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 ------- ------- |