OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Ciitdly\t for hnpriiviiix the Environment
Audit Report
EPA Grants Supported
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
Report No. 2006-P-00032
September 6, 2006
-------
Report Contributors: Randy Holthaus
Jennifer Hutkoff
Michael Rickey
Matthew Simber
Cover photo: This photo shows part of an EPA-funded best management practice at a farm
in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. Pictured is a pipeline that distributes storm
water flow through the pipe and on to splash pads after removal of manure
from a cow feeding pen. Previously, the manure was not contained and had
flowed downhill during rain storms. (Source: Office of Inspector General)
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2006-P-00032
September 6. 2006
Ctiliilystfor Improving r/ic' Environment
Why We Did This Review
Chesapeake Bay partners and
the media have expressed
concerns on the slow progress
of Bay cleanup. The U.S.
'Environmental Protection
"Agency (EPA) recently stated
that key water quality and
wildlife habitat restoration
goals of the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement will not be met by
2010 as planned. We
conducted this audit to answer
the question: Has EPA
effectively targeted funds
toward grant projects that
should maximize
environmental benefit in the
Chesapeake Bay?
Background
The Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries have been on
EPA's impaired waters list
since 1998. The Chesapeake
2000 Agreement established
the goals and commitments to
restore and protect the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem
and its living resources.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.gov/olg/report8/2006/
20060906-2006-P-00032.pdf
EPA Grants Supported Restoring the
Chesapeake Bay
What We Found
EPA awarded assistance agreements (grants) that contributed toward meeting the
goals of the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. These grants
funded activities designed primarily to: reduce the nutrients and sediment entering
the Bay and its tributaries, monitor ongoing efforts to restore Bay water quality,
and model (estimate) the results of Bay implementation strategies.
In fiscal years 2003,2004, and 2005, Congress appropriated $23 million each
year for EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. In each of those years, EPA awarded
about $8 million for State implementation grants and $7 million for technical and
other grants for specific projects. EPA used the remaining $8 million to fund
EPA personnel and office management, interagency agreements, and
congressional earmarks.
EPA funded State restoration programs that designed and installed best
management practices, monitored the progress and results of ongoing projects,
and informed EPA's partners and the public of their impacts on Bay water quality.
EPA also funded technical project grants to: collect and track data on
implementation efforts; model (estimate) future pollution levels and reductions
gained from activities; monitor water quality and pollution levels; restore and
protect fish and other living organisms; and educate the public and stakeholders
about Bay restoration progress, obstacles, and strategies. These efforts
contributed to EPA's overall Bay restoration program. EPA estimated, based on
computer modeling, that as of March 2006 the program partners had achieved
37 percent of the nitrogen reduction goal, S3 percent of the phosphorus reduction
goal, and 47 percent of the sediment reduction goal.
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office responded to the draft report and
concurred with our conclusion. The report does not contain recommendations.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
TO:
September 6, 2006
EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
Report No. 2006-P-00032
Donald S. Welsh
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3
Rebecca W. Hanmer
Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
This is our report on assistance agreements awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program Office conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
This report does not contain findings or recommendations. The estimated cost of this report -
calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the applicable daily full cost billing rates in
effect at the time - is $187,667.
Action Required
Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to respond to this report.
We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be
available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-S66-0847
or roderick.bill@.epa.gov. or Janet Kasper at 312-886-3059 or kasper.janet(g),epa.gov.
Sincerely,
Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
-------
EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
Table of Contents
Purpose of Audit 1
Background 1
EPA Assistance Agreements Supported Restoring the Bay 2
State Implementation Grants Focused on Reducing
Nutrients and Sediment Entering the Bay 3
Project Grants Measured and Reported Results 5
Conclusion 7
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 8
Appendices
A Scope and Methodology 9
B Detailed Logic Model on Chesapeake Bay Program
Use of Assistance Agreements 10
C Agency Response 11
D Distribution 12
-------
Purpose of Audit
The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, established by the Chesapeake Bay partners to set goals for
restoring the Bay's ecosystem, stated that while the individual and collective accomplishments of
the Bay partners' efforts have been significant, greater effort will be required to address the
enormous challenges that lie ahead. There have also been numerous media reports recently on
the slow progress of the Bay cleanup. In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), along with five other signatory partners, had committed to restoring the Bay's waters by
2010. However, EPA recently stated in its draft Strategic Plan for 2006-2011 that key water
quality and wildlife habitat restoration goals for the Bay will not be met by 2010 as planned.
We conducted this audit to answer the following question: Has EPA effectively targeted funds
toward grant projects that should maximize environmental benefit in the Chesapeake Bay? To
answer this question, we sought to determine whether EPA funded grant projects for the Bay that
met the goals of the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. We defined
"projects that should maximize environmental benefits" as those projects that contribute toward
fulfilling the goals of the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The Clean
Water Act directs EPA's Administrator to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Program Office and for
that Office to assist Bay partners in developing and implementing action plans to carry out the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. EPA is required to fund project grants to nonprofit organizations,
State and local governments, colleges, universities, and interstate agencies to help meet the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. EPA and the partners, by signing the Agreement, established a
comprehensive set of goals to restore the Bay.
We did not assess State decisions regarding the type or location of best management practices
they implemented. We also did not review grant proposals that EPA chose not to fund. Finally,
we did not assess the adequacy of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Additional details on the
scope and methodology for our review are in Appendix A.
Background
The Chesapeake Bay is North America's largest and most biologically diverse estuary. The
watershed area is home to more than 16 million people and 3,600 species of plants, fish, and
animals. The watershed covers 64,000 square miles and includes parts of 6 States - Delaware,
Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia - and all of the District of
Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay watershed includes thousands of miles of waterways feeding
into the Bay. This main Chesapeake Bay waterway is approximately 189 miles long and runs
from the Susquehanna River in the north to the Atlantic Ocean in the south. Contributing
waterways are referred to as "tributaries."
The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries have been on EPA's impaired waters list since 1998.
Nutrients and sediment are the Bay's two primary pollutants:
• Nutrients: The primary sources of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) are agricultural,
urban, and suburban runoff; sewage treatment facilities; and the deposition of air
pollution from numerous sources, such as power plants. Excess amounts of these two
-------
nutrients cause conditions ("algal blooms") that greatly reduce the amount of oxygen in
the water that fish, crabs, and other aquatic organisms need to live.
• Sediment: Sediment is loose particles of clay, silt, and sand that suspend in a body of
water and eventually settle to the bottom. In the Chesapeake Bay, sediment diminishes
water quality by preventing light from penetrating to the leaves and stems of underwater
grass and other vegetation.
The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement established the goals and commitments to restore and protect
the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and its living resources. The Chesapeake Bay partnership began
in 1983 and was formalized through a series of agreements, the most recent in 2000. The
signatories of the 2000 Agreement were EPA, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of
Columbia, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. Collectively, these signatories are known as
the Chesapeake Executive Council. The ultimate goal of the Agreement is to improve the Bay
and its tributaries' water quality and have them all removed from the impaired waters list by
2010. Because restoration needs differed from State to State, the signatory States each
developed their own tributary strategy to meet their Chesapeake 2000 Agreement water quality
restoration commitments. Tributary strategies are river-specific cleanup strategies. West
Virginia, New York, and Delaware are neighbors of the signatory States, and although they did
not sign the Bay Agreement they have also made a commitment to participate in improving Bay
water quality.
EPA administers Chesapeake Bay Program funding under Section 117 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 117 directs EPA to maintain the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and provide support to
the Chesapeake Executive Council and Chesapeake 2000 Agreement signatory partners. Section
117(b) lists the types of projects and activities EPA is authorized to fund. Under Section 117(d),
EPA awards technical assistance and other assistance agreements to nonprofit organizations,
State and local governments, colleges, universities, and interstate agencies for specific projects to
implement the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Under Section 117(e), EPA awards
assistance agreements to States for overall implementation and monitoring.
The EPA Office of Inspector General has initiated a series of studies to examine challenges and
opportunities affecting the ability to achieve and sustain water quality goals in the Chesapeake
Bay. In this series, we are focusing on principal contributors of point and nonpoint source
contamination. This audit of Bay grants complements this series.
EPA Assistance Agreements Supported Restoring the Bay
In fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, Congress appropriated $23 million each year for EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program. In each of those years, EPA awarded about $8 million for State
implementation grants and $7 million for technical and other assistance agreements (project
grants). EPA used the remaining $8 million to fund EPA personnel and office management,
interagency agreements, and congressional earmarks. Details on what we found regarding the
implementation grants and specific project grants follow.
-------
EPA awarded assistance agreements (grants) that contributed toward meeting the goals of the
Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. These grants funded activities designed
primarily to: reduce the nutrients and sediment entering the Bay and its tributaries, monitor
ongoing efforts to restore Bay water quality, model (estimate) the results of Bay implementation
strategies, and accomplish the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The funded activities
included the States9 restoration programs, which designed and installed best management
practices, monitored the progress and results of ongoing projects, and informed EPA's partners
and the public of their impacts on Bay water quality. These major areas of concentration have
contributed to EPA's efforts in restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
EPA estimated, based upon computer modeling, that as of March 2006 the program partners
have achieved 37 percent of the nitrogen reduction goal, S3 percent of the phosphorus reduction
goal, and 47 percent of the sediment reduction goal.
Figure 1 below is a brief representation (logic model) of how funded grant activities contribute to
restoring the Bay. For a more detailed picture, see Detailed Logic Model on Chesapeake Bay
Program Use of Assistance Agreements - which we prepared - in Appendix B.
Figure 1: Logic Model on Chesapeake Bay Program Assistance Agreement Use
Activities
Implementation
grants
Monitoring
Modeling
Outreach
Outputs
Nutrient reduction
strategies designed and
installed
Ongoing efforts
measured
Estimates of results
Publications on Bay
health and progress
Short-Term Outcomes
Site-specific load
reductions
Known water quality
results and status
Improved implementation
strategies
Increased public awareness
of how daily actions
impact the Bay
Long-Term Outcomes
Bay waters, habitats, and
living resources restored
Bay waters removed from
Impaired List
Strategies achieve water
quality restoration
Bay partners and the public
continue to maintain water
quality
Source: EPA Office of Inspector General analysis
State Implementation Grants Focused on Reducing Nutrients and Sediment
Entering the Bay
During 2005, EPA provided $2.3 million each to Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia in
overall implementation grants for the Chesapeake Bay Program. States were required to match
that amount. State workplans described the activities the States planned to conduct to achieve
their State tributary strategies. Each of the tributary strategies provided long-term goals for
nutrient and sediment reductions to restore the Bay. Further, each State spent significantly more
than the Federal funding they received for restoring the Bay. For example, according to
Maryland officials, the State spent $292 million in 2005 on restoring the Bay; of that amount,
-------
10 percent came from the Federal Government (EPA as well as other Federal agencies). Details
on activities undertaken by the three States follow.
Maryland: The State's 2005 implementation grant addressed four major objectives:
water quality protection and restoration, vital habitat protection and restoration,
stewardship and community engagement, and governance. Under the State's work plan,
staff are expected to carry out many tasks, including:
• Provide grants to Maryland farmers to install best management practices.1
• Manage nutrient removal projects from specific facilities.
• Compile discharge monitoring data from 310 point sources and 10 industrial
wastewater treatment facilities.
• Analyze and estimate nutrient loads to show the State's progress in meeting
nutrient reduction goals.
• Analyze and assess trends in water quality, habitat, and aquatic species relative
to nutrient load changes.
• Educate farmers so they can become certified to write their own nutrient
management plans.
• Train ISO producers in 14 counties on how to calibrate their equipment and take
manure and soil samples.
All of the above activities contributed to Maryland's tributary strategy by either focusing
on reducing nutrients and sediments entering the Bay or monitoring ongoing efforts to
assess impact and effectiveness. Maryland's 2010 tributary strategy goals were to reduce
nitrogen and phosphorus by 69 percent from 1985 levels and sediment by 43 percent.
Pennsylvania: The State's 2005 State implementation grant included 10 objectives.
Under these 10 objectives, Pennsylvania proposed to:
• Complete 132 total maximum daily load studies.
• Submit data to EPA on point and nonpoint source reductions.
• Conduct nutrient monitoring.
• Provide training to technical field staff.
• Educate various audiences, including farmers and local government officials.
• Install 300 best management practices.
• Complete 150 nutrient management plans.
• Prepare or revise 38 County Implementation Plans.
• Install 17 miles of stream bank fencing.
• Conduct two Watershed Academy training courses.
The workplan also included funding for technicians, engineers, and engineering assistants
in the conservation districts. The technicians help landowners develop nutrient
management plans and install best management practices. The engineering specialists
1 EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office uses the term "best management practices" to describe practices used by
all sectors to reduce point and nonpoint source pollution.
-------
and assistants provide technical assistance to the conservation districts for design and
analysis of engineering work related to installing best management practices. All of the
State implementation grant activities are targeted toward Pennsylvania's Tributary
Strategy to meet the 2010 Goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Pennsylvania's
Tributary Strategy goals were to reduce nitrogen by 40 percent, phosphorus by
44 percent, and sediment by 20 percent from 1985 levels.
Virginia: The State's 200S State implementation grant addressed three major objectives:
water quality protection and restoration, sound land use and stewardship, and community
engagement. Under the workplan, staff are to:
Create and revise nutrient management plans that affect 52,000 acres of land.
Review 150 waste permits.
Take and test 1,400 soil samples.
Make over 500 inspections and field visits to farms, tidal areas, and other sites.
Engage 150 local governments and key stakeholders in tributary strategies.
Participate in a multitude of roundtable and educational events.
All projects focused on reducing nonpoint source pollution in the Chesapeake Bay and
implementing the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement and Virginia tributary strategies.
Virginia's 2010 tributary strategy goals were to decrease the State's 1985 baseline
nitrogen load level by 47 percent, lessen its phosphorus load level by 57 percent, and
reduce its sediment amount by 44 percent.
EPA has two primary means to ensure results and outcomes from State implementation grants -
review State-submitted data, and review the States' semi-annual progress reports. States submit
data to EPA from monitoring and implementation efforts. Monitoring efforts produce data on
water quality and nutrient and sediment levels, enabling EPA to track progress, estimate future
pollution levels, and assess the overall condition of the Bay. Implementation efforts produce
data - such as the location of and type of best management practices installed - that EPA can use
to estimate future pollution levels. States also submit semi-annual progress reports to EPA
detailing accomplishments under the grants. The States provide information specific to each
workplan objective, including: a comparison of actual versus anticipated accomplishments,
reasons why anticipated outcomes were exceeded or not met, and information on the rate of
expenditure under the grant versus progress. States submitted the required data to EPA timely,
and progress reports adequately detailed State progress under the implementation grants.
Project Grants Measured and Reported Results
The remainder of EPA's Bay grant funding is awarded for an assortment of specific projects.
In fiscal years 2003,2004, and 2005, EPA awarded a total of 110 grants for Bay projects for
$20.9 million. We reviewed 23 of these grants, totaling nearly $4.7 million, as categorized in
Table 1:
Table 1: Grant Project Categories
-------
Category
Number of
Grants Reviewed
Modeling
Outreach
Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Support
Monitoring
New Practices Research
Protecting and Restoring Fish and
Living Organisms
Coordination
Total Reviewed
5
4
2
3
4
4
1
23
Amount of
Funds Awarded
$1,187,860
1,261,834
879.176
833,531
255,394
221,500
60,000
$ 4,699,295
Source: EPA Office of Inspector General analysis
The Maryland Assistant Secretary for Bay Programs, who is also a member of the Chesapeake
Bay Budget Steering Committee, told us that modeling and monitoring activities in particular are
critical. Modeling uses mathematical representations of the real world to estimate the effects of
complex and varying environmental events and conditions. Monitoring is the collection of
comprehensive data for a current description of the Bay. Over time, monitoring data may reveal
trends regarding Bay water quality. Maryland's Assistant Secretary said one should not
implement best management practices until one knows how potential areas can affect the Bay
(by modeling) and also know if, ultimately, water quality is improving (by monitoring).
Additional information on what we found for each category follows.
Modeling: States used the modeling information to set priorities and strategies for
restoring the Bay. For example, EPA awarded two assistance agreements to the
University of Maryland for nonpoint source data analysis. The university took State
implementation data and entered it into a computer watershed model; once input, the
recipient produced reports showing the costs versus the results of State implementation
efforts.
Outreach: EPA funded projects in support of the Clean Water Act and Chesapeake 2000
Agreement goal to implement outreach programs for public information and to increase
awareness. Outreach efforts are aimed at updating residents within the watershed on the
quality of the Bay as well as how residents' actions can affect the Bay. Activities
included organizing media events, producing e-newsletters for the Bay program's
Website, disseminating fact sheets and brochures, and producing The Bay Journal.
Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Support: One grant provided staff to Council
subcommittees to carry out functions per Clean Water Act Section 117(b)(2)(B). The Act
directs EPA to provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by implementing
and coordinating support services and developing and making available information
pertaining to the environmental quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem. The other grant was to analyze Federal farm programs and provide
recommendations to the Council regarding potential changes that could be applied in the
Bay restoration effort, and determine whether reauthorization of Federal farm programs
could be used to authorize additional funding for agricultural conservation practices.
-------
Monitoring: These grants provided data analysis and monitoring information to EPA's
partners and stakeholders on the status and trends of Bay water quality. Monitoring
grants enable grantees to collect water samples for analysis to measure the nutrient and
sediment levels. EPA grantees monitored water quality in the tributaries, shallow waters,
and the Bay main stem to measure water quality improvement progress.
New Practices Research: Some grants funded research into new best management
practices. One grantee received a grant to develop ideas to achieve low-cost reductions at
wastewater treatment facilities and encourage other systems to implement similar
strategies, and produced several suggestions that signatory States used. The other three
project grants looked at ammonia emissions from agricultural and urban sources, to
develop best management practices to reduce emissions. Ammonia contributes nitrogen
to the Bay, and data collected led to a best management practice that reduces the amount
of ammonia deposited in water and on land.
Protecting and Restoring Fish and Living Organisms: EPA funded grants to install
fish passages. Barriers such as large drains, dikes, water diversions, and dams prevent
fish from migrating, keeping fish from important habitats for spawning and growing. As
a result, several fish populations have died off or have been greatly reduced in number.
Fish passage projects improve the ability offish to swim upstream, past these barriers.
Protecting and restoring living resources is a goal of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement
and a requirement of the Clean Water Act Section 117.
Coordination: The grant provided for the examination of local ordinances and
comparison of those ordinances to model ordinances to see how local regulations can be
revised. Recognizing that growth in the Bay area will continue, the grant is designed to
support low impact development to minimize the amount of storm water runoff.
Conclusion
We determined that EPA effectively awarded grant funds toward projects that should maximize
environmental benefits in the Chesapeake Bay. The State implementation grants and project
grants we reviewed contributed toward EPA's Clean Water Act goals or one or more of the goals
of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. EPA funded activities, such as implementation and
outreach, which contributed to localized load reductions. Monitoring the effects of those
activities allowed EPA to measure progress toward achieving improved water quality. Modeling
estimates long-term effects and demonstrates what reductions and results EPA and its partners
should expect from future efforts. Lastly, EPA awarded other project grants that increased
citizens' awareness of how their practices at home can impact the Bay, developed new best
management practices, and helped to restore the Bay's living resources. While EPA and its
partners agree that there is much work to be done, the grants we reviewed should provide
environmental benefits that contribute to restoring the Bay.
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office concurred with the conclusion in our draft report. The
office's response is in Appendix C.
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
POTENTIAL MONETARY
RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (In MOOs)
Planned
Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount
No recommendations
* 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending;
C = recommendation is closed with aU agreed-to actions completed;
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution eHuila in progress
-------
Appendix A
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States. We obtained an understanding of the program through
analysis of the laws, regulations, and guidance pertaining to grants awarded through the
Chesapeake Bay Program and an evaluation of internal controls over them. Our understanding
of the internal controls was gained through the performance of the procedures previously
outlined. We did not test the validity or reliability of the data in the Integrated Grants
Management System because the data was not significant to our findings. We performed our
audit field work from February to April 2006.
We visited EPA Region 3 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office in Annapolis, Maryland. We interviewed the Chesapeake Bay Program Director and
Deputy Director, Associate Directors, and project officers. We sought to determine whether
EPA effectively targeted funds toward grant projects that maximize environmental benefits
based on the goals of the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. We did not
assess State decisions regarding the type or location of best management practices they
implemented. We also did not review proposed grant projects that EPA elected not to fund.
Finally, we did not assess the adequacy of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.
EPA awarded about half of the $15 million in grant funding each year to three States: Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia. We examined all of these State implementation grants for fiscal
years 2003,2004, and 2005. We reviewed the files and visited the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources in Annapolis, Maryland; the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation in Richmond, Virginia. We interviewed the State managers and grants management
staff. We visited three sites that implemented best management practices funded through EPA
State implementation grants: a "green" roof site in Richmond, Virginia; a dairy farm in Lebanon
County, Pennsylvania; and riparian forest buffers in Frederick and Monocacy, Maryland.
We extracted all Chesapeake Bay project grants for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 from
EPA's Integrated Grants Management System. From that list, we selected a random sample for
review. Out of the 110 grants awarded during that period totaling $20.9 million, we reviewed
the project officer files for 23 project grants totaling $4.7 million while visiting the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office. We grouped the project grants into seven general categories. We did not
observe any deficiencies in the project officer files, and the workplans and deliverables
confirmed the information the project officers provided during the interviews.
Government Auditing Standards require auditors to design the audit to detect violations of legal
and regulatory requirements, contract provisions, or grant agreements, including fraud and abuse.
The team did not detect any information or documentation that appeared to be fraudulent in
nature or suggested a pattern of fraud.
There were no pertinent prior audit reports on the issues that we reviewed.
-------
Appendix B
Detailed Logic Model on Chesapeake Bay Program Use of Assistance Agreements
Inputs
Congressional
appropriation to
EPA: about $23
million per year
Funding from
other Federal
Agencies
Funding from
States
Chesapeake Bay
Program Office
staff
Staff from other
Federal Agencies
State personnel:
fcjr\ DA \I A
MD, PA, VA,
NY, DE, WV,
and District of
Columbia
Clean Water Act
Chesapeake 2000
Agreement
State Tributary
Strategies
Activities
Implement and coordinate
science, research, modeling,
and monitoring
Collect, analyze, and
manage environmental data
Develop and distribute
information on
environmental quality
Track implementation
activities
Evaluate restoration
progress
Help Bay partners develop
and implement specific
action plans
Coordinate actions of EPA
with other partners
Implement public outreach
programs
Support Chesapeake 2000
Agreement goals: living
resources, vital habitat,
water quality, sound land
use, and stewardship and
community engagement
Outputs
Best management practices
developed and implemented
Strategies for pollution
reduction developed
Strategies for restoring
ecosystem functions
Ecosystem-based fisheries
management plans
Modeling and monitoring
data collected and
submitted to EPA
Reports and publications on
Bay health and restoration
progress provided to the
public
Research resulting in
improved information and
management actions
Progress and Final Reports
Executive Council meetings
Final reports and data
submitted to EPA
Fish passages installed
Customers
State
governments:
MD, PA, VA,
NY, DE, WV,
and District of
Columbia
Other Federal
agencies
Local
governments
Public living in
Bay watershed
Businesses in Bay
that depend on
crabs, oysters,
etc.
Farmers and
landowners
Short-Term
Outcomes
Changes to
fertilizer products
produced and
applied within the
Bay watershed
Site-specific load
reductions
Federal, State,
nnH Incfll
(U1U lUlfCU
government
priorities better
targeted
Increased public
awareness of how
their daily actions
affect the Bay
Waterway access
improvements for
ficfi tft inipmtc
II9II Hf Hll£l*llC,
spawn and crow
Intermediate
Outcomes
Reduction of
annual nitrogen
loads by 110
million pounds
or 39 percent
Reduction of
annual
phosphorus
loads by 6.3
million pounds
or 33 percent
Reduction of
annual
sediment loads
by 890,000
tons or
18 percent
More acres of
forest buffers,
wetlands, and
sensitive lands
preserved
Lone-Term
Outcomes
Bay waters and tributaries
removed from impaired
waters list
The Bay's living resources
(crabs, oysters, etc.) are
restored and protected
Habitats and natural
resources are protected and
restored
Water quality to support
aquatic living resources and
human health is achieved
and maintained
Sound land use practices
that promote good water
quality, maintain reduced
pollutant loadings, and
preserve aquatic living
resources are implemented
Bay partners and the public
continue initiatives to
maintain Bay quality
Improved recreational use
of the Bay and its
tributaries
Improved businesses and
local economies
Externalities
Changes in Federal and Slate funding levels, population increases, land development, weather, and introduction of non-native predatory aquatic species
Source: EPA Office of Inspector General analysis
10
-------
Appendix C
Agency Response
DATE: August 24, 2006
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report
EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
Assignment No. 2005-01688
FROM: Rebecca Hanmer
Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
TO: Janet Kasper
Acting Director, Assistance Agreement Audits
Thank you for the opportunity to review your Draft Audit Report, No. 2005-01688.
We concur with the conclusion in this review of the Chesapeake Bay Program's assistance agreements.
As you know, we devote important resources and oversight to this effort, and we are especially pleased to
read your conclusion: "We determined that EPA effectively awarded grant funds toward projects that
should maximize environmental benefits in the Chesapeake Bay." (Draft Report, p. 7).
Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on this Draft Report. We look forward to
receiving the final copy.
11
-------
Appendix D
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 3
Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Deputy Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Associate Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Audit Foliowup Official
Audit Followup Coordinator
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Water
Regional Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 3
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Acting Inspector General
12
------- |