On January 28th, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released their most recent State Revolving Fund (SRF) American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) progress reports for both Clean and Drinking Water. Divided by EPA Region, the reports break down, in table format, the following information: Total ARRA Funds Awarded; ARRA Funds Available for Projects; Assistance Agreements; All Contracts Executed; Construction Started; Construction Completed; and Funding Green Infrastructure. Each report also includes a grand total for each of the aforementioned categories. The Recovery Act included a hard deadline of February 17th and it appears as if most states are on target with meeting that deadline.
The reports can be viewed by clicking on the following links: Clean Water State Revolving Fund ARRA Reporting Progress Report and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ARRA Reporting Progress Report. They will also be permanently listed under Funding Tables on the right navigation bar.
For questions or additional information, please contact Julia Anastasio at janastasio@apwa.net
December 18, 2009
Jobs Bill Includes $48 billion for Infrastructure
The US House of Representatives on December 17th narrowly approved a $154 billion jobs bill that includes $48.3 billion in federal funding for infrastructure. The Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010 (HR 2847), passed by a vote of 217-212, also includes $26.7 billion to preserve state and local public service jobs and $79 billion for unemployment insurance, small business loans, health care assistance and other aid. The legislation uses $75 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) savings to pay for the infrastructure and job preservation investments. The Senate will consider jobs legislation in January.
The House jobs bill also extends the expired surface transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, until September 30, 2010. The extension provides a 100 percent federal share for transportation programs, repeals the prohibition on the Highway Trust Fund from collecting interest on its balance and restores $20 billion to Trust Fund. SAFETEA-LU expired September 30, 2009 and is currently funded through December 18th by a temporary extension.
Separate legislation approved by the House on December 17th, the Defense Appropriations bill, extends SAFETEA-LU until February 28, 2010. The Senate is expected to consider the bill December 18th or 19th.
Following is a breakdown of infrastructure funding included in the House jobs bill.
$27.5 billion Highways
$8.4 billion Transit
$800 million Amtrak
$500 million Airports
$100 million Maritime Administration (shipyard modernization
$2 billion Clean Water ($1 billion CWSRF and $1 billion SDWSRF)
$100 million Bureau of Reclamation (clean water for rural areas)
$715 million Corps of Engineers (environmental restoration, flood protection, hydropower and navigation projects)
$2 billion Energy Innovation Loans (DOE renewable energy and electric transmission projects)
$4.1 billion School Renovation
$1 billion Housing Trust Fund
$1 billion Public Housing Capital Fund
A summary and text of the legislation are posted at http://www.apwa.net/Advocacy/legislation.asp under Appropriations.
The House jobs bill also extends the expired surface transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, until September 30, 2010. The extension provides a 100 percent federal share for transportation programs, repeals the prohibition on the Highway Trust Fund from collecting interest on its balance and restores $20 billion to Trust Fund. SAFETEA-LU expired September 30, 2009 and is currently funded through December 18th by a temporary extension.
Separate legislation approved by the House on December 17th, the Defense Appropriations bill, extends SAFETEA-LU until February 28, 2010. The Senate is expected to consider the bill December 18th or 19th.
Following is a breakdown of infrastructure funding included in the House jobs bill.
$27.5 billion Highways
$8.4 billion Transit
$800 million Amtrak
$500 million Airports
$100 million Maritime Administration (shipyard modernization
$2 billion Clean Water ($1 billion CWSRF and $1 billion SDWSRF)
$100 million Bureau of Reclamation (clean water for rural areas)
$715 million Corps of Engineers (environmental restoration, flood protection, hydropower and navigation projects)
$2 billion Energy Innovation Loans (DOE renewable energy and electric transmission projects)
$4.1 billion School Renovation
$1 billion Housing Trust Fund
$1 billion Public Housing Capital Fund
A summary and text of the legislation are posted at http://www.apwa.net/Advocacy/legislation.asp under Appropriations.
December 4, 2009
Infrastructure Investment Expected to be a Key Component in Jobs Creation Bill
House and Senate Leaders are developing a jobs creation bill aimed at reducing the nation’s 10 percent unemployment rate. Congressional leaders are looking closely at infrastructure investment, a highways funding bill and another extension of unemployment insurance as part of broad package of spending and investment to boost job creation.
Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, pitched Democratic leadership on the idea of using $100 billion in general fund money to pay for highway and transit projects over the next two years. The plan would quickly infuse funds into Public Works projects to stimulate the economy and would give Congress time to debate revenue changes that are needed to pay for a six-year Surface Transportation Authorization bill, currently stalled in the House and Senate.
Meanwhile, the Administration held a Jobs Summit on December 3. The forum was an opportunity for the president and his economic team to hear from chief executive officers, small business owners, labor leaders and financial experts about ideas for growing the economy and putting Americans back to work.
A timeline for the jobs creation package is still unclear, although Congressional leaders say they intend to have a complete package considered in January. The House may consider some elements before the end of the year. The overall size of the package and how it will be financed has yet to be determined.
Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, pitched Democratic leadership on the idea of using $100 billion in general fund money to pay for highway and transit projects over the next two years. The plan would quickly infuse funds into Public Works projects to stimulate the economy and would give Congress time to debate revenue changes that are needed to pay for a six-year Surface Transportation Authorization bill, currently stalled in the House and Senate.
Meanwhile, the Administration held a Jobs Summit on December 3. The forum was an opportunity for the president and his economic team to hear from chief executive officers, small business owners, labor leaders and financial experts about ideas for growing the economy and putting Americans back to work.
A timeline for the jobs creation package is still unclear, although Congressional leaders say they intend to have a complete package considered in January. The House may consider some elements before the end of the year. The overall size of the package and how it will be financed has yet to be determined.
November 5, 2009
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Releases Latest Recovery Act Data
On November 4, 2009 the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure released the latest transparency and accountability information by state and formula funds under the Recovery Act. For the first time, the report includes state-by-state rankings of wastewater infrastructure investments under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund as well as highway and bridge projects.
Complete tables for water infrastructure and highway and bridge rankings, as well as a list of the projects and a detailed state-by-state breakdown on the use of Recovery Act formula funds are available at http://transportation.house.gov/singlepages/singlepages.aspx?NewsID=852
Complete tables for water infrastructure and highway and bridge rankings, as well as a list of the projects and a detailed state-by-state breakdown on the use of Recovery Act formula funds are available at http://transportation.house.gov/singlepages/singlepages.aspx?NewsID=852
September 8, 2009
FHWA Supplemental Guidance on the Determination of Economically Distressed Areas Under the Recovery Act
From The Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is issuing this guidance to provide additional information on the determination of economically distressed areas under the priority language in the Highway Infrastructure Investment appropriation of the Recovery Act. The FHWA is issuing this guidance after consultation with the Department of Commerce and its Economic Development Administration, which has reviewed the "special need" criteria below.
States shall give priority to projects that are located in an economically distressed area and can be completed within the 3-year timeframe over projects that meet only one of the priorities, provided that such projects also meet the other preferences, conditions, and requirements of the Recovery Act.
States shall exercise due diligence in selecting projects that are to be carried out in and for the benefit of economically distressed areas. In ensuring such due diligence has been carried out, the State should be able to provide information as to how the State identified, vetted, and examined projects located in economically distressed areas and how the State selected projects based on the priorities, preferences, conditions, and requirements of the Recovery Act.
States also shall use this guidance to determine whether any projects that have received Recovery Act funds should be reclassified in order to more accurately reflect the State's investment in economically distressed areas.
Economically Distressed Areas Identified by Unemployment Rate or Per Capita Income
States may continue to use the diagnostic self-assessment tool that FHWA developed to determine if a project is in an economically distressed area in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 301(a)(1) or (2) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (PWEDA) (42 U.S.C. 3161). Section 301(a)(1) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161) provides that an area is economically distressed if it has a per capita income of 80 percent or less of the national average. Section 301(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 3161) provides that an area is economically distressed if it has an unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for which data are available, at least 1 percent greater than the national average unemployment rate. The FHWA's self-assessment tool utilizes a map that depicts project locations relative to economically distressed counties based on unemployment rate and per capita income. The maps may be accessed at:
•Example Map with Projects Added
•HEPGIS General Information Maps
Although the tool is based on a county-level designation, an economically distressed area also may be a region, municipality, smaller area within a larger community, or other geographic area. (See 42 U.S.C. 3161(b).) States may contact FHWA for assistance identifying economically distressed areas under section 301(a)(1) or (2) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161) for areas other than the county-level designation.
Economically Distressed Areas Identified by a Special Need Circumstance
The following guidance applies to the determination whether an area is economically distressed pursuant to the "special need" provision in section 301(a)(3) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161). Any such determination made pursuant to this guidance is solely for the purposes of implementing the Highway Infrastructure Investment appropriation provision, and does not constitute a determination of special need for purposes of programs administered by the Department of Commerce under section 301(a)(3) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161) or other laws.
If a State believes that an area that does not meet the criteria in section 301(a)(1) or (2) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161) (relating to the area's unemployment rate or per capita income) is nonetheless economically distressed, the State may consider whether such area meets the special need criteria under PWEDA by determining whether the area satisfies one or more of the criteria described below. An "area" may be a region, county, municipality, a smaller area within a larger community, or other geographic area. (See 42 U.S.C. 3161(b).) If a State intends to rely on any of the criteria listed below, it must provide to the FHWA Division Office documentation demonstrating satisfaction of the criteria.
In selecting additional projects, States shall use the criteria described below as another tool for identifying economically distressed areas based on the "special need" provision.
1.Actual Business Closure or Restructuring. An area has experienced an actual closure or restructuring of one or more businesses within the past twelve (12) months, resulting in sudden job losses and
a. For areas with population over 100,000, the actual or threatened dislocation is 500 jobs, or one (1) percent of the civilian labor force (CLF), whichever is greater.
b. For areas with population up to 100,000, the actual or threatened dislocation is 200 jobs, or one (1) percent of the CLF, whichever is greater.
2. Threatened Business Closure. An area has experienced a threat of closure of one or more businesses that results from a public announcement, such as a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) notice under 29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq. or other credible source of notification, of an imminent closure or restructuring of a firm(s) and
a. For areas with population over 100,000, the actual or threatened dislocation is 500 jobs, or one (1) percent of the civilian labor force (CLF), whichever is greater.
b. For areas with population up to 100,000, the actual or threatened dislocation is 200 jobs, or one (1) percent of the CLF, whichever is greater.
3. Military Base Closures or Realignments, Defense Contractor Reductions-In-Force, or Department of Energy Defense-Related Funding Reductions. Military base closures or realignments, defense contractor reductions-in-force, or Department of Energy defense-related funding reductions.
a. A military base closure refers to a military base that was closed or is scheduled for closure pursuant to the 2005 defense base realignment assessment closure (BRAC) or other BRAC related Department of Defense (DOD) processes. An area or any community located near a military installation being closed or realigned pursuant to BRAC is eligible as a special need circumstance from the date of DOD’s recommendation for closure until five (5) years after the actual date of closing of the installation.
b. A defense contractor reduction-in-force refers to a defense contractor(s) experiencing defense contract cancellations or reductions resulting directly from a military installation being closed or realigned due to BRAC or other BRAC related Department of Defense (DOD) processes and having aggregate value of at least $10 million per year. This includes actual dislocations that already have occurred and threatened dislocations that are anticipated to occur no later than February 17, 2011 (two years after the enactment of the Recovery Act). Defense contracts that expire in the normal course of business will not be considered to meet this criterion.
c. A Department of Energy defense-related funding reduction refers to an area or community located in proximity to a Department of Energy facility that has experienced or will experience a substantial reduction of employment resulting directly from its defense mission change. The area is eligible from the date of the Department of Energy announcement of reductions until five (5) years after the actual date of reduced operations at the installation.
4. Natural or Other Major Disasters or Emergencies. Natural or other major disasters or emergencies, including terrorist attacks, if the area has received one of the following disaster declarations within 18 months prior to the date of the special need determination:
a. A Presidentially Declared Disaster declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
b. A Federally Declared Disaster pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)); or
c. A Federally Declared Disaster pursuant to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1961); or
d. A Federally Declared Disaster pursuant to the Small Business Act, as amended (Pub. L. No. 85-536, 72 Stat. 384 (1958)).
The State also must determine that the natural or other major disaster or emergency has resulted in major negative impacts on economic development in the area expected to prevail for at least one year from the date of the disaster declaration.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is issuing this guidance to provide additional information on the determination of economically distressed areas under the priority language in the Highway Infrastructure Investment appropriation of the Recovery Act. The FHWA is issuing this guidance after consultation with the Department of Commerce and its Economic Development Administration, which has reviewed the "special need" criteria below.
States shall give priority to projects that are located in an economically distressed area and can be completed within the 3-year timeframe over projects that meet only one of the priorities, provided that such projects also meet the other preferences, conditions, and requirements of the Recovery Act.
States shall exercise due diligence in selecting projects that are to be carried out in and for the benefit of economically distressed areas. In ensuring such due diligence has been carried out, the State should be able to provide information as to how the State identified, vetted, and examined projects located in economically distressed areas and how the State selected projects based on the priorities, preferences, conditions, and requirements of the Recovery Act.
States also shall use this guidance to determine whether any projects that have received Recovery Act funds should be reclassified in order to more accurately reflect the State's investment in economically distressed areas.
Economically Distressed Areas Identified by Unemployment Rate or Per Capita Income
States may continue to use the diagnostic self-assessment tool that FHWA developed to determine if a project is in an economically distressed area in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 301(a)(1) or (2) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (PWEDA) (42 U.S.C. 3161). Section 301(a)(1) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161) provides that an area is economically distressed if it has a per capita income of 80 percent or less of the national average. Section 301(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 3161) provides that an area is economically distressed if it has an unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for which data are available, at least 1 percent greater than the national average unemployment rate. The FHWA's self-assessment tool utilizes a map that depicts project locations relative to economically distressed counties based on unemployment rate and per capita income. The maps may be accessed at:
•Example Map with Projects Added
•HEPGIS General Information Maps
Although the tool is based on a county-level designation, an economically distressed area also may be a region, municipality, smaller area within a larger community, or other geographic area. (See 42 U.S.C. 3161(b).) States may contact FHWA for assistance identifying economically distressed areas under section 301(a)(1) or (2) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161) for areas other than the county-level designation.
Economically Distressed Areas Identified by a Special Need Circumstance
The following guidance applies to the determination whether an area is economically distressed pursuant to the "special need" provision in section 301(a)(3) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161). Any such determination made pursuant to this guidance is solely for the purposes of implementing the Highway Infrastructure Investment appropriation provision, and does not constitute a determination of special need for purposes of programs administered by the Department of Commerce under section 301(a)(3) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161) or other laws.
If a State believes that an area that does not meet the criteria in section 301(a)(1) or (2) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3161) (relating to the area's unemployment rate or per capita income) is nonetheless economically distressed, the State may consider whether such area meets the special need criteria under PWEDA by determining whether the area satisfies one or more of the criteria described below. An "area" may be a region, county, municipality, a smaller area within a larger community, or other geographic area. (See 42 U.S.C. 3161(b).) If a State intends to rely on any of the criteria listed below, it must provide to the FHWA Division Office documentation demonstrating satisfaction of the criteria.
In selecting additional projects, States shall use the criteria described below as another tool for identifying economically distressed areas based on the "special need" provision.
1.Actual Business Closure or Restructuring. An area has experienced an actual closure or restructuring of one or more businesses within the past twelve (12) months, resulting in sudden job losses and
a. For areas with population over 100,000, the actual or threatened dislocation is 500 jobs, or one (1) percent of the civilian labor force (CLF), whichever is greater.
b. For areas with population up to 100,000, the actual or threatened dislocation is 200 jobs, or one (1) percent of the CLF, whichever is greater.
2. Threatened Business Closure. An area has experienced a threat of closure of one or more businesses that results from a public announcement, such as a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) notice under 29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq. or other credible source of notification, of an imminent closure or restructuring of a firm(s) and
a. For areas with population over 100,000, the actual or threatened dislocation is 500 jobs, or one (1) percent of the civilian labor force (CLF), whichever is greater.
b. For areas with population up to 100,000, the actual or threatened dislocation is 200 jobs, or one (1) percent of the CLF, whichever is greater.
3. Military Base Closures or Realignments, Defense Contractor Reductions-In-Force, or Department of Energy Defense-Related Funding Reductions. Military base closures or realignments, defense contractor reductions-in-force, or Department of Energy defense-related funding reductions.
a. A military base closure refers to a military base that was closed or is scheduled for closure pursuant to the 2005 defense base realignment assessment closure (BRAC) or other BRAC related Department of Defense (DOD) processes. An area or any community located near a military installation being closed or realigned pursuant to BRAC is eligible as a special need circumstance from the date of DOD’s recommendation for closure until five (5) years after the actual date of closing of the installation.
b. A defense contractor reduction-in-force refers to a defense contractor(s) experiencing defense contract cancellations or reductions resulting directly from a military installation being closed or realigned due to BRAC or other BRAC related Department of Defense (DOD) processes and having aggregate value of at least $10 million per year. This includes actual dislocations that already have occurred and threatened dislocations that are anticipated to occur no later than February 17, 2011 (two years after the enactment of the Recovery Act). Defense contracts that expire in the normal course of business will not be considered to meet this criterion.
c. A Department of Energy defense-related funding reduction refers to an area or community located in proximity to a Department of Energy facility that has experienced or will experience a substantial reduction of employment resulting directly from its defense mission change. The area is eligible from the date of the Department of Energy announcement of reductions until five (5) years after the actual date of reduced operations at the installation.
4. Natural or Other Major Disasters or Emergencies. Natural or other major disasters or emergencies, including terrorist attacks, if the area has received one of the following disaster declarations within 18 months prior to the date of the special need determination:
a. A Presidentially Declared Disaster declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
b. A Federally Declared Disaster pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)); or
c. A Federally Declared Disaster pursuant to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1961); or
d. A Federally Declared Disaster pursuant to the Small Business Act, as amended (Pub. L. No. 85-536, 72 Stat. 384 (1958)).
The State also must determine that the natural or other major disaster or emergency has resulted in major negative impacts on economic development in the area expected to prevail for at least one year from the date of the disaster declaration.
September 4, 2009
EPA Meets Day 200 Recovery Act Commitment, Promoting Green Jobs and Healthier Communities
From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 3, 2009
WASHINGTON – Two-hundred days after passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced that the agency has met its goal to initiate or accelerate cleanup work at 20 contaminated Superfund sites from the National Priorities List. Superfund sites are often found in industrial areas hit hardest by the recession and pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. The Superfund program received $600 million in recovery act funds and, as of day 200, EPA has obligated more than $400 million. The funding will accelerate ongoing cleanup activities or initiate new construction projects, boosting local economies by creating and maintaining jobs while also protecting human health and the environment. “Two-hundred days after Congress passed the recovery act, EPA projects are up and running and creating jobs across the country. We’re providing real solutions for struggling communities and steadily working to pull our country out of the worst economic downturn in a generation,” said Administrator Jackson. “This is how we build a new foundation for prosperity – by making our communities cleaner, safer places to live, work and grow a business.”
To view a video message from Administrator Jackson on how EPA recovery act projects are creating green jobs and cleaner communities across the country, click here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/MMwebcon.nsf/HTML/KMON-7VHQ5M?OpenDocument
The swift allocation of recovery act funds has helped spur new jobs and economic opportunities in sites across the country. In New Bedford, Mass., the recovery act is accelerating the pace of the harbor cleanup that was scheduled to take almost four decades. This cleanup, at one of the nation’s busiest fishing ports, will create and save jobs, and generate potential for millions of dollars in economic activity in tourism, development, and shipping in the years ahead. At the Iron Mountain Mine in Redding, Calif. – one of the nation’s most polluted sites – EPA is using recovery funds to halve the time needed for cleanup. Prior to EPA action, more than one ton of toxic materials were discharged from the Iron Mountain Mine into the waters of the Sacramento River every day. The cleanup will create or save close to 250 jobs in the area. Once completed, the local hydroelectric power plant will use the restored waters to produce more clean energy for the area.
In February, President Obama signed the ARRA. EPA manages more than $7 billion in projects and programs that will invest in environmental protection and provide long-term economic benefits to aid recovery efforts across the nation. As of September 2, EPA has obligated 92 percent of its ARRA program dollars. This means that EPA has doubled its obligations and seen a steady increase in “shovels in the ground” projects since day 100 in May 2009.
President Obama has directed that the recovery act be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability. To that end, the American people can see how every dollar is being invested at recovery.gov and for EPA specific projects visit: http://www.epa.gov/recovery
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 3, 2009
WASHINGTON – Two-hundred days after passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced that the agency has met its goal to initiate or accelerate cleanup work at 20 contaminated Superfund sites from the National Priorities List. Superfund sites are often found in industrial areas hit hardest by the recession and pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. The Superfund program received $600 million in recovery act funds and, as of day 200, EPA has obligated more than $400 million. The funding will accelerate ongoing cleanup activities or initiate new construction projects, boosting local economies by creating and maintaining jobs while also protecting human health and the environment. “Two-hundred days after Congress passed the recovery act, EPA projects are up and running and creating jobs across the country. We’re providing real solutions for struggling communities and steadily working to pull our country out of the worst economic downturn in a generation,” said Administrator Jackson. “This is how we build a new foundation for prosperity – by making our communities cleaner, safer places to live, work and grow a business.”
To view a video message from Administrator Jackson on how EPA recovery act projects are creating green jobs and cleaner communities across the country, click here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/MMwebcon.nsf/HTML/KMON-7VHQ5M?OpenDocument
The swift allocation of recovery act funds has helped spur new jobs and economic opportunities in sites across the country. In New Bedford, Mass., the recovery act is accelerating the pace of the harbor cleanup that was scheduled to take almost four decades. This cleanup, at one of the nation’s busiest fishing ports, will create and save jobs, and generate potential for millions of dollars in economic activity in tourism, development, and shipping in the years ahead. At the Iron Mountain Mine in Redding, Calif. – one of the nation’s most polluted sites – EPA is using recovery funds to halve the time needed for cleanup. Prior to EPA action, more than one ton of toxic materials were discharged from the Iron Mountain Mine into the waters of the Sacramento River every day. The cleanup will create or save close to 250 jobs in the area. Once completed, the local hydroelectric power plant will use the restored waters to produce more clean energy for the area.
In February, President Obama signed the ARRA. EPA manages more than $7 billion in projects and programs that will invest in environmental protection and provide long-term economic benefits to aid recovery efforts across the nation. As of September 2, EPA has obligated 92 percent of its ARRA program dollars. This means that EPA has doubled its obligations and seen a steady increase in “shovels in the ground” projects since day 100 in May 2009.
President Obama has directed that the recovery act be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability. To that end, the American people can see how every dollar is being invested at recovery.gov and for EPA specific projects visit: http://www.epa.gov/recovery
August 19, 2009
EPA NEEDS TO REVISE ITS METHODS FOR CALCULATING GRANT RECIPIENTS' COSTS
PRESS RELEASE - Recovery.gov
EPA received approximately $72 billion in Recovery Act funding for programs and projects, such as cleaning up superfund sites and helping local communities with water quality and wastewater infrastructure needs. The agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) looked at how EPA planned to calculate its Fiscal Year 2009 "grant accruals," which represent grantee costs incurred but not yet billed. The OIG noted that EPA planned to combine Recovery-related grants with traditional grants and use the same methodology to calculate the accruals for both. The OIG cautioned that this approach could distort the accrual amount, and recommended that EPA separate out the Recovery grants to obtain a more accurate accrual report.
EPA received approximately $72 billion in Recovery Act funding for programs and projects, such as cleaning up superfund sites and helping local communities with water quality and wastewater infrastructure needs. The agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) looked at how EPA planned to calculate its Fiscal Year 2009 "grant accruals," which represent grantee costs incurred but not yet billed. The OIG noted that EPA planned to combine Recovery-related grants with traditional grants and use the same methodology to calculate the accruals for both. The OIG cautioned that this approach could distort the accrual amount, and recommended that EPA separate out the Recovery grants to obtain a more accurate accrual report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)