Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

A

EPA Region 6 Mismanaged 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection and Restoration

Act Funds

Report No. 15-P-0003 October 9, 2014

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Protecting America’s Waters
Report Contributors: Patrick Gilbride

Randy Holthaus

Alexandra Zapata-Torres

Lisa Bergman

Mona Mafi

Abbreviations

ADA Antideficiency Act

ARA Assistant Regional Administrator

CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act

DOE Department of Energy

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPM Environmental Programs and Management

FY Fiscal Year

GAO Government Accountability Office

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

MIPR Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request

MOA Memorandum of agreement

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OIG Office of Inspector General

ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

PPL Priority Project List

RESTORE Act Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and 

Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012

Task Force Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force

EPA Directive EPA Resource Management Directive System

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. U.S. Code

WQPD Water Quality Protection Division

Cover photos: At the left is a Louisiana barrier island (source: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov).

On the right is a dune restoration of Whiskey Island Back Barrier (EPA photo).

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an

EPA program? 

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)

Washington, DC 20460

(888) 546-8740

(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

More information at www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html.

EPA Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-2391

www.epa.gov/oig

Subscribe to our Email Updates

Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig

Send us your Project Suggestions
 15-P-0003

October 9, 2014

Why We Did This Review

In January 2013, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Office of 

Inspector General (OIG), 

received a hotline complaint 

about the EPA’s Region 6 

Water Quality Protection 

Division (WQPD). The 

complainant alleged that the 

WQPD mismanaged Coastal 

Wetlands Planning, Protection 

and Restoration Act 

(CWPPRA) funds and EPA 

travel funds.

The purpose of this audit was 

to determine whether the 

WQPD used:

 CWPPRA funds in 

accordance with applicable 

federal laws, regulations 

and other agreements.

 Agency funds efficiently.

This report addresses the 

following EPA goals or

cross-agency strategies:

 Protecting America’s 

waters.

 Embracing EPA as a 

high-performing 

organization.

Send all inquiries to our public 

affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or 

visit www.epa.gov/oig. 

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2015/ 

20141009-15-P-0003.pdf

EPA Region 6 Mismanaged Coastal Wetlands 

Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Funds

 What We Found

From 2010 to 2013, Region 6 WQPD used 

CWPPRA funds for purposes that were not 

consistent with CWPPRA authority, appropriations 

law and principles, and interagency agreements. 

Further, WQPD management did not accurately 

record labor and contractor costs to the CWPPRA 

program. This occurred because Region 6 WQPD 

did not have controls in place to ensure accountability and proper stewardship of 

CWPPRA resources. Federal laws and EPA policies require federal employees 

to ensure resources are used efficiently and effectively and that public funds are 

used for the purpose for which they were appropriated and authorized. The 

WQPD spent CWPPRA funds totaling $780,793 on questioned costs, augmented 

the EPA’s annual appropriations, and overstated CWPPRA program costs. 

This mismanagement of CWPPRA funds resulted in “purpose violations” of 

appropriations law, pursuant to 31 U.S. Code §1301(a), and put Region 6 at risk 

of committing Antideficiency Act violations. The effectiveness of the CWPPRA 

program in restoring and protecting coastal wetlands is impaired if WQPD 

management does not properly spend and account for CWPPRA resources.

 Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that Region 6 reimburse the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for 

questioned costs totaling $780,793, unless Region 6 WQPD management 

provides sufficient and appropriate documentation that demonstrates questioned 

costs paid with CWPPRA funds were incurred in accordance with laws, policies 

and interagency agreements. We also recommend that the Region 6 Assistant 

Regional Administrator work with the EPA’s Chief Financial Officer to perform an 

internal review of the WQPD’s CWPPRA spending for fiscal years 2008 and

2009, and for the period July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, to identify 

any additional improper spending that occurred. Further, we recommend that 

Region 6 identify and address any Antideficiency Act violations resulting from 

questioned costs identified in this report or found during the internal review. We 

also recommend that Region 6 establish control activities to ensure proper 

stewardship and accounting of CWPPRA resources. In addition, we recommend 

that Region 6 take administrative disciplinary actions against EPA employees 

responsible for appropriations law purpose violations. Finally, we recommend 

that WQPD managers and staff receive training on properly managing federal 

funds to prevent purpose violations.

Region 6 agreed with three of our recommendations and disagreed with the 

other three. This report contains unresolved and open recommendations, and 

pending corrective actions.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

The EPA’s Region 6 

WQPD mismanaged 

CWPPRA funds, resulting 

in $780,793 of questioned 

costs and violations of 

appropriations law.
October 9, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Region 6 Mismanaged Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection 

and Restoration Act Funds

Report No. 15-P-0003

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Ron Curry, Regional Administrator

Region 6

This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG 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.

Action Required

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report 

within 60 calendar days. You should include planned corrective actions and completion dates for the 

unresolved Recommendations 1, 3, 5 and 6. Your response will be posted on the OIG’s public website, 

along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an 

Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released 

to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal 

along with corresponding justification.

The Region 6 Assistant Regional Administrator and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer should 

provide the OIG with sufficient and appropriate support for the questioned costs. The agency and the 

OIG should work together to reach resolution on corrective actions related to the questioned costs.

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
EPA Region 6 Mismanaged Coastal Wetlands 15-P-0003

Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Funds

Table of Contents

Chapters

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

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

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

Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 6

2 Region 6 Did Not Manage CWPPRA Funds in Accordance With 

CWPPRA Legislation and Other Agreements................................................. 7

CWPPRA Legislation Authorized Funds to Restore and 

 Prevent the Loss of Coastal Wetlands in Louisiana.............................. 7

Federal Appropriations Law, Appropriations Principles and 

 EPA Policy Address the Purpose and Use of Funds ............................ 8

EPA Policy Governs the Appropriate Use and Effective

 Administration of Interagency Agreements........................................... 10

Region 6 Used CWPPRA Funds for Other EPA Water Programs 

 and General Management Expenses ................................................... 11

Region 6 Lacks Controls to Ensure Accountability and Proper

 Stewardship of CWPPRA Resources................................................... 23

Region 6 Overstated CWPPRA Costs and Augmented EPA’s

 Appropriations...................................................................................... 25

EPA Planned Corrective Actions................................................................ 25

Conclusion................................................................................................. 25

Recommendations..................................................................................... 26

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation..................................................... 27

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 29

Appendices

A Details on Scope and Methodology ................................................................ 30

B CWPPRA Excerpts ........................................................................................... 31

C EPA’s Portion of Task Force-Approved CWPPRA Planning

Budgets and Funds by Task for FYs 2010 Through 2013.............................. 34

D Agency Response ............................................................................................ 36

E Distribution ....................................................................................................... 45
15-P-0003 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

In January 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of 

Inspector General (OIG), received a hotline complaint about the EPA’s Region 6 

Water Quality Protection Division (WQPD). The complainant alleged that the 

WQPD mismanaged Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 

(CWPPRA) funds and EPA travel funds. After preliminary fact-finding on the 

merits of the complaint, we found that there were indications that the WQPD 

mismanaged CWPPRA and agency funds, and we decided to conduct additional 

detailed audit work.

The purpose of this audit was to determine whether the WQPD used:

 CWPPRA funds in accordance with applicable federal laws, regulations 

and other agreements.

 Agency funds efficiently.

Background

Loss of Louisiana Wetlands

Louisiana wetlands are unique and vital ecological assets worth saving. 

According to the CWPPRA website, billions of dollars in seafood production, oil 

and gas revenue, and commercial shipping will be lost without Louisiana’s coastal 

wetlands, which provide the basis and support for these industries. Louisiana has 

lost up to 40 square miles of marsh per year for several decades. The loss of this 

marsh accounts for 80 percent of the nation’s annual coastal wetlands loss. This 

loss is at an average rate of one acre every 38 minutes. If the current rate of loss is 

not slowed by the year 2040, an additional 800,000 acres of wetlands will 

disappear, and the Louisiana shoreline will advance inland as much as 33 miles in 

some areas. See the map in Figure 1 for a depiction of actual land lost since 1932, 

as well as land predicted to be lost through 2050.1

 

1 Data obtained from the Louisiana Coast CWPPRA website at http://lacoast.gov/new/About/Default.aspx. 
15-P-0003 2

 Figure 1: U.S. Geological Survey Map of Coastal Louisiana

 Source: U.S. Geological Survey National Wetlands Research Center.

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as of May 2013, 

196 coastal restoration or protection projects have been authorized, benefiting 

over 113,000 acres in Louisiana. As a participating agency, the EPA has planned 

and managed 23 coastal wetlands projects (completed or active), which have 

benefited 13,323 net acres in Louisiana.2

Legislation

Congress enacted CWPPRA to identify, prepare and fund construction of coastal 

wetlands restoration projects in Louisiana. Congress passed the CWPPRA in 

1990, and the law is authorized until 2019 (see Appendix B for excerpts of the 

act). Congress provided dedicated funding for the CWPPRA via the transfer of 

small engine fuel taxes from the Highway Trust Fund to the Sport Fish 

Restoration Account. The CWPPRA program provides targeted funds for 

planning and implementing projects that create, protect, restore and enhance 

wetlands along the Louisiana coast. Projects are for the long-term conservation of 

wetlands and to support fish and wildlife populations. Projects funded by 

CWPPRA are small-scale, cost-effective ways of creating, restoring, protecting 

and enhancing coastal wetlands. The program uses a wide variety of coastal 

restoration and protection methods. These methods include marsh creation and 

 

2 Data obtained from the CWPPRA website at www.lacoast.gov (as of September 2013).
15-P-0003 3

nourishment, freshwater reintroduction, sediment diversion, foreshore protection, 

barrier island restoration, terracing, containment dikes, water flow management 

and invasive species removal.

The CWPPRA Task Force

The CWPPRA established the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Task Force (Task Force) to manage the CWPPRA program. The 

USACE chairs the Task Force and allocates funding to participating agencies for 

planning activities and projects. The USACE also tracks the status of funds for all 

CWPPRA projects. The Task Force is comprised of five federal agencies and one 

state agency:

 USACE (represents the U.S. Army)

 U.S. EPA

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of the Interior)

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(U.S. Department of Commerce)

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture)

 Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities (state of Louisiana)

The EPA Administrator delegated responsibilities for Task Force membership to 

the Region 6 WQPD Director. Each year the Task Force—with the help of its 

supporting committees and workgroups—prepares, selects 

and approves a list of projects for funding. The Task 

Force provides this Priority Project List (PPL) to 

Congress as required by the CWPPRA. At right is the 

CWPPRA logo (source: http://dnr.louisiana.gov).

CWPPRA Funds

Annual CWPPRA funding for all participating agencies 

combined has ranged from $30 to $80 million. The act 

makes funds available for two main categories of activity: 

(1) developing the annual PPL (referred to as planning), and (2) implementing 

restoration projects from the approved PPL. The Task Force approves an annual 

planning budget and allocates funds based on the approved budget to participating 

agencies.3 The annual planning budget must not exceed $5 million and is 

categorized by planning tasks. Region 6 has received in excess of $500,000 

annually from 2010 through 2013 to fund its Task Force planning participation. 

Additionally, from 2010 through 2013, Region 6 managed Task Force-approved 

projects that ranged from about $48,000 to $23 million in total funding. During 

fiscal years (FYs) 2010 through 2013, Region 6 WQPD managed 14 active 

 

3 The Task Force allocates CWPPRA funds that are equal to the amounts shown in the approved budgets.
15-P-0003 4

CWPPRA projects with a cumulative value of about $82 million, and also 

managed 4 years of allocated planning funds averaging about $521,400 per year 

and totaling $2,085,556.

The act is specific about the purpose of the CWPPRA funds. Funds are to be used 

to plan and implement projects approved by the Task Force. The Task Force 

allocates funds, based on the approved annual planning budgets, for activities 

directly related to developing the PPL.4 The planning budgets do not include 

funds for activities indirectly related to the CWPPRA, related to other water 

programs, or for general operations of member agencies.

General EPA operations are paid with Environmental Programs and Management 

(EPM) funds that come from annual congressional appropriations. The EPA 

operations include personnel labor, training, travel, communication systems, 

records management systems, and other general infrastructure or support. EPA 

managers have the discretion to reprogram or move EPM funds among other 

water programs. However, CWPPRA funds are specifically for purposes 

identified in the law and activities approved by the Task Force, regardless of 

whether there may be indirect ties to other Gulf of Mexico efforts.

Responsible Offices

The Region 6 WQPD has responsibility for water quality programs that protect 

and preserve the aquatic ecosystems and water resources of Arkansas, Louisiana, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, as well as tribal lands located within the 

region. In addition to the CWPPRA program, WQPD also manages these water 

programs:

 Drinking water.

 Underground injection control.

 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and the Total 

Maximum Daily Load program.

 Surface water quality and water quality standards.

 Monitoring and assessment.

 Nonpoint source.

 Wetlands.

 Coastal and oceans.

 Effective grants management.

 U.S. Mexico Border.

 Climate change.

 Water and energy efficiency.

 Environmental justice.

 Public outreach.

 

4 See Appendix C.
15-P-0003 5

The Ecosystems Protection Branch within WQPD manages regional water quality 

and the wetlands protection programs to meet national goals of preserving and 

protecting surface waters and their uses in inland, coastal and estuarine areas. 

There are four sections within this branch: the Marine and Coastal Section, the 

Wetlands Section, the Watershed Management Section, and the Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Section.

The Marine and Coastal Section manages and conducts regional activities under 

the CWPPRA, as well as the National Estuary Program, the Gulf of Mexico 

Program, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Marine Protection and 

Research and Sanctuaries Act. This section provides regional expertise on a 

variety of coastal and marine issues and initiatives, including international,

national, regional and local estuarine management programs. These issues and 

initiatives include, but are not limited to: evaluating marine impacts from 

liquefied natural gas facilities, and assessing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico; 

designating, managing and monitoring ocean disposal sites for dredged sediment;

and coordinating beneficial use of sediments in coastal restoration efforts.

The Marine and Coastal section manages the technical aspects of the CWPPRA 

program, including support of Region 6 membership on the CWPPRA Task 

Force. The section also provides oversight of federal funds provided by the Task 

Force, and designs and implements Task Force-authorized restoration projects.

Federal Programs for the Gulf of Mexico

Although current CWPPRA funding levels do not support all of the necessary 

restoration required for a sustainable ecosystem, the CWPPRA continues to 

address immediate restoration needs while establishing a foundation of strong 

science, public participation, and agency cooperation that will continue to serve as 

the cornerstone of future programs. To address the projected land loss of coastal 

Louisiana, large-scale coastal restoration projects that focus on the restoration of 

ecosystems must be constructed. Such projects exceed the funding capacity and 

authorization of the CWPPRA program.

The Louisiana Coastal Area initiative, which began in 2001, received 

authorization in the 2007 Water Resources Development Act to begin to address 

the need to develop and fund large-scale coastal restoration projects. The EPA 

receives funds in the EPM annual appropriations, and from other laws, for work 

related to water programs other than the CWPPRA. Funding is received from

other coastal restoration initiatives such as the National Estuary Program, the Gulf 

of Mexico Program, the Wetlands Protection Program, and other Gulf-related 

activities. Other laws that are a source of funds include the Clean Water Act and 

the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived 
15-P-0003 6

Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act).

5 Many of these 

programs and activities have similar goals and include the same participating 

federal, state or local agencies and personnel; and address the same geographic 

locations and impacted populations.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted our audit from March 2013 through July 2014 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 

we obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our objectives.

The time period covered by our audit was October 1, 2009, through June 30, 

2013. We reviewed spending during this time period, including expenditures paid 

with CWPPRA planning funds, CWPPRA project funds and EPM funds. Our 

primary focus was on the use of CWPPRA planning funds, since that was the 

focus of the hotline complaint. We also focused on questionable transactions that 

our audit work revealed.

During our audit, we reviewed the CWPPRA legislation, federal appropriations 

laws, Task Force documents, EPA interagency agreements with the USACE and 

the Department of Energy (DOE), related EPA financial policies and procedures, 

and financial data in the EPA’s financial system called Compass Financials. We 

interviewed WQPD managers and staff, as well as USACE officials from the New 

Orleans District office. We assessed WQPD controls over travel and CWPPRA 

spending and funds monitoring. We performed spending analyses on the WQPD’s 

financial expenditures and data. We reviewed and compared budget data from the 

Task Force, WQPD’s interagency agreements for CWPPRA and WQPD’s EPM 

budgets. 

Appendix A provides further details on our scope and methodology.

 

5 The RESTORE Act became law on July 6, 2012. The law creates an essential framework for managing and 

financing the Gulf Coast’s recovery, and establishes a trust account for Gulf Coast restoration that will receive 

80 percent of the funds from Clean Water Act penalties associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. According 

to Region 6, to date neither the region nor the EPA has received any funds from the RESTORE Act.
15-P-0003 7

Chapter 2

Region 6 Did Not Manage CWPPRA Funds

in Accordance With CWPPRA

Legislation and Other Agreements

Region 6 WQPD used CWPPRA funds for purposes that were not consistent with 

CWPPRA authority, appropriations law and principles, and interagency 

agreements. Further, WQPD management did not accurately record labor and 

contractor costs to the CWPPRA program. This occurred because Region 6 

WQPD did not have controls in place to ensure accountability and proper 

stewardship of CWPPRA resources. Federal laws and EPA policies require 

federal employees to ensure resources are used efficiently and effectively and that 

public funds are used for the purpose for which they were appropriated and 

authorized. The WQPD spent CWPPRA funds totaling $780,793 on questioned 

costs, augmented the EPA’s annual appropriations, and overstated CWPPRA

program costs. This mismanagement of CWPPRA funds resulted in “purpose 

violations” of appropriations law, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §1301(a), and put 

Region 6 at risk of committing Antideficiency Act (ADA) violations.

CWPPRA Legislation Authorized Funds to Restore and Prevent the 

Loss of Coastal Wetlands in Louisiana

The CWPPRA established the Task Force to develop a comprehensive approach 

to create, restore, enhance or prevent the loss of coastal Louisiana wetlands. 

The EPA receives funds in accordance with CWPPRA Section 303(a), which

requires the Task Force to identify and prepare a priority list of coastal wetlands 

restoration projects in Louisiana. According to CWPPRA Section 303(a), those 

projects must:

provide for the long-term conservation of such wetlands and 

dependent fish and wildlife populations in order of priority, based 

on the cost-effectiveness of such projects in creating, restoring, 

protecting, or enhancing coastal wetlands, taking into account the 

quality of such coastal wetlands....

The CWPPRA also requires the USACE to allocate funds among Task Force 

members based on the need for such funds and other factors that the Task Force 

deems appropriate to carry out the purpose of the act.
15-P-0003 8

Section 302 of the CWPPRA states that a coastal wetlands restoration project is:

any technically feasible activity to create, restore, protect, or 

enhance coastal wetlands through sediment and freshwater 

diversion, water management, or other measures that the Task 

Force finds will significantly contribute to the long-term 

restoration or protection of the physical, chemical and biological 

integrity of coastal wetlands in the State of Louisiana....

The act specifically states that the primary purpose of a CWPPRA coastal wetlands 

restoration project shall not be to provide navigation, irrigation or flood-control 

benefits.

In 2000, the EPA signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the USACE 

and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR). The MOA, which is 

still in effect, says the EPA is responsible for implementing a number of coastal 

wetlands restoration projects approved for funding by the Task Force. The MOA

also states that within all projects sponsored by the EPA, it is the EPA’s and

LDNR’s joint responsibility to administer short-term activities, such as 

engineering, design and construction; and long-term activities, such as 

monitoring, operation, maintenance, and the repair and rehabilitation of 

authorized project features.

To carry out long-term responsibilities, the MOA states that the EPA will request 

funding from the USACE and will certify invoices, as approved, for payment. The 

CWPPRA Task Force Project Standard Operating Procedures Manual, dated 

November 9, 2012, states that the EPA is responsible for ensuring that funds are 

spent in accordance with the CWPPRA. During the audit, we learned that the 

Task Force is currently updating the CWPPRA Task Force Project Standard 

Operating Procedures Manual to reinforce and clarify that the CWPPRA funds 

allocated to agencies should be used for the purposes included in CWPPRA 

Task Force-approved budgets.

Federal Appropriations Law, Appropriations Principles and EPA 

Policy Address the Purpose and Use of Funds

According to 31 U.S.C. §1301(a), appropriations “shall be applied only to the 

objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by 

law.” The use of funds for purposes other than those for which the funds are 

appropriated constitutes a purpose violation in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 

1301(a), unless the expenditure for a different purpose is otherwise authorized by 

law. The specificity of the CWPPRA’s purpose means that using CWPPRA funds 

for EPA activities that are provided for with annual appropriations constitutes a 

purpose violation. A purpose violation does not necessarily constitute an ADA
15-P-0003 9

violation, and each purpose violation must be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis.6

Costs that are not identified in a specific law such as the CWPPRA, but are 

necessary to implement agency programs, are to be incurred based on the 

“Necessary Expense Rule.” For expenditures to be justified as necessary, three 

tests must be met:

1. The expenditure must bear a logical relationship to the appropriation

sought to be charged. In other words, the expenditure must make a 

direct contribution to carrying out either a specific appropriation or an 

authorized agency function for which more general appropriations are 

available.

2. The expenditure must not be prohibited by law.

3. The expenditure must not be otherwise provided for, that is, it must not 

be an item that falls within the scope of some other appropriation or 

statutory funding scheme.7

Additionally, in instances where more than one appropriation may be construed as 

available, the EPA is bound by what is referred to as the “pick and stick” rule. An 

agency may make an initial election as to which appropriation to use (the “pick”),

but once the decision has been made the agency must “stick” to its choice. The 

agency cannot, because of insufficient funds or other reasons, change its election 

in a subsequent fiscal year and use another appropriation unless Congress is first 

informed of the agency’s planned change.8

According to 31 U.S.C. §1341(a)(1)(A), an ADA violation occurs when an officer 

or employee of the U.S. government makes or authorizes an expenditure or 

obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the 

expenditure or obligation.

The EPA’s Resource Management Directive System (EPA Directive) 2520, 

U.S. Administrative Control of Appropriated Funds, dated February 4, 2008, 

states that violations of appropriations laws are serious matters that can 

undermine the EPA’s working relationship with Congress. Employees that 

violate 31 U.S.C. § 1301 may be subject to administrative discipline in 

accordance with EPA Directive 2520. A purpose violation has the potential to 

also constitute an ADA violation per 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a). In addition, according 

to EPA Directive 2520, an ADA violation also occurs if the funds that should 

 

6 See 63 Comptroller General 422, 424 (1984), Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum Opinion for the General 

Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency, dated April 2007. See generally Principles of Federal 

Appropriations Law, at 4-9.

7 1 GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 4-21 through 4-22 (3d ed. 2010).

8 The EPA’s Administrative Control of Appropriated Funds, Release 3.2, dated February 4, 2008. Also see 1 GAO, 

Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 2-23 through 2-24 (3d ed. 2010).
15-P-0003 10

have been charged when the event took place are not sufficient or are not 

available to enable the accounting error correction.

EPA Directive 2520 requires federal employees to ensure that federal programs 

operate, and that federal resources are used efficiently and effectively, to achieve 

desired objectives. The policy states that management has a fundamental 

responsibility to develop and maintain effective internal controls for the proper 

stewardship of federal resources. The policy also requires managers to operate 

programs and use resources consistent with agency missions; in compliance with 

laws and regulations; and with minimal potential for waste, fraud and 

mismanagement.

EPA Policy Governs the Appropriate Use and Effective Administration 

of Interagency Agreements

According to the EPA’s Interagency Agreement Policies, Procedures, and 

Guidance Manual, issued in 2008, an interagency agreement is a written 

agreement between the EPA and another federal agency, state or local 

government, foreign government, foreign entity, or international organization that 

is authorized by statute and has a distinct scope of work with all activities serving 

defined objectives. An interagency agreement is a mechanism that the EPA uses 

to accomplish its mission more effectively and efficiently, or the agreement 

allows another agency or entity to benefit from the EPA’s specialized resources or 

expertise. Interagency agreements between federal agencies are to help both 

agencies accomplish a shared objective and achieve efficiencies and economies 

while doing business together. Interagency agreements are governed by applicable 

statutory authorities, appropriations law principles, and guidance from the 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The EPA’s agreement with the USACE, in relation to the CWPPRA, is a 

“funds-in” or reimbursement agreement. The EPA’s Interagency Agreement 

Policies, Procedures, and Guidance Manual states that if the EPA is reimbursed 

for its expenses in providing goods or services to another federal agency, then the 

EPA is the “performing” agency. The EPA may provide the other agency 

(ordering agency) the goods or services:

 Through EPA employees, using EPA equipment and supplies.

 Under an EPA-awarded procurement contract.

 Through award of a funds-out interagency agreement with a third party.

 Under a federal interagency agreement using a cooperation authority, by 

funding a grant or cooperative agreement.

The ordering agency remains accountable for these activities to Congress, state 

legislatures, or other governing bodies. Therefore, the EPA must be able to 

provide information to the other agency regarding the use of funds.
15-P-0003 11

The EPA’s total costs for performing a project under an interagency agreement 

include direct and indirect costs. The EPA’s direct costs are directly attributable 

to the interagency agreement’s scope of work. The EPA’s indirect costs are not 

directly attributable to the EPA’s effort on funds-in interagency agreements and 

must be charged to the other agency as provided in the EPA Directive 2540-

13.P1, Chapter 13, Agency Indirect Cost Allocation System. Indirect costs include 

management and administrative support costs, headquarters allocation of 

facilities and personnel compensation support costs to regions and program 

offices, regional management and support costs, and program office support 

costs. The EPA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) calculates and 

disseminates indirect cost rates to charge to the work performed under 

interagency agreements, and these indirect cost rates must be included in the 

interagency agreements documentation to be able to recover such indirect costs.

Grants specialists and EPA project officers are responsible for the proper award 

and administration of interagency agreements, and must ensure that interagency 

agreements are not used to:

 Circumvent federal travel or personnel ceilings.

 Circumvent federal appropriations laws and principles.

 Support activities that are inconsistent with the purpose for which the 

funds were appropriated, unless such alternate use is specifically provided 

by statute.

Region 6 Used CWPPRA Funds for Other EPA Water Programs and 

General Management Expenses

Region 6 WQPD spent CWPPRA funds totaling $780,793 for purposes that were 

not in accordance with CWPPRA authority, appropriations law and principles, 

and interagency agreements for CWPPRA work. The WQPD used CWPPRA 

funds for other water programs that have goals and objectives related to the Gulf 

of Mexico.

The WQPD management authorized the use of CWPPRA funds for contractors,

travel, payroll and training; and for expenses related to other EPA water 

programs, such as the National Estuary Program, the Gulf of Mexico Program, the 

Wetlands Protection Program and other regulatory activities. In addition, the 

WQPD management used CWPPRA funds for EPA management needs and for 

indirect costs such as administrative and support expenses, equipment, staffing 

and supervisory training. 

Region 6 was not authorized to charge indirect costs to the CWPPRA because 

indirect cost rates were not included in interagency agreement documents.

Region 6 decision memorandums for FYs 2010 through 2013, which were used to 

justify the use of CWPPRA planning funds, did not include language indicating 

indirect costs were allowable. In fact, for FY 2012, Region 6 stated in its decision 
15-P-0003 12

memo: “Indirect costs do not apply for CWPPRA agreements.” Further, the 

Office of General Counsel advised Region 6 that it may be appropriate to charge 

indirect costs but only to project-related activities.

The Task Force allocated CWPPRA funds to Region 6 to plan coastal wetlands 

restoration projects that the Task Force had approved for funding. Region 6 

received CWPPRA funds to perform authorized planning tasks, such as attending 

CWPPRA task force meetings, conducting wetland value assessments, conducting 

CWPPRA program outreach activities, and planning tasks for authorized 

CWPPRA priority project lists.9 However, the CWPPRA planning funds that the 

Task Force approved and allocated to Region 6 did not provide funds for 

equipment purchases or training expenses. A summary of the questioned costs 

associated with CWPPRA funds from FY 2010 through June 30, 2013, appear in 

Table 1.

Table 1: Overall summary of CWPPRA questioned costs

Spending purpose Amount

Intern and an administrative support contractor $440,762

Equipment and infrastructure 145,398

Travel 87,109

Training 40,039

Labor costs and monetary awards 36,778

Outreach overspending (2010 through 2012) 30,707

$780,793

Source: OIG analysis.

Region 6 Used CWPPRA Planning Funds to Pay an Intern and an 

Administrative Support Contractor

Region 6 spent CWPPRA funds totaling $440,762 to pay for the costs of an intern 

and an administrative support contractor. The costs for the intern were $390,762 

and the costs for the administrative support contractor were $50,000.

Region 6 entered into an interagency agreement in February 2008 with the DOE’s 

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) to obtain specialized 

skills for research, project planning and management; and specialized skills for 

EPA programs. The WQPD obligated and spent a total of $390,76210 of 

CWPPRA planning funds to fund the interagency agreement with ORISE. The 

WQPD’s management paid the intern’s stipend and related costs fully with 

CWPPRA funds. However, the intern also said he worked on other water 

programs besides the CWPPRA.

 

9 See Appendix C.

10 This amount represents the total amount of CWPPRA funds for the interagency agreement with the ORISE since 

February 2008. Although the scope of our audit was from FY 2010 through June 30, 2013, during the audit we 

identified improper spending related to the ORISE intern back to February 2008.
15-P-0003 13

The WQPD should have distributed the intern’s costs consistently with the work 

performed among the programs and projects. As of March 2014, the WQPD has

acknowledged that a portion of these costs should have been charged to other 

water programs (e.g., ocean dumping). The WQPD’s management and the 

Region 6 Comptroller, under the Assistant Regional Administrator (ARA), are

coordinating with the EPA’s OCFO to identify EPM funds that can be used to pay 

back the USACE for the charges.

During FYs 2012 and 2013, the WQPD used CWPPRA funds totaling $50,000 to 

fund a cooperative agreement with the National Older Worker Career Center to 

hire a Senior Environmental Employee. This person’s duties were to provide 

administrative support to the WQPD Marine and Coastal Section. The Task 

Force-approved annual funds allocated to the EPA for planning did not provide 

funds for indirect costs such as administrative staff expenses. Therefore, to fund 

this position with CWPPRA funds was not appropriate.

Equipment and General EPA Infrastructure Purchases

The Region 6 WQPD used CWPPRA planning funds totaling $145,398 to 

purchase computer equipment, fund information technology services, and buy

computer systems. According to the WQPD Marine and Coastal Section chief, 

Region 6 recorded and labeled the property as EPA property in its records. The 

Task Force did not authorize funds to purchase equipment and information 

technology infrastructure.

The EPA’s interagency agreements for CWPPRA work did not include an 

allocation of funds to purchase equipment as required by EPA’s Interagency 

Agreement Policies, Procedures, and Guidance Manual. The USACE officials said 

none of the other participating agencies of the Task Force have made a request to 

use CWPPRA planning funds to purchase equipment such as computers or

computer systems. In addition, as previously stated, indirect costs do not apply to 

CWPPRA work. The costs the WQPD incurred for equipment and infrastructure 

did not make a direct contribution to carrying out the CWPPRA’s purpose.

In FYs 2010 and 2011, the WQPD spent CWPPRA planning funds totaling 

$120,000 for an interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of the Army to 

develop, test and implement Region 6’s Enterprise Content Management System. 

The system is an electronic platform for managing the EPA’s information 

resources, including records. Region 6’s implementation of the system was 

impacted in FY 2009 because of periodic funding shortfalls, priority shifts in the 

EPA’s Office of Environmental Information, and evolving system requirements. 

According to WQPD management, they justified the use of CWPPRA funds as an 

indirect cost because they used CWPPRA documents for a pilot project to develop 

and implement the regional electronic information management system. The 

system is currently being used across the entire region and the EPA. The Task 

Force did not approve the EPA to use CWPPRA funds for this EPA system.
15-P-0003 14

In FY 2011, the WQPD used $20,000 from the CWPPRA planning funds to fund 

Region 6 information technology services, including data processing, email, 

mobile devices, telephone services, and other computer systems. According to 

WQPD managers, the total cost was to fund the information technology service 

fee for five full-time-equivalent positions.

During 2010 and 2011, the WQPD used $5,398 from CWPPRA planning funds to 

purchase computer equipment and related software. According to WQPD 

management, CWPPRA program managers authorized the purchase of computer 

equipment and infrastructure to facilitate online meetings and webinars with the 

Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. A summary of 

questioned costs associated with CWPPRA planning funds spent to purchase

equipment and information technology infrastructure appears in Table 2.

Table 2: Questioned costs on equipment and infrastructure

Description Amount

Region 6 Enterprise Content Management System—

filing system for electronic records. $120,000

Region 6 information technology agreement

for data processing services. 20,000

Computer equipment and related software. 5,398

Totals $145,398

Source: OIG analysis.

Travel

The Region 6 WQPD spent CWPPRA funds totaling $87,109 for travel purposes 

that were not in accordance with CWPPRA authority, appropriations law and 

principles, and interagency agreements for CWPPRA work. The WQPD funded 

travel with CWPPRA funds to perform work related to other EPA water 

programs. Also, the WQPD spent CWPPRA funds to pay for travel to attend 

training and perform work related to general EPA administration. Further, the 

WQPD spent CWPPRA project funds and EPA funds to pay for travel to attend 

the Task Force meetings, which are to be funded with CWPPRA planning funds.

Travel to Perform Work Related to Other EPA Water Programs

The Region 6 WQPD spent CWPPRA funds totaling $52,942 for travel to 

perform work related to other EPA water programs, or to perform other 

coastal restoration initiatives in the Gulf of Mexico that are authorized under 

other laws. Some of the other EPA water programs or coastal restoration 

initiatives have similar objectives as the CWPPRA program or may indirectly 

contribute to CWPPRA’s purpose, goals and objectives. However, the 

CWPPRA does not authorize the use of funds for such purposes. As stated in 

the CWPPRA legislation, the USACE shall allocate funds among task force 

members in accordance with the priorities set forth in the CWPPRA’s priority 
15-P-0003 15

projects list of Louisiana coastal wetlands projects. Likewise, it is the EPA’s 

responsibility to use the funds for the act’s intended purpose.11

For example, the WQPD Director traveled to Austin, Texas, to give a 

presentation at a Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill workshop. The Director 

acknowledged during our audit that he should not have used CWPPRA funds 

to pay for that trip. In some instances, WQPD managers said that some trips 

served multiple purposes and explained that because a trip was planned for 

CWPPRA purposes the travel was conducted at no extra expense to the 

CWPPRA program. However, the cost of the travel should have been 

distributed among the program’s funds instead of paying the full cost of the 

travel with CWPPRA funds.

The EPA’s appropriations provide funds to perform work related to other EPA 

water programs and to other coastal restoration initiatives such as the National 

Estuary Program, the Gulf of Mexico Program, the Wetlands Protection 

Program and other regulatory activities. Further, other laws—such as the 

Clean Water Act, the RESTORE Act or the Water Resources Development 

Act—grant authority and provide funds for other programs and restoration 

initiatives along the gulf coast.

12 In contrast, during our discussions with 

USACE officials, they said the USACE would not authorize the use of 

CWPPRA funds to pay for other programs’ activities. For example, according 

to USACE officials, a USACE staff person attended the Barataria-Terrebonne 

National Estuary Program meetings in the past but, unlike WQPD, did not use 

CWPPRA funds to attend the meetings. A summary of questioned costs of 

CWPPRA funds that the WQPD spent on travel to accomplish work on other 

EPA water programs appears in Table 3.

Table 3: Questioned costs for travel for other EPA water programs

Travel purpose

Number of 

trips Amount

Gulf of Mexico Alliance meetings 11 $ 11,675

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force meetings 13 10,161

Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program meetings 11 9,374

Ocean Disposal Material Sites and beneficial uses 12 8,807

Other (Louisiana Comprehensive Plan and Urban Waters 

Coordination) 11 5,845

Regulatory Activities (e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act

and the Clean Water Act, Section 402) 4 3,265

Hypoxia Task Force meetings 3 2,702

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (e.g., briefings and National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration scoping meeting) 2 1,113

Totals 67 $ 52,942

Source: OIG analysis.

 

11 EPA Directive 2520, Administrative Control of Appropriated Funds, dated February 4, 2008.

12 According to Region 6, to date neither the region nor EPA has received any funds from the RESTORE Act or the 

Water Resources Development Act.
15-P-0003 16

Travel to Attend Training

The WQPD spent CWPPRA funds totaling $21,551 to pay for travel to attend 

training in FYs 2011 and 2012. These training expenses were to maintain, 

upgrade or update employees’ technical skills to operate EPA programs and to 

obtain or improve employees’ skills to perform general management or staff 

duties required for their positions within EPA. The EPA’s annual 

appropriations provide funds to train staff; however, neither the EPA’s 

CWPPRA interagency agreements nor the Task Force provided funds for 

training.

For example, one WQPD staff member traveled to the Netherlands to attend a 

Dutch water management training conference. The staff member told us that 

the purpose for attending the Dutch water management training was to help 

him find more efficient and effective ways to implement coastal restoration 

projects and flood protection. While the employee obtained knowledge and 

skills useful to multiple EPA water programs regarding coastal restoration and 

flood protection, the training did not relate directly to CWPPRA planning or 

project implementation. In addition, the staff member was not an EPA 

representative on any of the Task Force committees, and he was not a

CWPPRA project manager for the EPA.

Region 6 management provided the OIG with a copy of the employee’s 

performance standards, which included metrics related to work in the 

CWPPRA program. However, the employee reported only 23 labor hours 

charged to the CWPPRA program during the period we audited (FY 2010 

through June 30, 2013). Also, the employee did not report labor hours to the 

CWPPRA program while attending the Dutch water management conference.

A summary of the questioned costs of CWPPRA funds that the WQPD spent 

on travel to attend training appears in Table 4.

 Table 4: Questioned costs for travel to attend training

Training type Number of trips Amount

Clean Water Act, Section 404 5 $6,508

National Environmental Policy Act 5 4,382

Engineering dredging courses 5 4,571

Supervisory training 3 3,873

Dutch water management training 1 2,057

Diversion workshop 1 160

Totals 20 $21,551

Source: OIG analysis.
15-P-0003 17

Travel for General EPA Management Activities

Region 6 WQPD used CWPPRA planning funds to travel and perform general 

EPA managerial activities. Specifically, the WQPD spent CWPPRA funds 

totaling $7,524 on activities to manage EPA programs and staff, including 

staff recruiting, briefings to headquarters officials, and other general staff 

management and administrative activities.

In FY 2010, two WQPD managers used CWPPRA funds to travel to 

Louisiana to recruit an intern from the DOE’s ORISE program. Also in 

FY 2010, the WQPD’s Director used CWPPRA funds to travel to 

Washington, D.C., to meet with OCFO and the Office of Water. WQPD’s 

Director briefed OCFO and OW about Region 6 water programs, including 

the CWPPRA program, and the allocation of resources to WQPD. In 

FY 2011, two WQPD managers traveled to Louisiana to brief the EPA 

Administrator and other officials on EPA water programs as well as the EPA’s 

role in coastal restoration in the Gulf of Mexico.

While WQPD managers presented information about the CWPPRA program, 

the purpose of the trip was not specifically related to the CWPPRA program,

but instead about the EPA’s overall work in the Gulf of Mexico and coastal 

restoration. Hence, the costs should have been distributed among the 

applicable programs. If WQPD management was unable to trace the costs to 

specific programs or projects, then, by definition, the costs should have been 

considered to be general WQPD administrative costs or indirect costs and 

EPM funds should have been used. See Table 5 for a summary.

Table 5: Questioned costs for travel for EPA’s general administration

Travel purpose

Number of 

trips Amount

General administrative purposes, including staff 

management and supervisory activities. 5 $3,125

Briefings to the EPA Administrator about Louisiana coastal 

restoration efforts, including the EPA’s water programs and 

projects in Louisiana. 2 2,316

Recruiting trip to Louisiana. 2 1,596

Meeting with OCFO and OW in Washington, D.C., to 

discuss resource and staffing issues. 1 487

Totals 10 $7,524

Source: OIG analysis.

Travel to Attend CWPPRA Task Force Meetings Using CWPPRA 

Project Funds and EPA Funds

Region 6 WQPD spent CWPPRA project funds and EPA’s EPM funds 

totaling $5,470 for travel to attend Task Force meetings and other planning 

meetings. The CWPPRA planning budget allocated funds for Region 6 to
15-P-0003 18

attend general Task Force meetings, such as financial status meetings, 

planning meetings and other related meetings concerned with the management 

of the CWPPRA program.13 The WQPD should have used CWPPRA planning 

funds to attend Task Force and CWPPRA planning meetings. The funds 

allocated for CWPPRA projects provide travel funds for specific project 

purposes, such as on-site inspections to monitor the status of a project being 

constructed. A summary of project-specific and EPM funds spent on travel to 

attend CWPPRA planning and Task Force meetings appears in Table 6.

Table 6: Questioned costs for travel for Task Force meetings paid with project 

funds and EPA funds

Meeting CWPPRA project fund 

or EPA fund charged

Number 

of trips Amount

General CWPPRA planning 

meetings Bertrandville Siphon Project, Phase I 3 $1,705

Other CWPPRA meetings 

with the USACE and the 

Task Force

Bohemia Mississippi River 

Reintroduction ($964) and

EPM funds ($378) 142 1,342

Financial Status of 

CWPPRA funds

Enhancement of Barrier Island 

Vegetative Demo 2 1,291

Task Force quarterly 

meeting

Venice Ponds Marsh Creation and 

Crevasses 1 788

General CWPPRA planning 

meetings

Phase II, Construction of the Whiskey 

Island Back Barrier Project 1 344

Totals 9 $5,470

Source: OIG analysis.

Region 6 Used CWPPRA Funds to Pay for Unauthorized Training

WQPD spent CWPPRA funds totaling $40,039 ($33,289 from planning and 

$6,750 from project funds) for supervisory training and training related to work 

for other EPA water programs. The training expenses paid with CWPPRA funds 

were to maintain, upgrade or update technical skills to operate EPA’s programs or 

for general management. During FYs 2010 through 2013, the Task Force did not 

authorize a training allowance to Region 6.15 Therefore, WQPD did not have 

CWPPRA funds available for training purposes and should have paid for training 

with EPM funds. For example, WQPD used $18,375 of CWPPRA funds in 

FY 2010 to send its new Marine and Coastal Section chief to a general 

supervisory training class presented by the Office of Personnel Management to 

learn how to be a supervisor. USACE officials told us that they would not be 

allowed to spend CWPPRA funds to pay for training and related expenses. 

Table 7 below summarizes the questioned costs of CWPPRA funds that WQPD 

spent on training.

 

13 See Appendix C.

14 One trip cost $756 and was split-funded between the Bohemia Mississippi River Reintroduction Project and EPM 

funds ($378 to each fund source). For the second trip, the cost was $586 fully charged to the CWPPRA project.

15 See Appendix C.
15-P-0003 19

Table 7: Questioned costs on training courses

Training Type Number of 

courses

Amount

Supervisory 4 $24,255

Dredging engineering courses 5 6,750

National Environmental Policy Act 4 4,700

Dutch water management training 1 2,750

Other 3 1,584

Totals 17 $40,039

Source: OIG analysis. 

Region 6 Did Not Record Labor Costs Consistently and Used 

CWPPRA Funds for Monetary Awards

The Region 6 WQPD staff and managers did not charge labor time and costs to 

the EPA’s programs and projects consistently in accordance with the work 

performed. We found inconsistencies between when travel costs were charged to 

the CWPPRA program and the staff’s time charges. In several instances, WQPD 

managers and staff traveled using CWPPRA funds to pay for travel expenses; 

however, they did not charge labor time to the CWPPRA program. Based on 

reports we reviewed for personnel and compensation expenses, Marine and 

Coastal section staff and management charged labor time and costs to the 

CWPPRA program without regard to the actual work conducted.

During FYs 2010 through 2013, a staff person from the WQPD Planning and 

Analysis Branch attended the State of the Coast Conference, the Restore America’s 

Estuaries Conference, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Conference, and 

the Youth Summit Restoration Tree Planting in Louisiana. The WQPD paid the 

travel expenses using CWPPRA planning funds, but time was never charged to the 

CWPPRA program for the activities conducted during these trips.

The Associate Director of the WQPD’s Ecosystems Protection Branch traveled to 

attend meetings and funded at least 17 of these trips with CWPPRA planning 

funds. However, the Associate Director did not charge time for these trips 

consistently to the fund accounts she charged for her travel expenses. In

June 2012, for instance, the Associate Director traveled to attend the State of the 

Coast Conference and used CWPPRA planning funds to pay for travel expenses. 

However, the Associate Director charged time while attending the conference to a 

specific CWPPRA project. Likewise, in June 2012 the Associate Director 

attended a Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill meeting and used EPM funds to pay for 

travel expenses. However, the Associate Director charged her time while 

attending the meeting to a CWPPRA project. As a result, in FY 2012 the 

Associate Director charged about $17,469 in questioned labor costs to Phase II of 

the Construction of the Whiskey Island Back Barrier Project and $18,610 in 

questioned labor costs to Phase I of the Bertrandville Siphon Project.
15-P-0003 20

Monetary Awards

The WQPD’s management also authorized the use of CWPPRA planning funds to 

give monetary awards to two employees. These two employees, whose 

responsibilities were not within the CWPPRA program, were the only employees 

who received monetary awards from CWPPRA funds during the period we 

audited. The EPA personnel with responsibilities in the CWPPRA program, such 

as CWPPRA project managers, did not receive any monetary awards from 

CWPPRA funds during the period. Further, when we discussed these events with 

USACE officials, they stated that the Task Force never approved an allowance for 

monetary awards.

According to WQPD management, in FY 2010 a WQPD staff person assisted the 

Marine and Coastal section with graphic design support for posters to be used for 

a CWPPRA dedication ceremony. The WQPD program manager for the 

CWPPRA granted the employee an On-the-Spot Award of $340 for her 

assistance. Further, this employee did not charge her time to the CWPPRA 

program while performing her graphic design support, which is not consistent 

with labor charging for accountability purposes.

In FY 2011, the WQPD managers for the CWPPRA granted a $359 On-the-Spot 

Award to a headquarters program analyst in Washington, D.C., who helped 

Region 6 obtain National Environmental Policy Act contractor assistance. The 

National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to integrate 

environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the 

environmental impacts of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those 

actions. The WQPD’s Marine and Coastal Section coordinates with other regional 

organizations to grant funds to and comply with National Environmental Policy 

Act requirements, which is a regulatory activity that is not authorized by the 

CWPPRA. The program analyst did not charge time to the CWPPRA program 

while providing support to Region 6.

Outreach Activities and Related Costs

The Task Force allocated outreach funds totaling $6,60016 to Region 6 to conduct 

educational events about the CWPPRA program. These events included presenting

information at conferences about the CWPPRA program, attending Task Force 

extracurricular activities, attending quarterly outreach committee meetings, and

attending any other meetings that attract media attention to the CWPPRA program.

During FYs 2010 through 2012, the WQPD exceeded each year’s allocation for 

CWPPRA outreach. In addition, in 2011 and 2012, the WQPD used CWPPRA 

project funds to travel for outreach work. As previously mentioned, CWPPRA 

project funds are to be used to design and construct specific, approved projects. 

Therefore, CWPPRA project budgets do not provide an allowance for outreach work.

 

16 See Appendix C.
15-P-0003 21

Based on interviews with managers of the EPA’s CWPPRA program, the travel 

trips we identified served a CWPPRA outreach purpose to some extent. However, 

the information provided during conferences, symposiums, meetings or briefings 

was not specifically related to the CWPPRA program. Instead, the information 

provided was about ocean and coastal programs, which include the CWPPRA 

program. Therefore, the WQPD should have distributed the expenses evenly 

among the applicable funds instead of charging the full cost of outreach activities 

to the CWPPRA program.

In FY 2010, the WQPD exceeded its annual CWPPRA outreach funding by 

$9,345. As summarized in Table 8 below, the WQPD spent $9,859 for travel 

related to outreach work. Additionally, the WQPD spent another $6,086 in 

conference fees and supplies to prepare posters for presentations. A summary of 

the WQPD’s 2010 outreach expenditures, including the calculation showing how 

much Region 6 overspent, is shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Fiscal year 2010 CWPPRA outreach overspending

Description Number 

of trips Amount

Travel

Workshops, conferences, briefings and 

symposiums 10 $6,056

State of the Coast Conference 5 3,803

Total outreach travel spending 15 $9,859

Conference fees and supplies

State of the Coast Conference fees 5,200

Supplies for poster preparation 886

Total CWPPRA outreach spending $15,945

EPA’s CWPPRA outreach funding (6,600)

CWPPRA outreach overspending $9,345

Source: OIG analysis.

In FY 2011, the WQPD exceeded its annual CWPPRA outreach funding by 

$13,808. The spending excess includes $702 that WQPD management funded 

with CWPPRA project funds that were supposed to be spent on Phase II of the 

East Marsh Island project. The WQPD management authorized the travel for one 

staff member to attend the Restore America’s Estuaries Conference, which was 

funded with a combination of CWPPRA planning funds and CWPPRA project 

funds. The Task Force’s allocation for CWPPRA projects do not provide an 

allowance for outreach. In addition, USACE officials stated that some of its staff 

attended the Restore America’s Estuaries Conference, the State of the Coast 

Conference, and the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Meetings but did not 

use CWPPRA funds because the purposes of these types of conferences and 

meetings fall under other legislation. A summary of the WQPD’s outreach 

expenditures for FY 2011, including the overspending calculation of the 

CWPPRA outreach budget, appears in Table 9.
15-P-0003 22

Table 9: Fiscal year 2011 CWPPRA outreach overspending

Description Number of 

trips Amount

Restore America’s Estuaries Conference 9 $7,733

Wetlands Youth Summit 4 2,900

American Beach and Shore Preservation Association 2 1,714

Wastewater workshops 3 1,707

Other presentations or briefings 3 1,311

Total outreach travel spending 21

 

 $15,365

Conference fees and supplies

Restore America’s Estuaries Conference fees 4,475

Supplies for poster preparation 568

Total CWPPRA outreach spending $20,408

EPA’s CWPPRA outreach allocation (6,600)

CWPPRA outreach overspending $13,808

Source: OIG analysis.

In FY 2012, the WQPD exceeded its annual CWPPRA outreach funding by 

$7,554. Similar to FY 2011, the spending excess includes $4,524 that WQPD 

management funded with CWPPRA project funds. The WQPD’s management 

authorized travel funded with CWPPRA project funds to attend the State of the 

Coast Conference, the Restore America’s Conference and other trips related to 

outreach purposes. As we stated before, the budgets allocated to CWPPRA 

projects do not provide an allowance for outreach. A summary of the WQPD’s 

outreach expenditures for FY 2012, including the overspending calculation of 

Region 6’s CWPPRA outreach funds, appears in Table 10.

Table 10: Fiscal year 2012 CWPPRA outreach overspending

Description Number of 

trips Amount

State of the Coast Conference 5 $5,303

Restore America’s Estuaries Conference 2 2,630

Wetlands Youth Summit and Super Bowl Event 4 4,248

Other briefings, presentation and outreach meetings 1 973

Total outreach travel spending 12 $ 13,154

Conference fees and supplies

State of the Coast Conference fees 1,000

Total CWPPRA outreach spending $ 14,154

EPA’s CWPPRA outreach allocation (6,600)

CWPPRA outreach overspending $ 7,554

Source: OIG analysis.
15-P-0003 23

Region 6 Lacks Controls to Ensure Accountability and Proper 

Stewardship of CWPPRA Resources

Federal employees are required to ensure that funds are used effectively and 

efficiently, and that funds are used for the purposes for which the funds were 

authorized. Therefore, the WQPD management should institute controls to ensure 

the proper stewardship of resources. While specific line-item budgets are not 

provided in the CWPPRA, the act is specific on its authority that the purpose of 

CWPPRA funds is to:

 Plan and implement coastal wetlands restoration projects approved for 

funding by the Task Force.

 Provide for the long-term conservation of wetlands and dependent fish and 

wildlife populations in order of priority, based on the cost-effectiveness of 

such projects in creating, restoring, protecting or enhancing coastal 

wetlands.

Despite the requirements above, the Region 6 WQPD did not have adequate 

controls in place to provide for proper accounting and management of CWPPRA 

funds. According to the EPA’s CWPPRA project officer, the WQPD’s CWPPRA 

program managers and project officer did not perform comparisons of actual 

spending of CWPPRA planning funds with the authorized planning budget. 

Further, they did not perform reconciliations to verify that WQPD used CWPPRA 

planning funds in accordance with agreements with Task Force-approved budgets. 

Likewise, the managers and the project officer did not perform verifications to 

identify financial errors or misstatements, such as expenses inaccurately charged 

to CWPPRA accounts.

For example, the WQPD CWPPRA project officer provided us with copies of the 

documents she used to monitor and track CWPPRA funds. However, these 

documents lacked sufficient details to identify misstatements, errors or inaccurate 

charges to CWPPRA fund accounts. The project officer explained that she does 

not monitor and track CWPPRA spending in detail because the USACE does not 

require the WQPD to provide such details during the billing process. 

For instance, WQPD managers stated that the CWPPRA statute does not require 

agencies that are members of the Task Force to implement a line-item budget for 

individual partner agency expenditures, such as specific travel and training. 

Therefore, WQPD managers and the CWPPRA project officer tracked and billed 

CWPPRA spending at the summary level amount by CWPPRA expense accounts, 

without regard to individual expenditures that make up the total amount. In 

addition, the WQPD Director stated that in some instances, at the end of a fiscal 

year, he made travel-funding decisions based on the availability of funds in 

CWPPRA and EPM accounts.
15-P-0003 24

According to USACE officials, the Task Force votes on and approves annual 

CWPPRA planning budgets, and the Task Force expects agencies to use the funds 

to perform authorized planning tasks.17 During discussions with USACE officials, 

the officials said they were concerned about how the WQPD was spending 

CWPPRA funds and that the USACE would not be permitted to spend CWPPRA 

funds as the EPA did.

Ineffective Management Communication With the Project Officer

Management at the WQPD did not communicate effectively with the WQPD’s

CWPPRA project officer. The project officer said WQPD management did not 

always consult with her concerning the CWPPRA decision-making process for 

spending. In some instances, after the CWPPRA funds were spent, she learned 

that management approved spending that she believed was not consistent with the 

CWPPRA’s purpose. Although EPA policy and procedures require the project 

officer to ensure funds are spent only for authorized purposes and to request 

appropriate accounting corrections, the project officer stated that she felt the 

decision to correct such transactions was not hers to make.

Management Misconceptions

The WQPD’s management has several misconceptions about CWPPRA authority 

and funding. Management believes that they have the discretion to decide how to 

use CWPPRA funds. For example, the WQPD managers believed that it was 

allowable to use CWPPRA funds to support other coastal restoration initiatives in 

the Gulf of Mexico, or to support other EPA water programs that had objectives 

related to coastal restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. The WQPD managers also 

told us that they had broad authority to spend CWPPRA funds under the Military 

Interdepartmental Purchase Request (MIPR) provided by the USACE. 

The MIPR is a financial instrument used to distribute CWPPRA funds to the 

agency members of the Task Force and to process CWPPRA billings. However, 

the MIPR does not provide a legal authority to spend CWPPRA funds. The 

USACE did not require agencies to submit supporting documentation with 

CWPPRA billings. Consequently, we believe the WQPD management 

misunderstood the MIPR process as a broad authority to spend CWPPRA funds at 

their discretion.

The WQPD management misconstrued that Region 6 was not required to comply 

with the EPA’s interagency agreement with USACE. The WQPD’s CWPPRA 

project officer said the interagency agreement for CWPPRA planning purposes is 

a mere formality and a placeholder, because Region 6 does not perform any work 

for the USACE but rather performs work for the Task Force. Further, the project 

officer stated that CWPPRA planning funds are unique and different from other 

funds and that CWPPRA program operations change constantly. Therefore, the 

 

17 See Appendix C.
15-P-0003 25

project officer said the WQPD is unable to follow the CWPPRA planning budgets

included in the EPA’s interagency agreements with the USACE and that the Task 

Force approves.

Region 6 Overstated CWPPRA Costs and Augmented EPA’s 

Appropriations

During the period audited, the Region 6 WQPD mismanaged CWPPRA funds and 

spent CWPPRA funds totaling $780,793 for purposes that were not consistent 

with CWPPRA authority, appropriations law and principles, and CWPPRA 

interagency agreements. As a result, the WQPD committed purpose violations in 

accordance with 31 U.S.C. §1301(a) and augmented the EPA’s EPM 

appropriation with CWPPRA funds. Because the WQPD spent CWPPRA funds 

on other EPA water programs and other coastal restoration efforts, actual 

CWPPRA program costs were significantly overstated (i.e., costs were actually 

lower than the amounts spent by the WQPD from CWPPRA funds).

By not accounting for program costs accurately, Region 6 WQPD management 

will not be able to identify the actual cost of managing the CWPPRA program and 

some of its other water programs, which could result in making inaccurate future 

budgeting decisions, wasting resources, and an increased risk of committing ADA 

violations. In addition, the effectiveness of the CWPPRA program in achieving its 

purposes could be impaired if WQPD management does not properly spend and 

account for CWPPRA resources. The CWPPRA funds that are not used should be 

returned to the Task Force to be used by other agencies, as needed, to accomplish 

CWPPRA purposes. The Task Force has procedures in place for agencies to 

return any unused funds. According to the USACE officials, there have been 

instances when agencies have returned unused CWPPRA funds during a fiscal 

year.

EPA Planned Corrective Actions

During the course of our audit, we informed Region 6 WQPD’s management 

about the mismanagement and improper spending of CWPPRA funds. Region 6 

WQPD’s management stated that they plan to return to the Task Force some of 

the CWPPRA funds spent for other EPA programs. Also, according to the 

WQPD’s Deputy Director, the division has changed its internal processes to avoid 

using CWPPRA funds for other EPA programs such as ocean dredging and 

material disposal sites, and for hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. However, we have 

not verified these changes to WQPD’s internal processes.

Conclusion

There are many coastal restoration initiatives taking place in Louisiana, including 

national estuary programs for ecosystems protection and restoration. These other 

initiatives are authorized by several statutes that address different coastal issues, such 
15-P-0003 26

as oil spills, waterways and levees, ecosystems restoration, and hypoxia, among 

others. The EPA receives appropriated funds from Congress to perform work for the 

National Estuary Program, the Gulf of Mexico, the National Environmental Policy 

Act, Superfund, Oil Spill, and the Clean Water Act. According to appropriations law 

and principles, the EPA’s appropriated funds should be used to fund work for other 

water programs, including other coastal restoration programs, because these 

activities are provided for with EPA appropriations.

The Region 6 WQPD should take immediate corrective actions to ensure the 

proper stewardship of CWPPRA funds in accordance with laws, policies and 

regulations. The use of funds for purposes other than those for which the funds 

were appropriated constitutes a purpose violation in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 

§1301(a). Implementing adequate internal controls for the management of the 

CWPPRA program will reduce the opportunities to misspend CWPPRA 

resources. Likewise, the WQPD management should better support the role of the 

project officer, and the project officer should take a more active role in reviewing 

and questioning costs. By using CWPPRA funds only for the purpose for which 

the funds were authorized, Region 6 would accomplish CWPPRA program 

objectives more effectively, and the region would be able to identify how much 

the program costs them to implement.

To assess the appropriateness of Region 6’s actual spending of CWPPRA funds, 

Task Force procedures and CWPPRA interagency agreements must be 

considered, and the extent to which the EPA followed or deviated from those 

procedures and agreements. Based on information in this report, it is clear the 

WQPD’s management did not reasonably manage CWPPRA funds consistent 

with the specific approval of the Task Force and its procedures or CWPPRA 

interagency agreements.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Region 6 Regional Administrator:

1. Reimburse the Task Force (through the USACE) questioned costs of 

$780,793, unless Region 6 WQPD management provides sufficient and 

appropriate documentation to demonstrate that questioned costs paid with 

CWPPRA funds were incurred in accordance with CWPPRA, 

appropriations law and principles, and interagency agreements.

2. Direct the Region 6 ARA to work with the OCFO to perform an internal 

review of the WQPD’s CWPPRA spending at the end of FY 2014 to 

identify improper expenditures that occurred in 2008 and 2009, as well as 

from July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014. Reimburse the Task 

Force (through the USACE) any questioned costs identified during this 

review.
15-P-0003 27

3. Identify and address any ADA violations resulting from questioned costs 

identified in this report or found by the Region 6 ARA’s review, and 

report any violations in accordance with the ADA and EPA 

Directive 2520.

4. Direct the WQPD to establish control activities for the CWPPRA program

(e.g., verifications, comparisons and reconciliations of CWPPRA spending 

with Task Force-approved CWPPRA budgets) to ensure proper 

stewardship and accounting of CWPPRA resources.

5. Take administrative disciplinary actions, in accordance with EPA

Directive 2520, against EPA employees responsible for purpose violations 

or ADA violations related to improper CWPPRA spending.

6. Provide training to WQPD managers and staff who work on CWPPRA

activities about what constitutes a purpose violation, including the 

potential for ADA violations.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

Region 6 did not concur with Recommendation 1 and proposed an alternative 

approach. Region 6 proposed that the Region 6 ARA and the OCFO perform a 

review of the $780,793 in questioned costs to determine what amount they deem 

appropriate to reimburse the USACE. Region 6’s proposed corrective action is not 

responsive to our recommendation. The Region 6 ARA and the OCFO should 

provide the OIG with sufficient and appropriate support for the questioned costs. 

The agency and the OIG should work together to reach resolution on corrective 

actions related to the questioned costs.

Region 6 concurred with Recommendation 2. Region 6 and the OCFO will 

perform an internal review of the WQPD’s CWPPRA spending at the end of 

FY 2014 to identify improper expenditures that occurred in 2008 and 2009, as 

well as July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014. Region 6 plans to complete this 

recommendation no later than March 2016. For clarity, in this final report, we 

added to this recommendation that Region 6 should also reimburse the Task Force 

(through the USACE) any questioned costs identified during this future review.

Region 6 did not concur with Recommendation 3. Region 6 said they consulted 

with the OCFO and they feel confident the EPA would have enough funds to 

make the accounting corrections and reimburse the USACE for CWPPRA 

questioned costs. However, we do not have reasonable assurance that EPA would 

have funds to reimburse the Task Force without committing ADA violations. In 

addition, EPA has not completed the internal review for FY 2008, 2009 and the 

last quarter of FY 2014 to identify improper spending of CWPPRA funds. The 

amount of questioned costs that may result from the internal review is also 

uncertain.
15-P-0003 28

Region 6 concurred with Recommendation 4. WQPD management said they 

began the implementation of control activities for the management of CWPPRA 

funds and that they plan to complete this recommendation no later than

March 2015.

Region 6 did not concur with Recommendation 5. Region 6 said they are 

confident that no ADA violations occurred and that the OIG should delete this 

recommendation. As we stated above, the OIG does not have any reasonable 

assurance that ADA violations would not result from accounting corrections to fix 

appropriations law purpose violations and to return the funds to the Task Force. 

Further, employees responsible for committing appropriations law purpose 

violations are also subject to disciplinary actions as stated in EPA Directive 2520. 

While it is still uncertain whether ADA violations occurred, WQPD management 

committed appropriations law purpose violations.

Region 6 concurred with Recommendation 6. Region 6 stated that the OCFO 

provided federal budget and appropriations law training in August 2014, and that 

the training included ADA violations and related implications. Region 6 planned

to complete this recommendation no later than August 2014; however, not all 

management and staff working in the CWPPRA program have taken the training.

We consider Recommendations 1, 3 and 5 unresolved pending receipt of 

responsive corrective actions and the dates corrective actions will be completed. 

We agree with the EPA’s corrective action for Recommendations 2 and 4 and 

consider the recommendations open with corrective action pending. We consider 

Recommendation 6 unresolved pending receipt of intended corrective action and a 

completion date for training all staff.

Region 6 also provided corrections they suggested be made to the draft audit 

report. We included those suggested corrections, and how we addressed them, in 

Appendix D. Region 6 also provided an attachment with extensive technical 

comments, which was a copy of information given to us in March 2014 after the 

region reviewed our discussion document. We reviewed and evaluated those 

technical comments and made appropriate revisions in the draft report.

Overall, Region 6’s explanations for the use of CWPPRA funds were not 

responsive; not supported with sufficient and appropriate evidence; not consistent 

with laws, policies, and agreements; and contradictory to official documentation

and prior statements they made to the OIG. Since we considered those comments 

before issuing the draft report, we did not make any additional changes in the 

final report. Because of the number of pages in the attachment, we have not 

included them in this report. Instead, we included those comments as a separate 

attachment posted alongside the final report on the OIG’s website.
15-P-0003 29

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 26 Reimburse the Task Force (through the USACE)

questioned costs of $780,793, unless Region 6 

WQPD management provides sufficient and 

appropriate documentation to demonstrate that 

questioned costs paid with CWPPRA funds were 

incurred in accordance with CWPPRA, 

appropriations laws and principles, and interagency 

agreements.

U Region 6 

Regional Administrator

3/31/2016 $780.8

2 26 Direct the Region 6 ARA to work with the OCFO to 

perform an internal review of the WQPD’s

CWPPRA spending at the end of FY 2014 to 

identify improper expenditures that occurred in 

2008 and 2009, as well as from July 1, 2013,

through September 30, 2014. Reimburse the Task 

Force (through the USACE) any questioned costs 

identified during this review.

O Region 6 

Regional Administrator

3/31/2016

3 27 Identify and address any ADA violations resulting 

from questioned costs identified in this report or 

found by the Region 6 ARA’s review, and report 

any violations in accordance with the ADA and 

EPA Directive 2520.

U Region 6 

Regional Administrator

4 27 Direct the WQPD to establish control activities for 

the CWPPRA program (e.g., verifications, 

comparisons and reconciliations of CWPPRA 

spending with Task Force-approved CWPPRA 

budgets) to ensure proper stewardship and 

accounting of CWPPRA resources.

O Region 6 

Regional Administrator

3/31/2015

5 27 Take administrative disciplinary actions, in 

accordance with EPA Directive 2520, against EPA 

employees responsible for purpose violations or 

ADA violations related to improper CWPPRA 

spending.

U Region 6 

Regional Administrator

6 27 Provide training to WQPD managers and staff who 

work on CWPPRA activities about what constitutes 

a purpose violation, including the potential for ADA 

violations.

U Region 6 

Regional Administrator

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

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
15-P-0003 30

Appendix A

Details on Scope and Methodology

During our audit, we reviewed:

 Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Public Law 101-646, 

Title III, November 29, 1990.

 CWPPRA Project Standard Operating Procedures Manual, Revision 22, dated 

November 9, 2012.

 EPA, OCFO, EPA Directive 2520, U.S. EPA’s Administrative Control of Appropriated 

Funds, Release 3.2, February 4, 2008.

 EPA, OCFO, EPA Directive 2550 B, Travel Manual, November 14, 1995.

 EPA, OCFO, EPA Directive 2550C-04-P1, Procedure 1, Financial Management of 

Selected Administrative Areas Interagency Agreements, July 11, 2012.

 Memorandums of Agreement between the USACE, EPA and the LDNR.

 Interagency agreements between the USACE and EPA for active CWPPRA projects and 

for CWPPRA annual planning budgets.

 Interagency agreements between the EPA and the DOE for the ORISE interns.

 CWPPRA meeting minutes and planning meeting dates.

 Compass Data Warehouse, financial data and supporting documentation, including travel 

vouchers and budget spending details.

 The hotline complaint and supporting documentation we received from the complainant.

During our audit, we interviewed the WQPD Director, three other managers, 12 staff, and the 

Deputy Regional Counsel. We also interviewed three USACE officials from the New Orleans 

District office in Louisiana, who manage the CWPPRA program for their agency. We performed 

spending analyses on the WQPD’s financial expenditures and data. We reviewed and compared 

budget data from the Task Force, WQPD’s interagency agreements for CWPPRA, and WQPD’s 

EPM budgets. We assessed the controls in place for travel and the monitoring of CWPPRA 

funds. In addition, we compared purpose and destination data from travel vouchers to CWPPRA 

purpose and planning meeting dates to determine validity of the travel. We also consulted with 

our OIG Office of Counsel regarding legal issues related to the misuse of CWPPRA funds.

The time period covered by our audit was October 1, 2009, through June 30, 2013, and our 

primary focus was on the use of CWPPRA planning funds. We performed work at the Region 6 

office where our OIG office is co-located.
15-P-0003 31

Appendix B

CWPPRA Excerpts

I. CWPPRA Legislation

Excerpt from Public Law 101-646, November 29, 1990, Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection 

and Restoration Act, Title III, Sections 302, 303(a), 303(e), and 306.

Sec. 302. DEFINITIONS.

 As used in this title, the term--

(1) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Army;

(2) "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(3) "development activities" means any activity, including the discharge of dredged or fill 

material, which results directly in a more than de minimus change in the hydrologic regime, 

bottom contour, or the type, distribution or diversity of hydrophytic vegetation, or which impairs 

the flow, reach, or circulation of surface water within wetlands or other waters;

(4) "State" means the State of Louisiana;

(5) "coastal State" means a State of the United States in, or bordering on, the Atlantic, 

Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, or one or more of the Great 

Lakes; for the purposes of this title, the term also includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the 

Pacific Islands, and American Samoa;

(6) "coastal wetlands restoration project" means any technically feasible activity to 

create, restore, protect, or enhance coastal wetlands through sediment and freshwater diversion, 

water management, or other measures that the Task Force finds will significantly contribute to 

the long-term restoration or protection of the physical, chemical and biological integrity of 

coastal wetlands in the State of Louisiana, and includes any such activity authorized under this 

title or under any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, new projects, completion 

or expansion of existing or on-going projects, individual phases, portions, or components of 

projects and operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of completed projects; the primary 

purpose of a "coastal wetlands restoration project" shall not be to provide navigation, irrigation 

or flood control benefits;

(7) "coastal wetlands conservation project" means--

 (A) the obtaining of a real property interest in coastal lands or waters, if the obtaining of 

such interest is subject to terms and conditions that will ensure that the real property will be 

administered for the long-term conservation of such lands and waters and the hydrology, water 

quality and fish and wildlife dependent thereon; and

 (B) the restoration, management, or enhancement of coastal wetlands ecosystems if such 

restoration, management, or enhancement is conducted on coastal lands and waters that are 

administered for the long-term conservation of such lands and waters and the hydrology, water 

quality and fish and wildlife dependent thereon;

(8) "Governor" means the Governor of Louisiana;

(9) "Task Force" means the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 

Task Force which shall consist of the Secretary, who shall serve as chairman, the Administrator, 

the Governor, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 

Commerce; and
15-P-0003 32

(10) "Director" means the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

SEC. 303. PRIORITY LOUISIANA COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTS.

 (a) PRIORITY PROJECT LIST.--

(1) PREPARATION OF LIST.--Within forty-five days after the date of enactment of this 

title, the Secretary shall convene the Task Force to initiate a process to identify and prepare a list 

of coastal wetlands restoration projects in Louisiana to provide for the long-term conservation of 

such wetlands and dependent fish and wildlife populations in order of priority, based on the costeffectiveness of such projects in creating, restoring, protecting, or enhancing coastal wetlands, 

taking into account the quality of such coastal wetlands, with due allowance for small-scale 

projects necessary to demonstrate the use of new techniques or materials for coastal wetlands 

restoration.

(2) TASK FORCE PROCEDURES.--The Secretary shall convene meetings of the Task 

Force as appropriate to ensure that the list is produced and transmitted annually to the Congress 

as required by this subsection. If necessary to ensure transmittal of the list on a timely basis, the 

Task Force shall produce the list by a majority vote of those Task Force members who are 

present and voting; except that no coastal wetlands restoration project shall be placed on the list 

without the concurrence of the lead Task Force member that the project is cost effective and 

sound from an engineering perspective. Those projects which potentially impact navigation or 

flood control on the lower Mississippi River System shall be constructed consistent with section 

304 of this Act.

(3) TRANSMITTAL OF LIST.--No later than one year after the date of enactment of this 

title, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress the list of priority coastal wetlands restoration 

projects required by paragraph (1) of this subsection. Thereafter, the list shall be updated 

annually by the Task Force members and transmitted by the Secretary to the Congress as part of 

the President's annual budget submission. Annual transmittals of the list to the Congress shall 

include a status report on each project and a statement from the Secretary of the Treasury 

indicating the amounts available for expenditure to carry out this title.

(4) LIST OF CONTENTS.--

(A) AREA IDENTIFICATION; PROJECT DESCRIPTION--The list of priority 

coastal wetlands restoration projects shall include, but not be limited to--

 (i) identification, by map or other means, of the coastal area to be covered by the 

coastal wetlands restoration project; and

 (ii) a detailed description of each proposed coastal wetlands restoration project 

including a justification for including such project on the list, the proposed activities to be 

carried out pursuant to each coastal wetlands restoration project, the benefits to be 

realized by such project, the identification of the lead Task Force member to undertake 

each proposed coastal wetlands restoration project and the responsibilities of each other 

participating Task Force member, an estimated timetable for the completion of each 

coastal wetlands restoration project, and the estimated cost of each project.

(B) PRE-PLAN.--Prior to the date on which the plan required by subsection (b) of 

this section becomes effective, such list shall include only those coastal wetlands 

restoration projects that can be substantially completed during a five-year period 

commencing on the date the project is placed on the list.
15-P-0003 33

(C) Subsequent to the date on which the plan required by subsection (b) of this 

section becomes effective, such list shall include only those coastal wetlands restoration 

projects that have been identified in such plan.

(5) FUNDING.--The Secretary shall, with the funds made available in accordance with 

section 306 of this title, allocate funds among the members of the Task Force based on the need 

for such funds and such other factors as the Task Force deems appropriate to carry out the 

purposes of this subsection.

 (e) FUNDING OF WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTS.--The Secretary shall, with the 

funds made available in accordance with this title, allocate such funds among the members of the 

Task Force to carry out coastal wetlands restoration projects in accordance with the priorities set 

forth in the list transmitted in accordance with this section. The Secretary shall not fund a coastal 

wetlands restoration project unless that project is subject to such terms and conditions as 

necessary to ensure that wetlands restored, enhanced or managed through that project will be 

administered for the long-term conservation of such lands and waters and dependent fish and 

wildlife populations.

SEC. 306. DISTRIBUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

 (a) PRIORITY PROJECT AND CONSERVATION PLANNING EXPENDITURES.--Of the 

total amount appropriated during a given fiscal year to carry out this title, 70 percent, not to 

exceed $70,000,000, shall be available, and shall remain available until expended, for the 

purposes of making expenditures--

(1) not to exceed the aggregate amount of $5,000,000 annually to assist the Task Force in 

the preparation of the list required under this title and the plan required under this title, including 

preparation of--

(A) preliminary assessments;

(B) general or site-specific inventories;

(C) reconnaissance, engineering or other studies;

(D) preliminary design work; and

(E) such other studies as may be necessary to identify and evaluate the feasibility 

of coastal wetlands restoration projects;

(2) to carry out coastal wetlands restoration projects in accordance with the priorities set 

forth on the list prepared under this title;

(3) to carry out wetlands restoration projects in accordance with the priorities set forth in 

the restoration plan prepared under this title;

(4) to make grants not to exceed $2,500,000 annually or $10,000,000 in total, to assist the 

agency designated by the State in development of the Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan 

pursuant to this title.
15-P-0003 34

Appendix C

EPA’s Portion of Task Force-Approved

CWPPRA Planning Budgets and Funds by Task

for FYs 2010 Through 201318

TASK Duration (FY10 dates) EPA

Task Category

Task 

No. Description Start Date End Date FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Prior Year PPL TASKS

PL 19485 P&E holds 2 Public Meetings 11/17/09 11/18/09 $ 2,227 $ 2,227 $ 2,227 $ 1,548

PL 19490

TC Recommendation for Project

Selection and Funding 12/02/09 12/02/09 2,284 2,284 2,284 2,952

PL 19600

TF Selection and Funding of the 19th

PPL (1 meeting) 01/21/10 01/21/10 3,051 3,051 3,051 4,632

FY Subtotal Prior Year PPL Tasks $ 7,562 $ 7,562 $ 7,562 $ 9,132

Current Year PPL TASKS

PL 20200 Development and Nomination of Projects

PL 20220

Sponsoring agencies prepare fact sheets 

(for projects and demos) and maps

prior to and following RPT nomination

meetings. 10/13/09 02/15/10 34,297 34,297 34,297 36,520

PL 20230

RPT's meet to formulate and combine

projects. 01/26/10 01/28/10 6,679 6,679 6,679 8,928

PL 20240

Face-to-Face RPT Voting meeting (20

nominees and up to 6 demos) or

Alternate for 2010 02/17/10 02/17/10 478 478 478 -

PL 20300 Ranking of Nominated Projects

PL 20320

Engr Work Group prepares preliminary

fully funded cost ranges for nominees. 03/05/10 03/20/10 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,928

PL 20330

Environ/Engr Work Groups review

Nominees 04/02/10 04/03/10 3,153 3,153 3,153 3,952

PL 20340

WGs develop and P&E distributes

project Matrix 04/01/10 04/01/10 2,834 2,834 2,834 3,520

PL 20350

TC selection of PPL 20 candidates (10)

and demo candidates (up to 3) 04/15/10 04/15/10 3,268 3,268 3,268 3,916

PL 20400 Analysis of Candidates

PL 20410

Sponsoring agencies coordinate site

visits for all projects 05/01/10 07/15/10 31,899 31,899 31,899 35,244

PL 20420

Engr/Environ Work Group refine project

features and determine boundaries 05/01/10 09/30/10 5,179 5,179 5,179 5,904

PL 20430

Sponsoring agencies develop project 

information for WVA; develop designs

and cost estimates (projects and

demos)

05/01/10 09/30/10 39,598 39,598 39,598 40,684

PL 20440

Environ/Engr Work Groups project

wetland benefits (with WVA) 05/01/10 09/30/10 16,947 16,947 16,947 18,464

PL 20450

Engr Work Group reviews/approves

Ph 1 and Ph 2 cost estimates from 

sponsoring agencies, incl cost

estimates for demos 05/01/10 09/30/10 9,961 9,961 9,961 11,408

PL 20480

Prepare project information packages for

P&E. 05/01/10 11/10/10 1,968 1,968 1,968 1,968

FY Subtotal Current Year PPL Tasks $ 160,340 $ 160,340 $ 160,340 $ 175,436

 

18 Information provided by the USACE’s CWPPRA Senior Program Manager and the CWPPRA project administrator and accountant.
15-P-0003 35

Project and Program Management Tasks

PM 20100 Program Management--Coordination 10/01/09 09/30/10 $ 102,386 $ 102,386 $ 102,386 $ 105,422

PM 20110 Program Management--Correspondence 10/01/09 09/30/10 34,153 34,153 34,153 34,154

PM 20120

Prog Mgmt--Budget Development and

Oversight 10/01/09 09/30/10 111,134 111,134 111,134 111,134

PM 20200

P&E Meetings (3 meetings preparation

and attendance) 10/01/09 09/30/10 9,458 9,458 9,458 11,616

PM 20210

Tech Com Mtngs (4 mtngs including

three public and one off-site; prep and

attend) 10/01/09 09/30/10 10,445 10,445 10,445 12,352

PM 20220

Task Force Mtngs (4 mtngs, including

three public and one executive session;

prep and attend) 10/01/09 09/30/10 18,124 18,124 18,124 20,528

PM 20400

Agency Participation, Review 30%

and 95% Design for Phase 1 Projects 10/01/09 09/30/10 12,758 12,758 12,758 14,784

PM 20410

Engineering & Environmental Work 

Groups review Phase II funding of 

approved Phase I projects (Needed 

for adequate review of Phase I.) 

[Assume 8 projects requesting Ph II 

funding in FY09. Assume 3 will 

require Eng or Env WG review; 2 

labor days for each.] 10/01/09 09/30/10 3,937 3,937 3,937 3,937

PM 20600 Miscellaneous Technical Support 10/01/09 09/30/10 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000

FY Subtotal Project Management Tasks 337,395 337,395 337,395 348,927

FY Total for PPL Tasks $ 505,297 $ 505,297 $ 505,297 $ 533,495

SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING AND EVALUATION TASKS

SPE 20700

Workshop to review selected projects to

aid in transferring lessons learned from

design to implementation stage - FY10.

Prepare 2012 Evaluation Report (Report

to Congress) - FY12 10/01/09 09/30/10 6,500 - 3,270 -

FY10 Total Supplemental Planning & Evaluation Tasks 6,500 - 3,270 -

FY Agency Tasks Grand Total $ 511,797 $ 505,297 $ 508,567 $ 533,495

Otrch 20200 Outreach – Agency 10/01/09 09/30/10 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600

FY Total Outreach 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600

FY Grand Total $ 518,397 $ 511,897 $ 515,167 $ 540,095

Appendix C - Abbreviations

Engr Engineering

Env Environmental

P&E Planning and evaluation

PL Project list

PM Project management

RPT Regional planning team

SPE Supplemental planning and evaluation

TC Technical committee

TF Task Force 

WG Work group

WVA Wetland value assessment
15-P-0003 36

Appendix D

Agency Response

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft “EPA Region 6 Mismanaged Coastal 

Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Funds,” dated July 2, 2014

FROM : Ron Curry /s/

Regional Administrator

TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.

Inspector General

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the Coastal Wetlands 

Planning, Protection and Restoration Act draft audit report. I appreciate you bringing these issues to our 

attention and the extensive work of your staff. This will help us correct mischarged expenditures and 

design more efficient and effective future processes for Region 6 administration of the CWPPRA 

program.

My staff has reached out to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and the Office of Administration 

and Resources Management - Office of Grants and Debarment to design CWPPRA processes that will 

meet two goals you described in the “At a Glance” portion of the draft report:

 ensure resources are used efficiently and effectively and that public funds are used for the 

purpose for which they were appropriated and authorized

 establish contract activities to ensure proper stewardship and accounting of CWPPRA 

resources

With the national financial offices and Interagency Agreement Service Center staff, we are developing 

high-level corrective actions that will ensure appropriate future use of funds. I also wanted to note that 

OCFO Office of Budget already provided the financial training that you recommended.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Region 6 appreciates the mission of the Office of Inspector General to promote economy, efficiency, 

effectiveness, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. Region 6 agrees with the OIG that 

controls should be put in place to ensure proper stewardship and accounting of CWPPRA resources. 

Region 6 has already implemented additional controls to include procedures for more accurate 

CWPPRA payroll and travel charging, conducting periodic CWPPRA budget review meetings with the 

Water Quality Protection Division’s management and the Comptroller’s office, and ensuring that the
15-P-0003 37

project officer for the CWPPRA IA receives the necessary paperwork for cost comparison against bills to 

confirm accuracy. The region has established control activities such as verification, comparison, and 

reconciliation of CWPPRA funds to ensure proper stewardship and correct spending of CWPPRA 

resources.

The OIG position is that the Water Quality Protection Division used CWPPRA funds to cover costs which 

were not directly related to the CWPPRA program. Region 6 is confident that the vast majority of the 

OIG questioned costs of $780,793 of CWPPRA funds were allowable direct costs needed to carry out our 

approved task force activities, and were consistent with the CWPPRA statute, appropriations law and 

principles, and the EPA’s interagency agreement guidance.

The Federal Accounting Standard Advisory Board Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard 

No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts (attached), identifies direct costs as costs that 

directly support an activity and are specifically identified with an output. All direct costs should be 

included in the full cost of outputs. Typical direct costs in the production of an output include: 

1) salaries and other benefits for employees who work directly on the output; 2) materials and supplies 

used in the work; 3) various costs associated with office space, equipment, facilities, and utilities that are 

used exclusively to produce the output; and 4) costs of goods or services received from other segments or 

entities that are used to produce the output. We provided extensive documentation in support of direct 

costs in our March 3, 2014, response to the preliminary discussion document on the use of CWPPRA 

funds (attached.)

In coordination with the OCFO, Region 6 will review the questioned costs in your draft report and 

determine which costs were improperly charged to CWPPRA. If reimbursement is required for some 

portion of the questioned costs, the OCFO has confirmed that sufficient Environmental Program 

Management funds are available to cover any expenditures where CWPPRA was incorrectly charged. 

Region 6’s preliminary review of the OIG’s questioned costs while preparing a response to the 

preliminary discussion document identified less than $50,000 (rather than $780,793) that may have been 

incorrectly charged to CWPPRA. Consistent with discussions we have had with OIG staff since the draft 

report was issued, we have provided alternative wording for Recommendation #1 in the attached table.

CWPPRA is a unique program in that the monies received from the US Army Corps of Engineers are for 

the purpose of performing work required of the EPA by the CWPPRA statute. The EPA does not perform 

work or provide a service to the USACE, but rather works with other task force members on 

implementing activities approved by the task force. In addition, as noted by the OIG on page 8, the 

CWPPRA Task Force Project Standard Operating Procedures Manual, dated November 9, 2012, states 

that the EPA is responsible for ensuring funds are spent in accordance with CWPPRA. Following this 

logic, the USACE has never disputed any CWPPRA expenditures submitted by the EPA nor directed the 

EPA in any way to change its spending practices.

We will work with the USACE and other task force members to clarify the procedures, processes, and 

rationale for CWPPRA expenditures. This will include reviewing specific budget language in the Military 

Interdepartmental Purchase Request, possibly amending current and prior IAs, or coming to an agreement 

with the task force on the appropriate use of indirect costs (which the USACE charges to the EPA in other 

cases). Region 6 will work with the OCFO, Office of General Counsel and OARM-OGD to re-evaluate 

whether an indirect cost rate for the CWPPRA IA is appropriate.
15-P-0003 38

Region 6 is confident that that no CWPPRA Anti-deficiency Act violations have occurred to date, and we 

will take action to ensure that none occur in the future. In each year of the audit scope, the agency had 

sufficient EPM funds to cover the questioned costs, and presently has sufficient EPM funds available to 

correct the questioned expenditures, if needed. Therefore, we request that the OIG delete 

Recommendations #3 and #5 in the final report.

The Region 6 Office of the Comptroller will work with the OCFO to review CWPPRA spending for fiscal 

years 2008, 2009, and July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, to identify any further questionable 

expenditures. As needed, Region 6 will correct all questionable costs.

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Mr. William Honker, Director of the 

Region 6 Water Quality Protection Division, at (214) 665-3187, Mr. David Garcia, Deputy Director of the 

Water Quality Protection Division, at (214) 665-7593, Mr. James McDonald, Senior Resource Officer, at 

(214) 665-3150, or Ms. Regina Milbeck, Comptroller, at (214) 665-6540.

Attachments

1. Agency’s Response to Report Recommendations

2. Corrections to the Draft Audit Report

3. Excerpts from The Federal Accounting Standard Advisory Board (FASAB) Statement of Federal 

Financial Accounting Standard No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts (SFFAS 

4)

4. Response to Document titled EPA Region 6 Mismanaged and Misspent Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection and Restoration Act Funds w/appendices

cc: Mr. Patrick Gilbride

 Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Mr. Randy Holthaus

 Region 6 Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Mr. James McDonald

 Region 6 Assistant Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
15-P-0003 39

ATTACHMENT

AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Agreements

No. Recommendation High-Level Intended 

Corrective Action(s)

Estimated 

Completion by 

Quarter and FY

2

Direct the Region 6 Office of Regional 

Comptroller to perform an internal 

review of the WQPD’s CWPPRA 

spending to identify questionable 

expenditures that occurred in 2008 and 

2009, as well as July 1, 2013, through 

September 30, 2014.

Region 6 WQPD and Office 

of the Comptroller will 

work with OCFO staff to 

review CWPPRA spending 

for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 

and July 1, 2013, through 

September 30, 2014 to 

identify questionable 

expenditures. Based on this 

review, questionable 

charges will be corrected.

March 2016

4

Direct the WQPD to establish control 

activities for the CWPPRA program 

(e.g., verifications, comparisons and 

reconciliations of CWPPRA spending 

with Task Force-approved authorized 

CWPPRA budgets) to ensure proper 

stewardship and accounting of 

CWPPRA resources.

EPA will establish a more 

comprehensive system of 

internal controls to ensure 

proper stewardship and 

accounting of CWPPRA 

resources.

March 2015

6

Provide training to WQPD managers 

and staff on what constitutes a purpose 

violation, including the potential for 

ADA violations.

OCFO provided training on 

federal budget, 

appropriations law and 

ADA violations and the 

implications.

August 2014

Disagreements

No. Recommendation Agency 

Explanation/Response

Proposed 

Alternative

1

Reimburse the USACE questioned 

costs of $780,793, unless Region 6 

WQPD management provides 

sufficient and appropriate 

documentation to demonstrate that 

questioned costs paid with CWPPRA 

funds were incurred in accordance with 

CWPPRA, appropriations laws and 

This Recommendation 

should be revised to read as 

follows: “Region 6 WQPD 

and Comptroller should 

work with OCFO to review 

the questioned costs 

identified in this report and 

determine what costs were 

inappropriately charged to 

March 2016
15-P-0003 40

principles, and interagency 

agreements.

CWPPRA. Region 6 should 

then reimburse the 

CWPPRA program for any 

costs deemed inappropriate 

as a result of this review.”

3

Identify and address any ADA 

violations resulting from questioned 

costs identified in this report or found 

by the Region 6 Comptroller’s review, 

and report any violations in accordance 

with the ADA and EPA Directive 

2520.

Region 6 confirmed with 

OCFO that there are 

sufficient EPM funds 

available for each FY to 

correct the questioned 

expenditures in the draft 

report, if needed. Therefore, 

this recommendation should 

be deleted from the final 

report.

5

Take administrative disciplinary 

actions, in accordance with EPA 

Directive 2520, against EPA 

employees responsible for purpose 

violations or ADA violations related to 

improper CWPPRA spending.

This recommendation 

should be deleted from the 

final report, as no ADA 

violations have been 

documented.
15-P-0003 41

ATTACHMENT

Corrections to the Draft Audit Report

Page 6, paragraph 1: The language implies that EPA Region 6 is receiving funding under the RESTORE 

Act. The report should be clarified to state that to date neither EPA as an agency, nor Region 6 

specifically, has received any funding under the RESTORE Act.

Page 14, paragraph 4: The language implies that EPA Region 6 receives funding under both the 

RESTORE Act and the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The language should be clarified to 

state that Region 6 has not received funding under either of these statutes.

Page 15, paragraph 2, Travel to Attend Training: The response seems to suggest that the EPA 

participant was not involved in CWPPRA at the time, and that the Netherlands trip was not relevant to 

EPA's CWPPRA work. This would be inaccurate. The traveler participated in Region 6 CWPPRA team 

meetings regarding project selection and prioritization, and continues to review levees for consistency 

with coastal restoration and protection (CWPPRA explicitly calls on EPA to fulfill this role). The auditor 

was informed of the CWPPRA provision which calls for EPA to ensure such consistency. This 

information appears to have been ignored. Below is a synopsis of the information provided to the auditor. 

In addition to the information provided below, it should be noted that CWPPRA responsibilities are 

detailed in the PARS measures and metrics for the subject EPA employee. Specifically, he is to "[s]upport 

the Agency representative on the CWPPRA Task Force by advising on identification and selection of 

restoration projects" and in developing Agency positions on "CWPPRA projects" and "levee protection 

projects". The description of this travel should include reference to the statutory provision listed below, as 

well as a discussion of its direct relevance to the participant's work in support of the Agency's CWPPRA 

activities -- specifically project selection and review of proposed levee projects.

“The purpose of this trip was to learn about Dutch water management practices, particularly coastal 

restoration and flood protection. The knowledge gained from this trip is directly relevant to EPA’s 

CWPPRA mission. The Dutch are actively engaged in coastal restoration efforts which offer potentially 

valuable lessons applicable to our CWPPRA coastal restoration work. For example, the Dutch are 

exploring innovative, cost-effective ways to restore barrier islands and beaches. EPA Region 6 has 

sponsored a number of CWPPRA barrier island projects and continues to strongly support this practice. 

Knowledge gained from the Netherlands trip can help Region 6 and our CWPPRA partners develop more 

efficient and effective barrier island projects. Pursuant to CWPPRA Section 303(d)(1), EPA has an 

important role in helping ensure that flood control projects such as levees do not conflict with coastal 

restoration. “CWPPRA Section 303(d)(1) CONSISTENCY.--(1) In implementing, maintaining, 

modifying, or rehabilitating navigation, flood control or irrigation projects, other than emergency actions, 

OIG Comment: Language was added to footnote number 4 to include this 

clarification.

OIG Comment: Language was added to footnote number 11 to include this 

clarification.
15-P-0003 42

under other authorities, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director and the Administrator, shall ensure 

that such actions are consistent with the purposes of the restoration plan submitted pursuant to this 

section.” Participants in this trip also studied lessons learned from Dutch levees and other flood control 

structures – particularly with respect to ecological impacts. Knowledge gained from this trip is directly 

applicable to EPA’s CWPPRA responsibility to advise the Corps of Engineers on how to build levees in a 

way that does not undermine or conflict with coastal restoration. EPA continues to be engaged in the 

review of numerous levee projects in coastal Louisiana and the knowledge gained from the Netherlands 

tour has been of great use in that regard. Indeed, EPA has used lessons learned from this trip to inform its 

advice to the Corps on minimizing ecological impacts and ensuring consistency with coastal restoration 

on numerous flood risk reduction projects."

Page 16, paragraph 2: The draft report erroneously states “In FY 2010, two managers used CWPPRA 

funds to recruit an intern from DOE’s ORISE program.” In fact, the managers were invited and attended, 

as EPA’s representatives to the USACE led CWPPRA Task Force, the change of command ceremony for 

the New Orleans Corps of Engineers District Engineer, the CWPPRA chair. The managers also arranged a 

meeting immediately prior to the ceremony with other attendees from Louisiana academic institutions to 

discuss availability and interest of recent graduates in an ORISE fellowship, sponsored by EPA, to work 

on CWPPRA activities.

OIG Comment: We revised Chapter 2 to provide more details that support why we 

questioned this cost. Region 6 explanations about the purpose of this training were not 

sufficient and appropriate to support the expenses as authorized, approved and allowable 

CWPPRA expenses.

The employee obtained competencies, knowledge and/or skills useful to the EPA’s water 

programs regarding coastal restoration and flood protection as reflected in the Region 6 

explanation above. The training did not relate directly to CWPPRA planning or project 

implementation and may indirectly benefit multiple EPA water programs. Further, the 

CWPPRA Task Force-approved budgets and allocated funds to EPA did not provide for 

training or international travel. However, Region 6 funded this trip and conference fees fully 

with CWPPRA planning funds.

Section 302(6) of the CWPPRA states that the primary purpose of a CWPPRA coastal 

wetlands restoration project shall not be to provide navigation, irrigation or flood control 

benefits. Sections 307(a) and (b) provide additional authority and directs the USACE, not 

the EPA, to study the feasibility of modifying the operation of existing navigation and flood 

control projects to allow for an increase in the share of the Mississippi River flows and 

sediment sent down the Atchafalaya River for purposes of land building and wetlands 

nourishment. Section 303(d)(1) states that in implementing, maintaining, modifying, or 

rehabilitating navigation, flood control or irrigation projects, other than emergency actions, 

under other authorities, the USACE, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the EPA, shall ensure that such actions are consistent with the purposes of the 

CWPPRA restoration plan or PPLs. This means that the USACE shall consult with the EPA 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make sure these projects are consistent with the 

CWPPRA’s PPL. The CWPPRA did not direct the EPA to plan navigation, irrigation or 

flood-protection projects.
15-P-0003 43

Page 16, paragraph 2: The draft report erroneously states “Also in FY 2010, the WQPD’s director 

traveled to Washington, DC, using CWPPRA funds to attend a Senior Executive Service graduation 

ceremony.” In fact, funding for the trip was split between EPM funding to attend the ceremony and 

CWPPRA funding to brief OW and OCFO officials on CWPPRA funding and program issues. The 

statement should either be deleted from the final report, or should be revised as follows – “Also in FY 

2010, the WQPD’s Deputy Director traveled to Washington, DC, using CWPPRA funds to brief OW and 

OCFO officials on CWPPRA funding and program issues and using EPM funds to attend a Senior 

Executive Service Candidate Development Program graduation ceremony.”

Page 22, paragraph 2: The last sentence erroneously states “In addition, the WQPD director stated that 

for purposes of administrative expediency, they made spending decision based on the funds available, 

without regard to the intended purpose of the funds.” The statement should be deleted from the final 

report.

OIG Comment: We obtained the stated purpose of this trip from the official travel 

documentation provided by WQPD. Further, we discussed the purpose of this trip with 

a WQPD Associate Director who was one of the travelers. The Associate Director 

confirmed that this was a recruiting trip and that she funded this trip with CWPPRA 

funds because the intern would be assigned to the CWPPRA program. During the 

interview, the WQPD Associate Director did not provide additional information about 

the attendance at the USACE change-of-command ceremony.

The explanation Region 6 provided above for this trip did not support how the trip was 

necessary to accomplish CWPPRA’s purpose. The Task Force did not approve or 

allocate CWPPRA funds to EPA for recruiting purposes. The EPA’s ORISE intern 

worked on other EPA water programs and was not dedicated full time to performing 

CWPPRA work. Further, EPA staff work with the USACE, both in New Orleans and in 

other locations, on multiple water-related programs. The region’s attendance at the 

USACE change-of-command ceremony was optional and did not relate directly or only 

to CWPPRA.

OIG Comment: We revised this statement in Chapter 2 to include information about 

the activity that was funded with CWPPRA funds. We also revised the fifth row of 

Table 5 in Chapter 2 to better describe the activity funded with CWPPRA money.

OIG Comment: We revised the statement in the report to include this clarification. 

During a meeting with the WQPD Director in June 2014, he explained that he was 

referring to travel spending decisions only.
15-P-0003 44

Pages 22 and 23: We believe that the interpretation of the conversation with the auditors and the PO is 

not completely accurate as indicated in the attached email to her supervisor dated August 14, 2014. The 

body of the email is listed below.

“I don’t feel that the subject paragraphs are totally accurate. Below is what I was trying to relay to 

the auditors:

There have been times where communication between 6WQPD management and myself, as the 

Project Officer was lacking, however, this has improved. 6WQPD management and I have worked 

together to develop controls on travel and other spending activities which has greatly improved the 

communication. But decisions have been made where I as the Project Officer, did not necessarily 

agree and where I had not been consulted before these decisions were made. However, I did not 

mean to imply that these transactions “had occurred and could not be corrected,” but that the 

decision was not mine to make. And at no time did I ever feel “pressured” to certify the billings to 

the USACE. In fact, I do not actually “certify” the billings. The main function of my review is to 

assign the appropriate MIPR for Cincinnati Finance Center to bill against.”

OIG Comment: We revised the statement in Chapter 2 to include the project officer’s 

clarifications, and deleted language about her feeling pressured to certify billings.
15-P-0003 45

Appendix E

Distribution

Office of the Administrator

Regional Administrator, Region 6

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator

Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management

General Counsel

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Deputy Chief Financial Officer

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources Management

Director, Office of Grants and Debarment, Office of Administration and Resources Management

Director, Grants and Interagency Agreements Management Division, Office of Grants and 

Debarment, Office of Administration and Resources Management

Director, Office of Policy and Resource Management, Office of Administration and

 Resources Management

Deputy Director, Office of Policy and Resource Management, Office of Administration and

 Resources Management

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Grants and Debarment, Office of Administration and

 Resources Management

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 6