PART Name: USGS Water Information Collection/Dissemination:
OMB Part Program:
Research & Development
Part Review Year: 2004
Version: 5
Date/Time: 09/11/2005 13:58:22 PM
Question #: 1.1
Question: Is the program purpose clear?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: "The U.S. Geological Survey has the principal responsibility within the Federal Government to provide the hydrologic information and understanding needed by others to achieve the best use and management of the Nation's water resources. To accomplish this mission, the Water Resources Division, in cooperation with State, local, and other Federal agencies,
Systematically collect and analyze data to evaluate the quantity, quality, and use of the Nation's water resources and provides results of these investigations to the public.
Coordinates the activities of Federal agencies in the acquisition of water resources data for streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and ground water.
"
Evidence: "Legislative mandates (1.1A): The Organic Act of March 3, 1879, Additional legislation includes eight authorizations pertaining to data collection and dissemination, from 31U.S.C.1535, through P.L.106-457 (reference: FY2005 Budget Justifications, p. 73-85).
The Water Resources Discipline (WRD) IC&D mission is consistent with the mission and goals of the DOI Strategic Plan (2003-2008), which states: ?The DOI protects and manages the Nation?s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources?? (1.1B); also, DOI?s four Mission Areas and Outcome Goals (p. 6): ""Serving Communities"" Advance Knowledge Through Scientific Leadership and Inform Decisions Through the Applications of Science. USGS Water Resources information and data are used to improve and enhance national stewardship of water resources.
The USGS Strategic Plan (1.1C)
The Strategic Directions for the Water Resources Division, 1998-2008 (1.1D) under ""Long-Term Data Collection (page 10).
"
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 20.00
Question #: 1.2
Question: Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: The U.S. faces the combined challenges of an expanding need for water because of growing population, particularly in the western and southwestern water-poor regions of the Nation, a growing dependence on water that is transferred across large distances, and--because of increasing concerns about the ecological health of wetland, riparian, lacustrine, and estuarine environments--demands that water resource extraction and use be environmentally sound. Additionally, more communities are at risk for flood hazards because of the increase in the Nation?s population and its expansion into more hazardous areas. A sound, scientific knowledge base is needed to assess available water resources, the impact of using those resources, and the degree of flood risk. This information is essential for decision makers to understand and weigh the costs and benefits of water usage and to evaluate flood hazard.
Evidence: "A New Evaluation of the USGS Streamgaging Network - A Report to Congress (1998, 20 p.) and Streamflow Information for the Next Century A Plan for the National Streamflow Information Program of the USGS: USGS Open-File Report 99-456 (http://water.usgs.gov/nsip/pubs/99-456.pdf).
Cooperative Water Program: ?Most work in the Coop Program is directed toward potential and emerging long-term problems, such as water supply, waste disposal, ground-water quality, effects of agricultural chemicals, floods, droughts, and environmental protection.? (http://water.usgs.gov/coop/description.html).
"
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 20.00
Question #: 1.3
Question: Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, State, local or private effort?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: Rivers and aquifers cross political boundaries, hence, only a Federal agency can have a long-term, national-scale interest in monitoring the availability and quality of surface- and ground-water resources. Two factors assure that WRD data collection efforts are not redundant with other agencies: 1) the USGS Mission, dating to 1879, and enhanced by statute in 1894 for gaging the streams and determining the water supply of the United States, ensures that WRD hydrologic data collection programs at National scale and over the long term are unique in the Federal, State and local government as well as private and academic sectors; 2) the WRD business model is designed and executed to include regular communication and coordination of hydrologic data collection among Federal and State agencies. At the National level, USGS liaisons coordinate with their counterparts in Federal and State agencies.. (see ACWI evidence below and performance measures for additional details). At the local level, WRD District Chiefs direct USGS programs in 48 District offices that include the 50 US states and territories. Additional factors that make the USGS unique with respect to hydrologic data collection and distribution: the USGS does not implement nor decide policy, and has no regulatory duties, therefore, has no vested interest in the particular outcome of an assessment or study, and as such WRD information and results are viewed as unbiased.
Evidence: "This mission was assigned to the USGS through the Organic Act of 1879. Furthermore, provision was made in 1894 for gaging the streams and determining the water supply of the United States (28 Stat. 398). No other Federal, State, local governmental or non-governmental entity has this mission, capability, or responsibility (DOI Manual, Chapter 1, http://elips.doi.gov/elips/release/3304.htm).
OMB Memo M-92-01, ?Coordination of Water Resources Information? designates the DOI-USGS as the lead agency for the Water Information Coordination Program (WICP) and states: ?All other Federal organizations funding, collecting, or using water resources information should assist the USGS in ensuring the implementation of an effective WICP.?
The USGS streamgaging program has over 1,200 Federal, State, and local partners that help fund USGS streamgages because of the high quality and consistent streamflow information the USGS provides. (National Streamflow Information Program: Implementation plan and Progress Report FS-048-01).
"
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 20.00
Question #: 1.4
Question: Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program?s effectiveness or efficiency?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: " USGS WRD funding is appropriated through seven line items, the collection and dissemination of hydrologic data from a large distributed network of streamflow, ground-water, and water quality monitoring sites is executed through a combination of centralized planning and coordination with WRD District offices where state and regional hydrologic issues and needs are identified. Funding for each of the three major hydrologic data types (streamflow, ground-water, and water quality) is derived from multiple line items but is coordinated through five national WRD Programs: National Streamflow Information, Cooperative Water, Hydrologic Networks & Analysis, NAWQA, and Ground Water Resources. Sampling strategies are planned with National perspective and scope and multiple national-level data collection networks are in place. While there is coordination the program could not easily demonstrate how activities across the program elements contribute to national capabilities, an example of this is the lack of measurable long term goals for all data collection and dissemination activities. New measure were developed during the PART process.
Additionally, WRD products are digital in nature, having moved away from the limitations and expense of paper. The widespread use of GIS technology also indicates increased efficiency, as GIS products allow users to build upon existing databases and maps and can be used for purposes beyond the original intent.
"
Evidence: "WRD 5 year plans (see http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/prgmplans/) are implemented through the Strategic Directions for the Water Resources Division 1998-2008 Plan, and USGS Strategic Plan. WRD IC&D functions are citizen centered: distributed nationally into 48 Districts and additional Sub-district and field offices, fostering local and regional data collection efforts, knowledge, and expertise on water-related issues, as well as contact with partner governmental agencies and local academic institutions.
To gauge WRD IC&D effectiveness, stakeholder and partner feedback is actively sought by many venues, including: (1) regular meetings between WRD District, (including WRD regional officials) with local government water- and land-management agencies; (2) WRD District Strategic Reviews (3) interactions with customers at scientific and technical meetings, (4) WRD membership on interagency steering committees, ie. SWAQ, ACWI http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/. WRD members belong to standardization committees such as the ASTM. WRD seeks outside validation of its methodologies and assessments to ensure that no major flaws are present. Example: WRD requested the NAS to evaluate its Water use information program. (Committee on USGS Water Resources Research, 2002, Estimating Water Use in the United States: A New Paradigm for the National Water-Use Information Program: National Research Council, 190 p.).
The effectiveness and efficiency of WRD IC&D programs have been reviewed by the ACWI Streamgaging Taskforce and a National Academy of Science Committee.
ACWI Charter: http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/a_charter.html ACWI advises the Federal Government, through the USGS on the Federal Water Information Coordination Program (WICP). "
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 20.00
Question #: 1.5
Question: Is the program design effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program?s purpose directly?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: "The WRD IC&D mission concentrates on providing original, hydrologically based, non-biased water information to stakeholders: policy makers, land and resource managers, the general public other federal agencies, nongovernmental groups, industry, academia, and other scientists. Programs are coordinated principally through three IC&D Programs to achieve program goals, namely monitoring, assessing, and providing water resources data of the Nation. WRD develops goals and assesses effectiveness in meeting goals through annual Water District Strategic Program Reviews (DSPR) in which HQ, Regional and District leadership meet with representatives of state and local government agency heads to evaluate past and current work as well as discuss/determine future needs for hydrologic information. Results of these DRPR?s are synthesized into scientific needs and challenges for the Nation and communicated to all WRD Program Coordinators, Regional and District leadership through a guidance document: the annual CWP Priorities memo (see also 2.RD2). WRD resource information is the WRD IC&D product that reaches intended beneficiaries. As previous sentences show, WRD works very closely with target beneficiaries, however information is not systematically collected that can be aggregated to report on how information collection and dissemination activities affect beneficiaries at the national level.
"
Evidence: "The operation and maintenance of streamgages, wells, and water-quality station (data-collection) networks is coordinated among WRD IC&D programs, the four WRD regions, and through each of 48 District offices across the Nation in order to meet the highest priority National goals as well as local needs to ensure that the information needs are being met as effectively as available resources allow. WRD IC&D programs coordinate work to support data collection networks with multi-purpose stations, for example, a single streamgaging station may serve multiple stakeholder needs: water supply, flood warning, and water quality monitoring. (see for example, the 2002 Virginia District Annual Data Report: http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wdr/WDR-VA-02-1/)
"
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 20.00
Total Section 1 Score:
Question #: 2.1
Question: 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?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: WRD worked with DOI and OMB during the PART process to develop a set of specific performance measures. These measures are based on program goals described in each of the WRD Program 5-year plans and are described in the PART ?Performance Measures? section.
Evidence: "The FY2005 Budget Justifications, page 364
The Strategic Directions for the Water Resources Division, 1998-2008 [please refer to 1.4] provides overview of scientific rational for performance measures and priority issues under the ?Strategic directions in WRD scientific activities? section (p. 6). http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/WRD/strategic_report.pdf
"
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 10.00
Question #: 2.2
Question: Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: Long-term measures, noted in 2.1 above, have targets and timeframes and described in the PART ?Performance Measures? section. These have been developed with input from OMB and DOI during the PART process. WRD targets and timeframes currently in use are described in the 5-year plans and in the WRD Strategic Directions publication.
Evidence: "WRD IC&D 5 year plans (http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/prgmplans/) describe the science priorities that guide targets and timeframes; see example: NSIP 5-year plan.
Strategic Directions for the Water Resources Division, 1998-2008 [please refer to 1.4] lists priority issues under the ?Strategic directions in WRD scientific activities? section (p. 6).
http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/WRD/strategic_report.pdf "
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 10.00
Question #: 2.3
Question: Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program?s long-term goals?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: WRD has established new IC&D annual performance measures to quantify progress towards long-term goals. These measures are updated and refined from long-standing goals outlined in WRD program plans. The annual measures pertain to the improvement and enhancement of the basic data produced by the WRD IC&D programs, including the maintenance of (and increase in the number when funding permits) long-term data collection and large data infrastructures--which include the maximization of the percentage of long-term stream gages (30+ years of record) retained (and reported in NWIS-Web) from one year to the next. In addition to streamflow data, the two other basic data collection types reported in NWIS-Web are ground-water and water-quality (see evidence in PART 1.4). WRD IC&D Performance Measures include the collection and dissemination of real-time and non-real-time data. In addition to the performance measure-30+ years of streamflow record, additional annual measures include: 2) Percent of ground-water stations that have real-time reporting capability in the ground-water climate-response network (GWCRN) http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/; 3) Percentage of daily streamflow and monthly ground-water level measurement sites with data that are converted from provisional to final status within 3 months of day of data collection.
Evidence: "A New Evaluation of the USGS Streamgaging Network - A Report to Congress (1998, 20 p.)
http://water.usgs.gov/streamgaging/index.html [please refer to 1.2]
Streamflow Information for the Next Century A Plan for the National Streamflow Information Program of the USGS: USGS Open-File Report 99-456, 13 p.
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofr99456/ [please refer to 1.2]
USGS Information Sheet: Measuring the Pulse of our Nation's Rivers, 2001, 2 p.
http://water.usgs.gov/nsip/pubs/nsip-2page.pdf
USGS Fact Sheet 048-01: NSIP Implementation Plan and Progress Report, 2001, 6 p.
http://water.usgs.gov/nsip/pubs/FS048-01.pdf [please refer to 1.3]
Hydrologic data?NWIS (National Water Information System): Hydrologic data derived from streamflow, ground-water, and water quality monitoring stations are published on the web (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis)
"
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 10.00
Question #: 2.4
Question: Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: WRD IC&D programs commit the USGS and partnering government agencies to annual and long-term hydrologic data collection program goals through MOU?s, Interagency Agreements. and joint funding agreements (JFA?s). The USGS builds relationships with partners having complementary goals (e.g., state water-management agencies-for water supply and water-quality data; National Weather Service-for streamflow data needed for flood warning systems; USEPA for water-quality data and information) to leverage resources/expertise. Joint-Funding Agreements (JFA) with more than 1,400 state and local government agencies across the Nation detail the exact work to be accomplished and entail close coordination through regular reviews and annual reports. The JFA?s and MOU?s specify goals to be reached and outline specific timeframes. The JFA?s are renewed on an annual basis, normally at the level of the individual WRD District office. IAG?s and MOU?s may be renewed annual or on a longer time step, depending on the types of commitments they contain. These types of documents specify the locations where data will be collected and the type of data to be collected.
Evidence: "GPRA reports: FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report-http://www.doi.gov/pfm/par2003/
GPRA-USGS Strategic Plan: http://www.usgs.gov/stratplan/stratplan_rev/index.html
Strategic Directions for the Water Resources Division, 1998-2008
http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/WRD/strategic_report.pdf
5-year plans
Project proposals and annual work plans include additional annual targets for project-specific work. [please refer to 1.4]
"
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 10.00
Question #: 2.5
Question: 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?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: WRD IC&D programs commit the USGS and partnering government agencies to annual and long-term hydrologic data collection program goals through MOU?s, Interagency Agreements. and joint funding agreements (JFA?s). The USGS builds relationships with partners having complementary goals (e.g., state water-management agencies-for water supply and water-quality data; National Weather Service-for streamflow data needed for flood warning systems; USEPA for water-quality data and information) to leverage resources/expertise. Joint-Funding Agreements (JFA) with more than 1,400 state and local government agencies across the Nation detail the exact work to be accomplished and entail close coordination through regular reviews and annual reports. The JFA?s and MOU?s specify goals to be reached and outline specific timeframes. The JFA?s are renewed on an annual basis, normally at the level of the individual WRD District office. IAG?s and MOU?s may be renewed annual or on a longer time step, depending on the types of commitments they contain. These types of documents specify the locations where data will be collected and the type of data to be collected.
Evidence: "WRD Five-Year Plans are used to set and publicize program priorities with partners.[please refer to 1.4]
WRD District Strategic Reviews (representative samples from several WRD Districts) [please refer to 1.4]
Annual WRD District Program Reviews (conducted by WRD Regional offices to determine operational/financial status of District office, including the names of each Federal and state cooperative agency, cost and nature of annual program with each, status of reports and products planned for delivery to partners)
MOUs and IAG?s with other agencies/entities such as Department of Defense, USEPA (see examples). These documents outline the tasks and goals to be accomplished.
Joint-Funding Agreements (JFA): WRD has approximately 1,400 JFA?s signed with state, local, and tribal government agencies covering work in the Cooperative Water Program. These JFA?s list the locations where data will be collected, the type of data to be collected, and the support to be provided from each partner agency. In most cases, the partner agency provides funding but no services. See examples
"
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 10.00
Question #: 2.6
Question: 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?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: "Numerous independent reviews of WRD have been requested of the National Academy of Science to seek advice on improvement of WRD IC&D programs. These reviews have been conducted regularly during the past 10 years and are ongoing. The reviews are requested by USGS on an ad hoc basis when feedback is needed and the scope is defined for each review.
However, there has not been a holistic review of all information collection and dissemination activities.
"
Evidence: The reviews list recommendations for ways that the USGS can improve the collection and distribution of data. For example, the National Water Use Information Program (NWUIP) review (2002) recommended that the NWUIP: 1) be elevated to a water use science program; 2) build on existing data collection efforts by systematically integrating USGS and other agency datasets; 3) compare and improve water use statistical methods; 4) integrate water use, water flow, and water quality data to enhance policy-relevant information.
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 10.00
Question #: 2.7
Question: 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?
Answer:No
Explanation: "
The budget justifications provide links to annual goals but it is difficult to determine the effects on long term goals. GPRA tables are not well linked to the text of justifications for long term goals. "
Evidence: FY2005 Budget Justifications: identifies the linkage between the accomplishments and the performance measures/outputs in the DOI strategic plan that are tracked as part of GPRA. NSIP p. 411,
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 0.00
Question #: 2.8
Question: Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: The subactivities of WRD IC&D progams have taken steps to correct strategic planning deficiencies identified by external reviews. The Cooperative Water Program, which represents about a third of the entire WRD program and includes IC&D plus research components, was reviewed and a list of 32 findings was provided to the USGS. Examples of some of the findings and USGS actions taken are listed in 2.6 above. Each finding was addressed and is available on line at: http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/coop/Hirsch.html. Additionally, WRD Program Coordinators are currently revising their 5-year plans to better reflect the performance measures that are described within this PART.
Evidence: Cooperative Water Program Task Force Review findings: http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1192/html/finding.html USGS Response to Coop. Program Task Force Review findings: http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/coop/Hirsch.html Response letters from DOI Secretary Norton and WRD Associate Director Hirsch, plus the list of recommendations and USGS actions taken is included.
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 10.00
Question #: 2.CA1
Question: 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?
*R&D Programs addressing technology development or the construction or operation of a facility should answer this question. Answer:N/A
Explanation: Evidence: Weight:
0.00
Weighted Score: 0.00
Question #: 2.RD1
Question: If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and (if relevant) to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: "The overall goal of monitoring the quality of water in the U.S. is common to many of these programs, but there are important differences in geographic and scientific focus, methods, and questions to be answered by the monitoring. For example, the EPA directs states and water agencies to perform water monitoring, but does little large-scale monitoring itself. EPA does conduct a national scale EMAP water quality monitoring program, which can be viewed as a complement to USGS monitoring in that EMAP takes a statistical, random approach to selection of monitoring sites, and emphasizes a single, widespread snapshot in time rather than long-term trend analysis at stations selected for their hydrologic significance?which is what the USGS does. EPA and USGS meet regularly to coordinate their programs and avoid duplication.
States monitor effluents for compliance applicable clean-water and safe-drinking-water laws, and most states also conduct ambient water-quality monitoring as required by EPA, and published in the 305B report. There is some variation among the states in sampling and analytical methods, site-selection, water- quality standards, and data analysis. States, EPA, and USGS coordinate their programs through the National Water Quality Monitoring Council, a subgroup under the FACA Advisory Committee on Water Information.
"
Evidence: "USGS/EPA Memorandum of Agreement on the Management of Water Quality Data, February 25, 2003, Establishes that USGS and EPA will deliver data from USGS/NWIS and EPS/STORET in a common format.
Organic Act of 1879. Establishes unique role of USGS and directed USGS to classify public lands and examine the geological structure, mineral resources, and products within and outside the national domain. Additional legislation: eight authorizations pertaining to data collection and dissemination, from 31U.S.C.1535, through P.L.106-457 (reference: FY2005 Budget Justifications, pages 73-85). 28 Stat. 398: provision was made in 1894 for gaging the streams and determining the water supply of the United States by the USGS."
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 10.00
Question #: 2.RD2
Question: Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: "The USGS has a drafted a Bureau-level science planning handbook, which demonstrates the relationships between the annual Regional Executive Program Coordinator meeting, Regional meetings with DOI Bureaus and other stakeholders as elements that contribute to the WRD budget and science prioritization process.
Due to a lack of long term measures it has been difficult to clearly assess actual decisions to prioritize investments based on national needs. New measures have been developed in the PART process which help to clearly demonstrate decisions based on priorities."
Evidence: "Bureau Science Planning Handbook
Regional Executive Program Coordinator meeting, example agenda
NSIP, Cooperative Water, HN&A Five Year Plans
Director?s Annual Guidance
Cooperative Water Program memorandum
"
Weight:
10.00
Weighted Score: 10.00
Total Section 2 Score:
Question #: 3.1
Question: 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?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: "DOI, USGS, and USGS WRD IC&D programs regularly collect performance information through customer and partner reviews and surveys. Feedback is incorporated into program plans and specific actions are taken in response. The DOI and Bureau Strategic Plans include partner and customer reviewed long term goals, annual performance measures, and GPRA measures. Progress on GPRA are verified quarterly and reported and updated annually. The USGS Director convenes annual listening sessions, recording needs of partners and informing them of response. The NAS/NRC reviews long term goals and program performance, utilizing blue ribbon panels of scientists and stakeholders. All projects are required to record detailed workplans, progress and products, and budgets by object class in the Bureau wide system BASIS+.
The majority of agreements (JFA?s) made with State and local government agencies through the Cooperative Water Program are funding agreements whereby the non-USGS party agrees to reimburse the USGS for work outlined in the JFA. The USGS monitors the financial (and technical) contributions made by the cooperating agencies. If financial contributions are late, collection procedures are used, up to and including referral to the US Department of Treasury and, if needed, the US Department of Justice. If other promised contributions are not delivered, cooperative partnerships are occasionally terminated. Standard national criteria are used for the timing of funding reimbursements to the USGS. These are outlined in USGS internal websites and in USGS internal Instructional Memorandums.
"
Evidence: "USGS Strategic Plan showing long term goals, measures, and annual GPRA targets (pp 9-15).
GPRA update memo
GPRA Reports and example of quarterly verification.
Directors 03 Listening Session Report showing recommendations and actions taken. Attachment includes examples of how information has been used from evaluations and listening sessions to make changes in WRD programs.
Bureau Science Planning Handbook shows performance requirements in program five-year plans and collecting performance information in BASIS+ system .
"
Weight:
12.50
Weighted Score: 12.50
Question #: 3.2
Question: Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?
Answer:No
Explanation: There is currently not a direct linkage between Water district manager's performance goals for the entire water discipline to ensure that priorities are met and to understand the tradeoffs of decisions made at the local level. USGS does use some mechanisms to hold senior management and program partners accountable for performance through performance evaluation, management process controls, and performance guidance provided in agreements, contracts, and grants. Measures for GPRA, financial management, and the Presidents Management Agenda are in all USGS SES performance agreements. Regional Executives and Program Coordinators are accountable for achieving performance as part of the USGS Planning Model and as part of their performance agreements. While SES level managers have GPRA annual goals incorporated into their annual plans, starting in 2004 Water district managers began including performance standards in their performance plans which link their individual performance with the achievement of program goals. At the end of FY04 and beyond it will be possible to assess whether this information is used to ensure accountability. While partners and cost sharing agreements include performance information they are not clearly linked to achievement of water discipline performance goals.
Evidence: "SES Performance Plan Guidance and Trujillo Memo
USGS Planning Model responsibilities list (p.4-7).
USGS Policy Manual Contract and agency agreement requirements http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/toc.html. Chapters 300.000 - 369.999 deal with financial management (including billing, budget, contractual agreements, and general policies), and chapters 400.000 - 407.999 deal with contracts specifically.
"
Weight:
12.50
Weighted Score: 0.00
Question #: 3.3
Question: Are funds (Federal and partners?) obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: "The USGS has an established budget, allocation, and spending process that includes annual planning, quarterly and monthly reviews, and review of any funds allocation change over 25K. Upon approval from the Bureau, funds are authorized into BASIS+ for all approved projects, and monthly tracking of the status of funds is done by project chiefs and management officials. Cost center managers obtain and review monthly financial reports showing the obligation/spend rate. Unliquidated obligations are reviewed and certified quarterly. Certifying officers ensure the availability of funds for all obligations. Examples: All requisitions and all travel authorizations are signed by a certifying official.
A list of findings and USGS responses is available on line in the USGS FY 2003 Annual Financial Report. See page 27. http://pubs.usgs.gov/03financial/
"
Evidence: "USGS Budgeting and Finance diagram
Allocation Process Memo showing appropriation actions and requirements.
Program and admin office allocation tables to cost centers, projects, and accounts.
Spending progress by object class for all USGS for 2nd and 3rd quarters.
Summary of Program quarterly obligations for FY03
"
Weight:
12.50
Weighted Score: 12.50
Question #: 3.4
Question: 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?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: A new efficiency measure was established during the PART process. The Nation Water Information System (NWIS) is undertaking process improvements to improve productivity. Improvements to NWISWeb are continuous and include Web based tutorials on accessing the data through NWISWeb. In addition, USGS has partnered with EPA to provide digital access to NWIS data through their on-line web-based map interface, Window to my Environment. However, the WRD never evaluated whether a national contract could be issued for management of the stream flow measurement system to make it more cost effective, as identified in the strategic directions document.
Evidence: "DOI Capitol Asset Guidance Guidance For Exhibit 300 And 300-1 - Capital Asset Plan And Business Case And Project Profile. DOI's guidance is located on the web at: http://www.doi.gov/ocio/cp/300guidance.DOC
Example IT improvement--digital data initiatives and portals: NWISWeb provides Web accessible water information from NWIS to the nation http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis and is described in USGS Fact-Sheet 129-02 November 2002. "
Weight:
12.50
Weighted Score: 12.50
Question #: 3.5
Question: Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: The USGS and EPA have established, under the FACA, the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) to help provide coordination among federal agencies and from state, local, and private organizations in the area of water data collection and dissemination. Significant developments in the water monitoring programs of various federal agencies are discussed at ACWI semiannual meetings. The ACWI includes a number of subgroups that are charged with coordinating programs and improving consistency, including the National Water Quality Monitoring Council, and the Methods and Data Comparability Board, and subcommittees on hydrology, sedimentation, and spatial water data. In addition to ACWI, the USGS participates in the CENR Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, which also promotes discussions and coordination among federal agencies involved in water monitoring.
Evidence: "Effective collaboration between WRD IC&D programs and others is demonstrated by working agreements that WRD has with others. An example of this type of partnership is the sharing of long-term WRD precipitation data sets, which are often unpublished, with the NOAA-NWS for development of the NOAA Technical Report 42 series (Precipitation accumulation and return frequency). In these types of relationships, WRD plays a distinct and complimentary role. WRD cooperative working relationships benefit both parties, and WRD scientists gain access to data, knowledge, and expertise as well as funding. Examples of USGS participation in State drought plans:
New York: ny.water.usgs.gov/projects/drought99/ how_declared1.html
Illinois: www.nal.usda.gov/wqic/statedrought.html
Arizona: www.awwa.org/waterwiser/watch/index.cfm?ArticleID=26
Examples of EPA citing USGS water monitoring programs on the EPA web pages:
- Joint reservoir monitoring for pesticides: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/pra-op/iii_e_3-f.pdf
- Organophosphorus pesticide monitoring: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/pra-op/iii_e_1-f.pdf
- National Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy: http://www.epa.gov/ged/crc/epa620r-00-005u.pdf
"
Weight:
12.50
Weighted Score: 12.50
Question #: 3.6
Question: Does the program use strong financial management practices?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: USGS has: taken corrective actions for IT security (target date 6/30/04); taken necessary steps to ensure that all staff performing accounting functions comply with Circ. A-123; performed appropriate reviews of the financial statements; developed procedures to ensure that accounting adjustments are handled properly; established policies and procedures for proper accounting for all property; established inventory controls to ensure compliance with SFFAS No. 3; and has established a procedure for maintaining Working Capital Fund investments. USGS exceeded DOI?s goal for electronic funds transfer compliance, consistent with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and promptly paid its invoices, again exceeding DOI?s goal of 97% (consistent with the Prompt Payment Act). For the revenue cycle control issue, USGS has implemented a corrective action plan and is having monthly reviews conducted by cost center managers.
Evidence: "FY 2003 Independent Auditors? Report (Dec 9, 2003)
USGS Status of FY 2002 Findings (Sept 30, 2003)
Bureau annual planning process documentation
"
Weight:
12.50
Weighted Score: 12.50
Question #: 3.7
Question: Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: "The USGS has taken significant steps to resolve management deficiencies. Through the USGS Geographic Information Office (GIO), Chief Technology Office, the USGS has taken steps to improve IT systems controls (resulting in better security and management of critical infrastructures). The USGS has strengthened its financial management organization and leadership by establishing a Deputy CFO with full authority and responsibility for overseeing all financial management activities and filled key positions for skilled supervisory and operating accountants. USGS has established a training program for its professional and administrative staff on proper accounting procedures.
To receive Certification and Accreditation (C&A), WRD addressed the Performance Objectives and Milestones identified by the Bureau Security Manager. NWIS met the identified requirements to receive C&A this year.
"
Evidence: "USGS FY 2003 Annual Financial Report http://pubs.usgs.gov/03financial/
FY 2003 Independent Auditors? Report (Dec 9, 2003)
USGS Status of FY 2002 Findings (Sept 30, 2003)
Bureau annual planning process documentation
"
Weight:
12.50
Weighted Score: 12.50
Question #: 3.CA1
Question: Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?
*R&D programs addressing technology development or the construction or operation of a facility should answer this question. Answer:N/A
Explanation: Evidence: Weight:
0.00
Weighted Score: 0.00
Question #: 3.CO1
Question: Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment or merit?
*R&D programs that use competitive grants should answer this question. Answer:N/A
Explanation: Evidence: Weight:
0.00
Weighted Score: 0.00
Question #: 3.CO2
Question: Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?
*R&D programs that use competitive grants should answer this question. Answer:N/A
Explanation: Evidence: Weight:
0.00
Weighted Score: 0.00
Question #: 3.CO3
Question: Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?
*R&D programs that use competitive grants should answer this question. Answer:N/A
Explanation: Evidence: Weight:
0.00
Weighted Score: 0.00
Question #: 3.RD1
Question: For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain quality?
Answer:Yes
Explanation: "WRD IC&D programs have several mechanisms to maintain program quality. These include: 1) regular reviews of project-level financial transactions by District Administrative Officer; 2) reviews of District financial transactions by Regional Management Officers; reviews of Regional financial transactions by Headquarters financial officers.
In the Cooperative Water program, IC&D project proposals are developed by WRD District managers and submitted for approval through a multi-level process The IC&D proposals are first prepared by Data Chiefs in the Districts, then reviewed and approved by the District Technical Specialist (for Ground Water, Water Quality, or Surface Water), then the District Chief. Projects involving both data collection and research are approved at the Regional level. Criteria for approval include satisfaction of partnership goals, maintenance of long-term records, maintenance of adequate geographic coverage, meeting needs for support of water-resources management decisions, and consistency with WRD IC&D science and information goals.
Project proposals are reviewed for technical merit, acceptable time-line planning, appropriate budgeting and staffing, and final products. Project proposals that do not satisfy all criteria are returned to Data Chiefs for corrections and revisions and are not approved unless all criteria are satisfied. What are your criteria? (at least provide a link to where these are written)
"
Evidence: "Director?s Annual Guidance
Annual Cooperative Water Program memo
Program 5-year plans
"
Weight:
12.50
Weighted Score: 12.50
Total Section 3 Score:
Question #: 4.1
Question: Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goal?
Answer:
Small Extent
Explanation: Past measures, though inadequate, indicate that progress was made. New long term measures were developed during the PART process.
Evidence: 5-year plans, GPRA plans and Congressional Budget Justifications,
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 6.60
Question #: 4.2
Question: Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?
Answer:
Large Extent
Explanation: Earlier performance measures were very input orientied and it was difficult to determine how they contribute to long term goals, however WRD regularly achieved its annual performance goals.
Evidence: 5-year plans [please refer to 1.4], GPRA plans and Congressional Budget Justifications,
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 13.40
Question #: 4.3
Question: Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?
Answer:
Small Extent
Explanation: A new efficiency measure was developed in the PART process against which improved effectiveness and efficiences can be measured in the future. Anecodtal information show efficiencies were achieved., through collaborative effort with EPA on a water information web portal.
Evidence: 5-year plans [please refer to 1.4], GPRA plans and Congressional Budget Justifications,
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 6.60
Question #: 4.4
Question: Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?
Answer:
Large Extent
Explanation: The program did not receive an outright "yes" for this question because there are no known surveys or analyses that directly compare the performance of the Water Resources Program with other water research programs operated by other governmental or educational entities. Because the program is a recognized leader in water information, however, it warrants a score of "large extent." Water information activities in the private sector (site specific) and in other agencies (National Weather Service (NWS, Corps of Engineers, EPA) looks to the WRD for direction and standards through cooperation. The NWS operates a small precipitation monitoring network (with only limited real-time data collection/transmittal capability) for forecasting and reporting on weather conditions. Additionally, like the NWS, the WRD reports streamflow on a 24x7 basis, and reports must be accurate and timely. Unlike the NWS, the USGS provides calibrated estimates of mean daily streamflow when measured data are unavailable for any reason.
Evidence: "NWIS web: one the largest hydrologic data bases on Earth, NWIS currently contains surface-water, ground-water, and water-quality data from more than 1.5 million sites in the 50 states, several Territories, and the District of Columbia. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis
NRC, 1999, ?Hydrologic Hazards Science at the U.S. Geological Survey?, National Academy Press, page 65. ?The USGS stream gaging network is a unique and irreplaceable source of primary data supporting planning, research, and management for hydrologic hazards. It is of critical national importance that this source of consistent and reliable hydrologic data be maintained, both as the foundation for other hydrologic activity conducted by USGS and as a basis for planning and operations carried out by countless other public and private entities.? (page 65)
"
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 13.40
Question #: 4.5
Question: Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?
Answer:
Large Extent
Explanation: Independent review of WRD IC&D programs (NAS, ACWI-Cooperative Water Program Review) document that the programs are effective and achieving results. Additional indication of the effectiveness of WRD IC&D programs is the feedback received in the form of e-mail and letters acknowledging the value, breadth and scope of use of WRD IC&D program products. The NSIP Program has been reviewed nationally by the ACWI Streamgaging Taskforce and the National Academy of Sciences. However, there are not regular holistic reviews of the all information collection and activities.
Evidence: "NAS review
?In the United States, a massive effort is in progress to remediate sites at which hazardous materials threaten the environment. The science and technology programs of the WRD [Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey], with a heritage of over 100 years, contribute significantly to the national remediation effort by continually imparting new and credible understanding about soil and water contamination.? (page 1)
?The long-term streamflow and ground water-level monitoring programs of the USGS provide the base information for determining the probability of occurrence of extreme hydrologic events.? (page 18)
NRC, 1999, ?Hydrologic Hazards Science at the U.S. Geological Survey?, National Academy Press.
"
Weight:
20.00
Weighted Score: 13.40
Question #: 4.CA1
Question: Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?
*R&D programs addressing the acquisition, construction or operation of facilities or other capital assets should answer the Capital Assets and Service Acquisition question (4.CA1). Answer:N/A
Explanation: Evidence: Weight:
0.00
Weighted Score: 0.00
