NATIONAL
ESTUARY
PROGRAM
EFFECTIVE • EFFICIENT • COLLABORATIVE • ADAPTABLE
THE NEP IS EFFIC ENT
The EPA National Estuary Program (NEP)
is the nation's premier watershed pro-
gram. Its achievements are linked directly
to the highly successful approach to wa-
tershed management implemented by the
28 local NEPs across the country. In their
efforts to improve environmental condi-
tions in their States, the NEPs have dem-
onstrated an impressive ability to secure
and leverage funds by establishing key
partnerships among Federal, State, and
local agencies; nonprofit organizations;
industry; academia; environmental and
business groups; and the public. These
partners and other funding sources pro-
vide their financial support due to the re-
sults produced by NEPs with those mon-
ies. Funding is used to purchase lands,
restore habitat, and protect open space,
as well as many other actions to improve
the health of the estuary.
The NEPs leverage funding to increase
their budgets-by $16.50 for every $1
provided by EPA. Getting smart about
funding means developing strategic, tar-
geted programs to pursue funding that
supports priorities, fostering alliances with
public and private partners, demonstrat-
ing results to donors, crediting sponsors
for their contributions, and encouraging
staff development of new and creative ini-
tiatives. Here's a look at some of the ways NEPs have en-
gaged stakeholders and the community to increase their
budgets—and their impact on the environmental challeng-
es facing U.S. coastal watersheds.
ANNUAL APPEAL CRITICAL TO
SUSTAINABLE FUNDING
The Partnership for the Delaware Estuary knew how es-
sential it was to have a broad base of funding support,
and like many nonprofits, struggled to identify its fund-
ing vehicle. With the NEP management approach as the
guideline, they turned lessons learned from early-on fund-
ing disappointments into a finely-tuned strategy to secure
and sustain funding.
When the Partnership began its annual appeal program in
1996, it faced a number of challenges. Not only was the
organization new; the resource it protects—the Delaware
Estuary—was nearly unknown in the three States it oc-
cupies. To build support for the Partnership, the director
and staff established relationships with Delaware Estuary
stakeholders and engaged them in program activities,
speculating that those who were involved with its activities
would be far more likely to offer financial support.
In 1999, the Partnership instituted its first appeal cam-
paign funded by a foundation grant for capacity building.
It used a mail house and sent a generic appeal letter to
the 25,000 people on the organization's mailing list, all of
whom were recipients of the Partnership's quarterly news-
EFFECTIVE • EFFICIENT • COLLABORATIVE • ADAPTABLE
-------
letter. The results were disappointing and
the Partnership huddled to restructure the
appeal.
A year later, the Partnership tested a
smaller, more personal approach. It sent
personalized appeal letters along with an
annual activity report and an appeal return
envelope to past donors and to a select
group from the mailing list (less than 1,000
people). The results improved, but the
Partnership believed they could do better.
In 2001, the Partnership further targeted
its annual appeal with the help of a fund-
raising consultant. For its 2001 appeal,
the Partnership segmented the mailing list
into four different target groups: past giv-
ers, lapsed and never givers, board mem-
ber contacts (with the letters signed by
the board member), and board members.
Each group received a different letter and
program materials. The Partnership also
gave a set of estuary-themed note cards
(purchased wholesale from a publisher) to
donors contributing over $75. This model
returned the best results and the partner-
ship received 57 donations totaling nearly
$10,000.
Since 2001, the Partnership has contin-
ued to segment the annual appeal mail-
ing. Each year, prior donors are asked to
consider increasing their gift. A second
mailing each spring targets past givers
who did not respond to the fall appeal. In
all cases, donors over $75 receive a spe-
cially designed set of note cards.
Their annual appeal strategy—along with
increased awareness of the Delaware
Estuary and the Partnership—has gener-
ated a steady increase on the return from
the annual appeal campaign. In 2005, the
Partnership received a total of $29,779 in
donations from 183 people, for an average
gift of $163.
Their lessons learned are applicable to many other com-
munity-based programs:
• While an annual appeal is not a quick fix for raising
unrestricted revenue, it can be a very successful
resource that pays off over time.
• Annual appeals should be viewed as an investment
in the organization's funding health: it may take
several years to see a positive return, and all the
while, there are related expenses, such as staff
time, printing, postage and giveaways.
• The success of annual appeals depends on
building a relationship with donors; the more
specific and personal the appeal, the better.
• Timing is important—appeals should be on a
consistent schedule, and the end of the calendar
year is for many a key time as it is when givers
feel beneficent and seek tax deductions.
• Recognition matters: the Partnership lists all
donors to its annual appeal in an activity report.
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT FUNDING TAPPED
The Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program (CBBEP) in
Corpus Christi, Texas, received $1.5 million for Supple-
mental Environmental Projects (SEP) as part of a settle-
ment between Koch Pipeline Company, the State of Texas
and the U.S. Department of Justice. Koch Pipeline agreed
to this settlement after the company had more than 300
spills of crude oil, gasoline, and other oil products be-
tween 1990 and 1997 in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas,
-------
Missouri, Louisiana, and Alabama. In the settlement,
Koch Pipeline agreed to pay a $30 million civil penalty,
make a voluntary contribution of $5 million for supple-
mental environmental projects, and improve its leak-pre-
vention programs.
The Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program's selec-
tion was likely a result of the fact that the largest of
Koch's spills, a 100,000-gallon oil spill in 1994, caused
a twelve-mile slick within the area served by the CBBEP
on Nueces and Corpus Christ! Bays. Two additional fac-
tors may have contributed to the selection of the estuary
program as a recipient for these funds. First, the CBBEP
has a long history of public involvement, including strong
relationships with both industry and State government;
the program was well known by both Koch and the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality. Second, all par-
ties to the settlement recognized that the CBBEP could
implement habitat restoration projects with very low over-
head costs.
The CBBEP used the SEP funds to secure an additional
$2.5 million in matching funds, and completed three land
acquisition and habitat protection projects:
• They worked with The Nature Conservancy of
Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, the City of Corpus Christ!, and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service to conserve land with high
ecological value or development pressure through
either acquisition or conservation easements.
• The estuary program partnered with the Texas
General Land Office to protect six existing rookery
islands and restore approximately six acres of
colonial Waterbird rookery island habitat in
Nueces Bay.
• In conjunction with the Texas General Land Office
and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the CBBEP planted smooth cord grass
along eroding shorelines to reduce erosion and
create marsh habitat.
Koch Pipeline had to conclude it was a
suitable recipient. While the program's
connection to a 1994 oil spill undoubtedly
influenced the decision, its
track record of communication with the
business community and a history of
success in project implementation were
also deciding factors.
A streamlined planning process made it
possible for CBBEP to deliver a
spending plan for $1.5 million in project
funding within one month in order to
meet a deadline set by the Texas Com
mission on Environmental Quality.
With project implementation required
within 18 months of funding, the
pressure was on and CBBEP was able to
tap the capabilities of its partners in
order to meet the deadline.
The CBBEP experience underscores the importance of
the NEP management approach, and highlights the im-
portance of public outreach and stakeholder involvement.
• In order to direct the funding to CBBEP, the State
of Texas, the U.S. Department of Justice, and
-------
OUTREACH BUILDS COMMUNITY
SUPPORT FOR A REAL ESTATE
TRANSFER TAX
Since 1993, the Peconic Estuary Program has con-
ducted extensive public involvement and outreach in its
watershed. The outcome of this work has been strong
partnerships with organizations and individuals in their
community. Community-based support on Long Island's
East End was crucial to establishing a two percent (2%)
real estate transfer tax that would support land conserva-
tion and related purposes, including historic preservation
for the watershed. Fortunately, the Peconic Bay Estuary
had a long history of public involvement and partnership
building—essential to the success of a new transfer tax
allocation. Real estate transfer taxes are assessments
made by States or local governments on real estate
transfers based on the sale price of the property and paid
by the buyer of the property.
Implementing the real estate transfer tax required three
major steps:
• The New York Legislature had to pass enabling
legislation, but developer and builder lobbies at
the State and national levels effectively delayed
passage of the enabling legislation for more than
a decade.
• A Community Preservation Plan was required from
each participating town, identifying priority parcels
for acquisition and easements.
• Each town needed to pass a local
referendum to approximate the tax-
development lobbyists
spent nearly $300,000 to fight passage.
In 1998, the New York Legislature finally voted
to allow Long Island's five east end towns to
hold referenda on establishing a real estate
transfer tax. And despite lobbyist efforts, all of
the towns gained voter approval, passing with
at least a 60% majority.
The success was secured by strategic public
outreach, with messages supported by re-
search provided by the Peconic Estuary Pro-
gram (PEP). A large community-based coali-
tion including the Committee for the East End
Community Preservation Fund, Peconic Estu-
ary Program, Suffolk County, five towns, local
businesses, realtors, and builders, citizens and
others presented a compelling case to voters
that preserving open space would protect es-
tuarine resources, groundwater quality, and the
character of Long Island's East End. Studies
by the PEP included an economic valuation of
the estuary and its impact on the local econ-
omy, detailed information on current land use,
and projections of development and population
trends.
The 2% Real Estate Transfer Tax raised more
than $169 million through January 2004 and is
the most successful land protection program
on Long Island. Using an average of 2% tax
revenues and multiplying it through the life of
the fund (end of 2020), total additional revenue
should be approximately $556 million.
-------
While many critical landscapes have been
protected with funds from the 2% real estate
transfer tax and other sources, current land
acquisition funding is not sufficient to keep up
with development rates. It is estimated that
less than 10% of the parcels identified as critical
in the Peconic watershed could be protected
with future 2% tax revenues. Fortunately, large
amounts of land can be protected through
means other than land acquisition, for example:
clearing restrictions, clustering requirements,
rezoning, overlay districts, easements, purchase
of development rights, and overall better land
use practices. It is estimated that the imple-
mentation of clearing restrictions and clustering
requirements would protect an additional 3,491
acres in the Peconic watershed; acquiring an
equivalent amount of land would cost an esti-
mated $382 million.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BUILDS
PARTNERSHIPS AND RAISES FUNDS
A formal Interlocal Agreement in Tampa Bay, Florida, has
helped ensure continuing funding to the region's estuary
program since 2000, and generates at least $415,000 in
cash each year as a match toward EPA funding.
Established in 1990, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program
(TBEP) has worked diligently to involve local governments
and Tampa Bay area citizens in its activities and in 1998
adopted a formal Interlocal Agreement that committed
15 partners to achieving the goals of the program's bay
restoration plan. Partners included city, county, and State
governments, a water management district, a regional
planning council, a port authority, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Goals of the bay restoration plan focus on restoring and
sustaining a healthier bay that will support recreational
and commercial uses. Goals are related to improving
water and sediment quality, restoring seagrass beds
and coastal habitats, and reducing bacterial contamina-
tion. Partners also committed to improving fish and wild-
life regulation and enforcement, managing dredging and
dredged material, and increasing public education and
involvement.
TBEP's success in reaching consensus on the Interlocal
Agreement can help inform similar efforts by other com-
munity-based programs:
• Having a champion kept the process moving.
The water management district's representative on
the TBEP Policy Board, an experienced contract
attorney, conceived the idea of the agreement,
drafted it and worked to build consensus among
stakeholders and overcome obstacles in the
process.
• Long-term stakeholder relationships supported
consensus. Bay-area partners have been
working together on bay management and
protection for 25 years, ever since the first Bay
Area Scientific Information Symposium (BASIS) in
1982. Several milestones followed BASIS that built
a tradition of regional cooperation among bay area
-------
scientists and resource managers and
enabled consensus on the Interlocal
Agreement.
• Incentives encouraged participation. For
example, participation in the Estuary
Program may have been spurred, in part,
by a desire to ensure that the program
followed a non-regulatory approach to
resource management. Regulators agreed
to extend reasonable flexibility in
permitting projects of TBEP partners that
helped achieve goals of the bay
restoration plan.
Further, a track record of affordable implementa-
tion demonstrated that the agreement would be
a good investment for the partners. It was esti-
mated that the added cost each year to TBEP's
partners for implementing the restoration plan
was insignificant compared to their overall bud-
gets.
For more information: http://www.tbep.org
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER
When the Center for Inland Bays (GIB) in Delaware needed
an office and a space for environmental education events,
everything seemed to be pointed in their favor. An early-on
a capital campaign and securing grant funding from local
corporations, government agencies, and foundations gener-
ated about $175,000. A building was donated by the State,
an architect was hired, and a development specialist was
retained. When a fundraising luncheon failed to generate
financial support, the GIB team stepped back, studied hard
and changed course.
Their experience offers practical guidance to other communi-
ty-based programs that may be readying a capital campaign:
• Conduct a pre-campaign assessment. GIB examined
how it was perceived in its community. It researched the
potential for major support and sought to identify a realistic
fundraising goal. It also looked inside the organization: Was
leadership and staff ready to do what would be necessary
for success?
• Write a case Statement. GIB developed its position
by gaining an understanding of the benefits and importance
of the project from the donors' point of view. It identified
why people should fund the project, and what information
they needed to make a decision to donate.
• Create a campaign management plan. GIB detailed
the tasks, outputs, and milestones of the campaign, and
structured a timeline for achieving the campaign goal.
• Prospect potential donors. By identifying potential
donors—and their potential donations—GIB had defined the
opportunity and the target market, including past and pres-
ent donors, volunteers, foundations, corporations, and agen-
cies.
GIB took additional steps to facilitate their progress. They
reduced the cost of the building from $1.24 million to
$850,000 through "value engineering" options, hired a new
consultant to develop the campaign, organized a capital
campaign committee, recruited former governor Russ Peter-
son as their honorary campaign chair, and announced their
campaign goal of one million dollars in the media. The new
capital campaign committee targeted key individual donors
and, because the facility was State-owned, also requested
-------
$600,000 before the legislative bond bill commit-
tee.
The results of the new campaign were impressive:
• Private donations doubled the existing
money to $350,000.
• The general assembly approved a
$750,000 bond in 2006, $150,000 more
than GIB had requested! In fact, GIB was
the only nonprofit in the State to obtain
bond bill funding that year.
The funding made it possible to extend their li-
cense for the property from 10 years to "30 years
or practical life." Construction was completed
and a donor reception was the perfect ending to
a successful campaign.
For more information: http://www.inlandbays.org/
LICENSE PLATE REVENUE
GENERATES MILLIONS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
AND HABITAT RESTORATION
A specialty vehicle license plate revenue program
in Florida delivered more than $4 million dollars to
the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program
during its first seven years, and now generates
about $400,000 per year, providing a sustainable
source of continuing funding.
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program
(IRL NEP), sponsored by the St. Johns River
Water Management District, led the development
and management of the program, supported by
12,000 vehicle owners and dedicated stakehold-
ers. Their success is a lesson in strategic col-
laboration that can be transferred and adapted to
community-based programs elsewhere:
• Petitions identify a support base. IRL NEP
collected petitions (with the help of
McDonalds franchises located throughout
the watershed) containing the signatures
of 12,000 registered Florida vehicle
owners who agreed they would purchase
the specialty plate when available.
• Elected officials get on the team.
Endorsements from constituents helped
position the program with regional
elected officials who agreed to sponsor
a bill to create the specialty plate in both
the House and Senate in an upcoming
legislative session.
• It takes money to make money. With so
much positive support, IRL NEP felt
confident in paying a $15,000 one-time
administration fee to the Florida
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and
in investing the time to develop the short-
and long-term marketing strategies that
were required by the DMV.
But all of that start-up work was only the be-
ginning of the outreach effort, as the IRL NEP
would also be responsible for promotion of the
license plate program and for management of
the grant program that would be supported
by the revenues. The team was able to se-
cure several corporate partners who would be
essential to the effort. The Anheuser Busch
Corporation donated $15,000 to help pay for
the production and labor costs of more than 70
billboard advertisements, and the Florida Out-
door Advertising Association donated $60,000
worth of billboard advertising space. For three
months, a local car dealership helped seed the
program by providing all new car buyers with
Indian River Lagoon license plates.
For each lagoon license plate sold or renewed,
IRL NEP receives 15 dollars and of that, at least
80 percent of the proceeds are used to support
stormwater retrofit and/or habitat restoration
projects, with up to 20 percent allocated to en-
vironmental education projects focusing on the
lagoon. License plate revenues do not support
salaries, studies, or other administrative costs.
-------
Habitat restoration projects supported by the
license plate program have included the
reconnection of impounded salt marshes,
shoreline stabilization, spoil island and mangrove
restoration, and stormwater treatment retrofits.
Environmental education projects have included
exhibits, videos, and support for lagoon learning
centers.
Competition from more than 100 other
specialty license plate designs offered for sale in
Florida has been fierce, but the strength of the
IRL NEP license plate design, combined with a
strategic marketing campaign, has the lagoon
plate ranked at number 17 on the list of spe-
cialty plates available. The design features a
snook—a local fish—which appeals to a niche
market of anglers from throughout the State.
Plus, current marketing strategies include direct
mail promotions to plate owners, with targeted
advertising in regional and Statewide angler
magazines.
For more information: http://irl.sjrwmd.com
INVESTMENT IN NEP PAYS OFF
The US EPA National Estuary Program (NEP), a unique
and voluntary community-based program established
in 1987 under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Amend-
ments, works to restore and maintain the water quality
and ecological integrity of estuaries of national signifi-
cance.
The NEPs have leveraged more than $3 billion be-
tween 2003 and 2006 through efforts to engage
stakeholders and their communities. The results
offer a compelling indicator that the NEP approach—
combining partnership building, outreach and strong
collaboration with sound science—is effective in
increasing budgets and the program's impact on the
environmental challenges facing U.S. coastal water-
sheds.
There are 28 NEPs located in 18 U.S. coastal States
and Puerto Rico which are designated estuaries of
national significance for their distinct economic, eco-
logical,
recreational, and aesthetic values.
For more information contact:
US EPA
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW)
Coastal Management Branch
Mail Code 4504T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202.566.1260
Fax: 202.566.1336
www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries
The NEP: Applying the Clean Water Act in
ways that are Effective, Efficient, Adaptable,
and Collaborative.
------- |