$
<
73
\
Ml
r
ppo^
O
2
Lll
O
T
A?
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Audit Report
Number of and Cost to Award and
Manage EPA Earmark Grants, and the
Grants' Impact on the Agency's Mission
Report No. 2007-P-00024
May 22, 2007

-------
Report Contributors: Alfred Falciani
Randy Holthaus
Kevin Lawrence
Matthew Simber
Khadija Walker
Abbreviations
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPM	Environmental Programs and Management (appropriation account)
FTE	Full-Time Equivalency
OIG	Office of Inspector General
S&T	Science and Technology (appropriation account)
STAG	State and Tribal Assistance Grants (appropriation account)

-------
tf£D sr^
/ \ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	2007-P-00024
?	^	Hffiro nf Incnortnr Perioral	May 22, 2007
0*	U ¦ O • L. I I V11 Ul IIIICI I Lul a I UlCvll
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
PRO"*^
Why We Did This Review
Based on a congressional
request, we reviewed
congressional earmark grants
awarded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Specifically,
the requestor asked us to
determine the total number
and dollar amount of earmark
grants, including EPA's
associated costs. The
requestor also asked us to
determine what impact
earmarks had on advancing
EPA's mission and goals.
Background
For this report, we define a
congressional earmark as a
numbered line item within a
House Conference Report
specifying a dollar amount,
recipient, and a particular
project. Since 2003, earmarks
have represented about 4 to 6
percent of EPA's annual
budget. While EPA awards
the majority of earmark grants
to States and local
governments, it also awards
earmark grants to universities
and non-profit organizations.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Number of and Cost to Award and Manage
EPA Earmark Grants, and the Grants' Impact on
the Agency's Mission
What We Found
Between January 1, 2005, and March 31, 2006, EPA awarded 444 earmark grants
totaling $454 million. Those earmarks accounted for about 13 percent of the grant
dollars EPA awarded. During this same time, EPA spent about $4.9 million to
award and manage the 444 earmark grants.
Our review of work plans for 86 earmark grants found that 82 were for projects
aimed at contributing to EPA's Strategic Plan mission and goals. Thus, we
considered them to be helping to advance EPA's mission and goals. Grant work
plans for the other four grants did not demonstrate how the projects would
promote EPA goals:
•	A non-profit organization used about half its grant funds to purchase
computers for a high school and support student trips between the
United States and U.S. Virgin Islands.
•	A university studied noise levels from parked, idling trains.
•	A local government did not identify how two of the earmark grants were
going to achieve the objectives stated in the work plans or how the
projects would impact the environment.
We are not making any recommendations in this report.
In responding to the draft report, EPA noted that the Office of Inspector General
found that most earmarks have the potential to contribute to EPA's mission.
Further, EPA believes that two of the four earmark grants we questioned (for the
non-profit and the university) contributed to the Agency's mission. In comparing
the work plans to the Agency's goals, we did not agree that the earmark grants
contributed to the Agency's mission. EPA is conducting a compliance review of
one of the grants to ensure funds were not used for unallowable activities. For the
two grants to the local government, EPA is working with the recipient to revise the
work plans.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2007/
20070522-2007-P-00024.pdf

-------
$ A \
\ Wi
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
May 22, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Number of and Cost to Award and Manage EPA Earmark Grants,
and the Grants' Impact on the Agency's Mission
Report No. 2007-P-00024
TO:
Luis Luna
Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Management
This is our report on the number and cost of congressional earmark grants, and whether such
grants advance the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) mission and goals. This
report contains our analysis and conclusions related to 86 earmark grants that we reviewed.
This report represents the opinion of the Office of Inspector General and does not necessarily
represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by
EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $283,509.
Action Required
Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to respond to this report.
We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be
available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 566-0847
or roderick.bill@epa.gov; or Janet Kasper, Director, Assistance Agreement Audits, at
312-886-3059 or kasper.ianet@epa.gov.
Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General

-------
Number of and Cost to Award and Manage EPA Earmark Grants,
and the Grants' Impact on the Agency's Mission
Table of C
Purpose		1
Background		1
Scope and Methodology		1
Number of Earmarks and Associated Costs to Award and Manage		2
Impact Earmarks Had on Advancing EPA's Mission and Goals		2
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		6
Appendices
A Details on Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage		7
B STAG Earmark Grants Reviewed		10
C EPM and S&T Earmark Grants Reviewed 		12
D Agency Response 		14
E Distribution 		16

-------
Purpose
In August 2006, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma requested that the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) review congressional earmark grants awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Specifically, he asked that we:
1.	Determine the total number of earmarks and EPA's associated costs to award and
manage such grants.
2.	Assess the impact that earmarks had on advancing EPA's mission and goals.
Background
For the purpose of this report, we define a congressional earmark as a numbered line item within
a House Conference Report typically specifying a dollar amount, recipient, and project. Agency
policy (Grants Policy Issuance 03-01) states: "EPA will generally honor directions to make
assistance awards for earmarks if it has the statutory authority to award the financial assistance."
EPA requires earmark recipients to meet all Federal grant requirements. EPA awards most of its
earmark projects as grants or cooperative agreements. In this report, we refer to both grants and
cooperative agreements as grants.
Earmark projects are identified in the House Conference Report on an annual basis. Congress
includes these earmark awards under the following three appropriation accounts:
•	Environmental Programs and Management (EPM): For projects under various
media - air, water, land, etc.
•	Science and Technology (S&T): Primarily relating to research and development
projects.
•	State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG): Primarily for water infrastructure
projects or their technical oversight.
Before awarding a grant to an earmark recipient, EPA requires grant applicants to complete an
Application for Federal Assistance. In this application, recipients must submit a statement of
work or work plan. EPA requires that work plans describe the proposed project and the project's
intended environmental results.
Since 2003, earmarks have represented between 3.8 and 6.4 percent of EPA's annual budget.
While EPA awards the majority of earmarks to States and local governments, it also awards
earmarks to universities and non-profit organizations.
Scope and Methodology
We performed our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States. We conducted our audit work from October 2006 to
February 2007. We gathered information from EPA Headquarters and all 10 EPA regions. We
reviewed the work plans for 86 earmark grants EPA awarded from January 1, 2005, to March 31,
1

-------
2006. We also spoke with the grant project officers when work plans appeared to have
questionable links to EPA's Strategic Plan. See Appendix A for further details on the audit
scope and methodology, including prior audit coverage.
Number of Earmarks and Associated Costs to Award and Manage
Between January 1, 2005, and March 31, 2006, EPA awarded 444 earmark grants totaling
$454 million. We estimated EPA's cost to award and manage the 444 earmark grants to be
$4.9 million (see Table 1). This estimate includes salaries and overhead costs for project officers
and grant specialists, salaries for non-grants management staff that track and assist with the
earmark awards, and costs to maintain a database. EPA awarded 3,995 new and continuing
grants, totaling $3.5 billion, within our review period. The cost to award and manage all EPA
grants totaled $100.3 million.1 Appendix A provides details on how we developed the estimates.
Table 1. EPA's Cost to Award and Manage Earmarks
Cost Category
Dollar Amount
Cost of salaries and overhead for project officers and grants
specialists to award and manage the 444 earmarks from
January 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006
$4,342,331
Regional Offices of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations costs to track and assist with awarding earmark grants
390,094
Office of the Chief Financial Officer costs to track and assist with
awarding earmark grants
115,746
Headquarters Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations costs to track and assist with awarding earmark grants
38,475
Contractual costs for the Stakeholder Database
25,000
Total EPA Cost to Award and Manage Earmarks
$4,911,646
Source: OIG calculations based on EPA workforce and budget models.
We did not include in this cost estimate the funding EPA and Congress agreed would be set aside
for STAG earmark grants management and oversight. EPA awards the set-aside amount to
States or the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to oversee the technical aspects and progress of water
infrastructure projects. EPA does not use this funding, and the technical oversight the State and
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers perform is in addition to EPA's management of these grants.
Impact Earmarks Had on Advancing EPA's Mission and Goals
We reviewed 86 grants; 38 were EPM and S&T earmarks, while the remaining 48 were STAG
earmarks. Most earmark projects have the potential to contribute to EPA's mission, but 4 of 86
we reviewed did not. The grant work plans for these four grants did not demonstrate how the
projects would promote EPA goals. These four were under the EPM and S&T accounts.
1 The $4.9 million does not include costs to manage active earmarks awarded prior to January 1, 2005, but the cost
is included in the $100.3 million. Information needed to calculate the cost to manage all active earmarks from
January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006, was not readily available in EPA systems.
2

-------
STAG Earmark Grants Contributed to EPA's Mission
Of the 444 earmark grants EPA awarded, the remaining 369 grants, totaling
$377.4 million, were included under the STAG appropriation account. We reviewed a
random sample of 48 STAG grants, totaling $87.7 million. We found that all 48 grants
showed the potential to contribute to EPA's mission and goals (see Appendix B). The
majority of these earmarks funded wastewater infrastructure expansion or improvements
in local communities across the country. For example, one earmark project proposed to
construct a new sanitary sewer system that would substantially reduce contaminants from
seeping into the ground water and thus improve the community's water quality. Another
project was to build a new wastewater treatment plan, thus improving the community's
ability to treat wastewater and eliminate failed septic systems.
Work Plans Did Not Demonstrate How the Projects Would Promote
EPA Goals for Four EPM and S&T Earmarks
Of the 444 earmark grants EPA awarded, 75, totaling $76.7 million, were included under
the EPM and S&T accounts. We reviewed a random sample of 38 earmark grants
totaling $30.5 million (see Appendix C). Most of these earmark grants proposed projects
to conduct environmental studies, perform research, and provide outreach and education.
We concluded that 34 of these demonstrated the potential to contribute to EPA's mission
and goals. For example, an earmark project to the State of Alaska, funded at nearly
$1 million, proposed to study the level of mercury and other toxins in fish in selected
Alaskan communities to determine potential human health risk. The grant work plans for
the other four grants did not demonstrate how the project would promote EPA goals.
Details on these four grants follow.
Caribbean American Mission for Education, Research and Action, Inc.
EPA awarded an earmark grant in 2005 to the Caribbean American Mission for
Education, Research and Action, Inc., for $497,050. The Fiscal Year 2004 House
Conference Report provided funding to this recipient "in support of their youth
environmental stewardship and education program." The work plan proposed a
project to provide education and promote environmental stewardship to high
school students in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The
grant was amended in 2006 to provide an additional $694,400 for similar
activities.
While environmental stewardship is part of EPA's mission, we determined after
reviewing the work plan and proposed budget that 52 percent of the project's cost
was for travel - for Philadelphia high school students to go to the U.S. Virgin
Islands and for U.S. Virgin Islands students to travel to Philadelphia ($356,012) -
and to purchase computers and distance learning equipment ($261,590).
According to the trip agendas, the U.S. students were to take an eco-kayak tour,
attend a lecture, and visit an environmentally-designed camp while in the Virgin
Islands. The Virgin Islands students were to participate in service learning
projects and tour a watershed education center in Philadelphia. The U.S. students
3

-------
also visited Coral World Ocean Park and resort locations, while both groups took
shopping trips. Less than half the time was spent on environmental-related
activities. The recipient's justification for purchasing 128 computers, servers, and
associated hardware and software was that it would enhance the technical skills of
the students, enhance the technology available to each school, and expand the
students' world view and educational experiences. While the students used the
computers in learning about environmental issues, they met general educational
needs that are not part of EPA's mission.
In responding to the draft report, EPA stated that the work plan for the Caribbean
American Mission grant was explicit that the purpose of the project was to
provide students with an opportunity to increase their knowledge about the
environment with a special emphasis on an understanding of the ecological
system in urban areas and in the Caribbean. EPA disagreed with the report's
suggestion that EPA included substantial funding in the approved work plan for
student travel between Philadelphia and the U.S. Virgin Islands, student visits to
amusement parks and resort locations and student shopping trips. Region 3 is in
the process of conducting a compliance review of the project. If the review finds
that grant funds were used for travel involving amusement parks, resort locations,
or shopping trips, the Region will seek recovery of the funds.
We agree that certain portions of the work plan indicated that the grant would
develop an understanding in students of the importance of caring for the
environment locally and globally, as EPA stated in it response. However, the
work plan identified the exchange field trips as a centerpiece of the program and a
substantial amount (30 percent) of the grant budget. A majority of the costs were
to fund travel and computers where the primary focus was not environmental
education and stewardship. Region 3 is taking appropriate action in conducting a
compliance review of the grant.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
EPA awarded an earmark grant to Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
for $299,907. The Fiscal Year 2004 House Conference Report said the project
was: "to conduct a study of environmental noise from interstate freight railroad
operations in Teaneck, New Jersey." The project was to study and evaluate the
impact of noise of parked, idling freight trains on the local community. The
recipient was to measure sound levels inside and outside homes and identify
strategies to reduce noise levels. However, EPA's Strategic Plan does not include
measuring or studying noise pollution. EPA phased out funding of the noise
pollution program in 1982.
In response to the draft report, EPA stated that the Rutgers grant supported the
goal to help communities address specific local environmental concerns. EPA
acknowledged that the Agency no longer explicitly includes noise among the
goals and objectives of the Agency's Strategic Plan, and that EPA no longer has a
4

-------
noise regulatory program. However, the Office of Air and Radiation believes that
the type of community support provided under this grant to a community in New
Jersey supports EPA's Goal 4, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, Sub-
objective 4.2: Communities. EPA stated that this sub-objective focuses on EPA
activities that will help communities sustain or restore community health by
addressing community-specific environmental concerns.
We agree that the grant may be beneficial in addressing the community-based
issue of noise pollution, but the work plan does not demonstrate how it will
promote the Agency's goals of protecting air, water, and land.
City of New Bedford, Massachusetts
EPA awarded two earmark grants to the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts, for
a total of $497,100. The Fiscal Year 2004 House Conference Report provided
funding for this recipient for "environmental education and science programs."
One project proposed to encourage students to pursue environmental careers and
train the local community for environmental jobs. The second project proposed to
construct and equip a computer lab to enhance a marine science learning center.
However, neither work plan identified outcomes or activities that would be
performed to achieve the objectives. EPA awarded the grants in September 2005,
but as of March 2007 the recipient had not spent any of the approved funds for
either project.
EPA is working with the City to improve the quality of the work plans. EPA
advised us that the City submitted new work plans for the grant in April 2007.
For one grant, the City plans to establish a task force to identify areas under which
it can train citizens in environmental careers. The work plan did not identify
specific environmental problems the grant would address. The second grant
would establish and implement a marine science education program in the New
Bedford Public Schools. As of May 10, 2007, EPA was in the process of
reviewing the work plans.
5

-------
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
No recommendations
1 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
6

-------
Appendix A
Details on Scope, Methodology,
and Prior Audit Coverage
Scope and Methodology
We performed our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by
the Comptroller General of the United States. We gathered information from EPA
Headquarters and all 10 EPA regions. We interviewed EPA Headquarters managers and
staff within the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Environmental
Information, Office of Water, and Office of Research and Development.
We reviewed earmark grants awarded from January 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006.
We chose this period so that we could review work plans subject to EPA's Environmental
Results Order that became effective January 1, 2005. We asked EPA for a list of all
grants awarded within the time period, and a separate list of all earmark grants awarded
within the period. EPA awarded 3,995 assistance agreements in the time period,
including 444 earmark grants.
To review management controls regarding the applicability of grant work plans to EPA's
mission, we reviewed Funding Recommendations and Decision Memoranda to ensure
that project officers complied with the Environmental Results Order and that they
provided a link for each project to EPA's mission and goals.
Audit Objective 1
To determine the cost to award earmarks, we used the models from an EPA-contracted
study, Management of Assistance Agreements at the Environmental Protection Agency,
issued April 2005. We did this to estimate the full-time equivalency (FTE) of project
officers and grants specialists within the time period we examined (see Table 2). We
reviewed the study and its methodology for estimating grants management work force
efforts and used the same methodology because we considered it sound.
Table 2. Workforce Model Results for FTE Estimates

January 1,2005 to
October 1, 2005

September 30, 2005
to March 31, 2006
Project Officer FTE Estimate (earmarks)
20.85
11.50
Grants Specialist FTE Estimate (earmarks)
4.83
3.45
Total FTEs for Earmark Grants
25.68
14.95
Source: OIG calculations based upon EPA grants management workforce models.
We estimated the costs to award and manage the 444 earmark grants to be $4.9 million
based on a formula EPA used to develop its budget in accordance with Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-l 1. EPA used the formula to calculate the total cost
7

-------
of its project officers and grants specialists. The formula took the FTE level, multiplied it
by $85,500 (as a median salary), added 25 percent for overhead, and added other
associated costs. We developed our estimate by taking 75 percent (for the 9 months
reviewed) of Fiscal Year 2005 and adding in 50 percent (for the 6 months reviewed) of
the Fiscal Year 2006 amounts. To calculate EPA's costs to award and manage all grants
within our review period, we took the amounts from EPA's A-l 1 Report and added
75 percent of EPA's Fiscal Year 2005 costs and 50 percent of the Fiscal Year 2006 costs,
for a total of $100.3 million.
We also determined the cost of EPA staff who work with earmarks other than project
officers and grants specialists plus the cost of information technology systems to be
$569,315. Staff in EPA Headquarters and regional Offices of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations gave us time estimates for their work on earmarks and the
amount EPA expended to maintain its Stakeholder Database. EPA uses this database to
track earmark grants and it allows EPA financial and congressional relations staff to
monitor earmark grants from appropriation to award. By adding the $569,315 to the
$4,342,331, the total cost to award and manage earmarks in our review period was
$4,911,646.
Audit Objective 2
To assess the impact of earmarks on EPA's mission, we reviewed the work plans for
86 earmark grants. Congress included the population of earmarks within three
appropriation accounts - EPM, S&T, and STAG. Since 369 of the 444 earmarks were
appropriated under the STAG account, we were concerned that any reasonable sample of
the whole would not include earmarks from the EPM and S&T groups. To ensure that
EPM and S&T earmark grants would be reviewed, we selected a random sample of 38
from the EPM and S&T accounts and a separate random sample of 48 from the STAG
account. Lists of the earmark grants included in each sample are in Appendices B and C.
For each sample, we compared the work plans to the goals, objectives, and sub-objectives
EPA presented in its Fiscal Year 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. In some cases, we referred to
EPA's stated strategies within the text of the Strategic Plan pertaining to particular
objectives. In instances where the earmark grant work plans did not appear to have a link
to EPA's Strategic Plan, we spoke with the grant project officers to verify our
understanding of the project.
We extracted award documents and funding recommendations from EPA's Integrated
Grants Management System. The information we obtained from these electronic forms
was limited to recipient names, award amounts, project descriptions, and links to EPA's
strategic goals and objectives. We did not test the controls over the Integrated Grants
Management System to ensure its validity and reliability, as the information it contained
was not significant to our conclusions under either objective.
8

-------
Prior Audit Coverage
On September 30, 1996, OIG reported on EPA's management of earmark grants in
Report No. E1FBE4-04-0261-6100313, Capping Report on Audits of Congressionally
Earmarked Assistance to Selected Universities. The report noted problems with EPA
assistance agreement management, such as oversight not being a high priority and project
officers having minimal involvement in managing grants. This led to $5 million in
questioned costs.
On September 26, 2006, we issued Report No. 2006-P-00037, EPA Needs to Emphasize
Management of Earmark Grants. This report summarized what we had noted in reports
regarding earmark grants since 1996. We reported that EPA had not managed earmark
grants in accordance with Agency policy and regulations. Some EPA employees and
recipients believed that since earmark grants had already been approved by Congress, the
Agency had limited control over them. Although EPA policies require that earmarks be
managed the same as any other assistance agreement, we found incomplete grant work
plans, improper accounting and financial procedures, noncompliance with grant terms
and conditions, noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations, and conflicts of
interest. In response to the report, EPA issued a memorandum in November 2006 to
Agency Senior Resource Officials reiterating existing policy and indicating the need to
coordinate with the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations and the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer on earmark issues. The Office of Grants and
Debarment also plans to refer to the memorandum in its Basic Project Officer Training
course.
9

-------
Appendix B
STAG Earmark Grants Reviewed
Grant
Number
Recipient
Short Description
Total
Project
Budget
EPA
Contribution
Earmark Grants That Contributed to EPA's Strategic Plan Mission and Goals (48)
97145601
City of Bristol Water
Department
Install an emergency bypass pipe which serves a
water filtration plant
$870,000
$288,700
97144101
City of Meriden
Assess soil and groundwater contamination and
develop a remedial action plan for property
re-development
262,394
144,300
97122301
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
Provide oversight and support to four
New England municipalities in implementing
wastewater infrastructure projects
31,300
31,300
97144401
Rhode Island Department of
Health
Provide oversight and support to three Rhode
Island municipalities in implementing drinking
water infrastructure projects
41,634
41,634
97142901
Town of Warren
Implement repairs on sanitary sewer system
847,727
481,100
97272805
Bayonne Municipal Utilities
Authority
Plan and construct a water main
2,186,909
1,202,800
98286701
City of Dunkirk
Improve the capacity of a wastewater treatment
plant
701,273
385,700
98255005
New York State
Department of
Environmental Conservation
Provide oversight and support of various
watershed remediation and protection activities
such as water inspections, sampling, and Total
Maximum Daily Load development
7,698,000
3,849,000
97270905
Orange County Water
Authority
Design and construct a wastewater disposal
system
524,909
288,700
97278505
Town of Blooming Grove
Construct a wastewater treatment plant
437,455
240,600
98286504
Town of Floyd
Perform preliminary design and engineering of a
drinking water system
394,182
216,800
98286601
Town of Grand Island
Construct a wastewater transmission line to route
wastewater from failing subsurface disposal
systems to an existing treatment plant
438,364
241,100
97272505
Township of Parsippany-
Troy Hills
Improve existing drinking water and wastewater
pumping stations and construct a new drinking
water pumping station and transport system
2,624,182
1,443,300
97318201
Laporte Borough
Replace a water distribution line
543,000
144,600
97317501
Summit Township Sewer
Authority
Replace a leaking sanitary sewer system
438,364
241,100
97321401
Town of Cheltenham
Perform improvements on sewer lines
350,727
192,900
96419806
Chesterfield County Rural
Water Company, Inc.
Construct a drinking water transmission system
3,373,937
289,300
96419505
City of Camden
Construct a drinking water storage tank and
transmission
496,400
96,400
96422405
City of Owenton
Construct a drinking water intake structure
736,890
387,160
96444106
Knott County Fiscal Court
Construct a water treatment plant
6,120,500
1,900,500
96424605
Orange County Utilities
Department
Construct a new sanitary sewer system
5,070,240
723,000
96425905
Town of Jackson
Design and construct a new community drinking
water well and chemical treatment facility
308,500
164,800
96579101
City of Delphos
Design and construct a river intake and pump
station
14,536,000
3,132,100
96570301
Indiana State Budget Agency
Provide oversight and support in implementing
wastewater infrastructure projects
362,350
362,350
96503301
Lake County Stormwater
Management Commission
Install a wetland and prairie buffer; create a water
quality treatment wetland; and restore and
stabilize a stormwater drain
1,016,100
482,100
96570401
Village of Beach City, Ohio
Upgrade wastewater treatment plant to increase
capacity and effectiveness
3,823,400
1,451,800
10

-------
Grant
Number
Recipient
Short Description
Total
Project
Budget
EPA
Contribution
96579501
Village of East Hazel Crest
Construct a water pump station and ground
reservoir
$1,068,300
$288,600
96572301
Village of Haskins
Construct a wastewater treatment plant
2,691,800
289,300
96575801
Village of Libson, Illinois
Plan and design improvements to a current
wastewater collection and treatment system
78,535
43,195
96568601
Village of Somerset, Ohio
Remodel and expand an existing wastewater
treatment plant
2,700,000
482,100
96613801
Bernalillo County,
New Mexico
Construct a drinking water and wastewater
system
349,819
192,400
96600001
City of Alvin
Construct new water lines
262,364
144,300
97690201
City of Fayetteville
Repair a sanitary sewer system
1,928,182
1,060,500
97690301
City of Lawton
Construct water lines and conduct other system
improvements
2,629,819
1,446,400
96615601
North American Development
Bank
Plan and construct water and wastewater
infrastructure projects on US/Mexico border
1,000,000
1,000,000
97699101
State of Louisiana Military
Department
Construct wastewater treatment plant; upgrade
pump station; and increase holding capacity
1,746,400
960,500
97691101
Texas Engineering Extension
Service
Facilitate training for personnel who build,
operate, manage, and direct water and
wastewater systems in the US/Mexico border
region
784,816
745,575
98759501
City of Branson West
Upgrade the wastewater treatment facility to
reduce pollution discharges
430,910
237,000
97830001
City of Helena
Upgrade a water treatment plant
2,279,273
1,253,600
96937601
City of Brea
Replace a sewer main
583,000
192,400
96939101
City of Carson City
Establish baseline and background water quality
conditions and document future conditions
resulting from controlling the discharges from a
reservoir and resulting springs.
349,818
192,400
96942401
County of Hawaii
Design and construct improvements to two
wastewater systems
3,600,000
1,364,250
96951901
Cutler Public Utility District
Improve capacity of a wastewater treatment plant
3,879,800
967,900
97072901
City of Palmer
Construct new water distribution mains
2,838,545
1,561,200
96021801
City of Roslyn
Construct a new sewer line and pump station
2,050,000
433,700
96002801
City of Wilsonville
Implement and measure the effectiveness of
demonstration projects designed to reduce
stormwater runoff
355,900
192,900
96000501
Fairbanks North Star
Borough
Connect landfill to a municipal sewer lift station
1,453,658
404,520
96017401
Wahkiakum County
Expand a drinking water system
1,846,700
1,455,000
Total for All Sampled STAG Grants	$87,690,576 $33,330,884
Source: Grant numbers, recipient names, and funding amounts were obtained from EPA's Integrated Grants Management
System. The project descriptions were developed by OIG based on our work plan reviews.
11

-------
Appendix C
EPM and S&T Earmark Grants Reviewed
Grant
Number
Recipient
Short Description
Total
Project EPA
Budget Contribution
Earmark Grants That Did Not Contribute to EPA's Strategic Plan Mission and Goals (4)
97133501
City of New Bedford
Encourage students to pursue environmental
careers and train the local community for
environmental jobs.
$250,000
$250,000
97131301
City of New Bedford
Construct and equip a computer lab to enhance
a marine science learning center.
347,100
247,100
97318801
Caribbean American Mission
for Education, Research and
Action, Inc.
Conduct environmental education for high school
students in Philadelphia and the Virgin Islands.
497,050
497,050
83245701
State of New Jersey, Rutgers
University
Evaluate the noise impact on a local community
of parked, idling freight trains
299,907
299,907
Earmark Grants That Contributed to EPA's Strategic Plan Mission and Goals (34)
83276901
University of Vermont State
and Agricultural College
Evaluate the consequences on forest health
resulting from acid rain
$198,400
$198,400
83231701
Houston Advanced Research
Center
Conduct research on air quality problems in
Texas
969,300
969,300
83275501
Montana Physical Sciences
Foundation
Conduct research on the use of waste grease to
produce biodegradable products
770,500
770,500
83269001
Syracuse University
Conduct research to produce environmentally
friendly indoor air systems that reduce human
exposure to contaminants
3,568,476
3,568,476
83245401
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
Determine methods to eliminate the use of
solvents and water in lithography (a method of
printing)
678,600
678,600
83234501
University of Vermont State
and Agricultural College
Develop a digital database of riparian (land near
water) zones throughout Vermont to assist with
ecosystem protection
97,000
97,000
83259101
Board of Trustees of
University of Illinois
Increase capacity of small drinking water
systems through research and outreach
496,000
496,000
83264201
Water Environment
Federation
Provide training and technical assistance for
wastewater treatment agencies to help
implement environmental management systems
1,065,000
972,200
83256101
Water Systems Council
Conduct research and outreach concerning
groundwater protection and allocation on small
private and shared wells
992,000
992,000
97146501
City of Warwick
Study the feasibility of constructing a wastewater
system that reduces the level of nitrogen loads
248,000
248,000
97123101
Northeast Waste
Management Officials
Association
Assist States in prioritizing, managing, and
improving stewardship of solid waste programs
198,400
198,400
99252810
Cayuga County Soil and
Water Conservation District
Implement best management practices to
improve water quality (2005-2006)
781,189
744,000
99252809
Cayuga County Soil and
Water Conservation District
Implement best management practices to control
non-point source pollution and improve water
quality (2004-2005)
783,100
745,600
97281200
Central New York Regional
Planning and Development
Board
Conduct public outreach to reduce non-point
source pollution in the Oneida Lake watershed
248,000
248,000
99250908
Cortland County Soil and
Water Conservation District
Conduct projects and provide outreach to reduce
nutrients and sediment in watersheds
745,600
745,600
97291801
LaGuardia Community
College
Increase asthma education and environmental
interventions to reduce and prevent asthma
triggers in the home
248,500
248,500
12

-------



Total

Grant
Number
Recipient
Short Description
Project
Budget
EPA
Contribution
97279005
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Develop a Smart Growth interactive mapping
program to identify environmentally optimal
areas to develop
$99,400
$99,400
99253110
Onondaga County Soil and
Water Conservation District
Implement best management practices to reduce
non-point source pollution
783,158
744,000
97279801
Trustees of Columbia
University
Conduct research related to environmental
cancer causing pollution
198,800
198,800
97311201
Jastech Development
Services Inc.
Establish a training assisted pollution prevention
and conservation program
248,500
248,500
97321201
Maryland Department of the
Environment
Demonstrate a new acid mine drainage
technology
323,000
248,000
99373508
Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission
Generate a data-set relating to pollutant levels in
the Ohio River
217,385
200,372
97322101
Prince George's County
Government
Demonstrate use of Low Impact Development
and new waste management practices
1,476,435
1,091,200
98755801
Cerro Gordo County
Implement water quality improvements to reduce
pollution
174,000
174,000
97831701
Montana Department of the
Environment
Replace environmentally noncompliant heating
devices in low-income homes to improve air
quality
985,200
985,200
96936801
City of Highland
Develop recycling and solid waste educational
displays at an environmental learning center
297,600
297,600
96938001
Golden Gate National Parks
Conservancy
Implement priority habitat protection in the
California Coastal Trail corridor
298,200
298,200
96001201
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Conduct a safety study of mercury levels in fish
994,100
994,100
97031102
Boise State University
Continue to develop a device that quantifies
contaminants in subsurface soil
1,686,400
1,686,400
96004601
Boise State University
Develop improved techniques to detect and
monitor contaminants in shallow subsurface soil
1,488,000
1,488,000
97098601
Franklin Conservation District
Continue to implement a ground water
management plan and monitor the condition of
an aquifer
695,900
695,900
96005801
Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality
Conduct various projects to improve water
quality
1,998,200
1,998,200
96016301
Kenai Watershed Forum
Protect and restore the watershed through data
collecting, monitoring, and modeling
1,131,885
1,131,885
96028501
Washington Department of
Ecology
Implement management plan to improve Puget
Sound water quality
3,941,200
1,970,600
Total for All Sampled EPM and S&T Grants	$30,519,485	$27,764,982
Source: Grant numbers, recipient names, and funding amounts were obtained from EPA's Integrated Grants Management
System. The project descriptions were developed by OIG based on our work plan reviews.
13

-------
Appendix D
Agency Response
May 4, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report:
Number of and Cost to Award and Manage EPA Earmark Grants,
And Their Impact on the Agency's Mission
Assignment No. 2007-000042
FROM: Luis A. Luna /s/
Assistant Administrator
TO:	Janet Kasper
Director for Assistance Agreement Audits
Thank you for the opportunity to provide EPA's comments on the Draft Audit
Report. The Report finds that most earmark projects have the potential to contribute to
EPA's mission. It identifies a few projects, however, that the Office of Inspector General
believes do not have a clear impact on advancing EPA's mission and goals. The Agency
has comments on the Report's discussion of two of these projects. These comments are
attached. If you have any questions about the comments, please contact Howard
Corcoran, Director, Office of Grants and Debarment at (202) 564-1903.
Attachment
cc: Senior Resource Officials
Grants Management Officers
Junior Resource Officials
Frank Snock
Denise Harris
Lorraine Fleury
Jerry Kurztweg
Howard Corcoran
Richard Kuhlman
Stefan Silzer
Laurice Jones
John Nolan
14

-------
ATTACHMENT
Region 3 Comment: Grant to the Caribbean American Mission for Education, Research
and Action, Inc.
Region 3 does not agree with the Report's suggestion that this project, as
described in the approved grant workplan, is not clearly within EPA's mission. The
workplan is explicit that the purpose of the project was to provide students from
moderate-income families with an opportunity to increase their knowledge about the
environment with a special emphasis on an understanding of the ecological system in
urban areas and in the Caribbean. Students would be chosen from Philadelphia and from
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands to exchange information and experiences about
environmental issues. Participants would: 1) attain a greater understanding of
environmental issues in the islands and inner cities; 2) learn how to develop, plan and
execute projects that address environmental issues in their respective areas; and 3)
develop skills in interacting with other environmental organizations in the areas. The
goal for each student, according to the workplan, was to "develop an understanding of the
importance of caring for the environment locally and globally...." The Region believes
that fostering environmental stewardship in this manner falls squarely within EPA's
mission.
Region 3 also disagrees with the Report's suggestion that EPA included
substantial funding in the approved workplan for student travel between Philadelphia and
the U.S. Virgin Islands, student visits to amusement parks and resort locations and
student shopping trips. The workplan contemplated that students would largely
communicate across the geographical divide by computer and authorized only limited
travel between Philadelphia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Further, it in no way allowed
funding for travel involving amusement parks, resort locations or shopping trips. We
understand that this type of travel was mentioned in a trip agenda included in a progress
report filed by the grantee. We are in the process of conducting a compliance review of
the project. If the review finds that grant funds were used for that purpose, the Region
will seek recovery of those funds.
Office of Air and Radiation comment: Grant to Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey
The Report correctly notes that EPA does not explicitly include noise among the
goals and objectives of the Agency's Strategic Plan, and that EPA no longer has a noise
regulatory program. The Office of Air and Radiation believes, however, that the type of
community support provided to Teaneck, New Jersey under the project is covered under
Goal 4, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, Sub-objective 4.2: Communities. This
sub-objective focuses on EPA activities that will help communities sustain or restore
community health by addressing community-specific environmental concerns.
15

-------
Appendix E
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Regional Administrator, Region 1
Regional Administrator, Region 3
Director, Office of Grants and Debarment
Director, Grants Administration Division
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
General Counsel
Acting Inspector General
16

-------