Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Water: Clean Water Financing

Performance Annual Measures for CWA Section 106 Program Assessment Ratings Tool (PART) Review

Overview

In July 2002, the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget announced the development of a tool for formally evaluating the effectiveness of federal programs. The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is a systematic method of assessing the performance of program activities across the Federal government. The tool is a series of questions designed to provide a consistent approach to rating programs across the Federal government. The questions reflect familiar concepts and incorporate existing practices OMB examiners rely on to assess program performance. By year-end 2006, all federal government programs will have been reviewed.

What can I find on this site?

In 2005, EPA and OMB conducted a PART review of EPA's grants for state water pollution control programs under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. As a result of the PART review, EPA agreed to post environmental performance data on the core set of measures used to rate the successfulness of the program. This website contains these data, with links to more information about each measure and state-by-state results.

In a PART review, an agency establishes measures to address outcome, output and efficiency of programs. An outcome refers to the events or conditions of direct importance to the public/beneficiary that are external to the program. An output refers to the internal activities of a program (e.g., the products or services delivered). An efficiency measure captures a program's ability to implement its activities and achieve results (an outcome or output), relative to resources (an input such as cost and/or time).

Performance Measures for the Clean Water Act Section 106 Program Assessment Ratings Tool (PART) Review

Performance Measure Term Type Aggregated Annual Data State-Specific Data
Location
1. Number of the TMDLS that are established by States and approved by EPA on a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) Annual Output

Year            Target            Actual
--------------------------------------------------
2006            16,896            19,373
2005            14,462            15,342
2004            11,015            11,584
2000            baseline            2,677

 

http://www.epa.gov/
owow/tmdl/ parttmdl.html
2. Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits that are on schedule to be reissued Annual Output

Year            Target            Actual
--------------------------------------------------
2006            95%               96.8%
2005            95%              104.0%
2004            baseline          0

 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
part106.cfm
3. Cost per water segment restored.(see definition below) Annual Efficiency

Year              Target              Actual
--------------------------------------------------
2006              $1,358,351
2005              baseline         $828,654
2004              NA              $1,544,998

 

http://www.epa.gov/owm/
(data not yet available)
4. Percentage of majors in Significant Non-compliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal year(see definition below) Annual Output

Year              Target              Actual
-------------------------------------------------
2006              maintain &/or
                     improve bas
2005              maintain &/or      19.7%
                     improve bas
2004              baseline             22.5%

 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/
monitoring/programs/cwa/npdes.html
5. Annual percentage of waterbody segments identified by states in 2000 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (cumulative) (see definition below) Annual Outcome

Year              Target              Actual
-------------------------------------------------
2006              10.3%                13.2%
2005              2.0%                  9.0%
2004              2.0%                  3.3%
2000              baseline             NA

 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
partmeasureL.html
6. Percentage of states and territories that, within the preceding 3-year period, submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous standard Annual Output

Year              Target              Actual
-------------------------------------------------
2006              66%                  66%
2005              62%                  62%
2004              baseline             70%

 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
standards/wqspart106.html

PART Performance Measure Definitions

1. Annual number of the TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA on a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative)

A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a plan for reducing loadings to assure that a waterway can attain water quality standards. States must develop TMDLs for any waters they list under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as not attaining standards. EPA works with each state to establish a schedule for developing TMDLs as expeditiously as practicable. EPA policy is that TMDLs for every impairment listed on previous section 303(d) lists should be established in a time frame that is no longer than 8 to 13 years from the time the impairment is identified. This measure tracks whether states establish TMDLs on these approved schedules. Note that EPA must approve state-developed TMDLs. This measure is cumulative; it tracks total TMDLs established and approved from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2005.

2. Annual percentage of high priority state NPDES permits that are on schedule to be reissued

All point-source discharges to U.S. waters must receive a permit under EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Permits must be re-issued at least every five years to reflect the latest technology and water quality requirements. EPA recently established a Permitting for Environmental Results strategy to ensure effective management of NPDES programs. One of the key tools to ensuring environmental results is to identify the most environmentally significant permits and set priorities to reissue them when they expire. Annually, EPA and states agree on a list of such priority permits that will be issued that year. Selection criteria include impacts to TMDL-listed impaired waters, drinking water sources, endangered species, and integration of new water quality standards into permits. Combined with the long-standing GPRA goals to achieve and maintain a 90% overall permit issuance rate (with some exceptions), achieving a 95% permit issuance rate for priority permits will contribute to the EPA Surface Water Program's long term goals of restoring and maintaining the health of water bodies and watersheds.

3. Annual 106 Efficiency Measure

This measure captures the program's ability to implement its activities and achieve results: total number of water segments restored relative to the cost (total federal 106 funds plus state matching funds).

Total Federal 106 Funds (minus tribes) + State Match (Maintenance of Effort Portion)
____________________________________________________________________________________

Total # of Water Segments Restored to Attainment
Numerator: Cumulative 106 appropriations (minus the tribal portion of 106) plus State contribution against maintenance of effort). This measure is cumulative; it adds total 106 appropriations + state maintenance of effort since the year 2000.

Denominator: Cumulative total # of water segments restored to attainment. In 2000, states identified some 21,632 specific waterbodies as impaired (i.e., not attaining state water quality standards) on lists required under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Nationally, EPA has adopted a goal of restoring 25% of those waters identified as impaired by 2012 with an interim goal of restoring 5% of these waters (i.e., 1,082 waterbodies) by the end of fiscal year 2006. This denominator measure is calculated by comparing the baseline of state-listed waters in either 1998 or 2000 to the current list of impaired waters submitted in state 303(d) lists every two years (next lists are due in 2006). Waters that have been "de-listed" from the baseline can be counted towards meeting this water quality restoration goal. This might happen, for example, if subsequent monitoring determines that a waterbody is not impaired. This measure is cumulative; it tracks the total percentage of the 21,632 waterbodies restored since the year 2000.

4. Annual percentage of major permittees in SNC at any time during the fiscal year

Major National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities are designated as being in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) when reported effluent exceedances are 20% or more above permitted levels for toxic pollutants and/or 40% or more above permitted levels of conventional pollutants. The Permit Compliance System (PCS) contains additional data obtained through reports and on-site inspections that are used to determine SNC including: non-effluent limit violations such as unauthorized bypasses, unpermitted discharges, and pass-through of pollutants which cause water quality or health problems; permit schedule violations; non-submission of permittee self-reported Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR); submission of DMRs 30 or more days late; and violation of a state or federal enforcement orders. DMR data are entered into PCS by either state or EPA regional offices. PCS automatically compares the entered DMR data with the pollutant limit parameters specified in the facility NPDES permit. This automated process identifies those facilities which have emitted effluent in excess of permitted levels. For this measure, facilities are counted as SNCs under this measure if they have been reported as being in SNC for a minimum of one quarter in the fiscal year.

5. Annual percentage of waterbody segments identified by states in 2000 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (cumulative)

In 2000, states identified some 21,632 specific waterbodies as impaired (i.e., not attaining state water quality standards) on lists required under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Nationally, EPA has adopted a goal of restoring 25% of those waters identified as impaired by 2012 with an interim goal of restoring 5% of these waters (i.e., 1,082 waterbodies) by the end of fiscal year 20061. The goal of restoring 25% of impaired waters by 2012 is included in the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) Strategic Plan.

This measure is calculated by comparing the baseline of state-listed waters in either 1998 or 20002 to the current list of impaired waters submitted in state 303(d) lists every two years (next lists are due in 2006). Waters that have been "de-listed" from the baseline can be counted towards meeting this water quality restoration goal. This might happen, for example, if subsequent monitoring determines that a waterbody is not impaired

This measure is cumulative; it tracks the total percentage of the 21,632 waterbodies restored since the year 2000.

A more detailed description of this restoration measure is available in the Fiscal Year 2005 National Water Program Guidance at http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan. 2 EPA allowed states to skip submitting a 303(d) list in 2000, so only a few states chose to submit them for EPA approval.

6. Annual percentage of States and Territories that, within the preceding 3-year period, submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous standard.

This measure indicates the progress of states and territories in adopting or revising their water quality criteria to reflect the latest scientific information. States and tribes should maintain up-to-date water quality standards that consider the latest recommended water quality criteria from EPA or similar information from other sources. This includes criteria for pollutants that did not have criteria before, as well as updates to reflect new toxicity studies or exposure factors. (States and territories must review their water quality standards at least once every three years.)


Jump to main content.