Water Program. The USGS recognizes that we have had difficulty producing timely products, thus we have invested a great deal of effort in recent years toward making improvements. We appreciate the Task Force.s acknowledgment of this effort and improvement. We do, however, realize that additional improvements are needed and we will continue to take appropriate actions.

    Finding 26: The USGS provides information and products generated by the Cooperative Water Program either free of charge (for example, models and data) or for nominal cost (certain publications).

    Recommendation 26.1: The long-standing policy that provides for program products to be made available free or for minimal charge should remain unchanged.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and is mandated by law to recover, at most, the costs of printing and distribution of the products.

    What changes in products should the USGS consider to strengthen the Cooperative Water Program.s impact?

    Finding 27: Use of the Internet and other state-of-the-art technologies by the Cooperative Water Program has been innovative and highly effective. These technologies are and will continue to be an extremely important medium for the timely dissemination of streamgaging data and other program products.

    Recommendation 27.1: USGS should continue to aggressively explore ways to incorporate use of the Internet and other available and emerging electronic communication technologies in the development, review and release of all its products.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will continue to incorporate the use of new technologies to produce and disseminate products from the Cooperative Water Program.

    Recommendation 27.2: Make reports available in an appropriate electronic format, beginning with current reports and ultimately working back in time to include historic reports.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation for current reports. There may be, however, a limited number of long reports with large and complex maps that would be difficult to put into electronic format; these reports would be exempt. In regards to historic reports, we believe that the cost of putting all these documents into electronic format is prohibitive. As resources become available, the USGS will put selected historic reports into electronic format. Historic reports selected for this process will be the most popular reports for which we still receive many requests.

    Finding 28: Cooperative Water Program products tend to be written for technical professionals and can be difficult for lay readers to understand. Recent use of fact sheets and other such products are important improvements.

    Recommendation 28.1: Products should address the critical issues of the Cooperator as specified in the cooperative agreement. When appropriate, the USGS should expand the use of lay summaries and fact sheets for the general public.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will continue to produce products that address the critical issues of the Cooperator as well as the Federal interests resulting from the project. The USGS will continue to look for ways to increase the use of lay reader type reports to better communicate the results of our investigations to "non-scientists."

    Finding 29: Some data bases are difficult to use, for example, Ground Water Site Inventory (GWSI) data base.

    Recommendation 29.1: Update, maintain, and make more accessible existing data bases, such as GWSI.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and is actively working to make our databases easier to use for, our Cooperators, the general public, and our employees. The USGS has committed considerable resources toward this effort through our National Water Information System (NWIS) group. The NWIS group has and will continue to receive input from various user groups in order to ensure that the needs of the various groups are considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into the redesign of the databases. The availability of the new NWIS-Web system responds to this need.

    Recommendation 29.2: Update, maintain, and make Make historical data and metadata available in electronic formats at the shortest available temporal resolution.

    RESPONSE: The USGS is currently working to ensure that all currently collected data is available in electronic format at the shortest available temporal resolution and will continue to do so in the future. To convert all historical data to an electronic format, however, will require considerable resources. The USGS agrees with the recommendation for historical data but due to resource constraints will be unable to fully accomplish this recommendation. The USGS is currently planning a "data warehouse" that will make all streamflow data in electronic format available on the web. The conversion of older data now stored on paper to an electronic format will be done case by case as the need arises and the resources become available.

    Finding 30: Data dissemination practices vary between Districts, ranging from release to the Cooperator as data are collected, to release upon approval of the final interpretive report.

    Recommendation 30.1: Develop a consistent nationwide policy that results in the earliest possible release of data to Cooperators.

    RESPONSE: The USGS does have a policy for release of data to Cooperators. We understand that the Task Force is aware of some inconsistencies in the implementation of this policy. The USGS will review this policy, revise it as appropriate, and redistribute it to promote consistency. In general, the USGS releases routine data as soon as possible, while non-routine data is released in a limited manner to allow for adequate review and quality assurance to ensure its accuracy.

    Finding 31: The Cooperative Water Program has been the vehicle for the development of many technologies and important national information summaries that have been successfully transferred to the private sector. Examples are the MODFLOW ground-water-flow model, numerical methods, acoustic Doppler and ultrasonic velocity-meter technology for measuring streamflow.

    Recommendation 31.1: Increase resources for the development of national synthesis products to enhance information and technology transfer.

    RESPONSE: The USGS believes that national synthesis is an essential component of the Cooperative Water Program and that we need to enhance our synthesis activities. National synthesis of results from the Cooperative Water Program was supported in the past through the "Water Resources Assessment" budget line item. Funding for this program was eliminated in FY 1998. Since then the number of national synthesis efforts has decreased due to the lack of Federal funding. National synthesis is still conducted through the National Water Quality Assessment Program and the Offices of Water Quality, Surface Water, and Ground Water . but to a lesser extent than in the past. This situation needs to be rectified and the USGS is looking at several approaches to increase national synthesis.

    An approach the USGS may take to increase national synthesis activities, is to initially allocate a small amount of Federal funds from existing programs now and as additional new Federal funds become available, further increase the level of funding provided for national synthesis. Synthesis efforts are part of the plans for the Ground Water Resources Program and the National Streamflow Information Program. National synthesis activities would be tied to the national issues projects funded by the synthesis enhancement fund (described in Recommendation 6.1), and to the synthesis needs of all National programs, whether supported by appropriated or reimbursable funds. Personnel in the District offices would conduct most of the national synthesis activities.

    Recommendation 31.2: Increase resources to update previously developed modeling technologies.

    RESPONSE: The USGS has placed an emphasis on updating modeling technologies and will do so as resources become available. The Water Resources Strategic Directions Document lays out the following goals and plans for improving modeling technologies.

    quit

    "As water-resource issues evolve, new modeling capabilities and enhancements to existing modeling software are needed on a continuing basis to keep us on the forefront of quantitative hydrology.

    To meet this increasing demand, we will do the following:

    Develop a new generation of computer models to simulate (a) watershed-scale responses to climate and land-use changes; (b) open-channel surface-water flow; (c) the interaction of ground water and surface water, including lakes, streams, and wetlands; (d) water chemistry and sediment transport; and (e) water-use models. These models will be linked with decision-support systems for science-based water-management decisions. The models will be designed to become the models of choice for the scientific community."

    Recommendation 31.3: Strengthen partnerships between USGS divisions. Such partnerships are necessary to synthesize diverse information and provide comprehensive answers to resource questions.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and has been placing great emphasis on strengthening the working relationships between USGS divisions. This has been a high priority for the present Director and his predecessor. The USGS will continue to work toward strengthening relationships between the divisions as evidenced by the Director.s recently announced reorganization and plan for strategic change.

    Recommendation 31.4: Strengthen coordination between the Cooperative Water Program and other Federal, State, Tribal and local programs to achieve improved focused and economical products.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this recommendation and will continue to strengthen coordination between the Cooperative Water Program and other organization's programs through meetings and other opportunities to share information and coordinate programs.

    Recommendation 31.5: As appropriate, continue to co-locate USGS staff with Cooperators (and conversely) to facilitate day-to-day information transfer and to promote better understanding of local issues and perspectives.

    RESPONSE: The USGS generally agrees with this recommendation and will continue to strengthen relationships with Cooperators through co-locating Cooperator staff at USGS offices, as appropriate, to facilitate day-to-day information sharing. This has already been done to a limited extent. The USGS will gather information from those offices that have participated in co-locations to determine (1) the benefits and problems, and (2) the reason for success or failure. This information will be shared with all District offices as an encouragement to participate in co-locations as appropriate.

    Finding 32: The Water Resources National Training Center located in Denver is a valuable resource that appears to be underutilized.

    Recommendation 32.1: Promote the National Training Center in Denver as an available resource for professional development.

    RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that the Water Resources National Training Center (NTC) has been underutilized by Cooperators. The NTC has a new chief and is in the process of examining and revising its business plan. The desire to increase the involvement of Cooperator participation in NTC classes and regionally sponsored classes will be conveyed to the NTC staff so that this opportunity can be incorporated into the new business plan as appropriate.


Monitoring Council   |  Methods Board   |  NAWQA  |  Hydrology

 Sedimentation   |  Spatial Data   |  Sustainable Roundtable   |  2004 Coop   |  Former Subgroups


WICP  |  ACWI   |  Meetings  |  What's New  |  Site Map  |   Subgroups

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Comments and Suggestions contact WICP - ACWI Webmaster
Privacy statement || Disclaimer
http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/coop/norton.html
09:49:29 Fri 25 Jul 2003