U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
EPA's Mission 1
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Overview 1
Supports Healthy Communities 1
Builds Strong State and Tribal Partnerships 2
Supports Action on Climate Change and Improves Air Quality 2
Invests in Clean Water 3
Strengthens Enforcement 3
RESOURCE SUMMARY TABLES
Appropriation Summary
Budget Authority 4
Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) 5
GOAL AND OBJECTIVE OVERVIEW
Goal, Appropriation Summary
Budget Authority 7
Authorized Full-Time Equivalents 7
Clean Air and Global Climate Change 9
Clean Air 10
Promoting Healthy Communities 11
Reduce Risks to Indoor Air and Radon Programs 12
Clean Energy and Climate Change 12
Voluntary GHG Reducing Programs 13
Stratospheric Ozone - Domestic and Montreal Protocol 13
Radiation 14
Research 14
Clean and Safe Water 15
Drinking Water 16
Climate and Clean Energy Challenge 17
Clean Water 17
Imperiled Urban Waters 18
Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan 18
Homeland Security 18
Research 18
Land Preservation and Restoration 20
Prevention, Protection, and Response Activities 20
Homeland Security 23
Enforcement 23
Enhancing Science and Research to Restore and Preserve Land 25
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 24
Pesticides Programs 29
Toxics Programs 30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
Pesticides and Toxics Fees 30
Water Programs 31
U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program 32
Healthy Communities: Clean, Green, and Healthy Schools 33
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) 33
Brownfields 33
Environmental Justice 34
International Activities 34
Research 35
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 39
Improving Compliance with Environmental Laws 41
Improving Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention, Stewardship and Innovation 43
Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country 44
Enhancing Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research 45
PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 47
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 55
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 64
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 69
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 85
Enabling and Support Programs
Office of Administration and Resources Management 90
Office of Environmental Information 90
Office of the Inspector General 91
Performance Measures Supplemental Table
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 93
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 95
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 97
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 97
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 100
Verification and Validation 102
APPENDIX
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies - Environmental Programs 103
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 103
Healthier Outdoor Air 103
Healthier Indoor Air 105
Protect the Ozone Layer 105
Radiation 107
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity 108
Enhance Science and Research 109
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 109
Protect Human Health 109
Protect Water Quality Ill
11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
Enhance Science and Research 114
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 115
Preserve Land 115
Restore Land 116
Enhance Science and Research 119
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 119
Chemical and Pesticide Risks 119
Communities 123
Ecosystems 125
Enhance Science and Research 128
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 129
Improve Compliance 129
Improve Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation 131
Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country 133
Enhance Science and Research 134
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies -Enabling Support Programs 136
Office of the Administrator 136
Office of the Chief Financial Officer 138
Office of Administration and Resources Management 138
Office of Environmental Information 139
Office of the Inspector General 141
Major Management Challenges 143
EPA User Fee Program 162
Working Capital Fund 164
Acronyms for Statutory Authorities 165
STAG Categorical Program Grants - Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses 169
Program Projects by Appropriation 178
Program Projects by Program Area 193
Discontinued Programs 207
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security 208
Categorical Grant: Puerto Rico 209
Categorical Grant: Sector Program 210
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds 211
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training 212
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements 213
Compliance Assistance and Centers 214
Compliance Incentives 215
Regional Geographic Initiatives 216
Expected Benefits of the President's E-Government Initiatives 217
Grant.gov 217
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) 217
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) Grants and Loans 218
Enterprise Human Resource Integration Initiative 218
Recruitment One-Stop (ROS) 219
eTraining 219
in
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2010 Annual Plan
Human Resources LoB 220
Grants Management LoB 220
Business Gateway 221
Geospatial LoB 221
eRulemaking 222
E-Travel 223
Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB) 223
Budget Formulation and Execution (BFE) LoB 223
IT Dashboard 224
Superfund Special Accounts 225
High Priority Performance goals (HPPGS) 227
2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) 229
Drinking Water State Revolving Funda (DWSRF) 232
Hazardous Substance Superfund 234
Diesel Emission (DERA) Grants Summary 236
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) 240
Brownfields - State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) 242
Management and Oversight (M&O) 244
The Inspector General (IG) 245
Acting IG Statement on IG Funding 246
IV
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
EPA's Mission
The mission of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and
to safeguard the natural environment - air,
water and land - upon which life depends.
This budget supports the Administration's
commitment to ensure that all Americans are
protected from significant risks to human
health and the environment where they live,
learn and work. This mission is being
achieved through collaboration with states and
tribes to implement air, water, waste, and
chemical programs.
EPA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget request
builds on the Agency's work to impact climate
change through actions under the Clean Air
Act. It supports a greater focus on
community-level engagement, to augment and
reinforce the critical work of our state and
tribal partners. It moves forward with the
Agency's ambitious vision for protecting and
restoring America's waters. It will help assure
the safety of chemicals, and it reflects an
increase to ensure federal laws are enforced
fairly and effectively. EPA will carry out its
mission based on the core values of science,
transparency and the rule of law to address the
complex, inter-related and multi-disciplinary
challenges to environmental protection today.
Annual Performance Plan and
Congressional Justification
The EPA FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan
and Congressional Justification requests
$10.020 billion in discretionary budget
authority. This request will support EPA's
efforts to focus on developing common-sense
steps toward clean air, addressing the climate
challenge, protecting our nation's waters,
cleaning up communities and ecosystems, and
strengthening EPA's scientific and
enforcement capabilities. This budget also
includes actions to improve EPA's internal
operations to deliver environmental results
for the American people. Below are funding
highlights:
Supports Healthy Communities
The Environmental Protection Agency is
committed to protect, sustain or restore the
health of communities and ecosystems by
bringing together a variety of programs,
tools, approaches and resources. Results
stem from effective regulatory frameworks,
but also from partnerships with stakeholders.
Partnerships with international, Federal,
state, tribal, local governments and non-
governmental organizations have long been
a common thread across EPA's programs.
The FY 2011 budget includes a $27 million
multidisciplinary initiative for Healthy
Communities. It supports states and
communities in promoting healthier school
environments by increasing technical
support, outreach, and co-leading
interagency efforts to coordinate and
integrate existing school programs
throughout the Federal government. It also
provides resources to address air toxics
within at-risk communities, and to enhance
the important joint DOT/HUD/EPA
outreach and related efforts with
communities on sustainable development.
Improving a community's ability to make
decisions that affect its environment is at the
heart of EPA's community-centered work.
This budget supports EPA efforts to
accelerate brownfields cleanups through
effective outreach and job creation in
disadvantaged communities. The budget
includes an increase of $42 million to invest
in revitalizing once productive community
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
properties by removing blight, satisfying a
growing demand for land, limiting urban
sprawl, fostering habitat enhancements, and
spurring economic development.
In addition, EPA will integrate and leverage
its assessment and cleanup authorities to
address a greater number of contaminated
sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites
back into productive use while protecting
human health and the environment. An
element of this strategy will be to identify and
define and implement new program measures
to better portray progress and improve
transparency. By deploying all cleanup tools
available, including strengthened enforcement
and compliance efforts, this request supports
EPA's commitment to helping communities
address cleaning up our communities.
Builds Strong State and
Tribal Partnerships
This budget includes $1.3 billion for State and
Tribal categorical grants. Our partners are
working diligently to implement new and
expanded requirements under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA), and
need additional support during a time of
constrained state budgets. Increases for air
grants include $25 million for developing and
deploying technical capacity needed to
address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in
permitting under the CAA and $60 million to
support increased state workload for
implementation of updated National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. An additional $45
million is requested for states to enhance their
clean water enforcement and permitting
programs. In order to help tribes move
beyond capacity building to implementation of
environmental programs, $30 million is
budgeted for a new Tribal Multi-media
Implementation grant program. To further
enhance Tribal capacity this budget also
includes an additional $9 million for Tribal
General Assistance Program grants.
Supports Action on Climate Change
and Improves Air Quality
EPA will take meaningful, common sense
steps to improving air quality and addressing
climate change. Making the right choices
now will allow the Agency to improve
public health, drive technology innovation
for a better economy, and protect the
environment - all without placing an undue
burden on the nation's economy.
EPA's FY 2011 budget requests $43.5
million in new funding for additional
regulatory efforts aimed to reduce GHG
emissions and address the Climate and
Clean Energy Challenge. This includes $25
million for state grants focused on
developing the technical capacity for
addressing GHG in their CAA permitting
activities and an additional $5 million for
related EPA efforts. It also includes $13.5
million in additional funding for the
development and implementation of new
emission standards that will reduce GHG
emissions from transportation sources for
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and
medium duty passenger vehicles. Funds
also will support assessment and potential
development of standards, in response to
legal obligations, for other mobile sources
and for assessment and potential
development of New Source Performance
Standards for several categories of major
stationary sources, through approaches that
are flexible and manageable for businesses.
The budget requests an additional $4 million
for implementing the Mandatory GHG
Reporting Rule, to ensure the collection of
high quality data. This budget includes an
increase of $2.3 million to support
community pilot programs as they develop
and implement air toxics approaches tailored
to their local needs. An additional $1.1
million will be invested to improve
children's health through the delivery of
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
effective asthma management strategies in
schools and communities.
Invests in Clean Water
Protecting America's waters is a top priority
and EPA has an ambitious vision for the
nation's waters in the years ahead. Water
quality has tremendous impacts on quality of
life, on economic potential, and on human and
environmental health.
In FY 2011, EPA continues its commitment to
upgrading drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure with a substantial combined
investment of $3.3 billion for the Clean Water
and drinking Water State Revolving Fund
programs. America's waterbodies are
imperiled as never before from nutrient
loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive
species and drinking water contaminants.
EPA will confront the challenges from
multiple angles - local and national,
traditional and innovative. A new Mississippi
River Basin program is funded at $17 million
to focus on nonpoint source program
enhancements to result in water-quality
improvement. In addition, $300 million is
requested for the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative and support for the Chesapeake Bay
Program is increased by $13 million to $63
million. Investments in these and other Clean
Water and Drinking Water projects reflect a
commitment to use leverage from Federal
agency partnerships to strengthen
disadvantaged communities by reconnecting
them with their waters and achieving
community-based goals.
Strengthens Enforcement
Through strengthened oversight, we will focus
on environmental justice and partnership
efforts to ensure innovative and creative
environmental programs are delivered
consistently nationwide, reaching historically
under represented and at-risk populations.
The FY 2011 President's Budget includes
approximately $615 * million for EPA's
enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Program.
This includes $2 million to support updated
and enhanced state water program data
transfers to our Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS). ICIS is a
critical tool for reviewing water quality
information and strengthens the Agency's
ability to modernize our compliance
network, improve transparency, and provide
important data to allow EPA, states and the
public to track environmental progress and
prioritize future actions.
Corrects President's Budget funding levels in printed
version.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
RESOURCE SUMMARY TABLES
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Oil Spill Response
Superfund Program
IG Transfer
S&T Transfer
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
SUB-TOTAL, EPA (INCLUDING
RESCISSIONS)
Recovery Act - EPM
Recovery Act - IG
Recovery Act - LUST
Recovery Act - SF
Recovery Act - STAG
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$797,065.1
$2,405,796.7
$40,605.1
$37,842.7
$17,794.8
$1,350,247.8
$10,314.2
$24,850.2
$1,385,412.2
$113,264.0
$2,996,640.1
$7,794,420.7
$0.0
$7,794,420.7
$12,463.2
$1,767.6
$192,024.0
$572,908.2
$6,320,935.3
$7,100,098.3
$14,894,519.0
FY2010
Enacted
$846,049.0
$2,993,779.0
$44,791.0
$37,001.0
$18,379.0
$1,269,732.0
$9,975.0
$26,834.0
$1,306,541.0
$113,101.0
$4,978,223.0
$10,337,864.0
($40,000.0)
$10,297,864.0
$0.0
$10,297,864.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$846,697.0
$2,891,036.0
$45,646.0
$40,001.0
$18,468.0
$1,258,377.0
$10,156.0
$24,527.0
$1,293,060.0
$113,219.0
$4,781,873.0
$10,030,000.0
($10,000.0)
$10,020,000.0
$0.0
$10,020,000.0
S10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PY funds. No impact to actuals
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)2
Science & Technology
Science and Tech. - Reim
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Oil Spill Response
Oil Spill Response - Reim
Superfund Program
IG Transfer
S&T Transfer
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Superfund Reimbursables
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
FEMA - Reim
WCF-REIMB
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund
Pesticide Registration Fund
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - Reim
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: SF
UIC Injection Well Permit BLM
SUB-TOTAL, FTE CEILING
Pesticide Registration Fund3
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
2,444.3
2.1
10,615.5
30.6
243.4
94.3
6.7
2,940.7
60.0
105.8
3,106.5
91.4
65.0
1.0
118.9
153.9
70.8
0.6
0.2
1.1
0.4
2.7
17,049.4
0.0
17,049.4
FY2010
Enacted
2,442.5
3.0
10,925.3
0.0
296.0
102.2
0.0
3,017.5
65.8
110.0
3,193.3
75.5
75.3
0.0
136.1
167.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17,417.0
70.8
17,487.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
2,469.0
3.0
11,066.5
0.0
296.0
102.2
0.0
3,007.1
65.8
107.5
3,180.4
75.5
74.2
0.0
136.1
167.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17,570.7
70.8
17,647.5
2 Totals include military personnel in the Public Health Service Corps.
3 Presentation of reimbursable FTE for this account should not be interpreted as counting against the Agency ceiling, but rather a
projection of reimbursable FTE to accurately and transparently account for the size of this program and the Agency.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
GOAL AND OBJECTIVE OVERVIEW 1
^ J
Goal, Appropriation Summary
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Clean and Safe Water
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Land Preservation and Restoration
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Budget Authority
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,309,522.4
$241,918.6
$467,350.6
$3,979.6
$8,579.5
$3,411.0
$584,283.1
$8,887,323.4
$154,847.9
$478,560.0
$30,677.7
$5,583.4
$8,217,654.4
$2,595,018.9
$13,323.6
$221,283.7
$2,010.8
$4,431.7
$17,794.8
$1,924,004.6
$305,288.0
$106,881.8
$1,342,119.2
$348,320.4
$665,549.8
$3,792.3
$13,796.6
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,095,311.3
$255,948.9
$484,107.7
$5,064.0
$8,368.4
$3,868.2
$337,954.0
$4,896,505.1
$156,653.3
$494,913.0
$26,072.4
$5,477.3
$4,213,389.0
$1,764,383.6
$15,983.0
$222,861.0
$2,158.9
$4,650.9
$18,379.0
$1,273,403.8
$113,101.0
$113,846.0
$1,799,742.6
$369,572.5
$1,188,824.3
$8,387.2
$13,024.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,192,949.6
$256,561.3
$526,251.9
$5,869.9
$9,372.7
$4,173.8
$390,720.0
$4,587,186.2
$155,929.1
$500,595.6
$25,869.0
$5,962.5
$3,898,830.0
$1,752,201.2
$15,541.6
$227,450.0
$2,269.7
$4,752.1
$18,468.0
$1,262,538.8
$113,219.0
$107,962.0
$1,673,517.4
$377,564.5
$1,021,523.9
$8,094.1
$14,138.4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Hazardous Substance Superfund
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,349.1
$302,310.9
FY 2010
Enacted
$8,524.7
$211,409.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$8,735.6
$243,461.0
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Sub-Total
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
Total
Recovery Act funds are included in the goal totals above. See Appropriation tables for more details on Recovery
Actfunds.
$760,535.1
$38,654.6
$585,515.8
$1,912.3
$5,451.6
$22,555.7
$106,445.2
$14,894,519.0
$0.0
$14,894,519.0
$781,921.5
$47,891.3
$603,072.9
$3,108.5
$5,479.5
$20,744.3
$101,625.0
$10,337,864.0
($40,000.0)
$10,297,864.0
$824,145.5
$41,100.6
$615,214.5
$3,543.3
$5,775.3
$17,611.8
$140,900.0
$10,030,000.0
($10,000.0)
$10,020,000.0
$10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PYfunds. No impact to actuals.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
FY 2009 FY 2010
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Science & Technology
Science and Tech. - Reim
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
FEMA - Reim
WCF-REIMB
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
Clean and Safe Water
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
WCF-REIMB
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
UIC Injection Well Permit BLM
Land Preservation and Restoration
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Oil Spill Response
Oil Spill Response - Reim
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Superfund Reimbursables
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
WCF-REIMB
Actuals
2,650.5
719.1
1.7
1,860.3
1.8
22.9
16.6
1.0
26.9
0.1
0.0
2,868.3
479.6
2,188.2
1.9
176.2
18.4
0.8
0.5
2.7
4,464.8
51.4
1,154.2
7.6
11.6
94.3
6.7
2,968.9
91.4
65.0
13.0
Enacted
2,678.9
724.6
3.0
1,869.5
0.0
33.5
18.4
0.0
29.9
0.0
0.0
2,924.6
484.3
2,247.4
0.0
172.3
20.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,555.6
59.2
1,150.4
0.0
14.3
102.2
0.0
3,062.9
75.5
75.3
15.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
2,795.0
730.7
3.0
1,973.3
0.0
38.1
18.7
0.0
31.3
0.0
0.0
2,928.2
493.1
2,246.5
0.0
167.8
20.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,551.2
57.7
1,146.6
0.0
14.7
102.2
0.0
3,065.1
75.5
74.2
15.2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - Reim
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
Recovery Act Reimbursable: SF
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Science & Technology
Science and Tech. - Reim
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
WCF-REIMB
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund
Pesticide Registration Fund
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
WCF-REIMB
Inspector General - Reim
FY 2009
Actuals
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
3,751.3
1,047.1
0.4
2,377.7
10.5
21.8
26.5
42.5
153.9
70.8
0.1
0.0
3,314.1
147.1
3,034.8
8.8
11.0
94.5
18.0
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,891.3
1,011.9
0.0
2,579.7
0.0
55.4
27.3
49.2
167.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,366.6
162.5
3,078.4
0.0
20.5
84.7
20.5
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,967.1
1,025.2
0.0
2,645.3
0.0
52.5
27.7
48.6
167.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,329.2
162.3
3,054.9
0.0
23.0
68.8
20.2
0.0
Total
17,049.0
17,417.0
17,570.7
$10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PYfunds. No impact to actuals
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
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.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• Through 2014, working with
partners, protect human health and
the environment by attaining and
maintaining health-based air-quality
standards and reducing the risk from
toxic air pollutants.
• Through 2014, working with
partners, reduce human health risks
by reducing exposure to indoor air
contaminants through the promotion
of voluntary actions by the public.
• Through 2014, continue efforts to
restore the earth's stratospheric
ozone layer and protect the public
from the harmful effects of UV
radiation.
Through 2014, working with
partners, minimize unnecessary
releases of radiation and be prepared
to minimize impacts to human health
and the environment should
unwanted releases occur.
Through 2014, continue to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions through
voluntary climate protection
programs that accelerate the adoption
of cost-effective greenhouse gas
reducing technologies and practices.
Through 2014, provide sound
science to support EPA's goal of
clean air by conducting leading-edge
research and developing a better
understanding and characterization
of human health and environmental
outcomes.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air and Global Climate
Change
Healthier Outdoor Air
Healthier Indoor Air
Protect the Ozone Layer
Radiation
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,309,522.4
$956,816.1
$49,107.1
$18,463.9
$37,757.7
$137,287.8
$110,089.8
2,650.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,095,311.3
$720,156.2
$45,455.6
$18,630.5
$42,631.3
$167,264.2
$101,173.4
2,678.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,192,949.6
$811,320.1
$47,110.8
$18,609.4
$42,634.8
$168,558.1
$104,716.4
2,795.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$97,638.3
$91,163.9
$1,655.2
($21.1)
$3.5
$1,293.9
$3,543.0
116.1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
EPA will take meaningful, common sense
steps to improving air quality and addressing
climate change. Making the right choices
now will allow the Agency to improve
public health, drive technology innovation
for a better economy, and protect the
environment — all without placing an undue
burden on the nation's economy.
The Clean Air program is founded on
several principles: using health and
environmental risks to set priorities,
streamlining programs through regulatory
reforms, continuing to partner with state,
local and tribal governments as well as
industry and non-governmental
organizations, promoting energy efficiency
and clean energy supply, and encouraging
market-based approaches. EPA implements
the Clean Air and Global Climate Change
goal through national, state, local, tribal and
regional programs designed to provide
healthier outdoor and indoor air for all
Americans, reduce greenhouse gases
(GHG), protect the stratospheric ozone
layer, minimize radiation releases and
enhance science and research.
In FY 2011, EPA is providing additional
resources to the states and local
governments to implement the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
by monitoring air quality and developing
and implementing State Implementation
Plans. In addition, EPA will develop
guidance on GHG permitting for the states
and local governments for anticipated GHG
permitting work. To complement that work
and to respond to pending legal obligations,
EPA will assess and potentially develop
New Source Performance Standards for
GHGs and regulations for large
transportation sources. EPA will also be
implementing GHG regulations completed
in FY 2009 and expected to be completed in
2010 such as the Mandatory Reporting Rule
and the Light Duty Vehicle Rule.
EPA's key clean air programs, including
those addressing six common "criteria"
pollutants: particulate matter, ozone, lead,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon
monoxide, and our work on acid rain, air
toxics, indoor air, radiation and stratospheric
ozone depletion, focus on some of the
highest health and environmental risks faced
by the country. Recent updates for the
NAAQS for lead, and proposed updates for
ozone could yield significant health and
environmental benefits. Every year, state,
local, tribal and federal air pollution
programs established under the Clean Air
Act prevent tens of thousands of premature
mortalities, millions of incidences of chronic
and acute illness, tens of thousands of
hospitalizations and emergency room visits,
and millions of lost work and schools day.
High Priority Performance Goal
EPA will improve the country's ability to
measure and control greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Building a foundation for action
is essential.
• By June 15, 2011, EPA will make
publically available 100% of facility-
level GHG emissions data submitted
to EPA in compliance with the GHG
Reporting Rule.
• EPA, working with US DOT, will
begin implementation in 2011 of
regulations designed to reduce the
GHG emissions from light duty
vehicles sold in the US starting with
model year 2012.
Clean Air
Cleaner cars, industries, and consumer
products have contributed to cleaner air for
Americans in much of the U.S. Since 1990,
nationwide air quality has improved
significantly for the six criteria air pollutants
for which there are national ambient air
quality standards. Despite this progress,
millions of Americans still live in areas that
10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
exceed one or more of the national
standards. Ground-level ozone and particle
pollution still present challenges in many
areas of the country. In FY 2008, EPA
promulgated a more protective standard for
lead; we recently proposed a new standard
for ozone. In FY 2011, we will continue to
work with state, local, and tribal agencies to
ensure active progress toward meeting these
new standards.
As EPA issues more protective NAAQS at a
faster pace, states are faced with an
increasing workload as they revise their
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to meet
the new NAAQS. States must develop more
stringent measures for areas that did not
meet the previous NAAQS, and measures
for new areas not previously in
nonattainment. The measures often are
based on multi-state strategies that require
additional and more complicated modeling,
refined emissions inventories, and increased
stakeholder involvement. In some cases
NAAQS revisions have also contained
requirements for States to expand
monitoring networks to help determine
compliance with revised NAAQS. In
addition, states will likely be tasked with
new responsibilities under the Clean Air Act
in order to help reduce GHG emissions.
State programs for issuing operating permits
and for prevention of significant
deterioration will require additional
resources when they begin to address
greenhouse gas emissions in permitting
large sources.
EPA's NOX SIP Call, and the Acid Rain
Program have contributed to significant
improvements in air quality and
environmental health. The required
reductions in sulfur dioxide and oxides of
nitrogen have reduced ozone and particle
pollution, improved visibility in our
treasured national parks, and led to
significant decreases in atmospheric
deposition. The decreases in deposition
have contributed to improved water quality
in lakes and streams. Between the 1989-
1991 and 2005-2007 time periods, wet
sulfate deposition decreased by more than
30 percent and wet inorganic nitrogen
decreased by approximately 15 percent in
the eastern U.S. Scientists have observed
measurable improvements and signs of
recovery in a number of acidic water bodies.
Promoting Healthy Communities
From 1990 to 2005, emissions of air toxics
declined by 42 percent - the results of a
number of regulations for industrial and
transportation sources. EPA has issued 96
industrial air toxics standards, affecting 174
categories of industry. When fully
implemented, these standards will reduce
1.7 million tons of air toxics every year.
Historically, although EPA's air toxics
program has conducted significant outreach
to communities and tribes, it has focused
largely, at a macro level, on developing
national emission standards for air toxics
and conducting national-scale risk
assessments. As a general matter, EPA's
enforcement program has taken a similar
sector-based approach to addressing air
toxic emissions.
The FY 2011 budget request builds on work
that the Agency has done in communities in
2008 and 2009. Our efforts with the City of
Houston and other communities
disproportionately impacted by air toxic
emissions (e.g. Port Arthur, Texas), make it
evident that the public health and
environmental impacts associated with air
toxics emissions occur largely at the local
level. Further, existing information suggests
that such risks may disproportionately affect
some vulnerable subpopulations, such as
school children.
11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Consistent with the Administrator's
commitment to Congress, "...to protect the
American public where they live, work, and
play [as well as] schoolchildren where they
learn," from the impacts associated with air
toxic pollutants, the request includes funding
to collaborate with states, and communities
to identify if and where air toxics pollution
is occurring at unsafe levels, and
aggressively reduce air toxics pollution
within any at-risk communities, and around
schools and other places where children may
be exposed. This budget includes an
increase of $2.3 million to support a limited
number of community pilot programs as
they develop and implement air toxics
approaches tailored to their local needs.
Reduce Risks to Indoor Air and Radon
Programs
The Indoor Air Program characterizes the
risks of indoor air pollutants to human
health, develops techniques for reducing
those risks, and educates the public about
actions they can take to reduce their risks
from indoor air. EPA educates and
encourages individuals, schools, industry,
the health-care community, and others to
take action to reduce health risks in indoor
environments. Outreach includes national
public awareness and media campaigns, as
well as community-based outreach and
education. EPA also uses technology-
transfer to improve the design, operation,
and maintenance of buildings - including
schools, homes, and workplaces - to
promote healthier indoor air.
In FY 2011, as a part of the Agency's
Promoting Healthy Communities - Healthy
Schools initiative, the Indoor Air Program
will invest an additional $1.1 million in
efforts to improve children's health through
the delivery of effective asthma
management strategies in schools and
communities. Regional offices will provide
support to communities across the country
and will allow targeting of efforts in
under served communities.
The Radon Program promotes action to
reduce the public's risk to indoor radon
(second only to smoking as a cause of lung
cancer). This non-regulatory program
encourages and facilitates voluntary
national, regional, state, and Tribal programs
and activities that support initiatives targeted
to radon testing and mitigation, as well as to
radon resistant new construction.
Clean Energy & Climate Change
The FY 2011 budget request includes
additional funding for steps the Agency can
take in the near term to help pave the way to
a clean energy future. Most of this funding
is focused on assessing and potentially
developing new GHG regulations in
response to legal obligations, or
implementing GHG regulations completed
in FY 2009 and 2010. For example, the
Agency will implement the GHG Mandatory
Reporting Rule while also including the
added benefit of identifying and
communicating with industry possible cost-
effective efficiency investments with the
resultant GHG reductions.
The Agency will analyze critical air and
climate-related issues relating to carbon
capture and sequestration (CCS) technology,
and eventually develop a framework for the
permitting of the carbon dioxide capture
component of the CCS project. This budget
request includes an increase of $2.0 million
for this work.
The FY 2011 budget request provides an
increase of $6 million for analysis,
development and implementation of new
emission standards that will reduce GHG
emissions from transportation sources. This
includes the implementation of new
12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
standards for light-duty vehicles (passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty
passenger vehicles), covering model years
2012 through 2016. The Agency plans to
finalize these firstever GHG emission
standards in FY 2010. EPA also plans to
propose and promulgate heavy-duty vehicle
and engine standards to complete its
obligation to regulate GHG emissions from
motor vehicles in response to the Supreme
Court's Massachusetts v. EPA decision. In
addition, EPA will conduct analyses and
technical assessments and potentially
develop GHG emission standards for other
transportation source categories in response
to petitions to regulate GHG emissions of
these sources.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
regulations could be an effective mechanism
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
major industrial sources. The NSPS
program provides the opportunity to begin
achieving emission reductions at new
facilities through such actions as
improvements in energy and industrial
process efficiency. The request includes $5
million to assess and potentially develop
NSPS regulations for major industrial
sectors and seek, where possible, market-
oriented mechanisms and flexibilities to
provide lowest cost compliance options.
This request includes an additional $25
million to support state permit programs as
they prepare to issue permits for large
sources of GHG.
Voluntary GHG Reducing Programs
For more than a decade, businesses and
other organizations have partnered with
EPA, through voluntary climate protection
programs, to pursue common sense
approaches to reducing GHG emissions.
Voluntary programs, such as Energy Star
and SmartWay Transport, have increased the
use of energy-efficient products and
practices, spurred investment in clean
energy development, and reduced emissions
of carbon dioxide, methane, and other GHGs
with very high global warming potentials.
EPA will continue to implement the
ENERGY STAR program across the
residential, commercial, and industrial
sectors consistent with the updated
Memorandum of Understanding with DOE,
with an increase of $2 million. EPA will do
this by: Enhancing the use of the ENERGY
STAR label on products including adding
products to the program; accelerating the
rate that product specifications are updated
in terms of stringency; and developing a
comprehensive product certification and
verification initiative for ENERGY STAR
qualifying products. Another focus will be
expanding ENERGY STAR programs that
improve the installation of products such as
heating and cooling equipment whose
efficiency is greatly affected by installation
practices.
Stratospheric Ozone — Domestic and
Montreal Protocol
In FY 2011, EPA's Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program will continue to
implement the provisions of the Clean Air
Act and the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol), and contribute to the
reduction and control of ozone-depleting
substances (ODS) in the U.S.
Following the 2010 lowering of the ODS
cap, EPA is responding to an increased
number of ODS substitute applications,
many of which represent lower GHG
options. Under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, EPA
will review alternatives to ODS to assist the
market's transition to alternatives that are
safer, especially for the climate system.
13
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Radiation
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to work with
other Federal agencies, states, tribes,
stakeholders, and international radiation
protection organizations to develop and use
voluntary and regulatory programs, public
information, and training to reduce public
exposure to radiation. The Agency also will
continue to conduct radiation risk
assessments including updating its scientific
methodology, modeling, and technical tools
for generating radionuclide-specific cancer
risk coefficients to more specifically address
sensitive population groups such as infants,
women, and the elderly. Risk managers at
all levels of government use this information
to assess health risks from radiation
exposure and to determine appropriate levels
for clean-up of radioactively contaminated
sites. EPA will continue to provide
technical assistance to tribes to locate and
cleanup radioactive wastes produced from
uranium mining that contaminate tribal
lands and water resources with radionuclides
and heavy metals.
Research
EPA, in accordance with the
Administration's policy of scientific
integrity, conducts research to provide a
scientific foundation for the Agency's
actions to protect the air all Americans
breathe. The Agency's air research program
supports implementation of the Clean Air
Act, especially the NAAQS, which sets
limits on how much stratospheric ozone,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead, are
allowed in the atmosphere. EPA also
conducts research on hazardous air
pollutants, also known as air toxics.
In FY2011, the budget request for the
Agency's air research program includes an
additional $3.0 million to support a next
generation monitoring network for ambient
air pollutants that will help build the
scientific backbone necessary to plug gaps
in our regulatory system. The Agency's air
research program will also continue research
to understand the sources and composition
of air pollution; develop methods for
controlling sources' emissions; study
atmospheric chemistry and model U.S. air
quality; investigate Americans' exposure to
air pollution; and conduct epidemiological,
clinical, and toxicological studies of air
pollution's health effects. The range of
research programs and initiatives will both
continue the work of better understanding
the scientific basis of our environmental and
human health problems as well as advance
the design of sustainable solutions through
approaches such as green chemistry and
green engineering. In FY 2011, the program
will continue to focus on the effects of air
pollution near roads on human health, as
well as the development and evaluation of
effective mitigation strategies. The Agency
will also fund research grants to universities
and nonprofits to study topics such as the
relationship between long-term exposure to
fine particles and air pollution mixtures in
the atmosphere and the frequency and
progression of pulmonary and
cardiovascular diseases. In FY 2011, EPA
requests $85.3 million for the Clean Air
Research program to continue studying
Americans' exposure to air pollution, and
the links between sources of pollution and
health outcomes.
Global Change Research is discussed in the
Goal 4 overview section
14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
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.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• Protect human health by reducing
exposure to contaminants in drinking
water (including protecting source
waters), in fish and shellfish, and in
recreational waters.
• Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and
streams on a watershed basis and
protect coastal and ocean waters.
By 2014, conduct leading-edge, sound
scientific research to support the
protection of human health through the
reduction of human exposure to
contaminants in drinking water, fish and
shellfish, and recreational waters and to
support the protection of aquatic
ecosystems-specifically, the quality of
rivers, lakes, and streams, and coastal and
ocean waters.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean and Safe Water
Protect Human Health
Protect Water Quality
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,887,323.4
$3,204,952.3
$5,538,892.8
$143,478.3
2,868.3
FY2010
Enacted
$4,896,505.1
$1,770,225.2
$2,981,364.7
$144,915.2
2,924.6
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$4,587,186.2
$1,603,813.0
$2,831,001.4
$152,371.9
2,928.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($309,318.9)
($166,412.2)
($150,363.3)
$7,456.7
3.6
Protecting America's waters is a top priority
and EPA has an ambitious vision for the
nation's waters in the years ahead. Water
quality has tremendous impacts on quality of
life, on economic potential, and on human
and environmental health. America's
waterbodies are imperiled as never before
from nutrient loadings and stormwater
runoff to invasive species and drinking
water contaminants. These challenges
demand both traditional and innovative
strategies, both national and local action.
In FY 2011 the Agency is launching new
initiatives to confront the challenges from
multiple angles - local and national,
traditional and innovative. The Mississippi
River Basin initiative will focus on nonpoint
source program enhancements to result in
water-quality improvement throughout the
watershed and in the Gulf of Mexico. As
part of the Healthy Communities Initiative,
EPA will launch the Community Water
Priorities program to address issues related
to urban waters. The Agency will also
continue collaboration with the Department
of Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) to implement an Interagency Action
Plan (IAP) to significantly reduce the
15
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
harmful effects of Appalachian surface coal
mining operations.
To make progress, the Agency also needs
unprecedented partnerships with the states
and tribes. In FY 2011, significant new
resources are targeted to states, to help with
the growing universe of facilities and the
growing needs for Total Maximum Daily
Limits (TMDLs), monitoring and innovative
strategies for addressing infrastructure
requirements. EPA will collaborate with
states and tribes in each of these areas to
achieve clean and safe water objectives.
In FY 2011, EPA continues its commitment
to upgrading drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure with a substantial combined
investment of $3.3 billion for the Clean
Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund programs. This investment will both
facilitate continued progress toward drinking
water and clean water goals, and result in
increased job opportunities at the local level.
EPA is working to ensure that Federal
dollars provided through the State
Revolving Funds act as a catalyst for
efficient system-wide planning,
improvements in technical, financial, and
managerial capacity, and the design,
construction and on-going management of
sustainable water infrastructure.
The National Water Program will continue
to place emphasis on sustainable
infrastructure, watershed stewardship,
watershed-based approaches, water
efficiencies, and best practices through
Environmental Management Systems. EPA
will specifically focus on green
infrastructure, banking for wetlands
conservation, and trading among point
sources and non-point sources for water
quality upgrades. In FY 2011, the Agency
will continue advancing the water quality
monitoring initiative and a water quality
standards strategy under the Clean Water
Act, as well as important rules and activities
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Related
efforts to improve monitoring and
surveillance will help advance water
security nationwide.
Drinking Water
High Priority Performance Goal
As part of the Administration's emphasis on
High Priority Performance Goals, EPA will
take actions over the next two years to
improve drinking water and surface water
quality. Work under this goal supports one
of EPA's High Priority Performance Goals
related to public health.
• Over the next two years, EPA will
initiate review/revision of at least
four drinking water standards to
strengthen public health protection.
During FY 2011, EPA, the states, and
community water systems will build on past
successes while working toward the FY
2011 goal of assuring that 91 percent of the
population served by community water
systems receives drinking water that meets
all applicable health-based standards. 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 capabilities.
EPA will work to improve compliance rates
by providing guidance, training, and
technical assistance; ensuring proper
certification of water system operators;
promoting consumer awareness of drinking
water safety; maintaining the rate of system
sanitary surveys and onsite reviews; and
taking appropriate action for
noncompliance.
16
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
To help ensure that water is safe to drink,
EPA requests $1.3 billion continuing EPA's
commitment for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund. EPA will continue to work
with states to encourage targeting this
affordable, flexible financial assistance to
support utility compliance with safe
drinking water standards. EPA will also
continue to work with utilities to promote
technical, financial, and managerial capacity
as a critical means to meet infrastructure
needs, and further enhance program
performance and efficiency, and to ensure
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
Climate and Clean Energy Challenge
In order to support a potentially important
climate mitigation technology, EPA will
build on its regulatory framework for
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).
As part of the Agency's efforts to meet the
Climate and Clean Energy Challenge, EPA
is requesting an additional $1.1 million to
support the Agency's work on geologic
sequestration to ensure the integrity of
underground drinking water aquifers. This
includes completing guidance to implement
the rule (e.g., monitoring, modeling, and
Area of Review determinations), building
state and regional capacity to issue permits,
training permit writers to review complex
data, and communicating that there is a
protective program in place for Geologic
Sequestration wells. In FY 2011, states and
EPA will process Underground Injection
Control permit applications for experimental
carbon sequestration and gather information
from these pilots to facilitate the permitting
of large-scale commercial carbon
sequestration in the future.
Clean Water
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to
collaborate with states and tribes to make
progress toward EPA's clean water goals.
EPA's FY 2011 request includes a total of
$485.1 million in categorical grants for
clean water programs. EPA will implement
core clean water programs and apply
promising innovations, on a watershed basis,
to accelerate water quality improvements.
Building on 30 years of clean water
successes, EPA, in conjunction with states
and tribes, will implement the Clean Water
Act by focusing on TMDLs and National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits built upon scientifically
sound water quality standards, effective
water monitoring, strong programs for
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution,
stringent discharge permit programs, and
revolving fund capitalization grants to our
partners to build, revive, and "green" our
aging infrastructure.
The Agency's FY 2011 request continues
the monitoring initiative begun in 2005 to
strengthen the nationwide monitoring
network and complete the baseline water
quality assessment of the nation's waters.
The results of these efforts are scientifically-
defensible water quality data and
information essential for cleaning up and
protecting the nation's waters. Progress in
improving coastal and ocean waters
documented in the National Coastal
Condition Report, will focus on assessing
coastal conditions, reducing vessel
discharges, implementing coastal nonpoint
source pollution programs, managing
dredged material and supporting
international marine pollution control. EPA
will continue to provide annual
capitalization to the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) to enable EPA
partners to improve wastewater treatment,
17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
non-point sources of pollution, and estuary
revitalization. Realizing the long-term
benefits derived from the CWSRF, EPA is
continuing our CWSRF commitment by
requesting $2.0 billion in FY 2011.
In FY 2011 EPA requests an additional $45
million in the Section 106 grants. The new
funding will strengthen the base state,
interstate and tribal programs, address
emerging water quality issues such as
nutrients and new regulatory requirements,
and support expanded water monitoring and
enforcement efforts.
Imperiled Urban Waters
Many urban waters are impaired by
pathogens, excess nutrients, and
contaminated sediments that result from
sanitary sewer and combined sewer
overflows, polluted runoff from urban
landscapes, and legacy contamination. As
part of the Healthy Communities Initiative,
EPA will launch the Community Water
Priorities program to address issues related
to urban waters. Through Federal technical
support and grants to the states, the program
will advance water quality improvements in
urban watersheds through targeted
implementation of core water programs. It
also will leverage more effective
partnerships and strategically target
resources. With a particular emphasis on
disadvantaged communities, the program
will focus water quality protection and
restoration efforts on urban waters.
Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency
Action Plan
EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
and the Department of Interior will
implement the Interagency Action Plan to
ensure that Appalachian surface mining
projects do not violate water quality
standards or result in significant
environmental degradation in the watershed.
Coordinating with the Corps, states,
resource agencies, and the public, EPA will
review CWA 404 and 402 permits of
concern and negotiate a resolution to
outstanding environmental issues with the
Corps and mine operators.
Homeland Security
EPA has a major role in supporting the
protection of the nation's critical water
infrastructure from terrorist threats. EPA
will move to the next phase of the Water
Security Initiative (WSI) pilot program,
focusing on support and evaluation
activities, and will continue to support water
sector-specific agency responsibilities,
including the Water Alliance for Threat
Reduction (WATR), to protect the nation's
critical water infrastructure. The Agency
also will continue progress to integrate the
Regional laboratory networks and the WSI
pilot laboratories into a national, consistent
program. The FY 2011 request includes
$10.4 million for WSI support and
evaluation activities and $1.2 million for
WATR.
Research
EPA, in accordance with the
Administration's policy of scientific
integrity, conducts research to provide a
scientific foundation for the Agency's
actions to protect America's waters, under
the authorities of the Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water Acts. The complementary
Drinking Water and Clean Water Research
programs are both organized around specific
long-term goals to provide needed scientific
information and tools to the Agency and
other decision makers.
18
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
In FY 2011, the range of research programs
and initiatives will continue both the work
of better understanding the scientific basis of
our environmental and human health
problems as well as advancing the design of
sustainable solutions through approaches
such as green chemistry and green
engineering. The Drinking Water and Water
Quality research programs will work to align
themselves to provide a more unified
approach to particular high-priority
problems of source water quality and
sustainability.
In FY 2011, drinking water research will be
expanded to address potential water supply
consequences associated with hydraulic
fracturing. Congress has urged EPA to
conduct this research, which supports the
Agency's efforts to ensure the protection of
our aquifers. Green infrastructure research
will be expanded in FY 2011 to assess,
develop, and compile scientifically rigorous
tools and models that will be used by EPA's
Office of Water, states, and municipalities.
Green chemistry and green engineering
approaches will advance the design of
sustainable solutions to clean water
challenges. EPA will leverage the success
of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
grants program by significantly increasing
funding for research grants to top scientists
in academia.
19
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Preserve and restore land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up
contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by releases of harmful substances.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• By 2014, reduce adverse effects to
land by reducing waste generation,
increasing recycling, and ensuring
proper management of waste and
petroleum products at facilities in
ways that prevent releases.
• By 2014, control the risks to human
health and the environment by
mitigating the impact of accidental
or intentional releases and by
cleaning up and restoring
contaminated sites or properties to
appropriate levels.
Provide and apply sound science for
protecting and restoring land by
conducting leading-edge research,
which, through collaboration, leads
to preferred environmental
outcomes.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Land Preservation and
Restoration
Preserve Land
Restore Land
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,595,018.9
$247,870.4
$2,298,964.9
$48,183.6
4,464.8
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,764,383.6
$246,688.8
$1,462,950.8
$54,744.0
4,555.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,752,201.2
$252,852.6
$1,445,921.7
$53,426.9
4,551.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($12,182.4)
$6,163.8
($17,029.1)
($1,317.1)
-4.4
Land is one of America's most valuable
resources and cleaning up our communities
to create a safe environment for all
Americans is a priority for EPA. Hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes on the land can
migrate to the air, groundwater, and surface
water, contaminating drinking water
supplies, causing acute illnesses or chronic
diseases, and threatening healthy ecosystems
in urban, rural, and suburban areas.
Communities are directly affected by EPA's
actions whether they are site-specific actions
or broad national policies. In recognition of
the role of communities and stakeholders in
its work, EPA has begun a new era of
outreach and protection for communities
historically underrepresented in EPA
decision-making.
In FY 2011, EPA is helping to meet the
Climate and Clean Energy Challenge,
investing in Healthy Communities initiatives
(Clean Green and Healthy Schools,
Brownfields and Sustainable Communities)
20
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
and continuing to build strong state and
Tribal partnerships. EPA will work with
states and tribes to assess Underground
Storage Tank (UST) compatibility with
alternative fuels and evaluate the transport
and degradation characteristics of ethanol
and diesel blends; promote safe handling
and management of poly-chlorinated
biphenyl (PCB)-containing caulk in schools
while building necessary regional technical
support and outreach to effectively
implement site-specific cleanup and disposal
plans; build healthy and sustainable
communities particularly in urban areas with
EPA's efforts working with Feed People -
Not Landfills; and strengthen our
partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on cleaning up contaminated
sediments in urban rivers adjacent to
Superfund sites.
To protect the land, human health and the
environment, EPA focuses on prevention,
protection, and response activities to address
risks posed by releases of harmful
substances on land; emergency
preparedness, response, and homeland
security to address immediate risks to
human health and the environment;
enforcement and compliance assistance to
ensure effective and adequate oversight of
our responsibilities by determining what
needs to be done and who should pay; and
sound science and research to address risk
factors and new, innovative solutions.
EPA will continue to use a hierarchy of
approaches to protect the land: reducing
waste at its source, recycling waste,
managing waste effectively by preventing
spills and releases of toxic materials, and
cleaning up contaminated properties. The
Agency especially is concerned about
threats to our most sensitive populations,
such as children, the elderly, and individuals
with chronic diseases, and prioritizes
cleanups accordingly.4
Prevention, Protection, and Response
Activities
EPA leads the country's activities to prevent
and reduce the risks posed by releases of
harmful substances and to preserve and
restore land with effective waste
management and cleanup methods. In FY
2011, the Agency requests $1.75 billion to
continue to apply the most effective
approach to preserve and restore land by
developing and implementing prevention
programs, improving response capabilities,
and maximizing the effectiveness of
response and cleanup actions. This
approach will help ensure that human health
and the environment are protected and that
land is returned to beneficial use.
Controlling the many risks posed by
accidental and intentional releases of
harmful substances presents a significant
challenge. In FY 2011, EPA will continue
to ensure that it is adequately prepared to
minimize contamination and harm to the
environment from spills and releases of
hazardous materials by improving its
readiness to respond to emergencies through
training as well as maintaining a highly
skilled, well-trained, and equipped response
workforce.
EPA's land program activities for FY 2011
align along four broad themes: 1) Integrated
Cleanup Program Initiative; 2) Land
Revitalization; 3) Recycling, Waste
Minimization and Energy Recovery; and 4)
4 Additional information on these programs can be found
at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/,
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/er cleanup.htm,
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/.
http://www.epa.gov/swerustlA
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/ and
http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/landrevitalization/.
21
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
implementation of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct).
Integrated Cleanup Program Initiative:
In an effort to improve the accountability,
transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's
cleanup programs, EPA initiated a multiyear
effort in 2010 to explore better uses of
assessment and cleanup authorities to
address a greater number of sites, accelerate
cleanups, and put those sites back into
productive use while protecting human
health and the environment. By bringing to
bear the relevant tools available in each of
the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial,
Superfund Emergency Response and
Removal, Superfund Federal Facilities
Response, and Brownfields Projects), EPA
will better leverage the resources available
to address needs at individual sites. For
example, EPA is defining and implementing
new performance measures that further
describe the achievements of EPA's cleanup
programs. As an early step toward an
improved Superfund Remedial program
measurement, in FY 2011, EPA will
implement a new performance measure to
augment the site-wide construction
completion measure. Further, this effort will
examine all aspects of EPA's cleanup
programs, in a more granular fashion,
identifying key process improvements,
enhanced efficiencies, and associated
performance measures to clearly gauge and
demonstrate progress from site assessment
through site-wide construction completion.
This effort may expand the transparency for
EPA's cleanup programs, encourage
community involvement, and enhance
accountability to the public.
Land Revitalization:
All of EPA's cleanup programs (Superfund
Remedial, Superfund Federal Facilities
Response, Superfund Emergency Response
and Removal, RCRA Corrective Action, and
Underground Storage Tanks) and their
partners are taking proactive steps to
facilitate the cleanup and revitalization of
contaminated properties. In FY 2011, the
Agency requests $950.7 million to help
communities revitalize these once
productive properties by removing blight,
satisfying the growing demand for land,
helping limit urban sprawl, fostering
ecologic habitat enhancements, enabling
economic development, and maintaining or
improving quality of life. EPA continues to
support the RE-Powering America's Land
initiative5 in partnership with the
Department of Energy. Finding suitable
environmentally impaired lands to site
renewable energy facilities is one significant
way EPA and the states can help the
Administration meet its goals of 25 percent
renewable energy by 2025.
Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Energy
Recovery:
EPA requests $11.1 million in FY 2011 to
support EPA's strategy for reducing waste
generation and increasing recycling. EPA's
strategy will continue to be based on: (1)
establishing and expanding partnerships
with businesses, industries, tribes, states,
communities, and consumers; (2)
stimulating infrastructure development and
environmentally responsible behavior by
product manufacturers, users, and disposers;
and (3) helping businesses, government,
institutions, and consumers reduce waste
generation and increase recycling through
education, outreach, training, and technical
assistance. In FY 2011, EPA will continue
the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC)
as a major national effort to find flexible
ways to conserve our valuable natural
resources through waste reduction, energy
recovery, and recycling.6 Through RCC, the
Additional information on this initiative can be found on
http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergvland/.
For more information, refer to http://www.epa.gov/rcc.
22
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Agency will continue to build partnerships
with government agencies7, businesses, and
nonprofits to encourage recycling and waste
prevention, and leverage resources to
improve energy conservation.
Implementing the EPAct:
The EPAct8 contains numerous provisions
that significantly affect Federal and state
underground storage tank (UST) programs
and requires that EPA and states strengthen
tank release and prevention programs. In
FY 2011, EPA requests $34.4 million to
provide assistance to states to help them
meet their EPAct responsibilities, which
include: (1) mandatory inspections every
three years for all underground storage tanks
and enforcement of violations discovered
during the inspections; (2) operator training;
(3) prohibition of delivery for non-
complying facilities9; and (4) secondary
containment or financial responsibility for
tank manufacturers and installers.
In addition to these themes, EPA's
Homeland Security and Enforcement work
are important components of the Agency's
prevention, protection, and response
activities.
Homeland Security
EPA will continue to maintain its Homeland
Security emergency preparedness and
response capability. In FY 2011, the
Agency requests $40.2 million to continue
to: maintain its capability to respond
Federal, state, local and Tribal agencies.
8 For more information, refer to
http: //frwebgate. access, gpo. go v/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:
publ058.109.pdf (scroll to Title XV - Ethanol And Motor
Fuels, Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank
Compliance, on pages 500-513 of the pdf file).
Refer to Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the
Delivery Prohibition Provision of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, August 2006, EPA-510-R-06-003,
http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact Q5.htm#Final.
effectively to incidents that may involve
harmful chemical, biological, and
radiological substances; operate the
Environmental Response Laboratory
Network (ERLN); maximize the
effectiveness of its involvement in national
security events through pre-deployments of
assets such as emergency response
personnel and field detection equipment;
maintain the Emergency Management Portal
(EMP); and manage, collect, and validate
new information for new and existing
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
agents as decontamination techniques are
developed or as other information emerges
from the scientific community.
Enforcement
EPA's Superfund enforcement program
ensures prompt site cleanup and uses an
"enforcement first" approach that maximizes
the participation of liable and viable parties
in performing and paying for cleanups in
both remedial and removal programs. The
Superfund enforcement program includes
nationally significant or precedential civil,
judicial, and administrative site remediation
cases, and provides legal and technical
enforcement support on Superfund
enforcement actions and emerging issues.
The Superfund enforcement program also
develops waste cleanup enforcement
policies, and provides guidance and tools
that clarify potential environmental cleanup
liability, with specific attention to the reuse
and revitalization of contaminated
properties, including Brownfields properties.
Enforcement authorities play a unique role
under the Superfund program: they are used
to leverage private-party resources to
conduct a majority of the cleanup actions
and to reimburse the Federal government for
cleanups financed by appropriations. In FY
2011, the Agency requests $187.4 million to
23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
support enforcement activities at Federal
and non-Federal Superfund sites. EPA's
"enforcement first" approach ensures that
sites with financially viable potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) are cleaned up by
those parties, allowing EPA to focus
appropriated resources on sites where viable
PRPs either do not exist or lack funds or
capabilities needed to conduct the cleanup.
In tandem with this approach, various
reforms have been implemented to increase
fairness, reduce transaction costs, promote
economic development, and make sites
available for appropriate reuse.10 The
Department of Justice supports EPA's
Superfund Enforcement program through
negotiations and judicial actions to compel
PRP cleanup and litigation to recover Trust
Fund monies spent. In FY 2009, the
Superfund Enforcement program secured
private party commitments that exceeded
$2.3 billion. Of this amount, PRPs have
committed to future response work with an
estimated value of approximately $2 billion;
PRPs have agreed to reimburse the Agency
for more than $371 million in past costs; and
PRPs have been billed by the EPA for
approximately $79 million in oversight
costs. These results can be directly linked to
Goal 3. EPA also works to ensure that
required legally enforceable institutional
controls and financial assurance instruments
are in place and adhered to at Superfund
sites and at facilities subject to RCRA
Corrective Action to ensure the long-term
protectiveness of cleanup actions.
In FY 2011, the Agency will negotiate
remedial design/remedial action cleanup
agreements and removal agreements at
contaminated properties. Where
negotiations fail, the Agency will either take
unilateral enforcement actions to require
10 For more information regarding EPA's enforcement
program and its various components, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
PRP cleanup or use appropriated dollars to
remediate sites (or both). When
appropriated dollars are used to clean up
sites, the program will recover the
associated cleanup costs from the PRPs. If
future work remains at a site, recovered
funds could be placed in a site-specific
special account. Special accounts are sub-
accounts within the Trust Fund which
segregate funds obtained from responsible
parties who enter into settlement agreements
with EPA. These funds act as an incentive
for other PRPs to perform cleanup work and
can be used by the Agency to fund cleanup
at that site. The Agency also will continue
its efforts to establish and use special
accounts to facilitate cleanup, improve
tracking, and plan the use of special account
funds. Through the end of FY 2009, more
than 948 site-specific special accounts have
been established and over $2.96 billion have
been deposited into special accounts
(including earned interest). Approximately
$1.43 billion from special accounts has been
used by EPA for site response actions and
another $184.3 million has been obligated
but not yet disbursed. EPA is carefully
managing the $1.34 billion that was
available as of October 1, 2009 and has
developed multi-year plans to use these
funds as expeditiously as possible. These
funds will be used to conduct many different
CERCLA response actions, including, but
not limited to, investigations to determine
the extent of contamination and appropriate
remedy required, construction of the
remedy, enforcement activities, and post-
construction monitoring.
EPA has ongoing cleanup and property
transfer responsibilities at some of the
Nation's most contaminated Federal
properties, which range from realigning and
closing military installations and former
military properties containing unexploded
ordnance, solvents, and other industrial
24
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
chemicals to Department of Energy sites
containing nuclear waste. EPA's Superfund
Federal Facilities Response and
Enforcement program helps Federal and
local governments, tribes, states,
redevelopment authorities, and the affected
communities ensure contamination at
Federal or former Federal properties is
addressed in a manner that protects human
health and the environment.11 In addition,
EPA ensures that Federal entities are held
accountable for the commitments made in
Federal Facility Agreements. EPA also is
evaluating the enforcement approach for
formerly-utilized Defense sites and mine
sites with Federal ownership.
Enhancing Science and Research to
Restore and Preserve Land
EPA's Land Research program, in
accordance with the Administration's policy
of scientific integrity12, provides the
scientific foundation for the Agency's
actions to protect America's land. The FY
2011 Land Research program supports the
Agency's objective of reducing or
controlling potential risks to human health
and the environment at contaminated waste
sites by providing the science to accelerate
scientifically defensible and cost-effective
decisions for cleanup at complex sites in
accordance with CERCLA. The range of
research programs and initiatives will
continue both the work of better
understanding the scientific basis of our
environmental and human health problems
as well as advancing the design of
sustainable solutions through approaches
such as green chemistry and green
1' For more information on the Superfund Federal Facilities
Response and Enforcement program, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/.
12 For more information, see
httpV/www.whitehouse.gov/thejressjjffice/Memorandu
m-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-
Agencies-3-9-09/.
engineering. In FY 2011, EPA requests
$53.4 million in support of EPA's efforts to
enhance science and research for land
preservation and restoration.
Restoration research activities in FY 2011
will focus on contaminated sediments,
ground water contamination, site
characterization, and site-specific technical
support. Research will advance EPA's
ability to characterize the effectiveness of
contaminated sediment remediation and will
be conducted in collaboration with the Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to
develop alternative technologies to sediment
dredging for remedy selection options.
Research products will develop data to
support dosimetric and toxicologic
assessment of amphibole asbestos fiber-
containing material from Libby, Montana.
Oil spill remediation research will continue
on physical, chemical, and biological risk
management methods for petroleum and
non-petroleum oil spills in freshwater and
marine environments as well as
development of a protocol for testing
solidifiers and treating oil. UST research
will assess UST compatibility with
alternative fuels.
Research will continue to focus on areas
such as resource conservation, corrective
action, multi-media modeling, leaching,
containment systems, and landfill
bioreactors. In FY 2011, EPA will continue
working with states to optimize operations
and monitor several landfill bioreactors to
determine their potential to provide
alternative energy in the form of landfill gas
while increasing the nation's landfill
capacity. Additionally, methamphetamine
lab clean up studies will continue to evaluate
clean up techniques and exposure risks.
Research efforts also will address science
25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
needs for coal combustion residue
regulatory actions.
In FY 2011, research also will continue in
the area of nanotechnology fate and
transport as part of the Nanotechnology
Research program efforts to address
emerging issues and strategic EPA issues.
The goal of this research is to lead the
Federal government in addressing key
science questions on the persistence and
movement of nanomaterials in the
environment.
26
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using
integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• By 2014, prevent and reduce
pesticide and industrial chemical
risks to humans, communities, and
ecosystems.
• Sustain, clean up, and restore
communities and the ecological
systems that support them.
• Protect, sustain, and restore the
health of critical natural habitats and
ecosystems.
Identify and synthesize the best
available scientific information,
models, methods, and analyses to
support Agency guidance and policy
decisions related to the health of
people, communities, and
ecosystems. Focus research on
pesticides and chemical toxicology;
global change; and comprehensive,
cross-cutting studies of human,
community, and ecosystem health.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems
Chemical and Pesticide Risks
Communities
Restore and Protect Critical
Ecosystems
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,342,119.2
$402,056.3
$333,638.9
$215,571.5
$390,852.6
3,751.3
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,799,742.6
$411,538.1
$251,749.2
$728,969.3
$407,486.0
3,891.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,673,517.4
$425,033.7
$297,729.0
$530,131.7
$420,623.1
3,967.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($126,225.2)
$13,495.6
$45,979.8
($198,837.6)
$13,137.1
75.8
In FY 2011, the Environmental Protection
Agency will protect, sustain or restore the
health of communities and ecosystems by
bringing together a variety of programs,
tools, approaches and resources. Results
stem from effective regulatory frameworks
but also from partnerships with stakeholders.
Partnerships with international, Federal,
state, tribal, local governments and non-
governmental organizations have long been
a common thread across EPA's programs.
Environmentalism has been described as a
conversation that we all must have because
it is about protecting people in the places
they live, work and raise families. In FY
2011, the Agency is focused on expanding
the conversation to include new stakeholders
and involve communities in more direct
ways. EPA is proactive about detection and
prevention of environmental risks to
27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
watersheds, communities, homes, schools
and workplaces - but today's challenges
require renewed and re-focused efforts to
address old pollution and prevent new
pollution.
The Agency will carry out its
responsibilities based on the core values of
science, transparency and the rule of law,
and will include environmental justice
principles in the full range of decision-
making. High-priority, cutting edge
research will guide the Agency in finding
efficient, innovative and sustainable ways to
address complex, inter-related and
cumulative sources and effects of pollution.
In FY 2011, EPA will invest in building
Healthy Communities from multiple
vantages: Brownfields to assist
economically hard hit communities; Clean
and Green Schools to protect our children,
Community Waters grants to engage
communities in new ways in making
improvements in their immediate
environment, and Sustainable Communities
activities to help protect the future through
smart development. Targeted geographic
approaches receive new funds also, to
support important work to restore the
Chesapeake Bay under the Executive Order,
and to reduce nutrient loading in the
Mississippi River Basin with downstream
benefits to the Gulf of Mexico. In addition,
the Agency will move forward with the far-
reaching Great Lakes initiative begun in
2010.
Ideally, EPA implements a strategy of
preventing pollution at the source. EPA
works to assure the safety of chemicals
before they are in use, as well as maximize
the use of recent advances in toxicology and
analytical chemistry for chemical review.
The Agency is shifting its focus to identify
and address chemicals of concern more
quickly through Existing Chemicals Action
Plans, as well as filling data gaps on widely
produced chemicals in commerce, including
endocrine disrupter screening. Innovation in
green chemistry and research to develop
faster more efficient ways to uncover
potential adverse effects are vital
components of this work. In FY 2011 new
funding will allow expansion and
acceleration in endocrine disrupter research
and computational toxicology.
In managing risk and in ensuring that
environmental rules protect all Americans,
EPA directs its efforts toward identifying
and mitigating exposures and other factors
in our communities, schools, homes, and
workplaces that might negatively impact
human health and environmental quality.
To do so, EPA conducts research to
understand how specific groups of people
may differ in their inherent susceptibility or
may be disproportionately exposed. For
example, sensitivity in children can depend
on developmental stage, which can
determine how they metabolize (absorb and
detoxify) chemicals. People living in
communities near certain industrial sources
of pollution and/or roadways with high
traffic volume may be disproportionately
impacted. Native Americans, or other
Americans who rely on traditional sources
of food, may consume more fish or other
locally gathered foods and may be
disproportionately exposed to contaminants
in those foods. A renewed focus is being
placed on the continuing Environmental
Justice (EJ) efforts to address the
environmental and public health concerns of
minority, low income, Tribal, and other
disproportionately burdened communities
and focus on improving environmental and
public health protection in these
communities.
28
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Changes in ecosystems have long-range
impacts that are beginning to be recognized
and difficult to reverse. In FY 2011 the
Agency will continue collaboration with the
Department of Interior and the Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) to implement an
Interagency Action Plan (IAP) to
significantly reduce the harmful effects of
Appalachian surface coal mining operations.
Research on ecosystem services as well as
the impact of climate change will help
identify opportunities in regulatory,
voluntary and outreach efforts. Routine
ecological risk assessments determine
potential effects of pesticides, toxics or
pollutants from various sources on plants,
animals, and ecosystems as a whole, as well
as those species that are listed as threatened
or endangered.
The combined effect - community level
actions, geographically targeted
investments, attention to chemicals, concern
for ecosystems - implemented through the
lens of science, transparency and law - will
bring real improvements and real protections
for ourselves and for our children.
High Priority Performance Goal
As part of the Administration's emphasis on
High Priority Performance Goals,
//. EPA will take actions over the next two
years to improve water quality. Clean water
is essential for our quality of life and the
health of our communities.
• All Chesapeake Bay watershed
States (including the District of
Columbia) will develop and submit
approvable Phase I watershed
implementation plans by the end of
CY 2010 and Phase II plans by the
end of CY 2011 in support of EPA's
final Chesapeake Bay Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
• By the end of fiscal year 2011,
increase the percent of federal CWA
discharge permit enforcement
actions that reduce pollutant
discharges into impaired waterways
from 20% (FY 2009 baseline) to
25%, and promote transparency and
right-to-know by posting results and
analysis on the web.
///. EPA will ensure that environmental
health and protection is delivered to our
communities.
• By 2012, EPA will have initiated 20
Brownfields community-level
projects as part of an enhanced effort
to benefit under-served and
economically disadvantaged
communities. This will allow those
communities to assess and address
multiple Brownfields sites within
their boundaries, thereby advancing
area-wide planning and cleanups and
enabling redevelopment of
Brownfields properties on a broader
scale than on individual sites. EPA
will provide technical assistance,
coordinate its enforcement, water
and air quality programs, and work
with other federal agencies, states,
tribes and local governments to
implement associated targeted
environmental improvements
identified in each community's area-
wide plan.
Pesticides Programs
A key component of protecting the health of
people, communities, and ecosystems is
identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks
presented by the thousands of chemicals on
29
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
which our society and economy have come
to depend. Toward that end, EPA is
investing $144 million in Pesticides
Licensing programs in FY 2011. Chemical
and biological pesticides help meet national
and global demands for food; provide
effective pest control for homes, schools,
gardens, highways, utility lines, hospitals,
and drinking water treatment facilities; and
control animal vectors of disease. Many of
these actions involve reduced risk pesticides
which, once registered, will result in
increased societal benefits.
As part of the FY 2011 Healthy
Communities initiative the Pesticides
program will expand its work with schools
to reduce risks children face from pesticide
use in the school environment.
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 (USGS) National Water
Quality Assessment program for urban
watersheds, EPA will monitor the impact of
our regulatory decisions for four pesticides
of concern—diazinon, chlorpyrifos,
malathion, and cabaryl—and consider
whether any additional action is necessary.
Toxics Programs
These programs span the full range of EPA
activities associated with screening,
assessing and reducing risks of both new
and existing chemicals. EPA is
strengthening its risk management activities
to assure the safety of chemicals in products
and in the environment. EPA will continue
reviewing and acting on 1,500 TSCA
Section 5 notices, including Pre-
Manufacture Notices, received annually to
ensure no unreasonable risk from new
chemicals before they are introduced into
U.S. commerce.
EPA will also continue to assess and act on
the thousands of existing chemicals already
in commerce before TSCA took effect and
review data to support hazard assessment
and risk management actions for High
Production Volume (HPV) chemicals. In
FY 2011 the program will evaluate the
hazards and risks posed by HPV chemicals,
and take appropriate risk management
actions to reduce human health and
environmental risks. One focus area is
eliminating childhood lead poisoning,
including implementing the Renovation,
Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule to address
lead hazards created by renovation, repair
and painting activities in homes and child-
occupied facilities with lead-based pain.
Pesticides and Toxics Fees
In FY 2011, EPA will administer or propose
several user fees as follows:
• Pesticides Maintenance Fee: This fee
provides funding for the Registration
Review program with a portion
supporting the processing of
applications involving "me-too" or
inert ingredients.
• Enhanced Registration Services Fee:
To accelerate pesticide registration
decision service, entities seeking to
register pesticides for use in the
United States pay a fee at the time
the registration action request is
submitted to EPA.
• Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee:
This fee supports the review and
processing of new chemical pre-
manufacturing notifications
30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
submitted to EPA by the chemical
industry.
• Lead Accreditation and Certification
Fee: This fee is collected from
operators of lead training programs
accredited under the 402/404 rule
and for lead-based paint contractors
certified under this rule.
• Accelerated Chemical Risk
Reduction Fee: Under proposed
TSCA reform legislation, the
Agency envisions collecting fees to
directly support implementation of a
restructured chemicals management
program.
Water Programs
EPA's ecosystem protection programs
encompass a wide range of approaches that
address specific at-risk regional areas and
larger categories of threatened systems, such
as urban waters, estuaries, and wetlands.
Locally generated pollution, combined with
pollution carried by rivers and streams and
through air deposition, can accumulate in
these ecosystems and degrade them over
time. Large water bodies, such as the Gulf
of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the
Chesapeake Bay, have been exposed to
substantial pollution over many years.
Coastal estuaries and wetlands are also
vulnerable. As the populations in coastal
regions grow, the challenges to preserve and
protect these important ecosystems increase.
Working with stakeholders, EPA has
established special programs to protect and
restore these unique resources.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to lead the
implementation of the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative. The Initiative
identifies $300 million for programs and
projects strategically chosen to target the
most significant environmental problems in
the Great Lakes ecosystem. EPA will
collaborate closely with its Federal partners
in the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force
to implement the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative Action Plan to be completed in
February 2010. Pursuant to the Action Plan,
the Initiative will use outcome-oriented
performance goals and measures to direct
Great Lakes protection and restoration
funding to the following areas:
• Toxic Substances and Areas of
Concern
• Invasive Species
• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint
Source
• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and
Restoration
• Accountability, Education,
Monitoring, Evaluation,
Communication, and Partnerships
Funds will be used to strategically
implement both Federal projects and
prioritized/competitive grants. These funds
will not be directed toward water
infrastructure programs that are addressed
under the Clean Water or Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund program. Funding
will be distributed directly by EPA or
through the transfer of funds to other
Federal agencies for subsequent use and
distribution.
In FY 2011, EPA, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and Department of Interior will
implement the Interagency Action Plan to
significantly reduce the harmful effects of
Appalachian surface coal mining operations.
In FY 2011, EPA will review and/or develop
policy, analyze proposed CWA 404 and 402
permits related to mining operations, and
negotiate resolution to outstanding
environmental issues with the Army Corps
of Engineers (ACE) and mine operators.
31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
FY 2011 EPA will continue cooperation
with Federal, state and Tribal governments
and other stakeholders toward achieving the
national goal of no net loss an overall
increase in the acreage and condition of
wetlands. The FY 2011 budget request for
NEPs and coastal watersheds is $27.2
million.
The $63.0 million Chesapeake Bay program
FY 2011 budget request will allow EPA to
implement the President's Executive Order
(E.O.) on Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration, to implement the Chesapeake
Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL),
to assist program partners in their protection
and restoration efforts, to increase the
accountability and transparency of the
program, to continue responding to
oversight reports, and to address other
priority initiatives as they arise. The efforts
initiated in response to the E.O. will help
accelerate implementation of pollution
reduction and aquatic habitat restoration
efforts and ensure that water quality
objectives are achieved as soon as possible.
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the nation's
largest and most complex TMDL, will
necessitate significant scientific and
technical support to states and local
jurisdictions in developing and
implementing the most appropriate
programs for meeting their responsibilities
under the TMDL allocations. EPA has
engaged multiple programs and offices to
provide the regulatory, legal, enforcement,
and technical support necessary to meet
these challenges.
EPA is committed to its ambitious long-term
goals of 100 percent attainment of dissolved
oxygen standards in waters of the
Chesapeake Bay and 185,000 acres of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
Along with its Federal and state partners,
EPA has stated its intention to establish two-
year milestones for all actions needed to
restore water quality, habitats, and fish and
shellfish.
The hypoxic zone that forms in the summer
off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas is
primarily caused by excess nutrients, many
of which originate in middle American
cities, farms and industries. To address this
pressing water quality challenge, in FY
2011, EPA will target the Mississippi River
Basin ($12.4 million for grants; $17 million
total) to demonstrate how effective nutrient
strategies and enhanced partnerships can
yield significant progress in addressing non-
point source driven nutrient pollution. This
initiative supports the Gulf Hypoxia Action
Plan 2008
(http://www.epa.gov/rn sb asin/acti onpl an. ht
m) as well as the regional priorities outlined
in the Gulf of Mexico Alliance's Governor's
Action Plan II, both of which describe a
strategy to reduce, mitigate, and control
hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and
improve water quality in the Mississippi
River Basin.
U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure
Program
The U.S.-Mexico Border region hosts a
growing population of more than 14.6
million people, posing unique drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure
shortages. In many areas along the US-
Mexico Border, no drinking water or
wastewater services exist. In addition, the
rapid increase in population and
industrialization in the border cities has
overwhelmed those areas that have limited
wastewater treatment and drinking water
supply facilities. Untreated sewage pollutes
urban waters that flow north into the U.S.
from Tijuana, Mexicali, and Nogales, into
the Rio Grande or into the Pacific Ocean. In
32
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
FY 2011, EPA sustains its long time
commitment to the water and sanitation
needs of the Border region by investing $10
million in water infrastructure projects. The
Agency will continue to monitor the
program to ensure it is well managed and the
Federal investment yields access to safe
drinking water and wastewater collection
and treatment services for the communities
in both countries.
Healthy Communities: Clean, Green, and
Healthy Schools
This initiative will create a multidisciplinary
Healthy Schools program to support states
and communities in promoting healthier
school environments, increasing technical
support and outreach, and co-leading an
interagency effort to better coordinate and
integrate existing school programs
throughout the Federal government. Under
the Healthy Communities and Ecoystems
goal, EPA would broaden the
implementation of EPA's existing school
environmental health programs including
asthma, indoor air quality, chemical clean
out, green practices (i.e., cleaning products,
energy use, lighting, etc.), and enhanced use
of Integrated Pest Management. The
Agency would also provide technical
assistance for state school environmental
health programs and for implementing
voluntary guidelines for school siting and
construction.
Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE)
CARE is a competitive grant and technical
assistance program that offers an innovative
way for under-served and other communities
to take action to reduce toxic pollution.
Through CARE, communities create local
collaborative partnerships that implement
local solutions to minimize exposure to toxic
pollutants and reduce their release. In FY
2011, EPA is requesting new grant authority
to continue this program beyond the
demonstration phase.
Brownfields
EPA works collaboratively with state,
Tribal, and local partners to promote the
assessment, cleanup, and sustainable reuse
of Brownfields. In FY 2011, an additional
investment of $38 million in Brownfields
work will offer new opportunities to serve
communities acutely impacted by the
economic downturn.
Improving a community's ability to make
decisions that affect its environment is at the
heart of EPA's community-centered work.
EPA shares information and builds
community capacity to consider the many
aspects of planned development or
redevelopment. EPA encourages
community development by providing funds
to support community involvement and
area-wide planning associated with the
assessment and cleanup of Brownfields
sites. Through area-wide planning,
communities would identify how
Brownfield properties can be redeveloped to
meet their needs for jobs, housing,
recreation, and health facilities that would
make a more viable and sustainable
community, as well as identify opportunities
to leverage additional public and private
investment.
In addition, the Smart Growth program
works with stakeholders to create an
improved economic and institutional climate
for Brownfields redevelopment. Addressing
these challenges requires combining
innovative and community-based
approaches with national guidelines and
interagency coordination to achieve results.
33
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Environmental Justice
EPA is committed to identifying and
addressing the health and environmental
burdens faced by communities
disproportionately impacted by pollution.
The Agency is committed to expanding the
reach of environmentalism and giving those
communities a voice in critical decisions
that impact their lives. EPA works to make
environmental justice an integral part of
every program, policy and activity by:
• Engaging communities in EPA
decision-making and enlisting our
partners to meet community needs.
EPA works to "open its doors" to
communities of color, Native
Americans, the poor, and other
historically underrepresented groups.
In addition, EPA actively engages
community groups, other Federal
agencies, states, local governments,
and Tribal governments to recognize,
support and advance environmental
protection and public health for
vulnerable communities.
• Supporting community efforts to
build healthy, sustainable and green
neighborhoods. EPA works to
empower vulnerable communities to
protect themselves from
environmental harms and to build
healthy and sustainable
neighborhoods that enable
disadvantaged groups to participate
in the new green economy. EPA's
efforts to build community capacity
include financial and technical
assistance.
• Applying EPA's regulatory tools to
protect vulnerable communities.
EPA will work to incorporate
environmental justice considerations
in EPA's regulatory and policy
decisions by building a strong
scientific and legal foundation and
engaging the public in EPA's
decision-making processes.
International Activities
Emissions from automobiles on the world's
highways contribute to the same urgent
environmental problem as the degradation of
peat bogs in Indonesia and deforestation in
the Amazon - or booming industrial centers
in China and India. In this global challenge,
every nation's actions create impacts that
extend well beyond our individual borders.
By assisting developing countries to
improve their environmental governance,
manage their natural resources and protect
the health of their citizens, EPA also helps
to protect human health and the environment
intheU.S
To sustain and enhance domestic and
international environmental progress, EPA
enlists the cooperation of other nations and
international organizations to help predict,
understand, and address environmental
problems of mutual concern. Sound
environmental laws, regulations, policies,
and their enforcement and implementation
form an essential foundation for effective
global environmental management.
However, only sustainable economic
solutions in developed and developing
nations will bring real reductions in
worldwide levels of GHG's or other
pollutants of concern.
EPA is committed to reducing the
concentration and emissions of long-lived
climate-warming gases while at the same
time finding ways to assist communities,
especially those most at risk, to adapt to
climate-induced changes, nationally and
internationally. EPA recognizes that
34
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
adaptation cannot be imposed on anyone but
rather, must at its core be a community-led
consultative process that leads to actions that
improve the lives and conditions of affected
communities. On climate mitigation EPA is
also actively working to identify additional
ways to reduce the panoply of short-lived
but potent climate pollutants such as black
carbon soot, tropospheric ozone and
methane, in the interest of trying to mitigate
climate warming most immediately on the
scale of continents and regions, while
continuing to grapple with reducing the
long-lived climate-warming gases.
EPA assists in the coordination of its
international and domestic environmental
policies so that U.S. international
obligations are informed by domestic policy
and expertise, that domestic programs fulfill
international obligations, and that actions by
other countries needed to reach domestic
goals are catalyzed and promoted. .
Consistent with the principles of sustainable
development, protecting the environment
and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border
region are also priorities for Mexico and the
United States under the Border 2012
Agreement. The key to sustaining and
enhancing progress, both domestically and
internationally, is the collaborative efforts of
national, Tribal, state, and local
governments, international organizations,
the private sector, and concerned citizens.
Research
EPA has a responsibility to ensure that
efforts to reduce potential environmental
risks are based on the best available
scientific information. Strong science
allows for identification of the most
important sources of risk to human health
and the environment, as well as the best
means to detect, abate, and avoid possible
environmental problems, and thereby guides
our priorities, policies, and deployment of
resources. To accelerate the pace of
environmental protection for healthy people,
communities, and ecosystems, EPA is
engaging in high-priority, cutting-edge,
multidisciplinary research efforts in areas
related to human health, ecosystems,
mercury, global change, pesticides and
toxics, endocrine disrupters, computational
toxicology, nanotechnology, human health
risk assessment, and homeland security.
The range of research programs and
initiatives will both continue the work of
better understanding the scientific basis of
our environmental and human health
problems as well as advance the design of
sustainable solutions through approaches
such as green chemistry and green
engineering. This research is critical for the
Agency to meet its priorities for assuring the
safety of chemicals, and protecting our
communities.
EPA also conducts research through its
Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program. The STAR program leverages
innovative and cutting-edge research from
top scientists in academia through a
competitive and peer-reviewed grant process
that is integrated with EPA's overall
research efforts. In FY 2011, EPA is
increasing funding for the STAR program
by more than 40 percent.. A significant
portion of STAR supports research under
Goal 4, including the STAR Fellowships
Research program. STAR Fellowships
contribute to one of the Administration's top
priorities in FY 2011, strengthening science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics
education. The Agency proposes $14.0
million for STAR Fellowships in FY 2011,
an increase of more than $6 million, which
will allow EPA to award approximately 240
new fellowships. These fellowships help
ensure the Nation has a diverse scientific
35
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
workforce to meet the challenges of
tomorrow. They also represent an
investment in EPA's future and our ability
to ensure that science remains the backbone
of the Agency for years to come.
As designed, most of the long-standing EPA
research programs investigate statute-
specific environmental research questions,
which have allowed the Agency to address
many important environmental questions.
However, current environmental problems
are more complex and require a new
approach to maximize the EPA research
programs' responsiveness to the rapidly
changing needs of internal and external
partners. To facilitate this evolution, the
Agency is beginning to realign elements of
its research programs to further advance the
Agency's ability to conduct integrated,
multidisciplinary research that translates
scientific and technological advances and
findings to information that directly informs
environmental and public health decisions.
This new, more integrated approach will
enhance our ability to develop high capacity
decision support tools for managing
contaminants across their life cycles.
In FY2011, the Human Health Research
program is working to maintain its success
with characterizing and reducing
uncertainties in exposure and risk
assessment as well as developing improved
tools for predicting the safety of chemicals
and products. The program is orienting this
work toward understanding linkages along
the potential source-exposure-effects-disease
continuum and demonstrating reductions in
human risk. This orientation is designed to
include research that addresses limitations,
gaps, and health-related challenges
articulated in the health chapter of the EPA
Report on the Environment (2007).
Research includes exploration of key events
in pathways of toxicity that can be used to
predict adverse health outcomes,
development of models to predict exposures
in complex community settings and for
susceptible populations, and identification of
viable bio-indicators of exposure,
susceptibility, and effect that could be
applied to evaluate public health impacts at
various geospatial and temporal scales.
Extramural STAR research complements
intramural programs with a strong focus on
children's health, safe schools, and
epidemiologic approaches designed to link
information from exposure and toxicology
studies to human health outcomes. The
Agency is requesting $80.1 million in FY
2011 for Human Health research.
In FY2011, the Agency's Human Health
Risk Assessment (HHRA) program will
continue to implement a process to identify,
compile, characterize, and prioritize new
scientific studies into Integrated Science
Assessments (ISAs) of criteria air pollutants
to assist EPA's air and radiation programs in
determining the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The program
will release external review draft ISAs for
ozone and lead for public comment and
Clean Air Science Advisory Committee
review. In addition, the HHRA research
program will complete multiple human
health assessments of high priority
chemicals for interagency review or external
peer review and post several completed
human health assessments in the integrated
risk information system. In FY 2011, EPA
requests $49.0 million for the Human Health
Risk Assessment program, which includes
$14.4 million and 48 work years to allow the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
program to maintain recent increases in the
annual output of new IRIS assessments and
updates of existing assessments.
In order to assess the benefits of ecosystem
services to human and ecological well-
36
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
being, it is important to define ecosystem
services and their implications, to measure,
monitor and map those services at multiple
scales over time, to develop predictive
models for quantifying the changes in
ecosystem services, and to develop decision
platforms for decision makers to protect and
restore ecosystem services through informed
decision making. The Agency is requesting
a total of $74.0 million in FY 2011 to
support Ecosystems research. The
Ecosystem Services research program has
transitioned to focus on advancing the
science of ecosystems services and its
application to decision making.
Over the last decade, the endocrine disrupter
research program conducted the underlying
research, developed and standardized
protocols, prepared background materials
for transfer to EPA's Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances and the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, briefed Agency advisory
committees, participated on international
committees on harmonization of protocols,
and participated in the validation of 19
different in vitro and/or in vivo assays for
the development and implementation of the
Agency's Endocrine Disrupters Screening
program (EDSP). In FY 2011, EPA is
requesting $17.4 million for the continued
development, evaluation, and application of
innovative tools for endocrine disrupting
chemicals. This includes a significant
increase for the STAR grant program.
In FY 2011, the Computational Toxicology
Research program will play a critical role in
coordinating and implementing research
across the Agency. In addition, greater
emphasis will be placed on using systems
biology based approaches to advance health-
based assessments. In FY 2011, EPA is
requesting $21.9 million, an increase of $1.9
million, to support application of
mathematical and computer models to help
assess chemical risk to human health and the
environment. Funds for next-generation
tools will speed and facilitate
implementation of EPA's Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP).
In FY 2011, continued pesticides and toxics
research will focus on characterizing
toxicity and pharmacokinetic profiles of
perfluoroalkyl chemicals, developing
analytical methods and examining the
potential for selected perfluorinated telomers
to degrade to perfluoroctanoic acid or its
precursors. The program also will conduct
research to develop spatially-explicit
probabilistic models for ecological
assessments. In FY 2011, EPA requests
$27.6 million for continued pesticides and
toxics research to support the scientific
foundation for addressing the risks of
exposure to pesticides and toxic chemicals
in humans and wildlife.
EPA will continue to investigate
nanotechnology's environmental, health,
and safety implications in FY 2011. This
research will examine which processes
govern the environmental fate of
nanomaterials and what data are available
and needed to enable nanomaterial risk
assessment. EPA is requesting $20 million
for the Nanomaterials Research program in
FY2011 to expand the availability of
information to ensure the safe development,
use, recycling and disposal of products that
contain nanoscale materials.
EPA will continue research to better
understand how climate change will affect
the environment, including the
environmental and human health
implications of greenhouse gas adaptation
and mitigation strategies, and the
implications of climate change for the
Agency's fulfillment of its statutory,
37
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
regulatory and programmatic requirements.
The Agency's climate change research also
includes the development of decision
support tools to help resource managers
adapt to changing climate conditions. In FY
2011, EPA requests $22.0 million for the
Global Change Research program to
enhance understanding of the effects of
global change on the environment.
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to
enhance the nation's preparedness, response,
and recovery capabilities for homeland
security incidents through research,
development, and technical support
activities in the areas of decontamination,
water infrastructure protection, and threat
and consequence assessment. The FY 2011
request level for this area is $30.7 million.
38
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental
requirements by enforcing environmental laws and regulations, preventing pollution, and
promoting environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide incentives for
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• Reduce pollution by implementing
an effective enforcement program
that promotes compliance and deters
violations. Use enforcement tools as
part of a coordinated strategy to
achieve goals for national priorities
and programs.
• Enhance public health and
environmental protection and
increase conservation of natural
resources by promoting pollution
prevention and the adoption of other
stewardship practices by companies,
communities, governmental
organizations, and individuals.
• Integrate Environmental Justice into
all aspects of EPA's programs.
Protect human health and the
environment on tribal lands by
assisting federally-recognized tribes
to build environmental management
capacity, assess environmental
conditions and measure results, and
implement environmental programs
in Indian country.
Conduct leading-edge, sound
scientific research on pollution
prevention, new technology
development, and sustainable
systems. The products of this
research will provide critical and key
evidence in informing Agency
polices and decisions and solving
complex multimedia problems for
the Agency and its partners and
stakeholders.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Achieve Environmental Protection
through Improved Compliance
Improve Environmental Performance
through Pollution Prevention and
Other Stewardship Practices
Improve Human Health and the
Environment in Indian Country
Enhance Societies Capacity for
Sustainability through Science and
Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$760,535.1
$516,127.8
$113,990.9
$81,547.0
$48,869.5
3,314.1
FY 2010
Enacted
$781,921.5
$531,383.1
$111,466.7
$80,731.9
$58,339.8
3,366.6
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$824,145.5
$545,315.4
$102,407.9
$124,477.2
$51,945.1
3,329.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$42,224.0
$13,932.3
($9,058.8)
$43,745.3
($6,394.7)
-37.4
39
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Protecting the public and the environment
from risks posed by violations of
environmental regulations is central to the
Environmental Protection Agency's mission
and a priority for this Administration. EPA
ensures that government, business, and the
public comply with federal laws and
regulations by monitoring compliance and
taking enforcement actions that result in
reduced pollution and improved
environmental conditions
Laws and regulations provide the
fundamental building blocks of our
environmental protection system and
establish a level playing field for companies
and citizens alike. Many of America's
historic environmental improvements are
attributable to EPA's strong and aggressive
enforcement program. To help the Agency
meet its mission, EPA will continue to
employ a vigorous civil and criminal
enforcement program to protect the public
from environmental hazards, with a
particular emphasis on the protection of
vulnerable communities.
To accelerate the nation's environmental
protection efforts, EPA works to prevent
pollution at the source, and promotes the
principles of responsible environmental
stewardship, sustainability, and innovation.
EPA works to improve and encourage
pollution prevention as the first choice for
environmental protection, striving for
sustainable practices and helping businesses
and communities move beyond compliance
and become partners in protecting natural
resources, managing materials more wisely,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
improving the environment and public
health. EPA also works with other nations
as they develop their own environmental
protection programs, leading to lower levels
of pollution in the United States and
worldwide.
In 1984, EPA adopted a formal Indian
Policy. The Agency affirms that Policy in
recognition that the United States has a
unique legal relationship with tribal
governments based on the Constitution,
treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and
court decisions. This relationship includes
recognition of the rights of tribes - as
sovereign governments - to act with self-
determination. Ensuring compliance and
promoting environmental stewardship are
important components of the Agency's
efforts to protect human health and the
environment in Indian Country. Tribes, the
first stewards of America's environment,
provide an invaluable perspective on
environmental protection that benefits and
strengthens the Agency's stewardship. In FY
2011, EPA is requesting an increase in
support to tribal programs to address critical
needs in assessing environmental conditions
on their lands and building environmental
programs tailored to their needs as well as a
new multi-media grant to allow them to
implement their highest priority programs.
EPA also will strengthen the scientific
evidence and research supporting
environmental policies and decisions on
compliance, pollution prevention, and
environmental stewardship.
High Priority Performance Goal
As part of the Administration's emphasis on
High Priority Performance Goals, EPA will
take actions over the next two years to
improve enforcement results. Work under
this goal supports one of the Agency's FY
2011 High Priority Performance Goals,
specifically:
II. Clean water is essential for our
quality of life and the health of our
communities. EPA will take actions over
the next two years to improve water
quality.
By the end of fiscal year 2011, increase
the percent of federal CWA discharge
permit enforcement actions that reduce
40
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
pollutant discharges into impaired
waterways from 20% (FY 2009
baseline) to 25% and promote
transparency and right-to-know by
posting results and analysis on the web.
Improving Compliance
Environmental Laws
with
To be effective, EPA requires a strong
enforcement and compliance program, one
which: identifies and reduces
noncompliance problems, responds to
complaints from the public, strives to secure
a level economic playing field for law-
abiding companies, and deters future
violations. In order to meet the Agency's
goals, the program employs an integrated,
common-sense approach to problem-solving
and decision-making. An appropriate mix
of data collection and analysis, compliance
monitoring, assistance and incentives, civil
and criminal enforcement efforts, and
innovative problem-solving approaches
address significant environmental issues and
achieve environmentally beneficial
outcomes. The total proposed FY 2011
budget to improve compliance with
environmental laws is $545.5 million.
EPA's national enforcement and compliance
assurance program is responsible for
maximizing compliance with 12
environmental statutes, 28 distinct programs
under those statutes, and dozens of
regulatory requirements under those
programs which apply in various
combinations to a universe of approximately
40 million regulated Federal and private
entities. In addition, as a means for focusing
its efforts, the enforcement program
identifies, in three year cycles, specific
environmental risks and noncompliance
patterns as national priorities. The
enforcement program coordinates the
selection of these priorities with programs
and regions within EPA, and with states,
local agencies, and tribes, in addition to
soliciting public comment.
In FY 2011, the Agency proposes to merge
the Compliance Assistance and Compliance
Incentives activities into the Civil
Enforcement program, with a small
component of compliance assistance moving
into the Compliance Monitoring program.
Under the current structure, individual
enforcement tools are emphasized. The new
model will allow us to focus on outcomes,
tailoring our approach to address the unique
characteristics and requirements of
individual cases. This new model also will
allow us to better integrate our efforts with
the states, refining our role as state
capabilities evolve to best support the
national enforcement program. Merging the
Compliance Assistance and Incentives
programs into the enforcement program
allows the Agency to pursue the most
effective approach and communicates our
commitment to vigorous enforcement,
making the threat of Federal enforcement
more credible.
The Agency's Compliance Monitoring
program reviews and evaluates the activities
of the regulated community to determine
compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, permit conditions, and
settlement agreements as well as to
determine whether conditions presenting
imminent and substantial endangerment
exist. FY 2011 Compliance Monitoring
activities will be both environmental media-
and sector-based. EPA's media-based
inspections complement those performed by
states and tribes, and are a key part of our
strategy for meeting the long-term and
annual goals established for the air, water,
pesticides, toxic substances, and hazardous
waste programs. In FY 2011 the Compliance
Monitoring Program will increase to include
work previously done under the Compliance
Assistance program, primarily training
activities. In FY 2011, the Compliance
Monitoring program's proposed budget is
$111.7 million.
41
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
The Civil Enforcement program's
overarching goal is to protect human health
and the environment, targeting enforcement
actions according to the degree of health and
environmental risk in order to promote
compliance with Federal environmental
statutes and regulations. The program
collaborates with the Department of Justice,
states, local agencies, and tribal
governments to ensure consistent and fair
enforcement of all environmental laws and
regulations. The program seeks to protect
public health and the environment and
ensure a level playing field by strengthening
our partnership with our co-implementers in
the states, encouraging regulated entities to
rapidly correct their own violations,
ensuring that violators do not realize an
economic benefit from noncompliance, and
pursuing vigorous enforcement to deter
future violations.
The Civil Enforcement program develops,
litigates, and settles administrative and civil
judicial cases against serious violators of
environmental laws. In FY 2011 the Civil
Enforcement program will expand to include
work previously supported by the
Compliance Incentives and Compliance
Assistance programs. In FY 2009, EPA
achieved commitments to invest more than
$5 billion in future pollution controls and
pollution reduction commitments totaling
nearly 600 million pounds. Over the last
nine years, EPA's long-term environmental
results achieved through enforcement
settlements in FY 2001-2009 total an
estimated 9.8 billion pounds of pollution
reduced.
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to
aggressively implement its Civil
Enforcement program, including the
national compliance and enforcement
priorities established for FY 2011-2013.
Existing national priorities address problems
that remain complex and challenging,
including Clean Water Act "Wet Weather"
discharges, violations of the Clean Air Act
New Source Review/Prevention of
Significant Deterioration requirements and
Air Toxics regulations, and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
violations at mineral processing facilities.
Information on priorities, regulatory
requirements, enforcement alerts, and EPA
results will be made available to the public
and the regulated community through web-
based sites. The Civil Enforcement program
also will support the Environmental Justice
program and the Administrator's priority to
address pollution impacting vulnerable
populations. The Civil Enforcement
program will focus enforcement actions on
facilities that have repeatedly violated
environmental laws in communities that
may be disproportionately exposed to risks
and harms from the environment, including
minority and/or low-income areas. In
addition, the Civil Enforcement program
will help to implement the President's
directive to develop and implement a
compliance and enforcement strategy for the
Chesapeake Bay; activities will include
enhanced enforcement to ensure existing
regulations are complied with consistently
and in a timely manner. In FY 2011, the
Civil Enforcement program's proposed
budget is $187.1 million.
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program
investigates and helps prosecute
environmental violations which seriously
threaten public health and the environment
and which involve intentional, deliberate, or
criminal behavior on the part of the violator.
The Criminal Enforcement program deters
violations of environmental laws and
regulations by demonstrating that the
regulated community will be held
accountable, through jail sentences and
criminal fines, for such violations. Bringing
criminal cases sends a strong deterrence
message for potential violators, enhancing
aggregate compliance with laws and
regulations and protecting our communities.
42
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
In FY 2011, the Criminal Enforcement
program will continue to expand its
identification and investigation of cases with
significant environmental, human health,
and deterrence impact while balancing its
overall case load of cases across all
pollution statutes. By the end of FY 2010,
the program will have completed its three-
year hiring strategy, raising the number of
special agents to 200. With these resources,
the program will expand its capacity in
supporting efforts to address complex
environmental cases in FY 2011. The
Criminal Enforcement program's proposed
budget is $59.5 million.
EPA fulfills its uniquely Federal
responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act by
reviewing and commenting on other Federal
agency Environmental Impact Statements
(EISs), and making the comments available
to the public. NEPA requires that Federal
agencies prepare and submit EISs to identify
potential environmental consequences of
major proposed activities, and develop plans
to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts.
EPA will continue to work with other
Federal agencies to streamline and to
improve their NEPA processes. Work will
focus on a number of key areas such as
review and comment on mining, on-shore
and off-shore liquid natural gas facilities,
coal bed methane development and other
energy-related projects. EPA will also be
conducting work as part of the Appalachian
Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan. In
FY 2011, the NEPA program's proposed
budget is $18.5 million.
Improving Environmental Performance
through Pollution Prevention, Stewardship
and Innovation
In FY 2011, EPA is reorienting it innovation
programs to accomplish a new
Administration priority—environmental
stewardship strategies that promote a green,
revitalized, sustainable economy. This will
build from work done in previous years, and
actively engage all parts of society
(business, communities, government and
individuals) in actions to promote actions
that improve environmental quality and
achieve sustainable results. EPA will draw
on its innovation and cross media experience
to provide strategic focus analysis and
coordination across the Agency, with States
and with other Federal agencies.
In FY 2011, with a request of $15.4 million,
EPA's Pollution Prevention (P2) program
will provide technical assistance,
information and supporting assessments to
encourage the use of greener chemicals,
technologies, processes, and products
through eight principal programs:
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing,
Design for the Environment, Green
Suppliers Network, Regional Grants,
Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange,
Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare,
Green Chemistry and Green Engineering. In
addition, EPA's P2 program will continue to
support the new Economy, Energy and
Environment (E3) partnership among federal
agencies, local governments and
manufacturers to promote energy efficiency,
job creation and environmental
improvement Through these efforts, EPA
will encourage government and business to
adopt source reduction practices that can
help to prevent pollution and avoid resulting
health and environmental impacts. P2
grants to states and tribes enable them to
provide technical assistance, education, and
outreach to assist businesses.
In FY 2011, through the Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing Program (EPP), the
Agency will be a leader in implementing the
Federal Electronics Challenge, a partnership
that encourages federal agencies to purchase
and properly utilize cleaner and safer
electronic products. In addition, EPA's
Green Suppliers Network Program will
continue to work with large manufacturers
43
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
to engage their small and medium-sized
suppliers in low-cost technical reviews that
focus on process improvements and waste
reduction. Through the Design for the
Environment (DfE) and Green Chemistry
programs, EPA will remain active in
promoting and recognizing the use of
greener chemicals, synthetic pathways, and
formulations. The DfE Program helped
companies reduce the use of more than 460
million pounds of hazardous materials in
2008 alone.
In FY 2011, through the National
Partnership for Environmental Priorities
(NPEP), the Agency will continue to reduce
priority chemicals in wastes. As of August
2009, the NPEP program has obtained
industry commitments for over eight million
pounds of additional chemical reductions
though 2014. Reductions will be achieved
by recycling and/or source reduction made
possible by safer chemical substitutes.
In FY 2011, EPA will focus its regulatory
innovation work to accomplish a new
Administration priority to promote greener,
revitalized, sustainable communities and
regional and national communities. This
approach will help the Agency meet its core
mission goals more efficiently by providing
more tools and resources to communities
and by creating stronger, more resilient
communities. This area of work recognizes
the importance of coordinating and
integrating Agency strategies and address
emerging cross-cutting issues to support
greener national and local economies.
Promoting a Greener Economy
During FY 2011, EPA will realign and build
upon its prior innovation and cross-media
experience with a strategic focus on efforts
that help to advance the goal of a greener
economy. EPA also is analyzing and
promoting new strategies for: energy and
natural resource use, materials management,
increased sustainability in goods and
services, and financial transparency on
environmental issues. These new efforts are
designed to maximize the longer-term
benefits of near-term investments in a
cleaner, healthier environment and
economy.
Program Evaluation
EPA uses program evaluation and
performance analysis to support evidence-
based decisions about which programs
protect human health and the environment in
the most efficient and the most cost-
effective ways. This is particularly important
in an era of fiscal responsibility that calls for
greater Federal accountability and public
transparency of our programs. EPA
acknowledges that rigorous, independent
empirical evidence plays an important role
in effective environmental policy and EPA
is committed to publicly disseminating
complete evaluation findings. In FY 2011,
EPA will build evaluation capacity, support
a performance management training regimen
(online and classroom) which enables EPA
staff and managers to use essential tools
such as logic modeling and performance
measurement, and also support outcomes
and impact measurement projects in
collaboration with states and other co-
regulators. EPA will make available to the
public data that enable external evaluators to
assess programs.
Improve Human Health and the
Environment in Indian Country
The Administrator's priority on strong
partnerships recognizes that Tribes bear
important responsibilities for the day-to-day
mission of environmental protection. To
help address this challenge, in FY 2011,
EPA is increasing its support of General
Assistance Program (GAP) grants, as well as
introducing a new focused multi-media
Tribal grant to support implementation
efforts.
44
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Since adopting the EPA Indian Policy in
1984, EPA has worked with Federally-
recognized tribes on a government-to-
government basis, in recognition of the
Federal government's trust responsibility to
Federally-recognized tribes. Under Federal
environmental statutes, the Agency is
responsible for protecting human health and
the environment in Indian country. EPA's
American Indian Environmental Office
(ALEO) leads an Agency wide effort to work
with tribes, Alaska Native Villages, and
inter-tribal consortia to fulfill this
responsibility. EPA's strategy for achieving
this objective has three major components:
Establish an Environmental Presence
in Indian Country: The Agency will
continue to provide funding through the
Indian General Assistance Program so
each federally-recognized tribe can
establish an environmental presence.
Provide Access to Environmental
Information: EPA will provide the
information tribes need to meet EPA and
Tribal environmental priorities, as well
as characterize the environmental and
public health improvements that result
from joint actions.
Implementation of Environmental
Goals: The Agency will provide
opportunities for the implementation of
Tribal environmental programs by tribes,
or directly by EPA, as necessary.
In FY 2011, EPA will provide $71.4 million
in GAP grants (an increase of $8.5 million)
to help build Tribal environmental capacity
to assess environmental conditions, utilize
available information, and build an
environmental program tailored to tribes'
needs. The grants will develop
environmental education and outreach
programs, develop and implement integrated
solid waste management plans, and alert
EPA to serious conditions that pose
immediate public health and ecological
threats.
Additionally, the Agency is requesting a
new focused $30 million grant program to
support the multi-media Tribal
implementation program. These grants are
tailored to address an individual tribe's most
serious environmental needs through the
implementation of Federal environmental
programs, and will build upon the
environmental capacity developed under the
GAP. This new grant will advance
negotiated environmental plans, measures
and results as agreed upon by tribes and
EPA, ensuring that tribal environmental
priorities are addressed to the fullest extent
possible.
Enhancing Capacity for Sustainability
through Science and Research
The Agency proposes $51.4 million in FY
2011 to enhance capacity for sustainability
through science and research. With the
Administrator's focus on a strong scientific
foundation, the research tools and
technologies to monitor, prevent, control,
and clean up pollution are critical building
blocks in our decision-making. EPA's
Science and Technology for Sustainability
(STS) research program, in accordance with
the Agency's policy of scientific integrity,13
provides the scientific foundation for the
Agency's actions for the integrated
management of air, water, and land
resources, as well as changes in traditional
methods of creating and distributing goods
and services. Since the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990, the Agency has increasingly
focused on preventative and sustainable
approaches to health and environmental
problems. EPA's efforts in this area support
research specifically designed to address the
issue of advancing sustainability goals.
13 For more information, see
http://www.whitehouse.gov/thej3ressj3fficeMemorandum
-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-
9-09A
45
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
The range of research programs and
initiatives will both continue the work of
better understanding the scientific basis of
our environmental and human health
problems as well as advance the design of
sustainable solutions through approaches
such as green chemistry and green
engineering.
In FY 2011, EPA will initiate a new
research effort in design methods and
management strategies for electronic devices
to mitigate human exposure and
environmental releases from the recycling
and disposal of electronic waste. In
addition, EPA will sustain the biofuels
research initiative to help decision-makers
better understand the risk tradeoffs
associated with biofuels production and use.
The work will inform the life-cycle analysis
and mandatory reporting requirements
contained in the Energy Independence and
Security Act. The STS research program
also will continue efforts aimed at creating a
suite of science-based sustainability metrics
that are readily understood by the public.
This work will address both large and small
systems, including the implementation and
tracking of sustainability metrics across the
biofuels system.
46
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by
enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
Objective - 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air: Through 2014, working with partners, protect human health and the environment by attaining and
maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Reduce
Criteria
Pollutants and
Regional Haze
Performance Measures
(PM M9) Cumulative percent reduction in population-
weighted ambient concentration of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003 baseline.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
8
Actual
9
FY 2009
Target
10
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
11
FY 2011
Target
12
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: The ozone concentration measure reflects improvements (reductions) in ambient ozone concentrations across all monitored counties, weighted by
the populations in those areas. To calculate the weighting, pollutant concentrations in monitored counties are multiplied by the associated county populations. The units for
this measure are therefore, "million people parts per billion." The 2003 baseline is 15,972 million people-ppb.
(PMM91) Cumulative percent reduction in population-
weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate
matter (PM-2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003
baseline.
4
13
5
Data Avail
2010
6
6
Percent
Additional Information: The PM 2.5 concentration reduction annual measure reflects improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine particulate matter
PM2.5 pollution across all monitored counties, weighted by the populations in those areas. To calculate this weighting, pollutant concentrations in monitored counties are
multiplied by the associated county populations. Therefore, the units for this measure are "million people micrograms per cubic meter" (million people ug/m3.). The 2003
baseline is 2,581 people micograms per cubic meter.
(PMM92) Cumulative percent reduction in the number
of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100
since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value.
25
52
29
Data Avail
2010
33
37
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is zero.
(PMM94) Percent of major NSR permits issued within
one year of receiving a complete permit application.
78
79
78
Data Avail
2010
78
78
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 61 percent.
47
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
(PMM95) Percent of significant Title V operating
permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a
complete permit application.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
97
Actual
85
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
100
FY 2011
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 100 percent.
(PMM96) Percent of new Title V operating permits
issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit
application.
91
72
95
Data Avail
2010
99
99
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 75 percent.
(PMMM9) Cumulative percent reduction in the average
number of days during the ozone season that the ozone
standard is exceeded in non-attainment areas, weighted
by population.
19
37
23
Data Avail
2010
26
29
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is zero.
(PMN35) Limit the increase of CO emissions (in tons)
from mobile sources compared to a 2000 baseline.
1.35M
1.35M
1.52M
Data Avail
2010
1.69M
1.86M
Tons
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for CO from mobile sources was 79.2M.
(PMO33) Millions of Tons of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) Reduced since 2000 from Mobile
Sources
1.37M
1.37M
1.54M
Data Avail
2010
1.71 M
1.88M
Tons
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for VOC emissions from mobile sources is
V.TMtons.
(PMO34) Millions of Tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Reduced since 2000 Reduced from Mobile Sources
2.71 M
2.71 M
3.05 M
Data Avail
2010
3.39 M
3.73 M
Tons
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for NOx emissions from mobile sources is
ll.SMtons.
(PMP33) Tons of PM-10 Reduced since 2000 from
Mobile Sources
99,458
99,458
111,890
Data Avail
2010
124,322
136,755
Tons
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM-10 emissions from mobile sources is
61 3,000 tons.
(PMP34) Tons of PM-2.5 Reduced since 2000 from
97,947
97,497
110,190
Data Avail
122,434
134,677
Tons
48
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(2) Reduce Air
Toxics
(3) Reduce the
Adverse
Effects of
Acid
Deposition
Performance Measures
Mobile Sources
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
2010
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM-10 emissions from mobile sources is
510,552 tons.
(PM 001) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air
toxics from 1993 baseline.
35
Data Avail
2011
36
Data Avail
2011
36
35
Percent
Additional Information: The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will also utilize the National Emissions Inventory (NET) for air toxics along with the Agency's
compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an annual basis. The baseline, developed in 1993, is
7.24 million tons. This value represents the total tons of toxics (i.e., unweighted). When the cancer and noncancer weighted emissions are calculated, the weighted
emissions are normalized so that the baseline for those is also 7.24 million tons/year in the baseline year. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years.
Intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) are interpolated utilizing inventory projection models. An example would be, when the 2008 inventory is
completed in 201 1, interpolations for 2009 and 2010 will then become available. As new inventories are completed and improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or
total tons of air toxics) may also be adjusted.
(PM 002) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air
toxics from 1993 baseline.
59
Data Avail
2011
59
Data Avail
2011
59
59
Percent
Additional Information: The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will also utilize the National Emissions Inventory (NET) for air toxics along with the Agency's
compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an annual basis. The baseline, developed in 1993, is
7.24 million tons. This value represents the total tons of toxics (i.e., unweighted). When the cancer and noncancer weighted emissions are calculated, the weighted
emissions are normalized so that the baseline for those is also 7.24 million tons/year in the baseline year. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years.
Intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) are interpolated utilizing inventory projection models. An example would be, when the 2008 inventory is
completed in 201 1, interpolations for 2009 and 2010 will then become available. As new inventories are completed and improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or
total tons of air toxics) may also be adjusted.
(PMA01) Tons of sulfur dioxide emissions from electric
power generation sources
8,000,000
9,800,000
8,000,000
Data Avail
2010
8,450,000
8,450,000
Tons Reduced
Additional Information: The baseline year is 1 980. The 1 980 SO2 emissions inventory totals 1 7.4 million tons for electric utility sources. This inventory was developed by
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) and is used as the basis for reductions in Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments. This data is also contained
in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Report. Statutory SO2 emissions cap for year 2010 and later is at 8.95 million tons, approximately 8.5 million tons
below 1980 emissions level. "Allowable SO2 emission level" consists of allowance allocations granted to sources each year under several provisions of the Act and
additional allowances carried over, or banked, from previous years.
49
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Objective - 2 - Healthier Indoor Air Through 2014, working with partners, reduce human health risks by reducing exposure to indoor air
contaminants through the promotion of voluntary actions by the public.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Reduce
Exposure to
Radon
(2) Reduce
Exposure to
Asthma
Triggers
(3) Reduce
Exposure to
Indoor Air
Contaminants
in Schools
Performance Measures
(PM R50) Cumulative number of existing homes with
an operating mitigation system (HOMS) compared to
the estimated number of homes at or above EPA's
4pCi/L action level.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
11.1
Actual
11.0
FY 2009
Target
11.5
Actual
12.0
FY 2010
Target
12.0
FY 2011
Target
12.5
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: The 2003 baseline is 6.9 percent.
(PMR51) Total number of all new single-family homes
(SFH) built in high radon potential areas (zone 1 )
compared to new homes in zone 1 built with mitigation-
ready systems (radon-reducing features).
30.0
31.0
31.5
Data Avail
2010
33.0
34.5
Percent
Additional Information: The 2003 baseline is 21 percent.
(PMR16) Percent of public that is aware of the asthma
program's media campaign.
>20
Data Not
Avail
>20
No Data
Avail
>30
>30
Percent
Additional Information: Public awareness is measured prior to the launch of a new wave of the campaign. No new advertising was launched in 2007 or 2008.
(PMR1 7) Additional health care professionals trained
annually by EPA and its partner on the environmental
management of asthma triggers.
2,000
4,558
2,000
4,614
2,000
2,000
Professionals
Additional Information: In the 20003 baseline year, 2,360 health care professionals were trained.
(PMR22) Estimated annual number of schools
establishing indoor air quality programs based on EPA's
Tools for Schools guidance.
1,100
1,614
1,000
2,062
1,000
1,000
Schools
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 3,200.
50
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Objective - 3 - Protect the Ozone Layer Through 2014, continue efforts to restore the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and protect the public
from the harmful effects of UV radiation.
Sub-
Objective
(2) Reduce
Emissions of
Ozone-
Depleting
Substances
Performance Measures
(PM SOI) Remaining US Consumption of Class II ODS,
measured in tons of Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
<9,900
Actual
5,667
FY 2009
Target
<9,900
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
<3,811
FY 2011
Target
<3,811
Unit
ODP tons
Additional Information: The base of comparison for assessing progress on the 2005 annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of class II HCFCs as set by
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) is weighted based on the damage it does to the stratospheric ozone - this is its ozone-
depletion potential (ODP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic ODP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the
OOP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import minus export. The 1989 HCFC baseline for the U.S. was 15,240 ODP.
Objective - 4 - Radiation: Through 2014, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize
impacts to human health and the environment should unwanted releases occur.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Monitor
the
Environment
for Radiation
Performance Measures
(PM R34) Percentage of most populous US cities with a
RadNet ambient radiation air monitoring system, which
will provide data to assist in protective action
determinations.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
85
Actual
92
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
95
FY 2011
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline is 55 percent for most populous cities.
(PMR36) Average time before availability of quality
assured ambient radiation air monitoring data during an
emergency.
1.0
0.80
0.8
Data Avail
2010
0.7
0.7
Days
Additional Information: The baseline is 2. 5 days for average time before availability of quality assured air monitoring data during an emergency.
(PMR37) Time to approve site changes affecting waste
characterization at DOE waste generator sites to ensure
safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP.
46
50
53
Data Avail
2010
53
53
Days
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is zero.
51
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(2) Prepare for
and Respond
to
Radiological
Emergencies
Performance Measures
(PMR35) Level of readiness of radiation program
personnel and assets to support federal radiological
emergency response and recovery operations.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
85
Actual
87
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
90
FY 2011
Target
90
Unit
Days
Additional Information: The baseline for the emergency response program readiness was 50 percent.
(PMR39) Level of readiness of national environmental
radiological laboratory capacity (measured as percentage
of laboratories adhering to EPA quality criteria for
emergency response and recovery decisions.
35
37
50
Data Avail
2010
60
70
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2005 is zero.
Objective - 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Through 2014, continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary climate
protection programs that accelerate the adoption of cost-effective greenhouse gas reducing technologies and practices.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Reduce
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Performance Measures
(PM G02) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions in the buildings
sector.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
32.4
Actual
38.4
FY 2009
Target
35.5
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
39.0
FY 2011
Target
42.2
Unit
MMTCE
Additional Information: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S. climate change
programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts
developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's
Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming
potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimate ActionReport.html), which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update.
(PMG06) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions in the
transportation sector.
1.5
1.60
2.6
Data Avail
2010
4.3
7.2
MMTCE
52
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Additional Information: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S. climate change
programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts
developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's
Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming
potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimate ActionReport.html), which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update.
(PMG16) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions in the industry
sector.
67.7
79.0
72.9
Data Avail
2010
82.9
92.8
MMCTE
Additional Information: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S. climate change
programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts
developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's
Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming
potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimate ActionReport.html), which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update.
Objective - 6 - Enhance Science and Research: Through 2014, provide sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting
leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of human health and environmental outcomes.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Clean Air
Research
Performance Measures
(PM H05) Percentage of Clean Air publications rated as
highly cited publications.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2009
Target
33.9
Actual
34.1
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2011
Target
34.9
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors. Note that prior to FY 2007 the data points for this measure were derived using a bibliometric analysis
methodology that evaluated publications produced on a yearly basis, rather than produced in a ten-year window. In F Y 2006, ORD and OMB agreed to 1 ) use a ten-year
window as a consistent methodology across ORD and 2) assess the measure biannually.
(PMH35) Percent planned actions accomplished toward
the long-term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science
that supports standard setting and air quality
management decisions. (Research)
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
53
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Beginning in FY 2008, this measure will track the program's success in completing its planned outputs on time. Prior to FY 2008, the measure
tracked success in completing both planned outputs and planned actions in response to independent review recommendations.
54
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and
recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.
Objective - 1 - Protect Human Health: Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting
source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Water Safe
to Drink
Performance Measures
(PM E) Percent of the population in Indian country
served by community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
87
Actual
83
FY 2009
Target
87
Actual
81.2
FY 2010
Target
87
FY 2011
Target
87
Unit
Percent Population
Additional Information: In 2005, 86 percent of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water standards.
(PMaa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-
based drinking water standards through approaches
including effective treatment & source water protection.
90
92
90
92.1
90*
91*
Percent Population
Additional Information: In 2005, 89 percent of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water standards.
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PMapc) Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF.
86
90
89
92
86*
89*
Rate
Additional Information: In 2005, the fund utilization rate for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund was 85 percent. *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PMapd) Number of additional projects initiating
operations.
440
445
445
480
450
* ARRA: 100
500
* ARRA: 200
Projects
Additional Information: In 2005, 2,61 1 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund projects initiated operations, (cumulative) *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Target.
(PMaph) Percent of community water systems that have
undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years
(five years for outstanding performance.)
95
87
95
QQ
00
95
95
Percent CWSs
Additional Information: In 2007, 92 percent of community water systems had undergone a sanitary survey. Prior to FY 2007, this measure tracked states rather than
community water systems, in compliance with this regulation.
(PMapi) Percent of identified Class V motor vehicle
76
Percent Wells
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
55
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
waste disposal wells and other high priority Class V
wells closed or permitted.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: "Sensitive ground water protection areas" are defined by the UIC primacy program director, but at a minimum must include groundwater-based
community water system source water areas. In 2005, 72 percent Class V wells were closed or permitted.
(PMapm) Percent of community water systems that
meet all applicable health-based standards through
approaches that include effective treatment and source
water protection.
89.5
89
90
89.1
90
90
Percent Systems
Additional Information: In 2005, 89 percent of community water systems meet all applicable health based drinking water standards.
(PMapn) Percent of data for violations of health-based
standards at public water systems that are accurate and
complete in SDWIS/FED for all MCL and TT rules.
90
Percent data
Additional Information: In 2003, 65 percent of data for violations of health based standards at public water systems that are accurate and complete in SDWIS/FED for all
MCL and TT rules.
(PMapo) Percent of deep injection wells that are used to
inject industrial, municipal, or hazardous waste (Class I)
that lose mechanical integrity and are returned to
compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the
potential to endanger underground sources of drinking
water.
92
92
Percent Wells
Additional Information: In 2009, 1 00 percent of Class I wells that lost mechanical integrity were returned to compliance within 1 80 days.
(PMapp) Percent of deep injection wells that are used to
enhance oil/natural gas recovery or for the injection of
other (Class II) fluids associated with oil and natural gas
production that have lost mechanical integrity and are
returned to compliance within 180 days thereby
reducing the potential to endanger underground sources
of drinking water.
89
89
Percent Wells
Additional Information: In 2009, 90 percent of Class II wells that lost mechanical integrity were returned to compliance within 1 80 days.
(PMapq) Percent of deep injection wells that are used
for salt solution mining (Class III) that lose mechanical
integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days
thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground
93
93
Percent Wells
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
56
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(2) Fish and
Shellfish Safe
to Eat
(3) Water Safe
for Swimming
Performance Measures
sources of drinking water.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: In 2009, 1 00 percent of Class III wells that lost mechanical integrity were returned to compliance within 1 80 days.
(PMdw2) Percent of person months during which
community water systems provide drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based standards.
95
97
95
97.2
95
95
Percent Months
Additional Information: In 2005, community water systems provided drinking water that met all applicable health based drinking water standards during 95 percent of
"person months."
(PMdw4) Percent of community water systems for
which minimized risk to public health through source
water protection is achieved.
30
32
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
50
Percent CWSs
Additional Information: In 2005, 20 percent of community water systems had minimized risk to public health through source water protection.
(PMdwS) Percent of homes on tribal lands lacking
access to safe drinking water.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
8
Households
Additional Information: In 2005, 1 1 percent of homes on tribal lands lacked access to safe drinking water.
(PMfsl) Percent of women of childbearing age having
mercury levels in blood above the level of concern.
5.5
Data Avail
2013
5.2
Data Avail
2013
5.1
4.9
Percent Women
Additional Information: Baseline is 5.7 percent published by CDC in 2005 (based on data collected in 2002-3) Universe is population of women of childbearing age.
(PMssl) Number of waterborne disease outbreaks
attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact
with coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a 5-
year average.
2
0
2
Data Avail
2012
2
2
Outbreaks
Additional Information: Very few outbreaks have been reported over the ten years of data reviewed in consideration of a baseline for this measure. In 2005, two
waterborne diseases were reported. Universe is not applicable to this baseline.
(PM ss2) Percent of days of beach season that coastal
and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach
safety programs are open and safe for swimming.
92.6
95
93
95
95
95
Percent Days/Season
Additional Information: In 2005, beaches were open 96 percent of the 743,036 days of the beach season (i.e., beach season days are equal to 4,025 beaches multiplied by
variable number of days of beach season at each beach).
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
57
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Objective - 2 - Protect Water Quality: Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean
waters.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Improve
Water Quality
on a
Watershed
Basis
Performance Measures
(PM L) Number of waterbody segments identified by
States in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water
quality standards are now fully attained (cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
1,550
Actual
2,165
FY 2009
Target
2,270
Actual
2,505
FY 2010
Target
2,809*
FY 2011
Target
2,910*
Unit
Segments
Additional Information: 2002 baseline: 39,798 water bodies identified by states and tribes as not meeting water quality standards. Water bodies where mercury is among
multiple pollutants causing impairment may be counted toward this target when all pollutants but mercury attain standards, but must be identified as still needing
restoration for mercury; 1 ,703 impaired water bodies are impaired by multiple pollutants including mercury, and 6,501 are impaired by mercury alone. *The program
which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PMbpa) CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level
($billions/yr)
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
3.4
Dollars (billion)/Year
Additional Information: In 2001, $3.9 billion of Clean Water SRF dollars were at the long term revolving level.
(PMbpb) Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
93.5
98
94.5
98
92*
94*
Percent Rate
Additional Information: In 2002 and 9 1 percent is used as the baseline for this measure. It was calculated using data collected annually from all 5 1 state CWSRF programs
(50 states and Puerto Rico). *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from
base funding plus ARRA.
(PMbpc) Percent of all major publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted
wastewater discharge standards
86
86
86
Data Avail
5/2010
86*
86*
Percent POTWs
Additional Information: The most recent baseline is 2005, at 86 percent. It is calculated by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) using data
collected in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) on major publicly-owned treatment works. *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The
FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM bpf) Estimated annual reduction in millions of
pounds of phosphorus from nonpoint sources to
waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only)
4.5
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 558,000 Ibs of]
(PMbpg) Estimated additional reduction in million
pounds of nitrogen from nonpoint sources to
waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only)
8.5
3.50
4.5
Data Avail
2010
4.5
4.5
Pounds (million)
shosphorus from nonpoint sources.
11.30
8.5
Data Avail
2010
8.5
8.5
Pounds (million)
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 3.7 million Ibs of nitrogen from nonpoint sources.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
58
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
(PMbph) Estimated additional reduction in thousands of
tons of sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies.
(Section 319 funded projects only)
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
700,000
Actual
2,100,000
FY 2009
Target
700,000
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
700,000
FY 2011
Target
700,000
Unit
Tons (thousand)
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 1 .68 million tons of sediment from nonpoint sources.
(PM bpk) Number of TMDLs that are established by
States and approved by EPA [State TMDL] on schedule
consistent with national policy (cumulative). [A TMDL
is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to
obtain water quality standards. The terms "approved"
and "established" refer to the completion and approval
of the TMDL itself]
28,527
30,658
33,540
36,487
39,101
41,611
TMDLs
Additional Information: Cumulatively, more than 30,000 state TMDLs were completed through FY 2008. A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to
attain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.
(PMbpl) Percent of high priority state NPDES permits
that are issued in the fiscal year.
95
120
95
147
95
95
Percent Permits
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states as environmentally or programmatically significant. The
annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of these permits that will be issued in the current fiscal year. In 2005, 104 percent of the designated priority
permits were issued in the fiscal year.
(PMbpn) Percent of major dischargers in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal
year.
22.5
23.90
22.5
Data Avail
2010
22.5
22.5f
Percent Dischargers
Additional Information: The universe consists of all major NPDES permitted facilities. The data is pulled from PCS and ICIS databases. The SNC rates are calculated on a
three year rolling average and reflect the percentage of majors that have been in SNC for one or more quarters within the particular fiscal year. In 2005, 19.7 percent of
major facilities were in Significant Noncompliance.
f EPA is directing additional attention to Clean Water Act enforcement in FY201 1 to target pollutant sources posing the biggest threats to water quality while intensifying
vigorous civil and criminal enforcement against traditional end-of-pipe pollution. We are also in the process of redesigning our enforcement approach that will look
beyond majors to other important sources. As we consider a broader range of sources, the definition of SNC may change which may change our measures and targets
accordingly.
(PMbpp) Percent of submissions of new or revised
water quality standards from States and Territories that
are approved by EPA.
87
92.5
85
93.2
85
85
Percent Submissions
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
59
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: In 2004, the baseline was 87.6 percent submissions approved.
(PM bps) Number of TMDLs that are established or
approved by EPA [Total TMDL] on a schedule
consistent with national policy (cummulative). [A
TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in
order to attain water quality standards. The terms
"approved" and "established" refer to the completion
and approval of the TMDL itself]
33,801
35,979
38,978
41,866
44,560
47,100
TMDLs
Additional Information: Cumulatively, EPA and states completed more than 35,000 total TMDLs through FY 2008. A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in
order to attain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.
(PMbpt) Percent of waters assessed using statistically
valid surveys.
65
65
65
65
82
100
Percent Waters
Additional Information: In 2000, 3 1 percent of waters were assessed using statistically valid surveys.
(PMbpv) Percent of high priority EPA and state NPDES
permits (including tribal) that are issued in the fiscal
year.
95
119
95
144
95
95
Percent Permits
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states or EPA regions as environmentally or programmatically
significant. The annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of these permits that will be issued in the current fiscal year. In 2008, 119 percent of the
designated priority permits were issued in the fiscal year.
(PM bpw) Percent of States and Territories that, within
the preceding 3-year period, submitted new or revised
water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new
scientific information from EPA or sources not
considered in previous standards.
68
62.5
68
62.5
66
64.3
Percent States and
Territories
Additional Information: In 2004, the baseline was 70 percent of states and territories submitting acceptable water quality criteria reflecting new scientific information.
(PMwq2) Remove the specific causes of waterbody
impairment identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
4,607
6,723
6,891
7,530
8,512
8,670
Causes
Additional Information: In 2002, an estimate of 69,677 specific causes of water body impairments were identified by states.
(PMwq3) Improve water quality conditions in impaired
watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach
(cumulative).
40
60
102
104
141
170
Watersheds
Additional Information: In 2002, there were 1 0 watersheds improved of an estimated 4,800 impaired watershed of focus having 1 or more water bodies impaired. The
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
60
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(2) Improve
Coastal and
Ocean Water
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
watershed boundaries for this measure are those established at the "12 digit" scale by the U.S. Geological Survey. Watersheds at this scale average 22 square miles in size.
"Improved" means that that one or more of the impairment causes identified in 2002 are removed for at least 40 percent of the impaired water bodies or impaired
miles/acres, or there is significant watershed- wide improvement, as demonstrated by valid scientific information, in one or more water quality parameters associated with
the impairments.
(PMwq6) Percent of homes on tribal lands lacking
access to basic sanitation.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
6
Percent Homes
Additional Information: In 2005, 6.64 percent of homes on tribal lands lacked access to basic sanitation.
(PMGpa) Percent of Alaska population served by
public water systems in compliance with Safe Drinking
Water Act regulatory requirements.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
100
Households
Additional Information: In 2005, 96 percent of the Alaska population served by public water systems were in compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory
requirements.
(PMOpb) Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes
with access to drinking water supply and wastewater
disposal.
94
91
96
Data Avail
5/2010
98
96
Percent Homes
Additional Information: In 2003, 77 percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
(PM co5) Percent of active dredged material ocean
dumping sites that will have achieved environmentally
acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site's
management plan).
95
99
98
99
98
95
Percent Sites
Additional Information: The baseline was calculated in 2005 at 60 sites.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
61
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Objective - 3 - Enhance Science and Research: By 2014, conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research to support the protection of human
health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters and to support the
protection of aquatic ecosystems-specifically, the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams, and coastal and ocean waters.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Drinking
Water
Research
(2) Water
Quality
Research
Performance Measures
(PM 134) Percentage of planned risk management
research products delivered to support EPA's Office of
Water, Regions, water utilities, and other key
stakeholders to manage public health risk.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
93
FY 2010
Target
100
FY 2011
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: The outputs tracked by this measure demonstrate progress towards completing DWRP's long term goal 1, which supports the Office of Water
(OW) in rule implementation, simultaneous compliance, and evaluating the effectiveness of risk management decisions. ORD's work under this goal also supports OW,
regions, states, utilities, and key stakeholders in protecting sources of drinking water, managing water availability, improving water infrastructure sustainability, increasing
water and energy use efficiency, and responding to short and long-term water resource impacts of environmental stressors such as climate change, population growth and
land use changes.
(PMI35) Percentage of planned methodologies, data,
and tools delivered in support of EPA's Office of Water
and other key stakeholders needs for developing health
risk assessments under the SDWA.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: The outputs tracked by this measure demonstrate progress towards completing DWRP's long term goal 1 , which primarily supports the Office of
Water in decisions relating to: Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), regulating/not regulating contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), the
six year review, and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. ORD's work under this goal also supports regions and key stakeholders in meeting simultaneous
compliance requirements while also aiding risk assessors in developing risk assessments that inform regulatory decisions.
(PMH66) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal #1) delivered
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH68) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal #2) delivered
100
100
100
86
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
62
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH70) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal #3) delivered
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH92) Percentage of WQRP publications in high
impact journals.
14.7
13.8
No Target
Established
Biennial
15.7
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
(PMH96) Percentage of WQRP publications rated as
highly cited publications.
15.7
15.2
No Target
Established
Biennial
16.7
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as
the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC
in their program reviews. To best establish ambitious and appropriate targets in the future, ORD will collect benchmarking information by conducting an analysis of
bibliometric measures
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
63
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Preserve and restore land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by releases
of harmful substances.
Objective - 1 - Preserve Land By 2014, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper
management of waste and petroleum products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Waste
Generation
and Recycling
(2) Hazardous
Waste and
Petroleum
Products
Performance Measures
(PM MW2) Increase in percentage of coal combustion
ash that is used instead of disposed.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
1.8
Actual
1.8
FY 2009
Target
1.8
Actual
Data Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
1.4
FY 2011
Target
1.4
Unit
Percentage Increase
Additional Information: In 2008, approximately 136 million tons of coal combustion ash was generated, and 44. 5 percent was used rather than landfilled. There is a one-
year data lag in reporting results.
(PMMW5) Number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded
open dumps in Indian Country or on other tribal lands.
30
166
27
Additional Information: The baseline for this measure was set at zero, in response to new criteria for re
(PMMW8) Number of tribes covered by an integrated
solid waste management plan.
26
35
16
Additional Information: The baseline for this measure was set at zero, in response to new criteria for re]
(PMMW9) Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste
reduced, reused, or recycled.
19.5
129
22
22
Open Dumps
jorting identified in 2006.
31
23
22
Tribes
jorting identified in 2006.
Data Avail
10/2010
20.5
21
Billion Pounds
Additional Information: This municipal solid waste measure was first implemented in FY 2009. There is a one-year data lag in reporting results.
(PMHWO) Number of hazardous waste facilities with
new or updated controls.
100
115
100
100
Facilities
Additional Information: There are an estimated 894 facilities that will require initial approved or updated controls out of the universe of 2,450 facilities.
(PMST1) Minimize the number of confirmed releases at
UST facilities to 9,000 or fewer each year.
<10,000
7,364
<9,000
7,168
<9,000
<9,000
UST Releases
Additional Information: Between FY 1999 and FY 2009, confirmed UST releases averaged 10,630 and the annual number of confirmed releases in FY 2009 was 7,168.
(PMST6) Increase the percentage of UST facilities that
are in significant operational compliance (SOC) with
both release detection and release prevention
requirements by 0.5 percent over the previous year's
68
66
65
66.4
65.5
66
Percent
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
64
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
target.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Implementing the 2005 Energy Policy Act requirements, EPA and states are inspecting infrequently inspected facilities, and are finding many out
of compliance, impacting our ability to achieve compliance rate goals. As a result, the significant operational compliance targets have been adjusted to reflect a 0.5 percent
increase each year to maintain aggressive goals.
Objective - 2 - Restore Land: By 2014, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact of accidental or
intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Chemical
Release
Preparedness
and Response
(2)
Contaminated
Performance Measures
(PM 132) Superfund-lead removal actions completed
annually.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
195
Actual
215
FY 2009
Target
195
Actual
214
FY 2010
Target
170
FY 2011
Target
170
Unit
Removals
Additional Information: Between 2002 and 2009 EPA completed an average of 203 Superfund-lead removal response actions. The Target reductions for FY 2010 and FY
201 1 are due to an increased emphasis on PRP-lead removal actions.
(PM 135) PRP removal completions (including
voluntary, AOC, and UAO actions) overseen by EPA.
170
170
Removals
Additional Information: In FY 2010, EPA will begin implementing a new measure to track removals undertaken by potentially responsible parties, either voluntarily or
pursuant to an enforcement instrument, where EPA has overseen the removals.
(PM337) Percent of all FRP inspected facilities found
to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance.
15
30
Percent
Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010.
(PM338) Percent of all SPCC inspected facilities found
to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance.
15
30
Percent
Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010.
(PMC1) Score on annual Core NAR.
55
60
Percent
Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010.
(PM112) Number of LUST cleanups completed that
meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
13,000
12,768
12,250
12,944
12,250*
12,250*
Cleanups
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
65
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Land
Performance Measures
ground-water migration.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA completed a cumulative total of 388,33 1 leaking underground storage tank cleanups. *The program which this measure
supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM113) Number of LUST cleanups completed that
meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
ground-water migration in Indian Country.
30
40
30
49
30
30
Cleanups
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA completed a cumulative total of 848 leaking underground storage tank cleanups in Indian country. This is a subset of the
national total of 388,331 leaking underground storage tanks cleanups completed.
(PM 121) Superfund final site assessment decisions
completed.
400
415
400
400
330
325
Assessments
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, there were a cumulative total of 40,558 Superfund final assessment decisions made at potentially hazardous sites.
(PM 141) Annual number of Superfund sites with
remedy construction completed.
30
30
20
20
22*
25*
Completions
Additional Information: Through F Y 2009, Superfund had completed construction at 1 ,080 final and deleted NPL sites. *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM 151) Number of Superfund sites with human
exposures under control.
10
24
10
11
10*
10*
Sites
Additional Information: Through F Y 2009, Superfund had controlled human exposures at 1 ,320 final and deleted NPL sites. *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM 152) Superfund sites with contaminated
groundwater migration under control.
15
20
15
16
15
15
Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, Superfund had controlled groundwater migration at 1 ,012 final and deleted NPL sites.
(PM 162) Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites
where all remedies have completed construction.
60
61
64
65
68
70
Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA had completed construction at 65 Federal facility Superfund sites.
(PM 163) Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites
where the final remedial decision for contaminants at the
site has been determined.
81
73
77
77
92
104
Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, final redmedies had been determined at 77 Federal Facility Superfund sites.
(PM 1 70) Number of remedial action proj ect
No Target
97
No Target
103
Completions
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
66
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(3) Potentially
Responsible
Party
Participation
at SuperfUnd
Sites
Performance Measures
completions at Superfund NPL Sites.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Established
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Established
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Although this is a new performance measure for FY 2011, results were achieved for FY 2009. Since program inception through the end of FY
2009, Superfund had completed 2,603 remedial action projects at final and deleted NPL sites. The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The
FY 201 1 target represents the expected total from base funding plus ART
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
a settlement was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-Federal PRPs before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites.
Objective - 3 - Enhance Science and Research: Provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge
research, which, through collaboration, leads to preferred environmental outcomes.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Land
Protection
Research
Performance Measures
(PM H87) Percentage of Land publications in high
impact journals.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
25.7
Actual
26.2
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
26.7
FY 2011
Target
No Target
Established
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: High impact journals are an indication of quality and influence. This measure evaluates the percentage of Land publications that are accepted
within these prestigious journals and their subsequent impact on the field. The criteria and the 'impact factor' data rankings for this metric are provided by Thomson's
Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Each analysis will evaluate the Land publications from the last ten year period, and will be timed to match the cycle for the expert peer
review panel (BOSC).
(PMH88) Percentage of Land publications rated as
highly cited publications.
26.8
18
No Target
Established
Biennial
27.8
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article was cited within
other publications. The criteria and the "highly cited" (top 10 percent of field) data rankings for this metric are provided by Thomson's Essential Science Indicator (ESI).
Each analysis will evaluate the Land publications from the last ten year period, and will be timed to match the cycle for the expert peer review panel (BOSC).
(PMH89) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the manage material streams, conserve
resources and appropriately manage waste long-term
goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan (MYP). Outputs in support of this long-term goal include reports on
technologies, methods, and models to manage material streams and reduce uncertainty in assessments. Additional details are described in the MYP.
(PMH90) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the mitigation, management and long-term
stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan (MYP). Outputs in support of this long-term goal include reports,
technologies, methods, and models related to the characterization and remediation of contaminated sites. Additional details are described in the MYP.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
68
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
Objective - 1 - Chemical and Pesticide Risks: By 2014, prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities,
and ecosystems.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Reduce
Chemical
Risks
Performance Measures
(PM 008) Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with
elevated blood lead levels (>5 ug/dl).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
3.5
FY 2011
Target
No Target
Established
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: Data released by CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) in March of 2009 estimated 7.4 percent of children
aged 1-5 with lead poisoning (blood lead levels of 5 ug/dl or greater) from 1 999-2004.
(PM 009) Cumulative number of certified Renovation
Repair and Painting firms
100,000
180,000
Firms
Additional Information: The baseline is zero in 2009. This year was chosen because 2010 is the first year that firms will submit applications to EPA to become certified.
Over time, firms will either become certified directly through EPA (tracked through Federal Lead-based Paint Program (FLPP) or through an authorized State program
(tracked through grant reports/ACS).
(PM 10D) Percent difference in the geometric mean
blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as
compared to the geometric mean for non-low income
children 1-5 years old.
29
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
28
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: Baseline for percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for
non-low income children 1-5 years old is 32 percent in 1999-2002.
(PM 196) Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with
elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl)
0.5
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
0
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: Data released by CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) in May of 2005 estimated a population of 3 10,000
children aged 1-5 with lead poisoning (blood lead levels of 10 ug/dl or greater).
(PM 239) Annual number of chemicals with final values
for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL).
37
37
6
4
14
20
Chemicals
Additional Information: Baseline from program initiation in 1 996 through 2008 is 37 chemicals.
(PM 247) Percent of new chemicals or organisms
introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable
risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.
100
100
100
Data Avail
10/2010
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Baseline for percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
69
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(2) Reduce
Chemical
Risks at
Facilities and
in
Communities
(3) Protect
Human Health
from Pesticide
Risk
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
environment was developed from a 2 year analysis from 2004-2005 comparing 8(e) reports to New Chemical submissions and is 100 percent.
(PM 282) Annual reduction in the production adjusted
risk based score of releases and transfers of IUR
chemicals from manufacturing facilities
2.5
Data Avail
10/2010
2.4
Data Avail
10/2011
2.2
2.0
% RSEI Rel Risk
Additional Information: Baseline for the analysis of IUR chemicals using the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model in 1 998 was zero percent. 1998 was selected
as the baseline year because this was the first year that most of these chemicals were targeted through the HPV challenge program. Targets for this measure were
established in 2004, however, a 35 percent reduction has been observed from 1998-2006.
(PMArS) Number of countries completing phase out of
leaded gasoline, (incremental)
7
7
4
2
3
1
Countries
Additional Information: As of 2006, the baseline is 1 59 countries, out of a universe of 1 94 1 , that have phased out lead gasoline.
(PMArS) Number of countries introducing low sulfur in
fuels, (incremental)
2
5
3
2
9
2
Countries
Additional Information: As of 2006, out of a universe of 1 94, no country had phased out lead gasoline.
(PMHC1) Annual number of hazard characterizations
completed for HPV chemicals
230
300
Hazardous Units
Additional Information: The cumulative baseline through FY 2009 is 1 ,095. This is made up on US and internationally sponsored Hazard Characterization through 2009.
International HCs started being produced in the early 1990's and US sponsored HCs started to be produced in 2007.
(PMCH2) Conduct 400 risk management plan audits
and inspections.
400
628
400
654
400
400
Audits
Additional Information: Between FY 2000 and FY 2009, 5,641 Risk Management Plan audits were completed.
(PM012) Percent reduction of children's exposure to
rodenticides.
10
Percent
Additional Information: The total number of confirmed and likely rodenticide exposure to children ages 1-6 during the baseline period is 99,652 exposures reported for an
average of 14,236 per year (1999-2005) according to the data from the Poison Control Center's National Poison Data System.
(PM 091) Percent of decisions completed on time (on or
before PRIA or negotiated due date).
99
99
Percent
Additional Information: In 2008, 99.9 percent of decisions were completed on time.
(PM 143) Percentage of agricultural acres treated with
18.5
21
20
Data Avail
21
21.5
Percent
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
70
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(4) Protect the
Environment
from Pesticide
Risk
Performance Measures
reduced-risk pesticides.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Baseline for acres-treated is 3.6 percent of total acreage in 1998, when the reduced-risk pesticide acre treatments was 30,332,499 and total (all
pesticides) was 843,063,644 acre-treatments. Each year's total acre-treatments, as reported by Doane Marketing Research, Inc serve as the basis for computing the
percentage of acre-treatments using reduced risk pesticides. Acre-treatments count the total number of pesticides treatments each acre receives each year. List of reduced-
risk pesticides can be found on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/workplan/reducedrisk.html.
(PM265) Improve or maintain a rate of incidents per
100,000 potential risk events in population
occupationally exposed to pesticides.
No Target
Established
Biennial
<=
3.5/100,000
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
<=
3.5/100,000
Incidents
Additional Information: According to the data from Poison Control Center's National Poison Data System (200 1-2003), there were 1,388 incidents out of 39,850,000
potential risk events for those occupationally exposed to pesticides. Occupational incidents include incidents from exposure to conventional and disinfectant pesticides and
outcomes associated with minor, moderate, or major effects or death.
(PM 266) Percent reduction in concentrations of
pesticides detected in general population.
30
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
50
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: According to NHANES data for FY 1999-2002 the concentration of pesticides residues detected in blood samples from the general population are:
Dimethylphosphaste = 0.41 ug/L; Dimethylthiophosphate = 1.06 ug/L; Dimethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 ug/L; Diethylphosphate = 0.78 ug/L; Diethylthiophosphate = 0.5
ug/L; Diethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 ug/L; and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol =1.9 ug/L.
(PM 267) Percent reduction in moderate to severe
incidents for six acutely toxic agricultural pesticides
with the highest incident rate.
No Target
Established
Biennial
30
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
50
Percent
Additional Information: The rates for moderate to severe incidents for exposure to agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rates base on F Y 1 999 -2003 data were:
Chlorpyrifos, 67 incidents; diazinon, 51 incidents; malathion, 36 incidents; pyrethrins, 29 incidents; 2, 4-D, 27 incidents; carbofuran, 24 incidents, based on data from
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), andNIOSH's Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR).
(PM011) Number of Product Reregistration Decisions
1,075
1,194
2,000
1,770
1,500
1,500
Decisions
Additional Information: Actual in FY 2005 is 501 product re-registrations.
(PM 164) Number of pesticide registration review
dockets opened.
70
71
Dockets
Additional Information: Baseline for registration review work dockets is 71 opened in 2008.
(PM230) Number of pesticide registration review final
work plans completed.
70
70
Work Plans
Additional Information: Baseline for final work plans for registered pesticides reviewed is 47 in 2008.
(PM 268) Percent of urban watersheds that do not
exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for three key
25,25,30
40, 0, 30
No Target
Established
Biennial
5, 0, 20
No Target
Established
Percent
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
71
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(5) Realize the
Benefits from
Pesticide Use
Performance Measures
pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos and
malathion)
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The 1 992-200 1 baselines as a percentage of urban watersheds sampled that exceeded benchmarks are: diazinon, 40 percent; chlorpyrifos, 37
percent; and malathion, 30 percent.
(PM 269) Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not
exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key
pesticides of concern (azinphos-methyl and
chlorpyrifos).
0,10
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: Based on F Y 1 992 - 200 1 data, 1 8 percent of agricultural watersheds exceeded aquatic life benchmarks for azinphos-methyl and 1 8 percent of
agricultural watersheds exceeded aquatic life benchmarks for chlorpyrifos.
(PM240) Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency
Exemption Decisions
45
34
45
40
45
45
Days
Additional Information: Baseline for SI 8 decisions is 45 day sin 2005.
(PM271) Millions of dollars in termite structural
damage avoided annually by ensuring safe and effective
pesticides are registered/re-registered and available for
termite treatment.
$900 M
$900 M
$900 M
$900 M
$900 M
$900 M
Dollars
Additional Information: Based on U.S Census housing data, industry data, and academic studies on damage valuation, EPA calculates that in FY 2003 there were $900
million in annual savings from structural damage avoided due to availability of registered termiticides.
(PM272) Billions of dollars in crop loss avoided by
ensuring that effective pesticides are available to address
pest infestations.
$1.5B
$1.5B
$1.5B
$1.5B
$1.5B
$1.5B
Loss Avoided
Additional Information: According to EPA andUSDA data for they ears FY 2000-2005, emergency exemptions issued by EPA resulted in $1.5 billion in avoided crop
loss.
Objective - 2 - Communities: Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
Sub-
Objective
(3) Assess and
Performance Measures
(PM B29) Brownfield properties assessed.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
1,000
Actual
1,453
FY 2009
Target
1,000
Actual
1,295
FY 2010
Target
1,000*
FY 2011
Target
1,000*
Unit
Properties
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
72
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Clean Up
Brownfields
(4) Sustain
and Restore
the United
States -
Mexico
Border
Environmental
Health
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program assessed 1 ,295 properties. *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA; the
FY 2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PMB32) Number of properties cleaned up using
Brownfields funding.
60
78
60
93
60*
60*
Properties
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program cleaned up 93 properties. *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA; the FY
2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PMB33) Acres of Brownfields properties made ready
for reuse.
225
4,404
1,000
2,660
1,000*
1,000*
Acres
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program made 2,660 acres of land ready for reuse. *The program which this measure supports received funds
from ARRA; the FY 2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PMB34) Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
5,000
5,484
5,000
6,490
5,000*
5,000*
Jobs
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program leveraged 6,490 jobs. *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA; the FY
2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PMB37) Billions of dollars of cleanup and
redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites.
0.9
1.546
0.9
1.06
0.9*
0.9*
Billion Dollars
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program leveraged S1.06B in cleanup and redevelopment funding. *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA; the FY 2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PM4pg) Loading of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) removed (million pounds/year) from the U.S.-
Mexico border area since 2003.
24
Million Pounds/Year
Additional Information:
(PMxb2) Number of additional homes provided safe
drinking water in the U.S. -Mexico border area that
lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
(cumulative)
2,500
5,162
1,500
1,584
28,434
33,434
Homes
Additional Information: Units and Baseline: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e. , connected) to safe drinking
water as a result of Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)- supported projects. The Program measures from a baseline of zero additional homes since this
measure was developed in 2003. Universe: The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S. -Mexico border area lacking access to safe drinking water
in 2003 (98,5 1 5 homes). The known universe was calculated from U.S. Census and the Mexican National Water Commission (CONAGUA) sources.
(PMxb3) Number of additional homes provided
adequate wastewater sanitation in the U.S. -Mexico
border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation
15,000
31,686
105,500
43,594
246,175
345,675
Homes
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
73
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(5) Sustain
and Restore
Pacific Island
Territories
Performance Measures
in 2003 (cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Units and Baseline: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e. , connected) to adequate
wastewater sanitation as a result of Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)-supported projects. The Program measures from a baseline of zero additional homes
since this measure was developed in 2003. Universe: The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S. -Mexico border area lacking access to adequate
wastewater sanitation services in 2003 (690,723). The known universe of unconnected homes was calculated from U.S. Census and the Mexican National Water
Commission (CONAGUA) sources.
(PMpil) Percent of population in each of the U.S.
Pacific Island Territories (served by community water
systems) that meet all applicable health-based drinking
water standards, measured on a four quarter rolling
average basis.
72
Additional Information: In 2005, 95 percent of the population in America
percent of Guam served by CWS received drinking water that meets all a
(PMpi2) Percent of time that sewage treatment plants in
the U.S. Pacific Island Territories comply with permit
limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS).
67
79
73
80
73
75
Percent Population
n Samoa, 10 percent in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and 80
splicable health-based standards. This measure is on a four quarter rolling average basis.
67
62
65
62
63
Percent Time
Additional Information: The sewage treatment plants in the Pacific Island Territories compiled 59 percent of the time with BOD & TSS permit limits.
(PMpiS) Percent of days of the beach season that
beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
monitored under the Beach Safety Program will be open
and safe for swimming.
70
80
80
81
80
82
Percent Days
Additional Information: In 2005, beaches were open and safe 64 percent of the beach season in American Samoa, 97 percent in the CNMI & 76 percent in Guam.
Objective - 3 - Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems: Protect, sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Increase
Wetlands
Performance Measures
(PM 4E) 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
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
No Net
Loss
FY 2010
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2011
Target
No Net
Loss
Unit
Acres
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
74
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(2) Increase
Habitat
Protected or
Restored in
Estuaries of
National
Significance
(3) Improve
the Health of
the Great
Lakes
Performance Measures
404 regulatory program.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: EPA receives data for this measure from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). ACE recently finalized their database and was able to collect actual
data for the first time in FY 2009.
(PM 4G) Number of acres restored and improved, under
the 5-Star, NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs
(cumulative).
75,000
82,875
88,000
103,507
110,000
118,000
Acres
Additional Information: From 1986-1997, the US had an annual net wetland loss of an estimated 58,500 acres, as measured by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. From
1998-2004, the US achieved a net cumulative increase of 32,000 acres per year of wetlands, as measured by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
(PM202) Acres protected or restored in National
Estuary Program study areas.
50,000
83,490
100,000
125,437
100,000
100,000
Acres
Additional Information: 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
(PM433) Improve the overall ecosystem health of the
Great Lakes by preventing water pollution and
protecting aquatic systems.
21
23.70
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
23.4
Scale
Additional Information: The ecosystem health index for the Great Lakes in 2002 was 20.
(PM 606) Cubic yards of contaminated sediment
remediated (cumulative from 1997) in the Great Lakes.
5.0
5.50
5.9
6.0
6.3
7.2
Cubic Yards
(million)
Additional Information: 2. 1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1 997 through 200 1 of the 40 million requiring remediation.
(PM 620) Cumulative percentage decline for the long-
term trend in concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout
and walleye samples.
5
6
5
6
10
14
Percent Decline
Additional Information: On average, total PCB concentrations in whole Great Lakes top predator fish have recently declined 5 percent annually - average concentrations at
Lake sites from 2002 were: L Superior-9ug/g; L Michigan- 1.6ug/g; L Huron- .8ug/g L Erie- 1.8ug/g; andL Ontario- 1.2ug/g.
(PM625) Number of Beneficial Use Impairments
removed within Areas of Concern.
16
11
21
12
20
26
BUIs Removed
Additional Information: Universe of 26 1 . Baseline of 1 1 .
(PM626) Number of Areas of Concern in the Great
1
3
AOCs
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
75
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Lakes where all management actions necessary for
delisting have been implemented (cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Baseline: 1 AOC. Universe: 31 AOCs.
(PM627) Number of normative species newly detected
in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
1.1
1.0
Number species
Additional Information: Baseline: 1.3 species per year. Universe: 181 species.
(PM 628) Acres managed for populations of invasive
species controlled to a target level (cumulative).
1,000
1,500
Number of Acres
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero Acres
(PM629) Number of multi-agency rapid response plans
established, mock exercises to practice responses carried
out under those plans, and/or actual response actions
(cumulative).
4
7
Number
Responses/Plans
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero Acres
(PM630) Five-year average annual loadings of soluble
reactive phosphorus (metric tons per year) from
tributaries draining targeted watersheds.
0
0.5
Average Loadings
Additional Information: Baseline: 2003-2007. FoxRiver: 212; Saginaw River: 133; Maumee River: 623.
(PM631) Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria
standards 95 percent or more of beach days.
86
87
Percent Beaches
Additional Information: Baseline: 86 percent (2006). Universe: 100 percent.
(PM 632) Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA
conservation practices implemented to reduce erosion,
nutrients, and/or pesticide loading.
2
8 increase
Percent Acres
Additional Information: Baseline: 165,000 Acres.
(PM633) Percent of populations of native aquatic non-
threatened and endangered species self-sustaining in the
wild (cumulative).
48/147
35%;
52/147
populations
Number of species
Additional Information: Baseline (2009): 27 percent; 3 9/1 47.
(PM634) Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-
5,000
7,500
Acres
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
76
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(4) Improve
the Health of
the
Chesapeake
Bay
Ecosystem
Performance Measures
associated uplands protected, restored and enhanced
(cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero. Universe: 550,000 Acres.
(PM 635) Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island
habitats protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
15,000
20,000
Acres
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero. Universe: 1 Million Acres.
(PM636) Number of species delisted due to recovery.
0
1
Species
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero.
(PM230) Percent of point source nitrogen reduction
goal of 49.9 million pounds achieved.
74
69
74
70
74
76
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 58 percent goal achievement (28. 76Mlbs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 69 percent goal achievement (34.51 Mlbs
reduced since 1986.)
(PM 231) Percent of point source phosphorus reduction
goal of 6.16 million pounds achieved.
85
87
87
96
89
96
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 83 percent goal achievement (5.12 M Ibs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 87 percent goal achievement (5.36 M Ibs
reduced since 1986.)
(PM 232) Percent of forest buffer planting goal of
10,000 miles achieved.
60
57
62
62
65
68
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 12 percent goal achievement (1,189 miles planted since 1996); the 2007 baseline is 53 percent goal achievement (5,337 miles
planted since 1997).
(PM cbl) Percent of submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal
of 185,000 acres achieved, based on annual monitoring
from previous goal.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
45
Percent Acres
Additional Information: In 1985, 21 percent of the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of 185,000 acres was achieved (38,226 acres).
(PMcb2) Percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100
percent standards attainment achieved, based on annual
monitoring from the previous calendar year and the
preceding 2 years.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
40
Percent Dissolved
Oxygen
Additional Information: In 1 988, 15 percent of the Dissolved Oxygen goal of 1 00 percent standards attainment was achieved.
(PM cb3) Percent of goal achieved for implementing
50
47
50
49
52
56
Percent Goal
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
77
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(5) Improve
the Health of
the Gulf of
Mexico
(6) Restore
and Protect
Performance Measures
nitrogen reduction practices to reduce nitrogen 162.5M
Ibs from 1985 levels to achieve a 175M Ib/yr cap load,
based on long-term avg. hydrology simulations.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 33 percent goal achievement (52.82 million Ibs reduced since 1 985); the 2007 baseline is 46 percent goal achievement (74.63
million Ibs reduced since 1986.)
(PM cb4) Percent of goal achieved for implementing
phosphorus reduction practices to reduce phosphorus
14.36M Ibs from 1985 levels to achieve a 12. 8M Ib/yr
cap load, based on LT avg. hydrology simulations.
66
62
64
65
66
70
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 56 percent goal achievement (8.02 million Ibs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 62 percent goal achievement (8.83
million Ibs reduced since 1986.)
(PM cb5) Percent of goal achieved for implementing
sediment reduction practices to reduce sediment 1 .69M
tons from 1985 levels to achieve a4.15Mton/yr cap
load, based on long-term avg. hydrology simulations.
64
64
67
64
71
71
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 47 percent goal achievement (0.79 million tons reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 61 percent goal achievement (1.03
million tons reduced since 1986.)
(PM22b) Improve the overall health of coastal waters of
the Gulf of Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report.
2.5
2.20
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.6
Scale
Additional Information: In 2008, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 2. 2 where the rating is based on a 5-point system in which 1 is poor and 5 is good and is
expressed as an aerially weighted mean of regional scores using the National Coastal Condition Report II indicators: water quality index, sediment quality index, benthic
index, coastal habitat index, and fish tissue contaminants.
(PMxgl) Restore water and habitat quality to meet
water quality standards in impaired segments in 13
priority coastal areas (cumulative starting in FY 07).
64
131
96
131
96
128
Impaired Segments
Additional Information: In 2008, Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands habitats included 3,769,370 acres.
(PMxg2) Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative
number of acres of important coastal and marine
habitats.
18,200
25,215
26,000
29,344
27,500
30,000
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 25,215 acres were restored, enhanced, or protected in the Gulf of Mexico.
(PM H5) Percent of goal achieved in reducing trade-
equalized (TE) point source nitrogen discharges to Long
52
52
Percent Goal
Achieved
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
78
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Long Island
Sound
(7) Restore
and Protect the
South Florida
Ecosystem
Performance Measures
Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE
Ibs/day.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The 2000 TMDL baseline is 59,146 Trade-Equalized (TE) pounds/day. The 2014 TMDL target is 22,774 TE/pounds/day.
(PM H6) Percent of goal achieved in restoring,
protecting or enhancing 240 acres of coastal habitat
from the 2008 baseline of 1,199 acres.
33
50
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The Long Island Sound Study established a goal to restore or protect 240 additional acres of coastal habitat from 2009-2014, from a 2008 baseline
of 1,1 99 acres.
(PMH7) Percent of goal achieved in reopening 50 river
and stream miles to diadromous fish passage from the
2008 baseline of 124 miles.
33
50
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The Long Island Sound Study established a goal to reopen 50 river/stream miles to diadromous fish passages in 2009-2014, from a 2008 baseline
of 124 miles.
(PMsf3) At least seventy five percent of the monitored
stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain
Chlorophyll a(CHLA) levels at less than to equal to 0.35
ug 1-1 and light clarity ( Kd) )levels at less than or equal
to0.20m-l.
75
Percent Stations
Additional Information: In 2005, Total water quality was at chl < 0.2 ug/1, light attenuation < 0. 1 3/meter, DIN < 0.75 micromolar, and TP < 0.2 micromolar.
(PMsf4) At least seventy five percent of the monitored
stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain
dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or
equal to 0.75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels at
less than or equal to .25 uM.
75
Percent Stations
Additional Information:
(PMsfS) Improve the water quality of the Everglades
ecosystem as measured by total phosphorus, including
meeting the 10 ppb total phosphorus criterion
throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh.
Maintain
Not
Maintained
Maintain
Not
Maintained
Maintain
Maintain
Parts/Billion
Additional Information: In 2005, The average annual geometric mean phosphorus concentrations were 5 ppb in the Everglades National Park, 10 ppb in Water
Conservation 3A, 1 3 ppb in the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and 1 8 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average flow- weighted from total phosphorus
discharges from storm water treatment areas ranged from 13 ppb for area 3/4 and 98 ppb for area 1W. Effluent limits will be established for all discharges, including storm
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
79
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(8) Restore
and Protect the
Puget Sound
Basin
(9) Restore
and Protect the
Columbia
River Basin
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
water treatment areas.
(PMpsl) Improve water quality and enable the lifting of
harvest restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing
areas impacted by degrading or declining water quality.
450
1,566
600
1,730
1,800
1,925
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 1 ,566 acres (cumulative) of shellfish-bed growing areas improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions.
(PMps2) Remediate acres of prioritized contaminiated
sediments.
100
123
125
123.1
123
127
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 123 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments were remediated.
(PMpsS) Restore the acres of tidally and seasonally
influenced estuarine wetlands.
2,310
4,413
5,700
5,751
6,500
7,250
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 4,413 acres (cumulative) of tidally- and seasonally -influenced estuarine wetlands were restored
(PMcrl) Protect, enhance, or restore acres of wetland
habitat and acres of upland habitat in the Lower
Columbia River watershed (cumulative starting FY 06).
8,000
12,986
10,000
15,700
16,000
16,300
Acres
Additional Information: In 2005, 96,770 acres of wetlands were available for protection, enhancement or restoration in the Lower Columbia River Estuary.
(PMcr2) Clean up acres of known contaminated
sediments (cumulative starting FY 06).
5
10
20
60
Acres
Additional Information: In 2006, 400 acres of known highly contaminated sediments were found in the main-stem of the Lower Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers.
(PMcrS) Demonstrate a reduction in mean
concentration of contaminants of concern found in water
and fish tissue (cumulative starting in FY 06.)
10
Mean Concentration
Additional Information:
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
80
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Objective - 4 - Enhance Science and Research: Identify and synthesize the best available scientific information, models, methods, and
analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems. Focus research on
pesticides and chemical toxicology; global change; and comprehensive, cross-cutting studies of human, community, and ecosystem health.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Human
Health
Research
Performance Measures
(PM H07) Percentage of human health program
publications rated as highly cited papers.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
25.5
Actual
25.60
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
26.5
FY 2011
Target
No Target
Established
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as
the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC
in their program reviews.
(PMH29) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of public health outcomes long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH30) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of mechanistic data long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH31) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of aggregate and cumulative risk long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
81
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(2) Ecosystem
Research
(3) Human
Health Risk
Assessment
Research
(4) Global
Climate
Change
Research
Performance Measures
(PMH32) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the susceptible subpopulations long-term
goal.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY 2011
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMI19) Percentage of Ecological Research
publications rated as highly-cited publications.
No Target
Established
Biennial
21.4
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
22.4
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as
the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC
in their program reviews.
(PMI20) Percentage of Ecological research publications
in "high-impact" journals.
No Target
Established
Biennial
21.3
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
22.3
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
(PMH83) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of HHRA Technical Support Documents.
90
89
90
100
90
90
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH76) Percentage of Global publications rated as
highly cited publications.
No Target
Established
25
23
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
24
Percent
Additional Information: The criteria and the "highly cited" rankings will be provided using "Thomson's Essential Science Indicator (ESI)
(PMH77) Percentage of Global publications in high
No Target
24.1
24.6
Data Avail
No Target
25.6
Percent
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
82
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
(6) Safe
Pesticides and
Products
Research
(7) Homeland
Security
Performance Measures
impact journals.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Established
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
2010
FY 2010
Target
Established
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The criteria and the "impact factor" rankings will be provided using "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
(PMH79) Percentage of planned outputs delivered.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs will be outlined in the program's revised Multi-Year Plan. This measure will track progress toward completing those
milestones across the program.
(PMI06) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the SP2 program's long-term goal one.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting
its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year.
(PMI08) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the SP2 program's long-term goal two.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting
its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year.
(PMI10) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the SP2 program's long-term goal three.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting
its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year.
(PMI11) Percentage of SP2 publications rated as highly
cited publications.
23.2
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
24.2
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors.
(PMI12) Percent of SP2 publications in "high impact"
journals.
36.2
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
37.2
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors.
(PMH72) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of efficient and effective clean-ups and safe
disposal of contamination wastes.
100
92
100
85
100
80
Percent
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
83
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Research
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH73) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of water security initiatives.
100
83
100
100
100
80
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
84
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
GOAL 5: 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, tribes, businesses, and the public that promote environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes.
Objective - 1 - Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance: Address environmental problems, promote compliance
and deter violations, by achieving goals for national priorities and programs including those with potential environmental justice concerns and
those in Indian country.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Address
Environmental
Problems from
Air Pollution
(2) Address
Environmental
Problems from
Water
Pollution
(3) Address
Environmental
Problems from
Waste, Toxics,
anH PesticiHes
Performance Measures
(PM 400) Reduce, treat, or eliminate air pollutants
through concluded enforcement actions.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
480
FY 2011
Target
480
Unit
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 480 million pounds.
(PM401) Total number of regulated entities that change
behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the
prevention of pollution into the environment for air as a
result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.
127
127
Entities
Additional Information: FY 2007-2008 Average Baseline: 151 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits,
direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and Federal inspections that result in direct or preventative environmental benefits.
(PM402) Reduce, treat, or eliminate water pollutants
through concluded enforcement actions.
320
320
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 320 million pounds.
(PM403) Total number of regulated entities that change
behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the
prevention of pollution into the environment for water as
a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.
608
608
Entities
Additional Information: FY 2007-2008 Average Baseline: 626 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits,
direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and Federal inspections that result in direct or preventative environmental benefits.
(PM404) Reduce, treat, or eliminate toxics and
pesticides through concluded enforcement actions.
3.8
3.8
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 3.8 million pounds.
(PM405) Reduce, treat, or eliminate hazardous waste
6,500
6,500
Million Pounds
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
85
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Pollution
(4) Criminal
Enforcement
Performance Measures
through concluded enforcement actions.
Additional Information: FY 2008 Baseline: 6,500 million
(PM406) Total number of regulated entities that change
behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the
prevention of pollution into the environment for land as
a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
sounds.
213
213
Entities
Additional Information: FY 2007-2008 Average Baseline: 235 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits,
direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and Federal inspections that result in direct or preventative environmental benefits.
(PM407) Percent of recidivism.
<1
<1
Percent
Additional Information: FY 1998-2009 Average Baseline: <1 percent.
(PM408) Percent of closed cases with criminal
enforcement consequences (indictment, conviction, fine,
or penalty).
33
33
Percent
Additional Information: FY 2006-2008 Average Baseline: 33 percent.
Objective - 2 - Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other Stewardship Practices: By 2014, enhance
public health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of
other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Prevent
Pollution and
Promote
Environmental
Stewardship
Performance Measures
(PM 262) Gallons of water reduced by P2 program
participants.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
1.64B
Actual
21.18B
FY 2009
Target
1.79B
Actual
Data Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
26.2 B
FY 2011
Target
24.9 B
Unit
Gallons
Additional Information: In 2006, the P2 program conserved 4.37 billion gallons of water.
(PM263) Business, institutional and government costs
reduced by P2 program participants.
45.9 M
227.2 M
130 M
Data Avail
10/2010
1,060M
1,550 M
Dollars Saved
Additional Information: In 2006, the P2 program saved businesses, institutions, and governments $632 million dollars.
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
86
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
(PM 264) Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2
program participants.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
429 M
Actual
469.8 M
FY 2009
Target
494 M
Actual
Data Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
1,625 M
FY 2011
Target
1,880 M
Unit
Pounds
Additional Information: In 2006, the Pollution Prevention program reduced 960 Million Pounds of hazardous materials.
(PM 297) Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
(MTCO2e) reduced, conserved, or offset by Pollution
Prevention (P2) program participants.
2M
Data Avail
10/2010
5.9M
11.6M
MTCO2e
Additional Information: In 2006, the Pollution Prevention Program reduced, conserved, or offset 1.53 Million metric tons of Co2 equivalent.
(PMPB5) Quantity of priority chemicals reduced from
all phases of the manufacturing lifecycle through source
reduction and/or recycling.
l.OM
5.70
1.0
7.05
0.75
0.75
Pounds
Additional Information: The National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) program reduced approximately 7.05 million pounds of priority chemicals during
FY 2009. NPEP now has over 260 partners, including many federal and state facilities, who have removed more than nearly 16.3 million pounds of priority chemicals
through both source reduction and recycling activities.
Objective - 3 - Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country: Protect human health and the environment on tribal lands
by assisting federally-recognized tribes to build environmental management capacity, assess environmental conditions and measure results, and
implement environmental programs in Indian country.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Improve
Human Health
and the
Environment
in Indian
Country
Performance Measures
(PM 5PQ) Percent of Tribes implementing federal
regulatory environmental programs in Indian country
(cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
6
Actual
14.16
FY 2009
Target
7
Actual
12.6
FY 2010
Target
14
FY 2011
Target
18
Unit
Percent Tribes
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding
(PM 5PR) Percent of Tribes conducting EPA approved
environmental monitoring and assessment activities in
Indian country (cumulative.)
21
42.31
23
40
42
45
Percent Tribes
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
87
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
(PM 5PS) Percent of Tribes with an environmental
program (cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
57
Actual
57
FY 2009
Target
60
Actual
64
FY 2010
Target
65
FY 2011
Target
67
Unit
Percent Tribes
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding
Objective - 4 - Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research: Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific
research on pollution prevention, new technology development, and sustainable systems. The products of this research will provide critical and
key evidence in informing Agency polices and decisions and solving complex multimedia problems for the Agency and its partners and
stakeholders.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Science
and
Technology
for
Sustainability
Performance Measures
(PM 128) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORD-
identified and developed metrics to quantitatively assess
environmental systems for Sustainability.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY 2011
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMI29) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORD-
developed decision support tools and methodologies.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMI30) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMI31) Percentage of Science and Technology for
Sustainability (STS) publications in "high impact"
journals.
No Target
Established
Biennial
35.3
35.4
No Target
Established
36
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
89
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Performance Measures
(PM 006) Percent of GS employees hired within 80
calendar days.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
60
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: In FY 2008, OPM issued an 80-day hiring model for the GS schedule employees. This 80-day hiring measure will better focus hiring
improvements needed from an applicant's, managers' and HR staffs' perspective and drive Agency -wide change. The Agency established a baseline of 58 percent in FY08.
(PM 098) Cumulative percentage reduction in energy
consumption.
9
13
12
18
15
18
Percent
Additional Information: On January 24, 2007, the President signed Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management,
requiring all Federal Agencies to reduce its Green House Gas intensity and its energy use by 3 percent annually through FY 2015. For the Agency's 29 reporting facilities,
the FY 2003 energy consumption of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot is 346,518 BTUs per square foot.
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Performance Measures
(PM 052) Number of major EPA environmental systems
that use the CDX electronic requirements enabling faster
receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
45
Actual
48
FY 2009
Target
50
Actual
55
FY 2010
Target
60
FY 2011
Target
67
Unit
Systems
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 . Prior to that there were no data flows using CDX.
(PM 053) States, tribes and territories will be able to
exchange data with CDX through nodes in real time,
using standards and automated data-quality checking.
55
59
60
59
65
65
Users
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 . Prior to that there were no nodes for states and tribes.
Enabling and Support Programs
90
90
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Performance Measures
(PM 054) Number of users from states, tribes,
laboratories, and others that choose CDX to report
environmental data electronically to EPA.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
100,000
Actual
127,575
FY 2009
Target
130,000
Actual
184,109
FY 2010
Target
195,000
FY 2011
Target
205,000
Unit
Users
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in F Y 200 1 . Prior to that there were no users.
(PM 408) Percent of Federal Information Security
Management Act reportable systems that are certified
and accredited.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: FISMA assigns specific responsibilities to Federal agencies and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to strengthen information
system security. The continued goal, as required by FISMA, is for the Agency to achieve a continuous 100 percent compliance status with Certification and Accreditation
(C&A) of all reportable systems.
NPM: INSPECTOR GENERAL
Performance Measures
(PM 35A) Environmental and business actions taken for
improved performance or risk reduction.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
334
Actual
463
FY 2009
Target
318
Actual
272
FY 2010
Target
334
*ARRA:20
FY 2011
Target
334
*ARRA:50
Unit
Actions
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 444 environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction.
The baseline was adjusted to reflect an average of the actual reported results for the period FY 2006-2008. The baseline in actions taken has increased as a subsequent time
lag response to both the previous years' recommendations and an OIG concentrated effort to identify unimplemented recommendations for actions by EPA. *The program
which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Target.
(PM 35B) Environmental and business
recommendations or risks identified for corrective
action.
971
624
903
983
903
*ARRA: 90
903
*ARRA:110
Recommendations
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 865 environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective actions.
The baseline was adjusted to reflect an average of the actual reported results for the period FY 2006-2008. The baseline has generally decreased to reflect the transfer of
DCAA audit oversight from the OIG directly to the EPA, and a significant gap between the OIG ceiling and actual staffing levels. *The program which this measure
supports received funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Target.
Enabling and Support Programs
91
91
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Performance Measures
(PM 35C) Return on the annual dollar investment, as a
percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and
investigations.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
150
Actual
186
FY 2009
Target
120
Actual
150
FY 2010
Target
120
FY 2011
Target
120
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 176 percent in potential dollar return on investment as a percentage of OIG budget from
identified opportunities for savings, questioned costs, fines, recoveries and settlements. The baseline was adjusted to reflect an average of the actual reported results for the
period FY 2006-2008. The baseline has generally decreased to reflect the transfer of DCAA audit oversight from the OIG directly to the EPA, and a significant gap
between the OIG ceiling and actual staffing levels.
(PM 35D) Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud
prevention actions.
80
84
80
95
75
*ARRA:3
80
*ARRA:8
Actions
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 80 criminal, civil and administrative actions, which has remained constant over time. *The
program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and FY 201 1
Target.
Enabling and Support Programs
92
92
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
PERFORMANCE MEASURES SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE
Assessment Measures
Year Data
Available
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Long-Term Performance Measures
Elimination of U.S. consumption of Class II Ozone Depleting substances
measured in tons/yr. of Ozone Depleting Potential (OOP).
Level of total equivalent stratospheric chlorine, measured in parts per billion
of air by volume.
Estimated future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually through
lowered radon exposure.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmcte) of greenhouse gas in the
building sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas in the
industry sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas
reductions in the transportation sector.
Millions of tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) reduced since 2000 from mobile
sources.
Millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000
from mobile sources.
Percent improvement in visibility on 20% worst days, on average for all
eastern Class I areas.
Percent improvement in visibility on 20% worst days, on average for all
western Class I areas.
Percent change in number of chronically acidic waterbodies in acid sensitive
regions.
Percent change in annual average nitrogen deposition.
Percent change in annual average sulfur deposition.
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine
parti culate matter (PM 2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in
all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
Percentage reduction in tons toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions
from 1993 baseline.
FY2010
FY2014
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2014
FY2014
FY2018
FY2018
FY 2030
FY2012
FY2012
FY2015
FY2015
FY2014
Enabling and Support Programs
93
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Assessment Measures
Total number of schools implementing an effective Indoor Air Quality plan.
Percentage reduction in tons of toxicity -weighted (for non-cancer) risk
emissions from 1993 baseline.
Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor
environmental asthmas triggers.
Progress toward reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard
setting and air quality management decisions. (Research)
Utility of ORD's research for assessing the linkage between health impacts
and air pollutant sources and reducing the uncertainties that impede the
understanding and usefulness of these linkages.
Utility of ORD's research for reducing uncertainty in the science that supports
standard-setting and air quality management decisions.
Percentage of U.S. population in proximity to an ambient radiation
monitoring system that provides scientifically sound data for assessing public
exposure resulting form radiological emergencies.
Reduced incidence of melanoma skin cancers, measured by new skin cancer
cases avoided per 100,000 population.
Tons of fine parti culate matter (PM 2.5) reduced since 2000 from mobile
sources.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power generation sources.
Percentage of program outputs appearing in the Office of Air and Radiation's
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Staff Paper.
Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources
based on the risk they pose to human health. (Research)
Efficiency Performance Measures
Percent reduction in time (days) per certificate approval for large engines
(nonroad Compression Ignition, Heavy duty gas and diesel engines).
Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOX, PM, CO) reduced per total emission
reduction dollars spent (both EPA and private industry).
Population covered by Radiation Protection Program monitors per million
dollars invested.
Average time of availability of quality assured ambient radiation air
monitoring data during an emergency.
Total federal dollars spent per school joining the Sun Wise program.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in
Year Data
Available
FY2012
FY2014
FY2012
FY2013
FY2013
FY2013
FY2014
FY 2050
FY2014
FY2014
FY2012
UD
FY2012
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2014
Enabling and Support Programs
94
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Assessment Measures
the Building sector.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in
the Industry sector.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in
the Transportation sector.
Reduction in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) per total dollar spent
on sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission reduction.
Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index
(AQI) values over 100 since 2003 per grant dollar allocated to the States in
support of the NAAQS program.
Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to process State
Implementation Plan revisions, weighted by complexity.
Total cost (public and private) per future premature lung cancer death
prevented through lowered radon exposure.
Time to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at DOE waste
generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at
WIPP.
Annual cost to EPA per person with asthma taking all essential actions to
reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers.
Average cost to EPA per student per year in a school that is implementing an
indoor air quality plan.
Tons of toxi city -weighted (for cancer and noncancer risk) emissions reduced
per total cost ($).
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule.
Year Data
Available
FY2014
FY2014
FY2015
FY2010
FY2010
FY2012
FY2010
FY2012
FY2012
UD
UD
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Long-Term Performance Measures
Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water
supply and wastewater disposal.
DWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr).
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic
ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale).
Number of baseline monitoring stations showing improved water quality in
tribal waters.
Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 2000 or subsequent years) as
FY2014
FY2018
FY2014
FY2012
FY2012
Enabling and Support Programs
95
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Assessment Measures
being primarily NFS-impaired that are partially or fully restored.
Number of waterbody segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining
standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained.
Ensure that the condition of the Nation's wadeable streams does not degrade
(i.e. there is no statistically significant increase in the percent of streams rated
"poor" and no statistically significant decrease in the streams rated "good."
Reduction in the number of cases of bladder cancer attributable to the
implementation of Stages 1 and Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rules
(DBPRs).
Reduction in annual endemic cases of Cryptosporidiosis attributable to the
implementation of the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT2).
Usefulness of ORD's risk management research products for enabling EPA's
Office of Water, regions, water utilities, and other key stakeholders to manage
pubic health risks associated with exposure to drinking water, implement
effective safeguards on the quality and quantity of surface and underground
sources of drinking water, improve the water infrastructure, and establish
health-based based measures of program effectiveness.
Usefulness of ORD's characterization methodologies, data, and tools by
EPA's Office of Water and other key stakeholders in developing health risk
assessments, producing regulatory decisions, implementing new and revised
rules, and achieving simultaneous compliance under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
Efficiency Performance Measures
Average funding (in millions of dollars) per project initiating operations.
Total Federal National UIC Program costs per well managed (Classes I, II,
III, and V).
Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance
provided.
Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided.
Section 319 funds ($ million) expended per partially or fully restored
waterbody.
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule.
Year Data
Available
FY2012
FY2012
FY2014
FY2014
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
UD
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
UD
Enabling and Support Programs
96
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Long-Term Performance Measures
Acres of land ready for re-use at Superfund sites.
Percent of all SPCC inspected facilities found to be non-compliant brought
into compliance.
Percent of all FRP inspected facilities found to be non-compliant brought into
compliance.
Gallons of oil verified as safely stored at the time of inspection at FRP and
SPCC facilities during the fiscal year.
Total PRP-lead removal actions completed under EPA oversight.
Efficiency Performance Measures
Cleanups complete (3 -year rolling average) per total cleanup dollars.
Number of annual confirmed UST releases per federal, state and territorial
costs.
Human Exposure avoided per million dollars spent on fund-lead removal
actions.
Total gallons of oil capacity verified as safely stored at inspected FRP and
SPCC facilities during the reporting period per one million program dollars
spent annually on prevention and preparedness.
Average time (in days) for technical support centers to process and respond to
requests for technical document review, statistical analysis and evaluation of
characterization and treatability study plans.
UD
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
UD
UD
UD
UD
2012
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Long-Term Performance Measures
% of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments where ORD methods, models or
data for assessing risk to susceptible subpopulations is cited as supporting a
decision to move away from or apply default risk assessment assumptions.
% of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's characterization of
aggregate/cumulative risk is cited as supporting a decision to move away
from or to apply default risk assessment assumptions.
Acres protected or restored in NEP study areas.
Assessed or cleaned Brownfields properties redeveloped.
Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species
Bulletin.
FY2013
FY2013
FY2014
UD
FY2011
Enabling and Support Programs
97
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
By 2012, provide safe drinking water to 25% of homes in the U.S. Mexico
border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
By 2012, provide wastewater sanitation to 25% of homes in the U.S. Mexico
border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
Cumulative number of chemicals for which proposed values for Acute
Exposure Guidelines Levels (AEGL) have been developed.
Cumulative reduction in the production adjusted risk based score of releases
and transfers of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities.
Cumulative reduction in the production-adjusted risk-based score of releases
and transfers of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals from
manufacturing facilities.
Determination of the extent of the impact of endocrine disrupters on humans,
wildlife, and the environment to better inform the federal and scientific
communities.
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of Concern.
Number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels
(>10ug/dl).
Percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children
1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-low income
children 1-5 years old.
Percent of urban watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks
for two key pesticides of concern.
Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life
benchmarks for two key pesticides of concern.
Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not
pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.
Utility of ORD's causal diagnosis tools and methods for States, tribes, and
relevant EPA offices to determine causes of ecological degradation and
achieve positive environmental outcomes.
Utility of ORD's environmental forecasting tools and methods for States,
tribes, and relevant EPA offices to forecast the ecological impacts of various
actions and achieve positive environmental outcomes.
Utility of ORD's environmental restoration and services tools and methods for
States, tribes, and relevant EPA offices to protect and restore ecological
condition and services to achieve positive environmental outcomes.
Percentage of regulatory decisions in which decision-makers used HHRA
peer-reviewed health assessments.
Utility of ORD's methods, model, and data for risk assessors and risk
managers to characterize aggregate and cumulative risk in order to manage
risk of humans exposed to multiple environmental stressors.
FY2012
FY2012
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
UD
FY2014
FY2010
FY2011
FY2014
FY2010, 2014
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
Enabling and Support Programs
98
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's
mechanistic information is cited as supporting a decision to move away from
or to apply default risk assessment assumptions.
Reduced cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided.
Reduction in PFOA, PFOA precursors, and related higher homologue
chemicals in facility emissions by PFOA Stewardship program participants.
Reduction in uncertainty regarding the effects, exposure, assessment, and
management of endocrine disrupters so that EPA has a sound scientific
foundation for environmental decision-making.
Utility of ORD's methods and models for risk assessors and risk managers to
evaluate the effectiveness of public health outcomes.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for risk assessors and risk
managers to use mechanistic (mode of action) information to reduce
uncertainty in risk assessment.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for OPPTS and other
organizations to make decisions related to products of biotechnology.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for OPPTS and other
organizations to make probabilistic risk assessments to protect natural
populations of birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target plants.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for risk assessors and risk
managers to characterize and provide adequate protection for susceptible
subpopulations.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for EPA's Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances and other organizations to prioritize testing
requirements; enhance interpretation of data to improve human health and
ecological risk assessments; and inform decision -making regarding high
priority pesticides and toxic substances.
Utility of ORD's priority health hazard assessments for Agency, state and
local risk assessors.
Utility of ORD's state-of-the-science risk assessment models, methods and
guidance for EPA programs, states, and other risk assessors.
Utility of ORD Integrated Science Assessments (IS As) for providing best
available scientific information on identifiable effects resulting from exposure
to criteria pollutants.
States use a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to
determine the status and trends of ecological resources and the effectiveness
of programs and policies.
Annual Performance Measures
Percent progress toward completion of a framework linking global change to
FY2013
FY2011
FY2010
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2015
FY2015
FY2012
FY2015
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2011
UD
Enabling and Support Programs
99
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
air quality.
Efficiency Performance Measures
Acres of brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars.
Additional people served per million dollars (US and Mexico federal
expenditures).
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (Ecological Research).
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (Global Research).
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (Pesticides and Toxics
Research).
Average cost to produce assessment documents (Human Health Risk
Assessment).
Contract cost reduction per study for assay validation efforts in the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program.
Average time (in days) to process research grant proposals from RFA closure
to submittal to EPA's Grants Administration Division, while maintaining a
credible and efficient competitive merit review system (as evaluated by
external expert review).
UD
FY2012
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Long-Term Performance Measures
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated.
Cumulative business, institutional and government costs reduced by P2
program participants.
Cumulative pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program
participants.
Cumulative gallons of water reduced by Pollution Prevention (P2) program
participants.
Cumulative Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) reduced,
conserved, or offset by P2 Program participants.
Utility of ORD-identified and developed metrics for quantitatively assessing
environmental systems for sustainability.
Utility of ORD-developed decision support tools and methodologies for
promoting environmental stewardship and sustainable environmental
management practices.
Utility of innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD for solving
environmental problems and contributing to sustainable outcomes.
Reduction in recidivism, (criminal enforcement)
UD
FY201 1,2014
FY201 1,2014
FY201 1,2014
FY2014
FY2015
FY2015
FY2015
UD
Enabling and Support Programs
100
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Annual Performance Measures
Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of inspection/enforcement.
(pest, enforcement)
Percent of violators committing subsequent violations, (pest, enforcement)
Reduction in recidivism (criminal enforcement).
Severity of the crimes investigated (as measured by the percent of open high
impacts cases (criminal enforcement).
Efficiency Performance Measures
Number of enforcement actions taken (Federal + State) per million dollars of
cost (Federal + State), (pest enforcement)
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (Sustainability Research).
Ratio of number of students that have improved environmental knowledge per
total dollar expended, reported as dollar per student.
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
Enabling and Support Programs
101
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
The data verification and validation has been updated to reflect changes in performance
measures for FY 2010.
The complete FY 2011 data verification and validation is available at:
http://epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2011/201 Icj .htm
102
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Environmental Programs
Goal 1- Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective: Healthier Outdoor Air
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) cooperates with other federal, state,
Tribal, and local agencies in achieving goals
related to ground level ozone and particulate
matter (PM). EPA continues to work
closely with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the Forest Service
in developing its burning policy and
reviewing practices that can reduce
emissions. EPA, the Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) work with state and
local agencies to integrate transportation and
air quality plans, reduce traffic congestion,
and promote livable communities. EPA
continues to work with the Department of
the Interior (DOT), National Park Service
(NFS), and U.S. Forest Service in
developing its regional haze program and
deploying the Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
visibility monitoring network. The
operation and analysis of data produced by
the PM monitoring system is an example of
the close coordination of efforts between the
EPA and state and Tribal governments.
For pollution assessments and transport,
EPA is working with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) on technology transfer using
satellite imagery. EPA will work to further
distribute NASA satellite products and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) air quality forecast
products to Regions, states, local agencies,
and Tribes to provide a better understanding
of air quality on a day-to-day basis and to
assist with PM forecasting. EPA will also
work with NASA to develop a better
understanding of PM formation using
satellite data. EPA works with the
Department of the Army on advancing
emission measurement technology and with
NOAA for meteorological support for our
modeling and monitoring efforts. EPA
collects realtime ozone and PM
measurements from State and local agencies,
which are then sent to NOAA to both feed
the Air Quality Forecast model and offer
initial verification of its results.
To better understand the magnitude, sources,
and causes of mobile source pollution, EPA
works with the Department of Energy
(DOE) and DOT to fund research projects.
A program to characterize exhaust emissions
from light-duty gasoline vehicles is being
co-funded by DOE and DOT. Other DOT
mobile source projects include TRANSIMS
(TRansportation ANalysis and SIMulation
System) and other transportation modeling
projects; DOE is funding these projects
through the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. EPA also works closely with
DOE on refinery cost modeling analyses and
the development of clean fuel programs.
For mobile sources program outreach, the
Agency is participating in a collaborative
effort with DOT's Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) to educate the
public about the impacts of transportation
choices on traffic congestion, air quality,
and human health. This community-based
public education initiative also includes the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In
addition, EPA is working with DOE to
103
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
identify opportunities in the Clean Cities
program. EPA also works with other federal
agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) on air emission issues, and other
programs targeted to reduce air toxics from
mobile sources are coordinated with DOT.
(These partnerships can involve policy
assessments and toxic emission reduction
strategies in different regions of the
country.) EPA is also working with the
National Highway Transportation
Administration and the USDA on
greenhouse gas transportation rules. EPA is
working with DOE, DOT, and other
agencies as needed on the requirements of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the
Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007.
To develop air pollutant emission factors
and emission estimation algorithms for
aircraft, ground equipment, and military
vehicles, EPA has partnered with the
Department of Defense. This partnership
will provide for the joint undertaking of air-
monitoring/emission factor research and
regulatory implementation.
To reduce air toxics emissions that may
inadvertently increase worker exposure,
EPA is continuing to work closely with the
Department of Labor's Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) to
coordinate the development of EPA and
OSHA standards. EPA also works closely
with other health agencies such as the CDC,
the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
on health risk characterization for both toxic
and criteria air pollutants. To assess
atmospheric deposition and characterize
ecological effects, EPA works with NO A A,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the National Park Service, the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the USDA,
and the U.S. Forest Service.
EPA has worked extensively with the
Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) on the National Health and
Nutritional Evaluation Study to identify
mercury accumulations in humans. EPA
also has worked with DOE on the Fate of
Mercury study to characterize mercury
transport and traceability in Lake Superior.
EPA is a partner with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in the
development of the National Environmental
Public Health Tracking Network, providing
air quality indicators as well as air pollution
health effects expertise.
To determine the extent to which
agricultural activities contribute to air
pollution, EPA will continue to work closely
with the USDA through the joint
USDA/EPA Agricultural Air Quality Task
Force (AAQTF). The AAQTF is a
workgroup set up by Congress to oversee
agricultural air quality-related issues and to
develop cost-effective ways in which the
agricultural community can improve air
quality. In addition, the AAQTF
coordinates research on agricultural air
quality issues to avoid duplication and
ensure data quality and sound interpretation
of data.
In developing regional and international air
quality programs and projects, and in
working on regional agreements, EPA works
primarily with the Department of State, the
Agency for International Development
(USAID), and the DOE, as well as with
regional organizations. EPA's international
air quality management program
complements EPA's programs on children's
health, Trade and the Environment, and
trans-boundary air pollution. In addition,
EPA partners with other organizations
104
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
worldwide, including the United Nations
Environment Programme, the European
Union, the Organization for Economic
Development and Co-operation, the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe,
the North American Commission for
Environmental Cooperation, the World
Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities, and our
air quality colleagues in Canada, Mexico,
Europe, China, and Japan.
Objective: Healthier Indoor Air
EPA works closely through a variety of
mechanisms with a broad range of Federal,
state, Tribal, and local government agencies,
industry, non-profit organizations, and
individuals, as well as other nations, to
promote more effective approaches to
identifying and solving indoor air quality
problems. At the Federal level, EPA works
closely with several departments or
agencies:
• Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to develop and
coordinate programs aimed at
reducing children's exposure to
known indoor triggers of asthma,
including secondhand smoke;
• Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) on home health
and safety issues including radon;
• Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) to identify and
mitigate the health hazards of
consumer products designed for
indoor use;
• Department of Education (DoEd) to
encourage construction and
operation of schools with good
indoor air quality; and
• Department of Agriculture (USDA)
to encourage USDA Extension
Agents to conduct local projects
designed to reduce risks from indoor
air quality. EPA plays a leadership
role on the President's Task Force on
Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks to Children, particularly
with respect to asthma and school
environmental health issues.
As Co-chair of the interagency Committee
on Indoor Air Quality (CIAQ), EPA works
with the CPSC, DOE, the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, and
OSHA to review EPA draft publications,
arrange the distribution of EPA publications,
and coordinate the efforts of Federal
agencies with those of state and local
agencies concerned with indoor air issues.
Objective: Protect the Ozone Layer
EPA works very closely with the
Department of State and other Federal
agencies in international negotiations among
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
and in developing the implementing
regulations. While the environmental goal of
the Montreal Protocol is to protect the ozone
layer, the ozone depleting substances it
controls are also significant greenhouse
gases. Therefore, this work also protects the
Earth's climate system. According to a
2007 study published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences14,
chemical controls implemented under the
Montreal Protocol will - by 2010 - have
delayed the onset of serious climate effects
by a decade. EPA works on several
multinational environmental agreements to
simultaneously protect the ozone layer and
climate system, including working closely
with the Department of State and other
14 Guus J. M. Velders, Stephen O. Andersen, John S.
Daniel, David W. Fahey, and Mack McFarland;
The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Protecting
Climate; PNAS 2007 104:4814-4819; published online
before print March 8, 2007; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610328104.
105
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Federal agencies, including OMB, OSTP,
CEQ, USD A, FDA, Commerce, NOAA, and
NASA.
EPA works with other agencies, including
the Office of the United States Trade
Representative and Department of
Commerce, to analyze potential trade
implications in stratospheric protection
regulations that affect imports and exports.
EPA leads a task force with the Department
of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), Department of Treasury,
and other agencies to curb the illegal
importation of ozone-depleting substances
(ODS). Illegal import of ODS has the
potential to prevent the United States from
meeting the goals of the Montreal Protocol
to restore the ozone layer.
EPA has continued discussions with DOD to
assist in the effective transition from ODS
and high-GWP substitutes to a suite of
substitutes with lower GWPs.
EPA works with USDA and the Department
of State to facilitate research, development,
and adoption of alternatives to methyl
bromide. EPA collaborates with these
agencies to prepare U.S. requests for critical
use exemptions of methyl bromide. EPA is
providing input to USDA on rulemakings
for methyl bromide-related programs. EPA
also consults with USDA on domestic
methyl bromide needs.
EPA coordinates closely with Department of
State and FDA to ensure that sufficient
supplies of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are
available for the production of life-saving
metered-dose inhalers for the treatment of
asthma and other lung diseases. This
partnership between EPA and FDA
combines the critical goals of protecting
public health and limiting damage to the
stratospheric ozone layer.
EPA's Sun Wise program works with the
National Weather Service (NWS) to
coordinate the UV Index, a forecast of the
next day's ultraviolet radiation levels, which
helps people determine appropriate sun-
protective behaviors. The Sun Wise program
also collaborates with the CDC when
developing new sun safety and skin cancer
prevention resources, including a shade
planning guide, state-specific skin cancer
fact sheets, and other school- and
community-based resources. SunWise
collaborates with state and local
governments through the SunWise
Communities program. SunWise is a
successful environmental and health
education program that teaches children and
their caregivers how to protect themselves
from overexposure to the sun through the
use of classroom-, school-, and community-
based components. More than 22,000
schools have received SunWise teaching
materials—reaching more than one million
students over the life of the program. The
most recent study of the program, conducted
in 2006-2007, found that for every dollar
invested in SunWise, between approximately
$2 and $4 in medical care costs and
productivity losses are saved and concluded
that from a cost/benefit and cost-
effectiveness perspective, it is worthwhile to
educate children about sun safety.15
EPA coordinates with NASA and NOAA to
monitor the state of the stratospheric ozone
layer and to collect and analyze UV data,
including science assessments that help the
public understand what the world may have
looked like without the Montreal Protocol
15 Jessica W. Kyle, James K. Hammitt, Henry W. Lim,
Alan C. Geller, Luke H. Hall-Jordan, Edward W. Maibach,
Edward C. De Fabo, Mark C. Wagner; "Economic
Evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
SunWise Program: Sun Protection Education for Young
Children." Pediatrics, Vol. 121 No. 5 May 2008, pp. e!074-
e!084
106
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
and its amendments16. EPA works with
NASA on assessing essential uses and other
exemptions for critical shuttle and rocket
needs, as well as effects of direct emissions
of high-speed aircraft flying in the
stratosphere.
EPA works with DOE on GreenChill17 and
Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD)18
efforts. The GreenChill Advanced
Refrigeration Partnership is an EPA
cooperative alliance with the supermarket
industry and other stakeholders to promote
advanced technologies, strategies, and
practices that reduce refrigerant charges and
emissions of ozone-depleting substances and
greenhouse gases. EPA's RAD Program is a
partnership program that protects the ozone
layer and reduces emissions of greenhouse
gases through the recovery of ozone-
depleting chemicals from old refrigerators,
freezers, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers.
EPA coordinates with the Small Business
Administration (SBA) to ensure that
proposed rules are developed in accordance
with the Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Objective: Radiation
EPA works primarily with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), Department
of Energy (DOE), and Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) on multiple
radiation protection issues. EPA has
ongoing planning and guidance discussions
with DHS on Protective Action Guidance
and general emergency response activities,
including exercises responding to nuclear
related incidents. As the regulator of DOE's
16 The Ozone Layer: Ozone Depletion, Recovery in a
Changing Climate, and the "WorldAvoided;" Findings and
Summary of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.4; November 2008.
17 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/greenchill
18 For more information, see:
www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility,
EPA has to continually coordinate oversight
activities with DOE to keep the facility
operating in compliance with its regulations.
EPA also works with the Department of
Transportation (DOT) on initiatives to
promote the use of non-nuclear density
gauges for highway paving. EPA is also
working with tribes to locate and clean up
radioactive wastes produced from uranium
mining that contaminate tribal water
resources with radionuclides and heavy
metals, while identifying and providing new
sources of clean drinking water for these at-
risk communities.. EPA also works with
NRC and DOE on the development of state-
of-the-art tracking systems for radioactive
sources in U.S. commerce and the
prevention of radioactive contaminated
metals and products from entering the
United States.
For emergency preparedness purposes, EPA
coordinates closely with other Federal
agencies through the Federal Radiological
Preparedness Coordinating Committee and
other coordinating bodies. EPA participates
in planning, and implementing table-top and
field exercises including radiological anti-
terrorism activities, with the NRC, DOE,
Department of Defense (DOD), Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and
DHS.
EPA works closely with other Federal
agencies when developing radiation policy
guidance under its Federal Guidsance
authority. This authority was transferred to
EPA from the Federal Radiation Council in
1970 and tasks the Administrator with
making radiation protection
recommendations to the President. When
signed by the President, Federal Guidance
recommendations are addressed to all
Federal agencies and are published in the
Federal Register. Risk managers at all levels
107
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
of government use this information to assess
health risks from radiation exposure and to
determine appropriate levels for clean-up of
radioactively contaminated sites. EPA's
radiation science is widely relied on and is
the objective foundation for EPA, other
Federal agencies and states to develop
radiation risk management policy, standards
and guidance.
EPA is a charter member and co-chairs the
Interagency Steering Committee on
Radiation Standards (ISCORS). ISCORS
was created at the direction of Congress.
Through quarterly meetings and the
activities of its six subcommittees, member
agencies are kept informed of cross-cutting
issues related to radiation protection,
radioactive waste management, and
emergency preparedness and response.
ISCORS also helps coordinate a U.S.
response to radiation-related issues
internationally, such as the recent proposed
revision of the Basic Safety Standards by the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
Promoting international assistance, EPA
serves as an expert member of the
International Atomic Energy Agency's
(IAEA) Environmental Modeling for
Radiation Safety, Naturally-Occurring
Radioactive Materials Working Group.
Additionally, EPA remains an active
contributor to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development's
(OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).
EPA serves on both the NEA Radioactive
Waste Management Committee (RWMC)
and the Committee on Radiation Protection
and Public Health (CRPPH). Through the
RWMC, EPA is able to exchange
information with other NEA member
countries on the management and disposal
of high-level and transuranic waste.
Through participation on the CRPPH and its
working groups, EPA has been successful in
bringing a U.S. perspective to international
radiation protection policy.
Objective: Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Intensity
Voluntary climate protection programs
government-wide stimulate the development
and use of renewable energy technologies
and energy efficient products that will help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
effort is led by EPA and DOE with
significant involvement from USDA, HUD
and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST).
Agencies throughout the government make
significant contributions to the climate
protection programs. For example, DOE
will pursue actions such as promoting the
research, development, and deployment of
advanced technologies (for example,
renewable energy sources). The Treasury
Department will administer proposed tax
incentives for specific investments that will
reduce emissions. EPA is working with
DOE to demonstrate technologies that
oxidize ventilation air methane from coal
mines. EPA is broadening its public
information transportation choices campaign
as a joint effort with DOT. EPA coordinates
with each of the above-mentioned agencies
to ensure that our programs are
complementary and in no way duplicative.
This coordination is evident in work recently
completed by an interagency task force,
including representatives from the
Department of State, EPA, DOE, USDA,
DOT, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Department of Commerce,
USGCRP, NOAA, NASA, and the DoD, to
prepare the Third National Communication
to the Secretariat as required under the
Framework Convention on Climate Change
(FCCC). The FCCC was ratified by the
108
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
United States Senate in 1992. A portion of
the Third National Communication
describes policies and measures (such as
ENERGY STAR and EPA's Clean
Automotive Technology initiative)
undertaken by the U.S. to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, implementation status of the
policies and measures, and their actual and
projected benefits. One result of this
interagency review process has been a
refinement of future goals for these policies
and measures which were communicated to
the Secretariat of the FCCC in 2002. The
"U.S. Climate Action Report 2002: Third
National Communication of the United
States of America under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change"
is available at:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/usnc3 .pdf
EPA works primarily with the Department
of State, USAID and DOE as well as with
regional organizations in implementing
climate-related programs and projects. In
addition, EPA partners with others
worldwide, including international
organizations such as the United Nations
Environment Programme, the United
Nations Development Programme, the
International Energy Agency, the OECD,
the World Bank, the Asian Development
Bank, and our colleagues in Canada,
Mexico, Europe and Japan.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
EPA coordinates its air quality research with
other Federal agencies through the
Subcommittee on Air Quality Research19 of
the NSTC Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources (CENR). The Agency
and NIEHS co-chaired the subcommittee's
Particulate Matter Research Coordination
Working Group, which produced a strategic
plan20 for Federal research on the health and
environmental effects, exposures,
atmospheric processes, source
characterization and control of fine airborne
particulate matter. The Agency is also a
charter member of NARSTO,21 an
international public-private partnership
established in 1995 to improve management
of air quality across North America. EPA
coordinates specific research projects with
other Federal agencies where appropriate
and supports air-related research at
universities and nonprofit organizations
through its Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) research grants program.
Goal 2- Clean and Safe Water
Objective: Protect Human Health
Collaboration with Public and Private
Partners on Critical Water Infrastructure
Protection
EPA coordinates with other Federal
agencies, primarily DHS, CDC, FDA and
DoD on biological, chemical, and
radiological contaminants of high concern,
and how to detect and respond to their
presence in drinking water and wastewater
systems. A close linkage with the FBI and
the Intelligence Analysis Directorate in
DHS, particularly with respect to ensuring
the timely dissemination of threat
information through existing communication
networks, will be continued. The Agency is
strengthening its working relationships with
the Water Research Foundation, the Water
Environment Research Federation and other
research institutions to increase our
knowledge on technologies to detect
contaminants, monitoring protocols and
techniques, and treatment effectiveness.
19 For more information, see
.
20 For more information, see
.
21 For more information, see .
109
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Geologic Sequestration
EPA coordinates with federal agencies to
plan and obtain research-related data, to
coordinate regulatory programs, and to
coordinate implementation of regulations to
protect underground sources of drinking
water during geologic sequestration (GS)
activities. EPA works with the Department
of Energy (DOE) to plan research on
monitoring, modeling, verification, public
participation, and other topics related to
DOE-sponsored GS partnership programs.
EPA also coordinates with USGS, IRS,
DOT, and USDOT to ensure that SDWA
regulations for GS sites are appropriately
coordinated with efforts to map geologic
sequestration capacity, provide tax
incentives for CO2 sequestration, and
manage the movement of CO2 from capture
facilities to GS sites.
Collaboration with USGS
EPA and USGS have established an IA to
coordinate activities and information
exchange in the areas of unregulated
contaminants occurrence, the environmental
relationships affecting contaminant
occurrence, protection area delineation
methodology, and analytical methods. This
collaborative effort has improved the quality
of information to support risk management
decision-making at all levels of government,
generated valuable new data, and eliminated
potential redundancies.
Tribal Access Coordination
In 2003 EPA and its Federal partners in
USDA, HUD, HHS, and DOI set a very
ambitious goal to reduce the number of
homes without access to safe drinking water
by 50% by 2015. This goal remains
ambitious due to the logistical challenges
and capital and operation and maintenance
costs involved in providing access. EPA is
working with its Federal partners to
coordinate spending and address some of the
challenges to access on Tribal lands, and we
are hopeful that we can make measureable
progress on the access issue.
Source Water Protection
EPA is coordinating with USDA and
Department of Education to develop
educational materials for future farmers on
reducing contamination of sources of
drinking water in rural areas.
Data Availability, Outreach and Technical
Assistance
EPA coordinates with USGS, USDA (Forest
Service, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES), Rural Utilities Service); CDC,
DOT, DoD, DOE, DOI (NPS and Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), Land Management,
and Reclamation); HHS (Indian Health
Service) and the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA).
Collaboration with Centers for Disease
Control (CDC)
CDC is building state capacity by directly
assisting state health departments develop
skills and tools to improve waterborne
disease investigation and prevention. EPA is
assisting CDC by providing technical input
regarding drinking water issues. The two
agencies are also investigating the health
risks associated with contaminant problems
in drinking water distribution systems. EPA
and CDC regularly share expertise and
information on drinking water related health
effects, risk factors, and research.
Collaboration with FDA
110
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
EPA and FDA have issued joint national
fish consumption advisories to protect the
public from exposure to mercury in
commercially and recreationally caught fish,
as well as fish caught for subsistence.
EPA's advisory covers the recreational and
subsistence fisheries in fresh waters where
states and tribes have not assessed the
waters for the need for an advisory, ibid.
http://map 1 .epa.gov/html/federaladv.
FDA's advisory covers commercially caught
fish, and fish caught in marine waters. Ibid.
http://map 1 .epa.gov/html/federaladv. EPA
works closely with FDA to distribute the
advisory to the public. In addition, EPA
works with FDA to investigate the need for
advisories for other contaminants and to
ensure that these federal advisories support
and augment advisories issued by states and
tribes.
Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
The BEACH Act requires that all Federal
agencies with jurisdiction over coastal and
Great Lakes recreation waters adjacent to
beaches used by the public implement beach
monitoring and public notification
programs. These programs must be
consistent with guidance published by EPA.
ibid. "National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants."
EPA will continue to work with the USGS
and other Federal agencies to ensure that
their beach water quality monitoring and
notification programs are technically sound
and consistent with program performance
criteria published by EPA.
Objective: Protect Water Quality
Urban Waters
In this new effort, EPA will build on
existing interagency collaborations (HUD,
DOT, NOAA, USDA) and develop new
federal partnerships to advance urban waters
goals of: helping communities establish and
maintain safe and equitable public access to
their urban waterways; empowering and
supporting communities in revitalizing their
urban waters and the surrounding land; and
linking urban water restoration to other
community priorities such as employment,
education, economic revitalization, housing,
transportation, health, safety and quality of
life. To meet these goals, EPA will partner
with other agencies to coordinate authorities,
resources, expertise and local support.
Watersheds
Protecting and restoring watersheds will
depend largely on the direct involvement of
many Federal agencies and state, Tribal and
local governments who manage the
multitude of programs necessary to address
water quality on a watershed basis. Federal
agency involvement will include USDA
(Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Forest Service, Agriculture Research
Service), DOI (Bureau of Land
Management, Office of Surface Mining,
USGS, USFWS, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs), NOAA, DOT, and DoD (Navy and
COE). At the state level, agencies involved
in watershed management typically include
departments of natural resources or the
environment, public health agencies, and
forestry and recreation agencies. Locally,
numerous agencies are involved, including
Regional planning entities such as councils
of governments, as well as local departments
of environment, health and recreation who
frequently have strong interests in watershed
projects.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Program (NPDES).
Since inception of the NPDES program
under Section 402 of the CWA, EPA and the
111
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
authorized states have developed expanded
relationships with various Federal agencies
to implement pollution controls for point
sources. EPA works closely with USFWS
and the National Marine Fisheries Service
on consultation for protection of endangered
species through a Memorandum of
Agreement. EPA works with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation on
National Historic Preservation Act
implementation. EPA and the states rely on
monitoring data from USGS to help confirm
pollution control decisions. The Agency
also works closely with SBA and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to
ensure that regulatory programs are fair and
reasonable. The Agency coordinates with
the NOAA on efforts to ensure that NPDES
programs support coastal and national
estuary efforts; and with the DOT on mining
issues.
Joint Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations
The Agency is working closely with the
USDA to implement the Unified National
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
finalized on March 9, 1999. The Strategy
sets forth a framework of actions that USDA
and EPA will take to minimize water quality
and public health impacts from improperly
managed animal wastes in a manner
designed to preserve and enhance the long-
term sustainability of livestock production.
EPA's recent revisions to the CAFO
Regulations (effluent guidelines and NPDES
permit regulations) will be a key element of
EPA and USDA's plan to address water
pollution from CAFOs. EPA and USDA
senior management meet routinely to ensure
effective coordination across the two
agencies.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF)
Representatives from EPA's SRF program,
HUD's Community Development Block
Grant program, and USDA's Rural Utility
Service have signed a MOU committing to
assisting state or Federal implementers in:
(1) coordination of the funding cycles of the
three Federal agencies; (2) consolidation of
plans of action (operating plans, intended
use plans, strategic plans, etc.); and (3)
preparation of one environmental review
document, when possible, to satisfy the
requirements of all participating Federal
agencies. A coordination group at the
Federal level has been formed to further
these efforts and maintain lines of
communication. In many states,
coordination committees have been
established with representatives from the
three programs.
In implementation of the Indian set-aside
grant program under Title VI of the CWA,
EPA works closely with the Indian Health
Service to administer grant funds to the
various Indian Tribes, including
determination of the priority ranking system
for the various wastewater needs in Indian
Country. In 1998, EPA and the Rural
Utilities Service of the USDA formalized a
partnership between the two agencies to
provide coordinated financial and technical
assistance to tribes.
Federal Agency Partnerships on Impaired
Waters Restoration Planning
The Federal government owns about 29.6%
of the land in the United States and
administers over 90% of these public lands
through four agencies: Forest Service (FS),
Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), National
Park Service (NFS) and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). In managing these
112
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
extensive public lands, federal agencies have
a substantial influence on the protection and
restoration of many waters of the US. Land
management agency focus on water issues
has increased significantly, with the FS,
FWS, and BLM all initiating new water
quality and watershed protection efforts.
EPA has been conducting joint national
assessments with these agencies to enhance
watershed protection and quantify
restoration needs on federal lands. National
assessments of FWS and FS properties have
already documented the extent and type of
impaired waters on these agencies' lands,
developed GIS databases, reported national
summary statistics, and developed
interactive reference products (on any scale,
local to national), accessible to staff
throughout the agencies. Similar joint
assessments are planned with the other
major federal land management agencies.
These assessments have already influenced
the agencies in positive ways. The FS and
the FWS have GPRA-related performance
measures that involve impaired waters, now
coordinated with the same EPA baseline.
The FS used their national assessment data
to institute improvements in a national
monitoring and BMP training program.
Also, under an MOA between EPA and FS,
numerous aquatic restoration projects have
been jointly funded and carried out. The
FWS is using their national assessment data
to develop a $10M - 20M out-year budget
initiative concerning water conservation,
quality, and quantity monitoring and
management in the National Wildlife
Refuge System, and also using the
assessment in National Fish Hatcheries
System planning. Further, EPA assessments
and datasets made significant contributions
to the government-wide National Fish
Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP) 2010 national
assessment offish habitat condition.
Nonpoint Sources
EPA will continue to work closely with its
Federal partners to achieve our goals for
reducing pollutant discharges from nonpoint
sources, including reduction targets for
sediments, nitrogen and phosphorous. Most
significantly, EPA will continue to work
with the USDA, which has a key role in
reducing sediment loadings through its
continued implementation of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
Conservation Reserve Program, and other
conservation programs. USDA also plays a
major role in reducing nutrient discharges
through these same programs and through
activities related to the AFO Strategy. EPA
will also continue to work closely with the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management especially on the vast public
lands that comprise 29 percent of all land in
the United States. EPA will work with these
agencies, USGS, and the states to document
improvements in land management and
water quality.
EPA will also work with other Federal
agencies to advance a watershed approach to
Federal land and resource management to
help ensure that Federal land management
agencies serve as a model for water quality
stewardship in the prevention of water
pollution and the restoration of degraded
water resources. Implementation of a
watershed approach will require
coordination among Federal agencies at a
watershed scale and collaboration with
states, tribes and other interested
stakeholders.
Marine Pollution Prevention
EPA works closely with the U.S. Coast
Guard on addressing ballast water
discharges domestically and with the
interagency work group and U.S. delegation
113
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
to Marine Environmental Protection
Committee (MEPC) on international
controls. EPA will continue to work closely
with the U.S. Coast Guard, Alaska and other
states, and the Cruise Lines International
Association regarding regulatory and non-
regulatory approaches to managing
wastewater discharges from cruise ships.
Also, EPA will continue to work with the
U.S. Coast Guard in the development of
Best Management Practices and discharge
standards under the Clean Boating Act.
Additionally, EPA will work with the U.S.
Coast Guard on vessel sewage standards.
Regarding dredged material management,
EPA will continue to work closely with the
COE on standards for permit review, as well
as site selection/designation and monitoring.
EPA will also continue to participate in site
visits and the review of clean up plans for
individual Navy and Maritime
Administration vessel-to-reef projects.
EPA works closely with a number of other
Federal agencies to prepare reports as well
as respond to reports to Congress. More
specifically, EPA works/and will continue to
work with other members of the Interagency
Marine Debris Coordinating Committee
(EVIDCC) to implement an action plan for
assessing and reducing marine debris in
response to the 2008 IMDCC Report to
Congress. EPA also will continue to
participate on an interagency working group
tasked to review and make
recommendations in a report to Congress on
best management practices for the storage
and disposal of obsolete vessels owned or
operated by the Federal Government.
EPA also participates on the Committee on
Marine Transportation System (CMTS)
regarding environmental issues such as
dredging and ship channel configuration, as
well as reducing pollutant sources during
operations and cargo handling. The CMTS
is a cabinet-level committee and has an
established partnership amongst 18 different
Federal agencies.
EPA works with the Department of State,
NOAA, USCG, Navy, and other Federal
agencies in developing the technical basis
and policy decisions necessary for
negotiating global treaties concerning
marine antifouling systems, invasive
species, and operational discharges from
vessels. EPA also works with the same
Agencies in addressing land-based sources
of marine pollution in the Gulf of Mexico
and Wider Caribbean Basin.
EPA chairs the intergovernmental
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force (Gulf
Hypoxia Task Force) and is responsible for
overseeing implementation of the 2008 Gulf
Hypoxia Hypoxia Action Plan. Also, EPA
is a member of the Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR) which coordinates the research
activities among Federal agencies to assess
the impacts of nutrients and hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
EPA's Clean Water Research Programs are
in accordance with the Administration's
policy of scientific integrity.22 While EPA is
the Federal agency mandated to ensure safe
drinking water, other Federal and non-
Federal entities are conducting research that
complements EPA's drinking water research
program. For example, the CDC and
NIEHS conduct health effects and exposure
research, the USGS is actively involved in
http://www.whitehouse.gov/thej)ress_office/Memorandum
-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-
9-09/
114
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
monitoring sources of drinking water for
chemicals and emerging contaminants.
FDA also performs research on children's
health risks. The DOE and USGS are
actively involved in research that relates to
underground sources of drinking water, with
increasing efforts focused on geologic
sequestration of carbon dioxide. The
Bureau of Reclamation is also involved in
research on water resources and water
purification with an emphasis on recovering
water from saline or impaired sources.
The private sector, particularly water
utilities and industries that develop and
support treatment and monitoring
technologies, is actively involved in research
activities on analytical methods, treatment
technologies, water infrastructure
rehabilitation, repair, and replacement, and
water resources protection. Recently there
has been increasing interest in research to
support water efficiency, reduce the energy
dependencies of water systems, and
implementation of alternative "green"
technologies for treatment and distribution
of water. There has also been increasing
interest in linking the quality of water with
its intended use to preserve high quality
water for potable purposes and substitute
alternative sources for nonpotable
applications (e.g. toilet flushing, irrigation,
etc.). Cooperative research efforts have been
ongoing with the Water Research
Foundation and other stakeholders to
coordinate drinking water research on
emerging contaminants water infrastructure,
and other topics. In 2009 EPA and the
Water Research Foundation formed the
Distribution System Research and
Information Collection Partnership (RICP)
to coordinate and collaborate on decision-
relevant distribution system research.
EPA has active collaborations with several
federal agencies through a variety of efforts.
EPA actively participates in the interagency
Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources (CENR) Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality (SWAQ). The
CENR is also coordinating the research
efforts among Federal agencies to assess the
impacts of nutrients and hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico. In addition, EPA is working
directly with CDC in coordinating research
on waterborne disease outbreaks, pathogens,
algal toxins, and water distribution systems,
EPA is also working with USGS on
monitoring pharmaceuticals, personal care
products, and other emerging contaminants,
evaluating newly developed methods for
microbial monitoring, and interpreting water
data from the Ambient Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program. This
effort has helped demonstrate that pesticide
levels in urban watersheds can exceed levels
in agricultural dominated streams and
follow-on collaborations will be integrated
into the Geographic Information System
(GIS) database system. EPA has also
developed joint research initiatives with
NOAA and USGS for linking monitoring
data and field study information with
available toxicity data and assessment
models for developing sediment criteria.
Goal 3-Land Preservation and
Restoration
Objective: Preserve Land
Pollution prevention activities entail
coordination with other Federal departments
and agencies. EPA coordinates with the
General Services Administration (GSA) on
the use of safer products for indoor painting
and cleaning, with the Department of
Defense (DoD) on the use of safer paving
materials for parking lots, and with the
Defense Logistics Agency on safer solvents.
The program also works with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology and
115
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
other groups to develop standards for
Environmental Management Systems.
In addition to business, industry, and other
non-governmental organizations, EPA
works with Federal, state, Tribal, and local
governments to encourage reduced
generation and safe recycling of wastes.
Partners in this effort include the
Environmental Council of States and the
Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials.
The Federal government is the single largest
potential source for "green" procurement in
the country, for office products as well as
products for industrial use. EPA works with
the Office of Federal Environmental
Executive and other Federal agencies and
departments in advancing the purchase and
use of recycled-content and other "green"
products. In particular, the Agency is
currently engaged with other organizations
within the Executive Branch to foster
compliance with Executive Order 13423 and
in tracking and reporting purchases of
products made with recycled contents, in
promoting electronic stewardship and
achieving waste reduction and recycling
goals.
In addition, the Agency is currently engaged
with the DoD, the Department of Education,
the Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S.
Postal Service, and other agencies to foster
proper management of surplus electronics
equipment, with a preference for reuse and
recycling. With these agencies, and in
cooperation with the electronics industry,
EPA and the Office of the Federal
Environmental Executive launched the
Federal Electronics Challenge which will
lead to increased reuse and recycling of an
array of computers and other electronics
hardware used by civilian and military
agencies.
Objective: Restore Land
Super/and Remedial Program
The Superfund Remedial program
coordinates with several other Federal
agencies, such as ATSDR and NIEHS, in
providing numerous Superfund related
services in order to accomplish the
program's mission. In FY 2011, EPA will
have active interagency agreements with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the Department
ofthelnterior(DOI).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also
substantially contributes to the cleanup of
Superfund sites by providing technical
support for the design and construction of
many fund-financed remediation projects
through site-specific interagency
agreements. This Federal partner has the
technical design and construction expertise
and contracting capability needed to assist
EPA regions in implementing most of
Superfund's remedial action projects. This
agency also provides technical on-site
support to Regions in the enforcement
oversight of numerous construction projects
performed by private Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs).
Superfund Federal Facilities Program
The Superfund Federal Facilities Program
coordinates with Federal agencies, states,
Tribes and state associations and others to
implement its statutory responsibilities to
ensure cleanup and property reuse. The
Program provides technical and regulatory
oversight at Federal facilities to ensure
human health and the environment are
protected.
EPA has entered into Interagency
Agreements (lAGs) with DoD, DOE, and
116
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
other federal agencies to expedite the
cleanup and transfer of Federal properties,
and was recently approached by the U.S.
Coast Guard for oversight assistance as they
focus on downsizing their lighthouse
inventory. A Memorandum of
Understanding has been negotiated with
DoD to continue the Agency's oversight
support through September 30, 2011 for the
acceleration of cleanup and property transfer
at Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
installations affected by the first four rounds
of BRAC. In addition, EPA has signed an
TAG with DOE for technical input regarding
innovative and flexible regulatory
approaches, streamlining of documentation,
integration of projects, deletion of sites from
the National Priorities List (NPL), field
assessments, and development of
management documents and processes. The
joint EPA/DOE IAG has received
recognition as a model for potential use at
other DOE field offices.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The RCRA Permitting and Corrective
Action Programs coordinate closely with
other Federal agencies, primarily the DoD
and DOE, which have many sites in the
corrective action and permitting universe.
Encouraging Federal facilities to meet the
RCRA Corrective Action and permitting
program's goals remains a top priority.
RCRA Programs also coordinate with the
Department of Commerce and the
Department of State to ensure the safe
movement of domestic and international
shipments of hazardous waste.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
EPA, with very few exceptions, does not
perform the cleanup of leaking underground
storage tanks (LUST). States and territories
use the LUST Trust Fund to administer their
corrective action programs, oversee
cleanups by responsible parties, undertake
necessary enforcement actions, and pay for
cleanups in cases where a responsible party
cannot be found or is unwilling or unable to
pay for a cleanup.
States are key to achieving the objectives
and long-term strategic goals. Except in
Indian Country, EPA relies on state agencies
to implement the LUST Program, including
overseeing cleanups by responsible parties
and responding to emergency LUST
releases. LUST cooperative agreements
awarded by EPA are directly given to the
states to assist them in implementing their
oversight and programmatic role.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks
that accidental and intentional releases of
harmful substances and oil pose to human
health and the environment. EPA
implements the Emergency Preparedness
program in coordination with the
Department of Homeland Security and other
Federal agencies to deliver Federal
assistance to state, local, and Tribal
governments during natural disasters and
other major environmental incidents. This
requires continuous coordination with many
Federal, state and local agencies. The
Agency participates with other Federal
agencies to develop national planning and
implementation policies at the operational
level.
The National Response Plan (NRP), under
the direction of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), provides for the
delivery of Federal assistance to states to
help them deal with the consequences of
terrorist events as well as natural and other
significant disasters. EPA maintains the
117
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
lead responsibility for the NRP's Emergency
Support Function covering inland hazardous
materials and petroleum releases and
participates in the Federal Emergency
Support Function Leaders Group which
addresses NRP planning and implementation
at the operational level.
EPA coordinates its preparedness activities
with DHS, FEMA, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and other Federal agencies,
states and local governments. EPA will
continue to clarify its roles and
responsibilities to ensure that Agency
security programs are consistent with the
national homeland security strategy.
Super fund Enforcement
As required by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Executive
Order (EO) 12580, OECA coordinates with
other federal agencies in their use of
CERCLA enforcement authority. This
includes the coordinated use of CERCLA
enforcement authority at individual
hazardous waste sites that are located on
both nonfederal land (EPA jurisdiction) and
federal lands (other agency jurisdiction). As
required by EO13016, the Agency also
coordinates the use of CERCLA section 106
administrative order authority by other
Departments and agencies.
EPA also coordinates with the Departments
of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce to
ensure that appropriate and timely notices
required under CERCLA are sent to the
Natural Resource Trustees. The Department
of Justice also provides assistance to EPA
with judicial referrals seeking recovery of
response costs incurred by the U.S.,
injunctive relief to implement response
actions, or enforcement of other CERCLA
requirements.
Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement
Program
The Superfund Federal Facilities
Enforcement program ensures that 1) all
Federal facility sites on the National Priority
List have interagency agreements, also
known as Federal Facility Agreements or
FFAs, which provide enforceable schedules
for the progression of the entire cleanup; 2)
these FFAs are monitored for compliance;
and 3) Federal sites that are transferred to
new owners are transferred in an
environmentally responsible manner. It is
this program's responsibility to ensure that
Federal agencies, by law, comply with
Superfund cleanup obligations "in the same
manner and to the same extent" as private
entities. After years of service and
operation, some Federal facilities contain
environmental contamination, such as
hazardous wastes, unexploded ordnance,
radioactive wastes or other toxic substances.
To enable the cleanup and reuse of such
sites, the Federal Facilities Enforcement
program coordinates creative solutions that
protect both human health and the
environment. These enforcement solutions
help restore facilities so they can once again
serve an important role in the economy and
welfare of local communities and our
country.
Oil Spills
Under the Oil Spill Program, EPA works
with other Federal agencies such as U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), NOAA, FEMA, DOI, DOT,
DOE, and other Federal agencies and states,
as well as with local government authorities
to develop Area Contingency Plans. The
Department of Justice also provides
assistance to agencies with judicial referrals
when enforcement of violations becomes
necessary. In FY 2011, EPA will have an
118
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
active interagency agreement with the
USCG. EPA and the USCG work in
coordination with other Federal authorities
to implement the National Preparedness for
Response Program.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
EPA expends substantial effort coordinating
its research with other Federal agencies,
including work with DoD in its Strategic
Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP) and the Environmental
Security Technology Certification Program,
DOE and its Office of Health and
Environmental Research. EPA also conducts
collaborative laboratory research with DoD,
DOE, DOT (particularly the USGS), and
NASA to improve characterization and risk
management options for dealing with
subsurface contamination.
The Agency is also working with NIEHS,
which manages a large basic research
program focusing on Superfund issues, to
advance fundamental Superfund research.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) also provides
critical health-based information to assist
EPA in making effective cleanup decisions.
EPA works with these agencies on
collaborative projects, information
exchange, and identification of research
issues and has a MOU with each agency.
EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and Navy
recently signed a MOU to increase
collaboration and coordination in
contaminated sediments research.
Additionally, the Interstate Technology
Regulatory Council (ITRC) has proved an
effective forum for coordinating Federal and
state activities and for defining continuing
research needs through its teams on topics
including permeable reactive barriers,
radionuclides, and Brownfields EPA has
developed an MOU23 with several other
agencies [DOE, DoD, NRC, USGS, NOAA,
and USDA] for multimedia modeling
research and development.
Other research efforts involving
coordination include the unique controlled-
spill field research facility designed in
cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Geophysical research experiments and
development of software for subsurface
characterization and detection of
contaminants are being conducted with the
USGS and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory.
Goal 4-Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems
Objective: Chemical and Pesticide Risks
Coordination with state lead agencies and
with the USDA provides added impetus to
the implementation of the Certification and
Training program. States also provide
essential activities in developing and
implementing the Endangered Species and
Worker Protection programs and are
involved in numerous special projects and
investigations, including emergency
response efforts. The Regions provide
technical guidance and assistance to the
states and Tribes in the implementation of
all pesticide program activities.
EPA uses a range of outreach and
coordination approaches for pesticide users,
agencies implementing various pesticide
programs and projects, and the general
public. Outreach and coordination activities
are essential to effective implementation of
regulatory decisions. In addition
coordination activities protect workers and
23 For more information please go to: Interagency Steering
Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU,
http://www.iscmem.org/Memorandum.htm
119
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
endangered species, provide training for
pesticide applicators, promote integrated
pest management and environmental
stewardship, and support for compliance
through EPA's Regional programs and those
of the states and Tribes.
In addition to the training that EPA provides
to farm workers and restricted use pesticide
applicators, EPA works with the State
Cooperative Extension Services designing
and providing specialized training for
various groups. Such training includes
instructing private applicators on the proper
use of personal protective equipment and
application equipment calibration, handling
spill and injury situations, farm family
safety, preventing pesticide spray drift, and
pesticide and container disposal. Other
specialized training is provided to public
works employees on grounds maintenance,
to pesticide control operators on proper
insect identification, and on weed control for
agribusiness.
EPA coordinates with and uses information
from a variety of Federal, state and
international organizations and agencies in
our efforts to protect the safety of America's
health and environment from hazardous or
higher risk pesticides. In May 1991, the
USDA implemented the Pesticide Data
Program (PDF) to collect objective and
statistically reliable data on pesticide
residues on food commodities. This action
was in response to public concern about the
effects of pesticides on human health and
environmental quality. EPA uses PDF data
to improve dietary risk assessment to
support the registration of pesticides for
minor crop uses.
PDF is critical to implementing the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The system
provides improved data collection of
pesticide residues, standardized analytical
and reporting methods, and sampling of
foods most likely consumed by infants and
children. PDF sampling, residue, testing
and data reporting are coordinated by the
Agricultural Marketing Service using
cooperative agreements with ten
participating states representing all regions
of the country. PDF serves as a showcase
for Federal-state cooperation on pesticide
and food safety issues.
FQPA requires EPA to consult with other
government agencies on major decisions.
EPA, USDA and FDA work closely together
using both a MOU and working committees
to deal with a variety of issues that affect the
involved agencies' missions. For example,
agencies work together on residue testing
programs and on enforcement actions that
involve pesticide residues on food, and we
coordinate our review of antimicrobial
pesticides. The Agency coordinates with
USDA/ARS in promotion and
communication of resistance management
strategies. Additionally, we participate
actively in the Federal Interagency
Committee on Invasive Animals and
Pathogens (ITAP) which includes members
from USDA, DOL, DoD, DHS and CDC to
coordinate planning and technical advice
among Federal entities involved in invasive
species research, control and management.
While EPA is responsible for making
registration and tolerance decisions, the
Agency relies on others to carry out some of
the enforcement activities. Registration-
related requirements under FIFRA are
enforced by the states. The HSS/FDA
enforces tolerances for most foods and the
USDA/Food Safety and Inspection Service
enforces tolerances for meat, poultry and
some egg products.
Internationally, the Agency collaborates
with the Intergovernmental Forum on
120
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Chemical Safety (IFCS), the CODEX
Alimentarius Commission, the North
American Commission on Environmental
Cooperation (CEC), the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) and NAFTA Commission. These
activities serve to coordinate policies,
harmonize guidelines, share information,
correct deficiencies, build other nations'
capacity to reduce risk, develop strategies to
deal with potentially harmful pesticides and
develop greater confidence in the safety of
the food supply.
To effectively participate in the international
agreements on POPs, heavy metals and PIC
substances, EPA must continue to
coordinate with other Federal agencies and
external stakeholders, such as Congressional
staff, industry, and environmental groups.
For example, EPA has an interest in
ensuring that the listing of chemicals,
including the application of criteria and
processes for evaluating future chemicals for
possible international controls, is based on
sound science. Similarly, the Agency
typically coordinates with FDA's National
Toxicology Program, the CDC/ATSDR,
NIEHS and/or the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) on matters relating to
OECD test guideline harmonization.
EPA's objective is to promote improved
health and environmental protection, both
domestically and worldwide. The success of
this objective is dependent on successful
coordination not only with other countries,
but also with various international
organizations such as the Intergovernmental
Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), the
North American Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (CEC), OECD,
the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) and the CODEX Alimentarius
Commission. NAFTA and cooperation with
Canada and Mexico play an integral part in
the harmonization of data requirements.
EPA is a leader in global discussions on
mercury and was instrumental in the launch
of UNEP's Global Mercury Program, and
we will continue to work with developing
countries and with other developed countries
in the context of that program. In addition,
we have developed a strong network of
domestic partners interested in working on
this issue, including the DOE and the USGS.
EPA has developed cooperative efforts on
persistent organic pollutants (POPs) with
key international organizations and bodies,
such as the United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization, the United
Nations Environment Program, the Arctic
Council, and the World Bank. EPA is
partnering with domestic and international
industry groups and foreign governments to
develop successful programs.
One of the Agency's most valuable partners
on pesticide issues is the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee (PPDC), which brings
together a broad cross-section of
knowledgeable individuals from
organizations representing divergent views
to discuss pesticide regulatory, policy and
implementation issues. The PPDC consists
of members from industry/trade
associations, pesticide user and commodity
groups, consumer and environmental/public
interest groups and others.
The PPDC provides a structured
environment for meaningful information
exchanges and consensus building
discussions, keeping the public involved in
decisions that affect them. Dialogue with
outside groups is essential if the Agency is
to remain responsive to the needs of the
affected public, growers and industry
organizations.
121
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
EPA works closely with Federal agencies to
improve the health of children and older
adults. Working with the CDC, the
Environmental Council of the States
(ECOS), and the Association of State and
Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), a
national action agenda to reduce
environmental triggers of childhood asthma
was developed and implemented.
The Agency continues to work with other
Federal agencies in the development of
children's environmental health indicators
used to monitor the outcomes of children's
health efforts. The Agency collaborates
with the CDC, National Center for Health
Statistics and obtains approval from the
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and
Family Statistics (www.childstats.gov) on
the reporting of appropriate children's health
indicators and data. EPA also participates in
the development of the annual report entitled
"America's Children: Key National
Indicators of Weil-Being."
EPA has partnered with NIEHS since 1998
to fund over ten Children's Environmental
Health and Disease Prevention Centers
nation wide through its STAR grants
program. A 2009 RFA will fund the next
generation of these Centers, some of which
will continue to work with existing cohorts
of children and some of which will explore
new concepts in children's health as new
"formative" centers.
EPA is an active partner in the National
Children's Study (NCS), and has been since
its inception in 2000. NCS is an interagency
study funded by NIH and conducted in
partnership with CDC and AT SDR. EPA is
represented on the Interagency Coordinating
Committee (3 members from ORD and one
member from OCHPEE) and provides
advice and expertise on a number of NCS
committees and workgroups. As the pilot
phase, initiated in 2009, is evaluated,
opportunities for further collaborative and
adjunct studies will be explored.
As a member of the Interagency Forum on
Aging Related Statistics, EPA helps to
assure that key indicators associated with
important aspects of older Americans' lives
are considered in reports such as "Older
Americans 2004: Key Indicators of Weil-
Being."
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) support the
Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty
Units (PEHSUs) which provide education
and consultation services on children's
environmental health issues to health
professionals, public health officials, and the
public.
EPA works closely with other Federal
agencies to improve children's health in
schools. For example, EPA has incorporated
into the new Healthy School Environments
Assessment Tool (Heal thy SEAT), a number
of recommendations and requirements from
the Department of Education, the CDC,
DOT, DOE, CPSC and OSHA.
EPA relies on data from HHS to help assess
the risk of pesticides to children. Other
collaborative efforts that go beyond our
reliance on the data they collect include
developing and validating methods to
analyze domestic and imported food
samples for organophosphates, carcinogens,
neurotoxins and other chemicals of concern.
These joint efforts protect Americans from
unhealthful pesticide residue levels.
EPA's chemical testing data provides
information for the OSHA worker protection
programs, NIOSH for research, and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) for informing consumers about
122
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
products through labeling. EPA frequently
consults with these Agencies on project
design, progress and the results of chemical
testing projects.
The Agency works with a full range of
stakeholders on homeland security issues:
USDA, CDC, other Federal agencies,
industry and the scientific community.
Review of the agents that may be effective
against anthrax has involved GSA, State
Department, Research Institute for
Infectious Disease, FDA, EOSA, USPS, and
others, and this effort will build on this
network.
The Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGL)
program is a collaborative effort that
includes ten Federal agencies (EPA, DHS,
DOE, DoD, DOT, NIOSH, OSHA, CDC,
AT SDR, and FDA), numerous state
agencies, private industry, academia,
emergency medical associations, unions, and
other organizations in the private sector.
The program also has been supported
internationally by the OECD and includes
active participation by the Netherlands,
Germany and France.
The success of EPA's lead program is due in
part to effective coordination with other
Federal agencies, states and Indian Tribes
through the President's Task Force on
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children. EPA will continue to
coordinate with HUD to clarify how new
rules may affect existing EPA and HUD
regulatory programs, and with the FHWA
and OSHA on worker protection issues.
EPA will continue to work closely with state
and Federally recognized Tribes to ensure
that authorized state and Tribal programs
continue to comply with requirements
established under TSCA, that the ongoing
Federal accreditation certification and
training program for lead professionals is
administered effectively, and states and
Tribes adopt the Renovation and
Remodeling and the Buildings and
Structures Rules when these rules become
effective.
EPA has a MOU with HUD on coordination
of efforts on lead-based paint issues. As a
result of the MOU, EPA and HUD have co-
chaired the President's Task Force since
1997. There are fourteen other Federal
agencies including CDC and DoD on the
Task Force. HUD and EPA also maintain
the National Lead Information Center and
share enforcement of the Disclosure Rule.
Mitigation of existing risk is a common
interest for other Federal agencies
addressing issues of asbestos and PCBs.
EPA will continue to coordinate interagency
strategies for assessing and managing
potential risks from asbestos and other
fibers. Coordination on safe PCB disposal is
an area of ongoing emphasis with the DoD,
and particularly with the U.S. Navy, which
has special concerns regarding PCBs
encountered during ship scrapping. Mercury
storage and safe disposal are also important
issues requiring coordination with the
Department of Energy and DoD as they
develop alternatives and explore better
technologies for storing and disposing high
risk chemicals.
Objective: Communities
The Governments of Mexico and the United
States agreed, in November 1993, to assist
communities on both sides of the border in
coordinating and carrying out environmental
infrastructure projects. The agreement
between Mexico and the United States
furthers the goals of the North American
Free Trade Agreement and the North
American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation. To this purpose, the
123
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
governments established two international
institutions, the Border Environment
Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the
North American Development Bank
(NADBank), which manages the Border
Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), to
support the financing and construction of
much needed environmental infrastructure.
The BECC, with headquarters in Ciudad
Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, assists local
communities and other sponsors in
developing and implementing environmental
infrastructure projects. The BECC also
certifies projects as eligible for NADBank
financing. The NADBank, with
headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, is
capitalized in equal shares by the United
States and Mexico. NADBank provides
new financing to supplement existing
sources of funds and foster the expanded
participation of private capital.
A significant number of residents along the
U.S.-Mexico border area are without basic
services such as potable water and
wastewater treatment and the problem has
become progressively worse in the last few
decades. Over the last several years, EPA
has continued to work with the U.S. and
Mexican Sections of the International
Boundary and Water Commission and
Mexico's national water commission,
Comision Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA),
to further efforts to improve drinking water
and wastewater services to communities
within 100 km on the U.S. and 300 km on
the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border.
The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Program
represents a successful joint effort between
the U.S. and Mexican governments in
working with the 10 Border States and local
communities to improve the region's
environmental health, consistent with the
principles of sustainable development. A
significant number of residents along the
U.S.-Mexico border area are without basic
services such as potable water and
wastewater treatment and the problem has
become progressively worse in the last few
decades. Over the last several years, EPA
has continued to work with the U.S. and
Mexican Sections of the International
Boundary and Water Commission and
Mexico's national water commission,
Comision Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA),
to further efforts to improve drinking water
and wastewater services to communities
within 100 km on the U.S. and 300 km on
the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Brownfields
EPA continues to lead the Brownfields
Federal Partnership. The Partnership
includes more than 20 federal agencies
dedicated to the cleanup and redevelopment
of brownfields properties. Partner agencies
work together to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and redevelop brownfields. The
Brownfields Federal Partnership's on-going
efforts include promoting the Portfields and
Mine-Scarred Lands projects and looking
for additional opportunities to jointly
promote community revitalization by
participating in multi-agency collaborative
projects, holding regular meetings with
federal partners, and supporting regional
efforts to coordinate federal revitalization
support to state and local agencies.
Environmental Justice
EPA will continue its work in partnership
with other federal agencies to address the
environmental and public health issues
facing communities with environmental
justice concerns. In 2011, the Agency will
continue its efforts to work collaboratively
and constructively with all levels of
government, and throughout the public and
124
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
private sectors. The issues range from lead
exposure, asthma, safe drinking water and
sanitation systems to hazardous waste clean-
up, renewable energy/wind power
development, and sustainable
environmentally-sound economies. EPA
and its federal partners are utilizing EPA's
collaborative problem-solving model, based
on the experiences of federal collaborative
partnerships, to improve the federal
government's effectiveness in addressing the
environmental and public health concerns
facing communities. As the lead agency for
environmental justice pursuant to Executive
Order 12898, EPA shares its knowledge and
experience and offers assistance to other
federal agencies as they enhance their
strategies to integrate environmental justice
into their programs, policies and activities.
Objective: Ecosystems
National Estuary Program
Effectively implementing successful
comprehensive management plans for the
estuaries in the NEP depends on the
cooperation, involvement, and commitment
of Federal and state agency partners that
have some role in protecting and/or
managing those estuaries. Common Federal
partners include NOAA, USFWS, COE, and
USDA. Other partners include state and
local government agencies, universities,
industry, non-governmental organizations
(NGO), and members of the public.
National Ocean Policy
EPA will continue to participate in the
implementation of the objectives laid out be
the Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force,
which was established by President Obama
on June 12, 2009. The Task Force was led
by the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and consisted of 24
senior-level officials from Administration
agencies, departments, and offices. The new
National Oceans Policy and the Coastal and
Marine Spatial Planning Framework will
help EPA combine its resources with those
of other federal agencies, such as NOAA,
Department of Interior, USDA and the
Army Corps of Engineers, to better protect
coastal and marine ecosystems, and to
achieve the goal for clean and safe water in
areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Great
Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the 28
estuaries that make up the National Estuary
Program.
Wetlands
EPA, USFWS, COE, NOAA, USGS,
USDA, and FHWA currently coordinate on
a range of wetlands activities. These
activities include: studying and reporting on
wetlands trends in the U.S., diagnosing
causes of coastal wetland loss, updating and
standardizing the digital map of the nations'
wetlands, statistically surveying the
condition of the Nation's wetlands, and
developing methods for better protecting
wetland function. In addition to that, EPA
and the ACOE work very closely together in
implementing the wetlands regulatory
program under Clean Water Act Section
404. Under the regulatory program the
agencies coordinate closely on overall
implementation of the permitting decisions
made annually under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act,.through the headquarters
offices as well as the ten EPA Regional
Offices and 38 ACOE District Offices. The
agencies also coordinate closely on policy
development and litigation. EPA and
ACOE are committed to achieving the goal
of no net loss of wetlands under the Section
404 program.
125
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Coastal America
In efforts to better leverage our collaborative
authorities to address coastal communities'
environmental issues (e.g., coastal habitat
losses, nonpoint source pollution,
endangered species, invasive species, etc.),
EPA, by memorandum of agreement in 2002
entered into an agreement with Multi-
agency signatories. November 2002.
Coastal America 2002 Memorandum of
Understanding. Available online at
http://www.coastalamerica.gov/text/mou02.
htm
Great Lakes
EPA is leading the member Federal agencies
of the Interagency Task Force24 in the
development and implementation of a new
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. As the
Initiative progresses, EPA will work with its
partners to develop the management and
coordinative structures required for this
effort, including Interagency Agreements
with all appropriate Federal agency
participants. Participating agencies will
focus their activities to support outcome-
oriented performance goals and measures to
direct their Great Lakes protection and
restoration activities. This effort builds
upon previous coordination and
collaboration by the Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) pursuant to the
mandate in Section 118 of the Clean Water
Act to "coordinate action of the Agency
with the actions of other Federal agencies
and state and local authorities..." pursuant to
which GLNPO was already engaged in
extensive coordination efforts with state,
Tribal, and other Federal agencies, as well
as with our counterparts in Canada pursuant
to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA). The Federal Interagency Task
Force, created by EO 13340, is charged with
increasing and improving collaboration and
integration among Federal programs
involved in Great Lakes environmental
activities. The Great Lakes task force brings
together eleven Cabinet department and
Federal agency heads to coordinate
restoration of the Great Lakes, focusing on
outcomes, such as cleaner water and
sustainable fisheries, and targeting
measurable results. In December 2005, the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration issued a
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy. The Interagency Task Force has
been able to use that work to guide
development of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative. Coordination by GLNPO
supports the GLWQA and other efforts to
improve the Great Lakes and will now lead
to implementation of priority actions for
Great Lakes restoration by the Federal
agencies and their partners. Coordinative
activities that will continue as part of the
implementation of the Initiative are expected
to include: extensive coordination among
state, Federal, and provincial partners, both
in terms of implementing the monitoring
program, and in utilizing results from the
monitoring to manage environmental
programs: sediments program work with the
states and the Corps regarding dredging
issues; implementation of the Binational
Toxics Strategy via extensive coordination
with Great Lakes States; habitat protection
and restoration with states, tribes, FWS, and
NRCS; and coordination with these partners
regarding development and implementation
of Lakewide Management Plans for each of
the Great Lakes and for Remedial Action
Plans for the 30 remaining U.S./binational
Areas of Concern.
24 The Interagency Task Force includes eleven agency and
cabinet organizations: EPA, State, Interior, Agriculture,
Commerce, Housing and Urban Development,
Transportation, Homeland Security, Army, Council on
Environmental Quality, and Health and Human Services.
126
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a
partnership of several federal agencies,
states, local governments, nongovernmental
organizations, academic institutions, and
other interested stakeholders. Only through
the coordinated efforts of all of these entities
will the preservation and restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay be achieved. Recognizing
this need for coordination, office directors
from many of the federal agencies that form
the Chesapeake Bay Program meet on a
regular basis. This group, which is chaired
by EPA, includes office directors from:
• U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
• Natural Resources Conservation
Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
• U.S. Forest Service
• National Park Service
• U.S. Navy (representing Department
of Defense)
EPA is also the lead agency representing the
federal government on the Chesapeake
Executive Council, which oversees the
policy direction of the Chesapeake Bay
Program. In addition to the EPA
Administrator, the Chesapeake Executive
Council consists of the governors of the Bay
states, the mayor of the District of
Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and the Secretary of
Agriculture.
President Obama's May 2009 Executive
Order (EO) on Chesapeake Bay Protection
and Restoration has brought the federal
agencies interested in the Bay and its
watershed to a new level of interagency
coordination and cooperation. The EO
established the Federal Leadership
Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bay,
which is chaired by EPA and includes the
U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA),
Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security,
the Interior, and Transportation. Working
together, the agencies listed above and the
additional FLC agencies produced seven
reports on specific Bay and watershed issues
for FLC consideration. The reports were
released in draft on September 9, 2009, and
as revised versions on November 24, 2009.
The FLC released a draft coordinated
implementation strategy on November 9,
2009. A final version of the strategy will be
released by May 12, 2010.
Many of the initiatives resulting from the
EO will result in increased or improved
federal coordination. The development of a
new accountability and reporting system, for
example, depends on explicit coordination
and data sharing from all of the federal
agencies listed above, as well as numerous
state and local agencies. Revitalized efforts
to improve and account for agricultural best
management practices depend upon
cooperation between EPA, USDA, USGS,
and others.
Gulf of Mexico
Key to the continued progress of the Gulf of
Mexico Program is a broad multi-
organizational Gulf states-led partnership
comprised of regional; business and
industry; agriculture; state and local
government; citizens; environmental and
fishery interests; and, numerous Federal
departments and agencies. In response to
the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, thirteen Federal
agencies formed a Regional Partnership
under the leadership of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
127
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the U.S.
Department of Interior to provide support to
the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a partnership
of the five Gulf states. This Federal
Workgroup includes:
• Council on Environmental Quality
• National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
• National Science Foundation
• U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
• U.S. Department of Commerce,
NOAA
• U.S. Department of Defense
• U.S. Department of Energy
• U.S. Department of Interior
• U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services
• U.S. Department of State
• U.S. Department of Transportation
• U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Through a collaborative approach and
integration of federal efforts, the Gulf of
Mexico Alliance Governors' Action Plan I
(2006-2009) and Action Plan II ( 2009-
2014) have identified specific actions
needed to improve the health of the Gulf
coastal region and addressed priority issues
facing the Gulf with scientific and technical
experts and resource managers to leverage
the resources needed to support state and
community actions.
Report on the Environment and assisting
CDC in its Public health Surveillance
efforts.
Through a collaborative approach, the
priority issues of the Gulf are being
addressed with scientific and technical
experts and resource managers to leverage
the resources needed to support state and
community actions.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
Research in human health is coordinated
with several Federal agencies that also
sponsor research on variability and
susceptibility in health risks from exposure
to environmental contaminants. EPA
collaborates with a number of the Institutes
within the NIH and CDC. For example, the
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) conducts multi-
disciplinary biomedical research programs,
prevention and intervention efforts, and
communication strategies. The NIEHS
program includes an effort to study the
effects of chemicals, including pesticides
and other toxics, on children's health. EPA
collaborates with NIEHS in supporting the
Centers for Children's Environmental
Health and Disease Prevention, which study
whether and how environmental factors play
a role in children's health.25 EPA
coordinates research on identification and
management of health risks of mold with the
Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor
Air Quality. EPA coordinates with AT SDR
through a memo of understanding on the
development of toxicological reviews and
toxicology profiles, respectively. EPA also
has strong working collaborations with CDC
including 1) an MOU and projects directed
at linking the CDC Public Health Tracking
Network Program with EPA's
environmental monitoring data and the
indicators efforts tied to EPA's Report on
the Environment; 2) an MOU and projects
linking EPA's Community Action for
Renewed Environments with CDC's
community-based environmental health
programs, a collaboration that already has
addressed environmental public health
25 For more information, see
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
issues along the U.S.-Mexico border under
the Binational Border 2012 Program.. EPA
and CDC are also collaborating in the areas
of asthma, biomonitoring, and global health.
EPA also works collaboratively with CDC
on the development of indicators of
exposure and health effects generating data
included in EPA's Report on the
Environment and assisting CDC in its Public
health Surveillance efforts.
Goal 5-Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Objective: Improve Compliance
The Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Program coordinates closely with
DOJ on all civil and criminal environmental
enforcement matters. In addition, the
program coordinates with other agencies on
specific environmental issues as described
herein.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) coordinates with the
Chemical Safety and Accident Investigation
Board, OSHA, and Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry in
preventing and responding to accidental
releases and endangerment situations, with
the BIA on Tribal issues relative to
compliance with environmental laws on
Tribal Lands, and with the SBA on the
implementation of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA). OECA also shares information
with the IRS on cases which require
defendants to pay civil penalties, thereby
assisting the IRS in assuring compliance
with tax laws. In addition, it collaborates
with the SBA to maintain current
environmental compliance information at
Business.gov, a website initiated as an e-
government initiative in 2004 to help small
businesses comply with government
regulations. OECA also works with a
variety of Federal agencies including the
DOL and the IRS to organize a Federal
Compliance Assistance Roundtable to
address cross cutting compliance assistance
issues. Coordination also occurs with the
USAGE on wetlands issues.
Under the Food Security Act, the
USDA/NRCS has a major role in
determining whether areas on agricultural
lands meet the definition of wetlands and are
therefore regulated under the CWA. Civil
Enforcement coordinates with USDA/NRCS
on these issues also. EPA's Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance Program also
coordinates with USDA on regulation of
animal feeding operations and on food
safety issues arising from the misuse of
pesticides, and shares joint jurisdiction with
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on
pesticide labeling and advertising.
Coordination also occurs with Customs and
Border Protection on implementing the
secure International Trade Data System
across all Federal agencies, and on pesticide
imports. EPA and the FDA share
jurisdiction over general-purpose
disinfectants used on non-critical surfaces
and some dental and medical equipment
surfaces (e.g., wheelchairs). The Agency
has entered into a MOU with HUD
concerning enforcement of the TSCA lead-
based paint notification requirements.
The Criminal Enforcement Program
coordinates with other Federal law
enforcement agencies (i.e., FBI, Customs,
DOL, U.S. Treasury, USCG, DOI and DOJ)
and with international, state and local law
enforcement organizations in the
investigation and prosecution of
environmental crimes. EPA also actively
works with DOJ to establish task forces that
bring together Federal, state and local law
enforcement organizations to address
129
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
environmental crimes. In addition, the
program has an Interagency Agreement with
the DHS to provide specialized criminal
environmental training to Federal, state,
local, and Tribal law enforcement personnel
at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA.
Under Executive Order 12088, EPA is
directed to provide technical assistance to
other Federal agencies to help ensure their
compliance with all environmental laws.
The Federal Facility Enforcement Program
coordinates with other Federal agencies,
states, local, and Tribal governments to
ensure compliance by Federal agencies with
all environmental laws. In FY 2011, EPA
will also continue its efforts to support the
FedCenter, the Federal Facilities
Stewardship and Compliance Assistance
Center (www.fedcenter.gov), which is now
governed by a board of more than a dozen
contributing Federal agencies.
OECA collaborates with the states and
Tribes. States perform the vast majority of
inspections, direct compliance assistance,
and enforcement actions. Most EPA statutes
envision a partnership between EPA and the
states under which EPA develops national
standards and policies and the states
implement the program under authority
delegated by EPA. If a state does not seek
approval of a program, EPA must
implement that program in the state.
Historically, the level of state approvals has
increased as programs mature and state
capacity expands, with many of the key
environmental programs approaching
approval in nearly all states. EPA will
increase its effort to coordinate with states
on training, compliance assistance, capacity
building and enforcement. EPA will
continue to enhance the network of state and
Tribal compliance assistance providers.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance chairs the Interagency
Environmental Leadership Workgroup
established by Executive Order 13148. The
Workgroup consists of over 100
representatives from most Federal
departments and agencies. Its mission is to
assist all Federal agencies with meeting the
mandates of the Executive Order, including
implementation of environmental
management systems and environmental
compliance auditing programs, reducing
both releases and uses of toxic chemicals,
and compliance with pollution prevention
and pollution reporting requirements. In FY
2011, OECA will also work with its
Regions, states and directly with a number
of other Federal agencies to improve RCRA,
CWA and other statutory compliance at
Federal facilities, including through
integrated strategies, which array the full
range of Agency tools to promote
compliance in an effective, efficient manner.
The Agency is required to review
environmental impact statements and other
major actions impacting the environment
and public health proposed by all Federal
agencies, and make recommendations to the
proposing Federal agency on how to
remedy/mitigate those impacts. Although
EPA is required under § 309 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) to review and comment on
proposed Federal actions, neither the
National Environmental Policy Act nor §
309 CAA require a Federal agency to
modify its proposal to accommodate EPA's
concerns. EPA does have authority under
these statutes to refer major disagreements
with other Federal agencies to the Council
on Environmental Quality. Accordingly,
many of the beneficial environmental
changes or mitigation that EPA recommends
must be negotiated with the other Federal
agency. The majority of the actions EPA
reviews are proposed by the Forest Service,
130
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Department of Transportation (including the
Federal Highway Administration and
Federal Aviation Administration), U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Department of
Interior (including Bureau of Land
Management, Minerals Management Service
and National Parks Service), Department of
Energy (including the Federal Regulatory
Commission), and the Department of
Defense.
EPA works directly with Canada and
Mexico bilaterally and in the trilateral
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC). EPA's border activities require
close coordination with the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Department of Justice,
and the States of Arizona, California, New
Mexico, and Texas. EPA is the lead agency
and coordinates U.S. participation in the
CEC. EPA works with NOAA, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological
Survey on CEC projects to promote
biodiversity cooperation, and with the Office
of the U.S. Trade Representative to reduce
potential trade and environmental impacts
such as invasive species.
Objective: Improve Environmental
Performance through Pollution Prevention
and Innovation
EPA is involved in a broad range of
pollution prevention (P2) activities which
can yield reductions in waste generation and
energy consumption in the public and
private sectors. For example, the
Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation
(EPP) initiative, which implements
Executive Orders 12873 and 13101,
promotes the use of cleaner products by
federal agencies. This is aimed at
stimulating demand for the development of
such products by industry.
This effort includes a number of
demonstration projects with other federal
Departments and agencies, such as the
National Park Service (NFS) (to use Green
Purchasing as a tool to achieve the
sustainability goals of the parks), the
Department of Defense (DoD) (use of
environmentally preferable construction
materials), and Defense Logistics Agency
(identification of environmental attributes
for products in its purchasing system). The
program is also working within EPA to
"green" its own operations. The program
also works with the Department of
Commerce's National Institute of Science
and Technology (NIST) to develop a life-
cycle based decision support tool for
purchasers.
Under the Suppliers' Partnership for the
Environment program and its umbrella
program, the Green Suppliers' Network
(GSN), EPA's P2 Program is working
closely with NIST and its Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program to provide
technical assistance to the process of
"greening" industry supply chains. The
EPA is also working with the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Industrial Technologies
Program to provide energy audits and
technical assistance to these supply chains.
EPA is working with DOE and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
develop a "Biofuels Posture Plan," the first
step in implementing a Biofuels Initiative to
support the goals of the Advanced Energy
Initiative. The Biofuels Posture Plan will be
designed to promote the development of a
biofuels industry in the U.S. to help shift the
country towards clean, domestic energy
production and away from dependence on
foreign sources of energy (mostly
petroleum). EPA is investigating the use of
municipal and industrial solid and hazardous
wastes as sources of biomass that can be
131
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
used to produce clean biofuels. EPA is
promoting specific waste-to-energy
technologies through policy development,
research, and, where feasible, regulatory
change.
EPA and DOT are coordinating an
Interagency Tribal Information Steering
Committee that includes the Bureau of
Reclamation, DOE, Housing and Urban
Department, U.S. Geological Service,
Federal Geographic Data Committee,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health
Service, Department of the Treasury, and the
Department of Justice. This Interagency
effort is aimed to coordinate the exchange of
selected sets of environmental, resource, and
programmatic information pertaining to
Indian Country, among federal agencies in a
"dynamic" information management system
that is continuously and automatically
updated and refreshed, and to be shared
equally among partners and other
constituents.
Under a two-party interagency agreement,
EPA works extensively with the Indian
Health Service to cooperatively address the
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
needs of Indian Tribes. EPA is developing
protocols with the Indian Health Service
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program
for integration of databases of the two
agencies, within the framework of the Tribal
Enterprise Architecture.
EPA has organized a Tribal Data Working
Group under the Federal Geographic Data
Committee, and, along with BIA, is the co-
chair of this group. EPA will play a lead
role in establishing common geographic data
and metadata standards for Tribal data, and
in establishing protocols for exchange of
information among federal, non-federal and
Tribal cooperating partners.
EPA is developing protocols with the
Bureau of Reclamation, Native American
Program, for integration of databases of the
two agencies, within the framework of the
Tribal Enterprise Architecture. EPA is also
developing agreements to share information
with the Alaska District of the COE.
The Smart Growth program has a number of
key Federal partnerships. Under an MOU
with NOAA the program is - developing a
joint publication on smart growth guidelines
for coastal communities, offering
introductory smart growth training through
NOAA's Coastal Services Center, and
providing technical support to state Sea
Grant programs. Along with the Federal
Highway Administration, the program is co-
sponsoring a publication on Designing
Walkable Urban Streets and participating in
an Interagency Working Group on Land
Use, Vehicle Travel and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. Through an interagency
agreement with FEMA, EPA is providing
recovery and redevelopment assistance to
five Iowa communities impacted by recent
flooding. Also through an interagency
agreement, the program is working with the
Centers for Disease Control to develop
Active Community Design indicators for
regional Metropolitan Listing Services
(MLS) that will provide home buyers with
information on neighborhood walkability.
Finally, the program has continued to work
with the Forest Service's Urban and
Community Forestry and Cooperative
Forestry program to promote smart growth
in both urban and rural areas.
EPA is a member of the Interagency
Network of Enterprise Assistance Providers
(INEAP), an interagency collaboration that
also includes the departments of Commerce,
Transportation working to leverage program
effectiveness through partnership. The
collaboration is focusing specifically on
132
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
ways to promote competitiveness and work
toward sustainability.
EPA is also a member and plays a leadership
role in the federal Program Evaluators
Network which is a cross-agency
collaboration working on improving
program evaluation tools and improving
capacity for more effective performance
management.
Information on regulations and other issues
that may have an adverse impact on small
businesses is shared regularly with the Small
Business Administration's Office of
Advocacy. An ongoing activity includes the
coordination of interactions among the
Office of Air and Radiation, the State Small
Business Assistance Program's National
Steering Committee, and the Office of
Advocacy in the development of the
proposed 55 area source Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
rules that will impact small businesses and
state programs.
Activities associated with the Environmental
Education Program are coordinated with
other Federal agencies in a variety of ways:
EPA, in partnership with Department of
Education, the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, the Department of
Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, and
the Centers for Disease Control, is
implementing a national Schools Chemical
Cleanout Campaign (SC3). SC3 is building
a national public/private network that will
facilitate the removal of dangerous and
inappropriate chemicals from K - 12
schools; encourage responsible chemical
management practices to prevent future
chemical accidents and accumulations; and
raise issue awareness.
As a participant on the following
interagency workgroups, EPA remains
informed of related efforts across the
government and provides coordination
assistance as necessary: The Interagency
Committee on Education (Chair:
Department of Education); Partners in
Resource Education (Chair: National
Environmental Education and Training
Foundation); the Federal Interagency
Committee on Interpretation (Chair:
National Park Service); Ocean Education
Task Force (workgroup of the U.S. Ocean
Commission); and the United States Global
Change Research Program (Education
Interagency workgroup).
EPA coordinates U.S. participation in the
activities of the North American
Commission on Environmental Cooperation
(CEC) on green purchasing, supply chains,
and buildings.
EPA's web portal of all Federal
environmental education program web sites
is:
http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/FTFmemws.ht
ml.
Objective: Improve Human Health and the
Environment in Indian Country
EPA completed two important Tribal
infrastructure Memoranda of Understanding
(MOU) amongst five federal agencies.
EPA, the Department of the Interior,
Department of Health and Human Services,
Department of Agriculture, and the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development will work as partners to
improve infrastructure on Tribal lands and
focus efforts on providing access to safe
drinking water and basic wastewater
facilities to tribes.
133
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
The first, or umbrella MOU, promotes
coordination between federal Tribal
infrastructure programs, including financial
services, while allowing federal programs to
retain their unique advantages. It is fully
expected that the efficiencies and
partnerships resulting from this
collaboration will directly assist tribes with
their infrastructure needs. Under the
umbrella MOU, for the first time, five
Federal departments joined together and
agreed to work across traditional program
boundaries on Tribal infrastructure issues.
The second MOU, addressing a specific
infrastructure issue was created under the
umbrella authority and addresses the issue of
access to safe drinking water and wastewater
facilities on Tribal lands. Currently, the five
Federal agencies are working together to
develop solutions for specific geographic
areas of concern (Alaska, Southwest),
engaging in coordination of ARAR funding,
and promoting cross-agency efficiency.
These activities are completed in
coordination with federally recognized
tribes.
For more information, please see the web
link:
http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/mous.htm.
Additionally, EPA is working closely with
other federal agencies as well as the
Domestic Policy Council to implement
President Obama's directive regarding the
tribal consultation process. The President's
November 5th, 2009 Memorandum directs
each executive department to develop a
detailed plan to implement Executive Order
(EO) 13175, "Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments," issued by President Clinton
in 2000. Under EO 13175, "all departments
and agencies are charged with engaging in
regular and meaningful consultation and
collaboration with tribal officials in the
development of federal policies that have
tribal implications, and are responsible for
strengthening the government-to-
government relationship between the United
States and Indian tribes."
EPA is working with other federal entities
that deal with tribal issues to ensure that the
most effective communication strategies are
being used. Although approaches vary
according to agency or department, there is
much to be gained from working closely
with other agencies throughout this process.
This collaboration will not only strengthen
the federal-tribal relationship, but will also
strengthen the approach used to implement
EPA's policies on human health and the
environment in Indian country.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
EPA is coordinating with DoD's Strategic
Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP) in an ongoing
partnership, especially in the areas of
sustainability research and of incorporating
materials lifecycle analysis into the
manufacturing process for weapons and
military equipment. EPA is continuing its
partnerships with NSF, NIEHS, and NIOSH
on jointly issued grant solicitations for
nanotechnology, and its coordination
through the NSET with all agencies that are
part of the NNI. In addition, in response to a
Congressional request to collaborate
internationally, EPA is partnering with sister
agencies in the United Kingdom and will
jointly fund consortia between U.S. and
United Kingdom research institutions.
EPA will continue work under the MOA
with the USCG and the State of
Massachusetts on ballast water treatment
technologies and mercury continuous
emission monitors. The agency also
coordinates technology verifications with
NOAA (multiparameter water quality
134
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
probes); DOE (mercury continuous emission
monitors); DoD (explosives monitors, PCB
detectors, dust suppressants); USDA
(ambient ammonia monitors); Alaska and
Pennsylvania (arsenic removal); Georgia,
Kentucky, and Michigan (storm water
treatment); and Colorado and New York
(waste-to-energy technologies).
The statutorily mandated Biomass Research
and Development Board (chaired by DOE
and USDA) provides overall federal
coordination of biofuel research activities.
EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) represents the Agency on this Board
and co-chairs two of its seven working
groups. The two working groups chaired by
EPA's ORD are the Sustainability and
Environment, Health and Safety
workgroups. ORD works to ensure that all
relevant EPA offices are aware of and
involved in EPA-related Board activities.
135
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Enabling Support Programs
Office of the Administrator (OA)
The Office of the Administrator (OA)
supports the leadership of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) programs and
activities to protect human health and
safeguard the air, water, and land upon
which life depends. Several program
responsibilities include policy, homeland
security - including intelligence
coordination, Congressional and
intergovernmental relations, the Science
Advisory Board, children's health, and the
small business program.
EPA collaborates with other Federal
agencies in the collection of economic data
used in the conduct of economic benefit-cost
analyses of environmental regulations and
policies. The Agency collaborates with the
Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau
of the Census on the Pollution Abatement
Costs and Expenditure (PACE) survey in
order to obtain information on pollution
abatement expenditures by industry. In our
effort to measure the beneficial outcomes of
Agency programs, EPA co-sponsors with
several other agencies the U.S. Forest
Service's National Survey on Recreation
and the Environment (NSRE), which
measures national recreation participation
and recreation trends. EPA also collaborates
with other natural resource agencies (e.g.,
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Department of Interior (DOI), and
National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)) to foster improved
interdisciplinary research and reporting of
economic information by collaboratively
supporting workshops and symposiums on
environmental economics topics (e.g.,
economic valuation of ecosystem services,
adoption of market mechanisms to achieve
environmental goals) and measuring health
and welfare benefits (e.g., represent EPA
issues in cross-agency group charged with
informing USDA efforts to establish
markets for ecosystem services). EPA also
collaborates with the State Department and
Treasury on the Strategic Economic
Dialogue (SED) Joint Economic Study
(JES), which includes examining the
environmental, economic, and human health
costs of pollution and enhancing further
cooperation between the U.S. and China to
analyze and address these issues.
The EPA, through the Aging Initiative, is a
member of the Federal Interagency Task
Force on Older American Indians. The
purpose of the Forum is to assist tribes
funded under Title VI of the Older
Americans Act. It also is a member of the
Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) supported Working Group on Home
Energy and Health. In May 2009, the
National Energy Assistance Directors'
Association convened a Working Group on
Home Energy and Health. The purpose of
the Working Group is to develop strategies
and capacity at the state and local level to
approach energy assistance as a matter of
public health, including measures of home
energy burden in needs assessment activities
such as Healthy People 2020; facilitating
more efficient and cost-effective outreach
for energy assistance through new
partnerships with environmental health and
long-term care services organizations;
demonstrating cost savings for state
Medicaid programs achieved through
coordination with Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and
related affordable energy programs; and
136
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
strengthening the health basis for protecting
low-income households against the loss of
utility service for nonpayment.
The Office of Children's Health Protection
(OCHP) provides leadership for cross-
Agency efforts to protect children from
exposure to toxins, pollution and other
environmental health threats in their homes,
their schools, and their communities.
Children are at greater risk of harm from
exposure to environmental toxins than adults
because of their unique physiology and
behavior patterns. The OCHP ensures that
children's unique vulnerabilities are
carefully considered in agency policy and
regulatory development, and that children's
environmental health is central in our
outreach and public education activities. The
Office of Children's Health Protection and
Environmental Education works with other
Federal departments and agencies to
coordinate diverse program and research
efforts to help ensure that children's
environmental health is protected where
they live, learn, work and play.
EPA's Office of Homeland Security (OHS)
works closely with many other Federal
departments and agencies to meet the goals
of presidential homeland security directives
and plans. These efforts include working
through the Interagency Planning
Committees (IPCs) and other avenues to
ensure that EPA's efforts are integrated into,
and can build upon, the efforts of other
Federal agencies. OHS also coordinates the
development of responses to inquiries from
the White House, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), Congress, and others with
oversight responsibilities for homeland
security efforts. EPA's ability to effectively
implement its broad range of homeland
security responsibilities is significantly
enhanced through coordination with other
Federal agencies.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB)
primarily provides the Administrator with
independent peer reviews and advice on the
scientific and technical aspects of
environmental issues to inform the Agency's
environmental decision-making. Often, the
Agency program office seeking the SAB's
review and advice has identified the Federal
agencies interested in the scientific topic at
issue. The SAB coordinates with those
Federal agencies by providing notice of its
activities through the Federal Register, and
as appropriate, inviting Federal agency
experts to participate in the peer review or
advisory activity. The SAB, from time to
time, also convenes science workshops on
emerging issues, and invites Federal agency
participation through the greater Federal
scientific and research community.
EPA's Office of Small Business Programs
(OSBP) works with the Small Business
Administration (SBA) and other Federal
agencies to increase the participation of
small and disadvantaged businesses in
EPA's procurements. OSBP works with the
SBA to develop EPA's goals for contracting
with small and disadvantaged businesses;
address bonding issues that pose a roadblock
for small businesses in specific industries,
such as environmental clean-up and
construction; and address data-collection
issues that are of concern to Offices of Small
and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
(OSDBU) throughout the Federal
government. EPA's OSBP works closely
with the Center for Veterans Enterprise and
EPA's Regional and program offices to
increase the amount of EPA procurement
dollars awarded to Service-Disabled
Veteran-Owned Small Businesses
(SDVOSB). OSBP, through its Minority
Academic Institutions (MAI) Program, also
works with the Department of Education and
the White House Initiative on Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) to
137
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
increase the institutional capacity of
HBCUs, and to create opportunities for them
to work with Federal agencies, especially in
the area of scientific research and
development. OSBP coordinates with the
Minority Business Development Agency,
the Department of Veteran's Affairs, the
Department of Defense (DoD), and many
other Federal agencies to provide outreach
to small disadvantaged businesses and
Minority-Serving Institutions throughout the
United States and the trust territories.
OSBP's Director is an active participant in
the Federal OSDBU Directors' Council
(www.osdbu.gov). The OSDBU Directors'
Council collaborates to support major
outreach efforts to small and disadvantaged
businesses, SDVOSB, and minority
academic institutions via conferences,
business fairs, and speaking engagements.
The OSBP's Asbestos and Small Business
Ombudsman partners with SBA and other
Federal agencies to ensure small business
concerns are considered in regulatory
development and compliance efforts, and to
provide networks, resources, tools, and
forums for education and advocacy on
behalf of small businesses across the
country.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO)
OCFO makes active contributions to
standing interagency management
committees, including the Chief Financial
Officers Council focusing on improving
resources management and accountability
throughout the Federal government. OCFO
actively participates on the Performance
Improvement Council which coordinates
and develops strategic plans, performance
plans, and performance reports as required
by law for the Agency. In addition, OCFO
participates in numerous Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)-led E-Gov
initiatives such as the Financial
Management and Budget Formulation and
Execution Lines of Business, and has
interagency agreements with (DoD) and
USDA for processing agency payroll and
travel transactions, respectively. OCFO also
participates with the DOC's Bureau of
Census in maintaining the Federal
Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS).
OCFO also coordinates appropriately with
Congress and other Federal agencies, such
as Department of Treasury, OMB, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO),
and the General Services Administration
(GSA).
Office of Administration and Resources
Management (OARM)
EPA is committed to working with Federal
partners that focus on improving
management and accountability throughout
the Federal government. The Agency
provides leadership and expertise to
government-wide activities in various areas
of human resources, grants administration,
contracts management, and Homeland
Security. These activities include specific
collaboration efforts with Federal agencies
and departments through:
• Chief Human Capital Officers, a
group of senior leaders that discuss
human capital initiatives across the
Federal government;
• Legislative and Policy Committee, a
committee comprised of other
Federal agency representatives who
assist Office of Personnel and
Management in developing plans and
policies for training and development
across the government; and
138
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
• The Chief Acquisition Officers
Council, the principal interagency
forum for monitoring and improving
the Federal acquisition system. The
Council also is focused on promoting
the President's specific initiatives
and policies in all aspects of the
acquisition system.
The Agency is participating in government-
wide efforts to improve the effectiveness
and performance of Federal financial
assistance programs, simplify application
and reporting requirements, and improve the
delivery of services to the public. This
includes membership on the Grants Policy
Committee, the Grants Executive Board, and
the Grants.gov Users Group. EPA also
participates in the Federal Demonstration
Partnership to reduce the administrative
burdens associated with research grants.
EPA is working with the OMB, General
GSA, and the DOC's National Institute of
Standards and Technology to implement the
Smart Card program.
Office of Environmental Information
(OEI)
To support EPA's overall mission, OEI
collaborates with a number of other Federal
agencies, states, and Tribal governments on
a variety of initiatives, including making
government more efficient and transparent,
protecting human health and the
environment, and assisting in homeland
security. OEI is primarily involved in the
information technology (IT), information
management (IM), and information security
aspects of the projects it collaborates on.
The Chief Information Officer's (CIO)
Council: The CIO Council is the principal
interagency forum for improving practices
in the design, modernization, use, sharing,
and performance of Federal information
resources. The Council develops
recommendations for IT management
policies, procedures, and standards;
identifies opportunities to share information
resources; and assesses and addresses the
needs of the Federal IT workforce.
E-Rulemaking: EPA is the managing
partner agency of the e-Rulemaking
Program. E-Rulemaking's mission
addresses two areas: to improve public
access to, understanding of, and
participation in regulation development, and
to streamline government's management of,
and efficiency in, promulgating regulations.
The e-Rulemaking Program's award-
winning Regulations.gov web site is a single
web site where citizens can access and
comment on all proposed Federal
regulations. Tens of millions of individuals
have used the site to find, view, and
comment on proposed regulations. The e-
Rulemaking Program's award-winning
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS - publicly accessible at
www.regulations.gov) is an electronic
document repository where agencies post
rulemaking and non-rulemaking documents
for public access and comment. As a result,
the public can now access Federal Register
documents, supporting
technical/legal/economic analyses, and
public comments, most of which were
previously available only by physically
visiting a Federal docket center. The e-
Rulemaking Program is partnering with
more than 29 Departments and Independent
Agencies, comprised of 180 bureaus, and
boards, representing more than 90 percent of
the Federal rules promulgated annually.
The National Environmental Exchange
Network (EN): The EN is a partnership
among states, tribes, and EPA. It is
revolutionizing the exchange of
139
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
environmental information by allowing
these Partners to share data efficiently and
securely over the Internet. This approach is
providing real-time access to higher quality
data while saving time and resources, for all
of the Partners. Leadership for the EN is
provided by the Exchange Network
Leadership Council (ENLC), which is co-
chaired by OEI and a State partner. The
ENLC works with representatives from the
EPA, state environmental agencies, and
tribal organizations to manage the Exchange
Network.
Automated Commercial Environment/
International Trade Data System
(ACE/ITDS): ACE is the system being
built by Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to ensure that its customs agents have
the information they need to decide how to
handle goods and merchandise being
shipped into, or out of, the United States.
ITDS is the organizational framework by
which all government agencies with
import/export responsibilities participate in
the development of the ACE system. ACE
will be a single, electronic point of entry for
importers and exporters to report required
information to the appropriate agencies. It
also will be the way those agencies provide
CBP with information about potential
imports/exports. ACE eliminates the need,
burden, and cost of paper reporting. It also
allows importers and exporters to report the
same information to multiple Federal
agencies with a single submission.
EPA has the responsibility and legal
authority to make sure pesticides, toxic
chemicals, vehicles and engines, ozone-
depleting substances, and other commodities
entering the country meet our
environmental, human health, and safety
standards. EPA's ongoing collaboration
with CBP on the ACE/ITDS project will
greatly improve information exchange
between EPA and CBP. As a result,
Customs officers at our nation's borders will
have the information they need to admit
products that meet our environmental
regulations, and to interdict goods or
products that are hazardous or illegal.
EPA's work on ACE/ITDS builds on the
technical leadership developed by the
Central Data Exchange and Exchange
Network (CDX/EN). Applying the CDX/EN
technology offers all agencies participating
in ACE the opportunity to improve the
quality, timeliness, and accessibility of their
data at lower cost. At least five agencies
have expressed interest in the CDX/EN
technology as a way to exchange data.
Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA) Support:
EPA's Automated Security Self-Evaluation
and Reporting Tool (ASSERT) provides
Federal managers with the information they
need, from an enterprise perspective, to
make timely and informed decisions
regarding the level of security implemented
on their information resources. It provides
the reports and information those managers
need to protect their critical cyber
infrastructure and privacy information. It
helps agencies understand and assess their
security risks, monitor corrective actions and
provide standardized and automated FISMA
reports. Federal agencies using EPA's
FISMA Reporting Solution, and ASSERT,
include: EPA, Export-Import Bank (EXEVI),
GSA, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and
the Social Security Administration (SSA)
Geospatial Information: EPA works
extensively with DOI, NOAA, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), the USDA, the DHS and over 20
140
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
other Federal agencies through the activities
of the Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) and the OMB Geospatial Line of
Business (GeoLoB). OEI leads several key
initiatives within the FGDC and GeoLoB,
and is one of only two agencies (the other
being the National Geospatial Intelligence
Agency) that participate in the Coordinating
Committee, Steering Committee, and
Executive Steering Committee of the FGDC,
and the Federal Geospatial Advisory
Committee. A key component of this work
is developing and implementing the
infrastructure to support a comprehensive
array of national spatial data - data that can
be attached to and portrayed on maps. This
work has several key applications, including
ensuring that human health and
environmental conditions are represented in
the appropriate contexts, supporting the
assessment of environmental conditions, and
supporting emergency first responders and
other homeland security situations. Through
programs like the EPA National Information
Exchange Network, EPA also works closely
with its state and Tribal partners to ensure
consistent implementation of standards and
technologies supporting the efficient and
cost effective sharing of geographically
based data and services.
Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS): OEI works with the
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
to lead EPA's involvement in the GEOSS
initiative. Other partners in this initiative
are: The U.S. Group on Earth Observations
(USGEO), and a significant number of other
Federal agencies, including NASA, NOAA,
USGS, HHS, Department of Energy (DoE),
DoD, USDA, Smithsonian, National science
Foundation (NSF), State, and Department of
Transportation (DOT). Under the ten-year
strategic plan, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) in 2005, OEI
and ORD are leading EPA's development of
the environmental component of the
Integrated Earth Observation System
(IEOS), which will be the U.S. Federal
contribution to the international GEOSS
effort. Earth observation data, models, and
decision-support systems will play an
increasingly important role in finding
solutions for complex problems, including
adaptation to climate change.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Operating
under Executive Order No. 13508, EPA is
working to help restore the Chesapeake Bay.
Federal Partners in this initiative are:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA); Natural Resources
Conservation Service; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; USGS; U.S. Forest Service;
National Park Service; and the U.S. Navy
(representing Department of Defense). The
States of New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West
Virginia, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia, are also participating in the
effort. Using the Exchange Network (EPA's
existing network facilitating data sharing
among and with the states and tribes), OEI
will develop a similar resource for the
agencies working on the Chesapeake Bay,
and will couple it with geo-positioning
technologies.
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
The EPA Inspector General is a member of
the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an
organization comprised of Federal
Inspectors General (IG), GAO, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The
CIGIE coordinates and improves the way
IGs conduct audits, investigations and
internal operations. The CIGIE also
promotes joint projects of government-wide
interest, and reports annually to the
141
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
President on the collective performance of
the OIG community. The OIG Computer
Crimes Division coordinates computer crime
activities with other law enforcement
organizations such as the FBI, Secret
Service, and Department of Justice. In
addition, the OIG participates with various
inter-governmental audit forums and
professional associations to exchange
information, share best practices, and
obtain/provide training. The OIG further
promotes collaboration among EPA's
partners and stakeholders in the application
of technology, information, resources, and
law enforcement efforts through its outreach
activities. The EPA OIG initiates and
participates in individual collaborative
audits, evaluations and investigations with
OIGs of agencies with an environmental
mission such as the DOI and USDA, and
with other Federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies as prescribed by the
IG Act, as amended. The OIG also
promotes public awareness of opportunities
to report possible fraud, waste, and abuse
through the OIG Hotline.
142
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Introduction
The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000
requires the Inspector General to identify the
most serious management challenges facing
EPA, briefly assess the Agency's progress in
addressing them, and report annually. In FY
2008, EPA's Office of Inspector General
revised its definition of a management
challenge to distinguish it from an internal
control weakness. A weakness is a
deficiency in the design or operation of a
program, function, or activity, which the
Agency can correct. In contrast, a
management challenge is a lack of capability
derived from internal self-imposed or
externally imposed constraints that prevent
an organization from reacting effectively to
a changing environment. Addressing a
management challenge may require
assistance from outside of EPA and take
years to fully resolve. The discussion that
follows summarizes the Agency's response
to each of the management challenges that
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG)
reported to EPA's Administrator in its April
28, 2009 memorandum, EPA's Key
Management Challenges for Fiscal Year
2009, and the Major Management
Challenges identified by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) in March
2009.
EPA has established a mechanism for
identifying and addressing its key
management challenges. As part of its
Federal Management Financial Integrity Act
(FMFIA) process, EPA senior managers
meet with representatives from EPA's OIG,
GAO, and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to hear their views on EPA's
key management challenges. EPA managers
also use audits, reviews, and program
evaluations conducted internally and by
GAO, OMB, and OIG to assess program
effectiveness and identify potential
management issues. EPA recognizes that
management challenges, if not addressed
adequately, may prevent the Agency from
effectively meeting its mission. EPA
remains committed to addressing all
management issues in a timely manner and
will address them to the fullest extent of our
authority.
1. Addressing Emerging Climate
Change Issues
Summary of Challenge: According to
GAO, the federal government's approach to
climate change has been ad hoc and is not
well coordinated across government
agencies. For example, the federal
government lacks a comprehensive
approach for targeting federal research
dollars toward the development and
deployment of low-carbon technologies.
EPA, as well as other agencies, has been
slow to implement recommendations.
Agency Response: Over the last year and
during the first few months of the Obama
Administration, EPA has taken several
important actions to address climate change.
Currently, EPA plays a key role in
developing and implementing President
Obama's ambitious climate change agenda.
For instance, the Agency is participating in
strategic discussions and providing technical
advice and analysis on the full range of
domestic climate policies and technologies.
This includes cap-and-trade; transportation;
143
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
energy efficiency and renewable energy; and
new technologies, such as carbon capture
and storage.
Additionally, EPA is taking regulatory
actions to address climate change and
continuing to implement its ongoing
voluntary partnership programs. In October
2009, EPA issued a regulation establishing,
for the first time, a nationwide mandatory
greenhouse gas reporting program for large
sources of greenhouse gases and fuel
suppliers, which account for about 85
percent of national emissions. Reporting
under this program is expected to begin in
2011. In July 2008, EPA proposed
regulations under the Safe Drinking Water
Act ensuring a protective regulatory
framework for commercial-scale facilities
that sequester carbon dioxide in geologic
formations. EPA is responding to the 2007
Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v.
EPA and has recently issued under the Clean
Air Act a finding that greenhouse gases
endanger public health and welfare and that
emissions from new motor vehicles
contribute to that threat. EPA, in
conjunction with DOT, plans to issue new
greenhouse gas emission standards for light
vehicles in the spring of 2010. EPA is also
developing new greenhouse gas standards
for heavy duty vehicles and is considering
appropriate regulatory actions for other
transportation sources, in response to several
petitions which call for the Agency to
address these sources. EPA also proposed a
Renewable Fuel Standard as revised by the
Energy Independent and Security Act,
requiring the United States to incorporate 36
billion gallons of biofuels, including
requirements for advanced and cellulosic
fuels, into its fuel supply by 2022. EPA has
provided extensive technical advice and
economic modeling on the major climate
and energy bills passed by the House and
introduced in the Senate.
Recognizing that climate change cuts across
many programs and offices within the
Agency, senior leadership is taking steps to
expand and improve communication and
coordination on emerging climate change
issues. Coordination mechanisms have been
established among EPA offices working on
climate change, including daily planning
calls, regular meetings at the Deputy
Administrator level, and extensive outreach
across offices and with the EPA regions.
These processes will ensure that the Agency
receives information and input, draws
effectively on its resources, and provides
useful information to its stakeholders around
the country. EPA has also identified two
High Priority Performance Goals to improve
the country's ability to measure and control
GHG emissions. Specifically, EPA will
ensure that data collected for the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is made
publically available in a timely fashion, and
that they implement regulations designed to
reduce GHG emissions from light duty
vehicles sold in the United States starting
with model year 2012.
Finally, EPA continues to deliver on all
commitments under its ongoing partnership
programs to reduce greenhouse gases,
focused on energy efficiency, transportation,
and other sectors. Experience and
knowledge gained through these programs is
also informing EPA's input into the broader
climate policy discussion.
2. Improving Implementation of the
Clean Air Act
Summary of Challenge: GAO reports that
EPA faces many challenges related to
implementation of the Clean Air Act,
144
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
including those related to coordination with
other federal agencies, analyses of health
impacts from air pollution, and delays in
regulating mercury and other air toxics.
EPA also faces challenges relating to
numerous regulatory proposals that have
been overturned or remanded by the courts.
Agency Response: Over the years, GAO
has conducted various studies that identified
key challenges EPA faces in implementing
the Clean Air Act and made
recommendations intended to enhance the
effectiveness of its clean air program. The
Agency has devoted substantial resources to
addressing GAO's recommendations and
ensuring the effective implementation of
clean air programs, and it is making
substantial progress. Advances include
working with the Children's Health
Protection Advisory Committee to ensure
transparency. Additionally, the Agency is
using the best possible science in its
decision-making processes. The Agency is
working to expand toxics monitoring in
affected communities, quantifying and
understanding the sources of uncertainty in
its benefit analyses, and taking action on
rules that have been rejected by the Courts.
3. Water
and
Wastewater
Infrastructure/Reducing Pollution in
the Nation's Waters
Summary of Challenge: Under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), EPA is responsible for
assisting water and wastewater facilities in
meeting their water treatment requirements.
Many drinking water and wastewater
systems across the country are unable to
maintain compliance with federal water
standards due to repairs and new
constructions. While EPA has established
programs to help address infrastructure
costs, such as the Four Pillars of
Sustainable Infrastructure and National
Alliance for Water Efficiency, these
programs do not represent a cohesive
national strategy for solving the problem of
aging and deteriorating infrastructure.
Both OIG and GAO have cited water
infrastructure as a challenge for the Agency.
OIG believes EPA needs to take the lead in
developing a coherent federal strategy,
within the limits of its statutory authorities
and responsibilities, to assess the investment
requirements and work with states and local
governments to organize resources to meet
water and wastewater infrastructure needs.
GAO notes that, while EPA partners with
federal, state, and local agencies and others
to reduce pollution in the nation's waters,
many pollution sources are difficult to
monitor and regulate. Among the most
daunting water pollution control problems,
the nation's water utilities face billions of
dollars in upgrades to aging and
deteriorating infrastructures that, left
unaddressed, can affect the quality of our
water.
Agency Response: EPA is doing
everything possible within its authority,
responsibilities, and resource constraints to
change the way the country views, values,
manages, and uses water and wastewater
infrastructure. Its Sustainable Infrastructure
(SI) Initiative continues to be a top Agency
priority and has been active in the past year.
While, long-term sustainability will
ultimately occur at the local level, EPA has
provided and continues to provide national
leadership. As part of that strategy, we are
working to ensure that federal dollars
provided through the State Revolving Funds
act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide
planning, improvements in technical,
financial, and managerial capacity, and the
145
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
design, construction, and on-going
management of sustainable water
infrastructure.
For example, EPA continues to partner with
six of the major professional associations for
water and wastewater to promote the ten
attributes of an Effectively Managed Utility.
This first-of-its-kind national collaboration
enables utilities to operate under a common
management framework, which is helping
the sector move toward sustainability in a
unified manner. Building on existing
efforts, the collaborating organizations have
recently released a set of case studies that
document the success of a number of
utilities who have used the Effective Utility
Management (EUM) framework. The EUM
"Primer" has also been adapted into a web-
based tool and presentation to make it more
available to utilities across the country.
Recognizing that water efficiency has
significant implications for infrastructure,
EPA has continued to pursue and expand the
WaterSense program, launched in 2006. The
WaterSense label makes it easy for
consumers to find products and services that
save water while ensuring performance,
thereby reducing the burden on
infrastructure and mitigating water
availability challenges. It also helps to build
a national consciousness of the value of
water and water services, which is essential
to the national awareness and acceptance
that everyone must help pay for our
infrastructure needs.
EPA has also reached out to other federal
agencies and departments to work together
on infrastructure sustainability. In
collaboration with the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the Agency recently
released a set of case studies on Asset
Management, an area of common interest
for water and highway infrastructure. EPA
also has signed a partnership agreement with
the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and DOT that focuses on
sustainable communities and smart growth.
This new federal partnership could have
significant interconnections with water and
wastewater infrastructure in some
communities.
Other recent activities taken under the SI
Initiative include:
• Actively working with a long list of
partners to implement our Green
Infrastructure Action Plan. The
focus of this work is on green
infrastructure approaches to
managing wet weather. Among
other activities, the Action Plan
aims to better document costs,
benefits, and effectiveness of
practices; incorporate green
infrastructure into Long Term
Control Plans for combined sewer
overflows; and foster
implementation in communities
across the country.
• Initiating an effort to study how the
Agency can effectively increase the
engagement of local officials and
decision-makers on SI issues. This
effort will result in an outreach plan
to be implemented in the coming
year.
In these and other ways, EPA has taken a
leading role with federal partners and has
worked to increase public awareness and
appreciation of the need for sustainable
water infrastructure. Expanding EPA's
efforts would require increased authority
and resources.
146
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
4. Chesapeake Bay Program
Summary of Challenge: EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program Office is
responsible for overseeing the cleanup of the
Chesapeake Bay, North America's largest
and most biologically diverse estuary.
Despite EPA's efforts—which include
providing scientific information to its
federal, state, and local partners for setting
resource allocations; revising water quality
standards; and establishing stricter
wastewater treatment discharge limits—the
Agency continues to face significant
challenges in meeting water quality goals.
OIG notes that the remaining challenges
include managing land development,
increasing implementation of agricultural
conservation practices, monitoring and
expediting the installation of nutrient
removal technology at wastewater treatment
plants, seeking greater reduction in air
emissions, and identifying consistent and
sustained funding sources to support
tributary strategy implementation. While
EPA is responsible for monitoring and
assessing progress, its partners will need to
implement practices to reduce loads. OIG
believes EPA will need to institute
management controls to ensure that the
promised reductions are realistic and
achievable. EPA should then use its
reporting responsibilities to advise Congress
and the Chesapeake Bay community on the
partners' progress in meeting these
commitments and identify funding shortfalls
and other impediments that will affect
progress for restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
Agency Response: EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP) is a unique regional
partnership that directs and conducts the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay by
bringing together local, state, and federal
governments, non-profit organizations,
watershed residents, and academic
institutions. The CBP continues to respond
to and implement OIG and GAO
recommendations.
In spring 2009, the CBP office changed its
management structure to better align the
policy, advisory, and technical committees
and workgroups with the five goals of the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreements: protect and
restore fisheries; protect and restore vital
habitats; protect and restore water quality;
maintain health watersheds; and foster
stewardship. The new structure also aligns
with the Chesapeake Action Plan and
provides a clear focus on the goals and
outcomes that the Agency is trying to
achieve.
On May 12, 2009, President Obama signed
Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay
Protection and Restoration, launching a
"new era" of federal leadership and action to
protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
The Order, which establishes a Federal
Leadership Committee (FLC) that will
oversee the development and coordination
of programs and activities, will help define
the next generation of tools and actions to
restore water quality in the Bay.
Additionally, the Order describes changes to
be made to regulations, programs, and
policies to implement these actions.
EPA chairs the FLC, which includes senior
representatives of the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland
Security, the Interior, Transportation, and
well as other agencies. On November 9,
2009, EPA and the other FLC agencies
released a draft comprehensive strategy for
the protection and restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed as called
for in section 203 of the EO. Also in
November 2009, EPA and other agencies
147
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
released individual reports on specific
challenges in the Chesapeake Bay as
required under section 202 of the EO. The
agencies are engaged in a significant public
outreach effort to explain the strategy and
reports and to hear directly from members of
the public as to their perspectives on the
ideas contained in these documents.
EPA's recommended actions under the EO
include:
• Development of watershed
implementation plans by the six Bay
watershed states and the District of
Columbia;
• Requiring the states and District to
develop milestones detailing near-
term actions and loading reduction
targets to evaluate progress toward
water quality goals;
• Undertaking new rulemakings to
reduce nutrient and sediment
loadings to the Chesapeake Bay from
concentrated animal feeding
operations, stormwater, new or
expanding sources of nutrient and/or
sediment, and other pollutant sources
as EPA deems necessary; and
• Establishing an enhanced partnership
with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to accelerate the
adoption of conservation practices by
agricultural interests in the Bay
watershed.
In May 2010, the FLC will release the final
strategy responding to EO 13508. The
strategy is expected to include target dates
and milestones for implementation of the
actions being undertaken by each FLC
agency.
In fall 2010, the FLC will publish annual
Chesapeake Bay Action Plans that describe
how federal funding will be put toward Bay
restoration in the coming year. The plans
will be accompanied by an annual progress
report. To strengthen accountability, the
Committee will ensure that an independent
evaluator periodically reports on progress
toward meeting the goals of the Order.
A centerpiece of EPA's activities is the
implementation of the nation's largest and
most complex Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for the entire Chesapeake Bay
watershed. A TMDL is essentially a plan
that defines how much of a particular
pollutant may be discharged in to a
particular waterbody while allowing the
waterbody to meet its water quality
standards and designated uses. Through
watershed implementation plans, EPA
expects that the Bay states and the District
of Columbia will provide specific timelines
for enhancing programs and implementing
actions to reduce pollution, with all
measures needed to reach the TMDL
pollution load limits in place no later than
2025. EPA's High Priority Performance
Goal is tied to the development and
submission of those watershed
implementation plans.
By FY 2011, EPA expects the states and
D.C. to divide their TMDL-allocated
pollution reductions to the local level so that
counties, municipalities, conservation
districts and watershed organizations
understand their role in meeting water
quality goals. EPA expects that by 2017
pollution controls will be in place that
should result in approximately 60 percent of
the required reductions.
5. Safe Reuse of Contaminated Sites
Summary of Challenge: EPA places
increasing emphasis on the reuse of
contaminated or once-contaminated
148
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
properties and has a performance measure
to define a population of contaminated sites
that are ready for reuse. EPA faces
"significant and increasing" challenges in
this area, however, due to the common
practice of not removing all sources of
contamination from hazardous sites; a
regulatory structure that places key
responsibilities for monitoring and
enforcing the long-term safety of
contaminated sites on non-EPA parties that
may lack necessary resources, information,
and skill; changes in site risks as site
conditions change over time; and existing
weaknesses in EPA 's oversight of the long-
term safety of sites. EPA will continually
need to assess challenges it faces as well as
challenges among the diverse group of non-
EPA parties it must work with to ensure sites
are safely reused. To address the
challenges, these assessments should
include consideration of new or expanded
authorities and regulations, organization
structures, and dedicated funding and
resources.
Agency Response: In its April 2009 report,
OIG identified a number of concerns
associated with ensuring the long-term
safety of contaminated sites, and EPA
agrees with OIG's recommendations.
OIG stated that "EPA's management of the
long-term oversight and monitoring
requirements for the safe reuse of
contaminated sites has lagged behind their
marketing of site reuse opportunities and
showcase successes." Using a variety of
tools, regions are working closely with
prospective users to ensure they understand
the limitations associated with the site and
use the site in a way that prevents exposures.
Comfort letters and Ready for Reuse
determinations lay out any limitations that
need to be followed to ensure
protectiveness. Some regions have official
processes for prospective users that ensure
the reuse will be compatible with the
remedy. In addition, EPA works closely
with state and local governments to ensure
that mechanisms such as institutional
controls are maintained to permit safe reuse
of sites. EPA also conducts 5-year reviews
at all sites to ensure continued remedy
protection where waste is left in place.
OIG also notes that states were not
financially prepared to take over their long-
term monitoring and maintenance
responsibilities. The Agency is aware of a
few instances in which states did not have
the funding needed to continue their
responsibilities. Though state budgets have
been constrained, states have strived to
maintain their responsibilities. Further, OIG
specifies that states failed to enforce cleanup
agreements. EPA continually encourages
state enforcement of cleanup agreements,
meeting with the Association of State and
Territorial Waste Management Officials
member states and offering technical
assistance. In response to OIG's concern
that EPA is not following Superfund site
deletion guidance or 5-year review
procedures, the Agency has new procedures
and processes in place to ensure that
deletion actions comply with the National
Contingency Plan and EPA guidance.
Additionally, current procedures remain in
place to ensure appropriate implementation
of 5-year review guidance. Finally, OIG
believes that EPA does not have systems in
place to determine whether a site cleanup is
in noncompliance. The Agency is working
to finalize the draft Guidance on Tracking
Substantial Noncompliance with CERCLA
Enforcement Instruments in CERCLIS.
Once the guidance is issued, regions began
entering compliance tracking data into
CERCLIS in the fourth quarter of FY 2009.
149
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Speeding the Pace of Cleanup at
Superfund and other Hazardous Waste
Sites
Summary of Challenge: In 1980 Congress
passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
better known as Superfund, which gave the
federal government the authority to ensure
the cleanup of hazardous waste sites both on
private and public land. GAO believes that
declining appropriations (when adjusted for
inflation) have slowed the pace of cleanups.
Further, GAO notes that EPA has not
implemented a 1980 mandate requiring
businesses to demonstrate that they can pay
for potential environmental cleanups, that
is, to provide financial assurance. GAO has
recommended that EPA (1) ensure that
financial assurances are in place for sites
that manufacture or use toxic chemicals; (2)
improve the institutional controls at
contaminated sites; (3) ensure that owners
of underground storage tanks maintain
access to adequate financial resources and
state insurance funds provide reliable
coverage for cleanups; and (4) establish a
formal structure to centrally track and
monitor the status of cleanup efforts.
Agency Response: EPA recognizes the
need for program improvements in the areas
GAO has identified and has efforts
underway to address GAO's concerns
regarding the pace of cleanup at Superfund
and other hazardous waste sites.
In July 2009, EPA published a notice in the
Federal Register identifying the classes of
facilities for which financial responsibility
requirements will first be developed and also
identified additional classes on January 6,
2010. Next, a proposed and final rule for
these classes will be developed. This
substantial regulatory effort is scheduled to
continue through 2012.
EPA released a strategy to ensure
institutional control (1C) implementation at
Superfund sites in September 2004,
developed an 1C tracking system to ensure
that sites have appropriate ICs in place, and
provided public access to 1C information at
Superfund sites. EPA is also developing
guidance on implementation and assurance
plans for ICs. These efforts recognize that
there is a significant role for local and state
governments in the planning, implementing,
monitoring and enforcing of ICs relied upon
in cleanup of many contaminated sites. EPA
also supports several Association of State
and Territorial Waste Management Officials
subcommittees that focus on ICs and long-
term stewardship.
EPA acknowledges the importance of
adequate financial responsibility coverage
for cleanup and has already taken steps to
address GAO's recommendation. For
instance to ensure compliance with the
Energy Policy Act, states and EPA
inspectors are required to verify financial
responsibility as part of the mandatory 3-
year inspection requirement for underground
storage tanks. EPA is also enhancing its
oversight of state funds through additional
guidance and consultation.
With respect to GAO's last
recommendation, EPA already tracks
Superfund cleanup efforts through its
CERCLIS database, which contains
information (including site contaminant
information) on all Superfund sites.
150
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
6. Transforming EPA's Processes for
Assessing and Controlling Toxic
Chemicals
Summary of Challenge: GAO notes that
EPA 's ability to protect public health and
the environment depends on credible and
timely assessment of the risks posed by toxic
chemicals. Such chemical assessments are
the cornerstone of scientifically sound
environmental decisions, policies, and
regulations under a variety of statutes, such
as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPA 's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), which contains assessments of more
that 500 toxic chemicals, is at a serious risk
of becoming obsolete because EPA has been
unable to keep its existing assessments
current or to complete assessments of
important chemicals of concerns. In a
number of reports, GAO identified actions
EPA needs to take to (1) enhance its ability
under TSCA to obtain health and safety
information from the chemical industry and
(2) streamline and increase the
transparency of IRIS.
Agency Response: GAO identified
"Transforming EPA's Processes for
Assessing and Controlling Toxic
Chemicals" as a high-risk area in its January
2009 High-Risk Series. In the report, GAO
states that the Agency needs to take actions
to streamline and increase the transparency
of the development of human health
assessments under the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) Program and
enhance its ability under the Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) to obtain
health and safety information from the
chemical industry. EPA acknowledges the
issues that GAO has raised and has already
begun to address concerns.
The IRIS Program is a human health
assessment program that evaluates
quantitative and qualitative risk information
on effects that may result from exposure to
environmental contaminants. Through the
IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest
quality science-based human health
assessments to support Agency regulatory
activities. In May 2009, the Agency
announced reforms to IRIS that will
revitalize the program and ensure its
scientific quality, integrity, transparency,
and timeliness. Specifically, the Agency has
developed a new IRIS assessment
development process that includes a
streamlined review schedule for most
chemicals to ensure that the majority of
assessments are posted on the IRIS database
within 2 years of the start date. In addition,
interagency comments will now be part of
the public record, increasing the
transparency of the process. Lastly, the
President's FY2011 Budget maintains
increases to funding and staff initially
provided in FY2010 to enable more
assessments to be completed.
GAO also raised concerns about TSCA.
TSCA authorizes EPA to obtain information
on chemicals and regulate chemicals that
pose an unreasonable risk to human health
and the environment. The Agency has taken
major steps to strengthen its chemicals
management program under TSCA. For
instance, the Administrator identified better
management of chemical risk as one of her
top five priorities. To support this priority,
the Agency proposed in its 2010 President's
Budget submission, a significant investment
to support EPA's toxics program. Key
elements of the Administrator's emerging
strategy for improving EPA's ability to
reduce chemical risks include completing
long-standing efforts to obtain needed
151
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
chemical hazard and exposure data,
accelerating progress in assessing such data
to identify chemicals posing the greatest and
most immediate risks, and using the full
array of EPA's current regulatory tools to
reduce known chemical risks.
7. Improving Agency-wide Management
Summary of Challenge: EPA has launched
various initiatives to address cross-cutting
general management issues, including
environmental enforcement and compliance,
human capital management, and the
development and use of environmental
information. However, these initiatives have
generally fallen considerably short of their
intended results.
Agency Response:
Environmental Enforcement and
Compliance
In FY 2004, the Agency piloted the State
Review Framework (SRF) to address
concerns about consistency in the minimum
level of enforcement activity across states
and the oversight of state programs by EPA
regions. The SRF uses 12 core elements to
assess enforcement activities across three
key programs: the Clean Air Act Stationary
Sources (Title V), the Clean Water Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Subtitle C. The 12 core elements include
data completeness, data accuracy, timeliness
of data entry, completion of work plan
commitments, inspection coverage,
completeness of inspection reports,
identification of alleged violations,
identification of significant noncompliance,
ensuring return to compliance, timely and
appropriate enforcement, calculation of
gravity and economic benefit penalty
components, and final assessed penalties and
their collection.
During 2007-2008, EPA evaluated the first
full round of the SRF to identify ways to
streamline the time and effort of the reviews
and opportunities for further improvements.
Based on the reviews and the evaluation, the
Agency identified four areas that were
recurring issues across states and programs:
data entry and reporting; significant non-
compliance and high priority violations
identification; timely enforcement; and
calculation and documentation of penalties.
In September 2008, the Agency made key
improvements and initiated Round 2, which
included additional and enhanced training
for regions and states, streamlined reporting
through a standard template, clearer
elements, improved metrics, more explicit
guidance on incorporating local agencies
into reviews, better understanding of where
consistency is important, a streamlined
review of reports, tracking and management
of the implementation of recommendations,
and additional steps for communication and
coordination between regions and states.
The current SRF outlines the process for
uniformly addressing significant problems
identified in state programs. First, the
region and state define the state's attributes
and deficiencies and develop a schedule for
implementing needed changes. Second, the
region and state jointly develop a plan to
address performance, using established
mechanisms such as Performance
Partnership Agreements, Performance
Partnership Grants, or categorical grant
agreements to codify the plans. Third, the
region and state manage and monitor
implementation of the plan to ensure
progress as planned and to identify and
152
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
address issues as they arise. EPA completed
15 SRF reviews in 2009.
In 2009, EPA began to make the SRF
reports publicly available by putting all
Round 1 reports on the internet. EPA will
make Round 2 reports available on the
internet as they are finalized. EPA is also
making data available on the status of
program improvements identified in the SRF
reviews. By making this information public,
EPA has increased the accountability of
environmental enforcement programs.
EPA has made substantial progress in
planning and priority setting with states and
in using the SRF to enhance its ability to
evaluate and oversee state enforcement
activities. The Agency believes that the
SRF will help maintain a level of
consistency across state programs, ensuring
that states meet minimum standards and
implement fair and consistent enforcement
of environmental laws and consistent
protection of human health and the
environment across the country. The
Agency plans to use the "SRF Tracker" to
analyze trends in findings and track
corrective actions to report on the results of
the SRF.
Human Capital
As part of ongoing resource management
efforts, EPA has been exploring how to
maximize the productivity of its limited staff
and other resources. During each year's
budget process, EPA reviews the staffing
funding, levels, and allocation to address all
activities. OIG and GAO routinely report
that EPA (and other agencies) need to
increase the efficiency of resource use in
functional areas. Toward this end, EPA and
many other federal agencies have begun to
specialize in particular functional areas and
provide these services externally to other
federal agencies. For example, EPA has
contracted with the Department of Defense
for its payroll services.
In February 2009, the Agency procured
contractor to conduct a workload
benchmarking study of six major functions
that it shares with other federal agencies,
including regulatory development, scientific
research, enforcement, financial
management, environmental monitoring,
and permitting.
The study is designed to build EPA's
understanding of the determinants other
Agencies consider in setting staffing levels
for these functions. The analysis will also
help EPA expand its understanding of
workload drivers, major products, and
staffing allocation alternatives to consider in
these six functional areas. The
benchmarking may highlight areas that need
additional review if disparities surface, or it
may point to possible pilot efforts. This
enhanced understanding will allow EPA to
continue to better determine the next steps in
improving efficiency, targeting resources to
the most critical priorities, and providing
critical background information for Agency
leadership to consider when making budget
allocation decisions.
Environmental Information
EPA's Report on the Environment (ROE)
provides peer-reviewed scientific
environmental indicators on status and
trends of the nation's environment that are
important to the Agency. The ROE effort is
a cross-agency and interagency program
with strong collaboration and partnership
between EPA program offices and regions.
The indicators and associated gaps and
153
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
limitations provide valuable input to
planning and decision making in the
Agency. To date, roughly a third of the
indicators included in EPA's 2008 ROE are
used as the basis of the quantified strategic
performance metrics established in the
Agency's current (2006-11) and prospective
(2009-14) Strategic Plans. ROE
collaborators continue to look for new data
and information sources to expand the
number of indicators and have implemented
routine updating procedures to ensure that
decision makers have the most current
information available.
8.
Threat and Risk Assessment
Summary of Challenge: OIG notes that, in
the past year, EPA has not developed and
applied threat and risk assessments in
decision making. According to OIG,
relative threats and risks to human health
and the environment are not assessed and
decisions based on the highest priority. As
discussed in its recent reports on EPA 's
enforcement and air programs, OIG believes
the Agency's environmental laws focus on a
single media, goals are designed to
implement separate legislative mandates,
and available technological solutions
address specific pollutant sources. In 2008,
OIG stated that EPA needed to establish and
implement a risk-based strategy to assess
threats to human health and the environment
across media.
Agency Response: EPA confirms that its
last comparative risk study was completed
nearly 20 years ago. However, the Agency
believes that the approach used at that
time—to rank all environmental risks in a
very aggregate manner—is no longer useful.
Current Agency analyses, which look more
deeply into environmental threats, are more
useful in decision making. For instance, the
Agency is conducting a forward-looking
study that explores the relative risks, costs,
feasibility, and the synergisms of controlling
various air pollutants. The Agency is also
nearing completion of the 812 Prospective
Study, which reviews the costs and benefits
of various future actions to control air
pollution. Additionally, the Agency is
working with a number of watersheds,
including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes,
and national estuaries, to take a holistic
perspective, considering cross-media issues
and planning actions with the greatest
benefit. The Agency has also developed a
system that helps identify where to focus
permitting and methods that use
measurement tools to focus on enforcement
priorities.
EPA has several other efforts underway,
such as the Community Action for a
Renewed Environment (CARE) program,
identification of environmental justice
communities, sector strategies,
environmental management systems, smart
growth, and green building to address risk
more holistically across media. The Agency
believes these initiatives encourage a more
disaggregated approach to identifying risk
that will enhance its ability to focus its
resources on the highest risk. EPA will
continue to use a variety of means, including
its strategic planning and budgeting
processes, to incorporate risk and threat
assessment in its decision-making.
9. Meeting
Homeland
Security
Requirements
Summary of Challenge: OIG continues to
raise concerns about EPA's homeland
security efforts and actions. Although EPA
has taken actions to strengthen homeland
security, OIG reports show that the
Agency's plans for responding to incidents
154
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
of national significance do not (1) document
the methodology used to determine the
required resources, (2) address
coordination with other federal, state or
local emergency response agencies, (3)
contain designation or process descriptions
for handling crisis communications, (4)
include key milestones for completing
critical homeland security responsibilities,
and (5) establish accountable entities, within
EPA, responsible for completing critical
homeland security requirements. OIG states
that the Agency has not yet implemented
recommendations outlined in its 2008
report. Additionally, OIG believes that
many of the Agency's actions to address
homeland security (e.g., implementing the
Radiation Ambient Monitoring System, and
a national equipment tracking system) are
behind schedule. OIG notes that effectively
managing its homeland security program
will require the Agency to think differently
about how it responds, coordinates with
others, and communicates in nationally
significant emergencies.
Agency Response: EPA has a Homeland
Security Work Plan, updated annually,
which identifies the Agency's homeland
security focus and efforts in four homeland
security priority areas: water security,
decontamination, emergency response, and
internal preparedness. These priority areas
have been identified as a result of specific
responsibilities assigned to EPA by external
entities and the Agency's homeland security
requirements and assignments.
As part of this plan EPA developed three
tiers of information to be responsive to its
homeland security mandates. This
information forms the basis for
understanding EPA's highest homeland
security priorities and serves to assess short,
medium, and long-term goals and results.
The three tiers are:
• Desired End States - describe the
final outcome of homeland security
projects or efforts once EPA
believes it has met the President's
or other externally imposed
directives.
• Desired Results - reflect specific
programmatic areas through which
EPA seeks to make progress toward
achieving the desired end state.
• Action Items - reflect specific
program and regional office plans
(e.g., projects or efforts) to progress
toward desired results and
ultimately reach EPA's desired end
state.
Although some regions and special teams
currently have systems in place to manage
their equipment inventories, EPA
acknowledges the need for a national
equipment inventory to ensure that the
Agency can identify and access appropriate
equipment in support of nationally
significant events.
To address findings and recommendations
for the national equipment tracking system,
EPA expedited development of the
Equipment Module of the Emergency
Management Portal, a warehouse
management and equipment tracking
system. All regions and special teams are
required to use the new system for tracking
emergency response equipment. This
application has been improved over several
versions; Version 6.1, scheduled for
November 2009, will complete the off-line
synchronization option for those warehouses
with poor connectivity. The completion
date for the tracking warehouses for
155
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
emergency response equipment was
December 21,2009.
In November 2009, the Agency issued its
National Approach to Response Plan and
completed the corrective actions that address
recommendations in OIG's Report No 2008-
P00055-167 "EPA Should Continue to
Improve Its National Emergency Response
Planning." EPA will continue to use its
Homeland Security Priority Work Plan to
systematically assess homeland security
priorities and projects and achieve its
homeland security objectives.
10. Oversight of Delegation of States
Summary of Challenge: A critical
management challenge for EPA is
overseeing its delegation of programs to the
states, mostly due to differences between
state and federal policies, interpretations,
strategies, and priorities. While EPA has
improved its oversight, particularly in
priority setting and enforcement planning
with states, the Agency needs accurate data
and consistent policy interpretation to
ensure effective oversight of all delegated
regulatory and voluntary programs. OIG
believes that EPA must address the
limitations in the availability, quality, and
robustness of program implementation and
effectiveness data.
Agency Response: As OIG notes, state
oversight is a very complex and changeable
arena. Through federal statutes,
implementing regulations, and program
design, states are allowed flexibility in how
they manage and implement environmental
programs. Within EPA, national program
managers are directly responsible for state
oversight of individual programs. The
Agency has committees, workgroups,
special projects and initiatives to
continuously improve Agency programs
delegated to states.
To provide more collaboration at the
national level, the Agency, working with
states, established the Partnership Council of
the Office of Water and States (PCOWS).
PCOWS addresses the challenges of
increasing workloads, pending demands of
energy and climate change, and declining
resources. It also tests the early and on-
going engagement of states in planning,
budgeting, and implementation activities for
the national water program. As the first
national level forum for the discussion of
strategic priorities with the states, PCOWS
will ensure that core and key program
activities are given appropriate priority in
budget decisions and identify opportunities
for work sharing for priority activities and
maximizing resources.
EPA has made improvements in its
enforcement priority setting, planning, and
state oversight. Currently, using the State
Review Framework (SRF), the Agency
conducts oversight reviews to evaluate the
performance of state compliance and
enforcement programs. The SRF enables
assessment of program effectiveness and
identification of areas for management
improvements that is consistent across EPA
regions and states. In October 2009, the
Administrator released a Clean Water Act
Enforcement Action Plan aimed to focus
Federal and State enforcement to the most
significant sources and most serious
violations, strengthen state oversight and
improve transparency and accountability to
the public. This action plan will result in a
redesigned enforcement program with clear
expectations for state performance, joint
accountability metrics and reporting on
performance to the public.
156
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
In July 2009, the Administrator renewed the
Agency's commitment to use the National
Environmental Information Exchange,
which both EPA and states view as a critical
component of cost effective exchange of
data and information between EPA, states,
and the public.
11. Voluntary Programs
Summary of Challenge: OIG reviews of
voluntary programs that address air toxics,
greenhouse gas reduction, pollution
prevention, etc. indicate performance and
data verification for voluntary programs is a
systemic problem for EPA. According to
OIG, without comprehensive, valid, and
reliable performance data, EPA can not
ensure that programs are efficiently and
effectively providing intended and claimed
environmental benefits. EPA needs to
determine the extent to which voluntary
programs can effectively address
environmental and human health
challenges.
Agency Response: EPA programs and
regions support a range of regulatory and
voluntary programs designed to help achieve
environmental result (e.g., improving air
quality, lowering greenhouse gases,
reducing chemical risk). Currently, there are
over 40 officially designated voluntary
(Now called partnership) programs
administered by EPA at the federal level
(more exists at the state and local levels).
Voluntary (Partnership) programs can
enhance or complement regulatory
programs, and help to address significant
issues difficult not amenable to traditional
regulatory approaches.
The Agency has developed guidelines on
partnership program design, measurement,
marketing, and evaluation. However, most
voluntary programs are managed by
individual national program managers who
use various methods to track and report
program effectiveness and impact on the
environment. EPA's Innovation Action
Council has identified program management
improvements including codifying minimum
requirements for program design and
operation; making new program notification
mandatory; defining categories of
Partnership Programs; and developing new
guidelines for evaluating a partnership
program. The Agency has disseminated this
information, and assessed the degree to
which the improvements are being
implemented. Support and training are
being offered to programs which have not
yet met the requirements of the
improvements.
According to the National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and Technology,
"There is a widespread misperception that
EPA's primary stewardship tool consists of
voluntary partnership programs. The reality
is, however, that the Agency has many
additional assets to promote stewardship,
such as regulatory programs, grants,
information, public speeches, and in-house
operations. EPA achieves its most effective
results when it uses these tools in concert."
26
EPA is taking steps to improve performance
information to determine the effectiveness
of partnership programs. For example, an
interim evaluation of the Nanoscale
Materials Stewardship Program notes that as
much as 90 percent of the different
nanoscale materials that are likely to be
commercially available were not reported.
The Agency's conclusion then was that it
had learned a great deal about nanoscale
26 http://www.epa.gov/ocem/nacept/reports/pdf/2008-
0328-everyones-business-final.pdf
157
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
materials in commerce, but the program did
not provide the needed breadth of health and
safety data and the participation rate was
lower than hoped. In response, EPA is
developing a mandatory reporting rule under
TSCA Section 8(a) to require companies to
report data on existing uses, production
volumes, specific physical properties,
chemical and structural characteristics,
methods of manufacture and processing,
exposure and release information, and
available health and safety data. EPA is also
developing a mandatory test rule under
TSCA Section 4 to require companies to test
a number of manufactured nanomaterials for
health and environmental effects. The
information submitted under these
regulations will further EPA's understanding
of the uses and potential risks of
manufactured nanomaterials, and strengthen
the scientific basis for taking appropriate
risk management actions. Another example
of continuous improvement of performance
information can be found with the pollution
prevention (P2) programs. While EPA
agrees that not all P2 programs had standard
operating procedures in place for
performance data at the time of the audit,
many did. The program is currently working
to incorporate lessons learned across the
program and develop comprehensive
standard operating procedures and QA/QC
practices for performance information.
12. EPA's
Organization
and
Infrastructure
Summary of Challenge. Since EPA was
formed in 1970, a comprehensive study has
not been completed to analyze EPA's
mission, organization, and the related
number and location of employees needed to
most effectively carry out the Agency's
mission at the least cost. OIG believes EPA
remains challenged in maintaining the right
number of people in the right places to most
effectively accomplish its mission and
achieve strategic goals. OIG recommends
that, with the assistance of external parties
(oversight committees), EPA conduct a
comprehensive study to assess its mission,
workforce, and infrastructure requirements
in order to accomplish its mission and
reduce operating costs.
Agency Response: EPA acknowledges
OIG's concerns and agrees that the Agency
could benefit from a comprehensive review
of its organizational structure as it relates to
the number and location of employees
needed to effectively accomplish its mission.
EPA does not have the resources nor the
authority to conduct such a broad review.
However, it has conducted periodic
nationwide assessments to identify cost-
saving opportunities as a result of mission
and personnel changes, including most
recently, a November 2009 rent efficiencies
exercise that identified several opportunities
for space consolidation and right-sizing at
locations across the country. The resulting
report is under review by Agency senior
management. .
Currently, EPA maintains an inventory of
buildings—owned and leased—that supports
its current mission. Through its master
space planning process, the Agency will
continue to identify and fulfill its long-term
facility requirements. The Agency plans to
establish a senior level workgroup that will
examine space management and usage at
Agency facilities and identify opportunities
for greater efficiencies from a mission,
workforce and infrastructure perspective.
Under the Space Consolidation and Rent
Avoidance Project, the Agency has released
approximately 228,000 square feet of space,
resulting in an annual rent avoidance of
158
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
more than $7.3 million. In FY 2010 and
2011, the Agency plans to release
approximately 99,300 square feet of
additional space in headquarters and
regional facilities for an estimated annual
rent avoidance of nearly $3.9 million.
13. Management of Stimulus Funds
Summary of Challenge: EPA received $7.2
billion in ARRA funds for six existing
programs: 1) Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF), 2) Drinking Water SRF, 3)
Hazardous Substance Superfund, 4) Diesel
Emissions Reduction, 5) Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks, and 6)
Brownfields. OIG acknowledges that the
Agency has already taken steps to address
ARRA requirements. However, OIG believes
EPA faces significant challenges in meeting
all ARRA requirements while at the same
time carrying out ongoing environmental
programs. For instance, since most ARRA
funds will be awarded through assistance
agreements and contracts, EPA 's grants and
contracts personnel will have to manage
stimulus grants and contracts in addition to
their normal workload. To reduce the risk of
fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds,
OIG indicates that EPA will need to assign
sufficient, trained staff to ensure proper
oversight of grants and contracts.
Agency Response: From the passage of the
act, the Agency agreed that "EPA faces
significant challenges in meeting all ARRA
requirements while at the same time
carrying out ongoing environmental
programs." The Agency is determined to
meet these challenges and ensure that the
Recovery Act investments create jobs, meet
environmental goals and that public funds
are obligated and expended responsibly and
transparently.
The Agency has done considerable work to
demonstrate effective management and
oversight of ARRA funds and activities. For
instance, in accordance with OMB guidance,
EPA created a senior-level Steering
Committee to oversee its ARRA strategy
and implementation. The senior-level
Stimulus Steering Committee established
subcommittees on grants, contracts, finance
and resources, performance measurement
and other crucial areas composed of
experienced staff to raise, research and
address challenges promptly. Coordinating
through the principal steering committee,
EPA succeeded in obligating almost all of
the program funds available, establishing
performance metrics, developing guidance
for recipients on reporting and meeting
additional requirements of the Act such as
Davis-Bacon, Recipient Reporting, and Buy
American. These subcommittees also
worked to meet ambitious and detailed
public reporting requests.
To ensure transparency and accountability
of its ARRA activities, EPA also developed
and implemented a comprehensive ARRA
Stewardship Plan that identifies potential
programmatic and administrative risks,
details specific control activities to mitigate
those risks, and specifically defines Agency
roles and responsibilities in performing and
monitoring those activities. The plan
addresses seven functional areas: grants
management, interagency agreements,
contracts, payroll/human capital, budget
execution, performance reporting, and
financial reporting. The risks identified in
the Plan are based on the five GAO internal
control standards and various internal
control objectives referenced in the OMB
guidance. The Steering Committee receives
quarterly status reports on internal controls
related to the oversight of ARRA funds.
159
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
The vast majority of funding for ARRA
activities has been provided using grants and
contracts from existing programs that
currently have strong internal controls. The
Agency has put in place additional internal
controls for contracts and grants to address
ARRA funds. The Agency issued guidance
on the award of ARRA contracts and grants
(March and October), and interagency
agreements (April). EPA also developed a
plan for a stakeholder outreach initiative that
outlines how the Agency will communicate
information on ARRA contracts and grants
opportunities to potential customers and
stakeholders (through instructional fact
sheets, webinars, etc.). We believe that the
existing internal controls and the
Stewardship Plan, will help the Agency
ensure proper oversight of ARRA funds for
grants, contracts, and interagency
agreements. The Agency will periodically
reassess the risks identified in the
Stewardship Plan and make adjustments as
needed.
With regard to OIG's concerns about staff
workload, and as noted in the Agency's
response to the Recovery Accountability and
Transparency Board's Contracts and Grants
Staffing and Qualification Survey, EPA
generally has, at this time, sufficient trained
resources to manage ARRA grants and
contracts. In making ARRA implementation
our top priority, we have had to disinvest in
some of our non-ARRA grant and contract
work. This includes, among other things,
delays in non-ARRA awards and closeouts,
less frequent post-award monitoring and
extending milestones under our Grants
Management Plan. The Agency will
continue to carefully assess the level of
disinvestment to ensure it does not
jeopardize our internal controls for effective
grants and contracts management.
14.
Performance Measurement
Summary of Challenge: While EPA has
been recognized for its efforts to align
budgeting, planning, and accounting
systems to track and report resources, OIG
believes the Agency continues to face
challenges in measuring the human health
and environmental results of its programs.
OIG notes that program results are not
immediately recognized or demonstrated
until years later, that linking environmental
activities to outcomes is difficult due to
external factors beyond EPA's control, and
that performance measures often focus on
program activities instead of improvements
to human health or the environment.
Additionally, OIG indicates that although
the Report on the Environment provides a
broad perspective on the condition of the
Nation's environment, the Agency still faces
limitations, gaps, and challenges in
gathering and analyzing information on key
environmental indicators. To address these
concerns, OIG recommends that the Agency
focus on the logic of program design to
ensure that programs and processes are
designed so that managers can measure,
evaluate, and demonstrate results for
resources used, allowing for transparency
and accountability for program
performance.
Agency Response: EPA acknowledges the
inherent difficulties in aligning
environmental information, performance
measures, and results. However, the
Agency has made performance measurement
improvement and performance management
a high priority and is pursuing many actions
to address challenges.
EPA's program offices have the ultimate
responsibility in designing their programs
and corresponding performance measures to
160
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
assess results. The Agency continues to
offer training and technical assistance in
logic modeling and program evaluation and
design. Additionally, the Agency has made
significant strides in strengthening its
performance management framework and
furthering access to and the quality of
performance data to improve their utility for
decision-making. For example, senior
managers can easily view progress on key
performance measures using "Measures
Central," an Agency-wide database, and the
Executive Management Dashboard, an
intranet-based application. Over the last few
years, EPA has conducted an Agency-wide
effort to improve the systems, quality of the
measures, and data in the systems. EPA's
work to strengthen performance
management contributed to the Agency's
winning—in consecutive years—the
President's Quality Award for Management
Excellence. EPA is the second federal
agency ever to receive this award, and the
only Agency to have won it twice.
EPA has accomplished significant progress
in addressing the inherent challenges of
performance measurement. For instance,
the Agency conducted an annual review of
FY 2009 and FY 2010 measures to further
improve the linkages between its operational
measures, senior management priorities, and
long-term environmental and health goals.
Additionally, the Agency strengthened
governance/oversight of the overall quality
of the measures and data in the Measures
Central through modifications to the system,
guidance, and training, and it has added
ARRA performance measures to the system.
The Agency has also produced Measures
Central Mid- and End-of-Year Reports to
improve transparency in performance data
reporting across programs and regional
offices and to monitor progress.
EPA continues to engage with state, tribal,
and regional stakeholders and has developed
a number of tools to increase collaboration,
transparency, efficiency, and the
management utility of the Agency's annual
commitment process. EPA offices
collaborated internally to develop data
quality Management Action Plans (MAP I
and MAP II), which will ensure the accuracy
and reliability of ARRA environmental and
performance data. These MAPs require the
development and certification of a Data
Quality Record for each ARRA performance
measure along with pre-dissemination
review, as required by OMB and the
Agency's Information Quality Guidelines,
prior to each public report.
161
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
EPA USER FEE PROGRAM
In FY 2011, EPA will have several user fee
programs in operation. These user fee
programs and proposals are as follows:
Current Fees: Pesticides
The FY 2011 President's Budget reflects the
continued collection of Maintenance fees for
review of existing pesticide registrations,
and Enhanced Registration Service Fees for
the accelerated review of new pesticide
registration applications.
• Pesticides
Extension
Maintenance Fee
The Maintenance fee provides funding for
the Reregi strati on program and a certain
percentage supports the processing of
applications involving "me-too" or inert
ingredients. In FY 2011, the Agency
expects to collect $22 million in
Maintenance fees under current law.
• Enhanced Registration Services
Entities seeking to register pesticides for use
in the United States pay a fee at the time the
registration action request is submitted to
EPA specifically for accelerated pesticide
registration decision service. This process
has introduced new pesticides to the market
more quickly. In FY 2011, the Agency
expects to collect $14 million in Enhanced
Registration Service fees under current law.
Current Fees: Other
• Pre-Manufacturing
Fee
Notification
Since 1989, the Pre-Manufacturing
Notifications (PMN) fee has been collected
for the review and processing of new
chemical pre-manufacturing notifications
submitted to EPA by the chemical industry.
These fees are paid at the time of submission
of the PMN for review by EPA's Toxic
Substances program. PMN fees are
authorized by the Toxic Substances Control
Act and contain a cap on the amount the
Agency may charge for a PMN review.
EPA is authorized to collect up to $1.8
million in PMN fees in FY 2011 under
current law.
Lead Accreditation
Certification Fee
and
The Toxic Substances Control Act, Title IV,
Section 402(a)(3), mandates the
development of a schedule of fees for
persons operating lead training programs
accredited under the 402/404 rule and for
lead-based paint contractors certified under
this rule. The training programs ensure that
lead paint abatement is done safely. Fees
collected for this activity are deposited in
the U.S. Treasury. EPA estimates that $1
million will be deposited in FY 2011.
• Motor Vehicle and Engine
Compliance Program Fee
This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act
of 1990 and is managed by the Air and
Radiation program. Fee collections began in
August 1992. This fee is imposed on
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, light
and heavy trucks and motorcycles. The fees
cover EPA's cost of certifying new engines
and vehicles and monitoring compliance of
in-use engines and vehicles. In 2004, EPA
promulgated a rule that updated existing fees
and established fees for newly-regulated
vehicles and engines. The fees established
162
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
for new compliance programs are also
imposed on heavy-duty, in-use, and nonroad
industries, including large diesel and gas
equipment (earthmovers, tractors, forklifts,
compressors, etc), handheld and non-
handheld utility engines (chainsaws, weed-
whackers, leaf-blowers, lawnmowers, tillers,
etc.), marine (boat motors, watercraft, jet-
skis), locomotive, aircraft and recreational
vehicles (off-road motorcycles, all-terrain
vehicles, snowmobiles). In 2009, EPA
added fees for evaporative requirements for
nonroad engines. EPA intends to apply
certification fees to additional industry
sectors as new programs are developed. In
FY 2011, EPA expects to collect $20.7
million from this fee.
Fee Proposals: Pesticides
• Pesticides Tolerance Fee
A tolerance is the maximum legal limit of a
pesticide residue in and on food
commodities and animal feed. In 1954, the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) authorized the collection of fees
for the establishment of tolerances on raw
agricultural commodities and in food
commodities. The collection of this fee has
been statutorily blocked by the Pesticides
Registration Improvement Renewal Act
(PRffiA) through 2012. Legislative
language will be submitted to allow for the
collection of Pesticide Tolerance fees in FY
2011 and in subsequent years. In FY 2011,
EPA expects to collect $3 million from this
fee.
• Enhanced Registration Services
Legislative language will be submitted
proposing to publish a new fee schedule to
collect an additional $10 million in FY 2011
to better align fee collections with program
costs. Currently those who directly benefit
from EPA's registration services cover only
a fraction of the costs to operate the
program, leaving the general taxpayer to
shoulder the remaining burden.
Pesticides
Extension
Maintenance Fee
Legislative language will be submitted to
allow the collection of an additional $29
million in order to more closely align fee
collections with program costs. The
President's Budget proposes to relieve the
burden on the general taxpayer and finance
the costs of operating the Reregi strati on
program from those who directly benefit
from EPA's reregi strati on activities.
Fee Proposals: Other
• Pre-Manufacturing
Fee
Notification
Legislative language will be submitted to
remove the statutory cap in the Toxic
Substances Control Act on Pre-
Manufacturing Notification Fees. In FY
2011, EPA expects to collect an additional
$4 million by removing the statutory cap.
Accelerated
Chemical Risk
Reduction Fee
Under proposed TSCA reform legislation,
the Agency envisions collecting fees to
directly support implementation of the
restructured chemicals management
program.
163
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
In FY 2011, the Agency begins its fifteenth
year of operation of the Working Capital
Fund (WCF). It is a revolving fund,
authorized by law to finance a cycle of
operations, where the costs of goods and
services provided are charged to users on a
fee-for-service basis. The funds received
are available without fiscal year limitation,
to continue operations and to replace capital
equipment. EPA's WCF was implemented
under the authority of Section 403 of the
Government Management Reform Act of
1994 and EPA's FY 1997 Appropriations
Act. Permanent WCF authority was
contained in the Agency's FY 1998
Appropriations Act.
The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) initiated
the WCF in FY 1997 as part of an effort to:
(1) be accountable to Agency offices, the
Office of Management and Budget, and the
Congress; (2) increase the efficiency of the
administrative services provided to program
offices; and (3) increase customer service
and responsiveness. The Agency has a
WCF Board which provides policy and
planning oversight and advises the CFO
regarding the WCF financial position. The
Board, chaired by the Associate Chief
Financial Officer, is composed of twenty-
three permanent members from the program
and regional offices.
Four Agency activities, provided in FY
2010, will continue into FY 2011. These are
the Agency's information technology and
telecommunications operations, managed by
the Office of Environmental Information,
Agency postage costs, managed by the
Office of Administration and Resources
Mangement, and the Agency's core
accounting system and relocation services,
which are both managed by the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer.
The Agency's FY 2011 budget request
includes resources for these four activities in
each National Program Manager's
submission, totaling approximately $200
million. These estimated resources may be
increased to incorporate program office's
additional service needs during the operating
year. To the extent that these increases are
subject to Congressional reprogramming
notifications, the Agency will comply with
all applicable requirements. In FY 2011, the
Agency will continue to market its
information technology and relocation
services to other Federal agencies in an
effort to deliver high quality services
external to EPA, which will result in lower
costs to EPA customers.
164
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
ACRONYMS
AEA: Atomic Energy Act, as amended, andCFR: Code of Federal Regulations
Reorganization Plan #3
CICA: Competition in Contracting Act
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
ADEA: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act
AHPA: Archaeological and Historic
Preservation Act
ASHAA: Asbestos in Schools Hazard
Abatement Act
APA: Administrative Procedures Act
CRA: Civil Rights Act
CSA: Computer Security Act
CWPPR: Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990
CWA: Clean Water Act
CZARA: Coastal Zone Management Act
Reauthorization Amendments
CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act
ASTCA: Antarctic Science, Tourism, andDPA: Deepwater Ports Act
Conservation Act
DREAA: Disaster Relief and Emergency
BEACH Act of 2000: Beaches EnvironmentalAssistance Act
Assessment and Coastal Health Act
ECRA: Economic Cleanup Responsibility
BRERA: Brownfields Revitalization andAct
Environmental Restoration Act
EFOIA: Electronic Freedom of Information
CAA: Clean Air Act Act
CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments
CCA: Clinger Cohen Act
CCAA: Canadian Clean Air Act
CEPA: Canadian Environmental Protection Act
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(1980)
CFOA: Chief Financial Officers Act
EPAA: Environmental Programs Assistance
Act
EPAAR: EPA Acquisition Regulations
EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation Act
EPACT: Energy Policy Act
EPCRA: Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act
165
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
ERD&DAA: Environmental Research,
Development and Demonstration
Authorization Act
ESA: Endangered Species Act
ESECA: Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act
FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act
FAIR: Federal Activities Inventory Reform
Act
FCMA: Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
FEPCA: Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act; enacted as amendments to
FIFRA.
FFDCA: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act
FGCAA: Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act
FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and
Management Act
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act
FPAS: Federal Property and Administration
Services Act
FPA: Federal Pesticide Act
FPPA: Federal Pollution Prevention Act
FPR: Federal Procurement Regulation
FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act
FRA: Federal Register Act
FSA: Food Security Act
FUA: Fuel Use Act
FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution and
Control Act (aka CWA)
GISRA: Government Information Security
Reform Act
GMRA: Government Management Reform
Act
GPRA: Government Performance and
Results Act
HMTA: Hazardous
Transportation Act
Materials
HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments
IGA: Inspector General Act
IP A: Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPIA: Improper Payments Information Act
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act
LPA-US/MX-BR: 1983 La Paz Agreement
on US/Mexico Border Region
MPPRCA: Marine Plastic Pollution,
Research and Control Act of 1987
MPRSA: Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act
166
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
NAAEC: North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAWCA: North American Wetlands
Conservation Act
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act
NIPDWR: National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
NISA: National Invasive Species Act of
1996
ODA: Ocean Dumping Act
OPA: The Oil Pollution Act
OWBPA: Older Workers Benefit Protection
Act
PBA: Public Building Act
PFCRA: Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act
PHSA: Public Health Service Act
PLIRRA: Pollution Liability Insurance and
Risk Retention Act
PR: Privacy Act
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act
PRIA: Pesticide Registration Improvement
Act
PRIRA: Pesticide Registration
Improvement Renewal Act
QCA: Quiet Communities Act
RCRA: Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RLBPHRA: Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act
SARA: Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SBLRBRERA: Small Business Liability
Relief and Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance
Extension Act
SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act
SPA: Shore Protection Act of 1988
SWDA: Solid Waste Disposal Act
TCA: Tribal Cooperative Agreement
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UMTRLWA: Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Land Withdrawal Act
USC: United States Code
USTCA: Underground Storage Tank
Compliance Act
167
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
WQA: Water Quality Act of 1987 WSRA: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
WKDA: Water Resources Development Act WWWQA: Wet Weather Water Quality
Act of 2000
168
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Statutory
Authorities
CAA, Section
103
CAA, Sections
105,106
Eligible
Recipients
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA.
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA; Multi-
jurisdictional
organizations
(non-profit
organizations
whose boards of
directors or
membership is
made up of CAA
section 302(b)
agency officers
and whose
mission is to
support the
continuing
environmental
programs of the
States);
Interstate air
quality control
region
designated
pursuant to
section 107 of
the CAA or of
implementing
section 176A, or
section 1 84
NOTE: only the
Ozone Transport
Commission is
eligible.
Eligible Uses
S/L monitoring
and data
collection
activities in
support of the
PM2.5
monitoring and
air toxics
networks and
associated
program costs.
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program support
costs, including
monitoring
activities
(section 105);
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA (sections
103 and 106);
Supporting
training for CAA
section 302(b)
air pollution
control agency
staff (sections
103 and 105);
Supporting
research,
investigative and
demonstration
projects( section
103).
FY 2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$54,850.0
$171,730.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
FY 2011 PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$52,350.0
$241,730.0
169
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Tribal Air
Quality
Management
Radon
Water Pollution
Control (Section
106)
Statutory
Authorities
CAA Section
103
CAA, Sections
103 and 105;
Tribal
Cooperative
Agreements
(TCA) in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
TSCA, Sections
10 and 306;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 106;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA.
Tribes;
Intertribal
Consortia;
State/Tribal
College or
University
State Agencies,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Interstate
Agencies
Eligible Uses
S/L monitoring
procurement
activities in
support of the
NAAQS.
Conducting air
quality
assessment
activities to
determine a
Tribe's need to
develop a CAA
program;
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program costs;
Supporting
training for CAA
for federally-
recognized
Tribes.
Assist in the
development and
implementation
of programs for
the assessment
and mitigation of
radon.
Develop and
carry out surface
and ground
water pollution
control
programs,
including
NPDES permits,
TMDL's, WQ
standards,
monitoring, and
NPS control
activities.
FY 2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$0.0
$13,300.0
$8,074.0
$229,264.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 1,
f~\Ki 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. z
Goal 2,
(~\\-* ' O
Obj. 2
FY 2011 PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$15,000.0
$13,566.0
$8,074.0
$274,264.0
170
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Nonpoint Source
(NPS - Section
319)
Wetlands
Program
Development
Public Water
System
Supervision
(PWSS)
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC)
Statutory
Authorities
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 319(h);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 104
(b)(3); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
SDWA,
Section 1443(a);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
SDWA, Section
1443(b); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes,
Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, Non-
Profit
Organizations
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Implement EPA-
approved state
and Tribal
nonpoint source
management
programs and
fund priority
projects as
selected by the
state.
To develop new
wetland
programs or
enhance existing
programs for the
protection,
management and
restoration of
wetland
resources.
Assistance to
implement and
enforce National
Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations to
ensure the safety
of the Nation's
drinking water
resources and to
protect public
health.
Implement and
enforce
regulations that
protect
underground
sources of
drinking water
by controlling
Class I-V
underground
injection wells.
FY 2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$200,857.0
$16,830.0
$105,700.0
$10,891.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 2
Goal 4,
/-\i • ")
Obj. 3
Goal 2,
f~\Ki 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
FY 2011 PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$200,857.0
$17,167.0
$105,700.0
$11,109.0
171
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Beaches
Protection
Hazardous
Waste Financial
Assistance
Brownfields
Statutory
Authorities
BEACH Act of
2000; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
RCRA,
Section 3011;
FY 1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
CERCLA, as
amended by the
Small Business
Liability Relief
and Brownfields
Revitalization
Act (P.L. 107-
118); GMRA
(1990); FGCAA.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia, Local
Governments
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Develop and
implement
programs for
monitoring and
notification of
conditions for
coastal
recreation waters
adjacent to
beaches or
similar points of
access that are
used by the
public.
Development &
Implementation
of Hazardous
Waste programs
Build and
support
Brownfields
programs which
will assess
contaminated
properties,
oversee private
party cleanups,
provide cleanup
support through
low interest
loans, and
provide certainty
for liability
related issues.
FY 2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$9,900.0
$103,346.0
$49,495.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
Obj. 1
Goal 3,
Obj. 1
Obj. 2
Goal 4,
Obj. 2
FY 2011 PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$9,900.0
$105,412.0
$49,495.0
172
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Underground
Storage Tanks
(UST)
Pesticides
Program
Implementation
Statutory
Authorities
SWDA, as
amended by the
Superfund
Reauthorization
Amendments of
1986 (Subtitle I),
Section 2007(f),
42 U.S.C.
6916(f)(2);
EPAct of 2005,
Title XV -
Ethanol and
Motor Fuels,
Subtitle B -
Underground
Storage Tank
Compliance,
Sections 1521-
1533, P.L. 109-
58, 42 U.S.C.
15801.
FIFRA, Sections
20 and 23; the
FY 1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); FY 2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Provide funding
for States'
underground
storage tank
programs.
Implement the
following
programs
through grants to
States, Tribes,
partners, and
supporters:
Certification and
Training /
Worker
Protection,
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program (ESPP)
Field Activities,
Pesticides in
Water, Tribal
Program, and
Pesticide
Environmental
Stewardship
Program.
FY 2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$2,500.0
$13,520.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 3,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
Goal 4,
/~O-i 1
UuJ. 1
FY 2011 PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$2,550.0
$13,690.0
173
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Lead
Statutory
Authorities
TSCA, Sections
10 and 404 (g);
FY 2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Implement the
lead-based paint
activities in the
Training and
Certification
program through
EPA-authorized
state, territorial
and Tribal
programs and, in
areas without
authorization,
through direct
implementation
by the Agency.
Activities
conducted as
part of this
program include
issuing grants
for the training
and certification
of individuals
and firms
engaged in lead-
based paint
abatement and
inspection
activities and the
accreditation of
qualified
training
providers.
FY 2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$14,564.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
FY 2011 PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$14,855.0
174
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Toxic
Substances
Compliance
Pesticide
Enforcement
Statutory
Authorities
TSCA, Sections
28(a) and 404
(g); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FIFRA
§ 23(a)(l); FY
2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States,
Territories,
Federally
recognized
Indian Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Assist in
developing,
maintaining and
implementing
compliance
monitoring
programs for
PCBs, Asbestos,
and Lead-Based
Paint. In
addition,
enforcement
actions by:
1) the Lead-
Based Paint
program, and
2) States that
obtained a
"waiver" under
the Asbestos
program.
Assist in
implementing
cooperative
pesticide
enforcement
programs
FY 2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$5,099.0
$18,711.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
Obj. 1
Goal 5,
f~\Ki 1
UuJ. 1
FY 2011 PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$5,201.0
$19,085.0
175
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Grant Title
National
Environmental
Information
Exchange
Network
(NEIEN, aka
"the Exchange
Network")
Statutory
Authorities
As appropriate,
CAA, Section
103; CWA,
Section 104;
RCRA, Section
8001; FIFRA,
Section 20;
TSCA, Sections
10 and 28;
MPRSA,
Section 203;
SDWA, Section
1442; Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, Section
6605
Authorization
for the Exchange
Network Grant
Program over
the previous
eight years has
been provided
by the annual
appropriations
for EPA: FY
2002 to FY 2009
Appropriations
Acts
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Interstate
Agencies, Tribal
Consortium,
Other Agencies
with Related
Environmental
Information
Activities
Eligible Uses
Helps States,
territories,
Tribes, and
intertribal
consortia
develop the
information
management and
technology
(IM/IT)
capabilities they
need to
participate in the
Exchange
Network, to
continue and
expand data-
sharing
programs, and to
improve access
to environmental
information.
FY 2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$10,000.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
OHi 9
J •
FY 2011 PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$10,200.0
176
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Pollution
Prevention
Tribal General
Assistance
Program
Categorical
Grant: Multi-
Media Tribal
Implementation
Statutory
Authorities
Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, Section
6605; TSCA
Section 10; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act (42
U.S.C. 4368b);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Tribal
Governments,
Intertribal
Consortia
Tribal
Governments
Eligible Uses
Provides
assistance to
States and state
entities (i.e.,
colleges and
universities) and
Federally-
recognized
Tribes and
intertribal
consortia in
order to deliver
pollution
prevention
technical
assistance to
small and
medium- sized
businesses. A
goal of the
program is to
assist businesses
and industries
with identifying
improved
environmental
strategies and
solutions for
reducing waste
at the source.
Plan and develop
Tribal
environmental
protection
programs.
Implement
environmental
programs
FY 2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$4,940.0
$62,875.0
$0.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
Obj.2
Goal 5,
Obj. 3
Goal 5,
Obj. 3
FY 2011 PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$5,039.0
$71,375.0
$30,000.0
177
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS BY APPROPRIATION
(Dollars in Thousands)
Acquisition Management
EPM
Superfund
LUST
Administrative Law
EPM
Alternative Dispute Resolution
EPM
Superfund
Audits, Evaluations, and
Investigations
IG
Superfund
Beach / Fish Programs
EPM
Brownflelds
EPM
Brownflelds Projects
Superfund
STAG
Categorical Grant: Beaches
Protection
STAG
Categorical Grant: Brownflelds
STAG
Categorical Grant: Environmental
Information
STAG
FY 2009
Actuals
$54,993.6
$31,332.7
$23,521.1
$139.8
$4,584.8
$4,584.8
$2,649.9
$1,280.5
$1,369.4
$50,919.3
$40,605.1
$10,314.2
$3,102.2
$3,102.2
$23,793.1
$23,793.1
$102,024.7
$106.7
$101,918.0
$9,905.2
$9,905.2
$50,586.9
$50,586.9
$12,628.5
$12,628.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$57,253.0
$32,404.0
$24,684.0
$165.0
$5,275.0
$5,275.0
$2,040.0
$1,147.0
$893.0
$54,766.0
$44,791.0
$9,975.0
$2,944.0
$2,944.0
$24,152.0
$24,152.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
$100,000.0
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$58,436.0
$33,934.0
$24,337.0
$165.0
$5,332.0
$5,332.0
$2,303.0
$1,390.0
$913.0
$55,802.0
$45,646.0
$10,156.0
$2,974.0
$2,974.0
$27,397.0
$27,397.0
$138,254.0
$0.0
$138,254.0
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
$10,200.0
$10,200.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,183.0
$1,530.0
($347.0)
$0.0
$57.0
$57.0
$263.0
$243.0
$20.0
$1,036.0
$855.0
$181.0
$30.0
$30.0
$3,245.0
$3,245.0
$38,254.0
$0.0
$38,254.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$200.0
$200.0
178
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Categorical Grant: Hazardous
Waste Financial Assistance
STAG
Categorical Grant: Homeland
Security
STAG
Categorical Grant: Lead
STAG
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source
(Sec. 319)
STAG
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Enforcement
STAG
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Program Implementation
STAG
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control
(Sec. 106)
STAG
Categorical Grant: Pollution
Prevention
STAG
Categorical Grant: Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS)
STAG
Categorical Grant: Radon
STAG
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
STAG
Categorical Grant: State and Local
Air Quality Management
FY 2009
Actuals
$102,332.3
$102,332.3
$5,916.9
$5,916.9
$14,295.1
$14,295.1
$214,498.2
$214,498.2
$19,208.7
$19,208.7
$12,772.0
$12,772.0
$216,836.3
$216,836.3
$4,932.3
$4,932.3
$99,440.1
$99,440.1
$8,370.4
$8,370.4
$2,717.7
$2,717.7
$223,541.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,564.0
$14,564.0
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
$13,520.0
$13,520.0
$229,264.0
$229,264.0
$4,940.0
$4,940.0
$105,700.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
$0.0
$226,580.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$105,412.0
$105,412.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,855.0
$14,855.0
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
$19,085.0
$19,085.0
$13,690.0
$13,690.0
$274,264.0
$274,264.0
$5,039.0
$5,039.0
$105,700.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
$0.0
$309,080.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$2,066.0
$2,066.0
$0.0
$0.0
$291.0
$291.0
$0.0
$0.0
$374.0
$374.0
$170.0
$170.0
$45,000.0
$45,000.0
$99.0
$99.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$82,500.0
179
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
STAG
Categorical Grant: Targeted
Watersheds
STAG
Categorical Grant: Toxics
Substances Compliance
STAG
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air
Quality Management
STAG
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
STAG
Categorical Grant: Underground
Injection Control (UIC)
STAG
Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tanks
STAG
Categorical Grant: Wastewater
Operator Training
STAG
Categorical Grant: Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements
STAG
Categorical Grant: Wetlands
Program Development
STAG
Categorical Grant: Local Govt
Climate Change
STAG
Categorical Grants: Multi-Media
Tribal Implementation
FY 2009
Actuals
$223,541.5
$8,946.4
$8,946.4
$5,276.9
$5,276.9
$13,962.5
$13,962.5
$61,681.1
$61,681.1
$11,332.4
$11,332.4
$4,549.5
$4,549.5
$23.3
$23.3
$14.0
$14.0
$15,345.1
$15,345.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$226,580.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
$13,300.0
$62,875.0
$62,875.0
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
$2,500.0
$2,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$309,080.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,201.0
$5,201.0
$13,566.0
$13,566.0
$71,375.0
$71,375.0
$11,109.0
$11,109.0
$2,550.0
$2,550.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$17,167.0
$17,167.0
$0.0
$0.0
$30,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$82,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$102.0
$102.0
$266.0
$266.0
$8,500.0
$8,500.0
$218.0
$218.0
$50.0
$50.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$337.0
$337.0
($10,000.0)
($10,000.0)
$30,000.0
180
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
STAG
Central Planning, Budgeting, and
Finance
EPM
Superfund
LUST
Children and Other Sensitive
Populations: Agency Coordination
EPM
Civil Enforcement
EPM
Oil Spills
Superfund
LUST
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
EPM
Clean Air Allowance Trading
Programs
S&T
EPM
Clean School Bus Initiative
STAG
Climate Protection Program
S&T
EPM
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
EPM
Compliance Assistance and Centers
EPM
Oil Spills
Superfund
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$115,139.8
$89,875.3
$24,154.9
$1,109.6
$6,832.4
$6,832.4
$140,340.9
$138,113.2
$2,060.5
$167.2
$0.0
$11,898.0
$11,898.0
$30,254.6
$9,918.4
$20,336.2
$45.3
$45.3
$113,064.7
$15,880.0
$97,184.7
$396.4
$396.4
$26,113.9
$24,996.0
$293.5
$22.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$111,439.0
$82,834.0
$27,490.0
$1,115.0
$7,100.0
$7,100.0
$148,634.0
$146,636.0
$1,998.0
$0.0
$0.0
$12,224.0
$12,224.0
$30,754.0
$9,963.0
$20,791.0
$0.0
$0.0
$132,841.0
$19,797.0
$113,044.0
$0.0
$0.0
$26,688.0
$25,622.0
$269.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$30,000.0
$114,023.0
$86,039.0
$26,934.0
$1,050.0
$10,159.0
$10,159.0
$191,161.0
$187,755.0
$2,559.0
$0.0
$847.0
$12,366.0
$12,366.0
$31,157.0
$9,979.0
$21,178.0
$0.0
$0.0
$139,990.0
$16,940.0
$123,050.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$30,000.0
$2,584.0
$3,205.0
($556.0)
($65.0)
$3,059.0
$3,059.0
$42,527.0
$41,119.0
$561.0
$0.0
$847.0
$142.0
$142.0
$403.0
$16.0
$387.0
$0.0
$0.0
$7,149.0
($2,857.0)
$10,006.0
$0.0
$0.0
($26,688.0)
($25,622.0)
($269.0)
$0.0
181
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
LUST
Compliance Incentives
EPM
Superfund
Compliance Monitoring
EPM
Oil Spills
Superfund
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
EPM
Superfund
Congressionally Mandated Projects
S&T
EPM
STAG
Criminal Enforcement
EPM
Superfund
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
Program
STAG
Drinking Water Programs
S&T
EPM
Endocrine Disrupters
EPM
Enforcement Training
EPM
Superfund
FY 2009
Actuals
$802.4
$8,839.3
$8,710.0
$129.3
$99,722.3
$98,457.1
$0.0
$1,265.2
$48,750.3
$48,743.0
$7.3
$134,674.8
$5,282.0
$4,983.5
$124,409.3
$54,585.7
$45,527.6
$9,058.1
$44,367.3
$44,367.3
$101,610.1
$3,359.7
$98,250.4
$10,937.0
$10,937.0
$3,887.5
$3,110.6
$776.9
FY 2010
Enacted
$797.0
$9,560.0
$9,560.0
$0.0
$100,616.0
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$51,944.0
$51,944.0
$0.0
$187,427.0
$5,700.0
$16,950.0
$164,777.0
$57,703.0
$49,637.0
$8,066.0
$60,000.0
$60,000.0
$105,861.0
$3,637.0
$102,224.0
$8,625.0
$8,625.0
$4,177.0
$3,278.0
$899.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$111,826.0
$110,467.0
$139.0
$1,220.0
$57,473.0
$57,473.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$59,454.0
$51,312.0
$8,142.0
$60,000.0
$60,000.0
$109,155.0
$3,827.0
$105,328.0
$8,601.0
$8,601.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($797.0)
($9,560.0)
($9,560.0)
$0.0
$11,210.0
$11,067.0
$139.0
$4.0
$5,529.0
$5,529.0
$0.0
($187,427.0)
($5,700.0)
($16,950.0)
($164,777.0)
$1,751.0
$1,675.0
$76.0
$0.0
$0.0
$3,294.0
$190.0
$3,104.0
($24.0)
($24.0)
($4,177.0)
($3,278.0)
($899.0)
182
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Environment and Trade
EPM
Environmental Education
EPM
Environmental Justice
EPM
Superfund
Exchange Network
EPM
Superfund
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
S&T
EPM
B&F
Oil Spills
Superfund
LUST
Federal Stationary Source
Regulations
EPM
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
S&T
EPM
Federal Support for Air Toxics
Program
S&T
EPM
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards
and Certification
S&T
FY 2009
Actuals
$371.1
$371.1
$8,762.9
$8,762.9
$6,084.9
$5,460.3
$624.6
$18,363.2
$17,440.8
$922.4
$481,429.3
$73,519.6
$302,944.6
$29,282.8
$576.1
$74,210.7
$895.5
$29,494.5
$29,494.5
$105,095.7
$11,395.0
$93,700.7
$26,220.4
$2,052.4
$24,168.0
$76,035.5
$76,035.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$9,038.0
$9,038.0
$7,885.0
$7,090.0
$795.0
$18,457.0
$17,024.0
$1,433.0
$496,978.0
$72,918.0
$315,238.0
$28,931.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$904.0
$27,158.0
$27,158.0
$111,062.0
$11,443.0
$99,619.0
$26,844.0
$2,398.0
$24,446.0
$91,782.0
$91,782.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$6,448.0
$6,448.0
$8,123.0
$7,317.0
$806.0
$20,135.0
$18,702.0
$1,433.0
$510,344.0
$70,495.0
$329,831.0
$31,931.0
$534.0
$76,637.0
$916.0
$34,991.0
$34,991.0
$142,331.0
$7,697.0
$134,634.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$100,761.0
$100,761.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
($2,590.0)
($2,590.0)
$238.0
$227.0
$11.0
$1,678.0
$1,678.0
$0.0
$13,366.0
($2,423.0)
$14,593.0
$3,000.0
$29.0
($1,845.0)
$12.0
$7,833.0
$7,833.0
$31,269.0
($3,746.0)
$35,015.0
($26,844.0)
($2,398.0)
($24,446.0)
$8,979.0
$8,979.0
183
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
EPM
Superfund
Forensics Support
S&T
Superfund
Geographic Program: Chesapeake
Bay
EPM
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
EPM
Geographic Program: Gulf of
Mexico
EPM
Geographic Program: Lake
Champlain
EPM
Geographic Program: Long Island
Sound
EPM
Geographic Program: Other
EPM
Geographic Program: Mississippi
River Basin
EPM
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
EPM
Geographic Program: San Francisco
Bay
EPM
FY 2009
Actuals
$29,355.4
$26,422.9
$2,932.5
$17,146.5
$14,450.6
$2,695.9
$26,317.8
$26,317.8
$22,026.9
$22,026.9
$4,837.5
$4,837.5
$3,147.5
$3,147.5
$3,072.9
$3,072.9
$5,223.2
$5,223.2
$0.0
$0.0
$11,256.6
$11,256.6
$4,922.0
$4,922.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$28,432.0
$25,487.0
$2,945.0
$17,801.0
$15,351.0
$2,450.0
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6,000.0
$6,000.0
$4,000.0
$4,000.0
$7,000.0
$7,000.0
$7,273.0
$7,273.0
$0.0
$0.0
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
$7,000.0
$7,000.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$29,784.0
$26,466.0
$3,318.0
$18,410.0
$15,909.0
$2,501.0
$62,957.0
$62,957.0
$0.0
$0.0
$4,515.0
$4,515.0
$1,434.0
$1,434.0
$3,000.0
$3,000.0
$4,687.0
$4,687.0
$12,400.0
$12,400.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$5,000.0
$5,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,352.0
$979.0
$373.0
$609.0
$558.0
$51.0
$12,957.0
$12,957.0
$0.0
$0.0
($1,485.0)
($1,485.0)
($2,566.0)
($2,566.0)
($4,000.0)
($4,000.0)
($2,586.0)
($2,586.0)
$12,400.0
$12,400.0
($30,000.0)
($30,000.0)
($2,000.0)
($2,000.0)
184
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Geographic Program: South Florida
EPM
Great Lakes Legacy Act
EPM
Great Lakes Restoration
EPM
Homeland Security: Communication
and Information
EPM
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
S&T
EPM
Superfund
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
S&T
EPM
Superfund
Homeland Security: Protection of
EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
S&T
EPM
B&F
Superfund
Human Health Risk Assessment
S&T
Superfund
Human Resources Management
EPM
Superfund
LUST
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,279.6
$2,279.6
$32,782.7
$32,782.7
$0.0
$0.0
$6,983.0
$6,983.0
$32,565.9
$23,961.7
$6,837.2
$1,767.0
$100,305.3
$41,771.8
$3,054.1
$55,479.4
$16,999.3
$587.0
$6,648.8
$8,559.9
$1,203.6
$45,254.5
$41,478.1
$3,776.4
$48,851.3
$43,373.2
$5,475.1
$3.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,168.0
$2,168.0
$0.0
$0.0
$475,000.0
$475,000.0
$6,926.0
$6,926.0
$31,622.0
$23,026.0
$6,836.0
$1,760.0
$98,660.0
$41,657.0
$3,423.0
$53,580.0
$16,226.0
$593.0
$6,369.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$48,193.0
$44,789.0
$3,404.0
$48,027.0
$42,447.0
$5,580.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$2,148.0
$2,148.0
$0.0
$0.0
$300,000.0
$300,000.0
$4,324.0
$4,324.0
$18,520.0
$16,105.0
$2,415.0
$0.0
$78,884.0
$34,598.0
$2,012.0
$42,274.0
$16,249.0
$594.0
$6,391.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$48,976.0
$45,626.0
$3,350.0
$51,923.0
$44,842.0
$7,081.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($20.0)
($20.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($175,000.0)
($175,000.0)
($2,602.0)
($2,602.0)
($13,102.0)
($6,921.0)
($4,421.0)
($1,760.0)
($19,776.0)
($7,059.0)
($1,411.0)
($11,306.0)
$23.0
$1.0
$22.0
$0.0
$0.0
$783.0
$837.0
($54.0)
$3,896.0
$2,395.0
$1,501.0
$0.0
185
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
IT / Data Management
S&T
EPM
Oil Spills
Superfund
LUST
Indoor Air: Radon Program
S&T
EPM
Information Security
EPM
Superfund
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska
Native Villages
STAG
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean
Water SRF
STAG
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking
Water SRF
STAG
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico
Border
STAG
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto
Rico
STAG
International Capacity Building
EPM
International Sources of Pollution
EPM
FY 2009
Actuals
$112,128.3
$3,852.1
$90,809.5
$36.3
$17,266.1
$164.3
$5,718.1
$371.0
$5,347.1
$5,578.5
$4,565.3
$1,013.2
$18,438.4
$18,438.4
$706,139.0
$706,139.0
$865,448.7
$865,448.7
$12,911.8
$12,911.8
$3,849.0
$3,849.0
$1,072.1
$1,072.1
$6,836.1
$6,836.1
FY 2010
Enacted
$119,068.0
$4,385.0
$97,410.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$162.0
$6,319.0
$453.0
$5,866.0
$6,697.0
$5,912.0
$785.0
$13,000.0
$13,000.0
$2,100,000.0
$2,100,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$17,000.0
$17,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,628.0
$8,628.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$118,891.0
$4,111.0
$98,060.0
$0.0
$16,720.0
$0.0
$6,076.0
$461.0
$5,615.0
$7,758.0
$7,030.0
$728.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
$2,000,000.0
$2,000,000.0
$1,287,000.0
$1,287,000.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,759.0
$8,759.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($177.0)
($274.0)
$650.0
($24.0)
($367.0)
($162.0)
($243.0)
$8.0
($251.0)
$1,061.0
$1,118.0
($57.0)
($3,000.0)
($3,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($7,000.0)
($7,000.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$131.0
$131.0
186
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
LUST / UST
EPM
LUST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
LUST
LUST Prevention
LUST
Legal Advice: Environmental
Program
EPM
Superfund
Legal Advice: Support Program
EPM
Marine Pollution
EPM
NEPA Implementation
EPM
National Estuary Program / Coastal
Waterways
EPM
Not Specified
Rescissions
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness
and Response
Oil Spills
POPs Implementation
EPM
Pesticides: Protect Human Health
from Pesticide Risk
S&T
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,468.7
$13,581.6
$10,887.1
$64,864.4
$64,864.4
$33,973.8
$33,973.8
$42,633.9
$41,917.2
$716.7
$14,236.7
$14,236.7
$13,064.7
$13,064.7
$15,249.8
$15,249.8
$27,082.7
$27,082.7
$0.0
$0.0
$14,445.6
$14,445.6
$94.9
$94.9
$64,111.6
$3,159.3
FY 2010
Enacted
$24,037.0
$12,424.0
$11,613.0
$63,570.0
$63,570.0
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
$43,408.0
$42,662.0
$746.0
$14,419.0
$14,419.0
$13,397.0
$13,397.0
$18,258.0
$18,258.0
$32,567.0
$32,567.0
($40,000.0)
($40,000.0)
$14,944.0
$14,944.0
$0.0
$0.0
$66,694.0
$3,750.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$26,809.0
$14,647.0
$12,162.0
$63,192.0
$63,192.0
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
$44,754.0
$44,002.0
$752.0
$15,735.0
$15,735.0
$13,590.0
$13,590.0
$18,524.0
$18,524.0
$27,233.0
$27,233.0
($10,000.0)
($10,000.0)
$14,547.0
$14,547.0
$0.0
$0.0
$68,472.0
$3,806.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$2,772.0
$2,223.0
$549.0
($378.0)
($378.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,346.0
$1,340.0
$6.0
$1,316.0
$1,316.0
$193.0
$193.0
$266.0
$266.0
($5,334.0)
($5,334.0)
$30,000.0
$30,000.0
($397.0)
($397.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,778.0
$56.0
187
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
EPM
Pesticides: Protect the Environment
from Pesticide Risk
S&T
EPM
Pesticides: Realize the Value of
Pesticide Availability
S&T
EPM
Pollution Prevention Program
EPM
RCRA: Corrective Action
EPM
RCRA: Waste Management
EPM
RCRA: Waste Minimization &
Recycling
EPM
Radiation: Protection
S&T
EPM
Superfund
Radiation: Response Preparedness
S&T
EPM
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
S&T
EPM
Regional Geographic Initiatives
EPM
FY 2009
Actuals
$60,952.3
$44,652.9
$2,121.9
$42,531.0
$13,215.5
$442.8
$12,772.7
$19,958.8
$19,958.8
$38,451.0
$38,451.0
$67,198.4
$67,198.4
$13,680.9
$13,680.9
$14,745.6
$2,484.4
$9,962.0
$2,299.2
$6,170.1
$3,497.5
$2,672.6
$25,041.7
$706.5
$24,335.2
$32.5
$32.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$62,944.0
$44,482.0
$2,279.0
$42,203.0
$13,682.0
$537.0
$13,145.0
$18,050.0
$18,050.0
$40,029.0
$40,029.0
$68,842.0
$68,842.0
$14,379.0
$14,379.0
$15,885.0
$2,095.0
$11,295.0
$2,495.0
$7,253.0
$4,176.0
$3,077.0
$21,521.0
$762.0
$20,759.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$64,666.0
$45,343.0
$2,312.0
$43,031.0
$14,702.0
$546.0
$14,156.0
$15,419.0
$15,419.0
$40,003.0
$40,003.0
$67,911.0
$67,911.0
$14,822.0
$14,822.0
$16,159.0
$2,127.0
$11,439.0
$2,593.0
$7,351.0
$4,263.0
$3,088.0
$22,924.0
$768.0
$22,156.0
$0.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,722.0
$861.0
$33.0
$828.0
$1,020.0
$9.0
$1,011.0
($2,631.0)
($2,631.0)
($26.0)
($26.0)
($931.0)
($931.0)
$443.0
$443.0
$274.0
$32.0
$144.0
$98.0
$98.0
$87.0
$11.0
$1,403.0
$6.0
$1,397.0
$0.0
$0.0
188
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Regional Science and Technology
EPM
Regulatory Innovation
EPM
Regulatory/Economic-Management
and Analysis
EPM
Research: Computational Toxicology
S&T
Research: Drinking Water
S&T
Research: Endocrine Disruptor
S&T
Research: Fellowships
S&T
Research: Global Change
S&T
Research: Human Health and
Ecosystems
S&T
Research: Land Protection and
Restoration
S&T
Oil Spills
Superfund
LUST
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
S&T
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,311.4
$3,311.4
$21,827.7
$21,827.7
$17,677.1
$17,677.1
$13,710.1
$13,710.1
$43,762.7
$43,762.7
$9,948.7
$9,948.7
$5,760.7
$5,760.7
$17,264.1
$17,264.1
$155,752.0
$155,752.0
$31,513.8
$11,696.8
$382.8
$19,010.1
$424.1
$28,200.0
$28,200.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,271.0
$3,271.0
$18,917.0
$18,917.0
$19,404.0
$19,404.0
$20,048.0
$20,048.0
$49,155.0
$49,155.0
$11,355.0
$11,355.0
$11,083.0
$11,083.0
$20,826.0
$20,826.0
$159,511.0
$159,511.0
$36,286.0
$14,111.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$345.0
$27,347.0
$27,347.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$3,283.0
$3,283.0
$19,828.0
$19,828.0
$22,640.0
$22,640.0
$21,855.0
$21,855.0
$52,258.0
$52,258.0
$17,378.0
$17,378.0
$17,286.0
$17,286.0
$21,985.0
$21,985.0
$154,093.0
$154,093.0
$34,015.0
$13,800.0
$689.0
$19,069.0
$457.0
$27,645.0
$27,645.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$12.0
$12.0
$911.0
$911.0
$3,236.0
$3,236.0
$1,807.0
$1,807.0
$3,103.0
$3,103.0
$6,023.0
$6,023.0
$6,203.0
$6,203.0
$1,159.0
$1,159.0
($5,418.0)
($5,418.0)
($2,271.0)
($311.0)
$50.0
($2,122.0)
$112.0
$298.0
$298.0
189
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Research: Water Quality
S&T
Research: Clean Air
S&T
Research: Sustainability
S&T
Superfund
Science Advisory Board
EPM
Science Policy and Biotechnology
EPM
Small Business Ombudsman
EPM
Small Minority Business Assistance
EPM
State and Local Prevention and
Preparedness
EPM
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic
Programs
EPM
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral
Fund
EPM
Superfund: EPA Emergency
Preparedness
Superfund
Superfund: Emergency Response
and Removal
Superfund
FY 2009
Actuals
$64,926.0
$64,926.0
$90,271.0
$90,271.0
$19,541.7
$19,445.7
$96.0
$5,052.1
$5,052.1
$2,084.4
$2,084.4
$2,623.3
$2,623.3
$2,319.6
$2,319.6
$12,152.1
$12,152.1
$5,961.8
$5,961.8
$9,697.0
$9,697.0
$9,934.8
$9,934.8
$224,789.2
$224,789.2
FY 2010
Enacted
$61,918.0
$61,918.0
$81,917.0
$81,917.0
$27,360.0
$27,287.0
$73.0
$6,278.0
$6,278.0
$1,840.0
$1,840.0
$3,028.0
$3,028.0
$2,350.0
$2,350.0
$13,303.0
$13,303.0
$5,934.0
$5,934.0
$9,840.0
$9,840.0
$9,632.0
$9,632.0
$202,330.0
$202,330.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$68,858.0
$68,858.0
$85,322.0
$85,322.0
$25,292.0
$25,292.0
$0.0
$5,902.0
$5,902.0
$1,850.0
$1,850.0
$3,040.0
$3,040.0
$2,358.0
$2,358.0
$13,529.0
$13,529.0
$5,711.0
$5,711.0
$9,865.0
$9,865.0
$9,776.0
$9,776.0
$202,784.0
$202,784.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$6,940.0
$6,940.0
$3,405.0
$3,405.0
($2,068.0)
($1,995.0)
($73.0)
($376.0)
($376.0)
$10.0
$10.0
$12.0
$12.0
$8.0
$8.0
$226.0
$226.0
($223.0)
($223.0)
$25.0
$25.0
$144.0
$144.0
$454.0
$454.0
190
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund
Superfund: Support to Other
Federal Agencies
Superfund
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Enforcement
Superfund
Surface Water Protection
EPM
TRI / Right to Know
EPM
Targeted Airshed Grants
STAG
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Management
EPM
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction
EPM
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk
Reduction Program
EPM
Trade and Governance
EPM
FY 2009
Actuals
$172,412.0
$172,412.0
$32,761.5
$32,761.5
$669,293.0
$669,293.0
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
$9,265.5
$9,265.5
$200,635.0
$200,635.0
$15,409.5
$15,409.5
$0.0
$0.0
$6,802.7
$6,802.7
$48,269.9
$48,269.9
$14,260.7
$14,260.7
$5,413.2
$5,413.2
FY 2010
Enacted
$172,668.0
$172,668.0
$32,105.0
$32,105.0
$605,438.0
$605,438.0
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
$10,570.0
$10,570.0
$208,626.0
$208,626.0
$14,933.0
$14,933.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$6,025.0
$6,025.0
$54,886.0
$54,886.0
$14,329.0
$14,329.0
$6,227.0
$6,227.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$176,532.0
$176,532.0
$31,543.0
$31,543.0
$605,438.0
$605,438.0
$5,920.0
$5,920.0
$10,909.0
$10,909.0
$226,471.0
$226,471.0
$16,494.0
$16,494.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6,260.0
$6,260.0
$55,820.0
$55,820.0
$14,413.0
$14,413.0
$6,202.0
$6,202.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$3,864.0
$3,864.0
($562.0)
($562.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($655.0)
($655.0)
$339.0
$339.0
$17,845.0
$17,845.0
$1,561.0
$1,561.0
($20,000.0)
($20,000.0)
$235.0
$235.0
$934.0
$934.0
$84.0
$84.0
($25.0)
($25.0)
191
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Tribal - Capacity Building
EPM
US Mexico Border
EPM
Wetlands
EPM
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,174.7
$13,174.7
$5,621.8
$5,621.8
$23,124.1
$23,124.1
$7,794,420.7
$7,100,098.3
$14,894,519.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$12,080.0
$12,080.0
$4,969.0
$4,969.0
$25,940.0
$25,940.0
$10,297,864.0
$0.0
$10,297,864.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$15,005.0
$15,005.0
$4,979.0
$4,979.0
$28,231.0
$28,231.0
$10,020,000.0
$0.0
$10,020,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$2,925.0
$2,925.0
$10.0
$10.0
$2,291.0
$2,291.0
($277,864.0)
$0.0
($277,864.0)
$10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PY funds. No impact to actuals.
192
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS BY PROGRAM AREA
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Air Toxics and Quality
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Climate Protection Program (other activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Enforcement
Forensics Support
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Water Sentinel
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Preparedness and Response
Safe Building
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,918.4
$11,395.0
$2,052.4
$76,035.5
$2,484.4
$3,497.5
$105,383.2
$0.0
$15,880.0
$15,880.0
$15,880.0
$14,450.6
$16,798.2
$7,163.5
$23,961.7
$24,064.7
$648.8
$2,181.0
$14,877.3
$41,771.8
$587.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,963.0
$11,443.0
$2,398.0
$91,782.0
$2,095.0
$4,176.0
$121,857.0
$1,000.0
$18,797.0
$19,797.0
$19,797.0
$15,351.0
$18,576.0
$4,450.0
$23,026.0
$24,857.0
$499.0
$1,996.0
$14,305.0
$41,657.0
$593.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$9,979.0
$7,697.0
$0.0
$100,761.0
$2,127.0
$4,263.0
$124,827.0
$0.0
$16,940.0
$16,940.0
$16,940.0
$15,909.0
$11,643.0
$4,462.0
$16,105.0
$21,703.0
$0.0
$0.0
$12,895.0
$34,598.0
$594.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$16.0
($3,746.0)
($2,398.0)
$8,979.0
$32.0
$87.0
$2,970.0
($1,000.0)
($1,857.0)
($2,857.0)
($2,857.0)
$558.0
($6,933.0)
$12.0
($6,921.0)
($3,154.0)
($499.0)
($1,996.0)
($1,410.0)
($7,059.0)
$1.0
193
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Indoor Air
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Research: Clean Air
Research: Clean Air
Research: Global Change
Subtotal, Research: Clean Air
Research: Clean Water
Research: Drinking Water
Research: Water Quality
Subtotal, Research: Clean Water
Research / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
FY 2009
Actuals
$66,320.5
$371.0
$706.5
$1,077.5
$3,852.1
$36,892.0
$15,710.5
$8,812.7
$12,104.4
$73,519.6
$73,519.6
$3,159.3
$2,121.9
$442.8
$5,724.0
$90,271.0
$17,264.1
$107,535.1
$43,762.7
$64,926.0
$108,688.7
$5,282.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$65,276.0
$453.0
$762.0
$1,215.0
$4,385.0
$33,947.0
$19,177.0
$10,260.0
$9,534.0
$72,918.0
$72,918.0
$3,750.0
$2,279.0
$537.0
$6,566.0
$81,917.0
$20,826.0
$102,743.0
$49,155.0
$61,918.0
$111,073.0
$5,700.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$51,297.0
$461.0
$768.0
$1,229.0
$4,111.0
$30,950.0
$19,893.0
$10,349.0
$9,303.0
$70,495.0
$70,495.0
$3,806.0
$2,312.0
$546.0
$6,664.0
$85,322.0
$21,985.0
$107,307.0
$52,258.0
$68,858.0
$121,116.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($13,979.0)
$8.0
$6.0
$14.0
($274.0)
($2,997.0)
$716.0
$89.0
($231.0)
($2,423.0)
($2,423.0)
$56.0
$33.0
$9.0
$98.0
$3,405.0
$1,159.0
$4,564.0
$3,103.0
$6,940.0
$10,043.0
($5,700.0)
194
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Fellowships
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health
Ecosystems
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
(other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Subtotal, Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: Sustainability
Research: Sustainability
Toxic Research and Prevention
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
Total, Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Air Toxics and Quality
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Clean Diesel Initiative
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
(other activities)
Subtotal, Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
FY 2009
Actuals
$41,478.1
$13,710.1
$9,948.7
$5,760.7
$76,613.3
$79,116.9
$21.8
$155,752.0
$226,649.6
$11,696.8
$19,445.7
$28,200.0
$3,359.7
$797,065.1
$20,336.2
$29,494.5
$238.1
$93,462.6
$93,700.7
$24,168.0
$9,962.0
$2,672.6
$5,961.8
$9,697.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$44,789.0
$20,048.0
$11,355.0
$11,083.0
$83,904.0
$75,607.0
$0.0
$159,511.0
$246,786.0
$14,111.0
$27,287.0
$27,347.0
$3,637.0
$846,049.0
$20,791.0
$27,158.0
$0.0
$99,619.0
$99,619.0
$24,446.0
$11,295.0
$3,077.0
$5,934.0
$9,840.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$45,626.0
$21,855.0
$17,378.0
$17,286.0
$80,122.0
$73,971.0
$0.0
$154,093.0
$256,238.0
$13,800.0
$25,292.0
$27,645.0
$3,827.0
$846,697.0
$21,178.0
$34,991.0
$0.0
$134,634.0
$134,634.0
$0.0
$11,439.0
$3,088.0
$5,711.0
$9,865.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$837.0
$1,807.0
$6,023.0
$6,203.0
($3,782.0)
($1,636.0)
$0.0
($5,418.0)
$9,452.0
($311.0)
($1,995.0)
$298.0
$190.0
$648.0
$387.0
$7,833.0
$0.0
$35,015.0
$35,015.0
($24,446.0)
$144.0
$11.0
($223.0)
$25.0
195
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
Brownflelds
Brownfields
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Methane to markets
Asian Pacific Partnership
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry
Climate Protection Program (other activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
NEPA Implementation
Subtotal, Enforcement
Environmental Protection / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Geographic Programs
Great Lakes Restoration
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Geographic Program: South Florida
FY 2009
Actuals
$195,992.8
$23,793.1
$39,085.5
$3,847.3
($1.0)
$5,163.1
$49,089.8
$97,184.7
$97,184.7
$24,996.0
$8,710.0
$98,457.1
$132,163.1
$138,113.2
$45,527.6
$3,110.6
$5,460.3
$15,249.8
$207,461.5
$4,983.5
$0.0
$26,317.8
$22,026.9
$4,922.0
$11,256.6
$2,279.6
FY 2010
Enacted
$202,160.0
$24,152.0
$52,606.0
$4,569.0
$0.0
$16,685.0
$39,184.0
$113,044.0
$113,044.0
$25,622.0
$9,560.0
$99,400.0
$134,582.0
$146,636.0
$49,637.0
$3,278.0
$7,090.0
$18,258.0
$224,899.0
$16,950.0
$475,000.0
$50,000.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$50,000.0
$2,168.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$220,906.0
$27,397.0
$55,475.0
$4,591.0
$0.0
$20,750.0
$42,234.0
$123,050.0
$123,050.0
$0.0
$0.0
$110,467.0
$110,467.0
$187,755.0
$51,312.0
$0.0
$7,317.0
$18,524.0
$264,908.0
$0.0
$300,000.0
$62,957.0
$0.0
$5,000.0
$20,000.0
$2,148.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$18,746.0
$3,245.0
$2,869.0
$22.0
$0.0
$4,065.0
$3,050.0
$10,006.0
$10,006.0
($25,622.0)
($9,560.0)
$11,067.0
($24,115.0)
$41,119.0
$1,675.0
($3,278.0)
$227.0
$266.0
$40,009.0
($16,950.0)
($175,000.0)
$12,957.0
$0.0
($2,000.0)
($30,000.0)
($20.0)
196
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Other
Lake Pontchartrain
Community Action for a Renewed Environment
(CARE)
Geographic Program: Other (other activities)
Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Indoor Air
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air
Information Exchange / Outreach
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination
Environmental Education
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$3,072.9
$4,837.5
$3,147.5
$970.0
$2,842.1
$1,411.1
$5,223.2
$32.5
$83,116.5
$6,983.0
$122.6
$6,714.6
$6,837.2
$1,194.1
$1,860.0
$3,054.1
$6,648.8
$23,523.1
$5,347.1
$24,335.2
$29,682.3
$6,832.4
$8,762.9
$48,743.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$7,000.0
$6,000.0
$4,000.0
$1,500.0
$2,448.0
$3,325.0
$7,273.0
$0.0
$608,441.0
$6,926.0
$99.0
$6,737.0
$6,836.0
$3,423.0
$0.0
$3,423.0
$6,369.0
$23,554.0
$5,866.0
$20,759.0
$26,625.0
$7,100.0
$9,038.0
$51,944.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$12,400.0
$3,000.0
$4,515.0
$1,434.0
$978.0
$2,448.0
$1,261.0
$4,687.0
$0.0
$416,141.0
$4,324.0
$0.0
$2,415.0
$2,415.0
$2,012.0
$0.0
$2,012.0
$6,391.0
$15,142.0
$5,615.0
$22,156.0
$27,771.0
$10,159.0
$6,448.0
$57,473.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$12,400.0
($4,000.0)
($1,485.0)
($2,566.0)
($522.0)
$0.0
($2,064.0)
($2,586.0)
$0.0
($192,300.0)
($2,602.0)
($99.0)
($4,322.0)
($4,421.0)
($1,411.0)
$0.0
($1,411.0)
$22.0
($8,412.0)
($251.0)
$1,397.0
$1,146.0
$3,059.0
($2,590.0)
$5,529.0
197
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Exchange Network
Small Business Ombudsman
Small Minority Business Assistance
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
TRI / Right to Know
Tribal - Capacity Building
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
International Programs
US Mexico Border
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Environment and Trade
International Capacity Building
POPs Implementation
International Sources of Pollution
Trade and Governance
Subtotal, International Programs
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Regional Science and Technology
Regulatory Innovation
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
Science Advisory Board
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
FY 2009
Actuals
$17,440.8
$2,623.3
$2,319.6
$12,152.1
$15,409.5
$13,174.7
$127,458.3
$5,621.8
$396.4
$371.1
$1,072.1
$94.9
$6,836.1
$5,413.2
$19,805.6
$4,565.3
$90,809.5
$95,374.8
$4,584.8
$1,280.5
$11,898.0
$41,917.2
$14,236.7
$3,311.4
$21,827.7
$17,677.1
$5,052.1
$121,785.5
$155,471.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$17,024.0
$3,028.0
$2,350.0
$13,303.0
$14,933.0
$12,080.0
$130,800.0
$4,969.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,628.0
$6,227.0
$19,824.0
$5,912.0
$97,410.0
$103,322.0
$5,275.0
$1,147.0
$12,224.0
$42,662.0
$14,419.0
$3,271.0
$18,917.0
$19,404.0
$6,278.0
$123,597.0
$157,040.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$18,702.0
$3,040.0
$2,358.0
$13,529.0
$16,494.0
$15,005.0
$143,208.0
$4,979.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,759.0
$6,202.0
$19,940.0
$7,030.0
$98,060.0
$105,090.0
$5,332.0
$1,390.0
$12,366.0
$44,002.0
$15,735.0
$3,283.0
$19,828.0
$22,640.0
$5,902.0
$130,478.0
$169,915.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,678.0
$12.0
$8.0
$226.0
$1,561.0
$2,925.0
$12,408.0
$10.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$131.0
($25.0)
$116.0
$1,118.0
$650.0
$1,768.0
$57.0
$243.0
$142.0
$1,340.0
$1,316.0
$12.0
$911.0
$3,236.0
($376.0)
$6,881.0
$12,875.0
198
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Acquisition Management
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Corrective Action
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Endocrine Disrupters
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
HPV/VCCEP
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction (other activities)
Subtotal, Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review
and Reduction
Pollution Prevention Program
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,585.1
$24,545.2
$116,343.3
$302,944.6
$89,875.3
$31,332.7
$26,422.9
$43,373.2
$493,948.7
$60,952.3
$42,531.0
$12,772.7
$2,084.4
$118,340.4
$67,198.4
$38,451.0
$13,680.9
$119,330.3
$10,937.0
$10.0
$48,259.9
$48,269.9
$19,958.8
$6,802.7
$14,260.7
$100,229.1
$13,581.6
FY 2010
Enacted
$13,514.0
$27,997.0
$116,687.0
$315,238.0
$82,834.0
$32,404.0
$25,487.0
$42,447.0
$498,410.0
$62,944.0
$42,203.0
$13,145.0
$1,840.0
$120,132.0
$68,842.0
$40,029.0
$14,379.0
$123,250.0
$8,625.0
$0.0
$54,886.0
$54,886.0
$18,050.0
$6,025.0
$14,329.0
$101,915.0
$12,424.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$13,409.0
$30,901.0
$115,606.0
$329,831.0
$86,039.0
$33,934.0
$26,466.0
$44,842.0
$521,112.0
$64,666.0
$43,031.0
$14,156.0
$1,850.0
$123,703.0
$67,911.0
$40,003.0
$14,822.0
$122,736.0
$8,601.0
$0.0
$55,820.0
$55,820.0
$15,419.0
$6,260.0
$14,413.0
$100,513.0
$14,647.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($105.0)
$2,904.0
($1,081.0)
$14,593.0
$3,205.0
$1,530.0
$979.0
$2,395.0
$22,702.0
$1,722.0
$828.0
$1,011.0
$10.0
$3,571.0
($931.0)
($26.0)
$443.0
($514.0)
($24.0)
$0.0
$934.0
$934.0
($2,631.0)
$235.0
$84.0
($1,402.0)
$2,223.0
199
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Water: Ecosystems
Great Lakes Legacy Act
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Wetlands
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
Water: Human Health Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection
Water Quality Protection
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
Total, Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Total, Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Total, Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Air Toxics and Quality
Radiation: Protection
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
FY 2009
Actuals
$32,782.7
$27,082.7
$23,124.1
$82,989.5
$3,102.2
$98,250.4
$101,352.6
$13,064.7
$200,635.0
$213,699.7
$2,405,796.7
$40,605.1
$40,605.1
$8,559.9
$29,282.8
$37,842.7
$2,299.2
$10,314.2
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$32,567.0
$25,940.0
$58,507.0
$2,944.0
$102,224.0
$105,168.0
$13,397.0
$208,626.0
$222,023.0
$2,993,779.0
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$8,070.0
$28,931.0
$37,001.0
$2,495.0
$9,975.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$27,233.0
$28,231.0
$55,464.0
$2,974.0
$105,328.0
$108,302.0
$13,590.0
$226,471.0
$240,061.0
$2,891,036.0
$45,646.0
$45,646.0
$8,070.0
$31,931.0
$40,001.0
$2,593.0
$10,156.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
($5,334.0)
$2,291.0
($3,043.0)
$30.0
$3,104.0
$3,134.0
$193.0
$17,845.0
$18,038.0
($102,743.0)
$855.0
$855.0
$0.0
$3,000.0
$3,000.0
$98.0
$181.0
200
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Environmental Justice
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Forensics Support
Subtotal, Enforcement
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Preparedness and Response
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Information Exchange / Outreach
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
FY 2009
Actuals
$22.0
$129.3
$1,265.2
$1,416.5
$624.6
$172,412.0
$9,265.5
$167.2
$9,058.1
$776.9
$2,695.9
$195,000.2
$177.0
$1,590.0
$1,767.0
$8,777.3
$8,933.2
$37,768.9
$55,479.4
$1,203.6
$58,450.0
$7.3
$922.4
$929.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$1,216.0
$795.0
$172,668.0
$10,570.0
$0.0
$8,066.0
$899.0
$2,450.0
$195,448.0
$198.0
$1,562.0
$1,760.0
$10,798.0
$9,626.0
$33,156.0
$53,580.0
$1,194.0
$56,534.0
$0.0
$1,433.0
$1,433.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$1,220.0
$1,220.0
$806.0
$176,532.0
$10,909.0
$0.0
$8,142.0
$0.0
$2,501.0
$198,890.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$7,011.0
$5,838.0
$29,425.0
$42,274.0
$1,194.0
$43,468.0
$0.0
$1,433.0
$1,433.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$4.0
$4.0
$11.0
$3,864.0
$339.0
$0.0
$76.0
($899.0)
$51.0
$3,442.0
($198.0)
($1,562.0)
($1,760.0)
($3,787.0)
($3,788.0)
($3,731.0)
($11,306.0)
$0.0
($13,066.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
201
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: Sustainability
Research: Sustainability
Superfund Cleanup
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,013.2
$17,266.1
$18,279.3
$1,369.4
$716.7
$2,086.1
$45,071.8
$1,837.0
$6,056.1
$21,245.8
$74,210.7
$2,932.5
$23,521.1
$5,475.1
$24,154.9
$130,294.3
$3,776.4
$19,010.1
$96.0
$224,789.2
$9,934.8
$32,761.5
$669,293.0
$6,575.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$785.0
$17,087.0
$17,872.0
$893.0
$746.0
$1,639.0
$44,300.0
$3,397.0
$8,299.0
$22,486.0
$78,482.0
$2,945.0
$24,684.0
$5,580.0
$27,490.0
$139,181.0
$3,404.0
$21,191.0
$73.0
$202,330.0
$9,632.0
$32,105.0
$605,438.0
$6,575.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$728.0
$16,720.0
$17,448.0
$913.0
$752.0
$1,665.0
$41,888.0
$3,749.0
$8,412.0
$22,588.0
$76,637.0
$3,318.0
$24,337.0
$7,081.0
$26,934.0
$138,307.0
$3,350.0
$19,069.0
$0.0
$202,784.0
$9,776.0
$31,543.0
$605,438.0
$5,920.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($57.0)
($367.0)
($424.0)
$20.0
$6.0
$26.0
($2,412.0)
$352.0
$113.0
$102.0
($1,845.0)
$373.0
($347.0)
$1,501.0
($556.0)
($874.0)
($54.0)
($2,122.0)
($73.0)
$454.0
$144.0
($562.0)
$0.0
($655.0)
202
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Brownfields Projects
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
Total, Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
EPAct & Related Authorities Implemention
LUST/ UST (other activities)
Subtotal, LUST/UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
EPAct & Related Authorities Implemention
LUST Cooperative Agreements (other
activities)
Subtotal, LUST Cooperative Agreements
LUST Prevention
EPAct & Related Authorities Implemention
FY 2009
Actuals
$106.7
$943,460.2
$1,385,412.2
$0.0
$802.4
$164.3
$696.0
$199.5
$895.5
$139.8
$1,109.6
$3.0
$2,147.9
$424.1
$12.6
$10,874.5
$10,887.1
$3,445.1
$61,419.3
$64,864.4
$33,973.8
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$856,080.0
$1,306,541.0
$0.0
$797.0
$162.0
$696.0
$208.0
$904.0
$165.0
$1,115.0
$0.0
$2,184.0
$345.0
$0.0
$11,613.0
$11,613.0
$0.0
$63,570.0
$63,570.0
$34,430.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$855,461.0
$1,293,060.0
$847.0
$0.0
$0.0
$696.0
$220.0
$916.0
$165.0
$1,050.0
$0.0
$2,131.0
$457.0
$0.0
$12,162.0
$12,162.0
$0.0
$63,192.0
$63,192.0
$34,430.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
($619.0)
($13,481.0)
$847.0
($797.0)
($162.0)
$0.0
$12.0
$12.0
$0.0
($65.0)
$0.0
($53.0)
$112.0
$0.0
$549.0
$549.0
$0.0
($378.0)
($378.0)
$0.0
203
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Subtotal, LUST Prevention
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Total, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil SpUl Response
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Oil
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Total, Oil Spill Response
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
Brownfields Projects
FY 2009
Actuals
$33,973.8
$109,725.3
$113,264.0
$293.5
$0.0
$293.5
$2,060.5
$36.3
$14,445.6
$538.0
$38.1
$576.1
$576.1
$382.8
$17,794.8
$706,139.0
$865,448.7
$124,409.3
$18,438.4
$101,918.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$34,430.0
$109,613.0
$113,101.0
$269.0
$0.0
$269.0
$1,998.0
$24.0
$14,944.0
$438.0
$67.0
$505.0
$505.0
$639.0
$18,379.0
$2,100,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$164,777.0
$13,000.0
$100,000.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$34,430.0
$109,784.0
$113,219.0
$0.0
$139.0
$139.0
$2,559.0
$0.0
$14,547.0
$438.0
$96.0
$534.0
$534.0
$689.0
$18,468.0
$2,000,000.0
$1,287,000.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$138,254.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
$171.0
$118.0
($269.0)
$139.0
($130.0)
$561.0
($24.0)
($397.0)
$0.0
$29.0
$29.0
$29.0
$50.0
$89.0
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($164,777.0)
($3,000.0)
$38,254.0
204
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Clean School Bus Initiative
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
EPAct & Related Authorities Implemention
CA Emission Reduction Project Grants
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
(other activities)
Subtotal, Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
Targeted Airshed Grants
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Categorical Grants
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Categorical Grant: Lead
Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Categorical Grants: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Monitoring Grants
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
1 06) (other activities)
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality
Management
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
FY 2009
Actuals
$45.3
$0.0
$15,000.0
$29,367.3
$44,367.3
$0.0
$12,911.8
$3,849.0
$1,877,526.8
$9,905.2
$50,586.9
$12,628.5
$102,332.3
$5,916.9
$14,295.1
$0.0
$214,498.2
$0.0
$19,208.7
$12,772.0
$12,975.8
$203,860.5
$216,836.3
$4,932.3
$99,440. 1
$8,370.4
$2,717.7
$223,541.5
$8,946.4
$5,276.9
$13,962.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$20,000.0
$17,000.0
$0.0
$3,861,777.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,000.0
$103,346.0
$0.0
$14,564.0
$10,000.0
$200,857.0
$0.0
$18,711.0
$13,520.0
$18,500.0
$210,764.0
$229,264.0
$4,940.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
$226,580.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$3,505,254.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,200.0
$105,412.0
$0.0
$14,855.0
$0.0
$200,857.0
$30,000.0
$19,085.0
$13,690.0
$23,500.0
$250,764.0
$274,264.0
$5,039.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
$309,080.0
$0.0
$5,201.0
$13,566.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($20,000.0)
($7,000.0)
$0.0
($356,523.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$200.0
$2,066.0
$0.0
$291.0
($10,000.0)
$0.0
$30,000.0
$374.0
$170.0
$5,000.0
$40,000.0
$45,000.0
$99.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$82,500.0
$0.0
$102.0
$266.0
205
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control
(UIC)
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
Total, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
(no Program Area specified)
Not Specified
Total, Rescission of Prior Year Funds
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$61,681.1
$11,332.4
$4,549.5
$23.3
$14.0
$15,345.1
$1,119,113.3
$2,996,640.1
$0.0
$0.0
$7,794,420.7
$7,100,098.3
$14,894,519.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$62,875.0
$10,891.0
$2,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$1,116,446.0
$4,978,223.0
($40,000.0)
($40,000.0)
$10,297,864.0
$0.0
$10,297,864.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$71,375.0
$11,109.0
$2,550.0
$0.0
$0.0
$17,167.0
$1,276,619.0
$4,781,873.0
($10,000.0)
($10,000.0)
$10,020,000.0
$0.0
$10,020,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$8,500.0
$218.0
$50.0
$0.0
$0.0
$337.0
$160,173.0
($196,350.0)
$30,000.0
$30,000.0
($277,864.0)
$0.0
($277,864.0)
$10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PY funds. No impact to actuals.
206
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
Discontinued Programs
207
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,916.9
$5,916..9
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Homeland Security Grant program focused on supporting states with coordination activities for
critical water infrastructure security efforts, including coordinating and providing technical
assistance, training, and education within the state or territory on homeland security issues.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no performance measures for this
program (previously under EPA's Protect Water Quality objective).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA; CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002.
208
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Categorical Grant: Puerto Rico
Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,849.0
$3,849.0
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program was created to contribute to the design for an upgrade of Metropolitano's Sergio
Cuervas drinking water treatment plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico. EPA contributed funds based on a
FY 2004 design cost estimate for bringing the plant into compliance with current regulatory
requirements.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA is not requesting funding for this program proj ect in FY 2011.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supported multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
209
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY
2009
Actuals
52,777.7
$2,717.7
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
($0.0)
(0.0)
Program Project Description:
Sector program grants built environmental partnerships with states and tribes to strengthen their
ability to address environmental and public health threats, including contaminated drinking water,
pollution caused by wet weather events, pesticides in food, toxic substances, and air pollution.
These capacity building grants supported state and Tribal agencies that are responsible for
implementing authorized, delegated, or approved environmental programs.27
EPA has used this grant to support states and tribes in their efforts to build, implement, or improve
compliance capacity for authorized, delegated, or approved environmental programs. Specific
activities have included: 1) improving compliance data collection and quality, 2) modernizing data
systems, 3) improving public access to enforcement and compliance data, and, 4) providing
compliance training to states and tribes to enhance their compliance monitoring capacity.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Program was discontinued in FY 2010. There is no request for this program in FY 2011.
Performance Targets:
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-
BR; NEPA; MPRSA.
27 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/stag/index.html
210
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,946.4
$8,946.4
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program focused on community-based approaches and management
techniques to protect and restore the nation's waters.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no current performance measures for this
program (previously under EPA's Protect Water Quality objective).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006; Public
Law 109-54.
211
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Program Area: Categorical Grant
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$23.3
$23.3
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
Section 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act authorized funding for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator On-site Assistance Training program. This program targeted small publicly-owned
wastewater treatment plants, with a discharge of less than 5 million gallons per day. Federal funding
for this program was administered through grants to states, often in cooperation with educational
institutions or non-profit agencies. In most cases, assistance was administered through an
environmental training center.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no current performance measures for this
program (previously under EPA's Protect Water Quality Objective).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
212
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$14.0
$14.0
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
Under authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, EPA made grants to a wide variety of
recipients, including states, tribes, state water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, and
other nonprofit institutions, organizations, and individuals to promote the coordination of
environmentally beneficial activities. This competitive funding vehicle was used by EPA's partners
to further the Agency's goals of providing clean and safe water. The program was designed to fund
a broad range of projects, including: innovative water efficiency programs, research, training and
education, demonstration, best management practices, stormwater management planning, and
innovative permitting programs and studies related to the causes, effects, extent, and prevention of
pollution.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no current performance measures for this
program (previously under EPA's Protect Water Quality objective).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
213
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY
2009
Actuals
$24,996.0
$802.4
$293.5
$22.0
$26,113.9
179.8
FY
2010
Enacted
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$0.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY
2011
Pres
Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($25,622.0)
($797.0)
($269.0)
$0.0
($26,688.0)
(173.7)
Program Project Description:
EPA's Compliance Assistance program provides information to millions of regulated entities and
Federal agencies to help them understand and meet their environmental obligations. This
information lets regulated entities know of their legal obligations under Federal environmental laws.
Compliance assistance resources include Web sites, compliance guides, emission calculators, and
training materials aimed at specific business communities or industry sectors. Additionally, onsite
compliance assistance and information is sometimes provided by EPA inspectors during an
inspection.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The activities previously funded from the Superfund appropriation for the Compliance Assistance
program for supporting Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) have been consolidated
with the rest of the Agency's ICIS Superfund budget in the Compliance Monitoring program. No
new activities or funding is planned for this program in FY 2011.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR.
214
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Compliance Incentives
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,710.0
$129.3
$8,839.3
58.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,560.0
$0.0
$9,560.0
62.5
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($9,560.0)
$0.0
($9,560.0)
(62.5)
Program Project Description:
EPA's Compliance Incentives program encouraged regulated entities to monitor and quickly correct
environmental violations, reduce pollution, and make improvements in regulated entities'
environmental management practices. EPA uses a variety of approaches to encourage entities to
self-disclose environmental violations under various environmental statues.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The activities previously funded from the Superfund appropriation for the Compliance Incentives
program for supporting Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) have been consolidated
with the rest of the Agency's ICIS Superfund budget in the Compliance Monitoring program in FY
2011.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR.
215
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$32.5
$32.5
0.00
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) supported innovative and geographically based
projects. These funds were available to EPA Regional offices to support priority local and Regional
environmental projects, which have included protecting children's health, restoring watersheds,
providing for clean air, preventing pollution and fostering environmental stewardship. RGI provided
a tool to facilitate holistic and innovative resolutions to complex environmental problems.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no current performance measures for this
program (previously under EPA's Objective 4.2: Communities).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA.
216
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THE PRESIDENT'S E-GOVERNMENT
INITIATIVES
Grants.gov
The Grants.gov Initiative benefits EPA and
its grant programs by providing a single
location to publish grant opportunities and
application packages, and by providing a
single site for the grants community to apply
for grants using common forms, processes
and systems. EPA believes that the central
site raises the visibility of our grants
opportunities to a wider diversity of
applicants. Grants.gov has also allowed
EPA to discontinue support for its own
electronic grant application system, saving
operational, training, and account
management costs.
The grants community benefits from savings
in postal costs, paper and envelopes.
Applicants save time in searching for
Agency grant opportunities and in learning
the application systems of various agencies.
At the request of the state environmental
agencies, EPA has begun to offer Grants.gov
application packages for mandatory grants
(i.e., Continuing Environmental Program
Grants). States requested that the Agency
extend usage to mandatory programs to
streamline their application process.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-04-00-04-0 1 60-24
020-00-04-00-04-0 1 60-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$486.450
$486.450
Integrated Acquisition Environment
The Integrated Acquisition Environment
(IAE) is comprised of nine government-
wide automated applications and/or
databases that have contributed to
streamlining the acquisition business process
across the government. EPA leverages the
usefulness of some of these systems via
electronic linkages between EPA's
acquisition systems and the IAE shared
systems. Other IAE systems are not linked
directly to EPA's acquisition systems, but
benefit the Agency's contracting staff and
vendor community as stand-alone resources.
EPA's acquisition systems use data provided
by the Central Contractor Registry (CCR) to
replace internally maintained vendor data.
Contracting officers can download vendor-
provided representation and certification
information electronically, via the Online
Representations and Certifications (ORCA)
database, which allows vendors to submit
this information once, rather than separately
for every contract proposal. Contracting
officers are able to access the Excluded
Parties List System (EPLS), via links in
EPA's acquisition systems, to identify
vendors that are debarred from receiving
contract awards.
Contracting officers can also link to the
Wage Determination Online (WDOL) to
obtain information required under the
Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon
Act. EPA's acquisition systems link to the
Federal Procurement Data System - Next
Generation (FPDS-NG) for submission of
contract actions at the time of award.
FPDS-NG provides public access to
217
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
government-wide contract information. The
Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System
(eSRS) supports vendor submission of
subcontracting data for contracts identified
as requiring this information. EPA submits
synopses of procurement opportunities over
$25,000 to the Federal Business
Opportunities (FBO) website, where the
information is accessible to the public.
Vendors use this website to identify business
opportunities in federal contracting.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$124.454
$108.139
Integrated Acquisition Environment
(IAE) Grants and Loans
The Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act (FFATA) requires the
agencies to unambiguously identify contract,
grant, and loan recipients and determine
parent/child relationship, address
information, etc. The FFATA taskforce
determined that using both the Dun and
Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS Number (standard
identifier for all business lines) and Central
Contractor Registration (CCR), the single
point of entry for data collection and
dissemination, is the most appropriate way
to accomplish this. This fee will pay for
EPA's use of this service in the course of
reporting grants and/or loans.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-02-4300-24
020-00-01-16-02-4300-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$17.134
$8.808
Enterprise Human Resource Integration
Initiative
The Enterprise Human Resource
Integration's (EHRI) Electronic Official
Personnel Folder (eOPF) is designed to
provide a consolidated repository that
digitally documents the employment actions
and history of individuals employed by the
Federal government. EPA has completed
migration to the federal eOPF system. This
initiative will benefit the Agency by
reducing file room maintenance costs and
improve customer service for employees and
productivity for FIR specialists. Customer
service will improve for employees since
they will have 24/7 access to view and print
their official personnel documents and HR
specialists will no longer be required to
manually file, retrieve or mail personnel
actions to employees thus improving
productivity.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-03-1219-24
020-00-01-16-03-1219-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$372.870
$387.666
218
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Recruitment One-Stop (ROS)
Recruitment One-Stop (ROS) simplifies the
process of locating and applying for Federal
jobs. USAJOBS is a standard job
announcement and resume builder. It is the
one-stop for Federal job seekers to search
for and apply to positions on-line. This
integrated process benefits citizens by
providing a more efficient process to locate
and apply for jobs, and assists Federal
agencies in hiring top talent in a competitive
marketplace. The Recruitment One-Stop
initiative has increased job seeker
satisfaction with the Federal job application
process and is helping the Agency to locate
highly-qualified candidates and improve
response times to applicants.
By integrating with ROS, the Agency has
eliminated the need for applicants to
maintain multiple user IDs to apply for
Federal jobs through various systems. The
vacancy announcement format has been
improved for easier readability. The system
can maintain up to 5 resumes per applicant,
which allows them to create and store
resumes tailored to specific skills — this is
an improvement from our previous system
that only allowed one resume per applicant.
In addition, ROS has a notification feature
that keeps applicants updated on the current
status of the application, and provides a link
to the agency website for detailed
information. This self-help ROS feature
allows applicants to obtain up-to-date
information on the status of their application
upon request.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$110.544
$110.544
eTraining
This initiative encourages e-learning to
improve training, efficiency and financial
performance. EPA recently exercised its
option to renew the current Interagency
Agreement with OPM-GoLearn that
provides licenses to online training for
employees. EPA purchased 5,000 licenses
to prevent any interruption in service to
current users.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-03-1217-24
020-00-01-16-03-1217-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
*
*
* The FY 2010 allocation of the Agency's contribution is still pending. The Agency has assumed the same level as FY 2010.
219
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Human Resources LoB
The Human Resources Line of Business
(HR LoB) provides the Federal government
the infrastructure to support pay-for-
performance systems, modernized HR
systems, and the core functionality
necessary for the strategic management of
human capital.
The HR LoB offers common solutions that
will enable Federal departments and
agencies to work more effectively, and it
provides managers and executives across the
Federal Government improved means to
meet strategic objectives. EPA benefits by
supporting an effective program
management activity which will deliver
more tangible results in FY 2009 and
beyond.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$65.217
$65.217
Grants Management LoB
In FY 2008, EPA managed 7,960 grant
awards equaling approximately $3.8 billion.
EPA anticipates the key benefit will be
having a centralized location to download all
applications, make awards, and track awards
to closeout. Automated business processes,
available through consortium service
providers, will decrease agency reliance on
manual and paper-based processing.
Consortium lead agencies will spread
operations and maintenance (O&M) costs,
and development, modernization, and
enhancement (DME) costs across agencies,
decreasing the burden that any one agency
must bear.
GM LoB will lead to a reduction in the
number of systems of record for grants data
across EPA and the government and the
development of common reporting
standards, improving EPA's ability to
provide agency- and government-wide
reports on grant activities and results.
Migrating to a consortium lead agency will
help EPA comply with the Federal Financial
Assistance Management Improvement Act
of 1999 and the Federal Funding Accounta-
bility and Transparence Act of 2006.
Service to constituents will be improved
through the standardization and streamlining
of government-wide grants business
processes. The public will save time as a
result of quicker notification and faster
payments due to an automated system for
grants processing. Furthermore, GM LoB
will minimize complex and varying agency-
specific requirements and increase grantee
ease of use on Federal grants management
systems. Constituents will benefit as they
will have fewer unique agency systems and
processes to learn; grantees' ability to learn
how to use the system will be improved and
reliance on call center technical support will
be reduced. Consortium lead agencies also
will provide grantees with online access to
standard post-award reports, decreasing the
number of unique agency-specific reporting
requirements.
220
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-04-00-04-1300-24
020-00-04-00-04-1300-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$59.316
$59.316
Business Gateway
By creating a single entry-point for business
information, such as the e-Forms catalog,
Business Gateway directly benefits EPA's
regulated communities, many of whom are
subject to complex regulatory requirements
across multiple agencies. This initiative also
benefits EPA by centralizing OMB reporting
requirements under the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. EPA has
over 100 initiatives, activities, and services
directed at small business needs. Many of
those initiatives are highlighted to small
businesses through periodic features in
Business.gov. This allows special focus to
be brought to bear at critical times to the
intended audiences for those initiatives. In
addition, with the launch of the
Business.gov Community, small business
users are able to interact on-line where they
can discuss, share and ask questions of other
business owners as well as industry and
government experts. Business.gov also
continues to provide a one-stop compliance
tool enabling small and emerging businesses
access to compliance information, forms and
tools across the Federal Government.
Business Gateway supports EPA's small
business activities function by providing the
following benefits:
• a single point of access for electronic
regulatory forms;
• "plain English" compliance
guidance, fact sheets and links to
checklists for small businesses; and
• an extensive Web site with numerous
links to other internal and external
assistance sources.
Beginning in FY2009 the Business Gateway
program has been fully funded by the Small
Business Administration (SBA), the
managing partner. EPA plans to continue its
partnership with Business Gateway
program, however there will be no transfer
of funds in F Y2010 and F Y2011.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$0
$0
Geospatial LoB
The Geospatial Line of Business (GeoLoB)
is an intergovernmental project to improve
the ability of the public and government to
use geospatial information to support the
business of government and facilitate
decision-making. This initiative will reduce
EPA costs and improve our operations in
several areas. The investment in FY 2010
and FY 2011 will provide the necessary
planning and coordination to begin
providing significant benefits to EPA in the
following ways:
EPA's geospatial program has achieved a
cost avoidance of approximately $2 million
per year by internally consolidating
procurements for data and tools into multi-
year enterprise licenses. The Agency is
currently applying these lessons learned for
the benefit of our partners in the GeoLoB as
well as colleagues in State, Local and Tribal
221
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
government organizations. The GeoLoB
will reduce costs by providing an
opportunity for EPA and other agencies to
share approaches on procurement
consolidation that other agencies can follow.
Throughout FY 2008-2009, EPA has played
a key leadership role in a GeoLoB
Workgroup to explore opportunities for
Federal-wide acquisition of key geospatial
software and data. In early FY 2010, the
first of these acquisitions became available
to the Federal community through the
Smartbuy Program managed by our GeoLoB
partners at GSA. It is anticipated that this
year, at least 2-3 additional Federal-wide
common services will be made available in
addition to Smartbuy.
EPA benefits from Geospatial LoB in FY
2011 are anticipated to be the same as those
described for FY 2010.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
EPA Contribution (in
thousands)
$42.000
$42.000
eRulemaking
The eRulemaking Program is designed to
enhance public access and participation in
the regulatory process through electronic
systems; reduce burden for citizens and
businesses in finding relevant regulations
and commenting on proposed rulemaking
actions; consolidate redundant docket
systems; and improve agency regulatory
processes and the timeliness of regulatory
decisions.
The eRulemaking Program's Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) currently
supports 165 federal entities including all
Cabinet-level Departments and independent
rulemaking agencies which collectively
promulgate over 90 percent of all Federal
regulations each year. FDMS has simplified
the public's participation in the rulemaking
process and made EPA's rulemaking
business processes more accessible as well
as transparent. FDMS provides EPA's
approximately 1,600 registered users with a
secure, centralized electronic repository for
managing the Agency's rulemaking
development via distributed management of
data and robust role-based user access. EPA
posts regulatory and non-regulatory
documents in Regulations.gov for public
viewing, downloading, bookmarking, email
notification, and commenting. For calendar
year 2009, EPA posted 735 rules and
proposed rules, 1,409 Federal Register
notices, and 96,544 public submissions in
Regulations.gov. EPA also posted over
18,000 documents that were supporting and
related materials associated with other
postings. Overall, EPA provides public
access to more than 481,000 documents in
Regulations.gov.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-01-0060-24
020-00-01-16-01-0060-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$1,057.931
$613.000
222
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
E-Travel E-Travel provides EPA with
efficient and effective travel management
services, with cost savings from cross-
government purchasing agreements and
improved functionality through streamlined
travel policies and processes, strict security
and privacy controls, and enhanced agency
oversight and audit capabilities. EPA
employees also will benefit from the
integrated travel planning provided through
E-Travel.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-01-03-0220-24
020-00-01-01-03-0220-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$1,099.540
$1,105.486
Financial Management Line of Business
(FMLoB)
The FMLoB is a multi-agency effort whose
goals include: achieving process
improvements and cost savings in the
acquisition, development, implementation,
and operation of financial management
systems. EPA will complete the planning
and acquisition phase of its Financial
System Modernization Project (FSMP) and
will begin migration to a shared service
provider. This work will benefit from the
migration guidance, including the use of
performance metrics developed for service
level agreements and the use of standard
business processes developed for four core
financial management sub-functions:
Payments, Receipts, Funds and Reporting.
By incorporating the same FM LoB-
standard processes as those used by central
agency systems, interfaces among the
systems will be streamlined and the quality
of information available for decision-making
will be improved. In addition, EPA expects
to achieve operational savings in future
years because of the use of the shared
service provider for operations and
maintenance of the new system.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$44.444
$44.444
Budget Formulation and Execution (BFE)
LoB
The Budget Formulation and Execution
Lines of Business (BFE LoB) allow EPA
and other agencies to access budget-related
benefits and services. The Agency has the
option to implement LoB sponsored tools
and services.
EPA has benefited from the BFE LoB by
sharing valuable information on what has or
hasn't worked on the use of different budget
systems and software. This effort has
created a government only capability for
electronic collaboration (Wiki) in which the
Budget Community website allows EPA to
share budget information with OMB (and
other Federal agencies). The LoB is working
on giving EPA and other agencies the
capability to have secure, virtual on-line
meetings where participants can not only
hear what's been said by conference calling
into the meeting, but also view budget-
223
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
related presentations directly from their
workspace. The LoB has provided budget-
related training to EPA budget employees on
OMB's MAX budget system, and on
Treasury's FACTS II statements explaining
how it ties to the budget process.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
010-00-01-01-04-3200-24
010-00-01-01-04-3200-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$95.000
$105.000
IT Dashboard:
The IT Dashboard provides the public with
an online window into the details of Federal
information technology investments and
provides users with the ability to track the
progress of investments over time. For more
information, please visit:
http://it.usaspending.gov.
224
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
SUPERFUND SPECIAL
ACCOUNTS
28
Section 122(b)(3) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to
retain and use funds received pursuant to an
agreement with a Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP) to carry out the purpose of that
agreement. EPA retains such funds in
special accounts, which are sub-accounts in
EPA's Superfund Trust Fund. Pursuant to
the specific agreements, which typically take
the form of an Administrative Order on
Consent or Consent Decree, EPA uses
special account funds to finance site-specific
CERCLA response actions at the site for
which the account was established. Through
the use of special accounts, EPA pursues its
"enforcement first" policy - ensuring
responsible parties pay for cleanup - so that
appropriated resources from the Superfund
Trust Fund are conserved for sites where no
viable or liable PRPs can be identified.
Both special account resources and
appropriated resources are critical to the
Superfund program.
Special account funds are used to conduct
many different site-specific CERCLA
response actions, including, but not limited
to, investigations to determine the extent of
contamination and appropriate remedy
needed, construction and implementation of
the remedy, enforcement activities, and
post-construction activities. EPA may also
provide special account funds to a PRP who
agrees to perform work under an agreement,
as an incentive (in the form of a
28 House Report 111-180 of the FY 2010 Department of
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation
Bill directs the Agency to include in its annual budget
justification a plan for using special account funds
expeditiously. This information is being provided in
response to this request.
reimbursement) to perform additional work
beyond the PRP's fair share at the site,
which EPA might otherwise have to conduct
using appropriated resources. Because
response actions may take many years, the
full use of special account funds may also
take many years. Per the terms of the
agreement, once site-specific work is
complete and site risks are addressed, EPA
may use special account funds to reimburse
EPA for site-specific costs incurred using
appropriated resources (e.g.,
reclassification), allowing the latter
resources to be allocated to other sites. Any
remaining special account funds are
generally transferred to the Superfund Trust
Fund, where they are available for future
appropriation by Congress to further support
cleanup at other sites.
Since the inception of special accounts
through the end of FY 2009, EPA has
collected approximately $2.59 billion from
PRPs and earned $372.3 million in interest.
EPA has also transferred a cumulative $11.6
million to the Superfund Trust Fund. As of
the end of FY 2009, $1.43 billion has been
disbursed to finance site response actions
and $184.3 million has been obligated but
not yet disbursed. EPA is carefully
managing the $1.34 billion that was
available as of October 1, 2009 and has
developed multi-year plans to use these
funds as expeditiously as possible. The
majority of accounts (68%) have an
available balance of less than $500,000,
while 2% of accounts have an available
balance of $10 million or more. The
following table illustrates the cumulative
status of open and closed accounts, FY 2009
program activity, and planned multi-year
uses of the available balance.
225
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
SPECIAL ACCOUNTS:
FY 2009 Program Actuals and Future Multi-Year Program Resource Plan
Account Status1
Cumulative Open
Cumulative Closed
FY 2009 Inputs and Outputs to 2008 End of Fiscal Year (EOFY) Available Balance1
2008 EOFY Available Balance
FY 2009 Activities
+ Receipts
- Transfers to Superfund Trust Fund (Receipt Adjustment)
+ Interest Earned
- Net Change in Unliquidated Obligations
- Disbursements for EPA Incurred Costs
- Disbursements for Work Party Reimbursements under Final
Settlements
- Reclassifications
2009 EOFY Available Balance2
Multi-Year Plans for EOFY 2009 Available Balance
2009 EOFY Available Balance2
• Estimates for Future EPA Site Activities3
• Estimates for Potential Disbursements to Work Parties
Identified in Final Settlements4
• Estimates for Reclassifications for FYs 2010-20125
• Estimates for Transfers to Trust Fund for FYs 2010-20125
• Available Balance To Be Assigned6
Number of
Accounts
905
43
$ in Thousands
$1,323,594.5
$237,089.4
($9,541.4)
$25,466.4
($37,520.8)
($167,643.5)
($14,339.1)
($14.391.9)
$1,342,713.7
$ in Thousands
$1,342,713.7
$1,181,142.7
$39,173.8
$58,348.4
$4,954.9
$59,093.8
1 FY 2009 data is as of 10/01/2009. The 2008 End of Fiscal Year (EOFY) Available Balance is as of 10/01/2008.
2 Numbers may not add due to rounding.
3 "Estimates for Future EPA Site Activities" includes all response actions that EPA may conduct or oversee in the
future, such as removal, remedial, enforcement, post-construction activities as well as allocation of funds for
settlement incentives to encourage PRPs to perform the cleanup. Planning data are multi-year and cannot be used for
annual comparisons.
4 "Estimates for Potential Disbursements to Work Parties Identified in Final Settlements" includes those funds that
have already been designated in a settlement document, such as a Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent, to be available to a PRP for reimbursements but that have not yet been obligated.
5 "Reclassifications" and "Transfers to the Trust Fund" are estimated for three FYs only.
6 Planning data were recorded in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) as of 10/16/2009 in reference to special account available balances as of
10/01/2009. Receipts collected in the last quarter of the fiscal year may not have been fully planned for use in
CERCLIS at the time of data entry and are reflected in "Available Balance To Be Assigned."
226
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
HIGH PRIORITY PERFORMANCE GOALS (HPPGS)
The Environmental Protection Agency
develops a 5-year strategic plan, as well as
an annual performance plan and annual
reports on our progress. As part of
developing the FY 2011 Budget and
Performance Plan, the Environmental
Protection Agency has also identified a
limited number of high priority performance
goals that will be a particular focus over the
next two years. These goals are a subset of
EPA's High Priority Performance Goals:
I. EPA will improve the country's ability to
measure and control Green House Gas
(GHG) emissions. Building a foundation
for action is essential.
• By June 15, 2011, EPA will make
publically available 100% of facility-
level GHG emissions data submitted
to EPA in compliance with the GHG
Reporting Rule.
• In 2011, EPA, working with US
DOT, will begin implementation of
regulations designed to reduce the
GHG emissions from light duty
vehicles sold in the US starting with
model year 2012.
II. Clean water is essential for our quality
of life and the health of our communities.
EPA will take actions over the next two
years to improve water quality.
• All Chesapeake Bay watershed
States (including the District of
Columbia) will develop and submit
approvable Phase I watershed
implementation plans by the end of
CY 2010 and Phase II plans by the
end of CY 2011 in support of EPA's
final Chesapeake Bay Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
• By the end of fiscal year 2011,
increase the percent of federal CWA
discharge permit enforcement
actions that reduce pollutant
those used to regularly monitor and report
performance. To view the full set of
performance information please visit
www. epa. gov/ocfo/par/2009par/.
Mission: The mission of the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency is to
protect human health and to safeguard the
natural environment — air, water and land —
upon which life depends.
discharges into impaired waterways
from 20% (FY 2009 baseline) to
25% and promote transparency and
right-to-know by posting results and
analysis on the web.
• EPA will initiate over the next two
years, at least four drinking water
standard reviews to strengthen public
health protection.
III. EPA will ensure that environmental
health and protection is delivered to our
communities.
• By 2012, EPA will have initiated 20
enhanced Brownfields community
level projects that will include a new
area-wide planning effort to benefit
under-served and economically
disadvantaged communities. This
will allow those communities to
assess and address multiple
Brownfields sites within their
boundaries, thereby advancing area-
wide planning and cleanups and
enabling redevelopment of
Brownfields properties on a broader
scale than on individual sites. EPA
will provide technical assistance,
coordinate its enforcement, water,
and air quality programs, and work
with other federal agencies, states,
tribes and local governments to
implement associated targeted
environmental improvements
identified in each community's area-
wide plan.
227
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
2009 AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
Summary of EPA Programs
Introduction: The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or
Recovery Act) provided EPA with $7.22
billion for programs and projects. The
purpose of the Recovery Act is to create and
save jobs, jumpstart the U.S. economy, and
build the foundation for long-term economic
growth. EPA's programs and projects will
help achieve these goals, and administer the
environmental laws that will govern
Recovery activities. This funding was
directed to activities in the: Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRFs), Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRFs),
Superfund Hazardous Waste Fund (SF),
Diesel Emissions Reduction (DERA),
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST) and Brownfields programs.
EPA's Recovery Act website
(http://www.epa.gov/recovery/) contains
links and further details including more up-
to-date performance, financial and recipient
reporting data. Tab 11 in this Congressional
Justification contains performance data of
the regular appropriated "base" programs as
well as those of the 2009 Recovery Act.
EPA 2009 RECOVERY ACT FUNDING SUMMARY
(Dollars in Millions)
EPA Program
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
Superfund Remedial
Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks (LUST)
Brownfields
Diesel Emission Grants
(DERA)
Inspector General (IG)
Totals
Total
Appropriated
$4,000.0
$2,000.0
$600.0
$200.0
$100.0
$300.0
$20.0
$7,220.0
Current M&O
Budgets (1)
$31.0
$20.0
$18.0
$3.0
$3.5
$6.0
NA
$81.5
Program Budgets
(2)
$3,969.0
$1,980.0
$582.0
$197.0
$96.5
$294.0
NA
$7,118.5
Chart Notes:
1) ARRA authorized EPA to move a certain
level of funding to the Environmental
Programs and Management (EPM)
account for M&O activities, which are
described in Program Project Fact Sheet in
the EPM Section of the Congressional
Justification.
2) States are allowed to switch funding
between the SRF programs, so the final
SRF program budget totals may change.
228
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Overall Program Descriptions.
• CWSRFs - $4 Billion for
capitalization grants awarded by the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) authorized by Title VI of
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act; and grants awarded to carry out
planning under Clean Water Act
Sections 205(j) and 303(e), pursuant to
the reservation of CWSRF funds under
Section 604(b);
• DWSRFs - $2 Billion for
capitalization grants awarded by the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) authorized by Section 1452
of the Safe Drinking Water Act;
• Superfund Remedial - $600 million
for Superfund remedial program
activities authorized under Section 104
of the Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA);
• Diesel Emission Grants - $300
million for grants awarded by the
Diesel Emissions Reductions Program
authorized by Title VII, Subtitle G of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The
$300 million is distributed among 4
DERA programs: the State Clean
Diesel Grant Program ($88 million),
the National Clean Diesel Program
($156 million), the Emerging
Technology Program ($20 million),
and the SmartWay Clean Diesel
Finance Program ($30 million) as well
as $6 million for M&O.
• LUST (Tank) Cleanups. - $200
million for Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks (LUST) cleanup
activities authorized under Section
9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act; and
• Brownfields - $100 million for grants,
cooperative agreements, and other
activities conducted by the
Brownfields Program authorized by
Section 104(k) of Comprehensive
Emergency Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Program Overviews of EPA ARRA
Programs. Below are program descriptions
for each of EPA's Recovery Act programs,
including overall program descriptions,
project examples, performance measures,
funding sources, major process steps and
description of particular Recovery Act
requirements if applicable.
1. Clean Water State Revolving Funds
(CWSRFs)
Program Description: The Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) provides funds to
states to establish state loan revolving funds
that finance infrastructure improvements for
public wastewater systems and other water
quality projects. For the District of Columbia
and the territories, funds are used for direct
grants for similar purposes. 1.5 percent of the
funds are set-aside for wastewater
infrastructure improvements on tribal lands.
The objectives that have been established for
the CWSRF funding under ARRA will ensure
program focus on beneficial, cost-effective
project development and implementation that
creates jobs. CWSRF projects are selected
based on statutory principles (i.e., public
health and water quality goals) carried out
through state-established priority systems.
ARRA created numerous requirements that
did not apply previously to the Agency's SRF
programs (i.e., Buy American, Green Project
Reserve, and Davis-Bacon). These
requirements created a challenge for EPA,
states and tribes. However, the states are now
proceeding toward the goal of having all
projects under contract or under construction
by February 17, 2010, as required by law.
229
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Examples:
• Gorst, Washington Sewage Treatment
Plant Project will protect Puget Sound.
Construction of two sewer pump
stations is scheduled for the summer of
2010. Sewer lines will be buried in the
ground to serve nearly 100 Gorst
residents and nearly all the businesses
throughout the area. Much of the
project's $5 million cost will be paid
by the federal economic stimulus
program. Kitsap County health
officials have been monitoring failing
septic systems in Gorst for years.
• EPA awarded the Navajo Nation $9.8
million for 30 wastewater projects
benefiting the Navajo Nation ranging
from septic tank and drainfield
upgrades and renovations to
restoration and repairs at several
wastewater treatment facilities located
within the Nation to serve 4,577
homes. Funds will also be used to
launch the first phase of a drinking
water line extension project. Over 20
percent of the Navajo ARRA will fund
"green" decentralized wastewater
systems.
Strategic Plan and Performance Goals: The
Clean Water SRF planned activities for states,
territories, and Indian country will support
progress toward Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
of the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan.
More detailed information on CWSRF
Recovery Act performance measures and
results can be found in the program plans at
www.Recovery.gov. Annual performance
measures impacted by Recovery Act funding
are annotated in the Congressional
Justification.
Funding Source: 68-0102 - State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG).
Funding Process Steps. (Please note that
these steps are similar to, but not exactly the
same as, those of the DWSRF program)
1. Federal Funding Steps
a. Appropriation - Congress passes and
the President signs into law a bill
giving money to the agency for certain
program
b. Apportionment - OMB distributed
the funds to the appropriate accounts
making the funds available
c. Allotment - EPA allots funds to the
State according to CWA formula or
SDWA needs survey
d. Application - State applies to EPA for
grant award, including an Intended
Use Plan that includes:
i. How use of the fund will
support the goals of SRF
ii. List of Projects including type
and amount of assistance
iii. List of non-point and national
estuary protection activities
expect to be funded (unique to
CWSRF)
iv. Criteria and method for
distribution of funds
v. Description of method used to
select treatment projects (not a
point based selection system
like DWSRF, but the logic
does need to be explained)
e Award and Obligation - EPA awards
grants to States, obligating the funds to
the States. Please note dollars are
obligated but no dollars are disbursed
to states until Step 4.
2. State Project Evaluation and Awards
a. State Evaluation - States evaluate and
prioritize potential projects.
b. Assistance Agreements Approval -
States award funds to projects in the
230
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
form of loans, and in the case of
ARRA funds, potentially in the form
of grants. (Note: States often refer to
this as their obligation - as with the
above no funds are disbursed by the
State.)
3. Recipients' Project Construction and
Management
a. Contracts Awarded - Assistance
recipient signs contracts in an amount
equal to the assistance received -
allows construction to commence
b. Construction - Heavy construction
normally take 18-36 months. Time
varies by size, location and complexity
of the project, as well as by the affect
of seasons.
c. Funds Outlay - As construction is
completed, recipients incurs costs.
(Note funds are outlayed as
construction is completed ending after
construction is complete.)
4. Cost Reimbursement and Billing
a. Costs Incurred - Recipients incur
costs and invoice State SRF program,
b Recipients bill States Recipients
invoice State SRF programs
c State review and reimbursement.
State SRF programs evaluate claims
and reimburses costs
d States submit claims to EPA - State
submits reimbursement for incurred
costs by drawing down funds from
EPA.
e Federal Outlay - EPA evaluates
draw-downs and either approves draw-
downs or requests adjustments (if
needed)
Major Recovery Act SRF Additional
Requirements and Process Changes. (Please
note that these also apply to the DWSRF
program).
In implementing the $6 billion Recovery Act
SRF program, EPA is on course to provide 5
times as much funding in half the time than
the program has in recent years - while
complying with significant additional legal
and reporting requirements. Below are some
of the major challenges and additional
requirements.
Accelerated Schedule. Previously SRF funds
were appropriated with a two-year deadline to
contract the funds. The Recovery Act
included a deadline that all funds had to be
under contract within one year - by February
17, 2010. All project funds that are not placed
under contract must be re-allotted to states that
completely met their under-contract deadline
and provided a list of additional eligible
projects to the Agency.
Additional Conditions. The Recovery Act
included additional provisions and set asides.
• Davis-Bacon requires recipients to pay
at prevailing wage rates and document
their compliance.
• "Buy American" provisions required
the use of U.S.-made supplies in many
cases where previous suppliers had
been foreign.
• "Green" projects" included a
requirement that 20% of projects
would meet specific "green criteria, to
the extent there were sufficient
applications . This new concept
required additional guidance and
training from EPA.
• Matching Funds. ARRA funds could
also be provided as grants, with no
matching requirements.
• Shovel-ready. ARRA projects had to
be "shovel-ready" in order to meet the
tight requirements for project
initiation.
• Reporting Requirements. ARRA also
required all funding recipients to report
on their use of funds, including
231
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
estimates jobs, project descriptions,
etc.
State Actions.
• State Rules. States had in place
legislation, policies and regulations to
manage the SRF funds and projects
under the former rules. States had to
change these in order to meet the new
ARRA schedule and requirements.
• Special Solicitations. Many States had
to do a special solicitation for projects
that would meet ARRA's "shovel-
ready" requirements.
• Amending State Rules. Some States
had to amend underlying program
statutes, regulations, and policies to
provide additional subsidies or
otherwise obtain all necessary
authorities to prepare a complete
capitalization grant application for
ARRA.
Water Utilities and Contractor Actions.
• Adjusted Solicitations. For many
utilities receiving assistance
agreements, the "Buy American" and
Davis-Bacon requirements were
unfamiliar. They had to adjust bid
solicitation and contract award
processes accordingly.
• Contractor Compliance. Construction
contractors and equipment suppliers, in
many cases, were likewise unfamiliar
with these provisions and, together
with the utilities, required guidance
and training from EPA.
• Reporting Requirements. Like the
States, many utilities and contractors
also had to meet additional reporting
requirements.
2. Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
(DWSRFs)
Program Description: The Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended in 1996, established
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) to make funds available to drinking
water systems to finance infrastructure
improvements. The program also encourages
providing funds to small and disadvantaged
communities and as a tool for ensuring safe
drinking water. The DWSRF provides funds
to states to establish state loan revolving funds
that finance infrastructure improvements for
publicly and privately owned Community
Water Systems and not-for-profit Non-
Community Water Systems. The DWSRF is
comprised of 51 state financing programs
(includes Puerto Rico) which are run in
accordance with the federal statute and
regulations.
Recovery Act funds will increase the amount
of money that is available through state
revolving funds to provide assistance to
drinking water facilities for planning, design,
and construction of drinking water treatment
facilities and distribution systems. ARRA will
also increase the percent of total funds
available for DC and the territories through
direct grants from EPA, and to Tribes through
an interagency agreement with the Indian
Health Service (IHS). The objectives
established for the DWSRF Recovery Act
funding will ensure program focus on
beneficial, cost-effective project development
and implementation that creates jobs.
Examples:
• Central Shoshone County Water
District received a $12.27 million low-
interest drinking water construction
loan to construct a membrane micro-
filtration water treatment plant for the
system's well in Enaville, Idaho
(serves 5,838 connections). The
project also includes associated piping
filtration and pumping upgrades.
Because of the area's modest median
household income, the Central
Shoshone County Water District is
232
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
able to qualify for a special loan
program which carries very favorable
repayment terms. The District's new
filtration plant is scheduled to be
completed and online in February
2010.
• Buckeye Lake, Ohio remains one of
the largest villages in the state without
a public drinking water system.
Thanks in part to $5 million from the
Recovery Act; the village should have
treated water by July 2010. In addition
to Recovery Act money, the project
will receive $1.6 million from Ohio's
Water Supply Revolving Loan
Account. There are a number of
public health concerns surrounding the
current wells and small public water
systems on which the village relies.
Construction is already underway on
the system which will serve nearly
1,200 households when it is completed
in July 2010. The median household
income for the village is below the
state's average of $36,250.
Strategic Plan Link and Performance
Goals The Drinking Water SRF planned
activities for states, territories, and Indian
country will support progress toward Goal 2:
Clean and Safe Water of the 2006-2011 EPA
Strategic Plan. More detailed information on
DWSRF Recovery Act performance measures
can be found in the program plans at
www.Recovery.gov. Annual performance
measures impacted by Recovery Act funding
are annotated in the Congressional
Justification.
Funding Source: 68-0102 - State and Tribal
Assistance Grants. DWSRFs are distributed
through states and tribes.
Funding Process Summary (Note similar to,
but not exactly the same as CWSRF)
1. Federal Funding Process
a. Appropriation - Congress passes
and the President signs into law a
bill giving money to the agency for
certain program
b. Apportionment - OMB
distributed the funds to the
appropriate EPA accounts making
the funds available
c. Allotment - EPA allots funds to
the State according to SDWA
needs survey
d. Application - State applies to EPA
for grant award, including an
Intended Use Plan that includes:
i. A comprehensive list of
projects, and second list of
projects that will be funded that
year.
ii. The type of assistance
provided, including
information on rates and terms.
iii. All sources of funds for that
year, including the grant, and
the uses they will be put to.
iv. Fund to go to loans and to set-
aside activities.
v. Description of any
disadvantaged assistance
program.
e. Award and Obligation - EPA
awards grants to States, obligating
the funds to the States. Please note
dollars are obligated but no dollars
are disbursed to states until Step 4.
2. State Project Evaluation and Awards
a. State Evaluation - States evaluate
and prioritize potential projects.
b. Assistance Agreements Approval
- States award funds to projects in
the form of loans, and in the case
of ARRA funds, potentially in the
form of grants. (Note: States often
refer to this as their obligation - as
with the above no funds are
233
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
disbursed by the State at the time
of obligation.)
3. Recipients' Project Construction and
Management
a. Contracts Awarded - Assistance
recipient signs contracts in an
amount equal to the assistance
received - allows construction to
commence
b. Construction - Heavy
construction normally take 18-36
months. Time varies by size,
location and complexity of the
project, as well as by the affect of
seasons.
c. Funds Outlay - As construction is
completed, recipients incur costs.
(Note funds are outlayed as
construction is completed ending
after construction is complete.)
4. Cost Reimbursement and Billing
a. Costs Incurred - Recipients incur
costs and invoice State SRF
program,
b Recipients bill States Recipients
invoice State SRF programs
c State review and reimbursement.
State SRF programs evaluate
claims and reimburses costs,
d States submit claims to EPA -
State submits reimbursement for
incurred costs by drawing down
funds from EPA.
e Federal Outlay - EPA evaluates
draw-downs and either approves
draw-downs or requests
adjustments (if needed)
Summary of Major Process Challenges in
Obligating and Outlaying ARRA SRF
funding.
(Please refer to those listed for the CWSRF
above).
3. Hazardous Substance Superfund
Program Description: The overall objectives
for the Recovery Act funding for Superfund
are to further cleanup at National Priority List
(NPL) sites, maximize job creation and
retention, and provide environmental and
economic benefits. These objectives will be
achieved by starting new cleanup projects,
accelerating cleanups at projects already
underway, increasing the number of workers
and activities at cleanup projects, and
returning affected sites to more productive
use.
The Recovery Act funding will provide
immediate short and longer-term health,
environmental, and economic benefits at both
new start and ongoing Superfund remedial
projects. Cleanup activities at Superfund sites
receiving Recovery Act funds may also yield
significant site-specific, non-environmental
economic benefits, including improved site
property values and job opportunities. Job
sectors that will likely benefit from the
Superfund Recovery Act funding include, but
are not limited to: cleanup operation and
management companies, laboratory sampling
and analysis companies, hazardous waste
disposal and management companies,
construction and monitoring equipment rental
companies, water/soil treatment companies,
and environmental engineering and
management companies.
Examples:
• In July, EPA awarded $15 million in
Federal stimulus money to the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality
(IDEQ) to support the Superfund
Basin Property Remediation Program.
The Program has already cleaned up
approximately 2.5 million square feet
of contaminated soil in each of the
last four years. With the new funds,
IDEQ plans to clean up three million
square feet in each of the next three
234
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
years. This means the property
remediation will be done sooner.
Currently, there are over 240 people
employed by DEQ and its contractors
working on the accelerated program.
There are 106 properties where
cleanup is in progress.
• About $12 million in ARRA funds
are being used to restore a South
Minneapolis Soil Contamination Site
known as the Phillips neighborhood.
The project requires remediation of
arsenic soil, which causes health
problems ranging from cancer to
cardiovascular and nerve problems.
The contamination was a result of
operations from a pesticide company
in mid 1900s. The work includes
restoration of lawns and yards. This
project includes work on 487 affected
residential properties.
• The Richmond Mine, a source of the
toxic stew that has polluted the
Sacramento River and its tributaries
for more than a century, has killed
thousands of fish and turned a once-
majestic mountain into a breeding
ground for bacterial slime that helps
create what geologists say is the
"world's worst water." Over the past
two decades, the EPA has made great
progress toward stopping 98 percent
of the historic discharge into the
Sacramento River, and now can
address the threats to the important
salmon spawning grounds
downstream.
• The EPA recently awarded $20.7
million in federal ARRA funds to
clean up the heavy metals that have
flowed into and accumulated at the
bottom of the Keswick Reservoir for
decades, threatening fish and
potentially people. The ARRA
funding, combined with $10 million
already budgeted for the project, will
pay for construction of three pumping
stations, piping, and the hydraulic
dredging, treatment and disposal of
the 170,000 cubic yards of fine toxic
metals that to this day coat the bottom
of the Spring Creek arm of the
reservoir. Removing these
contaminated sediments will also
allow the Central Valley Project to
produce $3 to $6 million of additional
peak power by removing operational
constraints that are currently needed
on its hydropower facilities at Shasta
Dam and the Spring Creek Power
House to prevent contaminated
sediment releases.
Strategic Plan Link and Performance
Goals Superfund ARRA funded remediation
activities directly support progress toward
implementing Goal 3: Land Preservation and
Restoration, Objective 3.2 (Restore Land) of
the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan. More
detailed information on Superfund Recovery
Act performance measures can be found in the
program plans at www.Recovery.gov. Annual
performance measures impacted by Recovery
Act funding are annotated in the
Congressional Justification.
Financial Source: 68-8195 - Hazardous
Substance Superfund. (Please note that
projected obligations and outlays are
contained in the attached spreadsheet.)
The majority of Superfund's ARRA dollars
are direct Federal spending including contracts
and Funds-Out interagency agreements. EPA
is working with the Army Corps of Engineers
at sites involving about $248 million worth of
work. EPA is reporting this financial data on
Recovery.gov because although the Army
Corps of Engineers (the Corps) manages the
site work, EPA manages the financial
obligations and outlays. Some funding is also
being directed through state government and
235
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
one cooperative agreement. The Superfund
program has 99% of its funding obligated,
including funding at 51 sites, for a total of 61
projects.
Financial Process Steps / Funding
Mechanisms. EPA used several processes
and mechanisms to deliver project funding
quickly:
• Multi-Site Contracts: Prime
contractor prepares a work plan for
EPA approval. Once approved the
prime Remedial Action Contractor
(RAC) prepares the subcontracting
paperwork for the remedial
construction activities. The
subcontract must be approved by EPA
before the subcontractor can begin
work.
• Site-Specific Contracts: The full
acquisition process is performed to
award a contract for the ARRA work.
• Interagency Assisted Acquisitions:
The Agreement must be developed and
approved and then sent to the other
agency for approval. Once the other
agency has signed the agreement, they
must prepare the tasking documents to
place the project under contract.
• Cooperative Agreements: The State
submits a grant application for the
Cooperative Agreement. Once
awarded the state or local entity may
need to prepare contracting materials
to acquire the services of a contractor
to perform the remediation.
Summary of Major Process Challenges in
Obligating and Outlaying ARRA
Superfund funding.
The Recovery Act included additional
provisions and reporting requirements for
grantees and contractors receiving EPA
ARRA funds.
• Davis-Bacon requires recipients to pay
at prevailing wage rates and document
compliance.
• "Buy American" provisions required
the use of U.S.-made supplies. In
many cases previous suppliers had
been foreign.
• Shovel-ready. ARRA projects had to
be "shovel-ready" in order to meet the
tight requirements for project
initiation.
• Recipient Reporting Requirements.
ARRA also required all funding
recipients to report on their use of
funds, including jobs estimates, project
descriptions, spending rates, etc.
Grantees and contractors required
extensive guidance from EPA on how
to fulfill reporting requirements,
particularly on reporting on estimated
jobs.
• Contractor and Grantee
Compliance. Many grantees,
construction contractors and
equipment suppliers were unfamiliar
with ARRA requirements and required
EPA guidance and training. EPA
developed detailed guidance for
grantees and contractors on how to
comply with additional requirements
and conditions, including grant and
contract templates and modified Terms
and Conditions.
4. Diesel Emissions (DERA) Grants
Summary
Program Description: The Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act (DERA), which was authorized
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct),
provides funding to achieve significant
reductions in diesel emissions from the 20
million engines in the existing fleet. These
reductions in pollution improve air quality and
protect public health. The Recovery Act
provided $300 million for grants for clean
diesel projects across the nation. These
236
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
projects will create jobs and stimulate the
economy through purchases of equipment and
vehicles which lower diesel emissions, such as
pollution control equipment, new clean
engines, replacement vehicles, cleaner fuels
and other products. The grants may only go to
eligible entities, per the statute: State, local,
regional or tribal governments, or certain non-
profits. The program is divided into four sub-
programs: a National Regional Clean Diesel
program; State Clean Diesel program;
SmartWay Finance Clean Diesel program; and
Emerging Technologies Clean Diesel
program.
Examples:
• EPA awarded a State Clean Diesel
program grant to Utah Department of
Environmental Quality of $1.7 million
to fund a project to retrofit
approximately 300 school buses with
Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOCs)
and Crankcase Ventilation (CCV)
systems. In addition, funding from this
grant will also replace 20 existing
school buses from 14 school districts
with cleaner school buses.
• EPA awarded a National Clean Diesel
Funding Assistance program grant to
the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey of $7 million to fund a
Regional Truck Replacement Program
targeting replacement of 600 pre-1994
drayage trucks that regularly service
the Port Authority's marine terminals
with model year 2004 and newer
trucks.
• EPA awarded a National Clean Diesel
Funding Assistance program grant to
the Kentucky Association of General
Contractors of $2 million to retrofit,
repower, or replace 87 pieces of
construction equipment from five
fleets and pursue the voluntary
adoption of reduced idling practices at
100 construction sites throughout the
state.
Strategic Plan Link and Performance
Goals
The DERA projects support Goal 1: Clean Air
and Global Climate Change, Objective 1.1
(Healthier Outdoor Air) of the 2006-2011
Strategic Plan. More detailed information on
DERA Recovery Act performance measures
can be found in the program plans at
www.Recovery.gov. Annual performance
measures impacted by Recovery Act funding
are annotated in the Congressional
Justification.
Financial Source: Diesel Emissions (DERA)
Grants - 68-0102 - State and Tribal Assistance
Grants (STAG).
The DERA program provides funding through
State, county, city and local Programs -
Competition Status. The DERA program
awarded 160 grants from March through
September, 2009, including 51 State Clean
Diesel grants, 90 National Regional Clean
Diesel program grants, 5 SmartWay Finance
grants and 14 Emerging Technologies grants.
The 51 State Clean Diesel grants were
awarded in March and April. The National
Regional Clean Diesel program grants were
awarded from May through September. The
SmartWay Finance and Emerging
Technologies grants were awarded in August
and September, 2009. Work has begun on all
grants.
DERA Funding Process Summary Steps
(Note that there is a different process for each
of the four DERA programs.)
National Competitive Grants
• Award Grant
o National Competition. Request
for Proposal (RFP) preparation and
237
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Competition certification
(approval), including 40 Day RFP
open period
o Review and Select Grantees
• Regional review panels (1
per Region) evaluate
proposals
• Each review panel submits
its initial funding
recommendation to
Regional Approving
Official
• Regional Approving
Official make final
selection
• Notify recipients
• Workplan and budget
negotiations
• Project Officers prepare
formal Funding
Recommendation document
in IGMS
• Final Terms & Conditions
(required extensive work to
revise to incorporate
additional ARRA
requirements, including
approval from OMB and
Department of Labor)
• Award approval process;
Grants Office Award
Official signs Funding
Recommendation document
Project Partners / Fleet. Find appropriate
fleet and finalize fleet information from
project partners or sub-grant competition
• Sub-Grant Competition
o RFP
o Review and Selection
o Finalize fleet information
o Final Terms and Conditions
• Finalize partner agreements and/or
sub-grant agreements
• Select Technology
o Bid vendors/technologies
o Select vendor
o Data log vehicles and equipment
(technical feasibility/compatibility
testing for selected technologies)
(Projects can be delayed due to
testing)
• Purchase & Install Technology
o Orders placed for technology with
vendors/ manufacturers
(Occasionally shortages of
technologies and backlog because
of low inventory)
o Davis-Bacon and/or Buy American
Requirements for applicable
projects
• Reimbursement
o Grantees typically do not pay
vendors and draw down funds until
equipment has been
delivered/installed. Funds
expended only after recipients
draw down funding.
State Grants
• Award Grant
o Notice of Intent to Apply
o Allocation to State
o Workplan and budget negotiations
o Project Officers prepare formal
Funding Recommendation
document in IGMS
o Final Terms & Conditions
(required extensive work to revise
to incorporate additional ARRA
requirements, including approval
from OMB and Department of
Labor)
o Award approval process; Grants
Office Award Official signs
Funding Recommendation
document
• Project Partners / Fleets Find
appropriate fleet and finalize fleet
information from project partners or
sub-grant competition
238
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
• Sub-Grant Competition
o RFP
o Review and Selection
o Finalize fleet information
o Final Terms and Conditions
• Finalize partner agreements and/or
sub-grant agreements
• Select Technology
o Bid vendors/technologies
o Select vendor
o Data log vehicles and equipment
(technical feasibility/compatibility
testing for selected technologies)
(Projects can be delayed due to
testing)
• Purchase & Install Technology
o Orders placed for technology with
vendors/ manufacturers
(Occasionally shortages of
technologies and backlogs due to
low inventory)
o Davis-Bacon and/or Buy American
Requirements for applicable
projects
• Reimbursement
o Grantees typically do not pay
vendors and draw down funds until
equipment has been delivered /
installed. Funds expended only
after recipients draw down
funding.
Emerging Technology Grants
• National Competition. Request for
Proposal (RFP) preparation and
Competition certification (approval),
includes 40 Day RFP open period
• Review and Selection of Grantees
o Emerging Tech review panel to
evaluates Emerging Tech
proposals
o Review panel submits its initial
funding recommendation to
Approving Official
o Approving Official makes
selection
o Notify recipients
o Workplan and budget
negotiations
o Project Officer prepares formal
Funding Recommendation
document in IGMS
o Final Terms & Conditions
(required extensive work to
revise to incorporate additional
ARRA requirements, including
approval from OMB and Dept
of Labor.).
o Award approval process;
Grants Office Award Official
signs Funding
Recommendation document
• Finalize partner agreements and/or
contracts and/or sub-grant
agreements
• Order/Purchase & Install
Technology
o Emerging Technology grant
recipients have already
partnered with an Emerging
Technology manufacturer and
can sole-source the purchase of
the Emerging Technology.
o Data log vehicles and
equipment (technical
feasibility/compatibility testing
for selected technologies) (Can
be delays due to testing)
o
• Emissions Testing
o The Emerging Technologies
program supports the
implementation of new, unverified
technologies. Many grantees
include emissions testing as part of
their workplan.
o Bid Labs/Consultants for emissions
testing
o Select Lab/Consultant
• Evaluation of Technology
o The Emerging Technologies are
operated and tested under a variety
of conditions to evaluate their
performance.
239
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
SmartWay Grants
• Award Grant
o National Competition. Request for
Proposal (RFP) preparation and
Competition certification
(approval), including 40 Day RFP
open period
o Review and Selection of Grantees
o Organize SmartWay review
panel which reviews and
evaluates SmartWay
proposals
o Review panel submits its
initial funding
recommendation to
Approving Official
o Approving Official make
final selection
o Notify recipients
o Workplan and budget
negotiations
o Program Officer prepares
formal Funding
Recommendation document
in IGMS
o Final Terms & Conditions
(required extensive work to
revise to incorporate
additional ARRA
requirements, including
approval from OMB and
Dept of Labor.).
o Award approval process;
Grants Office Award
Official signs Funding
Recommendation document
• Set-Up Finance Program. Grant
recipient works with project partners /
subgrantees to finalize any partnership
agreements.
• Issue Loans and/or Order/Purchase
Technologies for Lease
o Grantees draw down funds as
needed to cover program expenses
• Technologies Leased and Installed
• Reimbursement
Summary of Major Process Challenges in
Obligating and Outlaying ARRA DERA
funding. (Please refer to those listed for
Superfund above).
5. Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund
Program Description: The overall purpose
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Recovery Act funding is to clean up
contaminated LUST sites effectively, while
maximizing job creation and retention and
providing economic and environmental
benefits (such as protecting groundwater and
cleaning up and reusing contaminated land) to
the citizens of the United States. These
objectives will be achieved by overseeing
assessments and cleanups at shovel-ready sites
or directly paying for cleanup activities at sites
where the responsible party is unknown,
unwilling or unable to finance cleanup, or the
cleanup requires an emergency response.
Because the national Underground Storage
Tank (UST) program is primarily
implemented by states and territories, the vast
majority of Recovery Act money for this
program will go to state and territorial UST
programs through cooperative agreements.
Additionally, EPA implements the UST
program in Indian country, so money to clean
up eligible tank leaks in Indian country will be
distributed and managed by EPA's regional
UST programs through existing federal
contracts. The state and territorial cooperative
agreements and EPA contracts will pay for
activities at shovel-ready sites to assess and
clean up UST petroleum leaks, as well as staff
management and oversight activities that will
leverage additional cleanups. The LUST
planned activities for states, territories, and
Indian country will support progress toward
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration,
Objective 3.2: Restore Land of the 2006-2011
EPA Strategic Plan.
240
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Examples:
• Ashland Youth Center Complex, CA.
is a petroleum-contaminated cleanup at
a former bulk fuel storage site in
Alameda County, California. Over $15
million was distributed to California
and this is the first cleanup success in
the state at a shovel-ready site. For the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Program (LUST), federal funding can
be used for clean up where there is no
financially responsible party to protect
important groundwater supplies. This
former bulk oil storage site was left
vacant for years due to the
contamination. The site will be
developed into a Youth Center, 2 acre
park and a school gymnasium.
• EPA Region 5 and Illinois EPA are
collectively providing $1.7 million in
funding to cleanup a contaminated
East St. Louis, Illinois site that was
once a car dealership. Work began last
summer at the site and once remedial
action is complete, a local non-profit
organization intends to the land as a
Farmer's Market, providing additional
jobs in the community.
Strategic Plan Link and Performance
Goals ARRA LUST funds support Goal 3:
Land Preservation and Restoration, Objective
3.2: Restore Land of the 2006-2011 EPA
Strategic Plan. More detailed information on
LUST Recovery Act performance measures
and results can be found in the program plans
at www.Recovery.gov. Annual performance
measures impacted by Recovery Act funding
are annotated in the Congressional
Justification.
Funding Source: 68-8196 - Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust
Fund:
Over 90% of the funding is through state
governments, with some direct Federal
spending. The program largely used existing
contract mechanisms to expedite funding.
Funding is provided through state grants and
contracts. State grants are used to assess and
clean up leaking underground storage tank
sites. Contracts are used to assess and clean
up leaking underground storage tank sites in
Indian Country.
LUST Process Summary
The LUST program obligated 97% of
available funds by the end of FY 2009.
1. Federal Funding Process
a. Appropriation - Congress passes and
the President signs into law a bill
giving money to the agency for certain
program
b. Apportionment - OMB distributed
the funds to the appropriate accounts
making the funds available
c. Allocation - EPA allocates funds to
the State according to CWA formula
or SDWA needs survey
d. Obligation. EPA obligates funds as
outlined below.
2. EPA Grant Process. Grants are awarded
and obligated pursuant to Agency
standards and practice. This process
involves the following steps:
a. Developed allocation formula,
based on state needs and eligible
uses
b. Developed grant guidelines
(included extensive negotiation
with Department of Labor and
OMB regarding Davis-Bacon
requirements)
c. Negotiated work plans with states
d. Performed necessary
administrative steps to ensure
grants meet various requirements
(contained the necessary Terms
and Conditions, etc.)
241
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
e. Obtained White House approval
and conducted Congressional
notification.
3. State Project Evaluation and Awards
After receiving a grant from EPA, states
need to take the following actions before
expending funds and ultimately
completing sites:
a. Determine/confirm LUST
eligibility of sites
b. Determine applicability and assure
adherence to Davis-Bacon, Buy
American, and Infrastructure
requirements
c. Obtain contract assistance to
conduct site work; often including
competing a contract, developing
task orders, and negotiating work
plans.
d. After site work begins, states must
await invoices from contractors
e. Finally, many LUST cleanups take
multiple years to complete, leading
to a delay in expending all funds
devoted to a particular site.
4. Site Work - Site work time varies by size,
location and complexity of the project, as
well as by the affect of seasons. Recipient
incur costs as work is completed .
5. Cost Reimbursement and Billing
a. Costs Incurred - Recipients incur
costs and invoice,
b Submit claims to EPA
Reimbursement for incurred costs
submitted to EPA.
c. Federal Outlay - EPA requests for
reimbursement and either approves
draw-downs, authorizes payments or
requests adjustments (if needed)
Summary of Major Process Challenges in
Obligating and Outlaying ARRA LUST
funding.
(Please refer to process challenges listed for
Superfund above.)
6. Brownfields - State and Tribal Assistance
Grants (STAG)
Program Description: A brownfield is a
property, the expansion, redevelopment, or
reuse of which may be complicated by the
presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant. It is
estimated that there are more than 450,000
brownfields in the U.S. Passage of the Small
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act in 2002 expanded EPA's
assistance to brownfields-impacted
communities by providing new tools for the
public and private sectors to promote
sustainable brownfields cleanup and reuse.
The EPA Brownfields Program has been
instrumental in furthering the Agency's land
revitalization goals. Specifically, Brownfields
funds awarded to communities, states, tribes,
and other stakeholders will facilitate the
leveraging, creation and retention of jobs, and
the leveraging of economic investment, while
helping to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and
sustainably reuse brownfields.
Example:
• The Town of Sanford, Maine received
a $200,000 brownfields cleanup grant
for the Sanford Mill site. On August
3, 2009, there was a groundbreaking
event for the Sanford Mill cleanup.
This mill is located in the downtown
area of Sanford, and the
redevelopment will be a mix of
commercial and housing.
Strategic Plan Link and Performance
Goals Brownfields cooperative agreements
will support progress toward Goal 4: Healthy
242
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
Communities and Ecosystems, Objective 4.2
(Communities), and Sub-objective 4.2.3
(Assess and Clean-Up Brownfields) of the
2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan. More detailed
information on Brownfields Recovery Act
performance measures can be found in the
program plans at www.Recovery.gov. Annual
performance measures impacted by Recovery
Act funding are annotated in the
Congressional Justification.
Funding Sources and Steps: 68-0102 - State
and Tribal Assistance Grants- Brownfields
Major Funding Recipients include states,
counties, tribes, local governments as well as
non-profits and councils of governments with
some monies outlayed through direct Federal
spending. Brownfields used the existing
FY09 Assessment, RLF and Cleanup Grant
competition to award a portion of ARRA
funds, so a separate RFP was not issued for
these awards.
Brownfields projects are typically approved
when a cooperative agreement work plan has
been approved by EPA and the Agency has
awarded the cooperative agreement. Targeted
Brownfields Assessment (TEA) projects are
typically approved when funding has been
obligated to a contract to perform the TEA.
The Brownfields Program defines "work
started" as any cooperative agreements
awarded. The Brownfields Program defines
"projects completed" as those cooperative
agreements and contracts that have drawn
down 100% of funds and/or has closed out the
cooperative agreement or contract task order.
Process Steps:
The Process Steps for the Brownfields
Program vary by the type of project agreement
(assessment cooperative agreement, clean up
cooperative agreement or revolving loan
funds).
The first steps of the Federal Funding were the
same as with any appropriations:
1. Appropriation - Congress passes and the
President signs into law a bill giving
money to the agency for certain program
2. Apportionment - OMB distributed the
funds to the appropriate EPA accounts
making the funds available
3. Allocation - EPA allocates funds to the
particular programs
4. Obligation - EPA programs obligate
funds. To set up Brownfields Program
targets EPA depends on two main factors:
1) maturity of the projects and 2) the data
entry from the recipient into our reporting
system (ACRES).
Brownfield Specific Processes. The
"maturity" process of the different type of
cooperative agreements can be described as:
For Assessment Cooperative Agreements:
• Recipient received and accepted
cooperative agreement.
• Recipient has to prepare and publish a
Request for Proposals to perform
environmental work.
• Recipient has to follow its own
procurement process to select
contractor and award contract.
• Recipient requires site approval from
EPA. (For petroleum sites, EPA or
state has to make a site determination.)
Start entering data into the reporting
database (ACRES) - Creation of a
work package.
• Environmental Assessment started.
• Environmental Assessment completed
in accordance with program
requirements.
• Regional approval of the work package
with completion date of the
environmental assessment to be
counted as accomplishment.
Based on past experiences this process can take
between 6 to 12 months, assuming that the
recipient has an existing inventory of
Brownfields properties available. If the
243
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Plan
recipient does not have an inventory then the
process can take longer than a year. The
performance period of this type of cooperative
agreement is three years.
For Cleanup Cooperative Agreements:
• Site has been approved during
competition.
• Recipient received and accepted
cooperative agreement.
• Recipient has to prepare and publish a
Request for Proposals to perform
environmental work.
• Recipient has to follow its own
procurement process to select
contractor and award contract.
• Environmental cleanup activities starts.
Start enter data into the reporting
database (ACRES) - Creation of a
work package.
• Environmental cleanup completed in
accordance with program requirements
(meet target definition). This action
may take more than three years.
• Regional approval of the work package
with completion date of the
environmental assessment to be
counted as accomplishment.
Based on past experiences the cleanup process
can take more than three years to be completed,
depending on the circumstances. The
performance period of this type of cooperative
agreement is three years.
For Revolving Loan Funds (Cleanup):
• Recipient received and accepted
cooperative agreement.
• Recipient notifies the availability of
funds in the program.
• Recipient evaluates the loan and/or sub-
grant applications, which includes site
approval from EPA. For petroleum
sites, EPA or state has to make a site
determination.
• Recipient awards loans or sub-grant.
Start entering data into the reporting
database (ACRES) - Creation of a
work package for each loan and/or sub-
grant.
• Clean up starts.
• Environmental cleanup completed in
accordance with program requirements.
This action can take years to be
completed.
• Regional approval of the work package
with completion date of the
environmental cleanup to be counted as
accomplishment.
Based on past experiences the loan process can
take between 1 to 3 months (depending of the
complexity of the case). The cleanup
completion will depend on the complexity of
the property. The performance period of this
type of cooperative agreement is five years.
One vehicle that the program has to
demonstrate progress under the ARRA is using
the Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TEA).
We have a limited set-aside amount of ARRA
funds to conduct environmental assessments at
specific properties using EPA regional and
national contractors. Typically, an
environmental assessment conducted under a
TEA will take one or two months to be
completed. Cleanups cannot be done under
TEA.
Summary of Major Process Challenges in
Obligating and Outlaying ARRA
Brownfields funding. (Please refer to
process challenges listed for Superfund
above.)
7. Management and Oversight (M&O)
Program Description: The ARRA granted
EPA granted the authority to move monies
into the Environmental Programs and
Management Appropriations for Recovery Act
Management and Oversight (M&O). To date,
244
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2011 Annual Plan
EPA has budgeted to use $81.5 million in the
EPM account for M&O activities. (Please
refer to the Program Project J8 for a fuller
description of each programs planned use of
M&O funding.)
EPA is coordinating its management and
oversight activities thought extensive work of
senior level coordinating committees. The
Agency has linked these activities through an
overall EPA Recovery Act Stewardship Plan.
EPA published this plan on July 8, 2009 to
identify areas of potential risk and assure that
the Agency had proper administrative and
programmatic procedures in place to address
these risks. The Plan covers all programs
funded with Recovery Act funds. The plan
details EPA plans and procedures in seven
functional areas: 1) Grants, 2) Interagency
Agreements, 3) Contracts, 4) Payroll/Human
Capital, 5) Budget Execution, 6) Performance
Reporting, and 7) Financial Reporting.
EPA's Recovery Act Stewardship Plan
addresses all Recovery Act programs. EPA
identified risk assessments within each
functional area and assigned a low, medium,
or high level of risk. These risk assessments
cover all program areas serviced by the
functional area risk assessment.
Development of the EPA Recovery Act
Stewardship Plan was a collaborative effort
that included administrative, program,
financial regional and headquarters staff and
also included EPA's OIG staff in an advisory
role.
8. The Inspector General (IG)
The Recovery Act also provided "for an
additional amount for the Office of Inspector
General" $20,000,000 to remain available
until September 30, 2012."
245
------- |