Community Grants
Program
FINAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE
OCTOBER 2022
-------
Contents
Purpose 2
Background 2
Eligibility 2
Technical Corrections 2
Cost Share Requirements 3
Waivers to Cost Share Requirements 5
Grant Administration: Community Grants Lifecycle 8
Regulations and Requirements 11
Appendix A: Statutory Language 17
Appendix B: List of EPA Congressionally Directed Spending Community Projects and
Funding Levels 18
Appendix C: Technical Corrections-Procedural Information 46
Appendix D: Application Forms and Attachments 48
Appendix E: Community Grants Workplan Contents/Outline 53
Appendix F: Grant Policies and Resources 55
1 | P a g e
-------
Purpose
This document provides information and guidelines on how the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) will award and administer water infrastructure projects identified as
Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) and Community Project Funding (CPF) items in
Appropriations Acts. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-
103) includes $841,405,095 in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account for 483
drinking water, wastewater, stormwater infrastructure, and water quality protection projects.1
Background
President Biden signed the FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-103) into law on
March 15, 2022. In this law, Congress renewed the practice of funding specifically named
community infrastructure projects, referred to by the Senate as CDS items and in the House of
Representatives as CPF items. Appendix A of this document provides the pertinent section of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, also referred to as the EPA's FY 2022
Appropriations Act. Water infrastructure CDS/CPF projects are further referred to as
Community Grants projects in this document.
Eligibility
Community Grants projects are designated for the planning, design, and construction of drinking
water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure and for water quality protection. Eligible
Community Grant projects are included in Appropriations Acts. For FY 2022, eligible projects
are referenced in the explanatory statement found in Appendix A. Appendix B lists each project
that is eligible for funding under the FY 2022 Appropriations Act and identifies the state,
recipient name, purpose, and appropriated funding amount of each project. EPA will use the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) framework to guide implementation of these Community Grants; the CW SRF and
DWSRF eligibilities should be referred to for development of workplans, project scopes, costs,
and sub-awards. Funds appropriated for Community Grants projects may not be awarded solely
to repay loans received from SRF programs or to repay other debts unless there are explicit
instructions to do so in Appropriations Acts or accompanying explanatory statements and/or
committee reports. These funds may not be used for operation and maintenance.
Technical Corrections
Should a Community Grant recipient identified in an Appropriations Act need to modify the
type, purpose, or named recipient of the Community Grant, a technical correction will be needed.
The Agency's FY 2006 Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-54) included a permanent authority that
allows EPA to make technical corrections to Community Grants only after consultation with
Congress, without the need for additional legislation. For example, if a recipient (e.g., City of
Salem) is named in the authorizing language but a different legal entity (e.g., Salem Wastewater
Utility) owns the infrastructure, the recipient can request a technical correction. As another
1 In the FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act, EPA received a total of 491 CDS/CPF projects for $860.3
million. Of this total, 483 projects are for water community projects; this document pertains to these projects.
2 | P a g e
-------
example, if the Appropriations Act provides for a specific type of project (e.g., drinking water)
when a different type of project (e.g., wastewater) is needed, the recipient can request a technical
correction to change the project type.
Appropriate Types of Technical Corrections
A technical correction can be made for all, or part of a project identified in an Appropriations
Act to change the recipient, the purpose, or both. The statutory language that provides EPA with
the authority to make technical corrections does not limit the extent to which a technical
correction can alter the original project, if the new project provides for water quality protection
or involves construction2 of drinking water, wastewater, or stormwater infrastructure. Technical
corrections cannot, however, be used to change the project purpose to debt repayment, because
debt repayment does not meet the statutory terms of the authority. After consultation with the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, EPA will generally approve changes in
purpose that meet the above criteria or changes in recipient where both the original entity and the
new entity to be named concur with the change. Any technical correction request involving a
change to both the purpose and the recipient entity must be accompanied by additional detail
explaining:
• The need or reason for the change;
• The relationship between the two entities;
• Who initiated the request; and
• The involvement of any third parties, if known.
Additional information on technical corrections is provided in Appen
Cost Share Requirements
Appropriations Acts require each Community Grant recipient to provide a cost share from non-
federal sources unless the recipient is approved for a cost share waiver by EPA. For FY 2022, the
cost share amount is 20% of the total grant project cost. All contributions toward cost share
should be included in the grant budget and must be categorized in the appropriate grant budget
category (see Appendix I) for more information on budget development). The source of the cost
share must be included in the workplan and payment requests. EPA may pay 80% of costs shown
on approved payment requests up to the approved federal funding amount.
• All grant funds, including a cost share, can be used only for allowable costs in executing
the project. All cost sharing funds must have supporting source documents (a record that
supports a transaction).
• Services donated to recipients may be furnished by professional and technical personnel
and consultants in accordance with „ \ -00 i.< i. Dollar values must be placed on all
2 "The term 'construction' means any one or more of the following: preliminary planning to determine the feasibility
of treatment works, engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, or economic investigations or studies, surveys, designs,
plans, working drawings, specifications, procedures, field testing of innovative or alternative waste water treatment
processes and techniques meeting guidelines promulgated under section 1314(d)(3) of this title, or other necessary
actions, erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of treatment works, or the
inspection or supervision of any of the foregoing items." (33 U.S.C.§ 1292(1)).
3 | P a g e
-------
donated services in accordance with 2 CFR 200.306. All cost sharing funds must be
included in the workplan and budget and be part of the grant's total project costs.
• All cost sharing funds must conform to the same laws, regulations, grant conditions, etc.,
as the federal funds within the grant; recipients may prefer to limit cost sharing to the
amount required.
See Appenc and Appendix F for information on general principles of cost allowability.
Sources of Cost Share
Eligible sources of "non-federal" funds to meet the cost share requirement are described below;
recipients can use any or a combination of the following eligible sources if the requirements in 2
CFR 200.306 are met:
1) Public sources3. The following public funding sources can be used to meet the cost share
requirement:
• State appropriations;
• Local government match to the grant project;
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development
Block Grant funds;
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development funds;
• Appalachian Regional Commission funds; and,
• The CWSRF and DWSRF programs if those funds are:
o non-federal funds such as loan repayments, interest earnings, bond proceeds, and
fees, or
o a state contribution to the SRF above the statutorily required 20% match.
Note: EPA has issued a class deviation document pertaining to CWSRF and a policy
memo pertaining to DWSRF that allow Community Grant recipients to use certain
sources of funds from the two SRF programs as the non-federal cost share. The class
deviation and policy documents allow SRF programs to use the non-federal and non-
state match share of SRF funds to provide loans that Community Grant recipients can
use as the cost share for community projects.
Funding made available to jurisdictions through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
(ARPA), including ARPA Revenue loss funds, cannot be used to meet the non-federal
cost share requirement.
2) Private sources. These include funding from a business or nonprofit contributing to the
project.
3) In-kind services. These may include the applicant's administrative expenses for
managing and overseeing the grant and projects, provided that the expenses are not being
reimbursed by the federal share of the grant award. In-kind services contributed by other
3 Community Grant recipients can use federal funds from other programs as all, or part, of the cost share only if the
statute authorizing those programs specifically allows the funds to be used as match for other federal grants.
Additionally, other federal program funding must be allowed to support the planning, design and/or construction of
drinking water, wastewater, or stormwater infrastructure projects.
4 | Page
-------
entities may also be allowable as cost share. Force accounts may be used as in-kind
services: personnel costs include salaries, wages, and allowable incentive compensation
for recipient employees (i.e., who receive W-2 forms) who spend time working on the
project. In-kind (cost share) contributions must be verifiable and documented. For
example, if the recipient does not intend to charge the EPA assistance agreement for all
time employees spend working on the project, the applicant may include salaries or
wages in the personnel category for cost share purposes.
Determining Cost Share Amount
For the purposes of calculating the cost share amount, the amount specified in the FY 2022
Appropriations Act for EPA's contribution represents 80% of the total grant project cost.
Grant applications are not required to reflect costs that exceed total grant project costs as
calculated below; this is the minimum total grant project cost required to receive the full FY
2022 appropriation amount.
The following example demonstrates how to calculate the cost share amount using $100,000
as the EPA contribution:
A. Identify the Total Grant Project Cost
Divide the EPA contribution by .80 to calculate the total grant project cost:
$100,000-0.80 = $125,000.
$125,000 is the total grant project cost
B. Multiply the Total Grant Project Cost by .20 to determine the cost share amount
Total grant project cost x .20 = required cost share amount
$125,000 x .20 = $25,000
$25,000 is the required 20% cost share amount
C. Confirm
Total grant project cost = EPA Contribution + Cost Share Amount.
$125,000 = $100,000 + $25,000
Waivers to Cost Share Requirements
EPA supports waiving required non-federal cost share for projects located in, or that primarily
serve, disadvantaged communities. EPA is using the discretion provided by the FY 2022
Appropriations Act (see Appe ) to consider waiving or reducing statutorily required non-
federal cost share on Community Grant funds when requested and appropriate.
5 | P a g e
-------
EPA will consider the Cost Share Waiver Criteria A -14 below, in defining disadvantaged
communities for the purposes of Community Grants. Projects in communities that meet at least
one of these criteria may request a waiver of the non-federal cost share requirement under the
Community Grants Program. Systems that serve large service areas with a specific project that
will primarily serve a subset of its service area that meets one of these criteria may also request a
waiver.
Waivers to the cost share requirement must be approved by EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Water, in accordance with EPA's Delegation of Authority 1-1025. Recipients requesting cost
share waivers should submit a written request to the Regional EPA Project Officer for
consideration. Waiver requests should include applicable Cost Share Waiver Criteria(s) and any
related supporting documentation including source data retrieved from the websites noted below.
Many of the criteria can be found online on the Census Bureau's website. Recipients can start by
entering their community's name in the search bar and viewing the community's profile. Tables
and graphics from the Census Bureau's website can be downloaded or embedded in a recipient's
cost share waiver request. Recipients should use the most recent data available. Specific tables
with more detailed information and other publicly available datasets beyond the community
profile page for each metric are provided below.
Cost Share Waiver Criteria
A. Community median household income (MHI) is less than 80% of State Mill
o MHI can be found on a community's profile page of the US Census Bureau - use
the search function to find your community. Communities should use the most
recent data available,
o MHI is also available for most communities from the latest annual Census
American Community Survey (ACS) data collection. In the few cases where a
local jurisdiction's MHI is not available, the surrounding county's MHI may be
sufficient. The Census Bureau provides annual 5-Year Average Median
Household Income data in Ta Click on the B19013 Table, select
GEOS and search under "most common geographies" select "State" and then
select the relevant and enter community name in the search bar.
4EPA developed Cost Share Waiver Criteria A -1 for the purposes of assessing the appropriateness of waiving the
cost share requirement for the 483 drinking water, wastewater, stormwater infrastructure, and water quality
protection projects identified in the FY2022 Consolidation Appropriations Act, based on EPA's Memorandum:
Implementation of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Provisions of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. March 8, 2022 (see Attachment 1, Appendix E, of the memorandum).
5 EPA's Delegation of Authority 1-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Water Infrastructure Projects or
Other Water Resource Projects from Funds Appropriated for the State and Tribal Assistance Grant Account or the
Environmental Programs and Management Account authorizes EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water and
Regional Administrators "To approve and administer grants and cooperative agreements for water infrastructure
projects or other water resource projects from funds appropriated for the State and Tribal Assistance Grant Account
or the Environmental Programs and Management Account or any successor accounts, including a project authorized
by Section 510 of the Water Quality Act of 1987, P L. 100-4, 101 Stat. 7,80, EPA's FY 1991 Appropriations Act
(P L. 101-507), and any subsequent public law; and to perform other activities necessary for the effective
administration of those grants and cooperative agreements."
6 | P a g e
-------
B. Communities with $25,766 or less upper limit of Lowest Quintile Income
• Communities can view their Lowest Quintile Income on the Census Bureau
website and search by community name and "B19080 HOUSEHOLD INCOME
QUINTILE UPPER LIMITS." Communities should use the most recent data.
C. Communities with > 30.9% Population Living Under 200% of Poverty Level
o The US Department of Health and Human Services provides US Federal Poverty
Guidelines, including a chart with percentage of poverty levels (i.e., 200%).
o More detailed information on the population living under the poverty level can be
found in Taj /erty Status in the Past 12 months for communities.
D. Community with census tracts that have a poverty rate greater than or equal to
20%
o Percent of the poverty rate can be found on a community's profile page provided
by the Census Bureau.
o More detailed information can be found in Tab I overtv Status in the
Past 12 months.
E. Communities with > 3.4% Unemployed Population age 16 and older in the Civilian
Labor Force
o The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) maintains current unemployment rate
figures for municipalities and counties with a population over 25,000. National
and state unemployment data are also available for comparison purposes. This
information can be obtained from the BLS Data Tools webpaee. The most recent
year of unemployment data can be used.
o If the community is less than 25,000, information about employment status can be
found in the community's profile page on the Census Bureau website or more
detailed community employment information can be found in Table DP03
Selected Economic Characteristics.
F. Communities with > 12.1% Vacant Households
o Data on a community's vacant household level can be found on the community's
profile page.
o More detailed information on vacant households is available in the Census Table
HI Occupancy Status.
o Percentage of vacant households may also be available in a community's annual
Financial Report or community tax records.
G. Community in a county with a Social Vulnerability Index score higher than 0.80
o The Center for Disease Control (CDC)/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) uses 15 U.S. census variables
to help local officials identify communities that may need support before, during,
or after disasters.
o Communities can find their SVI score via the online SVI: Interactive Map
provided by the CDC. They should zoom into their county, select it, and the SVI
score will be displayed in the pop-out table.
H. Combined sewer and drinking water costs are greater than 2% of the 20th
percentile household income
o Communities can view their Lowest Quintile Income on the Census Bureau
website and search by community name and "B19080 HOUSEHOLD INCOME
QUINTILE UPPER LIMITS". Communities should use the most recent data.
7 | P a g e
-------
o Percent MHI = Total of Bills for One Year for a Residential Customer / Median
Household Income of All Customers. The total bills for residential customers can
be found from the community's local utilities.
I. Communities with > 11.7% Population Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP Benefits
o Communities can find the percentage of their population receiving SNAP benefits
on the Census Bureau website. Select "view state and local data" to search by
state and then City/town or county.
Grant Administration: Community Grants Lifecycle
EPA's Community Grant appropriations are STAG infrastructure grants to improve water
infrastructure and water quality through funding for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater
projects. Appendix B lists the 483 water CDS/CPF projects identified in the FY 2022
Appropriations Act. These 483 projects are collectively funded "off the top" at a level of
$443,639,051 from the FY 2022 general CWSRF appropriations and $397,766,044 from the FY
2022 general DWSRF appropriations.
EPA's Regional Offices will administer Community Grants as authorized under EPA's
Delegation of Authority 1-1025 Per EPA's Delegation of Authority 1-14A6, EPA Regional
Administrators are authorized to award grants and cooperative agreements, including
Community Grants, that were appropriated in FY 2022.
The following describes the lifecycle stages of each award. Additional information on grant
policies and resources including on receiving and managing EPA grants are listed in Appendix
I-
Pre-Award Phase
While Congress directs Community Grant funds to specified recipients for defined projects,
recipients are required to fulfill statutory and regulatory requirements before EPA can award
grant funding. These requirements include but are not limited to providing necessary information
for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review, review of any pre-
award costs, and submitting a complete grant application package. Appendix 1) and Appendix
E provide information on grant application package content and submission.
1. NEPA Environmental Review
As required by EPA's NEPA implementing regulations ( >), EPA must
complete the NEPA review process before awarding a grant for design and/or construction.
The requirement for an environmental review under NEPA generally does not apply to grants
solely for planning activities, such as infrastructure assessments, watershed plans, and
wastewater capital improvement plans. Applicants should check with their EPA. Regional
6 EPA's Delegation of Authority 1-14A Assistance Agreements authorizes Regional Administrators, the Assistant
Administrator for Mission Support, and the Chief Financial Officer "To take all necessary actions to award, obligate
and de-obligate funds for, and administer fellowship, grant, cooperative and loan agreements (hereinafter financial
assistance), and to make any final determinations required by law or regulations, with eligible recipients"
8 | P a g e
-------
Contact to determine if NEPA applies to a particular Community Grant. See the Regulations
and Requirements section and Appendix F for additional information about NEPA
Environmental Review.
2. Pre-award Costs and Procurement Review
Costs incurred prior to grant awards may be eligible for reimbursement if the costs are in
conformance with applicable federal and EPA regulations. Incurred costs are financial
obligations: costs owed by an entity as a result of a transaction. The costs may have been
paid or remain unpaid. The regulations at 2 CFR 200.458 require that pre-award costs be
incurred "...directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the Federal award
where such costs are necessary for efficient and timely performance of the scope of work.
Such costs are allowable only to the extent that they would have been allowable if incurred
after the date of the Federal award and only with the written approval of the Federal
awarding agency. If charged to the award, these costs must be charged to the initial budget
period of the award, unless otherwise specified by the Federal awarding agency or pass-
through entity."
For Community Grants projects identified in the FY 2022 Appropriations Act, pre-award
costs must be incurred on or after October 1, 2021, to be considered for eligibility.
Notwithstanding, all costs incurred before EPA makes the award are at the recipient's risk.
EPA shall review the eligibility of such costs on a case-by-case basis prior to approving the
project budget and awarding the grant.
A review of pre-award costs includes a review of contracts executed prior to award for
compliance with applicable procurement regulations as described in Regulations and
Requirements.
3. Application Forms, Workplan, and Submitting an Application
Upon completion of an environmental review under NEPA, development of a project
workplan7, and review of any pre-award costs (including any costs related procurement),
applicants should submit a complete grant application package to EPA. The workplan and
application must include any pre-award costs. Recipients must ensure that their organizations
7 The SRF appropriations are the vehicles being used to appropriate the CDS/CPF funds. However, the SRF
authorities do not govern or authorize the CDS/CPF grants. The Consolidated Appropriation Act is structured so that
the CDS/CPF funding is taken from the total amount in the SRF appropriations prior to the SRF allocation to the
states. Accordingly, Program Results Codes (PRCs) have been assigned to each CDS/CPF project's funding based
on the SRF account from which each project's funding was appropriated. However, the authority governing the
CDS/CPF projects is the language in the explanatory statement (Appendix A), which states that "$443,639,051 of
the funds made available for capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds and $397,766,044 of
the funds made available for capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds shall be for the
construction of drinking water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure and for water quality protection."
Therefore, CDS/CPF grant/workplan activities may entail construction of drinking water, wastewater, and
storm water infrastructure, and water quality protection related tasks, irrespective of EPA's assignment of
PRC. Additionally, there is language in the explanatory statement that indicates the SRF is not intended to be the
authority for the CDS/CPF funds. For example, the explanatory statement indicates "Applicable Federal
requirements that would apply to a Clean Water State Revolving Fund or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
project grant recipient shall apply to a recipient receiving a CDS/CPF grant under this section." That direction would
be unnecessary if Congress was appropriating the CDS/CPF funds under the SRF authorities.
9 |
-------
have registered with the federal government's System for Award Management (SAM).
Recipients must have an active regi strati on/record with SAM.gov and complete the
Grants.gov registration process to apply for any federal funding.
The complete grant application includes several forms, as described in Appei These
forms must be downloaded from the Community Grant opportunity package on Grants.gov -
generic versions of the standard forms not downloaded from the Grants.gov website will not
be accepted. See Appendix I) for instructions on how to navigate to the Funding Opportunity
Package and download the standard forms. Appendix F includes information on budget
development and allowability of costs. In addition to the required forms, grant applicants
must submit a project workplan that describes the proposed project, the milestone schedule,
the need for the project, and the anticipated environmental and public health benefits (outputs
and outcomes). See Community Grants Workplan Contents/Outline in Appendix E for more
information.
Applicants must submit a complete application package (with all required forms, a workplan,
and additional required documentation) for EPA review and approval, through the grants.gov
portal. See additional information in Appent
Post-Award Phase
After receiving an award, the recipient is ready to start working on the activities outlined in the
approved workplan. Adhering to various grant regulations and the terms and conditions outlined
in the grant agreement are critical to ensuring a successful grant project.
• Recipients submit payment requests to EPA for incurred costs. In some cases, pre-award
costs may be included. Once the payment request is approved, the recipient can draw down
the requested amount. As required by 2 CFR 200.305(b). EPA requires that recipients of
EPA financial assistance participate in the Automated Standard Application for Payments
system. Recipients must request payment for the minimum amounts needed for
actual and immediate cash. Recipients will submit a payment request including supporting
documentation such as copies of bills (vouchers, invoices, etc.), along with a description of
services rendered, time spent, and charges for EPA review and approval. After review and
approval, EPA will pay the recipient for the federal share of the allowable costs shown on the
payment request. Information on ASAP is available online.
• EPA grants contain General, Administrative, and Programmatic terms and conditions, which
include reporting requirements such as filing an interim (annual) Federal Financial Report
(FFR), annual MBE/WBE Reporting, and progress report submission. EPA's General Terms
I! ditions are applicable to all EPA awards, and additional terms and conditions for
Community Grants awards will be specified in individual award agreements. Recipients
should regularly review grant award terms and conditions throughout the life of the project to
ensure that the organization remains in compliance with all requirements and must inform
EPA if problems arise that jeopardize the completion of the project. EPA Regional Offices
perform construction monitoring and oversight.
10 |
-------
• Recipients' personnel payroll and records system must be capable of providing reports on the
activities of each employee who works directly on a grant. Charges to federal awards for
salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed.
Activity reports are typically signed by the individual employee and/or by a responsible
supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the activities performed by an employee.
The supervisor should be able to certify that the distribution of activity represents a
reasonable estimate of the actual work performed by the employee during the periods
covered by the reports. 2 CFR 200.430 provides additional information on Standards for
Documentation of Personnel Expenses.
• Recipients should contact the EPA Project Officer should any changes to the grant agreement
(e.g., workplan, milestone schedule, budget) become necessary for the project to succeed, as
soon as possible to discuss the changes. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.308. most changes
must be approved by EPA and may require a formal amendment to the assistance agreement.
• EPA conducts administrative monitoring, including reviewing recipient invoices/payment
requests and programmatic reports, and can request access to all records and conduct grant
audits. EPA can disallow costs and take enforcement actions if the recipient fails to remain in
compliance.
Closeout Phase
Closeout refers to the process EPA uses to determine that a recipient has completed all the
required workplan activities under a grant and confirm that all applicable financial and
administrative requirements as described in 2 CFR 200.344 have been met.
• Recipients must submit the final progress report according to the terms and condition listed
in the grant agreement and should demonstrate satisfactory completion of all workplan tasks
and activities.
• Recipients prepare and submit several reports as part of the grant closeout process. EPA's
gently Asked Questions about Closeouts provides information about closeout
requirements, procedures, records retention, and associated regulations. EPA provides more
information for recipients via the online course on closing out grants.
Regulations and Requirements
Recipients are responsible for compliance with many regulations and requirements including but
not limited to EPA's general regulations. In addition, each grant agreement will specify terms
and conditions that establish a legally binding agreement between EPA and the recipient
including but not limited to EPA's General Terms a ditions. Details and information
related to several requirements that are of particular importance for recipient compliance prior to
receiving grant awards are discussed below. Additional information and resources on these
requirements including recipient responsibilities for compliance can be found in Appendix F.
EPA will review documentation from recipients to assess eligibility of costs incurred in
11 |
-------
accordance with EPA's General Principles for Cost Allowability, as described in EPA's Interim
General Budget Development Guidance.
Environmental Review
NEPA and other relevant applicable statutes and Executive Orders, such as the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), apply to Community Grants projects authorized by the Annual
Appropriations Acts. The applicable NEPA regulations are the Council of Environmental
Quality's (CEQ) implementing regulations at 10 i ) k 1^00 I '8 and EPA's NEPA
regulations at 40 CFR Part 6. In accordance with EPA's NEPA regulations, EPA must complete
the NEPA process before issuing a grant award for construction activities.
NEPA and other cross-cutting Federal requirements that apply to the project (i.e., the approval
and/or funding of work beyond the conceptual design point) cannot be delegated. Although EPA
may fund the recipient's development of an Environmental Information Document (EID) or
other analysis for cross cutting authorities or executive orders in order to provide supporting
information, EPA has the legal obligation to make the NEPA related decision, to issue the NEPA
documents, to sign NEPA determinations, and to fulfill other cross-cutting Federal requirements
before approving or paying for design and/or construction. Therefore, EPA grant funds cannot be
used to prepare a federal document, such as an Environmental Assessment (EA) or
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
When both EPA and another Federal agency are funding the same project, the agencies may
negotiate an agreement for one to be the lead agency for performing grant oversight and
management activities, including those related to NEPA and other cross-cutting Federal
requirements. The lead agency can be the one that is providing the most funds for the project, or
the agency that provided the initial funds for the project. The CEQ NEPA regulations at 40 CFR
provide the factors listed in order of descending importance to determine the lead
agency designation. If an EIS is required on a joint or related Federal action, EPA may serve as a
co-lead or request to be a cooperating agency. In addition, EPA may adopt another Federal
agency's EIS or EA. Note EPA may adopt another Federal agency's EA and use it as a basis for
its Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), provided EPA has independently reviewed the EA
and agrees with the analysis and circulates the FONSI and attached EA for the requisite 30-day
comment period.
Recipients with CWSRF or DWSRF co-funded projects for which a State Environmental Review
Process (SERP) has been completed can submit the completed state analysis for EPA review.
EPA will review the SERP document and will incorporate by reference any pertinent part of that
document into EPA's environmental document. EPA will request additional information from
the recipient if necessary for EPA to conduct its own environmental analysis.
Each federal agency has its own regulations pertaining to the NEPA environmental review
process. Recipients with projects that have undergone an environmental review by another
federal agency may submit documents pertaining to another federal agency's analysis for EPA
review. EPA will independently review these documents to determine if the proposed actions is
substantially the same and if it meets the standards of an adequate EIS, EA, or Categorical
Exclusion (CATEX) determination. If so, EPA may adopt the federal EIS, EA, or CATEX
12 |
-------
determination, pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3. If EPA is unable to adopt the federal EIS, EA, or
CATEX determination, EPA will conduct its own environmental review and incorporate by
reference any pertinent part of the agency's environmental document. EPA will request
additional information from the recipient if necessary for EPA to conduct its own environmental
review. See Appendix F for additional information on CATEX and E1D development.
For design and construction projects for which another federal agency has not completed a
NEPA review and projects that CWSRF or DWSRF do not co-fund and/or have not undergone a
SERP, recipients will determine whether to request a CATEX from EPA or to prepare and
submit an EID in order to proceed with a NEPA review.
Procurement
In general, all procurement transactions for professional engineering services and construction
contractors must be conducted in a manner that includes and promotes fair and open competition
from an adequate number of qualified sources. 2 CFR 200.320 details the specific methods of
procurement to be followed and the circumstances under which each method can be used.
Recipients and subrecipients must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent
with State, local or tribal laws and regulation as well as Federal laws and regulations in
accordance with 2 CFR 200.317 - 2 CFR 200.327.
In accordance with 2 CFR 200.325. recipients must provide EPA with technical specifications on
proposed procurements when requested by EPA, including when pre-award costs are being
considered for eligibility. In addition, upon request by EPA's Grants Management Office (GMO)
under 2 CFR 200.325 or . • t ^ .00.337, grantees must provide procurement documents to EPA
for pre-procurement review when EPA is concerned that the grantee's procurement procedures
or practices do not comply with federal procurement requirements, including but not limited to
procurements that do not comply with competition requirements. As provided in 2 CFR
200.332(d) and the terms of conditions of their EPA award, pass-through entities are responsible
for monitoring subrecipient compliance with procurement requirements in 2 CFR Parts 200 and
1500. EPA's GMO may also request that pass-through entities provide EPA with information
regarding subrecipient compliance with these requirements.
Selection of Architects and Engineers (projects inclusive of CWSRF-eligible activities)
Projects consisting of CWSRF-eligible activities, irrespective of whether such projects are co-
funded with CWSRF funding, must comply with the procurement processes for architectural and
engineering (A/E) services as identified in et sen., or an equivalent State
requirement. Where equivalent State requirements are complied with, the source of the
requirement (e.g., existing State legislation or regulation, etc.) must be stated, and the Governor
of the State must provide a certification to accompany the grant application that the State's A/E
procurement requirements are equivalent to L. In lieu of a certification from
the Governor, the Attorney General's certification submitted with each grant application may
include the A/E certification.
EPA's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program
13 |
-------
EPA's DBE Program applies to all EPA Assistance Agreements and requires recipients who
procure goods and/or services to: employ the good faith efforts, document their efforts, and
maintain DBE forms and other documentation from the prime contractor. EPA grant recipients
and subrecipients are required to seek and encouraged to utilize disadvantaged business
enterprises (DBEs) for their procurement needs under grant agreements. Recipients and
subrecipients must ensure that their contracts contain the following term and condition:
"The contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national
origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall
carry out applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 33 in the award and
administration of contracts awarded under EPA financial assistance
agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a
material breach of this contract which may result in termination of this
contract or other legally available remedies."
Other DBE requirements are identified in
Davis Bacon Act (DBA)
The DBA, requires that all contractors and subcontractors performing construction, alteration,
and repair (including painting and decorating) work under federal contracts in excess of $2,000,
pay their laborers and mechanics not less than the prevailing wage and fringe benefits for the
geographic location. DBA requirements may be extended to federal financial assistance
programs by the terms of other statutes (referred to as Davis Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA))
establishing or funding the programs. The )22 Appropriations Act provides those federal
requirements that would apply to a CWSRF or DWSRF project grant recipient shall apply to a
grantee receiving a Community Grant. Consequently, the FY 2022 Appropriations Act extends
DBRA provisions applicable to state revolving fund projects to the Community Grants. Clean
Water A: applies DBA requirements to projects for treatment works. DBA
requirements apply to all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors
with job duties that are physical and manual in nature including: laborers and mechanics,
watchmen or guards (under certain conditions), and working foremen (under certain conditions).
The term laborer or mechanic does not include workers whose duties are primarily
administrative, executive, or clerical, rather than manual. Requirements only apply to
construction at the "site of the work," which has generally been defined as the physical place
where the construction occurs. Work conducted off-site is generally not covered. EPA's Interim
Davis-Bacon Act Guidance provides additional information on requirements and compliance.
Build America, Buy America (BABA)
BABA states that: "[N]one of the funds made available for a Federal financial assistance
program for infrastructure.. .may be obligated for a project unless all of the iron, steel,
manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United
States." Project means any activity related to the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair
of infrastructure in the United States. This law applies to all Federal financial assistance as
defined in section ,00.1. whether funded through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
14 |
-------
Act (IIJA) or not. New awards made on or after May 14, 2022, must comply with BAB A
requirements. EPA provides information and guidance on BABA compliance, implementation,
and any applicable waivers. Recipients are required to ensure that procurement plans comply
with BABA requirements prior to grants being awarded.
American Iron and Steel (AIS)
The AIS provision requires recipients to use iron and steel products that are produced in the
United States for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public water system or
treatment works. AIS requirements correspond to a subset of BABA requirements, therefore
recipients in compliance with BABA are in compliance with AIS. EPA provides information and
guidance on AIS compliance and implementation, any applicable waivers, as well as a step-by-
step process for requesting waivers and the circumstances under which waivers may be granted.
Federal Cross-cutting Requirements/Other Applicable Federal Laws
Recipients must comply with Federal cross-cutting requirements as well as other applicable
Federal laws. These requirements may include but are not limited to -
• Environmental Authorities: Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, Pub. L. 93-
291, as amended; Clean Air Act, Pub. L. 95-95, as amended; Clean Water Act, Titles III,
IV and V, Pub. L. 92-500, as amended; Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Pub. L. 97-348;
Coastal Zone Management Act, Pub. L. 92-583, as amended; Endangered Species Act,
Pub. L. 93-205, as amended; Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898; Flood Plain
Management, Executive Order 11988, as amended by Executive Order 12148; Protection
of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990, as amended by Executive Order 12608; Farmland
Protection Policy Act, Pub. L. 97-98; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Pub. L. 85-
624, as amended; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Pub. L.
94-265; National Environmental Policy Act, Pub. L. 91-190; National Historic
Preservation Act, Pub. L. 89-655, as amended; Safe Drinking Water Act, Pub L. 93-523,
as amended; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Pub. L. 90-54, as amended;
• Economic and Miscellaneous Authorities: OSHA Worker Health and Safety Standards;
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, Pub. L. 91-54; Debarment and
Suspension, Executive Order 12549; Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act, Pub. L. 89 -754, as amended, and Executive Order 12372; Drug-
Free Workplace Act, Pub. L. 100-690; Copeland "Anti-kickback" Act, Pub. L. 73-324;
Government Neutrality Toward Contractor's Labor Relations, Executive Order
13202, as amended by Executive Order 13208; New Restrictions on Lobbying,
Section 319 of Pub. L. 101-121; Prohibitions relating to violations of the Clean
Water Act or Clean Air Act with respect to Federal contracts, grants, or loans
under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act and Section 508 of the Clean Water Act,
and Executive Order 11738; Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act, Pub. L. 91-646, as amended;
15 |
-------
• Civil Rights, Nondiscrimination, Equal Employment Opportunity Authorities: Age
Discrimination Act, Pub. L. 94-135; Equal Employment Opportunity, Executive
Order 11246; Section 13 of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. 92-500; Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, Pub. L 93-112, supplemented by Executive Orders 11914 and
11250; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Pub. L 88-352;
o Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, EPA has a responsibility to ensure that
federal funds are not being used to subsidize discrimination based on race, color,
or national origin. This prohibition against discrimination under Title VI has been
a statutory mandate since 1964, and EPA has had Title VI regulations since 1973.
EPA's nondiscrimination regulations prohibit recipients of EPA financial
assistance from taking actions in their programs or activities that are intentionally
discriminatory and/or have a discriminatory effect based on race, color, national
origin (including limited English proficiency), age, disability, or sex.
• Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Authorities: EPA's FY 1993 Appropriations
Act, Pub. L. 102-389; Section 129 of the Small Business Administration
Reauthorization and Amendment Act, Pub. L. 100-590; Small, Minority and
Women Owned Business Enterprises, Executive Orders 11625, 12138 and 12432.
Regional Contacts
For general questions about the Community Grants Program, or for project specific questions that
require the assistance of an EPA Regional Office, contact the EPA. Regional Contact.
16 |
-------
Appendix A: Statutory Language
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022,8 contains the following provision:
Provided, That $443,639,051 of the funds made available for capitalization grants for the
Clean Water State Revolving Funds and $397,766,044 of the funds made available for
capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds shall be for the
construction of drinking water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure and for water
quality protection in accordance with the terms and conditions specified for such grants in
the explanatory statement [discussed below] . . . for projects specified for "STAG—
Drinking Water SRF", "STAG—Clean Water SRF", and "STAG—Drinking Water SRF;
Clean Water SRF" in the table titled "Interior and Environment Incorporation of
Community Project Funding Items/Congressionally Directed Spending Items " included for
this division in the explanatory statement. . . , and, for purposes of these grants, each
grantee shall contribute not less than 20 percent of the cost of the project unless the grantee
is approvedfor a waiver by the Agency\.\
The aforementioned "explanatory statement9" accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2022, states:
Community Project Funding Items/Congressionally Directed Spending Items.—From
within funds provided for capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the Committees recommend $443,639,051
from the Clean Water SRF and $397,766,044 from the Drinking Water SRF be for
Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending grants for the
construction of drinking water, waste-water, and storm-water infrastructure andfor water
quality protection. Each project shall provide not less than 20 percent matching funds from
non-Federal sources, unless approvedfor a waiver. Applicable Federal requirements that
would apply to a Clean Water State Revolving Fund or Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund project grant recipient shall apply to a grantee receiving a CPF grant under this
section. The Committees note that the following funding sources are to be treated as non-
Federal funds and can be used to meet the non-Federal matching fund requirement: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development Block Grant
program; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Program; and Appalachian
Regional Commission grants. Funding made available to jurisdictions through the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) are considered Federal funds and may
not be applied towards the non-Federal cost share requirement. A detailed list of projects
is in the table titled "Interior and Environment Incorporation of Community Project
Funding Items/Congressionally Directed Spending Items. "
8 P.L. 117-103
9 Explanatory Statement for Division G of P.L. 117-103
17 |
-------
Appendix B: List of EPA Congressionally Directed Spending Community Projects
and Funding Levels
(FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act)
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
The list below is organized by: (I) Community projects funded by the Clean Water SRF, (2) Community projects
funded by the Drinking Water SRF, and (3) Community projects funded by both Clean Water SRF and Drinking Water
SRF. Projects are arranged alphabetically by state within each category. Note that EPA made grammatical changes to
remove extra spaces, hyphens, and periods. The original CDS list should be referred to for technical corrections.
Community Projects Funded by Clean Water SRF Appropriations (alphabetical by state)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
AK
The City of Ketchikan for the Tongass Sewer force main
rehabilitation project
1,250,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
AK
City of Ketchikan for Schoebner Culvert Rehabilitation
1,250,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
AK
City of Kodiak for Wastewater Lift Station and Force
Main Replacement
3,250,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
AK
Kenai Peninsula Borough for Central Peninsula Landfill
Leachate Volume Reduction Project
3,360,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
AK
Municipality of Skagway for Waste Water Treatment
Plant Upgrade
10,200,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
AK
The City and Borough of Juneau for Mendenhall
Wastewater Treatment Plant improvements
800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
AL
Lowndes County for Septic Tank Installations
700,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
AZ
Mohave County for Bank Street Channel Stormwater
Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
AZ
Town of Hayden for Sewer Line Replacement
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of East Palo Alto for O'Connor Stormwater Station
improvement
800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of Madera for Sewer Trunk Main Rehabilitation
Project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of Maywood for Sewer Improvement Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of Millbrae for Water Recycling Project
800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of Sacramento for 24th Street In-Line Combined
Sewer System (CSS) Storage Pipe project
1,500,000
18 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of Sacramento for Combined Sewer System
Improvement Project
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of San Juan Bautista for Regional Waste Water
Solution Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of San Leandro for Trash Capture Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of Torrance for Torrance Airport Storm Water
Basin Project
938,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
County of Lake/Special Districts for Pipeline Design
Project
320,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
Earlimart Public Utility District for a sewer relief
project
1,284,696
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
Eastern Municipal Water District for the Quail Valley
septic to sewer conversion project
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
Monterey One Water for Coral Street Pump Station
Electrical Relocation Project
400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians for Waste Water
Treatment Plant improvements
112,340
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
The Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency for the
Replenish Big Bear Lake recycled water project
960,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
The City of Adelanto for a wastewater treatment plant
tertiary treatment capability project
800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
The City of Twentynine Palms for a wastewater
treatment facility phase II project
663,224
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
The San Bernardino County Department of Public
Works for the Desert Knolls Wash Phase III
construction channel project
1,932,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
City of Banning for Wastewater Treatment and
Groundwater Protection Project
1,250,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
The City of Yucaipa for the Wilson III basin project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CA
Western Municipal Water District for West ern Water
Recycling Facility PFAS Treatment and Prevention
Project
3,000,000
19 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CO
City of Craig for a Drinking Water and/or Clean Water
Project for Water and Wastewater Emergency
Generators
1,080,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CO
Town of Rico for Central Sewer System Project
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CT
Save the Sound for Dam Removal Project
475,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CT
Town of Newtown for Non-Impervious Parking in
Newtown
480,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CT
City of West Haven for Organic Waste and Sludge
Disposal
160,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CT
Metropolitan District Commission for City of Hartford
Waste Treatment Facility Upgrades
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CT
Save the Sound for Distributed Green Infrastructure
across the Watersheds of New Haven Harbor
375,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CT
Town of Manchester for a Drinking Water and/or Clean
Water Project for Water and Sewer Transmission Pipe
1,800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
CT
Town of Stonington WPCA for River Road Pumping
Station Upgrades
720,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
DE
City of Seaford for Sewer Line Relocation
1,200,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
DE
City of Wilmington for South Wilmington Sewer
Infrastructure Expansion
4,800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Bay Park Conservancy for an environ mental restoration
project
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Charlotte County for the Ackerman septic to sewer
conversion project
3,200,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Cities of Wilton Manors, Oakland Park, and Fort
Lauderdale for Oakland ParkAVilton Manors/Fort
Lauderdale Middle River Water Quality Improvement
Project
900,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
City of Coral Springs for Stormwater Drainage
Infrastructure
400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
City of North Miami Beach for Drainage Improvement
Project
1,141,038
20 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
City of Oviedo for Percolation Pond Decom missioning
project
900,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
City of Sunrise for Storm Water Pump Station
Replacement
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
City of West Park for a Drainage Improvement Project
400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
DeSoto County for a wastewater treatment expansion
project
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Hillsborough County for Septic-to-Sewer project
800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Lee County for the Bob Janes Preserve restoration
project
720,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Leon County for Lake Henrietta Stormwater Facility
1,600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Miami-Dade County for a septic to sewer project
750,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department for the
Biscayne Bay Water Pump project
1,600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Okeechobee Utility Authority for the Treasure Island
wastewater expansion project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Pinellas County Government for Sanitary Sewer
Interceptor at Pinellas Park
700,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Seminole County Government for Little Wekiva River
Restoration Project
688,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
The City of Dade City for a wastewater treatment plant
relocation and upgrade project
1,750,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
The City of Sarasota for a wetlands restoration project
2,578,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
The City of Zephyrhills for the Northside Lift Station
and Force Main project
1,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
The Pinellas County Board of County Com missioners
for a tidal check valves project
240,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
The Village of Key Biscayne for the Key Biscayne K-8
Center Elementary School stormwater improvements
project
500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
The Village of Pinecrest for a stormwater management
project
606,000
21 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Town of Davie for Shenandoah Drainage Improvements
1,772,800
STAG—Clean Water SRF
FL
Town of Eatonville for Vereen Lift Station/ Quadrant
Rehabilitation
665,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
GA
Augusta-Richmond County for Rock Creek Basin
National Hills Neighborhood Storm water Project
3,242,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
GA
Augusta-Richmond County for a Drinking Water and/or
Clean Water Project for Sewer and Waterline
Replacement
3,888,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
GA
City of Mclntyre and Wilkinson County for Sewer
System
6,300,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IA
City of Johnston for Sewer Extension Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IA
The City of Burlington for a sewer separation project
1,700,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IA
The City of Ottumwa for the Blake's Branch sewer
project
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
City of Elmhurst for Storm water Improvement Project
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
City of Hickory Hills for Sanitary Sewer Improvements
640,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
Downers Grove Sanitary District for Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation
1,080,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
The Galesburg Sanitary District for Anaerobic Digester
Upgrades
1,200,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
Village of Burr Ridge for Stormwater Management
Improvements
785,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
City of Harvey for a Drinking Water and/or Clean Water
Project for Central Area Water and Sewer Improvement
Project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
City of Peoria for Combined Sewer Overflow Project
450,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
City of Sesser for Sanitary Sewer Collection System
Rehabilitation
750,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
HeartLands Conservancy for Centreville Cahokia
Heights Sewer System Project
1,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
Kishwaukee Water Reclamation District for
Malta/Kishwaukee Community College Sanitary Sewer
Extension Project
250,000
22 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
Lake County Public Works for Des Plaines River Water
Reclamation Facility Up grades Project
400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago for Storm water Project
1,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
IL
Will County for a Drinking Water and/or Clean Water
Project for Southeast Joliet Sanitary District Water and
Wastewater Upgrading
500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
KS
City of Pittsburg for Wastewater Treatment Facility
3,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
KY
Eastern Kentucky PRIDE, Inc. for a septic system
project
800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
KY
Franklin County Fiscal Court for the Farmdale
Sanitation District sewer system project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
KY
Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer
District for Park DuValle Community Odor Control
Improvements
480,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
KY
The City of Danville for the Spears Creek Pump Station
upgrade
400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
KY
The City of Lawrenceburg for a sanitary sewer overflow
elimination and sewer extension project
750,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
LA
The City of Monroe for rehabilitation of a sewer main
project
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
LA
City of Monroe for Storm Water Drainage Study
500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
LA
New Orleans Ernest N. Morial Convention Center for
New Gravity Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Project
8,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MA
Charles River Watershed Association, Inc. for Charles
River Flood Model
400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MA
City of Somerville for Poplar Street Pump Station
Project
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MA
City ofWaltham for Waltham Embassy Parking Lot
Project
280,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MA
City of Westfield for Water Treatment Plant Building
Upgrades
1,000,000
23 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MA
Merrimack River Watershed Council for Merrimack
River Hot Spot Detection and Green Infrastructure
Solutions
352,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MA
Town of Agawam Main Street Sewage Main and Slope
Stabilization Project
740,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MA
Town of Hull for Pump Station 9 Replacement
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MA
Tyngsborough Sewer Department for Sewer Phase 3
Project
869,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MA
Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah for
Administration Building Connection to Wastewater
Treatment Plant
800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MD
Montgomery County for Watershed Enhancement
Project
500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MD
Montgomery County for Watershed Stormwater
Management Enhancements
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MD
Anacostia Watershed Society for Treating and Teaching
program
200,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MD
Anne Arundel County for Stormwater Management
Infrastructure Improvements
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MD
Cecil County for New Wastewater Infra structure
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MD
City of Hyattsville forWard 1 Stormwater Project
870,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MD
The City of Cambridge for Historic West End Sewer
Line Replacements
500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
City of Belfast for Sewer Line Replacements
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
City of Brewer for Oak Grove Sewer Subsystem
Remediation Project
1,103,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
City of Eastport Wastewater Treatment Department for
Middle Street Pump Station Generator Upgrade
120,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
City of Presque Isle for Echo Lake Septic Tank Effluent
Pump System
550,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
City of Saco for Water Resource Recovery Facility
Upgrade
3,930,000
24 | Page
-------
Project
Slnle
\lllftlllll (S)
ICCOIII
(Recipient Name :iih
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
Maine Department of Environmental Protection for
Anson Madison Sanitary District Regional PFAS
Treatment Facility
1,600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
Town of Bridgton for Sewer Main Extensions Project
1,400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
Town of Frenchville for Force Main and Pump Station
Upgrade
247,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
Town of Livermore Falls for Wastewater Treatment
Facility improvements
1,700,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
Town of Old Orchard Beach for Wastewater Treatment
Facility Upgrades
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
Town of Vinalhaven for Downtown Sewer and Water
Project
1,410,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
ME
Town of Winslow for Chaffee Brook Pump Station
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
City of Mason for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvement and Expansion
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
Harrison Township for a sanitary sewer project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
Leoni Township for a wastewater treatment plant
improvement project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
St. Clair County for the Clay-Ira interceptor project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
The City of Midland for a storm and sanitary sewer
improvement project
750,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
The Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District for a
segment sewer rehabilitation project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
The Village of Clinton for a septic waste treatment
project
185,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
Tuscarora Township for a septic to sewer expansion and
modernization project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
8 1/2 Mile Relief Drain Drainage District for Chapaton
Retention Basin In-Storage Expansion
4,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
Great Lakes Water Authority for Detroit River
Interceptor Evaluation and Rehabilitation
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MI
Martin Sanitary Diversion Drainage District for Martin
Drain In-System Storage Device
1,000,000
25 | Pa g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MN
City of Shakopee for River Stabilization Project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MN
City of Two Harbors for a wastewater treatment facility
improvements project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MN
City of Bemidji for Wastewater Treatment Facility
Rehabilitation
4,400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
MN
City of Rochester for Water Reclamation Plant Upgrade
935,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NC
The City of Clinton for a sewer line repair project
68,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NC
The City of Dunn for the Black River Waste Water
Plant improvement project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NC
The Town of Benson for a sewer treatment capacity
project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NC
Town of Cary for Swift Creek Stormwater Management
and Modeling Program
900,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NC
Town of Hookerton for Waste Water Treatment Plant
Lagoon and Sewer Collection System Improvements
1,897,001
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NE
The Sarpy County Wastewater Agency for the
Springfield Creek sewer project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NH
Town of Exeter for Exeter Squamscott River Sewer
Siphons
600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NH
City of Rochester for Septic Receiving Facility
Upgrades
900,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NH
Conway Village Fire District for Sewer Main
Rehabilitation
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NH
Keene, NH for Sewer Force Main Inspection and
Rehabilitation
325,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NH
Town of Exeter for Webster Avenue Pump Station
Rehabilitation Project
1,050,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NH
Town of Greenville for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Chemical Feed Building
750,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NH
Town of Newport for Renovation of Wastewater
Treatment Plant
1,936,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
Borough of Saddle River for Sewer Main Construction
Project
1,105,166
26 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
City of New Brunswick for Sewer Replacement Project
760,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
Township of Saddle Brook for Sewage Re habilitation
and Improvements
1,393,682
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
Borough of Paramus for Prospect Avenue Sewer Pump
Station Project
250,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
Borough of Prospect Park for Main Sewer Line Repair
Project
223,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
Borough of Sussex for Sewer Force Main Repair
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
Borough of Wharton for Sanitary Sewer System
Rehabilitation
398,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
City of Hackensack for Clay Street Combined Sewer
Separation Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
City of Hammonton for Sanitary Sewer System Study
and Rehabilitation
395,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
Sparta Township for Wastewater Treatment Project
250,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
Township of Berkeley Heights for West Side Drainage
Project
500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NJ
Willingboro Municipal Utilities Authority for Water
Treatment Plant Microgrid
600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NV
The City of Carson City for a sewer extension project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NV
Boulder City for Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NV
City of Ely for Central Ely Sewer Upgrade
3,300,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NV
The City of Reno for the McCloud Area sewer
conversion project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NV
The City of Sparks for Truckee Meadows Water
Reclamation Facility upgrades
3,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NV
Truckee Meadows Water Authority for Reno-Stead
OneWater Nevada Purification Facility
3,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
City of Newburgh for North Interceptor Sewer Project
3,120,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
County of Putnam for Riparian and Water shed
Ecological Restoration Project
3,500,000
27 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
Save the Sound for Little Neck Bay Stormwater
Management
600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
The City of Corning for a wastewater treatment plant
improvement project
480,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
The Incorporated Village of Patchogue for a wastewater
treatment facility expansion project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
The Town of Cherry Creek wastewater col lection
project
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
The Town of Prattsburgh for a wastewater service
project
398,700
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
The Town of Seneca Falls for a pump station and force
main wastewater collection project
1,966,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
The Village of Portville for a sanitary sewer
improvements project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
Town of Clarkstown for Storm Water Management
Improvements
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
Town of Rotterdam for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements Project
960,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
Town of Yorktown for Hallocks Mill Sewer Extension
Project
1,200,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
Village of Kiryas Joel Wastewater Treatment Plant for
Wastewater Treatment Plant Components
Modernization Project
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
Village of Sea Cliff and Hempstead Harbor Protection
Committee for North Shore Shellfish Seeding
300,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
City of Mount Vernon for City of Mount Vernon DPW
Sewer Planning Project
1,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
NY
Incorporated Village of Hempstead for Sewer System
Improvements
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
The City of Chillicothe for a wastewater treatment plant
project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
The City of Fairview Park for sewer remediation and
environmental improvements
3,500,000
28 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
The City of Parma for Valley Villas, York, and State
Roads sewer improvements
1,968,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
The City of Rocky River for the Bucking ham Road,
Argyle Oval, and Arundel Road sewer replacement
project
2,520,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
The City of Strongsville for the Prospect Road storm
sewer project
1,600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
The City ofWilloughby for the Willoughby-Eastlake
Water Pollution Control Center Lakeshore East
Equalization Basin project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
The Geauga County Board of Commissioners for
McFarland Wastewater Treatment Plant renovation and
up grades
800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
The Village of Chagrin Falls for a wastewater treatment
plant infrastructure re habilitation project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
The Village of Grover Hill for a wastewater collections
system project
400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
Village of Lowellville for Wastewater Improvements
549,600
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District for Brookside
Culvert Repair Project
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District for Upper
Ridgewood Stormwater Detention Basin Improvement
Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OH
Village of Tuscarawas for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements
500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OK
Davis Municipal Authority for Wastewater Treatment
Plant Improvements
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OK
Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust for Wastewater
Treatment Plant Upgrades
5,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OK
Stillwater Utilities Authority for City of Stillwater
Wastewater Project
5,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
Port of Brookings Harbor for Wastewater Treatment
Plant
3,500,000
29 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
City of Albany for Composting System Expansion at the
Albany-Millsburg Water Reclamation
1,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
City of Dufur for Wastewater Treatment Expansion
Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
City of Hood River for Phase IV Waterfront Stormwater
Line Relocation
575,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
City of Newberg for Emergency Wastewater Treatment
Plant
500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
City of North Bend for Storm and Sanitary
Infrastructure Replacement and Up grades
1,340,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
City of Prineville for a Drinking Water and/ or Clean
Water Project for Water and Wastewater Services
Extension
1,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
City of Sandy for Sewer Pipe Improvements
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
Klamath County for Upper Klamath Lake Water Reuse
Equipment
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
North Unit Irrigation District for Jefferson County Main
Canal Lining Project
555,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
Port of Toledo for Sewer Connection Expansion Project
1,958,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
OR
Rogue River Valley and Medford Irrigation District for
Joint System Piping, Phase 1
5,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
PA
Cranberry Township for a sanitary sewer system project
960,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
PA
The City of Corry for a wastewater treatment plant
project
400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
PA
Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority for Stream
Restorations and Stormwater Basin Retrofit
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
PA
Cecil Township Municipal Authority for Village of
Lawrence Sewage Facilities Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
PA
Mid-Cameron Authority for Cameron County
Interceptor Line Replacement
376,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
RI
City of Warwick Sewer Authority for Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition System
1,500,000
30 | P a g e
-------
St site
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount (S)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
RI
Town of North Providence for Stormwater
Improvements
375,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
SC
City of Aiken for Northside Gravity Sewer Expansion
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
TX
City of Austin for a Wastewater and Stormwater
Infrastructure Project
1,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
TX
City of Buda for South Loop 4 Wastewater Extension
Project
1,636,364
STAG—Clean Water SRF
TX
City of Wilmer for Force Main Replacement Project
2,226,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
TX
Harris County Flood Control District for the Kingwood
Diversion Channel improvement project
1,600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
TX
Harris County Flood Control District for the Taylor
Gully stormwater channel improvement project
1,600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
TX
Harris County for the Forest Manor drain age
improvement project
1,673,600
STAG—Clean Water SRF
TX
Memorial City Redevelopment Authority for a detention
basin improvement project
3,394,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
TX
The City of Waco for the Flat Creek water reuse project
1,700,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
UT
The Town of Manila for a sewage system project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VA
City of Falls Church for Lincoln Avenue Stormwater
Project
400,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VA
City of Petersburg for Sewer Service Area Infrastructure
Upgrades
2,432,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VA
City of Norfolk for a Drinking Water and/or Clean
Water Project for River Oaks Pump Station
Replacement
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VA
City of Norfolk for a Drinking Water and/or Clean
Water Project for West Ocean View Pump Station
2,300,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VA
City of Williamsburg for Walnut Hills Stormwater
Abatement and Streambank Stabilization project
422,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VI
Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority for
Residential Collection Sewers Re placement
960,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VI
Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority for
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Upgrade
1,120,000
31 | P a g e
-------
Project
Slnle
\llKMIIII
(It
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VI
Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority for Water
Security Infrastructure Up grades
1,200,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VT
Addison County Community Trust for Wastewater
Infrastructure Improvements
500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VT
City of Vergennes for Wastewater Upgrade
3,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VT
Milton Mobile Home Community, Inc. for a Drinking
Water and/or Clean Water Project for Mobile Home
Community Water and Sewer Project
841,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VT
City of Barre for City of Barre North End Wastewater
Pump Station
143,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VT
Town of Bethel for a Drinking Water and/or Clean
Water Project for Water and Stormwater Infrastructure
Upgrade
600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
VT
Town of Montgomery for Wastewater Infra structure
Construction Project
2,800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WA
City of Ellensburg for Renewable Natural Gas
Conversion and Methane Gas Recovery at the
Wastewater Treatment Facility
840,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WA
City of North Bend for Snoqualmie Valley Trail
Channel Widening and Wetland Creation/Enhancement
225,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WA
The City of College Place for a wastewater treatment
project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WA
The Stevens Public Utility District # 1 for a septage
reuse project
1,680,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WA
City of Stevenson for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Upgrades
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WA
City of Sultan for Wastewater Plant Up grade
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WA
Clark Regional Wastewater District for Curtain Creek
Septic Elimination Pro gram
800,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WA
Port Hadlock for Wastewater Facility
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WA
Town of Maiden for a sewer system project
3,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WI
City of River Falls for West Central Wisconsin
Biosolids Facility Improvements
1,600,000
32 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WI
City of Fitchburg for Stormwater Management Project
848,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
The City of Moundsville for a main sewer line
evaluation project
100,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
City of Follansbee for Wastewater System
Improvements Project
10,269,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
City of Grafton for Wastewater Systems Improvement
Project
3,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
City of Nitro for Stormwater and Sewer Upgrade Project
2,888,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
City of Parsons for Sanitary Sewer System Compliance
1,600,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
City of Ravenswood for Pump Station Improvements
2,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
City of Ripley for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements
3,000,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
DigDeep Right to Water Project for a sanitary septic and
sewerage service project
495,840
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
Parkersburg Utility Board for Marrtown Road Sewer
Improvements
2,500,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
Salt Rock Sewer Public Service District for Phase II
Pump Station Upgrade Project
1,416,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
Southern Jackson County Public Service District for
Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade
2,158,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
Town of Burnsville for Wastewater Collection System
Rehabilitation Project
669,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
Town of Marmet for Sanitary/Storm Separation Project:
Maryland Ave. Overflow Abatement
860,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
Town of Oceana for Wastewater Collection System
Upgrades
1,444,000
STAG—Clean Water SRF
WV
Town of Rowlesburg for Sanitary Sewer System
Upgrade
7,578,000
Community Projects Funded with Drinking Water SRF Appropriations (alphabetica
by state)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
AK
City and Borough ofWrangell for Supply Connector to
Treatment Plant
2,080,000
33 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
AK
City of King Cove for Delta Creek Water Well Field
Expansion
5,200,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
AL
City of Marion for Source Water Rehabilitation Project
480,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
AZ
City of Chandler for Advanced Metering Infrastructure
990,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
AZ
City of Glendale for Water Supply Inter-Connection
Upgrades
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
Adventist Health St. Helena Hospital for Napa County
Deer Park/St. Helena Water System improvements
1,840,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
Cambria Community Services District for Water Tanks
project
375,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
Citrus Heights Water District for Ground water
Production Well
585,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Dos Palos for Water Plant Clarifier Replacement
and Repair
279,664
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Downey for Well Remediation Project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Gustine for Water Loop Line Completion
Project
950,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Lomita for Lomita Water System Improvements
Project
940,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Oxnard for a Water Transmission Line
500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Poway for Clearwell Bypass System Project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of San Buenaventura (Ventura Water) for a State
Water Interconnection Project
2,840,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Santa Cruz for Water Meter Upgrade Program
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Thousand Oaks for a Water Reuse Project
1,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
Coachella Valley Water District for Water Transmission
Project
2,700,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
Earlimart Public Utility District for a well treatment
improvement project
1,756,416
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
East Bay Municipal Utility District for Upper San
Leandro Drinking Water Treatment Plant upgrades
3,500,000
34 | Page
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
Eastern Municipal Water District for Mead Valley
Water Booster Station Replacement Project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District for the
Canyon Lake Water Treatment Plant improvement
project
780,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
Ironhouse Sanitary District for Recycled Water Project
3,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
Pico Rivera Water Authority for PFAS Groundwater
Treatment Project
2,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
West Valley Water District for Bloomington Alleyway
Pipeline Project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Gustine for Tank and Booster Pump Station
Improvements
3,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
City of Sacramento for Fairbairn Ground water Well
1,700,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CA
South Coast Water District for Doheny De salination
Slant Well Project
2,400,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CO
Town of Dove Creek for Big Canyon Water Line
1,760,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CO
Town of Hotchkiss for Water Treatment Plant Upgrade
91,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CO
Town of La Veta for Water Treatment Plant
600,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CO
Town of Minturn for Water Tank Replacement Project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CO
Town ofWalden for Water System Old Valve
Replacement
90,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CT
Town of Durham for Public Water Supply Expansion
3,412,455
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CT
South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority for
Lake Saltonstall Water Treatment Plant Electrical
Upgrades Projects
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CT
Town of Bethel Public Utilities Department for
Bergstrom Well Treatment Facility
1,600,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
CT
Town of Bethel Public Utilities Department for
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System
640,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
FL
City of Apopka for Northwest Water Pro duction Plant
New Water Storage Tank
1,500,000
35 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
FL
City of Dania Beach for Water Utility Upgrade and
Improvement Project
1,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
FL
Miami-Dade County for a drinking water mains
extension project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
FL
Miami-Dade County for a drinking water project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
FL
Sarasota County for extension of a port able
transmission main project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
FL
The City of West Miami for a potable water main
improvements project
3,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
GA
City of East Point for Water Treatment Plant
Renovations
1,600,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IA
Creston City Waterworks for water intake Project
600,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
The City of Assumption for water system and treatment
plant improvements
1,965,040
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
The City of Carrollton for a water treatment plant
project
1,975,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
The City of Farmer City for a water plant sand filter
rehabilitation project
197,619
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
The City of Nokomis for a drinking water treatment
plant system improvement project
480,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
The City of Rushville for drinking water system
improvements
1,700,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
The Village of Blue Mound for water system
improvements and a water tower rehabilitation project
320,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
Village of Pingree Grove for Water Treatment
Expansion
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
Village of Richmond for Water Tower Rehabilitation
560,800
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
City of Joliet for Water Main Replacements and
Alternative Water Source Program project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
City of Metropolis for Metropolis Water Treatment
Plant Filter Rehabilitation Project
400,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
City of Monmouth for West Harlem Avenue Water
Main Replacement Project
500,000
36 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
IL
City of North Chicago for Lead Service Line and Water
Main Replacement
500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
KY
The City of Lancaster for a drinking water treatment
plant project
400,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
KY
The Hyden-Leslie County Water District for a water
system improvement project
1,392,960
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MA
City of Maiden for Lead Line Replacement Program
3,360,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MA
Norton Water & Sewer Department for Source Water
Well Replacement Project
1,475,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MA
Town of Hopedale for Water Supply And Storage
Enhancement Project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MA
Town of Medway for Central Water Treatment Facility
Improvements
2,750,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MA
Town of Plainville for Water System Capacity
Expansion Project
1,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MA
Town of Ipswich for Town Hill Water Storage Tank
Replacement
3,280,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MA
Town of Sturbridge for Water Main Improvements
1,085,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MD
City of Bowie for Replacement of Tuberculated Pipes
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MD
The Board of Garrett County Commissioners for
Gorman Waterline Rehabilitation Project
700,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MD
Town of Boonsboro for Drinking Water Reservoir
Replacement
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
ME
Town of Berwick for Water Utilities Up grade
2,800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
Charter Township of Shelby for a water reservoir
project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
City of Pleasant Ridge for Kensington Water Main and
Lead Service Line Re placement Project
650,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
Oakland County for Royal Oak Township Water System
Improvements
800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
The City of Croswell for a drinking water quality
improvement project
1,000,000
37 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
The City of Jackson for the Pearl Loop North Branch
water transmission main project
1,760,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
The City of Kalamazoo for a lead water service line
replacement project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
Village of Fowlerville for Water Treatment Plant
Improvements
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
Village of Milford for Water System Improvements
Project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
City of St. Clair for Water Treatment Plant
Improvements
970,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MI
Oakland County for Pontiac Water System
Improvements
800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MN
City of Aurora for East Mesabi Water Treatment Project
2,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MN
City of Ely for Water Supply Improvements for School
Campus
245,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MN
City of Zumbrota for Water Main Loop
560,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MO
City of Slater for Well Field Protection Project
147,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MO
City Utilities of Springfield for a raw water main
construction project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MS
The City of Gautier for a water treatment project
2,770,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MS
City of Jackson for Water and Distribution System
Improvements
4,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
MS
The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians for the Bogue
Homa water system project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NC
City of Henderson for Kerr Lake Regional Water
System Upgrade and Expansion Project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NC
Martin County for Water Regionalization Project
3,437,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NC
Town of Pittsboro for Water Treatment Plant
Infrastructure Upgrades
2,208,800
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NH
City of Portsmouth for Little Bay Waterline
Replacement
600,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NH
Town of Peterborough for Water Main Relocation
277,804
38 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NH
Town and Village of Canaan for Leaded Water Line
Replacement and River Crossing Protection
1,470,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
Hopatcong Borough for PFAS-related Water System
Upgrades
800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
Milford Borough for Water Main Improvements
360,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
The Village of Ridgewood for Drinking Water
Treatment Facilities Construction
2,800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
Town of Clinton for the West Main Street Water Main
Replacement
898,257
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
Borough of East Newark for Drinking Water System
Improvements
338,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
Borough of Red Bank for Lead Pipe Removal and
Replacement Project
250,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
Borough of Rocky Hill for PFOS Treatment and Other
Water Improvements
1,667,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
Borough of Stanhope for Water Main Re placements
677,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
Borough of Sussex for Water Utility Improvement
Project
100,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
City of Newark for Water Loss Monitoring Program
492,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NJ
Township of Bloomfield for Lead Service Line
Replacement Program
255,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NM
Town of Silver City for Grant County Regional Water
Project Update
200,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NV
Churchill County for a water treatment plant project
300,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NV
City of Fallon for Churchill County Rattle snake Hill
Water Tank Upgrade
1,995,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NV
The City of Carson City for the Quill Water Treatment
Plant filtration upgrade project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
City of Glen Cove for Rehabilitation of the Nancy Court
Pump Station
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
City of Long Beach for Sand Filter Rehabilitation
Project
1,000,000
39 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
City of Mechanicville for Water Reliability Project
800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
City of Middletown for Water System Improvements
Project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
Herkimer County for the Eastern Mohawk Valley
Regional transmission main project
500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
Suffolk County Water Authority for a drinking water
project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
The Town of Babylon for the Oak Beach Water System
project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
The Town of Riverhead for a drinking water project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
The Town of Vernon for the Vernon Central water
project
3,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
The Village of Aurora for replacement of aging water
infrastructure
160,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
The Village of Dundee for the water tank replacement
and control system enhancements project
640,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
The Village of Frankfort for a water system
improvements project
3,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
The Village of Marathon for a water river crossing
project
600,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
Town of Lewisboro for Oakridge Water District PFAS
Mitigation
1,800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
City of Cohoes for Drinking Water Treatment Plant
Rehabilitation Project
2,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
The Village of Mayville for a water well replacement
project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
Town of Volney for Portable Water System Installation
280,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
NY
Village of Hempstead for Water Improvements Project
3,200,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OH
The City of Munroe Falls for a waterline crossing
project
1,040,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OH
The City of Painesville for the Shamrock/ Brookstone
waterline extension and capacity project
570,000
40 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OH
The City of Portsmouth for water treatment plant repairs
and updates
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OH
The City of Rittman for a water transmission line project
2,628,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OH
The Village of Georgetown for a water tower
rehabilitation project
450,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OH
Village of Midvale for Water Treatment Plant Filtration
Improvement Project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OH
Village of Scio for Waterline and Household Lead Line
Replacement
300,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OK
Cherokee County Rural Water District #1 for Drinking
Water Project
5,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OK
Edmond Public Works Authority for City of Edmond
Drinking Water Improvements
5,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OK
McAlester Public Works Authority for City of
McAlester Drinking Water System Improvements
5,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OK
Okarche Public Works Authority for Drinking Water
Treatment Plant Project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OK
Stillwater Utilities Authority for City of Stillwater
Drinking Water Project
5,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OK
Welch Public Works Authority for Town of Welch
Drinking Water Improvements
300,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OK
Wewoka Public Works Authority for Drinking Water
Improvements
5,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OR
City of Hillsboro for Water Supply System Construction
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OR
City of Echo for Potable Water System Service
Replacement
450,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OR
City of Haines for Water Supply and Distribution
Project
1,015,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OR
City of Warrenton for Hammond Waterline Project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OR
City of Willamina for Water Intake Repair
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OR
City of Yamhill for Treatment Plant Project
192,000
41 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
OR
Mapleton Water District for Distribution and Meter
Project
800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
PA
Center Township Water Authority for Center Grange
Road Waterline Replacement
999,999
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
PA
Creswell Heights Joint Authority for Filter Media
Material Upgrades
400,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
PA
Municipal Authority Borough of Midland for Water
Treatment Plant Improvements
80,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
PA
The Avella Area School District for a water line
extension project
500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
PA
Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Authority for Brave
Water and Sewer Authority System Extension
2,200,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
RI
City of Newport for Narragansett Avenue Water Main
Rehabilitation
1,520,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
RI
City of Warwick for Lincoln Avenue Transmission Line
Rehabilitation
3,200,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
RI
City of Woonsocket for Lead Line Removal
775,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
RI
Greenville Water District for Water Line Extension
325,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
RI
Providence Water Supply Board for Water Lead Service
Replacements
3,300,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
RI
Prudence Island Water District for System Improvement
1,350,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
RI
Town of North Smithfield Water Department for St.
Paul Street Water Line Project
1,175,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
SC
City of Rock Hill for Water Plant Alum Sludge
Dewatering Facility
8,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TN
Glen Hills Utility District for an updated drinking water
infrastructure project in Greeneville
996,160
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TN
The City of Oak Ridge for a water treatment plant
project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TX
City of Alamo for Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation
and Expansion
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TX
City of Bellaire for Bellaire Waterlines
782,000
42 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TX
City of Glenn Heights for Elevated Water Storage Tank
Project
2,800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TX
City of Jacinto City for Northeast Water Mains & Fire
Hydrant Improvements
1,950,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TX
City of Jersey Village for Seattle Street Waterlines
Replacement
624,835
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TX
City of Schertz for Corbett Water Ground Storage Tank
Project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TX
San Antonio Water System for Generators for Critical
Infrastructure Protection
500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
TX
The Brownsville Public Utilities Board for Water
Treatment Plant Pump Station Improvements
500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
UT
The City of Centerville for the Green Steel Tank
replacement project
1,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
UT
The City of Ephraim for a drinking water resiliency
project
3,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
VA
City of Manassas for Transmission Main Replacement
2,400,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
VA
City of Portsmouth for Water Service Line Inventory
500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
VA
Frederick County Sanitation Authority for Diehl Water
Treatment Plant Improvement Project
3,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
VA
Prince George County for Central Water System
Extension Project
3,200,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
VA
Spotsylvania County for Motts Run Water Treatment
Plant Expansion Project
1,840,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
VA
Surry County for Water System Upgrades
3,200,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
VA
Frederick County Sanitation Authority for Lake
Frederick Well Development
3,600,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
VT
Village of Jeffersonville for Water System Upgrades
560,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WA
MacKaye Harbor Water District for Agate Beach Lane
Source Water and Transmission Improvements
694,480
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WA
Port of Coupeville for Wharf Rehabilitation Project
136,000
43 | P a g e
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WA
Quileute Nation for Quileute Move to High er Ground
Water System Improvement
1,479,355
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WA
Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District for
Sammamish Plateau Water PFAS Treatment Plant
upgrades
1,585,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WA
The City of Airway Heights for a water re placement
project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WA
The Town of Cusick for a water treatment facility
project
3,500,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WA
Lakewood Water District for PFAS Remediation
1,950,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WA
Town of Harrah for Drinking Water Well Project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WI
Waukesha Water Utility for an elevated storage tank
project
530,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WI
City of La Crosse for Wellhead PFA Water
Contamination Treatment
3,730,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WI
City of Monroe for Lead Service Line Replacement
1,022,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WI
City of Rhinelander for Drinking Water Quality
Infrastructure Improvements
1,600,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WI
Sheboygan Water Utility for Drinking Water Project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
The Bel-O-Mar Regional Council for a water system
improvements project
1,120,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
The Marshall County Commission for a water meter
project
230,400
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
The Ohio County Commission for the Town of
Triadelphia water storage tank project
600,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Canaan Valley Public Service District for Water Plant
8,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
City of Weirton for Water Treatment Capacity Project
22,470,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Clarksburg Water Board for Distribution System
Improvements
6,880,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Greenbrier County Public Service District No. 2 for
Phase II Waterline Extension
1,500,000
44 | Page
-------
STAG Account
State
Project
(Recipient Name and Purpose)
Amount ($)
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Hodgesville Public Service District for Water System
Improvements
4,037,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Kanawha County Commission for Leatherwood Water
Project
5,230,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Midland Public Service District for Faulkner Road
Water Line Extension to Bow den
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Monumental Public Service District for Waterline
Expansion
283,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Nettie Leivasy Public Service District for Water System
Improvements Project
4,020,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Preston County PSD 1 for Water Treatment Plant and
Water Line Upgrades
646,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Town of Alderson for Water System Rehabilitation and
Extension Project
2,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Town of Burnsville for Burnsville Lake Water Supply
Line Improvements
4,800,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Town of Kermit for Rehabilitation of Water Treatment
Facility
2,747,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Town of Meadow Bridge for Distribution System
Upgrade and Extension
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water SRF
WV
Town ofWorthington for Water Service Upgrade
Project
1,000,000
Community Projects Funded with Both Clean Water SRF and
Drinking Water SRF Appropriations (alphabetical by state)
STAG—Drinking Water
SRF; Clean Water SRF
MI
St. Clair County for a drinking water ($200,000) and
wastewater ($800,000) improvement project
1,000,000
STAG—Drinking Water
SRF; Clean Water SRF
TX
County of El Paso for First-Time Water ($314,000) and
Wastewater ($791,000) Connection Projects
1,105,000
45 | P a g e
-------
Appendix C: Technical Corrections-Procedural Information
Examples of Acceptable Technical Corrections
Below are three common types of corrections that are generally acceptable. All examples assume
concurrence from the original recipient and the new recipient to be named, if applicable.
Original Language
Purpose (P)or
Recipient (R)?
New Language
Anytown for wastewater
infrastructure improvements
P
Anytown for water infrastructure
improvements
Anytown for wastewater
infrastructure improvements
R
Greater Anytown-Area Regional
Sewer Authority for wastewater
infrastructure improvements
Anytown for wastewater
infrastructure improvements
P,R
Greater Anytown-Area Regional
Water Authority for drinking water
infrastructure improvements
Technical corrections cannot: 1) change the purpose to a non-construction project unless it
otherwise provides for water quality protection; 2) change the purpose to construction of
infrastructure that is not drinking, waste, or storm water-related unless it otherwise provides for
water quality protection; 3) change the purpose to debt repayment; 4) transfer funds to another
Federal Agency.
Who Can Request a Technical Correction?
Technical correction requests must be in writing and, for a change in purpose, must be originated
by the original recipient. A request involving a change in recipient can be initiated by either the
original recipient or the new entity to be named, but such a request requires the written
concurrence of the other party. Requests involving a change in both recipient and purpose can
also be initiated by either entity with concurrence from the other; however, the original earmark
recipient must specifically acknowledge both the change in purpose and the change in recipient
in their concurrence. Any request for technical corrections from parties other than the original
recipient or the new entity will generally not be considered.
Procedure for Making a Technical Correction
Recipients requesting a technical correction should first consult their ;gional Contact to
discuss the need for, and evaluate the appropriateness of, a technical correction. When
appropriate and necessary, the EPA Regional Office will submit technical corrections to EPA
Headquarters for consultation with and resolution by Congress.
46 | P a g e
-------
EPA Regional Offices provide all written requests that are consistent with this Guidance to EPA
Headquarters for review and submission to the Agency's Liaison to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations ("Appropriations Liaison"). The Appropriations Liaison initiates
consultation with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. EPA approves proposed
corrections after the Appropriations Liaison transmits confirmation of consultation with the
Committees.10 EPA may then proceed with administering projects within the scope of approved
corrected language.
When a Technical Correction is Unnecessary
All changes in the project purpose require a technical correction. All changes in the recipient
require a technical correction unless the intended recipient is an agency of the original recipient
or is wholly owned or controlled by the recipient (e.g., the recipient is listed as Anytown, USA,
but the intended recipient is the Anytown Department of Water Quality). In such cases, a grant
may be made to the intended recipient without a technical correction.
Withdrawing or Reversing a Technical Correction
Technical corrections requests that have been approved by EPA can be reversed (i.e., reverted to
the original appropriation language). Reversing a technical correction requires a new technical
correction following the procedures outlined above. Technical corrections requests that have not
been approved by EPA Headquarters can be withdrawn. Withdrawal procedures depend on how
far along the request went in the Congressional consultation process.
• If the request has not yet been provided to Congress for consultation, the request will
simply be removed from the submission list. Upon confirmation from EPA Headquarters
that the request was removed, the Region can proceed under the scope of the original
language.
• If the request has been sent to Congress for consultation, but not yet returned, EPA
Headquarters will request its removal from consideration and will notify Region when
they can proceed under the scope of the original language.
• If the consultation process was already completed, EPA will send the language reversal
back to Congress in a subsequent request.
Administering a Technically Corrected Project
Technical corrections made under the technical corrections authority should be administered in
accordance with the guidance document from the fiscal year of appropriation.
10 If the circumstances surrounding a technical correction for a particular project change after consultation with the
Committees and EPA decides not to approve the request. EPA will notify the Committees in a subsequent request.
47 | P a g e
-------
Appendix D: Application Forms and Attachments
The following registration steps must be completed prior to submitting an application
package:
~ Registration in SAM.gov. Unique Entity Identifiers (UEIs) are assigned during the
SAM.gov registration process. Recipients with active SAM.gov registrations prior to April 2022
automatically have a UEI but may need to complete entity validation within SAM.gov.
Recipients must be registered in SAM.gov. Recipients may refer to the Entity Registration
Checklist and obtain SAM.gov assistance via the Federal Service Desk at 1 -866-606-8220 or
fsd.gov (M-F 8am-8pm ET).
~ Registration in Grants.gov. Once registered in SAM.gov, recipients who have a SAM.gov
registration can then register with Grants.gov and assign Grants.gov Roles. Please note that only
an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) can submit an application on behalf of the
recipient.
Grants.gov instructions, and Training Resources & Videos are available online.
Grants.gov assistance is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-800-518-4726 or
support@grants.gov (closed on federal holidays).
Complete application packages must be submitted through Grants.gov and must include
the following:
1. ~ Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) with authorized signatures submitted.
2. ~ Additional information for SF424, Block #19 (if applicable): Is
application subject to review by State under Executive Ordi iss?
Select the appropriate box. If box "a" is selected, enter the date the application
was submitted to the State SPOC (generally, applicants must submit the SF424
or summary thereof to the State SPOC to meet the requirements under
Executive Order 12372).
• California. All EPA programs and activities subject to
Intergovernmental Review have been selected for State Sir nt of
Contact (SPOC) review. Community Grant Applications for projects in
California should be submitted to the California SPOC at
state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov.
• Utah. Only applications for EPA financial assistance subject to
Intergovernmental Review submitted by Utah state agencies have been
selected for SPOC review. Applications by local governments, nonprofit
organizations and other entities are not reviewed by the Utah SPOC.
Utah state agencies are to submit their Community Grant applications to
stategrants@utah. gov.
48 |
-------
No other SPOCs have selected EPA programs and activities subject to
Intergovernmental Review for SPOC review, however there may be
requirements for submission of Federal grant applications to SPOCs or other
state agencies based on state law that are independent of 'art 29. EPA
encourages applicants to comply with state requirements but does not enforce
those requirements.
• Intergovernmental Review SPOC List provides contact information for each
SPOC.
• Fact sheet for Applicants Intergovernmental Review Process provides additional
information on Intergovernmental Review.
~ Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (SF 424A).
~ Budget Detail-Breakdown by Object Class Categories.
RA1N-2019-G02 at https://www.epa. gov/grants/rain-2019-g02
• Costs for hiring construction contractors would be reflected in SF 424A Category g
"Construction"
• Costs for building or repairing facilities and related demolition and site preparation
work or for remediating contamination are to be classified as SF424A Category g
"Construction"
• Costs for hiring Architectural and Engineering firms for design/project management
services would be categorized in SF 424A Category f "Contractual"
• Construction activities carried out by the applicant's own employees ("force
account") are to be classified as SF 424A Category a "Personnel."
• Information on cost allowability is provided in 2 CFR Part 200. Subpart. E. Recipients
may review EPA's training course on budget development. EPA reviews costs
included in project budgets as part of the application/pre award process to ensure they
conform with general principles of cost allowability:
o A cost is eligible if it is permitted by statute, program guidance, or regulations,
o A cost is reasonable if it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a
prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was
made to incur the cost,
o Costs must be allocable: costs must be incurred either directly or indirectly to
carry out the project and must be charged proportionately across all benefitting
cost centers.
o Costs must be necessary for the project being funded.
Allowable costs are:
o Adequately documented.
o Conform to limitations of laws, regulations, etc. and grant terms and conditions,
o Consistent with recipient's policies/procedures - same factors apply to both
federal and non-federal activities,
o Accorded to consistent treatment - a cost may not be assigned as direct if a
similar cost incurred for the same purpose has been allocated as an indirect cost.
-------
o Not included as a cost or used to meet a matching requirement for any other
federal grant.
o Consistent with generally accepted accounting principles
4. ~ Use the Project Narrative Attachment Form to submit the Workplan. The
workplan should include tasks, milestones, and expected environmental results or
outcomes (See Appendix E).
5. ~ Use the Other Attachments Form to submit the Current Indirect Cost Rate
Negotiation Agreement. If applicable, include Rate and Signature pages (i.e.,
Sections 1 and 3) of the approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement with application.
EPA Policy on Indirect Rate Costs (IDC) effective 10/1/2018, RAIN-2018-G02.
Prior to drawing down EPA funds for IDCs, and/or using unrecovered IDCs as cost-
share, recipients must have an approved rate and an EPA- approved budget that
includes IDCs.
• IDCs are those that are nor readily identifiable with a particular activity but are
necessary to the general operation of the recipient organization and the conduct of
the proposed project (such as general administration expenses).
6. ~ EPA Key Contacts Form (EPA Form 5700-4).
7. ~ Pre-Award Compliance Review Report (EPA Form 4700-4), current form with
authorized signature. See Tips for Completing EPA Form 4700-4.
8. ~ Use the Other Attachments Form to submit the Certification Regarding
Lobbying (EPA Form 6600-06) with authorized signature. All applicants, including
Tribes, are required to submit this certification if the total federal dollar awarded to the
applicant/recipient is greater than $100,000 for the life of the grant.
9. ~ Use the Other Attachments Form to submit the Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities (Form SF-LLL), with authorized signature attached with the grant
application package. For all other applicants, form is required for reporting entity,
whether subawardee or prime federal recipient, at the initiation or receipt of a
covered federal action, or a material change to a previous filing, pursuant to Title 31
U.S.C Section 1352. Used by applicants to disclose lobbying activities that have
been secured to influence the outcome of a federal grant action.
50 | P a g e
-------
Accessing the Application Package
NOTE: Do not use the "SEARCH" bar located at the top right of the Grants.gov webpage
to find Application Packages.
To locate Application Package:
1. Go to directly to the funding opportunit onGrants.gov.
2. In the "Package" tab, scroll down the page to locate Assistance Listing Number 66.202 (listed
under the column heading "CFDA") for the application package.
VIEW OPPORTUNITY
EPA-CEP-01
EPA Mandatory Grant Programs
' "J Environmental Protection Agency
SYNOPSIS I VERSION HISTORY I RELATED DOCUMENTS
Select Grant Opportunity Package
Print Package List
PLEASE READ BEFORE APPLYING!
If you view and complete your application package using Granls.gov downloadable PDF forms, you MUST have Adobe Reader installed. You may receive a validation error using incompatible
versions of Adobe Reader. To prevent a validation error, it is now recommended you uninstall any earlier versions of Adobe Reader and install the latest compatible version of Adobe Reader.
If more than one person is working on the PDF forms, ALL applicants must be using the same Adobe Reader version. Click for more information on Adobe Reader Compatibility.
Opportunity Packagers) Currently Available for this Funding Opportunity:
CFDA
Competition ID
Competitor Title
Opportunity Package ID
Opening Date
Closing Date
Actions
66.001
PKG00213703
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66.032
PKG00214049
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66.034
PKG00214050
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66.038
PKG00214051
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66 040
PKG00214052
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66.042
PKG00214046
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66121
PKG00214Q48
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66.124
PKG00214043
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66.125
PKG00214045
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66.202
PKG00214047
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
66.418
PKG00214053
10/04/2030
Preview | Apply
REMINDERS:
• Do NOT use the "SEARCH" bar located at the top right of the Grants.gov
screen to find Application Packages. Follow the instructions above.
• Recipients must ensure appropriate role(s) and access in Grants.gov Workspace are
assigned within recipient entity as applicable; each entity's EBiz point of contact
(POO is the person that authorizes or assigns Grants.gov roles. Additional
information on Grants.gov role assignment is available online.
• There are a series of automated emails generated by Grants.gov during the
application submission process. See sample email below.
• Obtain a Tracking Number from Grants.gov Support technicians when contacting the
Grants.gov Support Center for assistance. This Tracking Number is used to help
ensure your issue(s) is fully addressed.
51 | P a g e
-------
Please contact the Grants.gov Support Center by phone (1-800-518-4726) or email
(support@grants.gov) for technical support or questions. Help is available 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, excluding federal holidays.
ALERT: It is important to read the automated emails generated by Grants.gov as the messages
provide application status updates during the submission process. Below is a sample automated
email indicating that an application has been sent to the funding agency with an assigned
tracking number.
Sample Graafs.gov Email - Application Sent To Funding
Agency
From" T'-"~ , " f —¦, —
_ -I1' _ ^ Sent: Tuesday, December 25,
201.9 4:32 AM '
To: Jane Doeghappy camp org
Subject: GRANT12345678 Grants.gov Agency Tracking Number Assignment for Application
Grantor agency lias assigned, the following Agency Tracking Number to your application:
e9466bf2-797a-4cft-b013-7bb69600lc lbGRANTl2345678."
You mil need the Agency Tracking Number when corresponding with the Grantor agency about your application.
Use the Grants.gov Tracking Number at Grants.gov to check your application's status and to review your Agency
Tracking Number:
Type; GRANT
Grants gov Tracking Number: GRANT12345678
DUNS Number: 9876543210000
AQR name: Jane Doe
Application Name: Clean Environment Grant Program
Opportunity Number: EPA-CEP-01
Opportunity Name: EPA Mandatory Giant Programs
Thank vou.
Grants.gov
If you have questions, please contact the Grants.gov Contact Center: support@grants. gov 1-800-518-4726
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Closed on federal holidays.
PLEASE NOTE: This email is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email for any purpose.
52 | P a g e
-------
Appendix E: Community Grants Workplan Contents/Outline
Name of Applicant and Project Title
Project Objective(s) and Need
Narrative, how project will resolve need/purpose.
Project Description
Narrative, maps, photographs, relevant design parameters etc. Clearly defined scope of
work, outlining all activities to be performed under the grant; detailed description of the
proposed project, summary of deliverables. Framework for managing the project,
explanation of the approach, procedures, and controls for ensuring that awarded grant
funds will be expended in a timely and efficient manner, evaluating performance and
reporting progress toward achieving the expected outputs and outcomes. How
tasks/activities will be undertaken. The scope of work must be in conformance with the
project description. Budget narrative that links the budget to workplan tasks activities
and includes source(s) of non-federal cost share.
Milestone Schedule
Narrative or tabular depiction of each grant activity's estimated start and end dates,
interim milestones, deliverables, and project completion. The length of the grant award
project period should be consistent with the milestone schedule.
Environmental Results/Benefits
Narrative or tabular linkage of each grant activity with the applicable EPA. Strategic Plan
goal and objective (i.e. EPA's FY2022 - FY2026 Strategic Plan Goal 5: Ensure Clean
and Safe Water for All Communities, Objective 5.1: Ensure Safe Drinking Water and
Reliable Water Infrastructure), anticipated environmental results, anticipated
environmental outputs, and anticipated environmental outcomes.
• Outputs: environmental activities, efforts, and/or associated work products related to
environmental goals or objectives, that will be produced or provided over a period of
time or by a specified date. Outputs should be well-defined and may be quantitative
or qualitative but must be measurable during an assistance agreement funding period.
• Outcomes: the results, effects or consequences that will occur from carrying out an
environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or
programmatic goal or objective. Outcomes should be well-defined to the maximum
extent practicable, and may be environmental, behavioral, health-related, or
programmatic in nature, must be quantitative, and may not necessarily be achievable
within an assistance agreement funding period.
Workplan Requirements for Identifying Contractors
Contractual selection must comply with the competitive Procurement Standards set forth
in 2 CFR 2C i0.327. EPA's Contracts and Subawards solicitation clause
provides more information about partnerships, and the Best Practice Guide for Procuring
53 | P a g e
-------
Services, Supplies, and Equipment Under EPA Assistance Agreements can assist
community project recipients in complying with procurement requirements. In general,
all procurement transactions for professional engineering services and construction
contractors must include and be conducted in a manner that promotes fair and open
competition from an adequate number of qualified sources. 2 CFR 200.320 indicates the
specific methods of procurement to be followed and the circumstances under which each
method can be used.
Workplan Requirements for Identifying Subrecipients
Any proposed subawards must comply with regulatory standards as implemented in
EPA's Subaward Policy. In almost all cases, for-profit firms and individual consultants
are not proper subrecipients. Profit firms and individual consultants would more likely be
considered contractors.
54 | Page
-------
Appendix F: Grant Policies and Resources
Grants Management Training for Applicants and Recipients
• EPA's online training courses are free and are designed to introduce potential EPA grant
recipients to key aspects of the entire grant lifecycle, from preparation of an application
through grant closeout.
• Information on EPA Form 4700-4 is available online, see Tips for Completir ~m
4700-4
EPA Grant Policies
• nt policies may affect how recipients manage and administer EPA assistance
agreements.
Budget Development
• Community Grant recipients may refer to Interim General Budget Development
Guidance for Applicants and Recipients < lancial Assistance to learn more about
cost eligibility and preparation of the budget component of the application package.
Selected Items of Cost
EPA POs and grant specialists review costs included in project budgets as part of the application.
Allowability of costs is based on several factors specified in 2 CFR Part 200. Subpart E.
EPA's Guidance on Selected Items of Cost for Recipients provides information on the
allowability of specific costs.
Environmental Review
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires evaluation of how federal grant actions
may affect the quality of the environment. Under NEPA, environmental impacts must be
considered before EPA can award the grant.
• The Categorical Exclusion \ 11 \H iiecklist provides information on assessing
whether a project may be considered for a CATEX. EPA's list of actions that can be
categorically excluded is contained within 40 CFR Part 6 Subt . EPA makes
CATEX determinations based on its own regulations and can use information collected as
part of another federal agency's NEPA process. Recipients having a CATEX
determination resulting from another agency's NEPA review of their project may provide
that information to EPA as part of any request for a CATEX.
The following tools may be used to support development of Environmental Information
Documents (EIDs).
• The sample itline provides optional format and content on what to include in an
EID.
• The Infrastructure Task Force Preliminary Engineering Report provides a recommended
format for preliminary engineering reports (PER) for use when planning drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure.
55 | P a g e
-------
Procurement
• EPA's Best Practice Guide for Procuring Services. Supplies and Equipment Under EPA.
Assistance Agreements describes the financial transactions covered by the competitive
procurement requirements and other rules you must follow when awarding and
administering EPA funded contracts.
• Community grant recipients must follow their own procurement procedures, which must
be documented and comply with State, local or tribal laws and regulation as well as
Federal laws and Uniform Grant Guidance (UGG) procurement regulations. Projects
inclusive of CWSRF-eligible activities, irrespective of whether such projects are co-
funded with CWSRF funding, must comply with the procurement processes for
architectural and engineering (A/E) services as identified in ;t seq., or an
equivalent State requirement.
Davis Bacon
• The Davis-Bacon Act requires that all contractors and subcontractors performing
construction, alteration, and repair (including painting and decorating) work under federal
contracts in excess of $2,000, pay their laborers and mechanics not less than the
prevailing wage and fringe benefits for the geographic location. Personnel costs include
salaries, wages, and allowable incentive compensation for recipient employees (i.e., who
receive W-2 forms) who spend time working on the project and are not subject to Davis
Bacon.
EPA's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program
• EPA's )gram applies to all EPA Assistance Agreements and requires recipients
who procure goods and/or services to: employ the good faith efforts, document their
efforts and maintain DBE forms and other documentation from the prime contractor, and
report, their procurement and DBE activities even if there isn't anything to report.
Build America, Buy America (BABA)
• Recipients are required to ensure that procurement plans comply with
requirements prior to grants being awarded. Requirements call for all the iron, steel,
manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project to be produced in
the United States.
American Iron and Steel (AIS)
• The AIS provision requires recipients to use iron and steel products that are produced in
the United States for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public water
system or treatment works. AIS requirements correspond to a subset of BABA
requirements, therefore recipients in compliance with BABA are in compliance with AIS.
EPA Community Grants program
• The EPA. Community Grants web page will be updated as new information
becomes available.
Reporting waste, fraud, abuse, or other suspected violations of law
56 | P a g e
-------
• The EPA Office of Inspector General is an independent oversight office charged with
preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse by EPA and U.S. Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigations Board employees, grantees, contractors, and others. It does this
through audits and investigations of Agency programs and operations, often in response
to complaints submitted to the OIG Hotline regarding alleged violations of law, needless
spending, or intentional deception.
• Suspected waste, fraud, abuse, or other violations of law can be reported anonymously or
confidentially to the OIG Hotline via phone at (888) 546-8740, email, or online form.
Listen to this podcast to learn more about the hotline.
Whistleblower Protection
• A whistleblower is a federal employee, an employee of a federal contractor,
subcontractor, grantee, or subgrantee or personal services contractor who discloses what
the individual believes to be evidence of a gross waste of federal funds, a substantial
danger to public health or safety, or any of the following related to a federal contract or
grant: gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, or other violation of law, rule, or
regulation.
• Because of the important public service these individuals perform when they come
forward, whistleblower protection laws prohibit reprisal against them, such as firing,
demotion, or other discrimination, and protect the identities of those who make
anonymous or confidential disclosures, such as via the OIG Hotline. Learn more about
Whistleblower Protection here.
57 | P a g e
------- |