National Environmental
Performance Partnership System
FY 2008-2010
National Guidance
FY 2010 Update
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Office of the Administrator
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update)
-------
National Environmental Performance Partnership System
FY 2008-2010 National Program Guidance
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
GUIDANCE 7
Overview of Performance Partnerships 7
• Tools for Implementing Performance Partnerships 8
• Progress in Building the Performance Partnership System 8
Performance Partnerships: Goal and Objectives for FY 2008-2010 10
Objective 1: Conduct joint strategic planning and reflect the results in 10
PPAs or comparable state-EPA agreements and grant work plans. Focus state reporting
on information needed to set goals and objectives, measure progress in achieving them,
and ensure accountability. OCIR encourages the regions to: work with their states to
identify and adopt existing and new flexibilities in PPGs and PPAs; identify and facilitate
workload sharing opportunities among EPA and the states, and; expand and enhance
opportunities for resource flexibility.
• Joint Planning and Priority Setting 11
• Improving the Value of Performance Partnership Agreements 12
• Joint Evaluation of Performance Partnerships 15
• State Reporting Burden Reduction Initiative 17
• State Grant Performance Measures and State Grant Work Plans 18
Objective 2: Make effective use of PPGs to conserve state resources, direct resources to
priority needs, and fund cross-media and innovative approaches to achieving 19
environmental goals. Implement policies, procedures, and requirements for state grants
that accommodate state needs for flexibility and minimum administrative burden while
ensuring fiscal and programmatic accountability.
• Purpose and Benefits of Performance Partnership Grants 19
• Maximizing Performance Partnership Grants Initiative 21
• Timeliness of State Grants 21
Objective 3: Advance partnership principles through effective collaboration with 23
states on policy and implementation issues
• Policy Development 23
• Leadership Mechanisms for Performance Partnerships 24
Appendix A: Programs Eligible for Inclusion in Performance Partnership Grants 26
Appendix B: Regional Functions and Responsibilities: Building State Partnerships 27
New for FY 2010.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 2
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. Program Office
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) FY 2008-2010
Guidance for National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS).
II. Introduction/Context
Performance partnerships - through which EPA and states set priorities and design
strategies together - are integral to planning and implementing our national
environmental programs. To advance the joint planning that is central to performance
partnerships, the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) is
issuing this guidance in conjunction with the Agency-wide process for production and
review of national program guidance through the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
This guidance sets out the goal and objectives for the performance partnership program
for FY 2008-2010.
III. Program Priorities
GOAL: Implement EPA-state partnerships in accordance with the letter and spirit of
NEPPS principles, improve and enhance Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs)
and Performance partnership Grants (PPGs), focus resources on agreed-upon
environmental priorities, and measure performance based on the results that are
achieved.
For FY 2008-20011, the performance partnership effort will focus on:
• Strengthening joint strategic planning,
• Maximizing the value of PPGs and PPAs or comparable state-EPA agreements,
• Improving state reporting and performance measures,
• Addressing issues that impede progress in building state-EPA partnerships.
Objective 1: Conduct joint strategic planning and reflect the results in PPAs (or
comparable state-EPA agreements) and in state grant work plans. Focus state reporting
on information needed to set goals and objectives, measure progress in achieving them,
and ensure accountability. OCIR encourages the regions to: work with their states to
identify and adopt existing and new flexibilities in PPGs and PPAs; identify and facilitate
workload sharing opportunities among EPA and the states, and; expand and enhance
opportunities for resource flexibility.
Strategies:
• Given the current economic downturn, states are experiencing severe budget
shortfalls and high unemployment. Many state environmental agencies are facing
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update)
-------
budget cuts and will be challenged to maintain core programs. At the same time, states
are dealing with significant new workload challenges to implement the provisions of
the stimulus statute. OCIR has requested each NPM to include in its respective
guidance language which specifically articulates strong support for and encourages the
regional offices to work closely with their states to identify opportunities for enhanced
work sharing, resource flexibility, and phased implementation of program
requirements. In its direct dealings with the regions, OCIR will also encourage them to
do the same.
• Work with leaders of state environmental, public health, and agriculture agencies to
engage with EPA in joint planning and priority setting and ensure that state priorities
are fully considered in the Agency's planning and budgeting processes.
• Work with the states to reflect the results of joint strategic planning in PPAs (and
comparable state-EPA agreements) as well as in PPGs and other state grant work
plans.
• Adopt and communicate changes to reporting that states identified as burdensome and
of limited value, ensure the adopted changes are implemented broadly, and continue
to work on identified areas where senior leadership is needed.
• Strengthen accountability for meeting performance goals through more standardized
approaches to measures and grant work plans in accord with guidance from the Office
of Management and Budget.
• Continue improving performance measures for planning, managing, and measuring
the success of environmental programs.
Objective 2: Make effective use of PPGs to maximize resources, direct resources to
jointly developed priorities, and fund cross-media and innovative approaches to
achieving environmental goals. Implement policies, procedures, and requirements for
state grants that accommodate state needs for flexibility and minimize administrative
burden while ensuring fiscal and programmatic accountability.
Strategies:
• Continue to implement the Maximizing PPGs Initiative and develop lessons learned
to help interested states take greater advantage of the flexibility and other features of
PPGs.
• Work with states to incorporate cross-media and innovative approaches to
environmental protection in PPAs and PPGs.
• Continue implementing requirements for state grants, including PPGs, under Part 35.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update)
-------
• Work with the EPA grants management community to implement the policy,
administrative, and procedural changes needed to ensure that PPGs are awarded in a
timely manner.
• Encourage the regions to use the existing issue resolution process (which includes
various informal and formal steps culminating in a final decision by the Deputy
Administrator) as outlined in EPA's Best Practices Guide for PPGs. This is
especially appropriate in situations involving denial of a state's request for flexibility
in a PPG.
Objective 3: Advance partnership principles through effective collaboration with
states on policy and implementation issues.
Strategies:
• Raise and resolve broad policy and implementation issues related to performance
partnerships through appropriate mechanisms, elevating issues to the Deputy
Administrator for resolution if necessary.
• Advance relationships based on the NEPPS principles through joint state-EPA work
groups, the Environmental Council of the States, and other state organizations.
IV. Implementation Strategies
Strategic planning, based on an understanding of environmental conditions and program
needs, is the underpinning for effective EPA-state partnerships. Changes to EPA's
planning and budgeting processes over the past several years have helped to ensure
greater state influence in the development of national and regional priorities and plans,
and the results of joint planning are often reflected in PPAs, PPGs, and other state-EPA
partnership agreements. Building on these improvements, opportunities exist for greater
efforts in joint priority setting, increased scope of PPAs and PPGs including cross-cutting
and programmatic funding flexibility, and greater streamlining and reform of oversight
and other efforts as identified in the April 2007 National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) report. Efforts to strengthen joint planning and priority setting
will continue in FY 2008-2010.
While many states have taken advantage of the flexibility available through PPAs and
PPGs, these tools offer greater potential for leveraging resources to achieve
environmental results. A major emphasis in FY 2008 and 2009 was implementing a
Maximizing PPGs initiative in which participating states expanded how they use PPGs.
In FY 2010, lessons learned from this initiative will be shared as best practices to
enhance the value of PPGs.
Another priority effort continuing in FY 2010 will be efforts to reduce state reporting
burden, based on the suggestions states made in FY 2007 for reports that should be
candidates for changes or elimination. In accord with guidance from the Office of
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 5
-------
Management and Budget, EPA and states will also refine the State Grant Performance
Measures to ensure that state grant work plans are consistent with the Agency's strategic
and annual planning, budgeting, and accountability processes, and implement a pilot to
evaluate options for a more standardized approach to state grant work plans.
Considerable progress has been made toward the goals set out for performance
partnerships over a decade ago. Many of the building blocks needed to build
performance partnerships are now in place, and our objectives for FY 2008-2010 mark
the beginning of a new phase in implementing performance partnerships. To ensure
continued progress, EPA will continue collaborating with states to set the future direction
for our work in building performance partnerships.
From the outset, the design and implementation of performance partnerships has been a
collaborative effort between EPA and states. The joint ECOS-EPA Partnership and
Performance Workgroup (P&P Workgroup), comprised of EPA leaders and state officials
drawn from the membership of the Environmental Council of the States, is the principal
mechanism for raising and resolving partnership issues. The P&P Workgroup provides
guidance to the State Grants and Burden Reduction Subgroups, which address issues
associated with state grants and coordinates long-term implementation of the Burden
Reduction Initiative. Collaborative conservation principles will also guide development
of performance partnerships between EPA regions and individual states.
Within the limits of its role and capacity as co-chair of the P&P Workgroup, OCIR will
work with all the stakeholders—regions, states and EPA headquarters—to facilitate
communication and address relevant issues to ensure the continued success of the burden
reduction initiative.
V. Tracking Progress
Progress toward meeting the FY 2008-2010 objectives will be monitored in several ways.
• On an ongoing basis, the P&P Workgroup will assess progress on cross-cutting policy
and management issues affecting the state-EPA partnership.
• At least biannually, OCIR will collect information from the regions about the scope
and contents of PPAs and PPGs.
VI. Program Contacts
Mike Osinski, OCIR, (202) 564-3792
Reynold Meni, OCIR, (202) 564-3669
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update)
-------
National Environmental Performance Partnership System
FY 2008-2010 National Guidance
EPA and states share responsibility for protecting public health and the environment.
Since 1995, EPA and states have been implementing the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System (NEPPS), an environmental performance system
designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of state-EPA partnerships.
Several fundamental concepts underlie NEPPS. Goals, priorities, and strategies should
be based on information about environmental conditions, including consideration of local
conditions and respecting the need for a "level playing field" across the country.
Performance should be evaluated based on results that are achieved in the environment.
By taking full advantage of the unique capacities of EPA and states and leveraging our
collective resources most efficiently and effectively, we can achieve the greatest results.
Performance partnerships - in which EPA and states set priorities, design strategies, and
negotiate grant agreements together - are integral to the planning and implementation of
our national environmental programs. To advance the joint planning that is central to
performance partnerships, the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
(OCIR) is issuing this guidance in conjunction with the Agency-wide process for
production and review of national program guidance through the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO).
This guidance1 sets out an overarching goal for performance partnerships as well as
objectives and strategies for FY 2008-20011.
Overview of Performance Partnerships
In 1995, when EPA and state leaders agreed to build the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System (NEPPS),2 they envisioned a performance-based
system of environmental protection. By focusing EPA and state resources on the most
pressing environmental problems and taking advantage of the unique capacities of each
partner, performance partnerships would help achieve the greatest environmental and
human health protection.
The performance partnership system includes the following elements:
• Joint strategic planning based on an understanding of environmental conditions
and program performance;
• Resources directed to priorities through flexible funding and work sharing
1 This guidance is a compilation of existing policies and initiatives. It does not impose any legally binding
requirements.
2 See Joint Commitment to Reform Oversight and Create a National Environmental Performance
Partnership System, at http://www.epa.gov/ocir/nepps/policies_guidance.htm
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 7
-------
arrangements;
• Performance measures and environmental indicators for managing programs
and measuring results;
• Innovative strategies to augment traditional solutions to environmental
problems;
• Effective oversight and assistance tailored to state performance and needs; and
• Public understanding of environmental conditions and engagement in
protection efforts.
Tools for Implementing Performance Partnerships
The most common way that EPA and states implement performance partnerships is by
negotiating Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs). These agreements typically
set out jointly-developed priorities and protection strategies and how EPA and the state
will work together to address priority needs. More than half of the state environmental
agencies now negotiate PPAs, and the remaining states reflect the results of their joint
planning in other state-EPA agreements.
By choosing to combine two or more individual environmental program grants in a
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG), states can gain greater flexibility in how they
use and manage the funds they receive from EPA. In addition to streamlining
administrative requirements, PPGs allow states to direct resources where they are needed
most, implement strategies that cut across program boundaries, or try other innovative
solutions to environmental problems. More than two-thirds of the state environmental
agencies and more than half of the state agriculture agencies now combine two or more
grants in PPGs.
While most states use one or more of the tools for performance partnerships, none of the
PPAs or PPGs are comprehensive. Nationally, about half of the major EPA programs are
not covered by PPAs. About two-thirds of the funds EPA provides to states are ineligible
for PPGs; of the funds that are PPG-eligible, about half actually are included in PPGs.
The results of joint EPA-state strategic planning for these remaining programs and grants
are reflected in categorical grant documents and/or other EPA-state agreements.
Progress in Building the Performance Partnership System
After a decade of progress, the building blocks for the performance partnership system
are in place and we are poised to make the vision of performance partnerships a reality.
When we began, there were limited opportunities for states to influence EPA goals and
priorities and the annual performance commitments states would be expected to meet.
Today, EPA's planning process has been substantially reformed. All of EPA's national
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 8
-------
program guidance is issued at the same time, allowing for comprehensive planning.
EPA's national priorities reflect consideration of regional and state priorities; states have
an opportunity to see and negotiate changes in proposed annual performance
commitments affecting them. Most states now negotiate Performance Partnership
Agreements (PPAs) or comparable agreements as part of their joint planning efforts.
When NEPPS was established in 1995, states had limited flexibility to address alternative
state priorities or approaches. Categorical grant funds could be used only for a defined
set of activities and it was difficult to fund cross-cutting projects. Now, joint planning
and priority setting provides opportunities for states to propose alternative priorities,
strategies, and approaches to achieving environmental goals. The completely revised
Part 35 grant rule provides for a range of flexibility in how state grant funds can be used;
states gain the greatest flexibility if they combine funds in PPGs.
A central element of performance partnerships is increasing the use of outcome measures
to assess progress in improving environmental and human health conditions and
understanding how well protection efforts are working. When performance partnerships
began, EPA and states relied almost entirely on output (or activity) measures, but the
relative percentage of outcome measures has increased steadily since then. The state-
EPA effort to develop and use Core Performance Measures (CPM) set the stage for
ongoing efforts to improve measures and environmental indicators that continue today.
Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Performance Assessment Rating Tool, and reforms
made to EPA's own accountability system, all focusing on results, have bolstered efforts
to improve performance measures. In response to guidance from OMB, EPA and states
collaborated to develop State Grant Performance Measures that provides a consistent way
to report the results of state grants. On a related track, EPA and states are working to
streamline state reporting requirements, seeking to reduce or eliminate reporting that is
burdensome and of limited value. Further, to make it easier to exchange information
electronically, EPA and states are building a National Environmental Information
Exchange Network.
Developing a more effective EPA oversight of state programs is another key aspect of
performance partnerships, employing the concept of tailoring the amount and type of
EPA oversight based on a state's performance and needs while ensuring a degree of
consistency among the regions and states. A tailored approach will help address
duplication of effort and EPA intervention in state actions, while ensuring a level playing
field. At the national level, the State Review Framework now provides a tool for
consistent assessment of state compliance and enforcement programs. Similarly, the
Office of Water's Permitting for Environmental Results provides criteria and
infrastructure for consistent reviews of state water permit programs. In addition to
reform efforts at the national level, some EPA regions and states have worked out better
oversight arrangements.
After over a decade of progress, EPA and states are now poised to make the vision of
performance partnerships a reality. As this brief summary indicates, building the
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 9
-------
performance partnership system has involved changes and actions affecting virtually
every EPA interaction with states.
Performance Partnerships: Goal and Objectives for FY 2008-2010
The goal - and vision — for performance partnerships follows:
Implement EPA-state partnerships in accordance with the letter and spirit of
NEPPS principles, improve and enhance Performance Partnership Agreements
(PPAs) and Performance partnership Grants (PPGs), focus resources on
agreed-upon environmental priorities, and measure performance based on the
results that are achieved.
This guidance focuses specifically on the policy and implementation work to be
undertaken in FY 2008-2010 to advance the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System. Guidance from EPA's other national programs addresses program-
specific efforts that support performance partnerships.
For FY2008-2010, the focus of the performance partnership program will be on
enhancing the value of performance partnership tools, fostering use of innovative
approaches to environmental protection, and addressing barriers that impede state-EPA
partnerships. Another key effort during this period will be setting the future direction for
performance partnerships.
Objective 1: Conduct joint strategic planning and reflect the results in PPAs (or
comparable state-EPA agreements) and in state grant work plans. Focus state
reporting on information needed to set goals and objectives, measure progress in
achieving them, and ensure accountability. OCIR encourages the regions to: work
with their states to identify and adopt existing and new flexibilities in PPGs and
PPAs; identify and facilitate workload sharing opportunities between EPA and the
states, and; expand and enhance opportunities for resource flexibility.
Strategies:
• Given the current economic downturn, states are experiencing severe budget
shortfalls and high unemployment. Many state environmental agencies are facing
budget cuts and will be challenged to maintain core programs. At the same time,
states are dealing with significant new workload challenges to implement the
provisions of the stimulus statute. OCIR has requested each NPM to include in its
respective guidance language which specifically articulates strong support for and
encourages the regional offices to work closely with their states to identify
opportunities for enhanced work sharing, resource flexibility, and phased
implementation of program requirements. In its direct dealings with the regions,
OCIR will also encourage them to do the same.
• Work with leaders of state environmental, public health, and agriculture agencies to
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 10
-------
engage with EPA in joint planning and priority setting and ensure that state priorities
are fully considered in the Agency's planning and budgeting processes.
• Work with the states to reflect the results of joint strategic planning in PPAs (and
comparable state-EPA agreements) as well as in PPGs and other state grant work
plans.
• Adopt and communicate changes to reporting that states identified as burdensome and
of limited value, ensure the adopted changes are implemented broadly, and work with
states to identify other burden reduction opportunities in PPAs and PPGs.
• Strengthen accountability for meeting performance goals through more standardized
approaches to measures and grant work plans in accord with guidance from the Office
of Management and Budget.
• Continue improving performance measures for planning, managing, and measuring
the success of environmental programs.
Joint Planning and Priority Setting
The performance partnership system is designed to help focus limited EPA and state
resources on priority environmental needs, taking into account that an individual state's
priorities may be different from priorities at the national or regional levels. To do this,
EPA and states engage in joint planning and priority setting so that both parties' priorities
are known and considered when making decisions of mutual importance. Ideally, joint
planning in based on an understanding of environmental conditions and program
implementation needs.
In recent years, EPA has made significant changes to its annual planning and budgeting
processes to expand opportunities for regions, states, and tribes to participate both early
and throughout the processes. For example, the National Program Manager (NPM)
guidance is built in part on priorities and needs submitted by EPA regions and states, and
all NPM guidance is now issued concurrently so that proposed priorities, strategies, and
performance measures can be considered for all programs at the same time. An online
system for setting Annual Performance Commitments allows states and tribes to review
and comment on draft commitments, offering an unprecedented level of transparency and
collaboration and increasing opportunities to align national, regional, state, and tribal
priorities. The results of joint planning should be reflected in PPAs (or comparable state-
EPA agreements) as well as in work plans for PPGs and other state grants.
An explanation of the current joint planning process can be found on the Improving
Planning and Priority Setting web page of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO).3
3 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/opaa/index.htm.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 11
-------
Improving the Value of Performance Partnership Agreements
A fundamental concept underlying performance partnerships is that each state is
different, and that each EPA-state partnership negotiation must take into account the
particular capacities, needs, and interests of that state. No single approach is appropriate
for every state. Each state and EPA region must decide together what mechanisms and
approaches are most appropriate for building their own partnership.
This purposely flexible approach has led to many variations in the scope, content, and
format of PPAs. Individual PPAs can range from general statements about how the state
and EPA will work together as partners (perhaps identifying joint priorities that will be
addressed) to comprehensive, multi-program documents that detail each party's roles and
responsibilities. Some PPAs meet relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and
also serve as the work plans for PPGs and/or other grants. And while some states have
not negotiated formal PPAs, many have nonetheless participated in joint planning and
priority setting and other performance partnership-related activities with their respective
EPA regional offices, and the results are articulated in grant work plans or other
agreements.
• Essential Elements of PPAs
There is no comprehensive list of PPA elements. The most effective PPAs, however,
contain several key elements, as set out by a joint EPA-state work group4 in 2004. These
recommended "essential elements" are:
• A description of environmental conditions, priorities, and strategies;
• Performance measures for evaluating environmental progress;
• A process for joint evaluation on the how well the PPA is working and an
agreement to implement any needed improvements that are identified;
A description of the structure/process for mutual accountability, including a clear
definition of roles of each party in carrying out the PPA and an overview of how
resources will be deployed to accomplish the work; and
• A description of how the priorities in the PPA align with those in the EPA
Regional Plan, EPA Strategic Plan, and/or the state's own strategic (or other
related) plan.
In keeping with the flexibility inherent in the NEPPS process, these elements are not
required and individual agreements may vary. Incorporating each of these elements still
allows for a wide range of PPAs. The topics may be covered at different levels of detail
4 State-EPA Planning Alignment/PPA Work Group, now the Partnership and Performance Work Group.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 12
-------
depending on what is appropriate for a particular state. There is also room for variation
in content (e.g., PPAs that cover all programs or just a few programs), as well as in
organizational structure and format.
Ideally, the PPA should reflect the results of joint planning between EPA and the state
and explain the strategic thinking behind the work it encompasses. The PPA should also
define the roles and responsibilities of each partner and assure accountability by
explaining how progress will be measured by both parties. With these elements, the PPA
can become the unifying agreement that sets out the relationship between EPA and the
state and how they expect to work together to implement the strategies for achieving the
goals and objectives in the agreement and make progress toward environmental results.
The most effective PPAs have an underpinning of strategic thinking that is based on an
understanding of environmental conditions and program needs. A state does not need its
own strategic plan as a prerequisite for successful participation in joint planning and
priority setting with EPA. However, joint planning will be more productive, and
ultimately more successful, if both parties have done some degree of strategic thinking in
advance and come to the table prepared with their well-developed strategic ideas.
Entering into joint planning armed with the results of strategic thinking will help make
sound arguments for resources; support requests for flexibility, such as requests to focus
on some priorities but not others; and determine appropriate roles and responsibilities of
each partner.
• Advancing Innovative and Cross-Media Approaches
There is growing recognition among EPA and state program managers that regulatory
innovations and cross-media approaches can deliver increased environmental benefits
through reduced administrative costs and better alignment of program resources to meet
pressing environmental needs. EPA and states are encouraged to discuss innovative and
multi-media approaches during joint planning sessions, incorporate them into new and
revised PPAs, and support them through PPGs and other state grants. These initiatives
also provide opportunities for state and federal government, as well as the regulated
community, to target financial and human resources more strategically to produce better
overall environmental results.
The PPA negotiation process presents an excellent opportunity for discussing and
defining how EPA and a state will work together on innovative or cross-media projects.
PPGs (and other state grants) may be leveraged to help support such initiatives. Because
they are a high priority for EPA and some states, increasing collaboration and
coordination between state performance-based environmental initiatives and
corresponding federal programs such as Performance Track, for instance may be
especially useful. The PPA negotiations also offer a prime opportunity for discussing the
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 13
-------
state's participation in the National Environmental Information Exchange Network5, a
secure, Internet- and standards-based way to support electronic data reporting, sharing,
and integration of both regulatory and non-regulatory environmental data. States are
encouraged to use the Central Data Exchange (CDX) as the standard way they exchange
data and phase out any legacy methods they have been using. Regions are encouraged to
support efforts to do so, and should not seek duplicative reporting through other means.
The PPA can also address relationships between EPA and state voluntary programs and
pollution prevention efforts. Discussions might also explore ways to strengthen state
capacity for developing and implementing innovative programs and the development of
performance-based program measures or metrics that can be used to complement or
replace traditional activity measures.
• Other Considerations in Developing PPAs
Performance Measures. Ever since NEPPS was created, EPA and states have been
working continuously on multiple fronts to improve how we measure the success of
environmental protection efforts as well as to improve the data management systems used
to report and analyze environmental and program information. Despite significant
progress, there are still many opportunities for improvement. Consequently, perhaps the
most challenging of the tasks in negotiating PPAs is developing an appropriate, balanced
set of outcome and output measures that will allow for flexibility while ensuring
accountability. Care should also be taken to minimize the reporting burden.
Each EPA national program office is working with regions and states to develop the
measures and the information they need to manage programs nationally and to be able to
report on progress. The NPM guidance for each program should guide the regions in
negotiating appropriate measures for the PPA and grant agreements. Generally, though,
PPAs that are broad, strategic documents are likely to focus more on intermediate and
long-term outcomes linked to environmental goals and objectives. Implementing these
PPAs would typically be supported by more detailed PPG and/or other grant work plans
that include shorter-term output measures for activities or work efforts, linked to
environmental goals and objectives that would be undertaken with grant funds. PPAs
that also serve as grant work plans would contain similar detail. Beginning in FY 2007,
the measures for grants are incorporated in the State Grant Performance Measures
Framework.
PPA Changes and Renewals. The EPA regional administrators and state commissioners
are the decision-makers for PPAs; disagreements among staffs should be raised and
resolved at that level. Affected national program managers should be involved if a
dispute concerns issues of national policy. Both EPA and states should consider the PPA
as voluntarily binding. However, the PPA can be re-opened and changed if both EPA
and the state agree to do so; a formal re-opener clause can be included in the PPA if both
5 For more information about the National Environmental Information Exchange Network, see
www.exchangenetwork.net.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 14
-------
parties think one is needed. Whenever possible, changes should be reserved for mid-
course reviews or when a PPA is being renewed.
Multi-Year PPAs (and Grants). Some regions and states elect to negotiate multi-year
PPAs that discuss priorities and strategies for two or more years. Although the intent is
for such multi-year agreements to remain intact for the duration, they should be reviewed
annually to ensure they reflect current needs, and amended if necessary. Although it is
possible to negotiate multi-year grant work plans — either as an integral part of, or in
support of, the PPA — PPGs and other grants are subject to the annual reporting and
evaluation requirements that apply to all federal grants. While a multi-year work plan
can reduce transaction costs by setting out the framework and plans for the goals,
objectives, and work to be accomplished over time, specific commitments should be
negotiated annually to reflect the amount of funding that is available.
PPAs and Legal Requirements. PPAs are voluntary agreements and cannot "trump" legal
requirements such as delegation agreements. However, PPAs can articulate how each
partner will fulfill the requirements under delegation agreements or similar legal
documents.
Joint Evaluation of Performance Partnerships
EPA and states share responsibility for building successful partnerships, working to make
the best use of our collective resources to achieve environmental and program results.
Defining the roles and responsibilities of each partner is integral to developing
performance partnership and grant agreements, and successful implementation of these
strategies and plans is dependent upon the partners carrying out their respective parts.
Joint evaluation - in which EPA and state officials assess progress and remaining
challenges together - facilitates mutual understanding of each other's strengths and
opportunities for improvement, and sets the stage for continuous improvements in how
they work together.
A well-managed system for conducting joint evaluations is essential to resolving the
tension between providing more flexibility to states through PPAs and PPGs and ensuring
accountability for results. Joint evaluation also provides EPA with the information
needed to demonstrate the results of the significant federal investment in state and tribal
assistance grants and comply with the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). Joint evaluation also provides an opportunity for reviewing EPA's progress in
meeting its own commitments to the state, such as commitments to provide technical
assistance, staff training, and analytic or legal support.
Important Note: Joint evaluation of performance partnerships takes place at several
levels and in many ways. This section discusses evaluation of individual PPAs as well as
general evaluation of NEPPS implementation at the national level. Evaluation of state
grants, including PPGs, is subject to specific regulatory requirements under 40 CFR
Part 35.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 15
-------
• Evaluation of Individual Performance Partnership Agreements
By design, there are no specific requirements for the performance partnership negotiation
process or for the scope, contents, and structure of PPAs. This allows each EPA region
and state to work out agreements that are appropriate to the needs and conditions of the
state. Similarly, the process and contents for joint evaluation of individual state-EPA
performance partnerships are not specified and can be designed to fit individual
circumstances. At a minimum, EPA and the state are urged to reach agreement on how
they will jointly evaluate their partnership, and ideally, outline their evaluation plans in
the PPA. Taking stock periodically of the state-EPA partnership can be valuable for all
states, however, even if they do not negotiate PPAs.
The elements of the performance partnership system (see Overview of Performance
Partnerships) can be a good starting point for state-EPA discussion about what is working
and where improvements are needed in the partnership. A discussion centered on the
recommended elements of a PPA (see page 14) can help the EPA region and the state
delve more deeply into their strategic planning efforts and how well they are working.
Central to any evaluation is assessment of progress toward the goals and objectives set
out in the PPA.
While there are no specific requirements for joint evaluation of PPAs that do not serve as
grant work plans, there are joint evaluation requirements for grant agreements.6
• Evaluation of Performance Partnerships at the National Level
The NEPPS framework includes a commitment to joint evaluation of the performance
partnership system. At the national level, EPA and state officials have used a variety of
mechanisms to review how well the performance partnership system is working and to
identify needed policy or procedural improvements. For example, planning alignment
and PPA reforms were evaluated in FY 2005, and the results helped set the agenda for
additional improvements.7 The PPG-related issues raised by state and EPA participants
in a series of workshops, such as the need to improve the timeliness of grant awards, are
on the agenda for resolution by the EPA's Performance Partnership Steering Committee
and the P&P Workgroup.
After a decade of implementation, it is now time to take a more comprehensive look at
progress in building performance partnerships and set the direction for the future. In FY
2008-2010, EPA and states will embark on a collaborative effort to do so.
• Performance Measures and Accountability
To set the stage for effective strategic planning, EPA and states need performance
6 See question 2-17 in Best Practices Guide, linked from Highlights box at http://www.epa.gov/ocir/nepps.
7For more about evaluation results, see the links from http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/opaa/index.htm.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 16
-------
measures that can be used to assess progress in improving environmental and human
health conditions and how well protection efforts are working.
Traditionally, EPA and states have relied primarily on output (or activity) measures to
assess environmental programs. Activity measures - such as counting the number of
permits issued or inspections conducted — are important for showing progress in
implementing environmental programs. However, such measures do not show the results
of these actions. Outcome measures are needed to show changes in environmental
conditions and to indicate where protection efforts are working and where additional
attention is needed.
Environmental professionals have been working to improve environmental indicators and
performance measures for many years. With the advent of performance partnerships — as
well as new laws and policies requiring government agencies to assess the results of their
programs — EPA and states are focusing even more attention on measures development.
Because unnecessary state reporting diverts resources from other important protection
tasks, EPA and states are also trying to reduce state reporting that is of limited value. In
FY 2007, EPA and states launched an effort to identify state reports that could be reduced
or eliminated; work to implement the state proposals for reporting changes is continuing.
The growing National Environmental Data Exchange Network, which enables EPA and
states to exchange data electronically, is also helping to reduce the costs of state
reporting.
State Reporting Burden Reduction Initiative
In an effort to address long-standing state concerns over escalating reporting
requirements while funding for core state programs continues to shrink, EPA launched
the State Reporting Burden Reduction Initiative in October 2006. The states were asked
to identify for potential streamlining or elimination their top five burdensome, low-value
reporting requirements that were imposed by EPA. Thirty-eight states submitted over
200 specific recommendations (cutting across all EPA programs) for reducing reporting
burden. States suggested changes in reporting frequency, noted regional differences in
reporting requirements, and recommended more electronic data submission.
This initiative was formally institutionalized on an Agency-wide basis by the Deputy
Administrator in a June 2008 memo to EPA's senior leadership. In the near term, EPA
will focus on the 16 priority areas (consisting of approximately 130 recommendations)
identified by ECOS. The Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation will be responsible
for overseeing the burden reduction initiative.
EPA's burden reduction website, which is updated regularly, contains implementation
status, official memoranda, background materials and summaries of all state
recommendations can be found at: www.epa.gov/burdenreduction/index.htm.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 17
-------
Within the limits of its role and capacity as co-chair of the P&P Workgroup, OCIR will
work with all the stakeholders—regions, states and EPA headquarters—to facilitate
communication and address relevant issues to ensure the continued success of the burden
reduction initiative.
State Grant Performance Measures and State Grant Work Plans
EPA believes that consistent and quantifiable reporting of state results is critical toward
achieving national goals and results. In concert with this belief, OMB's FY 2007 Budget
passback instructed EPA to "develop a standardized template for States to use in
reporting results achieved under grant agreements with EPA". In early FY 2008, a
workgroup was created to identify lessons learned in EPA's State Grant Template
Measures (SGTM) approach and provided recommendations for FY 2009 and beyond.
The workgroup found that the SGTM approach by itself is inadequate to fulfill the
objectives of accurately characterizing, delineating, and communicating results under
state grants relative to EPA's mission. As a result, EPA and ECOS are seeking
alternative approaches to discuss with OMB on how best to achieve accountability for
state grant performance for FY 2011.
For FY 2010, regions and states will continue to report performance results against the
set of state grant measures into Measures Central. Further guidance will be issued shortly
from OGD/OCFO/OCIR detailing the alternatives for FY 2010 in ensuring that grant
work plans contain the required elements. In the meantime, ORBIT reports will continue
to be available to report results by state and by grant.
In May 2008, EPA issued Guidance for FY 2009 State Grant Work Plan Pilots. The
pilots will test whether work plans can be structured to achieve greater standardization
for State Continuing Environmental Program (CEP) grants that are currently subject to
the State Grant Performance Measures. The effort focused on options that address OMB
concerns and also provide flexibility to states and regions consistent with the principles
underlying the National Environmental Performance Partnership System. OMB concerns
include ensuring clear linkages to EPA's Strategic Plan Architecture, providing
consistent requirements for performance reporting and allowing for within-state
comparisons of planned and past activities and performance. Those states participating in
the pilots are not required to submit the State Grant Performance Measures with those
grant work plans.
Under the approach being tested by the pilots, certain essential elements are to be clearly
identified in a State CEP grant work plan, including:
o Linkage to EPA's Strategic Plan, down to the sub-objective level where
possible (may include multiple goals, objectives or sub-objectives;.
o Planned accomplishments (i.e., activities and
commitments/outputs/outcome s);
o Related EPA/state measures (at a minimum those identified as State Grant
Performance Measures).
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 18
-------
EPA will evaluate the State Grant Work Plan Pilots after negotiations and at the end of
the project periods. At this early stage, EPA has not determined to what extent existing
reporting requirements and the state grant performance measures can be replaced by or
incorporated into a standardized state grant work plan. However, the Agency remains
committed to working cooperatively with the states as these decisions are made, and
avoiding duplicative requirements.
Within the limits of its role and capacity as co-chair of the P&P Workgroup, OCIR will
work with all the stakeholders—regions, states and EPA headquarters—to facilitate
communication and address relevant issues relating to the standardized state grant work
plan.
Objective 2: Make effective use ofPPGs to maximize resources, direct resources to
jointly developed priorities, and fund cross-media and innovative approaches to
achieving environmental goals. Implement policies, procedures, and requirements for
state grants that accommodate state needs for flexibility and minimum administrative
burden while ensuring fiscal and programmatic accountability.
Strategies:
• Continue to implement the Maximizing PPGs initiative and develop lessons learned
to help interested states take greater advantage of the flexibility and other features of
PPGs.
• Work with states to incorporate cross-media and innovative approaches to
environmental protection in PPAs and PPGs.
• Continue implementing requirements for state grants, including PPGs under 40 CFR
Part 35.
• Work with the EPA grants management community to implement the policy,
administrative, and procedural changes needed to ensure that PPGs are awarded in a
timely manner.
• Encourage the regions to use the existing issue resolution process (which includes
various informal and formal steps culminating in a final decision by the Deputy
Administrator) as outlined in EPA's Best Practices Guide for PPGs. This is
especially appropriate in situations involving denial of a state's request for flexibility
in a PPG.
Purpose and Benefits of Performance Partnership Grants
In 1996, EPA asked Congress for new authority that would give states, interstate
agencies, and tribes greater flexibility in how they use and manage federal grant funds.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 19
-------
Congress responded by authorizing EPA to award Performance Partnership Grants
(PPGs) in the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 19961 and
again in EPA's 1998 Appropriations Act.8 The EPA administrator has authorized states,
interstate agencies, and tribes to combine funds from up to 20 environmental program
grants into a single grant. (See Appendix A for a list of grants eligible for inclusion in
PPGs.)
The PPG program is designed to:
• Strengthen partnerships between EPA and state and interstate agencies through
joint planning and priority setting and better deployment of resources;
Provide state and interstate agencies with flexibility to direct resources where they
are most needed to address environmental and public health priorities;
• Link program activities more effectively with environmental and public health
goals and program outcomes; and
• Provide savings by streamlining administrative requirements.
PPGs are popular with states: nearly three-quarters of state environmental agencies and
half of the state agriculture agencies receive some or all of their grants in PPGs. Most
have taken advantage of the administrative savings and flexibility available in PPGs.
There has been modest use of the ability to shift funds from one program to another.
However, many states have used PPGs to fund cross-cutting, innovative efforts such as
data integration and reporting system projects, sector or geographic initiatives,
compliance assistance programs, and pollution prevention projects.
The Best Practices Guide for Performance Partnership Grants9 provides detailed
information about the policies and regulations governing PPGs. Among the topics
addressed are the purpose and goals of PPGs, the relationship between PPAs and PPGs,
how the Part 35 regulations provide flexibility through PPGs and other state grants,
accountability requirements for PPGs and state grants, activities eligible for funding
under PPGs, and how the state match requirement is calculated for PPGs.
• Beneficial Uses of PPGs
States already use PPGs in many beneficial ways. For instance, states use funds from one
program area to address a budget shortfall in another, and meet cost-share requirements
by using overmatch from one program to cover the match from another. Using PPG
8 Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-299 (1996).
9 A direct link to the Guide can be found in the Highlights box on the NEPPS home page at
http://www.epa.gov/ocir/nepps/.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 20
-------
flexibility, states hire temporary personnel, fund emergency activities such as hurricane
response, address permit backlogs, and support staff training and travel. They use PPGs
to fund multi-media inspections and permitting, sector compliance/enforcement
initiatives, and data system improvements such as participating in the National
Environmental Data Exchange Network.10
Maximizing PPGs Initiative
In September 2006, EPA launched an initiative to maximize the use of PPGs as a tool to
help conserve resources, direct resources to priority environmental needs, and fund multi-
media and other innovative approaches to achieving environmental goals.
Most states had combined at least some grant funds in PPGs and benefitted from reduced
paperwork and administrative streamlining. Fewer states had used the programmatic
flexibility available through PPGs to fund important cross-cutting projects or to shift
resources among programs in accord with the state's priorities. Through this initiative,
EPA hopes to encourage greater state use of PPG authorities.
With the increased emphasis on joint strategic planning in recent years, EPA and states
are now better positioned to direct resources where they are needed most. There is also
greater experience in using multi-media and other alternative approaches to reaching
environmental goals. This experience set the stage for a fresh look at PPGs and how they
can be better used to support state environmental protection efforts.
Four states are participating in the initiative. Virginia is planning a multi-media, risk-
based strategy for compliance inspections to make more effective use of resources and to
incorporate the State Review Framework. South Carolina added to the number of grants
in its PPG and entered into a multi-year agreement that will reduce administrative
requirements and provide greater opportunities to focus resources on priority needs.
Minnesota added more eligible grants to their PPG and is exploring potential cross-
cutting projects. Nebraska added another grant to its PPG that will help assure timely and
continuous funding, even if funding for an individual program is delayed for some
reason.
The PPGs developed as part of the initiative were implemented in FY 2008 and will be
monitored on an ongoing basis. Lessons learned from the initiative will be used to
inform policy decisions and to develop practical "how-to" information on how states and
regions can use PPG features to help them address priority needs.
Timeliness of State Grant Awards
Delays in awarding PPGs (and other state grants) create a variety of problems that affect
10 More examples of how states have used PPGs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ocir/nepps/speeches_publications.htm.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 21
-------
the states' ability to implement programs. It is a priority for the Agency, while moving
forward with Stimulus grants, to ensure the timely award of continuing environmental
program (CEP) grant funds. This is particularly important during the economic downturn
when many states are experiencing budget shortfalls and therefore rely heavily on CEP
grant funding.
In the FY 2009 Advice of Allowance Letter, the Office of Budget indicated that the
Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD) would provide guidance on STAG CEP grants.
The focus under the FY 2009 Omnibus will be on fully funding those CEP grants
awarded on the federal fiscal year cycle that have been partially funded in FY 2009,
based on negotiated work plans approved by regional administrators. Recognizing the
workload demands of the Stimulus, and to provide the regions with more flexibility,
OGD did not establish a timeliness goal based on a one-size-fits-all metric.
Instead, during the April-early July time period, regions, in consultation with their states,
should prioritize CEP award actions so that CEP-funded grant activities continue without
interruption during the remainder of FY 2009. For example, if state A in a region has
sufficient funding for a particular CEP program through June 30, but state B will run out
of grant funds for that program by April 30, the region should set a deadline of awarding
state B's grant by no later than April 30 and a deadline for awarding state A's grant by no
later than June 30.
This prioritization strategy based on each state's fiscal need applies only to CEP11 grants
awarded on the federal fiscal year cycle. It does not cover CEP grants awarded on the
basis of a state fiscal year that is different from the federal fiscal year. In implementing
the strategy, regions may use carryover dollars or funding under the FY 2009 Omnibus.
OGD will measure the success of the strategy by obtaining feedback from states on
whether they experienced CEP funding shortfalls during the remainder of FY 2009 due to
delays in grant award.
The timely award of state grant awards continues to be a priority for the Agency. For FY
2010, EPA will issue additional guidance through an Advice of Allowance Letter and
other communications from OGD, and provide goals and strategies for the timely award
of FY 2010 CEP grants.
11 All of the CEPs listed in 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart A are subject to this prioritization strategy except:
Nonpoint Source Management (Section 319(h)); State Underground Storage Tanks (Section
2007(f)(2)); Pollution Prevention (Section 6605); Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
(Sectionl04(b)(3)); State Wetlands Development (Section 104(b)(3)); and Water Quality Planning
(Sections 205(g) and 205(j)(2), and the monitoring portion of Water Pollution Control (Section 106).
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 22
-------
Objective 3: Advance partnership principles through effective collaboration with
states on policy and implementation issues.
Strategies:
• Raise and resolve broad policy and implementation issues related to performance
partnerships through appropriate mechanisms, elevating issues to the Deputy
Administrator for resolution if necessary.
• Advance relationships based on the NEPPS principles through joint state-EPA work
groups, the Environmental Council of the States, and other state organizations.
Policy Development
Developing needed policies and identifying and resolving issues has been an ongoing part
of building the performance partnership system.
• Collaboration with States
From the outset, EPA has employed a collaborative approach with states to develop and
refine policies and procedures needed to implement performance partnerships. States are
engaged through a variety of joint committees, work groups, and task forces addressing
matters associated with performance partnerships. For example, state representatives
were members of the revised Part 35 regulation work group that developed the rules
governing all state grants, including PPGs. The P&P Workgroup provides ongoing
leadership for performance partnerships, focusing on issues such as reporting burden, the
state role in strategic planning, increasing the value of PPAs and PPGs, and further
developing NEPPS.
Collaboration with states is not limited to implementation of performance partnerships.
Perhaps the most important change that has occurred over the past decades is that states
are now more actively engaged with EPA - from setting goals and priorities to
developing regulations and guidance to drafting performance measures to designing data
exchange systems. While there are many opportunities for increased collaboration, the
dynamic of the EPA-state relationship has shifted and is now more balanced than ever
before.
• Policy Challenges
Most of the basic building blocks for performance partnerships are now in place, but
many policy challenges remain. In various evaluations and reviews of performance
partnerships, several themes have emerged which suggest areas where additional policy
solutions are needed.
Some remaining issues stem from the inherent tensions involved in providing greater
flexibility while also ensuring accountability. Further, EPA's accountability and
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 23
-------
management systems are primarily organized by environmental media and grant
program, and do not readily accommodate multi-media or alternative approaches to
achieving environmental objectives. Recent Office of Management and Budget
requirements for consistent reporting on state grants and application of the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) have reinforced the media-specific orientation.
One objective of performance partnerships is to help focus resources where they are
needed most, allowing states to shift funds among programs to address priority problems.
In practice, there have been few such shifts. In addition to the media-specific orientation
described earlier, there are several other reasons why this flexibility has been rarely used.
Media program managers may not see the same need for funding flexibility as do agency
senior managers, and they are reluctant to entertain shifts because funding is barely
adequate to cover base program requirements. Regions and states perceive limited room
for negotiation on national program manager (NPM) guidance, implementation strategies,
and performance targets. Many believe EPA has not been consistent in its response to
state requests for resource shifts and it is unclear what factors EPA considers in making
these decisions.
Leadership Mechanisms for Performance Partnerships
The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) is the lead
office for performance partnerships. As lead office, OCIR is responsible for advancing
state-EPA partnerships and facilitating the resolution of policy and implementation issues
associated with performance partnerships. To carry out this responsibility, OCIR works
with all EPA program and regional offices, and elevates issues to the Deputy
Administrator as needed.
The ECOS-EPA Partnership and Performance Workgroup (P&P Workgroup),
comprised of EPA senior managers and state leaders drawn from the ECOS membership,
is the principal mechanism through which EPA and states work together to advance
performance partnerships and results-based management overall.
The NEPPS Coordinators Work Group is a network of regional staff who have a
significant role in the implementation of NEPPS in the EPA regions. NEPPS
coordinators are the regions' experts on policies, procedures, issues, and other matters
pertaining to EPA-state partnerships and implementation of NEPPS, and they support the
regions' efforts to establish PPAs and PPGs with state partners. They participate in
development of policies and guidance related to implementing NEPPS principles and
tools at the national level, including participation in work groups and monthly
coordinators' calls. See Appendix B which enumerates typical regional NEPPS
coordinator functions and responsibilities.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 24
-------
The Partnership Council of the Office of Water and States (PCOWS) was created to
identify and implement workable solutions for environmental and public health problems.
The mission of the Council is to ensure early and ongoing engagement of the states in
planning, budgeting and implementation activities for the national water program.
Through early collaboration, the goal is to strengthen protection of the nation's waters
while ensuring transparent accountability for federal and state programs, principally for
but not limited to, the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. According to its
charter, the PCOWS will meet at least quarterly and OW and ECOS will provide staff
support for members and staff at and between meetings.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 25
-------
Appendix A
Grant Programs Eligible for Performance Partnership Grants
Grant Program
Air Pollution Control - CAA 105
Radon Assessment and Mitigation -TSCA 306
Water Pollution Control - CWA 106
Water Nonpoint Source Implementation CWA 319
Wetlands Development Grants Program - CWA 104(b)3
(competitive)
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements - CWA 104(b)3
(competitive)
Public Water System Supervision --SDWA 1443 (a)
Underground Injection Control - SDWA 1443(b)
Hazardous Waste Management - SWDA 301 1 (a)
Brownfields Response - CERCLA 128(a)*
Pesticides Program Implementation - FIFRA 23 (a) 1
Lead-Based Paint Activities - TSCA 404(g)
Toxic Substances Compliance Monitoring - TSCA
Pesticides Cooperative Enforcement - FIFRA 23 (a) 1
Environmental Information Exchange Network* -
Authority in EPA Appropriations Acts
Pollution Prevention Initiatives - PPA 6605 (competitive)
Sector Program (compliance/enforcement)* (competitive)
Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
State Underground Storage Tanks
Required
Match
40%**
50%
0%**
40%**
25%
0%
25%
25%
25%
0%
0%
0%
25%
0%
0%
50%
0%
50%
0%
25%
* Program added to list of grants eligible for PPGs after publication of the Part 35 rule.
** State must also meet Maintenance of Effort requirements.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update)
26
-------
Appendix B
Regional Functions and Responsibilities
Building State Partnerships
Background
Efforts to implement the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS)
encompass a wide range of inter-related activities. They include such key functions as
conducting joint planning and priority setting; developing Performance Partnership Agreements
(PPAs) or comparable EPA-state agreements; negotiating and managing Performance Partnership
Grants (PPGs) and other state grants; negotiating performance commitments; and developing
improved performance measures.
Communication throughout the network of players in these endeavors is essential to ensure that
the work is aligned and that policies are understood and implemented by all. The need for
communication has become particularly critical with the advent of new policies and procedures
associated with state grants.
The following list highlights key functions performed in regional offices with regard to building
state partnerships. The list was developed by regional staff with years of experience
implementing state partnerships. Many have seen the scope of their work expand, serving as
experts for the region on cross-cutting state grant issues and requirements. Depending on the
region, these functions may be performed by a single individual or by several people.
Note: This list does not include roles and responsibilities associated with being a Performance
Partnership Grant (PPG) or other grant Project Officer. In some regions, an individual
may carry out some of the functions below in addition to serving as a Project Officer.
Policy Development and Implementation
< Serve as the region's expert on policies, procedures, issues, and other matters pertaining
to EPA-state partnerships and implementation of NEPPS.
< Participate in development of policies and guidance related to implementing NEPPS
principles and tools - Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) and Performance
Partnership Grants(PPGs) - at the national level, including participation in work groups.
< Identify and broker resolution of "sticking point" issues associated with negotiation and
implementation of individual PPAs, PPGs, and related state grants, elevating issues to
senior officials in Regions and Headquarters as needed.
< Identify and raise issues related to performance partnerships or state grants that need to
be addressed at the national level.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 27
-------
Planning and Priority Setting
< Coordinate with EPA Regional planners, Regional program offices, and state agencies to
ensure that state priorities and needs are adequately considered and addressed in EPA
planning processes and documents.
< Coordinate development of individual state PPAs and the PPG and other state grant work
plans associated with the PPAs.
Administration
< Maintain effective two-way communications with PPG and other state grant Project
Officers to foster understanding of and adherence to NEPPS principles and policies
related to state grants.
< Monitor the grants negotiation and award progress to ensure that PPGs and other state
grants are awarded in a timely manner, including broker resolution of "sticking points"
and elevating issues as needed.
< Serve as experts on cross-cutting state grant issues, and provide assistance as needed to
help the region and states adhere to grant policies and procedures.
< Collect and report information about implementing performance partnerships - such as
the status, contents, and benefits of PPAs and PPGs ~ and respond to information
requests.
Oversight
< Coordinate joint EPA-state evaluations of PPAs.
< If a PPA also serves as a PPG or other grant work plan, coordinate the evaluation with the
grant Project Officer.
Communications
< Provide a coherent EPA message to states on NEPPS-related matters.
< Explain and advocate for NEPPS principles within EPA and with states and other
stakeholders.
< Explain and advocate for the use of PPAs and PPGs as tools for implementing NEPPS
principles within EPA and with states.
NEPPS National Guidance FY 2008-2010 (FY 2010 Update) 28
------- |