.«*
\
uJ
0
Office of Inspector General
Report of Audit
WATER
Region 8 Nonpoint Source Grant Oversight
Needs Improvement
E1HWF7-08-0009-7100304
September 30,1997
-------
Inspector General Division Central Audit Division
Conducting the Audit Denver, Colorado
Region Covered Region 8
Program Office Involved Office of Water
-------
A
V
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL AUDIT DIVISION
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY KANSAS 66101
913-551-7878
FAX: 913-551-7837
September 30. 1997
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region 8 Nonpoint Source Grant Oversight Needs Improvement
Report Number E1HWF7-08-0009-7100304
BRANCH OFFICES
1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE '200
DALLAS. TEXAS 75202-J733
2'4-665-6621
FAX. 214-665-6589
999 18TH STREET SJITE 5CC
DENVER. COLORADO 802C2-2-JQ5
303-3:2-5872
FAX. 303-312-6063
-t_ ^z*
FROM: Bennie S. Salem
Divisional Inspector General
TO: William P. Yellowtail
Regional Administrator
Region 8
Attached is our report entitled Region 8 Nonpoint Source Grant Oversight Needs
Improvement. The report includes recommendations to update state nonpoint source (NFS)
management plans, develop and finalize NFS policy papers, and develop a strategy to build states'
capacity to operate their NFS programs without reliance on section 319 funding. We found that
Wyoming's lack of sufficient staff and its poor working relationship with Region 8 adversely
impacted its NFS program. In addition, we found areas needing improvement in Utah's and
Wyoming's financial management. We discussed our findings with your staff and issued a draft
report. We summarized your comments and those from the three states we reviewed in the final
report and included your complete response as Appendix I.
In accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Order 2750, you as the action
official, are required to provide this office a written response to the audit report within 90 days of the
final audit report date. For corrective actions planned but not completed by the response date,
reference to specific milestone dates will assist in deciding whether to close this report.
We appreciate the cooperation you and your staff provided throughout the audit. We
especially appreciate the program staffs assistance and timely response during the audit. The
program staff demonstrated a genuine interest in improving the NFS program.
This audit report contains findings that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has identified
end corrective actions OIG recommends. This audit report represents the opinion of OIG, and the
findings contained in this audit report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final
determinations on matters in this audit report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established EPA audit resolution procedures.
,sw
RECYCLE/-
-------
We have no objections to the release of this report to the public.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (913) 551-7831 or Jeff Hart. Audit
Manager in our Denver office, at 312-6169. Please refer to report number E1HWF7-08-0009-
7100304 on any correspondence.
Attachment
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 nonpoint source
(NPS) program staff requested that the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) audit the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming NPS grant
expenditures. Because EPA planned to reduce its oversight of state
NPS programs, regional program staff requested that OIG
determine whether states ensured NPS costs were eligible for
reimbursement..
OBJECTIVES
Our audit objectives were to answer the following questions:
•• Was Region 8's oversight sufficient to ensure state
programs were accomplishing NPS pollution
abatement and prevention objectives as stated in the
Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA guidance, and
regional guidance and policies?
> Did states ensure projects were in accordance with
NPS objectives and consistent with state/EPA
agreements and had individual projects
accomplished their specific objectives?
» Were costs claimed allowable, reasonable, and
allocable to the grant and in compliance with the
grant terms and conditions and applicable federal
statutes and regulations?
+ Did state project managers obtain sufficient
financial and programmatic information to ensure
grant expenditures were appropriate?
Report NoEIHWF7-08-0009-71003Q4
-------
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Region 8 Should Improve
Oversight And Technical
Assistance For State NFS
Programs
State NFS Program
Management
Was Mixed
Region 8 needed to require states to update their NFS management
plans. Also, Region 8 needed to enforce program requirements.
The Region needed to provide more program and technical
assistance by developing policy papers that defined administrative
costs and demonstration projects. Colorado. Utah, and Wyoming
varied significantly in the level of resources applied to and
commitment placed on their NFS programs. Wyoming did not
commit sufficient resources to run an effective program, and the
three states we reviewed had not developed adequate capacity to
implement an NFS program without section 319 funding. We did
not identify any questioned costs in our sample of NFS
expenditures in Colorado and Wyoming but identified $265,182 of
ineligible costs in Utah's matching fund pool.
Region 8 should improve its oversight and enforcement of NFS
program requirements, while moving toward providing more
programmatic and technical assistance. The Region did hot require
and the states did not provide updated management plans due to
anticipated CWA changes, states' low priority on updating
management plans, and the lengthy assessment process for
determining priorities. Region 8 sent unclear messages to states by
not enforcing program requirements. The Region provided
regional guidance and policy papers for the NFS program, but
needed to define additional program terms so that states
consistently implemented important portions of their NFS
program. As a result, Region 8 and the states had limited
assurance that states addressed the most significant nonpoint
sources of pollution.
States' NFS program management and resource commitment
varied significantly. The state projects we reviewed were generally
in accordance with NFS objectives and accomplished their specific
project objectives. However, the three states did not commit
sufficient state resources to fully implement their programs without
continued federal funding. EPA's practice of allowing states to
carry forward NFS funds from prior years' grants discouraged
states from developing their own capacity and identifying other
sources of funding to sustain their NFS programs. In addition,
Wyoming's program suffered from its differences with Region 8
over oversight and reporting requirements. Utah's NFS program
could suffer in future years if Utah's priorities shift and Utah does
not reallocate its resources based on those priorities. Without ;
11
Report NO.E1HWF7-08-OOQ9-7100304
-------
Utah and Wyoming Needed
To Improve Some Financial
Management Practices
continued federal funding the three states could not continue to
implement their NPS program and ensure EPA and Congress that
their programs addressed the most significant state NPS pollution
problems.
Utah and Wyoming needed to improve some NPS program
financial management practices. We did not question any costs in
our sample of NPS expenditures in Colorado and Wyoming. We
identified $265,182 of ineligible costs in Utah's NPS project
matching fund pools and identified areas needing improvement in
Utah's and Wyoming's financial management practices. Utah's
conservation association inadvertently included agricultural loan
lines of credit in its NPS project matching fund pools. In addition,
the association did not have supporting documentation for some
costs and included other ineligible items in its project matching
fund pools. Wyoming's burdensome contract amendment process
resulted in one subgrantee performing work beyond the contract
project period, Utah travel procedures did not require travelers to
provide the purpose of their trip on in-state travel documents, and
NPS project files did not include summary sheets for easy tracking
of expenditures and related matching funds. Utah began reviewing
its matching fund pools to remove ineligible costs and agreed to
make necessary procedural changes in its travel procedures and
project file management.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Regional Administrator should establish milestones for each
state to update its management plan and work with Wyoming to
ensure that its management plan identifies NPS pollution priorities.
The Region, in coordination with the Office of Water, needs to
finalize its policy paper on administrative costs and develop a
policy paper that defines demonstration project. The Region 8
NPS staff needs to help states develop a plan to build states'
capacity to operate an NPS program without reliance on section
319 funding. The Regional Administrator should require
Wyoming to evaluate how it will meet NPS program commitments
and work with Wyoming to realistically achieve program goals.
The Regional Administrator needs to verify that Utah's matching
funds are eligible prior to making final payment on any Utah NPS
grant. In addition, the Regional Administrator should ensure that
Wyoming and Utah make certain improvements to some of their
financial management practices.
in
Report No.E1HWF7-08-OOQ9-7100304
-------
AUDITEE COMMENTS
AND
OIG EVALUATION
Region 8 and the three states generally agreed with the findings
and recommendations. The Region and the states provided
comments to clarify portions of the report and we have
incorporated those comments and modified the report as
appropriate.
tv
Report NO.EIHWF7-Q8-QQQ9-7IQQ3Q4
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE 1
BACKGROUND 2
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 4
PRIOR AUDIT REPORTS ;.... 5
:» REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NPS PROGRAMS 7
REGION 8 HAD NOT REQUIRED STATES TO UPDATE MANAGEMENT
PLANS 8
REGION 8 NEEDED TO ENFORCE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 10
REGION 8 NEEDED TO ISSUE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE TO BETTER
DEFINE PROGRAM TERMS 14
CONCLUSION 16
RECOMMENDATIONS 17
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION 18
., STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT WAS MIXED 21
STATES NEED TO PROVIDE STRONGER RESOURCE COMMITMENT .... 22
WYOMING AND REGION 8'S RELATIONSHIP ADVERSELY IMPACTED
WYOMING'S NPS PROGRAM 24
UTAH'S NPS MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE SHOULD CORRELATE TO
NPS PRIORITIES 26
STATES VARIED NPS TASK FORCE COMPOSITION 27
CONCLUSION 28
RECOMMENDATIONS 29
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION 30
Report No.EIHWF7-08-QQ09-7IQ03Q4
-------
UTAH AND WYOMING NEEDED TO IMPROVE SOME FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 31
UTAH'S MATCHING FUND POOLS INCLUDED INELIGIBLE COSTS 32
WYOMING NEEDED TO STREAMLINE ITS CONTRACT AMENDMENT
PROCESS 34
UTAH INITIATED ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS 35
CONCLUSION 35
RECOMMENDATIONS 36
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION 37
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT I:
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 39
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX II:
APPENDIX III:
APPENDIX IV:
APPENDIX V:
APPENDIX VI:
EPA COMMENTS 41
COLORADO COMMENTS 47
UTAH COMMENTS 49
WYOMING COMMENTS 57
ABBREVIATIONS 63
DISTRIBUTION 65
Report No.E!HWF7-08-Q009-7100304
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 nonpoint
source (NFS) program staff requested that the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) audit NFS programs in Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming and their subgrantees' program expenditures. Because
EPA planned to reduce its oversight of state NFS programs,
regional program staff requested that OIG determine whether states
ensured NFS costs were eligible for reimbursement.
Our audit objectives were to answer the following questions:
* Was Region 8's oversight sufficient to ensure state
programs were accomplishing NFS pollution
abatement and prevention objectives as stated in the
Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA guidance, and
regional guidance and policies?
»• Did states ensure projects were in accordance with
NFS objectives and consistent with state/EPA
agreements and had individual projects
accomplished their specific objectives?
*• Were costs claimed allowable, reasonable, and
allocable to the grant and in compliance with the
grant terms and conditions and applicable federal
statutes and regulations?
* Did state project managers obtain sufficient
financial and programmatic information to ensure
grant expenditures were appropriate?
Report No.E!HWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
INTRODUCTK
BACKGROUND
Congress enacted section 319 of the CWA in 1987, establishing a
national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution.
Section 319 (h) provides grants to assist states in implementing
their NFS management programs. Congress appropriated the first
section 319 grant funds in fiscal 1990.
Under section 319, states address NFS pollution by assessing NFS
pollution problems and related nonpoint sources and adopting and
implementing management plans to reduce the pollution. A state
NFS assessment report summarizes the pollution assessment and
identifies the nonpoint sources responsible for the water quality
problems. States base their NFS management programs on the
NFS assessment reports. The management program outlines a
strategy for implementing NFS controls to attain or maintain
applicable water quality standards.
NFS pollution does not normally result from a discharge at a
specific single location, and nonpoint sources are not regulated
through the CWA permit program. NFS pollution is caused by
rainfall or snow melt moving over or through the ground and
carrying natural or human-made pollutants into lakes, rivers, other
waterbodies, and groundwater. These pollutants often come from
activities related to agriculture, silviculture, dams, water
development projects, and urban and construction project runoff.
EPA provides NFS funding to states to finance two types of
activities: (1) staffing and support funds to manage and enhance
the NFS program, and (2) project funds to directly address NFS
problems. States use NFS funds for enforcement, monitoring,
technical assistance, education, and training. Most NFS projects
are demonstration projects designed to show the effectiveness of a
particular best management practice. Other NFS projects provide
training or information and educational services. States contract
with other state, local, and federal agencies, and educational and
private institutions to carry out NFS projects and related activities.
The NFS program is for the most part a voluntary and non-
regulatory program. EPA's primary approach to reducing NFS
pollution is by identifying and applying best management
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
INTRODUCTION
practices. Best management practices are methods, measures, or
practices that reduce or eliminate nonpoint sources of pollution.
These practices can be applied before or after NFS pollution
becomes a problem. States may award funds to individuals only to
implement demonstration projects. The intent of the demonstration
project is to accelerate the transfer and adoption of best
management practices. Neither EPA nor states can require
individuals to implement these practices. EPA uses the results of
demonstration projects to persuade other nonparticipating
landowners to implement these practices without EPA funds.
CWA requires that the federal share of states' NPS program costs
not exceed 60 percent. States must provide the remaining 40
percent of the NPS program costs from non-federal sources. The
NPS program costs include both staffing and support activities as
well as demonstration and other implementation projects. The 40
percent requirement applies to both staffing and support activities
and projects. In most cases, states require individual landowners to
contribute all or part of the matching funds for an individual
project.
Region 8 works with states to implement the NPS program through
its Ecosystems Protection and Remediation Office. Its community
support unit works directly with state environmental departments
to provide NPS grant management advice and NPS technical
assistance. Colorado's and Wyoming's environmental agencies
manage the majority of their state NPS programs. Utah's
environmental department provides oversight for its program and
contracts with the Utah agricultural department to manage about 70
percent of Utah's state NPS program.
Since 1989, EPA has issued several national guidance documents
addressing the award and management of section 319 NPS grants.
EPA's guidance emphasized throughout that the funds would be
directed toward activities that resulted in demonstrated progress in
achieving Congress' goal of controlling and abating NPS pollution.
EPA's guidance stated that the grant funds were not considered
entitlements and EPA would award grants based on priorities,
criteria, and procedures that assured that the funds would be
effectively used to achieve NPS program objectives.
3 Report NO.E1HWF7-08-Q009-7100304
-------
I1MTRODUO1
In its guidance, EPA identified four broad objectives in awarding
section 319 NFS grants. NFS grants are intended to support state
activities for abating or preventing NFS pollution that have the
greatest likelihood of producing early, demonstrable water quality
results and reducing ecological and health risks in areas of greatest
concern. Grants should be awarded and managed in a manner that
encourages and rewards effective performance by the states and
encourages the institutionalization of state and local NFS
programs. In addition, state NFS programs should encourage
strong relationships among federal, state, and local NFS and NFS-
related programs and activities.
In its 1997 guidance, EPA stated that its role in the NFS program
would shift away from grants oversight toward technical assistance
and support. EPA's approach would be to work closely with states
and give them programmatic and technical support as they moved
toward a more independent level of program implementation. EPA
would reduce its state oversight when a state adopted nine key
program elements and demonstrated a proven track record of
effective implementation.
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY
We conducted performance and financial audits of the Colorado,
Utah, and Wyoming NFS programs. We performed our fieldwork
from September 1996 to June 1997. We performed our fieldwork
at Region 8 and Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment offices in Denver, Colorado; Utah Departments of
Environmental Quality and Agriculture in Salt Lake City, Utah;
and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality in Cheyenne,
Wyoming.
We conducted the audit in accordance with Government Auditing
Standards (1994 Revision) issued by the Comptroller General of
the United States. Accordingly, the review included tests of the
accounting records and other auditing procedures as we considered
necessary. Other than the issues discussed in this report, no other
significant issues came to our attention that warranted expanding
the scope of our audit.
Report No.EIHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
INTRODUCTION
Our audit did not include a complete review of states' internal
control systems. We relied on states' 1994 and 1995 single audit
reports to the extent possible in the performance of our audit. We
analyzed a sample of incurred costs and related internal controls to
assure compliance with federal statutory and regulatory criteria and
with states' policies and procedures. Because of the inherent
limitations in any system of internal accounting control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected. Except for the issues
discussed in this report, nothing came to our attention that would
cause us to believe states' procedures were not adequate for our
purposes.
PRIOR AUDIT REPORTS
Neither OIG nor the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
issued any reports addressing Region 8's NFS program. However.
GAO issued several water quality-related audits that addressed
NFS pollution.
In a June 30, 1995 report entitled Agriculture and the
Environment: Information on and Characteristics of Selected
Watershed Projects, GAO examined the lessons learned from nine
innovative, successful watershed projects that addressed NFS
pollution. Several of these projects included EPA grant funding.
GAO found that the keys to reducing agricultural pollution from
nonpoint sources included building citizen cooperation through
education and getting stakeholders to participate in developing
project goals. In addition, GAO found that some project
participants believed that because of their communities' resistance
to regulatory enforcement, voluntary efforts were the most feasible
way of reducing NFS pollution.
In an October 1990 report entitled WATER POLLUTION: Greater
EPA Leadership \eeded to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution,
GAO found that insufficient monitoring data and political
sensitivities in controlling local land uses that indirectly caused
water pollution were barriers to state and local efforts to control
NFS pollution. The report identified that EPA had developed an
ambitious agenda to deal with the barriers, but resource constraints
5 Report No.El HWF7-08-OOQ9-7100304
-------
INTRODUCTK
significantly inhibited EPA's progress in implementing its agenda.
The report recommended that EPA establish funding priorities
among its water quality programs that would allow EPA to pursue
key objectives of an effective NPS agenda.
Report NO.EIHWF7-Q8-QQQ9-7100304
-------
CHAPTER 2
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAMS
Region 8 should improve its oversight and enforcement of NFS
program requirements, while moving toward providing more
programmatic and technical assistance, Due to anticipated CWA
changes, states' low priority on updating management plans, and
the lengthy assessment process for determining priorities, the
Region did not require and the states did not provide updated
management plans. Region 8 sent unclear messages to states by
not enforcing program requirements. The Region provided
regional guidance and policy papers for the NFS program, but
needed to define additional program terms so that states
consistently implemented important portions of their NFS
program. As a result, Region 8 and the states had limited
assurance that states addressed the most significant nonpoint
sources of pollution. Because EPA intended to increase state
management responsibility for the NFS program, Region 8 needed
to ensure states were implementing dynamic and effective NFS
programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of
water before significantly reducing oversight.
Beginning in 1997, EPA envisioned its role as shifting away from
grants oversight and administration and focusing more on technical
assistance and cooperation. EPA's 1997 NFS guidance listed nine
key elements that states needed in their NFS program to be
afforded substantially reduced oversight and maximum flexibility.
One of the nine key elements required states to review, evaluate,
and revise their NPS assessment reports and management plans at
least every 5 years. Beginning in late fiscal 1996 and continuing
into fiscal 1997, EPA encouraged each state to review and revise
its NPS assessment reports and management plans.
Management plans are the link between problems identified in a
state's assessment report and projects funded to address those
problems. These plans should be working documents used to
identify the highest priority areas and to fund those projects that
have the greatest potential to reduce NPS pollution. According to
Report No. E1HWF7-08-Q009-7I00304
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICI
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAlf
section 319, initial management plans described how a state
proposed to implement its NFS program in the first four fiscal
years. Region 8 guidance stated that each proposed project must
be reviewed to determine how well the project conformed to
priorities identified in the respective state's management plans.
REGION 8 HAD NOT
REQUIRED STATES TO
UPDATE MANAGEMENT
PLANS
States in Region 8 had not updated their NFS management plans
since their initial publication in 1989. Due to anticipated CWA
changes in 1994, Region 8 had not required its states to provide the
first required update to their plans. In fiscal 1996, EPA allowed
states to use section 319 NFS funds to update their management
plans. However, the three states we reviewed had not updated their
plans. As a result, states' plans were outdated, and states could not
reasonably ensure that the plans they established in 1989 were still
valid in 1997.
Although Colorado's and Utah's initial NFS management plan
adequately addressed all the required CWA elements, including
identifying priority nonpoint sources, neither had developed an
updated plan since Region 8's initial approval. Region 8 approved
Colorado's and Utah's overall management plans in 1990 and
1989, respectively. In 1992, Colorado issued a supplement to its
management plan and, in 1994, issued two supplements to address
specific NFS activities. Utah issued an addendum to its
management plan in March 1995. Utah recognized the need to
update its management plan but believed that its 1989 management
plan was still valid and that other mechanisms had kept its NFS
program focused on the highest priorities. Utah stated that it
monitored and assessed statewide water quality, prioritized
problem areas, and worked closely with all stakeholders. The
projects we reviewed for Colorado and Utah all related to priorities
established in their management plans. However, the states still
needed to update their management plans so that they had a single,
comprehensive document that incorporated states* most current
assessment of water quality, prioritized problem areas, and
defined states' plans for addressing NFS pollution.
Report NO.E1HWF7.08-0009-7100304
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAMS
Neither Colorado nor Utah planned to issue updated management
plans before fiscal 1998. Colorado was reevaluating its priorities
and conducting water quality assessments to determine if priorities
had changed since its 1990 management plan. As a result of their
monitoring and assessment activities, Colorado staff estimated that
they would not have an updated management plan before 1998.
Utah planned to revise its plan by June 1, 1998. Until both states
update their management plans, they have limited assurance that
priority projects are still being funded and projects are
strengthening and balancing overall management plan goals and
milestones.
Wyoming's initial 1989 management plan did not meet all CWA
requirements and had not been updated. EPA approved parts of
Wyoming's management plan in 1989 but identified significant
problems in other parts. For example, Wyoming's management
plan limited NFS planning and implementation activities to private
sector representatives, while CWA and Region 8 strongly
encouraged participation by all interested parties. In addition.
Wyoming's management plan did not adequately identify the
State's NFS priorities. The three Wyoming projects we reviewed
were not easily tied to Wyoming's management plan because the
plan did not adequately identify high priority NFS problems. State
representatives agreed that the management plan did not
adequately identify priorities and that funded projects were not
easily tied to the management plan. They explained that initially
they had few projects to fund and as a result funded all the projects
that were submitted regardless of priority. Wyoming staff added
that currently they received many more projects than they could
possibly fund and that the projects were ranked as to priority.
However, Wyoming had no strategy to ensure that its funded
projects strengthened or expanded its NFS program, since its
management plan did not adequately describe the State's strategy.
Wyoming stated that Region 8 approved a list of priorities in
January 1990 and Wyoming used its 305(b) report to identify
priority NFS problems. However, Wyoming's January 1990 list
was a list of prioritized project proposals, not a list of prioritized
NFS pollution. Further, these project proposals were not ranked
according to any list of prioritized sources of NFS pollution.
9 Report NO.EIHWF7-Q8-Q009-71QQ304
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICJ
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAM
Wyoming staff agreed that they needed to better assess nonpoint
sources and update their management plan to better articulate their
funding priorities.
Although Wyoming representatives recognized the deficiencies in
the 1989 management plan, they had not placed a priority on
developing an updated plan. In its 1995 and 1996 staffing and
support workplans, Wyoming stated that it was ".. .anxious to
rewrite its Nonpoint Source Management Plan... " and that
"[n]umerous deficiencies in the existing plan are apparent/'
However, Wyoming stated in its 1995 workplan that rewriting the
plan at this time would be fiscally irresponsible because it did not
know what changes a revised CWA might impose. In its 1996
workplan, it stated that"'.. .now is the prudent time to begin to
address these deficiencies ..." in the Wyoming management plan.
In its draft 1998-2000 state/EPA agreement, Wyoming indicated
that it would update its management plan by October 1999.
Wyoming needs to immediately begin updating its management
plan to correct the deficiencies in its initial plan and to incorporate
the current CWA requirements. Until Wyoming's management
plan meets current CWA requirements, Wyoming and Region 8
have no assurance that Wyoming's NPS projects address the
State's most significant nonpoint sources of pollution.
REGION 8 NEEDED TO
ENFORCE
PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
Region 8 sent unclear messages to states by not enforcing program
requirements. Section 319 and NPS grant conditions required
Region 8 to withhold NPS funds until states complied with grant
conditions. However, the Region permitted Wyoming to use its
remaining 1995 and 1996 NPS grant funds even though Wyoming
had not complied with 1995 and 1996 NPS grant reporting
conditions. Although Region 8 NPS program staff attempted to
withhold these funds, the Assistant Regional Administrator for
Ecosystems Protection and Remediation instructed his staff to
release funds to the State. In addition, Region 8 senior
management planned to release 1997 performance partnership
grant (PPG) NPS funds, even though Wyoming had not submitted
its 1997 staffing and support workplan due in January 1997 as
agreed
10
Report No.ElHWF7-08-OOQ9-7l00304
-------
REGION S SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAMS
Region 8 Needed to Withhold
Funding Until Wyoming
Complied with NFS
Reporting Requirements
in its 1997 state/EPA agreement, which was the basis for its 1997
PPG. Colorado and Utah had generally complied with all grant
conditions.
Region 8 senior management did not support Region 8 NPS
program staffs attempt to withhold Wyoming's NPS grant funds.
Section 319 (h)(11) and NPS grant conditions required states to
submit annual progress reports. States' annual reports should
describe progress in meeting NPS milestones and quantify
improvements to water quality. Wyoming did not submit its fiscal
1995 or 1996 annual reports until March 1997, and the reports did
not adequately describe the State's NPS program
accomplishments. According to Region 8 NPS program guidance,
the annual reports provide an opportunity for the states to describe
NPS program progress and provide the critical information the
Region needs to determine if states have made satisfactory
progress as required under section 319 (h) (8). Although Wyoming
finally provided its 1995 and 1996 annual reports, the reports did
not comply with NPS annual progress reporting guidance.
Region 8 did not withhold Wyoming's remaining 1995 and 1996
grant funds to enforce 1995 and 1996 reporting requirements, and
withholding 1997 funds did not provide any incentive for
Wyoming to comply. Region 8 advised all states in November
1996 to provide any delinquent annual reports before it would
release 1997 NPS funds. The Region 8 Wyoming project officer
attempted to withhold all of Wyoming's NPS payments under its
1995, 1996, and 1997 grants until Wyoming submitted acceptable
reports. However, Region 8 senior managers allowed Wyoming to
continue receiving funds from its 1995 and 1996 grants and only
withheld Wyoming's 1997 grant funds. Withholding 1997 funds
had no impact on Wyoming's ability to operate in 1997 since
Wyoming continued to have funds available under its 1995 and
1996 grants. As a result, Wyoming had no additional incentive to
comply with the reporting requirements. The Assistant Regional
Administrator for Ecosystems Protection and Remediation stated
that he directed his staff to release Wyoming's 1995 and 1996
funds because he estimated that withholding funds would
adversely impact
11
Report NO.EIHWF7.08-0009-?'100304
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNIC.j
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAM
Region 8 Should Enforce
NPS Program Commitments
in Wyoming's State/EPA
Agreement
Wyoming's ability to continue NPS-related projects as well as
other water quality projects (e.g., establishing total maximum
daily loads).
Although Wyoming eventually provided the annual reports, they
were not well organized and did not provide an adequate summary
of Wyoming's NPS program. For example, Region 8's guidance
on the content of annual NPS progress reports required states to
describe the progress on reductions in NPS loadings and
improvements in water quality and stream conditions. Wyoming's
annual reports described staff activities, but did not describe
project accomplishments. Because Region 8 was unwilling to
withhold funds, Wyoming had no incentive to comply with the
NPS requirements.
Region 8 also intended to provide Wyoming its 1997 NPS funds,
even though Wyoming had not submitted its staffing and support
workplan, due in January 1997, as agreed in its 1997 state/EPA
agreement. Wyoming initially refused to submit its 1997 NPS
staffing and support workplan because it believed this workplan
duplicated information in its state/EPA agreement. However, the
information in the state/EPA agreement was inadequate and
Wyoming needed to provide firm commitments and sufficient
detail for Region 8 to hold the State accountable. We agree that
the State should not be required to prepare duplicative workplans.
However, the document that a state provides for its workplan needs
to provide sufficient information about the state's planned goals
and activities. The information Wyoming submitted in July 1997
was inadequate and did not provide sufficient detail to hold the
State accountable. Region 8 program staff requested a detailed
staffing and support workplan from Wyoming because of
Wyoming's past poor performance and Wyoming's intention to
disinvest in the NPS program. According to EPA national PPG
guidance, states were to use their categorical workplans as program
commitments under a PPG. Further, these program commitments
were to provide appropriate state accountability for the program
and be quantifiable, measurable, and verifiable. Wyoming's
commitments did not meet these criteria.
12
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-710030-1
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAMS
Region 8 NFS program staff issued guidance that described the
requirements of the NFS staffing and support workplan. The
guidance listed specific elements that should be included in the
workplan but allowed pertinent information in state/EPA
agreements to be used to supplement the staffing and support
workplan. The guidance stated that the term "on-going" was
generally not an acceptable milestone, and it required a description
of staff positions and budget. The information in the staffing and
support workplan was needed to help the Region evaluate whether
a state was demonstrating satisfactory progress and ensure that
staffing and support funds were used to strengthen and expand the
state's NFS program.
Wyoming staff stated that they believed a separate NFS workplan
was unnecessary and that the information included in their
state/EPA agreement was sufficient. However, Region 8 NFS
program staff noted that the level of detail in the state/EPA
agreement did not sufficiently describe how Wyoming would use
its staffing and support funds. As a result. Region 8 staff asked
Wyoming to submit a staffing and support workplan similar to
what Wyoming had provided in prior years. They noted that this
information was particularly important since Wyoming planned to
disinvest in the NFS program. The Region did not have adequate
performance measures to hold the State accountable.
Region 8 NFS program staff informed Wyoming that they would
not release funds until the Region received an acceptable workplan.
In its 1997 state/EPA agreement, Wyoming agreed to "[s]ubmit
workplans for the FY-97 funds, including staffing and support, to
EPA... " by January 1997. The agreement also noted that
Wyoming budgeted $5,400 of section 319 funds to develop the
workplan. In July 1997, Wyoming provided a revised
organizational chart and summary of NFS staff time allocations in
lieu of a staffing and support workplan per a verbal agreement with
Region 8 managers. During Wyoming's mid-year evaluation,
Region 8 managers and Wyoming had agreed that this information
would be sufficient to meet the needs of a staffing and support
workplan even though Region 8's NPS program staff stated that
this information would not be sufficient to hold the State
accountable.
13
Report NO.EIHWF7-08-QOQ9-710030-4
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICS
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAM
The information contained in Wyoming's state/EPA agreement,
revised organizational chart, and summary of NFS staff time
allocations did not adequately describe how Wyoming would use
staffing and support funds to accomplish program goals. It
identified many milestones as "ongoing," did not provide staff
position descriptions or identify which staff would be responsible
for which activities, and did not provide sufficient information
about monitoring and assessment activities. A Region 8 manager
stated that the Region could still require Wyoming to provide
additional information related to monitoring and assessment work
because Wyoming committed to do so in its state/EPA agreement.
Wyoming needed to provide a staffing and support workplan as it
agreed in its state/EPA agreement or supplement its state/EPA
agreement with appropriate activities and performance measures.
REGION 8 NEEDED TO
ISSUE ADDITIONAL
GUIDANCE
TO BETTER DEFINE
PROGRAM TERMS
Administrative Costs Were
Not Defined
State representatives interpreted program terms and implemented
important program practices inconsistently because key program
terms were undefined. States needed additional guidance to
consistently and effectively implement the NPS program. In
response to states' concerns and questions, Region 8 developed
eight policy papers between 1994 and 1996 that established NPS
program guidelines. Region 8 finalized six of the eight policy
papers. The policy papers defined acceptable practices as well as
eligible costs. However, the Region did not finalize its policy on
administrative costs and did not define what qualified as a
demonstration project.
EPA changed its policy in 1997 and prohibited regions from
issuing supplemental guidance. EPA's 1994 NPS program
guidance stated that regions may provide supplemental regional
guidance to advise states on regional priorities and procedures.
However, EPA's 1997 national guidance stated that to provide a
nationally consistent approach, regions would no longer be allowed
to issue supplemental guidance without headquarters concurrence.
As a result, the Region discontinued issuing policy papers.
Without a definition of administrative costs, states defined
administrative costs differently and could not ensure they complied
14
Report NO.E1HWF7-Q8-OOQ9-7100304
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAMS
Demonstration Project Was
Defined Differently
with congressional limits. Neither the law. EPA, nor the Region
adequately defined administrative costs. Congress limited the
amount states could spend on administrative costs to ten percent
and excluded some costs from the limitation. Although eligible for
NPS reimbursement, the law excluded enforcement and regulatory
activities, education, training, technical assistance, demonstration
projects, and technology transfer programs from the ten percent
administrative cost limit. However, Congress did not define what
should be included in the administrative cost limitation. Region 8
representatives explained that Congress did not want excessive
administrative costs and intended the majority of funds to be spent
on NPS projects.
Without specific guidance, each of the states had interpreted
administrative costs differently. Wyoming took a very
conservative approach and closely scrutinized all administrative
type expenditures. Colorado and Utah were less concerned about
tracking administrative costs because they believed most of their
costs fell within congressional exclusions. Because of the states'
different interpretations, the Region could not determine whether
states' administrative costs exceeded Congress' ten percent
limitation or not.
States' interpretation of what qualified as a demonstration project
differed because the Region had not defined demonstration project.
For example, the Region needed to define whether or not a
watershed qualified as a demonstration project. If an entire
watershed could be properly defined as a demonstration project,
then states should be permitted to address all NPS pollution
problems within that watershed. In addition, if a watershed
qualified as a demonstration project, states theoretically should be
permitted to fund similar best management practices in the same
geographical area; i.e., within the same watershed. If a watershed
could not qualify as a demonstration project, similar practices
should not be funded in the same watershed. A demonstration
project is intended to show the effectiveness of a particular NPS
pollution control practice.
EPA encouraged states to assess NPS pollution by watershed, but
warned that watershed projects should be small enough to address
15
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNtO
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAM
all or most sources of pollution within the watershed. While EPA
recognized the need to demonstrate the effectiveness of the same
best management practice in different geographic areas, it did not
determine whether the same practice in the same geographic area
qualified for NFS funding.
Utah defined a watershed as a demonstration project while
Colorado and Wyoming did not. Utah's watershed demonstration
project included many individual landowner projects within that
watershed. Some of these individual projects implemented the
same practice in the same geographic area. For example, Utah
funded several projects in close proximity to each other to keep
animal waste out of streams. Although these projects improved
water quality, funding more than one was unnecessary to
demonstrate that a particular practice worked in that watershed.
Utah representatives explained that funding many similar
individual landowner projects in the same watershed was necessary
to demonstrate water quality improvements on a watershed basis.
Although Utah had a rationale for defining a demonstration project
as an entire watershed area, EPA needs to define its approach and
determine the appropriate definition for a demonstration project.
Definition of this term can have a significant impact on a state's
program implementation. In Colorado and Wyoming, a
demonstration project primarily consisted of a single landowner
implementing a particular best management practice.
CONCLUSION
Region 8 should not significantly reduce its oversight until states
comply with all NFS program requirements. Region 8 had not
required updated management plans and had not enforced program
requirements. Without up-to-date management plans neither states
nor the Region could ensure the highest priority NFS problems
were addressed. Although Region 8 program staff had attempted
to enforce program requirements, Region 8 senior management had
not supported staff decisions. By continuing to fund Wyoming
despite its poor performance and noncompliance with program
requirements, Region 8 sent a message to other states that
continued NFS funding was not dependent upon effective NFS
program management. The Region needed to define other key
16
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAMS
program practices and terms for states to consistently and
effectively implement NFS programs. Also, the Region should
continue to issue guidance, in coordination with EPA's Office of
Water, to help define important program terms. Region 8 should
discuss nationally significant terms such as administrative costs
and demonstration projects with EPA's Office of Water.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Regional Administrator:
1. Establish milestone dates for each state to complete
updated NFS management plans and, if necessary,
withhold funds from states that do not meet agreed
upon dates.
2. Require Wyoming to develop a management plan
that identifies priorities.
3. Withhold grant funding for Wyoming or any state
that does not meet programmatic requirements.
4. Require that Wyoming add either a 1997 staffing
and support workplan or additional performance
measures in its state/EPA agreement that Wyoming
can realistically accomplish during the year.
5. In coordination with the Office of Water, finalize
the Region 8 policy paper on administrative costs.
Advise Office of Water of the potential for
misunderstanding in other states and ask the Office
of Water staff to consider issuing a national policy
paper.
6. Develop a policy paper defining a demonstration
project and submit for headquarters approval.
17
Report No.EIHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
AUDITEE COMMENTS
AND OIG EVALUATION
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICJ
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAM
Region 8 agreed with the findings and concurred with the
recommendations. The Region provided comments to clarify
portions of the report and we have incorporated those comments
and modified the report as appropriate.
Wyoming and Utah also provided comments to clarify portions of
the report. We have incorporated those comments and modified
the report as appropriate. Colorado's response noted that the report
did not have any recommendations directly related to it and
therefore did not provide any detailed comments.
In its response to the draft report, the Region stated that
Wyoming's 1997 state/EPA agreement had milestone dates for
NFS program activities that were time critical and work items that
were listed as ''ongoing" or "as needed" generally could be
quantified in program reports and verified by examining program
records and interviewing appropriate staff.
We believe that work items listed as "ongoing" or "as needed" are
not sufficient milestones to hold the state accountable. Region 8*s
own guidance states these are not acceptable milestones and
program commitments must be measurable. In addition, waiting
until a state quantifies these work items in its program reports at
the end of the year is not an effective method to hold a state
accountable. The Region must monitor performance during the
year and take action as appropriate.
In its response, the Region also stated that it would be much more
effective for Wyoming to have a single document for its record of
commitments. We agree and strongly suggest that the Region
avoid duplication of any paperwork. However, the single
document used for commitments must include goals and activities
that are quantifiable, measurable, and verifiable. Wyoming had not
provided sufficient information for Region 8 to hold Wyoming
accountable in its 1997 state/EPA agreement. Although Region 8
program staff provided specific guidance on the information they
needed to adequately monitor the State's progress, Wyoming did
not provide the requested information.
18
Report NO.EIHWF7-Q8-OQQ9-71QQ3Q4
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRAMS
Wyoming and Utah disagreed with the recommendations that
suggested the Region withhold funds. Wyoming stated that
withholding funds without regards to the substance and
significance of the deficiency was not a solution. Utah stated that
it would not be a good idea to withhold funds if the State missed a
deadline because it would negatively affect the partnership
relationship. We agree with the states and recommend that the
Region withhold funds only if other alternatives to obtain
compliance and adequate performance have not succeeded. We
agree that the Region and the states need to work as partners in
accomplishing program goals. However, EPA should not reward
states that are not adequately performing and not accomplishing
program goals.
In its response, Wyoming stated that incompatibilities between the
State's computer system and EPA's Grants Reporting and
Tracking System used for NFS reporting affected the State's
efficiency in reporting. Wyoming believed it could better meet
reporting requirements if Region 8 agreed to accept all reporting
requirements through the Grants Reporting and Tracking System.
We agree that EPA should streamline reporting requirements
where possible especially if this can be done through the existing
Grants Reporting and Tracking System. However, Wyoming must
provide timely reports that include the information necessary to
assess program accomplishments either in written or electronic
form.
19
Report No.E1HWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
REGION 8 SHOULD IMPROVE OVERSIGHT AND TECHNIO
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NFS PROGRA?
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
20
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100504
-------
CHAPTER 3
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
WAS MIXED
States' NFS program management and resource commitment
varied significantly. The state projects we reviewed were generally
in accordance with overall NFS program objectives, and project
reports we reviewed indicated projects had accomplished their
specific project objectives. However, the three states did not
commit sufficient state resources to fully implement their programs
without continued federal funding. EPA's practice of allowing
states to carry forward NFS funds from prior years' grants
discouraged states from developing their own capacity and
identifying other sources of funding to sustain their NFS programs.
In addition, Wyoming's program suffered from its differences with
Region 8 over oversight and reporting requirements. Utah's NFS
program could suffer in future years if its priorities shift and Utah
does not reallocate its resources based on those priorities.
Wyoming and Utah did not include adequate representation for all
interested groups on their NFS task forces. Without continued
federal funding the three states could not continue to implement
their NFS programs and ensure EPA and Congress that their
programs addressed the most significant state NFS pollution
problems.
EPA's guidance consistently emphasized strong state program
management. Strong state management of NFS programs required
sufficient staff and effective coordination among all interested
parties to address NFS pollution. One of EPA's priorities in
awarding NFS staffing and support funds was to build long-term
state and local capacity to implement state NFS programs,
regardless of the availability of federal funding. EPA emphasized
the importance of having NFS staff available for NFS monitoring.
planning, technical assistance, and information and education. The
nine key elements in EPA's 1997 guidance included efficiently and
effectively managing and implementing an NFS program and
establishing strong working partnerships with local, state, and
federal agencies, and private sector groups.
21
Report No.EIHWF7-08-OOQ9-710Q$Q4
-------
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRA]
MANAGEMENT WAS MIXl
STATES NEED TO
PROVIDE STRONGER
RESOURCE
COMMITMENT
Each of the three states relied primarily on EPA funding to manage
their NFS programs. While Colorado and Utah invested some state
funds, Wyoming did not invest any state funds to help manage its
NFS program. All three states recognized they lacked state
resources to fully implement the NFS program and kept varying
reserves of EPA staffing and support grant funds in case EPA
reduced or limited NFS funding. Using EPA funding and their
own state appropriations, Colorado and Utah had sufficient staff to
manage their NFS programs. However, Wyoming did not have
sufficient staff to effectively manage its NFS program. Without
sufficient staff, Wyoming could not provide timely and appropriate
annual progress and financial reports. In addition, none of the
states were building the long-term state capacity necessary to
effectively implement their NFS programs without continued EPA
assistance.
None of the three states contributed sufficient resources to the NFS
program to ensure that they could maintain an NFS program
without federal funds. For example, all three states carried forward
funds from the prior years' grants to have funding available in the
event that EPA discontinued NFS funding. These reserves
provided the states with some funds to complete projects already
started in case EPA funding stopped. Although EPA approved of
states accumulating these funds, this policy discouraged states
from developing their own capacity to sustain NFS programs
without federal funding. By contributing their own state
appropriations, Colorado and Utah had a better foundation for
developing long-term capacity to manage their NFS programs than
Wyoming. However, all three states needed to further develop
their capability to implement their programs without federal funds.
Wyoming had not devoted sufficient staff to effectively manage its
NFS program. Each of the three states received $375,000 in their
fiscal 1995 NFS staffing and support grants. Colorado and Utah
each used their entire $375,000 plus their own state appropriations
to support four and eight full-time staff, respectively. Wyoming
used about $250,000 of the staffing and support funds and had only
one full-time NFS staff person. As a result, Wyoming was unable
22
Report NO.E1HWF7-Q8-OOQ9-7IQ0304
-------
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT WAS MIXED
to meet NFS program requirements. For example, Wyoming's
annual reports were late and not well organized and its financial
status reports were inaccurate and difficult to read.
According to the Wyoming environmental department director.
Wyoming's legislature had not approved any additional staff for
the NFS program. However, the director stated that he had the
authority to allocate staff within his department as necessary. The
director had not determined that the NFS program was a high
enough priority to provide additional NFS staff. In February 1996,
Region 8 sent Wyoming a letter stating that it believed Wyoming
was disinvesting in NFS program management. Region 8 cited
Wyoming's loss of staff and unwillingness to devote staff time for
staffing and support workplan commitments as evidence of
Wyoming's lack of program commitment. The Region's letter
further stated that Wyoming's senior management needed to
address these concerns in order for Wyoming to move toward an
effective partnership with EPA.
Unless it invests some state funds, Wyoming will be unable to
build the long-term capacity needed to effectively manage its NFS
program. Rather than using state appropriations, Wyoming used
excess matching funds contributed by landowners for specific NFS
projects to meet its state staffing and support matching fund
requirement. Although the Region approved Wyoming's
approach, this funding method had a detrimental effect on
Wyoming's NFS program. In its 1995 and 1996 workplans for
staffing and support funds, Wyoming stated that staff layoffs
would occur without federal funding for the NFS program.
Wyoming's staffing and support workplans added that the source
of matching funds for the NFS staff was solely from excess
matching funds on individual NFS projects and that the excess
matching funds would only last for 2 more years. Wyoming staff
stated that one of the benefits of including the NFS staffing and
support funds in the State's 1997 PPG was that they could then
easily meet their matching fund requirement for the PPG grant and
not have to provide any NFS-specific matching funds. In other
words, Wyoming could appropriately use excess non-federal funds
from other programs as
23
Report No. E1HWF7-08-0009- 7100304
-------
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGI
MANAGEMENT WAS MIX*
matching funds for the NFS program. Wyoming could continue
meeting its match requirement without investing any state funds to
build capacity in its NFS program.
A full-time NFS information and education coordinator would
improve Wyoming's NFS program. Colorado and Utah had full-
time coordinators, while Wyoming did not. Because the NFS
program was primarily voluntary and non-regulatory, states needed
to develop a strong information and education component as part
of a balanced state NFS program. A coordinator could be
beneficial to getting quality project proposals submitted,
disseminating information on successful projects, and educating
the public on the NFS program. In Wyoming, where local and
private organizations negatively viewed state and federal
government, a coordinator could be critical to a successful NFS
program. Wyoming's environmental department director agreed
that an information and education coordinator was needed.
In its response to our draft report, Wyoming stated that it had hired
two additional staff and planned to hire a third staff person in the
future. Of the two staff already hired, 6/10ths of a full-time
equivalent was dedicated solely to NFS. Wyoming planned for
the third staff position to be dedicated solely to NFS technical
assistance, education, and liaison activities. Wyoming also was
contracting for expertise to develop the detailed components of its
information and education strategy.
WYOMING AND
REGION 8'S
RELATIONSHIP
ADVERSELY
IMPACTED WYOMING'S
NPS PROGRAM
The working relationship between Wyoming and Region 8 was
adversarial due to differing perceptions of oversight and reporting
requirements. Wyoming perceived the Region as trying to micro-
manage the State's NFS program. In contrast, regional staff stated
that Wyoming was not adequately managing its NPS program and
not complying with all reporting requirements. Wyoming staff
believed that temporary assignment of an EPA employee to the
State would help build and maintain an improved relationship with
the Region.
24
Report NO.E1HWF7-08-OOQ9-7100304
-------
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT WAS MIXED
Wyoming representatives believed that the Region 8 NFS program
staff micro-managed the State's NFS program, but Region 8 staff
stated that Wyoming's products were not always complete.
According to Wyoming staff. Region 8 staff comments on project
proposals and proposed best management practices were often late
and usually after all other comments had been reviewed and
incorporated. In addition, regional comments were often editorial
preferences and contained no real value, according to Wyoming
staff. In contrast, regional program staff stated that proposal
reviews were resource-intensive because Wyoming did not always
include the required elements in its proposals. The Wyoming
water program administrator stated that Wyoming would prefer
that EPA be less involved in project proposals. During
Wyoming's mid-year evaluation in July 1997, he asked that the
Region only approve or deny project proposals and provide no
comments.
Wyoming and Region 8 had different perceptions of adequate
reporting. Wyoming staff stated that they complied with the
mandated requirements, but they were not required to nor would
they fulfill what they perceived as additional Regional
requirements. Regional staff stated that they did not require
Wyoming to report any more information than the other states in
Region 8 or more than what was included in each state's grant
conditions. For example, the Region required states to report
specific project accomplishments. Region 8 clearly communicated
the importance of reporting project accomplishments including
how an individual project reduced NFS pollution. Wyoming
believed reporting on staff activities met the Region's requirement
and was not responsive to requests for project accomplishments.
Wyoming stated that Region 8 should reduce its oversight.
Wyoming also requested in its 1998 state/EPA agreement that an
EPA employee be temporarily assigned to the State. Wyoming
stated that an EPA staff person working directly with the State on
NFS issues would help both agencies better understand each
other's issues, concerns, and problems.
25
Report No. EIHWF7-08-0009- 7100304
-------
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGR/i
MANAGEMENT WAS MIXl
UTAH'S NFS
MANAGEMENT
STRUCTURE
SHOULD CORRELATE
TO NFS PRIORITIES
Utah staff agreed that they should continuously examine their NFS
management structure and shift resources as priorities change.
Utah's management structure differed significantly from
Colorado's and Wyoming's. Colorado and Wyoming managed
their NFS program through their environmental departments.
Utah's environmental department contracted with Utah's
agriculture department to manage about 70 percent of Utah's NFS
projects. However, if Utah's priorities shifted and it reduced the
number of agricultural projects, Utah would need to reallocate staff
between its environmental and agriculture departments.
Utah allocated its staff between its environmental and agriculture
departments to provide better working relationships with
landowners. Utah's NFS staffing and support funds combined
with state appropriated funds supported four staff positions in the
environmental department and four staff positions in the
agriculture departments. Agriculture contracted with the Utah
Association of Conservation Districts to manage individual
landowner projects and track project matching funds. This
approach provided an effective mechanism that gained the trust
and cooperation of landowners because they were more
accustomed to working with agriculture and the conservation
association. According to a conservation association
representative, landowners were more willing to work with
agriculture and the conservation association because of
landowners' negative perception of the environmental department
as a regulatory agency.
As Utah prepares its new management plan, Utah's staff agreed
that they should reexamine their management structure and
reallocate staff as necessary to correspond with priorities. For
example, if other sources of NFS pollution become a higher
priority than agriculture, Utah should increase its environmental
department NFS staff and reduce its agriculture NFS staff.
Similarly, if agricultural projects become an even higher priority,
Utah should decrease its environmental department NFS staff and
increase agriculture NFS staff. Utah stated that in the past it had
done reviews of its management structure as part of preparing its
annual workplans and defining the roles between its environmental
26
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT WAS MIXED
and agriculture departments. Utah staff said they would do a
similar review when they revised their management plan in 1998.
STATES VARIED NFS
TASK FORCE
COMPOSITION
Wyoming and Utah staff had to seek alternatives outside their NFS
task forces to involve all interested parties in their NFS programs.
Unlike Colorado, Wyoming's and Utah's NFS task force did not
include representation from all parties interested in NFS pollution
control. Wyoming's task force excluded local, state, and federal
government membership, and Utah's task force excluded
representatives from private industry. Because Colorado's task
force included representation from all groups, Colorado could
more easily ensure that it considered everyone's views.
EPA and Region 8 guidance encourages states to involve all parties
in managing states' NFS programs. Section 319 (b) (3) encourages
states to involve local, public, and private agencies or
organizations in the development and implementation of their
management program. EPA's 1997 guidance encourages strong
working partnerships and collaboration with appropriate state,
interstate, tribal, regional, and local entities including conservation
districts, private sector groups, citizens groups, and federal
agencies.
In its response to the draft report, Wyoming stated that it did have
a mechanism to involve government agencies in its NFS program.
Wyoming added that the Region 8 Administrator had praised its
task force. Wyoming stated that the federal and state agencies
received copies of all proposals with a request for input prior to
task force ranking and invited the agencies to attend task force
meetings. We have pointed out that Wyoming excludes federal
and local government agencies, not so much as a criticism, but as
an example of where a state had to take additional steps to ensure
that all interested agencies and groups are involved in the state's
NFS program. Wyoming should continue to use mechanisms to
involve interested parties in NFS activities because its task force
does not have direct representation from all groups.
Utah stated in its response to the draft report that it would assess its
27
Report No.E1HWF7-Q8-OQQ9-7100304
-------
STATE NONPO1NT SOURCE PROGR^
MANAGEMENT WAS MIXl
task force role, function, and structure. Utah staff stated that they
were considering including private interests from agricultural
commodity groups and extending invitations to other groups such
as the environmental communities. Utah stated that its watershed
approach framework promoted locally led conservation and
community based environmental leadership. Utah planned to use
its framework as the basis for including all interested parties in
addressing Utah's NFS pollution.
We did not evaluate these additional measures Wyoming and Utah
took to involve interested parties in their NFS programs. However,
we believe that the Region and the states should work together to
evaluate whether these additional measures result in adequate
participation.
CONCLUSION
Adequate resources are a critical element to the success of state
NFS programs. Colorado and Utah invested some state funds,
while Wyoming did not invest any state resources in managing its
NFS program. All three states relied on section 319 funds to
manage the NFS program but needed to develop their own state
capacity to manage their programs. The three states established
different management structures to implement their NFS programs.
Colorado and Utah devoted four and eight full-time staff,
respectively, to their NFS programs, while Wyoming devoted one
full-time staff person. Wyoming did not have sufficient staff and
the current staff did not have adequate time to complete program
requirements. The lack of a dedicated information and education
coordinator and other full-time NFS staff hindered Wyoming's
ability to implement an effective NFS program. Wyoming and
Region 8 needed to reconcile their differing perceptions of an
appropriate level of oversight and agree on reporting requirements.
Wyoming and Region 8 had not established realistic goals or
agreed on an appropriate level of EPA involvement in Wyoming's
NFS program. Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming composed their task
forces differently. Because Wyoming's and Utah's task forces did
not include full representation of all interested parties, the Region
and the states should work together to determine whether the
28
Report No.ElHWF7~08-OOQ9-7lOQ3Q4
-------
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT WAS MIXED
additional measures Wyoming and Utah have taken and plan to
take result in adequate participation from all interested parties.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Regional Administrator:
1. Provide technical assistance to help states develop a
plan that will build states' capacity to operate an
NFS program without section 319 funding. The
plan should include identifying and obtaining other
sources of funding, providing adequate staff
support, obtaining senior managers' commitment
and support, and carrying out provisions in states'
NFS management plans.
2. Determine an appropriate maximum amount of EPA
staffing and support grant funds that states may hold
in reserve and monitor the amount of unexpended
staffing and support funds held in reserve by each
state to avoid excessive amounts.
3. Urge Wyoming's environmental department
director to provide a full-time information and
education coordinator position for the NFS
program. If the State is unwilling to provide a full-
time coordinator, assist Wyoming in identifying
critical coordinator functions and encourage the
director to provide existing staff adequate time to
carry out these duties.
4. Determine if Wyoming's staffing and support
activities adequately support the award of $375,000.
and if not, reduce Wyoming's staffing and support
funds to correlate with planned activities and staff
level.
5. Assist Wyoming's environmental department
director in determining what Wyoming can
29
Report No.EIHWF7-08-OQ09-71Q03Q4
-------
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGIU
MANAGEMENT WAS MIXl
realistically accomplish with the level of staff in the
NFS program. Help identify shortfalls, and
determine what level of Region 8 staff involvement
is needed to help Wyoming implement an effective
NFS program.
6. Develop a strategy to improve Region 8 and
Wyoming NFS staffs working relationship.
7. Provide technical assistance to help Utah reexamine
its management structure and allocation of
resources when it develops its updated management
plan.
8. Require Wyoming and Utah to specify how they
will include the interests of all parties in addressing
NFS pollution when the states' update their
management plans.
AUDITEE COMMENTS
AND OIG EVALUATION
Region 8 agreed with the findings and concurred with the
recommendations. The Region provided comments to clarify
portions of the report, and we have incorporated those comments
and modified the report as appropriate.
Wyoming and Utah also provided comments to clarify portions of
the report. We have incorporated those comments and modified
the report as appropriate. We did not have recommendations
directed to Colorado.
Utah did not agree with recommendation number 2 and stated that
the State should have the flexibility to manage its staffing and
support reserve without EPA mandating a prescribed amount.
Utah noted that some reserve was necessary because Region 8 did
not typically award grants until mid-year. However, we believe
that these reserves should not be excessive and that the Region and
states should work together to determine whether states' reserves
are excessive.
30
Report NO.E1HWF7-Q8-OQ09-71003Q4
-------
CHAPTER 4
UTAH AND WYOMING NEEDED TO IMPROVE SOME FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utah and Wyoming needed to improve some NFS program
financial management practices. We did not question any costs in
our sample of NFS expenditures in Colorado and Wyoming. We
identified $265,182 of ineligible costs in Utah's NFS project
matching fund pools and identified areas needing improvement in
Utah's and Wyoming's financial management practices. Utah's
conservation association inadvertently included agricultural loan
lines of credit in its NFS project matching fund pools. In addition.
the association did not have supporting documentation for some
costs and included other ineligible items in its project matching
fund pools. Wyoming's burdensome contract amendment process
resulted in one subgrantee performing work beyond the contract
project period. Utah travel procedures did not require travelers to
provide the purpose of their trip on in-state travel documents.
Also, Utah's NFS project files did not include summary sheets for
easy tracking of expenditures and related matching funds. Utah
began reviewing its matching fund pools to remove ineligible costs
and agreed to make necessary procedural changes in its travel
procedures and project file management.
States must comply with NFS grant conditions and general grant
regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 31 and
35. EPA guidance states that regions must hold states responsible
for all NFS program expenditures and accomplishments. The state
agency receiving the grant is responsible even if it contracts with
other state agencies or individuals to carry out NFS activities.
Section 319 (h) (3) provides that the federal cost share shall not
exceed 60 percent of the total costs and the state's 40 percent
matching fund must come from non-federal sources. In addition,
40 CFR Part 31.24 requires that states' matching fund contribution.
either cash or in-kind contributions, must be for allowable costs.
31
Report No ElHWF7-Q8-QOQ9-7100304
-------
UTAH AND WYOMING NEEDED TO IMPROVE SOP
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTH
UTAH'S MATCHING
FUND POOLS
INCLUDED INELIGIBLE
COSTS
We questioned $265,182 of ineligible costs included in Utah's
matching fund pools. Utah's conservation association included
costs that were not eligible for EPA reimbursement in its matching
fund pools. The association staff believed that as long as any
expenditure improved water quality it could be used as part of
Utah's matching fund. By including ineligible costs in its
matching fund pools, Utah may not be able to meet future
matching fund requirements. Region 8 needs to ensure that Utah's
final financial status reports include only eligible and allowable
costs for state match. Because Utah's NPS grants are not closed,
the State has time to ensure all costs used for match are eligible for
NPS program reimbursement. In addition, Utah needs to
determine whether it will continue to require its subgrantees to
contribute less than the full matching fund requirement.
We determined ineligible costs in the association's matching fund
pools for two of the four watersheds the association managed. In
one matching fund pool, we questioned $152,798 in lines of credit
for agricultural loans. These lines of credit were not actual
expenditures. Therefore, Utah could not use these funds as
matching funds. We also questioned $112,384 in the second
watershed's matching fund pool because the association could not
provide any supporting documentation. We identified, but did not
quantify, other items in the matching fund pools that were not
eligible under the 319 NPS program. For example, EPA and Utah
had agreed some expenditures were ineligible for EPA
reimbursement, but the association representatives believed these
expenditures were eligible as matching funds if the expenditures
benefited water quality within the watershed. Also, prior to our
audit, the association staff was unaware of regional policy papers
that helped define eligible and ineligible costs. Based on our
sample, we believe that the two matching fund pools we sampled
as well as those for watersheds we did not review may contain
additional ineligible costs.
32
Report No.ElHWF7-Q8'Q009-7W0304
-------
UTAH AND WYOMING NEEDED TO IMPROVE SOME
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utah may not have to repay the ineligible matching funds we
identified because most of the NFS grants are still open, Utah has
matching funds in excess of what was currently required, and Utah
has time to ensure eligible matching funds are sufficient to cover
program expenditures. However, several of these grants will close
September 30, 1997. Utah needs to review its matching fund
pools, deduct ineligible matching funds, and determine if it will
need to contribute additional matching funds to meet the matching
funds requirement. During the course of our audit, the association
staff along with Utah's environmental and agricultural staff began
to identify and remove all ineligible costs from their matching fund
pools and obtained copies of Region 8 policy papers that defined
eligible and ineligible project costs. Utah staff planned to submit
to Region 8 the results of their review by October 31,1997, for
those matching fund pools included in our audit. Utah staff
planned to complete their review of other matching fund pools by
December 15, 1997.
Section 319 required grant recipients to contribute 40 percent of
NFS program expenditures. Utah met its 40 percent matching
requirement by having landowners contribute 25 percent and other
state and local sources contribute 15 percent. These funds
accumulated in the association's matching fund pools.
The association's matching fund pools consisted of costs that other
landowners incurred but EPA did not reimburse. The matching
fund pools also included the dollar value of in-kind activities from
other projects within a watershed that related to water quality.
These matching funds and in-kind activities were not actual funds
received but rather a running tally of credits to the matching fund
pools.
The association may no longer have positive balances in its
matching pools once it reviews the pools and eliminates ail
ineligible items. Without a balance in the matching fund pools, the
association will not have a funding source for its matching fund
contribution and may not be able to provide the additional
matching funds for landowners' projects. The association staff
needs to determine whether they will be able to continue
contributing the additional 15 percent matching fund contribution
33
Report No.E1HWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
UTAH AND WYOMING NEEDED TO IMPROVE SOM
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTIC1
on landowner projects or if the association should begin requiring
landowners to contribute the full 40 percent of matching funds.
Utah is currently reviewing its contribution ratio to determine if
landowners should contribute more than 25 percent. Utah plans to
have a decision by October 1, 1997.
WYOMING NEEDED TO
STREAMLINE ITS
CONTRACT
AMENDMENT PROCESS
Wyoming needed to streamline its contract amendment process.
Because of its burdensome process, Wyoming was unable to
timely amend one of the three contracts we reviewed. As a result.
Wyoming reimbursed one subgrantee $81,068 for work that was
performed beyond the contract's original project period.
Wyoming reimbursed one subgrantee for work performed after the
contract project period because of Wyoming's lengthy contract
amendment process. Wyoming staff stated that they had approved
the work and were aware that they needed to amend the contract to
extend the project period. In addition, Wyoming's project files
included documents that showed project officers had requested
amendments to the contract for extending the project period. They
explained that the contract amendment process was very time-
consuming and often took as long to complete as an original
contract. One Wyoming NFS program official stated that
Wyoming and the subgrantee did not want to cause a delay in the
project just because the paperwork took so long to process.
Although Wyoming staff believed the total amount was less than
$81,000, they offered no support for a different amount. However.
they agreed that the process took too long and needed to be
streamlined.
Wyoming stated that its contract amendment process was
essentially the same as awarding an original contract because it
ensured that: (1) federal and state requirements were met, (2) an
amendment was actually needed, and (3) everyone was aware of
financial and legal responsibilities. We agree that these are
important factors and encourage Wyoming to examine ways to
streamline its process. Wyoming staff stated they were examining
ways to expedite the process.
34
Report NO.EIHWF7-08-0009-710030-4
-------
UTAH AND WYOMING NEEDED TO IMPROVE SOME
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
UTAH INITIATED
ADMINISTRATIVE
IMPROVEMENTS
We identified two financial management issues that Utah began to
correct during the course of our audit. Utah had begun making
improvements in its travel procedures and project file maintenance.
OMB Circular A-87 states that for costs to be allowable under
federal awards, the costs must be adequately documented and
allocable to the federal award. Utah's procedures did not require
staff to provide the purpose of in-state travel on their travel
authorization or reimbursement forms. The conservation
association's project files did not include summary sheets that
tracked project costs and matching funds. Without documentation
of the purpose of in-state travel and summary sheets that tracked
project costs and matching funds, it was difficult to determine the
allocability of the costs to the NFS grants.
Utah did not require travelers to list the purpose of their trip on
their travel authorizations or reimbursement forms. Although the
travel cost documentation we reviewed did not include the purpose
of in-state travel, Utah staff were able to provide justification for
the trips. Utah staff agreed to document the justification for future
in-state travel and make appropriate procedural changes.
The conservation association did not include project cost summary
sheets in its project files. Although it maintained meticulous
records of original invoices, project approval documents, and
payment approval authorizations, the association did not
summarize project costs. A summary sheet would provide an easy
reference to determine total project expenditures and document
matching funds. The association staff agreed that better file
maintenance would help them keep track of program expenditures
and agreed to begin using summary sheets immediately.
CONCLUSION
We identified $265.182 of ineligible costs included in Utah's
project matching fund pools. Utah may need to require the
landowners to contribute the full 40 percent matching fund
requirement if it is unable to provide eligible funds for match.
Because of the length of time required to amend a contract,
Wyoming reimbursed one contractor $81,068 for work performed
35
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
UTAH AND WYOMING NEEDED TO IMPROVE SOU
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTK
beyond the project period stated in the original contract. Utah's
effort to improve file management and in-state travel procedures
will further strengthen Utah's financial management.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Regional Administrator:
1. Verify that Utah has removed all ineligible costs
from its matching fund pools and provide assistance
to conservation association staff in determining
eligible costs.
2. Review Region 8 policy papers with the Utah staff
to ensure they understand what costs are eligible.
3. Before making final payment on any Utah NFS
grant, verify that all Utah matching funds are
eligible for NFS program participation.
4. Provide technical assistance to Utah's agriculture
and environmental departments and conservation
association in determining whether Utah or the
conservation association should continue to
contribute 15 percent of the matching funds
requirement on each project or require subgrantees
to contribute the full 40 percent required by the NFS
program.
5. Provide technical assistance to Wyoming to
streamline its contract amendment process to ensure
project costs are not incurred outside the project
period.
6. Verify that Utah has changed its in-state travel
procedures to require justification and that the
conservation association has included summary
sheets in its project files.
36
Report No.EIHWF7-08-Q009-7100304
-------
UTAH AND WYOMING NEEDED TO IMPROVE SOME
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
AUDITEE COMMENTS
AND OIG EVALUATION
Region 8 agreed with the findings and concurred with the
recommendations. The Region provided comments to clarify
portions of the report, and we have incorporated those comments
and modified the report as appropriate.
Wyoming and Utah also provided comments to clarify portions of
the report. We have incorporated those comments and modified
the report as appropriate. Colorado's response noted that the report
did not have any recommendations directly related to it and
therefore did not provide any detailed comments.
37
Report No.E1HWF7-08-OQ09-7100304
-------
UTAH AND WYOMING NEEDED TO IMPROVE SOMJ
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICl
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
38
Report No.EIHWF7-08-0009-71003Q4
-------
EXHIBIT I
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
To determine the sufficiency of Region 8's oversight, we interviewed the NFS program staff, reviewed
project files, and discussed regional oversight with state representatives. We reviewed CWA, section
319 and EPA national guidance to determine program objectives and EPA's policy for implementation.
We reviewed regional policy papers to determine whether regional staff provided adequate guidance on
regional priorities and state concerns. We reviewed grant documents, work assignments, and
correspondence between project officers and state staff to determine whether regional project officers
sufficiently monitored state activities and discussed issues and concerns with state staff.
To determine whether states ensured projects were in accordance with NFS objectives and consistent
with state/EPA agreements, we reviewed states' project selection processes, evaluated states' task force
composition, and reviewed states' project files. We interviewed state project officers and NFS program
managers to obtain information about establishing priorities and selecting projects. We attended a
Colorado NFS task force meeting to observe its proceedings. We judgmentally selected two projects in
Colorado and three each in Utah and Wyoming to determine whether individual projects accomplished
their objectives. We selected these projects because they were completed or substantially completed and
representative of significant state NFS issues. We visited project sites, observed the work performed.
and discussed the projects with the subgrantees. We reviewed project reports and compared them to
original project objectives. In addition, we compared the selected projects in each state to the
management plan to determine whether the projects were part of the state's priorities.
To determine whether costs claimed were allowable, reasonable, and allocable to the NFS grants, we
selected and tested a sample of costs claimed. We judgmentally selected a sample of costs claimed for
the eight projects we reviewed for objective accomplishments and reviewed the supporting cost
documentation. In addition, we judgmentaHy selected a sample of state staffing and support costs
claimed under the grants to administer the state NFS program. These grants included Colorado grants
C9008634-93 and C9008634-95, Utah grants C9008632-93 and C9008632-95, and Wyoming grant
C9998306-95. We sampled staffing and support costs claimed during the period October 1, 1995,
through September 30, 1996. For the staffing and support costs, we reviewed the source documentation
for all sampled transactions including purchase orders, payment invoices, travel authorizations, travel
vouchers, and timesheets. Because these grants have not been closed, our audit did not represent a final
audit of costs claimed.
In addition to the audit of accounting transactions, we selected and tested transactions to determine the
states' compliance with NFS grant terms and conditions and applicable federal statutes and regulations.
39
Report NO.E1HWF7-08-OOQ9-71Q03Q4
-------
EXHIBIT I - SCOPE AND METHODOLOI
We reviewed the states' compliance with the financial reporting requirements and interviewed state
administrative and program staff to determine whether they appropriately implemented policies and
procedures.
To determine whether state project managers obtained sufficient financial and programmatic information
to ensure grant expenditures were appropriate, we interviewed state NFS program and financial staff,
reviewed supporting cost documentation, and analyzed the states' subgrantee payment reimbursement
process. We reviewed the progress reports subgrantees submitted to states regarding project progress
and interviewed state staff about their project oversight. We reviewed subgrantees' processes for
preparing and documenting payment requests. In Wyoming and Utah, we interviewed conservation
district staff responsible for managing programs to determine whether they were adequately accounting
for costs and providing sufficient information to state staff.
40
Report No.EIHWF7~08-OOQ9-7100304
-------
APPENDIX I
EPA COMMENTS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
It CO ION VIM
t»» If IN STREET • SUITE fPO
DENVER. COLORADO M20J-24M
Ref 8TM5-G
MEMORANDUM
8f P t «
SUBJECT Comments on Or art Audit Report
Region ffs Nonpoint Source Program
Report Number E1HWF7-08-0009-XXXXXXX
FROM: William P Yeilowtiil I
Regional Administrator
TO. Bermie 5 Salem
Divisional Inspector General
Central Audit Division
As requested, w» have reviewed the draft audit report on rh» Region's
Nonpoint Source Program and concur with /our recommendation*. Attached is the
Region's Action Plan with milestone date* for corrective actions planned.
Wtf also have the following comments-
Chapter 2. Pages 12-13
The report states: ' Ragion 9 <*<3 not wttvrold Wyoming s remaining 1995 and 1996
grant funds, even though it advised: all states in Novembar 1996 to provide any delinquent
annual reports before it would release 1997 NFS funds." This statement confuses
wMihoktinp payment on work done under the 1995 and 1996 grants with awarding 1997
NFS furxls. It should be made clear that 1997 NPS fund* wrwcfl were to be awarded as
part Of a Performance Partnership Granf (PPG) were withheld
Chapter ^ Papea 13-14
The report states trurt the program commitments made n the FY 97 Wyomng SEA
were not "quantifiable, measurable end verifiable" according to national PPG guidance.
We question this statement. Milestone dates appear for the NPS program activities which
are time critical. Work items tMat are listed as 'ongoing" or "as needed" generally can be
quantified in program reports. The value ol those that cannot be quantified can be
assessed through narrative* describing the actions The information provided by the State
can be verified by examining program records, and interviewing staff, project sponsors,
and othan associated with the program
41
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
APPENDIX I - EPA COMMEN1
This section end* by stating: 'Wyoming needed lo provide a staffing and support
workplan as it agreed in its slate/EPA agreement or supplement its state/EPA with
appropriate activities and performance." We believe it is for preferable to supplement the
SEA A review of the PY96 staffing and support workplan by a member of the State
Assistance Program showed it was essentially redundant of the SEA. There were not
additional commitments, there was not significantly greater specificity, and the timelines
provided duplicated those in the SEA. including blocking oul aH four quarters of the fiscal
year for the items fisted as "ongoing * We befteve th« EPA can rn«na
-------
APPENDIX I - EPA COMMENTS
Q
LU
tJ
en
a
o
i
£
Ui
2s
Z ig
go
fi
co
o ° « a
•*• « -S S
*Eit
«
2i||l
I § § &<
jt ™ 9 n i
n»
it
t
I!
IS1
43
fo?/w/ No.ElHWF7-Q8-OOQ9-7100304
-------
APPENDIX I - EPA COWMEN!
Q
<
UJ
I*
M£
i CL. 2
1
to
§.
'« £
s
1*8
fill
^.i
Is
C B> " _ -
S*§f ^
fills
IUH
flsls
ig
a «
i
u
UJ
QC
I Ills II
44
NO.E1HWF7-08-0009-7I00304
-------
APPENDIX I - EPA COMMENTS
UJ
=5
Q
O
CO
9
UJ
22
ff 8
yzse
If!
tj
I
il
I
III
!»f
S-35
ii
§81
•a1
s i
I
l
El
fit
Iff
111
1
i
2*
•§
3S.6 a
it I i
III!
o
UJ
I
1
11
it=
£ 5
III
III
III
" "
if
H
if:
11
Jsi
a: u a
45
,Va EIHWF7-08-0009-7! 00304
-------
APPENDIX I - EPA COMMENI
O
Ul
\\
C M
O.2
i
i
i
=3
I
£
:»
•5
ill
ill
I,
1
I
UJ
UJ
tc
¥ pS
e II5
lj*P*
Ml **
Ji*§
««:
2
_^i
lilllH
* i I * I * *
""sim
si^ll
a
2
S
|
iS"
-------
APPENDIX II
COLORADO COMMENTS
STATE OF COLORADO
Hoy Kb'ii
f .ijh Shtt
v'Jcr '»ff.mve Hircctyr
in i»»:<
*'!« ir.a
•USOOn-ny f. -vkllr s. IvhCUKiiv jndKadiirtiui S*rvic<;i Ovuiy i
II) > J : -1 330
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
48
Report No.E1HWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
APPENDIX III
UTAH COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OFFICE OF THE PXT-CI .'Tivr DIRf-rTOR
.l.tLjvltf J*ii».H
SfCWift. i'tl.t).
Sjll Ll*c I .If Uull S-H 14-UUI)
JNJH I 1 l*l"J-l'tfl VtHtx-
September 17.
Btimie S. Siiicav Divisioiuil Inspector Genera]
L S EnviromiicmuJ I'rowi'tior Agency
C'cnciii] Audi! Oi vision
•'16 Mmucsoia Avenue
Kan*.is City. Kans.is
Dear M>. Sjtlrifi:
Irijnk yoxi tot the opportunity to comment on your Dr;ifi Report »n (Sic Audit <»r Reuion VIi[
Nonpoint Source Profiram [Rep^m No. niMWPT^Ut-CXlW-XVXXXXX} pursuant to your Anfwst ».
)*W7 ICULT. THK ri:r>i>rt v-t* well-written Jiid (Mecis#.
IVr yowr rcouc.st our comncnlN wit] iniicum.-ru;c «r HOIK out inreiit-B *-iil> you/
recommendations. En -jtUUlmfi ID cmnitieiiK peciric recommcndatjons. we have also
ctmuwmcd <»• nr(i woA »iih during; their
audit. Our comments ATI.' aiuwhcd ;ind w> ulsn tic seni etetirtiiiiujlly if you desire. Pl
Mtkv, Rtrii-.ticTi M JMi I -5 .UM»1M4 if v»u *i>l\ to discus* those comments or need cJarifjeiition.
. Njolson, Plt.O.
txctuiivc Director
CJ ry O Pclrrson. C< >ni rni i •< i imei
Uuh [aepatiniiMM ol Api iL-ultuio amd hood
49
Report No.ElHWF7-08-OQ09-7100304
-------
APPENDIX III - UTAH COMMENl
T 17, !')<>?
Dun A. Outer. I1 .£., Di
Division of Woler Quality
GonJon J.. Younkcr Executive Vice President
t)i;i>i A.YNOCMlli0f>Of CunhervulMMi Dijilricts
C.riug, Siloiti. FlTlancK DiieLtor
Ucah Ocpanmctrt uT Fnvw^nmcmul Qualify
/. Audit C*>i>rdii>iiMi
ls, Audit*. 1'rocuTvrricni
o) lccbnic;il ;j
El' A RcsUw VT11
Rkk C1jjt;
Corn i nullity buppon U
FPA Region Vltl
50
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
APPENDIX III - UTAH COMMENTS
Sept. 15. ]997Uiyh Comments oji 319 Ni'S Program Audit
N«> RIIIWK7-OtKKJO9-XXXXXXX
< %>iiimenls arc prcsemcd iti n»o groups nsi$ts D\
comments tin all oilitfj portions ut'chc report. They arc prcsciUdl in order according to p;tgc
number arui pjiagiaph
SECTION A
RKSPONSE TO RP.rOMMHNDATrONS
(Chapter 2
p. 17. R«fojnm*niiiition #1. Establish ilu[c to update the NFS management
ry wiirihoi.d tuncls in si:iies thai do not rncvi
^ artt) il
Response: Tlir t:w A required ihsu irie states *crc tu prepji* a maoapcmeiil plan Uwi the state
winiU! implcinciu in U»«; fivsl l'<«ir ycura oc" the state's piofsrain. EPA'.s 1 W7 Nl'S guidance *»uitrKH- incwlificatioo. The principal cumponcm of Utah's filun is
Utah tct-ls thai ike 1489 I'Un. even tlitruyh nvaily ten yews old. is stilt vjhd in its
jopc and arui is t]ie biggest area of program focus jn< funds cottki also impact
u> complete i he i;isk.
p. 17. Rwomfwendatiiin **. Develop policy
a ilenioiuiratioit project. .
51
Report No.E1HWF7-Q8-OQQ9-71Q03Q4
-------
APPENDIX Hi - UTAH COMMEP
Response: (.,'tah wishes to dcfenJ iis appiuiidi of defining a dcmomlninon project js aci entire
watershed oral. The fnUrnvinc raiionaJe wsivuscd: I ) ihe iipptoach tor tfcirtmcnt was consistent
with iltc size of treatable watersheds pennant to USDA'* PI .- Vrfi vvaurrsncd program; 2\
\ieni1 icunt Jand ire;nim:iit jod or animal waste tuwirnl must occur within a gcogr^pH*: «• (he "w:ucrs(u;«l iippioacli" co
irnptemcn»aft«fi is. ctwi«.«tcrtt wrth (he pfaiirtat^ approach used in 1'iuli c»JI*d {he CRAlP pr'i>-
Rewiunrc Management Planning): 5> this w,uersl»cd approach to »uicr ()«.i)i«y
promotes (liv jiaiiicLpotion of ochvr ;iyericies to provide other ruutJitip sources to
KPS (mJlutiwi. The 3 1 ') tunds have scrvctt ;j\ u catalyst by kveraging ihe support of oiher
s, state jod Icdcni) iw*'urccs to addre.s.s NFS problems in Ula>i. This would nc)MU4utcwpp>rt reUtjv<» to NlJS polhiiion uotHrol .aid asscssrncnv ( Huh
hus pririLrpaJly used t'cdcnO 3 1 9 I uruis to support dcvclofinicnl of the 3 1 9 SPS Prngruiiu
Hi'wever. si«oi(x.-iint su«c irscnjrte* have also been wiili>«d by bo* the Dcpuriuieiiis «tf
I ii vii on menial Qindiiy :IIK! A^riciilcttrc and F«»ni. Hixh dcponnicms have mntiibutcd clu-
state revenue m-vcssiji v «> nij«cb the federal (.loll^vs. The UDAF hw been •iucce.^tul in
hinds to support mrigelanO ItcaJth invcriuwiev AKi approxim;»fe^y S347.(XN) annually is
comrniiu:uive water quality «SSCVSTTW:III. 11HQ has noi viewed OUT $\f) tuny over rbjids i,or
icscvv«i j.i a (jcccricoi to "UT ability to achieve increased SMJIC supfxnt. This face has not Nxn
laired by others js a rcnson fnr not f>ni%'iiling iiddjtiorvil smic Tundinj;. We
,{y.Tt:c wviih y«>u ihut t tidi onist foniinnully assess UN NJ'bi niLmagcmcnl prJL. Continued irnplirfiicmyiion of Utiili'>
sh'cd u|TpriK«:li to wuicr ijii^tliiy nurture me ut And the revision c«;miiiw «o
1 uuiK ihut NtiUcs should ruinuin in
TVre is g«HxJ liiiiojuiJ*: why the UtJih wsitrvf exists an J it is wi>c to have such ;i
"
-------
APPENDIX III - UTAH COMMENTS
EPA :mp' siginfii: Jinly. the Jtfant »w;ir d* .in- rn.uk' nmi-vL ji . I 3) With
p]m>xinidt«ly one and a half years worth \it' revenue thai Uuh h;is m rextfrvc. Uus would
iTKib)c!> (lie .stale ti: continue adequate f>rogiani management and |>n>jmmcnd»lMm #7. Help L'lah r«^x;in"iu: ic.s inunugcmcnt s
resources wliun il ujidulo il> i
iillucatjon or'
se: The -.laic agrees i< is viul in review its NFS inaiujseincm >tructurct Such
h.iv.- IX.-EH di>iu- in the past .is annual workpluns -irv ]>Trr]ijred ixnS>4. ol' i
iirmnuiiil inan^gcmciii o .«t<«ii ili« n«(t for some time i<> enhuiicc rcprcscrtuikt" IVum the
liuvironmcntal toninninities. j'rcvious rcprKsetnatioji was frotn ifw l."t;iti Wilderness Asj«ocwii
bin has n«,H Nn;n aciive leccmly. C<.KII.UIS will be made and invinuiofiN extended by «hc cml of
{i, 26 HccomnwndaliiMi #8. RK^UJIV l.'uh 10 specify how Uiey will include (he intcR-sis ot all
panics in ndibcxsmiJ! NPS poiJution when ihc nmiugcnient plan is
" The Utah Watershed Appn^icli Fvjiiii?a-oik is the rounduikHi Tor Uuh .<
)irtc pcoccs:s imd will thus >« irKegfjccd into the ivvm-ti NP.S MiKUgenifnt Plan. The
Watershed Fr!«ir»cw«rli |>niimno locally led TOmcrvaiuw and coinmunily based cnv
leadership :>ixl will he ihe hasis for including :ikl inleic«.u:d partws in iKJdrvH«inj> NPS (xilluiion in
Uuih
1'lxe Nl'S MatiURcmcnl Plan ii hniay iv- written to reflect ihc W;jTcr.ilieil Appiouch framework
and will IH^ submitted co KI*A a-* a draft prit»r i<» J;jnuuvy ^) , J91J8.
p. 31 Recummendalion * I . Verily that l.'tah has removed all ineligible1 LOM>I tVom the irutch
53
Report No.ElHWF7-08-OQ09-7100304
-------
APPENDIX III - UTAH COMMEf
: l.'uJi L>£Q agree* l>iai ilif entire match pool for M .iijjvc "o/>«i" 3 W grams should he
;jnalv/«?i> iu determine cosi eligibility *nd verify adequate Mimnuiy project cost documenuiitm
used tor the match rcquiruU lor each project in each rexpvulivc gram, The DEQ. (JDAF, (hull
Association 01 Conscrvaii0. l"3«)7. Final documctiuiiori .
jgjin>( Us own ix-vicw 10 further H«iun: that tlxose c«.«in ileieirniocd not cligibU- ;uc
troni the
Also, a new project co^l s)imm:iry ilirel lids been Uvvekiped djid wil] be MMicJ tci duLunicnt and
3I'> tNpttOditiiics antl reliiled match for each individual project M itie corporator or
uLci level. The UACD hits jJso begun a rrvie* of its tiles (or Ottei (.'reck aad Denver Rive;
in ccmiuiKtitm with IT>AI; 10 ussure thai ,ill supporting documerKneiiw tor match is eligible ^nd
Lortc^incd in proK*^' I'l^. 1'hc rouflM of sm:li reviews iotlndijig Uncuinentation ot* mtiivti removal
will be scm t«> r>r.Q with 4 copy 10 UDAM hy Dcceraber I f>. 1 997. Mus review v^jjl IKS
completed )«*• .ill .119 grams.
p. M Rvtomnicndallon #2. Review Rugioji VIIJ polk'y p«|ierv *-uli i;ACL> stuff ion J
D&) ami irDAFl to ensure uiwicrsiamliug »f etigihlc costs
Kesponsu: .Such Oiuln^ue IIU.M oeeuricd. the rcsulix <»r Ahieh will be drafted her .1]. I9<>7 together with tlw iv^ults of reviewing the incli^ihlv matcii ($265. 1B2) rwlcd in
itiu juilil as indjcutcd in the pruvic»us question. J his will dcrMrrihe [lie criteria and procedure UM:. aiv eli^jhle.
re's|>o«j,e liw ictujiinK^nci;tlitin ff I cm p. 3 1 >
p. J1. k«comni«nd»tion «*. nvaluiUC whether Utah OCQ Nt«ml
-------
APPENDIX HI - UTAH COMMENTS
Kcsptmst: Utah wants to make it clear that it is meeting (lie tti|uire
grants with 25**- lomitig from Jandowncr/ctxijK.TiiUiiN and 15'* from other sum: ami lix;iiJ
.sources. Tlw sou: will review iKc cost shurc ratio .intl determine whether ;i Blunge >s warranted.
Nonpoini .snnrte .'!1LJ emduncc and provisions of tltc CWA alk«v sinies flexibility tu >ctiiri£ th«
louil ciiKt ^kaiv TJUT The hcsl r:>ii". Documentation ot'such will he scni «> TPA.
p. 31. Rcrununrixlution ttb. Verify lh;n Kt:iti liiis chiuigcd iu iri-Mji« iruvcl procedure^ ID
and tha( iht- K/\C'I3 IIAS inclutk-J pn>jei:i LOil sinnni;iry Mitels in iis projects
:: The IJtQ - L>ivi«il Water Qauhty li.is iulilre-i.-,ecl iKr in-sunu travel ituii: hy
Miiff lo inc1ie:jie !he Oiitu/c and ptirp li:is ai:"«>!d 10 include- pnyret to.st summary *rxrcK in all it* project 1'iJev Thi>> :ic«iun
w;i» initiiiLcii at the time trio i.xxtic wiis i jiscd during I hi; .UK! it
SECTION K
COMMFNTS ON CXI HtK lORTIONS
or TUh AUDI I REPORT
These comment s wilt he picscnted jn order ;mJ Tefurencird by jwgc number nod
l». iii. 1st pjiragmph. * .. define :u!cJitioiul program terms. .
< Eminent: J'leasc suite and tlcllne wh;it i«> ins Arc bcjng retercnccd lh;K need clsu ideation T>y the
Rc<:ion.
p. iv.t 2nd
*. . . . Jevi-lup ;i policy ]>apci th^i dchncs other kirv preij;r>jici lurm,
Comment: I'lense- Klcmify .irul list ctji)ijilo\ af tltnse key pro^rimi K*nns tlcti cice
t 'ult.
55
Report No.E!HWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
APPENDIX III - UTAH COWMEN
p. 9, Ul paragraph. " — the stales had limited assurance dial stales addressed the most
ncHipoiiil sources of pollution."
Comment Even ihuugh [."tah Jus not updated iis VPS management plan according n> die
Liied in UK report. ih« Kiaie Unes IMH agree with this suuctnenl tlut we had limned
NPS pollution proWrtm wcie being addressed. On irv
ruiiimalc Utah docs fed ihai i^e !1JX9 Mitnujicmcni Plmi ;jntl
'lc project irnplcmcnMtion ]>lans have Ixcn grdrn: It j>foblcra xs» (inipircil
insurances. that die most
i:i>n»rary, due to the
tin- pi'ograins and s
source (/{KtlJ
waicrshcilsj. TV- havis U>r
basin irttnuive walcr quaJiiy
wulurs? arc Ueternuncd and prk»ri«i/.Jiioii a\ the 305(b) report ain! jwrsuacrt io seciion
CWA; aiul 3 1 [?vc icMoragcncy p:triu«!ship approach for L'luh. Ix'lwccn local. >UU% Ictferai aild
] and owjicrs and inwrcsts. ]>ronio(cs and vnhtmtc* tlw assui\uice that rcscHirLcs art
focw.>ctt on priority problems. l.fuih's Watershed Approach Friinwwiuk will
tontiiiue to enhance tSwr irntiie water quality planning and inifflagemcrt pmtess i« trtaJi.
The State nM:i>gni/.<.*M UK need to updiiii; ;jnd revise its Nf'S man jgcincnt plan and is so
wiili uwnpk-iiun expected in kite FY-'W.
17, 1st paragraph. In ill? list sentence in the 'conclusion', ic is suted thut the Report
SS "nj(ii>n:illy Ni^mti
Comment: Pfcusc xlcniir'y what UK so issuo ur« in (In: a*]K« t.
I'hiv conclude K Utiih'.-; cnmnienis ml Lhis upon. NCL*C t.ill Mike Reidwrt at (KOI i 5314 6934 or
T. P.H.. Dhvtuir. DIVIMOH of Water Quality ;« (8()l> 53X-6146. it you have questions or
riulher dai'it'!i.ation.
.MiirifN.::K-»r>'i>>.vfifi Khs
56
Report No.EIHWF7-08-OQ09-7100304
-------
APPENDIX IV
WYOMING COMMENTS
THE STAFt
JIM
OF WYOMING
Department of Environmental Quality
HarschUr Buildup » 122 West 25th &rr«»i » Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
:TSI
FAX T7T »
HkXTTT ?«•»
CKOU&7BIAL SIT1NE
UC7'. '77 TIM
•_*NO QUALIF"
•:MTI ?•".;»?•
September 15. 1907
Benrtte S. Salent
Divisional Inspector General
1.' S Environmental Prorecion Ajjcnty
Office of Inspector Genc»Al
Central Audit Division
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS. 66101
RE: Stale o<" Wyoming Response to Audit Report Number E IHWF7-08-009-XXXXXXX
Dear Mr. Salem:
Thank you I'or the tipportunJty to respond to the draft »udit report oHHe Reyion 8 Nunpoint
Source Pro«rams% dated AuguK 8th, 1 997. The intent of Ifvs response is to piovide clarification
of several potnK, and to provide constructive suggestions for resolution of some of the issues
raised.
Genera] Cfoiwiem on Balance of Audit Report. As with any audit rcpurt. in? bglance between Hie
good aspects of a program and program problems are never properly weighted On face value
this report seems rather harsh to Wyoming's dedication uid management of their Ni'S program.
Bui in reality, we find many complimentary aspects. We ar« pleased to learn that we have
handled federal funds appropriately. This is and h«» always been a very uMportanc point to us.
Although the report expressed concern about sulliciem staffing levels, management prerogatives
and programmatic reporting, it hiyhligbicd no deficiencies in the accomplishment of the program
results, which is positive improvements in water quality conditions in the field. After all, we must
not lose tratk oi"ihi» most imponant eadpoim while rcsporJing to criticisms of piocess and
Direct Comments on Audit
1 1 — Deficiencies in Wyoinijig'* Nonpoint Source MnTiagecncnt
57
Report No.E I HWF7-08-OOQ9-7 ] 00304
-------
APPENDIX IV - WYOMING COWMEN!
TK« 1989 Draft Nonpoint Source PJan identified seven majur program piioiities which die
state intended to work on (and has worked on) during subsequent ye vs. These included
sutK issues as wetland and riparian wea protection, groundwater protection, etc la
addition, the state submitted » list of specific priorities to EPA o
-------
APPENDIX IV- WYOMING COMMENTS
SV'e must recognize that it is extremely inefficient to have only one person Inputting GRTS
information on projects when seven different individuals manage these projects. The one
individual currently responsible for GRTS cannot efficiently and effectively perform other
job duties due to having to maintain Arbiter 01 her system, resulting in incompatibilities
with other programs. To resolve these reporting issues, \ve encourage EPA to make this
conversion a high priority. Every month (tar slips in completion of th« conversion. whi^K
was due in June, 1997, results in further inefficiencies for the state. The suite is
committed co submitting required renom in i tirody manner. We need EPA'i assistance
by making the Lotus Noies conversion a high priority.
Page 13 — Staffing and Support Workplans
1 991 the Scale of Wyoming has been submitting duplicative workplans in order to
receive Nonpoint Source Program funds With a]] of the issues requiring priority
attention, we simply cannot afford ih-c luxury or'ine-rticicnt u$c of *caflftirije to submit two
u/orkplur* In diilereni formats tor the same gram. W« recognize EPA's need to have firm
commitments and a level of detail which mecis legal requirements We strongly encourage
EPA to consider the submittal of a sing'* wcvrkplan which will all satisfy program
requirements
Page 17, Recommendation^.
The audit report recommends thai whenever a state docs not meet it programmatic
requirements EPA should withhold funds We certainly cannol concur with this
recommendation. In these days of declining resources for government services and
expanding demands on governments we must find new and innovative ways to accomplish
our missions As we struggle to adjust and find innovations, motivation and efficiencies.
the last thing that EPA should consider is removing "support"' for a program. If you
research the national dialogue occurring in the NFS program, you will rind that this
program is confronted with a new and different challenge from the traditional end-of-pipe
regulatory mentality So in this transition period of finding out how we can best
accomplish implementation of controls on ncmpoint sources of pollution we must allow for
reconsideration of standard operating procedures and priorities. We may find that what
appears to be important "paperwork" exchange that occur between governmental entities
consumes in inordinate amount of resource for the benefits gained. Simply holding funds
without regard* to the substance and significance of (he deficiency is not th«
Page 20 •- Pasc Expenditures v$. Future Commitments
As a re&ili of reorganization of the Division, thv Nonpoint Source Program lias been
incorporated into a Watershed MAn*g<;rncni Unit Two additional staff have been added
co the work unit to date, and a (bird will he hired in the very near future. Of the two staff
already added, 0.6 FTF is dedicated solely lo Nonpoint Source assessment and projvcl
59
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
APPENDIX IV - WYOMING COMMENl
management.. The third staff member lo ha hired in lh« near future will b« dedicated snleiv
to nonpmnL source technical assistance, education and liaison activities with state, federal
and local entities including project sponsors. An amendment has been submitted which
documcms the need for the entire FV-97 allocation.
Page 20 - Past expenditures of approximately 5250.000
Increasing nonpoint source assessments to achieve the TMDL wnrkplan (scheduled for
completion by staff formerly autgjied solely to point source monitoring), obtaining the
l&£ consultant, hiring the new full-time nuflpoiiit source liaison, and adding 0 6 FTt
dedicated to project management and assessment will result in program expenditures
which exceed the S3 75,000 staffing and support grant, and wilj rapidly erode any
carryover at'paw funds.
Page 21 — Full-time Information and Fducation Coordinator
In 1996 the Nonpomt Source Task Force adopted, and EPA approved, an Informal ion and
Education Strategy. The state attempted to implement this strategy by utilizing student
interns, but found this did not provide enough commitment or Consistency to be effective.
In addition to the liaison effort described above, i he Agency is currently contracting fur
expertise to help the agency develop the detailed components of the I&E strategy and to
come up with the most cost effective means of promoting program guals and educational
material & to stakeholders.
Page 22 •• Adversarial relationship impacted slate's program
We agree that frictions between governmental entities is noi productive and leads to
inefficiencies. This needs to be resolved and we have already started the work necessary
to improve the relationship with the Region For example, the State's FY-98 SEA
submitted to EPA requests an IPA be assigned to Cheyenne to work closely with the stati-
on a variety of NFS Junes. Slate staff felt this assignment of an EPA staff to work
directly with the state on the NPS program would be a good mechanism ibv both agencies
to better understand each others' issues, concerns and problems. We will encourage this
option as a way to build and rnaiiuah) an improved relationship.
I think, we must nil realize that state N?S programs: are maturing and with this growth in
knowledge «nd understanding also comes independence. EPA needs to reassess its
oversight role and approach to accommodate and support this growth.
Page 24 -- N'onpoint Source Task force Makeup
60
Report No.ElHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
APPENDIX IV - WYOMING COMMENTS
The state finds the auditors' comments relating to the Nonpoint Source Task Force
somewhat confusing. While federal and state agencies do not hold a seat on Wyoming's
Task Force (foul government* hold three scats), they receive copies of ail proposals with
a request for input prior to Task Force ranking Further, federal and state agencies are
invited to attend meetings, and recently, the task tbrce has begun requesting presentations
and suggestions for better ways to coordinate with federal land management agencies and
the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Agriculture Department.
On February 20, 1996 William YeJIowtail, Regional Administrator, wrote to Governor Jim
Gcringer complimenting Wyoming's Task Force. In pan. that letter states, "I would like
to add my nearly endorsement of the fine contribution these people have made to the
success of the state Nonpoint Source Program. ..This is a system that works as intended!".
We arc unaware of any dissatisfaction from EPA about the make up of this group and we
believe recent changes in how the group holds mceliags and includes federal and state
agencies in the dialogue satisfies the concems expressed by the auditor.
Page 29 — Subgrantee reimbursed beyond original contract period.
Wyoming's amendment process for all contracts and subawards is the same as the initial
award, process. The process is meant LO
1} insure thai all Federal and State requirements arc met;
2) insure the amendment is needed and furthers the goals and objectives of the project:
and,
3) insure that personnel responsible far the financial and legal impact of the amendment
are fully aware of any additional liabilities and responsibilities imposed by (he
amendment.
The process begins with a request from the subgrantee through the DEQ project officer to
amend «ti existing agreement. An amendment is drafted by DEQ Administration and is
reviewed liy the DEQ program staff, the DRQ fiscal staff and the DFQ legal staff. Signatures
are obtained from those who have authority to commit the state and the amendment is in
force.
While the process may be cumbersome at times, each Step is essential to meet the criteria
discussed above Suggestions nave been made that project officers could extend agreements
by letter, virtually eliminating the amendment process. The Stale has. in recent years made
distinctions between substantive amendments and non substantive changes and has allowed.,
in the contract the authority for ihc Project Officer to authorize non substantive changes. The
State is examining the process fur approving no cost extensions in an attempt to expedite
amendments and still ensure that an adequate review is accomplished
61
Report No.E1HWF7-Q8-QQ09-710Q1Q4
-------
APPENDIX IV - WYOMING COMMEN1
: l.'uUi UHQ agrees thai the entire mutch pool for M ;u:iivi«l animal waste structure* in Littte Bear Riv«r JIK! Chalk Cttxk pn>ieiH-= will he
>cnt to EPA by September -*0. I0<>7. Final docuracTiL»ii<>ri of Hie muicn review will he sent w
EPA by October .M . ]M7. Funher di^cuwions rruy he needed regarding (he <-l structures re I alec I «r aiumal waste
in ilw: Litik- Dear River walcrshcnl. Pleats* rtroyjdc the yvuLiiro * documcni;Uii.'«i
ilie SZOJ. 1»2 constdrrcU not cljgibk fvr "ulcli so tlral UACD tun thiublc check
firnHni;' s jgjinr-c Us own review to further a^suri: that lliosc casts tlelermincd not eligible-
Alsti, a new project cii>l sumrruiry -ilieel ha* been *lcvclo(ied IUK! will l>c u> tspeftdimrcs and rnluied nutch tor c:icti inclividual project ii( »ie toopcrator or
prtKluuei level. The UACr> tiit.i aJso begun A revje* of it.s files for Oltei Creek and Beaver
in tirmuiiction with I'OAl- to Assure that all supportiiig doc» merit ;>ti on tor mutch is eligible
uorif^inixi in proK'ti filui. The ro-ull.^ of s(ii:ti reviews including ilncumentation of mitii.li
will be sent t«> DHO *>th d copy 10 L'DAP- l>y December 1 5, lc»?. 1 lus review will lie
TIM- all
p. .11 RvcttMmicmlatHKi #2. Review Region VIII polk y p»(ier<, *nii IJACL> suit'f <>
iiittudmQ UEQ tiTKi l.'DAFl 10 enMJ/c urd«rstaTKlinj. ut'etipiMc costs
Response: Such dialogue liu.-, oevuncd. the re-sults <»T which will be dr.iftvd ;«"! sen! to HI* A by
Ocuober .)]. 1 9V 7 together with die ivsults of reviewing; ihv ineligible inotcli ($2f)?.!82i noicU in
ihi; juilit a* indjciitcd in th« pruvious question. This will describe [j,e critccw and procedure usuAF. L'ACr) arid KR<^i. L.'ACD did not navt- thi:
of the RwgKin VIU ixjlicy papers or i»ih«r writicii guxtancc rcjiardinj; di
: prinr in ibis j
p. 31 Kctiimmtndatioii #3. Before
payirent on any t.'t:i)i NFS
. veril tbat
for
p. 3
p. 31. KecommendiithMi **. Hvaluoie whether Utnh OCQ should in ctnKtn w-iili LDAK require
kxv.ll hinil ownti LODfjcr^tofs to contribute- -10 fxircLiit cust slujc jit place ot'tKc vgrr
-------
APPENDIX V
ABBREVIATIONS
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GAO General Accounting Office
MPS Nonpoint Source
OIG Office of Inspector General
?PG Performance Partnership Grant
63
Report Vo.E IHWF7-08-0009-7100304
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
64
Report NO.E1HWF7-08-QOQ9-7'100304
-------
APPENDIX VI
DISTRIBUTION
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for
External Audits (2421)
EPA Headquarters Office
Assistant Administrator for Water (4101)
Assistant Administrator for Administration
and Resources Management (3101)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Legislative Affairs (1301)
Associate Administrator for Communications, Education, and Public Affairs (1701)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and
State/Local Relations (1501)
Director, Office of Policy and Resource Management (3102)
Director, Grants Administration Division (3903F)
Director, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (4503 F)
Comptroller (2731)
Agency Audit Followup Coordinator (3304)
Agency Audit Followup Official (3101)
Headquarters Library (3304)
EPA Region 8
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Pollution
Prevention, State and Tribal Assistance
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Ecosystems
Protection and Remediation
Program Manager, Ecosystems Protection Program
Section Chief, Ecosystems Protection Program
NFS Coordinator
Colorado NPS Project Officer
Wyoming NPS Project Officer
Utah NPS Project Officer
Audit Coordinator
65
Report NO.EIHWF7-Q8-Q009-7100304
-------
APPENDIX V! - DISTRIBUTK
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Executive Director
Controller
Program Administrator, Water Quality Control Division
NFS Coordinator, Water Quality Control Division
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Director
Administrator, Water Quality Division
Program Manager, Water Quality Division
Program Supervisor, Water Quality Division
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Executive Director
Director, Division of Water Quality
Manager, Water Quality Management Section
Financial Manager, Office of Support Services
Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
Commissioner
Chief, Environmental Quality Section
66
Report No.EIHWF7-08-Q009-7]00304
------- |