Federal Funding Exposure in Washington Restoration Portfolios
What the Cross-Source Picture Shows
Freehold Advisory — 2026-04-08
What Freehold Analyzed
This report examines active funded obligations across 50 ecological restoration organizations in Washington State, assembled from more than a dozen public data sources. Freehold tracks federal awards (via USASpending.gov), state projects (via RCORecreation and Conservation Office · Washington State PRISMProject Information System · RCO grant management and ArcGIS), and organizational data (via ProPublica 990s, IRS BMFBusiness Master File · IRS exempt organization data, and the Federal Audit Clearinghouse).
What the data shows: every federal and state obligation in the public record, including award amounts, timelines, assistance listing numbers, and match commitments. What the data does not show: internal budgets, carryforward balances, indirect cost rates, or confidential funding sources.
Federal exposure findings in this report are filtered to sector-relevant obligations only — federal awards tied to environmental, conservation, and restoration assistance listings. Many entities in the benchmark (particularly tribes and counties) carry additional federal obligations for housing, health, transit, and other programs. Those are real portfolio obligations but are outside the scope of this restoration-focused analysis.
The Federal Funding Landscape (April 2026)
Federal restoration funding faces a structural transition in FY2027. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJAInfrastructure Investment and Jobs Act · 2021 (P.L. 117-58)) supplemental funding expires September 2026 across multiple programs with no reauthorization expected. Inflation Reduction Act (IRAInflation Reduction Act · 2022) conservation funds were partially rescinded and partially folded into the permanent Farm Bill baseline at lower levels.
Key programs:
- PCSRF (AL 11.438): Base $65M enacted for FY2026 (Congress restored after the administration proposed $0). IIJA supplement of $34.4M is in its final year. Total available drops from approximately $99M to $65M in FY2027, assuming Congress holds the base appropriation.
- NOAA Habitat Conservation (AL 11.463): IIJA-funded awards in final year.
- National Fish Passage (AL 15.685): IIJA provided $200M over five years for barrier removal (~$40M/year on top of ~$18M base). Final year FY2026. Without reauthorization, drops to base appropriation — approximately a 70% reduction.
- EPA Puget Sound (AL 66.121): IIJA NEPNational Estuary Program · EPA supplement ($26.4M/year) in final year — expires after FY2026. Congress rejected the administration’s proposed 47% cut and increased base Geographic Programs funding. The cliff here is the IIJA supplement expiration, not an appropriations cut.
- EQIP (AL 10.912): IRA funding folded into permanent Farm Bill baseline at lower levels (FY2026: $2.6B, down from $5.4B IRA projection). Now permanent — lower but stable.
- Washington State (CCAClimate Commitment Act · Washington State · 2021/SRFB): Climate Commitment Act intact ($2.9B raised through March 2025). SRFBSalmon Recovery Funding Board 2026 grant round proceeding. State funding is the most stable element in this picture.
- FY2026 operational context: A 43-day government shutdown (October 1 – November 12, 2025) delayed federal funding at the start of the fiscal year. Full-year appropriations for Interior/Environment were enacted January 23, 2026 (P.L. 119-74). Congress broadly rejected the administration’s proposed conservation cuts, but the structural transition from IIJA supplemental funding remains.
Sources: P.L. 119-74 (FY2026 enacted appropriations); IIJA P.L. 117-58; OBBBAOne Big Beautiful Bill Act · 2025 (P.L. 119-4) P.L. 119-4; PSPPuget Sound Partnership State of the Sound 2025 (p. 56); CRSCongressional Research Service reports IF13024, IF13140, R48726.
Note: The following program statuses have not been fully verified against enacted legislation and are marked accordingly in this report:
- Partners for Fish and Wildlife (AL 15.631): status uncertain
Portfolio-Level Exposure Findings
Federal Dependency
Of 50 organizations in the benchmark, 23 (46%) have at least one active sector-relevant federal obligation. The remaining 27 are funded entirely through state channels or carry federal obligations outside the restoration sector.
Among the 23 with federal restoration funding, 3 draw more than half of their active dollars from federal programs.
Program Concentration
The federal programs carrying the most aggregate dollars in the dataset:
- Habitat Conservation (AL 11.463): 7 entities (IIJA supplement ending)
- Puget Sound Protection and Restoration: Tribal Implementation (AL 66.121): 9 entities (IIJA supplement ending)
- Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery (PCSRFPacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund) (AL 11.438): 2 entities (IIJA supplement ending)
- Marine Sanctuary Program (AL 11.429): 2 entities
- Performance Partnership Grants (AL 66.605): 7 entities
- Conservation and Rehabilitation of Natural Resources on Military Installations (AL 12.005): 2 entities
- Congressionally Mandated Projects (AL 66.202): 2 entities
IIJA-Specific Exposure
12 entities (24%) have active obligations tied to IIJA-supplemented programs.
Note on PCSRF pass-through funding: PCSRF is the primary federal salmon recovery program, but most of its funding flows through the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) as state-administered grants rather than appearing as direct federal awards. RCO PRISM data shows 37 salmon-federal obligations across 16 entities administered through state channels. The direct federal exposure figures in this section reflect only what appears in USASpending.gov — actual PCSRF dependency across the sector is substantially higher.
Single-Program Dependency
When an entity draws most of its federal restoration dollars from one program, a change to that program has outsized impact on the portfolio.
Of the 23 entities with federal restoration obligations, 22 draw more than half of their federal dollars from a single assistance listing. 14 draw more than 75% from one program.
Cliff Window (Obligations Ending FY2026–FY2028)
22 entities have federal obligations with end dates falling in the FY2026–FY2028 window.
Match Cascade Risk
Match commitments are promises to provide non-federal dollars alongside a federal award. When an entity carries high match burden across multiple grants and also depends heavily on one federal program, a reduction in that program does not release the match commitments on the remaining grants. The structural pressure compounds.
19 entities in the benchmark carry match burden above 30% of total award value. When combined with high federal program concentration, 2 entities show elevated structural exposure.
By Entity Type
Federal exposure varies sharply by organization type. Tribes carry the most direct federal restoration funding but relatively low match burden — their structural exposure is broad but shallow. Enhancement groups show the opposite pattern: few have direct federal restoration obligations, but those that do combine them with high match burden, creating the benchmark’s only elevated cascade risk. Land trusts and districts are funded almost entirely through state channels for restoration work.
| Type | n | Median Federal % | Any Exposure | Median Match % | High Cascade Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tribes | 13 | 7% | 8/13 | 5% | 0 |
| Land trusts | 12 | 0% | 0/12 | 47% | 0 |
| Other nonprofits | 10 | 21% | 2/10 | 10% | 0 |
| Enhancement groups | 8 | 0% | 3/8 | 43% | 2 |
| Districts & counties | 7 | 0% | 0/7 | 43% | 0 |
What This Means
The funding cliff does not reduce portfolio complexity. It increases it. The same reporting requirements attach to smaller awards. Match commitments designed for full funding levels do not shrink when the federal source does. Obligations from different programs converge on the same staff in the same quarter regardless of whether the dollar amounts behind them have changed.
Entities most structurally exposed are those with the highest concentration of active dollars in IIJA-supplemented programs — particularly those that also carry high match burden. For these entities, a reduction in one federal source cascades into structural pressure on the rest of the portfolio.
State funding through the Climate Commitment Act and SRFB remains the most stable element in this picture. It cannot absorb the full federal gap, but it provides a floor that federal-dependent entities will increasingly rely on.
Limitations
- This is a purposive benchmark of 50 organizations, not a census of all restoration organizations in Washington State.
- Active obligations only — obligations that ended before our snapshot are excluded.
- Match data is at the entity level, not per-program. The data cannot disaggregate which program’s match commitments face the most exposure.
- Federal funding status changes rapidly. This is a snapshot as of 2026-04-08.
- The analysis uses public records only. Internal budgets, carryforward balances, and indirect cost rates are invisible to this analysis.
- CFDA coverage: approximately 95% of USASpending obligations in the dataset have assistance listing numbers. Some gaps exist.
- Dollar amounts reflect award values in the public record, not necessarily current expenditure rates or remaining balances.
Freehold Advisory — freeholdadvisoryllc.com/research — 2026-04-08
This report describes structural patterns in publicly available data. It is diagnostic, not evaluative. Portfolio complexity and funding exposure are not measures of organizational quality.