Detailed Information on the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Assessment

Update program policies and procedures to reflect changing resource needs of the public, including watershed project sponsors and project beneficiaries.

Distribute policy guidance that improves the operation and maintenance of watershed project dams.

Continue to refine the new annual performance measures it has developed.

Establish baselines for the agency's newly developed efficiency measures.

Measure: Estimated dollar value of flood damage reduction benefits generated by projects.

Explanation:Dollars

Measure: Improve, protect or enhance the water quality of cumulative miles of streams/corridors.

Explanation:Cumulative miles

Measure: Improve, protect or enhance the water quality of cumulative acres of lakes/reservoirs.

Explanation:Cumulative acres

Measure: Increase the amount of water conservation and water supply to achieve cumulative acre feet of water conserved.

Explanation:Cumulative acre feet

Measure: Number of area-wide resource plans, studies or inventories completed in the current FY for flood prevention or mitigation..

Explanation:Number of plans, studies, inventories

Measure: Number of area-wide resource plans, studies or inventories completed in the current FY for water quality.

Explanation:Number of plans, studies, inventories

Measure: Number of flood prevention or mitigation measures installed during the fiscal year.

Explanation:Number of measures.

Measure: Number of PL-566 long-term contracts completed during the fiscal year (all measures installed) for the purpose of water quality improvement.

Explanation:Number of Long Term Contracts (LTC's)

Measure: Ratio of total federal staff positions (measured in Full Time Equivalent positions) in Watershed Operations to the number of flood mitigation measures completed.

Explanation:Full Time Equivalent positions per flood mitigation measure.

Measure: Complete assessments of the condition of watershed dams to determine if threats to public health and safety exist.

Explanation:Number of Assessments

Measure: Rehabilitate or remove unsafe dams.

Explanation:Number of dams

Measure: By 2010, rehabilitate or remove unsafe dams in order to reduce risks to 6,000 people downstream.

Explanation:Number of people at reduced risk

Measure: By 2010, maintain $3 million in average annual agricultural and non-agricultural floodwater reduction benefits downstream from rehabilitated dams that were previously unsafe.

Explanation:Monetary floodwater reduction benefits

Measure: By 2010, maintain $2 million in average annual agricultural and non-agricultural non-flood benefits from rehabilitated dams that were previously unsafe.

Explanation:Monetary non-floodwater reduction benefits

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: NRCS's watershed protection and flood prevention activities are primarily delivered under three programs -- Watershed Surveys and Planning, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Operations, and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Together, the three programs provide assistance to local project sponsors to address natural resource problems (including flood risk reduction, water quality protection and enhancement, and water supply improvement) and protect public safety from water control structure failures. The programs help local sponsors with: identifying local issues (such as water quality and quantity or flood prevention), developing watershed area plans to address the issues, designing and constructing measures (such as dams, diversions, and water quality improvement facilities), and rehabiliting water control measures once they exceed their planned life-cycles and present a threat to public safety.

Evidence: Public Law 83-566 (as amended), Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, which also incorporated the implementation of watershed projects authorized under Public Law 78-534 Flood Prevention Act. 7 CFR Part 622.1 Watershed Projects. National Watershed Manual, Subpart 502, Project Purposes and Measures; Subpart 508E, Rehabilitation.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The national program was established to prevent damages due to erosion, flooding, and sedimentation; to further the conservation, development, utilization and disposal of water; and conservation and utilization of land in order to preserve, protect , and improve the nation's land and water resources and the quality of the environment. All watershed projects, including watershed rehabilitation project plans, are authorized for Federal funding based on a watershed project plan. The project plan includes information that is required by NRCS national policy. The project plan must include information that clearly demonstrates the need for project action and a basis for USDA involvement. Plan must identify the existing problems and the extent of the problems. Watershed Rehabilitation addresses very specific public health and safety threats to people who live and work downstream from aging dams and communities that depend on reservoirs for drinking water. The rehabilitation of aging dams results in continuation of flood control and recreation benefits.

Evidence: National Watershed Manual Part 504D, 504.36. Public Law 83-566 Section 14 (as amended). National Watershed Manual Subpart 508E - Rehabilitation. Association of State Dam Safety Officials report on aging infrastructure. American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card. 2003 update to the American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The program is designed to operate in federally authorized watershed project areas that are up to 250,000 acres in size. In addition, each project must contain benefits directly related to agriculture that account for at least 20% of the total benefits. There are no other programs that are implemented strictly on a small watershed basis to solve natural resource problems within an identified community. Watershed rehabilitation is the only authorized federal program for rehabilitation of non-federal dams. The program is designed to complement, not compete with state and local government entities. Some state dam safety agencies have limited assistance for modifying dams that do not meet state dam safety requirements. These state programs complement watershed rehabilitation efforts since the State and local funding is required for the 35% nonfederal cost-share. All rehabilitation efforts are coordinated with State Dam Safety agencies.

Evidence: Public Law 83-566 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Section 1002. Example portion of a recently authorized watershed plan which identifies a variety of programs to install planned resource protection measures.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: No major flaws have been identified. The program authorities and program policy provide for maximum flexibility to solve a variety of problems. All watershed water resource projects are designed to implement most cost effective alternatives (National Economic Development [NED] Plan). No major flaws have been identified in Watershed Rehabilitation implementation since it was first authorized 3 years ago. By April 2004, 131 projects have been funded, including 24 that have been completed, 36 that have been authorized and have implementation in progress, and 58 that are in the planning phase. Much of these accomplishments have been made with the assistance of private sector professional services contracts. The planning of each project involves evaluation of site specific alternatives including upgrading of the dam to meet current safety standards, decommissioning (removal) of the dam, no action, and, if appropriate, relocation of at-risk homes downstream. The plan identifies the most cost effective plan (NED).

Evidence: Public Law 83-566, Section 1004 Conditions for Providing Federal assistance. National Watershed Manual, Subpart 500B Assistance available under the Act. National Watershed Manual, Subpart 500C Requirements of the Act. Proposed National Watershed Manual (Subpart E) revisions Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, pages 14-15. Watershed Rehabilitation progress report dated March 2004.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: While NRCS's watershed programs have requirements that limit the scope of their activities (size of watersheds may not exceed 250,000 acres and projects must provide at least 20% of their benefits to agriculture), overall the Surveys and Planning and Watershed Flood Prevention Operations programs are not targeted. Both programs are heavily earmarked ' in FY 2003, Congress earmarked more than 100 percent the Flood Prevention Operations program's appropriation. In effect, the heavy congressional earmarking removes NRCS's ability to identify and fund priority projects. Watershed Rehabilitation, however, is more effectively targeted and congressional earmarking is relatively limited. NRCS policy assures that resources are directed to the intended beneficiaries by identifying dams that have potential for loss of life and are in the greatest need of rehabilitation. Each project sponsor application is assessed by a standardized ranking process that evaluates the condition of the dam and consequences of dam failure. This results in a "failure index" and "risk index" for each dam. NRCS funds only the highest ranked projects.

Evidence: Public Law 83-566, Section 1002 (3).. See Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, page 19 (filed in section 1.4 of this notebook). Priority Ranking System for Watershed Rehabilitation National Watershed Manual Subpart 508.43 and exhibit 508.1 Summary of FY 2002 - 2004 requests for funding received and rehabilitation projects funded.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: During FY 2004, NRCS continues to build upon work done in the prior years to establish both long-term and short-term performance measures. The following are new long-term performance measures that the agency will begin to track in FY 2005: 1. Reduce agricultural and non-agricultural flood damages. 2. Improve, protect or enhance miles of streams and corridors, and acres of lakes and reservoirs. 3. Conserve water and benefit domestic water supplies. For Watershed Rehabilitation, NRCS developed three new long-term performance measures focus on primary outcomes: 1. Number of people with reduced risk downstream from rehabilitated dams that were previously unsafe. 2. Continuation of flood monetary benefits. 3. Continuation of non-flood monetary benefits.

Evidence: "Initial Performance Plan for FY 2003 and Revised Plan for FY 2002", which includes long term goals, performance goals and performance indicators. Long term performance measures (developed late in FY 2003): See 2005 Expalnatory Notes, Pages 18g-38 & 39, 18g-43 & 44. Planned Long Term Performance Measures: Watershed Survey and Planning, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Performance Measures (Draft), 4/19/04.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: NRCS has developed appropriate targets and timeframes for its new long-term performance measures.

Evidence: Draft Watershed Survey and Planning, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Performance Measures, 4/19/04.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: NRCS has developed new annual performance measures for the Survey & Planning and Watershed Protection & Flood Prevention, and the agency will begin tracking them in FY 2005. For Watershed Rehabilitation, the agency developed three annual performance measures that focus on the program's primary outputs. These measures are logically linked to long-term goals sited in question 2.1 and will demonstrate progress toward achieving those goals.

Evidence: Watershed Program FY 2004 Performance Goals. Draft Watershed Survey and Planning, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Performance Measures, 4/19/04. Explanatory Notes Page 18g 38-39, 43-44, and 55-56.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Ambitious targets for annual performance measures were established for 2004 and performance results will be evaluated. A refined process is in place for 2005 as a result of IT enhancements to collect project information on a national web-based Program Operations Information Tracking System (POINTS).

Evidence: Watershed Program FY 2004 Performance Goals. Draft Watershed Survey and Planning, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Performance Measures, 4/19/04.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All watershed projects are initiated by local sponsors who request program assistance, and the local sponsors are actively engaged in delivering the projects. All watershed project authorizations require that partners sign a Project Agreement which includes their responsibility to acquire all land rights needed for project measures, provide local share of costs for project measures, and to operate and maintain installed project measures. Project sponsors that have made these preparations and are ready for implementation funds submit their funding requests on an annual basis. For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, watershed project sponsors, state dam safety agencies, and local communities are integrally involved. NRCS contractually requires project sponsors to acquire land rights, provide cost share, conduct permitting, acquire natural resource rights, and provide project administration. A Memorandum of Understanding is prepared for each funded project that identifies specific actions and responsibilities of the partners of the project. The statute requires the state dam safety agency to have input in the evaluation of the application.

Evidence: National Watershed Manual, Part 501, Subpart 501C, Sponsor Responsibilities. Public Law 83-566 Section 14 National Watershed Manual Subpart 508E - Rehabilitation

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: NRCS has not conducted evaluations of the Surveys & Planning and Watershed Protection & Flood Prevention Operations programs of sufficient independence, scope, and quality to assess the programs' effectiveness and need. However, NRCS does continually review individual projects through its National Watershed Management Center (WMC). These are quality reviews of engineering, economics, earth sciences, and adequacy to meet Federal regulations. Watershed Project Plans are authorized for federal funding based quality control reviews. In addition, 100 percent of all watershed rehabilitation plans are reviewed by WMC experts. Also, National Design and Soil Mechanics Center reviews all rehabilitation designs of high hazard dams. An NRCS Oversight and Evaluation team reviewed the Watershed Rehabilitation Program in FY 2003 to assess the delivery of the program. Data were collected from all states, selected national headquarter divisions, and regional offices. Projected workload was evaluated with the agency's capacity to deliver the program.

Evidence: Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Dated April 24, 2002. "Table 6 Comparison of NED Benefits and Costs", and "Instructions for Table 6, Comparison of NED Benefits and Costs". "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies" National Watershed Manual Subpart 508E 508.44(j) 2003 O&E Report of Review of Watershed Rehabilitation

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Watershed Surveys & Planning/ Watershed Operations/ Watershed Rehabilitation annual budget requests have been based on goaled performance deliverables (measures). The deliverables associated with budget requests from State Conservationists have included number engineering designs, number of measures to construct, number of land treatment contracts, and number of watershed inventories and plans. All funding priorities and allocations have been based on deliverables. The difference between prior years and the process implemented in during FY-2004 is the improved web based accountability tracking system. NRCS does plan in the future to show how the revised performance measures and goals relate with programs' budget requests. For example, with the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, when requests for funds are made by the State Conservationists, commitments are made for specific performance "deliverables" for each specific project.

Evidence: Budget and Performance Summary Sheets.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: An NRCS Oversight and Evaluation review of Watershed Operations determined that engineering measures that exceed specified design classification criteria would be reviewed and finalized by the national engineering design staff prior to construction contracting. An NRCS Oversight and Evaluation in FY-2003 did not identify any strategic planning deficiencies within the Watershed Rehabilitation Program in FY 2003. However, because NRCS has not evaluated the performance of the Watershed Surveys and Planning component of its watershed programs, NRCS cannot take proactive steps to identify and address strategic planning deficiencies. Therefore, this question must receive a 'no.'

Evidence:  

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The watershed program has long been an NRCS leader in accountability. The agency collects outcome-based benefits for each watershed project to identify impacts of the projects since they were initially established. The watershed program database is updated annually to collect status of watershed projects; project funding requests and goaled performance measures; project performance; and environmental, social and economic benefits. The program database has been remodeled during the past year in order to collect better performance information. The database is also being converted to a web based data management system; portions of the data management system will go on line in May 2004.

Evidence: Correspondence dated April 15, 2004, "SUBJECT: MGT- Watershed Program POINTS". Watershed program "Benefits" summary. Summary of FY 2003 watershed rehabilitation benefits. Correspondence dated April 15, 2004 concerning update on the status of the revision of water resources databases.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: NRCS State Conservationists, as the responsible federal allowance holder, are responsible and accountable for overall program implementation and results, including identifying, monitoring and analyzing performance indicators and financial integrity. State Conservationists are responsible for ensuring program partners fulfill the terms of applicable agreements. The Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability provides national oversight. Implementation of project measures are completed within schedules established by the NRCS and its project sponsors. The implementation schedules and costs are established in accordance with federal contracting procedures.

Evidence: NRCS contracting regulations and procedures.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The agency has adequate internal controls in place to assure funds have been spent on intended purposes. The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act established a statutory requirement for agency heads to assess, on an annual basis, whether their financial management systems comply with Federal financial management system requirements and applicable Federal accounting standards. The agency Financial Management Director certified that the NRCS financial management system is in compliance. Appropriations legislation provides that the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations funding will remain available until expended. However, the agency manages the watershed programs to obligate a very high percentage of its funds in the year appropriated. For example, to date approximately $70 million has been appropriated for Watershed Rehabilitation. NRCS commenced development and implementation of rehabilitation plans in FY 2002. At the end of FY 2002, 100% of the total program funds had been obligated. In FY 2003, less than 2.3% of the funds remained unobligated at the end of the fiscal year.

Evidence: Summary Financial Report End of year obligation summaries for FY 2002 and 2003

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: NRCS implemented the Program Operations Information Tracking System (POINTS) in Watershed Surveys & Planning/Watershed Operations/Watershed Rehabilitation during FY-2004. POINTS improved staffing efficiencies by reducing the staffing costs to enter, collect, and process program operations and accountability information. POINTS is web-based, which has enabled state and national staff to evaluate budget and performance data on a real-time basis, and take appropriate program management actions. POINTS is also designed to provide national and state program managers with up-to-date information about project purposes, project funding needs, project short and long term goals, and progress completed to date. NRCS is currently completing several studies on out-sourcing of technical/engineering services/positions to determine the most cost-effective methods for specific components of program delivery. NRCS established the National Design, Construction, and Soil Mechanics Center which provides an interdisciplinary technical support for design, construction, operation, and rehabilitation of projects.

Evidence: Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (See Tab 1.4 in Part Notebook). National Watershed Manual, Part 504, 504.38(g)- Rational for plan selection.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NRCS watershed project planning requires coordination with other agencies that provide related services. Most watershed plans include multiple agency support to develop project plan alternative solutions, to review and comment on plans in development, or to implement measures. NRCS has long standing MOU's with other agencies regarding collaboration and program implementation. In addition, NRCS is leading a collaborative effort with Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and state dam safety officials to develop improved guidance for project sponsors to prepare Emergency Action Plans for all high hazard dams for use by first responders in the event of a dam failure. As mentioned in response to question 1.3, Watershed Rehabilitation is the only Federal authorization for rehabilitation for federal assistance of non federal dams. As required by statute, coordination with state dam safety agencies and project sponsors is involved with each potential project. State dam safety agency recommendations are strongly considered in all requests for funding.

Evidence: National Watershed manual, Part 501, Subpart 501B, Agency Responsibilities. National level MOU's for watershed program implementation. Public Law 83-566 Section 14 National Watershed Manual subpart E National Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 (PL 104-303)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The agency has internal controls in place to assure funds have been spent on intended purposes. The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act established a statutory requirement for agency heads to assess, on an annual basis, whether their financial management systems comply with Federal financial management system requirements and applicable Federal accounting standards. The agency Financial Management Director certified that the NRCS financial management system is in compliance.

Evidence: End of year obligation summaries for FY 2002 and 2003.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The agency has devoted significant time during the past year to upgrade the watershed program databases in order to track performance, and to identify meaningful long-term and short-term performance measures. The Watershed Program is the first NRCS program to convert all program database information to a web based data collection and reporting system. In 2003, the agency upgraded its policy regarding operation and maintenance of watershed project measures and structural measures installed in all NRCS programs. This effort resulted in a complete revision and publication of the agency National Operation and Maintenance Manual.

Evidence: Correspondence dated April 15, 2004, "SUBJECT: PDM- Update on the Status of the Revision of Water Resources Databases" (See Evidence / Data 3.1). National Operation and Maintenance Manual.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: NRCS has developed good long-term, outcome-based performance measures for the three watershed programs. The measures included in the FY 2006 PART analysis are new for the programs. The programs will not be able to receive full credit for this question until performance data show the programs are on their way towards achieving their long-term goals.

Evidence: "Initial Performance Plan for FY 2003 and Revised Plan for FT 2002" "PRMS Reports" Watershed Survey and Planning, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, Performance measures (Draft), 4-19-04. FY 2000 thru FY 2003 reports of watershed program cummulative program benefits.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: NRCS has developed good short-term performance measures for the three watershed programs. The measures included in the FY 2006 PART analysis are new for the programs and baselines for the new measures begin in 2004. NRCS plans to evaluate the new performance goals beginning in FY 2005. The programs do have performance data from previous years that demonstrate how the programs have made progress in achieving their purposes; accordingly, the programs may receive partial credit for this question.

Evidence: Performance Goals- Draft, prior to FY 2004 appropriation. Watershed Survey and Planning, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, Performance measures (Draft), 4-19-04.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: NRCS has developed efficiency performance measures for the three watershed programs. The measures included in the FY 2006 PART analysis are new for the programs, however, and baselines for the new measures begin in 2004. NRCS plans to evaluate the new efficiency performance goals beginning in FY 2005.

Evidence: Watershed Survey and Planning, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, Performance measures (Draft), 4-19-04.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No overall analysis has been conducted of how the watershed programs (planning, project delivery, and dam rehabilitation) compare with other similar programs. Therefore, it is currently unknown how effective the programs are when compared to other federal, state, and local assistance programs. OMB did perform a narrow analysis on the relative cost effectiveness of NRCS flood damage reduction projects compared to projects delivered by the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The OMB review found that NRCS's typical flood damage reduction project provided about 50 percent less and about 70 percent less net benefits than a typical FEMA project or Corps project, respectively. This review only examined relative flood damage reduction, however, and many of NRCS's projects address a broader array of resource issues (such as water quality and supply, and rehabilitation). NRCS notes that its rehabilitation program is the only federal assistance for non-federal dams. It is designed to complement, not compete with, state and local government entities.

Evidence: National Watershed Manual Part 500, Subpart 500B, 500.10- Eligible Purposes.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: NRCS rigorously reviews all projects individually for effectiveness and quality of work to assure all planning and design work. For example, all watershed rehabilitation plans are reviewed by technical experts on the NRCS National Water Management Staff. All rehabilitation designs of high hazard dams are have independent reviews completed by professional registered engineers or engineering experts on the NRCS National Design and Soil Mechanics Center. This intensive review of projects and the program helps to assure that NRCS is delivering projects that provide public benefits and achieve results for local communities.

Evidence: Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Dated April 24, 2002.