&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Environmental Review (A 104)
Washington, D.C. 20460
OPA41/8
February 1980
United States
Department of the
Interior
Heritage Conservation
Recreation Service
Washington DC 20243
Recreation
and Land Use:
the Public Benefits
of Clean Waters
-------
"I^BII5*!! BT
US EPA-AWBERC LIBRARY
30701 10042465 1
-------
Preface
The American people have expressed their commitment to clean water through the
actions of Congress and the results of public opinion polls, time after time.
The construction of wastewater facilities is first and foremost an environmental
improvement program, designed to fulfill the dream to be able to fish in cleaned
waters, swim in unpolluted lakes, stroll along pleasant shorelines and restore our
spirits by the waterside in city and country alike. It has at the same time strengthened
the economy, created more than 300,000 construction jobs and helped to build
America's multibillion dollar recreation industry.
The water pollution control program should be used to obtain the broadest
environmental benefits possible, especially in the realization of recreation
opportunities. Congress has given us that opportunity — and responsibility.
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Water quality improvement brought about by Public Law 92-500 has truly been a
national effort substantially assisted by public funds. Great strides have been made
at all levels of government in .the coordination of water planning. Much still can be
done to assure public benefits of improved water quality.
As combined efforts result in still better water quality, we should strive to make clean
water, this "newly created resource," more accessible for public recreation and fish
and wildlife activities.
I applaud the amendments in P.L. 95-217 and pledge cooperation by the
Department of the Interior to bring about the desired results.
Cecil D. Andrus
Secretary of the Interior
-------
-------
Recreation and Land Use:
the Public Benefits of Clean Waters
(clockwise, starting upper left)
The EPA Mandate —
to improve water quality;
The Purpose of the Clean Water
Act-
to achieve fishable and swimmable
waters;
The Coal of the EPA and DOI
Initiative—
to increase public access and
benefits to cleaned up water;
The Need for Public
Partnership —
to identify recreation and
open-space opportunities
associated with water quality
management planning and
wastewater facility construction.
Preface
Background
IV
Introduction
The Problem
The Opportunities
Enlisting
Government and
Other Help
Increasing Awareness Of The Concept
Programs Of The Two Principal Federal Agencies
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Department Of The Interior
Other Federal Agencies
State and Local Programs
Other Sources
Water Cleanup, Recreation
and Conservation Opportunities
Community Involvement in Coordinating Acquisition
and Protection Measures
Design Opportunities at
Waste Treatment Facility Sites
1. Multiple Use
2. Recycling Outmoded Facilities
3. Environmental Education
Expanding Opportunities Through State/Areawide
Water Quality Planning
1. Joint Developments
2. Greenways
15
Water Cleanup and
Land Use
Reducing Adverse Impacts From Facility Construction
Preventing Repollution Through Shoreland Protection
Using Water Cleanup By-products To Improve the
Quality Of Land
37
Challenges for
Action
41
-------
Background
This brochure is about
recreation and the
re-creation of the water
environment; about conservation,
wildlife, and shoreland protection
potentials it presents for
adjacent lands; and
about the public's interest and
responsibility to secure access to,
and protect, these recaptured
opportunities.
Principal Investigators
John Gerba
Office of Environmental
Review, EPA
Bart Hague
EPA Region 1 Water
Division
The purpose of this particular
publication is to present
an overview of the recreation and
land use benefits emerging from
water quality improvements. It
outlines steps that can be taken
by interested citizens and public
officials to obtain public benefits
from coordinating recreation and
water cleanup programs. It is
designed to be an action manual
of what needs to be done and
how to do it.
Other Items in the series include a
publication entitled The Public
Benefits of Cleaned Water:
Emerging Greenway Oppor-
tunities', a case study series
prepared by the Office of EPA Land
Use Coordination entitled
Mitigating Secondary Impacts from
the Wastewater Facilities Program;
and an audio-visual presentation
entitled "Public Partnership in the
Clean Waters Program."
The initiative to secure the public
benefits of clean water represents a
combined effort by the Office of
EPA Land Use Coordination,
Office of Water Planning and
Standards, and Office of Water
Program Operations in EPA, and
the Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service in the Depart-
ment of the Interior. EPA and
HCRS Regional Offices have also
been closely involved in the effort.
Text written by
Sharon F. Francis
Richard J. DeSanti
Consultants
Design & Graphics
Donna Kazaniwsky
EPA Design/Graphics
'V
-------
Introduction
Water cleanup, shoreland
protection and access to
recreation opportunities is a
matter for citizen involvement as
well as government action.
In the eyes of the public, the
concept of coordinating water
cleanup programs with public
recreation efforts in order to assure
recreation opport inities around
newly cleaned water bodies is not
an afterthought or an expendable
luxury.
The citizens who have supported
pollution control programs with
their tax dollars have done so
because they wanted opportunities
for family and friends to enjoy the
pleasures of swimming, fishing,
boating, and recreation in the out-
of-doors. It may not even occur to
them that water pollution control is
the program of one government
agency, and provision of recreation
facilities the province of another. In
their eyes, the concept is a single
one — clean water for people to
enjoy.
It is for this reason that federal,
state, and local officials whose basic
responsibility is water pollution
control cannot afford to lose sight of
the larger questions of public access
and water-oriented recreation. If
the public cannot get near the water
to enjoy it, taxpayers will care little
— and indeed may not even realize
— that tremendous strides are
being made in water pollution
control.
Eckardt C. Beck
Assistant Administrator
for Water and Waste
Management
U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Cleaning up water pollution
is a first step in realizing the
goal of recreating a
damaged environment A further
step is needed too, however. The
land surrounding newly cleaned
water bodies must be protected
from indiscriminate development,
and made accessible to the public
for recreation and outdoor
enjoyment
Much progress has been made in
the past several years toward
coordinating water cleanup and,
public recreation programs. Soon,
however, we will be moving into a
new phase, one which goes beyond
demonstration programs toward
making the concept of capturing the
public benefits from cleaned waters
an integral part of day-to-day
Agency operations.
Congress has spoken clearly in
the Clean Water Act of 1977. From
now on, a town or country can
receive federal funds from waste-
water treatment facilities only if it
analyzes the possibility of
integrating recreation and open
space opportunities.
EPA is taking its responsibilities
seriously. We will do our best to see
that citizens and local officials get
the most for their tax dollars by
coordinating water cleanup
programs with recreation and open
space programs.
This brochure outlines how, with
a little innovative thinking, and a lot
of perseverence, a community can
establish an exciting mixture of
public and private water-oriented
recreation and park possibilities.
The dimensions of these
opportunities nationally are
enormous. Currently, some six
thousand EPA-funded wastewater
treatment plants are actively being
planned or constructed. This
represents a potential wealth of
land either directly owned or
controlled under easements by
municipalities for hiking and biking
trails or as shorefront parks.
The extent to which these
potentials will result in your
community obtaining more for its
dollars invested in recreation; water
cleanup, and shorefront protection
measures rests largely in the hands
of civic groups, working hand-in-
hand with local government on
projects of interest to the
Environmental Protection Agency
and the Department of the Interior.
The major objective of this
publication is to show you how
opportunities can be identified and
developed.
William N. Hedeman, Jr.
Director, Office of
Environmental Review
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
-------
Ff
FO
6
POLLU
T FIT
LM
N
-------
1
The
Problem
The result of using streams,
rivers, lakes and oceans to carry
off America's wastes "somewhere
else" was to make them
dangerous to human health as
well as for wildlife habitat.
Weeds,oozing muck, old
tires, waterlogged debris,
and the stench of
chemicals and sewage have
degraded the shores of rivers, lakes,
and oceans for over a hundred
years as waterways served to carry
America's wastes "someplace
else." Finally there was no place
"else" left, and in the 1960's, a
national push for clean water
began.
In 1972, Congress enacted
sweeping amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control
Act which strengthened the nation's
course toward clean water, and
declared as a national goal that all
waters be made clean enough for
swimming and fishing by 1983, and
that the discharge of all water
pollutants be stopped by 1985. A
number of tough but workable
measures were incorporated into
the law to bring the nation step-by-
step toward that goal. Chief among
these were the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System,
which requires water polluters to
obtain a permit and agree to a
schedule of pollution abatement
measures; the Construction Grants
program, which provides funding
for communities across the country
to build municipal sewage treat-
ment plants; and the State and
Areawide Water Quality Planning
Program, which fosters waste
treatment planning and manage-
ment strategies. Firm deadlines
were given for achieving levels of
water quality improvement.
Much progress toward clean
water has been made since these
measures went into effect in 1972.
Industries are responding to their
permit requirements and installing
the necessary pollution control
equipment. Cities, towns, and
counties are building wastewater
treatment plants at an unprece-
dented rate, with the aid of nearly
$18 billion from the federal gov-
ernment between fiscal 1972 and
1977. Indeed, the Construction
Grants program, in terms of annual
expenditures, has become the
largest public works effort in history,
exceeding even the Interstate
Highway program and the Apollo
space program.
And, most importantly, the
nation's waters are reflecting this
cleanup effort. Fish are returning to
where they have not been for
decades; people who have never
known their rivers and lakes as
anything but open sewers, unfit for
recreational use or aesthetic
enjoyment, are seeing a trans-
formation begin.
Ironically, however, this progress
toward clean water and the even
greater strides which will be made in
the coming few years may open the
way for indiscriminate develop-
ment and degradation of the
environment on the shores of the
nation's waters. Furthermore, the
public, which invested so much of
its own tax dollars in water cleanup,
could be denied access to these
waterways and enjoyment of their
newly regained aesthetic qualities.
It is the sad truth that much of the
land along the rivers and lakes of
the nation has been kept from
residential or industrial develop-
ment precisely because these water
bodies were so foul and unpleasant
that no one wanted to locate near
them. A landowner in Massachu-
setts, for example, was once told by
the Federal Housing Administration
that his land along the Nashua River
had "no value" because the con-
dition of the river constituted a
nuisance. Even fifty years ago,
workmen on the Willamette River
in Oregon refused to work at
riverside construction because of
the intolerable stench from the
water.
As these two rivers and countless
others like them become clean
enough for fishing, swimming,
boating, and just plain enjoying,
waterfront lands will become prizes
in the real estate market. The
development pressure on these
previously unused lands will be
enormous. If nothing is done to
control it, a number of undesirable
consequences could occur:
• The land surrounding these
rivers and lakes could become a
jumble of unrelated developments,
resulting in a blighted landscape
and poor quality of life brought by
haphazard growth even as water
quality is rescued;
• As waterfront land becomes
shopping centers, industrial parks,
and private residential develop-
ments, and "no-trespassing" signs
go up, the public would lose access
to the newly enjoyable waterways
which could provide tremendous
opportunities for recreational use
and aesthetic enjoyment;
• If this occurs, the primary
benefits and monitary windfalls
from the $18 billion of federal
money spent on water pollution
control would go to the few who are
lucky property owners, land
developers and real estate specu-
lators, rather then to the many who
pay their taxes to finance clean
water programs;
• Since many types of land
development contribute to water
pollution—through erosion, runoff,
or direct discharge of pollutants—
much of the progress toward
cleaner water could be undone if
indiscriminate development of
river- and lake-shores was allowed
to occur.
1
-------
-------
2
The
Opportunities
Environmental Education —Many
communities have recognized the
opportunities afforded by the
water cleanup program such as at
the Baylands Interpretive Center
in Palo Alto, Cal.
These unfortunate possibilities
enumerated in the preceding
section however, need not
occur. Indeed, from the same set of
circumstances arises the potential
for assuring that the public as a
whole is able to derive the maxi-
mum personal benefit from clean
rivers and enjoyable waterfronts.
Since land along polluted water-
ways is low in value, it can be
protected now—through federal,
state, and community open space
programs—and the public will reap
a bonanza of recreational opportu-
nities as the water becomes
sparkling clean and fit for swim-
ming, fishing, and boating, and the
waterfront becomes enjoyable for
walking and picnicking.
Since billions of dollars are being
spent on recreation and water
cleanup programs, the public's
money can be stretched through
proper planning and imaginative
ideas for coordinating this
spending.
In obtaining the most for your
water cleanup dollar there is a basic
strategy that ought to be adhered
too, and that is:
• Coordinated Acquisition
which means synchronizing state
and federal open space acquisition
with water pollution control
schedules so that waterfront land is
bought before cleanup is nearly
completed and the land begins to
soar in value.
Furthermore there are four basic
approaches to carry out a coor-
dinated acquisition strategy, each of
which could become the basis for
several separate projects, initiated
one at a time. These are:
• Multiple Use which means
obtaining the maximum auxiliary
public benefit that a wastewater
treatment plant or its site offers by,
for example, accommodating
environmental education programs
or using available land within the
site for public access to water,
picnicking or play areas;
• Recycling Outmoded
Facilities means imaginative
re-use of abandoned treatment
facilities for recreational or other
compatible purposes, for example
the refurbishing of settlement
ponds into municipal swimming
pools;
• Joint Development which
means integrating the multiple-use
potentials that a wastewater
treatment facility offers as an
element of a much larger recreation
or conservation project encom-
passing other facilities as, for
example, developing a city-wide
trail system utilizing sewer rights-of-
way along with and contiguous with
highway, rail, electric power and
other rights-of-way;
• Environmental Education
Programs means seeking every
opportunity afforded by the design
of a new treatment facility, or the
decommissioning of an older one,
to promote public understanding,
appreciation and protection for the
newly rehabilitated water/land
environment;
And finally there is a unifying
concept that can be used as an
overall policy of your group to
organize a number of separate
projects for a whole waterfront or
waterway:
• Greenways which are corridors
of open space and recreation land
lining shorefronts and creating
exciting linear parks.
Taking advantage of such oppor-
tunities will ensure that the land uses
along the nation's waterways con-
tribute to, rather than work against,
the goal of clean water. It will
ensure that the benefits of the fed-
eral clean water programs go not
exclusively to speculators and
developers, but rather to all the
citizens who paid for those programs
through their taxes. It will provide
further economic benefits in urban
areas which can gain massive
additions to their tax rolls by
increasing the value of waterfront
land through shoreline revitaliza-
tion. And it will also ensure that
clean water means not only the
chemical make-up of the water
itself, but includes the concept of a
sparkling clear stream surrounded
by an aesthetically pleasing
landscape to which the public is
guaranteed access.
-------
Examples of Recreation/Water Cleanup Projects Discussed
in this Brochure and Current & Future Potentials
Willamette River, OR
Mercer Slough, Belleview, WA
While there are presently over
15,000 waste water treatment
plants in operation throughout the
ten EPA Regions, opportunities
for joint benefits between
construction and recreation
planning should abound between
now and the year 2000. During
the next 22 years, over 4,200
additional wastewater treatment
facilities will be constructed.
Additionally, another 1,200 +
waste treatment plants are
expected to undergo major
enlargement and upgrading.
The bar chart identifies
by EPA Region the numerous
wastewater treatment plants that
are in the Step 1 planning phase;
Steps 2 and 3 design and
construction phases; and the
number of facilities expected to be
constructed over the next two
decades. Adding these
construction projects together with
other projects such as interceptor
construction, and projects funded
by other Federal Agencies the
opportunities that can be
capitalized on for joint
construction and recreation
planning become even more
significant.
Tennis Tank Courts, Evergreen, CO
Waste Treatment Plant,
North Freemont, MT
Baylands Interpretive Ctr.,
Palo Alto, CA
Fishing Pier, Pacifica, CA
Regional Park Medina River,
Castroville, TX
Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX
Recycled Plants, Cibelo Creek, TX
Yellowstone Canyon Lakes,
Lubbock, TX
-------
Recycled Treatment Plant
Miamisburg, OH
Riverwalk, Dayton, OH
Miami River Trail, OH
Environmental Awareness Ctr.,
Franklin, OH
Springbrook Treatment Plant,
Naperville, IL
Lecture Room, John E. Egan
Reclamation Plant, Chicago,
Land Application of Sludges,
Fulton Co., IL
Erosion Plan for Michigan
Huron River Greenway, MI
Muskegan Plan, Muskegon, MI
1.434
Hocky Bleachers, Barrington, RI
Urban Cultural Park, Lowell, MA
Mine Falls State Park,
Nashua, NH-MA
Natural Valley Storage Concept,
Charles River, MA
Riverside Park, Fitchburg, MA
Fort Devens, Riverfront, Harvard, MA
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, MA
469
273
380
Chatahouchie River, GA
Lake Tallahassee, Leon Co., FL
Waterfront Trail, Tallmans Is,.
Queens, NY
Pumping Station Observation
Platform, Lake George, NY
Environmental Tours 26th Ward
Plant, NYC
Riverbank State Park, Manhattan, NY
Hiking-Biking Trail, Montgomery &
Prince Georges Counties, MD
Lake Anne, Reston, VA
Proposed Interpretative Ctr.,
Shenandoah National Park, VA
TOTAL 5,378 5,672
STEP 1 STEP II & III
Active construction projects
as of 3/3/79
Source: Office of Water
Program Operations
5,472
Treatment plants to be
constructed or enlarged
and up-graded between
years 1978-2000
(Figures from Tables 21,
23, 1978 Needs Survey)
-------
-------
3
Enlisting
Government and Other
Help
Although the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the
Heritage Conservation Recreation
Service of DOI are the primary
promoters of the concept of the
public benefits of cleaned water,
many other federal, state and
local agencies as well as private
sources have programs which can
be incorporated into your
recreation and shoreland
protection strategy.
Citizens and public officials
who seek to secure land use
and recreation benefits from
water cleanup programs will find
that they need to enlist the help of
an array of government agencies at
the federal, state, and local levels.
The multitude of programs, each
with its own timetable, regulations
and resources, can seem confusing.
This section sketches an overview
of the major programs that can be
useful.
The concept of coordinating
water cleanup programs with rec-
reation and land use is a new one
and many officials have little or no
experience with it. Thus the
Environmental Protection Agency
has taken a number of steps to bring
these ideas to the attention of
planners, sanitary engineers, public
.officials, park and recreation pro-
fessionals, and the general public.
Increasing Awareness
of the Concept
Impetus for water cleanup and the
land activities first began at a
national conference held in Boston
during November, 1975. Spon-
sored by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in cooperation
with the Department of the Interior
and the Conservation Foundation
of Washington, D.C., the confer-
ence was designed to dramatize the
land-use impacts of federal clean
water programs and the recreation
opportunities unfolding as a result.
The three days of speakers,
panels, case experiences, work-
shops, and field trips brought
together citizens and officials, those
who were concerned with land use
and those who were concerned
with the water, those who were
skilled in pollution control and
those who were skilled in open
space preservation and recreational
use. The coalition of environ-
mentalists who had instigated the
nation's water cleanup drive joined
with its engineering and legal
implementors to forge new
strategies. The conference sparked
awareness and understanding by its
diverse participants, who returned
to their communities around the
country with an eagerness to take
advantage of these new
opportunities.
In the New England region,
where the conference had taken
place, particular strides were taken
in advancing the conference
recommendations to provide an
example of effective action by
agency officials, in the final hours of
the conference, the Regional
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation* signed a
Statement of Coordination which
specified actions which the two
separate agencies would take both
jointly and independently to coor-
dinate their activities to secure the
maximum public benefit from water
cleanup and outdoor recreation
programs.
The New England Regional Office
of the Environmental Protection
Agency prepared and distributed a
brochure on "Multiple Use of
Waste Treatment Facilities and
Rights of Way." The Agency also
alerted the chairmen of conserva-
tion commissions in communities
where wastewater facilities were
M reorganization in 1978 included BOR in a
new agency within DOI named The Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service
(HCRS).
planned of the opportunities for
simultaneous development of rec-
reation facilities. Letters were
likewise sent to the state water
quality and recreation officials in the
region. Additionally, a workshop
was held for engineers designing
treatment facilities to acquaint them
with recreation opportunities and
let them talk with other engineers
experienced in multiple
use designs.
Meanwhile, other activities have
been taking place in other regions,
and at the national level. Pro-
ceedings of the Water Cleanup and
the Land Conference were pub-
lished to broadcast its findings and
recommendations. In the fall of
1978 a Joint Memorandum of
Understanding between EPA and
the Department of the Interior was
signed at the national level, similar
to the Statement of Coordination
between the regional offices in New
England.
To further cement the working
relationship between recreationists
and water quality advocates, the
Environmental Protection Agency
sponsored a research and educa-
tion project on the part of the
National Recreation and Parks
Association. The project was de-
signed to get the word out to park
and recreation professionals
around the country, as well as to
interested citizens and local officials.
It included preparation of publica-
tions, case studies, audiovisuals,
and workshops.
To address professional
audiences, EPA also held a
-------
Programs Of The
Two Principal Federal Agencies
Beginning in October 1978,
"The Administrator shall not make
grants—[for] treatment works un-
less the grant applicant has satis-
factorily demonstrated to the
Administrator that the applicant has
analyzed the potential recreation
and open space opportunities in the
planning of the proposed treatment
works."
Section 201 (g) (6)
Clean Water Act of 1977.
EPA funding to states, regions
and localities are handled thruuyh
ten Regional Offices
conference and joint agency
meeting with HCRS in Chicago in
the autumn of 1978, to bring
together waste treatment engineers,
water quality planners, recreation
specialists and local officials from
around the country to focus their
attention on EPA's commitment to
providing recreation opportunities
in its water quality projects.
The water cleanup and the land
concept has obtained bi-partisan
support. Initiated by former EPA
Administrator Russell Train during
the Ford Administration, the pro-
gram has been heartily endorsed by
current EPA Administrator Douglas
M. Costle. The water cleanup and
recreation theme is very much in
tune with the Carter Administra-
tion's direction of coordinating
diverse federal programs to
maximize the benefit to the
taxpayer. Congress, too, has
strengthened EPA's water cleanup
program through the new Clean
Water Act of 1977 which added
action-forcing provisions to spur the
implementation of coordinated
land use and water cleanup.
Gaining an understanding of the
different programs of government
agencies at the federal, state, and
local level is an important step in
itself toward coordinating water
cleanup efforts for maximum public
benefit. Traditionally, recreationists
and water cleanup advocates have
been largely unaware of the
procedures, requirements, and
timetables of each other's pro-
grams. Now, however, a working
knowledge of all of these programs
has become essential.
The two principal federal agen-
cies involved in water cleanup and
the land programs are the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
and the U.S. Department of the
Interior. But, of course, other
agencies play important roles as
well—not only other federal agen-
cies, but state and local govern-
ments too. Agencies of state and
local government not only have
their own recreation and water
quality programs, but are key
decision-makers in carrying out
programs which are funded by the
federal government.
It is important to be aware of the
regulations governing different
programs, the timetable by which
each operates, and the procedures
used to grant funds and take other
actions. These vary for each and
every program, and it is important
to contact agency officials well in
advance to make sure that the
opportunity to participate in a
program is not foreclosed because
of timing or procedural mistakes.
WAST&
TK&ATAASNT PI-ANT
Helpful brochures relating
reueation and shoreland
protection opportunities to waste-
water treatment facility
construction and water quality
management planning are
continually being piepaic
updated by EPA, HCRS and
others.
' states are
handled through seven Field
Offices.
-------
Programs of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act makes it a national goal
that the discharge of water pollu-
tants be eliminated by 1985. As an
interim goal, it further establishes
the policy that by 1983 water
should wherever possible be made
clean enough for fishing and
swimming. A variety of programs
have been established to bring
these goals to reality. These
programs are known by the section
of the Act which authorized them. ,
The principal ones relating to water
cleanup and the land are:
Section 201 authorizes the Con-
struction Grants program to assist
local governments in building
wastewater treatment facilities.
Federal funds are provided to cover
75% of the cost for municipal
treatment plants. The program is
administered through the state
water quality agencies, which often
provide state funds to further assist
communities. Section 201 requires
use of best practical waste water
treatment technology in any plant
built with federal assistance, and the
study of alternative waste
management techniques before
any project is funded. When the Act
was amended in 1977, Congress
required that recreation and open
space opportunities be considered
in every treatment facility
funded by EPA.
Section 106 requires that states
establish criteria for deciding
priorities in the allocation of Con-
struction Grants money, and pub-
lish 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 EPA
regional office, and interested
citizens. The priority list provides a
major opportunity for state water
pollution control agencies to
coordinate their programs with park
and recreation agencies.
Section 402 establishes the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), the
permit system which requires all
water polluters to clean up their dis-
charges on a legally enforceable,
step-by-step timetable. By 1977,
the NPDES permits require use of
the best practical water pollution
control technology; by 1983, use of
the best available technology
economically achievable. Individ-
ual states can take over adminis-
tration of the NPDES permit system
if they demonstrate the ability to
manage the program effectively
and agree to follow the federal
requirements.
Section 208 sets up the Areawide
Waste Treatment Management
Planning process, also known as
"208 planning." The Water Pollu-
tion Control Act provided for 208
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 208 planning are that it is
done on a regional basis, that it
deals with non-point sources of
pollution (erosion, sedimentation,
farm run-off, 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 per-
mits issued under Section 402 and
all construction grants made under
Section 201 must be in conform-
ance with approved 208 plans.
Section 303 requires each state to
establish a State Continuing
Planning Process which sets its
major objectives and priorities for
preventing and controlling pollu-
tion over a five year time horizon.
Water Quality Management Basin
Plans are also prepared for indi-
vidual river basins. 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
technical and financial assistance
to restore fresh-water publicly
owned lakes. Funding is available
to states including grants for a
variety of restorative projects
which encompasses lake
recreation resources.
"Any plan prepared shall include,
but not be limited to—the
identification of treatment works
necessary . . . over a twenty year
period. . . and an identification
of open space and recreation
opportunities that can be expected
to result from improved water
quality, including consideration of
potential uses of lands associated
with treatment works and increased
access to water-based recreation."
Section 208(b)(2A)
Clean Water Act of 1977.
-, *
.ned numbers of
wastewater treatment facilities are
being constructed with EPA
funding providing opportunities
for public access to waterfronts.
-------
"The substantial increases in Land
and Water Conservation Fund
authorizations by Public Law
94-422 provides an opportunity to
accelerate the acquisition of needed
outdoor recreation areas. They also
present a greater challenge to
maximize the utility of those funds.
"Federal agency plans and State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recrea-
tion Plans should give special
attention to this once-in-a-genera-
tion opportunity to acquire water-
front lands. We particularly need
access to rivers, lakes, and streams
undergoing cleanup, especially in
urban areas where close-to-home
recreation opportunity is non-
existent or in short supply."
Chris Therral Delaporte
Director, Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service
The "Old Swimming Hole" of
wsti'iday could again become
commonplace through the clean
water programs.
Programs of the
U.S. Department of the Interior
Within the Department of the
Interior, three major bureaus deal
with issues relating to water cleanup
and the land: the Heritage Con-
servation and Recreation Service,
The Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the National Park Service.
The Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service is chief among
these. HCRS administers the Land
and Water Conservation Fund,
which provides money to states,
cities, counties, and towns for
acquisition and development of
outdoor recreation areas and
facilities. The grants cover 50% of
the total cost, and are given through
a state agency designated by the
governor. In addition to covering
outright acquisition and develop-
ment, the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund provides aid in the
form of 50% matching grants, for
preparing Statewide Comprehen-
sive Outdoor Recreation Plans
(SCORP's). Indeed, to be eligible to
receive grants for acquisition and
development of specific parcels, a
state must have a SCORP which
identifies needs and priorities for
acquiring and developing all types
of outdoor recreation resources
within the state.
In addition to granting aid to
states and municipalities, the Fund
is the source of money for
acquisition of federally owned
recreation lands such as seashores,
lakeshores, wild and scenic rivers,
or trails. At least forty percent of the
Fund annually provides for this
federal land acquisition, with the
remaining amount providing
matching grants to states and
localities. In 1977, the Fund was
substantially increased to $600
million. Then, Congress increased
the Fund to $750 million for fiscal
year 1978 and raised the figure to
$900 million for fiscal year 1979.
Other Federal
Programs
In addition, to its grant programs,
HCRS also has a "technical
assistance program," through
which it provides advice and
information to state and local
governments as well as private
interests on planning, developing,
financing, and managing outdoor
recreation programs.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is
concerned with water quality and
waterfront land use to protect
streamside habitat and ensure the
ability of waterways to support
diverse aquatic life. In addition to
providing advice and influencing
the decisions of other agencies of
government, the Service has two
land acquisition grant programs of
its own: the Dingell-Johnson pro-
gram, to provide sport fish habitat;
and the Pittman-Robertson pro-
gram to provide game and non-
game wildlife habitat. The grants
are made to state fish and game
departments.
The National Park Service not
only administers national parks and
national recreation areas, but has a
"technical assistance program"
similar to the Heritage Conserva-
tion and Recreation Service. The
Park Service provides advice and
information to state and local
agencies in planning, developing,
and managing park and recreation
areas to best meet the needs of the
public. The Service conducts
studies for designations under The
Wild and Scenic Rivers System and
The National Trails System.
The U.S. Department
of Agriculture
A number of divisions within the
Department of Agriculture conduct
programs relating to water cleanup
and the land:
The Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service conducts the
Water Bank Program and the
Agricultural Conservation Pro-
gram. The Water Bank Program
undertakes ten year agreements
with owners of wetlands which are
important breeding and nesting
areas for migratory waterfowl,
whereby the owners agree to
preserve their land in exchange for
an annual payment. The Agricul-
tural Conservation Program offers
grants to farmers and ranchers to
undertake soil, water, and wildlife
conservation practices.
The Farmer's Home Administra-
tion offers guaranteed loans for a
variety of purposes—
• Farm Operating or Ownership
Loans, which may, in addition to
direct farm uses, be used by farmers
to develop or operate recreation
facilities on all or part of their land;
• Recreation Facility Loans, which
are also available to farmers to
enable them to convert all or part of
their farm into an income producing
facility;
• Resource Conservation and
Development Loans, which can be
made to local nonprofit corpora-
tions or government agencies in
areas which are designated
Resource Conservation Districts.
and can fund a variety of resource
development activities including
public water-oriented recreation
opportunities;
• Watershed Protection and Rood
Prevention Loans," which provide
loans to help pay the local share of
watershed improvement projects,
including fish and wildlife develop-
ment projects and public water
based recreation projects, and are
made to government agencies or
non-profit organization.
• Community Facilities Loans,
which are made to rural commu-
nities with populations of less than
10,000, for the purpose of con-
structing or improving a variety of
-------
community facilities including
public recreation areas.
The Forest Service offers a
General Forestry Assistance
program, through which it makes
grants to state forestry agencies to
enable them to help woodland
owners and associations in forest
management, including land use
planning and preparation of wild
and scenic river studies. The Forest
Service also administers Youth
Conservation Corps grants to
states, which provide funds for the
employment of 15-18 year-olds in
conservation work on non-federal
public lands and waters.
The Soil Conservation Service
has two programs of interest. The
first is the Resource Conservation
and Development Program, which
offers grants and advisory services
to rural communities for a variety of
resource-related purposes includ-
ing development of water-oriented
recreation and enhancement of fish
and wildlife resources. The second
is the Small Watershed Program,
which provides grants and advisory
services to government or private
non-profit agencies in watersheds
of less than 250,000 acres, for
construction projects including
developing public water-oriented
recreation facilities or improving
fish and wildlife resources.
The U.S. Department
of Commerce
The Office of Coastal Zone
Management within the Depart-
ment of Commerce administers an
important planning program which
gives grants to coastal states (in-
cluding those bordering on the
Great Lakes) to develop plans for
managing their coastal areas. The
plans are developed by state
agencies with the participation of
citizens and local officials, and
specify economic objectives as well
as recreation and land preservation
goals. Once completed, the state
plans are reviewed by the federal
government, and if approved
according to specified criteria, a
state receives further funds to
implement the CZM plan. In
addition, all federal agencies must,
to the maximum extent possible,
make their actions conform to
approved state plans. Coastal Zone
Management Planning is a power-
ful tool for deciding uses of coastal
land and resources.
In addition to the planning pro-
gram, the Office of Coastal Zone
Management conducts the Coastal
Energy Impact Program. This pro-
vides states and communities that
are adversely impacted by coastal
energy-related development with
funds for a variety of purposes,
including the restoration or
replacement of recreation areas
damaged by such development.
Such funds will be provided only
when the fault for damage cannot
be assigned to a specific party, since
in cases where fault can be
assigned, that party should pay for
restoration itself.
The Office of Coastal Zone
Management conducts the Estu-
arine Sanctuaries Program, which
provides funds to assist states in the
acquisition, development, and
operation of marine sanctuaries in
coastal estuaries. The purpose of
the program is to provide areas for
study of human and natural
processes occurring in estuaries.
The CZM Office can also grant
funds for land purchases which
provide access to public beaches
and other coastal recreation and
natural resource areas.
The U.S. Department
of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
The Army Corps of Engineers
has responsibility for flood protec-
tion programs and other major
water-related construction projects
around the country. The Corps is
also responsible for maintaining
harbors and ensuring the navig-
Canoeing on thy upper reaches
of the Charles River, "engineered
by nature." and protected by
efforts of the Watershed
Association.
ability of waters, and through these
responsibilities can become active
in river and harbor cleanup efforts.
The Corps' traditional flood-
control measures have involved
construction of large dams which—
though they can provide artificial
recreation lakes—usually destroy
the natural qualities of a river. Now,
however, under the mandate of the
1974 Water Resource Develop-
ment Act which requires consider-
ation of non-structural alternatives,
the Corps is experimenting with
new flood control techniques which
can provide significant oppor-
tunities for shoreline land preser-
vation. One such project is
described below.
The Natural Valley Storage
Concept on the
Charles River
As it meanders through Massachu-
setts on its way to the Atlantic in
Boston, the Charles River is a
marvel of what its Watershed
Association calls "Engineering by
Nature. "Chronically low on water,
the River is augmented by marsh-
lands throughout its course which
feed in through tributaries and add
their strength to the flow of the
Charles. In sudden storms or snow-
melts, the wetlands serve the
opposite purpose, holding water
back like a sponge until the River
can safely carry it.
When the Corps of Engineers
was directed by Congress to design
a flood control progarm for the
Charles, the role of these wetlands
became evident. Although flood
crests from the last twelve mile
stretch of the River reach down-
town Boston within an hour or two,
those from upstream take four or
five days. The difference—
upstream, the wetlands were doing
their job; downstream the water
was racing off of rooftops and
pavement.
Thus, the Corps proposed the
Natural Valley Storage concept for
the Charles, and received an
11
-------
State and
Local Programs
Environmental Protection Award
from the Charles River Watershed
Association as a result. Congress
has authorized the Corps to pro-
ceed with wetlands acquisition.
Natural Valley Storage means that
rather than controlling floods by
costly dams, the same job will be
done in harmony with nature by
preserving, through easement or
full purchase, 8,422 acres of
swamps, marshes, and wet
meadows—about half the wetland
acreage in the watershed. As the
report of the study committee read:
"The logic of the scheme is com-
pelling. Nature has already pro-
vided the least-cost solution to
future flooding in the form of
extensive wetlands which moderate
extreme highs and lows in stream
flows. Rather than attempt to
improve on this natural protection
mechanism, it is both prudent and
economical to leave the hydrologic
regime established over millenia
undisturbed. In the opinion of the
study team, construction can add
nothing."
In addition to providing flood
control, of course, the land
acquisition of the Natural Valley
Storage method provides open
space, and assures the protection of
recharge areas for groundwater
supplies.
The U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
The Department of Housing and
Urban Development makes "Com-
munity Development Block
Grants" to states and communities
for urban renewal activities and
acquisition, rehabliltation, and con-
struction of community facilities.
These can include public park and
recreation areas. Also HDD's Rood
Insurance and Floodplain Man-
agement Program could be
effectively used fpr recreation
purposes or shoreland
preservation.
The U.S. Department
of Labor
Under the Comprehensive Em-
ployment and Training Act, the
Department of Labor provides
funds to states and communities to
hire unemployed or under-
employed persons for public
service work. Many communities
have used these CETA workers to
supplement park and recreation
staffs. In 1977 Congress added a
program called the Young Adult
Conservation Corps for labor in-
tensive conservation work on
public lands in areas with
substantial unemployment.
Regional Commissions
The Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 author-
ized multi-state "regional commis-
sions" to help states plan for
economic development. These
regional commissions sometimes
grant "Supplements to Federal
Grant-in-Aid" to states and com-
munities which cannot raise the
matching funds necessary to take
part in federal programs to
encourage acquisition of land or
construction of facilities.
State Agencies
State agencies play a crucial role in
water cleanup and the land, be-
cause many of the important
federal programs are largely
administered through state gov-
ernments. Thus, for example,
crucial decisions in EPA water
quality programs—particularly on
construction grants for municipal
wastewater facilities—are made by
state water pollution control
agencies. Likewise, priorities for
expenditure of federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund monies
are set within each state by state
recreation officials.
Many states also have their own
programs which complement
federal activities. Many states, for
instance, have programs for assist-
ing communities with construction
of wastewater facilities, to further
reduce the amount of funds which
must be supplied by local govern-
ments. Many states also have
programs to provide funds for
recreation land acquisition, or to
designate state scenic and wild
rivers. State planning agencies and
fish and wildlife agencies can also
provide considerable help in water
cleanup and the land activities.
Local Agencies
City, town, and county govern-
ments have numerous bodies
which should participate in efforts
to coordinate recreation and water
quality programs. These include
planning and zoning boards, con-
servation commissions, park and
recreation boards or agencies,
sewer commissions, public works
departments, and others. Elected
officials such as mayors, town
12
-------
Other Non-Govern-
mental Sources
councils, or county boards of
supervisors often make major
decisions in water cleanup and the
land programs.
Even when federal and state
governments supply the bulk of
funds for a project, the local gov-
ernment still plays a pivotal role and
has a major voice in decisions. In
the case of local purchase of rec-
reation land, municipal officials
must initiate the request for federal
and/or state assistance, and supply
their portions of the funds. In EPA
construction grants projects,
municipal governments must not
only pay the local share of waste-
water facility construction costs, but
must also provide the land for the
plant and the easements for the
collection system, as well as assume
the burden for operation and
maintenance once the facility is
completed.
Lake Anne in the "New Town" of
Reston, Virginia was made
possible by clean water.
innovative developers, and
cooperative public officials.
Industry and Commerce
Many industrial and commercial
corporations that are located in
your community or state—or that
conduct business there—often
have a budget set aside for funding
worthwhile community projects.
These sources are obviously not
advertised, and require diligence
and resourcefulness on your part to
identify them. A talk with your local
Chamber of Commerce or with
state or community development
officials would be a first step in
identifying the most promising
companies. Companies may secure
tax advantages through donations
of waterfront easements or other
gifts.
Philanthropic Sources
A number of organizations are
created for the sole purpose of
improving the quality-of-life of a
particular community or region.
Again a talk with the local Chamber
of Commerce or other develop-
ment officials suggested above
might also identify promising
philanthropic organizations. How-
ever, the number of these organ-
izations are small and may not exist
in your locality. But be imaginative,
a donation by a wealthy individual
can often qualify for tax deductions.
You have to do the homework to
point out the advantages.
Professional and Public
Interest Groups
Even though professional and
public interest groups may not have
money to contribute to your rec-
reational project, they often have a
good substitute for money in the
bank—knowledge that can and is
often volunteered. Local or
regional chapters of architectural,
engineering or planning organiza-
tions can be sources of expertise at
minimal or no cost to advance your
cause and organize your arguments
for the public official.
13
-------
-------
4
Water Cleanup,
Recreation and Conservation
Opportunities
Securing full value on public
investments in mater cleanup
involves:
Public Access to cleaned up water;
Easements for hiking and biking
over interceptor rights-of-way; and
Shore/and Protection to prevent
repollution by new development
attracted by successful water
cleanup.
The firm deadlines set by
Congress and the large
amounts of money spent for
water pollution control are a driving
force inexorably moving the nation
toward clean water. Communities
that want to incorporate recreation
and land use benefits must operate
within its deadlines and framework.
But this framework provides many
opportunities. Sewer systems built
to collect wastewater can incor-
porate hiking and biking trails. The
treatment plant site—or even the
facility itself—has a number of
potentials. Finally, the clean water
that results is returned to the natural
environment where it presents its
own recreation and ecological
possibilities.
The outstanding opportunities
for recreational use and enjoyment
of rivers, lakes, and streams now
unfolding as a result of water
cleanup programs will not happen
by themselves. In each community
which wants to enjoy the full
benefits of its tax expenditures on
water quality, in each city and town
and county which wants to have
public parks and pleasant open
space along its waterways, citizens
and officials must work together to
turn these possibilities into realities.
The following pages outline the
major categories of recreation
opportunities unfolding as a result
of clean water progress. In each
category, the discussion is oriented
to how you can bring about action
in your community. The various '
sections ^ach contain a description
of the concept, an explanation of
why it is desirable, a listing of the ,
agencies and types of people
important to success, a discussion
of how to go about implementing
the idea in your community, and,
finally, a description of successful
cases from around the country.
As you read through these
various sections, as you consider
the possibilities in your community,
and as you become involved in
bringing them to reality, bear in
mind that a thorough knowledge of
water cleanup and recreation pro-
grams is the first prerequisite for
using them to maximum public
benefit. Consider a variety of
alternatives—in terms of types of
projects, specific sites, and ways to
implement your goals—without
shutting off viable choices too soon.
Put effort into developing a
constituency, because such efforts
are always worthwhile. Publicize
the opportunities, work to make
other people catch your vision.
Seek to involve not just the natural
constituency for recreation, open
space, and environmental projects,
but as wide a diversity of people as
possible. Involve people in
planning and decision-making—
don't limit their role to passive
agreement with plans developed by
others. Finally, don't be easily
deterred. There are many suc-
cessful recreation and open space
projects whose proponents could
easily have given up over a
seemingly insurmountable
obstacle—but they persisted, and
went on to achieve their goal.
15
-------
Community Involvement
Coordinating Acquisition and Protection Measures
The Concept
Coordinated acquisition and pro-
tection means synchronizing open
space protection programs with
water cleanup schedules so that
waterfront land is given high
priority, and purchases timed so
that property is bought in advance
of dramatic pollution abatement
and the soaring property values that
will accompany it. This is the central
element in the effort to secure full
public benefit from emerging clean
water opportunities.
Coordinated acquisition does
not, of necessity, imply new
spending on open space acquisi-
tion. Rather, it focuses on coor-
dinating spending of the many
existing federal, state, and local
programs in this area discussed in
Section Three. In some cases,
individual states or communities
may step up their commitment to
open space acquisition in order to
meet the opportunities provided by
matching funds, but overall, the
problem is more one of redirecting
acquisition priorities than one of
increasing expenditures.
Why Is Coordinated
Acquisition and Protection
Desirable
Coordinated acquisition and
protection is first and most clearly
desirable because it provides a
major bargain for the public dollar,
by concentrating expenditures on
land which is inexpensive now
compared with its potential value—
a value which is about to be realized
through the progress of clean water
programs. By putting this prime
land in the public's hands,
coordinated acquisition and
protection ensure that the benefits
of tax expenditures on pollution
control go to the public, not to
private real estate developers.
Coordinated acquisition means
that a large share of new public
recreation areas will be water
oriented, satisfying the popular
urge for swimming, fishing, boating
or other water sports, or even just
the chance to walk along the shore,
or sit and watch the water. People
have a natural attraction to water,
an attraction which has drawn them
to the rivers and lakes of America
even when these were less than
pure. As these waterways become
increasingly attractive and more
and more usable for a variety of
water sports, coordinated acquisi-
tion and protection is the key to
satisfying the recreation demands
that will be felt by park and
recreation agencies across America.
And not least, coordinated
acquisition and protection helps to
prevent the pollution of cleaned
rivers and lakes through erosion,
runoff, and other forms of "non-
point source" pollution that would
accompany indiscriminate
development of shorelines for
commercial purposes, or intensive
residential development at the
waters edge. These pollution
sources represent a serious threat to
the nation's waters, and unless
controlled could undo much of the
clean water progress obtained
through regulation of factories,
municipal waste discharges, and
other "point source" polluters.
The Major Actors
One of the most important people
in bringing about coordinated
acquisition and protection is YOU,
whoever you are, whatever your
job or civic activities. The job of
bringing about the coordination of
programs at three levels of
government—federal, state, and
local—on two separate subjects—
recreation and water pollution
control—under the jurisdiction of
separate agencies, is obviously a
difficult one. You can help by doing
your part to activate and bring
together interests such as these:
• city, town, and county park and
recreation agencies, conservation
commissions, planning boards, and
other municipal bodies, who can
participate in developing and
evaluating priorities, may have their
own sources of local acquisition
funds, can apply for state and
federal assistance, and can also
help to supply a constituency for
coordinated acquisition and
protection as a concept as well as
for the protection of specific parcels
of land;
• mayors, city councillors,
selectmen, boards of supervisors,
and other local elected officials,
who can appropriate local funds,
seek federal and state aid, and add
their important voices to the call for
coordination of recreation and
water cleanup programs;
• state recreation and land
acquisition officials, who not only
may have their own sources of
A trt'cilinc'iil pldiit in Castroville.
Texas is desiyned 10 fit in
unobstrusively in us regional park.
A well informed public is the key
to benefiting fully fiom "fishable
and swimmable' waters.
16
-------
funds, but also control the dis-
tribution of federal Land and Water
Conservation Funds within their
state;
• state water quality officials, who
administer state and federal water
quality programs, and are key
people in targeting areas where
pollution progress is most dramatic
and therefore the need for coor-
dinated acquisition and protection
greatest;
• regional "208" water quality
planning and management
agencies, which can help to identify
priority areas, and develop specific
implementation steps for shoreland
protection;
• state planning offices, which can
be instrumental in coordinating
separate programs of different
agencies, as well as in identifying
areas which deserve priority efforts;
• federal agencies such as the
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency,
which, though programs are largely
administered at the state level, are
the ultimate source of most
available funds, and can help
redirect priorities by lending their
support;
• local, regional, and statewide
civic groups, including watershed
associations, fish and hunt clubs,
hiking groups, sports associations,
chambers of commerce, environ-
mental groups, community service
organizations, and many others,
who can provide a constituency for
coordinated acquisition and
protection efforts— bringing it to
the attention of government
officials, politicians, and the public
at large;
• state legislatures, which can help
by establishing a state open space
acquisition program if none yet
exists, ensuring adequate funding
for it if one already does exist, and, if
necessary, legislatively redefining
priorities to put them in line with the
idea of coordinated acquisition;
• private landowners, whose help
is essential in cooperating with
recreation and open space agencies
and in resisting the forces of
indiscriminate development, and
who can often, in fact, be the
catalyzing force for preservation of
their land.
How to Make Coordinated
Acquisition and Protection
Happen
There are opportunities for coor-
dinated acquisition and protection
at many different levels and
geographic scales. You might want
to "adopt'' a specific piece of choice
waterfront land in your neighbor-
hood or elsewhere in your com-
munity, and help to secure public
protection and recreation use for it.
Or, you might want to work at a
broader geographic scale, by
developing and implementing a
plan for waterfront parks in a larger
area such as a whole town or
county, or along a particular river or
lake. On the other hand, rather than
focusing on specific pieces of land,
you might take part in a drive to
redirect priorities at the state level,
to ensure that recreation officials
give adequate attention to
emerging clean water opportunities
when they disburse federal or state
funds for land acquisition. Arguing
persuasively for such a redirection
of priorities requires a working
knowledge of water cleanup pro-
grams, land possibilities, and the
environmental, social, and eco-
nomic advantages to be gained.
Sometimes, until priorities are
changed, specific acquisition
objectives may be stalled.
The steps outlined below are the
basic framework for bringing about
coordinated acquisition and
protection. Depending on your
focus, you may want to emphasize
some activities more than others;
for example, if you are focusing on
a statewide program, you might
want to give more attention to land
use analysis, and for this, may find
information presented in the
section on Greenways helpful.
Even if you focus your efforts on
acquisition of a specific parcel
already identified undergoing
analysis of alternative sites and
developing criteria for rating areas
may help you present a more
persuasive case, and should not be
overlooked.
Whichever scale you choose to
focus on, there are a number of
basic steps to undertake.
1) Determine the Schedule for
Water Cleanup
• Find out the existing levels of
water quality.
• Examine the state's "priority
lists," which tells what communities
will be receiving federal funds for
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities.
• Examine the provisions of
National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System (NPDES) permits,
and find out how well compliance
and enforcement are proceeding.
Talk with "208" planning
agencies, state and federal officials,
and concerned environmental
groups, to determine their per-
spective on clean water problems
and progress, and find out when
results can be expected.
• Put it all together, to determine
when and where clean water will
occur.
2) Survey Recreation and
Open Space Opportunities
Along Waterways
• Examine land use plans, zoning
maps, recreation plans, and other
maps and documents to see
whether areas of prime recreational
or scenic opportunities have been
identified.
• Talk with recreation and
planning officials, environmental
and civic groups, and others to
assess their feelings on which areas
offer the greatest opportunities, and
what criteria should be used in
judging the desirability of
properties.
• Survey the possible recreation
and open space opportunities
yourself to get firsthand knowledge
of the different land areas and the
opportunities that exist.
• Establish criteria for judging the
desirability of potential recreation
or open space areas, and develop
priorities based on them. Possible
criteria include such things as
quality of natural features, prox-
imity to population centers,
potential for developing active
recreation facilities, cultural or
historical features, relationship to
other actual or potential public
lands (including, for example,
potential for linear open space
corridors, possibilities for park
systems linked by trails, and the
need for dispersing recreation lands
throughout a community or region
for both political considerations and
the convenience of the public).
!<'ii! u,iils weie uesiyned
nun ; ihe 'I alimans
leni pi,mi in Queens,
17
-------
• Examine ownership, potential
cost, and planned or likely uses for
desirable open space and recrea-
tion lands.
3) Identify Available Programs
for Land Preservation, and
Determine Their Requirements
and Policies
• Look into federal programs, as
described in Chapter Three.
Examine the Statewide Compre-
hensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP), by which federal funds
are allocated. Talk with the State
Liaison Officer, and find out how
the dollar volume of applications
compares with available funding.
• Find out if state programs for
land acquisition exist, and if so,
what their policies, requirements,
and available funds are.
• Check into local land acquisition
programs at the regional, county.
city, and town level.
• Investigate the possibility of
private donations of land or pur-
chase money.
• Consider means of land preser-
vation which do not involve actual
purchase, such as conservation
easements or tax policies. What are
the laws and policies governing
them in your state?
Historic sites alony waterways.
such as this New England gust
mill, present acquisition
opportunities.
4) Match Up the Timetable for
Water Pollution Control, and
the Opportunities for Open
Space and Recreation Land
• Considering separate parcels,
which pieces of land should receive
priority given the immediacy of
water quality improvement? What
is the time frame for water cleanup
in other waterfront areas?
• Considering the programs as a
whole, where are recreation and
open space programs out of phase
with water cleanup schedules?
Specifically, are land acquisition
programs giving adequate attention
to waterfront lands? Does the
Statewide Comprehensive Out-
door Recreation Plan (SCORP)
specify waterfront areas as a
priority? Is the total amount of
money available for land preser-
vation enough? Are state and local
governments able to raise enough
money to take advantage of
available federal matching grants?
5,) Develop a Plan of Action
• Organize a constituency for
coordinated acquisition and
protection. Publicize the idea, and
make its benefits known. Instigate
public support for both specific
waterfront parks, and for the
concept as a whole. Make sure
communities are aware of land
opportunities and funding sources.
• Help adjust priorities in the
Statewide Comprehensive Out-
door Recreation Plan (SCORP). if
necessary, to reflect the importance
of waterfront land acquisition.
• Work for greater funding of open
space and recreation programs.
especially where individual com-
munities need to make a greater
local commitment in order to take
advantage of federal matching
funds. If your state does not have a
program to supplement the federal
Land and Water Conservation
Fund grants to communities, you
may want to try to have one
established.
• Become familiar with the
political, legal, and administrative
procedures necessary to take full
advantage of existing programs.
Know the deadlines and require-
ments, and the important deci-
sionmakers. Think out the points at
which demonstrated public support
can be most effective and consider
how best to demonstrate that
support. Make sure to bear in mind
the possibilities of action at the
federal, state, and local levels.
• Monitor water quality progress to
make sure it is proceeding on
schedule. Give officials the support
they need to insist on compliance
with pollution standards. If neces-
sary, help adjust water quality plans
to ensure early cleanup near
existing or planned recreation
areas.
Problems You
May Encounter
Chief among the problems you are
likely to encounter is the perennial
difficulty of scarce funds at the local
level. In this era of municipal
budget-cutting, acquisition of rec-
reation land may seem a true
luxury, something that can be easily
postponed to a later date. Yet
recreation and open space advo-
cates are continuing to have success
in many areas, through careful
efforts to marshal! support and
publicize the need and value of
parks and open space. The nature
of low value soon-to-be cleaned
waterfront land, combined with the
lure of federal matching funds,
makes acquisition now a consid-
erable bargain for community
funds, and this argument has been
used effectively in countless cases.
Another difficulty may come
from efforts to reorient priorities for
the expenditure of state and federal
matching funds. Proponents of
waterfront acquisition may find
themselves at odds with those who
are arguing persuasively for other
priorities—such as urban parks, or
threatened natural areas. To a large
extent, careful planning can help
these interests to coincide. Yet
18
-------
where legitimate disagreements
over priorities remain, persuasive
reasoning and demonstrated
political and public support will be
the key to success.
Other problems you may come
across involve the process of
once land is acquired, there is the
difficulty of ensuring adequate
funds for the necessary but less
inspiring task of maintaining the
new parks and recreation areas.
Some Examples
One of the most intriguing
acquiring specific parcels. Often the examples of the coordinated
negotiations with landowners are
delicate and time-consuming;
sometimes land must be taken by
the power of eminent domain,
though this not only creates ill will,
but often raises land costs as well.
Sometimes, too, you will find that
land begins to rise in value as soon
as acquisition intentions become
acquisition and protection concept
is taking place in Lowell,
Massachusetts, an hour's trip north
of Boston, and once a proud textile
center of the 19th century world.
The city had been a victim of
declining industry and a deter-
iorating core, until it developed the
concept of an "urban cultural park''
The plan was designed to build
anew on the city's original
strengths—its location at the
confluence of the Concord and
Merrimack Rivers, its legacy of long,
brick mill buildings, and the net-
work of canals that thread through
the city.
The urban cultural park is a
many-faceted proposal combining
known, and thus the need for quick as the centerpiece of its bid for new
action becomes important. Finally, vitality and economic investment.
(lu.inup was indispensable
to tin1 Urban Cultural Park
concept in Lowell. Massachusetts
LvntL-ivd about its historic canal
system.
HH'K MAP
HISTORIC LOWELL
19
-------
Design Opportunities
at Waste Treatment Faci
1. Multiple Use
Section 201 of the Clean Water
Act, which authorizes the con-
struction program, originally
directed that:
"The Administrator shall encour-
age waste treatment management
which combines 'open space' and
recreational considerations with
such management."
To ensure implementation,
Congress amended Section 201 (f)
of the Act in 1977 to say:
"The Administrator shall not
make grants . . . [for] treatment
works unless the grant applicant has
satisfactorily demonstrated to the
Administrator that the applicant has
analyzed the potential recreation
and open space opportunities in the
planning of the proposed treatment
works."
Section 201 (g) (6)
Clean Water Act of 1977
creative reuse of historic arch-
itecture, exhibits of the industrial
revolution, and extensive land-
scaping and recreational
development. The city's water-
ways—both its rivers and its
canals—have become a central
focus for the revitalization effort. A
vigorous cleanup program is
underway, including federal and
state funds to rehabilitate and
restore the canals. There are plans
to protect the undeveloped banks
of the two rivers, and extensive
landscaping and recreational
development along the five miles of
canals is also part of the effort.
Hiking and biking trails are being
designed to follow the same ease-
ments as wastewater collection
systems. Lowell's strategic location
offers it the potential of becoming
an inland boating center.
The efforts of Lowell are typical
of many communities across the
country, large and small, which are
rediscovering their waterfronts. In
some cases, this means revitalizing
rundown developed areas, as in
Lowell. In other cases, it means
protecting areas still unspoiled. For
example, along the Miami River in
Ohio, a regional open space and
trail system is being developed in
concert with water cleanup pro-
grams. Whatever the variation,
there are already many commu-
nities proceeding toward a coor-
dinated acquisition and protection
program—and countless more
where the potential awaits only the
interest of citizens and officials to
become a reality.
Interceptoi construction (right)
provides opportunities lor multiple
use such as a public trail U >
The Concept
The objective of multiple use means
getting extra value from a waste-
water treatment plant or collection
system by using it for recreational
purposes in addition to its primary
role of cleaning up pollution. Thus,
the easements obtained for an
underground wastewater collection
system might also be written to
allow for development of a walking
and bicycle trail system—a natural
idea, since collection systems tend
to connect the points in a com-
munity between which most people
want to travel. Or, a treatment
plant, which often utilizes only a
fraction of the land purchased for it,
can be designed so that a boat
launching ramp, or tennis courts, or
a host of other recreation facilities
can be accommodated within its
site. In one innovative case in
Evergreen, Colorado the roof of a
treatment facility has been used to
provide recreation space in a con-
gested area. The potentials are as
vast as the number of pollution
control facilities being built across
the country in the drive for clean
water.
20
-------
lity Sites
Why Is Multiple Use
Desirable?
Multiple use stretches the public
dollar in a variety of ways:
• When heavy equipment is
already on site, it is much cheaper
to build recreational facilities.
• Often, indeed, some kinds of
recreation can be provided at no
extra cost. For example, since the
land has to be restored in some way
after construction, a little planning
can make sure that it is done in a
way that will accommodate a rec-
reational activity such as a playing
field.
• Since easements must be nego-
tiated anyway for the collection
systems, it is often a simple matter to
include provisions for a trail system
at the same time. These trail sys-
tems, in addition to linking points
throughout the community, can
turn disjointed and fragmented
parklands into cohesive recreation
systems, making the whole more
than the sum of the parts.
• The environs of a treatment
plant constitute a waterfront access
point which is already in public
ownership, and thus a prime loca-
tion for boat launching ramps,
picnic areas, and other waterside
uses. Particularly in areas where
opportunity for waterfront access is
restricted, these opportunities
should not be overlooked.
Central to making multiple use
an attractive idea is the realization
that a treatment facility need not be
ugly. As one engineer put it, "If you
want us to, we can put curtains on
the windows and make it look just
like any house in town." Land-
scaping can provide further
screening; and appropriate design
of the plant and choice of equip-
ment can keep noise levels and
odors at a minimum.
The Major Actors
Perhaps the person most important
to cashing in on multiple use
opportunities is the consulting
engineer. When a city or town
needs to build a wastewater
treatment plant, it hires a private
engineering firm to first design and
then construct the facility. An alert
consultant may be the initiator of
the efforts for multiple use, but at
the very least, cooperation from the
engineering firm is essential to
success. The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency is engaged in a
training program to alert consulting
engineers to the concept of multiple
use, and the benefits to them of
incorporating recreation opportu-
nities into their design—chief
among which is greater public
support when the time comes for
the community to vote its share of
necessary funds.
Of course, the enthusiasm of
community recreation and conser-
vation officials is critical, as is the
support of the sewer commission or
other community board charged
with responsibility for waste treat-
ment. Both groups of officials will
have to cooperate in developing or
approving plans and ensuring
maintenance of the recreation
areas. They are in an ideal position
to initially raise the possibilities of
multiple use. Approval by the
mayor, board of supervisors, city or
town council, or other elected
officials may be necessary—par-
ticularly if local funds are to be used
for developing the recreation area.
Even if no formal approval is
necessary, their support can be
invaluable and their opposition
formidable.
The Environmental Protection
Agency assists multiple use efforts
by providing funds for consulting
engineers working on construction
grants projects to:
• coordinate with public officials
and citizens interested in or charged
with responsibilities for recreation
and water cleanup;
• develop multiple use proposals
and study their feasibility;
• design and construct the waste -
water treatment system to accom-
modate recreational uses, even if, in
some cases, this leads to extra costs;
• design and carry out landscaping
and regrading so as to promote
recreational use.
The question of which costs EPA
can justify to accommodate
recreational uses in wastewater
treatment projects has no definite
answer, and currently is determined
on a project-by-project basis.
Generally, it must be kept in mind
that the principal purpose of the
project, from EPA's perspective, is
to control pollution; thus, EPA
funds cannot pay for purely
Clean watfr, innuvdtiu.1 design
and itceptive officials provide ii
scenic view of Laky George in
upstate New York from
-------
An i \iilv: multiple use pioirct
nmnpoi.itiiKt ,1 fislinuj pit'v atop
an outfall hue in Pacifica,
California.
tion facilities, on a 50% matching
basis. State agencies play active
roles in both wastewater treatment
and recreation, and may also be a
source of necessary funds.
Remember, too, that state
environmental agencies which
contribute funds to the wastewater
treatment project will also want a
voice in approving multiple use
ideas. Local agencies have budgets
in both categories as well. Finally,
the budgets of industries, founda-
tions or other organizations located
or doing business in your com-
munity ought not to be overlooked.
A key role in making sure that
multiple use opportunities are taken
can be played by civic groups, and
indeed, individual citizens as well.
Often, the initial push for multiple
use comes from within the com-
munity, and citizens can also pro-
vide the sustaining drive when the
press of everyday events makes an
obstacle in the path of multiple use
seem insurmountable to busy
officials.
How To Bring About
Multiple Use
Incorporating recreation opportu-
nities into waste treatment projects
is best done in the early phases of
the planning "step" before
engineering designs are approved
or structures are begun to be built. If
your community's project has
already passed the planning step,
however, there are still possibilities
open; there may be opportunities to
exploit which do not require any
modifications in facility design, or it
may still be possible to make minor
changes. For example, even at the
tail end of construction, it is possible
to have regrading and planting
done in a manner which permits the
project site to be used as a
recreational area.
Bear in mind that EPA funds
wastewater treatment construction
projects in three distinct phases or
"steps." Step 1 is facility planning,
in which the treatment needs of the
community are examined, and
alternatives developed around
issues such as how large an area of
the community should be sewered,
what type of plant design and
treatment process is best, what size
plant is needed, preliminary design
studies, and where the plant should
be built. After public discussion, a
"selected alternative" is chosen, the
community votes its share of con-
struction costs, and application
made to the state and EPA for
further funds. Clearly, Step 1 is the
most critical phase for identifying
and incorporating multiple use
opportunities.
After EPA and the state approve
the selected alternative, Step 2
funds are awarded, and the con-
sulting engineers and architects
undertake detailed design and
engineering plans for the facility.
The plans are again reviewed by
EPA and the state, and if satis-
factory. Step 3 funds awarded for
construction. While multiple use
ideas could indeed be introduced in
these latter two steps, it obviously
becomes increasingly difficult to
justify changes in the project which
adds engineering and architectural
design costs as it proceeds along the
path to completion.
The message is clearly to start as
soon as possible. The steps to
undertake are:
1. Examine the possibilities—Every
community involved in a waste-
water treatment construction
project should ask its consulting
engineer or architect to look into
multiple use opportunities. But
whatever your role, look around
yourself, too—you may see pos-
sibilities where others don't.
2. Develop plans and alterna-
tives—Once tentative directions
have been identified, have the
consulting engineer investigate
their costs and feasibility, and
develop various multiple use pro-
posals for citizens and officials to
consider. Remember that EPA
construction grant funds can be
justified to pay the consultant for
this. Graphics and visuals can be
very helpful in communicating the
recreation concepts.
3. Begin to line up funding -
Determine what portions EPA can
fund; check with state recreation
agencies about both state aid and
federal Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service funds; see what
could be provided by other local
and state agencies; and check with
industries and private
organizations.
4. Monitor the design of the
treatment plant—Make sure it is
compatible with recreation goals, in
terms of architecture, landscaping,
screening, and noise and odor
control.
5. Publicize the possibilities, and
gain support from citizens, profes-
sional and public interest groups,
and government officials—Even
the best plans will go nowhere
without official support. Informing
the community is not only impor-
tant in its own right but is also a way
of galvanizing government action.
The decision-making process
(including a required public hear-
ing) on waste treatment alternatives
can provide a forum for deciding
which multiple use opportunities to
pursue.
6. Finalize the funding, and
develop agreements on who does
what—Nail down sources of funds,
and make sure that all parties
understand their responsibilities in
the cooperative undertaking. It may
be important, particularly with
more complex projects, to develop
a formal memorandum of cooper-
ation between park and sewer
officials to clarify items such as cost
sharing, maintenance responsibil-
ities, and liability.
Problems You May
Encounter
The problems which crop up in
multiple use efforts are those which
can quite readily be expected in
programs which involve fitting a
new idea into established practices,
particularly when doing so means
coordinating the efforts of different
levels and departments of govern-
ment. There is still resistance on the
part of some wastewater treatment
engineers and public officials to the
idea of incorporating recreational
activities into treatment sites or
facilities. They fear vandalism, or
assert "that's not our purpose," and
can considerably frustrate multiple
use proponents.
-------
Responses to this attitude can be
found in the fact that Sections
201(g)(6) and 208(b)(2A) of the
Clean Water Act specifically
support use of recreation oppor-
tunities. Policies of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service thoroughly
support the multiple use concept.
Further, the variety of successful
case studies, such as those at the
end of this section, are concrete
proof that multiple use works.
Another problem you may en-
counter is getting adequate fund-
ing. There may simply not be
enough money available, in which
case the only resort is to try more
sources, or see if the recreation
proposal can be modified so it is less
expensive, or qualifies for monies
that are available. A more frus-
trating funding problem is when
recreation agencies and water
cleanup agencies are on different
funding timetables, and money
becomes unavailable not because it
isn't there, but simply because of
conflicting accounting procedures
or planning requirements of
different federal and state funding
agencies. The completion schedule
for the water cleanup project may
make it impossible for recreation
officials to allocate funds in time for
a joint effort. Sometimes, too,
agencies squabble over who pays
for what, and this can also be
frustrating, especially in cases
where the dollar amount may be
relatively small but involves the
principle of which agency has
responsibility. Your recourse is to
patiently negotiate, trying to work
out a compromise or redesign the
project to eliminate the obstacle.
Or, another public or private entity
might be persuaded to underwrite
the disputed item.
A further sticking point that
sometimes crops up is the question
of liability, both for accidents which
may occur to recreators, or for
damage to treatment works. Laws
vary, and it is best to get assistance
from a knowledgeable attorney, or
the community's legal counsel.
Some Examples
Across the country, cities, towns,
and counties are making the extra
effort to draw full value from public
recreation and water quality dollars
by using the multiple use idea. They
are building trail networks, active
recreation areas, community
gardens, and pleasant parks by
taking advantage of the three major
areas for multiple use:
• the treatment facility itself;
• interceptors and other asso-
ciated facilities;
• land surrounding the treatment
facility.
The Treatment Facility Itself:
An Example From
Evergreen, Colorado
When Evergreen, Colorado—a
community of 3,000 people about
15 miles southwest of Denver—had
to expand its wastewater treatment
plant, the chairman of the sanitation
board conceived of a unique idea.
An ardent tennis player, he had
noted the lack of adequate court
space in the community resulting
from the soaring popularity of
tennis, and the difficulty posed by
the scarcity and high cost of suitable
land.
Pointing out that a large area
would have to be levelled at the
expanded treatment plant for a
"sludge digester," he proposed that
two tennis courts be constructed on
the roof of that facility. Adding
another innovation, he further
proposed that the project be a
private enterprise effort, financed
through membership in a "Sew'R
Racquet Club." The Sanitation
Board called for bids on rental of
the roof space, and it was let for the
sum of $1,350 per year. The
Applying multiple use concepts
helps to reinforce conservation
and shoreland preservation
principles.
contract was for 10 years, with a 90
day cancellation clause if the
digester should ever need to be
modified in any way (in which case
the club would be reimbursed for its
capital investments, minus
depreciation).
Ten local families put up the
funds and formed a non-profit club
to build the courts. With total cost
for construction only $12,000—
versus an estimated $75,000 for
two "normal" courts in the same
community—dues in the club were
kept down to $ 100 per year with a
$250 initiation fee. All member-
ships were sold in short order.
The project has a number of
benefits for all concerned. The
Sanitation Board has incurred no
costs, and indeed, receives annual
rent payments. The community has
two new tennis courts to take
pressure off other facilities. And the
club members not only enjoy
inexpensive tennis but have an
unexpected benefit from the 75
degree temperature of the digester
below the courts—it dries wet spots
and melts snow in the winter,
allowing play to continue almost
year round.
Manhattan's River Bank
State Park:
A 30 acre park on the Hudson River
in Manhattan is proposed for the
roof of the North River Water
Pollution Control Plant, and is
perhaps the most imaginative
example of the concept of multiple
use. It is envisioned that the park
might have picnic areas, tennis
courts, a swimming pool, an
ice-skating rink, walking and bicycle
trails, and playing fields including
three baseball diamonds—all on
the roof of a million gallon per day
treatment plant. The park is ex-
pected to accommodate 10,000
people a day. Since the project—
including reinforcement of the roof
and extensive landscaping—is very
expensive, it is only justifiable in
dense urban areas where large
numbers can use it, and the lack of
open land makes rooftop use
practical. The HCRS and New York
State and local governments joined
together in the development of the
overhead park.
Interceptors and Other
Associated Facilities:
Examples From Around
the Country
The most often implemented type
of multiple use involves wastewater
collection systems and related
facilities such as pumping stations.
Perhaps this is because these
facilities are scattered around the
community, and thus are most
accessible for recreation purposes
—as the following examples attest:
• In Barrington. Rhode Island, due
to strong public interest in the idea
and a creative engineering con-
sultant, a pumping station was
located next to an outdoor ice
hockey rink and designed to form
bleachers for spectators.
• Residents of Pacifica, California,
a few miles south of San Francisco,
had long wanted an ocean fishing
pier, but the city was not able to
finance construction of the pier by
itself. The solution came with the
idea of finding a dual function for
the pier so the city would only have
to pay part of the cost. The pier was
designed not only to serve as a
recreation facility, but as support for
a treated water outfall from a
wastewater treatment plant. Finan-
cial assistance came from EPA
because of the outfall pipe, and
from the Bureau of Outdoor Rec-
reation because of the fishing
facilities. Since the outfall extends
out half a mile into the sea, or twice
as far as the pier, there is no danger
of contamination of the fishing area.
Over 55,000 people a year use the
pier.
• The Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission serves the
two suburban counties in Maryland
which border the District of
Columbia, and has a long history of
working closely with recreation
advocates. It has close ties with the
Maryland-National Capital Park
and Planning Commission, and has
had an extensive public participa-
tion program for its wastewater
treatment projects. Public concern
directed attention to gaining the
23
-------
(>iu- t'l tlii' most (Lilly dev.vli ipi-il
multiple use programs in the
rountrv is KuMted at the
Springbrook treatment facility in
illc, 111 outside of Chicago
Shown are thi' community garden
plots located on the site
maximum benefit from these con-
struction projects by developing a
trail network over interceptor lines
The Sanitary Commission and the
Planning Commission have had,
since 1974, a Joint Agency Rec-
reation Committee, and as a result
have already built a number of
hiker-biker trails in conjunction with
wastewater collection systems and
have plans for more in the future.
The same construction contractor
handles both jobs, with the
Planning Commission designing
the trail and funding that phase of
the activity. Public response to the
program is enthusiastic, and both
agencies have benefited from this
support.
• In Bellevue, Washington, a
suburb of Seattle, construction of
an interceptor line through an
undeveloped marshland known as
Mercer Slough is being coordinated
with recreation officials to provide a
bicycle path through the property.
The land is being purchased with
the help of money from the federal
Land and Water Conservation
Fund to ensure its preservation, and
the path will enable visitors to
appreciate its scenic and ecologi-
cally interesting natural features.
• In Cook County, Illinois, the
Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago operates a system
of canals for sanitary and shipping
purposes. As the pollution in these
canals is cleaned up, the sanitary
district is realizing the emerging
recreation potential. Already, an
arboretum and ecology center have
been built in Evanston, and various
recreation facilities have been
established on canal lands by the
Chicago Park District.
Land Surrounding the
Treatment Facility: Examples
From Queens, New York and
Naperville, Illinois
Extra land beyond what is needed
for the treatment facility is often
purchased at the time of con-
struction. This may be to allow for
future expansion; because of state
or local policy of providing a buffer
zone around the plant; or simply
because an owner will not agree to
subdivide a parcel. The following
examples highlight one case in
which a park has been built on land
slated for future expansion of the
facility, and another in which a
permanent buffer zone has been
used.
• At the Tallmans Island waste-
water treatment plant in Queens,
New York, project planners found it
necessary to purchase more land
than was immediately needed, in
order to allow for future expansion
of the plant. Rather than leaving the
unused land vacant, however, a
landscaped park was fashioned for
the site, with excavation material
left over from construction used to
form berms in the park for visual
screening and topographic variety.
A pier, needed for the docking of
sludge barges, has been opened for
the use of fishermen as well. The
innovative engineering firm for the
project worked with the New York
City Arts Commission on the design
of the treatment facility, and with
the Brooklyn Museum to preserve
artifacts found on the site and erect
them in the park as sculptures.
• Construction of a new regional
waste treatment facility in Naper-
ville, Illinois, resulted in a consid-
erable plus for the area when buffer
land around the treatment plant
was leased to the Naperville Park
District. Much of the land has been
turned into community garden
plots for residents joining the
nationwide revival of "victory
gardens," and a canoe launching
area is also being constructed to
give boaters access to the DuPage
River which borders the site.
24
-------
2. Recycling Outmoded Waste water
Treatment Facilities
The Concept
As the nation makes its concerted
push for fishable and swimmable
waters, technical innovations and
new standards and requirements
are making many older treatment
plants outdated. These facilities are
being replaced with newer, more
efficient plants, better able to con-
tribute to clean water progress. Yet
this is posing a problem in many
communities, where abandoned
plants can tie up desirable prop-
erties, or worse yet, become
nuisances subject to vandalism,
accidents, and other problems.
In a number of cities and towns,
however, these problems are being
avoided by creatively adapting
outmoded treatment plants to rec-
reational purpose. Old plants tend
to be located in dense neighbor-
hoods, or on prime waterfront land,
which make them excellent
candidates for rehabilitation into
parks; and many of the existing
structures can be converted to
useful new purposes.
Why Is Recycling an
Old Plant Desirable?
Recycling an abandoned treatment
plant makes sense because it
eliminates an eyesore and potential
trouble spot, helps meet demand
for recreational facilities, and con-
verts otherwise wasted land and
structures into new assets. By
accomplishing these goals through
using land already publicly owned,
and adapting structures which are
already in existence, it can achieve
benefits for the taxpayers that are
more than proportional to its costs.
The Major Actors
Perhaps the most essential person
in an effort to recycle an abandoned
wastewater treatment facility is an
architect or other person who can
visualize the opportunities pre-
sented by existing structures, and
help others to see the transforma-
tions possible. Imaginative recrea-
tion officials who are willing to take
on an unusual project are also
important actors. A committed
public can be the catalyzing force
for bringing the project about, and
civic or environmental groups can
play a major role in sparking that
public interest and commitment.
Cooperation from the sewer com-
mission or other local body charged
with responsibility for the old plant
can be very helpful, particularly if
the new facility is to be built on the
same plot and recreational designs
must be kept compatible with it.
Many people may be involved in
funding the project, from private
sources, to local park and recrea-
tion agencies, to state agencies, as
well as the Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service.
How To Make Recycling
Opportunities Happen
Developing an exciting plan and
showing people the possibilities is
an important key to success in a
project of this sort, and thus you
should make an effort to develop
visual materials as soon as possible.
The basic steps you will have to go
through in implementing a
recycling project are:
• develop plans for recreational
designs;
• build a constituency for the
recycling concept, and demonstrate
public support for a park;
• develop cost estimates;
• explore funding sources;
• finalize plans based on public
input and financial considerations;
• secure a sponsor for the project,
such as the local recreation or parks
agency, which can receive grants
for development, and provide for
maintenance;
• secure necessary funds;
• carry out reconstruction work;
• ensure adequate maintenance.
Problems You May
Encounter
Problems which you might en-
counter are principally related to
the novel nature of the recycling
concept. Citizens and officials may
at first be skeptical of the whole
idea, and take considerable con-
vincing. However, as more expe-
rience is gained across the country
in the creative reuse of old build-
ings, and as more and more
examples of successful conversion
of abandoned treatment plants into
parks and recreation areas can be
pointed to, this problem should
diminish. Of course, there will
always be the problem of con-
vincing officials to allocate limited
funds to a project, but the
economies of reusing land already
owned and facilities already in
existence offers a strong argument
in favor of recycling projects.
Some Examples
One of the best examples of
creative reuse of a wastewater
treatment plant can be found in
Miamisburg, Ohio, a suburb of
Dayton. The long-unused plant had
become a neighborhood eyesore,
and at the instigation of nearby
residents, city officials began to
consider what to do with it. A
recreational use of the site seemed
to make the most sense, since park
facilities were badly needed in that
part of the community. The city was
able to obtain funds from the
federal Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund to develop what
became an attractive new park.
Residents worked with park
planners on the design, and the
resulting Westover Park includes
tennis, basketball, and volleyball
courts built from the old sludge
beds; a splash pool and roller
skating area fashioned from the
treatment plant's aero-clarifier; and
an "adventure playground"
developed over the former sludge
digester. The administration build-
ing is used for restrooms and a
storage area. Open land surround-
^ng the treatment facility—originally
set aside for its expansion— is used
for a ball field and free play area.
Plans of a similar nature are
currently underway for outdated
treatment plants in San Antonio,
Texas at a site along Cibelo Creek,
and in Naperville, Illinois, where
construction of a regional plant has
led to abandonment of four facilities
along the DuPage River.
lund
•n ,i luMtnn'iit plant
ibst ilete In; ,1 iH'u'fi facility
in MicimisbiiM). Ohm
25
-------
3. Environmental Education
•K •
By careful planning and
water qualiK1 improvement
proiects provide real life
laboratories foi a wide ran
learning experiences and
environmental education
An outdoor classroom at the
Baylands Interpretive Center,
Palo Alto, California (top); a
lectuie room ,it the John E. Egan
Reclamation Plant in Chicago. III.
(tipper i enter). ,1 loin qroup at
Mtment plant in New York
Citc's L'nth waid (lower center).
and ii i : interpretive
tiail at the site of the Sheiuindoah
National Park's newly constructed
tieatinent facility for the Panorama
Visitor* Center on Skyline
neai Stanley. Virginia (bottom)
The Concept
Most people enjoy finding out how
things work, and thus for many
years wastewater treatment plants
around the country have been
responding to requests from school
groups and other sectors of the
public seeking guided tours of
plants and information about the
treatment process. Now as com-
munities across America come to
grips with their wastewater prob-
lems—and with large numbers of
people becoming interested in
treatment processes and the effects
of pollution on natural habitats—
there is an increased demand for
incorporating educational oppor-
tunities into wastewater treatment
facility plans. There is also a
growing feeling among water
quality planners, wastewater treat-
ment technicians, and environ-
mental educators that public edu-
cation must receive greater priority,
so that unique opportunities for
increasing public knowledge about
water quality problems and solu-
tions will not be lost.
There are a number of ways to
provide for educational benefits at a
wastewater treatment facility.
Traditionally, education programs
focused on making staff people
available to lead groups on a tour of
the plant, with appointments made
in advance by interested commu-
nity or school groups. As the
number of such groups has in-
creased, and the requests have
come from school groups of
younger and younger ages, it has
become necessary to design plants
to more easily and safely accom-
modate these tours. These inno-
vations can range from relatively
minor changes such as guard rails
and glassed-in observation areas, to
major design changes so that
visitors can get greater insight into
the actual working of machinery,
and more clearly understand the
steps involved in treatment.
A number of new treatment
plants are going a step further, by
providing less "programmed"
types of educational opportunities.
These typically involve "self-
guided" tours such as are often
found in museums and other
exhibit areas, using colorful display
panels to explain processes, and
recorded explanations at various
points along a path through the
plant, which can be listened to by
tour-takers as they pass through.
The virtue of this type of educa-
tional design is that it allows large
numbers of visitors to go through
the plant at their own time and
pace, in complete safety, without
taking valuable staff time from the
operation of the facility. And, of
course, a "self-guided" tour can be
supplemented with other more
programmed activities for those
groups which desire a more
thorough explanation.
Oftentimes a careful selection
and development of the treatment
site itself can provide added and
dramatic lessons of the relation
between clean water and the local
ecology. The land surrounding the
plant can be planned as a natural
wildlife sanctuary, and a highlight of
the educational program.
Why Are Educational
Opportunities At
Treatment Plants
Important?
Perhaps the greatest reason for
taking advantage of educational
opportunities at wastewater treat-
ment plants is that doing so is an
important step toward firmly
establishing a water quality ethic in
American society. Our current
massive water pollution problem,
which is being addressed through
huge expenditures by federal, state,
and local governments, as well as
private interests, is due to our past
misunderstandings of the dynamics
of water quality, to the funda-
mentally wrong notion that we
could dump raw wastes in rivers,
lakes and seacoasts and they would
simply be carried "away." There is
no better way to drive home the
point that our own wastes are what
cause pollution, and that careful
treatment of them is an absolute
necessity, than to take school
children and senior citizens,
business people, homemakers, and
politicians, and show them the
impressive facilities necessary to
safely dispose of municipal and
industrial wastewater.
Similarly, the costs of construct-
ing, operating, and maintaining
these complicated treatment facili-
ties represent a substantial public
investment, and adequate public
understanding of what these tax
expenditures are paying for is
desirable both from the point of
view of civic responsibility, and
from the point of view of main-
taining public support for continued
water pollution control efforts.
An educational program at a
treatment plant can not only help
inform citizen taxpayers, it can also
stretch tax dollars by supplement-
ing educational programs at com-
munity schools. The environment is
an increasingly popular subject of
study. In cities across the country—
Palo Alto, Chicago. New York City,
Washington, D.C.—schoolchildren
by the busload are touring waste-
water treatment plants as part of
their environmental curriculum. For
modest investments compared to
the total cost of the treatment plant,
these facilities can become valuable
additions to classroom study.
An important result of public
education efforts at wastewater
treatment plants is that they are
beginning to break down what
many water quality experts call the
"sewage stigma." Public education
about how waste is treated helps
overcome barriers to new and
important resource management
concepts such as using sludge for
fertilizer or treated effluent as
irrigation water. It also helps to in-
crease the prestige of. and interest
in, the jobs available in treatment
plant operation.
The Major Actors
The engineering consultants
designing the treatment facility are
among the most important people
to work with in making educational
possibilities a reality. Without their
understanding of possible tech-
niques, their knowledge of the
community's desires, and their
26
-------
commitment to fulfilling educa-
tional needs, it will be difficult to
bring about a treatment plant
design that facilitates educational
programs.
The sewer commission or other
local body charged with overseeing
the construction and operation of
the plant is also extremely impor-
tant, not only in its own right, but
because of its ability to influence
state and federal officials and the
engineering consultants. Sewer
boards are important not only in
ensuring proper design of the
facility, but also in making sure that,
once it is built, an educational
program is carried out. School
officials can help provide a con-
stituency for educational efforts,
and their commitment is obviously
necessary to integrate the educa-
tional opportunities at the treatment
plant into school programs.
The commitment of local elected
officials is important in making sure
that there is the necessary financial
support for any design modifica-
tions that must be made, and for
whatever budget commitment must
be made to running an educational
program. Federal officials in the
Environmental Protection Agency
and state officials in relevant
departments can help in providing
expertise on how to make appro-
priate modifications to facilities to
maximize educational potentials,
and in providing plans and exam-
ples from other successful efforts.
Finally, of course, the demon-
strated support of the public at large
is the best way to convince officials
of the necessity of an educational
program, and the knowledge of that
program's existence by the public a
key ingredient for its success.
How To Bring About an
Educational Program
A good place to begin imple-
menting an educational program is
with a survey of the obstacles and
potentials at the treatment plant
itself. If your community has an
existing plant, you will have to
determine what constraints exist
because of its design or its facili-
ties—for example, is there room to
handle a large group going through
without unduly disturbing opera-
tions? Are there safety questions for
young schoolchildren? This leads,
of course, to the question of what
modifications can feasibly be made,
such as adding guard rails, glassed
in observation areas, or suspended
walkways. And this, in turn, leads to
a question of budget, not only for
any necessary modifications, but
also for staff time to conduct
programs. Existing staff may be able
to fit this into their schedule, or it
may be preferable to hire someone
specifically for this task. Or, need for
staff time might be drastically
reduced by building in a "self-
guided" tour through the plant,
with recordings, display panels, and
other features. Where school
groups are the prime targets of the
program, perhaps one or more
teachers could be trained as tour
leaders.
If your community is still planning
its wastewater facility, or in early
construction phases, you may have
more options open to you. Design
elements are more flexible, and you
may be able to incorporate
imaginative ideas. You will have to
work very closely with responsible
officials and the engineer designing
the facility.
The question of allocating staff
time to educational programs may
also be easier to resolve before
patterns are established which
exclude this duty. Or, it may be
easier with a new plant, which is
more in the public consciousness,
to persuade officials to make a
sufficient commitment to hire a full
or part-time education specialist to
design and conduct programs at the
treatment plant.
Regardless of whether you are
dealing with an existing treatment
plant or a new one, it is important to
consider how the program will be
operated, and not to concentrate
solely on bringing about its initia-
tion. This is a matter of ensuring an
audience for the program; ensuring
sufficient commitment of staff and
other resources at the facility;
ensuring interest and knowledge on
the part of school officials; and
ensuring that the educational pro-
gram is tailored to the needs of its
users, and can flexibly adapt as
these needs change.
Problems You May
Encounter
The two principal problems you
may encounter are treatment plant
designs which are incompatible
with an education program, and
unwillingness on the part of officials
to make a financial commitment to
educational activities. These prob-
lems can often be related; a poor
design which hampers education
efforts may be correctable if funds
to do so are made available.
It is easy to understand the
reluctance of officials to strain
municipal budgets in order to
provide what may be considered a
luxury, particularly since just the
basic operation of the facility is
often a major item in local budgets.
Developing a strong base of citizen
support for an education program is
probably the best means of over-
coming this reluctance.
If you are dealing with a new
treatment facility still in the design
stages, you may be able to take"
advantage of the fact that con-
struction 'costs are borne primarily
through federal and state grants to
design educational features that,
while more expensive to build in,
cost less to maintain and operate.
These would tend to be the "self-
guided" tour arrangements which
eliminate the need for additional
personnel. Of course, you will need
to negotiate with federal and state
officials to determine what kinds of
educational facilities they are willing
to provide funds for.
Financial or facility design prob-
lems can sometimes be alleviated
through a different approach to the
educational program, and if you
experience such difficulties it may
be well worthwhile to examine what
has been done in other commu-
nities. The examples below outline
some possibilities.
Some Examples
In the Maryland suburbs of Wash-
ington, D.C., the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission
makes a concerted effort to open its
facilities for tours by school and
community groups. It has an
arrangement with the public school
systems in its service areas—in
effect for the last twenty years—
whereby it pays the bus transpor-
tation costs to bring school classes
in to leam about the facility. This
open-door policy has been met
with enthusiasm from school
officials; so much, in fact, that in the
early seventies the demands on staff
time caused by the tour program
became impossible. Rather than
cutting back, however, the Com-
mission developed an innovative
solution: it trained interested
citizens in the basics of plant
operation, showed them how to
conduct tours, and then turned the
program over to these part-time
guides. The civic activists, retired
people, former teachers, and others
who participate are not volunteers,
but rather are paid for their time and
transportation costs. This provides
a commitment and continuity for
the program, but still keeps costs far
below what they would be to pay
engineers and other professional
staff to conduct the tours.
A completely different approach
to eliminating staff burdens from an
educational program is being used
at a wastewater treatment facility at
Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia. The plant is designed to
provide park visitors with an
overview of wastewater treatment,
without requiring tour guides or
forcing visitors to go on a fixed
schedule. A series of signs along the
roadway leading to the facility are
used to begin the introduction;
once inside, there is an elevated
pathway which takes people
through the plant, with visually
appealing displays (complete with
cartoon characters for children)
which explain what is going on at
various stages of treatment. There
are also displays with recorded
explanations which can be turned
on by the push of a button. As
visitors leave the plant, they exit into
a landscaped area, complete with a
waterfall and a goldfish pond filled
by the plant's treated effluent, and
more displays which explain the
role of water in the environment.
Although the Shenandoah plant
may seem an ambitious undertak-
ing, many communities are opting
for even more sophisticated
environmental education pro-
grams. In Franklin, Ohio, for
example, a regional entity known as
27
-------
Expanding Opportunities Through
State / Area wide Water Quality Planning
1. Joint Development
the Miami Conservancy District is
establishing an Environmental
Awareness Center on a 230-acre
site on the Great Miami River.
There is a large municipal waste-
water treatment plant on the site, as
well as a solid waste disposal facility
and a plant for treating industrial
wastes. In addition to regular tours,
the District intends to renovate an
existing building into an inter-
pretative center, develop an
"ecology park" with horticultural
test plots to demonstrate the
effectiveness of sludge as a fertilizer,
and construct a trail system through
the 230 acre property. A
"Teacher's Guide to Current
Environmental problems," pre-
pared by District staff, helps
teachers to make the most of
educational opportunities available
at the facility, and shows how to
integrate use of the Center into
classroom activities.
One joint development possibility
is in niMK' a community trail
system hv linking up interceptor
R's-O-W with abandoned railroad
lines.
The Concept
The objective of joint development
involves the application of the
principles of multiple-use to other
kinds of projects surrounding the
waste treatment facility—or close
enough to it to make it a reasonable
objective. An example might be the
joint use of a sewer right-of-way
and a railroad or highway right-of-
way to develop a continuous trail
system. This jointly developed trail
system could even link up several
existing parks. The flexibility of the
joint-development concept is
limited only by your imagination for
relating what may first/ippear un-
related project proposals to achieve
your recreation objectives. Joint-
development projects of yours
should not overlook embracing
private developments, so long as a
public recreation objective can also
be served.
Joint development projects are
ways of gaining experience in
working with numerous and diverse
interests. They provide, in minia-
ture, the complexity of problems
and opportunities that would be
experienced in undertaking an
entire long range "greenway" or
"streambelt" project described in
the following section.
Why Is Joint Development
Desirable?
Joint development is particularly
desirable where land—especially
waterfront land—is scarce, either
because existing ownership or
development patterns preclude
recreational land acquisition, or
because recreation agencies have
limited budgets. In these situations,
joint development of a park
sparked by the wastewater treat-
ment facility but involving as many
owners adjoining land as possible
can be a good bargain for the
recreation agency. Joint develop-
ment is also an especially good
concept in water short areas, where
the presence of the wastewater
facility provides an opportunity to
use the purified water for an
artificial lake whose recreational
potential can be developed by
private interests.
The Major Actors
The important "doers" in a joint
development project are essentially
the same as those in a multiple use
effort. In particular, however, the
"208" water quality planning
agencies play an important role to
help identify potentials. Federal,
state, and local recreation agencies
also play a more critical part, as they
must provide more leadership in
coordinating planning, design,
construction, and financing of
projects through state or areawide
water quality planning processes.
How To Bring about
Joint Development
The steps in bringing about joint
development are similar to those in
multiple use, except that again, of
course, the recreation agencies
must play a much larger role
Designs for all phases of the project
will have to be jointly established
and jointly approved by all land
owners involved; therefore,
enlightened agency leadership
becomes especially critical. And it
becomes even more essential in a
joint development effort for
planning and cooperation to begin
at the earliest phases of the project,
before opportunities are foreclosed
or unilateral decisions made. The
"lead time" for the project may
become longer due to the necessity
for incorporating the planning and
approval processes of both recrea-
tion and water quality agencies, and
the need for carefully negotiating
necessary modifications to each
agency's customary way of carrying
out its activities.
Problems You May
Encounter
Although it is far more complex, a
joint development project may, in
some ways, encounter few insur-
mountable problems, since it is
likely to be attempted only where
recreation and water quality inter-
ests are ready and willing to
cooperate, and where the neces-
sary spur to doing so, in terms of
unique opportunities afforded by
the project circumstances, is
present.
Additionally, although the prob-
lems which could possibly be
encountered during the project are
similar to those in a multiple use
situation, the level of cooperative
effort inherent in joint development
will necessitate sitting down and
working out agreements on
responsibilities beforehand. A clear
understanding of planning, design,
financing, construction, and man-
agement responsibilities, worked
out before the project begins,
written down, and clearly under-
stood and agreed to by all parties,
will help in smoothly resolving
difficulties which may occur in the
course of project implementation.
Some Examples
Yellowstone Canyon Lakes
Project:
This project in Lubbock, Texas is
not only an exciting example of
joint development, it is also one of
the largest urban park develop-
ments in the country. When com-
pleted, it will boast 1,350 acres of
parkland, six-and-a-half miles of
lakes, and twenty miles of trails.
There will be opportunities for
sailing, canoeing, fishing, tennis,
volleyball, picnicking, bird watch-
ing, jogging, hiking, biking, and
archeological exploration. What
makes such a project possible in an
area chronically short on water?
The answer of course—intelligent
reuse of treated wastewater, and in
this case, not once but twice.
The project has its roots back in
the thirties, when cropland near
Lubbock's treatment plant began to
be irrigated with wastewater
effluent. One particular farmer
contracted for the effluent, spread-
ing it at a rate of one to one-and-a-
half million gallons per day on 200
acre sections of his farm. By the
mid-seventies, he had not only
28
-------
2. Putting It All Together: Green ways
gained considerable profit from his
combination irrigation and fertiliza-
tion efforts, but the city began to
realize it had a considerable
resource in the water table that had
been built up through the per-
colation of wastewater through the
"natural filter" of his farm's soil.
The availability of this water to
create recreational lakes became
the galvanizing force for establish-
ing the ambitious Yellowstone
Canyon Lakes park, literally
created on the wreckage of a former
dumping ground. The water will
meet standards for "secondary
contact" recreation such as boat-
ing, and it is expected that as water
cleanup efforts proceed, the water
will become usable for swimming as
well. The land for the park is being
acquired with the assistance of the
Heritage Conservation and Rec-
reation Service and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
Castroville Regional Park:
This well-established park on the
banks of the Medina River in Texas
has been open since 1974, and was
in fact Texas' first regional park.
One of the early joint development
efforts, it began as a simple proposal
to build a treatment plant and was
turned into a joint park project
through the efforts of one dedicated
citizen. The owner of one of the
candidate sites for the plant pro-
posed that not just the 10 acres
needed for the plant be purchased,
but his entire plot of 126 acres. The
remainder of his beautifully
wooded property, he suggested,
should be preserved as a park; so
dedicated was he to this concept
that he offered his land at a bargain
rate and even volunteered to
finance the mortgage himself at low
interest and no collateral.
Unable to refuse such a generous
offer, branches of federal, state,
regional, and local government
joined with private citizens, civic
groups, and a local bank to bring
the project to reality. The treatment
plant was designed and built to fit
unobtrusively into the park, and the
Chamber of Commerce and the
City Council cooperated in assess-
ing the recreational desires of the
area residents as the criteria for park
design. Since its opening, the park has
successfully operated on a fee basis
to help offset maintenance costs.
Up to this point, the advice,
information and examples pre-
sented, focused on projects which
could be carried through comple-
tion by a civic effort in a relatively
short period of years. The
approaches which were discussed
pointed out the different kinds of
opportunities associated with each
that you should be on the lookout
to obtain the maximum commu-
nity-wide recreational benefit from
the public tax investments being
made in the federal clean water
program. Each one of the oppor-
tunities outlined could be under-
taken separately by different citizen
groups if need be to spread around
the work and responsibilities for
follow-through.
However, if indeed your com-
munity does have several of the
kinds of opportunities described
thus far, scattered throughout the
community or along a common
shorefront, there ought to be one
group concerned with, and over-
seeing, the development of a
master policy or plan—for what you
may have developing is what this
brochure terms—the "Greenway
Concept." This is a long term
commitment and can be greatly
facilitated by working within the
"208" state or areawide water
quality management process.
The Concept
Establishing a greenway is the most
comprehensive way to take
advantage of clean water oppor-
tunities, and can bring together
multiple use, joint development,
recycling and environmental edu-
cation opportunities using a highly
coordinated acquisition, conserva-
tion and shoreland protection
possibilities. A greenway is, ideally,
a continuous belt of open space
along a waterway, with a network of
trails, and occasional parks for
recreation. From this model,
however, many variations are
possible. For example:
• All or part of the potential
greenway may be in already
developed urban or suburban
areas, making it necessary to limit
the greenway in some portions to
the width of a trail, or even to a
series of interrelated but separate
miniparks. Although many green-
way projects establish a goal for the
minimum width of the open belt
along the river, a greenway does
not have to be a uniform or
arbitrary width, but can vary to suit
specific needs and circumstances.
• Due to funding constraints, the
preferences of landowners, or a
desire to hold public maintenance
responsibilities to a minimum,
easements or land use restrictions
may be substituted for outright
public ownership of all or part of the
greenway.
• Sometimes it may be necessary
or desirable—particularly in
urban areas—for parts of the
greenway to be developed for
commercial, industrial, or other
uses rather than having the entire
length in undeveloped open space.
This may be simply a reflection of
the existing character of the
waterfront which cannot be easily
changed; or it may be a conscious -
effort to include commercial
development to provide a variety of
uses—and indeed, to attract a
different type of person to the
riverfront. Properly sited, joint
development possibilities incorpor-
ating well-designed commercial
and industrial facilities can fit into
the greenway concept.
Why Are Greenways
Desirable?
The first and most obvious benefit
of a greenway is that it provides a
large, high quality, and easily
accessible area for recreation.
Greenways also:
• improve environmental quality
by providing a buffer which filters
and adsorbs pollution such as air
pollution and urban or agricultural
runoff before it reaches the water,
• provide valuable wildlife habitats
and aquatic spawning grounds;
• reduce potential damage from
flooding by keeping development
off the riverbanks;
• reduce erosion of land and
siltation of water by keeping the
riverbanks under vegetative cover,
• provide aesthetic pleasures even
for those who do not use the
greenway directly for recreation.
• establish setbacks for some types
of intensive urban uses as an aid in
preventing the repollution of water.
The Major Actors
A greenway is an ambitious
undertaking, almost by definition
covering a large area of land and
often extending over more than
one political jurisdiction. Therefore,
coordinated efforts by public and
private groups on the local,
regional, state, and federal levels
can be important to success.
Among the groups which might
become involved in a greenway
project are:
• watershed associations, which
can organize the regional citizen
constituency for the greenway;
• city, town, and county park and
recreation agencies, which can
provide local financial support, as
well as land management and
planning capabilities;
• city, town, and county planning
boards, which can support the
greenway concept through master
plans and zoning decisions;
• Mayors, city councillors, select-
men, boards of supervisors, and
other local elected officials who can
seek federal and state funding,
appropriate local shares, and
generally support and promote the
greenway concept;
• local and regional civic groups,
including chambers of commerce,
environmental and recreation
groups, and community service
organizations, who can provide the
grass-roots support for the green-
way;
• private landowners, including
individuals and businesses, who
can sell, donate, or give easements
on their waterfront property, often
in exchange for tax benefits;
• river and port authorities, who
already have waterfront land under
their control;
• 208 water quality planning and
management agencies, which can
provide perspective on water
quality benefits of the greenway,
and furnish a regional constituency;
• state planning, environmental,
and recreation agencies, which can
offer financial, political, and
planning support to the project;
29
-------
Greenways provide space for
controlling future polluting of
water from adjacent land'uses as
well as public access to water and
shoreland recreation
opportunities.
• state legislatures, which can
appropriate funds for greenway
acquisition, and also in some cases
provide substantial impetus for the
project through special legislation;
• federal agencies such as the
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service which can
supply funds for greenway
acquisition, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, which can
support the greenway through its
water quality programs.
Any one of these groups might be
the guiding force for the greenway
project. Then, too, the greenway
idea may be initiated by one group,
and then picked up and imple-
mented by another.
How To Establish a
Greenway
There are five basic steps in
establishing a greenway:
1) Collecting Information—
There is much that you will need to
find out before you can even begin
to design and implement a green-
way. First, of course, you need to
find out the cleanup schedule for
the river or lake around which you
want to form the greenway. What
water cleanup problems are being
encountered? When will the water
be clean enough for fishing and
swimming? How is land use in the
area related to water quality? In
what ways can the greenway help
improve water quality?
Next, you need to inventory the
characteristics of the land which is
the potential greenway. Who owns
the various pieces Of property?
What are their intentions for using
the land? Is any land already in
public ownership? How much of
the land is already developed, and
for what uses? What are the natural
features of the various pieces of
land, including topography, vege-
tation, geologic features, presence
of wildlife, soil characteristics, and
so on? What is the range of land
values in the area?
Then, you need to find out
something about growth patterns
and land use in the area. Is the
population growing, and if so, how
fast? How adequate are currently
owned public recreation areas for
the current population, and for
projected increases? Where in the
region is growth likely to occur?
What are the existing land use and
zoning plans of the various units of
government in the greenway area,
and are they in accord with the
concept of a greenway?
Finally, you need to find out
about the land purchase or
preservation devices available in
the greenway area.
Throughout the country, the
Heritage Conservation and Recre-
ation Service can provide funds for
acquisition and development of
recreation land. Many states have
similar programs—does yours? The
Nature Conservancy, a nationwide
private group, can loan money to
governments to buy open space;
again there are similar organizations
in many states. What opportunities
exist inyourareaforloansor grants
from private organizations? Many
counties or individual communities
have open space acquisition
funds—do any of the governmental
units within the greenway area have
such funds?
In many states, it is possible to
buy or receive gifts of easements
which place restrictions on the use
of the land, even though the
original owner retains title to it.
Thus, for example, rather than
buying land outright, it might be
possible to obtain an easement
which will guarantee that the land
will remain undeveloped. Ease-
ments carry the force of law; they
can in many cases be obtained "in
perpetuity" so that future owners
will be bound by the same con-
ditions; and they can, in many
cases, allow for public access as well
as preservation of land. What are
the laws relating to easements in the
state (s) in which the greenway is
located? What tax advantages can a
landowner gain in your state by
donating an easement?
Some of this information will be
available in community master
plans, if they exist. Some can be
obtained from government recrea-
tion and environmental quality
3=>:=>
30
-------
agencies at the federal, state, and
local level. Some can be obtained
by visiting the various properties
and talking with landowners. Some
can be obtained from knowledge-
able citizen groups in the area. But,
expect to do some digging—and a
lot of work—to find out what you
need to know.
2) Analysis—Once you have
collected your information, you
need to organize it and draw out
useful patterns and conclusions. In
particular, you should try to
determine specific greenway needs,
and the opportunities and con-
straints you may encounter. Some
questions to consider are:
• Can the greenway be divided
into urban, suburban, and rural
zones? What are the characteristics
of the different areas, in terms of
existing riverfront development,
amount of open land, pressure for
development, quality of natural or
scenic characteristics, potential for
different uses within the greenway,
cost of land, and other relevant
factors?
• Where are the areas of special
scenic quality and natural beauty?
Where are the areas of historic
interest? Where are the areas of
unique or fragile ecosystems?
• What and where are the water
quality problems on the river or
lake? Where is water quality par-
ticularly good?
• What is the range of uses and
activities possible in the greenway,
given the natural characteristics of
the land and the development
already present?
• Where are the places which
could become larger parks within
the greenway, with suitable sites for
development of "active recreation"
facilities such as ball fields?
• How do existing land use and
zoning plans relate to the green-
way? Are they compatible with the
concept, or will they need to be
revised for the greenway to be
successful?
• What problems or opportunities
are created by growth and devel-
opment patterns? What parts of the
greenway area are subject to
development pressure? Is there a
recognized need in the region to
provide more recreation and open
space areas?
• What are possible strategies for
purchasing or otherwise preserving
the greenway, in terms of funding
sources, choice of an agency or
group to manage the land, and
mobilization of public and govern-
mental support?
• How can local and state tax
assessment policies be amended to
give incentives to private
landowners to donate conservation
easements?
Some of these questions are
difficult to address, and involve
weighing a variety of factors. This
step might be the appropriate time
to seek the involvement in the
greenway project of those who
have been trained in planning and
landscape design, if they are not
already part of your group.
Methods for organizing this
information range from simple
mapping and verbal descriptions to
computer analysis. One particularly
useful technique is overlay
mapping, in which various char-
acteristics of the area are mapped
on separate transparent sheets.
Overlaying the sheets in various
combinations allows you to see
where the characteristics overlap—
for example, where areas of par-
ticular ecological importance coin-
cide with areas of strong develop-
ment pressure. This technique
points out problem areas, and areas
of mutually reinforcing benefits.
3) Greenway Design—Armed
with the appropriate information
and analysis, you can begin to
design the greenway. Again, this
might be the appropriate place to
seek the help of planners and
landscape architects, if you have
not already.
It is important to develop a series of
alternative greenway plans, and to
review both the options and your
decisions periodically. Alternative
plans are excellent vehicles for
engaging officials and citizens in
discussion of the greenway; they
allow you to choose the most
practical and desirable design; and
they allow you to adapt more easily
to changing circumstances over the
years in which the greenway will be
implemented.
The alternate plans you develop
may differ in terms of
• dimensions of the greenway
corridor: How wide is it? Where is it
narrower or wider? What length of
the river or lake is included in the
greenway?
• inclusion of larger parks dotted
along the greenway;
• amount of land purchased versus
amount preserved through ease-
ments;
• sources of funds;
• management agency: Will the
land be owned and maintained by a
private group? By local govern-
ments? A county or regional
government? The state govern-
ment? A combination?
• the types of uses provided for:
Are there places for active recrea-
tion such as sports and games? Is
there a network of trails, and how
large is it? Are there any commercial
areas included? Are there facilities
for boat launchings? If portions of
the greenway have been preserved
through easements, is public access
provided for? Where is swimming
provided?
• how the greenway responds to
various types of land and land uses
found within it: How are ecolog-
ically fragile areas preserved? How
does the greenway deal with
urbanized areas? With suburban
areas? With rural areas? How does
it deal with industrial and com-
mercial development?
Various ways of responding to
these issues are illustrated at the end
of this section.
Once you have developed
alternatives and sought public dia-
logue on them, you must determine
a realistic set of projects to pursue to
obtain your greenway objective.
Obviously, the principal factors
which must be balanced are the size
of the greenway versus the funds
and legal mechanisms available to
obtain it. The best plan will be small
enough to be workable, but large
enough to capture people's
imagination.
SOILS
of GUTA to
"Windshield" surveys of
recreation and shoreland
protection opportunities can be
quickly hand drawn on
transparent paper to overlay other
mapped data including alternative
treatment facility sites.
31
-------
Thi' Nashua KKvr (iivenu
birds i'vr vu>w of thr "resource"
(top); shorefront which was
permanent^1 protected from
development as mitigation (01
construction of a highway nearby
(center); and Mint' Falls State
Park srvvial miles from Nashua.
N H. was linked hv a trail ovi'r an
interceptor right-of-way to the
center of the town
4) Getting Public and Govern-
mental Support—Obtaining
widespread support for the green-
way among the general public,
government agencies, and elected
officials is a prerequisite for success,
and will not happen unless you
consciously work for it. Widespread
involvement in planning for,
designing, and implementing the
greenway should begin early in the
project, and be as productive and
meaningful as you can make it. You
may have to alter your own con-
cepts of the greenway, you may
have to expend considerable time
and energy to obtain public and
governmental enthusiasm—but
without it, you cannot succeed.
A key place for widespread
involvement of citizens and officials
is in evaluating and choosing
between the alternative greenway
designs which you develop. This is
probably the phase at which public
involvement on a large scale will
occur, since it presents tangible
choices for people to make. This is
not to say, however, that citizens
and officials should not be involved
earlier in gathering and analyzing
information and in working out the
alternatives, but rather that enthu-
siasm for the greenway will grow
when you can show people what
you have in mind. For this reason,
adequate attention to having
appealing and informative photos
and other graphics is important in
presenting your alternatives.
To publicize your alternative plans,
you should consider means such as:
• holding informal public meetings
in affected communities;
• having a government body such
as a park agency hold more formal
hearings;
• obtaining newspaper, magazine,
radio, and television coverage;
• preparing and circulating bro-
chures, maps, and other printed
materials;
• developing a network of people
to spread the greenway idea
through planned but informal
"word of mouth" methods;
• making presentations in schools
and at meetings of community
organizations.
You must be sincere about public
involvement, and be prepared to
modify your plans according to the
information and opinions you
receive—otherwise, you will simply
lose support as people become
frustrated. You must also, if neces-
sary, be prepared to explore new
alternatives which surface in the
course of public review.
5) Securing the Land—This is
typically the longest phase of a
greenway project, and can go on for
many years. It is the stage at which it
is vital to have a variety of people
and organizations who can sustain a
long-term commitment.
Much of the work in securing
land for the greenway—whether by
easement or outright purchase—
involves careful and diplomatic
negotiations with landowners. If
you are working with a public
agency, there is the legal option of
taking the land by eminent
domain—but it is simpler,
smoother, and often cheaper to
reach voluntary agreements with
landowners.
Drawing from a wide variety of
funding sources for purchase
money is desirable because it
involves more interests in the
greenway, and can speed up the
flow of funds as well as increase the
amount. Remember the various
programs described in Chapter
Three and any state and local
programs which you may have
uncovered in your research.
In addition to land acquisition, you
need to work to make sure that
responsible park agencies have
adequate budgets to maintain the
land where this is necessary. Also,
funds must be obtained for any
structural improvements desired in
the greenway—hiking trails, boat
launching ramps, active recreation
areas, landscaping or street furniture
in more developed areas, etc.
Problems You May
Encounter
The problems you may encounter
in trying to establish a greenway
are, quite frankly, both many and
large. They are, however, sur-
mountable—as the sampling of
sucessful cases on the following
pages attest. And though the
problems encountered along the
way may be large, the personal
rewards and public benefits of a
successful greenway are also large.
Problems which can occur in a
greenway project are often due to:
• uncooperative landowners,
• lack of funds for acquisition,
• increasing land costs as public
attention is focused on waterfront
areas,
• the long time-frame of the
project, and the need for a strong,
long-range commitment from par-
ticipants,
• keeping ahead of development
in areas which are undergoing
strong growth pressure,
• lack of interest from officials or
citizens.
• finding funds to manage and
maintain land once it is in the
greenway.
Many of these problems are
solvable simply by persistence. If
landowners, officials, or citizens are
skeptical about the greenway, step
up your efforts at getting across the
concept and its benefits. If one
source of funds doesn't work, try
another. Simply demonstrating that
the greenway promoters cannot be
deterred can eliminate many
difficulties.
Some Examples
The Nashua River
The Nashua River Greenway
demonstrates the key role which
can be played by a citizen's
watershed association, and illus-
trates the patience necessary to put
together a greenway.
One of the pioneering greenway
efforts, the Nashua River Greenway
was first envisioned in 1969.
Members of the Nashua River
Cleanup Committee had been
working for a number of years to
improve water quality in the grossly
polluted river, which suffered the
K2
-------
assaults of paper mills and other
industrial and household polluters
in its 56 mile course through central
Massachusetts and New
Hampshire. Finally, committee
members were beginnig to see
success, and were far-sighted
enough to see as well the need to
preserve open space while river-
front land was still low in value.
The Cleanup Committee
evolved into the Nashua River
Watershed Association, in order to
address the larger issue of land
preservation along the river. The
Association began an effort to
establish a continuous belt of open
space, a minimum of 300 feet wide,
along both banks of the Nashua
and its major tributaries. Today,
over 1,000 of the approximately
4,300 acres within the greenway
have been protected from devel-
opment, and having learned much
along the way, the Association is
confident of achieving its goal.
Residents of the watershed are
beginning to see the greenway not
only as a major recreational
resource for the region, but also as a
means of ensuring water quality in
the River by precluding incom-
patible uses, of preventing erosion
by keeping the riverbanks under
vegetative cover, and of decreasing
the need for expensive flood con-
trol measures by keeping the flood
plain in its natural state. Addition-
ally, the 56-mile ribbon of open
fields, forests, floodplains, and
marsh lands will provide a rich
diversity of wildlife habitats, and
major aesthetic benefits for the
many cities and towns through
which it passes.
But bringing about this public
understanding of the benefits of a
greenway has not been simple. The
Association began in 1969 by
undertaking a hydrologic study—
with the help of a volunteer—to
determine ground water supplies,
and the extent of wetlands and
flood plains on the Nashua. With
the help of the 15 communities
along the river, it then put together
"A Preliminary Regional Plan for
the Nashua River Greenway," a
town-by-town analysis of riverfront
land in terms of the proposed
Greenway.
Cities and towns were urged to
earmark their properties for pres-
ervation, and to act as a regional
group in seeking federal and state
aid for land acquisition. The town
conservation commissions began to
form greenway subcommittees,
although many officials still ques-
tioned the logic of spending scarce
funds to preserve land along a dirty
river. In some areas, the color of the
water still depended on what color
of paper the local mill was making
that day.
Very early in the greenway
efforts, the Watershed Association
identified priorities for acquisition.
These were based on factors such
as the quality of the area in scenic
and ecological terms, accessibility
to the public, feasibility of
acquisition, and the important
consideration that each of the
communities in the corridor should
have at least one area of protected
open space so that they could begin
to enjoy the benefits of the
greenway.
The Association also worked at
other means of land preservation
besides outright acquisition. It drew
up a model floodplain zoning
ordinance, and distributed it to
towns in the watershed. Of the
fifteen towns, six adopted the
ordinance into their zoning by-laws.
Further, to deal with the question
of land use throughout the region,
the Association published "A Plan
for the Nashua River Watershed,"
which urged compact town devel-
opment with preservation of
undeveloped riverfront, and
revitalization of blighted waterfront
areas in the region's urban centers.
In these developed urban areas,
where a continuous wide belt is not
possible, the greenway plan envi-
sions a system of mini-parks con-
nected by bicycle or foot paths. The
public would thereby be provided
access to the cleaned-up river,
without disturbing, or being dis-
turbed by, existing commercial or
industrial development.
During the Water Cleanup and
the Land Conference in 1975,
participants visited one such park to
see first-hand what can be accom-
plished in an already developed
area. Mine Falls Park in Nashua,
New Hampshire, although a three-
mile long strip of land sandwiched
between a housing development, a
shopping center, and factory
buildings, nevertheless boasts an
oasis of forests, a canal, and a
handsome lock house bordering
the river. The conferees met with
the engineer who was designing a
network of bicycle paths for the
park and adjacent high school, as
well as ballfields on a covered-over
sewage lagoon which is no longer
being used.
A few miles away, the factory
town of Fitchburg, Massachusetts is
making its new Riverside Park a key
element in its plan to bring new life
to the community. The state seeks
to make a five-acre park a model in
the campaign for urban revitaliza-
tion and made funding for it the top
priority for state and federal
assistance.. Industry is landscaping
riverfront properties and donating
easements.
How Land Is Acquired
Although most cases of public
acquisition involve purchase by a
city or town with assistance from
federal and/or state open space
funds, many other sources of funds
have been tapped to preserve land
in the greenway. Mine Falls Park,
for example, was acquired with the
help of a philanthropic industrialist
in the community, with matching
funds supplied by the federal
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
Sometimes, landowners have been
persuaded to donate rather than
sell their land or an easement on it.
The donations have been to a
variety of organizations—the town
conservation commission, a state
agency, national or state private
land trusts, or often, a local land
trust established by property
owners to keep control of the land
comfortably close to home.
Sometimes, too, preservation
has been accomplished through
wholly federal action, such as in the
case of the Oxbow National Wildlife
Refuge. In another example, Fort
Devens has agreed to keep its large
riverfront acreage in a natural state
(and also supports the greenway by
offering the Watershed Association
office space and staff assistance at
the Fort, because, as its com-
manding officer says, "we have a
vested interest in the river, too.")
, In one case, the Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife in Massa-
chusetts had been very interested in
a high quality 450 acre tract of land,
but when it came up for sale, did not
have funds available to meet the
purchase price. The Watershed
Association contacted the Nature
Conservancy, which agreed to
purchase the land and hold it until
the state could obtain adequate
funds.
Another way in which land has
been publicly acquired is through
tax title—that is, when a city or town
accepts ownership of a piece of land
in lieu of back property taxes which
the owner cannot pay.
The Role of the
Watershed Association
In the case of the Nashua River
Greenway, the Watershed Associa-
tion is playing the key role of
coordinating, and in many cases
instigating, the actions of many
other parties. In addition to
spearheading initial efforts to design
the greenway and bring it to the
public consciousness, the Associa-
tion has been the force which brings
together sources of funding such as
the Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service with the local
agencies which want to acquire
land. This has involved not only
making the communities aware of
funding opportunities, but also
helping them with the often-
complex paperwork necessary to
receive financial assistance and
non-governmental sources.
Furthermore, it has established a
fund to provide assistance to towns
for survey and legal costs in land
acquisition.
The Association also plays an
active role when a landowner
wishes to donate land or easements
into the Greenway. Often, land-
owners are uncertain about which
of the many federal, state, and local,
33
-------
A new urban riverwalk in
Washington, D.C. as a part of the
Potomac River's "greenway"
(above)
1 S.m Antonio River Walk
"ijiivnway" which sparked the
renewal of its downtown (facing
public or private institutions they
should give their land to. The
Watershed Association is able to
supply them with information about
the various organizations, how long
they have been in existence, and
how well their land is maintained.
The Association has found,
however, that the initial contact
with a landowner, in which the case
is made for selling or giving land
into the greenway, is best made by
someone at the local level—for
example, a member of the town
conservation commission. This
eases the landowners' fears that
their property is being taken over by
strangers, or some remote level of
government.
Once the initial contact is made,
however, the Association is able to
play the role of facilitator between
the landowners and the agency
which is buying or receiving the
donation. Thjf stage can often be
lengthy. For example, the Associa-
tion's Managing Director carefully
negotiated with one family for
seven years before they donated
their riverfront land to a conserva-
tion trust. Persistence, she says, is
the key to making a greenway work.
Over the years, the Watershed
Association has steadily increased
its efforts on behalf of the greenway.
It now includes a greenway director
and a landscape designer, in
addition to the regular staff. A
regular newsletter, as well as special
greenway publications are used to
continually remind citizens and
officials of the benefits of the
greenway, and the progress that has
been made to date. There have
been some failures—for example,
an attempt was once made to set up
a revolving fund to help acquisition,
but sufficient funds could not be
raised—but by and large the
greenway has a strong record of
success and is well on its way to
being realized. With waterfront
public parks assured, and pollution
cleanup progressing, residents may
once again come to understand the
Indian meaning of Nashua—"river
of the beautiful pebbled bottom."
The Willamette River
The Willamette provides a dynamic
example of how a greenway can be
established through action at the
state level, by a concerned gover-
nor and an active state legislature.
Fifty years ago, the Willamette
River in Oregon was as filthy a river
as can be imagined. Untreated
sewage and industrial waste poured
into it at rates intolerably high for
even the winter months, when high
precipitation kept the river flowing
swiftly. In the summer, when rainfall
was sparse and the flow of water
dwindled, muck and debris which
had formed sludge deposits on the
bottom often surfaced to form foul-
smelling floating rafts.
Oregon is, of course, famed for its
environmental consciousness, and
the 70% of the state's residents
living in the river basin were cer-
tainly not going to let a situation
such as that continue—even if the
time was thirty years before the
national environmental movement
went into full swing. In 1938, voters
approved three-to-one a statewide
initiative to make it public policy to
restore the purity of all public
waters, and to set in motion the
legal and institutional structures
necessary to do so.
Progress was slow in the early
years, and construction of facilities
delayed by World War II. By 1957,
many pollution control measures
had been taken, but unfortunately a
73% growth in population and a
93% increase in industrial waste
had conspired to keep water quality
about the same. More stringent
control measures were adopted in
1958, and again in 1964.
By 1966, enough change in
water quality could be seen that the
concept of a Willamette River
Greenway was proposed. The state
was in the midst of an election
campaign, and both candidates for
governor endorsed the idea.
Events moved at an unprece-
dented pace. Immediately after the
election, the new governor
appointed a task force of citizens
and state and local government
officials charged with defining the
greenway concept and proposing
actions to implement it. Simul-
taneously a group of citizens
organized as the Willamette River
Greenway Association to seek
public support for the open space
corridor.
The Task Force worked quickly,
and within three months legislation
was submitted. Within another
three months, the greenway con-
cept was law. As the Task Force said
in its report:
"We must be astute to see that
preservation is far easier than
correction, perceptive enough to
realize that in the Willamette River
we still have more to preserve than
to correct, and bold enough to act
accordingly."
The Original Plan
The greenway plan as first
enacted by the 1967 legislature had
a number of interesting features:
• Because of existing development
along the river, and expected
opposition from some landowners,
the original concept of a single
continuous park was modified into
a plan for a series of separate parks
along the river. A total of 7.500
acres was slated for public
purchase.
• Because much of the rest of the
land along the greenway was com-
patible with the greenway as long as
it remained in its current use—for
example, agriculture—it was pro-
posed that scenic easements be
purchased on 6,500 acres of land,
and recreation easements allowing
for public access be purchased on
another 1,400 acres.
• Because there was local resist-
ance to assigning strong powers at
the state level, acquisition powers
were left in the hands of local
governments, with planning and
coordination only at the state level.
Taking land by eminent domain
was expressly disallowed.
• Initially, acquisition was to be
financed half by the state and half
by the local government. However,
as federal Land and Water Con-
servation funds became available,
the funding formula was changed to
half federal, one quarter state, and
one quarter local.
• In addition to the public parks
dotted along the river, the green-
way plan included a system of river
camps for boaters, accessible for
the most part only from the river or
by trail; a "river access system" of
boat launching sites; a system of
trails for hiking, biking, and horse-
back riding; and a "scenic river
^
-------
system" to take advantage of
special views of the river.
Under this plan, of the 22,000
acres of land bordering the river,
roughly a third was proposed for
acquisition, a third was proposed
for preservation through easement,
and much of the remaining third
was already in public ownership. In
the first three years of implemen-
tation, 1,310 acres were acquired
for the greenway, and although this
was an impressive accomplish-
ment, it constituted a mere 17% of
the scheduled acquisitions.
The Plan Revised
Three major obstacles to imple-
menting the greenway plan became
apparent:
• Local governments had difficulty
raising sufficient funds to meet their
one-quarter share of acquisition
costs, and their inaction proved to
be the narrow place in the pipe. It
was particularly noted that county
governments were far less able to
raise needed funds than city gov-
ernments.
• The prohibition against use of
eminent domain made implemen-
tation exceedingly difficult.
• The expectation that consider-
able acreage could be protected
through donation or purchase of
easements did not come true. The
cumbersome legal procedure was
found to be the most notable
roadblock.
Public and political support for
the greenway remained high,
however, and thus workable solu-
tions to these difficulties were
found. A major step was taken in
1971 by establishing five new large
state parks along the Willamette,
paid for entirely by state and federal
funds. With the two existing parks.
this gave each of the counties along
the river a major state-owned area.
This still left much land unpro-
tected, however, and thus the
further step was taken in 1972 of
placing responsibility for acquisition
of the remaining land in state
hands, and including the power of
eminent domain among the tools
for land purchase. 15,700 acres
were slated for acquisition, with the
cost of $10 million to be borne half
by the state and half through federal
funds.
As this ambitious program got
underway, however, farmers along
the Willamette began to fear that
their land would be vandalized by
the recreating public, and that they
might lose access to the river for
irrigation water. They succeeded in
having the program amended by
the state legislature.
Revised Again
The compromise worked out by the
legislature after many hearings and
much negotiation tried to balance
the concerns of fanners with the
desire to preserve the shoreline.
Scenic easements once again
became the primary tool for
greenway preservation. The law
established the boundaries of the
greenway as all lands within 150
feet of the high water mark, with the
further provision that the state, in
consultation with local govern-
ments, could specify within one
year additional land for inclusion.
Within this boundary, the state
can acquire scenic easements by
gift, by purchase from willing
sellers, or by use of eminent
domain. The conditions of the
easement can vary; for example, it
might prohibit cutting timber, or
damaging vegetation in any way, or
constructing buildings, or any com-
bination of these or other activities.
Public access cannot be required,
but can be included if the seller is
willing. A scenic easement cannot
be acquired on farm land, but if a
farm is converted to any other use,
an easement may be acquired at
that time.
Use of eminent domain to
acquire land has once again been
prohibited, although the state is
proceeding to buy land from willing
sellers.
******
Although it took many false steps
along the way, much has been
accomplished in the effort to create
the Willamette River Greenway.
Further, it serves as a model for
other state governments to take the
lead in preserving river corridors.
San Antonio's River Walk
The River Walk is a totally urban
greenway. a demonstration of the
marvels that can be accomplished
within a developed city.
Located in the heart of San
Antonio, Texas, the "Paseo Del
Rio" or River Walk attracts nearly
2l/2 million visitors each year to its
cosmopolitan blend of interesting
shops, outdoor restaurants, flowers
and greenery, Spanish architecture,
and tour boats plying the shallow
waters. It is the most outstanding
example of an urban greenway, a
tribute to this far-sighted city which
began planning and redevelop-
ment of its riverfront more than 40
years ago.
The River Walk is twenty-five to
thirty feet below street level, set
along a bend in the San Antonio
River in the heart of the downtown
area. In the 1930's, a new channel
was cut to bypass the bend during
floods, and this provided the
impetus for development of the
park. Proposals to culvert the river
and develop parking or shops over
it were staved off. and commercial
interests joined with civic groups
and government agencies to bring
the imaginative River Walk plan to
reality.
Today, the visitor descends via
one of 44 stairways into the
stunning beauty of the River Walk's
carefully planted tree-lined paths
and constantly flowering shrubs,
there to enjoy not only the sur-
roundings but also art galleries,
theaters, cafes, craft shops, and a
host of other attractions. The River
Walk makes no pretense of being
natural or unspoiled; rather, it
glories in combining thriving
economic development with a
beautiful environment.
Visitor reaction to the area is
overwhelmingly enthusiastic. In a
survey undertaken during a study
of the River Walk, visitors were
asked whether they would vote in
favor of developing a similar
riverfront park in the city in which
they lived. An astounding 76.6 per
cent said that they would, even if it
meant raising taxes.
The Huron River
The Huron River Greenway pro-
vides useful lessons in how to
bypass seemingly insurmountable
physical obstacles.
The Huron River separates the two
campuses of the University of
Michigan at Ann Arbor, and during
the 1960's development pressure
along the banks of the river began
to worry both the city and the
university community alike. Despite
the many obstacles to creating a
greenway along the Huron, voters
endorsed the concept and
approved a $3.5 million bond issue
for its development.
In a number of instances,
imaginative solutions had to be
found for physical interruptions in
the greenway. For example, in one
case, an electric substation blocked
the only path for a bikeway and
hiking trail; the solution, as shown
below, was to build a wide walkway
with parapet wall around the base
of the building, and then a
boardwalk under an existing
vehicular bridge.
In another interesting case,
landowners refused to grant an
easement through their property for
the walkway. The solution was to
create a series of "stepping stone"
islands across the river, connected
by arching pedestrian bridges. The
uncooperative landowners were
bypassed, and the walkway con-
tinued down the opposite shore.
-------
-------
5
Water
Cleanup and
Land Use
Further considerations of water
cleanup and the land include:
Allowing nature's way of water
cleanup to continue.
The once-novel notion that
water cleanup programs
affect land has today become
a commonplace fact. Communities
across the nation have learned that
construction of major public
facilities such as wastewater treat-
ment plants can lead to dramatic
changes in the timing and nature of
development patterns. Land that
was once only marginally desirable
or even unsuitable for building can
become prime real estate, and the
rising cost of operating and main-
taining large public utilities has
made community growth some-
times seem fiscally advantageous.
Similarly, scientists and water
quality planners have increasingly
turned their attention to the fact that
the uses to which land is put can
have tremendous impacts on water
quality. As the "point source"
discharges of water pollution—
factories, untreated sewage outlets,
overloaded municipal treatment
plants—are made to comply with
pollution standards, the "non-
point" sources of pollution such as
erosion and runoff, which are
dependent on land use practices,
become more and more important
in meeting the mandate for waters
clean enough to fish and swim. In
many areas, the dirt and chemicals
washed into rivers and lakes from
city streets and fanner's fields rival
in seriousness the more stereotyped
pollution sources.
Citizens, federal officials, and
state and local planners are moving
now beyond simply studying these
problems and increasing awareness
of them, and into the area of finding
and implementing solutions. Much
progress is being made, and in
areas increasingly vital to securing
full public benefit from investments
in water pollution control.
Reducing Adverse Land Use
Impacts From Wastewater
Facility Construction
The construction of wastewater
facilities—both treatment plants
themselves, and the sewer systems
built to collect wastewater for
treatment—might have adverse
land use impacts in certain
situations:
• Where a community has tra-
ditionally relied on septic systems or
other on-site disposal practices, the
construction of a public wastewater
treatment facility can change the
amount or type of development the
community might expect, by mak-
ing land more desirable to build on,
by making it possible to build where
high water tables, poor soils, or
other factors make septic systems
unworkable, or by making it pos-
sible to build at densities which are
feasible only if waste is disposed of
off-site.
• Where a community's growth
has been slowed by inadequate
capacity in existing treatment sys-
tems, construction of additional
facilities with greater capacity will
remove this limit, and may cause
accelerated growth.
• It is a fact long recognized by
planners that development tends to
follow utility and transportation
corridors. Just as new stores,
offices, factories, and apartment
buildings tend to cluster along new
highways, so a sewer system laid
out in an undeveloped area attracts
housing developments. When a
community plans its sewer system
to channel growth where it wants it
to occur, this is a beneficial effect;
but when a sewer line must cross
wetlands or agricultural areas, it
increases development pressures
on these valuable assets.
• Where a community has built a
treatment facility that it finds
expensive to operate, it may begin
to seek commercial, residential, or
industrial growth that it might
otherwise not have had in order to
spread the burden of municipal
costs. But this growth, too, brings
the need for more new services,
and thus more costs, and the
community may be embarked
upon a spiralling pattern of growth.
The Environmental Protection
Agency has adopted the policy that
applications for construction grants
to fund wastewater treatment sys-
tem must be analyzed to determine
the possibility of "secondary
effects" such as induced growth
and land use changes. EPA's
Program Guidance Memorandum
No. 50 goes on to say:
Where careful analysis leads to the
conclusion that the secondary
effects of a project can reasonably
be anticipated to contravene an
environmental law or regulation, or
a plan or standard required by an
environmental law or regulation,
the Regional Administrator shall
withhold approval of a Step Two or
Step Three construction grant until
the applicant revises the plan,
initiates steps to mitigate the
adverse effects, or agrees to con-
ditions in the grant document
requiring actions to minimize the
effects.
The Office of Land Use Coor-
dination within EPA has published
a case study series which docu-
ments innovative and effective
ways to reduce adverse land use
impacts from water cleanup con-
struction programs. These cases are
typical of the procedures that will
more and more be applied around
the country to obtain the broadest
37
-------
"EPA is beginning to move away
from the traditional "build a
treatment plant solution 'for every
pollution problem. In many
instances we are finding that
modification of land use practices
and even using the soil itself as a
purifier of wastes can be a better
environmental solution and cost far
less for taxpayers as well. Ecolog-
ically-sensitive techniques of pollu-
tion control are going to receive a
much higher priority than they have
in the past."
Eckardt C. Beck
Assistant Administrator for Water
and Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Sometimes water cleanup projects
temporarily disrupt the
environment as in the case of this
interceptor right-of-way. This can
be compensated for by restoration
practices which include public
trails.
environmental benefit from water
cleanup efforts.
The "Case Study Series on
Mitigating Secondary Impacts from
the Wastewater Facilities Program"
highlights a number of techniques
which can be applied for this
purpose:
• phasing in the extension of sewer
service as needed rather than
making service available over a
large area all at the same time;
• project changes, which might
include items such as scaling down
the facility, or building several
smaller facilities strategically
located, rather than a single larger
plant;
• improved land use planning and
zoning controls in affected com-
munities;
• better coordination and planning
among communities affected by a
project;
• restrictions on sewer hookups,
which can be accomplished
through the legal mechanism of the
treatment facility's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit;
• adoption or strengthening of
environmental plans or programs,
such as Air Quality Maintenance
Plans, which will help ensure
environmental protection in a
growing community;
• improved land management
practices to protect water quality,
such as erosion control and flood-
plain management;
• use of wastewater treatment
techniques, such as rehabilitating
septic systems, which will lessen or
eliminate the need for a centralized
treatment facility.
Many of these techniques involve
local land use planning and zoning
controls, and thus require the
cooperation of local officials. Yet
this need not be an obstacle, and
the case study series includes
examples in which EPA provided
the stimulus for better local
planning, which was then taken up
and carried out at the community
level. One of the most interesting of
these occurred in North Freemont
County, Idaho.
The project involved a proposal
for a large regional wastewater
treatment facility to serve a rela-
tively undeveloped area bordering
on Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks. The land is both
beautiful and environmentally sen-
sitive, with much of the wilderness
character of the adjoining parks. It is
also a prime area for recreation and
second-home development, with
developers held at bay only by the
fact that a high water table made
septic systems unworkable on most
of the properties.
Thus, the proposal for the
regional facility generated a great
deal of concern. Because of this,
EPA decided to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement
before funding the project, to
determine what the potential effects
of the project were, and to consider
alternative solutions to the waste-
water management problem.
As a result of this study, the
project eventually undertaken was
quite different from the original
proposal. First, the basic plan was
changed from one large facility to
four smaller ones. This eliminated
the long interceptor sewer lines
which might cause strip develop-
ment, and also allowed the plants to
be built in phases as normal
development pressures make them
necessary. Service is confined to
four sub-areas within the county
which are designated as develop-
ment sites. This plan was not only
more environmentally responsible,
it was also considerably more cost-
effective than the original proposal.
In addition to this change in the
nature of the project, EPA took the
extra step of placing a condition on
its grant of funds stipulating that the
County must prepare a compre-
hensive land use plan, and growth
controls to ensure that it will be
followed. EPA based its authority
for such a condition on the fact that
state law called for development of
such plans in all counties. The
agreement between EPA and the
County clearly specifies that 20% of
construction funds will be withheld
until the land use plan and zoning
measures are completed.
Instances like North Freemont
County in which land use problems
potentially arising from construc-
tion of a treatment facility are so well
resolved are, unfortunately, still the
leading edge rather than the norm.
Cases still abound where treatment
facilities are designed with no
recognition of their land use effects;
or with studies in hand which
outline those effects, but without
comprehensive measures to pre-
vent them. Vigilant oversight by
community planners, public offi-
cials, civic and environmental
groups, and ordinary citizens is the
key to making sure that land use
issues are adequately addressed in
the construction of treatment
facilities.
Preventing Repollution
Through Shoreland
Protection
When Congress overhauled the
nation's water pollution control
laws in 1972, it recognized that the
goal of fishable and swimmable
waters would not be met without
controlling the pollution from land
management practices. It therefore
wrote into the Water Pollution
Control Act a program, contained
in Section 208 of the law, to plan for
control of this pollution on a
regional basis. The program has
become known as "208 planning,"
although its more complete name is
Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Planning.
208 Planning is proceeding
across the country. Areas which
have particular water quality prob-
lems have been "designated,"
meaning that they receive special
attention, and that the 208 program
is carried out by a regional agency
such as a council of governments or
a regional planning agency. In the
remaining non-designated portions
of each state, 208 planning is
conducted by the state agency
responsible for water quality.
Federal funds help pay for the
programs, and the plans developed
must be approved by EPA. More
importantly, the plans must show
how they will be carried out, and
demonstrate that state, regional,
and local agencies have or will
obtain adequate financial and legal
authority to implement the
measures required.
-'
-------
Although 208 planning
addresses the full spectrum of water
quality problems and not just those
related to land use practices, these
non-point problems receive major
attention because they are not
addressed by other water quality
programs. Among the important
land use issues being addressed in
208 plans are the following:
• Storm runoff in developed areas,
a serious problem because the large
amount of pavement in suburbs
and cities prevents storm water
from being absorbed by and filtered
through the soil, and instead sends
it rushing into rivers and lakes with
its full burden of chemicals, gas and
oil washed off roadways, organic
debris, and road salt;
• Agricultural runoff, which carries
sediment, fertilizer, pesticides, her-
bicides, and animal wastes from
croplands, feedlots, and pastures;
• Loss of wetlands, the swamps
and marshes which act as nature's
treatment plants, filtering and
digesting harmful pollutants before
they reach rivers and lakes, but
which are being deliberately filled
for development, or unintentionally
filled by sedimentation and erosion
at an alarming rate (nearly half of the
nation's wetlands have been lost in
the last 100 years);
• Poor construction practices,
which result in increased erosion at
construction sites, and substantially
contribute to heavy sediment loads
in nearby waters;
• Poor forestry practices, which
involve poorly designed roads or
skid trails, or destroy underbrush
and leave large areas bare, again
resulting in high concentrations of
sediment and organic matter in
streams and lakes;
• Modifications to streams and
rivers, such as channelizing, build-
ing reservoirs, or destroying
•groundwater recharge systems,
which change the flow patterns in
waterways and thus effect their
ability to absorb pollution, increase
the danger of flooding in unpro-
tected downstream areas, or
adversely affecting fish and wildlife
habitats;
• Improper location or operation of
facilities such as solid waste disposal
areas, mines, and chemical or
petroleum storage areas, which can
lead to contamination of both
surface and underground water
supplies with toxic chemicals or
bacteria.
Addressing problems in these
areas is not an easy task, yet doing
so is important for the quality of
both our water and our land. 208
programs around the country are
reaching the stage where they must
address solutions for the problems
they have uncovered, and the
support of citizens and municipal
officials is critical in this phase. Your
community, like every other, can
take steps to modify its-land use
practices for the sake of water
quality. Like Tallahassee and Leon
County in Florida, for example, it
could adopt standards for new
construction which require that
runoff from developed areas does
not exceed natural flows. Devel-
opers meet this standard through
techniques such as paving streets
and parking lots with porous
materials, building retention basins,
or leaving portions of land under
vegetative cover.
Or, as has been done in
Michigan, a state or community can
institute a system for controlling
erosion at construction sites. Under
the Michigan program, a soil
erosion plan must be prepared for
any development one acre or
larger, or a development of any size
if it is within 500 feet of a lake or
stream. Until the erosion plan is
approved by the county, a permit
for construction may not be issued.
Administrative costs for the pro-
gram are covered by the permit
fees.
The possibilities for action are
numerous, the chances for success
dependent on the support of
citizens and public officials. If
effective measures to control non-
point sources of pollution are not
enacted, pollution of the nation's
waterways will remain at unac-
ceptable levels. If effective
measures are adopted, the benefits
for us all will be substantial.
A recent EPA publication entitled
"Clean Water and the Land: Local
Government's Role" identified a
number of poor land use practices
which lead to lowered water
quality. The list includes a variety of
practices that can be addressed
through the choices of private
individuals, or the policies of local
governments:
• Overusing lawn fertilizer or road
salt, or piling leaves in the gutters of
urban streets;
• Cleaning streets infrequently,
with the possible result that the "first
flush" afterastorm in an urban area
carries large quantities of chemicals,
debris, and organic materials;
• Using unnecessarily large areas
of pavement in cities and suburbs,
which increases urban runoff;
• Ouerusing agricultural fertilizers,
allowing animals direct access to
streams, and other agricultural
practices;
• Failing to take measures to
reduce soil erosion during con-
struction, or during agricultural and
forestry operations;
• Locating housing with septic
tanks on unsuitable soils;
• Failure to take measures to
reduce or prevent mine wastes and
petroleum and chemical spills from
reaching the waters;
• Locating and designing waste
disposal sites so that they leach
(filter down) into water sources;
• Filling and using wetlands for
urban development and
agriculture.
Using Water Cleanup
By-Products To Improve the
Quality of Land
As clean water programs progress,
and wastewater is subject to better
treatment before it is discharged,
the question arises of what to do
with the sludge that results from .
treatment processes. There are a
variety of solutions, such as incin-
eration or landfilling, but the one
which best meets the theme of
obtaining the broadest environ-
mental benefit from clean water
programs involves treating this by-
product as a valuable resource, not
a disposal problem.
Sludge is rich in nutrients and
makes an excellent soil builder.
Increasingly, therefore, it is being
applied to the land with a variety of
beneficial results. These include
improvement in the fertility of the
land, elimination of conventional
sludge disposal problems, recharge
of groundwater sources with the
purified water which trickles
through the "natural filter" of the
soil, and sometimes, recreation
benefits as well. Methods for using
sludge range from processing it into
clean and odorless fertilizer which is
bagged and sold commercially, to
land application of sludge in less
processed form; to spray-irrigation
of partially processed liquid effluent
over large areas of land, allowing
the soil to complete purification of
the wastewater through natural
processes.
There are many successful
examples of communities using
these techniques. The city of Mil-
waukee, for example, has sold its
sludge as a commercial fertilizer for
a number of years, with nationwide
markets. Other cities are actively
investigating this possibility. In
Illinois, sludge from treatment
plants in Chicago is being used to
reclaim thousands of acres of strip-
mined land in Fulton County.
Yellowstone Canyon Lakes park in
• Lubbock, Texas—as described
earlier—makes use of wastewater,
filtered through a nearby farm and
then pumped out of underground
reservoirs, to fill artificial lakes for
recreation.
Muskegon County in Michigan
uses spray-irrigation to treat its
municipal wastewater, with a
variety of interesting benefits. The
waste is piped to an 11,000 acre site
ten miles east of the city where, after
going through aeration and settling
ponds, it is sprayed on 54 fields. In
1975, the county produced a
$600,000 cash crop of corn on the
site, which contributed substantially
to reduc ing the costs of the project.
Islands of trees scattered between
the fields, combined with two large
holding ponds, have made the area
an ideal wildlife habitat.
Examples such as these demon-
strate the promise of innovative
wastewater management tech-
niques. Though they are not
necessarily suitable in every area,
and problems can be associated
with them, communities should
make sure to include consideration
of such possibilities among the
alternative waste treatment prac-
tices studied in the wastewater
facility planning process.
39
-------
-------
6
Challenges
for Action
As water cleanup continues,
enormous pressures will occur to
line our waterfronts solidly with
private developments—
The first Water Cleanup
and the Land Conference in
1975 assembled a distin-
guished group of participants,
including prominent environmental
and consumer representatives from
several states, top administrators
and political figures from the
national, state, and local levels of
government, and participants from
business, the academic community,
and technical and professional
societies. One of the primary results
of the program was a series of
action recommendations ham-
mered out by these people in small
group discussions.
Much progress has been made in
the intervening years and a number
of recommendations fulfilled. By
and large, however, the action
needs identified were long term in
nature, and many of the conference
recommendations still define the
areas where progress is to be made:
1) Develop avenues of commu-
nication between the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, and other
relevant federal agencies, at both
the policy and operational levels. A
Joint Memorandum of Under-
standing can provide the frame-
work for cooperation, but day-
to-day communication needs to be
increased. Similar communication
and cooperation is needed at the
state level as well.
2) Review both legislation and
agency regulations and seek
changes which will encourage
multiple use and coordination of
land acquisition with water cleanup
schedules.
3) Make better use of existing inter-
agency and public review pro-
cesses, such as Environmental
Impact Statements and A-95
Review. Strong support from
agencies could bolster the A-95
mechanism, through which
agencies are required to comment
on each other's proposals. Too
often these comments are per-
functory rather than careful and
analytical. Review processes should
be more open to public participa-
tion, and agencies should be
required to consider the public
impact they receive. Additionally,
Environmental Impact Statements
could be better used to explore the
land use effects of water cleanup,
and alternatives for waste man-
agement and multiple use.
4) Improve the flow of information,
both within and between agencies,
and between agencies and the
public.
5) Increase the public's under-
standing of waste treatment and
water pollution control.
6) Take immediate steps to increase
participation by citizens in EPA
programs.
7) Establish a special consideration
for "Streambelt Funding" within
the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. This would help focus
attention on acquisition of land
alongside waterways, especially for
areas where federal funds had been
used for waste cleanup.
8) Increase the ratio of federal share
for land acquisition to overcome the
strain on local government budgets.
9) Revise Statewide Comprehen-
sive Outdoor Recreation Plans
(SCORP's) to emphasize water-
front acquisition. Although existing
regulations prescribe special atten-
tion to waterfront lands, conference
participants felt that adequate con-
sideration was not yet being given
them. The Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service could
exercise leadership with states in
this area.
10) Promote the use of easements
as a means of land protection.
11) Require that facility plans ex-
plore opportunities for multiple use
of facilities and joint development
of the environs.
12) Make better use of the
important opportunities provided
by Section 208 Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Planning,
by considering open space, mul-
tiple use and recreation potentials in
the planning process. Develop
specific implementation steps such
as easements, zoning and tax
policies.
13) Conduct inter-agency training
programs on multiple use and joint
development.
14) Encourage the use of innova-
tive wastewater treatment methods.
Of particular interest to conference
participants were "non-structural"
waste management practices which
use the land as a living filter, rather
than high-technology physical
structures.
15) Develop and publicize demon-
stration projects. Interesting
examples of multiple use, joint
development, coordinated land
preservation, and innovative treat-
ment methods should receive
widespread publicity, and be par-
ticularly brought to the attention of
federal, state, and local officials.
16) Develop and publicize infor-
mation on the water quality impacts
of various land uses.
17) Improve planning capability at
the local level. Over and over again,
conference participants empha-
sized the importance of the role
played by local government in
water cleanup and the land. As the
recipients of federal help who must
mesh together diverse programs,
41
-------
local governments have to make
sense out of what was not made
sense of at the state level or the
federal level. There was equal
agreement in the Conference,
however, that local governments
were not equipped to deal ade-
quately with water cleanup and the
land issues. Therefore, it was
strongly recommended that the
Environmental Protection Agency,
the Heritage Conservation Recrea-
tion Service and other federal
agencies continue and expand their
technical assistance programs
whereby agency personnel are
available for consultation with local
governments.
18) Mobilize citizens and local
officials. It is the interest and par-
ticipation of citizens that breathes
vitality into government programs,
and this public involvement is
particularly needed in a case such
as "water cleanup and the land";
when the program concept is both
new and requires coordination by
several government agencies. Do
not assume that agency officials
with a thousand other things to do
will automatically follow new pro-
cedures unless there is an interested
public urging them to do so.
Local officials are on the front line
in making decisions affecting water
cleanup and the land. Over and
over again, the Conference par-
ticipants emphasized the impor-
tance of local officials in these
programs, and the key role they can
play in implementing action pro-
grams.
Encourage greater recreational
opportunities in Section 314
Clean Lakes projects by
participating in the early planning
phases of individual projects and
state programs.
The concept of public participa-
tion permeates water cleanup pro-
grams and Congress mandated it
for all activities conducted under
the Water Pollution Control Act. It is
a major component of recreation
programs as well, particularly the
Statewide Comprehensive Out-
door Recreation Plans.
If citizens care enough to become
involved in these various programs,
and officials encourage their con-
cern and harness it toward con-
structive input, not only will
individual programs be improved
but they will also be better coor-
dinated to reflect the needs and
aspiration of communities and to
secure full value on the public's
investments in water pollution
control.
Whoever you are, whatever your
job or civic activities, there's
something you can do. Get
involved in recreation and water
quality planning. . . .
The Clean Water Act: Not just a
matter of chemical makeup —but
providing for the public's full use
and enjoyment of fishable.
swimmable waters.
"Each generation has its own
rendezvous with the land. Over the
two hundred years of American
history we have seen the full circle
of exploring a virgin wilderness,
conquering the diversities of geo-
graphy, despoiling and polluting
air, water, and land, ony to realize
that unspoiled land and a pure and
enjoyable environment are an
essential part of our lives.
"Now we as a people are
engaged in a massive effort to halt
pollution and create a healthy and
enjoyable environment. One of the
results of this effort is that our
generation is creating a new frontier
along its urban waterfronts and
rural riverways. Long abandoned
to blight, these areas are becoming
the focus of revitalized cities and the
centers of recreational enjoyment.
The importance of renewing
waterfront landscapes and assuring
public recreation opportunities at
the same time that we clean up the
Nation's waters cannot be over-
stated. The citizens of America have
already invested their tax dollars in
clean rivers and lakes. Unless we
provide enjoyable waterfronts with
guaranteed public access, most
American taxpayers experience
little direct return on their
investment.
"It is the ordinary citizen who
stands to benefit most from the
policy of coordinating recreation
and water quality programs, the
ordinary working people and their
families who have supported water
quality goals in the voting booth
and through their taxes, who want
and need water oriented recreation
areas, particularly recreation areas
that are close to home."
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Officials Who Can Help
"It was the consensus of the
workshops that... a more in-
terdisciplinary attack on the prob-
lems (of water cleanup) must pre-
vail. . . Natural stream corridors are
part of a complex and integrated
system for the treatment of polluted
waters that does not end at the
outflow pipe. These systems as a
whole are important to water
cleanup and should be considered
in planning for that cleanup... The
public's support of clean water, and
its vote in favor of the programs
which have been established was
based on a concept of 'clean water
which includes the entire waterway,
not just the chemical makeup of the
water as viewed under a
microscope."
Bradford Northrup
Eastern Regional Director
The Nature Conservancy
Environmental
Protection Agency
Headquarters
Mr. John R. Gustafson
Office of Environmental Review
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/755-8835
Mr. John Gerba
Office of Environmental Review
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/755-8835
Ms. Elaine Stanley
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, DC. 20460
202/426-9404
Mr. David Green
Office of Water Planning
and Standards
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/245-3145
Region 1
Mr. Bart Hague
Rm. 2203 JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617/223-5131
Region 2
Mr. Ray P. Pfortner
26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 1009
New York, New York 10007
212/264-4563
Region 3
Mr. Earle Bisher
Curtis Bldg.-6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
215/597-7543
Region 4
Mr. Richard Gingrich
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
404/881-4989
Region 5
Mr. Roger K. Coppack
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312/353-2124
Region 6
Mr. Kenton Kirkpatrick
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
214/767-2656
Region 7
Mr. Dan Vallero
324 E. llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
816/374-5616
Region 8
Mr. Patrick J. Godsil
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
303/837-2721
Region 9
Mr. Richard Coddington
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
415/556-7686
Region 10
Ms. Deborah Curl
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
206/399-4011
Department of the Interior,
Heritage Conservation
& Recreation Service
Headquarters
Ms. Irene L. Murphy
Div. of Community and Human
Resources Development
Washington. D.C. 20243
202/343-5571
Ms. Carol Gardner
Div. of Community and Human
Resources Development
Washington, D.C. 20243
202/343-5571
Northeast Region
Ms. Pat Kenehan
600 Arch Street, Rm. 9310
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19106
215/597-2283
Southeast Region
Mr. John Brown
Russell Federal Bldg.
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 NE
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
505/766-3720
Mid-Continent Region
Mr. Lyle Hollenbeck
Denver Federal Center
P.O. Box 25387
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, Rm. 990
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98174
206/442 5366
Photo Credits
EPA Documerica
Forest Service, DOA
Corps of Engineers
Bart Hague
John Gerba
Ray Pfortner
Gene Parker
Ron Hoffman
------- |