EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan: 

Charting our Course 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

May 2006 

DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW 
Public Review Document

May 2006 

-iiContents

Introduction .................................................................................................. x 

 

Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change............................................. x 

Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water ..................................................................... x 

Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration................................................. x 

Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems........................................... x 

Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.................................. x 

Cross-Goal Strategies.................................................................................. x 

 Results and Accountability.................................................................... 

 Innovation and Collaboration ................................................................ 

 Best Available Science ......................................................................... 

Appendix 1: Social Costs and Benefits ........................................................ x 

Appendix 2: Program Evaluations (to be added) ......................................... x 

Appendix 3: Consultation Efforts (to be added) ........................................... x 

Appendix 4: Coordination with Other Federal Agencies (to be added) ........ x 
Introduction – Public Review Draft 1

INTRODUCTION

 The 2006–2011 Strategic Plan sets out an ambitious road map for environmental 

protection. Tremendous progress has been made in the protection and restoration of 

our air, water, and land since the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in 1970. This work, accomplished jointly with our federal, state, tribal, 

and local government partners, has helped us advance our mission to protect human 

health and the environment, but much remains to be addressed. 

 While recognizing these successes, the environmental problems we face in 2006 

are more complex and possible solutions are more challenging to implement. Recent 

national and worldwide events, such as the devastation left by Hurricane Katrina, the 

advance of Avian flu, homeland security threats, population growth and its effect on 

resource consumption, are altering the environment in unprecedented ways. Scientific 

advances and emerging technologies pose new challenges and opportunities for human 

health and environmental protection. Today more than ever, we recognize the need to 

look toward the future to anticipate potential threats to human health and the 

environment, establish clear priorities, and prepare ourselves for addressing them. 

 EPA’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan reflects a sharpened focus on achieving 

measurable environmental results. In this Plan, EPA maintains the five goals that were 

first described in the 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. These goals are established around the 

results we are striving to achieve: Clean Air and Global Climate Change, Clean and 

Safe Water, Land Preservation and Restoration, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, 

and Compliance and Environmental Stewardship. While the Agency’s overall goal 

structure has been maintained in this new Strategic Plan, we have focused on a number 

of critical improvements. Within each Goal chapter, you will find an “Emerging Issues 

and External Factors” section that includes a discussion of important new challenges 

and opportunities that are likely to arise in the coming years. The Goal chapters also 

include new information about the development of the long-term measures that are 

found in the Plan, particularly their relationship to annual measures, the influence of 

measures from the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating 

Tool (PART), and the impact of new environmental indicators developed for the Report 

on the Environment (RoE). This Plan also reflects a heightened emphasis on identifying 

and incorporating activities and measures that address tribes, environmental justice, 

environmental stewardship, and strategic management of human capital. 

 The Administrator has established three key principles as the framework 

governing the Agency’s work: 

 

• Results and Accountability: EPA is committed to being a good steward of our 

environment and a good steward of our tax dollars. To provide the public with the 

environmental results they expect and deserve, the Agency must operate as 
Introduction – Public Review Draft 2

efficiently and effectively as possible. This is a key focus of the President’s 

Management Agenda, designed to make government citizen-centered, resultsoriented, and market-based. 

• Innovation and Collaboration: EPA’s ability to make progress depends both on 

our ability and continued commitment to identify and use innovative tools, 

approaches, and solutions to address environmental challenges, as well as to 

engage more extensively with partners, stakeholders, and the public through 

meaningful collaboration. Today’s problems cannot be solved fully with conventional 

regulatory controls, and they can’t be solved without the expertise, perspectives, and 

resources of others. A heightened focus on environmental stewardship, with a 

shared responsibility for addressing today’s challenges, is required. 

• Best Available Science: EPA needs the best scientific information available to 

anticipate potential environmental threats, evaluate risks, identify solutions, and 

develop protective standards. We must be responsive to emerging information to 

gain new understanding, reduce uncertainties, and, as necessary, change our 

assumptions about the impacts of environmental problems and how they should be 

addressed. The Agency must ask the right questions, carefully assess information, 

and clearly characterize problems to aid Agency decision makers. 

These principles serve as the organizing theme for the three cross-goal strategies 

supporting achievement of the five strategic goals contained in this Strategic Plan. 

 In setting out EPA’s goals for the next 5 years and describing how we intend to 

achieve them, this Strategic Plan is the foundation for the Agency’s planning, budgeting, 

and performance and accountability processes. The long-term goals in this Plan form 

the basis for the annual performance goals and measures which accompany the 

President’s budget request to Congress. Performance against these annual goals and 

measures is reported in each year’s Performance and Accountability Report, and this 

information is then an important consideration in the development of future budget 

submissions. The process comes full circle as the Agency evaluates these 

performance data in the revision of future Strategic Plans. The Agency also works to 

develop new environmental indicators, particularly in the context of development of 

EPA’s Report on the Environment. These new indicators are then available as potential 

improvements to the articulation of long-term measures in the Strategic Plan. 

 We hope that within these pages you see a vision for realizing our common 

desire for a cleaner, healthier environment for all Americans. 
GOAL 1 – CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 

Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the 

environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships 

with businesses and other sectors.

Air quality in the United States has steadily improved, according to EPA’s annual 

summary of air quality trends since the 1970s.i This trend toward cleaner air has 

occurred even as our economy has increased by 195 percent in gross domestic 

product, miles traveled by cars and trucks have increased by 178 percent, and energy 

consumption has increased by 48 percent (Figure 1). EPA continues to look for 

progressive solutions to remaining indoor and outdoor air pollution problems, which can 

cause breathing difficulties, long-term damage to respiratory and reproductive systems, 

cancer, and premature death. 

Air pollution also can affect the environment by reducing visibility; damaging crops, 

forests, and buildings; acidifying lakes and streams; and stimulating the growth of algae 

in estuaries and the build-up, or bioaccumulation, of toxics in fish. Bioaccumulation 

poses particular risks to Native Americans and others who subsist on plants, fish, and 

game. Certain chemicals emitted into the air diminish the protective ozone layer in the 

upper atmosphere, resulting in overexposure to ultraviolet radiation and increased rates 

of skin cancer, cataracts, and other health and ecological effects. Rapid development 

and urbanization in other countries is creating air pollution that threatens not only those 

countries but also the United States, since air pollution can travel great distances and 

across international boundaries. EPA is working with key developing countries to reduce 

air pollution, with the goals of reducing the impact of transboundary air pollution on the 

United States, improving health in developing countries and in the United States, and 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

EPA is addressing this broad range of ambient air problems strategically by applying 

a variety of approaches and appropriate tools. We have found that problems with broad 

national or global impact—emissions from power plants and other large sources, 

pollution from motor vehicles and fuels, and stratospheric ozone depletion—are best 

handled primarily at the federal level. A national approach allows for the use of 

traditional regulatory tools when appropriate, and enables us to implement innovative, 

market-based techniques such as emissions trading, banking, averaging, and other 

national programs cost-effectively. 

States, tribes, and local agencies can best address the regional and local ambient 

air problems that remain after federal measures have been fully applied. EPA works 

closely with public- and private-sector partners and stakeholders to develop the tools—

such as monitoring, modeling, and emission inventories—that allow states, tribes, and 

localities to address these more localized problems. Many of these tools employ 

innovative techniques, such as partnership programs for retrofitting diesel engines or 

community-based approaches to toxics, which are well-suited to the local nature of 

these problems. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 1
The importance of the indoor environment to human health has been highlighted in 

numerous environmental risk reports, including the 1997 report of the 

Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. 

Addressing indoor air quality is uniquely challenging because regulatory solutions are 

not a viable option—especially in private residences. Instead, EPA relies on 

partnership-based information and outreach programs, which encourage and promote 

voluntary action in homes, schools, and commercial buildings. These programs have 

been highly effective in achieving an array of positive health outcomes including: 

reduced lung cancer deaths from radon; reduced emergency room visits, 

hospitalizations and other adverse health outcomes in people with asthma from reduced 

exposure to asthma triggers; and reduced childhood asthma, respiratory ailments, ear 

infections from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. 

Ongoing research continues to identify new air pollution issues, in areas from indoor 

air to radiation. EPA will work with our local, state, tribal, and international partners and 

stakeholders to achieve results through a suite of innovative approaches and programs 

that encourage cost-effective technologies and practices. 

OBJECTIVE 1.1 – HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR. Through 2011, working with 

partners, protect human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining 

health-based air quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants. 

Sub-objective 1.1.1. Ozone and PM2.5. By 2015, working with partners, improve air 

quality for ozone and PM2.5 as follows: 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in 

all monitored counties by 14 percent from the 2003 baseline. 

• By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of PM2.5 in all 

monitored counties by six percent from the 2003 baseline. 

• By 2011, reduce annual emissions of fine particles from mobile sources by 

184,000 tons from the 2000 level of 515,550 tons (134,700 tons reduced 

through federal emissions standards for new engines and 50,000 tons 

reduced from existing engines through the National Clean Diesel Campaign). 

• By 2011, reduce annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from mobile 

sources by 4.0 million tons from the 2000 level of 11.8 million tons (3.7 million 

tons reduced through federal emissions standards for new engines and 0.3 

million tons reduced through the National Clean Diesel Campaign). 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 2
• By 2011, through federal emission standards, reduce annual emissions of 

volatile organic compounds from mobile sources by 1.9 million tons from the 

2000 level of 7.7 million tons. 

• By 2018, visibility in eastern Class I areas will improve by 15 percent on the 

20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to visibility on the 20 percent 

worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period. 

• By 2018, visibility in western Class I areas will improve by five percent on the 

20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to visibility on the 20 percent 

worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period. 

• By 2011, with EPA support, 17 additional tribes will have completed air quality 

assessments, such as air quality and deposition monitoring, emissions 

inventories, and air toxics assessments. (FY 2005 baseline: 53 tribes). 

• By 2011, 20 additional tribes will possess the expertise and capability to 

implement the Clean Air Act in Indian country (as demonstrated by successful 

completion of an eligibility determination under the Tribal Authority Rule). (FY 

2005 baseline: 30 tribes). 

Sub-objective 1.1.2. Air Toxics. By 2011, working with partners, reduce air toxics 

emissions and implement area-specific approaches to reduce the risk to public 

health and the environment from toxic air pollutants, as follows: 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2010, continue to reduce toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of 

air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 19 percent from the 1993 baseline. 

• By 2010, continue to reduce toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions 

of air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 55 percent from the 1993 baseline. 

• By 2011, through the Clean Air Mercury Rule, reduce mercury emissions from 

electric generating units by 10 tons from the 2000 level of 48 tons. 

• By 2011, through federal standards, reduce air toxics emissions from mobile 

sources by 1.4 million tons from the 1996 level of 2.7 million tons. 

Sub-objective 1.1.3. Chronically Acidic Water Bodies. By 2011, reduce the 

number of chronically-acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions by two percent 

from 1984 levels. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 3
Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, reduce national annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from utility 

electrical power generation sources by approximately 8.45 million tons from 

the 1980 level of 17.4 million tons, through implementation of the Acid Rain 

Program and Clean Air Interstate Rule, achieving and maintaining the Acid 

Rain statutory SO2 emissions cap of 8.95 million tons. 

• By 2011, reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and mean ambient 

sulfate concentration by 30 percent from 1990 monitored levels. 

 

• By 2011, reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and mean total 

ambient nitrate concentration by 15 percent from 1990 monitored levels. 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 1.1

Our strategy for reducing outdoor air pollution combines national, regional and local 

measures, reflecting different federal, state, tribal, and local government roles. EPA, 

states, tribes, local agencies and multi-jurisdictional organizations (MJOs) work together 

to meet clean air goals in a cost-effective manner through innovative, regulatory, 

market-based, and partnership approaches and programs. EPA recognizes that states 

are primarily responsible for maintaining and improving air quality and meeting national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). They develop emission inventories, operate 

and maintain air monitoring networks, perform air quality modeling, and develop State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) that lay out their control strategies for improving air quality 

and meeting the NAAQS. MJOs play a vital role in the air quality management effort by 

addressing regional issues, collaborating with states on control strategies, and providing 

technical assistance in data analyses and air quality modeling. 

EPA assists states, tribes, local agencies, and MJOs by providing technical 

guidance and financial assistance, and by issuing regulations and implementing 

programs designed to reduce pollution from the most widespread and significant 

sources of air pollution: mobile sources, such as cars, trucks, buses, and construction 

equipment; and stationary sources, such as power plants, oil refineries, chemical plants, 

and dry cleaning operations. Interstate transport of pollutants—a problem no state can 

solve on its own—makes a major contribution to air pollution problems in the eastern 

United States. To address this issue, EPA requires control of upwind sources that 

contribute to downwind problems in other states. 

EPA has a trust responsibility to protect air quality in Indian country, but tribes may 

choose to request authorization to develop and implement Clean Air Act programs. EPA 

and tribes are working to increase the currently limited information on air quality on tribal 

lands, build tribal capacity to administer air programs in Indian country, and establish 

EPA and state mechanisms to work effectively with tribal governments on regulatory 

development and regional and national policy issues. Once a tribe completes an air 

quality assessment so that they and EPA agree that they have a satisfactory 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 4
understanding of their base air quality conditions, the tribe will either develop an air 

quality management program appropriate for their needs, or EPA will work with the tribe 

to develop options so that it can continue to participate in local, regional, and national 

policy and regulatory development. 

Over the next several years, EPA will continue to focus on implementing the fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) standards and 8-hour ozone standards, reducing SO2 and 

NOX (precursor emissions of both particulate matter and ozone) and mercury from 

electric-generating units, and implementing EPA’s air toxics program using progressive, 

market-oriented methods to improve air quality most cost-effectively. EPA will continue 

to work with MJOs to develop strategies for reducing regional haze and with individual 

states to develop approaches to reduce emissions of PM and ozone precursors. In 

addition, EPA will work with states to better integrate ozone and PM efforts, such as 

through improved emission inventories, comprehensive air quality modeling 

approaches, controlling sources of precursors common to both pollutants, and 

coordinated control strategy planning cycles. 

Recognizing that meaningful public involvement produces better environmental 

results, EPA will actively seek the involvement of communities, civic organizations, 

members of the public, and other stakeholders in designing programs to achieve 

healthier outdoor air. In addition, we continue to work closely with the National 

Environmental Justice Advisory Council, community-based organizations, and other 

stakeholders (e.g., state/tribes, local government, academia, environmental 

organizations, and business and industry) to ensure that environmental justice is 

integrated into our programs, policies, and activities. 

Improving Air Quality 

To help states meet the outdoor air objective, EPA will continue to develop federal 

programs for mobile and stationary sources aimed at achieving large, nationwide, costeffective reductions in emission of PM and its contributors: SO2, NOX, and elemental 

and organic carbon; ozone-forming NOX; and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

Our strategy for the next few years is to implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) that was promulgated on May 12, 2005. CAIR takes what we have learned 

about cap-and-trade programs from the Acid Rain program, and provides states with a 

solution to the problem of power plant pollution that drifts from one state to another. 

CAIR is an important component of EPA’s plan to help states in the eastern United 

States meet EPA’s health-based air quality standards (Figure 2). Through CAIR and 

other Clean Air Act (CAA) programs, 92 of the 108 areas that did not meet the 

standards for 8-hour ozone and 17 of the 36 areas that did not meet the standards for 

PM2.5 (both as of April 2005) will achieve these health-based national standards by 

2011. Using a market-based approach, CAIR is projected to reduce SO2 emissions by 

4.3 million tons (over 70 percent) and NOx emissions by 1.7 million tons (over 60 

percent) from 2003 levels (Figure 3), and will not significantly change national electricity 

prices. Power generators will continue to rely on diverse sources of fuel, including our 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 5
abundant domestic coal resources. CAIR provides incentives for power plant operators 

to find the best, fastest, and most efficient ways to make the required emission 

reductions. It is estimated that air quality improvements from CAIR with other CAA 

programs will generate over $100 billion in health and visibility benefits per year by 2015 

and substantially reduce premature mortality in the eastern United States. These 

programs are also projected to reduce the incidence of chronically acidic lakes and 

streams through reductions in sulfur and nitrogen deposition. The health and 

environmental benefits of these programs will continue to grow each year with further 

implementation. 

Our strategy for achieving cleaner air also will include implementing a series of 

national programs that will dramatically reduce emissions from a wide-range of mobile 

sources. EPA’s Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, which will be fully 

implemented in 2009, will make new cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans 77 to 95 

percent cleaner than 2003 models, while reducing sulfur levels in gasoline by 90 

percent. EPA’s Clean Diesel Truck and Bus Program will require that, beginning in 

2007, all new highway diesel engines be as much as 95 percent cleaner than current 

models, while reducing sulfur levels in highway diesel fuel by more than 97 percent. 

EPA’s Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule will cut emission levels from construction, 

agricultural and industrial diesel-powered equipment by more than 90 percent, while 

removing 99 percent of the sulfur in nonroad diesel fuel by 2010. As part of this nonroad 

effort, more stringent standards for locomotives, large marine diesel engines, and small 

gasoline engines (such as those used in lawn and garden equipment) are also being 

developed. The emission reductions resulting from the clean fuel and vehicle standards 

finalized over the past several years will prevent more than 24,000 premature deaths 

and, when fully implemented in 2030, produce annual net benefits of approximately 

$175 billion, compared to $11 billion in costs. 

EPA will continue to address diesel emissions not only through new engine and fuel 

standards, but also through partnership programs aimed at reducing emissions from the 

existing inventory of diesel engines currently in use. These programs will greatly reduce 

emissions of air toxics and criteria pollutants, and help achieve cost-effective air quality 

improvements. For instance, EPA will expand its efforts to create voluntary dieselretrofit projects to reduce PM emissions from older, high-polluting trucks and buses, 

concentrating on areas with sensitive populations, and on raising public awareness of 

the problem of children riding in older, high-emitting diesel school buses. EPA will 

provide grants for retrofitting and replacing diesel school buses and reducing idling, and 

will work with the trucking and railroad industries to adopt pollution control and energysaving technologies. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 6
Environmental Justice: Reducing diesel exhaust in higher impact areas 

EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC, in establishing diesel retrofit projects to achieve 

PM, NOx and other emissions reductions, seeks to include areas that experience 

disproportionate impacts from diesel exhaust as one criterion for distributing grant funds. The 

program also targets the reduction of diesel emissions from school buses to reduce children’s 

exposure to particulate matter and other pollutants. The program takes an environmental 

stewardship approach by focusing on both partnership efforts to address the existing diesel fleet 

in addition to a regulatory approach for the new engines that are subject to more stringent 

emissions standards. 

Implementing provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 also will be a major 

undertaking for EPA in the FY 2006 to 2011 timeframe. Central to this effort will be the 

development and implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, 

which will require that the U.S. gasoline supply contain specific volumes of renewable 

fuel each calendar year, starting with four billion gallons in 2006 and increasing to 7.5 

billion in 2012. Development and implementation of the RFS program will require a 

substantial investment of resources, including expertise on renewable fuels (production, 

distribution, blending), vehicle testing to assess the impacts of renewable fuels on 

emissions, refinery modeling, transportation modeling and life-cycle analysis, energy 

security impacts, and economic analyses (including farm/agricultural impacts). 

EPA also will continue to implement the reformulated gasoline program while 

working to address issues associated with the use of oxygenates, such as MTBE and 

ethanol. We also will continue to help states and local agencies implement the 

transportation conformity regulation, to ensure that federally-funded or approved 

highway and transit activities are consistent with State Implementation Plans (SIPs), 

and will finalize changes to the regulation to address the revised ozone and PM 

standards. Finally, recognizing that efforts to reduce emissions need to be accompanied 

by efforts to reduce the effects of unmanaged growth and development, EPA will work 

with state and local governments, assisting them in crafting comprehensive strategies 

that accommodate necessary growth and economic development while minimizing 

adverse effects on air quality and other quality-of-life factors. 

Reducing Risks From Toxic Pollutants 

EPA regulates the emissions of 186 toxic air pollutants, including dioxin, asbestos, 

toluene, and such metals as cadmium, mercury, chromium, and lead compounds.ii To 

further reduce exposure to air toxics, EPA developed and issued federal standards for 

major stationary sources which, when fully implemented through state programs, will 

reduce toxic emissions by 1.7 million tons. In addition, EPA is conducting national, 

regional, and community-based efforts to reduce multimedia and cumulative risks. 

Characterizing emissions and the risks they pose on national and local scales, such as 

in Indian country, will require significant effort. We will need to update the science and 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 7
to keep the public informed about these issues. Toxics pollutants are of particular 

interest to the environmental justice community because of the proximity of many lowincome and minority communities to sources of toxics emissions (e.g., industrial 

facilities, waste transfer stations, roadways, and bus terminals). To better address areas 

that may suffer disproportionate impacts, EPA will use tools and indicators, such as 

those developed by EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice, to identify areas with 

potential environmental justice concerns. 

EPA is implementing the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which was promulgated 

on May 18, 2005. CAMR is the first-ever federal rule to permanently cap and reduce 

mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. CAMR establishes “standards of 

performance” limiting mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants 

and creates a market-based cap-and-trade program that will reduce nationwide utility 

emissions of mercury in two distinct phases. The first phase cap is 38 tons and 

emissions will be reduced by taking advantage of “co-benefit” reductions, i.e., mercury 

reductions achieved by reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

emissions under CAIR. In the second phase, beginning in 2018, coal-fired power plants 

will be subject to a second cap, which will reduce emissions to 15 tons with full 

implementation. Like CAIR, the CAMR program has stringent emissions monitoring and 

reporting requirements modeled after those developed and implemented in the Acid 

Rain program. The flexibility of allowance trading creates financial incentives to look for 

new and low-cost ways to reduce emissions and improve the effectiveness of pollution 

control equipment. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) also requires EPA to establish standards to reduce 

emissions of air toxics from motor vehicles and their fuels. In March 2006, EPA 

proposed standards to limit the benzene content of gasoline and to reduce emissions 

from passenger vehicles and portable gasoline containers. EPA will finalize this rule in 

2007 and implement it in subsequent years.

EPA continues to develop and refine tools, training, handbooks, and information to 

assist our partners in characterizing risks from air toxics, and we will work with them on 

strategies for making local decisions to reduce those risks. As EPA implements its 

community-based air toxics programs, including Community Action for a Renewed 

Environment (CARE), we will evaluate how program activities affect areas with potential 

Environmental Justice concerns. As areas with potential environmental justice concerns 

have been identified, EPA will work with those communities so they can identify and 

address risk and track progress. Working with our state and local partners, EPA has 

designed and implemented a national toxics monitoring network. Data from the 

monitoring network and from local assessments allow us to better characterize risk and 

assess priorities. 

Working with Tribes and Other Partners 

EPA is committed to working with tribes on a government-to-government basis to 

develop the infrastructure and skills tribes need to assess, understand, and control air 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 8
quality on their lands. We will support tribes in their efforts to build capacity, and 

encourage the development of programs to help tribes participate in discussions of 

national policy and operations and in regional planning and coordination activities. 

Recognizing that many tribal programs are still in development, we will support the 

growth of programs to enhance measurable air quality and human health outcomes. We 

will continue to encourage tribes to assess1 their air quality and develop the capacity to 

address identified concerns. We will continue to support air monitoring in Indian country 

and are exploring opportunities for mercury and other deposition monitoring. In 

consultation with tribes, we will establish needed federal regulatory authorities and help 

tribes develop and manage their own air programs in a manner consistent with EPA 

Indian Policy and tribal traditions and culture. We will support tribal air programs by 

providing technical support, assistance with data development and analysis. Where 

tribes choose not to develop their own programs, we will implement air quality programs 

directly. EPA has developed new rules for new or modified major and minor sources in 

Indian country, and will work with tribes to delegate or directly implement these rules in 

all of Indian country. 

As we develop and implement clean air strategies, we will involve the public in 

meaningful ways and work with other federal agencies to ensure a coordinated 

approach. Our federal partners include the Department of Agriculture (in the areas of 

animal feeding operations, agricultural burning, and controlled burning), the Department 

of Transportation (for transportation-related air quality issues), the Department of 

Energy (for electric utilities, electricity generation, and energy efficiency issues), and the 

Department of Interior (concerning visibility in national parks and wilderness areas). 

EPA also will work to address sources of air pollutants that lie outside our borders, 

but pose risks to air quality and public health within the United States. The pollutants 

that are subject to international transport include traditional criteria air pollutants, such 

as ozone and fine particles, as well as persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs), such 

as mercury, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). We will work with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, and other agencies to improve our capability to detect, track, and 

forecast the effects of these air pollutants from international sources. By engaging with 

the international scientific community, we hope to improve our understanding of 

international flows and our tools for analyzing and evaluating response policies. 

Working through bilateral agreements, international partners, and multilateral 

international organizations (such as the United Nations Environment Program and the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), we will promote capacity 

building, technology transfer, and other strategies to reduce foreign sources of pollution. 

 

1

 A tribal air quality assessment is completed when the tribe and Regional Office both agree that the tribe has 

completed the appropriate steps to understand any air quality issues and concerns, and their activities have changed 

to focus on program development and implementation, if appropriate. Further assessments may be carried out as part 

of their ongoing activities, but the focus is no longer on gaining an initial understanding of air quality issues and 

activities. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 9
EPA will continue to work with partners to implement sustainable development 

public-private partnerships launched at the World Summit for Sustainable Development 

in 2002. The goals of the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles 

(http://www.unep.org/pcfv) are to achieve global phase-out of leaded gasoline and to 

work with developing countries and transition economies to reduce sulfur in fuels and to 

adopt clean vehicle technologies. The goal of the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air 

(http://www.pciaonline.org) is to reduce the increased environmental health risk faced 

by more than two billion people who burn traditional biomass fuels indoors for cooking 

and heating. 

EPA also will help represent the United States in existing multilateral international 

agreements (such as the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution 

(http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap) and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 

Pollutants (http://www.pops.int) to control sources of internationally transported 

pollutants and protect U.S. interests. In North America, we will work with Canada and 

Mexico within such existing agreements as the U.S.-Mexico La Paz Agreement 

(http://air.utep.edu/bca/jac/agreement.html), the U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement 

(http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/usca/agreement.html), and the North American Agreement 

on Environmental Cooperation 

(http://www.naaec.gc.ca/eng/agreement/agreement_e.htm), to control the cross-border 

flow of pollutants. We will also work with Canada, Mexico, and key stakeholders to 

identify and explore new approaches to managing air quality along our common 

borders. 

OBJECTIVE 1.2 – HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR. Through 2012, working with partners, 

reduce human health risks by reducing exposure to indoor air contaminants through the 

promotion of voluntary actions by the public. 

 

Sub-objective 1.2.1. Radon. By 2012, the number of future premature lung cancer 

deaths prevented annually through lowered radon exposure will increase to 1,250 

from the 1997 baseline of 285 future premature lung cancer deaths prevented. 

Sub-objective 1.2.2. Asthma. By 2012, the number of people taking all essential 

actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers will increase to 

6.5 million from the 2003 baseline of 3 million. EPA will place special emphasis on 

children and other disproportionately impacted populations. 

Sub-objective 1.2.3. Schools. By 2012, the number of schools implementing an 

effective indoor air quality management plan will increase to 40,000 from the 2002 

baseline of 25,000. 

Sub-objective 1.2.4. Environmental Tobacco Smoke. By 2012, the percentage 

of children six and under regularly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the 

home will be reduced to 8 percent from a 1998 baseline of 20 percent, and the 

disparity of exposure between low-income children and the general population will 

be reduced. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 10
Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 1.2

Air within homes, schools, and workplaces can be more polluted than outdoor air in 

the largest and most industrialized cities.iii And because people typically spend close to 

90 percent of their time indoors,iv many may have a greater exposure to indoor pollution 

than to outdoor air pollution. Relative risk reports issued by EPA,v

 the Science Advisory 

Board,vi and several statesvii rank indoor air pollution among the top four environmental 

risks. Moreover, people who may spend the most time indoors, thus exposed to indoor 

air pollutants for long periods of time, are often those who may be most susceptible to 

their effects: the young, the elderly, and the chronically ill, especially those suffering 

from respiratory or cardiovascular disease. Further, underserved populations often face 

higher exposures and unique mitigation challenges. 

To address indoor air quality issues, EPA develops and implements innovative, nonregulatory, outreach and partnership programs that inform and educate the public about 

indoor air quality and actions that can reduce potential risks in homes, schools, and 

workplaces. Through these partnership programs, EPA disseminates information and 

works with state, tribal, and local governments; industry and professional groups; and 

the public to promote actions to reduce exposures to possibly harmful levels of indoor 

air pollutants, including radon. EPA’s indoor air quality program places particular 

emphasis on reaching children and underserved populations who often face greater 

risks from indoor air quality problems. 

EPA works in partnership with a wide array of constituencies such as health care 

providers in urban areas who treat children prone to asthma attacks, including children 

disproportionately impacted by asthma, school personnel who manage school 

environments, county and local environmental health officials, and housing and building 

organizations. EPA’s partnership network also engages a wide array of other 

constituencies who care about and impact indoor air quality and who have the expertise 

and credibility that allow EPA to reach a larger audience than we could on our own. To 

support these partnership approaches, we will base our policy and technical 

recommendations for reducing potential exposure to indoor contaminants on the most 

current science available. We will develop data on households affected by radon, mold, 

and asthma triggers in Indian country, to better measure pervasiveness and to quantify 

successful implementation of programs such as Tribal Effective Asthma Management 

and Tools for Schools, as well as the health benefits of those programs. 

In addition to offering targeted assistance and guidance to urban, low-income, and 

minority populations across the nation, EPA also will provide tribes with appropriate 

tools and assistance to address indoor air toxics, such as radon, environmental tobacco 

smoke, indoor asthma triggers, mold, and other biological and chemical contaminants. 

We will work with other federal agencies to provide guidance and assistance on how to 

reduce the exposure levels of these contaminants in all Indian communities. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 11
EPA will broaden awareness and increase action by working with national as well as 

local community-based organizations to design and implement programs that address 

critical indoor air quality problems, including radon, secondhand smoke, asthma 

triggers, and mold contamination in homes, child care and school facilities, and other 

commercial indoor environments. These same issues have become evident in Indian 

country as tribal governments develop a better understanding of indoor air quality 

issues. EPA will help tribes develop improved baseline data for indoor air issues in 

Indian country and assist tribes and reservations as they address these critical indoor 

air quality problems. Through the State Indoor Radon Grant Program, EPA will continue 

to help states and tribes develop and implement effective radon assessment and 

mitigation programs and will support innovation and expansion of these programs.

OBJECTIVE 1.3 – PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER. By 2030, through worldwide 

action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly 

begun the process of recovery, and overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, particularly 

among susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced. Specifically: 

 

Sub-objective 1.3.1. Stratospheric Chlorine Concentrations. By 2011, total 

effective equivalent stratospheric chlorine will have reached its peak, and begun its 

gradual decline to a value less than 3.4 parts per billion of air by volume. 

 Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, 65 percent of all hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) production and 

import will be phased out, further accelerating the recovery of the 

stratospheric ozone layer—with further reduction steps in 2015 and 2020, 

concluding with complete elimination of Class II substances in 2030. 

• Through 2011, continue the transition away from ozone-depleting compounds 

in a way that reduces overall risks to human health and the environment by 

acting on 100 percent of petitions for substitutes within 90 days of receipt. 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 1.3 

Scientific evidence amassed over the past three decades has shown that 

chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (used as refrigerants, solvents, and 

for other purposes), halons, (fire-extinguishing agents), methyl bromide (a pesticide), 

and other halogenated chemicals used around the world are depleting the stratospheric 

ozone layer. As a result, more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation is reaching the earth,viii

increasing the risk of overexposure to radiation and consequent health effects, including 

skin cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses. More than a million new cases of skin 

cancer are diagnosed each year,ix one in five Americans is expected to experience skin 

cancer, and more than half of all Americans develop cataracts by the time they are 80 

years old.x

Goal One – Public Review Draft 12
As a signatory to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone 

Layer (Montreal Protocol),xi the United States is obligated to regulate and enforce its 

terms domestically. In accordance with this international treaty and related Clean Air Act 

requirements,xii EPA will continue to implement the domestic rule-making agenda for 

the reduction and control of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and enforce rules 

controlling their production, import, and emission. This implementation includes 

combining market-based regulatory approaches with sector-specific technology 

guidelines and facilitating the development and commercialization of alternatives to 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons. We will strengthen outreach efforts to ensure efficient and 

effective compliance, and continue to identify and promote safer alternatives to curtail 

ozone depletion. We will work with stakeholders to advance voluntary and other 

partnerships that will smooth the transition to ODS substitutes and provide important cobenefits such as greenhouse gas emission reduction and energy savings. To help 

reduce international emissions, we will assist with the transfer of technology to 

developing countries and work with them to accelerate the phase-out of ODS. EPA 

estimates that in the United States alone between 1990 and 2165, the worldwide phaseout of ODS will save 6.3 million lives from fatal cases of skin cancer, avoid 299 million 

cases of nonfatal skin cancers, and avoid 27.5 million cases of cataracts.xiii

Because the ozone layer is not expected to recover until the middle of this century at 

the earliest,xiv the public will continue to be exposed to higher levels of UV radiation 

than existed prior to the use and emission of ODS.xv Recognizing this fact and the 

public’s current sun-exposure practices, EPA will continue education and outreach 

efforts to encourage behavioral changes as the primary means of reducing UV-related 

health risks, particularly for school children and their caregivers. The SunWise program, 

which we expect to grow from 200 participating K-8 schools in 2000 to 20,000 by 2011, 

will teach thousands of school children and adults how to protect themselves from 

overexposure to the sun.

OBJECTIVE 1.4 – RADIATION. Through 2011, working with partners, minimize 

unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts to human 

health and the environment should unwanted releases occur. 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, 77 percent of the U.S. land area will be covered by the RadNet ambient 

radiation air monitoring system. (2001 Baseline is 35 percent of the U.S. land 

area). 

• By 2011, the radiation program will maintain a 90 percent level of readiness of 

radiation program personnel and assets to support federal radiological 

emergency response and recovery operations. (2005 Baseline is 50 percent level 

of readiness). 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 13
Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 1.4

EPA continues to meet the statutory mandates for managing radiation waste and 

controlling radioactive emissions and to fulfill its responsibilities under Presidential 

decision directives for radiological emergency preparedness and response. These 

responsibilities form the core of our strategy to protect the public and the environment 

from unnecessary exposure to radiation. EPA works with states, tribes, and industry to 

develop innovative training, public information, and voluntary programs to minimize 

these exposures. 

Mining and processing naturally occurring radioactive materials for use in medicine, 

power generation, consumer products, and industry inevitably generate emissions and 

waste. EPA provides guidance and training to other federal and state agencies in 

preparing for emergencies at U.S. nuclear plants, transportation accidents involving 

shipments of radioactive materials, and acts of nuclear terrorism. EPA also develops 

guidance for cleaning up radioactively-contaminated Superfund sites. We will ensure 

that appropriate methods are used to manage radioactive releases and exposures. 

These include health-risk site assessments; risk modeling, cleanup, and waste 

management activities; voluntary programs to minimize exposure to radiation in 

commercial products and industrial applications; national radiation monitoring; 

radiological emergency response; and provision of federal guidance to our international, 

federal, state, and local partners. 

EPA will continue to provide advice and guidance, as requested, to help state and 

local organizations locate, identify, and dispose of radioactive sources that find their 

way into non-nuclear facilities, particularly scrap yards, steel mills, and municipal waste 

disposal facilities. We also will continue to work with the International Atomic Energy 

Agency and other federal agencies to prevent metals and finished products suspected 

of having radioactive contamination from entering the country. We will create 

partnerships with states, local agencies, and tribes to locate and secure lost, stolen, or 

abandoned radioactive sources within the United States and to develop innovative 

partnership programs with state and local agencies and industry to investigate and 

promote pollution prevention and operational practices and technologies that reduce 

industrial radioactive releases. We will continue and expand our ongoing efforts to 

ensure that tribes receive assistance in dealing with radon exposures in their homes 

and schools. 

EPA also operates RadNet, formerly known as the Environmental Radiation Ambient 

Monitoring System (ERAMS), the only national ambient radiation monitoring program 

that provides information about the wide-scale spread of radioactive material from 

nuclear or radiological incidents. Over the next several years, EPA will upgrade RadNet 

by adding portable and quickly deployable monitors that can be shipped to affected 

areas, by conducting real-time monitoring for contamination in air, and by replacing old 

equipment with state-of-the art air samplers. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 14
One of EPA’s major responsibilities related to radiation is certifying that all 

radioactive waste shipped by the Department of Energy (DOE) to the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant (WIPP) is disposed of safely and according to EPA’s standards. We inspect 

waste generator facilities and biennially evaluate DOE’s compliance with applicable 

environmental laws and regulations. Every 5 years, EPA will have to recertify that the 

WIPP is in compliance with EPA’s radioactive waste disposal regulations. 

OBJECTIVE 1.5 – REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY. Through EPA’s 

voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 80 million metric tons of carbon 

equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the President’s 18 percent greenhouse gas (GHG) 

intensity goal by 2012. (An additional 24 MMTCE to result from the sustained growth in 

the climate programs are reflected in the Administration’s Business-as-Usual projection 

for GHG intensity improvement.) 

Sub-objective 1.5.1. Buildings Sector. Through EPA’s ENERGY STAR® 

program, prevent 26 MMTCE in the buildings sector in 2012, in addition to the 20 

MMTCE prevented annually in 2002. 

Sub-objective 1.5.2. Industrial Sector. Through EPA’s industrial sector 

programs, prevent 64 MMTCE in 2012, in addition to the 34 MMTCE prevented 

annually in 2002. 

Sub-objective 1.5.3. Transportation Sector. Through EPA’s transportation 

programs, prevent 13 MMTCE in 2012, in addition to the 2 MMTCE prevented 

annually in 2002. 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 1.5

In 2002, the President announced a U.S. climate policy to reduce the GHG intensity 

of the U.S. economy by 18 percent over the next decade. EPA's strategy for helping to 

improve GHG intensity is to enhance its partnerships with a diverse set of private and 

public organizations through programs that deliver multiple benefits in addition to 

reducing GHG intensity—from cleaner air to lower energy bills. At the core of these 

efforts are government-industry partnership programs designed to capitalize on the 

opportunities that consumers, businesses, and organizations have for making sound 

investments in energy efficient equipment, policies and practices, and transportation 

choices. 

EPA manages a number of partnership efforts to improve information in the 

marketplace and more quickly deploy technology in the residential, commercial, and 

transportation sectors of the economy. The ENERGY STAR partnership 

(http://www.energystar.gov/) has been successful in cost-effectively avoiding GHG 

emissions in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. EPA’s programs on 

methane and other potent greenhouse gases successfully engage energy, industrial 

and agricultural sectors to deliver cost effective GHG emission reductions 

(http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/voluntaryprograms.html). In addition, the clean energy 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 15
partnership programs promote the development and purchases of renewable energy 

through the Green Power Partnership and Combined Heat and Power Partnership 

(http://epa.gov/cleanenergy/) EPA’s goals for these efforts are to cost-effectively return 

emissions of methane to 1990 levels or below by 2012; to cost-effectively limit 

emissions of the more potent GHGs (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 

hexafluoride); and to facilitate the use of clean energy technologies. 

 EPA will continue its SmartWay Transport Partnership 

(http://www.epa.gov/smartway/) efforts with the trucking and railroad industries to 

reduce GHGs through efficiency or energy-saving technologies and to promote cleaner 

vehicles and the adoption of pollution control and energy-saving technologies that 

reduce NOX and PM emissions. SmartWay also addresses environmental justice 

because rail yards, truck stops, border crossings, etc. are often located near 

communities with environmental justice concerns. EPA’s Best Workplaces for 

Commuters program (http://www.commuterchoice.gov/) also develops innovative 

solutions to commuting challenges faced by U.S. employers and employees by 

promoting commuter benefits that reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled. Other 

activities at EPA will further advance fuel-efficient and clean automotive technology, 

thus saving energy and reducing GHG emissions. 

We also will continue the Partnerships for Home Energy Efficiency (PHEE)–a joint 

effort of the U.S. Department of Energy, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. One of the main objectives of this partnership is to deliver energyefficiency savings to low income and subsidized housing. PHEE will help address 

energy shortages and rising natural gas prices and thus will help make housing more 

affordable. 

EPA will continue its efforts to provide state, tribal, and local governments with 

technical, outreach, and education services about climate change impacts, mitigation 

and adaptation options, and related issues so that they can more effectively and 

comprehensively address their goals. 

EPA also promotes international partnerships to reduce GHGs and deploy clean 

technologies. Through the Methane to Markets Partnership, EPA will work with partner 

countries around the world, as well as the U.S. private sector, to reduce global methane 

emissions, enhance economic growth, promote energy security, and improve the 

environment by using cost-effective methane recovery technologies 

(http://www.methanetomarkets.org/). In addition, the United States has joined with 

Australia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea to launch the Asia-Pacific Partnership 

on Clean Development and Climate. EPA will support this Partnership to advance the 

President's goal of developing and accelerating the deployment of cleaner and more 

efficient technologies and practices. 

OBJECTIVE 1.6 – ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH. Through 2011, provide 

and apply sound science to support EPA’s goal of Clean Air by conducting leading-edge 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 16
research and developing a better understanding and characterization of human health 

and environmental outcomes under Goal 1. 

Sub-objective 1.6.1: Use Science and Technology to Support Air Programs.

Through 2011, use the best available scientific information, monitoring, models, 

methods, and analyses to support air-program-related guidance, policy decisions, 

and accountability. Through the Clean Automotive Technology program, EPA and 

industry partners will demonstrate cost-effective engineering vehicles using costeffective ultra clean and fuel efficient automotive technology as follows: 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, demonstrate that the fuel economy of sport utility vehicles, urban 

delivery vehicles, refuse trucks, and buses can be cost-effectively improved 

by 60 percent over the 2001 baseline. 

• By 2011, demonstrate that the fuel efficiency of automotive gasoline engines 

can be cost-effectively improved by 15 percent over the 2001 baseline. 

• By 2011, technologies developed under the Clean Automotive Technology 

program will be in two percent of the new light/medium duty trucks sold. 

Sub-objective 1.6.2: Conduct Air Pollution Research. Through 2011, achieve 

progress toward reducing uncertainty in standard setting and air quality 

management decisions through advances in understanding in the air pollution 

sciences and achieve progress in assessing source to health linkages by reducing 

uncertainties in these linkages. 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 1.6

EPA’s science and research efforts are designed to provide the best information 

available to support our policies and regulations. First, we identify the research 

necessary to develop the quality information and tools we need for decision-making, 

standard-setting, and implementation work. Once these scientific tools are in use, we 

can identify data gaps and determine our needs for further research. Progress toward 

research goals is assessed through a suite of metrics that is tailored to measuring the 

impacts of the outcomes of the respective research programs. Among the measurable 

factors are: independent expert review panel ratings on the extent to which clients 

utilize EPA research products; composite scores on a client survey designed to gather 

data on product utility and perceptions of use; and the results of bibliometric and/or 

client document analyses demonstrating the actual use of EPA research products. 

These factors are applied to measure success in providing the results identified in the 

research program below. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 17
Science to Support Air Programs 

EPA will continue to use sound science to determine the relative risks that air 

pollution poses to human health and the environment; identify the best means to detect, 

abate, and avoid environmental problems associated with air pollutants; and evaluate 

the effectiveness of control programs in reducing exposure to harmful levels of air 

pollution. The Agency will base its efforts to reduce environmental risks on the best 

available scientific information and will continue to integrate critical scientific 

assessment with policy, regulatory, and non-regulatory activities. Science activities 

related to air quality fall into three broad categories: (1) risk assessment, (2) program 

development and assessment, and (3) technology development and assessment. 

Exposure and Risk Assessment

EPA conducts exposure and risk assessments on both criteria and hazardous air 

pollutants to support our air toxics program and to assist in estimating the risks 

associated with exposure to criteria pollutants, such as fine particles. Our exposure and 

risk assessments integrate monitoring and modeling information to characterize the 

impacts of sources of air pollution within the United States, as well as the impacts of 

pollution coming from outside the United States. We also conduct radiation-risk 

assessments to evaluate health risks from radiation exposure; to determine appropriate 

levels for cleaning up contaminated sites; and to develop radiation protection and risk 

management policy, guidance, and rules. 

Program Development and Assessment

Using mathematical models, EPA works with states and tribes to evaluate control 

options, control plans, the impacts of alternative emission scenarios, and the effect of 

federal rules. EPA’s Acid Rain program uses deposition models to evaluate our 

allowance trading program and to support the National Acid Precipitation Assessment 

Program, which coordinates federal acid deposition research. In addition, we use 

mathematical models, ambient monitoring information, and other data to determine the 

effectiveness of control strategies. 

Technology Development and Assessment

Developing and assessing innovations in environmental protection is another 

important aspect of EPA’s clean air program. Through its Clean Automotive Technology 

program, EPA will continue to develop advanced clean and fuel-efficient automotive 

technology. We will collaborate with industry partners to transfer the unique EPApatented, highly-efficient hybrid engine and power-train components, originally 

developed for passenger cars, to meet the more demanding size, performance, 

durability, and towing requirements of sport utility and urban delivery vehicles, without 

compromising performance, safety, or reductions in emissions. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 18
EPA is committed to common-sense, cost-effective solutions that result in cleaner 

air. To control air toxics reasonably and effectively, EPA will continue to evaluate control 

technologies to ensure that they are protective, cost-effective, and commercially viable. 

Effectively using partnerships is a key aspect of our approach to sound science. 

Under a joint effort on air quality forecasting, for example, EPA and the U.S. 

Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

are combining their expertise in air quality, atmospheric measurements, and modeling 

to develop a consistent, national numerical air quality model for short-term air quality 

forecasts for ozone and PM. We are contributing our national collection, analysis, and 

distribution of ambient air quality (our AIRNow program) and emissions data; air quality 

modeling; and detailed research analysis of air quality impacts on human health. NOAA 

brings expertise in operational meteorological modeling, air quality research, and 

product development and distribution. In addition to partnerships with other U.S. 

agencies, EPA also works with partners in the international science community to better 

understand flows of pollutants into and out of the United States and to assess potential 

mitigation strategies. 

Research 

 The Air Research Program is driven by information needs to set and implement the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), with additional impetus provided by 

the need to ensure that EPA, states, tribes, and localities are adequately reducing 

residual risks associated with exposure to hazardous air pollutants (air toxics). This 

program will produce measurable benefits in the form of: 

• reduced uncertainty in the science that supports standard-setting and air quality 

management decisions; and 

• reduced uncertainty in the linkages between health impacts and air pollutant 

sources in order to fully appraise their relevance. 

 The Program relies on research conducted at EPA Laboratories, through extramural 

grants (including five Particulate Matter Research Centers), and by co-funded 

partnerships (e.g. with NIEHS and HEI). EPA has established two strategic targets to 

achieve our research sub-objective. The means and strategies to achieve these targets 

fall into the following three main categories designed to move the program toward 

achieving the benefits stated above: 

1. Data and tools to support implementation of the NAAQS. Planned research 

will increase the capabilities of EPA, states, and tribes to design effective strategies 

for meeting the NAAQS. This includes new and updated data and new methods and 

models to characterize and estimate source emissions. Enhanced air quality models 

will incorporate more accurate meteorological effects and increased ability to 

forecast air quality changes, improving the ability to alert the public about episodes 

of adverse air quality. Advances in receptor-based models will more accurately 

identify which source categories contribute to ambient concentrations, providing the 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 19
basis for targeted control strategies. Work will also investigate technologies to 

address multiple pollutants from key sources contributing to non-attainment or air 

toxics problems. 

2. Improving our understanding of the health effects associated with exposure 

to ambient PM. Together with HEI and other research partners EPA is undertaking a 

systematic evaluation of PM attributes that will expand our understanding of how 

they are related to a range of health outcomes across a range of endpoints (e.g. 

pulmonary, cardiovascular, immunological, neurological, reproductive and 

developmental). 

3. Research to advance understanding of the links between sources and effects 

advances the state of air pollution science to enable health effects to be linked more 

strongly to specific source types and PM attributes, the major theme of the 5-year PM 

centers program. 

Human Capital 

 

One human capital challenge is the existing shortage of qualified on-board staff to 

implement new requirements such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. For example, to implement CAIR, EPA has determined that 

additional staff is needed in the areas of emissions measurement, engineering 

technology, environmental assessment, and computer database development and 

administration. Similarly, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the development of a 

national renewable fuel standard (RFS), followed by the promulgation of regulations to 

implement the RFS. Developing these regulations will require staff with expertise in 

renewable fuels, vehicle testing, refinery modeling, transportation modeling and lifecycle analysis, energy security impacts, and economic analyses. 

In other areas, EPA has been able to recruit and retain top talent with the needed 

scientific and technical backgrounds. For example, the EPA National Vehicle and Fuel 

Emissions Laboratory and the CAT program have both been able to attract high quality 

engineers and scientists. Cooperative agreements are in place with several top 

engineering colleges to help with recruiting. 

Performance Measurement 

EPA has made great strides in improving measures of Clean Air and Global Climate 

Change achievements so that they focus on environmental results. The annual 

performance goals (APGs) and measures under the Clean Air and Global Climate 

Change programs are closely aligned with the long-term strategic targets. EPA 

monitors the progress toward strategic objectives and targets through a series of annual 

performance goals. The APGs focus on environmental outcomes and action-oriented 

outputs achieved by the integrated efforts of EPA, its state and tribal partners, and the 

regulated community. Several APGs, established in the Agency’s Annual Plan and 

Budget and reported on in EPA’s annual Performance and Accountability Report, 

directly track and measure the strategic targets. For instance, the APGs for reductions 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 20
in the population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone and PM 2.5 programs set 

annual targets related to the strategic targets. As another example, there are annual 

measures that directly track strategic targets for the number of people taking all 

essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma and number of 

schools implementing an effective indoor air quality management plan. 

For the research sub-objective, EPA will track annual progress toward expected 

long-term results by means of multiple, objective-based measures of customer 

satisfaction, product impact and quality, and efficiency. 

Influence of Environmental Indicators and PART Measures on the Strategic Plan 

EPA has aligned its strategic and annual measures under Goal 1 with the 

environmental indicators to be included in the forthcoming Report on the Environment . 

Environmental indicators reflected in the Strategic Plan include trends of national 

ambient concentrations and emissions of criteria air pollutants (and their precursors) 

such as ozone and fine particulate matter), mercury point-source emissions, ambient 

levels of stratospheric chlorine (which can deplete the ozone layer), and greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

EPA has included in this Strategic Plan all the Clean Air and Global Climate Change 

long-term, outcome-oriented measures developed through the federal Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments as strategic targets. These targets 

include the population-weighted ambient concentration targets for ozone and PM2.5, and 

the toxicity-weighted risk reduction goals for air toxics. Improved strategic targets were 

also developed for the radiation program during the PART assessment process.

Future Improvements to Performance Measurement 

While considering revisions and improvements for developing this Strategic Plan, the 

Agency also examined some of the longer-term opportunities to make improvements in 

the expression of our outcome measures for future plans. With respect to Goal 1, EPA 

is continuing to work on the development of long-term measures that capture the 

environmental benefits of the air and climate change programs. One example is the 

Agency’s work to directly measure the benefits of reduced ultraviolet exposure on 

human health. 

CLOSING THE FEEDBACK LOOP: RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS 

AND PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

Ambient Air Quality Program

In the PART evaluation of the Acid Rain program, OMB recommended that EPA 

work to: (1) overcome statutory limitations that set maximum emission reduction targets 

and limit the scope of emissions trading and program benefits, and (2) develop 

efficiency measures based on the full cost of the program. The first recommendation is 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 21
addressed by promulgation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which is projected to reduce 

SO2 and NOX emissions beyond Title IV and uses a cap-and-trade approach modeled 

after the Acid Rain program. EPA is addressing the second recommendation by 

developing data and methods to support efficiency measures that incorporate industry 

as well as EPA costs. 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) evaluated the nation’s air quality 

management systemxvi and concluded that while emitted pollutants have been 

substantially reduced over the past 30 years, further progress is hindered by scientific 

and technical limitations in the current system. To address some of these issues, EPA 

is: (1) developing air quality-ecosystem indicators for the future tracking of trends in 

human exposure and ecological condition, (2) exploring opportunities to co-locate 

ambient air monitoring and atmospheric deposition monitoring with long-term ecological 

research study sites, and (3) improving methods for monitoring atmospheric inputs, 

such as ambient mercury concentrations and mercury deposition, to ecosystems. EPA 

also is working to develop and expand the use of high order health and ecological 

indicators, and on characterizing the movement of air pollutants through ecosystems 

over time. 

Indoor Air

In the indoor air arena, OMB’s PART assessment has led the program to better 

quantify the relationship between funding levels and results, improve transparency by 

making state radon grantee performance data easily accessible to the public, and 

improve the program’s efficiency measures to more clearly demonstrate the cost 

effectiveness of the program. 

Mobile Source – Clean Air Technology (CAT) Program

As a result of its 2005 PART evaluation, the CAT program is working to develop two 

efficiency measures: one for comparing the CAT program to similar efforts at other 

agencies, and another to relate a technology’s fuel economy improvements to 

greenhouse gas reductions. 

Research

In 2005, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a public advisory committee 

chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act) evaluated the Particulate Matter 

and Ozone Research Program and made specific recommendations for improvements.

xvii Specifically, the BOSC recommended wording for long-term measures as well as 

recommended periodic assessment of customer satisfaction. Recommendations were 

incorporated into the 2005 PART evaluation of the NAAQS Research Program. EPA 

has identified actions and milestones to meet this need. The long-term measures are 

reflected in the discussion of measurable benefits for research under the Means and 

Strategies section. These measures will be incorporated in an upcoming revision of 

EPA multi-year plan for air research. The multi-year plan complements the Strategic 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 22
Plan by providing a more specific air research plan and will address the 

recommendations of the BOSC, PART, and NRC reviews. 

A committee of air pollution experts formed under the National Academy of Sciences 

National Research Council (NRC) completed a series of reports in 2004 and made three 

specific recommendations concerning the management of scientific research: 

• EPA should work toward a higher level of sustained integration and interaction 

among the scientific disciplines and among the full range of public and private 

research funding organizations. 

• Research is needed to develop stronger tools to compile and synthesize the 

large amounts of new information being developed in this research program. 

• Sustained and substantially enhanced management of this program by EPA, 

accompanied by a continuing mechanism for independent review and oversight 

of the program, will be the only way to ensure that this investment is being 

soundly made. 

Emerging Issues and External Factors 

 

The current, fundamental imbalance between energy supply and energy demand, 

and the impacts of that imbalance throughout the economy, is debatably the most 

significant environmentally-related issue that has emerged since the issuance of EPA’s 

2003–2008 Strategic Plan. The convergence of concerns around energy supply, 

economic prosperity, national security, and the environment present unprecedented 

opportunities for technological innovation in the marketplace. EPA will be impacted as 

the nation moves forward to address these key energy challenges: using energy more 

efficiently, increasing domestic energy supplies, modernizing the energy infrastructure; 

and, ensuring that public health and the environment are protected. 

To Learn More: 

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/futures/perspectives.htm 

Higher and/or more volatile energy prices will create pressures affecting air quality 

programs and goals. EPA's role in supporting the development of renewable 

transportation fuels such as ethanol will increase, and the Agency will need to ensure 

smooth implementation of renewable fuels programs—including those required under 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As these trends in energy prices increase the pace of 

turnover of capital stock in the energy sector, there will be greater interest in new and 

more efficient technologies—many of which could have a positive impact on air 

quality—and the Agency will need to work with industry to encourage the development 

of these technologies in all sectors (e.g., transportation, electricity production and enduse). For example, demand for domestic coal resources will likely increase, and EPA 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 23
will need to work with the Department of Energy, coal producers, and others to ensure 

that advanced new coal technologies such as integrated gasification combined cycle (or 

coal gasification with carbon capture and sequestration, more broadly) that have 

extremely low air emissions will continue to develop and that we can encourage their 

diffusion throughout the marketplace. Finally, we also will need to continue to look for 

opportunities to streamline energy permitting so that we can both achieve our clean air 

goals, and expeditiously build the energy infrastructure our country needs. 

Another challenge comes from growing levels of emissions in other countries that 

threaten to affect progress within the United States and impact our ability to achieve our 

public health and environmental standards. The impacts of international and 

intercontinental transport are already being observed, and as energy use and 

development increases rapidly in regions such as Asia, there is the potential for critical 

impacts in the United States. Efforts to decrease emissions in developing countries will 

not replace the need to continue to reduce air pollution emissions within the United 

States. Instead, international efforts are needed to complement our local and regional 

control efforts, to protect public health and our domestic investments. Thus, to achieve 

our own domestic policy goals, we will have to better understand the impact of 

emissions sources in other countries on environmental quality and public health in the 

United States and, when appropriate, work cooperatively with other countries to 

decrease these emissions. 

Recent scientific studies indicate that the stratospheric ozone layer is likely to take 

longer to heal than previously anticipated.xviii More people will be exposed to excess UV 

radiation over a longer time period, and the number of people impacted by this 

exposure will increase. This means that timely, comprehensive action by all nations, 

including the United States, is more important than ever in order to achieve restoration 

of the ozone layer. 

There are a number of external factors that could affect achievement of our strategic 

goals. State, local, and tribal implementation of air programs is necessary for achieving 

many of the clean air performance targets, but reduced budgets and resource 

constraints could impede their ability to carry out environmental programs. Lawsuits and 

court action might require the Agency to adjust schedules and could delay achievement 

of critical milestones. Achievement of clean air objectives can also be affected by 

economic conditions and development patterns in the United States and the world, and 

by choices made for energy and transportation policies. 

Weather conditions and meteorological patterns have very important effects on air 

quality. For example, high temperatures and bright sunlight can increase the formation 

of ozone. Wind can carry air pollution from one area to another, while conditions of little 

or no wind can cause air pollutants to remain in an area and build up to unhealthy 

levels. These effects must be considered when developing and implementing plans and 

strategies to achieve and maintain clean air. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 24
Notes

 

i.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 2006. Air Emissions Trends - Continued Progress 

Through 2005. Available online at Hhttp://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2006/econ-emissions.htmlH: EPA 

Office of Air and Radiation Web Site. Date of Access: April 26, 2006. 

ii.Clean Air Act, Title I, Section 112. Available online at Hhttp://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa112.txtH: EPA 

Clean Air Act Web Site. Date of Access: April 26, 2006. 

iii.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) 

Study: Summary and Analysis: Volume I. EPA 600-6-87-002a. Washington, DC: GPO. 

iv.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, Volume II: 

Assessment and Control of Indoor Air Pollution. EPA 400-1-89-001C. Washington, DC: GPO. 

v.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of 

Environmental Problems. EPA 230287025a. Washington, DC: GPO. 

vi.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting 

Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. EPA-SAB-EC-90-021. Washington, DC: GPO. 

vii. Florida Center for Public Management. September 1995. Comparing Florida's Environmental 

Risks: Risks to Florida and Floridians. Tallahassee. Available online at 

Hhttp://www.pepps.fsu.edu/FCER/final.pdfH: Program for Environmental Policy and Planning 

Systems Web Site, Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University. Date of 

Access: April 26, 2006. 

California Comparative Risk Project. May 1994. Toward the 21st Century: Planning for the 

Protection of California's Environment. Berkeley: California Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Available online at 

Hhttp://www.oehha.org/multimedia/comprisk.htmlH. Date of Access: April 26, 2006. 

viii.United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. 

HHAvailable online a http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/6v_science%20assess%20panel.asp: UNEP, 

The Ozone Secretariat Web Site. Date of Access: April 26, 2006. 

ix.American Cancer Society Inc. 2006. Cancer Facts and Figures: 2006. No. 500806. Available online at 

Hhttp://www.cancer.orgH. Date of Access: April 26, 2006. 

x.Prevent Blindness America. 2003. Cataract Fact Sheet, FS32. Available online at 

Hhttp://www.preventblindness.org/resources/factsheets/CataractsFS32.PDFH. Date of Access: April 26, 

2006. 

xi.United Nations Environment Programme. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer, as adjusted Beijing 1999. Nairobi, Kenya. Available online at

http://ozone.unep.org/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf: UNEP, The Ozone Secretariat Web Site. Date of 

Access: April 26, 2006. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 25
 

xii.Clean Air Act, Title VI. Available online at Hhttp://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title6.htmlH: EPA Clean Air 

Act Web Site. Date of Access: April 26, 2006. 

xiii.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. 1999. The Benefits and Costs of 

the Clean Air Act 1990-2010, EPA Report to Congress. EPA-410-R-99-001. Washington, DC: GPO. 

Available online at Hhttp://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/1990-2010/chap1130.pdfH. Date of Access: April 

26, 2006.HH

xiv.United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. 

HHAvailable online at http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/6v_science%20assess%20panel.asp: UNEP, 

The Ozone Secretariat Web Site. Date of Access: April 26, 2006. 

xv.UV irradiance has increased since the early 1980s by 6 to 14 percent at more than 10 sites distributed 

over mid- and high latitudes of both hemispheres. Information from: United Nations Environment 

Programme. 2002. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Available online at 

http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/6v_science%20assess%20panel.asp: UNEP, The Ozone Secretariat 

Web Site. Date of Access: April 26, 2006. 

xvi National Research Council of the National Academies. 2004. Air Quality Management in the United 

States. Available online at: Hhttp://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309089328/htmlH. Date of Access: April 26, 

2006.

xvii The BOSC report can be found at Hhttp://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/pm0508rpt.pdfH. EPA’s 

response can be found at Hhttp://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/pm0602resp.pdfH. Date of Access: April 26, 

2006. 

xviii New York Times, December 7, 2005, Scientists Say Recovery of the Ozone Layer may take Longer 

Than Expected, Kenneth Chang. Available online at: 

Hhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/science/07ozone.html?ex=1291611600&en=6e8ca9c8549a6f6b&e

i=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rssH. Date of Access: April 26, 2006. 

Goal One – Public Review Draft 26
GOAL 2 - CLEAN AND SAFE WATER

Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their 

aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational 

activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.

Since the enactment of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts over 3 

decades ago, government, citizens, and the private sector have worked together to 

make dramatic progress in improving the quality of surface water and drinking water. 

Thirty years ago, many of the nation’s drinking water systems provided water to 

the tap with very limited treatment. Drinking water was too often the cause of acute 

illnesses linked to microbiological contaminants or of longer-term health problems 

resulting from exposure to low levels of toxic and other contaminants. Today, drinking 

water systems monitor the quality of the water they provide and treat water to ensure 

compliance with standards covering a wide range of contaminants. In addition, efforts 

to protect waters that are sources of drinking water are helping to keep drinking water 

safe. 

Thirty years ago, about two-thirds of the surface waters assessed by states were 

not attaining basic water quality goals and were considered polluted.1

 Some of the 

nation’s rivers were open sewers posing health risks, and many water bodies were so 

polluted that swimming, fishing, and recreation were impossible. Today, the number of 

polluted waters has been dramatically reduced, and many clean waters are getting even 

healthier. A massive investment of federal, state, and local funds has resulted in a new 

generation of sewage treatment. More than 50 industrial sectors now comply with 

nationally consistent discharge regulations. In addition, sustained efforts to implement 

“best management practices” have helped reduce runoff of pollutants from diffuse, or 

“nonpoint,” sources. 

 Cleaner, safer water has renewed recreational, ecological, and economic 

interests in communities across the nation. The recreation, tourism, and travel industry 

is one of the largest employers in the country, and a significant portion of recreational 

spending comes from swimming, boating, sport fishing, and hunting.2

 In addition, each 

year, more than 180 million people visit beaches for recreation.3

 

 The dramatic restoration of some of the nation’s most polluted waters has paid 

large dividends in enhanced recreation, healthier fisheries, and stronger local 

economies. Many of the nation’s best-known water pollution problem areas are 

showing the results of years of restoration efforts. The Cuyahoga River, which once 

caught fire, is now busy with boats and harbor businesses. Oregon’s Willamette River 

has been restored to provide swimming, fishing, and water sports. In Boston, the 

Charles River, once badly polluted, is increasingly recognized as a place for boating 

and related recreation. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 1
 Despite numerous improvements in the quality of water, serious water pollution 

and drinking water problems remain in certain areas. Population growth continues to 

generate higher levels of water pollution and places greater demand on drinking water 

systems. Continued progress toward clean waters and safer drinking water will require 

that the country maintain its commitment to the core programs that have proven so 

effective in the past and implement partnership approaches to improve water quality 

and protect human health. 

To Learn More: www.epa.gov/water/ 

OBJECTIVE 2.1: PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH. Protect human health by reducing 

exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting source waters), in fish 

and shellfish, and in recreational waters. 

Sub-objective 2.1.1: Water Safe to Drink. By 2011, 91 percent of the 

population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that 

meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through effective 

treatment and source water protection. (2005 Baseline: 89 percent) 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, 90 percent of community water systems will provide drinking water 

that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards throughout 

the year. (2005 Baseline: 89 percent) 

• By 2011, 86 percent of the population in Indian country served by community 

water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable healthbased drinking water standards throughout the year. (2005 Baseline: 86 

percent) 

• By 2011, minimized risk to public health through source water protection will 

be achieved for 50 percent of community water systems and for an 

associated 62 percent of the population served by community water systems 

(i.e., “minimized risk” achieved by substantial implementation, as determined 

by the state, of actions in a source water protection strategy). (2005 

Baseline: 20 percent of community water systems; 28 percent of population)

• By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies, reduce by 50 percent 

the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water. 

(2003 Baseline: Indian Health Service data indicate that 12 percent of homes 

on tribal lands lack access to safe drinking water [i.e., 38,637 homes lack 

access].)

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 2 
Sub-objective 2.1.2: Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat. By 2011, reduce public 

health risk and allow increased consumption of fish and shellfish, as measured 

by the strategic targets described as follows. 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, reduce the percentage of women of childbearing age having 

mercury levels in blood above the level of concern from 5.7 percent to 4.6 

percent. (2002 Baseline: 5.7 percent of women of childbearing age have 

mercury blood levels above levels of concern identified by the National Health 

and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES].) 

• By 2011, maintain or improve the percentage of state-monitored shellfishgrowing acres impacted by anthropogenic sources that are approved or 

conditionally approved for use. (2003 Baseline: 65 to 85 percent [estimated] 

of 16.3 million acres of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres impacted by 

anthropogenic sources are approved or conditionally approved for use; EPA 

estimates that 2 to 20 percent of the total 1990 baseline of 17,157,000 acres 

of classified estuarine shellfish waters impacts are impacted by nonanthropogenic sources.) 

Sub-objective 2.1.3: Water Safe for Swimming. By 2011, the number of 

waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other recreational 

contact with coastal and Great Lakes waters will be maintained at two, measured 

as a 5-year average. (2005 Baseline: an annual average of two recreational 

contact waterborne disease outbreaks reported per year by the Centers for 

Disease Control over the years 1998 to 2002; adjusted to remove outbreaks 

associated with waters other than coastal and Great Lakes waters and other than 

natural surface waters [i.e., pools or water parks].) 

Strategic Target:

 By 2011, maintain the percentage of days of the beach season that coastal 

and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety programs that are 

open and safe for swimming at 96 percent. (2004 Baseline: beaches open 96 

percent of the 584,150 days of the beach season [i.e., beach season days = 

3,574 beaches multiplied by variable number of days of beach season at 

each beach.) 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 3
Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 2.1 

Water Safe to Drink 

Safe drinking water is critical to protecting human health. More than 280 million 

Americans rely on the safety of tap water provided by water systems that comply with 

national drinking water standards.4

 EPA’s strategy for ensuring safe drinking water 

over the next several years includes six key elements: 

• Developing or revising drinking water standards. 

• Supporting states, tribes, and water systems in implementing programs to improve 

compliance with drinking water standards. 

• Promoting sustainable management of drinking water infrastructure. 

• Preventing contamination of surface water and ground water that is a source of 

drinking water. 

• Strengthening security at drinking water systems. 

• Increasing access to safe drinking water on tribal lands. 

Drinking Water Standards

 The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directs EPA to establish national standards 

for contaminants in drinking water provided to consumers by water systems. Under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA sets national standards that reduce public health risks 

based on rigorous technical and economic analysis and sound science, including 

contaminant occurrence data, health effects studies, and research on treatment 

technology efficacy. 

Over the past 30 years, EPA has established standards for some 91 

contaminants. Most recently, the Agency issued enhanced standards for the microbial 

pathogen cryptosporidium and disinfection byproducts (December 2005). EPA plans to 

establish additional standards that address microbial contaminants for water systems 

that use ground water. 

Over the next several years, EPA will conduct the second 6-year National 

Primary Drinking Water Rule Review. Where there is adequate information, EPA will 

determine whether revision of an existing standard is warranted. Through 2011, EPA 

will continue to assess the need for new drinking water standards. Based on 

recommendations from the National Research Council, the National Drinking Water 

Advisory Council, and other stakeholders, the Agency will evaluate health effects data 

and risks of exposure to contaminants; gather information on technologies that prevent, 

detect, and remove contaminants; and evaluate compliance costs. 

 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 4 
Compliance with Drinking Water Standards

 EPA will work closely with states, tribes, and owners and operators of municipal 

water systems to move toward the goal of 91 percent of the population served by 

community water systems providing water meeting health-based standards by 2011. 

For water systems that meet drinking water standards, EPA will emphasize actions to 

maintain compliance. EPA will also emphasize the need to return water systems to 

compliance when they fail to meet standards and prepare water systems to comply with 

new regulations, such as the recent rules for cryptosporidium and disinfection 

byproducts. 

EPA and states, 49 of which have primary enforcement authority for healthbased standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act, are partners in ensuring water 

system compliance. States carry out an array of activities such as onsite sanitary 

surveys of water systems and working with small systems to improve their technical, 

managerial, and financial capacity. EPA carries out key actions to help improve 

compliance rates: 

• Provide guidance, training, and technical assistance. 

• Ensure proper certification of water system operators. 

• Promote consumer awareness of the safety of drinking water. 

• Maintain the rate of system sanitary surveys and onsite reviews. 

• Cooperate with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to identify 

noncompliance and take appropriate action. 

 Small community water systems are more likely to have difficulty complying with 

drinking water standards. Many of these systems serve people with low incomes and 

are located in rural areas. In addition, water systems serving tribal areas, Pacific Island 

Territories, Alaska Native villages, and communities along the Mexico border face 

special challenges in providing safe water. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 5

Improving Tribal Drinking Water System Compliance 

The rate of compliance with drinking water standards by water systems on tribal lands (86 percent 

in 2005) lags behind nationwide compliance rates (89 percent in 2005). In addition to their often-small 

size and rural locations, tribal water systems face other significant challenges, including limited resources 

for source water protection. EPA is taking key steps to maintain or improve tribal water system 

compliance: 

 Develop quick reference guides that tribes can use to assist in complying with drinking water 

regulations. 

 Promote watershed protection on tribal lands and implementation of source water protection 

plans. 

 Continue to directly implement the Public Water System Supervision and Underground Injection 

Control programs on tribal lands. 

 Participate in an interagency effort encouraging use of available funds to improve tribal access to 

safe drinking water.
To support these communities, EPA will provide training and assistance 

addressing the use of cost-effective treatment technologies, proper waste disposal, and 

compliance with standards for high-priority contaminants, including arsenic in drinking 

water and microbes, disinfectants, and disinfection byproducts. EPA will also continue 

efforts to partner with states to address the underlying need to strengthen the technical, 

managerial, and financial capacity of small systems. 

 The Safe Drinking Water Information System serves as the primary source of 

information on compliance with all Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. EPA will 

continue to work to ensure that all applicable drinking water regulatory requirements are 

incorporated into this data system to help states and authorized tribes manage their 

drinking water programs. EPA will also continue to work with states, tribes, and others 

to improve data completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency. 

Sustainable Drinking Water Infrastructure

 Providing drinking water that meets public health standards often requires an 

investment in the construction or maintenance of infrastructure. The Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) provides water systems with low-interest loans to make 

infrastructure improvements. 

Even with financial assistance from the DWSRF, the Agency’s September 2002 

report on the infrastructure “gap” identifies a multi-billion-dollar gap in capital 

infrastructure financing over the next 20 years.5 EPA will continue to provide 

infrastructure grants to capitalize state DWSRFs to support needed infrastructure. EPA 

will also work with states to ensure that DWSRF funds are effectively managed, and 

with water system owners and operators to encourage them to adopt sustainable 

management systems. 

Sources of Drinking Water

There is growing recognition that protecting the quality of sources of drinking 

water, including surface waters and ground water, can reduce violations of drinking 

water standards. EPA will support protection of drinking water sources through training 

and technical assistance to states, tribes, and communities that are taking voluntary 

measures to prevent or reduce contamination of source water. The Agency will foster 

coordination of contamination prevention strategies across jurisdictions and monitor 

progress in the adopting of strategies by water systems. The Agency will encourage 

and collaborate with external stakeholders to promote and enhance source water 

protection efforts. 

In a related effort, EPA will protect ground water that is a source of drinking water 

by ensuring safe underground injection of waste materials. EPA will: 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 6 
• Continue working with states and tribes to educate and assist underground 

injection control well operators. 

• Work with industry and stakeholders to collect and evaluate data on potential 

ground water contamination from Class V (shallow) wells, including agricultural 

and stormwater drainage wells and large-capacity septic systems. 

• Explore best management practices for protecting underground sources of 

drinking water. 

• Work to address emerging underground injection issues including carbon 

sequestration and disposal of drinking water treatment residuals. 

Finally, EPA will work with states and tribes to use Clean Water Act authorities to 

prevent contamination of waters that serve as public water supplies and are at high risk. 

The Agency will continue to actively encourage other federal programs to focus 

protection efforts in source water areas. 

Water Infrastructure Security

The President has given EPA primary responsibility for facilitating the protection 

of the water sector, including drinking water systems. The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 

required community water systems serving more than 3,300 people to develop 

vulnerability assessments and to certify emergency response plans. 

 With the compliance deadlines for these requirements having passed and most 

of this work now complete, the focus of EPA’s water security program has shifted from 

identification of vulnerabilities to reduction of risks associated with these vulnerabilities. 

The program will provide the tools and assistance that the sector needs to prevent, 

detect, respond to, and recover from intentional acts and natural disasters. For 

example, EPA will aggressively promote the 14 features of an active and effective water 

security program as developed by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, in 

addition to initiating efforts to measure progress within the sector with respect to risk 

reduction. 

EPA will also encourage mutual aid agreements within states and regions. EPA 

will continue to provide training and exercises to improve the preparedness of the 

nation’s water utilities. 

EPA also will undertake two significant initiatives: (1) the Water Sentinel 

program, which will deploy and test a contamination warning system; and (2) the Water 

Alliance for Threat Reduction, which will provide direct water security training to drinking 

water utilities serving more than 100,000 people. 

 Collectively, these efforts will represent a robust approach for addressing the 

threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences facing the water sector. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 7
Tribal Access to Safe Drinking Water 

The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg adopted 

the goal of reducing the number of people lacking access to safe drinking water and 

basic sanitation by 50 percent by 2015.6

 

In the United States, EPA will focus on providing infrastructure in tribal areas, 

with the 2015 goal of increasing the percentage of tribal homes with access to safe 

drinking water and basic sanitation by 50 percent from 2003 levels by 2015. EPA will 

contribute to this work through its support for development of drinking water facilities in 

Indian country and Alaska Native villages, using set-aside funds from the drinking water 

State Revolving Funds and Clean Water State Revolving Funds as well as targeted 

grants. 

 Other federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, 

the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture, also play key roles in 

addressing this problem. EPA is working with these agencies to develop a coordinated 

strategy for improving access to water and sanitation. 

In addition, Mexico Border infrastructure projects, and projects to improve water 

infrastructure in the Pacific Islands, described under Goal 4 (Healthy Communities and 

Ecosystems), will also increase access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. 

To Learn More: www.epa.gov/safewater/ 

Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat 

Some toxic contaminants that enter water bodies can move up the food chain 

and build up to levels that make fish unsafe to eat. States and tribes report they have 

issued fish consumption advisories for some 24 percent of river miles and 35 percent of 

lake acres.7 

Shellfish also can accumulate disease-causing microorganisms and toxic algae. 

In 2003, shellfishing was prohibited in 9 percent of the acres that support shellfishing.8

 

EPA is working with states, tribes, and other federal agencies to improve water and 

sediment quality so all fish and shellfish are safe to eat and to protect the public from 

consuming fish and shellfish that pose unacceptable health risks. 

Make More Fish Safe to Eat

 Most fish consumption advisories today are issued because of unhealthy levels 

of mercury in fish. Although small amounts of mercury are discharged to waters, most 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 8 
mercury in fish originates from combustion sources, such as coal-fired power plants and 

incinerators, which release it into the air. The mercury is then deposited by rainfall onto 

land and water, where it is methylated by bacteria and moves up the aquatic food web 

through fish to people. 

 EPA is working to reduce releases of mercury to the air through controls on 

combustion sources. For example, EPA expects that by 2011, federal market-based 

and other air regulatory programs will reduce electric-generating unit emissions of 

mercury by 10 tons from their 2000 level of 48 tons (see Goal 1 of this Strategic Plan). 

 Improving water and sediment quality is another key element of the strategy for 

making more fish safe to eat. Implementation of Clean Water Act programs will improve 

water quality by reducing discharges from stormwater systems, combined sewer 

overflows, and concentrated animal feeding operations, and by reducing runoff from 

nonpoint sources. 

 These water quality programs rely on sound scientific information concerning 

individual contaminants in fish. In 2001, EPA issued a criteria document under the 

Clean Water Act identifying maximum acceptable levels of methylmercury in fish tissue 

and will help states and tribes adopt the criterion into water quality standards. EPA 

expects that states and authorized tribes will begin adopting the new mercury fish tissue 

criterion in 2008. 

 EPA’s methodology for calculating “human health criteria” for contaminants found 

in surface waters reflects research on the human health effects of contaminants and 

their potential in water to be concentrated in the food chain and to pose a greater risk to 

people who consume fish. EPA has partly recalculated the criteria for 83 pollutants and 

will be revising these criteria and additional criteria more completely over the next 

several years. 

 EPA is also working to restore the quality of aquatic sediment in critical water 

bodies, with special emphasis on the Great Lakes. In addition, EPA will use Superfund 

program authorities to restore the quality of sediment. To reduce the potential for future 

sediment contamination, EPA is working to reduce the use of polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), a major sediment contaminant, in electrical equipment. (See Goal 4 of this 

Strategic Plan.) 

 Another key element of EPA’s strategy for making more fish safe to eat is 

expanding the amount and type of information about fish safety and making this 

information available to the public. EPA provides guidance to states and tribes on 

monitoring and issuance of fish consumption advisories. A total of 46 states and five 

tribes now follow these guidelines, and EPA is working to help all states and additional 

tribes assess fish safety. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 9
 A key public information tool is the Internet-based National Listing of Fish 

Consumption Advisories.9 This Web site allows states and tribes to enter their 

advisories and provides the public with information about the location of advisories, the 

fish that are affected, and the number of meals or amount of fish that a person can 

safely eat. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/ 

Make More Shellfish Safe to Eat

 The safety of shellfish is managed through a partnership of the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA), the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission (ISSC), and 

coastal states. States monitor shellfishing waters and can restrict harvesting if shellfish 

are unsafe. 

 

 Because an effective system for monitoring the condition of shellfishing waters 

and limiting public exposure to unsafe shellfish is in place, shellfish harvesting is 

restricted in many acres of otherwise productive shellfishing waters. Restrictions can be 

the result of poor water quality due to anthropogenic activity (e.g. discharges from 

sewage treatment plants), but can also be due to naturally occurring algal blooms or for 

administrative reasons. 

EPA is working through its surface water program to address anthropogenic 

sources that result in closures. EPA also continues to work with states, the FDA, the 

ISSC, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to encourage 

them to improve conditions that result in an increase in the percentage of shellfishing 

acres open for harvesting. 

 The ISSC, working with states and federal agencies, has developed an 

information system that uses state monitoring data to pinpoint areas where shellfishing 

has been restricted. This information system, now in operation in 13 of 22 shellfishing 

states, enables EPA and the states to identify possible sources of pollutants restricting 

the use of shellfishing waters. This information can also be used to strengthen water 

pollution control activities, including development of watershed plans, implementation of 

National Estuary Program plans, issuance or reissuance of permits to point sources, 

enforcement of existing permits, and implementation of controls over polluted runoff. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/shellfish/ 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 10 
Water Safe For Swimming 

Recreational waters, especially beaches in coastal areas and the Great Lakes, 

provide outstanding recreational opportunities for many Americans. Swimming in some 

recreational waters, however, can pose an increased risk of illness as a result of 

exposure to microbial pathogens. 

Beach closures to protect the public from harmful levels of pathogens can have 

significant economic impacts. In some cases, these pathogens can be traced to 

sewage treatment plants, malfunctioning septic systems, and discharges from 

stormwater systems and animal feeding operations. 

 EPA is implementing a three-part strategy to protect public health and the quality 

of the nation’s recreational waters. The Agency will work to protect recreational water 

generally, control combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and protect public health by 

working with local beach managers to ensure proper notification of the conditions at 

public beaches along the coasts and Great Lakes. 

Protect Recreational Waters

 The first element of the strategy is broadly focused on all recreational waters. 

EPA is working with states to ensure that state-adopted criteria for pathogens and 

bacteria in waters designated for recreational use are current and scientifically sound. 

In a related effort, EPA has developed new analytic methods for monitoring pathogen 

levels at beaches and other recreational waters. 

 

 To protect and restore these waters, EPA works with state, tribal, and local 

governments to implement the core programs of the Clean Water Act. For example, 

developing and implementing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) will generally benefit 

recreational waters that are impaired. The continuing implementation of the discharge 

permit program, urban stormwater controls, and nonpoint pollution control programs will 

also reduce pollution to recreational waters. 

 Proper management of onsite/ decentralized sewage treatment systems is critical 

to control of pathogens and ensuring that waters are safe for swimming. EPA will 

encourage state, tribal, and local governments to adopt voluntary guidelines for the 

sound management of these systems and to use Clean Water Revolving Loan Funds to 

finance systems where appropriate. 

Control Combined Sewer Overflows

 Full implementation of controls for overflows from CSOs is another key step in 

protecting recreational waters. These overflows release untreated sewage containing 

high levels of pathogens. CSOs, which occur in about 770 communities around the 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 11
country, can have a significant impact on the quality of recreational waters. EPA, 

states, and local governments are making steady progress toward reducing overflows 

under the “CSO Policy.”10 

 To Learn More: www.epa.gov/npdes/cso 

Most communities with CSOs have now implemented basic control measures 

and 48 percent of permittees have adopted schedules for implementing Long Term 

Control Plans for CSOs. EPA is working to complete the development of Long Term 

Control Plans by 2011 and is monitoring the progress toward full implementation of the 

controls called for in these plans. 

Protect Coastal and Great Lakes Beaches

 The third element of the strategy to protect and restore recreational waters is 

focused on public beaches along coastal areas and the Great Lakes. Under the 

Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act, EPA provides 

grants to state, tribal, and local governments for programs to monitor beach water 

quality and notify the public when bacterial contamination poses a risk to swimmers. 

Of the approximately 6,000 beaches nationwide, states have determined that 

some 2,756 are “significant” or “Tier I” beaches based on expected use and other 

criteria. EPA expects that 100 percent of these “significant” public beaches will be 

managed under the BEACH Act each year. EPA has set a goal that these significant 

beaches will be open 96 percent of the days of the beach season. 

 Finally, EPA will continue to expand public access to Internet-based beach 

information on its Web site. Governments receiving BEACH Act grants will provide 

information on water quality, beach monitoring and advisory programs, and beach 

closures. This will provide beach-goers with the information they need to make 

informed choices. 

To Learn More: www.epa.gov/beaches/ 

OBJECTIVE 2.2: PROTECT WATER QUALITY. Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, 

and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters. 

Sub-objective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis. By 2012, 

use pollution prevention and restoration approaches to protect the quality of 

rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 12 
Strategic Targets:

• By 2012, attain water quality standards for all pollutants and impairments in 

more than 2,250 water bodies identified in 2002 as not attaining standards 

(cumulative). (2002 Baseline: 37,978 water bodies identified by states and 

tribes as not meeting water quality standards. Water bodies where mercury is 

among multiple pollutants causing impairment may be counted toward this 

target when all pollutants but mercury attain standards, but must be identified 

as still needing restoration for mercury; 1,703 of the 37,978 impaired water 

bodies are impaired by multiple pollutants including mercury.) 

• By 2012, remove at least 5,200 of the specific causes of water body 

impairment identified by states in 2002. (2002 Baseline: estimate of 64,250 

specific causes of water body impairment identified by states and tribes.) 

• By 2012, improve water quality conditions in 213 impaired watersheds 

nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative). (2002 Baseline: zero 

watersheds improved of an estimated 40,000/50,000 impaired watersheds 

with one or more water bodies impaired. The watershed boundaries for this 

measure are those established at the “12-digit” scale by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS). Watersheds at this scale average between 16 and 36 

square miles in size. “Improved” means that one or more of the impairment 

causes identified in 2002 are removed for at least 40 percent of the impaired 

water bodies or impaired miles/acres; or there is significant watershed-wide 

improvement, as demonstrated by valid scientific information, in one or more 

water quality parameters or related indicators associated with the 

impairments.) 

• By 2012, the condition of the nation’s wadeable streams does not degrade 

(i.e., there is no statistically significant increase in the percent of streams 

rated “poor” and no statistically significant decrease in the streams rated 

“good”). (2006 Baseline: Wadeable Stream Survey identifies 28 percent of 

streams in good condition; 25 percent in fair condition; 42 percent in poor 

condition.) 

• By 2012, improve water quality in Indian country at not fewer than 10 percent 

of baseline monitoring stations in tribal waters (i.e., show improvement in one 

or more of seven key parameters: dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, 

total nitrogen, total phosphorus, pathogen indicators, and turbidity). (2006 

Baseline: 35 tribes provide water quality data to EPA; number of monitoring 

stations to be determined by August 2006.) 

• By 2015, in coordination with other federal partners, reduce by 50 percent the 

number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation. (2003 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 13
Baseline: Indian Health Service data indicate that 8.4 percent of homes on 

tribal lands lack access to basic sanitation [i.e., 26,777 homes of an estimated 

319,070 homes lacking access].) 

Sub-objective 2.2.2: Improve Coastal and Ocean Water. By 2011, prevent 

water pollution and protect coastal and ocean systems to improve national 

coastal aquatic ecosystem health by at least 0.2 points on the “good/fair/poor” 

scale of the National Coastal Condition Report. (2004 Baseline: national rating of 

“fair/poor,” or 2.3, where the rating is based on a 4-point system ranging from 1.0 

to 5.0 in which 1 is poor and 5 is good using the National Coastal Condition 

Report indicators for water and sediment, coastal habitat, benthic index, and fish 

contamination). 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the “good/fair/poor” 

scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Northeast Region. 

(2004 Baseline: Northeast rating of 1.8) 

• By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the “good/fair/poor” 

scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Southeast Region. 

(2004 Baseline: Southeast rating of 3.8) 

• By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the “good/fair/poor” 

scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the West Coast Region. 

(2004 Baseline: West Coast rating of 2.0) 

• By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the “good/fair/poor” 

scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Puerto Rico Region. 

(2004 Baseline: Puerto Rico rating of 1.7) 

• By 2011, 95 percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites will have 

achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site’s 

management plan). (2005 Baseline: 94 percent) 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 2.2

 

Improve Water Quality On A Watershed Basis 

To improve water quality on a watershed basis, EPA will focus its work with states, 

interstate agencies, tribes, local governments, and others on three key areas: 

• Maintain strong core clean water programs with greater emphasis on watershed 

protection. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 14 
• Strengthen efforts to identify impaired waters and restore these waters on a 

watershed basis. 

• Invest in water infrastructure and strengthen management practices to improve 

the sustainability of water systems. 

Maintain Strong Core Programs

 To build on the progress toward clean water of the past 30 years, EPA will work 

with states and tribes to operate four key elements of the Clean Water Act: 

• Scientifically sound water quality standards. 

• Effective water monitoring. 

• Strong programs for control of nonpoint sources of pollution. 

• Strong discharge permit programs. 

Water Quality Criteria and Standards 

 State and tribal water quality standards provide the environmental baselines for 

water quality programs. EPA provides scientific information concerning contaminants in 

the form of “water quality criteria” and supports state and tribal adoption of water quality 

standards that protect water for such uses as swimming, public water supply, and fish 

and wildlife. 

 

 EPA’s investment in the science needed to support state water quality standards 

is focused on several key areas: 

• Improving the science relating to nutrient criteria. 

• Developing the science for a new generation of pathogen criteria for ambient 

water. 

• Determining how to address PPCPs (pharmaceuticals and personal care 

products) found in the aquatic environment. 

• Developing criteria methodology for water body sedimentation. 

• Developing analytic methods needed to support criteria. 

In working with states and tribes to improve standards, EPA will: 

• Assist states as they move from defining to adopting numeric nutrient criteria. 

• Encourage the utilization of use attainability. 

• Issue guidance for implementing new water quality criteria in state and tribal 

programs. 

• Work with states to adopt appropriate pathogen criteria for recreational waters. 

• Expand the number and range of biological criteria. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 15
 Finally, EPA will work with states and tribes to ensure the effective operation and 

administration of the standards program. For example, all states and authorized tribes 

are expected to review and revise their standards every 3 years if necessary. In 

addition, EPA must promptly review and approve or disapprove changes to standards. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/ 

Water Quality Monitoring 

 Over the next 5 years, EPA will assist states and tribes in significantly improving 

information concerning the condition of the nation’s rivers, lakes, streams, and 

wetlands. Top priorities for this work are: 

• Continuing the long-term cooperative EPA/state surveys of the condition of 

waters, with surveys of lakes and rivers following the recent survey of wadeable 

streams. 

• Implementing water-monitoring strategies adopted by states and tribes on 

established schedules. 

• Expanding use of the Assessment Database and integrated reporting of water 

quality conditions, including identification of impaired waters. 

• Expanding use of STORET, the national water quality data warehouse. 

 

 This monitoring work will be coordinated with assessments of fish tissue 

contamination, the condition of water at beaches, the condition of coastal waters, and 

the condition of ground water. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/ 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 

 Nonpoint pollution degrades water quality in many of the water bodies throughout 

the country. State nonpoint control programs under section 319 of the Clean Water Act 

are critical to reducing nonpoint pollution. 

 EPA will work with states to maintain core programs for reducing nonpoint 

pollution through implementation of best management practices, including education 

and technical assistance. A critical step in this effort is for EPA to forge strategic 

partnerships with a broad range of agricultural interests at all levels. EPA will work with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure that federal resources, including 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 16 
grants under section 319 of the Clean Water Act and funds available through the 

programs managed by USDA, are managed in a coordinated manner. 

 As part of this effort, EPA will work with states on developing and implementing 

watershed-based plans, focused on watersheds with impaired water quality caused by 

nonpoint sources. These plans are a mechanism to coordinate monitoring and planning 

on a watershed basis and will build a foundation for effective implementation actions 

using federal and other funding. 

NPDES Permits 

To Learn More: www.epa.gov/owow/nps/

Discharge Permit Program 

 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires point 

sources discharging to the nation’s waters to have permits for those discharges and 

requires pretreatment programs to control discharges from industrial facilities to sewage 

treatment plants. 

EPA has five key objectives for the program: 

• Continue to strengthen management of the permit program. 

• Advance program innovations including watershed permitting and water quality 

trading. 

• Implement wet-weather point source controls. 

• Maintain effective pretreatment of discharges to sewage treatment plants. 

• Develop new or revised national regulations addressing key industrial sources of 

pollution. 

EPA worked with states over the past several years to develop a Permitting for 

Environmental Results Strategy to address concerns about the backlog in issuing 

permits and the health of state NPDES programs. The Strategy was designed to 

assess program integrity, foster efficient permitting operations, and increase data 

quality, including modernizing the Permits Compliance System. Over the next several 

years, EPA will monitor the implementation of several hundred follow-up actions that 

resulted from the assessments to assure a strong NPDES program. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 17
Implementing Core Programs on a Watershed Basis 

EPA and states are working to deliver core Clean Water Act programs on a 

watershed basis. Some examples include: 

• Nonpoint pollution control projects focused on watersheds needing restoration. 

• Watershed-scale discharge permits. 

• Water quality trading. 

• Watershed scale assessment of infrastructure needs. 

• Demonstration of watershed scale program integration through targeted watershed 

assistance grants. 

In addition, EPA and states are fostering the collaborative efforts of diverse 

partners to protect the health of watersheds by building local institutions to provide 

stewardship of water resources on a sustained basis. 

 To assist states with improving the operational efficiency of permit programs, 

EPA will continue to develop and deploy electronic tools such as the electronic 

Discharge Monitoring Report, electronic permitting, and electronic Notices of Intent to 

be covered by a general permit, as well as delivery of a new performance tracking 

system called the Integrated Compliance Information System-NPDES. 

EPA will continue to support states in expanding the use of innovative permit 

tools to improve water quality on a watershed scale. The momentum is building for 

watershed-based permitting and pollutant trading and over the next 5 years EPA 

expects to begin to see the results of early efforts. To date, approximately 98 

dischargers have carried out trades under NPDES permits. As more permits 

incorporate trading options, trading is expected to increase. 

Wet weather discharges are a significant cause of water pollution and are a top 

priority for the permit program. State and local governments have issued permits to 

control storm water from industrial sites, construction sites and municipal separate 

storm sewers. EPA will work to ensure that these permits are reissued promptly when 

they expire and will monitor the extent to which those entities needing a permit are 

covered by a permit. 

 EPA is revising rules for discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operations (CAFOs) to reflect court findings. EPA expects that, after the revised rules 

take effect in 2007, permits will be issued promptly, and CAFOs will begin developing 

and implementing nutrient management plans. Projected pollution reductions from this 

effort include 166 million pounds of nutrients and 2 billion pounds of sediments over 5 

years. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 18 
 

Permit Compliance 

 EPA will continue working with states to address and resolve significant noncompliance 

with NPDES permits in a timely manner, including placing emphasis on occurrences of 

significant noncompliance where effluent exceedances may contribute to impaired waters. 

EPA will continue to work with states and sewage treatment plants to improve compliance with 

permit conditions. 

EPA will continue to implement and strengthen the pretreatment program by 

providing tools to assist states and localities in their activities. EPA and states will 

monitor the percentage of significant industrial facilities that have control mechanisms in 

place to implement pretreatment requirements prior to discharging to publicly owned 

treatment works. 

Most industrial facilities discharging directly to water bodies or to sewage 

treatment plants have permit limits or pretreatment controls based on national 

regulations developed for the class of industrial activity. Regulations are now in place 

for more than 50 industrial classes. 

Over the next 5 years, EPA will consider new wastewater regulations for airport 

deicing and drinking water treatment residuals, and will consider revising regulations for 

some chemical manufacturers. EPA will publish Effluent Guidelines Plans every other 

year that summarize the Agency’s findings about the sources, volume, and toxicity of 

industrial discharges and the need for new or revised regulations. 

 

To Learn More: cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ and 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/plan/ 

Restore Impaired Waters on a Watershed Basis

 EPA is working with states, interstate agencies, and tribes to expand and 

strengthen efforts to restore impaired waters with the goal of restoring, by 2012, at least 

2,250 of the 37,978 waters identified by states as impaired in 2002. 

 Key elements of the strategy to restore impaired waters include: 

• Improve data relating to the location and nature of impairments. 

• Organize TMDLs on a water body and a watershed basis. 

• Maintain aggressive efforts to complete TMDL development. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 19
• Expedite implementation of pollution control actions called for in TMDLs and 

other plans, giving special attention to “high priority” discharge permits. 

• Implement watershed scale restoration in more than 200 “12- digit” scale 

watersheds. 

In a related effort, EPA is working to restore and protect large-scale ecosystems 

around the country. This work is described in Goal 4 of this Strategic Plan. 

 States identify impaired waters (i.e., waters where one or more of the uses 

designated in water quality standards is not being attained) in reports to EPA. Over the 

next several years, EPA will continue to work with states to coordinate identification of 

impaired waters with overall water quality assessments and to improve data concerning 

the location of impaired waters and the causes of impairments. As these data improve, 

EPA and states will be able to identify watersheds where impaired waters are clustered 

together and better understand likely impairment causes and remedies. 

 This improved data will also help states refine schedules for the development of 

TMDLs so that the TMDLs needed to restore a group of impaired waters can be 

developed in a coordinated manner. EPA is encouraging states to develop TMDLs for 

these waters on a watershed basis because watershed-based TMDLs are less 

expensive to develop and create the opportunity for coordinated implementation of 

response programs and innovations such as water quality trading and watershed-based 

permitting. Trading is a valuable tool that allows sources of pollutants to share 

responsibility for controlling their discharges within a watershed and to reduce pollutants 

at the lowest cost. 

Understanding that restoration of impaired waters can often best be 

accomplished through the coordinated development of TMDLs and implementation of 

restoration actions on a watershed scale, EPA will work with states to develop 

watershed restoration plans focusing on small, “12-digit” watersheds defined by USGS. 

These plans will demonstrate how to coordinate the planning and implementation of 

pollution control actions to accomplish improvements in water quality. EPA will work 

with states to initiate a significant number of watershed restoration plans, with the goal 

of generating documented water quality improvement in more than 200 watersheds by 

2012. 

 EPA will also continue working with states to develop TMDLs consistent with 

state TMDL development schedules and court-ordered deadlines. States and EPA 

have made significant progress in the development and approval of TMDLs and expect 

to maintain the current pace of approximately 3,500 TMDLs completed and approved 

per year. 

 The significant investment in development of TMDLs since 2000 has resulted in 

the cumulative completion of over 19,000 TMDLs across the country. As more TMDLs 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 20 
are developed to support those already in place, an increasing number of impaired 

water bodies and watersheds will be ready for implementation of pollution control and 

restoration efforts. 

To Learn More: www.epa.gov/tmdl/ 

Meeting the water body restoration goal will require that EPA and states carefully 

define and schedule restoration actions resulting from TMDLs. In some cases, a single 

permit revision or enforcement action may bring about restoration. In other cases, 

water body or watershed scale restoration plans linking point source controls, nonpoint 

source management practices, and financing support will be needed. 

Improving Tribal Water Quality 

 EPA has set a goal of improving water quality at monitoring stations on tribal lands. A 

key step in this effort is the development of tribal water quality standards and monitoring 

strategies. 

EPA will also work with tribes to develop nonpoint pollution programs under section 

319, expand and strengthen water permit programs, and develop tribal wetlands programs. 

EPA will assist tribes in developing watershed plans for protecting water quality and 

will involve tribes in the development of TMDLs related to tribal waters. 

Wastewater infrastructure issues on tribal lands will be addressed using funds setaside from Clean Water State Revolving Funds and Alaska Native Village Sanitation Grants. 

Increasing access to basic sanitation and safe drinking water on tribal lands is addressed in 

Section 2.1.1 of this Strategic Plan. 

In support of this effort, EPA will refine the selection and issuance of “highpriority” permits – those expired permits that states determine have significant 

environmental impacts – to ensure they address factors such as location on impaired 

waters, incorporation of new TMDLs and water quality standards, and potential to 

contribute to watershed restoration. EPA will continue to ensure that these critical 

permits are issued promptly while also maintaining a high level of overall permit 

currency to maintain program integrity. 

Support Sustainable Wastewater Infrastructure

One of the most critical challenges facing the nation is how to sustain water and 

wastewater infrastructure systems. Existing systems are aging, with some components 

older than 100 years, and a growing and shifting population requires continued 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 21
investment for new and existing infrastructure. Recognizing the substantial remaining 

need for wastewater infrastructure, EPA expects to continue to provide annual 

capitalization to CWSRFs in future years. This continued federal investment in state 

revolving funds, along with other traditional sources of financing (including increased 

local revenues) will result in significant progress toward addressing the nation’s 

wastewater treatment needs. 

EPA’s Gap Analysis Report (2002) estimated that if capital spending and 

investments in operations and maintenance for wastewater infrastructure remained at 

current levels, the potential gap in funding between 2000 and 2019 would be about 

$270 billion. In addition, investment in research and development has declined and 

many utilities have not focused attention on managing for long-term sustainability. 

The nation must embrace a fundamental change in the way it manages, views, 

values, and invests in water infrastructure. This can only occur if all parties embrace a 

collaborative approach focused on finding effective, efficient, and fair solutions. As one 

partner in a much larger effort, EPA’s main role will be to facilitate the efforts by others 

to help ensure sustainable water infrastructure. 

EPA has developed a Sustainable Infrastructure organized around four main 

themes, or “pillars”: 

• Sustainable Management Practices: In collaboration with leading utilities and 

associations, EPA will promote greater adoption of sustainable utility 

management practices. EPA will sign agreements with leading national 

organizations describing a number of key steps, including finalization of a 

national strategy in early 2007. 

• Water Efficiency: EPA will develop a voluntary, partnership program to 

enhance the market for water-efficient products, modeled after the highly 

successful ENERGY STAR program, to provide consumers with information 

regarding the water use and performance of a variety of water-using equipment 

and products. 

• Full Cost Pricing: EPA will identify the range of approaches used to set rate 

structures based on full cost pricing, collect “lessons learned” from utilities 

implementing those structures, and use that data to provide a range of options on 

full-cost pricing to meet the disparate needs of communities. 

• A Watershed Approach: EPA will work with utilities, watershed organizations, 

and others to provide tools and information that will facilitate a watershed 

approach for making key infrastructure decisions. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 22 
EPA is developing a new Internet-based Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 

(CWNS) data system to allow local communities and states to more easily enter and 

update information on their pollution prevention and treatment project needs. In support 

of sustainable infrastructure management, the CWNS data will be easily accessible for 

purposes such as project prioritization and Internet mapping analyses. 

EPA will also undertake a major research and development initiative to identify 

unmet water infrastructure needs that can be addressed through innovation. 

Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs) are another tool to help support 

sustainable infrastructure management. CWSRFs provide low-interest loans to help 

finance wastewater treatment facilities and other clean water projects. These projects 

are critical to continuing the gains in public health and water quality of the past 30 years. 

As of early 2006, the federal government had invested over $23 billion in 

CWSRFs.11 The revolving nature of the funds and substantial additions from states 

have magnified that investment so that $55 billion has been available for loans.12 

Over the next 5 years, EPA will work with CWSRFs to meet several key 

objectives: 

• Fund projects designed as part of an integrated watershed approach, including 

repairing or upgrading onsite treatment systems. 

• Link projects to environmental results through the use of scientifically sound data. 

• Maintain the CWSRF’s excellent fiduciary condition. 

A portion of CWSRF funding is a set-aside each year for investment in water 

infrastructure improvements on tribal lands, included expanding access to basic 

sanitation. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinancing/ 

Improve Coastal And Ocean Waters 

 Coastal and ocean waters are environmentally and economically valuable to the 

nation. Assessments of coastal regions of the country through the National Coastal 

Condition Report indicate that coastal waters are improving overall for a composite 

score of 2.0 in 2001 to 2.3 in 2004. Of the five major coastal regions (i.e., the four 

addressed here and the Gulf of Mexico region addressed in Goal 4 of this Strategic 

Plan), four regions showed improvement from 2001 to 2004, with only the Northeast 

Coast holding constant at 1.8. (The Puerto Rico Region was not assessed in 2001.) 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 23
 Key programs focused on and critical to improving coastal waters are: 

• Assessing coastal conditions 

• Reducing vessel discharges 

• Controlling coastal nonpoint pollution 

• Managing dredged material 

• Managing non-indigenous invasive species 

• Supporting international marine pollution control 

 In addition, coordinating these efforts with those of other federal agencies, states, 

tribes, and public and private parties is essential. Improving coastal waters will depend 

on successful implementation of pollution controls in inland watersheds . 

 Progress in protecting and restoring coastal waters is also directly tied to 

geographically focused projects, such as the key estuaries addressed by the National 

Estuary Program, as well as programs to protect coastal ecosystems including the 

Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, South Florida ecosystem, Puget 

Sound, and Columbia River Basin. These programs are described under Goal 4 of this 

Strategic Plan. 

Assess Coastal Conditions

 Progress in meeting the strategic goals for coastal waters will be tracked through 

the National Coastal Condition Report, created in 2002 as a cooperative project of EPA, 

NOAA, USDA, and the Department of Interior (DOI). The report describes the 

ecological and environmental condition of U.S. coastal waters according to five key 

indicators. EPA and other federal agencies will review changing conditions and 

periodically issue updated assessments of the health of coastal waters. 

 In support of this work, EPA is developing indices for measuring the health of 

coral reefs and monitoring compliance with environmental requirements at ocean 

dumping sites. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/ 

Reduce Vessel Discharges

 To improve the health of the nation’s ocean and coastal waters, EPA will focus 

on addressing discharges of pollution from vessels. Key work includes: 

• Assessing the need for and developing discharge standards for cruise ships 

operating in Alaskan waters. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 24 
• Cooperating with the Department of Defense to develop discharge standards for 

certain armed forces vessels. 

• Assessing the effectiveness of the program to reduce sewage discharges from 

vessels. 

Implement Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Programs

 Rapid population growth in coastal areas can result in significant increases in 

pollution from nonpoint sources. For the past 15 years, EPA and NOAA have been 

working with coastal and Great Lakes states to improve and expand programs to reduce 

nonpoint source pollution in the “coastal zone” identified by states. 

Most states have used federal grant funds to develop coastal nonpoint programs 

and EPA and NOAA are working with the remaining states to complete the program by 

providing continued support and assistance. These nonpoint control programs, focused 

on the critical coastal zone areas, play an important role in accomplishing the 

environmental improvements sought for coastal waters. 

Manage Dredged Material 

 Several hundred million cubic yards of sediment are dredged from waterways, 

ports, and harbors every year to maintain the nation’s navigation system for 

commercial, national defense, and recreational purposes. All of this sediment must be 

disposed of safely. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) share 

responsibility for regulating how and where the disposal of sediment occurs. 

 EPA and the Corps will focus additional resources on improving disposal of 

dredged material, including evaluating disposal sites, designating and monitoring the 

sites, and reviewing and concurring on the disposal permits issued by COE. 

 EPA is also working with its state partners and other federal agencies, including 

COE, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard, to ensure that dredged 

material management plans, which include provisions for the beneficial reuse of 

dredged material, are developed and implemented in major ports and harbors. 

EPA has adopted a goal of having 95 percent of active dredged material ocean 

dumping sites meeting environmentally acceptable conditions, as reflected in the site 

management plan. EPA will use the new capability provided by the Ocean Survey 

Vessel Bold to monitor compliance with environmental requirements at these ocean 

sites and to conduct other ocean studies. 

Manage Invasive Species 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 25
 One of the greatest threats to U.S. waters and ecosystems is the uncontrolled 

spread of invasive species, such as zebra mussels. Invasive species commonly enter 

U.S. waters through the discharge of ballast water from ships. Although the majority of 

these organisms never become established in a new ecosystem, an increasing number 

of them are harming the environment and local economies and posing risks to human 

health. 

 EPA is assisting the U.S. Coast Guard in its efforts to develop ballast water 

discharge standards and is addressing this issue at the international level. 

Support International Marine Pollution Control

 EPA works closely with the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, and the Department of 

State to address environmental threats to U.S. waters that require international 

cooperation. 

 Recognizing the effect of international shipping on the quality of the U.S. waters, 

EPA is heavily involved in the negotiation of international standards at the International 

Maritime Organization. These standards are the principal mechanism EPA is using to 

address invasive aquatic species, tributyltin and other harmful antifoulants, and marine 

debris. Work is currently underway to develop guidelines under a global treaty (not yet 

in force) designed to prevent further introductions of invasive aquatic species through 

ballast water. 

EPA is also engaged in cooperative efforts to reduce other sources of pollution 

affecting the Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, Arctic Ocean, Straits of Florida, and the 

Wider Caribbean Basin. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ 

OBJECTIVE 2.3: ENHANCE RESEARCH TO SUPPORT CLEAN AND SAFE WATER. By 

2011, conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research to support the protection of human health 

through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, 

and recreational waters and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems—specifically, the 

quality of rivers, lakes, and streams, and coastal and ocean waters.

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 2.3

EPA conducts dedicated research programs to support both the drinking water and 

water quality program. Additional research related to human health and ecological 

issues conducted in support of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Goal of this 

Strategic Plan also supports drinking water and clean water programs. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 26 
Progress toward research goals is assessed through a suite of metrics that is 

tailored to measuring the impacts of the outcomes of the respective research programs. 

Among the measurable factors are: independent expert review panel ratings on the 

extent to which clients utilize EPA research products; composite scores on a client 

survey designed to gather data on product utility and perceptions of use; and the results 

of bibliometric and/or client document analyses demonstrating the actual use of EPA 

research products. These factors are applied to measure success in providing the 

results identified in the research programs that follow. 

Drinking Water Research Program 

The Drinking Water Research Program (DWRP) supports the needs of the Office 

of Water, regions, states, tribes, municipalities and utilities, producing research products 

that DWRP clients use to inform their critical decisions associated with implementing the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The SDWA Amendments of 1996 direct EPA to 

conduct research to strengthen the scientific foundation for standards that limit public 

exposure to drinking water contaminants. This program will produce measurable 

benefits in the form of enhanced decisions for the six-year review of drinking water 

standards and contaminant candidate listing decisions. 

DWRP science and engineering research will be executed by strategic use of the 

skills and facilities available in the Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

laboratories, by expertise at universities through ORD’s STAR Grants program, and by 

cross-agency collaborations such as those established with the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, and 

USGS. 

DWRP will coordinate its research portfolio with extramural organizations 

conducting complimentary research including the American Water Works Association 

Research Foundation, the Water Environment Research Foundation, and the Global 

Water Research Coalition. The program will continue to emphasize the use and 

development of genomic and proteomic-based techniques and methods. 

The Office of Water performs risk assessments in support of regulatory 

determinations for candidate drinking water contaminants and other risk management 

activities, including perfecting methods to assess exposure, conducting heath effects 

studies on contaminant mode of action and dose-response, developing analytical 

methods to monitor contaminants, and determining treatment, performance, and cost 

parameters. 

Regions, states, tribes, municipalities and utilities often need technical advice to 

put new and revised drinking water regulations into action. The DWRP will develop 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 27
drinking water treatment strategies, compliance monitoring methods, and tools for 

source water protection to assist these clients with meeting regulations. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act requires review of existing regulations on a six-year 

cycle. The DWRP will assist the Office of Water in these reviews by conducting 

research to update the science and engineering information used in the rule including, 

for example, studying newly identified modes of toxicity, improving monitoring methods, 

improved treatment approaches, and increasing understanding of the impact of 

distribution systems on water quality. 

Water Quality Research Program 

The Water Quality Research Program (WQRP) provides timely, leading-edge 

water quality research products and information to the Office of Water, EPA regions and 

states for use in support of regulatory and non-regulatory activities that, when 

implemented, result in environmental and/or human health benefits. This program will 

produce measurable benefits in the form of: 

• stronger criteria for the protection of human health and ecosystems as related to 

designated uses for aquatic systems; 

• increased use of diagnostics and forecasting techniques for the protection of human 

health and ecosystems as related to designated uses for aquatic systems; and 

• selection, placement, and management of sustainable watershed technologies to 1) 

restore impaired aquatic systems, 2) protect unimpaired systems, 3) provide human 

health risk and treatment process information on the beneficial use of biosolids, and 

4) forecast the ecologic, economic, and human health benefits of alternative 

approaches to attaining water quality standards. 

Research under these goals is intended to lead to the promulgation of protective 

standards; the identification of contaminant contributions to impaired waters; and the 

utilization of tools needed to restore and protect the nation’s waters with due 

consideration of point and nonpoint sources of contamination and including the 

treatment and beneficial use of biosolids. Thus, the research directly contributes to the 

Agency’s water related environmental outcomes. 

In establishing research priorities, the water quality research program relies on 

the inputs of the Office of Water (Office of Science and Technology; Office of Wetlands, 

Oceans, and Watersheds; and the Office of Wastewater Management). In turn, the 

research priorities identified by these clients are inclusive of the research needs of the 

EPA regions and states that have provided input to the development of the EPA 

Strategic Plan.

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 28 
HUMAN CAPITAL 

Over the past 20 years, EPA has delegated to state governments much of its 

authority to protect surface water and drinking water. As a result, EPA’s role has shifted 

from directly implementing water programs to providing guidance and assistance to, and 

coordinating financial and information resources for, partners and stakeholders. EPA 

continues to be responsible for coordinating national water policy and evaluating water 

programs, as well as for direct program implementation of certain programs for some 

states and tribes. 

EPA’s changing role in protecting water quality means that the Agency’s 

workforce must be increasingly competent in areas such as communication, policy 

development, and management of contracts and assistance agreements in addition to 

engineering and life sciences. The Office of Water has initiated the establishment of a 

Workforce Council that will review the implementation of workforce initiatives and will 

advise senior managers on priorities for improving quality of work life. 

EPA’s Office of Water is assessing the optimal skill mix needed to fulfill missioncritical assignments, as well as the distribution of tasks among those positions and 

expected trends in staff retirements. The Office of Water has formed a Recruitment 

Council, composed of staff and managers, to plan and coordinate participation in job 

fairs, train employees on the recruitment process, and improve recruitment information 

sharing. In addition, water program offices have established or are working to establish 

ongoing ties to historically black colleges as well as other colleges and universities, in 

order to create opportunities for ensuring a diverse workforce into the future. 

Recognizing that today’s staff members are tomorrow’s leaders, the National 

Water Program has initiated several long-term efforts to provide training and career 

guidance to employees. The Water Careers program in the Office of Water provides 

employees with a variety of opportunities for training and development related to 

creating Individual Development Plans, mentoring and coaching, and leadership. About 

100 water program staff members have participated in this leadership development 

program, instituted in 2002. The Office of Water also provides expert training in water 

program topics to both EPA employees and state water program employees. Three key 

training programs are the Drinking Water Academy, the Water Quality Standards 

Academy, and the NPDES Permit Writer’s Course. 

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 

In Goal 2, most of the strategic targets (or measurable objectives and subobjectives) are measurable and reportable on an annual basis. These annual 

performance goals and measures are established in the Agency’s Annual Plan and 

Budget and reportable results are documented in EPA’s annual Performance and 

Accountability Report. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 29
For the research sub-objective, EPA will track annual progress toward expected 

long-term results by means of multiple, objective-based measures of customer 

satisfaction, product impact and quality, and efficiency. 

Influences of Environmental Indicators on the Strategic Plan 

The Agency is working to improve the expression of long-term, outcome-oriented 

commitments. In this Clean and Safe Water Goal, EPA has developed new strategic 

targets drawing from sources such as program evaluations and the environmental 

indicators that will be included in the forthcoming Report on the Environment (ROE).

The first measure addresses the chemical, biological and physical condition of 

wadeable streams. The second measure expresses the mercury blood-levels of women 

of child-bearing age, a reflection of the health risk from consuming contaminated fish. 

Through the ROE, the Agency will routinize the updating and improvement of 

scientifically-sound environmental indicators. The latest version of the ROE as well as 

information associated with the new ROE can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/indicators/index.htm . 

Future Improvements to Performance Measurement 

 In addition to the revisions and improvements incorporated when developing this 

Strategic Plan, the Agency made a preliminary assessment of longer-term opportunities 

for such improvements. Based on this assessment, EPA will work to expand and 

sustain a scientifically-sound, statistically-valid monitoring regimen to characterize the 

condition of the nation’s waters, to advance measurement of water quality conditions on 

tribal lands and to improve measures related to environmental justice. 

Environmental Justice Measures 

 The National Water Program is participating on the Agency-wide effort to develop and 

strengthen measures to ensure that the environmental and public health benefits of programs 

are equitably shared among all citizens. Within this Clean and Safe Water Goal, EPA has 

developed measures of compliance with drinking water standards by tribal water systems as 

well as access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation on tribal lands. 

In the future, the National Water Program expects to be able to use Agency definitions 

of geographic areas meeting criteria related to “environmental justice” and develop measures of 

progress with respect to drinking water safety and restoration of impaired waters in these areas. 

EPA will strive to deliver program resources so that progress toward clean and safe water in 

these areas is as good or as better than progress reported nationwide. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 30 
CLOSING THE FEEDBACK LOOP: PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND 

PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

The National Water Program is committed to affirmative assessment of performance 

and adaptive management to strengthen performance and enhance results. Over the 

next 5 years, the National Water Program will implement a program performance 

process including the following key steps: 

• Define 5-year environmental goals and program strategies in this Strategic Plan. 

• Define annual increments of progress under program measures. 

• Assess performance of individual water programs. 

• Annually summarize all program evaluations in a single assessment report and 

revise and strengthen management practices. 

Role of Annual Program Guidance 

 The National Water Program publishes annual program guidance that expresses 

the goals and objective of the Strategic Plan in annual, operational terms. The annual 

guidance includes annual targets for environmental measures from the Strategic Plan

but also includes measures of program performance. The annual guidance also 

includes more detailed directions for program management to reflect priorities of that 

year and the results of performance assessments. A key function of the annual 

guidance is to strengthen the link between program grants to states, tribes, and others 

to the environmental goals in the Strategic Plan. 

 The “targets” described in the annual guidance are developed into more formal 

“commitments” in grant workplans as a result of negotiations among regions, states, 

and tribes during the spring and summer prior to the start of the fiscal year. These 

annual commitments define, in an operational sense, the “strategy” for the National 

Water Program for coming fiscal year. Selected measures and commitments are 

included in the organizational assessments used to assess the performance of 

individual EPA managers.

Assessments of Programs and Regions 

 The National Water Program assesses the performance of individual programs 

and EPA regions on a continuing basis. Some of these assessments are internal and 

others are conducted by outside organizations. 

 Each year, the Office of Water visits three to four EPA regional offices and Great 

Water body offices to conduct dialogues on program management and performance. 

These visits include assessment of performance in the region against the measures in 

the Strategic Plan; regional water issues identified in the Regional Plan; and the annual 

state/tribal program commitments. These assessments help identify program 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 31
innovations or “best practices” developed by the region, states, tribes, watershed 

organizations, and others, and these practices can be described in water program 

performance reports and more widely adopted throughout the country. 

 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 are 

evaluated periodically by EPA and by outside organizations such as the EPA Office of 

Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Management 

and Budget, and the National Academy of Sciences. 

 For the past several years, EPA has worked with states to assess 

implementation of the NPDES permit program. This “Permitting for Environmental 

Results” process included review of core program authorities, and identification of 

improvements in program management needed in each state. EPA is now working with 

states to implement almost 300 specific follow-up actions designed to strengthen 

program implementation. 

 EPA used program evaluations developed over the past several years in 

formulating this Strategic Plan. For example, an evaluation of the Agency’s work with 

states and tribes to implement clean water programs on a watershed basis by the EPA 

Inspector General resulted in important changes to the measure of progress related to 

watersheds in the Strategic Plan. The Inspector General identified issues in the 

methodology for the watershed measure in the previous Strategic Plan and 

recommended that EPA both improve the design of the measure and revise supporting 

measures of program activity. 

 EPA responded to these recommendations by developing a new measure for the 

Strategic Plan related to watersheds (i.e. new measure addressing improvement in 

water quality in “12 digit” watersheds) and expanding and revising watershed related 

program activity measures in the annual National Water Program Guidance. The new 

watershed measure in the Strategic Plan addresses smaller geographic areas than the 

measure in the previous Strategic Plan and is more flexible in that it recognizes 

improvement in water quality as well as full restoration of impaired waters. 

 Another evaluation study that influenced the development of this Strategic Plan

addressed the implementation of programs to protect sources of drinking water. 

Responding to the assessment by the Inspector General, EPA national program 

managers worked with regional managers and states and tribes to revise and simplify 

measures related to source water protection. As a result of this effort, EPA was able to 

define a target for the implementation of source water protection programs by 2011 that 

is both ambitious and realistic. 

PART Reviews 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 32 
 Some of the water programs reviewed under the Program Assessment and 

Rating Tool (PART) include, along with their rating of program effectiveness: 

• Public Water Supply Supervision – Adequate 

• Underground Injection Control – Adequate 

• Surface Water Protection – Moderately Effective 

• Oceans and Coastal Protection – Adequate 

 

The EPA Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) evaluated the Drinking Water Research Program in 2005. The 

BOSC found that the program is relevant and critically important to EPA’s mission in 

protecting human health and the environment and is focused on high quality research of 

national importance. 

OMB found that the program has developed annual and long-term measures of 

performance, coordinates its work with other agencies, employs good oversight of 

competitively awarded grants, and requires grantees to work toward program goals. 

Input from these evaluations was instrumental in revision of long-term drinking water 

research plans. 

 The Office of Water participates in development of EPA’s Performance and 

Accountability Report at the end of the year and progress on many of the outcome 

measures identified in this Strategic Plan is described in this report. 

 In addition, the National Water Program prepares a performance report at the 

mid-point in each fiscal year and the end of each fiscal year based on data describing 

progress under both environmental and program measures. These water program 

annual reports include conclusions and recommended actions to improve performance 

by responding to specific instances of poor performance, disseminating “best practices,” 

and informing the development of future annual guidance and strategic plans. Examples 

of performance improvements identified through this process include the need to 

expand clean water and drinking water program integration, the need to reduce data 

reporting lags in the drinking water program, and the need to expedite reviews of tribal 

water quality standards. 

Finally, the Office of Water will maintain program performance records and, to 

the extent possible, use this information to identify trends in program performance. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/ 

EMERGING ISSUES AND EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 33
 In the fall of 2005, the Office of Water held a national meeting to identify and 

explore emerging issues of significance to clean and safe water. EPA will continue to 

gather information about these issues described below, and use insights gained from 

this work in both strategic and operational planning. 

Decaying Water Infrastructure: A significant percent of municipal wastewater 

infrastructure, built in the 1970s and 1980s with EPA funding, is now reaching the end 

of its design life and will need to be replaced. Drinking water distribution systems are 

also failing at increasing rates. EPA’s commitment to advancing sustainable 

infrastructure using the “four pillars” of sound water infrastructure management, 

discussed previously, is intended to address this issue. 

Water Scarcity: Demand for water for municipal and other uses is growing steadily. 

Meeting this demand while protecting ecological values of aquatic resources will be a 

significant challenge. 

Water Security: The security of drinking water and wastewater systems is now 

recognized as a top priority but much remains to be done to define needed security 

practices and implement these measures across the country. EPA has made a 

significant investment of resources in supporting this work. 

Nanotechnology: The predicted explosion in the use of nanotechnology offers the 

potential for innovative water treatment methods as well as the risks of harm to aquatic 

systems from the release of nano-scale devices and products. 

Remote Sensing Technology: The dramatic progress in miniaturizing sensors and 

gathering environmental data from remote locations will open new avenues to 

monitoring the condition of waters. 

Sea Level Rise: Projected increases in sea levels pose significant risks for the health 

and productivity of coastal waters and threaten habitat, fisheries, and wetlands. 

Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater: Increases in the variety and amount of 

pharmaceutical products reaching aquatic systems through disposal to wastewater 

systems poses risks to ecological systems and to humans. EPA is expanding efforts to 

investigate these issues. 

Renewable Energy: As energy demand increases and the costs of energy from 

conventional sources climbs, demand for renewable energy will grow. Recent studies 

have demonstrated the potential for sewage treatment plants and animal feeding 

operations to generate significant amounts of renewable energy from treatment process 

by-products. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 34 

To Learn More: 

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/futures/perspectives.htm
EPA’s strategies for achieving clean and safe water depend on substantial 

contributions and investments by many public and private entities. 

 States are primary partners in implementing both clean water and safe drinking 

water programs. Many states, however, are facing budget problems and even deficits. 

EPA recognizes that state budget shortfalls are an external factor that may limit 

progress toward clean and safe water goals. 

Consistent with the federal government’s unique trust responsibility to federally 

recognized tribes, EPA implements programs in Indian country, helps build tribal 

capacity to administer clean and safe water programs, and works with authorized tribes 

as co-regulators. Tribal resource needs are great. Unlike states, many tribes are still 

developing programs to administer clean and safe water programs. Inadequate 

progress in developing these programs will limit progress toward clean water goals. 

Local governments play a critical role in implementing clean and safe water 

programs. Municipalities and other local entities have proven to be strong partners with 

states and the federal government in the financing of wastewater treatment and drinking 

water systems, and continued partnership in financing these systems is essential to 

meeting water goals. 

Despite sometimes-significant resource limits, municipalities are also now taking 

on additional responsibilities for addressing storm water and CSOs. In the case of the 

drinking water program, effective local management of drinking water systems, 

including protection of source waters, is essential to maintaining high rates of 

compliance with drinking water standards. More than 90 percent of the nation’s 52,000 

community water systems are smaller systems (serving 10,000 or fewer people) that 

often struggle to provide safe drinking water.12 Continued consultation with local 

governments is critical to achieving clean and safe water. 

Several key elements of the National Water Program, including nonpoint source 

control, source water protection, and watershed management, require broad 

partnerships among many federal, state, and local agencies and the private sector. 

Over the next several years, building partnerships with the agricultural community (such 

as USDA, state agricultural agencies, and local conservation districts) is a top priority 

for meeting clean water goals. EPA will also continue to provide water quality data and 

technical assistance that can help USDA target its runoff control programs. 

 EPA relies on many other agencies to provide monitoring data to measure 

progress toward its goal of clean and safe water. States lead the effort in water quality 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 35
monitoring. Other agencies provide critical information as well, such as USGS, which 

maintains water-monitoring stations throughout the nation, and NOAA, which provides 

information on coastal waters. 

EPA also relies on the Corps to co-administer the Section 404 program of the 

Clean Water Act. In fact, the Corps acts as the lead federal agency for permitting the 

discharge of dredged or fill material and, as part of its civil works projects, addressing 

dredged material management issues in U.S. waters. 

In addition to the domestic activities that support the 2002 World Summit goal, 

EPA will continue working with the Agency for International Development, the 

Department of State, and other interested stakeholders to improve access to safe 

drinking water and sanitation worldwide. 

 Finally, all of the EPA’s coastal and oceans activities are carried out in 

partnership with other federal agencies and, in some cases, international, state, local, 

and private entities as well. EPA relies on its work with the Department of Defense, the 

U.S. Coast Guard, Alaska and other states, and a number of cruise ship and 

environmental and nongovernmental organizations regarding regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to managing wastewater discharges from vessels. 

Notes 

 

1.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America’s 

Waters. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

2.Travel Industry Association of America. 2002. Tourism Works for America, 11th Edition. Washington, DC: 

Travel Industry of America.

3.Pew Oceans Commission. 2002. America’s Living Oceans Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington, VA: 

Pew Oceans Commission. 

4.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking Water 

Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site, 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html.

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 36 
 

5.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap 

Analysis. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

6.United Nations. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 

August - 4 September, 2002. New York, NY:United Nations.

7.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. National Listing of 

Fish and Wildlife Advisories. Washington, DC. Available online at http://map1.epa.gov. Date of Access: May 1, 

2003. 

8.U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998. Classified Shellfish Growing Waters. In State of 

the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

9.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. National Listing of 

Fish and Wildlife Advisories. Washington, DC. Available online at http://map1.epa.gov. Date of Access: May 1, 

2003. 

10.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tuesday, April 19, 1994. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control 

Policy. Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 75, page 18788.

11.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June, 2002. CWNIMS National Report. CWSRF Funds Available for 

Projects, Net Sources. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

34.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June, 2002. CWNIMS National Report. CWSRF Funds Available for 

Projects, Net Sources. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

12.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking Water 

Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site, 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html. 

Goal Two - Public Review Draft 37
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 1

GOAL 3 - LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and 

cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by releases of harmful 

substances.

Uncontrolled, hazardous and nonhazardous wastes on the land can migrate to 

the air, ground water, and surface water, contaminating drinking water supplies, causing 

acute illnesses or chronic diseases, and threatening healthy ecosystems in urban, rural, 

and suburban areas. Hazardous substances can kill living organisms in lakes and 

rivers, destroy vegetation in contaminated areas, cause major reproductive 

complications in wildlife, and otherwise limit the ability of an ecosystem to survive. 

EPA will work to preserve and restore the land using the most effective waste 

management and cleanup methods available. We use a hierarchy of approaches to 

protect the land: reducing waste at its source; recycling waste; managing waste 

effectively by preventing spills and releases of toxic materials; and, cleaning up 

contaminated properties. The Agency is especially concerned about threats to our most 

sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic 

diseases. 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)1

 and the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund)2

provide the legal authority for most of EPA’s work toward this goal. The Agency and its 

partners use Superfund authority to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous 

waste sites and return the land to productive use. Under RCRA, EPA works in 

partnership with states and tribes to address risks associated with leaking underground 

storage tanks (USTs) and with the generation and management of hazardous and 

nonhazardous wastes. The EPA waste management program recognizes tribal 

governments as the primary parties for setting standards, making environmental policy 

decisions, and managing programs for reservations, consistent with federal standards 

and regulations. Accordingly, EPA regional offices work directly with tribal governments 

as the recognized independent authorities for reservation affairs and not as political 

subdivisions of states. 

EPA also uses authorities provided under the Clean Air Act,3

 Clean Water Act,4

and Oil Pollution Act of 19905 to protect against spills and releases of hazardous 

materials. Controlling the many risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of 

harmful substances presents a significant challenge to protecting the land. EPA uses 

an approach that integrates prevention, preparedness, and response activities to 

minimize these risks. Spill-prevention activities keep harmful substances from being 

released to the environment. Improving EPA’s readiness to respond to emergencies 

through training, development of clear authorities, and provision of proper equipment 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 2

will ensure that we are adequately prepared to minimize contamination and harm to the 

environment when spills do occur. 

OBJECTIVE 3.1: PRESERVE LAND. By 2011, reduce adverse effects to land by 

reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of 

waste and petroleum products at facilities in ways that prevent releases. 

Sub-objective 3.1.1: Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling. By 

2011, reduce materials use through product and process redesign, and increase 

materials and energy recovery from wastes otherwise requiring disposal. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2011, decrease the total amount of municipal solid waste disposed at landfills 

and combustion facilities by 11 million tons from the amount disposed in 2003 

(under determination). 

• By 2011, increase recycling of the total annual municipal solid waste produced to 

40 percent from 30.6 percent in 2003. 

• By 2011, increase reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris by 6 

percent from a baseline of 59 percent in 2003. 

• By 2011, increase the use of coal combustion ash to 50 percent from 32 percent 

in 2001. 

• By 2011, increase by 81 the number of tribes covered by an adequate and 

recently-approved integrated waste management plan. 

• By 2011, close, clean up, or upgrade 54 open dumps in Indian country and on 

other tribal lands. 

Sub-objective 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous Wastes and Petroleum Products 

Properly. By 2011, reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous 

wastes and petroleum products properly. 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, prevent releases at 500 RCRA hazardous waste management facilities 

by implementing initial approved controls or updated controls. (In FY2006, EPA 

estimates that 820 facilities require these controls; the baseline is zero. The 

universe of facilities will be reassessed by FY 2009.) 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 3

• By 2011, increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant 

operational compliance with both release detection and release prevention 

requirements by five percent more than the 66 percent in 2006, out of a total 

estimated universe of approximately 245,000 facilities. 

• Each year through 2011, minimize the number of confirmed releases at UST 

facilities to 10,000 or fewer from a universe of approximately 650,000 UST tanks. 

Means and Strategies For Achieving Objective 3.1

EPA’s strategy for reducing waste generation and increasing recycling, 

promoting the development of tribal integrated waste management plans, and closing, 

cleaning up or upgrading open dumps is based on: (1) establishing and expanding 

partnerships with businesses, industries, states, communities, consumers, tribes and 

federal agencies; (2) stimulating development of infrastructure, new technologies, and 

environmentally responsible behaviors by product manufacturers, users, and disposers 

(“product stewardship”); and (3) helping businesses, government, tribes, institutions, 

and consumers by providing education, outreach, training, and technical assistance. To 

implement this strategy, EPA will apply the talents and technical expertise of its 

workforce to create synergistic relationships with its stakeholders to achieve common 

goals. 

Working Toward a Vision for 2020 

These updated strategic goals for materials management put us on a path to 

achieve our vision for the RCRA program in the year 2020. In 2002, in a document 

entitled, “Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020.” 

(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/vision.htm ) we noted the future we envision is one 

“...in which materials that were once considered wastes suitable only for landfilling are 

now continually reused and recycled, and ‘industrial ecology’ has become the mantra of 

corporate executives across the nation. Landfills are becoming obsolete...”. 

While EPA did not go so far as to say that we would achieve a full cradle-tocradle industrial system by 2020, we envisioned that “...a future waste reduction 

program could achieve more than it would otherwise by setting its aspirations high, and 

explicitly focusing on reducing waste as much as possible, even approaching zero.” 

Our recycling goals for 2011 would clearly need to increase dramatically to reach a zero 

waste future by 2020. However, even if our aspirational goals prove to be overly 

aggressive, they will have helped push us toward a more sustainable future. 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 4

Establishing and Expanding Partnerships 

EPA will work to establish and 

expand its partnerships with industry, 

states, and other entities to reduce waste 

and to develop and deliver tools that can 

help businesses, manufacturers, and 

consumers. Nationally recognized 

programs, such as WasteWise 

(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/reduce/wstewise/htm), and our Coal 

Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2; 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve

/c2p2/index.htm), which employ 

partnerships to encourage waste prevention 

and recycling, will serve as models for new 

alliances among government agencies, 

industries, and businesses that capitalize 

on voluntary efforts to reduce waste and 

increase recycling. 

EPA will also continue to support its 

tribal partners to improve practices for 

managing solid waste on Indian lands. EPA 

has direct implementation responsibility for 

RCRA hazardous waste and UST programs 

in Indian country. Recognizing the unique 

challenges encountered on tribal lands, 

EPA will work with tribes on a governmentto-government basis that affirms its federal 

trust responsibility to the 572 federally 

recognized tribal governments and 

acknowledges the importance of conserving 

natural resources for cultural uses. Actions 

to upgrade tribal solid waste management 

infrastructure will continue, including the development of integrated waste management 

plans, codes, ordinances, recycling programs, and other alternatives to open dumping. 

These efforts will help to prevent open dumping in Indian country, further the cleanup of 

existing dumps, and reduce the risks that such dumps pose to human health and the 

environment. 

A Vision of the Future

(from Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials

Management in the Year 2020) 

Generating and managing post-consumer 

household wastes have undergone a 

transformation. Concern for environmental 

sustainability has become ingrained as a 

societal value as individuals have become much 

more aware of the environmental consequences 

of their consumptive choices. These changes in 

consumer values have prompted shifts in 

manufacturing techniques and choices, so that 

manufacturing processes are based on 

managing resources efficiently, closing the loop 

of material flows, and designing for the 

environment. Products contain fewer toxic 

materials and are designed to last longer. Much 

less—and less toxic—waste is generated during 

manufacturing. Manufacturers now take 

responsibility for their products throughout the 

product life cycle, and product stewardship—

involving all members of the product chain—is a 

standard operating procedure. Household 

recycling, as well as advances in packaging, 

product design, and other market-based 

measures, has reduced household waste 

generation rates to a small fraction of what they 

were in the late twentieth century. Virtually all 

organic wastes, construction and demolition 

wastes, and other materials formerly managed 

as part of the municipal solid waste stream are 

now diverted to beneficial reuse, dramatically 

reducing the amount of landfill space needed. 

During 2006 – 2011, EPA will initiate a national effort to forge partnerships with 

senior managers from other federal agencies to identify and resolve commonly 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 5

acknowledged waste problems in Indian country and other tribal lands. This effort will 

build on the work of the National Interagency Workgroup, whose members 

cooperatively contribute to fund annually the Solid Waste Assistance Grant Program for 

tribes. 

Stimulating Infrastructure Development, Product Stewardship, and New Technologies 

Another key strategy for reducing waste is fostering development of infrastructure 

that will make it easier for industry, businesses, and consumers to reduce the waste 

they generate, acquire and use recycled materials, and purchase products containing 

recycled materials. EPA will continue to promote development of new and expanded 

markets for recycled materials and new and better recycling technologies. Within 

municipal solid waste, we will focus our efforts on specific commodity streams with the 

potential for large increases in recycling with a particular emphasis on paper, organics, 

containers, packaging, and electronics. Several initiatives already underway 

demonstrate the potential of such efforts. EPA has established product stewardship 

partnerships with manufacturers, retailers, and governmental and nongovernmental 

organizations to reduce the impacts that electronics and carpets can have on the 

environment throughout their useful lives. Carpets and electronics offered strong 

opportunities for collaboration because key industries and states identified the 

environmental benefits associated with waste reduction in these sectors. Through our 

new GreenScapes (http://www.epa.gov/greenscapes/) partnership, we are promoting 

major increases in end-markets for compost while also working to teach homeowners 

how to save time, money, and natural resources by reducing and recycling their yard 

wastes. 

We will also work to increase recycling at important tribal venues. Significant 

potential exists for waste reduction, increased recycling of beverage containers, and 

composting of organics (both yard and food wastes) at large public venues such as 

tribally-owned and operated casinos, shopping centers, and amphitheaters where 

concerts and other large events are held. Such "Recycling on the Go6

" projects at these 

venues have the potential to result in more recyclable and compostable materials being 

diverted from landfills, contributing to the national recycling goal. Such projects will also 

create opportunities for partnerships and relationship building among EPA, tribes, and 

local governments. 

To increase recycling of industrial byproduct materials, we will concentrate on 

three large-quantity material streams: coal combustion products, foundry sands, and 

construction and demolition debris. EPA is engaging with the construction and 

demolition industries to identify ways to increase the recycling of construction and 

demolition debris. Through the Green Highways Initiative 

(http://www.greenhighways.org/), EPA collaborates with governments at all levels, 

businesses, and industries to achieve the following goals: promote use of industrial 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 6

materials in the transportation infrastructure; promote reduction, reuse, and recycling of 

municipal solid waste; and educate our partners about options for “green procurement.” 

 

EPA will also promote development of new and better recycling technologies and 

will explore ways to obtain energy or products from waste. For example, through 

bioreactor technology, which provides accelerated stabilization of municipal solid waste, 

the collection of landfill gases containing methane offers promise as a future source of 

energy. The Agency will continue to support initiatives that revamp technologies to 

reduce or eliminate the use of virgin materials, recover energy to produce power, and 

improve waste management. 

Providing Education, Outreach, Training, and Technical Assistance 

As a result of the Agency’s continuing outreach activities with non-profit 

organizations, major retailers, electronics manufacturers, and other industries, more 

products and venues are displaying conservation, waste prevention, and recycling 

messages. These educational messages increase awareness of the issues associated 

with waste disposal and encourage consumers, young people, and underserved 

communities to make smarter, more responsible environmental choices. 

Collaborating with industries and with government agencies at all levels, EPA will 

continue to foster the increased recycling of industrial byproducts that would otherwise 

require disposal. Outreach, training, and assistance efforts will focus on construction 

and demolition debris and coal combustion products to attain our numerical goals. Our 

Coal Combustion Products Partnership will serve as a primary outreach vehicle to 

encourage the use of coal combustion products. EPA’s Construction Initiative 

(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/priorities/bene-use.htm) will foster 

recycling of industrial materials, including construction and demolition debris, in major 

transportation and building construction projects. We will continue working with the 

foundry industry to encourage recycling of spent foundry sands and to develop a 

numerical goal to quantify these efforts. 

The Agency and its partners will design activities that encourage students and 

teachers to start innovative recycling programs and will develop unique tools and 

projects which promote waste reduction, recycling, and neighborhood revitalization in 

Hispanic and African-American communities and on Indian lands. The EPA supports 

the development of tribal waste management programs by funding training on and 

publishing resource documents for tribal employees for the development of tribal waste 

management plans, community education and outreach, and other cleanup activities to 

mitigate the results of improper waste disposal. 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 7

Establishing and Expanding International Initiatives 

 “Global Environment” is a core priority in the Agency’s Action Plan. Recycling 

(e.g., paper, plastics, electronics) and waste management are becoming increasingly 

global enterprises, and EPA waste management programs will continue to devise 

efficient and rational solutions, working on voluntary and regulatory initiatives in 

conjunction with partner countries and international agencies, to protect the global 

environment. 

EPA actively promotes the safe handling of waste imports and exports through 

participation in the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Hazardous Waste 

Task Force in implementing environmentally sound management principles for 

hazardous waste among North American Free Trade Agreement countries. This work 

will lead to significantly improved tracking of transboundary hazardous waste shipments 

and result in improved compliance, enhanced border security, and reduced 

administrative burden and costs to both the private sector and government agencies in 

both the U.S. and abroad. EPA also is partnering with Mexico to implement the U.S.- 

Mexico Border 2012 Plan (http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/intro.htm), which 

includes reduction of land contamination through the Waste Policy Forum. EPA and 

Mexican authorities are working together in this forum to clean up and prevent tire piles 

and remediate contaminated sites along the border (2.1 million tires have been cleaned 

up through April 2006). 

EPA is engaged with the Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling of 

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in efforts to 

minimize waste generation, remove barriers to recycling, and streamline exports and 

imports of hazardous waste recyclables.7 EPA has a leading role in a global publicprivate partnership under the Basel Convention to enhance the design, collection, 

reuse, and recycling of mobile phones. EPA is participating in negotiations expected to 

continue until 2009, under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization’s 

environmental committee, to develop a new international convention for the safe and 

environmentally sound dismantling and recycling of ships. 

Managing Hazardous Wastes And Petroleum Products 

Recognizing that some hazardous wastes cannot yet be completely eliminated or 

recycled, the RCRA program reduces the risks of exposure to hazardous wastes by 

maintaining a “cradle-to-grave” approach to waste management. 

Preventing Hazardous Releases from RCRA Facilities

EPA’s strategy for addressing hazardous wastes that must be treated, stored or 

disposed is based on achieving greater efficiencies at waste management facilities 

through more focused permitting processes and improving permitting conditions where 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 8

appropriate. We will work with our state, tribal, and local government partners to ensure 

that hazardous waste management facilities have approved controls in place and 

continue to strive for safe waste management. 

Through the end of FY 2008, EPA will continue to work with authorized states—

specifically, those with a large number of facilities lacking initial approved controls—to 

achieve the goal of having 95 percent of approximately 2,460 facilities with permits or 

other approved controls. We want to resolve any issues that might be preventing key 

categories of these facilities from obtaining permits or putting other approved controls in 

place and transfer successful strategies from other states. At the same time, we will 

update controls for preventing releases at 150 facilities. By 2009, we will finalize the 

universe of facilities that still require initial approved controls and those that need 

updated permits (currently estimated to be 820), and use that number as the universe 

for determining future accomplishments. 

Preventing Releases from Underground Storage Tank Systems

EPA recognizes that the size and diversity of the regulated community puts state 

authorities in the best position to regulate USTs and to set priorities. RCRA Subtitle I 

allows state UST programs approved by EPA to operate in lieu of the federal program.8 

Even states that have not received formal state program approval from EPA are in most 

cases the primary implementing agencies-with the exception of Indian country-and are 

receiving annual grants from EPA. 

 The Underground Storage Compliance Act9 (or USTCA) of the Energy Policy 

Act requires major changes to federal and state UST programs and focuses on 

preventing releases to keep our nation's land and water safe. Among other things, it 

expands eligible uses of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, 

extends the LUST Trust Fund tax through 2011, and includes provisions regarding 

inspections, operator training, delivery prohibition, secondary containment and financial 

responsibility, and cleanup of releases that contain oxygenated fuel additives. Some of 

these provisions require implementation by August 2006; others will require 

implementation in subsequent years. To implement the new law, EPA and states will 

work closely with tribes, other federal agencies, tank owners and operators, and other 

stakeholders to bring about the mandated changes affecting UST facilities. 

 In any given year, it is possible that factors such as greater field presence and 

discovery of older releases during site closures will increase the number of confirmed 

releases reported, potentially exceeding the Agency’s annual strategic targets. Despite 

such apparent increases in releases, human health and the environment are being 

better protected than if the releases went undetected or unreported. While the vast 

majority of the approximately 650,000 active USTs have the regulatorily-required 

equipment, significant work remains to ensure that UST owners and operators maintain 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 9

and operate their systems properly.10 EPA will also continue to support state programs, 

strengthen partnerships among stakeholders, and provide technical assistance, 

compliance assistance, and training to promote and enforce compliance by UST 

facilities. The Agency and states will use innovative compliance approaches, along with 

outreach and education tools, to bring more tanks into compliance. 

OBJECTIVE 3.2: RESTORE LAND. By 2011, control the risks to human health and 

the environment by mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and by 

cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels. 

Sub-objective 3.2.1: Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional 

Releases. By 2011, reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and 

intentional releases of harmful substances by improving our nation’s capability to 

prevent, prepare for, and respond more effectively to these emergencies. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2011, achieve and maintain at least 95 percent of maximum score on 

readiness evaluation criteria in each region. 

• Between 2006 and 2011, complete 975 Superfund-lead hazardous substance 

removal actions. In FY2005, 175 of these actions were completed. 

• Between 2006 and 2011, oversee and complete 650 voluntary removal 

actions. In FY2005, 137 of these actions were completed. 

• By 2011, reduce by 25 percent the gallons of oil spilled by facilities subject to 

Facility Response Plan regulations relative to the 601,000 gallons of oil spilled 

in 2003. 

• By 2011, increase the compliance rate to 90 percent of all facilities subject to 

Facility Response Plan regulations from 50 percent in 2004. 

Sub-objective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land. By 2011, 

control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties 

or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and make land available 

for reuse. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2011, make final assessment decisions at 40,455 of 44,700 potentially 

hazardous waste sites submitted to EPA for remedial evaluations to help 

resolve community concerns on whether these sites require long-term 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 10

cleanup to protect public health and the environment, and to help determine if 

they can be cleared for possible redevelopment. 

• By 2011, control all identified unacceptable human exposures from site 

contamination to health-based levels, or below, for current land and/or 

groundwater use conditions at 84 percent (1,294) of 1,543 Superfund human 

exposure sites (as of FY 2005). This baseline includes 172 Superfund federal 

facility sites. By 2011, increase the percentage of high NCAPS (National 

Corrective Action Prioritization System)-ranked RCRA facilities with human 

exposures to toxins controlled to 95 percent (universe of all facilities that need 

RCRA Corrective Action–including high-ranked facilities–to be finalized by the 

end of 2007). 

• By 2011, control the migration of contaminated groundwater through 

engineered remedies or natural processes at 74 percent (1,016) of 1,381 

Superfund groundwater sites (as of FY 2005). This baseline includes 166 

Superfund federal facility sites. By 2011, increase the percentage of RCRA 

Corrective Action facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under 

control to 50 percent of all facilities requiring RCRA Corrective Action 

(universe to be finalized by the end of 2007). 

• By 2011, reduce the backlog of LUST cleanups that do not meet state riskbased standards for human exposure and groundwater migration from 26 

percent down to 21 percent. For Superfund, complete construction of 

remedies at approximately 76 percent (1,171) of 1,547 Superfund sites (as of 

FY 2005). This baseline includes 172 Superfund federal facility sites. (Note: 

construction completion is a milestone which indicates that all significant construction activity 

has been completed, even though additional remediation may be needed for all cleanup 

goals to be met.) 

• By 2011, ensure that XX percent (xx number) of XX final and deleted 

construction complete NPL sites are ready for reuse (i.e., EPA has 

determined that all cleanup goals have been met for media that may affect 

current and reasonably anticipated future land uses and that controls are in 

place so there are no unacceptable risks to human health). (NOTE: In order to 

develop realistic targets for this measure, EPA is developing the baseline of the final and 

deleted construction complete NPL sites that currently meet these criteria.) 

Sub-objective 3.2.3: Maximize Potentially Responsible Party Participation 

at Superfund Sites. Through 2011, conserve federal resources by ensuring that 

potentially responsible parties conduct or pay for Superfund cleanups whenever 

possible. 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 11

Strategic Targets: 

• Each year through 2011, reach a settlement or take an enforcement action 

before the start of a remedial action at 95 percent of Superfund sites having 

viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government. 

• Each year through 2011, address all unaddressed costs in Statute of 

Limitations cases for Superfund sites with unaddressed total past Superfund 

costs equal to or greater than $200,000. 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 3.2

EPA leads the federal government’s effort to reduce the risks posed by releases 

of harmful substances and by contaminated land, and return land to beneficial use. The 

most effective approach to controlling these risks incorporates developing and 

implementing prevention measures, improving response capabilities, maximizing the 

effectiveness of response and cleanup actions, and promoting a vision of protective, 

sustainable, and productive uses of formerly contaminated properties. 

EPA works with organizations at every level of government and the private sector 

to maximize its ability to control risks from accidental and intentional releases of harmful 

substances, contaminated lands, and hazardous waste sites. Human health and 

environmental protection is the responsibility of all affected individuals, and it is 

important to engage communities, organizations, businesses, and governments in 

collaborative efforts toward returning lands to beneficial use. In this way, we can 

increase public understanding of environmental issues, help ensure the long-term 

sustainability of our cleanup efforts, and become environmental stewards for land that is 

returned to beneficial use. 

 

PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE 

 EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks that accidental and intentional 

releases of harmful substances and oil pose to human health and the environment. 

Under the National Response System (NRS), EPA evaluates and responds to 

thousands of releases annually. The NRS is a multi-agency preparedness and 

response mechanism that includes the following key components: the National 

Response Center; the National Response Team (NRT), composed of 16 federal 

agencies; 13 Regional Response Teams; and federal on-scene coordinators (OSCs). 

These organizations and entities work with state and local officials to develop and 

maintain contingency plans that enable the nation to respond effectively to hazardous 

substance and oil emergencies. When an incident occurs, these groups coordinate with 

the OSC-in-charge to ensure that all necessary resources, such as personnel and 

equipment, are available and that containment, cleanup, and disposal activities proceed 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 12

quickly, efficiently, and effectively. EPA’s primary role in the NRS is to serve as the 

federal OSC for spills and releases in the inland zone. 

Preparing for Emergencies

Preparedness on a national level is essential to ensure that emergency 

responders are able to deal with multiple, large-scale emergencies, including those that 

may involve chemicals, oil, biological agents, or weapons of mass destruction. Over the 

next several years, EPA will continue to enhance its core emergency response program 

to respond quickly and effectively to chemical, oil, biological, and radiological releases, 

and large-scale national emergencies. Our efforts will focus on continuation of 

specialized training on the Incident Command System, development of additional health 

and safety materials and participation in exercises with federal, state and local 

government agencies, including the Regional Response Teams, and response 

readiness across multiple regions. 

In addition to enhancing our readiness capabilities, EPA will work to improve 

coordination and communication mechanisms. For example, as part of the National 

Incident Coordination Team, EPA will continue to improve its mechanisms for 

coordinating responses to national emergencies. Under the Continuity of 

Operations/Continuity of Government program, we will upgrade and test plans, facilities, 

training, and equipment to ensure that essential government business can continue 

during a catastrophic emergency. Our NRT capabilities will also expand to ensure 

coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), other federal 

agencies, and state and local governments during large-scale responses. 

Responding to Hazardous Substance Releases and Oil Spills

Each year, EPA personnel assess, respond to, mitigate, and clean up thousands 

of releases—whether accidental, deliberate, or naturally occurring. These incidents 

range from small spills at chemical or oil facilities to larger accidental releases in train 

and highway accidents, and from natural disasters such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 

and earthquakes to national emergencies such as terrorist events. 

EPA will work to improve its capability to respond effectively to incidents that 

involve harmful chemical, oil, biological, and radiological substances. The Agency will 

improve its response readiness levels, review response data provided in the “afteraction” reports following the response to a release, and examine “lessons learned” 

reports to identify which activities work and which need to be improved. Over the next 2 

years, EPA will work to expand the current core emergency response program to 

include prevention and preparedness, thereby covering all aspects of emergency 

management. The removal response measures have been revised from start of the 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 13

action to completion of the cleanup to better reflect the accomplishment of the outcome. 

Preventing and Preparing for Oil Spills

An important component of EPA’s land strategy is preventing oil spills and being 

prepared for spills that do occur so that the oil does not reach our nation’s waters. 

Under the Oil Pollution Act,11 the Agency requires certain facilities (defined in 40 CFR 

112.2) to develop Facility Response Plans and to practice implementing the plans by 

conducting drills and exercises to be prepared in the event of a spill. Compliance with 

these requirements reduces the number of oil spills that reach navigable waters and 

prevents detrimental effects on human health and the environment should a spill occur. 

Over the next 5 years, EPA will work to ensure at least 90 percent compliance with 

these regulations by industry. Compliance at the end of FY 2005 was 77 percent. 

Cleaning Up And Revitalizing Contaminated Sites 

The primary goal of EPA’s cleanup programs is to protect America’s citizens from 

the risks posed by contaminated land; restore the 

nation's contaminated land; and enable America's 

communities to safely return these properties to 

beneficial economic, ecological, and societal uses. In 

implementing its cleanup programs, EPA will ensure that 

all people are treated fairly, given equal opportunity to 

participate meaningfully in making the cleanup decisions 

about these contaminated lands, and that no one portion 

of the population bears a disproportionate health burden. 

EPA continues to foster a One Cleanup Program, 

which is a long term initiative designed to encourage 

programs at all levels of government to work together to 

ensure that appropriate cleanup tools are used; that 

resources, activities, and results are coordinated with 

partners and stakeholders and communicated to the 

public effectively; and that cleanups are protective and 

contribute to community revitalization, including areas 

with environmental justice concerns. While the approach reflects EPA’s efforts to 

coordinate across all of its cleanup programs, the Agency maintains the flexibility 

needed to accommodate differences in program authorities and approaches. 

“Revitalization” 

The term “revitalization” in its 

broadest sense means to impart 

new life, energy, or activity to 

something. In the context of 

contaminated or potentially 

contaminated properties, 

revitalization refers to actions 

taken to promote protective, 

productive, and sustainable use, 

continued use, or reuse of 

property. These revitalization 

actions can help to impart new life 

to properties, resulting in 

enhancements to America’s 

communities and ecosystems. 

Common Elements of Environmental Cleanups 

Common elements of EPA’s cleanup programs include initial assessment, 

stabilization (when needed), site investigation, selection of appropriate remedies, 

implementation and completion of remedies, and promoting protective uses/reuses. 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 14

EPA performs these activities in cooperation with partners who share authority for the 

sites, and works with federal, state, tribal, and local government partners to identify 

facilities and sites requiring attention and to implement these elements. 

Assessing Sites

All cleanup programs assess preliminary site information to determine whether or 

not contaminated sites or facilities pose a significant risk to human health and the 

environment and require cleanup actions. Site assessments can also assist in the 

determination of whether or not sites can be cleared for possible redevelopment. 

Attainment of final site assessment decisions is a strategic target for EPA’s Superfund 

program. 

Controlling Human Exposures and 

Groundwater Migration 

Controlling unacceptable human exposures 

to contamination and preventing the 

continued spread of contaminated 

groundwater are key indicators of cleanup 

progress. When EPA determines that human 

exposure is under control at a site, it means 

that there is no exposure to contaminants at 

unsafe levels under current site conditions. 

When a determination is made that 

groundwater migration is under control at a 

site, it means that contamination levels fall 

within the levels specified as safe by EPA, or 

if they do not, that the contaminated 

groundwater is not continuing to spread 

above unacceptable levels or negatively 

affecting surface water into which 

groundwater may be flowing. 

Stabilizing Sites

“Stabilization” refers to the initial 

actions taken to control actual or potential 

exposure, based on current land and water 

use. Where necessary, these actions are 

taken immediately to protect populations 

located within a reasonable distance from 

the site from existing or imminent exposure 

to harmful contaminants. 

EPA’s Superfund and RCRA 

Corrective Action programs use two 

environmental indicators—controlling human 

exposures and controlling groundwater 

migration—to help communicate to the 

public progress that is being made toward 

protecting human health and the 

environment due to stabilization and other 

cleanup activities. 

Investigating Sites and Selecting Site Remedies

EPA and its partners conduct detailed environmental investigations to identify the 

type and extent of contamination, as well as actual or potential exposures to humans 

and environmental receptors. The data collected from these activities are used to make 

critical determinations regarding risks to human health and the environment and 

eventual remedy selections. To better address areas that may suffer disproportionate 

impacts, EPA will encourage the broader use of improved sample collection techniques, 

analytical (e.g., on-site chemical analysis) tools and indicators. Approaches will include 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 15

those previously developed by EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice to identify areas 

with potential environmental justice concerns. 

Remedies are selected based on many criteria, including the environmental 

media of concern (e.g., soil, air, groundwater, etc.), cleanup objectives based on 

protection associated with reasonably expected uses of the site (e.g., industrial, 

commercial, residential, ecological, recreational), compliance with applicable laws, 

implementation issues, and acceptability to state and tribal governments and the 

affected communities. Cost and efficiency of the overall cleanup process are also 

important. When remedies involve leaving contamination in place, EPA will continue to 

ensure that such remedies include institutional controls like notices and easements 

designed to prevent inappropriate uses of the land or water and/or associated 

unacceptable exposures. 

Completing the Site Cleanup

Implementing remedies and completing the site cleanup involve constructing 

remedy components that are designed to provide long-term protection and include 

performing any remaining cleanup actions that do not require physical construction 

(e.g., monitoring). Completing construction of all remedies at a site or facility is an 

important milestone and is a strategic target for several of EPA’s cleanup programs. 

The RCRA program has developed a long-term goal of implementing and completing 

construction of final remedies at 95 percent of all facilities that need RCRA corrective 

action by 2020 [Beyond RCRA (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/vision.htm)], and we 

will be developing interim annual targets to achieve this goal in 2008. 

 During remedy construction and following construction completion, the Superfund 

program conducts reviews every 5 years to ensure that the remedy is functioning as 

intended and that it remains protective. With the large number of sites moving into the 

post-construction completion stage, EPA will implement a strategy to manage postconstruction completion activities (PCC Strategy, 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/postconstruction/) over the next 5 years. The 

purpose of this strategy is to ensure the long-term effectiveness of response actions in 

protecting human health and the environment at a site. The PCC Strategy sets the 

following five goals: (1) ensure that remedies remain protective and cost effective; (2) 

ensure that required institutional controls are implemented and effective; (3) ensure 

adequate financing and capability to conduct PCC activities; (4) support appropriate 

reuse of site while assuring remedy reliability; and (5) improve site records management 

to ensure remedy reliability. 

A key milestone for all cleanup programs is the point at which all cleanup goals 

for a particular remedy or an entire site/facility are achieved. Depending on the sitespecific goals, this can mean that no contamination is left above levels of concern and 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 16

that the land has no restrictions to its use, based on environmental contamination. 

When contamination is left in place, cleanup goals are based on restricted uses of the 

property. In these situations, long-term protectiveness is contingent on the continued 

operation and maintenance of appropriate institutional and, if necessary, engineering 

controls such as monitoring. For the Superfund program, sites can be deleted from the 

National Priorities List after all remedies at a site have met their cleanup goals. 

 

Promoting Protective Uses/Reuses of Previously Contaminated Land

EPA’s cleanup programs have set a national goal of returning formerly 

contaminated sites to long-term, sustainable, and productive use. This goal creates 

greater impetus for selecting and implementing remedies that, in addition to providing 

clear environmental and human health outcomes, also support reasonably anticipated 

future land use options and provide greater economic and social benefits. 

Revitalization (http://www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/) is fostered in several 

ways: (1) developing policies and systems for the safe long-term use of remediated 

land; (2) identifying and removing unintended barriers that hinder a community’s 

beneficial reuse of contaminated properties; (3) working with the private marketplace to 

make formerly contaminated properties commercially attractive; and (4) developing 

revitalization measures and indicators for all EPA cleanup programs. 

Maximizing Potentially Responsible Party Participation at Superfund Sites

Enforcement authorities play a critical role in all Agency cleanup programs. 

However, they have an additional and unique role under the Superfund program. They 

are used to leverage private party resources to conduct a majority of the cleanup 

actions and to reimburse the federal government for the federally financed cleanups. 

EPA will continue to pursue the following two strategies for limiting the use of federal 

funds. 

“Enforcement First”

Under the Superfund program’s “Enforcement First” strategy, EPA takes 

enforcement actions at sites where viable, liable potentially responsible parties (PRPs) 

exist, so that the PRPs either pay for or perform the cleanup at the site. This strategy 

allows EPA to focus limited federal resources on sites where PRPs either do not exist or 

they lack the funds or capabilities needed to conduct the cleanup. In order to ensure 

that these parties are able to meet their cleanup obligations, EPA developed a national 

strategy to assess companies’ compliance with federal financial assurance 

requirements and will implement it over the next several years. EPA will continue to 

leverage private party dollars so that federal money is used only when absolutely 

necessary to clean up hazardous waste sites. 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 17

Recovering Costs

Cost recovery is another way to leverage private party resources through 

enforcement. Under Superfund, EPA has the authority to compel private parties to pay 

back federal money spent to conduct cleanup activities. [(42 USC 9601-9675, 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

Sec. 107.)] EPA will continue its efforts to address 100 percent of the unaddressed past 

costs for Statute of Limitations cases at sites with unaddressed total past Superfund 

costs equal to or greater than $200,000 and to report the value of costs recovered. 

OBJECTIVE 3.3: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH. Through 2011, provide 

and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge 

research, which through collaboration, leads to preferred environmental outcomes. 

Sub-objective 3.3.1: Provide Science to Preserve Resources and 

Remediate Land. Through 2011, provide sound science and constantly 

integrate partner inputs for smarter technical solutions and protection strategies 

that enhance our ability to remediate contaminated land for beneficial use, 

conserve resources and materials management, and preserve land quality. 

Strategic Targets:

• Through 2011, lead the incorporation of sound science as determined by peer 

review into guidance and decisions on land preservation, remediation, and 

response. 

• Through 2011, facilitate the deployment of new technological approaches at 

sites, develop state-of-science-reports, and provide training on emerging 

applied science issues. 

Sub-objective 3.3.2: Conduct Research to Preserve Resources and Support 

Land Remediation Activities. Through 2011, conduct sound, leading-edge 

scientific research to provide a foundation for preserving resources, supporting land 

quality, and remediating contaminated land. Research will result in documented 

methods, models, assessments, and risk management options for program and 

regional offices, facilitating their accurate evaluation of effects on human health and 

the environment, understanding of exposure pathways, and implementation of 

effective risk-management options. Disseminate the research affecting Indian 

country in partnership with the tribes. 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 18

Means and Strategies For Achieving Objective 3.3

Science to Preserve and Remediate Land 

EPA will continue to improve its capability to assess environmental conditions 

and determine the relative risks that contaminated land poses to health and the 

environment. The Agency will ensure that the environmental data it collects are of 

known, documented, and acceptable quality by implementing necessary field and lab 

procedures, practices, and controls. We will continue integrating technological 

advances to enhance our site investigation capabilities, implement cost-effective 

remedies, and improve the operation and maintenance of existing remedies. In 

addition, we will continue to coordinate with other agencies to identify and communicate 

program research priorities. 

Multimedia risk assessment methodologies for solid waste are built upon prior 

collaborative work within the Agency to develop the Multimedia, Multipathway, and 

Multi-receptor Risk Assessment (3MRA) modeling system in support of the Hazardous 

Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). 3MRA development will focus on addressing key 

recommendations by the Science Advisory Board and will address uncertainty analysis, 

sensitivity analysis, and parameter estimation in model-supported, risk-based decision 

making. Resource conservation research will be conducted to provide a preliminary risk 

screening for electronics waste based on current understanding of hazardous 

constituents. At the same time, additional work will be conducted to better understand 

the hazardous constituents and how they might pose risks during various recycling 

operations, disposal, or component reuse. 

The 3MRA model will also evaluate relative risks on a national basis of various 

waste disposal options for use in regulatory decision making. In addition to modeling, 

material evaluation by speciation and leach testing is needed to understand what 

hazardous constituents might be released in various disposal and use scenarios. EPA 

has targeted specific materials for volume reduction to minimize generation of 

hazardous waste and other materials for beneficial use to demonstrate one facet of 

resource conservation. Research is planned to support these efforts with case studies. 

While the emphasis on cradle-to-cradle materials management has increased, 

we realize that significant volumes of municipal, commercial, and industrial waste will 

continue to be produced for the foreseeable future. Materials management research will 

evaluate landfill caps, improving containment technologies. Ongoing research on 

operation of landfills as bioreactors will continue. The research is addressing operation 

and monitoring parameters, as well as evaluating risks such as increased fugitive 

emissions. Results to date have been incorporated in training and technology transfer 

materials used by state permitting officials. 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 19

Research to Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land 

EPA’s land research program supports our objective of reducing or controlling 

potential risks to human health and the environment at contaminated waste sites by 

providing the science to accelerate scientifically defensible and cost-effective decisions 

for cleanup at complex sites, in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERCLA). This program will produce 

measurable benefits in the form of: 

• better management of material streams, conserve resources and appropriately 

manage waste; and 

• more effective mitigation, management and long-term stewardship of 

contaminated sites. 

Research will focus on contaminated sediments, ground water contamination, 

site characterization, and technical support to specific sites. Reducing uncertainties in 

the assessment of contaminated sediments and developing and evaluating remedial 

options will be the focus of this research theme. Research activities on sediments will 

develop the framework for modeling remedial alternatives and an improved 

understanding of causal relationships between sediment contamination and chemical 

residues/exposure to aquatic organisms. The Agency is investigating several alternative 

sediment remedies with the potential to be more cost-effective than conventional 

dredging or capping remedies. An emphasis is being placed on bioremediation of 

organics, electrochemical degradation, and conventional and reactive landfill caps. In 

coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and in association with the 

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), we will 

complete a number of research projects to evaluate the field performance of dredging 

and capping, to improve understanding of the best management practices. 

EPA’s ground water research will continue to develop applications for permeable 

reactive barriers and address fate and transport and treatment methods for 

contaminants. Ground water remediation of inorganic plumes and ground watersurface water assessment strategies will be stressed. Research on dense nonaqueous 

phase liquids (DNAPL) source remediation is focused on three critical issues: 1) 

Demonstration, evaluation and optimization of DNAPL remediation technologies; 2) 

Assessment and prediction of the benefits of partial DNAPL depletion and 3) 

Development and assessment of integrated DNAPL source remediation approaches. 

Our technical support centers will continue to provide site specific assistance on 

technical issues. 

Research in support of EPA’s leaking underground storage tanks program will 

provide fate and transport studies and the effectiveness of remedial alternatives. 

Emergency response activities for oil spills are supported by research on fate and 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 20

transport and risk management strategies for petroleum and non-petroleum oil spills. 

Progress toward research goals is assessed through a suite of metrics that is 

tailored to measuring the impacts of the respective research programs. Among the 

measurable factors are: independent expert review panel ratings on the extent to which 

clients utilize EPA research products; composite scores on a client survey designed to 

gather data on product utility and perceptions of use; and the results of bibliometric 

and/or client document analyses demonstrating the actual use of EPA research 

products. These factors are applied to measure success in providing the results 

identified in the research program. 

HUMAN CAPITAL 

EPA’s emergency prevention, preparedness, response, and cleanup staff are 

vital to the work of this Goal. The Agency will continue to enhance the interdisciplinary 

skills of technical personnel in the field, ensuring their readiness and protecting their 

health and safety when they are responding to releases of dangerous materials and 

cleaning up contaminated lands. This will be accomplished through annual on-scene 

coordinator readiness training conferences, continuation of specialized training on the 

Incident Command System, development of additional health and safety materials, and 

participation in exercises with federal, state, and local government agencies. 

Additionally, acquisition and maintenance of appropriate response equipment, 

experience with daily cleanup operations, and pre-deployment of responders for 

national special security events will contribute to the enhancement of workforce skill 

levels. 

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

As a first step in developing measures for revitalization described below, the 

Superfund program has set a target for a “site ready for reuse” measure to demonstrate 

cleanup progress. This measure tracks NPL sites as follows: where construction of the 

remedy is complete; where cleanup goals in the Record of Decision have been 

achieved such that there are no unacceptable risks associated with current and 

reasonably anticipated future uses; and where all institutional controls required in the 

Record of Decision have been implemented. 

In this Goal, all of the strategic targets will be directly measured on an annual 

basis as annual performance goals and measures in the Agency’s Annual Plan and 

Budget. At the end of each year, EPA’s Performance and Accountability Report will 

address whether the annual commitments were met. In this way, progress toward the 

longer-term commitments will be measured annually over the 2006-2011 time horizons. 

For the research sub-objective, EPA will track annual progress toward expected 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 21

long-term results by means of multiple, objective-based measures of customer 

satisfaction, product impact and quality, and efficiency. 

Influences of Environmental Indicators and PART Measures on the Strategic Plan 

 Goal 3 currently contains one metric relating to waste generation as a strategic 

target that also appears in EPA’s forthcoming 2007 Report on the Environment (ROE). 

Long-term outcome measures for the Agency’s cleanup programs also serve as 

environmental indicators in that report. While we recognize the importance of these 

indicators, EPA also recognizes their limitations with respect to capturing broader 

descriptions of the state of contaminated land in the United States. The latest version of 

the ROE and information associated with it can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/indicators/index.htm. 

Most of the strategic targets for the waste management, underground storage 

tank, and Superfund programs are based on the long-term, outcome-oriented measures 

developed by EPA for use in OMB’s Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) 

assessment. 

As a result of the self-evaluation conducted during the FY 2005 OMB PART 

process, the Superfund program: (1) enhanced a key outcome measure to better 

communicate progress towards long-term human health; (2) added a new measure to 

reflect the lasting impacts of land cleanup and restoration; improved our processes for 

reporting on annual and long-term performance data to ensure accountability; (3) 

implemented a new program review process and undertook its first benchmarking study 

to seek improved performance, effectiveness and efficiencies, and protection. The 

OMB PART for the Oil Removal Program led to the development of new measures and 

related targets as well as a commitment to develop a second long-term outcome 

measure and at least one annual outcome measure. 

Future Improvements to Performance Measurement 

In support of EPA’s national goal of returning formerly contaminated sites to 

sustainable and productive use, the Agency is developing new revitalization measures 

for all cleanup programs. These measures will capture the total number and acres of 

sites for which EPA has some level of accountability, the number of sites and acres 

EPA has determined to be ready for reuse (or protective of exiting uses), and whether 

and how the sites are being used (e.g., industrial, commercial, residential, etc.). 

As the Agency puts the recording, updating, reviewing, and improvement of 

scientifically-sound environmental indicators on a routine footing through the Report on 

the Environment, we expect increasing opportunities to benefit from these indicators in 

future strategic plans. This will enable the Agency to increasingly articulate all of our 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 22

significant long-term objectives in terms of measurable improvements in the condition of 

land. 

When considering revisions and improvements for developing this Strategic Plan

we also conducted a preliminary assessment of longer-term opportunities to improve 

our articulation of strategic, outcome-oriented commitments for future Plans. Under this 

Goal, we identified four priorities for developing improved measures: extent of 

contaminated land; extent of land restored to potential use; extent of previously 

contaminated land in productive use; and, the impacts of waste-management efforts on 

human and environmental condition. 

CLOSING THE FEEDBACK LOOP: RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE 

ASSESSMENTS AND PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

In undertaking the PART process, the Superfund Program made the following 

policy and process changes: a commitment to develop stronger strategic planning 

procedures to ensure continuous improvement in the program, including regular 

procedures that will track and document key decisions and work products; a 

commitment to evaluate the data quality of key data sources used by the program to 

improve the accuracy and reliability of performance information; and a commitment to 

develop a forum for sharing and implementing best practices among regional offices 

that will improve the program's overall performance and efficiency. 

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) conducted an advisory review of the 

Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans in July 2004. The following quote is 

from the SAB letter to the Administrator on the findings of the panel: “In general, the 

Panel finds that the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans are 

programmatically and scientifically sound. We note in particular the remarkable 

coordination of the program’s research with that of the relevant program offices and 

other institutions and are encouraged by the judicious use of leveraging opportunities to 

significantly stretch limited resources to meet more of the Agency’s needs.” Changes in 

the research program in response to the SAB recommendations were: combining the 

two multi-year plans into one document, reducing the number of long term goals to two, 

and clearer linkage of research activities to program activities in objectives 3.1 and 3.2. 

The SAB also reviewed the Multimedia, Multipathway, and Multireceptor Risk 

Assessment (3MRA) modeling system and delivered a report documenting the findings 

of that review in November 2004. EPA is addressing their recommendations to 

maintain the value, utility, and credibility of 3MRA. These include the continued 

development of the 3MRA modeling system validation protocols, modeling system 

evaluation, and additional uncertainty analysis. 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 23

EMERGING ISSUES AND EXTERNAL FACTORS 

There are a number of emerging technologies with potentially important 

implications for waste management strategies and programs. One that could have 

significant implications for energy supply is Waste to Energy (WTE) where waste 

materials that are unlikely to be recycled have potential as feedstocks for energy 

production. As a small but growing source of energy being monitored by EPA, they 

could also replace other sources of energy that are in short supply. With rising energy 

costs, WTE may continue to grow as a technology with future energy-saving potential. 

Additionally, significant research is being carried out on the application of 

nanotechnologies to the remediation of hazardous waste sites. The benefits from the 

use of nanomaterials for remediation could include more rapid or cost-effective 

cleanups relative to current conventional approaches. More information on this topic 

can be found in the external peer review draft of EPA’s White Paper on Nanotechnology 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/nanotech.htm. 

Since the Superfund program was intended to provide permanent solutions at 

sites to the maximum extent practicable, complications arise when new scientific 

information suggests that the cleanup decisions have been based upon now outdated 

risk assessments. Nevertheless, the program will incorporate new emerging science 

into our decision making as appropriate and consistent with the intent to provide 

permanent solutions. 

EPA’s ability to respond as the federal On Scene Coordinator for releases of 

harmful substances in the inland zone is affected by several external factors. The 

National Response system ensures that EPA will respond when necessary, but relies 

heavily on the ability of responsible parties and state, local, and tribal agencies to 

respond to most emergencies. The need for EPA to respond is a function of the 

quantity and severity of spills that occur, as well as the capacity of state, local, and tribal 

agencies to address spills. 

EPA’s ability to respond to homeland security incidents is affected by 

circumstances surrounding each event. For instance, if travel or communication is 

severely impeded, EPA’s response may be delayed and its efficiency reduced. In the 

case of a single large-scale incident, our removal activity resources will most likely be 

concentrated on that response, thus reducing our ability to address other emergency 

releases. In severe cases, EPA’s current emergency response workforce and 

resources may not be sufficient to address a many simultaneous large-scale incidents. 

A number of external factors could substantially affect the Agency’s ability to 

achieve its objectives for cleanup and prevention. These factors include Agency 

reliance on private-party response and state and tribal partnerships, development of 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 24

new environmental technologies, work by other federal agencies, and statutory barriers. 

State programs are primarily responsible for implementing the RCRA Hazardous Waste 

and UST programs. Our ability to achieve the goals for these programs depends on the 

strength and funding levels of state programs. Similarly, our success in meeting 

compliance standards depends on extensive training and a strong state presence. To 

increase UST compliance, EPA will build upon its commitment to provide states and 

tribes with technical support and training. 

Achievement of our waste reduction and recycling objectives will depend on the 

participation of federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, industries, and the 

general public, in partnerships that aim to reduce waste generation and increase 

recycling. EPA provides national leadership in the areas of waste reduction and 

recycling to facilitate public and private partnerships that can provide the impetus for 

government, businesses, and citizens to join in the campaign to reduce the amount of 

waste generated and ultimately sent for disposal. However, both domestic and foreign 

economic stresses can adversely affect markets for recovered materials. 

Similarly, EPA relies on its partnerships with other federal agencies and tribal 

governments to ensure that open dumps in Indian country are upgraded, cleaned-up, or 

closed and that tribes have access to information on modern waste management 

planning. Achieving EPA tribal waste management objectives will depend on the 

successful participation by federal agencies and tribes. 

 

NOTES 

1.42 U.S. Code 6901-6992k 

2.42 U.S. Code 9601-9675 

3.42 U.S. Code 7401-7671q 

4.33 U.S. Code 1251-1387 

5.33 U.S. Code 2701-2761 

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

Resource Conservation Challenge/ Recycling on the Go web site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/onthego/H

7 (Core Performance Elements of the Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of Wastes, April 

24, 2003, Environment Policy Committee, OECD) 

8..42 U.S. Code 6901-6992k 
Goal Three - Public Review Draft 25

9 Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) amends RCRA Subtitle I. 

10.Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to 

Underground Storage Tank Division Directors in EPA regions 1-10. December 15, 2005. FY 

2005 End-of-Year Activity Report. 

11. 33 U.S. Code 2701-2761 
GOAL 4 - HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS 

 

Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using 

integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships. 

Communities and ecosystems are extremely complex systems of enormous variety. 

To protect, sustain, or restore the health of communities and ecosystems, EPA brings 

together a variety of programs, tools, approaches, and resources; creates strong 

partnerships with federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies; and enlists the 

support of many stakeholders. 

4.1 Chemical and Pesticide Risks 

4.2 Communities 

4.3 Ecosystems 

4.4 Science and Research

 

EPA manages environmental risks to watersheds, communities, homes, and 

workplaces to protect human health and the environmental integrity of ecosystems. The 

Agency employs a mix of regulatory programs and partnership approaches to achieve 

results in ways that are efficient, innovative, and sustainable. Ideally, EPA can 

implement a strategy of preventing pollution at the source; however, where programs to 

prevent pollution or ecosystem damage are not viable, EPA promotes waste 

minimization, avoidance of impact on habitat, safe disposal, and remediation. In 

managing risk, EPA directs its efforts toward the greatest threats in our communities, 

homes, and workplaces, including threats to sensitive populations, such as children, the 

elderly, and Native Americans, and to communities with potential disproportionately high 

and adverse environmental and/or public health effects. 

 A key component of protecting the health of people, communities, and ecosystems 

is identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks presented by the thousands of 

chemicals on which our society and economy have come to depend. Chemical and 

biological pesticides help meet national and global demands for food, provide effective 

pest control for homes, schools, gardens, highways, utility lines, hospitals, drinking 

water treatment facilities, and control animal vectors of disease. Industrial and 

commercial chemicals are in products throughout our homes and workplaces. 

 Building a community’s capability to make decisions that affect the environment is at 

the heart of EPA’s community-centered work. EPA’s efforts to share information and 

build community capacity offer the tools communities need to consider the many 

aspects of planned development or redevelopment. EPA encourages community 

development by providing funds to inventory, assess, and clean up the hundreds of 

thousands of properties that have been abandoned or unused due to previous 

industrial, commercial, or other use. In the U.S.-Mexico border, addressing local 

pollution and infrastructure are priorities for Mexico and the United States under the 

Border 2012 Agreement. Ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans is another 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 1
important priority. Addressing these challenges requires combining innovative and 

community-based approaches with national guidelines and inter-agency coordination to 

achieve results. 

 Some populations, such as children, the elderly, and Native Americans face 

significant and unique health threats from a range of environmental exposures. Pound 

for pound, children breathe more air, drink more water, and eat more food than adults, 

and their behavior patterns may increase their exposure to potential toxics. Because 

their systems are still developing, children may be more vulnerable to environmental 

risks, including air pollution that may exacerbate asthma, lead-based paint in older 

homes, microbes in drinking water that may be resistant to treatment, and persistent 

chemicals that may cause cancer or induce reproductive or developmental changes. 

Even older Americans in good health may be at increased risk from exposure to 

environmental pollutants. As people age, their bodies are less able to detoxify and 

eliminate toxins. Native Americans represent another segment of the population with a 

different risk profile. Their traditional sources for food and ways of life may lead to 

higher levels of exposure to certain toxics. EPA continues its focus on these sensitive 

populations by increasing the Agency’s understanding of these issues, building 

infrastructure and capacity, and providing information and tools needed to assess and 

prevent adverse impacts. 

The key to sustaining and enhancing both domestic and international environmental 

progress is the collaborative efforts of national, tribal, state, and local governments, of 

international organizations, the private sector, and concerned citizens. Working 

collaboratively with other government agencies, EPA cooperates with other nations and 

international organizations to identify, develop, and implement policy options to address 

environmental problems of mutual concern. By assisting developing countries in 

managing their natural resources and protecting the health of their citizens, EPA 

leverages financial and human resources to the greater environmental good. EPA also 

works to include environmental protection provisions and commitments to enforce 

environmental laws and regulations effectively in all international trade agreements 

negotiated by the United States. 

 EPA’s ecosystem protection programs encompass a wide range of approaches that 

address specific at-risk regional areas and larger categories of threatened systems, 

such as estuaries and wetlands. Locally generated pollution, combined with pollution 

carried by rivers and streams and through air deposition, can accumulate in these 

ecosystems and degrade them over time. Large water bodies, such as the Gulf of 

Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Chesapeake Bay, have been exposed to substantial 

pollution over many years. Coastal estuaries and wetlands are also vulnerable. As the 

populations in coastal regions grow, the challenges to preserve and protect these 

important ecosystems increase. Working with stakeholders, EPA has established 

special programs to protect and restore these unique resources. 

 

Science guides EPA's identification and treatment of emerging issues and advances 

our understanding of long-standing human health and environmental challenges. EPA’s 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 2
research is typically crosscutting, multidisciplinary, and at the cutting edge of 

environmental science; reflects the dynamic nature of science; and brings scientific rigor 

to the characterization of uncertainty and risk. The Agency’s research provides decision 

makers with a more complete picture of the potential risks and benefits of alternative 

approaches to environmental protection. EPA’s research program includes “core 

research” that builds the scientific knowledge base in human health and ecology, in 

addition to informing environmental decision making. To further our ability to measure, 

assess, and describe environmental conditions, EPA's research is vital for advancing 

programs like the National Land Cover Database and the Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment Program, as well as EPA’s Report on the Environment.

1

 EPA's research 

also informs stewardship approaches and sustainability solutions that can prevent 

pollution by building environmental protection into both national economic and individual 

consumer decisions. 

OBJECTIVE 4.1: CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE RISKS. By 2011, prevent and reduce 

pesticide and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems. 

 

Sub-objective 4.1.1: Reduce Chemical Risks. By 2011, prevent and reduce 

chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems. 

 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2011, eliminate or effectively manage risks associated with 100 percent of 

High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals for which unreasonable risks have 

been identified through EPA risk assessments.2

• Through 2011, ensure that new chemicals introduced into commerce do not 

pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.3

• By 2011, achieve a 31 percent cumulative reduction of chronic human health 

risk from environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce since 

2001.4

• By 2010, eliminate childhood lead poisoning cases as a public health concern 

by reducing to zero the number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with 

elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl).5

• By 2010, reduce to 28 percent the percent difference in the geometric mean 

blood lead level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the 

geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years old.6

• By 2011, through work with international partners, eliminate the use of lead in 

gasoline in the remaining 35 countries that still use lead as an additive, 

affecting over 700 million people. (Baseline: As of January 2006, 35 

countries still need to phase lead out of gasoline. Information source: United 

Nations Environment Program and the Partnership for Clean Fuels and 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 3
Vehicles maintain a global database on fuel quality, which is updated 

periodically.7

) 

• By 2011, through work with international partners, over 3 billion people will 

have access to low-sulfur fuel in 10 countries, including China, India, Mexico 

and Brazil. (Baseline: As of January 2006, none of the developing countries 

has access to low-sulfur fuel, according to the United Nations Environment 

Program and the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles.) 

Sub-objective 4.1.2: Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities. 

By 2011, protect human health, communities, and the environment from chemical 

releases through facility risk-reduction efforts and building community preparedness 

and response capabilities. 

 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, continue to maintain the Risk Management Plan (RMP) prevention 

program and further reduce by 5 percent the number of accidents at RMP 

facilities. (The baseline is an annual average of 340 accidents, based on 

RMP program data through 2003.) 

• By 2011, reduce by 5 percent the consequences of accidents at RMP 

facilities, as measured by injuries, fatalities, and property damage. (The 

baseline is an annual average of 358 injuries, 13 fatalities, $143,487,189 

property damage at RMP from 1995-2003.) 

• By 2011, vulnerability zones surrounding RMP facilities will be reduced by 5 

percent from the 2004 baseline, which will result in the reduction of risk for 

over 4 million people in the community. (The 2004 baseline is 33,504 miles of 

total cumulative radius of all vulnerability zones). 

• By 2011, improve by 10 percent from the 2007 baseline the capabilities of 

Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to prevent, prepare for, and 

respond to chemical emergencies (as measured by a survey of those 

LEPCs), thereby reducing the risk to communities from the potentially 

devastating effects of chemical accidents. 

Sub-objective 4.1.3: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk. Through 2011, 

protect human health by implementing our statutes and taking regulatory actions to 

ensure pesticides continue to be safe and available when used in accordance with 

the label. 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, reduce the concentration of pesticides detected in the general 

population by 50 percent. Baselines are determined from 1990–1992 Centers 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 4
for Disease Control-National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 

(NHANES) data.8

• Through 2011, protect those occupationally exposed to pesticides by 

improving upon or maintaining a rate of 3.5 incidents per 100,000 potential 

risk events. Baseline: There were 1385 occupational pesticide incidents in 

2003 out of 39,850,000 potential pesticide risk events/year.9

• By 2011, improve the health of those who work in or around pesticides by 

reaching a 50 percent targeted reduction in moderate to severe incidents for 

six acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rate: 

chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, pyrethrins, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid 

(2,4-D), and carbofuran. Baselines will be determined from the Poison 

Control Center (PCC) Toxics Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) 

database for 1999-2003.10

Sub-objective 4.1.4: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk. Through 

2011, protect the environment by implementing our statutes and taking regulatory 

actions to ensure pesticides continue to be safe and available when used in 

accordance with the label. 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, reduce the percentage of urban watersheds sampled by the US 

Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assessment (USGS NAWQA) 

program that exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for 

three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion). The 1992 – 

2001 baselines as a percentage of urban watersheds sampled that exceeded 

benchmarks are Diazinon: 40 percent; Chlorpyrifos: 37 percent; and Malathion: 

30 percent.11

• By 2011, reduce the number of agricultural watersheds sampled by the USGS 

NAWQA program that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for 2 key pesticides 

(azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos). Based on 1992–2001 data, 18 percent 

percent of agricultural watersheds sampled exceeded benchmarks for Azinphosmethyl and Chlorpyrifos. 

• By 2011, cumulative percentage of Section 3 actions (registrations of new active 

ingredients and re-registration of existing pesticides) taken by EPA which have 

fully addressed Endangered Species Act obligations, will reach 60 percent. 

Sub-objective 4.1.5: Realize the Benefits from Pesticide Use. Through 2011, 

ensure the public health and economic benefits of pesticide availability and use are 

achieved. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 5
Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, avoid $1.5 billion of crop loss by ensuring that effective pesticides 

are available to address emergency pest infestations. 

 

• By 2011, annually avoid $900M in termite structural damage by ensuring that 

safe and effective pesticides are registered/re-registered and available for 

termite treatment. 

Means and Strategies For Achieving Objective 4.1

In cooperation with our state and tribal partners and with the support of industry, 

environmental groups, and other stakeholders, EPA will use environmental stewardship 

strategies to reduce significantly chemical and pesticide risks to individuals, 

communities, and ecosystems. 

Reducing Risks From Chemicals 

EPA’s strategy to prevent and reduce risks posed by chemicals and microorganisms 

consists of two primary approaches: (1) preventing the introduction into U.S. commerce 

of chemicals and organisms that pose unreasonable risks; and (2) effectively screening 

the stock of chemicals already in commerce for potential risk. EPA develops and 

implements action plans to reduce the use of and exposure to chemicals demonstrated 

to harm humans and the environment. EPA works with states and tribes, other federal 

agencies, the private sector, and international entities and increasingly employs 

stewardship strategies to protect public health and the environment from chemical risks. 

The primary mechanism for preventing the introduction into U.S. commerce of 

chemicals and organisms that pose unreasonable risks is the Toxic Substances Control 

Act’s (TSCA’s) requirement that EPA review all new industrial chemicals and organisms 

prior to their production or import and be notified of significant new uses for certain 

chemicals that have already been reviewed.12 Under TSCA, EPA screens, assesses, 

and reduces risks posed by the 66,600 chemicals that were in use prior to the TSCA’s 

enactment in 1977. Thousands of these chemicals still are in use today, and nearly 

3,000 of them are High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals, produced or imported into 

the United States in quantities exceeding 1 million pounds per year. Under the HPV 

Challenge Program, more than 400 companies and 100 consortia have voluntarily 

provided critical hazard screening data on almost 1,400 HPV chemicals that EPA is 

making publicly available through a comprehensive searchable database.13 EPA also 

participates in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 

Screening Information Data Set program,14 the international equivalent of the HPV 

Challenge Program. EPA uses these data to screen chemicals for potential hazards 

and risks, and to set priorities for further assessments and actions to eliminate or 

manage unreasonable risk. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 6
EPA’s New Chemical Program prevents the introduction of chemicals and organisms 

into economic production that might pose unreasonable risk. EPA’s premanufacture 

notice (PMN) reviews typically assess 1,300 to 1,500 new chemicals or organisms 

every year, a rate expected to continue through 2011. Under the New Chemical 

Program, EPA has developed a number of advanced screening tools to estimate the 

fate, concentrations, and potential health and environmental hazards of chemicals 

released to the environment.15 These advanced tools are also critical to another 

component of this approach—EPA’s work to encourage development of safer or 

“greener” new chemicals at the earliest stages of product, process, and service design. 

The Sustainable Futures initiative16 provides chemical manufacturers with the same 

screening tools EPA uses to evaluate potential risks to workers and the public and 

possible impacts to the environment. EPA expects to increase the New Chemical 

Program’s efficiency as more companies voluntarily pre-screen their chemicals and 

reduce the number of problematic new chemical notices submitted to EPA. EPA’s tools 

and models continue to undergo rigorous external peer review and are updated and 

expanded as needed, based on review recommendations. 

Addressing Lead And Other High-Risk Chemicals 

 

EPA targets risk-reduction efforts at specific chemicals and addresses essential 

environmental justice concerns. Foremost among these is the federal government’s 

commitment to eliminate the incidence of childhood lead poisoning. Since the 1990s, 

EPA has focused on reducing children’s exposure to lead in paint and dust through a 

regulatory framework, federal interagency collaboration, and education of parents and 

the medical community about prevention. Because of these efforts, children’s blood 

lead levels in the United States have declined dramatically, and the federal government 

anticipates that it will achieve its goal of eliminating the incidence of childhood lead 

poisoning in 2010. In working towards that goal, EPA is developing a comprehensive 

program to address lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities in 

homes with lead-based paint. Continued vigilance is required to ensure that no 

resurgence in childhood lead poisoning occurs after 2010. The Agency is also working 

to eliminate the disparity in blood lead levels between low income and non-low income 

target populations, and to address other environmental justice concerns. EPA will 

accomplish this by targeting program resources towards this country’s most vulnerable 

populations. 

Particulate matter (PM) from vehicles is a growing public health problem in many 

countries, particularly in urban areas in the developing world. Reducing sulfur in fuel 

will significantly decrease emissions of particulate matter from vehicles. Over the next 5 

years, through the public-private global Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, EPA 

will reduce emissions from vehicles in key countries by eliminating lead from gasoline 

worldwide and reducing sulfur from gasoline and diesel fuels. The Partnership, 

launched by EPA at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, 

South Africa (WSSD), includes representatives from the oil and automobile industries, 

non-governmental organizations, governments, and international organizations such as 

the United Nations Environmental Program.17 The Partnership also leverages expertise 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 7
from other U.S. government agencies to provide technical assistance on projects in 

several parts of the world, including expertise from the U.S. Agency for International 

Development, the U.S. Department of State, and the Centers for Disease Control. 

EPA is also evaluating and implementing risk management actions on chemicals of 

emerging concern. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a persistent chemical causing 

systemic and developmental toxicity in animal studies, has been found in human blood 

and has a half-life in humans measured in years.18 EPA invited the eight major 

companies with operations in the United States that generate or use PFOA in their 

products to participate in a global environmental stewardship program to reduce 

emissions and product content levels of PFOA, PFOA precursors, and related 

chemicals. All eight of the companies committed to reduce facility emissions and 

product content of PFOA and related chemicals by 95 percent no later than 2010, and 

to work toward eliminating emissions and product content of these chemicals by 2015. 

Companies will report their progress for both their U.S. and global operations. In 

addition, the United States shares with Germany the lead on preparing a draft 

international PFOA assessment for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development. EPA will seek to expand the stewardship program into a truly 

international effort through cooperative activities with foreign governments. 

 Mercury is a domestic and global pollutant and potent neurotoxin that places adults, 

children, and developing fetuses at risk for a variety of health problems, including 

developmental delays. The U.S. has been a catalyst for increasing international 

collaboration, building countries’ capacities, and promoting data sharing to better 

characterize and reduce global mercury use and releases. EPA expects to achieve 

measurable reduction in the chlor-alkali sector, commercial and manufactured products 

sector, and the sectors for artisanal and small scale gold mining and coal combustion, 

together responsible for up to 80 percent of global anthropogenic mercury emissions. 

This reduction will be accomplished through demonstration projects in key countries, 

training, public awareness programs, and information sharing. 

 EPA employs a multimedia, cross-Agency strategy to focus on other high-risk 

chemicals and classes of chemicals. For example, we are working to prevent new 

persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT) chemicals from entering commerce and to 

reduce the risks associated with PBTs that are currently in use or have been used in the 

past, including mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). EPA ensures that PCB 

waste is properly stored and disposed, and that PCB-contaminated sites are correctly 

cleaned up by advising the regulated community on PCB remediation, reviewing and 

acting on PCB disposal applications, and overseeing PCB permitted storage and 

disposal facilities. EPA supports the U.S. Navy, the Department of Transportation’s 

Maritime Administration (MARAD), and other federal agencies that dispose of obsolete 

ships containing PCBs. In addition, the Agency works with the Department of Defense 

to approve the incineration of PCBs in nerve agent rockets and the safe disposal of 

PCB wastes outside of the United States. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 8
Tribal environmental and public health issues are continuing EPA priorities for the 

chemical program. EPA focuses on the needs of tribal communities by addressing 

chemical risks using risk assessment methods that take into account the different risk 

profiles of some tribal lifestyles by building infrastructure and capacity, by providing 

information and tools to assess and prevent adverse impacts on these sensitive 

populations, and by implementing lead, asbestos, and PCB programs within tribal 

communities. 

Reducing Risks From Accidental Chemical Releases From Facilities 

To reduce or eliminate risks associated with accidental chemical releases from 

facilities, EPA must first identify and understand the potential risks. Since 2003, EPA 

completed approximately 1,800 audits of Risk Management Plan (RMP) facilities and 

processed over 12,000 RMPs. During 2007, EPA will review and analyze data collected 

in 1999 and 2004 under the Agency’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) program.19 

Through 2011, EPA will continue analyzing RMP and the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know (CRRTK) data 20 to identify geographic locations and facility 

types with the greatest potential for chemical accidents and releases areas, and identify 

where susceptible and sensitive populations may be at higher risk from chemical 

releases. EPA will use this information to develop voluntary initiatives and activities 

aimed at high-risk facilities and geographic areas. 

In the event of a chemical emergency, protecting first responders and other on-site 

personnel is critical. EPA’s federal, state, and local partners accomplish the majority of 

this work. EPA provides emergency personnel with information they need to take 

necessary precautions and treat individuals who may be on the scene. EPA, in 

collaboration with other federal, private, and academic organizations, is increasing the 

pace for developing Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs), i.e., limits for short-term 

exposures representing three tiers of health effect endpoints (i.e., discomfort, disability, 

and death) for five different exposure durations.21 States, communities, fire 

departments, health agencies, and local governments use the information provided by 

EPA in their local emergency response planning and mitigation efforts to understand 

how these chemical risks could affect them, how to reduce those risks, and how to 

address and mitigate risks should a chemical release occur. 

Reducing Exposure To Pesticides 

The mission of EPA’s Pesticide Program is to protect human health and the 

environment by ensuring that pesticides are safe and available.22 Pesticides protect our 

food supply from a range of pests including fungi, insects, weeds, and microorganisms. 

They reduce risks of vector-borne diseases, sanitize hospital equipment, and disinfect 

household items and surfaces. Consequently, people may be exposed to pesticides 

from the foods that they eat, in and around homes and parks, and in occupational 

settings. Because many pesticides are potentially hazardous, EPA serves an important 

role by screening new pesticides before they reach the market, and as an effective 

steward of pesticides already on the market. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 9
 EPA’s statutory authority to regulate pesticides derives from three primary statutes: 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Act of 1996 (FQPA) that 

amended both FIFRA and FFDCA. Under these laws, EPA has responsibility for 

protecting consumers, pesticide users, or workers who may be exposed to pesticides, 

and children and other sensitive populations, and for protecting the ecosystems, 

including non-target plants and species, with a special emphasis on EPA’s 

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. EPA is also required to balance the 

risks and benefits of a pesticide’s use when making regulatory decisions and 

establishing tolerances or maximum allowable pesticide residues on food and feed, and 

to consider cumulative and aggregate risks and greater protections for children. EPA 

seeks to maximize the potential for pesticide use to positively affect quality of life, 

control vector-borne disease, and ensure availability and affordability of agricultural 

goods. 

EPA's Pesticide Registration Program serves to screen pesticide products before 

their entry into the market.23 EPA reviews significant data prior to registering a 

pesticide and, when needed, implements use restrictions and directions that ensure 

when a pesticide is used according to label directions it will not result in unreasonable 

risk. This pre-market review includes consideration of human health and environmental 

concerns and the pesticide’s potential benefits. Under the Reregistration Program, EPA 

reviews existing registrations to ensure they meet current scientific standards and 

concerns identified after the original registration.24 A provision under FQPA replaced 

the FIFRA requirement for reregistration with a requirement for periodic review of 

pesticide registrations to ensure existing registrations meet the most current 

standards.25 The Agency uses data on the concentrations of pesticides detected in the 

general public, collected by the Center for Disease Control in a bi-annual National 

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), to assess EPA’s effectiveness in 

protecting human health from pesticides.26

EPA began promoting the registration of reduced risk pesticides in 1995. EPA gives 

priority in its registration program for pesticides that have low impact on human health, 

low toxicity to non-target organisms (birds, fish, and plants), low potential for 

groundwater contamination, lower use rates, low pest resistance potential, and those 

that are compatible with Integrated Pest Management.27 Several countries and 

international organizations have instituted programs to facilitate registration of reduced 

risk pesticides. EPA will maintain its leadership role and work with the international 

scientific community and individual OECD member countries to ensure the registration 

of twelve new reduced risk pesticides and to establish related tolerances (maximum 

residue limits) in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 

countries. As a greater amount of food is imported from other countries, international 

use of reduced risk pesticides contributes to reduced risks for Americans. 

The regulation of pesticides also requires a strong field program to ensure that 

decisions made during the licensing and re-licensing processes are implemented in 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 10
pesticide use. Working closely with states, tribes, and other federal agencies, EPA’s 

pesticide field program addresses worker safety, certification, and training for more 

hazardous pesticides, as well as protection of endangered species. In agriculture 

alone, an estimated 1.8 million workers could be exposed to pesticides, and there are 

millions of individuals involved in occupations that use pesticides, such as lawn care, 

healthcare, food preparation, and landscape maintenance.28 In addition to promoting 

and licensing safer products, EPA reduces the number and severity of pesticide 

exposure incidents through regulations under the Worker Protection Standard, pesticide 

applicator certification and training, risk assessment and risk management, and 

effective communication and outreach. Close cooperative relationships between EPA, 

states, tribes, and other regulatory partners allows information on local pesticide use 

patterns, geological conditions, location of endangered species, and tribal cultural 

practices to inform the risk assessment process and to guide EPA to practical and 

effective decisions. 

Reducing Risks To Ecosystems 

 Pesticides can have negative effects on water resources, soil, and wildlife. While a 

significant portion of the risk assessments conducted for new and existing pesticides 

relate to human health, EPA also conducts ecological risk assessments to address 

potential impacts to plants, animals, and ecosystems. Under FIFRA, EPA must 

determine that a pesticide is not likely to harm the environment in the same way that it 

must determine potential risk for human health. EPA may impose risk mitigation 

measures such as use restrictions, denial of uses, or requirements to monitor 

environmental conditions such as effects on water sources. 

 Reductions in the concentrations of pesticides in water sources are a major indicator 

of the efficacy of EPA’s risk assessment, management, mitigation, and communication 

activities. To reduce potential environmental impact of four pesticides of concern 

(diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, and azinphos-methyl), EPA will use sampling data 

from urban and agricultural watersheds collected under the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program.29 For each of the 

pesticides, EPA will monitor the impacts of previous regulatory decisions and consider 

additional action necessary to achieve greater environmental improvements. EPA will 

work with USGS to develop sampling plans, and intermediate (2008–2010) goals will be 

refined when the USGS plan is finalized in late FY 2007. In addition to currently tracked 

insecticides, EPA will request that USGS add additional insecticides to sampling 

protocols and establish baselines for newer products that are replacing 

organophosphates such as synthetic pyrethroids. 

Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA is required to ensure that pesticide 

regulatory decisions will not adversely modify critical habitat or jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species. With approximately 600 active ingredients in over 19,000 

products—each which may have multiple uses—and approximately 1,200 listed species 

each with diverse habits and habitat requirements, this is a great challenge. EPA is 

working with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 11
establish an effective process for EPA to carry out its ESA obligations. Together, we 

are developing “counterpart regulations” that provide EPA authority to make certain 

determinations without further consultation. Realizing that former licensing and 

registration processes did not fully examine endangered species impacts, EPA has 

made assessing risks to endangered species a priority and is revising its processes to 

make endangered species considerations a routine part of Agency reviews.30 EPA is 

training staff to ensure they are able to make determinations under the counterpart 

regulations. EPA, states, and tribes also make vital contributions by providing valid and 

relevant information on local pesticide use and practices, and recommendations on the 

feasibility of potential mitigation methods. 

Realizing Economic Benefits Of Pesticides 

Controlling the production and income losses from pests is important for agricultural 

production systems where pest damage can be an economic detriment. U.S. 

agricultural producers have relied on registered pesticides for decades to produce an 

abundant and safe food supply and to avoid economic losses from pests. One of the 

primary benefits of EPA’s licensing and re-licensing programs is access to effective 

pesticides that eliminate or limit losses. FIFRA also authorizes conditional use of a 

pesticide for a geographically specific emergency. Historically, the crop loss avoided 

through the timely review of emergency exemption requests is estimated at $1.5 billion 

per year. EPA continues to support these benefits to American agriculture and 

American consumers by carefully reviewing all requests for emergency exemptions in a 

timely manner. 

Due to the availability of effective termiticides, it is estimated that $900 million of 

termite damage is avoided each year. Although some effective termiticides have been 

removed from the market because of safety concerns, EPA works with industry to help 

register safe alternatives to maintain a high level of protection with safe products that 

meet or exceed all current safety standards. 

OBJECTIVE 4.2: COMMUNITIES. Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the 

ecological systems that support them. 

 

Sub-objective 4.2.1: Sustain Community Health. By 2011, reduce the air, water, 

and land impacts of new growth and development through use of smart growth 

strategies in 30 communities that will achieve significant measurable environmental 

and/or public health improvements. The baseline will be established in 2006. 

Sub-objective 4.2.2: Restore Community Health through Collaborative 

Problem-Solving. Make significant environmental improvements in communities 

with potential disproportionately high and adverse environmental and/or public 

health effects (“areas with potential environmental justice concerns”) and foster the 

ability of communities to address local environmental concerns with other 

stakeholders through collaborative problem solving.31

 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 12
Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, 30 communities with potential environmental justice concerns will 

achieve significant measurable environmental or public health improvement 

through collaborative problem-solving strategies. (Baseline: In 2006, 30 

communities with potential environmental justice concerns are in the process 

of using collaborative problem-solving strategies in efforts to achieve 

environmental or public health improvement. Community-specific baselines 

will be developed by 2008 for assessing improvement.) 

• By 2011, as compared to the general population, significantly decrease the 

amount of pollution that may disproportionately affect the environmental 

health of communities with potential environmental justice concerns. This 

reduction will include, as appropriate, pollutant sources associated with the 

following national environmental justice priorities: asthma, air toxics, lead, 

contaminated fish and shellfish, drinking water; brownfields, and 

contaminated sites. 

Sub-objective 4.2.3: Assess and Clean Up Brownfields. Working with state, 

tribal, and local partners, promote the assessment, cleanup, and sustainable reuse 

of brownfields properties. 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, conduct environmental assessments at 13,900 properties. (FY 

2005 baseline is 7,900.) 

• By 2011, make 1,125 acres (cumulative) of brownfields ready for reuse. 

(Baseline will be established in FY 2006.) 

• By 2011, leverage $12.9 billion (cumulative) in assessment, cleanup, and 

redevelopment funding at brownfields properties (FY 2005 baseline is 

$7.5B32.) 

Sub-objective 4.2.4: Sustain and Restore the United States - Mexico Border 

Environmental Health. By 2012, sustain and restore the environmental health 

along the United States-Mexico border through implementation of the “Border 2012@

plan. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2012, achieve a majority of currently exceeded water quality standards in 

impaired reaches or segments of significant shared and trans-boundary surface 

waters. (2002 Baseline: 42 water quality impairments/sources were identified for 

24 segments of significant shared and trans-boundary surface waters.) 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 13
• By 2012, provide safe drinking water to 25 percent of homes in the Mexican 

border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003. (2003 Baseline: 

98,515 homes lacked access to safe drinking water.)33

• By 2012, provide adequate wastewater sanitation to 25 percent of homes in the 

Mexican border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003. (2003 

Baseline: 690,723 homes lacked access to wastewater sanitation.)34

• By 2012, cleanup five waste sites (two abandoned waste tires sites and three 

abandoned hazardous waste sites) in the United States-Mexico border region. 

Sub-objective 4.2.5: Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories. By 2011, 

sustain and restore the environmental health of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories of 

American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI). 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, 95 percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island 

Territories served by community drinking water systems will receive drinking 

water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards throughout 

the year. (2005 Baseline: 95 percent of the population in American Samoa, 10 

percent in CNMI, and 80 percent of Guam served by community water systems 

received drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water 

standards throughout the year). 

• By 2011, the sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will 

comply 90 percent of the time with permit limits for biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). (2005 Baseline: the sewage treatment 

plants in the Pacific Island Territories complied 59 percent of the time with the 

BOD and TSS permit limits). 

• By 2011, beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under 

the Beach Safety Program will be open and safe for swimming 96 percent of 

days of the beach season. (2005 Baseline: beaches were open and safe 

64percent of the 365-day beach season in American Samoa, 97 percent in CNMI 

and 76 percent in Guam). 

Sub-objective 4.2.6: Reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Exposure. 

By 2011, reduce the mean maternal serum blood levels of POPs contaminants in 

indigenous populations in the Arctic.35

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, reduce mean maternal blood levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

(measured as Aroclor 1260) in indigenous populations in the Arctic to 5.6 μg/l. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 14
• By 2011, reduce mean maternal blood levels of chlordane (measured as the 

metabolites oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor) in indigenous populations in the 

Arctic to 1.1 μg/l. 

Means And Strategies For Achieving Objective 4.2 

Communities are the places where we live and work, supported and enriched by 

natural ecosystems and their valuable assests . EPA is committed to sustaining and 

restoring community health and the ecological systems that support it. EPA’s work in 

communities across the United States is critical to ensure clean and safe water for 

drinking, swimming, and fishing, healthy air, and safe management of waste and its byproducts. Much of EPA’s community work also addresses environmental justice and 

tribal concerns and advances stewardship and sustainability. EPA’s national mediaspecific programs carry out important aspects of work in communities; however, to 

effectively address the great range of conditions among communities requires crossmedia coordination and innovative strategies. As we expand our knowledge of 

environmental conditions, stressors, and solutions, community-based strategies for 

environmental protection will become more common and widely implemented. Thus, 

developing and implementing effective community-based strategies are the great 

challenge and promise of environmental protection in the coming century. 

Sustaining Healthy Communities 

 Achieving healthy communities and ecosystems requires protecting and sustaining 

natural resources that are at risk. EPA uses four approaches to facilitate communitybased protection of local natural resources. 

• Inform local decision-making. EPA continues to improve methods for information 

exchange and for giving communities greater access to environmental 

information. 

• Build local capacity. EPA develops and distributes tools that integrate mediaspecific information, supports multimedia planning, and develops training for local 

agencies and community groups on how to use environmental assessment and 

planning data and how to work collaboratively and cooperatively with a range of 

stakeholders. EPA also identifies and provides opportunities for greater public 

participation in environmental decision making. 

• Provide technical and financial assistance directly to communities. This 

assistance helps neighborhood groups adopt integrated comprehensive 

approaches to environmental problems in their neighborhoods, coordinate 

environmental management, and promote strategic partnerships with EPA. For 

example, EPA’s Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program 

provides competitive grants directly to communities to create local collaborative 

partnerships to reduce releases and minimize exposure to toxic pollutants. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 15
Through programs like CARE, by 2011, EPA expects more than 100 community 

partnerships will use meaningful public involvement to address disproportionate 

environmental impacts and/or prioritized risks through comprehensive, integrated 

planning, and environmental management and partnership programs. These 

communities will provide quantitative data on human, public, or community health 

to EPA. Through continuing efforts to negotiate international free trade 

agreements, our assistance to communities also extends to specific international 

trading partners. In this context, EPA conducts environmental reviews and 

provides technical assistance to promote ecologically compatible development 

abroad. 

• Ensure that national policies and programs support, rather than hinder, the 

comprehensive, and integrated management of local resources. EPA also 

reviews new policies and regulations to ensure that federal programs are more 

compatible with local efforts and that they promote overall environmental 

improvement. EPA continues to collaborate with other federal agencies to create 

incentives for and remove barriers to smart growth and integrated environmental 

management. 

Restoring Healthy Communities: Environmental Justice 

 EPA maintains an ongoing commitment to ensure environmental justice for all 

people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income in accordance with 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations.” In recognizing that minority and/or lowincome communities frequently may be exposed disproportionately to environmental 

hazards and risks, EPA works to protect these and other affected communities. 

Ensuring environmental justice means not only protecting human health and the 

environment for everyone, but also ensuring that all people are treated fairly and are 

given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

 To achieve the goals of environmental justice, EPA is establishing, as appropriate, 

measurable environmental justice commitments for eight national environmental 

priorities and other critical areas of focus. Priority areas include: reducing asthma 

attacks; reducing exposure to air toxics; increasing compliance with regulations; 

reducing incidence of elevated blood lead levels; ensuring that fish and shellfish are 

safe to eat; ensuring that water is safe to drink; revitalization of brownfields and 

contaminated sites; and, using collaborative problem-solving to address environmental 

and/or public health concerns. EPA is also increasing the integration of environmental 

justice considerations in all aspects of its mission through staff training and improved 

access to guidance documents, online tools, and other resources; the dissemination of 

information about successful strategies; and enhancing the ability of staff to work 

effectively with community-based organizations and other stakeholders. EPA promotes 

collaborative problem-solving strategies by providing capacity-building through grants 

and cooperative agreements, online tools, training, and technical assistance. EPA also 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 16
coordinates stakeholders to help leverage resources and to address multi-media, 

cumulative risk, and/or other community concerns. In addition, the Agency uses dispute 

resolution, facilitation, listening sessions, and other consensus building techniques and 

convenes multi-stakeholder groups to address environmental and/or public health 

issues. These efforts help communities and other stakeholders develop partnerships 

that produce practical solutions to local human health and environmental issues. 

Assessing And Cleaning Up Brownfields 

Brownfields are real properties whose expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be 

complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, 

or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties increases local tax 

bases, facilitates job growth, utilizes existing infrastructure, takes development 

pressures off undeveloped land, and improves and protects the environment. EPA’s 

Brownfields Program works in cooperation with communities, states, tribes, and various 

other stakeholder groups, and provides funding and technical assistance to address 

both public health and environmental concerns and to advance a community's 

revitalization vision. 

EPA offers competitive grants for brownfields assessment, cleanup, job training, and 

revolving loan fund grants. EPA has awarded 780 of these grants since the enactment 

of the Brownfields Law. Assessing brownfields helps communities understand the risks 

these properties pose and provides the information needed to undertake cleanup and 

reuse. Nearly one third of the properties that communities assess do not require 

environmental cleanup. EPA’s cleanup grants provide funding for environmental 

cleanup activities of many properties that are contaminated. EPA’s revolving loan fund 

grants capitalize a revolving loan fund to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. 

In addition, EPA’s brownfields job training grants fund eligible governmental and nonprofit organizations for recruitment, training, and job placement in the environmental 

field for residents affected by brownfields, helping to ensure that the economic benefits 

derived from brownfield reuse remain in the affected community. 

Competitive grant ranking criteria include community need, sustainability, community 

involvement, preservation of greenspace, and reduction of threats to human health and 

the environment. The “Brownfields Law” also requires EPA to consider “the extent to 

which the grant would address or facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to 

the health or welfare of minority or low-income communities, or other sensitive 

populations,” further emphasizing the brownfields program’s commitment to 

environmental justice and addressing community concerns in the reuse of 

brownfields.36 The program is developing a methodology to better assess the 

relationship between EPA-funded brownfields projects and sensitive, socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. This information will allow the program to 

evaluate the assistance provided to date and to develop strategies that better integrate 

environmental justice considerations. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 17
EPA provides funds to state and tribal governments to establish and enhance 

response programs that oversee the majority of brownfields assessments and cleanup. 

These programs may provide technical oversight and assistance to property owners; 

create inventories of brownfields sites; develop policies, regulations, and ordinances; 

and conduct site assessment and cleanup of brownfields sites. EPA funding is often 

critical to the operation of these response programs, especially for tribal governments 

for whom funding might not otherwise be available. 

EPA also provides outreach and technical assistance to stakeholders confronting 

and revitalizing brownfields. EPA performs targeted brownfields assessments at 

individual sites where stakeholders are seeking federal assistance to identify the extent 

of contamination. Through the Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support 

Center,37 EPA helps streamline site investigations and the cleanup process, identify 

technology options, evaluate contractor capabilities and recommendations, and explain 

complex technologies to communities. EPA provides technical tools to help 

stakeholders complete brownfields transactions, such as Triad38 and SMARTe.39 The 

Triad approach to site assessment improves environmental decision making through 

systematic planning, dynamic work strategies, and real-time measurement 

technologies. SMARTe is a tool that communities can use to assess both market and 

non-market costs and benefits of redevelopment options, clarify private and public 

financing options, and evaluate and communicate environmental risks. EPA 

cosponsors a national brownfields conference with educational sessions, workshops, 

and roundtables where the brownfields reuse community shares ideas, lessons learned, 

and best practices. 

 

The Brownfields Program is conducting a program review of the operations at EPA 

headquarters and at the Agency’s 10 regional offices. The review will compile feedback 

on program objectives and operations, ensure accountability of internal and external 

stakeholders, evaluate decision-making processes, and identify and share best 

practices. The review, which is aimed at enhancing the overall quality of the program, 

will be completed in FY 2008. 

Reducing Transboundary Threats Along The United States-Mexico Border 

 In an increasingly interconnected world, domestic environmental quality and public 

health often require action along borders and in other parts of the world. Since 1970, the 

United States-Mexico border region has experienced rapid population growth. Today, 

there are approximately 13 million inhabitants in the border region, nearly equally 

divided between Mexico and the United States. The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 

Program, a joint effort between the governments of the United States and Mexico, 

works with the 10 border states and border communities to reduce transboundary 

threats to improve the region’s environmental and ecosystem health.40 

As part of EPA’s continuing commitment to environmental justice, the Agency is 

working with some disadvantaged border communities to improve water quality in both 

the United States and Mexico. For decades, raw sewage has flowed unabated through 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 18
and from border cities, posing a significant public health and environmental threat to 

both U.S. and Mexican communities. Inadequate water and sewage treatment cause 

border residents to suffer disproportionately from hepatitis A and other waterborne 

diseases. To reduce health risks to residents, EPA assists communities in the U.S.-

Mexico border region to increase the number of homes with access to safe drinking 

water and basic sanitation. As this infrastructure comes on line, discharges of raw 

sewage will be reduced and surface water quality will improve. Restoration of surface 

water quality on 24 impaired shared and trans-boundary waters is an EPA priority. 

EPA will also focus on the environmental and human health risks posed by land 

contamination from abandoned tires and hazardous waste. Piles of waste tires pose a 

risk to health and the environment because they serve as breeding grounds for 

mosquitoes and are prone to fires, which are difficult to extinguish. Addressing the 

challenge of contaminated hazardous waste sites will also minimize the threat of acute 

heavy metal poisoning and long-term central nervous system damage to local residents. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/owm/mab/mexican/ 

Restoring Island Communities 

 The U.S. island territories of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI), and Guam face severe environmental infrastructure problems, 

leaving residents more at risk from environmental problems than many of their mainland 

counterparts. In some cases, island residents are not able to turn on their faucets and 

get clean, safe water. Similarly, these islands are frequently plagued with poor 

wastewater conveyance and treatment systems that contaminate drinking water wells 

and surface waters, posing an immediate danger to residents. Island beaches have 

important recreational, economic, and cultural significance. Beaches provide a yearround draw for tourists and residents alike and also allow local fisherman to continue 

traditional practices. Currently, pollution from many different sources results in frequent 

and widespread island beach advisories. 

EPA uses a combination of tools to improve conditions in the islands. The Agency 

targets infrastructure and non-point source grants at the greatest deficiencies. With 

aggressive enforcement and technical assistance, EPA works to improve the capacity of 

island utilities to protect public health and safeguard the environment. In close 

cooperation with island and federal partners, EPA continues to work toward the 

development of a Territories Bond Bank. The Bond Bank will provide islands with 

access to more affordable financing, greatly enhancing their ability to fund critical capital 

improvement projects. 

Protecting Arctic Indigenous Communities 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 19
Long-range and transboundary atmospheric transport and deposition of persistent 

organic pollutants (POPs) are a continuing threat to human health and ecosystems. 

These pollutants can travel great distances from their sources, remain intact for long 

periods, enter the ecosystem, and bioaccumulate through the food chain. Consequently, 

POPs are a continuing threat to human health and the ecosystems in North America, 

especially the Arctic. Arctic indigenous populations, including those in Alaska, have 

higher exposures to POPs than other populations due to their traditional food 

consumption. Reducing international sources of POPs can lead to reductions of their 

levels in the Arctic environment, including animal food sources. The United States is a 

strong supporter of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a global 

treaty to reduce POPs that EPA helps implement.41 

 The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, that documents exposure of 

indigenous populations to toxics in remote areas, indicates the primary sources of POPs 

are from international, long-range transport, and that some of the largest sources of 

pollutants to the Arctic include Russia and China.42 EPA works with Russia and other 

Arctic Council members toward reducing these pollutants, including efforts to collect and 

safely store obsolete pesticide stockpiles. Based on EPA-led Arctic Council projects, 

EPA estimates that about 24,000 tons of POPs pesticides will be removed from unsafe 

storage and destroyed by 200843 and about 12,000 tons of PCB oil will be destroyed by 

2009.44 EPA also works with partners to raise awareness about persistent pollutants, 

build capacity to prevent pollution, and share beneficial technologies to protect arctic 

indigenous communities. 

OBJECTIVE 4.3: RESTORE AND PROTECT CRITICAL ECOSYSTEMS. Protect, 

sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems. 

Critical Ecosystems 

• Wetlands 

• Estuaries 

• Great Lakes 

• Chesapeake Bay 

• Gulf of Mexico 

• Long Island Sound 

• South Florida Ecosystem 

• Puget Sound Basin 

• Columbia River Basin 

 

Sub-objective 4.3.1: Increase Wetlands. By 2011, working with partners, achieve 

a net increase in wetlands acres with additional focus on assessment of wetland 

condition. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 20
Strategic Targets: 

• By 2011, working with partners, achieve a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands 

per year with additional focus on biological and functional measures and 

assessment of wetland condition. (2004 Baseline: 32,000 acres annual net wetland 

gain based on new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands 

Inventory Status and Trends Report, 1998-2004.) 

• By 2011, in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), states, 

and tribes, achieve “no net loss” of wetlands each year under the Clean Water Act 

Section 404 regulatory program, beginning in 2007. (Baseline: new baseline to be 

determined in 2008)

Sub-objective 4.3.2: Facilitate the Ecosystem-Scale Restoration of Estuaries 

of National Significance. By 2011, working with partners, protect or restore an 

additional (i.e., measuring from 2007 forward) 250,000 acres of habitat within the 

study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the National Estuary Program. 

(2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 

2002.) 

Sub-objective 4.3.3: Improve the Health of the Great Lakes. By 2011, prevent 

water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall ecosystem health of 

the Great Lakes is at least 23 points on a 40-point scale. (2005 Baseline: Great 

Lakes rating of 21.5 on the 40-point scale where the rating uses select Great Lakes 

State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators based on a 1 to 5 rating system for each 

indicator, where 1 is poor and 5 is good.45) 

Strategic Targets:

• Through 2011, maintain or improve an average annual 5 percent decline for the 

long-term trend in average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and 

walleye samples. (Baseline: decline from 1990 levels.46) 

• Through 2011, maintain or improve an average 7 percent annual decline for the 

long-term trend in average concentrations of toxic chemicals (PCBs) in the air in 

the Great Lakes basin. (Baseline: Decline from 1992 levels measured through 

Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) data.47) 

• By 2010, restore and delist a cumulative total of at least 8 Areas of Concern 

within the Great Lakes basin (2005 Baseline: 0 areas of concern de-listed as of 

2005 of the 31 total areas of concern.) 

• By 2011, remediate a cumulative total of 7 million cubic yards of contaminated 

sediment in the Great Lakes. (2005 Baseline: 3.7 million cubic yards of 

contaminated sediments from the Great Lakes have been remediated from 1997 

through 2004 of the 75 million yards estimated to need remediation.) 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 21
Sub-objective 4.3.4: Improve The Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem. 

By 2011, prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall 

aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved. 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, achieve 45 percent (83,250 acres) of the long-term restoration goal of 

185,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation. (2005 Baseline: 39 percent 

(72,935 acres) of submerged aquatic vegetation goal achieved.) 

• By 2011, achieve 40 percent (29.92 cubic km) of the long-term restoration goal of 

100 percent attainment of the dissolved oxygen water quality standards in all tidal 

waters of the Bay. (2005 Baseline: 34 percent (25.40 cubic km) of dissolved 

oxygen goal achieved.) 

• By 2011, achieve 59 percent (95.88 million pounds) of the long-term goal to 

reduce annual nitrogen loads 162 million pounds from 1985 levels. 

• By 2011, achieve 74 percent (10.63 million pounds) of the long-term goal to 

reduce annual phosphorus loads 14.3 million pounds from 1985 levels. 

• By 2011, achieve 74 percent (1.25 million tons) of the long-term goal to reduce 

annual land-based sediment loads 1.68 million tons from 1985 levels. 

Sub-objective 4.3.5: Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico. By 2011, the 

overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico will be improved from 2.4 to 2.6 

on the Agood/fair/poor@ scale of the National Coastal Condition Report. (2004 

Baseline: Gulf Coast rating of fair or 2.4 where the rating is based on a 4-point 

system where 1 is poor and 5 is good.) 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2011, restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 71 

impaired segments (cumulative) in 13 priority coastal areas (i.e., 20 percent of 

the 354 impaired segments identified in 13 priority coastal areas). (2005 

Baseline: 28 segments restored) 

• By 2011, restore, enhance, or protect 20,000 acres of important coastal and 

marine habitats. (2005 baseline: 16,000 acres restored, enhanced, or protected; 

Gulf of Mexico coastal wetland habitats include 3,769,370 acres.) 

• By 2015, reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to 

reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico to less than 5,000 km2, 

as measured by the 5-year running average of the size of the zone. (Baseline: 

1996-2000 running average size = 14,128 km2

.) 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 22
Sub-objective 4.3.6: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound. By 2011, working 

through the Long Island Sound Study Management Conference partnership, prevent 

water pollution, improve water quality, protect aquatic systems, and restore the 

habitat of Long Island Sound. 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2014, reduce point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound by 58.5 

percent as measured by the Long Island Sound Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily 

Load. (Annual reduction target: 8,303 lbs/day. TMDL baseline: 212,899 lbs/day; 

2014 target: 88,353 lbs/day.) 

• By 2011, reduce the size of hypoxic area in Long Island Sound (i.e., the average 

maximum July-September <3mg/l DO) by 25 percent; reduce average duration of 

maximum hypoxic event by 25 percent. (2005 baseline derived from 19-year 

averages as of December 2005. Size: 203 sq/mi. Duration: 58 days.) 

• By 2011, restore or protect an additional 300 acres of coastal habitat, including 

tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands from the 2005 

baseline. (2005 baseline: 562 acres restored and 150 acres protected.) 

• By 2011, reopen an additional 50 miles of river and stream corridor to 

anadromous fish passage from the 2005 baseline through removal of dams and 

barriers or installation of by-pass structures such as fishways. (2005 baseline: 

81 miles.) 

Sub-objective 4.3.7: Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem. Protect 

and maintain the South Florida Ecosystem, including the Everglades and coral reef 

ecosystems.

Strategic Targets:

• Annually, beginning in 2008, work with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

other partners to achieve “no net loss@ of wetlands in South Florida under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act. (2005 baseline to be determined in 2006.) 

• By 2012, working with all stakeholders (federal, state, regional, and local), 

achieve “no net loss@ of stony coral cover (mean percent stony coral cover) in the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the coastal waters of 

Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. (Baseline to be determined 

using information collected and analyzed in FY 2005 by the long-term coral reef 

monitoring projects.) 

• By 2011, maintain the overall health and functionality of sea grass beds in the 

FKNMS each year beginning in 2008, as measured by the long-term sea grass 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 23
monitoring project that addresses composition and abundance, productivity, and 

nutrient availability. (Baseline index of sea grass health to be determined using 

information collected and analyzed in FY 2005.) 

• By 2011, maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters 

of the FKNMS each year, beginning in 2008. (Baseline concentrations for 

inorganic nitrogen [nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium], soluble reactive phosphorus, 

water clarity [turbidity and light attenuation], and chlorophyll a to be determined 

using information collected and analyzed in FY 2005 as measured by the longterm water quality monitoring project.) 

• By 2011, maintain the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem each year, 

beginning in 2008, as measured through water quality monitoring of total 

phosphorus. (Baseline is 1995 water quality.) 

Sub-objective 4.3.8: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin. By 2011, 

improve water quality, air quality, and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid 

development in the Puget Sound Basin.

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2011, improve water quality and lift harvest restrictions in 1,000 acres of 

shellfish bed growing areas impacted by degraded or declining water quality. 

(Baseline: As of January 2006, approximately 30,000 shellfish bed growing areas 

had harvest restrictions due to water quality impairments in Puget Sound.) 

• By 2011, 200 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments are remediated. 

(Baseline: as of January 2006, approximately 5,000 acres of remaining 

contaminated sediments required some level of remediation.) 

• By 2011, 3,500 acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands are 

restored. (Baseline: total intertidal and near shore habitat acres identified in the 

2006 Puget Sound Near Shore Restoration Site Inventory Database.) 

• By 2011, through coordinated diesel emission mitigation efforts, reduce total 

diesel emissions in the Puget Sound airshed by 8 percent. (Baseline will be 

determined in 2006.) 

Sub-objective 4.3.9: Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin. By 2011, 

prevent water pollution, and improve and protect water quality and ecosystems in 

the Columbia River Basin to reduce risks to human health and the environment. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 24
Strategic Targets: 

• By 2011, protect, enhance or restore 13,000 acres of wetland habitat and 3,000 

acres of upland habitat. (Baseline: 1999 Lower Columbia River Comprehensive 

Conservation Management Plan.48) 

• By 2011, clean up 150 acres of known highly contaminated sediments. 

(Baseline: 400 acres of known highly contaminated sediments in the main-stem 

of the Columbia River and Lower Willamette River as of 2006.) 

• By 2011, demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of 

contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue. (Chemical-specific 

baseline will be available in 2006 from the following sources: Pesticide 

Stewardship Partnership (PSP) Studies for Oregon as of 200649; Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) studies for Washington50; 2002 EPA Columbia River Basin 

Fish Contaminant Survey51; Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 2006 

Monitoring Study52; and Washington Ecology's March 2005 Report: 

Concentrations of 303(d) Listed Pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, Measured with Passive 

Samplers Deployed in the Lower Columbia River.53) 

Means and Strategies For Achieving Objective 4.3 

EPA works to protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and 

ecosystems by identifying and evaluating problem areas, developing tools, and 

improving community capacity to address problems. Our activities target wetlands, 

estuaries, and high-priority areas such as the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of 

Mexico, Long Island Sound, South Florida ecosystem, Puget Sound Basin, and the 

Columbia River. Place-based ecosystem protection efforts focus attention on critical 

watersheds to develop and implement water quality control practices and other 

ecosystem management tools that can be transferred to other place-based efforts 

nationwide. 

Increasing Wetlands 

 Since the 1700’s, the United States has lost more than 115 million acres of wetlands 

to development, agriculture, and other uses.54 Today, the nation may be entering a 

period of annual net gain of wetlands acres for some wetland classes. When wetlands 

function properly, they can provide water quality protection, fish and wildlife habitat, 

natural floodwater storage, and reduction in the erosive potential of surface water. Still, 

many wetlands in the United States are in less than pristine condition and many created 

wetlands, while beneficial, fail to replace the diverse plant and animal communities of 

wetlands lost. Excessive sedimentation, nutrient over-enrichment, pesticides, invasive 

species, habitat loss, and fragmentation are degrading wetlands.55

The 2006 National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report shows the overall 

gains in wetland acres exceeded overall losses from 1998 through 2004. However, this 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 25
gain is primarily attributable to an increase in unvegetated freshwater ponds, some of 

which (such as aquaculture ponds) may not function as wetlands and others which have 

varying functional value. The report also notes that freshwater vegetated wetlands 

declined by 0.5 percent, a smaller rate of loss than in preceding years, and estuarine 

vegetated wetlands declined by 0.7 percent, an increased rate of loss from the 

preceding years. The Status and Trends Report, however, does not assess the quality 

or condition of wetlands. EPA will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

other federal agencies to refine the methodology used in preparing future reports to 

more effectively assess the status and trends of both the quantity and quality of the 

nation's wetlands. 

 EPA cooperates with federal partners, state and tribal governments, and others to 

achieve the President’s goal, set in 2004, to restore, improve, and protect 3 million 

acres of wetlands by 2009. Progress under the President’s Initiative is reported 

annually starting in 2005, in “Conserving America’s Wetlands: Implementing the 

President’s Goal.” EPA also works with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) 

in several key areas to ensure “no net loss” of wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act. A key area of cooperation is the application of the 404(b)(1) guidelines that 

require that discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States be 

avoided and minimized to the extent practicable, and that unavoidable impacts be fully 

compensated. EPA and the Corps are cooperatively developing a consistent set of 

science-based standards for all types of compensatory mitigation56 or mitigation that 

compensates for wetland destruction. EPA also works with the Corps to enhance data 

collection and tracking of Section 404 permitted projects and associated compensatory 

mitigation and provides this information to federal, state, and tribal partners and the 

public. 

EPA leads federal agency implementation of the 2002 National Wetlands Mitigation 

Action Plan, which includes 17 action items to improve the effectiveness of wetland 

mitigation and restoration.57 EPA continues to enhance its wetlands monitoring by 

building state and tribal capacity to measure wetland function and condition. Broadbased, integrated monitoring and assessment programs improves wetlands decisionmaking, helps target restoration activities, and facilitates our ability to address 

significant stressors. EPA provides technical and financial support through wetland 

program development grants to build state and tribal wetland programs in the areas of 

regulation, monitoring, restoration, water quality standards, mitigation compliance, and 

partnership-building. Other programs, such as the Five Star Restoration Challenge 

Grant Program,58 regional geographic initiatives (RGI),59 targeted watershed grants 

(TWG),60 and nonpoint source grants,61 provide funding, technical support, and 

information to help communities build strong partnerships to implement riparian, coastal, 

and wetland restoration projects. EPA also is fully integrating wetlands protection into 

other clean water and other Agency programs, such as Brownfields. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/ 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 26
Restoring Estuaries 

Estuaries are among the most biologically productive ecosystems on earth, 

providing numerous ecological, economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefits and services. 

They are also among the most threatened ecosystems, largely as a result of rapidly 

increasing growth and development.62 Estuaries tend to accumulate sediments, 

nutrients, and other pollutants from adjacent and upstream land-based sources. This 

can have a profound effect on water quality, habitats, living resources, and human 

health. In addition, overuse of natural resources and conflicts among recreational and 

commercial users have resulted in a host of problems. 

 

 EPA’s National Estuary Program (NEP) provides inclusive, community-based 

planning and action in 28 nationally significant estuaries selected by Congress and the 

states’ governors. EPA supports and monitors the continuing efforts of all 28 NEP 

estuaries to implement approved comprehensive conservation and management plans, 

which identify over 2,000 priority actions needed to protect the estuaries and restore 

estuarine resources. In addition, EPA supports broad priorities identified by the NEPs, 

including: developing approaches to identify and rank priority habitats; providing tools to 

integrate local and regional plans for growth with stormwater management; supporting 

development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for coastal waters; developing and 

implementing nutrient management strategies, including development of nutrient water 

quality criteria; addressing problems of invasive species; and, reducing wet weather 

runoff from urban and agricultural areas. 

ESTUARIES IN THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 

Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, NC 

Barataria-Terrebonne, LA 

Barnegat Bay, NJ 

Buzzards Bay, MA 

Casco Bay, ME 

Charlotte Harbor, FL. 

Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries, TX. 

Lower Columbia River, OR/WA 

Delaware Estuary, DE/NJ 

Delaware Inland Bays, DE 

Galveston Bay, TX 

Indian River Lagoon, FL 

Long Island Sound, NY/CT 

Maryland Coastal Bays, MD 

Massachusetts Bay, MA 

Mobile Bay, AL 

Morro Bay, CA 

Narragansett Bay, RI 

New Hampshire Estuaries, NH 

New York/New Jersey Harbor, NY/NJ 

Peconic Bay, NY 

Puget Sound, WA 

San Francisco Bay, CA. 

San Juan Bay, PR 

Santa Monica Bay, CA 

Sarasota Bay, FL 

Tampa Bay, FL 

Tillamook Bay, OR 

To Learn More: www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries

 The health of the nation’s estuarine ecosystems also depends on the maintenance 

of high-quality habitat. Diminished and degraded habitats are less able to support 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 27
healthy populations of wildlife and marine organisms and perform the economic and 

ecological functions on which coastal populations depend for their livelihood. EPA 

facilitates the ecosystem-wide protection and restoration of natural areas in cooperation 

with other federal resource agencies through interagency partnerships, such as the 

Estuary Habitat Restoration Council and Coastal America. 

Great Lakes 

 The Great Lakes are the largest system of surface freshwater on earth, containing 

20 percent of the world’s surface freshwater and about 84 percent of North America’s 

surface freshwater. The watershed includes 2 nations, 8 American states, a Canadian 

province, more than 40 tribes, and more than one-tenth of the U.S. population. 

 While certain persistent toxic substances (PTS) have been reduced significantly in 

the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem over the past 30 years, they continue to be present at 

levels that pose threats to human and wildlife health, warrant fish consumption 

advisories in all five lakes, and disrupt a way of life for many in the basin. The Great 

Lakes Legacy Act targets additional resources to clean up contaminated sediments, one 

of the significant sources of PTS. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy 

uses the concepts of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy63 as its starting point 

for reduction and elimination of PTS. The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy is a 

groundbreaking international toxics reduction effort that applies voluntary and regulatory 

tools focused on pollution prevention to a targeted set of substances, including mercury, 

PCBs, dioxins/furans, and certain canceled pesticides. Both the Legacy Act and the 

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy support work EPA is doing with the states to 

promote delisting of all Areas of Concern by 2025. 

 In a 2004 Executive Order, the President established two major Great Lakes efforts: 

A "Great Lakes Interagency Task Force"64 and a Great Lakes “Regional Collaboration 

of National Significance" (GLRC).65 The Task Force brings together ten Cabinet 

secretaries and federal agency heads to coordinate restoration of the Great Lakes, 

focusing on outcomes like cleaner water and sustainable fisheries, and targeting 

measurable results. More than 1,500 people representing federal, state, local and tribal 

governments; nongovernmental entities; and private citizens participated on eight issuespecific GLRC teams to develop a GLRC Strategy, completed in 2005.66 Strategy 

Teams focused on aquatic invasive species, habitat/species, coastal health, sediments, 

nonpoint sources, toxic pollutants, indicators and information, and sustainable 

development, and recommended many actions to take over the next 5 years. The 

federal government committed to implement 48 near-term activities that address issues 

in all 8 of the priority areas identified in the Strategy, as illustrated below: 

 Implement the Great Lakes Legacy Act to remediate contaminated sediments in 

Great Lakes Areas of Concern. 

 Establish a communication network among federal agencies to coordinate 

responses to newly identified aquatic invasive species, primarily in response to 

requests for assistance from state or local authorities. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 28
 Develop a system to track and report on the GLRC wetlands goal to enhance 

and protect 200,000 acres of wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. 

 Develop a standardized sanitary survey form for state and local governments 

use. 

 Improve policy guidance on managing peak flows at sanitary sewer plants to 

reduce overflows. 

 Conduct surveillance for emerging chemicals of concern. 

 Work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite the processing and 

review of permits for projects to restore wetlands and other aquatic habitat in the 

Great Lakes Basin. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/greatlakes/

Chesapeake Bay 

EPA’s Chesapeake Bay work is based on a unique regional partnership formed to 

direct and conduct restoration of the Bay and its tidal tributaries. Partners include 

Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, and West Virginia; the District of 

Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body; EPA, which 

represents the federal government; and participating citizen advisory groups. 

Chesapeake 2000, a comprehensive and far-reaching agreement, guides restoration 

and protection efforts through 2010, and focuses on improving water quality as the most 

critical element in the overall protection and restoration of the bay and its tributaries.67 

The challenge for EPA and its partners is to reduce pollution and restore aquatic habitat 

to the extent that the Bay’s waters can be removed from the Clean Water Act’s 

“impaired waters” list. 

EPA and its partners work to improve two key measures of bay water quality: the 

restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and the attainment of dissolved 

oxygen (DO) standards in the Bay’s tidal waters. The Chesapeake Bay Program’s longterm goal for SAV restoration in the Bay is 185,000 acres and the long-term goal for DO 

restoration in the Bay is 100 percent attainment of standards in all tidal waters of the 

Bay. To achieve these long-term goals, Bay watershed models estimate that annual 

nitrogen loadings must be reduced by 162 million pounds, phosphorus reduced by 14.3 

million pounds, and sediment reduced by 1.68 million tons per year from 1985 levels.68 

As of 2005, 39 percent (72,935 acres) of the SAV and 34% (25.40 cubic km) of the DO 

long-term restoration goal was achieved, and 41% (67.42 million pounds) of the 

nitrogen, 58 percent (8.39 million pounds) of the phosphorus, and 54 percent (0.91 

million tons) of the sediment long-term reduction goal was achieved.69 

As of 2005, 61 percent (30.41 million pounds) of the nitrogen and 80 percent (4.93 

million pounds) of the phosphorus long-term reduction goals were achieved. The 2011 

targets are 88 percent (43.91 million lbs) of the nitrogen and 91 percent (5.61 million 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 29
pound) of the phosphorus reduction goals for wastewater dischargers. The long-term 

goals for nutrient reduction from significant wastewater dischargers in the Bay 

watershed are to achieve a 50 million pound per year reduction in nitrogen and a 6 

million pound per year reduction in phosphorus loads from 1985 levels. The current 

pace of nutrient and sediment load reductions is not sufficient and needs to be 

accelerated to restore water quality by the Chesapeake 2000 goal of 2010. EPA and its 

partners will review progress each year and make adjustments to increase annual 

targets if appropriate. 

EPA works with other Bay Program partners to make the most cost-effective use of 

available regulatory, incentive, and voluntary tools and to find new economies and 

innovations to pick up the pace dramatically. A key strategy to reduce nutrient 

discharges is the implementation of advanced wastewater treatment. Another key 

strategy to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loadings is the restoration and 

protection of riparian forests that prevent sediment and nutrient pollution from entering 

waterways from the land. The long-term goal for forest buffer planting in the watershed 

is 10,000 miles. As of FY 2005, 3,791 miles had been planted, achieving 38% of the 

goal. The 2011 target for forest buffer planting is 8,400 miles or 84% goal achievement. 

Implementing agricultural best management practices to reduce nutrients and sediment 

is also key to achieving Bay goals, and requires close cooperation with U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. Water quality restoration complements other critical initiatives to protect 

and restore critical Bay watershed habitat and improve fisheries management, 

undertaken by partner federal agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and by Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 

New York, and West Virginia. 

 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/region3/chesapeake/ 

Gulf of Mexico

 The Gulf of Mexico’s estuaries and near coastal waters support critical fisheries and 

wildlife habitats that significantly contribute to the national and Gulf state economies. 

The sustainability of the Gulf’s marine resources is under increasing pressure from 

population growth, land development, coastal and commercial activities. Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita wrought widespread environmental harm in 2005. 

 The EPA Gulf of Mexico Program70 assists the Gulf states and stakeholders develop 

a regional, ecosystem-based framework for restoring and protecting the Gulf. EPA 

supports a collaborative, multi-organizational partnership with business, industry, 

agriculture, state and local government, citizens, environmental organizations, fishery 

interests, and federal agencies. In addition, the five Gulf states formed a Gulf of Mexico 

Alliance71 to increase regional collaboration to enhance the environmental and 

economic health of the Gulf of Mexico. Thirteen federal agencies have organized a 

regional partnership72 to provide support to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 30
 In 2006, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance73 developed the Governors’ Action Plan for 

Healthy and Resilient Coasts74 that identifies five key priority coastal and ocean issues 

that are regionally significant and can be effectively addressed through cooperation at 

the local, state, and federal levels: (1) water quality for healthy beaches and shellfish 

beds; (2) wetland and coastal conservation and restoration; (3) identification and 

characterization of gulf habitats for management decision making; (4) reductions in 

nutrient loadings; and, (4) strategic environmental education across the five-state 

region. 

 Although nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are essential for healthy 

marine and freshwater environments, an overabundance can trigger excessive algal 

growth. In the near-shore Gulf of Mexico, excessive algal growth results in a decrease 

in dissolved oxygen in the bottom water, and a corresponding loss of aquatic habitat. 

This “hypoxic zone” is the largest area of hypoxia in U.S. waters that is associated with 

human activities. 

Causes of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone include: excessive nutrients delivered to 

Gulf waters from the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River drainage basin; physical changes, 

such as channelization, loss of natural wetlands and riparian buffers, and wetland 

conversions throughout the basin; and stratification in the waters of the northern Gulf 

caused by the interaction of fresh river water and the saltwater of the Gulf. EPA is 

working with other partners on a national hypoxia task force to carry out key actions 

outlined in the Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the 

Northern Gulf of Mexico, with the goal of reducing the size of the hypoxic zone from 

about 14,000 square km to less than 5,000 square km by 2015.75 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/gmpo/

REDUCING THE GULF HYPOXIC ZONE 

To reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, EPA supports: 

 State-based implementation of nutrient-focused hypoxia reduction measures through 

multi-year budget strategies; 

 Collaborative monitoring and assessment framework to measure and calibrate the 

performance of nitrogen reduction efforts; 

 Updating of information on flow, nutrient concentrations, and loadings at the mouths 

of each major sub-basin in partnership with USGS and sub-basin committees; 

 Modeling of the hypoxic zone; 

 Cooperative implementation of industry-led nonpoint source nutrient reduction 

strategies through effective sub-basin team partnerships; and 

 Science and management re-assessment of the nutrient load reductions achieved 

and the response of the hypoxic zone; water quality throughout the Basin; and 

economic and social effects of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 31
Long Island Sound 

EPA works in partnership with the States of New York and Connecticut and other 

federal, state, and local Long Island Sound Management Conference partners to 

implement a comprehensive conservation and management plan (CCMP) to restore the 

Sound. Since levels of dissolved oxygen are critical to the health of aquatic life and 

viable public use of the Sound, the CCMP focuses on controlling nitrogen discharges to 

meet applicable water quality standards. EPA and state partners are implementing an 

agreement to control the maximum daily load of nitrogen entering the Sound. The 

agreement provides for a 58.5 percent reduction in nitrogen loads to the Sound over a 

15-year period ending in 2014. This bi-state nitrogen reduction agreement uses flexible 

and innovative approaches, notably Abubble@ management zones and exchange ratios 

that allow sewage treatment plant operators to Atrade@ nitrogen reduction obligations 

with each other. This approach will allow the plant operators to save an estimated $800 

million by allocating reductions to those plants where they can be achieved most 

economically while meeting water quality improvement goals. 

EPA and the Management Conference partners are also working to restore 

degraded habitats; reopen rivers and streams to anadromous fish passage; improve 

riparian buffers; restore submerged aquatic vegetation in key embayments; reduce the 

impact of toxic substances, pathogens, and floatable debris on the ecology; and 

promote environmental education, management, and stewardship throughout the 

watershed. The bi-state Long Island Sound 2003 Agreement and its successor 

documents guide and measure the implementation of progress in concert with core 

Clean Water Act programs to manage nonpoint sources of pollution, protect 

watersheds, regulate point sources of pollution, and address nitrogen deposition from 

the airshed. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis/

South Florida Ecosystem 

 The natural resources of the South Florida ecosystem include 3 national parks, more 

than 10 national wildlife refuges, a national preserve, and a national marine sanctuary. 

The South Florida ecosystem is the principal nursery area for the largest commercial 

and sport fisheries in Florida, home of the largest wilderness area east of Mississippi 

River, the location of the only living coral barrier reef adjacent to the United States, the 

most significant breeding ground for wading birds in North America, a major producer of 

sugarcane, home to two Native American nations, and a major tourist region. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 32
 Rapidly expanding human population is a threat to the ecosystem’s health. The 

South Florida region is home to about 8 million people; and is more populous than 39 

individual states. Over 2 million more people are expected to settle in the area over the 

next 10 to 20 years. Fifty percent of the region’s wetlands have been lost to suburban 

and agricultural development and the altered hydrology and water management 

throughout the region have had a major impact on the ecosystem. 

To address the issues surrounding the south Florida ecosystem, EPA is working in 

partnership with several local, regional, state, and federal agencies. The goal is to 

ensure the long-term sustainability of the region’s varied natural resources while 

providing for the coexistence of extensive agricultural operations and a continually 

expanding human population. EPA’s South Florida geographic initiative (SFGI) is 

designed to protect and restore communities and ecosystems impacted by 

environmental problems. Under the SFGI, EPA works with stakeholders to develop and 

implement community-based approaches to mitigate diffuse sources of pollution and 

cumulative risk. 

 EPA leads special projects and planning activities in the South Florida area, 

including the Everglades and the Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem. SFGI staff are 

involved in activities related to the Section 404 wetlands protection program, the 

comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP), the water quality protection 

program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the Southeast Florida Coral 

Reef Initiative as directed by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, the Brownfields program, 

and other waste division programs. EPA continues to implement the South Florida 

Assessment Project, an ecosystem assessment of the Everglades. 

To Learn More: 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/southflorida/

Puget Sound 

 EPA works closely with other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies through Puget 

Sound action partnerships to help protect this ecosystem and associated wide-ranging 

human health issues. The Puget Sound contains the Pacific Northwest’s largest 

population and commerce center, including a major transboundary estuary and airshed, 

a vital system of international ports and multi-modal transportation networks, and a 

concentration of national defense installations. The Puget Sound includes roughly 20 

major rivers and 2,500 miles of sheltered inland waters that provide habitat to 26 kinds 

of marine mammals, 200 species of fish, and 100 species of sea birds. This ecosystem 

has commercial salmon landings that average 19.2 million pounds a year, and includes 

578,000 average annual sport fishing trips for salmon and steelhead. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 33
 Protecting and restoring water quality in shellfish growing areas is a high priority. 

While the Puget Sound currently leads U.S. waterways in shellfish production, 

averaging over $100 million in annual sales, 30,000 acres of shellfish beds have been 

closed to harvest since 1980. These closures affect both local economies and also 

cultural and subsistence uses of these traditional resources. Excess nutrients create 

“hypoxic zones” that further impair shellfish and finfish populations and require the 

reduction of nutrient loadings into the Sound. 

 Recent monitoring assessments indicate that marine species in the Puget Sound 

have high levels of toxic contamination. Almost 5,700 acres of submerged lands (about 

9 square miles) are currently classified as contaminated with toxics. Another 24,000 

acres are classified as at least partially contaminated with toxics. In addition to these 

legacy contamination problems, additional pollutants are released. Approximately 1 

million pounds of toxics are released into the water and 5 million pounds into the air 

each year, with many pollutants finding their way into Puget Sound. An important 

element of the strategy for protecting Puget Sound is to maintain the rate of progress in 

addressing contaminated estuary bottom sediments, while at the same time developing 

more effective source control strategies to reduce the release of additional toxics into 

the environment. 

 Over half of the shallow water habitats in Puget Sound have been lost, with higher 

loss rates in key urban estuaries. Intertidal salt marsh habitat has declined by 75 

percent since the 1800s. In addition, development has modified one-third of Puget 

Sound’s shoreline, and the population is expected to increase by 1.4 million over the 

next 20 years. State and local governments are working to update the Puget Sound 

comprehensive conservation and management plan (CCMP) and to conduct both 

growth management and species recovery planning. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/pugetsound 

Columbia River Basin 

 At 1,214 miles in length, boasting a 260,000 square mile drainage basin, the 

Columbia River spans portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, 

Montana, and a substantial portion of British Columbia. The Columbia River Basin is 

comprised of ecosystems that are home to a diverse array of biologically significant 

plants and animals. The Basin is also a dynamic economic engine driving many 

industries vital to the Pacific Northwest, including sport and commercial fisheries, 

agriculture, transportation, recreation, and, with 55 hydropower dams, electrical power 

generation. 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead runs—once the largest on earth—are now a 

fraction of their original size. EPA studies and state monitoring programs have found 

significant levels of toxins in fish and the waters they inhabit, including dichloroGoal Four - Public Review Draft 34
diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), PCBs, and dieldrin.76 EPA and its partners adopted a 

three-dimensional approach to the problem of toxins in the Columbia River system, 

emphasizing remediation, prevention, and protection efforts. Oregon, Washington, 

Idaho, Columbia Basin tribal governments, the Lower Columbia River Estuary 

Partnership, local governments, citizen groups, industry, and other federal agencies are 

actively engaged in efforts to remove contaminated sediments, bring back native 

anadromous fish, restore water quality, and preserve, protect, and restore habitat, as 

illustrated below: 

 Working locally with agriculture producers to reduce pesticide use through the 

Pesticide Stewardship Partnership. 

 Providing an anonymous opportunity to collect banned toxics and pesticides. 

 Implementing total maximum daily loads through sediment reductions and 

riparian restoration. 

 Cleaning up the Portland Harbor Superfund site and PCB contamination in the 

Columbia River at Bradford Island. 

 Restoring wetlands and habitats at Mirror Lake and Ridgefield through the Lower 

Columbia River Estuary Partnership with Targeted Watershed Program funding. 

 EPA, state and tribal partners, and the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 

have launched a Columbia River toxics strategy to identify and clean up contaminated 

sediments, restore critical wetlands, and reduce toxics in water, land, and fish.77 Under 

this strategy, EPA, states, and tribes are systematically expanding key actions in the 

Columbia River Basin based on available resources, such as fish, water, and sediment 

monitoring; pesticide stewardship partnerships; targeted pesticide/toxic collections; 

precision agriculture; and related activities. The National Estuary Program also plays a 

key role in addressing toxics and restoration of critical wetlands in the Lower Columbia 

River estuary. Key actions and milestones to demonstrate a reduction of toxins in fish 

and/or water by 2011 include: 

 Identifying contaminants of concern. 

 Identifying other databases that can serve as baseline data. 

 Establishing new monitoring efforts to fill data gaps for understanding toxics in 

water, fish, and sediment. 

 Identifying and implementing best management actions and other measures to 

prevent or reduce the presence of the contaminants of concern in the Columbia 

River. 

To Learn More: 

www.epa.gov/Region10/

OBJECTIVE 4.4: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH. Through 2011, identify and 

synthesize the best available scientific information, models, methods, and analyses to 

support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 35
communities, and ecosystems. Focus research on pesticides and chemical toxicology; 

global change; and comprehensive, cross-cutting studies of human, community, and 

ecosystem health. 

Means and Strategies For Achieving Objective 4.4 

Since research must be ahead of the curve, significant lead times are typically 

necessary to conduct the research required to support program implementation. 

Consequently, research is required to be forward-looking. Areas in which the EPA 

Office of Research and Development (ORD) will devote particular attention in the years 

ahead include development of computational toxicology, bioinformatics and related 

technology, environmental and human health monitoring and indicator development 

(including the incorporation of an emerging Global Earth Observation System of 

Systems (GEOSS)), and the improved utility of research results through incorporation of 

uncertainty analysis. 

 Research arising out of the human health research program led to the establishment 

of the computational toxicology program in 2003, exemplifying the value of applying 

cutting-edge scientific innovations in order to protect the environment better and more 

efficiently. This research harnesses computational biology to assess the risk chemicals 

pose to human health and the environment and has enabled EPA to screen the 

hundreds of thousands of commercially available chemicals for toxicity. Another new 

dimension is the nascent nanotechnology research program launched in 2005; it 

focuses on decision support and the safe use of nanomaterials in commercial and 

environmental applications. 

 

Progress toward research goals is assessed through a suite of metrics that is 

tailored to measuring the impacts of the respective research programs. Among the 

measurable factors are: independent expert review panel ratings on the extent to which 

clients utilize EPA research products; composite scores on a client survey designed to 

gather data on product utility and perceptions of use; and the results of bibliometric 

and/or client document analyses demonstrating the actual use of EPA research 

products. These factors are applied to measure success in providing the results 

identified in the research programs that follow. 

HUMAN HEALTH RESEARCH 

 The Human Health Research Plan (HHRP) provides risk assessors/managers with a 

greater capacity to reduce reliance on default assumptions in human health risk 

assessment. The HHRP assesses uncertainties in risk assessment articulated across 

several legislative acts (i.e., FQPA, SDWA, CAA) and addresses research priorities 

articulated by multiple Program Offices (i.e., OPPTS, OPP, OW, OAR, OCHP), risk 

assessors (i.e., IRIS, NAAQS) and regional offices. This program will produce 

measurable benefits in the form of: 

• reduced uncertainty in risk assessment using ORD’s mechanistic (mode of 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 36
action) information; 

• reduced uncertainty in risk assessment via the use of ORD’s products 

characterizing and protecting susceptible subpopulations, and characterizing 

aggregate and cumulative risk from multiple environmental stressors; and 

• tools to evaluate the effectiveness of public health outcomes. 

 Research to develop approaches for the prioritization and screening of chemicals 

utilizes emerging genomic and proteomic methods to study potential sites where 

toxicants could affect biological systems. This information is used with other methods to 

determine how tissue levels in those biological systems cause adverse effects. 

Emerging technologies and models are then used to identify potential biological 

indicators that can be used to screen or prioritize chemicals based on the study of 

several classes of environmental agents. 

 Methods and models developed over a period of 3-4 years to study single chemicals 

and pathways of exposure will then be used during the next 2-3 years to identify 

bioindicators of exposure to evaluate multiple chemical/multiple exposures. This work 

addresses concerns related to environmental justice and accountability related to 

assessment of regulatory decision-making. 

 Methods, models, and data from the work described above are applied during the 

next 2-3 years to the problem of understanding the basis for differential response to 

chemicals as a function of life stage. A portion of this work focuses on assessing 

differential exposure and response in children, while another portion focuses on older 

populations. Additional work emphasizes the potential long-term health effects following 

developmental exposure to environmental agents. Fundamental research on 

environmental influences on neurodevelopment, asthma, and disease is obtained 

through extramural sources jointly funded by EPA and NIEHS. Other lines of research 

will contribute to developing principles to evaluate the effectiveness of risk management 

decisions at the local and regional level. This work is accomplished in collaboration with 

CDC and other federal agencies, as well as with the regions. 

ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH 

 The ecosystems research program will produce measurable benefits in the form of: 

• more states and tribes using a common monitoring design and appropriate 

indicators to determine the status and trends of ecological resources and the 

effectiveness of national programs and policies; 

• all states, tribes and relevant EPA offices having improved ability to diagnose 

causes of, and forecast, the ecological impacts of various actions using EPA 

research tools and methods, resulting in measurable positive environmental 

outcomes; and 

• states, tribes and relevant EPA offices have improved their ability to protect and 

restore ecological condition and services using EPA research tools and 

methods, resulting in measurable positive environmental outcomes. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 37
Analytical tools derived from ecological structure and function relationships will help 

to evaluate land development and urban sprawl. New research on measures, 

especially measures of ecosystem services at different scales, will improve EPA’s 

understanding of the impact of stressors on natural systems, and how to most efficiently 

control and reduce harmful affects. Improved understanding of services provided by 

ecosystems and ecological health will illuminate conditions affecting place-based health. 

Research in this area requires greater coordination between environmental and human 

health research and public health, as well as a stronger role for local partnerships. 

Better understanding of ecological condition indicators and ecosystem services will 

improve EPA’s ability to provide assessment tools to place-based decision makers. 

This research program assesses uncertainties in ecological risk assessment articulated 

in several legislative acts (i.e., CWA, CAA, TSCA, FIFRA, CERCLA, RCRA) and is 

relevant to the research priorities of multiple Program Offices (i.e., OW, OAR, OPPTS, 

OPP, OEI) and regional offices. 

 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH 

 The Global Change Research Program has its primary emphasis on assessing the 

potential consequences of global change on air quality, water quality, ecosystems, and 

human health in the United States. This program will produce measurable benefits in 

the form of : 

• increased use of scientific information about the place-based impacts of global 

change; 

• increased use of scientific information and models to evaluate and implement 

adaptation policies that protect air quality from the impacts of global change; and 

• greater ability for EPA programs that protect human health, water quality, and 

aquatic ecosystems to accommodate the need for adaptation caused by global 

change. 

The program employs a place-based framework to provide the means for 

integration. The Program uses study results to investigate adaptation options to improve 

society’s ability to effectively respond to the risks and opportunities presented by global 

change. 

This work is consistent with and closely coordinated with the 2003 Strategic Plan of 

the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), addressing two of its five principal 

goals, namely to: understand the sensitivity and adaptability of different natural and 

managed ecosystems and human systems to climate and related global changes 

(CCSP Goal 4) and; explore the uses and identify the limits of evolving knowledge to 

manage risks and opportunities related to climate variability and change (CCSP Goal 5). 

 EPA’s Global Program, along with the entire CCSP, is placing markedly increased 

emphasis on the goal of improving decision-making and adaptive management. 

“Decision support” reflects the broad purpose of making scientific knowledge more 

readily available and more useful to decision makers, with the ultimate goal of improving 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 38
environmental and societal outcomes. To accomplish this, the Program is developing a 

dynamic “decision inventory” to identify different classes of climate-sensitive decisions 

in different regions of the country, and to evaluate the returns from providing better 

scientific information to inform those decisions. 

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS SCIENCE AND RESEARCH 

 Over the last several years, concern has grown about exposure to endocrinedisrupting, or hormonally active, chemicals. Evidence suggests that exposure to 

chemicals that mimic hormones (endocrine disruptors, or EDCs) may cause adverse 

health effects in wildlife and may affect human health as well. OPPTS, other Program 

Offices, and the Regions apply research products to help reduce uncertainty in our 

knowledge of endocrine disruptors, determine chemicals’ potential for endocrine 

disruption, and identify the nature of adverse effects. This program will produce 

measurable benefits in the form of: 

• reduced uncertainty regarding the effects, exposure, assessment, and 

management of endocrine disruptors; 

• determination of the extent of the impact of endocrine disruptors on humans, 

wildlife, and the environment; and 

• greater use of endocrine disruptor screening and testing assays developed from 

Agency research. 

 

 The Agency needs valid tests to assess new chemicals’ and pesticides’ potential for 

endocrine disruption. The validation of screens and tests necessary before large-scale 

reviews can take place will be completed; and the Endocrine Disruptor Methods 

Validation Advisory Committee (EDMVAC) will continue to provide EPA with scientific 

and technical advice. We are working to minimize the use of animals for these tests. 

Research to understand the effects of endocrine disruptors has shifted from animal 

exposure testing to computational toxicological research. This is a relatively new field 

and the extent to which it will yield fruitful results is not fully known. Consequently, 

endocrine disruptor research will reflect the degree of success achieved in the field of 

computational toxicology. Progress in the ability to sequence the human genome has 

led to a rapid development of laboratory methods to assess gene expression on a 

genome-wide basis, and contributing to the tools available for endocrine disruptor 

research. Continued expansion of this field may also facilitate research into the effects 

of endocrine disruptors. 

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH 

 The Human Health Risk Assessment (RA) program serves the programs and 

regions throughout EPA by incorporating and integrating the use of scientific information 

as a foundation for regulatory decision-making. This program will produce measurable 

benefits in the form of: 

• state-of-the-science health hazard assessment information provided on priority 

substances in Agency, state and local risk assessors’ decisions; 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 39
• the incorporation of contemporary scientific advances into their assessments, 

enhancing their quality and objectivity; and 

• AQCDs for ambient air pollutants (as mandated in the Clean Air Act) are revised 

to reflect the best available scientific information on identifiable effects on public 

health and the environment from exposure to the pollutant, and this information is 

incorporated in the review and promulgation of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQSs). 

The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and Air Quality Criteria Document 

(AQCD) assessments, and other assessments, are directly responsive to program 

needs and are primary considerations in Agency actions to protect human health and 

the environment. Recognizing their importance, the strategic objective of the RA 

program is to increase the output of these products while enhancing their quality 

through incorporating the latest advances in risk assessment science. These activities 

are coordinated across EPA research and program offices through formal means 

including the IRIS consensus review and Risk Assessment Forum processes. 

COMPUTATIONAL TOXICOLOGY RESEARCH 

 Computational toxicology is the integration of modern computing and information 

technologies with molecular biology and chemistry to improve the prioritization of data 

requirements and risk assessment of chemicals. This program will produce measurable 

benefits in the form of: 

• increased use of improved methods and tools to link sources to outcomes; 

• increased use of advanced hazard characterization tools to prioritize and 

screen chemicals for toxicological evaluation; and 

• increased use of the latest science for enhanced dose-response assessment 

and quantitative risk assessment. 

 The methods, models, and data generated by the Agency’s National Center for 

Computational Toxicology (NCCT) will respond to the need for better, faster, cheaper 

approaches to testing chemicals and emerging technologies such as bio- and 

nanotechnology. Associated research will address the need to assess cumulative 

impacts on humans from multiple exposures, as well as facilitating approaches to 

identify and characterize diseases in people resulting from changing environmental 

factors and other factors, such as other disease states and pharmacological exposure. 

The research includes both intramural and extramural resources. . With these tools, 

scientists can produce a more-detailed understanding of the hazards and risks of a 

much larger number of chemicals. ToxCast, a forecasting tool, will provide a number of 

EPA program offices with the ability to prioritize, screen, and assess the potential 

hazards of chemicals in far more rapid and time relevant manner than current methods. 

 

Two important research products moving into more common use that enable this 

scanning to be done efficiently and at greatly reduced expense are customized DNA 

arrays and tools for modeling and virtual prototyping. EPA has taken a leadership 

position in this new field of environmental protection, and will apply new capabilities 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 40
from this research to other research applications in the coming years. 

MERCURY RESEARCH 

 The Agency’s Mercury Research Program will produce measurable benefits in the 

form of: 

• reduced release of mercury into the environment; and 

• better understanding of the transport and fate of mercury from release to 

adverse effects. 

The program is focusing on several key uncertainties, specifically: (1) how much 

methyl mercury in fish consumed by the U.S. population is contributed by U.S. 

emissions relative to other sources of mercury; (2) how much mercury emissions from 

coal-fired utility boilers and other combustion systems can be reduced; (3) the 

magnitude of contributions of mercury releases from non-combustion sources; (4) the 

risks associated with methyl mercury exposure to wildlife species and other significant 

ecological receptors; (5) critical changes in human health associated with exposure to 

environmental sources of mercury in the most susceptible human sub-population; and 

(6) the most effective means for informing susceptible populations of the health risks. 

 In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the new Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), 

research work focuses on efforts to increase the accuracy, precision, and effectiveness 

of continuous emission monitors. This work is coordinated across several programs and 

globally, e.g., with the UNEP Fate and Transport Partnership. 

Another high priority for the Mercury Program will be to provide information to EPA, 

states, and utilities on alternative control technologies. Research is also required to 

focus on identifying potential mercury deposition “hot spots” that may already exist, and 

may occur in the future with market trading of mercury emissions. 

HOMELAND SECURITY RESEARCH 

 Threat and consequence assessment (TCA) research focuses on the rapid 

evaluation of chemical, biological, and radiological risks associated with a terrorist threat 

or attack. This program will produce measurable benefits in the form of: 

• faster evaluations of chemical, biological, and radiological risks associated 

with a terrorist threat or attack; 

• better-protected national water infrastructure, by way of research products to 

identify vulnerabilities, detect contamination, warn the public, and respond 

effectively in the event of a biological, chemical, or radiological attack; and 

• better emergency and follow-up response, by way of research products for 

locating, collecting, and analyzing environmental samples; protecting 

decontamination personnel, the general public, and the environment; and the 

decontamination and disposal of materials inside and outside of contaminated 

buildings. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 41
Researchers are developing and refining advisory levels for various 

contaminants of concern, improving risk assessment methods and communication tools, 

and providing support to emergency and follow-up responders. Research results are 

provided (in cooperation with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and 

other federal agencies) to the emergency and remedial response community, elected 

and appointed officials, and the general public to help them be more informed should an 

intentional attack occur in the United States. 

 Water infrastructure protection (WIP) research focuses on the protection and safety 

of the nation’s water supply, treatment operations, and drinking water distribution 

systems, and to a lesser degree, on wastewater collection, treatment operations, and 

treated water discharge. Research results are provided (in cooperation with EPA’s 

Office of Water) to water utilities and their support organizations, public health officials, 

and the emergency and follow-up response community. Work also involves the 

laboratory and field testing and evaluation of technologies to detect, contain, treat, and 

recover from intentional attacks on drinking water and wastewater facilities. 

 Decontamination and consequence management (DCM) research focuses on rapid 

and cost-effective remediation and restoration of buildings and broad outdoor areas. 

Research results are provided (in cooperation with EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response and other federal agencies) to the emergency and follow-up 

response community, elected and appointed officials, and the general public. Work also 

involves the laboratory and field testing and evaluation of technologies to 

decontaminate and dispose of materials and areas affected by intentional attacks. 

SAFE PESTICIDES AND PRODUCTS RESEARCH 

 The Safe Pesticides/Safe Products (SP2) Research Program will produce 

measurable benefits in the form of: 

• new predictive tools for prioritization and enhanced interpretation of exposure, 

hazard identification and dose-response information; 

• the scientific foundation for probabilistic risk assessment methods to protect 

natural populations of birds, fish and other wildlife; 

• the scientific foundation for guidance to reduce risks of human environments within 

communities, homes, workplaces; and 

• strategic scientific information and advice concerning novel or newly discovered 

hazards. 

 Among the research underway or planned is the development and application of the 

latest molecular and computational approaches to produce the next series of chemical 

prioritization tools and toxicity testing approaches. Research in this subject is 

increasingly linked to advances in computational toxicological research. This is a 

relatively new field and the extent to which it will yield fruitful results is not fully known. 

Progress in the ability to sequence the human genome has led to a rapid development 

of laboratory methods to assess gene expression on a genome-wide basis, and 

contributing to the tools available for SP2 research. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 42
 The scientific foundation for conducting probabilistic risk assessments for wildlife 

populations is advanced by developing methods for extrapolation among wildlife 

species and exposure scenarios of concern (e.g., endangered species focus). 

Research will also work to improve the evaluation of potential ecological effects of 

biotechnology products, the development of risk management approaches; and 

development of methods to assess for the potential allergenicity of genetically 

engineered plants. 

HUMAN CAPITAL 

 The foundation for achieving the goal of healthy communities and ecosystems 

begins with an EPA workforce that has a well-balanced combination of skills, 

experience, and expertise. The skilled occupations needed to carry out the work 

inherent in this goal range from toxicologists with expertise in chemical testing, 

registration and monitoring, biologists to evaluate the exposure impact of chemical 

releases on wetlands, specialized chemical engineers to reduce hazardous risk at 

chemical facilities, and modelers to evaluate risks of chemicals to populations and 

fragile ecosystems. EPA also identified a gap in the number of economists, 

epidemiologists, human exposure modelers, and hydrologists needed to fill missioncritical scientist/researcher positions. 

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 

Many strategic targets to protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, 

communities, and ecosystems are directly measured on an annual basis as annual 

performance goals and measures in the Agency’s Annual Plan and Budget. Other 

strategic targets rely on measures or indicators of changes in the environment or human 

health, such as habitat and water quality conditions, and blood lead levels. Collection 

and analyses of these data are often expensive and time-consuming. In addition, 

changes in environmental and health conditions that result from EPA programs 

frequently take several years to observe and measure. It is therefore not always 

practicable or useful to collect these data every year. Consequently, while these 

environmental and health outcome measures and data are excellent indicators of EPA’s 

long-term performance, the Agency also uses other shorter-term measures and data to 

manage programs. 

 

Influences of Environmental Indicators and PART Measures on the Strategic Plan 

EPA has incorporated one new strategic target that embodies metrics presented as 

environmental indicators in the forthcoming Report on the Environment,78 involving 

human body-burden of pesticides. EPA has also incorporated all of the long-term, 

outcome-oriented measures currently used in twelve PART evaluations of various 

pesticides, toxics, brownfields, geographic and research programs as strategic targets 

in this Strategic Plan. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 43
Future Improvements to Performance Measurement 

As the Agency puts the recording, updating, reviewing, and improvement of 

scientifically-sound environmental indicators on a routine footing through the Report on 

the Environment, we expect increasing opportunities to incorporate this information into 

future strategic plans. This will enable the Agency to increasingly articulate all of our 

significant long-term objectives in terms of measurable improvements in the condition of 

land. 

When considering revisions and improvements for developing this Strategic Plan, we 

also conducted a preliminary assessment of longer-term opportunities to improve our 

articulation of strategic, outcome-oriented commitments for future Plans. Collaborative 

research plans for the pesticides and toxics programs focus on program-support 

research to produce new and better representation of the dimensions and magnitudes 

of risks to human health and ecosystems from toxic substances and pesticides. The 

Agency also identified development of a Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Index for more 

comprehensive representation of the Bay’s aquatic health as a priority. 

CLOSING THE FEEDBACK LOOP: RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS 

AND PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

 The programs that support the Agency’s healthy communities and ecosystems goals 

are assessed using three key approaches: 

• Internal EPA program evaluations, including those by the EPA Inspector General 

and by the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors. 

• Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment and Rating Tool 

(PART) reviews. 

• External assessments by organizations such as the Government Accountability 

Office and the National Academy of Sciences. 

Internal Program Evaluations 

 Internal program evaluations are conducted by both individual program offices, by 

the EPA Inspector General, and by the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). 

The BOSC Human Health Subcommittee evaluated the Agency’s Human Health 

Research Program's four long-term goals related to the use of information in risk 

assessment, aggregate and cumulative risk, susceptible subpopulations, and public 

health outcomes. As a result of BOSC recommendations, the program increased 

communication and collaboration between research areas, developed specific peer 

review goals, and articulated a decision-making process. The BOSC's recommendation 

informed the Human Health Research program's long term goals and the means and 

strategies to them. 

 Program offices also develop program-specific evaluations. For example, in a 

cooperative effort between regional and headquarters office, the Brownfields Program is 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 44
reviewing the operations of the ten regional offices and the headquarters office. The 

review will compile feedback on program objectives and operations, assure 

accountability of internal and external stakeholders, enhancing the overall quality of the 

program, evaluate decision making processes, and identify exchanging best practices. 

The review will be completed in FY 2008. 

 The EPA Inspector General has conducted extensive program reviews of programs 

supporting the healthy communities and ecosystems goal over the past several years. 

Examples of this work include: 

 

• Assessment of the integration of environmental justice into EPA operations, 

including recommendations for reaffirming the commitment to environmental 

justice and strengthening planning efforts. 

• Review of EPA implementation of the Food Safety Act, including 

recommendations for changes to consideration of subpopulations, responding to 

petitions, and increasing consistency of public participation. 

• Assessments of the implementation of the Brownfields program, including 

resource management and improvements to grant application and selection 

processes. 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) 

 EPA works closely with the Office of Management to assess the effectiveness of key 

environmental programs using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). 

Programs are rated as “effective,” moderately effective,” “adequate,” and “ineffective”. 

Many of the programs supporting Goal 4 have been assessed under the PART process. 

Summaries of all completed PART studies are available in the Internet at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/ and examples of several of the programs 

evaluated through PART process, and the program rating, are provided below: 

• New Chemicals Program – moderately effective. 

• Existing Chemicals Program – adequate. 

• Pesticide Registration – adequate. 

• Brownfields Revitilization – adequate. 

• U.S. Mexico Border Water Infrastructure – adequate. 

• The Ecological Research Program - Ineffective (The program is conducting 

follow-up actions to address this issue). 

• Human Health Research – adequate. 

• Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Research – adequate. 

External Evaluations 

 EPA participates with outside organizations, such as the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) and the National Academy of Sciences, in the evaluation of program 

effectiveness and development of recommendations for improved program 

management and policies. The GAO has conducted numerous evaluations of programs 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 45
supporting the healthy communities and ecosystems goal; a complete list is available at 

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/repandtest.html. Some examples include: 

• Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA’s Ability to Assess Health 

Risks and Manage its Chemical Review Process (June 2005). 

• Brownfield Redevelopment: Stakeholders Cite Additional Measures that Could 

Complement EPA’s Efforts to Clean up and Redevelop Properties (April, 2005). 

• Wetlands: Corps of Engineers Needs to Better Supports its Decisions for Not 

Asserting Jurisdiction (September 2005). 

• Great Lakes: Organizational Leadership and Restoration Goals Need to be 

Better Defined for Monitoring Restoration Progress (September 2004). 

• Chesapeake Bay: Improved Strategies Are Needed top Better Assess, Report, 

and Manage Restoration Progress (October 2005). 

• Columbia River Basin: A Multi-layered Collections of Directives and Plans Guides 

Federal fish and Wildlife Activities (June 2004). 

 The National Academy of Sciences develops reports and recommendations on a 

range of environmental issues, including issues related to the Healthy Communities and 

Ecosystems Goal. For example, in 2006, NAS released a report titled Rebuilding the 

Unity of Health and the Environment in Rural America. In 2004, NAS released a report 

titled “Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-making.” 

Additionally, the Agency’s Risk Assessment Forum has also convened external reviews 

to evaluate programs when appropriate. The Endocrine Disrupting Chemical Research 

program was evaluated in this manner. 

 The ORD Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) has initiated a cycle of review for 

the ORD research programs. An average of three programs will be evaluated annually 

for relevance, utility, and value to EPA. The BOSC has reviewed and made 

recommendations for improvements to three of the Goal 4 research plans between 

2005 and 2006. 

• Human Health 

• Ecosystems 

• Global Climate Change 

• Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

EXTERNAL FACTORS AND EMERGING ISSUES 

Promoting safe and healthy communities requires up-to-date knowledge of the rapid 

technology change in today’s economy. The growing importance of some technologies, 

in particular, nano- and biotechnologies, will require foresight to craft skillful and flexible 

responses. In addition, rapid growth and technological change has the potential to 

impact human health and the environment. In the energy sector, EPA is committed to 

additional consideration of how best to address both potential positive and negative 

implications of these rapid technology changes. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 46
Nanoscale materials represent an emerging challenge to the EPA’s new chemicals 

program. These materials are chemical substances containing structures on the scale 

of approximately 1 to 100 nanometers, or 1 to 100 billionths of a meter. Because of their 

small size, they may have different molecular properties than chemical substances on a 

larger scale and may present unique issues with respect to health and environmental 

risks. Some nanotechnology products already are commercialized; the first public 

inventory of these products can be viewed at 

http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories. EPA is currently reviewing the 

premanufacture notices for several new chemical substances in the nanoscale size 

range. 

EPA’s nascent nanotechnology research program is focusing on decision support 

and guiding the safe use of nanomaterials in commercial and environmental 

applications. Between 2007 and 2011, EPA research will address four broad areas: 

• Development of risk assessment approaches to evaluate nanomaterials. 

• Assessment of risks to human health and ecosystems, particularly nanomaterials 

used in intentionally dispersive applications. 

• Life cycle assessments of nanomaterial impacts throughout product lifecycles 

and life cycle approaches to inform the use of nanotechnology in ways that 

prevent pollution and allow more sustainable use of resources. 

• Identification and development of research technologies that use nanomaterials 

to detect, monitor, and remediate environmental releases of traditional pollutants 

as well as nanoparticles. 

Another part of the Agency’s response to nanotechnology is a new, environmental 

stewardship program that will complement the Toxic Substances Control Act’s 

regulatory tools. The program will gather existing data and information assembled from 

manufacturers and processors of new nanoscale materials or materials currently in U.S. 

commerce. This partnership with the chemical industry and other stakeholders will 

inform risk assessment and risk reduction activities. EPA will use this information and 

strategic testing to determine whether commercial activities involving nanoscale 

materials present potential risks and respond with appropriate efforts to protect human 

health and the environment. EPA may also be able to provide tools to companies that 

will help them anticipate environmental risks and direct their investments toward safer 

products and production procedures. 

With so many new technologies and the continual development of new chemicals, 

EPA works to respond with the best technology available. EPA is anticipating the use of 

DNA micro-arrays in environmental chemical testing. DNA micro-arrays are a type of 

technology that profiles the genomes of plant and animal species and uses sequences 

like probes to recognize substances. The Agency recognizes that these technologies 

have the potential to change and enhance chemical testing in multiple environmental 

areas. EPA’s research is making significant progress in the use of DNA micro-arrays 

(gene chips) and related developments, particularly in computational toxicology. As 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 47
these technologies develop, the Agency will examine their potential applications and 

relevance to protecting the environment and human health. 

Another emerging technology, distributed sensor networks, has the potential to 

enhance EPA’s environmental monitoring. It is possible to envision a network of 

physical, chemical, and biological sensors that will feed into a central environmental 

data management and analysis system, such as EPA’s Global Earth Observation 

System of Systems (GEOSS). Distributed sensor networks can increase the frequency 

and speed of data collection and transmission, improve the quality of data, enhance 

data integration, and facilitate access to and sharing of data. Other potential 

implications include the opportunity to provide better environmental health information 

that allows us to measure progress at multiple temporal and spatial scales. This 

technology could increase the frequency of EPA’s Report on the Environment and 

advance our foresight capabilities. Distributed sensor networks could enhance multimedia, interdisciplinary and cross-program collaboration at EPA, and provide data that 

accurately portrays environmental conditions on a real-time basis. 

Renewable energy and fuel sources such as biofuels could have many implications 

for EPA. The potential environmental impacts of new renewable and non-renewable 

forms of energy production, and the distribution and storage infrastructure will need to 

be examined. Biofuel production has the potential to affect human health and the 

environment through pesticide use and habitat loss. The potential multi-media 

emissions generated from the use and production of biofuels production also will need 

to be characterized. 

Global change, habitat loss and destruction due to sprawl and exploitation of natural 

resources, invasive species, nonpoint source pollution, and the accumulation and 

interaction of these effects present emerging ecological challenges for the Agency. 

EPA’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives depends on many factors over which the 

Agency has little or no influence. Partnerships, international collaboration, global 

harmonization, industry, economic influences (including increased trade and foreign 

investment), industrial accidents, natural disasters, litigation, and new legislation have 

significant influence on the Agency’s ability to achieve its goals. Changes in the focus, 

new level of effort, or status of any of these components could play a critical role in the 

success of the Agency’s programs. 

To Learn More: 

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/futures/perspectives.htm 

 

1

 For additional information on EPA’s National Land Cover Database, see: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/landsci/H, Hhttp://www.mrlc.gov/H, and Hhttp://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/glcc/H; on the Environmental Monitoring and 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 48
 Assessment Program, Hhttp://www.epa.gov/emap/H and on EPA’s Report on the Environment, 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/indicators/index.htmH (accessed 15 May 2006). 

2

 Baseline: EPA screening of data obtained through the HPV Challenge Program is commencing in 2006; actions to 

obtain additional information needed to assess risks will commence subsequently as chemicals are identified as 

priority concerns through the screening process. Measurement Mechanism: EPA risk management action tracking 

tools, including RAPIDS (not publicly available) and HPVIS. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency High 

Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) internet site: Hhttp://epa.gov/hpvis/H. Washington, DC: Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances (accessed 19 May 2006). Once HPV challenge chemicals have been 

through the EPA multi-tier risk assessments process, any found to present unreasonable risks under the Toxics 

Substance Control Act is tracked for action, such as Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) that bind all manufacturers 

and processors to terms and conditions that prevent unreasonable risks, other regulatory action, guidance, referral to 

other Agency statutes, etc. 

3

 Baseline: 100 percent in FY 2004 and FY 2005. Measurement Mechanism: Number of TSCA 8(e) Chemical 

Hazard Notifications associated with Pre-manufacture notice (PMN)-reviewed chemicals verified to identify the 

occurrence of unreasonable risks. Starting in FY 2005, the EPA expanded its assessment of incoming TSCA 8(e) 

reports, required to be submitted whenever companies learn of “substantial risks”, to determine whether EPA 

properly identified those potential hazards/risks in previously reviewed PMNs. The results of this new assessment 

process enables the program to identify potential flaws in its PMN review protocols and act quickly to make 

associated improvements. 

4

 Baseline: 2001 starting point is 0. Actual cumulative reduction reported from 2001 – 2003 is 6.6% (5.7% for 2001 

– 2002; 0.9% for 2002 – 2003. Target assumes annual 3.0% reductions for remaining years through 2011. 

Measurement Mechanism: EPA’s Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model. See: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) internet site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/H. Washington, DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 

(accessed 19 May 2006). 

5

 Baseline: 310,000 cases in 1999-2002. Data source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005. Blood Lead 

Levels -United States, 1999-2002, MMWR:54, pages 513-516. Available on the internet: 

Hwww.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5420.pdfH (accessed 19 May 2006). 

6

 Baseline: 37.0% in 1991-1994. Data source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1994 Update: Blood Lead 

Levels--United States, 1991-1994, MMWR,43(30): 545-548: 

Hwww.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032080.htmH (accessed May 22, 2006).98 

7

 See United Nations, Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles internet site: 

Hhttp://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/partnerships/178.html#topH. Division for Sustainable 

Development (accessed 19 May 2006). 

8

 This Strategic Target is based on the levels of several key pesticides found in people as measured by the Center for 

Disease Control’s bi-annual (1990 – 1992) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Center 

for Disease Control had collected these data for sufficient time to establish a meaningful baseline. The target 

provides an indicator of the body burden in the general population resulting from pesticide exposure. See 

Hhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htmH. 

9

 The term "risk events" is based on the assumption that every pesticide application has the potential to create a 

pesticide incident with adverse health effects. The number of pesticide applications was derived by taking the 

universe of occupationally exposed individuals and estimating the number of pesticide applications per individual 

per year. Data sources: EPA’s annual count of certified applicators; U.S. Department of Labor, Findings from the 

National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001 - 2002. A Demographic and Employment Profile of United 

States Farm Workers, Research Report No. 9. March 2005, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of 

Programmatic Policy: Washington, DC: Hhttp://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfmH, and; American Association 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 49
 of Poison Control Centers’ Toxic Exposure Surveillance System: Hhttp://www.aapcc.org/poison1.htmH (accessed 

10 May 2006). 

10 American Association of Poison Control Centers’ Toxic Exposure Surveillance System: 

http://www.aapcc.org/poison1.htm (accessed 10 May 2006). 

11 USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, as reported in USGS's 2006 report, Pesticides in 

the Nation's Streams and Ground Water. 

12 Toxic Substances Control Act Section 5: Manufacturing and Processing Notices, Public Law 94-469, October 11, 

1976. 

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) internet site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/hpvis/index.htmlH. Washington, DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 

(updated 17 April 2006; accessed 30 May 2006). 

14 See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Co-operation on the Investigation of Existing 

Chemicals, Description of OECD Work on Investigation of High Production Volume Chemicals internet site: 

Hhttp://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,2340,en_2649_34379_1939669_1_1_1_1,00.htmlH, and Global HPV Portal 

and existing databases internet site: 

Hhttp://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,2340,en_2649_34379_35211849_1_1_1_1,00.htmlH. Also see United Nations 

Environmental Program, Chemical Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) for High Volume Chemicals internet 

site: Hhttp://www.chem.unep.ch/irptc/sids/OECDSIDS/sidspub.htmlH (accessed 30 May 2006). 

15 Advanced tools developed under the NCP include QSAR - Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships. There is 

no defined base data set required before PMN, and the TSCA does not require prior testing of new chemicals. 

Consequently, less than half of the PMNs submitted include toxicological data. In these cases, EPA scientists assess 

the chemical's structural similarity to chemicals for which data are available - called structure-activity relationship 

(SAR)- to help predict toxicity. A useful discussion of SAR is found in an OECO monograph, US EPA/EC Joint 

Project on the Evaluation of (Quantitative) Structure Activity Relationships, Environment Monograph No. 88, 

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, 1994, available on the internet at 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/ene4147.pdfH (accessed 19 May 2006). 

The Ecological Structure Activity Relationships (ECOSAR) is a personal computer software program used to 

estimate the aquatic toxicity of chemicals. The program predicts the toxicity of industrial chemicals to aquatic 

organisms such as fish, invertebrates and algae using (Q)SARs. ECOSAR estimates a chemical’s acute (short-term) 

toxicity and, when available, chronic (long-term or delayed) toxicity. ECOSAR is available on the internet at US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Pollution Prevention (P2) Framework, Hazard Models internet site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2framework/docs/hazard.htm#Sub2H. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (accessed 19 May 2006). 

7

 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Sustainable Futures. 67 Federal Register 76282. December 11, 2002, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/sustainablefutures.htmH (accessed 5 May 2006). 

17 See Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles internet site: Hwww.unep.org/PCFVH. Nairobi, Kenya: United 

Nations Environmental Program (updated 25 April 2005, accessed 18 May 2006). 

18 For relevant studies, see citations in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Draft risk assessment of the 

potential human health effects associated with exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts. Washington, DC, 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Tocixs, Risk Assessment Division. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pfoa/pfoarisk.pdf (accessed 17 May 2006). 

 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 50
 19 See Office of Emergency Management RMP Program Overview internet site: 

Hhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/RMPoverview.htmH. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (updated 11 October 2002; accessed 25 May 2006). 

20 See Office of Emergency Management EPCRA Overview internet site: 

Hhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/epcraOverview.htmH. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (accessed 17 May 17, 2006). 

21 See Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) Program internet site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/H. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (updated 3 March 2006, accessed 25 May 2006). 22 See Office of Pesticide Programs, Pesticides internet site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/H. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (accessed 17 May 17, 2006). 

23 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets, Pesticide Registration 

Program internet site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/registration.htmH (updated 2 may 2006; accessed 

19 May 2006). 

24 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment & Reregistration internet site: 

Hwww.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistrationH (updated and accessed 24 May 2006). 

25Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(g), Registration 

Review (7 U.S.C. 136a). Available at Hwww.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/fifra.pdfH (accessed 24 may 2006). 

26 Department of Health and Human Services. 2005. 3rd National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental 

(NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570Chemicals). Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: 

Hhttp://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/H (accessed 24 May 2006) 

27 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Reducing Pesticide Risk internet site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/reducing.htmH (accessed 10 May 2006). 

28 U.S. Department of Labor, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001 - 2002. A 

Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers, Research Report No. 9. March 2005, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy: Washington, DC: 

Hhttp://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfmH (accessed 10 May 2006). 

29 See U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Quality Assessment Program internet site: 

Hhttp://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/H (accessed 19 May 2006). 

30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2004. Joint Counterpart 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations, 50 CFR Part 402. Available on the internet: 

Hhttp://endangered.fws.gov/consultations/pesticides/Final_Rule.pdfH (accessed 19 May 2006). 

31 The term “significant” is used in a manner analogous to its use under the National Environmental Policy Act, 

involving considerations of both “context” and “intensity.” See 40 CFR 1508.27. Under this definition, “...in the 

[context] of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the affects in the locale.... Both shortand long-term effects are relevant.” With respect to intensity, issues such as the magnitude of the impact (positive 

and negative) will be considered. 

32 Source for data is Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES). 

33 Census estimate of homes lacking access minus homes provided with access between 2000 and 2003. 

 

34 2000 Census estimate of homes lacking access to adequate wastewater sanitation minus homes provided with 

access between 2000 and 2003. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 51
 35 Baseline for both strategic targets: The 2006 calculated baseline mean maternal serum level for PCBs was 6.28 

ug/l and for total chlordane was 1.26 ug/l. This initial baseline was calculated based on Arctic Monitoring and 

Assessment Program data (AMAP, 2003),that includes human health data points from indigenous maternal 

populations across the Arctic, including Alaska, Canada, Norway, and the Russian Federation. Measurement 

Mechanism: Assessment of data from AMAP, an existing international scientific working group, which advises 

governments of the eight Arctic countries on issues related to pollution in the Arctic. AMAP data is presented in 

periodic scientifically-based assessments (available at Hwww.amap.noH ), which are a result of cooperative efforts 

involving a large number of scientists and other stakeholders, who follow agreed quality assurance and control 

protocols consistent with such practices common in the United States. 

36 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Public Law 107-118 (H.R. 2869), 115 stat. 

2356). Available on the Internet at” Hhttp://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/sblrbra.htm#statusH (accessed 11 May 

2006). 

37See Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support Center internet site: 

Hhttp://www.brownfieldstsc.org/H. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund Remediation and 

Technology Innovation), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Argonne National Laboratory (updated and accessed 

18 May 2006). 

38 See Triad Resource Center internet site: Hhttp://www.triadcentral.org/H (accessed 18 May 2006). Triad is an 

innovative approach to decision-making for hazardous waste site characterization and remediation. The Triad 

approach proactively exploits new characterization and treatment tools. The Triad Resource Center provides the 

information hazardous waste site managers and cleanup practitioners need to implement the Triad effectively. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, Argonne National 

Laboratory, State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the Interstate Technology Regulatory 

Council support Triad. 

39 See SMARTe (Sustainable Management Approaches and Revitalization Tools) internet site: 

Hhttp://www.smarte.org/smarte/home/index.xmlH (accessed 17 May 2006). SMARTe, is an open-source, webbased, decision support system for developing and evaluating future reuse scenarios for potentially contaminated 

land. SMARTe contains guidance and analysis tools for all aspects of the revitalization process including planning, 

environmental, economic, and social concerns. The US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and 

Development and Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment, the German Federal Ministry of Education 

and Research, and the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council support its development. 

40.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.-Mexico Border Program, Border 2012 Program Web Site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/H (accessed 9 May 2006) 

41 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Signed by USA on May 23, 2001. Entered into force on 

17 May 2004. See Hhttp://www.pops.int/H See also Hhttp://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/pops.htmH 42Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programm, 2003. AMAP Assessment 2002: Human Health in the Arctic. 

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. 

(Hhttp://www.amap.no/Assessment/ScientificBackground.htmH). 

43 See Arctic Council, Hwww.arctic-council.orgH under “Activities” (ACAP/Obsolete Pesticides Project) (accessed 

17 May 2006). 

44 See Arctic Council, Hwww.arctic-council.orgH under “Activities” (ACAP/PCB Project) (accessed 17 May 2006). 

45 Data for the index components are tracked internally by USEPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office and 

reported through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process. The document, “State of the 

Great Lakes 2005 -A Technical Report,” presents detailed indicator reports prepared by primary authors, including 

listings of data sources. 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 52
 46 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Monitoring, Contaminants in Top Predator Fish internet 

site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/topfishb.htmlH (accessed 17 May 2006). 

47 Data will be available at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lake Monitoring, Atmospheric Deposition 

of Toxic Pollutants internet site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/air/airb.htmlH (accessed 17 May 2006). 

48 Lower Columbia River Estuary Program. June 1999. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. 

Portland, OR: Estuary Partnership Office. Available on Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership internet site: 

Hhttp://www.lcrep.org/mgmt_complete_plan.htmH (accessed 18 May 2006). 

49 Hood River Watershed, DEQ 2006, Mill Creek Watershed, DEQ 2006, Walla Walla Watershed, DEQ 2006 

(pending), Pudding River Watershed, DEQ 2006 (pending), and Clackamas River, Watershed DEQ 2006 (pending). 

These reports which are found in hard copy will be put on the EPA Columbia River website (as a part of the baseline 

information) which is currently under development. 

50 Water Cleanup Plans (TMDLs) by Watershed/Ecology Region, 

Hhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/watershed/index.htmlH (updated April 2005);Yakima River Pesticide 

TMDL, Okanogan River DDT and PCB TMDL, Wenatchee River, Mission Creek, and Lake Chelan PCB and 

Pesticide TMDL, Walla Walla Pesticide and PCB TMDL, and Palouse River Pesticide and PCB TMDL. 

51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey:1996-1998 (EPA, 

910-R-02-006). Seattle, Washington, USEPA Region 10, Risk Evaluation Unit. 

 Hhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/OEA.NSF/af6d4571f3e2b1698825650f0071180a/c3a9164ed269353788256c090

05d36b7?OpenDocumentH (accessed 17 May 2006). 

52 Fixed Station and Seasonal Monitoring Of Conventional and Toxic Contaminants on the Lower Columbia River 

Estuary Partnership (LCREP) Internet site: Hhttp://www.lcrep.org/eco_water_qual.htm#fixedH (accessed 17 May 

2006). 

53 Johnson, A. and D. Norton (March 2005). Concentrations of 303(d) Listed Pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs Measured 

with Passive Samplers Deployed in the Lower Columbia River, Ecology Publication No. 05-03-006. Olympia WA., 

Washington State Department of Ecology. Available on the Internet: Hhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0503006.pdfH 

(accessed 17 May 2006). 

54 Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available on the Internet:: 

Hwww.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/wetloss/wetloss.htmH (accessed 17 May 2006). 

55 Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1998 to2004. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

56 Compensatory Mitigation Rulemaking web page: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigationH (accessed 9 May 

2006) 

57 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, and Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Interior, and Transportation. December 24, 2002. National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan. Available on the 

internet: Hhttp://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/index.htmlH (updated 6 September 2005; accessed 30 May 2006). 

 

58 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Five Star Restoration Program internet site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/H. Washington, DC: Office Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds 

(updated 1 May 2006, accessed 30 May 2006). 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 53
 59 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Geographic Initiatives internet site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/regional/rgi.htmH. Washington DC: Office of Regional Operations (updated 25 April 2006, 

accessed 30 May 2006). 

60 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Targeted Watershed Grants Program internet site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/H. Washington, DC: Office Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds 

(updated and accessed 30 May 2006). 

 

61 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution), Clean Water Act 

Section 319 internet site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.htmlH. Washington, DC: Office Wetlands, 

Oceans, and Watersheds (updated 22 February 2006, accessed 30 May 2006). 

62 Beach, Dana. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. 

Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission. Available online at: 

Hhttp://www.pewtrusts.org/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=1023&content_type_id=8H (accessed 9 May 

2006) 

63 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Pollution Prevention and Toxics Reduction, Great Lakes 

Binational Toxics Strategy internet site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/index.htmlH (accessed 19 May 2006). 

64 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes, Regional Collaboration: Interagency Task Force internet 

sites: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/collaboration/taskforce/index.htmlH (accessed 18 May 2006). 

65 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes, Regional Collaboration: Making the Great Lakes 

Greater internet site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/collaboration/index.htmlH (accessed 18 May 2006). See also: 

Bush, George W. May 18, 2004. Executive Order: Establishment of great lakes interagency task force and 

promotion of a regional collaboration of national significance for the Great Lakes.. Washington, DC. Available on 

the internet at: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/collaboration/taskforce/eo.htmlH (accessed 18 May 2006). 

66 See Great Lakes Regional Collaboration internet site: Hhttp://www.glrc.us/H (updated 7 July 2005; accessed 17 

May 2006). See also Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes, 

December 2005, Chicago, IL, Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. Available on the internet at: 

Hhttp://www.glrc.us/strategy.htmlH (accessed 17 May 2006). 

67 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. June 2000. Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.

Annapolis, Maryland. Available online at: Hhttp://chesapeakebay.net/pubs/chesapeake2000agreement.pdfH 

(accessed 9 May 2006) 

68 See Koroncai, R., et al. December 2003. Setting and Allocating the Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient and Sediment 

Loads: The Collaborative Process, Technical Tools, and Innovative Approaches. Annapolis, Maryland: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program Office: 

Hhttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/caploads.htmH (accessed 30 May 2006). 

69 To view data on submerged aquatic vegetation, see: Hhttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/88-data2002.xlsH; dissolved oxygen: Hhttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/204-data-2005.xlsH; on nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sediment reductions, see Hhttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xlsH. 

For additional information on data and methods for submerged aquatic vegetation, see: 

Hhttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2006reports/Indicator_Survey_SAV.docH; for dissolved oxygen: 

Hhttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2006reports/Indicator_Survey_Dissolved_OxygenRevised031406.docH; and 

for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions: 

Hhttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2006reports/IndicatorSurvey_Reducing_Pollution_032406.docH (accessed 30 

May 2006). 

 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 54
 70 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program internet site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/gmpoH 

(accessed 17 May 2006). 

71 See The Gulf of Mexico Alliance internet site Hhttp://www.gulfofmexicoalliance.orgH (accessed 17 May 2006). 

72 See Federal Workgroup, the U.S. Ocean Action Plan’s Gulf of Mexico Regional Partnership internet site: 

Hhttp://www2.nos.noaa.gov/gomexH (accessed 17 May 2006). 

73 See The Gulf of Mexico Alliance internet site: Hhttp://www.dep.state.fl.us/gulf/H. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (accessed 30 May 2006). 

74 Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2006. Governors’ Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts March: 2006-March 

2009. Available on the internet: Hhttp://www.dep.state.fl.us/gulf/files/files/GulfActionPlan_Final.pdfH (accessed 

17 May 2006). 

75 Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. 2001. Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, 

and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington, DC.available on the internet at: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/msbasin/taskforce/pdf/actionplan.pdfH. See also Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico 

Hypoxia Hypoxia Task Force internet site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/msbasin/taskforce/index.htmH (accessed 17 May 

2006) 

76 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey:1996-1998 

(EPA, 910-R-02-006). Seattle, Washington, USEPA Region 10, Risk Evaluation Unit. Available on the internet: 

 Hhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/OEA.NSF/af6d4571f3e2b1698825650f0071180a/c3a9164ed269353788256c090

05d36b7?OpenDocumentH (accessed 17 May 2006); Fixed Station and Seasonal Monitoring Of Conventional and 

Toxic Contaminants on the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP) Internet site: 

Hhttp://www.lcrep.org/eco_water_qual.htm#fixedH (accessed 17 May 2006); and Johnson, A. and D. Norton 

(March 2005). Concentrations of 303(d) Listed Pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs Measured with Passive Samplers 

Deployed in the Lower Columbia River, Ecology Publication No. 05-03-006. Olympia WA., Washington State 

Department of Ecology. Available on the Internet: Hhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0503006.pdfH (accessed 17 May 

2006). 

77 The Columbia River Toxics Strategy is a commitment by EPA, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, in coordination 

with Columbia Basin tribes, to reduce toxics in water and in fish that people eat. 

78 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Report on the Environment internet site: 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/indicators/index.htmH (accessed 19 May 2006). 

Goal Four - Public Review Draft 55
 

GOAL 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Improve environmental performance through ensuring compliance with environmental 

requirements by enforcing environmental statutes, preventing pollution, and promoting 

environmental stewardship. Protect human health and the environment by encouraging 

innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that 

promote environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes. 

 Under this goal, EPA will work to ensure that government, business, and the 

public meet federal environmental requirements and will empower and assist them to do 

more. EPA programs designed to ensure compliance (through assistance, 

enforcement, and other tools) with federal environmental laws and regulations, to 

increase voluntary and self-directed actions to minimize or eliminate pollution before it is 

generated (pollution prevention), and to promote environmental stewardship behavior all 

contribute to the achievement of this goal. The Agency also promotes greater 

compliance by other countries such as key international trading partners with their own 

domestic and international environmental commitments, since greater compliance will 

lead to lower levels of pollution that can cross borders and impact the United States. 

 EPA uses the term “environmental stewardship” to describe behavior that 

includes but also exceeds the requisite compliance with existing regulatory 

requirements. Stewards of the environment recycle wastes to the greatest extent 

possible, minimize or eliminate pollution at its sources, and use energy and natural 

resources efficiently to reduce impacts on the environment. Under this goal, EPA will 

strive to use science and research more strategically and effectively to inform Agency 

policy decisions and to guide compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental 

stewardship efforts. In order for EPA to meet its domestic environmental challenges, 

the Agency will work with key international stakeholders through complementary and 

coordinated actions to promote and increase environmental stewardship globally. 

OBJECTIVE 5.1: ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THROUGH 

IMPROVED COMPLIANCE. By 2011, maximize compliance to protect human health 

and the environment through enforcement and other compliance assurance activities by 

achieving a 5 percent increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated 

by regulated entities, including those in Indian country. (Baseline to be determined in 

2006) 

Sub-objective 5.1.1: Compliance Assistance. By 2011, prevent 

noncompliance or reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving 

results in areas with potential environmental justice concerns, through EPA 

compliance assistance by maintaining or improving on the following percentages 

for direct assistance provided to regulated entities, including those in Indian 

country: 85 percent of the regulated entities improve their understanding of 

environmental requirements; 50 percent of the regulated entities improve 

environmental management practices; and 12 percent of the regulated entities 

reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution. (Baseline to be determined in 2006) 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 1
 

Sub-objective 5.1.2: Compliance Incentives. By 2011, identify and correct 

noncompliance and reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving 

results in areas with potential environmental justice concerns, through a 5 

percentage point increase in the number of facilities that use EPA incentive 

policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat, or 

eliminate pollution or improve environmental management practices at their 

facilities, including those in Indian country. (Baseline to be determined in 2006) 

Sub-objective 5.1.3: Monitoring and Enforcement. By 2011, identify, correct, 

and deter noncompliance and reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on 

achieving results in areas with potential environmental justice concerns, through 

monitoring and enforcement of regulated entities’ compliance, including those in 

Indian country, by achieving: a 5 percent increase in the number of facilities 

taking complying actions1 during EPA inspections and evaluations after 

deficiencies have been identified; a 5 percentage point increase in the percent of 

enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated; 

and a 5 percentage point increase in the percent of enforcement actions 

requiring improvement of environmental management practices. (Baseline to be 

determined in 2006) 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 5.1 

 EPA works cooperatively with state, tribal, and local agencies to secure and 

maintain compliance with the nation’s environmental laws and regulations. To reduce 

noncompliance and the environmental risks that can result, EPA and its partners 

provide compliance assistance to promote understanding of environmental regulations; 

offer incentives that encourage facilities voluntarily to identify, disclose, and correct 

violations; monitor compliance through inspections, evaluations, and investigations; and 

conduct civil and criminal enforcement actions to correct violations and deter future 

noncompliance. 

 EPA will continue working with state, tribal, and local environmental compliance 

assurance programs to ensure that regulated entities are in compliance. Specifically, 

EPA will (1) work with states and tribes to ensure a consistent level of effort in state and 

tribal enforcement and compliance assurance programs; (2) expand the role of its 

partners in identifying national priorities for the federal enforcement and compliance 

assurance programs; (3) better integrate strategic planning efforts at the state, tribal, 

regional, and national levels; (4) share information about patterns of noncompliance or 

emerging risks which need to be addressed; (5) explore development of common 

performance measures for state and tribal enforcement and compliance assurance 

programs; and, (6) continue to ensure compliance in Indian country, including improving 

data collection and reporting, and building compliance assurance and enforcement 

capacity of tribes. EPA also will work with some of these same partners, and federal 

entities such as the U.S. Departments of State, Justice and Interior, to encourage and, 

as appropriate, support efforts by other countries to develop and ensure greater 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 2
 

compliance with their own domestic environmental programs. The four elements of 

EPA’s compliance assurance program—assistance, incentives, monitoring, and 

enforcement—are described in more detail below. 

Compliance Assistance 

 

To assist regulated entities in complying with environmental laws and 

regulations, EPA will continue to provide direct assistance to regulated entities through 

activities such as training, workshops, on-site visits, and telephone contacts. Our 14 

virtual Compliance Assistance Centers 

(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/centers/index.html) directly provide 

assistance and access to resources such as pollution prevention information for the 

regulated community. EPA also provides indirect assistance to regulated entities by 

developing tailored compliance assistance tools and making them readily available to 

the regulated community through its websites, free publications, and distributions of 

materials through trade associations and other groups. The Agency’s National 

Environmental Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse provides a forum for sharing 

information on best practices, outcome measurement, and new compliance assistance 

materials among federal, state, tribal, and local governments, academia, trade 

associations, and other organizations that provide compliance assistance to regulated 

entities. When providing compliance assistance, EPA also encourages the promotion of 

environmental stewardship behavior by establishing partnership programs designed to 

minimize or eliminate pollution prior to its generation. 

The Agency is developing compliance assistance activities and measures 

through the Environmental Assistance Network in order to improve environmental 

performance on a sector-specific basis such as in the health care and construction 

sectors. The Network brings together Agency offices to collaborate and identify 

opportunities for building common metrics and measurement approaches for a 

particular sector that will address environmental assistance, pollution prevention, and 

environmental stewardship. 

Compliance Incentives 

Compliance incentive policies help foster an environmental stewardship ethic 

within the regulated community by offering an incentive to address environmental issues 

proactively. EPA offers several incentives to encourage regulated entities, private and 

governmental, to assess their overall compliance with environmental requirements and 

voluntarily disclose, promptly correct, and prevent the recurrence of non-compliance 

problems. The Agency will continue to make the Audit Policy (Self-Policing Policy) and 

other compliance incentives available to the regulated community, including reduced 

penalties for violations and extended time for correction. EPA also encourages owners 

of multiple facilities to enter into corporate-wide auditing agreements because such 

agreements offer the opportunity for these regulated entities to review their operations 

more comprehensively while providing certainty about their environmental liability. 

Corporate-wide auditing agreements, particularly those following mergers and 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 3
 

acquisitions, offer the potential for significant environmental benefits because 

environmental compliance issues are addressed simultaneously across the company. 

 EPA will continue to work with stakeholders to improve opportunities for entities 

to self-disclose and correct violations. The Small Business Compliance Policy has 

recently been modified to encourage greater participation by small businesses, allowing 

businesses with fewer than 100 employees to benefit from a reduction in penalties for 

federal violations they discover, disclose, and correct. As part of outreach supporting 

the Small Business Compliance Policy, EPA will work with small business compliance 

assistance providers to develop tools small businesses can use to understand 

applicable environmental requirements and take advantage of the flexibility offered by 

the policy. EPA also will continue to encourage states to adopt, and communities to 

use, the policy. 

 

Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 

Federal environmental regulations establish a baseline for consistent compliance 

levels nationwide. States and tribes that have been delegated responsibilities for 

specific programs may make these baseline standards more stringent and enforce 

against the more stringent standards. EPA uses strategic targeting to conduct 

monitoring and enforcement activities—inspections, evaluations, civil and criminal 

investigations, administrative actions, and civil and criminal judicial enforcement—to 

identify the most egregious violators and return them to compliance as quickly as 

possible. EPA’s goal is to address the most significant risks to human health and the 

environment and to address disproportionate burdens on certain populations. EPA’s 

national enforcement and compliance assurance program will continue to focus on two 

major components: (1) a limited number of national priorities that focus on significant 

environmental risks and patterns of noncompliance; and, (2) core program activities that 

implement the requirements of all environmental laws and programs. Through a 

collaborative process with states and tribes, EPA analyzes data and trends to identify 

areas appropriate for priority attention. 

 

OBJECTIVE 5.2: IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH 

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND THE ADOPTION OF OTHER STEWARDSHIP 

PRACTICES THAT LEAD TO SUSTAINABLE OUTCOMES. By 2011, enhance public 

health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by 

promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of other stewardship practices by 

companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals. 

Sub-objective 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental 

Stewardship by Business, Government and the Public. By 2011, reduce 

pollution, conserve natural resources, and improve other environmental stewardship 

practices through implementation of EPA’s pollution prevention programs. 

 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 4
 

Strategic Targets:

• By 2011, reduce 7.3 billion pounds of hazardous materials cumulatively from 

the 2000 baseline amount of 44 million pounds. 

• By 2011, reduce, conserve, or offset 774.0 trillion British Thermal Units 

(BTUs) cumulatively from the 2002 baseline amount of 0 BTUs. 

• By 2011, reduce water use by 52.0 billion gallons cumulatively from the 2000 

baseline amount of 220 million pounds. 

• By 2011, save $1.1 billion through pollution prevention improvements in 

business, institutional, and governmental costs cumulatively from the 2002 

baseline amount of $0.0. 

• By 2011, reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals from waste streams as 

measured by National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) 

contributions, Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), and other tools 

used by EPA to achieve priority chemical reductions. 

Sub-objective 5.2.2: Promote Improved Environmental Performance through 

Business and Community Innovation. Through 2011, achieve measurably improved 

environmental performance to achieve sustainable outcomes through sector-based 

approaches, performance-based programs, and assistance to small business. 

Strategic Targets:

• By fiscal year 2011, the reported results of Performance Track member 

facilities collectively will show the following normalized annual reductions: 5.1 

billion gallons in water use; 13,000 tons of hazardous materials use; 230,000 

megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCOE) of greenhouse gases; 300 

tons of toxic discharges to water; and 5,500 tons of combined NOx, SOx, 

VOC, and PM emissions. (Performance Track member facilities make 

commitments to, and report yearly progress on, performance improvements in 

up to four environmental areas. In FY 2005, Performance Track members 

achieved normalized annual reductions of 3.4 billion gallons in water use; 

8,794 tons of hazardous materials use; 151,129 MTCO2E of greenhouse 

gases; 186 tons of toxic discharges to water; and 3,533 tons of combined 

NOx, SOx, VOC, and PM emissions.) 

• By 2011, the participating manufacturing and service sectors in the Sector 

Strategies Program will achieve an aggregate 10 percent reduction in 

environmental releases to air, water, and land, working from a 2004 baseline 

and normalized to reflect economic growth. (Baseline and normalization 

factors to be developed in 2006.) 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 5
 

Sub-Objective 5.2.3: Promote Environmental Policy Innovation. Through 2011, 

achieve measurably improved environmental results, promote stewardship behavior, 

and advance sustainable outcomes by testing, evaluating, and applying alternative 

approaches to environmental protection in states, companies, and communities. This 

work also will seek to improve the organizational cost effectiveness and efficiency for 

regulatory agencies as well as regulated entities. 

Strategic Target:

• By 2011, innovation projects under the State Innovation Grant Program and 

other piloting mechanisms will achieve, on average, a 7.5 percent or greater 

improvement in environmental results (such as reductions in air or water 

discharges, improvements in ambient water or air quality, or improvements in 

compliance rates), or a 5 percent or greater improvement in cost 

effectiveness and efficiency. (Each project's achievement will be measured by 

the results established in selected grantee proposals. Baselines for ambient 

conditions or pollutant discharges or costs of compliance will be developed at 

the beginning of each project, and improvements for each project will be 

measured after full implementation of the innovative practice.) 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 5.2

EPA is committed to developing and promoting innovative strategies that achieve 

better environmental results, reduce costs, and promote environmental stewardship. In 

collaboration with its state and tribal partners, the Agency will continue to focus its 

efforts on innovations that will assist small businesses and communities in improving 

both their environmental and economic performance. EPA relies on partnerships to 

achieve pollution prevention goals under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 that 

encourages prevention and source reduction as the preferred method of preventing 

pollutants from release to the environment. In addition, EPA and key stakeholders and 

partners will work to enhance international awareness and use of pollution prevention 

measures and environmental stewardship approaches, in particular by focusing on key 

trading partner countries that also represent major emitters of critical transboundary 

pollutants. 

EPA’s Innovations Strategy relies on continued outreach to states, tribes, and 

businesses to help identify innovative approaches that merit testing, evaluation, and 

implementation. To provide leadership on the cutting edge of environmental policy, 

EPA works continually to identify, test, and implement innovative strategies that are 

effective and efficient. Some innovations relate to policies and programs, such as 

permitting or the regulation of small sources. Other innovations change the way the 

Agency does business. For example, EPA utilizes Agency staff expertise in working with 

state, community, and business leaders to strengthen partnerships that encourage 

greater reliance on collaboration and meaningful public involvement. EPA advances 

innovation through a combination of policy analysis, piloting, grants, assessments, 

information-sharing, and regulatory or policy development. To identify and test new 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 6
 

approaches, the Agency partners extensively with states, tribes, businesses, and 

others. To bring innovations to full-scale implementation, EPA initiates regulatory 

change such as more flexible permitting approaches, or promotes adoption of new 

strategies by states. 

Improving Environmental Performance 

 EPA will advance environmental protection through innovative and collaborative 

approaches with business and governmental entities that produce measurable 

environmental results. For example, EPA’s National Environmental Performance Track 

Program is a public-private partnership that encourages continuous environmental 

improvement through the use of environmental management systems, local community 

involvement, and measurable environmental results. The objectives of the Performance 

Track program are to motivate high-performing facilities to measurably reduce their 

environmental footprint beyond legal requirements and to change the way government 

regulates these facilities. Performance Track members make commitments among 38 

different environmental performance categories. Facilities are urged to target their most 

significant aspects, yielding environmental accomplishments in their most important 

areas. Facilities also leverage their commitments to influence improved environmental 

performance up and down their supply chain. Performance Track establishes new 

relationships between government and business which is based on recognition, 

mentoring, sharing knowledge, incentives (including lower inspection priorities), and a 

sustained pattern of superior performance. 

EPA will continue to promote improved environmental performance by highimpact sectors of the U.S. economy with the Sector Strategies Program. At present, the 

program works with 12 major manufacturing and service sectors, representing 780,000 

facilities and over 20 percent of manufacturing gross domestic product (GDP) and 

environmental releases. Although the program’s overall activities are intended to 

promote environmental stewardship while minimizing regulatory burden, individual 

sector projects address EPA’s specific air, water, land, and ecosystem objectives as 

well. The program also supports the Administrator’s goal to “accelerate the pace of 

environmental protection” by addressing the ‘driver & barrier’ factors that affect 

environmental management decisions throughout each sector. In addition to fostering 

collaboration and innovation, the program maintains an emphasis on results and 

accountability by tracking sector-wide trends in pollutant emissions and resource 

conservation in the Sector Strategies Performance Report, which is available to the 

public at www.epa.gov/sectors/performance.html. 

EPA will continue to promote the widespread use of environmental management 

systems (EMS) both domestically and internationally. EMSs provide organizations of all 

types with a structured system and approach for managing environmental and 

regulatory responsibilities to improve overall environmental performance, including 

areas not subject to regulation such as product design, resource conservation, energy 

efficiency, and other sustainable practices. Through various partnership programs and 

its EMS website, the Agency provides information and technical assistance for 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 7
 

organizations implementing EMSs. EPA will also fund research on the effectiveness of 

EMSs in the private and public sector. Leading by example, EPA has implemented 

EMSs at 34 of its own facilities to improve environmental management and reduce 

environmental impact. 

EPA also remains committed to identifying and testing new approaches to 

improving environmental performance by partnering with states, tribes, and industry 

through the State Innovation Grant Program. EPA will use this grant program to fund 

projects that promote innovative approaches to permitting and other approaches that 

improve corporate environmental performance. One example of an innovative program 

receiving State Innovation Grants is the Environmental Results Program (ERP), an 

approach first developed by the State of Massachusetts to regulate small sources such 

as drycleaners and printers more cost-effectively. By requiring each business owner to 

certify annually compliance with all applicable requirements, providing for random state 

inspections to provide a statistically reliable picture of performance across the industry, 

and requiring businesses to submit a plan for returning to compliance if a violation if 

found, the ERP results in significant performance improvements in sectors that 

previously had been largely overlooked. Moreover, the resources needed to monitor an 

entire sector are very small compared to traditional means. State Innovation Grants 

have been instrumental in expanding the use of this policy innovation. Between 15 and 

20 states are now using or exploring the use of ERP to effectively address 

environmental concerns related to small businesses including sectors such as auto 

body shops, auto salvage yards, small hazardous waste generators, and gas stations. 

In another project supported by this grant program, Arizona developed an automated 

permit application system that reduced the number of permit writers devoted to 

stormwater permitting statewide from 34 to two, allowing a reallocation of resources to 

compliance assistance in higher priority areas. 

 

EPA measures and tracks results for the State Innovation Grant program by 

requiring grantees to include performance measures in project planning, to report 

regularly on implementation of their projects, and to file a final report on results 

achieved. Additionally, by 2011, EPA is planning to conduct an evaluation of the State 

Innovation Grant Program. 

Cost Saving Technologies that Prevent Pollution 

EPA’s Green Chemistry Program2 supports research and fosters development 

and implementation of innovative chemical technologies to prevent pollution in a 

scientifically sound, cost-effective manner. The Green Suppliers Network is a national 

EPA program that works with the Department of Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension 

Program and state technical assistance programs to improve the environmental and 

economic performance of manufacturing suppliers by providing critical information 

necessary to inform corporate decision making on cost saving opportunities and 

technologies that eliminate waste and increase energy efficiency. The Presidential 

Green Chemistry Challenge Award program recognizes superior achievement in the 

design of chemical products and encourages chemical designers to prevent pollution, 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 8
 

conserve water, and reduce energy use in achieving measurable results. The program 

has been at the forefront of the global Green Chemistry movement, and through 

voluntary partnerships with academia, industry, and other government agencies, 

supports fundamental research in environmentally benign chemistry and provides a 

variety of educational and international activities. 

 EPA’s Design for the Environment3 (DfE) Industry Partnership Program promotes 

integration of cleaner, cheaper, and smarter pollution prevention solutions into everyday 

business practices. DfE encourages the adoption of less polluting practices through 

technology assessments and outreach that includes a comprehensive comparison of 

cost, performance, and hazards of baseline and alternative technologies. The program 

will continue to work with industry sectors to measure results in reducing risks to human 

health and the environment, improve performance, and save costs associated with 

existing and alternative pollution prevention technologies or processes. 

 

Waste Minimization 

 To reduce priority chemicals in wastes going to landfills, EPA focuses on key 

waste streams and waste generators through a variety of mechanisms, including the 

National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP), a part of the Agency’s 

Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC). Through this program, EPA encourages 

state and local governments, manufacturers, and other nongovernmental organizations 

to form partnerships to reduce the generation of waste containing any of the 31 priority 

chemicals. Companies that become NPEP partners are publicly recognized for their 

contribution to the national reduction goal. As of April 2006, NPEP has enrolled 84 

partners, which together have committed to achieve reductions of over 6 million pounds 

of priority chemical reductions. 

EPA will advance environmental protection and protection of children’s health 

through innovative and collaborative approaches with government entities and 

businesses that produce measurable environmental results. EPA’s Schools Chemical 

Cleanout Campaign aims to decrease the number of injuries and K -12 school days lost 

due to poor chemical management and chemical spills, which is likely to improve the 

learning environment in K-12 schools across the nation. EPA will continue to work with 

other federal agencies, and their state, tribal and local equivalents to facilitate chemical 

cleanout and prevention of future chemical management problems by providing 

technical assistance and grant funding. 

 

Preventing Environmental Impacts through NEPA Review 

The Agency will prevent significant environmental impacts associated with large 

federal projects subject to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review4. Section 

309 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review and make public its comments on the 

environmental impacts of other federal agencies. EPA performs this role in consultation 

with the White House Council on Environmental Quality. EPA also provides technical 

assistance to other federal agencies on developing environmental impact statements; 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 9
 

assists them in developing projects to avoid environmental impacts; supports 

streamlined environmental review processes; participates in rotational assignment 

programs; participates in interagency work groups; and, provides training and guidance. 

EPA’s own activities that are subject to NEPA requirements include wastewater and 

drinking water treatment plant construction and facilities constructed under other EPA 

grants and EPA-issued new-source water discharge permits. 

Pollution Prevention Work with Tribal Partners 

Tribal environmental and public health issues remain a priority as part of EPA’s 

efforts to apply environmental justice principles in its programs. EPA will focus on the 

expansion of green technologies on tribal lands, especially for tribal communities' 

buildings that were constructed decades ago. Currently, EPA is working with the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide information about 

green building training for tribes, incorporate green building guidance into tribal housing 

grants, post green building materials on appropriate websites, and implement advisory 

group recommendations. 

OBJECTIVE 5.3: IMPROVE HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN INDIAN 

COUNTRY. Protect human health and the environment on tribal lands by assisting 

federally-recognized tribes to: build environmental management capacity; assess 

environmental conditions and measure results; and implement environmental programs 

in Indian country. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2011, increase the percent of tribes with an environmental program to 67 

percent.5 (FY 2005 Baseline: 54 percent of 572 tribes.) 

• By 2011, increase the percent of tribes implementing federal environmental 

programs in Indian country to 9 percent. (FY 2005 Baseline: 5 percent of 

572tribes.) 

• By 2011, increase the percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved 

environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country to 26 

percent. (FY 2005 Baseline: 20 percent of 572 tribes.) 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 5.3

 Under federal environmental statutes, the Agency has responsibility for 

protecting human health and the environment in Indian country. EPA has worked to 

establish the internal infrastructure and organize its activities in order to meet this 

responsibility. 

 Since adopting the EPA Indian Policy in 1984 (which has been reaffirmed by 

each succeeding Administration), EPA has worked with tribes on a government-toGoal Five – Public Review Draft 10
 

government basis that affirms the federal trust responsibility between EPA and each 

federally recognized tribe. EPA’s American Indian Environmental Office leads the 

Agency-wide effort to ensure environmental protection in Indian country. In 2006, there 

are 572 federally-recognized tribes as well as intertribal consortia6 in 9 EPA Regions. 

The land base in Indian Country totals over 70 million acres and varies from 

reservations of less than 10 acres to those of more than 14 million acres. 

 EPA’s strategy for achieving its objectives in Indian country has three major 

components. First, the Agency will continue to distribute Indian General Assistance 

Program (GAP) capacity-building grants with the goal of establishing an environmental 

presence in all 572 federally recognized tribes in the United States. GAP grants help 

cover the costs of planning, developing, and establishing environmental protection 

programs and creating this environmental presence for a tribe. In 2005, EPA provided 

$62 million in GAP resources which allowed 480 tribes and intertribal consortia to 

develop an integrated environmental program. 

 

Second, EPA will develop the information technology infrastructure needed to 

measure environmental conditions in Indian country and related lands and measure the 

environmental results that accrue from the implementation of environmental programs 

on those lands. The Agency will provide the data and information necessary for tribes 

and EPA to meet environmental priorities. The Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture 

(TPEA) complements the General Assistance Program (GAP) with an information 

technology infrastructure that organizes environmental data on a tribal basis. The TPEA 

provides a clear, up-to-date picture of environmental conditions in Indian country on a 

local level. These data can assist tribes in identifying priorities for assuming regulatory 

and program management responsibility, primarily through the “Treatment in a manner 

similar to a State” (TAS) process available under several environmental statutes or 

through development of a tribal program under tribal law, without seeking EPA approval. 

We will continue to establish direct links with other federal agencies (including the U.S. 

Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, and Indian Health Service) to create an 

integrated, comprehensive, multi-agency Tribal Enterprise Architecture. This interactive 

system will allow tribes and EPA regional offices to supply information on environmental 

conditions that supplements data collected by EPA’s national tribal systems. As data 

gaps are identified, EPA will work with our tribal partners to obtain data that will assist 

environmental managers to more accurately address high risks within Indian Country. 

 Third, EPA’s American Indian Environmental Office will continue to coordinate 

closely with Agency programs to guide and track the timely and appropriate 

implementation of those programs directly on Indian lands. In its continuing outreach to 

tribes, EPA has developed specific tribal strategies in water, air, land, pollution 

prevention and toxics, and enforcement and compliance. Consultation, collaboration, 

and direct partnerships with tribes remain a priority for the Agency and are integral to 

EPA’s strategic planning. The Tribal Caucus, which has provided input to the Agency on 

tribal issues for several years, will serve as the focal point for work under this objective 

and will help facilitate continued development of EPA-tribal partnerships. The Agency 

will also engage other EPA-sponsored tribal groups, such as the Tribal Committee of 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 11
 

the Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action, the Tribal Pesticides Program Council, the 

Tribal Science Council, the National Tribal Air Association, and the Tribal Water Council 

(under development). 

 

OBJECTIVE 5.4: ENHANCE SOCIETY=S CAPACITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY 

THROUGH SCIENCE AND RESEARCH. Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific 

research on pollution prevention, new technology development, socioeconomic, 

sustainable systems, and decision-making tools. By 2011, the products of this research 

will be independently recognized as providing critical and key evidence in informing 

Agency polices and decisions and solving problems for the Agency and its partners and 

stakeholders

Sub-objective 5.4.1: Strengthening Science. The research and educational 

community, the regulated community and decision and policy makers use 

Agency research products and services to enhance the scientific and technology 

base and catalyze innovation of alternative processes, tools, technologies and 

systems for advanced environmental protection; implement more efficient and 

sustainable practices, materials and technologies in improved environmental 

performance; implement improved and scientifically sound management 

decisions and policies and practices for sustainable resource management. 

Sub-objective 5.4.2: Conducting Research. Through 2011, conduct leading-

 edge, sound scientific research on pollution prevention, new technology 

 development, socioeconomic, sustainable systems, and decision-making tools. 

 The products of this research will provide critical and key evidence in informing 

 Agency polices and decisions affecting the Agency programs in Goal 5, as well 

 EPA partners and stakeholders. 

Means and Strategies for Achieving Objective 5.4 

 Progress toward research goals is assessed through a suite of metrics that is 

tailored to measuring the impacts of the outcomes of the respective research programs. 

Among the measurable factors are: independent expert review panel ratings on the 

extent to which clients utilize EPA research products; composite scores on a client 

survey designed to gather data on product utility and perceptions of use; and the results 

of bibliometric and/or client document analyses demonstrating the actual use of EPA 

research products. These factors are applied to measure success in providing the 

results identified in the research programs that follow. 

Science and Technology for Sustainability

Through intramural and extramural resources, the Science and Technology for 

Sustainability (STS) research program aims to develop models, tools, and technologies 

that will give decision makers more options and enable them to make decisions that 

lead to sustainable outcomes. The concept of stewardship recognizes that our nation’s 

natural resources are the common property of all parts of society. Effective stewards of 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 12
 

the environment will work to enhance environmental protection and achieve sustainable 

outcomes. This program will produce measurable benefits in the form of: 

• an enhanced scientific and technology base to catalyze innovation for advanced 

environmental protection; 

• more efficient and sustainable practices, materials, and technologies with 

improved environmental performance; and 

• improved and scientifically sound management decisions and policies and 

practices for sustainable resource management. 

 More fundamental research to enhance basic sustainability knowledge and 

catalyze environmental stewardship includes Life Cycle Assessment and Material Flow 

Analysis methodological development; theoretical modeling of sustainable systems; 

development of new science-based sustainability metrics and indicators; and the 

People, Prosperity, and the Planet Student Design Competition program. 

 The regulated community receives support as they seek to implement more 

efficient, sustainable, and protective practices, materials, and technologies that result in 

improved environmental stewardship, using the underlying methodologies described 

above. Additional research, often with industrial partners, is focused on new industrial 

methods, alternative chemicals and industrial practices, including decision support tools 

for bench chemists to evaluate the environmental dimensions of new chemicals and 

production pathways. The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program has 

been expanded to include a sustainability-focused effort, the Environmentally 

Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program. Quality-controlled test protocols are 

being developed to help verify the capabilities of new technologies. 

 A Sustainable Environmental Systems research program was established that 

draws on economics, ecology, law, and engineering in seeking systems-based solutions 

to regional environmental problems. Two new applied and educational extramural 

programs have been introduced--the People, Prosperity, and the Planet Student Design 

Competition for Sustainability, and the Collaborative Science and Technology Network 

for Sustainability. 

Economics and Decision Sciences

 The Economics and Decision Sciences (EDS) program within ORD is an 

extramural program, based primarily on needs identified in the Environmental 

Economics Research Strategy (EERS). EDS research helps identify innovative, costeffective policy approaches to address environmental challenges and provides 

necessary methods and data for economics analysis of policy effectiveness, leading to 

better decision-making. The EDS program is coordinated closely with economists doing 

related work in ORD and with our research partners in EPA’s National Center for 

Environmental Economics, who conduct most of the Agency’s internal economics 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 13
 

research. Because of the breadth of the need for better economic analyses, the EDS 

program has clients in virtually every EPA headquarters office, as well as many 

Regions. Other federal, state, and local government officials, as well as private 

organizations, also use the results of EDS research. 

This program will produce measurable benefits in the form of: 

• reduced uncertainties and potential biases associated with benefit transfer 

methods with estimated values from original studies for ecological and human 

health benefits analysis; 

• improved understanding of decision-making with respect to compliance behavior 

and environmental performance in response to interventions, including 

government enforcement, information disclosure, voluntary initiatives, and similar 

programs; and 

• identification of regulated entities’ responses to market mechanisms and 

incentives, and investigation of how market-based programs can be designed to 

improve environmental quality at the lowest cost. 

 The EERS envisions a dual strategy for achieving improved benefit valuation—

development of benefit transfer methods and development of original benefit estimates 

followed by switching to original valuation estimates. 

 With its emphasis on analyzing and developing programs to change the behavior 

of individuals and organizations, this research will inform EPA's stewardship initiatives, 

identifying the most effective means of providing information that leads to desired 

changes in behavior. 

 Research will also focus on the use of trading programs for new pollutants, 

media, and geographical areas. This research area will include investigation of the 

environmental justice implications of trading programs because of the concern about 

“hotspots” in trading programs. 

HUMAN CAPITAL 

EPA relies on a core set of competencies to assist the regulated community in 

complying with environmental laws and regulations; a comprehensive knowledge of 

applicable requirements; sector-specific information about business and industrial 

processes; an understanding of best practices; and, an ability to assess a specific 

situation and readily determine how best to advise those regulated entities seeking help 

and guidance. The Agency is also seeking to enhance the abilities of its personnel to 

interact and assist those it regulates. For example, the Agency expects to focus its 

efforts on attracting applicants who are also skilled facilitators and communicators and 

on encouraging rotational opportunities at the state and local levels for current 

employees to broaden their perspectives and thereby enhance collaborative 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 14
 

relationships between Agency staff and the regulated community. The changing and 

increasingly complex array of environmental challenges presents a rich opportunity for 

our work with state partners and others in the regulated community to address problems 

of both a local and regional nature. We recognize that a broad spectrum of regulatory 

and stewardship approaches will be necessary. A highly-skilled, well-informed EPA 

workforce with a large capacity for collaborative, results-oriented work and the 

organizational systems to support it will be the key to our future success. 

EPA employees engaged in developing or implementing compliance incentives 

also possess a body of core competencies that helps them in fashioning incentives or 

guiding the regulated community in proactively addressing environmental problems. 

EPA attorney/advisors, engineers, and environmental protection specialists, among 

others, all contribute in reviewing submitted materials, assessing compliance, and 

crafting the Agency’s response, including fines or penalties. EPA personnel involved in 

compliance monitoring and enforcement similarly have their own core set of 

competencies as they endeavor to carry out their respective responsibilities which 

include inspections, civil and criminal investigations, and administrative and judicial 

enforcement. 

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

The compliance program established annual performance goals and measures to 

facilitate tracking progress toward the compliance objective. For each compliance 

program sub-objective, there is a matching annual performance goal, which in turn, is 

supported by a set of performance measures. This parallel structure enables annual 

progress toward Strategic Plan goals to be easily tracked. 

Influence of PART Measures on the Strategic Plan 

EPA’s strategy for maximizing protection of human health and the environment 

through improved compliance focuses on compliance assurance activities that will lead 

to reductions of pollutants entering the environment, pollutants being treated, or 

pollutants eliminated from the environment. EPA’s compliance objective tracks the 

pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated, which is also a 

performance measure included in the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) 

assessment for the compliance program. The four major compliance assurance tools -- 

assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement -- are used in an integrated fashion 

to address noncompliance problems and contribute to the achievement of their 

respective compliance sub-objectives and the compliance objective. In addition, EPA 

has incorporated the PART long-term, outcome-oriented measures for the Agency’s 

tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) grants into the Strategic Plan. 

Future Improvements to Performance Measurement 

EPA is working to supplement the pollutant reduction outcome measure for its 

compliance program with information that characterizes the hazard and potential 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 15
 

exposure of the public to the pollutants. The compliance program is using air pollution 

models to estimate the human health benefits of reductions in air pollutants. As a 

result, in FY 2005, the compliance assurance program reported that the ten biggest air 

pollution cases produced annual human health benefits valued at over $4.6 billion 

dollars, due to annual pollutant reductions of more than 620 million pounds. The 

compliance program continues to work with the air program to further expand the types 

of information on human health benefits that can be reported for air pollution cases, and 

is exploring opportunities to report similar information for cases involving other media. 

In order to more accurately characterize the state of compliance for particular 

sectors and regulations, the compliance program began piloting the use of statisticallyvalid compliance rates in 2000. Though development of pilot rates has proven to be 

resource intensive, the program is continuing to work to identify more efficient ways to 

develop statistically-valid compliance rates so their use can be expanded. While 

continuing to explore opportunities to expand the use of statistically-valid compliance 

rates generally, the program is focusing on developing compliance rates for national 

priority areas. 

EPA's compliance program is also working to develop a set of nationally 

consistent environmental justice indicators (i.e., health, environmental, compliance, and 

demographics) to identify and place an emphasis on activities in potential 

disproportionately and adversely affected areas ("areas with potential environmental 

justice concerns"). This effort is designed to better protect all communities, including 

minority and/or low-income communities. It will help the Agency report on the impact 

that the compliance program has had in areas with potential environmental justice 

concerns and on the minority and/or low-income populations living in these areas. 

Experience gained from use of these indicators will be used to develop specific 

environmental justice measures, and to develop environmental justice targets for 

compliance assurance activities. 

EPA is committed to continual assessment of performance, and the development 

of the most meaningful performance measures. The pollution prevention programs 

have collaborated with states and tribes in developing improved performance measures. 

Through the PART process, the pollution prevention programs continue their extensive 

review of performance measures to make them more outcome oriented. 

CLOSING THE FEEDBACK LOOP: RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS 

AND PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

EPA met its original priority chemical reduction goal in 2003 (2 years earlier than 

anticipated) and has continued to achieve additional reductions while re-setting the goal 

for the 2006–2011 Strategic Plan. The successes of the early years of the program are 

not proving easily sustainable, as the “low hanging fruit” of waste minimization 

opportunities appears to have been reaped. Future reductions will be more difficult and 

require a revised targeting approach. EPA is working with states to develop a sector 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 16
 

targeting approach that will allow for more direct technology transfer between facilities 

involved in similar industrial processes. 

The Harvard Regulatory Policy Program evaluated several aspects of the 

Performance Track program including the differences among facilities applying for the 

program, the characteristics of facilities motivating them to apply, and the differences in 

environmental performance between members and non-members. The evaluation has 

reinforced the importance of EPA recognition as an incentive for environmental 

improvements. The Performance Track program will take steps toward increasing 

recognition and branding associated with the program. It has also led the Agency to 

refocus recruiting efforts at the corporate level while identifying firms that are taking 

positions of environmental leadership. The study also stressed the importance of low 

transaction costs as a way of encouraging participation in innovative programs. The 

study has confirmed, based on several indicators of environmental performance, that 

EPA has been successful in identifying the better-performing firms in the selection 

process for Performance Track. 

The Enforcement and Compliance program has undergone three PART 

assessments since FY 2003: civil enforcement (2003), criminal enforcement (2004), 

and pesticides grants (2005). The nature and scope of the recommendations made by 

OMB as a result of each PART assessment have been focused on individual program 

areas and have been limited to certain aspects of OECA's program management. For 

example, OECA continues to work to improve and refine outcome measurement and to 

strategically expand the use of statistically-valid compliance rates. These activities are 

directly related to PART follow-up actions. 

Emerging Issues and External Factors

The rapid technology change of today’s economy presents unique opportunities 

and challenges. By 2011, significant scientific advances can be expected in the areas of 

nanotechnology, genomic research, computational toxicology, computer sciences, and 

the cognitive and behavioral sciences. The development and application of emerging 

nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, and sensor technologies could significantly enhance 

EPA’s ability to protect human health and the environment. Progress in these frontier 

areas will also directly affect future direction of EPA’s research programs. EPA’s 

Science and Technology for the Sustainability framework emphasizes these research 

areas to support a forward-looking, integrated, and preventive approach to 

environmental protection. 

Advances in measurement technology could have significant impacts on EPA 

programs. As more sensitive technology to detect and measure emissions is installed 

in facilities, emissions reporting could become more accurate and emission rates could 

be found to be either higher or lower than previously reported 

Distributed sensor network technologies, remote sensing, and hyper spectral 

imaging are developing rapidly and have the potential to support compliance monitoring 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 17
 

 

by increasing the frequency and speed of data collection and transmission, improving 

data quality, enabling data integration, and facilitating data access and data sharing. 

Sensors could facilitate the acquisition and use of empirical data and facilitate the 

tracking and analysis of the flow of materials and elements throughout the industrial 

cycle. 

 Emerging applications of nanotechnology could present new opportunities for 

pollution prevention and environmental stewardship (see 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/nanotech.htm). Nanotechnology applications have potential for 

reductions in energy demand, development of cleaner energy and improvements in 

manufacturing process efficiency leading to reduced material use and waste generation. 

Pollution prevention programs can provide a forum for industry and academia to 

exchange information on the environmental effects and benefits of innovative 

nanomaterials, and enable more environmentally responsible manufacturing processes 

and product design. A growing number of institutional players are picking up the call for 

policymakers to study nanotechnology and develop policy responses. 

 At the same time, these emerging technologies may present novel risks. 

Anticipating these risks and developing tools for their identification will be important as 

these technologies are developed and enter the marketplace. 

1

 Complying actions are actions taken by a facility to address deficiencies, which are potential violations, identified 

during on-site inspections and evaluations. Examples of a complying action include correcting record keeping 

deficiencies, requesting a permit application, improving pollutant identification (labeling, manifesting, etc.), 

improving management practices (storage, training, etc.) or reducing pollution through use reduction, industrial 

process change, or emissions or discharge change. 

2

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Green Chemistry Web Site, 

Hhttp://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry.H Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2006. 

3

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Design for the Environment 

Web Site: Hhttp://www.epa.gov/dfe.H Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2006. 

4

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enfocement and Compliance Assurance. National 

Environmental Policy Act Web Site: HHhttp://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html#requirementH.H 

Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2006. 

5 A tribe is counted as having an environmental program for the purposes of this measure if the tribal government 

has taken at least one of the following actions, in combination with having "an organizational structure which 

includes EPA-funded environmental office or coordinator that has been staffed in the most recent year": 

A) Complete a Tier III TEA, as evidenced by a document signed by the tribal government and EPA. 

B) Establish environmental laws, codes, regulations, ordinances, resolutions, policies, or other compulsory 

environmental compliance program, as evidenced by a document signed by the tribal government. 

C) Complete solid and/or hazardous waste implementation activities. 

D) Complete an inter-governmental environmental agreement (e.g. state-tribe MOA, federal-tribe MOA, etc). 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 18
 

 

EPA is seeking comment on other areas that would be considered evidence of the implementation of an 

environmental program. Proposed additional actions may include: 

E) Approve a tribal environmental plan which includes an assessment of the reservation environment, 

establishes a plan of action to address environmental concerns, and sets goals for public health and 

environmental outcomes. This plan must be approved by the tribal government; 

F) Tribal environmental programs funded entirely by tribal governments, for which EPA provided 

 substantial technical assistance to the tribe in program development. 

6

 Intertribal consortia are groups of federally-recognized Tribes that meet the criteria for EPA purposes, that join to 

work together. 

Goal Five – Public Review Draft 19
RESULTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

EPA is committed not only to being a good steward of the environment, but being 

a good steward of the public’s tax dollars as well. To meet this commitment, the 

Agency must operate as efficiently and effectively as possible in delivering results to the 

American people. The President=s Management Agenda (PMA), first issued in August 

2001, proposed three basic principles for management reform: government should be 

citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based.i The President=s Management 

Agenda originally set forth five government-wide initiatives to address these principles: 

(1) strategic management of human capital; (2) competitive sourcing; (3) expanded 

electronic government; (4) improved financial performance; and (5) budget and 

performance integration. EPA participates in two additional initiatives: elimination of 

improper payments, and research and development investment criteria. This cross-goal 

strategy for results and accountability will address the initiatives that now comprise the 

PMA (with the exception of research and development investment criteria, which will be 

discussed in the Best Available Science Cross-Goal Strategy). Before turning to the 

PMA initiatives, this section will address two other key efforts to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of Agency programs: assessing the state of the 

environment and measuring progress, and making information more accessible. 

Assessing the State of the Environment and Measuring Progress 

 High-quality data are essential for the Agency to describe to the American public 

the results we are trying to achieve, measure accomplishments, and hold managers 

accountable for achieving results. EPA is committed to developing and using a suite of 

scientifically sound environmental indicators to track trends in environmental conditions 

and environmentally influenced human health. Specifically, the Agency seeks to 

develop a set of measures that can help us track relevant environmental conditions over 

time and eventually track conditions at various geographic scales. 

 Environmental indicator information is critical to the Agency’s strategic planning, 

helping us establish meaningful goals and objectives, develop strategies, review our 

performance, and adjust policies and approaches as necessary. Information on trends 

in environmental conditions and human health also assists us in understanding key 

environmental concerns; emerging issues; and the impact of federal, state, local, tribal, 

and private efforts to improve environmental quality. 

 This information is compiled in EPA’s Report on the Environment (ROE), where it 

provides a snapshot of current environmental conditions and a baseline against which 

we can measure and track environmental trends. In 2003, we presented this 

information in our first Draft Report on the Environment. This endeavor will continue 

through the development of our next Report on the Environment, scheduled for release 

in 2007. 

The Agency’s work on environmental indicators—through the Report on the 

Environment—is critical to our more comprehensive effort to identify priorities, focus 

Results and Accountability Cross-Goal Strategy – Public Review Draft 1
resources on areas of greatest concern, manage our work effectively to achieve 

measurable results, and report regularly on our progress to the American public. The 

latest set of indicators was specifically used to inform the development of this Strategic 

Plan’s architecture of goals, objectives, sub-objectives, and associated strategic targets, 

which articulate the measurable environmental results we are trying to achieve. We 

also used information from the indicators effort to identify critical data needs for future 

strategic planning efforts. 

Making Information More Accessible 

EPA’s work to protect human health and the environment entails thousands of 

decisions every year, and each of those decisions is based on information. EPA and its 

partners, states, tribes, local governments, and the private sector need accurate, timely, 

and useful information for environmental decision making. EPA uses specific strategies 

to make sure the information is ready and available when it is needed. 

EPA’s information systems ensure that environmental information is available, 

secure, analyzed, and validated. Among our many achievements, EPA has created a 

computer network connecting all employees and contractors with all 50 states and 

approximately 10 tribes to readily share environmental information. To save EPA 

money and make it easier for employees to share their work with others, we also 

standardized the computer systems used throughout the Agency. In addition, EPA has 

implemented standards so data can be collected once and then used by many parties, 

without costly reformatting or duplicative collection. Other streamlining efforts have 

included centralizing the Internet servers, so EPA presents itself to the world as a single 

organization rather than as a collection of offices, centralizing the use of electronic 

document storage while eliminating a variety of existing incompatible systems, and 

centralizing information security to ensure that appropriate safeguards are applied to all 

of EPA’s information resources. 

EPA is working to identify the ongoing information technology and information 

management challenges we face. EPA’s goal is to address those challenges in ways 

that maximize the value to both the Agency and its partners while minimizing overall 

costs. EPA is focusing its information technology and information management efforts 

in four major areas: 

1) Analytical Capacity: EPA is converting raw environmental data into 

information that can be used easily by decision makers. A key example is our 

geospatial work to convert millions of pieces of data into maps that visually 

illustrate how data relate to each other and the world in which we live. 

2) Governance: EPA is taking the steps necessary to ensure that data are of 

appropriate quality and design when collected so that many can use them 

and is minimizing system overlaps to avoid conflicts and reduce costs. 

Results and Accountability Cross-Goal Strategy – Public Review Draft 2
3) Excellence in Information Service Delivery: EPA is keeping pace with 

technology to streamline management and data processes, and linking data 

partners to make information more accessible to all. 

4) Innovation in Information Management: EPA is using electronic 

government (e-Gov) efforts to convert paper-based administrative or 

regulatory processes into electronic systems to improve transparency and 

accessibility and reduce paper waste. 

In short, EPA’s information strategy is to make sure that both Agency employees 

and our many external partners can get the information they need—when they need it—

to make sound environmental decisions. 

Integrating Budget and Performance Information 

EPA was one of the first federal agencies to link its strategic and annual planning 

structure with its budget structure. The Budget and Performance Integration (BPI) 

initiative of the President’s Management Agenda at EPA builds on this initial momentum 

to align the management of financial and human resources with the effective delivery of 

environmental results. BPI is a key component of EPA’s quest for better performance, 

more informed decision making, increased accountability for results, and more 

transparent, comprehensive reporting of environmental results to the public. 

EPA strives for consistent, effective performance across all programmatic areas 

to meet our environmental goals. EPA program managers and staff develop meaningful 

long-term program performance measures that link to the Agency’s Strategic Plan and 

establish reasonable expectations for future environmental outcomes. EPA program 

managers also craft annual performance and efficiency measures, all of which must 

meet the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Program Assessment Rating 

Tool (PART) requirements. PART is a diagnostic tool that focuses on program purpose 

and design, strategic planning, program management, and program results and 

accountability. Based on this defined set of program performance and efficiency 

measures, the Agency collects and analyzes performance information to assess 

program performance over time and evaluate the effectiveness of approaches for 

addressing environmental problems. The Agency can then adjust program 

implementation based on the results of these evaluations. 

Through this mechanism, the Agency determines the most efficient and effective 

means to deliver environmental results. PART and other performance analyses inform 

our decision-making processes and help both EPA employees and our environmental 

partners to be more accountable for the delivery of environmental results. In this way, 

EPA’s efforts to strengthen budget and performance integration help facilitate overall 

transparency and cultivate credibility in conveying environmental results to the public. 

Successful achievement of EPA’s mission requires the commitment and 

cooperation of both EPA’s employees and its environmental partners. To foster 

Results and Accountability Cross-Goal Strategy – Public Review Draft 3
increased accountability among all environmental partners, the Agency is incorporating, 

as appropriate, programmatic performance measures into Agency contracts, grants, 

and memoranda of understanding. Additionally, EPA is incorporating programmatic 

performance measures into EPA managers’ performance agreements to demonstrate 

the connection between employees’ contributions and the delivery of environmental 

results. Linking EPA’s mission, goals, and expected environmental outcomes to 

employee and partner performance will help increase understanding and commitment to 

achieving improved environmental outcomes. 

Improving Financial Performance and Eliminating Improper Payments 

EPA is recognized as a leader in the federal government for improving financial 

management. Our record of accomplishments includes consecutive clean audit 

opinions on annual financial statements since FY 2001, effective internal controls to 

prevent erroneous payments, and resolution of all outstanding material weaknesses 

under the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act.ii Equally important to EPA=s 

financial performance is the Agency=s financial management system, which provides 

integrated, timely, and reliable financial and performance data to program managers, 

who use it to support day-to-day decision making. 

EPA has undertaken a multi-office data integration effort based on the use of 

financial information to improve program efficiency and ensure sound financial 

management. Given the magnitude and complexity of EPA’s mission, the Agency is 

focusing on financial information related to one business process at a time. In FY 2005, 

grants management was chosen as the first area for review. EPA has made progress to 

link grants management and financial data, producing better information that shows the 

relationship between projects funded by grants and EPA’s environmental objectives. 

EPA recently selected emergency management as the next area for review. In future 

efforts, the Agency will undertake similar analyses of other key risk areas, such as debt 

management and contracts management. 

Another important aspect of financial performance is the elimination of improper 

payments, which involves identifying, preventing, and eliminating erroneous payments and 

documents that the government is using tax dollars for their intended purpose. Although 

EPA's improper payments are minimal, the Agency proposed to reduce the error rate for 

improper payments even further. EPA's error rate in the Drinking Water and Clean Water 

State Revolving Funds, two of the Agency's largest sources of grant funding, was 0.51 

percent, or $10.3 million, in FY 2004, and we reduced it to 0.16 percent, or $3.1 million, by the 

end of FY 2005. EPA continues to strive to uphold high standards of integrity for financial 

performance. 

Effectively Meeting Human Capital Needs of the Future 

Results and Accountability Cross-Goal Strategy – Public Review Draft 4
Protecting human health and the environment requires a diverse, highly skilled, 

and motivated workforce that seeks creative solutions to environmental problems and is 

committed to achieving excellence. The Agency’s Human Capital Strategy focuses on 

ensuring that our workforce is high-performing, results-oriented, aligned with strategic 

goals and objectives, and accountable for delivering environmental results. Human 

capital planning includes identifying the skills required to do the future work of the 

Agency, attracting and retaining diverse talent, providing continuous organizational 

learning, developing leadership professionals, and ensuring adequate succession 

planning. 

The Agency relies not only upon the capabilities of its workforce, but also on our 

external partners to achieve demonstrable results. EPA is relying increasingly on 

partnerships and collaborative endeavors to ensure mission accomplishment. Strategic 

human capital planning at EPA takes into consideration relationships with partners such 

as other federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes, grantees, contractors, 

and other stakeholders to ensure that available expertise is brought to bear in achieving 

Agency goals. 

Over the next 5 years, EPA faces greater human capital challenges due to the 

anticipated dramatic increase in “baby boomer” retirements across both the public and 

private sectors. The Agency will explore a variety of means to attract and retain the 

right people in the right jobs over both the short term and long term, including elevation 

of the Agency’s profile as an employer of choice, use of retention incentives, and 

increased emphasis on intern and career development programs. 

Increasing Efficiency through Competitive Sourcing 

Competitive sourcing is another key element of the Agency’s effort to maximize 

delivery of environmental results and ensure accountability. Competitive sourcing is the 

process of using competition to determine whether federal employees or the private 

sector can more efficiently and effectively perform work that is not inherently 

governmental in nature. Through this competitive process, EPA determines the optimal 

mix of federal employees and contractor personnel to maximize results for the 

investment while also ensuring the highest quality of service. 

EPA’s competitive sourcing program aligns Agency business needs with its 

Human Capital Strategy and uses Agency planning processes to inform decisions that 

identify activities for competition and reinvestment. Competitive sourcing drives 

innovation and efficiency in selected areas, thereby allowing the resulting savings to be 

reinvested in high-priority activities. EPA is improving the cost-effectiveness of 

environmental programs by determining who can most efficiently and effectively perform 

work–Agency employees or private sector contractors. 

Results and Accountability Cross-Goal Strategy – Public Review Draft 5
EPA has already used competitive sourcing to gain efficiencies in the delivery of 

its financial and certain information technology services; as a result, savings of over $10 

million are expected to be available for reinvestment during the next 5 years. Additional 

information technology services and administrative support services are planned for 

competitive sourcing competitions over the next 3 years, and are anticipated to result in 

15-25 percent savings for the Agency. 

Increasing Efficiency through E-Gov Opportunities 

Through its Electronic Government (E-Gov) initiatives, EPA is pursuing a number 

of opportunities to leverage electronic tools and capabilities to improve overall 

performance and accountability. Whether it is improving electronic processing and 

streamlining flows of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data or developing a new 

generation of geospatial tools with which decision makers can analyze environmental 

data, EPA’s E-Gov efforts enable data to be more current and accessible to Agency 

managers and stakeholders. For example, the expanded use of EPA's Central Data 

Exchange facilitates sharing of environmental data among our state and tribal partners 

and promotes greater citizen involvement in the federal rulemaking process through an 

easy-to-use public comment vehicle. 

EPA is actively participating in 18 of the 25 E-Gov initiatives included in the 

President’s Management Agenda. On behalf of the federal government, EPA is 

spearheading one particular E-Gov initiative, known as E-Rulemaking, by coordinating 

the efforts of nine other agencies as the “managing partner.” E-Rulemaking 

encompasses the complete rulemaking process, from regulation development to public 

participation with continual access. The core of this initiative is to redesign the 

rulemaking process to achieve highly accessible, Web-based implementation. Using 

the Internet, interested parties can observe and participate in the rulemaking process. 

Formerly a paper-based process, E-Rulemaking now offers one-stop access and user 

services such as text and document search capabilities and electronic submission of 

public comments. With the EPA system as a template, the project will improve existing 

"E-DOCKET" systems and will supplant duplicative systems at multiple federal 

agencies. 

EPA’s leadership in E-Gov is accelerating the Agency’s efforts to achieve real 

environmental results by simplifying and unifying common work processes across 

federal agencies and within EPA. E-Gov initiatives provide individual customers with 

one-stop access to services and transactions, reduce duplicative information collection, 

and enable on-line data and information transparency and timeliness. EPA will continue 

to build on these successes by applying new principles and methods to achieve better 

results, improve customer service, and provide greater savings to the American people. 

 

i.U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2002. The President=s Management Agenda: FY 2002. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf: Executive Office of the President, OMB Web 

Site. Date of Access: September 15, 2003. 

Results and Accountability Cross-Goal Strategy – Public Review Draft 6
 

ii.Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/integrity/integrity.htm.

Results and Accountability Cross-Goal Strategy – Public Review Draft 7
INNOVATION AND COLLABORATION

EPA’s ability to make progress over the next several years will depend greatly on 

our ability and commitment to find more effective tools and approaches to meet the 

complexity of today’s environmental challenges. We face broad-based problems, such 

as polluted runoff, global climate change, and loss of habitat and biodiversity, which are 

often the result of many diffuse causes and cannot be solved fully with conventional 

regulatory controls. We also see rapid technological and scientific advances that can 

bring breakthrough solutions as well as unknown or unexpected environmental and 

public health risks. 

As EPA looks ahead, the complexity of the challenges we face and the reality of 

a tightening federal budget underscore the importance of the two major components of 

this cross-goal strategy--finding innovative solutions and collaborating with others. Our 

task in the coming years is to work even more effectively with organizations engaged on 

environmental issues, leveraging limited resources and coordinating complementary 

authorities and capabilities. We also must engage with other government agencies, 

businesses, communities, and individuals who might not ordinarily focus on 

environmental matters, yet have distinctive expertise, perspectives, and resources to 

bring to bear on environmental problem-solving. 

To make the greatest progress, we will promote an ethic of environmental 

stewardship that engages all parts of society in taking responsibility for environmental 

quality and achieving sustainable results. In 2005, Administrator Johnson endorsed a 

forward-looking strategy to harness the growing interest in environmental stewardship 

by businesses, companies, communities, and individuals. This strategy is based on the 

premise that government cannot meet environmental challenges alone. Rather we 

need all parts of society to understand how environmental protection aligns with broader 

social and economic interests and to engage with us in actively creating a sustainable 

future. 

Innovating to Improve Environmental Results 

The first major component of this cross-goal strategy—innovation—is a key 

element to environmental progress. Innovation involves developing new ideas, testing 

their effectiveness, and then determining useful applications. It also involves 

examination of how proven approaches can be made even more effective or adapted to 

address other needs. 

EPA’s innovation strategy has four elements which will help drive progress under 

EPA’s Strategic Plan, as described below. 

Promoting State and Tribal Innovation: Because states and tribes are on the 

frontlines of environmental protection, they are in the best position to recognize 

problems and to craft innovative solutions. EPA is therefore committed to supporting 

innovation in state and tribal programs. 

Cross-Goal Strategy Innovation and Collaboration 1 
EPA’s support for state innovation programs takes many forms, including state 

participation in EPA’s Innovation Action Council. Through this senior-level policy forum, 

states and EPA develop a joint innovation work plan that focuses attention on priority 

issues. Examples include finding innovative approaches to program management 

challenges, such as the development of total maximum daily loads for impaired water 

bodies and state use of alternative approaches to hazardous waste management under 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

Another vehicle for supporting state innovation is the State Innovation Grant 

program. Since 2003, this competitive funding program has provided targeted 

assistance to help states explore innovative approaches in three areas that are of 

mutual interest to states and EPA—environmental permitting, environmental 

management systems, and performance-based leadership programs. For example, 

these funds have been instrumental in helping states adapt an innovative approach to 

permitting first developed in Massachusetts. Today, 15 states are developing or 

applying the Environmental Results Program, as it is known, to improve environmental 

performance in small business sectors, such as dry cleaning and printing. 

Similarly, the Agency’s Innovative Funding Workgroup, supported through the 

Agency’s Indian Program Policy Council, is developing options for the strategic and 

innovative use of funding, resources, and other opportunities to support tribes to more 

directly effect environmental change. The workgroup seeks to gain a common 

understanding of the various mechanisms that are or could be used by EPA and other 

agencies to enhance coordination and environmental protection in Indian country. 

Focusing on Priority Problems: While innovation is essential for environmental 

progress generally, EPA’s innovation strategy targets a set of priority problems that are 

national in scope and where innovation is needed to ensure progress: reducing 

greenhouse gases and ozone, restoring water quality, and addressing water 

infrastructure. EPA’s innovation strategy commits the Agency to exploring all potential 

avenues to address these diverse issues–regulations, policy, guidance, voluntary 

initiatives, and compliance assistance. By exploring these and other options, we can 

create a more diverse portfolio of solutions for these and other problems in the future. 

Developing Problem-Solving Tools and Approaches: EPA needs new 

environmental protection tools and approaches that not only solve existing 

environmental problems, but also prevent the emergence of new problems. The future 

system of environmental protection must include many more options for addressing 

environmental challenges. It will rely less on technology requirements and more on 

tailored strategies that address the needs of whole facilities, communities, or industry 

sectors. The system also must place greater emphasis on pollution prevention and 

natural resource conservation. EPA’s innovation strategy, for example, calls for 

improving the use and deployment of information resources and supporting 

environmental technology innovation. It also calls for increasing the use of incentives, 

Cross-Goal Strategy Innovation and Collaboration 2
encouraging the use of environmental management systems, and developing resultsoriented performance goals and measures. 

Creating a Culture and Organizational Systems to Foster Innovation: The fourth 

element of EPA’s innovation strategy is designed to foster innovation through changes 

to EPA’s organizational culture and management systems. It recognizes the need for 

improvements to planning, budgeting, and accountability processes and for investing in 

our human capital. It also calls for greater attention to futures planning to ensure that 

EPA and its partners are aware of and ready to respond to new trends and opportunities 

that can affect environmental quality. 

A Strategic Approach for Reducing the Growing Electronics Waste Stream 

With the increasing reliance on electronics, how can the United States best address the 

burgeoning problem of electronic waste? Part of the solution is supporting the market for 

environmentally-preferable electronic products. That is the goal of the Federal Electronics 

Challenge, an EPA partnership program that is designed to prevent pollution from the 

electronics waste stream by leveraging the $65 billion spent annually in the U.S. on 

electronic equipment and services. Under this challenge, government agencies commit to 

making electronic purchases that meet certain environmental criteria, such as reduced use of

toxic substances, virgin materials, and energy, thereby harnessing their considerable buying 

power to ensure that these greener goods are available for many other purchasers as well.

Collaborating on Common Goals 

The second major component of this cross-goal strategy—collaboration—is 

critical to addressing today’s more complex and often controversial issues by breaking 

through institutional and other barriers to achieve more comprehensive results than 

EPA could by working alone. The Agency has a long history of working successfully 

with others on environmental problems, producing some of our most significant 

achievements. Collaborative approaches can produce more effective and durable 

decisions, because they generate a shared sense of ownership among stakeholders 

expected to implement them. Collaboration on data gathering and analysis boosts the 

potential for agreement and can transform our understanding of environmental 

problems. 

The Agency will continue to enhance our capacity to collaborate with others, and 

will stress increased “collaboration competency” for managers and staff so they know 

when and how to engage productively with others. Further, we are working to identify 

new opportunities for greater stakeholder involvement, expanding the availability of 

internal and external collaborative process experts to help facilitate complex decision 

making, and implementing a linked set of initiatives with other federal agencies to 

strengthen our collective ability to work together with the public. 

With States 

The unique relationship between EPA and states is a cornerstone of the nation’s 

environmental protection system. Together, EPA and the states have brought about 

Cross-Goal Strategy Innovation and Collaboration 3
significant improvements in environmental quality and public health. Delegated state 

programs conduct much of the day-to-day work involved in environmental programs—

including issuing permits, conducting compliance and enforcement activities, and 

monitoring environmental conditions—and EPA oversees these activities. 

In addition to its partnerships with individual state environmental, public health, 

and agriculture agencies, EPA also works at the national level with a variety of 

associations representing state governments. These organizations provide the state 

perspective that EPA needs to help shape its policies and programs. EPA has worked 

closely with the National Governors Association, National Council of State Legislatures, 

and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), as well as groups representing 

managers of specific environmental media programs, such as the Association of State 

and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. 

In 1995, EPA and state officials agreed to create the National Environmental 

Performance Partnership System (NEPPS), the foundation for our work with states. 

Through this system of performance-based partnerships, EPA and states are setting 

environmental priorities and program strategies together, making improvements in how 

we measure performance, implementing innovative solutions to environmental 

problems, and enhancing how we collect and manage information. A critical aspect of 

this continuing work is finding ways to maximize flexibility so that states can address 

their own priority needs while ensuring accountability for results. 

Collaborating with States on Environmental Data 

One of the best examples of state and EPA collaboration is the National Environmental 

Information Exchange Network. Designed to help states and EPA share information more 

efficiently and effectively over the Internet, this system provides real-time access to higher 

quality data while saving agencies time and money previously spent on paper-based data 

entry and reporting. Since 2002, EPA has provided over $80 million in grants to help states, 

as well as tribes and territories, develop this Web-based system. The results are 

revolutionizing the exchange of environmental data. Several states are now using the 

Exchange Network to allow industries to submit their water discharge monitoring reports 

electronically. Others are using it to provide the public with timely beach closure and advisory 

information. 

With Tribes 

EPA’s work with tribes is based on the recognition that tribes have unique 

cultural, jurisdictional, and legal issues that must be considered when coordinating and 

implementing environmental programs in Indian country. One of their cultural 

distinctions is a longstanding commitment to environmental stewardship. Native 

Americans recognize the importance of not just protecting the environment, but of 

pursuing a longer-term goal of sustainability—a perspective that has much to offer as 

EPA pursues stewardship efforts. 

Our approach with tribes is to work with each one on a government-togovernment basis. The Agency’s 1984 Indian Policy formally recognizes the 

Cross-Goal Strategy Innovation and Collaboration 4
uniqueness of tribes and their rights as sovereign governments. In keeping with that 

policy, EPA will pursue innovative and coordinated programs that complement tribal 

government structures and incorporate tribal priorities to protect human health and the 

environment in Indian country. 

As part of the National Tribal Operations Committee, the EPA Administrator, 

Deputy Administrator, and other senior Agency officials work with 19 elected or 

appointed tribal leaders, who comprise the National Tribal Caucus, to address 

environmental and human health issues in Indian country. EPA’s nine regions with 

federal Indian tribes have similar working relationships or mechanisms in place for this 

purpose. EPA also works directly with individual Indian tribes. 

With Local Governments 

Local governments understand how environmental quality affects their 

communities, and they are uniquely positioned to collaborate with EPA, other public 

agencies, and the private sector in finding ways to make life better for their citizens. 

Local governments also have regulatory tools, such as land use planning authorities, 

building and health codes, and other ordinances that can be used to address problems 

falling outside federal or state jurisdiction. At the national level, EPA's Local 

Government Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations for building 

state and local capacity to deliver environmental services and programs.

With Other Federal Agencies 

Learning from Local Leaders 

As Bartow County, Georgia has shown, strong models of collaborative environmental problemsolving can be found at the local level. A fast-growing area northwest of Atlanta, Bartow 

County is implementing the first county-wide environmental management system in the nation. 

Designed to significantly reduce pollution across the county, this program is the result of a 

partnership that includes six cities, two school districts, the local chamber of commerce, 

several industry leaders, and the agricultural community. Over the past several years, the 

county has conducted a baseline audit of environmental performance and has developed 

environmental management resources, such as a Web site database for tracking air 

emissions, waste minimization, and water quality, and an air quality “tool box” for local officials. 

Air emissions have already been reduced by 25 percent. Based on the results, this program is 

gaining attention at all levels of government. For example, it was among the models 

showcased at the 2005 White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation. 

A 2004 Executive Order of the President on Cooperative Conservation put new 

emphasis on the need for collaboration on environmental problem-solving by calling for 

expanded cooperation among federal agencies with environmental and natural resource 

responsibilities. EPA will continue to be an active partner in Cooperative Conservation 

and will seek opportunities for further coordination with our federal partners. 

One especially important component of Cooperative Conservation is a 

competency-based approach to developing collaboration and partnering skills in the 

federal workforce. In 2006, EPA developed a dynamic initial plan, which will be revised 

Cross-Goal Strategy Innovation and Collaboration 5
through dialogue with Agency staff and management, to ensure the appropriate 

inclusion of these skills in the hiring, training, and recognition of EPA employees. By 

implementing this plan, EPA will enhance the capacity of its workforce to foster 

collaborative problem-solving and promote attainment of the Agency’s environmental 

and public health objectives.

With Other Countries 

 As our understanding of environmental issues has increased, so has our 

understanding of the need to partner with other countries on environmental goals. 

Recognizing that international cooperation is vital to achieving our mission, EPA has 

established three strategic priority areas for our international engagement: (1) reduce 

transboundary pollution; (2) advance U.S. interests abroad; and (3) promote good 

governance. 

Reduce Transboundary Pollution: Air pollution and toxic substances generated 

in other countries circulate through the atmosphere and can ultimately reach the United 

States. EPA must therefore address international sources of pollutants to meet many of 

its domestic environmental protection goals. The majority of all mercury deposited in 

the U.S., for example, originates from outside of our borders. Due to inadequate 

wastewater treatment, water-borne disease is greater along the U.S.-Mexico border 

than in the rest of the United States. Solving these and other problems requires strong 

collaboration between EPA and its international partners. In many cases, it is more 

efficient to reduce emissions from foreign sources than from domestic ones. 

Advance U.S. Interests Abroad: The shared goal of protecting human health and 

the environment for future generations can be used to open doors between the United 

States and foreign governments. Assistance that advances this goal in other countries 

can be an effective part of a larger U.S. strategy for promoting sustainable development 

and advancing democratic ideals. EPA supports U.S. diplomatic, trade, and foreign 

policy goals that extend far beyond EPA’s domestic agenda. 

Promote Good Environmental Governance: Good environmental governance 

abroad not only yields a cleaner environment, it helps ensure that U.S. companies and 

communities compete on an equal footing in the international marketplace. In 

particular, EPA works with U.S. trading partners to help them promote the effective 

enforcement of their own environmental laws. Through leadership in the Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development, EPA supports environmental performance 

reviews of other countries so that good governance best practices—such as providing 

access to information, collaborating with diverse stakeholders, providing transparency in 

environmental decision making--are shared, and countries are continually challenged to 

improve. 

Cross-Goal Strategy Innovation and Collaboration 6
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE 

Effective, proactive environmental protection requires a strong foundation of 

scientific knowledge. Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) utilizes 

the best available scientific theories, data, and models to anticipate potential threats, 

evaluate risks, identify solutions, and develop standards to meet its mission to protect 

the environment and safeguard human health. Investments in science at EPA over the 

past 35 years have yielded a rich dividend in environmental protection. 

EPA’s science strategy is designed to generate data necessary for 

understanding and managing risks and to guide research designed to reduce 

uncertainty in Agency decision making. Agency scientists and engineers, as they help 

shape scientifically sound and cost-effective solutions to environmental problems 

consider four dimensions: asking the right questions and assessing Information; science 

quality; using science correctly; and, measuring success. 

Asking the Right Questions and Assessing Scientific Information 

EPA works with states and tribes and across public and private sectors, drawing 

on the best available scientifically informed information to aid Agency decision makers 

in asking the right questions and in clearly characterizing problems. EPA determines 

the science necessary to address problems through interaction with other agencies, 

academia, and the private sector, and after coordinated science planning. Science 

activities at EPA are conducted through four means that are coordinated and 

reinforcing, as described below. 

 

The Agency’s intramural research program is designed to conduct leading-edge 

research and to foster the sound use of science and technology. EPA research is 

critical for improving our understanding of key processes—biological, physical/chemical, 

social, and others—that underlie and drive environmental systems, and that provide the 

fundamental scientific basis for understanding, forecasting, and responding to a wide 

variety of environmental problems. The direction of EPA research is described in 

research strategies, documented as performance measures in research multi-year 

plans, and summarized in each of the Strategic Plan goals. EPA’s multi-year research 

plans (MYPs) provide a transparent and forward-looking view of the Agency’s research 

agenda by identifying long-term goals in a 5- to 10-year planning window and by 

annually updating performance goals and associated annual performance measures 

(http://www.epa.gov/osp/research.htm). To ensure the quality of EPA’s MYPs, EPA 

program offices and regions are involved directly with the research planning process. 

Each MYP undergoes rigorous, independent peer review. 

A key science product arising from the intramural research program that is widely 

used to inform Agency programs is the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The 

IRIS program maintains an electronic database of information on human health effects 

that may result from exposure to various chemicals in the environment. It is an 

important risk assessment tool for EPA’s regulatory programs, the states, and industry. 

Cross-Goal Strategy Best Available Science – Public Review Draft 1 
EPA continuously updates older IRIS assessments and adds new assessments. All 

IRIS assessments are externally peer-reviewed. 

Within each of the Agency’s program offices there exist scientists and engineers 

with specialized knowledge relevant to the program’s mission. Toxicologists, 

hydrologists, and ecologists are typical of the specialized personnel employed by EPA 

to understand and apply best available science to the implementation of programs. 

Examples of their work include: identifying appropriate criteria for water quality 

assessment; setting air pollutant standards that are protective of human health; 

understanding fate and transport of pollutants in soil and groundwater; and, 

understanding the complex interaction of ecosystem responses to stress. 

EPA’s regional offices rely on scientific expertise in much the same way as do 

the Agency’s program offices The regions maintain the National Regional Science 

Council (NRSC) with representation from each of the 10 Regional Science Councils. 

The NRSC functions to strengthen science in the regions by: developing informational 

products; sponsoring conferences, workshops, and training; fostering collaborative 

efforts; and, identifying common regional needs. Details can be found in the Regional 

Science Portal at http://intranet.epa.gov/ospintra/scienceportal/. The Tribal Science 

Council (TSC) is another important forum that encourages key stakeholders to work 

collaboratively with EPA on environmental scientific issues, including research, 

monitoring, modeling, data, technology, and training in Indian country. 

The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, a competitive solicitation 

process that includes independent peer review, provides the funds supporting research 

grants and graduate fellowships in numerous environmental science and engineering 

disciplines. STAR engages the nation’s best scientists and engineers in targeted 

research that complements EPA’s intramural research program and those of our federal 

agency partners. In addition, through this same competitive process, EPA periodically 

establishes large research centers to address specific areas of national concern. At 

present, these centers focus on children’s health, hazardous substances, particulate 

matter, and estuarine and coastal monitoring.

The EPA Science Inventory (http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/index.cfm) reflects the full range 

of science activities across the Agency, including research, technical assistance, 

assessments, scientific and technical products, and peer reviews. The Science 

Inventory is a searchable, Agency-wide catalogue of science activities and peerreviewed products and EPA archival records. This Inventory helps EPA scientists and 

managers track and coordinate scientific initiatives across the Agency and serves as an 

accessible public resource for people interested in the state-of-the-science at EPA. 

Assuring Science Quality 

EPA’s quality assurance programs ensure the integrity of environmental data by 

overseeing management of monitoring programs, approving data collection activity 

plans, and evaluating monitoring and laboratory practices. These functions are 

Cross-Goal Strategy Best Available Science – Public Review Draft 2 
governed by EPA’s Information Quality Guidelines 

(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/). As part of the 2002 guidelines, 

regulators must ensure that the information presented in support of risk assessments is 

sufficiently comprehensive, informative, and accessible to the public so that risk 

assessment methodology, as well as the Agency’s plans for identifying and evaluating 

risks, are transparent and understood by affected populations. 

The EPA Agency-wide Quality System assures the quality of environmental 

information using criteria that are appropriate for the intended use of the information and 

the resources available. To facilitate the correction of mistakes, the Agency provides an 

Integrated Error Correction Process (http://www.epa.gov/cdx/iecp.html). 

Consistent Agency-wide application of peer review has been an EPA priority for 

many years. External peer review of scientific work products by qualified, independent 

scientists enhances credibility, uncovers technical problems, identifies additional 

information needs, and ensures that conclusions follow from data using generally 

accepted scientific standards. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB), and the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) are 

among the scientific organizations that conduct external scientific oversight and advise 

EPA. EPA's Peer Review Policy provides that major scientifically and technically based 

work products related to Agency decisions-- intended to support the most important 

decisions or that have special importance in their own right-- should be externally peerreviewed. 

The basis for EPA’s peer review policy is articulated in the document “Peer 

Review and Peer Involvement at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” 

(http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/perevmem.pdf ). In addition to this policy, EPA 

published the second edition of the Peer Review Handbook in 2000, providing detailed 

guidance for implementing the policy (http://epa.gov/osa/spc/2peerrev.htm). 

Using Science Correctly 

EPA’s organizing principle for generating and using scientific information is the 

risk assessment/risk management paradigm (See Figure X). Risk assessment is the 

process that scientists use to understand and evaluate the relative size (magnitude) and 

likelihood (probability) of risk posed to human health and ecosystems by environmental 

stressors, such as air pollution or chemicals in drinking water. Risk assessments play 

an important role in Agency decisions and, as appropriate, they are integrated with 

other information, such as economic data and engineering studies, as part of a 

complete scientific analysis to inform decisions. Risk management involves determining 

whether and how risks should be reduced. Scientific analyses, taken together with 

other factors, such as public values and statutory mandates, inform Agency 

management decisions. 

Making environmental decisions built on sound science includes ensuring that 

scientific findings in risk assessments are properly described. The Risk Assessment 

Cross-Goal Strategy Best Available Science – Public Review Draft 3 
Forum (RAF) is a standing committee of senior EPA scientists. It was established to 

promote Agency-wide consensus on difficult and controversial risk assessment issues 

and to ensure that this consensus is incorporated into appropriate Agency risk 

assessment guidance. The RAF focuses on generic issues fundamental to the risk 

assessment process and related science policy issues. 

To characterize risk assessments properly, the knowledge, assumptions, and 

uncertainties underlying the science must be clearly stated. The EPA Risk 

Characterization Policy and Handbook provides guidance for risk characterization that is 

designed to ensure that critical information from each stage of a risk assessment is 

used in forming conclusions about risk. The policy calls for a transparent process and 

products that are clear, consistent, and reasonable. The handbook is designed to 

provide risk assessors, risk managers, and other decision makers with an 

understanding of the goals and principles of risk characterization 

(http://www.epa.gov/OSA/spc/pdfs/rchandbk.pdf).

The Agency’s Action Development Process is in place to ensure that Agency 

decisions are well informed by science and that the Agency’s information is of the 

highest quality. This process allows the Agency’s senior managers to be proactive, 

soliciting a broad range of regulatory and non-regulatory options and analytic 

approaches at the earliest stages of the effort. Of particular importance to the Action 

Development Process is ensuring that EPA scientists, economists, and others with 

technical expertise are appropriately involved in determining needed analyses and 

research, identifying alternatives, and selecting options. 

EPA plans scientific analyses in the regulatory decision-making process through 

the use of “analytic blueprints.” Analytic blueprints lay out the sequence and nature of 

the scientific analyses and data needed to inform regulatory decisions. As the Agency is 

faced with more complex environmental science in its decision making, EPA scientists 

will be increasingly relied on to ensure that EPA’s policies are informed by the best 

available science. 

To support our increasing science requirements, there are a number of entities 

within EPA that assist the Agency. For example, the Office of the Science Advisor 

(OSA) helps ensure that consistent, cross-Agency scientific results, aided by technical 

evaluation and peer review, are part of all regulatory decisions. OSA played an active 

part in establishing the Human Studies Review Board. The Office’s continuing 

involvement in promoting a sound scientific underpinning for our regulatory actions will 

help us strengthen our future environmental protection efforts. 

EPA’s Science Policy Council (SPC), chaired by the Agency’s Science Advisor, 

deals with significant science policy issues that go beyond regional and program 

boundaries. Most recently, the Council was instrumental in producing the Agency’s 

Nanotechnology White Paper and the Risk Assessment Principles and Practices Staff 

Paper. With a goal of integrating policies that guide Agency decision makers in their 

use of scientific and technical information, the SPC works to successfully implement 

Cross-Goal Strategy Best Available Science – Public Review Draft 4 
selected initiatives recommended by external advisory bodies such as the National 

Research Council and the Science Advisory Board. 

The Council on Regulatory Environmental Modeling (CREM) was created and 

charged by the SPC to develop guidance on development and use of environmental 

models. In particular, the CREM is to promote transparency in model design and 

develop a publicly accessible inventory of EPA’s most frequently used models. 

Because of the critical importance of sound data, EPA has established a Forum on 

Environmental Measurements to ensure laboratory competency and the development of 

validated analytical methods. 

Scientific information often includes some degree of uncertainty, opening results 

to a diversity of interpretations. Increasingly, scientists are able to calculate and 

quantify uncertainty. Consider, for example, nutrients, pathogens, and sediments which 

are the stressors most often cited in reports by the states as contributing to the listing of 

surface waters as “impaired.” The impact of these stressors on water quality is 

substantial. The ability to reliably measure pathogens and to infer their sources within 

watersheds is very limited, and the quantitative dose-response data for sediments are 

virtually non-existent. Thus, uncertainty is “high.” This uncertainty is a limiting factor in 

the ability of EPA and the states to successfully implement the steps needed to meet 

water quality goals. Accordingly, a high value is attached to research on these 

problems. 

Efforts to reduce the magnitude of uncertainty factors used to calculate the 

reference dose, reference concentration, or benchmark dose are also a priority for EPA. 

For example, if the same mode or mechanism of toxicity could be demonstrated to 

occur in humans and animals, then the uncertainty factor for animal-to-human 

extrapolation might be reduced in the risk assessment. The Stochastic Human 

Exposure and Dose Simulation (SHEDS) model and Exposure Related Dose Estimating 

Model (ERDEM) are examples of promising physically-based probabilistic computer 

models designed to estimate human exposure, absorbed dose, and eliminated dose on 

which the Agency expects to continue work. 

Measuring Success 

Measuring the Agency’s performance is key to improving it. EPA is implementing 

the President’s Management Agenda to improve research and development (R&D) 

program management and effectiveness through its application of explicit R&D 

investment criteria. By carefully examining the relevance, quality, and performance of 

our research program, EPA is improving R&D program management, better informing 

R&D program funding decisions, and increasing public understanding of the benefits 

and effectiveness of the federal investment in R&D. 

Agency R&D programs strive to articulate why their investment is important, 

relevant, and appropriate. EPA R&D programs have well-conceived plans that identify 

program goals and priorities and links to Agency program and regional office needs, as 

Cross-Goal Strategy Best Available Science – Public Review Draft 5 
well as to national needs. This coordination occurs in many ways, but significant among 

them are the Research Coordination Teams associated with each research area that 

include program office, regional, and ORD personnel. 

Regulatory agencies are increasingly being held accountable for demonstrating 

that public expenditures result in measurable outcomes. For environmental protection, 

that means linking regulatory and policy decisions to quantifiable improvements in pubic 

health and ecological condition. An example is the link between fewer cardiovascular 

deaths and reduced PM2.5 emissions. 

The goals and objectives in this Strategic Plan are characterized by quantifiable 

targets that are scientifically associated with environmental outcomes. Increasingly, 

through scientific knowledge built on empirical observations and research, EPA is able 

to measure the effectiveness of our programs to accomplish our identified priorities and 

to adjust and improve them to gain efficiencies. The environmental outcome strategic 

targets associated with each of the five EPA Goals illustrate how existing information is 

being used to assess performance. Continued improvement will require strengthening 

systems to monitor environmental conditions, as well as improving existing or 

developing new surveillance systems to track the status and trends of the ecological or 

health outcomes of interest. 

 The EPA Draft Report on the Environment (RoE) is integrating both existing and 

new research to advance performance measures that will help EPA describe current 

national environmental conditions and trends and identify additional research needs. 

The 2007 release of the RoE is designed to communicate EPA’s current understanding 

of the conditions and trends in the environment and human health in a way that is 

succinct and understandable to the public. The RoE will assist the Agency in framing 

new innovative solutions, such as stewardship, to address complex cross-goal issues, 

and advance rigorous scientific approaches to measuring the associated sustainability 

outcomes. 

 Strengthening science at EPA is an ongoing effort, one of continuously improving 

the scientific bases for the environmental policy decisions that impact the nation. A 

strong science foundation is increasingly critical to informing the actions EPA takes on 

behalf of the American public in achieving the universal goal of a cleaner and healthier 

environment. 

Figure X 

Cross-Goal Strategy Best Available Science – Public Review Draft 6 
Cross-Goal Strategy Best Available Science – Public Review Draft 7 
Appendix C: Social Costs and Benefits

 Evaluating the benefits and cost of EPA programs is extremely useful for 

strategic planning at EPA. Generally, the Agency examines how it can allocate 

resources and target policies so as to achieve the maximum net benefits for society, 

given statutory and other considerations. In addition to using benefit-cost analysis in 

our strategic planning, Presidential Executive Order 12866i Regulatory Planning and 

Review requires EPA to use benefit-cost analysis when formulating economically 

significant regulations. Specifically, Executive Order 12866 directs that agencies “in 

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches ...should select those approaches 

that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages, distributive impacts, and equity), unless a statute 

requires another regulatory approach.” In a similar manner, the development of 

strategic goals and objectives also should reflect approaches that maximize net benefits 

and provide the best investment of society’s limited resources. 

 EPA regularly publishes benefit-cost analyses of its proposed and final 

regulations, and the Office of Management and Budget also produces estimates of the 

economic consequences of federal regulations in its annual Report to Congress on the 

Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations.ii It is often very difficult to provide 

quantitative estimates of the costs, and particularly the benefits, of environmental 

policies because many non-cancer health and ecological benefits do not easily lend 

themselves to monetization. But even when data are limited, assessing benefits and 

costs still can be valuable because it enumerates the types of beneficial and detrimental 

consequences of policy actions. 

 Appendix A of EPA’s 2003-2008 Strategic Plan presented a description of the 

social costs and benefits of its programs for the year 2002. The analysis was limited 

largely because EPA’s economic models and tools have not been developed to 

estimate the aggregate costs or benefits of achieving the kind of ambitious, broad, longterm goals adopted in strategic planning. 

 Although new analyses have not been performed for the 2006-2011 Strategic 

Plan, EPA will separately be providing additional information on some of the social costs 

and benefits of its programs and policies. For example, the Agency anticipates 

releasing a report in Spring 2007 on the results of its 2006 Pollution Abatement Cost 

and Expenditures Survey. Earlier versions of the survey support many of the estimates 

used in the 2003-2008 Strategic Plan appendix, but results from the current survey will 

not be available in time to be used in the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. EPA’s 2003–2008 

Strategic Plan Social Cost Appendix can be accessed at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf (pages 173-214). 

 

i

The Executive Order 12866 – (Federal Register: September 30, 1993, Vol. 58, No.190, Page 51735) and can be 

accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eo12866.htm ii OMB's annual report to congress can be accessed at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/regpol-reports_congress.html