WATER PLANETIV
THE WATER PROGRAM'S STRATEGIC PLAN
      A DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
            JANUARY 1993

-------

-------
FOREWORD
Although this is the fourth strategic plan issued by the Office of Water since 1989,
this document is not just a revised version of previous plans. Rather it reflects the
collective decision of senior leadership in EPA’s water program’ to develop and imple-
ment a process that would facilitate both a serious examination of the current water program
and an exciting opportunity to shape the future direction for the water program as we move
toward the year 2000 -- and beyond.
In February 1 992. a Water Program Strategic Planning Steering Committee, composed of
Deputy Office Directors, a Division Director, the Attorney Advisor to the Assistant Admin-
istrator for Water, senior policy staff from each of the water program offices, the Policy and
Resources Management staff, and Regional representatives, was established to design and
carry out or oversee the many and varied activities related to a proposed strategic planning
process. After analysis and discussion on strategic planning processes, the Committee
decided on a two-phase approach. Our near term efforts are consistent with the “continuous
improvement” principle of Total Quality Management (TQM), involving the water program’s
senior managers in developing a “master strategy ’ that clearly spells out the vision, mission,
goals, principles and some of the major issues facing the water program now and in the
future. This “master strategy” provides the framework from which program-specific strategic
plans (e.g., nonpoint sources, drinking water) as well as management or administrative plans
(e.g., information management, human resources) will emanate. The “roadmap” used by the
Committee to develop this “master strategy’ is found at Attachment A. In the longer term.
our strategic planning process is designed to achieve another TQM premise --changing the
way we do business -- to foster team work and to focus on cross-program/multi-media issues
throughout the water program.
In addition, the Committee has been following closely and assisting in the work of the Deputy
Administrator and EPA Office Directors on developing Agency-wide Environmental Goals. The
Office of Water is currently developing water-specific goals to complement the Agency-wide
goals. This document includes the significant efforts of the Water Indicators Workgroup; we
truly appreciate their willingness and capacity to assist the Committee and adapt their work
to meet the structure of a strategic plan.
This draft strategic plan is presented not as a final point in our process; instead, it is intended
to be a starting point in actively involving our major stakeholders in setting a course of action
that will strengthen and enhance the protection of our nation’s and the world’s water
resources. This draft plan parallels closely the recent report “A National Water Agenda f or
the 21 st Century” that was issued by Water Quality 2000, a project that brought together
representatives of all levels of government, environmental groups, business and industry and
citizen activists to propose and promote national policies to protect water resources.
Consequently, we see this draft strategic plan not only as the ‘voice” for communicating the
‘The term water program is used to connote that this strategic plan reflects the commitment and
activities of EPA Headquarters’ Office of Water, the ten Regional Water Management Divisions and
Environmental Services Divisions, and the many supporting offices in Headquarters and the Regions

-------
future direction of EPA’s water program but also as catalyst for implementing the vision and
goals developed by Water Quality 2000 participants. Our aim, therefore, is to establish
through this strategic plan a cooperative venture with our stakeholders to jointly develop goals
for the water program and to identify and frame the major policy choices facing the water
program.
Furthermore, the development of a strategic plan is not an end unto itself; rather, a strategic
plan should serve as the foundation from which all major policy, budget, and management/
administrative concerns of the water program are addressed. In other words, sound imple-
mentation is the hallmark of successful strategic planning. The water program is strongly
committed to translating its mission, goals, principles, and strategic directions, developed
jointly with its stakeholders, into more specific actions that will be reflected in our budget,
accountability, and other management/administrative systems.
We look forward to discussions within EPA, our other federal, State, Tribal and local gov-
ernments partners, all the water program stakeholders, and the general public.
Strategic Planning Steering Committee
January 1993
2

-------
INTRODUCTION
Earth is the “water planet.” Water covers two.thirds of the earth’s surface, as well as some
of its subsurface. It plays a critical role in the functioning and processes of the earth’s
ecosystems, and is essential to all forms of life. Water is the single most common element
uniting ecosystems: it links forest ecosystems in interior mountain ranges with the estuaries
and bays along the coasts. It transports food, nutrients, and other biologically important
organisms and materials. It removes wastes, cools organisms, and maintains the climatic
conditions necessary to sustain life. Water is said to provide energy to ecosystems: by
doing work on the behalf of life, it reduces the energy burden required of individual organisms
and ecosystems.
The world’s supply of fresh water is extremely limited: water in lakes, streams, and rivers
comprises less than .01 percent of the earth’s total supply of water. 2 A substantially larger
fraction of fresh water is available from hidden, less accessible ground water resources, while
by far the largest component is salt water in the oceans (97 percent). In the United States,
fresh water from rivers, streams, takes, and ground water provides drinking water supplies
for the Nation’s approximately 250 million people. 3 Water resources also provide valuable
habitat for fresh and salt water living resources, recreational opportunities, aesthetic pleasure,
and sources of water for daily use by industries, cities, power plants and agriculture.
Given the scarcity of fresh water supplies and the intrinsic value of all water resources, one
might expect people to safeguard these natural resources. But water is a common property
resource: it belongs to everyone and no one, so it is subject to exploitation and misuse.
Consequently, as one of the primary governmental organizations responsible for protecting the
nation’s and the world’s water resources, EPA’s water program sets forth its avision of
success:”
2 j w, Maurits Ia Riviere. “Threats to the World’s Water,” Scientific American (Special Issue),
September 1989. p. 80.
3 About 70% of the Nation’s population receives drinking water from surface water supplies and
30% from ground water sources. However, 80% of the total number of public water systems rely on
ground water, while the remaining 20% use surface water.
3

-------
VISION
WE ARE A NA TION THA T HAS CLEAN, SAFE, AND
ABUNDANT WA TER RESOURCES TO SUSTAIN ALL
LIVING THINGS. ALL CITIZENS ARE A WARE. CON-
CERNED, AND COMMITTED TO CLEAN AND SAFE
WA TER.
4

-------
THE STA TE OF THE WA TER RESOURCE
Over the past two decades, EPA, in partnership with State’ and local governments, has
made great strides in improving the Nation’s water quality and ensuring that citizens have
safe drinking water. Largely, our water quality success can be attributed to the control of
oxygen-demanding pollutants and other conventionalu pollutants from point source dis-
charges, and the improvement in municipal water and wastewater systems. For example,
• Since 1972, the Nation has invested over $75 billion in federal, State and local
funds to construct municipal sewage treatment facilities across the country. We
have almost doubled the number of people served by the statutory goal of second-
ary treatment or better from 85 million in 1972 to 144 million in 1988.
• To control the overwhelming amount of industrial waste that was being poured into
our nation’s waterways. EPA and the States have issued permits covering approxi-
mately 48,000 individual industrial facilitses, with another several thousand covered
by general permits. We have established and implemented nationwide discharge
standards for over 50 industrial categories, typically reducing pollutant loadings by
90 percent.
• Ocean dumping of industrial and municipal sewage sludge was also a problem in
the early 1970s. In 1973, we dumped approximately 5.9 million wet tons of indus-
trial waste into the coastal waters of the United States. The dumping of sewage
sludge rose from 4.8 million tons in 1973 to 8.7 million tons in 1989. Today, both
industrial and municipal sewage sludge dumping have come to an end.
• Of all the waters assessed in 1 988, 70 percent of the nation’s rivers and streams,
68 percent of estuaries, and 60 percent of lakes are meeting their statutory goals
based on current water quality standards.
With respect to our drinking water and the ground water resources that supply our tap
waters:
• Prior to 1986, there were drinking water regulations for 23 contaminants. Since
that time, EPA has promulgated regulations for an additional 61 contaminants, lead-
ing to the prevention of 400-700 cases of cancer annually. The Surface Water
Treatment Rule is expected to virtually wipe out several harmful waterborne patho-
gens, including Giardia, which causes severe gastrointestinal illness and can lead to
death from dehydration. This rule is expected to prevent 83,000 cases of illness
due to waterborne disease.
‘Whenever State’is mentioned in this document, it should be taken to mean State and Indian
Tribe.
5

-------
• EPA is moving aggressively to implement the Lead and Copper Rule, which was
promulgated in 1991. The rule is expected to prevent 600,000 children from hav-
ing their blood lead levels elevated above 10 ug/dI -- the Center for Disease Contr-
ol’s level of concern.
• Since the 1 970’s, EPA has made great strides in protecting ground water using
existing and new statutory authorities to regulate many high-risk sources of ground
water contamination, including pesticides, underground storage tanks, underground
injection wells, and landfills. States are now developing comprehensive ground
water programs — drawing on a range of integrated State and federal programs — as
envisioned under EPA’s new Ground Water Strategy for the 1990’s.
Many significant risks to water quality remain, however, including difficult and controver-
sial problems, such as pollutant runoff into waterways or seepage into ground water from
nonpoint sources and the destruction of wetlands and other vital habitats. Combined
sewer overflows and stormwater runoff (which are hybrid nonpoint source and point
source problems) and the discharge of toxic pollutants remain as significant unaddressed
or under-addressed risks. Although we take pride in the fact that fish have returned to
many waters, we cannot always eat them because of the contamination of fish flesh by
toxic pollutants. Microbial contamination is still a concern in drinking water supplies. We
need to address these risks to human health while increasing our attention to threats to
ecosystems and habitat.
The EPA water program recognizes that to fulfill our leadership role as steward of the
water resource, we must initiate or participate in the full range of activities that will ensure
clean, safe, and abundant water. Therefore, our mission is:
6

-------
EPA ‘S WA TER PROGRAM MiSSION STA TEMENT
WE, THE MANAGERS AND STAFF OF EPA’S WA TER PROGRAM THATPROTECTS
HUMA N HEAL TH A ND NA TURA L ECOSYSTEMS, WILL.’
• MAINTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN HEAL 771 GAINS
• PREVENT OR REDUCE POLLUTION To MAXIMIZE RISK REDUCTION
• RESTORE IMPAiRED, HIGH-PRIORI7Y WATER RESOURCES To MEET THEIR
DESIGNA TED USES
(Alternative mission statement)
• MAINTAIN PREVIOUS GAINS IN WA TEA RESOURCE PROTECTION
• PREVENT OR MIMMIZE FUTURE RISKS To WA TER RESOURCES
• RESTORE IMPAIRED. HIGH PRIORITY WATER RESOURCES
This mission is the shared responsibility of EPA, other federal agencies, States and Indian
Tribes, local governments, the regulated community, organized professional and public
interest groups, land owners and land managers, and the public-at-large.
The role of the EPA ’s water program is: (1) to provide leadership and guidance; science,
methods, and data; oversight and accountability; (2) to facilitate communication among all
involved; and, (3) to act as an advocate for our mission nationally and internationally.
Fulfilling our mission is predicated on the effective implementation of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), including the Lead Contamination Act of
1988, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), as amended by the
Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). and parts of
ten other statutes, helping to improve these laws as they are reauthorized in the future To
strategically implement these mandates, we will target our activities to reduce risk in high
risk areas and to prevent pollution wherever possible.
To ensure the success of this mission, the water program is actively pursuing a risk-based
approach to setting priorities and making policy choices. This approach was emphasized
by EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), especially in its report, “Reducing Risk: Setting
Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection.” The SAB recommended that EPA
programs identify where the risks are the greatest and target our efforts on the basis of
opportunities for the greatest risk reduction. As the SAB pointed out, the Nation cannot
do everything at once. We must “weigh the relative risks posed by different environmen-
tal problems, determine it there are cost-effective opportunities for reducing these risks.
and then identify the most cost-effective risk reduction operations.”
.7

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND INDICA TORS
While much progress has been made in the past 20 years. the water program has not
articulated our goals in measurable terms so that we could track progress. Consequently,
in 1991 the water program established a formal process for developing environmental
goals and indicators. An Office of Water Indicators Workgroup is collaborating with staff
in other EPA program offices, the Office of Research and Development, the Office of Poli-
cy, Planning and Evaluation, EPA Regions, other federal agencies, and States to develop
environmental indicators and to integrate their use into the water program decision-making
process.
The ability to accurately characterize the state of the environment, risks to human health,
and how well we are meeting the goals we set for use of our waters as well as describe
trends in both, is critical to making risk-based decisions. Furthermore, indicators that me-
asure the type, level, and effect of stresses on aquatic ecosystems are needed for effec-
tive program design, management, and evaluation and to identify existing and emerging
problems.
Also crucial is the capability to measure — directly or indirectly — the success of the water
program in reducing risk and to communicate progress to the public. Development of
environmental indicators is a multi-year process of incremental steps. Once indicators are
selected, one must analyze the usefulness of currently available data and information from
EPA and other agencies as the means to measure progress toward a goal. At the national
level, consistent data collection among various agencies and appropriate storage and re-
porting mechanisms for individual indicators are not always in place or need to be modified
to provide an adequate picture of environmental conditions and human health risks. The
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM), which EPA chairs, is
addressing the problem. Eight States and eight federal agencies sit on the ITFM. The
following preliminary set of goals have been formulated as a way to engage the water
program’s stakeholders and the public-at-large in a dialogue leading to:
• Consensus on a set of water-related goals
• Quantifiable measures against which to track our results and progress
• Cooperation across governmental programs and between the public and private
sectors to ensure consistent understanding of goals and indicators.
• Appropriate actions by government, the business community and the public to
ensure progress.
In the following list of goals, each statement is supported by one or more environmental
indicator. The process to improve the scope and consistency of reporting indicators for all
goals will continue as we improve our efforts to: (1) characterize environmental conditions
and the risks to human and ecological health, and (2) measure progress toward and appro-
priateness of goals.
8

-------
These proposed goals 5 are:
HUMA N HEAL TH
Drinking Water
1. By the year , increase locally managed Wellhead Protection Programs to
provide protection to _% of the population served by public water systems
using ground water.
2. By the year —, increase to _% the population served by public water
systems using ground and surface water sources that meet all drinking wa-
ter standards.
3. By the year , reduce to _% the number of children with blood lead levels
above 10 micrograms per deciliter.
4. By the year ,reduce by _% the number of people with acute effects
from consumption of contaminated drinking water.
Food
5. First improve the quality and consistency of fish advisories and then, by the
year —, reduce to % waters with State fish advisories.
6. By the year • reduce to _% waters with fish tissue contaminant levels of
concern to human health.
7. By the year _, increase to _% waters that meet the State designated use
for fishing and she//fishing.
8. By the year —, reduce by _% the number of humans with acute health
effects caused by exposure to toxic chemicals and infectious agents in fish
and she//fish.
Contact
9. By the year , reduce by _% the number of humans exposed through
contact to Infectious agents in the aquatic environment.
BoIded goals: We can set baseline and begin to report in F ’ 94 either nationally or for certain
Regions, specific geographic areas, or specific resource type such as rivers, lakes, estuaries, etc.
9

-------
WADINGS AND AMBIENT CONDITIONS
Point Source Loading
10. By the yea,_. reduce by _% underground sources of drinking water from
Class V injection we//s.
11. By the yea,_, reduce by _% the discharge of selected toxic pollutants to
U.S. waters.
12. By the year_, maintain (or reduce by _%J the discharge of selected con-
ventional pollutants to U.S. waters.
13. By the year_, reduce by _% CSO loadings of selected pollutants to U.S.
waters.
Nonpoint Source Loading
14. Reduce nonpoint source impacts by increasing the application and improving
the long-term operation and maintenance of both pollution control and pollu-
tion prevention measures.
Marine Debris
15. By the year_, reduce the amount of marine debris by %.
Ground Water Quality
16. By the year —, protect by comprehensive piograms _% of the Nation’s
sensitive ground watet areas designated by the States.
Surface Water Quality
17. By the year_, ensure that _% of U.S. water bodies are meeting their
Slate designated uses such as fishing and swimming.
Sediment Quality
18. By the year_, reduce contamination levels In _% of contaminated sedi-
ment sites.
ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION
Surface Water. etc.
19. By the year_. ensure that healthy populations and communities of fish,
macroinvertebrates, vegetation. and wildlife exist In designated areas.
10

-------
Wetlands
20. By the year —, help States develop water quality standards and compre-
hensive protection plans for all wetlands.
21. By the year_, ensure no net loss of wetlands.
22. By the year —, ensure that healthy populations and communities of wetland
flora and fauna (functional integrity) exist in ____% of targeted wetlands.
23. By the year —. ensure that there are healthy percentages and distributions
of wetlands (landscape integrity) within % of targeted watersheds.
Most of these goals are directly related to three proposed Agency-wide (Tier I) goals on
Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and Ecological Protection. As this strategic plan is
being developed, the water program’s Office Directors and selected Regional Representa-
tives are working with the Deputy Administrator and all EPA Office Directors to draft over-
arching goals, i.e., national goals for the Agency. These Tier I goals are still in preliminary
draft stage and will be issued for debate and discussion in 1993.
A diagram displaying these water program’s goals (Tier II), the indicators under consider-
ation for use in measuring our progress, and the relationship of these goals to the develop-
ment of Agency-wide goals has been prepared by the Office of Water’s Indicators Work-
group (see Attachment B). This diagram is an invaluable resource for understanding this
complex effort. Furthermore, it illustrates the magnitude of this effort and the significant
advances that the Workgroup has made in one year to move from traditional administrative
measures to indicators that measure environmental results in order to document the prog-
ress of the water program toward reaching our strategic goals and objectives.
11

-------
STRA TEGIC PRINCIPLES
In addition to goals and indicators, which set our environmental targets, i.e., what we
want to achieve, strategic orincioles have been articulated by the leadership of the water
program that serve as the basis for determining the future direction of the water program.
Alternatively stated, these oiincioles outline how we will seek to achieve our goals.
The seven proposed strategic principles are:
1. WE WILL SEEK TO STRIKE AN APPROPRIA TE BALANCE IN IMPLEMENTING OUR
RESPONSIBILITIES DEl WEEN A NA TION WIDE BASIS AND A GEOGRA PH/CALL V
TARGETED BASIS. WHENEVER FEASIBLE, WE WILL SEEK TO PLAN AND MAN
A GE WA TER QUALITY AND WA TER RESOURCES ON A WA TERSHED BASIS.
2. WE WILL SEEK TO DESIGN AND EMPLOY THE OPTIMAL MIX OF TOOLS AND
APPROA CHESS BOTH COMMAND-AND-CONTROL AND AL TERNA TIVES TO IT,
TAILORED TO SPECIFIC WA TER QUALITY GOALS AND PROBLEMS.
3. WE WILL ENDEA VOR TO STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY OF OUR NON-FEDERAL
PARTNERS. PRIMARILY S TA TES AND MUNICIPALITIES, TO MEET OUR SHARED
ENWRONMENTAL GOALS.
4. WE WILL USE RISK REDUCTION AS THE FIRST CRITERION FOR ESTABLISHING
ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN HEAL TH PRIORITIES AMONG COMPETING STA TUTO-
RY MANDA TES AND IN DECISIONMA KING RELA TED TO OPERA TIONS AND PRO-
GRAM IMPLEMENTA TION.
5. WE WILL PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICA TION OF SOUND, IMPLE-
MEN TABLE SCIENCE TO MEET THE AGENCY’S CURRENT PROGRAM REQ U/RE-
MENTS AND TO GUIDE FUTURE PROGRAM DIRECTIONS.
6. WE WILL SEEK TO INTEGRATE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS WITH OTHER SO-
CIETAL GOALS.
7. WE WILL ENSURE THA T THE WA TER PROGRAM’S WORKFORCE IS OF THE HIG-
HEST CALIBER, PRO VIDES LEADERSHIP AND EXPERTISE IN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONANO WE WILL MANAGES OUR FINANCL4L RESOURCES IN WAYS
THAT MEET ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS EFFICIENTL V AND EFFECTIVEL V.
12

-------
STRA TEGIC PRINCIPLE No. 1: We wt seek to stn e an appiopnate balance 1, imp!.-
menti g our tespcnsi ties betwean a natka,wkie basis
and a geog,8phicaly-taiyeted basis. Wherever feasiNe,
we w seek to plan and manage water quelty and
water IBSOWC8S w, a watershed basis.
Backgro.a’id: Early water pollution control and sources management programs were almost
all designed and implemented on a watershed basin approach, with a focus on the specific.
identified problems in each basin. Prior to the early 1 970’s, this approach led to a patch-
work of programs and activities that did not provide uniform national coverage and were
often not backed up with regulatory tools. In 1972 Congress attempted to codify this
approach in the Areawide Waste Treatment Management and Basin Planning Sections of
the new Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Sections 208 and 209, respectively), and
provided substantial grant funds to support this approach. Simultaneously, however, Con-
gress established for the first time national technology baseline standards for all industrial
and municipal point sources, backed by strong permit and enforcement programs.
With a rising public interest in toxic pollutants coming from industries, this nationwide
point source approach quickly came to dominate the water program, a trend that was
reinforced over the ensuing decades by a series of court cases and further legislative ame-
ndments. This momentum, combined with serious doubts over the effectiveness and
efficiency of the basin-planning approach, had all but killed the geographic approach by the
late 1 9 80’s.
By the early 1990’s a substantially renewed interest in basin or geographic approaches had
arisen, fueled by a recognition that even with general success in achieving nationwide
point source objectives, we were still not achieving ambient water quality objectives in a
majority of our waters. Similarly, thinking in the environmental community had begun to
shift from almost total reliance on nationwide federal “fixes” to a realization that involving
all the stakeholders in a specific geographic area is essential in dealing with the remaining
problems in water quality management. EPA too was moving in this direction, and in the
late 1980’s began to place increasing emphasis on Regional geographic initiatives, a gener-
al “Watershed Protection Approach,” and those statutory programs that have a geographic
focus such as the National Estuary Program.
In its November 1992 Phase Ill Report, the Water Quality 2000 coalition identified a water-
shed approach as one of the three key strategies comprising their recommended policy
framework.
Bane fits of the GeogiapMc A i’oach: Many of the benefits of employing a geographic
approach to water resource management are intuitive, but they need to be backed up by
empirical evidence gathered through experience. Among the more obvious benefits are:
facilitation of multi-media action
* enhanced ability to integrate analysis and program design across categories of
stressors, including physical habitat alteration
13

-------
• ability to take advantage of the full power of modern tools of analysis such as com-
puterized geographic information Systems
• significantly enhanced ability to engage the resources and authorities of State,
tribal, and local governments and other federal partners.
• enhanced ability to use the full array of tools ranging from command-and-control to
environmental education and economic incentives.
greater public interest and support because of a greater sense of ownership of
the resource.
• greater efficiency in the use of scarce dollar resources
Cñterie for Employing the Geographic Approach: As with any other approach or tool, the
geographic approach is not a panacea and will not necessarily be the right approach in
every case. While in the aggregate there appear to be significant benefits, the following
criteria should be considered in determining when and how to employ a geographic ap-
proach:
• compatibility with laws and regulations
• likely resource efficiencies to be obtained
* impacts on potentially competing nationwide activities
• availability and applicability of tools necessary for success in a geographic approach
• amenability of the environmental problem of interest to a geographic approach
• need for comparability and results data
App/ks lion of the Geographic Approach in EPA Water Programs: In the near term, the
water program will Continue to explore the application of this approach through the selec-
tion of a reasonable number of Regional watershed projects (See Framework Document.
dated October 28, 1991; signed by all four OW Office Directors); through general promo-
tion of the approach in partnership with States, conservation groups, and others; through
the further development of needed tools such as GIS and TMDL methodology; and through
enhanced support for programs such as the National Estuary Program and the Wellheàd
Protection Program.
In the longer term, consistent with our short term accomplishments, experience, and the
criteria outlined above, we will seek to make the geographic approach a central concept in
program design and implementation throughout the water program. In general, we believe
that over the longer run, EPA’s role will evolve along somewhat the following pattern:
14

-------
A targeted geographic approacJ will generally be followed for:
• certain waterbodies of national significance where an EPA lead role is needed (the
“Great Waterbodies”)
• problems that will require a targeted approach because we will not have sufficient
resources for a nationwide approach
• geographic areas, where EPA can play a vital role in promoting. coordinating, and
supporting a geographic approach
A nationwide approach will generally be followed for:
• developing science and tools that support States, tribes, local governments, indus-
tries, federal agencies. etc.
• overseeing nationwide point source programs to ensure maintenance of baseline
gains and pollution prevention
• initial implementation of new nationwide responsibilities such as stormwater and
sewage sludge management.
* developing comparability of data collection and environmental results reporting
A watershed approach that combines the benefits of geographic targeting with the appli-
cation of national baseline controls and standards, guided by local priorities, will be pro-
moted and supported across all U. S. watersheds.
15

-------
SThA TEGIC PRINCIPLE No.2: We w seek to des,&., and emp oy tbo optimal nux of
toai and approaches both comnw a, cwltra’ and
alternatives to it taloied to specific watw q aIty goth
and problems.
Backgroiaid. Since the early 1970’s, EPA’s water program has relied extensively on com-
mand-and-control approaches to water quality management. The traditional framework
has the optimal mix of been the development of nationally-applicable limits or standards,
incorporation of these into permits, and enforcement against violators (the latter employing
civil and criminal sanctiOns). This approach has also involved most activities being handled
through delegated State programs. Clearly, this approach has served the Nation well, and
we have made impressive progress in controlling pollution from industrial and municipal
point sources, ocean dumping, dredged material discharges, large-scale wetlands filling,
underground injection, and in treating public water supplies. This approach, however, has
not led to similar progress in a number of other important areas, such as ground water
protection, wet weather runoff pollution, habitat protection, the cumulative impacts of
development, and the management of small wastewater or water supply systems. This
shortfall has occurred because the traditional approach fails to work effectively for those
problems and/or EPA ’s concentration on traditional sources and solutions has deflected
attention from developing and applying alternative solutions.
Such alternative approaches are not specific techniques; rather they include any approach
that is distinctly different from the traditional command-and-control approach. Thus, alter-
native approaches may include any of the following, alone or in combination:
* information and education
• market mechanisms, such as trading
• monetary incentives and disincentives
• voluntary programs involving recognition
* general management practices (vs. limits or standards)
• alternative enforcement mechanisms, such as restoration or contribution to preser-
vation activities
• pollution prevention
* consultation and negotiation
• empowerment of local government and/or citizens
* land use planning and management tools
16

-------
Benefits of Alternative Approaches: The principal benefit of employing such alternative
approaches is the significantly increased flexibility afforded to tailoring solutions to prob-
lems. They provide the opportunity to fashion a holistic approach to any environmental
problem from protecting wetlands to ensuring safe drinking water for small communities.
Through these approaches we can tap the full range of human creativity, institutional
capability, resource availability, and technological capacity.
One of the key elements of many of these approaches is major involvement of all stakehol-
ders in fashioning programs and policies. This bottom-up approach helps ensure a level of
support and commitment that is rarely possible with classical top-down approaches.
Cdteaia for Employw,g Alternative Approaches: These techniques have broad applicability.
often as supplements or complements to command-and-control approaches. We should
seek to employ them whenever:
• they are not precluded by law
• they will likely prove more effective than command-and-control approaches in achie-
ving environmental goals
• they provide significant opportunities to involve stakeholders in solving environmen-
tal problems, and
• they will likely prove cost-effective in terms of EPA dollar and staff resources over
the long run.
Applcatktn of Alternative Approaches I, Water Programs. In the near term, the water
program will continue to rely extensively on command-and-control approaches in meeting
our statutory mandates and ensuring that we don’t risk losing the important gains we have
made in the last several decades. However, even in applying command-and-control ap-
proaches, there is opportunity to enhance our effectiveness through consultative or negoti-
ated rulemaking, aggressive outreach and education, and alternative enforcement penal-
ties. The water program will make every reasonable effort to supplement our more tradi-
tional approaches with these techniques.
Also, for the next several years, we will continue and expand our efforts to explore and
model alternative approaches through such projects as the point-nonpoint trading initiative.
pollution prevention projects, the Drinking Water program’s Mobilization Strategy, the
Wetlands program’s Private Landowner Initiative, the USDA/EPA Ag Pollution Prevention
Strategy and the Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program.
Over the longer run, the water program will move toward a greater balance among the full
range of potential approaches through seeking appropriate legislation and Administration
policy; revising policies, procedures, regulations, and guidance; and shifting dollar and staff
resources. Keys to success in making this change will be:
• avoiding precipitous changes that alarm and confuse stakeholders
17

-------
• taking care to demonstrate the benefits of any changes
• providing effective technology transfer to ensure that the new approaches work
• upgrading our systems of monitoring, information management, and program evalu-
ation to provide a better basis for adjusting our course as we move through this
evolutionary change
• providrng success stories to highlight accomplishments.
18

-------
STRATEGiC PRINCIPLE No. 3: we Wi evideavoo’ to strengthen die capcity of ow nen-
fade&peilneis. pnnaaity States ai ma* paIties, to
meet ow shared envi,o ,mentaI goals.
Backgrc&ait Over the last 1 5 years, States have taken on an increased share of the bur-
den of implementing a wide variety of our traditional programs (NPDES, construction
grants. drinking water, etc.). Some of our newer programs, such as nonpoint source and
ground water protection, are also requiring heavy State involvement. We are also realizing
that many of the more diffuse problems we are now grappling with, such as stormwater
and habitat protection, will be heavily dependent on the competence of local entities.
While States and localities will continue to be our primary non-federal partners, we must
continue to work with qualified Indian tribes as well as other federal agencies whose capa-
bilities and available tools will be important to our overall success. For purposes of this
discussion, capacity building refers not only to helping our partners work more effectively
at their current duties, but also working toward assumption of increased responsibility on
either an informal or formal basis, consistent with statutory requirements and interests.
For example, many cities have expressed an interest in assuming more direct responsibility
for the stormwater program, similar to the pretreatment program.
Federal grant resources, while still critical, are not expected to increase over the next
several years. This will increase the burden on States and localities to implement federal
requirements, and, potentially, increase the likelihood that States may opt to return dele-
gated programs to EPA, a situation that we are not able to handle effectively without a
major infusion of workyears and contract dollars.
Given these factors, it is incumbent that we place an extremely high priority on improving
both the capacity and capability of these critical partners if we are to effectively meet the
challenges of the next decade and beyond.
Benefits of fricreasi g Nen-fed l Capacity: While the general benefits of increasing non-
federal capacity are fairly obvious, specific benefits are as follows:
* a more competent and empowered workforce that is better able to understand and
implement programs consistent with federal statutory requirements and State prior-
ities
• in many cases, better and more informed decision-making due to greater under-
standing of local conditions -
* an enhanced ability to apply critical tools such as land use authorities not available
at the federal level to issues such as habitat protection
• a greater sense of ‘shared responsibility’ for the overall success of the water pro-
gram
• increased resources at the State and local level through the use of innovative fi-
nancing approaches
19

-------
• possible institutional changes at the State and local level to use their existing re-
sources more efficiently
• better coordination among relevant federal agencies
Cdteria 1 ’ Ap ’yi,g Nwi-fedeml Cipaclty Bi ig: Some baseline criteria that could be
considered include:
• a clear understanding between EPA and the States or municipalities identifying the
type of assistance or capacity building EPA will provide along with our expectations
from the recipient of the assistance
• consistency with current statutory mandates
• where there are clearly identified opportunities for greater risk reduction or im-
proved program efficiencies
• the ability to support or leverage tools and authorities not available at the federal
level
20

-------
STRA TEGIC PRINCIPLE NO. 4: We will use risk reduction as the first criterion for es-
tablishing ecological and human health priorities among
competing statutory mandates and in decision-making
related to operations and program implementation.
Background: In June 1991. the General Accounting Office published a report titled: ‘Mee-
ting Public Expectations with Limited Resources,’ documenting spending on environmental
protection over the last 20 years. The report states that U.S. industry and government
have spent close to $1 trillion on pollution control, with an additional $160 billion expected
annually by the year 2000. The report questioned whether these resources were being
used efficiently to attain the greatest environmental benefit. Amid these escalating eco-
nomic costs, EPA’s operating budget today (not including grants) is approximately what it
was in 1979 (in constant dollars). However, since 1979, EPA had to absorb substantial
increases in responsibility, including amendments to the SDWA and CWA.
Benefits of Risk-Based Priority Setting: Because responsibilities have grown faster than
funding, EPA has to decide whether to ‘do a little everywhere’ under all of its statutory
mandates, or pick priorities. The Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended priority
setting in order to make most efficient use of existing resources. To pick priority activi-
ties, the SAB recommended using relative risk as the metric for gauging program effective-
ness and guiding resource allocation. The benefit of the principle set forth by the SAB is
simple: greater overall environmental results can be achieved if the next available dollar is
directed toward the area of greatest risk reduction. The SAB recommended improved
characterization and recognition of ecological risks, in addition to human health risks, in
setting priorities.
Considerations for Employing Risk Based Priority Setting: While simple in theory, the prin-
ciple is extremely difficult in practice. One problem is scientific. We expect to see the
benefits of priority setting in some areas, but we do not have sufficient research or data
on relative risk reduction to support risk-based decisionmaking. This is especially true for
assessing ecological risks. Similarly, we need a better understanding of potential human
health and ecological trade-offs that may occur in setting priorities. Finally, there are polit-
ical and institutional pressures that discourage priority setting. To overcome these obsta•
des. the water program will need to improve methodologies for assessing risk reduction
and enhance data collection/mana9ement to support risk based decisionmaking. In addi-
tion, where we lack scientific knowledge or political support, we will conduct pilot projects
to demonstrate the feasibility and the benefits of risk-based priority setting. These pro-
jects will be used to develop policy and legislative alternatives that embody the priority
setting principle.
In the interim, while we work to overcome these obstacles, there are many creative ways
the water program can use risk based priority setting immediately. Geographic targeting is
one approach. Another approach is to work with States to identify priority activities to be
supported by federal grant funds. Leveraging resources on priority problems is third (e.g..
cross-media enforcement approaches). These approaches, to a greater or lesser extent.
can rely on risk reduction to establish priorities. In addition, the concept can be pursued
21

-------
through every day operations of our programs: our budget proposals, Congressional testi-
mony and correspondence, legislative positions, guidances, staffing plans, workplans, and
reporting/data collection, and our performance standards. We will inform and educate
Congress, industry, interest groups, and the public about the need for, and benefits of, risk
based priority setting through our day-to-day interactions and outreach and communication
activities.
Application of Risk Based Priority Setting in Water Programs: As a strategic principle, the
water program will emphasize current initiatives to set priorities. We will continue to con-
duct research and collect data on relative risk reduction to support future policy decision-
making based on risk, recognizing both ecological and human health risk. We will target
geographic priorities as defined by the Comprehensive Ground Water Program approach
and the Watershed Protection approach. The water program will work with States to
identify funding priorities for program implementation. Our enforcement initiatives will be
focused on risk reduction priorities. For establishing future program priorities, the simple
criteria below will be considered:
* Can greater overall risk reduction be achieved by focusing on priorities?
* Is there sufficient/convincing data of benefit from priority setting?
• Is statutory interpretation defensible?
• Will the public accept? (or can the public be educated to accept?)
The water program will also apply the priority-setting concept to operational activities.
Examples of this range from the highly visible to the mundane. A visible example is our
budget proposals. However, day-to-day functions should also reflect priorities — meeting
agendas, speaking engagements, performance standards.
22

-------
STR4 TEGIC PRINCIPLE NO.5: We wa p.”omote the devciopment and applcation of
sca,d, hnen,entab#e science to meet th. Agency’s
current piogram teqiiiements and to future pm-
gram .IrecdonL
Backgi w Since the 1960’s, the water science program has moved from solving a
limited set of problems in a limited set of waters to one that is solving a broad range of
complex problems in categories of U.S. waters, including ground water and wetlands, and
addressing cross-media aspects of water quality decisions. Initial efforts focused on the
more visible sources of pollution such as organic loadings, solids, oil, and grease and then
shifted to toxics and complex mixtures of pollutants. The water program in general has
also moved from a program with few statutory deadlines to a program with many rigid
deadlines that drive the program’s actions.
Developments in two areas have also significantly affected the scientific underpinnings of
the water program. First is the science of risk assessment used to estimate risk to human
health and the environment from exposure to contaminants. Second is our ability to mea-
sure pollutants in the environment at an increasing level of precision. The evolution of
methods and capabilities within these two scientific disciplines has significantly advanced
the sophistication of scientific analyses used to manage the water program.
Congress significantly amended the CWA and SDWA in 1987 and 1986, respectively, and
broadened the scope and complexity of the science and technology needed to support the
national regulatory programs. Congress, in the CWA, also placed increased emphasis on
controlling the nonpoint source contributions to water quality impairment. As a result, the
water program’s science agenda in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s placed emphasis on:
• new scientific methodologies, criteria, and standards for reducing the effects of
toxic pollutants on human health and aquatic life
• new risk assessment methods and development of criteria to support the setting of
drinking water standards for over 83 contaminants
• technology-based solutions for controlling toxic discharges from additional catego-
ries of industries
• new methods for assessing the impacts of and setting standards for use and dis-
posal of municipal sewage sludge, and -
• new methods for characterizing the contributions and impacts of nonpoint sources
on water quality.
Since 1990, our focus has been further influenced by two Science Advisory Board (SAB)
reports which emphasized the importance of:
• sound science in decision-makir”
23

-------
• Agency programs working together to reduce risk to the environment and to human
health; and
• giving ecological risk reduction the same level of emphasis as human health risk
reduction.
These directions and influences have shaped a water program that is committed to ensur-
ing the effectiveness of the national regulatory programs and developing new science and
technology to control unaddrossed sources and pollutants.
A Ecetion of Sdence 1, the Watei’Prog,am: As the water science program moves to-
wards the 21 ‘ Century, we must provide technical information and tools that allow States,
the regulated community, and the public to understand and apply the methods, criteria,
and standards to environmental systems. This includes updating science and adapting
technologies as appropriate to keep the foundation of our program solid as well as employ-
ing or modifying these approaches when appropriate for new problems. Specifically, the
water program is committed to:
• developing science, methods, models, and other tools to:
- better identify, assess, and quantify risks
- evaluate load and waste load allocations, total maximum daily loads, and
other tools to assess environmental exposure, fate, and transport issues in
support of geographically-based programs
* incorporating new and revised risk assessments into decisions
• enhancing ecosystem protection, including evaluation, and management of cross
media impacts, and
• placing increased emphasis on pollution prevention.
The water science program is also committed to advancing science and technology to
reduce risks associated with unaddressed sources or unregulated pollutants. Some of
these unaddressed problems are:
• human and wildlife consumption of contaminated fish and degradation of aquatic
ecosystems with the primary source being contaminated sediments -
• degradation of surface waters from nutrient enrichment which depletes oxygen
levels, and
* - sedimentation which destroys benthic ecosystems and other aquatic habitats (e.g..
fisheries).
24

-------
Reducing risks from these sources or pollutants will be a challenge because the solutions
will require understanding the contributions and impacts of multiple and diverse sources
and pollutants on a given ecosystem. Solving these problems and others such as cross-
media impacts requires innovative and pioneering analytic methods, measurement method-
ologies, models, etc. and, therefore, places competing demands on investments in science.
Renefits of Appled Science: Advancing our scientific understanding of water pollution and
its control allows us to develop results-oriented and defensible programs for substantially
reducing the most serious threats to human health and the environment. Sound science is
fundamental to the credibility of and public confidence in the Agency’s decisions and ac-
tions.
Continued investments in the development and application of new methodologies, guide-
lines, and criteria will enhance the Agency’s ability to better identify risk, and to protect
human health and ecosystems. Applied science will increase our understanding of ecologi-
cal processes and complex multi-media problems and help the Agency identify where and
how to effectively employ pollution prevention techniques. Lastly, such investments will
provide the basis for new policy choices and decisions, technological innovation, and en-
hanced risk reduction opportunities.
Cifted. 1.ii D.vekpi g and Esnp oyr g App&èd Science: As we move toward the 21 ‘ Cen-
tury, we must make careful choices about where we make our science investments. Giv-
en a budget climate that is likely to support minimal new resources at best, our decisions
on science investments must be more closely tied to relative risk to the environment and
human health. This will not be easy given that we will face continuing:
• external pressures to develop criteria and standards in support of a national regula-
tory framework for controlling toxic pollutants in surface and drinking water regard-
less of their risk; and
• difficulty in gaining public understanding and acceptance of relative risk.
Therefore, our criteria for making investments must also consider the States’, local gove-
rnments’ and the regulated community’s capacity to implement scientific advances; EPA
capacity to deliver implementation assistance to them; and EPA’s ability to communicate
the risks and benefits associated with our approach to the public. It is vital that the water
program’s decisions be based on sound scientific principles and current, accurate, and
timely data. The water program is committed to that end. -
25

-------
STRA TEGIC PRINCIPLE NO.6: We wJ seek to iltegrate ou’ env,tcnmental goat with
other societal goa&
Backg,r aid If there was ever a time when this nation — or any other for that matter —
could afford to consider environmental protection in isolation from societal goals, those
days have ended. According to recent Agency figures, the United States spends well over
$100 billion annually to comply with federal environmental laws and regulations. While
policy makers and the public-at-large are cognizant of the benefits of environmental protec-
tion, they are also concerned over the economic impact of federal environmental laws and
regulations, particularly their burdens on businesses and individuals. These regulations
have in many cases dramatically improved environmental quality, in other cases they have
not fully achieved environmental goals, or have done so at costs that are higher than nec-
essary. Consequently, greater attention is being given to cost-effective environmental
policies; policies that are moving programs from almost exclusive reliance on command-
and-control regulation to the use of economic incentives. Economic incentives are not a
panacea; used appropriately, however, they can achieve environmental goals at the lowest
possible cost, more effectively reduce pollution from large numbers of small dispersed
sources, and provide a greater stimulus for innovation and technological change.
B&,effts There is a move to incul-
cate an environmental perspective at the heart of all decisions in economic sectors and
strengthening environmental agencies. From the view of an environmental agency, this
means external integration into agricultural, energy, transportation, and manufacturing
decisions around these sources of pollution as well as around geographical regions. Putt-
ing the environment at the core of decisions in economic sectors means:
• rethinking goals
* broadening constituencies
• gaining new skills
• gathering new kinds of data, and
• considering longer time frames
Currently, a very small proportion of the public and private resources spent on the environ-
ment is used to change our agricultural, energy, manufacturing, or transportation technolo-
gies so that they are fundamentally less polluting and damaging. For instance, only 2 per-
cent of governmental agricultural research funds go to research on sustainable farming
systems. The product and the process designer is just beginning to become as involved in
environmental decisions as the engineer at the “end-of-the pipe.”
Economic incentives frequently offer a cost-effective alternative to regulation, and may be
especially useful as the Agency, in general, and the water program specifically deals with a
large number of smaller, diffuse sources of pollution, such as nonpoint sources.
26

-------
Cdtena fo, App#yitg frstegi ticn of &wi,onmental and Economic Concerns: Except for
some experiments with trading between point and nonpoint sources of water pollution in
the mid-i 980s, EPA’S use of economic incentives has been very limited outside of the air
program. However, the water program views the watershed protection approach as an
initiative that will promote trading as a cost-effective compliance tool.
In addition, the proposed establishment of a discrete “Benefits and Incentives Staff” within
the Headquarters component of the water program will contribute significantly to under-
standing the relationships and interdependencies of the environment and the economy --
both national and global. This staff will conduct across-the-board analyses of the benefits
and costs of water programs and, in turn, these analyses will help us to prioritize scarce
and thinly-spread water program resources.
27

-------
STRA TEGIC PRINCIPLE NO. 7: We W i ensure that the wale, program’s woi*fcc•
of the hi )est ca5bea’ provWes Ieadeish4, axpest .
it enb*cvlmentDJ protection ai manages Thian l
,esowces 1, ways that meet enwunnn,ental conumY-
ments efficiently and effectivdy.
Backgmi.td: The mission and work of the water program is far more complex and the
problems facing the water program of the future are, in many cases, intractable. The
water program’s success will depend in large measure on our ability leadership and exper-
tise to adapt our human resources and management policies and practices to support ap-
proaches to newer and still emerging risks to public health and the environment.
Benefits of this Approach: The water program is committed to building a culturally di-
verse workforce with individuals who possess high levels of managerial, scientific, and
technical skills to solve increasingly complex problems. By fostering a customer orienta-
tion and a sense of “ownership” at all levels of the water program’s organization, we will
promote not only “continuous improvement” tenets of Total Quality Management (TOM)
but also lay the foundation for “changing the way we do business”, i.e., the longer-term,
more profound, results of the application of TQM tools, which have the capacity to elicit
creative contributions from all employees and to streamline processes for greater efficien-
cy. Moreover, our emphasis on quality will support the attention on contracts and acquisi-
tion management and reduce the water program’s vulnerability in this area.
Our success also hinges on our ability to establish or strengthen internal programmatic
relationships as well as across EPA programs and externally with other governmental, non-
governmental and international stakeholders. Flexibility in organizational structure and pro-
cedures provides an essential framework for the successful implementation of our risk
reduction, pollution prevention, geographic targeting, capacity building and other initia-
tives.
Applcatlon of dà Approach: While all senior managers in the water program have had
TQM training and are implementing aspects of TOM in day-to-day operations, we will
initiate specific activities to ensure:
• focusing on our customers
• integrating our management systems
• improving accountability and performance measurement processes
• addressing unmet funding needs for the water program
• enhancing information/data collection, management, and accessibility
• fostering international cooperation
• strengthening environmental education and outreach
28

-------
STRI4 TEGIC ISSUES
Identifying strategic issues is one of the core activities of the water program’s strategic
planning process. A strategic issue is defined as a fundamental policy choice affecting an
organization’s mission, goals and values, product or service level and mix, clients, as well
as its resources and management. The purpose of this step in the strategic planning pro-
cess, therefore is to identify the basic policy choices facing the water program. The way
these choices are framed has a significant effect on the decisions that define what the
water program’s mission is, what it does -- goals and indicators --, and how it does it, i.e.,
strategic principles.
Typically, the identification of strategic issues is one of the riveting steps for participants
in strategic planning. As a result, the Strategic Planning Steering Committee designed this
step to include a high level of involvement by all senior managers in the water program.
The issues, identified by water program managers, involve base programs (e.g., drinking
water, wetlands, point source controls) as well as cross-cutting initiatives such as water-
shed protection, and funding. The base programs have produced major water quality gains
over the last two decades. Although relatively mature, they continue to grow and evolve
and to promise new levels of environmental benefits (and compliance costs). The cross-
cutting initiatives have emerged as we have worked to integrate water programs and
connect them to related efforts both within and outside EPA. Building on gains produced
by the base programs, these initiatives are designed to enhance EPA’s ability to assure the
physical and biological as well as chemical integrity of the nation’s waters. They envision
the use of water base programs to leverage environmental resources and authorities of
other EPA and federal, state, and local jurisdictions and private interests; they also create
opportunities for EPA to assume a leadership role in the development of holistic approach-
es to environmental problems, both regionally and nationally.
These strategic issues and a brief definition of each issue are presented in random order
and do not reflect any prioritization scheme by the water program. In fact, we expect
extensive discussions with our major stakeholders before a limited set is selected.
- WA TERSHED PROTECTiON APPROACH
What should be the water program’s goal for implementing this approach? -
What is the appropriate process for targeting EPA funds and assistance to high-priority
watersheds?
What mechanisms currently exist or need to be established to provide States with flexibili-
ty and support to reorient their water program on a watershed basis?
What role should EPA assume in relation to other stakeholders (federalT, State, local) with
water resources responsibilities?
29

-------
WET WEA THER RUNOFF: NONPOINT/STORMWA TER SOURCES
How do we work effectively with the regulated community (especially agriculture and
development) to develop flexible and effective controls?
How can we most effectively mix traditional and nontraditional controls in this area?
Given the different nature of these programs, what role should EPA play?
GROUND WA TM PROTECTiON
How can the water program provide leadership for this Agency program and participate
fully -- through deference to State authorities and coordinated policies - - in integrating its
various programs with the Agency-wide comprehensive approach to protecting ground
water?
SM4LLIDISAD VANTA GED SYSTEMS/COMMUNITIES/ENTITIES
Should the water program develop special programs, regulations, and enforcement pro-
grams for small or disadvantaged systems/communities? How would we tie this into the
environmental equity initiative?
Should we focus on helping these entities comply with existing requirements or on provid-
ing appropriate regulatory relief?
Should we focus more on enlisting the support of outside parties to help us?
USE OF WETLANDS FOR SURFACE WA TM AND WASTE WA TM TRE4 TMBVT
How can the water program best define where the use of wetlands makes sense? Should
this definition apply to natural wetlands or constructed wetlands or both?
Should EPA proceed with the concept of categorization of wetlands by function, value,
scarcity, replaceability, and/or other factors? If yes, how?
How can EPA strengthen public/private partnerships and voluntary programs with land-
owners?
FUNDING FOR WA TM PROGRAMS
Should EPA seek to obtain additional funding for water programs? If so, which ones (e.g..
States, local, drinking water systems, wastewater treatment,nonpoint source manage-
ment, watershed protection, wetlands restoration, contaminated sediment remediation.
scientific research, data management, public information and education)?
What level of investment should be made to make measuring our strategic goals a reality?
30

-------
FUNDING FOR WA TER PROGRAMS (CONTiNUED)
Which combination of funding approaches are realistic and likely to provide needed reve-
nues (e.g.. trust fund, product fees, effluent fees, water use fees, privatization, etc.)?
Should funding for water programs be pursued primarily through reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act or should other approaches be considered?
If other, what are they?
NPDES PROGRAM
How can we maintain the gains made through the existing program while addressing the
challenges from newer programs, such as stormwater, sludge, and CSOs?
What innovative approaches need to be investigated to bring greater efficiency to the base
program and a greater focus on risk reduction in our newer programs?
What steps can EPA and the States take to generate additional funding for the program?
REMEDL4 nON AND RESTORA T1ON 1h’ck g se m ’,ts)
Should the water program seek a central and major role in remediation and restoration of
degraded aquatic ecosystems?
If yes, what should it be?
WATER QUANTITY M.4NA CEMENT
Should EPA pursue a more active role in water quantity management?
If yes, what should it be?
DE OCEAN DISPOSAL
Should EPA continue to maintain a posture of resisting the use of deep ocean as a reposi-
tory for all types of waste?
INIFJINA TIONAL ACTIVITIES
Should the water program be involved in international activities to the extent established
by the Office of International Affairs (OIA) or be leaders and set the direction for future
involvement?
Should our emphasis be on technical assistance or should the water program focus on
developing an approach for building the human infrastructure necessary to implement
effective programs, using the Agency for International Development’s approach as a
model?
31

-------
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTA TION
Concurrent with the effort to obtain the water program’s stakeholders review and recom-
mended revisions to this draft strategic plan, we will also be conducting extensive discus-
sions within EPA as well as other federal agencies, especially on how they can assist us in
both the development and implementation of our strategic plan. The Strategic Planning
Steering Committee expects to complete this phase of the plan development process in
late spring/early summer 1993 and issue a revised version of the strategic plan by the end
of fiscal year 1993.
As discussed earlier, this strategy is not intended to be a paper endpoint to our process.
Rather it is a beginning from which a number of related actions will flow. Specifically,
• Strategic Issues . A manageable set of strategic issues will be selected based upon
their relative importance to the water program. For each of these, we will establish
an appropriate EPA workgroup to thoroughly analyze and develop the issue and to
formulate recommendations for action. Results of these activities will be used
directly in program development and operations,and will be incorporated into future
versions of the strategic plan.
• Goals . We will continue to participate actively in the EPA Environmental Goats
Project with the objective of assisting in the development of appropriate overall
Agency goals and establishing more focused/detailed environmental goals and ob-
jectives for the water program.
• Accountability Measures . The strategic plan — especially the environmental goals
and objectives — will be used as a partial basis for the formulation of accountability
measures for use in program reporting and evaluation.
• Proaram Strategies . Many individual organizational entities within the water pro-
gram will develop strategic plans for individual programs or groups of pro-
grams/activities administered by a particular organizational unit (Region, Office,
Division, or Branch). This strategic plan will be used to guide and inform those
planning efforts — including annual work plans. Additionally, as appropriate the
results of those planning efforts will be incorporated into the overall water prog am
plan.
• Budgets . The strate9iC plan will serve as a touchstone with regard to general prin-
ciples, directions, and goals in the formulation of water program budgets for fiscal
year 1995 and beyond.
• Lea/slat/on . Similarly, the strategic plan will serve to guide and inform water pro-
gram participation in the formulation of revision of legislation affecting the program
32

-------
• Building an Ethic . The current strategic planning process will serve as a foundation
for incorporation of the principles and practices of strategic management into the
water program. The goal is to make strategic management a normal and routine
aspect of water program business, rather than something viewed as an event or a
paper product.
Throughout all of these activities, the water program will continue to seek broad stake-
holder input and participation in the planning process and we will strive to incorporate the
goals, needs, and constraints of our partners and constituents into our strategy insofar as
it is realistic.
The Strategic Planning Steering Committee will remain in operation to guide these efforts
and to serve as a central focal point and forum for the many activities that flow from or
relate to strategic planning.
33

-------
ATTACHMENT A
WATER STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
AGENCY VISION!
GOALS
MEASURABLE
GOALS &
OBJ ECflVES
OPERATIONAL
PLANS &
ACTIONS
-
C,
z
GD
L
WATER
ifOW WE WANT
TO DO IT
j - BUDGET
J FORP tULATION
WATER
STATUTORY
& OTHER
MAN DATES
WHAT WE WANT
TODO
GUPDPNG
PRINCIPLES
(GENERIC)
STRATEGI C
CHOICES &
DIRECTIONS
(PROGRAMMATIC)

-------
The Water Program
Strategic Goals and Indicators
January 21, 1993

-------
Ari
O’rV L,:i’,roiiiiiøi’i;kiI Ini/icijlor.c Junuaiy 21, 1993
Human Health: Safe DrinkingWater, Safe Fish & Shellfish, and Safe Aquatic Recreation
I)nnku:g Waler
li.r (b .wl.nal
S it, Iiniik.aj % itri 1 .1 un A n si in rn p ipIr fling piuSuc wit., lysuem’.
nil Ii . . , 1 . ltn.p nil, i .1.1.141. Ih.U on.. I all . i .l Sltunb. .l. by Ihi yin, — —
I .i.i,ii.l S. II. liii .a r° ‘ u l (In lo ll ,otiiilltsI . t ,. . ,,I.I hi mItt-led In, lulurt USc
I II It IS ft t .I I
l ’ . s
I rtb..mn—.n
Sill ( Ii , .
l,i,l.. W. ,..
llK,lw., l.a..
.i._,oi. ,j. ri , 1 .h (.
.P,,..,... Iil,W..i , I M .a*

• I.i ilsi S........
n aIi . .-,II
in
L ii i L.J1_JLJLJ I I . ‘liii by ii i huh. .1 11 Ip .
I I. • l. hi. .1 1w I c s - c l
I A.luiiii,s ills, 1 . 1111. I il’lut.,lllo I II ii
iiii ziii : izii 11
T Ier One
4.Itwi Water hit W all et, a/the U.S tin hadnig Ink,, u- a , cr c .lrrnml mid hay. ,w, dea,, and
safe for Inuorn . lcc.tahl .n. ondf ,Iiu and wI -wFIfi .h • ..nIwnj4u,n mid si .pp fl Ilcalihy lish awl wuIiIIilc
Sife load In cm.Jnrwion with Ii, Ie sk.rw iI pant. so PA rCdjscs hi, C,nnarnlfl,dlrn .1 Io.nI ,n
flood iumiuci . by hannroj chemit-al, hnmiluI hwjw ns sonj.c, In , i il .ci data-s.. tanKing ogonism.
L_ - Fish & Shell ash -
,..u- ,. .., .... ,.. ‘ . , (n I i 1 I —— — I
I lliIIt 5S I i... ...
i ..d liwn r i u —.w..,.u I. l,p,l . . . w
I — . ... I I ...—.. i. i. I j .
1 •.IP , ‘. I . . ..0... Ic, . . 1 ,
Lh ,iWK ,w .. )i ° I(\i..l. . i .l ..rn Sa.,, ,i .l1i .ol• —
UOuiUci UUi iUuu UUuiUU uuL Ü*
la o. ansi , I l.On.t.., h .th. las law S.
s-i, AK.... . , . —‘11.1 ..h II ,S .y d. 1 ii . .! II, , , .. , t S r .. .S,
I J .n a .s o . I .l I. .,t . I Sl .nlll ,slu Idol I ‘ - I, nI SI.. Ill ,.’.
I L .,ll.nn,,l . . (k. . y , I
II, . .in.. IIrailh
‘wia ,o . I • hat. Sa. . . 19 ht.m Snarl..
iOSh • I ‘°‘ “i S 1 iiI% lb Wli 5
SJFIRIT,W,c. • I f s liiirr/wris • I
IMM I I I 1 )111. 5 S
1151 liSlil IMAP
$ (i’.I NI ui)
( k ., S.nsu-m. - I (l i l a- Pa n .- . ., l id .. can. ,,.
l i lIAn 14501 0 (4IIAA 14501 • I MOnA (1St 0 ills S
1151 WS pit ( (PP I 1151W ’. 541 1111 I Ni l /IA N’.&1 •
L -- - -
Beneficial f/ce-c I tch and ¶heI finh Can ’ .iampttwin
(kim. Watt, IS. . .ns,rs .4 IS, ((S in, lothnj lake.
iltt I streaM, I .i,.,f (siss ,,rf dm 11 m d soft $ , ‘ , (vu,,,,..
i-c, rc a ,and rr .h.,mt chcIlO4 , ss ’nc ivniplnso mit
suppoul heilihy flsh ustI ‘nuidlifie
Hy She year — 1 rI Ihr Water s KilfipI ‘il the woK
111.11 SI I?, I FM’., t14siflm ,.dlc.J I, . , thu-tn
I --—-- - 1
Sib, l . I ..S I
I I “- ‘ ..— ‘ .- ‘ . ‘ . ‘o •StiS l ia-s •i.. fl•
TI5 P ’ i I E JUU
ll,n.t k , .,ni . 11,, , ,,.. ia l nr w S s I
I M.Iuoi Sn. . l .o .I I
i i . ,,,,saI.-..i . .
I pmnt us nn . .so
I lilihu 0
I*FMwca wrrt. mA ,,
I ‘. M OIInsI I I . tIll P
I i iqnrl...e l . .I She lInsllh
I L_ I
L _ - -
[ Beneficial Sites 1
j ‘swimming and .Sernndary(.ontactl
(S .Lui,i ., V iiI..lili 1 1 1 1W item Is uumipin mvtrIlt Ill
liomilcil lii,, iv ilalsit ,M,Sv
in, ,IaI. . ,,v.tul bit now
lb. mn.i.t.
ii . II, l ’ s ash.-
I ,lW ,n. .fl ,I
IiLK., .nhbI..i
b_li .5K_h., I l l
n . s . a.
uuuulu
b..’. a...,
l,i..ll,.iu,.—m—
i,.I,b.,.
lid...,.. %.._.,_.
I Iul ’St
I l -,I tins. S,._,,,.
t n / I ,, Snnmi.
III I
IS A .. S....,.
.,, ‘ .- “Ill.
1 .1
fll 4 thin S .. ,r,,
(tOW Sn.. .,.
I It I
Ib ,uefia i ntl lint Shrinking Water I
r — 1 ‘nVc t.ut S d h,usciui,c .111(1 IlegilI II) ru. ’ [ Ktl III I Y 4
I I CllIk t luIttilully 1W hit L ’Cti.llIk leg s lii’. s t lilt
L _J gcn r.uphiit .Irc ,I ’. or spec ill resilur, C lype

-------
DIV I P1t’lrOlI 1U’flF(Il Ifl ’/i( ator.s
r
PIn I)p , , ’I.,..I Ils U.. s, ., .4,1 op...I, , I ,ea . sI ,. ,Iln . ,b. , ,lihp
•,,hs..t Is ‘I ol .ll .1,111 I iS 5 l .,l — Ils l W yr — — 1111.4 1
p.Ilrutt..i SI P11 1 .111 ii in $11.11 ‘.1 1 1 .,.hS I,, . , 111111.. inhitnI hy _%
I I . . I . . ‘
I ,, — , . , I I , , ,. . , .A
I .. . ... ... , ,... I i .i...i... a I , ,4 . . , .. . Ills. C..,...
• ‘I II I. ,. . II . — •1• •• I . I l.a.. I, , —
I ‘ ‘ “ ‘‘• “ b . ‘lb.
I I - • .l . 5. 1.1
‘— ‘: ‘
I UUUL)Uu tJUUUUiJII LlU Uuu UuUuuu
I • , , — l — I , 115 —
I l_Il . ,... I .1,, . .— it .1. ii
I I ’....a
I S I p l . 1 I ’
I — II I ! 1:1.1. III Ill
I i
I lfit a.a,S,., — l Ir ,t...s. .. .. ft
111111 1S i i ‘ at .__,l •.. ‘ • • •*a.s , ., S
p I • I I I_I 011111 I
I ‘ ‘ I• 1 11 1
I ‘ •‘ .1 I’’ I I I .
I tI 1 Ip• I ‘1,,.. . .. I
• ‘.b..s... I IS.. S . .. . if ‘.,-.. 11.4., 5..,...
I I
I_JI..Jt_Jl...i1.JL_J ii.’ I ..i
I I I 5 I • Iu , .I,, III . II SI I
I \ •I lII,IIllIIIt,,, I ’ SIll I i i , lIlql,I.rlIII I
DRAFT
Resource Protection: Improve Ambient Conditions; Reduce Loadings
l’sii,it Source I ading
I0ADIN(;s
J
Nonpoini Source Loaduzg
r 1
l4lIn I. .l. . .I 11.6.
Hrb*e N .•q 1 . .M,l ‘IblIf ‘01*11.1., l I .OtrlnV th . ’q .I ...l .1... fr
.,.q. • ,...p IS. & . .p 1 .111,’ ‘ ,11 , . . .I .I..I,a . ..I.I- 41. .5. I .. . 5 5...
I l p 15 .. —.. r”—” .• . lI * I .
h—-—- I
,uauuuu LIULiULiUI uu•uuu uuu.uu
I l 1? 1• l i• •l 5 i1II• W I l! .II l .iIle .Cl I,...,N •F’
I H.. III II . ,. U i. . ,.I SI I•I l&
I I FI’. t c_n..
I ,, ,, p ,..I I MM I
I I l 1 1 p,, , ._ ,O I
I PI I IIISSI ..,, 1 ,._ . . . I
I I t _ c . .....
-
IPA l . 4 5..,...
I 1 IWF S , 1p I . , 1 1
I ,, 0
O11LS
I0 . .n, 0 1.. , . . ., 0
l n S . . . ,.,
IlPU .5 NA 0.1)0
151011.1
P1 . 1 A4 spu, l S
IFS (aa . 5... .. . ,
I IlAI ’I
1 1 . 1 1 1..p ,_IO
1111,1 S S I P H I l . 41.1
0 . 0 1 .1
- c _ I .
lea S NAWI)fl
Sf01l
01114, NIlISS
Ground Waler [ Sedimentc
‘4 .4th. ....i,. ’.ojy...vt th, Ilirl ISI S, %,€Up , I, .,Ied, .IgnOlrd( . .r fArm
———- . —— —-
II I I ,. 1*11 —
—p IIPII.l ,tre. I. .
Oh, I .., . .I 4 I m . . . . . . . . l . I .
* I’. r ’ I p .
I - - - —-_ —
S II_ l . II Ik e I . .,.t...I
— Is 1111 HIll I I II I 111,1 ‘1 .11 ‘. 11, 1,1 11.11,1. III , 1W l 11515 II , . ,, Sill, •I1l 5S4ItdIIS , ’I
p-—— - —--p -
u•uuuu uuuuuu uuu•uu i uuu•uu i uuu•cju
I i , . . , , ,_ ._ I , . .,- I
I — 1.5 , ,. .I I s —. .I nI. w_.I, , ... I I II ’ . I I . . . . .
— • 1 . 1 . 1 I . .. .. S .I. .,l. ‘ ‘I l ’ ’ I
‘.5.. ....
SI 1114 I
ff4 I_ 5••*• i 5— H PA 15.4. 5.I.. I ;p41 . . ..c......
5110.11• II . . _ . J I 1101 I Si l l , .i I ‘• •P4 (. S .. . ... P I
Ill 111111, I 1 ‘05411 I II ’I 110.115 I
IrIS I ’ wiu,S I 104,1. I ‘ 0 ’
MPS . . ., I 4 511141110.115 I 5111111110.115 3
4 I
oa c.. ’.. . 11.4.. S . . i 11*.. 5...... I 06., P1_m.. I 11.4,. c_WI.
WlIIII• I ‘.4 S N0 ’ .l) 5P1 i I I ISIlS O l 015 . 41 I
SI., I i
0. 4 1 . 1 . 4 1 .1 ... 1 . 0 I j I
L
• till I is s IjI1I • II,1 It tIP’. uI.pr..sc .01111
I • Iiii, ,Ital till) is.iiljl’Is III ’ S
i () 111111.11,1 ava,I. ,hk ui, ,s.
1 ’- — 1 • ,5,1 1.111 S Al Itasi lulls .t .uI I gill IiIItplIIl 1111 V’lI
I I tiII iii lIMlll.4115 Ill it,j ttll.llIl 115741.15 5455 ili
L — I ,rS . ’zr.IIJ.ls .114 .15 111535 illS II ‘41111 (1 (5(5
AMBIENT CONIMTIONS
Surface Water
- IIov(I..(.nil
I Iran Wale, 11.r 1.4(1 (14 the 1) in. ludant hair. rite,. Itl(flfltI wad 11,1.1 H Ill
.4111 ‘.tr 10 1,b0 1.41, lIIlC 1lflll And 11,1141.11 ,hrilIlsl, ,l.nea..,çw.on 1I.11 s ,q . w .rI healihy 11,5.
i,I ea ,ldI,Ie
IS. tb , , , 11 .
January 21. 1993

-------
UUUUIJU UIXJOD•
t lad ,. a.,. l . .d,r oM,
11. 1 .11 0,
I l l i’ flhl ’l I I I lli•lIIill I I ., II
i Ill 1.5 l iii. • •.s linI ’I M l
lit 11cC. Scan,. I I’t lCak i taunt,
t I i’,I . . 1111 lS0’ .Il II I I P
I MM P I 1.1 SI P
I tIll l I .I SI iIRI uP
a la S., %., . ,,,.,
NIIAA liNk P
NIIAS N’ .Sl P
I NIIAA liii
I ISI StS NI Ill P
1151.5 NAlAl)5
I 1,1 WI. I II ii
(I_i LI Ii L..J LI U ii. iu.ui , ..i li i lii.it .iis
I 2 I I S a • liii .. itt. I I
I —AuI .i .uuisuu ilisu (. 11111 I i lillIllIlt 11111
ZO.TIer r010 i.a -
fly 1110 al — hi Ii ’
Stale, .i.ock .p Will I
quality ‘ t int 1 liii’
I lWI W( hi 1i 1* t .1 1.0
p la u isl. a ill ‘ i ii , l l.I s
ci•oDuo
Indi cator
Nwi.h, I iii Si Its ilIi Wl)S
fl ,I u, .fl l(, ii h i flSisl
r’ ” 0.t. I l aIS
(PA lick, S..., ,,
, TIII
us ‘1. . a ,ns,00 U. . 1 hocllhy p.qaliaII..flO .011
las iii w,llaa,I I I . . , . an . I lalOla l .a. IIOfl.&I nhtr (J.IS I
.1 1,1 I i It ha iti nil’
Ill IS. l i ii rosuuli that Choir age hi oilily g .cnrl .lkp.
, l I , l I I l O I I I• l I I .1 w tl . .ni — .15111 ‘t il
il..,h. IO Itd.pllIyI
ciuouoi
Ind,, ol o,
11011 1 ..luI a.SIuI.ol
OW l ,I ’jr(,lg,fl(’,ll(I! lndl( (110 1.5 DRA Fl
f Ecological Protection: Healthy Fish and Wildlife Populations
I hr One (;i,als
Inland Surface Waters, Ground Water, Estuaries, Near coastal and Marine Waters 1
(‘lean Waler Thc waIcr’ of Ihc U S . including lakes. nvcrs. sIrcalus. and hays. arc dean anti sale for human rcrcalion and lish .utd shclllish tonssifllplu)fl and
/4lllld( 1IV 2!, 1993
--
Wetlands
csl/lporl l,ealilivficl: and 14 lid/lie
Ftu Iisgual rro lt lion Pntlcti and restore cntis .aI hahilals suih as wel lands. csluancs, lakes, and cIrcanic
(oncerve and cnhant .c hiodivcrsity. including gcncln. rcsourccs. spccics. and c oIogftaI systems
Ii)— lii r I tao ( .i. I lit hit h ir e .I ’ .uur( liii lit .hiiIIy I 5 jil lItthiIIIc .tiitl (ilill! IIIIIIIi 1CS iii 11511 111.11. ritiiivcriehr,uhts i)
11111,11 .uuiii *t u lui lult I 5 1 51 III iiiSIJZII.Iht(I .llt ’.lS I
= =
ouooo• I ouuuo•
Indica t or I ad,,nk,, I nd , c c l.,
I 14.1 II It.c*ta, & W.iiil,Ii
I ‘h . .. ii silo, I . . .. I I . ,q .hyI..n
I Asi. l ,ihI 1 r’
(i’.i lick, See n,. (Pt 11cC. ‘I. . , , . (I ’S lid ,, S. .,,,,
IMAI P
111111.11.11 15 (1 i P I
I ( iS,, ‘I. c .r .,
IPSIW ’ litSi 0
ash,, Sean,,
NIltit IMIS P
SIlAS N’ .,SIP
Stilt’)
l ithe, tn,r, ,
liSi IS l .nrsl ,l,-0., P
I t Si WI. III .1 I)
(Rh,, Sa.nn
Rcowsh
tnsld iIioos$
SIC., W le ,
Q .uI .Iy Is.. , .. ..P
— -I
It. ti 51 II
II 11 151111 II i ’I I i Ill
I UCJL •UU
I led 1 , 01 .,
I A.n . M ,
I I rA l Ieg e Sear ,,
eMil., Soon,,
I I I. IWSNWl•
I N IIAAN(Wl•
L _ - - -
(MacaWe
I 0110111 0I iJ100ll0 1 i
lIe,itJic,al (‘he: .4qualsr life (Ice Support
(Ithq S.un’n
Stilts C)
II ’S (lola Stain’,,
I MAt”)
tithe, Sean.,
IlSI WI. Iii Si I)
Sides’)
(PA 11cC. Starr’
1MM”)
4 ) 5,, Sean.,
1151 WS iii SI )
Stairs
1 i ’ I/c u.,Ilt sd h.iscl i tie ,in sl t cgiii Ri iris Hill I Y94 CIIIR I
I I mialistitally iii Isu ell.Ii,l legnul’. S t ilit gcitgh lpI1l(
L — I 01 lilt, ItSllihiS& ’ lyrn
Ilenefieval (ice Wet lands lice Support
tI.iI.i .IV.ilI.hIlI( ’ 1111W IlL tsIS lIIiprI .ve ii III
luisiilctl 11.11.1 .hV.llI.IhIC IIIIW
) iiii tI,iI.i .iii.iil.il ilt 1111W

-------
FIIERARCHY OF INDICATORS
Amencan Water Works Association
Biotnonitoneg and Envionmental
Status and Trends, USFWS
(Update of NCBP)
Biological System Component of
sTOREr. OWOW/ow
Center for Disesse Control
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protenuon Programs
Contaminated Sediment Sites
lnventoiy
Coastal Zone Management
Program, NOAA
Eanianne Living Manna Resource,
NOAA
Environmental Moaitonng and
A” ’n riit Program. ORD
EnVLrCnmenLII Radiation Ambient
Monitoring Syateni. Office of
Radiation Programs
Fish Advieoiy Data Base, OST/OW
Federal Reporting Data Syatei .
OGWDW/OW
Fisheries Statistics Program
NOAA
Index of Biological Integne)
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Qualit
LIVLOQ Marine Resour: \OAA
M nera.ls Management Service
r1cOnal Water Quality Assessment
Progrt- USGS
NASQAN National Scream Quality Accounung
Nerwork USGS
NCB° \ationi Contamioan
LMR
MMS
NAWQA
NCPD I
NCW I
NEP
NFm
NPDES
NPSurvey
NRI
NSR
NS&T
HWIW
ODES
PcS
PGWDB
PWSS
RB?
RCWP
STORE
TRJ
WBS
WEDB
Natio ai Coastal Pollutant
Discharge Inventors \OkA
National Coaital Wetlands
Invencoi ’. NOAA
National Estuary Program OWO .
National Fails Tiuue Data Base
OST (does not yet exist)
National Pollutant Discharge
l liffiuIiIh 00 System. OWEC
National Pesticide Surve OPP
National Resources Invcnior Soil
Conservation Service/L SDA
National Shell fish Register ‘.O
National Status & Trends OAA
Hazardous Wage lnjsction well
OGWDW/OW
National Wetlands Lnventor
USFWS
Ocean Data Evaluation Svste
Permit Compliance Systeri OWEC
Pesticides an Ground V ater Dati
Base. OPP
Public Water Supply Svsterr.
Rapid Bioassessmen. Prot .x .
developed by OWO9.
Rural Clean Water Proers
STCrage and RETrtC% . stc
OWOW
Toxic Chemical Release Inventor
System. Office of Toxic Substances
Waxerbod% System Ifor 305(Bi
Reports; OWOVb
Water Lndugtrv Data Base AWW
ACRONYMNS
AWWA
BEST
BIOS
CDC
CSGWPP
CS
Cv P
AM
FAD
PRDS
FSP
tBl
rrFM

-------