Findings and Recommendations.
The findings and recommendations that follow
have the consensus acceptance and support of the
entire Task Force. These findings and
recommendations are organized in this section as
answers to questions raised by the Advisory
Committee on Water Information (ACWI) in the
Terms of Reference for the Task Force. The
Cooperative Water Program is vital to the Nation
in terms of assuring adequate quantity and
quality of water for a wide variety of uses,
mitigating the impacts of floods and other
water-related hazards, and understanding
short-term and long-term changes in water
resources. Nonetheless, the Task Force finds
that there are opportunities to improve the
Cooperative Water Program and makes
recommendations in the following areas:
- Mission;
- Priorities for Funding;
- Funding Levels;
- A National Stream-Gaging Program;
- Collaboration and Communication;
- Competition with the Private Sector;
- Quality of the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) work;
- Products
Is the Cooperative Water Program Meeting Its
Mission? Is the Mission Still Valid? And, if
not, How Should It Be Altered?
The Cooperative Water Program is critical to
improving the management of the Nation's water
resources. It is important to the Nation
because the Program acknowledges the keen
shared-interest of Federal, State, Tribal, and
other government agencies in appraising the
Nation's water resources and seeking solutions
to water-related problems. In today's climate
of growing demands on, and increasing
competition for, the Nation's water resources,
there is an increased need for all types of
water-related data and analyses in the future.
The Cooperative Water Program offers the highest
level of scientific knowledge, objectivity, and
technical expertise. The Cooperative Water
Program is integral to providing long-term data
collection and analysis of water quantity,
quality, and use on a national basis. Without
the Cooperative Program, the Nation would not
have information vital to the routine management
of the Nation's water resources and critical in
the management of water-related emergencies.
The ACWI provided the Task Force with this
description of the Cooperative Water Program:
"Historically, the Cooperative Water
Program has been designed to develop hydrologic
data and technical analyses needed to assist in
meeting the USGS mission of continuously
assessing the Nation's water resources, and to
provide technical assistance to State, Tribal,
and local water management agencies in seeking
solutions to water resource issues of national
concern through a matched funding arrangement."
Finding 1: The Cooperative Water Program is
meeting its Mission, and the Program Mission is
still valid.
Because no specific mission statement exists for
the Cooperative Water Program, the Task Force
derived the following Mission Statement:
The Mission of the USGS Cooperative Water
Program is to provide reliable, impartial, and
timely information needed to understand the
Nation's water resources through a program of
shared efforts and funding with State, Tribal,
and local partners to enable decision makers to
wisely manage the Nation's water resources.
Recommendation 1.1: The Task Force
recommends that this Mission statement be
adopted as the Mission Statement of the
Cooperative Water Program, or that this be
used as an initial attempt in the formulation
of such a Mission Statement.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that the
Cooperative Water Program should have a
Mission Statement, and the USGS agrees with
the wording of the proposed statement and will
adopt it.
Recommendation 1.2: The Task Force
recommends that the words
"Federal-State" be removed from the
USGS Cooperative Water Program title in
recognition of the broader range of
cooperative partners involved in the
program.
RESPONSE: We agree with the
recommendation to remove the words
"Federal-State" from the program
title. We acknowledge that the Program
includes many cooperative efforts with
organizations other than States, such as
Tribes, cities, counties, and regional
commissions. Currently, we have worked with
the Department of the Interior (DOI), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
Congress to change the name to the
"Cooperative Water Program." This
name change is reflected in our fiscal year
(FY) 2002 budget submission to the
Congress.
Finding 2: The Cooperative Water Program has
been a very successful part of the USGS's "on-going"
mission of continually assessing
the Nation's water resources.
The Cooperative Water Program is successful as a
result of the pooling of support and resources.
There is a mutual benefit to all levels of
government and public data users alike. There
is a need to recognize the importance of the
Cooperator, partner, and stakeholder in what the
USGS accomplishes through the Cooperative Water
Program.
Does the Cooperative Program adequately
contribute to the broad USGS Mission while
keeping abreast of emerging water-resources
issues at the State and local level?
Finding 3: The Cooperative Water Program makes
a vital contribution to the broad USGS mission
by collecting and archiving large volumes of
water supply data, by intergovernmental
cooperation and coordination, and by keeping
abreast of emerging water resources issues at
the State and local level.
Given that there is more funding available from
the State and local side than there is matching
Federal funding, are matching funds applied to
the most important topics and issues?
Finding 4: There are significant levels of
cooperative funds for worthy proposals that the
USGS cannot match.
Many Cooperators are bound
by agency policies and budgets to not provide
more than 50 percent matching funds in
cooperative agreements. At the same time, for
Cooperators that are not constrained, the
unmatched funds demonstrate the increasing
demand for Cooperative Water Programs and
services.
Data collected from the Cooperative Water
Program are used for hydrologic studies, water
planning, water administration, allocation,
interstate river compact administration, flood
forecasting, snowmelt forecasting, watershed
management and water quality assessments.
Interpretive studies provide important
information for many water-resources management
decisions. The water community places great
value on the independent, objective products of
the Cooperative Water Program, a point that was
heard over and over again from Cooperators and
other users of the information produced.
Current (1999) funding for the Cooperative Water
Program is not adequate to satisfy all the needs
identified for additional streamflow data,
regional ground water information, updated
hydrologic models, and technical publications.
There is also little doubt that the program has
not achieved its full potential and that there
have been some loss of benefits due to
inadequate funding. Funding levels have not
kept pace with inflation. At the same time,
there has been increased demand for the services
of the program due to the additional need for
water-resources data, tools, and information,
mainly to satisfy growth while meeting new
environmental challenges.
The main impact of the reducing levels of
funding, when compared to inflation, has been on
the streamgaging network, which has seen a
continuing loss of critical long-term stations
and consequent loss of information vital to
Federal State, Tribal, and local agency
interests. However, technology development and
interpretive studies have also been affected.
Although some gains may be achieved by increased
efficiency, effectiveness, and more judicious
choice of programs, the conclusion is
inescapable that additional funds will improve
the program and benefit all sides.
Recommendation 4.1: The funds for the
Cooperative Water Program should be increased to
a level sufficient to achieve a full match for
the current and future Cooperator offerings and
should be indexed for inflation.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that
funding for the Cooperative Water Program is
currently inadequate to meet the joint needs
of the Federal Government and the Cooperators.
The USGS will work with the DOI and OMB to
seek consideration for increased funding for
this program. The needs of the Cooperative
Water Program will have to be considered in
light of the many other priorities of the
Federal Government and the Department. The
success of this request will largely rest with
Cooperators and other stakeholders and the
input they provide to the Administration and
Congress regarding the funding of the
Cooperative Water Program.
Recommendation 4.2: Projects that are
appropriately funded 100 percent by a
cooperating agency should be reported
separately. These projects should nonetheless
meet the criteria of WRD Memorandum No. 95.44
to prevent the appearance or reality of
competition with the private sector.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees to track
and report separately project funding for
projects that are supported totally by
unmatched Cooperator funds. All projects in
the Cooperative Water Program are now required
to meet WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 criteria and
will continue to do so in the future.
Finding 5: There is no consistent, documented
process for setting priorities at the District,
regional, or national levels. Current
allocation of Cooperative Water Program funds to
regions and to Districts appears to be based on
historical patterns.
Recommendation 5.1: District Chiefs should
include the following considerations in setting
priorities for individual projects and in
determining the percentage of match that the
USGS puts into a given project:
- Availability of funds;
- Ability of the
project to clearly meet the USGS's Congressional
mandate to work within the national domain or on
issues determined by Congress or the Secretary
of the Interior to be in the national interest;
- Ability of the project to meet Cooperator
needs consistent with national priorities that
are established in the USGS Strategic Plan, the
Water Resources Strategic Plan, and the
memorandum issued annually by the Chief
Hydrologist concerning Cooperative Water Program
priorities; and
- Ability of the project to
meet multiple goals among the eight outlined in
WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 (with the
understanding that generally a project that
meets more of these goals will have a higher
priority than one that meets fewer).
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with the
guidance for setting priorities for individual
projects within a District and will
communicate the guidance to the District
Chiefs through a memorandum.
Recommendation 5.2: Establish a
special panel to meet at least every 5 years
to review lessons learned and to provide
improvements to the process for allocating
funds to Districts.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with the
recommendation to establish a committee to
review the process for allocating cooperative
funds to Districts. The USGS proposes that
this panel be composed of the four Regional
Program Officers and four District Chiefs.
Finding 6: In 1995, the USGS
discontinued an internally competitive merit
program for addressing high-priority research
needs with partial funding from the
Cooperative Water Program.
Recommendation 6.1: The USGS should
consider establishing a program on a regional
basis to address high-priority national needs
using a small percentage of Cooperative Water
Program funds. The objective of this program
is to fund pressing needs without permanently
reallocating funds between Districts.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that a
portion of the Cooperative Water Program
funding should be targeted to address
high-priority national issues. The USGS
proposes the establishment of a synthesis
enhancement fund that would come from
programmatic increases to the Federal matching
funds in the Cooperative Water Program as part
of our annual budget. The national priority
issues selected each year will be tied to
topics for a synthesis compilation with the
intent of accomplishing the compilation after
completion of the individual projects. The
approach used in the individual projects would
be partially guided by the information needs
of the national synthesis project. The four
Regional Program Officers will establish and
maintain the synthesis enhancement fund
process with input from District Chiefs and
from USGS National Program Coordinators. The
synthesis enhancement revolving fund should
not exceed 1 percent of the total Federal
matching funds in the Cooperative Water
Program.
What changes could be made in the approach to
project selection to help ensure maximum
effectiveness for the program?
Recommendations 5.1, 5.2, and 6.1 are also
applicable to this question.
Finding 7: The effectiveness of the USGS
Cooperative Water Program is constrained by
institutional and political boundaries.
Recommendation 7.1: Improve collaboration
between regional and District offices on water
issues that cross-jurisdictional boundaries.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with the
recommendation and has actively been working to
improve collaboration through various
mechanisms, such as affinity groups of
Districts. An affinity group is an association
of a few Districts that meet periodically to
share information about the activities of each
District and to coordinate and plan for work
that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. There
are an increasing number of projects in the
Cooperative Water Program that extend across
State lines. The USGS will strive to increase
that further in the future.
Recommendation 7.2: Annually review
and report all cooperative projects for the
purpose of identifying emerging issues that
cross-institutional and political boundaries
and include these issues in the Chief
Hydrologist.s annual memorandum on Cooperative
Water Program priorities.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and is already, to a great
extent, accomplishing the recommended activity
through the process of annual District Program
Reviews that form the basis for issuing the
annual Cooperative Water Program priorities
memorandum. The USGS is considering the
creation of a national coordinator staff
position for the Cooperative Water Program.
This individual would be responsible for
providing this annual review and report.
Is there proper balance between funding of
long-term data collection and short-term
interpretative studies?
Finding 8: The number of streamgaging stations
involved in the Cooperative Water Program has
decreased over the recent history of the
Program. In nearly all cases, long-term
streamgaging stations have been lost because of
the lack of funds.
The costs for operation and maintenance of
streamgaging stations have increased over time
with insufficient increases in Congressional
appropriations for the Cooperative Water
Program. This funding approach to the
Cooperative Water Program has resulted in fewer
net dollars being available for long-term data
collection sites and interpretive studies. The
number of long-term stations is declining at an
alarming rate. Many stations are lost due to
Cooperator budget cuts.
Of the total number of nearly 35,000 long-term
data-collection stations (streamgaging, water
quality, sediment, and ground water) in the
Cooperative Water Program, nearly 26,000
stations were funded through the Cooperative
Water Program in 1997.
Recommendation 8.1: Produce a report
of how the USGS derives current billable costs
of the streamgaging network.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees to produce
a report that documents how the USGS derives
costs for the streamgaging network. Producing
this report will be one of the first tasks
assigned to the Cooperative Water Program.s
national coordinator.
Recommendation 8.2: Utilize the
Streamgaging Task Force to determine
feasibility of billing Cooperators for
data-collection activities that are based on
actual costs.
RESPONSE: The USGS has operated
under this approach in the past and based on a
recent conceptual and financial analysis, most
USGS offices have changed to the practice of
charging an "equalized" or average
cost per station. Most of the USGS data
collection stations serve multiple purposes
and are at least partially funded through
cooperative agreements. When cooperating
organizations, whether Federal, State, or
local, provide funds to help support USGS data
collection stations, they are also supporting
a part of the entire integrated network. For
this reason, these organizations are billed on
the basis of the average cost of operating the
station within that State, rather than the
actual cost. This approach is similar to
"postage stamp pricing," in which
the same price is charged to deliver a letter
regardless of how far it travels. This
procedure generally benefits these
organizations and the USGS in two ways.
Administrative costs are typically reduced
because financial transactions are simplified;
and definitive cost information is available
to all parties for planning purposes at the
beginning of the fiscal year. This
arrangement also assures that data collection
in the remote areas or at stations that incur
non-routine costs (for example, damage from
floods, vandals, etc.) does not become
prohibitively expensive, causing the network
to emphasize only those areas close to USGS
offices.
Finding 9: A network of continually operated
streamgaging stations is critical to management
of water resources. Long-term data collection
has strong support from all user groups. The
need for continued support of long-term
streamgaging stations was stressed as a
priority.
This network serves a number of purposes with
immediate importance, including: real-time
forecasting; water management; water-quality
modeling; flood and drought frequency analysis;
stream/aquifer interaction; and
hydroclimatological studies related to the
impact of natural climate variability and
potential global climate change.
Recommendation 9.1: Establish an
adequate and permanent streamflow-monitoring
network in the national interest. Funding for
long-term data collection should be stressed
as a national priority. The Task Force
supports the concept that the Federal
government should provide 100 percent funding
for a national streamgaging network, and that
the funding for this network should not come
at the expense of the Cooperative Water
Program.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and is working toward developing
the concept and requirements for a Federally
funded national streamgaging network. Our
recent report to Congress "A New Evaluation
of the USGS Streamgaging Network"
highlighted the need for such a network. The
USGS has published a plan based on these
concepts. This is known as the "National
Streamflow Information Program (NSIP)." The
USGS has participated in stakeholder meetings in
the last year regarding these concepts at the
National, regional, and State levels. The USGS
has received increases in Federal funding for
NSIP in FY 2000 and 2001. The primary
determinants of success or failure in reaching
the goal described in the recommendation will
most likely be related to the input the
Administration and Congress receives for or
against this program from the streamgaging
stakeholders.
Recommendation 9.2: ACWI (or its
Streamgaging Task Force) should make a
specific finding regarding the number,
distribution, and character of long-term data
sites necessary to meet national
data-collection objectives. Similar findings
should be developed for ground-water and
water-quality data sites.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with
this recommendation and will provide ACWI the
information we have developed relating to a
National Streamflow Information Program
network of stations. We also will provide
information to the ACWI on the status of
long-term ground-water level monitoring and
any similar information developed in the
future related to water quality.
Recommendation 9.3: The USGS should
work to limit the loss of long-term
streamgaging stations funded by the
Cooperative Water Program until the ACWI
Streamgaging Task Force has presented its
findings.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and is very proactive in working
to minimize the loss of gaging stations. When
the USGS learns that a gaging station is to be
discontinued, the USGS actively looks for other
options for funding the gage, such as finding a
different Cooperator for the gage. Funding
increases in FY 2000 and 2001 have provided the
USGS with more flexibility to prevent loss of
important gages.
Recommendation 9.4: Supplement the national
data networks with additional stations funded
through the Cooperative Water Program to address
State, Tribal, and other governmental water
management needs.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that it is
appropriate to have portions of the gaging
network supported by both the federally funded
program and by the Cooperative Water Program.
We plan to augment the network with support
from both of these sources as funds become
available in the future.
Finding 10: The emphasis and level of
need for the two components (data collection
and interpretive studies) of the Cooperative
Water Program vary from Cooperator to
Cooperator. The distribution of funds has
evolved over time to approximately 55 percent
for long-term data collection and
approximately 45 percent for interpretive
studies.
Recommendation 10.1: The emphasis of
the Cooperative Water Program should be on
long-term data-collection activities. Data
collection should not be sacrificed for
interpretive studies.
RESPONSE: The USGS places a high
value on long-term data-collection activities.
The USGS also greatly values interpretive
studies because they are an integral part of
understanding the need for, uses of, and ways
to improve our networks, as well as
stimulating the development of new
data-collection techniques. The proportion of
data-collection activities versus
investigative activities in any State is a
function of many variables which causes the
role of the USGS in data collection to vary
accordingly. The USGS greatly values
long-term data, but does not think it is
appropriate to place an increasingly greater
emphasis on data to the exclusion of a
reasonable and complementary number of
interpretive studies in the Cooperative Water
Program.
However, the USGS realizes that growth in
Federal (solely USGS) funding for hydrologic
monitoring has not been adequate during the past
two decades. The strategic directions document
for Water Resources states "WRD will work
with DOI, Office of Management and Budget, and
Congress to begin to shift the overall program
to increase the funds available for long-term
data collection." In the past two fiscal
years (2000 and 2001), the USGS has received an
increase of $12 million in Federal funding for
activities supporting the collection and
dissemination of streamflow data, through its
newly instituted National Streamflow Information
Program.
What is the appropriate relationship
with the private sector, States, universities,
etc? Could this arrangement be improved
without sacrificing its benefits?
Finding 11: The majority of the
hydrologic data in the USGS national database
has been collected by and quality assured by
USGS staff. Data collected by others are
sometimes entered into the database, but not
always quality assured by the USGS.
Recommendation 11.1: USGS should
take advantage of all available expertise and
technology, regardless of where it resides,
provided that the USGS certifies final
quality.
RESPONSE: The USGS understands and
appreciates that there is high-quality data
from sources outside the USGS that can be of
assistance to us in accomplishing our work.
The USGS takes advantage of these data sources
when it is cost effective and promotes the
quality of work. For example, most of the
data used in the USGS compilation of water-use
information every 5 years are collected by
State water-resource agencies.
Recommendation 11.2: USGS should
consider employing outside contractors and
cooperating agencies for data collection under
strict USGS supervision when doing so can
reduce costs.
RESPONSE: In considering activities that are
prudent for contracting out, the USGS typically
does not include data-collection activities
because:
- Data-collection activities can have an
immediate effect on human life and property and,
therefore, are properly the responsibilities of
public employees;
- Data-collection activities
often require on-the-spot decisions committing
Federal resources;
- Data collection by
contractors with USGS supervision tends to be
more expensive;
- Agreements to access private
lands for data collection have been granted to
USGS staff as Federal employees, and not to
contractors, and
- Data-collection activities
often require USGS employees to represent the
Federal government in dealings with the public,
the media, and other water agencies.
Recommendation 11.3: Increase the
use of in-kind services to maintain data
collection stations and provide the data to
USGS for quality assurance and
publication.
RESPONSE: The USGS does currently
match in-kind services to a limited extent,
especially in water use activities and in
limited data monitoring activities, such as
water quality monitoring in New Jersey and
streamflow monitoring in Virginia. From a
practical standpoint, however, the Cooperative
Water Program is significantly under funded,
as indicated by the large amount of unmatched
funds provided by Cooperators ($37 million
unmatched in FY 1999). Nonetheless, the USGS
will seek to expand its use of direct services
when doing so enhances long-term relationships
with Cooperators, maximizes the use of
hydrologic data, and is consistent with USGS
standards for quality assurance.
Finding 12: There is a significant
amount of non-USGS data that could contribute
to assessing the Nation's water
resources.
Recommendation 12.1: Establish
guidelines for accepting and disseminating
data from non-USGS sources, and include
appropriate data from other sources in USGS
data bases.
RESPONSE: The USGS policy for
accepting and including appropriate data from
non-USGS sources in USGS data bases is stated
in WRD Memorandum No. 92.59, as follows:
"The policy that all WRD data will be
stored in the National Water Information
System (NWIS) is expanded to include data from
outside sources that are used in support of
WRD published conclusions and are not archived
or published elsewhere." Implicit in this
statement is the requirement that all data
from outside sources stored in NWIS must meet
USGS standards for completeness and quality
assurance.
Recommendation 12.2: Be aware of
data collection efforts of other Federal
agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department
of Agriculture, and strive for compatibility
with their databases.
RESPONSE: The USGS has been assigned the
responsibility of leading the Federal
government's Water Information Coordination
Program (OMB Memorandum M-92-1). The USGS,
through ACWI, is actively working with other
agencies toward this end for water-quality and
sedimentation data. The USGS is working with
ACWI's Streamgaging Task Force to identify
streamgaging operations of other agencies as a
first step toward coordination of these
activities. The USGS arranges periodic
information sharing and coordination meetings
with other Federal agencies, such as the
National Weather Service, Corps of Engineers,
and EPA, to improve data sharing activities.
For example, the USGS is working with EPA to
coordinate changes to EPA's STORET database with
changes to the USGS's NWIS database in order to
make them more compatible. In some cases, the
USGS has individuals co-located with these
agencies to improve information sharing and
transfer.
Finding 13: In some Districts,
Cooperator panels have been convened to review
program implementation issues. This has
proven to be very beneficial to all
parties.
Recommendation 13.1: USGS should
continually strive to increase their awareness
of Cooperators. needs.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation. Our District offices have
frequent contact with many Cooperators.
District staff organizes periodic program
review and program planning meetings with
Cooperators, and actively participate in
multi-agency State and regional conferences on
water resource issues. Cooperators are often
asked to participate in meetings of Water
Resources headquarters, regional, and field
managers. We recognize that strengthening the
Cooperative Water Program can be done only
through conscientious interaction with the
agencies in each State.
Recommendation 13.2: Promote increased
collaboration with Cooperators in
data-collection work, interpretive work, report
preparation, and presentation activities
consistent with maintaining the objective nature
of the work.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and will continue to work
toward increasing collaboration with
Cooperators. We also recognize that
collaboration implies a balance between the
needs of the Cooperator and the mission of the
USGS to fulfill Federal responsibilities and
to maintain its long-standing reputation for
objectivity.
Recommendation 13.3: At the District
level, annually convene a general meeting of
all Cooperators and interested parties to
review overall progress, critique quality of
work, assist in development of priorities, and
offer feedback on water resources issues
present or development within the
District.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that there
should be opportunity for review of USGS work.
We suggest that this review is more
appropriately conducted individually with
Cooperators or in small groups of stakeholders
that have a common interest in a particular
project or topic. For example, District staff
will typically meet with Cooperators to
discuss the status of their projects. Most
Districts have annual meetings with those
interested in the streamgaging program to
share information, set priorities, and deal
with problems. Experience has shown that
these types of meetings generally result in
more constructive and effective interaction on
the Cooperative Water Program than the type of
large meeting suggested in the recommendation.
However, we also acknowledge that should the
major cooperating agencies in a State be
interested in holding such a large meeting, it
would be incumbent on the District Chief in
that State to accommodate their interest. The
USGS strongly supports the creation of water
monitoring councils in each of the States as
forums to discuss the data needs and
scientific issues and programs related to the
water issues of the State. The USGS Districts
are actively working with key State agencies
to create and maintain such councils. These
groups provide an opportunity for the kind of
exchange that the recommendation calls for,
but does so in a broader context.
Recommendation 13.4: Each cooperative
agreement should contain an explicit and
detailed scope of work including tasks,
timelines, costs, staffing levels, and
identification of Project Chief.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that
Cooperators should receive the detailed
project information they need to make a
decision regarding the USGS's proposed
implementation, execution, and successful
completion of a project. Most Districts
typically provide the recommended information
as part of the project proposal submitted to
the Cooperator. The USGS agrees to make this
a more formal process by attaching the detail
information contained in the project proposal
to the Joint Funding Agreement submitted to
the Cooperator for signature. The USGS will
provide the appropriate level of detailed
information in proportion to the complexity of
the activity as needed by the Cooperator. For
example, an agreement to operate one
streamgaging station would require a minimal
amount of information to describe the work
effort. Providing names of staff permanently
assigned to work on specific projects is
problematic, however, because of the freedom
employees have through the Federal Personnel
System to apply for and move to new jobs.
Recommendation 13.5: Improve
technology transfer to Cooperators through
joint effort in the field, laboratory and
office work, topical seminars, and training
center offerings.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation. Current examples of
technology transfer include taking staff from
cooperating agencies on field surveys, holding
workshops on technical issues such as flow in
fractured rock, inviting Cooperators to
National Water Quality field meetings, and
holding training courses such as those held on
several topics in hydrology for Native
Americans. We agree these types of activities
should be expanded and will continue to look
for ways to improve technology transfer to
Cooperators.
Finding 14: Although most cooperative
projects address national issues, a small
number of projects appear to meet only local
interests and are not appropriate for the USGS
Cooperative Water Program.
Recommendation 14.1: In project
proposals and in project information that is
available to the public, Districts should
document how each project is in the national
interest, and specifically meets the
applicable criteria outlined in WRD Memorandum
No. 95.44.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with
this recommendation and has distributed a
policy memorandum to District Chiefs requiring
all project proposals to include a
"Benefits and Relevance" section
that documents how the project meets the
criteria outline in WRD Memorandum No. 95.44
Finding 15: The private sector has raised
issues relating to work performed by the USGS
under the Cooperative Water Program that could
be more appropriately performed by the private
sector. This problem is reported to be
increasing. Nonetheless, competition is a
concern in only a small number of projects
nationwide.
Recommendation 15.1: Partnering
with private-sector and university
practitioners should be encouraged. This
would enhance technology transfer to those who
apply these investigative tools. It would
also help to engage the best and brightest
experts on particular projects.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and has been actively working
to increase partnering with the private-sector
and university practitioners on a fair and
equitable basis. We have a growing number of
examples of projects where USGS staff and
staff from private consulting firms work
side-by-side. The USGS has a long history of
seeking collaboration with universities. Most
recently, we have been actively pursuing
opportunities to co-locate water resources
offices on university campuses as a very
promising mechanism to enhance interaction.
Recommendation 15.2: The Cooperative Water
Program should concentrate on its core
competency. The Program should continue to
advance its capabilities in long-term data
collection and analysis, technology and model
development, and the transfer of technology to
end-users.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with
this recommendation and will increase our
efforts to concentrate on our core
competencies, as listed above.
Recommendation 15.3: The USGS must refrain
from unfairly competing with or giving the
impression of unfairly competing with the
private sector.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation. The USGS Water discipline has
a policy that prohibits competition with the
private sector (WRD Memorandum No. 95.44).
We have frequently communicated with our
managers the concerns that have arisen about
competition with the private sector to ensure
that they are sensitive about the issue. We
have also redistributed WRD Memorandum No.
95.44 as a reminder to our management of our
policy prohibiting competition.
Finding 16: WRD Memorandum No. 95.44
addresses the issue of competition with the
private sector. The Task Force endorses the
criteria specified in WRD Memorandum No.
95.44 for project selection.
Recommendation 16.1: WRD Memorandum
No. 95.44 should be amplified to include
specific examples of activities that have been
deemed inappropriate for USGS involvement (for
example, routine site-specific investigations
of bridge scouring, wellhead-protection-area
delineation, and groundwater).
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees to add examples of
inappropriate work and situations to amplify
WRD Memorandum No. 95.44.
Recommendation 16.2: Convene ad
hoc committees by project type, and which are
composed of private sector, other agencies,
and Cooperators to resolve emerging
competition issues, and to help determine what
types of projects are appropriate for the USGS
to undertake.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees to
pilot test the concept by working through ACWI
to convene an ad hoc committee to address
emerging issues where competition may be a
factor.
Recommendation 16.3: Create and
convene biennially a review panel to update
WRD Memorandum No. 95.44 as necessary.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and, working through ACWI, will
convene a panel of USGS staff and external
stakeholders to review and revise the
memorandum. We suggest that this process be
repeated every 5 years.
Recommendation 16.4: Produce a biennial report
for ACWI on successful collaborative work
efforts with the private sector, as well as a
listing of projects the USGS deemed
inappropriate based on WRD Memorandum No.
95.44. Include a description of projects that
are impacted by competition issues.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees
to produce a biennial report on collaborative
work efforts with the private sector.
However, including in this report a list of
rejected projects is problematic. Projects
are usually rejected informally and verbally
by District managers; no records of these
project ideas are kept and we consider it
imprudent to attempt to do so. Rather we
suggest that actions taken to address
recommendations 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 (to
clarify the types of projects that are deemed
inappropriate for USGS to undertake and to
highlight examples of successful collaboration
with the private sector) will be more
successful in avoiding competition than will
an attempt to track rejected projects.
Finding 17: Public knowledge of USGS
Cooperative projects is important. Currently
the USGS posts the project title, the problem
statement, objectives, and approach on the
Internet at the time that the Cooperator and
the District Chief sign the joint funding
agreement.
Recommendation 17.1: This
information should be posted on the public
Internet at the time the proposal is forwarded
to the Regional Hydrologist for approval. The
Regional Hydrologist should consider comments,
but not lengthen the timeframe in which
projects are approved. The decision shall be
communicated to the District and to all those
who submitted written comments. The
information should include a Statement of how
the project is in compliance with WRD
Memorandum No. 95.44.
RESPONSE: USGS project proposals are
currently available on the Web at: http://wwwoper.er.usgs.gov/wais/WAIS.ntis.html.
They are posted after they are approved by
Cooperators and by USGS. For several reasons,
we do not think it is appropriate to post the
proposals before they are approved. Most
Cooperators consider the project proposal to
be a confidential document that should not be
shared publicly until the funding agreement is
signed. The USGS agrees with this position.
Federal agencies are protected from the
requirement to release "pre-decisional"
material to the public by Exemptions 4
and 5 of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). According to these provisions,
project proposals are part of a
"deliberative process" and thereby
exempt from being released to the public. For
project proposals, the deliberative process
ends when the funding agreement is
signed.
In light of this information, we propose an
alternative plan whereby project proposals are
released for public comment after the funding
agreement is signed. Any comments received
would then be factored into the review process
for future proposals and into the process of
developing guidance of what work is
appropriate for USGS under recommendation 16.1
and 16.2. In this way, confidentiality is
maintained during proposal development, and
public comments become an important factor in
planning and approving future work.
Recommendation 17.2: Copies of WRD Memoranda
Nos. 95.44 and 84.21, and any future updates
to them, should be posted on the Web for easy
reference.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation. These policy memorandums are
now posted on the USGS web pages. They can be
found at
http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/policy/policy.html.
Finding 18: USGS management and scientists
interact with State, Tribal, and local water
resource experts on a frequent basis. USGS
personnel attend and participate in
water-resource planning and management
meetings at the request of State, Tribal, and
other governmental water authorities.
Recommendation 18.1: Continue to be
active in, conduct regular project reviews at,
and have a greater visible presence at State,
Tribal, and other governmental water
workshops, forums, and seminars to share
knowledge, technology advancements, and data
access.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and will continue to be active in
and increase our visible presence at water
resources related meetings. This type of
activity is important and valuable, but must
also be balanced against our need to get the
agency.s programmatic work done.
Recommendation 18.2: Increase involvement in
professional and local scientific society
forums.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and repeatedly encourages its
staff to become more active in professional
societies as funding allows.
Recommendation 18.3: Annually assess
emerging water-resources issues, and include
these issues in the memorandum referred to in
Recommendation 7.2.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and is already, to a great
extent, accomplishing the recommended activity
through the process of issuing the annual
Cooperative Water Program priorities memorandum.
Recommendation 18.4: Prepare and
publish on the Internet a national summary of
projects to increase public awareness of the
USGS role in water resources.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and has already made project
information available on the web at http://wwwoper.er.usgs.gov/wais/WAIS.ntis.html.
Some active projects have only minimal
information on the web; the description of
these active projects will be expanded. Each
project description on the web for active
projects will include the project title,
problem statement, project objectives,
approach summary, and the relevance and
benefits of the project.
What would be the implications of altering
current work arrangements on the unique
qualities of the Cooperative Water Program and
water management nationwide?
Finding 19: The perceived quality and
objectivity of USGS data and studies, together
with the USGS cost share, are the primary
reasons many entities become Cooperators.
Finding 20: The USGS is nationally recognized
as providing the highest quality, long-term
water-resources data available.
Finding 21: Any activity that appears to reduce
the objectivity of the USGS might negatively
impact potential Cooperator interest and
confidence.
Recommendation 21.1: The USGS must
continue to act professionally and objectively
to preserve its respected reputation.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and will continue to act
professionally and objectively to maintain our
reputation.
To what extent should the products of the
Cooperative Water Program support: (1) national
level needs, as compared to (2) the needs of
Cooperators and other information users?
Finding 22: In general, the products of the
program meet Cooperator and other information
users needs while contributing to the national
interest. The balance between data collection
and interpretive studies is currently meeting
the needs of Cooperators and national needs and
is in overall proper balance.
Recommendation 22.1: The Cooperative Water
Program should be driven by the needs of the
users (State, Tribal, and local users and other
Federal agencies), where those aggregate
interests form a basis for meeting the national
interest.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and will continue to direct the
Cooperative Water Program to comply with the
USGS mission and Federal interests (WRD
Memorandum No. 95.44) while meeting
Cooperator needs.
Recommendation 22.2: Establish core
data collection networks (streamgaging , water
quality, sediment transport, and ground water)
to serve the national interest. (See also
Recommendation 9.1)
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and is working toward the goal
of establishing Federally funded core data
collection networks. We are actively pursuing
this, at the current time, for the
streamgaging and ground water networks.
Are the products meeting the needs of
the primary users as well as the multiple
needs of ancillary parties?
Finding 23: The Cooperative Water
Program products are well regarded, credible,
reliable, unbiased and generally of excellent
quality (for example, technical correctness,
thoroughness, graphics, innovation, and use of
new technologies such as the
Internet).
Recommendation 23.1:Continue to develop
products that are effective in communicating to
the diverse audiences concerned with
water-management issues. Products being
produced by the program, such as fact sheets and
fast-read summaries are excellent examples. To
continue to improve in this area, develop a
program to subject such products to a critical
review by non-scientists to assure
understandability.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and, as noted, has worked to
develop lay-reader products. We will continue
to stress the need to produce program products
that are understandable to the target audience.
We will explore the possibility of using
non-scientist groups such as the extension
service, the League of Women Voters, The Ground
Water Foundation, USGS outreach staff, etc. to
review products for understandability.
Finding 24: Maintaining a strong objective
scientific program is essential to create
products that meet Cooperator and user needs.
Recommendation 24.1: Maintain high
standards of unbiased, credible products of
superior quality through assignment of
experienced professionals, quality
control/quality assurance techniques, and peer
review.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and will work to guard and
protect our reputation for high-quality,
unbiased, credible products. We feel that this
reputation is one our most valuable assets and
will continue to work diligently to protect it.
Finding 25: Timely issuance of some products
(for example, in adherence to deadlines in
agreements), particularly interpretive project
final reports, has been and remains a
significant problem in the program. Achieving
the high standard of current products is
inherently time consuming. USGS staff has made
significant progress in correcting this
important problem, in part, by revising the peer
review process and establishing review authority
at the regional and District level.
Recommendation 25.1: To facilitate
continued improvement in achieving deadlines
for the release of products, especially
interpretive reports:
- Secure agreement between Cooperator and
USGS staff up front as to the date for the
receipt of deliverables;
- Improve efforts to explain to Cooperators
the process for report preparation, review and
release;
- Continue to cultivate approaches
to provide information to Cooperators when
they need it (for example, "Open-file"
reports, real time data, Cooperator
staff serving as peer reviewers);
- Develop the capability to be prepared for
and respond to situations when USGS staff, who
are serving as report authors, are disengaged
from the responsibility (for example,
retirement, resignation, transfer or other
action); and
-
Take appropriate action to transfer knowledge
and experience to others in the organization
to reduce the degree of corporate knowledge
loss.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and continues to work at
improving the timeliness of products generated
from the Cooperative Water Program. The USGS
recognizes that we have had difficulty
producing timely products, thus we have
invested a great deal of effort in recent
years toward making improvements. We
appreciate the Task Force.s acknowledgment of
this effort and improvement. We do, however,
realize that additional improvements are
needed and we will continue to take
appropriate actions.
Finding 26: The USGS provides
information and products generated by the
Cooperative Water Program either free of
charge (for example, models and data) or for
nominal cost (certain publications).
Recommendation 26.1: The
long-standing policy that provides for program
products to be made available free or for
minimal charge should remain unchanged.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and is mandated by law to
recover, at most, the costs of printing and
distribution of the products.
What changes in products should the USGS
consider to strengthen the Cooperative Water
Program.s impact?
Finding 27: Use of the Internet and other
state-of-the-art technologies by the Cooperative
Water Program has been innovative and highly
effective. These technologies are and will
continue to be an extremely important medium for
the timely dissemination of streamgaging data
and other program products.
Recommendation 27.1: USGS should continue to
aggressively explore ways to incorporate use of
the Internet and other available and emerging
electronic communication technologies in the
development, review and release of all its
products.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and will continue to incorporate
the use of new technologies to produce and
disseminate products from the Cooperative Water
Program.
Recommendation 27.2: Make reports
available in an appropriate electronic format,
beginning with current reports and ultimately
working back in time to include historic
reports.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation for current reports. There may
be, however, a limited number of long reports
with large and complex maps that would be
difficult to put into electronic format; these
reports would be exempt. In regards to
historic reports, we believe that the cost of
putting all these documents into electronic
format is prohibitive. As resources become
available, the USGS will put selected historic
reports into electronic format. Historic
reports selected for this process will be the
most popular reports for which we still
receive many requests.
Finding 28: Cooperative Water Program
products tend to be written for technical
professionals and can be difficult for lay
readers to understand. Recent use of fact
sheets and other such products are important
improvements.
Recommendation 28.1: Products
should address the critical issues of the
Cooperator as specified in the cooperative
agreement. When appropriate, the USGS should
expand the use of lay summaries and fact
sheets for the general public.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and will continue to produce
products that address the critical issues of
the Cooperator as well as the Federal
interests resulting from the project. The
USGS will continue to look for ways to
increase the use of lay reader type reports to
better communicate the results of our
investigations to "non-scientists."
Finding 29: Some data bases are difficult to
use, for example, Ground Water Site Inventory
(GWSI) data base.
Recommendation 29.1: Update,
maintain, and make more accessible existing
data bases, such as GWSI.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with this
recommendation and is actively working to make
our databases easier to use for, our
Cooperators, the general public, and our
employees. The USGS has committed
considerable resources toward this effort
through our National
Water Information
System (NWIS) group. The NWIS
group has and will continue to receive input
from various user groups in order to ensure
that the needs of the various groups are
considered and incorporated, as appropriate,
into the redesign of the databases. The
availability of the new NWIS-Web system
responds to this need.
Recommendation 29.2: Update,
maintain, and make Make historical data and
metadata available in electronic formats at
the shortest available temporal resolution.
RESPONSE: The USGS is currently working to
ensure that all currently collected data is
available in electronic format at the shortest
available temporal resolution and will
continue to do so in the future. To convert
all historical data to an electronic format,
however, will require considerable resources.
The USGS agrees with the recommendation for
historical data but due to resource
constraints will be unable to fully accomplish
this recommendation. The USGS is currently
planning a "data warehouse" that
will make all streamflow data in electronic
format available on the web. The conversion
of older data now stored on paper to an
electronic format will be done case by case as
the need arises and the resources become
available.
Finding 30: Data dissemination
practices vary between Districts, ranging from
release to the Cooperator as data are
collected, to release upon approval of the
final interpretive report.
Recommendation 30.1: Develop a
consistent nationwide policy that results in
the earliest possible release of data to
Cooperators.
RESPONSE: The USGS
does have a policy for release of data to
Cooperators. We understand that the Task
Force is aware of some inconsistencies in the
implementation of this policy. The USGS will
review this policy, revise it as appropriate,
and redistribute it to promote consistency.
In general, the USGS releases routine data as
soon as possible, while non-routine data is
released in a limited manner to allow for
adequate review and quality assurance to
ensure its accuracy.
Finding 31: The Cooperative Water Program has
been the vehicle for the development of many
technologies and important national
information summaries that have been
successfully transferred to the private
sector. Examples are the MODFLOW
ground-water-flow model, numerical methods,
acoustic Doppler and ultrasonic velocity-meter
technology for measuring streamflow.
Recommendation 31.1: Increase
resources for the development of national
synthesis products to enhance information and
technology transfer.
RESPONSE: The USGS believes that
national synthesis is an essential component
of the Cooperative Water Program and that we
need to enhance our synthesis activities.
National synthesis of results from the
Cooperative Water Program was supported in the
past through the "Water Resources
Assessment" budget line item. Funding
for this program was eliminated in FY 1998.
Since then the number of national synthesis
efforts has decreased due to the lack of
Federal funding. National synthesis is still
conducted through the National Water Quality
Assessment Program and the Offices of Water
Quality, Surface Water, and Ground Water .
but to a lesser extent than in the past. This
situation needs to be rectified and the USGS
is looking at several approaches to increase
national synthesis.
An approach the USGS may take to increase
national synthesis activities, is to initially
allocate a small amount of Federal funds from
existing programs now and as additional new
Federal funds become available, further
increase the level of funding provided for
national synthesis. Synthesis efforts are
part of the plans for the Ground Water
Resources Program and the National Streamflow
Information Program. National synthesis
activities would be tied to the national
issues projects funded by the synthesis
enhancement fund (described in Recommendation
6.1), and to the synthesis needs of all
National programs, whether supported by
appropriated or reimbursable funds. Personnel
in the District offices would conduct most of
the national synthesis activities.
Recommendation 31.2: Increase
resources to update previously developed
modeling technologies.
RESPONSE: The USGS has placed an
emphasis on updating modeling technologies and
will do so as resources become available. The
Water Resources Strategic Directions Document
lays out the following goals and plans for
improving modeling technologies.
quit
"As water-resource issues
evolve, new modeling capabilities and
enhancements to existing modeling software are
needed on a continuing basis to keep us on the
forefront of quantitative hydrology.
To meet this increasing demand, we will do
the following:
Develop a new generation of computer models
to simulate (a) watershed-scale responses to
climate and land-use changes; (b) open-channel
surface-water flow; (c) the interaction of
ground water and surface water, including
lakes, streams, and wetlands; (d) water
chemistry and sediment transport; and (e)
water-use models. These models will be linked
with decision-support systems for
science-based water-management decisions. The
models will be designed to become the models
of choice for the scientific
community."
Recommendation 31.3: Strengthen partnerships
between USGS divisions. Such partnerships are
necessary to synthesize diverse information
and provide comprehensive answers to resource
questions.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees with
this recommendation and has been placing great
emphasis on strengthening the working
relationships between USGS divisions. This
has been a high priority for the present
Director and his predecessor. The USGS will
continue to work toward strengthening
relationships between the divisions as
evidenced by the Director.s recently announced
reorganization and plan for strategic change.
Recommendation 31.4: Strengthen coordination
between the Cooperative Water Program and
other Federal, State, Tribal and local
programs to achieve improved focused and
economical products.
RESPONSE: The USGS
agrees with this recommendation and will
continue to strengthen coordination between
the Cooperative Water Program and other
organization's programs through meetings and
other opportunities to share information and
coordinate programs.
Recommendation 31.5: As
appropriate, continue to co-locate USGS staff
with Cooperators (and conversely) to
facilitate day-to-day information transfer and
to promote better understanding of local
issues and perspectives.
RESPONSE: The USGS generally agrees with
this recommendation and will continue to
strengthen relationships with Cooperators
through co-locating Cooperator staff at USGS
offices, as appropriate, to facilitate
day-to-day information sharing. This has
already been done to a limited extent. The
USGS will gather information from those
offices that have participated in co-locations
to determine (1) the benefits and problems,
and (2) the reason for success or failure.
This information will be shared with all
District offices as an encouragement to
participate in co-locations as appropriate.
Finding 32: The Water Resources National
Training Center located in Denver is a
valuable resource that appears to be
underutilized.
Recommendation 32.1: Promote the
National Training Center in Denver as an
available resource for professional
development.
RESPONSE: The USGS agrees that the
Water Resources National Training Center (NTC)
has been underutilized by Cooperators. The
NTC has a new chief and is in the process of
examining and revising its business plan. The
desire to increase the involvement of
Cooperator participation in NTC classes and
regionally sponsored classes will be conveyed
to the NTC staff so that this opportunity can
be incorporated into the new business plan as
appropriate.