Budget and Strategic Planning Workgroup 18 January 2006

Notes:

Change Melody Sees’ contact email to @yahoo.com

Have Wilfred mention OwensValley travel funding at next RTOC

Put Scott and Ken Cronin on the email list for the workgroup.

Introductions:

Attendees: Margaret Cook, Melody Sees, Laura Mayo, Alex Cabillo, DonBay, Robin Powell, Marie Barry, Syndi Smallwood, Wilfred Nabahe, Paula Stitler

Other Attendees: Scott Sufficool, Nina Hapner

EPA Attendees: Wenona Wilson, Wendell Smith, Joel Jones, Clancy Tenley, Tim Grant, Lori Lewis, Lilia Dignan, Veronica, Sara Bartholemew, Stephanie Valentine, Jim Grove, Loretta Vanegas, Jared Vollmer, Pam, Heather White, Pam Overman

By phone: Ken Cronin, Eileen Lopez, Ken Norton, Jill Sherman

Where we are currently in terms of schedule and process – Joel

TIMELINE:

Release draft architecture for 45-day public review and comment - mid January

Release full text draft for review - April 2006

Release full revised draft SP for limited state and Tribal “fatal flaw” review - June/July 2006

Formal OMB Review - No later than August 15, 2006

To Congress – 9/30/06

OCFO Feels that they aren’t getting comments from people who aren’t getting guided by the agency – they’re receiving comments funneled through the Region staff (RTOC comments are OK). NTOC had a call for comments without the EPA staff involved.

Purpose/objectives – Purpose is to provide the RTOC committee from EPA and Tribal perspective thoughts on changes and revisions to SP that we can convey in response to the public release of the document coming soon. Additionally, work with NTOC in preparing for subsequent reviews.

Expected outcomes – OCFO will respond if they get a deluge of comments the interest of the right people will be piqued…we should have either one large response from the RTOC or several individual RTOC responses that are cohesive and send specific message on specific performance measures that we feel are key. The actual draft will be a huge document. Hopefully Joel’s office can help us by reviewing the document and pulling out key sections for the RTOC.

Review current Agency SP – Joel handed out the draft subobjectives for the SP as of 1/18/06.

Air – Stephanie Valentine

From Regional perspective, they’re sometimes out of the loop Darrell Harmon from OAR is most active in this area. There are now 2 strategic targets in Goal 1, went through OCFO review, and were adjusted but not removed. They leave much to the discretion of Tribes, especially 1.6.1.

Passed out Ken Cronin handout – bulk of info addresses the lack of environmental data – baseline assessment and environmental indicators. Based on discussion with Tribal air folks, proposes some possible strategic targets for Goal 1. Note that the current SP does not address indoor air whatsoever. Shared with NTAA executive committee, out for consideration. Dependent on data we can get to support these targets.

Joel: Comments on the 2 items in the 1/18/06 document for Air?

Syndi- who developed these items? Clancy – someone at EPA nationally.

Syndi – how do we know we have 30 Tribes with capacity to implement CAA – Stephanie – they have counted the number of Tribes with programs, and estimated a reasonable increase. Syndi worries that this is too broad. Stephanie feels that is to the benefit of Tribes. Scott worries that the number of 30 is a misrepresentation – over 100 Tribes have programs, and only one has delegated authority (Navajo). Gila River and St. Regis Mohawk are close. Stephanie needs to find out what the measure is. Number of Tribes with 105 programs in R9 is 2 – Navajo and Gila River. But funding restrictions make more recipients impossible.

Who wrote this? Darrell Harmon and a high-up from OAR. They know it’s not perfect, but they feel quite pleased that it even made it into the document.

What do the numbers mean? What are we counting? It’s incredibly complicated how the measures get into any given system. There are budget performance measures and planning performance measures. They had to negotiate with budget folks…the budget folks would accept as numbers are Tribes with TAS for programmatic responsibilities, not administrative responsibilities. Eg. TAS to get a 105 grant, but that doesn’t count, only TAS for programmatic responsibility. This is no easy process to get agreement on this. Also, on attainability: the 30-50 is just a placeholder number. Now, OAR is going back to Regions and Tribes over the coming 6 months to find out what the real numbers are/will be. The TAS is not just under 105; can be requested to simply get a grant or to do specific activities – permitting programs, TIPs, etc. The Tribal Authority Rule outlines the TAS process.

Melody – the TAR requires that you be developing an air program to implement that, doesn’t it? Stephanie – you’re asking if those numbers reflect the Tribal world – those numbers will be limited in scope because of the disparity between planning and budget measures; this isn’t straightforward. Doesn’t think this is an ideal way to reflect this, but it was the best they could negotiate. Darrell will be at RTOC with a 2-hour session on Thursday to answer your questions.

Margaret – concerned about the timeliness with which delegations are approved. Was a recommendation in the GAO report.

Joel – all we’re asking for is that HQ go to the Regions and Tribes for real numbers. If Darrell says these aren’t based upon sound data, it means there’s room for change on being a TAR/TAS; within the construct of TAS, is there a reasonable number that we can figure out – I have no idea, but it sounds like it’s more like 3-5 instead of 30-50.

Comments on 1.6.1 – there are no numbers, and this seems to describe what we’re doing already.

Scott – we know from Fy07 budget that 20+ Tribes were denied funding to perform monitoring. Can we add numbers to this target? Number of assessments - # denied plus an expansion target?

Clancy – Every Tribe knowing whether their air is safe to breathe (this gives the option for monitoring or TA).

Margaret – States are responding to Greenhouse Gas programs very quickly and Tribes aren’t responding at all.

Ken Cronin – see the ST1 suggested in NTEC document under 1.6.1.

Jill – working with a consultant on IMPROVE monitoring data. Feels data is questionable. Consultant won’t even consider data of IMPROVE stations because they’re not meeting criteria of EPA themselves. Also consider how many years there has been Tribal programs with monitoring. There needs to be more monitoring for Tribes for themselves because most Reservations are so completely away from air monitoring stations.

Darrell feels that this insertion is a win – a firm commitment in writing to support Tribes.

Marilyn – work with Syndi and others to figure out how best to utilize Darrell’s time. Also, as we add our concerns into this document, we need another issue paper to accompany it into HQ to support our concerns. At present, this is the face of the beast, and we need to utilize all our options in dealing with it, and there are many goals and would like to go over how the third day at the next RTOC will be utilized.

Enforcement – Jim Grove

Measure under Goal 3 reducing number of open dumps. Goal 5 has vague references, but the most Tribally-pertinent is in Goal 3. as well as a DW measure for compliance (2.1.1).

Alex- solid waste continues to fall through the cracks.

Jim- OECA considering three primary enforcement issues – schools, open dumps, drinking water. Joel asked Jim to find overall OECA goals by this afternoon.

Marie- should the goal leads come up with specific media enforcement targets? Jim – each media program does have an enforcement component, and they have their own goals. They exist from a regional standpoint. From a national standpoint, not so much. Clancy suggests possibly counting the number of Tribes with enforceable codes & ordinances.

Margaret is still looking for EPA do be doing enforcement that they aren’t, but should.

Scott – can OECA give us a chart of what the targets for enforcement will be state/federal, so we can figure out where they’re missing Tribes here? DITCA tool could be used to conduct Federal enforcement in Indian Country – delegated certified enforcement personnel.

Margaret – we also need that enforcement actions are completed in a timely manner.

Jim handed out the Goal 5 writeup provided to OCFO – only the first page is enforcement. Spoke with OECA. Page 1 is OECA’s contribution to SP. There are three subobjectives currently, with no Tribal breakout, because OCFO requires that an NPM have 200 FTE dedicated to warrant a breakout. Still worse, OMB wants to push OECA down to one objective, likely monitoring and enforcement.

We discussed the goals we came up with in September relating to Goal 5. Number 2 – number of inspectors, is reflected in OECA’s National Tribal Priority

Also recommend that some percentage of all cases taken have meaningful environmental benefits.

As far as closure, the office can contribute with funding and asstc for evaluating and planning, but funding for actual closure is not possible.

As protected as anyone across the Nation, and other specific measures by media program.

Jim will send any additional baseline information he can find in the next day or two to LAURA for distribution.

DRINKING WATER -

ST2- Increase the “50%” to 100% similar to wastewater Johannesburg Agreement item.

ST1- Clancy pointed out that the 2004 baseline of 90.4 percent, we’ve raised in the past the issue that if you don’t monitor your compliance rate is increased because you don’t have violations reported. Need to remind EPA that monitoring violations alone being counted, we would like them to also count “failure to monitor” and “failure to report.”

Wilfred- with baseline needs assessment completed now, we need to begin thinking about plans for utilizing that information as a tool, not only for our region, but also on a national basis, please be thinking about this before the coming meeting.

Alex- curious about how the ST1 came up – what didn’t happen and why is this being considered? Joel – this is verbatim from the previous SPlan. States have an identical ST with the 95% as well.

Ask Ken Cronin how “safe” and “adequate” are defined in the Johannesburg items and if there are folks in drinking water that will be missed by SDS similar to wastewater. Perhaps also ask drinking water workgroup. Alex doesn’t think that individuals and non-community systems are counted on the SDS list. Need to find out if non-community water systems are counted by IHS in measuring this item.Each IHS may have different criteria for how they serve and who they serve.

WATERSHED/Water – Loretta Vanegas & Jared Vollmer

Jared – 2.2.1 change suggested currently in R9, 54% of Tribes monitor. Wonder what is being asked – Tribes with FAE/TAS or all of Indian Country monitoring water. Those are 2 different percentages. Of Tribes with FAE, 83% of Tribes monitor (Financial assistance eligibility).

Joel – where are these stations that the increase should be seen. Jared – unknown?

Margaret – what about the 1500 meters of Indian Country? These may be state monitoring sites – how many of the 743 stations are actually in that 1500 meter buffer. We need further definitions of the funded Tribes and the stations.

Jill – doubts the baseline number, doesn’t trust that BIA doesn’t have accurate boundary information, thinks that this measure is arbitrary.

Syndi – seems that the entire document lacks baseline information and we don’t have the information to make effective comments on the document. Jill – is there a way that we can get the background information – where is the appendix? Marilyn- that’s why we rake Ed Liu over the coals every time. It’s something we ask every time, and we waste a lot of time dealing with this each time. We need to stress this to AIEO.

Don – is there a way to make a weighted average. Issues with improvement.

“Improvement” should be meeting Federally approved WQ standards in Indian Country. Continuing to meet a standard should be weighted equally with improvement. Ken Norton – YES bring up in his Goal 2 meeting.

STORET – web-based database is being discussed for both budget and Env Indicator information. Also note the 743 stations are mostly USGS stations and they’re not monitoring for the constituents mentioned at most sites. They may meet this goal just by getting us to enter stuff into STORET.

For future discussion: Wilfred. Any data gathering within 1500 meters is actually monitoring water quality for the individual nations. If someone’s at the end of the line, how many of these stations are upstream or have an influence on reservation water quality? Throwing out an arbitrary number of distance from Tribal boundaries doesn’t reflect watershed influence. Bring up with Ed Liu again the watershed and airshed approach instead of geographical distance.

2.2.1-two – Loretta – related to basic sanitation, reduce by 50%...Feels that it is doable regionally and nationally. Scott – according to his stats, 5000 homes were addressed under this target previously. Margaret – doesn’t understand why by 2015 we don’t have 100%. Joel thinks this is a concrete suggestion; the reason why it’s at 50% is because that is based upon the amount of funding we expect to see over the next 9 years. Melody – as long as the system is based on HIS SDS, there will always be homes that fall through the gaps. Alex- ask for 100% and identify the roadblocks ( no service for homes without power, etc.). This is from the Johannesburg Commitment – the 50% in water and DW are directly from this document. Ken Cronin- the 100% should not be an issue – it works out to about 10 million per year. Between EPA and partner agencies, they should be able to come up with this over 9 years. Submit Ken’s analysis – email dated 5/17/04. Wilfred – now, the easiest and cheapest have been done. As you start reaching the bottom 50%, they will cost more and more. Marie – bothered that 2000 baseline HIS report estimated 31,000 lacked access. Alex – homes that do not meet minimum criteria – ISH goes to Tribal Housing Authorities and asks questions broad and general, doesn’t guarantee that the tiny shack that a family lives in and hasn’t been counted in ages is included. Unmet needs exceed 100% of the number given in the target. Margaret – comments need to be prefaced with we don’t know what we don’t know. Ken Norton – read over Ken Cronin’s document and would like to request that Clancy at IPPC meetings request from other RICs that they compile Tribal Environmental Assessments through GAP programs and summarize pertinent information and convey to other RICs. Clancy will follow up.

Goal 4 – Pam

Pesticides – there are several items which pertain to Tribes. There is an effort currently to develop a strategic plan specific to pesticides. This is underway Nationally, and it hasn’t gone for Regional Review. After regions, it will go to the TPPC for their input. For us to talk about: the TPPC came up with: more sustainable TPPC< improved risk assessment & risk management to protect human health, environment, and cult values. Increased protection through leverage & collaboration. Policy resolution, improved government to government relations, improve program implementation.

Nina – Border Tribes are being missed by SP, especially because of pesticide drift from across the border. Robin – she’ll advocate at TPPC.

Alex- the cross-media overlap and interconnection with groundwater, surface water, air, etc. Pam- pesticide effort to develop outcome measures under OPPTS. Many Tribes would have difficulty measuring improvement based on application of pesticides and enforcing codes & ordinances. They’re really directed at states, and it’s unclear how Tribes would be able to measure.

Margaret – Indoor Air – whole idea of the health of our people. Rates of asthma are significantly worse among Indians than other people. It’s our responsibility to get that information to them.

Tribes should consider environmental outcome in capacity development. Tribes need to add pesticides issues to CWA106 workplan (ie implementation of TMDLs, etc) 106 is not a catch all. Need to expand program to incorporate these and other emerging programs.

Land – Heather White

There are 2 STs for waste on Tribal lands. The ones in our handout have been updated with numbers. 3.1.3-1: increase by 25% the # of tribes with IWMP approved, deleted “within the last five years” based upon comment from region 9 Tribes. The 25% goal was developed on a R9 template based upon the plan database the region keeps. Our bid was 30 baseline, increase 10 in the next five years. Each region did similar, collated, and calculated the percentage.

Scott – can we access that metadata? Heather- we are inputting information into a regional database. Other regions don’t have databases, per se. Access to the database is not allowed – confidential information. Heather will try to get info for Scott from Lead Regions 8 and 10 – collect regional metadata used for this metric. LAURA WILL EMAIL THIS OUT TO THE GROUP WHEN HEATHER GETS IT TO ME.