OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
September 14, 2022 j Report No. 22-N-0057
CONSIDERATIONS FROM SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS FOR
THE EPA'S ADMINISTRATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT FUNDS
Infrastructure pipes for water (EPA photo)
Purpose:
We performed this review to highlight
findings identified in single audit reports
that are relevant to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
administration of programs under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Our review covered fiscal years 2019
through 2021. The project number for
this review was QA-FY22-0099.
This review supports EPA
mission-related efforts:
• Compliance with the law,
• Partnering with states and other
stakeholders.
• Operating efficiently and effectively.
This review addresses a top EPA
management challenge:
• Managing infrastructure funding and
business operations.
Contributors:
Jean Bloom
Melinda Burks
Eleanor Burrus
LaTanya Furdge
Lisa McCowan
Khadija Walker
Address inquiries to our public affairs
office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.aov.
Full list of EPA OIG reports.
Overview
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General
reviewed OIG memorandums summarizing findings from external
audits of nonfederal entities, such as states, local governments, and
federally recognized tribes, that expended EPA grant funds. These
audits are commonly referred to as "single audits" and are conducted
by independent nonfederal auditors.1 We identified seven areas in
which noncompliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and
program requirements was most frequent. We found that most
instances of noncompliance were associated with two programs: the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, or CWSRF, program and the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, or DWSRF, program. We
performed this review to help the EPA prepare to administer an
additional $60 billion in funds pursuant to the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, or ILIA
This project does not constitute an audit or evaluation but is a review
of prior OIG memorandums and a summary of our findings.
Background
According to the EPA's Grants Management Plan, the EPA awards
approximately half of its annual budget in grants. These grants are
issued in support of more than 100 EPA programs and are awarded to
nonfederal entities, such as states, local governments, federally
recognized tribes, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions,
and other eligible entities.
President Joseph R. Biden signed the IIJA into law (Pub. L. 117-58) on
November 15, 2021. The IIJA will provide the EPA with approximately
$60 billion for infrastructure-related purposes from fiscal year 2022
through fiscal year 2026. The vast majority of the EPA's IIJA funding
will be awarded as loans and grants to nonfederal entities. More than
$50 billion of the funding is for improving our nation's drinking water,
wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, and most ($43 billion) will
be provided through the CWSRF and DWSRF programs.
1 The word "auditor," as used in this report, refers to these independent nonfederal auditors.
22-N-0057
-------
Figure 1:
The EPA's single audit process
Source: OIG summary of the EPA's
single audit process.
(EPA OIG image)
Single Audits
The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and 2 C.F.R. part 200,
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principle, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards, require a nonfederal entity that
expends $750,000 or more in federal funds in a fiscal year to have an
organizationwide audit. This "single audit" comprises one
comprehensive audit of the entity's financial statements and federal
programs. The auditor who conducted the single audit then expresses
an opinion on the entity's financial statements; internal controls; and
compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and program
requirements.
Federal agencies rely on single audits to perform oversight of entities
that expend federal grant funds. The Office of Management and
Budget issues an annual Compliance Supplement to assist the auditors
who conduct single audits. The Compliance Supplement outlines
12 areas of compliance that the federal government expects the
auditors to consider as part of the organizationwide single audits:
• Activities Allowed or Unallowed.
• Allowable Cost/Costs Principles.
• Cash Management.
• Eligibility.
• Equipment and Real Property Management.
• Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking.
• Period of Performance.
• Procurement and Suspension and Debarment.
• Program Income.
• Reporting.
• Subrecipient Monitoring.
• Special Tests and Provisions.
In addition, Part 4 of the Compliance Supplement allows federal
agencies to provide information about compliance requirements
specific to a program and to select up to six of the 12 compliance areas
for the auditor to test. For example, the EPA has included the CWSRF
and DWSRF programs in Part 4 of the Compliance Supplement and has
requested that auditors test five compliance areas specifically for
those two programs.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the single audit process. Auditors
report their findings to the nonfederal entity that they audited via an
audit report, which the nonfederal entity then submits to the Federal
Audit Clearinghouse, an online repository of single audit reports. The
EPA, as the federal awarding Agency, is responsible for reviewing
single audit reports and following up on audit findings to ensure the
entity takes corrective actions to address findings of noncompliance.2
The OIG performed the review function for the time frame covered
under this review. After reviewing a single audit report, the OIG issued
2 Office of Management and Budget, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Award, 2 C.F.R.
part 200, subpart F.
22-N-0057 2
-------
Figure 2:
Instances of noncompliance for
nine EPA programs expected to
receive IIJA funds
n A ' 8 3 1 1
j u u ~ ~ ~
,cs£ ,4^ o'3 ^ A> ^
V
Source: OIG analysis of single audit reports.
(EPA OIG image)
Figure 3:
Top seven noncompliance areas
for nine programs expected to receive
IIJA funds
Procurement, S&D 74
Reporting 60
Allowable
Costs/Cost 39
Priniciples
Cash Management 38
Activities Allowable
or Unallowable
Special Tests and
Provisions
Subrecipent fTT
Monitoring |
Note: S&D = Suspension and Debarment.
Source: OIG analysis of single audit reports.
(EPA OIG image)
a corresponding memorandum to the EPA to communicate any
findings of noncompliance that could impact EPA programs and to
identify the federal or state agency responsible for working with the
entity to ensure that corrective actions were taken.
Scope and Methodolo
We reviewed single audit findings reported by the OIG to the EPA from
fiscal years 2019 through 2021. We identified and categorized
instances of noncompliance with applicable federal laws, regulations,
and program requirements by nonfederal entities that expended funds
under EPA programs that are expected to receive IIJA funds.
Appendix A details our scope and methodology.
Responsible Offices
The EPA's website states that the Office of Mission Support is
responsible for leading the Agency's core mission support functions to
improve efficiency, coordination, and customer service for internal
customers, stakeholders, and the public. The Office of Mission Support
also oversees grants management.
The Office of Grants and Debarment is located within the Office of
Mission Support and is responsible for managing the Agency's
assistance agreements, including grants. In addition, it is responsible
for developing national policies, guidance, and training; providing
national compliance support; administering assistance agreements for
headquarters programs; and overseeing and managing the Agency's
Suspension and Debarment program and Grants Competition program.
Under the EPA-OIG single audit agreement, the Office of Grants and
Debarment serves as the EPA's single audit liaison, both within and
outside the federal government.
What We Found
During our review of single audit findings from fiscal years 2019
through 2021, we identified 364 instances of noncompliance with
applicable federal laws, regulations, and program requirements by
nonfederal entities expending EPA grant dollars. As Figure 2 illustrates,
these instances of noncompliance spanned nine EPA programs that are
expected to receive IIJA funds: CWSRF, DWSRF, Brownfields,
Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, Great Lakes, Superfund, National
Estuary, and Southeast New England Coastal. Appendix B provides the
full titles and descriptions of these nine programs. The EPA programs
with the greatest number of instances of noncompliance are the
CWSRF and DWSRF.
Within the nine programs with single audit findings that are expected
to receive IIJA funds, most instances of noncompliance were identified
in seven of the Compliance Supplement's 12 compliance areas, as listed
below and shown in Figure 3:
• Procurement and Suspension and Debarment.
• Reporting.
• Allowable Costs/Cost Principles.
22-N-0057
3
-------
• Cash Management.
• Activities Allowable or Unallowable,
• Special Tests and Provisions.
• Subrecipient Monitoring.
Procurement and Suspension and Debarment
Within the nine EPA programs with single audit findings that are
expected to receive IIJA funds, we identified 74 instances of
noncompliance in this compliance area. Goods and services purchased
or obtained with federal funds must comply with the applicable federal
regulations and procurement requirements under the award or
subaward. Per the Compliance Supplement, auditors test for such
procurement issues as open competition; awards to vendors that have
not been suspended, debarred, or excluded from doing business with
the federal government; and internal controls and documentation that
support transactions. In Part 4 of the Compliance Supplement, the EPA
does require auditors to also test this compliance area specifically for
the CWSRF and DWSRF programs. As examples of single audit findings,
auditors identified these instances of noncompliance by nonfederal
entities expending EPA grant dollars:
• A tribe with expenditures under the Puget Sound program
lacked evidence that its vendors were not suspended or
debarred prior to contract award,
• A city government with expenditures under the Brownfields
program paid a vendor for work performed, but the city did
not maintain sufficient documentation of the procurement-
method and contractor-selection rationale used to choose that
vendor In addition, the city was unable to provide evidence
that the vendor was not suspended or debarred.
With the expected and significant increase of IIJA funds slated to be
given to the EPA and subsequently awarded as grants to nonfederal
entities, it is important that the EPA monitors grant recipients to
ensure that goods and services are acquired in accordance with federal
laws, regulations, and terms and conditions of the awards. For
example, federal funds should be awarded only to responsible entities
that have not engaged in criminal or other improper activity that
resulted in either temporary suspension or permanent debarment
from receiving such funds.
Reporting
Within the nine programs with single audit findings that are expected
to receive IIJA funds, we identified 60 instances of noncompliance in
this compliance area. Recipients of federal funds typically have
financial and performance reporting requirements. Per the Compliance
Supplement, auditors evaluate and determine whether these required
reports are timely, accurate, and complete and whether they support
activities under the awards. General single audit findings under this
compliance area include a failure to submit required financial and
nonfinancial reports, untimely submittal of single audit and progress
-------
How do CWSRFs and DWSRFs work?
The EPA provides capitalization grants to
eligible states, which use the grants to
establish revolving funds to provide
low-interest loans to eligible recipients.
As loan recipients repay their loans, the
repayments and interest flow back into
the revolving fund. The repaid funds can
then be used to make additional loans.
Figure 4 depicts this process.
Figure 4:
Flow of EPA CWSRF
and DWSRF federal funds
EPA $
State
CWSRF/DWSRF
Loan
repayments
o
Subrecipient
Source: OIG analysis. (EPA OIG image)
reports, and errors in reporting. As examples of single audit findings,
auditors identified these instances of noncompliance by nonfederal
entities expending EPA grant dollars:
• A nonprofit with expenditures under the Brownfields program
failed to file the required federal financial reports.
• A local government with expenditures under the CWSRF program
did not submit a single audit report and the associated reporting
package to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse in a timely manner.
• A state with expenditures under the CWSRF and DWSRF
programs had errors in its financial reporting for both programs.
The state also lacked adequate internal controls—specifically,
supervisory review—to ensure that reported amounts were
reasonable in relation to prior reported amounts or expected
amounts based on current activity.
Financial and performance reporting activities allow federal agencies
to monitor and track recipient spending and performance. Financial
reports can provide indications of financial issues, internal control
weaknesses, and misuse of federal funds; early detection of these
issues can prevent financial loss. Performance reports can alert
agencies of weaknesses in task performance.
In Part 4 of the Compliance Supplement, the EPA does not require
auditors to test this compliance area for the CWSRF and DWSRF
programs. The IIJA will more than likely cause an increase in reporting
requirements for these two programs. Reporting under the CWSRF and
DWSRF programs needs to be accurate, considering the
unprecedented amount of IIJA funds being distributed to the two
programs and the EPA's commitment to addressing urgent water
challenges under the IIJA.
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Within the nine EPA programs with single audit findings that are
expected to receive IIJA funds, we identified 39 instances of
noncompliance in this compliance area. Per the Compliance
Supplement, auditors assess compliance with the cost principles
contained in 2 C.F.R part 200, subpart E; program legislation; EPA
regulations; and terms and conditions of the awards. In Part 4 of the
Compliance Supplement, the EPA does require auditors to also test this
compliance area specifically for the CWSRF and DWSRF programs.
General single audit findings under this compliance area focus on the
allowability of costs incurred and associated reimbursement requests.
For example, auditors identified this instance of noncompliance by a
nonfederal entity expending EPA grant dollars: a city government that
expended funds under the CWSRF program did not have written
policies and procedures that directly addressed the allowable costs
under federal programs.
22-N-0057
5
-------
What is a Brownfield site?
The 2002 Small Business Liability
Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act
defines a brownfield site as real
property—the expansion, redevelopment,
or reuse of which may be complicated by
the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant. The Act authorizes the
EPA to provide funding to local
governments, quasi-governmental
entities, state redevelopment agencies,
and other eligible entities to capitalize a
revolving loan fund and to provide
subawards to carry out cleanup activities
at brownfield sites.
Cash Management
Within the nine EPA programs with single audit findings that are
expected to receive IIJA funds, we identified 38 instances of
noncompliance in this compliance area. Per the Compliance Supplement,
auditors assess activities associated with the cash disbursement to the
recipient and any subrecipients, as well as the time that has lapsed
between the transfer of funds. In Part 4 of the Compliance Supplement,
the EPA requires auditors to also test this compliance area specifically
for the CWSRF and DWSRF programs. General single audit findings
under this compliance area include recipients not expending drawn
funds in a timely manner and a lack of cash-management policy and
procedures. For example, auditors identified these instances of
noncompliance by nonfederal entities expending EPA grant dollars:
• A city government that expended funds under the Brownfields
program did not follow its process to ensure that funds were
disbursed to vendors within one week of receipt of federal funds
for eight out of the ten federal reimbursement requests tested.
• A town government that expended funds under the CWSRF
program had not formally adopted financial and cash-management
policies as identified in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Improper payments, fraud, waste, or abuse may go undetected if there
are poor cash-management controls.
Activities Allowable or Unallowable
Within the nine EPA programs with single audit findings that are
expected to receive IIJA funds, we identified 26 instances of
noncompliance in this compliance area. The activities allowed or
prohibited for each federal program are unique and outlined in federal
statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the awards. Per the
Compliance Supplement, auditors test whether activities reported and
reimbursed are permitted. In Part 4 of the Compliance Supplement, the
EPA does require auditors to also test this compliance area specifically
for the CWSRF and DWSRF programs. As examples of single audit
findings, auditors identified these instances of noncompliance by
nonfederal entities expending EPA grant dollars:
• A tribe that expended federal funds under the Puget Sound
program had multiple control deficiencies, including inaccurate
time reporting and missing timecard approvals. The auditor
questioned $3,767 of payroll charges because the tribe could not
reconcile its accounting records and an employee's timesheet.
• A nonprofit that expended federal funds under the Brownfields
program did not have adequate internal controls to make sure
payroll expenditures were charged to the proper program.
Weak internal controls may lead to project mischarges. Mischarged
costs may result in an improper payments to recipients.
22-N-0057
6
-------
What is the Davis-Bacon Act?
The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended,
requires that each contract over $2,000
to which the United States or the District
of Columbia is a party for the
construction, alteration, or repair of public
buildings or public works shall contain a
clause setting forth the minimum wages
to be paid to various classes of laborers
and mechanics employed under the
contract. Under the provisions of the Act,
contractors or their subcontractors are to
pay workers employed directly upon the
site of the work no less than the locally
prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid
on projects of a similar character. The
Davis-Bacon Act directs the Secretary of
Labor to determine such local prevailing
wage rates.
—U.S. Department of Labor,
"What are the Davis-Bacon
and Related Acts?" webpaqe
Special Tests and Provisions
Within the nine EPA programs with single audit findings that are
expected to receive IIJA funds, we identified 19 instances of
noncompliance in this compliance area. Special tests and provisions
outline specific requirements that the federal awarding department
wants tested under its programs. Per the Compliance Supplement,
auditors test compliance with these specific requirements. General
single audit findings under this compliance area include a lack of
policies or procedures to ensure that minority- and woman-owned
business enterprise reports were reviewed prior to submission, a lack
of documentation to support verification of prevailing wage rates, and
a lack of documentation to support verification of iron and steel
products used. For example, auditors identified these instances of
noncompliance by nonfederal entities expending EPA grant dollars:
• A town government that expended funds under the DWSRF
program did not provide documentation for one construction
contract to show that it tracked and performed timely
interviews and spot-checks, as required by the Davis-Bacon Act
special provisions in the grant award.
• A city government that expended funds under the DWSRF
program was unable to demonstrate compliance with the
Davis-Bacon Act requirements set forth in the grant award.
In Part 4 of the Compliance Supplement, the EPA does not require
auditors to perform testing under this compliance area for the CWSRF
and DWSRF programs. However, auditors may perform testing if the
award terms specify additional material compliance requirements for
the administration of the program or if the auditor believes there are
increased risks of fraud, waste, or abuse of federal program funds.
Compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act and Buy American provision will
be important based on the unprecedented amount of IIJA funds
associated with infrastructure construction projects under EPA
programs and key priorities outlined in the EPA's Implementation of
the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Provisions of
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Memorandum.
Subrecipient Monitoring
Within the nine EPA programs with single audit findings that are
expected to receive IIJA funds, we identified 16 instances of
noncompliance in this compliance area. Nonfederal entities that award
part of their federal grants to subrecipients must evaluate the risk that
the subrecipients will not comply with the terms and conditions of the
award—for example, by reviewing single audit and other reports
submitted by the subrecipients. Per the Compliance Supplement,
auditors test whether the entities perform such evaluations. For
example, auditors identified these instances of noncompliance by
nonfederal entities expending EPA grant dollars:
• The responsible department in one state that expended funds
under the CWSRF program lacked internal controls and did not
22-N-0057
7
-------
Figure 5:
IIJA funding allocations for the EPA
Source: OIG analysis of! I JA funding
allocation. (EPA OIG image)
comply with the federal requirements to ensure that
subrecipients received the single audit results and that any
needed management decisions regarding audit findings were
issued in a timely manner.
• A state environmental protection agency that expended funds
under the Capitalization Grants for the CWSRF and DWSRF
programs did not obtain and adequately review single audit
reports from its subrecipients in a timely manner.
• The responsible unit in one state that expended funds under
the CWSRF program did not review its subrecipient's financial
reports or single audit report.
Subrecipient monitoring is an important function to ensure that the
funds provided are used for the intended purpose, that the
subrecipient complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and that the subrecipient achieves the performance goals. Failure to
perform timely monitoring of subrecipients may result in federal funds
being expended for unallowable purposes and may put the federal
government at risk for improper payments.
In Part 4 of the Compliance Supplement, the EPA does not require
auditors to test subrecipient monitoring for the CWSRF and DWSRF
programs. Subrecipient monitoring for these programs will need to be
accurate, considering the unprecedented amount of IIJA funds being
distributed to these programs and the IIJA's accelerated
project-completion requirements.
Other Observations
The EPA's CWSRF and DWSRF programs encompassed a substantial
portion of single audit findings of noncompliance from fiscal
years 2019 through 2021. In annual appropriations, these programs
account for the largest portion of the EPA's budget. In the EPA's fiscal
year 2021 enacted budget of $9.2 billion, almost one-third, or
$2.8 billion, was allocated to these two programs. In addition, as
shown in Figure 5, $50.4 billion (83 percent) of the IIJA's $60.9 billion is
slated for water infrastructure investments, $43 billion of which will be
distributed to and through the CWSRF and DWSRF programs. Given
this unprecedented amount of funding, it is crucial that previously
identified instances of noncompliance are resolved and addressed.
The I IJ A also requires that a significant percentage of grant funds be
distributed to disadvantaged communities. Furthermore, significant
portions of CWSRF and DWSRF grants awarded with I IJ A funds are to
be distributed to disadvantaged communities. For example, the Act
mandates that 49 percent of funds provided through the CWSRF
General Supplemental Funding be provided as grants and forgivable
loans to disadvantaged communities. The EPA must ensure that these
recipients, most of whom have likely never before received federal
funds or undergone a single audit, understand the associated
administrative requirements.
22-N-0057
8
-------
Conclusion and Prospective Considerations
Single audits conducted over a three-year period found noncompliance
with federal award requirements for grants and other assistance
provided within programs that are expected to receive IIJA funding.
These past findings are important since the IIJA provides EPA programs
with approximately $60 billion for infrastructure-related purposes. As
the EPA awards IIJA funds to state revolving fund and other programs,
the Agency should consider how it can address or prevent future
instances of noncompliance within these programs. Consideration of
these past findings could help the EPA decrease the risk of fraud,
waste, and abuse as it implements the IIJA.
9
-------
Appendix A
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this review from April through September 2022. We did not follow generally accepted government
auditing standards or the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency's Quality Standards for Inspection and
Evaluation. However, we did follow the OIG's quality-control procedures for ensuring that the information in this report
is accurate and supported. Additionally, the Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General requires that our
work adheres to the highest ethical principles of integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, independence, and professional
judgment, and we adhered to these principles in performing our work.
To answer the review objective, we reviewed 202 single audit memorandums that contained at least one federal award
finding and that the OIG issued to the EPA during fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021. We focused on the memorandums
that contained federal award findings pertaining to EPA programs expected to receive IIJA funding. We performed the
following actions:
• Reviewed each OIG memorandum that included federal award findings that identified a deficiency or
noncompliance with the Office of Management and Budget's regulations at 2 C.F.R. part 200, subpart F ("Audit
Requirements") and the Office of Management and Budget's CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement.
• Retrieved the Data Collection Form from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse for each memorandum that included
federal award findings.
• Reviewed each Data Collection Form (SF-SAC), Part III: "Information from the Schedule of Findings and
Questioned Costs," section 4, "Federal Award Audit Findings" and analyzed the "Type(s) of Compliance
Requirements" (Column I).
• With a focus on federal award findings, summarized and presented the reported instances of noncompliance
that may impact Agency grant programs funded by the IIJA.
We did not gather additional data or request additional information from the Agency. We noted findings that were not
reported under a Compliance Supplement compliance area or that were miscoded by the auditor; however, we did not
perform any additional steps to identify the compliance area. We therefore note this as a limitation in our analysis. We
also only reviewed single audit findings from our OIG-issued memorandums; this represents another limitation in that
there may be some single audits in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse that we did not review and capture in our analysis.
OIG memorandums issued during fiscal years 2019 through 2021 included a total of 2,014 findings. Of these findings:
• 460 (22.8 percent) related to recipient management of federal grant dollars and oversight of grant activities.
Federal award noncompliance findings directly related to the recipients' management of federally awarded
grant dollars and therefore are valuable indicators of the effectiveness of the EPA's oversight of its grant
programs and related federal funds. Findings with recipient mismanagement directly impact the potential
efficiency, effectiveness, and outcomes of Agency programs. Of the 460 findings, 281 were associated with an
EPA program expected to receive IIJA funding. These 281 federal award findings resulted in 366 instances of
noncompliance identified during compliance testing. A finding can be reported under more than one compliance
area.
• 1,554 findings (77.2 percent) related to deficiencies with recipients' financial statements that generally entailed
deficiencies in management controls, such as proper segregation of duties and adequate preparation or
adjustments of financial statements.
22-N-0057
10
-------
Appendix B
Nine EPA Programs with Single Audit Findings
that Are Expected to Receive IIJ A Funds
Program
Description
Puget Sound Protection and
Restoration Program: Tribal
Implementation Assistance
Program
Assists tribes to protect and restore the Puget Sound.
Brownfields Multipurpose,
Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund
and Cleanup Cooperative
Agreement
Funds the cleanup of property that may contain hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants so that it can be reused.
Capitalization Grants for Clean
Water State Revolving Funds
Helps fund local wastewater infrastructure projects.
Capitalization Grants for Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds
Program
Helps fund local drinking water infrastructure projects.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Assists in the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay.
Great Lakes Program
Helps restore and maintain the environmental integrity of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Superfund State, Political
Subdivision, and Indian Tribe Site-
Specific Cooperative Agreement
Program
Funds programs of research with respect to the detection, assessment, and
evaluation of hazardous substances in the environment.
National Estuary Program
Helps to protect and restore the water quality and estuarine resources of
estuaries and associated watersheds.
Southeast New England Coastal
Watershed Restoration Program
Helps to protect and restore water quality, habitat health, and resilience in the
Southeast New England Coastal region
22-N-0057
11
-------
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Assistant Administrator for Mission Support
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mission Support
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mission Support
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Resources and Business Operations, Office of Mission Support
Director, Grants and Debarment, Office of Mission Support
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Mission Support
Audit Liaison, Office of Grants and Debarment, Office of Mission Support
22-N-0057
------- |