PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Hydrologic Activities to be Excluded from the Federal-State Cooperative Program In Reply Refer To: December 5, 1983 EGS-Mail Stop WATER RESOURCES DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 84.21 Subject: PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Hydrologic Activities to be Excluded from the Federal-State Cooperative Program The basic mission of the Water Resources Division (WRD) is specified by law and other mandates and, therefore, does not readily change. On the other hand, hydrologic conditions, hydrologic problems, and the public awareness of these problems do change, and as a result our activities change with time. These changes make it important that criteria used to evaluate WRD activities be reviewed and defined on a regular basis. The current trend toward shifting responsibilities from Federal to State agencies to fund development and for managing the water resource could conceivably influence the emphasis of the Federal-State Cooperative Program. Thus, it is especially important that periodically the criteria for selecting activities for the Federal-State Cooperative Program be reviewed. Those activities considered to be of highest priority and greatest interest are reviewed and redefined each year. Less attention has been placed on the other end of the scale; that is on those activities that should be excluded from WRD programs. At any time the Division needs to guard against expending its resources on less important activities, but especially at times when funds and manpower are under stress. The attached staff paper reviews and discusses criteria to be used to decide which hydrologic activities are not appropriately included in the Federal- State Cooperative Program. The discussion paper provides policy guidelines, examples, and references to existing directives that should be used, along with other WRD policy statements on high priority issues, in the formulation of new programs. /signed/ Philip Cohen Attachment Distribution: All Professional Personnel ========================================= Attachment HYDROLOGIC ACTIVITIES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM Introduction The task of defining guidelines for rejection of hydrologic studies and data collection proposed by Water Resources Division (WRD) Districts for inclusion in the Federal-State Cooperative Program might be viewed as the negative counterpart of identifying those activities to be accorded the highest priority in the program. In other words, rejection criteria would have to be based on some definition of the lowest priority. One criterion might entail a definition of hydrologic activities that are devoid of merit in the sense that the data or information derived from them would be worthless or nearly so. However, the selection and ranking of hydrologic studies and hydrologic data collection that are of lowest priority is even more subjective than the selection of highest-priority activities. High-priority program issues are so defined in part because of their relation to water problems that are wide-spread geographically. As applied to areal descriptions or interpretive studies, geographically limited occurrence of the water problem to which they were addressed would be a necessary criterion for rejection, but any one of many factors might make a given project of limited geographic extent and occurrence a very desirable addition to the Federal-State Cooperative Program. Considerations of geographic distribution, however, are not applicable to the acceptance or rejection of a given data station. The list of high-priority activities is rooted in the Division's perception of national and regional water problems, which are the aggregate of local problems, but rejection criteria cannot be based solely on a limitation in the utility of the resultant data or information in space or time, because of the possibility that information of limited areal extent, or data at some point, might be critical to the understanding and eventual solution of a particular hydrologic problem. In the past it was fashionable to judge the worth of proposed activities in terms of Federal interest--a concept that commonly had been equated with "national" or "interstate." The Federal-interest notion has, however, become less useful with time, as Federal funds are no longer reserved for very large, or "national" projects, Federal dollars have pervasively entered all levels of government and all aspects of life. Thus, it has become increasingly difficult to define an absence of, or some minimal degree of Federal interest. The spectrum of enterprises and activities supported by Federal dollars is so broad, and so many of them take on national significance only by aggregation of a myriad of site-specific and local concerns, that by analogy practically any and all local and site-specific hydrologic data can be said to have "Federal value" and, therefore, to fall within the Federal interest. Is there less Federal interest in water-supply wells for small rural communities than there is for wheelchair ramps on city sidewalks? In contrast, there are: (1) Legal and administrative constraints deriving from the Organic Act, the appropriation language, and "the intent of Congress," plus the amplifying rules and procedures promulgated by the Department and the Survey (manuals, and so forth) that contain explicit rejection criteria or provide the framework for them; (2) statements of objective and mission that allow the exclusion of activities not included by such statements; (3) judgmental determinations that a given proposal would be technically in-feasible; and (4) management considerations. The criteria and guidelines that follow, as well as the discussion intended to illustrate and amplify them, should be applied to program proposals for work under the Federal-State Cooperative Program regardless of the funding mechanism. They should be applied whatever the funding situation, 50-50 matched funds, Federal funds against direct services credit, or 100-percent repay. Relation to High Priority Program Issues High-priority program issues, as listed and defined in WRD Memorandum 83.52 for example, describe the kinds of interpretive studies that will be given preference for funding in the Federal-State Cooperative Program. Data collection activities generally are not uniquely related to such a priority list. By implication, however, kinds of data that would contribute to, or provide the foundation for, high-priority program issues take on higher priority than data collection devoid of such a relationship. If a proposal for new work does not fall within the realm of any of the high-priority categories, it should be examined critically and tested against the criteria for exclusion. A long list can be compiled of activities that are generally considered to be of low priority. In some situations good reasons exist for excluding them from the Federal-State program; in others, they might serve to complement other program elements, or to fill a critical gap in the spectrum of hydrologic information. The list includes, but is not confined to: compilation of drainage areas, preparation of bridge site reports, and sampling and analysis of waste treatment plant outfalls. None of these topics can be categorically rejected. In some hydrologic situations, or if the understanding of the hydrology is minimal, each could be relevant, and in some cases, provide essential hydrologic data or information. Legal and Administrative Constraints 1. The Organic Act prohibits the undertaking of work for private parties or corporations. By extension, this restriction can be applied to joint- funding agreements with private parties or corporations. Although language in the Appropriations Act for FY 1983 allows for funding of Survey work from private sources, the line items for Federal-State water-resources investigations are presumed not to be affected. 2. Appropriation language in recent years has referred to "...water- resources investigations carried on in cooperation with any State or municipality." This has been interpreted to mean an agency or entity having taxing authority or a public institution that is an integral part of such tax-levying entity. An entity that did not meet such a definition would not be eligible to enter into a joint-funding agreement. For example, the University of California operates the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico under contract for the U.S. Department of Energy. While the University would be an appropriate cooperating agency for work in California, in New Mexico it is a contractor to a Federal agency and not an extension of that State's government. 3. Cooperative (joint) funding cannot be used for hydrologic activities out- side the United States and its associated commonwealths and trust territories. 4. Hydrologic investigations, the conduct of which would violate existing laws of statutes, are to be rejected. (See WRD Memorandum 81.53.) For example, investigations that might have significant adverse effects on public health and safety, such as the introduction of toxic or hazardous materials as hydrologic tracers, or adversely affect endangered or threatened species, should be rejected. Investigations that would adversely affect national landmarks, antiquities, or archeological sites should be rejected. Policy and Mission Constraints 1. The long-standing and firm Division policy not to compete with private industry (See WRD Memorandum 79.42 and memorandum from Chief Hydrologist, with enclosures, to Regional Hydrologists and others dated April 5, 1976, on "Programs and Plans--Competition with private industry.") precludes consideration of any work devised for or submitted competitively with private industry. 2. Work will not be undertaken (except perhaps under certain court-ordered situations or under special situations negotiated with and specifically approved by the Chief Hydrologist and the cooperator) in which the data and reports therefrom cannot be made public. 3. Given that in broad terms the mission of the Water Resources Division, as conveyed or implied in various laws and other statements, is to appraise the Nation's water resources, any work proposed for joint funding that is not within that mission would not be acceptable. For example, a State Highway Department might propose joint funding of engineering geology necessary for highway design, but without hydrologic implications. Such work should be rejected. 4. Work that is more appropriately done by private industry or another governmental agency. The scope of proposed work, and its relation to the mission of the Geological Survey to "appraise the Nation's water resources," must contribute to the determination of appropriateness. If it is clearly in the public interest that hydrologic data be collected or hydrologic information be generated in an unbiased, objective manner and that there is a clear public need for the data/information, then it is appropriate for the Geological Survey to consider the work. The need for continuity in time-series data is especially important in such a determination; continuity can best be assured if the data are collected, disseminated, and archived by an organization with a recognized expertise and the stability necessary to provide a long-term standardized data operation. If these tests are not met, or if the work cannot reasonably be judged a part of appraising the Nation's water resources, than it may be more appropriately within the purview of the private sector or other governmental agencies. Even though a cooperating agency might prefer that a given piece of work be done by the Water Resources Division--whether it be flow conditions at a bridge site or a waste outfall, or the location of a supply well for a new subdivision--the worth of the resultant hydrologic data, and especially further interpretations thereof, must be critically evaluated before deciding to accept or reject such work. However, if the purpose of the hydrologic work is dominated by design and engineering considerations of a facility or structure, or if under these conditions and constraints the worth of the data or information does not meet Division standards, then the hydrologic work should not be undertaken as part of the cooperative program. For example, consider the opportunity to collect ground-water data in connection with dewatering necessary to excavate for the foundation and substructure of a large building, perhaps one being built by a cooperating State or local agency. Observation wells might be available, along with other appurtenances and sources of related data. However, if the dewatering had to be done in such a manner that would preclude the estimation of aquifer parameters--perhaps variable discharge rate, or multiple discharge points--rejection of the work probably is in order. Indeed, if the dewatering cannot be regulated in such a way as to make it a useful aquifer test, the work should be rejected. If a major part or primary thrust of the work consists of engineering, economic, or other determinations, judgments, or opinions, it is more properly done by the private sector and should be rejected by the Division. This is not to say that economic or engineering aspects of resource appraisal or development are to be excluded from the cooperative program, or that economic or engineering ramifications per se can or should be the basis for exclusion; rather that engineering or economics must be sub- sidiary to hydrologic or water-resources considerations. This guideline is especially difficult to express. A definition written from the government point of view is likely to be considered self-serving by industry and vice versa. The key judgment involves the anticipated worth of the resultant data, and the need for those data in ongoing programs or as part of a network. This guideline must be applied flexibly, and implemented gradually, because the availability of private- industry capability varies a great deal from one State to another, and because of historical factors in the development of the cooperative program. 5. Information Value Activities that will produce little hydrologic information, or informa- tion of low value, should be rejected. Activities that would duplicate known facts or information are to be rejected. This obviously requires a distinction between refinement and duplication of information, and would not apply to conditions known or thought to vary with time. Consider the case of a well field to be developed in an area where the subsurface geology is well known, but where head distribution and hydraulic properties of the aquifers and confining beds are poorly defined. Initial drilling and testing of the first few wells are likely to have a high information content, and depending on the general under- standing of the flow system, information of high value. Thus, it would be appropriate to monitor the initial drilling and testing carefully to insure that head distribution is well documented and that properly designed and conducted aquifer tests produce good information. However, at some stage in well field development and expansion, data on individual drill holes takes on as a primary objective the design of casing and screening so that yields can be maximized and drawdowns can be minimized. The generation of continuing data on drawdown, pumpage, etc., provides justification for continuing Division involvement, but unless such opportunity exists, at this point the collection of drill-hole data is no longer an appropriate cooperative-program activity, including recognition of direct services credit. The key point in this guideline relates to the duplication of known facts or information. While it may be well within the cooperator's mission and objective, and may indeed be essential to that mission, to duplicate the hydrologically significant information for other reasons (for example, engineering requirements), when the generation of new hydrologically significant data or information decreases appreciably or vanishes, the activity is no longer appropriate for Division involvement. Technical Feasibility Rejection criteria related to technical feasibility of proposed work (a) must be considered in a very flexible manner, (b) must rely on and presume that those persons responsible for acceptance or rejection of proposals have access to the technical expertise and judgment consistent with high scientific standards of the Geological Survey, (c) must be made in light of the capabilities of the Division as a whole to advance the state-of-the-art, and (d) must consider the ability and willingness of the organization to assign the requisite scientific talent to the proposed work. In some cases it is necessary to reject proposals for cooperatively funded work because there is inadequate scientific understanding of the phenomena of interest to meet the stated objectives. In some cases the research necessary to gain an appropriate degree of understanding is either outside the purview of the Water Resources Division, or chemically and physically so complex that a major research effort, and consequent program redirection, would be required to achieve the necessary degree of understanding. This situation is illustrated by a recent proposal to model the transport of nitrates in ground water beneath an area where extensive applications of nitrogen fertilizers take place. The proposal had to be rejected because of chemical changes (including changes in the mass balance) in the unsaturated zone and consequent uncertainties about the magnitude and chemical nature of the very diffuse input to the ground-water system. The project would not have been rejected if it had been proposed as a research project with provision for adequate funding, time, and talent. The conduct of basic research in the Federal-State program is to be en- couraged, provided both parties fully understand and appreciate the risks and uncertainties of the research and are fully prepared to dedicate the financial and human resources to the quest for knowledge. Questions of technical feasibility are most commonly raised by inconsistencies between statements of objectives and descriptions of approach in areal, topical, or applied-research investigations. Rejection may not be necessary if a flexible position is taken by both proposers and reviewers for accepta- bility. It may be possible to adjust and modify the objectives, or to amplify and strengthen the approach (in some cases with appropriate adjustments in effort and funding) and arrive at an acceptable match between objectives and approach. Technical feasibility frequently involves the time necessary, given a reasonable level of effort and funding, in which to generate and verify the data necessary for a given investigation, and fit those data within an appro- priate conceptual, analytical, and/or numerical simulation. In many cases the cooperating agency lacks sufficient understanding of the investigational process to appreciate the time and effort necessary to achieve a given objective. In such situations, either the direction of study and level of funding must be extended, or the work should be rejected. Management Considerations Although management considerations may be considered somewhat subjective, they are related to the general plans and concepts of the Division in terms of program effectiveness and organizational effectiveness. National program balance Inasmuch as the only vehicle whereby the Division can provide reasonably comprehensive and complete coverage of the hydrology and water-resource conditions of the entire Nation is the cooperative program, it follows that the Division has an obligation to strive for a reasonable geographic balance in that program. In other words, if a wealthy State such as California, Florida, or some other State wished to participate in the program with a very large sum of money, and the necessary increase in Federal matching funds could not be obtained, at some point the acceptance of such work would operate to the detriment of the overall program, because other needs for information could not be met within the limits of the appropriation. Objective criteria at which distortions of program balance would be detrimental are elusive at best. There seems to be no practical way of combining the myriad of factors that enter into such judgment. Nevertheless, if proposals for work would require a level of funding that necessitates "robbing" programs in other States, the proposals should be rejected or scaled down. Similarly, if the direct credit contribution from the State and local agencies approaches a level in which technical competence and operational efficiency within the offices of the Division would be appreciably weakened, such proposals should be rejected. Shifts in geographic balance can very well result from program emphasis on high-priority national concerns that are not evenly distributed geographically; for example, water for energy self-sufficiency, or water for increased food production, and the hydrologic impacts thereof. Such issues can and should be identified in advance and should be specified as line items in the budget, rather than allowing the program in some parts of the country to deteriorate in order to expand a few priority issues having limited geographic scope. This, however, becomes a problem in the definition of national-program goals rather than defining rejection criteria. Maintenance of program balance should be a goal of Division management; the process of acceptance or rejection of a particular project or data station is but a minute step toward the larger goal. Direct services credit Criteria for rejection of proposals for cooperatively funded work by the Water Resources Division apply also to work by a cooperating agency for which direct-services credit might be offered. In addition, direct-services credit should not be granted for major capital expenditures by the cooperating agency, and proposals predicated on such expenditures should be rejected. (See WRD Memorandum 71.17.) This applies especially to major capital expenditures such as the purchase of well-drilling equipment. For example, the one-time cost would be inappropriate; however, the fair market value of a use rate or a fee for services is appropriate. Employee safety Proposals for work, whether in the Federal-State program or other program elements, that would place employees in an unsafe environment should be rejected. Although a number of Division activities involve some measure of personal risk, and greater risk at some times that at others, work that would incur an unacceptable level of risk should be rejected, whether it might involve streamflow measurements from structurally unsound bridges, or excessive exposure to toxic chemicals. 8/1/99 ------ The following memos referenced are obsolete or superseded: 71.017 Obsolete 79.042 Superseded by 84.036 81-053 Obsolete 83.052 Obsolete