Table of Contents 

• Welcome

• Table of Contents

• Introduction

• WWPD Targets

• Reference Documents

• Appendices

Appendix A. Regional Plan Development Guidance

Appendix B. National Water Program FY 2005-2008

Management System Matrix

Appendix C. Agency Laws

Appendix D. WWPD Accountability to Region

Appendix E. WWPD Expectations and Philosophies

Appendix F. WWPD Values and Behaviors

Appendix G. WWPD Organization

Appendix H. FY 2004 WWPD Operating Plan
WELCOME 

On Behalf of the Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Management Team:

We are pleased to announce the completion of the Water, Wetlands,

and Pesticides Division’s FY 2004-2008 Strategic Plan and the

accompanying FY 2004 Operating Plan (Appendix H). The release of

these final documents was delayed to ensure they were in agreement with

the Goals and Objectives in the Region 7 FY 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. 

The development of these plans required dedication and hard work on the

part of the Division’s ST/OP Team, and our state, tribal and Regional

Office partners.

Both the Division’s Strategic and Operating Plans are available in

either electronic or paper formats. We encourage all Division personnel,

and all of our partners, to use these plans for day to day environmental

protection efforts as well as for your daily and future planning efforts.

Work will begin soon on developing the Division’s FY 2005

Operating Plan. All Division employees, along with our state, tribal, and

Regional Office partners, will again have the opportunity to participate in

the development of this important guidance document. 

Leo J. Alderman, Director Betty J. Berry, Deputy Director

Cheryl Crisler Pradip Dalal

Luetta Flournoy Diane Huffman

Mary Tietjen-Mindrup Margaret Stockdale

March 2004 
INTRODUCTION

Background

Protection of the quality of the waters of the United States and wise pesticide management have

changed a great deal since the enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1970 and of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1982. Since that time, the issues facing water

quality protection have become increasingly more complex and multi-media focused. Senior

managers in Region 7 recognize the value of long-term planning to address these complex and

multi-faceted program issues. 

Therefore, in the fall of 2001, an eight member ad-hoc group was formed to develop a strategic

plan to address these issues. The members of this ad-hoc group represented and continues to

represent each facet of the Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division (WWPD). The group was

tasked to address three elements of the planning process: 1) describe and prioritize the major

WWPD program activities, 2) refocus the Division’s resources to address its priority activities,

and 3) identify potential activities in which the Division should address during the next five

years and beyond.

In addition to developing a strategic plan, the ad-hoc group was also tasked to develop an annual

operating plan for WWPD. After receiving this task, the group then began to call themselves the

“ST/OP” Team for STrategic and Operating Plan team. 

In March 2002, a new management team was chosen for the WWPD. The new management

team tasked the ST/OP team to continue with the WWPD strategic planning process, and to

broaden the scope of the Strategic Plan. Management requested that the plan encompass all

Regional water and pesticide programs, not just those taking place in the Division. In addition,

management requested that the planning process and the products embrace a multi-media

approach to problem solving. 

The Strategic Plan is a comprehensive document designed to provide long range direction and

guidance to both WWPD management and staff in meeting the Division’s environmental and

human health protection Targets. The Operating Plan (Appendix H) provides specific actions

for the Division to accomplish this fiscal year en route to achieving the multi-year Strategic Plan

Targets. All WWPD plans are available electronically on WWPD’s shared local area network at

G:User\Share\Planning\Strategic Planning.
ANNUAL OPERATING 

PLAN

TARGETS

OBJECTIVES 

SUB-OBJECTIVES 

Annual Goals

Annual Activities

TARGETS

OBJECTIVES 

SUB-OBJECTIVES 

Annual Goals

Annual Activities

OBJ #2

OBJ #1

SO 1.1 SO 1.2 SO 1.3

LONG-TERM 

STRATEGIC PLAN

AG

AA

AG AG AG AG AG

AA AA AA AA AA AA

Plan Development

Developing the Strategic Plan and the Operating Plans required considerable effort over several

months. Before either plan began development, the relationship between the plans was defined

and depicted, as follows:

“Targets” represents WWPD’s aspirations for at least the next five years. The five Targets

(identified in Section II, of this document) consider input from States, Tribes, other programs

within the Region, and WWPD personnel. The term “Target” is reserved for the WWPD

Strategic Plan to distinguish it from the Regional Plan.

“Objectives” are specific outcomes to be achieved under each Target within the 5-year timeframe of the WWPD Strategic Plan. 

“Sub-Objectives” describe shorter-term results that WWPD intends to meet under each

Objective from the WWPD Strategic Plan. Sub-Objectives will translate into similar annual

performance goals in the annual WWPD Operating Plan.

“Annual Goals” are the priorities or emphasis areas for the upcoming planning year. Annual

Goals are used in the overall planning process to as a reality check to anchor the course of the

Strategic Plan. This term is reserved for the WWPD Operating Plan.

“Annual Activities and Measurements” are the day to day tasks conducted by WWPD

personnel that result in accomplishing the Annual Goals described in the WWPD Operating

Plan.

The horizontal dotted line distinguishes the architecture between the WWPD Strategic Plan and

WWPD Operating Plan and their inner-relationship.
The first product developed by the ST/OP Team was the WWPD Operating Plan for FY 2002-

2003. This plan was distributed in March 2002. The second product is the WWPD FY 2004

Operating Plan which was distributed October 1, 2003. The third product is this WWPD

Strategic Plan, distributed in March 2004.

The ST/OP Team utilized National, Regional, and other pertinent guidance, including the 

Governmental Performance and Results Act (GPRA) directives in developing both the form and

content of the Division’s plans (See tab titled, “Reference/Guidance Documents”). The

Division will revise and update its plans according to established plan revision schedules; in

response to developing or evolving Agency or Regional mandates, policies, and programs; or in

response to available resources or those of partner agencies and tribes.

Once the Strategic and Operating Plans were drafted by the ST/OP Team, everyone in the

Division, our state environmental partners, tribes, and other Regional partners were involved in

the review process which helped determine the final content of the documents.

Here is a summary of the Targets that this Strategic Plan addresses:

Target 1: Systems and Human Capital - See WWPD Targets, Page 1

WWPD endorses investing in our employees to ensure that the Division continues to successfully meet its

environmental mission. All WWPD employees are the primary asset of the Division and are valued and

nurtured to ensure success in accomplishing our mission. WWPD places on fostering a creative work

environment that encourages innovative thinking, processes improvement. In addition, systems and

processes are well thought out to ensure the production of high quality products that meet our customers

needs.

Target 2: Clean & Safe Water - See WWPD Targets, Page 5

Ensure drinking water is safe. Protect, sustain or restore and maintain watersheds and accompany aquatic

ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy

habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.

Target 3: See WWPD Targets, Page 24

This Target is reserved to align the WWPD Strategic Plan with the Region 7 Strategic Plan Architecture. 

WWPD does not anticipate developing a Target 3 at this time.

Target 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems - See WWPD Targets, Page 24 

Safeguard ecosystems and promote the health of natural communities that are integral to the quality of 

life in Region 7. Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using

integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships. Protect human and community health from

pests and disease by ensuring availability and wise use of pesticides: including public health pesticides

and antimicrobial products, that meet the latest safety standards. Prevent and reduce chemical and

biological risks to humans, communities and ecosystems. 

Target 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship - See WWPD Targets, Page 41 

By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through compliance

assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 3% increase in the pounds of pollution

reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 3% increase in the number of regulated entities making

improvements in environmental management practices.
Plan Purpose

The purpose of the WWPD long-term and short-term planning efforts is to enable the Division to

achieve its Vision and to accomplish its Mission, which are stated as follows:

WWPD VISION

Improve, preserve, and protect Region 7's environmental resources and human health by

achieving and maintaining clean and safe drinking water, swimmable and fishable waters, and

the safe use of pesticides for the public.

WWPD MISSION

Effectively and efficiently administer the Nation’s laws and the Agency’s regulations for which

we are responsible.

To achieve our Vision and to accomplish our Mission, WWPD will be a National Leader in

environmental and human health protection in all phases of program development,

implementation, and enforcement. As a National Leader, we will:

C Incorporate the three Regional Themes of Agriculture, Sensitive Populations, and Critical

Ecosystems into our Division’s Core Programs, as applicable, while identifying, integrating, and

documenting new, emerging, and/or important human health or environmental protective

advancements, as appropriate.

C Maintain strong partnerships with states, tribes, and other governmental entities to enhance their

capacity, and to support their efforts to address environment and human health issues affecting

the Region.

C Maintain consistent outreach efforts to inform and engage the public as we address environmental

and human health issues affecting the Region.

C Apply common sense in our decision making processes.

C Measure our successes based on environmental results, as the outcome of compliance with our

Agency’s enabling statutes and, as appropriate, by vigorous enforcement. 

C Address environmental and human health protection efforts, where possible, at the watershed or

ecosystem scale; while pursuing environmental justice; and encouraging pollution prevention

actions, wherever feasible.

C Maintain a positive work environment which both encourages and provides the opportunity for

all employees to contribute their maximum potential to our Mission.

Planning Process

he Strategic Plan provides a five year “road map” for the Division to follow as it fulfills the

requirements of our Nation’s laws and the Agency’s regulations for which it is responsible. The

“road map” also guides the Division in establishing the annual WWPD Operating Plan Goals

that will help the Division to achieve the longer-range public health and the environment Targets

that it has set for itself in the Strategic Plan. 

The annual Operating Plans also will allow both WWPD managers and staff to measure the
Division’s progress toward achieving the long-range Targets of the Strategic Plan, and to

recognize where adjustments are needed to achieve the desired results. Finally, the Strategic

Planning process will allow WWPD managers to identify the Division’s highest priority

environmental and human health issues, and to direct available resources effectively and

efficiently to address those concerns. Operating Plans are scheduled to be revised during the

fourth quarter of each fiscal year by the ST/OP Team. See Appendix H for a current copy of the

WWPD Operating Plan

WWPD Authority

WWPD plays an integral role in the protection and management of the water resources in the

Region, including the regulation of and providing information on proper pesticide use. The

major environmental laws that WWPD is responsible for administering are the Clean Water Act,

the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, and the

Food Quality Protection Act. EPA implements many environmental programs that derive their

authority from these environmental laws. 

WWPD is charged with protecting the waters of the United States through oversight of the

Public Water Supply Program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program,

the Pesticide Program, and other resource protection programs, many of which have been

delegated to the four states of Region 7. WWPD directly implements the programs on behalf of

the nine Tribes in the Region. Appendix C provides details on these and other Agency laws and

regulations.

Plan Implementation

With the completion of the WWPD Strategic and Operating Plans, including the long-term and short

term priority actions identified and the Plans’ outputs determined; the Division’s plan development

process pauses and the plan implementation phase begins. Therefore, it is critical to the Plans’

success that everyone in the Division take personal responsibility and be accountable for following

the Plans.
The Region 7

Water, Wetlands, Pesticide Div

Strategic Plan Targets

for the period

FY 2004 – 2008
Target 1 - Systems and Human Capital

Page 2 of 57

Target 1: Systems and Human CapitalWWPD endorses investing in our employees to ensure that the Division continues to successfully meet its environmentaemployees are the primary asset and are valued and nurtured to ensure success in accomplishing our mission. Emphasis creative work environment that encourages innovative thinking, process improvement, and streamlining communication 

systems and processes are well thought out to ensure the production of high quality products that meet our customers ne

Objective 1.1: WWPD Staff Development

Provide professional development opportunities for staff with emphasis on achieving superior cusCurrent StatusWWPD has conducted a resource analysis as well as participated in the pilot National Strategic WSystem (NSWPS). Both of these efforts were designed to identify future staff development needscontributes toward the regional staff development strategy.Current TrendsMany WWPD employees are eligible within the next five years for retirement, which makes the Rmany program areas due to a loss of expertise. In anticipation of future retirement and the need to employees, WWPD will utilize the Region Human Resource opportunities as a result of the Regiostrategy. This will allow WWPD to: attract and retain a diverse and highly skilled workforce; devtheir people to perform to their highest potential; encourage WWPD people to be innovative and crespect of people and their contributions; promote teamwork and collaboration with internal and eintegrate planning, budgeting, and accountability processes into workforce changes.Major ChallengesThe intense competition for new science and technology graduates is likely to increase, and careegenerations of EPA employees may be different from those of today’s senior employees. With thour resources very unlikely, it is imperative that we continue investing in effective human resourcincludes persistent improvement in retention and recruiting practices.
Target 1 - Systems and Human Capital

Page 3 of 57

Activity

# Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

Sub-Objectives

Results

Sub-Objective 1.1.1: WWPD Contributes Toward the Regional Human Capital Strategic Plan

1 WWPD contributes toward the Regional Human

Capital Strategic Plan

• Achievement of Goals 2, 4, and 5

Objective 1.2: Adequate Systems

Systems will be developed and/or maintained to be utilized as a tool to promote accountability for and quality projects.Current StatusSome systems exist but clarity is neededCurrent TrendsTechnology is constantly changing and existing national systems need upgrading. To develop cleare needed as well as effective grants management to achieve the goals of 2, 4, and 5.Major Challenges
Target 1 - Systems and Human Capital

Page 4 of 57

Activity

 # Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

Sub-Objectives

Results

Sub-Objective 1.2.1: Improved Systems That Achieve Greater Success with Goals 2, 4, and 5.

1 All database systems will continue to support

core programs. (PCS, SDWIS, GRTS,STORET, National TMDL database, NationalWQS database, National InformationManagement Systems (NIMS), FTTS, GCAI,IGMS)

• Quality data to support sound management decision

2 WWPD can plan and track performance against

goals and capture cost based on sound financialsystems and new accountability processes.

• Accountability system developed that measures per

annual commitments to achieve strategic goal.

3 WWPD utilizes Standard Operating Procedures

that sets clear expectations 

• Standard Operating Procedures developed and follo

achievement of goals 2, 4, and 5. Examples of thesnegotiations, FOIA, back-ups to the immediate offi

Sub-Objective 1.2.2: Efficient and Effective Grants Management

1 All grants in WWPD managed to achieve the

goals of 2, 4, and 5.

• Achievement of Goals 2, 4, and 5.
Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 5 of 57

Target 2: Clean & Safe WaterEnsure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain watersheds and their accompanying aquatic ecosystems to protect heconomic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health

Current Status

In Region 7, there are over 7,000 public water systems that collectively serve more than 13 million four states have primary enforcement responsibility for enforcing public drinking water standards to 

The states are currently developing updated state regulations to maintain primacy for new and revisincreasing the level of protection. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is used by states to imthe drinking water standards. To protect water supplies, the four states have completed 100% of theassessments to identify potential sources of contamination. In addition, the Underground Injection an integral part of protecting water supplies. Region 7 has three delegated UIC programs and impleIowa and on tribal lands. To date, we have identified over 32,000 active injection wells in Region 7 sources of contamination. The Region 7 Tribal program is focusing on capacity building, ensuring management of its programs on tribal reservations. The Drinking Water Tribal Set-Aside (DWTSAvehicle currently used for all tribal water plant infrastructure improvements. Current TrendsNationally, populations are increasing and shifting geographically. In Region 7, there is a trend to rural areas and small communities, with large increase in suburban populations. This has resulted iability of small public water systems to maintain the revenue base and interest, in maintaining and uIn order to meet increased demands from more stringent and complicated regulations, public water conduct more monitoring, and provide a higher level of treatment. EPA conducted a Gap Analysisignificant funding gap if public water systems maintain current spending and operations practices This real rate of growth represents a 3% per year increase over and above the rate of inflation and is 

term growth estimates of the economy. This demand supports the need to continue SRF funding foof growth comes with a decrease in state budgets for the past few years which is expected to continuimplementation of the new drinking water rules , with additional reporting and tracking requiremenaccurate data, as well as the integration of security into all drinking water programs. 
Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 6 of 57

Region 7's approach to protect Human Health is described as follows:1) Water Safe to Drink - In Region 7, human health protection will focus primarily on implementinwater that is safe to drink. Region 7's strategy focuses on five areas: 

 • participating in the development or revision of drinking water standards; • supporting states, tribes, and individual water systems in implementing standards; • promoting sustainable management of drinking water infrastructure;  • protecting sources of drinking water form contamination. These activities will have to be 

environment of reduced resources, conflicting priorities, political challenges, technical chaof socio-economic factors. These issue are most evident in dealing with small community 

 • a survey that critical water infrastructure is secure from terrorist and other international ac

Participation on the development or revision to drinking water standards is critical for the region to expertise to support states tribes and individual water systems. We will focus regional resources on water infrastructure and supporting the programs financially. Special emphasis will be place on undcommunities. Protecting existing and future sources of drinking water will be an emphasis for the SPrograms as well the UIC Program with a focus toward the regional priority of sensitive populationchallenge will be working with our States, Tribes and local partners to provide training on developiprotection plans. In the UIC area, Region 7 will commit to closing or permitting 100% of known Class V motor vehidespite not having a national data base to track this data. Region 7 commits to work with our state psource water protection strategies in place for community water systems. The national goal is 75%. have strategies in place, Region 7commits 40% of those strategies being implemented. The nation2) Fish Safe to Eat - To assure fish safe to eat in Region 7, State advisory programs, Total Maximum for waterbodies listed as impaired for fish consumption, and Effective Combined Sewer Overflow (relied upon.3) Water Safe to Swim - To assure safe water to swim in, Region 7 state programs will relied upon and implementation of TMDLs for those water bodies impaired and impacts the use for recreational implementation of effective Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) programs are also a facet in which to 
Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 7 of 57

swimming.Major ChallengesAn analysis of our state programs indicates that budget constraints are limiting their ability to implerequirements, and to make use of the funds that are available. DWTSA Infrastructure Grants are exdramatically over the next few years, requiring more effort for staff to manage. Innovative approacneeded to ensure compliance with the new drinking water regulations, which will have a major impsystems in the region. Resource issues both internally and externally to EPA will have an effect on stewardship in Region 7.
Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 8 of 57

Key to Abbreviations in Target 2:GPRA - Government Performance Results ActDW - Drinking Water Implementation 

SE - Smart Enforcement 

DA - Strategic Use of Data 

MA - Monitoring and Assessment 

Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below the

objective level

#

 Results

Link to National Progr

Manager Priorities

DW SE DA MA 

Sub-Objective 2.1.1: Water Safe to DrinkBy 2008, 95% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicabwater standards through effective treatment and source water protection. (Baseline in 2002 is 93.6% of population; not

performance is expected to change over time as new standards take affect.)

1 By 2008, 95% of the population

served by community watersystems will receive drinking waterthat meets health-based standardsin which systems are required tocomply as of December 2001. (2002 Baseline: 93.6% of thepopulation); 

4-7 • By 2008, the Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) will providea $1.7 billion Federal return oninvestment [cumulative dollar amount ofassistance disbursements to systemsdivided by cumulative Federal outlaysfor projects].

• By 2008, the DWSRF fund utilization

rate will reach 86% [cumulative loanagreement dollars to the cumulativefunds available for projects]. 

• Determine the number of DWSRF

projects that have initiated operations asa result of funding, (Cumulative)

• Determine the percentage of DWSRF

loan agreements made annually thatresult in returning Community WaterSystems to compliance.

X XXX
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below the

objective level

#

 Results

Link to National Progr

Manager Priorities

DW SE DA MA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 9 of 57

2 By 2008, 80% of the population

served by community watersystems will receive drinking waterthat meets health-based standardswith a compliance date of January2002. (2002 Baseline: xx% ofpopulation to be determinedJanuary 2004; covered standardsinclude: Stage 1 disinfection byproducts/interim enhanced surfacewater treatment rule/long-termenhanced surface water treatmentrule/arsenic; year-to-yearperformance is expected to changeas new standards take effect.)

8

4-7

• Each year, each State will be in

compliance with the requirement toconduct sanitary surveys at communitywater systems once every three years,as documented by file audits of arandom selection of water systems.

• By 2008, the Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) will providea $1.7 billion Federal return oninvestment [cumulative dollar amountof assistance disbursements to systemsdivided by cumulative Federal outlaysfor projects].

• By 2008, the DWSRF fund utilization

rate [cumulative loan agreement dollarsto the cumulative funds available forprojects] will reach 86%. 

• Determine the number of DWSRF

projects that have initiated operations asa result of funding, (Cumulative)

• Determine the percentage of DWSRF

loan agreements made annually thatresult in returning Community WaterSystems to compliance.

X XXX 
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below the

objective level

#

 Results

Link to National Progr

Manager Priorities

DW SE DA MA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 10 of 57

3 By 2008, 95% of community water

systems that provide drinking waterwill meet health-based standards inwhich systems need to comply asof December 2001. (2002Baseline: 91.6% of communitywater systems)

8

4-7

• Each year, each State will be in

compliance with requirement toconduct sanitary surveys at communitywater systems once every three years,as documented by file audits of arandom selection of water systems.

• By 2008, the Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) will providea $1.7 Federal return on investment[cumulative dollar amount of assistancedisbursements to systems divided bycumulative Federal outlays forprojects].

• By 2008, the DWSRF fund utilization

rate [cumulative loan agreement dollarsto the cumulative funds available forprojects] will reach 86%. 

• Determine the number of DWSRF

projects that have initiated operations asa result of funding, (Cumulative)

• Determine the percentage of DWSRF

loan agreements made annually thatresult in returning Community WaterSystems to Compliance.

X XXX 
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below the

objective level

#

 Results

Link to National Progr

Manager Priorities

DW SE DA MA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 11 of 57

4 By 2008, the percentage of

community water systems thatprovide drinking water that meetshealth-based standards:with a compliance date of January2002 or later will be 80% (2002Baseline: xx% of communitywater systems; to be determinedJanuary 2004; covered standardsinclude: Stage 1 disinfection byproducts/interim enhanced surfacewater treatment rule/long-termenhanced surface water treatmentrule/arsenic; year-to-yearperformance is expected to changeas new standards take effect.)

8

4-7

• Each year, each State will be in

compliance with requirement toconduct sanitary surveys at communitywater systems once every three years,as documented by file audits of arandom selection of water systems.

• By 2008, the Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) will providea $1.7 billion Federal return oninvestment [cumulative dollar amountof assistance disbursements to systemsdivided by cumulative Federal outlaysfor projects].

• By 2008, the DWSRF fund utilization

rate [cumulative loan agreement dollarsto the cumulative funds available forprojects] will reach 86%. 

• Determine the number of DWSRF

projects that have initiated operations asa result of funding, (Cumulative)

• Determine the percentage of DWSRF

loan agreements made annually thatresult in returning Community WaterSystems to Compliance.

X XXX 
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below the

objective level

#

 Results

Link to National Progr

Manager Priorities

DW SE DA MA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 12 of 57

5 By 2008, 95% of the population

served by community watersystems in Indian country willreceive drinking water that meetsall applicable health-based drinkingwater standards. (2002 Baseline:91.1% of population served bysystems; year-to-year performanceis expected to change as newstandards take effect.)

9 • By 2006, all Tribal water systems will

have undergone a sanitary survey.

• Determine the number of DWIG projects

that have been completed as a result offunding.

• Increase the number of partnerships

between other federal and non-federalagencies in support of tribal program.

X XXX 

6 By 2008, 50% of source water

areas (both surface and groundwater) for community watersystems will achieve minimizedrisk to public health. (2002Baseline: estimated to be 5%; “minimized risk” achieved bysubstantial implementation, asdetermined by the State, of sourcewater protection actions in a sourcewater protection strategy.)

1011141718

• By 2008, 50% of source water areas for

community water systems (CWS) willhave source water protection strategiesin place. (Cumulative; 75% nationally)

• By 2008, 40% of source water areas for

community water systems will haveimplemented some aspects of sourcewater protection strategies. (Cumulative;60% nationally)

• By 2008, delineated source water areas

for 98% of community water systemswill be available in a GIS digitizedformat using agreed upon datamanagement protocols.

• By 2008, separately for each class of

well, 100% of Classes I, II, III, and Vwells identified in violation will beaddressed by the UIC program.

• By 2008, 90% of known Class V motor

vehicle waste disposal wells will be

X XX
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below the

objective level

#

 Results

Link to National Progr

Manager Priorities

DW SE DA MA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 13 of 57

1920

closed or permitted. (100% nationally)

• By 2008, 50% of ground water-based

source water areas for Community WaterSystems will have a Class V surveycompleted.

• By 2008, the number of inspections

conducted for Class II and Class V willincrease by 10%.

7 By 2015, in coordination with

other Federal agencies, reduce by50% the number of households ontribal lands lacking access to safedrinking water. (2000 Baseline:Indian Health Service dataindicating 31,000 homes on Triballands lack access to safe drinkingwater.)

24 • Increase number of households on Tribal

lands having access to safe drinkingwater.

X XXX 

8 Through 2008, safeguard public

health and safety by providingtechnical support to drinking waterand waste water utilities.

• By 2008, 90% of Drinking Water will

have completed vulnerabilityassessments and Emergency Responseplans.

XX 
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below the

objective level

#

 Results

Link to National Progr

Manager Priorities

DW SE DA MA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 14 of 57

Sub-Objective 2.1.2: Fish & Shellfish Safe to EatBy 2008, the quality of water and sediments will be improved to allow increased consumption of fish and shellfish as mtargets described below.

1 By 2008, the quality of water and

sediments will be improved toallow increased consumption offish in not less than 3% of thewater miles/acres identified bystates or tribes as having a fishconsumption advisory in 2002. (2002 Baseline: 485,205 rivermiles and 11,277,276 lake acreswere identified by states or tribes in2002 as having fish with chemicalcontamination levels resulting in anadvisory of potential human healthrisk from consumption.)

2830

• By 2008, fish tissue will be assessed to

support waterbody-specific or regionalconsumption advisories or adetermination will be made that noconsumption advice is necessary for atleast 40% of lake acres and 20% of rivermiles.

• By 2008, EPA will assist and support the

development of tribal fish advisoryprograms so that at least 1 tribe will haveadopted and applied the national fishadvisory guidance to make fish advisorydeterminations for local waters.

XXX
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below the

objective level

#

 Results

Link to National Progr

Manager Priorities

DW SE DA MA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 15 of 57

Sub-Objective 2.1.3: Water Safe for SwimmingBy 2008, restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 5% of the stream miles and lake acres identified by swater quality unsafe for swimming. (2000 Baseline: approximately 90,000 stream miles and 2.6 million lake acres repomeeting a primary contact recreational use in the 2000 reports under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.)

1 By 2008, the quality of recreational

waters nationwide will be protectedso that the number of waterbornedisease outbreaks attributable toswimming in, or other recreationalcontact with, the ocean, rivers,lakes, or streams will be reduced tonot more than 8, measured as afive-year average. (2002 Baseline: an average of 9 recreational contactwaterborne disease outbreaksreported per year by the Centers forDisease Control over the years1994 -1998)

36 • By 2008, 75% of communities with

CSOs will have schedules in place toimplement approved Long Term ControlPlans (LCTPs)

XXX
Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 16 of 57

Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality

Region 7 embraces EPA’s national approach to improving and restoring water quality that focuses oimplementing solutions to problems at the watershed level.Region 7 and most of the Region 7 states strongly support a community-based approach and are usicomprehensive water quality improvements throughout the Region. Region 7 closely coordinates wagencies, with other federal and state agencies, as well as with Non-governmental organizations (Ngroups to identify and prioritize watersheds with water quality issues, and then encourages all partieresources to those watersheds thereby increasing both the efficiency and effectiveness of comprehenimprovement efforts. Overriding factors such as lawsuits, settlement agreements, and other directivredirect a portion of their efforts and resources from the comprehensive watershed approach to imprspecific waterbodies or watershed segments.Current StatusAll four Region 7 states implement the National water quality standards (WQSs) program with the Rthe primary role of reviewing and approving/disapproving state-proposed water quality standards reRegion’s four states have court-issued settlement agreements that direct both the selection and scheTotal Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) levels for stream segments or watershed in those states. Cumhave prepared, and Region 7 approved, 1143 TMDLs through FY 2003, and anticipate more than 20be prepared and approved during the next fiscal year.Additionally, all four states in Region 7 have Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan profunds to the states and in turn, the states provide low interest loans to municipalities for wastewater 

helps to protect and improve water quality. The first CWSRF grant was awarded in Region 7 begin998 wastewater projects have been funded. A total of $1,053,321,351 has been awarded through Sefour states in our Region. The NPDES Permit Program is administered by all Region 7 states. More than 6,600 individual perdischarges from municipal waste water treatment plants, industrial facilities, and CAFOs. Over 11are covered by general permits. The NPDES permit program’s goal is that at least 90% of these perreflect the latest technology and water quality based requirements contained in effluent limitations g
Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 17 of 57

Region 7 administers the NPDES program in Indian country (about twenty permits).Limited state budgets have reduced the amount of funding to state environmental agencies that is neadequate water quality monitoring programs. Currently, less than 20 percent of the Region’s water adequately and/or routinely monitored. Non-point pollutant sources remain the Region’s dominant in urban settings and particularly in rural areas where agricultural activities dominate. All four stateNonpoint Source (NPS) Management Plans during the last three years to aggressively protect and reresources, and have identified both schedules and goals for implementing the non-point control pracPlans.Current TrendsMore and better quality water monitoring data are becoming available, albeit slowly, to WWPD and provide better information at the watershed scale to support increased water quality protection and rallow the establishment of more appropriate water quality standards. Unfortunately, current budget states to limit or decrease the amount of funds they commit to protecting water quality either in or owatersheds. Consequently, more non-governmental advocacy groups are forming with the goal of protecting speenvironmental areas, and/or sensitive population groups, and are collecting high quality monitoring to promote or require watershed-focused improvements. These advocacy groups are aware that agrpoint source pollution is often the primary cause of water quality problems in their adopted watershtraditional and innovative methods to reduce the impact of agriculture on the Region’s water qualitygroups are also aware that non-point sources are the remaining major unregulated water quality polldemanding more action from the political, business, and governmental sectors to coordinate their efRegion’s water quality and to protect its important environmental areas, thereby protecting the healRegion’s residents, especially its sensitive populations. The Clean Water State Revolving fund is an excellent source for funding non-point source pollution Both regulated and programmatic planning processes are resulting in more efficient, effective, and pstates in developing TMDLs, in scheduling to meet legal commitments and deadlines, and in seekinthe-art technical and administrative tools to implement their TMDL programs. The quality of the stbeing submitted to Region 7 for approval continues to improve; and increasingly the Regional Offic
Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 18 of 57

during their development of approvable TMDLs.The number of NPDES permits has increased substantially in recent years. Phases I and II of the stthan doubled the size of the permit universe. The recently revised CAFO definition will add anothepermits in Region 7. While some states have made progress in reducing their permit backlog, overamore permits to issue and a reduction of state resources, have made it difficult to achieve the goal opermits current.Major ChallengesSince many of the water quality programs are delegated to the states, Region 7 has identified areas wutilize their water quality planning and management efforts to ultimately improve water quality in a effective manner. For example, the states are not using their Comprehensive Planning Processes (Cmanagement planning, and they are not integrating all of their water quality programs on a watershestates are decreasing the amount of state funds they commit to monitoring water quality including bprobabilistic sampling, rotating basin sampling, etc. This monitoring is essential to gauge the status protection, improvement, and restoration success efforts. Monitoring of specific contaminants to sudevelopment also continues to be a challenge.It is becoming more evident that protecting and restoring water quality at the watershed level is morthan addressing one waterbody or stream segment at a time. However, only a few Region 7 state, corganizations are currently developing watershed plans. One reason for this is that adequate fundinavailable at the state and federal level to support watershed advocacy groups. In addition, techniquwatersheds for TMDL development are becoming more challenging as the pollutants of concern becassess.Revising and implementing the new CAFO permit program requirements, completing the issuance opermits, assuring that NPDES permits reflect WLAs in TMDLs, and at the same time increasing the re-issuance without increases in resources will be a major challenge for both the States and Region Region 7 has inadequate Water Quality Standards (WQS) to deal with nutrients. Obtaining guidancstanding water quality issues such as primary contact recreation, anti-degradation, and high flow relchallenge. There are continuing inter-state/inter-regional WQS discrepancies on waterbodies crossi
Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 19 of 57

Key to Abbreviations in Target 2:GPRA - Government Performance Results ActDW - Drinking Water Implementation 

SE - Smart Enforcement 

DA - Strategic Use of Data 

MA - Monitoring and Assessment 

boundaries. These discrepancies substantially increases coordination efforts for TMDLs required oThere is an existing backlog of disapproved state WQS. The Region continues to work with the staoutstanding disapprovals and to enhance/improve state WQS development and approval rates.

Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below

the objective

level#

 Results Link to National P

Manager Prio

DW SE DA 

Sub-Objective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality via Watersheds

1 Protect and restore water quality at

the watershed scale

L

N

• By 2005, one (1) additional watershed will

meet > 80% attainment of water qualitystandards. By 2008, four (4) additionalwatersheds will meet > 80% attainment ofwater quality standards.

• By 2008, foster a watershed approach to

protect and restore water quality in not lessthan five (5) watersheds of Regional and statepriority through grant assistance and technicalsupport.

X X
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below

the objective

level#

 Results Link to National P

Manager Prio

DW SE DA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 20 of 57

MONITORING

2 Conduct comprehensive, balanced

and technically sound water qualitymonitoring programs

444546

• By 2005, 75% of Region 7 states have

adopted a comprehensive water qualitymonitoring strategy.

• Starting in 2006, 50% of Region 7 states will

provide a comprehensive, integrated, waterquality monitoring assessment consistent withCWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b). (Headquarters - 100%)

• By 2008, Region 7 will encourage Tribes to

develop and implement comprehensive andbalanced water quality monitoring programs.(20 nationally)

XXX
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below

the objective

level#

 Results Link to National P

Manager Prio

DW SE DA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 21 of 57

WATER QUALITY RESTORATION

3 Develop and implement TMDLs to

restore water quality

5254

• By 2016, 100% of 303(d) listed waters will

have a TMDL developed from the 2002 list. 

• By 2008, improve the effectiveness of

pollution control plans by specificallyidentifying a “trading margin” in not less than 2% of the TMDLs approved by EPA, orwatershed plans developed for restorations ofwaters on the impaired waters list that addressnutrient impairments.

X X

4 Develop water quality management

plans for the Mississippi andMissouri rivers.

• Continue EPA/R7 coordination with other 

federal and state agencies, as well as NGOs,on managing the water quality of both rivers.

• Continue to mediate with states to achieve

consistent water quality protection for bothrivers. 

• Support state-developed water quality

monitoring and assessment strategies for bothrivers. 

XXX
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below

the objective

level#

 Results Link to National P

Manager Prio

DW SE DA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 22 of 57

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

5 Develop effective water quality

standards (WQS) that protectexisting high quality waters andachieve fishable and swimable uses

L

41404243

• By 2012, WQS are fully attained in over 25%

of miles/acres of waters identified in the year2000 as not attaining WQS with an interimmilestone of restoring 5% of these waters by2006.

• By 2008, one (1) state will have adopted into

their water quality programs for streams andsmall rivers, biological criteria designed tosupport determination of attainment of WQSuse designations standards. (Note: biologicalcriteria may include quantitative endpoints ornarrative criteria with quantitativeimplementation procedures or translators)(Nationally 45. 

• By 2008, one(1) State in Region 7 will have

adopted into their WQS, and EPA will haveapproved, nutrient criteria for fresh water (25nationally).

• By 2008, increase the number of Tribes that

have water quality standards approved byEPA to one (33, nationally)

• Each year 75% of State/Tribal Water quality

Standards submissions are approved/disapproved by EPA within 90 days.

X X
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below

the objective

level#

 Results Link to National P

Manager Prio

DW SE DA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 23 of 57

NON-POINT SOURCES

6 States implement and update their

regulatory and non-regulatoryprovisions of the NPS program toprotect and restore water quality. 

49 • By 2008, at least two (2) watershed based

plans, supported under state Nonpoint SourcePrograms (CWA Section 319) [since thebeginning of FY2002] will be substantiallyimplemented.

X X

POINT SOURCES

7 Increase the number of NPDES

permits issued and keep all permitscurrent.

59606162

• By 2008, 90% of all NPDES permits are

considered current.

• By 2008, each state will have updated

regulations and/or statutes where necessary toreflect new CAFO requirements.

• By 2008, each state will have issued statewide

general permits.

• By 2008, 100% of States/Regions will have

issued NPDES permits requiring storm watermanagement programs for Phase IImunicipalities (MS4S).

• By 2008, 100% of States/Regions will have

issued NPDES general permits requiringstorm water pollution prevention plans forPhase II construction.

XXX
Activity

# Strategic Targets

GPRA Ref.

code below

the objective

level#

 Results Link to National P

Manager Prio

DW SE DA 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 24 of 57

STATE REVOLVING FUND

8 Increase utilization of SRF dollars

to priority systems.

707172

• By 2008, the CWSRF Fund utilization rate

will reach 94% [cumulative loan agreementdollars to the cumulative funds available forprojects]. 

• By 2008, the return on Federal investment

will reach $2.37 [cumulative dollar amount ofassistance disbursements to projects dividedby cumulative Federal outlays for projects]. 

• By 2008, two (2) Region 7 states will be

using integrated planning and priority systemsto make CWSRF funding decisions. (28nationally)

Sub-Objective 2.2.2: Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters Region 7 does not have a coastal and ocean watersimprovement program.
Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 25 of 57

Target 3This Target is reserved to align the WWPD Strategic Plan with the Region 7 Strategic Plan Architecture. WWPD does 

a Target 3 at this time.

Target 4: Healthy Communities and EcosystemsSafeguard ecosystems and promote the health of natural communities that are integral to the quality of life in Region 7. restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnershhealth, communities and ecosystems from pests and disease by ensuring availability of pesticides, including public healtantimicrobial products, that meet the latest safety standards. Prevent and reduce chemical and biological risks to human

ecosystems. 

Objective 4.1: Reduce Risks to Human Health via Exposure to Chemicals, Organisms, and Pest

Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological organism risks to humecosystems. Through 2008, protect human health, communities and ecosystems from pesticide use the more toxic pesticides.Current StatusAgriculture is the number one industry in Region 7 with more than 270,000 producers. According tNational Agricultural Statistics Service, Region 7 has 22.5% of the nation’s crop land within its fousold for grain nationally, approximately 23.4 million pounds of atrazine applied to corn crops, and amillion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer applied on crops. While the strength of agriculture in Region 7 economic and social well-being of the area, agriculture brings with it environmental challenges.The Pesticides Program in Region 7 will utilize programs, tools, approaches, resources and partnersreduce human and ecological risks from exposure to pesticides and genetically modified organismsprograms managed by Region 7 include oversight of the production, distribution, use and disposal othrough the funding of Performance Partnership Grants with the four pesticide state lead agencies, 4conducted and 587 enforcement actions were issued. This region is responsible for regulating 2,100 establishments. 
Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 26 of 57

The Pesticides Program will also continue to manage various voluntary programs that promote risk using grant funds, Region 7 will target projects which promote the use of reduced risk pesticides, thPesticides Management (IPM) techniques, increasing community awareness and education, as well environmental justice concerns through education and outreach. The Pesticides Program will suppoactivities that will assist the Agency in meeting the national pesticide program goals and objectives specific high priority issues. Specifically, Region 7 is strategically focusing resources on promotinand worker safety through implementation of the Worker Protection Standard, implementing state cprograms that promote safe and effective use of pesticides, preventing pesticide misuse and ensurinare no longer distributed or used by the public, inspector training, and preventing import of illegal pgoals will be achieved through enhanced partnerships with the pesticide regulatory and user commuFor example, the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) and USDA began a program in 2001 weevil from Missouri cotton fields. Some beekeepers in Southeast Missouri believed the pesticide program was detrimental to their honey bees. They complained to MDA and the State solicited guipesticides program. Region 7 participated in many discussions and meetings with affected parties d2001/2002 and developed a plan whereby the risk to bees from ultra-low volume malathion sprays wminimum. This is considered a win - win situation. By having pesticide applicators exercise due cawhich pesticides are applied, the eradication of the boll weevil will have long term benefits to the Mcommunity and to the environment by the significant reduction in or the elimination of pesticide usLikewise, the protection of honey bees has been achieved while implementing the eradication progrRegion 7 is also working closely with its four States/ Tribes to keep everyone informed of the atrazsince atrazine is a highly used pesticide in Region 7. Iowa and Nebraska are two of the six states, nthe heaviest use per unit area. Iowa and Kansas have been identified as two of the states where inteis going to begin.All four Region 7 states have delegated programs for the implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and three of the nine tribes are working to develop their own pesticide proworking relationship has been developed with all of the states. Having project officers located in IoNebraska and being within a one-hour drive of Topeka, Kansas has promoted open communications oversight of the state programs. The Pesticide Branch has several experienced personnel who have Region as a national leader in implementing FIFRA. A strong enforcement program is being maintAll four of the states have developed Pesticide Management Plans and two of the tribes have drafted 
Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 27 of 57

Protection Standards (WPS) are being implemented in each of the four states. Region 7 facilitates sregistration decisions such as atrazine.Current TrendsA long-term goal is for Worker Safety Programs (WPS), Certification and Training (C&T), and HeaInitiative (HCPI) to be combined into a single comprehensive program. Pesticide Management Plan expanding to include surface waters. All State WPS assessments will be completed by 2004. WPS high priority. However, since most of the crops grown in the region do not require much hand laboa priority as in other Regions. The Region will continue to facilitate greater state input/participation registration decisions. The Region will also continue to maintain, enhance and promote its role in wpartnerships to assist growers to adopt alternative pest management strategies and aid in the transitipesticides. Examples of these partnerships are the boll weevil eradication program and the re-registrThe success of our Regional pesticide programs are dependent on cooperative and productive relatiin state lead agencies, tribes, universities and Cooperative Extension. Region 7 will work with thesactivities within the various states such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and pesticide waste awhich reflect both national and Regional goals and objectives. Targeted goals and objectives, and oas Customs, USDA, BIA, USFWS, etc., will be incorporated into cooperative agreements and grantadjusted on a continuous basis to ensure that effective use of limited resources.A priority of the Region 7 Pesticides Program is to continue to focus on the proper use of agriculturwill use a variety of opportunities such as participation on the USDA North Central Sustainable AgEducation (SARE) Administrative Council and the North Central Region IPM Center to build on exidentify areas for future focus.Major ChallengesSuccess will depend on our ability to support the state delegated programs and other programs targehuman health. This support may be difficult to maintain due to the fact that the Pesticide Branch hamajority of its most experienced staff within the next one to two years. This potential personnel losincrease in training needed for the new employees, if positions are backfilled. Integrating the WPSsingle, effective comprehensive program will require effective working relationships by all partnersconcern from producers of non-genetically modified crops that their crops will be polluted by genet
Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 28 of 57

Key to Abbreviations in Objective 4.1:

SAI - FQPA/Strategic Agricultural Initiative SP - 

WS - Worker Safety WQ - Coordination regarding joint pesticide/wate

Region 7 will be the OPPTS Lead Region for Fiscal Years 2005-2006. This will involve working ccurrent OPPTS Lead Region, as well as the subsequent Lead Region to ensure smooth transitions. Rinput from all of the Regions and Headquarters regarding critical Lead Region activities during our 

Activity

# Strategic Targets Results

Link to 

Program 

Prio

SAI W

Sub-Objective 4.1.1: Successfully implement the following programs: FIFRA/FQPA and the Endangered SpecieThrough 2008, protect human health, communities and ecosystems from pesticide use by reducing exposure to the more 

1 Reduce risks to human health and

the environment throughimplementing the followingprograms: FIFRA, FQPA; andEndangered Species Act.

• Maintain and build solid partnerships with the Ag community in

Region 7.

• Maintain a FQPA grant portfolio of projects, dependent upon

available funding, that conform with the SAI toolbox.

• Address Ag cross-media considerations with linkages to other EPA

programs.

• Provide regular feedback to EPA HQ on Regional high risk pesticide

transition issues. Cooperate with USDA with respect to Regional PestManagement Centers and NRCS Technical Committees. 

• Review 3 significant endangered species related pesticide cases (based

on submission during the five year period.)

• Include a session on endangered species at the 2004 Regional

pesticide inspector training session.

• Develop baseline information on terrestrial/aquatic wildlife mortalities

from pesticides.

• Continue to assist States and Tribes, as appropriate, to identify

XXXX

X 
Activity

# Strategic Targets Results

Link to 

Program 

Prio

SAI W

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 29 of 57

common cross border endangered species issues.

• Develop a Regional plan for endangered species bulletin distribution

and have periodic discussions with State/Tribal counterparts onendangered species activities. 

2 Assure protection of both ground

and surface water resources frompesticides. Facilitate effectivecommunication among statepesticide lead agencies, OPP, andRegion 7 water programs onpesticides and WQ issues. Encourage participation by OPPand Region 7 water programs to

discuss issues of mutual concernand current activities. 

• Following publication of the final PMP Rule, provide guidance and

support to SLAs and interested Tribes to develop and implement theirPesticide Management Plans.

• Host quarterly conference calls with state pesticide lead water quality

staff.

• Share information pertaining to registration /re-registration issues

having water quality links with Region 7 water programs & others tofacilitate Region 7 water programs ability to provide comment onthese issues. As a specific example, PEST will share information onatrazine.

• Investigate, identify, and encourage opportunities for increased

partnership between state pesticide lead agencies and USDACooperative Extension water quality programs.

• Provide input, as requested, into Region 7 water program activities

relating to pesticides, e.g., TMDLs, watershed management, etc.

• Share information and solicit input from Region 7 water quality

programs on state pesticide program water quality activities. Currentexamples include atrazine re-registration and monitoring activities inthe Big Blue river Basin, NDA’s efforts to deploy immuno-assays forground water monitoring, etc.

XXXXXX

3 Ensure that all environmental data

collected in support of FIFRAprograms will meet appropriatequality control standards andenhance data collection and sharing

• Provide meaningful guidance on QAPPs to State and Tribal pesticide

programs.

• State lead agencies have current and effective QAPPs.

XX

XX
Activity

# Strategic Targets Results

Link to 

Program 

Prio

SAI W

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 30 of 57

4 Promote effective implementation

of pesticide program activities by inIndian Country.

• Provide a Regional pesticide inspectors workshop on a biennial basis

which includes Tribes.

• Accountable workplan activities and required reports

XX

XX

5 Develop and effective

communication network between allBiotechnology partners.

• Participate in monthly conference calls to address Biotechnology

issues.

• Participate on a national workgroup to work on making improvements

in working with Biotechnology products in the EUP process.

XX

6 Provide quality technical assistance/

outreach to the regulatedcommunity regarding pesticideissues.

• Participate in activities such as Western Farm Show and Fruit &

Vegetable Growers’ Conferences to provide information to groups,organizations and individuals.

• Coordinate efforts with Regional Ag and National Ag Compliance

Assistance Center to provide outreach information to producers withinthe Region on the status of pesticide re-registration and new saferproducts that are available.

XX

XX
Activity

# Strategic Targets Results

Link to 

Program 

Prio

SAI W

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 31 of 57

Sub-Objective 4.1.2: Fully Implement Pesticide Health and Safety Standards Through ensuring effective pesticide applicator training and certification programs and protection of farm workers from 

1 Provide leadership, guidance and

oversight of state/tribal workersafety activities, includingimplementation of workerprotection standards and thecertification and training programsfor pesticide applicators.

• Annually review new pesticide applicator training manuals to ensure

they adequately address required items

• Participate in national worker safety work groups, conference calls

and mtgs

• Ensure effective Implementation of worker protection standards as

well certification, and training programs for pesticide applicators in allfour states through appropriate grant management activties. 

• Conduct an appropriate number of state visits and oversight

inspections.

XXXX

XXXX

2 Provide regional/field perspective to

OPP regarding registration/reregistration decisions.

• Provide comments to EPA HQ on pesticides of interest to Region 7. 

OPP will have a better understanding of how their decisions will affectproduct users due to Region 7's comments.

X X 

3 Serve as liaison between state and

OPP regarding Section 18s.

• Section 18's will be issued timely• Maintain good working relations with the states through consultation.• Ensure states enforce terms and conditions of approval via state

reports, mid-year and end of year reports.

XXX

X 

4 Coordinate and assist states with the

collection of antimicrobial samples. When violations are identified,work with companies regardingvoluntary recall programs and takeappropriate enforcement actions.

• Complete 100% of HQ assignments and take actions on cases that

warrant action.

X 
Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 32 of 57

Objective 4.2: Community Health

See Objective 2.1

Objective 4.3: Ecosystems

Region 7’s ecological resources are as varied as its landscape and climate. Well known major ecoloinclude: the Platte River system of central Nebraska which is home to six nationally significant threspecies; the national wild and scenic rivers and forests of the Ozark plateau in southern Missouri; thsignificant Cheyenne Bottoms and Quivira wetlands of south central Kansas; the Missouri and Missextensive Flint Hills tall grass prairies in central Kansas. The Region also intercepts the Central and two major continental migratory routes for millions of birds each year that use wetland complexes srainwater basin, prairie potholes, and playas lakes as resting and refueling stops. Broad scale losses vegetation to cultivated agriculture in Region 7 and elsewhere in the Midwest have produced dramabiodiversity. The percentage of imperiled plant communities is higher in the central United States tthe country. Large river systems, including important headwaters and intermittent streams, have bechannelization and levees to protect against flooding and impoundments that retain water rather thastreams. These practices have damaged or eliminated natural fish habitat on countless miles of the and including the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.Wetland losses in Region 7 range from 35% in Nebraska, 48% in Kansas, to 87% in Missouri and 8numbers conceal the true losses within individual wetland complexes. For example, over 90% of Nwetlands and 99% of Iowa’s prairie pothole wetlands have been lost. The impacts of wetland losseRegion 7 and the Midwest. All of the runoff from the Region’s waterways become part of the MissBasin/Watershed, and pollutants in the runoff eventually discharge to the Gulf of Mexico. These loof oxygen-deficient waters which adversely affect aquatic life populations. Current StatusEPA’s authority under the CWA Section 404 is not delegated to the States, Indian Tribes or local gotraditionally joined, the Section 404/Wetlands Program has had enforcement separated from other pSection 404/Wetlands Program (Program) work is coordinated at the State and tribal levels and genSection 404 permit authorities, technical assistance, education & outreach, and financial assistance.The Program has a number of strengths. State Coordinators are familiar with state-specific water re
Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 33 of 57

develop relationships with local, state and federal partners. Coordinators assume leadership roles wand can target grant programs to local/State/tribal needs. The capacity building grant program (STAleverage for advancing water resources protection programs. Current TrendsMost efforts have been focused on a few important areas: strengthening access to data to assist with including cumulative impacts, under NEPA and Section 404; providing consistent comments and goArmy Corps of Engineers to affect protection of critical ecosystems, including isolated wetlands anbuilding State and tribal capacity for protecting critical ecosystems and monitoring their water resouThere are several areas of weaknesses. Region 7 States are not well positioned financially or politicresponsibilities for protecting waters of the U.S., which leaves isolated wetlands vulnerable to loss. infrastructure for serious programmatic water resource protection. There is also discontinuity amonwithin Region 7, which co-administer with EPA the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program. The Rebeing subject to easy disruption due to frequent staff turnover, temporary details, etc. Reorganization with the former Geographic Planning and Coordination Branch staff (GPCB) is expgrant functions and better target grants and increase focus of regulatory and nonregulatory activities The Program expects to continue involvement with Tribes as they expand their program capacity. A need for projects in Indian Country that require EPA water quality certification is expected. An expsupport for state expansion of wetlands monitoring programs is also likely. There will be an increaand support from EPA to increase effectiveness of mitigation for wetlands and streams through the Mitigation Action Plan, a national multi-agency effort, and expand education for and use of cumulaFinally, in addition to using our Section 404 permit authorities to protect wetlands and other critical will pursue cross-program solutions to more complicated water resources protection problems by cothe R7 Critical Ecosystem’s Coregroup and by providing needed technical assistance to the AgriculMajor ChallengesThere are several challenges facing the Wetlands/404 Program. There is a need for organizational sto a new branch, a strategy for achieving more cross-program solutions for complicated natural resocontinuing consistent coordination and communication at the State and tribal level. There will be a of the Program library and files into the reorganized branch. EPA’s role in supporting States/tribes/protecting isolated wetlands will need to be defined which would include clear direction from OWO
Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 34 of 57

Key to Abbreviations in ObjeDW - Drinking Water Implementation WSE - Smart Enforcement A

DA - Strategic Use of Data S

MA - Monitoring and Assessment E

definitions of “adjacency” and “isolated.” Additional technical training for staff is needed. Data alle.g., RAMS Data from Corps Districts and integration with EPA Section 404 project data, and increscientific information are essential to Program progress and to improve water resources protection. Land use within Region 7 is strongly weighted toward agricultural uses such as pasture, range, and four regional states, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, are among the top ten states for percentage of land areand Missouri ranks first for percentage of pastureland. Continuing conversion of natural habitat to awith urbanization, will place further stress on natural ecosystems and their inhabitants.

Activity

# Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

Sub-Objectives Results

Link to National 

Manager Prio

DW SE DA 

4.3.1: Protect and Restore Habitats (See 4.3.2)4.3.2: Increase Wetlands

1 Achieve “no overall net loss” of

wetlands through the CWASection 404 Wetlands Protectionprogram through permits.

2.2.1, 4.3.1,5.2.3, 5.2.5 

• By 2008, Region 7 will achieve “no overall

net loss” of wetlands.

X 

4.3.5 Gulf of Mexico
Activity

# Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

Sub-Objectives Results

Link to National 

Manager Prio

DW SE DA 

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 35 of 57

1 Reduce hypoxia impacts to the

Gulf of Mexico.

2.2.1(4) • Coordinate with WQMB to secure adoption of

nutrient criteria in state water qualitystandards.

• Support state and NGO watershed protection

efforts to reduce nutrient loadings to theMississippi and Missouri rivers.

• Support the efforts of agencies to rehabilitate

Mississippi and Missouri river floodplains toprocess in-stream nutrient loadings.

X X X 

Objective 4.5: Science & Research

Both Agency and Region7-directed research efforts to develop products or procedures to improve wthe Region’s public health and environmental protection issues. Current StatusApproximately fifty percent of the Regional laboratory capability is directed to supporting WWPD quality improvements. The Region’s science capabilities are successful at analyzing water quality clevels of concern. Current Regional methodologies are well developed and tested to generate reliabsupport the WWPD programs.Current TrendsThe Regional laboratory is continually assessing the cost of developing its analytical capabilities aganalyze for non-traditional water quality parameters such as pharmaceuticals and other “exotic” cheMajor ChallengesOngoing budget constraints both accelerates the loss of experienced technical people to the private ability of Region 7 to backfill vacancies with qualified personnel.
Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 36 of 57

Key to AAG - AgriculSP - SensitivEC - Ecosyst

Activity 

# Strategic Targets Results 

Sub-Objective 4.5.1: Environmental IndicatorsUse of surrogate measures to denote environmental conditions.

1 Apply scientifically valid

procedures and technologies toincrease human health andenvironmental protection

• Enable the Region to address the potential effects to public health or the environment 

discovered substances in the water environment.

2 Apply new laboratory

procedures to identify andanalyze “exotic” substances inthe water column.

• Enable the Region to address the potential effects to public health or the environment 

discovered substances in the water environment.

3 Develop new wastewater

treatment technologies toremove “exotic” substancesfrom the water column.

• Enable the Region to eliminate or reduce “exotic” substances from the water column

determined to be harmful to public health or the environment.

4 Use developing genetic

decoding technologies todistinguish DNA/RNA fingerprinting between species.

• Allow the Region and States/ Tribes to focus their water quality monitoring resources 

most logical causative factor.

5 Develop confidence in and use

empirically-derivedenvironmental indicators tocharacterize water quality.

• Enable the Region and States/ Tribes to quickly assess the water quality of an area to

determine where water monitoring resources should be directed.
Activity 

# Strategic Targets Results 

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 37 of 57

6 Evaluate developing

technologies to stabilize minewastes to reduce the leaching oflead, arsenic, and zinc, as wellas other heavy metals to waterresources.

• Improve both surface and groundwater quality in areas of the Region with previous or 

surface or sub-surface mining.

7 Encourage beneficial use of

waste materials.

• Identify useful commercial products derived from waste water or sewage sludge there

reducing the amount of sludge that must be managed to prevent it from entering theenvironment.
Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 38 of 57

Target 5: Compliance and Environmental StewardshipObjective 5.1: Improve Compliance

By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through compliance aincentives, and enforcement by achieving a 3% increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treatedachieving a 3% increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental Current StatusRegion 7 controls air emissions in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska and it has resulted in markquality. Despite the success, 15 percent of Region 7's population still live in areas with unhealthy aemissions are related to motor vehicles, small facilities, and commercial activities and TRI data shoin the Region were reduced by approximately 8 percent between 1993 and 1997. Region 7's qualitresources is judged by their capability to maintain specific uses designated in each state’s water quapercent of the assessed lake areas and 51 percent of the assessed rivers and streams fail to support ustate’s water quality standards. Agriculture is the primary source of these impaired uses in both strehas more than 4,000 community public water systems that serve more than 11.4 million people. Reroutine testing for contaminants in drinking water. Region 7's EJ, CBEP, and Brownfields programminority and low-income children. Despite significant reductions in blood lead levels over 15 yeara serious health risk for children in Region 7.EPA has the responsibility to ensure compliance with the environmental laws and regulations. This a balanced approach of providing compliance incentives and assistance as well as taking appropriatwhich may assess penalties. Compliance incentives and assistance activities are intended to encourparties to comply. Enforcement actions serve as a future deterrent when violations have occurred. responsibility with State, tribal, and local compliance and enforcement agencies across the country. enforcement activities in the Division will be centrally located into one Branch combining SDWA, Wetlands and CWA NPDES enforcement activities. FIFRA enforcement will remain in the PEST bUnder FIFRA, states have primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations, subject to Through Performance Partnership Agreements, the state departments of agriculture in Region 7 havpesticide enforcement responsibility. In 2002, the states conducted 4,181 inspections which resulte
Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 39 of 57

enforcement actions by either the states or Region 7's Pesticides Branch depending upon the type anviolations identified. The states and EPA are also involved in a variety of compliance assistance acRegion 7 are also in the process of considering development of tribal pesticide programs, including components. All Region 7 states have been delegated the NPDES program, and all but Kansas have been delegatProgram. This requires them to be the primary day-to-day stewards of these programs. As such, thfor issuing permits, performing sampling and inspections of permitted facilities, evaluating DMR reand appropriate enforcement actions. Therefore, it falls to Region 7 to provide oversight to the stateenforcement actions that the state has not prosecuted in accordance with the enforcement protocols parties. Ensuring that the States take timely and appropriate NPDES enforcement actions is done utilizing vmechanisms. These include the QNCR (quarterly non-compliance report), state evaluations through various reports required through the state/EPA working agreements.Current TrendsThere are presently two leading initiatives within NPDES enforcement. One isn’t enforcement but to those facilities that have minor violations. Headquarters, however, has not effectively communicAssistance entails, nor when it is appropriate, leaving Region 7 still in the starting blocks on this initrend is enforcement against violators of “wet weather” environmental statutes. These include CSOwater regulations. The Region has developed, and continues to improve, the CAFO enforcement penforcement has been one of the Region’s biggest success stories over the past few years. Also in rweather initiative, Region 7 has initiated in the past year a Storm water enforcement program that is stages but appears to offer great promise. Efforts are underway for greater accountability both in ov

and Regional efforts to ensure that all enforcement candidates are evaluated and addressed with the This may include a need for more enforcement personnel. While pesticides are not considered a national enforcement priority, there has been a concerted, collOECA, OPP and the Regions to identify and agree upon the following priority pesticide enforcemensafety, E-commerce, antimicrobial testing program, label enforceability and unregistered sources/ plimited pesticide enforcement resources as well as an ever increasing need for enforcement and compesticides program, it was essential that focus areas be set. 
Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 40 of 57

Major ChallengesWe will deter noncompliance by utilizing our regional risk-based targeting strategy for targeting coincentives, inspections and enforcement with a focus on children’s health, national priorities (NSR/plants, Air Toxics, CWA Wet Weather including CSOs, SSOs, stormwater and CAFOs, SDWA MiEvaders), regional priority areas (critical ecosystems, agriculture, and sensitive populations), core penvironmental justice, and the most environmentally impaired and sensitive areas. We will look for reduce the greatest number of pounds of pollution and for regulated entities who have made environpractice improvements. Region 7 will focus not only on correction of violations and remediation obut also on encouraging the violating parties to go beyond the minimum legal compliance requiremsupplementary environmental projects that eliminate or reduce pollutantsThe reorganization that enforcement personnel have experienced will likely cause setbacks initially developed and new employees trained. All enforcement personnel will be required to become progCWA and all of the programs it covers, i.e., Pretreatment, Storm water, CAFOs, Sludge, CSOs, SSOenforcement personnel will become proficient with the SDWA, CWA § 404/ wetlands, and UST regmanagement will also have short-term repercussions as new managers implement policies and progthem. Even with the establishment of national pesticide focus areas, the challenge of addressing critical pecompliance assistance needs is great. This challenge becomes even greater due to the expected loss personnel over the next few years. Spray drift complaints, which are among the most difficult compmay become even more problematic with projected changes to label language.
Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 41 of 57

Key AG - SP - EC - 

Activity

 # Strategic Targets

Link to

other 

Objectives

& SubObjectives

Results

Sub-Objective 5.1.1: Compliance AssistanceBy 2008, prevent noncompliance or reduce environmental risks through EPA compliance assistance by achieving:Strategic Targets:• A 3% increase in the percentage of regulated entities that improved their understanding of environmental requirement• A 3% increase in the number of regulated entities that improved environmental management practices.• A 3% increase in the percentage of regulated entities that reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution. (Baseline to be det

1 Increase awareness of new regulations within

the regulated community.Increase awareness of federal-lead programswithin the regulated community.

• % Improved understanding of environmental requirements 

completing pre/post test or survey (baseline determined by 

• % Improved environmental practices• % of regulated entitles that reduced or eliminated pollution• # of workshops held• # of entities reached through on-site visits• # attending workshops• # of entities reached through telephone calls• # of entities reached through direct mailings• # of presentations and audience reached
Activity

 # Strategic Targets

Link to

other 

Objectives

& SubObjectives

Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 42 of 57

2 Conduct compliance assistance for targeted

sectors and areas of concern (e.g., EJ, FederalFacilities, P2).Utilize tools such as outreach, workshops, andthe audit policy. Pollution prevention will beincorporated whenever possible

5.2.2 • # CA materials distributed

• # mailings on key compliance issues• # attending workshops• # of entities reached through on-site visits• % reporting increases understanding of environmental requirements• % of entities reporting that they reduced, treated, or elimina

pollution and protected populations or ecosystems

• % of entities reporting improved environmental manageme

practices

Sub-Objective 5.1.2: Compliance IncentivesStrategic Targets:• By 2008, identify and correct noncompliance and reduce environmental risks through a 3% increase in the percentage 

EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution or immanagement practices. (Baseline to be determined for 2005)

1 Provide compliance incentives to sectors,

municipalities, Federal Facilities, etc.

5.2.2 • # facilities that use EPA’s incentive policies to conduct

environmental audits

• # facilities that use EPA’s incentive policies to conduct

environmental audits to reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution(Baseline to be determined by 2005)

• # facilities that use EPA’s incentive policies to conduct

environmental audits to improve environmental managemepractices. (Baseline to be determined by 2005)

2 Encourage the regulated community to use

Agency policies on self-disclosure, smallbusinesses, small communities, andsupplemental environmental projects.

• # of entities self-disclosing violation under the audit policy• # of entities self-disclosing violations under the SBCP.• # of settled enforcement actions that include SEPs.
Activity

 # Strategic Targets

Link to

other 

Objectives

& SubObjectives

Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 43 of 57

Sub-Objective 5.1.3: Monitoring and EnforcementBy 2008, identify, correct, and deter noncompliance and reduce environmental risks through monitoring and enforcement by achie

Strategic Targets:

• A 3% increase in the number of complying actions taken during inspections.• A 3% increase in the percentage of enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated.• A 3% increase in the percentage of enforcement actions requiring improvement of environmental practices.

1 Address violations which cause the most

significant environmental and public healthproblems, including environmental justice(EJ) areas and issues related to children’shealth and other areas of concern.In addition to core NPDES programs, criticalareas include:• wetlands• PWSS• toxic spills• CAFO• Stormwater• CSO/SSO

• # of inspections in areas of high risk and human health

environment conducted

• Pounds /tons of pollutant decreases that are reported as a re

enforcement actions and SEPs

• # of SEPs.• $ of SEPs and injunctive relief actions to remediate or elim

hazardous conditions

• % of enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduc

treated or eliminated

• % of enforcement actions requiring improvement of

environmental management practices

• # of administrative penalty orders• # of compliance orders issued• # of civil judicial referred• # of civil judicial case concluded• # of administrative penalty orders concluded

2 Maintain a credible deterrent to

noncompliance at all facilities.

• # of inspections• # of investigations conducted• Pounds/tons of pollutant decreases that are reported as a res

enforcement actions and SEPs

• % of enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduc

treated, or eliminated
Activity

 # Strategic Targets

Link to

other 

Objectives

& SubObjectives

Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 44 of 57

• % of enforcement actions requiring improvement of

environmental management practices

• # of administrative penalty orders• # of compliance orders issued• # of civil judicial referrals• # of civil judicial cases concluded• # of administrative penalty orders concluded• # of SEPs• $ value of SEPs

3 Participation in national and regional

enforcement initiatives and priorities.• CWA Wet Weather

1.1.1,1.1.2,2.1.1,3.1.2,4.1

• Number of inspections in national priority areas• Number of investigations in national priority areas• Number of civil judicial referrals in national priority areas• Number of administrative penalty orders in national priority • % of enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduc

treated, or eliminated

• % of enforcement actions requiring improvement of

environmental management practices

• # of compliance orders issued in national priority areas• # of civil judicial cases concluded in national priority areas• # of administrative penalty orders concluded in national pri

areas

4 Maintain effective partnerships with States

and HQWork jointly with the States in identifyingpriorities for enforcement and compliance

1, 2, 3 • Number of enforcement grant program reviews.

• Number of joint inspections, investigations, and enforceme

actions

• Number of oversight activities associated with state/local ag

SNC/HPV universe

• Number of annual enforcement meetings and calls conducte

the State and local agencies
Activity

 # Strategic Targets

Link to

other 

Objectives

& SubObjectives

Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 45 of 57

5 Ensure the quality and accuracy of national

data management and reporting systems.PCS, ICIS

1, 2, 3 • Ensure accuracy of information requested on CCDS Report

• Number of CCDS reports completed for enforcement action

6 Seek areas where SEPs may be used in

enforcement actions to ensure pollutionreductions

5.2 • Number formal enforcement actions with SEPs that require

reduction of pollutants

7 Conduct onsite inspections of regulated

facilities

• Number of inspections conducted• Number of violations found per inspection

9 Develop and employ adequate oversight

mechanisms to ensure all violations areaddressed

• # of systems improved upon• qualitative improvements

Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention, Innovation

Current Status:Region 7 has already made significant progress in improving the environmental performance of govthe public through our historical involvement in a wide variety of pollution prevention and waste reRegional staff work with and through various partners by providing grant funding through the PolluIncentives for States (PPIS) program and other innovative projects. Through our PPIS funding, Nebdeveloped programs whereby university summer interns work directly with businesses to recommensolutions to environmental problems. These programs have been very successful, resulting in milliosignificant reductions in hazardous and solid waste generated and electricity and water used. We alfamily of voluntary members of the Partners for the Environment program. Many of these programWaste Wise, Climate Wise, Design for the Environment, Energy Star, etc. Nationally, these progra
Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 46 of 57

dollars saved, millions of tons of carbon dioxide reduced, billions of gallons of water saved, and trilreduced. The region fully supports the new environmental management system (EMS) and NationaPerformance Track programs. Region 7 currently has 15 facilities in Performance Track, with abouthe region known to have ISO 14001 or Responsible Care EMSs. These other EMS facilities can be improved environmental performance through their environmental policies, which endorse preventicontinual improvement. They are also potential Performance Track members, which will entail formundertaking and reporting on environmental improvement projects. The region is also heavily invoGoals Program for metal finishers, and, in keeping with the agricultural nature of Region 7, is doing of agricultural EMSs. Region 7 NEPA Team will fulfill the regional statutory obligations under NEthe Clean Air Act.Major Challenges:Being an agricultural region, non-point source contamination of waterways is a major problem whicpart through a pollution prevention approach. This not only pertains to crop land run-off of fertilizeherbicides, but also to releases from the many confined animal feeding operations in the region. Thstarted working on a pilot project to develop an EMS for pork producers. Integration of pollution pmedia regulatory programs has historically been a problem, due as much to the entrenched stovepipas to the natural dissimilarity of regulatory and voluntary programs. The inclusion of specific pollurequirements in the other goals of the strategic plan is appropriate and probably necessary to achievtargets. However, the statutory and regulatory basis for some media programs impedes the incorpopollution prevention or EMS alternatives, and the authority to craft alternative approaches to regulainvolve new legislation or rulemaking. Likewise, Agency enforcement policy (for instance, for supprojects) may hinder the early adoption of good pollution prevention proposals due to restrictions oto-penalty ratios and allowable economic payback periods. The Agency could further its goals for prethinking such policies. The NEPA program with current EPA emphasis on the identification and risk and ecosystem management will use our review responsibilities as an opportunity to not only abut also to work with other agencies for the mitigation of those risks or the selection of alternatives NEPA Team is part of the Region’s Critical Ecosystems Team.
Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 47 of 57

Activity

# Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

SubObjectives Results

Sub-Objective 5.2.1: Pollution Prevention by Government and the PublicThrough 2008, reduce pollution throughout all sectors and levels of government operations, serving as models for other

the public’s awareness and role in preventing pollution.Strategic Targets:

• By 2008, reduce TRI reported toxic chemical releases at Federal Facilities by 40%, from a baseline year of 2001.• By 2008, double EPA's yearly purchases of “green” products and services including office supplies, electronic equipm

janitorial and maintenance services, meetings and conference management, from a baseline year of 2002. 

• By 2008, all Federal agencies will have defined Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) programs and policies i

expanding their purchases of available "green" products and services, from a baseline of one Federal agency in 2002.

1 Develop regional EMS as mandated by EO. • Primary measure will be meeting time frames cited2 Develop Outreach Advocacy Program targeted

to other Federal agencies with emphasis onEMS’s.

• % of entities reporting change or improvement of

environmental management practices

3 Expand RCRA 6002* reviews to more items

Emphasize RCRA 6002* as a compliance issue.*Federal Procurement - Recycled Materials

• Integration of RCRA 6002 activities into routine pr

implementation.

4 Foster effective P2 partnerships with Federal

facilities.

• No. of federal facility improvement projects implem

(EMSs, EPP, recycling programs, etc.) 
Activity

# Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

SubObjectives Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 48 of 57

Sub-Objective 5.2.2: Pollution Prevention by IndustryThrough 2008, reduce pollution in business operations through the adoption of more efficient, sustainable and protective policies, 

technologies. Strategic Targets:

• By 2008, prevent 12 billion lbs. of industrial hazardous chemical releases to the environment and hazardous chemicals in indust

baseline year of 2003.

• By 2008, reduce waste minimization priority list chemicals in hazardous waste streams reported by businesses to TRI by 50% f

• By 2008, conserve 400 billion BTUs of energy and 10 billion gallons of water, reduce 93 thousand metric tons of CO2 emission

unnecessary costs as a result of pollution prevention activities, from a baseline year of 2003.

• By 2008, reduce by 10 % industrial TRI chemical releases and wastes produced per unit of production, from a baseline year of 2

1 Develop Regional goals for water conservation

and work plan for meeting those goals.

2 • Completion of Regional work plan.

• Contribute 10% of national target of gallons of wa

2 Develop Regional Goals for Reducing Energy

consumption by industry. 

1, 2 • Contribute 10% of national target developed for B

conserved and CO2 emissions reduced

3 Develop targeting Plans for TRI reductions. 1 • Contribute 10% of national targets

• # of facilities contributing to Voluntary Programs• % of national target for conservation achieved viavoluntary programs (water, energy, etc.)• % of national target for reduced chemical release via voluntary programs (Priority chemicals, hazardouetc.)

4 Develop Regional targets and goals on waste

prevented

3 • Wastes reduced in region 7
Activity

# Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

SubObjectives Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 49 of 57

Sub-Objective 5.2.3: Business and Community InnovationThrough 2008, achieve measurably improved environmental performance through sector-based approaches, performancassistance to small business.Strategic Targets:• Through 2008, Performance Track members who commit to improvements in the following environmental categories 

annual reductions of: 3% in water use; 3% in energy use; 3 % in total solid waste; 1% in air releases*; and 5% in watreductions will be normalized, where possible. [*These improvements are beyond existing regulatory requirements.] Performance Track members reduced their water use by 5%, decreased their energy use by 6%, reduced their total sotheir air releases by 4%, and decreased their water discharges by 25%.

• Through 2008, annually provide outreach and technical assistance to 50 state and 3 territorial small business assistanc

750,000 small businesses across the nation using a variety of innovative tools and approaches. Baseline: 450,000 sm

through technical assistance providers in 50 states and 3 territories in 2001.

• Through 2008, work with business sectors to remove regulatory and other performance barriers and increase the num

environmental management systems, enabling member companies in participating sectors to achieve aggregate annua

greenhouse gas emissions, other significant air releases, energy use, and water discharges; a 1% aggregate annual waaggregate annual increase of 100 facilities using EMS. (Baseline: to be developed, using 2000-2002 data from partic

1 Develop Regional plan for implementation of

OPEI Sector Initiative with emphasis onRegional priority sectors.

• # of agreements entered into• Emission reductions• Reductions in waste generated• Energy, water conservation

2 Conduct outreach and develop partnerships to

provide technical assistance for the smallbusiness community

4 • Completion of Regional work plan

• # entities reached• # providers engaged
Activity

# Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

SubObjectives Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 50 of 57

3 Region 7 will continue to support Performance

Track, expand participation, and to incorporatestrategic targets.

1, 2, 3 • Number of facilities that participate in NEPT

• Incorporation of national strategic targets into regi

NEPT efforts

• # of NETP applications reviewed• # of site visits conducted• % of regional contribution to national strategic tar

4 Region 7 will continue to provide support for

State P2 programs through PPIS grants and otherresources.

• No. of states with strong P2 and technical assistan

programs 

• Facilities which receive P2 and/or technical assista

through state P2 programs

• % of regional contribution to national strategic tar

Sub-Objective 5.2.4: Environmental Policy InnovationThrough 2008, achieve measurably improved environmental and economic outcomes by testing, evaluating, and applyinapproaches to environmental protection in states, companies, and communities. Strategic Targets:• Through 2008, facilitate the review of all new innovative approaches proposed to EPA annually. Baseline: 70 percen• Through 2008, demonstrate 5 innovative approaches proposed to EPA annually. Baseline: 3, 2002.• Through 2008, annually evaluate 5 innovative approaches to environmental protection. Baseline: 3 evaluations, 2002• Through 2008, facilitate the adoption of 5 new innovative approaches in Federal and State environmental programs. 

adopted by multiple states, 2002. 

1 Evaluate Regional innovations projects • No. of projects which undergo formal evaluation

• Achievement of built-in performance measures

2 Based on scale-up proposals, Region 7 will

implement significant systems changes asappropriate

Number of significant system changes that result froinnovations scale-ups.
Activity

# Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

SubObjectives Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 51 of 57

3 As a result of evaluation process, Region 7 will

propose scale-up of innovation projects asappropriate.

• No. of innovations concepts or projects that are

implemented on broader programmatic scale.

4 Implement innovations projects consistent with

Region 7 Innovations commitments.

• # of innovations projects consistent with Regional

commitments.

Sub-Objective 5.2.5: Economic AnalysisThrough 2008, improve the Agency’s regulatory and non-regulatory decisions through the development of sound econo

analytic guides, and other economic tools used to estimate environmental costs and benefits.

1 Conduct expert economic analyses 1, 2, 3 • # cases analyzed

Sub-Objective 5.2.6: Regulatory Policy AnalysisThrough 2008, enhance EPA’s regulatory decision-making process through sound analysis and consideration of alterna

1 Regional input into Agency Reg Development 1,2,3 • # regs with region 7 review & comment

• # regional workgroups with regional participation

Sub-Objective 5.2.7: Implement NEPAThrough 2008, minimize significant adverse environmental impacts that result from major proposed Federal actions, incsubject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).Strategic Targets:• 70 percent of significant impacts identified by EPA in its review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) are • 80 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA (water treatment facility project and other grants, new source National Po

Elimination System [NPDES] permits, and EPA facilities) result in a finding of significant environmental impact.

1 Review Environmental Impact Statements • 100% review accomplished within time constrain

ensuring compliance with environmental laws,regulations, and executive orders to includeEnvironmental Justice, Children’s Health and FarPolicy Protection Act 
Activity

# Strategic Targets

Link to other 

Objectives &

SubObjectives Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 52 of 57

2 Participate in Inter-Agency Project Planning • Alternatives are developed which are less impact

human health or natural environment

• Appropriate issues are identified for full analysis• Streamline decision process for lead federal agen• EPA technical and jurisdictional expertise provid

lead agency

• Appropriate mitigation is afforded to non-avoidab

project impacts

3 Provide input to Regional Critical Ecosystem

Team 

• NEPA project database populates ENSV/DISO’s 

Tracker” application which provides information federal investments in specific areas

• NEPA documents are geo-referenced, and made a

to other programs. These documents provide infoon past, present, and reasonably expected futureconditions in a particular location. 

4 Develop NEPA documents for R-7 customers • EPA’s proposed actions receive appropriate analy

compliance with NEPA
Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 53 of 57

Objective 5.3: Build Tribal Capacity

Through 2008, assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, capacity to implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environmprograms in Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.Consistent with the Federal Indian Trust Responsibility and the Agency’s 1984 Indian Policy, Regioassisting Tribal Governments in developing their environmental protection programs within the extreservations that are culturally and tribally relevant. Region 7 EPA will provide technical assistanctraining, Tribal Environmental Agreements (TEA) , and program delegation and primacy where appCurrent Status:Protection of tribal environmental health and resources are not only an elemental component of Reg

our trust and statutory responsibility to protect tribal resources through the implementation of strong environmental programs.. Currently, there are nine (9) federally recognized Indian nations within tKansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri. The nine tribes occupy a land base approximately 420, 000 EPA’s 1984 Indian Policy, the 1994 nine point Agency directive for greater programmatic, legal, finresources, and Executive Order 13175 on government-to-government relationship, Region 7 EPA cwith eight (8) of the nine tribes through the Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) on all ewithin the exterior boundaries of the reservations. EPA also coordinates with other appropriate fedBIA, HUD, FEMA, USDA, etc.), states, local governments, and tribal colleges in capacity buildingRegional Indian Work Group (RIWG) with a cross-media membership that responds to tribal enviroproviding technical assistance in grant administration, environmental prioritization and assessment, Region 7 EPA, over the last decade has assisted 8 of the 9 tribes establish and staff tribal environmethrough the General Assistants Program (GAP). These offices are continuing to expand as they devadministrative capacity. Tribal governments, through these tribal environmental offices, are now abenvironmental activities conducive to there unique environmental needs. Currently, EPA has 12 difwith Indian tribes in Region 7, these are Performance Partnership Grants (PPG), General Assistance Waste, Wetlands, Clean Water Act 106, Clean Air Act 103, Brownfields, Household Hazardous WaScreening, Pesticides, Underground Storage Tanks (UST), Radon. Some of the major accomplishminclude: 5 tribal drinking water facilities have been upgraded, closed illegal dumps for solid waste, programs, plugged abandoned drinking water wells, removed leaking underground storage tanks, rahave been stabilized, surface and ground water assessment and monitoring. 
Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 54 of 57

Major Challenges:Although Region 7 EPA has made tremendous progress in working with tribal governments build aprotection administration and partnership building, there are several priorities that still need to be adEPA will continue to work with tribal and state governments are Confined Animal Feeding Operatinon-point source contamination of water pervades several reservations such as land run-off of pestiherbicides from animal feedlots and crop land. Indian reservations in Region 7 are heavily checkerbcontinue to encourage and work towards cooperative management of the environment within the exreservation. R7 EPA will also focus on priority areas such as water quality and solid waste managemmaintain drinking water facilities; inspect homes for lead based paint; permits for waste water dischcooperative tribal, state, federal intergovernmental relations. In order to continue progress toward these objectives, the Agency must make a stronger commitmendependable funding for tribal programs in the major media programs, including, but not limited to CAir Act, and Pesticide programs. In the absence of reliable funding, authorization of tribal programStrategic Targets:• By 2008, increase tribes’ ability to develop environmental program capacity by ensuring 100% 

tribes have access to an environmental presence. (FY 02 baseline: 82% of tribes)

• By 2008, develop or integrate 15 (cumulative) EPA and interagency software applications to fac

Tribal Baseline Assessment Project information in setting environmental priorities and informin03 baseline: Two.)

• By 2008, eliminate 20% of the data gaps for environmental conditions for major water, land, an

determined through the availability of information in the EPA Tribal Baseline Project.

• Commencing in 2004, produce an annual status of the tribal environment report.• By 2008, increase implementation of environmental programs in Indian country to X (cumulativ

program delegations, approvals or primacies issued to tribal and direct implementation activitiebaseline: Program actuals TBD.)

• By 2008, increase by 50% the number of tribes with environmental monitoring and assessment 

approved quality assurance procedures. 

• By 2008 increase by 50% the number of tribes with multi-media programs reflecting traditional 

as determined by use of Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), EPA/Tribal Environmental Agother innovative EPA agreements which reflect holistic program integration. 
Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 55 of 57

Activity

 # Strategic Targets Results

1 Develop EPA assessment on the state of tribal

environmental conditions.

• Report for each tribe on environmental data and conditio

regulated facilities in detail.

2 Assist Tribes in setting environmental priorities, including

program delegations that will be sought by R7 Indiannations.

• Each tribe in R7 will be able to clearly state specific env

program priorities for the fiscal period.

3 CAA 103 authority supports investigations, assessments

activities, studies for tribes to identify the nature of airquality on Indian reservations. Through 2003, 6 of the ninetribes will conduct air quality activities under section 103.CAA 105-none of the tribes in R7 receive 105 funding

• R7 Air Grants will target limited resources in support of 

demonstrable air quality needs and able to fulfill intendeperformance capacity.

• It is anticipated that one of the tribes may move to sectio

support under the CAA within several years. 

4 CWA 106-provide Section 106 grants to tribes for water

quality planning and assessments.Drinking Water Program-R7 will continue provideresources to tribes in effectively managing their drinkingwater facilities. Provide resources trough the tribal setaside funds for infrastructure development. 

• Complete at least 5 sanitary surveys per year• # of Certified Drinking Water Operators

5 Provide technical assistance and training through mediaspecific courses, quarterly RTOC meetings and annual

Tribal Environmental Conference.

• # of tribes attending media specific courses conducive to 

specific programs 
Activity

 # Strategic Targets Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 56 of 57

6 R7 Workgroup for Tribal Consultation Guidance/Policy

Development

• R7 Development of office consultation procedures that w

execute EO 13175.

• Define “Tribal Consultation” to include: implications, ou

coordination, and actual dialogue with Tribal governmenwhen Agency actions have an effect on tribal environme

7 Tribal Program will coordinate and consult with R7 tribes

in managing capacity building grants that provides trainingto tribes in developing integrated solid and hazardous wastemanagement programs; close open dumps and assist inexploring alternative ways for trash disposal. 

• # of RCRA training to interested tribes• Interagency grant management with BIA, IHS, and EPA

8 Enhance Government-to-Government Relations. 

Annual Indian Nation Leadership meetings with Region 7Senior Managers Consultation AgreementsEnsure that regional staff are trained in WorkingEffectively with Tribal Governments (WETG)

• Annual meeting held • Regional meetings held with individual Indian Nation En

Divisions 

• # of on site visits • # of consultations held by Reg 7 programs • # of programmatic agreements with Nations • # of training sessions held

9 Ensure regulatory decision making process includes Indian

Nations in R7, fully execute Executive Order 13175 andother presidential directivesIncrease joint strategic planning capabilities

# of Indian Nations trained in QA # of GAP cooperative agreements entered into # of environmental departments established or # of staff witdepartments # of PPAs entered into # of MOAs in place 
Activity

 # Strategic Targets Results

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 57 of 57

10 Continue to build Tribal capacity to conduct monitoring,

assessments, enforcement, compliance and multimediacapability. 

• Regulations impacting Indian Country are reviewed by: I

Nations Regulatory review Consultation Agreements 

• 100% of the federally recognized tribes in R7 have acces

multi-media capacity building funding as determined by of tribes receiving Indian General Assistance Program (Gfunding.

11 The Tribal Information Management System will be

established to access Baseline Assessment Project forenvironmental information on R7 Federally recognizedIndian nations.

Current topographical, natural resources, land status, enviro

conditions, etc. will be identified and accessible by tribal enprograms as well as EPA

Objective 5.4: Science & Research

See Objective 4.5
Reference/Guidance Documents 

WWPD, Region 7 

Strategic Plan FY 04 - 08

Operating Plan FY 04

 The following materials were used as reference and guidance documents for the development

of the WWPD Strategic and Operating Plans.

1. “EPA Announces Homeland Security Strategic Plan, One of Many Efforts to Ensure

Agency’s Ability to Protect, Respond and Recover”; EPA Newsroom; October 2, 2002;

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/headline_100202.htm

2. FY2004 Performance Priorities for the Regions; AAship: OSWER, Spring 2003

3. FY2004 Performance Priorities for the Regions; AAship: OW, Spring 2003

4. Grants Management Strategic Plan (Draft); Office of Grants and Debarment; 

November 22, 2002

5. Guidance for Preparing the 2003 Strategic Plan: Developing Draft Architecture; Office of

the Chief Financial Officer; September 2002

6. Innovation Strategy; Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation; April 2002;

http://www.epa.gov/opei/strategy

7. “Investing in Our People: EPA’s Strategy for Human Capital”; EPA’s Human Resource

Council, 2001

8. OPPTS FY2004 Priorities for the Regions: National Program Chemicals and State/Tribal

Grants Program; Spring 2003

9. OPPTS FY2004 Performance Priorities for the Regions; “FQPA/Strategic Agricultural

Initiative (SAI), including Worker Safety and Water Quality”; Spring 2003

10. Powerpoint Presentation: “Revising the Agency’s Strategic Plan: Clean and Safe Water”;

National Water Program, Water Division Directors’ Meeting; September 18, 2002

11. “The President’s Management Agenda”; Executive Office of the President Office of

Management and Budget; Fiscal Year 2002

12. Regional Performance Measurement Tool (Draft); FY2004 Performance Priorities

Meeting; February 4, 2003

13. Strategic Architecture (Draft 2003); Office of the Chief Financial Officer; 

December 31, 2002

14. Strategic Plan (EPA) Goal 2 (Draft): Clean and Safe Water, Office of the Chief Financial

Officer; March 5, 2003

15. Strategic Plan: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control

Administrators (Draft); 2002

16. “Strategic Planning & Vision to Action Seminar”; Civilian Leadership Training Division;

Center for Army Leadership; Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

17. WWPD Operating Plan; Water, Wetlands, & Pesticides Division - Region 7; February

2002

18. WWPD Organization Improvement Document; Water, Wetlands, & Pesticides Division -

Region 7; November 2002

19. National Water Program, Proposed Framework for Improving Program Performance

Through Useful Program Assessment (May 2003)

(over)
20. Investing in our People II, EPA’s Strategy for Human Capital 2003-2008

21. Tim Fontaine, SBO, (June 2003), Process for Performance Partnerships

22. Performance Partnership Grant Steering Committee Recommendations (Draft); 2003

23. EPA’s Vision for the One Cleanup Program- Major Improvements, Section I, Aug., 03

24. Region VII, OECA FY 04 Action Plan (in Draft)
Appendices 

Appendix A. Regional Plan Development Guidance

• Guidance for Developing Regional Plans; Combs;

October 21, 2003

• Implementing the New Agency Strategic Plan;

Shapiro; October 23, 2003

• National Water Program Guidance 2005; Shapiro;

March 22, 2004

• FY2004 Performance Priorities for th Regions;

February 4, 2003

• Goals 1-5 Summaries

Appendix B. National Water Program FY 2005-2008 Management

System Matrix

Appendix C. Agency Laws

Appendix D. WWPD Accountability to Region

• Divisional Activity Responsibility Matrix

• WWPD Accountability to the Regional

Administrator

Appendix E. WWPD Expectations and Philosophies

• WWPD Expectations

• WWPD Philosophies

Appendix F. WWPD Values and Behaviors

Appendix G. WWPD Organization

• WWPD Region 7 Organizational Structure

• WWPD Employees List; Revised 3/24/04

Appendix H. FY 2004 WWPD Operating Plan; Revised 3/25/04
 

October 21, 2003

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Revised Guidance for Developing Regional Plans

FROM: Linda Combs /s/

Chief Financial Officer

TO: Regional Administrators 

Deputy Regional Administrators

Assistant/Associate Administrators

Deputy Assistant/Associate Administrators

This memorandum and attachment provide guidance for developing Regional Plans, a

critical component of EPA’s planning and priority setting processes. This guidance incorporates

the results of the September 10 discussions and agreements with Deputy Regional

Administrators and National Program Managers. It responds also to recommendations of the

EPA-ECOS Alignment and PPA Workgroup and promises to improve the development of

Performance Partnership Agreements and Grants (PPAs/PPGs). 

Regional Plans identify how Regions will make progress toward relevant Agency

objectives and sub-objectives over the next 3 to 5 years. Regional Plans provide an opportunity

for each Region to highlight its unique environmental conditions and problems and discuss the

strategies and tools it will use to address each relevant sub-objective in the Agency’s 2003

Strategic Plan. Regional Plans will provide the strategic basis for and include annual

performance commitments between Regions and Headquarters established through the annual

work planning process, which we are working to automate and expect to replace the current

MOA process. Early strategic thinking in the Regional Planning phase will also ensure that PPAs

more realistically reflect EPA and State priorities, reduce transaction costs and strengthen the

States’ ability to rely on the PPA as the single agreement that defines the State-EPA partnership.

As we continue to develop Regional Plans over the next 3 months, Regions will have an

important opportunity to engage in discussions with States. Although some States might not be

prepared to engage in extensive planning dialogues at this time, I encourage all Regions to

ensure, at a minimum, that all States have an opportunity to review and comment on your draft

Plans before you submit them to OCFO in January 2004. Similarly, I urge you to engage Tribes,
where they are partners in implementing environmental programs. 

The attached guidance includes a timetable of key events for Regional Plans, National

Program Guidance, Regional annual commitments, and PPAs. This schedule is designed to

ensure high quality plans that reflect State engagement, encourage effective dialogue between

Regions and the National Programs, inform National Guidance; and promote development of

effective work plans, including PPAs.

ECOS and EPA have a shared interest in joint State/EPA planning, and we both are

encouraging States to take this opportunity to work with their Regions on Regional Plans. To

this end, ECOS is soliciting volunteers for “pilot” projects designed to promote increased

interaction with the Regions and to highlight lessons learned from joint planning. You should be

aware that ECOS, through an EPA grant, is providing support to States to increase capacity for

results-based management, including strategic planning-related activities.

I am grateful for the vital leadership that senior Regional and National program managers

continue to provide—identifying opportunities for and guiding the implementation of new

approaches that enhance and streamline our planning and strengthen our focus on environmental

results. Let me express my appreciation and support to all of you for your continuing efforts to

help improve and integrate the Agency’s strategic planning, budgeting, and performance

processes through the development of Regional Plans. If you have any questions, please feel

free to call me.

Attachment

cc: Marianne Horinko

Steve Johnson

Tom Gibson 

Mike Ryan

Senior Budget Officers

Planning Contacts

David Ziegele
Attachment A

Guidance for Development of Regional Plans

(Revised October 2003) 

Overview

This revised guidance for development of Regional Plans builds upon the guidance issued in

March 2003 by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and reflects the agreements of the

September 10, 2003 meeting of EPA senior management and incorporates preliminary input

from the co-chairs of the EPA-ECOS Alignment and PPA workgroup.

Agreed-Upon Principles Guide Continuing Improvements

At the September 10 meeting, EPA’s senior management agreed upon a series of specific

principles that would guide short and long-term improvements to the existing planning processes

(Regional Plans, National Guidance, Region Work planning-Annual Performance Commitments,

and Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs):

1. Results Focus – Regional Plans, National Guidance, and work planning efforts, including

PPAs, should focus on what the Agency and its partners are doing in order to achieve the

outcomes committed to in the Strategic Plan and why it has chosen those activities and

approaches and how we measure success.

2. Early Engagement/Incentives for Quality – Use Regional Plans to achieve meaningful early

engagement between Headquarters, Regions, and States and as a key forum for joint planning

and priority setting. High-quality Regional Plans will inform and influence National Guidance

development and make operational/annual work planning (e.g., PPAs) faster and easier, and

more definitive. 

3. Single Coordinated Process - Processes (e.g., draft and final National guidances) are

coordinated and integrated across the five programs to facilitate:

- top management engagement (AAs/DAAs, RAs/DRAs, State and Tribal commissioners)

- cross-media coordination

- cross-program trade-offs

- innovative approaches including voluntary programs

4. Minimize transaction costs, minimize and consolidate documents and keep it short - Keep the

process simple and minimize transaction costs to EPA, States, Tribes and other partners. For

example, streamline the content of National Program guidance and the number of annual

commitments by Regions and States.

5. Focused on Highest Priorities – National Guidance and Headquarters/Regional annual

commitments should have the smallest number of agreed-upon targets and indicators necessary:

- to ensure national and Regional accountability for results, 

- to serve as a feedback loop for National Program management, and 

- to tell the Agency performance story.

6. Transparency – Processes and products should be accessible to partners and stakeholders, so
that they can influence the content and better understand what we’re doing and why. 

Purpose of Regional Plans

Regional Plans are strategic in nature, identifying how Regions will make progress toward the

relevant Objectives and Sub-objectives in EPA’s Strategic Plan over the next 3 to 5 years. 

Regional Plans will inform and influence National Program Guidance, and include an annual

planning component. These Plans will identify annual performance commitments between

Regions and Headquarters established through the annual work planning process, which we are

working to automate and expect to replace the current MOA process. NPMs have agreed to

engage with the Regions during development of the Plans, particularly where Regions provide

early flags that a proposed strategy or set of priorities diverges from a National strategy. 

Developing and periodically revising Regional Plans will provide a key forum for joint EPAState planning and priority setting. Early strategic thinking in the Regional Planning phase will

ensure that PPAs more realistically reflect EPA and State priorities, reduce transaction costs and

strengthen the States’ ability to rely on the PPA as the single agreement that defines the StateEPA partnership. Given that most FY 2004 PPAs are now final or will be finalized shortly,

however, it is likely that the results of joint EPA-State planning in the coming months will be

more completely reflected in FY 2005 PPAs. 

Format and Content of Regional Plans

I. Regional Overview (Target Length: 4-6 pages)

Purpose: In this section of the Plan, each Region should provide a narrative overview,

and data where available, of the unique drivers and trends (e.g., environmental, geographic,

demographic, political, economic, etc.) that affect the environmental work in the Region and

how they have influenced the Region’s strategies. This section should also provide an overview

of and context for the Region’s major priorities (e.g., agriculture, energy, border issues,

infrastructure, etc.) that will help set the stage for the Regional Strategies that are articulated in

Section II.

II. Regional Strategies for Achieving National Goals and Objectives (Target Length: 30-

50 pages total; 1-3 pages for each relevant sub-objective)

Purpose: This section of the Plan, would describe how Regional work supports

the National Goals and Objectives contained in EPA’s final 2003 Strategic Plan. Regional plans

must articulate the strategies, including both core program tools and innovative strategies, that a

Region is using to make progress toward achieving each Sub-objective*. The plans should

discuss the mix of NPM and Region-specific tools the Region is applying to meet each Subobjective.

This section should address the following questions:
A. What is the current state of human health or environmental protection for this Subobjective in your Region and are there any relevant trends over time (i.e., what are

indicators or data specific to this Sub-objective that characterize current status and trends

as context for your strategy)?

B. What are the major problems that need to be addressed in order to make progress

toward this Sub-objective in your Region?

C. What tools or program components, (e.g., permits, enforcement, State capacity

building, compliance assistance, direct program delivery, industry partnerships, etc.)

focused on what problems, make up the Region’s strategy for making progress toward

the Objective? This section of the Regional Plans should also be used to highlight any

novel or innovative approaches the Region or its States plan to pursue to implement a

core program.

D. Where the Regional Strategy includes activities addressing Regional interests not

covered by the National strategy (e.g., acid mine drainage affecting water quality),

describe these activities and identify the primary measures that the Region will use to

track progress in implementing its strategy? 

*Note: It is not necessary to write strategies for Objectives or Sub-objectives which do not

contain Regional work. For example, objectives dealing with science and research may not be

applicable to the Regions. However, as a general matter, Regional Strategies will be written for

each relevant Sub-objective. A working example of a Regional Strategy for a selected Subobjective is provided with this guidance.

III. Cross-Cutting Strategies (Target Length: 2-6 pages)

Purpose: This section is where the Region can describe its approach to the

Agency’s cross-goal strategies (Homeland Security, Human Capital, Information, Innovation,

Partnerships, Science) or others of importance to the Region. 

IV. Regional Accountability (Target Length: 1-2 pages)

Purpose: In this section, each Region should describe its accountability and 

performance measurement tools, along with any program evaluations that the Region is using to

assess its progress. Each Region should describe how these tools are or will be used, including

how the results will be used in management decision making. 

V. Partnerships with States and Tribes (Target Length: 2-4 pages)

Purpose: Each Region should describe the status of the relationship between
the Region and its State and Tribal partners. For each major partner, the Region should identify

the two or three key issues of greatest importance (e.g., the multiyear priorities articulated in a

PPA or PPG) and the Region’s strategy for making progress on those issues over the next three

to five years. The Region should also include a brief summary of how the Region has involved

States and Tribes in the development of the Regional Plan as well as plans for engaging States

and Tribes in subsequent updates to the strategic components (Sections I-V) of the Regional

Plan.

PROPOSED ATTACHMENT TO THE REGIONAL PLAN - FY05 Regional

Workplan/Consolidated Annual Commitments 

The DRAs and NPMs agreed to the concept of a consolidated, online process for Regions to

establish annual commitments that address each of the five strategic goals. Under this proposed

approach, these annual performance commitments would be an addendum or an appendix to the

Regional Plan. Further, we would synchronize the annual work planning process across

programs in such a way that senior Regional managers could look at the draft annual

performance commitments across all five programs and play a stronger role than was possible

under the MOA process. This assumes that the Regional Plan provides the Region’s strategic

rationale for the proposed performance commitments. This would also facilitate Regions’ ability

to get early State and Tribal input into the Regions' performance commitments. It was agreed

that this online, annual commitment process would replace the FY 05 MOAs. OCFO will work

with the five National Programs and the Regions to facilitate development of the online annual

commitment system.

Example Regional Strategy

Overview

OCFO developed the following example of a Regional Strategy. It was derived from and

informed by several of the Regions’ draft Section II strategies. While this sample strategy is

made-up, it illustrates attributes of what OCFO considers to be an effective Regional Strategy,

because it:

- speaks directly to a relevant sub-objective

- provides a short description of the existing environmental conditions and problems

- looks forward 3-5 years

- includes state input

- conveys an overall context and strategic approach for addressing the sub-objective

- describes the rationale for the approach

- includes the key programs/tools/ activities to be used

- provides the basis for translating the strategies into annual performance commitments

- includes appropriate measures of success

- is concise
Example Strategy

Goal Two: Clean Water

Objective 2.2 Protect Water Quality

Sub-objective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

Current State/Major Problems to be Addressed

Region Y has 632 impaired waterbodies on the CWA 303(d) impaired waters list requiring

TMDLs. Over 60% of these waterbodies are impaired because of nutrients (nitrogen or

phosphorus). While data are not completely conclusive, it is commonly agreed by the States and

the Region that agricultural sources, both point and nonpoint, play a predominant role in the

causes of or contributions to water quality impairment. In consultation with the States, it is

generally agreed that improved monitoring will confirm that pathogens are also a key source of

impairment from agriculture and other sources. Agriculture represents a critical part of the

economy in Region Y, with agricultural commodities accounting for over $12 billion in annual

sales. In light of the new concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) rule promulgated in

2003, there are about 2,100 CAFOs (point sources) that will need new or revised NPDES permits

and be required to develop comprehensive nutrient management plans. There are also as many as

12,000 animal feeding operations (nonpoint sources) and many other agricultural enterprises

throughout the Region.

Another critical component of our States’ ability to address long term nutrient-related water

quality issues is the need to promulgate water quality standards for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus

(P). None of the States currently have promulgated water quality standards for N and P. 

Pathogen-related water quality standards may also need to be updated in each of our authorized

States.

Strategy Highlights

Consistent with the Region’s emphasis on Agriculture described in Section I of the Regional

Plan, many of the strategies and tools needed to support sub-objective 2.2.1 involve efforts to

promote new or enhanced agricultural practices that protect water quality. The Region will use

both regulatory and voluntary strategies in close coordination with States. Another key element

of the Region’s strategy is to work closely with USDA and the state agricultural agencies to

maximize use of conservation funding (e.g., Environmental Quality Incentives Program) and

technical resources to address the highest water quality problems. The Region will also apply

watershed-based approaches to continue to implement core program tools (e.g. TMDLs, NPDES,

and funding (SRF and 319) to accomplish this sub-objective.

Strategies, Tools and Measures
Strategies Tools/Programs Region-specific

Measures

Support promulgation of

state water quality

standards for Nitrogen

and Phosphorus and

revised standards for

pathogens by 2008

1) Provide technical assistance to

States in drafting WQ standards

promulgation packages

1) State progress to

develop new/revised

water quality standards

for N, P and pathogens

Develop cooperative

strategies with USDA and

State agriculture agencies

to promote sound ag

practices for point and

nonpoint sources that

protect water quality

1) Designate a Region “Ag

Coordinator” to facilitate effective

dialogues with USDA

2) Appoint a Region representative to

serve on each State’s NRCS Technical

Committee to help guide resource

conservation funding and technical

assistance to ag producers

3) Aggressively promote use of SRF

funding to support nonpoint source

controls

4) Work with USDA and State ag

agencies to ensure that all 12,000

animal feeding operations develop

and implement comprehensive

nutrient management plans.

1) Demonstrably

improved relations with

USDA and state ag

2) 10 fold increase in

EQIP and SRF funds to

support effective

nutrient management by

agricultural entities

3) Innovative manure

management practices

in place

Promote watershed-based

strategies to address ag

water quality issues in

problematic watersheds

1) Select three pilots to apply

watershed-wide strategies to address

excess manure problems

1) Pilot watersheds

removed from impaired

waterbody list by 2008

Issue new or revised

NPDES permits to all

2,100 CAFOs by 2006

1) Sponsor annual training, with

USDA, for ag producers on nutrient

management planning

2) Provide technical assistance to

States for the development of NPDES

permits for CAFOs

1) Region and States

conduct 10 case studies

to develop approaches

and quantify water

quality improvements

from nutrient

management planning
Strategies Tools/Programs Region-specific

Measures

Implement permitting

strategies with the States

that emphasize

environmentally

significant permits, while

making progress to reduce

the permit backlog

1) Develop NPDES permitting

strategies and commitments with each

of the States

1) Established criteria to

determine which

permits are most

environmentally

significant

Develop TMDLs to

support water quality

improvement, with an

emphasis on using

watershed permitting as a

tool to address bundled

TMDLs

1) Establish TMDL strategies with

each State

1) Number and success

of watershed permitting

for TMDL

implementation

strategies

Promote trading

opportunities

1) Secure commitments from States to

target selected watershed for trading

efforts

1) Progress to pursue

trading in three

watersheds in Region Y.
Timetable for Regional Plans, National Guidance, Region Work Planning and PPAs

What Who When

Summary of September 10 Meeting OCFO September 16,

2003

Letter from ECOS to the States Describing

Opportunity for State Engagement on Regional

Plans

ECOS September 18,

2003

Draft Regional Plan Guidance for Review OCFO October 1, 2003

Final Revised Regional Plan Guidance Issued OCFO October 20, 2003

Letter from DA Providing Expectations for

Region-State Engagement on Regional Plans

OCFO/DA October 27, 2003

State Engagement on Regional Plans Regions/States October -

December 2003

EPA-ECOS Alignment/PPA Workgroup Meeting EPA and ECOS November 13-14,

2003

Complete Draft Regional Plans (Sections I-V) Due

to OCFO 

Regions January 15, 2004

EPA-ECOS Alignment and PPA Reform

Workshop (tentative)

ECOS/States and

EPA (NPMs and

Regions)

Mid January

2004

NPMs Consider Regional Plans during drafting of

NPM Guidance and Discuss Any Significant

Disagreements between Regional Strategies and

NPM Guidance

NPMs/Regions Late January thru

early February

Operating Year Performance Priorities Meeting -

opportunity for RA and NPM discussion of

Regional priorities and strategies and tentative

priorities for NPM guidance (tentative) 

OCFO/NPMs/

Regions

Early February

Draft NPM Guidance Issued (synchronized and

including annual commitment tables/frameworkempty tables) 

NPMs/DA February 15,

2004

Final Regional Plans (Sections I-V) are Final and

on the Web.

Regions April 1, 2004
What Who When

Final NPM Guidance (synchronized) with the

annual commitment framework (empty tables)

Issued. This may include initial national targets

that reflect on-going discussions between NPMs,

Regions and States.

NPMs April 1, 2004

EPA Annual planning meeting: opportunity to

incorporate input for FY 06 annual priorities and

commitments

EPA/States/Tribes May 2004

Iterative development of Performance Partnership

Agreements

Regions/States April -October,

2004

Draft Attachment to the Regional Plan - Regional

Work Plan with Draft Annual Targets

Regions August 1, 2004

Final Attachment to the Regional Plan - Regional

Work Plan with Final Annual Commitments

Submitted

Regions October 1, 2004

Final Attachment to the Regional Plan - Final

Annual Workplan Commitments Available on the

Web

Regions/OCFO October 15, 2004
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

 OFFICE OF WATER

10/23/03

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Implementing the New Agency Strategic Plan in FY 05 and FY 06

FROM: Michael H. Shapiro; Deputy Assistant Administrator /s/

TO: Office Directors, Office of Water

Regional Water Division Directors; Regions 1-10

Great Waterbody Program Directors 

This memorandum describes key steps the National Water Program will take over the

next several months to implement the new EPA Strategic Plan in FY 2005 and FY 2006. The

approach to implementing the new Strategic Plan described below is designed to fit within and

complement the broader Agency efforts to align planning, performance, and budget activities

and to enhance participation of States, Tribes, and others in this work. 

Over the past year, EPA has worked with States, Tribes and others to develop a new

Strategic Plan for 2004 - 2008. This new Plan defines key goals for the Agency in

environmental and public health terms, including the expected improvements in key indicators of

environmental and public health conditions by 2008. The Strategic Plan also describes, in

general terms, the programs and tools that EPA, States, local governments, and others will use to

accomplish environmental and public health goals. Water quality and drinking water goals are

addressed in two of the five Agency goals (i.e. Goal 2; Clean and Safe Water and Goal 4;

Healthy Communities and Ecosystems). The new Strategic Plan is the product of extensive

discussions among EPA, States, and other stakeholders. The text of the new Strategic Plan can

be found at http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/plan/plan.htm.

Now that the new Strategic Plan is in place, the National Water Program needs to take

several steps to focus our efforts to accomplish the environmental and public health goals in the

new Plan – 

– develop national implementation plans for FY 05 for each of the key

subobjectives in the Strategic Plan related to the National Water Program,

drawing on the water program elements of Regional Plans;

– work with the States and Tribes to reach agreement on programmatic reporting

commitments and, where appropriate, targets for FY 05, that support the FY 05

subobjective implementation plans as well as additional objectives identified in

Regional Plans;
Page 2

– as part of the discussions with States concerning FY 05 programmatic measures

and targets, initiate preliminary discussions of appropriate targets for

external/budget measures (i.e. generally environmental outcome measures rather

than program measures) for FY 06; and 

– define a program assessment and evaluation process that will inform program

managers of progress toward goals and support constructive adjustment of

program implementation in FY 05 and beyond. 

The steps described in this memorandum implement for the National Water Program the

general approach to development of Regional Plans and implemention of the Strategic Plan that

is described in the October 21st memorandum from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer

(OCFO) (see attachment A).

I) FY 05 National Implementation Plans by Subobjective 

Office Directors for the National Water Program will work with a lead Region over the

next several months to develop FY 05 implementation plans for each of the key water-related 

subobjectives in new Strategic Plan and to oversee the implementation plans on an ongoing

basis. These subobjective implementation plans will, collectively, constitute the water element

of the EPA National Program Guidance document to be issued by OCFO. Attachment B

provides a list of the key subobjectives and Headquarters/Region co-leads.

 FY 05 subobjective implementation plans should address several topics --

– Environmental/Health Goals: FY 05 Outcome Targets: Implementation plans

should clearly identify the subobjective and the supporting strategic targets (i.e.

outcome measures included in the Strategic Plan). Each subobjective/strategic

target has a 2002 baseline and a 2008 long-range target. In addition, because

these subobjectives/strategic targets are presented as external measures in the FY

05 Agency budget, a working FY 05 target for each of these measures has already

been defined. This FY 05 target, however, is subject to adjustment based on final

budget discussions with OMB in the Fall. For some of the outcome measures, it

may be appropriate for the plans to identify FY 05 targets for each Region. 

– Describe Operational Approach: Subobjective implementation plans should

identify, at the “blueprint” level, an approach for accomplishing the FY 05

outcome targets, including the programs and tools that EPA, States and others

(e.g. other Federal agencies) will employ. The implementation plans should be

consistent with, but more detailed than, the general narrative strategy for FY 2004

- 2008 included in the new Strategic Plan. The implementation plans should also

reflect the strategic approaches articulated in the FY 05 budget narratives.

– Program Activity Measures: Subobjective implementation plans should
Page 3

identify the program activity measures that relate directly to accomplishment of

the subobjective, as well as other water program activity measures that play a

secondary but important role in supporting efforts to accomplish the subobjective.

These measures were developed over the past year in cooperation with Regions

and State organizations and, as a whole, are intended to provide national program

accountability with the lowest possible reporting burden.

Some program activity measures call for reporting of progress without setting a

target (i.e. indicator measures) while other measures call for “targets.” Final

implementation plans should include FY 05 national targets for each of the

national program activity measures for which a target is needed. These national

targets are the sum of the Regional targets developed in the Regional Plans (see

Section II below concerning negotiation of FY 05 Region/State FY 05 targets). 

– Coordination with Regional Plans: In some cases, Regional plans will identify

program activities that are unique to that Region and are not addressed within the

national Strategic Plan or measures. These activities may, nevertheless,

contribute to the accomplishment of a national environmental/health outcome and

the subobjective implementation plan should identify these efforts and describe

how they will be integrated into national program work to accomplish outcomes. 

– Partners: Where appropriate, subobjective implementation plans should describe

how the National Water Program will mobilize the work of ORD, OECA, and

other offices within EPA to contribute to the accomplishment of the water-related 

environmental/health outcomes. In addition, implementation plans should

describe the work that EPA will do to engage the support of other Federal

agencies (e.g. USDA, NOAA, ACE, USFWS, BIA, etc.) in accomplishing

outcomes. In some cases, the work involved in engaging and coordinating the

activities of other parts of EPA and other Federal agencies may constitute the

largest element of the implementation plan. 

– Innovations, Opportunities, and Obstacles: Draft implementation plans should

identify innovative approaches, such as trading or watershed permitting, that will

be used. Draft plans should also discuss potential opportunities for “break-out”

performance improvements and identify measures (e.g. senior management

involvement, cross-program coordination, funding increases) that would engage

and promote these opportunities. Plans should also identify any obstacles or

external factors that are a threat to effective program implementation. 

The schedule for development and management of subobjective implementation plans is
Page 4

described in Attachment C. This schedule is consistent with the schedule established for the

Agency in the recent memorandum from OCFO. Note that an early milestone on the schedule is

a briefing by the HQ/Region co-leads for each subobjective describing their approach and initial

outline of the subobjective implementation plan. These briefings will be provided to the

Assistant Administrator/Deputy Assistant Administrators and will be scheduled for early

November. 

II) Negotiating FY 05 State/Tribal Targets for 

Program Activity Measures 

A key element of the process for development of FY 05 subobjective implementation

plans is the development of targets for those FY 05 program activity measures where a target is

needed. 

Initial outlines of implementation plans will be provided to Regions for comment in early

December and will identify applicable program activity measures and FY 2008 national targets,

but will not include regional targets for FY 05. When Regions provide draft Regional Plans in

January, each Region should also provide a parallel document identifying a Regional FY 05

straw target for each measure needing a target. Where appropriate, Regional straw targets for

outcome measures should also be provided at this time. 

Regional straw targets should reflect the best contribution the Region can make toward a

target in FY 05, using the FY 2008 national target as a point of reference and considering the

relative priorities in the Region as defined in the draft Regional Plan. These Regional priorities

express the Region’s orientation to national objectives and programs as well as unique Regional

projects (e.g. acid mine drainage in Region 3 or dams in Region 10). Straw targets should also

reflect consultations with States and Tribes. Regions should describe assumptions used in

determining targets, including general expectations for distribution of work in out-years (i.e. FY

06/07/08), past performance, and the interface between national and Regional priorities. Note

that while Regions and States may agree to additional reporting measures that address unique

Regional activities, Regions should refrain from creating new measures requiring additional

reporting for activities under national programs. 

National program managers and lead Regions for each subobjective implementation plan

will review the draft Regional Plans and FY 05 straw Regional targets from all ten Regions. In

the event that the cumulative effect of Regional straw targets is not considered sufficient to

support accomplishment of the FY 2005 outcome targets or FY 2008 national targets,

adjustments in Regional targets should be discussed and, if necessary, issues should be resolved

at the January meeting of Water Division Directors.
Page 5

Final FY 05 subobjective implementation plans and final Regional Plans will be

published April 1 and will include final FY 05 targets nationally and for each Region. Regions

are to then work with States to reach final agreements for reporting of indicator measures and to

develop State/Tribal specific targets that are most appropriate for the State/Tribe while also

resulting in attainment of the Regional targets. These final agreements may be the result of

whatever process the Region and State choose (e.g. PPA, MOA, other). Once negotiated, these

final commitments to indicator reporting and FY 05 targets become the management agreement

for each Region. 

III) Initial Discussions of FY 06 Outcome Targets

The Agency budget process now asks that program offices define the measures to be

included in the budget, and establish annual targets for these measures, about 6 months in

advance of the presentation of the budget to the Congress. For example, for the FY 05 budget to

be presented to Congress in January of 2004, the Agency needed to determine the measures to be

reported in the budget, and the FY 05 targets, by August of 2003. These FY 05 targets may be

amended later this year as the budget process proceeds. 

In defining external/budget measures and targets for FY 05, the Office of Water

consulted with Regions and encouraged Regions to consult with States. The schedule, however,

left inadequate time for thoughtful discussions with States and others concerning FY 05 targets. 

To avoid this problem in the future, Regions should, when discussing FY 05 program

activity measure targets with States in the spring of FY 04, also discuss, in a preliminary way,

setting of outcome (i.e. environmental and public health) targets for FY 06 external/budget

measures. These discussions should be sufficient to allow Regions to provide feedback to

managers of the subobjective implementation plans concerning the setting of FY 06 outcome

targets. The determination of the FY 06 outcome measure targets is, essentially, the first step in

development of the FY 06 subobjective implementation plans. 

IV) Assessment of Implementation/Performance 

HQ and Regional Co-Leads for subobjective implementation plans need to monitor

progress under the Plan through FY 05 and use feedback information to adjust implementation

during the fiscal year and to guide any needed changes in FY 06 implementation plans. 
Page 6

At a minimum, HQ and Regional Co-Leads should participate in development of midyear and end-of-year performance reports and briefings for Office of Water senior managers. 

Performance reports should assess any new information with respect to outcome measures (i.e.

improvements in environmental and public health measures) and program activity measures. 

This assessment should also identify, in more qualitative terms, reasons for progress or lack of

progress, including identification of State or Region best practices that are facilitating strong

performance. Findings of Regional Dialogues and program evaluation studies should also be

considered in the assessments. To support this assessment, Regions and States are expected to

report on progress, at a minimum, at the mid point and end of the year, unless less frequent

reporting is indicated. 

The Office of Water will consolidate these subobjective assessments into mid-year and

end-of-year assessments of the National Water Program. A key goal of this effort is to

strengthen the capability of the National Water Program to demonstrate the relationship between

the budget and performance expressed in environmental and public health terms. Where

appropriate, the Office of Water will consider conclusions of these assessments in allocations of

funds to programs and Regions under operating plans and in development of the FY 06 budget. 

* * * * * *

Thank you for your help with this important work. Please call me or Tim Fontaine if you

have comments or questions. 

cc: Tracy Mehan 

Linda Combs

David Ziegele

Attachments:

A) OCFO Memorandum

B) Subobjective Implementation Plan Co-Leads

C) OW Strategic Plan Implementation Schedule
ATTACHMENT B

SUBOBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

HQ/REGIONAL CO-LEADS

SUBOBJECTIVE HQ LEAD REGIONAL LEAD

1) Safe Drinking Water/Security OGWDW Region 7

2) Safe Fish and Shellfish OST Region 1

3) Water Safe for Swimming OST/OWM Region 9

4) Watershed Water Quality OWOW(OST/OWM) Regions 2/4/10

5) Coastal Water Quality/Estuaries OWOW Region 10

6) Mexico Border OWM Region 6

7) Wetlands OWOW Region 8

8) Great Lakes GLNPO Region 5

9) Chesapeake Bay CBPO Region 3

10) Gulf of Mexico GMPO Region 4

(Hypoxia Strategic Target OWOW/GMPO Regions 4/5/6)

NOTE: Tribal “strategic targets” should be addressed as part of the subobjective that they

support but be developed in cooperation with the American Indian Environmental Office and the

workgroup developing the Tribal Implementation Strategy for the Strategic Plan; these strategies

will be reflected in an integrated Tribal Implementation Strategy. 
ATTACHMENT C

SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTING 

WATER ELEMENTS OF EPA STRATEGIC PLAN IN FY 05

August 2003 Office of Water Submits Draft Outcome Measure Targets for FY 05 to

OCFO for External/Budget Measures

October 1 Publish Final EPA Strategic Plan 2004 - 2008

Early November Initial AA/DAA Briefings on Subobjective Implementation Plans

November/December Office of Water Agrees to Final FY 05 Targets for External/Budget

Measures Based on OMB Passback

December 5 HQ/Regional Co-Leads Provide Regions with Outline/Strategic Concepts

for Subobjective Implementation Plans for FY 05 (measures indicated but

no targets)

January 15 Regions Provide HQ with Draft Regional Plans and Draft Straw Regional

Targets for FY 05 Program Activity/Outcome Measures

Late January 2004 Water Division Directors Meeting/Operating Year Priorities Meeting

(HQ/Regions Resolve Issues Concerning Plans/Draft Straw Targets)

February 15 DRAFT Subobjective Implementation Plans (with draft national FY 05

targets) Included in DRAFT Agency Synchronized National Guidance 

April 1 Final Regional Plans, Including Straw Regional Targets

Final Subobjective Implementation Plans (with national FY 05 targets)

Included in Final Agency Synchronized National Guidance 

April - September Regions Work with States to Agree on Reporting for National Measures,

Including Agreement on FY 05 State Targets Where Needed

Regions Discuss with States Targets for FY 06 for Outcome Measures 

August 1 Draft Regional Workplans/Draft FY 05 State Targets Where Needed

 Office of Water Submits Draft Outcome Measure Targets for FY 06 to

OCFO for External/Budget Measures

October 1 Final Regional Workplans/Final FY 05 State Targets Where Needed

FY 05 Implementation Begins
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

 OFFICE OF WATER

3/22/04

MEMORANDUM

TO: Office Directors; Office of Water

Water Division Directors; Regions 1 - 10

FROM: Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator /s/

SUBJ: Finalizing Draft National Water Program Guidance for FY 2005

As you know, EPA has recently published draft program guidance documents for FY

2005 for each of the major Agency programs, including a draft guidance for water programs. 

This memorandum reviews the work that we need to do to finalize the National Water Program

Guidance for FY 2005 by mid-April. 

Key steps leading to a final National Water Program Guidance for FY 2005 include:

1) Inform EPA Staff: We need to make sure that EPA staff in HQ and Regions are

familiar with the draft National Water Program Guidance and the new Agency

Strategic Plan which forms the foundation for the Guidance. Earlier this month,

we provided printed copies of the Guidance to program offices and Regions. In

addition, we have developed a new Internet site that includes, in one place, links to

the final Strategic Plan, the Draft Guidance, draft Subobjective Implementation

Plans, and draft Regional Plans at www.epa.gov/water/waterplan). In HQ, Office

Directors and I are holding Brown Bag lunch meetings with interested staff to

review the Strategic Plan and draft Guidance. 

Please do what you can to make the draft Guidance available to your staff and

to answer questions and encourage comments prior to the close of the

comment period on March 30. 

2) Outreach to States, Tribes and Other Stakeholders: We need to be

responsive to State inquiries about the draft Guidance and, to the extent

practicable, encourage States and Tribes to review the draft Guidance and

comment by March 30. Please note that comments should be directed to the

text of the Guidance and the national/Regional “straw targets” for those measures

that have targets. At this point in the process, we should not encourage additional

comment on the wording or number of “Program Activity Measures” (PAMs). 
Page 2

3) Comment on New Executive Summary/Definition of Essential Measures: 

Attached to this memorandum is a draft Executive Summary for the draft

Guidance. The draft Guidance that is available on the Internet does not include

an Executive Summary. The Summary is intended to provide a short overview of

the environmental progress we hope to make by 2008 and what we expect to do in

FY 2005 to meet these goals. 

The draft Summary also expresses the Office of Water commitment to

recognizing State-specific and Regional targets that support a larger plan for

meeting clear environmental/public health goals while at the same time

identifying a small number of nationally critical measures where special care

needs to be taken in setting targets that meet national, as well as State/Regional,

needs. Once this list of nationally critical measures is finalized, the text of the

Guidance will be revised to add discussion of the selected measures; see

preliminary draft text attached. 

Please review and comment on the attached draft Executive Summary,

giving special attention to the list of nationally critical measures, by March

30. 

4) Subobjective Targets for FY 05: The draft Guidance includes national targets

for each of the environmental outcome measures in the new Strategic Plan for FY

05. (NOTE that these national targets are included in the President’s FY 05

Budget.) In addition, in the case of the drinking water and watershed

subobjectives, the draft Guidance indicates preliminary estimates of progress for

FY 05 in each Region. In the cases of both the drinking water and watershed

outcome measures, however, the cumulative total of Regional estimates does not

meet the FY 05 national total included in the President’s budget. 

HQ offices and Regions need to continue work on reviewing and improving these

estimates with the goal of defining an estimate of progress that is consistent with

Regional perspectives and, to the fullest extent possible, supportive of the

national FY 05 targets. Note that the Regional estimates of progress toward

drinking water and watershed outcomes to be further refined in discussion with

States between April and July. Regions will have the opportunity to provide

revised estimates of progress in early July along with more formal draft

commitments to program activities. 

Program offices and Regions need to work out Regional/national estimates

for these goals by March 30th. If there is no agreement among the National

Program Manager and Regions, or if the agreement is for a cumulative

national estimate that is less than the national FY 05 target, the matter

should be elevated to me for discussion by this date. 
Page 3

5) Final Subobjective Implementation Plans: Subobjective Implementation Plans

(SIPs) are the substantive backbone of the National Water Program Guidance. 

HQ/Regional teams developed draft SIPs that were then used to develop the

Guidance. The draft SIPs are available for review on the Office of Water

Strategic Plan Internet site (www.epa.gov/water/waterplan). 

Regions should comment on draft SIPs in their areas of interest by March

30. HQ/Regional co-leads for each SIP should consider comments and

finalize the SIPs in conjunction with the finalization of the Guidance.

6) Regional Plans/National Program Guidance: As indicated above, the

preliminary estimates of progress in each Region with respect to drinking water

and watershed goals need to be revised in order to demonstrate attainment of the

national FY 05 target included in the President’s budget. In addition, each

Region should review its Regional Plan to look for opportunities for more

clearly expressing the Region’s approach to accomplishing the national goal

for each subobjective. For example, where a Region is working to meet a

Regional straw target for a PAM, the Regional Plan should identify the target and

describe the approach to attaining it. 

In addition, Regions have described a range of innovative and successful

approaches to particular program areas in the Regional Plans. When a Region

would like the innovative approach be added to the “Key Regional

Programs” section of the National Program Guidance, the Region should

provide a brief, one paragraph description by not later than March 30th. 

7) Program Activity Measures: Program Offices and Regions need to continue

work to improve and finalize Regional/national “straw targets” for FY 05 as

indicated in the PAM slides attached to the draft Guidance. A list of needed

improvements is attached. These improvements fall into several groups:

– addition of baselines or other background information;

– confirmation of a Regional target; and

– a substantive issue concerning FY 05 progress in the context of the 2008

target (e.g. PAMs #20/28/36/41/46/47/55).

In addition, for several HQ program activities, no FY 05 target is yet determined. 

Please provide improvements to PAMs to Greg Spraul in the Office of

Water by March 30th. 

8) Grant Guidance Coordination with National Water Program Guidance: The
Page 4

Office of Water is working to review and revise program grant guidance for FY

05 grants to States and Tribes and to issue any new guidance in conjunction with

the final National Water Program Guidance. 

Program Offices developing new grant guidance should clearly describe the

link to the National Water Program Guidance and should work closely with

Kimberly Roy in the Office of Water to be sure that grant management

requirements are addressed. 

9) OECA Coordination: The Office of Water is working with the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to coordinate the FY 05

guidance for both the programs. The Office of Water is focusing on defining

ways that OECA, at both the HQ and Regional levels, can support attainment of

subobjective goals, with special attention to drinking water and watershed goals. 

HQ water program offices should provide me with a nomination of a staff

person to participate in these discussions as soon as possible. Regional

Water Divisions Directors should discuss with OECA regional staff

opportunities for coordination at the Regional level.

10) Comment on Updated Tribal Strategy: The Draft National Water Program

Guidance includes discussion of Tribal goals and programs within each

subobjective. At the same time, the Office of Water is drafting a single Tribal

Strategy document that expresses these goals and program approaches in a single

place and will provide this document for review shortly. While the Tribal

Strategy will not contain new information, it does provide an overview and

consolidated statement of Tribal goals and activities. 

Program Offices and Regions may review and comment on the draft Tribal

Strategy until April 6th. 

Thank you for your help with this important effort. Please contact me or Jeff Peterson

(202-564-5771) if you have comments or questions. Unless otherwise indicated, comments

should be sent to Marjorie Jones in the Office of Water. 

Attachments: 

Draft Executive Summary/Narrative Discussion of National Significance

List of PAM Improvements Needed

cc: Ben Grumbles

Deputy Office Directors

Carol Jorgenson, AIEO

David Ziegele

Strategic Plan Implementation Workgroup
Page 5

ATTACHMENT 1

NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE

DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4/18/04

This National Water Program Guidance for FY 2005 describes how EPA, States, Tribes

and others will work together in FY 2005 to protect and improve the quality of the Nation’s

waters. The steps outlined in the Guidance are designed to implement the general directions

established in the new Environmental Protection Agency Strategic Plan for 2004 - 2008. 

Three key questions addressed in this Executive Summary are:

– What are we trying to accomplish in public health and environmental terms?

– What is our strategy for making the best use of program tools and other resources

to accomplish public health and water quality improvements? and 

– How will we evaluate our progress over time? 

WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH?

With the help of States, Tribes and other partners, EPA expects to make significant

progress toward protecting human health and improving water quality by 2008 including – 

– Water Safe to Drink: increase the rate of compliance with drinking water

standards from 93% to 95%;

– Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat: reduce pollution in waters with fish advisories

so that consumption limits can be relaxed for 3% of problem waters while

increasing the percentage of shellfishing acres that are open from 77% to 85%;

– Water Safe for Swimming: restore polluted waters to allow swimming again in

at least 5% of the waters where swimming is now unsafe;

– Healthy Watersheds: restore polluted waters so that, of the 2,262 major

watersheds across the Nation, at least 600 have few remaining problems (i.e. at

least 80% of assessed waters meet State water quality standards) and show

improvement in 200 watersheds;

– Healthy Coastal Waters: show steady improvement in seven specific indicators

of the health of each of the four major coastal ecosystems around the country; and 

– More Wetlands: achieve a net increase of 400,000 acres of wetlands.

Additional goals for environmental improvements in critical waterbodies are identified in

the Strategic Plan for the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Mexico
Page 6

Border area. 

WHAT IS THE STRATEGY?

The National Water Program Guidance for FY 2005 describes, in general terms, the

work that needs to be done in FY 2005 in order to accomplish the public health and water quality

improvements in FY 2005 and FY2008. At the national level, each strategy for progress toward

a specific environmental improvement includes some comment elements (see below) that

provide a conceptual framework for more detailed plans at the Region/State/Tribal level. 

Common Elements of Strategies

The Guidance presents a strategy for addressing each of ten specific objectives for

improvement in public health and water quality. Some of the common elements of these

strategies are – 

– Describe Core Water Programs: Strategies describe how the core national

programs (e.g. State Revolving Funds, nonpoint pollution control grants, water

quality standards, source water protection, discharge permits, etc.) will contribute

to meeting the environmental goals of the Strategic Plan.

 – Describe Key Program Activities: For each core program, a minimum number

key program activities are identified. Some of these activities are undertaken by

EPA (e.g. development of drinking water standards, approval of State water

quality standards). Other activities are carried out by States or Tribes. 

– Define FY 05 Targets for Key Program Activities: For some of the program

activities, EPA asks States and Tribes to simply report progress. For other

activities, EPA works with States or Tribes to define specific commitments to

measurable progress in FY 05. 

– Develop Innovations and Voluntary Programs: Throughout the Guidance,

innovations in program management are identified and promoted (e.g. cost

savings attainable through water quality trading and development of watershed

permits). Subobjective strategies also promote voluntary programs (e.g. water

conservation, voluntary guidelines for subsurface sewage disposal) and

partnerships (e.g. cooperation with Ocean Conservancy to monitor marine debris). 

– Engage Other EPA Programs and Other Federal Resources: The Guidance

describes how core water programs will complement one another (e.g. clean water

program support for safer drinking water) and how core water programs will be

supplemented with the work of other EPA programs (e.g. research, compliance

assistance, pesticides) and other Federal agencies (e.g. Department of Agriculture,

Bureau of Indian Affairs). 
Page 7

The Guidance goes beyond the common elements of a strategy described above to

identify specific estimates of progress for each EPA Region to work toward for FY 05 and 08 for

two key environmental/public health goals:

– improving the percentage of water systems providing safe drinking water;

and

– restoring and improving water quality on a watershed basis.

EPA recognizes that the estimates of progress toward these key goals in each Region

contained in this Guidance are preliminary. During the spring, EPA Regions will have a chance

to work with States to review data, consider the likely effect of programs, and develop revised

estimates of progress. This process presents difficult challenges, but is a critical step toward

shifting the focus of program managers at all levels from delivery of individual program

activities toward more integrated management of diverse program tools with the aim of

accomplishing a measurable improvement in public health and the environment. As information

about progress toward environmental and public health goals becomes the basis for decisionmaking, program managers can implement an adaptive management process to continually refine

understanding of needs and better focus programs and resources. 

Region/State/Tribal Contributions to National Guidance:

Regions have developed Regional Plans that express the core water programs in the

context of the specific conditions and needs of the Region and describe water issues in the

Region that are not addressed by the national program. In addition, each Region has, in

consultation with National Program Managers, established a “Regional estimate of progress” for

FY 2005 for the drinking water and watershed goals (see above) and “Regional straw targets” for

those program activity measures that include a target. 

In the spring of 2004, EPA Regions will work with States and Tribes to develop annual

grant workplans or Performance Partnership Agreements. The goal of this joint effort is to

allocate resources to those program activities that are likely to result in the best progress toward

accomplishing water quality and public health goals for that State/Tribe (e.g. improved

compliance with drinking water standards, improved water quality on a watershed basis).

Regional straw targets in this Guidance are the starting point for discussions, but the more

formal, State-specific commitments that result from workplan discussions are intended to

supplant these straw targets. The tailored State/Tribal program commitments that result

from this process will define, in an operational sense, the “strategy” for the National Water

Program for FY 2005. 
Page 8

Key To Success – Solid Program Execution:

The key to the success of the National Water Program in meeting key water quality

improvement goals is solid execution of the program activities that Regions, States and Tribes

identify as most likely to result in progress toward these goals for each State and Tribe. EPA will

not press States/Tribes to align resources with a single, comprehensive set of “national program

priorities” because this would require revising the otherwise optimal allocation of resources for

meeting environmental goals in that State/Tribe and, thereby, undermine solid program execution. 

At the same time, some program elements of the National Water Program are essential to

the success of the program at the national level. It is in the interest of all States and Tribes that

the National Water Program maintain a cohesive structure and that core elements of the program

are advanced in a coordinated manner. Twelve specific program activity measures where

significant progress, equal to or exceeding the Regional/national FY 05 straw targets identified

in this National Water Program Guidance, is essential to maintaining the cohesiveness and

momentum of the National Water Program are identified below. 

Source Water Protection

1) Conduct sanitary surveys at Community Water Systems (PAM # 8).

2) Implement actions called for in source water protection strategies (PAM

#11).

Water Quality Standards

3) Adopt criteria for nutrients in freshwater (PAM # 40).

4) Adopt current bacteria criteria for coastal recreational waters (PAM # 33). 

5) Adopt fish tissue criteria for mercury (PAM # 31).

Water Quality Monitoring

6) Adopt/implement new comprehensive monitoring strategies (PAM # 44).

7) Develop integrated assessments of State waters (PAM # 45). 

Waterbody and Watershed Restoration

8) Implement watershed-based plans to protect water quality (PAM# 49).

9) Develop TMDLs on an approved schedule (PAM # 52).

Discharge Permit Program

10) Implement new permits for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (PAM # 60).

11) Implement new permits for storm water from municipal sources and

construction sites (PAMs # 61 and # 62).

12) Implement the national Combined Sewer Overflow Policy (PAM # 36).

 In the case of these twelve essential program activities, the Regions will make every
Page 9

INTERNET ACCESS: This National Water Program Guidance and supporting

documents are available on the Internet at: www.epa.gov/water/waterplan.

effort to work with States to define “commitments” that meet or exceed the Regional straw

targets in this Guidance, including making these activities a priority in development of grant

workplans. Regions should consult with National Program Managers if they anticipate not

meeting targets for these measures prior to finalization of draft workplan commitments in July. 

HOW WILL PROGRESS BE MEASURED?

As the strategies and programs described in this Guidance are implemented during fiscal

year 2005, EPA, States, and Tribes will evaluate progress toward the environmental and public

health goals described in the new EPA Strategic Plan. With this information, EPA will work

with States and Tribes, using an “adaptive management” approach, to refine program emphases

to improve program performance. Where information about progress toward environmental and

public health goals is incomplete, EPA will use more focused, program-specific evaluations to

improve operational effectiveness. 

The National Water Program will evaluate progress using three key tools:

– EPA HQ/Regional Dialogues: Each year, the Office of Water will visit up to

four EPA Regional Offices and Great Waterbody Offices to conduct dialogues on

program management and performance. A key topic for the HQ/Regional

dialogues will be identification of program innovations or “best practices”

developed by the Region, States, Tribes, watershed organizations, and others.

– Program-Specific Evaluations: In addition to looking at the performance of the

National Water Program at the national level and performance in each EPA

Region, individual water programs will be evaluated periodically by EPA and by

external parties (Inspector General, General Accounting Office). EPA will

develop an annual plan that identifies all the water program-specific evaluations

that are expected to be underway in that year.

– National Water Program Performance Reports: The Office of Water will

prepare a performance report for the National Water Program at the mid-point and

end of each fiscal year. The reports will include conclusions about program

performance and recommendations based on conclusions. 
Page 1

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

ESSENTIAL TO THE NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM

 FY 2005

Provided below are brief statements explaining the national significance of program

activities essential to the success of the National Water Program. EPA proposes to

include this information in the text of the final National Water Program Guidance in

order to explain the importance of these activities. 

1) Source Water Protection 

Effective protection of sources of drinking water is essential to success in assuring the

safety of drinking water. Many community water systems have developed source water

assessments and are working to develop source water protection strategies and

implementation of actions called for in these strategies is critical to the success of the

National Water Program (PAM #11). Timely completion of sanitary surveys of

community water systems is also an essential step toward assuring the safety of drinking

water (PAM #8). 

2) Water Quality Standards

Nutrients is a leading cause of water pollution and reduction in nutrient levels will

improve as more information is available on harmful levels of nutrients in different water

body types. States and Tribes should focus on how to develop and implement their

nutrient criteria plans toward the goal that all streams, lakes and reservoirs have numeric

nutrient criteria or narrative criteria with quantitative endpoints (PAM #40). 

In addition, coastal and Great Lakes States also need to comply with the statutory

obligation to adopt the 1986 criteria for E. coli and/or enterococci bacteria to fully protect 

primary contact recreation uses (PAM #33). Finally, it is essential that States adopt the

most recent water quality criteria for mercury in fish in support of the goal of reducing 

fish consumption advisories (PAM # 31).

3) Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment

Robust State monitoring and assessment programs are essential to support cost-effective

water quality management decisions – everything from setting standards to establishing

permits – and provide the foundation for a clear picture of the condition of the Nation’s

waters. The President’s budget for FY 2005 includes a proposal for a $17M increase in

Section 106 funding to support State monitoring programs and to help these programs

contribute to local, State and national assessments of water quality. 

A key step in this effort is State adoption and implementation of new comprehensive

monitoring strategies (PAM # 44), including the capacity to link State data to the EPA
Page 2

national STORET database and the development of statistically valid monitoring

networks to help target activities and determine water quality status and trends. In

addition, it is essential that all State, interstate agencies, and Territories develop

comprehensive, integrated assessments of the condition of their waters as called for in

Section 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (PAM # 45). 

4) Waterbody and Watershed Restoration

EPA believes that the most effective approach to restoring the waters already identified

as impaired and protecting the quality of other waters is to implement Clean Water Act

programs on a watershed basis. Many States have developed their own approach to

coordinating programs on a watershed basis. EPA will continue to encourage States to

expand watershed protection approaches (PAM #49). EPA will also monitor the progress

that States make in efforts to develop watershed plans, watershed based permits, and

watershed trading. 

TMDLs are an essential element of the national effort to restore impaired waters

throughout the country. It is essential that States meet or exceed the applicable schedules

for development of TMDLs, including completion of TMDLs within 13 years of

identification and listing of an impaired water (Pam #52). 

5) Discharge Permit Program Implementation: 

The Presidents FY 2005 budget proposes to increase the Section 106 grant appropriation

by $5 million with the specific purpose of supporting the effective implementation of

new discharge permit regulations relating to Confined Animal Feeding Operations (PAM

# 60) and implementation of new permits for storm water discharges from municipal and

construction sites (PAMs #61 and # 62). Advancing the implementation of these

elements of the permit program on a consistent national basis is essential to the effective

and equitable execution of the national permit program. 

Finally, an essential step toward meeting goals for improved water quality, safer

swimming waters, and safer shellfish is the effective implementation of the national

Combined Sewer Overflow Policy (PAM # 36).
Page 1

Attachment 2

PROGRAM ACTIVITY MEASURES

NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS TO DRAFT MEASURES

3/18/04

STATE MEASURES:

#8 Sanitary Survey: This measure reflects a regulatory requirement; all but three Regions

are in 100% compliance leaving 3 States not complying; should the straw target not be

100% for all Regions? (OGWDW)

#17 UIC: Need to add baselines and universe. Region 1 data missing. (OGWDW)

#18 Class V UIC Wells: Need to add baseline/universe info. Check Region 5 target. 

(OGWDW)

#20 Class II and V Inspections: Need to add universe and baseline info. The national

targets resulting from the average of the Regional targets is not close to on track for 2008

target. Need to resolve. (OGWDW)

#28 Fish Tissue Assessment: Baseline and universe data needs to be clarified; 2005 National

targets need to be defined; relationship to 2008 targets unclear. (OST)

#36: CSO Plans on Schedule: Baseline correction/update needed. Universe numbers do not

total. National target for 05 is not on track to meet 2008. (OWM)

#41: State Biological Criteria: The 05 national target (19) is less than the 2002 baseline (22)

and well short of the 08 target of 45. (OST)

#48: Watershed Plans Under Development: Need to provide baseline data. (OWOW)

#52: TMDL Schedules: Universe unclear: how does 4606 relate to total listed water

segments/pollutants? Need to add Baseline. Address Region 1 and 3 targets. (OWOW)

#55: Trading: Need to add universe. Are baseline and 05 target additive? FY 05 target is

well below 08 target. (OWOW)

#59: Permit Backlog: The 05 target of 87% is below the stated target of 90%; can one or

more Regions do better? In the case of high priority permits; need to add universe; need

Region 4 target; need to address Region 1 target as this is preventing attainment of 95%.

(OWM)

#60: CAFO Permits: Is the 05 target of 43 states acceptable in light of requirements of new

regulations; are any of the noncomplying States significant in terms of number of
Page 2

CAFOs. This is a grant priority. (OWM)

#61: Stormwater/municipal: What two states in Region 10 will not issue stormwater

permits? Which State in Region 5? (OWM)

#63: Pretreatment: Need baseline data on CIUs. Need to define Data Source. (OWM)

#68: # Watershed Permits Issued: Need baseline. (OWOW)

NEP 4 NEP Indicators: Need baseline. (OWOW)

WD3: Tribal Wetland Projects: Need baseline. (OWOW)

WD4: Compensatory Mitigation Projects: Need baseline. (OWOW)

TRIBAL MEASURES

#9: Tribal Sanitary Surveys: Why is Region 8 target low? (OGWDW)

#12: Tribal Source Water Assessment: Need to add baseline. (OGWDW)

#46: Tribal Monitoring Strategies: 05 target of 33 tribes is well below 08 target of 90 and

almost all the progress is in Region 5 (29 of 29) while almost no progress in Regions

8/9//10. Also: the Tribal use of STORET target for 05 is 0 while the 08 target is 90. This

needs to be addressed. (OWOW)

REGIONAL MEASURE

#43: Regional Standards Approval: Need Region 5 target. (OST)

 

HQ MEASURES:

#16: Pesticides Under Review: Need 05 target; OPPTS developing. (OWIO)

#39: Criteria Documents: Need 05 target. (OST)

#47: Statistical Survey of Waters by States: This is listed as a HQ target, but it refers to

State support of statistical monitoring; should it be managed as a State target measure or

as an HQ measure. In either case, an 05 target is needed. (OWOW)

#64 Effluent Guideline Loadings: Need 05 target. (OST)

#74: Dredge Material Management Plans: Need baseline. (OWOW)
FY 2004 PERFORMANCE PRIORITIES FOR THE REGIONS

February 4, 2003

Office of Water (OW) Page 2

• Water Quality Standards

• Monitoring and Assessment

• Total Maximum Daily Loads

• Drinking Water Implementation

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Page 7

• Cleanup

• Revitalization/Brownfields

• Homeland Security

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Page 10

• Reducing Health Risks from Particulate Matter

• Making Existing Regulatory Programs Work Better

• Climate Change

Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Assistance (OECA) Page 13

• Smart Enforcement

• Environmental Justice

• Strategic Use of Data

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) Page 16

• National Program Chemicals and State/Tribal Grants

• Pollution Prevention Integration

• FQPA/Strategic Agricultural Initiative
-2-

FY 2004 Performance Priorities for the Regions

AAship: OW

Over the thirty years since enactment of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water

Act, government, citizens, and the private sector have worked together to make

dramatic progress in improving the quality of surface waters and drinking water. 

Much of the dramatic progress in improving the nation’s water quality over the past 30

years is directly attributable to our investment in water infrastructure. But the job is far

from over. Communities are challenged to find the fiscal resources to replace aging

infrastructure, to meet growing infrastructure demands fueled by population growth, and

to secure their water and wastewater infrastructure against threats. Our strategy is to

help local governments meet these challenges in fiscally responsible and sustainable

ways. We will continue to work with Congress to support workable SRF loan conditions

tied to the fiscal sustainability of utilities.

One reason reducing risk to ecosystems is so daunting is that we – EPA – share much

of the responsibility with others. To speed up progress in reducing harmful nutrient

runoff from agricultural sources, we need to forge strategic partnerships with a broad

range of agricultural interests at all levels – here in Washington and in counties across

America – to ensure that EPA and USDA target their resources in complementary

ways.

We find ourselves in the Age of Information with a dearth of essential, scientifically

defensible data and information to manage our programs. It is imperative that we close

these information gaps as quickly as possible: they may lead to market and regulatory

failures, thwart our ability to document progress, and limit our ability to effectively target

our scarce resources.

As we strengthen and accelerate our efforts to implement TMDLs on a watershed

basis, let’s take full advantage of innovations such as trading and watershed-based

permitting. Trading is a valuable tool to more cost-effectively implement TMDLs, and to

enable communities to grow and prosper while retaining their commitment to water

quality. Trading can also be an appropriate mechanism in the pre-TMDL context, if the

right conditions are met. Both trading programs and watershed-based permitting have

an additional advantage: they help generate more holistic, integrated data on water

quality. We can also use source water assessments to guide investments to protect

drinking water. 
-3-
-4-

(1) Performance Priority: Water Quality Standards

There is a significant backlog in approval/disapproval decisions, unresolved outstanding

disapprovals, and uncompleted ESA consultations. The processing time to review and

approve/disapprove new or revised water quality standards submissions is too long.

Performance Expectations for Regions: In FY 04, EPA will work with more

States to reduce the time it takes to review and revise their water quality

standards, from a current average of 4-5 years down closer to the statutory

requirement of once every three years. The programmatic goal is to reduce the

processing time to review and approve/disapprove new or revised water quality

standards submissions, so that 75% are completed within 90 days and 90% are

reviewed within one year.

(2) Performance Priority: Monitoring and Assessment 

Only a small percentage (19% for rivers and streams) of U.S. waters are assessed for

the National Water Quality Inventory. Only about half of these assessments are based

on current, site-specific monitoring information. Most monitoring is not done in a way

that allows for statistically valid assessments of water quality conditions in unmonitored

waters. There is considerable variation in the analytical methods that states use to

evaluate water quality. The Inventory does not integrate findings from other monitoring

programs to supplement state-reported information and help portray water quality

conditions nationwide. Monitoring on interstate waters is spotty and inconsistent.

Performance Expectations for Regions: In FY 04, EPA will make the best,

most cost-effective use of monitoring data by providing a statistically valid picture

of water quality. Areas of Regional emphasis is to encourage all states to use a

probabilistic, science-based approach in assessing water quality and each state

will decide its own design and supplement it with targeted monitoring (e.g.,

USGS) that gives it the information it needs to make decisions.

EPA will unify efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to collect monitoring

data and strongly support State Monitoring Councils; bringing monitoring

partners and stakeholders in the state together to plan and share data. Areas of

Regional emphasis is to focus on establishment of an additional local watershed

monitoring consortiums, for a total of 40 active Councils, which will plan and

implement monitoring activities within a watershed to ensure data serve multiple

purposes and are meaningful at various geographic levels (e.g., watershed,

state, national).
-5-

(3) Performance Priority: Total Maximum Daily Loads

Currently, there are consent decrees in 22 states which directly obligate EPA to

“backstop” state listing decision and establishment of TMDLs. The pace of TMDL

development is projected to reach approximately 3,000 - 3,500/year, a significant

increase in the annual number of TMDLs developed since 1999. Failure to backstop

states and review TMDLs in a timely manner will put the Agency at legal risk.

The watershed approach may enable states to group TMDLs in the same watershed,

reducing program redundancy and decreasing resource needs. The TMDL program

should focus first and foremost on improving the condition of waterbodies as measured

by attainment of designated uses. Success should not be measured by the number of

TMDL plans completed and approved, but when the condition of a waterbody supports

its designated use. TMDL plans should employ adaptive implementation, a cyclical

process in which TMDL plans are periodically assessed for their achievement of water

quality standards and revised if necessary.

Performance Expectations for Regions: In FY 04, EPA will ensure that TMDLs

are accurate and implementable, increase use of watershed management, and

link water quality status to management actions. Areas of Regional

performance include: Review and approve 2,800 - 3,200 State-TMDLs and EPA

will establish between 200 to 300 TMDLs, following disapproval of TMDLs

submitted by states; review 25-30 state Continuing Planning Processes (CPPs)

and provide comments to ensure CPPs provide an effective overall framework

for watershed planning and implementation; and work with states to ensure that

approved TMDLs are implemented through the Clean Water SRF, Section 319,

local efforts, and through other agency (e.g., USDA) watershed plans.

(4) Performance Priority: Drinking Water Implementation 

It is unlikely that by 2005 the Agency will reach its objective of 95% of the population

served by community water systems receiving drinking water that meets all healthbased standards in place by 1994. In FY 2003, the percentage of the population served

drinking water that meets 1994 standards increased to just over 93%. As systems start

reporting compliance for the standards issued in 1998 or later, this percentage will be

significantly lower for those rules - estimated between 40-70%. Water systems will

continue to face special challenges in implementing new drinking water standards: 

The proposed Ground Water Rule will require 40,000 small water systems (serving

10,000 or fewer) to protect consumers from microbial contamination and the January

2002 Long-Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1) extends the 1998

enhanced protections against Cryptosporidium to more than 12,000 small public water

systems that serve 10,000 or fewer consumers.
-6-

Performance Expectations for Regions: In FY 04, EPA will focus on effective

implementation of high-priority drinking water standards. Areas of Regional

emphasis will be to:

 -- Provide additional technical training workshops and assistance to 20

States in rule implementation.

 -- Increase number of States adopting 1998-or-later drinking water

standards and updating primacy.

 -- Enhance small system technical and managerial capacity to comply with

standards for high-risk contaminants.

EPA will provide stronger protection in small systems against microbial

contaminants by expanding the nonregulatory Area-Wide Optimization Program

(AWOP) designed to assist small systems in their efforts to reduce communities’

exposure to microbial contaminants. Regional emphasis will be able to support

the participation in AWOP of 250 additional systems, a 50% increase over the

approximately 500 small systems currently participating in this nonregulatory

program.

EPA will provide safer, more efficient operation of drinking water systems by

increasing system evaluations/survey training to ensure drinking water systems

are operating properly, a critical component of the Agency’s efforts to protect the

public from exposure to high-risk microbial contaminants.
-7-

FY 2004 Performance Priorities for the Regions

AAship: OSWER 

(1) Performance Priority: Cleanup

Superfund: The number of Superfund construction completions achieved each year

receives significant attention on a national level. While we are moving forward with new

measures that focus on environmental outcomes, such as groundwater migration and

revitalized land, construction completions will continue to be a fundamental measure of

the program’s success. By presenting our construction completion accomplishments,

we are able to report directly on our mandate to clean up sites listed on the National

Priorities List (NPL).

RCRA Corrective Action Program: The RCRA Corrective Action (CA) Program

continues to focus on controlling human exposures to contamination and controlling

migration of contaminated groundwater at RCRA facilities. Progress toward meeting

these outcomes is measured by the program's two environmental indicators. 

Commitment to our FY2005 GPRA CA goals of having human exposures controlled at

95% of the high priority RCRA CA facilities and migration of contaminated groundwater

controlled at 70% of the high priority RCRA CA facilities remains one of our highest

priorities. 

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: The number of Leaking Underground Storage

Tanks (LUST) cleanups completed is an outcomes measure for the protection of

human health and the environment. A LUST cleanup indicates the elimination of

pathways for human exposures and migration of contaminants to groundwater have

been met at a site. Achieving our cleanups completed goal measures how well the

program protects human health and the environment.

Cleanup programs accomplishments to date include: 

• Completion of clean up construction at 846 out of 1,498 Superfund NPL sites

through FY 2002:

• Controlling human exposures to contamination at 1,018 RCRA facilities through

November 1, 2002.

• Controlling migration of contaminated groundwater at 875 RCRA facilities

through November 1, 2002.

• Completion of 284,602 cleanups of confirmed releases from Federally-regulated

LUSTs since 1987.

Performance Expectations for Regions: 

Superfund: The Agency’s construction completion goal for FY 2004 is 40. The

FY 2004 budget includes an increase of $150 million for Superfund. The

additional resources will enable EPA to initiate 10 to 15 new construction
-8-

projects, which will result in additional construction completions starting in FY

2005. We will continue to leverage the initiation of construction by potentially

responsible parties, including other Federal agencies. Regions should continue

to make achieving construction completion a top priority.

RCRA: For FY2004, the Agency has set RCRA goals of 180 additional facilities

at which human exposures will be controlled and 150 facilities at which migration

of contaminated groundwater will be controlled. 

The Agency has set a goal of 21,000 cleanups completed for FY2004. Regions

should continue working with their states to make achieving this goal a top

priority.

The Agency will continue to work to harmonize its cleanup programs through the

One Cleanup Program initiative. 

(2) Performance Priority: Revitalization/Brownfields

The Agency is moving in a new strategic direction with the broad promotion of the

successes of the Brownfields program, Department of Defense’s (DOD) Base Closure

program and other waste programs in restoring contaminated lands. Revitalization

complements the Agency's traditional cleanup programs, leading to faster, more

efficient cleanups; and benefits communities through productive economic and green

space reuse of properties.

• The Brownfields program has reported significant economic accomplishments

through FY 2001, generating nearly 20,000 jobs and leveraging $4.1 billion.

• While the RCRA Corrective Action, LUST and Superfund Programs have

traditionally focused on site cleanup, these programs also are furthering efforts

to make sites available for reuse and redevelopment.

Performance Expectations for Regions: OSWER is developing outcome

revitalization measures for reuse, and, in FY 2005, will report land available for

use or reuse across OSWER’s programs. In FY 2004, the regions should

emphasize the revitalization aspects of all OSWER programs as a significant

benefit of and rationale for site and property cleanups. 

(3) Performance Priority: Homeland Security

Responding to small and large-scale disasters is one of EPA’s traditional

responsibilities. The Agency’s crucial role in responding to the World Trade Center and

Pentagon attacks, and the decontamination of anthrax at Capitol Hill, have further

defined the nation’s expectations of EPA’s emergency response capabilities. The
-9-

Agency will continue to play a unique role in responding to and preparing for future

terrorist incidents, which could possibly be more devastating in scale and nature than

those of September 11, 2001, and could include bioterrorism or “dirty” bombs that affect

the lives of millions of Americans and devastate the economy.

Performance Expectations for Regions: The FY 2004 budget provides

additional resources for equipment, training, and establishment of a

“Decontamination Team.” We are facing FTE limitations, including a reduction of

55 FTE, from the level provided in the FY 2002 Counter-Terrorism Supplemental. 

OSWER Headquarters will work with the Regions and OCFO to address this

shortfall. At the same time we face this challenge, we must continue to improve

our readiness and response capabilities. The FY 2004 budget makes a

commitment to establish a baseline for Agency preparedness in FY 2003, and

formally report on that measure in FY 2004. Also, the Agency is striving to

establish and maintain the capability to respond to simultaneous large-scale

incidents, although, the resources in FY 2004 may not support the goal of

responding to five such incidents as stated in the Agency’s Homeland Security

Strategic Plan.
-10-

FY 2004 Performance Priorities for the Regions

AAship: OAR

OAR’s overall goals include: improving air quality and addressing highest risks; getting

results in the least burdensome way; and increasing the roles of state, tribal and local

governments.

(1) Performance Priority: Reducing Health Risks from Particulate Matter

Fine particulate emissions are the most serious environmental health threat that we

face today. Years of research have proven the adverse respiratory and cardiovascular

impacts – especially for at-risk populations. EPA’s strategy for achieving clean air

includes a comprehensive, multi-pollutant approach with President Bush’s Clear Skies

Initiative as a key element. In addition to Clear Skies, which focuses on electric utilities,

the strategy includes national programs for reducing mobile source emissions, and

state, tribal, and local clean air programs. 

Clear Skies Initiative. We will work with the Congress to develop legislation that will

create a mandatory program to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen

oxides, and mercury by 70 percent by setting a national cap on each pollutant. The

dramatic reduction in power plant emissions will reduce levels of fine particulates,

ozone, acid deposition, and regional haze in every part of the country where power

plants contribute significantly to air pollution. Under Clear Skies, each year, by 2020,

Americans would experience approximately: 12,000 fewer premature deaths; 7,400

fewer cases of chronic bronchitis; 11,900 fewer hospitalizations/emergency room visits

for cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms; and 15 million fewer days with respiratory

illnesses and symptoms, including work loss days, restricted activity days, and days

with asthma attacks. 

Mobile sources. We will implement existing mobile source standards, including new

standards for diesel fuel and trucks and buses. In addition, we will put in place new fuel

and engine standards for non-road diesel engines, the largest contributors to mobile

source particulate emissions. 

State and local clean air plans. We also will work with states, tribes, and local

programs to develop the additional local measures necessary in areas with the worst air

quality. We will encourage states, tribes, and local programs to adopt measures that

achieve early reductions in emissions to provide public health benefits sooner.

Performance Expectations for Regions: In FY 2003, states and tribes must

propose boundaries for areas not meeting the fine particulate standard. In FY

2004, EPA must publish final decisions designating areas. Regions should work

with their states and tribes to ensure that the designation schedule is met. 

Regions also should work with states, tribes, and local programs to ensure

implementation of voluntary early reduction measures, emphasizing measures

that protect sensitive populations. 
-11-

(2) Performance Priority: Make Existing Regulatory Programs Work Better

We lose credibility when we are inflexible in imposing requirements that have little

impact on air quality. We need to provide flexibility where it makes sense, and be

problem solvers, not just program implementers.

Reform new source review. To help improve new source review, we have completed

one rule, which takes effect on March 3, 2003, and proposed another. These actions

will offer facilities greater flexibility to improve and modernize their operations in ways

that will reduce energy use and air pollution, provide incentives to install state-of-the-art

pollution controls, and more accurately calculate actual emissions of air pollution. 

Focus on Title V priorities. At this point, we are well over a decade into the Title V

operating permit program. Although behind schedule, state and local agencies have

issued almost 90 percent of the permits. The pollution sources that remain to be

permitted are among the largest and most complex. 

Focus air toxics program on risk. Our integrated air toxics program has four elements: 

use the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) to set priorities and guide programs;

develop source-specific and sector-based federal standards; carry out national,

regional, and community-based initiatives that focus on multi-media and cumulative

(including indoor-outdoor) risks; and providing public education and outreach. Priorities

for the toxics program include: complete Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT) standards on a schedule that avoids case-by-case decisions by states; achieve

cost-effective risk reductions through additional national and local measures; and, work

with stakeholders to identify the risk reductions that matter most to local citizens. 

 

Performance Expectations for Regions: Regions should assist state and local

agencies in revising their clean air plans to implement the EPA new source

review rule that becomes effective on March 3. Regions should work with states,

tribes, and local agencies to complete the remaining Title V operating permits,

focusing on those things that are the most benefit to the environment. 

Regions should work with states, tribes, and local agencies: to implement MACT

and other national air toxics standards; to expand monitoring of air toxics and

inventories of emissions; and to carry out community-based air toxics initiatives

that identify and address issues of concern. In carrying out monitoring and

community-based initiatives, states, tribes, and local programs should focus their

efforts on areas with highest potential health risks, as identified through NATA

and other information.
-12-

(3) Performance Priority: Climate Change

In February 2002, President Bush announced a new approach to global climate change

designed to harness the power of the markets and technological innovations. The

President committed America to cut greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of

the American economy by 18 percent. EPA’s climate change efforts include voluntary

government/industry partnerships, such as the ENERGY STAR programs, the

Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative, and the Clean Automotive Technology

program, that remove barriers in the marketplace and deploy technology faster in the

residential, commercial, transportation, and industrial sectors of the economy.

Performance Expectations for Regions: Regions should provide technical

support to those state and local programs that choose to conduct greenhouse

gas inventories and develop action plans. Regions should promote energy

efficiency of buildings through the use of EPA’s building benchmarking system,

as well as providing clear information and sharing lessons learned on the

benefits of landfill gas, combined heat and power, and renewable projects.

_____________________________

*In addition to the priorities summarized below, OAR places a high priority on homeland

security. Within the next several months, we expect to have the Bio-Watch monitoring

network in place and operated by state and local agencies. Our other major homeland

security program, upgrading the national radiation monitoring network, will be in the

design stage in FY 2004.
-13-

FY 2004 Performance Priorities for the Regions

AAship: OECA

(1) Performance Priority: Smart Enforcement

OECA is working to make enforcement and compliance assurance work more strategic,

efficient and effective. Data collection and analysis are key to recognizing priority

sectors and making the Office flexible and quickly responsive to emerging issues. To

obtain the most from limited resources, OECA will more closely focus on actions

leading to the most significant and measurable environmental impacts. Three areas in

particular are highlighted for FY 2004, (1) Addressing significant noncompliance (SNC)

in all media; (2) the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review and Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (NSR/PSD) and, (3) the control of Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) and

Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) under the Clean Water Act.

To increase its efficiency and responsiveness, OECA has established a Strategic

Litigation and Projects (SLAP) Division to address, with the Regions, rapidly evolving

and non-traditional compliance problems. The continuing focus upon NSR/PSD is

intended to ensure that new sources or modification of existing sources, do not

jeopardize the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards in non-attainment

areas or that areas with relatively clean air are not significantly degraded by new air

pollution sources. Permitting history over the past few years indicates that states are

issuing very few NSR or PSD approvals, despite indications which show that industrial

facilities have significantly increased their production and modified their processes

sufficiently to trigger many NSR and PSD actions. Wet weather discharges from CSOs

and SSOs are a leading cause of water quality impairment and poses a significant

threat to public health. The problems are national in scope and significant in number

with approximately 900 CSO communities serving over 40 million people and

approximately 20,000 separate sanitary sewer municipal systems susceptible to SSOs.

Performance Expectations for Regions: The launch of ECHO, making

compliance data publically available, introduced a heightened level of

transparency. OECA and the Regions, will refine the Watch List to clearly

identify the most egregious violators and the Regions are strongly encouraged to

address long standing instances of SNC. The Regions are expected to continue

to participate in active NSR/PSD litigation, on-going enforcement cases, initiate

new CAA investigations and new enforcement cases. Under the Clean Water

Act, the Regions are to ensure all CSO communities are under enforceable

mechanisms to implement the nine minimum controls and a long-term CSO

control plan. Regions are also to ensure NPDES permits for CSO communities

contain appropriate CSO requirements based on the 9 minimum controls and

long-term control plans and, inspect all CSO communities taking appropriate

follow-up action for communities not in compliance with their CSO requirements. 

All regions are to complete regional SSO inventories and continue compliance
-14-

assistance and enforcement follow-up activities. Regional SSO plans should

also cover compliance assistance for small communities to address SSO related

municipal deficiencies. 

(2) Performance Priority: Environmental Justice

The Agency has a long commitment to addressing environmental justice (EJ), that

minority and/or low income groups and communities are not disproportionately placed

at risk or suffer from, environmental and human health threats. Although this

commitment has been articulated via Executive Order and Agency Policy, translating

commitment into direct and measurable program actions has proven much more

difficult. Implementing an aggressive EJ approach throughout the Agency competes

with a myriad of other demands or, is addressed but only through chance. Agency

actions are taken in EJ communities not by design but because a noncomplying facility

or hazardous waste disposal site is located within the community. OECA has adopted

as a performance priority for FY 2004, to aggressively address EJ and ensure better

integration of EJ into each facet of its operations. Planning within OECA is being

redirected to consciously focus enforcement, monitoring, public access to data,

compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and training at EJ areas and EJ issues. 

EJ actions, activities and outcomes will also be tracked and reported more effectively.

Performance Expectations for Regions: Regions should identify EJ

communities or areas which display disproportionately high and adverse, human

health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations. Using

this information, Regions will be expected to adjust their inspection and

investigation targeting to begin to address the risks or threats. Where

noncompliance is identified Regions are expected to initiate enforcement and

when contemplating single and multi-media enforcement actions, EJ concerns,

populations and communities are to be given high priority. When appropriate,

ensure that concluded enforcement actions require human health and/or

environmental improvements such as pollutant reductions and/or physical

management or process changes. Supplemental environmental projects (SEPs)

for concluded cases within EJ areas should be comparable to those secured in

other communities and when possible, compliment or further, overall community

improvement. Regions will be expected to focus compliance assistance at

regulated entities within EJ communities. Regions should, when providing

compliance assistance, take into account appropriate multiple languages within

impacted EJ communities. Where and when possible, collaborate with other

Federal agencies to address local EJ concerns. Carefully track and report

activities, actions, outputs and the outcomes of work done to address EJ

concerns and issues within each Region.
-15-

(3) Performance Priority: Strategic Use of Data

Data collection and analysis are key components in the Agency’s efforts to be more

strategic. They are also essential elements in OECA efforts to make enforcement and

compliance assurance work more strategic, efficient and effective i.e. “smart

enforcement”. OECA has developed effective means to manage the enforcement

program through the use of integrated data (e.g., the Integrated Data for Enforcement

Analysis System - IDEA) and continues to enhance these means (e.g., Integrated

Compliance Information System and the Online Tracking Information System). The

development and implementation of the Integrated Compliance Information System

(ICIS) provides the Agency with the requisite tools to carry out smart enforcement and

evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken. While work continues to upgrade the

Permit Compliance System (PCS), the first of the Agency legacy data systems, ICIS

can now provide significant performance measurement information on Federal

enforcement activity to manage programs. Headquarters will begin to analyze data

more frequently using tools such as OTIS and ICIS to provide enforcement and

compliance assurance managers more up to date performance information. The timely

collection in ICIS and analytical capabilities of OTIS provides the Agency with enhanced

abilities to detect emerging environmental problems and patterns of noncompliance and

respond. Better data management also provides the Agency the ability to recognize

and strategically target priority sectors and evaluate the effectiveness of the various

compliance response options available to Headquarters and the Regions. With the

increased focus on using the data to manage the enforcement and compliance program

and the public accessibility to this data through the Enforcement and Compliance

History Online (ECHO) website, emphasis will also be placed on assuring the quality of

the enforcement data.

Performance Expectations for Regions: Performance expectations for the

Regions are that all data entry is accurate and timely. This expectation includes

the legacy data systems, such as PCS and AFS, ensuring that information is

quickly entered for completed inspections and investigations, violations and

HPV/SNC determinations; ICIS including the Case Conclusion Data Sheets

(CCDS) and the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheets (ICDS); and Regional

Compliance Assistance Tracking System (RCATS). Regions are expected to

access and utilize the information to better target enforcement, compliance

incentives and compliance assistance actions. Of particular note, OECA has

developed a multi-media “Watch List” for each Region. These Watch Lists are

compilations of facilities with egregious records of noncompliance. Regions are

expected to ensure the data accuracy of their Watch Lists and, working with their

States, initiate enforcement to bring these facilities back into compliance.
-16-

FY 2004 Performance Priorities for the Regions

AAship: OPPTS

(1) Performance Priority: National Program Chemicals and State/Tribal Grants

Program

The Agency objective is, by 2007, significantly reduce the incidence of childhood lead

poisoning and reduce risks associated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury,

dioxin, asbestos, and other chemicals of national concern.

Performance Data from the Regions:

Lead: In FY02, two more states agreed to accept the lead certification and

training program

Over 35,000 individuals and firms were certified by EPA, the states, and

the tribes to handle lead abatement projects (includes considerable

duplication – for example, a person certified in three states will count as

three people).

Nearly 500 separate outreach activities were held to inform landlords,

tenants, etc. of the hazards of lead poisoning

PCBs: More than 11,000 PCB-containing transformers were disposed of

More than 25,000 PCB-containing capacitors were disposed of

Mercury

Dioxin: Thirty-six separate PBT projects were initiated by the Regions in FY02

Asbestos: The Regions provided information on AHERA responsibilities to schools

with a total enrollment of over 1.3 million children.

Over 700 abatement workers were trained in courses audited by EPA.

Performance Expectations for Regions. In FY2004, continued Regional

support is needed to ensure that (1) the lead program is administered in

states/tribes that have not accepted the program, (2) accelerated disposal of

PCB-containing transformers and capacitors continues unabated, (3) key

partnerships with health and educational facilities continue to be developed, (4) a

Strategic Plan for reducing exposure to dioxins is developed, and (5) local school

systems are continually reminded of their obligations under AHERA. National

‘04 targets for this program are:

Lead: Certify 18,000 individuals for lead abatement activities

PCBs:Safely dispose of 8,000 PCB-containing transformers

Safely dispose of 6,000 PCB-containing capacitors

Hg: Develop partnerships with nine educational facilities and 25

hospitals

Asbestos: (No national target yet established)
-17-

(2) Performance Priority: Pollution Prevention Program Integration

Integration of pollution prevention into core Regional program operations. Utilize

pollution prevention as a tool to meet Regional media specific program requirements. 

The goal is to focus a small percentage of media program efforts away from end-of-pipe

treatment, to upstream prevention of pollution.

Performance Expectations for Regions:

• 10% of permits issued by the states in the Region will contain P2

language

• 10% of the inspections done by the states in the Region will be multimedia

• 10% of Regional media specific STAG funds will be targeted toward

source reduction

• 10% of SEPs will include P2

• 1 pilot annually with the Region to promote Environmentally Preferable

Purchasing

• Work with Federal Facilities to reduce TRI emissions under Executive

Order 13101

• Work with the states to report environmental performance data in a

standardized format

(3) Performance Priority: FQPA/Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI) [including

Worker Safety and Water Quality] 

FQPA/ SAI. The highest priority of the FQPA and the SAI is to reduce risk from

pesticides initially in those foods consumed by infants and children. EPA regional staff 

identify alternatives to harmful pesticides and assist targeted groups in producing safer

food. EPA is implementing model agricultural partnership projects that demonstrate

and facilitate the adoption of farm management decisions and practices that provide

growers with a reasonable transition away from the highest risk pesticides, such as

organophosphates - those pesticides, uses or practices most likely to be lost through

FQPA implementation.

Worker Safety. Regions and States will be maintaining integrated pesticide worker

safety programs at a “base level” of attainment, and there will be consistent national

reporting of annual accomplishments for documenting successful implementation of

pesticide safety programs. Pesticide Worker Safety Programs include National

Guidance for Pesticide Worker Safety Programs (Worker Protection, Pesticide

Applicator Certification and Pesticides and National Strategies for Health Care

Providers). Regions must commit to accomplishing these activities for effective

pesticide worker safety program implementation.

Water Quality. Coordination will exist at the HQ, Regional and state and tribal levels,

and among these levels of government on issues where pesticides and water intersect. 
-18-

All levels of government are working toward solutions to problems arising out of

overlapping or conflicting authorities and programs, or arising out of the lack of authority

or programs to address the issue. Regional offices provide OPP, OECA and OW with

regional perspective and assistance on 1) adverse effects from currently registered

pesticides on ground water and surface water, 2) processes needed to avoid and

mitigate adverse effects from currently registered pesticides, 3) attaining coordination at

the state level among the agencies with water responsibilities.

Performance Expectations for Regions: 

FQPA/SAI- In FY 04 the Regions will continue to meet their targets for creating

and fostering partnerships with minor crop commodity groups to facilitate

transition away from higher risk pesticides. In FY 04 they will, with headquarters,

refine indicators to quantify environmental benefits to transition. To achieve

these expectations, the regions will continue efforts to:

Become knowledgeable on FQPA issues, including the most vulnerable chemical

classes and chemicals, and be well informed on the agricultural groups that are

well organized to manage FQPA transition issues and are closely linked to USDA

and O.P.

Build partnerships with targeted producers, commodity groups and other

agricultural stakeholders to manage transition needs created or likely to be

created by O. P. reregistration decisions, thereby reducing risk from agricultural

pesticides.

Coordinate with USDA Regional Pest Management Centers in carrying out their

joint missions, focus on partnership development, and capture and share

lessons learned particularly with respect to IPM and other methods of reduced

pest management.

Provide routine feed-back to Headquarters O.P. on management issues and

concerns especially as they relate to registration and re-registration of pesticides

used on foods consumed by infants and children. 

 

Worker Safety- By 2004 all Regions and States will be maintaining integrated

pesticide worker safety programs at a “base level” of attainment, and there will

be consistent national reporting of annual accomplishments for documenting

successful implementation of pesticide worker safety programs. Regions must

commit appropriate resources to oversight and evaluation of state pesticide

worker safety programs. This includes:

< Negotiating clear commitments in annual cooperative agreements based

on national guidance:

< Conducting an appropriate number of annual state visits to adequately

monitor program, assure program coordination, and document program

accomplishments;
-19-

< Conducting an appropriate number of annual oversight inspections to

document inspection quality and consistency;

< Monitoring and/or participating in an appropriate number of applicator

training and recertification programs to document training quality;

< Collecting and submitting annual state accomplishment reports that

address national reporting criteria; and

< Conducting thorough and timely annual reviews to evaluate program

effectiveness and assure cooperative agreement commitments and

national program objectives are met. Regions should assure state

accomplishment reports and regional reviews and are submitted to EPA

Headquarters on time.

Follow Up to the National Assessment of the Worker Protection Program -

Regions must commit appropriate resources (personnel and travel dollars) to

assure active participation and involvement in the activities that resulting from

the National Assessment process. This includes participation in assessment

workgroup projects and conference calls, and active involvement in pilot projects.

Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG) - Regions must commit

appropriate resources (personnel and travel dollars) to assure active

participation and involvement in the CTAG process. 

State Plans - Regions must assure that all their States have updated, complying

State Plans for Certification of Pesticide Applicators in place in accordance with

40 CFR Part 171. MOA reports should clearly document the Region’s

compliance with the regulatory requirements for maintaining updated State

Plans, and should describe annual regional activities and accomplishments in

this area.

Water Quality. Regions are expected to complete the assessments they agreed

to in the last cycle of MOA discussions, of the high priority needs of the states

and the region having to do with pesticides and water quality. These

assessments identify high priority issues, how the regions will work with the

states and tribes to help address the top issues, how the regions will affect

coordination among the offices responsible for pesticide programs and those

responsible for water programs at the regional level, methods the region will use

to affect coordination among state and tribal level pesticide and water offices,

assessment of what assistance HQ should provide to regions to help reach

success in efforts to thus coordinate. 

It was our expectation at the beginning of 02 that in 03 we would have reviewed

these assessments from a national perspective, identified with the Regions

several top priority areas that HQ could pursue and for the regions to be fully

engaged in carrying out the actions they identified in 02, to assist with regional

and state level coordination in addressing high priority water/pesticide issues in

the field. At the present time, we do not seem to have progressed to the level
-20-

anticipated by 03. 2003 should see completion of the above assessments and

specific actions to implement identified assistance methods. Assuming success

in that arena, the priority for 04 would be to continue with these coordination

efforts with goals toward resolving identified cross media issues and

demonstrating the value of cooperation, coordination, resource sharing etc.-- --

all leading to an ability to demonstrate we have made a positive difference in

water quality itself or our ability to address water quality issues in a coordinated

and timely manner. 
GOAL 1 – Clean Air and Global Climate Change

Team Members: Mark Smith, Mary Carter, Chris Hess, Lynn Slugantz, Josh Tapp, Don

Toensing, and Amy Algoe-Eakin.

Programs and Divisions included in the Goal: 

• All Outdoor Air 

- NAAQS, e.g. ozone, PM, NOx, Lead

- Air Toxics

- Permitting

- Asbestos

• All Indoor Air (Radon, Asthma, ETS, Tools for Schools)

• Climate Change Programs (e.g. EnergyStar, CommuterChoice) 

• Radiation Protection and Response Readiness 

• Science to Support Air Efforts (e.g. Air Toxics Trends Site) 

• Primary responsibility is within ARTD with coordination & support from PLMG, SPFD,

ECO, ENSV, OEP, & CNSL.

Brief History of the Development

• Team met individually and collectively to craft portions of the plan using material from

existing operating plans, MOAs, NPM Priorities, Regional Themes, and the 2003

DRAFT Strategic Plan. 

• Received conflicting comments from HQ Offices on first draft – OAR gave us specific

and favorable comments, whereas OCFO did not. 

• Revised second draft to fit into agreed upon Regional Format. 

• Received several comments from Missouri and Nebraska.

• Revised third draft to incorporate state comments and make minor corrections.

Anomalies or Unique Features

• Collapsing the Goal Architecture from 10 to 5 has caused some difficulty in keeping to a

minimum the “degrees of separation” from daily activities to National Strategic Goals. 

Consequently, some programs appear to be highlighted in the plan more than others and

don’t necessarily reflect the overall base or core workload.

Regional Theme The Goal Most Strongly Supports? How?

• Most air programs activities (indoor or outdoor) strongly support the Sensitive

Populations theme through our work on ambient air quality (smog, PM, lead) and indoor

air (asthma, Tools for Schools), which directly impact sensitive populations.
GOAL 2 - Clean & Safe Water

Team Leaders, liaisons and members

Patricia Reitz - Co-lead John Houlihan Ken Deason

Robert Fenemore - Co-lead Brad Horchem Morris Holmes

Toni Gargas - POIS/PLMG Liaison Reggie Kidwell Mary Mindrup

Cheryl Crisler Paul Marshall

Programs Included in Goal

Underground Injection Control Combined Sewer/Sanitary Sewer

TMDLs

Drinking Water Protection Pesticides

Source Water Protection Storm Water

Clean Water SRF Water Quality Standards

Safe Drinking Water SRF Non-point Source

NPDES Smart Enforcement

Background on development process

The Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division was already working on a divisional strategic plan

when asked to participate in the Regional Strategic planning efforts. WWPD already had a

workgroup formed (the Strategic Plan/Operating Plan or ST/OP team) that held regular weekly

meetings, so that group was asked to take on the majority of the Regional planning efforts for

Goal 2. The ST/OP team did so and included branch management in the development of goals

and activities for each of the objectives and sub-objectives covered in Goal 2. The group

incorporated both Headquarters comments and state comments into the current draft product. 

Several members of the ST/OP team were also asked to contribute to other goals as well.

Anomalies or unique features

The Region committed to 50% of its states doing comprehensive water quality monitoring

instead of 100% because of the existing backlog of disapproved state Water Quality Standards.

Also, because of significant state legislative changes in Iowa, the Region committed to having

90% of CAFOs permitted by 2008, rather than 2006.

Which Regional Theme does the goal most strongly support? How?

Goal 2 supports all three regional themes. It has a strong connection to Sensitive Populations by

protecting ground water and setting drinking water standards. It ties into critical ecosystem

protection through implementation of fostering watershed approach to protect and restore water

quality. It also ties into the agriculture priority through permitting and inspections of Confined

Animal Feeding Operations, and assessing nutrient loading and establishing nutrient criteria for

surface waters.
Goal 3 - Land Statement

Strategic Plan; Region 7 Input

1. Members

Craig Smith, Team Leader Toni Gargas, PLMG Liaison

John Smith, ARTD/RCRA Gene Gunn, SUPR/FFSE

Stan Walker, ARTD/STOP Dave Williams, SUPR/EFLR

Chet McLaughlin, ARTD/SWPP Bob Feild, SUPR/MOKS

2. Programs and Divisions Included in the Goal

Superfund

RCRA

UST

Homeland Security

Solid Waste

Pollution Prevention

Emergency Response

Reuse

Oil

3. Developmental Activities

The team leader drafted a strawman addressing current status, current trends, and

major challenges for several objectives as an example. Work group members contributed

specifics for their program area for each objective, several subobjectives and some targets. 

Work group members proposed: activities, anticipated outcomes/measurements, links to national

program priorities and links to regional strategic themes. Management in the respective

divisions was briefed and their comments incorporated. States have been briefed through some

of the program channels and have been provided formal opportunity to comment. State

comments have been received. Now each division is preparing comments on the accountability

matrix and revisions responsive to state comments are being prepared.

4. Abnormalities

None.

5. Regional Theme

The most common regional theme identified under Goal 3 is sensitive

populations. Goal 3 addresses this theme mostly through work related to lead contamination

cleanup, risk assessments at Superfund and RCRA sites, and ground water protection at

Superfund sites.
GOAL 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Team Leaders, liaisons and members

Brenda Groskinsky, lead Obj 2 - Jim Callier Obj 3 - Joe Cothern Obj 4 - Mary Mindrup

Jennifer Morris, lead/POIS Kathleen Fenton Walt Foster Janice Kroone

 David Erickson, POIS Kerry Herndon Cheryl Crisler Scott Hayes

Patrick Bustos Larry Long Bob Jackson

Althea Moses Holly Mehl

Obj 1 - Joanne Heiman 

Luetta Flournoy

Lynn Slugantz

Mary Carter

Division Programs Included in the Goal Division

WWPD Pesticides (FQPA)

Worker Protection Standards

Watershed Programs/Grants

Wetlands (Section 404/Sec 10)

5-Star Grants

Water Quality StandardsNutrient Criteria

Mississippi & Missouri River

programs, grants etc.

ARTD Lead-based Paint

TRI

PCBs & PBTs (includes reduction through

SEPS)

Risk Management Plan Program

Community Air Toxics

OEP Community Based

Environmental Protection

ECO Environmental Justice

ENSV Risk Assessment

Critical Ecosystem

GIS applications

SPFD Land Revitalization

Brownfields

State Voluntary Clean-Up 

Cross

Media

One Clean Up

Homeland Security

Background on development process: Several meetings were held to identify possible

contributions. Invitations were initially to Managers but was extended to identified staff as work

progressed. Given the very distinct objectives, objective level teams were formed and asked to work

together to create the first draft. Some participants contributed to more than one objective. The group

processed draft comments from HQ. Further review identified omission which are now captured in the

plan.

Anomalies or unique features: Many of the activities are cross-cutting in nature. Some of the

outcomes to be measured actually measure the successful implementation of other more traditional

permitting programs.

Which Regional Theme does the goal most strongly support? How? All three themes are

strongly supported by this goal. The pesticides worker protection standards, watersheds and nutrient

criteria activities are all guided by the Agriculture priority. Sensitive populations are reflected in

activities such as lead-based paint, reduction of PBTs and PCBs, worker protection standards, risk

management plans, risk assessments, environmental justice, and homeland security. Critical Ecosystems

is supported most obviously in the name of the goal as well as the host of wetlands, ecosystem

delineation, watersheds, pesticides, pollution reduction, risk management, and brownfields activities.
Goal 5 - Complaince and Environmental Stewardship

1. Goal Title and number. Team Leader and members.

Carol LeValley - Team Leader

Jennifer Morris - POIS Lead

Enforcement Branch Chiefs (Lynn Slugantz, JoAnn Heiman, Tom Hogan, Luetta 

Flournoy, Mary Mindrup, Betty Berry, Becky Dolph, Diane Huffman)

George Hess

Mary Carter 

Gary Bertram

Ruben McCullers

Secody Hubbard

Wolfgang Brandner

Cecilia Tapia

Joe Cothern

2. Programs and Divisions included in the Goal.

Air, Water, TSCA, PEST, RCRA, CNSL, EPCRA, CERCLA

3. Brief history of the developmental activities (to convey the idea that the work has

gone through several iterations, changes and updates)

Goal 5 was drafted with input from several people mentioned above and was sent

to Hqs for comment. Region 7 used several different formats and the goals were difficult to

follow because structure of each goal was different. All team leaders selected a consistent

format to use. Goal 5 was rewritten at this time using Region 4's draft plan as an example. Hqs

comments were basically about format and being difficult to understand. Two meetings were

held with above members and several individual meetings were held. Comments from team

members and others were incorporated as appropriate. Draft plan was sent to states and tribes

and also sent internally to enforcement managers, other Goal leaders, and others that had input

on Goal 5. Comments were received from NE, MO, and several comments internally. We were

asked to include tribes when talking about partnerships with states.

4. Any anomalies or unique features that should be mentioned.

Most activities in Goal 5 are cross program and activities are more generic and not as specific as

in media program goals. Most measurement activities are outputs and the outcome measures

will need to have a baseline established. Objective 5.4 Science/Research was not addressed in

this goal because the activities will be conducted by the National Enforcement Investigations

Center.

5. Which Regional Theme does the goal most strongly support ? How?

The goal supports all the themes, but Ag is the most dominant.

Note: These should be in the style of a briefing paper - something that can be digested quickly.

Prefer bullets; try to keep it to about a half page.
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

Subobjective

2.1.1 T

Water Safe to Drink: Percentage of the population served by 

community water systems that receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through effective treatment and source water protection.

93.6% 93% 93% 95% Populati

Strategic Targets

A T

Percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive drinking water that meets health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.

93.6% 94% 94% 95% Populati

B T

Percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive drinking water that meets health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later. (Covered standards include: Stage 1 disinfection by-products/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic).

Jan-04 75% 75% 80% Populati

C T

Percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.

91.6% 94% 94% 95% Community 

System

D T

Percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meet health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later. (Covered standards include: Stage 1 disinfection byproducts/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic)

Jan-04 75% 75% 80% Community 

System

E T

Percentage of the population served by community water systems in Indian country that receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.

91.1% 90% 90% 95% Populati

F T

Percentage of source water areas for community water systems that achieve minimized risk to public health. ("Minimized risk" achieved by substantial implementation, as determined by the State, of source water protection actions in a source water protection strategy.)

5% 20% 20% 50% Source Wate

G T Number of households on Tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water. 31,000 n / a 15,500 by year 2015 Househo

Program Activities

 Drinking Water Standards Development

Goal 2: Safe and Clean Water - Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and theiecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fwildlife.

Objective 1: Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting source waters), in and in recreational waters.

Page 1 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

1 I Promulgate final Total Coliform/Distribution System Rule. n / a n / a n / a Final Rule 2 I Conduct analysis to support determinations whether to regulate contaminants from Contaminated Consolidated List 2. n / a n / a n / a By 2006 Analys

3 I

Each year, conduct analysis of currently regulated contaminants to support decisions to revise or not revise existing regulations within and outside the 6-year review cycle.

n / a n / a n / a n / a Analys

 Implementation of Drinking Water Standards

4 T

Federal return on investment [cumulative dollar amount of assistance disbursements to systems divided by cumulative Federal outlays for projects] provided by the Drinking Water Safe Revolving Fund (DWSRF).

$1.60 TBD $1.80 $1.70 Ratio 

5 T

Fund utilization rate [cumulative dollar amount of loan agreements divided by cumulative funds available for projects] will reach 86% of

the DWSRF.

75% TBD 86% 86% Rate 

6 I Number of DWSRF projects that have initiated operations. (cumulative) 1,235 n / a Report n / a Project7 I The percentage of DWSRF loan agreements made annually that will return Community Water Systems to compliance. 30% n / a Report n / a Agreeme

8 T

Each year, all States will be in compliance with requirement to conduct sanitary surveys at community water systems once every three years, as documented by file audits of a random selection of water systems.

Requirement 

takes effect in 

December 2004

100%

Potential GW 

Rule impact. 

New Require. 

75%

100% States 

9 T Each year, all Tribal water community systems will have undergone a sanitary survey within the past 3 years. Requirement takes effect in December 2004 100% 100% 100% Tribal CW

 Source Water Protection Programs

10 T Percentage of source water areas for community water systems that have source water protection strategies in place (cumulative).

Estimate of 5% 

of source water 

areas 

(cumulative)

TBD 15% 75% SWAs 

11 T

Percentage of source water areas for community water systems that have implemented some aspects of source water protection strategies (cumulative).

TBD in 2004 TBD 4% 60% SWAs / C

12 I Number of Tribal water systems that have completed a source water assessment consistent with national guidelines. Requirement takes effect in December 2003 n /a Report n /a Tribal Water 

Page 2 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

13 I

Percentage of community water systems with source waters classified as high, moderate, or low for risk susceptibility. (Classifications to be made starting in 2004)

xxxxxx

n / a Report n / a

CWSs % High Risk % Moderate Ri % Low Risk

14 T

Percentage of community water systems for which delineated source water areas will be available in a GIS digitized format using agreed upon data management protocols.

TBD in 2004 TBD 50% 98% Delineated 

15 I

Each year, identify at the State level the most prevalent and threatening categories of existing/potential sources of contamination for surface and ground water for Community Water Systems.

n / a n / a Report n / a Categor

16 T

Percentage of the 31 pesticides identified in 2002 as having a high leaching/persistence potential will be reassessed by the Office of Pesticide Programs and appropriate additional management controls (e.g. revised label restrictions, limited use in sensitive areas, additional monitoring) will be implemented. (NOTE: measure to berevised to reflect 2003 identification of additional pesticides.) Base of 31 pesticides.

77% HQ Target / TBD n / a 100% Pesticides Re

17 T

Separately for each class of well, the percentage of Classes I, II, III, and V wells identified in violation that are addressed by the UIC program.

Baseline in 

2004 TBD 90% 100% Wells 

18 T Percentage of identified Class V Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal wells that are closed or permitted. Baseline in 2004 TBD 90% 100% Class V W19 T Percentage of ground water-based source water areas for Community Water Systems that have a Class V survey completed. Baseline in 2004 TBD 15% 50% Survey 20 T Percentage increase in the number of inspections conducted for Class II and Class V wells above a 2004 baseline. Baseline in 2004 TBD 2% 10% Inspectio

 Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act Integration Measures

Page 3 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

21 I

Identify waters used by community water systems as a source of drinking water for which States / Tribes, have wherever attainable, adopted water quality standards with public water supply as a designated use, or for which States / Tribes have adopted water quality standards that provide an equivalent level of human health protection. (Note: “An equivalent level of human health protection” refers to the MCL, or to the section 304(a) human health criterion water plus organism value.)

n / a HQ Target / TBD n / a 2005 Completion Standar

22 T EPA will complete phase 1 of the partial recalculation of human health criteria using the new human health methodology. n/a HQ Target / TBD n / a 2005 Completion Criteri

23 T

Each year, EPA will identify critical drinking water contaminants of concern in surface waters and issue three new or revised human health criteria under section 304(a) of the CWA.

n/a 3 n/a 12 Contaminents 

24 T

Percentage of surface waters that are used as a drinking water source by community water systems that have, wherever attainable, water quality standards with public water supply as a designated use or will have water quality standards that provide an equivalent level of human health protection. [Baseline TBD in 2005 based on analysis conducted under measure #21; target to be determined based on baseline.]

TBD in 2005 n/a Report TBD in 2005 Surface Wa

Standar

25 I

Percent of surface waters that are: 1) designated for public water supply use; and 2) classified by States as highly or moderately susceptible to contamination that are monitored annually for attainment with human health water quality standards for drinking water contaminants.

TBD in 2005 n / a Report n / a Surface W

26 I

Percent of surface waters that are: 1) designated by states as highly vulnerable to contamination; 2) designated for public water supply use; and 3) impaired due to non-attainment of human health water quality standards, that have a completed TMDL.

TBD in 2005 n /a Report n / a Surface W

Page 4 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

27 I

Percent of waters that are: 1) designated by states as highly vulnerable to contamination; 2) designated for public water supply use; and 3) have a completed TMDL, that are attaining human health water quality standards for drinking water contaminants.

TBD in 2005 n / a Report n / a Water

Page 5 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

Subobjective

2.1.2 T

Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat. The quality of water and sediments 

will be improved to allow increased consumption of safe fish and shellfish as measured by the strategic targets described below.

n/a n / a n / a n / a n/a 

Strategic Targets

H T

Percentage of the water miles/acres identified by States or Tribes as having a fish consumption advisories in 2002 where increased consumption of safe fish is allowed. (485, 205 river miles, 11,277,276 lake acres)

0% 1% 3% Miles / A

I T Percentage of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states that are approved or conditionally approved for use. 1995 Baseline = 77% 80% 85% Shellfish Grow

Program Activities

28 T

Percentage of lake ares & rivers miles where fish tissue will be assessed to support waterbody-specific or regional consumption advisories, or a determination that no consumption advice is necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately; AK not included).

2814 TBD 2% Lake 1% River 4020 % Lake A

% River M

29 I Percentage of States that monitor and assess fish tissue contamination based on national guidance. 82% n / a Report n / a States 

30 T

Number of tribal fish advisory programs that have adopted and applied the national fish advisory guidance to making fish advisory determinations for local waters. [565 Federally recognized Tribes and Alaskan Native Villages]

2 TBD 0 10 Tribes 

31 I Number of States and authorized Tribes that have adopted the new fish tissue criterion for mercury. 00 n / a Report n / a States Tribes 

32 I

Number of States that are part of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission and participate in the national Shellfish Information Management System (SIMS).

0 n / a Report n / a States 

Subobjective

2.1.3 T

Water Safe for Swimming. Percentage of the stream miles and 

lake acres identified by States in 2000 as having water quality unsafe for swimming where water quality that is restored to allow swimming. (90,000 stream miles, 2.6 million lake acres)

n/a 2% 5% Miles / A

Strategic Targets

Page 6 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

J T

Number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in, or other recreational contact with, the ocean, rivers, lakes, or streams measured as a five year average.

9 n / a 8 Outbrea

K T

Percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming.

94% 94% n/a 96% Days / Beach 

Program Activities

33 T

Number of coastal and Great Lakes States and Territories that have adopted, for coastal recreational waters, water quality criteria for E.Coli and enterococci.

17 TBD n/a 35 States / Terr

34 T EPA will publish criteria for pathogens of concern for recreational 

waters.

n /a n /a n / a Publish Criteria Criteri

35 T

Percentage of significant public beaches monitored and managed under the BEACH Act Program. [No BEACH Act implementation in 2002.]

0% TBD n/a 100% Significant 

Beache

36 T

Percentage CSO communities with schedules in place to implement approved Long Term Control Plans (LCTPs). (Baseline of 772 Communities w/ CSOs)

xx% TBD 29% 75% CSOs communi

schedules in pla

37 I

Number of States that have adopted the Voluntary Management Guidelines for On-site/Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems. (cumulative)

2 n / a Report n / a States 

Page 7 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

Subobjective

2.2.1 T

Protect and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis - 

Number of the Nation’s watersheds where: water quality standards are met in at least 80% of the assessed water segments; and all assessed water segments maintain their quality and at least 20 percent of assessed water segments show improvement above conditions as of 2002. (2,262 watersheds nationwide)

- 453

- 0

- 512

- TBD

- 600- 200

Watersheds:- Attaining Stds- Improved

Strategic Targets

L T

Percentage of waterbodies identified in 2000 as not attaining standards where water quality standards are fully attained. (21,852 waterbodies; 255,408 miles and 6.8 million acres)

0%

2% (Note: 

interim goal of 

5% by 2006)

25% by year 

2012 Miles / A

M T

Percentage of test sites where phosphorus levels are below levels of concern established by USGS or levels adopted by a state or authorized tribe in a water quality standard for major rivers; for urban streams; & for farmland streams.

50%38%25%

n / a

55%38%30%

RiversUrban StreamsFarmland Stream

N T

Number of monitoring stations in Tribal waters for which baseline data are available where water quality is improved (i.e., shows at least a 10% improvement for each of four key parameters: total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliforms.) (900 stations nationwide)

0 35 90 Station

O T Number of households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation. 71,000 21,300 35,000 by year 2015 Househo

Program Activities

 Water Quality Standards

38 I

Number of States & authorized Tribes that have completed a review of water quality standards within three years of the previous treinnial review under Section 303(c) of the CWA. (56 State/Territories, & 22 authorized Tribes)

55 n / a Report n / a States / Territi

Authorized 

39 T

Number of new or revised criteria documents for water pollutants published providing the scientific information necessary for State adoption or revision of a water quality standard protocals and methods for the pollutant, including needed implementation protocals and methods.

n / a HQ Target / TBD n / a 15 Criteri

Objective 2: PROTECT WATER QUALITY - Protect the quality of rivers, lakes and streams on a watershed basis and protect cowaters.

Page 8 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

40 T

Number of States that have adopted into their water quality standards, and EPA has approved, nutrient criteria for fresh water (rivers/streams, lakes, and reservoirs).

2 TBD 0 25 States 

41 T

Number of States that have adopted into their water quality programs for streams and small rivers, biological criteria designed to support determination of attainment of water quality standard use designations standards. [Note: biological criteria may include quantitative endpoints or narrative criteria with quantitative implementation procedures or translators] 

27 TBD MO, KS, NE (3) 45 States 

42 T Number of Tribes that have water quality standards approved by EPA. 25 TBD 0 33 Tribes 43 T Each year, percentage of State/Tribal water quality standards submissions that are approved/disapproved by EPA within 90 days. 45% 75% 75% 75% Standard Subm

 Monitoring

44 T

Each year, the number of States & Territories that have adopted and begun implementing a comprehensive monitoring strategy [including a State approach to putting data into STORET] consistent with national guidance. (i.e, March 2003 guidance describing 10 key monitoring elements).

5 TBD 4 56 States 

45 T

Number of States, Interstate Agencies, and Territories that provide comprehensive integrated assessments of the condition of their waters consistent with sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and EPA's integrated assessment guidance. (56 State/Territories)

20 TBD MO, NE (2) 56 States & Ter

46 T

Number of Tribes that currently recieve EPA funding that have developed comprehensive monitoring strategies that serve all water quality mangement needs, and address all tribal waters, including all water body types and that provide their water quality data in a system

accessible for storage in EPA's STORET.

xxxx

TBD 0 90

45

Tribes with: - Comp Strats - STORET

Page 9 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

47 T EPA reports results of a statistical survey of the condition of the Nation's water, conducted in cooperation with the States. 12 n / a n / a 56 States/Terri

contribute 

 Watershed Planning, TMDLs, and Nonpoint Source

48 I

The number of watershed based plans (and water miles/acres covered), supported under State Nonpoint Source Program grants (section 319) since the beginning of FY 2002 that are under development and the number of watershed based plans, (and water miles/acres covered), where watershed based plans are being implemented.

xx%xx%

n / a Report n / a

Watershed plan(miles/acres): - under dvlpmn - being implmn

49 T

Number of watershed based plans (and miles covered), supported under State Nonpoint Source Programs (section 319) since the beginning of FY 2002 that have been substanitally implemented.

xxxx

TBDTBD 2 50 5,000 - Plans implmn

 - river miles 

50 T

Number of national signficant watersheds where a watershed approach to protecting and restoring water quality is being fostered using Watershed Initiative grant assistance (cummulative).

2003 Program 

Start

HQ Target / 

TBD n / a 100 Watersh

51 I

Percentage of TMDLs approved since the beginning of 2004 that were developed as part of a larger, watershed planning process that addressed restoration and protection of all waters within a watershed. 

n / a n / a Report n / a TMDL

52 T

Percentage of the TMDLs required for waters currently on the 303(d) list that are established or approved by EPA within 13 years of listing consistent with national policy. Annual targets will be based on state schedules or straight-line rates that ensure that the national policy is met.

xx% TBD 68% 100% TMDL

53 T

Number of Tribes that currently receive EPA funding in 2004 that have participated with States &/or EPA in development of measures (e.g., TMDLs or watershed-based plans) to restore and protect watersheds with impaired waters.

TBD in 2004 TBD 1 20 Tribes 

Page 10 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

54 I

Percentage of TMDL approvals occurring since the beginning of FY 04 for which EPA took approval action within 30 days of submission.

TBD in 2004 n / a Report (no state targets) n / a TMDL

55 T

Percentage of TMDLs approved by EPA, or watershed plans developed for restoration of waters on a State impaired waters list, that address nutrient impairments that specifically identify a "trading margin".

14% TBD 0 25% TMDLs/Waters

56 I

Number of waterbodies identified by States in 2000 as being impaired by nonpoint sources or by both point & nonpoint sources that are fully restored (cumulative). [Estimated 6,264 waterbodies impaired solely or partially by nonpoint source]

6,264 n / a Report n / a Waterbod

57 I Annual reduction in lbs/tons of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies 300 100 20 n / a Report n / a Nitrogen (lbs / K

Phosphorus (lbs Sediment (tons / 

58 I Number and dollar value of projects financed with Clean Water SRF loans to prevent polluted runoff (cumulative). 668 $1.6 n / a Report n/a Projects Value / $B 

 Permitting and National Regulations

59 T

Percentage of all NPDES permits that are considered current and, beginning in 2005, the percentage of high priority permits are also current; permits for facilities in Indian Country and to meet the same standard/schedule. [targets to be reevaluated once universe of priority permits is defined in cooperation with States/Tribes]

76%

xx%

65%

xx%

xx%xx%xx%xx%

81% 50% 85% 95%

90%95%90%95%

All permits StatPriority permits All permits Ind Priority permits 

60 T

Number of States that have updated regulations and/or statutes where necessary to reflect new CAFO requirements; number of States that have issued Statewide general permits, or otherwise substantially implemented the permit program, consistent with these new requirements.

xxxx

TBD 4 4 5050 States General Permits 

61 T

Percentage of States/Regions that have issued NPDES general permits requiring storm water management programs for Phase II municipalities (MS4S) (estimated annual load reduction of 4.1 billion pounds of pollutants). (Note: assumes continued availability of general permits) 

00 TBD 100% N/A 100% 100% States Regions 

Page 11 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

62 T

Percentage of States/Regions that have issued NPDES general permits requiring storm water pollution prevention plans for Phase II construction (estimated annual load reduction of 17 billion pounds of pollutants). (Note: assumes continued availability of general permits) 

00 TBD 100% 100% 100% 100% States Regions 

63 I

Percentage of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) in POTWs with Pretreatment Programs and percentage of known Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) in non-pretreatment POTWs that have control mechanisms in place that implement applicable pretreatment requirements.

95%

xx% n / a Report n / a SIUs CIUs 

64 T

Number of pounds of pollution loadings to waterbodies from industrial dischargers reduced (2004-2008) as a result of national industrial water pollution control regulations.

0.6 HQ Target / TBD n / a 2.4 Lbs / Bil

65 I

Estimated annual reduction in pounds of pollutants discharged to waters as a result of NPDES permits for storm water, POTWs, CAFOs, CSOs, and industrial discharges. (annual reduction in 2003)

109 n / a n / a n / a Lbs / Bil

66 I

Using the planning process called for in section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act, identify any industrial categories where discharges to waterbodies or releases to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) pose a significant risk to water quality and determine whether to develop new national pollution control regulations, revise existing regulations, or develop other control tools.

n /a n / a n / a By 2006 Industrial Ca

67 I

Number of dischargers with permits providing for trading between the discharger and other water pollution sources and the number of dischargers that carried out trades.

7451 n / a Report n / a - Dischargers - Dischargers/Tr

68 I

Number of watersheds in which a watershed permit(s) has been issued and the number of States issuing NPDES permits using a rotating basin process. 

xxxx n / a Report n / a - Watersheds - States 

Page 12 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

69 I

Percentage of NPDES program authorities where a comprehensive assessment of NPDES program integrity has been conducted (beginning in FY 04) and the percentage of assessed programs that are complying with implemention schedules for all those follow-up actions for which a schedule has been established.

xxxx

n / a Report n / a

 Prorgam Autho - % Assessed - % Complying

 State Revolving Fund

70 T Fund utilization rate [cumulative loan agreement dollars to the cumulative funds available for projects] for the CWSRF. 91% TBD 85% 94% Rate 

71 T

Return on Federal investment [cumulative dollar amount of assistance disbursements to projects divided by cumulative Federal outlays for projects] for the CWSRF.

$1.90 TBD $2.06 $2.37 Ratio 

72 T Number of States using integrated planning and priority systems to make CWSRF funding decisions. 19 TBD 2 28 States 

Subobjective

2.2.2 T

Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters. Score for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters nationally, and in each coastal region,on the “good/fair/poor” scale of the National Coastal Condition Report (a 5 point scale.)

2.4 2.5 2.6 Scale 

Strategic Targets

P T

Score for water clarity and dissolved oxygen in coastal waters at the national levels reported in the 2002 National Coastal Condition Report. (a 5 point scale)

4.34.5

4.34.5

4.34.5

Water Cla

Dissolved O

Q T

Score for coastal wetlands loss; contamination of sediments in coastal waters; benthic quality; & eutrophic condition reported in the National Coastal Condition Report. (5 point scale)

1.41.31.41.7

1.51.41.51.8

1.61.51.61.9

Wetland L

Contamin 

Benthic Qu

Eutrophic Co

R T Rate of increase in the number of invasions by non-native invertebrate and algae species of marine and estuarine waters. 1% n / a Reduce rate of increase by year 2013 Invasio

Program Activities

Page 13 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

73 T Publish a revised national Coastal Condition Report describing the quality of the Nation's ocean and coastal waters. n / a 1 (in 2004) n / a 1 (in 2006) Repor74 I

Number of dredged material management plans that are in place for major ports and harbors developed by COE-Led stakeholder process and the percentage of dredged material from coastal waters that is managed in a beneficial manner.

To be 

determined 

based on 

completion of 

COE 

assessment 

database.

n / a Report n / a - Mgmnt Plans - Managed Mate

75 I

Number of ocean disposal sites with approved site management and monitoring plans that are monitored in the reporting year, including those monitored by EPA's Ocean Survey Vessel, Peter W. Anderson.

8142 n / a Report n / a - Sites w/ Mgmn

- Sites Monitore

76 T Each year, the National Marine Debris Monitoring Network will be 100% operational. 70% 100% n / a 100% Network Ope

77 T Mandatory requirements to exchange ballast water will be developed to reduce the discharges of invasive species in U.S. coastal waters. n / a Completed 2004 n / a n / a Requirem

78 T Develop standards for the discharge of ballast water, including control of organisms. n / a n / a n / a Completed 2008 Standar

79 T

Work with other Nations to secure an international agreement on a global treaty that establishes rigorous performance standards designed to prevent future introductions of non-native aquatic species to U.S. waters from the discharge of ships' ballast water.

n / a n n / a Completed 2006 Agreem

80 T Propose standards for black water and gray water for cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters. n / a Completed 2005 n / a n / a Proposed 

81 I

Number of coastal States in which State air and water officials have received training in assessment and management of air/water interface issues (cumulative). (There are 31 Coastal States)

17 n / a Report n / a States 

Page 14 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

82 I

Number of coastal States in which there is at least one mercury deposition monitoring station (cumulative). (There are 31 Coastal States)

23 n / a Report n / a States 

Subobjective

2.3.1 I

 Apply the Best Available Science. By 2008, apply the best available science (i.e., tools, technologies and scientific information) to support Agency regulations and decision making for current and future environmental and human health hazards related to reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters and the protection of aquatic ecosystems.

n / a n / a n / a n / a n / a 

Program Activities

83 T Dvelop improved methods to assess and value ecological and recreation benefits of improvements in water quality. n / a HQ Target / TBD n / a By 2008 Method

84 T

EPA approved new or revised analytical methods will be available for indicators of bactorial pathogens, and for selected protozoan pathogens of concern for people swimming at beaches and drinking waters.

n / a HQ Target / TBD n / a By 2008 Method

85 T

Number of EPA-approved new or improved analytical methods that will be available for contaminants controlled by the NPDES permit, pretreatment, and drinking water programs.

n / a HQ Target / TBD n / a 12 Method

Subobjective

2.3.2 T

Research. By 2008, conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research to support the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking water, in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems, specifically, the quality of rivers, lakes and streams and coastal and ocean waters.

n / a n / a n / a n / a n / a 

Objective 3 - Science/Research. Provide and apply a sound scientific foundation to EPA's goal of clean and safe waconducting leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of environmental ouGoal 2.

Page 15 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

Subobjective

4.2.4 I US-Mexico Border Region; sustain and restore community health, and preserve the ecological systems that support them. n / a n / a n / a n / a n / a 

Strategic Targets

IV-A T

Of the water quality standards being exceeded in significant shared and transboundary surface waters in the year 2002, the percentage of that are achieved.

TBD 05 n / a By 2012, >50% WQ Stand

IV-B T

Number of people in the Mexico border area provided with adequate water and wastewater sanitation systems through the Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund (cumulative).

790 1,500 n / a People (

Goal 4: Healthy Communities, and Ecosystems - Protect, sustain or restore the health of people, communities, and integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.

Objective 2 - Community Health. Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.

Page 16 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

Subobjective

4.3.1 I Ecosystem Scale Protection and Restoration. Facilitate the ecosystem scale protection and restoration of natural areas. n/a n / a n / a n / a n / a 

Strategic Targets

IV-C T

Score for overall aquatic system health of the 28 estuaries that are part of the National Estuary Program (NEP), as measured using the National Coastal Condition Report and NEP specific indicators starting in 2006.

TBD 06 n / a

Improve 

compared to 

2006

Scale 

IV-D T

Number of additional acres of habitat within the 28 estuaries that are part of the National Estuary Program (NEP) that are protected or restored. (cumulative)

0 150,000 250,000 Acres 

Program Activities

IV-NEP1 I Percentage of NEP priority actions in CCMPs that have been initiated and the percentage that have been completed. Baseline determined by Dec 2003 n / a n / a n / a % Action Initiat

% Completed 

IV-NEP2 T

Publish an NEP Coastal Condition Report describing the quality of the coastal waters in the 28 estuaries in the NEP using the National Coastal Conditions report indicators as well as NEP specific indicators that can be aggregated to a regional and national level. 

n /a HQ Target / TBD n / a By 2006 Repor

IV-NEP3 I Overall combined ratio of leveraged resources (cash or in-kind services) to Section 320 funds for all NEPs (for LIS, Sections 119 & 320). (Baseline determined by Dec 2003) x : 1 n / a n / a n / a Ratio 

IV-NEP4 I

NEPs have indicators in place to track key environmental and other trends in their estuary based on CCMP priorities and emerging issues, including invasive species where appropriate, and to enable each NEP to periodically report on status and trends. {Base: 28 NEPs)

TBD by 

December 2003 n / a n / a n / a Indicators in 

Subobjective

4.3.2 T Wetlands. Net gain/loss in number of acres of wetlands (58,000) 100,000 400,000 Acres 

Strategic Targets

IV - E T Net gain/loss of wetlands in the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program annually beginning in 04. n/a No net loss No net loss Acres 

Objective 3 - Ecosystems. Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.

Page 17 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

IV - F T

Net gain/loss in wetland function based on quantifying functions gained and lost through mitigation for authorized wetlands impacts annually beginning in 2006.

n/a n / a Starting in 2006 Functio

Program Activities

IV-WD-1 I

Number of States that have achieved overall net gains of wetlands by building capacities in wetland monitoring, regulation, restoration, water quality standards, mitigation compliance, and partnership building.

0 n / a Report n / a States 

IV-WD-2 I

Number of watershed-based wetlands and stream corridor projects (combined 5-Star and non-5-Star projects) for which EPA has provided / contributed significant financial and technical assistance. [cumulative projects]

419 n / a Report n / a Project

IV-WD-3 T

Number of Tribes that have participated in watershed-based wetlands and stream corridor projects for which EPA has provided significant financial assistance (including 104(b)(3) Wetland Program and Five Star restoratation program &/or technical assistance. (565 Tribes)

xx TBD 8 170 Tribes

IV-WD-4 I

Number of major projects that have been completed in States and Tribes that significantly improve the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation. [cumulative]

xx n / a Report n / a Project

IV-WD-5 T Number of States where wetland condition has improved as defined through biological metrics and assessments. 0 TBD 0 5 States 

Subobjective

4.3.3 T Great Lakes Score for overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes. (40 point scale) 20 21 22 Scale 

Strategic Targets

IV-G T

Average percentage concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples. Average concentrations from 2002 were: Lake Superior - .9 ug/gLake Michigan - 1.6 ug/gLake Huron - .8 ug/gLake Erie - 1.8 ug/gLake Ontario - 1.2 ug/g 

0% 8% 25% decline by 2007 Concentra

Page 18 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

IV-H T

Average percentageconcentrations of toxic chemicals in the air in the Great Lakes basin. Average concentrations from 2002 were: Lake Superior - 60 pg/m2Lake Michigan - 87 pg/m2Lake Huron - 19 pg/m2Lake Erie - 183 pg/m2Lake Ontario - 36 pg/m2

0% 8% 30% decline Concentra

IV-I T Number of areas of Concern within the Great Lakes basin restored or delisted. 0 3 By 2010; 10 AOCs 

IV-J T Number of cubic yards of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes remediated. (2.1 as of 2001; cumulative from 1997) 2.1 2.9 3.3 Cubic Yard

Program Activities

IV-GL-1 T

Percentage of all NPDES permitted discharges to the Lakes or major tributaries that have permit limits that reflect the Guidance's water quality standards, where applicable.

37% of Great 

Lakes permits 

in Regions 3 

and 5. Region 

2 TBD in 2004

TBD GL Target Needed 100% Permit

IV-GL-2 T Each year, complete three sediment remedial actions. [US partners have completed about 3 per year since tracking since 1997] 3 TBD GL Target Needed 3 Remedial A

IV-GL-3 T Percentage of all CSO permits in the Great Lakes basin that are consistent with the national CSO Policy. 83% TBD GL Target Needed 100% CSO Perm

IV-GL-4 T All Great Lakes States adopt bacteria criteria at least as protective as USEPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. (8 States) 3 TBD GL Target Needed 8 States 

IV-GL-5 T

Percentage of high priority Great Lakes beaches where States and local agencies have put into place water quality monitoring and public notification programs that comply with the USEPA National Beaches Guidance.

Percentages 

being 

developed for 

Region 5. 

None in Region 

3. Not 

available for 

Regions 2.

TBD GL Target Needed 95% Program

Subobjective

4.3.4 T Chesapeake Bay. Acreage of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative) 85,252 90,000 120,000 Acres 

Page 19 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

Strategic Targets

IV-K T Reduction in number of pounds of nitrogen entering the Chesapeake Bay each year, from 1985 levels. 51 72 94 Lbs / M 

IV-L T Reduction in number of pounds phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay each year, from 1985 levels. 8.0 8.8 9.7 Lbs / M 

IV-M T Reduction in number of pounds sediment entering the Chesapeake Bay each year, from 1985 levels. 8.0 1.06 1.37 Tons 

Program Activities

IV-CB-1 T Percentage of wastewater flow to the Chesapeake Bay treated by Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR). (cumulative) 48% TBD CBO Target Needed 69% Flow 

IV-CB-2 T Miles of streambank and shoreline restored with riparian forest buffers. (cumulative) 1,298 TBD CBO Target Needed 7,000 Miles 

Subobjective

4.3.5 T

Gulf of Mexico. Score for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the “good/fair/poor” scale of the National Coastal Condition Report. (5 point scale)

n / a n / a n / a n/a n / a 

Strategic Targets

IV-N T Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico 1.9 2.0 2.1 Scale 

IV-O T Size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, as measured by the five year running average of the size of the zone. 14,128 14,128 5,000 Size / km

Program Activities

IV-GM-1 T

Percentage of the impaired segments in the 12 priority coastal areas where water and habitat quality is restored to levels that meet state water quality standards. (Base: 354 segments impaired)

xx% TBD

GMPO 

Target 

Needed

20% Segmen

IV-GM-2 T

Number of additional acres important coastal and marine habitats that are restored, enhanced, or protected, above improvements accomplished through 2003. (USGS 2000 baseline for all Gulf of Mexico coastal wetland habitats - 3,769,370 acres)

0 TBD

GMPO 

Target 

Needed

20,000 Habita

IV-GM-3 T

Implement integrated bi-national (U.S. and Mexican Border States) early-warning system to support State and coastal community efforts to manage harmful algal blooms (HABs).

Begin 2006 n / a n / a Begin 2006 System

IV-GM-4 T

Reduce the rate of shellfish-borne Vibrio vulnificus illnesses caused by consumption of commercially-harvested raw or undercooked oysters from the average illness rate for the years 1995-1999.

1995-1999 

average rate 

equals 

.303/million

TBD

GMPO 

Target 

Needed

By 2007, 

.121/million Rate 

Page 20 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Printed: 3/30/2004 1:06 PM Final National Water Program FY 05 - 08 Management System Matrix (All Measures) 

Code

Type Outcomes / Activity Measures 2002 Baseline National 05 Draft Target Region 05 Straw Target National 08 Target Unit 

IV-GM-5 T

Establish a Lower Mississippi River Sub Basin Committee (as called for in the Hypoxia Action Plan), select a project watershed in each of the states in the Lower MS River Basin, and implement actions in selected watersheds within the Lower Mississippi River Basin to reduce nitrogen loadings to the Mississippi River.

n / a

By 2006, 

establish 

Committee

n / a

xxxx

Project Wat

Key Acti

Page 21 Document Name: Appendix B_Nat
Page 1 of 6

Laws

Listed below are the major statutes or laws that form the legal basis for the programs located

within the Water, Wetlands, & Pesticides Division. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 U.S.C. ss/1251 et seq. (1977) 

Growing public awareness and concern for controlling water pollution led to enactment of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. As amended in 1977, this law

became commonly known as the Clean Water Act. The Act established the basic structure for

regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. It gave EPA the authority

to implement pollution control programs to set water quality standards for all surface waters

pollutants. The Act made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point

source into waters of the U.S. unless a permit was obtained. It also funded the construction of

sewage treatment plants and recognized the need for long-range plans to address critical

problems posed by nonpoint source pollution. 

Subsequent enactments modified some Clean Water Act provisions. Revisions in 1981

streamlined the municipal construction grants process, improving the capabilities of sewage

treatment plants built under the program. Changes in 1987 phased out the construction grants

program, replacing it with the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, more commonly

known as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This new funding strategy addressed water

quality needs by building on EPA-State partnerships.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 42 U.S.C. s/s 300f et seq. (1974) 

The Safe Drinking Water Act was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S.

This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from

above ground or underground sources. 

The Act authorized EPA to establish standards of purity and required all owners or operators of

public water systems to comply with primary (health-related) standards. State governments,

which have this power delegated from the EPA, also encourage attainment of secondary

standards (nuisance-related). 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 7 U.S.C. s/s 136 et

seq. (1972)

FIFRA provides the overall framework for the federal pesticide program. Under FIFRA, EPA is

responsible for registering, or licensing pesticide products for use in the United States. Pesticide

registration decisions are based on a detailed assessment of the potential effects of a product on

human health and the environment, when used according to label directions. These approved

labels have the force of law, and any use which is not in accordance with the label directions and

precautions may be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. FIFRA also requires that EPA

reevaluate older pesticides to ensure that they meet more recent safety standards. FIFRA requires

EPA and states to establish programs to protect workers, and provide training and certification

for applicators as well.

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Public Law 104-170, Aug. 3, 1996
Page 2 of 6

This law, passed in 1996, amends both FIFRA and FFDCA, setting a tougher standard for

pesticides used on food. FQPA established a single, health based standard to be used when

assessing the risks of pesticide residues in food or feed. The new safety standard is measured

considering the aggregate risk from dietary exposure and other non-occupational sources of

exposure, such as drinking water and residential lawn uses. In addition, when setting new, or

reassessing existing, tolerances under the new standard. EPA must now focus explicitly on

exposures and risks to infants and children. Decisions must consider whether tolerances are safe

for children assuming, when appropriate, an additional safety factor to account for uncertainty in

data.

Under FQPA, EPA may only establish a tolerance if there is "a reasonable certainty" that no

harm will result from all combined sources of exposure to pesticides (aggregate exposures).

FQPA also considers the combined effects of human exposure to different pesticides that may

act in similar ways on the body (cumulative exposure). By 2006, EPA must review all old

pesticides to make sure that the residues allowed on food meet the new safety standard. FQPA

also requires that pesticides be tested for endocrine disruption potential. Endocrine disruptors

may be linked to a variety of sexual, developmental, behavioral, and reproductive problems. 

EPA must distribute a brochure to supermarkets discussing pesticides on foods in order to better

inform the public.

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) governs the establishment of pesticide

tolerances for food and feed products. A tolerance is the maximum level of pesticide residues

allowed in or on human food and animal feed. EPA and the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) are responsible for administering the Act.

Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 33 U.S.C. 2702 to 2761

The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 streamlined and strengthened EPA’s ability to prevent and

respond to catastrophic oil spills. A trust fund financed by a tax on oil is available to clean up

spills when the responsible party is incapable or unwilling to do so. The OPA requires oil

storage facilities and vessels to submit to the Federal government plans detailing how they will

respond to large discharges. EPA has published regulations for aboveground storage facilities;

the Coast Guard has done so for oil tankers. The OPA also requires the development of Area

Contingency Plans to prepare and plan for oil spill response on a regional scale.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. s/s 552 (1966)

Under FOIA, Federal agencies are legally required to respond to public requests for agency

records. Agencies are required to provide records to the public unless they are confidential and

protected from disclosure. For example, any information considered to protect trade secrets and

commercial or financial information may be protected. EPA has an established process to handle

FOIA requests.

Clean Air Act (CAA) 42 U.S.C. s/s 7401 et seq. (1970)
Page 3 of 6

The Clean Air Act is the comprehensive Federal law that regulates air emissions from area,

stationary, and mobile sources. This law authorizies the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and the

environment. 

The goal of the Act was to set and achieve NAAQS in every state by 1975. The setting of

maximum pollutant standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state

implementation plans (SIP's) applicable to appropriate industrial sources in the state. 

The Act was amended in 1977 primarily to set new goals (dates) for achieving attainment of

NAAQS since many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines. The 1990 amendments

to the Clean Air Act in large part were intended to meet unaddressed or insufficiently addressed

problems such as acid rain, ground-level ozone, stratospheric ozone depletion, and air toxics. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 42 U.S.C. s/s 6901 et seq. (1976)

RCRA (pronounced "rick-rah") gave EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the

"cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal

of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous

wastes. 

The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could

result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. RCRA focuses

only on active and future facilities and does not address abandoned or historical sites (see

CERCLA). 

HSWA (pronounced "hiss-wa")—The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments are the

1984 amendments to RCRA that required phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste. Some of

the other mandates of this strict law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more

stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage

tank program. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA or Superfund) 42 U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq. (1980) 

CERCLA (pronounced SIR-cla) provides a Federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or

abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of

pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through the Act, EPA was given power to

seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup. 

EPA cleans up orphan sites when potentially responsible parties cannot be identified or located,

or when they fail to act. Through various enforcement tools, EPA obtains private party cleanup

through orders, consent decrees, and other small party settlements. EPA also recovers costs from

financially viable individuals and companies once a response action has been completed. 

EPA is authorized to implement the Act in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site

identification, monitoring, and response activities in states are coordinated through the state 

environmental protection or waste management agencies. 
Page 4 of 6

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) 42 U.S.C.9601 et seq.

(1986)

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 reauthorized CERCLA to

continue cleanup activities around the country. Several site-specific amendments, definitions

clarifications, and technical requirements were added to the legislation, including additional

enforcement authorities. 

Title III of SARA also authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

(EPCRA).

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) P.L. 92-463, October 6, 1972 (FACA) 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act as cited in P.L. 92-463, October 6, 1972, applies to

advisory committees composed of non- Federal members that furnish expert advice and

recommendations to the Federal Government. The Agency's Federal Advisory Committees

provide independent advice and recommendations on various scientific, technical, management

and policy issues. Experts on these various issues are selected and appointed by the Deputy

Administrator to serve as committee members on the basis of professional qualifications by

education, training and experience. EPA currently has 22 advisory committees that focus on

various aspects of environmental programs (see attached listing). Approximately 800 members

and 400 consultants serve in an advisory capacity on these committees. 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) 42 U.S.C. 13101 and 13102, s/s et seq. (1990)

The Pollution Prevention Act focused industry, government, and public attention on reducing the

amount of pollution through cost-effective changes in production, operation, and raw materials

use. Opportunities for source reduction are often not realized because of existing regulations,

and the industrial resources required for compliance, focus on treatment and disposal. Source

reduction is fundamentally different and more desirable than waste management or pollution

control. 

Pollution prevention also includes other practices that increase efficiency in the use of energy,

water, or other natural resources, and protect our resource base through conservation. Practices

include recycling, source reduction, and sustainable agriculture.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)42 U.S.C. s/s 4321 et seq. (1969) 

The National Environmental Policy Act was one of the first laws ever written that establishes the

broad national framework for protecting our environment. NEPA's basic policy is to assure that

all branches of government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking

any major federal action that significantly affects the environment. 

NEPA requirements are invoked when airports, buildings, military complexes, highways,

parkland purchases, and other federal activities are proposed. Environmental Assessments (EAs)

and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), which are assessments of the likelihood of impacts

from alternative courses of action, are required from all Federal agencies and are the most visible

NEPA requirements. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 7 U.S.C. 136; 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq. (1973) 
Page 5 of 6

The Endangered Species Act provides a program for the conservation of threatened and

endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior maintains the list of 632 endangered species

(326 are plants) and 190 threatened species (78 are plants). 

Species include birds, insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, flowers, grasses, and trees. 

Anyone can petition FWS to include a species on this list. The law prohibits any action,

administrative or real, that results in a "taking" of a listed species, or adversely affects habitat.

Likewise, import, export, interstate, and foreign commerce of listed species are all prohibited. 

EPA's decision to register a pesticide is based in part on the risk of adverse effects on

endangered species as well as environmental fate (how a pesticide will affect habitat). Under

FIFRA, EPA can issue emergency suspensions of certain pesticides to cancel or restrict their use

if an endangered species will be adversely affected. Under a new program, EPA, FWS, and

USDA are distributing hundreds of county bulletins that include habitat maps, pesticide use

limitations, and other actions required to protect listed species.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976)

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 was enacted by Congress to give EPA the

ability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United

States. EPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of those that

may pose an environmental or human-health hazard. EPA can ban the manufacture and import of

those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. 

Also, EPA has mechanisms in place to track the thousands of new chemicals that industry

develops each year with either unknown or dangerous characteristics. EPA then can control these

chemicals as necessary to protect human health and the environment. TSCA supplements other

Federal statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Release Inventory under EPCRA.

Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) OF 1993

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), holds federal agencies accountable for

using resources wisely and achieving program results. GPRA requires agencies to develop plans

for what they intend to accomplish, measure how well they are doing, make appropriate

decisions based on the information they have gathered, and communicate information about their

performance to Congress and to the public. GPRA provides for the establishment of strategic

planning and performance measurement in the Federal Government.

Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of 1982 (31 U.S.C. 3512)

An Act to amend the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 to require ongoing evaluations and

reports of the adequacy of the systems of internal accounting and administrative control of each

executive agency, and for other purposes.

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

Working in partnership with EPA Regional Offices, State Governments, Tribal Governments and

other Federal agencies, ensures compliance with the nation's environmental laws. Employing an

integrated approach of compliance assistance, compliance incentives and innovative civil and

criminal enforcement, OECA and its partners seek to maximize compliance and reduce threats to
Page 6 of 6

public health and the environment.
X - Denotes primary responsibility for activity

0 - Denotes secondary responsibility for activity Page 1 of 8

Divisional Activity Responsibility Matrix

Regional Plan 2004-2008

GOAL 1 Regional

Priorities

Art

ARTD

Leo

WWPD

Gale

ENSV

Cecilia

SUPR ECO PLMG

Patrick

OEP

1.1.1.1 S X 0 0

1.1.1.2 A,S X 0 0

1.1.1.3 S X1.1.1.4 S,C X 0

1.1.1.5 S X 0

1.1.1.6 S X 0

1.1.1.7 S X 0

1.1.1.8 S X 0

1.1.1.9 S,C X

1.1.2.1 S X 0

1.1.2.2 S X 0

1.1.2.3 S X 0

1.1.2.4 S X1.2.1 S X 01.2.2 S X 01.2.3 S X 0 01.2.4 S X 01.3 See Goal 51.4.1.1 S, C X 0

1.4.1.2 S, C X 0

1.4.2.1 S, C X 0

1.4.2.2 S, C X 0

1.4.2.3 S, C X 0 0 0 0 0 1.5.1 S,C X 0 0
GOAL 1 Regional

Priorities

Art

ARTD

Leo

WWPD

Gale

ENSV

Cecilia

SUPR ECO PLMG

Patrick

OEP

X - Denotes primary responsibility for activity0 - Denotes secondary responsibility for activity Page 2 of 8

1.5.2 S, C X

1.5.3 S, C X

1.6.1.1 S X1.6.1.2 S X1.6.1.3 S X

1.6.1.4 S X
X - Denotes primary responsibility for activity

0 - Denotes secondary responsibility for activity Page 3 of 8

GOAL 2 Regional

Priorities

Art

ARTD

Leo

WWPD

Gale

ENSV

Cecilia

SUPR ECO PLMG

Patrick

OEP

2.1.1.1 S X2.1.1.2 S X2.1.1.3 A ,S, C X2.1.1.4 A, S, C X2.1.1.5 S X 0 02.1.1.6 A, S X 0 0

2.1.1.7 A, S X 0 0

2.1.1.8 X 02.1.2.1 A, S, C X X2.1.3.1 A, S, C X 02.2.1.1 A, S, C X 02.2.1.2 A, S, C 0 X

2.2.1.3 A, S, C X 

2.2.1.4 X 02.2.1.5 A, S, C X 0 002.2.1.6 A, S, C X2.2.1.7 A, S, C X 

2.2.1.8 X
X - Denotes primary responsibility for activity

0 - Denotes secondary responsibility for activity Page 4 of 8

GOAL 3 Regional

Priorities

Art

ARTD

Leo

WWPD

Gale

ENSV

Cecilia

SUPR ECO PLMG

Patrick

OEP

3.1.1.1 A X 0

3.1.1.2 A X 0

3.1.2.1 S X3.1.2.2 S X3.1.2.3 S X3.1.2.4 S, C X

3.1.2.5 S, C X

3.2.1.1 S 0 X XX 0

3.2.1.2 S, C 0 X 0

3.2.1.3 A, C X X3.2.2.1 X 0 X3.2.2.2 S, C X 0 X

3.2.2.3 S, C X 0 0 X

3.2.2.4 S, C X X 0 

3.2.2.5 S, C X X

3.2.2.6 S, C 0 0 0 X 0

3.2.3.1 X 3.3.1.1 S, C 0 X

3.3.2.1 S X 0 X X 0

3.3.2.2 A, S, C X X
X - Denotes primary responsibility for activity

0 - Denotes secondary responsibility for activity Page 5 of 8

GOAL 4 Regional

Priorities

Art

ARTD

Leo

WWPD

Gale

ENSV

Cecilia

SUPR ECO PLMG

Patrick

OEP

4.1.1.1 A, C, S X

4.1.1.2 A, C X

4.1.1.3 X4.1.1.4 A X 004.1.1.5 A X

4.1.1.6 X4.1.1.7 A X 0

4.1.2.1 A, C X

4.1.2.2 A, C X

4.1.2.3 A, C X

4.1.2.4 S, C X

4.1.2.5 X4.1.3.1 S X 0 0

4.1.3.2 S X 04.1.3.3 S X4.1.3.4 S, C X

4.1.3.5 A X

4.1.4.1 A, S X

4.1.4.2 A, S X

4.2.1.1 A, S, C X4.2.1.2 A, S, C 0 0 X4.2.1.3 A, S, C 0 X4.2.1.4 A, S, C 0 X

4.2.2.1 A, S, C 0 0 X

4.2.2.2 A, S, C 0 X 04.2.2.3 A, S, C X

4.2.2.4 A, S, C 0 X 04.2.2.5 X
GOAL 4 Regional

Priorities

Art

ARTD

Leo

WWPD

Gale

ENSV

Cecilia

SUPR ECO PLMG

Patrick

OEP

X - Denotes primary responsibility for activity0 - Denotes secondary responsibility for activity Page 6 of 8

4.2.2.6 A, S, C X 0 04.2.3.1 A, S, C X 0

4.2.3.2 A, S, C X

4.2.3.3 A, S, C X

4.2.3.4 A, S, C X

4.2.3.5 A, S, C X

4.2.3.6 A, S, C 0 X 0

4.2.3.7 A, S, C X4.2.3.8 A, S, C X4.3.1.1 C 0 X4.3.1.2 C 0 0 X 0 04.3.2.1 C X 0

4.3.2.2 C X 0

4.3.2.3 C X 0 0

4.3.2.4 C X 0

4.3.5.1 A, C X 0

4.4.1.1 A, S, C 0 0 X 0 0

4.4.1.2 A, S, C 0 0 X 04.4.1.3 S 0 0 X4.4.1.4 A 0 X4.4.1.5 A, S 0 0 X 04.4.1.6 S 0 X 04.4.1.7 C X 0 00
X - Denotes primary responsibility for activity

0 - Denotes secondary responsibility for activity Page 7 of 8

GOAL 5 Regional

Priorities

Art

ARTD

Leo

WWPD

Gale

ENSV

Cecilia

SUPR ECO PLMG

Patrick

OEP

5.1.1.1 A, S, C 0 0 0 0 X 05.1.1.2 A, S, C 0 0 0 X 05.1.1.3 00 0 X 05.1.2.1 A, S, C X 

5.1.2.2 A, S, C 0 0 0 X 5.1.3.1 A, S, C 0 X 0 0 X 

5.1.3.2 A, S, C 0 X 0 0 X 5.1.3.3 A, S, C 0 X 0 0 X 5.1.3.4 A, S, C 0 X 0 X 5.1.3.5 A, S, C 0 X 0 0 X 5.1.3.6 A, S, C 0 X 0 X 

5.2.1.1 00 0 X

5.2.1.2 X 0 05.2.1.3 X 0 05.2.1.4 X 0 0005.2.1.5 0 0 X5.2.1.6 X5.2.1.7 X5.2.1.8 X5.2.2.1 A X 0

5.2.2.2 X 05.2.2.3 X 05.2.2.4 X 05.2.3.1 X 05.2.3.2 X 0 005.2.3.3 X5.2.3.4 X
GOAL 5 Regional

Priorities

Art

ARTD

Leo

WWPD

Gale

ENSV

Cecilia

SUPR ECO PLMG

Patrick

OEP

X - Denotes primary responsibility for activity0 - Denotes secondary responsibility for activity Page 8 of 8

5.2.4.1 0 0 00 X5.2.4.2 0 0 00 X5.2.4.3 0 0 00 X5.2.4.4 0 0 00 X5.3.1 S 0 X or 0 X 0 

5.3.2 A, S, C X or 0 X 0 5.3.3 S X 05.3.4 A, S, C X or 0 0 0 5.3.5 A, S, C X 05.3.6 A, S, C 0 X or 0 0 0 X 05.3.7 A, S, C 0 X 0 5.3.8 A, C X 0 0

5.3.9 A, S, C 0 X 0 5.3.10 A, S, C 0 X 0 5.3.11 C0 00 0 X 0

5.3.12 A, S, C X5.4.1.1 A, S, C 0 0 X 0 05.4.2.1 A, S, C 0 0 X 0 0
WWPD Accountability to the Regional Administrator

Target(Goal)

Objective Subobjective Activity WWPD 04 Operating Plan

Actions (Regional Priority)

ReportingCongressional Reporting

2 1 Protect Human

Health

1. Water Safeto Drink

(1-5) Populationserved drinking waterthat meet healthbased standards

#1 Work with states indevelopment of rules andeffective Capacity DevelopmentProgram

a. 92% of the population water systems will receivmeeting all health-based 1994, up from 83% in 19(National - 92b. 85 % of the population water systems will receivmeeting health-based staor after 1998. (APM-101

2 1 Protect Human

Health

1. Water Safeto Drink

(6) Protect Sourcesof Drinking Water

#1-10% of source water areas forCWS will have source protectionstrategies in place targeted for

sensitive populations.

c.500/10% of community percent of population serare implementing source programs. APM130 (750
Target(Goal)

Objective Subobjective Activity WWPD 04 Operating Plan

Actions (Regional Priority)

ReportingCongressional Reporting

2 1 Protect Human

Health

1. Water Safeto Drink

(8)Safeguard publichealth and safety byproviding technicalsupport to drinkingwater and wastewaterutilities

#1, #2 Vulnerability Assessmentsand Emergency Response Planscompleted using regional

approach & protecting sensitivepopulations

Narrative for successful systems.100 Percent of the populcommunity water system50,000 to 99,999 people completion of their vulnesubmitted a copy to EPA100 Percent of the populcommunity water system50,000 to 99,999 people completion of the preparemergency response plan80 Percent of the populacommunity water system49,999 people - - that hacompletion of their vulnesubmitted a copy to EPA

2 2. Protect Water

Quality

1. ImproveWaterQuality ViaWatershedApproach

(1) Protect andrestore at Watershedscale 

# 4 National Watershed pilotssuch as Rathbun#7Regional Watershed Approach

e.g,. Sedallia, IA Great lakes)targeted for sensitive populations,critical ecosystems, andagriculture

Narrative on Progress
Target(Goal)

Objective Subobjective Activity WWPD 04 Operating Plan

Actions (Regional Priority)

ReportingCongressional Reporting

2 2. Protect Water

Quality

1. ImproveWaterQuality

(1) Oversee State andTribal WQManagementPlanning

#21 Provide direct technical andmanagerial assistance to R7 tribesfor water quality managementplanning, monitoring, andgroundwater protection.

# of tribal water quality rPercent of Tribes with EPand assessement occurinof 572] (APM 401)

2 2. Protect Water

Quality

1. ImproveWaterQuality

(1) Oversee State andTribal WQManagementPlanning

#22 Provide coordination andsupport to build tribal capacityfor more effectiveimplementation of all waterprograms

# of tribes conducting waPercent of Tribes with dedelegated programs (cu(APM 400)_Percent of Tribes with EPworkplans (cumulative) 

2 2 Protect Water

Quality

1. ImproveWaterQuality ViaWatershedApproach

(3)Restore WaterQuality via TMDL 

#22 TMDL Decision packages Numbers of approvals an

141 State-established TM(incremental) [Base of 7(APM-220) and 0 EPA e221)

2 2 Protect Water

Quality

1. ImproveWaterQuality ViaWatershedApproach

(5)Approve/D0isapprove state WQS forbacklog and new.

 KS, and IA approvals/disapprovals MOU with MO

 MOU with IA

Numbers and narrative2 States with new or revistandards that EPA has ror disapproved and promreplacement standards. (Progress with developing 
Target(Goal)

Objective Subobjective Activity WWPD 04 Operating Plan

Actions (Regional Priority)

ReportingCongressional Reporting

2 2. Protect water

Quality

1. ImproveWaterQuality viaPermits 

(7)Increase Numberof NPDES permitsissued and Keep allpermits Current forcleaner water

 #6 Improve permit backlogs for90% of majors and 81% ofminors.

90 percent of Major poincovered by current permAPM 30281 percent of Minor poincovered by current permAPM303

2 2. Protect water

Quality

1. ImproveWaterQuality viaPermits 

(7)Increase Numberof NPDES permitsissued and Keep allpermits Current forcleaner water

 #9 Establish effective revisedstate CAFO NPDES programincluding appropriate use of

alternative technology systems.#10 CAFO program on Triballands protecting sensitivepopulations and agriculture

Narrative

2 2. Protect Water

Quality

1. ImproveWaterQuality viaSRF funds

(8) IncreaseUtilization of SRFfunds to Priorityranked systems.

 #2 Provide technical assistance 615 CW SRF projects tha

operations (cumulative). 
Target(Goal)

Objective Subobjective Activity WWPD 04 Operating Plan

Actions (Regional Priority)

ReportingCongressional Reporting

4 1. Reduce Risks

to Human Healthvia Exposure toChemicals,Organisms, andPesticdes

1. ImplementFQPA andtheEndangeredSpecies Actby reducingexposure tothe moretoxicpesticides.

FQPA Ag Transition,Worker Protectionfor SensitivePopulations andCritical Ecosystemsfor EndangeredSpecies

#1 FQPA Ag transition, actionsincluding Atrazine MitigationPlans #2 Work with States/Tribes/EJContacts on worker safetyprograms, including programsrelated to migrant farm workersand children#3 Work with OPP on fieldimplementation activities relatedto protection of endangeredspecies and critical ecosystemsfrom pesticides

Narrative on significant pdirectly related to the thr

5 1 Improve

Compliance

3 MonitoringandEnforcement

(2 )credible deterrentto noncompliance(3). Participation innational and regionalenforcementpriorities

#- % SNCs addressed on Watchlist and SNC lists#- CAFO, Stormwater, SSO, andCSO enforcement using regional

approach targeting for SensitivePopulations and Agriculture

Watch List numbers, EnfnarrativeCase Conclusion Data

1 2. Adequate

Systems

2. Efficientand EffectiveGrantsManagement

(1)All grants inWWPD managed toachieve the goals of2, 4, and 5

#1-5Pre-application, award, postmonitoring, review finalproducts, Close-outs

Numbers and narrative
1

WWPD Expectations

Accountability Expectations

• Do what we commit to do.

• Timely delivery of quality products and services.

• Developing and maintaining systems for measuring results of programs.

• Setting and communicating clear goals and expectations for people, programs and outcomes.

• Developing and maintaining constructive relationships with peers, states, grantees, and other

partners and customers.

• Conducting periodic evaluations of the performance of systems programs and people and

readjusting as necessary.

Cross-Program/Organization Coordination Expectations

• Intra-division and inter-division coordination is expected.

• Division Director level briefings will be cancelled if appropriate organizations are not

represented.

Enforcement Expectations

• Use the most effective compliance tool to achieve or go beyond regulatory compliance.

• Administrative and judicial enforcement will be used where appropriate to achieve

compliance.

• The goal is to strike a balance between the various enforcement tools available to us.

• Division programs will develop and maintain information on potential and ongoing

enforcement actions, using national data systems.

• WWPD will be proactive in identifying issues demanding national attention.

• WWPD programs will support strong and effective state enforcement programs.

Grant Expectations

• WWPD will manage grants and cooperative agreements to ensure successful project/program

outcomes.

• WWPD will promote capacity building and partnership while monitoring for adherence to

applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

• We will enhance our grants management capabilities through better documentation of the

comparison of intended results (environmental/ human health) versus actual results.

Homeland Security Expectations

• Integrate Office of Water and WWPD efforts with those of other programs in the Region.

• Emphasis is on prevention.

• WWPD focus is education and outreach to stakeholders.
2

Innovations Expectations

Innovation is expected in all areas of doing business (improving problem solving capabilities,

tools for programmatic and administrative issues, improving relationships with our partners and

stakeholders, and enhancing overall performance within the Region.

Marketing and Outreach Expectations

• Update annually the WWPD Communications Strategy.

• Division priority.

• Align the WWPD Communications Strategy with the Regional OEP Communications

Strategy.

State/EPA Interaction Expectations

• Expect collaboration and consultation.

• Create a joint mission/work plan/strategic plan.

• Leverage resources by openly sharing state and EPA staff expertise and capabilities to build

capacity.

• Work proactively to identify and resolve problems and break barriers before a crisis evolves.

Tribal Expectations

• Provide technical assistance to the Tribes in R7.

• Support constructive efforts to develop tribal environmental programs.

• Coordinate closely with direct implementation of environmental programs.

• Maximize use of limited grant funds to achieve the greatest results on tribal lands.

• Maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of how we manage environmental programs on

tribal lands.

• Encourage and promote cooperation and coordination between the Tribes and their

respective State and EPA.
1

WWPD Philosophies

ACCOUNTABILITY PHILOSOPHY

WWPD employees are accountable in many ways to many entities including:

• to the Congress, the Administration, and to HQ to carry out our statutory responsibilities;

• to those who pay taxes and expect us to do our work in as efficient manner as possible;

• to the general public who expect our trust and dedication;

• to the State and local governments and to the regulated industries to provide clear 

direction, guidance, and technical assistance;

• to the Tribes to fulfill our federal “trust” responsibilities to them;

• to other branches, divisions, and regional employees to work together effectively; and

ultimately, 

• to ourselves to provide the highest level of effort and work ethic.

Accountability means:

• doing what we say and are asked to do;

• timely delivery of quality products and services;

• developing and maintaining systems for measuring results of programs;

• setting and communicating clear goals and expectations for people, programs, and

outcomes;

• developing and maintaining constructive relationships with peers, states, grantees, and

other partners/customers; and, 

• conducting periodic evaluations of the performance of systems, programs, and people

and readjusting goals, priorities, approaches and organization, if necessary.

The formal employee/manager accountability system that is currently in place (i.e., 

PERFORMS) will remain the principal formal tool for accountability of employee work. A

system of recognition and consequences is also part of our accountability system. 

The PPA/PPG should provide sufficient accountability of State agency performance both 

from a human health/environmental results standpoint and from a grants management 

standpoint. 

Management and staff are jointly accountable for human health/environmental results and 

for identifying and resolving issues where our performance (including that of our partners) is

falling short. A consultative and participative mode of manager/employee interaction will

support this joint accountability.

Accountability Action Items:

• WWPD will begin working towards changes in the environmental agency PPA/PPG 

development process for FY04 and explore alternative mechanisms to provide additional

accountability for State performance.

• For non-PPG grants, WWPD will develop appropriate workplan review mechanisms 

during FY03 and beyond to improve accountability for both environmental results and

for grants management performance.
2

• All programs within WWPD will have a FY03 and beyond plan to conduct periodic

evaluations of environmental results against performance management targets and use

those evaluations as part of future operational/strategic planning processes.

• WWPD will coordinate measurement of environmental performance with HQ, other 

program divisions, and our external partners and provide and receive input from those

entities in the setting and evaluation of performance targets.

• WWPD managers and staff will implement the short term action plan developed by the

Organizational Improvement Management Expectations workgroup.

• Completion of the division’s strategic planning process and the next generation of 

operating plans will be the foundation for setting clear expectations and measuring 

results.

CROSS-PROGRAMS/ORGANIZATION COORDINATION (WORKING

RELATIONSHIPS) PHILOSOPHY

To more effectively implement our programs, we integrate across WWPD programs and the

Region by networking, building relationships, and collaborating.

Examples (not all inclusive)

• Counter-Terrorism teams (Water, Pesticides and RICT).

• Review of state Waste Load Allocations and impact on NPDES permits.

• OEP staff members works with WQMB staff members developing marketing/outreach

plan for soon to be publish watershed rule.

• NFMB staff member, ENSV/EMWC staff member, and CNSL attorney discuss the

results of inspections and potential direction of enforcement actions.

• ST/OP team work with other division leaders in the region to develop goals for the

WWPD strategic plan.

• DWGW staff working with ARTD/SWPP staff on source water protection goals.

Cross-Program Action items:

• Continue to identify and implement specific activities for staff to experience the benefits

of this coordination.

• Use recognition process when demonstrating the philosophy.

• Provide direct feedback when not practicing the philosophy.

• Provide training, e.g. “Getting Work Done Through Others”, “Teaming” and training

targeted to specific groups.
3

ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY

The philosophy of the Water, Wetlands & Pesticides (WWPD) Division is to use the most

effective compliance tool to achieve and/or go beyond regulatory compliance.

Our philosophy shall be accomplished by through the following approaches:

• Enforcement will be used to achieve compliance to protect public health and the

environment. National program guidance (e.g., OECA MOA) regional strategic themes

(Agriculture, Sensitive Populations Protection and Critical Ecosystems), political and

economic considerations, and regional and national enforcement authorities will be

utilized in our decision making process.

• WWPD’s goal is to strike an appropriate balance between the various enforcement

related tools available to us (compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, compliance

incentives, and formal/informal enforcement), while recognizing that how we achieve

such a balance may differ between programs.

• WWPD programs will develop and maintain appropriate information on potential and

ongoing enforcement actions. Reports will be developed based on this information which

will be provided to and utilized by regional staff and management. WWPD will maintain

national database systems so that current information will be collected for midyear and

end-of-year enforcement reports. 

• WWPD enforcement programs will take a national leadership role, including active

participation on national conference calls, workgroups, and other related activities. 

WWPD will be proactive in identifying issues demanding national attention. 

• WWPD programs will support strong and effective state enforcement programs. Such

efforts may include capacity building, technical assistance, constructive oversight, and

when necessary, EPA lead enforcement action. WWPD will also assist tribes who are

interested in developing tribal enforcement programs. WWPD programs will maintain

effective communication, coordination, and collaboration, both internally (between

WWPD programs and ENSV, CNSL, ECO, CID) and externally with headquarter’s

offices, states, and tribes. 

GRANT PHILOSOPHY

• WWPD will utilize our strategic planning priorities to direct targeting, solicitations, and

negotiations of grant resources for all Division grant awards on an annual basis.

• WWPD will enhance our grants management capabilities through better documentation

of the comparison of intended results (environmental/human health/other) versus actual

results.

• WWPD will provide oversight and technical direction for contractor performance to

ensure receipt of products and services purchased. Systems will be in place and function
4

as intended for pre-award issuance of work, contractor performance, monitoring, and

closeout phases.

• WWPD will manage grants and cooperative agreements to ensure successful

project/program outcomes. Capacity building and partnership will be promoted while

monitoring grantee adherence to applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

Grants Action Items:

• Our strategic priorities will be established within our strategic planning process and our

annual operating plans will identify the geographic, sector, and policy targets for grant

awards for each coming year.

• Procedures will be deployed for negotiation, management, and closeout that will provide

clear documentation of the results of each grant.

HOMELAND SECURITY PHILOSOPHY

The philosophy of the Water, Wetlands & Pesticides Division (WWPD) in regard to the

homeland security efforts is as follows:

• Efforts to protect the health and safety of the public and the infrastructure associated with

WWPD program activities (e.g., water treatment systems, wastewater treatment systems,

pesticides handlers, etc.) from terrorist threats is one of the highest priorities in the

division.

• WWPD will take a leadership role in regional homeland security efforts and strive to

integrate division efforts with those undertaken by other programs in the Region.

• WWPD’s efforts will emphasize the prevention aspects of homeland security. Education

and outreach efforts with appropriate stakeholders, including states and tribes, will be the

division’s focus. The division will provide advice and support to other regional programs

whose responsibility is one of responding to terrorist events.

• WWPD will strive to develop and upgrade the necessary skills and capabilities of

division staff to conduct appropriate homeland security activities. 

• WWPD will take a national leadership role in homeland security efforts to meet division

and region specific priorities, when appropriate.
5

INNOVATION PHILOSOPHY

In our endeavor to further a stronger system of environmental and public health protection,

WWPD will strive to build and maintain a learning and renewing organization. Integral to

this type of organization is the creation of an open atmosphere conducive to challenging both

thinking and the way of doing our business. The search for new and innovative tools with

which we can do our work and incorporate continuous improvement into our daily routines

should be on-going. In adhering to our philosophies, carrying out our mission and 

accomplishing our goals, we will promote improving our problem solving capabilities,

expanding our tools for proactively addressing programmatic and administrative issues,

further improving relationships with our partners, and enhancing overall performance within

the Division. We will shift away from the traditional expectation of just doing work and

promote a balance between thinking/researching/creating and doing. As a Division, we

accept that innovation creates risks, particularly in the event of less than successful results. 

However, fear of perceived risk-taking is not a sufficient reason for simply adhering to

conventional approaches. It is, however, the responsibility of each member of the Division

to assess and communicate innovative ideas along with the potential risks before acting.

Innovation is expected to be an on-going and evolving process of developing, modifying and

implementing WWPD approaches (including systems and structures) to further increase the

efficiency and effectiveness within the Division, with intra-Regional Office programs and

with our partners.

Innovation Action Items:

• Integrate environmental and public health management more fully across media

programs. Environmental management should be practiced with a holistic approach

rather than as a series of separate air, water, and waste management tasks. 

• Emphasize partnership and stakeholder collaboration. Work to include States, Tribes,

other Federal government agencies and other interested stakeholders involvement in

development of environmental and public solutions. 

• Focus the Division’s innovation efforts on identified areas of emphasis and, to the extent

practicable, diversify our tools and approaches.

• Strive to encourage senior management to foster a more innovative culture and

organization.

• Identify examples in our current Division environment where staff innovation is

appropriate. 

• Clearly articulate for the Division the “boundaries” of accomplishing our mission.
6

MARKETING PHILOSOPHY (Includes Technical Assistance and Outreach)

Region 7 water and pesticides team members will be strategically involved in our

communities, with our regional regulatory organizations, and within our own regional office

as we learn and teach to achieve environmental and human health results. Our

knowledgeable and technically proficient employees will listen, assist, educate, enhance and

support our partners and the regulated community by working together to determine the

necessary information to achieve environmental solutions. An important element of our

involvement outside the regional office is our marketing within the regional office as we

communicate our program successes and needs for effective water and pesticides programs

and resources, in order to meet the demands of our ever changing environment. 

Marketing Action Items:

• Develop WWPD Outreach and Communication Strategy.

• Align the WWPD strategy with the Regional OEP strategy.

• Develop necessary skills within WWPD for in/outreach and marketing.

• Designate and identify responsible individuals within WWPD.

• Provide for necessary training and experience to develop technical expertise.

STATE/EPA INTERACTION PHILOSOPHY

It is acknowledged that states have the primary responsibility for implementing most

environmental programs. In most cases, it is EPA’s role to oversee and assist the states in

fulfilling their responsibility. It is, therefore, essential that EPA and Region 7 states establish

and maintain a strong bond and trust in order to effectively accomplish our joint

environmental and public health mission. In order to establish this bond, EPA region and

counterpart state programs must establish and maintain a cooperative and cohesive approach

which considers environmental and public health issues as being interdependent with each

other and ensures mutual accountability. However, it is recognized that EPA’s statutory

mandates and regulatory responsibilities may impact this interaction. Most, if not all,

division programs have in some way a direct or, at a minimum, an indirect influence or

impact on other division programs. Considering this, we will work to develop and enhance

our interaction with all related state programs towards maximizing the effectiveness and

results in order to accomplish our joint mission. 

Our State/EPA Interaction Philosophy is to:

• Co-implement with R-7 States, water and pesticide programs;

• Negotiate expected performance goals and expected outputs in a joint collaborative

manner;

• Create environments for open, honest communication;
7

• Promote consultation;

• Create a joint mission;

• Leverage resources by openly sharing state and/or EPA staffs’ technical expertise and

capabilities in order to build capacity;

• Develop synergetic approaches in order to more effectively accomplish our mission; and

• Work proactively to identify and resolve problems and barriers, before a “crisis” evolves.

State/EPA Interaction Action Items:

• Better prepare ourselves for meetings with the states. Conduct internal program

discussions and planning, so that we can better understand the multiple EPA demands

and expectations on the states;

• Think about better ways to improve customer service to the states. An example might be

consolidating the various grant programs so that applications are matched with funds and

a funding source at EPA (e.g., 104(b)(3) and 106), rather than the state having to figure

out the appropriate funding source; 

• Include the States in our planning efforts and recommend that states include EPA, as

appropriate, in their planning process. Initiate and jointly plan annual work planning

meetings, including all water and pesticide programs decision makers from both States

and EPA; 

• Promote developing joint long term planning strategies. For example, forthcoming rules

and assessing resource needs or developing TMDLs and issuing NPDES permits in the

same watershed; 

• Know and understand RA and DRA expectations of and message to R-7 states; and

• Develop a clear understanding of each others roles and responsibilities and hold each

other accountable.
8

WWPD TRIBAL PHILOSOPHY

The Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division will encourage and assist R7 Tribes in

assuming regulatory and program management responsibilities for reservations lands. 

Providing technical assistance to the Tribes in Region 7 and supporting constructive efforts

to develop tribal environmental programs, where appropriate, is our goal. Such technical

assistance will include both programmatic assistance as well as assistance regarding proper

management of grants.

Where tribal environmental programs are not feasible, WWPD will coordinate closely with

the Tribes regarding direct implementation of the environmental programs. WWPD’s

efforts will focus on areas of greatest significance to the protection of human health and the

environment. To the extent possible, WWPD will maximize use of limited grant funds to

achieve the greatest results on tribal lands and to maximize the effectiveness/efficiency of

how we manage environmental programs on tribal lands.

To facilitate effective implementation of environmental programs on Tribal lands, WWPD

will encourage and promote collection of data which helps define the scope as well as

priorities of environmental programs on Tribal lands.

Due to the unique nature and challenges facing environmental programs on Tribal lands,

WWPD programs will promote development of joint communication strategies by EPA

Region 7 and the respective Tribes. To the extent possible, WWPD will encourage and

promote cooperation and coordination between the Tribes, their respective State, and EPA.

WWPD will actively and constructively participate on the Regional Tribal Communications

Work Group.

While there may be differences in how various programs interact with the Tribes and other

entities regarding environmental programs on tribal lands, essentially all of the programs

within WWPD are involved with the Tribes. Programs include: 

• The State Revolving Fund Program

• NPDES

• CAFOs

• Drinking Water/Ground Water

• Pesticides

• Wetlands

• Water Quality Standards

WWPD will provide compliance assistance and enforcement on tribal lands as appropriate. 

Through the use of inspections, compliance assistance under cooperative agreements, and

tribal inspections, we will ensure that federal requirements are met.
Region 7 and WWPD Organizational Values and Behaviors

“Values” are the nature of beliefs that used to guide our decisions and how we treat each other.

“Behaviors” are the actions that demonstrate the following of our values. By choosing to be a

member of Region 7 and WWPD:

I will value OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION by:

< Having open, honest communication with all employees

< Fully communicating: who, what, where, when, why 

< Seeking opportunities to dialogue, as well as provide constructive feedback

< Listening to and valuing differing opinions

And as a member of the Water, Wetlands and Pesticide Division by:

< Clarifying understanding by asking questions and listening to confirm

< Sharing information in a timely manner with everyone

< Providing feedback directly

< Receiving constructive feedback openly without retribution

< Using appropriate timing and language with the focus on behavior and actions

I will value LEADERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY by:

< Leading by positive example; Leadership is everyone’s responsibility

< Encouraging and recognizing excellent work

< Senior staff and managers will be visible and interactive

And as a member of the Water, Wetlands and Pesticide Division by:

< Looking for ways to make things better

< Being a positive agency spokesperson outside the office

< Doing what needs to be done – taking the initiative

< Doing what I say I’ll do

< Accepting responsibility without making excuses.

I will value MUTUAL SUPPORT by:

< Ensuring fair and equitable treatment (fair/equitable doesn’t always equate to

identical)

< Encouraging and accepting feedback - in a caring and constructive manner

< Trusting, encouraging, and nurturing one another to be their best

< Addressing unacceptable behavior

And as a member of the Water, Wetlands and Pesticide Division by:

< Treating everyone with respect and dignity

< Seeking and /or giving help

< Being cooperative

< Being accountable to the organization as a whole not just to my own work
I will value TEAMWORK by:

< Sharing responsibility and recognition for leadership, Leadership, and teamwork

< Facilitating the use of cross-program and non-traditional teams

< Practicing joint problem-solving

< Being visionary, having “big picture” view; encouraging Regional focus

< Having fun

And as a member of the Water, Wetlands and Pesticide Division by: < Actively helping each other succeed

< Working together cooperatively 

< Being an active participant as a team member

I will value INNOVATION by

< Viewing change as a sign of growth, progress and an opportunity for

improvement

< Sharing responsibility for making change work for the best

< Working to overcome impediments; not to use impediments as roadblocks to

change

< Not fearing risks; learning from efforts that are less than fully successful

And as a member of the Water, Wetlands and Pesticide Division by: < Being creative and flexible

< Finding the positive in change

< Looking for opportunities to make positive change

< Having the courage to make decisions with a long-term vision

< Going beyond the norm

I will value CUSTOMER SATISFACTION by:

< Working with stakeholders collaboratively

< Providing timely and accurate response to all inquiries

< Knowing and responding to our customers and their needs

And as a member of the Water, Wetlands and Pesticide Division by: < Being responsible to external and internal information requests

< Looking for ways to serve customers better

< Accepting responsibility outside our box

I will value RESPECT by:

< Treating everyone with respect

< Using diversity to accomplish the Agency’s mission

< Becoming part of the solution

< Embracing our differences to achieve the greater good

And as a member of the Water, Wetlands and Pesticide Division by:

< Valuing each others individuality and differences

< Not blaming others for our shortfalls

< Maintaining and respecting the balance between our and others personal and

professional lives
Leo Alderman

 x7001

DIRECTOR

WWPD

Betty Berry

x7279

DEPUTY DIVISION DIRECTOR

& PESTICIDES DIVISION (WWPD)

TIONAL STRUCTURE

Luetta Flournoy

x7653

PESTICIDES BRANCH

(PEST)

Includes the following programsand activities:

Worker ProtectionEndangered SpeciesState Management PlanApplicator CertificationState/Tribal GrantsPesticide StewardshipCompliance AssistanceEnforcement

Diane Huffman

x7544

WATER

ENFORCEMENT

BRANCH (WENF)

Includes the following enforcementprograms and activities:

NPDESCAFOsCSO / SSODrinking Water PWSSStorm WaterWetlands/Section 104Review/Approval/Disapproval of Local POTW Pretreatment Proposals

Cheryl Crisler

x7820

WATER QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

BRANCH (WQMB)

Includes the following programs

 and activities:

Impaired Waters/303dWater Quality StandardsTMDL

VacantEXECUTIVE OFFICE MANAGERPatricia Reitz

Esther Moore- SEE, x7180CUSTOMER SUPPORTDIVISION TELEPHONE: x7030FAX: 913-551-7765

Stan CalowEmily DetrichDamon FrizzellJack GenerauxJay HuaRoyce Kemp

Jann Doty, x7071FAX: 913-551-7863

Jann Doty, x7071FAX: 913-551-7765

Kimberly HarbourPaula HigbeeDiana JacksonBerla Jackson-JohnsonRaju KarkarlapudiDewayne Knott

Linda Koska, x7293FAX: 913-551-7165

Jamie GreenBrad HorchemMark LesherBarbara PierceLou Banks- SEEGlenn Kramer- SEEVitula Lungren- SEE

a Brownell, x7634

 913-551-7765

Margaret Stockdale

x7936

WATERSHED PLANNING

&

IMPLEMENTATION

BRANCH (WPIB)

Includes the following programsand activities: Water Program Integration

Watershed CoordinationGrants Management [604(b)/

106/PPG/104(b)(3)

305 (b) Reports/MonitoringWater Quality Cooperative

 Agreements (WQCA)

Wetlands/404Big RiversNonpoint Sources Management

Monique Carter, x7490FAX: 913-551-8723

Larry LongPaul MarshallLinda McKenzieCynthia Sans

Pradip Dalal

x7454

ASTE WATER &

RASTRUCTURE

ANAGEMENT

BRANCH

(WIMB) 

he following programs

ties:

ent of all aspects:

Water SRF

rinking Water SRF

ion Grants:

 of the CWA

ermits (Incl. industrial,

pal, CAFO, stormwater,

SO); State Assistance &

te

of Permits within Indian

ry; 104g Operator Assistance

, O&M Awards

d-Tittone Judy Novak

Harold Owens

ns Alex Owutaka

ly Ralph Summers

ill Rao Surampalli

atthews Joyce Sousley

bson- SEE

eck- SEE

Sue BelvillMelissa BertelsenPeter DavisJason DanielsJulie ElfvingRobert FenemoreJacquelyn FergusonDon HameraKenneth Bruene- SEECarl Stevens- SEE

Ann LavatyDon MillerPaul SchwaabLarry ShepardRoyan Teter

Elizabeth Murtagh-YawDavid Ramsey (MO)Shelly Rios-LaluzJohn Tice (NE)Mary Jane Wingett

Talva HayesRegina KidwellKathy MulderJennifer OusleyJeannette SchaferTom TaylorMandy Techau
WWPD LIST 03/24/04

Immediate Office (IO)

Leo Alderman, DD Margaret Borushko

Betty Berry, DDD Patricia Reitz

Drinking Water Management Branch (DRWM)

Mary Mindrup Stephanie Lindberg Darlene Schowengerdt Morris Holmes

Lisa Stufflebeam Carolyn Mitchell Robert Dunlevy Doug Brune

Kim Olson Kurt Hildebrandt Pat Costello Ted Fritz

Ken Deason Stan Calow Ralph Flournoy

Jeff Field Jack Kelly (FO) Neftali Hernandez-Santiago

Pesticides Branch (PEST)

Luetta Flournoy Brad Horchem Mark Lesher Barbara Shepard

Linda Koska Mary Jane Wingett Shelly Rios Glenn Kramer

Lou Banks Chris Windmeyer Vitula Lungren Jamie Green

Dave Ramsey (FO) John Tice (FO) Elizabeth Murtagh-Yaw

Wastewater and Infrastructure Management Branch (WIMB)

Pradip Dalal Don Gibbins Ralph Summers Kelly Beard-Tittone

Dianna Brownell Harold Owens John Dunn Alex Owutaka

Kimberly Hill Billie Jacobson Mark Matthews Rao Surampalli

Dan Rebeck Judy Novak Nancy Healy Joyce Sousley

Water Enforcement Branch (WENF)

Diane Huffman Paul Marshall Raju Kakarlapudi Cynthia Sans

Jann Doty Linda McKenzie DeWayne Knott Berla Jackson-Johnson

Kimberly Harbour Larry Long Paula Higbee

Watershed Planning and Implementation Branch (WPIB)

Margaret Stockdale Robert Fenemore Jason Daniels Sue Belvill

Monique Carter Tom Taylor Jennifer Ousley Melissa Bertelsen

Don Hamera Ken Bruene Kathy Mulder Jeannette Schafer

Mandy Techau Carl Stevens Julie Elfving Talva Hayes

Pete Davis Jaci Ferguson (FO) Esther Moore Larry Stafford

Regina Kidwell

Water Quality Management Branch (WQMB)

Cheryl Crisler Royce Kemp Jay Hua Larry Shepard

Jann Doty Damon Frizzell Don Miller Emily Detrich

Jack Generaux Paul Schwaab Ann Lavaty Royan Teter

Note: Names in BOLD are Branch Managers

Names in ITALICS are Office Managers
The Region 7 

Water, Wetlands, Pesticide Div

FY 2004

Operating Plan
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), G 

Target 1 - Systems and Human Capital

Page 2 of 65

Target 1: Systems and Human Capital

Objective 1.1: WWPD Staff Development

Sub-Objective 1.1.1: WWPD Contributes Toward the Regional Human Capital Strategic Plan

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 1.1.1 (1): WWPD Contributes Toward the Regional Human Capital Strategic Plan1. WWPD contributes toward the RegionalHuman Capital Strategic Plan.

PLMG Y ongoing

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s):
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), G = G

Target 1 - Systems and Human Capital

Page 3 of 65

Objective 1.2: Adequate Systems

Sub-Objective 1.2.1: Improved Systems that Achieve Greater Success with Goals 2, 4, and 5.

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 1.2.1 (1): All database systems will continue to support core programs.Sub-Objective 1.2.1(2): WWPD can plan and track performance against goals and capture cost-based on sound financial s

accountability processes.

Sub-Objective 1.2.1(3): WWPD utilizes Standard Operating Procedures that sets clear expectations.1. Work on WWPD Standard Operating

Procedures for • Divisional Tracking System• Accountability to Strategic Plan &

Operating Plan

• Administrative functions, e.g. FOIA’s,

backfill of Administrative Executive Officer

• State PPG - Internal Negotiations

9/04 • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s):
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), G = G

Target 1 - Systems and Human Capital

Page 4 of 65

Objective 1.2: Adequate Systems

Sub-Objective 1.2.2: Efficiently and Effectively Manage Grants to Provide for Environmental Improvements.

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 1.2.2 (1): Efficiently & Effectively Manage Grants to Provide Resources for Environmental ImprWWPD routinely processes annual program-specific grants and cooperative agreements to support State and Tribal effaddition, the Division periodically processes grants and cooperative agreements that support ad hoc funding requests. 1. Perform pre-application activities, i.e.,

developing quality projects, sending RFPs,ranking & scoring proposals, and reviewing &commenting on proposals.

X X X X All Project

Officers in

Branch

PLMG, all WWPD

Branches 

Y on-going • 

2. Complete award processing including funding

recommendations, commitment notices, &IGMS entries per annual grants business plans.

X X X X All Project

Officers in

Branch

PLMG, all WWPD

Branches 

Y on-going • 

3. Conduct post-award monitoring during the life

of the project, i.e., answering questions,formal amendments, oversight, etc.

X X X X All Project

Officers in

Branch

PLMG, all WWPD

Branches 

Y as 

requested

• • 

4. Review, comment &/or accept final products

and other grant outputs in conformance withgrant conditions.

X X X X All Project

Officers in

Branch

PLMG, all WWPD

Br, 

Y in 

Work

Plans

• 

5. Closeout grants via FSR review, GRAD

paperwork, & files to the records center.

X X X X All Project

Officers in

Branch

PLMG, all WWPD

Br, 

Y 60 days

from 

final FSR

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), G = 

Target 1 - Systems and Human Capital

Page 5 of 65

6. Serve as Project Officer on watershed-related

grants

X X X WPIB staff WWPD Y on-going • 

re

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 6 of 65

Target 2: Clean & Safe Water

Objective 2.1: Protect Human HealthSub-Objective 2.1.1: Water Safe to Drink 

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 2.1.1 (1 & 3): By 2005, for health-based standards with a compliance date of December 2001 or earlier, the percen

2008) of a) the population served by community water systems that meets health-based standards and b) the community water syst

water that meets health-based standards (2002 baseline - 93% of the population and 2002 baseline - 91.6% of CWS), and 

Sub-Objective 2.1.1 (2 & 4): for health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later (Stage 1 DBP, IESWTR

the percentage will be 80% (80% by 2008) of a) the population served by community water systems that meets health-based standsystems that provide drinking water that meets health-based standards (baseline populations and CWSs to be determined January 2
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 7 of 65

1. Oversee State PWSS Program’s implementation

of adopted rules to provide drinking water thatmeet health-based standards with compliancedates prior to December 2001.

X X X X Ken, Ralph,

Doug, Bob

Quarterly

7/1 State

ACRs

Usi• • • 

2. Capacity Development Increase public health protection by ensuring newand existing community or non-transient noncommunity water systems have the technical,managerial and financial capabilities to implementthe requirements of the SDWA. 

• Establish a Region 7 Environmental Finance

Center or an Alternate Approach to meet theDrinking Water Needs served by such acenter.

• Establish criteria for annual reporting a

successful Capacity Development Program.

X X Bob, Doug,

Ken, Ralph

SRF, WENF 9/30/04 • 

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 8 of 65

3. Operator Certification.

Increase public health protection by ensuringnew and existing community or non-transientnon-community water systems have an operatorwho is trained and certified by the State for thatsystem

• • • 

4. State PWSS Program Annual Performance

Evaluations

X Doug, Ken,

Ralph, Bob

Coordinationwith SRF &ENF

IA- 12/03KS- 11/03MO-4/04NE- 7/04

• 

5. Workplan Negotiations X Doug, Ken,

Ralph, Bob

9/30 of eachyear

• 

6. Conduct training for States and systems X X Ralph, Stan • 

• 

7. Complete State profiles for each of the new

rules and identify areas of concern, actions toaddress concern and develop table to work withState regarding concerns. 

X Doug, Ken,

Ralph, Bob

3/04 • 

8. Improvement of Data quality 

SDWIS/FED modernization: CDX; XMLSDWIS/STATE: web-enabled; FedRep; PDAsImplement Data Verification AuditRecommendations

X Carolyn,

Darlene

9/04 • 

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 9 of 65

9. Primacy package revisions – all rules adopted

and FR primacy packages completed.

X Doug, Ken,

Ralph, Bob

Iowa-1/04KS-1/04MO-2/04NE-12/03

• 

10. Provide technical reviews/assistance of

systems for States at State request or EPArecommendation

X X Stan, Ralph As Reqst’d 11. 

11. Small System strategy Small communities are

faced with a number of issues that impactthere ability to responded to SDWArequirements

X X Ken Quarterly • 

(OusupBra

12. Rulemaking workgroups – LT2/Stage 2 DBP/

GWTR / UCMR2 / Radon / DistributionSystem / 6-year review 

X Stan, Ralph,

Doug, Ken

Quarterly • 

13. Implementation workgroups – IESWTR/

LT1ESWTR/FBRR/Stage 1 DBP/Arsenic/ Radionuclides

Stan, Ralph,Doug, Ken

Quarterly • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 10 of 65

Sub-Objective 2.1.1 (5): Through supporting Tribes and water systems in implementing standards and promoting sustainable maninfrastructure on Tribal lands, by the end of 2004 __% (95% by 2008) of the population served by community water systems in In

drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards. (2002 Baseline: 91.1% of population served by sy

is expected to change as new standards take effect.)

1. 95% compliance will be achieved by Tribal

community water systems that meet all existinghealth-based standards as of 1996. 95%compliance will be achieved for any newstandards within 5 years after the effective dateof each rule.

X X X X Morris ENSV, CNSL 9/04 • 

• • A• • • 

2. EPA, Tribes, and IHS complete joint planning

by June of 04.

X X Morris, Kim RIWG (POIS) 6/04 • 

3. Utilize CAP DEV activities to build Tribal

capacity.

X X X Morris, Kim 9/04 • 

• T• W• P
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 11 of 65

4. Provide infrastructure improvement funding for

CWS

X X X Morris PLMG 12/04 • N

for Ser

5. Conduct sanitary surveys X X X Morris 9/04 • N

• R

6. Provide Tribal information for OECA MOA FY

05.

X X X Morris POIS 9/04 7. 

7. Utilize SDWIS State to track Tribal compliance

information.

X X X X Carolyn,

Darlene

Annually • N

• CInt

8. Participate in Tribal DI Network X X Morris, Kim Annually • N

• T• R• M• W

9. Consult with Tribes in NE and NHHS for the

best ways to ensure implementation of PWWSin Tribal country.

X X X Morris CNSL, POIS 9/04 • 

• 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s):Sub-Objective 2.1.1 (6): Through our State, Tribal and local partners protect sources of drinking water from contamination so th

(50% by 2008) source water areas (both surface and ground water) for community water systems will achieve minimized risk to puestimated be 5%; minimized risk” achieved by substantial implementation, as determined by the State, of source water protection aprotection strategy.)
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 12 of 65

1. By end of 2004, 10% of source water area for

CWS will have source water protectionstrategies in place, 2% of source water areas forCWS will have implemented some aspects ofsource water protection strategies by:a) Providing training to States/Tribesb) Providing SWP implementationguidance/strategy to States/Tribes c) Receive summary of assessment results tofocus State and EPA outreach efforts d) Issue SWP small grants e) Assist Sedalia CWS in developing a sourcewater strategy. f) Assist the IA Great Lakes area to developstronger implementation mechanisms toimplement a watershed protection strategy ofwhich source water is a piece. g) Provide support to the Ground Waterfoundation with emphasis on source waterprotection and achieving the above goals 

Stephanie,

Kurt, Pat 

Stephanie

Stephanie Stephanie,

Kurt, Pat 

Stephanie 

Jeannette,

Stephanie 

Jeannette,

Kurt

OEP

WPIB

WPIB, GRAD

WPIB, OEP

P2, OEP

OEP, P2 

On-goingOn-going

AnnualAnnualAnnual

On-going

• • • • • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 13 of 65

2. Address 100% of Classes I, II, III, and V wells

identified in violation.

Kurt, Ted,Pat

Annual • 

• 

3. Prohibit Class IV wells and Endangering Class

V wells

Kurt, Ted,Pat

Annual • 

• 

f
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 14 of 65

4. Class I and Class II wells maintain mechanical

integrity.

Kurt, Ted,Pat

Annual • 

• • 

5. By end of 2004, 2% of ground water-based

source water areas for CWS will have a ClassV survey completed.

Kurt Annual • 

(CasurSta
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 15 of 65

6. By the end of 2004, 90% of known Class V

motor vehicle waste disposal wells will beclosed or permitted.

Kurt Annual • 

(Th

7. By the end of 2004, the number of inspections

conducted for Class II and Class V will increase_2% for a total 10% by 2008 using 2003 as thebaseline.

Kurt, Ted,Pat

ENSV for IowaDI Inspections

Annual • 

8. State Performance Reviews for KS, MO, & NE Kurt, Ted,

Pat

Annual • 

9. State workplan negotiation and Evaluation Kurt, Ted,

Pat

Annual • 

10. When requested complete Vulcan Petition. Ted TBD • P

(Th

11. Support Superfund actions that result in

protection of source water.

Jeff Quarterly • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s):Sub-Objective 2.1.1 (7): By 2015, in coordination with other Federal agencies, reduce by 50% the number of hou

lacking access to safe drinking water.
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement), 

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 16 of 65

Sub-Objective 2.1.1 (8): Safeguard Water InfrastructureStrategic target: Through 2008, safeguard public health and safety by providing technical support to drinking water and 1. Timely submission of vulnerability assessments

to HQ and other requirements in accordancewith the Bioterrorism Act of 2002.

Ralph, Ken • 

• 

2. Emergency response plans developed by

drinking water utilities.

Ralph, Ken • 

• 

3. Emergency response drinking water and waste

water conference held in St. Louis.

Ralph • 

4. Communication/Outreach -

Provide technical assistance on an ongoingbasis.

Kim Quarterly • C

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s):
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 17 of 65

Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health

Sub-Objective 2.1.2: Fish & Shellfish Safe to Eat

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 2.1.2 (1): By 2008, the quality of water and sediments will be improved to allow increased on consumption of fish 

water miles/ acres identified by States or Tribes as having a fish consumption advisory in 2002. (2002 Baseline: 485,205 river mi

were identified by States or Tribes in 2002 as having fish with chemical contamination levels resulting in an advisory of potential 

consumption.)List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): ENSV will be the Regional lead for achieving this goal, and WWPD w

accomplish this goal.
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 18 of 65

Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health

Sub-Objective 2.1.3: Water Safe for Swimming

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

Y/N

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 2.1.3: By 2008, the quality of recreational waters nationwide will be protected so that the number of waterborne d

to swimming in, or other recreational contact with, the ocean, rivers, lakes, or streams will be reduced to not more than 8, measure(2002 Baseline: an average of 9 recreational contact waterborne disease outbreaks reported per year by the Centers for Disease C

1998)

1. Participate in the statistically valid compliance

evaluation for CSOs by conducting therequired inspections and reporting thenecessary information. Take enforcement asneeded.

X JacksonJohnson Y 09/04 • 

2. Develop an inventory of all communities with

SSOs in the Region. With the States,categorize the communities by 1) existingcorrection underway, 2) limited problems tobe addressed by the State, and 3) problemswhich need a strong federal appraoch.

X TBD GPCB Y Ongoing • 

3. Continue to support Iowa’s Open Feedlot

program. 

X X Higbee Y Ongoing • 

4. Perform a full review of the Nebraska NPDES

program.

X Staff WIMB

WRPBCNSL

N 0604 • 

Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality 
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 19 of 65

Sub-Objective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality Via Watersheds

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 2.2.1 (1): Protect and Restore Water Quality at the Watershed Scale1. Provide regional leadership on watershed

issues. Present R7's watershed-relatedefforts to HQ and other Regions.

X X X X Elfving All programs,

emphasisWWPD

Y On-going • 

2. Participate in National, State and Local

Policy/ Initiative/ Regulation/ GuidanceDevelopment

X X X X Elfving WWPD, RGAD Y On-going • 

3. Coordinate internally and with national,

State and local entities to assurecomprehensive watershed planning andimplementation of watershed efforts toaddress WQ and other environmentalproblems. 

X X X X Elfving,

Fenemore,Davis,Hamera,Taylor,Mulder,Daniels,Ousley

Potentially allprograms

Y On-going • 

4. Regional contact with Headquarters and

others for implementing the WatershedInitiative within the Region (Rathbun Lake,Upper White River).

X X X X Elfving Potentially all

programs

Y On-going • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 20 of 65

5. Use or aid others in using available tools toaccomplish program goals, like focused goalsetting, efficient implementation steps, outputmeasurements, coordinated electronic/hardcopy reporting, enhanced awareness oroutreach, feedback to all parties, & othermeasures.

X X X X Elfving Potentially all

programs, butespeciallyWWPD

Y On-going,

asrequested

• 

6. Provide technical assistance to at least 3local watershed entities, (Metro KC RegionalWater Resources Planning, Policies, andProcedures (WRP3) Project , KVHA, andTable Rock Lake area, Iowa Great Lakes,Sedalia)

X X X X Elfving,

Ferguson, Bertelsen,Schafer

WQMBNFMB

Y on-going • 

7. Implement and Oversee the Water QualityCooperative Agreements program to provideresources for at least 4 additional localwatershed planning efforts annually.

X X X X Schafer,

Bertelsen,Ferguson,Techau

WWPD, ENSV Y on-going • 

8. Conduct agriculture-related coordinationwith federal, State and local organizations

X X X All WQMB, WIMB,

RA

Y on-going • 

9. Coordinate with water-related programoutreach activities, internally and externally

X X X All WWPD

OEP

Y on-going • 

10. Provide support to DDD for watershedManagement Council activities.

X X WPIB Staff WWPD Y on-going • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): Shifting program priorities; reduced travel and financial resources; redon watershed issues.
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 21 of 65

Coordinate with and Participate in Internal and External Activities to Achieve Better Cross-Program Inte

Environmental Protection

11. Participate in planning strategies, projectsand selection processes giving technical andpolicy assistance from a WPIB perspective(such as Regional Cross-Media Team,Missouri’s MoWIN, Regional WaterMonitoring Team, Kansas Wetland andRiparian Alliance, and CBEP/EJ projects)

X X X all everywhere Y On-going • 

12. Participate in current Branch, Divisional,Regional, and National activities/initiatives asactive team members (such as IGMSdeployment team, Strategic/Operating PlanningTeam, Ag Strategy development, and OutreachStrategy development)

X X X X all everywhere Y On-going • 

13. Participate in outreach efforts of others toprovide information, awareness, and directionon water quality management planning andother issues (such as Eagle Days, other CBEPevents, and Groundwater Festival)

X X X all NA Y On-going • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): Single issue drivers such as citizen lawsuits, external forces such as re

structural issues such as organizational alignments all can block effective coordination efforts.
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box)

Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 22 of 65

Oversee State and Tribal WQ Management Planning Processes to Assure State WQ Program Activities Mee

14. Coordinate & assist State work plan

development to insure conformance withexisting State WQ Mgmt Plans.

X X TBD WQMB, NFMB,

EMWC

Y varies • 

15. Participate in States’ updates of WQM

Plan components, i.e., basin plans, CPP’s,TMDL, and NPS actions.

X X TBD WQMB, NFMB,

EMWC

Y varies • 

 

16. Conduct reviews of WQM components to

satisfy court orders, and settlementagreements.

X X TBD WQMB, NFMB,

EMWC

Y varies • 

17. Integrate & coordinate directions/ actions

so planned WQM outcomes result fromand are supported by other CWA programs(External to WPIB).

X X TBD WQMB, NFMB,

EMWC

Y varies • 

18. Provide analysis of overall State funding

for water programs and makerecommendations to Division Director onfunding issues impacting effective WQMactions

X X TBD WQMB, NFMB, Y annually

beforepre-Stateworkplanningmeetings

• 

19. Provide direct technical and managerial

assistance to R7 Tribes for water qualitymanagement planning, monitoring, andgroundwater protection

X X X Hayes,

Davis

WQMB, NFMB,DWGW

Y varies • 

• 
(Key Actions) box) (Lead

Person) (Program acronym) ment? (Y/N) line

Completed

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 23 of 65

20. Provide coordination and support and

build Tribal capacity for more effectiveimplementation of all water programs

X X X Hayes,

Davis

WQMB, NFMBDWGW,Regional TribalGroup

Y varies • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1) Problems may be caused by forces beyond WPIB control. 2) Adeqavailable. 3) Available resources are focused on one portion of WQ Management processes to the detriment of others.

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 2.2.1(2): Conduct Comprehensive, Balanced, and Scientifically Defensible Water Quality MonitoPrograms1. Each Region 7 State will prepare and adopt

a comprehensive State water monitoringstrategy that identifies and addressesadditional actions necessary for the State toachieve comprehensive ambientmonitoring coverage, conduct necessarysite specific, program-related developmentmonitoring, and utilize defensiblemonitoring and assessment science. Thestrategy should specifically include the 10elements of the March 2003 “Elements of aState Water Monitoring and AssessmentProgram” EPA guidance document.

X X X TBD WQMB, ENSV Y End

FY04

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 24 of 65

2. Each State will develop an implementation

plan for the monitoring strategy that willaddress needed resources, and identifywhat existing and future sources of fundingincluding EPA grants, other federal andState agency participation, and Statefunding avenues will be used to meet thoseneeds. The plan also will include aschedule which will lead to substantialimplementation of the strategy by FY08.

X X X TBD WQMB, ENSV Y End

FY04

• p

3. Each State will establish a process to

develop annual goals for improving thecomprehensiveness of its ambient waterquality monitoring and increasing thecapacity for special studies as part of itsimplementation plan, and will report on thestatus of meeting those goals in FY06.

X X X TBD WQMB, ENSV Y End

FY04

• p

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): State budget resource limitations or State legislative policy direction mdevelopment and/or implementation. Resource trade-offs between special study and ambient monitoring needs may also slow pro

implementation.
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 25 of 65

Assess the Quality of R7 Waters to Guide CWA Programs and Determine the Program Effec

4. Guide State submissions of WQ information

so they better reflect EPA guidelines andresult in more comprehensive assessmentsof State Waters 

X X X TBD ENSV, WQMB,

WPIB

Y 4/1- even

yr4/1 - oddyr

• • 

5. Participate in EPA HQ & RO water

monitoring activities to focus good science& develop better tools to improve waterassessments.

X X X TBD ENSV, WQMB Y on-going • 

6. Develop the portrayal of WQ trends and

status in the Region and communicate thatto division and region 

X X X TBD ENSV, WQMB Y on-going • 

• • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1) Funding available and long term funding commitments for samplingmanagement is inadequate at all (federal, State, & local) levels. 2) Political will to pursue funds for monitoring and assessment is 

meet the needs. 3) TMDL program intercepts most funding that would be directed at this phase of monitoring & assessment and defforts exacerbating the broader view of the resource. 4) CWA language and regulations give wide latitude to scope and format o

making nationwide or region-wide analysis complex and cumbersome. 5) The upgraded national STORET data system is not able 

data management tool, is only rarely usable as a basic tool for data manipulation, and is years away from the useability expected f

Because WQ changes occur gradually, five to ten or more years are needed to confirm real changes linked to land treatment. Shor

effective because of the masking effects from climatic and hydrologic variability.

Review and Provide Comment on the 2004 303(d) Listing Methodology
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 26 of 65

7. Missouri X Teter N/A Y Jan. 2004 • Is8. Nebraska X Kemp N/A Y Dec.

2003

• Is

9. Kansas X Detrich N/A Y Jan. 2004 • Is10. Iowa X Schwaab N/A Y April

2004

• Is

Review State 2004 303(d) Impaired Waters Lists

11. Missouri: Approval/Disapproval action

within 30 days of final submission

X X X Teter N/A Y May

2004

• Is

12. Nebraska: Approval/Disapproval action

within 30 days of final submission

X X X Kemp N/A Y May

2004

• Is

13. Kansas: Approval/Disapproval action

within 30 days of final submission

X X X Detrich N/A Y May

2004

• Is

14. Iowa: Approval/Disapproval action within

30 days of final submission

X X X Schwaab N/A Y May

2004

• Is

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s):Sub-Objective 2.2.1 (3): Restore Water Quality via TMDL Program Integration
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 27 of 65

1. Ag. Coordination / USDA & State Ag

Agencies – Coordination of TMDLImplementation

X Frizzell*

Generaux

Assc RA Ag,WPIB

Y Feb 2004 • 

2. NPS & BMP Effectiveness X Frizzell*

Generaux

WPIB Y August

2004

• 

3. Coordination with WQ Stds / Nutrient

Criteria Development

X Generaux*

Lavaty

WQ Stds, ENSV Y May

2004

• 

4. Coordination with Superfund, RCRA, and

Other Regional Programs

X Frizzell

Generaux*LavatyMillerHua

SUPR, RCRA Y Feb 2004 • 

5. Endangered Species Coordination / USFWS X Frizzell*

Hua

CNSL Y Dec 2004 • 

6. InterState/Tribal TMDL issues X Generaux

Lavaty*

POIS Y On-going • 

• 

7. Liaison 303d / 305(b) Lists X Frizzell

Generaux*LavatyMillerHua

No Y June

2004

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 28 of 65

8. Regional Monitoring X Lavaty*

Generaux

ENSV Y On-going • 

• 

9. Stormwater Coordination X Generaux

Lavaty*

WIMB Y Checklist

modifiedby Dec.2003 Coordination ongoing

• • 

10. NPDES / CAFO Coordination X Generaux

FrizzellMiller*

WIMB Y Checklist

modifiedby Dec.2003Coordination ongoing

• 

11. Pesticide Coordination X Frizzell* PEST Y Checklist

modifiedby Dec.2004Coordination ongoing

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 29 of 65

12. Coordination with USGS X Generaux ENSV Y March

2004

• 

Restore Water Quality via State TMDL Capacity Building

13. Pathogen Study X Hua*

Frizzell

ENSV Y On-going • 

14. Regional TMDL Conference X Frizzell

GenerauxLavatyMillerHua

No Y August

2004

• 

15. Shallow Lakes Study X Lavaty*

Generaux 

No Y On-going • 

16. State Programs Technical Capacity

Development

X Generaux*

LavatyMiller

No Y June

2004

 • 

17. State Training Coordination X Frizzell No Y June

2004

• 

18. State Programs Coordination & Strategy

Development

X Generaux No Y On-going • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 30 of 65

19. Exotic / Invasive Species X Lavaty No N On-going • 

20. Sediment Modeling X Lavaty*

Generaux

No Y Sediment

workgroup mtg byJune2004

• 

Restore Water Quality via TMDL Technical Review

21. TMDL – Draft Reviews X Generaux*

LavatyMillerFrizzell

WQS Y On-going • 

22. TMDL – Final Reviews X Generaux*

LavatyMillerFrizzell

WQS Y On-going • 

23. Wasteload Allocations / Reasonable

Potential Calculations

X Miller *

Generaux

WIMB Y Yearly

TMDLfollowupletter in Jan 2004

• 

Restore Water Quality via TMDL Tracking and Administration
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 31 of 65

24. Lawsuit Support and Tickler File

Maintenance

X Frizzell*

Hua

CNSL Y On-going • 

25. National Database and Web Page

Maintenance 

X Hua No Y On-going • 

26. Tickler file for phased TMDLs X Frizzell

Hua

No Y Yearly

TMDLfollowupletter in Jan 2004

• 

27. TMDL – Decision Packages including

Adm. Record and Index Reviews 

X Generaux

Lavaty*MillerFrizzell

No N On-going • 

28. Contract/Grant Administration X Miller PLMG Y On-going • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s):Sub-Objective 2.2.1 (4): Develop Water Quality Management Plans for the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 32 of 65

1. Ensure coordinated EPA programs

implementation on the Missouri andMississippi Rivers nationally, across EPARegions and throughout the MississippiRiver basin, particularly with regard toGulf hypoxia issues.

X X X Shepard on-going • 

2. Ensure consistent application and

implementation of the requirements ofsections 303(c) and 303(d) of the CWA tothe mainstem of the Missouri andMississippi River.

X X X Shepard WQMB on-going • 

3. Ensure accurate assessment and

communication of the water quality of theMissouri and Mississippi Rivers to naturalresource managers and the public.

X X X Shepard ENSV on-going • 

4. Efficient and effective implementation of

federal programs across federal agencies andthe Mississippi River basin.

X X Shepard WQMB, ENSV on-going • 

5. Improve compliance of federal projects

sited on the mainstem of the Missouri andMississippi Rivers with the requirementsof NEPA.

X X X Shepard ENSV on-going • 

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 33 of 65

6. Foster sustainable development of river

communities on the Missouri andMississippi Rivers.

X X Shepard OEP on-going • 

7. Complete national and Region 7 plans for

dealing with the Lewis and ClarkBicentennial events within the nation andthe Region, respectively, in the 2003-06time period.

X X Shepard OEP 6/02 • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): Current Impediments: 1) Lack of clear policy direction on hypoxia issue from HQ. 2) Lack of clear policy direction on TMDLs budgetary commitment to Mississippi River Basin System Team (MRBST) from Office of Water.Future Impediments: 1) Travel funding. 2) FTE support.Sub-Objective 2.2.1 (5): Develop Effective Water Quality Standards (WQS) that Protect Existing High Quality WFishable and Swimable Uses

Approve/Disapprove State Water Quality Standards

1. Kansas: Approval/Disapproval Action -

WQS Revisions: Kansas Senate Bill 2219 

X X X X Detrich N/A Y Dec.

2003

• 

2. Iowa: Approval/Disapproval Action -

partial WQS Revisions

X X X X Schwaab N/A Y Sept.

2004

• 

Participate in Regional Water Quality Standards Workgroups
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 34 of 65

3. Region 7 RTAG Team X Teter, 

Detrich, Kemp, Schwaab

N/A Y Semiannually • 

Complete Water Quality Standards Use Attainability Analysis Reviews 

4. Kansas: Submission of approximately 200

UAAs

X Detrich N/A Y Dec.

2003

• 

5. Missouri: Primary Contact Recreation UAA

Protocol Review

X Teter N/A Y Sept.r

2004

• 

6. Nebraska: UAA Protocol Review X Kemp N/A Y Decembe

r 2003

• 

7. Nebraska: Submission of approximately 100

UAA’s

X Kemp N/A Y Septembe

r 2004

• 

8. Iowa: Primary Contact Recreation

Assessment Protocol Review

X Schwaab N/A Y Septembe

r 2004

• 

9. Iowa: MOU Assessment Submission -

negotiation for new commitment dates

X Schwaab N/A Y Nov 2003 • 

10. Nebraska: Final State/EPA MOU for

UAA’s

X Kemp N/A Y Oct 2003 • 

Provide Water Quality Standards Technical Assistance

11. Kansas Potowatomi Tribe WQS Review X Detrich N/A Y On-going • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 35 of 65

Sub-Objective 2.2.1 (5): Develop Effective Water Quality Standards (WQS) that Protect Existing High Qual

Fishable and Swimable Uses

Approve/Disapprove State Water Quality Standards

1. Kansas: Approval/Disapproval Action -

WQS Revisions: Kansas Senate Bill 2219 

X X X X Detrich N/A Y Dec.

2003

• 

2. Iowa: Approval/Disapproval Action - partial

WQS Revisions

X X X X Schwaab N/A Y Septembe

r, 2004

• 

Participate in Regional Water Quality Standards Workgroups 

3. Region 7 RTAG Team X Teter, 

Detrich, Kemp, Schwaab

N/A Y Semiannually • 

Complete Water Quality Standards Use Attainability Analysis Reviews 

4. Kansas: Submission of approximately 200

UAAs

X Detrich N/A Y Dec.

2003

• 

5. Missouri: Primary Contact Recreation UAA

Protocol Review

X Teter N/A Y Sept.

2004

• 

6. Nebraska: UAA Protocol Review X Kemp N/A Y Dec.

2003

• R

p

7. Nebraska: Submission of approximately

100 UAA’s

X Kemp N/A Y Sept.

2004

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 36 of 65

8. Iowa: Primary Contact Recreation

Assessment Protocol Review

X Schwaab N/A Y Sept..

2004

• 

9. Iowa: MOU Assessment Submission -

negotiation for new commitment dates

X Schwaab N/A Y Nov.

2003

• 

10. Nebraska: Final State/EPA MOU for

UAA’s

X Kemp N/A Y Oct. 2003 • 

Provide Water Quality Standards Technical Assistance

11. Kansas Potowatomi Tribe WQS Review X Detrich N/A Y On-going • P

a

12. NPDES Permit Writers X X Teter, 

Detrich, Kemp, Schwaab

N/A Y On-going • 

Review State 106/604(b) Workplans for WQS Activities 

13. Rview Draft 106 Workplans (PPG) for KS,

IA, NE, and MO

X Teter, 

Detrich,Kemp, Schwaab

N/A Y Annually

- 4th

Quarter

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 37 of 65

14. Review draft 604(b) Grant Workplans for

KS, IA, NE, and MO

X Teter

DetrichKempSchwaab

N/A Y Annually

- 4th

Quarter

• 

Resolve Water Quality Standards Backlog Disapprovals

15. Missouri: State/EPA MOU for outstanding

disapproved WQS Revisions

X Teter N/A Y June

2004

• 

16. Iowa: Revise/ Final State/EPA MOU for

outstanding disapproved WQS Revisions

X Schwaab N/A Y Sept.

2004

• 

Integrate Endangered Species Act Requirements with Water Quality Standards

17. Endangered Species Coordination /

USFWS (See 2.2.1(6) Activity 5)

X Frizzell,*

Schwaab,Teter,Kemp

CNSL Y Dec.

2004

• 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s):Sub-Objective 2.2.1 (6): States Implement and Update Their Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Non -Point Source 

Restore Water Quality.

1. Assure States complete annual progress

reports to identify and document changesto State NPS Management Plans and toallow Region 7 to provide feedback afterreview of State reports. 

X X X Davis,

Elfving,Fenemore,Hamera

WQMB Y Annually

- Sept. 30

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 38 of 65

2. Conduct formal State program reviews to

monitor NPS Program progress. 

X X X Davis,

Belvill,Hamera

WQMB Y on-going • 

3. Work with States to bolster key elements

of effective NPS Management Programs;also to guide and approve amendments toState NPS Management Plans.

X X X Davis,

Belvill,Hamera

WQMB Y on-going • 

4. Determine “Satisfactory Progress” (CWA

§319(h)(8)) prior to award of annual §319grant.

X X X Davis, 

Belvill, Hamera

N/A Y annually • 

5. Participate in review/selection and

negotiation of State-proposed watershedproject revisions to ensure that revisedprograms and projects comply with National NPS Program and GrantsGuidelines.

X X X Davis,

Belvill,Ferguson,Hamera

(WQMP)WQMB

Y variable • 

6. Participate on National/ State/EPA

Workgroups

X X X Davis on-going • 

7. Provide Regional guidance and technical

assistance to States on their use of theGrant & Project Reporting and TrackingSystem (GRTS).

X X X Belvill ENSV

WQMB

Y Aug. 30 • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 39 of 65

8. Review and comment on draft final

products and other products of State NPSPrograms. 

X X X Davis,

Elfving,Fenemore,Hamera

WQMB Y • # 

9. Participate on National and Regional NPS

coordinators conference calls

X X X Davis,

Elfving,Fenemore,Hamera

N/A Y monthly • 

10. Enhance internal and external NPS

program coordination specifically with

source water protection, TMDLdevelopment / implementation and nutrientcriteria

X X Bertelsen,

Davis, Elfving,Fenemore,Ferguson,Bruene,Hamera, Schafer

WQMB,DWGW, ENSV,CWSRF

Y on-going • 

• • 

11. Provide technical assistance to targeted

watershed projects and/or groups.

X X X Bertelsen,

Davis, Elfving,Fenemore,Ferguson,Bruene,Hamera, Schafer

ENSV Y on-going • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 40 of 65

12. Review TMDLs (submitted to WQMB for

approval), particularly those producedby/for entities that would potentiallyimplement them with §319 incrementalfunds

X X X Davis,

Elfving,Fenemore,Hamera

WQMB Y • 

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): (1) Perception by State and Locals that §319 funding is for demonstration and not implementation. (2) Lack of State resources and local capacity/ willingness to develop adequate watershed projects and to link with TMDL schedules and plans

(3) Lack of WPIB resources to provide necessary direct technical assistance and program management.

Sub-Objective 2.2.1 (7): Increase Number of NPDES Permits Issued and Keep All Permits Current1. Increase working with the States to ensure

reduction on permit backlog with TMDLdevelopment.

X X Dunn WQMB Y on-going • 

2. Perform a reviews of State NPDES

programs under the Permit PriorityInitiative.

X Staff WPIB, WQMB,

CNSL

N 09/04 • 

3. Assist in development of State permits. X X Dunn WQMB Y on-going • 4. Review permits as required in Missouri

TMDL settlement and Iowa TMDLsettlement.

X Dunn,

Summers 

WQMB Y 09/04 • 

5. Revise Nebraska NPDES MOA X Surampalli WPIB, WQMB Y 09/04 • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 41 of 65

6. Improve permit backlogs: 90% of major

permits are current for majors by end of2004 for IA, KS, MO, NE. Minor permitscurrent: 90% for IA, KS. 82% for MO,43% for NE.

X X Staff N/A Y 09/04 • 

7. Continue administration of the WET

prgrm.

X X Matthews N/A Y on-going • 

8. Maintain effective existing CAFO permit

prgrm. Reduce CAFO prmt backlog(IA&NE).

Summers • 

9. Establish effective revised State CAFO

NPDES permit programs based on revisedCAFO Rule (including appropriate use ofalternative technology systems). [ EPA HQguidance reflects R7 input. Revised Stateprograms are tracked, coordinated,reviewed, and approved as appropriate. State-by-State outreach.}

Summers, Matthews

On-going(Fy04 and FY05)

• 

10. Effective CAFO program within Indian

Country [Technical Standards for NutrientManagement are established. NEPA iscompleted as necessary for new sources. CAFO permits are issued.]

Summers,Matthews

FY05 • 

• 

11. Ensure MS4 Permits are issued for KC,

MO and Independence, MO

X X Dunn

Matthews

N/A Y 09/04 • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 42 of 65

12. KDHE establishes general permit coverage

for storm water from industrial activities.

Matthews 9/04 • 

13. Provide technical assistance to the States in

their drafting of NPDES permits for PhaseII MS4s.

Matthews On-going • 

14. Administer the general permit for storm

water from construction sites within Indiancountry in R7.

Owens On-going • 

15. Continue outreach, as requested X X Staff OEP Y on-going • 16. Continue tracking the status, review, and

comment on draft State regulations.

X X Staff OEP Y on-going • 

17. Develop and implement a system to

monitor compliance at all facilities onTribal land

X Owens N/A on-going • 

18. Issue Tribal permits X X Owens,

Surampalli,Owutaka

WPIBWQMB

09/04 • 

Sub-Objective 2.2.1 (8): Increase Utilization of SRF Funds to Priority Ranked Systems1. Ensure reg. rqmnts are met for DWSRF

and CWSRF Grants, Intended Use Plans(including bond documents in leveragedprograms and cash flow models), priorityranking systems and project fundable lists. 

X X X PO DWGW 

GPCB

Y 2 yrs

fromappropriation

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel (Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Page 43 of 65

2. Provide programmatic technical assistance

in meeting program requirements. 

X PO DWGW Y 30 days

from rqst

• 

3. Provide financial technical assistance in

meeting program requirements.

X FACT Y 30 days

from rqst

• 

4. Assist States in managing Set-asides use. X PO DWGW Y on-going • 5. Close grants in a timely manner. X PO PLMG 60 days • 6. Increase number of CWSRF projects that

have initiated operations.

SRF POs NPDES Permits Y Annual • 

7. Annual Review PO / FACT DWGW, WPIB N Annual • 8. Manage Special Infrastructure Grants X PO GRAD, NEPA Y on-going • List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1) Lack of FTE resources to complete tasks, especially with the addition of new D

developed. 2) State FTE resources are currently lagging behind. 3) Operator Certification and Capacity Development withholding.

Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality 

Sub-Objective 2.2.2: Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters. 

Region 7 does not have a coastal or ocean waters program.

Target 3This Target is reserved to align the WWPD Strategic Plan with the Region 7 Strategic Plan Architecture. WWPD does 

Target 3 at this time.
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 44 of 65

Target 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Objective 4.1: Reduce Risks to Human Health via Exposure to Chemicals, Organisms, and Pes

Sub-Objective 4.1.1: Successfully implement the following programs: FIFRA/FQPA and the Endangered Species A

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

Sub-Objective 4.1.1 (1): Reduce risks to human health and the environment through implementing the followinFQPA; and Endangered Species Act1. Provide effective and timely technicalassistance to the States.

X X X X State Project

Officers

None Y on-going • 

2. Assist States/ Tribes in providing pesticideinspector training.

X X X X State Project

Officers

None Y 4/30/04 • 

3. Assist headquarters with development ofpolicy and regulation.

X X X State Project

Officers &EnfrcementTeam

None Y on-going • 

4. Negotiate and provide oversight for theannual numbers and types of inspections andother enforcement program areas.

X X X State Project

Officers

None Y 9/30/04 • 

• 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 45 of 65

5. Participate in national efforts to address Ecommerce, antimicrobial, mosquito control andother enforcement initiatives. Encourage SLAefforts in these areas during negotiations,provide technical assistance, and enforcementcase review as appropriate.

X X State Project

Officers

None Y 9/30/04 • 

6. Work with States to develop projectsintended to reduce the misuse of pesticides inurban and agricultural areas.

X X State Project

Officers

None Y on-going • 

7. Continue to track and provide support toState efforts to fully utilize LC/MS/MSequipment, including holding a meeting of thefour States.

X X X State Project

Officers

None Y on-going • 

• 

8. Work with State lead agencies to assurecounty bulletins and State initiated plans arecurrent. 

X X State Project 

Officers

None Y 6/30/04

9/30/04

N • 

9. Use mid and end-of-year evaluations toassure States are adequately implementing theirState initiated plans and are meeting work plancommitments.

X X State Project

Officers

None Y 6/30/04

9/30/04

N • 

10. Participate in national meetings, workshops,and conference calls intended to shareinformation and chart direction for theendangered species program.

X X David

Ramsey

None N 9/30/04 N • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 46 of 65

11. Work with SLA’s on emerging issuesregarding endangered species (e.g. new specieslisting).

X X State Project

Officers

None Y on-going N • S

aciss

12. Provide timely solicitation and review ofPESP grant proposals.

X X X Brad

Horchem

None Y 06/30/04 N • A

re06

13. Complete awards process for PESP grants. X X X Brad

Horchem

PLMG Y 06/30/04 N • P

14. Assure adequate progress on existing PESPgrants.

X X X Assigned

ProjectOfficer

None Y on-going N • P

15. Coordinate closely within Region 7 onissues relating to the Regional Ag Initiative.

X X X Brad

Horchem

Various RegionalPrograms

Y on-going N • E

iss

16. Coordinate closely with the National AgCompliance Center, USDA, and Regional PestManagement Centers.

X X X Brad

Horchem

Ag-ComplianceCenter

Y on-going N • E

iss

17. Identify and establish links with variousgroups and organizations involved withagriculture in Region 7.

X X X Brad

Horchem

Various RegionalPrograms

Y 09/30/04 N • N

18. Develop and implement one to two modelagricultural partnership projects in FY 2004 insupport of the national APG/APM.

X X X Brad

Horchem

Various RegionalPrograms

Y 09/30/04 N • S

pa

19. Provide timely solicitation and review ofAg-Initiative grant proposals.

X X X Brad

Horchem

WatershedBranch

Y 04/01/04 N • T

re
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 47 of 65

20. Complete awards process for new AgInitiative grants. X X X Brad Horchem None Y 09/30/04 N • F

21. Assure adequate progress on existing AgInitiative grants. X X X Brad Horchem None Y On-going NA • P22. Attend grower group meetings and fielddays and work with Extension, Universities,State Departments of Ag, NRCS & growergroups to develop effective workingrelationships.

X X X Brad

Horchem

None Y On-going N

A

• M

23. Work with SLA’s to promote homelandsecurity awareness among the regulatedcommunity.

X X X X Luetta

Flournoy

RICT Y on-going N

A

24. Work with SLA’s to identify potentialsecurity concerns.

X X X X Luetta

Flournoy

RICT Y on-going N

A

• Sco

25. Participate in national pesticides programworkgroup to identify and develop strategies foraddressing security concerns relating topesticides.

X X X X Luetta

Flournoy

RICT Y on-going N

A

• Sco

26. Participate in Regional anti-terrorismworking group

X X X X Luetta

Flournoy

RICT N on-going N

A

• Sco
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 48 of 65

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1. Staff shortages within PEST will impact the ability of the Branch to complete all activities at the desired level. 2. Available travel dollars may impact the ability of PEST staff to participate in region and national meetings.3. A lack of resources at the State level may impact their level of effort in this program area.4. Staff shortages within PEST and other Branches will impact the ability of the Branch to complete all activities at the desired le5. Available travel dollars may impact the ability of PEST staff to participate in national meetings.6. Completing the solicitation process by the projected date is dependent upon headquarters completing their guidance, etc.7. Completing the awards process by 09/29/04 is dependent upon the grantee submitting their grant application packet in a timely 8. Maintaining Security initiative as a national priority.Sub-Objective 4.1.1 (2): Assure protection of both ground and surface water resources from pesticides. 1. Following publication of the final PMP rule,provide guidance and support to SLA’s andinterested Tribes as to the develop andimplement their Pesticide Management Plans.

X X X X Jamie Green POIS, DWMB,

WQMB,WPIB,and ENSV

Y Dependen

t uponfinal rule

N • 3

of inac

2. Provide support to the Potawatomi Tribe indeveloping a Generic Pesticide Mgmt Plan.

X X X X Jamie Green POIS, DWMB,

WQMB,WPIB,and ENSV

Y 09/30/04 N • A

3. Continue to implement the PEST Branchplan for facilitating coordination on pesticides/water quality issues with other Branches withinWWPD, State lead agencies and their wateragency counterparts.

X X X X Jamie Green DWMB,

WQMB,WPIB

Y 09/30/04 N • P

m• Hagdiot• Hwi
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 49 of 65

4. Assure States and Tribes with FIFRA PPGsor other FIFRA grants including work related topesticides and water quality complete agreedupon activities.

X X X X Jamie Green POIS, DWMB,

WQMB,WPIB,ENSV

Y 09/30/02 N • E

prof ac

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1. The proposed PMP rule has not been published and may not be. Without the final rule, States will not seek to develop or imp

event the rule is not published, additional national guidance will be needed in this program area.

2. The completion of Tribal Generic PMPs is hindered by a lack of capacity within the Tribes.3. Staff shortages within PEST and other Branches will impact the ability of the Branch to complete all activities at the desired le

4. A lack of resources at the State or Tribal level may impact their level of effort in this program area.

Sub-Objective 4.1.1 (3): Ensure that all environmental data collected in support of FIFRA programs will meet acontrols standards and enhance data collection and sharing.1. Work closely with Region 7 QualityAssurance staff to assure any evolving QMP orQAPP requirements are meaningful andappropriate for State and Tribal pesticideprograms.

X X X State Project

Officers

ENSV Y NA N

A

• QmSt
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 50 of 65

2. Assure any reviews of existing QAPPs withState lead agencies are timely and any requiredchanges are meaningful.

X X X X State Project

Officers

ENSV Y 06/30/04

09/30/04

N • C

plag

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1. Staff shortages within PEST and other Branches will impact the ability of the Branch to complete all activities at the desired leSub-Objective 4.1.1 (4): Promote effective implementation of pesticide program activities by Tribes and build T1. Actively participate in the development ofnational pesticides and OPPTS Tribal Strategiesand other guidance.

X X X X Tribal

ProjectOfficers

POIS Y NA N

A

• Mrepr

2. Assure accountability regarding completionof work plan activities and required reports.

X X X X Tribal

ProjectOfficers

POIS Y * End of

Tribalgrantbudgetperiods

N Tr

doacin 

3. Develop PEST guidance addressing thosefactors to consider when evaluating whatoptions may best meet pesticide program goalson Tribal lands.

X X X Tribal

ProjectOfficers

POIS Y 09/30/04 N • A 

do

4. Assist in providing a pesticide inspectorsworkshop which includes Tribes.

X X X X State and

TribalProjectOfficers

None Y 04/30/04 N • A

in
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 51 of 65

5. Provide timely solicitation of OPP TribalGround Water grants and Special Project Grantsand award of selected proposals.

X X X John Tice POIS Y 04/30/04 N • S

anfo

6. Facilitate, and participate in, meetings withTribal and county, and State political leaders todiscuss the future of Tribal pesticide programson the Winnebago and Omaha reservations.

X X John Tice POIS, Counsel,

OEP

Y 09/30/04 N • S

fothre

7. Participate in community outreach effortsregarding Tribal pesticide programs in Nebraskathrough public meetings, personal contacts, etc.

X X John Tice POIS, Counsel,

OEP

Y 09/30/04 N • I

acac

8 Facilitate cooperation between the KansasDepartment of Agriculture (KDA) and thePrairie Band Potawatomi Nation (PBPN) forpesticide program activities.

X X Jamie Green POIS, Counsel,

OEP

Y 09/30/04 N • C

KDpeenre

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1. Staff shortages within PEST and other Branches will impact the ability of the Branch to complete all activities at the desired le2. Staff turnover and/or other capacity challenges at the Tribal level can impede progress in these areas.* The various Tribal grants have a wide range of beginning dates due to late applications and extensions. As a result, dates for finSub-Objective 4.1.1 (5): Develop an effective communication network between all Biotechnology partners.
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 52 of 65

1. Participate in the monthly nationalconference calls to address bio-technologyissues.

X X Brad

Horchem

Y on-going N • P

co

2. Participates in a national workgroup whichhas a goal of making improvements in workingwith biotechnology products in the EUPprocess.

X X Brad

Horchem

Y 09/30/04 N • I

reco

3. Through the national workgroup, schedule anational meeting of the EPA BiotechnologyContacts, Registrants, University personnel,Grower groups and other interested parties toenhance EUP process for Biotechnologyproducts.

X X Brad

Horchem

Y 09/30/04 N • S

EUprwi

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): Available travel dollars and scheduling conflicts may make it difficult national meeting.Sub-Objective 4.1.1 (6): Share mutual accountability for program implementation with EPA Headquarters.1. Work with Headquarters in development andimplementation of program guidance. Development and implementation of an MOAwith Headquarters addressing program goals.

X X X Luetta

Flournoy

None Y 09/30/04 N • C

in en

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): None
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 53 of 65

Sub-Objective 4.1.1 (7): Provide quality technical assistance/outreach is provided to the public and regulated co

pesticide issues.

1. Search for opportunities to provide outreachto the general public and the regulatedcommunity on pesticide program activities. These may include the Western Farm Show,Earth Day celebrations, etc.

X X Mark

Lesher

Ag ComplianceCenter

Y on-going N

A

• 

2. Provide assistance to IDALS and ISU incarrying out their IPM in Schools Workshop.

MarkLesher

OEP Y 5/1/04 N • 

• 

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): None
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 54 of 65

Objective 4.1: Reduce Risks to Human Health via Exposure to Chemicals, Organisms, and 

Sub-Objective 4.1.2: Fully Implement Pesticide Health and Safety Standards

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D RNGO

Sub-Objective 4.1.2(1): Provide leadership, guidance and oversight of State/Tribal worker safety activities, inclworker protection standards and the certification and training programs for pesticide applicators.1. Monitor a minimum of two pesticideapplicator training sessions for quality andcontent.

X X X State Project

Officers

None Y 06/30/04

09/30/04

N • 

2. Review all new pesticide applicator trainingmanuals developed by the SLAs to assure theyadequately address required elements.

X X X State Project

Officers

None Y 06/30/04

09/30/04

N • 

3. All State certification and trainingaccomplishment reports will be received,reviewed, and forwarded to headquarters.

X X X State Project

Officers

None Y 30 days

after theend ofeachquarter.

N • 

4. Participate in national worker safety workgroups, conference calls and meetings.

X X X Ramsey,

Rios

None Y Ongoing NA • 
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D RNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 55 of 65

5. Complete the comprehensive review of theKansas lead agency’s implementation of theWorker Protection Program, the other threeStates have been completed previously.

X X X Rios and

State ProjectOfficers

None Y 09/30/04 • 

6. Assure States adequately implement work

plan commitments relating to worker safetyprograms.

X X X X State Project

Officers

None Y 06/30/04

09/30/04

N • E

prof 

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1. Staff shortages within PEST and other Branches will impact the ability of the Branch to complete all activities at the 2. A lack of resources at the State or Tribal level may impact their level of effort in this program area.3. Available travel dollars may impact the ability of PEST staff to participate in national meetings.* Iowa, Kansas and Missouri FIFRA PPGs function on a State fiscal year ending June 30th. Nebraska’s PPG functions ending September 30.

Objective 4.3: Ecosystems

Sub-Objective 4.3.1: Protect and Restore Habitats - See 4.3.2Sub-Objective 4.3.2: Increase Wetlands
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 56 of 65

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 4.3.2(1): Achieve “no overall net loss” of wetlands through the CWA Section 404/Wetlands progr1. Focus reviews and provide comments on 25Section 404 Projects that are most likely toresult in significant individual or cumulativeimpacts. 

X X X Daniels-MO

Taylor-IA Mulder-KS

NEPA, WQMB,DISO, CNSL

Y Ongoing • C

2. Provide comments or participate ininteragency meetings or conference calls on atleast six 404 Wetland reviews for NEPA relatedprojects.

X X X Daniels-MO

Taylor-IA Mulder-KS

NEPA, ARTD,CNSL

Y Ongoing • I

com

3. Coordinate and issue two 401 Certificationswith Tribes. 

X X X Taylor-IA 

Mulder-KS

POIS, CNSL,WQMB

Y Ongoing • C

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): All - Not having four State coordinators or sufficient staff resourcesAll - High profile projects that consume large amounts of time, e.g., Holcim, St. Johns. 1. Lack of projects that meet threshfold for significant impacts. 2. NEPA Team does not need assistance because projects lack significant impacts to water resources.3. If less than two permits are applied for in Indian Country.
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 57 of 65

Sub-Objective 4.3.2 (2): Achieve “no overall net loss” of wetlands through the CWA Section 404/Wetlands progAssistance1. Provide technical assistance for six projects,teams, workgroups, policy reviews, and/orenforcement cases.

X X X X Daniels

TaylorMulder

NEPA, WENF,WQMB, DISO,HQ-OWOW, R7Teams, CriticalEco and Ag

Y Ongoing • I

m

List/discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1. Not having four State coordinators or sufficient staff resources. 2. High profile projects that consume large amounts of time, e.g., Holcim, St. Johns.3. Reduced travel dollars.Sub-Objective 4.3.2 (3): Achieve “no overall net loss” of wetlands through the CWA Section 404/Wetlands progr1. Award and manage ten new funding

agreements.

X X X X Daniels

Taylor Mulder

WQMB,GAMU, POIS

Y Ongoing • 

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1. Reduction in national budget allocated to funding agreements. 2. High profile projects that consume large amounts of time, e.g., Holcim, St. Johns.Sub-Objective 4.3.2 (4): Achieve “no overall net loss” of wetlands through the CWA Section 404/Wetlands ProgEducation
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Page 58 of 65

1. Coordinate and hold Regional Wetlands andWater Resources Meeting. 

X X X Daniels

TaylorMulderOusleyStevens

WENF, ASVC Y Ongoing • 

2. Contribute resources or technical assistanceto 10 interagency meetings, workshops,trainings, or inreach/outreach activities.

X Stevens

DanielsTaylor MulderOusley

ASVC, EXPR Y Ongoing • 

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1. Reduced travel dollars.2. Reduced discretionary funds that support NOWCC grantee.

Objective 4.3: Ecosystems

Sub-Objective 4.3.5: Gulf of MexicoNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Target 1. 

Objective 4.5: Science & Research

Sub-Objective 4.5.1: Environmental IndicatorsNo activities for Sub-Objective Strategic Targets 1 thru 7

Target 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 59 of 65

Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance 

Sub-Objective 5.1.1: Compliance AssistanceNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Targets 1 thru 3.

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

D R N GO

Sub-Objective 5.1.1 (4): Identify any Industrial Categories Where Discharges to Water Bodies or POTWs Pose a 1. Participate on the Local Limits workgroup toensure appropriate guidance is developed.

X Marshall ongoing • G

2. Disseminate all new policy or changed policyto the approved Pretreatment Programs. 

X Marshall ongoing • L

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 

Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance 

Sub-Objective 5.1.2: Compliance IncentivesNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Targets 1 and 2. Sub-Objective 5.1.3: Monitoring and EnforcementNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Targets 1, 3, 5, and 6.
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 60 of 65

Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

Sub-Objective 5.1.3 (2): Provide a credible deterrent to pollution and greater compliance with the law.1. Target pesticide market places forinspections. 

X X X X M. J.

Wingett

CNSL Y 6/30/04 N • E

2. Review inspections and issue appropriateenforcement action or provide complianceassistance.

X X X X M. J.

Wingett

CNSL Y Within

180 daysofinspectn

N • C

ac18

3. Assign pesticide import inspections. X X X X M. J.

Wingett

CNSL Y 9/30/04 N • N

4. Review inspections and issue appropriateenforcement action or provide complianceassistance.

X X X X M. J.

Wingett

CNSL Y Within

180 daysofinspectn

N • C

ac18

5. Review pesticide use inspections andmarketplace inspections referred to us by States. Appropriate enforcement actions will be issuedwhen required.

X X X X M. J.

Wingett

CNSL Y Within

180 daysofinspectn

N • C

ac18

6. Registration of pesticide producerestablishments and ensuring productionreporting. 

X X X X M. J.

Wingett

None Y Continui

ng 

N • E

pere

7. Appropriate enforcement actions will beissued when required

X X X X M. J.

Wingett

CNSL Y Within

180 daysofinspection

N • C

ac18
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 61 of 65

8. Take enforcement for significant violationsof discharges to waters of the United States. Work with state on their actions for same.

X X Higbee CNSL Y on-going • A

9. Swine Integrator: Evaluate for Region 7. Take action where appropriate and coordinatewith Headquarters.

X X Johnson N • R

• A

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 1. Staff shortages within PEST will impact the ability of the Branch to complete activities at the desired level.2. Historically, we have experienced a slow turnaround from Headquarters for Enforcement Case Reviews. Timely and appropriaon the timeliness of responses to our Enforcement Case Review requests. 3. Cases must be reviewed in a timely manner from the States. Sub-Objective 5.1.3 (4): Maintain effective partnerships with States and HQ, work jointly with the States in identifying prcompliance. and provide State Inspector Training to ensure competency in all Region 7 States.1. Take enforcement action or assist the State inactions not already addressed in emphasis areas 

X Staff CNSL Y on-going • A

2. Represent the Branch’s mission byparticipating on workgroups and teams, i.e.,ICC, ECC, Enforcement Team, Ethanol Team.

X Staff All Divisions on-going • m

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): Sub-Objective 5.1.3 (7): Conduct on-site inspections of regulated facilities
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 62 of 65

1. Conduct about 40 CAFO inspections: 15 inIowa, 15 in Nebraska, 5 in Kansas, and 10 inMissouri.

X X Higbee ENSV Y • R

2. Conduct Inspections of Opportunity atweather-related construction sites. 

X X Sans ENSV Y • R

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): Sub-Objective 5.1.3 (8): Provide analytical services to support compliance determinations and related enforcem1. Evaluate WET test failures to determine ifenforcement is warranted. Determine if aTIE/TRI needs to be conducted.

X Staff Y on-going • C

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): Sub-Objective 5.1.3 (9): Develop and employ adequate oversight mechanisms to ensure all violations are addres1. Review QNCRs and watch list and achievegoal of 97% of majors are off the exceptionsrepots.

X Staff Y quarterly • W

2. Review annual Sludge reports and prioritizeviolations based on which are the mostenvironmentally significant. Take enforcementwhere necessary, maintaining the level of FY01

X Sans CNSL Y on-going • A
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 63 of 65

3. Provide mid-year and end-of-year reports perthe RECAP requirements and other ECOreports.

X Marshall WQMB, PEST

DWGW

Y 04/04 &

10/04

• R

4. Implement a junk yards and new constructionsite enforcement initiative.

X X Sans ECO Y • 

5. Enter information (eg. DMR, permits,inspections) into PCS.

X McKenzie • 

6. As a result of Pretreatment audits evaluateprogram cities for purposes of recommendingawards. 

X Marshall Y 09/04 • 

7. Conduct PCIs/ audits of 12 cities. Identifypotential enforcement candidates and takeenforcement as appropriate.

X Marshall Y 09/04 • 

8. Identify all potential significant industrialusers in non-pretreatment cities for all states. Share information with states for their use.

X Marshall Y on-going • 

9. Evaluate sludge quality during each PCI oraudit to determine if the Pretreatment Programis providing adequate protection. Takeenforcement as appropriate.

X Marshall Y on-going • 

10. Identify industries causing interference orpass through primarily through the discharge ofhigh-strength conventional pollutants. Takeenforcement as needed.

X X Marshall Y on-going • A
Activity

(Key Actions)

Priority1

(Mark X in

box) Personnel

(Lead

Person)

Internal RO

Coordination

(Program

acronym)

Customer

Involvement?

(Y/N)

Deadline

Completed? (Y/N) 

DRNGO

1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 64 of 65

11. Support State PCS usage to ensure qualitydata. 

X McKenzie Y on-going • R

12. Participate on PCS modernizationworkgroup.

X McKenzie

HigbeeMarshall

Y on-going • R

List/ discuss potential impediments to achieving goal(s): 
1 Key to Priority Column: D = Division (Leo), R = Regional (Gulliford/ Rice), N = National/HQ (Management Agreement

Target 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Page 65 of 65

Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention, Innov

Sub-Objective 5.2.1: Pollution Prevention by Government and the PublicNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Targets 1 thru 4.Sub-Objective 5.2.2: Pollution Prevention by IndustryNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Targets 1 thru 4.Sub-Objective 5.2.3: Business and Community InnovationNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Targets 1 thru 4.Sub-Objective 5.2.4: Environmental Policy InnovationNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Targets 1 thru 4.Sub-Objective 5.2.5: Economic AnalysisNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Target 1.Sub-Objective 5.2.6: Regulatory Policy AnalysisNo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Target 1. Sub-Objective 5.2.7: Implement NEPANo activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Targets 1 thru 4.

Objective 5.3: Build Tribal Capacity

Sub-Objective 5.3.No activities for Sub-Objectives Strategic Targets 1 thru 11.

Objective 5.4: Science & Research - See Objective 4.5