Qualitative Comparison of 

Streamflow Information Programs of the 

U.S. Geological Survey and 

Three Non-Federal Agencies

By J. Michael Norris, Michael Lewis, Michael Dorsey, Robert Kimbrough, 

Robert R. Holmes, Jr., and Ward Staubitz

Open-File Report 2007–1426

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008

For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Norris, J.M., Lewis, Michael, Dorsey, Michael, Kimbrough, Robert, Holmes, R.R. Jr., and Staubitz, Ward, 2008, 

Qualitative comparison of streamflow information programs of the U.S. Geological Survey and three non-Federal 

agencies: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1426, 11 p. ONLINE ONLY
iii

Acknowledgments

The U.S. Geological Survey greatly appreciates the willingness of the Colorado State Engineers 

Office, the Lower Colorado River Authority, and the Washington Department of Ecology to participate in this analysis. We recognize the level of effort required to provide the data used in the 

analysis and the level of cooperation provided in the interpretation of the results. Without such 

communication, this analysis would not have been possible.

v

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Comparison of USGS Streamgaging Costs to Other Agencies’ Streamgaging Costs........................1

Average Costs Per Streamgage.........................................................................................................2

Cost Comparisons.................................................................................................................................3

Comparison of the Usefulness and Availability of the Streamflow Information Produced...............5

Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................8

Appendix 1. Data-Usefulness Factors.......................................................................................................9

1. Quality of Streamflow Information................................................................................................9

2. Data Availability .............................................................................................................................10

3. Ancillary Information.....................................................................................................................10

References Cited in Appendix ...................................................................................................................11

Tables

1. Cost comparison of streamgaging programs...........................................................................2

2. Detailed information for streamgaging program comparison ..............................................4

3. Summary of factors affecting streamflow information usefulness and availability..........6

Abstract

A qualitative comparison was made of the streamgaging programs of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and 

three non-Federal agencies in terms of approximate costs and 

streamflow-information products produced. The three nonFederal agencies provided the USGS with detailed information on their streamgaging program and related costs, and the 

USGS explored, through publicly available Web sites and 

one-on-one discussions, the comparability of the streamflow 

information produced. 

The type and purpose of streamgages operated, the 

quality of streamflow record produced, and cost-accounting 

methods have a great effect on streamgaging costs. There are 

many uses of streamflow information, and the information 

requirements for streamgaging programs differ greatly across 

this range of purposes. A premise of the USGS streamgaging program is that the network must produce consistent 

data of sufficient quality to support the broadest range of 

possible uses. Other networks may have a narrower range of 

purposes; as a consequence, the method of operation, dataquality objectives, and information delivery may be different 

from those for a multipurpose network. As a result, direct 

comparison of the overall cost (or of the cost per streamgage) among these programs is not possible. The analysis is, 

nonetheless, very instructive and provides USGS program 

managers, agency leadership, and other agency streamgaging 

program managers useful insight to influence future decisions. Even though the comparison of streamgaging costs and 

streamflow information products was qualitative, this analysis 

does offer useful insights on longstanding questions of USGS 

streamgaging costs. 

Introduction

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates and publishes data for nearly 7,400 streamgages nationwide. Streamgaging is the largest single class of activities in the USGS 

water program, with an investment of more than $120 million 

per year. Recently, the USGS has been asked informally by 

stakeholder groups to evaluate the cost of its streamgaging 

program by comparing USGS costs to those of other organizations or agencies with similar streamgaging programs 

(programs providing continuous streamflow information). 

Given the magnitude of the funding and the importance of the 

information produced, it is reasonable that the USGS should 

expend the effort to make a comparison of its program with 

other existing programs as a benchmark to identify opportunities for improved efficiencies and (or) changes in the 

nature of its streamflow-information products. A qualitative 

comparison was designed to look at the approximate costs of 

three independent streamgaging programs across the Nation 

to the approximate costs of three respective local USGS Water 

Science Center (WSC) streamgaging programs. The streamgaging programs of the Colorado State Engineers Office 

(CO SEO), the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), and 

the Washington Department of Ecology (WA DOE) were the 

non-USGS agencies participating in the analysis. The streamgaging programs of the Colorado, Texas, and Washington 

USGS WSCs were used for comparison. The comparison not 

only looked at costs but also objectives of the individual programs and the associated information products—in terms of 

type, usefulness, and availability—derived from data collected 

by the respective streamgage programs and networks. This 

report describes the results of this comparison.

Comparison of USGS Streamgaging 

Costs to Other Agencies’ Streamgaging 

Costs

Cost information was provided in the following categories: administrative, building and utilities, field equipment, 

labor for field and office, vehicles, travel, and data management and delivery (table 1). The values used for the cost comparison were supplied by each agency and WSC.

Qualitative Comparison of Streamflow Information 

Programs of the U.S. Geological Survey and 

Three Non-Federal Agencies

By J. Michael Norris, Michael Lewis, Michael Dorsey, Robert Kimbrough, Robert R. Holmes, Jr., and 

Ward Staubitz
2 Qualitative Comparison of Streamflow Information Programs of the USGS and Three Non-Federal Agencies

Average Costs Per Streamgage

On average, the overall cost for the three non-Federal 

streamgaging programs evaluated was less than the USGS 

program cost (table 1). Reasons behind the cost differences 

are numerous. One reason is that the cost information was 

collected by each agency with its own unique accounting 

practices. There is no question that all costs are well suited to 

the respective agencies’ needs, but these costs are sufficiently 

different to limit the comparability of program and overhead 

cost accounting. Another principal difference that prevents 

direct comparison of program cost is that the purpose and use 

of data collected by a particular streamgage network, or even 

by a subset of streamgages within a single agency’s network, 

can exert a significant influence on the quality assurance/

quality control (QA/QC), collection methods, and frequency 

of measurements. The network of the CO SEO offers a case 

in point. 

According to the CO SEO, data collection, record review, 

and publishing for 225 of the 400 continuous streamgages in 

that network are generally comparable to or exceed the corresponding effort for typical USGS streamgages. In fact, of these 

225 CO SEO streamgages, approximately 170 receive significantly more site visits and discharge measurements (18–20) 

than is typical for most USGS streamgages (10). The CO SEO 

commonly refers to this 225-streamgage network as the “published-record” network, because the streamflow records from 

these sites are published in a CO SEO annual data report. The 

remaining 175 CO SEO streamgages are used for diversion 

and administrative purposes; in general, it appears (with some 

exceptions) that these streamgages are visited 75 to 80 percent 

less frequently, resulting in fewer discharge measurements per 

year than the 225 published-record CO SEO streamgages and 

about 50 to 70 percent fewer site visits and discharge measurements than a typical USGS streamgage. About 60 percent of 

the CO SEO diversion- and administrative-record streamgages 

are on canals or ditches (as opposed to natural channels), and 

most are equipped with stable artificial flow controls. Because 

of the hydrologic stability of these canals and ditches, streamgages at such sites require significantly less field effort to 

operate and maintain than streamgages on naturally flowing 

streams with natural controls, without negative effects on the 

quality of the information produced. In addition, there are 

considerable economies in office work, in that the CO SEO 

diversion- and administrative-record streamgage records 

generally require less rigorous post-collection review and 

editing than either the 225 CO SEO published-record network 

streamgages or typical USGS streamgages. The main operational objective of the CO SEO diversion- and administrativerecord streamgages is to produce the highest quality record 

possible in real time for real-time water-rights administration. This operational objective differs substantially from 

that of the 225 CO SEO published-record streamgages or the 

USGS streamgages, which is to produce the highest quality 

post-collection record possible for historical and statisticalanalysis purposes; this latter objective entails a combination 

of rigorous field procedures and exhaustive post-collection 

record-working procedures. 

Table 1. Cost comparison of streamgaging programs.

[Tabulated values are cost per streamgage per year. These are reported values from each agency only. Differences in streamgaging data quality and the datacollection process are not accounted for; therefore, direct comparisons should not be made. Columns may not add to total annual cost because of independent 

rounding. Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; CO, Colorado; TX, Texas; WA, Washington; WSC, Water Science Center]

Category USGS 

CO WSC

USGS 

Texas WSC

Lower 

Colorado 

River 

Authority 

(TX)

USGS 

WA WSC

WA 

Department of 

Ecology

Average 

USGS 

WSC

Average 

for other 

agencies

CO State 

Engineer’s 

Office

Administrative $4,200 $3,200 $1,700 $3,200 $2,700 $3,500 $2,200 $570

Building and utilities 1,100 1,400 810 1,800 620 1,400 700 130

Field equipment 1,500 1,800 2,400 880 1,200 1,400 1,800 1,200

Labor for field and office 5,300 6,500 4,500 5,500 5,400 5,800 5,000 4,600

Vehicles 490 940 980 540 370 660 700 310

Travel 190 590 15 170 470 320 250 54

Data management and delivery 1,200 570 3,200 1,200 490 990 1,900 440

Annual cost per typical 

continuous streamgage $14,000 $15,000 $13,600 $12,700 $11,300 $14,100 $12,600 $7,300
Comparison of USGS Streamgaging Costs to Other Agencies’ Streamgaging Costs 3

The reported $7,300 cost per CO SEO streamgage represents an average cost for the entire 400-streamgage CO SEO 

network. The complexities of separating out the actual cost 

for the published-record streamgages and the diversion- and 

administrative-record streamgages precluded a more detailed 

cost breakdown. However, because of the aforementioned differences in CO SEO network operations, the actual streamgage 

cost for the 225 CO SEO published-record streamgages would 

be expected to be higher than $7,300, and the actual cost of 

the 175 diversion- and administrative-record streamgages 

would be expected to be lower. This situation complicates 

any quantitative comparison of USGS and CO SEO streamgage costs. Had a cost per streamgage for the 225 publishedrecord streamgages been available, it would have been the 

more appropriate value for comparison to USGS and other 

non-Federal streamgage costs, because the published-record 

streamgages are more operationally typical of streamgages in 

the other non-Federal and USGS networks. 

The influence of the diversion- and administrative-record 

streamgages on the average CO SEO streamgage cost appears 

to be very strong because including these streamgages substantially lowers the combined average streamgage cost for all 

the non-Federal streamgage networks included in this analysis. 

If the CO SEO cost information is omitted from the combined 

averages, the average for the non-Federal agencies is $12,600 

per streamgage; moreover, the average costs of the nonFederal programs compared to the average USGS costs would 

be only about 10 percent less. The CO SEO diversion- and 

administrative-record streamgages affect the operation of the 

CO SEO network to such an extent that the CO SEO program 

and approximate costs are not comparable to the other USGS 

and non-Federal streamgaging programs. For this reason, the 

CO SEO program is shown separately in tables 1 and 2 and is 

not included in determining averages.

Differences in data-collection objectives (and possibly 

other factors) have less extreme effects on costs of the other 

two non-Federal agencies, but the differences and the network 

complexities are sufficient that comparability is an issue with 

their cost information as well. For example, one of the major 

objectives of the WA DOE program is to provide accurate lowflow data that can be used for reach-specific salmon recovery 

and water-management decisions in smaller rivers. Consequently, the State has an interest in concentrating its measurements on low flows and smaller rivers. As a result, this 

objective tends to keep WA DOE’s streamgaging cost lower by 

eliminating many of the expenses associated with flood-data 

programs. For example, the cost of cableways, dispatching 

large crews for streamflow measurement during flooding, and 

indirect estimation of flood-peak data after major flood events 

are not needed in the collection of these records. Flood-related 

measurement activity is intense for a few days each year, 

and the number of trained staff needs to be sufficient to meet 

these peak demands. Programs such as WA DOE’s, which by 

design, has less interest in the high end of the rating curve for 

a significant number of its streamgages, are able to operate at a 

lower cost because the workload involved in collecting low- to 

medium-flow measurements is much more regular and more 

flexible than when high-flow measurements are an important 

part of the program. In order to compare the WA DOE average 

per-streamgage cost with that of the USGS, it would be necessary to make adjustment for the fact that the USGS program 

cost includes the personnel, training, equipment, and other 

resources required to obtain the high-flow data.

The comparison of USGS streamgaging program cost 

with the LCRA cost is also complicated, but for different 

reasons. The LCRA operates a set of streamgages (43) that are 

generally equivalent to typical USGS streamgages; however, 

the average cost per streamgage in this analysis is based on 

68 streamgages for which the LCRA reports streamflow on 

its Web site. For 18 of these 25 additional streamgages, the 

USGS usually collects the high-flow data and some data in 

the middle flow range, maintains the rating curve, checks and 

finalizes the data, and publishes the data. The LCRA makes 

most of the low-flow measurements at these 18 streamgages 

and performs all the maintenance activities. For another seven 

streamgages, the LCRA does all the maintenance, and the 

USGS does all the discharge measurements and rating development with funding provided under a cooperative agreement 

between the USGS and a third party. Although the LCRA 

provides funds for the USGS work at these 18 streamgages, 

the LCRA also has costs associated with the maintenance 

activities and low-flow measurements. In addition, for the 

other seven streamgages, the funding comes from outside the 

LCRA for all but the maintenance activities. These funding 

and operating complexities confound any cost comparison 

between the two streamgaging programs unless the cost for the 

43 streamgages operated solely by the LCRA can be separated 

from the 18 streamgages operated in collaboration with the 

USGS and the 7 funded cooperatively with another agency. 

Unfortunately, such a separation was not possible given the 

constraints of this analysis. 

Cost Comparisons

With regard to costs by category (table 1), analysis results 

show that the single largest difference between the USGS 

and the non-Federal agencies was in the administrative cost 

category (USGS costs $1,300 more). The administrative cost 

category includes program management, technical oversight, 

quality assurance, and overhead costs paid to a higher level 

unit (such as the USGS Bureau assessment).

The fact that administrative charges are nearly 60 percent 

higher for the USGS compared to the non-Federal agencies’ 

streamgaging programs warrants further discussion. The 

USGS is required by the Department of the Interior and the 

Office of Management and Budget to apply full project costaccounting principles, whereby each customer or project is 

assessed a fair share of the cost to support the Bureauwide 

services and infrastructure. For example, costs associated with 

USGS executive leadership, communications (with the public, 

Congress, and the media), personnel management, purchasing, 
4 Qualitative Comparison of Streamflow Information Programs of the USGS and Three Non-Federal Agencies

Table 2. Detailed information for streamgaging program comparison.

[Information provided by the respective agency responsible for the program. These are reported values from each agency only. Differences in data quality and 

the data-collection process are not accounted for; therefore, direct comparisons should not be made. Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; CO, Colorado; TX, Texas; WA, Washington; WSC, Water Science Center; FTE, employee full-time equivalent; IT, information technology; <, less than]

Diagnostic indicators Average 

USGS WSC

Average for 

other agencies

CO State 

Engineer’s Office

FTE involved in the streamflow data-collection process 27 11 23

Number of continuous streamgages 293 98 400

Ratio of gages to FTE in streamgaging program 11 10 17

Average salary and benefits for streamgager (nonmanagement personnel) and range $63,200 $71,300 

Discharge measurements made per year per streamgage 9 6 11

Annual onsite streamgage inspections 11 8 9.8

Special trips for streamgage when equipment malfunctions? Yes Yes Yes

Streamgages per field FTE 13 14 15

Field and office labor hours per streamgage 150 110 120

Employee development/training/safety per streamgage $260 $380 $13

Management/technical oversight FTE for streamgaging program 4 1.7 1.4

Streamgages per management/technical oversight FTE 77 60 290

Management/technical oversight average yearly salary $101,000 $102,000 $117,000

Management salary cost per streamgage $1,200 $1,400 $720

Administrative staff FTE needed to support streamgage program 3 1.2 1.5

Average annual salary of administrative staff $59,000 $62,650 $26,900

Streamgages per administrative staff FTE 110 98 270

Administrative salary cost per streamgage $630 $690 $180

Overhead from Headquarters/higher office per streamgage $1,500 0 $39

Cost per square foot of space $14 $29 $12

Square foot of office space per streamgage 110 47 17

Square foot of office space per FTE 1,200 290 190

Total mileage per streamgage 1,000 1,800 1,500

Annual cost per vehicle in fleet $6,300 $7,500 $6,000

IT salary per gage $830 $1,000 $420

Average missing record days per year per streamgage <4 <7 <4
Comparison of the Usefulness and Availability of the Streamflow Information Produced 5

contracts, safety, financial management, and facility costs 

are proportionately supported by USGS appropriations and 

reimbursable funding and are included as an administrative 

charge in the cost of operating streamgages and all other 

USGS science activities. As shown in table 2, these 

administrative charges (overhead to a higher organizational 

level) add an average of $1,500 to the cost of operating the 

average USGS streamgage. Accounting practices and funding 

sources are different for the three non-Federal agencies, and it 

appears that substantial parts of these administrative costs may 

not be directly assessed against their streamgaging program. 

Another factor contributing to USGS administrative costs 

is the complexity of managing a largely reimbursably funded 

streamgaging network. The USGS streamgaging network has 

more than 800 funding partners nationwide, which distributes the cost of delivering streamflow information to a large 

stakeholder community. Managing these partnerships requires 

a substantial amount of time and travel on the part of USGS 

WSC managers (center directors, data chiefs, and field-office 

chiefs). This management effort includes time spent in initial 

discussions of the program with potential new funding agencies, negotiating annual agreements, and making presentations 

to officials and governing boards (for example, city councils, 

county boards of supervisors, irrigation districts, or river basin 

organizations). In addition, fiscal staff at each WSC, prepare 

and obtain approval of the needed Joint Funding Agreements 

with each partner. Special legal or business requirements for 

some partner agencies make many of these 800-plus agreements unique and require multiple time-consuming reviews 

within the USGS and the funding agency. Although the level 

of funding-agreement effort varies widely between partners 

depending on the number of streamgages funded and the 

partner agencies’ information needs, the estimated administrative costs of reimbursable program management may be 

as much as $500 per streamgage. Such administrative costs 

are either nonexistent or relatively small for the non-Federal 

agencies, who each generally receive most of their funds from 

either a single internal source or just a few sources—making 

administration and customer relations less complex. If the 

approximately $2,000 additional cost per USGS streamgage 

(the overhead paid to higher organizational levels and the cost 

of negotiating reimbursable agreements) were omitted from 

USGS costs, the average cost of the USGS streamgage would 

be about 4 percent less than that for the non-Federal agencies. 

The cost category making up the second largest difference in average streamgage costs per year was labor for 

field and office (table 1). Although the non-USGS salaries 

for streamgagers were higher than USGS salaries (table 2), 

the USGS spent more time per streamgage in both the field 

and office, resulting in higher total labor costs. In the cost 

categories of data management and delivery, and also in the 

field-equipment category, USGS costs were lower; this is 

likely because of economies of scale via the USGS National 

Water Information System (NWIS) database and the Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility (HIF), which purchases and 

does acceptance testing of equipment in bulk for cost savings. 

LCRA’s significantly higher cost in the data management and 

delivery category is largely due to the agency’s real-time radio 

system required for timely operation of a reservoir system 

during flood events; LCRA estimates that the radio system 

represents 10 to 15 percent of its total per-streamgage cost. 

Buildings and utilities, travel, and vehicle average costs were 

similar for USGS and the non-Federal agencies.

Comparison of the Usefulness and 

Availability of the Streamflow 

Information Produced

An appropriate comparison of cost must also include a 

comparison of products. As mentioned briefly in the previous 

section of this report and elaborated upon here, program objectives for a network of streamgages or a subset of streamgages 

within a network can have a dramatic influence on the amount 

of effort that is appropriate for the process of reviewing, 

editing, publishing, and archiving streamflow data. Similarly, 

the types of information products derived from basic streamflow data, the short- or long-term nature of the products, the 

method of delivery (availability), and the need for consistency 

with other products all affect quality targets and efforts. From 

the perspective of the end user, however, what is critical is that 

the type and quality of information are suited to the intended 

need—such suitability is referred to as “usefulness” in this 

report—and that availability of the information also is suited 

to the need. Streamflow usefulness and availability factors 

examined in conjunction with the cost analysis are summarized in table 3. A detailed discussion of factors that bear on 

streamflow-information usefulness (with particular emphasis 

on USGS requirements) is given in appendix 1.

As is the case with average costs, comparison of USGS 

and CO SEO information-product usefulness and availability 

highlights the substantial effects of differences in program 

objectives and information-product purposes. The USGS produces streamflow records that are used by a vast stakeholder 

community for a wide variety of purposes. The timeliness and 

continuity of the data stream, the high level of accuracy, and 

the standardization of data quality required by these diverse 

users have an important influence on the methods employed 

and the level of effort expended by USGS to collect and report 

streamflow information. Not all streamflow data are collected in a manner similar to that of the USGS nor are the data 

intended for such a wide variety of applications. 

Of the 400 CO SEO streamgages used in the cost comparison, the data quality for 225 is directly comparable to, 

or some cases exceeds, that of USGS streamflow data. At 

the time of the analysis, however, there are differences in 

data availability; for example, the previous 3 days of the 

CO SEO’s instantaneous values are displayed online (compared to 31 days for the USGS), and historical daily values 

have only recently (summer 2006) become available online. 
6 Qualitative Comparison of Streamflow Information Programs of the USGS and Three Non-Federal Agencies Table 3. Summary of factors affecting streamflow information usefulness and availability. [CO, Colorado; WA, Washington; POR, period of record; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; Lat-Long, latitude-longitude; DOE, Department of Ecology; SEO, State Engineers Office; LCRA, Lower Colorado River Authority; WY, water year; QA/QC, quality assurance/quality control] Agency Streamflow information Web page Unit-value data avail- able online1 Historic data available online2 Data available by request (not online)3 Percent WY 2005 online data provisional as of July 20064 Rating curve avail- able online5 Discharge measure- ments available online6 Average number of discharge measure- ments in 20057 Streamflow statistics available online8 Rating- curve de- velopment documen- tation9 Rating curve QA/QC documen- tation9 Fre- quency of technical program review10 Pe- riod of record avail- able online11 Stream- gage location avail- able online11 Amount of esti- mated or lost data12 CO SEO–225 published record streamgages Real Time: http://www. dwr.state.co.us/Hydrology/ flow_search.asp Historic Daily: http://cdss. state.co.us/DNN/ViewData/ tabid/60/Default.aspx Hourly data for 3 days, graphical for 10 days POR historic daily values available; unit values avail- able for period of 10 days All unit value data older than 10 days 0% Yes If measured in last 10 days, plotted on graph 14–16 Yes Yes Yes Annual in-house review Yes Yes Less than 1% CO SEO–175 administra- tive and diversion streamgages Real Time: http://www. dwr.state.co.us/Hydrology/ flow_search.asp Historic Daily: http://cdss. state.co.us/DNN/ViewData/ tabid/60/Default.aspx Hourly data for 3 days, graphical for 10 days Provisional values for administrative; final available for diversion streamgages All unit value data older than 10 days 100% administra- tive; 0% diversion streamgages Yes If measured in last 10 days, plotted on graph 3–5 Yes Yes Yes Annual in-house review Yes Yes Less than 1% WA DOE https://fortress.wa.gov/ ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/regions/ state.asp Yes–graph current year, tables after Yes Online 75–100% No current rating curves No 5 Monthly mean, maximum, minimum, mean daily Yes Yes Unknown Yes Yes 30% LCRA http://hydromet.lcra.org/ index2.shtml Yes–15 days Yes, not finalized Yes 0% No No 3 No Use USGS documen- tation Use USGS documen- tation None No No Un- known USGS http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis/sw/ Yes–31 days Yes Unit value data more than 31 days old 3% Yes Yes 8 Yes Yes Yes 3 years Yes Lat-Long 1% Questions posed of all agencies regarding streamflow data:

1 Are unit value data available online? WA DOE has graph only for current year, tables for past years.2 Are historical data available online? CO SEO unit data available for 10 days, then must be requested. LCRA doesn’t provide what the period of record is online, but for about 60% of streamgages POR 

available.

3 If data are not available online, can it be obtained by requesting it?4 What percent of WY 2005 streamflow data still provisional as of July 2006? LCRA has finalized record available by request, but not online. None of the WA DOE 2005 records were final from a random 

sampling, and 44% of WY 2004 were still provisional (75% other sampling).

5 Is the most current rating curve available online? WA DOE has past rating curves available, but not the current rating curve.6 Are discharge measurements available online? CO SEO is plotted with the data if it was made in the last 10 days.7 What is the average number of discharge measurements made at each streamgage in 2005?8 Are streamflow statistics available online? Many WA DOE statistics flagged as estimated.9 Is there written documentation on how to develop and maintain rating curves and how the quality of the rating curves evaluated and maintained?10 What is the frequency of QA/QC reviews by a higher organizational office?11 What is the availability of critical information such as period of record and streamgage location online?12 What is the estimated amount of missing or estimated data for the entire program for WY 2005? WA DOE value is for WY 2004 because all 2005 data is still provisional at the time of analysis.

LCRA does not provide flags to show estimated data.
Comparison of the Usefulness and Availability of the Streamflow Information Produced 7

Regardless of these data-delivery differences, the usefulness 

of the data for these 225 streamgages is highly comparable to 

that of the USGS data. The remaining 175 streamgages in the 

CO SEO network are the diversion- and administrative-record 

gages mentioned in the previous section. About 60 percent of 

these 175 streamgages are diversion-record gages and are used 

by CO SEO water commissioners in the real-time administration of State water rights. These streamgages typically have 

artificial controls, and discharge measurements are made 

approximately three to five times per year. The substantially 

reduced number of discharge measurements made at these 

streamgages is considered appropriate from a data-quality 

perspective, provided that the artificial controls are stable and 

well maintained. The annual streamflow records for these 

streamgages do not receive the same post-collection analysis 

and adjustment as the records of the 225 published-record 

streamgages but rather are reviewed for completeness and any 

obvious data irregularities by the CO SEO water commissioners. The annual records for the diversion-record streamgages 

are finalized by the water commissioners and made available 

online. The other approximately 40 percent of the 175 streamgages are considered administrative-record gages, which tend 

to be located on natural, tributary streams having natural controls. At these streamgages, discharge measurements are also 

made three to five times per year, although the actual number 

of measurements varies considerably depending on the stability of the control. At key administrative-record streamgages 

with unstable controls (such as those with shifting, sandy 

channels), considerably more frequent measurements are 

made to enhance the accuracy of the real-time record. These 

administrative-record streamgages are used by the Colorado 

water commissioners for the real-time administration of water 

rights. The records receive little post-collection review and 

remain provisional. Both the diversion- and administrativerecord streamgage data are appropriate for their intended 

purpose, associated with real-time water-rights administration 

and water operations. However, these data probably are not as 

broadly applicable as data collected and analyzed by the CO 

SEO for its 225 published-record streamgages or by the USGS 

streamgaging network, both of which tend to monitor mostly 

natural flow systems. Hence, in terms of information usefulness and availability, this subset of the CO SEO streamgage 

network is not fully comparable to USGS streamgages.

The streamflow data collected by the LCRA also differ 

somewhat from USGS data because of the relatively low frequency of discharge measurements made at each streamgage. 

LCRA reported that, on average, four discharge measurements 

are made annually per streamgage, about half of the USGS 

recommended frequency for maintaining a rating on a natural 

stream. One reason for the fewer discharge measurements 

is that many streamgages operated by the LCRA off of the 

Colorado River main stem are located on channels that are 

dry for up to 6 months each year, reducing the opportunity to 

make measurements. Another factor that limits the usefulness 

of LCRA data is lack of publicly available ancillary information, such as the streamgage latitude and longitude, period of 

record, drainage area, current rating curve, or indications when 

the online data change from provisional to final. Documentation on procedures such as rating-curve development and quality control is contained within LCRA files, but it is not readily 

available to online users of LCRA streamflow information. 

The WA DOE streamgaging program is a relatively new 

program (most streamgages were installed in the last few 

years), and the streamflow data are collected with a priority 

of defining low flows. As a result, high-flow data for many 

WA DOE streamgages are qualified as estimates. WA DOE 

considers the quality of their streamflow information to be 

very important, and they have adopted numerous procedures 

and policies to ensure that the data meet those standards. 

Many of these procedures are included in their Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan available publicly online. 

Streamflow data collected by WA DOE are readily 

available through the Web. Both daily mean and 15-minute 

values for discharge are available for most sites. In addition, 

for streamgages equipped with satellite telemetry (96 of 129 

streamgages), plots of stream stage, discharge, and water 

temperature are given for the most recent 7-day period. Rating 

curves also are available through the Web for most of the 

WA DOE streamgages. 

Analyses of the WA DOE streamflow data available on 

the Web revealed some issues related to rating curves and 

the production of finalized streamflow data, such that these 

data were viewed as not fully comparable to USGS data in 

terms of usefulness. In particular, some of the rating curves 

found online at the WA DOE public Web pages were not fully 

developed and (or) were not developed exactly according to 

USGS methods. Some did not incorporate all available data in 

the curve development, and some rating curves were extended 

further beyond measured data than is typically considered 

technically appropriate by USGS standards. These issues in 

rating-curve development could have a direct influence on 

the accuracy of reported streamflow. Although the WA DOE 

identifies data from extended rating curves as estimates, these 

estimated data are not always comparable to standard USGS 

streamflow data, which are more fully supported by high-flow 

measurements. Another usefulness issue regarding the WA 

DOE streamflow data is the large amount of provisional data 

on the Web from previous years. As of early July 2006, data 

sets for most of the WA DOE streamgages randomly viewed 

online were marked as provisional for water year 2005 (which 

ended September 30, 2005), and approximately 44 percent 

were marked as provisional for water year 2004, indicating 

that the data had not been verified and were still subject to 

change. Provisional status adversely affects the usefulness of 

the streamflow information because of the uncertainty added 

to any analyses that are based on the information.

Because the WA DOE streamgaging program is relatively new, it is understandable that the program would still 

be working out some of its procedures. It should also be noted 

that each member of the WA DOE streamgaging staff services 

from 5 to 12 more streamgages than the staff for the other 

agencies included in this analysis, which constitutes as much 
8 Qualitative Comparison of Streamflow Information Programs of the USGS and Three Non-Federal Agencies

as double the workload. This additional workload may reduce 

the streamgaging operating costs, but it also may hinder the 

staff’s ability to eliminate the large backlog of provisional 

data. The USGS is interested in working with WA DOE to 

review its procedures and determine how personnel can be 

used efficiently and how data quality and usefulness can 

be improved. 

Conclusions

This analysis should help the USGS and stakeholders 

understand the differences between the streamgaging program 

and products of the USGS and the program and products of 

other agencies. The results of the analysis indicate that the 

three non-Federal agencies had streamgaging costs that were 

less than those of the USGS. The results also indicate that the 

types of streamgages operated, the frequency with which discharge measurements were made, and the methods of developing rating curves and calculating stream discharge often were 

substantially different from typical USGS methods. These 

differences likely account for part of the cost difference. The 

analysis also indicates that the USGS has an administrative 

cost disadvantage because of the full project cost-accounting 

principles that the agency operates under and the additional 

administrative burden of the USGS reimbursable-program 

business model. 

The USGS plans to work with the CO SEO, WA DOE, 

and LCRA to examine more closely the workflows and 

approaches that enable these agencies to produce streamflow 

information at a lower unit cost than the USGS. Although 

some of that difference may be attributed to differences in the 

types of streamgages operated and procedures for working the 

streamflow records, careful examination of these agencies’ 

workflows and processes will be a valuable and welcomed 

benchmarking effort for the USGS. 

The production of streamflow information is a costly 

undertaking, and the USGS will continue to search for 

approaches to improve efficiency and reduce costs. The USGS 

greatly appreciates the support of the CO SEO, WA DOE, and 

LCRA in helping with this comparison. 
Appendix 1. Data-Usefulness Factors 9

Appendix 1. Data-Usefulness Factors

As with nearly all information products, the value 

of streamflow information depends upon a need for the 

information and the usefulness of the information in meeting 

that need. The usefulness, and therefore, the value, of 

streamflow information depends on three characteristics of 

the information: (1) the quality of the information; (2) the 

availability of the information in the form and timeframe 

needed; and (3) the availability of ancillary information 

about the information product, such as how and where the 

information was obtained. The uses of streamflow information 

are many and varied (National Hydrologic Warning Council, 

2006), and they include protection of life and property through 

streamflow forecasts; engineering design of bridges, culverts, 

and treatment facilities; daily to seasonal management of 

water-resource systems to meet customer needs and satisfy 

regulatory requirements; water-resource appraisal, allocation, 

and planning; determination of the effects of land use, water 

use, and climate changes; aquatic-habitat assessment and 

protection; water-quality evaluations, assessments, and 

planning; and recreation safety and enjoyment.

The following is a discussion of the three usefulness 

characteristics of information as they apply to stream discharge measured continuously throughout the year. References 

to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) policies and procedures 

are cited where appropriate. Many of these USGS policies and 

procedures have been adopted by the three non-Federal agencies that participated in this streamgage-cost and informationproduct analysis. 

1. Quality of Streamflow Information

The quality of streamflow information depends on many 

factors, from the equipment used to the skill of the individual interpreting the raw data. The vast majority of continuous-record streamgages in operation today do not measure 

streamflow directly but rather measure the water-surface 

elevation and estimate streamflow on the basis of a rating 

curve—a mathematical relation between the water-surface 

elevation and streamflow at the streamgage site. The factors that affect the quality of the streamflow information 

include the following: 

A. Accuracy to which the water elevation is measured. 

USGS policy is to measure elevation to an accuracy 

of 0.01 foot (ft) (U.S. Geological Survey, 1989b, 

1992; Corbett and others, 1943; White and 

others, 1998).

B. Number of streamflow measurements made to 

develop and maintain the accuracy of the rating 

curve. USGS average is 8 to 10 measurements per 

year (Rantz and others, 1982).

C. Extent to which discharge measurements cover 

the range of streamflow at the streamgage. USGS 

attempts to obtain measurements that cover the range 

of flow (high and low flows) every year for the life 

of the streamgage but uses only qualitative measures 

to rate the success of doing this (Corbett and others, 

1943; Rantz and others, 1982).

D. Accuracy of the streamflow measurement. Accuracy 

is variable and affected by many factors. The USGS 

attempts to achieve a difference of no more than 

5 percent from the rating curve when the 

measurement is plotted on the curve. If the 

difference is more than 5 percent, another (check) 

measurement is indicated to verify the first 

measurement (Corbett and others, 1943; Rantz and 

others, 1982).

E. Accuracy of the streamflow-velocity measurement 

equipment. USGS policy is to test equipment before 

and after each measurement and occasionally at the 

USGS Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility (HIF) 

(Corbett and others, 1943; Rantz and others, 1982; 

Smoot and Novak, 1968; Buchanan and Somers, 

1969; U.S. Geological Survey, 1989a). 

F. Stability of the stream channel at the location of the 

streamgage. As a rule, the more stable the channel is, 

the more accurate the information will be (Rantz and 

others, 1982; Carter and Davidian, 1968). 

G. Stability of the recording gage (used to measure the 

water-surface elevation) relative to elevation of a 

base gage (a more stable gage that usually requires 

a physical measurement and thus not suitable for 

use as a recording gage) and stability of the base 

gage relative to land-surface datum. USGS policy 

is to check the recording gage against the base 

gage with every discharge measurement and to 

survey the base gage every 3 years, with expected 

closure within 0.001 ft (Kennedy, 1983; Carter and 

Davidian, 1968).

H. Experience and skill of the individual developing 

and adjusting the rating curve on the basis of the 

raw water elevation and streamflow measurements. 

Experience and skill are variable, but all rating 

curves are reviewed after each measurement, and 

most USGS Water Science Centers (WSCs) have 

two reviews of the complete record (each rating 

curve) annually (Rantz and others, 1982; Carter and 

Davidian, 1968). 
10 Qualitative Comparison of Streamflow Information Programs of the USGS and Three Non-Federal Agencies

I. Comparability (consistency) of streamflow 

information from different streamgages and from 

different regions of the country is a factor of the 

methods used and quality-assurance procedures. 

USGS conducts a technical review of the surfacewater (streamflow) program of each USGS WSC 

every 3 years to ensure data quality and consistency 

nationwide and to ensure that standardized published 

techniques are followed by USGS staff (White and 

others, 1998).

J. Rate at which data are reviewed and become final 

or approved. The current standard for the USGS is 

that all data from a water year should be final and 

approved by April 1 of the next year, 5 months after 

the end of the water year.

K. Amount of information lost due to equipment 

failure or other factors, which affects the quality 

because data then must be estimated. The USGS has 

decreased the amount of lost data to less than 

1 percent over the last 10 years by using automated 

and manual monitoring of the real-time data. In 

addition, the USGS makes every effort to have 

a complete dataset (for example, USGS field 

technicians make discharge measurements under ice) 

to ensure a complete dataset even when the stagedischarge relation is not valid.

2. Data Availability

The usefulness of streamflow information depends on the 

availability of accurate information in a timely manner 

and the ease and reliability of access to the information. 

Factors affecting availability include the following:

A. For real-time streamflow information available on 

the Web, the frequency of data transmission from the 

streamgage and the delay before the information is 

updated on the Web pages. Most USGS streamgages 

transmit hourly or every 4 hours, but some transmit 

more frequently. The interval from the time of 

transmission to availability on USGS Web pages is 

about 7 minutes on average.

B. The accuracy of automatically delivered real-time 

information can be influenced by instrument error or 

other factors during data storage and transmission. 

USGS policy is to check all real-time records once 

per work day and use automated data-checking 

software to look for data spikes or exceedingly rapid 

changes in the incoming stage data.

C. Historical streamflow information should be as 

readily available online as real-time streamflow 

information and in user-convenient formats. 

USGS historical streamflow information 

(as daily mean streamflow) is available to the public 

online in tabular format or in graphical format for 

the entire period of record for more than 24,000 

streamgages nationwide.

D. The information should be available at the time step 

in which the data were collected (daily, hourly, or 

more frequently). USGS streamflow information 

is available in the unit values used when the data 

were collected during the previous 31 days—this 

information is available on demand from USGS Web 

pages (most at 15-minute intervals); unit values are 

also available from USGS WSCs back to the early 

1990s for most streamgages. All daily values from 

the beginning of the record to the most recent full 

day are available online. The USGS has recently 

placed a large amount of historical and current unitvalue streamflow information (an estimated 5 billion 

unit values) online (http://ida.water.usgs.gov/ida/

index.cfm).

E. The information should be available when needed 

most, such as during times of extreme weather 

conditions when computers can be down because 

of power outages. The USGS has three redundant 

servers in Virginia, South Dakota, and California 

to receive and disseminate streamflow information. 

If a server goes down, the information will still be 

available through one of the other servers.

3. Ancillary Information

The availability of ancillary information about the streamflow data is important for assessing the data quality, conducting data analyses, and judging data comparability. The 

following are examples of the type of ancillary information that makes the streamflow information more valuable:

A. Documentation of processes, procedures, and 

techniques used to ensure the quality of the 

streamflow information obtained. Each USGS WSC 

has a written Surface-Water Quality-Assurance 

Plan, and the USGS has published a series of reports 

describing accepted data collection techniques and 

methods that are required to be used nationwide in 

the USGS.

B. Information about the streamgage, such as name, 

identification number, location, elevation, drainage 

area, period of record, and start and end date. USGS 

provides this information online for all streamgages.

C. The current stage-discharge rating curves and the 

discharge measurements used to create the rating 

curves. USGS provides the discharge measurements 

online, and rating curves are available from a rating 

depot for download.
References Cited in Appendix 11

D. Data summaries, such as statistics of mean daily 

streamflow, mean monthly streamflow, mean 

annual streamflow, and the annual peak streamflow. 

The USGS provides this information online for 

all streamgages.

E. Other information obtained at the streamgage, such 

as precipitation and water-quality data. All data 

obtained by the USGS at a streamgage are available 

online with the streamflow information.

References Cited in Appendix

Buchanan, T.J., and Somers, W.P., 1969, Discharge measurements at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A8, 

65 p.

Carter, R.W., and Davidian, Jacob, 1968, General procedures 

for gaging streams: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A6, 13 p.

Corbett, D.M., and others, 1943, Stream-gaging procedures—

A manual describing methods and practices of the Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

888, 245 p.

Kennedy, E.J., 1983, Computation of continuous records of 

streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 3, chap. A13, 53 p.

National Hydrologic Warning Council, 2006, Benefits of 

U.S. Geological Survey Streamgaging Program: Users and 

uses of U.S. Geological Survey streamflow data, 40 p.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow, volumes 1 and 2: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2175, 631 p.

Smoot, G.F., and Novak, C.E., 1968, Calibration and maintenance of vertical-axis type current meters: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 8, chap. B2, 15 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1989a, Policy to ensure the 

accurate performance of current meters: Office of 

Surface Water Technical Memorandum 89.07, accessed 

November 16, 2007, at http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/

SW/sw89.07.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 1989b, Policy statement on stage 

accuracy: Office of Surface Water Technical Memorandum 

89.08, accessed November 16, 2007, at http://water.usgs.

gov/admin/memo/SW/sw89.08.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 1992, Policy statement on stage 

accuracy: Office of Surface Water Technical Memorandum 

93.07, accessed November 16, 2007, at http://water.usgs.

gov/admin/memo/SW/sw93.07.html

White, M.K., Shields, R.R., and Dodge, K.A., 1998, SurfaceWater Quality-Assurance Plan for the Montana District of 

the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 98–173, 54 p.
Prepared by the Pembroke Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact:

Keith W. Robinson, Director

U.S. Geological Survey

New Hampshire-Vermont Water Science Center

361 Commerce Way

Pembroke, NH 03275

or visit our Web site at:

http://nh.water.usgs.gov
Norris and others—Qualitative Comparison of Streamflow Information Programs of the USGS and Three Non-Federal Agencies—Open-File Report 2007–1426

Printed on recycled paper