[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SAFE HARBOR/MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY oastal FlAd,d a d c-, i-.. th p:,., F-l-,.1 k.:.D -d 1h, C-tv Dep."- .0 -ZonE TC GIRARD TOWNSHIP 225 .G57 E45 ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1986 ELK CREEK 1 1986 THE ELK CREEK SAFE HARBOR/MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY GIRARD TOWNSHIP ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PREPARED FOR: GIRARD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILLIAM L. BORLAND, CHAIRMAN DANIEL DOUGLAS RAY SANDERS BETTY BELL, SECRETARY LA FUNDED THROUGH: THE COUNTY OF ERIE 40 JUDITH LYNCH, COUNTY EXECUTIVE V@ r.'o COUNTY COUNCIL Ak GARY L. BUKOWSKI, CHAIRMAN FIORE LEONE, VICE CHAIRMAN BARBARA MACK - TRACY SEYFERT PAUL FOUST - JOSEPH F. GILES - ROBERT C. WALKOW ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING DAVID SKELLIE, DIRECTOR IN COOPERATION WITH: PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY MARCH, 1986 PREPARED BY: D. A. JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES 110 EAST WASHINGTON STREET CORRY, PENNSYLVANIA 16407 THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT WAS FUNDED AND COORDINATED THROUGH THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, OFFICE OF RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, DIVISION OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, AND THE ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I INTRODUCTION II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 6 A. Planning B. Construction III PRESENT DEVELOPMENT 14 A. Facilities. B. Available Activities IV DESIGN NEEDS & BENEFITS 24 A. Potential Uses & Opportunities B. Selecting The Basic Alternatives C. Tasks Required For Completion D. Governmental Commitments E. Benefits of Development V FUNDING 34 A. Potential Sources B. Procedures for Obtaining Funds VI FEDERAL, STATE, & LOCAL OBLIGATIONS 42 A. Responsibilities & Mandates B. Recommended Tasks C. Permits VII IMPLEMENTATION 47 A. Lead Agency & Order of Accomplishment B. Project Schedule VIII CONCLUSIONS 49 APPENDIX A: Excerpts--Corps of Engineer's Report APPENDIX B: Excerpts--1980 Access Report APPENDIX C: Correspondence & Documents APPENDIX D: Funding Information LIST OF ILLUSTRATIG.NS PAGE REG'IONAL/AREA MAP v LAKE COAST LINE - VIEW FROM THE EAST 2. GENERAL AREA - VIEW FROM THE WEST 3 GENERAL AREA - VIEW FROM THE SOUTH 4 GENERAL AREA - VIEW FROM THE NORTH 7 GENERAL AREA TOPOGRAPHY 9 WEST BANK DEVELOPMENT 15 COTTAGE AREA VIEW FROM THE NORTH 17 IMPROVEMENTS 18 ESTUARY - VIEW FROM THE EAST (1980) 20 ESTUARY - VIEW FROM THE NORTH (1985) 21 LAGOON AREA - VIEW FROM THE NORTH 25 PROPERTY MAP 26 iv VT. NEW YORK MASS. E.R1E COUNTY CONN. PENNSYLVANIA OHIO NE N ER Y M D. WEST D L. VIRGINIA 0 100 Miles REGIONAL MAP 1(k 20 NEW YORK V 1-90 RIE LAKE CIT 5 GIRARD N CONNEAUT 20 1-90 Et I-To E R I E STUDY COUNTY AREA OHIO 'AREA 0 5 to 15 20 Miles @EW 'VI WR MAP v OCLC: 32890269 Rec stat: n Entered: 19950729 Replaced: 19950729 Used: 19950729 $ Type: a Bib Lvt: m Source: d Lang: eng Repr: Enc LvL: K Conf pub: 0 Ctry: pau Indx: O' Mod rec: Govt pub: Cont: Desc: a Int tvt: Festschr: 0 Ittus: F/B: 0 Dat tp: s Dates: 1986, % $ 1 040 EPL Ic EPL % S 2 090 TC328 lb J64 1986 % $ 3 090 lb % $ 4 049 NO@M % S 5 110 2 D.A. Johnson & Associates. % $ 6 245 14 The Elk Creek safe harbor/marina feasibility study : lb Girard Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania / Ic prepared for Girard Township Board of Supervisors ... by The Associates. % S 7 260 Corry, Pa. : lb The Associates, Ic 1986. % S 8 300 1 v. % S 9 500 "March, 1986.11 % S 10 500 "The preparation of this report was funded and coordinated through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, office of Resources Management, Bureau of Resources Management, Division of Coastal Zone Management and the Erie County Department of Planning." % $ 11 650 0 Harbors Iz Pennsylvania Iz Erie County Ix Feasibility studies. % $ 12 650 0 Marinas Iz Pennsylvania Iz Erie County Ix Feasibility studies. % $ 13 651 0 Girard (Erie County, Pa. : Township) Ix Feasibility studies. % S 14 710 1 Girard (Erie County, Pa. : Township) lb Board of Supervisors. % S 15 710 1 Pennsylvania. lb Coastal Zone Management Branch. % S 16 710 1 Erie County (Pa.) lb Dept. of Planning. % INTRODUCTION Elk Creek enters Lake Erie just west of Lake City Borough in Girard Township, Erie County. It is the largest stream enter- ing the lake within the boundaries of Pennsylvania. The stream, and its tributaries, follow a long meandering path through the western part of the County. The creek is charae-- terized by very steep side slopes and escarpments throughout much of its range. The upper reaches of the stream are rocky with shallow pools, but the lower part adjacent to the lake is wide and rather placid at low flows. The areas of the creek adjacent to the lake, which are the por- tions included in this study, are normally of sufficient depth for very small boats. During much of the year, however, it is impossible or dangerous for any craft to enter the creek from the lake. This is due to the fact that littoral currents and wave action build a bar of sand and gravel at the mouth. This bar is in a state of constant change, and the channel opening varies in its location and is not stable. In order to control this opening, and provide a low maintenance permanent channel, major construction would need to be undertaken. Such construc- tion could normally only be justified as part of A complete harbor development project. @For over forty years there have been efforts made toward the construction of a small-boats harbor at the mouth of the creek. in recent years this has included funding for studies, and for' improved access to the creek mouth. These funds have been made available through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and through the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. The availability of these funds, together with ' the donation of lands through a lease by the Pennsylvania Electric Company to Girard Township, has brought about a limited amount of public development, and vehicle access, on the west side of the creek near the mouth. Prior to these recent efforts the Corps of Engineers made a study and interim report in 1966 relative to the potential for the development of an Elk Creek Harbor for light-draft vessels. Their report included recommendations that such construction should include a breakwater-protected entrance from the lake, an anchorage basin, a dock channel, and recreational fishing facilities. z Wo, ELK CREEK vt MOUTH LAKE COAST LINE VIEW FROM THE EAST TfAGE AREA m TH ou T BANK DEVEL GENERAL AREA VIEW FROM THE WEST MOUTH ZZ j47 GENERAL AREA VIEW FROM THE SOUTH The purpose of the study included herein is to investigate the actual potential for further development at the mouth of the creek. This report will, in general, concentrate on the development of the channel opening into the lake, and on the lower reach of the creek, especially the east bank. The land at the mouth of the creek, and the east bank, are both presently under private ownership. The potential for putting this area under public control is an essential part of this study. This report will include the analysis of the design needs based on highest and best use of the la.nd, together with the identification of available funding sources for design, ac- quisition, construction and maintenance. An implementation strategy will be developed to guide the development of the s i t e . HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. PLANNING There have been numerous professional studies made of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin in the Girard Township/Lake City Borough area. These have included area-wide and municipal plans of a general nature, plus detailed studies of the Elk Creek drainage basin. Previous planning has included the following: I. Area-wide Planning Previous area-wide planning has included county studies and regulations such as water and sewer plans, land use plans, storm water plans, popula- tion analysis, county subdivision regulations, a zoning manual, transportation plans, and similar work. Planning by the State and government related agencies include planning documents such as the North- west Area Profile, the Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan, the Northwest Regional Planning and Development Commission studies, and work done under the Coastal Zone Management Program. 2. Municipal Planning The Boroughs of Lake City and Girard, together with Girard Township, have developed a background Analy- sis & Comprehensive Plan, in cooperation with the Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. The munici- palities have also developed subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances. The proposed development of a major steel producing complex in Springfield Town- ship, about 9 miles west of the mouth of Elk Creek, also spurred new planning in the area, much of which included the study area. (This complex is no longer being considered, but much of the background work developed is being used by local interests in an effort to attract other industry to the Springfield Township site). 3. Coastal Zone Planning The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re- sources under the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Manage- ment Program has provided a substantial amount of basic planning work relating to the Lake Erie drain- age basin. The study areas include the Elk Creek Basin. 6 1911 v N", k @ a 4", is ji mnij GRAVEL BAR K GENERAL AREA VIEW FROM THE NORTH This comprehensive planning endeavor (1978) included technical data on the entire Lake Erie coastline in Pennsylvania. Information de-veloped included socio- economic characteristics, land and water use, recrea- tion demand, area governmental controls, and general priorities for coastal zone use. A major part of this planning effort was the estab- ishment of "Geographic Areas of Particular Concern". These are critical areas where the need for special management procedures is indicated in order to deal with land-use issues which are of "regional benefit" or greater than local concern. The Elk Creek Estu- ary Site was designated as a GAPC, and as a site for recreational development. The report stated in part: "The most appropriate use of this stream valley should focus upon its recreation potential. The estuarine nature of the mouth of Elk Creek pro- vides excellent opportuni-ties for fishing and swimming, and serves as a shelter for small boats. During peak fishing periods the flat val- ley floor is extensively utilized by fishermen as a boat launching and camping site, though no organized camping facilities are present. This area is capable of supporting publicly owned camp sites and possibly numerous other recreational facilities as well. The forested bluffs which completely surround this stream valley serve as a natural and scenic backdrop to the area. Protection of these bluffs from any degrading influences which potentially may accompany development should be a primary goal of the CZM Program." 4. Pennyslvania Electric Company Planning The Pennsylvania Electric Company in 1979 had an envi- romental report prepared by a private consultant. This was a detailed report prepared as a requirement for a proposed coal fired steam electric generating station which at that time was proposed for construction. The proposed fa.cility was to be constructed by the Pennsylvania Electric Company on a large tract which includes the land between Route 5 and Lake Erie on the west bank of Elk Creek. The company then offered the eastern portion of the site to the Township of Girard for recreational development, and most of the site has since been developed. (See Photo - Page 15). The contemplated construction of the coal fired gener- ating station has since been abandoned for the fore- seeable future. The 2000 page environmental study, Ut*OF ELK MEEK 4, -C4 7,z-,4. 7A ---------- r 2, v GENERALAREA TOPOGRAPHY however, included a great deal of information on Elk Creek and the Elk Creek Basin. The study provides, in addition to items relativ6 to construction of the generating plant, substantial documentation of the environmental aspects of the area. This includes data on geology, soils, the biotic environment, hy- drology, water and air quality, and similar back- ground information on the basin. This private study was used as an aid in the development of background information for this report, and for previous studies and construction. 5. U. S. Corps of Engineers Planning The only major planning activities relating to the potential development of a harbor in the Elk Creek Basin was prepared by the Corps of Engineers. This was preceeded by the following actions: a. Congress, on March 2, 1945, passed the River & Harbor Act, which authorized the Corps of Engi- neers to investigate harbors of refuge for light draft vessels, including areas on the south shores of Lake Erie. b. During May of 1945, public hearings were held which showed local interest in small-boat har-, bors at various creeks, including Elk Creek. C. A preliminary examination report by the Corps in 1946 gave consideration to 33 locations on Lake Erie. A total of three sites in Pennsylvania were then selected as having significant potential for further study. The sites were Elk Creek, Walnut Creek, and 20 Mile Creek. Topographic and hydrographic surveys were made of Elk Creek in 1962 and 1963, and other detailed stud- ies were commenced thereafter. The interim report was completed by the Corps, and reported to Congress in October of 1966. The report recommended a major project, including breakwaters in Lake Erie at the mouth of the creek, a deep entrance channel, removal of shoals in the lake, a large anchorage basin, a long docking channel, recreation facilities, and gen- eral reconstruction of the area. The complex was to be located along the east bank of Elk Creek in the area which was , and is presently, under private ownership. 10 - Following the completion of this interim report, the project became staleT:iated !)Pcaiise of certain circum- stances. The history to date can..be outlined as follows: a. The local sponsor for the project, which would in- clude an 850 acre state park was to be The Depart- ment of Environmental Resources of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They ultimately withdrew from the project, however, and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission then took an active interest. b. The Fish Commission, in 1969, expressed their intent to serve as local sponsor, but also indicated tha@ other local financial participation was needed for all required non-Federal costs. C. A reclassification of "deferred for re-study" was assigned to the project in December of 1971 because local funding was not available. d. During July of 1972, the Commissioners of Erie County gave their intent to participate in the project, main- ly in land acquisition, but in an amount not to exceed $1,300,000. e. The purchase of land did not occur, however, as the County was unable to proceed without eminent domain proceedings, which the Commissioners would not under- take. f. Also in July of 1972, the Fish Commission reaffirmed its intent and approved certain allocations of Project 500 Bond Issue Funds to supplement previously budgeted Boat Fund sources. 9. The Corps of Engineers reactivated the project in 1973, but no funds were appropriated. h. The FY 1977 Federal budget provided for preconstruc- tion funds for design and advance planning of the har- bor development. During July of 1977, however, the Fish Commission withdrew support from the project be- cause the.County of Erie was unable to provide the necessary land.. i. In November of 1977, a draft plan of study for reform- ulation was prepared by the Corps of Engineers, which recommended that the project be reclassified from flactive" to "deferred for.. restudy". j. The project has recently been reclassified to an Ofactive" status. (See Appendix C) Additional information on the Corps of Engineers Report, and a drawing of the basic harbor plan are included in Appendix A. 6. flanning For Access Feasibility In 1980, a detailed plan of-the Elk Creek Basin was prepared by Girard Township using funds made avail- able by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Coastal Zone Management Division., This planning was administered through the Erie County Department of Planning, and was entitled. "Elk Creek Public Access Feasibility Study". This study investigated the needs of the area, topog- raphy, traffic patterns, utilities, land use, and general information on Elk Creek itself. The report made recommendations for providing vehicle and pedes- trian access to the west bank area of Elk Creek near the mouth of the creek. This is the area previously mentioned as being owned by the Pennsylvania Electric Company. Included in the study was a development plan consist- ing of 6 stages, together with cost estimates and scheduling. A large part of the proposed construc- tion was ultimately carried out. The only scheduled items which were not constructed included a boat ramp that was to be located on the west bank of the creek, and certain channel improvements that were scheduled for the mouth of the creek. To date, there has been no funding available for these facilities. The scope of the work proposed in this study was lim- ited. It did not include the construction of a harbor, marina, or similar facilities and did not propose the acquisition of any land on the east bank of the creek. The main purpose of the study was to investigate the means of providing an access to the lower reaches of the creek, and to the lake, plus the construction of comfort stations, parking, trails, and other facili- ties. These ends were achieved (except for the boat ramp and channel improvements) and are outlined in more detail in the subsection of this report which follows, and in Appendix B. B. CONSTRUCTION All of the public construction which has occurred to date at or adjacent to the mouth of Elk Creek has been on the west bank on the land of the Pennsylvania Electric Company which is leased to Girard Township for recreation purposes. This construction was brought about through grants received from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and the Pennsylvania De- partment of Community Affairs, the CZM and CEIP Programs respectively. Construction was staged as close as possible to 12 the recommendations included in the "Elk Creek Public Access Feasibility Study". The actual staging was modified to meet the availability of funding. The contracts for construction, and their approximate dates and funding are as follows: 1. Contract IA: This work was awarded in July of 1981 and completed later that year. The project included the construc- tion of a gravel parking lot on the upper plateau next to Route 5, together with a short gravel access road, picnic tables, grills, a sign, and a pedes- down over the escarpment to the creek trian tral level flood plain. The total cost ofthis construc- tion, including professional fees, was approximately $50,00G, and was funded through the Department of Environmental Resources CZM Program. 2. Contract 2A: The contract for this work was awarded in July of 1982 and the project was completed later in that year. The work included only the construction of the access road from the previously constructed en- trance road down a ravine to the creek level at the base of the escarpment, together with related drain- age and erosion control facilities and a sign. The cost of this construction, including professional fees, was approximately $81,000, and was funded by the Coastal Energy Impact Program of the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 3. Contracts 3A/4A: These contracts were awarded concurrently as one project in April of 1983. The work was completed by the end of that year. Included in these two contracts were the construction of the lower parking lots, addi- tional access roads, drainage, two comfort stations, picnic tables, grills, hiking trails, and the paving of all the access roads and parking (including those constructed under contracts 1A and 2A). The cost of these projects, including professional fees was approx- imately $280,000. Funding of approximately $262,000 as obtained through the Coastal Energy Impact Program of the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. An additional $18,000 was obtained through the Pennsyl- vania Department of Environmental Resources CZM Program. The extent of existing construction is shown on the photograph on Page 15. Additional information on the previous contracts is included in the section which follbws, and in Appendix B. 13 PRESENT DEVELOPMENT. A. FACILITIES The various.facilities in ex istance adjacent to the lower reaches of Elk Creek can be categorized as public or private, with the west bank being public development and the east bank private I. Public Development As previously mentioned, the west bank development is on lands of the Pennsylvania Electric Company, leased to the Township. All development has been provided through pqblic funds, and consists of the following: a. A paved entrance road from Route 5 into the park. b. Three paved parking areas, including one on the high ground near the entrance road (50 cars), and two on the lower flood plain area. The lower lots provide parking for over 100 cars (or about 50 cars plus 30 cars with boat trail- ers). C. Over a half mile of paved access roads which connect the entrance road and upper parking area to the two other parking areas. The main access road reaches the lake level via a mean- dering route through a ravine in the escarpment. The access roads include guard rails, traffic control signs, and over 1000 feet of subsurface drainage. d. Two comfort stations, each which is a modern masonry pit-type structure with restroom facil- ities for both men and women. One is located near the entrance and the other adjacent to the parking lots on the lake level. e. Approximately 6500 feet of foot trails through- out the wooded areas surrounding the other facil- ities. f. A total of about 12 picnic tables and 6 grills for use by the public. These are located near the p-arking areas. 14 P 0 WER LINE ROUTE 2 ACCESS ROAD 16 6f 7 V, OW 44 10, WEST BANK DEVELOPMENT Additional facilities in the planning stage for this west bank area include a trail to connect to the ex- isting system which will be routed to the lake bluff area north of the present development (on other lands of the Pennsylvania Electric Company). Also included, with design completed, is a boat ramp into Elk 'Creek. This is proposed t6 be located at the north end of the existing north parking lot. The various facili- ties, existing and proposed, are shown in Appendix B. 2. Private Development All of the private development in the Elk Creek basin north of Route 5 is on the east side of the creek. Most of the development is located on the property identified as belonging to the Rhoades brothers. Their property is privately operated as a rental cottage area with camping, boating, and pleasure fishing facil- ities available. The public is permitted boating and fishing privileges on a fee basis. The following facilities are located on the Rhoades property. a. Approximately 61 summer cottages. b. Five year round cottages. C. Five mobile homes. d. Docking space for approximate'ly 70 small shallow draft boats. e. A warehouse and maintenance shed. f. A general store, where staples and fishing equip- ment are sold in the summer months. 9. Approximately six small outbuildings. It should be noted that of the 66 cottages and trail- ers on the site, 60 are owned by persons other than the Rhoades brothers and are on short term leases (I to 5 years). The p hotograph on Page 17 shows a portion of the cottage area which is mostly located on high ground along the lake shore on the northeast end of the property. The cottages are also shown on the.map on Page 18. The estuary area, including the gravel bar at the mouth of the creek, is partially within the Rhoades parcel and partially within lands of the Pennsylvania Electric Company. For any type of major harbor development, at least a portion of both properties would need to be secured. The east bank is the key to the eventual developmen't of the area, however, as the Pennsylvania Electric Company has already shown its interest in the public use of the land. 16 - "s, 4@, A Alo ee z@n MOUTH -7- k, 1.t COTTAGE AREA VIEW FROM THE NORTH 14 00 0 TOR AREHOU 0 LAKE CITY BOROUGH COTTAGE AREA 0 00 0 ELK CREEK BOAT P CLUB BARN GIRARD TOWNSHIP EXISTING WEST BANK IMPROVEMENT ROUTE 5 KEY- 0 YEAR AROUND COTTAGE a SUMMER COTTAGE, (-UNLESS NOTED) a MOBILE HOME. cc le 0 OUT--BUILDING Lu ui AMPROVEMENTS "A IROAD (COMA 0 500 1000 0'27 "-'" i @ SCALE FEET B. A-VAILABLE ACTIVITIES The present recreational activities at the site are nature and water oriented. Existing facilities provide for the following basic recreational activities: 1. Boating and Canoeing This activity originates mostly from the privately owned facilities on the east side of Elk Creek. There are some boats launched from the west side, but they are mostly car-top boats or canoes. The west bank does, however,include parking for automobiles with- boat trailers. This parking was planned and const'ruc- ted in anticipation of a boat ramp. To date there has been no funding made available for this ramp construc- Because of the shifting gravel bar at the mouth of Elk Creek, boats launched from either bank are often re- stricted to Elk Creek, and cannot enter the lake. This is especially true during periods of low flow. Even during times when the channel is well defined and.clear into the lake, the navigation of the channel may be difficult or*dangerous. When the lake is rough and heavy wave action occurs, the pas.sage into the creek is very dangerous. for small craft, and impossible for larger boats. The gravel bar is constantly changing and moving the mouth of the creek. See photographs on Pages 20 and 21. 2, Fishing This is probably the most active recreational activity at the site, especially during the fall when the Coho salmon are making their spawning runs up the tributar- ies of the lake. Elk Creek is a major creek and has large runs of salmon each year. Shoreline fishing is very heavy during these periods, and the lake level parking facilities on the west bank are quite often filled. This is also a. very heavy time for boating, and there are often conflicts between shore fishermen and those in boats. Many of the boats docked at the private facilities on the east bank are used for salmon fish- ing and for other types of fishing. Although the times when the salmon are running create the most obvious and prominent fishing activity, there are ongoing periods of fishing for other species. Species of.sports fish 'which are found in and adjacent to the mouth of Elk Creek include the following: 19 E AREA LAGOONS P MIT MMM T WT OP. It -#a -3: A IS PHO X T A. ESTUARY VIEW FROM THE EAST fill . . . .... ...... ... Mot 71 ESTUARY VIEW FROM THE NORTH Coho Salmon Bullheads Chinook Salmon Smallmouth Bass Rainbow Trout Largemouth Bass Brook Trout Yellow' Perch Brown Trout Walleye Freshwater Drum. Smelt Bluegill It should be noted that sport fishing, which was at one time a multimillion dollar industry on Lake Erie, has been in a state of decline. It has been helped, however, by the salmonoid stocking program estab@:ish- ed by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. This program was started in 1971, and has had a dramatic effect on the use of the coastal waters, especially at mouthes of major tributaries to thelake, like Elk Creek. Six species of salmonoids are stocked in the program for Elk Creek. This stocking is accomplished by the Penn- ,sylvania Fish Commission, together with cooperating sportsmen's groups. Brook, brown, and rainbow trout are included in this stocking program, and are normally introduced into the stream during the spring. They are usually of catchable size when released. The spring program for Elk Creek also includes steelhead, coho salmon and chinook salmon, which are released as two-inch to four-inch fry. These juveniles attain catchable size after two to three years in the lake. They return to the stream on their spawning run. Of the more important species, the yellow perch, wall- eye and smallmouth bass are high on the list. Much of the fishing, especially from boats during periods when the salmon are not running, is for these species. Hand dipping for smelt also occurs at the mouth of Elk Creek during late April and early May, when the rainbow smelt are entering the creek to spawn. 3. Hiking and Nature Study With over a mile of hiking trails already located on the west side of the creek, and with more planned, this has become an important existing recreational activity. The trails, when complete, will provide a pedestrian access to the lake bluff and to the gravel bar, as well as providing a recreaeion amenity within themselves. The existing trails are mostly in natural areas, and are relatively narrow, thus providing access with a min- imal amount of disturbance to the adjacent natural en- vironment. 22 4. Picnicking The developed area on the west bank provides family picnic facilities for about 100 persons. To date this has appeared to be adequate. There are no pavil- ions at present, but one has been approved for funding by DCA as part of a'COG project which also includes the new trails mentioned above. 5. Miscellaneous other activities on the site include incidental bicy- .cling, jogging, pleasure drivingand similar activi- ties. The private cottages also provide a general summertime leisure living activity for many families. 23 IV DESIGN NEEDS & BENEFITS A. POTENTIAL USES & OPPORTUNITIES Past studies have generally pointed to the development of the lower reaches of Elk Creek as a water access to Lake Erie. This has included two major areas of proposed construction:. 1. The improvement to the mouth of the creek to make it navigable and safe for small craft. 2. The improvement of the lower part of the stream to provi'de for boat access and docking facilities. The east bank has had rudimentary docking facilities and boat access for many years, and the west bank has been recently de- veloped to include public vehicle access to the creek, plus parking. A boat ramp has also been proposed for the west side. All of these facilities are for boat access and are essentially useles's, however, without improvements to the channel at the mouth of the creek. The previous construction on the west side of the creek, which has all been done with public funding, was completed in a series of stages. The next stage was proposed as the boat ramp, and the final stage was projected to include minimal breakwalls at the mouth of the creek. This minimal effort at controlling the channel, however, would necessitate very heavy maintenance costs. The channel would probably be in need of dredging on an annual basis in order to preserve safe navigation. Neither local or state government agencies are willing to assume the high costs of such an installation. A more acceptable project would include the construction of heavy breakwalls out into the lake, with a dogleg channel to promote a self-cleaning action. An installation of this type was proposed by the Corps of Engineers in their Interim Report of 1966. This.proposal by the Corps also included a safe refuge harbor, which was to be located essentially in the existing la- @oon area on the east side and south of the creek mouth. An installation of this type would not have an adverse affect on the existing development on the west side. Recent activities by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission have also pointed toward the fact that they would favor a complete breakwater installation together with a small boat harbor. See Appendix A for more de- tails of the project originally proposed by the Corps of Engi- neers. 24 - It Ln p. r EL BAR GRAV LAGOON AREA VIEW FROM THE NORTH IIAPOLD K. UX LU IL KNAPV JAMES C. UX JANICE J. MEEDER ol@ 1/1 WNSH I P GIRARD TOWNSHIP LAKE CITY BOROUGH JAMES C. HEIDER '-GIST. LAGOONS NANCY CREED HUDSON LAWRENCE C. FIESLER,JR ELK CREEK BOAT CLUB AWRENCE ROD GUN CLUB ALICE UX JAY JOHNSON RICHARD G*RHOADES ARTHUR E. RHOADES HARRY L. RHOADE X 157 1PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ROUT 5 AREA PRESENTLY LEASED BY PENNSYLVAN IA ELECTRIC COMPANY TO GIRARD TOWNSHIP c:l cc l< LLJ uj PROPERTY MAP RAILROAt) (COIVRA I L) 0 0 500 1000 SCALE FEET 26 B. SELECTING THE BASIC ALTERNATIVES In arriving at a course of action for the further development of Elk Creek, five (5) basic alternatives have been evaluated for acceptance or rejection. The following represents an out- line of these general alternatives together with an evaluation of each: Alternative 1: Do Nothing This alternative would essentially leave everything as it is. It might include the installation of a boat ramp on the west bank, but the east bank would be left under pri- vate ownership. Private development could be encouraged or discouraged. This alternative is rejected on the basis that it would eventually lead to the loss of the recrea- tion potential of the east side of the creek. It has been strongly recommended by all agencies involved that the en- tire area at the mouth of the creek be put under some type of public ownership in order to preserve it for future generations. This site is one of the last remaining nat- ural access areas in this part of the lake. The fact that most of the required land is under one ownership, and with- out major development, makes it a prime target for such preservation. Alternative 2: Government Purchase of the East Bank This alternative would require that some type of governmen- tal agency, or agencies, purchase all land adjacent to the mouth of the creek which is not now under government con- trol. This alternative is recommended as the acceptable course of action. The details of such a purchase are dis- cussed later in this report. Alternative 3: Construct Channel Improvements This alternative includes the construction of major break- walls or other acceptable means for ensuring that small boats can enter the mouth of the creek in all types of weather. This alternative is recommended irregardless of any other development, if funds can be obtained for such construction. Alternative 4: Development of the East and West Bank This alternative would require the development of the east side of the creek into a recreational area or other use beneficial to the general public. It would likely include additional construction on the west bank. Such a project could include both land apd water related types of deve,lopment. The obvious use, due to the nature of the terrain and the proximity to the-creek, would be as a marina or boat harbor of some type. The proposed boat ramp on the west bank could become a partof this overall plan. This alternative is recommended to be instituted only if and when Alternate 3 has been completed. 27 Alternative 5: Return the East Bank to a Natural State This alternative has some merit, especially if funds cann 'ot be found for developmen;. With access roads, parking, and comfort stations in thelarea, and even with no further de- velopment, it would receive heavy usage by fishermen. T h i s plan is recommended as an iterim step if the land becomes publicly owned. The review of these basic alternatives, together with their ac- ceptance or rejection, points to a general course of action in the following order: 1. Purchase of land on the east side of the creek for public use. 2. When funds are available, make improvements to the, channel. 3. Follo'wing the channel improvement, provide east bank development as funds become available. This course of action generally conforms to the consensus of the va 'rious parties involved, but sufficient public funds are not presently available to proceed with the purchase of land. It should be pointed out that private funds could also be used for purchase or development, if available. Private funds have not surfaced to date, but could play a part in the eventual development of a marina or other recreational complex. C. TASKS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION The tasks required for completion of the various components in- cluded in the general course of action are as follows: 1. Land Purchase. a. Planning b. Survey C. Appraisal d. Negotiation e. Purchase 2. Channel Improvements. a. Planning b. Design C. Construction 28 3. East Bank Improvements. a. Planning b. Design C. Construction The other major task, which must be considered as an integral part of the construction proposed above, is the long term maintenance of any facilities that are constructed. D. GOVERNMENTAL COMMITMENTS To the date of this report, actual commitments for the purchase of the land needed, or for additional construction, are essen- tially non-existent. There have been commitments toward this end, however, through the financing of this report (Pennsylvania Department of Envi- ronmental Resources), and by certain actions of the County of Erie and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. These latter two agencies have set a cooperative effort in motion to provide the land survey of the Rhoades property and the appraisal of that property. This is explained in more detail by the letters and other documents contained in Appendix C. In addition to the governmental units involved, a private agency has agreed to provide help in securing options and possibly pro- viding interim financing for the purchase of all or part of the Rhoades property. This agency is the Western Pennsylvania Con- servancy. This land conservation organization is the largest in the State of Pennsylvania and has the support of over 10,000 members. The Conservancy works to protect land and waters which are considered significant for their natural beauty, or for their scientific or recreational importance. One method used by the Conservancy to protect or conserve land is to serve as a catalyst , and as an aid in the negotiations for property. In some cases they actually purchase the property for eventual transfer, at cost, to state or federal agencies. Their funds, which come from private foundations, are nearly. al- ways "rolled over" in this way. This is of special interest to governmental agencies desiring to purchase land that should be preserved during periods when there are insufficient funds cur- rently available for the purpose. The Conservancy's interest in this project is therefore a vory fortunate occurance. 29 E. BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT The benefits to be derived from governmental purchases of the land, plus the development of channel improvements and a safe harbor for small craft, can be put into three general categories: 1. Conservation Benefits. 2. Safety Benefits. 3. Economic Benefits. These benefits are not definable in absolute terms, but a general overview of their various aspects is as follows: 1. Conservation Benefits The preservation of lake access for future use by the public cannot be measured in quantitative terms. Existing public access to Lake Erie in the area near the project site is very limited and must be conserved when possible. In the words of a report prepared under the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Manage- ment Program: "Despite the limited amount of development in the Lake Erie coastal zone, public access re- mains the most severe limitation to developing an increased recreational base. The character of the shoreline (high bluffs) limits the oppor- tunity to occupy the shore interface. Private ownership of lands bordering the lake is also a barrier to recreational development." Among the.major developments that has added to the short term need for additional access to Lake Erie and its tributary streams has been the salmon stock- ing program established by the Pennsylvania Fish Com- mission in 1971. This has increased fishing pres- sures on the lake, and 'demand for access facilities, which is expected to continue. This program also occurred in concurrence with a general improvement in Lake Erie water quality, from a fishing standpoint, due largely to increased pollution control in the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Safety Benefits One of the most important benefits to be derived through improvements to the stream channel and the 30 construction of an anchorage basin, would be the general increase in safety to the boating public. Not only would this be of benefit to those craft which are based at Elk Creek, but the improvements would also provide a harbor of refuge for those craft based elsewhere which are in need of shelter. There have been numerous occasions in the past where boats have attempted to enter the mouth of Elk Creek to escape storms, and have failed. At least one of these occasions has resulted in the loss of lives. As recreational boating increases in the future, the need for additional harbors of refuge will be- come more important. Although the Walnut Creek -facility is only about eight miles to the east, the Elk Creek harbor would still be of major importance from a standpoint of lake boating safety. 3. Economic Benefits The economic benefits are probably the most measure- able of the various benefits derived from develop- ment of any facility. A detailed economic analysis of such benefits for this project is beyond the scope of this report, but the following major bene- fits may be expected to occur to the area: a. Recreational Boating The navigational improvements proposed are ex- pected to have very significant affects on rec- reational boating in the area. in the interim report prepared by the Corps of Engineers in 1966, detailed projections were made of these benefits. Included were benefits for boats that are presently based at the private facil- ities located at Elk Creek; additional boats being based at the new facilities; increased number of trailer-drawn boats using the harbor;., increased activity by transient boats; and the benefit as a harbor of refuge. The total annual benefit projected by the Corps (in 1966) was about $60,000. The benefit projection, except for the benefit as a harbor of refuge, was based on the gain in annual return which owners of pleasure craft would receive as a result of the improvements. It was considered equivalent to the net return on depreciated investment in boats after all expenses are paid, and.is the typical method used by the Corps for this type of projection. The benefit as a harbor of refuge was designated as $10,000, based on population densities and the estimated number of boats. The reader is referred to the Corps report for more details of the methods used in making the pro- j ections . 31 b. Recreational Fishing There would be increased pleasure fishing activity brought about by the greater amount of boating activity at the site. In addition to this, however, is the expectation that there would'also be a dramatic increase in fishing from the shore. In the previously mentioned Corps of Engineers recommendations the channel protection included about 1600 feet of flat-top piers (breakwaters) which could be used by fishermen, plus berms and other appurtenances which would also be used for fishing. The Corps report included fig- ures from the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U. S. Department of Interior (1963), which placed the net increase in recreational fishing benefits at about $15,000 annually for the pier fishing. This projection was made on the basis of the spin-off economic benefits to the area from the added fishing activity. C. Commercial Fishing At the time of the Corps of Engineers report, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1963) had noted that the commercial fishing boats opera@ ting out of Elk Creek had declined from 6 to I over the preceeding 10 years. Their explanation of this pointed to the fact that the docking facilities were both limited and expensive. They projected that 'commercial fishing activity should increase to about 12 boats if the pro-. jected improvements were made. The Corps re- port placed an annual increase in benefits to the area of about $17,000 on this enlarged com- mercial activity. This was based on 25% of an estimated annual catch (attributable to new commercial operations) of $69,000. It should be noted that nearly all of the commercial fishing at that time was for one species; the yellow perch. In recent years, commercial fishing on the lake has been in a general decline. The following excerpts from the 1983 Status Report of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission point up the Com- missions concerns with the yellow perch popula- tion in this area: "Central basin Lake Erie perch continue to evoke concern from fisheries management agencies. Classical symptoms of over- 32 harvest and the resultant population reactions of stress are evident. Al- though corrective regulatory measures . have been enacted in 1982 and 1983, we are just now beginning to detect a posi- tive response from the population in Pennsylvania .......... Most other species are caught as incidentals in nets set for perch. Fewer commercial fishermen are expected to fish in 1984 and the de- cline in landings probably will contin- ue . " The ability of the commercial fishing indus- try to re-establish itself in a significant way in this part of Lake Erie is unknown at present. If such re-establishment should occur, however, the Elk Creek harbor could become very important as a commercial docking facility. The total economic benefits, as projected by the Corps of Engineers report (1966) was about $92,000 annually. This included the total for recreational boating, recreational fishing, and commercial fish- ing. The figure includes the various spin-off bene- fits which become associated with these activities. Benefits were allocated as being about 61% general benefit and 39% local. Using an average annual in- flation figure of 7% for the period since 1966, the total annual benefits would be about four times the previous figure, or $356,000. Even if commercial fishing on Lake Erie was to be projected as becoming non-existant, the annual benefits could still be in the area of $300,000. It should be noted that a letter from the Corps of Engineers dated March 21, 1986'states that this $300,000 in annual benefits appears excessive, based on new methodology now being used (See Appendix C). 33 V FUNDING A. POTENTIAL SOURCES 1. Administered By The Local Government The ability of local municipalities in Pennsyl- vania, especially small rural townships, to fund significant recreational projects, is historically almost non-existant. Most of the major recreation facilities constructed in such municipalities in recent years have been funded with Federal monies which were admini.stered through t.he State govern- ment. A typical undertaking of this type has been the development occurring on the west bank of Elk Creek. Local governments have been hard hit by budget problems in recent years. Girard Township, in which the proposed development site is located, has witnessed a local township tax increase for 1986 of more than 50% above the 1985 level. This occurred with no major incr.eases in budget funds for recreation. Lake City Borough, which borders the project, is also experiencing budget restraints, though not as severe as those in Girard Township. These local municipalities cannot be expected to provide any significant funding toward the construc- tion of a project of -the magnitude envisioned. There would be a limited possibility, however, that the Township (or a group of local governments) may be able to contribute toward the eventual maintenance of such a facility. They would not, however, have the funding capability for the complete maintenance program. The County of Erie, which at one time had a strong parks program, has, in recent years, divested itself of its public parks. This has come about because of the severe budgeting problems the County has had to face. The County has shown a continuing interest in trying to promote the development of Elk Creek, how- ever, and has aided very significantly through admin- istrative help on past programs. They have also furnished help in setting up and monitoring meetings, and have aided the P,ennsylvania Fish Commission in it's efforts to provide a survey and appraisals of the property on the east bank of Elk Creek. 34 One possible source of local funding would be the Housing and Community Development Act (Small Cities Block Grant Program). This is a federal program but is typical of today's climate of regional plan- ning and programming where Federal and State levels are very often intertwined as funding agencies. In some cases, such as this one, the administration of Federal dollars is channelled through all four lev- els of government, either directly or indirectly. Girard Township is one of the five municipalities in Erie County that is designated as an "Entitlement Community" under this program. The Township was funded at approximately $100,000 in 1985 (1984 en- titlement), and is expected to be funded in a like amount for the years 1986 and 1987 (1985 and 1986 entitlements). The first year was designated by the Township for a needed road construction project. No decisions have yet been made for the use of the second two years of funding. It is quite doubtful that these funds can be available for Elk Creek, due to the stringent requirements of the Act. At least 51 percent of the funds made available to the Town- ship under the Block Grant Program must benefit low and moderate income persons, and it would be diffi- cult to substantiate such a claim for harbor devel- opment. The Housing and'Community Development Act is out- lined in more detail in the "Catalog of Federal Do- mestic Assistance". Excerpts from that publication, relating to this act, are included in Appendix D. 2. Administered by the State Government. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a limited amount of funding available for recreational devel- opment. This funding came about in 1984 when the electorate of Pennsylvania approved a public refer- endum proposal to create a $190,000,000 bond program for economic redevelopment. Legislation to formu- late the program was enacted and put into law as the Pennsylvania Economic Revitalization Act. One of the components of this act is the Recreational Im- provement and Rehabilitation Act Program (RIRA). This program is funded at $30 million, of which $12 million is to be used by the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources to fund site development and material costs for recreation projects where the labor is authorized and funded from the Pennsylvania 35 Conservation Corps Act Program. This program would not be applicable to the Elk Creek Project. The other $18 Million, however, was appropriated' to the Department of Community Affairs for a three year period ending June 30, 1987. One year of this fund- ing is still available, after which the program may be phased out. The $18 Million is to be expended equally over the three years of the program period.' The annual program appropriation of $6 Million will be used by DCA for a grant-in-aid program to munici- palities for various park, recreation and community center projects and purposes, including acquisition. The funds are distributed in accordance with a selec- tion process, and on a 50-50 matching basis with the municipality. Other funds potentially available from the State in- clude the programs that were used for development of the west bank of Elk Creek. These facilities were constructed with monies made available through the State from the Federal Government, under the Coastal Zone Management Program. The Coastal Zone Management Act was enacted by Con- gress in 1972. Funding was first made available in 1974, and during that year the Governor of the Com- monwealth designated the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources as the lead agency for the Coastal Zone Program within the State. Federal fund- ing was made available under the program by the . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U. S. Department of Commerce. Additional funding is supplied by the participating states. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is qualified as a It coastal state" because of its shorelines in the Delaware River Estuary (55 miles) and its Lake Erie Shoreline (63 miles). This Lake Erie Coastal Zone includes all or part of 10 municipalities, most of which have shorelines on the lake. Girard Township is one of these communities. Public involvement and participation at the local level is also an important part of the procedure, and the Erie County Coastal Zone Steering Committee has been established to provide coordination between the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and local officials, as well as County and regional agencies. The local county agency responsible for administrative functions of the progra m. is the Erie County Department of'Planning. 36 There are presently only two sections of the Coas- tal Zone Management Act under which funds are authorized: a. Section 306. This section provides funds to support the goals, objectives and policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program. A large portion of the funding is to be made directly available to local communities in the coastal zone through grants administered by the Penn- sylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Fuading is basically on a matching basis, but the State provides matching funds through fund- ing received from the Land and Water Conserva- tion Fund Act of the U. S. Department of the Interior. Most of these funds are earmarked for planning efforts, including updating of comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. A limited amount of the funding, however, is available for acquisi- tion or construction. The Elk Creek Feasibil- ity Study (funded in 1980), the first stage of'@ the west bank construction, the professional fees for the third and fourth stages of con- struction, the west bank boat ramp design, and this study, were all funded under this section of the Coastal Zone funding. Section 306 was amended in 1980 with the addition of a new Section 306A. This new section provides funding for the acquisition of land, the rehabilitation or acquisition of piers for public use (and compatible com- mercial uses), the establishment of shoreline stabilization measures for public safety and access, and engineering costs for these activ- ities. In addition, there are funds for edu- cation, interpretive, and management costs. The amendment also provides funds on a 50/50 match basis for low cost construction projects, including such items as bikeways , walkways, fences, parks, and historic structures. Funds from Section 306A, in the amount of $65,000, are expected to be made available from this source sometime during 1986, and are proposed to be used toward acquisition of land on the east side of Elk Creek. b. Section 308. This section provides funds under the Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP). The monie s are designated for use in energy related planning, and far facilities required as a re- sult of energy development. Both acquisition and construction are included in the provisions of the act in the form of grants and loans. The program in Pennsylvania is administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 37 This section of the program was the source for the bulk of the construction funding for the public facilities developed on the west side of Elk Creek. The basis for relating the funding to energy conservation was the pro- posed coal fired generating station which was to be constructed to the west of the park site by the Pennsylvania Electric Company. This type of funding may continue to be available, but it is questionable that the eligibility cri- teria can be met in the future. There are numerous other sections to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Most are not applicable to the type of funding needed. Section 315 of the act was written for the purpose of providing funding for development of recreational areas and lake ac- cess, but as of this date there have been no funds appropriated by Congress. More details of the Coastal Zone Management Act can be obtained from the "Catalog of Federal Domestic., Assistance". Excerpts from that publication, as they relate to the Coastal Zone Management Act, are included in Appendix D. Probably the most viable approach to State funding would be through the Pennsylvania Fish commission. There would appear to be,a potential for possible major acquisition and development funds from this source. This possibility would be enhanced if the time frame for the funding could be stretched out over a few years. As of this date, there is no actual commitment for such expenditures, but the decision by the Commission to proceed with property surveys and preliminary evaluation (of the Rhoades property) is indicative of their interest in the project. It should be noted that the Commission's interest is preliminary in nature and does not repre- sent an irrevocable commitment. See Appendix C.Pub- lic ownership and management of the development by the Commission would, of course, be an ideal objec- tive. The Fish Commission funds are a combination of Fed- eral and State monies. The funds include fees from boat registration, fishing licenses and similar sources, as well as funds from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Dingell-Johnson Program). 3. Administered by the Federal Government. There are very few programs in aid for local acquisi- tion or construction which are administered directly by the Federal Government. Most Federal-programs 38 - are passed down through the other layers of govern- ment. The applicable programs of that type have been previously reviewed in the local and state por- tions of this section of the report. There are two agencies of the Federal Government that provide direct assistance programs of a type that could be applicable to this project; the Depart- meht of Agriculture and the Department of Defense. The direct funding from the Department of Agricul- ture is administered through the Soil Conservation Service. The list of allowable uses for funds of this type includes recreation, but the priority is very low. During the last 5 years, all funds have been expended for projects relating to erosion con- trol, which is the top priority category. It would therefore appear that the only potential funding from this source would relate to stream erosion. It is not expected to play a major role, if any, in the project development. See letter of 3/21/86--Appendix C. The largest potential source of funding is through the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Department of Defense. This aid is pro- vided through the Army Corps of Engineers. Within the potential Corps funding that would have applicability to this project, there are two basic categories. The first of these is under Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act, as amended. This section provides funds for small navigation projects and limited harbor development. It has a $2 Million dollar cap, and there are no minimal matching require- ments. The Corps will normally, however, require some local participation. This section may be a po- tential source if used in conjunction with other funds. The main source of potential funding for the develop- ment of the harbor and breakwaters would be through a specific authorization of Congress. This is the type of funding that was proposed in the 1966 interim report of the Corps. Excerpts from that report are included in Appendix A. It should be noted that this is probably the only type of funding that would have the potential to provide sufficient monies for the construction of the breakwalls and harbor (marina). The near term prospects for such funding are very limited, as is evidenced by the letter from Col. Hardiman dated March 20, 1985 (see Appendix C).. In addition, since the date of that letter, the poten- tial for funding has been further reduced through the passage by Congress o,f the Gramm-Rudman Bill. This new law is designed to force a balanced national bud- get by 1991. All indications are that this will have severe impacts on domestic programs, and will limit most potential non-essential funding brought about through special authorizati ons of Congress. 39 4. Loan Programs There are federal programs which may be potential sources for loans. The problems with this avenue of approach, of course, is that other sources of funding are still need'ed in order to amortize the loans. There may be some types of funding, however, that could be advantageous only with the use of long term loans. The following two sources of federal loans could be considered: a. Farmers Home Administration - Resource Conserva- tion and Development Loans. b. Farmers Home Administration - Watershed Protec- tion and Flood Prevention Loans. More details on these loan sources can be found in the "Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance". See Appendix D. 5. Private Funding Except for one source, any significant private fund- ing would appear to be non-existent. It is possible that funds could be solicited from private foundations, local companies or through private contributions working cooperatively with local, state and Federal government although such a proposal has not been pursued. The one source, which was previously discussed on Page 29, is the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. This private group has the potential to play a very important part in the funding of this project. Although they do not propose tomake outright grants, they have offered to aid in the negotiation for purchase of the Rhoades property. They also have proposed to put up acquisi- tion funds on a temporary basis,@until the Pennsyl- vania Fish Commission, or possible others, can provide for the permanent funding of the acquisition. This is outlined in more detail in the minutes of the meet- ing of February 22, 1985 (See Appendix.C). B. PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING FUNDS The procedures for obtA@ning funds from Federal sources is out- lined in the "Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance". Excerpts from that publication.are included in Appendix D, together with information on the person or agency to contact, allowable uses, eligibility requirements, and related information. The methods for obtaining fundp that originate with, or are administered through, the State are handled in various.ways. The procedures for making applications, together with other related information, is included in Appendix D, following the information relating to Federal funding. 40 The County government, and the Township government, are basi- cally not funding sources. If and when funds would be avail- able through these levels of government, the applications would be made following procedures as yet to be established. Most applications to the Township would be made directly to the super- visors. Applications to the County Government are normally ad- ministered through the County Planning Department. 41 V I FEDERAL, STATE, & LOCAL OBLIGATIONS A. RESPONSIBILITIES & MANDATES The scope o,f this project, as it is envisioned, would require four major undertakings. These broad categories are as follows: I. Purchase of Land 2. Construction of Breakwaters 3. Copstruction of Harbor/Marina 4. Maintenance of Facilities When these are viewed relative to the legislative responsibili- ties of the various parties involved, there is a definite over- lapping. It becomes quite obvious, however, that some tasks would be best suited to certain governmental agencies. This matching of agencies to tas-ks is controlled by several factors, including ability to fund a project, expertise in performing the functions required, willingness to be involved, and the legal right to perform the required act. For the purposes of this report, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy has been in- cluded, although it is not a governmental body nor does it have any legislative mandate. The Conservancy has, however, shown a definite desire to be involved. The following is a general look at the various agency responsi- bilities and mandates: 1. Local Government The project site is within Girard Township and con- tiguous to Lake City Borough. These two municipali- ties would have the legal right to own the land and, with the proper permits, the right to construct the facilities. In addition, both have shown a willing- ness to be involved but, like other small local governmental units, they do not have a tax base suf- ficient to provide significant funding for a large recreation complex that is areawide in scope. The local governments also have a problem in that they do not possess the required expertise for performing the major tasks. Essentially, these facts restrict such 42 - governments to areas of low financial commitment. This would probably point to these communities being involved with utilities and public services, acting as local participants in Federal/State grant programs, and possibly involvement with the facility maintenance. The approach to such undertakings should be through an organized joint effort by the several communities which are in close proximity to the proposed develop- ment. If a full scale harbor/marina is constructed, all of the adjacent municipalities will benefit from the economic impact, and all of them should be will- ing to at least show a token involvement in the facil- ity. 2. County Government The County of Erie has played an active role as the coordinator for the Coastal Zone funding that has been made available for studies, and for construction on the west bank of Elk Creek. As with the local govern- ments, the County's tax base is quite limited. In addition, this government level has no basic legal mandate to provide recreation funding, or to even par- ticipate in such endeavors. The County does possess in-house expertise in planning, but not in engineering. Probably the strongest area for County involvement.in the project will be with coordination efforts and plan- ning. It does not appear possible that any signifi- cant funding can be obtained from the County, except for pass-through financing from the State and Federal level. 3. State Government The State government has shown a definite interest in Elk Creek. The Coastal Zone Program, together with the donated lease of land by the Pennsylvania Electric Company, has been the 'main impetus in the development of the west bank of the creek. Although this funding comes from the Federal government, the State has been very active in contract administration. The State agencies involved have included the Pennsylvania De- partment of Community Affairs and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.- The nature and location of the proposed project falls comfort- ably within the Coastal Zone funding mandates. it is therefore expected that at least a limited amount of additional funding of this type will be used in the project, probabl.y for land acquisition. 43 The agency of the State government that probably would be most affected by this proposed facility would be the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. All of the basic criteria for involvement in the project can probably be met by this agency, although finan- cing of all of the improvements would be a serious burden. A cooperative effort with the Corps of Engineers would be a more viable proposal. The Commission has the expertise and, with proper per- mits, the legal right to purchase land and provide the envisioned facilities. They have also shown a willingness to be involved, especially in the pur- chase of the additional land required. Any portion of the project that would be undertaken by the Com- mission would fall within its general legislated mandates. No other state agencies or programs are expected to play a significant role in the development of this project. A possible exception for limited funding could be the R.I.R.A. program administered through the Department of Community Affairs. Use of these funds, however, would result in p'roblems if the fa- cility were to be eventually turned over to the Fish Commiss.ion. The reason for this is that the nature of the funding is such that a project using these funds cannot be owned by the State, and the funds would have to be returned. In addition, the R.I.R.A. program is not appropriated past 1987. 4. Federal Government Only one agency of the Federal Government appears to have the potential and basic mandate for direct fund- ing for all or part of this facility. This is the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. The other types of Federal funding that may be involved are ad- ministered through the State and have been mentioned previously. It should be noted that the Corps financing of any project of this type always requires a local "spon- sor", and Federal funding is based on the "Federal Interest" in the project. The local contribution which the Corps previously projected for this project (in 1964), was about 38% of the. initial construction costs. This portion would need to be furnished by the Fish Commission or others. The Corps ha's taken-an active role in the betterment of Elk Creek for over 40 years. This is summarized 44 - in Section II of this-report. This agency is prob- ably the only source of funding that could conceiv- ably be used to construct the entire facility. Fund- ing at present is not available, but there is a limi- ted possibility that the project funding could mate- rialize in the future. The Corps has taken a position of being willing.to see this creek mouth area developed as a safe harbor of refuge. In addition, they would have the legal right and the expertise to properly bring a project of this type and size to completion. All of the con- struction envisioned falls within the legislative mandates of the agency. 5. Private The only private agency that appears to have poten- tial for active involvement in the acquisition and/or construction stages of this development is the West- ern Pennsylvania Conservancy. This involvement, h6w@ ever, is very important as it can prove to be the catalyst to bring about other funding. The main pur- pose of the Conservancy involvement would be to fur- nish interim financing in order to provide time for other State or Federal funds to be made available. This involvement falls within the basic goals 'of the Conservancy. The private sector may also have involvement in the project through participation in public hearings and meetings. The public involvement is encouraged in all of the various Federal and State funding programs. Local sportsmans clubs are an important part of the picture. Their involvement in the public planning process is very helpful, and they also have the poten- tial for providing aid in the general maintenance of the facilities after they are constructed. B. RECOMMENDED TASKS Based on the foregoing considerations, including the potential funding abilities of the parties involved, it is recommended that the following tasks and responsibilities should be under- taken by the various agencies: I Purchase of the Land It is recommended that the Pennsylvania Fish Commis- sion undertake the survey and appraisal of the prop- erty, with the aid of the County of Erie (where their departments can be of help). A survey and preliminary evaluation have been completed as of this writing. 45 - The actual negotiation and initial purchase of all or part of the east bank land ( the Rhoades Property) would best be undertaken by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. The ultimate owner should be the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, and they would be expected to purchase the land from the Conservancy within five years. At that time, it is also recommended that the leaseo f the west bank be-assigned.to the Fish Commission, assum- ing that the Pennsylvania Electric Company would con- cur in this action. It is desirable that the entire area around the mouth of the creek be managed as a common public facility. 2. Construction of Breakwaters It is recommended that the construction of the break- waters required to make the creek mouth safe for nav- igation be undertaken by the Corps of Engineers. Only a Federal Agency would have the potential for funding of the magnitude required. The Corps letter of March 21, 1986 (See Appendix C) states that Federal Funding will not be available under current administration policy. A special Federal appropriation of some type would probably be needed. It should be noted that this stage of the total project could be constructed without the harbor/marina. 3. Construction of the Harbor/Marina This part of the total is also of a magnitude (as pro- jected by the Corps) that would require funding that would probably be nearly beyond the ability of any agency to provide, except the Corps of Engineers. A ,smaller harbor, or staged construction, might make the project/s of a size that could ultimately be con- structed by the Fish Commission without other funding. It is recommended, however', that the harbor/marina be constructed at the same time as the breakwaters and as part of the same project. 4. Maintenance of Land & Facilities The Fish Commission will own the facilities and it is recommended that they also provide the maintenance. It may be possible to have some services provided by the Township, or other local governments, but such aid would be minimal. C. PERMITS 'Permits will need to be secured for nearly all of the construc- tion work. Among others, this will include permits issued under Title 25 Regulations (Chapter 105) administered by the Pennsyl- vania Department of..Environmental Resources, and permits issued by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. - 46 VII IMPLEMENTATION A. LEAD AGENCY & ORDER OF ACCOMPLISHMENT Because of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission's major projected management involvement in this project, it is recommended that they should be the lead agency. It would be expected that they would coordinate all aspects of the project, including the coordination of efforts to secure federal funding through the Corps of Engineers. The County of Erie would also be expected to take an active role in the coordination of the local efforts toward that same end. Once the project is underway, the County could be instru- mental in planning efforts and with local public involvement. The order of accomplishment of the various tasks and responsi- bilities, together with the primary agency involvement, is rec- ommended'to be as follows: 1. Land Survey: Pen nsylvania Fish Commission. 2. Land/Building Appraisal: Pennsylvania Fish Commis- sion. 3. Negotiations for Purchase of Land: Western Pennsyl- vania Conservancy. 4. Purchase of Land (initial): Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. 5. Basic Facility Planning: Corps of Engineers. 6. Purchase of Land (final): Pennsylvania Fish Commis- sion. 7. Breakwater Design: Corps of Engineers. 8, Breakwater Construction: Corps of Engineers/Pennsyl- vania Fish Commission. 9. Harbor/Marina Design: Corps of Engineers. 10. Harbor/Marina Construction: Corps of Engineers/ Pennsylvania Fish Commission. 11. Maintenance, On-shore & Off-Shore: Pennsylvania Fish.Commission. 47 it should be noted that the preceding recommenda- tions are not to be construed as a predetermined commitment by the Fish Commission, or others. See Appendix C. B. PROJECT SCHEDULE A project schedule for a development such as this cannot be prepared with any certainty. From a realistic standpoint, it is expected that the eventual funding of the breakwaters and the harbor/marina may be a decade or decades away. The fol- lowing schedule is therefore presented only as a guide. The steps beyond Number 4 represent only an ideal situation. Lack of funding will almost certainly move these later steps back by several years. 1. Land Survey: Completed 2. Land/Buildi ng Appraisal: Completed* 3. Ne@otiations for Purchase of Land: 1986 4. Purchase of land (By Conservancy): 1986 5. Purchase of Land (By Fish Com- mission: 1987-1991 6. Breakwater Design: 1991 @7. Breakwater Construction: 1993 8. Harbor/Marina Design: 1991 9. Harbor/Marina Construction: 1993 *Preliminary Evaluation Only 48 VIII CONCLUSIONS Historically, the development of the area at the mouth of Elk Creek has been very slow. Until the last few years only the private land on the east bank was developed. Since 1979, however, the availability of Coastal Zone Man- agement funding has brought about the major improvements which now exist on the west bank. This report illustrates that there are benefits to be derived through public ownership and control of the entire area at the mouth of the creek. The availability of pub- lic funding for this purpose is, however, at present, near- ly non-existent. Limited funding from the Coastal Zone Program, together with aid from a private source (the West- ern Pennsylvania Conservancy), may provide the impetus for the eventual public ownership of this entire,area. it should be noted that public ownership of the land, even without further development, is considered to be a very desirable goal. If the area should be further developed privately, to any degree, there would probably be little likelihood of it ever becoming publicly owned. The short term recommended goals, which appear to be obtain- able, include the purchase of the east bank land with even- tual ownership to be vested in the Pennsylvania Fish commis- sion. It is also recommended that the Township lease of the west bank be assigned to the Fish Commission, if possible. Both the east and west banks should be utilized for passive recreation and trails. Long term recommended goals include a cooperative project for constructing breakwaters and a harbor/marina. It is pro- jected that the costs for such an undertaking would be shared between the Corps of Engineers and the Fish Commission, with the Corps being the major funding source. 49 APPENDIX A EXCERPTS CORPS OF ENGINEER'S REPORT The attac-hed sheets in this appendix are from a draft report of the Corps of Engineers, dated November 1977, which includes the provisions of the 1966 Interim Report. I - PROJECT AUTHORIZATION DATA 1. Project Location Elk Creek is located in Erie County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 24th Congressional District, approximately 22 miles west of Erie, PA and 11 miles east of Conneaut, OH. Elk Creek was identified as a promising location for a small boat harbor and harbor of refuge because of its strategic location with respect to existing harbors, proximity to productive fishing grounds, and appreciable boating demand within the tributary area. Elk Creek Harbor is located in the Appalachian Region. Although Erie County, PA is not currently a "designated redevel- opment area" it is bordered by Crawford County, PA and Chautauqua County, NY that were designated as redevelopment areas on 31 August 1972 and 27 September 1974, respectively. For this reason, redevelopment benefits have been added when updating the economic analysis for the Project and are proposed for inclusion in the economic analysis of this pre-construction design. 2. Description of Authorized Project The project, as authorized, is a multi-purpose project for recrea- tional craft navigation, recreational pier fishing, and commercial fishing. House Document No. 512, Eighty-Ninth Congress, Second Session, describes the authorized improvements for Elk Creek. The Plan recommended in the project document, shown on Plate 1 provided for: a. Breakwaters in Lake Erie at the mouth of Elk Creek, aggregating about 1,600 feet in length; b. An entrance channel, 100 feet wide, about 1,100 feet in length, and 8 feet deep, from that depth in the lake to the anchorage basin, widened at the lakeward end; c. An irregular-shaped anchorage basin, approximately 6 acres in extent, and 6 feet deep; d. A dock channel, 1,700 feet in length, 100 feet wide, with depths of 6 feet for 1,200 feet and 4 feet for 500 feet; e. A berm, with a minimum elevation of 11 feet above low-water datum and a top width of 60 feet, along the Lake Erie shoreline from the inner end of each breakwater and extending to high ground; f. Removal of shoals lakeward of the entrance channel to a depth of 8 feet; and g. Recreational facilities for breakwater fishing. 3. Items of Local Cooperation in Authorizing Document. Authorization for these improvements was made subject'to the require- ment that local interests agree to: a. Contribute in cash 38.8 percent of the Federal first cost of the improvement, exclusive of incremental recreation costs and aids to navi- gation, a contribution presently estimated at $1,531,000, on October 1976 price levels, to be paid in a lump sum prior to initiation of construc- tion, or in installments over the construction period at a rate propor- tionate to the proposed or scheduled appropriation of Federal funds, the final apportionment of cost to be made after actual costs have been determined; b. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for.construction and subsequent maintenance of the project and for aids to navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers, including suitable areas determined by the Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public interest for initial and subsequent disposal of spoil and any necessary retaining dikes, bulkheads, and em- bankments therefore, or the cost of such retaining works; C. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the project; . d. Establish a competent and properly constituted public body em- powered to regulate the use, growth, and development of the harbor and related facilities with the understanding that said facilities will be open to all on equal terms; e. Provide and maintain without cost to the United States: depths in the service channels to principal docks and berthing areas commen- surate with those provided in the Federal project; and necessary access .road, mooring facilities, and parking and service areas, including a launching ramp, toilet facilities, and an adequate public landing or wharf with provision for the sale of motor fuel, lubricants, and potable water, available to all on equal terms; f. Establish regulations prohibiting discharge of untreated sewage, garbage, and other pollutants in the waters of the harbor by users there- of, which regulations shall be in accordance with applicable laws or regulations of Federal, State, and local authorities responsible for pollution prevention and control; and CORPS OF ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY L: ANt 9. IJ 0 N I A N 1 0 U10ALD 0"0* N E W DETHOiT I? f ERIE CLEVELAN. ELK CREEK 0 H 1 0 P E N N. VICINITY MAP SCALE OF MILES 6@ - i6a 14 50 0 50 too ENTRANCE CHANNEL PROJECT DEPTH 8 FEET NOT DREDGED SHOAL REMOV L 9 x, TO 8 FEET X- _J6 ------------- R P@' PR PO WE STPBIOE 4EKSWE',A'TE JR_ EAST 82EASKEWDATLR T .TL 950 FEET L4D:NG 400 FEET LONG I it 0 ER RECREATIONAL SPURS LlTiES FACi G LOT A (PARKIN ND COMFORT STATION *NCW PUBLIC DOCK 'L, BY LOCAL INTERESTS* ANCH R GE ' S N P OJECT DEPTH 6 FEET NOTES Project depths and soundings are in feet and are referred to *NE W - low water dulum elevation 566.6 feet above Mean Water Level LAUNCHING RAMP* at Father Point, Quebec ( IGLD 1955) ( Interricifional Great k Lokes Datum 1955). 3- Indicates feet from outer end of proposed East Brack- water Facilities to be constructed by local interes*Is master planbeing developed __RqCK CHANNEL PROJECT-@bEPYW-67E-Cf @o PROJECT DEPTH 4 FEET NOT DRE6Z-EE6-- ELK CREEK HARBOR PENNSYLVANIA SCALE OF FEET Upsi-REALI 'ou 200 400 LIMIT OF FEDERAL PROJECT CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUFFALO, N. Y. 30 JUNE 1967 Plate 1 ENT OJ P ERE g. With respect to the recreational facilities: (1) Pay, contribute in kind or repay (which may be through user fees) with interest, one-half of the cost of modifications necessary to provide for recreational-fishing on the breakwater, and one-half of the cost of associated access facilities, parking areas, and sanitary facilities, the amount involved being currently estimated at $109,000, on October 1976 price levels, subject to final adjustment after actual costs have been determined; and (2) Bear all costs of maintenance, operation, and replacement of the modifications and associated facilities, the amount involved being currently estimated at $6,900, on October 1976 price levels, on an average annual basis: Provided that the improvement for navigation may be undertaken in- dependently of providing public recreational facilities for breakwater fishing whenever the required local cooperation for navigation has been furnished. Concerning Item 3b, above, it is estimated that at least 80 acres of land will be required to accommodate the project and necessary support facilities such as parking, etc. as laid out in a proposed Master Plan prepared by the Fish Commission in 1973. The Fish Commission's report on the Master Plan is included in Appendix F. Costs for purchasing these lands will probably exceed $1 million. Also, the costs for the service facilities identified in Item 3c, above, are estimated at about $2.1 million, and since they are considered to be self-liquidating are not included in evaluating the economic viability of the project. II - STATEMENTS OF CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONCERN 4. Environmental Considerations. a. Wildlife - No environmental assessments or Environmental Impact Statement have been prepared for the Elk Creek project to this time. Coordination was officially established between the Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service through a letter dated , 10 November 1976 to the.Area Supervisor of USF&WL Service at State College, PA. As a result of this initial contact, and in response to the requirements of @the 1958 F&WL Coordination Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a literature search and inventory of available data regarding habitat of the project area. The existing fish and wildlife resource base was established and documented in a letter report dated 18 February 1977 from.the Fish and Wildlife Service. This report is included in the POS as Appendix A. An environmental assessment will be prepared and if required the draft EIS is scheduled to be started in the early stages of the Phase I GDM and should be completed in approximately 12 months. b. Spoil Disposal - The material to be dredged for the Elk Creek project appears to be coarse sand and gravel. It is considered that the material will be suitable for berm construction and deposition on the eastern side of the breakwater for beach replenishment. An analysis of the spoil material in the project area will be made to determine its suitability for construction and open lake disposal. If the spoil material 'is found to be unsuitable for open lake disposal, an acceptable method of disposal will be designed and the economic and environmental impact of the disposal method will be evaluated in the Phase I GDM. c. Sanitary Facilities - Suitable sanitary facilities will be require@ for waste disposal from boat holding tanks and from land based users to prevent pollution of the harbor area. Adequate facilities for trash disposal will also be required and have been included in the items of local cooperation. 5. Need for Harbor at Elk Creek. The channel conditions at the mouth of Elk Creek remain basically the same today as they were during the preparation of the Interim Report in 1965. The entrance channel continues to fill in during the summer months making it almost impossible to use the harbor safely during stormy weather. The harbor entrance is in a constant state of change as a result of wave and littoral action as shown in Photos 1 & 2. At the time when Elk Creek was considered for a possible harbor of refuge there were no other suitable harbors between Erie, PA, and Conneaut, OH, a distance of approximately 33 miles. Since then, a marina has been constructed, by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission at Walnut Creek, approximately eight miles east of Elk Creek. The Walnut Creek Marina was designed primarily to provide access to the lake for trailer drawn boats. The docking facilities at Walnut Creek are leased for only two or three days at a time in order to provide a large turnover for recreational fishing. Therefore seasonal dockage demand at Elk Creek would'not appear to be affected by the construction of the Walnut Creek Marina. Also, statements were made at an "Orientation Workshop" held on 6 April 1977 in Erie, PA that the entrance to Walnut Creek is inadequate for passage of recreational craft larger than about 25 feet and is dif- ficult to enter during rough weather. The size of craft that can safely operate at Walnut Creek must be established, and the resulting harbor-of- refuge benefit for the proposed Elk Creek facility may be affected by the results. P61? Photo 1. Aerial view of existing harbor at Elk Creek 5 May 1974. T 01 gill IP Photo 2. Aerial view of Elk Creqk harbor taken on 9 August 1974. A considerable amount of deposition has taken place at the stream mouth during the three month period. The Lake Erie salmonid stocking program established by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission in 1971 has increased the demand for additional access facilities to Lake Erie. The Lake Erie shoreline in Pennsylvania has been rated by three leading outdoor fishing magazines as one of the top ten best fresh water fishing areas in the United States. Since the salmonid stocking program is expected to continue,the demand for addi- tional access facilities to Lake Erie is expected to increase. A regional analysis of the demand for additional refuge and docking facilities for small recreational boats will be required to determine the expected number and size of boats that would use the proposed harbor facilities at Elk Creek. The effects of the proposed new steel plant to be built in the vicinity of Conneaut, OH will be included in the demand analysis. Indications are that there would be a significant'iucre-ase in demand at Elk Creek if the plant at Conneaut is constructed. 6. Commercial Fishing.. When the plan in H.D. 512 was under study, there was one commercial fishing boat operating out of Elk Creek. In the Ui S..Fish and Wildlife Service report submitted for the Elk Creek Plan in 1963, it was estimated that-12 fishing boats would base there after the considered improvements were made. At the present time, there is still one part-time commercial fishing boat operating out of Elk Creek. An updated estimate of the num- ber of commercial fishing boats that would operate out of Elk Creek after the harbor improvements are made is needed to re-evaluate the benefits which would be received from the commercial fishing operations. The National Marine Fisheries Service will be requested to conduct the analysis for current needs of commercial fishing facilities to be incorporated into the project. If no commercial fishing benefits would be forthcoming with the project, the cost apportionm nt could possibly change and result in a larger percentage of costs to be provided by the local cooperator. 7. Economic Evaluation. In evaluating the average annual costs and benefits for the Elk Creek project the interest rate used thus far has been 3-1/4 percent. This percentage has not been increased because local cooperation for the project had been established prior to the end of December 1969 which fixed the interest rate for the project at 3-1/4 percent. (Correspondence is contained in Appendix D). In light of the present administration's policy of reviewing water resource projects at the current interest rate of 6-3/8 percent, the economic evaluation in the Phase I GDM for Elk Creek will be presented at both 3-1/4 percent and 6-3/8 percent. The latest justification statement for the Elk Creek project is shown as Inclosure 1. 8. Local Cooperation. The local cooperator for the Elk Creek project since 1969 has been the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. The last correspondence from the Fish Commission indicating their intent was received in November-1972.. An updated letter of intent to provide the items of local cooperation was requested from the Fish Commission because of the timeielapsed since their last letter and the controversy concerning the acquisition of land for the project. One of the requirements of local cooperation is for local interests to provide all lands, easements and rights-of-way required for construc- tion and subsequent maintenance of the project. Land acquisition was not considered in the initial study since, at that time, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had plans to purchase approximately 850 acres of land surrounding the'mouth of Elk Creek for the purpose of establishing a park* The Commonwealth subsequently abandoned plans to purchase the acreage for a park because of plans by others to construct a thermal electric generating plant in the area. Although the generating plant was not constructed, the State park was never developed. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission indicated they were depending on Erie County to provide the necessary land for the project. The Erie County Parks and Recreation Department contacted the owners of the Weindorf Estate, which contains all the land needed for the project, in an effort to purchase the property. The owners refused to sell any portion of their estate and the Erie County Commissioners stated they-would not take legal action to obtain the land. A spokesman for the Pennsylvania Fish Commission stated at the public meeting on 7 June 1977 that they may not be able to provide assurance of the items of local cooperation if Erie County was unable to provide the land. The Fish Commission voted to withdraw their support of the Elk Creek Harbor project during their July 1977 quarterly meeting since Erie County could not provide the necessary land. After receiving notification by the Fish Commission of their withdrawal of sup- port for the project (see 26 July 1977 letter in Appendix D), letters dated 29 August 1977 were sent to legislators and State and local agencies informing them that the project would be recommended for reclassification as inactive, as a result of the Fish Commission's decision, if no other responsible agency indicated its intent to provide the items of local cooperation. None of the agencies indicated a willingness to provide the local cooperation for the project. However, requests were made to post- pone reclassification until after January 1978 when the Erie County governmental structure will change. It was considered inappropriate to hold f'unds for the project in anticipation of local assurances, however, since the possibility of obtaining local assurance in the reasonably near future still exists, it was recommended that the.project be reclassified as deferred. The correspondence initiating action requesting reclassifi- cation, along with other letters on this matter, are included in Appendix D. APPENDIX B EXCERPTS 1980 ACCESS REPORT The attached sheets in this appendix are from the "Project Implementation" portion of the "Elk Creek Public Access Feasibility Study" propared in 1980. B. STAGING OF CONSTRUCTION Improvements proposed for the site should be constructed in stages. This is necessary in order to provide construction contracts which are small enough to be adapted to the avail- ability of funding. The recommended stages are shown on the map on Page 75, and consist of the following: Stage 1: Entrance Road & Parking Area I This initial stage would provide for a properly graded en- trance road for approximately 300 feet from Route 5 to a parking area size for 100 automobiles. Both the road and parking area would have gravel surfaces and a security light would be provided. In addition, approximately 1200 feet of trail, 4 feet wide, would be constructed from the parking area northerly down the escarpment are*a to the lower level adjacent to Elk Creek. This stage, by itself, would provide for greatly improved parking and pedestrian access to the creek, and would create a natural park. Hiking, nature walks, and fishing would con- stitute the main activities. A portable.toilet would need to be provided as an interim sanitary precaution during peri- ods of peak use. This is currently being done to serve the small temporary parking lot in existance. The cost of the toilet is not included in the cost estimate as it is consid- ered an operational expense. Stage 2: Access Road & Parking Area 2 This second developmental stage would complete the vehicle access into.the park. The project would consist of an access road approximately 1400 feet in length leading from the en- trance road to a parking lot. This parking area would also be included in the project. Both the road and parking area would have gravel.surfaces, and security lighting would be provided. The completion of this stage would leave the park in a predominantly natural state, but would increase the capa- bilities for heavier use. A second portable toilet would be needed in this lower area. K E E E 11 ...........I......... --------- .......... ................ 100 Year ul Flood LIMRS Romp U3 :% ... C',alerl Facilities' 4- X STAGE Road GE - -------------- CMt r P IX a as STAGE Patkl I E X I S T STAGE I O,C V 9, le, vt CAM-qTRUCTION -STAGES C) loo 200 300 400 500 FEET NOTE: See Corps letter of March 21, 1986 relating to recommendations for Stage 6. (Appendix C) Stage 3: Picnic Area & Trails This third stage of development would'include the construc- tion of a picnic area, and the remainder of the planned trails within the park. At this stage the park would be capable of providing a considerable amount of added use, and attendance would be expected to increase. It would be preferable, if possible, to have this stage added in con- junction with Stage 4. Stage 4: Comfort-Facilities The addition of the permanent comfort facilities for the park would represent the fourth stage of development. A single restroom building could be constructed, with the second facility to be built at a later date. A single ba- sic sewer and water system would ultimately serve both com- fort stations, however, and it would be less costly to con- struct both in the same project. The building could be of masonry or frame construction, but treated wood may be de- sirable, especially for the comfort station constructed in the lower area. Additional security lighting should also be provided. Stage 5: Boat Launching Ramp & Access This stage would involve the construction of a 12 foot wide concrete ramp into Elk Creek, a bituminous paved maneuver- ing area, and gravel connecting roads from Parking Area 2. It would also include the required stream bank protection adjacent to the ramp. The connecting road should be wide enough to facilitate a waiting or parking line, plu-s allow- ing the passage of vehicles. This stage would represent the completion of access fo the lake, except for the improvements to the channel. Stage 6: Channel Improvements if the prev iously contemplated harbor improvement project were to be funded, this stage would not be required. The im- provement of creek channels is expensive, especially when the control is required where the creek enters a lake having heavy wave action and fluctuating water levels. The benefits must be weighed against the costs. The benefits derived from channel improvement for a harbor of refuge, with mooring facil- ities, such as proposed by the Corps of Engineers, would be much greater than the benefits for a boat ramp. The channel improvement proposed is therefore of a modest nature, intended solely to serve the needs of small recreational boats. it APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE & DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BUFFALO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1776 NIAGARA STREET BUFFALO. NEW YORK 14207-3199 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF NCBPD-PF MAR 2 11986 SUBJECT: Elk Creek, Pennsylvania Mr. James Thomas D. A. Johnson & Associates Box 11 Corry, PA 16407 Dear Mr. Thomas: Enclosed, as requested, are Buffalo District's comments on the Elk Creek, Safe Harbor/Marina Feasibility Study Report forwarded for review by your letter dated 10 March 1986. My point of contact pertaining to this matter is Mr. Joseph C. Hassey of MY Planning Division, who can be contacted by calling commercial number (716)876-5454, extension 2276 or by writing to: District Commander @U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, NY 14207 ATTN: Mr. Joseph C. Hassey The Buffalo District Leadership in Engineering" Sincerely, I,,, L ' - ( L Z, IEL R. Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander I Enclosure aii stated BUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS COMMENTS ON ELK CREEK, SAFE HARBOR/MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT 1. Page 33, last sentence - The projected annual benefits of $300,000 may or may not be reasonable based on the Corps current method of analysis. A total reanalysis is required based on new methodology now being used by the Corps. The $300,000 in annual benefits appears excessive. 2. Page 39, second paragraph - All recreational type projects have a low priority under the current Administration's policy. The Administration's position is that funding will not be provided to those projects relying on recreation benefits to achieve a B/C ratio of unity, and projects having pri- mary recreation outputs are viewed as the sole responsibility of the non-Federal public and private sector. 3. Page 44, Item 4, second paragraph, first sentence - Sentence should be revised to read; " . . . financing of any project of this type always requires a local "sponsor," and 4. Page 46, Item 2 - Federal funding will not be provided as established by Administration policy. 5. Appendix B, second page (plate showing construction stages): a. During design of the breakwaters, tying them into solid ground by using berms should be considered. Alternately, stone revetment along the shore should be designed to stabilize the bar. Armor along the inside of the bar may be required depending upon Elk Creek velocities during flooding events. This should be checked. Attached, as an example, is an aerial photograph of the breakwater built by New York State at the mouth of the Little Salmon River on Lake Ontario. Note the armori ng of the shore. b. Provisions will have to be made for bypassing littoral drift around the breakwater. Otherwise shoaling at the entrance will occur along with possible downdrift. erosion. ............. 4t lip" !441 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION RO. Box 1673 Harrisburg, PA 17105-1673 March 12, 1986 Mr. Jim Thomas D. A. Johnson & Associates.. Box 11 Corry, PA 16407 Re: Elk Creek Safe Harbor/Marine Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Thomas: Kindly be informed the subject feasibility study was received in this office today '(3/12/86). As per your request, we have done a cursory review of the study and submit the following comments for your consideration: Reference is made to the portion of Page 38 of the study. The expression "but the decision by the, Commission (PFC) to proceed with property surveys and appraisals (of the Rhoades property) is indicative of their interest in the project,".'is a bit strong. All parties should be advised that the Commission's !'interest' is preliminary in nature and does not represent an irrevocable commitment. Any "appraisals" which might be undertaken by the Commission are obviously for the purpose of gaining insight into financial feasibilities of the Commission. Any actual appraisals for the purpose of determining final fair market value toward Federal assistance must ultimately be approved by the Federal agency that might provide such assistance. In the overall, "we must be guided by the Federal agency, as appropriate, so as not to jeopardize its participation in any proposed acquisition(s) for the subject. Chapter VII, Impl@mentation (Page 48), recommends that the Pennsyl- vania Fish Commission be the ' agency." for surveys, appraisals, purchase, 6reakwater construction (with Corp s of Engineers) . and maintenance, on-shore and off-shore - "that's'a pretty.heavy load to haul," - it most certainly does not and should not be misconstrued to be a predetermined commitment on Fehalf of the FiEh-Commissiori. , In fact, involvement by the Fish Commission in this project will depend upon th6 mutual degree of cooperation from other interested partie'!@, _much of which remains to be resolved at this time. 9hould-_you-have,'a_ny" questions regarding the Fish Commission's position on this project, do not hesitate to contact this office. Ltr to D. A. Johnson & Assoc. March 12, 1986 Re: Elk Creek Safe Harbor/ Page 2 Marine Feasibility Study Thank you for the opportunity to review the feasibility study. Very truly yours, John 0. H ff Chief, Re Estate Division Pennsylvania Fish Commission (AC 717) 657-4525 Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 316 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 4122882777 We conserve the land March 13, 1986 Mr. Jim Thomas D. A. Johnson & Associates Box 11 Corry, Pa. 16407 Dear Mr. Thomas: Thank you for forwarding a copy of the Elk Creek Safe Harbor/Marina Feasibility Study. I think it's a first-rate report and Tony Suppa concurs. On behalf of the Conservancy.. I would encourage all concerned to proceed with their responsibilities as outlined in this report. Sincerely yours, Jo; Oliver, III Pr "dent JCO/klh Oliv7' J Pr dent CO UNTY OF ERIE Departnient of Planning Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 814 452-3333 JUDITH M. LYNCH COUNTY EXECUTIVE April 3, 1985 Mr. John Hoffman Chief, Real Estate Division Pennsylvania Fish Commission P.O. Box 1673 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dear Mr. Hoffman: Per the-request of Mr. Tony Suppa of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, T have contacted Mr. Dusty Rhoades to determine the structures owned by the Rhoades brothers for appraisal purposes. According to Mr. Rhoades, six cottages are owned by the Rhoades brothers as well as the red pole barn and the country store. There is a total of 60 tenant lots being leased at this time. Of these, 55 have cottages located on them and five have trailers. Mr. Rhoades indicated that the longest lease will expire some time in 1991. Most of the leases, however, will expire within the next three years. Once you have determined the necessary steps to take regarding an appraisal, please let me know how much of the property the Fish Commission is willing to have appraised. As was stated at our meeting in February, Coastal Zone Manage- ment funds can be made available to pick up the remaining costs to complete an appraisal for the entire property. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to con- tact me. Sincerely, Q1_ David A. Skellie Acting.Director DAS/rd cc: Tony Suppa E. James Tabor Dave Johnson COUNTY OF ERFE Deparbuent of Planning Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 814 / 452-3333 1UD1111 LINCH COUNTY EXECUTFVE March 25, 1985 Mr. E. James Tabor Chief, Division of Coastal Zone Management. Bureau of Water Resources Management Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources P..O. Box 1467 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dear Jim: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter dated March 20, 1985 from Colonel Hardiman of the Buffalo District Corps of Engineers. In it he indicates that Federal water projects designed primarily for recreational purposes are of low priority. The Colonel makes reference to my February 26th letter 'to him (a copy is enclosed). In this letter I reference"safe harbor/marina"in defining our anticipated goals for the development of this site at the mouth of Elk Creek. I feel that this letter seriously hams our chances for the acquisition and future development of this site. As you know, our logic was to first acquire the property and then obtain funding from the Army Corps for the construction of a breakwater and channelization improvements. I would appreciate your review and comments so that I may respond to the Colonel's letter. As always, your assistance is appreciated. Sincerely, David A. Skellie Acting Director DAS/rd Enclosures cc: Dave Johnson Department of the Army Buffalo District, Corps Of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 1407 NCBPA 20 Mar 1985 Subject: Elk Creek Small Boal Harbor, OH Mr. David A. Skellie Acting Director Erie Country Department of Planning Erie, PA 16501 Dear Mr. Skellie: I am replying to your letter dated 26 February 1985 conserning the authorized Elk Creek Small Boat Harbor project. I regret to inform you that funds required to initiate the Preconstruction Planning for the Small Boat Harbor Project have not been included in the President's Fiscal Year 1986 Budget. The benefits of the Elk Creek Harbor project are primarily recreational and Federal water projects designed primarily to provide recreational opportunities are of low priority in the current Administration's policy. It is the policy to rely more on the private sector and local governments to provide recreation services whenever possible. On this basis, I cannot project if or when funds will be provided to begin Preconstruction Planning for Elk Creek, although I will request funds in my Fiscal Year 1987 budget submittal. If i may be oif futther assistance on this matter, please contact me. Sincerely Robert R. Hardiman Colonel, Corps of Engineer's District Commander COUNTY OF EREE Department of Planning Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 814 / 452-3333 JUDITH M. LYNCH COUNTY EXECUTIVE March 12, 1985 Mr. William Borland Chairman, Girard Township Board of Supervisors 10140 Ridge Road Girard, Pennsylvania 16417 Dear Mr. Borland: Enclosed for your review is a copy of a letter from County Solicitor Kenneth D. Chestek, dated March 8, 1985, summarizing the results of a title search which was completed late last week. Also enclosed is a copy of the deed of the property at the mouth of Elk Creek jointly owned by Harry, Arthur, and Richard Rhoades. You will note from.these enclosures that the Rhoades brothers appear to have a clear title to the real estate in question. As a matter of caution, however, our Solicitor recommends that a quit claim deed be obtained from the former executors of the estate of Roy Weindorf, Robert Weindorf and Gladys Sullivan. In regard to the cottages on the property, the title search indicates that they have, in fact, been treated as personal property rather than part of the real estate. It appears '. that leases have been executed by the property owners and the owners of the cottages. The length of these leases will have to be determined through a meeting with the property owners. At this point in time, I feel it is necessary to meet with the property owners to discuss a number of issues. As was mentioned at the February 22, 1985 meeting, three individuals'were to meet with the property owners, those being Tony Suppa, Tom Fuhrman, and Dave Johnson. Probable items of discussion should be the current efforts being made by representatives of state and local government and the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, confirmation of the willingness to sell by property owners, the need for a quit claim deed, the status of the cottages, and a procedure to determine the price of the property (e.g. through an appraisal process). I would request at this time that you have your consultant, D.A. Johnson and Associates, schedule a meeting between the above named individuals. I thought that our meeting on March 7th regarding the reactivation of the Council of Governments to assist in coordinating and promoting the acquisition 'of this property was successful. If you require any further assistance on the Council of Governments or should you have any questions regarding the results of the title search, please do not hesitate to contact me, Sincerely, ,4 David A. Skellie Acting Director DAS/rd Enclosures cc: Congressman Thomas J. Ridge Representative Jim Merry Senator Anthony Andrezeski Judith M. Lynch Colonel Robert Hardiman Arthur Martinucci Eugene Sporl James Tabor. Tony Suppa John Hoffman Thomas Fuhrman' no A. Johnson Spring ownship Platea Borough @ Ro no 0 D so S@i-A John no 3 r.1 cr @n MAR COUNTY OF ERIE Office of the County Solicitor ROGER H. TAFT JUDITH M. LYNCH Erie, Pennsylvania 16501-1081 DEPUTY COUNTY SOLICITOR COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN P. GARHART THOMAS S. KLIBINSI(i KENNETH D. CHESTEK TED G. MILLER COUNTY SOLICITOR ASSISTANT COUNTY SOLICITORS March 8, 1985 Mr. Dave Skellie Planning Department Erie County Court House Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 Dear Dave: You have requested that I search the title to the property at the mouth of Elk Creek, which is apparently being considered for acquisition and develop- ment as a park. In my opinion, good and merchantable title to the property is now vested in Harry L. Rhoades III, Arthur E. Rhoades and Richard G. Rhoades, subject to the following qualifications: Prior to 1974, this property was owned by Arthur Weindorf and Roy C. Weindorf. In 1974, Arthur died and conveyed his one-half interest to his widow Louise Weindorf and his three grandchildren, the Rhoades brothers named above. In 1977, Louise Weindorf assigned to the Rhoades brothers her interest in the property, vesting one-half of the property in the Rhoades brothers. The other half of the property is a bit more complex.,. Roy Weindorf died with a Will in 1973. Robert Weindorf and Gladys Sullivan were thereafter appointed executors of his estate. They were also named in the Will as the beneficiaries of the residue of his estate; that is, they inherited anything that was not specifically given to somebody else. Since this property was,not specifically given to anybody else, it would have passed by way of the residuary clause to Robert Weindorf and Gladys Sullivan. Mr. Dave Skellie Page Two In 1982, Robert Weindorf and Gladys Sullivan, in their capacity as executors of the estate of Roy Weindorf, conveyed one-half of the property to the Rhoades brothers. They signed the deed only as executors and not as beneficiaries of the'estate or owners of the property, which raises in my mind the somewhat remote possibility that they or their heirs may claim that, since they had inherited the property through the Will, the estate had nothing to sell in 1982 and therefore this deed was ineffective. Although I think it is more likely that the conveyance would be upheld, out of an abundance of caution I would recommend that whoever takes title to the property also obtain a quit claim deed from Robert Weindorf and Gladys Sullivan in their individual capacities as well. There is one further matter revealed by my search. Apparently, there are a number of cottages located on the property which, for one reason or an- other, are treated as personal property rather than part of the real estate. This is evidenced by the fact that several of them showed up in the Tax Claim office as having delinquent taxes owing for the improvement, although the real estate taxes are current. My search also revealed a twenty year lease executed in June of 1970 by Arthur and Roy Weindorf to Earl W. Platz for one lot and the improvement on the lot, which would give Mr. Platz the right to occupy that particular im- provement through June of 1990. The agreement appears to claim ownership of the improvements by the Weindorf brothers, although I believe the agreement which is printed, is inaccurately stated. I would be curious to learn if other persons living in or occupying the other cottages have similar agreements, and whether they consider the buildings theirown or part of the real estate.. I would also suggest that an accurate sur vey be made of the property. The tax map shows acreage totalling over 157 acres; however, the deeds purported- ly covering the same parcel purport to describe a par- cel only slightly over 151 acres. Mr. Dave Skellie Page Three I am enclosing for your reference a copy of the deed from Weindorf and Sullivan, executors to the Rhoades brothers. If there is anything further you need, please let me.know. Very truly yourst 7" ), U@ Kenneth D. Chestek KDC:dms Enclosure cc: Judith M. Lynch, County Executive RECORDED JULY 16, 1982 C 4:2l P.M. 319a- INDIVIDUAL FIDUCIARY DEED - 0wik Print Erie, PA 454-5826 BOOX 1463 PAGE 537 THIZ INDENTURE Made the 15th day of In the year of our Lord am thouand nine hundred and Eighty-Two (1982) Between ROBERT WEINDORF and GLADYS SULLIVAN, Executors of the Estate of Roy C. Weindorf a/k/a Roy Weindorf, late of the Township of Girard, County of Erie and State of Pennsylvania, Parties of the First Part, -A N D- HARRY L. RHOADES III, ARTHUR E. RHOADES, and RICHARD G. RHOADES, all of the County of Erie and State of Pennsylvania, Parties of the Second Part. WHEREAS, Roy C. Weindorf, a/k/a Roy Weindorf, died testate on the 22nd day of December, 1973; and, WHEREAS, Letters Testamentary were duly granted on the said estate of Roy C. WeIndorf a/k/a Roy Weindorf, deceased, by the Register of Wills of Erie County. Pennsylvania on January 3. 1974; and WHEREFAS, Robert Weindorf and Gladys Sullivan were appointed Executors of the Estate of Roy C. Weindorf a/k/a. Roy Weindorf, by the Register of Wills in and for Eric County. Pennsylvania on January 3, 1974; and WHEREAS, the herein named Executors are still acting. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT Of REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REALIY R.C.W REALTY R.C.W TRANSFER 700.00 TRANSFER 700.00 TAX JUL 16 82 TAX JUL 16 82 GIRARD SCHOOL DISTRICT REALTY GIRARD TOWNSHIP Transfer Tax$ 700.00 Transfer Tax$ 700.00 Received By David B. Wiley Received By David B. Wiley Date July 16, 1982 Date July 16, 1982 BOOK 1463 PAGE 538 Witnesseth, That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED FOURTY THOUSAND AND N0/100 ($140,000.00) ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DOLLARS lawful money of the United States of America, unto the party of the first part, well and truly paid by the said party of the second part, as or before the scaling and delivery hereof, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted. bargained, sold, released and confirmed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell release and confirm unto the said party of the second part, its his, her or their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assign, an undivided one-half (1/2) interest in all that certain piece or parcel of land situate in the Township of Girard, County of Erie and State of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to-wit: BEGINNING at the northeasterly corner of the whole piece at a point on the shore of Lake Erie, said point also being the northwesterly corner of other land con- veyed by Carnegie Land Corporation to Roy and Arthur Weindorf, December 11, 1939; thence along said land, South 27 01' 50" West, two hundred forty-eight and twelve hundredths (248.12) feet to an iron pipe; thence by the same, South 69 16' 50' West, six hundred six and eighty-seven hundredths (606.87) feet to a stake; thence by the same, South 55 01' 50" West, passing over a spike in a pole at a distance of ninety-three and thirty three hundredths (93.33) feet, two hundred thirty four and fifty three hundredths (234.53) feet; thence by the residue of the piece, North, one hundred fifty-four and twenty eight hundredths (154.28) feet to a point on the shore of Lake Erie; thence along the shore of Lake Erie the following three courses and distances, North 76 22' East, two hundred eighty-six and thirty-five hundredths (286.35) feet, North 51 38' East, three hundred ninety three and eighty-six hundredths (393.86) feet, and north 7 00' East, three hundred three and eight tenths (303.8 ) feet to the place of beginning and containing 2.399 acres of land. BEING the same premises as conveyed to Roy Weindorf and Arthur Weindorf, by deed dated September 24, 1953 and recorded in Erie County Deed Book 661 at page 190 on September 29, 1953. ALSO, All that certain piece, parcel or tract of land situate in the Township of. Girard, County of Erie and State of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows. to-wit: BEGINNING at a point in the center of the Lake Road, as relocated by the Pennsyl- vania State Highway Department, on the dividing line between lands formerly of Mrs. Julia M. Hall and lands formerly of Z.M. Miles and Mrs. E. R. Morgan; thence along said dividing line North 48 58' 30" West, two hundred twenty (220) feet, more or less, to a point in Elk Creek; thence along Elk Creek South 67 47' 20" West, seven hundred nineteen and seventy three hundredths (719.13) feet to a point in the-center of a private road twenty (20) feet wide, formerly the old Lake Road, now vacated; thence along the center of said private road North 25 23' West, four hundred twelve and eleven hundredths (412.11) feet to a point at the intersection of the vacated Lake Road with another private road leading into lands formerly of John F. Miles; thence along the center of said private road leading to lands formerly of John F. miles, North 76 39' 50" West, six hundred ninety-five and seventy seven hundredths (695.77) feet to a point on the dividing line between lands formerly of John F. Miles and lands formerly of Z.M. Miles, and Mrs. E.R. Morgan; thence along the dividing line between land formerly of John F. Miles and lands formerly of Z. M. Miles and Mrs E. B. Morgan, the seven (7) following courses and distances, viz: (1) North 05 09' 59" East, two hundred eighty-seven and sixty-eight hundredths (287.68) feet; (2) North 51 02' 30" East, four hundred eighty-eight and twenty-two hundredths (488.22) feet; (3) North 06 37' 10" West, four hundred forty-six and fifty hundredths (446.50) feet; (4) North 22 28' 10" West, Two hundred fifty and nineteen hund- redths (250.19) feet; (5) North 34 44' 40" East, four hundred seven and eighty- three hundredths (407-83) feet; (6) North 56 53' East, four hundred thirty two and fifteen hundredths (432.15) feet; (7) North 04 47' 10" East, three hundred sixty (360) feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Erie; thence Westwardly along the shore of Lake Erie, South 70 20' 30" West, one thousand one hundred thirty nine (1,139) feet, more less, to the dividing line between lands formerly of John F. Miles and other lands formerly of Z. M. Miles and Mrs. E. R. Morgan; thence along the line of said lands formerly of Z. M. Miles and Mrs. E. R. Morgan the following ten (10) courses and distance, (continued an attached sheets) Individual Fiduciary Deed m14M w451() WFINDORF To RHOADES 0 viz: (1) So uth 31 0 051 20" West. five hundred (500) feet, more or lessi (2) South 73 20 201, West. six hundreg six and eighty- seven hundredths (606.87) feet; (3) South 59 05' 20" West , One thousand one hundred tir ty- f ive and thirty seven hundredths ( I , 13 5. 3 7) feet; (4) South 14 W 541 4011 East, five hundred thIrty nine and fifty-five hundredths (539.55) feet; (5) South 56 091 40" East f ise hundred forty-two and eighty-f ive hundredths (542.85) feet; (6) South 35 391 40" East. one thousand four hundred seventy-s@x and Beventy-five hundredths (1,476.75) feet: (7) South 14 091 40" East. one huadred fifteen and fifty hundredths (115..50) feet; (81 South 42 24' 40" East, ninety-nine (99.06) feet; (9) South 35 241 40" East, one hundreg seven and twenty five hundredths (107.25)'feet, (10) South 17 24' 40" East, ninety-five and seventy hundredths (95.70) feet to a-point; thence through lands of the Gsan .tor herein, formerly Z. M. Miles and Mrs. E. R_Morgan,@ South 09 30' West, ninety-eight (98.00) feet, more or less, to the center of the new Lake Road; thence Eastwardly along the cente of said Lake Road by a curve to 'the left whose radius is 1,910.06. feet for a distance of one thousand nine- hundred ihirty-six (1,936.00) rfeet ,more or less, to a point-of tangent; thence by same No th 3 48' East, seven hundred thirty eight (738) feet, more or less, to the dividing line between lands formerly of Mrs. Julia M. Hall and lands formerly of Z. M. Miles and Mrs. E. R. Morgan at the place of beginning. one hundred f2,@ty@nnine LIA-U-acr@qs . more or less, but subject to existing highways. F Together with a right of way twenty (20) feet in width over and across the lands adjoining the above described property on the I East. said right of way extending along the line of the Lake Road.1 now vac Iated, from its intersection with the private road leading into lands formerly of John F. Miles, referred to in the foregoing description. to its intersection with State Highway Route No. 5. and also a right of way twenty (20) feet in width extending along the line of the Lake Road, now vacated, from its intersection with the aforesaid private road leading into lands formerly of John F. Miles to the line of lands formerly of Julia M. Hall, the center line of said last mentioned right of way being the dividing line between the land conveyed by this. deed and other lands of Carnegie Land Corporation, formerly of Z.M. Miles and Mrs. E. R. Morgan, the said right of way to be used in common by Carnegie Land Corp- oration and its successors and assigns and the parties of the first part and their heirs and assigns. The above described property is conveyed subject to the right of way for water pipes, spring and well as devised in the Last Will :1 and Testament of James Miles, deceased, to Zeruiah M. Miles and Mrs. Eliza R. M. Morgan, and the right to enter upon the premises to repair and change the line of water pipes as given in the above mentioned Will. as set forth in the deed from Lake Erie Terminal Railroad to Carnegie.Land Company hereinafter recited. Individual Fiduciary Deed wxwMM i%A40 WEINDORF TQ RHOADES Said property is also subject to the right of,way for an electric transmission line granted by Carnegie Land Company to Pennsylvania Electric Company by instrument dated January 30, 1930. BEING the same property as conveyed to Roy Weindorf and Arthur Weindorf by deed dated December 11, 1939 and recorded in Erie County Deed Book 398 at p&gp_!5.43.._pn December- 13, 1939. STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 405 OF ACT 97 OF 1980, THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1980--Party of the First Part, by execution of the within instrument, hereby warrants that the property I i conveyed hereunder has not, to the actual knowledge of the Party 14 of the First Part, nor by reason of action by Party of the First Part, been used for the purpose of the disposal of hazardous wastes as the same are defined in Section 103 of the Act. EXCEPTING AND RESERVING therefrom, so much of the premises )as,were conveyed to Pennsylvania Electric Company by deed recorde@ in Erie-County Deed Book 661 at page 193, consisting of 2.217 acres of land in said deed dated August 18, 1953 and recorded on September 29, 19S3. -2- Together with all and singular the Improvements, ways, streets alleys, passages, waters. watercourses, rights, liberties, privileges, bereditaments and appurtenancess, whatsoever, thereunto belong, or in any wise appertaining, and the reversions and remainders, rents, Issues and profits thereof; and all the estate. right, title, interest, property. claim and demand whatsoever, of the party of the first part, In law, equity, or otherwise howsoever, of in, and to the same and every part thereof. BOOK 1463 PAGE 541 To Have and to Hold the said lot or piece of ground above described with the message or tenement thereon errected unto the said party of the second part, Its, his, her or their heirs, execitprs, administrators, successors and assign forever. AND the said party of the first part hereby does and will warrant special the property hereby conveyed. In Witness Whereof, The said party(les) of the first part has/have hereunto set his/her/their hand and seals(s) the day and year first above written. Robert Weindorf SEAL ---------------------------------- SEALED AND DELIVERED Robert Weindorf, Executor of the Roy C. Weindorf a/k/a Roy Weindorf SEAL IN THE PRESENCE OF US: -------------------------------------- Estate Gladys M. Sullivan ---------------------------------------- SEAL Gladys Sullivan, Executor of the Roy C. Weindorf a/k/a Roy Weindorf SEAL ------------------------------------------- Estate COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COUNTY OF ERIE On this, the fifteenth (15th) day of July 1982 , before me a Notary Public ,this undersigned officer personally appeared Robert Weindorf and, Gladys Sullivan, Executors of the Estate of Roy C. Weindorf a/k/a Roy Weindorf, ,known to as (for satisfactorly proven) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within Instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same for the purpose therein contained. In witness whereof, I hertunto set my hand and official seal. Marilyn K MacKendrick --------------------------------------------- Marilyn K. MacKendrick, Notary Public Girard Boro, Erie County Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------- My Commission Expires Dec 12, 19 Notary Public I-----------------------------------------hereby certify that the residence of the within named Grantee Is: P.O Box 462 , Pa 16415 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ COUNTY OF ERIE Office of the County Executive Erie County Court House Erie, Pennsylvania 16501-1081 JUDITH M. LYNCH AREA CODE 814 COUNTY EXECUTIVE TELEPHONE 452-3333 EXT 333 February 26, 1985 Colonel Robert R. Hardiman District Commander Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 Dear Colonel Hardiman: I wish to thank you for your recent assistance in placing the Elk Creek Harbor project in the "active" category of Civil Works Projects. This assistance has permitted local efforts to continue toward the goal of a safe harbor/marina complex at this site. On February 22, 1985, a meeting was held at the Girard Township Municipal Building to discuss the Coastal Zone Management funded project which would coordinate programmatic responsibilities by the various agencies involved in the project, locate funding sources for development, future operations and maintenance, and in general develop an implementation strategy to complete the harbor facility. In attendance were representatives from Congressman Tom Ridge's office, State Representative Jim Merry, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the Department of Environmental Resources Division of Coastal Zone Management, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Erie County, Girard Township, and Lake City Borough. D.A. Johnson & Associates of Corry, Pennsylvania are under retainer as the Township's engineering firm and will carry out programmatic responsibilities. As a result of this meeting, the Erie County Solicitor's office is conducting a certified title search which should be concluded this week. If the result of the title search indicates clear ownership, then a meeting will be held to discuss the matter with the property owners who are reportedly willing to sell the 157.65 acre parcel. Proposals will then be solicited to conduct an appraisal for the property. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission has offered to conduct the appraisal for the portion of the property proposed for utilization as a safe harbor/marina. The Division of Coastal Zone Management is willing to pay for the remainder of the appraisal cost. Page 2 February 26, 1985 Colonel Robert R. Hardiman The most positive result of the meeting was a commitment, contingent upon the results of the title search and appraisal processf by Mr. Tony Suppa of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy to secure an option on the property, thereby allowing the study to be completed and funding application(s) developed to acquire the property. Ultimately, if we are successful in obtaining all or a portion of this property, assistance will be respectfully requested from the Corps for ' continued planning, design and construction of the breakwater and channelization associated with this facility. Your continued involvement is therefore appreciated and essential. We intend to keep you apprised of any future developments. regarding this effort and hope to meet with you and your staff in the near future. Any response that you may have should be directed to Mr. David A. Skellie, Acting Director of the Erie County Department of Planning. Sincerely, 9u@@@@I-,y ch County Executive JML/das/rd cc: Congressman Thomas J. RiOge Representative Jim Merry Senator Anthony Andrezeski Mr. Eugene Sporl Mr. James Tabor Mr. Arthur Martinucci Mr. Tony Suppa Mr. John 0. Hoffman Mr. Jim Young Mr. K. Ronald Weis Mr. Thomas Fuhrman Board of Girard Township Supervisors Lake City Borough Council Girard Borough Council David Johnson V GIRARD TOWNSHIP 10140 WEST RIDGE ROAD GIRARD, PENNA. 16417 Special Meeting Febuary 22, 1985 1:30 p.m. The following were present: Dave Skellie of the Erie County Planning Dep't., Dave Johnson, Girard Township Engineer, Jim Tabor, D.E.R. Rep., Coastal Zone Management, Ann DiTullio, from Congressman Tom Ridge's office, Judy Lynch, County Executive, Dan Douglas, Girard Township Supeervisor, Tom Fuhman, Mayor of Lake City, Gene Sporl, Pa. Fish Commission, William Boreland, Girard Township Supervisor, Tony Suppa, Western Pa. Conservatory, Jim Young, Pa. Fish Commission, K. Ronald Weis, Pa. Fish Commision, John O. Hoffman, Pa. Fish Com., Ray Sanders, Girald Township Supervisor, and Jim Merry, State Representative of the 5th District, also Roy Seneca from the Times-News. Dave Skellie said that Erie County has a $20,700.00 grant through the Coastal Zone Management Program. Technically the period runs through the end of January. Dave Skellie said the purpose of these fund is to coordinate an effort to utilize the Elk Creek or look at the utilization of the Elk Creek property. Skellie said there are a number of potential funding sources which can be utilized for acquisition or development. The intent of this study through the Township is to come up with a coordinated approach involving all of the agencies represented. Skellie also said that the Corp. of Engineers will not look at the property unless it is under public ownership. And they have included the project on their active list, through the help of Tom Ridge. The Corp. of Engineers won't proceed any further unless we, at the local level, can obtain the property for future use. There being no specific time table. The County had a meeting earlier this date, and discussed the options that are available. Skellie said that Dave Johnson will be working on the study and will be coordinating the effort through the various agencies. The County Planning Dep't, will assist him any way they can. Copies of the States contract with the State and the U.S. Department of Commerce explaining what the project is supposed to do, was shown to each person attending the meeting. Jim Tabor said that the draft of Proposal is almost identical to the past state- ment that was submitted in the application to N.O.A. which they had approval for. Skellie said that the State is looking for these things through the study: the design needs for completion of the Access Area, funding sources fof the development of a recreational facility. The main thing is to determine how each of the agencies are to respond what their roles are going to be, the Town-ship, County, GIRARD TOWNSHIP 10140 WEST RIDGE ROAD GIRARD, PENNA. 16417 Page 2 State, and Corp. And an implementation strategy. The end result should be a proposal in which everyone is in agreement for the Elk Creek Access. Gene Sporl said that ten years ago this project almost reached truism, but because of different situations the deal fell through. At that time, it was a cooperative effort between the Corp. of Engineerss and the Fish Commision utilizing State monieys and land and water conservation fund monies and the County contribution of the land. Sporl said that the Corp. of Engineers keeps an authorization on life for about eight years. If no activity occurs during that period, it becomes a candidate for deauthorization by the Congress. 1985 is the year that the Corp. would return to Congress and tell them if they want to deauthorize it, go ahead and do it. However, letters from Judy Lynch and Tom Ridge were sent to the Corp. of Engineers and said the project is doing good. Sporl said in order to make a good liable Access the Corp. of Engineers must be involved. It was, discussed last summer that the first priority would be to get the land under public ownership. Sporl also said after the land is put under public ownership, it will have to remain low until the Corp. is com- mitted to put in a breakwall. Tony Suppa stated that the Conservatory could secure or buy an option, and get the longest period of time they could, and possibly negotiate an extention of that option. The Conservatory would be able to work out a re-payment plan, which could be financed ovef a four or five year peiod. The Conservatory is willing to take an option on the property. Sporl stated that the Conservatory wants an appraisal. Fuhrman stated that Mr. Rhodes wants one million dollars for 174 acres of the land, it is negotiatabte. Fuhrman also said that there is up to $200,000.00 in acquisition money available. He said it's possible to use the Fish Commision as matching funds for that. The County was going to make the application. Skellie said that the matching funds has, a cap of $200,000.00 on it. There is a possibility that the Township will receive an entitlement in the 1985 program, in which the Elk Creek Access was a consideration in the future. Skellie said theres a possibility of matching C.D. fund to R.E.R.A. But, you can't use R.E.R.A. funds to transfer property ownership to another State agency such as the Fish Commission.Fuhrman said that Mr. Rhodes just has fishing for an activity. Skellie suggested that the next step of the study be to meet with the Rhodes brothers to discuss an appraisal and a title search and possibility an option. Fuhrman said that there is income from the cottages. They are leased. Johnson said that the cottages will not be part of the GIRARD TOWNSHIP 10140 WEST RIDGE ROAD GIRARD, PENNA. 16417 Page 3 real estate deal. There is 157 acres. Judy Lynch suggested that the 157 acres be purchased with an option. Fuhrman mentioned that there was refrences use for a future marina purposes in the low lands. Sporl said that the Fish Com. had plans with the Corp. of Engineers. The agreement was that the Corp. would put in the breakwall and do some of the main channels, and the Fish Com. would do the boat channels. The County was to buy the land. This aggreement was prior to 1980. Suppa asked about the reaction to the cottage owners when they would be asked to vacate. It would have to be arranged with the owners. Fuhrman said there is between 20-30 cottages being occupied at this time. Girard Borough wasn't able to be represented at the meeting, but they do have an interest in the situation. Fuhrman talked about forming a Municipal Authority to act as a lead agency for this project, and possibility more funding. There are many advantages to a Municipal Authority, combining Girard Borough, Lake City Borough, and Girard Township. William Borland said that Girard Township was asked to con- tribute $20,700.00 from a grant fof a study. Boreland said starting a negotiation or setting up a meeting with the propety ownes would be a good start. Johnson said time will be the only long part of the study. Lynch aggreed the title seafish should take place first, then Suppa and Fuhrman will talk to the Rhodes brothers. Lynch said that the County Solicition Staff will begin immediately on the title search. Skellie said if the Consel Governments would be a better organization, there is C.O.G. money up to $5,000.00. Sport said the Corp. has moved as far as they can for now. Lynch said a copy of the title search will be sent to Suppa, and the Fish Commission within one week. Douglas thanked eveyone for attending. COUNTY OF ERIE Office of the County Executive Erie County Court House Erie. Pennsylvania 16501-1081 JUDIH M. LYNCH AREA CODE 814 COUNTY EXECU11VE January 9, 1985 TLEPHONE 452-3333 EXT 333 11r, Eugene 1porl Pennsylvania Fish Commission Bureau of Waterways P.O. Box 1673 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Dear Mr. Sporl: As you know, the County of Erie and several West County local municipalities have an interest in seeing the development of the mouth of Elk Creek as a possible recreation area. 'These municipalities have been attempting to coordinate a program through the use of Coastal Zone Management funds which would ultimately see the construction of a breakwater and channelization of the mouth of the creek as a safe harbor and possibly as a marina. This project would complement the facility which already exists on the west side of.the mouth of Elk Creek which is being leased by Girard Township and which was constructed through the assistance of the Departments of Community Affairs and Environmental Resources. You are also aware of the County's attempt to develop an application for DCA Recrea- tional Improvement and Rehabilitation Act funding on behalf of these local municipal- ities. After several discussions with David A. Skellie of the Erie County Department of Planning, it became apparent that the Fish Commission was not able to commit itself to match the RIRA funding in order that the Township might own the facility and the Fish Commission control it through a long-term lease. In our conversation with the Department of Community Affairs Regional Office in Erie, that agency indicated that the project appeared to 'meet the criteria of the RIRA pro- gram. The Department of Community Affairs looked favorably on the receipt of an application. While we are unable to submit an application for the first rourrd of funding, the fiscal year 1985-86 applications will be taken some time this spring. We would very much like to submit an application for this project at that time assuming the Fish Commission can commit funding for the project. In addition., you are probably aware that funding has been made available through the Coastal Zone Management Program in order to determine the best means of completing the development of the Elk Creek Recreational Access. We anticipate the use of the Girard Township engineer as consultant in the development of this study. Any progress through negotiations or any possible commitment would be very beneficial to us so that this program might proceed as soon-as possible. Page 2 January 9, 1985 Mr. Eugene Sporl Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. It appears that a meeting is-necessary in the near future to discuss these matters. If so, please contact the Department of Planning at your earliest convenience to make arrangements. Sincerely, @4 4-'4z;-t-A Judith M. Lynch County Eyecutive JML/das/rd cc: James Tabor, Division of Coastal Zone Management William Borland, Girard Township Thomas C. Fuhrman, Lake City Borough Richard Gebhardt, Girard Borough David Johnson, D.A. Johnson & Associates Robert Orlando, Department of Community Affairs Senator Anthony Andrezeski Representative Jim Merry DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BUFFALO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1776 NIAGARA STREET BUFFALO. NEW YORK 14207 NCBPO SUBJECT: Reclassification of Elk Creek Harbor, PA project from Deferred to Active Status Mr. David A. Skellie Acting Director County of Erie. Department of Planning Erie County Courthouse, Room 13 6th Street Erie, PA 16501 Dear Kr. Skellie: This is to advise you that the Elk Creek Harbor project, authorized by the 'River and Harbor Act of 1966, has been placed in the "active" category of Civil Works Projects. I The project authorization provides for construction of breakwaters extending into Lake Erie near the mouth of Elk Creek, and dredging of entrance and interior channels, to create a safe refuge with protected berthing and mooring .areas for small boats. The project was classified as "deferred" in September 1977 as a result of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission's withdrawal of its sponsorship. The Commission withdrew sponsorship because Erie County was not, at that time,, willing to take the steps necessary to secure,project easements. However, the County of Erie, Department of Planning, Erie, PA, indicates negotiations for land are proceeding at this time and acquisition does not appear to be a problem. Therefore, with positive indications of local cooperation from both the State and the County, and a historical BCR above unity, the project has been reclassified to the "active" status. Correspondence pertaining to this matter should be addressed to the District Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207, ATTN: Mrs. Linda Howard. If you have any questions or require aaditional information, please contact Mrs. Howard of my Program Development Office at (716) 876-5454, extension 2223. Sincerely, -loc- ROBERT R. HARDIWd-4,7-- Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander COUNTY OF ERIE Office of the County Executive Erie County Court House JUDITH M. LYNCH Erie, Pennsylvania 16501-1081 APEA CODE 814 TELEPHONE 452-3333 COUNTY EXECUTIVE September 20, 1984 EXT 333 Congressman Thomas J, Ridge 1331 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Attention: Mark Holman Dear Mr. Ridge: As you are aware, a coalition of governmental agencies and interest groups has been involved in the promotion of the construction of a recreational access at the mouth of Elk Creek in Girard Township. Initial planning for this project began in fiscal year 1979-1980. At that time a six (6) stage project (see map) was proposed for de- velopment which included the construction of a new road from PA Route 5 to the mouth of the creek, parking areas, restroom facilities, picnic areas and trails. Of the proposed six (6) stage project, four (4) stages have been constructed. Stage five (5) involves the construction of a boat ramp and Stage six (6) is for rechannelization of the mouth of the creek to provide a safe harbor for small boats. Preliminary funding has been approved in the amount of $20,700 through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Division of Coastal Zone Management for the pur- poses of analyzing design needs for the completion of the Elk Creek Access site, iden- tifying available funding sources that can be used to design, acquire, construct, and maintain the site, and explaining each agency's role in an implementation strategy. A meeting was held on July 24, 1984 at the Girard Township Building with individuals from Representative James Merry's office, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs, the County of Erie, Girard Township, and Lake City Borough. In addition to agreeing to a procedural strategy, one of the results of this meeting was to request that the Army Corps of Engineers reclassify the Elk Creek Project to an active status. A letter from Colonel Hardiman dated August 20, 1984 indicates that the Corps has, in fact, reclassified the project (see attached letter). In order to construct a project through the Army Corps, there are four (4) stages which include a planning phase known as a reformulation study, preliminary engineering, final engineering, and construction. Colonel Hardiman's letter also indicates that the earliest Federal funding for the project would be Fiscal Year 1987. Page 2 Congressman Thomas J. Ridge September 20, 1984 We would like to request funding from the Corps so that a reformulation study can be requested as soon as possible. Mr. Daniel T. Kelly of the Buffalo District has in dicated that there could be a chance for funding in Fiscal Year 1986 for the Phase I reformulation study if requested by your office. This is based upon the assumption of a Congressional financial "add-on" for Fiscal Year 1986. I would very much appreciate your assistance in contacting the Chief Engineer's Office of the Corps of Engineers in Washington, D.C. to determine the status of supplemental funding in 1986 for the reformulation study. A promotional effort by your office may, in fact, reduce by one year the steps necessary to complete our project. Your assistance in this matter is very much appreciated. Should you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, .Judith M. Lynch County Executive JML/das/rd Enclosures cc: Representative James Merry E. James Tabor, PA Department of Environmental Resources Arthur Martinucci, PA Department of Community Affairs Edward Miller, PA Fish Commission Eugene Sporl, PA Fish Commission Girard Township Supervisors Mayor Thomas Fuhrman, Lake City Borough David Johnson Dan Seaman APPENDIX D FUNDING INFORMATION The attached sheets are from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, by Federal Department. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1776 NIAGARA STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207 NCBPD-PF 20 AUG 1984 SUBJECT: Elk Creek, PA, Small-Boat Harbor Project Mr. David A. Skellie Acting Director Erie County Department 0f Planning Erie, PA 16501 Dear Mr, Skellie: Thank you for your letterof 1 August 1984 in which you reaffirmed your sup- port for the Elk Creek Small-Boat Harbor Project, as authorized by the 1966 River and Harbor Act, and inquired as to ways to accelerate the reformulation study. I have taken the first step toward completing this project by requesting that the Elk Creek Project be reclassified to an active status. Currently, the earliest Federal budgeting for the project would be FY 87 (1 Oct 1986 - 30 Sep 1987). Correspondence pertaining to this matter should be addressed to the District Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207, ATTN: Mr. Daniel T. Kelly, P.E. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Kelly of my Planning Division at (716) 876-5454, extension 2243. Sincerely, Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander COUNTY OF EREE Department of Planning Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 814 / 452-3333 JUDITH M. LYNCH COUNTY EXECUTIVE August 1, 1984 Colonel Robert R. Hardiman District Commander Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14,207 Dear Colonel Hardiman: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the status of the Elk Creek Recrea- tional Access located in Girard Township and to request your advice and assistance in,formulating steps toward completion of a safe harbor/marina complex at this site. As you may know, four (4) stages of the Elk Creek Access Project have already been constructed (see enclosed map). Included in this development is a black-topped road from State Route 5 to the mouth of Elk Creek, parking facilities at the top of the hill near Route 5 and near the mouth, restroom, facilities, trails, and recreation equipment including picnic tables and barbecue grills. Stage 5 included engineering specifications for a boat ramp. However, no ramp can be constructed until Stage 6 channelization improvements can be initiated. There has been a great deal of local support for completion of this project. Re- cently, the Erie County Coastal.Zone Management Steering Committee gave high priority toward funding a feasibility study which would determine the steps neces- sary to complete this project. The Penns ylvan i a Department of Environmaental Resources Division of Coastal Zone Management has agreed to place this project in its Fiscal Year 1984-85 funding package. A copy of the project application is attached for your review. Funding for this project will amount to $20,700 and work will begin on January 1, 1985. On J@ly 24th, a meeting was held to review this application and to clarify al 1 interested parties' stance regarding the project. In attendance were representa- tives of State Representative Jim Merry's office, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Division of Coastal Zone Management, the Pennsylvania Department of Coumurrity Affairs, Erie County, Girard Township and Lake City Borough.. As a resul-t of that meeting, all parties have stated their interest in pursuing the project's objectives stated in the application. Page 2 Colonel Robert R. Hardiman August 1, 1984 Also, this group is requesting that the designated project classification by the Army Corps of Engineers be changed from a deferred to an active status so as to allow us to pursue funding through the Corps of Engineers. In speaking with Mr. Daniel'Kelly of the Buffalo District, our first step in this process is to con- Auct a "reformulation" study and that funding for such a study would not be avail- able until Fiscal Year 1987. Is it possible, in order to afford better coordina.- tion through the Corps process, to utilize Coastal Zone Management funding to conduct the reformulation study? Or,'is it preferable to conduct a Coastal Zone Management funded feasibility study with Corps input and utilize this as a pre-re- formulation study to encourage approval of future funding through the Corps' normal planning, engineering and construction phasing? My thinking is that the use of Coastal Zone Management funds-for a reformulation study could further this project and save one year's time. As you are aware, this project failed in the 1970's due to the lack of commitme nt by any public body to purchase the land. Although I cannot provide you with specific details, negotiations for this land are proceeding at this time. At this point we do not see land acquisiti.on as a problem. Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated. If you should require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David A. Skellie Acting Director DAS/rd Enclosure cc: Representative James Merry Girard Township Board of Supervisors udith M. Lynch Mayor Thomas Fuhrman James Tabor David Johnson JArthur Martinucci Dan Seaman Edward Miller Eugene Sporl CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE GRANTS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE STATE OFFICE James H. Olson Federal Building and U.S. Court House ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Federal Square Station, Box 985 Formula and Matching Requirements: Each cooperating agency is to Harrisburg, PA 17108 fund its own participation. T'he extent of participation and funding are to be defined in a plan of work that establishes the basis for (717) 782-2202 the cooperative study effort. Priority is given to studies in which FTS 590-2202 the degree of State or local agency participation is high. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: The length of the study is defined in the plan of work. It is subject to some modification, de- pending on the availability of funds to each of the cooperating agencies. Federal assistance for planning is provided as rapidly as 10.906 RIVER BASIN SURVEYS AND possible depending on availability of funds, Congressional limits INVMIGATIONS on new study starts, and competent personnel resources. Sponsors (River Basin Program) are encouraged to focus their cooperative studies on a limited number of critical problems of special concern nationally, such as FEDERAL AGENCY: SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, DE- flood damage reduction and erosion control. Short duration, low PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE cost studies that support ongoing programs, particulary USDA AUTHORIZATION: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act; programs, are encouraged. Public Law 83-566, as amended, Section 6. POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: OBJECTIVES: To assist Federal, State, and local agencies in improv- Reports: Reports are prepared at the completion of each study. Post ing national economic development through the development of study assistance depends to a considerable degree on the recom- coordinated water and related land resources programs. Studies mendations developed during the study. are carried out in cooperation with State, Federal, and local agen- Audits: Not applicable. m ies. Special priority is given to solving erosion and sedimentation, Records: Not applicable. flooding, flood - p lain- management, and agricultural water-manage- FINANCIAL INFORMATION: ent problems. Protecting natural values in wetlands and flood Account Identification: 12-1069-0-1-301. plains, protecting important farmlands, managing and other special Obligations: (Salaries and expenses) FY 84 $15,371,147; FY 85 est resources, are secondary objectives. S 14,674,739; and FY 86 est $11,574,000. TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Provision of Specialized Services; Adviso- Range and Average of Financial Assistance: Not applicable. ry Services and Counseling. PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: USDA has cooperated -with USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Technical assistance is provided in local, State, and concerned Federal agencies in the preparation planning activities to help solve water and related land resources and updating or State water resource plans and other water land problems. It is available through disciplines such as engineering, and related studies. The USDA helps States coordinate upstream economics, social sciences, agronomy, range management, forest- and downstream elements of water, land, and related resource ry, biology, hydrology. archaeology, landscape architecture, waste planning activities. Between 1961 and 1984, the Department has management, recreation, etc. participated in 174 cooperative surveys and has completed 125. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: Other river basin activities include salinity control studies and Applicant Eligibility: Any iocal or State water resource agency or flood -p la in -management studies. Eight USDA salinity control re- other Federal agency concerned with water and iclulcd land re- ports have been published covering over one-half million irrigated source development. SCS participation is based on a cooperative acres in the Colorado River basin. Two salinity control areas are effort with another agency or agencies. State and local agencies presently under study and two other salinity units arc pending. are expected to fund their own activities. This program is also These studies are being performed in cooperation with the Bureau available in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. of Reclamation. The Flood Plain Management Assistance Pro- Beneficiary Eligibility: Any local or State water resource agency or gram, under which technical assistance is provided to local gov- other Federal agency concerned with water and related land re- ernments in implementing their flood-plain-management programs, source development that can benefit from the development of al- is underway in 30 States. About 22 flood -plainmanagement studies ternative plans and recommendations. are to be completed in fiscal year 1984; about 290 have been com- Credentials/Documentation: Requests designate the proposed study pleted to date. area, describe the basic study objective, and indicate joint partici- REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: "What the pation. Soil Conservation Service Does," SCS-CI-3; "Local-StaleFederal APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: Watershed Projects," SCS-Cl-4; "Multiple-Purpose Watershed Preapplication Coordination: This program is eligible for coverage Projects," PA-575; National Basin and Area Planning Manual; under E.O. 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Pro- "River Basin Investigation and Surveys;" 7 CFR 621, and SCS grams." An applicant should consult the office or official designat- General Manual (6M) 150-Basin and Area Planning, Part 401. ed as the Single Point or Contact in his or her State for more in- INFORMATION CONTACTS: formation on the process the State requires to be followed in ap- Regional or Local Office: For list of SCS State offices with tele- plying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for phone numbers and addresses, see Appendix IV of the Catalog. review. Headquarters Office: Deputy Chief For Programs, Soil Conservation Application Procedure: Letter of request addressed to the appropriate Service, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, State Conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service. DC 20013. Telephone: (202) 447-4527. (Use same 7-digit number Award Procedure: Not applicable. for FTS.) Deadlines: None. RELATED PROGRAMS: 10.902. Soil and Water Conservation; 10.904, Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: Receipt of request is acknowl- Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention; 12.110, Planning As- edged when received by the State Conservationist. sis(ance to States. Appeals: Not applicable, EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: Not applicable. Renewals: Not applicable. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Not applicable. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION REGIONAL OFFICE notify the applicant immediately if EDA cannot accept the (Connecticut, Delaware, District of project. If the project appears viable, a preapplication conference Columbia, Maine, Maryland, may be arranged at the Regional Director's discretion with re- Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New gional office personnel. The standard application forms furnished Jersey. New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto by EDA and required by OMB Circular No. A-102 must be used Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont. Virgin for this program. An environmental impact assessment is necessary Islands. Virginia, West Virginia) for this program. After a review or the environmental impact as- Craig M. Smith, Regional Director sessment is completed, an environmental impact statement may 325 Chestnut Street, 4th Floor alsobe required. This program is eligible for coverage under E.O. Mail Building 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." An ap- Philadelphia, PA 19106 plicant should consult the office or official designated as the single (215) 5974W3 point of contact in his or her State for more information on the (Use same 7-digit number for FTS) process the State requires to be followed in applying for assist- ance, if the State has selected the program for review. Application Procedure: Applicant should contact the EDR servicing the State in which (he project is to be located. An Economic De- 11.300 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-GRANTS velopment Representative assigned as coordinator of the project FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT for EDA will provide necessary forms and assist in filling them out. Nonprofit organizations are subject to the provisions of OMB FACILITIES Circular No. A-1 10. FEDERAL AGENCY: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINIS- Award Procedure: Grant applications from eligible applicants are ap- TRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE proved by the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, AUTHORIZATION: Public, Works and Economic Development Act Department of Commerce. Contract award should be made on the of 1965; Public Law 89-136, as amended; Public Law 98-166; 42 lowest base bid submitted by a responsible bidder, with a responsi- U.S.C. 3131, 3132, 3135, 3141, 3171. ble bidder defined as one who can furnish 100 percent perform- OBJECIrIVES: To assist in the construction or public facilities needed ance and payment bonds and who meets the applicable State and to initiate and encourage the creation of permanent jobs in the pri- local statutory requirements. vate sector in designated geographic areas where economic Deadlines: None. growth is lagging behind the rest of the nation. Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: Normally within 120 days of TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Project Grants. acceptance of application. USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Grants for such public facilities as Appeals: None. water and sewer systems, access roads to industrial parks or areas, Renewals: None. port facilities, railroad sidings and spurs, public tourism facilities, ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: vocational schools, and site improvements for industrial parks. Formula and Matching Requirements: The basic grant rate may be up to 50 percent of the project cost. Severely depressed areas may Qualified projects must fulfill a pressing need of the area and must: receive supplementary grants to bring the Federal contribution up (1) tend to improve the opportunities for the successful establish- to 80 percent of the project cost; designated Indian Reservations ment or expansion of industrial or commercial plants or facilities, are eligible for up to 100 percent assistance. Additionally, redevel- (2) assist in the creation of additional long-term employment op- opment areas located within designated Economic Development portunities, or (3) benefit the long-term unemployed and members Districts may, subject to the 80 percent maximum Federal grant of low-income families. In addition, proposed projects must he limit. be eligible for a 10 percent bonus on grants for public works consistent with the currently approved Overall Economic Devel- projects. This program has maintenance of effort (MOE) require- opment Program for the area, and for the Economic Development ments, see funding agency for further details. District, if any, in which it will be located. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: EDA grant funds are dis- ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: bursed for costs incurred only after all contracts for construction Applicant Eligibility: States, cities, counties, and other political sub- have been awarded. divisions, and private or public nonprofit organizations or associa- POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: tions representing a redevelopment area or a designated Economic Reports: Reports for specific projects may be requested. Compliance: Development Center are eligible to receive grants. Corporations Applicable statutes include the Architectual Barriers Act, Civil and associations organized for profit are not eligible. Rights Act, Davis Bacon and the Water Pollution Control Acts. Beneficiary Eligibility: Unemployed and underemployed persons Audits: To the exLent that State and local units of government re- and/or members of low-income families. ceive funds under the program, they will be subject to the audit Credentials/Documentat ion: Application must describe the type of requirements set forth in the Single Audit Act of 1984. All other proposed facility, estimated costs, extent of proposed project, per- recipients will be subject to OMB Circular No. A-73. manent private sector job impact, (estimated payrolls, estimated Records: As necessary for above-mentioned audit. private investment) estimated time for construction implementa- FINANCIAL INFORMATION: tion, and assurance that the project will satisfy statutory require- Account Identification: 13-2050-0-1-452. ments. Most important, documentation must demonstrate how the Obligations: (Grants) FY 84 $169,987,906 (includes W million for project will have a positive impact on the economic development projects approved under P.L. 98-8 for program 11.300); FY 85 est process in the community. Costs will be determined in accordance $149,000,OUO (includes S19 million for a project approved under with OMB Circular Nos. A-87 for State and local governments P.L. 98-396) and FY 86 est $0. and A-122 for nonprofit organizations. Range and Average of Financial Assistance: No specific minimum or APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: maximum projec(,amount - $50,000 to $5,600,000; $580,000. Preapplication Coordination: The Economic Development Repre- PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: In fiscal year 1984, 184 regular sentative (EDR) or other appropriate EDA officials will meet projects and 93 Jobs Bill projects were approved. with the applicant and community leaders to establish the basis for REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: Title 13 CFR a preapplication conference. After reviewing project and local de- Chapter III Part 305 and Part 309; Annual Report: Economic De- velopment profile information with the regional office, EDA will velopmeni Administration Civil Rights Guidelines. INFORMATION CONTACTS: EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: 1) Infrastructure for industri- Regional or Local Office: Refer to Appendix IV of the Catalog for al park development-, 2) Port development and expansion; 3) EDA regional office addresses. Public construction infrastructure necessary for economic dcvcl- Headquaners Office: John Corrigan. Deputy Assistant Secretary for opment (i.e. water/sewer facilities); 4) Renovation and recycling Operations, Economic Development Administration, Room of old industrial buildings; and S) Revitalization of central business H7824, Herbert C. Hoover Building. Department of Commerce, districts. Washington, DC 20230. Telephone: (202) 377-3081. (Use the same CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Project proposals must 7-digit number for FTS.) be located within a designated area and must be in conformance RELATED PROGRAMS-. 11.301, Economic Development-Business with. tin Overall Economic Development Program (OEDP) for the Development Assistance; 11.302, Economic Dcvciopment-Sup- eligible area. Project must also contribute to long-term economic port for Planning Organizations; 11.303. Economic Develop- development of the area by creating or retaining permanent jobs ment-Technical Assistance-, 11.304. Economic Development- and raising income levels. Conformance with the Federal Register Public Works Impact Projects; 11.307, Special Economic Devel- announcements and other FDA and/or Federal program require- opment and Adjustment Assistance Program-Sudden and Severe ments such as NEPA, Civil Rights and Historic Preservation arc Economic Dislocation or Long-term Economic Deteriormion; part of the selection criteria. 15.124, Indian Loans-Economic Development; 23.001, Appa)Ach- ian Regional Development (See individual Appalachian Pro- grams). NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION FIELD AREAS Atlantic M&6ne Center 439 West York Street Norfolk, VA 23 510 (904) 441-6776 FTS 827-6776 11.419 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION GRANTS APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: EDERAL AGENCY: NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOS- Preapplicatiori Coordination: The standard preapplication forms, CD- PHERIC ADMINISTRATION. DEPARTMENT OF COM- 288, as furnished by NOAA and required by OMB Circular No. MERCE A-102 must be used for this program. Informal preapplication can- ferenccs are recommended. Consultation and assistance is available UTHORIZATION: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Section from NOAA in the preparation of an application. An environmcn- 306; Public Law 92-50 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); Coastal Zone tal impact statement is ncce&wy for this program. This program is Management Act Amendments of 1976, Section 306; Public Law eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, "Intergovernmental 94-370 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); Coastal Zone Management Act Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should consult the Amendments of 1980, Public Law 96-464. office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or BJECTIVES: To assist States in implementing and administering her State for more information an the process the State requires to Codbtal Zone Management programs that have been approved by be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the the Secretary of Commerce. program for review. TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Project Grants. Application Procedure: The Application for Federal Assistance (Non- SES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Grants may be used only to ad- construction Programs) CD-292, as furnished by NOAA and re- t minister the States' approved Coastal Zone Management pro- quired by OMB Circular No. A-102, is to be submitted in,original grams. This includes personnel salaries, travel and other related and two copies. costs required to support the administration of the program. Award Procedure: Applications are approved by the Office of Ocean Grants may also be used to administer the States'approved Coast- and Coastal Resource Management. al Zone Management program for a geographic segment of the DeadlJoes: Applications should be submitted 120 days prior to the coastal zone. beginning date of the grant. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: From 60 to 120 work days, Applicant Eligibility: Any coastal State, including Puerto Rico. AppeaW No formal procedure. If application is unacceptable the ap- Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, plicant is fully informcd,and applicant may revise application. and the Trust Territory of the Pacific whose Coastal Zone Man. Renewalw Continuation grants on an annual basis are available. Indi- ge.,:nl program has been approved by the Secretary of Con', vidu.i grants may be extended. merce. The Governor shall designate the State agency. or entity ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: that is to be the applicant. Formula and Matching Requirements. At least 20 percent of the total Beneficiary Eligibility: Any coastal State. including Puerto Rico, project cost must be provided by the applicant. Federal funds Virgin islands, Guam, American Samoa. the Northern Marianas. from other sources cannot be used to match. Grants must be not and the Trust Territory of the Pacific whose Coastal Zone Man- less than one percent of the amount appropriated each ft" year. agement program has been approved by the Secretary of Com. Within the statutory range grants are allocated by formula. The merce. The Governor shall designate the State agencV, or entity statistical factors used for fund allocation are: (1) population in that is to be the aplilicant. coastal counties and the source is the 1980 Decennial Census, and Credeatials/Documentation: Letter from Governor designating the (2) miles of coastal shoreline and the source is "The Coas;Jine of applicant. Costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Cir. the United States," NOAA. The uatistic4l factor used for eligibil- cular No. A-87 for State and local governments. ity does not apply to this program. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: Grants are normally made OBJECTIVES: To assist States in the acquisition, development and for one year., Grant funds are released by advance Treasury operation of national estuarine sanctuaries for the purpose or cre- check, reimbursement, or letter of credit, in accordance with the ating natural field laboratories to gather data and make studies of criteria set rorth in Attachment J to OMB Circular No. A-102. the natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of IOST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: the coastal zone. Reports: Financial Status Reports, CD-287, and performance reports TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Project Grants. are required quarterly or semi-annually and final reports are re- USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Grants may be used to cover the quired within 90 days of the grant ending date. costs of acquisition. development and operation of national estus- Audits: In accordance with the provisions of Attachment P to Circu- fine sanctuaries. Development and operation costs may include the lar A-102, **Uniform requirements for grants to State and local administrative expenses necessary to monitor the sanctuary: A lim- governments," audits shall be made of organizations carrying out ited amount of research may be funded. this program at least once every 2 years. These audits will be ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: made in accordance with the General Accounting Office guide- Applicant Fligibility: Any coastal State including Puerto Rico. lines, "Standards for Audit of Government Organizations, Pro- Virgin Islands. Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mari- grams, Activities and Functions," and additional OMB guidance. anas. The Governor shall designate the State agency or entity that Records: Work papers prepared in connection with audit reports are is to be the applicant. to be retained for three years after issuance of the report. 116eneficiary Eligibility: Any coastal State including Puerto Rico, FINANCIAL INFORMATION: Virgin Islands. Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mari- Account Identification: 13-14504)-1-302. anas. The Governor shall designate the State agency or entity that Obligations: (Grants) FY 84 $15,789,354; FY 85 est $7,143,000; and is to be the applicant. Also all qualified scientists and students. FY 86 est $0. Credentials/ Documentation: Letter from Governor designating the Range and Average of Financial Assistance: $125.000 to $1,750,000. applicant. Costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Cir- PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS; State Coastal Zone Management cular No. A-87 for State and local governments. Programs now cover 90 percent of the Nation's coastline. From APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: 1972 through 1985 a total of $194,000.000 will have been spent to. Preapplication Coordination: The standard preapplication form, CD- develop this capability. 288, as furnished by NOAA and required by OMB Circular No. REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: "Grants Man. A-102 must be used. Informal preapplication conference& are rec- agement Manual for Grants," under the Coastal Zone Manage- ommended. Consultation and assistance is available from NOAA ment Act. in the preparation of an application. This program is eligible for INFORMATION CONTACTS: coverage under E.O. 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Feder- Regional'or Local Office: None. al Programs." An applicant should consult the office or official Headquarters Office: Chief, Coastal Programs Division, Office of designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for Ocean Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, more information on the process the State requires to be followed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of in applying for assistance. ir the State has %elected the program for Commerce, 3300 Whitchaven Street, N.W., Washington, DC review. 20235. Telephone: (202) 634-1672. (Use same 7-digit number for Application Procedure: For land acquisition and development FTS.) awards, the Application for Federal Assistance (For Construction RELATED PROGRAMS: 11.417. Sea Grant Support; 11.420, Coastal Programs) CD-290, as furnished by NOAA and required by OMB Zone Management Estuarine Sanctuaries. Circular No. A-102 is to be submitted in original plus two copies. For preacquisition, operation and management and research EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: These projects studied be- awards, the application for Federal assistance (For Non-Construc- havioral attitudes, identification or safe evacuation routes, neces- tion Programs) CD-292 is to be used. sary times, and shelter area; determination or areas to evacuate in Award Procedure: Applications are approved by the Office of Ocean various .types of .storms; identification of potential damage; and and Coastal Resource Management. evacuation exercises designed to train personnel and test model Deadlines: Preapplications and applications should be submitted 150 procedures. Other Federal funds for the Florida Coastal Manage- and 120 days respectively prior to grant beginning date. ment program are being used to develop hurricane loss and public Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: From 60 to 90 workdays. informaton programs for the Southwest and lower Southeast re- Appeals: No formal procedure. If application is unacceptable the ap- g,ons of the State; significant improvements; and focus on dredge plicant is fully informed and may revise application. spoil planning and disposal as a priority activity. Renewals: Not applicable. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: While appropriated ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: funds are allocated to States through a formula based on coastal Formula and Matching Requirements: At least 50 percent of the total pulaton and shoreline mileage, the tasks in the State application project cost must be provided by the applicant. The Federal share are reviewed for relevance to program objectives and cost effec- for each sanctuary shall not exceed S3,000,000. tiv Poeness. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: Payments are made by ad- vance Treasury check, reimbursement or Letter of Credit in ac- cordance with the criteria set forth in Attachment J to OMB Cir- NOTE: Section 306 has been amended with cular No. A-102. Section 306A being added. See the POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: end of this section. Reporls: The Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs (SF 271) are required monthly. For Non- Construction Programs the Financial Status Report. SF 269. is re- quired quarterly or semi-annually. Performance reports are re- 11.420 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT quired quarterly or semi-annually and within 90 days or the grant ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES ending date. AudiM- In accordance with the provisions of Attachment P to Circu- FEDERAL AGENCY: NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOS- lar A-102, "Uniform requirements for grants to State and local PHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COM- governments," audits shall be made of organizations carrying out MERCE this program at least once every 2 years. These audits will be AUTHORIZATION: Coastal Zone Management Act or 1972, Section made in accordance with the General Accounting Office guide- 312; Public Low 92-583 (16 U.S.C. 1451 Seq.); Coastal Zone Man- line%, "Standards for Audit of Government Organization%, Pro- agement Act Amendments of 1976, Section 315 (1); Public Law grams, Activities and Functions," and additional OMB guidance. 94-370 (16 U.S.C. 1451 Seq.); Coastal Zone Management Act Records: Work papers prepared in connection with audit reports are Amendments of 1980, Public Law 96-464. to be retained for three years after issuance of the report. "NANCIAL INFORMATION: program that has been approved under Section 306 or is making, Account Identification: 13-1450-0-1-302. in the judgment of the Assistant Administrator, satisfactory Obligations: (Grants) FY 84 S2,242,000, FY 85 est S4,518,600; and progress toward the development of a management program that FY 86 es( SI,280,(M. is consistent with the policies set forth in Section 303. The Gover- nge and Average of Financial Assistance: FY 85 $10,000 to nor shall designate the State agency or entity that is to be the ap- S1,620,000; S126,000, plicant. PRP-02GRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Through fiscal year 1985, na- Beneficiary Eligibility: Local and regional government units may tional estuarine sanctuaries have been established in California apply for assistance under this program from their designated (two), Oregon, Georgia, Ohio, Hawaii, Florida (two), Washington, State Section 308 agency. Rhode Island, Maryland, and Puerto Rico, North Carolina, Maine, Credentials/Documentation: Letter from the Governor designating New York, Alabama and Massachusetts. In fiscal year 1986, it is the applicant. Costs will be determined in accordance with, OMB anticipated that one additional site will be acquired. I Circular No. A-87. REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: 15 CFR Part APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: 921 - Estuarine Sanctuary Grants. Grants Management Manual for Preapplication Coordination: Only construction projects require a Grants under the Coastal Zone Management Act. preapplication and an environmental impact statement. The stand- INFORMATION CONTACTS: ard application forms as furnished by the Federal agency and re- Region,al or Local Office: None, quired by OMB Circular No. A-102 must be used for this pro- Headquarters Office: Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division, Office of gram. This program is eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Serv- "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant ice, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Depart- should consult the office or official designated as the single point ment or Commerce, 1100 Whilehaven Street, N,W,, Washington, of contact in his or he, State for more information on the process DC 20235. Telephone: (202) 634-4236. (Use same 7-digit number the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance. if the for FTS.) State has selected the program for review. RELATED PROGRAMS: 11.417, Sea Grant Support; 11,419, Coastal Application Procedure: The requisition for 308(b) formula grants, Zone Management Program Administration Grants; 12.110, Plan- NOAA Form 36-20 is to be submitted in three copies. ning Assistance to States. Award Procedure: Requisitions are approved by NOAA. Special EXAMPLES OF FUNDED -PROJECTS: Generic projects/activi ties note: Intra-State Allocation process (Section 308(g)(2)): each funded under the national Estuarine Sanctuary program consist of- coastal State, after being notified of its allotment, must establish a lisition of lands to be included in the sanctuary; site selection process to allocate its allotment among State agencies and units of acqu local government based upon the need for assistance. procedures and management plan development; construction Deadlines: Requisitions should be submitted 120 days prior to pro- projects; operation of the sanctuary; and research and educational posed work start date. activities. Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: From 00 to 120 workdays. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: There are four types of Appeals: No fornial procedure. awards to coastal States under the National Estuarine Sanctuary Renewals: Not applicable. Program: preacquisition, acquisition and development, operation ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: and management, and research. Detailed criieria for the State's de- Formula and Matching Requirements: 100 percent Federal funding. velopment of these awards and criteria for reviewing each award Grants are allotted to a State by means of a prescribed formula arc provided in the regulations for the National Estuarine Sanctu- based on the State's proportional share of riation-wide OCS aclivi- ary Program (15 CFR Part 921, June 27, 1984). Final regulations ties of the preceding fiscal year rneasured by the following are published in the Federal Register. weighted indices: (1) OCS acreage initially leased, 50.0 percent; 11.42.1 ENERGY IMPACT-FORMULA GRANTS (2) OCS oil and natural gas landed, 25.0 percent; (3) OCS oil and natural gas produced, 25.0 percent. Eligible States receive a mini- FEDERAL AGENCY: NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOS- mum of 2 percent and a maxinium of 37.5 percent of the appro- PHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COM- priation. The statistical factors used for fund allocation are: (1) MERCE amount of acres leased in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf and AUTHORIZATION: Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of the source is Outer Continental Shelf Statistics, USGS; (2) amount 1976, Section 308(b), Public Law 94-370 (16 U.S.C. 1451 Seq.); of petroleum produced off the coast of a State in the O.C.S. and Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1978, Section the source is Outer Continental Shelf Statistics - Sales or Lease 308(b), Public Law 95-372; Coastal Zone Management Act Production, USGS; and (3) amount of petroleum first landed on Amendments of 1980, Public Law 96-464. the shore and the source is Outer Continental Shelf Statistics - OBJECTIVES: To provide financial assistance to coastal States to Sales or Lease Production, USGS. The,statistical factor us ed for plan and construct public facilities and services and for the amelio- eligibility does not apply to this program. ration of environmental and recreational loss attributable to Outer Length and Time Phaiing of Assistance: Each State is allotted a spe- Continental Shelf (OCS) energy development activities. cific amount of each year's appropriation by means of a formula. TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Formula Grants. The proceeds of grants which are requisitioned by and disbursed USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Formula grants are available only to a State in any fiscal year but which are no( expended or com- to those States which have or have had adjacent OCS oil and gas mitted by the State by the end of the fiscal year in which the leasing and development activities. Proceeds from these grants grant proceeds were awarded are subject to recovery and subse- may be used for a very broad range of projects subject to certain quent re-allotment. Grant proceeds not requisitioned remain avail- priorities and prerequisites. The priority use of these grant funds is able for award until the end of fiscal year 1988, at which time pro- for the repayment of local and State bonds guaranteed under Sec- ceeds not awarded will be returned to the United States Treasury. tion 308(d)(2) of the Act. The prerequisites of use relate to plan- POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: ning and development or public facilities and services. A pfime Reports: Financial Status Reports, SP 269, and performance reports use of these funds is for the protection and restoration of environ- are required every 6 months (OctoberMarch, April-September) mental and recreational resources. Project costs must be in line and final reports within 90 days of the grant ending date. with the value of the resources. Audits: In accordance with the provisions of Attachment P to Circu- ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: lar A-102, "Uniform requirements for grants to State and local Applicant Eligibility: Any coastal State which has a management governments." audits shall be made of organizations carrying out this program at least once every 2 years. The audiis will be made factory progress toward the development of a management pro- in accordance with the General Accounting Office guidelines,*' gram that is consistent with the policies set forth in Section 303. Standards Ir Audit or Government Orgamiations, Programs, Beneficiary Eligibility: Only unit, .1 general purpose local govern, Acilvities and Functions," and additional OMB guidance. ments in the coastal zone, as defined in 15 CFR 931.22, and State Records: All Financial records and working papers must be retained agencies are eligible for CEIF assistance. The State Section 308 for 3 years after the completion of the project or program for agency is the applicant for the grants; it may then pass through. which a grant was made. awarded assistance to local governments in accordance with the FINANCIAL INFORMATION: State's Intra-St4te Allocation Process. Account Identification: 13-1450-0-1-302. Credentials/ Documentation: Letter from the Governor designating Obligations: (Grants) FY 84 $245,000; FY 85 est $148,000; and FY the applicant. Costs will be determined in accordance with OMB 16 est 10, Circular No. A-87. Range and Average of Financial Assistance: Dependent upon State's APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: allotment. In FY 82, allotments ranged from S75,(= to $1,000,000. Preapplication Coordination: The standard application forms as fur- PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: In fiscal year 1984, NOAA ap- nished by the Federal agency and required by OMB Circular No. proved an additional 12 projects totaling $325,000. A-102 must be used for this program. No preapplication necessary. REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: 15 CFR Part An environmental impact assessment is required for this program. 931, OMB Circular Nos. A-87 and A-102. This program is eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, "Inter- INFORMATION CONTACTS: governmental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should Regional or Local Office: None. consult the office or official designated as the single point of con- Headquarters Office: Chief, Coastal Programs Division. Office of tact in his or her State for more information on the process the Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Serv- State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State ice, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Depart- has selected the program for review. ment of Commerce, 3300 Whitehaven St., N.W., Washington. DC Application Procedure: The applications for 308(c) grants, NOAA 20235. Telephone: (202) 634-1672. (Use same 7-digit number for Form 36-21 or NOAA Form 36-26 are to be submitted in original FTS.) plus two copies. In each State the Governor designates a 308 lead RELATED PROGRAMS-. 11.419, Coastal Zone Management Program agency. The lead agency submits applications for financial assist- Administratioo Grants; 11.422, Coastal Energy Impact Grants; ance to NOAA. Projects and proposals for funding from units of 11.423, Coastal Energy Impact Program-Loans and Guarantees. local government and State agencies must be submitted to the Sec- EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: A $307,000 grant awarded tion 308 lead agency. to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Division or Award Procedure-. Applications are approved by NOAA. Special Parks, and the City. of Steward was used to perform studies assess- Note: Intra-State Allocation Proct:-.@s (Section 308(g)(2) - each ing the potential onshore impacts of Outer Continental Shelf coastal State, after being notified of its allotment, must establish a (OCS) oil and gas development and to prepare plans for the pre- process to allocate its allotment'among State agencies and units of venlion of damage to enviromnental and recreational resources local government based upon the need for assistance. arising from this development. LaFourche Parish, Louisiana. re- Deadlines: Applications should he submitted 120 days prior to the ceived a grant of S80,000 for the purchase of oil firefighting equip- proposed work start date. ment. Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: From 60 to 120 workdays. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Not applicable. Appeals: No formal procedure. Renewals: Not applicable. 11.422 COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT GRANTS ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Formula and Matching Requirements: The Federal share of grants FEDERAL AGENCY-. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOS- for 308(c) are not to. exceed 70 percent of the total project costs. PHERIC ADMINISTRATION. DEPARTMENT OF COM- Local or State funds may be used to meet the nonfederal share of MERCE project costs, or in-kind contributions may be used, as described in AUTHORIZATION: Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments or OMB Circular No. A-102. The statistical factors used for fund al- 1976, Public Law 94-370 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), as amended by location are: (1) peak construction employment and the sourcc is Public Law %- 164, Section 308 (C) (1),308 (C) (2) and 308 (C) (3). Office of CZM; (2) environmental factor and the source is Office OBJECTIVES: To assist the States and units of local government to of CZM; (3) safety factor and the source is Office of CZM; and study and plan for the social, economic and environmental conse- (4) planning cost differentials and the source is American Planning quences on the coastal zone of new or expanded energy facilities; Association Annual Report. The statistical factor used for eligibil- to prevent, reduce, or mitigate losses resulting from the transpor- ity does not apply to this program. wicin, transfer, or storage or coal or from alternative Ocean Lengtl and Time Phasing or Assistance: Gran,, are normally made Energy Activities; and to participate effectively in Federal policy, once a year. The allotment of financial assistance among the States planning, and managerial decisions relating to the development or is based on formulas related to new or expanded energy facilities OCS oil and gas resources. affecting the coastal zone. TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Project Grants. POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: USES AND USE RESTRIC'FIONS: Eligible uses include: Planning Reports: Financial status reports are required semi-annually or quar- projects for housing and land use planning, *public safety, and terly and a final report within 90 days of the grant ending date. public facility plans, provided they are related to the social. eco- Performance reports are required semi-annitally or quarterly and a nomic and environmental impacts resulting from new or expanded final report required within 90 days or the grant endiing date. energy activity; development and implementation of an Intra-State Audits: In accordance with the provisions of Attachment P to Circu- Allocation Process-, carrying out responsibilities under the OSC lar A-102, "Uniform requirements for grants to State and local Land% Act; projects to prevent. reduce or mitigate unavoidable guvernments," audits shall be made of organizations carrying out losses to valuable coastal environmental and recreational resources this program at least once every 2 years. These audits will be resulting from the transportation, transfer, or storage of coal or made in accordance with the General Ac,ounting Office guide- from AOE activities. lines, "Standards for Audit of Government Organizations, Pro- ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: grams, Activities and Functions," and additional OMB guidance. Applicant Eligibility: Any coastal State or territory which has a Records: All financial records and working-papers must be retained management program that has been approved under Section 306 for 3 years after the completion of the project or program for or is making in the judgment of the Assistant Administrator, satis- which a grant was made. FINANCIAL INFORMATION: Account Identification: 13-4315-0-3-452. the prograin for rvview. Obligations: (Grasils) FY K4 S245,0()O@ FY 85 12150)0; and FY 8b Application Procedure: Applications for Seefion 308(d)(1) and (2) es( SO. NOAA Form 36-23 are to be submitted in original plus two Range and Average of Financial Assistance: Dependent upon State's copies. In each State the Governor designates a 308 lead agency. allotment. Allotments range from S75,000 to $192,0000. The lead agency submits applications for financial assistance to PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: In fiscal year 1984, NOAA ap- NOAA. Projects and proposals for funding from units or local proved an additional 5 projects totaling S244,469. governments and State agencies must be submitted to @he 308 lead REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: 15 CFR Part agency. 931, OMB Circular Nos, A-87 and A-102. Award Procedure: Applications are approved by NOAA. Special INFORMATION CONTACTS: note: Intra-State Allocation Process (Section 308(g)(2) - each Regional or Local Office: None. coastal State, after being notified of its allotment, must establish a Headquarters Office: Chief, Coastal Programs Office, Office of process to allocate its allotment among State agencies and units of Ocean and Resource Coastal Management, National Ocean Serv- local government based upon the need and level of anticipated ice. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Depart- impact (see 15 CFR Subpart J). ment of Commerce, 3300 Whitehaven St., N.W., Washington, DC Deadlines: Applications should be submitted 120 days prior to the 20235. Telephone: (202) 634-1672. (Use same 7-digit number for proposed work start date. FTS.) Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: From 60 to 120 workdays. RELATED PROGRAMS: 11.421, Energy Impact-Formula Grants. Appeals- No formal procedure. EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: Ventura County, California, Renewals: Not applicable. was provided with $60,000 to plan for social, physical, and envi- ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: ronmental impacts of OCS and other coastal energy activity on its Formula and Matching Requirements: Up to 100 percent Federal public facilities and services. A $12,000 grant was made to the funding allotments are made. The statistical factors used for fund Town of Seabrook, New Hampsire to study the effect of the Sea- allocation are: (1) peak construction employment and the source is brook nuclear electric power generation plant on the municipal the office of OCRM@ (2) new employment and related new popu- water supply. 10 lation and the source is the office of OCRM; and (3) CPI annual CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Not presently available. update for standard construction and the source is the BLS. -1-he 11.423 COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM- statistical factor used for eligibility does not apply to this program. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: After being notified of its al- LOANS AND GUARANTEES lotment, a coastal State may submit application for loans and guar- FEDERAL AGENCY: NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOS- antees from this allotment. PHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COM- POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: MERCE Reports: Quarterly construction and financial status reports are re- AUTHORIZATION: Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of quired for all construction projects. 1976, Section 308(d)(1) Loans and 308(d)(2) Bond Guarantees; 16 Audits: In accordance with the provisions of Attachment P to Cir- U.S.C. 1451 et %eq; Public Law 94-370. cular A-102, "Uniform requirements for local grants to State and OBJECTIVES: To provide financial assistance for public facilities governments," audits shall be made of organizations carrying out necessary to support increased populations stemming from new or this program at least once every 2 years. These audits will be expanded coastal energy activity. made in accordance with the General Accounting Office guide- TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Direct Loans. lines, "Standards for Audit of Government Organizations, Pro- USES AND USE RESTRIC-FIONS: The public facilities eligible in- grams, Activities and Functions," and additional OMD guidance. clude but are not limited to highways and secondary roads, park- Records: Recipients of loans and. guarantees should retain financial ing, mass transit, docks, navigation aids, fire and police protection, records until complete repayment of the loan or guarantee for a water supply, waste collection and treatment (including drainage), period of at least 3 years. schools and education, and hospitals and health care. FINANCIAL INFORMATION: ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: Account Identification: 13-4315-0-3-452. Applicant Eligibility: Any coastal State which has a management Obligations: (Loans) FY 84 SO; FY 85 est SO; and FY 86 est $0. program which has been approved under Section 106; or is Range and Average of Financial Assistance: Dependent upon State s making in the judgment of the Assistant Adminisiratur, sa(isfitc- allotment. In 1978, allotments ranged from ' $200,000 to tory progress toward the development of a management program $38,000,000. which is consistent with the policies set forth in Section 303. PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Through June of fiscal year Beneficiary Eligibility: Only units of general purpose local govern- 1111, 33 loans totaling 1111,440,000 were awarded to eight S,a,e,,, mcnt in the coastal zone, as defined in 15 CFR 931.22, and State REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES. AND LITERATURE: 15 CFR Part agencies are eligible for CEIP financial assistance. 931, OMB Circular Nos. A-87 and A-102. Credentials/Documentation: Costs will be determined in accordance INFORMATION CONTACTS: with OMB Circular No. A-87. Regional or Local Office: None. APPLICATION. AND AWARD PROCESS: Headquarters Office: Chief, Coastal Programs Division, Office of Preapplication Coordination: For construction project, the borrower Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Serv- must provide a Preliminary Engineering Report which contains a ice, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Depart- preliminary analysis of the engineering aspects of the proposed fa- merit of Commerce, 3300 Whitchaven St., N.W., Washington, D-C cility costs and financial feasibility of the project. Cost for the Pre- 20235. Telephone: (202) 254-8000. (Use same 7-digit number for liminary Engineering Report may also be included in 308(b) appli- FTS.) cations. The standard application forms as furnished by the Feder- RELATED PROGRAMS: 11.421, Energy Impact-Formula Grants. al agency and required by OMB Circular No. A-102 must be used EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: A SIO,636,OUO loan was for this program. An environmental impact assessment should be awarded to construct a 168 bed hospital and provide needed emer- submitted with the initial construction project application to deter- gency treatment services to oil crew workers in Morgan City, mine whether an environmental impact statement is required. This Louisiana. The Park Central Municipal Utility District in the City program is eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, "Intergovern- of Port Arthur, Texas, received a $13,4H2,000 loan to finance the mental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should consult construction of sewer, water and drainage facilities needed as a the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his result of OCS energy activity. A S5,078,000 loan was made to or her State for more information on the process the State requires Lckson County, Mississippi, to expand [he County water system. to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Not applicable. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVIL WORKS ACTIVITIES tion can not exceed $1,000,000 or 70 percent of project cost Col. Robert R. Hardiman whichever is lower. Buffalo District Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: Not applicable. 1776 Niagara Street POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: Buffalo. NY 14207 Reports: A semiannual report is submitted to the District Engineer (716) 876-5454. Ext. 2200 covering inspections, maintenznce, and current project status. Audits: Not applicable. Records- As necessary to show past project conditions and local ac- 12.101 BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS tions. (Small Beach Erosion Control Projects) FINANCIAL INFORMATION: Account Identification: 96-3122-0-1-301. FEDERAL AGENCY: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Obligations: (Salaries and expenses) FY 84 $2,224,338; FY 85 est DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE $1,298,000; and FY 86 est $2,150,000. AUTHORIZATION: Section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor Act, Range and Average of Financial Assistance: Not applicable. as amended; Public Law 87-874; 33 U.S.C. 426g. PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Three projects were under con- OBJECTIVES: To control all beach and shore erosion to public shores struction in fiscal year 1984. through projects not specifically authorized by Congress. REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: Engineer Reg- TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Provision of Specialized Services. ulation 1105-2-10, App. E (33 CFR 263) and information sheets USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Corps of Engineers designs and describing this program are available from the District Engineer. constructs the project. Each project selected must be engineer- INFORMATION CONTACTS: ingly feasible, complete within itself, and economically justified. Regional or Local Office: See Appendix IV of the Catalog for a list- The nonfederal sponsoring agency must agree to (1) assume full ing of District Engineers. responsibility for all project costs in excess of the Federal cost Headquarters Office: Office of the Chief of Engineers, Attn: DAEN- limit of S1.000,000; (2) provide all necessary lands, easements. CWP-A Washington, DC 20314. Telephone: (202) 272-0141. rights-of-way; (3) hold and save the United States free from dam- RELATED PROGRAMS: 12.102, Flood Control Works and Federally ages; (4) assure that water pollution that would affect the health of Authorized Coastal Protection Works, Rehabilitation. bathers will not be permitted; (5) assure continued public owner- EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: Not applicable. ship or public use of the beach, and its administration for public CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Not applicable. use-, (6) provide project maintenance; and (7) provide and maintain 12.107 NAVIGATION PROJECTS necessary access roads, parking areas and other public use facilities open and available to all on equal terms. (Small Navigation Projects) ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: FEDERAL AGENCY: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Applicant Eligibility: States, political subdivisions of States or other DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. DEPARTMENT OF DE- responsible local agencies established under State law with full au- FENSE thority and ability to undertake necessary legal and financial re- AUTHORIZATION: Section 107 of 1960 River and Harbor Act, as sponsibilities. amended; Public Law 86-645; 33 U.S.C. 577. Beneficiary Eligibility: States. political subdivisions of States or other OBJECTIVES: To provide the most practicable and economic means responsible local agencies established under State law with full au- of fulfilling the needs of general navigation, through projects not thority and ability to undertake necessary legal and financial re- specifically authorized by Congress. sponsibilities. TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Provision of Specialized Services. Credentiats/Documentation: Applicant must furnish evidence of legal USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Corps of Engineers designs and authorization, Financial capability, and willingness to provide all constructs the project. -Each project selected must be engineer- necessary local participation and required cooperation. ingly feasible, complete within itself, and economically justified. APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: The nonfederal sponsoring agency must agree to assume full re- Preapplication Coordination: State or local government officials sponsibility for all project costs in excess of the Federal cost limit should consult he nearest District Engineer regarding specific of $2,000,000; contribute toward project costs for construction and problems and the possibility of remedial action under this pro- maintenance in view of recreational benefits, land enhancement gram. An environmental impact statement is also required. This benefits or other special local benefits; provide all necessary lands, program is eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, "Intergovern- easements, rights-of- way; hold and save the United States free mental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should consult from damages; and, provide adequate public landing or wharf, the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his piers, access roads, parking areas and other needed public facilities or her State for more information on the process the State requires open and available to all on equal terms. Local cost participation to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected requirements and procedures for determining the local share of the progjam for review. project cost are similar to those for navigation projects specifically Application- Procedure: Formal letter to District Engineer from a authorized by Congress under regular authorization procedures. prospective sponsoring agency indicating clear intent to provide No project is to be recommended for implementation under the all required local participation. Section 107 authority for which the total constant dollar Federal Award Procedure: The Chief of Engineers approves an individual costs over 50 *years exceed $4,500,000 when discounted at the cur- project upon the basis of a comprehensive investigation and report rent water project discount rate. by the District Engineer. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: Deadlines: None. Applicant Eligibility: States, political subdivisions of States or other Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: Not applicable. responsible local agencies established under State law with full au- Appeals: Not applicable. thority and ability to undertake necessary legal and financial re- Renewals: Not applicable. sponsibilities. ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Beneficiary Eligibility:'States, political subdivisions of States or other Formula and Matching Requirements: Local cost participation re- responsible local agencies established under State law with full au- quirements and procedures for determining the local share of thority and ability to undertake necessary legal and financial re- project cost are similar to those for beach erosion control projects sponsibilities. specifically authorized by Congress under regular authorization Credentials/Documentation: Applicant must furnish evidence of legal procedures. The determination of local cost is based on the public authorization, financial capability, and willingness to provide all use and ownership of the beach protected. The Federal participa- necessary local participatiow and required cooperation. APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: Preapplication Coordination: State or local government officials Reports: Not applicable. should consult the nearest District Engineer regarding specific Audits: Not applicable. problems and the possibility of remedial action under this pro- Records: Not applicable. gram. An environmental impact statement is also required. This FINANCIAL INFORMATION: program is eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, "Intergovern- Accuunt Identification: 96-3122-0-1-301. mental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should consult Obligations: (Salaries and expenses) FY 84 $12,363,022; FY 85 the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his $11,191,000; and FY 86 est S4,850,000. or her State for more information on the process the State requires Range and Average of Financial Assistance: Not applicable. to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Projects at 21 locations were the program for review. under construe tion in fiscal year 1984. 'UIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: Engineer Reg- Application Procedure: Formal letter to District Engineer from a REGULATIONS, G prospective sponsoring agency indicating clear intent to provide ulation 1105-2-10, App E (33 CFR 263) and information sheets de- al] required local participation. scrihing this program are available from the Di%trict Engineer. Award Procedure: The Chief of Engineers approves an individual INFORMATION CONTACTS: project upon the basis of a comprehensive investigation and report Regional or Local Office: See Appendix IV of the Catalog for listing by the District Engineer. of District Engineers. Deadlines: None. Headquarters Office: Office of the Chief of Engineers, Attn: DAEN- Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: Not applicable. CWP-A, Washington. DC 20314. Telephone: (202) 272-0141. (Use Appeals: Not applicable, the same 7-digit number for FTS.) Renewals: Not applicable. RELATED PROGRAMS: 12.109, Protection, Clearing and Straighten- ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS- ing Channels. Formula and Matching Requirements: None. EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: Not applicable. Length and Time Phasing of Assistaincit. Not al)t)licable. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Not appliL:able. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL OFFICE - REGION III based nonprofit organizations, local development corporations or (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Small Business Investment Companies may act as subgrantees to Pennsylvania, Virginia,.West Virginia) carry out neighborhood revitalization or community economic de- Philadelphia Regional Offi ce velopment projects in furtherance of block grant objectives. For- Regional Administrator profit businesses may be used as subgrantees to carry out econom- Regional Housing Commissioner ic development activities. Communities are restricted from con- Liberty Square Building structing or rehabilitating public facilities for the general conduct 105 South 7th Street of government and certain community wide facilities, i.e., central Philadelphia, PA 19106-3392 libraries, stadiums, sports arenas, cultural centers, convention cen- (215) 597-2560 ters; and from underwriting the cost of constructing new housing (Use same 7-digit number for FTS) or of making housing allowance or other income maintenance-type payments. The projected use of funds must be developed to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight and the projected use or funds may also include activities which the applicant certifies are designed to meet other 14.219 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK community development needs having a particular urgency be- cause existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to GRANTS/SMALL CITIES PROGRAM the health or welfare of the community where other financial re- (Small Cities) sources are not available to meet such needs. At least 51 preccrit of the funds made available to each unit of general local govern- FEDERAL AGENCY: COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVEL- ment must benefit low and moderate income persons. OPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DE- ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: VELOPMENT Applicant Eligibility: Under the CDBG Program/State Program AUTHORIZATION: Title I of the Housing and Community Develop- (14.228) each State may now elect to administer all aspects of the meni Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383, 42 U.S.C. 5301 - 5317, as Small Cities Program for the nonentitlement communities within amended. its jurisdiction. However, HUD will continue to administer the OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this program is the develop- Small Cities Program in States not electing to do so. In States ment of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a where HUD administers the Program, eligible applicants are units suitable living environment, and expanding economic opporLuni- of general local government (including counties), except metropol- ties, principally for persons of low and moderate income. itan cities, urban counties or units participating in an urban coun- TYPES OF ASSISTANCE, Project Grants. ty's CDBG program, and Indian tribes eligible for assistance under USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Small Cities develop their own Section 107(a)(3) of the Act. programs and funding priorities. Generally, as in the case of enti- Beneficiary Eligibility: State and local governments. flement grants,' most ac(ivitics previously eligible under the cate- Credentials/Documentation: Costs will be determined in accordance gorical program consolidated under the Act, and dcfined by the with OMB Circular No. A-87 for State and local governments. statute and regulations may be carried out. i.e., acquisition, reha- APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCFSS: bilitation or construction of certain public works facilities and im- Preapplication Coordination: Not applicable. provements, clearance, housing rehabilitation, code enforcement, Application Procedure: The application will be reviewed to assure relocation payments and assistance, administrative expenses, eco- that it meets all requirements of the regulations. The application nomic development, completing existing urban renewal projects, will also be rated and ranked under the selection criteria and ap- and certain public services within certain limits. Neighborhood- plicants funded to the extent funds permit. at least every two years or at the completion of the program. Award Procedure: Applicants are advised of ranking and selection Records: All information oil grants must he kept. by the Area Office. FINANCIAL INFORMATION: Deadlines: HUD shall establish deadlines for submission of applica- Account Identification: 146-0162-0-1-451. lions by State through publication of a Notice in the Federal Reg- Obligations: (General purpose discretionary) FY 84 SI,035,146.000; ister. . FY 85 est S1,023,264S00; and FY HO est $1,225,720,000. These are Range of Approval/Disapprovall Time: Although not required by total amounts for CDBG small cities and include both State and Statute, HUD Field offices will attempt to review, rate, and rank HUD administered obligations. applications within 75 days. Range and Average of Financial Assistance: In fiscal year 1984, aver- Appeals: None. ages were approximately - S253,000 for Single Purpose and Renewals: There are no automatic renewals. Complete new applica- $486,238 for Comprehensive. Grants range from less than $24,000 tions must be undertaken. to over S800,000. ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Fiscal year 1984 approvals to- Formula and Matcbing Requirements: Allocations to States are based taled approximately 80 for the Small Cities Program. on a dual Formula under Section 106 of the Act (24 CFR 570, REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: Adminis(ra- ubpart B) using statistical factors. Allocations for each State are live Regulations for.Community Development Block Grants, 24 based on an amount equaling the greater of the amounts calculated CFR 570, Subpart F. Sunder two formulas. The factors involved in the first formula are INFORMATION CONTACTS: population, extent of poverty and extent of overcrowding, weight- Regional or Local Office: Contact appropriate HUD Field Office (or ed 0.11, 0,10, and 0.25, respectively. The factors involved in the Regional Office in Region Vill) listed in the Catalog appendix. second formula are population, poverty, and age of housing Headquarters Office: State and Small Cities Division, Office of weighted 0.20, 0.30, and 0.50, respectively. The statistical factors Block Grant Assistance Community Planning and Development, used for fund allocation are (1) total residen, population for all Depar,men, or Housing and Urban Dvelopmem, 411 I'h S, rec', places in nation from the source 1980 Census; (2) number of per S.W., Washington. DC 20410. sons with incomes below the poverty level from the source 1980 RELATED PROGRAMS: 14.218, Community Development Block Census; (3) number of housing units with 1.01 or more persons per Grants/Entitlenient Grants; 14.228, Community Development room from the source 1980 Census; (4) age of housng; number of Block Grants/State's Program. year-round housing units built in 1919 or earlier from he source EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: Neighborhood revitalization 1980 Census. The statistical factors for each State have been re- projects emphasizing rehabilitation of private homes, and includ- duced to reflect only the non-entitled area, that is, the State area ing appropriate improvements of public facililics@ economic devel- excluding metropolitan cities and urban counties. Address ques- opment projects for expanded employment opportunities: and tions concerning the formula to John Nagoski, Division (if Data projects to address serious deficiencies in public facilities such as Systems and Statistic%, Office of Management, Conimuitily Plan- water and sewer. ning and Development, 451 71h Street. SW, Washington, DC CRITERIA FOR SELEC`T ING PROPOSALS: The program is com- 20410. Telephone: (202) 755-6042. petitive and the demand for grants far exceeds the available funds. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: Competition is held tin an Applications are ranked in accordance wilh a national rating annual basis, but it is not unusual for a single purpose or a com- system to ensure that grants are faidy and equitably awarded. Ap- prehensive program It) take more than 12 months it) complete, de- plicants are funded based on the final ranking of the application, pending on aclivilie% undertaken. to the extent funds are available. Rating factors consist ol'; absolute POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: number and percent of poverty persons; impact of the proriosed Reports: Performance Assessment Report and Financial Report%. programs; and outstanding past performance in meeting basic na- Audits: Periodic audit% must be made. These audits must take place tional objectives in the area of housing and equal opportunity. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE REGIONAL OFFICE (Region V: Conneclicul, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Applicant Eligibility: Participation limited to State Fish and wildlife Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, agencies. States must have passed laws for the conservation of fish District of Columbia) which include a prohibition against diversion of license fees paid Howard N. Lamn by fishermen for purposes other than the administration of the One Gateway Center State Fish and wildlife agency. Also eligible are Puerto Rico, Newton Corner, MA 02158 Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northem Mari- (617) 965-51106 ana Islands, and the District of Columbia. (Use same 7-digit number for FTS) Beneficiary Eligibility: Same as Applicant Eligibility. Credentials/Documentation: Notification of desire to participate must be made annually to the Se"etary. The State fish and wildlife di- 15.605 FISH RESTORATION rector must furnish a,certification of the number of paid fishing li- (Dingell-Johnson Program or D-J Program) cense holders. Costs are determined in accordance with OMB Cir- cular No. A-87 for State and local governments. FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DE- APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Preapplication Coordination: The standard application forms fur- AUTHORIZATION. Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of nished by the Federal agency and required by OMB Circular No. 1950; 64 Stat. 430;.as amended 16 U.S.C. 777777k-. A-102 must be used for this program. Environmental assimment is OBJECMVES: To support projects designed to restore and manage required where actions will significantly affect the human environ- sport fish populations for the preservation and improvement of ment. This program is eligible for coverage under E. 0. 12372, sport fishing and related uses of these fisheries resources. "Intergovernmental Review or Federal Programs." An applicant TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Formula Grants. should consult the office or official designated as the single point USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Approvable activities include land of contact in his or her State for more information on the process acquisition, development, research and coordination. Activities the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the nt prohibited are law enforceme and public relations. State has selected the program for review. Application Procedure- Grantee may document initial program by Audits: Audits of internal controls, propriety of costs, and compli- submission of satisfactory comprehensive long range plan. When ance with regulations and legislation are performed at regular in- plan is accepted, project documentation is not required and annual tervals. agreement, based on the plan is execuled, Grantee has the option Records: Cost records must be maintained separately for each of submiiiing a project application. The form used is furnished by project. Records, accounts, and supporting documents must be re- the Service. Documentation is covered in detail in the "Federal tained for three years after submission of final request for reim- Aid Manual." bursement. Award Procedure: The Regional Director approves or disapproves FINANCIAL INFORMATION: comprehensive long range plans and individual proposed projects. Account Identification: 14-9923-0-2-303. Regional offices are responsible for notification of grant approval Obligations: (Grants) FY 84 $35,423,000; FY 85 est $35,060,000; and to the grantee by return of at completed agreement. FY 86 est $38,700,000. Deadlines: None. Range and Average of Financial Assistance: FY 84 S104,600 to Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: Average 8 days. S1,569,000; $560,357; FY-85 $116,867 to $1,753,000; $626,067. Appeals: Differences of opinion about the substantiality of proposed PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: In fiscal year 1984, 1,312 acres projects are considered by qualified representatives of the Service of water were created or restored as public fishing lakes in partici- and the State. In the event of continued disagreement, final deter- pating States and a total of 719 acres were acquired or developed mination resis with the Secretary of the Interior. to provide public access to fishing grounds. Fiscal year 1985 sLatis- Renewals: Projects'are renewed on an annual basis through approval tics are not available at this time. of a project agreement. REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: 50 CFR 80; ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Federal Aid Manual; Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Formula and Matching Requirements: Forty percent on the basis of Annual Report (limited number available at no cost). land and water area of the State and 60 percent on the basis of INFORMATION CONTACTS: paid fishing license holders. No State may receive more than rive Regional or Local Office: See Catalog address appendix. percent or less than one percent of the total apportioned. Puerto Headquarters Office: Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Rico is apportioned one percent; Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Interior, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: (703) 235-1526. (Use Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the District of same 7-digit number for FTS). Columbia are apportioned one-third of one percent. States are re- RELATED PROGRAMS: 11.405, Anadromous and Great Lakes Fish- imbursed up to 75 percent of the total project cost. Statistical fac- eries Conservation; 11.407, Commercial Fisheries Research and 11 ors used for fund allocation are (1) States percentage share of Development; 15.600, Anadromous Fish Conservation; 15.603, and and water area and statute miles of coastline including coastal Farm Fish Pond Management; 15.604, Fishery Research-Infor- and Great Lakes Waters from the source GE20 Number 1, May mation; 15.608, Fishery Resources Technical Assistance; 15.610, 1970, Area Measurement Report, Census; Coastline of the U.S., Wildlife Research Information; 15.611, Wildlife Restoration; NOAA; (2) States percentage share or number of paid fishing li- 15.612, Endangered Species Conservation. cense holders from the source annually certified by each State*s EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: Fish habitat improvement, re- fish and wildlife agency. Statistical factors used for eligibility do search on Fishery problems, surveys and inventories of fish popula- not apply for this program. tions and habitats, provision for public use of Fishery resources, Length and Time Phasing or Assistance: Apportioned funds are av6l- lake and s,rearn rehabilitation, able for obligation for a period or two years. Balances remaining CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Projects must be sub- uriobligated after the period or availability are returned to the mitted by the State agency having responsibility for management Service. of the State's fishery resources. The State agency selects those POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: projects which are submitted for funding under the program. Reports: A Performance Report is required for each annual segment Projects are approved if they meet basic criteria contained in the within 90 days after the end of the segment. regulations and the Manual. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - REGIONAL OFFICE Anthony M. Corbisiero, Associate Regional TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Project Grants. Director USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Acquisition -and development Planning and Development grants may be used for a wide range of outdoor recreation National Park Service projects, such as picnic areas, inner city parks, campgrounds, 143 South 3rd Street tennis courts, boat launching ramps, bike trails, outdoor swimming Philadelphia, PA 19106 pools, and support facilities such as roads, water supply, etc. Fa- (215) 597-7989 cilities must be open to the general public and not limited to spe- (Use same 7-digit number for FTS) cial groups. Development of basic rather than elaborate facilities is favored. Fund monies are not available for the operation and maintenance of facilities. Grants are also available to States only for revising and updating existing SCORPs preparation of new 15.916 OUTDOOR RECREATION-ACQUISITION, plans and for statewide surveys, technical studies, data collection DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING and analysis and other planning purposes which are clearly ri!lated (land and Water Conservation Fund Grants) to SCORP refinement and improvement plan. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: FEDERAL AGENCY: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPART- Applicant Eligibility: For planning grants, only the State agency for- MENT OF THE INTERIOR mally designated by the Governor or State law as responsible for AUTHORIZATION: 16 U.S.C. 1-4 et seq. Land and Water Conserva- the preparation And maintenance of the Statewide Comprehensive lion Fund Act of 1965; Public Law 88-578; 78 Slat. 897; as amend- Outdoor Recreation Plan is eligible to apply. (Treated as States in ed by Public Law 90-401 (82 Slat. 354); Public Law 91-485 (84 this regard are the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Slat. 1084); Public Law 91-308 (84 Slat. 410); Public Law 92-347 Islands, American Samoa. and Guam.) For acquisition and devel- (86 Slat. 460); Public Law 93-81 (87 Slat. 178); Public Law 94422 opment grants, the above designated agency may apply for assist- (90 Stal.1313); and Public Law 9542 (91 Slat. 210). ance for itself, or on behalf of other State agencies or political OBJECTIVES: To provide financial assistance to the States and their subdivisions, such as cities, counties, and park districts. Additional- political subdivisions for the preparation of Statewide Comprehen- ly, Indian tribes which are organized to govern themselves and sive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORPs) and acquisition and de- perform the function of a general purpose unit of government velopment of outdoor recreation areas and facilities for the general qualify for assistance under the program. Individuals and private public, to meet current and future needs. organization s are not eligible. more information on the process the State requires to be followed broken down into stages, with one being initially approved and in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for the remainder qualified for activation at a later date. Except for review. project preparation costs, all costs must be incurred within the Application Procedure: Project proposals are submitted to the Serv- project period. Planning projects may not be phased. ice through the State liaison officer designated by the Governor. POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: The Stale Liaison Officer has the initial prerogative of determin- Reports: State inspection reports are submitted triennially on com- ing acquisition and development project eligibility, priority need, pleted projects stating whether the properties acquired and/or de- and order of fund assistance within the State. veloped with fund assistance are used in accordance with the Award Procedure: Proposals are reviewed by regional office, where agreement. For planning projects, end products are specified in final action may be taken, the application for assistance. Reports are required with billings. Deadlines: None. Audits: OMB Circular A-102 Attachment P requires -State and local Range of Approval/ Disapproval Time: Approximately 20 days for ac- recipients to provide an organizational audit to their respective quisition and development projects; 60 days for planning projects. cognizant agencies at least once every two years. Appeals: State may appeal to the Secretary of the Interior. Records: Maintain records to facilitate audit, including records that Renewals: Project agreements may be amended to change the scope, fully disclose the amount and disposition of assistance; the total amount, or duration. Must be approved by the Service. cost of the project; and the amount and nature of that portion of ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: the cost supplied by other sources. Formula and Matching Requirements: The Land and Water Conser- FINANCIAL INFORMATIONt vation Fund Act specifies that not more than 50 percent of the Account Identification: 14-5035-0-2-303.. project cost may be -federally financed. Under certain conditions, Obligations: (Grants) FY 84 $107,699,0ft FY 85 est $102,403,000; all or part of the project Sponsor's matching share may be from and FY 86 est $0. certain other Federal assistance programs, such as Title I Commu- Range and Average of Financial Assistance. S150 to $5.450,000; nity Development, Appalachia and all other Regional Commis- S69,178. sions. Forty percent of the first S225 million; thirty percent of the PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: By September 30, 1984, over next $275 million; and twenty percent of all additional appropria- S2.9 billion' has been made available to State and local units of tions is apportioned equally among the States. The remaining ap- government to assist in planning, acquiring and developing public propriation is apportioned on the basis of need. This program has outdoor recreation areas and facilities. maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, see funding agency for REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: Outdoor further details. Recreation Grants-in-Aid Manual (available on a subscription basis Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: Funds are available for obli- from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing gation during the fiscal year in which appropriated and for the Office, Washington, DC 20W2, at a cost of S9.75). "The Land and two following fiscal years. The assistance period for individual Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as Amended," no charge; projects varies and may be extended. Complex projects may be and "Private Assistance in Outdoor Recreation," SO.90 from Gov- Beneficiary Eligibility: The general public. For planning grants, same crnment Printing Office. as Applicant Eligibility. INFORMATION CONTACTS: Credentials/Documentation: The State Liaison Officer (SLO), ap- Regional or Local Office: See Catalog Appendix IV for addresses. pointed by the Governor to administer the program in the State, Headquarters Office: Chief. Recreation Grants Division, National must furnish assurance that the project is in accord with the State Park Service, Department of the Interior. P.O. Box 37127. Wash- Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan; i.e., that it meets high ington, DC 20013-7127. Telephone: (202) 343-3700. Contact: Sam priority recreation needs shown in the action program portion or L. Hall. the plan. The State's apportionment balance or fund monies must RELATED PROGRAMS: 10.061, Water Bank Program; 39.001, Dis, be adequate for the project, and the sponsoring agency must per- posal of Federal Surplus Real Property. manently dedicate the project to public outdoor recreation and EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECI'S: Acquisition and develop- assume responsibility for operation and maintenance. SCORPs. ment grants may be used for a wide range of outdoor recreation must cite the State's legal authority to participate in the Land and projects, such as picnic areas, inner city parks, campgrounds, Water Conservation Fund program. Costs will be determined in tennis courts, boat launching ramps, bike trails, outdoor swimming accordance with OMB Circular No. A87 for State and local gov- pools, and support facilities such as roads, water supply, etc. Fa- ernments. cilities must be open to the general public and not limited to spe- APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: cial groups. Development of basic rather that elaborate facilities is Preapplication Coordination: The standard application forms fur- favored. Fund monies are not available for the operation and nished by the Federal agency and required by OMB Circular No. maintenance of facilities. A-102 must be used for this program. Applicant is required to fur- CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: At the Federal level nish basic environmental information or evaluation. Assessment by each project must be in accord with a State comprehensive out- the National Park Service will determine whether an environmen- door recreation plan. Beyond this, the selection of projects is tal impact statement will be prepared. This program is eligible for made by the State Liaison Officer of each State who is responsible coverage under E. 0. 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Fed- for the administration of the 15.916 program in his State. era) Programs." An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point or contact in his or her State for LOANS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION - STATE OFFICE Room 728, Federal Building 228 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 Appeals: If an application is rejected. the reasons for rejection are (717) 782-4476 fully stated. 'I lie applicant may request a review of the decision FTS 590-4476 from the next higher management level of FmHA. Renewals: Not applicable. ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Formula and Matching Requirements: This program has no statutory 10.414 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND formula. DEVELOPMENT LOANS Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: A time limitation i's not spec- ified for use of FmHA loan funds. Funds %%ill be awarded when FEDERAL AGENCY: FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, all FmHA requirements are met and the project can be completed DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE on a timely basis. Funds may be advanced on as needed basis AUTHORIZATION: Food and Agriculture Act of 1462: public Law by FmHA 87-703; 7 U.S.C. 1011 (Supp, V) 1959-63; 7 U.S.C. 1010 POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: OBJECTIVES: 'it) provide loan assistance to local sponsoring agen- Reports: Periodic progress report-., are to be made to the FmHA Dis- cies in authorized areas where acceleration of program ofresource trict Director. conservation, development, and utilization will increase economic Audits: Perodic audits should be made as part of' the recipient's Sys- opportunities for local people, tems of financial management and internal control to meet terms TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Direct Loans. and conditions of loans and other agreements. USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: Loan funds may be used for (1) Records: Records and accounts are required to rellect the oper- rural community public outdoor-oriented water based recreational ations of the project. facilities; (2) soil and water development, conservation, control FINANCIAL INFORMATION: and use facilities; (3) shiftin-land use facilities; (4) community Account Identification: 12-4140-0-3-351. water storage facilities; and (5) special purpose equopment to carry Obligations: (Loans) FY 84 82,000: FY 85 est 2,000; and FY out the above purposed Proper must be located in an authorized funds were re 86 est no funds were requested. RC&D area A loan for a single RC&D measure cannot exceed $500,000 Range and Average of Financial Assistance: $30,000 to $500,000: . $194,000 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: fiscal year 198, two loans Applicant Eligibility: Public agencies Lind local nonprofit corpora- PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: In tions in authorized Resource Conservation and Development were made. It is estimated that 2 loans will be made in the fiscal year (RC&D) Area-, may be eligible for loan assistance provided they: 1985. (1) Are a sponsor of the RC&D measure for which a loan is re- REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND LITERATURE: Farmers quested mid which is included in the RC&D project plan; (2) have Home Administration, PA-799 and PA-973. no charge, 7-CFR 1942 authority to borrow funds, repay the loan, and pledge security for Subpart 1. the loan and to operate the facilities or services provided; and (3) INFORMATION CONTACTS: are financially sound, organized, and managed in provide efficient Regional or Local Office: Consult your local telephone directory for service. Assistance authorized for eligible applicants in approved FmHA county or district office number. If' no listing, contact ap- RC&D areas in States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. propriate FmHA State office listed in Appendix IV of the Cata- Beneficiary Eligibility: Farmers. ranchers. rural residents and other log. residents in an authorized Resource Conservation and Develop- Headquarters Office: Director, Community Facilities Division, merit (RC&D) area. Farmers Home Administration, Department of Agriculture, Wash- Credentials/ Documentation: Evidence (if legal capacity, financial re- ington, DC 20250. Telephone: (202) 382-1490. (Use same 7-digit sponsibility, and economic feasibility relative it) the activity for number for FTS.) which assistance is requested RELATED PROGRAMS: 10.063, Agricultural Conservation Program: APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: 10.423, Community Facilities Loans; 10.500, Cooperative Exten- Preapplication Coordination: The standard application forms as for- sion Service; 10.901, Resource Conservation and Development; nished by the Federal agency and required by OMB Circular No. 10.902. Soil and Water Conservation. A-102 must be used for this program. An informal pre application EXAMPLES OF FUNDED PROJECTS: Not applicable. conference is recommended. An environmental impact assessment CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Not applicable. is required for this program. This program is eligible for coverage under E.0. 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Pro- 10.419 WATERSHED PROTEC`FION AND FLOOD grams." An applicant should consult the office or official designat- PREVENTION LOANS ed as the single point of contact in this or her State for more infor- mation on lite process the State requires to be followed in apply- FEDERAL AGENCY: FARMERS IIOML ADMINISTRATION ing for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review. DEPART MENT OF AGRICULTURE Application Procedure: ['reapplication Form AD-621 , filed at Dis- AUTHORIZATION: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, trict FmHA Offices from which assistance may lie obtained. This as amended; public Law 93-566; Section 9. It) U.S.C. 1006a and program is subject it) the provisions of OMB Circular No. A- 110. Flood Control Act, as amended: Public Law 78-534. Award Procedure: After the preapplication has been reviewed by OBJECTIVES: To provide loan assistance it) sponsoring local orani- the District Director, it is forwarded to the FmHA State Director zations in authorized watershed areas for share of cost for Works for review and processing instructions. Following review by lite of improvement. State Director the applicant is notified about eligibility, availability TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Direct Loans. of fund,, and if an application should he filed. Upon favorable USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS:: Loan funds may be used to help review and approval of a complete application package, funds are local sponsors provide the local shareof the cost of watershed made availableto the District FmHA Director for delivery. works of improvement for flood prevention. irrigation. drainage. Deadline%: None. water quality management. sedimentation control, fish and wildlife Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: Front 30 to 40 days. development, public water based recreation, and water storage and related costs The total amount of WS loans outstanding in Length and Time Phasing of Assistance: A time is not spec- any one watershed cannot exceed $10,000,000. ified for the use of FmHA loan funds. Funds will be awarded ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: when all FmHA requirements are met and the project can be Applicant Eligibility: To be eligible for a water shed loan an appli- completed on a timely basis. Funds may be advanced on an as cant must: (1) Be a sponsoring local organizattion, such as munici- needed basis by FmHA. pal corporation, soil and water conservation district, or other or- POST ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS: ganization not operated for profit in the approved watershed Reports. Periodic progress reports arc made it) the FmHA. project: and (2) have authority under State law to obtain, give sc- Audits: Periodic audits should be made as part of recipient's sys curity for, and raise revenues to repay the loan and to operate and tems of financial management and internal control to meet terms maintain the facilities to be financed with the loan. Assistance is and condition, of loans and other agreements. authorized for applicant% in approved watershed areas in Records; Records and accounts are required to reflect the oper- Slates, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. ations of the project Beneficiary Eligibility: Farmrs, ranchers, rural residents and other FINANCIAL INFORMATION: residents in the authorized watershed area. Account Identification: 12-4140-0-3-351. Credentials/Documentation: Evidence of legal capacity, economica Obligations: (Loans) FY 84 W; FY 85 est $14,000 and FY 86 est feasibility and financial responsibility relative I0 tile activity for no funds Were which assistance is requested. Range and Average of Financial Assistance: $4,000 to $7,500,00; APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: $270,000. Preapplication Coordination: The standard application forms fur- PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: No loans were nade in fiscal rushed by tile Federal agency and required by OMB Circular Mi. year l984 and it is estimated that two loans will be matte in fiscal A102 must be used for this program. An environmental impact year 1985. assessment is required for this program. This program is eligible REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES. AND LITERATURE: Watershed for coverage Under E.O. 12.372 -Intergovernmental Review of Loans - Farmers Home Administration PA-406 - no charge. Federal Programs,"An applicant should consult the office or offi- Farmers Home Administration - PA-913 no charge. 7 CFR 1942 cial designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for Subpart 1. more information on the process tile State requires to be followed INFORMATION CONTACTS: in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for Regional or Local Office; Consult Your local telephone directory for review. FmHA county or District Office number.If no listing, contact Application Procedure: Preapplication Form AD-621 is filed at with appropriate FmHA State office listed in Appendix IV of the county or District FmHA oil oil from which assistance may he ob- Catalog. tained. This program is subject to) the provisions of OM B Circular Headquarters Office: Director, Community Facilities Division, No. A- 110. Farmers Home Administration, Department of Agriculture, Wash- Award Procedure: After the preappliculion has been reviewed by ington, DC 20250 Telephone: (202) 382-1490. (Use same 7-digit the District Director, it is forwarded to the Fm HA State Director number for FTS ) for review and processingg instructions. Following review, by the RELATED PROGRAMS: 10.416, Soil and Water Loans 10.423. Com- State Director. the applicant is notified about eligibility, availabil-- munity Facilities Loans; 10.902, Suil and Water Conservation; ity of funds and, if an application should be filed. Upon favorable 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention: 10.908, River review and approval of a complete application package, funds arc Hasin Surveys and Investigations made available to the District FmHA Director for delivery. EXAMPLES Of FUNDED PROJECTS: Loans were made to Deadlines: None stall or improve facilities to store and convery irrigation water to Range of Approval/Disapproval Time: From 30to 90 day%. farms real and sistribute water for farm use, and drain farm Appeals: If an application is rejected, tile reasons for rejection are areas. 2) structurs and ewuipment for flood prevention; 3) fully stated. The applicant may request a review of the decision install or improve a municipal water supply reservoir with recrea- from the next higher management level of FmHA. tion, fish and wild life improvement; 4) establish recreational Renewals: Not applicable. velopments in or adjacent to reservoirs, Lakes, streams, or shore- ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS: lilies. 5) provide fish and wildlife developments. Formula and Matching Requirements: This program has no statutory CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PROPOSALS: Not applicable. This formula. prOGRAM has no statutory formula. SEC 6 COASTAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is further amended by adding immediately after section 306 now section: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT GRANTS "Sec. 306A. (a) For purposes of this section- "(1) The term 'eligible coastal state' means a coastal state that for any fiscal year for which a grant is applied for under this section- (A) has management program approved under section 306; and "(B)in the judgment of the Secretary, is making satisfac- tory progress in activities designed to result in significant improvement in achieving the coastal management objecc- lives specified in section 303(2)(A)through(l). "(2) The term 'urban waterfront and port' means any devel- oped area that is densely populated and is being used for, or has been used for. urban residential recreational, commercial, ship- ping or industrial purposes. (b) The Secretary may make grants to any eligible coastal state to assist that state in meeting one or more of the following objectives: "(l) The preservation or restoration of specific areas of the state that. (A) are designated under the management program procedures required by section 306(c)(9) because of their conser- vation recreational, ecological, or esthetic values, or (B) contain one more coastal resources of national significance. (2) The redevelopment of deteriorating and underutilized urban waterfronts and ports that are designated under section 305(b)(3) irk the state's management program as areas of particu- lar concern. "(3) The provision of access of public beaches and other public coastal areas and to coastal waters in accordance with the planning process required under section 305(b)(7) (c)(1) Each grant made by the Secretary under this section shall be subject to such terms and conditions as may be appropriate to ensure that the grant is used tar purposes consistent with (his section. (2) Grunts made under this section may be used for- "(A) the acquisition of fee simple and other interests in land. "(B) low-cost construction project- determined by the Sec- tary to be consistent, with the purposes of this section, including but not limited,to, paths, walkways, fences, parks, and the rehabilitation of historic buildings and structures; ecept that not more than 50 per centum of any grant made under this section may be used for such construction projects; "(C) in the case of grants made for objectives described in subsection (b)(2)-- "(i) the rehabilitation or acquisition of piers to provide increased public use, including compatible commercial activity, "(ii) the establishment of shoreline stabilization measures including the installation or rehabilitation of bulkheads for the purpose of public safety or increasing public access and use,and "(iii) the removal or replacement of pilings where such action will provide increased recreational use of urban Waterfront areas, but activities provided for under this paragraph shall not by treated as construction projects subject to the limitations in paragraph (B); "(D)engineering designs, specifications, and other appropriate reports; and (E)educational,interpretive,and management costs and such other related costs as the Secretary determines to be consiStent with the purposes of this section. "( 1) No grant made under this section may exceed an amount equal to 80 per centum or the cost of carrying out the purpose or project for which it was awarded. "(2) Grants provided under this section may be used to pay a coastal states share of costs required under any other Federal program that is consistent with the purposes of this section. "(3) The total amount of grants made under this section to any eligible coastal state for any fiscal year may not exceed in an amount equal to 10 per centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out this section for such fiscal year. "(e) With the approval of the Secretary, an eligible coastal state may allocate to a local government, an areawide agency designated under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1906, a regional agency, or an interstate agency, a portion of any grant made under this section for the purpose of carrying out this section; except that such an allocation shall not relieve that state of the responsibility for ensuring that any funds so allocated are applied in furtherance of the state's approved manage- ment program. "(f) In addition to providing grants under this section, the Secretary shall assist eligible coastal states and their local governments in identifying and obtaining other sources of available Federal technical and financial assistance regarding the objectives of this section." I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I 3 6668 14108,8312 -iI