Funding of National Estuary Programs through Section 320 of the Clean Water Act in comparison to other funding sources prepared by Joseph E. Costa, Ph.D. Executive Director Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program for the Association of National Estuary Programs

Introduction

In September of 1998, a funding information request was sent by Tiffany Lutterman, Director of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program of Florida, to all 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs). The purpose of this information request was to better understand the relative importance of EPA funding of NEPs through Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, in comparison to other sources, both public and private. This report summarizes the responses forwarded to the Buzzards Bay Project and subsequent follow-up questions

Methods

Each NEP was asked to provide an estimate of expenditures in each of the following funding categories:

1) EPA funding through Section 320,

2) EPA funding through non Section 320 funding (e.g., grants in 319, 104b3, 604 programs),

3) State funding,

4) Local funding (municipal, county, and regional entities),

5) Non-governmental.

The request for information was meant to cover amounts in both Fiscal Year 1998, and projections for Fiscal Year 1999. Because of differences in state and federal fiscal years, and the start of the state fiscal year varies from state to state, we left it up to the discretion of each contact with the NEP to report in either state or federal fiscal year totals, since the purpose of this exercise was to approximate relative contributions of various funding sources. Because FY99 expenditures were difficult for many NEPs to project, they were considered less reliable than FY98 values, so only the FY98 data are presented in this report.

In many instances, it was difficult or impossible to quantify CCMP implementation expenditures because the NEP was not directly involved with managing or directing these expenditures. Expenditures by local government and nonprofits were an especially difficult category for most NEPs to quantify. Out of necessity, $0 dollars were included for NEPs when no response was given so that averages of funding calculations could be calculated. Therefore, the totals in these categories should be considered underestimates.

There were also differences in how comprehensive this evaluation should be. In some instances it appeared that the respondent only quantified funding directly received by or administered by the NEP. In other cases the respondent took a broader view of CCMP implementation related expenditures by other agencies. We made no attempt separate these different kinds of responses, and all responses were included in this draft report. A draft report was provided to each NEP for review which generated only a modest response.

Results

Twenty-three out of twenty-eight NEPs responded to the requests for information. A summary of FY98 for each NEP is included in Table 1 below. Actual amounts of each funding category were also converted to percent contributions in Table 2.

Conclusions

Total expenditures in FY98 toward CCMP implementation activities were more than $212 million for the 23 reporting NEPs (Table 1). On a National level, the US EPA Section 320 funding represented only 5% of this total (Figure 1). This contribution of Section 320 funds is in fact an overestimate since NEPs were unable to adequately characterize funding in some funding categories.

Figure 1, however, is somewhat misleading in characterizing typical expenditures for individual NEPs since expenditures by partnering agencies in certain NEPs was sometimes quite large. For example, more than $60 million of non-EPA federal dollars were reported by the Barrataria-Terrebone NEP for FY98, which alone represented more than 25% of the $212 million national expenditure total.

To better characterize funding patterns, the average % contribution of Section 320 funds and other funding categories are shown in Figure 2. This figure shows the averages of all category funding percentages calculated from individual NEP program funding breakdowns as shown in Table 2. This representation of the data eliminates the skewing effect of large dollar expenditures in any one NEP.

As shown by Figure 2, US EPA Section 320 funds represented a minority of total implementation funding as a percent of all funding, accounting for an average of 32% within each NEP for CCMP-related expenditures for FY98.

Although 32% may represent a national average of the contribution of Section 320 funds in relation to all FY98 expenditures, Figure 3 demonstrates that there is a great variation in the relative importance of Section 320 funds among individual estuary programs. For example, for 7 of the 23 respondents, Section 320 funds represented 20% or less of the total expenditures. As noted previously, because some sources of funding such as local and state expenditures may have been underestimated, section 320 contributions may also be overestimated in this figure.

Also of interest to some NEPs is the amount of EPA funding provided to the NEPs through other EPA programs other than Section 320 (e.g., 319, 104b3, 604, etc.), since these programs are viewed as important mechanisms for funding NEPs and CCMP implementation activities. As shown in Figure 4, there is also a considerable amount of variation in the amount of non-section 320 EPA funding that each NEP program receives, with Section 320 funds ranging from 31% to 100% of all EPA funds received, with the mean being 83%.

Appendix A. Table 1 Funding Notes

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON: NOTE: Table does not include the estimated >$27,500,000 expended on land acquisition initiatives from state, local and private sources since 1995.

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER: A: $150,000 from Oregon, $150,000 from Washington

MASS BAYS: A Implementation costs are so large that we depend on lots of sources, obviously. EPA funds are used just to support the core program. B MBP gets additional support that we don't really count in that the regional planning agencies that house our regional staff also pay part of their salaries. Essentially they are out doing MBP tasks all the time anyway. C Same as for B. There are many things that agencies are doing that we nudge along that we don't take financial credit for.

MOBILE BAY: Note: $290,000 carried over from previous year, 1= Gulf of Mexico Program

PECONIC: * Does not include implementation funding sources which are administered by entities other than the Peconic Estuary Program=s Program Office. These include NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act Funding ($1.3 million in 1998. Approx $2.5 million in 1999) and Land Preservation partnership ($15 million Town, $15 million County of 3 years). ** Minimum commitment is shown. Actual contributions will be substantially higher. *** Value of services are substantial but unquantified.

PUGET SOUND: * Puget Sound Estuary Program does not track private non-profit, local or non-EPA Federal spending for implementation of the estuary program. However, we know that local and tribal governments are spending considerable sums to carry out actions called for in the CCMP. For example, about half of the local governments in the basin have established utilities to fund stormwater management programs; other local governments are upgrading combined sewer overflows and sewage treatment plants, implementing watershed plans, acquiring and restoring habitat, inspecting on-site sewage systems, enforcing environmental laws, educating the public, etc.---all of these activities would easily add up to $50 to 100 million (and that is probably a very conservative estimate). State and federal agencies are providing additional funding from SRF, 319, transportation programs, and the state cigarette tax to local governments, tribes, ports, sewer and water districts, and conservation districts to help them fund the activities listed above and others which protect the Sound. In addition, there are a minimum of 200 private, nonprofit groups working to protect the Sound.

SARASOTA BAY: * Estimates $274,645 carryover into FY 98, $300k allocations for FY 98-9 ** Assumes $28 million wastewater re-use system is constructed n Manatee County, funds committed in FY 97; estimates for proposed reuse system expansions in Sarasota County not available; includes $10 million for the completion of Phillippi Creek $40 million stormwater retrofit project.

TAMPA BAY: 1 Includes cash contributions for operation of TBEP. Does not include expenditures by local governments and non-federal agencies for project contributing to implementation of CCMP. 2 Does not include potential federal grants to TBEP partners for projects contributing to implementation of CCMP.