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

-------