TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER II: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PART 368
PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING PRIORITIES FOR ASSISTANCE AWARDS UNDER THE ILLINOIS
CLEAR LAKES PROGRAM
SUBPART A: INTRODUCTION
Section
368.110 Purpose
368.120 Definitions
368.130 Materials Referenced in this Part
368.140 Funding Allocations
368.150 Funding Priority System
368.160 Applications for Funding
SUBPART B: PROCEDURES FOR CALCULATING PRIORITY POINTS FOR INLAND
LAKE STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT AWARDS
Section
368.210 Formula for Computing Total Priority Points
368.220 A1 Factor (Overall Use Support Assessment)
368.230 A2 Factor (Water Quality Potential)
368.240 A3 Factor (Public Benefits Assessment)
368.250 A4 Factor (Special Considerations)
AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by the Illinois Lake Management
Program Act [525 ILCS 25] and Section 6z-31 of the State Finance Act [30
ILCS 105/6z-31].
SOURCE: Adopted at 22 Ill. Reg. 15259, effective August 7, 1998.
SUBPART A: INTRODUCTION
Section 368.110 Purpose
This Part sets out the procedures that will be used by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency for prioritizing applications for financial
assistance awards under the Illinois Clean Lakes Program.
Section 368.120 Definitions
a) Unless otherwise specified, all terms shall have the meanings set
out in the Illinois Lake Management Program Act [525 ILCS 25],
Section 6z-31 of the State Finance Act [30 ILCS 105/6z-31] and the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5].
b) For the purposes of this Part, the following definitions apply:
Agency: the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
Diagnostic and Feasibility (Phase I) Study: the gathering of data
to document the existing and potential sources of pollution and to
determine the limnological, morphological, demographic, and other
pertinent characteristics of an inland lake and its associated
watershed and the analysis of this information to determine the
most appropriate method for improving or preserving the quality of
the lake for intended uses and to determine the need for a
Long-Term Restoration and Preservation (Phase II) Project or a
Lake Water Quality Maintenance Program (LQMP). [525 ILCS 25/3(d)]
Illinois Clean Lakes Program (ICLP): the inland lake study or
implementation financial assistance award program administered by
the Agency pursuant to the Illinois Lake Management Act [525 ILCS
25] and the Conservation 2000 program [30 ILCS 105/6z-31].
Lake Owner: the owner, owners, or designated management authority
of any inland lake who possesses the legal authority over a given
lake and the ability to generate revenue and in-kind contributions
to perform Diagnostic and Feasibility Studies and to enact
comprehensive lake management through the implementation of
Long-Term Restoration and Preservation Projects (Phase II) and
Lake Water Quality Maintenance Programs. [525 ILCS 25/3(f)]
Lake Water Quality Maintenance Program (LQMP): the water quality
maintenance program described in Section 25/3 of the Illinois Lake
Management Program Act [525 ILCS 25] for implementation of a lake
and watershed management plan recommended by the Diagnostic and
Feasibility Phase I Study which provides short-term relief from
nuisance aquatic vegetation and algae growth; projects under this
program must demonstrate that the proposed maintenance program
would result in attainment of significant public recreational lake
use, and that watershed management plans are being implemented to
control and reduce incoming nutrients, sediments, and other
pollutants. [525 ILCS 25/3(l)]
Long-Term Restoration and Preservation (Phase II)
Project: implementation of lake and watershed management plans as
developed under the Diagnostic and Feasibility Study which will
provide for long-term restoration benefits and long-term
preservation of the lake's water quality. [525 ILCS 25/3(g)]
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA): the classification developed
by the U.S. Department of Commerce for use by federal agencies in
the production, analysis and publication of data on metropolitan
areas. The MSAs in Illinois are Bloomington-Normal,
Champaign-Urbana-Rantoul, Chicago, Davenport-Rock Island-Moline,
Decatur, Kankakee, Peoria, Rockford, St. Louis and Springfield.
Priority Points (PP): the individual points based on various
factors assigned to an inland lake study or implementation
project application.
Total Priority Points (TPP): the sum of all Priority Points
assigned to an inland lake study or implementation project
application.
Uncommon Resource: an inland lake known to contain endangered or
threatened species.
Unique Resource: an inland lake that has oligotrophic water
quality and is capable of supporting year-round cold water or
"two-tiered" fisheries.
Section 368.130 Materials Referenced in this Part
The following materials are referenced in this Part:
"Illinois Assessment of Water Resource Conditions 1994-1995",
IEPA/BOW/96-060(a) and (b) (September 1996).
Section 368.140 Funding Allocations
Funds for the Illinois Clean Lakes Program are targeted to be distributed
to lake owners in each fiscal year from 1996 to 2001 by the Agency
according to the following percentage amounts:
a) Phase I projects
1) FY96--60%
2) FY97--45%
3) FY98--40%
4) FY99--35%
5) FY00--30%
6) FY01--25%
b) Phase II projects
1) FY96--35%
2) FY97--50%
3) FY98--55%
4) FY99--60%
5) FY00--65%
6) FY01--70%
c) LQMP projects
Five percent of available funds are targeted to be distributed by
the Agency to LQMP projects in each year from FY96 through FY01.
Section 368.150 Funding Priority System
Total Priority Points (TPP) will be assigned to each project application
submitted for funding according to the methodology set out in Subpart B of
this Part. Each project will be ranked from highest to lowest according to
TPP and funded according to the targeted distribution schedule set out in
Section 368.140 above.
Section 368.160 Applications for Funding
Lake owners seeking Phase I, Phase II or LQMP funding assistance shall
submit applications to the Agency in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code
367.Subpart D.
SUBPART B: PROCEDURES FOR CALCULATING PRIORITY POINTS FOR INLAND
LAKE STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT AWARDS
Section 368.210 Formula for Computing Total Priority Points
Total Priority Points (TPP) for inland lake study and implementation
project applications is a number that is the sum of the Priority Points
(PP) assigned according to four factors: A1, A2, A3, and A4. The TPP is
calculated as follows: A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 = TPP. Points will be assigned to
each factor based on lake data and assessment information maintained by the
Agency and other State or federal agencies, and data submitted by the
applicant. All information provided by the applicant will be subject to
verification by the Agency prior to the assignment of Priority Points.
Section 368.220 A1 Factor (Overall Use Support Assessment)
A1 is a factor that evaluates inland lakes based on their overall use
support assessment rating. The possible degrees of use support assessment
are Full, Full/Threatened, Partial/Minor impairment, Partial/Moderate
impairment, or Nonsupport. Priority points for the A1 factor are allocated
as follows (0-100 points possible):
Full/Threatened Overall Assessment 100
Partial/Minor or Partial/Moderate Overall Assessment 75
Full Overall Assessment 50
Nonsupport Overall Assessment 25
Insufficient Information to Make a Reliable
Assessment 0
This factor will be calculated by the Agency using the data for the lake
and methodology set out in the most recent Illinois Water Quality Report,
"Illinois Assessment of Water Resource Conditions", produced by the Agency
pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
USC 1315(b)). See the "Illinois Assessment of Water Resource Conditions
1994-1995," IEPA/BOW/96-060(a) and (b) (September 1996) for further
information.
Section 368.230 A2 Factor (Water Quality Potential)
a) A2 is a factor that evaluates inland lakes based on their Water
Quality Potential (WQP). The potential quality of a lake is
determined by the quality of the incoming water, water residence
time, and lake basin characteristics. Four factors are used to
rank inland lakes for water quality potential:
1) ratio of watershed area to lake surface area (WA:SA);
2) mean lake depth;
3) lake water retention time; and
4) lake size.
b) Priority points for the A2 factor are allocated as follows (0-100
points possible):
1) Watershed Area/Lake Surface Area Ratio
A) Less than or equal to 20 30
B) Greater than 20 but less than or equal to 50 20
C) Greater than 50 but less than or equal to 100 10
D) Greater than 100 0
2) Mean Depth (feet)
A) Greater than 15 30
B) Greater than 10 but less than or equal to 15 20
C) Greater than 5 but less than or equal to 10 10
D) Less than or equal to 5 0
3) Water Retention Time (years)
A) Greater than 1.00 30
B) Greater than 0.50 but less than or equal to 20
1.00
C) Greater than 0.25 but less than or equal to 10
0.50
D) Less than or equal to 0.25 0
4) Lake Size (acres)
A) Greater than 100 but less than or equal to 10
500
B) Greater than six but less than or equal to
100; or greater than 500 but less than or
equal to 1000 5
C) Less than or equal to 6 or greater than 1000 0
Section 368.240 A3 Factor (Public Benefits Assessment)
a) A3 is a factor that evaluates inland lakes based on their
importance or benefit to the general public. This factor is based
on the following criteria:
1) the ownership and accessibility of the lake to the public;
2) current public lake use (annual visitor days);
3) proximity of the lake to a Metropolitan Statistical Area;
4) the supply of publicly-owned or accessible lakes related to
existing or potential demand;
5) the multipurpose nature of, or need for, the lake (i.e.,
public water supply and recreational use);
6) the type and number of recreational facilities available; and
7) the public benefits that are derived from a lake with an
uncommon or unique environment as defined in Section 368.120.
b) For the A3 factor, priority points are allocated as follows (0-240
points possible):
1) Ownership/Access
A) Lake Bottom Ownership
i) Public 20
ii) Public and private 2-18 (2 points per 10% of
lake bottom publicly owned;
rounded to the nearest 10%)
iii) Private 0
B) Lake Accessibility
i) Public Access (no fees) 100
ii) Public Access (all uses are 90
available to non-residents and
non-resident fees are less
than 200% of resident fees)
iii) Public Access (all uses are 10
available to non-residents and
non-resident fees are greater
than 200% of resident fees)
iv) Limited Public Access (1 or
more uses are not allowed for
non-residents)
3) Recreational Lake Use
A) Very Heavy (more than 200,000
users/year) 15
B) Heavy (between 100,000 and
200,000 users/year) 10
C) Moderate (between 25,000 and
100,000 users/year) 5
D) Light (fewer than 25,000 users/year) 0
3) Proximity to MSA
A) Within MSA (0 miles) 15
B) From 0 to 25 miles 10
C) From 26 to 50 miles 5
D) Further than 50 miles 0
4) Per Capita Availability of Other Public Lakes in the Area
(public lake surface area in the county divided by the
county population)
A) Fewer than 0.01 acres per capita 10
B) Between 0.01 and 0.10 acres per capita 5
C) 0.10 acres or more per capita 0
5) Use as a Public Water Supply
A) Primary public water supply 20
B) Alternate or secondary public water supply 10
C) Not a public water supply 0
6) Recreational Uses (may include fishing, canoe/sail/motor
boats, swimming, camping bicycling, hiking, picnicking,
horseback riding, etc.)
A) Facilities to support four or more
recreational uses; or facilities
for swimming 10
B) Facilities to support two or three
recreational uses 5
C) Facilities to support one recreational use 0
7) Environmental Uniqueness
A) The lake is a unique resource
as defined in Section 368.120 50
B) The lake is an uncommon resource
as defined in Section 368.120 15
C) The lake is not a unique or uncommon
resource as defined in Section 368.120 0
Section 368.250 A4 Factor (Special Considerations)
A4 is a factor that will only be used for two or more project applications
having equal total priority points based on the sum of Factors A1, A2, and
A3. In such cases priority points will be allocated to each affirmative
answer to the following questions (Yes-1, No-0). For the A4 factor,
priority points are allocated as follows (0-5 points possible):
a) Does the project utilize a comprehensive watershed and management
approach?
b) Has the tributary watershed area been previously protected to
prevent point and nonpoint source pollution to the lake?
c) Does the project include coordination of activities with other
local, State, and federal agencies?
d) Is there a commitment by the applicant to cost-share more than the
minimum required by at least an additional 10%?
e) Does the applicant have a history of undertaking previous lake or
watershed management efforts to solve lake problems?