#• A \
! 32 *
PR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Site Visit
of the Botanic Garden of
Western Pennsylvania
Report No. 12-R-0321
March 8, 2012
¦iwiwiiniii iirrin
Scan this mobile
code to learn more
about the EPA OIG.
-------
Report Contributors: Jean Bloom
Leah Nikaidoh
Kevin Collins
Stephanie Wake
Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IUP Intended Use Plan
OIG Office of Inspector General
PA DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pennvest Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority
Cover photo: Mashuda mining activities on the site of the future Botanic Garden.
(EPA OIG photo)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
e-mail: OIG Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
fax: 202-566-2599 Mailcode 2431T
online:
http://www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.htm
Washington, DC 20460
-------
*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 12-R-0321
| jDL \ Office of Inspector General March 8 2012
SEZ I
s v\|/v S
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of
Inspector General conducts site
visits of American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Recovery Act) clean water
projects. The purpose of this
review was to determine
whether amounts claimed by
the Botanic Garden of Western
Pennsylvania are eligible and
allowable in accordance with
the Recovery Act and the terms
of the funding agreement.
Background
The Botanic Garden received
$1,368,894 with 100 percent
federal loan forgiveness from
the Pennsylvania Infrastructure
Investment Authority
(Pennvest) under the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund
program. The purpose of the
project, funded with Recovery
Act funds under the Green
Project Reserve, was to install
three permanent irrigation
ponds to supply the Botanic
Garden's future irrigation
needs.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2012/
20120308-12-R-0321.pdf
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Site Visit
of the Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania
What We Found
The Botanic Garden used Recovery Act funds to construct ponds that are not
being used for their stated purpose. The Botanic Garden's funding agreement
with Pennvest states that the Botanic Garden will build irrigation ponds to
collect, store, and recycle water for future irrigation needs. However, the ponds
are being used as sediment ponds to capture runoff from a mining reclamation
operation. Therefore, amounts claimed by the Botanic Garden for building the
ponds are not eligible or allowable project costs under the Recovery Act and the
terms and conditions of the funding agreement between the Botanic Garden and
Pennvest.
Additionally, the Botanic Garden is operating, through a contractor, a for-profit
surface mining reclamation operation that will generate revenue for the Botanic
Garden. The Recovery Act funds were used to construct required mine sediment
ponds that allow the mine to operate. The Botanic Garden's funding agreement
with Pennvest contains an addendum that states that the recipient must comply
with all relevant federal regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at
2 CFR 215.24(b)(3), requires all federal assistance agreement award recipients to
deduct program income from the total cost of a project or program funded with
federal monies. The revenue generated by the mining activity would be program
income that must be used to offset the Recovery Act-funded project costs. By not
offsetting the project costs with the program income, Recovery Act funds are
reducing mining operation costs and thereby increasing the Botanic Garden's
potential mining revenue.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Regional Administrator, Region 3, recover from
Pennvest all Recovery Act funds, totaling $1,368,894, awarded to the Botanic
Garden of Western Pennsylvania. We also recommend preventing the continued
use of Clean Water State Revolving Fund funding for this project. If the full
Recovery Act funds are not recovered, we recommend that the Regional
Administrator reduce the project costs to be funded by the Recovery Act by the
amount of program income earned by the Botanic Garden from mining
operations and recover the amount earned in program income. Region 3, the
Botanic Garden, and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not agree with the
findings and recommendations in the report.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
March 8, 2012
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Site Visit of the
Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania
Report No. 12-R-0321
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
TO: Shawn M. Garvin
Regional Administrator, Region 3
This is our report on the subject site visit conducted by the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report summarizes the
results of our site visit of the Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania.
We performed this site visit as part of our responsibility under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The purpose of our site visit was to determine
whether amounts claimed by the Botanic Garden are eligible and allowable in accordance with
the Recovery Act and the terms of the funding agreement. The Botanic Garden of Western
Pennsylvania received $1,368,894 in Recovery Act funds with 100 percent federal loan
forgiveness from the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority under the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund program.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 120 calendar days, or by July 6, 2012. You should include a corrective action plan
for agreed-upon actions, including milestone dates. Your response will be posted on the OIG's
public website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response
should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain
data that you do not want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you
should identify the data for redaction or removal. This report will be available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig.
^EDSX
* JL \
\pR0/
-------
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Melissa Heist,
Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (202) 566-0899 or heist.melissa@epa.gov; or
Robert Adachi, Product Line Director, at (415) 947-4537 or adachi.robert@,epa.gov.
-------
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Site Visit of the Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania
12-R-0321
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 7
2 Botanic Garden Project Costs Should Be Recovered 8
Recovery Act Funds Used to Construct Sediment Ponds for
Mining Activity 8
Conclusion 9
Recommendations 10
Botanic Garden, Region 3, Pennvest, and PA DEP Comments
and OIG Evaluation 10
3 Botanic Garden Project Costs Must Be Reduced by
Potential Program Income 11
Botanic Garden Not Complying With Relevant Regulations 11
Conclusion 13
Recommendation 13
Botanic Garden, Region 3, Pennvest, and PA DEP Comments
and OIG Evaluation 13
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 15
Appendices
A Botanic Garden Timeline of Events 16
B Botanic Garden Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation 17
C EPA Region 3 Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation 32
D Pennvest Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation 39
E PA DEP Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation 45
F Distribution 50
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General
(OIG) conducted this review to determine whether amounts claimed by the Botanic
Garden of Western Pennsylvania are eligible and allowable in accordance with the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and the terms
and conditions of its funding agreement with the Pennsylvania Infrastructure
Investment Authority (Pennvest).
Background
The President signed the Recovery Act on February 17, 2009. The purpose of the
Recovery Act as it applies to EPA is to preserve and create jobs, promote economic
recovery, and invest in environmental protection and other infrastructure that will
provide long-term economic benefits. The Recovery Act provided EPA with
$4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) to provide funds for
upgrading wastewater treatment systems.
The Recovery Act required states to allocate at least 20 percent of their funding to
the Green Project Reserve. Four types of projects are eligible for Green Project
Reserve funding: green infrastructure, water efficiency improvements, energy
efficiency improvements, and environmentally innovative activities. Even though
these types of projects have always been eligible for CWSRF financing, the
20 percent requirement was intended to accelerate the incorporation of green and
sustainable concepts into wastewater and drinking water projects.
Pennvest is empowered by Pennsylvania commonwealth law and the Pennsylvania
Infrastructure Investment Authority Act 16 of 1988 to administer and finance the
CWSRF in the state pursuant to the Water Quality Act of 1987. Pennvest is also
empowered to administer Recovery Act funds in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), under a
memorandum of understanding with Pennvest dated April 23, 1997, provides
technical and advisory services to Pennvest regarding the implementation and
administration of the sewer, stormwater, and water infrastructure funding programs
authorized by the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, and the Water Quality Act of 1987.
PA DEP provides technical assistance to Pennvest for Recovery Act-funded clean
water and drinking water projects.
12-R-0321
1
-------
Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania
The Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania was founded in 1988 as "a regional,
professional horticulture society" with goals "to promote and encourage horticulture
and botany, the conservation of natural resources and the establishment and
operation of a botanical garden in western Pennsylvania." In 1991, the Botanic
Garden became a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. In the 1990s, the group began to
look for a suitable site on which to build a garden. In 1998, the Botanic Garden
signed a 99-year renewable lease with Allegheny County for 432 acres of land in the
southwestern corner of Settler's Cabin County Park located near Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. The leased land was the site of significant coal mining in the 1920s.
During 2001-2003, the Botanic Garden worked with MTR Landscape Architects to
design a master plan of the Botanic Garden. In 2003, a water quality study found that
the future Botanic Garden's main water source was so polluted with acid mine
discharge from the abandoned mining that it could not be used for irrigation. Acid
mine discharge occurs when iron pyrite in the mine is exposed to oxygen and water,
producing salts and heavy metals including iron, manganese, nickel, and cobalt.
Further, in 2004, Hurricane Ivan dumped 6 inches of rain on the future Botanic
Garden site, overflowing the abandoned mines and resulting in flooding and
landslides. The site needed reclamation before a garden could be developed.
(See appendix A for a detailed timeline of Botanic Garden events.)
Reclamation Efforts
The Botanic Garden contracted with Mashuda Corporation in February 2008 to
reclaim the abandoned mine site. Under the contract, Mashuda is required to extract
the maximum amount of coal possible from the site, handle the sale of the coal, and
collect all proceeds up to the lump sum price of $7.9 million. All coal proceeds in
excess of this lump sum go to the Botanic Garden. The estimated value of coal to be
sold is $9.1 million, which would result in an estimated profit of $1.2 million for the
Botanic Garden. The contract specifies that Mashuda will conduct the following
reclamation activities:
• Planning, permitting, and engineering design and completion of all site
preparation; and access, reclamation, and construction grading activities to
obtain and conform with the Botanic Garden's final land configuration
• Removal of the Pittsburgh No. 8 coal seam horizons and other carbonaceous
material from the project area to facilitate reclamation and with the intent to
eliminate the sources of existing acid mine discharge
• Obtaining all government approvals that Mashuda considers necessary for it
to mine the site
12-R-0321
2
-------
Mashuda submitted a mining permit application to PA DEP on September 22, 2008.
The proposed attachments to the permit, identified as modules, state that mining
activities will include building six sediment ponds to capture runoff and provide
retention time to allow for the settling of eroded particles before releasing water
from the mine site. These ponds required a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit, which Mashuda acquired in August 2008.1 Mashuda's contract also
included building five adjacent treatment ponds to treat the acid mine discharge
collected in the sediment ponds to meet the water quality criteria established in the
permit. On August 28, 2008, the Botanic Garden sent a letter to PA DEP and
Mashuda requesting that the sediment ponds constructed on the property remain
permanently on the site for the Botanic Garden's future use. On August 10, 2009,
Mashuda received authorization from PA DEP to mine at the Botanic Garden site.
Recovery Act Funding for Botanic Garden
On May 29, 2009, the Botanic Garden submitted an application for Recovery Act
funds to Pennvest. In July 2009, EPA Region 3 received the following documents
from Pennvest and PA DEP, respectively, both of which included the Botanic
Garden project:
• Intended Use Plan (IUP) listing the projects that would receive Recovery Act
funds through the CWSRF program
• Green Project Reserve Checklist of CWSRF projects that would receive
Recovery Act funds
Region 3 was responsible for reviewing the projects proposed for Recovery Act
funding by Pennvest. Neither the IUP nor the Green Project Reserve Checklist
provided to Region 3 mentioned mining activities associated with the Botanic
Garden project. Instead, the project description states, "construction of 3 irrigation
ponds to collect, store, and recycle 2.5 million gallons of water for irrigation of the
botanic garden." The Botanic Garden project was evaluated by PA DEP, as required
for all projects on the Green Project Reserve, and scored zero points out of 100 on its
evaluation. EPA Region 3's response to our draft report states that this score is not
indicative of the environmental benefits associated with the project.
In September 2009, the Botanic Garden issued a change order to Mashuda, removing
two sediment ponds from the contract and decreasing the contract amount by
$30,000. In the Botanic Garden's application for Recovery Act funds, the project
narrative stated that the Botanic Garden is "remediating former deep mining
conditions" and "grading of the site occurs in conjunction with that cleanup." The
application also stated that the Botanic Garden is:
1 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program controls water pollution by regulating point
sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.
12-R-0321
3
-------
Planning to construct 3 sediment basins that will be converted to
permanent irrigation storage facilities at that time to supply the future
irrigation needs of the gardens.
Regardless of PA DEP's zero-point rating of the project, Pennvest awarded a
CWSRF grant to the Botanic Garden under the Recovery Act as a "green
infrastructure" project of the Green Project Reserve. The funding agreement was
signed on November 10, 2009, for $1,368,894 with 100 percent federal loan
forgiveness. According to the funding agreement, the scope of the project is to:
Install three permanent irrigation ponds that will collect, store and
recycle 2.5 million gallons of water to supply the garden's future
irrigation needs. A culvert will be installed that will provide
permanent access to the garden.
Although a surface mining permit is included in the list of permits in exhibit F of the
funding agreement with Pennvest, nowhere in the funding agreement, or in the
description provided to EPA Region 3, does it state that ponds will be used for
mining purposes as the Botanic Garden stated in its application. The project
narrative in the application says "remediating former deep mining conditions," not
for "mining purposes." The funding agreement states that construction of the project
was to be completed by November 2011. The completion date has been extended to
November 2012.
Pond Construction
The Botanic Garden put out a competitive bid for the construction of three sediment
ponds in September 2009, and two contractors bid on the project: Mashuda and
WG Land Company, LLC. The Botanic Garden signed a contract with WG Land,
the low bidder, on November 2, 2009. According to WG Land's contract with the
Botanic Garden, the project consisted of two phases. Phase I of the project is
construction of the three sediment ponds (Ponds 2, 5, and 6). This phase also
included the construction of a culvert to allow access to the site. Phase II of the
project is conversion of the ponds for irrigation purposes, including the purchase of
$523,000 of 60-inch pipe that would be buried in Pond 6 and covered over with
earth.
The contract between WG Land and the Botanic Garden for this Recovery Act-
funded project stated that ponds constructed will initially be used as surface water
and sediment control structures by Mashuda, as required by surface mining
reclamation activities. The contract stipulated that, when no longer needed for
reclamation activities, WG Land will construct drainage control systems, related
underground water piping and storage systems, and a stream-crossing culvert. This
description is similar to that in the Botanic Garden's application for Recovery Act
funding. However, it is more specific than the scope of work language in the funding
agreement and in the documentation provided to EPA Region 3, which does not
12-R-0321
4
-------
include that the ponds will initially be used for mining purposes. The contract also
states that WG Land will complete construction of the entire project within
24 months of receiving the notice to proceed.
WG Land received authorization to proceed with the project from Pennvest on
November 10, 2009, and began construction soon after. WG Land completed phase I
of the project to construct the ponds that were needed for surface mining reclamation
activities. The ponds were constructed to specifications, and all three ponds
(Ponds 2, 5, and 6) were certified by Hiser Engineering and approved for use in
Mashuda's mining operation by PA DEP on October 20, 2010.
Figure 1: Ponds 2 (left) and 5
Source: EPA OIG photos taken during site inspection, May 17, 2011.
Figure 2: Pond 6
Source: EPA OIG photos taken during site inspection, May 17, 2011.
Although WG Land completed work on phase I to specification, it ran into a number
of problems that resulted in change orders to the Botanic Garden for additional
funding. WG Land also had some financial problems that affected its ability to pay
fuel companies. In a letter to the Botanic Garden president and project manager, the
Botanic Garden's attorney stated that WG Land had not paid fuel companies in a
direct contravention of the contract. As a result, in November 2010, the Botanic
Garden i ssued a change order to WG Land, eliminating it from phase II (converting
12-R-0321
5
-------
the sediment ponds to permanent irrigation ponds) of the Recovery Act-funded
project, worth $593,000. WGLand voluntarily accepted the change order. Currently,
no firm is under contract to complete phase II of the Recovery Act-funded project.
MTR Landscape Architects developed a master plan for the Botanic Garden in 2003
(figure 3). The plan did not include irrigation ponds. The OIG superimposed the
ponds on the master plan to demonstrate where they are located in relation to other
features in the garden plan. Pond 6 will eventually be covered up and converted to
underground water storage, and will not be a visible pond incorporated into the plan.
Ponds 2 and 5 will remain on the grounds and be incorporated into the final design
of the Botanic Garden.
Figure 3: Botanic Garden master plan with Recovery Act-funded ponds
superimposed by the OIG
Source: Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania website. Ponds superimposed by the
OIG.
Mashuda did not begin mining until the ponds were built, as they were necessary to
capture runoff from the mining. Mashuda estimated that the mining was 10 to
15 percent complete as of May 2011. In addition, Mashuda estimated that it would
complete the mining in approximately 18 to 24 months, and it would be at least
3 years before reclamation is complete and the site can be transformed into a botanic
garden.
12-R-0321
6
-------
Figure 4: Mashuda mining activities at the Botanic Garden site
Source: EPA OIG photos taken during site inspection, May 17, 2011.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our audit work from May 2011 to September 2011 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform our review to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our objective.
To address our objective, we reviewed relevant background information on the
recipient, the Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania. We analyzed the Botanic
Garden's application for Recovery Act funds and its funding agreement with
Pennvest. We also analyzed all relevant contracts and agreements the Botanic
Garden had with subcontractors, including but not limited to Mashuda Corporation
and WG Land Company, LLC. We reviewed any funds the Botanic Garden received
from other sources, such as local communities and other federal or state agencies.
We examined all payment requests and invoices to determine whether costs claimed
under the CWSRF Recovery Act funding agreement were eligible and allowable
costs to be claimed under the project.
We conducted a site visit of the Botanic Garden on May 17, 2011, currently
functioning as Mashuda's surface mining reclamation, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
During our site visit, we interviewed Botanic Garden officials as well as officials
from all subcontractors. We also interviewed EPA Region 3, Pennvest, and PA DEP
representatives.
12-R-0321
7
-------
Chapter 2
Botanic Garden Project Costs Should Be Recovered
The Botanic Garden used Recovery Act funds to construct ponds that are not being
used for their stated purpose. The Botanic Garden's funding agreement with
Pennvest for CWSRF Recovery Act funds states that the Botanic Garden will build
irrigation ponds to collect, store, and recycle water for future irrigation needs.
However, the ponds are being used as sediment ponds to capture runoff for
Mashuda's mining and reclamation operation. Therefore, amounts claimed by the
Botanic Garden from Pennvest for building the ponds are not eligible or allowable
project costs to be funded under the Recovery Act and the terms and conditions of
the funding agreement.
Recovery Act Funds Used to Construct Sediment Ponds for Mining
Activity
The funding agreement states, in exhibit C:
The Botanic Garden of Western PA will install three permanent
irrigation ponds that will collect, store and recycle 2.5 million gallons
of water to supply the garden's future irrigation needs.
The agreement also includes installation of a culvert to provide permanent access to
the garden.
WG Land's contract with the Botanic Garden states that the irrigation pond project
will be conducted in conjunction with surface mining and reclamation activities.
Further, the contract states that ponds:
Will initially be utilized as surface water and sediment control
structures by Mashuda . . . and as such the construction activities are
considered "surface mining activities" under applicable law.
The Botanic Garden entered into a contract with WG Land to build sediment ponds
that will eventually be turned into irrigation ponds. However, construction of
sediment ponds is not the purpose for which Recovery Act funds were provided
under the funding agreement. The ponds are currently being used to capture runoff
from surface mining and reclamation activities operated by Mashuda, and are not
being used for their stated purpose under the funding agreement. The information
included in WG Land's contract about initial use as sediment ponds was not
included in the funding agreement, nor was it presented to EPA Region 3 in the
project description or IUP provided by Pennvest. When interviewed in February
2011, the Region 3 CWSRF project officer was unaware that the site is a mining
reclamation site and that the Botanic Garden does not currently exist.
12-R-0321
8
-------
Additionally, we do not know when, if ever, the ponds will be used for their stated
purpose, due to the following:
• The ponds must be treated for acid mine discharge before they can be used
for irrigation purposes.
• The ponds cannot be used for their stated purpose until Mashuda has
completed its reclamation activities, which Mashuda estimates will take at
least 3 more years. In addition, under Mashuda's mining contract, it can back
out of the project at any time if the price of coal falls or if the project
becomes economically unfeasible.
• Currently, no firm is under contract to complete phase II of the Recovery
Act-funded project. The Botanic Garden issued a change order to WG Land,
removing it from phase II due to financial problems. The Botanic Garden
stated that it would like Mashuda, as the other bidder, to complete the work.
However, no contract currently exists, and Mashuda representatives stated in
our interview that Mashuda would not undertake the project until reclamation
is complete.
Based on these issues, the Recovery Act-funded project was not completed by
November 2011, as stated in the funding agreement. The completion date has been
extended to November 2012. Further, the Botanic Garden may not be able to
complete phase II of the project.
Because the ponds are not being used for their intended purpose under the funding
agreement, we believe that the amounts claimed as of September 27, 2011, by the
Botanic Garden from Pennvest through the Recovery Act, totaling $736,596, are not
eligible or allowable project costs to be funded under the CWSRF program.
Additionally, we believe that the remaining funding of $632,298 may not be used for
its intended purpose under the funding agreement, the Botanic Garden may not be
able to complete phase II of the project, and the project as currently constructed is
not being used for its intended purpose.
Conclusion
The Botanic Garden received Recovery Act funding to build three irrigation ponds.
The Botanic Garden contracted with WG Land to build sediment ponds for
Mashuda's mining reclamation activities that will eventually be turned into irrigation
ponds. These ponds are not currently being used for their stated purpose under the
funding agreement between the Botanic Garden and Pennvest, and whether the
ponds will ever be used for irrigation is uncertain. Therefore, these costs are not
eligible or allowable under the Recovery Act and the terms and conditions of the
funding agreement, and they should be recovered.
12-R-0321
9
-------
Recommendations
We recommend that the Regional Administrator, Region 3:
1. Recover from Pennvest all Recovery Act funds awarded to the Botanic
Garden of Western Pennsylvania totaling $1,368,894.
2. Prevent the continued use of CWSRF funding for this project.
Botanic Garden, Region 3, Pennvest, and PA DEP Comments and OIG
Evaluation
We received responses to our draft report from the Botanic Garden, Region 3,
Pennvest, and PA DEP. Each commenter disagreed with our finding and
corresponding recommendations. However, they did not provide any information
that would cause the OIG to change its finding and recommendations.
Region 3 offered a suggestion to replace our two recommendations with one, and
asserted that the fundamental issue was that the project description in the IUP was
not complete. We believe this suggestion is inappropriate as EPA cannot change
existing funding documentation to retroactively validate the approval of the project.
We believe that our current recommendations, as written, are the proper course of
action.
We have included the full responses of Botanic Garden, Region 3, Pennvest,
and PA DEP, along with the OIG's evaluation, in appendices B, C, D, and E,
respectively.
12-R-0321
10
-------
Chapter 3
Botanic Garden Project Costs Must Be
Reduced by Potential Program Income
The Botanic Garden is operating a for-profit surface mining reclamation operation
through Mashuda that will generate revenue for the Botanic Garden. The Botanic
Garden used EPA Recovery Act funds to construct mine sediment ponds required
for the mine to operate. The Botanic Garden's funding agreement with Pennvest
contains an addendum that states that the recipient must comply with all relevant
federal regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at 2 CFR 215.24(b)(3),
requires that program income be deducted from the total cost of a project or program
funded. The revenue generated by the mining is program income, and the Botanic
Garden does not have a provision for offsetting the Recovery Act-funded project
costs. By not offsetting the project costs with the program income, Recovery Act
funds are subsidizing the Botanic Garden's mining operation and thereby increasing
its potential mining revenue.
Botanic Garden Not Complying With Relevant Regulations
The Botanic Garden's funding agreement with Pennvest contains an addendum on
Recovery Act requirements. The addendum states, in item 19, that the contractor
must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and program guidance, including
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-l 10 on Administrative Requirements
and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122 on Cost Principles, codified
in 2 CFR Part 215 and 2 CFR Part 230, respectively. Further, the addendum defines
a contractor as:
Any person, including, but not limited to, a bidder, offeror, loan
recipient, grantee, or subgrantee, who has furnished or seeks to
furnish goods, supplies, services, or leased space or who has
performed or seeks to perform construction activity under contract,
subcontract, grant, or subgrant with the Commonwealth....
The Botanic Garden is a contractor because it seeks to perform, under the terms of
the funding agreement from the commonwealth, construction activity—in the form
of the three ponds—through a subcontractor and therefore must comply with all
applicable laws, regulations, and program guidance. Regardless of whether the
subject award is considered a grant or a loan, the signed funding agreement includes
an addendum stating that all contractors must comply with the relevant regulations.
Title 2 CFR 215.24 provides for the treatment of program income earned by entities
and is applicable to the funding agreement. Program income is defined as gross
income earned by the recipient that is directly generated by a supported activity or
earned as a result of the award. Program income includes, but is not limited to,
income from fees for services performed, the use or rental of real or personal
12-R-0321
11
-------
property acquired under federally funded projects, the sale of commodities or items
fabricated under an award, license fees and royalties on patents and copyrights, and
interest on loans made with award funds.
The Botanic Garden contracted with Mashuda to reclaim the abandoned coal mine.
Under the $7.9 million contract, all excess coal proceeds will go to the Botanic
Garden. Therefore, the Botanic Garden is operating a for-profit mining reclamation
that will generate revenue for the Botanic Garden. To start and continue mining
operations, Mashuda was required by the mining permit to design and construct
sediment ponds that would catch runoff produced by the mining operation. Three of
these sediment ponds were constructed by WG Land and paid for with EPA-
provided Recovery Act funds under the Botanic Garden's funding agreement with
Pennvest.
When WG Land finished construction of the first phase of the project, the ponds
were certified by PA DEP. The pond certifications indicate that Mashuda could not
begin mining until Ponds 2, 5, and 6 were installed per the specifications listed in the
original Mashuda mining permit. The sediment ponds are an essential part of the
ongoing surface mining reclamation, and revenue generated from the coal proceeds
would be considered program income under the definitions in 2 CFR 215.24.
Specifically, 2 CFR 215.24 addresses three ways in which loan or grant recipients
must account for program income related to projects financed in whole or in part
with federal funds:
• Title 2 CFR 215.24(b)(1) states that program income shall be added to funds
committed to the project by the federal awarding agency and recipient, and
used to further eligible project objectives. This provision may apply if the
cost of building the irrigation ponds exceeds the existing budget. However,
there is no indication of budget overruns at this time. In fact, since no
contractor has been selected for phase II of the project, the costs to complete
the project are unknown.
• Title 2 CFR 215.24(b)(2) states that program income shall be used to finance
the nonfederal share of the project. However, because the Botanic Garden
received funding with 100 percent federal loan forgiveness, there are no
matching costs that would result in a nonfederal share of the project.
• Title 2 CFR 215.24(b)(3) requires a recipient to deduct program income from
the total cost of a project or program funded with federal monies. This
regulation applies and directs that the Botanic Garden must account for
program income.
Title 2 CFR 215.24(b)(3) is the appropriate option because the Botanic Garden
applied for, obtained, and used Recovery Act funds to reduce the cost of its unrelated
mining reclamation. Reducing the costs of its mining reclamation will increase the
12-R-0321
12
-------
profits the Botanic Garden receives through the coal proceeds. Therefore, Recovery
Act funding will increase Botanic Garden profits.
As of April 26, 2011, the Botanic Garden estimated that Mashuda had excavated and
shipped 13,190 tons of coal to a contracted buyer at a cash value of $728,493. The
estimated value of the coal that will be extracted and sold from the mining operation
is $9,132,964. Based on Mashuda's mining contract of $7,926,980, the Botanic
Garden could realize an estimated profit of $1.2 million. Reducing the expenses of a
profit-making enterprise is not a reasonable use of federal funds. Therefore, the
Botanic Garden should deduct program income from the total project cost as
described in 2 CFR 215.24(b)(3).
Conclusion
The Botanic Garden will generate revenue through Mashuda's mining reclamation.
The sediment ponds built with Recovery Act funds are integral to mining activities.
Therefore, mining revenues should be considered program income under federal
regulations, and program income must be deducted from the total cost of the project.
However, the Botanic Garden did not identify the potential coal proceeds as program
income. By not offsetting the project costs with the program income, EPA Recovery
Act funds are subsidizing the Botanic Garden's mining operation and increasing its
potential mining revenue.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Regional Administrator, Region 3:
3. If the full Recovery Act funds of $1,368,894 are not recovered, reduce
the project costs to be funded by the Recovery Act by the amount of
program income earned by the Botanic Garden from mining operations
and recover the amount earned in program income.
Botanic Garden, Region 3, Pennvest, and PA DEP Comments and OIG
Evaluation
We received responses to our draft report from the Botanic Garden, Region 3,
Pennvest, and PA DEP. All respondents disagreed with our finding and
corresponding recommendation. All responses stated that the program income
requirements of 2 CFR 215.24 do not apply to the Botanic Garden for various
reasons. As a result, we conducted an additional review of regulations and the
funding agreement. We did not find any additional information to change our finding
that the Botanic Garden must account for program income generated from the
mining reclamation activities. Regardless of whether the funding is considered a
grant or a loan, the signed funding agreement includes an addendum stating that all
contractors must comply with the relevant regulations. If 2 CRF 215.24 does not
12-R-0321
13
-------
apply to the Botanic Garden, it should not have been included in the funding
agreement.
We have included the full responses of Botanic Garden, Region 3, Pennvest, and
PA DEP, along with the OIG's evaluation, in appendices B, C, D, and E,
respectively.
12-R-0321
14
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
1 10 Recover from Pennvest all Recovery Act funds
awarded to the Botanic Garden of Western
Pennsylvania totaling $1,368,894.
2 10 Prevent the continued use of CWSRF funding for
this project.
3 13 If the full Recovery Act funds of $1,368,894 are not
recovered, reduce the project costs to be funded by
the Recovery Act by the amount of program
income earned by the Botanic Garden from mining
operations and recover the amount earned in
program income.
Regional Administrator,
Region 3
Regional Administrator,
Region 3
Regional Administrator,
Region 3
$1,369
1 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
12-R-0321
15
-------
Appendix A
Botanic Garden Timeline of Events
1988
1998
2003
02/2008
08/2008
09/2008
05/2009
07/2009
08/2009
09/2009
09/2009
11/2009
11/2009
10/2010
10/2010
The Horticulture Society of Western Pennsylvania (now Pittsburgh Botanic Garden)
was founded.
Botanic Garden signs a 99-year renewable lease with Allegheny County for land in
Settler's Cabin County Park, located near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
MTR Landscape Architects completes a comprehensive master plan of the garden.
Mashuda signs a $7,926,980 mining contract to reclaim the site.
Botanic Garden requests that sediment ponds constructed for mining remain on the
property permanently.
Mashuda submits a mining permit application to PA DEP.
Botanic Garden submits application for Recovery Act funding to Pennvest.
EPA Region 3 receives Intended Use Plan and Green Project Reserve Checklist.
Mashuda receives authorization from PA DEP to mine on the Botanic Garden site.
Botanic Garden issues a change order to Mashuda, removing two sediment ponds.
Botanic Garden put out a request for proposal for three sediment ponds to be funded
by the Recovery Act.
Botanic Garden is awarded $1,368,894 of Recovery Act Funds with 100 percent
federal loan forgiveness to install three permanent irrigation ponds and an entry
culvert.
Botanic Garden signs a contract with WG Land as the low bidder for the Recovery
Act-funded project.
WG Land completes phase I of the Recovery Act-funded project and has Ponds 2, 5,
and 6 certified.
Mashuda begins mining.
12-R-0321
16
-------
Appendix B
Botanic Garden Response to Draft Report and
OIG Evaluation
•: r r ? r- ./
f \ Mi' ' U \ H H f \"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Trefry
United States EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Agency Mail Code 242IT
Washington, DC 20460
Shawn M. Garvin
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection
Region III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
FROM: Pittsburgh Botanic Garden, Inc.
A Not-for-Profit 501(c)(3) Organization
DATE: October 31,2011
RE: Response to Draft Site Visit Report: American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Site Visit of the Botanic Garden of Western
Pennsylvania
Project No. OA-FY11-A-0218
I. INTRODUCTION
The Pittsburgh Botanic Garden, Inc. ("PBG"), a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization
based in Pittsburgh, PA submits this response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Inspector General ("OIG"), Draft Site Visit Report associated with the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("ARRA") funded project in Settlers Cabin County Park,
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. As a charitable organization, relying largely on donations and
grants, PBG is familiar with the utility of audits by granting agencies, organizations and donors.
Having recently been audited by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with no substantive
concerns regarding the use of ARRA funds to design and construct permanent stormwater
collection, storage and irrigation facilities for garden development, PBG's Board of Directors,
staff and professionals were very disappointed by the conclusions derived by OIG.
Compounding the disappointment is OIG's very narrow perspective of a project that has been
12-R-0321
17
-------
under development for over 15 years.1 By focusing on a snapshot view and a temporary aspect of
site development, the OIG glossed over a wide spectrum of environmental site studies, pollution
abatement technical requirements, regulatory support, environmental enhancement and the
permanent benefits that the project provides.
Most surprising is the fact that the primary federal agency with jurisdiction concerning
environmental protection, pollution remediation, brownfields recycling and sustainable
development fails to recognize the nature of the project whose essence is to abate perpetual acid
mine drainage ("AMD") into the waters of the United States, remediate dangerous abandoned
mine land conditions resulting from the region's industrial legacy and allow unproductive and
dangerous lands to be recycled for sustainable economic, recreational and aesthetic benefits. The
following discussions provide information that leaves no doubt that the development of long term
stormwater collection and irrigation facilities, as proposed and constructed by PBG, supported and
approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ("PADEP"), and funded
by Pennvest utilizing ARRA funds is consistent with ARRA, goals and objectives including
Readiness to Proceed, Job Creation, and the promotion of Water Conservation "Green"
infrastructure projects.The following discussions provide information that leaves no doubt that the
development of long term stormwater collection and irrigation facilities, as proposed and
constructed by PBG, supported and approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection ("PADEP"), and funded by Pennvest utilizing ARRA funds is consistent with ARRA,
goals and objectives including Readiness to Proceed, Job Creation, and the promotion of Water
Conservation "Green" infrastructure projects.
II. BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO PROJECT
A. Abandoned Mine Lands - Vision for Reclamation
PBG has been in the process of developing a world-class botanic garden in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania since 1988, when it was founded as the "Horticultural
Society of Western Pennsylvania." It received tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) not-for-
profit organization from the Internal Revenue Service in May 1991. Between 1991 and 1998,
its members searched for an appropriate site to develop the Botanic Garden. In 1998, the
1 It is noted that the report cover feature chosen by OIG to represent the project does not illustrate the actual
permanent impoundments designed and constructed under the Pennvest ARRA project, but rather tends to support
OIG's apparent position that the project is a coal mine.
12-R-0321
18
-------
PBG selected a 280 acre site in Settlers Cabin County Park and entered into a 99-year renewable
lease with Allegheny County, which was amended in 2006.2 Notwithstanding that the property is
located in a public park, the site unfortunately had been extensively coal mined by both
underground and surface mining activities in the early and mid 1900s and meets the definition of
"abandoned mine lands" ("AML") under federal and state law 3 Abandoned mine land features
associated with this property include acid mine drainage ("AMD") discharges that pollute on-site
and off-site streams, unreclaimed highwalls, unstable steep slopes, and significant mine
subsidence conditions. As discussed below, PBG recognized that these conditions were
inconsistent with the transformation of the site into a botanic garden and have been pursuing
reclamation options for a decade.
In evaluating the property for garden development in 2002, PBG obtained funding from
PA's Nonpoint Source Program (funded by the EPA through section 319 of the Clean Water Act)
to investigate the AMD problem. PBG engaged respected environmental and engineering
consultants, GAI Consultants and Hedin Environmental, to complete a survey of the AMD
discharges associated with the property and to provide pollution treatment recommendations. The
consultants reported that the AMD problem was severe (100,000 GPD of water with pH 3 and high
concentrations of toxic metals). PBG concluded that pollution treatment would be economically
infeasible.
Acid mine drainage at the Pittsburgh Botanic Garden site. The water in the background averages
77 gpm with 3.0 pH, 39 mg/L aluminum, 10 rng/L iron, and 1 mg/L manganese.
2 The Amended and Restated Lease was negotiated in large part due to the discovery of the magnitude of the
abandoned mine features and consequent delay in developing the Botanic Garden.
3 See 30 U.S.C. § 1234; 30 C.F.R. § 700.5 and § 874.12; 52 P.S. §§ 5116, 5119.
12-R-0321
19
-------
Concurrent with the AMD investigation, other AML problems were inventoried. Surface
mining in the 1950's and 60's left sinuous band of highwalls and steep unstable and landslide-prone
slopes that needed reclamation before the public could be invited to the site. In many areas, ground
above the deep mine had collapsed creating open subsidence holes into the mine voids below. The
potential for more subsidence throughout the property is ever-present as it has been completely
undermined. In September 2004, western PA was subjected to record rainfall when hurricanes
Francis and Ivan passed through the region during one eight day period. At the unreclaimed site with
its unmanaged non-point surface and mine water flows, the access road was washed out, trees on
unstable mine out-slopes were lost, and a landslide occurred. AMD flows increased to unprecedented
levels and were sustained at high rates well into 2005. PBG determined that comprehensive
reclamation was mandatory if the garden was to proceed.
Subsidence hole located at the Pittsburgh Botanic Garden site. The subsidence is in the
approximate location of a future parking lot.
The challenge to PBG has been to find the most cost-effective method to remediate these
problems while not losing the vi sion of garden development. In pursuing economically feasible
alternatives to reclaim the site, PBG learned that many AML sites have been reclaimed by private
companies who partially finance the reclamation by recovering and marketing coal encountered
during reclamation. PBG subsequently decided that this concept was the only economically feasible
option available to eliminate the wide spread AML problems while simultaneously advancing the
development of the botanic garden.
12-R-0321 20
-------
B. Irri gation Requirements: Optimizing Storm water Management
A botanic garden has significant and sustainable irrigation needs. Following the hurricanes of
2004, the water pollution, landslides and subsidence conditions became more pronounced, and PBG
recognized that complete site reclamation was necessary for a botanic garden free of the conditions
and risks associated with the abandoned mines. Associated with that analysis was a review of
potential alternative irrigation water sources. The use of AMD is precluded due to its toxicity, and
developing and constructing water pollution treatment systems was impractical. Consistent with the
eventual ARRA goals regarding water conservation, ultimately the decision was made to capture and
recycle surface water from reclaimed properties for irrigation rather than purchasing potable water
from a water utility as costs were estimated to reach up to $70,000 per year. Stormwater collection
and storage became the solution for irrigation. The development and utilization of permanent ponds
for water storage and irrigation was considered consistent with sustainable site development during
both construction and for permanent stormwater control and provided the added benefits of creating
upland aquatic water features for the botanic garden. As the concept developed, however, it was
recognized that permanent water storage impoundments must be designed and constructed according
to different standards than temporary sediment ponds that would have been used during reclamation
and grading. The ARRA Pennvest initiative provided the opportunity and additional funding to
design and construct these impoundments as permanent features of the Botanic Garden.
C. OIG Misunderstanding of "Master Plan" Purpose
In attempting to support its narrow view that the permanent irrigation ponds were mere
"sediment ponds" developed to support "mining," OIG identified the fact that the design firm, M T R
Landscape Architects, LLC, developed a "Master Plan" for the Botanic Garden in 2003 and did not
include permanent impoundments. OIG, however, misunderstands the nature of a Master Plan as it is
an initial conceptual overlay of potential garden features on the real estate. It did not, nor could it,
account for the three dimensional aspects of underground mines, subsurface groundwater flow from
upgradient and hydrologically connected on and off-site underground mines, landslide features,
subsidence openings and depressions, and related site conditions. A Master Plan, as developed by a
landscape architect, is the first stage of a project where conceptual framework is prepared, however,
it does not include any detailed designs or technical specifications. Such was the case in developing
the Master Plan for the botanic garden since it did not, nor was it intended to, deal with permanent
irrigation issues when it was developed and it did not consider the magnitude of the AML issues.
12-R-0321
21
-------
III. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE "DAYLIGHTING" RECLAMATION TECHNIQUE
A. Property Rights
Since the surface estate and mineral estates were severed^ in the early 1900s, in order to fully
reclaim the property, PBG needed control of both estates. As noted above, PBG had a surface lease
with Allegheny County. To develop a complete reclamation plan, PBG sought and was deeded
ownership interests in the remaining underground coal pillars from the mineral owner, Champion
Processing, Inc. ("Champion"). As a charitable donation from Champion, by deed dated January 4,
2010, PBG received the remaining coal owned by Champion in Settlers Cabin Park and underlying
the garden site.5
Having successfully obtained both the surface and mineral rights and after extensive
engineering and technical review, PBG sought support for conducting the comprehensive reclamation
plan through the well-documented mine reclamation technique referred to as "daylighting" the
underground mines. Daylighting is a form of "remining" that removes the strata overlying the
abandoned underground mine to expose and allow removal of the pollution and subsidence causing
coal pillars and pyritic shales. It also allows total energy resource recovery. Using the technique,
following coal removal the site is regraded to specific contours, topsoil is replaced and regevetated.
4 Ownership of any estate or interest in land may be severed from ownership of or an interest in any other part of the
land. Thus, ownership of the surface, oil, gas, coal, limestone and any other definable part of the land are all capable of
being severed and owned as separate estates. Such a severance can be made by deed, will, mortgage or lease.
5 See Coal Special Warranty Deed recorded in the real estate records of Allegheny County, DocumentNo. 2010-1610,
Book BK-DE-14162, Page 180.
12-R-0321
22
-------
Map of mine works beneath portion of Phase I Botanic Garden project.
12-R-0321
-------
B. EPA Supports Reclamation Technique
Throughout its Draft Report, OIG characterizes the reclamation project as a "mining project"
but completely ignores the fact that since 1976, the EPA itself, along with many other federal and
state regulatory agencies, has endorsed mine reclamation through remining as a highly effective
method for lessening AMD and eliminating hazards and subsidence. In its 1976 "Feasibility Study:
Deerpark Daylighting Project," the EPA Office of Research Development concluded that
"daylighting abandoned underground mines can be used to eliminate acid mine drainage from certain
abandoned mine workings and also enhances the use potential of the land, minimizes the risk of
future erosion, subsidence and stream sedimentation."6 Of course, the reclamation project will
extract the remaining coal but given the amount of federal research regarding AMD abatement and
the limited federal funds available for AML reclamation, remining abandoned mine land projects are
encouraged by federal and state agencies.7
As stated in the Pennsylvania regulations8:
"This subchapter provides incentives to encourage qualified operators to
undertake reclamation and remining of abandoned mine lands and bond
forfeiture sites for the purpose of eliminating hazards to human health
and safety, abating pollution of surface and groundwaters and the
contribution of sediment to adjacent areas, restoring land to beneficial
uses and recovering remaining coal resources."
The basis of the policy is a body of research that documents the benefits of reclamation
projects through remining'9 EPA's own Coal Remining Best Management Practices Guidance
Manual10 states expressly:
6 EPA-600/2-76-110, June 1976.
7 See 30 C.F.R. §§ 773.13,785.25; 52 P.S. § 1396.4h; 25 Pa. Code § 86.251. Pennsylvania encourages reclamation and
remining of abandoned mine lands through five programs under the Surface Mine Conservation and Reclamation Act:
• Section 4.8 - Government Financed Reclamation and Construction Contracts
• Section 4.9 - Designating Areas Suitable for Reclamation by Remining
• Section 4.10- Remining Operators Assistance Program
• Section 4.12- Remining Financial Guarantees
• Section 4.13- Reclamation B ond Credits
8 25 Pa. Code § 86.251.
9 See, e.g.. Hawkins, J.W., 1994. Statistical characteristics of coal-mine discharges on western Pennsylvania remining
sites. Bull. Water. Resources 30: 861-869; Hawkins, J.W. 1995. Characterization and effectiveness of remining
abandoned coal mines in Pennsylvania. US Dept Interior, US Bureau of Mines RI 9562; Hawkins, J.E., Miller, K, Brady,
K.B.C. and J. Cuddeback. 2002. Effectiveness of Pennsylvania's remininig program in abating abandoned mine drainage:
Part 2 - Efficacy of best management practices. In Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Society of Mining
Engineers, Feb 22-21, Phoenix, AZ; Skousen, J., Hedin, R., and B. Faulkner. 1997. Water quality changes and costs of
remining in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage
Task Force Symposium, April 15-16, Morgantown, WV; Smith, M.W, Brady, K.B.C. and J.W. Hawkins. 2002.
12-R-0321
24
-------
"Review of existing data and information that was used to prepare this
document indicates that remining operations accompanied by proper
implementation of appropriate BMPs is highly successful in reducing the
pollution load of mine drainage discharges. The information also shows
that remining BMPs typically are used in combination as part of an overall
and cite-specific BMP plan. Critical to the effectiveness of a BMP plan in
terms of water quality and AML improvement is that the plan is well
designed and engineered, implemented as proposed, and that the
implementation and subsequent post-mining results are verifiable."
As a matter of fact, EPA itself has studied the concept and developed statistical summaries of its
effectiveness and algorithms for analyzing abandoned mine sites that will benefit from remining.11 In
finding that daylighting the polluting, subsidence-prone mine was actually encouraged as the
appropriate reclamation technique by EPA, among other regulatory agencies, PBG relied on the fact
that several generations of federally funded environmental scientists, geologists and engineers
recognize and support the method chosen for the PBG site.
C. Government Support
In developing public support for its vision, PBG met with senior PADEP officials including
the Secretary, Deputy Secretary for Mineral Resources, regional PADEP administrators, the
Allegheny County Executive, County Commissioners and senior staff. PBG attended numerous
public hearings regarding the project. They also met with federal officials including both
Pennsylvania Senators, the District Congressman, and the United States Department of Interior,
Office of Surface Mining ("OSM") Appalachian Region Director and state officials, all of whom
applauded and reinforced the vision for reclaiming abandoned mine lands in an Allegheny County
public park to a premium and permanent land use while abating pollution and providing a sustainable
nucleus for local and regional economic development. The validity of PBG's reclamation plan is further
demonstrated by a recent site tour guided by US Department of the Interior and PADEP mining and
reclamation staff where the site was used an example of an ideal reclamation-through- remining project.
Effectiveness of Pennsylvania's remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage: Part 1 - water quality
improvements. In Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Society of Mining Engineers, Feb 22-27, Phoenix, AZ;
Smith, M.W., Smith, K.B.C. and J.W. Hawkins. 2002. Effectiveness of Pennsylvania's remining program in abating
abandoned mine drainage: water quality impacts. Trans Soc. Min. Metal. Exploration 312: 166-170; US Environmental
Protection Agency. 2001. Coal Remining - Best Management Practices Guidance Manual. EPA-821-B-01-010. 624 pp.
10 EP A-821 -B -01 -010, December 2001.
11 See Coal Remining Statistical Support Document, EPA-821-01-011, published by EPA's Office of Water, Engineering
and Analysis Division, discussing the Clean Water Act, § 301 (Rahall Amendment) supporting incentives and
encouraging remining as a method to abate perpetual AMD.
12-R-0321
25
-------
IV. RECLAMATION CONTRACTOR
As the project evolved from the original lease with Allegheny County, to meetings and
discussions with local, state and federal agencies, studying the site conditions and developing a
comprehensive reclamation plan, in 2007, PBG finally issued a Request for Proposals to conduct the
reclamation and construction project. Following field meetings, clarification sessions and interviews
with prospective contractors, the Mashuda Corporation ("Mashuda") was chosen as the preferred
contractor for numerous reasons including its extensive experience in daylighting underground mines
to allow highway construction for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, its reputation for high quality and efficient, large earth-moving projects
and the very important fact that it would accept the recovered coal as its primary consideration for the
project. In February 2008, the Reclamation and Construction Grading Agreement ("Reclamation
Agreement") was executed under which Mashuda was responsible for all of the means and methods
associated with the reclamation project including any permitting, coal removal and sales and land
grading. The contractor was also granted a license to remove and do its best to sell any recovered
coal.
It was originally anticipated that the project would be conducted under a Government Financed
Construction Contract ("GFCC")12 between Mashuda and the PADEP. It was later determined by the
PADEP that the framework and environmental controls found under its permitting program
supporting reclamation by remining would provide a better regulatory template for its review rather
than the GFCC, hence Mashuda sought and obtained a surface mining permit for the reclamation
project. Regardless of the regulatory vehicle used for review by the PADEP, the project is widely
known and acknowledged as one of the most creative and visionary reclamation projects in the
Appalachian coal fields.
V. DRAINAGE CONTROL: OPTIMIZING SURF ACE HYDROLOGY
Construction projects including reclamation projects must meet surface water control and
discharge requirements under the Clean Water Act. As discussed above, the project designers,
M T R, and consultants associated with the project recognized that the Botanic Garden would
require significant water resources for irrigation purposes
12 See 52 P.S. § 1396.4h, under which Pennsylvania encourages and authorizes incidental and necessary removal of coal
to support reclamation of abandoned mines.
12-R-0321
26
-------
The use of polluted groundwater is obviously precluded, and the purchase of public water for irrigation
purposes would be too expensive and inconsistent with sustainable development concepts. Therefore,
the concept of optimizing surface water recovery and conservation use by designing the surface grading
plan and construction of permanent irrigation impoundments and an underground water storage system
to capture and retain stormwater was developed. The PBG design team determined it would be wise to
develop permanent stormwater retention basins that would far exceed minimal and temporary
requirements for the reclamation project.
PBG engaged Civil and Environmental Consultants ("CEC") to optimize permanent pond
locations consistent with a grading plan and surface hydrology. CEC chose three out of six pond
areas for permanent impoundments. CEC also developed plans and specifications according to
standards for permanent impoundments as opposed to smaller temporary sediment ponds ordinarily
used in grading, reclamation or mining projects. For example and notwithstanding OIG's
characterization of the impoundments as mere "sediment ponds," enhanced sized/permanent
impoundments require significant materials handling, lift construction, compaction standards
requirements, embankment slopes and outfall controls that would not otherwise be required. PBG
recognized that it would be most efficient and cost effective from a construction management
perspective for the reclamation project to temporarily use the permanent impoundments for sediment
control. As noted throughout this response, one of the reasons for conducting the daylighting
operation is to abate the acid mine drainage, therefore, it was well known that along with controlling
stormwater, by intercepting the mine voids, the contractor would also encounter polluted mine
drainage. The mine drainage requires various levels of chemical treatment prior to being discharged
and handling both surface and groundwater encountered with the project must be as efficient as
possible. Any intercepted AMD is collected and treated in separate treatment ponds which then may
be discharged into the permanent impoundments prior to discharge to the waters of the United States.
However, such interim and transient uses of the permanent impoundments in providing sediment
control and possibly receiving treated polluted water encountered in excavation of the remaining coal
pillars does not belie that they are permanent impoundments engineered and constructed to collect,
store and recycle 2.5 million gallons of water to supply the garden's future irrigation needs as stated
in the Pennvest/ARRA application. Further and compelling is that the Phase II portion of the project,
which OIG fails to address, includes the installation of a large underground stormwater storage
system that has no relation with the active reclamation activities.
12-R-0321
27
-------
VI. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS/FULL DISCLOSURE
PBG's interest in reclaiming the abandoned mines associated with its leased property in
Settlers Cabin County Park has been widely publicized and discussed, the subject of many meetings
with high-level governmental officials, engineering and environmental professionals, and has been
the destination of numerous site tours with both public and private sector officials, donors and
contractors. PBG has been an "open book" in obtaining its lease, obtaining mineral ownership,
defining the site conditions and problems, developing long term solutions and obtaining contributions
in support of its vision. When President Obama announced the ARRA and it was determined that
Pennsylvania would pursue projects through Pennvest, PBG knew that it had a "shovel ready" project
and applied for a grant in May 2009. At that time, it was widely known by the PADEP and
subsequently by Pennvest that the project involved reclamation that would abate pollution and
adverse abandoned mine conditions and required coal removal. During the summer of 2009 and
concurrent with the Pennvest review of PBG application, the Mashuda permit application was also
being reviewed, and ultimately approved in August of 2009. In September 2009, the plans and
specifications for the enhanced permanent irrigation ponds and water storage system were developed
and consistent with federal bidding requirements, the availability of bid documents was published in
the Pittsburgh Tribune. It fully described the nature of the project. See Attachment A.
The Pennvest application submitted by PBG made no attempt to disguise the fact that a
construction of irrigation ponds as permanent impoundments would temporarily be used during
reclamation activities. The ARRA application did not require an extensive discussion; however, the
"Project Narrative" expressly states:
"HSWP is remediating former deep mining conditions of 180 ac of its
452-ac site, located in Settlers Cabin County Park. Grading of the site
occurs in conjunction with that cleanup, and we are planning to
construct (3) sediment basins that will be converted to permanent
irrigation storage facilities at that time to supply the future irrigation
needs of the garden. . . The proposed ponds combined will have the
capacity to collect, store, polish and recycle 2.5 million gallons of
surface runoff, which is water the Botanic Garden would otherwise
have to purchase from a municipal drinking water source. . . "
Although perhaps the description of the reclamation technique could have provided more detail, that
is a distinction without a difference. The fact is that the ponds were planned for and will be used as
described in the application - for future irrigation needs of the garden. Further, PBG viewed the
project as a wise use of funds in support of a public benefit project and consistent with the goals of
12-R-0321
28
-------
sustainable development, green projects, water conservation and ARRA desire for "shovel-ready"
projects.
In its supporting documentation submitted to Pennvest, the contract with Mashuda was fully
disclosed and the fact that a surface mining permit was the chosen regulatory vehicle. The Pennvest
ARRA funded Irrigation Ponds and Water Storage System Construction Agreement, also reviewed by
Pennvest, was carefully drafted in a manner to fully integrate those activities with the Reclamation
Project and even addressed the prospect of multiple contractors working on the same property in
pursuit of one goal: the development of the botanic garden. It expressly describes the Reclamation
Agreement and obligations of contractor cooperation. The RFP, advertisement and subsequent
Agreement went to lengths to inform prospective and the selected contractor that the Reclamation
Project would be in a coal removal regulatory environment and therefore forwarned them that all
activities would be viewed through the regulatory lens of a mining operation, particularly from a
worker safety perspective. The funding agreement with Pennvest therefore incorporates the plans
and specifications, contract terms and special conditions related to the reclamation project as they are
incorporated into the ARRA funded contract.
VII. COAL RESOURCES
The daylighting operation envisions overburden removal and carefully removing the
remaining coal pillars and associated carbonaceous material, which is the source of acid mine
drainage. As noted above, PBG received the coal as a charitable contribution from Champion on
January 4, 2010. But for the fact that there might be coal resources at a depth to make them
economically recoverable, there would be no way to reclaim Settlers Cabin land for any public
purpose. The fact that Mashuda agreed to the extensive reclamation work with payment primarily
coming from its potential sale of any coal recovered in recreating a tract suitable for a botanic garden
was consistent with the PBG purpose and vision, encouraged by law, public officials and private
donors. Since PBG is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, the use of its coal for reclamation
services on its land should not be viewed as providing a "profit" to PBG. To the contrary, PBG is
using a charitable contribution to further its related and primary purpose, that is, the development of a
world class botanic garden in a public park for the benefit of the region while reclaiming abandoned
mine lands and abating perpetual acid mine discharges. Further, the extent of coal recovery is
unknown, as is the price of coal at any point in time. There is no way to know the value of the
remaining coal. The Mashuda contract provides a fixed cost for the reclamation activity and all
12-R-0321
29
-------
parties are hoping that the old coal companies and "pillar robbers" following them in the Depression,
left enough to allow the metamorphosis of this site from an industrial legacy to an oasis in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. The OIG imputes that PBG is a profit-making entity and mischaracterizes a
well considered solution to an environmental dilemma as a "coal mine" not worthy of ARRA
support. Nothing could be further from the truth.
VIII. CONCLUSION
PBG respectfully requests that the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Inspector General reconsider its conclusions in light of the information submitted in this response. By
viewing the entire Botanic Garden development history, challenges and benefits, and how the
Pennvest ARRA project effectively and efficiently supports those goals, it should be clear that
providing funds for stormwater collection and storage is consistent with ARRA goals and objectives.
OIG Response: The Botanic Garden provided a great deal of background information on its history in
an attempt to demonstrate that its project is consistent with Recovery Act goals and objectives. We
recognize this background information and included much of it in our own report.
The OIG understands that complete site reclamation was necessary for development of the Botanic
Garden site due to acid mine drainage issues. We also understand that Recovery Act funds provided
the opportunity to design and construct these irrigation ponds as permanent features of the garden. We
agree that the purpose stated in the funding agreement to install "3 irrigation ponds to collect, store,
and recycle 2.5 million gallons of water for irrigation of the botanic garden" is consistent with
Recovery Act goals and objectives. However, as observed in our site visit in May 2011, the ponds are
currently being used for reclamation activities to capture mining runoff. Although these sediment
ponds may eventually be converted to irrigation ponds as stated in the funding agreement, we maintain
that the ponds are not now being used for their intended purpose. The funding agreement is the official
contract or legal document that we must base our review on. It did not contain any language on the
ponds initially being used for reclamation activities. In our report, we do not take the view that the OIG
and EPA discourage reclamation activities, as the Botanic Garden suggests in its response. Instead, our
role is to review the use of Recovery Act funds in light of applicable federal regulations and governing
funding agreements. The Botanic Garden claims that it "was well known" that polluted mine drainage
would be encountered and states that it has been an "open book" throughout its endeavors. However,
during our review we found that EPA Region 3 was unaware that reclamation activities were taking
place and that the ponds were being used as mining sedimentation ponds prior to being converted to
irrigation ponds.
The Botanic Garden stated that the OIG did not address the phase II portion of the project. On the
contrary, the OIG specifically addresses phase II of the project in the "Background" section of
chapter 1 as well as in the chapter 2 discussion of our first finding. We state in chapter 2 that one of our
concerns regarding phase II of the project is that it will never be completed, and we described three
reasons for this concern. First, the ponds must be treated for acid mine drainage prior to being used for
irrigation. Second, the ponds cannot be used for their stated purpose until Mashuda has completed its
12-R-0321
30
-------
mining activities. Finally, there is currently no one under contract to compete phase II of the project.
In its response, the Botanic Garden did not provide any plausible date or realistic timeline for when the
ponds will actually be used for irrigation, the purpose stated in the ARRA funding agreement. The
Botanic Garden also did not address any of these three concerns we listed in our report.
With regard to chapter 3 of our report, the Botanic Garden argues that the program income regulation
does not apply because the Botanic Garden received the coal as a charitable contribution from the
mineral owner, Champion. However, Mashuda's contract with the Botanic Garden does not state that
the coal is a charitable donation; the contract only states that excess proceeds go to the Botanic Garden.
Additionally, the funding agreement, which was signed by the Botanic Garden, contained federal
requirements, including the program income regulation. Accepting the funds and signing the funding
agreement was a voluntary measure that the Botanic Garden undertook. By signing the funding
agreement, the Botanic Garden agreed to follow the federal regulations.
In summary, the Botanic Garden did not provide the OIG with any information that would cause us to
change our findings and recommendations.
12-R-0321
31
-------
Appendix C
EPA Region 3 Response to Draft Report and
OIG Evaluation
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
November 7, 2011
SUBJECT: Draft Site Visit Report:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Site Visit of the Botanic Garden of Western
Pennsylvania Proj ect No. OA-FY11 -A-0218
FROM: Shawn M. Garvin
Regional Administrator, Region III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
TO: Robert Adachi
Director of Forensic Audits
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the September 29, 2011 draft report
on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Site Visit of the Botanic
Garden of Western Pennsylvania, Project No. OA-FY1 l-A-0218. The draft report
references two (2) findings:
Draft Findings
1. "The Botanic Garden used Recovery Act funds to construct ponds that are not
being used for their stated purpose. The Botanic Garden's loan agreement with
PENNVEST states that the Botanic Garden will build irrigation ponds to collect,
store, and recycle water for future irrigation needs. However, the ponds are being
used as sediment ponds to capture runoff from a mining operation"; and
2. The Botanic Garden is operating, through a contractor, a for-profit surface mining
operation that will generate revenue for the Botanic Garden and that the revenue
generated by the mining activity would be program income that must be used to
offset the Recovery Act-funded project costs. By not offsetting the project costs
with the program income, Recovery Act funds are reducing mining operation
costs and thereby, increasing the Botanic Garden's potential mining revenue.
12-R-0321
32
-------
Regarding the draft finding that neither the Intended Use Plans (IUP) nor the Green
Project Reserve Checklist provided to Region III make any mention of mining activities
associated with the Botanic Garden project, it is accurate that the project description
states "construction of three (3) irrigation ponds to collect, store, and recycle 2.5 million
gallons of water for irrigation of the botanic garden." Although the construction of
stormwater ponds is an eligible project to receive funding under the Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Fund Program (CWSRF), Region III concurs that the project
description could have better captured the full breadth of what is happening and planned
at the site by indicating that the work was to occur in two (2) phases.
Under Phase 1, the Botanic Garden built three permanent irrigation ponds, which are
not currently being used for their stated purpose. The ponds could have been built when
the site preparation work (re-mining activity) concluded. To keep costs and construction
activity down, the applicant, a non-profit, integrated construction of the ponds with other
construction activity. Although not specifically detailed in the project description,
stormwater sedimentation ponds are an eligible project under the CWSRF. It is fully
expected that at the end of the mine reclamation process, the ponds will be cleaned, a
fourth pond will be constructed and one (1) pond will be converted to an underground
irrigation pond through the installation of storage tanks as part of a "Phase 2". The
transformation of mine scarred land to a botanic garden is a significant environmental
accomplishment.
Regarding the draft finding that the mining activity is creating program income
for the Botanic Garden, loan recipients are not subject to the federal grant regulations and
the grant regulations, by their terms, do not apply to loan recipients. The draft report
cites an older Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance (OMB Circular A-
110, requirements for federal grants with nonprofit organizations). OMB Circular A-l 10
is now located in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 2 CFR Part 215. EPA
adopted these regulations; they are located at
40 CFR Parts 30. The program income section in 40 CFR 30.24 is essentially the same
as 2 CFR 215.24. The section applies to grant and subgrant recipients as opposed to loan
recipients under a grant. The definition section in the grant regulations excludes loans
from the definition of award. The appropriate section is 40 CFR 30.2(e) in the EPA grant
regulations and 2 CFR 215.2(e) in the OMB A-l 10 guidance:
(e) Award means financial assistance that provides support or stimulation to accomplish
a public purpose. Awards include grants and other agreements in the form of money or
property in lieu of money, by the Federal Government to an eligible recipient. The term
does not include: technical assistance, which provides services instead of money; other
assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies, or insurance; direct
payments of any kind to individuals; and, contracts which are required to be entered into
and administered under procurement laws and regulations.
There is a similar definition of "grant" in EPA's grant regulations covering state
and local grant recipients at 40 CFR 31.3:
12-R-0321
33
-------
Grant means an award of financial assistance, including cooperative agreements, in the
form of money, or property in lieu of money, by the Federal Government to an eligible
grantee. The term does not include technical assistance which provides services instead
of money, or other assistance in the form of revenue sharing, loans, loan guarantees,
interest subsidies, insurance, or direct appropriations. Also, the term does not include
assistance, such as a fellowship or other lump sum award, which the grantee is not
required to account for.
Based on the language above, loan recipients are not required to follow the grant
requirements that are in Part 30 or Part 31 grant regulations. The regulations apply to
grant and subgrant recipients. Region III does not concur with this finding since the
grant regulations are not relevant as they do not apply to loan recipients by their terms.
Proposed Recommendation
The draft report recommends that the Regional Administrator, Region III, recover
from PENNVEST ARRA funds in the amount of $1,368,894 awarded to the Botanic
Garden of Western Pennsylvania. It is also recommended that Region III prevent the
continued use of CWSRF funding for this project. To date, $736,596 was spent by
Botanic Garden on "Phase 1," i.e. the construction of three (3) stormwater retainage
ponds and a culvert. $632,298 remains available for "Phase 2". The use of SRF funding
for stormwater management ponds and/or water reuse are eligible projects, therefore, the
incurred costs are eligible. Since the fundamental issue is the project description
provided in the IUP, EPA suggests a more appropriate recommendation is to ensure that
complete project descriptions are provided to EPA as part of the IUP approval process.
EPA will request that PENNVEST review the ARRA, FY' 10, and FY' 11 IUPs within six
months and confirm that project descriptions accurately depict the funded activity. Any
differences will be reported to EPA and if warranted, amendments will be made to IUPs.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. It is EPA's intent to continue to
closely monitor this project through completion. At a minimum, we will request
quarterly status updates from PENNVEST and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. Attached are additional comments for your consideration
which relate to the factual accuracy of the draft report. Should you have any questions
regarding this response, please contact Ms.Magdalene Cunningham, CWSRF
Coordinator, at 215-814-2338.
Attachment
OIG Response: With regard to finding 1 of our report, EPA Region 3 agrees that the
project description could have better captured the full breadth of the project. However,
Region 3 states that although the use of ponds as stormwater sedimentation ponds is not
detailed in the project description, this use is eligible under the CWSRF. We agree that
12-R-0321
34
-------
the use of these ponds for the mining reclamation process may be eligible under the
CWSRF, but we maintain that it is not eligible under the funding agreement. The funding
agreement does not include any language on the ponds being initially used as
sedimentation ponds; therefore, we believe that they are not being used for their intended
purpose as irrigation ponds for the Botanic Garden. Region 3 asserts that the
fundamental issue was that the project description in the IUP was not completed and
suggested that a more appropriate recommendation would be to combine our two
recommendations with one that states, "ensure project descriptions are provided to EPA
as part of the IUP approval process." We do not believe that this proposed
recommendation is appropriate, as EPA cannot change existing funding documentation
to retroactively validate the approval of this project. The Botanic Garden did not describe
the ponds as sedimentation ponds to EPA throughout the funding approval process.
Additionally, the Region 3 CWSRF project officer was unaware that the ponds were
being used for mining reclamation activities until the OIG brought it to her attention.
We do not consider it appropriate to change the IUP description to legitimize the project.
We retained our draft report recommendation.
With regard to finding 2 of our report, the funding agreement addendum states in item 19
that the contractor must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and program
guidance, including the federal regulation on program income. The funding agreement is
a legal and valid document; thus, the requirement applies to the Botanic Garden project.
EPA Region 3 made a number of points on regulations applying to grant recipients
versus loan recipients that dispute our finding. In our draft report, we referred to the
Recovery Act funding awarded to the Botanic Garden as a loan, and to the contract as the
loan agreement. Region 3's response states that because the Botanic Garden is a loan
recipient rather than a grant recipient, 2 CFR 215.24 on allocation of program income
does not apply. However, regardless of whether the subject award is considered a grant
or a loan, the signed funding agreement includes an addendum stating that all contractors
must comply with the relevant regulations. If 2 CFR 215.24 does not apply to the
Botanic Garden, it should not have been included in the funding agreement. We retained
our draft report recommendation and deleted references to a "loan agreement." The final
report includes the term "funding agreement," as that is the term used in the official
document.
In addition, OIG conducted an additional review of the regulations and the funding
agreement between Pennvest and the Botanic Garden. In this review, we found that the
funding agreement specifically refers to the funding as a grant with federal loan
forgiveness. The funding agreement states, "All references to Loan Amount shall be the
intended repayment amount and all references to Grant Amount shall be the intended
principal forgiveness amount." Additionally, the project specific terms of the funding
agreement lists loan amount as $0 and grant amount as $1,368,894 with federal loan
forgiveness. The funding agreement provides contradictory language stating that the
funding agreement is a grant with loan forgiveness. Regardless of whether the funding
agreement is a grant or loan, the inclusion of the requirements in the addendum requires
compliance with 2 CFR 215.24.
12-R-0321
35
-------
Attachment
Specific Comments
Chapter 1
1. Page 3, first bullet and 4th Paragraph: The report refers to plural Intended Use Plans (lUPs).
There was only one IUP although it was amended to add additional projects. The Botanic
Garden project was included in the amended IUP.
OIG Response: We agree, and we adjusted the report accordingly.
2. Page 3, second bullet: The report incorrectly states that PENNVEST provided the Green
Project Reserve (GPR) Checklist. The Checklist was Region Ill's documentation of its review
of the information provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP).
OIG Response: We agree, and we adjusted the report accordingly.
3. Page 3, 3rd Paragraph: The report states that "the region could not add projects or
suggestions to any of the projects." This is not an accurate description of the Region's
review of the State's lUPs. EPA routinely asks questions and requests additional
documentation to ensure projects are eligible. Requests for additional documentation were
sent to PENNVEST and PADEP to ensure the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) projects were eligible, especially for the GPR.
OIG Response: During our field work, we found conflicting information on this point.
However, to address Region 3's concern, we deleted this sentence from our report.
4. Page 3, 3rd Paragraph: The report states that the project "scored 0/100" on PADEP's
evaluation. The score is not indicative of the environmental benefits associated with the
project. It is the result of:
• Non-point source projects, such as this one, are not required to be individually ranked in
the CWSRF program.
• PADEP's project ranking system at the time the project was scored was designed for
conventional stormwater projects; the system was not designed or intended to rate the
environmental benefits achieved by a project of this type.
• Although not required, PADEP has revised its project ranking system to include all
nonpoint source projects.
• ARRA stated that projects were to be funded "notwithstanding the priority rankings
they would otherwise receive..." The overall project is the transformation of a deep
mine with associated acid mine drainage into a botanic garden. The mine reclamation
activities being conducted are designed to remediate existing water quality impairment.
The stormwater runoff from the mine site is causing water quality problems. Local
streams, Robinson Run and Chartiers Creek, are listed as impaired from acid mine
drainage.
12-R-0321
36
-------
OIG Response: We understand that this score may not be indicative of the
environmental benefits associated with the project. However, this score was the
criterion used for the evaluation, and if it was not relevant, it should not have been
used. We modified the report to include Region 3's concern on this point.
5. Page 4, 2nd Paragraph: The report states that the authority for the PENNVEST loan was
under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as a "green infrastructure" project of the
Green Project Reserve. Green Infrastructure projects were specifically included in ARRA, not
Section 319 of the CWA.
OIG Response: We agree, and we adjusted the report accordingly.
6. Page 6 of the report states: "Currently, no firm is under contract to complete Phase II of the
project." PENNVEST informed EPA that the Botanic Garden is in the process of procuring
another contractor to complete the project work. PENNVEST indicates that Phase II of the
project will be completed before June 30, 2013.
OIG Response: While we acknowledge this information, we believe that our concern
that no firm is under contract to complete phase II is a valid concern, and we did not
change any text in our report in response to this comment.
Chapter 2
7. Page 8, last paragraph: The report misstates the nature of the non-ARRA mine reclamation
activity being conducted by the Botanic Garden under the contract with Mashuda by
referring to it as "an active coal mine operated by Mashuda" and "operating surface mine."
The reclamation activities are being conducted under a PADEP permit issued under
Subchapter F of the Chapter 87 Mining Regulations which applies to re-mining abandoned
sites that have a pre-existing discharge. This permit was issued with the intent to improve
local water quality. Similarly, a goal of the CWSRF program is to implement projects that
address existing water quality problems. This project meets the eligibility criteria of the
CWSRF program.
OIG Response: We understand Region 3's concern with describing the site as "an
active coal mine" and "operating surface mine." Although these descriptions reflect
what we found during our site visit to the Botanic Garden, we agree that re-mining is
considered reclamation activities. We changed some text throughout our report to
demonstrate that mining is in fact reclamation. However, although addressing existing
water quality problems is a goal of the CWSRF program and is eligible under the
CWSRF program, we maintain that reclamation activities are not what Recovery Act
funding was provided for.
12-R-0321
37
-------
8. Page 9, 1st paragraph: The draft report states that the Office of the Inspector General does
not know when, if ever, the ponds will be completed. The draft report lists three reasons.
The first two bullets will not impact commencement of Phase II construction. It is
contemplated and planned that the ponds will be cleaned out prior to use for irrigation.
Secondly, Mashuda only needs to be finished mining in the area of the irrigation ponds for
Phase II to commence. PENNVEST informed EPA all work associated with the construction
of the ponds is expected to be completed before June 30, 2013. This is six months before
the Commonwealth's grant project period ends. There are safeguards in place to ensure
that PENNVEST is able to require the repayment of funds should the gardens not be
completed.
OIG Response: We disagree with Region 3 that the first two bullets will not impact
phase II construction. Throughout our review, we did not find any information to
indicate that the acid mine discharge infected ponds can feasibly be used for irrigation
before they are treated. Second, although phase II construction can commence when
Mashuda is done mining in the area, the ponds will not be used to irrigate the Botanic
Garden until the entire reclamation activity is complete and the Botanic Garden is
developed. While Region 3 claims that Pennvest has safeguards in place to ensure
project completion, such safeguards were not apparent in our review. Therefore, we did
not change our report text in response to these concerns.
Chapter 3
9. Page 11, first sentence: The report states: "The Botanic Garden is operating a for-profit
surface mining operation through Mashuda that will generate revenue for the Botanic
Garden." As explained above, Mashuda received a permit for "mine reclamation" and is not
an active "mining operation". The revenues generated by the mine reclamation activities
are currently paying for that work. The Botanic Garden has not received any of the
estimated revenue from the mine reclamation activities. It is inappropriate to suggest the
offsetting of actual costs since no revenues are being generated by the Botanic Garden and
since the loan recipient is not subject to program income requirement.
OIG Response: As we described above in our response to comment 7, we have
changed text throughout the report to demonstrate that mining is in fact reclamation.
With regard to the comment on program income, our response to Region 3 states that
we believe that the Botanic Garden is subject to the program income requirement.
12-R-0321
38
-------
Appendix D
Pennvest Response to Draft Report and
OIG Evaluation
October 25, 2011
Mr. John Trefry
USEPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Mail Code: 2421T
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania
ME No. 73167
Dear Mr. Trefry:
This correspondence is in response to the draft Site Visit Report your office forwarded to EPA
Region III dated September 29, 2011 in regard to the Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania
project funded with ARRA money, approved by the PENNVEST Board of Directors in July 2009 as
a principal forgiveness loan, and included in the Intended Use Plan dated July 21, 2009.
Report Chapter 1 - Introduction
Purpose/Background/Botanic Garden of Western PA/Reclamation Efforts - No Comment
Recovery Act Funding for Botanic Garden
The Project Priority List (PPL) only provides a general description of funded water conservation
projects; no reference to mining operations is warranted as the PENNVEST funded project in
question relates to storm water recovery and recycling for irrigation facilities.
As explained by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and
PENNVEST staff during the OIG site investigation, this project meets all priority standards set for
the state by Congress and EPA to approve ARRA projects. These include Readiness to Proceed
(Settlement completed and construction begun prior to February 17, 2009); Job Creation (15
jobs were estimated to be created at the time of approval) and the promotion of "green"
infrastructure projects (the purpose of this project is to store and recycle 2.5 million gallons of
water and reduce the amount of treated water needed for irrigation, tying this project directly
to supporting water conservation and green infrastructure categories). The priority system
used to score this particular project was not a good fit for non-point source projects, but was
12-R-0321
39
-------
used consistently for all projects of this nature in order to help sort out fundable projects for
consideration. All Non-Point Source Green Project Reserve projects that were technically
complete and ready to proceed within the prescribed timeframes were recommended to the
PENNVEST Board for funding.
The final point made in this section makes reference to mining operations. I am informed that
this re-mining operation was evaluated and given a permit under the DEP Chapter 87
Regulations. This permit could not have been issued unless the re-mining actions were intended
to remediate an existing water quality problem caused by former mining. The PENNVEST
funded project is not to re-mine the area; rather it is to construct the water runoff recycling
ponds to be used for irrigation of the Botanical Gardens. Final completion of the facilities and
installation of tankage will take place prior to June 2013 (deadline for use of ARRA funds).
Pond Construction -
The final comment in this section relates to timing of the reclamation project. This schedule is
not directly related to the completion of the recycling ponds funded through the PENNEST
program. Further, we have been informed by the applicant that portions of the Botanic Garden
are already in place, and the expectation is to phase completion of the facility.
Scope and Methodology - No Comment
OIG Response: PA DEP's project criteria resulted in a score of zero points out of 100
for the Botanic Garden project. PA DEP stated that the project criteria they used were
not a good fit for non-point source projects; however, they did not cite this in the
evaluation. In addition to the PA DEP evaluation, the Green Project Reserve Priority
List, dated July 21, 2009, rated the Botanic Garden project as -291 for a
Pennvest/Recovery Act project. The Botanic Garden was the only project with a
negative Recovery Act rating to be approved by PA DEP and Pennvest.
Additionally, we concur that the Pennvest/Recovery Act-funded project is to construct
ponds to be used for irrigation. However, during our site visit to the Botanic Gardens,
we observed that the ponds built with the Pennvest/Recovery Act funds are not
currently being used for irrigation. Instead, they are being used to catch mining runoff.
Nowhere in the funding agreement does it state that the ponds will initially be used for
mining. Therefore, we maintain that the ponds are not being used for their intended
purpose as described in the funding agreement—the official contract that we based our
review on. Additionally, although the planned final completion of the project is prior to
the deadline for the use of Recovery Act funds, there is currently no one under contract
to complete the project, and mining activities are estimated to be finished in 2014.
12-R-0321
40
-------
Report Chapter 2 - Botanic Garden Project Costs Should Be Recovered
The recipient had a choice to make when implementing this project to construct the storm
water collection recycling ponds. One alternative would be to wait until all work on the site had
been completed and then re-enter the site and construct the facilities on the designated site
after all other reclamation work had been performed. The alternative chosen path was to
integrate the construction work with other necessary activities in order to achieve the end result
with less overall construction activity. This will keep costs down. Another benefit is that this
will function as an interim facility to control runoff while the site is being reclaimed and ready to
develop those portions of the Botanic Gardens. Reducing mobilization costs and utilizing these
recycling ponds to expedite the reclamation process is a benefit of the project management
expertise of this not-for-profit entity and adds to the overall cost-effectiveness of this project.
This is not significantly different from a contractor setting up temporary soil and erosion control
facilities for a traditional wastewater treatment facility while under construction, but removed
after the treatment plant has been finished and final grading and seeding has been completed.
The difference here is that the money spent on these recycling ponds will not be wasted, as they
are not to be removed, rather they will be improved to complete the second phase of this effort
and provide for a long-term process to collect and provide water to support the Botanic Garden.
No additional funding is being spent to implement this project in this fashion, the activity is
eligible, the ponds are being used in the interim to control run-off from the site, and they would
have been constructed to the same base level for the long term use in the collection and
recycling activities.
The suggestion that the ponds, as currently constructed, are not being used for the original final
purpose is true. The problem is that this is an incomplete statement. The ponds are in the stage
they are supposed to be at this time, until phase 2 completes the improvements as described in
the approval. As another example, it would be like not allowing the excavation and foundation
work to be part of a treatment plant project because the excavation and foundation do not
provide for treatment of wastewater. In both cases, the completed project will provide for the
facilities to function as designed.
PENNVEST staff has been in contact with the Botanic Garden staff and have an updated
implementation schedule that will provide for the completion of the PENNVEST funded portion
by spring 2013.
OIG Response: The OIG reviewed this project in light of applicable federal regulations
and the funding agreement. The funding agreement is the official contract in which
details of the project are laid out and the document we must use to achieve our objective
of determining whether these funds were used appropriately. We observed during our
site visit and understand that phase II of the project is not yet complete. We do not
believe that our statement that the ponds are not being used for their intended purpose is
incomplete, because the funding agreement does not indicate that the ponds will ever be
12-R-0321
41
-------
used for mining purposes. Even when the project is completed, the ponds would have
been used for mining initially, followed by irrigation. We understand that conducting
the two projects simultaneously benefited the Botanic Garden by keeping costs down;
however, Recovery Act funding was not provided to the Botanic Garden for this reason.
We maintain that Recovery Act funds awarded to the Botanic Garden should be
recovered.
In addition, we maintain our concern that the project may never be completed for the
reasons listed in chapter 2 of our report. Based on our review, Mashuda estimates that
mining reclamation activities will continue for at least 3 more years, meaning the
current sediment ponds will not be ready for conversion to permanent irrigation ponds
until at least 2014. Additionally, after mining is completed, the ponds must be treated
for acid mine discharge before they can be used for irrigation. Finally, as mentioned in
our comment above, no company is under contract to complete phase II of the Recovery
Act-funded project to convert the ponds to permanent irrigation facilities. These issues
support our recommendation that Recovery Act funds should be recovered, as there is
no assurance that the project will be completed as intended.
Report Chapter 3 - Botanic Garden Project Costs Must Be Reduced bv Potential Program
Income
The OIG report is incorrect in their assumption that this project violates Title 2 CFR 215.24
because there is program income. Title 2 CFR Parts 215 and 230 apply to federal grants made
directly to non-profits; they do not apply to the CWSRF and; therefore, do not apply to this
project. The CWSRF grant is to the state, and the loan (not a grant) is made under the CWSRF
by the state to the non-profit organization.
OIG Response: The Botanic Garden's funding agreement with Pennvest contains an
addendum on additional Recovery Act requirements. The addendum states in item 19
that the contractor must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and program
guidance, including Office of Management and Budget Circular A-l 10 on
Administrative Requirements and Circular A-122 on Cost Principles, codified in
2 CFR Part 215 and 2 CFR Part 230, respectively. Pennvest states in its response that
this principle does not apply to the Botanic Garden; however, it is included as a
requirement in the funding agreement Recovery Act addendum. The funding agreement
is a legal and valid document; thus, the requirement applies to the Botanic Garden
project.
12-R-0321
42
-------
Summary -
The site visit report suggests that $1,368,894 be recovered and that no CWSRF funds be used for
the water recovery and conservation activities encompassed by the project.
This recommendation is based upon an incorrect interpretation of the project and the
requirements that follow ARRA and CWSRF funding.
The ultimate goal is to proceed with the installation of the three irrigation ponds to collect, store
and recycle 2.5 million gallons of water to supply the Botanic Gardens irrigation needs. DEP has
told us that proper reclamation of the mine site necessitates re-mining of the site in order to
ensure proper closing and long term remediation. This is necessary to promote the ultimate
use of the site and adequate disposition of water runoff.
The expectation that the IUP and Green Reserve Checklist would include detail as to how a
related, but not directly funded, activity is expected to impact this project is stretching the
process. The IUP lists are to focus on funded projects/activities. Detail on work to prepare the
sites is never included in those descriptions. This work is preliminary and necessary for the
water quality/conservation project to move forward. To install the water recycling and
irrigation ponds prior to this occurring would add costs to the overall project and could be
considered poor construction management. The added benefit to the site and the savings of
project costs by providing the temporary function of collection run off from the site is consistent
with accepted construction practices; reducing the overall project cost and mitigating the level
of surface disturbance and erosion control issues by using the same pond sites to be worked as
the permanent recycling and irrigation facilities. The focus of this project is water providing a
long term irrigation supply for the Botanical Garden currently under construction. This project
addresses those issues in a comprehensive fashion. The fact that the project will also support
the proper closure of the mine is an added benefit that actually facilitates attainment of the
project's fundamental purpose. Most importantly, in our view, this incidental activity does not
add any costs that would otherwise be incurred to achieve the fundamental purpose of this
project.
I also enclose a copy of the project review performed by an independent consulting firm on
contract with the Pennsylvania Office of Budget Comptroller's office. This detailed review
provides additional background regarding the project ownership and scope of work. I would like
to point out a couple of comments made by this consultant on page 2 of their report:
To paraphrase the 3rd Paragraph, they indicate that the final completion of the botanic
attraction is primarily funded through an RACP grant (Commonwealth of PA) already awarded
and that even if that scope of work never occurs, the first two phases can serve as a complete
standalone project, as an environmental problem will have been addressed and long term storm
water management implemented.
12-R-0321
43
-------
I hope this addresses your concerns in regard to you draft report. I urge you to reconsider your
position on this project and support the clean water green initiative being implemented in
Allegheny County.
OIG Response: We understand that the reclamation activities were necessary for the
water quality/conservation project to move forward. We also understand that the IUP
and Green Project Reserve Checklist would perhaps not include all of this information.
However, we remain concerned that the EPA was not notified throughout the
application process that the project would initially be used for mining. We found that
the Region 3 Recovery Act project officer for CWSRF funds did not know that the
Botanic Garden is currently a coal mining reclamation site. Recovery Act funding was
not provided so that the ponds could initially be used for mining reclamation activities,
followed by conversion to permanent irrigation ponds.
We disagree with Pennvest's comments regarding the project review performed by the
Pennsylvania Office of Budget Comptroller's office. Pennvest states that "even if the
[second] scope of work never occurs, the first two phases can serve as a complete
standalone project." This may be true, but the purpose of the Recovery Act-funded
project is to "install three permanent irrigation ponds that will collect, store and recycle
2.5 million gallons of water to supply the garden's future irrigation needs." If the final
phase to convert the land to a Botanic Garden is not completed, the project is not
meeting its intended purpose under the funding agreement. We agree that the project
does address a long-term stormwater management issue, but this issue was not the
purpose of Recovery Act funding.
Sincerely
Paul K. Marchetti
Executive Director
Enclosure
cc: Maggie Cunningham
Veronica Kasi
Jayne Blake
Larry Gasparato
Brion Johnson
12-R-0321
44
-------
Appendix E
PA DEP Response to Draft Report and
OIG Evaluation
^§^2 Pennsylvania
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OFFICE OF WATER MANAGEMENT
October 31, 2011
Mr. John Trefry
US EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Mail Code: 2421T
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Trefry:
I am writing to you in response to the US EPA Office of Inspector General Report,
"American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Site Visit of the Botanic Garden of Western
Pennsylvania."
Funding was provided to the Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania. The Botanic
Garden is a non-profit entity organized to construct a large public botanical garden at an
old abandoned coal mine site. The ARRA funded project is designed to conserve water
and promote innovative use of stormwater control practices.
The three recommendations of concern in the report are:
1. EPA Region 3 Administrator should recover from PENNVEST all American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds awarded to the Botanic Garden of
Western Pennsylvania totaling $1,368,894.
2. EPA Region 3 Administrator should prevent the continued use of Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF) funding for this project.
3. If the full Recovery Act loan amount of $1,368,894 is not recovered, reduce the
project costs to be funded by ARRA by the amount of program income earned by the
12-R-0321
45
-------
Botanic Garden from mining operations and recover the amount earned in program
income.
These recommendations are based on, what I believe to be, a misunderstanding of the
project, its environmental benefits and its fit as a CWSRF project. The report does not
acknowledge the environmental benefits of the project nor does it specifically explain
why the project is ineligible.
Please consider the following:
1. The report mentions the ranking framework for the project and the lack of points for
environmental benefit. What the report does not detail is the explanation of the
framework that my program staff provided to the OIG investigators. ARRA
guidelines required agencies to prioritize funding based on 1) readiness of project to
proceed to construction, 2) potential for job creation, and 3) the promotion of "green"
infrastructure. This project met all three of the criteria.
OIG Response: During our interview with PA DEP's Recovery Act Green Project
evaluator, he stated that he did not know the ponds would be used for mining purposes
when he evaluated the project. For a comprehensive, effective evaluation to have taken
place, such information should have been made known.
2. This project is designed to both conserve water and promote innovative use of
stormwater management practices, both of which are criteria for "green"
infrastructure. The scoring framework in place when this project was scored is
designed for conventional stormwater projects, and did not give the environmental
benefits of this project enough credit. PADEP has since revised our ranking
framework for nonpoint source projects such as this, where a more accurate
representation of the environmental and water quality benefits of this project can be
made. Using this revised ranking framework, this project would have scored
extremely high.
OIG Response: The Green Project criteria evaluation resulted in the project being rated
at zero points out of 100. If the criteria that resulted in the zero-point rating were not
applicable, they should not have been used for the evaluation. In addition, the project
received a -291 rating in Pennvest's Green Project Reserve Recovery Act evaluation.
With these rankings, the OIG fails to see how this project would be a priority for
Recovery Act funding.
3. In addition to the surface stormwater runoff from the abandoned mine sites, there is
an existing water quality problem at the site due to acid mine drainage from
underground mining in the area. Robinson Run and Chartiers Creek, streams that run
through the area, are both listed as impaired in Pennsylvania's Integrated Water
Quality and Assessment Report due to acid mine drainage. The current mining
activities referenced in the OIG report are designed to remediate this impairment.
These activities are being conducted pursuant to a permit issued by DEP under
12-R-0321
46
-------
Subchapter F of the Chapter 87 Mining Regulations. This subchapter applies to re-
mining sites with a pre-existing mining discharge where the outcome of the project
will be an improvement in local water quality. One of the goals of the CWSRF
program is to implement projects that address an existing water quality problem. This
project meets these eligibility criteria.
OIG Response: We agree that one of the goals of the CWSRF program is to implement
projects that address an existing water quality problem. However, Recovery Act funds
were not provided to the Botanic Garden for this purpose. Had the funding agreement
included in the project scope remining activities to address an existing water quality
problem, then it would have accurately reflected the intended purpose of the project,
and we would not have questioned it. The funding agreement does not, however,
include this information.
4. The report describes a significant amount of confusion between the loan application
submitted by the Horticultural Society, the final loan agreement, the project
description, and the Intended Use Plan submitted to EPA, Region 3. ARRA
guidelines required agencies to prioritize funding based on 1) readiness of the project
to proceed to construction, 2) potential for job creation, and 3) the promotion of
"green" infrastructure.
In preparing the documents listed in the report the applicant, my program staff and
PENNVEST staff focused on the "green infrastructure" characteristics of this project
and the fact that the project was designed and ready to go to construction. We
believed that the conversion of these sediment ponds into permanent structures to
capture stormwater for re-use as irrigation water for the botanic gardens fit three of
the four categories of EPA criteria for "green infrastructure" in a very consistent
manner (water conservation, green infrastructure designed to manage and re-use
stormwater and environmentally innovative). The fact that the applicants were also
involved in the "remediating of the site from past mining activities" simply did not
come up as part of our focus at the time the project reports were prepared for EPA.
These re-mining activities are interpreted as a further benefit to the project and an
indication of the level of commitment on the part of the applicant to complete the
project as described.
OIG Response: We believe that Pennvest should have informed Region 3 that the
ponds would initially be used as sediment ponds. There are numerous disparities
between the project description in the initial Botanic Garden application and the final
funding agreement. These disparities concern us considering the many factors that
influence whether the project will be completed. If the project is not completed, then
Recovery Act funding was provided to build sedimentation ponds that will never be
used for irrigation purposes. As stated above, had remaining activities been included as
an intended purpose of the project in the funding agreement, the funding agreement
would have accurately reflected the intended purpose of the project. However, the
funding agreement, which is the official document we must base our review on, does
not include this information.
12-R-0321
47
-------
5. The report mentions a change order for $30,000. DEP is uncertain as to why this
change order has been mentioned in this report. The change order was issued in order
to stay in compliance with the CWSRF program. The program requires that all
contracts funded with CWSRF funds must be awarded through a competitive bid
process. Since the two stormwater management facilities were going to be
constructed as part of the project funded by PENNVEST, they could no longer be
constructed under a pre-existing contract the Botanic Garden of Western
Pennsylvania had with Mashuda Corporation. Thus the reduction in monies to
Mashuda Corporation.
OIG Response: The Mashuda change order was included in our report to show that
sedimentation ponds were to be constructed and installed as a part of Mashuda's mining
contract. By issuing a change order and reducing the cost of Mashuda's contract, the
Botanic Garden reduced the overall cost of reclamation and thereby increased the profit
it will make from the sale of coal extracted from the site. We believe this is important
information for our report.
6. Most projects funded by the CWSRF are done in multiple phases and can take several
years to complete. Simply because of the nature of the projects constructed, there can
be significant delays for any number of reasons, Therefore, to require an applicant to
return program funds because the original intent of the project is not completely
achieved in the first phase of the project or because the project is behind schedule is
not practical. By requiring the implementation of the first two recommendations in
this report, EPA would be setting a precedent that will significantly impair the ability,
of many states, to implement this program in the future. Both phases of this project
need to be completed in order to achieve the project goals. There are enough
safeguards in place to ensure that PENNVEST will be able to require the repayment
of funds should that become necessary.
OIG Response: Even if all phases of the project are completed, the intended purpose of
the project remains different from what was stipulated in the funding agreement. The
ponds are initially being used for mining reclamation purposes, which is not included in
the funding agreement.
7. The third recommendation is based on Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Parts 215 and 230. This rule applies to federal grants made directly to non-profits.
This is not the case here. The CWSRF grant is to the state, and the loan (not a grant)
is to the non-profit organization through the CWSRF, not directly from the federal
government. Therefore, this regulation does not apply to the CWSRF. In fact, there
is no federal regulation related to the CWSRF that applies to the generation of profits
by a loan recipient such as the Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania.
OIG Response: The Botanic Garden's funding agreement with Pennvest contains an
addendum on Recovery Act requirements. The addendum states in item 19 that the
contractor must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and program guidance,
including Office of Management and Budget Circular A-l 10 on Administrative
Requirements and Circular A-122 on Cost Principles, codified in 2 CFR Part 215 and
12-R-0321
48
-------
2 CFR Part 230, respectively. PA DEP states in its response that this principle does not
apply to the Botanic Garden; however, it is included as a requirement in the funding
agreement Recovery Act addendum. As long as the funding agreement is legal and
valid, this requirement applies to the Botanic Garden project.
In conclusion, I strongly encourage you to revisit the report and eliminate these three
recommendations. Implementation of these recommendations will have a serious
detrimental effect on the future implementation of the CWSRF program in Pennsylvania.
If you have any questions or concerns about these comments, please contact Veronica
Kasi by e-mail at vbkasi@pa.gov or by telephone at 717.772.4053.
Sincerely,
Kelly J. Heffner
Deputy Secretary
cc: Jean Bloom, US EPA, OIG
Maggie Cunningham, EPA Region 3
Paul Marchetti, Executive Director, PENNVEST
Veronica Kasi, PA DEP
12-R-0321
49
-------
Appendix F
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 3
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Director, Grants and Interagency Agreements Management Division,
Office of Administration and Resources Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 3
Public Affairs Officer, Region 3
Director, Water Protection Division, Region 3
Chief, Grants and Audit Management Branch, Region 3
Deputy Executive Director, Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority
President, Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania
Chief, Division of Technical and Financial Assistance, Bureau of Water Standards and
Facility Regulation, Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection
12-R-0321
50
------- |