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 ------- |