Detailed Information on the
Department of the Interior - Central Utah Project Assessment

Program Code 10003700
Program Title Department of the Interior - Central Utah Project
Department Name Department of the Interior
Agency/Bureau Name Department of the Interior
Program Type(s) Capital Assets and Service Acquisition Program
Assessment Year 2005
Assessment Rating Adequate
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 80%
Strategic Planning 78%
Program Management 88%
Program Results/Accountability 56%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $34
FY2008 $43
FY2009 $42

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Developing future program evaluations to meet criteria for quality, scope, independence, and regularity.

Action taken, but not completed Currently seeking proposals from outside entities regarding potential program evaluation.

Develop a plan to improve communication between the Commission and leadership/oversight entities.

Action taken, but not completed Representatives from the Commission, District, and Department will meet annually with OMB to review program performance and accountability.

Develop a plan to increase the publics awareness of CUPCA activities and program transparency.

Action taken, but not completed CUPCA office will develop and maintain a website to provide information to the public.

Develop an improvement plan to ensure CUPCA activities are implemented in accordance with CUPCA, NEPA, and program agreements.

Action taken, but not completed Improve reporting and accountability of CUPCA construction through a formal process to receive performance reports separate from CUWCD construction oversight reporting.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Transferring WAPA funds to the Mitigation Commission in a timely fashion, early in the fiscal year.

Completed An amendment to CUPCA (P.L. 108-137) limited the requirement for Western??s contribution to 10 years. Based on the amendment and the PART evaluation in 2005, the Department, OMB, and Western, met to discuss the process of Title IV contributions. Since 2006 the Title IV contributions have been transferred to the Commission in a timelier manner.

Obligating Mitigation Commission funds in a timely manner, and improving communication between the Mitigation Commission and its Washington leadership and oversight entities.

Completed On 4/5/2006, the Commission and DOI executed a MOA which updated the working relationship between DOI and Commission. In 01/2006, the Commission began submitting monthly and quarterly reports with financial and performance information. In 2005 the Commission began meeting with project partners to emphasize performance and accountability. Based on a 9/6/2006 Commission request the DOI moved program funds to areas of higher performance. CUPCA Title II funds are now only directed to CUWCD.

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Annual Outcome

Measure: Amount of water made available to the various project purposes measured annually in acre-feet of total water supply.

Explanation:This measure represents the full capacity for what we can deliver as a result of implementation of the Bonneville Unit. Water will be delivered for municipal and industrial, irrigation, and fish and wildlife purposes consistent with applicable State and Federal law, in an environmentally responsible and cost efficient manner. Data is presented in terms of acre-feet of total water supply made available.

Year Target Actual
2002 138,362 159,491
2003 157,793 174,805
2004 220,060 241,218
2005 236,518 252,250
2006 246,787 261,642
2007 248,200 254,333
2008 249,122 255,539
2009 259,847
2021 323,116
Long-term/Annual Output

Measure: Amount of conveyance system constructed for the purpose of conveying water for project purposes. Measured in cubic feet per second-miles (cfs-miles).

Explanation:This measure relates to a significant element of the CUPCA program. Actual vs. forecasted will be reported. The measure integrates both the length of the conveyance systems (miles) with the capacity (cubic feet per second) that is provided as a result of project construction.

Year Target Actual
2002 Baseline 13,039
2003 Baseline 13,039
2004 Baseline 20,530
2005 20,828 cfs-miles 20,828
2006 20,828 21,058
2007 20,828 21,697
2008 20,828 22,692
2009 23,331
2021 28,703
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Value of water conserved measured in terms of cost per acre-foot.

Explanation:Water conservation is a CUPCA mandate with significant penalties for non-compliance. This measure provides the value of water conserved through projects funded with federal and local contributions. The measure is presented as the cost to implement water conservation projects compared to the amount of water received in cost per acre-foot.

Year Target Actual
2001 $1,707 $1,275
2002 $1,412 $1,004
2003 $1,377 $1,080
2004 $1,237 $938
2005 $1,113 $922
2006 $1,065 $931
2007 $1,026 $1,039
2008 $1,026 $1,033
2009 $1,026
2021 $966
Annual Output

Measure: Volume of water made available each year specifically for instream flows for fisheries measured in terms of acre-feet.

Explanation:Water made available for instream flows will be provided in quantities and timing to enhance and support riparian ecosystems and aquatic resources, including fisheries, as determined by law, agreement, or interagency biology teams.

Year Target Actual
2001 320,958 280,108
2002 326,073 320,638
2003 316,773 316,875
2004 330,317 338,126
2005 324,278 338,501
2006 324,278 349,911
2007 324,279 324,278
2008 324,278 324,278
2009 324,278
2021 351,315
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Amount of land set aside for wetland and wildlife purposes measured in acres.

Explanation:Land acquired for wetlands and wildlife preserved, enhanced, or restored as habitat. Accomplishments are based on the number of acres acquired, preserved, or restored each year.

Year Target Actual
2002 Baseline 13,196
2003 Baseline 13,645
2004 Baseline 14,193
2005 14,586 14,825
2006 18,355 17,929
2007 18,525 18,539
2008 18,845 18,859
2009 18,924
2021 24,497

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) is to develop water for municipal and industrial, agricultural, and fish and wildlife purposes, and to mitigate for certain impacts of the Colorado River Storage Project, primarily those impacts within Utah, but extending to other states as well. The Secretary accomplishes this by having the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (District) plan and construct water storage and conveyance facilities and the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission) plan and implement fish, wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation activities. Interior's Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) office provides oversight and liaison with the District and Mitigation Commission and carries out the responsibiities of the Secretary.

Evidence: CUPCA and its amendments are very clear in describing the purpose of the Central Utah Project, the roles of the partners (joint-leads), and even in specifying the amounts of funds to be expended for the various Titles, projects, and measures. Additionally, the budget justification documents completed each year describe specifically what work is to be completed on the various projects and what funds are to be expended.

YES 20%

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

Explanation: The program addresses the need for a reliable water supply along the Wasatch Front in Central Utah to support existing economies, provide water for municipal and industrial use, conserve existing water supplies, sustain existing agriculture, enhance the environment, mitigate project impacts (including impacts of the Colorado River Storage Project, which included the Central Utah Project when originally authorized) and provide other project benefits as authorized in CUPCA.

Evidence: The need for reliable water supplies is documented in Volume 2, Water Supply Appendix to the 2004 Final Definite Plan Report (DPR) which is based upon 2001 population projections furnished by Utah Governor's Office on Planning and Budget, that were in turn based upon the 2000 Federal census data. It is also shown by existing repayment contracts, petitions, subscription agreements, water conservation contracts, and numerous environmental agreements for project water.

YES 20%

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 work with local project sponsors to develop the water resources of the area. While other state and local entities are involved with this effort, it is by design, therefore the work is not duplicative. Congress specifically authorized CUPCA as a Federal water project to provide the State of Utah with the means to divert its entitlement from the Colorado River and provide a substantial portion of a needed, reliable water supply to the Wasatch Front for the next 50 years. There is no other program or project envisioned by Federal, state, local, or private interests that is being planned or implemented that does this.

Evidence: CUPCA and its amendments give specific authority for completion of the project, including construction of project facilities and environmental enhancement. The 1993 compliance and cost sharing agreements demonstrate the support and participation of the State of Utah and other private entities.

YES 20%

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

Explanation: While in many respects the program is well-designed, it has several long-standing problems related to structual flaws. On the plus side, the CUPCA program is efficient and produces considerable results by leveraging Federal appropriations with at least a 35 percent local cost share. Program implementation includes effective business practices, promotes resource leveraging, avoids duplication, and evaluates costs and benefits. Strong collaborative relationships with water organizations, contractors, and agencies have been and continue to be developed. However, structural flaws are indicated by the lack of accountability for the Mitigation Commission, which consists of Presidential appointees who in practice are not accountable to anyone in either the Department of the Interior, the Congress, nor the White House (although the Commission overall is accountable through the budget development process). Also, problems with carryover balances in the Mitigation Commission suggest structual flaws. Long-standing difficulties with getting the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) to transfer appropriated funds to CUPCA suggest another flaw. Also, the arrangement of having such a relatively small program as CUPCA under the direct oversight of the Secretary of the Interior raises questions about the optimal program oversight arrangement. Interior has initiated a process to address the Mitigation Commission's challenges with obligating funds.

Evidence: Cost-sharing agreements show the efficiency of leveraging Federal dollars by requiring local cost share. Contracts under the Drainage and Minor Construction (D&MC) program also reflect the cost effectiveness and efficiency of CUPCA. June sucker recovery implementation program is a specific example of showing the leveraging of Federal dollars by having several State and local entities support the project both financially and by time involvement. The recognitions and awards received by CUPCA, the District, and Mitigation Commission show the acknowledgement of others outside the project in recognizing the effectiveness of the program.

NO 0%

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: As mandated in CUPCA, Federal funds earmarked for the District and Mitigation Commission are immediately transferred upon receipt from the U.S. Treasury to be immediatley used for project development . The program is designed so that developed resources reach the public through partnerships with public agencies. All elements of the program have been and continue to be developed with public input and direction. However, problems with outlaying Mitigation Commission funds have delayed getting funds to beneficiaries; there are similar problems with getting WAPA to transfer appropriated funds to the Commission.

Evidence: The CUPCA authorizing legislation (Sec. 201(d)), requires funds to be immediately dispersed to the District and Mitigation Commission. Examples of resources reaching beneficiaries include public scoping documents, newspaper announcements, Federal Register Notices, contract negotiations, block notices, newspaper articles.

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 80%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score

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: The program has six long-term goals and measures: 1) quantity of water made available to the various project purposes; 2) amount of conveyance systems constructed to convey water for project purposes; 3) quantity of water made available annually for instream flows; 4) quantity of land set aside for wetland and wildlife purposes; and 5) value of water conserved measured in terms of cost per acre-feet. Although some of these are outputs, in general they focus on the two general outcomes of the program: provide water to an array of water users, and mitigate for project impacts from the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), of which CUP was a part when originallly authorized. The program contributes to safe, affordable, sustainable, and ample water supplies by developing and implementing construction and water conservation projects. In addition to water development, the program also provides opportunites to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources and improve or provide new recreation opprtunities.

Evidence: Block notices and repayment contracts and petitions show that water is to be made available by a specific time at a specific cost. Evidence shows that projects are planned on a long-term basis and that funds are used efficiently and effectively to meet the goals. The 3-year 207 report shows that programs are planned for not only the 3-year span but to accomplish the overall requirements of the project, which are very long-term. The 5-year Commission reports show that the Mitigation Commission uses long-term goals to track satisfaction of its program requirements. The plan for recovery of the endangered June sucker shows that CUPCA and its partners have long-range plans to meet specific needs.

YES 11%

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

Explanation: The long-term targets for the program's measures are ambitious, and have recently been revised to more accurately reflect likely progress in project construction. Agreements developed under the program with public agencies require water to be developed and available on a specific and ambitious timeframe to meet projected population growth and water demand needs. Construction of project facilities has met the required timeframe and is scheduled to meet the specific dates as required in existing agreements. Mitigation and enhancement of the environment continues concurrent with water development.

Evidence: See performance measures.

YES 11%

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: Annual measures are coupled with long-term measures, so that progress can readily be tracked toward meeting long-term goals.

Evidence: Annual reports submitted by the District and the Mitigation Commission reflect the annual accomplishment of goals and the long-term requirements to meet program goals. Quarterly reports and executive summaries submitted by the District and the Mitigation Commission are monitored very closely by management to determine that annual goals are being met and that funds are being spent for what they were designated and in a cost-effective manner. Other reports such as monthly water supply reports, construction progress reports, and reports from 207 and 206 reflect the annual accomplishment of program goals and that the program is on track to accomplish long-term goals. Public meeting notices keep the public informed and involved in the accomplishment of annual goals and long-term goals.

YES 11%

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

Explanation: Baselines and ambitious targets are in place for all of the performance measures.

Evidence: Baseline data is available for the measures; even though some are new measures, the data to populate them retroactively is available. Targets are reasonably ambitious, and are developed based on meeting the program's long-term goals.

YES 11%

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: CUPCA envisioned a partnership arrangement among Interior, the District, and the Mitigation Commission to successfully implement the program. This arrangement requires all three agencies to work tegether to accomplish the goals of the program. Since the inception of CUPCA, the three joint-lead agencies have worked closely together and meet often to discuss goals and program accomplishment. Partners are informed that collaborative efforts contribute toward Interior's mission and water supply goals and that success and continued funding depends upon results toward these goals. Prior to the expenditure of Federal funds all partners are required to enter into agreements that spell out the terms of accomplishment toward project completion. These agreements require sucessful completion of the project and annual reporting of project status. Recipients of Federal funds must provide the local cost share and demonstrate progress toward completion of the program. Failure of the non-federal entites to perform in conformance with the contracts jeopardizes continued and future funding.

Evidence: Authorization language describes the requirements for involvement by the joint-leads and their responsibility to recruit other entities to share in both project costs and project planning. These cost share requirements are included throughout the Act. The Senate report, prepared in conjunction with CUPCA, includes specific language indicating the Congress' intent for the CUPCA Office and its joint leads to be actively involved in meeting project goals and recuiting entities to accomplish the program goals. The agreements, signature pages, 207 and 206 partnerships, and other contracts show the willingness of the joint leads and others to advance the goals of the project. The District quarterly reports show its willingness to advance local funds in excess of requirements under the cost-sharing agreements, which has allowed acceleration towards completion of the project facilities. The District has been willing to advance funds, understanding that reimbursment would depend on appropriations .

YES 11%

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: The program has had various evaluations, such as periodic audits, outside reviews of proposed construction, and occasional programmatic reviews such as the Bonneville Unit Definite Plan Report. While some of them individually meet some of the criteria necessary for a 'yes', none of them meets all four criteria of quality, scope, independence, and frequency necessary to receive a 'yes'. For instance, periodic audits meet the criteria for frequency, quality, and independence, but not of scope. Engineering evaluations are not conducted on a periodic basis and are limited in scope, although they probably meet the requirements for independence. The Bonneville Unt Definite Plan report may be of sufficient scope, but is not a periodic assessment, nor does it meet the standard for independence, for the Bureau of Reclamation shares a history with the Central Utah Project, competes for approriations within the Department of the Interior, and is overseen by the same office (the Asisstant Secretary for Water and Science). Additionally, the recent establishment of the Bonneville Unit Pilot Management Program further undermines the independence of the Bureau of Reclamation with respect to evaluating the Central Utah Project, for it has implemented arrangements that strengthen the relationship between Reclamation and CUPCA. While this is not a bad thing, it undermines Reclamation's independence in evaluating CUPCA's program.

Evidence: The Bonneville Unit Definite Plan Report was recently completed, the scope of which covers the entire CUPCA program. An indepentent review of the DPR was conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation which determined the program is effective, progressing successfully toward completion, and achieving results. The Water Management Improvement Program, section 207 of CUPCA, is reviewed and prioritized by an independent committee that evaluates the scope, effectivness, and relevance of water conservation measures. The program leadership team meets quarterly to provide strategic guidance, program evaluation, review and prioritization of needs; assesses progress; and reviews and addresses problems/issues. Prior to initiating any new major project, an independent value engineering assessment is completed to ensure the highest quality possible at the least cost. Regular periodic reviews, briefings, transfer and construction inspections, and field trips are conducted to address issues, keep the various parties informed, provide feedback, and ensure program accomplishment. Regular independent audits are conducted to ensure that the program goals and objectives are accomplished. Examples of audits are Departmental audits, internal audits, and audits under the Single Audit Act 1994. Departmental audits are conducted by KPMG, who monitor expenditures and work accomplishment for cost-effectiveness and progress toward departmental goals. Audits of the District quarterly report are conducted independently by the Bureau of Reclamation and verified as to correctness under the Single Audit Act of 1994. Audits of grants and field inspections are conducted on all projects. The audits review project effectiveness and compliance with CUPCA. Monthly construction reports, executive summaries, and quarterly reports provide management evaluations of the effectiveness and relevance of programs. Itineraries of field inspections, transfer inspection reports, and value engineering reports show independent and management confirmation that programs are meeting goals.

NO 0%

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: Although there is some attempt at linking budget requests to achieving project and program goals, the linkage is not sufficiently transparent to merit a 'yes'. In particular, this transparency is lacking in budget requests sent to OMB and Congress. Accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals is documented in the various reports Interior receives from the District and Mitigation Commission. Annual reviews of these multi-year projects ensures continued relevance and progress. Annual GPRA outcome goals are also reported in the budget request. In general, the level of transparency is worse for the Mitigation Commission than it is the CUP office.

Evidence: Budget requests are tied to the annual and long-term performance goals, but transparency is insufficient to allow an assessment of the marginal benefit from changes in funding. Evidence inlcudes materials such as the pink book, the Commission request to Interior, annual reports, the 5 year plan, 207 reports, quarterly reports, and construction reports.

NO 0%

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

Explanation: There is minimal evidence regarding strategic planning deficiencies to indicate whether the program is taking necessary steps. However, it has developed a strong set of performance measures. The CUPCA program, established in 1992, had been sucessfully progressing toward completion. However, prior to the year 2000 the partners identified areas in the program where improvement and changes were needed. In 2002 the local sponsors introduced legislation that amended CUPCA which included the establishment of the Bonneville Unit Pilot Program to facilitate communication and provide the means to quickly address problems and issues. A Leadership Team was established under the Pilot Program. This team meets quarterly and has been able to identify potential conflicts and avoid costly errors and program delays. In addition to the Pilot Program, the recent update of Interior's strategic plan resulted in revisions to CUPCA's GPRA goals to support the objectives of the strategic plan.

Evidence: Public Law 107-366, amendment to CUPCA, established the Bonneville Unit Pilot Program, to address weaknesses in the CUPCA program that had been identified by CUPCA and the CUPCA partners. The Pilot Program workshop shows how the partners worked to get information and buyin from each other. The Assistant Secretary - Water & Science's letter of October 26, 2004, reaffirmed Interior's support of the Pilot Program and directed Reclamation and the CUPCA Office to coordinate and assist each other. Also included in this tab are sample leadership team meeting minutes and agendas. Additionally, the CUPCA strategic goals have been formulated to help lead the program in its proper direction and to identify and correct any strategic planning deficiencies before they become problems.

YES 11%

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: Each major construction project must undergo a Value Engineering (VE) analysis prior to implementation. The results of these assessments guide recommendations for future actions on proposed construction projects. The ULS FEIS included an analysis of alternatives that included trade-offs between environmental impacts, costs, schedules, and performance goals, and Interior utilized these results in preparing its Record of Decision.

Evidence: Value Engineering Studies were completed on all major construction projects, including Diamond Fork Pipeline and the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project. A VE study was recently completed on the enlarged Big Sand Wash Dam before construction began. Additionally, the ULS FEIS included an analysis of alternatives and also included costs for the different alternatives so that a meaningful evaluation and comparison could be made of the alternatives.

YES 11%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 78%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score

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: Timely and credible performance data is collected through monthly, quarterly, and annual reports from program partners. These progress reports are reviewed by program management to ensure credibility, accuracy, and performance. The progress reports and performance data help identify best practices, provide insights on problems, and help identify corrective actions to take. The project leadership team provides a quarterly evaluation and input for project improvements. The CUPCA office, together with various auditors, reviews payments and expenditures by the partners to ensure actual accomplishment of deliverables.

Evidence: Monthly, quarterly, and annual reports prepared by the partners are monitored very closely by project management. These reports provide timely information on performance and point out any problems or potential problems and corrective actions to be taken. Review of these reports results in corrections on the quarterly report from the District in how they expend money, or management changes, as evidenced with the Diamond Fork Pipeline.

YES 12%

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: Through the cost-sharing agreements, performance expectations and requirements are established for project sponsors. In construction contracts there are provisions for damages when construction contractors miss scheduled deadlines. In addition, as an incentive to the contractor and as a measure of security to Interior, a portion of the contractors' earnings are withheld until completion of the contract. Under construction contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants, work is performed on a reimbursable basis and vouchers receipts and documentation of work performed must be provided prior to payments being made. Also, work schedules and performance results are verified on a regular basis through field inspections of the project. CUPCA Management is held responsible for cost, schedule, and performance results by the Department of the Interior, by signed contracts, and by Employee Performance Appraisal Plans.

Evidence: Contracts for cost-sharing agreements specifically spell out performance expections and requirements for project sponsors and other entities. Examples indicate specific performance requirements and show that funds will only be accessed by the entities as work has been completed and found to be acceptable. The construction contract shows penalities for missing deadlines and indicates that a percentage of the funds will be withheld until the project is completed. Through the Program Director's Employee Performance Appraisal Plan, CUPCA management is held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. Field review notes on Section 206 projects completed in 2004 reflect how closely the CUPCA office works with with project sponsors in ensuring projects are completed according to the performance requirements in the contracts and in a cost-effective manner.

YES 12%

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

Explanation: Generally CUPCA appropriations are obligated in a timely manner. However, the Mitigation Commission has shown significant carryover balances for several years, reflecting problems the Commission has had with obligating funds. Additionally, funds appropriated by the Western Area Power Administration for the Mitigation Commission have historically been transferred too late in the year for the funds to be obligated in a timely manner. Monthly and quarterly financial reports document actual expenditures and obligations and indicate the funds are obligated and expended for their intended purposes. Some program expenditures and obligations may change during the fiscal year, and Interior has guidelines the CUPCA office follows in approving reprogramming requests. Some may require congressional notification.

Evidence: Monthly and quarterly financial reports and executive summaries are prepared by the project joint-leads and submitted to CUPCA for review. Reprogramming requests from the project sponsors and Mitigation Commission also demonstrate the effort to more effectively and efficiently use funds in a given year to accomplish program goals and our approval of those requests. Treasury and OMB budget documents (SF-132, MAX database, President's FY 2006 Budget Appendix) indicate significant carryover balances for the Mitigation Commission.

NO 0%

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: The program has many procedures in place regarding efficiency, including an efficiency measure with baselines and targets. Recent IT improvements have been implemented with further changes and improvements under consideration to streamline efforts. Automated web-based posting of information provides real-time operational information to the public and specific information such as land acquisition to the project partners. Competitive bidding processes require consideration of project costs and alternatives. Peer reviews, value engineering, and A&E professional services also help ensure effciencies and cost effectiveness. Performance ratings for key CUPCA office staff reflect requirements to meet GPRA goals for the program.

Evidence: Websites for the District and the Mitigation Commission provide information for both the public and specific information, such as land acquisition and streamflows, that is required for CUPCA management and others to monitor the program. The District also provides the CUPCA Office with a monthly executive summary by email to reduce paperwork information in a timely manner. Many program features are made available by competitive bidding. The Revised Supplement to the Bonneville Unit Definite Plan Report was reviewed and analyzed by experts in the Bureau of Reclamation's Denver Office. This resulted in a much better and more accurate product.

YES 12%

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The CUPCA office collaborates and coordinates with the project participants, stakeholders, cost-sharing partners, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Reclamation. Meaningful and relevant coordination and collaboration is a fundamental part of the program with numerous mechanisms in place to encourage and accomplish effective collaboration. Examples of this are cooperative agreements with the resource agencies, coordination and consultation through the NEPA process, and the recently established leadership team. Exceptions to this strong track record of coordination include the relationship with the Western Area Power Administration, which delays transferring certain appropriated dollars to the Mitigation Commission, and the Mitigation Commission itself, which while it works closely with CUPCA has unclear lines of communication and accountability.

Evidence: The CUPCA Act envisioned that much of the work accomplished on CUPCA would be completed by working and cooperating with other agencies. The sample agreements with BIA, BLM, FWS, and Reclamation, show how all the partners complete this work cooperatively. Examples of cost-sharing agreements show the buy-in that project joint-leads and other entities have in accomplishing the program goals. The Bonneville Unit pilot program also stresses and provides for meaningful collaboration and cooperation with joint leads in accomplishing program goals. The Uinta Basin Replacement Projects EIS and the Utah Lake System EIS demonstrate the cooperation and collaboration that program management and its partners, along with State and local entities, has exhibited in completing the documents prior to construction.

YES 12%

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Federal Finance Accounting System is used to track obligations and expenditures against each project on a monthly basis and more frequently when necessary. Tracking includes auditing categories of expenditures to ensure consistency with project intent. Every contract and agreement has a financial plan supervised by a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR), who certifies that the information is accurate and timely. In addition, all financial transactions are reviewed by appropriate Federal, state, and independent auditors.

Evidence: Approval letters and other correspondence demonstrate that quarterly reports and annual reports are completed as required to verify that good financial practices are followed. These examples show that contracts are supervised by a COTR who monitors expenditures and accomplishments.

YES 12%

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

Explanation: Through working closely with local project participants in the water management community, the CUPCA program has identified management deficiencies and taken steps to address them. Prior to the year 2000 the partners identified areas in the program where improvement and changes were needed. In 2002 the local sponsors introduced legislation that amended CUPCA which included the establishment of the Bonneville Unit Pilot Program to facilitate communication and provide the means to quickly address problems and issues. A Leadership Team was established under the Pilot Program. This team meets quarterly and has been able to identify potential conflicts and avoid costly errors and program delays.

Evidence: The Bonnille Unit Pilot Program was undertaken to address management deficiencies perceived by project partners. Correspondence regarding complications regarding federal title to CUP-related features also shows how problems were identified and resolved.

YES 12%

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: CUPCA is very specific in identifiying Congressionally-authorized deliverables, projects, and measures for each section of the act. Title III alone has 43 separately authorized measures. The entire program is managed in a manner to ensure that these deliverables, projects, and measures, are implemented in a cost effective manner consistent with Interior's goals and objectives.

Evidence: Authorizing legislation shows very specifically the deliverables and projects to be completed. Performance measures have been formulated with those objectives in mind. The progress accomplishment (ceiling tables) along with the graphs of performance show how the program tracks funding and helps tie performance measures and GPRA goals to funding. Section 207 goals and graphs along with special studies that have been completed and Section 207 reports also show how program management is tied to deliverables. These special studies are deliverables that are required by the Act and the 207 reports are required under the Section 207 program.

YES 12%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 88%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score

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

Explanation: Relevant, long-term outcome goals and measures indicate progress. However, the program has recently re-evaluated the projected completion schedule, adn pushed it back by several years, to FY2021, from the previous end date of 2016. Meaningful baseline and performance measure tracking are in-place. The Utah Lake System Record of Decision and related contracts and agreements are now in place which obligates the program to provide water to different project purposes.

Evidence: Repayment contracts, petitions, and construction projects clearly lay out the goals for the program. These goals are reflected in performance measures. Mitigation Commission yearly and 5-year reports also reflect the long-term goals that are in place. Performance measures and data indicate that the program does a good job of tracking progress towards achieving its targets.


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

Explanation: Annual outcome goals and measures are in most instances annual measurements of the long-term measures, and the program generally achieves these. The first formal goal reporting year for many of these is FY2005, but some measures have been in place for some time and show progress. A discrepancy between progress on the long-term goals and progress on the annual targets can be explained by annual targets being tied more closely to appropriations levels. The Uinta Basin Replacement Project (UBRP) now under construction demonstrates successful performance. The construction contract requires and measures performance based on set schedules and costs. Information on the Provo River Restoration project indicates successful progress toward the annual goal of establishing and improving wildlife habitat.

Evidence: The UBRP contract and construction report shows that the program is tracking program accomplishments. Also, information on the Provo River Restoration Project, a program of the Mitigation Commission, clearly establishes that the Mitigation Commission is setting annual performance goals, meeting the goals, and tracking those goals. Reporting on performance measures shows progress toward meeting goals.


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

Explanation: The CUPCA program is efficient in the use of Federal funds through cost-share requirements on all District projects. Data on its efficiency measure for water conservation show that it exceeds its efficiency targets. Many Commission projects acquire matching financial contributions and cost sharing through in kind services. The CUPCA program continues to improve its effectiveness through development of partnerships. Acquisition of wetlands and wildlife areas through partnership arrangements with state and private organizations creates a larger and higher quality habitat making more efficient use of the Federal investment. A large portion of the CUPCA program deals with improving the efficiency of water conveyance and use as demonstrated in large projects such as WCWEP and small on farm assistance in the 207 and 206 programs. In addition to extending the available water supply for an ever increasing population, improved water efficiency contributes toward the recovery of endangered species, improved sport fisheries, and groundwater recharge. Water developed under CUPCA is made more efficient since it is used for multiple purposes, such as delivering water to customers at a time that also benefits wildlife.

Evidence: Mitigation Commission records and contracts show partnerships in accomplishing work not only through cost-sharing of funds but in-kind services. This is shown in such areas as wildlife habitat protection. District cost-share requirements show leveraging of Federal dollars by requiring cost sharing. As shown in the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project, this program not only leverages Federal dollars by cost-sharing but also extends the available water supply by improving water efficiency. Also, the June sucker program is protecting this endangered species by a shared plan among many entities who support the program financially and with participation in the program. By leveraging cost-shares, the program makes more efficient use of federal funds. The CUPCA program has also made available stream flows to help this endangered species during its spawning period by providing additional flows in the Provo River.


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

Explanation: The Cental Utah Project is similar to other water development projects undertaken by other federal, state, and local entities in other locations. However, individual projects have unique characteristics that preclude meaningful comparison with one another (although when projects are in their pre-construction phase this is not true, for they can be compared for their relative costs and benefits). In several ways, though, CUPCA compares favorably to other water development programs since a local cost share is required from project partners for project construction, and environmental mitigation and enhancment must be achieved concurrent with the project construction.

Evidence: Progress toward meeting its authorized project purposes, combined with its close cooperation with other entities and cost-share, make the case that CUPCA compares favorably with other water development projects. The progress on mitigation activities while construction on the project is ongoing also shows that the program compares favorably, since for some other water development projects such work is only done after construction is completed.

YES 17%

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

Explanation: Various evaluations indicate that the program is effective and achieving results. However, these evaluations do not meet the PART criteria for independence. Independent value engineering assessments for individual project components may meet the criteria for independence, but those are not program-wide evaluations. Similarly, regular independent audits are conducted to ensure that the program goals and objectives are accomplished, but those focus on financial management, not the overall program, therefore do not meet the standards for a "Yes". The scope of the recently-completed Bonneville Unit Definite Plan Report covers the entire CUPCA program, but it was not an independent evaluation, because it was undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation, which is also in the Depatment of the Interior and under the same Assistant Secretary.

Evidence: The Bonneville Unit Definite Plan Report, reviewed by the Bureau of Reclamation, shows the program is effective and achieving results. Periodic financial audits also show the program's financial management is effective. Value engineering assessments on individual projects help ensure program effectveness and a focus on achieving results.


Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Recently the CUPCA office re-evaluated and revised by five years the schedule for overall project completion, because overall budget constraints suggested the original schedule was unlikely to be met. Based on this slippage it is difficult to give the project an assessment higher than 'small extent'. The CUPCA program has planned and constructed many projects in the past decade, and completed many of these on schedule and within budget. Some projects have required additional funding beyond the budget due to external forces beyond CUP's control, such as the collapse of the Diamond Fork tunnel due to encountering large volumes of water and hydrogen sulphide gas during drilling. The Commission's work largely depends on project partners for the acquisition and development of lands. This dependence has, at times, resulted in delayed schedules resulting in funds being obligated but not expended on schedule.

Evidence: Examples of construction reports, repayment contracts, petitions, annual reports, etc. all indicate that the program has been constructed on schedule and usually within the originally set budget. When problems are encountered (such as at Diamond Fork) that are beyond the control of project management, these problems are quickly evaluated by project management and its partners and cost-effective and efficient solutions are found to problems. However, a recent re-evaluation of the project's long-term progress has resulted in a pushed-back construction schedule.

Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 56%

Last updated: 09062008.2005SPR