OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Audit Report 

Number of and Cost to Award and 

Manage EPA Earmark Grants, and the 

Grants’ Impact on the Agency’s Mission 

 Report No. 2007-P-00024 

 May 22, 2007 
Report Contributors: Alfred Falciani 

 Randy Holthaus 

 Kevin Lawrence 

 Matthew Simber

 Khadija Walker 

Abbreviations 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPM Environmental Programs and Management (appropriation account) 

FTE Full-Time Equivalency 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

S&T Science and Technology (appropriation account) 

STAG State and Tribal Assistance Grants (appropriation account) 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007-P-00024

Office of Inspector General May 22, 2007

At a Glance


Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

Based on a congressional

request, we reviewed 

congressional earmark grants 

awarded by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Specifically,

the requestor asked us to

determine the total number 

and dollar amount of earmark 

grants, including EPA’s 

associated costs. The 

requestor also asked us to

determine what impact 

earmarks had on advancing 

EPA’s mission and goals. 

Background 

For this report, we define a 

congressional earmark as a 

numbered line item within a 

House Conference Report 

specifying a dollar amount, 

recipient, and a particular 

project. Since 2003, earmarks 

have represented about 4 to 6 

percent of EPA’s annual 

budget. While EPA awards 

the majority of earmark grants 

to States and local 

governments, it also awards 

earmark grants to universities 

and non-profit organizations. 

For further information, 

contact our Office of 

Congressional and Public 

Liaison at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

click on the following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/ 

20070522-2007-P-00024.pdf 

Number of and Cost to Award and Manage 

EPA Earmark Grants, and the Grants’ Impact on 

the Agency’s Mission 

What We Found 

Between January 1, 2005, and March 31, 2006, EPA awarded 444 earmark grants 

totaling $454 million. Those earmarks accounted for about 13 percent of the grant 

dollars EPA awarded. During this same time, EPA spent about $4.9 million to 

award and manage the 444 earmark grants. 

Our review of work plans for 86 earmark grants found that 82 were for projects 

aimed at contributing to EPA’s Strategic Plan mission and goals. Thus, we 

considered them to be helping to advance EPA’s mission and goals. Grant work 

plans for the other four grants did not demonstrate how the projects would 

promote EPA goals: 

• A non-profit organization used about half its grant funds to purchase 

computers for a high school and support student trips between the 

United States and U.S. Virgin Islands. 

• A university studied noise levels from parked, idling trains. 

• A local government did not identify how two of the earmark grants were 

going to achieve the objectives stated in the work plans or how the 

projects would impact the environment. 

We are not making any recommendations in this report. 

In responding to the draft report, EPA noted that the Office of Inspector General 

found that most earmarks have the potential to contribute to EPA’s mission. 

Further, EPA believes that two of the four earmark grants we questioned (for the 

non-profit and the university) contributed to the Agency’s mission. In comparing 

the work plans to the Agency’s goals, we did not agree that the earmark grants 

contributed to the Agency’s mission. EPA is conducting a compliance review of 

one of the grants to ensure funds were not used for unallowable activities. For the 

two grants to the local government, EPA is working with the recipient to revise the 

work plans. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

May 22, 2007 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Number of and Cost to Award and Manage EPA Earmark Grants, 

and the Grants’ Impact on the Agency’s Mission

 Report No. 2007-P-00024 

TO: Luis Luna 

 Assistant Administrator 

Office of Administration and Resources Management 

This is our report on the number and cost of congressional earmark grants, and whether such 

grants advance the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) mission and goals. This 

report contains our analysis and conclusions related to 86 earmark grants that we reviewed. 

This report represents the opinion of the Office of Inspector General and does not necessarily 

represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by 

EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time – is $283,509. 

Action Required 

Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to respond to this report. 

We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be 

available at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 566-0847 

or roderick.bill@epa.gov; or Janet Kasper, Director, Assistance Agreement Audits, at 

312-886-3059 or kasper.janet@epa.gov. 

 Bill A. Roderick

 Acting Inspector General 
Number of and Cost to Award and Manage EPA Earmark Grants, 

and the Grants’ Impact on the Agency’s Mission 

Table of Contents 

Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 1

Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 

Scope and Methodology ..................................................................................................... 1 

Number of Earmarks and Associated Costs to Award and Manage............................... 2 

Impact Earmarks Had on Advancing EPA’s Mission and Goals ..................................... 2 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits....................................... 6 

Appendices 

A Details on Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage.............................. 7 

B STAG Earmark Grants Reviewed ........................................................................ 10 

C EPM and S&T Earmark Grants Reviewed .......................................................... 12 

D Agency Response ................................................................................................ 14 

E Distribution ........................................................................................................... 16 
Purpose 

In August 2006, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma requested that the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) review congressional earmark grants awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Specifically, he asked that we: 

1. Determine the total number of earmarks and EPA’s associated costs to award and 

manage such grants. 

2. Assess the impact that earmarks had on advancing EPA’s mission and goals. 

Background 

For the purpose of this report, we define a congressional earmark as a numbered line item within 

a House Conference Report typically specifying a dollar amount, recipient, and project. Agency 

policy (Grants Policy Issuance 03-01) states: “EPA will generally honor directions to make 

assistance awards for earmarks if it has the statutory authority to award the financial assistance.” 

EPA requires earmark recipients to meet all Federal grant requirements. EPA awards most of its 

earmark projects as grants or cooperative agreements. In this report, we refer to both grants and 

cooperative agreements as grants. 

Earmark projects are identified in the House Conference Report on an annual basis. Congress 

includes these earmark awards under the following three appropriation accounts: 

• Environmental Programs and Management (EPM): For projects under various 

media – air, water, land, etc. 

• Science and Technology (S&T): Primarily relating to research and development 

projects. 

• State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG): Primarily for water infrastructure 

projects or their technical oversight. 

Before awarding a grant to an earmark recipient, EPA requires grant applicants to complete an 

Application for Federal Assistance. In this application, recipients must submit a statement of 

work or work plan. EPA requires that work plans describe the proposed project and the project’s 

intended environmental results. 

Since 2003, earmarks have represented between 3.8 and 6.4 percent of EPA’s annual budget. 

While EPA awards the majority of earmarks to States and local governments, it also awards 

earmarks to universities and non-profit organizations. 

Scope and Methodology 

We performed our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by the 

Comptroller General of the United States. We conducted our audit work from October 2006 to 

February 2007. We gathered information from EPA Headquarters and all 10 EPA regions. We 

reviewed the work plans for 86 earmark grants EPA awarded from January 1, 2005, to March 31, 

1 
2006. We also spoke with the grant project officers when work plans appeared to have 

questionable links to EPA’s Strategic Plan. See Appendix A for further details on the audit 

scope and methodology, including prior audit coverage. 

Number of Earmarks and Associated Costs to Award and Manage 

Between January 1, 2005, and March 31, 2006, EPA awarded 444 earmark grants totaling 

$454 million. We estimated EPA’s cost to award and manage the 444 earmark grants to be 

$4.9 million (see Table 1). This estimate includes salaries and overhead costs for project officers 

and grant specialists, salaries for non-grants management staff that track and assist with the 

earmark awards, and costs to maintain a database. EPA awarded 3,995 new and continuing 

grants, totaling $3.5 billion, within our review period. The cost to award and manage all EPA 

grants totaled $100.3 million.1 Appendix A provides details on how we developed the estimates. 

Table 1. EPA’s Cost to Award and Manage Earmarks 

Cost Category Dollar Amount 

Cost of salaries and overhead for project officers and grants 

specialists to award and manage the 444 earmarks from 

January 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006 

$ 4,342,331 

Regional Offices of Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Relations costs to track and assist with awarding earmark grants

 390,094 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer costs to track and assist with 

awarding earmark grants 

115,746 

Headquarters Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Relations costs to track and assist with awarding earmark grants

 38,475 

Contractual costs for the Stakeholder Database 25,000 

Total EPA Cost to Award and Manage Earmarks $ 4,911,646 

Source: OIG calculations based on EPA workforce and budget models. 

We did not include in this cost estimate the funding EPA and Congress agreed would be set aside 

for STAG earmark grants management and oversight. EPA awards the set-aside amount to 

States or the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to oversee the technical aspects and progress of water 

infrastructure projects. EPA does not use this funding, and the technical oversight the State and 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers perform is in addition to EPA’s management of these grants. 

Impact Earmarks Had on Advancing EPA’s Mission and Goals 

We reviewed 86 grants; 38 were EPM and S&T earmarks, while the remaining 48 were STAG 

earmarks. Most earmark projects have the potential to contribute to EPA’s mission, but 4 of 86 

we reviewed did not. The grant work plans for these four grants did not demonstrate how the 

projects would promote EPA goals. These four were under the EPM and S&T accounts. 

1

 The $4.9 million does not include costs to manage active earmarks awarded prior to January 1, 2005, but the cost 

is included in the $100.3 million. Information needed to calculate the cost to manage all active earmarks from 

January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006, was not readily available in EPA systems. 

2 
STAG Earmark Grants Contributed to EPA’s Mission 

Of the 444 earmark grants EPA awarded, the remaining 369 grants, totaling 

$377.4 million, were included under the STAG appropriation account. We reviewed a 

random sample of 48 STAG grants, totaling $87.7 million. We found that all 48 grants 

showed the potential to contribute to EPA’s mission and goals (see Appendix B). The 

majority of these earmarks funded wastewater infrastructure expansion or improvements 

in local communities across the country. For example, one earmark project proposed to 

construct a new sanitary sewer system that would substantially reduce contaminants from 

seeping into the ground water and thus improve the community’s water quality. Another 

project was to build a new wastewater treatment plan, thus improving the community’s 

ability to treat wastewater and eliminate failed septic systems. 

Work Plans Did Not Demonstrate How the Projects Would Promote 

EPA Goals for Four EPM and S&T Earmarks 

Of the 444 earmark grants EPA awarded, 75, totaling $76.7 million, were included under 

the EPM and S&T accounts. We reviewed a random sample of 38 earmark grants 

totaling $30.5 million (see Appendix C). Most of these earmark grants proposed projects 

to conduct environmental studies, perform research, and provide outreach and education. 

We concluded that 34 of these demonstrated the potential to contribute to EPA’s mission 

and goals. For example, an earmark project to the State of Alaska, funded at nearly 

$1 million, proposed to study the level of mercury and other toxins in fish in selected 

Alaskan communities to determine potential human health risk. The grant work plans for 

the other four grants did not demonstrate how the project would promote EPA goals. 

Details on these four grants follow. 

Caribbean American Mission for Education, Research and Action, Inc. 

EPA awarded an earmark grant in 2005 to the Caribbean American Mission for 

Education, Research and Action, Inc., for $497,050. The Fiscal Year 2004 House 

Conference Report provided funding to this recipient “in support of their youth 

environmental stewardship and education program.” The work plan proposed a 

project to provide education and promote environmental stewardship to high 

school students in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The 

grant was amended in 2006 to provide an additional $694,400 for similar 

activities. 

While environmental stewardship is part of EPA’s mission, we determined after 

reviewing the work plan and proposed budget that 52 percent of the project’s cost 

was for travel – for Philadelphia high school students to go to the U.S. Virgin 

Islands and for U.S. Virgin Islands students to travel to Philadelphia ($356,012) – 

and to purchase computers and distance learning equipment ($261,590). 

According to the trip agendas, the U.S. students were to take an eco-kayak tour, 

attend a lecture, and visit an environmentally-designed camp while in the Virgin 

Islands. The Virgin Islands students were to participate in service learning 

projects and tour a watershed education center in Philadelphia. The U.S. students 

3 
also visited Coral World Ocean Park and resort locations, while both groups took 

shopping trips. Less than half the time was spent on environmental-related 

activities. The recipient’s justification for purchasing 128 computers, servers, and 

associated hardware and software was that it would enhance the technical skills of 

the students, enhance the technology available to each school, and expand the 

students’ world view and educational experiences. While the students used the 

computers in learning about environmental issues, they met general educational 

needs that are not part of EPA’s mission. 

In responding to the draft report, EPA stated that the work plan for the Caribbean 

American Mission grant was explicit that the purpose of the project was to 

provide students with an opportunity to increase their knowledge about the 

environment with a special emphasis on an understanding of the ecological 

system in urban areas and in the Caribbean. EPA disagreed with the report’s 

suggestion that EPA included substantial funding in the approved work plan for 

student travel between Philadelphia and the U.S. Virgin Islands, student visits to 

amusement parks and resort locations and student shopping trips. Region 3 is in 

the process of conducting a compliance review of the project. If the review finds 

that grant funds were used for travel involving amusement parks, resort locations, 

or shopping trips, the Region will seek recovery of the funds. 

We agree that certain portions of the work plan indicated that the grant would 

develop an understanding in students of the importance of caring for the 

environment locally and globally, as EPA stated in it response. However, the 

work plan identified the exchange field trips as a centerpiece of the program and a 

substantial amount (30 percent) of the grant budget. A majority of the costs were 

to fund travel and computers where the primary focus was not environmental 

education and stewardship. Region 3 is taking appropriate action in conducting a 

compliance review of the grant. 

 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 

EPA awarded an earmark grant to Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 

for $299,907. The Fiscal Year 2004 House Conference Report said the project 

was: “to conduct a study of environmental noise from interstate freight railroad 

operations in Teaneck, New Jersey.” The project was to study and evaluate the 

impact of noise of parked, idling freight trains on the local community. The 

recipient was to measure sound levels inside and outside homes and identify 

strategies to reduce noise levels. However, EPA’s Strategic Plan does not include 

measuring or studying noise pollution. EPA phased out funding of the noise 

pollution program in 1982. 

In response to the draft report, EPA stated that the Rutgers grant supported the 

goal to help communities address specific local environmental concerns. EPA 

acknowledged that the Agency no longer explicitly includes noise among the 

goals and objectives of the Agency’s Strategic Plan, and that EPA no longer has a 

4 
noise regulatory program. However, the Office of Air and Radiation believes that 

the type of community support provided under this grant to a community in New 

Jersey supports EPA’s Goal 4, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, Subobjective 4.2: Communities. EPA stated that this sub-objective focuses on EPA 

activities that will help communities sustain or restore community health by 

addressing community-specific environmental concerns. 

We agree that the grant may be beneficial in addressing the community-based 

issue of noise pollution, but the work plan does not demonstrate how it will 

promote the Agency’s goals of protecting air, water, and land. 

 City of New Bedford, Massachusetts 

EPA awarded two earmark grants to the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts, for 

a total of $497,100. The Fiscal Year 2004 House Conference Report provided 

funding for this recipient for “environmental education and science programs.” 

One project proposed to encourage students to pursue environmental careers and 

train the local community for environmental jobs. The second project proposed to 

construct and equip a computer lab to enhance a marine science learning center. 

However, neither work plan identified outcomes or activities that would be 

performed to achieve the objectives. EPA awarded the grants in September 2005, 

but as of March 2007 the recipient had not spent any of the approved funds for 

either project. 

EPA is working with the City to improve the quality of the work plans. EPA 

advised us that the City submitted new work plans for the grant in April 2007. 

For one grant, the City plans to establish a task force to identify areas under which 

it can train citizens in environmental careers. The work plan did not identify 

specific environmental problems the grant would address. The second grant 

would establish and implement a marine science education program in the New 

Bedford Public Schools. As of May 10, 2007, EPA was in the process of 

reviewing the work plans. 

5 
Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Planned 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

No recommendations 

1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

6 
Appendix A 

Details on Scope, Methodology, 

and Prior Audit Coverage 

Scope and Methodology 

We performed our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by 

the Comptroller General of the United States. We gathered information from EPA 

Headquarters and all 10 EPA regions. We interviewed EPA Headquarters managers and 

staff within the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Environmental 

Information, Office of Water, and Office of Research and Development. 

We reviewed earmark grants awarded from January 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. 

We chose this period so that we could review work plans subject to EPA’s Environmental 

Results Order that became effective January 1, 2005. We asked EPA for a list of all 

grants awarded within the time period, and a separate list of all earmark grants awarded 

within the period. EPA awarded 3,995 assistance agreements in the time period, 

including 444 earmark grants. 

To review management controls regarding the applicability of grant work plans to EPA’s 

mission, we reviewed Funding Recommendations and Decision Memoranda to ensure 

that project officers complied with the Environmental Results Order and that they 

provided a link for each project to EPA’s mission and goals. 

Audit Objective 1 

To determine the cost to award earmarks, we used the models from an EPA-contracted 

study, Management of Assistance Agreements at the Environmental Protection Agency, 

issued April 2005. We did this to estimate the full-time equivalency (FTE) of project 

officers and grants specialists within the time period we examined (see Table 2). We 

reviewed the study and its methodology for estimating grants management work force 

efforts and used the same methodology because we considered it sound. 

Table 2. Workforce Model Results for FTE Estimates 

January 1, 2005 to October 1, 2005 

September 30, 2005 to March 31, 2006 

Project Officer FTE Estimate (earmarks) 20.85 11.50 

Grants Specialist FTE Estimate (earmarks) 4.83 3.45 

Total FTEs for Earmark Grants 25.68 14.95 

Source: OIG calculations based upon EPA grants management workforce models. 

We estimated the costs to award and manage the 444 earmark grants to be $4.9 million 

based on a formula EPA used to develop its budget in accordance with Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-11. EPA used the formula to calculate the total cost 

7 
of its project officers and grants specialists. The formula took the FTE level, multiplied it 

by $85,500 (as a median salary), added 25 percent for overhead, and added other 

associated costs. We developed our estimate by taking 75 percent (for the 9 months 

reviewed) of Fiscal Year 2005 and adding in 50 percent (for the 6 months reviewed) of 

the Fiscal Year 2006 amounts. To calculate EPA’s costs to award and manage all grants 

within our review period, we took the amounts from EPA’s A-11 Report and added 

75 percent of EPA’s Fiscal Year 2005 costs and 50 percent of the Fiscal Year 2006 costs, 

for a total of $100.3 million. 

We also determined the cost of EPA staff who work with earmarks other than project 

officers and grants specialists plus the cost of information technology systems to be 

$569,315. Staff in EPA Headquarters and regional Offices of Congressional and 

Intergovernmental Relations gave us time estimates for their work on earmarks and the 

amount EPA expended to maintain its Stakeholder Database. EPA uses this database to 

track earmark grants and it allows EPA financial and congressional relations staff to 

monitor earmark grants from appropriation to award. By adding the $569,315 to the 

$4,342,331, the total cost to award and manage earmarks in our review period was 

$4,911,646. 

Audit Objective 2 

To assess the impact of earmarks on EPA’s mission, we reviewed the work plans for 

86 earmark grants. Congress included the population of earmarks within three 

appropriation accounts – EPM, S&T, and STAG. Since 369 of the 444 earmarks were 

appropriated under the STAG account, we were concerned that any reasonable sample of 

the whole would not include earmarks from the EPM and S&T groups. To ensure that 

EPM and S&T earmark grants would be reviewed, we selected a random sample of 38 

from the EPM and S&T accounts and a separate random sample of 48 from the STAG 

account. Lists of the earmark grants included in each sample are in Appendices B and C. 

For each sample, we compared the work plans to the goals, objectives, and sub-objectives 

EPA presented in its Fiscal Year 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. In some cases, we referred to 

EPA’s stated strategies within the text of the Strategic Plan pertaining to particular 

objectives. In instances where the earmark grant work plans did not appear to have a link 

to EPA’s Strategic Plan, we spoke with the grant project officers to verify our 

understanding of the project. 

We extracted award documents and funding recommendations from EPA’s Integrated 

Grants Management System. The information we obtained from these electronic forms 

was limited to recipient names, award amounts, project descriptions, and links to EPA’s 

strategic goals and objectives. We did not test the controls over the Integrated Grants 

Management System to ensure its validity and reliability, as the information it contained 

was not significant to our conclusions under either objective. 

8 
Prior Audit Coverage 

On September 30, 1996, OIG reported on EPA’s management of earmark grants in 

Report No. E1FBE4-04-0261-6100313, Capping Report on Audits of Congressionally 

Earmarked Assistance to Selected Universities. The report noted problems with EPA 

assistance agreement management, such as oversight not being a high priority and project 

officers having minimal involvement in managing grants. This led to $5 million in 

questioned costs. 

On September 26, 2006, we issued Report No. 2006-P-00037, EPA Needs to Emphasize 

Management of Earmark Grants. This report summarized what we had noted in reports 

regarding earmark grants since 1996. We reported that EPA had not managed earmark 

grants in accordance with Agency policy and regulations. Some EPA employees and 

recipients believed that since earmark grants had already been approved by Congress, the 

Agency had limited control over them. Although EPA policies require that earmarks be 

managed the same as any other assistance agreement, we found incomplete grant work 

plans, improper accounting and financial procedures, noncompliance with grant terms 

and conditions, noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations, and conflicts of 

interest. In response to the report, EPA issued a memorandum in November 2006 to 

Agency Senior Resource Officials reiterating existing policy and indicating the need to 

coordinate with the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations and the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer on earmark issues. The Office of Grants and 

Debarment also plans to refer to the memorandum in its Basic Project Officer Training 

course. 

9 
Appendix B 

STAG Earmark Grants Reviewed 

Total 

Grant 

Number Recipient Short Description 

Project 

Budget 

EPA 

Contribution 

Earmark Grants That Contributed to EPA's Strategic Plan Mission and Goals (48) 

97145601 City of Bristol Water Install an emergency bypass pipe which serves a $870,000 $288,700 

Department water filtration plant 

97144101 City of Meriden Assess soil and groundwater contamination and 

develop a remedial action plan for property 

262,394 144,300 

re-development 

97122301 Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Provide oversight and support to four 

New England municipalities in implementing 

31,300 31,300

97144401 Rhode Island Department of 

wastewater infrastructure projects

Provide oversight and support to three Rhode 41,634 41,634 

Health Island municipalities in implementing drinking 

97142901 Town of Warren 

water infrastructure projects 

Implement repairs on sanitary sewer system 847,727 481,100 

97272805 Bayonne Municipal Utilities Plan and construct a water main 2,186,909 1,202,800 

Authority 

98286701 City of Dunkirk Improve the capacity of a wastewater treatment 701,273 385,700 

98255005 New York State 

plant 

Provide oversight and support of various 7,698,000 3,849,000 

Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

watershed remediation and protection activities 

such as water inspections, sampling, and Total 

Maximum Daily Load development 

97270905 Orange County Water 

Authority 

Design and construct a wastewater disposal 

system 

524,909 288,700 

97278505 Town of Blooming Grove Construct a wastewater treatment plant 437,455 240,600 

98286504 Town of Floyd Perform preliminary design and engineering of a 394,182 216,800 

98286601 Town of Grand Island 

drinking water system 

Construct a wastewater transmission line to route 438,364 241,100 

wastewater from failing subsurface disposal 

systems to an existing treatment plant 

97272505 Township of Parsippany- Improve existing drinking water and wastewater 2,624,182 1,443,300 

Troy Hills pumping stations and construct a new drinking 

97318201 Laporte Borough 

water pumping station and transport system 

Replace a water distribution line 543,000 144,600 

97317501 Summit Township Sewer Replace a leaking sanitary sewer system 438,364 241,100 

97321401 

Authority 

Town of Cheltenham Perform improvements on sewer lines 350,727 192,900 

96419806 Chesterfield County Rural Construct a drinking water transmission system 3,373,937 289,300 

96419505 

Water Company, Inc. 

City of Camden Construct a drinking water storage tank and 496,400 96,400 

transmission 

96422405 City of Owenton Construct a drinking water intake structure 736,890 387,160 

96444106 Knott County Fiscal Court Construct a water treatment plant 6,120,500 1,900,500 

96424605 Orange County Utilities Construct a new sanitary sewer system 5,070,240 723,000 

96425905 

Department 

Town of Jackson Design and construct a new community drinking 308,500 164,800 

water well and chemical treatment facility

96579101 City of Delphos Design and construct a river intake and pump 14,536,000 3,132,100 

station 

96570301 Indiana State Budget Agency Provide oversight and support in implementing 362,350 362,350 

96503301 Lake County Stormwater 

wastewater infrastructure projects 

Install a wetland and prairie buffer; create a water 1,016,100 482,100 

Management Commission quality treatment wetland; and restore and 

stabilize a stormwater drain 

96570401 Village of Beach City, Ohio Upgrade wastewater treatment plant to increase 3,823,400 1,451,800 

capacity and effectiveness 

10 
Total 

Grant 

Number 

96579501 

Recipient 

Village of East Hazel Crest 

Short Description 

Construct a water pump station and ground 

Project 

Budget 

$1,068,300 

EPA 

Contribution 

$288,600 

reservoir 

96572301 Village of Haskins Construct a wastewater treatment plant 2,691,800 289,300 

96575801 Village of Libson, Illinois Plan and design improvements to a current 

wastewater collection and treatment system 

78,535 43,195

96568601 Village of Somerset, Ohio Remodel and expand an existing wastewater 2,700,000 482,100 

treatment plant 

96613801 Bernalillo County, Construct a drinking water and wastewater 349,819 192,400

96600001 

New Mexico 

City of Alvin 

system 

Construct new water lines 262,364 144,300 

97690201 City of Fayetteville Repair a sanitary sewer system 1,928,182 1,060,500 

97690301 City of Lawton Construct water lines and conduct other system 2,629,819 1,446,400 

improvements 

96615601 North American Development Plan and construct water and wastewater 1,000,000 1,000,000 

97699101 

Bank 

State of Louisiana Military 

infrastructure projects on US/Mexico border 

Construct wastewater treatment plant; upgrade 1,746,400 960,500 

97691101 

Department 

Texas Engineering Extension 

pump station; and increase holding capacity 

Facilitate training for personnel who build, 784,816 745,575

Service operate, manage, and direct water and 

wastewater systems in the US/Mexico border 

98759501 City of Branson West 

region 

Upgrade the wastewater treatment facility to 

reduce pollution discharges 

430,910 237,000 

97830001 City of Helena Upgrade a water treatment plant 2,279,273 1,253,600 

96937601 City of Brea Replace a sewer main 583,000 192,400 

96939101 City of Carson City Establish baseline and background water quality 349,818 192,400

conditions and document future conditions 

resulting from controlling the discharges from a 

reservoir and resulting springs. 

96942401 County of Hawaii Design and construct improvements to two 3,600,000 1,364,250 

96951901 Cutler Public Utility District 

wastewater systems 

Improve capacity of a wastewater treatment plant 3,879,800 967,900 

97072901 City of Palmer Construct new water distribution mains 2,838,545 1,561,200 

96021801 City of Roslyn Construct a new sewer line and pump station 2,050,000 433,700 

96002801 City of Wilsonville Implement and measure the effectiveness of 355,900 192,900 

demonstration projects designed to reduce 

stormwater runoff 

96000501 Fairbanks North Star Connect landfill to a municipal sewer lift station 1,453,658 404,520 

Borough 

96017401 Wahkiakum County Expand a drinking water system 1,846,700 1,455,000 

Total for All Sampled STAG Grants $87,690,576 $33,330,884 

Source: Grant numbers, recipient names, and funding amounts were obtained from EPA's Integrated Grants Management 

System. The project descriptions were developed by OIG based on our work plan reviews. 

11 
Appendix C 

EPM and S&T Earmark Grants Reviewed 

Total 

Grant 

Number Recipient Short Description 

Project 

Budget 

EPA 

Contribution 

Earmark Grants That Did Not Contribute to EPA's Strategic Plan Mission and Goals (4) 

97133501 City of New Bedford Encourage students to pursue environmental $250,000 $250,000 

careers and train the local community for 

environmental jobs. 

97131301 City of New Bedford Construct and equip a computer lab to enhance 

a marine science learning center. 

347,100 247,100 

97318801 Caribbean American Mission Conduct environmental education for high school 497,050 497,050 

for Education, Research and 

Action, Inc. 

students in Philadelphia and the Virgin Islands. 

83245701 State of New Jersey, Rutgers Evaluate the noise impact on a local community 299,907 299,907 

University of parked, idling freight trains 

Earmark Grants That Contributed to EPA's Strategic Plan Mission and Goals (34) 

83276901 University of Vermont State Evaluate the consequences on forest health $198,400 $198,400 

83231701 

and Agricultural College resulting from acid rain 

Houston Advanced Research Conduct research on air quality problems in 969,300 969,300 

Center Texas 

83275501 Montana Physical Sciences Conduct research on the use of waste grease to 770,500 

Foundation produce biodegradable products 

770,500 

83269001 Syracuse University Conduct research to produce environmentally 3,568,476 3,568,476 

friendly indoor air systems that reduce human 

exposure to contaminants 

83245401 University of North Carolina Determine methods to eliminate the use of 678,600 678,600 

at Chapel Hill solvents and water in lithography (a method of 

printing) 

83234501 University of Vermont State Develop a digital database of riparian (land near 97,000 97,000 

and Agricultural College water) zones throughout Vermont to assist with 

ecosystem protection 

83259101 Board of Trustees of Increase capacity of small drinking water 496,000 496,000 

83264201 

University of Illinois systems through research and outreach 

Water Environment Provide training and technical assistance for 1,065,000 972,200 

Federation wastewater treatment agencies to help 

83256101 

implement environmental management systems 

Water Systems Council Conduct research and outreach concerning 992,000 992,000 

groundwater protection and allocation on small 

97146501 

private and shared wells 

City of Warwick Study the feasibility of constructing a wastewater 248,000 248,000 

system that reduces the level of nitrogen loads 

97123101 Northeast Waste Assist States in prioritizing, managing, and 198,400 

Management Officials improving stewardship of solid waste programs 

198,400 

Association 

99252810 Cayuga County Soil and Implement best management practices to 781,189 

Water Conservation District improve water quality (2005-2006) 

744,000 

99252809 Cayuga County Soil and Implement best management practices to control 783,100 745,600

97281200 

Water Conservation District non-point source pollution and improve water 

quality (2004-2005) 

Central New York Regional Conduct public outreach to reduce non-point 248,000 248,000 

Planning and Development source pollution in the Oneida Lake watershed 

Board 

99250908 Cortland County Soil and Conduct projects and provide outreach to reduce 745,600 745,600 

Water Conservation District nutrients and sediment in watersheds 

97291801 LaGuardia Community Increase asthma education and environmental 248,500 

College interventions to reduce and prevent asthma 

248,500 

triggers in the home 

12 
Total 

Grant Project EPA 

Number Recipient Short Description Budget Contribution 

97279005 New Jersey Department of Develop a Smart Growth interactive mapping $99,400 $99,400 

Environmental Protection program to identify environmentally optimal 

areas to develop 

99253110 Onondaga County Soil and Implement best management practices to reduce 783,158 744,000 

Water Conservation District non-point source pollution 

97279801 Trustees of Columbia Conduct research related to environmental 198,800 198,800 

University cancer causing pollution 

97311201 Jastech Development Establish a training assisted pollution prevention 248,500 248,500 

Services Inc. and conservation program 

97321201 Maryland Department of the Demonstrate a new acid mine drainage 323,000 248,000

Environment technology 

99373508 Ohio River Valley Water Generate a data-set relating to pollutant levels in 217,385 200,372 

Sanitation Commission the Ohio River 

97322101 Prince George's County Demonstrate use of Low Impact Development 1,476,435 1,091,200 

Government and new waste management practices 

98755801 Cerro Gordo County Implement water quality improvements to reduce 174,000 174,000 

pollution 

97831701 Montana Department of the Replace environmentally noncompliant heating 985,200 985,200

Environment devices in low-income homes to improve air 

quality 

96936801 City of Highland Develop recycling and solid waste educational 297,600 297,600 

displays at an environmental learning center 

96938001 Golden Gate National Parks Implement priority habitat protection in the 298,200 298,200

Conservancy California Coastal Trail corridor 

96001201 Alaska Department of Conduct a safety study of mercury levels in fish 994,100 994,100 

Environmental Conservation 

97031102 Boise State University Continue to develop a device that quantifies 1,686,400 1,686,400 

contaminants in subsurface soil 

96004601 Boise State University Develop improved techniques to detect and 1,488,000 1,488,000 

monitor contaminants in shallow subsurface soil 

97098601 Franklin Conservation District Continue to implement a ground water 695,900 695,900 

management plan and monitor the condition of 

an aquifer 

96005801 Idaho Department of Conduct various projects to improve water 1,998,200 1,998,200 

Environmental Quality quality 

96016301 Kenai Watershed Forum Protect and restore the watershed through data 1,131,885 1,131,885 

collecting, monitoring, and modeling 

96028501 Washington Department of Implement management plan to improve Puget 3,941,200 1,970,600 

Ecology Sound water quality 

Total for All Sampled EPM and S&T Grants $30,519,485 $27,764,982 

Source: Grant numbers, recipient names, and funding amounts were obtained from EPA's Integrated Grants Management 

System. The project descriptions were developed by OIG based on our work plan reviews. 

13 
Appendix D 

Agency Response 

May 4, 2007 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report: 

Number of and Cost to Award and Manage EPA Earmark Grants, 

And Their Impact on the Agency’s Mission 

 Assignment No. 2007-000042 

FROM: Luis A. Luna /s/ 

 Assistant Administrator 

TO: Janet Kasper 

 Director for Assistance Agreement Audits 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide EPA’s comments on the Draft Audit 

Report. The Report finds that most earmark projects have the potential to contribute to 

EPA’s mission. It identifies a few projects, however, that the Office of Inspector General 

believes do not have a clear impact on advancing EPA’s mission and goals. The Agency 

has comments on the Report’s discussion of two of these projects. These comments are 

attached. If you have any questions about the comments, please contact Howard 

Corcoran, Director, Office of Grants and Debarment at (202) 564-1903. 

Attachment 

cc: Senior Resource Officials 

 Grants Management Officers 

Junior Resource Officials 

Frank Snock 

Denise Harris 

Lorraine Fleury 

 Jerry Kurztweg 

Howard Corcoran 

 Richard Kuhlman 

Stefan Silzer 

Laurice Jones 

John Nolan 

14 
ATTACHMENT

Region 3 Comment: Grant to the Caribbean American Mission for Education, Research 

and Action, Inc. 

Region 3 does not agree with the Report’s suggestion that this project, as 

described in the approved grant workplan, is not clearly within EPA’s mission. The 

workplan is explicit that the purpose of the project was to provide students from 

moderate-income families with an opportunity to increase their knowledge about the 

environment with a special emphasis on an understanding of the ecological system in 

urban areas and in the Caribbean. Students would be chosen from Philadelphia and from 

St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands to exchange information and experiences about 

environmental issues. Participants would: 1) attain a greater understanding of 

environmental issues in the islands and inner cities; 2) learn how to develop, plan and 

execute projects that address environmental issues in their respective areas; and 3) 

develop skills in interacting with other environmental organizations in the areas. The 

goal for each student, according to the workplan, was to "develop an understanding of the 

importance of caring for the environment locally and globally...." The Region believes 

that fostering environmental stewardship in this manner falls squarely within EPA's 

mission. 

Region 3 also disagrees with the Report’s suggestion that EPA included 

substantial funding in the approved workplan for student travel between Philadelphia and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, student visits to amusement parks and resort locations and 

student shopping trips. The workplan contemplated that students would largely 

communicate across the geographical divide by computer and authorized only limited 

travel between Philadelphia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Further, it in no way allowed 

funding for travel involving amusement parks, resort locations or shopping trips. We 

understand that this type of travel was mentioned in a trip agenda included in a progress 

report filed by the grantee. We are in the process of conducting a compliance review of 

the project. If the review finds that grant funds were used for that purpose, the Region 

will seek recovery of those funds. 

Office of Air and Radiation comment: Grant to Rutgers, The State University of New 

Jersey 

The Report correctly notes that EPA does not explicitly include noise among the 

goals and objectives of the Agency’s Strategic Plan, and that EPA no longer has a noise 

regulatory program. The Office of Air and Radiation believes, however, that the type of 

community support provided to Teaneck, New Jersey under the project is covered under 

Goal 4, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, Sub-objective 4.2: Communities. This 

sub-objective focuses on EPA activities that will help communities sustain or restore 

community health by addressing community-specific environmental concerns. 

15 
Appendix E 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management 

Regional Administrator, Region 1 

Regional Administrator, Region 3 

Director, Office of Grants and Debarment 

Director, Grants Administration Division 

Agency Followup Official (the CFO) 

Agency Followup Coordinator 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

General Counsel 

Acting Inspector General 

16