c/ER*
®DOI
TD365W324
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Environmental Review (A 104)
Washington, D C 20460
United Slates
Department of the
Interior
Heritage Conservation
Recreation Seivi:<-
Washington DC
Water Cleanup and Recreation
Making it Work for People
-------
Table of Contents
page
Introduction 1
Charge to the Workshop • 3
Overview 5
Workshop Content 6
Community Involvement in Setting Recreation/Water Cleanup Goals 6
Incorporating Recreation and Conservation Opportunities into Water Quality
Management Plans (208) 6
Designing and Managing Recreation and Conservation Opportunities at Wastewater
Treatment Facilities (201) 6
Water Quality Management Planning and Recreation/Open Space Requirements 8
Coordination 8
Local Park and Recreation Agencies 8
Regional Planning Agencies 9
State Park and Recreation Agencies 9
Public Involvement • . 10
Identifying Potential Participants 1C
Reviewing All Alternatives 11
Using Available Resources 11
Implementation 12
Local Funding Sources 12
Government Funding Sources 12
Facility Planning for Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Works and Recreation/
Open Space Requirements 14
Resources to be used During the Planning Stage 14
Local, Regional, and State Recreation Plans 14
Regional and Local Recreation Agencies 14
Recreation Planner and Landscape Architect 15
The Evaluation Process 15
Identifying Recreation and Open Space Opportunities 16
Determining the Need for These Opportunities 17
Exploring Financial and Management Arrangements 18
Summary of Recommendations for Water Quality Management and 201 Grant Applicants ... 20
The Water Quality Management (WQM) Agency . . 20
The 201 Applicant 21
The USEPA/HCRS Joint Agency Meeting 23
APPENDICES: A. Reprint of Workshop Program
B. Workshop Field Trip—Springbrook Regional Water Reclamation Center,
Naperville, Illinois
C. Key Contacts in USEPA and HCRS
D. Memorandum of Understanding
E. Sources of Funding for Achieving Recreation/Open Space Benefits
F. Relevant Publications
G. Applicable Legislation
H. Workshop Participants
I. Participants in the USEPA/HCRS Joint Agency Meeting
-------
Introduction
A linkage between national programs for
cleaning up America's waterways administered by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
and for those under the guidance of the Depart-
ment of the Interior was first made possible
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500).
During the early stages of implementing
P.L. 92-500, parties involved in both programs
saw advantages in combining needed recreation
facilities and open space areas with the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities.
As a result of this interest, a conference
entitled, "Water Cleanup and the Land" was held
in Boston, Massachusetts, in November 1975,
jointly sponsored by the USEPA, the Department
of the Interior, and the Conservation
Foundation. The purpose of the conference was
to coordinate agency efforts and to discuss the
possibility of combining recreation facilities
and open space areas with the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities.
With the passage of additional amendments
in 1977 to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (the Clean Water Act of 1977), considera-
tion of recreation and open space opportunities
in the planning of every wastewater treatment
facility funded by USEPA under Section 201 of
P.L. 92-500 became a requirement. In addition,
the recreation/open space opportunities that
could be expected to result from improved water
quality had to be identified by the water
quality management agency that had been
designated under Section 208.
As a result of the new recuireisentd., a
Workshop, jointly sponsored by USEPA and trie
Heritage 'Conservation and Recreation Service
(HCRS) was held in November 1978 to address the
relationship of the 1977 Clean Water Act CD vater
quality management planning and wastewat.. - CTia:-
ment facility planning agencies. The Wo" si1 op was
entitled "Water Cleanup and Recreation - K'i,i7
It Work For People," and its goal was to help
establish practices and procedures which USEPA
grantees could follow in incorporating recreation
and open space into USEPA's programs under
Sections 201 and 208 of the Clean Water Act. It
was a true working conference and in a departure
from usual procedure, USEPA and KCRS utilized the
Workshop sessions to obtain input primarily from
attendees which included state and local water
quality and recreation officials, engineers,
planners, and representatives of citizen,
conservation, and environmental organizations,
and representatives from USEPA and HCRS Washington
and regional offices.
Under Secretary of Interior James Joseph and
Deputy Administrator of USEPA Barbara Blum delivered
the keynote addresses to the Workshop participants
and agreed to link the planning of water cleanup
with the development of recreation opportunities
through the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding
(Appendix D).
This report summarizes the Workshop discussions
and the suggestions and advice that resulted from
these discussions.
-------
-------
and the Department of Interior have
just completed a memorandum of understanding
designed to link the planning of water
cleanup and the development of recreation. ..
particularly recreation in America 's
cities...and most especially in its inner
cities...where recreation is least available
and most needed. W
Barbara Blum, Deputy Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
fact that the Department of the
Interior and the Environmental Protection
Agency are now intimately involved in the
implementation of a National Urban Policy is
not an historical accident or a sociological
irony. It is a recognition that urban initia-
tives must involve more than new programs.
To be successful, they must include an urban
consciousness in traditional programs and
the use of traditional resources in non-
traditional
James A. Joseph, Under Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
Charge to Workshop
James Joseph, Under Secretary of the
Department of the Interior, charged the
participants to "...be engaged in a creative
search to identify opportunities for achieving
two national policy goals. The first has to do
with conserving and revitalizing urban
communities, while the second is concerned
with water management and conservation." The
present Administration is looking at how
existing resources can be used more wisely so
that all federal agencies can work to benefit
all Americans. The Department of the Interior
and the USEPA now share the goal of combining
recreation and open space facilities with
proposed water cleanup projects. Mr. Joseph
stated that "...we owe it to all of our citizens
to provide an environment which enhances, rather
than frustrates, the human spirit. Many of
those who were reared in ghettos and barrios are
now convinced that clean air, clean water,
effective land use and recreative opportunities
must go hand in hand with our other efforts to
build a society which is healthy., humane and
just."
The recent findings reported in the
Department of the Interior's National Urban
Recreation Study submitted to Congress in
February 1978 indicate that land for recreation
is poorly distributed in most urban areas, that
urban residents desire facilities close to home,
and that use of the facilities is determined by
accessibility and safety. The Department of the
Interior will cooperate in every possible way
to improve the urban environment, revitalize
distressed urban areas, arid restore economic
health to our cities. Mr. Joseph concluded his
-------
-------
remarks by saying "...we believe that the time
has come to recognize the basic interdependence
of natural and human resources and to deal with
urban problems as part of a total system rather
than an isolated phenomenon."
Barbara Blum, Deputy Administrator of the
USEPA spoke on "Water Cleanup and Recreation:
Key Ingredients for an American Urban Renaissance,'
stating that "...because of the magnitude of the
nation's long-term financial commitment to water
cleanup and because of President Carter's National
Urban Policy, this country is now in a position
to launch an urban renaissance." The "New
Partnership" required by the Urban Policy calls
for involvement of all levels of government, the
private sector, and neighborhood organizations in
a major effort to make America's cities more
enjoyable places in which to work and live.
Combining water cleanup and recreation is a key
part of the urban strategy.
Congress has provided the necessary legisla-
tion for combining water cleanup with the
development of recreation and open space through
the Clean Water Act of 1977. The Act requires
the consideration of recreational opportunities
for water cleanup projects as a prerequisite to
receiving grant funds for the proposed project.
Ms. Blum's charge to the workshop participants
emphasized that "...combining water cleanup and
recreation is one of the surest ways I know to
accelerate the development of an American urban
renaissance. But this renaissance needs
leadership...imagination...conviction...and
know-how, qualities which you, the participants
in the workshop, have in abundance.... We're
all here to find ways to use those qualities
to involve Americans, in all fifty states, in
creating the recreational benefits which the
new Clean Water Act...the President's Urban
Policy...and the EPA/Interior agreement call
for."
Ms, Blum concluded by stating that "...
there is no substitute for public participation.
Through public involvement it must be made
abundantly clear that there are recreation
possibilities which the community expects to
be carefully considered by the consulting
engineer who will do the Step One facility plan.
As professionals, we share a common obligation
to see to it that this critical planning stage
investigates recreational and open space
possibilities thoroughly and imaginatively
rather than just paying lip service to
accommodate the law."
Overview
The Workshop on "Water Cleanup ar.o
Recreation," jointly sponsored by USiilY -rid HCRS
was held on November 14-15, 1978, ac the Pick
Congress Hotel, Chicago, Illinois, to develop
recommended procedures for implementing the new
recreation and open space requirements of the
Clean Water Act. It involved intensive working
sessions over a two-day period on water quality
management (WQM) planning,1 facility planning
for publicly-owned wastewater treatment works
(201), and public participation; a field trip;
and a Joint Agency Meeting for USEPA and HC^D
staff. The purpose of the Workshop was to
develop, from the input received from the
Workshop participants, a national/regional
strategy for incorporating recreation and opi-
space into the WQM and 201 planning programs.
Workshop participants who developed these
recommendations included representatives: of
Federal government (USEPA, HCRS, COE, NFS, ''*,"•,
and others), State and local government (both
water quality and park recreation agencies),
public interest groups, and private agencies
and organizations.
Workshop participants were taken on a field
trip to the Springbrook Water Reclamation
Facility in Naperville, Illinois, to see an
on-the-ground example of multiple use at a
wastewater treatment facility site. Appendix B
contains information on this facility.
Planning under Section 208 of the Clean Water
Act is referred to as water quality management
planning instead of 208 planning.
-------
-------
Work Shop Content
Three different workshop sessions were held
concurrently at three different times, so all
participants could attend each workshop session.
These were limited to fifteen participants so
input could be more easily obtained from everyone.
The moderators for the workshop sessions
represented various state and local planning
agencies and organizations, and all had extensive
knowledge of the subject matter. The three
workshops were:
Community Involvement in Setting
Recreation/Water Cleanup Goals
1. Defining the public interest which
can be assessed or defined in
planning for recreation facilities
and open space;
2. Involving the public in establishing
short- and long-range recreation goals,
the type of facilities, the siting
of the facilities, and operational
responsibilities;
3. Determining the role which local
communities should have in financing
recreation and open space facilities
and areas.
Incorporating Recreation and
Conservation Opportunities into
Water Quality Management Plans (208)
Participants in this workshop discussed:
1. The full range of recreation and open
space opportunities which can be
expected to result from the potential
use of land associated with treatment
works and the increased access to
water-based recreation;
2. The need to fully coordinate the WQM
planning process with all agencies
interested in developing recreation/
open space opportunities;
3. The type of planning product and the
level of detail that WQM agencies
should be expected to prepare in order
to meet the requirements of the Clean
Water Act;
A. The approach(es) needed to obtain
c t- r t-ir\ rr TMi'KI T^ -i nirrt 1 iftaTn^ti *- -i -n t"Vi£i 1
Designing and Managing Recreation and
Conservation Opportunities at
Nastewater Treatment Facilities (201)
1. What informational resources are
available to applicants during thi
planning stage for recreation and
open space;
2. What recreation expertise and publ;
involvement should be solicited to
assist in the evaluation of these
opportunities;
3. How extensive the evaluation process
should be for recreation/open space
opportunities during each phase of
the 201 planning process.
The comments and recommendations from the
workshop sessions were summarized by the
moderator for each of the three separate work-
shop topics and were presented to the workshop
participants during the final plenary session.
The following sections are based on the
discussions which took place during the two-day
workshop on November 14 and 15. They contain not
only the results of the workshop but recommenda-
tions and suggestions for WQM agencies and 201
grant applicants to follow in implementing WQM
and 201 plans. Grantees under these programs
have the responsibility to fulfill the recreation
and open space requirement of the Clean Water
Act.
5.
The approach (.es; needed to obtain
strong public involvement in the WQM
planning process;
The identification of sources of
funding.
-------
-------
Water Quality Management
Planning and Recreation/Open
Space Requirements
This section contains the suggestions
developed by workshop participants designed to
assist the designated 208 agency, referred to as
the Water Quality Management (WQM) agency, in
complying with the recreation and open space
requirements set forth in the Clean Water Act of
1977. These procedures are described under the
topics of coordination, public involvement and
implementation and apply to the WQM agency and
its specific planning methods and goals. USEPA
will be issuing format guidance in the future.
Coordination
The Clean Water Act makes a direct tie
between planning and implementation. Areawide
water quality management planning under Section
208 provides a framework for 201, conservation,
flood control, and other pollution control
projects. Coordination provides the necessary
linkage between land use planning and implementa-
tion schedules, and recreational potential and
use.
The emphasis here is to integrate recreation
opportunities generated as a result of the 1977
Act into the existing flow of the WQM agency's
ongoing water quality planning efforts rather than
to add still another separate task to the work in
progress. To achieve this goal, the planning
effort should be coordinated with the various
interests identified below and should emphasize
a balanced, integrated approach. A broad range
of recreation and open space uses such as
habitat and fish and wildlife conservation, urban
parks and greenways, and interpretative/
environmental education should be considered. A
wealth of current planning data are available
which are important to coordination efforts.
Sources of information and technical assistance
need to be immediately identified early in the
process. Some suggested sources are: local
park and recreation agencies, regional planning
agencies, and state park and recreation agencies.
Local Park and Recreation Agencies
Community park and recreation planning
agencies need to be contacted for their input
regarding proposals for site-specific recreation
facilities. An excellent means of achieving
coordination is to include representatives of
these agencies in water quality advisory groups;
this can also help to broaden single-purpose
engineering perspective of WQM planning groups.
Multiple-use recreation proposals at 201-funded
facilities should insure a balanced distribution
of recreation facilities responsive to the
demand characteristics of the region. Contact
should be maintained with local park and
recreation agencies to insure an efficient,
sensible approach to coordinating water cleanup
and local park development and lor recreation
planning and design expertise.
Local agencies assist in planni'ng for the
recreation use of abandoned facilities. Sue!,
facilities can be changed from useless eyesores
to places of recreation for all ages. For
example, the village of Hilton in Monroe County,
New York, is considering turning an abandoned
plant site into a playground and environmental
education facility. Former aeration tanks would
be enclosed for a teen center and community
meeting rooms, and fishing piers and ice-skating
rinks would take advantage of the site's
waterfront location.
Regional Planm'ng_A£encics
In some cases, regional planning agencies
such as planning districts, watershed councils,
river basin commissions, and county recreation
departments have prepared plans for speci fie
water-related recreation facilities and open
space. The WQM Agency should initiate contact
with these agencies and organizations- and
coordinate water cleanup schedules with such
plans.
State Park and Recreation Ag en c "[es
The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plans (SCORP-:) provide an accurate overview of
recreation proposals for the WQM region. Each
State is charged by the Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund Act to prepare and maintain such a
recreation plan in order to qualify for federal
fund assistance for the acquisition and development
of public outdoor recreation nrens and facilities.
The SCORP identifies public demand for the full
array of outdoor recreation fnei lilies anil specifies
and discusses priority issues nssoc-ial cd with these
recreation opportunities. This plan should be
reviewed by the WQM agency lo determine its
potential for integration will) the proposed water
cleanup schedule. The agency should nssess and
coordinate its pr-'orities in relation to the
recreation/open space development schedule
identified in the SCORP and suggest changes wnen
necessary to maximize clean water/recreal i:j'i
benefits for the public.
-------
In addition to the above, the regional office
of the HCRS can supply the name and address of the
appropriate state contact, provide technical advice
on types of recreation that are suitable and
compatible with the site and with the facility;
identify whom to contact for further evaluation
of the site's recreation potential; identify the
local park and recreation agencies; suggest
funding sources; and assist in the coordination
between the recreation sponsor and the 201 grantee.
In some instances, WQM agencies may not be
permitted either by statute or by their charter to
acquire land or spend funds for recreation or open
space. It may be possible to have the authority
of the agency broadened to include additional
responsibilities. The Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District, for example, may purchase flood
plain land and maintain it as open space under
its flood control authority. A generally more
feasible approach, however, is for the WQM agency
to permit a recreation agency to acquire, develop,
and/or manage the recreation and open space
aspects of a wastewater treatment facility. Not
only do recreation agencies generally have
adequate authority in these areas, but they also
have the expertise needed to take full advantage
of recreation and open space opportunities.
Public Involvement
The WQM agency should integrate an ongoing
public participation program into its existing
water quality planning and management effort
rather than approaching such a program as an
additional task. The recreation/open space
benefits resulting from clean water need to be
made known to the public. Participation in
decisions involving land-use and multiple use
projects should be encouraged. In addition,
opposition from residents adjacent to a proposed
multiple use facility can often be minimized
if they are well-informed about the project.
Plans for the active recreation use of a waste-
water treatment facility should be discussed
with the adjacent community; if appropriate,
community leaders should be asked to partici-
pate in the planning of the recreation aspects
of the project. The impact of similar existing
facilities in other areas should also be
discussed with the community. For example,
bike path proposals are sometimes opposed for
fear of vandalism of adjacent property. However,
studies of different bike path rights-of-way
have shown that these fears are unfounded.
Two primary methods of achieving public
involvement are: requesting public input and
sustaining an ongoing dialogue with interested
community groups. Public input may be obtained
via radio, television, and newspaper notices as
well as through the local recreation planning
agency's public involvement program. Steps that
can aid in establishing an effective public
involvement effort include:
Identifying Potential Participants
Potential participants include community
leaders, local governments, associations of city
and township governments, associations of county
governments, public interest groups, professional
associations, school groups, senior citizens,
consultants, and other opinion leaders. The
support of such individuals and groups may be
all that is needed for an idea to become a
reality. For example, a neighborhood park is
being built on a 3/4-acre site over a combined
sewer outfall pipe at the East River end of Grand
Street in Brooklyn. A public interest group,
the Parks Council, has led the community in
planning, designing, and raising public funds
for the waterfront park that is using donated
barrels for seating, telephone poles for flag-
poles, and unearthed cobblestones for paving.
Clearing and planting are being done by an
enthusiastic community. This riverside oasis
also demonstrates that a project does not have
to be large to have a meaningful impact on a
community.
Reviewing All Alternatives
The inclusion of recreation/open space
considerations requires, as a first step,
obtaining indications of public interest and
support for proposed facilities. All potential
treatment system site locations and the
associated recreation opportunities need to be
reviewed with the public. Once this support is
clearly identified and the public recreation
need is established, alternatives should be
developed and reviewed through public participa-
tion. A "no action" alternative should be
included from the outset. Although limited
federal funds are sometimes available for on-
going operation and maintenance of the facility,
it should also be made clear that this will
ultimately become a local responsibility. For
maximum effectiveness the public should be
involved as early as possible in the planning
and review efforts.
An example of effective public involvement
in which a regional public interest group way the
leading force in arousing citizen concern occurred
in Boston. A courty prison and city jail were to
be built on a site approximately ten feet from
the shore of the Charles River. The Charles
River Watershed Association was able, through the
use of slide shows and talks with neighborhood
10
-------
groups, to help the public see the potential
recreational uses for the river when the shore-
line corridors are kept free from developments.
Local citizens then participated in the public
hearings and helped to persuade the city to plan
the prison and jail for another site.
Using Available Resources
There are brochures and audio-visual
presentations for WQM public participation programs.
The following written and audio-visual aids are
available through the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service:
• "Green Spaces and People Places: A Manual on
the Multiple Uses of Wastewater Treatment Plants,"
USEPA Region II, New York City, 1979.
• "Recreation and Land Use: Tha Public Benefits
of Clean Water," A Joint Publication by USEPA
and HCRS, 1979.
o "The Public Benefits of Cleaned: Water:
Emerging Greenway Opportunities," USEPA, 1977.
• "What About Clean Water Recreation? No. 1,
Fulfilling Recreation and Open Space
Requirements in Water Quality Management
Planning," HCRS, 1979.
• "What About Clean Water Recreation? No. 2,
Fulfilling 201 Program Recreation and
Open Space Requirements," HCRS, 1979.
• "Recreation Benefits from Clean Water,"
HCRS, 1979.
• "Public Participation in the Clean Waters
Program" a slide presentation prepared by
the National Recreation and Park
Association <=or USEPA, 1977.
• "Clean Water Recreation: A How To Slide
Show," USEPA and HCRS, 1979.
Implementation
Funding is an important factor in recreation/
open space development in conjunction with water
cleanup programs. The lack of funds is often an
obstacle at the local level. There are state
and federal funds available, but these funding
programs often require local matching funds.
Long-range operation and maintenance are also
the responsibility of the local governments
whose constituents the proposed facilities will
serve, and the commitment of local funds is a
basic indicator of local support. Implementation
requires a balanced commitment of local and
state/federal funds. The following are possible
funding sources at these two levels.
Local Funding Sources
• Local government funds are available from
general revenues, taxes, bonds, etc.
• Private foundations have 'jeen and continue
to be responsive to well thought-out,
recreation/open space proposals that have
clearly defined public benefits.
• Nonprofit, privately-owned nature
conservancies often provide funding
assistance for conservation efforts to
protect natural areas or initiate
environmental education programs.
• Local civic groups are often supportive of
the need for civic conservation and
recreation projects. Admittedly, these
are often limited to small contributions,
but hey can be used for seed funds to get
a project started.
Government Funding Sources
• State funding may be available on a local
match basis.
• Federal funding is available to qualified
applicants. A list of federal funding
sources appears in Appendix E.
the next dozen years, America's towns
and cities will be acquiring thousands of
miles of interceptor sewers. These can
become hiking, biking, and walking trails..
or they can become eyesores and be lost to
public access.H
Barbara Blum, Deputy Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
11
-------
12
-------
Facility Planning For Publicly-
Owned Wastewater Treatment
Works And Recreation/Open
Space Requirements
This section contains the suggestions
developed by Workshop participants designed to
assist the 201 grantee in complying with the
recreation and open space requirements set
forth in the Clean Water Act of 1977. These
procedures are suggestions that 201 grantees
may find useful as they plan and construct
multiple-use facilities. Grantees should, where
possible, work within the framework of existing
recreation and land use plans. EPA will be
issuing formal guidance in the future.
Resources to be Used during
the Planning Stage
Local, Regional, and State
Recreation Plans
During the planning stage of a Section 201
funded project, the applicant should consult
with the State recreation agency to determine
where recreation and open space opportunities
presented by the sites under consideration would
fit into the SCORP and its established
priorities. Local and regional planning
officials, existing plans, local recreation
demand studies, and recreation and open space
inventories can also be helpful in identifying
recreation potentials at 201 construction sites.
The regional offices of HCRS and EPA should also
be consulted.
The availability and usefulness of plans,
inventories, or demand studies will vary from
one locality to another. Planning documents are
apt to contain the best statements of recreation
and open space needs and objectives and hence be
of greatest value in guiding the 201 applicant.
If needs and objectives have not been identified,
a careful comparison of demand studies and
inventories of existing recreation facilities
and open spaces should identify local or regional
needs.
Regional and Local Recreation Agencies
Involving local planning and recreation
agencies at the earliest stage of site selection
and maintaining that involvement throughout the
application process will greatly simplify
subsequent planning and implementation procedures.
The applicant should select several sites which
could support the proposed facility and then work
with the planning and recreation agencies on such
matters as targeting areas that meet local and
regional recreation needs, have ease of access,
and are suitable for the types of recreation
planned. The site that best fulfills all of these
requirements can then be identified.
In many instances, it may also be appropriate
to include a member of the local or regional
recreation staff on the 201 facility planning
team. Such an arrangement can make needed
planning and design expertise available to the
applicant and can facilitate the identification
of opportunities that might otherwise be over-
looked. Continued cooperation with the recreation
agency is desirable during the project design
phase as well.
Recreation Planner or
Landscape Architect
Where justified by the size of the 201
planning effort, a recreation planner and/or
landscape architect should be included on the
project planning team. If a consultant is
used, the consultant should be expected to
utilize such expertise. Under the 1977
amendments, the services of a recreation planner
or landscape architect are now eligible for
Section 201 funding during Step One (facility
planning). Using this expertise on the planning
team can be one of the most effective means of
identifying opportunities and insuring that the
planning effort has fully considered all potential
recreation and open space opportunities.
Early in the planning stages of a project, the
roles of all of the involved agency representatives,
consultants, etc., should be clearly established.
A schedule should include review periods and
decision points. All involved parties should be
made aware of the timetable so that they can make
their contributions in a timely manner.
The Evaluation Process
The following procedures suggest a three-
phase process whereby the applicant identifies
recreation and open space opportunities, evaluates
the opportunities in light of local needs and
goals, and explores a means of developing and
managing these recreation and open space
opportunities. The resources that have been
identified during the initial stages of the
planning process should be utilized as appropriate
in each of the three phases. In addition, the
general public should be involved throughout the
avaluation process. Various methods should be
used to inform local citizens of the applicant's
consideration of recreation and open space
opportunities, and there should be ample
opportunity for citizens to fully comment. Active
citizen involvement in the development of
Section 201 plans can also help convince public
officials of the need to work together.
13
-------
Identifying Recreation and
Open Space Opportunities
The ways of considering the opportunities
for recreation and open space development as well
as the opportunities themselves will vary
depending on the stage of the planning process.
During the evaluation of altarnative 201 treatment
systems, any recreation and open space
opportunities that are potentially associated
with one or more, but not all, of the treatment
alternatives should be identified. During this
stage of planning, it is impractical to try to
identify all recreation and open space
opportunities that might eventually be associated
with the 201 facility. However, it is
appropriate to be aware of any recreation and
open space opportunities that are unique to
some types of treatment systems and which would
not be available if another type of system were
selected. By identifying such opportunities
and their relative uniqueness, the project
planning team can include them in the evalua-
tion of cost-effectiveness of each type of
treatment system and site development.
Open space opportunities in particular are
apt to be dependent upon the type of treatment
system that is selected. For example, alterna-
tives that provide for applying treated effluent
to land offer unique opportunities to preserve
large open space areas.
By contrast, many recreation and small-
scale open space opportunities depend less upon
the treatment system that is selected than upon
the individual characteristics of the site. For
example, some treatment alternatives involve
sewer rights-of-way which can be developed as
recreation trails. Thus the identification of
these recreation opportunities can be made after
the treatment system has been selected or
separately from that decision.
During the site selection phase it is
appropriate to consider the full range of
recreation and open space opportunities that
may potentially be associated with the treatment
facility. Whether any recreation or open space
opportunities exist which can be developed on a
site will depend upon a variety of physical
characteristics associated with and peculiar to
each site. It is necessary, therefore, for the
applicant to integrate facility requirements
and site requirements that are associated with
different recreation activities.
In New York State, the plans of the Herkimer
County Sewer District have been the inspiration
of many other groups in the joint planning of a
new secondary plant. The new facility will
enhance a trout and pike fishing area and will
encourage added protection of an adjacent wetland
as a bird sanctuary. Plans call for parking
facilities for the fishermen, a bike trail,
experimental gardens and compost site, picnic
tables, an educational center, and a Little
League field which will be flooded in the winter
for ice-skating.
Determining the Need for
These Opportunities
Not all of the identified recreation and open
space opportunities will be appropriate for
development in the light of local or regional
needs. Therefore, the need for each identified
opportunity should be determined, and those
opportunities that do not meet any identifiable
need should be eliminated. Determinations of
need should be made with the aid of local or
regional recreation agencies by consulting
available plans, demand studies, and recreation
and open space inventories and also by
soliciting public comment. Effective public
involvement in this process may provide the
most useful indication of actual need. The
selection of recreation/open space opportunities
needed and desired by the public helps greatly
in reducing the potential for public opposition
at a later time.
In assessing the demand for a potential
recreation facility, the location of the facility
should also be considered since the proximity
and accessibility of the site to the local public
will greatly affect the demand for it. For
example, a bike trail located on a sewer right-of-
way in a city will probably receive much heavier
use than a similar bike path in the country.
One such trail, located in New Jersey, will
not only provide recreation benefits, but will be
of historical significance as well. Citizens from
eight municipalities along the Rock away River have
formed Friends of Towpath Trail to coordinate the
efforts of various agencies, civic groups, and
citizens in developing a linear park for the
Rockaway Valley regional interceptor sewer. Aided
by the Association of New Jersey Environmental
Commissions, they are fostering a 13-mile footpath
along the right-of-way of a regional interceptor
which parallels the historic Morris Canal and
Rockaway River. Towpath, once used by mules to
pull canal boats, will be suitable for jogging,
hiking, cross-country skiing, and possibly
bicycling. One section of the linear park will
have a resilient jogging surface and a series of
signs and equipment to designate a graded
exercise program similar to those widely used
in Europe. Monthly meetings and hikes along
the trail route, a map, and newsletter are
14
-------
boosting regional enthusiasm for the trail. The
development of Towpath Trail has focused
attention on the canal route and on the creation
of the Boonton Ironworks Historic District.
Exploring Financial and
Management Arrangements
Following the selection of recreation and
open space opportunities that are appropriate for
development and that meet local or regional
needs, it is necessary to devise a strategy for
developing and managing these opportunities.
Major obstacles may occur in finding a sponsor
able to develop and manage a recreation facility,
and in obtaining funds to accomplish those tasks.
Generally, both a water quality management
agency and recreation agency will need to work
together to provide the financial and technical
support to bring a multiple-use project to
fruition. The recreation agency may often be
able to provide staff support for the design of
the recreation components, or alternatively, it
may be able to contribute the necessary funds to
enable the project consultant to assume the
design responsibility. Recreation departments
or other state or local agencies may be able to
obtain federal grant funding for land acquisition
and development, which are generally not funded
under Section 201. The National Recreation and
Park Association (NRPA) commissioned by EPA to
provide expert advice prior to the development
of official federal guidance, has studied these
and other problems, and suggested ways to resolve
them. Excerpts from NRPA's report on this
project, Obtaining Recreation and Open Space
Benefits Through Water Quality Management
Activities, are contained in Appendix E.
The fear of potentially increased, vandalism
of water quality facilities if recreation
facilities are located on the same site can be
a major obstacle in planning for facility
management. To date, vandalism of water
quality facilities associated with recreation
facilities has not been mentioned as a signifi-
cant problem. This is probably due in part to
the fact that certain facilities such as sewer
lines, even where they share the right-of-way
with recreation trails, are not very susceptible
to vadalism. The 24-hour staffing of sewage
treatment works is also a major deterrent to
vandalism of those facilities. Additionally,
since the unsupervised public is not permitted
on the plant site, as they are in a park, the
opportunity for vandalism is virtually eliminated.
Where vandalism of a treatment facility is
still a concern, however, it may be possible to
include a buffer strip between it and the
adjacent recreational facilities. Such a buffer
should not only discourage access to the plant,
but also enhance the aesthetics of the site by
serving as a visual barrier to the plant. In
addition, many authorities believe that the most
effective deterrent to vandalism and littering
is effective maintenance of the facility
Including prompt removal of litter. Experience
has shown that well-kept facilities seem to
create more'respect than those in disrepair.
Another managerial concern of a water quality
agency may be its liability for injuries related
to use of the recreation opportunities at a
wastewater treatment facility. If a water
quality agency is liable under certain circum-
stances there are several ways that it can
protect itself. First, if it is providing
recreation services directly to the public, it
may choose to obtain liability insurance. For
example, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
has liability insurance since it regularly
conducts educational tours of its treatment
facilities. Where the water quality agency is
permitting other agencies to use its land, the
agency should require the other agencies to
indemnify it in the event that it is sued over
injuries related to the use of the recreational
facilities. Alternatively, the other agencies
may be required to obtain liability insurance on
behalf of the water quality agency. Either way
the water quality agency is relieved of any risk
of financial loss.
15
-------
and*
16
-------
Summary of Recommendations
For Water Quality Management
And 201 Grant Applicants
This publication, which has presented the
results of the Workshop held in Chicago in
November 1978, is designed to provide suggestions
that constituency groups and federal, state, and
local planning and regulatory agencies can use
as a resource document in planning and
implementing WQM and 201 plans. Both WQM area-
wide planning agencies and 201 grant applicants,
with assistance and guidance from USEPA and HCRS,
must fulfill the goals of joint recreation/water
cleanup planning and development. This summary
of the major recommendations that stem from the
Workshop discussion is intended to assist WQM
agencies until formal guidance is issued.
The WQM Agency
1. Integrate recreation and open space
considerations with the WQM agency's
ongoing program.
2. Identify sources of WQM planning data;
these include local, state park, and
recreation agencies; and regional
planning agencies.
3. Coordinate with local park and recreation
agencies in considering local needs with
regard to site-specific recreation
facilities or recreation proposals at
201-funded facilities. Including
representatives of these agencies on
water quality advisory groups is one way
to achieve this coordination.
A. Contact such regional planning agencies
as planning districts, watershed councils,
river basin commissions, and county
recreation departments to coordinate the
WQM water cleanup schedules with any plans
these agencies may have.
5. Review the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCORP) to integrate the
WQM agency's water cleanup schedule with
the SCORP where possible.
6. Consult the regional office of HCRS for
such information as: names of people to
contact within state agencies for
assistance in planning or for the
evaluation of a site's recreation
potential; the appropriate local agencies
to contact; technical advice when
selecting the types of recreation to
be included at a site; possible funding
sources; and how to best coordinate WQM
efforts with the 201 grantee.
7. Establish an ongoing public participation
program as part of the WQM agency's
planning and management effort, and
involve the public in both the planning
and implementation stages of a project.
8. Obtain indications of public interest
and support for proposed facilities and
identify potential participants in the
multiple use program.
9. Review all potential treatment system site
locations and the associated recreation
opportunities, including a "no action"
alternative, with the public.
10. Make the public aware that the operation
and maintenance of the recreation
facility will ultimately be a local
responsibility.
11. Use brochures and audio-visual presenta-
tions to facilitate effective communication
with the public.
12. Thoroughly investigate the sources of
available funds for joint development of
wastewater treatment facilities and
recreation, and implement the WQM plan
using a balanced commitment of local and
state/federal funds.
The 201 Applicant
1. During the application and planning
stages of a project that is to be funded
under Section 201, the applicant should
consult with local and regional planning
officials, USEPA and HCRS regional offices,
existing plans, local recreation demand
studies, recreation and open space
inventories, and SCORPs to obtain informa-
tion on a local or regional ar-?a's
recreation and open space needs and
objectives.
2. Work with local planning and recreation
agencies to determine which of several
proposed sites meets local recreation
needs, has ease of access, and is suitable
for the types of recreation planned.
Involving these agencies throughout the
application process will simplify subsequent
planning and implementation.
3. While not required by law, it may be
appropriate to include a member of the
local or regional recreation staff on
the 201 facility planning team.
4. A recreation planner or landscape architect
should be included on the project planning
team if the scope of the 201 planning
17
-------
effort is large. Such services are
eligible, during the facility planning
stage, for funding under Section 201.
During the evaluation of alternative
treatment systems for 201 funding,
identify any recreation and open space
opportunities that are unique to some
types of treatment systems.
When selecting the site for a given
treatment facility, the full range of
recreation and open space opportunities
that may be potentially associated with
the facility should be identified, in
order to assess which opportunities can
be developed at each site under considera-
tion.
Proximity and accessibility of a potential
site to the local public should be
considered because these factors will
greatly affect the public's demand for
a recreation facility.
Explore various financial and management
arrangements, both in terms of funding
for development and for the ongoing
operation and maintenance of the
facility.
7. The identification of local needs for
recreation and open space opportunities
should be determined by consulting
available plans, demand studies, and
recreation/open space inventories and by
soliciting public comment; those
opportunities that would not meet local
needs may then be eliminated.
((/I few words of advice. Don't be timid. A little idea rarely catches peoples1
imagination. Bring ideas in and entertain them royally... for one of them may be the
king and you may find that you have transformed your city's plumbing into society's
plumage.
[[Furthermore, don't think there is some, one, preordained, 'right' solution.
Water pollution control, recreation, and land-use planning know principles but few,
if any formulas. The key ingredients of success are imagination, knowledge,
organization, determination,... and above all...an unshakeable belief that the
democratic process of public participation will work for those who avail themselves
of iL.n
Barbara Blum, Deputy Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
18
-------
The USEPA/HCRS Joint Agency
Meeting
The issues and ideas raised at the Workshop
sessions during the two prevr'ous days were
evaluated by staff members from USEPA and HCRS
in a Joint Agency Meeting (JAM) held on
November 16, 1978, in the same hotel. Both
agencies were represented by staff from their
Washington, D.C., headquarters and each of
their regional offices. Considering the
suggestions and recommendations from the Work-
shop sessions, USEPA and HCRS personnel met to
develop a strategy through a coordinated agency
effort for a plan of action to assist grantees
in incorporating recreation and open space into
water quality management and wastewater treat-
ment facility plans. It was decided that
USEPA and HCRS in each region would meet to
develop a work plan to achieve this goal of
multiple use, implement the Clean Water Act
requirements, and organize jointly-sponsored
regional multiple use workshops at the local
level.
Flexibility Plus Commitment
The JAM participants stated several times
during the discussions that procedures need to
be flexible to meet the differing needs of each
Section 201 applicant. The opinion was also
expressed that an applicant for a small,
inexpensive 201 project need not conduct as
intensive an evaluation of recreation and open
space opportunities as an applicant for a major
treatment system. The conferees specifically
rejected any suggestion that certain small
project applicants should be exempt from the
consideration requirements altogether.
It was acknowledged that in some instances
there would be no recreation or open space
plans, recreation demand studies, or inventories
that could specifically aid the WQM agency or
the 201 applicant. It was also felt that an
applicant should not necessarily be expected to
produce such information if it were not other
wise available. Regardless of the availability of
such documents, many thought that the best
barometer of local and regional needs would be
obtained through the public participation
process.
JAM attendees agreed on the need to involve
local recreation agencies throughout the WQM or
201 planning process, and the desirability of
including recreation planners or landscape
architects on the project planning teams. Under
existing procedures, both HCRS and the State
Recreation Agency/State Liaison Officer should
be appraised of the applicant or agency's
planning activities.
Public Participation Role
The attendees stressed the importance of
early public involvement in the planning process.
Several thought that existing public participa-
tion requirements should be expanded to insure
that recreation and open space opportunities are
discussed separately from other elements of the
planning effort. There was no support, however,
for creating a separate public participation
process for the consideration of recreation and
open space opportunities. Rather it was stated
that existing procedures permitted adequate
public involvement.
There was considerable interest in ensuring
that identified recreation and open space
opportunities were actually considered during
the selections of both the treatment system and
the treatment site. The attendees indicated
that cost-effectiveness determination does not
necessarily mean "lowest cost," and it should not
preclude the opportunity to consider the value of
recreation and open space opportunities that
may be associated with various alternative
treatment systems.
It was also recommended that, in addition to
establishing an effective public participation
program, WQM agencies and programs should identify
other agencies or groups that can provide
sustained leadership to develop recreation/
open space opportunities in conjunction with
wastewater treatment facilities. Such agencies
would include park and recreation agencies,
conservation commissions, and watershed
associations, singly or in combination. These
diverse groups should also be involved more
specifically in the consideration and implementa-
tion of recreation/open space opportunities in
201 projects.
Coordination funding arrangements were
also determined to be of importance. The JAM
attendees agreed that funds for WQM and 201
planning and implementation must be made
available for these programs to be effective.
Suggestions were made with regard to joint
funding by the two agencies. It was suggested
that a fund be set aside that would contain monies
from sources in both agencies, such as HCRS'
Land and Water Conservation Fund and USEPA's
WQM (208) and Construction (201) grants.
The Joint Agency Meeting provided an
opportunity for immediate reaction to, and
discussion of, the Workshop topics by members
of the agencies responsible for implementing
the WQM and 201 programs. A list of the JAM
attendees is provided in Appendix I; those
interested in the WQM and 201 programs may find
them to be a most effective initial contact in
implementing this program.
19
-------
we seek is more efficient management of water resource
projects, improved state/Federal cooperation, a new emphasis on
water conservation and an increased attention to environmental
quality.W
James A. Joseph, Under Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
20
-------
Appendix A
Reprint of Workshop Program
Water Cleanup and Recreations -
Making It Work for People
A Workshop Jointly Sponsored by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
November 14-15, 1978, Pick Congress Hotel, Chicago, Illinois
Workshop Agenda
Monday, November 13
5:00 - 10:00 p.m. CHECK-IN FOR REGISTRANTS (Windsor Room)
6:30 - 10:00 p.m. RECEPTION (Cash Bar) (Windsor Room)
Slide shows and other exhibits relevant to the Workshop will be shown through-
out the reception.
Tuesday, November 14
8:00 a.m. LATE CHECK-IN FOR REGISTRANTS (Francis I Room)
8:30 a.m. WELCOME (Gold Room)
Speakers: John McGuire. Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Chicago, Illinois
David Shonk, Assistant Regional Director
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Lake Central Region
Ann Arbor, Michigan
8:45 a.m. PUBLIC BENEFITS FROM WATER CLEANUP AND THE LAND (Gold Room)
Speakers: James A. Joseph, Under Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C.
Barbara Blum. Deputy Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
9:45 a.m. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN WATER CLEANUP AND THE LAND (Gold Room)
Speakers: Gary Dunbar, Vice President
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts
Barry Tindall. Director
Division of Public Affairs
National Recreation and Park Association
Arlington, Virginia
10:30 a.m. WORKSHOPS (Meeting Rooms)
I. Community Involvement in Setting Recreation/Water Cleanup Goals
Moderators: Charles Kaiser, Assistant Executive Director and
General Counsel
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
St. Louis, Missouri
-------
Resource
People (USEPA)
Ray Griffin, Town Supervisor
Grand Island, New York
Brion Blackwelder
Florida Conservation Foundation
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Chuck iCincaid, Supervisor of Management Planning
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Springfield, Illinois
Lee Daneker
Office of Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Clem Rastatter, Senior Associate
Conservation Foundation
Washington, D.C.
RobertGift, Division Chief
HCRS -. Northeast Region
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
William O'Neal, Jr., Assistant Regional Director
HCRS - Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
Julie Nagle, Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS - Pacific Southwest Region
San Francisco, California
LL. Incorporating Recreation and Conservation Joint Development
Opportunities into Water Quality Management Plans (208)
Resource
People (HCRS)
Moderators:
Resource
I'ooplo (USEPA)
Resource
People (HCRS):
Susan Wilkes
Old Colony Planning Council
Brockton, Massachusetts
Amos Roos, 208 Planner
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Roseville, Minnesota
Edward Koenemann, Director of Planning
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Montpelier, Vermont
Bart Hague, Chief of Environmental Studies
USEPA - Region I
Boston, Massachusetts
Michael McMullin, Chief of Water Policy Section
USEPA - Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Barry Chefer, Water Planning Division
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Lyle Hollenbeck, Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS - Mid-Continent Region
Denver, Colorado
Pleas M. Glenn, Jr., Division Chief
HCRS - South Central Region
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Tom Gilbert, Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS - Lake Central Region
Ann Arbor, Michigan
22
-------
12:15 p.m.
12:30 p.m.
1:45 p.m.
3:05 p.m.
3:30 p.m.
5:10 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
8:00 p.m.
III. Designing and Managing Recreation and Conservation Opportunities
in Wastewater Treatment Facilities (201)
Moderators: Marty Jessen, Chief Park Planner
Metropolitan Council
St. Paul, Minnesota
J. Ross Vincent, President
Ecology Center of Louisiana, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana
George E. Fogg, Chief of Division of Outdoor Recreation
Department of Environmental Resources
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Resource
People (USEPA)
Resource
People (HCRS)
Elaine Stanley
Facility Requirements Division
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Raymond Pfortner, Public Participation Coordinator
USEPA - Region II
New York, New York
Ted Hillmer, Sanitary Engineer
USEPA - Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
John Brown, Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS - Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
Robert J. Arkins, Assistant Regional Director
HCRS - Mid-Continent Region
Denver, Colorado
Michelle G. Smyser, Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS - Northeast Region
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
BUSES DEPART from the Michigan Avenue Entrance for Chicago Union Station
TRAIN DEPARTS from Chicago Union Station for Naperville, Illinois
(box lunches en route)
BRIEFING ON FIELD TRIP (Naperville City Council Chambers)
Speakers: Allan Poole, Director
Water and Wastewater Utilities
City of Naperville
Chester Rybick, Mayor
City of Naperville
Scott Reese, Superintendent of Planning and Park Resources
Naperville Park District
Erskin Klyce
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Chicago, Illinois
BOARD BUSES for Springbrook Treatment Facility
Enroute to Springbrook view elements of regional open space plan development
forest preserves, parks, greenways, and regional trails.
ARRIVE AT SPRINGBROOK and view facilities
BOARD BUSES for Nordic Hills Conference Center
COCKTAILS (Cash Bar) (Nordic Hills Conference Center)
DINNER (Nordic Hills Conference Center)
INFORMAL PRESENTATIONS (Nordic Hills Conference Center)
-------
Raymond Pfortner, Public Participation Coordinator
USEPA - Region II
New York, New York
Meg Maguire, Deputy Director
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
Washington, D.C.
Ralph Nordstrom, Land Use Coordinator
USEPA - Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Tom Gilbert, Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS - Lake Central Region
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Rita Barren, Executive Director
Charles River Watershed Association
Auburndale, Massachusetts
10:00 p.m. BUSES DEPART for Pick Congress
Wednesday, November 15
8:30 a.m. PLENARY SESSION (Gold Room)
9:00 a.m. WORKSHOPS I, II, AND III REPEATED (Meeting Rooms)
10:45 a.m. WORKSHOPS I, II, AND III REPEATED (Meeting Rooms)
12:30 p.m. LUNCHEON (Buckingham Room)
Speaker: Jack Sheaffer
Sheaffer and Roland
Chicago, Illinois
2:00 p.m. FINAL PLENARY SESSION (Buckingham Room)
Reports by workshop moderators; discussion by workshop participants
Moderator: John Gerba
Office of Land-Use Coordination
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
3:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT
24
-------
Appendix B
Workshop Reid Trip- Springbrook Regional
Water Reclamation Center
Naperville, Illinois
The first day of the workshop included a
field trip to Naperville's Springbrook Regional
Water Reclamation Center, an excellent example
of a wastewater treatment plant which has
incorporated recreational facilities that are
being actively used by the public. Following
an orientation session in the Naperville City
Council Chambers, the Workshop attendees were
taken on a guided bus tour of the greenways
and other recreation/open space opportunities
that have been created in the Naperville area.
They were then given a tour of the Springbrook
facility.
Springbrook is located on a 125-acre site
with its high-quality effluent discharge to the
DuPage River approximately 1/2-mile below the
confluence of the East and West Branches. The
treatment facilities serve a population of
75,000 and the additional wastewater flows from
industrial, commercial, and institutional
customers. Ultimate expansion of the facilities
will accommodate up to 150,000 population as
service is extended to future developments
throughout the watershed.
Springbrook was constructed as a joint
project of federal, state, and local governments
with 55 percent of the funds coming from a USEPA
construction grant and 25 percent of the funds
from a grant from the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency. The remaining 20 percent of
the funding was obtained through a local sewer
revenue bond issue. No property taxes have been
or will be used for construction or operation
of the facilities. All funding is from the
construction grants and wastewater services
charges.
A multi-purpose land use plan has been
developed for the 125 acres which incorporates
technical, educational, and recreational
activities. A 15.5-acre section has been leased
to the Naperville Park District for Naperville
area residents to grow their own vegetables for
both food and enjoyment. A 28.3-acre section
has been leased to the Naperville Community
School District for a student farming program.
Students in agriculture classes learn crop growing
methods and farm machinery operation while in
turn utilizing digested sludges for on-site
fertilization and nutrient uptake in grain crops.
A canoe launch and parking area was constructed
near the outfall structure area by an Eagle Boy
Scout candidate with the assistance of the
Springbrook staff. This location is the finish
line for the Naperville Park District's Annual
DuPage River Canoe Race. Other site improvements
to create a complete park environment surrounding
the Center will be achieved by landscaping and
land forms.
25
-------
Future additions such as a tree nursery, sod Following is a more detailed description of
farm, and horticultural class experimental the many aspects of Springbrook's multiple-use
area are being explored. facility.
UWAW/KNCV tvtf
^
Proposed Lind USK:
a Active Park Develonmei>t
b Lowland Meadow-
SPRINGBROOK REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION CENTER
naperville - plainfield road naperville, Illinois
c Upland Woodland
e Lowlitnd River Aroa
I Plant Facilities & Grounds
g Crop Management Area
* vocational "v^i suhuoi
student (aiming
• on iitp sludoe
Tour Program
In the original design of the Springbrook
treatment process units it was planned that
visitor tours should be properly and safely
accommodated, particularly for school children.
This educational experience was anticipated for
every student in the Naperville area in conjunc-
tion with the public and parochial school
systems. Tour orientation begins in the
Conference Room with brochures for each visitor
and discussion followed by an organized tour
through the Water Quality Laboratory, Operations
Control Center rooms, and the Observation Deck.
The Observation Deck is an elevated structure
which permits safe viewing of almost the entire
treatment process from a single vantage point.
A push-button actuated tape-recorded explana-
tion of the treatment process from units mounted
on each side of the deck is planned. This would
permit a brief and concise commentary for both
self-tours and group tours.
Community Garden Plots
A lease agreement for 15.5 acres of the
Springbrook property has been made with the
Naperville Park District for community gardening.
The district has developed 340 plots each
averaging approximately 600 square feet. The
district provides a pressurized water system in
addition to general upkeep of the grounds around
the garden plots. This community garden program
provides the area residents with the means for
obtaining recreation in gardening activities in
addition to growing vegetables for their home
use.
26
-------
Student Farming Program
Weather Station
A lease agreement for 28.3 acres of the
Springbrook property has been made with the
Naperville Community School District for student
farming. The program involves high school
students who are involved in the Career Education
Program—Vocational Agriculture, in conjunction
with the school's Cooperative Education Program.
Most of the students involved are members of the
Future Farmers of America and have career plans
for farming. The Student Farming Program is
intended to provide instruction on equipment use
and farming techniques. Land used for student
farming receives applications of digested sludges
which provide crop fertilization. Nutrient uptake
by grain crops grown on the land removes nutrients
which would otherwise build up and leach into
groundwater. The Student Farming Program thus
benefits both the School District and the City of
Naperville.
Canoe Launch and Fishing Area
The canoe launch is located at the effluent
discharge from the Springbrook Regional Water
Reclamation Center. The landscaping plan was
provided by the Naperville Park District. An
Eagle Scout candidate and his fellow scouts
provided labor for other landscaping and related
work. The Naperville Park District uses this
location as a finish line for the Annual DuPage
River Canoe Race. The race begins at Centennial
Beach and is nine miles long, terminating at the
Springbrook Canoe Launch.
This location affords a picturesque view
looking upstream on the DuPage River and future
plans include additional landscaping and facilities
for picnicking and hiking.
Observatory
The Naperville Astronomical Association,
which was founded in March 1973 by nine students
at a Naperville high school, owns and operates
an observatory at Springbrook. These students
were members of an Astronomy Club whose objec-
tive in forming the Association was to site and
construct an observatory. In searching for a
location they were looking for an open space
area that would be easily accessible and free
from city lights. The Springbrook site is ideal
in these respects. The observatory has a 10-
foot dome with a 10-inch reflecting telescope.
Members of NAA have done some professional-
type sighting and some photography, and they are
planning more of these activities. They conduct
public observation sessions on a regular basis
and schedule viewings for various astronomical
events. Area youth church groups have been
particularly involved in these activities.
A complete weather station was provided at
the time of construction of tha Springbrook
Water Reclamation facilities. Certain weather
information, such as wind direction, rainfall,
humidity, and temperature are important in
relation to treatment plant operation, sludge
withdrawals, and land application. A complete
weather package with recording rain gauges has
been provided. On a weekly basis the weather
information is provided to the Naperville Sun
and as a public service this information is
provided to Naperville area residents. In
addition, several weather studies have been done
using the Springbrook station.
Polling Place
Wheatland Township has used the Springbrook
Administration-Control Building as their Precinct
#2 polling place for several years. The lobby is
used for the registration tables with the conference
room for the voting booths. Voters have year round
access to the polling place on maintained roads with
adequate parking. At this publicly-owned facility,
the flags of the United States of America and the
State of Illinois are flown daily to encourage the
recognition and responsibility of good citizenship.
The city encourages voters to look around and
become familiar with this environmental control
center. Local support is much easier to maintain
when area residents come in physical contact with
the Springbrook facility.
Conference Room
The uses of the conference room since the
Springbrook opening have been many. They include:
• Orientation of Student Tour Groups
• Wheatland Township Precinct #2
Polling Place
• DuPage Valley Homeowners
Association Meeting
• "Basic Water Supply Operator's
Course" by College of DuPage
• Illinois Society of Professional
Engineers—DuKane Chapter (Executive
Board meetings and annual scholar-
ship interviews)
• City of Naperville Departments:
- Police Department Training
-------
- Mid-level Supervisors Meetings
- Water and Wastewater Utilities:
a) Safety Meetings
b) Operations Meetings
c) Staff Meetings
• Illinois Water Pollution Control
Operator's Association—Northeast
Sectional Meeting
• Naperville Park District Staff
Meetings
In addition to these multi-purpose uses, the
conference room is the library-reference room for
the Department of Water and Wastewater Utilities.
On file are bound copies of the Water Pollution
Control Federation and American Waterworl's
Association Journals and other periodicals.
In summary, the Springbrook Regional Water
Reclamation Center is much more than a wastewater
treatment plant. It is a facility designed and
built for public education, recreation, and public
service. The following table summarizes the
multiple uses of Springbrook.
Table B-l. Present Multi-Purpose Uses of Naperville1s
Springbrook Regional Water Reclamantion Center
Property
Element
Technical
Educational
Canoe Launch and
Fishing Area
Observatory
Garden Plots and
Watering System
Cropland Farming-Sludge
Fertilization
Polling Place
Weather Station
Visitor Observation
Deck and Tour Program
Conference Room and
Audio-Visual Equipment
Treatment Units and
Instrument Control
Sys terns—Display
Panels
Recreational
X
X
Public
Service
X
X
28
-------
Appendix C
Key Contacts In USEPA And HCRS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters
Mr. John Gerba
Office of Environmental Review
Office of the Administrator (A-100)
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/755-8835
Ms. Elaine Stanley
Facility Requirements Branch
Municipal Construction Division (WH-547)
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/426-9404
Mr. David Green
Program Management Branch
Water Planning Division (WH-554)
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/245-3154
Regional Offices
Region I
Mr. Bart Hague
Room 2203, JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617/223-5131
Region II
Mr. Ray P. Pfortner
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1009
New York, New York 10007
212/264-4536
Region III
Mr. Earle Bisher
Curtis Building
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
215/597-7543
Region IV
Mr. Richard Gingrich
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
404/881-4989
Region V
Mr. Roger Coppock
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312/353-2124
Regional Offices
Region VI
Mr. Kenton Kirkpatrick
Water Division
1600 Patteron Street, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
214/767-2656
Region VII
Mr. Dan Vallero
1735 Baltimore Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
816/374-5616
Region VIII
Mr. Patrick J. Godsil
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
303/837-2721
Region IX
Mr. Richard Coddington
100 California Street
San Francisco, Calif 91111
415/556-7686
Region X
Ms. Deborah Curl
Water Division
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
206/399-4011
-------
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
Headquarters
Dr. Irene L. Murphy; Ms. Carol B. Gardner
Division of Community and Human Res. Develop.
Water Resources
Pension Building
440 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20243
202/343-5571
Regional Offices
Northeast Region
Ms. PatiKenehan
600 Arch Street, Room 9510
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
215/597-7387
Southeast Region
Mr. John Brown
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404/221-2657
Lake Central Region
Mr. Ray Essell
Federal Building
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107
313/668-2060
South Central Region
Mr. Gary Easton
5000 Marble Avenue, N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
505/766-3720
Mid-Continent Region
Mr. Lyle Hollenbeck
Denver Federal Center
P.O. Box 25487
Denver, Colorado 80225
303/234-6460
Pacific Southwest Region
Mr. Louis Penna
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
415/556-2480
Northwest Region
Mr. Kelly Cash
Federal Building, Room 990
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98174
206/442-5366
30
-------
Appendix D
Memorandum of Understanding between the
Environmental Protection Agency and
U. S. Department of the Interior
I. Purpose
This Memorandum of Understanding has been developed in accordance with the provisions of the
Interagency Memorandum of Agreement prescribed in Section 304(j)(l) of Public Law 92-500, and
executed on August 30, 1973, by the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Secretaries of the Army, Agriculture and the Interior. The purpose of this Memorandum is to:
coordinate the programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and
the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) with the water quality management process
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency under sections 201, 208, and 303 of the Clean
Water Act; facilitate the participation of these Interior Bureaus in the State and local establish-
ment of water quality goals and the development and implementation of State and local programs to
achieve those goals; and assure adequate consideration, under the Clean Water Act, of program
needs of these Interior Bureaus.
II. Provisions
A. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service will to the extent resources permit:
1. Establish a central point in the National and Regional Offices to facilitate Bureau involve-
ment in the water quality management planning process, seek to derive Interior program benefits
from improved water quality, and coordinate and integrate regional and field program activities
with water quality management programs.
2. Participate in State and local review and State revision of water quality standards providing
technical assistance and information on the identification of water uses and water quality criteria
necessary to protect water uses including outdoor recreation needs, protection and propagation of
aquatic life and wildlife, and preservation of natural and cultural resources under the administra-
tive jurisdiction of trusteeship of the Agency.
3. Participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of State and areawide water
quality management plans, provide appropriate technical assistance and information, and serve on
advisory committees where appropriate.
4. Comment to EPA on State adopted water quality standards and State and areawide water quality
management plans submitted to EPA for approval.
5. Provide EPA with appropriate technical and other material for inclusion in guidance and other
memoranda circulated to EPA Regional Offices and State and areawide agencies.
6. Within 5 months after the effective date of this agreement recommend guidelines to EPA for
designating Outstanding National Resource Waters.
7. Within 6 months from the date of publication of mutually approved guidance under E.12,
identify waters under jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary which should be considered for
designation as Outstanding National Resource Waters. Participate in identifying such waters in
the State water quality standards review and revision process.
8. Submit a work plan for implementing this agreement within 90 days of the signing of this
memorandum and prepare an annual progress report reviewing activities of the previous year under
this agreement and updating the work plan.
B. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will to the extent resources permit:
1. Conduct research and provide technical assistance and information on development of water
31
-------
quality criteria.
2. Advise EPA and State and areawide water quality management planning agencies of FWS monitoring
results which indicate pollution levels that are detrimental to fish, wildlife, or their habitat.
3. In cooperation with HCRS, develop integrated water quality/water quantity modeling methods
and criteria for determining minimum and optimum stream flows and other physical parameters that
are necessary for protection of fish and wildlife and recreational objectives.
4. Assist States and areawide water quality management planning agencies as requested in
identifying endangered and threatened species and their critical habitats identified pursuant to
P.L. 93-205 in the planning area which are impacted by water quality. Recommend water quality
standards and other water quality management plan provisions to the States and areawide agencies
where necessary to protect and enhance-such species and habitats. FWS will assist, where
appropriate, in the development of those provisions.
5. In waters under FWS jurisdiction, comply with applicable Federal, State, interstate and
local requirements including State water quality standards as provided in section 313 of the
Clean Water Act.
6. Coordinate FWS activities which affect or concern water quality with appropriate water quality
management planning agencies.
7. Take an active role in selected special study projects under the water quality management
planning process and FWS programs to:
(a) identify water quality management planning activities to protect resources
of concern to the FWS;
(b) assist in the development of work plans; and
(c) participate in the development and implementation of the water quality
management planning program in cooperation with local, State and other
Federal agencies.
8. Encourage State Fish and Wildlife agency involvement in the development, review and revision
of water quality standards and development and implementation of water quality management plans.
9. Encourage consideration of public boat ramp and nature trail construction in facilities
planning.
10. Consistent with section 208 and related provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 and to the
extent resources are made available through FWS budget channels:
(a) Complete a National Wetlands Inventory, develop interpretive reports, and
make such information available to planning agencies as specified in the
Clean Water Act;
(b) Provide technical assistance to EPA Regional Offices and State 208 agencies
through training, handbooks, workshops, and direct consultation and advice;
(c) Develop environmental requirements and management techniques for key species
in wetlands or riparian habitats;
(d) Develop and demonstrate supplemental nonpoint source Best Managment Practices
to protect or enhance fish and wildlife'resources;
(e) Develop and demonstrate methods and strategies to utilize sewage wastewater
for fish and wildlife habitat enhancement;
(f) Initiate research to provide supplemental data on the effects of environmental
contaminants on fisli and wildlife and their supporting ecosystems from key
pollutants listed in Table 1 of the House Committee Print 95-33 (Committee on
Public Works and Transportation) and any additional pollutants designated under
307(a).
C. Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Service
In addition, the HCRS will to the extent resources permit:
32
-------
1. Identify recreation and open space opportunities and methods. Provide general advice con-
cerning the protection of natural and cultural resources.
2. Prepare program guidelines for State and local governments encouraging the use of Land and
Water Conservation Fund grants for the development of recreation and open space opportunities
in conjunction with existing and planned wastewater treatment works.
3. Coordinate program activities with the water quality management planning and the Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan process to maximize outdoor recreational benefits derived
from improved water quality and protect natural and cultural resources.
4. Develop guidance, in coordination with EPA and the FWS, encouraging and assisting State and
areawide water quality management planning agencies in enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities
and protecting natural and cultural resources. HCRS regional offices will distribute the guidance
to park and recreation agencies and encourage those agencies to address outdoor recreation in the
water quality management process.
5. Encourage appropriate State and local park, recreation, and natural resource agencies and
public constituencies to maximize HCRS program benefits derived from improved water quality and
to coordinate with and participate in water quality management planning.
6. Provide EPA with appropriate technical material relating to primary and supplemental public
recreational opportunities and protection of natural and cultural resources.
7. Convene, in cooperation with EPA, regional conferences to develop an awareness of the primary
and supplemental public recreation opportunities of State and local water quality management
planning programs.
8. Encourage through guidance the provision of adequate facilities to accept and treat wastes
from watercraft equipped with containment devices.
9. In cooperation with FWS, develop integrated water quality/water quantity modeling methods
and criteria for determining minimum and optimum stream flows and other physical parameters that
are necessary to achieve viable fish, wildlife and recreational objectives.
10. Participate in the development of State and areawide water quality management plans to assure
proper consideration and protection of natural and cultural resources which include properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the National Register of
Natural Landmarks. Assist as requested with water quality management plan implementation.
11. Encourage consideration of public boat ramp and nature trail construction in facilities
planning.
D. National Park Service (NFS)
The National Park Service will to the extent resources permit:
1. Assist State and areawide water quality management planning agencies in the review and
revision of water quality standards to identify:
(a) Water quality conditions necessary to preserve and protect natural and
cultural resources within the National Park System;
(b) Appropriate water uses consistent with the NFS responsibility;
(c) Waters which should be considered for designation as Outstanding National
Resource Waters.
2. Participate in the development and implementation of State and areawide water quality
management plans as necessary to assure proper consideration and protection of natural and
cultural resources within the National Park System.
3. Serve on advisory committees in water quality management planning areas where water quality
impacts units of the National Park Systems.
4. Encourage State natural resource management agency involvement in the review and revision
of water quality standards and development and implementation of water quality management plans.
33
-------
D. Take an active role in select demonstration-type projects under water quality management
planning and NFS programs to:
(a) identify water quality management planning programs to protect resources
under NFS jurisdiction;
(b) assist in the development oF work plans;
(c) participate in the development and implementation of water quality management
plans to maintain, restore, and enhance the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of waters associated with or affecting the involved units of the
National Park System.
6. Comply with State water quality standards in waters within units of the National Park System.
7. Coordinate NFS activities which affect or concern water quality with appropriate water
quality management planning agencies.
8. Identify endangered and threatened species and their habitats in units of the National Park
System for appropriate State and areawide water quality management planning agencies.
9. Assure that adequate facilities exist in units of the National Park System to accept and
treat wastes from watercraft equipped with containment devices.
10. Exercise such other legal authorities and responsibilities as are or may be available to
assure the maintenance, restoration, and/or enhancement of existing water quality in units of
the National Park System.
L. Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency will to the extent resources permit:
1. Establish contact points in the National and Regional offices for coordinating the activities
under this memorandum.
2. Provide assistance and all necessary information including National guidance to facilitate
the timely involvement of Interior Bureaus in the development of water quality management plans.
Assist these Interior Bureaus in securing placement on appropriate State and areawide water
quality management planning agency mailing lists.
3. Assure that State and areawide water quality management planning agencies actively seek the
advice and involvement of these Interior Bureaus and their State and local counterparts in the
water quality management planning process including State/EPA Agreement and areawide work program
formulation, advisory groups, and development and implementation of water quality management
plans.
4. Assure that State and areawide water quality management planning agencies coordinate their
activities with the appropriate Interior Bureau activities affecting the planning area.
5. Provide these Interior Bureaus with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed criteria
and information developed under sections 304(a) and 403 of the Clean Water Act.
6. Provide these Interior Bureaus with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed regulations,
guidance and technical publications under sections 208 and 303 of the Clean Water Act.
7. Respond to Interior Bureau comments transmitted under paragraphs 5 and 6 above.
8. Encourage State and areawide water quality management planning agencies to consider non-
structural solutions to water pollution control problems that will preserve and enhance fish
and wildlife habitat, open space and outdoor recreation.
9. Ensure that State water quality standards revisions describe the water quality necessary to
meet requirements of the Act, including protection of existing and designated beneficial uses
and designated Outstanding National Resource Waters.
34
-------
10. Assure that State and areawide water quality management planning agencies consider State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) priorities and State fish and wildlife plan priorities
and Comprehensive Statewide Historic Preservation Plan priorities.
11. Consult with these Interior Bureaus in the development of guidelines identifying open space
and recreation opportunities that can be expected to result from improved water quality, the
planning of wastewater treatment works, and waste management policies under section 201(f) of
the Clean Water Act.
12. Consult with Interior Bureaus for the purpose of developing EPA guidelines for identifying
Outstanding National Resource Waters; within 9 months after the effective date of this agreement,
issue the mutually approved guidelines for consideration by the States in the development of
water quality standards.
13. During the next scheduled (after mutually approved guidelines are published under E.12)
review and revision of Water Quality Standards encourage States to apply the guidelines and
consider designating waters identified under A.7 of this agreement by the Assistant Secretary;
encourage States to submit a written justification for failure to designate waters identified
under A.7 as Outstanding National Resource Waters; upon request of the Assistant Secretary, review
(in consultation with the Assistant Secretary and the State) the State's action and, in the absen^ i
of a State designation, take under consideration the promulgation of designations pursuant to
Section 303(c)(4) of the Clean Water Act, where appropriate.
14. Provide the Regional Directors of these Interior Bureaus with the opportunity to review and
comment on water quality management plans and State water quality standards submitted to the EPA
Regional Administrators for review and approval. The EPA Regional Administrators will carefully
consider comments submitted by these Interior Bureaus in the EPA revigw and approval process.
Upon request if the Director of FWS, HCRS, or NPS, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Planning and Standards will review unresolved concerns and will seek to resolve them prior to
approval. The Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management will participate upon
request of the Assistant Secretary.
15. Support these Interior Bureaus in obtaining resources to implement the provisions of this
agreement.
16. Submit a work plan to the Assistant Secretary for implementing EPA responsibilities under
this agreement within 90 days from the signing of this memorandum and prepare an annual progress
report reviewing activities of the previous year under this agreement and updating the work plan.
Within five years from the effective date of this agreement, the Deputy Administrator and the
Assistant Secretary shall review the effectiveness of this agreement in achieving the stated
purposes. If, based upon that review or at any time during the course of implementation of this
agreement, either the Deputy Administrator or the Assistant Secretary determines that the
memorandum needs modification, the Deputy Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall within
90 days after official notice negotiate such amendments considered appropriate.
D. Andrus
Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
Date
Doualas
Adyfiinistra
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
// -1*
Date
35
-------
Appendix E
Sources of Funding for Achieving
Recreation/Open Space Benefits
Agencies and Organizations Which Can Assist Recreation/Water Cleanup Programs
In the multiple use planning of water clean-
up and recreation programs, the two principal
federal agencies involved are the USEPA and the
U.S. Department of the Interior. USEPA is
responsible for administering the federal water
pollution control program as mandated by the
Clean Water Act of 1977. The goal of these
programs is to obtain water clean enough for
fishing and swimming by 1983 and to eliminate
the direct discharge of wastewater by 1985.
The Department of the Interior has three
bureaus which are involved with issues relating
to water cleanup and recreation. The primary
bureau involved with USEPA in the multiple use
planning of water pollution control facilities
is HCRS. HCRS administers the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) which provides finan-
cial assistance to states, cities, counties, and
towns for the acquisition of land for recreation
uses and the development of outdoor recreation
areas and facilities. Each state prepares a
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP) in order to participate in the Fund
program. In addition, HCRS administers a tech-
nical assistance program for providing advice
and information to state and local governments
as well as private interests on planning,
developing, financing, and managing outdoor
recreation programs. Additional information and
assistance pertaining to multiple use planning
is available from the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Park Service. Information
pertaining to water quality, waterfront land use
to protect streamside habitat, and the ability
of waterways to support diverse aquatic life can
be obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Advice and information dealing with the planning,
developing, and managing of recreation areas can
be obtained from the National Park Service.
Other agencies and organizations which can
assist water cleanup/recreation programs include:
Department of Agriculture
• The Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service administers the Water Bank Program
which provides payments to land owners who
agree to preserve their wetlands for migratory
waterfowl breeding and nesting areas.
• The Farmer's Home Administration administers
Resource Conservation and Development Loans
which can be made to local nonprofit corporations
or government agencies for funding public water-
36
oriented recreation opportunities; Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Loans which are
available to nonprofit organizations and govern-
ment agencies for fish and wildlife development
projects and public water-based recreation pro-
jects; and Community Facilities Loans available
to rural communities for constructing or improving
public recreation areas.
• The Forest Service handles a General Forestry
Assistance program which enables state agendas
to assist woodland owners and associations in
forest management and land use planning "tid
preparation of wild and scenic river studies.
• The Soil Conservation Service administers the
Resource Conservation and Development Program
and the Small Watershed Program which provide
grants and advisory services to rural communities
for the development of water-oriented recreation
and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.
The Department of Commerce
• The Office of Coastal Zone Management admin-
isters a grant planning program for coastal and
Great Lakes states for developing management
plans for coastal areas; the Coastal Energy
Impact Program which provides funds for the
restoration or replacement of recreation areas
damaged by or adversely impacted by coastal
energy-related development; and the Estuarine
Sanctuaries Program which provides funds to
assist states in the acquisition, development,
and operation of marine sanctuaries in coastal
estuaries. It also provides grant funds for t-he
purchase of access to public beaches and ofbt ••
coastal recreation and natural resource arertr?.
The Department of Treasury
• General Revenue Sharing, which provides 12
percent of all federal assistance to localities,
gives federal aid to all general purpose units
of government. These funds could be used as
matching monies for LWCF grants and other federal
grants.
The Department of Defense
• The Army Corps of Engineers, through their
responsibilities for maintaining harbors and
ensuring the navigability of waterways, partici-
pates in river and harbor cleanup efforts. Under
the 1974 Water Resource Development Act, the Army
-------
Corps of Engineers is experimenting with new flood
control techniques which can provide significant
opportunities for shoreline land preservation.
The Department of Housing
and Urban Development
• The department administers the Community
Development Block Grant program which can be used
by communities for acquisition, rehabilitation,
and construction of public park and recreation
areas.
• The Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program,
popularly called the "701" Program of which
recreation planning is one phase, funds such
activities as continuous community planning and
management, improved executive planning, decision-
making, and management capabilities by state,
local, and regional officials; and plans developed
by planning organizations.
and recreation boards or agencies, sewer com-
missions, public works departments, mayors,
town councils, and county boards of supervisors.
Non-Governmental Sources
• Many industrial and commercial corporations
are interested in supporting worthwhile community
projects. Assistance in identifying these
corporations may be obtained from the local
Chamber of Commerce or from state and community
development officials.
Philanthropic Sources
• Many philanthropic organizations have been
established for promoting projects which improve
the quality of life of the local community or
region. Assistance in identifying these sources
may be obtained from the local Chamber of Comnerce
and from local offices of environmental organiza-
tions such as Sierra Club and Izaak Walton League.
The Department of Labor
• Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA)
funds can provide jobs for the unemployed and the
underemployed. The CETA program is at the local
level and could be a potential labor source in
trail construction, paving, etc.
Regional Commissions
• Regional commissions are authorized under the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965 to grant "Supplements to Federal Grant-in-
Aid" to states and communities which cannot raise
the matching funds necessary to take part in
federal programs.
Professional and Public
Interest Groups
• Assistance to promote and plan water cleanup
and recreation projects may be obtained from
local or regional chapters of architectural,
engineering, or planning organizations and other
public interest groups.
State Agencies
• Many state agencies have grant programs which
complement federal activities. State programs
vary from providing grant assistance for the
construction of wastewater facilities to the
acquisition of recreational land. In addition,
considerable planning assistance for water clean-
up projects and recreational projects is normally
available from state planning and fish and wild-
life agencies.
Local Agencies
• Local agencies are the key to the success of
the water cleanup and recreation program. Many
local agencies and elected officials are
interested in participating in efforts to create
and implement water quality programs. These
agencies and officials include planning and
zoning boards, conservation commissions, park
37
-------
Following is a more detailed outline of these
funding sources, including information on the
funding levels available.
A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Section 201 provides Federal grants of up to 85 percent of the cost of
planning, designing, constructing, expanding, and improving wastewater
treatment facilities. EPA's Construction Grants Program provides funds
during Step 1, Facility Planning, for including recreation and open space
planning as part of planning for wastewater treatment facilities. At
present, USEPA policy does not provide Step 2 (Design) and Step 3
(Construction) funds for features solely associated with multiple use
projects. However, these features could be eligible if their costs
are not greater than the most cost-effective single purpose facility,
and if they are ancillary to the treatment process itself. For example,
site restoration and erosion control could be accomplished in such a way
as to lend itself to use as a trail corridor while included under land-
scaping and grading costs of the wastewater treatment facility. A staff
meeting room within a treatment facility could be opened to the public
use as an environmental education center or for other public purposes.
Section 208 areawide water quality management plans are 100 percent
federally fundable. Additionally, funding up to 75 percent is available
upon the completion of the 208 plan for continuing planning efforts.
With multiple use activities incorporated during the 208 planning process,
future facility planning can directly provide for recreation and open
space opportunities as a means of implementing the land use strategies
of the plan.
B. Department of Agriculture
1. Farmer's Home Administration (FMHA)
• Resource Conservation and Development Loans
• Community Facility Loans
• Business and Industry loan guarantees
Contact: Area Development Assistance Program
Farmer's Home Administration
416 South Building, Room 4116
14th and Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
2. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (50 percent match for recreation)
• Resource Conservation and Development (P.L. 87-703, as amended)
• Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (P.L. 83-566)
Contact: Administrator
Soil Conservation Service
United States Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250
202/447-4531
3. The Federal Assistance Programs Retrieval System (FAPRS)
Contact: Federal Program Information Branch
Office of Management and Budget
New Executive Office Building
Room 6013
Washington, D.C. 20503
202/395-3112
38
-------
C. Department of the Army
1. Army Corps of Engineers (50 percent match for recreation)
• Federal Water Project Recreation Act (P.L. 89-72)
Contact: Recreation-Resource Management Branch
Civil Works Directorate
Army Corps of Engineers
Forrestal Building
Washington, D.C. 20314
202/693-7177
D. Department of Commerce
1. Economic Development Administration (EDA) (80 percent federal/
20 percent local match. Loans also available.)
Contact: State Economic Development Administration
Offices are listed in Economic Development
Administration Grants for Public Works and
Development Facilities, Department of
Commerce, March 1977.
2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
Coastal Zone Management (planning and implementation funds
available)
Contact: Director
Coastal Zone Management Programs
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
3300 Whitehaven Street
Washington, D.C. 20235
202/634-1672
E. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW)
1. Environmental Education (provides funds to develop effective
environmental education practices and materials)
Contact: Office of Environmental Education
Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Education
Washington, D.C. 20202
2. The Older Americans Act (75 percent federal/25 percent local
match for recreation services to senior citizens)
Contact: Administration on Aging
Office of Human Development
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Washington, D.C. 20202
F. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Office of Community Planning and Development
• Community Development Block Grants (up to 100 percent grants)
• Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program ("701" Program)
(66.6 percent federal/33.3 percent local match)
Contact: Local Regional Council, see NaL/'-onal
Association of Regional I'ouncilr: (NAHC)
1373 Directory available from:
1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 1306
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/457-0710
39
-------
G. Department of the Interior
1. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (lease or acquisition of available
public lands for recreation purposes)
Contact: Bureau of Land Management Regional or State Offices
or
Division of Lands and Realty
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
Room 3649
Washington, D.C. 20240
2. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
• Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) (50 percent match)
Contact: State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Office or
appropriate Regional Office of Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service
(see Appendix B for list)
• Historic Preservation Fund (P.L. 89-665, as amended)
(50 percent match)
Contact: State Historic Preservation Office
or
Chief, Office of Archeology and Historic
Preservation, Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20243
• Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (70 percent
federal/30 percent local match)
Contact: Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20243
3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Pittman-Robertson Program (70 percent federal/30 percent
local match)
• Dingell-Johnson Program (70 percent federal/30 percent
local match)
Contact: Division of Federal Aid
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
202/235-1526
4. Office of Surface Mining and Abandoned Mine Lands (up to
100 percent grants to states for reclamation of abandoned
mine lands for park and recreation purposes)
Contact: Office of Surface Mining
Abandoned Mine Lands
Department of the Interior
South Building, Room 225
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
-------
5. Bureau of Reclamation (50 percent match for recreation)
• Federal Water Project Reclamation Act (P.L. 89-72)
H. Department of Labor
Comprehensive Employment and Training Administration (CETA)
(funding for maintenance and operations workers)
Contact: Comprehensive Employment and Training
Administration Regional Offices
I. Department of the Treasury
General Revenue Sharing (provides 12 percent of all Federal
assistance to localities; gives Federal aid to all gener.'l-
purpose units of government)
Contact: Office of Revenue Sharing
U.S. Department of the Treasury
2401 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20226
J. Independent Agencies
1. Community Services Administration (CSA) Summer Youth Program
(provides financial support for staff and logistical services
to enhance recreation opportunities for selected populations)
Contact: Community Services Administration
1200 19th Street, N.W., Room B-309
Washington, D.C. 20506
202/254-6410
2. Appalachian Regional Commission (provides supplemental funds to
eligible applicants unable to provide the required matching
share for community development activities)
Contact: Appalachian Regional Commission
1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235
202/673-7893
3. General Services Administration (GSA) [local governments or
planning agencies can apply for land or personal property
(equipment, etc.) determined to be surplus to Federal govern-
ment needs]
Contact: Assistant Commissioner
Office of Real Property
Public Building Service
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405
202/566-0552
Assistant Commissioner for
Personal Property Disposal
Federal Supply Service
General Services Administration
CSQ-5, Crystal Square
Arlington, Virginia 20406
703/557-1798
41
-------
4. National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities
National Endowment for the Arts (most activities relate broadly
to community development)
The direct contact for detailed information is:
Architecture and Arts Program
Mail Stop 503
National Endowment for the Arts
Washington, D.C. 20506
202/634-4276
General inquiries on several other Endowment programs
should be directed to:
Program Information Office
Mail Stop 550
National Endowment for the Arts
Washington, D.C. 20506
Detailed information on federal funding can be found in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance available from the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The 208 agency
should assist local governments in coordinating the search for implementation
funds.
42
-------
Appendix F
Relevant Publications
1. Managing Vandalism: A Guide to Reduaing Damage in Parks and Recreation Facilities, Parks
and Recreation Commission, City of Boston, May 1978..
2. Control of Vandalism in Recreation Areas—Pact, Fiction or Folklore?, USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report PSW-17, Washington, D.C., 1976.
3. An Evaluation of Policy-Related Research in the Field of Municipal Recreation and Parka,
Final Report, Volumes I-IV, National Recreation and Park Association, January 1975.
4. The Big Cleanup, Parks and Recreation, National Recreation and Park Association, Arlington,
Virginia, February 1977.
5. Bikeways, Design-Construction-Programs, National Recreation and Park Association, Arlington,
Virginia, 1974. Special Publications Series No. 10022.
6. Update on Section 208, League of Women Voters Education Fund, Washington, D.C.-^ Publication
No. 413, 1978.
7. Current Focus: Federal Environmental Laws and you, League of Women Voters Education Fund,
Washington, D.C., Publication No. 564.
8. Community Guide: Getting in the Swim: How Citizens Can Influence Water Quality Planning,
League of Women Voters Education Fund, Washington, D.C., Publication No. 188.
9. Clark County 208 Water Quality Management Plan, Clark County, Nevada, May 9, 1978.
10. Water, A Resource You Can Help Restore, Produced for U.S. EPA, by National Recreation and
Park Association, Arlington, Virginia.
11. Metropolitan Open Space and Natural Process, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, May 1970.
12. Directory of National Organizations Related to Recreation., Parks and Leisure, National
Recreation and Park Association, Arlington, Virginia, 1974.
13. Citizen Participation, Community Services Administration, Washington, D.C., January 7, 1978.
14. Outdoor Sports Facilities, Folio of Standard Drawings, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.,
EP 1110-1-6, July 1974.
15. Conservation Directory, The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., 23rd Edition, 1978.
16. The Public Benefits of Cleaned Water: Emerging Greenway Opportunities, Office of Land-Use
Coordination, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 20460, August 1977.
17. National Urban Recreation Study Summary Report, U.S. Department of the Interior, February 1978.
18. Recommended Master Plan for the East Bay Regional Park District, (Five Parts), Oakland,
California, June 1973.
19. 208 Areawide Plan/Development Guide on Water Quality Management, Metropolitan Council,
St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101, August 25, 1978.
20. 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element, Broward County,
Florida, 1978.
21. Phase III Final Alternative Analysis Report, Areawide Waste Treatment Management Study (208),
St. Louis City/St. Louis County, St. Louis, Missouri, October 1977.
43
-------
22. State Continuing Planning Process Handbook, U.S. EPA, Washington, B.C., 20460, December 1975.
23. Multiple Use of Waste Treatment Facilities and Rights-of-Way, U.S. EPA-Region I, Boston,
Massachusetts, 02203.
24. Prado Regional Park, San Bernardino County Department of Regional Parks, San Bernardino,
California, 1978.
25. Technical Assistance Handbook, U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service.
26. DRAFT Multiple Use Manual, prepared for U.S. EPA-Region II by WAPORA, Inc., February 1978.
27. Land and Water Conservation Fund, Assistance for Public Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service.
28. DRAFT The Urban Waterfront: Ideas for Revitalization, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1978. (Draft)
29. Marinas: A Guide to their Development for Park and Recreation Departments, by Joe Brown and
David G. Wright, Management Aid Bulletin #54, National Recreation and Park Association,
Arlington, Virginia, October 1965.
30. Evaluating Water Based Recreation Facilities and Areas, by Charles C. Stott, Management
Aid Bulletin #70, National Recreation and Park Association, Arlington, Virginia, March 1972.
31. Planning and Design of Ouidoor Recreation Facilities, Technical Manual #5-803-12, Headquarters,
Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., October 1975. Government Printing Office.
32. Standards Related to Water-Oriented and Water-Enhanced Recreation in Watersheds: Phases II
and III, Research Publication #101, by Betty van der Smissen and Monty L. Christiansen,
Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania, October 1978.
33. National Recreation Access Study, Volume L: Summary Report, U.S. Department of Transportation
and U.S. Department of the Interior, November 1974.
34. Water Cleanup, Recreation and Land-Use: The Public Benefits of Clean Water, Office of Land
Use Coordination, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior,
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington, D.C., 20460, Spring 1979.
For a listing of more recent materials see Page 11.
-------
Appendix U
Applicable Legislation
This appendix contains a summary of the
sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control
A.ct which authorizes the various water cleanup
programs administered by the USEPA.
Section 106 requires that states establish
criteria for deciding priorities in the alloca-
tion of Construction Grants money, and publish
an annual priority list of projects to receive
funds. Each state's "106 submission," including
the priority list, is reviewed in an annual
meeting with the appropriate USEPA regional
office, and citizens can participate in these
meetings. The priority list provides a major
opportunity for state water pollution control
agencies to coordinate their programs with park
and recreation agencies.
Section 201 authorizes the Construction
Grants program for assisting local governments
in building wastewater treatment facilities.
Federal funds are provided to cover up to 85
percent of the cost for municipal treatment
plants. The program can be administered through
the state water quality agencies, which often
provide further state funds to assist communities
even more. Section 201 requires use of best
practicable wastewater treatment technology in
any plant built with federal assistance, and
study of alternative waste management techniques
before any project is funded. When the Act was
amended in 1977, Congress required that recrea-
tion and open space opportunities be considered
in every treatment facility funded by USEPA.
Section 208 sets up the Areawide Waste Treat-
ment Management Planning process, also known as
"WQM planning." The Water Pollution Control Act
provided for WQM planning in recognition of the
fact that how land is used is a major factor in
the control and prevention of water pollution.
Important features of WQM planning are that it
deals with non-point sources of pollution (erosion,
sedimentation, farm runoff, etc.) as well as
point sources (industrial or municipal discharge
pipes), and that it requires regulatory mechanisms
to assure that pollution does not develop in the
future. Shoreland uses must be examined to
protect water quality. The 1977 Clean Water Act
amended Section 208 to require identification of
recreation and open space opportunities resulting
from improved water quality including "increased
access to water-based recreation." All permits
issued under Section 402 and all construction
grants made under Section 201 must be in con-
formance with approved WQM plans.
Section 303 requires each state to establish
a State Continuing Planning Process which sets
its major objectives and priorities for preventing
and controlling pollution over a five-year time
horizon. Water Quality Management Basin Plans
are also prepared for individual river basi'is.
These establish specific programs and targets for
water pollution prevention and control, and
establish policies to guide decision-making over
a twenty-year time frame.
Section 314 authorizes the "Clean Lakes
Program," which provides special funds and
mandates special planning to clean up fresh
water lakes. Planning is conducted at the state
level, and must specifically address land use
problems. Some money is also available for
actual cleanup programs.
Section 402 establishes the National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); the
permit system which requires all water polluters
to clean up their discharges on a legally
enforceable, step-by-step timetable. By 1977,
the NPDES permits require use of the best
practicable water pollution control technology;
by 1983, the use of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable. Individual
states can take over administration ot the NPDES
permit system if they demonstrate the ability to
manage the program effectively and agree to
follow the federal requirements.
Other legislation dealing with land use and
water cleanup/recreation development programs
includes:
(1) The Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended (P.L. 91-512)
(2) The Safe Drinking Act (P.L.
93-523)
(3) The Clean Air Act, as amended
(P.L. 91-604)
(4) The Coastal Zone Management Act
(P.L. 92-583)
(5) The Watershed Recreation and Flood
Protection Act (P.L. 83-506)
(6) The Rural Development Act of 1972
(P.L. 92-419)
(7) The Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act, as amended (P.L. 88-578)
(8) The National Historic Preservation
Act (P.L. 89-665)
(9) The Federal Restoration Act
(P.L. 81-681) and the Federal
Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act
(P.L. 75-415)
(10) The Endangered Species Act (P.L.
93-205)
(11) Waste Water Management Urban
Studies Program administered by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(P.L. 685, 1938; P.L. 429, 1913)
(12) Transportation Planning—administered
by DOT (P.L. 87-866, P.L. 93-336,
P.L. 93-503)
(13) The Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-355)
(14) Federal Aid Highways Act, 1973
(Highway Rights-of-Way).
45
-------
Appendix H
Workshop Participants
November 14-15, 1978
Joanne Alter
Commissioner
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
David Ariail
Land Treatment Specialist
USEPA, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
Robert J. Arkins
Assistant Regional Director
HCRS, Mid-Continent Region
Denver, Colorado
Sandy Babb
Alternate State Liaison
Officer
Raleigh, North Carolina
William Barbaro
Assistant General Superintendent
Chicago Park District
Chicago, Illinois
Rita Barron
Executive Director
Charles River Watershed
Association, Inc.
Auburndale, Massachusetts
Susan ISellLle
National Urban League
Chicago, Illinois
Earle P. liisher
Sanitary Engineer
USEPA, Region HI
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Brion Blackwelder
Florida Conservation Foundation
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Raymond M. Bohne
Ranger II
McHenry County Conservation
District
Ringwood, Illinois
46
Eve Boss
USEPA, Region VI
Dallas, Texas
Rowland T. Bowers
State Programs Division
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
John Brown, Chief
Division of Resource Planning and
Evaluation
HCRS, Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
Donald Burback
Councilman
Northglenn, Colorado
Commander C.A. Carleton
U.S. Coast Guard
Washington, D.C.
Kelly Cash
Planning Supervisor
HCRS, Northwest Region
Seattle, Washington
Barry Chefer
Water Planning Division
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Steve Christy
Supervisor of Planning and Design
Lake County Forest Preserve
District
I.ibertyville, Illinois
Michael Colvin
Environmental Scientist
Office of Outdoor Recreation
Services
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources
Columbus, Ohio
Kathy Couroy
Lake County Parka and Recreation
Department
Hobart, Indiana
Chuck Cook
Tennessee Department of
Conservation
Nashville, Tennessee
Roger Coppock
Assistant Chief of Facilities
Planning Branch
Water Division
USEPA, Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Ann B. Cowey
Staff Assistant
Office of Coastal Zone
Management
Washington, D.C.
Wayne M. Crayton
Fishery Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Set-vice
East Lansing, Michigan
Deborah Curl
Environmental Protection
Specialist
USEPA, Region X
Seattle, Washington
Lee Daneker
Office of Water afid Waste
Management
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Russell S. Davenport
Chicago Planning Department
Chicago, Illinois
Judy Dolan
Will County Forest Preserve
District
Joliet, Illinois
John Doyle
Public Works Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington., D.C.
Gary Dunbar
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts
Gerald Emmerich
Senior Planner
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission
Waukesha, Wisconsin
Signe Emmerich
Environmental Planner
Donahue and Associates
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
-------
Carol Finch
Office of Congressional Affairs
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
J. Theodore Fink
Project Manager
Open Lands Project
Chicago, Illinois
Robert S. Flick
Executive Director
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District
St. Louis, Missouri
George E. Fogg, Chief
Division of Outdoor Recreation
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Mike Furman
Ohio River Basin Commission
Cincinnati, Ohio
M. J. Gapp
Senator Adlai Stevenson's Office
Chicago, Illinois
Carol B. Gardner
Division of Community and Human
Resource Development
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
Dan Gardner
Staff Project Director
Little Calumet River Basin
Commission
.Highland, Indiana
Patricia Gaskins
Congressional Affairs Specialist
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
William Gaynor
Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene
Baltimore, Maryland
John Gerba
Office of Land-Use Coordination
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Bob Gift
Division Chief
HCRS, Northeast Region
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Thomas L. Gilbert
Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS, Lake Central Region
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Pleas M. Glenn, Jr.
Division Chief
HCRS, South Central Region
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Rich Greenwood
Fishery Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Rock Island, Illinois
Dennis Griesing
Government Affairs Manager
National Association of Engine
and Boat Manufacturers
New York, New York
Raymond P. Griffin
Erie and Niagara Counties
Regional Planning Board
Amherst, New York
John Gustafson, Director
Office of Land-Use Coordination
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Paul N. Guthrie, Jr.
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Douglas A. Hall
Senior Environmental Planner
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Roseville, Minnesota
Bart Hague
Chief of Environmental Studies
USEPA, Region I
Boston, Massachusetts
Ralph Heiden
Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
Lansing, Michigan
Irving F. Heipel
County Landscape Architect
Milwaukee County Park Commission
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
David L. Herbst
National Wildlife Federation
Rochester, Indiana
Ted Hillmer
Sanitary Engineer
USEPA, Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
Edward Hoffman
Resources Planner
Division of Planning and Design
Illinois Department of Conservation
Springfield, Illinois
Barry Hokanson
Senior Planner
Johnson County Regional Planning
Commission
Iowa City, Iowa
Lyle E. Hollenbeck
Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS, Mid-Continent Region
Denver, Colorado
Nancy Huey
Commissioner
City of Cocoa Beach
Cocoa Beach, Florida
Marty Jessen
Chief Park Planner
Metropolitan Council
St. Paul, Minnesota
James Joseph
Under Sacretary
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C.
Charles B. Kaiser, Jr.
Assistant Executive Director and
General Counsel
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District
St. Louis, Missouri
Susan Kane
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
Atlanta, Georgia
Bernard Katz
Chicago Department of Water and
Sewer
Chicago, Illinois
George Kelly
Supervising Engineer
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Claudia Kerbawy
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Lansing, Michigan
Chuck Kincaid
Supervisor of Management Planning
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Springfield, Illinois
47
-------
Dan Kitchel
Economis t
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Lansing, Michigan
Erskine Klyce
Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission
Chicago, Illinois
Helen Tapp LaVance
Division of Community and Human
Resource Development
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
John E. Layden, Jr.
Recreation Planner
Raleigh, North Carolina
Bonnie Lounsbury
Sierra Club
Chicago, Illinois
William Macaitls
Supervising Engineer
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Meg Maguire, Deputy Director
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
Roy M. Mathiesen
Landscape Architect
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
St. Louis, Missouri
Narendra Mathur
Sanitary Engineer
District of Columbia Bureau of
Air and Water Quality
Washington, D.C.
Donald Mausshardt
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Mike McMullin
Chief of Water Policy Section
USEPA, Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Louis Meyer
Water Resources Planner
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Terence J. Miller
Fishery Biologist
U.S. Department of the Interior
East Lansing, Michigan
48
Robert E. Molzahn
Harza Engineering Company
Chicago, Illinois
Patrick Morley
Assistant Superintendent of
Planning
Elmhurst Park District
Elmhurst, Illinois
Irene L. Murphy, Chief
Water Resources Section
Division of Community and Human
Resource Development
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
B. C. Nagelvoort
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Julie A. Nagle
Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS, Pacific Southwest Region
San Francisco, California
Dave Nichols
USEPA, Region VI
Dallas, Texas
J. Robert Nicholson
Vice President, Government
Affairs
Zlmpro, Inc.
Rothschild, Wisconsin
Ralph V. Nordstrom
USEPA, Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Mel Novit
BIA
Chicago, Illinois
J. Warren Nute
Consulting Engineer
J. Warren Nute, Inc.
San Rafael, California
Steve Ohm
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
William O'Neal, Jr.
Assistant Regional Director
HCRS, Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
Philip Osborn
Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS, Northwest Region
Seattle, Washington
William C. Pierce
Head of Technical Aid Section
Recreation Services Division
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Lansing, Michigan
Richard Paton
Chicago, Illinois
Ernesto Perez
208 Project Officer
USEPA, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
Raymond Pfortner
Public Participation Coordinator
USEPA, Region II
New York, New York
Allan Poole, Director
Water and Wastewater Utilities
City of Naperville
Naperville, Illinois
Paul Rasmussen
Planner
Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission
Chicago, Illinois
Clem Rastatter
Senior Associate
Conservation Foundation
Washington, D.C.
Scott Reese
Superintendent of Planning and
Park Resources
Naperville Park District
Naperville, Illinois
Amos Roos
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Roseville, Minnesota
R. E. Schenk
President
Schenk Engineering Company
Waterloo, Iowa
Doyle Sebesta
Environmental Planner (Water
Quality)
Central Texas Council of
Governments
Belton, Texas
Michael Selak
Associate Civil Engineer
Detroit Water and Sewage
Department
Detroit, Michigan
-------
Appendix I
Participants in the USEPA/HCRS
Joint Agency Meeting
November 16, 1978
David Ariail
Water Division
USEPA, Region IV
Altanta, Georgia
Robert J. Arkins
Assistant Regional Director
HCRS, Mid-Continent Region
Denver, Colorado
Earle Bisher
Water Division
USEPA, Region III
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Eve Boss
Water Division
USEPA, Region VI
Dallas Texas
Rowland T. Bowers
State Programs
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
John Brown
Division of Resource Planning
and Evaluation
HCRS, Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
Kelly Cash
Planning Division
HCRS, Northwest Region
Seattle, Washington
Barry Chefer
Water Planning Division
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Michael Cook
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Roger Coppock
Facilities Planning Branch
USEPA, Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Deborah Curl
Water Division
USEPA, Region X
Seattle, Washington
Lee Daneker
Office of Water and Waste
Management
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Howard Deardorff
Leisure Information Service
Washington, D.C.
Carol Finch
Office of Legislation
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Carol Gardner
Water Resources Division
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
Patricia Gaskins
Congressional Affairs Division
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
John Gerba
Office of Land-Use Coordination
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Robert F. Gift
Planning Division
HCRS, Northeast Region
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Thomas Gilbert
T)-fv""ion of Implementation
Assistance
HCRS, Lake Centra] Region
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Pleas M. Glenn, Jr.
Division Chief
HCRS, South Central Region
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Brad Green
Leisure Information Service
Washington, D.C.
Bart Hague
Water Programs
USEPA, Region I
Boston, Massachusetts
Ed Hoffman
Research and Planning
Illinois Department of
Conservation
Springfield, Illinois
Lyle Hollenbeck
Federal Programs
HCRS, Mid-Continent Region
Denver, Colorado
Irene L. Murphy
Division of Water Resources
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
Julie Nagle
Division of Land Use Coordination
HCRS, Pacific Southwest Region .
San Francisco, California
Dave Nichols
Water Division
USEPA, Region VI
Dallas, Texas
Ralph Nordstrom
208 Recreation/Wastewater
Coordination
USEPA, Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Philip Osborn
Planning Division
HCRS, Northwest Region
Seattle, Washington
Ernesto Perez
208 Programs
USEPA, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
Ray Pfortner
Public Affairs Division
USKI'A, Region II
New York City, New York
Amos Roos
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Roseville, Minnesota
50
-------
Ed Shalkey
Chief Landscape Architect
Dupage Forest Preserve
Lombard, Illinois
Jack Sheaffer
Sheaffer and Roland, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
Larry Sheridan
USEPA, Region VII
Kansas City, Missouri
David H. Shonk
Assistant Regional Director
HCRS, Lake Central Region
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Thomas Slenkamp
Project Monitor
USEPA, Region III
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Richard Smith
USEPA, Region VII
Kansas City, Missouri
John Smolak
Facilities Development
Representative
Governor's Office of Economic
and Community Development
Charleston, West Virginia
James C. Smolesky
Superintendent of Buildings
and Grounds
Mt. Prospect Park District
Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Michelle G. Smyser
Outdoor Recreation Planner
HCRS, Northeast Region
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Raleigh Spinks
Erie County Government
Buffalo, New York
Elaine Stanley
Municipal Construction Division
USEPA
Washington, D.C.
Lawrence N. Stevens
Consultant
Urban Environment Foundation
Arlington, Virginia
Judith M. Stockdale
Executive Director
Open Lands Project
Chicago, Illinois
Tom T. Tayler
Director of Parks and
Recreation
Mt. Prospect Park District
Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Gregg Tichacek
Resources Planner
Division of Planning and Design
Illinois Department of
Conservation
Springfield, Illinois
Barry Tindall
National Recreation and Park
Association
Arlington, Virginia
J. Ross Vincent
President
Ecology Center of Louisiana, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana
Leslie S. Wardrup
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina
James L. Warner
Staff Engineer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Roseville, Minnesota
Edward L. Wegner, Jr.
Director of Parks and Recreation
Valparaiso Park District
Valparaiso, Indiana
Glenn R. Wentink
Project Coordinator
Greeley and Hansen
Chicago, Illinois
Susan Wilkes
Old Colony Planning Council
Brockton, Massachusetts
Bill Wilson
USEPA, Region IX
San Francisco, California
Wil Wilson, Jr.
Division of Community and Human
Resource Development
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
Gene Wright
Environmental Scientist
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Columbus, Ohio
-------
Larry Sheridan Tom Slenkamp Elaine Stanley
Water Quality Planning Branch EIS Preparation Facility Requirements Division
USEPA, Region VII USEPA, Region III USEPA
Kansas City, Missouri Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Washington, D.C.
David Shonk Michelle G. Smyser Bill Wilson
Assistant Regional Director Planning Division Water Division
HCRS, Lake Central Region HCRS, Northeast Region USEPA, Region IX
Ann Arbor, Michigan Philadephia, Pennsylvania San Francisco, California
Wil Wilson
Water Resources
HCRS
Washington, D.C.
51
------- |