2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan

               Charting Our Course



To Protect Human Health
and the Environment


                      Message  from the

                      September 2006

I                        am pleased to present the U.S. Environmental
                        Protection Agency's (EPA) 2006-2011 Strategic Plan,
                       I which charts an ambitious course for the Agency's
                      work over the next five years.
   This Strategic Plan maintains the five goals that were first described in the
2003-2008 Plan and discusses important new challenges and opportunities that
are likely to arise in the coming years. The 2006-2011 Plan better expresses the
results of our work and more clearly identifies the environmental and human
health outcomes the public can expect. The Plan also expands upon some of our
more significant geographic initiatives and reflects increased collaboration with
our state, tribal, local, and federal partners.
   In December 2005, EPA celebrated 35 years of working to protect human
health and the environment. Since 1970, EPA—in collaboration with our
partners and stakeholders—has been delivering a cleaner, healthier environment
for the public. From regulating auto emissions to banning the use of DDT; from
cleaning up toxic waste to protecting the ozone layer; and from increasing
recycling to revitalizing inner-city brownfields, EPA's achievements have
resulted in cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land.

   The President has charged EPA with accelerating the pace of environmental
protection while maintaining our nation's economic competitiveness. This Plan
lays the foundation to meet our long-term goals and demonstrate progress along
the way, consistent with our principles of results and accountability, innovation
and collaboration, and the use of the best available science. We are grateful to
our partners and stakeholders for their continuing help in achieving these goals,
and pledge to continue our efforts to ensure a safe and healthy environment for
future generations.
                                       Stephen L. Johnson

Introduction	5

Goal 1—Clean Air and Global Climate Change	8

   Objective 1.1:  Healthier Outdoor Air 	12

   Objective 1.2:  Healthier Indoor Air	19

   Objective 1.3:  Protect the Ozone Layer	20

   Objective 1.4:  Radiation	21

   Objective 1.5:  Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions	23

   Objective 1.6:  Enhance Science  and Research	25

Goal 2—Clean and Safe Water	32

   Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health	36

   Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality  	43

   Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research	50

Goal 3—Land Preservation and Restoration  	58

   Objective 3.1:  Preserve Land	62

   Objective 3.2:  Restore Land  	67

   Objective 3.3:  Enhance Science  and Research	72

Goal 4—Healthy Communities and  Ecosystems  	78

   Objective 4.1:  Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks	83

   Objective 4.2:  Communities	91

   Objective 4.3:  Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems	97

   Objective 4.4:  Enhance Science  and Research	109

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
          Goal 5—Compliance and Environmental Stewardship	126

            Objective 5.1: Achieve Environmental Protection
                          Through Improved Compliance	130

            Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance
                          Through Pollution Prevention and Other
                          Stewardship Practices  	133

            Objective 5.3: Improve Human Health and the
                          Environment in Indian Country	138

            Objective 5.4: Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability
                          Through Science and Research	140
          Cross-Goal Strategies	146

            Results and Accountability	149

            Innovation and Collaboration	152

            Best Available Science	158

          Appendix A: Social Costs and Benefits	163

          Appendix B: Proposed Future Program Evaluations  	165

          Appendix C: Summary of Consultation Efforts	173
         Appendix D: Areas of Coordination Between
                      EPA and Other Federal Agencies


     Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
     established in 1970, we have worked with our federal, state,
     tribal, and local government partners to advance our mission
to protect human health and the environment. Together, we have
made tremendous progress in protecting and restoring the nation's
air, water, and land.
   But while we have achieved a great deal, we recognize
that much work remains. The environmental problems we are fac-
ing in 2006 are more complex than those of 30 years ago, and
implementing solutions is more challenging. Recent national and
international events, such as the devastation left by Hurricane
Katrina, the advance of Avian flu, threats  to homeland security, and population growth and its
associated resource consumption, are altering the environment in unprecedented ways.
Scientific advances and emerging technologies offer new opportunities for protecting human
health  and the environment, but also pose new risks and challenges. We recognize that today's
environmental problems cannot be solved by traditional regulatory controls alone; they will
require the combined expertise, perspectives, and resources of many. More than ever before, we
need to look toward the future to anticipate potential threats to human health and the envi-
ronment, establish clear priorities, and prepare ourselves to address them.

                                                          OUR GOALS AN

    • Clean Air and Global Climate Change
    • Clean and Safe Water
    • Land Preservation and Restoration
    • Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
    • Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

    • Results and Accountability
    • Innovation and Collaboration
    • Best Available Science

    EPA's 2006-20JJ Strategic
Plan sets out an ambitious
road map for environmental
protection over the next
5 years. In developing this
Plan, we have sharpened our
focus on achieving measurable
environmental results. Our
five strategic goals reflect
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

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                EPA Administrator Steve Johnson has
             established key principles to accelerate the pace
             of environmental protection, and these three
             principles are reflected in our "cross-goal"
             strategies—common themes for our work under
             each of our strategic goals:

             •  Results and Accountability. EPA is committed
                to being  a good steward of our environment
                and a good steward of America's tax dollars.
                To provide the public with the environmental
                results it expects and deserves, we must operate
                as efficiently and effectively as possible.
                Accountability for results is a key component
                of the President's Management Agenda,
                designed to make government citizen-centered,
                results-oriented,  and  market-based.

                Innovation and Collaboration. Our progress depends both on our ability and continued
                commitment to identify and use innovative tools, approaches, and solutions to address
                environmental problems and to engage extensively with our partners, stakeholders, and
                the public. Under each of our goals,  we are working to promote a sense of environmental
                stewardship and  a shared responsibility for addressing today's challenges.

                Best Available Science. EPA needs the best scientific information available to anticipate
                potential environmental threats, evaluate risks, identify solutions, and develop protective
                standards. Sound science helps us ask the right questions, assess information, and characterize
                problems clearly to inform Agency decision makers.
                                                          GUIDING MANAGEMENT AND
                                                          BUDGET DECISIONS
                                                              In setting out our goals for the coming
                                                          5 years and describing how we intend to
                                                          achieve them, our Strategic Plan provides
                                                          the foundation for all of EPA's planning,
                                                          budgeting, performance measurement, and
                                                          accountability processes. We will design
                                                          annual performance goals and measures,
                                                          which are presented in the President's budget
                                                          request to Congress, to achieve the long-term
                                                          strategic goals set out in this Plan. We will
                                                          report on our performance against these
                                                          annual goals and measures in our annual
                                                          Performance and Accountability Report and
            use this performance information as we establish priorities and develop future budget submis-
            sions. This process will come full circle as we evaluate these performance data to develop our
            2009-2014 and future Strategic Plans. In addition, our strategic planning and decision making

benefit from information provided by new environmental indicators that we are developing,
in particular for our forthcoming Report on the Environment. Information derived from these
indicators help us better articulate and further improve the long-term measures contained in
our Strategic Plan.

    While EPA's 2006-20 J J Strategic Plan retains the five-goal
structure introduced in our 2003 Plan, it contains a number of
improvements and additions. For example, under each goal we
have provided a discussion of "Emerging Issues and External
Factors"—important new challenges and opportunities that are
likely to arise in the coming years. The goal chapters also
include new information about developing the long-term
measures included in the Plan, particularly their relationship to
annual performance measures, measures provided in the Office
of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool,
and the new environmental indicators being developed for
EPA's Report on the Environment. This Plan also reflects our
increased emphasis on activities  and measures that address
tribal environmental and health issues, environmental justice
concerns, environmental stewardship, and strategic manage-
ment of human capital.

    We have prepared this Strategic Plan to present our vision for the future and to guide our
work over the coming years to achieve these results. We hope that you will join with us to
realize our common desire  for a cleaner, healthier environment for all Americans.
                                                   Lyons Gray
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


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.

                                   EPA, together with state, tribal and local partners, is addressing a
                                   broad range of national air quality problems cost-effectively with a
                                   variety of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches, including
                             innovative, market-based techniques such as emissions trading, banking,
                             and averaging. EPA also works closely with public- and private-sector
                             partners and  stakeholders to develop tools, such as monitoring, modeling,
                             and emission inventories, that allow states, tribes, and localities to address
                             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 challenges,

         EPA's programs will allow us, together with our partners, to make substantial progress in protecting
     human health and ecosystems from air  pollution. By 2011, virtually all of the country will have put in
     place controls to meet current air quality standards. New motor vehicles, including trucks and buses,
     will be 75 to 95  percent cleaner than they were in 2003. Power plant emissions will be reduced by
     approximately 40 percent from  2003 levels. Taken together, these programs, when fully implemented,
     will prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths and hospitalizations, and prevent millions of lost
     work and school days each year. These  national programs will be supplemented by local control
     strategies designed to ensure that the air quality standards are achieved and maintained.

         Reductions in emissions of air toxics will substantially reduce risks to human health. Toxic
     emissions from cars, trucks, and buses will  be cut in half, and all major industrial sources of air toxics
     will meet technology-based standards. Additional risk reductions will be achieved by voluntary
     programs aimed  at indoor hazards such  as radon, tobacco smoke, and asthma triggers, and outdoor
     hazards such as overexposure  to the  sun. Radiation releases will be minimized, and our ability to
     monitor  such releases will be  enhanced. Should a radiation release occur, EPA personnel and assets
     will be in place and prepared to support federal emergency response and to minimize impacts to
     human health and the environment.

         Significant achievements will also be realized in EPA's domestic and international efforts to protect
     and restore the world's atmosphere. By  2011, worldwide efforts to protect the earth's ozone layer will
     reach a watershed, as total effective  equivalent stratospheric chlorine reaches its peak and begins to
     decline. And EPA's voluntary climate protection programs will put us on track to exceed the
     President's greenhouse gas intensity  goal.
                                                        William L. Wehrum
                                                        Acting Assistant Administrator
                                                        Office of Air and Radiation

                                                                    /        J A
                                                                      r^\      1        1
                                     Objective I.I
                                     Outdoor Air
    Air pollution comes from many sources: factories and
power plants; drycleaners; cars, buses, and trucks; even
windblown dust and wildfires. It can threaten human
health, causing breathing difficulties, long-term damage to
respiratory and reproductive sys-
tems, cancer, and premature
death. Certain chemicals emitted
into the air diminish the protective
ozone layer in the upper atmos-
phere, resulting in overexposure to
ultraviolet radiation and increased
rates of skin cancer, cataracts, and
other health and ecological effects.
Air pollution can also affect the
environment by reducing visibility;
damaging crops, forests, and build-
ings; acidifying lakes and streams;
and stimulating the growth of algae
in estuaries and the  build-up of
toxins in fish. These effects pose a
particular risk to Native Americans
and others who subsist on plants,
fish, and  game. Rapid development
and urbanization in other countries
                                     Objective 12: Healthier
                                     Indoor Air.,            ..I 9
                                     Objective 1.3: Protect the
                                     Ozone Layer  	20
    EPA works to protect human health and the
environment by developing regulations and establishing
partnerships with other federal agencies, states, tribes,
local governments, business and industry, environmental
              groups, and other stakeholders in pro-
              grams to reduce air pollution. And
              according to our annual summary of
              air quality trends since the 1970s,1 air
              quality in the United States has steadily
              improved. Even as our economy has
              grown, miles traveled by cars and trucks
              increased, and energy consumption
              risen, the trend toward cleaner air has
                                     Objective 1.4: Radiation  . . .

                                     Objective 1.5: Reduce
                                     Greenhouse Gas Emissions 23

                                     Objective 1.6: Enhance
                                     Science and Research .   . .25
                       EPA is dedicated to improving the
                   quality of the air Americans breathe,
                   and we will continue to look for innova-
                   tive, effective solutions to the nation's
                   remaining air pollution problems. We
                   use a variety of approaches and tools to
                   accomplish  this. For example, we are
                   addressing problems with broad national
                   or global impact—emissions from power
     plants and other large sources, pollution from motor vehi-
     cles and fuels, and stratospheric ozone depletion—at the
are creating air pollution that threatens not only those
countries but also the United States, since air pollution       , ,   , ,    ,             ,. .    ,     ,         ,
        ,      ,.          j          •   11    j  •       federal level, using our traditional regulatory tools as
can travel great distances and across national boundaries.       „          .       ,   ,    ,    ,  .        ,
                                                      well as innovative, market-based techniques such as

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
            emissions trading, banking, and averaging.
            We are working with states, tribes, and local
            agencies to address regional and local ambient
            air problems. Collaborating with public- and
            private-sector partners, we are developing
            tools and innovative strategies, such as part-
            nership programs for retrofitting diesel engines
            or community-based approaches to toxics, to

               Comparison of Growth Areas
                      and  Emissions
                           Gross Domestic Product
                           Vehicle Miles Traveled
                          i Energy Consumption
                            [gregate Emissions*(Six Principal Pollutants)
help solve local problems and promote a com-
munity ethic of environmental stewardship.
We work with developing countries to reduce
transboundary air pollution, improve the
health of our citizens and theirs, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.

   Many reports have highlighted the impor-
tance of the indoor environment to human
health, including the 1997 report of the
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk
Assessment and Risk Management. To improve
the quality of the air in homes, schools, and
commercial buildings, EPA relies on partner-
ship-based information  and outreach programs,
which encourage and promote voluntary action.
Our radon and other indoor air programs have
helped to reduce asthma triggers, respiratory ail-
ments, ear infections, exposure to secondhand
tobacco smoke, and hospitalizations.

   EPA research continues to identify new
air pollution issues, in  areas from indoor air to
radiation.  We will work with our federal,
state,  tribal, local,  and international partners
and stakeholders to address these issues using
approaches and programs that encourage cost-
effective technologies and practices.

             Sub-objective 1.1.1: Ozone and PM25.
             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
       6 percent from the 2003 baseline.

    •  By 2011, reduce emissions of fine
       particles from mobile sources by
       134,700 tons from the 2000 level of
       510,550 tons.

                                                              Clean Air—Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air
    •  By 2011, reduce emissions of nitrogen
       oxides (NOX) from mobile sources by
       3.7 million tons from the 2000 level
       of 11.8 million tons.

    •  By 2011, reduce 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 5 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, 30
       additional tribes (6 per year) will
       have completed air quality emission
       inventories. (FY 2005 baseline: 28
       tribal emission inventories.)

    •  By 2011, 18 additional tribes will
       possess the expertise and capability to
       implement the Clean Air Act in
       Indian country2 (as demonstrated by
       successful completion of an eligibility
       determination under the Tribal
       Authority Rule). (FY 2005 baseline:
       24 tribes.)

Sub-objective 1.1.2: Air Toxics. By 2011,
reduce the risk to public health and  the envi-
ronment from toxic air pollutants by working
with partners to reduce air toxics emissions
and implement area-specific approaches as

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2010, reduce toxicity-weighted
       (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxi-
       cs to a cumulative reduction of 19
       percent from the 1993 non-weighted
       baseline of 7.24 million tons.

       By 2010, reduce toxicity-weighted
       (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air
       toxics to a cumulative reduction of 55
       percent from the 1993 non-weighted
       baseline of 7.24 million tons.
Sub-objective 1.1.3: Chronically Acidic
Water Bodies. By 2011, due to progress in
reducing acid deposition, the number of
chronically-acidic water bodies in acid-sensi-
tive regions of the northern and eastern
United States should be maintained at or
below the 2001 baseline of approximately 500
lakes and 5,000 kilometers of stream-length
in the population covered by the Temporally
Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems/Long-
Term Monitoring Survey. The long-term
target is a 30  percent reduction in the num-
ber of chronically-acidic water bodies in
acid-sensitive regions by 2030.

Strategic Targets

    •   By 2011, reduce national annual
       emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
       from utility electrical power genera-
       tion sources by approximately 8.45
       million tons from the 1980 level of
       17.4 million tons, achieving and main-
       taining the acid rain statutory SO2
       emissions cap of 8.95 million tons.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                 •   By 2011, reduce total annual average
                    sulfur deposition and mean ambient
                    sulfate concentration by 30 percent
                    from 1990 monitored levels of up to
                    25 kilograms per hectare for total sul-
                    fur deposition and 6.4 micrograms per
                    cubic meter for mean ambient sulfate

                 •   By 2011, reduce total annual average
                    nitrogen deposition and mean total
                    ambient nitrate concentration by 15
                    percent from 1990 monitored levels
                    of up to 11 kilograms per hectare for
                    total nitrogen deposition and 4.0
                    micrograms per cubic meter for mean
                    total ambient nitrate concentration.

                Our strategy for reducing outdoor air
             pollution is based on collaboration at the
             federal, state, and local levels. States are
             primarily responsible for maintaining and
             improving air quality and meeting national
             ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
             established by EPA. State programs develop
             emission inventories, operate and maintain
             air monitoring networks, perform air quality
             modeling, and  develop State Implementation
             Plans (SIPs) that lay out control strategies for
             improving air quality and meeting NAAQS.
Multi-jurisdictional organizations (MJOs) are
vital in 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 to support their
efforts. We also develop regulations and
implement programs 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 clean-
ing operations. In addition, we address at a
national level air quality  issues that exceed
the reach of state and tribal authorities—such
as interstate transport of pollutants.

    EPA is authorized  to implement air quality
programs in Indian country; however,  eligible
tribes may be authorized to develop and imple-
ment their own Clean Air Act programs. We
are working with tribes to acquire more and
better data on the quality of air on tribal
lands,3 build tribal capacity to  administer air
programs in Indian country, and establish
mechanisms that will enable EPA and states  to
work effectively with tribal governments on
regional and national policy issues. We will
assist any tribe interested in making a determi-
nation on its air quality by providing data,
data analysis, and technical support.

    We will continue to involve communities,
civic organizations, and other stakeholders in
designing programs to achieve healthier out-
door air. We will work closely with  the
National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council, community-based organizations, and
other stakeholders (including  schools and uni-
versities, environmental organizations, and
business and industry groups)  to ensure that
environmental justice is an integral part our
programs, policies, and activities. To support
this commitment, we will develop baseline
data that will enable us to track our progress
in addressing environmental justice concerns.

                                                              Clean Air—Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air
    EPA will continue to apply sound science
to help us better understand and characterize
the results of our efforts to achieve clean air.
EPA scientists will determine the relative risks
that air pollution poses to human health and
the environment; identify the best means to
detect, abate, and avoid environmental prob-
lems associated with air pollutants; and
evaluate the effectiveness of control programs
in reducing exposure to harmful levels of air
pollution. We are committed to common-
sense, cost-effective solutions that result in
cleaner air, and we will continue to integrate
critical scientific assessment with policy, regu-
latory, and non-regulatory activities. Using
mathematical models, data from ambient mon-
itoring and deposition monitoring, and other
information, we will work with states and
tribes to evaluate control options, control
plans, the impacts of alternative emission sce-
narios, and the effect of federal rules and other
control strategies. We will continue to conduct
exposure and risk assessments on criteria and
hazardous air pollutants, integrating monitor-
ing and modeling information to characterize
the impacts of sources of air pollution within
and outside of the United States.


    To improve air quality, EPA will continue
to focus on implementing the fine particulate
matter (PM25) standards and 8-hour ozone
standards. In support of state efforts, we will
develop federal programs for mobile  and sta-
tionary sources that achieve large,
nationwide, cost-effective reductions in emis-
sions of PM and its contributors (SO2, NOX,
and elemental and organic carbon),  ozone-
forming NOX, and volatile organic
compounds. We will work with states to
reduce emissions of PM and ozone precursors
and mercury from electric-generating units
and to better integrate ozone and PM efforts,
for  example, by improving emission  invento-
ries, developing comprehensive air quality
modeling approaches,  controlling sources of
precursors common to both, and coordinating
control strategy planning cycles. Working
with MJOs, we will develop strategies for
reducing regional haze.
    Key to our efforts is implementing the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promul-
gated in May 2005, to address pollution from
power plants that drifts across state borders.
Like the  cap-and-trade approach of our Acid
Rain Program, CAIR provides incentives for
power plant operators to find the best, fastest,
and most efficient ways to make the required
emission reductions. We expect CAIR to
reduce SO2 emissions by 4.3 million tons
(more than 70 percent) and NOX emissions
by 1.7 million tons (more than 60 percent)
from 2003 levels. As we implement CAIR,
we will also continue to support passage  of
the President's Clear Skies legislation, which
would achieve broader reductions of SO2 and
NOX and provide more certainty for industry
and state and local air quality planners.
    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. Through CAIR and other
Clean Air Act programs, 92 of the  108 areas
that had not met the standards for  8-hour
ozone and 17 of the 36 areas that had not
met the standards for PM2 5 as of April 2005
will achieve these health-based national stan-
dards by  2011. We estimate that by 2015 air
quality improvements from CAIR and other
Clean Air Act programs could generate more
than $100 billion in health and visibility

       Significant Cuts in NOX and SO2 Power
         Plant Emissions Projected with CAIR
                                         Projected, w/CAIR

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
            benefits per year. We expect that by reducing
            sulfur and nitrogen deposition, these pro-
            grams will also reduce the incidence of
            chronically acidic lakes and streams.
                Working with our partners, EPA will
            implement a series of national programs to
            dramatically reduce emissions from a wide
            range of mobile sources:

                •   The Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline
                    Sulfur Program, to be fully imple-
                    mented by 2009,  will make new cars,
                    sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks,
                    and vans 7 7 to 95 percent cleaner
                    than 2003  models, while reducing sul-
                    fur levels in gasoline by 90 percent.

                 •   Our 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.

                •   The Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule
                    will cut emission levels from con-
                    struction, 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
       effort, we are also developing more
       stringent standards for locomotives,
       large marine diesel engines, and small
       gasoline engines (such as those used
       in lawn and garden equipment).

    To address diesel emissions, EPA's
National Clean Diesel program will continue
to develop new engine and fuel standards and
conduct activities to reduce emissions from
the 11 million diesel engines already in use.
For example, we will create cost-effective
diesel-retrofit partnerships to reduce NOX and
PM emissions from older, high-polluting
trucks, buses, and nonroad equipment, con-
centrating on nonattainment  areas and areas
with sensitive populations and raising public
awareness of the risks diesel emissions pose to
health. We will provide grants for retrofitting,
replacing, and reducing idling from vehicles
and equipment  in the trucking, railroad,  con-
struction, school bus, and port sectors and
encourage states and industry  to support  local
diesel retrofit projects. These innovative  ini-
tiatives will support states' efforts to meet
national air quality standards.

    Implementing provisions of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 will be a major undertak-
ing for EPA. Central to this effort is the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program,
which requires that  the U.S. gasoline supply
contain specific volumes of renewable fuel
each calendar year, starting with 4 billion gal-
lons in 2006 and increasing to 7.5 billion in

                                                             Clean Air—Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air
2012. Developing and implementing the
RFS program will require a substantial
investment of resources: expertise in renew-
able fuels (production, distribution, and
blending); vehicle testing to assess the
impacts of renewable fuels on emissions;
refinery modeling; transportation modeling
and life-cycleanalysis; consideration of energy
security impacts; and economic analyses
(including farm/agricultural impacts).

AIR Toxics

    EPA regulates emis-
sions of 186 toxic air
pollutants, including diox-
in, asbestos, toluene, and
such metals as cadmium,
mercury, chromium, and
lead compounds.4 To com-
plement the national
standards that address
major stationary sources  of
air toxics, we  are conduct-
ing national, regional, and
community-based efforts to reduce multimedia
and cumulative risks. Characterizing emissions
and the risks they pose nationally and locally,
such as in Indian country, will require signifi-
cant effort. We will need to update the
science and keep the public informed about
these issues. Toxic pollutants are of particular
interest to the environmental justice commu-
nity because of the proximity of many
low-income and minority communities to
sources of toxic emissions, such as industrial
facilities, waste transfer stations, roadways,
and bus terminals. To better address areas that
may suffer disproportionately, EPA will use
tools and indicators  to identify locations with
potential environmental justice concerns.

    EPA will  continue implementing the
Clean Air Mercury Rule  (CAMR), promul-
gated in May 2005,  to permanently cap and
reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants. CAMR establishes  standards of
performance that limit mercury emissions
from new and existing coal-fired power plants
and creates a market-based cap-and-trade
program that will reduce utility emissions of
mercury nationwide in two phases. The cap
for the first phase is 38 tons, and utilities can
take advantage of "co-benefit" reductions,
such as mercury reductions achieved by
reducing SO2 and NOX emissions under
CAIR. In the second phase, which begins in
2018, coal-fired power plants will be subject
to a second cap, which will ultimately reduce
             emissions to 15 tons. Like
             CAIR, the CAMR program has
             stringent emissions monitoring
             and reporting requirements
             modeled after those of 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 also
             requires EPA to establish  stan-
             dards  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 subse-
quent 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, includ-
ing Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE), we will evaluate how
program activities affect areas with potential
environmental justice issues. We will work
with affected communities to address risks
and track progress. We will use data from our
national toxics monitoring network and from
local assessments to better characterize risk
and assess priorities.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
             OTHER PARTNERS

                To reduce risks and protect the health of
             all people living in Indian country, EPA is
             committed to working with tribes on a gov-
             ernment-to-government basis to develop the
             infrastructure and skills they  need  to assess,
             understand, and control air quality on their
             lands. In consultation with tribes, we will
             establish needed federal regulatory authorities
             consistent with EPA's Indian Policy, and we
             will support tribal traditions and culture. We
             will help tribes develop and manage their
             own air programs, providing technical sup-
             port,  assistance in developing and  analyzing
             data,  and opportunities to participate in plan-
             ning  and policy-setting at the regional  and
             national level. When tribes choose not to
             develop their own programs,  EPA will imple-
             ment air quality programs directly. We  will
             continue to support air monitoring in Indian
             country, and we are exploring opportunities
             for mercury and other deposition monitoring.
             EPA has developed new rules for new or
             modified major and minor sources  of air pol-
             lution in Indian country, and we will work
             with  tribes to delegate or implement these
             rules  directly 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 U.S.
Department of Agriculture (in the areas of
animal feeding operations, agricultural burn-
ing, and controlled burning), the U.S.
Department of Transportation  (for transporta-
tion-related air quality issues),  the U.S.
Department of Energy (for electric utilities,
electricity generation, and energy efficiency
issues), and the U.S. Department  of the
Interior (concerning visibility in national
parks and wilderness areas).

    Effective partnerships are also key to our
sound science  efforts. For example, we will
continue to  collaborate with the U.S.
Department of Commerce's National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
to develop a consistent, national numerical
air quality model for short-term air quality
forecasts for ozone and PM. EPA will also
work  with the international science  commu-
nity to better understand the movement of
pollutants in and out of the United States
and to assess potential mitigation  strategies.

    Criteria air pollutants, such as ozone and
fine particles, as  well as persistent bioaccumu-
lative toxins (PBTs), such  as mercury,
dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), can be transported across national
borders. EPA is also working with other agen-
cies and other governments to  address this
transboundary pollution. We will work with
NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration,  and other agencies 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 under-
standing 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 strate-
gies to reduce foreign sources of pollution.

                                                            Clean Air—Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air
   EPA will continue to lead the United
States in a variety of international partner-
ships and agreements:
    •   The Partnership for Clean Fuels and
       Vehicles (www.unep.org/pcfv) is
       working to phase out leaded gasoline
       worldwide, to reduce sulfur in fuels, and
       to adopt clean vehicle technologies.

    •   The Partnership for Clean Indoor Air
       (www.pciaonline.org)  is reducing the
       health risks faced by the more than
       2 billion people who burn biomass
       fuels indoors for cooking and heating.

    •   The Convention on Long-Range
       Transboundary Air Pollution
       (www.unece.org/env/lrtap) and the
       Stockholm Convention on Persistent
       Organic Pollutants (www.pops.int)
       are controlling sources of internation-
       ally transported pollutants to protect
       U.S. interests.

    We will continue to work with Canada,
Mexico, and key stakeholders to manage air
quality along our common borders. Among
our existing agreements are the U.S.-Mexico
La Paz Agreement (http://air.utep.edu/bca/
jac/agreement.html), the U.S.-Canada Air
Quality Agreement (www.epa.gov/airmarkt/
usca/agreement.html), and the North
American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation (www.naaec.gc.ca/eng/
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

    Air inside homes, schools, and work-
places can be more polluted than outdoor air
in the largest and most industrialized cities.5
Given that people typically spend close to
90 percent of their time indoors,6 many of us
may be more at risk from indoor than from
outdoor air pollution. Moreover, people who
are apt to spend the most time indoors—
children, the elderly, and the chronically ill,
especially those suffering from respiratory or
cardiovascular disease—may be those  most
susceptible to indoor air pollutants. EPA is
also concerned about minority, low-income,
or other populations that may be facing dis-
proportionate risks from indoor air pollution,
such as secondhand tobacco smoke and other
asthma triggers.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                                           To improve
                                        indoor air qual-
                                        ity, EPA relies
                                        on innovative,
                                        outreach and
                                        programs that
                                        inform and
                                        educate the
                                        public about
                                        indoor air qual-
                                        ity concerns,
                                        such as radon,
                                        and actions
                                        they can take
                                        to reduce
                                        potential risks
                                        in homes,
            schools, and workplaces. We collaborate with
            groups such as health care providers in urban
            areas, who treat children prone to or suffering
            disproportionately from asthma attacks; school
            personnel, who manage school environments;
            county and local environmental health offi-
            cials; and housing and building organizations.
To support these partnerships, we provide poli-
cy and technical recommendations based on
the most current science available.

   EPA will provide tools and technical
assistance as requested to assist tribes in col-
lecting data on indoor pollutants, such as
radon and mold, as well as environmental
triggers of asthma. This data will help tribal
communities assess the pervasiveness of
indoor air quality problems and develop a
baseline from which to measure success in
improving indoor air, including the accom-
plishments and benefits provided by such
programs as Tribal Effective Asthma
Management (www.epa.gov/region08/
air/iaq/asthma/asthma.html#2) and Tools
for Schools (www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/
index.html). We will work with other federal
agencies to provide guidance and assistance
on reducing these contaminants in all Indian
communities. Through the State Indoor
Radon Grant Program, we will continue to
help states and tribes develop and implement
effective radon assessment and mitigation

            Strategic Targets
                   By 2015, reduce U.S. consumption of
                   Class II ozone-depleting substances to
                   less than 1,520 tons per year of ozone
                   depleting potential from the 2003
                   baseline of 9,900 tons per year.

                   By 2165, reduce the incidence of
                   melanoma  skin cancer to 14 new skin
                   cancer cases avoided per 100,000
                   people from the 1990 baseline of 13.8
                   cases avoided per 100,000 people.

    Scientific evidence amassed over the past
3 decades has shown that chlorofluorocarbons
and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (used as refrig-
erants, 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

                                                                      Clean Air—Objective 1.4: Radiation
the earth,7 increasing the risk of overexposure
and consequent health effects, including skin
cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses. More
than a million new cases of skin cancer are
diagnosed each year;8 1 in 5 Americans is
expected to experience skin cancer; and more
than half of all Americans develop cataracts
by the time they are 80 years old.9

    As a signatory to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone  Layer,10 the
United States regulates and enforces
Montreal Protocol provisions domestically. In
accordance with this international treaty and
related Clean Air Act requirements,11 EPA
will continue implementing domestic pro-
grams to reduce and control ozone-depleting
substances (ODS) and enforcing rules on
their production, import, and emission. Our
approach combines market-based efforts with
sector-specific technology guidelines to
facilitate alternatives to hydrochlorofluoro-
carbons. We will work in partnership with
stakeholders to smooth the transition to ODS
substitutes that reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions and save energy and act on 100 percent
of the petitions for substitutes within 90 days
of receipt. To help reduce emissions interna-
tionally, we will assist in transferring
technology to developing countries and work
with them to accelerate the phase-out of
ODS. We estimate that from 1990 to
2165, worldwide phase-out of ODS will save
6.3 million lives from fatal skin cancer, avoid
299 million cases of nonfatal skin cancers,
and avoid 27.5 million cases of cataracts in
the United States alone.12

   Because the ozone layer is not expected
to recover until the middle of this century at
the earliest,13 the public will continue to be
exposed to high levels of UV radiation.14 To
address this concern, we will continue educa-
tion and outreach efforts to encourage school
children and their caregivers to change their
behavior to reduce UV-related health risks.
The SunWise program (www.epa.gov/
sunwise/), which we expect to grow from 200
participating kindergarten-grade 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.
Strategic Targets
       By 2011, 77 percent of the U.S. land
       area will be covered by the RadNet
       ambient radiation air monitoring sys-
       tem. (2001 baseline is 35 percent of
       the U.S. land area.)
    •  By 2011, the radiation program will
       maintain a 90 percent level of readi-
       ness of radiation program personnel
       and  assets to support federal radiolog-
       ical  emergency response and recovery
       operations. (2005 baseline is a 50 per-
       cent level of readiness.)

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                EPA continues to meet statutory man-
             dates for managing radiation waste and
             controlling radioactive emissions and to fulfill
             its responsibilities under presidential decision
             directives for radiological emergency pre-
             paredness and response. These responsibilities
             form the core of our strategy to protect the
             public and the  environment from unnecessary
             exposure to radiation. We will work with
             states, tribes, and industry to develop innova-
             tive training, public information, and
             partnership programs to minimize these expo-
             sures. We will also
             conduct radiation-
             risk assessments to
             evaluate health
             risks from radiation
             exposure; determine
             appropriate levels
             for cleaning  up con-
             taminated sites; and
             develop radiation
             protection and risk
             management policy,
             guidance, and rules.
                Mining and
             processing naturally
             radioactive materi-
             als for use  in
             medicine, power
             generation, consumer products, and industry
             inevitably generate emissions and waste. EPA
             will provide  guidance and training to help
             federal and state agencies prepare for
             emergencies at U.S. nuclear plants, trans-
             portation accidents involving shipments of
             radioactive materials, and acts of nuclear
             terrorism. EPA will also develop guidance for
             cleaning up radioactively-contaminated
             Superfund sites. To manage radioactive
             releases and  exposures, we will conduct
             health-risk site assessments; risk modeling,
             cleanup, and waste management activities;
voluntary programs to minimize exposure to
radiation in commercial products and indus-
trial applications; national radiation
monitoring; and radiological emergency

    In response to state and local organiza-
tions, EPA will continue to provide advice
and guidance to help 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 will 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. Through partnerships with states,
                          local agencies,
                          and  tribes we
                          will  locate  and
                          secure  lost,
                          stolen, or aban-
                          sources within
                          the United
                          States  and  inves-
                          tigate and
                          promote prac-
                          tices to reduce
                          releases.  We will
                          expand our
                          ongoing  efforts
to ensure that tribes receive assistance in
dealing with radon exposures in their homes
and schools.

    One of EPA's major responsibilities  relat-
ed to radiation is certifying that all
radioactive waste shipped by the  U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) to  the  Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant is disposed of safely and
according to EPA's standards. We inspect
waste generator facilities and biennially eval-
uate DOE's compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations.

                                                 Clean Air—Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Sub-objective 1.5.1: Buildings Sector. By
2012, 46 MMTCE will be reduced in the
buildings sector (compared to the 2002 level).

Sub-objective 1.5.2: Industry Sector. By
2012, 99 MMTCE will be reduced in the
industry sector (compared to the 2002 level).

Sub-objective 1.5.3: Transportation Sector.
By 2012, 15 MMTCE will be reduced in the
transportation sector (compared to the
2002 level).

    In 2002, the President announced a U.S.
climate policy to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) intensity by 18 percent over the next
decade. EPA's strategy for helping to achieve
this goal is to collaborate with private and
public organizations to reduce GHG intensity
while providing additional benefits, from
cleaner air to lower energy bills. At the core
of these efforts are government-industry part-
nership programs designed to encourage
consumers, businesses, and organizations to
make sound investments in energy efficient
equipment, policies and practices, and trans-
portation choices.
    EPA is collaborating with other federal
agencies to maximize results under our cli-
mate protection programs. In addition to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sup-
porting such EPA goals as clean air, these
programs can help other agencies achieve
their strategic goals. For example, EPA and
the Department of Energy (DOE) jointly
implement the ENERGY STAR Program to
promote energy-
efficient products
and practices
Not only does
support EPA's objec-
tive to reduce GHG
emissions from
homes, businesses,
and industry, it also
supports DOE's goal to cost-effectively
improve energy efficiency (DOE Strategic
Theme 1: Energy Security). ENERGY STAR
can also help make housing more affordable
by delivering energy savings to low-income
and subsidized areas. We are coordinating our
ENERGY STAR marketplace  activities with
DOE's research and development, regulatory
activities, and technology demonstrations,
and we are using complementary measures of
our progress in the buildings sector.

   We will also continue collaborating with
DOE through EPA's SmartWay Transport
Partnership, which works with fleets and the
trucking and railroad industries to promote
energy-efficient strategies, such as reducing
idling, using low-carbon fuels like E85 and
biodiesel, and reducing PM and NOX emis-
sions (www.epa.gov/smartway). SmartWay
also supports DOE's goals for increasing ener-
gy diversity and cost-effectively improving
energy efficiency (DOE Strategic Theme 1:
Energy Security). To promote  efficient,
energy-saving technologies that reduce  GHG,
NOX,  and PM, we are working together to:

    •   Increase the number of filling stations
       that offer E85 ethanol by leveraging
       market forces, tax incentives, regula-
       tions, and state and local efforts.

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                    Promote idling control technologies,
                    such as plug-in electric power at
                    truck stops and auxiliary power units,
                    which can save fuel and eliminate
                    associated emissions.

                    Develop protocols for measuring heavy
                    duty truck fuel efficiency, allowing
                    transporters to choose fuel-efficient
                    trucks and increase fuel savings.
                To assess progress under these joint
             efforts, EPA is working with other federal
             agencies to adopt complementary measures
             of performance. In one pilot effort, for exam-
             ple, EPA and DOE will be working jointly to
             promote idling technologies that will save
             fuel and to add new fueling stations offering
             E85 ethanol.
                EPA will be managing a number of other
             partnership efforts to  inform the marketplace
             and more quickly deploy technology in the
             residential, commercial, and transportation

                •   Partnerships with the energy, indus-
                    trial, and agricultural sectors to
                    promote technologies and practices
                    for reducing methane and other
                    potent GHGs (www.epa.gov/nonco2/

                •   The Green Power, Combined Heat
                    and Power, and other partnerships to
                    encourage developing and purchasing
                    clean and renewable energy
    •  The Best Workplaces for Commuters
       Program to benefit commuters and
       reduce vehicle trips and miles trav-
       eled (www.commuterchoice.gov).
    •  Climate Leaders, an EPA-industry-
       government partnership to develop
       long-term comprehensive climate
       change strategies and set corporate-
       wide goals for reducing GHGs

    •  The Clean Energy-Environment
       State Partnership to support states in
       increasing the use of clean energy

     EPA also promotes international part-
 nerships to reduce GHGs and deploy clean
 technologies. Through the Methane to
 Markets Partnership, we will work with
 other countries and 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 tech-
nologies (www.methanetomarkets.org). In
addition, the United States has joined
Australia, China, India, Japan, and South
Korea in  the Asia-Pacific Partnership on
Clean Development and Climate
(www.asiapacificpartnership.org), which will
advance the President's goal for cleaner and
more efficient technologies  and  practices.

    We will also continue to develop and
assess innovative technologies for achieving
clean air. We will continue  to develop
advanced clean and fuel-efficient automotive
technology. We will collaborate with our
private-sector partners to promote the
transfer of technologies to help meet  the
more demanding size, performance, durability,
and towing requirements of sport utility and
urban delivery vehicles without  compromis-
ing performance, safety, or reductions in
emissions. We will also promote renewable fuel
blends with the greatest environmental bene-
fits to maximize their potential for reducing
GHG intensity and improving air quality.

                                                      Clean Air—Objective 1.6: Enhance Science and Research


    EPA's Air Research Program provides
information we need to set and implement
NAAQS and to ensure that residual risks
associated with exposure to hazardous air pol-
lutants (air toxics) are being reduced. We
conduct research at EPA laboratories, through
extramural grants (including five Particulate
Matter Research Centers), and by co-funded
partnerships (for instance, with the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
and the Health Effects Institute [HEI]).

    We are targeting our air research to
achieve measurable improvements in two
areas: reducing uncertainty in the science that
supports us in setting air standards and reduc-
ing uncertainty about the effects of air
pollutants on human health. To achieve these
goals, our air research program will focus on:

Developing data and tools to support NAAQS.
EPA research will provide new and updated
data and new methods and models to charac-
terize and estimate source emissions.
Enhanced air quality models that more accu-
rately reflect meteorological effects and
improve our ability to forecast air quality
changes will enable EPA, states, and tribes to
alert the public to air quality concerns.
Advances in receptor-based models will more
accurately identify which source categories
contribute to ambient concentrations,
enabling us to target control strategies.
Research will also investigate technologies
for addressing multiple pollutants from key
sources contributing to non-attainment or air
toxics problems. We will also be developing a
framework for assessing the impact of
regulatory measures in improving air quality
and environmental and human health.

Understanding the effects of air pollution
on health. With HEI and other research part-
ners, we are undertaking a systematic
evaluation of PM attributes that will help us
understand how exposure to PM and related
air toxics can affect various aspects of health,
including pulmonary, cardiovascular,
immunological, neurological, reproductive,
and developmental health, and we will focus
particularly on susceptible populations.

Linking sources  and effects. Research will
enable us to link health effects more closely
to specific sources and PM attributes, advanc-
ing the state of air pollution science and
allowing us to better target sources of greatest
impact and improve control measures and
strategies to minimize the impact of particle
and air toxics emissions. This will be the
major theme of the Particulate Matter
Centers' 5-year program.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
            HUMAN CAPITAL
                EPA has been successful in recruiting and
            retaining talented staff with the scientific and
            technical backgrounds we need in several
            areas. For example, the EPA National Vehicle
            and Fuel Emissions Laboratory and the Clean
            Air Technology program have attracted high
            quality engineers and scientists.

                However, EPA faces a shortage of staff
            skills to implement new air program require-
            ments, such as CAIR and the Energy Policy
            Act of 2005. For example, to implement
            CAIR we will need to develop the workforce
skills to support emissions measurement,
engineering technology, environmental
assessment, and computer database develop-
ment and administration. Similarly, to
develop a national renewable fuel standard
and promulgate regulations to implement it,
EPA will need staff with expertise in renew-
able fuels, vehicle testing, refinery modeling,
transportation modeling and life-cycle analy-
sis, energy security impacts, and economic
analysis. The recruiting strategy we will use to
address these gaps includes cooperative agree-
ments with several top engineering colleges.
                EPA has made great strides in developing
            measures that focus on the environmental
            results of our clean air and global climate
            change work. Our strategic targets directly
            track and measure our annual performance
            goals (APGs), estab-
            lished in EPA's
            Annual Plan and
            Budget and reported
            on in our annual
            Performance and
            Accountability Report.
            For instance, the
            APGs for reductions
            in the population-
            weighted ambient
            concentration of
            ozone and PM2.5 pro-
            grams set annual
            targets based on our
            strategic targets. We have also developed
            annual measures that directly track strategic
            targets for the number of people taking all
            essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor
            environmental asthma and the number of
            schools implementing effective indoor air
            quality management plans.
    To track our annual progress toward our
research objectives, we will use a number of
objective measures of customer satisfaction,
product impact and quality, and efficiency.
For example, we rely on independent expert
                      review panel ratings,
                      client surveys on the
                      usefulness of our
                      products, and analy-
                      ses demonstrating
                      the actual use of EPA
                      research products.
                         We have aligned
                      our strategic and
                      annual measures with
                      environmental indi-
                      cators to be included
                      in EPA's forthcoming
                      2007 Report on the
Environmental indicators reflected in this
2006-20J J Strategic Plan include trends of
national ambient concentrations and emis-
sions of criteria air pollutants (and their
precursors, such as ozone and fine particulate
matter), mercury point-source emissions,

                                Clean Air—Using Feedback from Performance Assessments and Program Evaluations
ambient levels of stratospheric chlorine
(which can deplete the ozone layer), and
greenhouse gas emissions.

   We have also included as strategic targets
all of the clean air and global climate change
long-term, outcome-oriented measures devel-
oped through Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) assessments. These targets include
the population-weighted ambient concentration
targets for ozone and PM2 5, and the toxicity-
weighted risk reduction goals for air toxics.

    As we developed this 2006-2011 Strategic
Plan, we examined some of the longer-term
opportunities to improve our measures of
environmental outcomes for the future. We
are continuing our work to develop long-term
measures that capture the environmental bene-
fits of the air and climate change programs, for
example, by measuring the benefits of reduced
ultraviolet exposure on human health directly.

    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 pro-
gram benefits; and (2) develop efficiency
measures based on the full cost of the pro-
gram. We have addressed the first
recommendation by promulgating CAIR,
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. We are addressing the second
recommendation by developing data and
methods to support efficiency measures that
reflect industry and EPA costs.

    The National Academy of Sciences eval-
uated the nation's air quality management
system16 and concluded that while emitted
pollutants have been substantially reduced
over the past 30 years, further progress is
hindered by scientific and technical limita-
tions 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 opportu-
nities to co-locate ambient air monitoring
and atmospheric deposition monitoring with
long-term ecological research study sites; and
(3) improving methods for monitoring atmos-
pheric inputs to ecosystems, such as ambient
mercury concentrations and mercury deposi-
tion. We are also developing and expanding
the use of high-order health and ecological
indicators and characterizing the movement of
air pollutants through ecosystems over time.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
            INDOOR AIR

                OMB's PART assessment has led our
            Indoor Air Program to better quantify the
            relationship between funding levels and
            results, improve transparency by making state
            radon grantee performance data more accessi-
            ble to the public, and improve the program's
            efficiency measures to more clearly demon-
            strate cost effectiveness.


                As a result of a 2005 PART evaluation,
            the Clean Air Technology (CAT) program is
            developing better performance measures that
            more clearly link program efforts to green-
            house gas reduction potential.

    In 2005, the Board of Scientific
 Counselors (BOSC) evaluated the
 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research
 Program and recommended developing
 long-term measures as well as periodic
 assessment of customer satisfaction.
 Recommendations were incorporated
 into the 2005 PART evaluation of the
 NAAQS Research Program.

    A committee of air pollution experts
 formed under the National Research
 Council completed a series of reports in
 2004 and made three specific recommenda-
 tions concerning the management of
 scientific research:
    •   EPA should work toward a higher
       level of sustained integration and
       interaction among the scientific dis-
       ciplines and among the full range of
       public and private research funding

    •   Research is needed to develop
       stronger tools to compile and synthe-
       size 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 mecha-
       nism for independent review and
       oversight of the program, will be the
       only way to ensure that this invest-
       ment is being soundly made.

    EPA will include actions and milestones
to address these recommendations, as well as
recommendations on air research that we
received from BOSC and PART assessments,
in our revised multiyear plan for air research.

                                                             Clean Air—Emerging Issues and External Factors
    The current, fundamental imbalance
between energy supply and energy demand,
and the effect of that imbalance on the econ-
omy, is debatably the most significant
environmental issue that has emerged since
EPA developed our 2003-2008 Strategic Plan.
Concerns around energy supply, economic
prosperity, national security, and the environ-
ment present unprecedented opportunities for
technological innovation in the marketplace.

    Higher, more volatile energy prices could
create pressures affecting air quality programs
and goals. EPA will need to ensure that renew-
able fuels programs, such as those required
under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, are
implemented smoothly. Increases in energy
prices and the turnover of capital stock in the
energy sector will provoke interest in new
and more efficient technologies—many of
which could improve air quality. EPA will
need to work with industry to develop and
deploy these technologies in  all economic
sectors, including transportation and electric-
ity production and end-use. For example,
as demand for domestic coal resources
increases, EPA  will  work with the  U.S.
Department of Energy, coal  producers, and
others to promote development and market-
ing of new coal technologies that generate
extremely low air emissions, such as inte-
grated gasification combined cycle (or, more
broadly, coal gasification with carbon
capture and sequestration).

    We face another challenge in the rising
level of emissions that originate in other
countries, threatening progress in the United
States and affecting our ability to achieve our
public health and environmental standards.
The effects of international and interconti-
nental  transport are already apparent, and as
energy  use and development rapidly increase
in Asia and other regions, the United States
may feel the impact. Decreasing emissions  in
developing countries will not replace the
need for reducing air pollution emissions
within  the United States. Rather, interna-
tional efforts will complement our local and
regional control efforts to protect public
health  and our domestic investments. Thus,
to achieve our own domestic goals, we will
need to better understand sources of pollution
in other countries and work cooperatively to
decrease these emissions.

    Recent scientific studies indicate that the
stratospheric ozone layer is likely  to take
longer to heal than previously anticipated.17
Therefore, we expect more people to be
exposed to  excess UV radiation over a longer
period. Timely, comprehensive action by all
nations, including the United States, will be
more important than ever to restore the

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                 ozone layer and protect people from skin
                 cancer,  cataracts, and other illnesses.

                     A number of external factors could
                 affect achievement of our strategic goals. We
                 rely on  state, tribal, and local government
                 programs to meet many of our clean air per-
                 formance targets; however, reduced budgets
                 and resource constraints could impede their
progress. Lawsuits and court action may
require EPA to adjust schedules and could
delay achievement of critical milestones.
Economic conditions and development pat-
terns in the United States and  the world and
evolving energy and transportation policies
could also affect our ability to attain our
objectives for clean air and climate change.

    Finally, weather conditions and meteoro-
logical patterns have a very important effect
on air quality.  For example, high tempera-
tures 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. We  must also consider
these factors as we develop and implement
plans and  strategies for achieving and main-
taining clean air.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/ocfo/
                 1.   U.S. EPA. March 2006. Air Emissions Trends—Continued Progress Through 2005. Available online at
                     www.epa.gov/airtrends/2006/econ-emissions.html: EPA Office of Air and Radiation Web Site.
                     Access: April 26, 2006.

                 2.   Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
                     Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
                     their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

                 3.   Ibid.

                 4.   Clean Air Act, Title I, Section 112. Available online at: www.epa.gov/air/caa/caall2.txt: EPA Clean Air Act
                     Web Site. Access: April 26, 2006.

                 5.   U.S. EPA. 1987. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study: Summary and Analysis:
                     Volume I. EPA 600-6-87-002a. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

                 6.   U.S. EPA. 1989. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, Volume 11: Assessment and Control of Indoor Air
                     Pollution. EPA 400-1-89-001C. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

                 7.   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.

                 8.   American Cancer Society Inc. 2006. Cancer Facts and Figures: 2006. No. 500806. Available online at
                     www.cancer.org. Access: April 26, 2006.

                                                                                                          Clean Air—Notes
9.   Prevent Blindness America. 2003. Cataract Fact Sheet, FS32. Available online at:
    www.preventblindness.org/resources/factsheets/CataractsFS32.PDF. Access: April 26, 2006.

10. 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. Access: April 26, 2006.

11. Clean Air Act, Title VI. Available online at: www.epa.gov/air/caa/title6.html: EPA Clean Air Act Web Site.
    Access: April 26, 2006.

12. U.S. EPA, 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
    http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/1990-2010/chapll30.pdf. Access: April 26, 2006.

13. 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.
    Access: April 26, 2006.

14. 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. Access: April 26, 2006.

15. EPA's climate protection programs contribute to the President's 18 percent GHG emissions intensity reduction
    goal for 2012. The goal requires prevention of more than 100 MMTCE nationwide in 2012 in addition to the
    business-as-usual savings that are  expected to occur. Of the  103 MMTCE that EPA programs achieve, 80
    MMTCE, or about 80 percent, count towards that approximate 100 MMTCE increment. The remaining reduc-
    tions will come from other programs and initiatives. For more  information see www.whitehouse.gov/news/

16. National Research Council of the National Academies. 2004. Air Quality Management in the  United States.
    Available online at: http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309089328/html. Access: April  26, 2006.

17. New York Times, December 7, 2005, Scientists Say Recovery of the Ozone Layer may take Longer Than
    Expected, Kenneth Chang. Available online at: www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/science/
    07ozone.html?ex= 1291611600&en=6e8ca9c8549a6f6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.
    Access: April 26, 2006.


Clean and Safe
   Ensure drinking water is safe.
   Restore and maintain oceans, water-
   sheds, and their aquatic ecosystems
   to protect human health, support
   economic and recreational activities,
   and provide healthy habitat for fish,
   plants, and wildlife.

                                    This "Clean and Safe Water" goal defines the improvements that EPA
                                    expects to see in the quality of the nation's drinking water and of
                                    surface waters over the next 5 years. These goals include improving
                             compliance with drinking water standards, maintaining safe water quality
                             at public beaches, restoring more than 2,000 polluted waterbodies, and
                             improving the health of coastal waters.

                                 Three key strategies will drive progress toward these clean and safe
                             water goals:

                             •    Core Programs: Continue effective implementation of core national
                                  water programs, giving priority to improving water quality monitoring
                                  and information management, as well as working with state partners
      to strengthen water quality standards, improve discharge permits, and reduce pollution from diffuse or
      "nonpoint" sources,

      •  Water Infrastructure: Help sustain and secure the network of pipes and treatment facilities that
         constitute the nation's water infrastructure through investments in State Revolving Loan funds,
         pursuit of innovative financing, local adoption of sustainable management practices, and an
         increased commitment to water efficiency as well as partnerships and technical assistance to
         enhance the abilities of utilities to plan for, prevent, detect, and respond to security threats,

      •  Watershed Restoration and Protection: Apply a watershed approach to restoring polluted waters
         across the country, including developing Total Maximum Daily Loads, implementing clean-up
         plans on a watershed basis, and promoting innovative, cost-effective practices like water quality
         trading and watershed permitting to restore and  protect water quality.
                                                         Benjamin H. Grumbles
                                                         Assistant Administrator
                                                         Office of Water

                                r>!                  N
                                Clean   a
    Since the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water
Acts were enacted 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 illnesses linked to microbiological
and other contaminants. Today, drink-
ing water systems monitor the quality
of the water they provide and treat
water to ensure compliance with stan-
dards 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, fish-
ing, 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.
Objective 2.1: Protect
Human Health	36
Objective22: Protect Water
Objective 2.3: Enhance
Science and Research .
                   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 signifi-
                cant 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,
once so polluted that it 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, increasingly supports boating and
related recreation.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                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 go to:  www.epa.gov/water/.
            Sub-objective 2.1.1: Water Safe to Drink.
            By 2011, 91 percent of the population served
            by community water systems will receive drink-
            ing water that meets all applicable health-based
            drinking water standards through approaches
            including 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
                    through approaches including
                    effective treatment and source water
                    protection. (2005 baseline: 89

                •   By 2011, community water systems
                    will provide drinking water that
                    meets all applicable health-based
                    drinking water standards during 96
                    percent of person months (i.e., all
                    persons served by community water
   systems times 12 months). (2005
   baseline: 95.2 percent.)

•  By 2011, 86 percent of the popula-
   tion in Indian country4 served by
   community water systems will receive
   drinking water that meets all applica-
   ble health-based drinking water
   standards. (2005 baseline: 86 percent.)

•  By 2011, minimize risk to public
   health through source water protec-
   tion for 50 percent of community
   water systems and for the associated
   62 percent of the population served
   by community water systems (i.e.,
   "minimized risk" achieved by substan-
   tial 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

                                                    Clean and Safe Water—Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health
       the number of homes on tribal lands5
       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].)

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 following
strategic targets:

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2011, reduce the percentage of
       women of childbearing age having
       mercury levels in blood above the
       level of concern to 4.6 percent. (2002
       baseline: 5.7 percent of women of
       childbearing age have mercury blood
       levels above levels of concern identi-
       fied  by  the National Health and
       Nutrition Examination Survey

    •  By 2011, maintain or improve the
       percentage of state-monitored shell-
       fish-growing acres  impacted by
       anthropogenic sources that are
       approved or conditionally approved
       for use. (2003 baseline:  65 to 85 per-
       cent of the  16.3  million acres of
       state-monitored  shellfish-growing
       acres estimated to  be impacted by
       anthropogenic sources are approved
       or conditionally approved for use.)

Sub-objective 2.1.3: Water Safe for
Swimming.  By  2011, improve the quality of
recreational waters as  measured by the
following strategic  targets:

Strategic Targets

    •  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 2, meas-
ured as a 5-year average. (2005
baseline: An annual average of two
recreational contact waterborne dis-
ease 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 and
water parks].)
By 2011, maintain the percentage of
days of the beach season that coastal
and Great Lakes beaches monitored
by state beach safety programs are
open and safe for swimming at 96
percent.  (2005 baseline: Beaches
open 96 percent of the  743,036 days
of the beach season [i.e., beach sea-
son days are equal to 4,025 beaches
multiplied by variable number of days
of beach season at each beach].)

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course

                More than 280 million Americans count
            on the safety of tap water provided by their
            local water systems. EPA's strategy for ensur-
            ing safe drinking water includes developing
            and implementing drinking water standards,
            supporting infrastructure, protecting waters
            that are a source of drinking water, strength-
            ening the security of water systems, and
            improving 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. EPA sets
            standards based on sound science and rigor-
            ous technical and economic analyses.
            To date, EPA has established standards for
            91 contaminants.

                Over the next several years, EPA will
            conduct the second 6-year National  Primary
            Drinking Water Rule Review  to help deter-
            mine whether existing standards need to be
revised. We will also continue to assess the
need for new drinking water standards.
Guided by recommendations from the
National Research Council, the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council, and other
stakeholders, we will evaluate data on health
effects and the risk of exposure to various
contaminants; gather information  on tech-
nologies that prevent,  detect, and  remove
contaminants; and evaluate compliance costs.

Ensuring Compliance

    We will work closely with states  (49 of
which have primary enforcement authority
for health-based standards under SDWA),
tribes, and owners and operators of municipal
water systems to ensure that Americans are
served by community water systems providing
water that meets health-based standards—
including new regulations, such as recent
rules for cryptosporidium and disinfection
byproducts. To promote compliance with
drinking  water standards,  states carry out a
variety of activities, such as conducting onsite
sanitary surveys of water systems and working
with small systems to improve their capabili-
ties. EPA will work to  improve compliance
rates by providing guidance, training, and
technical assistance; ensuring proper certifica-
tion of water system operators; promoting
consumer awareness of drinking water safety;
         maintaining the rate of system sani-
         tary surveys and onsite reviews; and
         taking appropriate action for non-

             Small community water systems
         are more likely to have difficulty
         complying with drinking water
         standards. Many serve low-income
         populations and are located in rural
         areas. Water systems such as those
         serving tribal areas,6 Pacific Island
         Territories, Alaska Native villages,
         and communities along the
         U.S.-Mexico border face special
         challenges in providing safe water.
         To support small communities, EPA

                                                    Clean and Safe Water—Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health
will provide training and assistance in using
cost-effective treatment  technologies, proper-
ly disposing of waste, and complying with
standards for high-priority contaminants,
including microbes, disinfectants, disinfection
byproducts, and arsenic.  We will also work
with states to strengthen small systems' tech-
nical, management, and  financial capabilities.

    The Safe Drinking Water Information
System is a database that serves as the pri-
mary source of information on compliance
with SDWA requirements. To help states and
authorized tribes manage their drinking water
programs, EPA will continue to improve the
database to ensure that it reflects all applica-
ble drinking water regulatory requirements
and that data are complete, accurate, timely,
and consistent.

Sustainable Infrastructure
    Providing drinking water that meets
public health standards often requires an
investment in constructing or maintaining
infrastructure. The Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund  (DWSRF) provides water
systems with low-interest loans to improve

    According to EPA's  Gap Analysis Report
(2002), even with financial assistance from
the DWSRF the country faces a multi-bil-
lion-dollar gap in capital infrastructure
financing over the next  20 years.7 Assuming
no growth in revenue, the gap is estimated to
be approximately $100 billion between 2000
and 2019. Assuming a real rate of growth
of 3 percent per year, this gap shrinks to a
point of $45 billion. EPA will continue its
commitment to provide  capitalization grants
to state DWSRFs until 2018. Low-interest
loans from the state DWSRFs support needed
infrastructure improvements. EPA will work
with states  to ensure their SRFs are sustain-
able and to ensure that,  nationally, the
DWSRF will provide $1.2 billion annually in
the long term. In addition, EPA will work
with states  to ensure that DWSRF funds are
   significant challenges in meeting drinking water stan-
   dards and  protecting sources of drinking water EPA
   is taking steps to improve tribal water systems by:
      Developing quick-reference  guides to help tribes
      comply  with drinking water  regulations.
       romotin  waters
 rotection on tribal lands
ce water  rotection  lans.
     an   mpementng source water protecton
     Implementing the Public Water System
     Supervision and Underground Injection Co
     programs directly on tribal lands.
     Participating in an interagency effort that
     encourages using available funds to  improv
     tribal access to safe drinking water
managed effectively, and encourage water sys-
tem owners and operators to adopt
sustainable management systems.

Sources of Drinking Water
    Protecting sources of drinking water, such
as surface and ground waters, can reduce vio-
lations of drinking water standards. We will
provide training and technical assistance to
states, tribes, and  communities taking meas-
ures to prevent or reduce contamination of
source water, and  we will collaborate with
stakeholders to protect source water. We are
also protecting ground water that is a source
of drinking water  by working with states,
tribes, industry, and other stakeholders to
ensure safe underground injection of waste
materials. This work includes identifying and
evaluating risks from Class V shallow wells and
addressing emerging issues, such as carbon
sequestration and disposing of drinking water
treatment residuals. Finally, we will work
with states and tribes to use Clean Water Act
authorities to prevent contamination of
waters that serve as public water supplies and
will encourage other federal programs to focus
protection efforts  in source water areas.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
Water Infrastructure Security

    The President has given EPA primary
responsibility for coordinating federal, state,
and local authorities in the protection of
drinking water systems. The Bioterrorism Act
of 2002 requires community water systems
serving more than 3,300 people to develop
vulnerability assessments and to certify emer-
gency response plans. With most of this work
now completed, EPA has shifted its focus to
reducing risks associated with these vulnera-
bilities. Our
water security
program will
provide tools
and assistance
to prevent,
respond to,
and recover
from inten-
tional acts
and natural
mutual aid
within states
and regions;
and provide
training and exercises to improve water
utilities' preparedness.

    We are also undertaking two significant
initiatives: (1) EPA's Homeland Security
Sentinel Initiative (formerly known as Water
Sentinel), which will deploy and test a con-
tamination 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 address-
ing the threats, vulnerabilities, and
consequences facing the water sector.
                                                           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 sanita-
                                                           tion by 50 percent by 2015.8 In the United
                                                           States, EPA will focus on providing infra-
                                                           structure to increase the number of tribal
                                                           homes with access to safe drinking water and
                                                           basic sanitation. We will support develop-
                                                                                        ment of
                                                                                        water and
                                                                                        in Indian
                                                                                        country and
                                                                                        Alaska Native
                                                                                        villages using
                                                                                        funds from
                                                                                        the Drinking
                                                                                        Water and
                                                                                        Clean Water
                                                                                        Funds as well
                                                                                        as targeted

                                                               We will also work with other federal
                                                           agencies that play key roles in addressing
                                                           this problem, such as the U.S. Departments
                                                           of Health and Human Services, Interior,
                                                           and Agriculture, to coordinate a strategy
                                                           for improving tribes' access to water and
                                                           sanitation. (Note  that projects to improve
                                                           infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico
                                                           Border and in the Pacific Islands will also
                                                           increase peoples' access to safe drinking
                                                           water and basic sanitation. They are
                                                           described under Goal 4:  Healthy
                                                           Communities and Ecosystems.)

                                                               To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/

                                                    Clean and Safe Water—Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health

    Some toxic contaminants that enter water
bodies can move up the food chain, building up
to levels in fish that make them unsafe to eat.
The majority of fish consumption advisories
issued today, for example, are the result of
unhealthy levels of mercury, released into the
air from combustion sources, such as coal-fired
power plants and incinerators. 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. To
make more fish safe to eat, EPA is working  to
reduce releases of mercury to the air through
controls on combustion sources. Federal mar-
ket-based and other regulatory air programs, for
example,  will reduce electric-generating unit
emissions of mercury.  (See Goal 1: Clean Air
and Global Climate Change.)
    In addition to reducing mercury emissions,
EPA is working to improve water and sediment
quality. We will continue to implement Clean
Water Act programs designed to reduce dis-
charges from stormwater systems, combined
sewer overflows, and concentrated animal
feeding operations and to reduce runoff from
nonpoint sources. We are  also working to
restore the quality of aquatic sediment in criti-
cal water bodies, with special emphasis on  the
Great Lakes. To reduce the potential for future
sediment contamination, EPA is working with
its partners to reduce  the use of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), a major sediment contami-
nant, in electrical equipment. (See Goal 4:
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems.)

    A key element of EPA's strategy for
making more fish safe to eat is expanding
information about fish safety and making it
available to  the public. The National Listing
of Fish Consumption Advisories website,  for
example, allows states and tribes to post their
advisories and provide information about
locations, fish affected, and the number of
meals or amount of fish that a person can
safely eat. EPA will continue to guide  states
and tribes in monitoring fish safety and
issuing fish consumption  advisories.
    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/

    Like fish, shellfish can be unsafe
for consumption as a result of accumulat-
ing disease-causing microorganisms and
toxic algae. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), Interstate Shellfish
Sanitation Commission (ISSC), and coastal
states work together to manage the safety of
shellfish. States monitor shellfishing waters
and can restrict harvesting  if shellfish are
unsafe. Such restrictions can be the result of
poor water quality due to anthropogenic
activity, such as discharges from sewage treat-
ment plants. Through its surface water
program, EPA is addressing anthropogenic
sources that result in such closures. We will
continue to work with states, FDA,  ISSC,
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to increase the
percentage of shellfishing acres open for har-
vesting by improving water conditions.
    These agencies have developed an infor-
mation system that uses state monitoring data
to pinpoint areas where shellfishing has been
restricted. This system, now operating in 13
of 22 shellfishing states, enables EPA and
states to identify possible sources of pollutants
restricting the use of shellfishing waters. EPA
will also use this information to help develop
watershed plans, implement National Estuary
Program plans, issue or reissue permits to
point sources, enforce existing permits, and
implement controls over polluted runoff.

    To learn more  go to: www.epa.gov/

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course

                Recreational waters, especially beaches in
            coastal areas and the Great Lakes, provide
            outstanding recreational opportunities for
            many Americans. Swimming in some recre-
            ational waters, however, can pose an
            increased risk of illness as a result of exposure
            to microbial pathogens. In some cases, these
            pathogens can be traced to sewage treatment
            plants, malfunctioning septic systems, and
            discharges from storm water systems and ani-
            mal feeding operations. EPA is implementing
            a three-part strategy to protect public health
            and the quality of the nation's recreational
                First, we will be working with states to
             ensure that state-adopted criteria for
             pathogens and bacteria in waters designated
             for recreational use are current and scientifi-
             cally sound. (In a related effort, EPA has
             developed new analytic methods for monitor-
             ing pathogen levels at beaches and other
             recreational waters.)  We will continue to
             work with state, tribal, and local governments
             to deliver core programs of the Clean Water
             Act: developing and implementing Total
             Maximum Daily Loads and implementing the
discharge permit; urban storm water control;
and nonpoint pollution control programs. In
addition, we will be encouraging state, tribal,
and local governments to adopt voluntary
guidelines for managing on-site/decentralized
sewage treatment systems and using Clean
Water Revolving Loan Funds to finance sys-
tems where appropriate.

    Second, we are implementing controls for
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), which
occur in about 770 communities around the
country. CSOs can affect the quality of recre-
ational waters by releasing untreated
wastewater potentially containing high levels
of pathogens. EPA, states, and local govern-
ments are making steady progress toward
reducing overflows under the "CSO Policy."10
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. By 2011, permittees will have complet-
ed long-term control plans and EPA and states
will be monitoring progress toward fully imple-
menting the controls called for in these plans.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/

    The third element of our strategy focuses
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 contamina-
tion poses a risk to swimmers. We will
continue to expand public access to internet-
based beach information on our website.
Governments receiving BEACH Act grants
will post information on water quality, beach
monitoring and advisory programs, and beach
closures, which will enable beach-goers to
make informed choices.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/

                                                   Clean and Safe Water—Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality
Sub-objective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality
on a Watershed Basis. By 2012, use pollution
prevention and restoration approaches to pro-
tect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams
on a watershed basis.

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2012, attain water quality stan-
       dards for all pollutants and
       impairments in more than 2,250
       water bodies identified in 2002 as not
       attaining standards (cumulative).
       (2002 baseline: 39,798 water bodies
       identified  by states as not meeting
       water quality standards. Water bodies
       where mercury is among multiple pol-
       lutants causing impairment may be
       counted toward this target when all
       pollutants but mercury attain stan-
       dards, but  must be identified as still
       needing restoration for mercury
       [1,703 impaired water bodies are
       impaired by multiple pollutants
       including mercury, and 6,501 are
       impaired by mercury alone].)

    •  By 2012, remove at least 5,600 of the
       specific causes of water body impair-
       ment identified by states in 2002
       (cumulative). (2002 baseline:
       Estimate of 69,677 specific causes of
       water body impairment identified by
    •  By 2012, improve water quality con-
       ditions in  250 impaired watersheds
       nationwide using the watershed
       approach (cumulative). (2002 base-
       line: 0 watersheds improved of an
       estimated  4,800 impaired  watersheds
       of focus having 1 or more water bod-
       ies 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 22
   square miles in size.  "Improved"
   means that 1 or more of the impair-
   ment 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 1 or more water qual-
   ity parameters associated with the
•  Through 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 statisti-
   cally significant decrease in the
   streams rated "good"). (2006 baseline:
   Wadeable Stream Survey identifies
   28 percent of streams in good condi-
   tion; 25 percent in fair condition;
   42 percent in poor condition.)

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                •   By 2012, improve water quality in
                    Indian country at not fewer than
                    50 baseline monitoring stations in
                    tribal waters11 (cumulative) (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: 185 monitoring sta-
                    tions on tribal waters located where
                    water quality has been depressed
                    and activities are underway or
                    planned to improve water quality,
                    out of an estimated  1,661 stations
                    operated by tribes.)
                •   By 2015, in coordination with
                    other federal agencies, reduce by
                    50 percent the number of homes on
                    tribal lands12 lacking access to basic
                    sanitation (cumulative). (2003 base-
                    line: Indian Health  Service data
                    indicate that 8.4 percent of homes
                    on tribal lands lack  access to  basic
                    sanitation [i.e., 26,777 homes lack-
                    ing access out of an estimated
                    319,070 homes].)
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 system ranging from 1.0 to 5.0
in which 1 is  poor and 5 is good using the
National Coastal Condition Report indica-
tors 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 and meas-
       ured through onsite monitoring
       programs). (2005 baseline: 94 percent.)

                                                    Clean and Safe Water—Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality



    To improve water quality, EPA will work
with states, interstate agencies, tribes, local
governments, and others in three key areas:
maintaining strong core programs that
emphasize watershed protection; identifying
and restoring impaired waters on a watershed
basis; and investing in water infrastructure
and strengthening management practices to
improve the sustainability of water systems.

Strong Core Programs

    Building on the progress toward clean
water achieved over the past 30 years, EPA
is working with states and tribes to imple-
ment four critical components of the Clean
Water Act: scientifically sound water
quality standards; effective water monitoring;
strong programs for controlling nonpoint
sources of pollution; and strong discharge
permit programs.

       Scientifically sound water quality
standards are vital to protecting water for
swimming, public uses,  and fish and wildlife,
and they provide the environmental base-
lines for water quality programs. EPA
supports state and tribal programs by provid-
ing scientific water quality criteria
information. For example, we are developing
or improving criteria for nutrients and
pathogens in ambient water and determining
how to address emerging contaminants, such
as pharmaceuticals and personal care prod-
ucts found in the aquatic environment. We
will continue to work with states and tribes
to improve water quality standards and to
assist them in adopting appropriate  designat-
ed uses and criteria. We will also work with
states and tribes to operate and administer
the standards program effectively. Every
3 years states and authorized tribes are
expected to review their standards and revise
them if necessary; EPA is committed to
review and approve or disapprove changes to
standards promptly.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/

    To improve water quality, we need com-
plete, reliable data on the condition of the
nation's rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
Among our top priorities for the next 5 years
are continuing  long-term cooperative EPA-
state surveys  of water conditions similar to the
recently completed survey of wadeable  streams
and focusing next on lakes and rivers; imple-
menting state and tribal water-monitoring
strategies on established schedules; and
improving water quality data bases. This
monitoring work will help inform assessments
of fish tissue contamination and of the
conditions of coastal waters, ground water,
and beaches.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/
   EPA and states are delivering core
   Clean Water Act programs on a water
   shed basis, hor example, we are:
     Issuing watershed discharge permits.
     Implementing water quality trading at
     the watershed level.
     Assessing infrastructure needs by
     Demonstrating watershed scale pro-
     gram integration through targeted
     watershed assistance grants.
    A key component of the Clean Water
Act is controlling nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. EPA will continue working with states

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
             to reduce nonpoint pollution by implement-
             ing best management practices and providing
             education and technical assistance. We will
             help states develop plans for watersheds with
             impaired water quality caused by nonpoint
             sources and use those plans to coordinate
             monitoring, implementation, and efficient
             use of federal and other funding. A critical
             step in  this effort is forging strategic partner-
             ships with a broad range of agricultural
             interests,  and we will work with federal part-
             ners to  ensure that federal resources are
             managed  in a coordinated manner.

                To  learn more go to: www.epa.gov/
                TRIBAL LANDS

                To improve and protect water quality on
                tribal lands, EPA is working with tribes to:
                  Develop water quality standards and
                  monitoring strategies.
                  Develop nonpoint pollution programs
                  under Section 3 9 grants.
                  Develop water permit programs.
                  Develop tribal wetlands programs.
                  Develop watershed protection plans.
                  Involve tribes in developing Total
                  Provide Clean Water Indian Set-Aside
                  and Alaska Native Villages Sanitation
                  Grants to address wastewater infra-
                  structure issues.
                  Increase access to basic sanitation and
                  safe drinking water
                The National Pollutant Discharge
             Elimination System (NPDES) requires point
             sources discharging to the nation's waters to
             have permits for those discharges and indus-
             trial facilities that discharge to sewer systems
             to have pretreatment programs to reduce
             their impact on sewage treatment plants.
Over the next 5 years, EPA will continue to
strengthen management of the permit pro-
gram. We will:
    •  Monitor implementation of the fol-
       low-up actions that resulted from the
       Permitting for Environmental Results
       Strategy we recently completed to
       address concerns about the backlog in
       issuing permits and the health of
       state NPDES programs.

    •  Continue to support states in using
       innovative permit tools. Momentum
       is building for watershed-based per-
       mitting and pollutant trading, and
       over the next 5 years EPA expects to
       begin to see the  results of early efforts
       in this area.

    •  Work to ensure that permits issued by
       state and local governments to con-
       trol storm water from industrial sites,
       construction sites, and municipal
       storm sewers are promptly reissued
       when they expire.

    •  Ensure that industrial discharges to
       publicly-owned sewage treatment
       works  are pretreated effectively. We
       will provide tools for states and local-
       ities to work with industrial
       dischargers and will monitor the per-
       centage of significant industrial
       facilities meeting pretreatment

    •  Revise rules for discharges from
       Concentrated Animal Feeding
       Operations (CAFOs) to reflect court
       findings. We expect that after the
       revised rules take effect in 2007, per-
       mits will be issued promptly, and
       CAFOs will begin implementing
       nutrient management plans.

    •  Develop or revise national regula-
       tions addressing  key industrial sources
       of pollution. EPA will consider prom-
       ulgating new wastewater regulations
       for airport de icing and drinking water

                                                     Clean and Safe Water—Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality
        treatment residuals and revising regu-
        lations for some chemical

    •   Continue working with states to
        address and resolve significant non-
        compliance with discharge permits in
        a timely manner, emphasizing
        instances of significant noncompli-
        ance in which excessive effluents
        contribute to  impaired waters.

    •   Continue working with states and
        sewage treatment plants to improve
        compliance with permit conditions.

    To learn more go  to: www.cfpub.epa.gov/

Restore Impaired Waters on a
Watershed Basis

    In reports  to EPA, states identify waters
as "impaired" when one or more of the  uses
designated in water quality standards is not
being attained. EPA, states, interstate agen-
cies, and tribes are expanding and
strengthening  efforts to  meet our 2012 goal of
restoring more than 2,250 of the 39,798
waters that states identified as impaired in
2002. In a related effort, we are also working
to restore and  protect large-scale ecosystems
around the country. (See Goal 4: Healthy
Communities  and Ecosystems.)

    Over the next several years, we will con-
tinue to work with states to coordinate
identification of impaired waters and improve
data on  location and causes of impairment.
Better data will enable EPA and states to iden-
tify watersheds where impaired waters are
clustered and determine likely causes and
remedies. Improved data will also help states
refine schedules for developing TMDLs so that
TMDLs needed to restore a group of impaired
waters can be coordinated. Developing TMDLs
on a watershed basis will be cost  effective and
create opportunities for coordinating response
programs and innovations such as watershed-
based permitting and water quality trading.
Water quality trading is a valuable tool that
promotes shared responsibility for controlling
discharges within a watershed and reduces
pollutants at lowest cost.

    EPA will work with states to develop
coordinated watershed restoration plans
focused on small, "12-digit" watersheds as
defined by the U.S. Geological Survey. These
plans will demonstrate how to coordinate
planning and implementation of pollution
control actions to improve water quality.

    We will also continue working with states
to develop TMDLs consistent with state
TMDL development schedules and court-
ordered deadlines. Since 2000, states and
EPA have made significant progress in devel-
oping and approving TMDLs, and we have
completed more than 20,000 TMDLs across
the country. We expect to maintain the cur-
rent pace of approximately 3,500 TMDLs
completed and approved per year.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/
    As additional TMDLs are developed to
support those already in place, the number of
impaired water bodies and watersheds ready
for implementing pollution controls will
increase. EPA and states must carefully define
and schedule restoration actions resulting

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
             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 man-
             agement practices, and financing support will
             be needed.

                To support this effort, EPA will refine the
             selection and issuance of "high-priority" per-
             mits—those expired permits that states
             determine have a significant environmental
             impact. A permit might be accorded high pri-
             ority, for example, if the permitted facility
             were contributing to impaired waters or if the
             permit incorporated new TMDLs and water
             quality standards or had the potential to
             contribute to watershed restoration. EPA
             will ensure that these critical permits are
             issued promptly.

             Support Sustainable Wastewater
                Sustaining water and wastewater infra-
             structure is a critical challenge. Existing
             systems are  aging—some have components
             more than 100 years old—and growing, shift-
             ing populations require investment in new
             systems. EPA's Gap Analysis Report (2002)
             estimated that if capital spending for waste-
             water infrastructure remained at current
             levels, the potential gap in funding between
             2000 and 2019 would be about $120 billion.
             Assuming a real annual rate of growth in rev-
             enues of 3 percent, the gap shrinks to $21
             billion. Furthermore, many utilities have not
             focused attention on managing for long-term

                To address this challenge, the nation
             must fundamentally change the  way it views,
             values, invests in, and manages water infra-
             structure. All parties will need to collaborate
             to find effective, efficient, and fair solutions;
             EPA is one partner in a larger, cooperative
             effort to address this nationwide infrastruc-
             ture problem. To help facilitate solutions,
             we have developed a Sustainable
             Infrastructure Strategy, organized around
             four main themes or "pillars:"
    •   Sustainable Management Practices:
        We will work with utilities and asso-
        ciations to promote sustainable
        management practices and finalize a
        national strategy in early 2007.

    •   Water Efficiency: We will develop
        "WaterSense," a voluntary partner-
        ship program modeled after EPA's
        Energy Star program, to create a con-
        sumer market for water-efficient

    •   Full Cost Pricing: We will identify
        the range of approaches used to set
        rate structures based on full cost pric-
        ing, and we will develop options we
        can share with communities.

    •   A Watershed Approach: We will
        work with utilities, watershed organi-
        zations, and others to provide tools
        and information that will promote a
        watershed approach to infrastructure

    EPA is developing an Internet-based
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (OWNS)
data system that will allow communities and
states to enter and update information on
their pollution prevention and treatment
project needs. CWNS data will be  easily
accessible for setting project priorities,
Internet mapping analyses, and other purpos-
es that support infrastructure management.
We are also undertaking a major research and
development initiative to identify water
infrastructure needs that can be addressed
through innovation.

                                                    Clean and Safe Water—Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality
    Clean Water State Revolving Funds
(CWSRFs), another tool supporting sustain-
able infrastructure management, provide
low-interest loans to help finance wastewater
treatment facilities and other clean water
projects. A portion of CWSRF funding is set
aside each year for water infrastructure
improvements on tribal lands, including
expanding access to basic sanitation. EPA
provides grants to capitalize state CWSRFs
which may be used to fund projects that sup-
port an  integrated watershed approach,
including repairing and upgrading onsite
treatment systems. As of early 2006, the fed-
eral government had invested more than $23
billion in capitalizing state CWSRFs.13 The
revolving nature of the funds and substantial
additions from states have increased that
investment, cumulatively over the years mak-
ing $55  billion available for loans.14 We will
continue our commitment to provide annual
capitalization grants to CWSRFs until 2011.
Additionally, we will work with state
CWSRF programs to maintain their excellent
fiduciary condition.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/owm/


    EPA tracks progress  in improving coastal
and ocean waters through the National
Coastal  Condition Report, a cooperative
EPA, NOAA, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and Department of the
Interior (DOI) project established in 2002. In
describing the ecological and environmental
condition of U.S. coastal waters, the report
indicates that, overall, coastal waters are
improving. To maintain this progress, we
will focus on:

    •   Assessing coastal conditions. The
        National Coastal Condition Report
        uses five indicators to determine the
        condition of coastal waters. EPA and
        other federal agencies will review
        changing conditions and periodically
        issue updated  assessments. To support
        this work, we  are developing indices
        for measuring the health of coral reefs
        and monitoring compliance  with
        environmental requirements at ocean
        dumping sites.

    •   Reducing vessel discharges.
        Discharges from vessels threaten U.S.
        waters and ecosystems. Ships discharge
        pollutants, and discharges of ballast
        water can spread invasive species, such
        as zebra mussels. We will assess the
        need for discharge standards for cruise
        ships operating in Alaskan waters;
        cooperate with the U.S. Department
        of Defense on establishing discharge
        standards for armed forces vessels; and
        assess our programs to reduce sewage
        discharges. To address the problem of

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   invasive species, we will assist the U.S.
                   Coast Guard in developing ballast
                   water discharge standards and contin-
                   ue to pursue this issue at the
                   international level.

                   Implementing coastal nonpoint source
                   pollution programs. Rapid growth in
                   coastal areas can result in increased
                   pollution from nonpoint sources. We
                   will continue to work with NOAA,
                   coastal states, and Great Lakes states to
                   reduce nonpoint source pollution in
                   the "coastal zone."

                   Managing dredged material. Several
                   hundred million cubic yards of sedi-
                   ment are dredged from waterways,
                   ports, and harbors every year. EPA
                   and the U.S. Army Corps of
                   Engineers (the Corps) share responsi-
                   bility for regulating the disposal of
                   this sediment. To ensure that sedi-
                   ment is disposed of safely and
                   properly, we will work with the Corps
                   to evaluate disposal sites, designate
                   and monitor sites, and review disposal
                   permits. We will also work with states
                   and other federal agencies to ensure
       that major ports and harbors have
       plans for managing dredged material,
       which include provisions for benefi-
       cial reuse of the material.

    •  Supporting international marine pol-
       lution control. With the U.S. Coast
       Guard, NOAA, and the U.S.
       Department of State, EPA is negoti-
       ating international standards  at the
       International Maritime Organization.
       We will use these standards as a
       mechanism to address invasive aquat-
       ic species, harmful antifoulants, bilge
       water, and marine debris.

    We will coordinate these efforts with
those of other federal  agencies, states, tribes,
and public and private parties. To improve
coastal waters, we must successfully imple-
ment pollution controls in inland watersheds
(see Sub-objective 2.2.1). Our progress will
also be tied to geographically focused projects,
such as the National Estuary Program,as well
as ecosystem protection programs. (See Goal
4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems.)

    To learn more go  to: www.epa.gov/owow/

                EPA conducts research dedicated to the
            drinking water and water quality programs,
            and brings to bear additional research on
            human health and ecological issues conduct-
            ed in support of other programs. (See Goal 4:
            Healthy Communities and Ecosystems.)

    The SDWA Amendments of 1996 direct
EPA to conduct research to strengthen the sci-
entific foundation for standards that limit
public exposure to drinking water contami-
nants. The program's primary goals focus on
developing research products that the Agency
will use to make regulatory decisions on candi-
date drinking water contaminants and review

                                                                       Clean and Safe Water—Human Capital
existing regulations. In addition, EPA regional
offices, states, tribes, municipalities, and utili-
ties often need technical advice to put new and
revised drinking water regulations into action.
Our Drinking Water Research Program
(DWRP) develops drinking water treatment
strategies, compliance monitoring methods,
and tools for source water protection to support
EPA and its partners in implementing SDWA.
We will advance methods for assessing expo-
sure and monitoring contaminants; study
contaminant mode-of-action and dose-
response; determine treatment, performance,
and cost parameters; and study the effects of
distribution systems on water quality. By pro-
viding the science and engineering information
that we and our partners need, our research
contributes measurable results that advance our
efforts to ensure safe drinking water.


    EPA's Water Quality Research Program
(WQRP) priorities reflect the research needs
of our national water program, regions, states,
and tribes. We
are targeting our
research efforts
to achieve meas-
urable results:
protective criteria
for designated
uses of aquatic
systems; diag-
nostic and
forecasting tech-
niques related  to
designated uses of
aquatic systems;
and sustainable watershed technologies. For
example, WQRP research will help the
Agency promulgate protective standards; iden-
tify contaminants and how they contribute to
impaired waters; and use tools for restoring and
protecting the nation's waters that consider
point and nonpoint sources of contamination
and the treatment and beneficial use of
biosolids. WQRP activity directly supports the
Agency's goals for improving water quality and
will contribute to the environmental outcomes
we are working to achieve.
    Over the past 20 years, EPA has delegat-
ed significant authority for protecting surface
water and drinking water to state govern-
ments. As a result, our role increasingly is
one of providing our partners and stakehold-
ers with guidance, assistance, and financial
and information resources. We will continue
to be responsible for coordinating national
water policy and evaluating water programs,
as well as for directly implementing certain
programs for some states and tribes.
    Our evolving role in protecting water quali-
ty means that our workforce must be competent
in communication, policy development, and
managing contracts and assistance agreements,
as well as in engineering and life science disci-
plines. EPA's water program is establishing a
Workforce Council to review workforce initia-
tives and advise senior managers on priorities
for improving quality of work life.

    The  water program is  also assessing
the optimal skill mix needed to fulfill
mission-critical assignments,  the distribution
of tasks among those positions, and expected
trends in staff retirement.  It has formed a

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
            Recruitment Council of staff and managers to
            plan and coordinate participation in job fairs,
            train employees on the recruitment process,
            and improve recruitment information shar-
            ing. In addition, water program offices have
            established or are working to establish ties to
            historically black colleges, as well as to other
            colleges and universities, to ensure a diverse
            workforce into the future.

                Recognizing that today's staffers are  tomor-
            row's leaders, our water program has initiated
            several long-term efforts to provide employees
                 with training and career guidance. The Water
                 Careers Program provides a variety of opportu-
                 nities related to 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 water pro-
                 gram also provides key training programs to
                 EPA and state employees including the
                 Drinking Water Academy, the Water Quality
                 Standards Academy, the Watershed Academy,
                 and the NPDES  Permit Writer's Course.
                Most of the strategic targets we have estab-
             lished to achieve our goal of clean and safe
             water are measurable and reportable on an
             annual basis. Using a "bottom up" approach,
             our national water program works closely with
             our regional offices and states to develop annu-
             al national targets, which are captured in
             annual national water program  guidance. To
             track annual progress toward our research

      Our water program is participating in an Agency-
      wide effort to develop and strengthen measures tc
      ensure that the environmental and  public health
      benefits of programs are equitably shared. Under
      our goal for clean and safe water; we will measure
      tribal water systems' compliance with drinking
      water standards,
waters, ar
      tribal access to safe drinking water and basic sanita-
      In the future, our national water program expects to
      be able to use established, Agency-wide criteria that
      identify "environmental justice" areas for which we w
      develop measures of progress in improving drinking
objective, we use a number of objective meas-
ures of customer satisfaction, product impact
and quality, and efficiency.
    Using such sources as program
evaluations and environmental indicators, we
have developed two new strategic targets and
related measures that will also be included in
the Agency's forthcoming Report on the
Environment (ROE) ,15 One measure addresses
the chemical, biological and physical condi-
tion of wadeable streams; the second
expresses the mercury blood-levels of women
of child-bearing age, a reflection of the health
risk from consuming contaminated  fish.


    As we incorporated improved measures in
this Strategic Plan, we also made a preliminary
assessment of longer-term opportunities for
improving performance measurement. Based
on this assessment, we will work to expand
and sustain a scientifically—sound, statistical-
ly-valid monitoring regimen to characterize
the condition of the nation's waters, to
advance measurement of water quality condi-
tions on tribal  lands, and to improve measures
related to environmental justice.

                       Clean and Safe Water—Using Feedback from Performance Assessments and Program Evaluations
    EPA's water program assesses program and
regional performance on a continuing basis
and prepares mid- and end-of-year perform-
ance reports using the environmental and
program measures established in its annual
national water program  guidance to describe
program progress. These reports include rec-
ommendations to improve specific instances
of poor performance, disseminate "best prac-
tices," and inform the development of future
annual guidance and strategic plans. Through
this process, we have identified the need for
performance improvements such as integrat-
ing clean water and drinking water programs,
reducing data reporting  lags  in the drinking
water program, and expediting reviews of
tribal applications to administer EPA regula-
tory programs.
    In addition, water program managers visit
three to four EPA regional offices and great
water body offices each  year to discuss pro-
gram management and performance. Topics
include assessing regional performance
against measures in the  Strategic Plan, regional
water issues identified in regional plans, and
the program commitments that states and
tribes make annually in their grant work
plans. These assessments help identify inno-
vations or "best practices" developed by
regions, states, tribes, watershed organiza-
tions, and others, which can be described in
water program performance reports and
shared across the country.

    Water programs  are also evaluated peri-
odically by EPA and organizations such as
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG), the
Government Accountability Office, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
and the National Academy of Sciences. We
have used the results of such evaluations to
formulate some of the water program goals
and strategies presented in this Strategic Plan.
For example, after evaluating the Agency's
work with states and tribes to implement
clean water programs on a watershed basis,
OIG recommended that we redesign our
watershed measure and revise supporting pro-
gram activity measures.  EPA responded by
developing a new measure addressing
improvement in water quality in "12 digit"
watersheds and expanding and revising water-
shed-related program activity measures in its
annual national water program guidance. The
new watershed measure  addresses smaller geo-
graphic areas than did our previous measure
and is more flexible in that it recognizes
improvement in water quality as well as full
restoration of impaired waters.
    In another study which influenced this
Strategic Plan, OIG evaluated the implementa-
tion of programs to protect sources of drinking
water. Based on OIG's assessment, our nation-
al program and regional managers worked
with states and tribes to revise and simplify
measures related to source water protection.
This effort has helped us better define an
ambitious and realistic target for implement-
ing source water protection programs by 2011.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                A number of water programs were
            reviewed using OMB's Program Assessment
            Rating Tool (PART). These include Public
            Water Supply Supervision, rated Adequate;
            Underground Injection Control, rated
            Adequate; Surface Water Protection, rated
            Moderately Effective; and Oceans and
            Coastal Protection, rated Adequate.

                The EPA Board of Scientific Counselors
            (BOSC) and OMB evaluated the Drinking
            Water Research Program in 2005. BOSC
            found the research to be  of high quality and
national importance and the program rele-
vant and critical to EPA's mission. 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 revising our
long-term drinking water research plans.

    To learn more go to:  www.epa.gov/
                Over the past several years, EPA has
            assessed emerging issues that can affect our
            goals for clean and safe water. Among the
            issues identified were:

                •   Decaying Water Infrastructure and
                    Population Growth: Municipal
                    wastewater infrastructure constructed
                    in the  1970s and 1980s, and an
                    increasing percentage of drinking
                    water infrastructure, is nearing the
                    end of its useful life. Responding to
       this challenge is complicated by the
       demands of a steadily growing popu-
       lation for drinking water supplies,
       wastewater treatment, and storm
       water management. EPA is in the
       first stages of an innovative, broad-
       based collaboration with states and
       municipalities to implement new
       strategies to strengthen water infra-
       structure management, including new
       initiatives related to water efficiency,
       sustainable management practices,
       and innovative financing of infra-

       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.

       Nanotechnology: The predicted
       explosion in the use of nanotechnol-
       ogy offers potential for both
       innovative water treatment methods
       and harm to aquatic systems from the
       release of nanoscale devices and

                                                    Clean and Safe Water—Emerging Issues and External Factors
    •  Remote Sensing Technology:
       Dramatic progress in miniaturizing
       sensors and gathering environmental
       data from remote locations will open
       new avenues for monitoring the
       condition of waters.

    •  Climate Change: Understanding of
       the effects of climate change on the
       health and productivity of coastal
       waters and habitats, fisheries, and
       wetlands is necessary to inform sound
       environmental management and
       protection of these resources.

    •  Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater:
       More pharmaceutical products of
       more varied types are reaching
       aquatic systems through wastewater
       systems, with the potential for
       unanticipated impacts on  ecological
       systems and human health.

    •  Renewable Energy: As energy needs
       increase and costs from conventional
       sources climb, demand for alterna-
       tives, including renewable energy,
       will grow. Recent studies have
       demonstrated the potential for
       sewage treatment plants and animal
       feeding operations to generate signifi-
       cant amounts of renewable energy
       from treatment process by-products.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/ocfo/

    As we address these emerging  water issues
and continue to strengthen and improve
current programs, a number of external fac-
tors can affect our success.  For example,
much of our progress in achieving  our goals
will depend on maintaining strong partner-
ships. States, our primary partners  in
implementing clean water and safe drinking
water programs, are facing budget  problems
and perhaps deficits. EPA recognizes that
state budget shortfalls are an external factor
that may limit progress toward clean and
safe water goals.
    Local governments also play a critical
role in implementing clean and safe water
programs. Municipalities and other local
entities have partnered with states and the
federal government to finance wastewater
treatment and drinking water systems, and
their continued contribution is essential to
meeting water goals. Municipalities are  also
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 compli-
ance 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.16
Continued consultation with local
governments is critical to achieving clean
and safe water.

   EPA  implements programs  in Indian
country, helps build tribes' capacity to admin-
ister clean and safe water programs, and
works as co-regulators with authorized tribes.
Tribal resource needs are great, however, and
unlike states, many tribes are still developing
programs to  administer clean and safe water
programs. Inadequate progress in developing
these programs is another factor that could
limit progress toward our clean water goals.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course

                Key elements of the national water
             program, including nonpoint source control,
             source water protection, and watershed man-
             agement, require broad partnerships among
             many federal, state, and local agencies and
             the private sector. Over the next several
             years, building partnerships with the agricul-
             tural community (such as USDA, state
             agricultural agencies, and local conservation
             districts) is a top priority for meeting clean
             water goals. We will continue to provide
             water quality data and technical assistance
             that can help USDA target its runoff control
                Similarly, we rely on many agencies for
             monitoring data to measure progress toward
our clean and safe water goals. States lead the
effort in water quality monitoring. Other
agencies  also provide critical information; for
example, USGS maintains water-monitoring
stations throughout the nation, and NOAA
provides  information on coastal waters.

    Other federal partnerships are critical to
achieving our water program goals. EPA 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  manage-
ment issues in U.S. waters. We will continue
to work with the U.S. Agency for
International Development, Department of
State, and other interested stakeholders to
improve access to safe drinking water and
sanitation worldwide in support of the United
Nations Millennium Goals. To this end, we
will promote the international use of Water
Safety Plans as a health-based  risk assessment
tool for improving water systems.

    Finally, all of our coastal and oceans
activities are carried out in partnership with
other federal agencies and, in some cases,
with international, state, local, and private
entities as well. We rely on the efforts of the
U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast
Guard, Alaska and other states, and a
number of cruise ship  and environmental and
nongovernmental organizations to manage
wastewater discharges from vessels.

                                                                                              Clean and Safe Water—Notes

1.   U.S. EPA. 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, llth 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.   Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal land," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
     Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
     their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

5.   Ibid.

6.   Ibid.

7.   U.S. EPA. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. Washington, DC:
     Government Printing Office.

8.   United Nations. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Johannesburg, South Africa,
     26 August - 4 September, 2002. New York, NY: United Nations.

9.   U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories.
     Washington, DC. Available online  at http://mapl.epa.gov. Access: May 1, 2003.

10.  U.S. EPA, April 19, 1994. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy. Federal Register Vol. 59,
     No. 75, page 18788.

11.  Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal land," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
     Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
     their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

12.  Ibid.

13.  U.S. EPA. June  2002. CWNIMS National Report. CWSRF Funds Available for Projects, Net Sources.
     Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

14.  Ibid.
15.  The latest version of the ROE as well as information associated with the new ROE can be found at

16.  U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water  and Drinking Water, Accessing Drinking Water Data in SDWIS/FED
     (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version). Available online at www.epa.gov/safewater/data/



 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.

                               The land preservation and restoration goal presents EPA's strategic
                               vision for managing waste, conserving and recovering the value
                               of wastes, preventing releases, responding to emergencies, and
                        cleaning up contaminated land. The stakes can be high because
                        uncontrolled wastes can cause acute illness or chronic disease and can harm
                        the environment. Cleanup almost always costs more than prevention, and
                        contaminated land can be a barrier to bringing jobs and  revitalization to a
                        community. Disposed wastes also represent a loss of important material and
                        energy values,

                            EPA employs a hierarchy of approaches to protect the land, including
                        reducing waste at its source, recycling waste for materials or energy values,
managing waste effectively by preventing spills and releases of toxic materials, and cleaning  up
contaminated properties. We are helping develop public-private partnerships to conserve resources in
key areas. Moreover, over the next 5 years, we will establish or update approved controls to prevent
dangerous releases at approximately 500 hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and
also will address 2 longstanding tribal waste management concerns: increasing the number of tribes
covered by integrated waste management plans and cleaning up open dumps.

   To reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances,
we plan to maintain a high level of readiness to respond to emergencies, lead or oversee the response at
more than 1,600 hazardous waste removals and reduce by 25 percent the number of gallons of oil spilled
by facilities subject to Facility Response Plan regulations relative to previous levels. EPA and  its
partners, and responsible parties will remediate contaminated land, reduce risk to the public,  and
enable communities to return properties to beneficial reuse. We will also apply leading-edge scientific
research to improve our capability to assess conditions and determine relative risks posed by
contamination at hazardous waste sites.
                                                   Susan Parker Bodine
                                                   Assistant Administrator
                                                   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

                                      GOAL  3:
                Land   Preservation
                   and   Restoration
   Uncontrolled, wastes released on the land can
migrate—contaminating drinking water, causing illness
or disease, and threatening healthy ecosystems. EPA is
working to minimize risks and to preserve and restore
land using the most effective waste management and
cleanup methods available. We rely
on a variety of strategies: reducing
waste at its source, recycling,
managing waste to prevent spills and
releases, and cleaning up contami-
nated property. We are especially
concerned about threats to our most
sensitive populations: children, the
elderly, and people with chronic
                                 Objective 3.1
                                 Land .
                                 Objective 32: Restore
                                 Land .
                                 Objective 3.3: Enhance
                                 Science and Research .
   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
EPAs work to preserve and restore the land. We use
Superfund authority to clean up uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites and return land to
productive use. Under RCRA, we work in partnership
with states and tribes to address risks
associated with leaking underground storage tanks and
generation and management of hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes. Tribal governments are the
primary parties for setting standards, making environmen-
tal policy decisions, and managing programs consistent with
federal standards and regulations for reservations, and our
regional offices work directly with them as the recognized
independent authorities for reservation affairs.
                 We also use 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 signifi-
              cant challenge. To minimize these
              risks, EPA integrates prevention, pre-
              paredness,  and response efforts. We
              conduct spill-prevention activities to
              keep harmful substances from being
released to the environment. And we continue to
improve our readiness to respond and minimize contami-
nation and harm to the environment when spills do occur
by coordinating with our partners at all levels of govern-
ment, developing clear authorities,
training personnel, and providing proper equipment.
   EPA is committed to ensuring environmental justice for
all peopk, regardkss of race, color,  national origin, or
income. Recognizing that minority and/or low-income
communities frequently may be exposed disproportionately

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
            to environmental harm and risks, we work
            through our land preservation and restoration
            program to protect them and other burdened
            communities from adverse human health and
            environmental effects. We implement these
            programs consistent with existing environ-
            mental and civil rights laws and their
            associated regulations, as well as the
            Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions
to Address Environmental justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations." Ensuring environmental justice
means not only protecting human health and
the environment for everyone, but also
making certain that all people are treated
fairly and given the opportunity to participate
meaningfully in making decisions that will
affect their health and communities.
            Sub-objective 3.1.1: Reduce Waste
            Generation and Increase Recycling. By
            2011, reduce materials use through product
            and process design, and increase materials
            and energy recovery from wastes otherwise
            requiring disposal.

            Strategic Targets

                •  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 118 the number
                   of tribes covered by an integrated
                   waste management plan compared to
                   FY 2006.

                •  By 2011, close, clean up, or upgrade
                   138 open dumps in Indian country6
                   and on other tribal lands7 compared
                   to FY 2006.

            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 con-
       trols. (The universe of facilities will
       be reassessed in FY 2009. However,
       we currently estimate that there will
       be about 820 facilities that will
       require these controls. The goal of
       500 represents about 60 percent of
       the universe of 820 facilities.)

       By 2011, increase the percentage
       of UST facilities that are in signifi-
       cant operational compliance with
       both release and detection and
       release prevention requirements to
       71 percent from 66 percent in 2006

                                               Land Preservation and Restoration—Objective 3.1: Preserve Land
       (an increase of 5 percent) out of a
       total estimated universe of approxi-
       mately 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.

    In setting goals for conserving resources
and managing waste under our Resource
Conservation Challenge Program, EPA
has high aspirations for our nation. We are
striving for a future when materials once con-
sidered wastes suitable only for landfills will
be continually reused and recycled, when
"industrial ecology" will be the mantra of
corporate executives across the nation, and
when our landfills will become obsolete.8 To
lead this move toward sustainability, we are
establishing a national challenge to recycle
40 percent of our municipal solid waste by
2011.9 Meeting this challenge will take the
combined efforts of all levels of government,
large and small businesses, and dedicated
citizens. It will mean that we have reached a
milestone on the path to a future when we
produce no waste at all.

    We will work with stakeholders to establish
effective strategic targets that benchmark and
quantify our environmental progress toward
sustainable resource conservation. These
targets will provide a vivid picture of the signif-
icant environmental and economic benefits of
reducing, reusing, and recycling materials.
Under our Resource Conservation Challenge,
we have set new targets for recycling construc-
tion and demolition debris and for using coal
combustion ash rather than disposing of it. In
the coming years, we will focus on developing a
target or targets that contribute to the national
40 percent municipal solid waste recycling
challenge, and we will be developing broader
measures that capture the benefit of our
resource conservation efforts. (As EPA makes
the transition to new measures, we will
maintain the goal of recycling 35 percent of
municipal solid waste by 2008.)
                     Preserving Resources,
                        Preventing Waste
                    COAL COMBUSTION
                    PRODUCTS PARTNERSHIP
    We are
establishing and
partnerships with
industry, states,
and other entities
to reduce waste
generation and
develop and
deliver tools
that will help
businesses, manu-
facturers, and
consumers prevent waste and increase recy-
cling. Our WasteWise and Coal Combustion
Products Partnership programs, for example,
capitalize on voluntary efforts to reduce waste
and increase  recycling and serve as models for
new alliances between agencies, industries,
and businesses.

    For more information go to:
wastewise/about/index.htm and www.epa.gov/

    We will continue to support our tribal
partners in improving practices for managing
solid waste on Indian lands.10 EPA is responsi-
ble for implementing RCRA hazardous waste
and UST programs directly in Indian country.
Recognizing the challenges unique to tribal
lands, we will work with tribes on a govern-
ment-to-government basis in a way that
affirms our federal trust responsibility to the
572 federally-recognized tribal governments
and acknowledges the importance of conserv-
ing natural resources for cultural uses. To
upgrade tribes solid waste management

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
            infrastructure, we will continue to work with
            them to develop integrated waste management
            plans, codes, ordinances, recycling programs,
            and alternatives to open dumping. Through
            these efforts, we will help to clean up existing
            dumps, reducing the risks they pose to human
            health and the  environment. A municipal
            solid waste landfill is considered to be an
            "open dump" if it does not meet EPA's
            Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria, and
            is considered "upgraded" when modified so
            that it meets such criteria.11 Over the next
            5 years, EPA will build on the work of the
            National Interagency Workgroup, which
            annually contributes funding to the Solid
            Waste Assistance Grant Program for tribes,
            and we will forge  partnerships with other
            federal agencies to identify and resolve waste
            problems in Indian country and on other
            tribal lands.


                A key strategy for reducing waste is
            developing infrastructure that will make it
            easier for industry, businesses, and consumers
            to reduce the waste they generate, to acquire
            and use recycled materials, and to purchase
products containing recycled materials. We
will continue to promote development of new
and expanded markets for recycled materials
and new and better recycling technologies. In
addressing municipal solid waste, we will
focus on specific commodity streams—paper,
organics, containers, packaging, and electron-
ics—which offer great potential for recycling.
The carpets and electronics sectors, for
example, present promising opportunities for
collaboration because key industries and
states recognize the environmental benefits
to be derived from reducing waste.
Similarly, our new GreenScapes partnership
www.epa.gov/greenscapes will increase
end-markets for compost while teaching
homeowners how to save time, money, and
natural resources by reducing and recycling
their yard wastes.

   EPA also is working with tribes to
increase recycling and composting at large,
public venues such as tribally-owned and
operated casinos, shopping centers, and
amphitheaters. "Recycling on the Go"12
projects in such locations can prevent
recyclable and compostable materials from
reaching landfills. Such projects also promote
partnerships and build strong working
relationships between EPA, tribes, and
local governments.

   We  will continue to promote recycling of
industrial by-products, concentrating on
three large-quantity material streams: coal
combustion products, construction and demo-
lition debris, and foundry sands. Our Coal
Combustion Products Partnership
index.htm) will prevent waste by encouraging
the beneficial use  of coal combustion prod-
ucts. EPA's  construction initiative
priorities/bene-use.htm) will foster recycling
of industrial materials, including construction
and demolition debris, in major transporta-
tion and building  construction  projects.
Through the Green Highways Initiative
(http://www.greenhighways.org/), we will
collaborate with government, business, and

                                                Land Preservation and Restoration—Objective 3.1: Preserve Land
industry to reuse industrial materials for
transportation sector needs; reduce, reuse,
and recycle municipal solid waste; and con-
sider options for "green procurement." And
we will continue working with the foundry
industry to encourage recycling of spent
foundry sands and develop a numerical goal
to quantify these efforts.

    EPA will also promote new and better
recycling technologies and ways to obtain
energy or products from waste. For example,
through bioreactor technology, which acceler-
ates stabilization of municipal solid waste, the
collection of landfill gases containing methane
offers promise as a source of energy. We 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.


    As a result of EPA's continuing outreach to
nonprofit organizations, major retailers,
electronics manufacturers, and other industries,
messages on conservation, waste prevention,
and recycling have become more prevalent.
These messages increase public awareness of
waste disposal issues,  encouraging consumers,
young people, and underserved communities
to make smarter, more responsible environ-
mental choices. We  will work with our
partners to encourage students and teachers
to begin innovative  recycling programs, and
we will develop unique  tools and projects to
promote waste reduction,  recycling, and
neighborhood revitalization in Hispanic and
African-American communities and on
Indian lands.  By funding training programs
and providing resources for tribal employees,
EPA will continue to support the develop-
ment of tribal waste  management programs,
including adequate and recently-approved,
integrated solid waste management plans,
community education and outreach, and
other cleanup activities.

    Because waste management and recycling
of paper, plastics, and electronics have
become increasingly global enterprises,
"Global Environment" is a core priority in
EPA's Action Plan (www.epa.gov/adminweb/
administrator/actionplan.htm). EPA waste
management programs will continue working
with other countries and international  agen-
cies to  devise efficient, rational solutions and
voluntary and regulatory initiatives to protect
the global environment.
    Through our membership on the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation's
Hazardous Waste Task Force, EPA will pro-
mote the safe handling of waste imports and
exports among North American Free Trade
Agreement countries. This work will improve
tracking of transboundary hazardous waste
shipments, strengthen compliance, enhance
border security, and reduce administrative
burden and costs to private and government
agencies in the United States and abroad.
Under the U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Plan
intro.htm), EPA will work with Mexican
authorities to clean up and prevent tire piles
and remediate contaminated sites along the
border. In other international efforts, we will
work with the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development to minimize
waste generation, remove barriers to recy-
cling, and streamline exports and imports of

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                                   hazardous waste
                                   recyclables;13 work
                                   with a global public-
                                   private partnership
                                   under the Basel
                                   Convention to
                                   enhance the design,
                                   collection, reuse,
                                   and recycling of
                                   mobile phones; and,
                                   under the auspices
                                   of the International
                                   Maritime Organiza-
            tion's environmental committee, participate
            in negotiations (through 2009) to develop a
            new international convention for the safe
            and environmentally sound dismantling and
            recycling of ships.


                A key element of EPA's strategy for
            managing hazardous wastes that must be
            treated, stored, or disposed is making waste
            management facilities more efficient.
            Working with our state, tribal, and local
            government partners, we are focusing on
            permitting processes and improving permit-
            ting conditions where appropriate. EPA will
            continue to work with authorized states—
            particularly those with a large number of
            facilities lacking initial approved controls—to
            remove obstacles to obtaining permits or put-
            ting other approved controls in
            place and to transfer successful
            strategies from other states.

                Today, while the vast majori-
            ty of the approximately  650,000
            active USTs have the required
            leak detection and other equip-
            ment in place, significant work
            remains to ensure that UST own-
            ers and operators maintain and
            operate their systems properly.14
            RCRA Subtitle I allows state
            UST programs approved by EPA
to operate in lieu of the federal program, and
EPA recognizes that the number and diversity
of UST systems puts state authorities in the
best position to
regulate USTs  and set program priorities.15
As a result, even states that have not
received formal state program approval from
EPA are most often the primary implement-
ing agencies and receive annual grants from
EPA. We will continue to support state
programs; strengthen partnerships among
stakeholders; and provide technical assis-
tance, compliance assistance, and training to
promote and enforce UST facility compli-
ance. We will work with states on innovative
approaches and outreach and education
tools designed  to bring more tanks into

   The Energy Policy Act, which focuses on
preventing releases to keep our nation's  land
and water safe, will require major changes to
federal and state UST programs. The Energy
Policy Act extends the LUST Trust Fund tax
through 2011;  and includes provisions regard-
ing inspections, operator training, delivery
prohibition, secondary containment, financial
responsibility, and cleanup of releases that
contain oxygenated fuel additives. EPA  and
states will work closely with tribes, other fed-
eral agencies, tank owners and operators, and
other stakeholders to bring about the man-
dated changes  affecting UST facilities,
ultimately increasing compliance and
 preventing UST releases.

                                                Land Preservation and Restoration—Objective 3.2: Restore Land
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

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2011, achieve and maintain at
       least 95 percent of the maximum
       score on readiness evaluation criteria
       in each region.

    •  By 2011, complete an additional 975
       Superfund-lead hazardous substance
       removal actions. (In FY 2005, 175 of
       these actions were completed.)

    •  By 2011, oversee and complete an
       additional 650 voluntary removal
       actions. (In FY 2005, 137 of these
       actions were completed.)

    •  By 2011, reduce by 25 percent the
       gallons of oil spilled by facilities sub-
       ject to Facility Response Plan
       regulations relative to the 601,000
       gallons of oil spilled in 2003.

    •  By 2011, inspect (and ensure compli-
       ance at) 90 percent of the estimated
       4,200 facilities subject to Facility
       Response Plan regulations, up 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 40,491 of 44,700 poten-
       tially hazardous waste sites evaluated
       by EPA to help resolve community
       concerns on whether these sites
       require long-term cleanup to protect
       public health and the environment
       and to help determine if they can be
       cleared for possible redevelopment.
       (By the end of FY 2005, a total of
       38,770 final site assessment decisions
       had been made.)
    •  By 2011, control all identified
       unacceptable human exposures from
       site contamination for current land
       and/or groundwater use conditions at
       approximately 85 percent (1,316) of
       1,543 Superfund human exposure
       sites. (The universe of 1,543 is the
       number of National Priorities List
       [NPL] sites with potential human
       exposure pathways as of FY 2005 and
       includes 172 Superfund federal facility
       sites. Baseline: By the end of
       FY 2006, approximately 82  percent
       [1,266] of sites had human exposures
       under control.) By 2011,  increase
       to 95 percent the high National

      2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                         Corrective Action Prioritization
                         System (NCAPS)-ranked RCRA
                         facilities with human exposures to
                         toxins controlled. (The universe of all
                         facilities that need RCRA Corrective
                         Action will be finalized by the end of
                         2007 and will include high, medium,
                         and low ranked facilities.)16
                         By 2011, control the migration of
                         contaminated groundwater through
                         engineered remedies, natural processes,
                         or other appropriate actions at
                         74 percent (1,017) of 1,381
                         Superfund groundwater sites.  (The
                         universe of 1,381 sites  is the number of
                         NPL sites with groundwater contami-
                         nation as of FY 2005 and includes 166
                         Superfund federal facility sites.
                         Baseline: By the end of FY 2005,
                         68 percent [937] of sites had ground-
                         water migration under control.)
                         By 2011, increase to 80 percent the
                         high NCAPS-ranked  RCRA facilities
                         with migration of contaminated
                         groundwater under control. (The
                         universe of all facilities that need
                         RCRA Corrective Action will be
                         finalized by the end of 2007 and will
                         include high, medium, and low
                         ranked facilities.)17
    •  By 2011, reduce the backlog of
       LUST cleanups (confirmed releases
       that have yet to be cleaned up)
       that do not meet state risk-based
       standards for human exposure
       and groundwater migration from
       26 percent to 21 percent. By 2011,
       increase to 22 percent the RCRA
       facilities with final remedies con-
       structed. (The universe of all facilities
       that need RCRA Corrective Action
       will be finalized by the end of 2007
       and will include high, medium, and
       low ranked facilities.)18 By 2011,
       complete  construction of remedies at
       approximately  76 percent (1,171)  of
       1,547 Superfund sites. (The universe
       of 1,547 sites is the total number of
       sites on the NPL as of FY 2005 and
       includes 172 Superfund federal facil-
       ity sites. Baseline: By the end of
       FY 2005, 62 percent or 966 sites had
       completed construction.) (Note that
       construction completion is a mile-
       stone which indicates that all
       significant construction activity has
       been completed, even though addi-
       tional remediation may be needed
       for all cleanup  goals to be met.)

    •  By 2011, ensure that 36 percent
       (345) of 966 final and deleted con-
       struction complete NPL sites are
       ready for reuse site-wide. (As of
       July 2006, 20 percent [195] of the
       966 final and deleted construction
       complete NPL sites, including 14
       Superfund federal facility sites,
       met EPA's definition for ready for
       reuse site-wide.)

Sub-objective 3.2.3: Maximize Potential
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.

                                                  Land Preservation and Restoration—Objective 3.2: Restore Land
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 limita-
       tions cases for sites with unaddressed
       total past Superfund costs equal to or
       greater than $200,000.

    EPA leads the federal effort to reduce risks
posed by contaminated land by responding to
releases and potential releases of harmful sub-
stances and undertaking cleanups and other
activities to return land to beneficial use.
We develop and implement prevention
measures, improve response capabilities, ensure
that response and cleanup actions are effective,
and promote protective, sustainable, and
productive uses of formerly contaminated
properties. We collaborate with private
organizations, communities, businesses,
and government agencies at every level to
accomplish these ends. We also work to
increase public understanding of environmen-
tal issues and develop a sense  of
environmental stewardship for land
that has been returned to beneficial use.


    National preparedness 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, radiation,  or weapons  of
mass destruction. EPA will continue to
enhance its core emergency response program
by providing specialized training on the
Incident Command System; developing
additional health and safety materials; partici-
pating in exercises with federal, state, and
local government agencies, including
Regional Response Teams; and strengthening
response readiness across multiple regions.

    We also are working to improve coordi-
nation and communication. For example, as
part of the National Incident Coordination
Team, we will continue to improve mecha-
nisms for coordinating  responses to national
emergencies. Under the Continuity of
Operations/Continuity of Government pro-
gram, we will upgrade and test plans,
facilities, training, and equipment to ensure
that essential government business can
continue during a catastrophic emergency.
And we will expand our National Response
Team capabilities for coordinating large-scale
responses with the Department of Homeland
Security; Federal Emergency Management
Agency; Federal Bureau of Investigation;
and other federal, state, and local govern-
ment agencies.

    We also are
improving our capabil-
ity for responding to
incidents involving
harmful chemical, oil,
biological, and radio-
logical substances.
Each year, EPA
personnel assess,
respond to, mitigate,
and clean up thou-
sands of releases—
whether accidental,
deliberate, or naturally
occurring. These
range from small
spills at chemical or
oil facilities to larger
accidental releases in
train and highway
accidents, and from

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
             natural disasters, such as hurricanes Katrina
             and Rita, to national emergencies, such as
             terrorist events. Over the next 2 years, we
             will expand our current core emergency
             response program to address prevention and
             preparedness and cover all aspects of emer-
             gency environmental management.
                An important component of our land
             strategy is preventing oil spills and being pre-
             pared for spills that do occur so that oil does
             not reach our nation's waters. Under the Oil
             Pollution Act,19 we require certain facilities
             to develop Facility Response Plans (FRPs)
             for use in the event of a spill and  to
             practice implementing them. At the
             end of FY 2004, EPA had inspected (and
             found in compliance) 50 percent  of the esti-
             mated 4,200 FRP facilities; over the next
             5 years we will work to  ensure at least
             90 percent compliance.


                EPA's cleanup programs strive to protect
             Americans from risks posed by contaminated
             land; restore the nation's contaminated land;
             and enable communities safely to return these
             properties to beneficial  economic, ecological,
             and social use. We work with our federal,
             state, tribal, and local government partners
             to identify sites and facilities that need
             attention and collaborate to clean them up.
    EPA's One Cleanup Program is a long-term
initiative that encourages our cleanup programs
to work together and with all levels of govern-
ment to ensure that appropriate cleanup tools
are used;  resources and activities are
coordinated; results are effectively communi-
cated to the public; and cleanups are
protective and contribute to revitalizing com-
munities, including those with environmental
justice  concerns. We will strive to treat peo-
ple fairly, to provide equal opportunity for
participating in cleanup decisions, and to
ensure  that no population bears a dispropor-
tionate burden or risk. The One Cleanup
Program  reflects our effort to coordinate all of
EPA cleanup programs, yet provides the flexi-
bility to accommodate different statutory
authorities and approaches.

    All of our  cleanup programs include com-
mon elements: initial assessment,  stabilization
(when  needed to control actual or potential
exposure and protect local populations), site
investigation, selection of appropriate  site
remedies, implementation and completion of
remedies, and promotion of protective

    Investigating and Assessing Sites. With our
partners, we identify the type and extent of
contamination and the actual or potential
exposure to people and environmental recep-
tors. We  use the data we collect to determine
risks and to select remedies. To better  address
environmental justice concerns and identify
areas that may suffer disproportionate
impacts,  we will encourage broader use of
improved sample collection techniques,
analytical tools, and indicators.
    Selecting and Implementing Remedies.
We select remedies based on such criteria as
affected media (soil, air, groundwater, etc.),
cleanup objectives, compliance with applicable
laws, implementation issues, and acceptability
to state and tribal governments and the affect-
ed communities. Cost and efficiency
of the overall cleanup process are also
important. When remedies involve leaving
contamination in place, EPA will continue

                                                  Land Preservation and Restoration—Objective 3.2: Restore Land
to include institutional controls, such as
notices and easements, to prevent
inappropriate uses of the land or water and
unacceptable exposures.
    Completing Construction and
Post-Construction. Once appropriate remedies
have been selected, completing construction
of all remedies at a site or facility is an impor-
tant milestone for EPA's cleanup programs.
For example, the RCRA program has devel-
oped a long-term goal of implementing and
completing construction of final remedies at
95 percent of all facilities that need RCRA
corrective action by 2020,20 and we will be
developing interim annual targets (such as
our 2011 target of 22 percent) to measure
progress toward this goal.21

    The Superfund program conducts reviews
every 5 years to ensure that the remedy is
functioning as intended and remains protec-
tive. Given the many sites moving into the
post-construction-completion stage, we
will implement a strategy to manage post-
construction-completion activities and ensure
that response actions will protect human
health and the environment for the long
term (PCC Strategy www.epa.gov/

    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. This can mean that no contamina-
tion is left above levels of concern and that
the land has no restrictions on its use or that
site-specific goals that allow restricted uses of
the property have been met. EPA's cleanup
programs have set a national goal of returning
formerly contaminated sites to long-term,
sustainable, and productive use. EPA
will continue to foster revitalization
(www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/) by
developing policies and systems for the safe
long-term use of remediated land; identifying
and removing unintended barriers to benefi-
cial reuse of contaminated properties;
working with the marketplace to make for-
merly contaminated properties commercially
attractive; and developing revitalization
measures and indicators for all EPA cleanup

   Under Superfund Program enforcement
authorities, EPA leverages private party
resources to conduct cleanup actions and to
reimburse the federal government for federally
financed cleanups. We will continue to
pursue two strategies for conserving federal
funds: "Enforcement First" and cost recovery.
Under the Enforcement First strategy, EPA
takes enforcement actions at sites where
viable, liable potentially responsible parties
exist, requiring them to pay for or perform
the cleanups. To ensure that these parties are
able  to meet their cleanup obligations, EPA
developed a national strategy to assess com-
panies' compliance with federal financial
assurance requirements and will implement it
over the next several years.
     Cost recovery is another way to leverage
private party resources. Superfund provides
EPA the authority to compel private parties
to pay back federal money spent to conduct
cleanup activities.22 We will continue 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.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course

                EPA will continue to improve its capabil-
            ity to assess environmental conditions and
            determine the relative risks that contaminat-
            ed land poses to health and the environment.
            We will ensure that the  environmental data
            we collect are of known, documented, and
            acceptable quality by  implementing necessary
            field and lab procedures, practices, and
            controls. We will continue to integrate tech-
            nological 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 on our land research priorities.
                EPA scientists are developing methods
            for assessing multimedia risks, including
            the Multimedia, Multipathway, and Multi-
            receptor Risk Assessment (3MRA) modeling
            system to support the  Hazardous Waste
            Identification Rule. As a part of this effort,
EPA will be conducting research to provide a
preliminary risk screening for electronics
waste and better understand the risks posed
by hazardous constituents during
recycling operations, disposal, or component
reuse. The 3MRA model will also evaluate
on a national basis relative risks of various
waste disposal options for use in regulatory
decision making. We have also planned
research that targets specific materials for
volume reduction and others for reuse and

    To support cradle-to-cradle materials man-
agement, EPA scientists will evaluate landfill
caps to improve containment technologies and
conduct research on operating landfills as
bioreactors. This research addresses operation
and monitoring parameters  and evaluates
such risks as increased fugitive emissions. We
will incorporate our findings in the training
and technology transfer materials we provide
to state permitting officials.

    EPA's land research program helps accel-
erate scientifically defensible, cost-effective
cleanup decisions at complex sites,  in accor-
dance with CERCLA. We are targeting our
research to make measurable progress in
managing material streams,  conserving
resources, and managing waste and  in miti-
gating and managing contaminated sites.

    Toward these ends, we will focus research
on contaminated sediments,  ground water con-
tamination, site characterization, and technical
support to reduce uncertainties in assessing
contaminated sediments and develop and
evaluate options for remediation. We are
investigating sediment remedies with the
potential to be more cost-effective than
conventional dredging or capping remedies.

                                                           Land Preservation and Restoration—Human Capital
Research will also focus on bioremediation of
organics, electrochemical degradation, and
conventional and reactive landfill caps.
To identify and explore best management
practices, we will work with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Strategic
Environmental Research and Development
Program on a number of research projects to
evaluate the field performance of dredging
and capping of sediments.

   We will continue ground water
research—stressing ground water remediation
of inorganic plumes and ground water-surface
water assessment strategies—to develop appli-
cations for permeable reactive barriers  and
address fate and transport and treatment
methods for contaminants. Our research on
dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL)
source remediation focuses on demonstrating,
evaluating, and optimizing DNAPL remedia-
tion technologies; assessing and predicting
the benefits of
partial DNAPL
depletion; and
developing and
assessing integrat-
ed DNAPL source
approaches. Our
technical support
centers will
continue to pro-
vide site-specific

    Our research to support the LUST pro-
gram will provide fate and transport studies
and information on the effectiveness of reme-
diation alternatives. Research on fate and
transport and risk management strategies for
petroleum and non-petroleum oil spills will
support EPA and its partners in responding to
oil spill emergencies.
    EPA's emergency prevention, prepared-
ness, and response staff are key to the
Agency's ability to preserve and restore land.
We will continue to ensure their readiness
and protect their health and safety when
responding to releases of dangerous materials
or cleaning up contamination by providing
annual on-scene coordinator readiness train-
ing conferences, specialized Incident
Command System training, health and safety
materials, and exercises with federal, state,
and local government agencies. We will also
enhance the capabilities of our workforce by
acquiring and maintaining appropriate
response equipment, providing experience
with routine cleanup operations, and pre-
deploying responders for national special
security events. EPA's Superfund response
program will develop and maintain the skill
base needed to achieve its goals through
numerous training and enhancement
programs focusing on needs identified in its
competency gap analysis.

    EPA's RCRA national waste management,
waste minimization and recycling, and
cleanup programs rely on a cadre of technical-
ly adept and program management-oriented
people. Within the RCRA program, our
development efforts include state-of-the-art
technical training and focus on maintaining a
superior level of competency in areas such as
project management, communications, and
other skills. These competencies are necessary
to support our  work with the vast array of
public and private sector partners who are
interested in waste and materials manage-
ment. Our recruiting efforts have been
particularly successful in bringing on high
quality staff at  the entry level to help us build
a core group of seasoned employees  who are
ready to assume future leadership roles.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                To support our national goal of returning
            formerly contaminated sites to sustainable
            and productive use, all of EPA's cleanup pro-
            grams are developing new measures of
            revitalization. As a first step, the Superfund
            program has set a "site ready for reuse" target
            to demonstrate cleanup progress. This meas-
            ure tracks National Priority List sites 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 cur-
            rent and reasonably anticipated future uses;
            and where all institutional controls required
            in the Record of Decision have been imple-
            mented. These measures will capture the total
            number and acreage 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 existing
            uses), and whether and how the sites are
            being used (for industrial, commercial,
            residential, or other purposes).

                                         To track our
                                     annual progress
                                     toward our
                                     research objec-
                                     tives, we will use
                                     a number of
                                     objective meas-
                                     ures of customer
                                     satisfaction, prod-
                                     uct impact and
                                     quality, and effi-
                                     ciency. For
                                     example, we rely
                                     on independent
                                     expert  review
                                     panel ratings,
            client surveys on the usefulness of our prod-
            ucts, and analyses demonstrating the actual
            use of EPA research products.
    Most of the strategic targets established
for the waste management, UST, and
Superfund programs are based on the long-
term, outcome-oriented measures developed
for use in the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) assessments.

    As a result of the  self-evaluation we
conducted during the FY 2005 OMB
PART process, the Superfund program:
(1)  enhanced a key outcome measure to bet-
ter communicate progress towards long-term
human health; (2) added a new measure to
reflect the lasting effects of land cleanup and
restoration; (3) improved reporting on annual
and long-term  performance data to ensure
accountability; and (4) implemented a new
program review process and conducted its
first benchmarking study to seek improved
performance, effectiveness and efficiencies,
and protection. The OMB PART for the Oil
Removal Program led to 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.


    As we considered revisions and improve-
ments for this Strategic Plan, we also
conducted a preliminary assessment of longer-
term opportunities to  better articulate
strategic, outcome-oriented commitments.
For our land goal, we  identified four themes
to help guide our efforts to  improve our meas-
ures: extent of contaminated land; extent of
land restored to potential use; extent of
previously contaminated land in productive
use; and impacts of waste-management efforts
on human and environmental condition.
These themes will help guide our efforts to
improve our measures of performance.

                Land Preservation and Restoration—Using Feedback from Performance Assessments and Program Evaluations
    In undertaking the PART process, the
Superfund Program made several new com-
mitments. It will encourage continuous
improvement by strengthening its strategic
planning—initiating regular procedures to
track and document key decisions and
work products. To improve the accuracy
and reliability of its performance informa-
tion, the program will evaluate the quality
of data from key sources. Finally, the
Superfund program will create a forum that
allows regional offices to share best prac-
tices, resulting  in an overall improvement
in program performance and efficiency.

    In July 2004, EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB)  conducted an advisory
review of our Contaminated Sites and
RCRA Multiyear Plans. The Board found
the plans to be "programmatically and
scientifically sound" and noted "the remark-
able coordination of the program's research
with that of the relevant program offices
and other institutions" and "the judicious
use of leveraging opportunities to signifi-
cantly stretch limited resources to meet
more of the Agency's needs." In response to
SAB recommendations, the research pro-
gram combined the two multiyear plans into
 one document and more clearly linked
 research activities to program activities
 under Objectives 3.1 and 3.2.

    The SAB also reviewed the 3MRA
 modeling system and reported its findings in
 November 2004. EPA is addressing the
 Board's  recommendations by continuing to
 develop 3MRA modeling system validation
 protocols, modeling system evaluation, and
 additional uncertainty analysis.
   A number of emerging technologies
present potentially important implications for
waste management strategies and programs.
Waste to Energy, a technology which uses
waste materials that are unlikely to be
recycled as feedstock for energy production,
has significant implications for energy supply.
Research is also being conducted on applying
nanotechnology to remediate hazardous waste
sites. Using nanomaterials for remediation
could enable more rapid or cost-effective
cleanups than do current conventional
approaches. (More information is available in
the external peer review draft of EPA's White
Paper on Nanotechnology at www.epa.gov/

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                Our ability to respond as the federal
             on-scene coordinator for releases of harmful
             substances in the inland zone may be affect-
             ed 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 secu-
             rity incidents is affected by circumstances
             surrounding each event. For instance, if travel
             or communication is severely impeded, our
             response may be delayed or less efficient. In
             the case of a single large-scale incident, our
             resources are likely to be concentrated on
             that response, reducing our ability to address
             other emergency releases that may occur. In
             severe cases, our current emergency response
             workforce and resources may not be sufficient
             to address simultaneous large-scale incidents.

                A number of external factors could also
             substantially affect our ability to achieve our
             objectives for cleanup and prevention. These
include our reliance on private-party response
and state and tribal partnerships, new
environmental technologies, other federal
agencies' efforts, and statutory barriers.
Because states are primarily responsible for
implementing the RCRA Hazardous Waste
and UST programs, our ability to achieve our
goals depends on the strength and funding of
state programs. Similarly, our success in
meeting our goals for compliance depends
on a strong state presence.

    The Superfund Program was intended to
provide permanent site solutions to the
extent practicable. Complications can arise,
however, when new scientific information
suggests that cleanup decisions were based
on outdated risk assessments. As appropriate,
the Superfund Program must incorporate
emerging science into decision making while
maintaining its commitment to provide
permanent solutions.
    Achieving our waste reduction and
recycling objectives will depend on federal,
state, tribal, local government, industry, and
public participation in partnerships to reduce
waste generation and  increase recycling. EPA
provides national leadership to encourage these
partnerships  and to promote the campaign to
reduce or reuse waste that would ultimately be
sent for disposal. However, both domestic and
foreign economic stresses can adversely affect
markets for recovered materials.

    Finally, we rely on our partnerships with
other federal agencies and tribal governments
to upgrade, clean up, or close open dumps in
Indian country and to provide tribes access to
information on modern waste management.
And to achieve our objectives for waste  man-
agement on  tribal lands, EPA will continue to
depend on cooperation and participation by
tribes and other federal agencies.

                                                                                  Land Preservation and Restoration—Notes
1.   42 U.S. Code 6901-6992L

2.   42 U.S. Code 9601-9675.

3.   42 U.S. Code 7401-7671q.

4.   33 U.S. Code 12514387.
5.   U.S. Code 2701-2761.

6.   Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
    Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
    their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

7.   Ibid.

8.   Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020 (www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/vision.htm).

9.   In the 2003-2008 Strategic Plan, EPA established a goal of 35 percent recycling of municipal solid waste by 2008.
    EPA will continue to measure progress toward this goal through 2008.

10. Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
    Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
    their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

11. U.S. EPAs Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria are defined in 40 CFR 257 and 258.

12. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Resource Conservation Challenge/Recycling on the
    Go web site: www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/onthego/.

13. Core Performance Elements of the Guidelines for Environmentally  Sound Management of Wastes,
    April 24,  2003, Environment Policy Committee, OECD.

14. Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground
    Storage Tank Division Directors in EPA Regions 1-10, dated December 15, 2005. FY 2005 End'of'Year
    Activity Report.

15. 42 U.S. Code 6901-6992L

16. The 2020 RCRA Corrective Action universe will include all facilities that need RCRA corrective action as
    well as those on the current high-priority list, additional facilities that have a permitting obligation, and other
    appropriate and important facilities identified by EPA regions and states.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. 33 U.S. Code 2701-2761.

20. Beyond RCRA www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/vision.htm.

21. The 2020 RCRA Corrective Action universe will include all facilities that need RCRA corrective action as
    well as those on the current high-priority list, additional facilities that have a permitting obligation, and other
    appropriate and important facilities identified by EPA regions and states.

22. 42 U.S. Code 9601-9675.


f      '

         Protect, sustain, or restore the
         health of people, communities,
         and ecosystems using integrated
         and comprehensive approaches
         and partnerships.

        Goal 4 encompasses EPA's strategic approach to protecting,
        sustaining, or restoring the health of communities and ecosystems.
        In pursuit of this goal, EPA brings together a variety of programs,
tools, and resources; creates strong partnerships with federal, state, tribal,
and local government agencies; and enlists the support of many
nongovernmental stakeholders.
   With a mix of regulatory programs and partnership approaches the
Agency achieves results in ways that are efficient, innovative and
sustainable. A key component of Goal 4 is identifying, assessing,  and
reducing the risks presented by the thousands of chemicals and pesticides
on which our society and economy have come to depend. EPA continues
to work collaboratively with other nations and international organizations
to identify, develop, and implement policy options to address global
environmental issues of mutual concern. Following this, EPA strives to build
a community's capability to make decisions that affect the environment,
EPA's efforts to share information and provide assistance offers the tools
needed to effectively address the myriad aspects of planned development or
redevelopment. These contributions are tailored to circumstances spanning
the issues of sensitive communities and international cooperation. In a
similar manner, EPA's ecosystem protection programs encompass a wide
range of approaches that address specific at-risk regional areas, such as large
waterbodies. EPA also works with partners to protect larger categories of
threatened systems, such as estuaries and wetlands. In cooperation with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA will assure "no net loss" of wetlands.
   Science guides EPA's identification and treatment of emerging issues and
advances our understanding of long-standing human health and environmental
challenges. EPA's 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.
                           Jim Gulliford
                           Assistant Administrator
                           Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances
                           Ben Grumbles
                           Assistant Administrator
                           Office of Water
                           George Gray
                           Assistant Administrator
                           Office of Research and Development

Objective 4.1: Chemic
and Pesticide Risks  . .
    Communities and ecosystems are extremely complex
systems of enormous variety. To protect and sustain
them, EPA is working to manage environmental risks—
from risks presented by the pesticides and chemicals on
which we depend, to threats to our
watersheds, to hazards posed by pol-
lutants entering our homes, schools,
workplaces, and neighborhoods. We
work to protect critical ecosystems,
such as wetlands and estuaries, and
collaborate with states and others on
"place-based" efforts to protect
resources such as the Great Lakes,
Chesapeake Bay, and Gulf of
Mexico. We direct our
risk-management efforts toward the
greatest threats in our communities
and the most sensitive populations,
including children, the elderly, Native
Americans, and residents of areas
that may be disproportionately
exposed to environmental hazards.

        Our strategy for reducing risk calls first for
preventing pollution at its source. When programs to
prevent pollution are not viable, however, we strive to
minimize the waste generated, avoid harming habitat,
ensure that wastes are disposed of safely, and remediate
contamination that does occur.
    Key to 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. We
                  ensure that chemicals and pesticides
                  entering the market meet health and
                  safety standards and register them for
                  use. And we continue to review chem-
                  icals already in
                  commerce  to reduce potential risk.
Objective 42:

Objective 4.3: Restore
and Protect Critical

Objective 4.4: Enhance
Science and Research .
                     Many of EPAs programs to
                  achieve and sustain healthy commu-
                  nities and ecosystems are designed to
                  bring tools, resources, and approaches
                  to bear at the local level. We build
                  community capacity by providing
                  information to understand risk and to
                  evaluate the effects of development on
                  health and the environment. We
                  encourage redevelopment by providing
                  funds  to inventory, assess, and clean
up the hundreds of thousands of properties that lie aban-
doned or unused due to previous pollution. Ensuring that
homes have access to clean, safe drinking water and basic
sanitation is a high priority, and we are assisting
communities in addressing local pollution and infrastruc-
ture challenges. These local and regional initiatives often
rely on collaboration among federal, state, tribal, and

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               local government agencies; business and
               industry; environmental groups; and other
               stakeholders.  Such successful partnerships
               have been instrumental in soliciting commu-
               nity involvement and promoting a sense of
               environmental stewardship to sustain
               environmental improvements.
                   EPAs programs for protecting
               ecosystems encompass a wide range of
               approaches that address specific at-risk
               regional areas—"placed-based initiatives"—
               and larger categories of threatened systems,
               such as estuaries and wetlands. Pollution
               generated locally, combined with pollutants
               carried by rivers and streams or deposited
               from the  air, can accumulate in ecosystems
               and degrade them over time. Large water
               bodies, such as the Gulf of Mexico, Great
               Lakes, and Chesapeake Bay, have been
               exposed to substantial pollution over many
               years, and coastal estuaries and wetlands are
               also vulnerable. As the population in coastal
               regions grows, the challenges to preserve and
               protect these important ecosystems increase.
               Working with our partners and stakeholders,
               we have established special programs to
               protect and restore these unique resources.

                   Collaborative efforts are also key to
               enhancing and sustaining environmental
               progress domestically and abroad. EPA
               works with other U.S. government agencies
               and cooperates with other nations and
                                      international organ-
                                      izations to identify,
                                      develop, and imple-
                                      ment policies for
                                      addressing environ-
                                      mental problems.
                                      Through such
                                      organizations  as the
                                      North American
                                      Commission on
Environmental Cooperation, we implement
agreements to reduce transboundary pollu-
tion and protect the health of citizens on our
borders. We strive to leverage funding and
other resources to assist developing countries
in managing their natural resources and pro-
tecting their citizens' health. We work to
incorporate and support environmental  pro-
tection provisions in all international trade
agreements negotiated by  the United States.

    Underpinning all of this work is  sound
science. Sound science guides us in identify-
ing and addressing emerging issues and
advances our understanding of long-standing
human health and environmental challenges.
EPAs research is at the leading edge of
environmental science; it cuts across envi-
ronmental media and academic disciplines to
characterize potential risks and benefits.
EPA conducts "core research" that builds
scientific knowledge of human health and
ecology  and informs decision making. To
further our ability to measure and describe
environmental conditions, EPA researchers
advance monitoring and assessment
programs and enable such reviews as EPAs
Report on the Environment.1 Our research
encourages stewardship and sustainable  solu-
tions that can prevent pollution by building
environmental protection into national
economic and individual consumer decisions.

                          Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

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 identi-
       fied through EPA risk assessments.
       (Baseline: EPA screening of data
       obtained through the HPV Challenge
       Program is commencing in  2006;
       actions to obtain additional informa-
       tion needed to assess risks will
       commence subsequently as  chemicals
       are identified as priority concerns
       through the screening process.)2

    •  Through 2011, ensure  that new
       chemicals introduced into commerce
       do not pose  unreasonable risks to
       workers, consumers, or the  environ-
       ment. (The  FY 2004 and FY 2005
       baseline is 100 percent.)3

    •  By 2011, achieve a 26 percent
       cumulative reduction of chronic
       human health risk from environmen-
       tal releases of industrial chemicals in
       commerce since 2001.  (Baseline:
       Cumulative reduction reported from
       2002-2003 is 6.6 percent.)4

    •  By 2010, eliminate childhood lead
       poisoning as a public health concern
       by reducing  to 0 the number of cases
       of children (aged 1-5 years) with
       elevated blood lead levels
       (>10ug/dl).  (The 1999-2002 baseline
       is 310,000 cases.)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. (The 1991-1994 baseline is
   37 percent.)6

•  By 2011, through work with interna-
   tional partners, eliminate the use of
   lead in gasoline in the remaining
   35 countries that still use lead as an
   additive, affecting more than
   700 million people. (Baseline: As of
   January 2006, 35 countries had not
   phased lead out of gasoline.)7

•  By 2011, through work with interna-
   tional partners, more than 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 had access to
   low-sulfur fuel.)8

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               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, and
                       $143.5 million in property damage
                       at RMP  facilities 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 more than
                       4 million people  in the community.
        (The 2004 baseline is 1,086,428 mi2
        of cumulative area of RMP facility
        vulnerability zones.)9

    •   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 1999-2002
        Centers for Disease Control-National
        Health  and Nutrition Examination
        Survey  [NHANES] data.)10

    •   Through 2011, protect those occupa-
        tionally exposed to pesticides by
        improving upon or maintaining a
        rate of 3.5  incidents per 100,000
        potential risk events. (Baseline:
        There were 1,385 occupational
        pesticide incidents in 2003 out  of
        39,850,000 potential pesticide risk

    •   By 2011, improve the health of those
        who work in or around pesticides by
        reaching a 50 percent targeted reduc-
        tion in moderate to severe incidents
        for 6 acutely toxic agricultural pesti-
        cides with the highest incident  rates:
        chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion,
        pyrethrins, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy

                           Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
       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.)12
       By 2011, annually continue to avoid
       $900M in termite structural damage
       by ensuring that safe and effective
       pesticides are registered/re-registered
       and available for termite treatment.15
Sub-objective 4.1.4: Protect the
Environment from Pesticide Risk. Through
2011, protect the environment by imple-
menting 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 that exceed the
       National Pesticide Program aquatic
       life benchmarks for three key
       pesticides of concern (diazinon,
       chlorpyrifos, and 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.)13

    •  By 2011, reduce the percentage of
       agricultural watersheds that exceed
       EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two
       key pesticides (azinphos-methyl and
       chlorpyrifos). (Based on 1992-2001
       data,  18 percent of agricultural
       watersheds sampled exceeded
       benchmarks for azinphos-methyl
       and chlorpyrifos.)

Sub-objective 4.1.5: Realize the Value from
Pesticide Availability. Through 2011, ensure
the public health and socio-economic benefits
of pesticide availability and use are achieved.

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2011, annually  continue to avoid
       $1.5 billion in crop loss by ensuring
       that safe and effective pesticides are
       available to address emergency pest
    EPA works with other federal agencies,
states, tribes, industry, environmental groups,
international entities, and other stakeholders
to reduce the risks that chemicals and pesti-
cides can present to people, communities, and
ecosystems. Our strategies for protecting pub-
lic health and the environment rely heavily
on these partnerships and on voluntary efforts
by manufacturers, consumers, and the public.

    EPA uses a
two-pronged strate-
gy to prevent and
reduce risks posed
by chemicals and
prevent chemicals
and organisms that
pose unreasonable
risks from entering
U.S. commerce, and
screen chemicals
already in commerce
for potential risk.
    The 1977 Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) requires that EPA review all new
industrial chemicals and organisms before
they can be produced or imported and that
we be notified of significant new uses for
certain chemicals that we have already
reviewed.16 We will continue to screen, assess,
and reduce risks posed by the 66,600 chemi-
cals that were in use before TSCA was
enacted. Thousands of these chemicals are
still used today, and nearly 3,000 of them

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               are HPV chemicals, produced or imported
               into the United States in quantities exceed-
               ing 1 million pounds per year. Under the
               HPV Challenge Program,17 approximately
               400 companies and 100 consortia have
               voluntarily provided critical hazard screening
               data on almost 1,400 HPV chemicals, and we
               will continue to make this information
               available to the public.18 We will continue to
               participate in the Organization for Economic
               Cooperation and Development (OECD)
               Screening Information Data Set program,19
               the international equivalent of our domestic
               HPV Challenge Program.

                  Under our New
               Chemicals Program,
               we will continue to
               review pre-manufac-
               ture notices to assess
               1,300-1,500 new
               chemicals or organ-
               isms each year.
               Using advanced
               screening tools, we
               can estimate the
               potential health and
               environmental haz-
               ards of chemicals
               released to the envi-
               ronment.20 We will
               also use these tools
               to encourage devel-
               opment of safer or
               "greener" new chem-
               icals. Under our
               Sustainable Futures
               initiative, we pro-
               vide chemical manufacturers with the same
               screening tools we use to evaluate potential
               health risks and environmental impact.21 As
               more companies voluntarily pre-screen their
               products, we expect to see fewer problematic
               new chemicals,  leading to measurable effi-
               ciencies in our review efforts. We will
               continue to submit our screening tools and
               models for rigorous peer review, and we will
               update and expand them accordingly.

       EPA targets risk-reduction efforts at
specific chemicals and environmental justice
concerns. For example, as a result of federal
efforts since the 1990s, children's blood lead
levels in the United States have declined
dramatically, and we expect to eliminate
childhood lead poisoning as a public health
concern by 2010. Toward that goal, we are
developing a program to address lead hazards
created by renovation, repair, and painting.
We are also working to eliminate the disparity
                       in blood lead levels
                       between low-income
                       and other popula-
                       tions and to address
                       other environmental
                       justice concerns.
                       We will exercise
                       continued vigilance
                       to ensure that no
                       resurgence in child-
                       hood lead poisoning
                       we will reduce chil-
                       dren's exposure to
                       lead through the
                       global Partnership
                       for Clean Fuels and
                       Vehicles, which is
                       working to eliminate
                       lead from gasoline,
                       reduce sulfur in
fuels, and introduce cleaner vehicle tech-
nologies. Reducing sulfur in fuel will decrease
vehicle emissions of particulate matter,
addressing a growing public health concern
in many countries, particularly in the devel-
oping world.
    EPA is also evaluating emerging chemical
concerns and taking action to manage risks.
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a persistent
chemical causing systemic and developmental
toxicity in animal studies, has been found in

                           Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
human blood and has a half-life in humans
measured in years.22 We will work with the
8 major U.S. operations that generate or use
PFOA to reduce their facility emissions and
the levels of PFOA, PFOA precursors, and
related chemicals in their products by
95 percent no later than 2010 and to
eliminate them by 2015.

    Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that places
adults, children, and developing fetuses at risk
for a variety of health problems, including
developmental delays. The United States has
been a catalyst for increasing international
collaboration, building other countries'
capacities, and promoting data-sharing to
characterize and reduce mercury use  and
releases around the world. We will participate
in demonstration, training, public awareness,
and information-sharing programs to achieve
measurable reductions in the commercial and
manufactured products, coal combustion,
artisanal and small-scale gold mining, and
chlor-alkali sectors, which together account
for up to 80 percent of global anthropogenic
mercury emissions.

    We will continue our multimedia efforts
to prevent new persistent, bioaccumulative,
toxic (PBT) chemicals from entering com-
merce and to reduce the risks associated with
PBTs already in use, including mercury and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). We will
ensure that PCB waste is stored and  disposed
safely, and we will advise the regulated com-
munity on remediating  PCB contamination,
handling PCB disposal applications promptly,
and overseeing PCB-permitted storage and
disposal facilities.

    Tribal environmental and health issues
will continue to be a priority for our  chemi-
cal program. We will use risk assessment
methods that take into  account the different
risk profiles of some tribal lifestyles, and
we will provide information and tools to help
prevent adverse effects on these sensitive
populations. EPA will also implement
lead, asbestos, and PCB programs in  tribal

    EPA is working to
identify, better under-
stand, and prevent
potential risks from
accidental chemical
releases. Under our
Risk Management
Plan (RMP) Program,23
we have audited
approximately 1,800
RMP facilities and processed more than
12,000 RMPs since 2003. We will
continue to analyze data collected under the
RMP and Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know24 programs to
identify the types and locations of facilities
with the greatest potential for chemical acci-
dents and releases and to identify susceptible
and sensitive populations that may be at
higher risk. We will use this information to
develop voluntary initiatives for high-risk
facilities and geographic areas.
    In  the event that a chemical emergency
does occur, protecting federal, state, and
local first responders and on-site personnel
is critical. EPA provides  emergency personnel
with information they need to  take necessary
precautions and treat individuals who
may be on the scene. We are collaborating
with other federal, private, and academic
organizations to more quickly develop
Acute  Exposure Guideline Levels, which
emergency responders use in planning and
mitigation efforts.25


    EPA's Pesticide Program screens new
pesticides before  they reach the market  and
ensures that pesticides already in commerce
are safe.26 Under  the Federal  Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act


2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
(FFDCA), and the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) of 1996 that amended FIFRA
and FFDCA, EPA is responsible for licensing
and re-licensing pesticides to protect
consumers, pesticide users, workers who may
be exposed to pesticides, children, and other
sensitive populations. To make regulatory
                   decisions and establish
                   tolerances or maximum
                   allowable pesticide
                   residues on food and
                   feed, we must balance
                   the risks and benefits of
                   using the pesticide, con-
                   sider cumulative and
                   aggregate risks, and
                   ensure extra protection
                   for children.

                                      Our Pesticide
                                   Registration Program
                                   will continue to screen
                                   pesticide products before
                they enter the market.27 We will review pes-
                ticide data and implement use restrictions
                and instructions needed to ensure that pesti-
                cides used according to label directions will
                not result in unreasonable risk. During our
                pre-market review, we will consider human
                health and environmental concerns as well as
                the  pesticide's potential benefits. Under our
                Reregistration Program, we will continue to
                review existing registrations to ensure they
                meet current scientific standards and address
                concerns identified after the original registra-
                tion.28 In addition, we will meet a provision
                under FQPA (related to the FIFRA require-
                ment for reregistration) for Registration
                Review, a periodic review of existing pesti-
                cide registrations to  ensure that they meet
                the  most current standards.
                    EPA began promoting reduced-risk pesti-
                cides in 1995 by giving registration priority to
                pesticides that will have low impact on human
                health; low toxicity to non-target birds, fish,
                and plants; low potential for contaminating
                ground water; lower use rates; and low pest
                resistance potential and that will comport with
                Integrated Pest Management approaches.29
Several countries and international organiza-
tions have instituted programs to facilitate
registering reduced risk pesticides. We will con-
tinue to work with the international scientific
community and OECD member countries to
register 12 new reduced-risk pesticides and to
establish related tolerances (maximum residue
limits). Through these efforts, we can help to
reduce risks to Americans from foods imported
from other countries.

    An important part of our Pesticide
Program is the work done in the field to
ensure that the decisions made during our
licensing and re-licensing processes are
implemented in pesticide use. An estimated
1.8 million agricultural workers could be
exposed to pesticides, and millions of individ-
uals use pesticides in occupations such as
lawn care, healthcare, food preparation, and
landscape maintenance.30 Each year, the risk
assessments that we conduct yield extensive
risk-management requirements for hundreds
of pesticides and uses. Working closely with
states,  tribes, and other federal agencies, our
field programs address worker safety, provide
certification and training on using more
hazardous pesticides, protect endangered
species, and encourage environmental
stewardship.  For  example, through our
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program, we form partnerships with pesticide
users and work with them on pollution pre-
vention strategies and Integrated Pest
Management techniques that can reduce
their use of pesticides and lower risks. We
will continue to reduce the number and
severity of pesticide exposure incidents by
promulgating regulations under the Worker
Protection Standard, training and certifying
pesticide applicators, assessing and managing
risks, and developing effective communica-
tion and outreach programs. Working with
our state, tribal, and other regulatory
partners, we will acquire  information on local
pesticide use patterns, geological conditions,
location of endangered species, and tribal
cultural practices  that will help us assess risks
and make practical, effective decisions.

                            Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

    Along with assessing the risks that pesti-
cides pose to human health, EPA conducts
ecological risk assessments to determine
potential effects on plants, animals, and
ecosystems. We work to protect ecosystems,
particularly the plants and animals that are
not targets of the pesticide, and we have
additional responsibilities under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).31 Under
FIFRA, we must determine that a pesticide is
not likely to harm the environment, and we
may impose risk mitigation measures such as
restricting uses, denying uses, or requiring
monitoring of environmental conditions,
such as effects on water sources.32

    Reduced concentrations of pesticides in
water sources indicate the efficacy of EPA's
risk assessment, management, mitigation, and
communication activities. Using sampling
data collected under the U.S. Geological
Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality
Assessment program, we will monitor the
impact of our regulatory decisions for four
pesticides of concern—diazinon, chlorpyrifos,
malathion, and azinphos-methyl—and
consider whether any additional action is
necessary.33 We will work with USGS to
develop sampling plans and refine goals, and
we will ask USGS to add additional insecti-
cides to sampling protocols and establish
baselines for newer products that are
replacing organophosphates, such as
synthetic pyrethroids.

    Under ESA, we must ensure that pesti-
cide regulatory decisions will not adversely
modify critical habitat or jeopardize listed
species.34 Given approximately 600 active
ingredients in more than 19,000 products—
many of which have multiple uses—and
approximately 1,200 listed species with
diverse habits and habitat requirements, this
presents a great challenge. We are working
with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Marine Fisheries Service to
     Pesticides With Concentrations
GreaterThan an Aquatic-Life Benchmark,
          Agricultural Streams
                         Organochlorine Insecticides
        Percentage of Stream Sites Exceeding
            One or More Benchmarks
     Pesticides With Concentrations
GreaterThan an Aquatic-Life Benchmark,
             Urban Streams
                          Organochlorine Insecticides
         Percentage of Stream Sites Exceeding
             One or More Benchmarks

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               establish an efficient process for carrying out
               our ESA obligations. Together, we are devel-
               oping "counterpart regulations" that provide
               EPA authority to make certain determina-
               tions without further consultation. We will
               make assessing risks to endangered species a
               priority and consider endangered species rou-
               tinely in EPA reviews.35

               REALIZING THE VALUE

                   To protect public health and the envi-
               ronment from risks posed by pesticides and to
               promote safer means of pest control, EPA
               registers pesticides under the authority of
               Section 3 of FIFRA. FIFRA requires us to
               determine that the pesticide will not present
               an unreasonable adverse effect, that is, "any
               unreasonable risk to man or the environ-
               ment, taking into account the economic,
               social, and  environmental costs and benefits
               of the use of any pesticide." EPA's registration

programs under FIFRA thus ensure that the
nation has access to effective pesticides that
eliminate  or limit losses and are protective of
human health and the environment.
For example, an estimated $900 million in
termite damage is avoided each year through
the availability of effective termiticides.
While some effective termiticides have been
removed from the market due to safety
concerns,  EPA continues to work with
industry to register safe alternatives that
meet or exceed all current safety standards
and offer a high level of protection.

    In the event of an emergency, FIFRA
Section 18 also provides EPA the authority
to temporarily exempt certain pesticide uses
from registration requirements. We must
ensure that,  under the very limiting provi-
sions of the exemption, such emergency uses
will not present an unreasonable risk to the
environment. EPA's timely review of emer-
gency exemptions has avoided an estimated
$1.5 billion in crop losses per year.
Exemptions  may be granted for one-time
events or to  respond to emergency situations
resulting from new pests on crops when
exemptions are necessary while progress is
made  towards full registration.  In such cases,
EPA's goal is to complete the more detailed
and comprehensive unreasonable risk
review conducted for pesticide registration
within 3 years.


    EPA needs valid tests to assess new
chemicals' and pesticides' potential for
endocrine disruption. The Endocrine
Disrupter  Screening Program will work to
validate the  screens and tests needed before
large-scale reviews can take place. We will
continue to obtain technical advice on the
validation of tests from external experts.
EPA is also working to minimize the use of
animals for these tests.

                                                Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.2: Communities
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. (Baselines for criteria
air pollutants, land consumption,  and storm
water run-off prior to EPA assistance will be
established for each community.)36

Sub-objective 4.2.2: Restore Community
Health Through Collaborative Problem-
Solving.  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, 20 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.)37

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

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2011, conduct environmental
       assessments at 13,900 (cumulative)
       properties.  (Baseline: As of the
       end of FY 2005, EPA assessed
       7,900 properties.)
    •  By 2011, make an additional 1,125
       acres of brownfields ready for reuse
       from the 2006 baseline. (The 2006
       baseline will be available in 2007.
       See "Performance Measurement"
       section below.)
    •  By 2011, leverage $12.9 billion
       (cumulative)  in assessment, cleanup,
       and redevelopment funding at
       brownfields properties. (FY 2005
       baseline is $7.5B.)38

Sub-objective 4.2.4:  Sustain and Restore
the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental
Health. By 2012, sustain and restore the envi-
ronmental health along the U.S.-Mexico
border through implementation of the
"Border 2012" plan.

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2012, achieve a majority of
       currently exceeded water quality
       standards in impaired transboundary
       segments of U.S. surface waters.
       (2002 baseline: 17 currently exceeded
       water quality  standards were identi-
       fied for 10 transboundary segments
       of U.S. surface waters.)

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   •  By 2012, provide safe drinking water
                      to 25 percent of homes in the
                      U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked
                      access to safe drinking water in 2003.
                      (2003 baseline: 98,515 homes lacked
                      access to safe drinking water.)39

                   •  By 2012, provide adequate waste-
                      water sanitation to 25 percent of
                      homes in the U.S.-Mexico border
                      area that lacked access to wastewater
                      sanitation in 2003. (2003 baseline:
                      690,723 homes lacked access to
                      wastewater sanitation.)40

                   •  By 2012, cleanup five waste sites
                      (two abandoned waste tire sites
                      and three abandoned hazardous
                      waste sites) in the U.S.-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.

               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 applica-
       ble health-based drinking water
       standards throughout the year. (2005
       baseline: 95 percent of the population
       in American Samoa, 10 percent in
       the Commonwealth of the Northern
       Mariana Islands, 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  base-
       line: 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 moni-
       tored 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
       64 percent of the 3 65-day beach
       season in American Samoa,
       97 percent in the Commonwealth of
       the Northern Mariana Islands,  and
       76 percent in Guam.)

Sub-objective 4.2.6: Reduce Persistent
Organic Pollutant Exposure. By 2011,
reduce the mean maternal serum blood levels
of persistent organic pollutant (POP)
contaminants in indigenous populations in
the Arctic.41

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2011, reduce mean maternal
       blood levels of polychlorinated
       biphenyls (PCBs) (measured as

                                                Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.2: Communities
       Aroclor 1260) in indigenous popula-
       tions in the Arctic to 5.6 ug/1.
       (The 2006 calculated baseline mean
       maternal serum level for PCBs
       was 6.3 ug/1.)

       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 ug/1.
       (The 2006 calculated baseline mean
       maternal serum level for total
       chlordane was 1.3 ug/1.)

    EPA is committed to sustaining and
restoring the health of our communities and
the ecological systems that support them.
We are working to build capabilities in
communities across the United States to
ensure clean and safe water for drinking,
swimming, and fishing; healthy air;  and safe
management of waste and waste by-products.
Our work with communities will also include
efforts to address environmental justice and
tribal issues and to advance environmental
stewardship and sustainable practices.
Achieving these  goals will require cross-
media coordination and innovative
strategies,  tailored by community stakehold-
ers. As we expand our knowledge of
environmental conditions, stressors, and solu-
tions, we expect  community-based strategies
for environmental protection to become even
more  effective.
    EPA's strategy for community-based
protection of local natural resources is based
on four components:
    •  Inform local decision making. We will
       continue to improve information
       exchange and access to environmen-
       tal information.
Build local capacity. We will develop
and deliver tools to help local
agencies and community groups use
environmental assessment and plan-
ning data, work collaboratively and
cooperatively with a range of stake-
holders, and participate more fully in
environmental decision making.
Provide technical and financial assis-
tance directly to communities. We will
help neighborhood groups adopt com-
prehensive, integrated approaches to
environmental problems. For exam-
ple, our Community Action for a
Renewed Environment (CARE)
Program provides competitive grants
to help communities create collabo-
rative partnerships to reduce releases
and minimize exposure to toxins.42
Through programs like CARE, we
expect that by 2011 more than 100
community partnerships will be
involving the public in addressing
disproportionate environmental risks.
Through international free trade

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                      agreements, our community assis-
                      tance efforts will extend to some of
                      our international trading partners,
                      promoting ecologically compatible
                      development abroad.

                   •  Ensure that national policies and
                      programs support, rather than hinder,
                      comprehensive, integrated management
                      of local resources. We will review new
                      policies and regulations to ensure
                      that federal programs are compatible
                      with local efforts and promote overall
                      environmental improvement. We
                      will continue collaborating with
                      other federal agencies to remove
                      barriers and create incentives for
                      smart growth and integrated environ-
                      mental management.


                   EPA remains committed to environmen-
               tal justice for all people, regardless of race,
               color, national origin, or income, in accor-
               dance with Executive Order 12898, "Federal
               Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
               Minority Populations and Low-Income
               Populations."43 Recognizing that minority
               and/or low-income communities may be
               disproportionately exposed to environmental
               hazards and risks, we will work to protect
these and other affected communities.
Environmental justice means not only pro-
tecting human health and the environment
for everyone, but also ensuring that all people
are treated fairly and are given opportunities
to participate meaningfully in developing,
implementing, and enforcing environmental
laws, regulations, and policies.

   EPA is establishing measurable environ-
mental justice  commitments for eight
national priorities: 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,
revitalizing brownfields and contaminated
sites, and using collaborative problem-solving
to address environmental and public health
concerns. We will promote environmental
justice in all aspects of our work by training
staff; providing guidance, online tools, and
other resources; sharing information about
successful strategies; and enhancing staff
skills in working with community-based
organizations. We will continue to use
dispute resolution, facilitation, listening
sessions, and other consensus-building
techniques and to convene stakeholders
to address environmental and public
health issues.


                                                                Brownfields are real properties where
                                                            expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be
                                                            complicated by the presence or potential
                                                            presence of hazardous substances, pollutants,
                                                            or contaminants. Assessing brownfields can
                                                            help communities understand the risks these
                                                            properties pose and provides the information
                                                            needed to undertake cleanup and reuse.
                                                            Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties
                                                            may increase local tax bases, facilitate job
                                                            growth, utilize existing infrastructure, take
                                                            development pressures off undeveloped land,

                                                Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.2: Communities
and improve and protect the environment.
EPA will continue to award competitive
grants to assess and clean up brownfields and
to provide job training opportunities within
affected communities.

   Awards are based on a number of factors
including how well the project reduces threats
to human health and the environment, and
creates and/or preserves greenspace. In addi-
tion, the Brownfields Revitalization Act
requires us to consider "the extent to which
the grant would address or facilitate the iden-
tification and reduction of threats to the
health or welfare of minority or low-income
communities, or other sensitive populations,"
underlining our commitment to environmen-
tal justice.44 Our Brownfields Program  is also
developing a methodology to assess the rela-
tionship between EPA-funded brownfields
projects and the sensitive, socio-economically
disadvantaged communities  that they serve.
EPA will use this methodology to improve
how  the Brownfields Program incorporates
environmental justice concerns into
its operations.

   We will continue to provide funds to
state and tribal governments to establish and
enhance response programs  that oversee the
majority of brownfields assessments and
cleanups. These programs provide technical
oversight and assist property owners; create
inventories of brownfields sites; and develop
policies, regulations, and ordinances. Funding
can also be used to conduct assessment and
cleanup activities at brownfields properties.
EPA funding  is often critical for operating
these response programs, particularly for
tribal governments.

   We will also continue to provide outreach
and technical assistance to communities con-
fronting brownfields and perform targeted
assessments at sites where stakeholders are
seeking federal assistance to identify the
extent of contamination. Through the
Brownfields and Land Revitalization
Technology Support Center,45 we will help
streamline site investigations and cleanup
processes, identify technology options, evalu-
ate contractor capabilities and
recommendations, and explain complex tech-
nologies to communities. Technical tools such
as Triad46 and SMARTe47 can aid communi-
ties' brownfields efforts. EPA will continue to
sponsor brownfields workshops and educa-
tional events that provide forums for sharing
ideas, lessons learned, and best practices.

    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.48
    As part of our continuing commitment to
environmental justice, EPA is working with
some disadvantaged border communities to
improve water quality in both the United
States and Mexico. For decades, raw sewage
posed a significant public health and
environmental threat to U.S. and Mexican
communities. Inadequate water and sewage
treatment cause border residents to suffer dis-
proportionately from hepatitis A and other
waterborne diseases. EPA assists communities
in the U.S.-Mexico border region to increase
the number of homes with access to safe

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               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 sur-
               face water quality on
               10 impaired trans-
               boundary waters is
               an EPA priority.

                  EPA also will
               address health and
               environmental risks
               presented by aban-
               doned tires and
               hazardous waste.
               Piles of waste tires
               breed mosquitoes  and other disease-carrying
               organisms, and they are prone to fires that
               are difficult to extinguish. Contaminated
               hazardous waste sites pose acute and long-
               term risks from metal poisoning. We will
               address key sites on the border, laying the
               foundation for future remediation efforts.

                  To learn more, go to: www.epa.gov/


                  The U.S. Pacific Island Territories of
               American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
               Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam face
               severe environmental problems. Poor waste-
               water conveyance and treatment systems that
               contaminate drinking water wells and surface
               waters pose an immediate danger to residents.
               Island beaches, with important recreational,
               economic, and cultural significance, are  pol-
               luted  and frequently placed under advisories.

                  EPA is targeting infrastructure and non-
               point source grants toward the most serious
               deficiencies. We are providing technical
               assistance to improve island utilities' capacity
               for protecting public health and the
               environment. With island and federal
               partners, we will continue to develop
               a Territories Bond Bank that will provide
access to more affordable financing, greatly
enhancing the islands' ability to fund critical
capital improvement projects.


                         POPs transported
                     in the atmosphere
                     and deposited across
                     borders pose a contin-
                     uing threat to human
                     health and the
                     ecosystems in North
America, especially the Arctic. Traditional
foods expose indigenous Arctic populations,
including those in Alaska, to higher levels of
POPs than other populations. Addressing
international sources can reduce POP levels
in the Arctic, and the United States is a
strong supporter of the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants, a global treaty to reduce POPs
which EPA helps to implement.49

    The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Program, which documents indigenous
populations' exposure to toxics in remote
areas, indicates that Russia and China are
among the largest sources of POPs and other
pollutants in the Arctic.50 We will work  with
Russia and other Arctic Council members to
reduce  these pollutants and to collect, safely
store, and dispose of stockpiles of obsolete
pesticides. Based on EPA-led Arctic Council
projects, we estimate that about 24,000 met-
ric tons of POP pesticides will be removed
from unsafe storage and destroyed by 2008,51
and about 12,000 metric tons of PCB oil will
be destroyed by 2009.52 We will continue
working to raise awareness about POPs,  build
capacity to prevent pollution, and share tech-
nologies to protect indigenous Arctic

                            Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
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.

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

    •    By 2011, in partnership with the
        U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
        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
    (oreat Lakes
    Chesapeake Bay
    Gulf of Mexico
    Long Island
Columbia Rive
scale. (2005 baseline: Great Lakes rating of
21.5 on the 40-point scale where the rating
uses selected 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.)54

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.
       (1990 baseline: Concentration levels
       at stations in Lakes Superior
       [0.45 ppm], Michigan [2.72 ppm],
       Huron [1.5 ppm], Erie [1.35 ppm] and
       Ontario [2.18 ppm].)55

    •  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.  (1992 baseline: Concentration
       levels for U.S. stations: Lake Superior
       [100 pg/m3], Lake Michigan [289
       pg/m3], and Lake Erie [431 pg/m3].)56

  2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                     •  By 2010, restore and delist a cumula-
                        tive 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.)57
                     •  By 2011, remediate a cumulative
                        total of 7 million yards3 of contami-
                        nated sediment in the Great Lakes.
                        (2005 baseline: Of the 75 million
                        yards estimated to need remediation,
                        3.7 million yards3 of contaminated
                        sediments from the Great Lakes
                        have been remediated from 1997
                        through 2004. )58

                 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 185,000 acres of
                        submerged aquatic vegetation
                        necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay
                        water quality standards. (2005 base-
                        line: 39 percent  [72,935 acres] of
                        submerged aquatic vegetation
.1 8-
£ Q
   necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay
   water quality standards.)59

•  By 2011, achieve 40 percent
   (29.92 km3) of the long-term restora-
   tion 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 km3] of dissolved oxygen
   goal achieved.)60

•  By 2011, achieve 59 percent
   (95.88 million pounds) of the imple-
   mentation goal for nitrogen
   reduction practices necessary to
   achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality
   standards, expressed as nitrogen
   reduction in relation to achieving a
   162.5 million pound reduction from
   1985 levels (based on long-term
   average hydrology simulations).
   (2005 baseline: 41 percent nitrogen
   goal achieved.)61

•  By 2011, achieve 74 percent (10.63
   million pounds) of the implementa-
   tion goal for phosphorus reduction
   practices necessary to achieve
   Chesapeake Bay water quality
   standards, expressed as phosphorus
   reduction in relation to achieving a
   14.36 million pound reduction from
   1985 levels (based on long-term
   average hydrology simulations).
   (2005 baseline: 58 percent of
   phosphorus goal achieved.)62

•  By 2011, achieve 74 percent (1.25
   million tons) of the implementation
   goal for sediment reduction practices
   necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay
   water quality standards, expressed as
   sediment reduction in relation to
   achieving a 1.69 million ton
   reduction from 1985 levels (based on
   long-term average hydrology simula-
   tions). (2005 baseline: 54 percent of
   sediment goal achieved.)63

                            Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
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 "good/fair/poor" scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report. (2004 baseline:
Gulf Coast rating of fair, or 2.4, is based on a
scale where 1 is poor and 5 is good.)

Strategic Targets

    •   By 2011, restore water and habitat
        quality to meet water quality
        standards in 162 impaired segments
        (cumulative) in 13 priority coastal
        areas (2002 baseline: 812 impaired
        segments identified in Section
        303(d) listings.)64

    •   By 2011, restore, enhance, or protect
        a cumulative 20,000 acres of impor-
        tant coastal and marine habitats.
        (2005 baseline: 16,000 acres restored,
        enhanced, or protected; Gulf of
        Mexico coastal wetland habitats
        include 3,769,370  acres.)65

    •   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:
        2002-2006 running average
        size = 14,944 km2.)66

Sub-objective 4.3.6: Restore and Protect
Long Island Sound. By 2011, prevent water
pollution, improve water quality, protect
aquatic systems, and restore the habitat of
Long Island Sound by working through the
Long Island Sound Management Study
Conference partnership.

Strategic Targets

    •   By 2014, reduce point source nitro-
        gen discharges to Long Island Sound
   by 58.5 percent as measured by the
   Long Island Sound Nitrogen Total
   Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
   (TMDL 2000 baseline: 213,151
   Ibs/day; 2014 goal: 85,238 Ibs/day.)67

•  By 2011, reduce the size of hypoxic
   area in Long Island Sound (i.e.,
   defined as the area in which the
   long-term average maximum July-
   September dissolved oxygen level is
   <3mg/l) by 25 percent; reduce aver-
   age duration of maximum hypoxic
   event by 25 percent. (2005 baseline
   derived from 19-year averages as of
   December 2005;68 size: 203 mi2;
   duration:  58 days.)

•  By 2011, restore or protect an addi-
   tional 300 acres of coastal habitat,
   including tidal wetlands, dunes,
   riparian buffers, and freshwater wet-
   lands from the 2005 baseline. (2005
   cumulative baseline: 562 acres
   restored and 150  acres protected.)69

•  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 cumulative baseline: 81 miles

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               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

               Strategic Targets

                   •   By 2011, 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 Bade, Broward, and Palm Beach
                       Counties, Florida, working with all
                       stakeholders (federal, state, regional,
                       and  local). (2005 baseline: Mean
                       percent stony coral cover 6.7 percent
                       in FKNMS and 5.9 percent in
                       Southeast Florida.)71
                       Through 2011, beginning in 2008,
                       annually maintain the overall health
                       and functionality of sea grass beds in
                       the FKNMS as measured by the long-
                       term sea grass monitoring project
                       that addresses composition and abun-
                       dance, productivity, and nutrient
                       availability. (The 2005 baseline
                       index of sea grass health will be
                       available in December 2006.)72
    •  Through 2011, beginning in 2008,
       annually maintain the overall water
       quality of the near shore  and coastal
       waters of the FKNMS. (2005 base-
       line: For reef sites, chlorophyll less
       than or equal to 0.2 ug/1 and vertical
       attenuation coefficient for downward
       irradiance [kj,  i.e., light attenuation]
       less than or equal to 0.13 per meter;
       for all sites in FKNMS, dissolved
       inorganic nitrogen less than or
       equal to 0.75 micromolar and total
       phosphorus less than or equal
       to 0.2 micromolar.)73

    •  Through 2011, beginning in 2008,
       improve the water quality of the
       Everglades ecosystem  as measured by
       total phosphorus, including meeting
       the 10 parts per billion (ppb) total
       phosphorus criterion throughout the
       Everglades Protection Area marsh
       and the effluent limits to be estab-
       lished for discharges from storm
       water treatment areas. (2005 base-
       line: Average annual geometric mean
       phosphorus concentrations were
       5 ppb in the Everglades National
       Park, 10 ppb in Water Conservation
       3A, 13 ppb in the Loxahatchee
       National Wildlife Refuge, and
       18 ppb in Water Conservation Area
       2A; annual average flow- weighted
       total phosphorus discharges from
       storm water treatment areas ranged
       from 13 ppb for area 3/4 and 98 ppb
       for area 1W)74

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 enable the lifting of harvest
       restrictions in  1,000 acres of shellfish

                            Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
       bed growing areas impacted by
       degraded or declining water quality.
       (Baseline: As of January 2006,
       approximately 30,000 acres of shell-
       fish bed growing areas had harvest
       restrictions due to water quality
       impairments in Puget Sound.)75
    •  By 2011, remediate 200 acres of
       prioritized contaminated sediments.
       (Baseline: As of January 2006,
       approximately 5,000 acres of
       remaining contaminated sediments
       required some level of

    •  By 2011, restore 3,500 acres of
       tidally- and seasonally-influenced
       estuarine wetlands.  (Baseline: A  total
       of approximately 45,000 acres of
       intertidal and near-shore habitat
       were identified by state, tribal, and
       local groups as potential restoration
       sites in the 2006 Puget Sound
       Near-Shore Restoration Site
       Inventory Database.)77

    •  By 2011, reduce total diesel emissions
       in the Puget Sound airshed by
       8 percent through coordinated diesel
       emission mitigation efforts. (Baseline
       will be available in December 2006.)78

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.

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2011, protect, enhance, or restore
       13,000 acres of wetland habitat
       and 3,000 acres of upland habitat in
       the Lower Columbia River water-
       shed.  (2005 baseline: 96,770 acres
       of wetland  and upland habitat
       available for protection, enhance-
       ment, or restoration.)
    •  By 2011, clean up 150 acres of
       known highly contaminated
       sediments. (Baseline: 400 acres of
       known highly contaminated sedi-
       ments 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 baselines
       will be available in 2006. )79
    EPA protects, sustains, and restores the
health of natural habitats and ecosystems by
identifying and evaluating problem areas,
developing tools, and improving community
capacity to address problems. Over the next
5 years, we will 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 Columbia River. Our place-based
ecosystem protection strategies focus on criti-
cal watersheds to develop and implement
water quality control practices and design
other tools for managing ecosystems that can
be transferred to other areas nationwide.
Photo: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration/
Department of Commerce

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course

                   Healthy wetlands protect water quality,
               provide habitat for fish and wildlife, store
               floodwater, and reduce the erosive potential
               of surface water. However, since the 1700s,
               the United States has lost more than 115
               million acres of wetlands to development,
               agriculture, and other uses.80 Excessive sedi-
               mentation, nutrient over-enrichment,
               pesticides, invasive species, habitat loss, and
               fragmentation are degrading wetlands.81
               And many of the wetlands we have created,
               while beneficial, fail to fully replace the
               diverse plant and animal communities of
               wetlands lost. To help address this issue, EPA
               and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
               (the Corps) jointly proposed a rule in 2006
               that sets clear criteria for compensatory miti-
               gation of wetland impacts authorized by
               Clean Water Act permits.

                   EPA is also cooperating and collaborating
               with federal, state, and tribal governments
               and other stakeholders to achieve the
                                       President's goal,
                                       set in 2004, to
                                       restore, improve,
                                       and protect 3
                                       million acres of
                                       wetlands by 2009.82
                                       (Progress under the
                                       President's Initiative
                                       is reported annually
                                       in a report by the
                                       Council on
                                       Quality,  "Conserving
                                       America's Wetlands,:
                                       Implementing the
                                       President's Goal.")83
                                       Key EPA programs
                                       supporting this
                                       effort include
                                       the Five Star
                                       Challenge Grants,
the National Estuary Program, and the
Nonpoint Source Management Program.

    Additionally, EPA works with the Corps
to ensure "no net loss" of wetlands under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A key
area of cooperation is applying the 404(b)(l)
guidelines requiring that discharges of
dredged or fill material into U.S. waters be
avoided and minimized to the extent practi-
cable  and that unavoidable impacts be fully
compensated. EPA will continue collaborat-
ing with the Corps to develop a set of
science-based standards for all types of miti-
gation that compensate for wetland and
other aquatic resource destruction.84 We will
also work with the Corps to enhance data
collection; track Section 404 permitted
projects and associated compensatory mitiga-
tion; and provide this information to federal,
state,  and tribal agencies and the public.

    EPA will continue to build state and
tribal capacity to measure wetland function
and condition. Broad-based, integrated moni-
toring and assessment programs inform
decision makers, target restoration activities,
and help us address significant stressors.
Through Wetland Program development
grants, EPA provides technical and financial
support to strengthen state and tribal regula-
tion, monitoring, restoration, water quality
standards, mitigation compliance, and
partnership-building. Programs such as the
Five Star Restoration Challenge Grant
Program,85 regional geographic initiatives,86
targeted watershed grants,87 the National
Estuary Program, and nonpoint source
grants88 provide funding, technical support,
and information to help communities imple-
ment  riparian, coastal, and wetland
restoration projects. We are also integrating
wetlands protection into our Clean Water
and Brownfields Programs.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/

                            Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems

    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 rapid growth and devel-
opment.89 Estuaries tend to accumulate
sediments, nutrients, and  other pollutants
from adjacent and upstream land-based
sources, profoundly affecting water quality,
habitats, living resources,  and human health.
Overuse of natural resources and conflicts
among recreational and commercial users
have also resulted in a host of challenges to
estuarine resources.
    EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP)
provides inclusive, community-based
planning and action in 28 nationally signifi-
cant estuaries selected by  Congress and the
states' governors. EPA will support and
monitor all 28 NEPs in implementing
approved comprehensive conservation and
management plans, which identify more than
2,000 priority actions needed to protect the
estuaries and restore estuarine resources. In
addition, we support broad priorities identi-
fied by the NEP: developing approaches to
identify and rank priority habitats; providing
tools to integrate local and regional plans for
growth with stormwater management;
supporting development of TMDLs for coastal
waters; developing and implementing nutrient
management strategies, including develop-
ment of nutrient water quality criteria;
addressing problems of invasive species; and
reducing wet weather runoff from urban
and agricultural areas.

    Healthy estuarine ecosystems also depend
on high-quality habitat. Through interagency
partnerships with federal resource agencies,
such as the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Council and Coastal America, we will help to
protect habitat on an ecosystem-wide basis.
                  ESTUARIES IN THE
  Sounds, NC
                             assachusetts B
   Barataria-Terrebonne, LA   Morro Bay CA
   Barnegat Bay, NJ           Narragansett Bay, Rl
   Buzzards Bay, MA          New Hampshire I
   Casco Bay, ME               NH
   Charlotte Harbor; FL       New York/New Jersey
   Coastal Bend Bays and        Harbo^ NY/NJ
     Estuaries.TX            Peconic Bay, NY
   Lower Columbia River;      Puget Sound, WA
     OR/WA                San Francisco Bay, CA
   Delaware Estuary, DE/NJ    San Juan Ba/i PR
   Delaware Inland Bays, DE   Santa Monica Ba/i CA
   Galveston BayTX          Sarasota Bay, FL
   Indian River Lagoon, FL     Tampa Ba/ FL
Long Island Sound, NY/CT Ti
Maryland Coastal Bays, MD
                              amook Bay, OR

    The Great Lakes are the largest system
of surface freshwater on earth, containing
20 percent of the world's surface freshwater
and accounting for about 84 percent of the
surface freshwater in North America. The
watershed includes 2 nations, 8 American
states, a Canadian province, more than
40 tribes, and more  than Vic111 of the
U.S. population.
       While certain persistent toxic
substances (PTS) have been reduced signifi-
cantly in the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem
over the past 30 years, they continue to be
present at  levels that threaten human and
wildlife health, warrant fish consumption
advisories  in all 5 lakes, and disrupt a way of

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               life for many in the Basin.90 To address such
               problems, the President established two major
               Great Lakes efforts: a "Great Lakes
               Interagency Task Force"91 and a Great Lakes
               "Regional Collaboration of National
               Significance" (GLRC).92 The Great Lakes
               Task Force brings together 10 Cabinet depart-
               ment and federal agency heads to coordinate
               restoration of the Great Lakes, focusing on
               outcomes, such as cleaner water and sustain-
               able fisheries, and targeting measurable
               results. In December 2005, the GLRC devel-
               oped a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
               Strategy93 that federal  agencies are using to
               guide their Great Lakes efforts. For its part,
               EPA is coordinating responses to new aquatic
               invasive species; developing a system for
               tracking progress toward GLRC goals; devel-
               oping policy on managing peak flows at
               sewage treatment plants; conducting surveil-
               lance for emerging chemicals of concern; and
               implementing  the Great Lakes Legacy Act.

                   The Great Lakes Legacy Act targets
               additional resources to clean up contaminated
               sediments, a significant source of PTS. Work
               conducted under the Legacy Act to reduce
               and eliminate  PTS also supports the Great
               Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.  This
               international effort applies voluntary and
regulatory pollution prevention tools to mer-
cury, PCBs, dioxins/furans, certain canceled
pesticides, and other targeted substances.
Both the Legacy Act and the Great Lakes
Binational Toxics Strategy support EPA's
work with states to delist all 31 of the
remaining Areas of Concern by 2025.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/


    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;
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 compre-
hensive and far-reaching agreement, guides
restoration and protection efforts through
2010, and focuses on improving water quality.95
Our challenge is to reduce pollution and
restore aquatic habitat to the extent that the
Bay's waters can be removed from the Clean
Water Act "impaired waters" list.

    We will work with our partners to
improve two key measures of Bay water
quality: restoring submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) and attaining the
dissolved oxygen (DO) standards in the
Bay's tidal waters. The Chesapeake Bay
Program's long-term goal for SAV restoration
is 185,000 acres and long-term goal for
DO restoration is 100 percent attainment
of DO standards in all tidal waters of the
Bay. To achieve these long-term goals, Bay
watershed models estimate that long-term
annual nitrogen loadings must  be reduced by
162.5 million pounds, phosphorus reduced  by
14.36 million pounds, and sediment reduced by
1.69 million tons per year from 1985 levels.96

                            Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
    To achieve water quality standards in the
Chesapeake Bay as soon as possible, EPA is
committed to increasing the current pace of
restoration. Working with our Bay Program
partners, we will identify opportunities to
reduce nutrient and sediment loads and find
new economies and innovations to accelerate
progress dramatically. A key strategy to
reduce nutrient discharges is implementing
advanced wastewater treatment. Another key
strategy to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus,  and
sediment loadings is restoring and protecting
riparian forests that prevent sediment
and nutrient pollution from entering
waterways from the land. Implementing best
agricultural management practices to
reduce nutrients and sediment is also key
to achieving Chesapeake Bay goals, and
will require close cooperation with U.S.
Department of Agriculture. We will continue
to work with other federal agencies and states
on related initiatives to protect and restore
critical Bay watershed habitat and improve
fisheries management.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/


    The Gulf of Mexico's estuaries and near
coastal waters support fisheries and wildlife
habitats that contribute  to the national and
Gulf state economies. However, population
growth, land development, and coastal and
commercial activities are threatening the
sustainability of the Gulf's marine resources.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita also wrought
widespread environmental harm in 2005.

    EPA's Gulf of Mexico Program97 helps
Gulf states and stakeholders work in partner-
ship to develop a regional, ecosystem-based
framework for  restoring and protecting the
Gulf.  The 5 Gulf states have also formed
a Gulf of Mexico Alliance98 to increase
collaboration,  and  13 federal agencies
have organized a regional partnership99
to support the  alliance.

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   In 2006, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance
               developed the Governors' Action Plan for
               Healthy and Resilient Coasts100 that identifies
               five key priority coastal and ocean issues that
               are regionally significant and can be effec-
               tively addressed through cooperation at the
               local, state, and federal levels: (1) water qual-
               ity for healthy beaches and shellfish beds,
               (2) wetland and coastal conservation and
               restoration, (3) identification and characteri-
               zation of Gulf habitats for management
               decision making, (4) reductions in nutrient
               loadings, and (5) strategic environmental
               education across the five-state region.

                   To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/gmpo.
               LONG ISLAND SOUND

                   EPA is working with the States of New
               York and Connecticut and other federal,
               state, and local Long Island Sound
               Management Conference partners to imple-
               ment a comprehensive conservation and
               management plan (CCMP) to restore the
               Long Island Sound.101 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.
    A bi-state nitrogen reduction agreement
relies on flexible and innovative approaches,
notably "bubble" management zones and
exchange ratios that allow sewage treatment
plant operators to "trade" nitrogen reduction
obligations with each other. This approach
meets water quality improvement goals while
allowing plant operators to save an estimated
$800 million  by allocating reductions to
those plants where they can be achieved
most economically.102

    We are also working with Management
Conference partners to restore degraded
habitats; reopen rivers and streams to
anadromous fish passage;  improve riparian
buffers; restore SAV 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.103

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/


    The South Florida ecosystem encompass-
es 3 national  parks, more than 10 national
wildlife refuges, a national preserve, and a
national marine sanctuary. It is home to two
Native American nations and it
supports the largest wilderness area east of
the Mississippi River, the only living coral
barrier reef adjacent to the United States,
and the largest commercial and sport fisheries
in Florida. But rapid population growth is
threatening the health of this vital
ecosystem.  South Florida is home to about
8 million people, more than the populations
of 39 individual states. Another 2 million
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

                             Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
    EPA is working in partnership with
several local, regional, state, and federal agen-
cies to ensure the long-term sustainability of
the region's varied natural resources, while also
providing for extensive agricultural operations
and an expanding population. EPA's South
Florida Geographic Initiative (SFGI) is
designed to protect and restore communities
and ecosystems affected by environmental
problems.104 SFGI efforts include activities
related to the Section 404 wetlands protection
program; the comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Program; the water quality protec-
tion program for the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary;  the Southeast Florida Coral
Reef Initiative, directed by the U.S. Coral Reef
Task Force; the Brownfields Program; and a
number of other waste management programs.

    EPA will  continue to implement the
South Florida Assessment  Project, an ecosys-
tem assessment of the Everglades, and to work
with stakeholders to develop and implement
community-based approaches to mitigate
sources of pollution and cumulative risk.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/


    The Puget Sound Basin is the largest
population and commercial center in the
Pacific Northwest, supporting a vital system
of international ports, transportation systems,
and defense installations. The ecosystem
encompasses roughly 20 rivers and 2,500
miles of sheltered inland waters that provide
habitat  to hundreds of species of marine
mammals, fish, and sea birds. Puget Sound
salmon  landings average more than 19 mil-
lion pounds per year and support an average
of 578,000 sport fishing trips  each year.
However,  while the Puget Sound currently
leads U.S. waterways in shellfish production,
30,000 acres of shellfish beds have been
closed to harvest since 1980.  These closures
affect local economies and cultural and sub-
sistence needs for these traditional resources.
    Excess nutrients have created hypoxic
zones that further impair shellfish and finfish
populations. In addition, recent monitoring
assessments indicate that marine species in the
Puget Sound have high levels of toxic con-
tamination. Almost 5,700 acres of submerged
land (about 9 mi2) are currently classified as
contaminated with toxics and another 24,000
acres as at least partially contaminated. And
additional pollutants  are being 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.

    To address these issues, EPA is working
with other federal agencies, states, and tribes
to protect local watersheds and near-shore
habitat; to protect shellfish-growing areas; to
reduce nutrient and toxic discharges; and
to develop more comprehensive storm  water
management programs. We are taking action
to reduce short- and long-term discharges
of toxics through  diesel emissions, which are a
major source of pollutants into the Sound. An
essential component of our strategy for pro-
tecting Puget Sound will be addressing
contaminated estuary bottom sediments while
developing more effective source control
strategies. Working with our state and other
NEP partners, we are also initiating a compre-
hensive toxics source control strategy, and we
expect to have an expanded toxics source con-
trol action agenda in place by 2008.

    To learn more go to:  www.epa.gov/

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course

                   More than 1,200 miles long, the
               Columbia River spans portions of Oregon,
               Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada,
               Utah, Montana, and a substantial portion of
               British Columbia. The 260,000 square mile
               Columbia River Basin comprises ecosystems
               that are home to a variety of biologically
               significant plants and animals and supports
               industries vital to the Pacific Northwest,
               including sport and commercial fisheries,
               agriculture, transportation, recreation, and
               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 signifi-
               cant levels of toxins in fish and the waters
               they inhabit, including dichloro-diphenyl-
               trichloroethane (DDT),  PCBs, and
               dieldrin.105 To address this problem, we will
               continue working with Oregon, Washington,
               Idaho, Columbia Basin tribal governments,
               the Lower Columbia River Estuary
               Partnership, local governments, citizen
               groups, industry, and other federal agencies.
               Together we have launched the Columbia
               River toxics strategy to identify and clean up
               contaminated sediments; restore critical wet-
               lands; and reduce toxins in water, land, and
               fish. Within available resources, EPA, states,
               and tribes are systematically expanding such
key activities as fish, water, and sediment
monitoring; pesticide stewardship partner-
ships; targeted pesticide/toxics collections;
and precision agriculture. We are implement-
ing TMDLs by reducing sediment loads and
restoring riparian areas, and we are cleaning
up the Portland Harbor Superfund site and
PCB contamination in the Columbia River
at Bradford Island.

       The NEP also plays a key role in
addressing toxics and restoring  critical wet-
lands in the Lower Columbia River estuary.
Through the NEP, we will identify contami-
nants of concern, identify data  bases that can
provide baseline data and establish new mon-
itoring efforts to fill data gaps, and identify
and implement best management practices
for reducing contaminants of concern.

    To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/
Reg ion 10/columb ia.

                                 Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research

   To help us understand environmental
problems and support innovative approaches
and solutions, research must be forward-
looking. EPA's research programs support our
goals for protecting and restoring communities
and ecosystems by developing computational
toxicology, bioinformatics, and related tech-
nologies; developing environmental and
human health monitoring systems and
indicators, such as the emerging Global Earth
Observation System of Systems (GEOSS); and
improving the utility of research results by
incorporating uncertainty analysis.


       The research that EPA is conducting
under the Human Health Research Plan
(HHRP) will enable risk assessors and risk
managers to reduce their reliance on default
assumptions in human health risk assessment.
By addressing uncertainties in risk assess-
ment, HHRP will support a number of
environmental laws, including FQPA,
SDWA, and CAA; address a variety of
national environmental program research
priorities; and assist risk assessors, such as
those associated with the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) and National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

   We are also conducting research to set
priorities and screen chemicals.  Methods,
models, and data derived from this work will
help us understand the basis for differential
response to chemicals at various stages in life.
EPA will focus a portion of this work on
assessing differential exposure and response
in children and another portion on older
populations. We will also emphasize the
potential long-term health effects following
developmental exposure to environmental
agents. Extramural sources that are jointly
funded by EPA and the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences will provide
research in environmental influences on
neurodevelopment, asthma, and disease.
Other lines of research will help us develop
principles for evaluating the effectiveness of
risk management decisions at the local and
regional level. We will collaborate with the
Centers for Disease Control and other federal
agencies to accomplish this work.

   Under our
Ecological Research
Program, we will
develop analytical
tools to help
evaluate the
stressors that devel-
opment and urban
sprawl place on
ecosystems and
determine how we can efficiently control and
reduce harmful effects. Improving our under-
standing of indicators of ecological condition
and of the services ecosystems provide will

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               help us develop assessment tools for local
               decision makers. More states and tribes will
               be able to use a common monitoring design
               and appropriate indicators to determine the
               status of resources, trends, and program effec-
               tiveness. To inform our decision making, we
               must closely coordinate ecological research
               with environmental research, human health
               research, and public health, and these con-
               nections offer extensive opportunities for
               local partnerships.


                   Our Global Change Research Program
               primarily assesses the potential consequences
               of global change on air quality, water quality,
               ecosystems, and human health in the United
               States. It will provide scientific information
               about the  impact of global change on specific
               geographic areas, as well as models for evalu-
               ating and  implementing adaptation policies
               to protect air and water quality.
                   This research will support two goals of
               the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP): understanding the sensitivity and
adaptability of different natural and managed
ecosystems and human systems to climate
and related global changes (CCSP Goal 4),
and exploring the uses and identifying the
limits of evolving knowledge to manage risks
and opportunities related to climate variability
and change (CCSP Goal 5).

    Like  the CCSP, EPA's Global Program
is emphasizing improved decision making
and adaptive management. Toward this
end, we will develop a dynamic "decision
inventory" that identifies different classes of
climate-sensitive decisions in different
regions of the country and evaluates  the
effectiveness of this scientific information in
informing those decisions.


    Over the last several years, concern has
grown about exposure to endocrine-disrupting,
or hormonally active, chemicals. Evidence
suggests that exposure to chemicals that
mimic hormones (endocrine disrupters) may
cause adverse health effects in wildlife and
may affect human health as well.
    Our endocrine disrupter research will
reduce uncertainty about effects, exposure,
assessment, and management of endocrine
disrupters. It will help us to determine the
impact that endocrine disrupters may have
on humans, wildlife, and the environment
and will encourage screening and testing
assays. Research to understand the effects of
endocrine disrupters has shifted from animal
exposure testing to the relatively new field of
computational toxicological research. In
addition, our increasing ability to sequence
the human genome has led to a rapid devel-
opment of laboratory methods to assess gene
expression on a genome-wide basis, and
provided additional tools for endocrine
disrupter research. Continued expansion  of
this field may also facilitate research into the
effects of endocrine disrupters.

                                   Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research

    The Human Health Risk Assessment
Program provides state-of-the-science health
hazard assessment information on hazardous
substances that are accorded high priority by
EPA, state, and local risk assessors. This
research will help us to improve the quality
and objectivity of health assessments.

    We will continue to use IRIS, the Air
Quality Criteria Document (AQCD), and
other assessments  to support EPA's decisions.
For example, we are revising AQCDs for
ambient air pollutants (as mandated in the
Clean Air Act) to reflect the best available
scientific information on the effects on health
and the environment from exposure to these
pollutants, and we will incorporate this infor-
mation in reviewing and promulgating
NAAQS. We are working  to produce more
assessment information and to enhance its
quality by incorporating the latest advances
in risk assessment science.  These activities
are coordinated across EPA research and
program offices through the IRIS consensus
review, the Risk Assessment Forum, and
other processes.


    Computational toxicology integrates
modern computing and information tech-
nologies with molecular biology and
chemistry to help  set priorities for data
requirements and chemical risk assessments.
EPA's National Center for  Computational
Toxicology will generate methods, models, and
data needed for better, faster, and cheaper
approaches to testing chemicals and
emerging technologies, such as bio- and
nanotechnology. Associated research will
help in assessing cumulative effects on
humans from multiple exposures and in
identifying and characterizing diseases
resulting  from changing environmental
factors and factors such as pharmacological
exposure. Using these tools, scientists can
gain a finer understanding of the hazards and
risks of a large number of chemicals.
ToxCast, a forecasting tool, will provide EPA
programs the ability to prioritize, screen, and
assess the potential hazards of chemicals
more rapidly than do current methods.

    Customized DNA arrays and tools for
modeling and virtual prototyping are two
important research products that enable this
scanning to be done efficiently and at greatly
reduced expense. EPA scientists are leading
this new field of environmental protection,
and we will apply new capabilities gained
from this research to future efforts.


    EPA's Mercury Research
Program will provide us a better
understanding of the transport and
fate of mercury, from its release to
its effects.  The program is focusing
on several key questions:

    •   How much of the methyl
        mercury in fish consumed
        in the United States is
        contributed by emissions,
        compared to other sources?

    •   How much of the mercury emissions
        from coal-fired utility boilers and other
        combustion systems can be reduced?

    •   What is the magnitude of mercury
        released from non-combustion sources?

    •   What risks do exposure to methyl
        mercury pose to wildlife species and
        other significant ecological receptors?

    •   How does exposure to environmental
        sources of mercury affect the health
        of the most susceptible human

    •   How can we most effectively inform
        susceptible populations about these

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   We are also focusing research on increas-
               ing the accuracy, precision, and effectiveness
               of continuous emission monitors. These results
               will help us evaluate the effectiveness of the
               new Clean Air Mercury Rule. We are coordi-
               nating this research across several of EPA's
               programs and internationally, for example,
               through the United Nations Environment
               Program Fate and Transport Partnership.

                   Another high priority for the Mercury
               Program will be providing information to
               states and utilities on alternative control
               technologies. Researchers are also working
               to identify mercury deposition "hot spots"
               that already exist or may occur as a result of
               market trading of mercury emissions.


                                          Threat and con-
                                       sequence assessment
                                       research focuses on
                                       rapid evaluation of
                                       chemical, biological,
                                       and radiological
                                       risks associated with
                                       a terrorist threat or
                                       attack. This research
                                       will enable better
                                       emergency and fol-
               low-up responses by developing products for
               locating, collecting, and analyzing samples;
               protecting emergency responders, the public,
               and the environment; decontaminating build-
               ings; and disposing of contaminated materials.
               EPA researchers will be developing and refin-
               ing advisory levels for various contaminants
               of concern, improving risk assessment meth-
               ods and communication tools,  and supporting
               emergency and follow-up responders.

                   Our water infrastructure protection
               research will continue to focus on treatment
               operations; drinking water distribution
               systems; and, to a lesser degree, wastewater
               collection, treatment  operations, and treated
water discharge. This work involves laboratory
and field testing and evaluating technologies
to detect, contain, treat, and recover from
intentional attacks on drinking water and
wastewater facilities.

    Decontamination and consequence
management research will support rapid and
cost-effective remediation and restoration of
buildings and broad outdoor areas. This
research involves laboratory and field testing
and evaluation of technologies to decontami-
nate and dispose of materials and areas
affected by intentional attacks.

    We will provide the results of our
homeland security research to the emergency
and remedial response community, elected and
appointed officials, and  the general public.


    By developing and applying the latest
molecular and computational approaches,
EPA's Safe Pesticides/Safe Products (SP2)
Research Program will  provide new tools for
interpreting exposure, hazard identification,
and dose-response information, strengthening
our ability to develop risk assessment meth-
ods to protect  birds, fish, and other wildlife.
This research has become increasingly linked
to advances in computational toxicology.
Scientific progress in sequencing the human
genome has rapidly led to laboratory
methods for assessing gene expression on a
genome-wide basis, which will contribute to
the tools available for SP2 research.

        EPA researchers will be developing
methods for extrapolation among wildlife
species and exposure scenarios of concern
(e.g., exposure of endangered species) to
advance the scientific foundation for con-
ducting probabilistic risk assessments for
wildlife populations. SP2 research will also
contribute to evaluating potential ecological
effects of biotechnology products, developing
risk management approaches, and developing
methods for assessing the potential
allergenicity of genetically engineered plants.

                                                          Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Human Capital
    To achieve our goals for healthy
communities and ecosystems, EPA will require
a workforce with a well-balanced combination
of skills, experience, and expertise. We will
need toxicologists with expertise in chemical
testing, registration, and monitoring; biolo-
gists to evaluate the exposure impact of
chemical releases on wetlands; specialized
chemical engineers to reduce risks at chemical
facilities; and modelers to evaluate risks of
chemicals to populations and fragile ecosys-
tems. We have also identified a gap in the
number of economists, epidemiologists,
human exposure modelers, and hydrologists
needed to fill mission-critical scientist/
researcher positions.
    Many of our strategic targets for protect-
ing, sustaining, or restoring the health of
people, communities, and ecosystems rely on
measures or indicators of changes in the envi-
ronment or human health, such as habitat and
water quality conditions or blood lead levels.
Collecting and analyzing these data are often
expensive and time-consuming. Moreover,
because changes in environmental and
health conditions that result from EPA
programs may not be evident for several
years, it is not always practicable or useful to
collect these data annually. 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.

    The Brownfields Program  has developed
a new strategic target for the acres of brown-
fields made ready for reuse. This new
strategic target better represents the outcome
of the Brownfields Program than the program's
long-standing strategic target of brownfield
properties assessed. The number of brownfield
properties assessed will eventually be tracked
only as an annual performance measure
rather than as a strategic target.

    Another new strategic target set under
this goal involves human body-burden of
pesticides. It embodies metrics presented as
environmental indicators in EPA's forthcoming
Report on the Environment.  We have also
incorporated in this Strategic Plan most of the
long-term, outcome-oriented measures cur-
rently used in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) assessments of various pesti-
cide, toxics, brownfields, and geographic

    Measuring progress toward research goals
can be challenging, not only for EPA but for
science and research programs across the
government. We use a number of objective
measures of customer satisfaction, product
impact and quality, and efficiency to assess
our results. For example, we rely on expert
review panel ratings on the extent to which

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               clients use EPA research products; surveys
               designed to gather data on their utility and
               effect, and analyses that can demonstrate
               actual use of EPA research products.


                  As we considered revising and improving
               performance measures for this Strategic Plan,
               we also assessed longer-term opportunities
               for developing more results-based, outcome-
               oriented commitments. Under our commu-
               nities and ecosystems goal, for example, we
               will focus collaborative research plans to bet-
               ter represent risks to human health and
               ecosystems from toxic substances and pesti-
               cides. We are working with the Board of
               Scientific Counselors and others to develop
               a means for using independent expert review
               to assess the success of all of our research
               programs. We also have identified as a priority
               developing a Chesapeake Bay Water Quality
               Index to represent the Bay's aquatic health
               more comprehensively.

                  We are also integrating environmental
               justice considerations under each of our
               Strategic Plan goals for the first time. In
               particular, we have identified eight national
               environmental justice priorities as deserving
of special attention.107 While this Strategic
Plan identifies actions and/or strategies to
address these priorities, we can make further
progress in developing tailored targets and
measures to evaluate changes in areas with
potential environmental justice concerns.
Our ability to target resources and measure
progress will improve as we gain experience,
develop new tools, and further integrate
environmental justice considerations into
EPA's work. In addition to the performance
measures already established, we will assess
progress with respect to the following national
environmental justice priorities: asthma
attacks, exposure to air toxics, blood lead
levels, fish and shellfish safe to eat, water safe
to drink, and revitalization of brownfields
and contaminated sites.
                  Programs supporting our goal of healthy
               communities and ecosystems are assessed in
               three ways: internal EPA program evalua-
               tions, including those conducted by EPA's
               Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and
               Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC); OMB
               PART reviews; and external assessments by
               organizations such as the Government
               Accountability Office (GAO) and the
               National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

    The BOSC Human Health
Subcommittee evaluated the Agency's
Human Health Research Program's four long-
term goals, which are related to the use of
information in risk assessment, aggregate and
cumulative risk, susceptible sub-populations,
and public health outcomes. In response
to BOSC recommendations, we increased

              Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Using Feedback from Performance Assessments and Program Evaluations
communication and collaboration among
research areas, developed specific peer review
goals, and articulated a decision-making

    Several program offices are developing
program-specific evaluations. For example,
the Brownfields Program is reviewing head-
quarters and regional operations  to obtain
feedback on program objectives,  ensure
accountability, evaluate decision-making
processes, and identify best practices. The
review, to be completed in FY 2008, is
intended to enhance program quality overall.

    OIG  has conducted extensive reviews of
programs supporting the healthy communi-
ties and ecosystems goal. Over the past
several years, OIG has:

     •  Assessed how well EPA has integrated
       environmental justice in our opera-
       tions and provided recommendations
       for reaffirming our commitment
       to environmental justice and
       strengthening planning efforts.

    •  Reviewed our implementation of
       the Food Safety Act and provided
       recommendations for considering
       sub-populations, responding to
       petitions, and increasing public

    •  Assessed implementation of the
       Brownfields Program and provided
       recommendations for managing
       resources and improving the grant
       application and selection process.

       New Chemicals Program—rated
       moderately effective.

       Existing Chemicals Program—rated

       Pesticide Registration—rated

       Brownfields Revitilization—rated

       U.S.-Mexico Border Water
       Infrastructure—rated adequate.

       The Ecological Research
       Program—rated ineffective.
       (The program is conducting follow-up
       actions to address this issue.)
       Human Health Research-
       Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
       Research—rated adequate.
                                                 A f
    Many of the programs supporting Goal 4
have been assessed under OMB's PART
process. Summaries of all completed PART
studies are available at www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/expectmore/. Among the programs
evaluated were:
    EPA participates with outside organiza-
tions, such as GAO and NAS, in evaluating
program effectiveness and recommending
improvements in program management and
policies. GAO has conducted numerous eval-
uations of programs supporting the healthy


2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               communities and ecosystems goal; a complete
               list is available at 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 Support 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 to Better Assess, Report,
                      and Manage Restoration Progress
                      (October 2005).
    •  Columbia River Basin: A Multi-lay-
       ered Collection of Directives and
       Plans Guides Federal Fish and
       Wildlife Activities (June 2004).

    NAS has developed reports and recom-
mendations on a range of community and
ecosystem issues. For example, in 2006 NAS
released "Rebuilding the Unity of Health and
the Environment in Rural America" and in
2004, "Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward
Better Environmental Decision Making."
EPA's risk assessment forum has also con-
vened external reviews to evaluate programs
when appropriate. The Endocrine Disrupter
Chemical Research Program was evaluated in
this manner.

    BOSC has initiated a cycle of review
for EPA's research programs and is evaluating
an average of three  programs each year for
relevance, quality, and performance.
Between 2005 and 2006, BOSC reviewed
and made recommendations for improving
four research plans supporting healthy com-
munity and ecosystem goals: human health,
ecosystems, global climate change, and
endocrine disrupting chemicals.

                              Rapidly changing technolo-
                           gies will have significant
                           implications for EPA's work to
                           protect and restore communities
                           and ecosystems. In the area of
                           nanotechnology, for example,
                           nanoscale materials—chemical
                           substances containing structures
                           on the scale of approximately 1
                           to 100 nanometers, or 1 to 100
                           billionths of a meter—will pres-
                           ent an emerging challenge for
                           our chemicals program. Due to
                           their small size, nanomaterials
                           may have different molecular
                           properties than do other
chemical substances and may present
unique risks. EPA is currently reviewing
pre-manufacture notices for several new
nanoscale chemical substances, and we
anticipate that we will soon be receiving
applications to register pesticides containing
nanoscale materials. (The first public inven-
tory of nanotechnology products that have
entered commercial use is available at

   EPA's nascent nanotechnology research
program is focusing on decision support and
guiding safe commercial and environmental
applications. Between 2007 and 2011, our
nanotechnology research will address four
broad areas:

                                          Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Emerging Issues and External Factors
    •  Developing approaches to assess risk.
    •  Assessing risks to human health and
       ecosystems, particularly for applica-
       tions that disperse nanomaterials.
    •  Assessing—from a lifecycle
       perspective—what impact products
       containing nanomaterials might have
       on human health and the environ-
       ment and how, because of their likely
       durability and longer shelf life, they
       might conserve energy and other
       resources, prevent pollution, and
       advance sustainability.
    •  Identifying and developing research
       technologies that use nanomaterials
       to detect, monitor, and remediate
       environmental releases of conven-
       tional pollutants and nanoparticles.

    We are also responding to nanotechnology
with a new environmental stewardship
program that will complement TSCA regula-
tory tools. In partnership with chemical
manufacturers, processors of nanoscale mate-
rials, and other stakeholders, we will gather
data to inform our risk assessment and risk
reduction activities. We will use this data and
information  gained from strategic testing to
determine whether commercial activities
involving nanoscale materials present poten-
tial risks, and we will respond appropriately.
EPA may also be able to provide  companies
with tools that will help them anticipate
environmental risks and invest in safer
products and production procedures.
    EPA is also anticipating the use of DNA
micro-arrays in environmental chemical
testing. DNA micro-arrays are a type of tech-
nology that profiles the genomes of plant and
animal species and uses sequences like probes
to recognize  substances. These technologies
have the  potential to change and enhance
chemical testing in multiple environmental
areas. EPA researchers are making significant
progress in using DNA micro-arrays (gene
chips) and related developments, particularly
in computational toxicology.
    Distributed sensor networks, another
emerging technology, have 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 man-
agement and analysis system, such as EPA's
GEOSS. Through distributed sensor net-
works, we could collect and transmit data
faster and more frequently, improve data
quality, enhance data integration, and
improve data sharing. Distributed sensor
networks could also provide better environ-
mental health information that allows us to
measure progress at multiple temporal and
spatial scales. This technology  could support
our Report on the Environment, advance our
foresight capabilities, 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. We will need to examine how produc-
ing new renewable and non-renewable forms
of energy and the infrastructure for distribut-
ing and storing them might affect the
environment. For example, the use of pesti-
cides and loss of habitat that attend
production of biofuels can potentially affect
human health and the environment. We will
also need to characterize the potential for
emissions generated from producing and
using biofuels.


2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                                          Global climate change, loss of habitat to sprawl, exploitation of natural
                                     resources,  invasive species, nonpoint source pollution, and the accumulation
                                     and interaction of these conditions represent emerging ecological challenges.
                                     Our ability to achieve our strategic objectives depends on a number of fac-
                                     tors over which we have little or no influence. The success of partnerships,
                                     international collaboration,  and efforts at global harmonization; economic
                                     influences (including increased trade and foreign investment); industrial
                                     accidents;  natural disasters; litigation; and new legislation all can affect our
                                     progress in achieving our goals.
                                          To learn more go to: www.epa.gov/ocfo/futures/perspectives.htm.
For information on EPA's National Land Cover Database, see U.S. EPA, Landscape Ecology Study Areas inter-
net site: www.epa.gov/nerlesdl/land-sci/. Las Vegas, NV: Office of Research and Development. See also U.S.
Department of the Interior, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium internet site: www.mrlc.gov/.
Sioux Falls, SD: U.S. Geological Survey. Also see U.S. Department of the Interior, Earth Resources
Observation and Science (EROS), Global Land Cover Characterization internet site:
edcsnsl7.cr.usgs.gov/glcc/. U.S. Geological Survey (updated June 27, 2005). For information on EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, see U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) internet site: www.epa.gov/emap/. For information on EPA's Report on the Environment, see
U.S. EPA Report on the Environment internet site: www.epa.gov/indicators/index.htm. Washington, DC.

Measurement Mechanism: EPA risk management action tracking tools, including RAPIDS (not publicly
available) and HPVIS. See U.S. EPA, High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) internet site:
http://epa.gov/hpvis/. Washington, DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Once HPV
challenge chemicals have been through the EPA multi-tier risk assessment process, any found to present unrea-
sonable 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.

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, EPA expanded its assessment of incoming TSCA 8(e) reports, required  to be submitted
whenever companies leam 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.

Target assumes annual 3.0% reductions for remaining years through 2011. Measurement Mechanism:
EPA's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model. See U.S. EPA Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators (RSEI) internet site: www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/. Washington, DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005. Blood Lead Levels-United States, 1999-2002, MMWR:
54(2): 513-516.  Available online at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5420.pdf.
                  6.   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1994. Update: Blood Lead Levels-United States, 1991-1994.
                      MMWR: 43(30): 545-548. Available online at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032080.htm.

                  7.   United Nations Environment Program and the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles maintain a global
                      database on fuel quality, which is updated periodically. See United Nations, Partnership for Clean Fuels and
                      Vehicles internet site: http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/partnerships/178.html*top. New York,
                      NY: Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

                                                                                  Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Notes
8.    Ibid.

9.    The baseline for this strategic target is derived by totaling the vulnerability zones around individual RMP
     facilities. In many instances, a facility's vulnerability zone overlaps with the vulnerability zones of other facili-
     ties. Consequently, the baseline for this measure exceeds the spatial extent of vulnerable areas, but accurately
     reflects cumulative progress in reducing potential sources of risk.

10.  This strategic target is based on the levels of several key pesticides found in people as measured by the Centers
     for Disease Control's bi-annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey  (NHANES)  (1999-2002).
     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 www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.

11.  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. March
     2005.  Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey  (NAWS) 2001  - 2002. A Demographic and
     Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers, Research Report No. 9., Washington, DC: Office of the
     Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy (available online at: www.doleta.gov/agworker/
     naws.cfm) and; American Association of Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System:
     www.aapcc.org/poisonl .htm.

12.  American Association of Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System: www.aapcc.org/

13.  USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program,  as reported in Gilliom, R. ]., J. E. Barbash, et
     al.  2006. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams  and Ground Water, 1992—2001.
     Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1291:  172 p. Available online at:  http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/

14.  Annual Report of the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4Project) (NRSP-4/IR-4):
     January 1, 2005-December 31,  2005: http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Other/annreports.html.

15.  EPA's  estimate of annual termite structural damage avoided is derived from an estimated $2,500 average termite
     damage per house, 3,620,000 units receiving termite treatment, and an estimate that 10 percent of housing
     units would have received  termite damage absent the treatment ($2,500 x  3,620,000 units = $9.05 billion
     x 0.1 = $9.05  million/year  termite structural damage avoided.)

16.  Toxic Substances Control Act Section 5: Manufacturing and Processing Notices, Public Law 94-469,
     October 11, 1976.

17.  U.S. EPA, High Production Volume (HPV)  Challenge Program internet site: www.epa.gov/chemrtk/.
     Washington, DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (updated April 20, 2006).

18.  U.S. EPA, High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) internet site: www.epa.gov/hpvis/index.html.
     Washington, DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

19.  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:
     www.oecd.org/document/21/0,2340,en_2649_34379_1939669_l_l_l_l,00.html. See also Global HPV  Portal
     and existing databases internet site: www.oecd.org/document/9/
     0,2340,en_2649_34379_35211849_l_l_l_l,00.html. Also see United Nations Environmental Program,
     Chemical Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) for High Volume Chemicals internet site:

20.  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 OECD mono-
     graph, 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 online
     at:  www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/ene4147.pdf.

2006-2011   EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                       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 U.S. EPA, Pollution Prevention (P2) Framework, Hazard Models internet site: www.epa.gov/oppt/
                       p2framework/docs/hazard.htm#Sub2. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics  (updated
                       June 1, 2006).
                   21.  U.S. EPA,  Sustainable Futures. 67 Federal Register 76282. December 11, 2002, Washington, DC: Office of
                       Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Available online at: www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/
                   22.  For relevant studies, see citations in U.S. EPA. 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 Toxics, Risk Assessment Division. Available online at: www.epa.gov/opptintr/pfoa/pubs/pfoarisk.htm.
                   23.  U.S. EPA,  RMP Program Overview internet site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/
                       RMPoverview.htm. Washington,  DC: Office of Emergency Management.
                   24.  U.S. EPA,  EPCRA Overview internet site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/
                       epcraOverview.htm. Washington, DC: Office of Emergency Management.
                   25.  U.S. EPA,  Acute Exposure Guideline Levels Program internet site: www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/.
                       Washington, DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
                   26.  U.S. EPA,  Pesticides internet site: www.epa.gov/pesticides/. Washington, DC: Office of Pesticide Programs
                       (updated June 1, 2006).
                   27.  U.S. EPA,  Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets, Pesticide Registration Program internet site:
                       www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/registration.htm (updated May 2, 2006).
                   28.  U.S. EPA,  Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration internet site: www.epa.gov/pesticides/
                   29.  See U.S. EPA, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Reducing Pesticide Risk internet site:
                   30.   U.S. Department of Labor. March 2005. Findings from the National Agricultural  Workers Survey (NAWS)
                       2001 - 2002. A Demographic and Employment Profile  of United States Farm Workers, Research Report No. 9,
                       Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy. Available online
                       at: www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm.
                   31.  The Endangered Species Act of 1973 sections  7(a)l and 7(a)2;  Federal Agency Actions and Consultations, as
                       amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973
                       internet site: www.fws.gov/endangered/esa.html#Lnk07.
                   32.  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement
                       of Registration (7 U.S.C. 136a). Available online at: www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/fifra.pdf.
                   33.  Gilliom, R.J., et al. 2006. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground
                       Water, 1992-2001. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291. 171p. Available online at:
                       http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/! 291/.
                   34.  Section 7(a)(2) of the  Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). Available at U.S.
                       Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 internet site: www.fws.gov/endangered/
                   35.  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
                       online at: http://endangered.fws.gov/consultations/pesticides/Final_Rule.pdf.
                   36.  Community-specific baselines for criteria air pollutants, land consumption, and storm water run-off to EPA
                       assistance prior will be compared  to environmental impacts from community actions affecting growth and
                       development, as predicted in computer-modeled alternative future development scenarios within each

                                                                                Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Notes
    community and validated by actual environmental measurements and indicators. EPA uses a customized version
    of Criterion's proprietary INDEX computer model for developing community development and growth scenar-
    ios and assessing their impacts and impacts avoided. See Criterion Planners Inc. (2006). Smart Growth
    INDEX. Portland, OR: www.crit.com.

37. 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 effects in the locale... Both
    short- and long-term effects are relevant." With respect to intensity, issues such as the magnitude of the impact
    (positive and negative) will be considered.

38. U.S. EPA, Environmental Data Registry, Assessment, Cleanup, Redevelopment, Exchange System internet at:

39. Census estimate of homes lacking access minus homes provided with access between 2000 and 2003.

40. 2000 Census estimate of homes lacking access to adequate wastewater sanitation minus homes provided with
    access between 2000 and 2003.

41. These initial baselines were calculated from Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme data 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, 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. For
    summary of source data, see AMAP, 2002. Arctic Pollution 2002 (Persistent Organic Pollutants, Heavy Metals,
    Radioactivity, Human Health, Changing Pathways). Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP),
    Oslo, Norway, xii+112 pp. See also Persistent Toxic Substances, Food Security and Indigenous Peoples of the
    Russian North. Final Report. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, 2004. 192 p.
    AMAP Report 2004:2. Documents are available on the AMAP internet site: www.amap.no/.

42. U.S. EPA, Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program internet site:

43. Clinton, William ].  February 16, 1994. Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations
    and loW'income populations. Executive Order 12898, 59  FR 7629. Available online at: www.archives.gov/

44. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Public Law 107-118 (H.R. 2869), 115 stat.
    2356). Available online at: www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/sblrbra.htm#status.

45. Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support Center internet site: www.brownfieldstsc.org/.
    U.S. EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
    Argonne National Laboratory.

46. Triad Resource Center internet  site: www.triadcentral.org/. Triad is  an innovative approach to decision making
    for hazardous waste  site characterization and remediation. The Triad approach proactively exploits new  charac-
    terization 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. EPA, 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.

47. SMARTe (Sustainable Management Approaches and Revitalization Tools) internet site:
    www.smarte.org/smarte/home/index.xml. SMARTe is an open-source, web-based, 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 U.S. EPA's 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.

2006-2011   EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   48.  U.S. EPA, U.S.-Mexico Border Program, Border 2012 Program internet site: www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/.
                   49.  Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Signed by USA on May 23, 2001. Entered into force
                       on 17 May 2004. See www.pops.int/. See also www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/international/pops.htm.
                   50.  Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme internet site: www.amap.no/.
                   51.  Arctic Council, www.arctiC'Council.org under "Activities" (ACAP/Obsolete Pesticides Project).
                   52.  Arctic Council, www.arctiC'Council.org under "Activities" (ACAP/PCB Project).
                   53.  U.S. DOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coterminous United
                       States  1998-2004, Washington, DC, 55 pp.
                   54.  Data for the index components are tracked internally by U.S. EPA'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.
                   55.  U.S. EPA, Great Lakes Monitoring, Contaminants in Top Predator Fish internet site: www.epa.gov/glnpo/
                   56.  Data are collected through the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN). See U.S. EPA,
                       Great Lakes Monitoring, Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Pollutants internet site: www.epa.gov/glnpo/
                   57.  U.S. EPA, Areas of Concern (AoCs) On-line, Great Lakes internet site: www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html.
                       Chicago, Illinois: Great Lakes National Program Office.
                   58.  U.S. EPA, Sediment Remediation,  Great Lakes internet site: www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/sediments/
                       remediateb.html. Chicago, Illinois: Great Lakes National Program Office.
                   59.  Batiuk, R., et al. April 2003. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and
                       Chlorophyll a for Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries, Annapolis, Maryland: U.S. EPA, Region 3,
                       Chesapeake Bay Program Office: www.chesapeakebay.net/maycriteria.htm.
                   60.  Ibid.
                   61.  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.
                       EPA, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay  Program Office: www.chesapeake bay.net/caploads.htm.
                   62.  Ibid.
                   63.  Ibid.
                   64.  U.S. EPA, Surf Your Watershed,  2002 Section 303 (d) List Fact Sheets for
                       Florida (http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/state_rept.control?p_state=FL),
                       Alabama (http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/state_rept.control?p_state=AL),
                       Mississippi (http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/state_rept.control?p_state=MS,
                       Louisiana (http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/state_rept.control?p_state=LA), and
                       Texas (http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/state_rept.control?p_state=TX).
                       Also see U.S. EPA, Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS), WATERS Expert
                       Query Tool: http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters/ez_column.list?table_name=V_WO_IMPAIRMENTS_LIST. Also see
                       U.S. EPA, Region 4 Alabama's and Mississippi's 2002 303 (d) List Review Decision Document and Florida's
                       2003 303(d) List Decision; U.S. EPA, Region 6. Louisiana's 2002 Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited
                       Water Bodies and Review of Texas' 2002 Section 303(d) Water Body List. Sources  for geospatial data are
                       303(d) mapping by Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Alabama Department of Environmental
                       Management, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana  Department of Environmental
                       Quality, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
                   65.  LaRoe, E.T., G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac, eds. 1995. Our Living Resources: A Report to
                       the Nation on the  Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems. U.S. DOI,
                       National Biological Service, Washington, DC; 530 pp. Available online at:

                                                                                Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Notes
66. LUMCON News. July 28, 2006. LUMCON Researchers Report Current Hypoxic Zone at Over 6,600 Square
    Miles: www.lumcon.edu/Information/news/default.asp?XMLFilename=200607281358
    Shelfwide06PressRelease.xm:l; Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: www.gulfhypoxia.net/shelfwide06/;
    Chauvin, LA: Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). Also see NOAA, July 24, 2006.
    NOAA Forecasts Larger than Normal "Dead Zone" for Gulf this Summer. NOAA Magazine. Washington, DC:
    NOAA Public, Constituent & Intergovernmental Affairs: www.noanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2669.htm.

67. Connecticut  Department of Environmental Protection and New York State Department of Environmental
    Protection. December 2000. A Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for
    Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound: www.longislandsoundstudy.net/pubs/reports/tmdl.pdf.

68. Connecticut  Department of Environmental Protection, Long Island Sound Water Quality Monitoring:

69. Long Island Sound Study,  Sound Health 2006 Environmental Indicators: www.longislandsoundstudy.net/
    indicators/index.htm on Water Quality/Water Quality Measures. Stamford, CT: EPA Long Island Sound Office.

70. Long Island Sound Study,  Sound Health 2006 Environmental Indicators: www.longislandsoundstudy.net/
    indicators/index.htm on Habitat Protection/River Miles Restored and Coastal Habitat Restored. Stamford, CT:
    EPA Long Island Sound Office.

71. U. S. EPA, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, NOAA, Coral Reef Evaluation and
    Monitoring Project (CREMP), Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program:

72. Florida International University, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Seagrass Ecosystems Research
    Laboratory: www.fiu.edu/~seagrass.

73. Florida International University, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Water Quality Monitoring
    Network: www.serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork.

74. U.S. EPA, Ecoregional Criteria, Nutrient Water Quality Criteria: www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/
    ecoregions/. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. July 2, 2006. Calculation of Annual and 5'Year
    Geometric Mean Total Phosphorus Concentrations to Assess Achievement of the Phosphorus Criteria for the
    Everglades Protection Area.

75. Puget Sound  Assessment and Monitoring Program Update. Puget Sound Action Team and Washington
    Department of Health, 2006: www.doh.wa/gov/ehp/sf/sfpubs.htm*GrowingAreasPubs.

76. U.S. EPA, Region 10, Superfund Site Inventory for Puget Sound, internal database.

77. Puget Sound  Nearshore Restoration Site Inventory, Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor
    Recreation, project-tracking database, August 2006.

78. Baseline data will be based on Washington State  input to the National Emissions Inventory  Database.

79. The development of baselines for contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue will include the
    following sources: (1)  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. (2) Water
    Cleanup Plans (TMDLs) by Watershed/Ecology Region, www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/watershed/
    index.html (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. (3) U.S. EPA. 2002. Columbia River Basin Fish
    Contaminant  Survey: 1996-1998 (EPA, 910-R-02-006). Seattle, Washington: Region 10, Risk Evaluation Unit:
    c3a9164ed269353788256c09005d36b7?OpenDocument. (4) Fixed Station and Seasonal Monitoring of
    Conventional and Toxic Contaminants on the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP) Internet
    site: www.lcrep.org/eco_water_qual.htm*fixed. (5) 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:

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   80. 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 online at: www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/

                   81. Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1998 to 2004. Washington,
                       DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 112 pp. Available at Fish and Wildlife
                       Service, National Wetlands Inventory internet site: www.fws.gov/nwi/.

                   82. Bush, George W April 22, 2004. Announcement of Wetlands Initiative on Earth Day. Wells National
                       Estuarine Research Reserve, Wells, Maine. Available at Council on Environmental Quality, Expanding and
                       Protecting America's Wetlands internet site: www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/clean-water.html*^.

                   83. Council on Environmental Quality. April 2006.  Conserving America's Wetlands 2006: Two Years of Progress
                       Implementing the President's Goal. Available online at: www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/wetlands_200604.pdf.

                   84. Compensatory Mitigation Rulemaking web page: www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation.

                   85. U.S. EPA, Five Star Restoration Program internet site: www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/.
                       Washington, DC: Office Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

                   86. U.S. EPA, Regional Geographic Initiatives internet site: www.epa.gov/regional/rgi.htm. Washington, DC:
                       Office of Regional Operations.

                   87. U.S. EPA, Targeted Watershed Grants Program internet site: www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/.
                       Washington, DC: Office Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

                   88. U.S. EPA, Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution), Clean Water Act Section 319 internet site:
                       www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html. Washington, DC: Office Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

                   89. 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: www.pewtrusts.org/ideas/

                   90. 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. Executive Order 13340.
                       Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040518-3.html

                   91. U.S. EPA, Great Lakes, Regional Collaboration: Interagency Task Force internet sites:

                   92. U.S. EPA, Great Lakes Regional Collaboration:  Making the Great Lakes Greater internet site:
                       www.epa.gov/grtlakes/collaboration/index.html. 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 online at: www.epa.gov/grtlakes/collaboration/

                   93. Great  Lakes Regional Collaboration internet site: www.glrc.us/. See also Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
                       Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. December 2005. Chicago, IL: Great Lakes Regional
                       Collaboration. Available online at: www.glrc.us/strategy.html.

                   94. U.S. EPA, Great Lakes Pollution Prevention and Toxics Reduction, Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
                       internet site: www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/index.html.

                   95. U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program. June 2000. Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.  Annapolis, Maryland. Available
                       online at: http://chesapeakebay.net/pubs/chesapeake2000agreement.pdf.

                   96. 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. EPA, Region 3,
                       Chesapeake Bay Program Office:  www.chesapeakebay.net/caploads.htm.

                   97. U.S. EPA, Gulf of Mexico Program internet site: www.epa.gov/gmpo.

                   98. The Gulf of Mexico Alliance internet site: www.dep.state.fl.us/gulf/. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of
                       Environmental Protection.

                                                                                 Healthy Communities and Ecosystems—Notes
99. Federal Workgroup, the U.S. Ocean Action Plan's Gulf of Mexico Regional Partnership internet site:

100. Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2006. Governors' Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts:  March
    2006-March 2009. Available online at: www.dep.state.fl.us/gulf/files/files/GulfActionPlan_Final.pdf.

101. Long Island Sound Study (LISS) internet site: www.longislandsoundstudy.net. Also see Comprehensive
    Conservation and Management Plan for Long Island Sound. March 1994: www.longislandsoundstudy.net/
    mgmtplan.htm. Stamford, CT: EPA Long Island Sound Office.

102. Moore, R.E., M.S. Overton, R.J. Norwood, and D. DeRose. 2000. Nitrogen Credit Trading for Long Island Sound
    Watershed. Water Environment Research Foundation Project RFP'97'IRM'5B. Alexandria, VA:
    Water Environment Research Foundation.

103. Long Island Sound Study, Long Island Sound 2003 Agreement internet site:
    www.longislandsoundstudy.net/ccmp/liss_agreement_03.htm. Stamford, CT: EPA Long Island Sound Office.

104. U.S. EPA, Region 4: South Florida Geographic Initiative internet site: www.epa.gov/region4/

105. U.S. EPA. 2002. Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey: 1996-1998 (EPA, 910-R-02-006). Seattle,
    Washington, U.S. EPA Region 10, Risk Evaluation Unit: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/OEA.NSF/
    af6d4571f3e2bl698825650f0071180a/c3a9164ed269353788256c09005d36b7?OpenDocument. Also see Fixed
    Station and Seasonal Monitoring of Conventional and Toxic Contaminants on  the Lower Columbia River
    Estuary Partnership (LCREP) internet site: www.lcrep.org/eco_water_qual.htm*fixed. Also see 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, www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0503006.pdf.

106. U.S. EPA Report on the Environment internet site: www.epa.gov/indicators/index.htm.

107. On November 5,  2005, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson established eight national environmental jus-
    tice  priorities in a memorandum, "Reaffirming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Commitment to
    Environmental Justice." The memorandum is available online at www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/
    policies/ej/admin-ej-commit-letter-110305.pdf . The  national environmental justice priorities include: (1)
    Reduce asthma attacks;  (2) Fish and shellfish safe to eat;  (3) Reduce exposure to air toxics; (4) Water safe to
    drink; (5) Reduced incidence of elevated blood lead  levels; (6) Collaborative problem-solving; (7)  Ensure com-
    pliance; and (8) Revitalization of brownfields and contaminated sites.


>p-    --,  X.

  Protect human health and the environment through ensuring
  compliance with environmental requirements by enforcing
  environmental statutes, preventing pollution, and promoting
  environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide
  incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote
  environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes.

                                     Under Goal 5 EPA will accelerate the pace of environmental
                                     protection by taking compliance and enforcement actions that
                                     produce environmental results, by preventing pollution at the source
                              and advancing other forms of environmental stewardship, and by embracing
                              the tools of innovation and collaboration,

                                 Effective compliance assistance and strong, consistent enforcement are
                              critical to achieving the human health and environmental benefits expected
                              from our environmental laws. By offering compliance assistance to those who
                              want to comply with environmental regulations and standing ready with a
                              strong enforcement program, we will ensure that the public receives the
                              benefits promised by our environmental laws. We will achieve significant
                              environmental results by focusing our efforts on priority problem areas
                              identified through consultation with states and tribes. We will protect the
                              public by criminally prosecuting willful, intentional, and serious violations of
                              the federal environmental laws,

                                 At the same time, EPA will promote the principles of responsible
                              stewardship, sustainability,  and accountability to achieve all of its strategic
     T  _                    goals. Collaborating closely with our federal, state, and tribal partners,
       ^^A j&    M        the Agency will focus efforts on innovations that assist businesses and
            I fm  /A         communities in improving their environmental performance. To  achieve
                              pollution prevention goals, we will work with industrial, governmental, and
                              non-governmental partners to increase the effectiveness of voluntary and
     self-directed approaches that minimize or eliminate the generation of pollution.  In addition, EPA will
     continue to conduct research on pollution prevention, new and developing technologies, social and
     economic issues, and decision-making,
                                                              0            V
                                                        Granta Nakayama
                                                        Assistant Administrator
                                                        Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance
                                                        Jim Gulliford
                                                        Assistant Administrator
                                                        Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances

                                      GOAL 5:
rEnvironmental  Stewardship
                                   Objective 5.1: Achieve
                                   Environmental Protectk
                                   Through Improved
   EPA is working to ensure that government, business,
and the public comply with federal laws and regulations
designed to protect the environment
and human health. We employ
several strategies to achieve this goal.
Our compliance assurance program
provides compliance assistance and
incentives, monitors compliance
efforts and trends, and enforces
against violators. Our pollution
prevention programs and other
innovative partnerships promote self-
directed action to minimize or
eliminate pollution before it is
generated. We also work with other
nations,  including key international
trading partners, as they develop and
enforce their own environmental
protection programs. Increasing
environmental compliance in other
countries will lead to lower levels of
pollution that can cross borders and
affect the United States.
                                   Objective 5.2: Improve
                                   Environmental Performanc
                                   Through Pollution Prevent
requirements. Stewards of the environment recycle
wastes to the greatest extent possible, minimize or
              eliminate pollution at its source,
              conserve natural resources, and use
              energy efficiently to prevent harm to
              the environment or human health.
              We use science and research to
              inform Agency policy decisions and
              guide our efforts to promote environ-
              mental stewardship. To meet our
              domestic environmental challenges,
              we continue to cooperate and
              coordinate with  our international
              partners to promote environmental
              stewardship globally.
                                   Objective 5.3: Improw
                                   Human Health and th
                                   Environment in Indian
                                   Objective 5.4: Enhanc
                                   Society's Capacity for
                                   and Kesean
        We use the term "environ-
  mental stewardship" to describe the
  sense of responsibility and ownership that goes with not
  only meeting, but exceeding, existing regulatory
                  In cooperation with our partners,
              we use four tools to maximize compli-
              ance: provide assistance to promote
              understanding of environmental
              regulations; offer incentives that
              encourage facilities voluntarily to
              identify, disclose, and correct viola-
              tions; monitor compliance through
              inspections, evaluations, and
              investigations; and conduct civil and
criminal enforcement actions to correct violations and
deter future non-compliance.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                  Currently, EPA is in the process of
               examining and revising Objective 5.1, the
               associated sub-objectives, and the perform-
               ance measures used to track progress in
               improving compliance. The current objec-
               tive, sub-objectives, and measures focus on
               the use of the four tools described above. The
               revised version will link outcomes achieved in
               reducing or eliminating pollution, key
               environmental risks, and non-compliance
patterns to program implementation of the
national priority strategy for enforcement.
As an example, a measure and target may
be developed related to compliance and
enforcement activities at combined sewer
overflows that are located within 1 mile
upstream of surf ace drinking water uptakes.
As these new measures are developed, the
older measures contained within this Plan
will be amended and replaced.

               900,000,000 POUNDS.)
                                    5.1.1: Compliance
                                    Assistance. By 2011,
                                    prevent noncompli-
                                    ance or reduce
                                    environmental risks,
                                    with an emphasis on
                                    achieving results in
                                    all areas including
                                    those with potential
                                    environmental justice
                                    concerns, through
                                    EPA compliance assis-
                                    tance by maintaining
                                    or improving on the
                                    following percentages
               for direct assistance provided to regulated
               entities, including those in Indian country:
               50 percent of the regulated entities receiving
               direct assistance improve environmental
               management practices;3 and  12 percent of the
               regulated entities receiving direct  assistance
               reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution.
               (Baselines are determined each  year based on
               prior year results.)
Sub-objective 5.1.2: Compliance Incentives.
By 2011, identify and correct noncompliance
and reduce environmental risks, with an
emphasis on achieving results in all areas
including those with potential environmental
justice concerns. Use of compliance incen-
tives will result in a 5 percentage point
increase in the number of facilities that use
EPA incentive policies to conduct environ-
mental audits or other actions that reduce,
treat, or eliminate pollution or improve
environmental management practices at
their facilities, including those in Indian
country. (Baseline: 3-year rolling average
FYs 2003-2005: 940 facilities.)

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 all areas including
those with potential environmental justice
concerns, through monitoring and enforce-
ment of regulated entities' compliance,

   Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.1: Achieve Environmental Protection Through Improved Compliance
including those in Indian country, by
achieving: a 5 percent increase in the num-
ber of facilities taking complying actions4
during EPA inspections and evaluations
after deficiencies have been identified
(baseline to be determined based on
FY  2006 results); a 5 percentage point
increase in the percent of enforcement
actions requiring that pollutants be
reduced, treated, or eliminated (FY  2005
baseline: 28.8 percent); and a  5 percentage
point increase in the percent of enforce-
ment actions requiring improvement of
environmental management practices.
(FY 2005 baseline: 72.5 percent.)
    Environmental laws can achieve their
purposes only when facilities and companies
comply with requirements. Facilities and
companies that do not comply can gain an
unfair economic advantage over those that
do invest the resources necessary to meet
their environmental obligations. EPA works
with state, tribal, and local agencies to  secure
and maintain compliance with the nation's
environmental laws and regulations.

    Over the next 5 years, we will continue
working with state, tribal, and local environ-
mental compliance assurance programs to:

    •  Ensure a consistent level of effort
       among state and tribal enforcement
       and compliance assurance programs.

    •  Identify national priorities for
       enforcement and compliance.

    •  Better integrate state, tribal, regional,
       and national strategic planning

    •  Share information about patterns of
       noncompliance or emerging risks
       which need to be addressed.
    •  Explore opportunities for developing
       common performance measures for
       state and tribal enforcement and
       compliance assurance programs.

    •  Continue to ensure compliance
       in Indian country by improving
       data collection and reporting and
       by building tribal capacity for manag-
       ing compliance and enforcement

    We will also work with some of our
state and tribal partners,  and with the U.S.
Departments of State, Justice, the Interior,
and other federal agencies, to encourage
other countries' efforts to develop and ensure
compliance with their own domestic
environmental programs.


    EPA will continue to assist the regulated
community in complying with environmental
laws and regulations by providing training,
workshops, on-site visits, and telephone con-
tacts. Our 14 virtual Compliance Assistance
Centers (www.epa.gov/compliance/
assistance/centers/index.html) provide assis-
tance directly to regulated entities and offer
access to resources such as pollution preven-
tion information. We will also provide

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               assistance to regulated entities indirectly by
               tailoring compliance assistance tools and
               making them readily available on our
               websites, as free publications, and through
               trade associations and other groups. Our
               National Environmental Compliance
               Assistance Clearinghouse provides federal,
               state, tribal, and local governments; acade-
               mia; trade associations; and other
               organizations a forum for sharing information
               on best practices, new compliance assistance
               materials, and performance measurement.
               As part of our compliance  assistance, we
               also encourage environmental stewardship
               by establishing partnership programs designed
               to minimize or eliminate the generation
               of pollution.

                   Through the Environmental Assistance
               Network, we will continue to coordinate
               EPA's efforts to assist specific industry sectors,
               such as health care or construction, in
               improving their environmental performance.
               The Network brings EPA programs together
               around specific sectors to identify opportuni-
               ties for common metrics and measures and to
               develop coordinated approaches for providing
               assistance, preventing pollution, and
               promoting environmental stewardship.

           Estimated Pollutant  Reduction Commitments
           Obtained Through Formal Case Conclusions

    Offering the regulated community incen-
tives to address problems proactively helps
foster a sense of environmental stewardship.
EPA provides a number of incentives to
encourage public and private entities to
assess their compliance with environmental
requirements, voluntarily disclose concerns,
correct them, and prevent recurring prob-
lems. The Small Business Compliance Policy,
for example, allows businesses with fewer
than 100 employees reduced penalties for
discovering, disclosing, and  correcting federal
violations. We will continue to make the
Audit Policy (Self-Policing  Policy) and com-
pliance incentives such as reduced penalties
for violations and extended  time for  correc-
tion available to the regulated community.
We will also encourage owners of multiple
facilities to enter into corporate-wide
auditing agreements, which  offer them the
opportunity to review their  operations more
comprehensively while providing certainty
about their environmental liability.
Corporate-wide auditing agreements,
particularly those following  mergers
and acquisitions, offer the potential for
significant environmental benefits
because environmental compliance issues
are addressed simultaneously across
the corporation.


    Federal environmental regulations
establish a consistent baseline for compliance
levels nationwide. States and tribes that have
been delegated responsibility for specific
programs may set more stringent standards
and enforce against them.

    At the national level, EPA will use
strategic targeting to conduct monitoring and
enforcement activities—inspections, evalua-
tions, civil and criminal investigations,

                        Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance
administrative actions, and civil and criminal
judicial enforcement. By identifying the most
egregious violators and returning them to
compliance as quickly as possible, we can
address the most significant risks to human
health and the environment and relieve
disproportionate burdens on certain popula-
tions. EPA will continue to base its national
enforcement and compliance assurance
program on two components: (1) a limited
number of national priorities that focus on
significant environmental risks and patterns
of noncompliance
and (2) core program
activities that imple-
ment all environmental
laws and requirements.
We will continue to
collaborate with states
and tribes in analyzing
compliance data and
trends to identify
priorities for attention.

Sub-objective 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and
Promote Environmental Stewardship. By
2011, reduce pollution, conserve natural
resources, and improve other environmental
stewardship practices while reducing costs
through implementation of EPA's pollution
prevention programs.

Strategic Targets

    •  By 2011, reduce 4.5  billion pounds of
       hazardous materials cumulatively
       compared to the 2000 baseline of
       44 million pounds reduced.

    •  By 2011, reduce, conserve, or offset
       31.5 trillion British Thermal Units
       (BTUs) cumulatively compared to
       the 2002 baseline of 0 BTUs reduced,
       conserved, or offset.

    •  By 2011, reduce water use by
       19 billion gallons cumulatively
       compared to the 2000 baseline of
       220 million  gallons reduced.
    •   By 2011, save $791.9 million through
       pollution prevention improvements
       in business, institutional, and govern-
       mental costs cumulatively compared
       to the 2002 baseline of $0.0 saved.

    •   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, improve environmental per-
formance with sustainable outcomes through
sector-based approaches, performance-based
programs, and assistance to small business.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               Strategic Targets

                   •  By FY 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 (MTCO2E) 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 environ-
                      mental 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 manufac-
                      turing 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 by December 2006.)
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 envi-
ronmental 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. Specifically, by 2011,
innovation projects under the State
Innovation Grant Program and other piloting
mechanisms will achieve, on average, an 8
percent or greater improvement in environ-
mental results (such as reductions in air or
water discharges, improvements in ambient
air or water 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 goals established in the
grantee's proposal. Baselines for ambient
conditions or pollutant discharges or costs of
compliance will be developed at the begin-
ning of each project, and improvements for
each project will be measured after full
implementation of the innovative practice.)
    EPA is committed to developing and
promoting innovative strategies that achieve
better environmental results, reduce costs,
and promote environmental stewardship.
In collaboration with states and tribes, we
will continue to focus on innovations that
will help small businesses and communities
improve both their environmental and
economic performance.
    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
encourages prevention and source reduction
as preferred methods for keeping pollutants
from release to the environment. EPA will

                          Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance
promote partnerships to achieve our pollu-
tion prevention goals and encourage
responsible stewardship, sustainability, and
accountability. We will work with industry to
design manufacturing processes and products
that prevent pollution and will team with
states, tribes, and governments at all levels to
find innovative, cost-effective approaches for
preventing pollution. A key element of our
strategy is the Pollution Prevention State
Grant Program. Annually, EPA provides
approximately $5 million to states and tribes
to support their efforts to provide industry
with technical assistance, information
sharing, and outreach.

    As mandated by Executive Order 13101,
we will work with federal agencies to ensure
that their purchasing decisions minimize
damage to the environment. Through
our Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Program (www.epa.gov/epp), and such initia-
tives as the Federal Electronics Challenge
(www.federalelectronicschallenge.net) and
the Electronic Products Environmental
Assessment Tool (www.epeat.net/ and
epeat.htp), we will continue  to promote
purchasing, operating, and disposing of
electronic products in ways that protect the
environment. In addition, we will work with
our partners and key stakeholders to enhance
international awareness and use of pollution
prevention measures and environmental
stewardship approaches, in particular
by focusing on key trading partner countries
that are major emitters of critical
transboundary pollutants.

    Our 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 EPA does
business. For example, we will utilize our staff
expertise in working with state, community,
and business leaders to strengthen partner-
ships that encourage collaboration and
meaningful public involvement. To bring
innovations to full-scale implementation, we
will initiate regulatory change, such as
more flexible permitting approaches, and
encourage states to adopt new strategies.

    EPA will advance environmental
protection through innovative and
collaborative approaches with business and
government that produce measurable
environmental results. For example, our
National Environmental Performance Track
Program is a public-private partnership that
encourages continuous environmental
improvement through the use of environ-
mental management systems, local
community involvement, and measurable
environmental results. Performance Track
motivates high-performing facilities to meas-
urably reduce their environmental footprint
beyond  legal requirements and changes the
way government regulates these facilities.
Through the Performance Track Program, we
will establish new relationships with business

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
              based on recognition, mentoring, sharing
              knowledge, incentives (including placing a
              lower priority on routine inspections), and a
              sustained pattern of superior performance.
                  Under our Sectors Strategy Program,
              we will continue to work with sectors of
              the U.S. economy that make a significant
              impact on the environment to improve their
              environmental performance. Although over-
              all the program is intended to promote
              environmental stewardship while minimizing
              regulatory burden, individual sector projects
              address our specific air, water, land, and
              ecosystem objectives as well. The Sectors
              Strategy Program supports the Administrator's
              goal to "accelerate the pace of environmental
              protection" by addressing the "driver and
              barrier" factors in each sector that affect envi-
              ronmental management decisions. We will
              emphasize results and accountability by track-
              ing sector-wide trends in pollutant emissions
              and resource conservation in the Sector
              Strategies Performance Report, available at
                  EPA will continue to promote widespread
              use of environmental management systems
              (EMSs) domestically and internationally.
              EMSs provide a structured system and
              approach for managing environmental
responsibilities (including areas not subject
to regulation, such as product design,
resource conservation, energy efficiency,
and other sustainable practices) to improve
overall environmental performance. Through
a variety of partnership programs and our
EMS website, we will provide information
and technical assistance for organizations
implementing EMSs. We will also fund
research on the effectiveness of EMSs in
the private and public sectors.

   We also remain committed to identifying
and testing new approaches to improving
environmental performance by partnering
with states, tribes, and industry through the
State Innovation Grant Program. We will use
this grant program to fund projects that pro-
mote innovative approaches to permitting or
improve corporate environmental perform-
ance. One example of an innovative program
receiving a State Innovation Grant is the
Environmental Results Program, an approach
first developed by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to regulate small sources such
as drycleaners and printers more cost effec-
tively. We will measure and track 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.
We plan to conduct an evaluation of the
State Innovation Grant Program by 2011.


   We will continue to conduct EPA pro-
grams to prevent pollution while realizing
economic savings:
    •   Our Green  Chemistry Program5
       supports research and fosters innova-
       tive chemical technologies to
       prevent pollution in a scientifically
       sound, cost-effective manner.

                         Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance
    •  The Green Suppliers Network works
       with the U.S. Department of
       Commerce's Manufacturing
       Extension Program and state techni-
       cal assistance programs to provide
       manufacturing suppliers with infor-
       mation on cost saving opportunities
       and technologies to 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, conserve water, and
       reduce energy use in achieving
       measurable results.

    •  Our Design for the Environment6
       Industry Partnership Program  offers
       technology assessments and outreach
       to encourage businesses to  adopt
       cleaner, cheaper, and smarter
       pollution prevention practices.

    We 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.


    To reduce priority chemicals in wastes
going to landfills, EPA focuses on key waste
streams and waste generators. For example,
through the NPEP,  a part of the Agency's
Resource Conservation Challenge, we will
encourage 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 waste reduction goal.
               Green Chemistry Challenge
                   Cumulative Results
           ^ Gallons of Water Saved (millions)
           ^ Pounds of Hazardous Materials Reduced (millions)

           (Water and Materials have no correlation to each other.)
    We will continue to protect the environ-
ment and children's health through
innovative  and collaborative approaches that
produce measurable environmental results.
Our Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign
will help to decrease the number of injuries
and school  days lost due to poor chemical
management and chemical spills. Working
with other  federal agencies, states, tribes, and
local governments, we will provide technical
assistance and grant funding to clean out
chemicals and prevent future chemical
management problems.


    Working with the White House Council
on Environmental Quality, EPA will prevent
adverse environmental impacts associated
with large federal projects subject to National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review7.
Section 309 of the  Clean Air Act  requires
EPA to review and make public its comments
on the  environmental impacts of other federal
agencies. We will also assist other federal
agencies developing environmental impact
statements, help them develop projects to

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                     avoid adverse environmental impacts,
                     support streamlined environmental
                     review processes, and participate in
                     rotational assignment programs and
                     interagency work groups.

                     POLLUTION PREVENTION WORK
                     WITH TRIBAL PARTNERS

                         The environmental and public
                     health issues facing tribes are a priority
                     for EPA, and one focus of our effort to
ensure environmental justice. We will
expand green technologies on tribal
lands,8 especially for buildings constructed
decades ago. We are working with the
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development to provide tribes
with information and training on
"green buildings," to incorporate green
building guidance in tribal housing
grants, and to implement advisory
group recommendations.
                     Strategic Targets

                         •   By 2011, increase the percent
                            of tribes implementing federal
                            environmental programs in
                            Indian country to 9 percent.
                            (FY 2005 baseline: 5 percent
                            of 572 tribes.)

                         •   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.)

                         •   By 2011, increase the percent
                            of tribes with an environmental
                            program to 67 percent.9
                            (FY 2005 baseline: 54 percent
                            of 572 tribes.)
   Under federal environmental
statutes, EPA is responsible for protect-
ing human health and the environment
in Indian country. Our American Indian
Environmental Office (AIEO) leads
an Agency-wide effort to work with
572 federally-recognized tribes, as well
as intertribal consortia,10 located in 9 of
EPA's 10 regions. The land in Indian
country totals more than 70 million
acres, and reservations range from less
than 10 to more than 14 million acres.
   EPA's strategy for achieving our
objectives in Indian country has three
major components. First, we will
continue to  distribute Indian General
Assistance Program (GAP) capacity-
building grants. GAP grants help tribes

    Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.3: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
cover the cost of planning, developing, and
establishing environmental protection
programs. Our goal is help every federally-
recognized tribe establish an environmental
presence. To demonstrate the results
achieved by these funds more effectively,
we are developing more and better environ-
mental and public health measures to track
tribal environmental progress.

    Second, we will develop the information
technology infrastructure needed to assess
environmental conditions in Indian country
and measure the results achieved by the
environmental programs operating on those
and related lands. The Tribal Program
Enterprise Architecture (TPEA) comple-
ments GAP by organizing environmental
data on a tribal basis and providing a picture
of current environmental conditions at the
local level. As tribes assume management of
their own environmental programs (through
the "treatment in a manner similar to a state"
process available under several environmental
statutes or by developing a tribal program
under tribal law), they will be able to use
TPEA data to help identify program
priorities. We will continue to coordinate
EPA's efforts with those of other federal
agencies (including  the U.S. Department of
the Interior's Geological Survey and Bureau
of Reclamation and the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services' Indian
Health Service) to create a comprehensive,
integrated Tribal Enterprise Architecture.
TPEA will supplement our national systems
by allowing tribes and EPA regional offices to
supply information on local environmental
conditions. As data gaps are  identified, EPA
will work with tribes to obtain the data needed
to address high risks in Indian country.

    Third, we will guide and closely track the
implementation of our programs directly on
Indian lands.11 In reaching out to tribes,
EPA's water, air, land, pollution
prevention, and enforcement and compliance
programs have developed specific tribal
strategies. As part of our strategic planning,
we will continue to consult and collaborate
with tribes. The Tribal Caucus, which has
provided input to EPA on tribal issues for
several years, will continue  to serve as our
focal point and help develop and strengthen
EPA-tribal partnerships. We will  also  engage
other EPA-sponsored tribal groups,  such as
the Tribal Committee of 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.

    Beyond improving environmental condi-
tions in Indian country, our engagement with
the tribes will support their work as the first
stewards of our nation's environment. All of
EPA's environmental programs will  benefit by
integrating tribal stewardship perspectives.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                 The principles of environmental steward-
              ship are based on the belief that our nation's
              natural resources are the common property of
              all society. Effective stewards of the environ-
              ment enhance environmental protection and
              achieve sustainable outcomes. Science and
              research programs supporting this strategic
              goal help identify efficient and sustainable
              practices, materials, and technologies to
              improve environmental performance and
              advance stewardship.

   The Science and Technology for
Sustainability (STS) research program
develops models,  tools, and technologies that
provide decision makers with options that
can promote stewardship and lead to sustain-
able outcomes. STS research will achieve
measurable results by providing the enhanced
science and technology that can catalyze
innovation and advance environmental
protection; developing more efficient and
sustainable practices, materials, and tech-
nologies; and providing science to support
sound management decisions, policies, and
practices for sustainable resource manage-
ment. Fundamental research under the STS
program includes developing Life Cycle
Assessment and Material Flow Analysis
methodologies; theoretical modeling of
sustainable systems; developing new science-
based Sustainability metrics and indicators;
and the People, Prosperity, and the Planet
Student Design Competition program.

   STS research will support the regulated
community in implementing more efficient,
sustainable, and protective practices and
using materials and technologies that can
improve performance while protecting the
environment. We will work with our industry
partners to research new methods, alternative
chemicals,  and industrial practices and to
develop tools, for example, that bench
chemists can use to evaluate the environ-
mental dimensions of new chemicals and

                                                      Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Human Capital
production pathways. We have expanded our
Environmental Technology Verification
Program to include an effort focused on
sustainability, the Environmentally
Sustainable Technologies Evaluation
Program. We will develop quality-controlled
test protocols to help verify the capabilities
of new technologies. In addition, we will
continue to conduct our Sustainable
Environmental Systems research program,
which draws on economics, ecology, law, and
engineering to find systems-based solutions to
regional environmental problems.


    EPA's Economics and Decision Sciences
(EDS) research provides methods and data to
conduct economic analyses and evaluate the
effectiveness of our policies. The results of
    To achieve our goals for compliance and
environmental stewardship, we must be
proficient in a number of areas. Our staff
must understand applicable requirements,
possess sector-specific knowledge about
business and industrial processes, keep
current on best practices, and be able to
assess a situation and advise regulated entities
seeking help and guidance.
    To improve our interaction with the
regulated community, we will recruit skilled
facilitators and communicators, and we will
encourage current employees to take advantage
of rotations and other opportunities at the
state and local level. Experience in addressing
local or regional problems will provide staff a
broader perspective on the challenges facing
regulators and the regulated community. We
recognize that a broad spectrum of regulatory
and stewardship approaches will be necessary
to advance environmental protection and that
a well-informed EPA workforce, skilled in
collaborative approaches, will be  the key
to our success.
these analyses will inform our decision
making and help us develop innovative,
cost-effective approaches.

    EDS research will focus on three areas.
First, to improve EPA's cost-benefit analyses,
researchers will develop benefit transfer
methods and original estimates for health
and ecological benefits. Second, researchers
will analyze information and education
strategies for changing behavior, helping us
to promote compliance, improved perform-
ance, and environmental stewardship.
Finally, we  will conduct EDS research on
using trading programs for new pollutants,
media, or geographical areas. This research
will help design market-based programs to
improve environmental performance at the
lowest  cost. We will also be investigating the
implications that  trading programs may have
for environmental justice issues
    To conduct our compliance assistance
program and develop incentives for compli-
ance, EPA attorney-advisors, engineers,
environmental protection specialists, and oth-
ers review material submitted by the regulated
community, assess compliance, and craft the
Agency's response, which could include fines
or penalties. EPA will work to ensure that
staff have the necessary skill sets to carry out
compliance monitoring and enforcement pro-
grams (including inspections), civil and
criminal investigations, and administrative
and judicial enforcement actions.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   EPA's compliance strategy is based on
               activities that will reduce pollutants entering
               the environment, treat them appropriately,
               or eliminate them entirely. To assess our
               progress, we track pounds of pollution
               estimated to have been reduced, treated,  or
               eliminated—a measure also included in
               OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool
               (PART) assessment of the compliance pro-
               gram. We have also incorporated the  PART
               long-term, outcome-oriented measures for
               EPA's GAP grants into this  Strategic Plan.
                                     To  track our annual
                                 progress toward our
                                 research objectives, we
                                 will use a number of
                                 objective measures of
                                 customer satisfaction,
                                 product impact and qual-
                                 ity, and efficiency. For
                                 example, we rely  on
                                 independent expert
                                 review  panel ratings,
                                 client surveys on  the use-
                                 fulness  of our products,
                                 and analyses demonstrat-
                                 ing the actual use of EPA
                                 research products.


                   For the compliance objective of Goal  5,
               EPA will begin a process for  redesigning the
               objective, sub-objectives, and measures. This
               redesign will change the focus of the program,
               moving from a tool-oriented approach that
               measures outcomes  from assistance, incentives,
               monitoring, and enforcement, to a problem-
               oriented approach that measures the extent to
               which key environmental  problems are
               reduced or eliminated. To  more accurately
               characterize the state  of compliance  for partic-
               ular sectors and regulations,  our compliance
               program uses statistically-valid compliance
rates. Our focus will be on environmental
problems with significant environmental risks
and important patterns of noncompliance,
specifically in national priority areas.

   We are also working to supplement our
pollutant reduction outcome measure with
information that characterizes the hazards
presented by pollutants and potential public
exposure. We are using  air pollution  models
to estimate the human health benefits of
reduced air pollutants. As a result, in FY
2005, the compliance assurance program
reported that the 10 largest air pollution
cases produced annual human health benefits
valued at more than $4.6 billion dollars by
reducing pollutants by more than 620 million
pounds annually. The compliance and air
programs will continue  working together to
expand the types of information on human
health benefits that can be reported for air
pollution cases, and we  are exploring oppor-
tunities to report similar information for
cases involving other environmental media.

   EPA will use a set of nationally consistent
environmental justice indicators of health,
environment, compliance, and demographics to
identify "Areas with Potential Environmental
Concerns." We will then emphasize activities
in these areas. This effort will better protect all
communities,  including minority and/or low-
income communities. We will report on the
impact of our compliance efforts on these areas,
including minority and/or low-income commu-
nities. Based on our experience with the
indicators, we will develop specific environ-
mental justice measures and targets for
compliance assurance activities.
   EPA is committed to developing mean-
ingful performance measures that will
allow us to assess our pollution prevention
programs. We will continue to collaborate
with states and tribes to improve our
performance measures and, through the
PART process, review and refine them to
be more outcome oriented.

        Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Using Feedback From Performance Assessments and Program Evaluations
    EPA met its original goal for reducing
priority chemicals in 2003 (2 years earlier
than anticipated), and we have achieved fur-
ther reductions while re-setting the goal for
this 2006-20J J Strategic Plan. Our early suc-
cess is not proving easily sustainable,
however,  as we have begun to exhaust the
more obvious opportunities for waste mini-
mization. Achieving future  reductions will be
more difficult  and require a different
approach. We are working with states to
develop an approach that targets sectors and
will allow more direct technology transfer
between facilities involved  in similar
industrial processes.
    The Harvard Regulatory Policy Program
evaluated several aspects of EPA's
Performance Track Program, including differ-
ences among facilities applying for the
program, characteristics of facilities motivated
to apply, and the differences in environmen-
tal performance between Track members  and
non-members. The evaluation affirmed the
value of EPA recognition as an incentive for
environmental improvements. The study also
stressed the importance of low transaction
costs as a way of encouraging participation in
innovative programs. We will work to
increase recognition of Performance Track
and the branding associated with the
program, and we will identify firms that
are providing environmental leadership
and refocus our recruiting efforts at the
corporate level.

   EPA's Enforcement and Compliance
Program has undergone three PART assess-
ments since FY 2003: civil enforcement
(2003), criminal enforcement (2004), and
pesticides grants (2005). OMB recommenda-
tions resulting from these PART assessments
have been focused on individual program
areas and limited to certain aspects of the
Enforcement and Compliance Program's
management. The program will  continue
to improve and refine outcome measurement
and to  expand use of statistically-valid
compliance rates. These activities are directly
related to PART follow-up actions.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                  Rapidly changing technology presents
               EPA with unique opportunities and chal-
               lenges. By 2011, we can expect several
               significant scientific external factors arising
               in nanotechnology, genomic research, com-
               putational toxicology, computer sciences, and
               the cognitive and behavioral sciences.
               Developing and applying nanotechnologies,
               biotechnologies, and sensor technologies
               could significantly enhance our ability to
               protect human health and the environment.
               Progress in these areas will  also determine
               the future direction of our research programs.
                  Advances in measurement technology
               could also have a significant effect on EPA
               programs. As more sensitive technology for
               detecting and measuring emissions is
               installed in facilities, emissions reporting will
               become more  accurate. As a result, we may
               find emission  rates to be higher or lower than
               previously reported.
    Distributed sensor network technologies,
remote sensing, and hyperspectral imaging
are developing rapidly. These technologies
have the potential to support compliance
monitoring by increasing the frequency and
speed of data collection and transmission;
improving data quality; enabling data inte-
gration; and facilitating data access and data
sharing. Sensors might also facilitate  the
acquisition and use of empirical data  and
aid in tracking and analyzing the flow of
materials and elements throughout the
industrial cycle.

    Nanotechnology could present new
opportunities for pollution prevention and
environmental stewardship (see
www.epa.gov/osa/nanotech.htm). Emerging
nanotechnology applications could potentially
reduce energy demand, develop cleaner
energy, and improve the efficiency of manu-
facturing processes, reducing material use and
waste generation. Pollution prevention pro-
grams can provide a forum for industry and
academia to exchange information on the
environmental effects and benefits of
innovative nanomaterials and promote
environmentally  responsible manufacturing
processes and product design. A growing
number of institutional players are encourag-
ing policymakers to study nanotechnology
and develop responses.

        These emerging technologies may
also present novel risks. Anticipating the
risks and developing tools to identify
them will become increasingly important
as these technologies develop and enter the

                                                                            Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Notes

1.   Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
     Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
     their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

2.   Pounds of pollutants "reduced, treated, or eliminated" is an EPA measure of the quantity of pollutants that will
     no longer be released to the environment as a result of a noncomplying facility returning to its allowable limits
     through the successful  completion of an enforcement settlement.  (Facilities may further reduce pollutants by
     carrying out voluntary Supplemental Environmental Projects.)  Online compliance information is available to
     the public via EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Web Site: www.epa.gov/echo/
     EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Washington, DC. Access July 25, 2006.

3.   "Environmental management practices" refers to a specific set of activities EPA tracks to evaluate changes
     brought about through assistance, incentives, and concluded enforcement actions. Implementing or improving
     environmental management practices—for example, by changing  industrial processes; discharges; or testing,
     auditing, and reporting—may assist a regulated facility in remaining in compliance with environmental require-
     ments. Further information on environmental management  practices is available in EPA's Case Conclusion Data
     Sheet Training Booklet, available online at: www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/
     caseconc.pdf: EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Washington, DC.

4.   Complying actions are actions taken by a facility to address deficiencies, which are potential violations, identi-
     fied 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.

5.   U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.  Green Chemistry Web Site, www.epa.gov/greenchemistry.
     Washington, DC. Access September 9, 2006.

6.   U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.  Design for the Environment Web Site: www.epa.gov/dfe.
     Washington, DC. Access September 9, 2006.

7.   U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. National Environmental Policy Act Web Site:
     www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html*requirement.  Washington, DC. Access September 9, 2006.

8.   Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
     Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
     their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

9.   A tribe is counted as having an environmental program for the purposes of this measure if the tribal govern-
     ment 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 environmental com-
     pliance programs, as evidenced by a document signed by the  tribal government.
     (c)  Complete solid and/or hazardous waste implementation activities.
     (d)  Complete an intergovernmental environmental agreement (e.g., state-tribe MOA, federal-tribe MOA,

10.  Intertribal consortia are groups of federally-recognized tribes that  meet the criteria for EPA purposes that join
     to work together.

11.  Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
     Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
     their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.



        Many of EPAs efforts—strengthening our partner-

     ships with states and tribes, improving the quality and
                   Each of these efforts is a significant component of

               our work and plays a critical role in the accomplishment
     availability of the environmental and health information      of all of our goals. This chapter highlights a few of these
     on which we base our decisions, and improving our
               cross-goal strategies: Partnerships, Information,
     management systems to achieve better

     results—contribute to our progress

     toward all five of our goals. This

     cross-Agency, cross-media work

     includes  both support functions, such
Results and
Innovation and
Best Available Science:
Innovation, Human Capital,

Science, Homeland Security, and

Economic and Policy Analysis. For

each, we will discuss the Agency's

approach, explain how the strategy
     as administrative and financial management or legal
               will contribute to the achievement of our goals, and
     services, and the strategies or means we employ to help      describe some of the activities we will conduct and results

     accomplish our objectives, such as science and research or    we hope to achieve using this approach.

     information management.

                                                              Cross-Goa! Strategies—Results and Accountability
    EPA is committed to being not only a
good steward of the environment, but also a
good steward of the public's tax dollars.
Guided by the principles of the President's
Management Agenda (PMA)1—to be
"citizen-centered, results-oriented, and
market-based"—we are working to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of our
programs and activities. We are continuing
to make progress under each of the PMA
initiatives and other significant efforts to
improve program effectiveness and efficiency
as described below.


    To define our goals, measure our progress,
and hold managers accountable for achieving
results, EPA needs accurate, timely environ-
mental data. Based on the preliminary work
we did to prepare EPA's Draft Report on the
Environment—2003, we are developing and
using a suite  of scientifically sound indicators
to track trends in environmental conditions
and environmental influences on human
health. This  indicator information, which we
will present in our Report on the
Environment—Technical Document (to be
released in 2007), will provide a snapshot of
current environmental conditions and a
baseline against which we can measure
our accomplishments.

    Our environmental indicators work is
critical to EPA's strategic planning. We
have used our latest set of environmental
indicators in developing this Strategic Plan;
indicator information has guided us in
establishing our 2006-2011 strategic goals,
objectives, sub-objectives, and associated
strategic targets, which define the measurable
environmental results we are  trying
to achieve. Information on trends in
environmental conditions and human health
will also help us identify key environmental
concerns and emerging issues and assess the
effect of federal, state, local, tribal, and
private efforts in improving environmental
quality. We will continue to use environmen-
tal indicator information and our Report on
the Environment to determine critical data
needs for future strategic planning.


    EPA's information systems ensure that we
and our federal, state, tribal, and local agency
partners have the accurate, timely informa-
tion we need to make sound decisions.
To make  environmental information readily
accessible, we have created a computer
network that connects EPA and our contrac-
tors with states and tribes, standardized our
computer systems, implemented data
standards, and instituted a variety of
streamlining efforts.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   EPA will continue to identify information
               technology and information management
               challenges and to address them as effectively
               and cost efficiently as possible. Over the next
               5 years,  we will focus on four major areas:

                   •   Analytical Capacity. We will continue
                       to convert raw environmental data
                       into information that decision
                       makers can use more easily. For
                       example, our geospatial work is
                       converting millions of pieces of
                       data into maps.

                   •   Governance. We will ensure that the
                       data EPA collects are of appropriate
                       quality and design, that the data
                       will serve many users, and that we
                       minimize system overlaps to avoid
                       conflict and reduce costs.

                   •   Excellence in Information Service
                       Delivery. EPA will use  the latest tech-
                       nology to streamline management
                       and data processes and link data
                       partners, making information more
                       accessible to all.
                   •   Innovation in Information
                       Management. Through electronic
                       government (E-Gov) efforts, we will
                       continue to convert paper-based
                       administrative or regulatory processes
                       into electronic systems, improving
                       transparency and accessibility, and
                       reducing paper waste.
                                      BUDGET AND

                                         One of the first
                                      federal agencies to
                                      link our planning
                                      and budgeting struc-
                                      tures, EPA is now
                                      working to align
                                      our financial and
human resources more closely with the envi-
ronmental results we deliver.
Our Budget and Performance Integration effort
under the PMA promotes better performance;
enables more informed decision making;
increases accountability; and allows more
transparent, comprehensive reporting of
environmental results to the public.

   To ensure consistent, effective perform-
ance across EPA, we have developed
long-term measures of program  performance
in our Strategic Plan that establish ambitious
yet reasonable expectations for  future
environmental outcomes. These long-term
measures establish the framework for crafting
annual performance and efficiency measures
that meet Office of Management and
Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool
requirements. EPA collects and analyzes
performance information against these
measures to assess program performance over
time and to evaluate the effectiveness of our
approaches to environmental problems.
Based on these evaluations, we  can adjust or
modify our strategies to achieve better results.

   To encourage EPA staff and  our partners to
be accountable  for delivering environmental
results effectively and cost efficiently, we  are
also incorporating performance  measures  in
EPA managers' performance agreements and,
as appropriate,  in our contracts, grants, and
memoranda of understanding. These
performance measures strengthen the
connection between an individual's or
organization's contribution and the delivery
of environmental results. Linking our staff's
and our partners' performance to EPA's
mission, goals, and expectations for environ-
mental outcomes increases everyone's
commitment to improving results.


   EPA has undertaken a multi-office  data
integration effort which uses financial

                                                               Cross-Goa! Strategies—Results and Accountability
information to improve program efficiency
and ensure sound financial management.
We are focusing on financial information
related to one business process at a time as
part of our efforts under the PMA. In
FY 2005, for example, we reviewed grants
management. We have made progress in link-
ing grants management and financial data,
producing better information that shows the
relationship between grant projects and EPA's
environmental objectives. Next we will
review emergency management and, in future
efforts, analyze such key risk areas as debt
management and contracts management.

    In another PMA initiative to improve
our financial performance, we are working to
eliminate improper payments. Under this
effort we will identify, prevent,  and eliminate
erroneous payments and document that the
government is using tax dollars for their
intended purpose. While EPA's  improper pay-
ments are minimal, we are committed to
reducing the error rate for improper payments
even further. For example, in FY 2004 EPA's
error rate in the Drinking Water and Clean
Water State Revolving Funds, 2 of EPA's
largest sources of grant funding, was
0.51  percent, or $10.3 million; by the end
of FY 2005 we reduced it  to 0.16 percent,
or $3.1 million. We will continue to
uphold high standards of integrity for
financial performance.


   EPA has designed our Human Capital
Strategy to ensure that our workforce is high-
performing, results-oriented, aligned with
our strategic goals and objectives, and
accountable for delivering environmental
results consistent with the PMA. Toward this
end, our human capital planning will require
us to identify the skills we will need for
future work, attract and retain diverse talent,
provide continuing opportunities for organi-
zational learning, develop leaders, and ensure
adequate succession planning.
because EPA increas-
ingly relies on
partnerships and col-
laborative endeavors
to accomplish our
work, our strategic
human capital plan-
ning must also
consider our relation-
ships with such
partners as other fed-
eral agencies, state
and local govern-
ments, tribes,
grantees, contractors,
and other stakeholders. We need to ensure
that all available expertise is brought to bear
to achieve our goals for protecting human
health and the environment.
    Over the next 5 years, we anticipate a
dramatic increase in "baby boomer" retire-
ments across both the public and private
sectors. To attract and retain the right people
in the right jobs for both the short and long
terms, we will work to elevate EPA's profile as
an employer of choice, increase our use of
hiring flexibilities, and emphasize intern and
career development programs.


    Competitive sourcing—using competition
to determine whether federal or private sector
employees can most efficiently and effectively
perform work that is not inherently govern-
mental—is a key element of the  PMA and
EPA's effort to deliver environmental results
and ensure accountability. Competitive sourc-
ing helps EPA determine the optimal mix of
federal employees and contractor personnel
for achieving the best results and highest
quality of service for our investment. The
competitive process drives innovation and
efficiency, enabling us to reinvest resultant
savings in high-priority activities.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   Our competitive sourcing program aligns
               EPA's business needs with our Human
               Capital Strategy and uses our planning
               process to identify activities for competition
               and reinvestment. Through competitive
               sourcing, we have already realized efficiencies
               in delivering certain of our financial and
               information technology services; as a result,
               we expect to make savings of more than
               $10 million available for reinvestment during
               the next 5 years. Over the next 3 years, we
               plan to conduct competitive sourcing
               competitions for additional information tech-
               nology and administrative support services,
               and we anticipate that these competitions
               will save EPA 15-25 percent.
                                INCREASING EFFICIENCY
                                THROUGH ELECTRONIC
                                GOVERNMENT (E-Gov)

                                   EPA is pursuing a
                                number of opportunities
                                for leveraging electronic
                                tools and capabilities to
                                provide one-stop access to
                                services and transactions,
                                reduce duplication in col-
                                lecting information, and
                                provide transparent, time-
                                ly, on-line data. Whether
for improving electronic processing and
streamlining flows of the Toxics Release
Inventory data, or developing new geospatial
tools for analyzing environmental data, our
E-Gov work is making current data more
accessible to EPA managers and stakeholders.
    EPA  is participating in 18 of the
25 E-Gov initiatives included in the PMA.
As the "managing partner" for the
E-Rulemaking initiative, we are coordinating
the efforts of nine other agencies to redesign
the rulemaking process. E-Rulemaking uses
the internet to make the rulemaking process
more accessible to interested parties. While
federal rulemaking was once a paper-based
process, E Rulemaking now offers one-stop
access and user services such  as text and
document search capabilities and the
ability for the public to submit comments
electronically. EPA's system will serve as a
template  to improve existing "E-DOCKET"
systems and will replace duplicative systems
in many federal agencies.

    As a  leader in E-Gov, we are helping to
simplify and unify common work processes
across federal agencies and within EPA. We
will continue applying new principles and
methods  to achieve better results, improve
customer service, and provide greater savings
to the American people.
                   EPA's progress over the next several
               years will depend greatly on our ability and
               commitment to find more effective tools and
               approaches to meet today's complex environ-
               mental challenges. Broad-based problems,
               such as polluted runoff, global climate
               change, and loss of habitat and biodiversity,
               are often the result of diffuse causes and
               cannot be  solved fully with conventional
               regulatory controls. Rapid technological and
               scientific advances can bring breakthrough
                                     solutions, but also pose unknown or
                                     unexpected environmental and public
                                     health risks.

                                         As EPA faces these complex challenges
                                     and a tightening federal budget, we increas-
                                     ingly turn to two important strategies that
                                     cross all of our goals and programs: finding
                                     innovative solutions and collaborating with
                                     others. In the coming years we must work
                                     even more effectively with organizations
                                     engaged in environmental issues,  leveraging

                                                             Cross-Goa! Strategies—Innovation and Collaboration
limited resources and coordinating our
authorities and capabilities. We also must
involve other government agencies, businesses,
communities, and individuals who might not
ordinarily focus on environmental matters,
yet have the distinctive expertise,
perspectives, and resources to help solve
environmental problems.

   To make the greatest progress, we will pro-
mote an ethic of environmental stewardship
that engages all parts of society—businesses,
companies,  communities, and individuals—in
taking responsibility for environmental quali-
ty and achieving sustainable results.
Environmental stewardship is based on the
premise that government cannot meet envi-
ronmental 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.


   Innovation is key to environmental
progress. Innovation involves developing
new ideas, testing their effectiveness, and
then determining useful applications. It also
involves making proven approaches even
more effective or adapting them to address
other needs. To drive progress under this
Strategic Plan, EPA's innovation strategy is
based on four elements.
   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 craft
innovative  solutions. EPA is committed to
supporting  innovation in state and tribal
programs in a variety of ways. For example,
states participate in EPA's Innovation Action
Council. Through this senior-level policy
forum, we jointly develop an innovation
work plan that focuses attention on priority
issues. Together, we are finding innovative
approaches to program management
challenges, such as developing total maxi-
mum daily loads for impaired water bodies or
using alternative approaches for managing
hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.

    We also support states through the
competitive State Innovation Grant program
which, since 2003, has provided funding to
help states explore innovative approaches in
three areas of mutual interest to EPA and
states—environmental permitting, environ-
mental 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 develop-
ing or applying programs similar to
Massachusetts' Environmental Results
Program to improve environmental
performance in small business sectors, such
as dry cleaning and printing.

    Similarly, our Innovative Funding
Workgroup, supported through EPA's Indian
Program Policy Council, is developing
options for the strategic and innovative use of
funding, resources,  and other opportunities to
effect environmental change. The workgroup
seeks to understand all of the various mecha-
nisms that EPA and other agencies are  using
or could use to enhance coordination and
environmental protection in Indian country.2

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
      Buildings and development have extensive effects on
      human health, natural resource use, and environmental
      quality. However; a growing interest in green building
      aims to reduce those impacts. Green building is the
      practice of creating healthier; more resource-efficient
      models of construction, renovation, operation, mainte-
      nance, and demolition.While many EPA programs
      work with the building and construction sectors to
      improve environmental performance, a cross-Agency
      Green Building Workgroup is bringing these programs
      together to share information, leverage resources, and
      pursue their common objectives with external stake-
      holders who have joined the green building
      movement.The Workgroup is a model of collabora-
      tion, and its emergence represents the kind of culture
      change that is called for in EPA's Innovation Strategy. It
      shows how EPA recognized an external trend  and  is
      responding with a multimedia approach that can
      advance all five of our strategic goals.
    Focusing on Priority Problems. While
innovation is essential for addressing all
environmental challenges, EPA's innovation
strategy targets a set of priority problems that
are national in scope and in need of creative
new ideas to assure progress: reducing green-
house gases and ozone, restoring water
quality, and addressing the funding gap for
water infrastructure. Our strategy commits
us to consider all potential avenues to
address these diverse issues-regulations,
policy, guidance, voluntary initiatives,
and compliance assistance. By exploring
such options, we can create a more diverse
portfolio of solutions for these and
future problems.
    Developing Problem-Solving Tools and
Approaches. EPA needs new tools and
approaches to solve existing environmental
protection problems and to prevent the
emergence of new ones. We believe the
future environmental protection system will
rely less on technology requirements and
more on strategies tailored to address whole
facilities, communities, or industry  sectors. It
also will emphasize pollution prevention and
natural resource conservation. Our innova-
tion strategy focuses on developing tools that
will expand current capabilities, for example,
by supporting environmental technology
innovation, increasing incentives, encourag-
ing the use of environmental management
systems, and developing results-oriented
performance goals and measures.

    Creating a Culture and Organizational
Systems  to Foster Innovation. Under the
fourth element of our innovation strategy,
we are working to foster innovation by
changing our organizational culture and
management systems. We recognize the need
to improve our planning, budgeting, and
accountability processes and invest in our
human capital. We are also committed to
futures planning to ensure that  we  and our
partners are aware of and ready to respond to
new trends and opportunities that can affect
environmental quality.

                                                             Cross-Goa! Strategies—Innovation and Collaboration

    Collaboration is critical to addressing
today's more complex and often controversial
issues. EPA has a long history of working
successfully with others on environmental
problems, breaking through institutional and
other barriers to achieve more comprehen-
sive results than we could by working alone.
Collaborative approaches can produce more
effective and durable decisions, because they
generate a shared sense of ownership among
the stakeholders who will implement them.
Collaboration on data gathering and analysis
boosts the potential for agreement and can
transform our understanding of environmen-
tal problems.

    We will continue to enhance our capacity
to collaborate with others, and we will
increase our managers' and staff's "collabora-
tion competency," helping them know when
and how to engage productively with others.
Further, we are  identifying new opportunities
for involving stakeholders, making internal
and external collaborative process experts
more available to help facilitate complex
decision making, and implementing a  set
of initiatives with other federal agencies
to strengthen our collective ability to
work with the public.

With States
    The unique relationship between EPA and
states is a cornerstone of the nation's environ-
mental protection system: working together,
we have significantly improved 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 our partnerships with
individual state environmental, public  health,
and agriculture agencies, EPA works at the
national level with a variety of associations

   With America's increasing reliance on electronics,
  how can we 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 leverages
  the $65 billion spent annually in the United States on
  electronic equipment and services. Under this challenge,
  government agencies  commit to making electronic pur-
  chases 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.
representing state governments. These organi-
zations provide the state perspective that EPA
needs to shape policies and programs. We
work closely with the National Governors
Association, National Council of State
Legislatures, and the Environmental Council
of the States, as well as with groups represent-
ing managers of specific environmental media
programs, such as the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control

    In 1995, EPA and state officials created
the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System, the  foundation for our
work with states. Through this system of
performance-based partnerships, EPA and
states are setting environmental priorities
and program strategies, improving how we
measure performance, implementing innova-
tive solutions to environmental problems,

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course

        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 high quality
        data while saving agencies time and money once
        spent on paper-based data entry and reporting.
        Since 2002, EPA has provided more than
        $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   v
        allow industries to submit their water
        discharge monitoring reports
        electronically. Others are using
        it to provide the public with
        timely beach closure and
               and strengthening data collection and
               management. Critical to this work is finding
               ways to maximize flexibility so that states can
               address their own priority needs while
               ensuring accountability for results.

               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 imple-
               menting  environmental programs in Indian
               country. One of their cultural distinctions is a
               longstanding commitment to environmental
               stewardship. Native Americans recognize the
               importance of not only protecting the envi-
               ronment, but of pursuing a longer-term goal
of sustainability—a perspective that has much
to offer as EPA pursues stewardship efforts.

    EPA works with each tribe on a govern-
ment-to-government basis. The Agency's
1984 Indian Policy formally recognizes the
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, EPA's 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.

With Local Qovernments

    Local governments are uniquely posi-
tioned to collaborate  with EPA, other public
agencies, and the private sector in finding
ways to make life better for their citizens.
Regulatory tools, such as land use planning
authorities, building and health codes,
and other ordinances allow local governments
to address problems falling outside federal or
state jurisdiction. At the national level, EPA's
Local Government Advisory Committee pro-
vides advice and recommendations for
building state and local capacity to deliver
environmental services and programs.

With Other Federal Agencies

    The President's 2004 Executive Order on
Cooperative Conservation placed  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

                                                             Cross-Goa! Strategies—Innovation and Collaboration
Conservation and seek opportunities for fur-
ther 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 through dialogue
with Agency staff and management, to
ensure that these skills are a part of hiring,
training, and recognizing EPA employees. By
implementing this plan, we will enhance
EPA's capability to foster collaborative prob-
lem-solving and attain our environmental
and public health objectives.

With Other Countries

    As our understanding of environmental
issues has  increased, so has our appreciation
of the need to partner with other countries
on environmental goals. International coop-
eration is  vital to achieving our mission, and
EPA has established three strategic priority
areas for our international engagement.
    Reduce Transboundary Pollution. Air pollu-
tion and toxic substances generated in other
countries circulate through the atmosphere
and can ultimately reach the United States.
To meet many of our domestic environmental
protection goals, therefore, we must address
international sources of pollutants. In many
cases, it is more efficient to reduce emissions
from foreign sources than from domestic ones.
For example, the majority of all mercury
deposited  in the United  States originates from
outside of our borders, and water-borne dis-
ease is greater along the U.S.-Mexico border
than in the rest of the United States due to
inadequate wastewater treatment. We must
collaborate with our international partners to
solve these and other problems.

    Advance U.S. Interests Abroad. Our
shared goals for environmental protection
can open doors between the United States
and foreign governments. Assisting other
countries in their environmental protection
efforts can be an effective part of a larger
U.S. strategy for promoting sustainable

   Bartow County, Georgia is a model for collaborative environmental problem-solving 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 base-
   line 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 its results, the Bartow County program is gaining atten-
   tion at all levels of government; it was among the models showcased at the 2005 White
               •ence on cooperative conservai

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               development and advancing democratic
               ideals. EPA supports U.S. diplomatic, trade,
               and foreign policy goals that extend far
               beyond our 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 interna-
               tional marketplace. In particular, EPA works
with U.S. trading partners to help them
enforce 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 gover-
nance best practices—such as providing access
to information, collaborating with diverse
stakeholders, and providing transparency in
environmental decision making—are shared
and countries continually improve.
                   Effective, proactive environmental
               protection requires a strong foundation of
               scientific knowledge. EPA uses the best avail-
               able scientific approaches, data, and models
               to anticipate potential threats, evaluate risks,
               identify solutions, and develop standards that
               protect the environment and safeguard
               human health. Our science strategy is
               designed to generate the data we need
               to understand and manage risks and to
               guide research that can inform our
               decision making.


                   EPA works with states and tribes and
               across public and private sectors, drawing
               on the best scientific information available
               to help us ask the right questions and
               characterize problems clearly.
    Our intramural research program con-
ducts leading-edge research to help us
understand the biological, physical/chemical,
social, and other processes  that drive envi-
ronmental systems, and it provides the
fundamental scientific basis for addressing a
wide variety of environmental problems. For
example, our intramural research program
produces information used  to conduct assess-
ments for EPA's Integrated  Risk Information
System (IRIS), an electronic database of
information on human health effects that
may result from exposure to various chemi-
cals in the environment. IRIS is a valuable
risk assessment tool  for EPA's regulatory pro-
grams, states, and industry. To guide our
intramural program, EPA prepares multiyear
research plans that set out  the research goals
we intend to achieve over a 5-10 year period
and establish annual performance goals and
measures of our progress.3

    Each of EPA's environmental programs is
supported by scientists and engineers with
specialized program knowledge. Toxicologists,
hydrologists, ecologists, and other experts
apply best available  science to implement our
programs. For example, these experts may
identify appropriate  criteria for assessing
water quality, set air pollutant standards
that protect human  health, explain fate
and transport of pollutants in soil and
groundwater, or characterize complex
ecosystem responses to stress.

                                                                   Cross-Goa! Strategies—Best Available Science
    EPA's regional offices also rely on
scientific expertise. The National Regional
Science Council (NRSC), composed of
representatives from each of 10 Regional
Science Councils, develops informational
products; sponsors conferences, workshops,
and training; fosters collaboration; and
identifies common regional needs.4 The
Tribal Science Council provides another
forum that encourages key stakeholders to
work with us on environmental science
issues in Indian country,5 including research,
monitoring,  modeling, data, technology,
and training.

    Our competitive Science to Achieve
Results  (STAR) program funds research
grants and graduate fellowships in many
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. Through this competitive process,
we also  periodically establish large research
centers  to address specific areas of national
concern, such  as children's health, hazardous
substances, particulate matter,  and estuarine
and coastal monitoring.

    EPA's Science Inventory6 reflects the
full range of our science activities: research,
technical assistance, assessments, scientific
and technical products, and peer reviews.
A searchable catalogue of science activities,
peer-reviewed  products, and EPA archival
records, the  Inventory helps EPA scientists
and managers track and coordinate scientific
initiatives and serves as a resource for people
interested in state-of-the-science at EPA.


    EPA's quality assurance programs  ensure
the integrity of environmental data by over-
seeing monitoring programs, approving data
collection activity plans, and evaluating moni-
toring and laboratory practices. For example,
as part of EPA's 2002 Information Quality
Guidelines,7 we must ensure that the material
our regulatory programs present to support risk
assessments is comprehensive and informative.
The information must be accessible enough to
make our methodology, as well as our plans for
identifying and evaluating risk, understandable
to affected populations.

    A key strategy for assuring science
quality is peer review, an EPA priority for
many years. EPA's Peer Review Policy8
requires that major scientific and technical
work products be reviewed by qualified,
independent scientists outside of EPA.
Peer review enhances credibility, uncovers
technical problems, identifies additional
information needs, and ensures that conclu-
sions that follow from data comport with
generally accepted scientific standards.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
our Science Advisory Board (SAB), and the
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) are
among the scientific organizations that
review our products and advise EPA.


    EPA organizes much of its scientific
information around the principles of
risk assessment and risk management.
We conduct risk assessments to help us
understand the relative size (magnitude) and
likelihood (probability) of risk that environ-
mental stressors, such as air pollution or

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
            Risk assessment
                                   Risk management
               chemicals in drinking water, pose to human
               health and ecosystems. Risk management
               involves determining whether and how to
               reduce such risks.

                   Risk assessment is critical to EPA's work;
               we integrate risk assessments with economic
               data, engineering studies, and other informa-
               tion to provide the comprehensive scientific
               analyses we need to inform our decisions.
               Our Risk Assessment Forum, a standing
               committee of senior EPA scientists, focuses
               on fundamental, generic issues concerning
               risk assessments and related science policy
               and promotes Agency-wide consensus on
               difficult or controversial issues. EPA's Risk
               Characterization Policy and Handbook9
               guides our scientists in characterizing risk
               assessments properly.

                   Our Action Development Process also
               ensures that EPA's decisions are well
               informed by sound science and high quality
               data. Through this process, EPA's senior
               managers can consider a broad range of
               regulatory and non-regulatory options and
               analytic approaches in the earliest stages of
               project planning. The Action Development
               Process ensures that EPA scientists,
               economists, and other technical experts are
               appropriately involved in determining
               research and analysis needs, identifying
                alternatives, and selecting  options.

                   A number of entities within EPA support
               our science efforts:

                   •   The Office of Science Policy applies
                       scientific expertise  from within EPA's
       Office of Research and Development
       to ensure that consistent, cross-
       Agency scientific results, aided by
       technical evaluation and peer review,
       are part of our regulatory and policy

    •  Our Science Policy Council (SPC),
       chaired by the EPA's Science
       Advisor, addresses significant
       Agency-wide science policy issues.
       The SPC has produced the
       Genomics Action Plan, EPA's
       Nanotechnology White Paper, and
       the Risk Assessment Principles and
       Practices Staff Paper.
    •  The Council on Regulatory
       Environmental Modeling guides us in
       developing and using environmental
       models. The Council has developed
       an inventory of the EPA models
       that are used most frequently
       and continues to promote open,
       transparent  model design.

    Scientific information often includes some
degree of uncertainty, inviting a diversity of
interpretations. However, scientists are
increasingly able to  calculate and quantify
uncertainty. For example, states most often
cite nutrients, pathogens, and sediments as
the stressors contributing to impaired surface
waters. But our ability to measure pathogens
and infer their sources within watersheds is
very limited, and the quantitative dose-
response data for sediments are virtually
non-existent. As a result, uncertainty is high,
and it limits EPA's and states' ability to meet
water quality goals. Accordingly, we attach a
high value on research to address these prob-
lems. Similarly, EPA places a high priority on
efforts to reduce  the uncertainty associated
with calculating  the reference dose, reference
concentration, or benchmark dose. The
Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose
Simulation model and the Exposure Related
Dose Estimating Model are two examples of
promising physically-based probabilistic
computer models designed to estimate human
exposure, absorbed dose, and eliminated dose.

                                                                    Cross-Goa! Strategies—Best Available Science

      Measuring our performance is key to
   improving it. Regulatory agencies are
   accountable for demonstrating that their
   expenditures result in measurable outcomes.
   For EPA, that means linking regulatory and
   policy decisions—reducing emissions of par-
   ticulate matter, for example—to quantifiable
   improvements in public health and ecologi-
   cal condition-fewer deaths from
   cardiovascular disease.

      Empirical observations and research are
   increasing our ability to measure the effec-
   tiveness of our programs and to adjust and
   improve them to gain efficiencies and meet
   our goals. We will continue to improve the
   ways we use existing information to assess our
   performance by strengthening systems that
   monitor environmental conditions and
   developing surveillance systems that track
   ecological or health outcomes.

      EPA's Report on the Environment work has
   also advanced our performance measurement,
   using existing and new analytical information
   to describe current national environmental
   conditions and trends and identify additional
   research needs. The work we  are doing  to
   prepare our Report on the Environment—
            Technical Document (to be released in 2007)
            will further our efforts to frame innovative
            solutions to complex cross-goal issues and
            advance rigorous scientific approaches to
            measuring  associated outcomes.

               Under the President's Management
            Agenda initiative, EPA is applying explicit
            research and development (R&D) invest-
            ment criteria to improve R&D program
            management, inform funding decisions, and
            increase public understanding of the benefits
            of their R&D investments. EPA's R&D
            programs have well-conceived plans that
            identify program goals and priorities and are
            linked to regional and national needs.
            These plans are developed by Research
            Coordination Teams, comprising program
            office, regional,  and research program repre-
            sentatives, to ensure strong coordination.

• ' v^

                 2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                                    1.   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: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf:
                                        Executive Office of the President, OMB Web Site. Date of Access: September 15, 2003.

                                    2.   Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
                                        Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
                                        their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

                                    3.   Refer to: www.epa.gov/osp/research.htm.

                                    4.   Refer to: http://intranet.epa.gov/ospintra/scienceportal/.

                                    5.   Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
                                        Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
                                        their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

                                    6.   Refer to: www.epa.gov/si.

                                    7.   Refer to: www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/.

                                    8.   See "Peer Review and Peer Involvement at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" and the second edition of the
                                        Peer Review Handbook, which provides detailed guidance for implementing the policy (www.epa.gov/peerreview.)

                                    9.   Refer to: www.epa.gov/OSA/spc/pdfs/rchandbk.pdf.

Social Costs
and Benefits

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   Evaluating the benefits and costs of EPA
               programs is extremely useful for strategic
               planning at EPA. Generally, we examine how
               we can allocate resources and target policies
               so as to achieve the maximum net benefits
               for society, given statutory and other consid-
               erations. In addition to using benefit-cost
               analysis in our strategic planning,
               Presidential Executive Order 12866,
               "Regulatory Planning and Review,"1 requires
               EPA to use benefit-cost analysis when formu-
               lating 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, environmen-
               tal, public health and safety, and other
               advantages, distributive impacts, and equity),
               unless  a statute requires another regulatory
               approach." In a similar manner, strategic
               goals and objectives  also should reflect
               approaches that maximize net benefits and
               provide the best investment of society's limit-
               ed 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 con-
               sequences of federal regulations in its annual
               Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of
               Federal Regulations.2 It is often very difficult to
               provide quantitative estimates of the costs,
               and particularly the benefits, of environmental
policies because many health and ecological
benefits do not easily lend themselves to
monetization. However, even when data are
limited, assessing benefits and costs still can
be valuable because it enumerates the types
of beneficial and detrimental consequences
resulting from policy actions.
    Appendix  1 of EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic
Plan described 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 and benefits of
achieving the kind of ambitious, broad, long-
term 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, we anticipate releasing a report by
Summer 2007 on the results of our 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 2006-20J J  Strategic Plan.
EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic  Plan Social Costs
and Benefits Appendix can be accessed at:
www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf (pages
               1.  The Executive Order 12866—(Federal Register: September 30, 1993, Vol. 58, No. 190, Pg. 51735) can be
                   accessed at: www.epa.gov/fedgstr/eo/eol286.htm.

               2.  OMB's annual report to Congress can be accessed at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/

  Proposed Future
Program Evaluations

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                    Program evaluation is a formal assess-
                ment, through objective measurement and
                systematic analysis, of the manner and extent
                to which government programs achieve
                intended objectives. A focused program eval-
                uation will examine specifically identified
                factors of a program in a more comprehensive
                way than day-to-day experience provides.
                Evaluating environmental programs enables
                             EPA to continuously streamline and modern-
                             ize our operations while managing our
                             programs, promoting continuous improve-
                             ment, and supporting innovation. We can
                             also incorporate the lessons we learn into
                             other programs. This appendix lists proposed
                             program evaluations that support EPA's five
                             strategic goals by goal and  objective.
                                                         GOAL 1
                 Effectiveness of the
                 Air Toxics
                 Program in the
                 EPA Region 9
 Strategic Goal
 and Objective
Goal 1, Objective 1
        Proposed General Scope
      and Issues To Be Addressed
EPA is planning to conduct a systematic analysis
of the effectiveness of its San Francisco regional
office's Air Toxics Monitoring Program in meet-
ing program objectives. The evaluation will
include analysis of data from several sources,
which will be used to develop a logic model based
on outcomes, resources, customers, and federal,
state, local, and tribal activities. As a result of the
evaluation, quantitative measures will more clear-
ly link the region's contributions to the national
Air Toxics Program's GPRA goals, and the assess-
ment will be relevant to national program design
                                                         GOAL 2
                 Assessment of
                 Public Water
                 Supply Logic
 Strategic Goal
 and Objective
Goal 2, Objective 1
        Proposed General Scope
      and Issues To Be Addressed
The proposed project is an assessment of the
FY 2006 piloting of the Public Water System
Supervision logic model as a tool for oversight,
program assessment, and program management.

Discussion will center on lessons learned, recom-
mendations from pilot regions and states on
possible changes to the oversight process, and
ideas for new indicators or revisions to existing

Based on the assessment, EPA also will consider
which logic model indicators should be included
in the next EPA Strategic Plan (2009-2014).

                                                                          Appendix B: Proposed Future Program Evaluations
                                      GOAL 2  (continued)
Assessment of
Public Water
Supply Logic Model
 Strategic Goal
 and Objective
Goal 2, Objective 1
         Proposed General Scope            Timeframe
       and Issues To Be Addressed
Information will be collected through interviews    FY 2007
and facilitated discussion with EPA regional
offices and state managers and staff.
Effectiveness of the
Assessment and
Coastal Health
Goal 2, Objective 2
EPAs Office of Water administers the BEACH
Act by making available almost $10 million in
grants each year to 35 eligible coastal states/
territories to protect public heath at the nation's
beaches. States/territories use these grants to
monitor water quality at their beaches and to
notify the public when water quality problems
exist. The ultimate goal is to protect millions of
Americans from exposure to unhealthy levels of
pathogens at coastal beaches by giving them the
information to make informed choices on where
to swim.

The  evaluation will assess the effectiveness  of
state and territory BEACH monitoring/notifica'
tion  programs by reviewing relevant beach
monitoring and notification data and studies
completed by the local beach authorities. EPA
will also visit nine state officials who administer
monitoring and public notification data to obtain
their perspectives on the utility of monitoring
and the effectiveness of their programs.
Review of State
Goal 2, Objective '.
This review will look at the elements of state on-
site/decentralized programs to evaluate whether
they are adequate to protect public health and
the environment. The elements to be reviewed
include planning, performance, site evaluation,
design, construction, operations and mainte'
nance, compliance inspections and monitoring,
residuals management, record keeping, inventory
and reporting, public education, and
funding/financial assistance.

Data will be collected through document reviews
and meetings with regional and state staff.
Program Evaluation
of Tribal 106 Grant
Goal 2, Objective '.
With the FY 2007 grant cycle, EPAs Office of
Water is beginning to use the new Tribal 106
Grant Guidance to lead tribes in a more struc-
tured direction for managing their water quality
protection programs. The new guidance guides
tribes through various alternatives for designing
their water quality programs and tiers of improve-
ment. The guidance also lays the foundation for a
new era of monitoring and collecting data on
tribal waters.

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                                                          GOAL 2 (continued)
                    Program Evaluation
                    of Tribal 106 Grant
 Strategic Goal    Proposed General Scope and Issues To    Timeframe
 and Objective                   Be Addressed
Goal 2, Objective 2
The evaluation will focus on a core subset of
tribes (most likely those tribes committed to
meeting Program Activity Measure WQ-9 and
implementing monitoring strategies in FY 2007)
to assess the effectiveness of the guidance in
meeting new tribal water  quality requirements,
such as development of tribal monitoring strate-
gies, data collection, and submission to EPA. It
will include a narrative assessment of tribal water
quality, and will monitor EPA's ability to define,
as per the guidance, a baseline for tracking and
assessing the quality of waters in Indian country.1
                    Evaluation of the
                    Clean Water Act
                    Section 319 Non-
                    Point Source
Goal 2, Objective 2
The Clean Water Act establishes a "national pol-
icy" to develop and implement non-point source
(NPS) programs expeditiously to achieve the
goals of the Act. The Section 319 program
addresses NPS pollution, which is the largest
remaining cause of water quality impairments.
Section 319 is the only program to address all
sources of NPS pollution. Section 319 can be
used for monitoring and watershed planning, for
which U.S. Department of Agriculture funds can-
not be used.

Evaluation methodology will include analysis of
project documents and monitoring results, site vis-
its, and discussion sessions and interviews with state
managers and staff and regional project officers.
                    Measuring the
                    Success of Water
                    Quality Trading to
                    Meet NPDES
                    Permit Limits
Goal 2, Objective 2
One of EPA's key priorities is to foster innovative,
market-based solutions to environmental prob-
lems. Trading pollutant credits among point and
non-point sources is a flexible way to meet
NPDES permit limits and obtain substantial cost
savings. This evaluation will identify lessons
learned  from successful voluntary water quality
trading programs; potential barriers to trading;
and opportunities for improving Agency policies,
guidance, and outreach/education efforts  to foster
water quality trading. The evaluation will collect
information through interviews with federal
employees, state NPDES permit writers, and local
champions/developers of water quality trading
                    Program Evaluation
                    of the Targeted
                    Watersheds Grants
Goal 2, Objective 2
The TWG focus on identifying watersheds for
which community-based collaborative partner-
ships are ready to implement watershed plans
that, when funded, will lead to accelerated and
measurable environmental results.

                                                                     Appendix B: Proposed Future Program Evaluations
                                    GOAL 2 (continued)
Program Evaluation
of the Targeted
Watersheds Grants
 Strategic Goal
 and Objective
Goal 2, Objective 2
Proposed General Scope and Issues To
              Be Addressed
EPA plans to evaluate the extent to which envi-
ronmental results are being achieved as a result of
TWG Implementation grants. The evaluation
will also assess factors that contribute to imple-
menting projects successfully and achieving
quantifiable environmental results, including
expanding grant recipients' technical and organi-
zational capacity. Evaluation methodology will
include analysis of project documents and moni-
toring results, site visits, and discussions and
interviews with selected grantees and their regional
project officers
                                           GOAL 3
   Evaluation      Strategic Goal    Proposed General Scope and Issues To    Timeframe
     Topic         and Objective                  Be Addressed
Measuring the
Effectiveness of the
CORE Emergency
Response (ER)
Program Review

Superfund Program

Goal 3, Objective 2

Goal 3, Objective 2

EPA's Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
CORE ER review process appears to have
improved response preparedness in all the regions.
The program has reached certain goals, expressed
as CORE ER scores, that are taken to be a meas-
ure of each region's preparedness. OEM will test
whether reaching those goals makes a difference
in the real response world. In addition, OEM
needs to improve the CORE ER instrument
(checklist) to address lessons learned from recent
responses. This project will evaluate whether per-
ceived improvement in preparedness is providing
more efficient and effective response to real inci-
dents. CORE ER involves all 10 EPA regions.
The Superfund program review is a 24-month
process where each region will undergo a review
on selected program elements. The review ele-
ments are selected based on their relative
importance in meeting program targets such as
construction completions, human exposures
under control, contaminated groundwater under
control, and deletions. This process involves con-
ducting in-depth regional interviews and
discussion sessions on the selected program ele-
ments, using carefully designed governing


Complete first
Superfund pro-
gram review
cycle in second
quarter of
FY 2008.

Initiate second
Superfund pro-
gram review
cycle in third
FY 2008 and
complete this
cycle in
FY 2010.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                                                    GOAL 3  (continued)
                    Evaluation      Strategic Goal    Proposed General Scope and Issues To
                       Topic         and Objective                 Be Addressed
Joint Project with
EPA's Conflict
Prevention and
Resolution Center
on Impacts and
Effectiveness of the
Decision- Making
Process at
Superfund Sites
Assessment Project

Re-evaluation of
Payroll Charging

Broaden Core
Response (ER)
Program and
Evaluate Annually

Goal 3, Objective 2

Goal 3, Objective 2

Goal 3, Objective 2

Goal 3, Objective 2

This project will assess the effects of the collabo-
rative process compared with an alternative, such
as litigation. It will evaluate whether or not the
collaborative process leads to a Record of
Decision stage at Superfund sites and provides a
better environmental result than the alternative
process. Evaluation results will inform the collab-
orative decision-making process.

This project will develop a sound analytical basis
for ensuring that human resources are used effec-
tively and efficiently to achieve program goals. A
Working Group, composed of representatives of
all major EPA Superfund stakeholders, will use a
bottom-up approach to determine work years
required to implement and support the program.
This evaluation will focus on whether improve-
ment has occurred based on the site-specific
payroll benchmarking effort completed in second
quarter of FY 2006.

We will extend the Core ER program to include
all aspects of emergency management activities
(i.e., emergency response, emergency prepared-
ness, and accident prevention.) We will use the
baseline already developed under Core ER, to
adapt and broaden the Core ER process, and then
annually evaluate all aspects of the emergency
management program.
date FY 2007

date FY 2008

This is a
project to
work com-
pleted in
second quar-
ter FY 2006.
changes and
begin evalua-
tions during
FY 2007.

                                                           GOAL 4
                 Evaluation of the
                 National Estuary
 Strategic Goal    Proposed General Scope and Issues To    Timeframe
 and Objective                 Be Addressed
Goal 4, Objective 3
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the
progress the 28 estuaries have made in meeting
their goals since the inception of the National
Estuary Program in 1987. Effort will be made to
characterize and assess best practices that can be
transferred to other geographic-based programs.

                                                                         Appendix B: Proposed Future Program Evaluations
                                     GOAL 4  (continued)
Program Evaluation
of EPA's Wetlands
 Strategic Goal    Proposed General Scope and Issues To
 and Objective                  Be Addressed
Goal 4, Objective 3
EPA is authorized to manage a Wetland Program
Development Grant program to empower partners
in developing comprehensive state and tribal wet-
lands programs. EPA's Wetlands Division would
like to evaluate the effectiveness of the grants in
achieving program outcomes.

EPA will use a retrospective data mine of its data-
bases supplemented by information from sources
such as interviews with regional staff and data
from organizations such as the Association of
State Wetland Managers and the Environmental
Law Institute. Statistical analysis will answer some
questions, while others will be best answered with
descriptive narratives.
Scoping and
refinement of
questions to
be answered
during the
and method-
ology to be
conducted in
Evaluation to
be conducted
in 2008.
                                             GOAL 5

   Evaluation      Strategic Goal    Proposed General Scope and Issues To    Timeframe
      Topic         and Objective                  Be Addressed
Evaluating EPA's
Petroleum Refinery
National Priority
Performance - Based
Goal 5, Objective 1
As part of EPA's strategic planning process, our
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) develops a national program
priority component that focuses attention on spe-
cific environmental problems and patterns of
non-compliance. This evaluation will help identi-
fy components of a successful priority work
process for addressing significant national envi-
ronmental problems. OECA is currently midway
in implementing 9 priority strategies under its
FY 2005-2007 work planning cycle, and seeks to
leam more about the  specific aspects of the petro-
leum refinery process  that worked well, and can
be applied to other industry sectors and media
programs and replicated at the regional and state
levels. Knowledge gained from an effective exit
strategy for the Petroleum Refinery process will
help to inform the process for the  nine current
priorities and future efforts. Evaluation methodol-
ogy includes interviews with EPA  staff, partners,
and stakeholders. In addition, the  evaluation will
require a review of strategy documents and sup-
porting data.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                                                         GOAL  5 (continued)

                      Evaluation      Strategic Goal    Proposed General Scope and Issues To    Timeframe
                         Topic         and Objective                  Be Addressed
                   Evaluation of the
                   full implementa-
                   tion of the State
Goal 5, Objective 1
This evaluation will address the effectiveness of
implementing the State Review Framework (SRF)
in all 50 states and 5 territories. The SRF is a tool
to assess performance in core enforcement and
compliance assurance for state air, water, and haz-
ardous waste programs. The SRF was piloted in 10
states in FY 2006. By the end of FY 2007, the
remaining states and territories will be reviewed.
The evaluation  methodology will include surveys
of state environmental agencies that were
reviewed under  the SRF and surveys of state
media association members.
The evalua-
tion will be
conducted in
FY 2008 when
the implemen'
tation phase is
                   EPA New England
                   Marina Initiative
Goal 5, Objective 2
Under the EPA New England marina initiative,
which ran from 2001 to 2005, a variety of marina
environmental assistance projects were imple-
mented and the results were measured. The
primary goal of this effort was to help marinas
meet required and desired practices managing
stormwater, oil and fuel, and hazardous waste.
Under the measurement component, environmen-
tal indicators were established and measured using
statistically valid methods, including on-site
assessment visits to monitor progress. The evalua-
tion will determine the extent to which the
program achieved its intended objectives.
Evaluation methodology includes a review of the
results of 140 on-site marina visits, as well as a review
of regulatory records.
                   Evaluation of the
                   Performance Track
                   (NEPT) program
Goal 5, Objective 2
This third party evaluation will review the effec-
tiveness of the NEPT program in meeting its
stated goals. The project will evaluate whether
the program is likely to achieve the intended
results, and will make appropriate recommenda-
tions on program design and implementation.
FY 2008:
Initiate evalua-

FY 2009:
Complete eval-
uation and
develop recom-
mendations to
                      Use of the terms "Indian country," "Indian lands," "tribal lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this
                      Strategic Plan is not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is
                      their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.

    Summary of
Consultation Efforts

2006-2011  EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   Consultation with EPA's federal, state,
               local, and tribal government partners and
               with our many stakeholders has been an inte-
               gral part of the Agency's strategic planning
               process. The views, comments, and concerns
               of our partners and stakeholders form the
               basis for developing our 5-year Strategic Plan,
               and their ongoing participation is vital to
               achieving the goals and objectives we have
               set forth.

                   EPA's national and regional managers
               organized meetings, participated in confer-
               ences, and presented briefings to ensure that
               our partners and stakeholders fully under-
               stood our process for developing this Strategic
               Plan and had the opportunity to participate.
               We distributed our proposed strategic archi-
               tecture-goals, objectives, sub-objectives, and
               associated strategic targets-and subsequently
               the full-text draft of the Strategic Plan to hun-
               dreds of our partners and stakeholders. We
               posted working papers, the draft Strategic  Plan
               architecture, and the full-text draft of the
               Plan on EPA's internet website, and we
               offered several options for individuals and
               groups to provide their comments. We care-
               fully considered all the comments we
               received at each stage  of the development

                   This appendix summarizes major activi-
               ties we conducted to consult with parties
               interested in or likely to be affected by EPA's
               Strategic Plan. It briefly describes our consul-
               tation with the Congress and our state and
               tribal partners. It also includes a list of all
               organizations (for example, state, tribal, and
               industry associations) as well as federal agen-
               cies from which we solicited or received


                   Since  states and tribes are major partners
               with EPA in environmental protection, we
were very interested in their views and con-
cerns. In August 2005, EPA regional offices
consulted with states and tribes about the
issues and priorities they felt were important
for EPA to consider as we revised our
Strategic Plan. Regional offices prepared brief
summaries of the concerns highlighted; these
were posted on EPA's internet site for public
view and provided to our strategic goal teams
for consideration. We also posted goal team
responses describing how the state and tribal
issues and priorities raised were considered in
revising the Plan.


    EPA considered all comments received
from our state and tribal partners on our draft
strategic architecture, which we sent to more
than 800 organizations for review and com-
ment in mid-February 2006. We solicited
comments on the draft architecture from
Members of Congress; states and state organi-
zations; all federally recognized tribes; tribal
organizations; local government representa-
tives; other federal agencies; members of
environmental,  academic, and public policy
groups; and representatives of the regulated
community through March 2006.

    We took into account all the comments
we received on the draft architecture as we
developed a full-text  draft of the Strategic
Plan. We provided this full-text draft to the
more than 800 recipients noted above and
solicited their comments through mid-July

    Reviewers were offered multiple alterna-
tives for submitting comments on the
architecture and full text draft—electronical-
ly, via EPA's internet  website; by mail; and by
telephone. We designed a database  to capture
comments, which were immediately forward-
ed to appropriate staff and managers for

                                                                 Appendix C: Summary of Consultation Efforts

    In addition to the early outreach to states
and tribes described above, EPA goal teams
worked with media-specific state associations
to develop the strategic architecture and
means and strategies for achieving our goals
and objectives. EPA also collaborated with
the Environmental Council of the States
(EGOS), the national association of state and
territorial environmental commissioners, par-
ticipating in several national meetings
sponsored by EGOS and ensuring that EGOS
members were well informed  about the
Strategic Plan revision process and the oppor-
tunities for engagement. EGOS assisted us
during the development of this Strategic Plan
by providing information and materials for
review to individual state agencies and by
coordinating responses from EGOS members
on the full-text draft. In addition, Agency
goal teams were encouraged to work with the
appropriate EGOS media committees
throughout the revision process.


    In June 2005, EPA staff participated in
the National Tribal Conference on
Environmental Management to discuss the
revision of EPA's Strategic Plan.  This meeting
brought together tribal leaders and senior
tribal environmental managers  from across
the country and provided a forum for solicit-
ing tribal perspectives on the most important
environmental challenges in  the years ahead.

    We continued to  consult with tribes at
the national and regional levels throughout
the development of the Strategic Plan. EPA
representatives met with the National Tribal
Caucus in March 2006 to discuss their com-
ments on the draft strategic planning
architecture. Our strategic goal teams were
encouraged to work with tribal liaisons iden-
tified by the Tribal Caucus and with tribal
media associations. EPA representatives also
participated regularly in Tribal Caucus meet-
ings to keep members aware of progress and
opportunities for engagement.


    In February 2006, we provided the
Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of
EPA's authorizing and appropriations com-
mittees, their staffs, and other interested
Members with copies of our draft strategic
architecture. We provided the full-text draft
of EPA's Strategic Plan to Members and
Congressional staff in early June.
Congressional contacts were encouraged to
submit comments on these documents elec-
tronically, via the database link to EPA's
internet site, by telephone, or by mail.

    On April 11, 2006, EPA met (hosted by
staff of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee) with interested Senate
staff to discuss the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act,
EPA's strategic planning process, our draft
strategic architecture, and plans for next
steps in developing the full-text draft of the
Strategic Plan. This consultation session was
followed by a briefing on May 10, 2006 for
additional staff members of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee.
A briefing on the full-text draft for staff of
the Committee was held on June 23, 2006.

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
                   In preparing our 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, EPA consulted with several hundred organiza-
               tions and individuals. In addition to the groups mentioned above, we solicited or received
               input on our draft documents from the following organizations.

               Alameda County, California, Waste
                   Management Authority
               Alaska Intertribal Council
               Alternatives for Community and
               American Association for the Advancement
                   of Science
               American Chemical Society Task Force on
                   Environmental Health and Safety
               American Chemistry Council
               American Farmland Trust
               American Forest and Paper Association
               American Forests
               American Indian Science and  Engineering
               American Industrial Health Council
               American Lung Association
               American Petroleum Institute
               American Public Health Association
               American Rivers
               American Society of Civil Engineers
               American Water Works Association
               ARI Technologies
               Arizona Department of Environmental
               Aroostook Band of Micmacs
               Association of American Pesticide Control
               Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
               Association of State Drinking Water
               Association of State and Interstate Water
                   Pollution Control Administrators
               Association of State and Territorial Health
               Association of State and Territorial Solid
                   Waste Management Officials
               Association of State Drinking Water
               Association of State Wetland Managers
               Bowdoin College
Business Roundtable
California Department of Health and Human
California Indian Basketweavers Association
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for International Environmental Law
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
Central States Air Resources Agencies
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Children's Defense Fund
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
Clean Water Action
Clean Water Network
Coalition for Effective Environmental
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible
Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Conservation Fund
Construction Materials  Recycling
Corporate Environmental Enforcement
Council of Energy Resource Tribes
Council for Excellence in Government
Council of State Governments
CropLife America
Defenders of Wildlife
Duke University
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
Ecological Society of America
Electric Power Research Institute
Environmental Council of the States
Environmental Defense
Environmental Health Coalition
Environmental Law Institute

                                                                Appendix C: Summary of Consultation Efforts
Environmental Working Group
Friends of the Earth
Fund for Animals
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force
Hualapai Nation
Humane Society of the United States
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Indigenous  Environmental Network
Indigenous  Waters Initiative
Institute for Tribal Environmental
Intertribal Advisory Committee of the Nez
    Perce Tribe
Intertribal Agriculture Council
Intertribal Bison Cooperative
Intertribal Council of Arizona
Intertribal Council of Michigan
Intertribal Environmental Council of
Intertribal Timber Council
International City/County Management
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Kansas Department of Health and
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior
    Chippewa Indians
Local Government Advisory Committee
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Maine Board of Pesticide Control
Mercatus Center
Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes
Midwest Tribal Aquaculture Network
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Missouri Department of Agriculture, Bureau
    of Pesticide Control
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Mni Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition
Montana Department of Environmental
Montana Department of Natural Resources
Morgan, Lewis and Bockius
National Academy of Public Administration
National Advisory Council for
    Environmental Policy and Technology
National Association of Attorneys General
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Schools of Public
    Affairs and Administration
National Association of State Departments
    of Agriculture
National Association of State Universities
    and Land Grant  Colleges
National Audubon Society
National Congress of American Indians
National Council for Science and the
National Environmental Trust
National Federation  of Independent Business
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
National Fisheries Institute
National Indian Health Board
National Mining Association
National Parks Conservation Association
National Pesticide Management Association
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable
National Research Council
National Tribal Air Association
National Tribal Caucus
National Tribal Environmental Council
National Wildlife Federation
Native American Fish and Wildlife Society
Native American Rights Fund
Native American Water Association
Native Ecology Initiative, Incorporated
Natural Resources Defense Council
Navajo Nation
Nevada Division of Environmental
New England Interstate Water Pollution
    Control Commission
New Jersey Department of Environmental
New Mexico Environmental Department,
    Surface Water Quality Bureau
New York State Department of Health
North Carolina Department of Environment,
    Health, and Natural Resources
Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course
               Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
               Ocean Conservancy
               Oglala Sioux Tribe
               Oklahoma Office of the Environment
               Oklahoma Water Resources Board
               OMB Watch
               Oregon Department of Environmental
               Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
               People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
               Pesticide Policy Coalition
               PPG Industries, Incorporated
               Prescott Land and Livestock
               Princeton University
               RAND Public Policy Research
               React For Environmental Justice
               Resources for the Future
               River Network
               Rocky Mountain Institute
               San Francisco Department of the
               Solid Waste Association of North America
               Southern Organizing Committee for
                  Economic and Social Justice
               State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
                  Administrators and Association of Local
                  Air Pollution Control Officials
               Tribal Science Council
               Tribal Solid  Waste Advisory Network
               U.S. Chamber of Commerce Environment,
                  Energy and Technology  Affairs
               U.S. Composting Council
               U.S. Public  Interest Research Group
               Union of Concerned Scientists
               United South and Eastern Tribes,
               University of Minnesota, Department of Soil,
                  Waste, and Climate
               Utah Department of Environmental Quality
               Vermont Department of Environmental
               Vermont Water Supply Division
               Virginia Department of Environmental
Washington State Department of Health
Waste Management, Incorporated
West County Toxics Coalition (California)
West Virginia Department of Environmental
Western Governors Association
Western Regional Air Partnership
Wilderness Society
Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council
World Resources  Institute
Yukon River Intertribal Watershed Council

Federal Agencies

Army Corps of Engineers
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of Treasury
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
General Services  Administration
National Aeronautics and Space
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
National Science Foundation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Management  and Budget
Small Business Administration
Tennessee Valley  Authority
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Trade Representative

           APPENDIX D:
 Areas of Coordination Between
EPA and Other Federal Agencies

2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course

                 Areas of continued cooperation or coordination with other federal agencies for each of
              EPA's five strategic goals (indicated by an "X"):
                       DEPARTMENT / AGENCY
               Army Corps of Engineers
               Consumer Product Safety Commission
               Federal Emergency Management Agency
               General Services Administration
               Health and Human Services
               Homeland Security
               Housing and Urban Development
               National Aeronautics and Space
               National Science Foundation
               Nuclear Regulatory Commission
               Small Business Administration
               Tennessee Valley Authority
               U.S. Agency for International Development
               U.S. Trade Representative
 Goal 1:
Clean Air
and Global
 Goal 2:
Clean and
Safe Water
 Goal 3:
 tion and
 Goal 4:
 ties and
 Goal 5:
 ance and

                  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.

                            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.
                     Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                               dices and cleaning up
                                                               ful substances.
contaminated properties to reduce risks posec
                  Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
        Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using
                  integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.

               Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
    Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental
       requirements by enforcing environmental statutes, preventing pollution, and promoting
environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide incentives for governments, businesses,
    and the public that promote environmental stewardship,and long-term sustainable outcomes.