1 / 14

Results from CWA Section 106 PART Review

Results from CWA Section 106 PART Review. January 24, 2006. Background and Context. 2 PART Reviews : 106 State Water Quality Grants Program ~220 mil in state grants per year -- Surface Water Protection- EPA HQ and Regions 191.9 mil ~1,103 FTE

amethyst-webster
Download Presentation

Results from CWA Section 106 PART Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Results from CWA Section 106 PART Review January 24, 2006

  2. Background and Context • 2 PART Reviews : • 106 State Water Quality Grants Program ~220 mil in state grants per year -- Surface Water Protection- EPA HQ and Regions 191.9 mil ~1,103 FTE -- Results to be used for FY 2007 Budget Process -- Desire to embrace process as a way to strengthen both programs

  3. 106 PART Process: Principles • Education and Outreach – OMB, States, Regions • Collaboration - EPA HQ’s Offices, Regions and the States • Further ongoing program integration work - permitting, monitoring, standards, enforcement • Employ PART to identify strengths and weaknesses in the program

  4. State/EPA Collaboration • ECOS and ASIWPCA facilitated a series of meetings with the States in DC; • State Representatives met with OMB Examiner • Stakeholders engaged with drafts of responses for Sections 1 – 3 • Identification and collection of Evidence specific information regarding expenditures, work plans, mid year reports, etc… • Unfortunately the states were mostly in a responder role, EPA needed things from them….

  5. State/EPA Collaboration • ……and states scrambled to respond • Hard to collect data after the fact • Beneficial for states to provide information on how dollars are actually spent • States had concerns about how well the logic model fit the program

  6. What EPA Learned from State/EPA Collaboration Process • Passing the PART requires evidence that must be generated directly from the States • OMB: No distinction between Federal funds and State funds • EPA needs better information about what the states spend on different water quality protection programs; monitoring, standards, permitting, enforcement

  7. What States Learned from State/EPA Collaboration Process • Most of the States know little about PART and its impact • Most of the States see PART as a Federal Government issue and not a State issue • States need to know in advance what financial information to collect so we can track information in ways useful to EPA and the states • State performance measures should be linked to EPA Strategic Plan measures – and incorporated into PPA/PPG agreements

  8. Results We Expect for 106 PART • Program Purpose and Design (20% weight) • 106 Strengths: Good clarity of purpose, no duplication • 106 Weakness: Outstanding Concern revolves around sustainability of program funding

  9. Results We Expect • Strategic Planning – (10% weight) • 106 Strengths: Have ambitious long-term and short-term performance measures. • 106 Weaknesses: Need to demonstrate the linkage of State work plans to EPA’s Strategic Plan and the ability to show how funding specifically impacts performance. Need to work with states on how we can strengthen the linkages without undue reporting burdens. (PPGs can help)

  10. Results We Expect • Program Management – (20% weight) • 106 Strengths: Can demonstrate accountability for performance, funds utilization, efficiencies, collaboration, financial management and oversight. • 106 Weakness: More discussion is needed on need for statistically valid national water quality data. The monitoring issue is a thread that runs through the OMB feedback.

  11. What Results Do We Expect • Program Results – (50% weight) • 106 Strengths: Good Program Activity Measures (PAMs) have been negotiated with the Regions and States. Scores will be finalized based on FY 2005 EOY data. We had 7 measures accepted by OMB; 5 annual measures, 1 long term measure, 1 efficiency measure • Weaknesses: Inability to provide specific dollar figures on how much the states spend on 106 type activities. (Only have numbers on Federal dollars and state maintenance of effort amounts.)

  12. How do we work together in the future to get that information? • Advance planning for better data collection on program effectiveness • Mutually agreeable performance measures negotiated through PPA/PPGs

  13. How Are the States Impacted by the Results? • Movement towards more national consistency in state 106 work plans while allowing some flexibility in state specific approaches • Need to ensure that states are doing probabilistic monitoring and that funds are being targeted for that purpose • Desire for financial incentives offered to state program that implement an NPDES permit fee structure • Increasing need for more correlation between funds and activities • More transparency to the public on state grantee environmental results

  14. Summary • 106 PART Likely to reflect themes we are seeing across government (measuring results for investments, transparency, sustainability of funding, etc.) • We are all in this together !!!! • Collaboration, education, and engagement must continue……….. Questions?

More Related