**Appendix E -- The 1999 Numerical Survey of Cooperators**

1.  Transmittal letter for the survey

2.  Blank Numerical Survey

3.  Summary of Numerical Survey results

4.  Written comments provided with the Numerical Survey

Transmittal letter for the survey

In Reply Refer To:

Mail Stop 409

March 30, 1999

Dear U.S Geological Survey Water Resources Division Cooperator:

As a participant in the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Federal-State
Cooperative Water Program (Co-op Program), we are asking that you
provide feedback about the program by completing the enclosed survey.
The survey was developed by and will serve as input to an external Task
Force that is reviewing the Co-op Program.

The Task Force to Review the Federal-State Cooperative Water Program
(Task Force) was established in August 1998 by the USGS's Advisory
Committee on Water Information (ACWI) to conduct an external review of
the Co-op Program. The Task Force was commissioned to review four
critical aspects of the Co-op Program and report their results and
recommendations to ACWI by July 1999. The areas for review are:

1)  the Co-op Program's mission,

2)  the way in which priorities are established for the Co-op Program,

3)  the way in which work is conducted under the Co-op Program, and

4)  the products resulting from the Co-op Program.

Copies of the Task Force's Terms of Reference (the charter given to the
Task Force by ACWI) and the Task Force membership are enclosed for your
information.

The Task Force is in the process of meeting with different Co-op Program
stakeholders and gathering input and opinions from a wide range of
organizations, like yours, which participate in or use information
generated by the Co-op Program. This survey is intended to help the Task
Force understand the importance of the Cooperative Program to your
organization, your level of satisfaction with the program as it
currently exists, and your ideas for improving the program.

Please take a few minutes to help us by filling out the enclosed survey.
Your responses will be compiled anonymously and used to help the Task
Force reach conclusions and make recommendations to ACWI on the Co-op
Program. Please respond by April 16, 1999, if possible. If you are
unable to respond by the due date, survey responses will still be
accepted up through June 1999. A return envelope also is enclosed for
your use.

The input of organizations, such as yours, is critical to the Task
Force's success. Thank you for participating.

Cooperators 2

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact either of
us. If you would like to offer additional comments about the Co-op
Program feel free to call us or to contact any of the Task Force
members. If you would like to speak with someone in the USGS about the
Task Force and/or the survey, you can contact Steve Blanchard, Assistant
to the Chief Hydrologist (Executive Secretary to the Task Force) at
703-648-5629.

Sincerely yours,

Larry Rowe, Task Force Chair Mr. Frederick G. Lissner, Task Force
Vice-Chair

Western Water Company Manager, Ground Water and Hydrology Section

109 East 49^th^ Street. Oregon Department of Water Resources

San Bernardino, CA 92404 158 12th Street, N.E.

Salem, OR 97310

619-535-9282 503-378-8455, ext. 204

lwrowe@discover.net frederick.g.lissner@wrd.State.or.us

4 Enclosures

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT: A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Public burden for collection of this information is estimated to average
15 minutes per response. Comments regarding this collection of
information should be directed to: Desk Officer for the Interior
Department, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; and the Bureau Clearance
Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, Reston, Virginia
20192

OMB NO. 1028-0071; Expiration Date 2-28-2002

**Blank Numerical Survey**

**Section 1: Introduction**

This questionnaire relates to your **overall** experience with the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Division (WRD)
**Federal-State Cooperative Water Program (Coop Program).** For each
Statement, please mark the appropriate box. If a Statement does not
apply to your experience, please check the not applicable (NA) box.

**The United States Geological Survey, through the Cooperative Water
Program...**

+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
|                                 | Stro | A  | N   | Di  | St  | N |
|                                 | ngly | gr | eut | sag | ron | A |
|                                 |      | ee | ral | ree | gly |   |
|                                 | A    |    |     |     |     |   |
|                                 | gree |    |     |     | Di  |   |
|                                 |      |    |     |     | sag |   |
|                                 |      |    |     |     | ree |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Provides products and       |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     services that are necessary |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     for my organization to      |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     accomplish its mission.     |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Responds to the changing    |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     needs of my organization.   |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Keeps me informed of the    |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     types of products it        |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     offers.                     |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Keeps me informed of the    |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     types of service it offers. |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Coordinates with my         |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     organization on programs    |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     and activities that may be  |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     of interest to us.          |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Keeps my organization       |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     informed of programmatic    |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     and fiscal changes that     |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     affect us.                  |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Responds to my requests in  |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     a timely manner.            |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Responds well to            |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     administrative needs        |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     (billing, agreements, etc). |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Compared with other         |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     providers, the quality of   |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     products and services is    |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     worth the cost              |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+
| -   Provider of unbiased        |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     scientific and technical    |      |    |     |     |     |   |
|     support and products.       |      |    |     |     |     |   |
+---------------------------------+------+----+-----+-----+-----+---+

## **Section 2: Proposals**

# Proposals from the Cooperative Water Program...

+---------------------------------+-----+----+-----+------+------+---+
|                                 | St  | A  | N   | Disa | Stro | N |
|                                 | ron | gr | eut | gree | ngly | A |
|                                 | gly | ee | ral |      |      |   |
|                                 |     |    |     |      | Disa |   |
|                                 | Ag  |    |     |      | gree |   |
|                                 | ree |    |     |      |      |   |
+---------------------------------+-----+----+-----+------+------+---+
| -   Address the needs of my     |     |    |     |      |      |   |
|     organization.               |     |    |     |      |      |   |
+---------------------------------+-----+----+-----+------+------+---+
| -   Reflect work that is        |     |    |     |      |      |   |
|     realistic in scope.         |     |    |     |      |      |   |
+---------------------------------+-----+----+-----+------+------+---+
| -   Are of appropriate content  |     |    |     |      |      |   |
|     and length.                 |     |    |     |      |      |   |
+---------------------------------+-----+----+-----+------+------+---+
| -   Are clear and               |     |    |     |      |      |   |
|     understandable.             |     |    |     |      |      |   |
+---------------------------------+-----+----+-----+------+------+---+
| -   Present realistic work      |     |    |     |      |      |   |
|     schedules.                  |     |    |     |      |      |   |
+---------------------------------+-----+----+-----+------+------+---+
| -   Reflect reasonable pricing. |     |    |     |      |      |   |
+---------------------------------+-----+----+-----+------+------+---+

####### Section 3: Data Collection

E=Excellent; AA=Above Average; A= Average; BA= Below Average; P=Poor;
NA= Not Applicable

Ground Water Surface Water Water Quality Water Use

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 28%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>E</td>
<td>AA</td>
<td>A</td>
<td>BA</td>
<td>P</td>
<td>NA</td>
<td>E</td>
<td>AA</td>
<td>A</td>
<td>BA</td>
<td>P</td>
<td>NA</td>
<td>E</td>
<td>AA</td>
<td>A</td>
<td>BA</td>
<td>P</td>
<td>NA</td>
<td>E</td>
<td>AA</td>
<td>A</td>
<td>BA</td>
<td>P</td>
<td>NA</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Adequacy of geographic coverage.</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Length of data-collection period</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Frequency of data collection</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Field sampling techniques</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Use of the appropriate instrumentation</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Reliability of instrumentation</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Precision of instrumentation</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Instrumentation keeps pace with available technology</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Innovative use and application of instrumentation</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Overall data collection performance</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## **Section 4: Data Analysis and Interpretation**

E=Excellent; AA=Above Average; A= Average; BA= Below Average; P=Poor;
NA= Not Applicable

Ground Water Surface Water Water Quality Water Use

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 27%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>E</td>
<td>AA</td>
<td>A</td>
<td>BA</td>
<td>P</td>
<td>NA</td>
<td>E</td>
<td>AA</td>
<td>A</td>
<td>P</td>
<td>BA</td>
<td>NA</td>
<td>E</td>
<td>AA</td>
<td>A</td>
<td>BA</td>
<td>P</td>
<td>NA</td>
<td>E</td>
<td>AA</td>
<td>A</td>
<td>BA</td>
<td>P</td>
<td>NA</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Technical approach selected</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Quality of the execution of the analysis and
interpretation</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Timeliness</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Consideration of alternative interpretations</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ul>
<li><p>Overall data analysis and interpretation performance</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## **Section 5: Products**

# Requests for data, reports, and information...

+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
|                               | St  | A  | N   | Di  | St  | Not   |
|                               | ron | gr | eut | sag | ron |       |
|                               | gly | ee | ral | ree | gly | Appli |
|                               |     |    |     |     |     | cable |
|                               | Ag  |    |     |     | Di  |       |
|                               | ree |    |     |     | sag |       |
|                               |     |    |     |     | ree |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Are handled courteously   |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Are addressed promptly    |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Are answered accurately   |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+

# Reports (e.g., Water-Resources Investigations Reports, Open-File Reports, Data Reports)...

+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
|                               | St  | A  | N   | Di  | St  | Not   |
|                               | ron | gr | eut | sag | ron |       |
|                               | gly | ee | ral | ree | gly | Appli |
|                               |     |    |     |     |     | cable |
|                               | Ag  |    |     |     | Di  |       |
|                               | ree |    |     |     | sag |       |
|                               |     |    |     |     | ree |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Adequately address the    |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     objectives of the         |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     investigation             |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Include the appropriate   |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     level of detail           |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Are understandable        |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Are timely                |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Overall quality is        |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     excellent                 |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+

# I have sufficient access to...

+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
|                               | St  | A  | N   | Di  | St  | Not   |
|                               | ron | gr | eut | sag | ron |       |
|                               | gly | ee | ral | ree | gly | Appli |
|                               |     |    |     |     |     | cable |
|                               | Ag  |    |     |     | Di  |       |
|                               | ree |    |     |     | sag |       |
|                               |     |    |     |     | ree |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Hydrologic data and       |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     reports in printed form   |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Hydrologic data and       |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     reports on the Internet   |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Hydrologic data and       |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     reports on-line by        |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     computer                  |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   Hydrologic data and       |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     reports on diskette,      |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     tape, or CD-ROM           |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| -   USGS computers to access  |     |    |     |     |     |       |
|     information               |     |    |     |     |     |       |
+-------------------------------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-------+

###### **Section 6: Summary**

+------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+---+---+
|                                    | E    | ### | A   | Be  | P | N |
|                                    | xcel |  Ab | ver | low | o | A |
|                                    | lent | ove | age |     | o |   |
|                                    |      |     |     | A   | r |   |
|                                    |      | ##  |     | ver |   |   |
|                                    |      | # A |     | age |   |   |
|                                    |      | ver |     |     |   |   |
|                                    |      | age |     |     |   |   |
+------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+---+---+
| -   Overall, I think the           |      |     |     |     |   |   |
|     Cooperative Water Program is   |      |     |     |     |   |   |
+------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+---+---+

**Section 7: Cooperator Information**

## 

## The following questions will be used only to identify similarities and differences among groups of customers. Thank you for your cooperation in providing the following data.

Please indicate your affiliation: (please circle)

State Government Tribal Government

County Government Municipal Government

Other Local Government Basin Commission

Water Management Districts Interstate Commission / Compact / Agency

Other
(specify)­\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Please indicate your area(s) of specific interest: (please circle any
that apply)

Surface Water Ground Water Other (specify)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Water Quality Water Use

Please indicate your organization's involvement with the USGS: (please
circle one for each column)

[Duration of Participation]{.underline} [Annual Coop Budget (your
agency]{.underline}

Less than 5 years [contribution)]{.underline}

5-10 Years under \$50,000

10-20 Years \$50,000- \$150,000

More than 20 Years \$150,000 - \$250,000

More than \$250,000

**(Optional Information)**: Your Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Your Organization:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## 

## **Section 8: Comments**

Are there any other comments that you would like to make regarding the
Federal-State Cooperative Water Program, or any clarifications of your
responses? (Attach additional sheets as needed.)

**Summary of Numerical Survey Results**

# SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.  Provides products and services that are necessary for my
    organization to accomplish its mission.

2.  Responds to the changing needs of my organization.

3.  Keeps me informed of the types of products it offers.

4.  Keeps me informed of the types of service it offers

5.  Coordinates with my organization on programs and activities that may
    affect us.

6.  Keeps my organization informed of programmatic and fiscal changes
    that affect us.

7.  Responds to my requests in a timely manner.

8.  Responds well to administrative needs (billing, agreements, etc.).

9.  Compared with other providers, the quality of products and services
    is worth the cost.

10. Providers of unbiased scientific and technical support and products.

**\
**Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  ---------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
  **RAW:**   Strongly      76     25     17     16     28     23     52     39     42     77
             Agree                                                                        

             Agree         73     90     80     82     74     80     85     89     70     75

             Neutral       12     32     43     45     47     41     18     26     41     10

             Disagree      6      8      20     19     15     18     4      4      8      4

             Strongly      0      1      2      1      1      2      0      2      2      0
             Disagree                                                                     

             Not           3      14     8      7      5      6      11     10     7      4
             Applicable                                                                   

                                                                                          

  **PCT:**   Strongly      44.7   14.7   10.0   9.4    16.5   13.5   30.6   22.9   24.7   45.3
             Agree                                                                        

             Agree         42.9   52.9   47.1   48.2   43.5   47.1   50.0   52.4   41.2   44.1

             Neutral       7.1    18.8   25.3   26.5   27.6   24.1   10.6   15.3   24.1   5.9

             Disagree      3.5    4.7    11.8   11.2   8.8    10.6   2.4    2.4    4.7    2.4

             Strongly      0.0    0.6    1.2    0.6    0.6    1.2    0.0    1.2    1.2    0.0
             Disagree                                                                     

             Not           1.8    8.2    4.7    4.1    2.9    3.5    6.5    5.9    4.1    2.4
             Applicable                                                                   
  ---------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

## **SECTION 2: PROPOSALS**

1.  Address the needs of my organization.

2.  Reflect work that is realistic in scope.

3.  Are of appropriate content and length.

4.  Are clear and understandable.

5.  Present realistic work schedules.

6.  Reflect reasonable pricing.

## Question 1 2 3 4 5 6

  ---------- ------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
  **RAW:**   Strongly Agree     37      30      25      29      22      23

             Agree              87      92      90      91      83      55

             Neutral            19      22      26      25      28      48

             Disagree           5       3       4       2       10      16

             Strongly Disagree  0       0       0       0       1       4

             Not Applicable     22      23      25      23      26      24

                                                                        

  **PCT:**   Strongly Agree     21.8    17.6    14.7    17.1    12.9    13.5

             Agree              51.2    54.1    52.9    53.5    48.8    32.4

             Neutral            11.2    12.9    15.3    14.7    16.5    28.2

             Disagree           2.9     1.8     2.4     1.2     5.9     9.4

             Strongly Disagree  0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.6     2.4

             Not Applicable     12.9    13.5    14.7    13.5    15.3    14.1
  ---------- ------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

**SECTION 3: DATA COLLECTION**

1.  Adequacy of geographic coverage

2.  Length of data-collection period

3.  Frequency of data collection

4.  Field sampling techniques

5.  Use of the appropriate instrumentation

6.  Reliability of instrumentation

7.  Precision of instrumentation

8.  Instrumentation keeps pace with available technology

9.  Innovative use and application of instrumentation

10. Overall data collection performance

**Ground Water**

Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
  **RAW:**   Strongly     11     11     10     26     27     20     22     22     14     18
             Agree                                                                       

             Agree        26     35     28     28     27     34     33     25     29     35

             Neutral      39     31     40     16     16     15     15     23     24     25

             Disagree     6      2      2      3      3      3      2      4      2      2

             Strongly     2      2      2      1      0      0      0      1      1      1
             Disagree                                                                    

             Not          86     89     88     96     97     98     98     95     100    89
             Applicable                                                                  

                                                                                         

  **PCT:**   Strongly     6.5    6.5    5.9    15.3   15.9   11.8   12.9   12.9   8.2    10.6
             Agree                                                                       

             Agree        15.3   20.6   16.5   16.5   15.9   20.0   19.4   14.7   17.1   20.6

             Neutral      22.9   18.2   23.5   9.4    9.4    8.8    8.8    13.5   14.1   14.7

             Disagree     3.5    1.2    1.2    1.8    1.8    1.8    1.2    2.4    1.2    1.2

             Strongly     1.2    1.2    1.2    0.6    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.6    0.6    0.6
             Disagree                                                                    

             Not          50.6   52.4   51.8   56.5   57.1   57.6   57.6   55.9   58.8   52.4
             Applicable                                                                  
  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

## **Surface Water**

**Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10**

  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
  **RAW**:   Strongly     24     33     30     45     42     32     39     34     29     36
             Agree                                                                       

             Agree        48     64     47     43     49     51     48     46     39     64

             Neutral      43     29     49     28     34     37     31     42     47     33

             Disagree     14     5      6      2      1      2      3      5      5      1

             Strongly     0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      0
             Disagree                                                                    

             Not          41     39     38     52     44     48     49     43     49     36
             Applicable                                                                  

                                                                                         

  **PCT:**   Strongly     14.1   19.4   17.6   26.5   24.7   18.8   22.9   20.0   17.1   21.2
             Agree                                                                       

             Agree        28.2   37.6   27.6   25.3   28.8   30.0   28.2   27.1   22.9   37.6

             Neutral      25.3   17.1   28.8   16.5   20.0   21.8   18.2   24.7   27.6   19.4

             Disagree     8.2    2.9    3.5    1.2    0.6    1.2    1.8    2.9    2.9    0.6

             Strongly     0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.6    0.0
             Disagree                                                                    

             Not          24.1   22.9   22.4   30.6   25.9   28.2   28.8   25.3   28.8   21.2
             Applicable                                                                  
  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

**SECTION 3: DATA COLLECTION (Cont.)**

1.  Adequacy of geographic coverage

2.  Length of data-collection period

3.  Frequency of data collection

4.  Field sampling techniques

5.  Use of the appropriate instrumentation

6.  Reliability of instrumentation

7.  Precision of instrumentation

8.  Instrumentation keeps pace with available technology

9.  Innovative use and application of instrumentation

10. Overall data collection performance

## **Water Quality**

**Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10**

  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
  **RAW:**   Strongly     12     14     12     27     20     16     19     18     14     17
             Agree                                                                       

             Agree        21     27     21     31     32     33     32     27     27     37

             Neutral      30     28     35     15     16     16     15     24     23     18

             Disagree     17     9      12     4      3      4      3      4      5      6

             Strongly     3      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
             Disagree                                                                    

             Not          87     91     90     93     99     101    101    97     101    92
             Applicable                                                                  

                                                                                         

  **PCT:**   Strongly     7.1    8.2    7.1    15.9   11.8   9.4    11.2   10.6   8.2    10.0
             Agree                                                                       

             Agree        12.4   15.9   12.4   18.2   18.8   19.4   18.8   15.9   15.9   21.8

             Neutral      17.6   16.5   20.6   8.8    9.4    9.4    8.8    14.1   13.5   10.6

             Disagree     10.0   5.3    7.1    2.4    1.8    2.4    1.8    2.4    2.9    3.5

             Strongly     1.8    0.6    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0
             Disagree                                                                    

             Not          51.2   53.5   52.9   54.7   58.2   59.4   59.4   57.1   59.4   54.1
             Applicable                                                                  
  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

## **Water Use**

**Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10**

  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
  **RAW:**   Strongly     6      4      6      10     8      7      6      5      6      6
             Agree                                                                       

             Agree        5      13     8      6      6      7      7      7      7      9

             Neutral      23     19     19     13     11     10     11     14     12     17

             Disagree     8      5      8      3      2      3      2      4      4      6

             Strongly     2      2      2      2      1      1      1      1      1      1
             Disagree                                                                    

             Not          126    127    127    136    142    142    143    139    140    131
             Applicable                                                                  

                                                                                         

  **PCT:**   Strongly     3.5    2.4    3.5    5.9    4.7    4.1    3.5    2.9    3.5    3.5
             Agree                                                                       

             Agree        2.9    7.6    4.7    3.5    3.5    4.1    4.1    4.1    4.1    5.3

             Neutral      13.5   11.2   11.2   7.6    6.5    5.9    6.5    8.2    7.1    10.0

             Disagree     4.7    2.9    4.7    1.8    1.2    1.8    1.2    2.4    2.4    3.5

             Strongly     1.2    1.2    1.2    1.2    0.6    0.6    0.6    0.6    0.6    0.6
             Disagree                                                                    

             Not          74.1   74.7   74.7   80.0   83.5   83.5   84.1   81.8   82.4   77.1
             Applicable                                                                  
  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

**SECTION 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION**

1.  Technical approach selected

2.  Quality of the execution of the analysis and interpretation

3.  Timeliness

4.  Consideration of alternative interpretations

5.  Overall data analysis and interpretation performance

**Ground Water Surface Water**

## Question 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
  **RAW:**   Strongly     16     17     7      7      14        25     30     16     17     26
             Agree                                                                          

             Agree        35     37     17     29     37        60     57     39     39     58

             Neutral      19     19     35     28     21        33     28     51     47     37

             Disagree     3      1      15     4      2         0      3      8      3      2

             Strongly     0      1      1      1      1         1      1      8      3      1
             Disagree                                                                       

             Not          97     95     95     101    95        51     51     48     61     45
             Applicable                                                                     

                                                                                            

  **PCT:**   Strongly     9.4    10.0   4.1    4.1    8.2       14.7   17.6   9.4    10.0   15.4
             Agree                                                                          

             Agree        20.6   21.8   10.0   17.1   21.8      35.3   33.5   22.9   22.9   34.3

             Neutral      11.2   11.2   20.6   16.5   12.4      19.4   16.5   30.0   27.6   21.9

             Disagree     1.8    0.6    8.8    2.4    1.2       0.0    1.8    4.7    1.8    1.2

             Strongly     0.0    0.6    0.6    0.6    0.6       0.6    0.6    4.7    1.8    0.6
             Disagree                                                                       

             Not          57.1   55.9   55.9   59.4   55.9      30.0   30.0   28.2   35.9   26.6
             Applicable                                                                     
  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

**Water Quality Water Use**

**Question 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5**

  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
  **RAW:**   Strongly     14     18     10     7      14        6      7      3      6      6
             Agree                                                                          

             Agree        37     33     20     24     35        10     8      7      7      9

             Neutral      18     18     31     28     22        11     15     17     10     15

             Disagree     1      2      10     4      1         4      2      5      6      4

             Strongly     0      0      1      0      0         0      0      1      0      0
             Disagree                                                                       

             Not          100    98     98     107    98        139    138    137    141    136
             Applicable                                                                     

                                                                                            

  **PCT:**   Strongly     8.2    10.7   5.9    4.1    8.2       3.5    4.1    1.8    3.5    3.5
             Agree                                                                          

             Agree        21.8   19.5   11.8   14.1   20.6      5.9    4.7    4.1    4.1    5.3

             Neutral      10.6   10.7   18.2   16.5   12.9      6.5    8.8    10.0   5.9    8.8

             Disagree     0.6    1.2    5.9    2.4    0.6       2.4    1.2    2.9    3.5    2.4

             Strongly     0.0    0.0    0.6    0.0    0.0       0.0    0.0    0.6    0.0    0.0
             Disagree                                                                       

             Not          58.8   58.0   57.6   62.9   57.6      81.8   81.2   80.6   82.9   80.0
             Applicable                                                                     
  ---------- ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

**SECTION 5: PRODUCTS**

Requests for data, reports, and information:

1.  Are handled courteously

2.  Are addressed promptly

3.  Are answered accurately

## Question 1 2 3

  ------------ ------------------------------ --------- --------- ---------
  **RAW:**     Strongly Agree                 85        63        73

               Agree                          66        72        77

               Neutral                        6         17        7

               Disagree                       0         2         0

               Strongly Disagree              0         3         0

               Not Applicable                 13        13        13

                                                                  

  **PCT:**     Strongly Agree                 50.0      37.1      42.9

               Agree                          38.8      42.4      45.3

               Neutral                        3.5       10.0      4.1

               Disagree                       0.0       1.2       0.0

               Strongly Disagree              0.0       1.8       0.0

               Not Applicable                 7.6       7.6       7.6
  ------------ ------------------------------ --------- --------- ---------

Reports:

1.  Adequately address the objectives of the investigation

2.  Include the appropriate level of detail

3.  Are understandable

4.  Are timely

5.  Overall quality is excellent

## Question 1 2 3 4 5

  --------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
  **RAW:**        Strongly Agree  44      36      34      15      36

                  Agree           90      92      100     75      93

                  Neutral         10      15      11      36      14

                  Disagree        2       4       3       13      4

                  Strongly        0       0       0       7       0
                  Disagree                                        

                  Not Applicable  24      23      22      24      23

                                                                  

  **PCT:**        Strongly Agree  25.9    21.2    20.0    8.8     21.2

                  Agree           52.9    54.1    58.8    44.1    54.7

                  Neutral         5.9     8.8     6.5     21.2    8.2

                  Disagree        1.2     2.4     1.8     7.6     2.4

                  Strongly        0.0     0.0     0.0     4.1     0.0
                  Disagree                                        

                  Not Applicable  14.1    13.5    12.9    14.1    13.5
  --------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

I have sufficient access to:

1.  Hydrologic data and reports in printed form

2.  Hydrologic data and reports on the Internet

3.  Hydrologic data and reports on-line by computer

4.  Hydrologic data and reports on diskette, tape, or CD-ROM

5.  USGS computers to access information

**\
**Question 1 2 3 4 5

  ----------------- ----------------- ------ ------ ------- ------ -------
  **RAW:**          Strongly Agree    48     34     24      13     14

                    Agree             81     62     45      54     35

                    Neutral           19     36     50      45     44

                    Disagree          5      8      10      8      15

                    Strongly Disagree 1      1      2       1      1

                    Not Applicable    16     28     39      48     60

                                                                   

  **PCT:**          Strongly Agree    28.2   20.1   14.1    7.7    8.3

                    Agree             47.6   36.7   26.5    32.0   20.7

                    Neutral           11.2   21.3   29.4    26.6   26.0

                    Disagree          2.9    4.7    5.9     4.7    8.9

                    Strongly Disagree 0.6    0.6    1.2     0.6    0.6

                    Not Applicable    9.4    16.6   22.9    28.4   35.5
  ----------------- ----------------- ------ ------ ------- ------ -------

## **SECTION 6: SUMMARY**

-   Overall, I think the Cooperative Water Program is

> **[RAW]{.underline}** PCT

  -------------------------- ------------------ --------- ----------------
  Excellent                  48                           28.2

  Above Average              84                           49.4

  Average                    31                           18.2

  Below Average              4                            2.4

  Poor                       1                            0.6

  Not Applicable             2                            1.2
  -------------------------- ------------------ --------- ----------------

**SECTION 7: COOPERATOR INFORMATION**

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **Total number of respondents:**                          170

  **Affiliation:**                                          

  State                                                     52

  County                                                    18

  Other Local                                               7

  Water Management District                                 17

  Tribal                                                    5

  Municipal                                                 32

  Basin Commission                                          1

  Interstate                                                2

  Other                                                     33

  **Interest:**                                             

  SW                                                        140

  WQ                                                        106

  GW                                                        80

  WU                                                        50

  **Duration:**                                             

  Less than 5 years                                         23

  5-10 years                                                31

  10-20 years                                               40

  More than 20 years                                        61

  Unknown                                                   14

  **Annual Cooperative Water Program Budget:**              

  under \$50,000                                            81

  \$50,000-\$150,000                                        32

  \$150,000-\$250,000                                       11

  More than \$250,000                                       23

  Unknown                                                   20
  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

**Written Comments Provided With The Numerical Survey**

Comment 1 -- Too few gage sites in Alaska. Fairbanks office is
understaffed. Growing mineral industry will require more gaging and
water quality. Fairbanks office will not be able to meet this need
without additional support.

Comment 2 - Work is contract -- budget deficit driven. Not in the
interest of national priorities. This change for the worst began some
10-15 years ago. Concurrent with declining State revenues.

Comment 3 - I would like for USGS personnel to come onto the Reservation
for training purposes. Out tribe was involved in a similar program a few
years ago; however, the personnel have changed for the Tribe. I think it
would be helpful for our Tribe to participate in the co-op program
again.

Comment 4 - Missing data and the timeliness of data return are the two
major issues our agency encounters. Both issues are being worked on by
both agencies for an agreeable resolution.

Comment 5 - The USGS is a great technical resource, capable of providing
data and analysis that is very relevant to our mission. However, it is
becoming increasingly difficult for the Water Resources Division to
publish reports specified in the Cooperative Agreement in a timely
manner. Special studies seem to require more time and Cooperator dollars
than anticipated at program outset. Federal fiscal restraints also seem
to result in steady increases to the "overhead" costs and reductions in
cost-share funds available and decreased eligibility of items for
cost-share. The net effect has been a steady increase in cost to the
Cooperator and decreased ability of USGS personnel, stretched thin, to
complete assignments in a timely manner.

Comment 6 - We have just begun a series of coop studies with the USGS on
our groundwater basin and how we model it using USGS. I have been
impressed by the technical support provided and the depth of knowledge
of the USGS.

Comment 7 - I am distressed by the USGS position not to provide joint
funding for new streamgage installations. Most local agencies cannot
afford the full cost of a USGS-operated streamgage. Considering that
your agency is charged with determining the quantity and quality of the
US water supply, not operating any more stations or charging full price
for new installations would be a conflict with your mission Statement.

Comment 8 - The District has benefited from the flow and stage data
collected in the \_\_\_\_\_ River by the Ultrasonic Velocity Meter Data
Collection Program. This program offers critical flow data that become
available for the first time for myriad of technical analyses for the
management and study of the river system.

Comment 9 - This is an important program for us that we hope has
long-term stability.

Comment 10 - Yes, USGS does good work but they need to keep costs down.
This can be accomplished by having more co-op funds available. Once
programs are initiated the co-op % should not decrease.

Comment 11 - The survey's a splendid organization and very helpful. My
dozens of specific recommendations were made a year ago in the five-year
goal program out of Reston.

Comment 12 - Rainfall/Runoff Program: Some problems with rain gages and
flow gages not followed through in a timely manner. Stormwater Quality:
BOD test problems with contract lab in the past that District staff
discovered and had to rectify with its own resources. Organics --
adhered to high quality protocol; Fecal Coliform Test -- done well
in-house. Problem -- missed some storms that our agency program didn't.
NAWQA: Asked for input re/local needs in addition to national needs, but
published only National.

Comment 13 - Our USGS collaborators have always been professional,
reliable, and prompt. They are a great asset to our program.

Comment 14 -- Our agency does not believe there is anything cooperative
in its dealing with USGS on the "Cooperative Water Program", for the
following reasons:

When our agency proposed to purchase a reservoir to augment its water
supply, it was pressured by the State Department of Environmental
Protection to use the services of USGS to operate and maintain a flow
gaging station on the inflow river.

Our agency purchased and installed the station. It paid USGS personnel
for installation supervision and start up.

Our agency pays USGS approximately \$8,000 per year to operate and
maintain the station. Our agency believes this fee is excessive. As the
instrumentation associated with the station is no more complex than many
others our agency has in its system, our agency believes it can perform
USGS's tasks at significantly less cost by using its own staff. The
State Department of Environmental Protection does not find this
acceptable.

Other than insuring the minimum flow requirement is met, the station and
all other information it gathers are of little relevance to our agency.

In summary, our agency believes it was forced into this "Cooperative
Program" by the State, that it is bearing the full financial burden for
USGS's effort and that it could perform the same task at a significantly
lower cost than USGS.

Comment 15 - Our municipality, as a cooperator, is not of great
consequence to the overall program and the system is apparently not set
up to interact with a municipality on a watershed basis without special
handling. The need for special handling is probably the source of our
frustration since there is no "out-reach" effort to help the Town
utilize the data acquired at our expense. We need to address land use
development issues related to flooding, water quality, and consumptive
use (diversions for water supply purposes). And these issues are
apparently not of "critical mass" to justify program development at our
level. It would be helpful if it did.

Comment 16 - Too involved in keeping themselves viable. Too little
flexibility, too much competition for \$, not enough discretionary
funding to support good ideas at the office level, they very much need a
clear Statement of the minimal Federal role in stream flow monitoring!

Comment 17 --

1.  Our agency is, by statute, the only agency in the State authorized
    to conduct business with the USGS. I am the person who manages the
    Coop Program with the USGS and I have had this responsibility for
    many years. I think that we have a very good working relationship
    with the USGS. During the past several years the management
    (District Chief) as well as others who I deal with in the USGS
    District have been very cooperative. We work well together. As you
    may be aware, the relationship between organizations often reflects
    the abilities and willingness of those involved in management to
    work together and to keep each other informed. We have been
    fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with several District
    Chiefs who have been very cooperative and open. We appreciate that.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  As is evident by my responses on the survey, I think the State has
    had an excellent overall relationship with the WRD of the USGS for
    many years. One primary reason for this is that we cooperate in all
    aspects of the program.

3.  Section 2: Proposals. The USGS does a very good job in developing
    proposals. This is due in part to the strong involvement of the
    State in the USGS proposal development process. We work hand-in-hand
    when developing proposals. This enables us to minimize the potential
    for conflicts and misunderstandings, and ensures that we get what we
    pay for.

4.  The actual amount of funds that the State provides to support our
    cooperative program with the USGS has been about \$65,000 for the
    past several years. However, the amount of State funds that flow to
    the USGS as part of the State's cooperative program that our agency
    manages generally ranges between \$150,000 and \$250,000. The other
    entities who participate in the program through our agency are very
    satisfied with the program because our agency ensures that they are
    satisfied with the products that the USGS produces before we pay the
    USGS.

5.  The amount of funds available for matching appears to be decreasing.
    I believe this is due in part to decreased funding to the USGS at
    the Federal level. However, it also appears that the USGS is
    tightening their guidelines on the type of programs that they are
    willing to cost share on. I know in the State that there is
    substantially more State money going to the USGS than is being used
    by the USGS for cost matching.

6.  I would like to suggest one area for improvement. It is quite
    evident in many of the reports that the USGS prepares pertaining to
    our State's geology and hydrology, that the reports contain
    primarily USGS references. Usually only a few reports prepared by
    others (our agency, other State agencies, professional peer reviewed
    publications, etc.) are included in the References. This practice
    hints of arrogance and an unwillingness to consider other's points
    of view or interpretations.

Comment 18 - Just wanted to add that the USGS staff I have worked with
over the past 15 years have consistently been technically knowledgeable
as well as resourceful and focused on meeting our needs.

Comment 19 - My main comment is that they don't communicate with their
co-funders enough during their projects. I have seen mistakes and
misinformation occur in reports due to this. The time that is required
to publish a report also seems excessive. I believe their extensive
review process is a major factor in this.

Comment 20 - The reduction in the cooperative funds available has really
hurt this organization. The availability of groundwater is increasing in
importance and cost and the USGS budget is going the other way. USGS has
several programs that offer great long-term benefits, almost pure R and
D. It is difficult for utilities to get the financial support from
ratepayers and taxpayers to participate with USGS in these efforts. It
would be a great benefit if USGS could fund these efforts at \~90%.

Comment 21 -- (1) COLA's are not defensible with this organization's
management. (2) Overhead charges are not seen as legitimate expenses.

Comment 22 - The USGS District Office we deal with is highly
professional and easy to work with.

Comment 23 - I do not know enough about what your group is doing to be
able to give specific input. We have been involved in a cooperative
monitoring agreement but I don't know what results have been generated.
Please inform me.

Comment 24 - We have a long-standing cooperative agreement (JFA) with
USGS. In addition we have worked with them on many other projects. The
USGS has been more interested in providing the information we need in
the last couple of years. They have provided all of the information that
we have recently requested (hard copy and disk).

Comment 25 - We are not currently involved in the co-op program.
Answering Sections 3, 4, and 6 was not easy due to the lack of
comparable services by others.

Comment 26 - A lot of questions on survey are for long-time users of
Dept. Interior. They basically did a stream flow (Q\>10) survey for our
wastewater treatment need. Costs were impressive and final results were
helpful. It saved our small community several dollars. Thank you.

Comment 27 - Increasing cost of CMP is making the program unavailable to
cooperators.

Comment 28 -- (1) We wait 3-4 months to get back a chloride analysis
from national lab. When there was a District lab, the analysis could be
made very soon after collection. Bigger may be better, but as far as I'm
concerned, national gets a D on turnaround time. Many routine analyses
could still be done locally, chloride for example. (2) Please stop using
lofty government language that sounds erudite but is vague to the
reader. That is EPA's specialty. Vague Terms: Task Force was
commissioned (quasi-military?); Co-op Program stakeholders (is someone
holding the money in a wager?)

Comment 29 - We are in the initial stages of our cooperative project.

Comment 30 -- (1) Additional efforts must be made to speed up
report-approval process. (2) Publication of Annual Data Reports may no
longer be justifiable. The data should be put on the Internet.

Comment 31 - USGS provides us with high-quality, unbiased work, often on
the cutting edge. Basic surface water and ground water data is also
excellent and putting it on the Internet solved a problem of timeliness.
Reports and completion of projects still have a major problem of
timeliness.

Comment 32 - Equipment and methods behind available science (FTS Inc.).
Maintenance of gages and automated stations was not as good as suggested
would be. QA/QC lacking ... daily/15 minute data missing for weeks
before corrected. Poor accessibility to pre-published data. Data
correction lag of more than 6 months. Reports not delivered in a timely
manner. Contracts needing to be changed to do work and cover expenses
that should have been foreseen.

Comment 33 - I feel that it is a good program and USGS staff are good
people to work with. There is little question about their technical
expertise. I have noticed great interest within the USGS to provide work
products in a more timely fashion. I feel there is a need for basic data
collection that USGS can provide us but the policy that a formal report
must accompany this increases costs and has limited our contracting
experience.

Comment 34 - Reports take a long time to complete. I am still waiting
for a final report from Phase I of the project (1.5 years ago).

Comment 35 - We cooperatively fund river gage maintenance and flow data
production.

1.  During the times of year when aquatic vegetation is heavy, we would
    like the USGS to improve its efforts at producing modified gage
    readings -- flow data.

2.  In addition to real-time and verified flow data being available on
    the Internet, we would like provisional data posted until it can be
    verified. At present data is not available between real-time and
    verified (months ago).

3.  In principle, we object to the national objective of maintaining
    streamgages by focusing on the easy targets of water suppliers for
    cooperative funding.

Comment 36 - We appreciate all USGS efforts in this program. We hope we
can receive a larger share in grants from USGS. It's been a pleasure
working with the District Chief at USGS.

Comment 37 - Long-term, continuous data from surface water gaging
stations are critical for management and conservation of water supplies
and stream ecosystems. Unfortunately, the geographic coverage of the
current streamflow-monitoring network is inadequate, particularly for
small and moderate size streams. Consequently, the USGS is not meeting
its mission of continuously assessing the Nation's water resources.

Comment 38 -- (1) USGS's co-op program is vital to job of managing our
Reservoir! (2) Would like USGS to take over operation and maintenance of
all rain gages in our area for US Weather Service. Therefore we could
look to one agency, USGS, to insure reliable rainfall and streamflow
data.

Comment 39 - The Tribes have used the services of the USGS cooperative
program since 1982 for surface water, ground water, water quality,
channel maintenance... We are totally satisfied with the program.

Comment 40 - Data analysis and interpretation: Reports are usually too
technical and/or difficult to understand---especially if you don't have
a basic understanding of hydrology, stream dynamics, etc.

Comment 41 - This is a very good coop program which merits continued or
increased support from Congress.

Comment 42 - Some clarifications: My organization has never (to my
knowledge) solicited or received any proposals from the USGS office that
we cooperate with and therefore I checked the "NA" box. There is only
one negative comment I need to make regarding my experience with the
USGS cooperative program. We have not always been informed of changes in
the water quality analyses, such as changes in parameters that are
analyzed, reporting limits, etc. We only find out after the fact, upon
reviewing data received from the USGS office. Despite this one comment,
I have always been very pleased and impressed with the professionalism
and courteousness of the USGS employees that I have dealt with.

Comment 43 - USGS is responsive when I point out problems, but it seems
that I have to point them out more often than I expect. I also have to
make all decisions and design the approach to data collection. Would be
better if the individual managing the project had some inspiration and
ideas, but the world isn't perfect. Otherwise, I can't complain.

Comment 44 - Need to use GPs for site locations.

Comment 45 - I have been with the Tribe for only 9 months, very little
interaction with USGS to this point ... so, just to qualify my survey
responses and lack thereof!

Comment 46 -- (1) Many publications pertinent to my area are out of
print -- only available by loan from you. (2) How can you monitor ground
water levels throughout the State with only 17 monitoring stations!? (3)
The city should fund expanding the network of monitoring stations using
Bond Act \$. (4) I would like to see USGS take over \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
duties and provide climate data on Internet for free. (5) Timely drought
forecasting is also needed -- to be released in July/August of current
year.

Comment 47 - Responses are averages of 2 raters. It is often difficult
to adequately characterize the finances of the cooperative agreement to
municipal officials who see our expenditure and in-kind, but don't see
the Federal dollars as expended in the locality, because the
municipality "writes a check" to USGS, but doesn't see a "check" written
by USGS.

Comment 48 - Would like to see USGS instrumentation at all 5 rivers
flowing into the Bay. Only 2 rivers are instrumented now.

Comment 49 - The best buy by far and outstanding staff support by the
office chief and support staff. However, they need more Federal funds
for cooperative projects.

Comment 50 - Thus far, our relationship with USGS has been very good.

Comment 51 - Your agency and your services are very important to our
mission, and the coop program makes you affordable.

Comment 52 - Data collection is a very if not the most important
function. It appears to us that data collection is being held "hostage"
in order to obtain funding for other projects. Stream gaging and ground
water data collection needs to be fully funded and not at the State's
expense.

Comment 53 - Do not have a lot of dealings with USGS but everything has
always been handled satisfactorily.

Comment 54 - A program worthy of continuing!

Comment 55 - Presently we receive surface water data via satellite every
4 hours. We need data every 30 minutes or every 1.0 hours. We need this
badly.

Comment 56 - The State Water Board and the USGS have cooperated in joint
water research investigations and data collection since early this
century. Surface and ground water data collected through this effort are
essential to the operations of the Board, whose role is to support
planning, conservation, and responsible development of water for the
State. To this end, the Water Development Board/USGS Coop program now
supports over 110 stream gages, 40 water well gages, and 60 reservoir
stage recorders.

The USGS is recognized throughout the Nation as the authority in flow
and water level monitoring. Data collected through the Coop Program is
recognized as being of high quality, and is therefore readily accepted
by both the technical and legal communities. Loss or continued decline
in funding through the Coop program would force the Water Development
Board to seek other sources of data collection that would thereby
jeopardize the acceptance of ready availability of the data.

The Water Development Board and the State have benefited tremendously
over the years through the Coop program, and we strongly support its
continuation.

Comment 56 - The USGS serves a vital role. They are professional in
every way. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the USGS.

Comment 57 - Without this program there would be a lot of streams not
monitored and data would not be available to the public.

Comment 58 - This evaluation covers two projects. One of the projects
was managed by several principal investigators. The transition between
investigators was not well managed, which in turn affects the overall
quality of the project.

Comment 59 -- The County Office of Emergency Management has contract
with USGS, but Federal attorneys required provisions that violated State
law. You need to find ways to be more cooperative if you want agencies
like ours to use the USGS services that we think are a great asset to
the County.

The USGS-WRD budget for gaging stations should be increased to maintain
and expand the network of long-term, continuous gaging stations. To meet
its mission, USGS (or other Federal agencies, i.e. COE and BOR, where
appropriate) should provide 100% of the funding for a core network of
gaging stations. This core network would provide much of the necessary
data for water-resources issues of national and regional concern. Also,
such a core network would not be affected by fluctuating budgets and
priorities of cooperating agencies, and the long-term flow records
necessary for water and stream management will be less likely to be
interrupted or discontinued. Establishment of such a core network would
allow Coop Program funds to be used for assessing water resources
primarily of intrastate concern.

To better meet intrastate needs, I believe most States need a better
process to more effectively allocate Coop Program and Cooperator funding
of gaging stations. In each State, USGS should pursue establishment of
an interagency committee to coordinate the collection of water resources
and climatological data (See attached "By-laws for Interagency Hydrology
Committee for \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_"). By coordinating data needs,
priorities, and collection, such committees will more effectively use
available funding, and possibly encourage additional funding by
cooperators.

Comment 60 - The USGS Cooperative Program has been an important source
of data in providing the State Engineer with good reliable data upon
which to base his decisions. The costs associated with the program have
increased significantly over the last 10-12 years. The costs are now at
a point where we are looking for alternatives. Whether it is right or
not, we feel that the 50% cost share by the State/Local cooperators is
covering the actual cost of the projects. The other 50% contributed on
paper by the USGS goes to cover overhead, which provides funding for
other agency programs.

Comment 61 - Greetings. I would like to see research and development of
the radar gaging technologies. I find that tracking floods and real time
data on the Internet is very helpful.

Comment 62 - The staff from \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ has been very cooperative,
willing to attend educational meetings for property owners.

Comment 63 - We have a limited exposure to USGS, but have always had the
best of relationships.

Comment 64 - This program works best for us when we work together as
equal partners sharing the planning, proposal preparation, leadership,
and workload, with credits given for in-kind contributions, and only a
minimal transfer of actual money from us to the WRD. For joint projects
that require additional money a separate third party is invited to
participate as a traditional WRD defined cooperator. Just providing
money on our part is not satisfactory because then we are not a true or
equal partner in that project. Thirty years ago WRD personnel were the
only water experts around but that is no longer true. Our State can now
match most of the expertise that the WRD has and can do some things
better and usually for less money, even when considering the Federal
match. (We suspect the combined overhead is high.)

Comment 65 -- (1) The program could be strengthened by placing more
focus on partnering on data collection and special studies with State
and local cooperators who have developed their won staff expertise (USGS
no longer sole-source provider). (2) Program overhead is large and the
cost effectiveness of so-called "matching" efforts is coming into
greater question. Full and open disclosure of the true overhead is
needed.

Comment 66 - What began as a 50-50 coop has begun to deteriorate into a
standard "This is all the legislature gives us" line. There will come a
time that our local government will balk at paying a disproportionate
share of the costs of this program. Already, the question has arisen
"Can we do this for the same or less money?"

Comment 67 -- (1) Prefer internal procedure for accessing data vs. USGS
computer dial up. (2) Make current water year data available in historic
group. Typically don't include until after data has been verified, but
for those of us who need current data for planning purposes it would be
very valuable to have. (Just make it as provisional.)