Detailed Information on the
International Boundary and Water Commission Assessment

Conducting an independent, comprehensive assessment to evaluate the program's effectiveness.

Implementing more stringent standards that hold managers accountable for planning, execution, and compliance by requiring evaluation of alternatives, cost effectiveness, achievable timelines, development of measurable performance data, and performance results.

Developing more aggressive plans to address weaknesses identified in the Safety of Dam inspections.

Measure: Percentage of boundary demarcation receiving maintenance and enhancement along the U.S.-Mexico land boundary and at international bridges and ports of entry.

Explanation:The USIBWC currently maintains 276 boundary monuments and about 493 markers along the 674 mile U.S.-Mexico land boundary and demarcates the boundary at all international bridges and ports of entry. The goal is that each year, the USIBWC will maintain and refurbish 20% of all existing boundary demarcation structures with 100% being assessed and refurbished, as needed, every 5 years. 100% of structures will be maintained between 2006 and 2010, and the effort will begin again in 2011, with 100% of structures being maintained and refurbished again by 2015.

Measure: Percentage of Lower Valley residents who will be protected from potential flooding by the rehabilitation and reconstruction of IBWC-maintained levees and floodways in the international segment of the Rio Grande.

Explanation:The IBWC maintains three flood control projects along the international reach of the Rio Grande. Based upon evaluations by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the USIBWC, these projects have been found to be structurally and hydraulically deficient. USIBWC has undertaken a program to correct these deficiencies and improve flood control system capacity each year. Based upon USIBWC estimates, targets are based on the assumption that flooding would impact approximately 30% of the entire Lower Valley population of 1,137,909 residents, which comprise the Counties of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy. In 2007, USIBWC will undertake the necessary environmental studies, design, and planning required to advance the project, which will not directly benefit the population. Beginning in 2008, annual construction and rehabilitation efforts will begin thus providing benefits to a percentage of the at-risk population, with the target of fully protecting the aforementioned 30% of the population that is currently vulnerable to flooding by 2014. The original plan sought to complete this effort in 20 years, but a more ambitious 5-year plan has been developed in an effort to more aggressively complete this important project.

Measure: Percent reduction in expenditures for replacement of heavy equipment resulting from sharing equipment among field offices and renting equipment for special needs vs. new purchases.

Explanation:The target is to achieve overall estimated savings of 37.5% from the cost of purchasing replacement heavy equipment over 9 years beginning in FY 2006. The annual targets fluctuate based on the types of heavy equipment that are expected to be replaced, shared, or rented annually.

Measure: Level of compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and Clean Water Act standards.

Explanation:This measure specifically tracks progress made toward compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and Clean Water Act standards for the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP) and the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP). The target is to bring both of the facilities into compliance by 2008 and to maintain compliance in subsequent years. Achieving this target will directly benefit over 65,000 U.S. citizens residing near the facilities, as well as Mexican citizens and visitors to the areas. In their current operational state, the facilities are not compliant with Federal requirements.

Measure: Number of water samples collected and analyzed along the international section of the Rio Grande.

Explanation:In order to ensure that the waters of the Rio Grande meet the designated uses and water quality standards established by the State of Texas, the USIBWC gathers water samples from different segments of the Rio Grande, monitors and assesses the data, and provides it to the State of Texas under the Texas Clean Rivers Program. The data provided by the USIBWC enables the State of Texas to comply with the federal Clean Water Act requirement for a periodic report that compares water quality conditions to established standards. Actual targets for each year are determined by the State of Texas under the Texas Clean Rivers Program.

Measure: Percentage of recommendations made to USIBWC in the safety of dams inspections that are implemented within each five-year period.

Explanation:Evaluations are conducted at each of the seven IBWC-owned dams by a binational panel of experts every five years, consistent with the National Dam Safety Program established by U.S. law. Not all seven dams are inspected in the same year and in some years, no evaluations of IBWC facilities are conducted. These evaluations include specific recommendations to the IBWC to improve the safety of the dams. The target is to implement 75% of recommendations for each dam for which an evaluation is conducted through 2006, with the percentage of recommendations implemented increasing to 85% beginning in 2007. The long-term target is to eventually implement 100% of recommendations for each dam for which an evaluation is conducted. Implementing these recommendations will improve dam operation and safety, and reduce risk of structural failure. Tracking the percentage of recommendations implemented will also track efforts to provide optimal operation at the dams.

Measure: Percentage of Upper Valley homes that will be protected from potential flooding by the rehabilitation and reconstruction of IBWC-maintained levees and floodways in the Upper Rio Grande. (It is estimated that flooding could impact approximately 18% of homes in the Upper Valley.) (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:The IBWC maintains the Upper Rio Grande flood control system, located in south New Mexico and west Texas. Engineering evaluations and studies have found the flood control system to be structurally and hydraulically deficient. IBWC has undertaken a program to correct these deficiencies. Based on current information, IBWC estimates that flooding could impact approximately 18% of all homes in the Upper Valley (12% in Dona Ana County, NW; 20% in El Paso County, TX; and 10% in Hudspeth County, TX). In 2007, IBWC initiated emergency levee improvements in El Paso, TX with in-house manpower to advance the project, which directly benefitted the population in El Paso. Annual construction efforts will gradually provide benefits to the at-risk homes, with the target of fully protecting the aforementioned 18% of homes that are currently vulnerable to flooding by 2014.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: For the purposes of the PART, the program should be interpreted to mean solely the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC). The purpose of the USIBWC is clearly stated in its treaty-based and statutory mandates, as well as in its Mission Statement: "Provide binational solutions to issues that arise during the application of U.S.-Mexico treaties regarding boundary demarcation, national ownership of waters, sanitation, water quality and flood control in the border region in an economically and environmentally sound manner." Background: The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is an over 100-year old treaty-based binational institution, comprised of a U.S. Section (USIBWC) and a Mexican Section (CILA). Each Section is administered independently of one another. The U.S. and Mexican governments are responsible for funding the expenses of its respective Section and share in the cost of joint projects. The USIBWC is headquartered in El Paso, Texas; CILA is headquartered in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. The USIBWC is a unique entity that cannot be neatly categorized as an independent agency or as an organizational part of the Department of State. The USIBWC operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department, but operates with a large degree of independence on technical, personnel and administrative matters. The Department of State funds the USIBWC through its annual appropriations. Purpose: The USIBWC exercises U.S. rights and obligations assumed under U.S.-Mexico boundary and water treaties and related agreements and, in cooperation with CILA, resolves disputes that arise in their application; plans, designs and constructs new projects on the U.S.-Mexico border, in cooperation with CILA, to facilitate treaty compliance; determines and represents U.S. national interest in negotiations with Mexico of new treaties and international agreements developed to address current and anticipated boundary and water issues; conducts studies and investigations relative to the demarcation of the U.S.-Mexico land and river boundary, flood control, water resources, conservation and utilization of water, sanitation and prevention of pollution and channel rectification; and plans, designs and constructs monuments, sewer and water systems crossing the international border. USIBWC officials serve as technical advisers to senior Department of State and other U.S. agency officials on U.S.-Mexico boundary and water issues. USIBWC's functions include: boundary preservation and demarcation of over 700 monuments and markers on the land boundary; the determination of the national ownership of transboundary waters; improvement of transboundary water quality; construction, operation and maintenance of international wastewater treatment facilities; and five flood control projects, including dams, reservoirs and power plants. The IBWC's jurisdiction extends to the limitrophe sections of the Colorado River (23.7 miles), and the Rio Grande (1,250 miles), to the land boundary between the U.S. and Mexico (674 miles), and to works located upon their common boundary.

Evidence: The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) traces its roots to the 1848 Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo (9 Stat. 922; TS 207), which established a temporary joint boundary commission to survey, mark and map the new boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. Other U.S.-Mexico treaty-based authorities are found in the Gadsden Treaty of December 30, 1853 (10 Stat. 1031; TS 208); the Convention of July 29, 1882 (22 Stat. 986; TS 220); the Convention of March 1, 1889 (26 Stat. 1512, TS 232), which established an International Boundary Commission to apply the principles contained in the Convention of November 12, 1884 (24 Stat. 1011; TS 226); and the February 3, 1944 Treaty Relating to the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (59 Stat 1219; TS 994), which expanded the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the International Boundary Commission and changed its name to IBWC. The IBWC operates under the domestic statutory authorities codified at 22 USC 277 et seq.

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

Explanation: USIBWC is unique in its ability to address binational, transboundary issues in partnership with its Mexican counterpart, CILA. The Department of State looks to the USIBWC to address specific issues that arise in the U.S.-Mexico relationship, to provide its senior leadership with technical advice and to work with the CILA to develop binational solutions to problems that affect U.S. and Mexican citizens in the border region. The Department of State entrusts the USIBWC to advance U.S. foreign policy with Mexico on matters relating to U.S.-Mexico boundary and transboundary water issues. Joint projects undertaken by the IBWC directly benefit the approximately 12 million border residents, a number that is anticipated to grow to 16.8 million by 2020. An example of one of the many specific needs that USIBWC addresses is the agency's work with water quantity issues along the Rio Grande. The IBWC has constructed and now operates and maintains two international storage dams on the Rio Grande (Falcon and Amistad), with associated hydroelectric generation facilities that provide power to citizens on both sides of the border. About 98% of all the water used in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, in both Texas and Mexico, is supplied from the Rio Grande through releases from Falcon and Amistad Reservoirs; those releases currently total about 1.2 million acre-feet of water per year. Agriculture contributes close to $500 million to the Rio Grande Valley economy. Falcon Dam and Reservoir has a maximum capacity of over 3.98 million acre-feet. Net benefits of Falcon to the U.S. on a ten year average: 865,427 acre-feet of irrigated land, valued at $88 million; municipal and industrial water supply benefits of $22 million; recreation/fish and wildlife benefits of $10.4 million. It provides water for 1,137,991 Mexican citizens and for close to half a million U.S. citizens. Amistad Dam and Reservoir has a maximum storage capacity of 5.29 million acre-feet. Net benefits of Amistad Dam to the U.S. on a 10 year average are: 90,587 acre-feet of irrigated land, valued at $7.9 million; municipal and industrial water supply benefits of $6.9 million and recreation/fish and wildlife benefits of $44.6 million. Recognizing the impact of population growth on finite water supplies, in 2005 the Government Accountability Office undertook a comprehensive survey of U.S. Government freshwater programs and concluded that "as the world's population tripled during the past century, demand for accessible freshwater??which makes up less than 1 percent of the earth's water??increased six-fold, straining freshwater resources for many countries, including the United States." The report found that with increasing demand, water shortages are possible in the next few decades, resulting in significant economic, social, and environmental consequences. Shortages could result in a reduction in farmland and forest productivity, damage to both plant and animal species and air and water quality, and could cause disputes between water users, managers, and government entities. The Department of State views the USIBWC as well placed through its existing treaty and statutory mandates, as well as its long history of binational cooperation, to address U.S.-Mexico transboundary water issues, including future shortages, and to deflect potential disputes that may arise between the U.S. and Mexico over the allocation of finite water resources.

Evidence: Texas A & M Study, September 2004 (Texas Water Resources Institute Report TR-275); (GAO Report (GAO-05-253) to Congressional Requesters, March 2005: Freshwater Programs??Federal Agencies' Funding in the United States and Abroad); U.S. Code 22, Title 22, Chapter 7, Subchapter IV, Section 277 and supplemental authorizations.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC is unique in its character. It is a federal government agency, which operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State. When the USIBWC joins with CILA as a Commission, it has the status of an international body and was designated as a public international organization as per the International Organization Immunities Act (22 USC 288). The only similarly structured organization, the International Joint Commission, was established to address U.S.-Canada boundary issues. While other federal, state and local entities may undertake domestic projects of a similar nature, i.e. wastewater treatment or flood control, there is no other entity with a binational mandate to survey, mark and map the U.S.-Mexico boundary; to manage transboundary waters; to jointly develop, construct, operate and maintain binational projects on the U.S.-Mexico border; and that is charged with applying U.S.-Mexico boundary and water treaties and international agreements and settling disputes that arise thereunder. The Border Environment Cooperative Commission (BECC), North American Development Bank (NADBank), and programs under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have a strong border orientation and are complementary to the IBWC mission, but do not overlap. The BECC and NADBank were created by the U.S. and Mexico under side agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The purpose of the BECC is to help conserve, protect and enhance the environment in the U.S.-Mexico border region, through the development and certification of environmental infrastructure projects that incorporate innovative sustainability and public participation concepts. Once certified by BECC, a project may qualify for funding from the NADBank or from other sources requiring such certification. NADBank's mission is to serve as a binational partner and catalyst in communities along the U.S.-Mexico border in order to enhance the affordability, financing, long-term development and effective operation of infrastructure that promotes a clean, healthy environment for the citizens of the region. The NADBank can provide financial assistance to public and private entities involved in developing environmental infrastructure projects in the border region. Potable water supply, wastewater treatment and municipal solid waste management form the core sectors of the BECC/NADBank's activities and are its primary focus. However, assistance can also be provided in other areas??such as air quality, clean energy and hazardous waste??where sponsors are able to demonstrate tangible health and/or environmental benefits for residents living in the area. The EPA administers a border water infrastructure program under which it provides financial and technical assistance to address U.S.-Mexico border area water infrastructure needs. The EPA also administers the Border 2012 program to protect the environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. DHS's border program is focused on critical infrastructure protection of domestic assets and border security. While each of the programs mentioned above addresses issues along the U.S.-Mexico border, none of them, and no other federal, local or private entity, share the unique status of the USIBWC as an international commission entrusted to advance U.S. foreign policy and responsible for applying boundary and water treaties between the U.S. and Mexico and settling differences that may arise out of the application of these treaties. The IBWC is distinct in the way that the U.S. and Mexican governments partner to address numerous border issues related to: establishing and maintaining the border; improving water quality and resolving border sanitation problems; distributing transboundary waters to both countries; and operating international flood control projects, reservoirs and wastewater treatment plants.

Evidence: U. S. Code 22, Title 22, Chapter 7, Subchapter IV, Sections 277 and supplemental authorizations; Articles 2 and 24 of the 1944 Treaty Relating to Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (59 Stat 1219; TS 994); Executive Order 12467, March 2, 1984; IBWC Minute 304; Agreement concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank, signed at Washington and Mexico November 16 & 18, 1993 (TIAS 12516).

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

Explanation: There is no evidence of design flaws. There is no indication that relations with Mexico would get the same or better outcome with fewer resources or through different planning and implementation. The Department of State views the USIBWC as well placed to address emerging transboundary water resource and water quality issues that have the potential to impact the health, environment and economy of border residents. The USIBWC's domestic and treaty-based authorities are sufficiently broad as to enable the USIBWC the flexibility to implement its responsibilities in an effective manner and to respond to emerging issues. The USIBWC may carry out investigations, develop plans for new works to address boundary and water issues, enlist the support of agencies of the U.S. government to support its mission and, when necessary, may invoke the jurisdiction of the courts to aid in its treaty implementation. All materials and equipment used to construct, operate or maintain its works are exempt from import and export custom duties and personnel of the USIBWC and CILA may pass freely from one country to the other without any immigration restrictions, passports or labor requirements. Under the 1944 Treaty, decisions of the IBWC are recorded in the form of Minutes that, when approved by the U.S. and Mexican governments, enter into force as legally binding agreements of the U.S. and Mexico.

Evidence: U. S. Code 22, Title 22, Chapter 7, Subchapter IV, Sections 277 and supplemental authorizations; Articles 2, 20 and 24 of the 1944 Treaty (59 Stat 1219; TS 994) relating to Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC is headquartered on the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas in close proximity to CILA, which is headquartered in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, thus allowing frequent meetings and consultations between the two Sections of the IBWC to address boundary and water issues of binational concern. The USIBWC maintains field offices that span the U.S.-Mexico border from San Diego, California to the Gulf of Mexico. The field offices manage a range of projects, in coordination with their Mexican counterparts, such as: the determination of national ownership of the waters of the Rio Grande and Colorado River; the operation of two international storage reservoirs (Falcon and Amistad), with associated hydro-electric plants and a number of smaller diversion dams that provide a reliable supply of water to meet municipal and irrigation needs and fuel hydro-electric plants that address energy needs and afford flood control protection; and the addressing of border sanitation concerns that directly benefit the U.S. and Mexican citizens that populate the border region. Joint projects undertaken by the IBWC directly benefit the approximately 12 million border residents, a number that is anticipated growing to 16.8 million by 2020. An example of a direct impact on intended beneficiaries is USIBWC's water quantity programs. As detailed in answer 1.2, about 98% of all the water used in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, in both Texas and Mexico, is supplied from the Rio Grande through releases from USIBWC's Falcon and Amistad Reservoirs. On a 10-year average, combined, these reservoirs release about 1.2 million acre-feet of water per year resulting in: the irrigation of 956,014 acre-feet of land, valued at $95.9 million; $28.9 million in municipal and industrial water supply benefits; and $55 million in recreation/fish and wildlife benefits. In addition, the Falcon Dam and Reservoir provides potable water for 1,137,991 Mexican citizens and for close to half a million U.S. citizens. Programmatically, the USIBWC relies heavily on the results of technical analysis and other recommendations resulting from internal and external inspections (i.e., Safety of Dams Inspection Reports), efficiency and other studies, O&M annual and long-term plans and Flood Control Manuals to identify program priorities and assist in the development of future funding requirements and budget requests. This process is instrumental in the overall planning, decision-making, prioritization and approval of projects. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process insures that proposed USIBWC actions and alternatives to those actions are fully analyzed and subjected to public review and comment. Recent environmental documents guiding USIBWC's work include a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Secondary Compliance, and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for both Canalization and the Lower Rio Grande.

Evidence: Texas A & M Study, September 2004 (Texas Water Resources Institute Report TR-275); Congressional Budget Justification documents; Safety of Dams Inspections Reports; SEIS for Secondary Compliance; Canalization EIS; Lower Rio Grande EIS; 1944 Treaty Relating to Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC worked with the Department of State and OMB to develop a set of specific long-term performance measures: four are based on outcomes; one is based on outputs; and one measures efficiency. Each of these measures is based on the USIBWC Strategic Plan and program goals and objectives contained therein. These measures are also directly linked to USIBWC's mission, which is to apply the rights and obligations that the U.S. Government assumed under boundary and water treaties with Mexico and to develop binational solutions to address current and anticipated U.S. and Mexico boundary and water issues in a manner that benefits the social and economic welfare of the American public and maintain good relations between the two countries. The measures update previous measures reflected in the FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification, which focused on outputs. These new measures relate to each of USIBWC's specific program areas, including: 1) Wastewater Treatment Operations; 2) Water Quality; 3) Operation and Maintenance of International Dams; 4) Flood Control; and 5) Boundary Demarcation. Each measure seeks to track USIWBC's progress toward reaching the ambitious targets related to these program areas. The four long-term outcome measures focus on achieving compliance with Clean Water Act standards at two IBWC-owned and operated wastewater treatment facilities; measuring the implementation of Safety of Dam recommendations at two IBWC-owned and operated international storage dams and five diversion dams; demarcating the US-Mexico border; and tracking the number of people benefiting from USIBWC's levee rehabilitation efforts. The output measure focuses on testing water quality in Texas border waters.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Justification documents; long-term and annual plans; FY 2006 Strategic Plan.

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

Explanation: Long-term measures developed by USIBWC have ambitious targets and timeframes and are described in section 4 under Performance Measures. These have been developed with input from Department of State and OMB during the PART process. The program targets seek to reduce risk and increase benefits to the public in the shortest timeframe possible. For example, for high priority projects such as the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control, the USIBWC has developed ambitious and aggressive plans that will allow USIBWC to address the most critical levee deficiencies in a 5-year period versus the original 20-year plan. This is driven by increased public awareness and concerns resulting from Hurricane Katrina. In addition to the ambitious plans related to the Rio Grande Flood Control Project, the USIBWC is also seeking to provide secondary treatment of Tijuana sewage by 2008, to resolve a long-standing health and sanitation problem impacting U.S. residents and the environment in Southern California. Within two years, the USIBWC intends to bring two international wastewater facilities into compliance with their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Clean Water Act standards and court ordered consent decrees. The USIBWC has developed multi-year plans for each of these projects, with clear targets and timelines based on priority, need and the funding levels anticipated during a time of government-wide fiscal discipline.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Justification documents; program specific long-term and annual plans; FY 2006 Strategic Plan.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC has very clear annual performance measures that are specific to individual projects and are designed to demonstrate progress toward reaching USIBWC's long-term goals. These goals are directly linked to USIBWC's mission as it relates to U.S.-Mexico boundary demarcation, as well as the national ownership of border waters, sanitation, water quality and flood control. These performance measures and the estimated budgets are clearly defined in the work plans related to each project and progress is tracked within USIBWC's main program areas: 1) Wastewater Treatment Operations; 2) Water Quality; 3) Operation and Maintenance of International Dams; 4) Flood Control; and 5) Boundary Demarcation. One example of an annual performance measure for a USIBWC program as it relates to Boundary Demarcation is to: "Provide the U.S. and Mexican citizens, and state and federal agencies with a visible marking of the international boundary by increasing the number of boundary demarcation structures receiving maintenance and enhancement at existing and future international bridges and ports of entry". The target is to have 100% of boundary structures maintained and refurbished every five years. The USIBWC is tracking the number maintained annually to ensure that this goal is met.

Evidence: FY 2006 Strategic Plan; FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan; Congressional Budget Justification documents; project specific long-term plans.

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

Explanation: The performance measures included in section 4 are directly linked to the goals laid out in USIBWC's FY 2006 Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan, as well as project specific work plans. They demonstrate that each individual program's objectives are designed to improve the program's performance by targeting a higher percentage of its resources to the USIBWC's top priorities in order to achieve greater results. In addition, these programs have ambitious targets for all of the annual performance measures and have baselines for all but one of the annual performance measures, taking into account historic funding levels. The one performance measure without baselines previously lacked a long-term performance plan, but a plan has now been developed and has been incorporated into the USIBWC's FY 2006 Strategic Plan and FY 2006 Annual Plan. The USIBWC intends to support this annual performance measure with ambitious targets in subsequent budget submissions. The Performance Measures section shows that measures have been developed that touch on each of USIBWC's main program areas, including: 1) Wastewater Treatment Operations; 2) Water Quality; 3) Operation and Maintenance of International Dams; 4) Flood Control; and 5) Boundary Demarcation. An example of baselines and targets in a USIBWC program is in the Boundary Demarcation Program, in which the number of boundary demarcation structures receiving maintenance and enhancement is tracked annually. Beginning with a baseline of 5% in FY 2005, maintenance will increase to 20% in the following five years to reach the target of 100% of structures being maintained or enhanced by 2010.

Evidence: FY 2006 Strategic Plan; FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan; project specific long-term plans.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC ensures that its partners are committed to the accomplishment of USIBWC's annual and long-term goals through close oversight of the partner's adherence to terms and conditions stipulated in IBWC Minutes, Memorandums of Understanding/Agreement and/or federal contracts. USIBWC's most important partner is its Mexican counterpart. Together they jointly develop projects that reflect USIBWC's long-term goals related to wastewater treatment operations, water quality, operation and maintenance of international dams, flood control and boundary demarcation. The USIBWC and Mexico share the costs of binational projects. In most cases, these joint projects are undertaken, maintained and operated pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in IBWC Minutes that, following the approval of the U.S. and Mexico, enter into force as international agreements of the two governments. Thus Mexico commits to work jointly with the USIBWC toward the achievement of the annual and long-term goals of the program through the Minute process as a matter of international law. Contracts and agreements with U.S. federal and non-federal partners clearly define roles and responsibilities and accomplishments are reported monthly through the monitoring and reporting of Contracting Officer Representatives and/or technical committee representatives. The USIBWC partners with other Federal Government agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Environmental Protection Agency, to obtain contracting services in their fields of expertise for accomplishment of USIBWC projects. In addition, the USIBWC partners with state and local entities to cost-share in an effort to maximize resources for common goals. For example, the USIBWC is in partnership with the City of Hidalgo whereby the City is providing resources to jointly address flood control concerns by contracting for the rehabilitation of the levees in the City of Hidalgo area. The USIBWC is also finalizing agreements with the County of Hidalgo and Mission City, Texas, and entering into discussions with the County of Cameron, Texas to address the rehabilitation of levees for their respective areas and to obtain local funding for this effort. Close collaboration also exists with the State of Texas, which contracts with the USIBWC to conduct water quality monitoring and assessment through the Texas Clean Rivers Program and contributes to the cost of the Morillo Drain project. Another important partner is the City of Nogales, Arizona, which co-owns with the USIBWC the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant. In each of these cases, USIBWC oversight ensures that the partner is committed to the long-term goals of the program.

Evidence: IBWC Minutes; partnership agreements and/or FAR contracts.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations of some specific USIBWC programs and facilities are conducted regularly by such entities as the Joint Technical Advisors of the Safety of Dams and the USACE. In addition, a number of independent sources have reviewed the financial and management aspects of the USIBWC, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent accounting firm, and the Department of State's Office of Inspector General (OIG). These inspections have evaluated USIBWC's effectiveness and ability to achieve results, and in response to their recommendations, the USIBWC has undertaken numerous program improvements. However, there has yet to be a single evaluation that looks at the entire scope of USIBWC's program areas. In 1998, GAO reviewed activities of the USIBWC for the years 1994 through 1998 and identified weaknesses in certain aspects of USIBWC's finance and accounting systems, administration of operation and maintenance contracts, and noted that internal audits were not being performed on a continual basis. Since then, financial audits have been performed annually. These audits demonstrate program improvements as a result of the implementation of recommendations to ensure consistency with Federal Accounting and System requirements. Between January 31 and March 3, 2005, OIG undertook a comprehensive inspection of the USIBWC in Washington, D.C. and in El Paso, Texas and at USIBWC offices and facilities in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. The inspection report addressed a wide variety of administrative, security, and safety concerns. The OIG also assessed foreign policy matters under USIBWC's jurisdiction. The OIG assessed USIBWC's policy successes and future challenges and investigated policy and program implementation, including levee and management projects, and wastewater treatment plant operations. In assessing USIBWC's participation in the Texas Clean River Program, the OIG noted that the "program appears to have been effective and to have met the expectations of the parties in the past," but noted that the contract with the State of Texas should have been managed more attentively. Following its inspection, the OIG made 22 recommendations to USIBWC and the Department of State. Of the 19 recommendations for which the USIBWC is solely responsible, corrective actions have been made to close 17 of them, and steps are being taken to implement the remaining two recommendations. In addition, the USIBWC has established quarterly Citizens' forums in key border regions to inform the public about USIBWC programs and policies and to allow Citizens an opportunity to provide feedback on the effectiveness and relevance of the USIBWC's mission in relation to their needs. Independent evaluations have been conducted in 3 of USIBWC's program areas. Pursuant to the National Dam Safety Program, evaluations are conducted every five years at all IBWC-owned dams by a binational panel of experts comprised of USACE and Mexico's National Water Commission. The purpose is to reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure in the U.S. through the establishment and maintenance of a national dam safety program to bring together the expertise and resources of the federal and non-federal communities in achieving national dam safety hazard reduction. In addition, the USACE conducted geophysical assessments and hydraulic modeling of both Lower and Upper Rio Grande Flood Control Projects in 2001 and identified structural weaknesses. In response, the USIBWC developed major rehabilitation projects based on the USACE's analysis. As noted above, the OIG examined the USIBWC's participation in the Texas Clean Rivers Program and, in the course of the inspection, USIBWC undertook to correct the deficiencies identified by the OIG. It is unclear at this time if sufficient independent evaluations have been carried out on the 3 remaining program areas.

Evidence: Leonard G. Birnbaum & Company; Citizen's Forum Meeting Minutes; OIG Report ISP-I-05-26 March 2005; GAO /NSIAD-98-239; Joint Technical Advisors of the Safety of Dams Report; USACE Condition Assessment of the Levees.

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

Explanation: The Department of State's integrated budget and performance planning process allows USIBWC to match desired performance levels to its annual resource request. The USIBWC budget call utilizes performance targets to justify individual project requests and includes performance and resource information in the annual budget requests. USIBWC's annual budget requests are presented to the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) through the Office of Mexican Affairs (WHA/MEX) for review and comment prior to being orally briefed and justified to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for State Programs, Operations and Budget (RM/BP). The USIBWC's budget requests are designed to enable the agency to meet annual and long-term performance goals, and are presented in a manner that reflect the agency's Strategic Plan. Budget requests target continued operation and maintenance of the agency's programs and emerging needs relating to U.S.-Mexico boundary and water issues that have the potential to impact the growing population on the U.S.-Mexico border. All funding requirements associated with the agency's mission are included in the annual Congressional Budget Justification. In planning and preparing its budget the USIBWC considers performance data at every step of the process. Decisions on program management and performance are made using current financial policy and regulatory information and the agency's managers use budget data as a tool in making day to day policy decisions.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Justification documents; FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan; FY 2006 Strategic Plan.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC has undertaken a comprehensive review of its strategic planning efforts under each new leadership of the agency, most recently completing a strategic plan for 2006-2011. This review typically includes a re-examination of the agency's mission, its strategic goals and objectives, and annual performance measures tied to each strategic objective in addition to a reassessment of the agency's strategic planning process and priorities. Deficiencies in the strategic planning process have also been identified through an annual assessment of the agency's strategic and annual performance plans. The strategic plan has evolved to enable managers to review overall program effectiveness, design, implementation and results, as well as the review of agency requirements and responsibilities dictated by international agreements and domestic laws. This enables the USIBWC to evaluate each requirement and to validate that all requirements are still applicable and beneficial to the program. The process has actively engaged management officials and subject matter experts among the agency staff in the identification and prioritization of goals. The effort has resulted in a greater commitment from management officials and key staff members in carrying out strategic objectives and, in turn, the creation of meaningful performance measures that facilitate full program accountability. The Strategic Planning Officer will also be visiting agency field offices in order to promote strategic planning.

Evidence: FY 2006 Strategic Plan; FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: With respect to capital assets, the USIBWC takes into account the cost-benefit of deferred maintenance versus operational failure. Major replacements and scheduled routine maintenance are conducted pursuant to detailed operational manuals in place for each facility owned and operated by the USIBWC. The agency attempts to achieve performance goals in the most cost effective manner, considering viable alternatives to reduce cost and increase efficiencies, unless otherwise directed by legislation, federal regulation, or circumstances beyond the agency's control. The USIBWC has implemented measures and technologies to maximize benefits and minimize costs whenever possible. The agency uses a streamlined process to address heavy equipment needs. This process allows the USIBWC to replace and share common heavy equipment among field offices critical to the agency's operations. In addition, the USIBWC is using new technologies and methods to more efficiently evaluate its Rio Grande Flood Control Projects, which include approximately 500 miles of levees. The USIBWC conducted an integrated, sophisticated, "high tech" approach combining geophysical and geotechnical methods to identify potentially weak or high-risk flood levee segments. This engineering-based, site-specific approach has substantially increased the availability of data on the levee systems and has reduced the overall cost of the levee evaluations by more than 50%. Pursuant to the National Dam Safety Program, evaluations are conducted at all IBWC-owned dams by a binational panel of experts comprised of USACE and Mexico's National Water Commission every five years. The purpose is to reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure in the United States and Mexico through the establishment and maintenance of a national dam safety program to bring together the expertise and resources of the federal and non-federal communities in achieving national dam safety hazard reduction. In addition, the USACE conducted geophysical assessments and hydraulic modeling of both Lower and Upper Rio Grande Flood Control Projects in 2001, and identified structural weaknesses. In response the USIBWC developed major rehabilitation projects based on the USACE's analysis.

Evidence: Maintenance and Repair Manuals; Flood Control Manuals; heavy equipment long-term plans;Joint Technical Advisors of the Safety of Dams Report; USACE Condition Assessment of the Levees.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC monitors progress toward achieving its goals through participation in regular meetings with its Mexican counterparts, direct contact with support staff, and collaboration with partner agencies through the interagency process. In developing its annual priorities and funding requests, the USIBWC incorporates its directions from Congress and the Administration and from guidance received from the Department of State on foreign policies, U.S. legislation and regulations that affect its mission. The USIBWC collects timely and credible performance information from key program partners and utilizes this information to improve performance through an adaptive management process. The USIBWC partners with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and nongovernmental organizations to improve watershed conditions and develop river restoration enhancements, while still meeting its water delivery requirements. The USIBWC monitors contractors' performance on a monthly basis to determine whether accomplishments are being achieved and timelines met. Corrective action is taken to ensure performance. In addition, the USIBWC established Citizens' Forums in key border regions, which meet quarterly, to inform the public about USIBWC programs and policies and allow citizens an opportunity to provide feedback on the effectiveness and relevance of the USIBWC's mission in relation to their needs. The USIBWC uses the feedback to consider adjustment to program priorities, allocation of resources, and/or the implementation of other appropriate management actions to address concerns. The USIBWC partners with its Mexican counterpart and USACE to conduct periodic inspections of all of its dams pursuant to the Dam Safety and Security Act and utilizes the assessment results to develop necessary corrective actions and program improvement plans. USIBWC uses independent laboratory analysis to determine the salinity values in water samplings taken to ensure compliance with the salinity differential required under Minute 242 for Colorado River water allocated to Mexico under the 1944 Treaty.

Evidence: Citizen's Forum Meeting Minutes; Congressional Budget Justification documents; Management and Accountability Reports; Joint Technical Advisors on Safety of Dams Program; WAPA's review of power plant operations; Adaptive Management of Canalization EIS Implementation by El Paso del Norte Watershed Council; Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Committee on LRGVFCP Rehabilitation; Production of the annual IBWC Minute 242 report on salinity of Colorado River waters delivered to Mexico; Clean Rivers Program reports.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC utilizes various tools to closely monitor performance and to ensure that intended results are accomplished as anticipated. The USIBWC develops annual employee performance plans, which detail evaluation criteria directly tied to their functional responsibilities. A review of program manager's performance is assessed at a minimum every six months. The performance plans for the Principal Engineers include accountability and cost monitoring to ensure that projects are executed in accordance with project objectives and guidelines. Performance plans also hold managers accountable for cost, schedule and performance results. Performance plans are reviewed regularly to ensure that specific performance standards are accurately stated. Functional work plans are also used to lay out specific details on expected annual accomplishments. The USIBWC has a process in place that provides for contract reviews to determine exercising options based upon past performance. The USIBWC monitors contractors' performance on a daily basis and reports accomplishments at a minimum on a monthly basis to determine whether contract terms and conditions are being met. The contractor prepares and submits monthly, quarterly and annual reports to the Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer Representative and Project Manager, detailing accomplishments for that time period as specified in the contract (the monthly status reports are submitted along with the monthly invoice). The Contracting Officer Representative also provides monthly progress reports to the Contracting Officer (CO) for review and approval of payment, as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Corrective action is taken by agency managers to ensure the project continues to stay on track in accordance with the project's specified time lines. The review is of particular importance to ensure that changes in schedule will not result in increases to the contract amount. The USIBWC has a Project Development Directive (revised in 2006), which specifies that Project Managers use Project Management tools to effectively plan, track and implement projects to include the data collection and analysis necessary for performance measurement in accordance with PART requirements. The USIBWC is moving towards implementing performance-based contract procedures (performance-based contracts are geared more towards service contracts), and are providing the necessary training to Contracting and Technical personnel. The USIBWC plans are to initiate the implementation of performance-based contracts starting in FY 2007 for contracts that meet the required criteria.

Evidence: Employee Performance Plans; FAR contracts/MOUs; Contractor and Contracting Officer Representative Progress Reports.

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

Explanation: The majority of the USIBWC's funds are obligated as reported in the annual financial plans to the Department of State. These funds are obligated in a timely manner, in accordance with appropriation authorizing language, and as intended in the individual program plans. Some carryover has resulted when specific program requirements have changed as revisions are made to long-term plans. Adequate procedures exist for reporting actual expenditures and comparing them against project work plans to ensure that expenditures reflect the intended use. The USIBWC on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis prepares and submits reports to both the Department of State (Budget and Planning and Funds Control Offices) and Treasury on the commitment, obligations, disbursements (liquidations) and recoveries of current and prior years. The SF 133 Report on Budget Execution is provided to Treasury and the Department of State on a quarterly basis. The Section 609 Report of Obligations and Outlays is provided to the Department of State on a quarterly basis and details quarterly accounting of the cumulative balances of any unobligated funds that were received by the USIBWC during any previous fiscal year. Monthly Accounting Reports are also provided to the Department of State. Where unexplained or unexpected deviations are identified during the reviews, appropriate corrective action is taken to address or correct significant deviations. The USIBWC's objective is to initiate prompt and accurate reporting of program awards in the Federal Procurement Data System in FY 2006.

Evidence: Quarterly execution reports; Section 609 Report reported quarterly on projected carryover amounts; SF 133; Performance Plans; FAR contract clauses; appropriation bills; EPA Grants.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC competitively bids the majority of all contracts, except for those sole- source contracts for socio-economic programs in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, affording the USIBWC the opportunity to obtain goods and/or services at the best value to the American taxpayer. More emphasis is being placed on the acquisition of support services through performance-based contracts and utilizing value engineering to determine cost effective alternatives. Consistent with standard agency practice, NEPA guidelines and other regulations, USIBWC fully examines alternatives to reduce program cost and timelines. Program annual performance work plans are used as a tool to measure annual performance and cost effectiveness, so as to adopt efficiencies. The USIBWC has developed and implemented efficiency measures with baselines and targets for programmatic environmental impact assessments and is using new technologies and methods to advance rehabilitation of its flood control projects. The USIBWC is also implementing cost saving measures with respect to heavy equipment replacement. For the Heavy Equipment Replacement Project, the USIBWC has inventoried its heavy equipment requirements at its 12 field offices. Instead of replacing all the equipment identified, the USIBWC will replace only the most used and needed pieces of equipment and purchase transportation semi-truck trailers to transport and share equipment as needed. In addition, heavy equipment that is seldom used will be rented when the need arises instead of the current practice of purchasing replacements. Replacement costs for various pieces of heavy equipment range from $100,000 to $400,000. Although transportation and rental costs will increase, the savings associated with sharing and renting heavy equipment will greatly offset these increases. The USIBWC expects to save 37.5% from its original estimate. In the Rio Grande Canalization and Rio Grande Flood Control System Rehabilitation Project, the USIBWC is using new technologies and methods to reduce investment costs. The USIBWC is currently evaluating approximately 500 miles of levees in the Rio Grande Flood Control System. Traditional levee investigation methods would have required thousands of soil boring samples at regular intervals to evaluate the structural integrity of the levee system. Instead, the USIBWC conducted an integrated "high tech" approach using airborne and surface geophysical methods, airborne laser surveying, electronic cone penetrometer, geologic studies and a geographic information system to collect and interpret continuous data to identify questionable or high-risk flood levee segments. Once identified, the USIBWC will perform focused geotechnical investigations on the potentially weak levee segments to determine which levees are structurally inadequate and need rehabilitation. This integrated approach has substantially decreased the number of geotechnical investigations, thus reducing the overall cost of the levee evaluations by more than 50% while providing more comprehensive coverage. As a cost reducing strategy for the rehabilitation of the flood control system, the USIBWC is pursuing development of a programmatic EIS in lieu of an individual EIS for each flood control project. An individual EIS is estimated to cost between $2 million and $3 million for each of the four flood control projects being rehabilitated. A programmatic EIS is more general than a project EIS and will cost about $1 million. The programmatic EIS will evaluate all common potential impacts associated with the agency's entire flood control program and will be supplemented with lower cost Project Environmental Assessments (EA's) to assess specific conditions at the rehabilitation (construction) sites. A project EA typically costs about one-third of a project EIS. Overall, this results in about a 50% cost savings.

Evidence: FAR; USIBWC Directives; annual financial plans; financial system upgrades to comply with JFMIP and other Federal requirements; SF 133.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The USIBWC's most valuable partner is its Mexican counterpart with whom it jointly operates international storage dams and associated hydroelectric power plants, diversion dams, boundary demarcation programs, water quality monitoring programs and wastewater treatment facilities, and whose cooperation is vital to achieving USIBWC's mission. The USIBWC also works very closely with the Department of State through the Bureau of Resource Management and the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA), which provides foreign policy guidance to the USIBWC in the context of the overall bilateral relationship with Mexico. To facilitate cooperation and coordination, the USIBWC maintains a permanent position at the Department of State in the Office of Mexican Affairs (WHA/MEX) to act as liaison between the two agencies. In addition, the USIBWC has a long history of working closely and effectively with other federal, state and local entities, professional societies, academic institutions and nongovernmental organizations on U.S.-Mexico boundary and water issues. For example, the USIBWC works very closely and effectively with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which is responsible for the domestic management of the Colorado River and Rio Grande, to ensure water deliveries to Mexico in accordance with the 1944 Water Treaty and Convention of 1906, respectively. The USIBWC participates in the development of the Bureau's annual operating plan for the Colorado River and conducts periodic meetings with local and senior-level Bureau officials. In addition, the USIBWC organizes an annual meeting that includes senior-level representatives of the Bureau and its Mexican counterpart. The USIBWC also works closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), meeting regularly with senior representatives and frequently calling upon USACE to conduct assessments of USIBWC assets. The USIBWC also partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency to construct the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant and to develop an upgrade for the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant with the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC), the North American Development Bank, the City of Nogales, Arizona and Arizona state agencies. The City of Nogales, Arizona is an important partner, co-owning the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant with the USIBWC. Until its recent reorganization, the U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC served on the Board of Directors of the BECC and was instrumental in developing early BECC border sanitation projects. Additionally, the USIBWC works closely with the Lower Rio Grande Watermaster for the State of Texas, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, and El Paso County Water Improvement District #1 to coordinate water deliveries to U.S. users. Close collaboration also exists with the State of Texas, which contracts with the USIBWC to conduct water quality monitoring and assessment through the Texas Clean Rivers Program.

Evidence: IBWC Minutes and MOUs; Citizen's Forum Meeting Minutes; Clean Rivers Program, (implementation of IBWC Minute 289 USIBWC-TNRCC); Coop partners - Big Bend NP, City of Laredo, City of Brownsville, NCRS, Texas A&M, and UTEP; South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (City of San Diego South Bay Ocean Outfall (SBOO) Ocean Outfall Monitoring); Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant (City of Nogales, AZ, co-owner/co-permit holder for National Pollutant Discharge Environmental Standards (NPDES) permit); Rio Grande Flood Warning NWS Gulf Region River Forecast Center; Section 502 Clean Water Act; BECC/IBWC MOU.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requires agencies to establish management control and financial systems that provide reasonable assurance that the integrity of federal programs and operations are protected. It also requires that the head of the agency, based on an evaluation, provide an annual Statement of Assurance on whether the agency has met this requirement. The Department of State FY 2005 evaluation of its management control systems and financial management systems provided reasonable assurance that the objectives of the FMFIA were achieved and formed the basis for the Secretary's Statement of Assurance. The USIBWC follows all Federal accounting principles and guidelines. The Federal Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), OMB Circular 01-09 and Treasury's Financial Manual are the primary sources for accounting guidelines on financial management practices. In addition, the USIBWC follows OMB circulars to assist with the internal controls of financial management. A 1998 GAO report provided recommendations to improve financial and management oversight at the USIBWC. The USIBWC has corrected all deficiencies identified from annual financial statement audits conducted from fiscal years 1992 through 1995. The weaknesses identified in contract administration by the GAO have been corrected. Financial audits had been performed for fiscal years 1993, 1994 and 1995 and, to comply with GAO's findings and recommendation, have been performed annually since 1999. Subsequent financial audits demonstrate program improvements as a result of the implementation of audit recommendations to ensure consistency with Federal Accounting and System requirements, and show that the necessary steps have been taken to correct other weaknesses identified during the inspection. The audit of the 2004 and 2005 financial statements and the subsequent OIG management letter mentions "internal control and compliance weaknesses" that, although of concern, do not rise to the level necessary to be reported in the opinion to the financial statements and do not affect the "clean" audit status. USIBWC is working to address these weaknesses and they will be tracked in future audits of USIBWC financial statements. The USIBWC has established a process to document, and clearly and separately identify the receipt of funds from federal, state and local municipalities and the Government of Mexico. All direct appropriated and reimbursable funds are accurately reflected in annual financial statements and there is full implementation of "separation of duties" through the establishment of separate functions for the execution and disbursement of funds. A Budget Office was established to be solely responsible for the full scope of the execution of funds and the Finance and Accounting function has sole responsibility over the certification of disbursement of funds (expenditures) and ensuring compliance with financial internal controls. In addition, the USIBWC has developed written accounting policies and procedures; conducted annual internal control assessments of all functions; upgraded to a JFMIP compliant financial management system; reported payment performance data to OMB as required by the Prompt Payment Act of 1983 in response to the GAO inspection (no longer a requirement); assigned the internal auditor the responsibility to follow-up on all audit findings and/or recommendations to ensure that appropriate and timely actions are implemented; developed a document detailing requirements to comply with applicable laws and regulations; conducted annual physical inventories of all capitalized assets and of non-capitalized assets every two years; and, in 2003, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a review of the USIBWC's IT function and provided recommendations on the development of security plans in compliance with FISMA (currently being implemented).

Evidence: Leonard G. Birnbaum & Company; Accountability and Controls; OMB Circulars 01-09, A-11, A123; GAAP; Treasury's Financial Manual; Annual financial statements; USIBWC Directives (http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Directives/Index.html); FY 2003 NIST review; Administration Department Reporting Requirements.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC has conducted self-assessments, developed a Human Capital Restoration Plan, is in the planning process to procure consulting services to assist with a pre-A76 assessment and is considering contracting for an independent comprehensive evaluation of its effectiveness in meeting its mission requirements. The USIBWC is also maintaining close contact with the Department of State's Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) and Resource Management and Budget Planning Bureaus, along with OMB counterparts, and is providing updates on overall agency administration and performance. In addition, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent accounting firm, and the Department of State's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have evaluated the USIBWC regarding its effectiveness and provided recommendations for improvements in the areas of management and administration. In response, the USIBWC has made numerous changes to improve upon the USIBWC's consistency with Federal Accounting and System requirements, as well as addressing weaknesses related to management, administration, security and safety concerns. The March 2005 OIG report acknowledged the success USIBWC has had in resolving major policy issues, but was critical of internal management issues that were threatening the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. Since the release of that report, USIBWC has instituted 18 of the 22 formal OIG recommendations and all seven of the informal recommendations. USIBWC and the State Department are moving toward resolving the remaining items related to security, personnel and management oversight and the consolidation of administrative functions. The 1998 GAO report identified weaknesses in certain aspects of USIBWC's finance and accounting systems, administration of operation and maintenance contracts, and noted that internal audits were not being performed on a continual basis. The USIBWC has corrected all deficiencies identified from annual financial statement audits conducted from fiscal years 1992 through 1995. The weaknesses identified in contract administration by the GAO have been corrected. Financial audits had been performed for fiscal years 1993, 1994 and 1995, and to comply with GAO's findings and recommendation, have been performed annually since 1999. Subsequent financial audits demonstrate program improvements as a result of the implementation of audit recommendations to ensure consistency with Federal Accounting and System requirements. The USIBWC has also strengthened its Internal Controls Program by expanding the responsibilities of this program to the lowest levels of management. This has been accomplished through sessions with management officials and by incorporating aspects of the Internal Controls Program as performance elements in annual performance plans.

Evidence: FY06 Human Capital Restoration Plan; Congressional Budget Justification documents; Employee Performance Plans; Leonard G. Birnbaum & Company; OIG Report ISP-I-05-26 March 2005; GAO /NSIAD-98-239.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: With respect to acquisition of capital assets, the USIBWC conducts market research to evaluate alternatives through lifecycle costing. Project work plans are developed in accordance with Circular A-11 Exhibit 300 using industry standard project management principles and methods, ensuring that all procurements are in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and that all contracts are awarded based on competition and best value for the Federal Government, which clearly detail milestones and performance. Project Managers ensure that facilities are inspected in accordance with legislative and other regulatory requirements, and that any deficiencies identified are corrected in a timely and cost effective manner. Annual replacement and scheduled routine maintenance are conducted pursuant to detailed operational manuals in place for each facility owned and operated by the USIBWC. The agency attempts to achieve performance goals in the most cost effective manner considering viable alternatives to reduce cost and increase efficiencies, unless otherwise directed by legislation or federal regulation or circumstances beyond the agency's control.

Evidence: Safety of Dams inspections and USIBWC Directives; Maintenance and Repair Manuals; Flood Control Manuals; Heavy equipment long-term plans.

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

Explanation: Although the USIBWC, because of its foreign affairs function, is somewhat process oriented, it has developed outcome oriented long-term goals and is making significant progress towards achieving them during this time of government-wide fiscal discipline. For example, the USIBWC is making progress in achieving its long-term performance goal of reducing risk to life and property from floods. Based upon its preliminary economic benefits analysis and a condition assessment undertaken by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) of the Rio Grande Flood Control Projects, the USIBWC has identified deficient levee segments and has developed a long-term plan for design and construction of necessary flood control improvements targeting high-risk areas. In FY 2006, the USIBWC will complete the necessary environmental assessments and design to allow aggressive construction to begin in FY 2007. The original 20-year plan of rehabilitating and reconstructing the deficient levees has been revised to the more ambitious and aggressive plan to complete this project in 5-years. In the area of water quality management, the USIBWC has already signed a development agreement with a private entity to further the implementation of IBWC Minute 311 and Public Law 106-457, and is providing technical oversight for construction of the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade, which will bring these two USIBWC facilities into compliance with secondary treatment standards required under their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, the Clean Water Act and court-ordered consent decrees by 2008. In the area of water quantity management, the USIBWC determines national ownership of treaty waters, and continues to operate and maintain storage and diversion dams and conveyance channels in a safe and secure manner, and ensures water availability to U. S. and Mexico users in compliance with it treaty obligations. To reduce the risk to life and property from dam failure, every five years a national dam safety program inspects the two international storage dams and five diversion dams that are IBWC-owned and operated. The USIBWC is tracking their implementation of the recommendations that result from these inspections. The USIBWC has already increased their implementation from 33% in 2000 to 71% in 2003, and plans a further increase to 85% in 2007.

Evidence: FY 2006 Strategic Plan; FY 2006 Performance Annual Plan; Congressional Budget Justification documents.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC does achieve its established annual performance goals and ensures that program partners assist in meeting these goals through careful and constant monitoring of activities. Successful annual accomplishments that are linked directly to the measures being tracked in section 4 include: (1) maintaining over 500 miles of flood control systems; (2) operating and maintaining two international reservoirs and hydroelectric power plants in a safe and secure manner, with no significant incidence of inoperability, thereby providing U.S. citizens with a reliable water supply and energy source; (3) operating and maintaining two international wastewater treatment plants (100% operational) to assure the safety and health of the public in the San Diego, CA and Nogales, AZ areas; and (4) performing required monument maintenance and boundary demarcation at numerous locations along the 2000-mile long U.S.-Mexico border. Additional efforts not included in the performance measures section that are meeting annual performance goals include: (1) mowing floodway and levee side slopes, and grading over 500 miles of levee surface at Lower Rio Grande, Upper Rio Grande, San Diego and Presidio Flood Control Projects; (2) maintaining and/or repairing U.S. Government-owned structures at field offices in accordance with detailed operational manuals in place for each facility; and (3) developing, coordinating and establishing necessary agreements with Federal, State and/or local entities in order to effect cost-sharing partnerships to facilitate efficient and timely advancement of the USIBWC's mission. The agency attempts to achieve performance goals in the most cost effective manner, considering viable alternatives to reduce cost and increase efficiencies, unless otherwise directed by legislation or federal regulation or circumstances beyond the agency's control. The USIBWC strongly supports the President's Management Agenda Government-Wide Goals and initiatives. The USIBWC has initiated the development of documentation in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and additional requirements under OMB Circular A-123. The USIBWC has excelled in meeting the President's goal to eliminate improper payments. Independent financial audits for the last five years have reported that the USIBWC fully implements generally accepted accounting principles for federal financial reporting purposes, and will continue to fully comply with this goal. The USIBWC will continue to utilize the Capital Planning & Investment Control (CPIC) process to assist in the review of new capital investments for construction projects.

Evidence: FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan; Project Long-Term Plans; FY 2006 Strategic Plan; President's Management Agenda Government-Wide Goals Report.

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

Explanation: The USIBWC proactively evaluates its targets and measures to ensure that its mission is met in the most efficient manner. An efficiency being tracked in the measures section focuses on the agency's use of a streamlined process to address heavy equipment needs. This process allows the agency to replace and share among field offices common heavy equipment that is critical to the agency's activities, instead of supplying each field office with a full set of machinery required for the agency's operations and maintenance function. The USIBWC expects to save 37.5% from its original estimate by implementing these cost-saving practices. Other efforts to improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness focused on the review and analysis of manpower levels compared to mission requirements. One efficiency in particular was a review of the functions within the Administration support department. This was accomplished through the review of processes, functional workload levels and requirements, as well as the organizational structure within each area of the Administration Department. The review highlighted positions for potential restructuring or elimination, affording increased levels of performance by function with lower manpower requirements. In total, the department identified and benefited from approximately $400,000 in cost savings attributed to the elimination and restructuring of several positions, fully accomplished through attrition. This process enabled the USIBWC to re-direct scarce resources to fund higher priority programs. In addition, two divisions in the Engineering section were eliminated and functions were absorbed by existing positions in the Engineering Services and Environmental sections, again enabling the USIBWC to re-direct cost savings to address mission critical funding requirements. In another example of cost effectiveness, the USIBWC developed and implemented an efficiency measure to advance the rehabilitation of its flood control projects. This new technology more efficiently evaluates the Rio Grande Flood Control Projects, which includes approximately 500 miles of levees. The USIBWC conducted an integrated, sophisticated, "high tech" approach combining geophysical and geotechnical methods to identify potentially weak or high-risk flood levee segments. This engineering based and site-specific approach has substantially increased the availability of data on the levee systems, while reducing the overall cost of the levee evaluations by more than 50%.

Evidence: FY 2006 Strategic Plan; Congressional Budget Justification documents.

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

Explanation: Due to the diplomatic nature of the program and its uniqueness, it is difficult to draw comparisons with other programs. While USIBWC shares aspects of its mission with other agencies, there is no other entity responsible for the same cross-section of border issues and with the same foreign policy implications. The USIBWC is unique in its character. It is a federal government agency, which operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State. When the USIBWC joins with CILA as a Commission, it has the status of an international body and was designated as a public international organization as per the International Organization Immunities Act (22 USC 288). The only similarly structured organization, the International Joint Commission (IJC), was established to address U.S.-Canada boundary issues, but because the IJC has a different mandate and mission, is guided by different treaties, and has a different set of border issues to contend with, a comparison between USIBWC and IJC would be difficult. In the March 2005 OIG report on the USIBWC, the inspectors took note that the U.S. and Canada maintain a joint Commission, but the report indicated that the IJC "has quite different functions and organization. It has few of the direct operating responsibilities of the IBWC." While the IJC approves construction by other entities of dams and other structures in boundary lakes and rivers, the IJC does not own or operate any infrastructure on the U.S.-Canadian border. The U.S. and Canadian Sections are headquartered in their respective capitals and each Section maintains a staff of 15 employees. IJC has only one field office that monitors Great Lakes water quality and is staffed with 18 U.S. and Canadian employees. The IJC functions more as an arbitral panel and must act impartially in reviewing problems and deciding issues, rather than representing the views of their respective governments. Its main focus is to undertake investigations and studies relating to water and air pollution, and other water uses, often times convening boards, made up of experts from the United States and Canada, to help it carry out its responsibilities. While other federal, state, and local entities may undertake domestic projects of a similar nature, i.e. wastewater treatment or flood control, there is no other entity with a binational mandate to survey, mark and map the U.S.-Mexico boundary; to manage transboundary waters; to jointly develop, construct, operate and maintain binational projects on the U.S.-Mexico border; and that is charged with applying U.S.-Mexico boundary and water treaties and international agreements and settling disputes that arise thereunder. The Department of State looks to the USIBWC to address specific issues that arise in the U.S.-Mexico relationship, to provide its senior leadership with technical advice and to work with the CILA to develop binational solutions to problems that affect U.S. and Mexican citizens in the border region. The Department of State entrusts the USIBWC to advance U.S. foreign policy with Mexico on matters relating to U.S.-Mexico boundary and transboundary water issues.

Evidence: February 3, 1944 Treaty Relating to the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (59 Stat 1219; TS 994), 22 USC 277 et seq; OIG Report ISP-I-05-26 March 2005.

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

Explanation: Independent evaluations of USIBWC program areas, such as those provided by the Joint Technical Advisors of the Safety of Dams and USACE, indicate that the programs related to its dams and flood control projects are effective and achieving results. In addition, evaluations of internal management and financial processes are conducted regularly and have reported that the financial processes in place are effective. The 2004 and 2005 audit of the financial statements mentions some minor weaknesses, but none that affect the overall "clean" status of the audit. The 2005 report by the Department of State Inspector General (OIG), while focusing primarily on internal management processes, did recognize the success USIBWC has had with initiating the resolution of major border policy issues related to the Rio Grande and sanitation. The 2005 OIG inspection took place in Washington, D.C. between January 10 and 29, 2005; and in El Paso, Texas, and USIBWC offices and facilities in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, between January 31 and March 3, 2005. The inspection report addressed a wide variety of administrative security and safety concerns. The OIG also assessed foreign policy matters under USIBWC jurisdiction and noted that border water and sanitation issues are discussed at the highest levels of U.S. and Mexican Governments. The OIG also indicated that these issues have immediate domestic consequences in the border region where population growth, industrialization and cross border issues such as sewage disposal have greatly increased the interest and demands of state and local governments, other agencies and the courts. The OIG assessed USIBWC's policy successes and future challenges and investigated policy and program implementation, including levee and management projects, and wastewater treatment plant operations. The OIG examined the USIBWC's participation in the Texas Clean Rivers Program, noted the effectiveness of the program in the past and identified deficiencies that the USIBWC undertook to correct during the course of the inspection. However, an independent evaluation has not yet been carried out that focuses in depth on both the administrative/managerial/financial aspects, as well as all of the programmatic aspects of USIBWC's work. Additionally, as noted in answer 2.6, separate evaluations of all of the main USIBWC program areas have not yet taken place. While USIBWC has shown results in the areas that have been assessed, an evaluation of greater scope is needed to fully determine whether the agency is effective and achieving results in all areas of its work as a whole.

Evidence: Leonard G. Birnbaum & Company; Citizen's Forum Meeting Minutes; OIG Report ISP-I-05-26 March 2005; Joint Technical Advisors of the Safety of Dams Report.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: The USIBWC is generally successful at achieving its goals within budgeted costs and established schedules. One reason for this is that the operation and maintenance of capital assets is required under numerous U.S.-Mexico treaties and international agreements, as well as domestic law. Annual replacement and scheduled routine maintenance are conducted pursuant to detailed operational manuals in place for each facility owned and operated by the USIBWC. The agency attempts to achieve performance goals in the most cost effective manner considering viable alternatives to reduce cost and increase efficiencies, unless otherwise directed by legislation or federal regulation or circumstances beyond the agency's control.

Evidence: FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan; Project Long-Term Plans; FY 2006 Strategic Plan; Maintenance and Repair Manuals; Flood Control Manuals; heavy equipment long-term plans.