1 / 20

Overview of FY 2011 CBIG Funding Options

Overview of FY 2011 CBIG Funding Options. Jim Edward Chesapeake Bay Program July 20, 2010. Summary. Under the strategy developed in response to EO 13508, Clean Water Act funds will be targeted beginning in FY 2011.

masao
Télécharger la présentation

Overview of FY 2011 CBIG Funding Options

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Overview of FY 2011 CBIG Funding Options Jim Edward Chesapeake Bay Program July 20, 2010

  2. Summary • Under the strategy developed in response to EO 13508, Clean Water Act funds will be targeted beginning in FY 2011. • 4 conference calls were held with the jurisdictions on 6/16, 6/24, 7/1 and 7/14 to discuss targeting options. • All jurisdictions were represented at each conference call. • A total of 5 funding formulas were presented as possible FY 2011 CBIG allocations during this process. • Options 1-4 are based upon nutrient target loads and Option 5 is based upon the FY 2010 CBIG funding allocation formula.

  3. Summary (continued) • In addition, EPA solicited ideas for additional ways to calculate funding. No official proposals were provided. • As part of these discussions, three questions regarding the issue of targeting priority watershed and/or practices were posed to each jurisdiction. • After much debate, no consensus could be reached on which funding formula should be used to best target Clean Water Act funds.

  4. Three Questions Posed to States • Are you in favor of geographic targeting? • Are you in favor of targeting funds with priority practices? • Could match be a way to consider targeting?

  5. Five Funding Options Option 1: 50/50 Base/Target Split Target Based on Portion of Delivered TN and TP Reductions Compared to No Action Option 2: 50/50 Base/Target Split Target Based on Portion of Delivered TN and TP Reductions Compared to 2009 Delivered TN and TP Loads Option 3: 75/25 Base/Target Split Target Based on Portion of Delivered TN and TP Reductions Compared to 2009 Delivered TN and TP Loads Option 4: Phase-in of Option 2 Target From 10%- 50% of Total Funds Over 5-Year Period Option 5: Current FY 2010 Distribution

  6. Option 1 50/50 Base/Target Split Target Based on Portion of Delivered TN and TP Reductions Compared to No Action Nitrogen Reduction = (2010 No Action Delivered Nitrogen Load) – (Delivered Nitrogen Target Load) Phosphorus Reduction = (2010 No Action Delivered Phosphorus Load) – (Delivered Phosphorus Target Load)

  7. Option 2 50/50 Base/Target Split Target Based on Portion of Delivered TN and TP Reductions Compared to 2009 Delivered TN and TP Loads Nitrogen Reduction = (2009 Delivered Nitrogen Load) – (Delivered Nitrogen Target Load) Phosphorus Reduction = (2009 Delivered Phosphorus Load) – (Delivered Phosphorus Target Load)

  8. Option 3 75/25 Base/Target Split Target Based on Portion of Delivered TN and TP Reductions Compared to 2009 Delivered TN and TP Loads Nitrogen Reduction = (2009 Delivered Nitrogen Load) – (Delivered Nitrogen Target Load) Phosphorus Reduction = (2009 Delivered Phosphorus Load) – (Delivered Phosphorus Target Load)

  9. Option 4 Phase-in of Option 2 Target From 10%- 50% of Total Funds Over 5-Year Period Nitrogen Reduction = (2009 Delivered Nitrogen Load) – (Delivered Nitrogen Target Load) Phosphorus Reduction = (2009 Delivered Phosphorus Load) – (Delivered Phosphorus Target Load) FY 2011- 10%

  10. Option 4 (Cont) Phase-in of Option 2 Target From 10%- 50% of Total Funds Over 5-Year Period Nitrogen Reduction = (2009 Delivered Nitrogen Load) – (Delivered Nitrogen Target Load) Phosphorus Reduction = (2009 Delivered Phosphorus Load) – (Delivered Phosphorus Target Load) FY 2012- 20%

  11. Option 4 (Cont) Option 4 Phase-in of Option 2 Target From 10%- 50% of Total Funds Over 5-Year Period Nitrogen Reduction = (2009 Delivered Nitrogen Load) – (Delivered Nitrogen Target Load) Phosphorus Reduction = (2009 Delivered Phosphorus Load) – (Delivered Phosphorus Target Load) FY 2013- 30%

  12. Option 4 (Cont) Phase-in of Option 2 Target From 10%- 50% of Total Funds Over 5-Year Period Nitrogen Reduction = (2009 Delivered Nitrogen Load) – (Delivered Nitrogen Target Load) Phosphorus Reduction = (2009 Delivered Phosphorus Load) – (Delivered Phosphorus Target Load) FY 2014- 40%

  13. Option 4 (Cont) Phase-in of Option 2 Target From 10%- 50% of Total Funds Over 5-Year Period Nitrogen Reduction = (2009 Delivered Nitrogen Load) – (Delivered Nitrogen Target Load) Phosphorus Reduction = (2009 Delivered Phosphorus Load) – (Delivered Phosphorus Target Load) FY 2015- 50%

  14. Option 4 (Cont) Five Year Summary for Option 4

  15. Option 5 Current FY 2010 Distribution States are required to document, in their Work Plans, which priority watersheds and/or priority practices are being targeted for implementation with these grant funds.

  16. Summary of Funding Options Summary Comparison:

  17. Summary Chart of States’ Option Selections *Option 2 selected with the condition that EPA allocate additional funding so that no state is penalized by this formula.

  18. Next Steps • The Management Board will provide feedback regarding which funding option(s) it supports. • CBPO Acting Director will brief Shawn Garvin, EPA Region 3 Administrator on the Management Board’s initial discussions and feedback. • The draft FY 2011 Chesapeake Bay Program Grant and Cooperative Agreement Guidance will be shared with the jurisdictions for review and comment in mid- August.

  19. Next Steps (continued) • Comments from jurisdictions on the guidance will be due at the end of August/ beginning September. • A funding option will be selected by EPA prior to issuing the final FY 2011 CBIG Grant Guidance.

  20. Conclusion • While no consensus could be reached, a majority of the jurisdictions prefer Option 5. • EPA would like the Management Board’s opinion and feedback on the various funding options and approaches.

More Related