PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT FOR 

WATER-RESOURCES REPORTS 

T HE WATER RESOURCES DIVISION of the Funding source can profoundly affect the kind and 

Survey provides accurate and timely information scope of a study, the readership addressed in the 

on all aspects of water resources to the Nation's report, the publication outlet, and also importantly, 

water resources planners and managers. To that end, the pressures to publish a report by a particular date. 

the Division has research centers in Reston, Virginia; Cooperators in jointly funded studies expect usable 

Denver, Colorado; Menlo Park, California; and Bay results (a published report) by the termination of the 

St. Louis, Mississippi; and offices in every State, period funded for the study. 

Puerto Rico, and Guam. In 1985. Water Resources 

Division at more than '200 locations 1 

collected, analyzed, and researched hydrologic data 

REPORTS PREPARED BY THE 

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION I 

for about 1,500 reports for publication in a wide 

variety of formats, 

This chapter provides the background information 

authors need to prepare water-resources reports of 

high quality and timeliness. Processing procedures in 

the Water Resources Division differ somewhat from 

those in the Geologic Division or in the various outside publishing organizations, but the author of any 

technical report planned or in progress can profit 

from a scan of the steps and requirements outlined 

below. Quality control and scheduling are rigorous. 

The following introductory paragraphs briefly 

describe the principal organizational units of the 

Water Resources Division, list the kinds of reports 

prepared, and emphasize the importance of quality 

and timeliness. A section on "Planning and Managing 

Reports" outlines (1) the elements of planning a quality report, (2) the characteristics of a quality report, 

and (3) the quality-control system used by the Water 

Resources Division. A concluding section discusses an 

author's responsibility after a report has received 

Director's approval for publication. 

Figure 1 shows the principal organizational units 

of the Geological Survey. In the Water Resources 

Division most technical reports are prepared in the 

District offices and Regional Research Centers. Studies in District offices are funded jointly with State 

and local cooperators, who pay half the cost, and with 

other Federal agencies or with Federal monies appropriated to the Water Resources Division. Studies and 

research at the Regional Research Centers or at 

Headquarters are funded almost entirely by Federal 

monies. 

The wide range of books and maps, leaflets, psmphlets, journal articles, and audio-visual products; of 

the Water Resources Division include Water-Supply 

Papers, Professional Papers, Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, Circulars, Water-Resoiuces 

Investigations Reports, Open-File Reports, WaterData Reports, Hydrologic Investigations Atlases, 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Maps, cooperatorpublished books and maps, and general-interest leaflets and booklets, water fact sheets, and slide-cassette, 

video-cassette, and moving-picture-film presentations. 

Further descriptions of these varied reports are 

elsewhere in this volume, and in Alt and Iseri (1986). 

Most reports prepared by District-office personnel 

are published or released as Water-Resources Investigations Reports, Open-File Reports, Water-Data 

Reports, Water-Supply Papers, or cooperator series 

reports. The bulk of the reports prepared by research 

personnel are published as journal articles, Professional Papers, or Water-Supply Papers. Thus, if you 

work in a district you are likely to prepare multidiscipline reports on area water resources, published as 

Water-Resources Investigations Reports; if employed 

in the research program, you are likely to author 

single-discipline articles for technical journals. 

The Water Resources Division requires authors to 

produce technically correct, timely reports, regardless 

of the series, subject matter, or origin. 

IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY 

AND TIMELINESS 

For more than 100 years, the U.S. Geological 

Survey has been known worldwide as a source of 

reliable information on the mineral and water 

Report planning and management for water resources reports 27 
I STAFF OFFICES 

Emginwring Geoby 

Programs 

AdministmMn 

mammh 

Information Systems 

Ifitergwemental Affairs 

I Washington Liaison 

I Equal Employment Opportunity 

Congressional Liaison 

Public Affairs 

. . . - . . - r Resean 

MtiPea 

Gwraphlc and 

Carbgraphii Research 

Systems Development 

Twhnical Manag~rnent 

for Pwram, Budga 

-nd Administration 

for Scientific lnformatlon lQMiBkS 

Budget and Program 

Development 

Smteqlc Analysis 

Adrnlnlstration 

Fiscal Control 

Coordination and RePuirmts 

lsslsmm r;nler Hydrowgist 

or Researoh and External 

Coordinatim 

mws 

Hydrologk Raseareh 

External Wh 

far Program cooidinatin 

and Technical Sum 

Qms 

Atmospheric Deposition 

., lnformatlon and D- C-n41--- 

Qms 

Earth Sclence Informath 

Product Distniutlon Policy Analysis I 

Ground Water , 

QdHB 

External Coordination 

Information Resource 

Management 

I -.-- -if-.--, ' --vier 

PuWications Llaison and Rsvlaw I 

Surface Water 

Water Quallty reduction Managemen! 

, Production PIanning and Analysis 

I Production and Manaoement I 

Systems . . 

lgernent 

- - C 

FJeld Centers 

Eastern Mapping-Rsston,Va. 

MiContinent Mapping-Rolla, Mo. 

Rocky Mountain Mapping-Denver, Colo. 

Wastern Mapping-Menlo Park, Calif. I 

lortheastern-Reston. \r ,. butheastern-Atlanta, Ga 

:entral-Denver, Cob. 

Yestern-Menlo Park, Calif. 

1 EROS Data Center-Sioux Falls, S. Dak 
/ ChiefGmlOgist Chief &'ch~~ 

~~eologistW~ 

Associate Chi 

OlllCBm,-* ;.; .." 

amwneBranches 

CoalResouKas I .., 

mww:' i 

P- --q.,.. 

..,-A- .LA-:m:,-L: 

Branches 

f- 

- Seismobgy and 

Central-Dmt, CO~O. 

Western-Menlo Park rdllf 
resources of the United States. Survey publications 

are basic references for academicians, other scientists, 

industrialists, resource planners and managers, 

students, litigants in court actions, and many other 

people. 

Many cooperative studies and research investigations result from (1) needs for resource information 

in support of management decisions by cooperators, 

(2) needs for insight into hydrogeologic processes, or 

(3) needs to help abate environmental degradation. In 

any event, if a need exists when a study begins, planners and managers will make decisions within their 

own deadlines, regardless of the availability of potentially valuable information from the Survey. Even if a 

Survey report contains the only substantive information on a subject, its greatest value is lost if it is not 

available in time for planning and management decisions. Quality reports therefore must be produced 

within agreed time limits. 

PLANNING AND MANAGING REPORTS 

Adequate planning and management of report 

preparation are the only proven means of producing 

consistently high-quality reports on time, especially 

in the work environment of authors who also are 

involved in program development, projects management (more than one project at a time), research, 

data-collection-technique development, and personnel 

management. Most of the work in producing a quality 

report is done in the originating office. Regional and 

Headquarters evaluators can make minor repairs but 

cannot make a quality report from a mediocre or 

poor one. 

Report planning in the Water Resources Division 

begins with a well-prepared project proposal that 

contains report plans. Report plans include numbers 

and kinds of proposed reports, their readership, 

report outlines, and work schedules. An example of a 

project-and-report review sheet is shown in figure 2. 

As soon as a project is approved, a report schedule 

(fig. 3) should be prepared for each report listed in 

the project-and-report review form. Note that the last 

item under planning and prewriting in the report 

schedule is a final annotated outline or preliminary 

report. A properly prepared annotated outline or 

preliminary report is a key planning document for 

any project or study. It includes a comprehensive or 

an annotated list of illustrations and tables. Either an 

annotated outline or annotated list of illustrations and 

tables will indicate what kinds of data must be collected and will help the investigator estimate the time 

needed for data collection. If a study is funded for 

3 years, the investigator should not plan to collect 

3 years of data, because the report is scheduled for 

delivery at the end of the funding. A careful analysis 

of the funding, time, and desired elements for a 

report will help tailor a study and its report@) to 

meet the overall scheduling and resources available. 

Generally, several months are required for colleague 

review, plus Region and Headquarters approval. 

Accordingly, reports should be submitted for approval 

several months before a project end date. 

The data needs and other work elements identified 

by the annotated outline or preliminary report are 

key factors in project work plans. If followed, they 

will yield quality reports at the end of the funding 

period. Examples of annotated outlines and project 

work plans are shown by Moore and Chase (1985). 

These examples provide general guidance: Authors 

should understand that each project has different 

problems to solve, different hydrologic settings, different times for study, and diierent readership for 

the resulting report(s). Consequently, each project, 

and its report@) must be custom designed to achieve 

the most appropriate and useful results. 

The U.S. Geological Survey enjoys a reputation 

for professional excellence because its workers and 

managers at all levels strive to assure the technical 

veracity and quality of their data and analyses. Word 

use and clarity of expression also receive careful 

attention. To incorporate the above basic ingredients 

into effective communication packages, the Water 

Resources Division has found that the best reports 

have the following characteristics: 

Logical organization-the more important 

elements stand out. 

Writing style fits the intended readership. 

Minimal jargon. 

Effective illustrations, designed for the publication 

format. 

Clear, simple tables, adequately labeled. 

Pleasing design (cover and color). 

Pleasing and appropriate layout. 

The author of every report is committed toPrepare the best product possible for the 

originating office before colleague review. 

Get in-house technical and editorial reviews by 

district or project personnel (such as a district 

report specialist) before submitting report for 

colleague review. 

Supply a clean copy of text, illustrations, tables, 

abstract for Water Resources Scientific Informa 

30 Planning and managing reports 
I. Repc 

I. Equ 

i. Con: 

i. Base 

I. Rep 

i. Cool 

ITEMS 

ort out1 

ipment 

structio 

: map 

..- 

t colleci 

ort corn 

-__ .Cort spec 

perator 

:rict tra 

Figure 2. A project and report review sheet used in the 

Water Resources Division. 

PROJECT AND REPORT REVIEW SHEET 

PI BER: DATE: 

PROJECT TITLE:- 

PROJECT CHIEF: 

1 DEADLINE COhhPLETE INITIALS 

1. Yroposal 

2. Work plans 

3 ine review 

4 and instruments 

5 n 

6 

7 otatea outline review 

8 tion 

9. Data analysis 

1C ns review 

11 ~ca rcv'iew 

12 Repc pleted 

13. Sectlon cnlef review 

14 :ialist review 

1: review 

16. District chief review 

17. Colleague review 

1 I nsmittal 

Comment 

- 

!' 

N ject Review Date: 

Proiect and reoort review sheet 31 

* ., 
tion Center (WRSIC), press release, and note for 

monthly list of new publications, as applicable, 

along with an up-to-date routing sheet to all 

colleague reviewers. 

Assure that all illustrations and tables are neat, 

legible, and complete. 

Acknowledge and incorporate all comments by 

colleague reviewers or give reasons for not 

accepting. 

Personally acknowledge, by memorandum, efforts 

by colleague reviewers. 

Forward all marked-up review copies with the 

manuscript to the next reviewlevaluation step. 

QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE 

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION 

Reviews of project-and-report planning and project 

elements at prescribed intervals will help authors prepare timely reports of high quality. The steps listed in 

the project report schedule (fig. 3) before colleague 

review are preliminary parts of a quality assurance 

system that has evolved over the years. Colleague 

review is the key element in the system. 

A report is reviewed by colleagues after an author, 

supervisor, and District or Project Chief agree that it 

is ready (usually after several drafts have been prepared). The Water Resources Division requires that at 

least two colleagues review all manuscripts, including 

at least one review from outside of the author's 

organizational unit. A report authored by someone in 

the Colorado District, for example, must be reviewed 

by someone outside the Colorado District's organization, perhaps in another State. Similarly, a report 

authored by someone in a regional research project 

office must be reviewed by someone outside that 

project, and preferably in another region. Long 

experience has shown that a fresh, unfamiliar viewpoint has real value in detecting flaws of logic and 

errors of omission and commission in manuscripts. 

Colleague review is arranged by supervisors, who 

informally contact a District or Research Project 

Chief to ascertain the availability of someone to 

review the report in the time desired. Sometimes a 

person with special knowledge is requested. 

Commonly, however, the contacted District or 

Project Chief will agree to provide a colleague review 

by someone on the staff. The responsibility for the 

colleague-review process (Olcott, 1985) is shared as 

follows among District Chiefs, Research 

Managers, and the designated reviewers: 

District Chiefs and Research Project ~ana~er/ 

Become personally involved in the 

Read the report-especially for 

editorial adequacy and Survey policy. 

Accept reports from other 

and allow time for their 

people in your charge. 

Train personnel in 

performance standards of all professionall. 

Reviewers 

Following colleague review and after the 

response and rewrite, the District or 

Chief reevaluates the manuscript. If 

be satisfactory, it is transmitted to 

Regional Hydrologist with a request that it b 

approved for publication. The manuscript pacqage 

includes the complete review copies of the reqort 

(reviewed by colleagues), the colleagues' sumqary 

evaluations, and other materials as shown by 

and Aronson (1985). 

Ensure technical soundness and clarity of 

report. 

Suggest alternative methods of analysis or 

pretation, if appropriate. 

Devote adequate time to check matherna~cs, 

methods of approach, organization, sound:~ess 

conclusions, adequacy of data to support 

sions, accuracy and adequacy of illustratic~ns, 

tables, and presented data. 

Clearly indicate problems through well-thoughtout, legible marginal comments, and a 

memorandum. 

Avoid humorous, sarcastic, or derogatory 

comments. 

Maintain a positive attitude toward colleague 

review duties. 

All reports generated in a particular region '(district 

and research program) are evaluated in the ohce of a 

Regional Hydrologist. After receipt of a repoq, the 

the 

interof 

donclusurvnary 

32 Quality assurance in the Water Resources Division 
PROJECI' REPORT SCHEDULE 

Report schedule 

Planning and prewriting 

Preliminary report outline ..+ ...................................... Base map request .................................................... Initial annotated outline or preliminary report ................. Table plan ............................................................. 

&gel , Complmon 

date date 

Illustration plan ...................................................... i -* .&,?a ,.:q $i2 

Final annotated outline or preliminary report ......................-. ~--ke::!. ' ; :..-*I .i 

Writing, self-editing, and rewriting 

First draft ............................................................. .- . ,. ., .]- Author's ... review and revision ................................... First typing ........................................................... Editing - and review 

Editorial review ...................................................... .. .. - >A. . a w;:r & 

Author's mision ................................................. .. 

...... : .: . 1. -. 1 Section chief or discipline specialist review ,&. 

Author's revision ................................................. ..................... ., , 

- 

Assit district chief or district chiefs review r ' ............... Author's revision ................................................. -"; -, - 4 $2 ,= -.: >;* 

Fit colleague review .................. :i .......................... -. 

- Author's revision ....... ...'............. : ......................... , . 

Second colleague review ............................................. Author's .a revision ................................................. Final typing and editing ............................ .........-...-... . 3, ... 

District chiefs review .................................... Appmval and publication 

Transmittal to region ........... ;.. ....... ;. ............... Report appmval .......................................... : ........... Report publication ............... .% .............. 1 ....... 

support needed 

I Maps 

Consultations 

Special illuslralions 

Remn review 

Technical : 11% 

Editorial 2- 1 , 

Suggested reviewers 4 ;., '.I' 

Other a.-d:"nj 

-. '* , A " t' 

. ' 

i r;y 

Figure 3. A project report schedule used in Districts of the Water Resources Division. 

Project report schedule 
Regional Reports Advisor determines the following: 

1. The title is appropriate and complete (dates and 

places included if necessary). 

2. The contents reflect topics in the title. 

3. The abstract and summary or conclusions are 

consistent with the title, contents, and each 

other. 

4. Illustrations and tables are appropriate and 

complete. 

5. Numbers in text, tables, and illustrations have 

been verified. 

6. Annotations for references cited are complete 

and in Survey style. 

7. The manuscript has received adequate colleague 

review. 

8. Authors have responded appropriately to all 

reviewers' comments. 

9. Manuscript complies with Geological Survey 

policy. 

10. Manuscript is organized in a way that readily 

conveys its information to a reader. 

11. Manuscript is technically accurate and methods 

used are appropriate and properly explained. 

If any technical aspect of the manuscript is questioned, the Regional Reports Advisor will request 

additional evaluation by a Regional discipline specialist or a recognized expert in the appropriate subject 

on the staff of the Regional Research Hydrologists. 

If serious technical, organizational, or policy problems remain, the manuscript will be returned via the 

author's supervisor for additional work, accompanied 

by specific suggestions on ways to overcome the 

deficiencies. If there are no serious problems or deficiencies, the manuscript is sent to Headquarters with 

a recommendation that it be approved by the Director 

and that suggestions made in the Regional office be 

considered and responded to by the author after 

Director's approval. 

The Director delegates authority to the Regional 

Hydrologists to approve basic data reports, interpretive reports intended for refereed journals, and 

abstracts for presentations at professional society 

meetings and conferences; some Regional Hydrologists 

redelegate authority to District Chiefs to approve 

basic data reports. All other interpretive reports require Director's approval, including administrative 

reports and all other writings such as textbooks, book 

reviews, field-trip guidebooks, newsletters, and comments and replies for technical journals. 

When a manuscript is received at Headquarters, it 

is logged into the Water Resources Division's Report 

Tracking System in the Publications Ma 

Unit (PMU). Abstracts (including c 

abstract for the Water Resources 

mation Center) are circulated to 14 offi 

the Assistant Chief Hydrologists; Chief 

Ground Water; Chief, Office of Surface 

Office of Water Quality; and Chief, Br 

tific Publications. These abstracts are 

information content, and if of special i 

related manuscripts are requested for 

Office of Surface Water, for example, 

all reports on surface-water hydraulics. 

All manuscripts that contain geologi 

routed to the Geologic Names Commi 

tion of stratigraphic nomenclature. Illustr 

manuscripts designated for publication in 

Geological Survey book or map series 

Papers, Professional Papers, Bulletin 

WATER RESOURCES DIVISI N 

REPORT REVIEW 

AND APPROVAL STEPS P 

AUTHOR 

DISTRICT OR 

RESEARCH UNIT - COLLEAGUE RE~VIEW 

CHIEF - 

REGIONAL 

HYDROLOGIST 

. - 

EDITOR 

AUTHOR 

PUBLICATION 

Figure 4. Generalized diagram of the rnanuscr pt 

approval process in the Water Resources Divisi I n. 

EXPLANATIOE' 

REQUIRED RO 

ALL REPORTS 

===!:=- ADDITIONAL 

34 Headauarters evaluation 

JTING. 

FLOUTING. 

SELECTEDREPORTS 
Hydrologic Investigations Atlases, or Miscellaneous 

Investigations Maps-are reviewed by the Hydrogeologic Map Editor. After these steps are completed, 

manuscripts are transmitted to the Staff Hydrologist 

for Reports, who reevaluates the same 11 aspects of 

the report evaluated by the Regional Reports Advisor. 

If the Staff Hydrologist for Reports is unfamiliar with 

the technical content of a manuscript, or has reservations about it, a discipline expert will be contacted for 

additional evaluation. Most discipline experts who are 

consulted work at Headquarters in the Offices of 

Ground Water, Surface Water, or Water Quality. 

Occasionally, experts are consulted from the Office 

of Hydrologic Research, Branch of Systems Analysis, 

Geologic or National Mapping Divisions, or academia. 

If a manuscript is judged to be technically adequate, 

and if it meets quality standards, it is sent to the 

Director for approval. The Director has designated 

the Associate Chief, Office of Scientific Publications 

(Geologic Division) to approve or reject all reports 

after skimming them for content and policy. All 

manuscripts are then returned to the Publications 

Management Unit for transmittal to the author, if 

approved, or to the Regional Hydrologist if rejected. 

Figure 4 shows generalized steps in the manuscript 

approval process. 

AUTHOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES AFTER 

DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL 

Although Director's approval is a critical milestone in the Survey publications process, an author's 

responsibilities do not end there. Authors have important and necessary further responsibilities through the 

actual printing and distribution of the report. 

PREPARING MANUSCRIPTS FOR PRINTING 

An author's euphoria on receiving manuscript approval is soon tempered by the reality of responding 

to the reviewers' comments, suggestions, and directions accumulated by the manuscript during the 

approval process. Authors are expected to respond 

fully to all such comments, and to seek clarification 

directly from the reviewers, if necessary. For reports 

published or released by the author's offices (WaterResources Investigations Reports and Open-File 

Reports) this step is generally the last quality-control 

check for technical content prior to printing. 

In the formal report series (Water-Supply Papers, 

Professional Papers, Circulars, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, for example) book reports are carefully 

edited for completeness and consistency by the 

Branch of Technical Repo 

map reports are similarly 

Management Unit (Water Resources 

text and drafts of illus 

proofing before final drafting and 

imperative that authors schedule time to a 

review the edited text and drafts of illustr 

Similarly, authors must review gal 

typeset text and proofs of final-drafted ill 

This review is the author's last chance to 

technical accuracy of the report b 

it must be done within 

delay in printing. Auth 

examine printer's page proofs. F 

haps involving color, authors m 

inspections at a printing plant. 

In many offices, authors of 1 

ma1 reports must read proof i 

the printing process. Detailed instructions 

ing water-resources manus 

proval are given in Alt an 

page 286). 

RELEASING AND DISTRIBUTING PUBLISHED REPO/~ 

To assure timely and equal availabili 

most reports of the Water 

announced in releases to lo 

remainder are announced only in " 

of the U.S. Geological Survey," iss 

Authors outside Water Resources 

inside, could profit from the follo 

About 2 weeks before the s 

printed reports that are to be an 

release, authors should asce.rtain 

responsible for releasing reports have 

of the news release, a distribution list, 

ate transmittal memorandums. 

copies are received, public-in 

mailed to depositories. The iss 

release should be set to allow 

depositories. Comprehensive instructions fo 

disposition of printed copies of reports are 

in Alt and Iseri (1986, p. 329). 

Releasing and distributing published reports