1 What Program Requirements Drive Data Needs James Hanlon, Director Office of Wastewater Management Office of Water US EPA Expanded Steering Committee Meeting February 13, 2006

2 Overview  Program Oversight National oversight of NPDES Program GPRA and PART accountability Permitting for Environmental Results (PER) Enforcement and Compliance (QNCR and ANCR)  Audit Reports IG Reports GAO Reports  Public and Other Access Public’s need for the data Congressional inquiries

3 Broad Program Oversight Oversight is necessary for:  Documenting and evaluating program performance  Providing national statistics  Determining priorities  Evaluating appropriateness of withdrawal petitions  Providing information to respond to law suits that challenge scope of specific areas in CWA  Determining need for guidance or policy  Determining needs or potential impacts of new rules

4 Three components  Program Integrity–Program Integrity Management System  Efficiency – Program streamlining  Results – Permit prioritization Permitting for Environmental Results (PER) Overview

5 PER: Efficiency Watershed-based permitting and water quality trading  Watershed-based permitting requires accurate locational information on major and minor dischargers in addition to limits and pollutant data to optimally target resources  Trading programs require similar data to access the feasibility of a trade and to define credits  Effectiveness of both programs depends on the quality of the data available

6 PER: Efficiency (continued) Electronic tools  Electronic tools are being developed for Permit writing DMR data collection Applications eNOI  These tools will increase efficiency of programs

7 PER Results: Permit Prioritization  GPRA Measure: 90% of all permits are current (including tribal)  New GPRA Measure: 95% of priority permits issued, as scheduled (including tribal) This measure was also submitted as a PART measure  EPA Regions and States have identified over 1,000 priority permits for FY 2007 and 2008 Requires tracking information to help identify priority permits

8 Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR) required by 40 CFR  The regulation requires State/EPA reporting of certain types of noncompliance of individual NPDES major permittees  The regulation identifies various types of “reportable” violations to be included on the QNCR, such as violations of: Permit effluent limitations Permit schedules Enforcement schedules Reporting requirements Pretreatment requirements Narrative permit requirements

9 Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR) for NPDES Non-Majors  CWA 123.4(c) requires EPA to collect from the States annual statistical data providing basic non-compliance rates and enforcement response for NPDES non- majors  This is the only available snapshot of NPDES non-majors non-compliance rates and enforcement response  Main finding: State agencies that use paper copy filing rather than electronic tracking are less able to quickly identify where non- compliance occurs

10 State Review Framework Process  Normalizes evaluation of enforcement and compliance performance across states  Evaluations are done independently by Region  Standard protocol that uses: National Data Metrics File review/audit procedures  Project merges use of data with review of selected files to evaluate whether core responsibilities agreed to by the states are being performed.  Regional evaluations may identify areas of concern where improved performance is needed

11 OMB PART Review  What is the PART? PART = Program Assessment Rating Tool PART initiated in 2003 by Office of Management and Budget Assesses 20% of all federal programs each year Surface Water and 106 Grant Programs ‘PARTed’ in 2005  Asks ~30 questions to evaluate performance in four areas: Program purpose and design Strategic planning Program management Program results and accountability  Rates performance Effective Moderately effective Adequate Ineffective Results not demonstrated

12 Impact of Low PART Performance:  State and Agency Funding levels are affected by PART in President’s Budget Example: Alaska Native Villages Water Infrastructure Grant Program –  Assessed in rated “NOT PERFORMING – Ineffective”  One of the weaknesses cited: “Basic program performance information is not collected or used to manage the program”  OMB reduced program funding by $20 million (from $35M to $15M) “until there is greater confidence that the funds are achieving desired results”

PART: Pollution Control Grants (106) and surface Water Program Example: Pollution Control Grants (106)  Long Term Outcome—% waterbody segments not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained  Annual outcome—Annual % waterbody segments not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (cumulative)  Annual Outputs— # States developing and implementing monitoring strategies % States within preceding 3-year period that submitted acceptable new or revised water quality criteria # TMDLs consistent with National Policy (cumulative) % High priority permits issued % Majors in SNC  Annual Efficiency Measure—Cost per water segment restored

PART: Pollution Control Grants (106) and Surface Water Program (Cont.)  106 Program rated: “Adequate” Received a $6M proposed increase  SWP rated: “Moderately Effective” Received a $3M proposed increase  PER and Backlog management plan were significant parts of the evidence meriting good ratings  EPA and States are accountable for reporting annual progress on 5-6 Measures in each PART and making them transparent Including environmental outcomes, program outputs, and efficiency

15 Government Performance and Results Act: GPRA  1993 Act holds federal agencies accountable for using resources wisely and achieving results Requires a long-range Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Performance Reports Requirements forge links to:  Planning to achieve goals and objectives  Budgeting to ensure resources are available for plans  Measuring to assess progress & link resources to results  Reporting to present progress achieved  OMB is now tying Agency budgets directly to Programs’ Strategic Plans and Targets Plus, new ‘standardized templates’ are being developed for all Federal Grant programs, linking funds to Agencies’ Strategic Plans  GPRA reporting system is key mechanism for collecting data for PART reporting

16 Significant Changes to NPDES Program Since 1985  These programs resulted in significant increase in NPDES universe  Current PCS does not adequately address data for this universe, particularly minor sources and general permittees  Need national data to document program accomplishments/need for change  Program areas with increased focus: Stormwater CAFO Other wet weather Biosolids

17 Additional Reports  Annual National Water Quality Inventory Reports Based on state reports submitted under CWA Section 305(b) and compiled by EPA Indicate the growing significance and link between minor sources and impairments in water quality, particularly from stormwater, CAFOs, and other wet weather sources More data is needed for this and other reports to document true impacts of point source dischargers  EPA’s State of the Environment Report has no water measures due to lack of complete data

18 Inspector General Reports Have Cited Data Concerns  Several reports cite lack of an adequate information system to track program status NPDES Permit Backlog (1998/2005) Pretreatment Program Biosolids Program PCS (2001 and 2005)  Lack of data affects EPA’s ability to adequately respond to GAO, OMB, and other government entities

19 Public Access  The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (eFOIA) requires EPA to facilitate information access on locations of permittees along with violations and enforcement data  The public including academia and researchers use permit-related data (particularly discharges)  Creates a greater incentive for compliance  Enforcement and Compliance History Online Receives 60,000 queries a month

20 Congressional Inquiries  Provided quarterly reports to the Senate and House on permit backlog from 1999 through 2003  Requests from Congress require rapid availability of data

21 Summary  Demands for greater accountability in the management and implementation of the NPDES Program drives the need for a centralized national data system  ICIS-NPDES is the national system that EPA expects to use for the next decade and its integrity is vital for oversight activities  EPA is supporting various measures that will take advantage of existing technology enabling permitting authorities to provide data in electronic formats increasing efficiency