United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
           Office of Water
           (WH-546)
EPA 43O/O9-9O-OO6
August 1990
vxEPA
Funding Of Expanded Uses
Activities By State
Revolving Fund Programs
Examples And Program
Recommendations
  >•*'»< l- '^^i^'X^
  V*A j \, , \.' .T» T U" ^. ,-•


-------
FUNDING OF EXPANDED USES ACTIVITIES BY
    STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAMS:

    Examples and Program Recommendations
                  August, 1990
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Office of Water
         Office of Municipal Pollution Control
                 Washington, DC

-------

-------
                           ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
      This document was prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC) under contract #68-C8-0040.  The
project manager for OMPC was Don Niehus. OMPC acknowledges the input and
support of the following offices in the preparation of this report:  Office of Ground
Water Protection, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office of Wetlands
Protection,  Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water Enforceme'nt
and Permits, and Office of Drinking Water.    ,
Michael J. Quigley, Director
Office of Municipal Pollution Control
                                        i

-------

-------
                              CONTENTS



I    INTRODUCTION                                       1
                    V   .       .'   •               .        I-,.-
   ,  Structure of the Booklet                                     3


II.   THE SRF PROGRAM                                   4

     Eligible Activities for SRF Funding                             5
     Types of Available Assistance                                 7 "
     How Does an,SRF Program Work?                    '    ,    7
     Legislative Status of State Programs                     .9


III.  COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SRF
     PROGRAM AND EXPANDED USES          ,         11


IV.  EXAMPLES  OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS               19
       _ . •       :         - •          •             '         \
     Storm Water Management  '.,.                               19

           Storm Water Utility                               ,21
           Other Storm Water Management Programs                22
           Urban Pond Restoration                .               23

     Agricultural Activities                                     - 24

       -    No-Till Drilling                            •          24
           Pesticide Application        .                         '25
           Animal Waste Management       ,          '.'..'   26'

     Ground Water Protection Activities                           27
           Septic System Program             .                  27
           Underground Storage Tank Program        .             28


V.   SUMMARY  AND CONCLUSIONS                     30
                                   .11

-------

-------
FIGURES
      1     Cash Flow Through SRF to Expanded Uses                 6

      2     Legislative Status of Eligibility of                           10
            Expanded Uses for SRF Funding

      3     Various Funding Mechanisms Available to     .             13
            Repay SRF Loans

      4     Steps for Obtaining SRF Funding of          ;             15
            Expanded Uses Activities       ••'.--

      5    - Examples of Potential SRF Funding of                     20
            Expanded Uses                         -

      6     Proposed Wyoming State Revolving Loan Fund              29
            Underground Storage Tank Program
APPENDICES
      A.    Guidances Relating to Funding of                         31
            Expanded Uses Under the Clean Water Act
      . -  .     -                   " .         v ~  '
      B.    Summary of Funding Opportunities for                     32
            Expanded Uses Under the Clean Water Act

      ,C.    State and Regional Coordinators     ~                     35

            I     State SRF Contacts     .                           35
            II    NPS State Coordinators    ,                        38.
            Ill   Ground Water State Coordinators    ,               41
            IV   EPA Regional SRF Coordinators                    44
            V    EPA Regional NPS Coordinators                    45
            VI   EPA Regional Ground-Water Coordinators           46
            VII   EPA Regional Wetlands Coordinators                47
            VIII  EPA Regional and State National                   48
                  Estuary Program Contacts
                                      111


-------
I.     INTRODUCTION
      The nation's rivers, lakes, estuaries, and ground water resources are facing
increased pressure from nonpoint pollution sources, ^including but not limited to impacts
from agricultural activity, urban runoff, and silviculture. According to the National
Conference of State Legislatures, nonpoint source (NFS) pollution is a principal cause
of water quality degradation in three-fourths of the nation's lakes,,two-thirds of the
rivers, and one-half of the coastal estuaries.

      Recognizing the need to direct more attention and resources to this "category" of
pollution .sources, Congress, in 1987, added a new section (Section 319) to the  Clean
Water Act (CWA) that addresses NFS pollution to ground water, surface water,
wetlands and estuarine water resources. In addition, the 1987 amendments added a
new section (Section 320) to the CWA establishing the National Estuary Program
(NEP) to address both point and nonpbint sources of pollution in the nation's major
estuaries.                   -              ..                                     ' ,

      While  there are currently a number of.Federal programs that provide funding for
NFS controls, the majority of nonpoint source control costs will be the responsibility of
the States, local governments, and private  individuals.  Appendix A contains a list  of
EPA Guidances relating to the funding of these activities.  For example, States can use
up to 20 percent of their allotment under  the existing Construction Grant Program for
NFS and ground water activities called for under Section 3i9, and a State also must set
aside one percent of its construction grant allotment or $100,000, whichever is greater,
for NFS planning activities.  Funds are also available as a reserve for marine combined
sewer overflows and  estuaries.

      Sections 319(h) and (i) authorize grants to  assist States in implementing NFS
management  plans and in carrying out ground water protection activities which advance
a State  toward implementation of a comprehensive NFS control program.  Section 320
authorizes grants to assist NEP management conferences in the development of estuary
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs). In addition to these
grants, Congress has  also made available, through Title VI of'the CWA, funding for
implementation of State water control activities through establishment of State'
Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs).                                    .

      The SRFs were designed  primarily  to allow; for the orderly phase-out of the
Construction  Grants  Program, through which Congress had been providing money to
the States for the construction of municipal wastewater facilities. Congress also
intended for SRFs to address broader water quality needs.  Accordingly, SRF money
can also be used, after specific conditions  have been met,'to support the         •
implementation Of NFS, ground water, wetlands; (to the extent that activities are part of
approved NFS Management Programs or are incorporated into National Estuary

-------
 Program plans) and estuarine water quality management activities. These additional
 activities are referred to as "expanded uses" of the SRF.

       Some aspects of storm water management are incorporated into NFS programs
 and, therefore, are eligible for SRF assistance as Section 319 activities. However, storm
 water may also contribute to point source discharges, particularly combined sewer
 overflows (CSOs).  Increased  attention is being given to the issuance of NPDES permits
 for "diffuse" point sources related to storm water and CSO problems.  The local cost to
 construct facilities to meet the permits conditions may be quite high. Many
 communities may look to SRFs for funding assistance.

       Although facilities to alleviate CSO problems are included in the definition of
 Section 212 facilities, funding under Title II was limited  by Section 201(g)(l). But
 States could use up to 20 percent of their Title II allotments for otherwise ineligible
 Section 212 facilities. Congress included this funding eligibility restriction in  Title VI of
 the CWA.  Therefore, States may use up to 20 percent  of the amount of the Federal
 capitalization grants to provide assistance for CSO abatement activities.  This provision
 does not limit use of State contributions or repayment amounts.          «

       Because CSO abatement projects meet the definitipn of Section 212, for the
 purposes of this booklet, they are not considered to be expanded uses.  However,
 because of the potential relationships among point and nonpoint discharges related to
 CSO abatement and storm water management, State SRF and water quality
 management managers should closely coordinate the development of abatement control
 and funding strategies.

      To date,  most States have generally  not taken advantage of their funding
 flexibility to provide SRF assistance for expanded uses activities.  However, in FY 1990
 an increasing number of States have included expanded  uses activities as part of their
 SRF programs.  The purpose of this booklet is to help encourage increased use of the
 SRF program for these NFS activities.  The guidebook is intended for use by SRF
 program managers, State managers for various NFS activities (including ground water,
wetlands, and  estuary management),  estuary managers, local communities, and public
 interest groups that are interested in seeing these activities funded.

      SRF managers, on both the State and Regional level, need to be cognizant of
the potential for the SRF to help address expanded uses needs.  Local managers and
interested citizens need  to:  (1) become aware of how the SRF process works; (2) learn
 to identify the types of activities that might be appropriate for SRF funding;  and (3)
understand how to get these projects into the SRF system.

-------
Structure of the Booklet                                     °

      The next section of the guidebook will include a brief description of the SRF
program and its history, including a discussion of the types of assistance that can be
provided for expanded uses activities and a description of who would be eligible for
these funds.           :•'...                                      .

      Following this discussion, the booklet will raise and address a number of
commonly asked questions about the SRF program and its applicability to expanded
uses activities.  Among the issues to be discussed in this section are the availability of
other NFS funds, the'administrative steps-necessary to get a project on the SRF funding
list, the characteristics of those programs that are best suited to the SRF program, and
steps that can be taken to encourage SRF funding of expanded uses activities.
                                                                      /        .    '
      The last section of the guidebook includes a discussion of a number of programs
that could be eligible for participation in State SRF programs. First priority was given
to the identification of actual projects which might be representative of potential SRF
funded activities. To supplement real life-examples, prototype projects were developed
to illustrate SRF funding considerations.  An effort was made to demonstrate a variety
of expanded-uses activities and funding approaches.

      The Office of Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC) coordinated with Office of
Ground Water Protection (OGWP), Office of Water  Regulation  and Standards
(OWRS), Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection  (OMEP), and the Office  of
Wetlands Protection  (OWP) to identify potential example projects.  OMPC staff have
also contacted Regional SRF and NPS coordinators and many State NFS coordinators.

      It is important to emphasize'that these projects (and in some cases proposed
projects) have been chosen for inclusion in this document not because they are making
use of SRF funds now, but because they and other similar programs could, under the
right circumstances, do so. The primary purpose for inclusion of. this section is to
encourage State and local officials to think about possibilities for using the SRF
program to fund expanded uses activities.

-------
II.   THE SRF PROGRAM
      Since 1972, Federal funding for State water quality activities has been provided
under Title II (referred to as the Construction Grants Program) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA).  In 1987, Congress established the State Revolving Fund  (SRF) Program
(Title VI of the CWA). In lieu of grants for specific wastewater construction projects,
the Federal  government contribution to the SRF program is in the form of a
capitalization grant which  is combined with the required State match of 20%, when
States establish their SRFs.  As shown in Figure 1, the State then makes this money
available through loans or other forms of assistance to local agencies for use in
particular projects.  The loans must be repaid to the Fund.  The money can then be
reused by the SRF to provide further assistance.

      Title  VI requires recipients to identify a dedicated repayment source. This
requirement poses a potential problem for use of the SRF monies for expanded uses
activities.  In many cases,  potential revenue sources may not be clearly identifiable for
NPS and related activities. However, 'as will be discussed later, this does not pose an
insurmountable burden. In several instances, specific dedicated revenues can be derived
directly from an activity associated with the pollution source.
               , !!	    "    , ,   '  : i .     '   •  . •' '   ,'••,•'  ..'•<'.   '.    .      •  •• ,
      For example, land  owners who benefit from erosion  and flood control programs
could be billed for development of a storm water management system. A State could
levy a tax on the sales or  use of fertilizers and pesticides; the tax revenues generated
could support the administration of a program to control surface and ground-water
pollution attributable to the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Similarly, farmers could
pay rent for use of equipment designed to reduce erosion.  These monies could be used
to repay a portion or all of the loan  used to purchase the equipment or establish the
storm water management  system.          .

      Monies used to repay SRF loans do not have to be generated directly from
activities supported by the SRF. For example, money raised by a general purpose fee
or tax could be used to repay loans to-the Fund.  In this way, municipalities that might
have difficulty raising funds from the pollution control activity could receive money from
the SRF and then repay it from unrelated sources.
                                         4

-------
Eligible Activities for SRF Funding
       SRF assistance (loans, loan guarantees, bond insurance, or refinancing of existing
debt) can be used for construction of wastewater treatment plants, implementation of
approved State NFS Management Programs and ground water strategies under Section
319 of the Clean Water Act and development and implementation of estuary
conservation  and management plans under Section  320. This booklet focuses on NFS
and estuarine activities.

       Section 319 calls for the development of State  NFS  assessments and management
programs.  The management programs list specific activities for controlling nonpoint
sources of pollution and identify responsible implementing  agencies and
potential/available funding sources. SRF monies may be used to implement Section 319
activities that are identified in approved State NFS  management programs. \
Implementation may include activities such as installation of best management practices,
education, demonstration programs, technical assistance, training, regulatory
development, and enforcement. Education is one .of the most important functions of
NFS programs because the general public has little understanding of the relationship
between individual activities and water pollution. Such education efforts are essential to
pollution prevention efforts.

       In implementing NFS management programs, each State should continue to
refine the estimated costs of implementing activities and identify likely funding sources,
including potential money from the State SRF.  States may choose to partially fund an
activity through a loan from the SRF and also use monies available from a Section 319
Federal grant or other source.

       Section 320 provides for the establishment of management conferences to deal
with the complex issues associated with estuary management.  SRF 'funds may be used -
for development of Comprehensive Conservation and  Management Plans (CCMP) and
implementation of estuary management activities identified  in the CCMPs.  In' addition
to these plans, activities that assist in preventing pollution of estuaries may be funded
as Section 319 activitie's if included in the approved State NFS management programs.
State wetlands managers should be given an opportunity to review proposed SKF
funding of Section 319 and 320 activities because wetlands  also require protection from
NFS pollution.  Many CCMPs developed under Section 320 will include wetland
protection, restoration, and management activities;

-------
           fi
           03
       &"<«
t, I'.
U, 'I	1
 P
 O
          fe
s f.	
 8
U
                                          1 I
                                          cs eg

                                       l»*
                                         S
                               s  .1
                                  •a
                                  a
                                  03

                               «  a
                               >-• /—v ft!
a!
                                       S t. •= O 5 H

                                       =ill|f
      &


     55
                a>
                fa

-------
 Types of Available Assistance
       States can provide funds to local communities or other entities as loans, loan
 guarantees, bond insurance, or through re-financing of existing debt. As a practical
 matter, it seems likely that support for expanded uses activities will take the form of
 loans to towns, counties, conservation districts, and other public agencies. If provided
 for in the approved State NFS Management Program, funding for certain activities may
 be available to private parties (e.g., farmers).  States can make the loans attractive by
 offering them at below market interest rates and for up to twenty years.
 How Does ah SRF Program Work?
       This discussion is .not intended to substitute for more detailed guidance on the
 operation of an SRF.  Moreover, it will not address questions concerning the
 establishment of an SRF and all the work needed legislatively and administratively to
 put a program into place.  Rather, this guidebook presumes that a State has an SRF
 program in place.  For more detail on establishing an SRF, refer to the "Initial
 Guidance for State Revolving Funds," published by the U.S. EPA Office of Municipal
 Pollution Control in January  1988 and the Interim Final Regulations issued in March,
 1990.                                                             .-•   '
       Intended Use Plan
       Federal capitalization grants are authorized through
 FY 1994.  In order to receive a Federal capitalization grant, States must develop an
 annual Intended Use Plan (IUP).  The IUP lists the projects and activities to which the
 State expects to provide assistance and a description of the type of assistance that will
 be provided.  To be eligible for funding from the SRF, expanded uses activities must be
 included in the IUP.                                                  -       ^

       While  the specifics of the process differ among the States, each State prepares a
 draft IUP and then provides an opportunity for public review and comment prior to
 finalization of the IUP.  For those interested in seeing that a particular  activity receive
s money from the SRF, an essential early step is the inclusion of the activity in the IUP
 that is submitted to EPA.

-------
      First Use Requirement
      As noted afeove, Congress developed the SRF program to replace the existing
Construction Grants Program.  The construction grants program placed emphasis on the
funding of projects necessary to meet the "enforceable requirements" of the CWA.   As
part of this effort, EPA issued a National Municipal Policy (NMP) which in part
resulted in the preparation by the States of a list of projects most important to meeting
water quality objectives. To continue this initiative, Congress included the "first use
provision" in Title VI.

      Before money from an SRF can be used for expanded uses (Sections 319 and
320) activities or other projects allowed under Section 201(g)(l) (including combined
sewer overflow abatement measures), the State must indicate that it has met the "first
use" requirement.  The State must certify that publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) that have been identified as part of the NMP universe either: a) are in
compliance, or b) are on an enforceable schedule, or c) have an enforcement action
filed, or d) have a funding commitment during or prior to the first year covered by the
IUP.

      Even before the first  use requirement is met, States may use their own monies in
excess of the 20% State match  and any other SRF funds that don't come from the
capitalization grant or repayments of the first round of loans awarded under the grant.
For the majority of States, the first use requirement has been met or will be met in the
first or second year of SRF  operations.  Therefore this requirement does not pose a
serious impediment to the use of the SRF for expanded uses activities.
       Equivalency Requirements
       In Title VI, Congress carried over sixteen provisions previously associated with
the Construction Grants Program to the SRF Program. These requirements apply to
some projects that are funded from the SRF in an amount equal to the Federal
capitalization grant.  These requirements do not apply to expanded uses activities
(Sections 319 and 320), unless they also meet the definition of a treatment work under
Section 212 and if the State wishes to count the activities toward meeting its
equivalency commitment.  The State must assure that the equivalency requirements are
met to the extent that Section 212 projects receive funding assistance from the SRF.
Anyone interested in funding an activity should check with the State SRF coordinator to
determine if the specific activity needs to meet the 16 equivalency requirements.
                                         8

-------
Legislative Status of State Programs
       State laws that establish the Revolving Funds may outline permitted activities of
the fund, including describing types of projects and activities to which funding may be
provided.  Some statutes include very specific language pertaining to permitted uses
whereas other State legislation provides a more general description of fund purposes.
In the case of expanded uses activities, State legislation may: (1) specifically authorize
funding (e.g.,  cite Sections 319, and 320 of the CWA or list NFS and ground water
activities as eligible), (2) generally authorize "water quality management activities" (or
similar references), or (3) exclude funding by limiting furiding to wastewater projects.
In most instances (31 of 38 cases), State enabling legislation, contains language which
either specifically authorizes or appears to authorize the assistance of expanded usds
activities.  In five States, such authorization is specifically withheld while in three others
it has probably been withheld.  For eleven other programs the legislative status was -
undetermined as of January 1990. Until there is a change in the law for these States,
they will not be able to fund expanded uses activities with the SRF.  (See Figure 2)

-------
o

S
Q
Z

e
 CO

 g
 (/I

 P


 Q
 jz;
 a
 o
I
 O

-------
 III.   COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SRF PROGRAM
       AND EXPANDED USES
 1)     Isn't the SRF just a substitute program for the Construction Grants program
       and as such, shouldn't it be used just for establishment of wastewater treatment
       facilities?                                                              ;

       'While the SRFs are designed to meet community needs for wastewater treatment
 facilities, they are more than that.  In establishing the SRFs, Congress intended both to
 allow the continued development of wastewater treatment facilities and also to provide
, States with  an ongoing resource base to fund point and nonpOint source management
 projects and activities into the future. In developing their Intended Use Plans, many
 States have demonstrated a short-term bias for point source projects.  However, as the
 first use requirement is met and other water needs become better  understood, States
 will be more likely to support SRF projects and activities that address'NFS, ground
 water, wetlands and estuarine concerns.  Some States have, already begun to make
 major commitments toward such use of their SRFs.

       Some funds are available under Title II (the Construction Grants Program) for
 NPS management activities. Section 201(g)(l)(B) authorizes States to use the
 Governor's  20 percent discretionary fund for Sections 319 and 320 purposes.  Through
 the end of  1989,  four States had used this authority and received grants under
 201(g)(l)(B):  Delaware, South Dakota, Colorado, and  California.  Grants also have
 been awarded, primarily for NFS program development and demonstration watershed
 projects, under Section 205(j)(5), which permits a State to use  1 percent of its Title II
 allotment (up to  $100,000) on NPS activities.                         •
 2)    Aren't there other existing Federal programs to support NPS or Section 320
       programs? Shouldn't they be used in lieu of SRF monies?

       Other CWA financing programs could potentially provide money for State
 expanded uses activities. A summary of these  programs, including those from Title II
 referred to in question (1) above, that provide funding opportunities for expanded uses
 activities is included in Appendix B.  Appendices A and B come from "Funding of
 Nonpoint Source, Ground Water, Estuary, and Wetlands Activities Under Titles II, III
 and VI of the Clean Water Act," prepared by OMPC.  Funds are also available from
 other Federal programs, such as those administered by the U.S. Department  of
 Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
 Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey.  The availability of these alternate
 sources does not, however, restrict the relevance of using SRF, funds for these purposes.


 -.,'.'         '."'..        -   .11  '         '•         -".

-------
Congress clearly decided, in developing the SRF program, that States should have the
prerogative to use the revolving loan fund for expanded uses.  In addition, while funds
were authorized in the 1987 Water Quality Act to provide grants for Section 319
activities. Congress did not appropriate money for Section 319 until FY 1990.  In
addition, Section 320 grants are restricted to development of CCMPs and cannot be
used to fund plan  implementation.
3)     In order to qualify for receipt of a SRF loan, a municipality or other local
       source must identify a dedicated repayment source;  How can a municipality
       make this guarantee when so much of this activity is taking place on private
       land? Moreover, these expanded uses programs often do not have identifiable
       "users" or "benefactors" from whom the loan repayment can be generated.  How
       do you charge people for an improved wetland or reduced run-off from
       agricultural land?
  ' '     •         i,              .         •  "            • .             •         •
       The ability to identify dedicated revenue streams continues to concern those
interested in fostering SRF funding of expanded uses activities.  While an activity (such
as instituting a best management practice on a farm or installing a storm water
management system) may take place largely on private land,  a local municipality or
other governmental entity can act as the organization to  receive the SRF loan and
guarantee its payback. The responsibility for repayment may also  rest directly with
individuals receiving SRF assistance.  The dedicated repayment source may include an
existing unencumbered revenue source (e.g.> farm earnings) or collateral (e.g.,
mortgages, liens). In certain instances, local cooperatives, farming or  drainage districts
can be established for this purpose. Moreover, revenue  sources can often be identified
to help repay Joans for the expanded uses activities. While it is generally thought that
the revenues needed to repay a loan would be generated by the users (such as those
who send water through treatment facilities), it is very important to note that the
dedicated revenue source need not be generated by the activity to which the  loan, or
other assistance,  is provided.

       In some instances an affected, party can be readily identified and  a fee for the
specific benefits accrued from the use of the loan can be received.  For example,
developers and land owners may be assessed a fee for the infrastructure costs and
maintenance costs associated with the establishment of a storm water management
system.  Homeowners who borrow money to fix aging septic tanks can pay back the
loan and farmers can pay a rental for use of specially, purchased no-till drilling
equipment.
                                         12

-------
                                   Figure  3

VARIOUS FUNDING MECHANISMS AVAILABLE TO REPAY SRF LOANS
          1
         • tfJMnmttmt ••*•

      ..•tilr.     .liter.
    .lAfe.  .fUtf. .iVtfr.  .liUr.
                       Payments  from identifiable  users  for:

                                 equipment or computer  rental
                                 use  of  storm water, or agriculture
                                 run-off  system
                                 repayments or  loans to the remedial
                                 actions  on septic tanks or underground
                               •  storage tanks.
                      Special fees and taxes on gasoline, fuel, land,  mineral
                      extraction, cigarettes, pollutants,  (e.g.,  sale  or
                      application  of fertilizers and pesticides),etc.
Fees  on land  purchases,  permit applications,
registrations, or facilities  such  as underground
storage tanks.   -
                       General tax revenue.   A municipality might
                       dedicate a  portion of tax receipts to pay the
                       loan.
                       Fines and  Penalties,
                                      13

-------
       In other circumstances, the loans can be repaid from other revenues. For
example, in Maryland, a local community is using the SRF to generate the matching
portion of a grant designed to clean up a lake suffering from eutrophication caused
largely by agricultural activities and urban runoff.  The community is pledging to repay
the loan from general revenues.  In other instances a State or municipality could raise
rnjaney to pay back the SRF through a special fee or tax.

       For example, the State of Wyoming intends to fund portions of its underground
storage tank (UST) program with money from the SRF.  The  SRF will loan money to
one account which will be available to assist in remediation activities.  The loan will
then be repaid from a separate account that is established with a tank registration fee,
a contribution from the State's General Fund, and a tax on gasoline and special fuels.
The SRF then is being used to support UST activities. The repayment is only indirectly
related to the users. This represents just one example of how State and local
communities might take  advantage of the lower fate and readily available  SRF monies
to fund expanded uses activities, while collecting revenue from a variety of sources to
repay the loan.

       There is a great deal already written on the availability and relative utility of
various alternative financing tools that governmental entities can employ to help raise
revenues. The Office of Marine  and Estuarine Protection and the Office of Policy
Planning and Evaluation at EPA published, in September 1988, a document entitled
"Financing Marine and Estuarine Programs: A Guide to Resources," that  includes a
financial primer outlining many of thtese tools, including income taxes, property taxes,
uSer fees, commodity taxes, debt  acquisition, and others.  Figure 3 illustrates some of
the ways that local municipalities or other governmental units could raise monies to pay
back a SRF loan.                                                  •
4)    How can an expanded uses activity get funded through a State SRF?

      For purposes  of this discussion, we will presume that the State has an SRF
program in place and that the enabling legislation establishing the State program either
generally or specifically authorizes the use of SRF funds for expanded uses activities.
At the present time, 31 States and territories have either general or specific authority to
use SRF monies for  Section 319/320 program activities (see Figure 2).  Clearly, where
this situation does not exist, those interested in  funding NPS and related activities
should work to get an SRF program established and, where necessary, work with the
State legislatures  to amend the law  to allow the use of SRF monies for  expanded uses
activities.
                                        14

-------

15

-------
         The "steps" needed to obtain SRF funding of expanded uses activities are shown
   in Figure 4. In order to be eligible for use of SRF funds, a NPS project must be
   included in the State's NPS management program, which identifies specific activities to
   be undertaken to address problems identified in the State NPS Assessment Report.
   SRF funds can be used for the implementation of the NPS Management Program,
   including activities such as education, training, demonstration programs, regulatory
   development and implementation, enforcement and similar activities.  As noted earlier,
   States identify likely funding sources for the proposed activities within their plans,
   including those that might receive assistance from the SRF.  Naturally, for activities to
   be fully or partially funded from the SRF,  localities would also have to identify
   potential sources of revenue for repayment of the  loan or related assistance.

         In addition to NPS and ground water activities identified in a State's NPS
   Management Program, the SRF can also be used for wetland and estuarine protection.
   First, many of the actions described in the NPS Management Program may impact
   estuaries and wetlands. In Delaware, for example, a proposed agricultural run-off
   containment system will have clear positive impacts on the estuaries into which the run-
   off from these areas  currently flows.  Construction of POTWs can also directly effect
,''     ,ii!!'" •, i Hi !•    .'   , '"•   ."'"I1! ..',,-',..        ,         '    , ,      ;„,    -         •*
   estuarine management, but these activities  are not the focus of this guidebook.
/    "" •• •••          ,Tir1  i''' '           • ,,        ',.':". ^  " '        '     '       • • '    ,
         Second, the SRF can be used to fund development and implementation of
   actions that are part of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)
   for an estuary with a management  conference convened under the NEP (Section 320).

         At the present time there are 17 nationally  designated estuaries in the NEP.
   Once designated, an  estuary is eligible for SRF funds for a number of CCMP activities,
   providing of course, that the money is repaid. Among the activities that could be
   undertaken to  protect an  National  Estuary Program  (NEP) estuary are land acquisition,
   habitat enhancement, sediment detoxification, monitoring and enforcement, education,
   training, and technical assistance.
              	  H i •   '     • ,.           , .,   i., '   •',•'.   ".",•''       ''. '   i
, "     ,„             ', , 'I       '•„,''''',    ' '    '   ' ,i 'i'   ' ,   •;•,.,    '     , . •
         Once an activity has been identified as a candidate for funding from the SRF, it
   has to be listed on  the Intended Use Plan  (IUP).  Each State must complete an IUP
   including a list of eligible  projects and activities,  the  type of assistance that  is proposed
   for the various projects, and other information assuring compliance of the SRF with,
   other laws and the  stated goals of the  program.  Assuming that the State successfully
   negotiates its grant agreement with the Regional EPA office, and that the State has met
   its first use requirement, it may then make loan  commitments for the  projects identified
   in the IUP.
                                           16

-------
5)    What are the characteristics of expanded uses activities that are best suited for
      the SRF?

      Expanded uses activities which may most appropriately receive SRF assistance
will often require some form of capital outlay either for construction (as in the
development of a stprm water management or animal waste management system) or for'
purchase of equipment such as no-till farming equipment or computers to assist in a
program" to minimize pesticide and herbicide applications.  Additionally, appropriate
activities would ideally provide a revenue stream that could be used to repay the loan.

      However, some of the potentially most cost-effective NFS activities include
education, technical assistance, regulatory development, and certain demonstration
programs.  These types of activities do not usually generate revenue streams which
could be used to repay SRF loans. However, States and local communities may identify
general revenues or targeted fees and taxes to support these programs. Some  ,
communities have already implemented successful NFS programs using fees and taxes.
NFS managers and others interested in fostering expanded uses activity may need to be
creative in identifying activities that can effectively use SRF assistance.    •

      Local communities might also find it appropriate to use a low interest loan from
the State for a project if it has a cash flow problem.  For example, the community of
Salisbury, Maryland is using money from the SRF to pay its portion of a match
necessary to fund restoration efforts at Johnson Pond. The town has made a
commitment to repay the loan.  The SRF could be used to provide funds for waste
management projects where local communities cannot get the needed capital.easily, but
can repay the loan.  Again, the local community need not repay the loan  from revenues
generated by the activity funded through the SRF.  The search for potential revenue
sources should be seen as one element of constructing a workable project.
6)     Doesn't the appropriation of money for the Section 319 grants make the use of
       SRF monies for the NFS activities irrelevant?

       No. The $40 million FY 1990 appropriation  is a positive development for those
dealing with NFS problems, but it does not reduce the need for continued funding
through the SRF or other means.  The Section 319  grants need to be matched on a
40% basis by the States. A zero percent interest loan can (depending on the prevailing
interest rate over a long period) equate to a grant, with a sizable match. No good
estimate is available for the total cost of implementing expanded uses activities.
However, the cost likely far exceeds available Federal grant funds.  Much remains to be
done with regard to preventing and controlling nonpoint source pollution.  Therefore,
SRFs may play an important role in providing financial assistance.
                                        17

-------
7)    What can be done to encourage SRFs to fund expanded uses activities?

      There must be greater communication among those individuals and communities
interested in addressing NFS and ground water problems and managing the nation's
estuaries and individuals involved in managing the SRFs. To help facilitate this
interaction, the State and Regional EPA coordinators for SRF, NFS, and ground water
are listed in Appendix C.  Historically, many SRF program managers have been
inyolved more directly in responding to point source pollution needs and dealing with
the Construction Grants program. These individuals should bring others into the SRF
process, especially to identify expanded uses activities that could be included on the
State's RTF.  The use of SRF monies for expanded  uses activities should not pose a
threat to the continued effort to address point source problems.  Similarly, those
interested in NFS and estuary activities should take  a more active role in learning how
the SRF operates so that they can identify appropriate activities, get them into the
lUPs, and then see that they receive support.
                                        18
  iili	riili ,iji:	i	'.i,', 'i ,,i,,,ii.V, . HUB

-------
 IV.   EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL SRF FUNDING OF EXPANDED
       USES ACTIVITIES


       This section includes a number of examples of activities that could be funded, in
 part or whole, by an SRF program.  .The key points of the programs are noted on
 Figure 5.  The list was  prepared based on contacts with NFS coordinators in the EPA
 Regional Offices and States.  While  there was generally a high level of interest in
 learning of such programs, few States had actual examples to offer.  This .reflects in
 part the newness  of the program.  While few projects are currently receiving SRF
 monies, the potential exists for SRFs to make significant contributions to the nation's
 efforts to manage nonpoirit sources of water pollution.    .

       The following is not an exhaustive list of the potential expanded uses applications
 of SRF monies.  Rather, it represents current activities that  could be assisted by the
 SRF. NFS managers, local groups, and others interested in  addressing NFS problems,
 hopefully, will use this  listing to help spur their own creative efforts.  Because several
 activities serve similar functions, they have been organized according to the type of
 water management problem they address.
  STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
        Storm water management systems are the most likely expanded use activities to
  receive SRF funds. Runoff from storm water has  resulted in many problems including
  increased erosion of valuable soil, increased siltation, flooding, and pollution (from city
  streets or agricultural fields) into streams or estuaries.  Development of a
  comprehensive storm  water management system may include both structural and
  nonstructural control  measures.  Generally, a storm water system project has an easily
  identifiable group  of beneficiaries, namely those homeowners, farmers, or developers
  whose land is serviced by the system, who can contribute fees to pay back a loan used
  to develop the infrastructure.

        Note that not  all aspects of storm water management are NFS related.  Certain
  storm water discharges are permitted under Section 402 of the CWA and, therefore,
  treated as point sources. Construction of facilities for treating such discharges meet the
  definition of Section 212 treatment works. Such projects may receive SRF assistance
.  subject to Section 201(g)(l) restrictions on the use of the Federal capitalization grant
  amount.  Other storm water management activities may be included as part of the
  approved State NFS Management Program.
                                         19

-------
                                 Figures
         Examples of Potential SRF Funding of Expanded Uses
       (Program
 Stormwater Management

      Bellevue, WA
  Florida and Delaware
     Infrastructure,
    development and
 maintenance; Education
Fees from developers and
      land  owners
     No-till  Drilling
   Pasture Renovation

  	Georgia	
  Purchase equipment
 From farmers  who lease
  purchased equipment
  Pesticide Application
 Demonstration  Project
     Bootheel RC&D

    Dexter, Missouri
   Develop chemical
application scheme based
    on  differing  soil
       conditions
 From farmers who would
    benefit from  the
      information
Septic  System Treatment
     %
  Jefferson County, WA
 Loans to landowners to
 upgrade septic systems
    From  landowners
  Leaking Underground
     Storage Tanks

  	Wyoming	
Response to leaking tanks
Tax on gas and diesel fuel
Johnson Pond  Restoration

   Salisbury. Maryland
  Provide  county Match
 for Restoration Program
  Guaranteed by general
      fund of county
                                           20

-------
Storm Water Utility; Bellevue. Washington


      The City of Bellevue (approximately 85,000 population) established a storm
water management utility to direct activities designed to address problems posed by
increasing urbanization and resultant storm water runoff.  The utility is charged with the
task of managing the drainage System to prevent property, damage, maintain the
hydrologic balance, and protect water quality. To  address the problem, the utility
developed a drainage system consisting of a network of pipes, stream channels,  and
storage facilities including lakes, wetlands, ponds, and detention basins.

      The utility is a separate governmental entity raising funds primarily through the
imposition of a user fee  on landowners.  A sliding fee  schedule was established based
on the intensity of land use of the different areas.   Five rate classifications were   ;  . •
established, ranging from underdeveloped (not covered with impervious surfaces or
without other structures  impeding normal hydrology) to developed land (properties with
greater than 70% runoff).  This system placed the largest burden, appropriately, on
those making .the largest contribution to the pollution problem.  The fee or charge is
similar to those made by sewer utilities and thus easily fits into the SRF process.  The
utility also raises funds through permit fees  and additional charges to new developers
who benefit from the existence of the  already-built management system.

      Applicability to the  SRF:  In Bellevue, the money for capital construction
projects was financed through revenue bonds backed by receipts from the charges. In
other areas, capital funds could come, in part or whole, from the SRF (except for
construction of facilities  related  to compliance with Section 402 permits). The utility
charges could be used to repay  the loan. In its early years, the utility placed great
emphasis on education, citing the need to .inform citizens of the many water quality
benefits that could accrue  from  a system that many saw as a tax  on rain. This  is
consistent with sentiments  raised by several NFS managers concerning the  need for
education to bolster public support for these programs.  It may be appropriate to use
portions of an SRF loan to establish the utility and its regulatory programs and to
produce or purchase educational materials and then repay the fund with user charges.

             Contact:  Damon Diessner
                       City of Bellevue
                       Storm and  Surface Water  Utility
                       P.O. Box 90012              .
          '    '         Bellevue, WA 98009-9012      ,
                        (206) 451-4476             .                   ;
                                         21.

-------
Other Storm Water Management Programs
•  ,>.  •••  •    •  " r  .    '  • •••,   :   '.  , ' ,• .,..••; •  .. • ':•••• •'•  •••.•.:.   -       A
           11         ;        "         •             ^       "   '    -        ;

      Storm water management programs are a part of many States' response to NFS
pollution problems.  Florida law, for example, has added storm water management
facilities to those that are eligible for SRF loans.  The State intends to use SRF funds
for these purposes after equivalency requirements have been met.  It  should be noted,
however, that the equivalency requirements do not necessarily limit the amount of funds
available for expanded uses activities. These requirements apply only to the extent that
the SRF funds Section 212 treatment work projects and if the State chooses to count
the activity toward meeting the requirements.

            Contact:  Eric Livingston             .           -   .
                      Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
                      2600 Blair Stone Road
                      Tallahassee, Florida  32399-2400
                      (904)  488-0782
                               i          "               ; •       '            •
      Delaware has been using money from Section 106 demonstration grants for its
NFS programs, but is looking forward to using about $1 million per year from its  SRF
for nonpoint sources. There are currently three  conservation  districts in Delaware that
can receive SRF loans and ensure their repayment. Included among the potential uses
for the SRF monies is the development of a State-wide storm water management •
program that would be  supported by permit fees and user charges.  Funding from the
SRF would allow the State, conservation districts, and local governments to provide
initial staffing to begin the program.

      In addition to storm water management, Delaware is also looking to the SRF for.
support for a number of NFS activities designed  to provide increased protection to
estuaries.  Included  among these are animal waste management and educational
activities.  For the educational program, the State-may wish to finance the program, or
a part of it, from the SRF, and then refund the program through general
appropriations.

            Contact:  Terry Deputy                          .
                      Department of Natural Resources
                      Division of Water Resources
                      89 Kings Highway
                      P.O. Box 1401
                      Dover, DE  19903 "
                      (302)  736-5409
                                       22

-------
Urban Pond Restoration

       The restoration, of Johnson Pond, a shallow, warm-water pond with a history of
eutrophication problems, was the first example of the proposed use of SRF monies to
address an "expanded uses" problem and represents an example of waterbody
management analogous to implementation of a Section 320 CCMP. The eutrophication
plaguing the pond results from high nutrient loadings, especially phosphorous.

       The State of Maryland estimates .that approximately 76% of the  total
phosphorous load in Johnson Pond is attributable to nonpoint sources such as
agriculture and urban runoff. Of the remaining load, about 12% comes from the
Delmar sewage treatment plant and approximately 12% is due tp phosphorous release
from the lake sediments.

       Proposed clean-up activities include the application of  an algicide as a short-
term solution and, for the long-term,  the construction of artificial marshes in the
upstream reaches of the pond to retain nutrients before they  enter the  pond.  Other
possible activities  include: improved storm water management, shoreline erosion control,
and dredging of lake sediments. In addition, efforts may be made to enhance the
recreational fishing of the pond.

       The total project cost for the planned restoration comes  to $520,000.  Of this,
$200,000 is available as a 50/50 grant from the State Small Creeks and  Estuaries
Restoration program, which has to be matche,d by the City of Salisbury. The State of
Maryland has agreed to loan the city  $150,000 from the SRF  to meet its match
requirement, the balance of the $50,000 to be met with  in-kind  services.  The city will
pledge to repay the loan, though the  exact mechanism for repayment is not yet set.  Of
the remaining $120,000, $90,000 may  be provided by a 75/25 grant from the Maryland
Sediment and Stormwater Administration, with the city providing a $30,000 match.

       The funding for this project provides another example .of how, with some   '
creative thought, SRF funds  can be used to help address nonpoint sources of pollution.
In this instance, some capital was needed by the local community to match a State
grant.  The necessary funds will be made available through the SRF. The city  can then,
through taxes or other revenue programs, raise the repayment funds over an extended
period of time.                                ,                         "         .

            Contact:  Diana Domotor   ;
                      Chesapeake Bay and Special Projects  Program
          -           Maryland Department of the Environment
       -              2500 Broening Highway
                      Baltimore, MD  21224
                      (301) 631-3681   ;

           •.'.'•    •'"      .           .23'   .'"•'.'•:''-':    •'

-------
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
      There are a wide range of programs and activities that address agricultural
sources of nonpoint pollution which could use SRF monies for implementation.  The
following examples illustrate activities that could be supported by SRF loans.
No-Till Prilling; Chestatee-Chattahoochee Resource Conservation" and Development
Council, Georgia
   ";     -  '  '" .   ,.fl •  •    ,''  -"  •'.'.'     <:•':•': ,  < .'''','.;' '..'>
       No-tillage drills can be used to seed the soil without plowing and the resultant
destruction of existing vegetation. In the absence of other protective measures,
conventional tilling may dramatically increase erosion and can present water quality
problems associated with siltation and the accumulation of pesticides or other harmful
chemicals.  Moreover, use of no-till equipment reduces use of fuel and fertilizer.

       While the benefits of no-till are many, initial adoption by small farmers may be
impeded by high equipment costs. In Georgia, the Chestatee-Chattahoochee Resource
Conservation and Development (RC&D) Council, representing 13'northeast Georgia
soil and water conservation districts, received a State grant of $161,000 in 1988 to
purchase seven tractors and eight no-till drills. The equipment was rented to
landowners for a fee of $12/acre, $7 dollars of which went to the operator and $5 of
which went back to the Council for maintenance of equipment.  The program was so
successful, being used on more than 5,000 acres on approximately 300 farms, that the
Georgia Office of Energy Resources issued a grant of $500,000 in 1989 to establish a
State-wide program.  In December, 1989, 15,000 acres were planted, saving 72,000 tons
of soil and 58,500 gallons of fuel.        .

       Applicability to the SRF:  While the Georgia program is driven in large part by
fuel savings, it is having very beneficial results in reducing erosion and pollution-of
waterways.  In this case, the capital needed to purchase equipment came from  a  series
of State grants. However, some or all of the money could have been provided from an
SRF.  Fees  paid to landowners could  be adjusted, then, to help repay the loan as well
as provide for maintenance of the vehicles.

             Contact:   Jerry Doling
                       RC&D Coordinator
                       Chestatee-Chattahoochee RC& D Council
                       126 Washington Street, S.E.
                       Gainesville, GA 30501
                       (404) 536-1221
                                        24

-------
Pesticide Application; Bootheel RC&D Council. Dexter. Missouri

       Pesticides and fertilizers are often applied across fields at uniform rates, despite
the wide variation of soil types and other conditions that can affect the amount needed
to maintain yields.  This results not only in the financial loss associated with the
purchase and application of unneeded chemicals, but also poses a significant risk to the
quality of local ground water and surface water resources.  In order to try to address
the problem of over application,  the Bootheel RC&D Council has put together a
project,  in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the University of
Missouri Extension Service, and the -Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
to develop a detailed series of maps of agricultural land.  The maps identify differences
in soil types and mixtures, organic matter, fertility, level, and water holding capacity.
Based on the maps, the project will make recommendations for varying application
levels.  In the future, it is hoped that these base maps will be used with computerized
spreading machines to allow more efficient chemical application.                ^

       While it is not possible to determine ~ precisely how much extra chemical
application now reaches ground and surface water supplies, the RC&D did some
-preliminary analysis to estimate the amount of excess application. Looking at four
crops (corn, cotton, bean, and sorghum) and making assumptions about the variability
of soils  in Missouri, the Council attempted to estimate the difference, on approximately
 1.6 million acres, between the uniform application of chemicals and fertilizers to the
amount used if application varied by soil.  The Council estimated that there would be
an over application of fertilizers  sufficient to treat an additional 37,000 acres of corn
 and 72,000 acres of beans.  Eliminating this usage would result in savings to farmers  of
 about $1 million per year, without even including the yield loss that currently results
from over application on some soils (and under application on others), which could
 amount to a monetary loss of over $8 million per year.

       Funding for the demonstration project will come from several sources.  Farmers
 have agreed to .donate $2 per acre ($21,000), two local co-ops have each donated
 $2,000,  the Agronomy Service Bureau (formed by local farmers) contributed $2,000, and
 local sponsors have secured the use of a computer and office space. -The local
 contribution comes to $54,000, providing the match for a $93,060 60/40 grant from the
 State of Missouri Division of Environmental Quality.  In addition, the SCS will'provide
 detailed soil maps of the 10,500  acres, valued  at $21,000:
                   V            ,        '        ' ' •        '              '   .     '   ,
       Applicability to the SRF:  Ironically, this specific activity is currently ineligible for
 use of SRF monies in Missouri because the State of Missouri does not authorize  SRF
 funds for nonpoint source activities.  That prohibition notwithstanding, the project does
 provide an excellent example of a creative way to address NFS problems and one
 which, in differing circumstances, could make use of the assistance available from a
 SRF to provide; at least a portion of the money needed for the project. The farmers

                  '"•.'-             25       : :   •   ' '          '    '.•'..

-------
who directly benefit from application of this analysis to their land, can pay fees
(perhaps greater than the current $2/acre) to help repay any loan that was forthcoming
from the SRF.  Money can be raised to repay a loan just as it was to meet the local
match requirements.

             Contact:  Mike Mick
                      Bootheel RC&D Coordinator
                      Bootheel RC&D Council
                      7 East Market
                      Dexter, Missouri  63841
                      (314) 624-7402
Animal Waste Management

      As with storm water management systems, most lists of eligible expanded uses
activities include those that address problems posed by animal waste on farms. These
activities often require some initial capital investment and have an identifiable
beneficiary who can be asked to bear at least a portion of the costs associated with the
system.  As noted earlier, the State of Delaware is considering funding such a program,
at least in part, from its SRF.

      The State of Utah has in place a revolving loan fund program, the Agricultural
Research Development Loan (ARDL), that provides low interest loans for soil and
water conservation practices, water quality practices, and emergency conservation
measures.  The loans  are passed through local  soil conservation districts which act to
distribute the money to individual farmers and  ranchers.  Among the types of activities
that have been funded through  these loans are animal waste control projects  and
irrigation water management.

      Applicability to the SRF: The development of management systems to address
problems posed by animal waste or irrigation runoff seem especially well suited to the
SRF.  Low interest loans can be passed through the State to local entities such as
Conservation or agricultural districts to individual landowners, who would then be
responsible for repayment.

             Contact:  James A. Paraskeva                .
                      Utah Department of Agriculture
                     " Salt Lake  City, Utah
                      (801)538-7172
                                        26

-------
 GROUND WATER PROTECTION ACTIVITIES
  - -   SRFs may fund a variety of ground water management activities.  In addition to
 the specific examples listed below, the SRF could also fund the identification,
 designation, and protection of wellhead protection areas (WHPA) or Special Area
 Protection programs. NFS managers  and those most interested in ground water ,
 protection should work with SRF officials to identify activities that require  some up-
 front capital.  Individuals and businesses  that live in or near the WHPA could provide
 some revenue to help repay the loan.                                  .,
 Septic System Assistance and Education Program; Jefferson County, Washington

       The repair and replacement of failing septic systems can help reduce pollution to
 ground water and surface water resources.  It is often, however, difficult to get
"homeowners to take necessary actions due to a number  of reasons, including financial
 limitations. As part of an overall project to address water quality problems in the
 Quilinen .Bay of Puget Sound, Jefferson County, Washington developed an innovative
 septic assistance program.                      '                 .       .

       The program consists  of public education (as always, ah important part of any
 NPS program), problem identification, technical assistance, and financial assistance.
 The education program helped property owners understand the design^ siting,-and
 maintenance of septic systems and also  addressed concerns they had about potentially
 burdensome repair requirements.  The County provided technical assistance
 emphasizing possible low cost methods of system improvement and, where necessary,
 providing designs for system  repair or replacement.

       The County provided  financial assistance to landowners in a number of ways.
 First, the technical assistance described  above was provided free of charge.  Moreover,
 the program provided loans,  which, when repaid, were placed into a revolving loan    ""
 fund.  The program; which provided deferred payment two percent loans that did not
 accrue interest for five years,, was very well received by residents.

       Applicability to SRF:  One of the major hurdles to gaining public participation in
 this septic improvement  program was the availability of funding for needed repairs.
 With clearly identified recipients and beneficiaries, low interest loans could be provided
 through an SRF and the local entity to  landowners, who would provide the needed
 revenue stream to repay the  loan. Although the immediate threat in this case was to
 surface water resources,  similar  efforts could be undertaken where ground water

-------
pollution from leaking septic tanks is a problem.  This type of capital intensive NFS
program is ideally suited to the SRF program.
•*
             Contact:  Mr. David Goldsmith
                      Director
                      Jefferson County Planning and Building Department
                      P.O. Box 1220
                      Port Townsend, WA 98368
                      (206)385-9140
Underground Storage Tank Program: Wyoming SRF

       The State of Wyoming has decided to use funds available through the SRF for a
program addressing the problems posed to ground water resources by leaking
underground storage tanks.  Use of the SRF for this purpose became possible when the
State and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed to allow discharges from •
leaking underground storage tanks to be considered as a nonpoint source of pollution.
As shown in Figure 6 (provided by the State of Wyoming), SRF monies would be
deposited in the UST Loan Account to be used for Corrective Action Account projects.
To be eligible for use of the fund, a tank owner or operator would have to pay a tank
fee, conduct a site assessment, and take corrective action if contamination  is found.

       The payback to the SRF would come from a one-cent tax now being assessed on
all gasoline  and diesel fuel sales and which is currently collected in the Corrective
Action Account. This represents an excellent example of the use of a dedicated tax to
repay the SRF loan.

       As of March, 1990, the legislation necessary to establish the SRF and to allow
for the flow of monies as outlined in Figure 6 has been introduced, but has yet to be
finalized by the Wyoming State legislature.  The State currently anticipates that up to
$47 million will be available in the UST loan account by October 1993.
                                    *.
             Contact: Mike Hackett
                      Wyoming Water Quality Division
                      Herschler Building
                      4th Floor West
                      Cheyenne, WY 82002
                      (307) 777-6351
                                        28

-------
                                                   Figure 6
                  PROPOSED WYOMING  STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND
                         UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM
     imnne t
     Taxation
    II Sties lax
    6*8 I Special
    hels tt
                     Eeveaae k
                     Tuition
                  Collects Oil k
                  Gu Ixtractian
                  Ixciae I«x
            SI1H  TU1SUBT
           Ixcise
            lax
   One Ceat
     Tax
                                       I
            < ------ j
Federal (IPi) SIT
CapiUlizttioa Grant
L _ _ i_ _ _J state iifhwf Fund
                                                (Loan iepuneat )
                                                (Froi Correctire)
                                                fiction Account U
                        State tfiter
                         Foliation
                          Coitrol
                       EeTolfiag Lou
                          Accoaat
                                                         Fan Lou
                                                          Board
                                                                           State*
                                                                         201 Hatch
                                                                                        r—{loaa lepaneat)
       II
       £1
       ii
       il




•MM*

$10 Billion/
General fond
12.5 Billion
tfatir
Derelopteat
Ippropriatioa






















%
%

1ST I/iia IppflRH


^Atf^Vfiftf
vxjBbrucfc
flfHIll
t * "
C <— S_
1

Zl
R
                                                                          Lous
                  Corrective Action
                      Aecout
                       (1425)
                                                                     Muicipal/ later k Seter/
                                                                     Iiproreieat/ Coucrratioi
                                                                     Districts Utter Polhtioa
                                                                        CoatwihoJMte
                                                                     (WTF - IPS -Stora later)
                 Fiaucial lespoasibilitf
                     ieeout  (1428)
                             Tank iefistratioa Fees
                                                  ii
                                                   j
                           Undermud Storage lank Prograi |||||
• State Match fro. the Comctire ictioa Account ud «0 Billion General Fnad $2.5 Million later Derelopaent Appropriation.

/ After the effectirc date of the bill this Fund is transferred to the Correctire Action Account.      ."  . '.
                                                       29

-------
V.    SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
      It is clear that nonpoint sources of pollution continue to pose a major threat to
the nation's estuaries, wetlands and other surface and ground water resources.
Responding to this threat will require that resource managers  at the local, State,, and
Federal level employ creative remedies and seek out financing from as many sources as
possible. There are  numerous State and Federal grant programs available.  Effective
NFS managers should also  take advantage of the loans or other similar assistance that
can be obtained from State Revolving Loan Funds.

      Use of this funding resource will require that NFS and other water quality
managers at the State and  local level become more familiar with the SRF program, the
people involved in its administration, and the steps needed  to get their activities
included in the IUP  and, therefore, make them eligible for  SRF support.  In addition,
SRF managers  at the State level will have to take a more active role in bringing the
NFS people into the SRF process.

      There are significant opportunities for the SRF program to assist efforts to
control  nonpoint sources of pollution.  Loans can be used for minimizing the impacts of
storm water or irrigation runoff, critical estuarine habitat identification, equipment
purchase, educational assistance, or a host of other activities.  In many cases, local
governments do not  have immediate access to needed funds for an activity, but  could
repay a low interest  SRF loan through tax revenues,  fees, or some other source. There
are several potential avenues by which funds can be  raised  to repay the loans.

      The monies available  through the SRF can be an important component of
States' efforts to address a range of water quality problems. Given the scope of the
problems facing water quality managers and the relative lack of funds with which to
address them, States and local communities should aggressively pursue the use of the
SRF to fund expanded uses activities.
                                         30

-------
                           APPENDIX A

    GUIDANCES RELATING TO FUNDING OF EXPANDED USES
                         As of August 1990

EPA Ground Water Protection Strategy. OW.1984.
Nonpoint Source Guidance. QWRS. Dec. 1987.
Guidance for Management of Section 205(j)(i) and Section 6Q4(b) Funds During
Fiscal Years 1988-1990. OWRS. Aug. 1987.            '
Initial Guidance for State Revolving Funds. QMPC, Jan. 1988.
The National Estuary Program and Interim Final Guidance on the Contents of a
Governor's Nomination. OMEP. April 1988.
Identifying and Prioritizing Enforcement Cases at Class V  Wells and Available
Enforcement Options. OPW. April 1988.
FY 1989 State Project Priority List Guidance. QMPC, April 1988.
Section 205(j)(5) funding for NFS Development and Implementation. OWRS,
June 1988.                                                             '
Guidance on Nonpoint Source Grants Management Issues. OWRS. July 1988.
Clean Water Act Funding Sources and Their Uses for the Implementation of
State Nonpoint Source Management.  OWRS, August 1988.
Discussion Paper on Alternative Financing Mechanisms  for State Water
Programs. OW. January 1989.
Use of 205(1X5^ Funds to  Implement NFS Management OWRS, February 1989.
Funding of Nonpoint Source. Ground Water, Estuary, and Wetlands Activities
Under Titles II. Ill, and VI of the Clean Water Act. OMPC, May 1989.
Guidance for State Ground Water Strategy Grant Work Program Under Section
106 of the Clean Water Act. QGWP. issued annually.
Funding Ground-Water Protection: A Quick Reference to Grants Available
Under the Clean Water Act. OGWP. June  1989.
Criteria for Shallow. Injection Well Demonstration Projects. ODW, June 1989.
Financing for Estuary Protection and  Restoration Under the Clean Water Act.
OMEP,  in preparation.
National Guidance:  Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Control Programs. OWRS
and OWP, June 1990               .                           ,  ' ,•  •   .
Planning Targets for FY 1990 Nonpoint Source Program Implementation Grants,
OW, December 1989
Award and Management of FY 1990  Section 319(fo Grants. OW, December
1989     •'••''.''   .  '•       -     '  .'        -       •              \
National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy, OWEP,
August 1989
                                31

-------
                                APPENDIX B

                SUMMARY OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
              EXPANDED USES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
TITLE II
2050X1)
2050X5)
205(1)
  Grants for development or implementation of NFS activities under
  Section 319(h) and ground water activities under Section 319(i).
  May use up to twenty percent of State Title II allotment for
- Section 320 purposes.  To the extent included in the approved
  State NFS Management Program or State Ground Water
  Protection Strategy incorporated into the  Management Program by
  reference, wetlands and estuary activities may also be funded.
  Activities must compete for funding with otherwise ineligible
  Section 212 wastewater facilities (e.g., collector sewers).
       /                      '          ' '  '
  Funds reserved for water quality management planning, including
  planning for State NFS management programs called for under
  Section 319(b)(l) and ground water planning activities under
  Section 319(i). (Up to one percent of each State's Title II
  allotment or $100K, whichever is greater.)

  Funds  are reserved  for the award of Section 319 grants to
  develop and implement NFS assessment reports and State NFS
  management programs .and to support ground water activities
  under Section 319(i).  (Up to one percent of each State's Title II
  allotment or $100K, whichever is greater.)

  A national reserve for marine combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
  and  estuaries.  One-third of the funds are available to implement
  Section 320, the National Estuary Program.  These funds may be
  used to convene management conferences, conduct assessments,
  develop management programs, or implement control measures.
  Two-thirds of the  funds are available to address water quality
  problems caused by CSOs  in  marine bays and estuaries.  (FYs 89
  and  90, 1/2 percent of national Title II appropriation)
                                       32

-------
TITLE III
319(h)             Grants to assist States in implementing State NFS Management
                   Programs.  If included in the Management Program or State
                   Ground Water Protection Strategy which is incorporated into the
                   Management Program by reference, ground water, estuary, and
                   wetlands activities may be funded under Section 319(h).  $40M
                   appropriated for FY 1990. Authorizations (for subsections
                   h and i):  FY 88, $70M; FYs 89 & 90, $100M; FY 91, $130M.)

.319(1)              Grants to assist States in carrying out  ground water quality
                   protection activities which advance the State toward implementation
                   of a comprehensive NPS pollution control program.  Activities may
                   include research, planning, ground water assessments,
                   demonstration programs, enforcement, technical assistance,
                   education and training to protect the quality of ground water and
                   to prevent contamination of ground water from NPS pollution.
                   (Authorizations (for h and i):  FY 88, $70M; FYs 89 & 90, $100M;
                   FY91, $130M.)

320                Grants to State, interstate and regional water pollution control
                   agencies, State coastal zone management agencies, interstate
                   agencies, or other  agencies and organizations to develop estuary
                   conservation and management plans.   Activities may include
                   research, surveys, studies, modelling, and other related technical
  ..         -      work.  (Authorization:  $12M annual FY 87 - 91)
TITLE VI
603(c)(2)          SRF funds may be used for implementation of State NPS
                  Management Programs under Section 319 and for deveioprnent and
                  implementation of a conservation and management plan under
                  Section 320.  To the extent that they are included in State NPS
                . Management Programs or estuary conservation and management
                , plans under the provisions of Sections 319 and 320, wetlands
         -        activities may, be funded by the SRF.
                                       33

-------
604(b)            The only Title VI reserve. Provides funds as grants for water
                  quality management planning under Sections 205(j) and 303(e).
                  (One percent or at least $100K each fiscal year from State Title VI
                  allotment).
ELIGIBLE GRANTEES:


EP.A will generally make Section 319 grants to the appropriately designated State lead
agency. If a State does not prepare a NFS management program, State-approved local
agencies which prepare management plans may receive grants.  In addition, the State's
NFS management program may passthrough grant funds to entities responsible for
implementing activities. Persons may receive NFS funds if related to the costs of
demonstration projects.

Under Section 320, EPA can award grants to State agencies, public or nonprofit private
agencies, academic institutions, and others.  Recipients of Section 320 grants are
required to demonstrate that at least 25 percent of the aggregate annual costs of
developing a CCMP will be provided by non-Federal members of the NEP management
conference.
GRANT/LOAN CONDITIONS:
For implementation grants under Sections 319(h) and (i) and 201(g)(l)(B), the State
must have an EPA-approved NFS Assessment Report and NFS Management Program.
Section 319(h) and 201(g)(l)(B) implementation grants require a 40 percent State
match;  Section 319(i) grants require a 50 percent State match.  There is no Federal
local match requirement. Section 320 grants may receive up to 75 percent Federal
share.
                                        34

-------
                               APPENDIX  C
                      STATE AND REGIONAL CONTACTS
                        I.   STATE SRF CONTACTS
Region 1
      Connecticut:
      Maine:
      Massachusetts:
      New Hampshire:
      Rhode Island:
      Vermont:
Region 2
      New Jersey:
      New York:
      Puerto Rico:
Region 3
      Delaware:
      Maryland:
      .Pennsylvania:
      Virginia:
      West Virginia:
Region 4
      Alabama:
      Florida:
      Georgia:
      Kentucky:
      Mississippi:
      North Carolina:
      South Carolina:
      Tenrjessee:
Robert Norwood
Charles King
Brian Jeans
John R. Bush

William Brierley
Nicholas G. Binder
Fred Esmond
Orlando Diaz Rodrigo
Roy Parikh
Ken McElroy
Stu Gansell
Donald Wampler
Mike Johnson   ,
Truman Green
Don' Berryhill
Verona Barnes
William Gatewood
Mark Smith
Coy M. Batten
Jim Joy
Evan Davis
(203) 566-2373
(207) 289-7800
(617) 292-5733
(603) 271-2001

(802) 244-8744
(609) 292-1820
(518) 457-6252
(809) 722-4170
(302) 736-5081
(301) 631-3117
(717) 787-3481
(804) 367-0993
(304) 348-0641
(205) 271-7800
(904) 488-8163
(404) 656-4708
(502) 564-3410
(601) 961-5171
(919) 773-6900
(803) 734-5300
(615) 741-6038
                                      35

-------
Region 5
      Illinois:
      Indiana:
      Michigan:
      Minnesota:
      Ohio:
      Wisconsin:
Region 6
      Arkansas:
      Louisiana:
      New Mexico:
      Oklahoma:
      Texas:
 Region 7
       Iowa:
       Kansas:
       Missouri:
       Nebraska:
 Region 8
       Colorado:
       Montana:
       North Dakota:
       South Dakota:
       Utah:
       Wyoming:
 Region 9
       Arizona:
       California:
       Hawaii:
       Nevada:
James B. Park
James Cagnina
Thomas L. Kamppinen
Terry Kuhlman
Greg Smith
Roger Larson
Tonie Patterson
William B. DeVille
David Hanna
Paul Hodge
George Green
 Wayne Farrand
 Rod Geisler
 Ed Knight
 Rick Bay
 Debby English
 Scott Anderson
 Jeff Hauge
 Mark Steichen
 Walter Baker
 Mike  Hackett
 William H. Shafer
 James W. Baetge
 George Woolworth
 James B. Williams
(217) 782-2027
(317) 232-8631
(517) 373-4718
(812) 296-4704
(614) 644-2826
(608) 266-2666
(501) 562-8910
(504) 342-0067
(505) 827-2812
(405) 271-7342
(512) 463-8489
 (515) 281-8877
 (913) 296-5527
 (314) 751-5626
 (402) 471-4200
 (303) 331-4574
 (406) 444-2406
 (701) 244-2354
 (605) 773-4216
 (801) 538-6164
 (307) 777-7781
 (602)257-2220
 (916) 445-3085
 (808) 543-8285
 (702) 687-5870
                                        36

-------
Region 10
      Alaska:               Dick Marcum                    (907) 465-2610
      Idaho:               Robert Braun                    (208)334-5855
      Oregon:           ,   Maggie Conley                   (503)229-5257
      Washington:          Dan Filip                        (206) 459-6061
                                      37

-------
         II. NON-POINT SOURCE COORDINATORS BY STATE
Region 1
      Connecticut:
      Maine:
      Massachusetts:
      New Hampshire:
      Rhode Island:
      Vermont:
Fred Banach
Ronald Dyer
Eben Chesebrough
E. Ann Poole
Elizabeth Scott
Stephen Syz
(203)566-2588
(207) 289-3901
(617) 727-0437
(603) 271-3503
(401) 277-3434
(802) 244-6951
Region 2
      New York:
      New Jersey:
      Puerto Rico:
Philip DeGaetano'
George Horzepa
Thomas Rivera
(518) 457-3656
(609) 633-7021
Region 3
      D. C.-
      Delaware:
      Maryland:'
      Pennsylvania:
      Virginia:
James R. Collier
Richard Bennett
Molly Cannon
Glenn Rider
William D. Brannon
(202) 767-7370
(302) 736-5409
(301) 631-3552
(717) 787-2666
Region 4
      Alabama:
      Florida:
      Georgia:
      Kentucky:
      Mississippi:
      North Carolina:
      South Carolina:
      Tennessee:
Tim Forester
Eric H. Livingston
Jim Chandler
Maureen Merkler
Robert Seyfarth
Beth McGee
Doug Fabel
Andrew N. Barrass
(205) 271-7839
(904) 488-0732
(404) 656-4905
(502) 564-3410
(601) 961-5160
(919) 733-5083
(803) 734-5228
(615) 741-0638
                                      38

-------
Region 5
       Illinois:
       Indiana:
       Michigan:
       Minnesota:
       Ohio:
       Wisconsin:
 Richard J. Mollahan
 James K.  Ray  ,
 Steve Eldredge . -
 Wayne P, Anderson
 Carl A. Wilhelm
 Michael Llewelyn
 (217) 782-3362
 (317) 243-5145
 (517) 335-4177
 (612) 296-7323
 (614) 644-2131
 (608) 266-9254
Region 6
      Arkansas:
      Louisiana:
      New Mexico:
      Oklahoma:
      Texas:
Lamar Janes
Barbara Romanowsky
Jim Piatt
John Hassle
Ralf Evans
 (501) 562-7444
 (504) 342-6369
 (505)827-2828
 (405) 521-4829
 (512) 463-8447
Region 7
      Iowa:
      Kansas:
      Missouri:
      Nebraska:
Ubbo Agena
Donald Snethen
Betty Ganon
Don Zaroban
 (515)281-6402
 (913) 296-5567
 (314) 751-7144
 (402) 471-4700
Region 8
      Colorado:
      Montana:
      North Dakota:
      South Dakota:
      Utah:
      Wyoming:
Greg Parsons
Jack Thomas
Daniel Stewart
Duane Murphy
Roy Gunnell
Beth Pratt
 (303) 331-4756
 (406) .444-2406
 (701) 224-2354
 (605) 773-4216
 (801) 538-6146
 (307) 777-7079
Region 9
      Arizona:
      California:
      Hawaii:
      Nevada:
Carol Russell
Stan Martinson
Brian JJ. Choy
James Cooper
 (602) 392-4066
-(916) 322-6576
 (808) 543-8335
 (702)885-4670
                                      39

-------
Region 10
      Alaska:
      Idaho:
      Oregon:
      Washington:
David C. Sturdevant
Al E. Murrey
Bruce Sutherland
Richard Wallace
(907) 465-2653
(208) 334-5860
(503) 229-6035
(206) 438-7069
                                        40

-------
   III. GROUND WATER PROTECTION  COORDINATORS BY STATE
Region 1
      Connecticut:
      Maine:
      Massachusetts:
      New Hampshire:
      Rhode Island:
      Vermont:
Dept. of Envir. Prot.
State Planning Office
Dept. of Envr. Qual. Eng.
Dept. of Env. Services
Dept. of Env. Mgt.
Div of Env. Health
(203)
(207)
(617)
(603)
(401)
(802)
566-3245
289-3261
292-5770
271-3503
277-2771
863-7220
Region 2
      New York:
      New Jersey:
      Puerto Rico:
      Virgin Islands:
Dept. of Env. Consery.
Div. of Water Resources
Env. Quality Board
Dept. of Pig. & Nat. Res.
(518) 457-6674
(609) 292-7219
(809) 725-5140
(809) 774-3320
Region. 3
      Delaware:
      Maryland:
      Pennsylvania:
      Virginia:
Div. of Water Resources
Dept. of the Env.
Dept. of Env. Resources
Water Control Board
(302) 736-4793
(301) 631-3625
(717) 787-5028
(804) 257-6384
Region 4
      Alabama:
      Florida:
      Georgia:
      Kentucky:
      Mississippi:
      North Carolina:
      South Carolina:
      Tennessee: .
      West Virginia:
Dept. of Env. Mgt.
Dept. of Env. Reg.
Dept. of Nat. Resources
Division of Water
Bur. of Poll. Control
Div. of Env. Mgt.
Dept. of Health & Env.
Office of Water Mgt.
Env. Engineering Div.
(205) 271-7700
(904) 488-3601
(404) 656-3500
(502) 564-3410
(601) 961-5171'
(919) 733-7015
(803) 734-5310
(615) 741-3657
(304) 348-2981
                                       41,

-------
Region 5
      Illinois:
      Indiana:
      Michigan:

      Minnesota:
      Ohio:
      Wisconsin:
IL Env. Prot. Agency
Dept. of Env. Mgt.
Dept. of Nat. Resources
Dept. of Public Health
Div. of Env. Health
Diy. of Ground Water Mgt.
Div. of Env. Standards
(217) 782-9540
(317) 232-8595
(517) 373-1947
(517) 335-8318
(612) 623-5320
(614) 481-7183
(608) 267-7651
Region 6
       Arkansas:
       Louisiana:
       New Mexico:
       Oklahoma:
       Texas:
Dept. of Health
Dept of Env. Quality
Env. Improvement Div.
Dept. of Pollution Cont.
Texas Water Commission
(501) 661-2623
(504) 342-7015
(505) 827-2919

(512) 463-7830
Region 7
       Iowa:
       Kansas:
       Missouri:
       Nebraska:
Env. Protection Div.
Dept. of Health & Env.
Dept. of Nat. Resources
Water Quality Div.
(515) 281-5211
(913) 862-9360
(314) 751-5331
(402) 471-2186
 Region 8
       Colorado:
       Montana:
       North Dakota:
       South Dakota:
       Utah:
       Wyoming:
 Dept. of Health
 Dept. of Health & Env.
 Env. Health Section
 Div. of Env. Quality
 Bur: of Water Poll. Con.
 Water Quality Div.
 (303) 332-4534
 (406) 444-2544
 (701) 224-2200
 (605) 773-5047
 (801) 538-6146
 (307) 777-7781
                                        42

-------
Region 9
      Arizona:             Dept. of Health Services          (602) 257-2300
      California:           State Water Res. Con. Bd.        (916) 445-1553
      Hawaii:         .     Dept. of Health        ,          (808)548-2235
      Nevada:             Div. of Env. Protection            (702) 885-4670
Region 10
      Alaska:              Dept. of Env. Conserv.            (907) 465-2600
      Idaho:               Dept. of Health & Welfare        (208) 334-5867
      Oregon:              Dept. of Env. Quality             (503)229-6295
      Washington:          Dept. of Soc. & Health           (206) 753-7039
                                       43

-------
      IV. REGIONAL STATE REVOLVING FUND COORDINATORS
Guy St. Andre
Water Management Division
EPA Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3571
(617)565-3571

Pat Harvey
Water Management Division
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-8958
(212) 264-8958

Les Reed
Water Management Division
EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-8821
(215) 597-8821
  *
Connie Chandler
Water Management Division
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-3633
(404) 347-3633

Gene Wojcik
Water Management Division
EPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-0174
(312) 886-0174
George Horvath
Water Management Division
EPA Region VI  '.
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
FTS 255-7120
(214) 655-7120

Rosalie Minor
Water Management Division
EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 551-7437
(913)551-7437

Jack Rychecky
Water Management Division
EPA Region VIII
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
FTS 330-1551
(303) 293-1551

Juanita Licata
Water Management Division
EPA Region IX
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 465-2131
(415) 472-2131

Jim Werritz
Water Management Division
EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-2634
(206) 442-2634
                                     44

-------
         V. REGIONAL NONPOINT SOURCE COORDINATORS
Nancy Sullivan
Water Management Division
EPA Region I       .
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3546
(617) 565-3546

Tony Dore
Water Management Division
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-2059
(212) 264-2059

Hank Zygmunt
Water Management Division
EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-3429
(215) 597-3429

Beverly Ethridge
Water Management Division
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365    •
FTS 257-3429
(404) 347-2126    -

Tom Davenport
Water Management Division
EPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago,  IL 60604
FTS 886-0209 ,
(312)886-0209
Susan Alexander
Water Management Division
EPA Region VI
1445 Ross- Avenue, 12th Floor
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
FTS 255-7140
(214)655-7140

Julie Elfving
Water Management Division
EPA Region VII  .
726  Minnesota Avenue
.Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 757-2817
(913) 236-2817      ,

Roger Dean
Water Management Division
EPA Region VIII
999  18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
FTS 564-1517
(303) 293-1517

Jovita Pajarillo'
Water Management Division
EPA Region IX
215  Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 454-0894
(415) 974-0894

Elbert Moore,
Water Management Division
EPA Region X
,1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-4181
 (206) 442-4181
                                      45

-------
          VI. REGIONAL GROUND WATER COORDINATORS
Robert Mendoza
Water Management Division
EPA Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3600
(617) 565-3600

John Malleck
Water Management Division
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5635
(212) 264-5635

Stuart Kerzner
Water Management Division
EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-8826
(215) 597-8826

Ron Mikulak
Water Management Division
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-3866
(404) 347-3866

Jerri-Anne Garl
Water Management Division
EPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-1490
(312) 886-1490
Erlece Allen
Water Management Division
EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
FTS 255-6446
(214) 655-6446

Don Toensing
Water Management Division
EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 551-7033
(913) 236-2970

James Dunn
Water Management Division
EPA Region VIII
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
FTS 330-1796
(303) 293-1796

Doris Betuel
Water Management Division
EPA Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 465-2098
William Mullen
Water Management Division
EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-1216
(206) 442-1216
                                     46

-------
              VII. REGIONAL WETLANDS COORDINATORS
Wetlands Protection Section
Water Management Division
EPA Region I
JFK Federal Building        •
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-4421
(617) 565-4421

Wetlands Section
Water Management Division
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5170
 (212) 264-5170

 Wetlands & Marine Policy Section
 Water Management Division
 EPA Region III
 841 Chestnut Street
 Philadelphia, PA 19107
 FTS 597-9301
 (215) 597-9301

 Wetlands Planning Unit
 Water Management Division
 EPA Region IV
1 345 Courtland Street, NE
 Atlanta, GA 30365
 FTS 257-2126
 (404) 347-2126

 Wetlands Protection Section
 Water Management Division
 EPA Region V
 230 S. Dearborn Street
 Chicago, IL 60604       :
 FTS 353-2079
 (312)353-2079
Technical Assistance Section Water
Management Division             /
EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
FTS 255-2263
(214) 655-2263

Wetlands Protection Section
Water Management Division
EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 551-7573                .
(913)551-7573

Water QuaHty Requirements Section
Water Management Division
EPA Region VIII
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
FTS 330-1575
(303) 293-1575

Wetlands Section
Water Management Division
EPA Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 465-2180
(415) 744-2180

Water Resources Assmt. Section
Water Management Division
EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-1412
(206)442-1412
                                       47

-------
               VIII. EPA REGIONAL AND STATE NATIONAL
                      ESTUARY PROGRAM CONTACTS
*  Region 1

  Buzzards Bay, MA


  Casco Bay, ME

  Long Island Sound, NY/CT
   Massachusetts Bays, MA

   Narragansett Bay, RI


   Region 2

   New York - New Jersey
    Harbor, NY/NJ'


   Region 3

   Delaware Estuary, DE/NJ
   Delaware Inland Bays, DE
EPA  Carol Kilbridge
MA   Joseph Costa

EPA  Mark Smith

EPA  Susan Beede
EPA  Mark Tedesco
CT   Paul Stacey
NY   Karen Chytalo

EPA  Matt Liebman

EPA  Katrina Kipp
RI    Caroline Karp
EPA  Seth Ausubel
NY   Karen Chytalo
NJ    Mary Gastrich
EPA  Barbara Finazzo
EPA  Marria O'Malley
NJ   Mary Gastrich
PA   William Johnson
DE   Marjorie Crofts

EPA  Krista Mendelman
DE   John Schneider
(617) 565-3514
(508) 746-3600

(617) 565-3514

(617) 565-3550
(212) 264-5170
(203) 566-7049
(519) 751-7900

(6i7) 565-3514

(617) 565-3523
(401) 277-3165
(212) 264-5170
(519) 751-7900
(609) 633-7020
(212) 264-5170
(301) 266-9180
(609) 633-7020
(717) 783-9500
(302) 736-4590

(215) 597-3360
(302) 736-4590
                                        48

-------
Region 4
Albemarle-Parnlico
  Sounds, NC

Indian River Lagoon, FL

Sarasota Bay, FL


Tampa Bay, FL

Region 6

Barataria-Terrebonne
  Estuary, LA

Galveston Bay, TX


Region 9

San Francisco Bay, CA

Santa Monica Bay, CA


Region-10

Puget Sound, WA
EPA  Ted Bisterfeld
NC   Robert Holman

EPA  Carol Tappas

EPA  Rhonda Evans
FL.   Mark Alderson

EPA  Rhonda Evans
EPA  Barbara Keeler
EPA  Ken Teague
TX   Frank Shipley
EPA " Amy Zimpfer.

EPA  Paul Jones
CA   Catherine Tyrrell
EPA  Jack Gakstatter
(404) 347-2126
(919) 733-0314

(404) 347-2126

(404) 347-2126
(813) 388-3318

(404) 347-2126
(214) 655-6680
(214) 655-2100
(713) 488-9495
(415) 464-7990

(415) 974-9812
(213) 620-4038
(206) 442-0966.
                                      49

-------

-------