A Commitment to
Watershed Protection
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
February 1993
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is based primarily on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency files and
interviews with Federal, State, and local agency representatives and citizens who
have been involved with the Clean Lakes Program. The EPA wishes to thank all
those who contributed to this report for their time and effort. Additional thanks
go to the Clean Lakes coordinators from all 10 EPA Regions who work with the
States. Special thanks go to John Butler and the late Allan Hirsch of Midwest Re-
search Institute, and JudyTaggart of JT&A, inc.
Research and technical assistance were provided by Midwest Research Institute
under Contract No. 68-CO-0093. Technical assistance, editorial support, design,
typesetting, and graphics were provided by JT&A, inc. under TetraTech Contract
No. 68-00-0093,
Cover photo: Acadia State Park, Maine. Courtesy of Bruno Mirkowski.
Clean Lakes Program, 1992
Page ii
-------
Contents
Foreword v
Introduction i
Lessons Learned from the Clean Lakes Program 6
Local Commitment = Success 6
Matching Funds Ensure Commitment 8
States Like Clear Regulations and Guidance 9
Flexibility Promotes Innovation ±Q
Lake Water Quality Assessments: A Valuable Tool n
Volunteers Make It Work 13
Projects Must Be Evaluated 16
Watershed Management Approach Validated 17
Funding Uncertainty a Negative 19
Effects of the Clean Lakes Program 20
Leverage Multiplies Funding 20
Lake Investments Pay Social/Economic Returns 22
States Begin Lake Management Programs 26
Public Awareness of Water Quality Grows 27
Understanding of Lake Conditions Improves 28
Groups Work Together 28
Tribal Programs Strengthened 30
Contents
Clean Lakes Program, 1992
Page Hi
-------
Lake Restoration Science Has Advanced 31
Academia Actively Involved 33
Technical Assistance Helps All 34
Conclusion . . . .j 35
How it Came to Bet History and Structure 36
Structure 36
History 40
Funding 48
Resources 50
Tables
1. Annual financial assistance provided by EPA
Clean Lakes Program to States and Tribes 39
2. State and Tribjal distribution of Clean Lakes funds 41
3. Lake Restoration Management Techniques Used in the
Clean Lakes Program,. I n-Lake Techniques 44
4. Lake Restoration Management Techniques Used in the
Clean Lakes Program, Watershed Treatments 45
i
Figure |
1. Total EPA funding for Clean Lakes assistance,
1976 to 199i 49
Contents
Clean Lakes Program, 1992
Page iv
-------
Foreword
The principles of the Clean Lakes Program work. But their side ef-
fects have proven even more valuable. This program has created an
important template for other initiatives and partnerships, particularly
the Watershed Protection Approach now underway at the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.
An all-encompassing drive to protect our Nation's waters, the Watershed
Protection Approach involves us all — for we all live in watersheds, we all
contribute to the pollution that drains from them into our lakes and streams
and rivers.
And because of that simple, inescapable fact, the Watershed Protection
Approach interacts with many local, State, and Federal programs as well as
other EPA programs — from that first massive effort that built our sewage
and waste treatment plants to the more recent nonpoint source program.
But the guidelines for watershed protection have been established by
the Clean Lakes Program, now entering its 18th year with a solid record of
accomplishments.
Achievement is not what makes Clean Lakes a model for watershed pro-
tection, however; it's the how and why Clean Lakes achieved its goals that
define the path watershed protection will take.
That how and why speak clearly from the following pages — in the
grass roots involvement, the scientific support, and the working partnership
between citizens and government at all levels.
The Clean Lakes Program is the quintessential example of empowering
citizens to work closely with their local, State and Federal governments in
achieving common goals.
Robert H. Wayland III, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Foreword
Clean Lakes Program, 1992
Page v
-------
-------
Introduction
«^ *-f 2 -£
Local involvement — cwrf commitment — is a cornerstone
for the Clean Lakes Program.
r l"\ie first 17 years of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
I Clean Lakes Program have been a resounding success, using rela-
-A. tively few Federal dollars. It has involved many thousands of enthusi-
astic volunteers, and dramatically improved the quality of several hundred
lakes across the United States.
This review explains why the Clean Lakes Program has been so suc-
cessful, and how the lessons learned from it can be applied to other environ-
mental management initiatives. Four principles form the base for this
success:
• Local involvement — and commitment,
• State management,
• Matching funds, and
• Good science.
These basic principles are reflected in the lessons learned by the Pro-
gram in its first 17 years.
• Local commitment = success: From the beginning, the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram has been propelled by the enthusiastic and innovative efforts of local
communities and organizations working closely with State and Federal offi-
cials to restore and manage publicly owned lakes.
Local citizens who care deeply about the condition of the lakes in their
communities have thus formed the cornerstone for the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram. Their commitment has been largely responsible for the Program's
long-term success.
Introduction
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Pagel
-------
Joe Peterson, president of the Preservation Association of Devils Lake
in Oregon, echoed the views of many of the citizens involved in Clean Lakes
Program activities when he said in mid-1992,
The great thing about the Clean Lakes Program is that it
pushes the government to work with citizens. And, we found
out that these government agencies truly listen to what we
have to say and they seem genuinely concerned. Yes, it took
the citizens to push our local government into action, but the
cooperation since then has been fantastic.
And Dave Olsen, director of the Carroll County Conservation Board
(Swan Lake, Iowa) emphasized "The Clean Lakes Program saved this lake
— there's no doubt about it."
• Matching funds ensure commitment: Local matching dollars mean more
than just helping the State meet the Federal requirement for cost sharing.
By committing its own resources, a community buys into the project — that
shared ownership translates into continued protection for the lake.
Realizing the impprtance of this local support, several States have devel-
oped Clean Lakes Programs based on the Federal model and require com-
munities to match State grants with local dollars.
• States like clear regulations and guidance: Clean Lakes Program re-
quirements have changed very little over these 17 years. States appreciate
the fact that they have remained clear, specific, relatively simple, and consis-
tent This management philosophy has produced a smooth, orderly program.
• Flexibility promotes innovation: EPA has given States broad latitude in
designing and instituting lake management strategies under the Clean
Lakes Program. Because of its flexible nature, the Program primarily en-
courages local initiatives and supports them with technical and financial as-
sistance. Today, Clean Lakes projects exist in 49 States, Puerto Rico, and on
land owned by 15 Native American Tribes.
A. variety of public
" and private
: organizations helped
restore the
recreational uses of
Silver Lake, Delaware.
Introduction
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 2
-------
Citizen-initiated
animal waste
management
systems in the Upper
Minnesota River
watershed improve
the water quality of
Big Stone Lake,
Ortonville,
Minnesota.
• Lake Water Quality Assessments: a valuable tool: States and Native
American Tribes are using these LWQA grants to collect data on everything
from lakes they know nothing about to contaminated sediments. And the re-
sulting data are not restricted to the Clean Lakes Program; they are used by
local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, fisheries and recreational agen-
cies, even transportation departments.
Assessment techniques are improving, fueled by the ever more sophisti-
cated databases that help collate and assess the information collected. A
major result: States are beginning to plan for improving water quality on a
long-term, comprehensive basis.
• Volunteers make it work: In recent years volunteer lake monitoring pro-
grams have multiplied throughout the Nation, as citizens become aware of
their own responsibilities for protecting our water resources. Many are also
forming lake associations, through which they actively participate in manag-
ing their lakes. A Clean Lakes project often begins with citizen concerns
about the condition of their lake.
Recognizing this growing citizen interest, EPA's Lake and Reservoir Res-
toration Guidance Manual was written for the citizen audience. More than
30,000 copies of the manual (now in its second edition) have been distrib-
uted.
• Projects must be evaluated: To determine the long-term effectiveness of
lake restoration techniques, data must be systematically collected and eval-
uated. Although papers published on specific projects have enriched the sci-
introduction
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
PageS
-------
The Clean Lakes
Program goals — to
restore public lakes and
encourage sound lake
management —
transformed this state
park in East St. Louis,
Illinois.
ence, the addition of recent State and EPA Region review strategies and the
Post-Restoration Monitoring Studies begun in 1989 will strengthen an al-
ready solid technical knowledge base about lake restoration.
• Funding uncertainty a negative: The Clean Lakes Program has not en-
joyed a consistent funding base since Federal grant funds have fluctuated
from year to year. This uncertainty appears to discourage long-term projects
because of the possibility they may not be funded to completion.
• Watershed management approach validated: A lake collects drainage
from its watershed, an area that may far transcend the county or State in
which the lake lies. Fpr that reason, many lake projects require multi-juris-
diction buy-in. Thus, Clean Lakes is a precursor to EPA's Watershed Protec-
tion Approach; its fundamental tenets are reflected in the Approach's three
principles:
• targeting resourjces to watersheds where pollution poses the
greatest risk to human health, ecological resources, desirable
use of a body of Water, or combinations thereof;
• involving all parties with a stake in the specific local situation; and
• using an integrated approach, drawing on the full range of
organizations, methods, and tools available in a coordinated,
multifaceted attack on the problems.
Introduction
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 4
-------
This targeted, integrated approach will protect lakes and their water-
sheds (including wetlands, critical habitat, and other valuable resources),
but, as the Clean Lakes Program has so clearly demonstrated, it will suc-
ceed only if all concerned work together toward creative solutions. Such so-
lutions are likely to be a combination of regulatory and voluntary measures.
This process has worked in the Clean Lakes Program. And the lessons
learned in making Clean Lakes work can be used to great advantage by EPA
as the Agency begins its Watershed Protection Approach to improving the
environment.
Hence, this comprehensive review of the Clean Lakes Program, which
covers information found in the published literature as well as in EPA pro-
gram files. These materials have been validated and fleshed out by inter-
viewing nearly 100 individuals who have been extensively involved with the
Clean Lakes Program.
More than how it worked, this review looks at why the Program worked,
and what its real effects have been on the Nation's lakes. Almost to the em-
barrassment of the reviewers (who could find few program flaws), the Clean
Lakes Program has met its dual objectives of restoring degraded public
lakes and encouraging sound lake management throughout the country.
The Clean Lakes Program has also demonstrated how to multiply fund-
ing by leveraging income from many sources to restore and protect lakes.
The investment in Clean Lakes projects, however, has returned more social
and economic benefits than its creators could have envisioned. This report
describes several severely distressed lakes that became community assets
when restored:
• Swan Lake, Iowa: Visits to the state park there were up 170
percent; concession income quadrupled; camping more than
doubled; and fishing increased more than sevenfold to more than
$1.75 million. Fishing alone is expected to pay for the project's
cost within two years.
• Lake Lashaway, Massachusetts: Citizen use of the lake
dramatically increased; towns bordering the lake established a
new beach, and the lake association built a boat ramp to meet
usage demands.
• Frank Holten State Park, Illinois: This area was transformed
from a crime-ridden, trash-strewn park to an attractive family
recreation center. Use of the park and lakes increased 20-fold on
holidays; a boat rental concession and bait shop opened in 1988.
Striking as the results have been for communities, ultimately, the value
of this citizen-government partnership has reached far beyond the Clean
Lakes Program to serve as a model for improving the management of other
environmental programs.
Introduction
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 5
-------
Lessons Learned
from the Clean
Lakes Program
The lessons learned from the Clean Lakes' experience — both posi-
tive and negative — point the way toward continual improvement for
both the Clean Lakes process and environmental management itself.
Those programs that depend on limited resources, such as the Watershed
Protection Approach, jean learn from this creative approach to generating
voluntary support at State and local levels.
Local Commitment = Success
The basic premise of
closest to the lakes
the Clean Lakes Program is that people physically
are best positioned to resolve lake water quality
problems. The Program never intended to clean up all the lakes in the
country, but rather to: help States and communities learn how to manage
their own lake problems.
This premise is well-founded; State and local officials agree that local
support is a prerequisite to success, because many solutions to lake water
quality problems depend on individuals' voluntary actions.
A number of Federal, State, and local officials said a lake restoration
project's success depends largely on local agencies and organizations that
focus and maintain public attention on the project. At Lake Washington in
Mississippi, State water quality officials worked closely with local farm or-
ganizations to tell area farmers about State lake restoration plans, and thus
enlisted the agricultural community's cooperation in installing best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) vital to the project.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 6
-------
(left photo)
Residents and agencies closest
to the lake are best positioned to
resolve water quality problems.
(right photo)
Children on an observation
deck in Swan Lake near
Carroll, loiva, learn how to
keep water clean and safe for
recreation.
According to local project participant Robert Seyforth, "Although there
isn't really an organized citizens' group, the Lake Washington project has
much local support. The lake is one of the largest in the state, and agricul-
ture activities have always created a lot of problems. In fact, the lake had to
be closed to commercial fishing in the 1970s because of the problems."
In another State, only one of three initial Phase I diagnostic studies
moved into Phase II restoration — mostly because of a lack of strong local
interest. As a result, that State will no longer begin a diagnostic study unless
public support and participation are ensured and demonstrated.
Officials in several States said that public support for lake restoration in
urban and suburban areas tends to be stronger than in rural areas. One
believed it may be easier to mobilize residents to clean up lakes or rivers
near cities where the bodies of water are scarce and highly visible to large
numbers of people, in contrast to rural areas that have more outdoor recrea-
tional resources.
Rural residents may also believe water quality projects will cost them
personal time and money, while their urban counterparts do not see such a
direct link between their own resources and the projects in their areas. Be-
cause agricultural nonpoint source pollution is often targeted, many farmers
and ranchers view these projects as affecting their bottom line.
Seyforth, however, describes a different rural experience:
The State fish and game agency noticed tremendous
numbers of catfish in the lake, so it started encouraging
people to fish for catfish. As a result, a lot of people started
putting barrels in the lake to 'hand grab' the fish. A few years
ago, the lake was drained and the low water level exposed
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page?
-------
all of these barrels — many of them were pesticide
containers.
Lakeshore residents got really upset and that's when
everything got started! The State began looking into the
Clean Lakes Program and made an application for funds. The
State legislature put up the matching funds. We've
completed a Phase I study and are just getting started on
some Phase II projects.
Matching Funds Ensure Commitment
Once a lake's water quality is improved or restored, it must be protected
from degradation. By Committing their own resources to provide the match
for Federal Clean Lakes funds, local communities share ownership of the
projects. The result greater assurance that the lake will be protected after
restoration is completed.
Fourteen of 16 $tate water quality management officials who com-
mented on the matching requirements agreed that the requirements pro-
vide an incentive for localities to assume a share of responsibility for their
lake projects. This view was shared by a representative of a private lake as-
sociation that had contributed funds to a Phase II restoration project.
Wetland
restoration projects
are essential to
sound lake
management.
Here, they prevent
excessive nutrients
from entering Big
Stone Lake,
Minnesota.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
PageS
-------
In the Lake Washington project, Seyforth pointed out "my only problem
with the program is that the matching fund restrictions are often hard to
deal with. We did run into some problems in that area but were able to work
around them."
"But," Seyforth continued, "our project would have never gotten started
without the Clean Lakes funding to do the initial studies. Right now, our big-
gest concern is that the money is continued because we still have a lot of
work to do."
Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and
Washington are among the States with Clean Lakes Programs modelled
after the Federal program. They require local communities to provide
matching funds for State grants, just as the Federal grants must be matched
by State funds.
In two of the States, officials did not think such State programs were
beneficial, citing a community's financial hardship outweighing any ad-
vantages. Another State official agreed that the match requirement helps
the State gain local support for lake projects, but said the requirement
causes some local government agencies to lean toward in-lake treatment ap-
proaches over watershed management controls because it is easier to see
the direct benefits of local clean-up activities than to observe the more sub-
tle successes of regional watershed management efforts.
More than half the $200,000 funding for the Phase II restoration project
for Silver Lake in Dover, Delaware, has come from the local and State
match: the City of Dover, the State legislature, local citizens, and civic inter-
est groups. The latter two groups have raised $40,000, including
• contributions by Dover High School for shoreline stabilization,
• cost-sharing by farmers through the Kent (County) Conservation
District,
• a cash contribution by the FishAmerica Foundation,
• cash donations by local merchants for converting detention
basins to retention ponds, and
• in-kind services provided by the City of Dover.
States Like Clear
Regulations and Guidance
Clean Lakes Program regulations and guidance generally received high
marks for clarity, specificity, and relative simplicity. Respondents felt they
understood program requirements; the relative ease of participation was a
strong incentive for action. They said they had a sense of security about the
program because the guidance and funding criteria had changed very little
since the program began. Much of the smooth and orderly implementation
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 9
-------
of Clean Lakes efforts can be traced to the States' high level of comfort with
the program.
Program reporting requirements were usually considered reasonable.
One respondent said he was pleased that EPA did not expand reporting re-
quirements as a result of the Water Quality Act of 1987, other than the
statutory obligation for States to include their Lake Assessment Reports
with their biennial 305 (b) reports.
Flexibility Promotes Innovation
Clean Lakes Program regulations were designed to allow States and
localities to tailor solutions to their own situations. Most State agencies
were satisfied with thkt flexibility, as demonstrated in the formal program
structure and implementation through EPA Regions.
For example, in response to States' priorities, since 1988 EPA Region IV
has shifted its Clean Lakes Program focus to concentrate on lakes with high
recreational use, as measured by annual visitor-days. In another example,
the startup of LWQA grants in response to the Water Quality Act of 1987 has
given States and Native American Tribes the resources they need to assess
their lakes, establish priorities for lake management activities, and conduct
public outreach. One;State agency representative said that instituting the
LWQA grants clearly showed that a Federal agency was listening to the
States.
Overall, State officials thought EPA Regions were positive and suppor-
tive. One official said the flexibility of EPA staff in Washington, D.C., and at
the regional level was responsible for much of the success of his State's
Clean Lakes program. Another said that one key to his State's effective
Clean Lakes efforts has been that EPA has not "micromanaged" projects or
unduly interjected itself into State and local decisionmaking.
Some criticisms did emerge during this review. Several State officials
thought EPA's sampling requirements were too restrictive and represented
quantity "overkill." hi most projects cited, however, they thought the
Regions had handled the requirements reasonably and with sufficient
flexibility to allow the[projects to proceed.
The $100,000 Federal limit on Phase I grants was also criticized. Several
individuals, expressed concern that the limit does not take into account in-
creases in labor, equipment, and analytical costs that have occurred over
time, resulting in increased costs for lake evaluations. Several commented
that the limit also does not reflect the greater costs of evaluating larger
lakes, such as impounded waters in the southwestern United States. One
State agency official suggested that EPA consider using a sliding scale to
decide appropriate grant amounts, based in part on lake acreage.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 10
-------
Data from streamflow
monitoring on
Delavan Lake,
Wisconsin, contribute
to water quality
assessments and
lake management
decisions.
Lake Water Quality Assessments:
A Valuable Tool
Lake Water Quality Assessment grants have provided assistance on a larger
scale, allowing States and Native American Tribes to perform broad-based
assessments of their lakes and associated watersheds to meet the require-
ments of section 314 (a) (1) of the Clean Water Act. Several States said that
through the LWQA grant program, they have learned about the conditions
of many of their lakes for which they would otherwise have little or no infor-
mation. In some States, officials said that without the targeted assistance
provided by the LWQA, lake water quality evaluations would be extremely
difficult to fund because of competing demands for scarce State water
quality and natural resource management funds.
Increasingly, water quality data derived from Lake Water Quality As-
sessments are being integrated into lake management decisions based on
Clean Water Act sections 314 (a) (1) and 305 (b). When combined with other
factors (including local support for restoration projects), these data are use-
ful in allocating resources. Several States are now setting water quality
priorities using an ecoregion approach backed by LWQA data.
LWQA funding is also supporting some States as they characterize the
nature and extent of their lakes' contaminated sediments. This information
is critical to the States' and EPA's efforts to assess the extent and severity of
contaminated sediments and thus to formulate strategies to address the
health and environmental risks associated with this problem.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 11
-------
Lake Water Quality
Assessments often spur
communities to better
control ofstormwater
flows and other
contamination sources.
As part of its LWQA, Indiana is creating a computer database based on
compilation of analyses of composite sediment samples collected from near-
ly 60 public lakes and reservoirs. Additional sampling is conducted as
necessary to confirm the contamination sources. Illinois is conducting an in-
depth review of all inland lake sediment data collected from more than 121
lakes since 1977, to determine whether correlations exist between observed
contamination and variables such as land use, ecoregions, and watershed-to-
lake surface area ratios.
The Clean Lakes Program has encouraged States to take a long-term,
comprehensive view in planning for their water quality assessment needs.
In FY1991, EPA asked Region IV States to develop five-year plans for lake
water quality monitoring — the first such plans they have ever put together.
The improvements in j lake monitoring expected to result from these five-
year strategies should [substantially improve the lake assessment sections of
State 305 (b) reports and make them more useful as planning documents.
Techniques to assess lakes are improving. In the mid-1980s, a lake clas-
sification system was developed by the Illinois EPA in cooperation with the
State Watershed Priority Committee (composed of representatives from the
major State and Federal agencies involved with watershed management)
and the Illinois Department of Conservation to provide a basis for screening
potential lake and watershed projects statewide.
Lakes were surveyed and evaluated in three major categories: current
water quality, potential water quality through improvement/maintenance
activities, and public benefits. Each lake received an overall classification
rating that, when used by the State, helps set priorities that would produce
the greatest benefits and cost-effectiveness. The ratings are used by
• Illinois EPA to screen candidates for the State's Clean Lakes
Program assistance,
e the State Watershed Priority Committee and local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts in ranking watershed land treatment
projects for funding under various Federal and State agricultural
treatment programs,
• the Department of Conservation for fisheries management and
recreation use development purposes, and
• the Department of Transportation in managing bodies of water
dedicated to public use.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 12
-------
Volunteers Make it Work
"Our group's role is basically to help shape the projects," said Big Stone
Lake's Will Hansen. "We have about 700 paid members who share their con-
cerns. From time to time we have donated money, but we are not
fundraisers. The States basically run the projects, but none of these projects
would have been started without great local support from individuals, busi-
nesses, and the local governments."
The Clean Lakes Program has always emphasized the importance of ac-
tive citizen participation in restoring and protecting their lakes, and recog-
nizes this factor as essential to the long-term success of lake management
programs. In every region of the country, citizens' concern for the condi-
tions of their lakes has resulted in volunteer action.
A 1991 survey of States showed that volunteer lake monitoring
programs have been established in 19 States, 12 of them partially funded by
the Clean Lakes Program, mostly through LWQA grants. State and local
governments, citizens, and other private sources also contribute to these
volunteer programs. The information collected by volunteers is valuable to
State water quality officials during lake assessment and classification ef-
forts.
hi Illinois, more than 750 citizens have been involved in the Volunteer
Lake Monitoring Program, checking the condition of nearly 300 lakes.
Through the program, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency works
with citizens, lake managers, and local governments to promote better un-
derstanding of lake conditions and to encourage comprehensive manage-
ment of lake resources, primarily through local initiatives.
Residents gather for
Volunteer Lake Cleanup
Day, an annual event
on Devils Lake, Oregon.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 13
-------
The program is coordinated by the Illinois EPA in cooperation with the
State's three area-wide planning commissions, designated under section 208
of the Clean Water Act Educational activities include developing and dis-
tributing newsletters, supporting the program itself and Illinois Lake
Management Association conferences and workshops, and conducting on-
site training and followup visits. The State's understanding of its lake condi-
tions has increased substantially.
Baseline water quality and sediment data have been collected from
more than 180 Illinois lakes. Volunteers are collecting water samples at 50 of
those lakes for analysis at State laboratories, including testing for total phos-
phorus, nitrates and nitrites, and total suspended solids. Nearly half of the
data collected by the State for its 305 (b) reports is based on volunteer ef-
forts. :
In New Hampshire, the State's Volunteer Lake Assessment Program is a
cooperative program between lake residents and the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services. As of December 1991,101 lake as-
sociations participated! in the program. Through the program, many lakes
are sampled several times a year to discern long-term water quality trends.
New Hampshire has recently prepared a teacher's guide and a workbook
for public education programs. New Hampshire schools will be given these
materials this year.
Boat parades and
other recreational
activities on Lake
Candlewood in
Connecticut
encourage public
awareness of water
quality issues and
increase support
for the Lake
Authority.
jr*^?^^
-
Up^;7]3fSS|5^;^!r?r l=HrT**!«w*'«?5?p8
• - ^^'^W^JBW^ '*- 'f -... .^i*Sa^ ;?..„;
A.,^4^ ^
'•* ^^••ilii.iL8'.. it:.j..
wflW
Another active Clean Lakes participant, the Candlewood lake Authority
in Connecticut, found, according to Herman Phelps, its former chairman,
that "the Clean Lakes Program grant provided financial resources for our
association to hire a full-time professional lake manager to accomplish the
projects we identified during the Phase I study. It also provided the resour-
ces needed to initiate important public relations/public education proj-ects
like the watershed newsletter, a slide show, and water quality reports."
Candlewood's Phase I diagnostic study heightened public awareness of
lake water quality issues, and the Association began a lake education pro-
gram for schools around the lake that reaches students from kindergarten
through high school. The association also instituted a citizens' monitoring
program in cooperation with Western Connecticut University and Connec-
ticut College.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 14
-------
Today residents
perceive the
Candlewood Lake
Authority as an
environmentally
oriented agency and
an indispensable
source for lake
information.
"As a result of these and other management efforts," Phelps observed,
"the local public's perception of the Candlewood Lake Authority as an en-
vironmentally oriented agency was vastly increased. The surrounding
towns became more willing to fund our annual budget requests, and people
began to look at the Authority as an indispensable source for lake informa-
tion."
Other lake associations have also become interested in improving their
own lakes, and the interest generated by these activities has contributed to
the formation of other lake associations in Connecticut.
But "most important," Phelps emphasized, is that "most of the manage-
ment activities or improvements initiated under the Clean Lakes grant are
still in operation today and funded by 100 percent local dollars. In this
perspective, the Candlewood Lake Protection and Restoration Project grant
represented the seed money needed to get the projects off the drawing
board and into practice."
The Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership is also playing a major
role in actively involving citizens in lake water quality monitoring and
management — and even more difficult for the long term, maintaining on-
going monitoring programs. To make these programs work, the Partner-
ship recognizes local needs as well as problems common to all lakes and
rivers. The group is currently preparing a training manual containing infor-
mation on water quality issues, watershed management practices, and
specific sampling and analysis procedures.
Individuals involved in citizen volunteer programs suggested several
key ingredients for successful volunteer programs:
• Program organizers must assure participants that their efforts
are worthwhile and that the information they generate will
actually be used for managing lakes.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 15
-------
• Technical assistance and equipment must be supplied if citizen
groups are to succeed.
• Training sessions and demonstration sampling exercises are
essential to producing good volunteer monitors.
• Regularly scheduled followup sessions are important for
encouraging citizens to continue their involvement and for
maintaining quality assurance and quality control procedures.
i
State agencies play an important role in helping local volunteer groups
communicate with their counterparts around the State. Such contacts improve
monitoring efforts overall, and maintain momentum for future volunteer
programs. Under the Texas Watch volunteer monitoring program, the Texas
Water Commission publishes a bimonthly newsletter about activities of volun-
teer groups around the State, and volunteer opportunities within those groups.
An important information-sharing forum for local groups, the newsletter iden-
tifies and praises local efforts, thereby helping maintain enthusiasm for exist-
ing volunteer programs and encouraging other citizens to join.
Projects Must Be Evaluated
Hundreds of lake restoration and watershed management projects partially
funded under the Clean Lakes Program have been completed or are under
way. Many more lakes have been restored solely by States and local com-
munities. These projects constitute a treasure of technical knowledge, from
the effectiveness of assessment methodologies to the longevity and effec-
tiveness of in-lake treatment techniques and watershed protection
measures. Clean Lake's projects, in particular, have used state-of-the-science
methods that need evaluation.
Even within the past decade, restoration experience and related techni-
cal data have advanced the science of lake restoration and offered practical
guidance to lake managers. This experience will become increasingly valu-
able as completed projects are evaluated systematically to assess their effec-
tiveness. In a 1985 EPA review of Clean Lakes Program projects, only 66 of
158 funded projects had been completed and documented. At that time,
reviewers suggested that project results would provide a valuable informa-
tion base for the scientific community and others undertaking restoration
projects. They also suggested that a comprehensive evaluation of projects
be conducted as more projects were completed.
The Clean Lakes Program has recently begun setting up a system for
managing and evaluating lake project data, designed to benefit from past
projects' experience. Quantitative scientific data on long-term project effec-
tiveness will become increasingly available through Post-Restoration
Monitoring Studies being conducted under Phase III grants begun in 1989.
In addition, several States and EPA Regions have initiated strategies for
systematically reviewing results of their lake projects. EPA Region I is con-
ducting an in-depth evaluation of 14 Phase II projects completed in the
Region. The evaluation measures each project's degree of success by
reviewing its objectives and environmental results, and by reviewing the
technical and implementation lessons learned.
Lessons Learned Ciean Lakes Program Review, 1992 Page 16
-------
The North American Lake Management Society (NALMS) and the Ter-
rene Institute of Washington, B.C., have recently produced a guidance
document under a grant from the Clean Lakes Program that points the way
to such a strategy. In A Strategy for Evaluating In-Lake Treatment Effective-
ness and Longevity, the authors suggest that scientists and lake managers
collect at least three to five years of pre- and posttreatment monitoring data
and enter all data into the EPA data management system, STORET. The
authors also recommend that lake managers and scientists pay more atten-
tion to studying and understanding lake processes, and move from a lake
restoration approach based principally on in-lake cleanup toward one based
on the scientific understanding of lakes and their environments.
Advancing lake restoration and management techniques depends on
disseminating information about the effectiveness of those strategies. Tech-
nical forums, such as conferences and lake workshops sponsored by EPA
and others, are crucial to distributing information.
One State agency suggested that Clean Lakes grant recipients should
prepare capsule project summaries, including information on project objec-
tives, technical approach, and projected results. The capsule summaries
could then be included in the Clean Lakes Clearinghouse database so that
lake managers could find all available information on specific implementa-
tion measures.
A researcher commented that EPA should study the regional differences
that can affect the application and results of ecosystem models developed by
EPA and by researchers, and then communicate this information to users.
Watershed Management
Approach Validated
Since the program structure was formally established in 1980, the Clean
Lakes Program has emphasized using watershed management measures. A
longstanding program policy gives greater consideration to applicants who
propose restoration and protection techniques that control pollutants at the
source through watershed-wide management, rather than dealing with
symptoms in the lake. Review respondents strongly supported that policy.
State and local Clean Lakes officials have been using the watershed
management approach for more than a decade. The Clean Water Act re-
quirement [section 314(a)(l)] for States to assess their lakes, combined
with resources provided by LWQA cooperative agreements, has resulted in
innovative priority-setting techniques.
An example is the management conference established under the Clean
Water Act for Lake Onondaga in New York. Conference participants include
the New York Attorney General's office, the New York Department of En-
vironmental Conservation, the Mayor of Syracuse, the Onondaga County
Executive, EPA Region II, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo
District. The conference has a 20-member citizens' action committee whose
members represent ordinary citizens, environmental groups, and industry
and business interests.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 17
-------
The conference's technical review committee deals with surface and
groundwater quality, habitat protection, and nonpoint source pollution con-
trols. A number of Federal agencies, including EPA, are members of this
committee. The USDAs Soil Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, and the Fish and Wildlife Service are participating in a technical review
committee working grpup addressing nonpoint source pollution concerns.
Academic institutions, including the State University of New York and
Syracuse University, are also part of this effort. Through an interagency
agreement, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is conducting water quality
monitoring in lake basin streams, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
evaluating restoration bptions.
Watershed concerns often cross geographic and political boundaries
and may require interstate solutions in some cases. For example, Big Stone
Lake and its contributing watershed are spread over parts of Minnesota
and South Dakota, and are found in five counties, one watershed district,
two EPA Regions, and several local governments' and government
agencies' jurisdictions.'
As Will Hansen, president of Citizens for Big Stone Lake, noted, "The
lake has always been central to life in this area because if s a major recrea-
tion spot. Citizens' groups began forming in the 1960s, but the major hurdle
was that the lake was located in two States — it was hard to get the two
governments to work together. The local residents decided to form Citizens
for Big Stone Lake in the 1970s to voice their concerns and seek action."
The Citizens for Big Stone Lake came up with the matching funds for
the 1981 Phase I study administered by the South Dakota Department of
Water and Natural Resources (SD DWNR). "When I joined the group, most
members thought our only job was to get the Federal and State govern-
ments involved," HanSen said. "Well, we were wrong. We found that we had
to spearhead any action. A study by a private firm was finally completed,
which gave us the ammunition to start seeking Clean Lakes funding."
Phase I established the informational base for designing needed water-
shed protection measures. "The lake has always been fragile," Hansen ob-
served, "especially since the 1930s when it was made into a reservoir during
the drought. The lake started to gradually worsen because of runoff and
sedimentation." j
After reviewing the Phase I study of the Big Stone Lake project, EPA
Regions V and VIII provided Phase II grants, which the two States used in a
coordinated effort.
In South Dakota, the Phase II project was first sponsored by the State's
DWNR, with local implementation by Roberts County. In Minnesota, the
project sponsor was the Upper Minnesota River Watershed District.
Implementation involved many local and State organizations and, at the
Federal level, EPA Regions V and VIII, USDA's Soil Conservation Service
and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Volunteer efforts
and in-kind contributions, including those of the Citizens for Big Stone Lake
and the South Dakota1 National Guard, were crucial to the project's success.
Now, according to' Hansen, "Everyone is very happy. The lake's tests in-
dicate that water quality has improved. We still have some bluegreen algae,
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 18
-------
but that simply says that efforts must continue. Our focus now is on non-
point source pollution, and the group is currently working with local com-
munities to get new wastewater treatment systems."
Because pollution from nonpoint sources is a major cause of most lakes'
water quality problems, a coordinated effort under sections 314 and 319 of
the Water Quality Act is critical to solving those problems. Diagnos-
tic/feasibility studies performed under section 314 provide data that can be
used to perform restoration and lake management activities under the
Clean Lakes Program or other programs. And nonpoint source programs
can be implemented under section 319, using information gained through
section 314 activities.
A proposed project for Lake Pittsfield in Illinois illustrates such integra-
tion. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is looking at a combina-
tion of restoration measures, including both lake shoreline stabilization and
in-lake treatment as well as ways to reduce the influx of pollutants from a
creek that flows into the lake. These proposed measures include the con-
struction of sediment basins on the watershed's major tributaries and on the
lake's upper end, under the section 319 program.
The Lake Pittsfield project is an example of how the Clean Lakes
Program's success in getting people to look at the wider issue of a lake's water-
shed to find solutions to lake water quality problems has led to EPA's Water-
shed Protection Approach. Just as in Clean Lakes, Watershed Protection
targets resources to the most immediate pollution threat, integrating all means
available to attack the problem. And, again as in Clean Lakes, Watershed
Protection relies on the involvement of all stakeholders in the local situation.
Funding Uncertainty a Negative
Clean Lakes funding has been uncertain since 1980, and annual appropria-
tions have varied widely. Several State water quality agency officials said
that this continual funding concern is their only major criticism of the pro-
gram.
The question of continuous financial support appears to discourage
States and local communities from investing in restoration projects that may
never be funded to completion; in other words, this factor limits long-range
planning. State officials also report that uncertain Federal funding affects
staff morale and undermines project efforts.
One State official cited a fish tissue study that had been completed as
part of a lake water quality assessment. Without continued funding to com-
plete other necessary assessment components, the study data alone did not
provide a meaningful picture of the lake's condition.
As this last lesson demonstrates, the lessons learned from several
hundred Clean Lakes projects are both negative and positive. The informa-
tion gleaned from them, however, when incorporated with the program's ef-
fects described in the next chapter, presents experiences of compelling
value for other environmental management scenarios.
Lessons Learned
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 19
-------
Effects of the
Clean Lakes
Program
Obviously, the Clean Lakes Program can be measured by counting
the lakes across the United States that have been restored and
protected. But the program's effects extend well beyond these tan-
gible numbers. Knowledge and expertise gained from Clean Lakes have
translated to State, regional, and local levels to improve the institutions and
proc-esses for managing lakes. And understanding and cooperation have
grown among public and private organizations involved with lakes.
Leveraging Multiplies Funding
The most obvious effect of the Clean Lakes Program can be seen in the
number of impaired lakes for which restoration/implementation projects
have been completed 4- a much larger number than would have been pos-
sible with Federal funding alone. In EPA Region VII States, 15 lakes have
been restored or are currently being restored. This work has been done
with about $7 million in Federal Phase II grant funds — but thaf s less than
half the total. States and other non-Federal entities provided an additional
$8.1 million (about 54 percent of the total funding).
Around the country, Federal-State-local funding has created many en-
vironmental success stories:
• By the early 1980s, Devils Lake, a 679-acre lake on the central Oregon
coast, was rapidly losing its recreational, aesthetic, and economic value be-
cause of accelerating eutrophication.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 20
-------
(left photo)
voters formed a special district
and used a multifaceted
approach to restore the
recreational uses of Devils
Lake, Oregon.
(right photo)
Before the program, Devils
Lake was choked ivith aquatic
plants — "because of detergents
and fertilizers, among other
things, the lake was nothing
more than a glorified weed
patch!"
A combination of dairy farm runoff, detergent and fertilizer use, improper-
ly maintained septic tanks, and urban runoff had stimulated heavy weed
growth. In response to information provided by a Phase I diagnostic and
feasibility study completed in 1983, area voters approved a measure to form the
Devils Lake Water Improvement District to restore and maintain the lake.
"We found out the only way to get grants (funding) was to form a Special
District, which has to do with Oregon law," said Joe Peterson, president of
the Preservation Association of Devils Lake. The Association got started,
recalled Peterson, "after homeowners around the lake were sick and tired of
the lake being a glorified weed patch. Forming the District allowed us to
raise money and apply for grants."
Several years later, voters approved a three-year serial levy to provide
matching funds and operating expenses for a Clean Lakes Phase II grant for
lake restoration and watershed management The multifaceted approach in-
cluded in-lake restoration techniques, septic tank maintenance, watershed
land use management measures, and public education regarding detergent
and lawn fertilizer use. As a result, the lake's surface vegetation has been
greatly reduced and recreational use has increased.
The Association, which numbers about 230 families (at $100 per year
dues), has continually monitored the District's activities, according to Peter-
son, "to make sure it was doing the right things to clean up the lake.
The Association really hasn't donated money to the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram projects, but we do supply many volunteers. These volunteers have
taken water samples and joined in some of the lake's studies."
• The Bijou-Wildwood implementation project in the Lake Tahoe basin,
California, improved road shoulders and stream zones, and installed under-
ground drainage systems, storm runoff retention basins, and slope protec-
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 21
-------
tion measures to control nonpoint source pollutant migration. In addition to
$1.1 million in Clean Lakes funds, the Burton-Santini Federal fund was
used, as were monies from the City of South Lake Tahoe, the California
Tahoe Conservancy, mitigation fees, and a State assistance program that
provided $1.2 million.
• During the late 1970s, residents near Maine's Threemile Pond were dis-
turbed by the rapid decline of the lake's water quality. The lake — an im-
portant recreational assjet for central Maine — was plagued by noxious algal
blooms. The lake's managers decided to use agricultural BMPs to control
external phosphorus sources, and inject aluminum salts into the lake to deal
with the internal nutrients.
Under a Clean Lakes grant, alum and sodium aluminate were applied
during 1988. The results; decreased algal bloom, lower phosphorus levels, and
better trophic indicators! Local lake association volunteers raised funds, helped
apply alum, completed a detailed shoreline survey, and kept the lake shores
free from refuse. Landowners are now pursuing a program of technical assis-
tance and cost-sharing to ensure that lake protection measures continue.
\ Landowners seek funds
'.. and technical assistance
' to continue lake
protection measures at
| Threemile Pond, Maine.
Lake Investments Pay
Social/Economic Returns
In addition to Clean Lakes projects' environmental improvements, participants
have gained many social and economic benefits over the last 17 years.
I
• Until a Phase II restoration project was implemented in the early 1980s,
Iowa's Swan Lake suffered from turbidity, sedimentation, nuisance algal
blooms, and frequent fishkills. The project used a combination of in-lake
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 22
-------
Tlie Sivan Lake
project is a
shining example of
how the Clean
Lakes Program
can really tvork."
treatment and agricultural BMPs, including drainage and deepening, aera-
tion, installation of shoreline erosion controls, and the set-aside of highly
credible lands under USDA's Conservation Reserve Program.
These measures significantly reduced sedimentation and turbidity in
Swan Lake and ensured survival of the lake's fish populations. And the
economic benefits were almost startling:
• In 1990, visits to Swan Lake State Park were up 170 percent from
1986 levels, and camping in the park more than doubled during
the same period.
• Between 1982 and 1989, the number of anglers at the lake
increased more than sevenfold — an increase estimated by the
State to offset the project's cost in only two years.
• From 1987 through 1990, the value of fishing at Swan Lake
exceeded $1.75 million.
• Between 1986 and 1990, concession income at the park
quadrupled.
• Camping receipts in 1990 were 2.5 times higher than those of
1986.
Dave Olsen, the director of the Carroll County Conservation Board,
recalled:
The problems with Swan Lake go way back to the 1950s,
when the Conservation Board was formed. The lake was 130
acres and never very deep. Fishing was always limited
because offishkills and winterkills. In 1977, the area
suffered a major drought and a very bad winter. Both events
affected the lake and increased the problems of dead fish.
As a result, the local people and the board started looking
for help. EPA ended up telling the State to do some studies.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 23
-------
Citizens who live
mar Lake Delavan,
Wisconsin, and
government agencies
work together toward
a common goal: to
protect our
environment and our
natural water.
Swan Lake made the Top 10 list of lakes needing immediate
attention. In 1981, the Department of Natural Resources
started the Phase I study. In 1982, a Phase II dredging
project began. lThe lake is now 14 feet deep in places.
Local funds were raised through a county property tax, which
most people supported because they benefited from using
the park. The board has been active in seeking and getting
local support for the lake projects.
The Clean Lakes Program saved this lake — there's no
doubt about it. We haven't had a fishkill in years, and fishing
as a sport continues to grow each year. I have nothing but
praise for the Clean Lakes Program. The government people
have been eas'y to work with and have responded to our
concerns. Locally, support continues to be strong. My only
criticism is the, uncertainty of funding from year to year. But,
all in all, the Swan Lake project is a shining example of how
the Clean Lakes Program can really work.
• In East St. Louis, Illinois, Frank Holten State Park was literally stagnat-
ing in the early 1970s. Its three lakes were filling with sediment and aquatic
weeds. Associated low, dissolved oxygen and turbidity caused fishkills and
algal blooms that degraded the fishery to rough fish and made boating dif-
ficult. Trash strewn throughout the park and a high crime rate made the
area a center of urban blight.
In the early 1980s, a combination of Clean Lakes restoration and inter-
state highway funds contributed to the park's transformation. A new park
supervisor began a major improvement program. The weed-filled lakes
were replaced by aesthetically pleasing bodies of water. The park is now an
attractive recreational area that draws families. Use of the park and lakes in-
creased 20-fold on holiday weekends — enough to support a bait shop and
boat rental concession^ which opened in 1988.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 24
-------
• In Massachusetts, during the same time period that Illinois' Frank Hoi-
ten State Park suffered a major decline, Lake Lashaway gradually filled with
tangled masses of vegetation. Lakeside homeowners even dragged old
bedsprings along the shoreline in futile attempts to remove the snarled
plants. The vegetation resulted mostly from nutrient loading and suspended
solids washed into the water from the lake's shore and its large watershed.
By 1978, the lake's beauty was so diminished and the possibility of recrea-
tion so limited that the Lake Lashaway Community Association and the two
towns bordering the lake joined to fund a eutrophication study. Under a Clean
Lakes Phase I study award in 1980 and a Phase II implementation project
awarded in 1981, a lake-level drawdown structure was constructed.
The drawdown structure's effect on the lake was dramatic. During the
first six continuous years of winter drawdown, Lake Lashaway remained
free of nuisance macrophytes, and aesthetic and recreational activities
rebounded. In 1985, the two towns bordering the lake established a new
beach, and the lake association built a permanent boat ramp two years later.
1 his winter
drawdoivn structure,
now in its sixth year
of use, helps keep
Lake Lashaway,
Massachusetts, free
of nuisance
macrophytes. Photo
courtesy of Bob
Haynes.
• In Wisconsin, Lake Delavan had algae problems for decades. But in the
mid-1980s, the problem suddenly got much worse, and the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources told area residents the algae could be
toxic. Lakeshore residents mobilized to form a local committee. The Lake
Committee became part of the Town Board, and then began seeking State
resources that could be used for the lake.
Through the Department of Natural Resources and the area Sanitary
District office, the committee found out about the national Clean Lakes Pro-
gram. A strong citizen initiative raised local funds through a new hotel room
tax to match Clean Lakes Program funds. Miller Upton of the Lake Commit-
tee said:
Citizen support for the Clean Lakes Program has been
tremendous. I personally cannot think of any natural resource
more important to the environment than water — we must
protect the environment, and the way to do that is to first
protect our natural water. . . . I can't imagine a more successful
program than the Clean Lakes Program because it involves
citizens and government agencies working together toward one
common cause. But none of it would have happened without the
original push from citizens who lived on the lake.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992 Page 25
-------
States Begin Lake
Management Programs
Under the Clean Lakes Program, 21 States have established lake manage-
ment programs to protect, enhance, and restore their lakes — Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, and
Washington.
A few States, such as Wisconsin, had strong lake programs before the
national Clean Lakes Program was instituted. But even those States have
found that assistance and encouragement at the national level help maintain
State and local momentum for strong lakes programs.
Several States have also adapted the Clean Lakes Program model to
meet their own needs, as shown in the following examples:
• In 1989, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (NDEC)
received three Clean Lakes grants, two Phase I grants, and a statewide
LWQA award. Prior to that time, Nebraska's lake monitoring and assess-
ment activities were minimal. But the 1989 grants helped stimulate develop-
ment of a State Clean Lakes Program, which resulted in comprehensive
seasonal monitoring on 64 lakes across the State. Additional LWQA funding
two years later enabled Nebraska to start an Ambient Lake Monitoring Net-
work.
The Phase I projects have forged new partnerships among many en-
tities: Federal agencies, including EPA, USDA, and the Army Corps of En-
gineers; State agencies, such as the NDEC, University of Nebraska, and the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission; Natural Resource Districts and
county, city, and local governments; and lake users, watershed landowners,
and the private sector. In 1991, the State initiated a pilot citizen volunteer
lake monitoring program for 35 of its lakes.
• In 1977, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) began a
lakes program in response to citizen concerns and Federal mandates under
sections 208 and 314 of the Clean Water Act. Program components have in-
cluded monitoring and lake classification; development and implementation
of public lakes' water quality and watershed management plans (under the
Federal Clean Lakes Program); and education, technology transfer, techni-
cal assistance, and coordination to promote initiatives funded by other sour-
ces.
In 1989, the State legislature passed the Illinois Lake Management Pro-
gram Act, which directs the IEPA to implement a program patterned after
the Federal Clean Lakes Program. Under the Act, IEPA awards grants to
lake owners for diagnostic and feasibility studies on a 50/50 matching basis
and for restoration and water quality maintenance programs with up to 50
percent of the match.
• The Minnesota Clean Water Partnership, created by the State legisla-
ture in 1987, also used Clean Lakes as a template. Through the partnership,
Effects of the Program Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992 Page 26
-------
Without assistance
and encouragement
from the Federal
level, State and
local programs may
lose the momentum
that propels strong
lake programs.
local governments receive technical and financial assistance to protect and
improve lakes, streams, and groundwater degraded by nonpoint source pol-
lution. Funding is given in two phases. Local project sponsors can receive
financial assistance for up to 50 percent of project costs.
Public Awareness of
Water Quality Grows
Clean Lakes activities — and the information from their projects — have
been credited with creating a greater public awareness of lake water quality
issues. In many cases, this interest has increased citizen involvement in lake
management programs (such as volunteer monitoring) and encouraged
government agencies to place a higher priority on lake issues.
One example is the EPA Region VI Clean Lakes Program sponsorship of
a Regional Citizen Monitoring Workshop in Dallas, Texas 0uly 1991) — it
drew participants from several citizen monitoring groups and Federal,
State, and local agencies in the region.
Funding from LWQA grants and a major effort by the Texas Water Com-
mission have substantially increased volunteer citizen monitoring activities
in Texas. Public support for these programs is exemplified by the 1991
opening of the Office of Texas Watch, which the public has embraced to a
degree that surprised even the office's most optimistic founders.
The group's monthly newsletter was launched with only 100 subscribers
but drew over 1,000 just five months later. More than 2,000 citizens were
contacted through meetings and presentations within the first two months
of program operation. The Texas Watch program estimates that about 30
citizens groups are now active in the State, with roughly 500 people involved
in volunteer monitoring activities.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 27
-------
Understanding of Lake
Conditions Improves
During the Clean Lakes Program's first 17 years, significant progress has
been made in techniques for assessing lake conditions and in under-
standing the relationships between lake water quality and natural and man-
made pollutant sources in lake watersheds. Information gathered through
the 305 (b) process is building a technical base that will enable water quality
officials at all government levels to assess lake conditions, establish
priorities for action, and evaluate the effectiveness of ongoing or potential
Clean Lakes strategies.
This approach is particularly evident in recent advances in lake clas-
sification methodologies. In 1985, to better understand regional patterns in
lake conditions, Minnesota began lake monitoring based on the ecoregion
framework developed by the EPA Research Laboratory in Corvallis,
Oregon. Minnesota monitors 50 to 150 lakes per year in different parts of
the State, with 30 to 40 selected for monitoring three to four times during
the summer. This information provides insight into expected ranges in
water quality for lakes in a given region. Minnesota has used the ecoregion
approach to define seven regions across the State, four of which contain 98
percent of Minnesota's 12,034 lakes.
Compiling lake and watershed information along with the water quality
data provides a means for understanding lake-watershed interactions and
determining attainable trophic status for lakes, as well as for developing
lake water quality criteria on a regional or lake-specific basis. Chemical and
biological data from trend monitoring are combined with data collected
through the State's voluntary citizens' monitoring program to identify long-
term trends in water quality.
In 1980, Iowa State University researchers created a criteria ranking
system to classify the State's lakes. With funding from the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram, University researchers began collecting environmental and
socioeconomic data on 107 of Iowa's publicly owned lakes. The criteria rank-
ing system looked at the lake's water quality, the expected effectiveness of
restoration, and its potential public benefit. The State then established a res-
toration priority for each lake, targeting resources to the projects with the
greatest potential for environmental, social, and economic payoff.
This system has become an integral component of Iowa's lake restora-
tion program. An LWQA award is now being used to update ranking data,
with the results compiled into a database that will become a tool for local
lake managers.
Groups Work Together
The Clean Lakes Program has emphasized an integrated approach to lake
problems involving the public, the business community, and government
agencies at the local, regional, State, Tribal, and Federal levels. By focusing
on watershed environmental problems, comprehensive solutions to water
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 28
-------
quality problems have been formulated that effectively integrate the
capabilities and responsibilities of public and private organizations in the
watershed.
According to many people involved with Clean Lakes projects, relation-
ships between the participants definitely improved as a result of their com-
mon involvement with the projects.
• In Vermont, the U.S. Geologic Survey worked in a coordinated ef-
fort with the State on a Phase I diagnostic study of Lake Morey.
USGS conducted a hydrologic assessment of the lake basin, includ-
ing stream gauging on the major tributaries, precipitation analysis,
and installation of piezometers and groundwater monitoring weUs in
the watershed. The State collected and analyzed groundwater
samples. Project results were used to design diagnostic studies of
Lake Champlain and other lakes in Vermont
• In some States, lakes projects are managed under contract with or
cooperative agreement between several State or local agencies,
and/or with universities and research institutions. North
Carolina's Division of Parks and Recreation is administering two
Phase II projects on lakes in William B. Umstead State Park.
Matching project funds came from the Division's land acquisition
monies, because part of the project involved buying lands in the
watershed. One of the State's Phase I studies is currently being
administered under contract to a local government agency.
• Encouraged by the national Clean Lakes Program, local and
regional planning organizations have assumed a greater role in
management of lake water quality efforts. During the late 1980s,
the 30-year-old Lake George Park Commission in New York as-
sumed a much greater role in the lake's water quality manage-
ment Previously, the commission's focus was on parks and
recreational management activities, such as boat patrols.
In 1987, the New York legislature directed the commission to
develop a plan for controlling wastewater and stormwater dischar-
ges into the lake. The commission now plays an active role in plan-
ning, establishing requirements for dischargers to the lake, and
enforcing discharge requirements. The commission was a coap-
plicant with the New York Department of Environmental Conser-
vation for Phase I and II Clean Lakes Program grants.
• Lake Sidney Lanier (northeast of Atlanta, Georgia), and West
Point Lake and Lake Walter F. George (downstream of Atlanta on
the Georgia/Alabama boundaries) are impoundments created by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Chattahoochee River
from the 1950s through the 1970s. To address the serious water
quality problems plaguing these lakes and the river basin, com-
missions (with representatives from Georgia and Alabama) have
been established for both Lake Walter F. George and for Lake
West Point. Phase II projects have been funded by both States.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 29
-------
The Clean Lakes
Program's assistance
to Tribes is tailored
to their needs, such
as proper laboratory
equipment and
techniques.
At West Point, work is being performed with partial funding
from the Clean Lakes Program and the U.S. Army Corps of En-
gineers. LaGrange College has coordinated the effort At Lake
Lanier, the University of Georgia is conducting water quality
monitoring studies under contract with the State's Environmental
Protection Division. EPA and the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division conducted studies under the Clean Lakes Program in 1986
and 1987. Since that time, the Clean Lakes Program has assisted
Georgia with water quality monitoring through LWQA grants.
Tribal Programs Strengthened
Under its American Indian Policy, EPA has committed to work with
American Indian Tribes in a direct government-to-government relationship.
Section 518 (e) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 authorized EPA to treat
Tribes as States for certain programs (including the Clean Lakes Program),
subject to eligibility requirements. The Clean Lakes Program has placed a
high priority on meeting its commitment to Tribes by providing technical
and financial assistance to Tribal governments tailored to their needs.
Since enactment of section 518(e), EPA has provided 13 LWQA grants
totalling about $744,000 to eligible Tribes and has encouraged other Tribes
to participate. Four Phase I grants have been awarded to Tribes, totalling
about $253,000; and one Phase II grant has been awarded. Many Tribes
have used the Clean Lakes Program as the foundation for assuming other
water quality programs such as those under sections 319 or 106.
In EPA Region X, the Klamath Tribe comanaged a Phase I study of
Klamath Lake with Oregon in the early 1980s. Klamath received a LWQA
grant in 1990 to add to information collected during the initial study. One
current activity being financed by this grant is development of a nutrient
loading budget for the lake. The Tribe is working closely with the State and
with the Federal Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Forest Service on
watershed management.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 30
-------
Native Americans
on the Wind River
Reservation
(Wyoming)
practice quality
assurance/quality
control techniques for
managing ivater
samples.
In June 1991, EPA Region VIII and the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation cosponsored a Tribal workshop on
water quality monitoring. Technical information was exchanged, and
general information provided to the Tribes on Clean Water Act sections 314
and 106 — including discussions of the eligibility process for Tribal govern-
ments to be treated as States. Seventeen Tribes were represented.
Region VIII also provided assistance to the Tribes on the Wind River
reservation on analytical techniques and quality assurance/quality controls
for managing water samples. During regular planning sessions with Tribal
representatives, Region VHI actively solicits input from Tribes on the types
of training and technical assistance they need.
EPA Region V has worked with the Red Lake, White Earth, and Mille
Lacs Bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Indian Tribes to develop laboratory
quality assurance programs for Lake Water Quality Assessments.
A strong outreach effort by EPA Region DCs Water Management
Division senior staff brought Tribes in the Region into the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram. In 1990, the Colorado River and the Fort Mojave Tribes applied for
and received approval to be treated as States. They then qualified for direct
awards for Phase I studies on their lakes. To further support the Tribes' ef-
forts, Region DC has established a Native American work group to improve
coordination among EPA offices and the Tribes.
Lake Restoration Science
Has Advanced
Clean Lakes Program projects around the Nation have generated a wealth
of scientific and technical information about lake assessment, restoration,
and management methods. Many projects have involved methods and pro-
cedures that had never been applied to lake problems, and the results have
encouraged continual improvement.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Revieiv, 1992 Page 31
-------
! Understanding the lake's
ecosystem and structure
pays aesthetic and
recreational dividends to
all lake uses.
In Connecticut, a ^cooperative research program funded by EPA, the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and the Lake
Waramaug Task Force (a local citizens group) focuses on the microbiology
of the lake and treatment technologies, the importance of predator-prey,
food-web interactions, and lake ecosystem structure and function. In addi-
tion, several innovative restoration concepts are in various stages of re-
search and development, including anaerobic aeration, layer aeration, alum
surrogates for nutrient inactivation, and biomanipulation by improving
habitat
In Iowa, as noted earlier in the Swan Lake description, many manmade
lakes created in the 1940s and 1950s were poorly designed for maintaining
longer-term, high quality water conditions. By conducting restoration
projects on these lakes, the State has gained a comprehensive under-
standing of how nonppint source pollution affects water quality and recrea-
tional values of lakes in the watershed. As a result, the problems of the
manmade lakes can be avoided in the future.
Clear Lake, located in southern Minnesota, had become severely
eutrophic because of the inflow of nutrient-rich urban runoff from the city of
Waseca. Under a Clean Lakes project completed in 1981, 50 percent of the
hydraulic load and 55 percent of the phosphorus load to the lake were
diverted to a peat marsh to remove phosphorus by percolation. The filtered
water was then pumped into Clear Lake.
The total quantity of phosphorus removed in 1982 amounted to 40 per-
cent of the lake's average annual load. Mean orthophosphate, total phospho-
rus, and chlorophyll a concentrations in Clear Lake decreased significantly,
as did the frequency and intensity of algal blooms. Recreational use of the
lake has increased.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 32
-------
Academia Actively Involved
Clean Lakes
grants to colleges
and universities
contribute
significantly to
community
programs and help
build a core of
environmental
professionals for
the future.
In addition to meeting today's environmental needs, it is important that our
Nation build a strong base of environmental professionals for the future.
The involvement of universities and colleges in local environmental projects
is one way to give students and researchers an opportunity to expand their
skills and knowledge while contributing significantly to their communities.
In addition, participation in lake projects offers an opportunity to conduct
applied research. Many State agencies draw on the services of their univer-
sities and colleges to support their Clean Lakes efforts, realizing mutually
beneficial results.
During FY 1991, States in Region IV subcontracted Clean Lakes grants
or portions of grants to 12 universities and colleges in the region. In addi-
tion to underwriting the collection and analysis of data, this funding is help-
ing build strong limnological programs in these institutions. In Kentucky,
Murray State University is working under a LWQA grant to assess several
lakes in western Kentucky, and has worked with the Department for En-
vironmental Protection on a statewide lake classification project.
In Vermont, Middlebury College is working under a State contract with
partial funding provided by the Clean Lakes Program to examine the effects
of insects on Eurasian watermilfoil. Another State school is working as a
subcontractor.
In Washington State, several universities actively work with the State's
Department of Ecology on lake assessment and restoration projects, includ-
ing the University of Washington, Washington State University, and Eastern
Washington University.
At Lake Waramaug in Connecticut, summer student interns computerized
a method to quantify thermal stratification that is now used nationally.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992 Page 33
-------
An evening on the
intercoastal waters
near Sarasota,
Florida: Seventeen
years and hundreds
of projects later, the
Clean Lakes
Program is a
proven success.
Technical Assistance Helps All
The Clean Lakes Program provides technical assistance to States and local
communities to help them strengthen and maintain their lake management
capabilities. As discussed in earlier chapters, EPA Headquarters and in-
dividual Regions have sponsored workshops on a variety of technical sub-
jects to help lake managers and citizens improve their skills. Since 1988,
EPA has sponsored annual conferences focusing on enhancing State, Tribal,
and local agencies' lake and watershed management capabilities.
Representatives of those agencies contacted during this review were
very supportive of EPA's outreach activities. Several noted that such
workshops and gatherings are among the limited channels of communica-
tion available to them for keeping up to date on technical and management
aspects of lake restoration and protection. However, because of State travel
funding restrictions, it is not possible for many agencies to send the staff
who could most benefit.
Technical materials provided by the Clean Lakes Program, particularly
the Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual (LRRGM) and its tech-
nical supplements, are widely used by State and local agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and individuals. Individuals contacted during
this review said their greatest single use of the LRRGM is as a tool to edu-
cate lake associations and citizens about lake restoration techniques, while
the technical supplements are used to keep lake management professionals
abreast of lake restoration's technical aspects. Demand for the manual is
high — the entire first edition (20,000 copies published in 1987) were dis-
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 34
-------
tributed nationwide. In response to this demand, EPA updated the manual
in 1990 and distributed an additional 10,000 copies.
The Clean Lakes Clearinghouse is another important technical assis-
tance tool created by EPA Managed by the Terrene Institute, the Clearing-
house is a bibliographic database of over 3,000 lake-related documents,
including books, program and technical reports, conference proceedings,
and journal articles. Several thousand articles will be added in 1993, as the
Clearinghouse is continually updated. Since it became available in 1989, the
Clearinghouse has responded to numerous requests for data searches and
has also sent out more than 900 copies of the database on diskettes.
About half of the individuals contacted for this review who are directly
involved in lake restoration said that the Clearinghouse is a useful tool for
their work. Most of the others were not familiar with it but were interested
in learning about it; several said they would like to try using the Clearing-
house.
The Clearinghouse's success has encouraged the development of two
communications tools to help address nonpoint source pollution issues: an
electronic bulletin board system (the NFS BBS) and Nonpoint Source News-
Notes, an occasional publication circulated to nearly 10,000 readers.
Conclusion
Communication — and cooperation — form the base for the Clean Lakes
Program. A Clean Lakes project begins with citizens expressing concerns
about their lake: they communicate among themselves, within their com-
munity and local government, then with their state agencies — and then,
with their EPA Region, which recommends their project for a Clean Lakes
grant.
Then, following the Phase I analysis and the follow-up Phase II project,
the communication reverses. It becomes a flow of data and observations; of
technical, scientific information that will be used to further lake restoration
and protection throughout the world.
Seventeen years and hundreds of projects later, the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram has proven that this process works. Fifteen Native American Tribes
and people living in 49 States (plus Puerto Rico) have joined with their local
and State governments to make the Clean Lakes Program work for their
lakes. And the information gained from these efforts has immeasurably en-
riched the science of lake restoration.
But the Clean Lakes Program has also become the blueprint for environ-
mental protection that works. Its lessons are now being applied to other en-
vironmental programs, particularly the Watershed Protection Approach.
Not everybody lives beside a lake, but everybody does live in a watershed. A
holistic program, to be sure, the watershed approach will depend even more
on the twin principles of communication and cooperation so aptly
demonstrated by the Clean Lakes Program.
Effects of the Program
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 35
-------
How it Came
to Be: History
and Structure
f I ^he Clean Lakes Program was created to stop or at least slow cultural
I eutrophication — the human contribution to a lake's natural aging
J,. process. Lakes eutrophy naturally by accumulating nutrients and silt,
thereby evolving from lakes to wetlands to dry land. This natural
eutrophication process normally takes hundreds of years, but with human
"help," lakes have been destroyed within a decade. Recognizing this grow-
ing problem, section 314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
(the Clean Water Act)1 established the Clean Lakes Program, which was first
funded by a congressional appropriation of $4 million in Fiscal Year 1975.
Structure
From the beginnings grass-roots program based on State initiative, the
Clean Lakes Program has always funded local lake projects undertaken as
part of State lake management activities. Through the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram, EPA gives financial and technical assistance to States, Tribes, and
local communities that apply to the Agency. Participation is voluntary.
EPA provides financial assistance through four types of cooperative
agreements: Phase I: Diagnostic Feasibility Study, Phase II: Implementation
Project, Phase III: Postrestoration Monitoring Study, and Lake Water
Quality Assessment.
Phase I: Diagnostic and Feasibility Study
This two-part study analyzes a lake's condition and determines the causes of
that condition, then! recommends procedures necessary to restore and
protect lake quality. Phase I funds can be awarded for a lake after a State's
assessment process idetermines that lake to be a top priority within the
History and Structure Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992 Page 36
-------
(left photo)
A. side channel of Devils Lake
before its restoration.
(right photo)
And the same channel a year later.
The Clean Lakes Program helps
slow the eutrophication process.
State. Phase I awards reach a maximum of $100,000 and require a State
and/or local match of at least 30 percent.
The City of Bemidji, Minnesota is a Phase I funds' recipient. From the
mid-1970s on, two northern Minnesota lakes, Bemidji and Irving, received
increased loading from nonpoint sources of pollution, as well as discharges
into Lake Bemidji from the city's wastewater treatment plant.
In addition to local citizens' use and enjoyment Lake Bemidji is a major
tourist draw in the area. Research showed that a noticeable decline in the
lake's water quality would mean a loss of at least $3 billion in tourism revenues.
To reverse the decline of both lakes, Beltrami County, the City of
Bemidji, Northern Township, the Mississippi Headwaters Board, the Head-
waters Regional Development Commission, Bemidji State University, the
Clearwater and Hubbard County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Con-
trol Agency, and the U.S. Geological Survey cooperated to prepare a Phase I
study.
The study determined that several sources of nonpoint pollution (as well
as the wastewater treatment plant) were contaminating the lakes, and
proposed a comprehensive plan to deal with each source.
Phase II: Implementation Projects
Phase II cooperative agreements support lakes' restoration and protection,
as identified during Phase I or through a similar study; restoration/protec-
tion measures may include control and reduction of nonpoint source pol-
lutants from the watershed, in-lake techniques to restore water quality, or a
combination of the two. There is no maximum dollar amount for Phase II
awards, but they require a State and/or local matching share of at least 50
percent of the cost of restoration.
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 37
-------
Scientific knowledge on
the longevity and
effectiveness of the
projects begins with
postrestoration
assessment and
monitoring programs.
The community surrounding Vancouver Lake, near Vancouver, Wash-
ington, applied for and received Phase II project monies. By the late 1970s,
the lake had become highly eutrophic with nutrient-enriched sediments,
and was very shallow. This greatly decreased its recreational possibilities.
Because of the need to dredge the sediments, restoration required a sub-
stantial investment, including Clean Lakes Program funding of more than
$7 million and local funding of $10.3 million. Completed in the early 1980s,
the restoration is projected to reap benefits of more than $19 million for
owners of lakeside properties and businesses, as well as the local com-
munity as a whole.
Phase III: Postrestoration Monitoring Studies
Through postrestoration assessment and monitoring, Phase III cooperative
agreements are designed to increase the scientific base of knowledge on
the longevity and effectiveness of restoration and protection methods con-
ducted under Phase II projects. A maximum of $125,000 is available, with a
State and/or local matching share of at least 30 percent required.
In 1978, New Hampshire's Kezar Lake was determined to be eutrophic.
Under a Clean Lakes grant, in 1984 the lake was treated with aluminum sul-
fate and sodium aluminate to inactivate sediment phosphorus. Using Phase
III funds, a four-year monitoring program was then conducted to evaluate
the short- and long-term effectiveness of this treatment approach.
Immediate treatment effects, verified by monitoring, included reduction
in hypolimnetic biological oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen deficit,
lower chlorophyll a and phosphorus concentrations, improved transparen-
cy, and the elimination of noxious blue-green phytoplankton blooms.
For two to three years after treatment, these effects exhibited less
variability and had improved values over pretreatment conditions, warrant-
ing an upgrade of the lake's trophic status from eutrophic to mesotrophic.
Water quality began to decrease after four years, but information from the
monitoring program provided a useful information base for the approach
that was subsequently used to treat phosphorus inactivation.
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 38
-------
Lake Water Quality Assessment
Under sections 314 (a) (1) and 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act, States must as-
sess the conditions of their publicly owned lakes and submit their findings
to EPA every two years. LWQA grants — the only grants under the pro-
gram that are not lake-specific — can be used to fund in-lake water quality
sampling and analysis, volunteer citizens monitoring programs, regional
lake water quality assessments, development of data management systems,
and other activities that help support a State lake program. LWQA grants
reach a maximum of $50,000 annually and require a State and/or local
match of at least 50 percent.
Using an LWQA grant, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and the
Oklahoma Conservation Commission worked together to classify the
State's lakes. The two organizations used a combination of LANDSAT
remote-sensing data (collected under a cooperative agreement with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service), in-lake sam-
pling, and literature reviews. With that information, Oklahoma was able to
classify a greater percentage of its lakes than would have been possible
otherwise.
The various types of Clean Lake Program cooperative agreements and
their annual funding are summarized in Table 1. The table also contains in-
formation on Lake Classification Survey grants. From 1976 to 1981, EPA
awarded Survey grants on a one-time basis to help States evaluate and class-
ify lake conditions. The "Phase II" column shows funding provided for new
Phase II implementation projects.
Table 1 . — Annual financial
YEAR
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
* NOTE:
CLASSIFICATION
0
0
100,000
100,000
1,709,253
1,341,599
493,744
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
assistance provided by EPA Clean Lakes Program to States and Tribes.
PHASE 1
0
8,183
0
49,077
48,824
4,658,245
3,349,692
127,000
0
65,750
0
0
2,022,716
0
2,556,224
4,386,323
2,674,919
The total amount awarded may vary from annual
PHASE II
23,250
7,614,633
9,789,402
10,506,727
4,369,746
13,518,290
12,288,814
7,691,814
2,703,780
4,832,368
5,120,597
4,822,988
2,477,284
0
2,321,746
6,649,002
1 ,992,706
96,723,147
Congressional
PHASE ID
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
286,957
439,875
265,924
992,756
appropriation as a result of
LWQA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,959,487
685,066
2,066,451
6,711,004
TOTAL*
23,250
7,622,816
9,889,402
10,655,804
6,127,823
19,518,134
16,132,250
7,818,814
2,703,780
4,898,118
5,120,597
4,822,988
4,500,000
0
9,124,414
12,160,266
7,000,000
"carry-over" from one year to the next.
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 39
-------
EPA has substantially supported its Clean Lakes Program in all 10 EPA
Regions, 49 States, Puerto Rico, and on land owned by 15 Tribes. Forty clas-
sification surveys, 288 Phase I's, and 208 Phase II's have been funded in
partnership with States and Native American Tribes (see Table 2). With
funding for Lake Water Quality Assessments and Phase III studies available
only since 1989, EPA has funded LWQAs in 46 States and 13 Tribes, and 11
Phase Ill's. Total annual Clean Lakes funding has fluctuated but since the
early 1980s has averaged around $5 million per year (see Fig. 1).
Initial funding for
demonstration
grants and a
onetime only survey
gave many states
theirfirst
comprehensive
picture of their lakes'
condition.
History
Since its initial funding in 1975, the Clean Lakes Program's evolution can be
described in three phases.
• 1975 to 1979: Research and development on lake restoration techni-
ques and evaluation of lake conditions. Early in the program, EPA en-
countered problems fulfilling section 314's mandates. Existing technology
was inadequate for assessing lake eutrophication and pollution problems;
this led to concerns about the cost effectiveness of a national Clean Lakes
Program.
Also, many experts at that time believed lake quality would be protected
or improved through other Clean Water Act pollution controls — in par-
ticular, aggressive implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (section 402) and the construction of municipal was-
tewater treatment plants (section 201). Therefore, EPA assigned a low
priority to the Clean Lakes Program from 1972 through 1975.
When Congress appropriated $4 million in FY 1975 to develop a pro-
gram implementing section 314, EPA was still uncertain about the feasibility
and scope of a national Clean Lakes Program because of the lack of existing
scientific expertise on lake restoration. So the Agency chose to use the ini-
tial funds for demonstration grants.
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 40
-------
Table 2.— State and Tribal distribution of Clean Lakes funds.
STATE
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Subtotal (States)
CLASSIFICATION
0
0
100,000
87,400
0
100,000
100,000
69,388
97,325
100,000
100,000
99,661
200,000
0
0
99,943
92,309
100,000
46,831
100,000
100,000
100,000
93,111
57,688
88,185
100,000
0
55,167
100,000
100,000
58,572
0
100,000
53,921
100,000
100,000
98,110
92,712
0
92,244
100,000
84,000
100,000
100,000
98,939
100,000
99,769
100,000
0
79,321
3,844,596
LWQA
0
160,000
0
100,000
100,000
56,842
160,000
160,000
160,000
110,000
160,000
100,000
160,000
160,000
160,000
160,000
0
160,000
30,000
160,000
167,845
164,000
130,000
160,000
0
160,000
30,000
160,000
159,938
125,513
100,000
150,000
100,000
164,692
160,000
183,876
0
115,396
160,000
160,000
130,000
160,000
160,000
130,000
82,500
160,000
155,301
160,000
99,759
0
6,045,662
PHASE 1
211,922
242,585
564,000
300,000
739,872
599,658
80,124
150,769
421,444
580,000
161,699
373,114
775,461
544,583
346,230
100,000
100,000
444,694
199,400
274,988
532,608
828,943
594,310
300,000
129,975
259,218
17,304
352,929
697,443
390,077
82,296
50,000
1 ,383,754
189,037
1 ,605,439
460,699
402,600
100,000
472,613
240,048
472,455
478,365
400,000
602,965
225,952
501,866
614,126
198,184
166,950
0
19,960,699
PHASE II
0
0
0
0
6,845,998
280,000
1,385,552
101,202
2,325,193
0
5,598,611
470,344
2,871,277
573,467
859,990
0
1,775,000
5,550,328
2,250,935
2,857,055
4,572,465
7,554,905
823,500
50,000
232,400
924,720
325,250
0
96,600
4,239,028
0
968,342
8,515,847
261 ,200
1,269,567
1,013,795
1,092,539
399,039
26,127
496,770
2,241,265
0
1,913,706
655,788
2,416,145
856,642
14,168,134
6,410,862
0
0
95,269,588
PHASE III
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75,250
0
250,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
68,348
36,957
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
121,577
0
0
0
0
124,950
65,674
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
125,000
125,000
0
0
992,756
TOTAL
211,922
402,585
664,000
487,400
7,685,870
1,036,500
1 ,725,676
481 ,359
3,003,962
790,000
6,095,560
1,043,119
4,256,738
1,278,050
1,366,220
359,943
1,967,309
6,255,022
2,527,166
3,460,391
5,409,875
8,647,848
1,640,921
567,688
450,560
1,443,938
372,554
568,096
1,175,558
4,854,618
240,868
1,168,342
10,099,601
793,800
3,200,680
1,593,249
1 ,303,227
707,147
658,740
989,062
2,943,720
722,365
2,573,706
1,488,753
2,823,536
1,618,508
15,162,330
6,994,046
266,709
79,321
125,658,158
(Continued on next page)
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 41
-------
Table 2.—Continued.
TRIBES
Poarch Band of Creek
Indians (AL)
Ft. Mojave (CA)
Southern Ute (CO)
Coeur D'Alene (ID)
Nez Perce (ID)
Chippewa (MN)
Mille Lacs Chippewa
(MN)
Red Lake Chippewa
(MN)
White Earth (MN)
Blackteet (MT)
Eastern Band of
Cherokee (NC)
Turtle Mountain Band
of Chippewa (ND)
Narragansett (NH)
Klamath (OR)
Wind River/Shoshone
andArapaho(WY)
Colorado River (CA)
Pueblo of Acoma (NM)
Subtotal (Tribes)
TOTAL
CLASSIFICATION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,844,596
LWQA
10,000
7,200
90,000
51,375
0
140,967
100,000
100,000
41,000
15,000
22,365
30,000
61 ,360
74,936
0
0
744,203
6,789,865
PHASE 1
15,000
100,000
0
100,000
0
67,750
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70,000
0
100,000
0
452,750
20,413,449
PHASE II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,975
0
0
0
0
0
799,107
809,082
96,078,670
PHASE III
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
992,756
TOTAL
25,000
100,000
7,200
190,000
51,375
67,750
140,967
100,000
100,000
41 ,000
24,975
22,365
30,000
131,360
74,936
100,000
799,107
2,006,035
127,664,193
EPA distributed $35 million from FY 1975 to FY 1978 as research and
development grants for demonstration projects aimed at investigating
potential lake restoration techniques. The demonstration projects suc-
ceeded in proving that techniques did exist to restore degraded lakes, and
that lake restoration should become an integral part of a national water
quality management strategy.
In 1978, EPA began to award one-time-only Lake Classification Coopera-
tive Agreements to States to help them evaluate lake conditions. The agree-
ments provided up to 70 percent of costs to a maximum of $100,000. During
the next three years, 35 States and Puerto Rico performed classification sur-
veys on more than 6,000 lakes at a cost of $3.8 million in Federal funds. The
surveys gave many State water quality management agencies their first
comprehensive picture of their lakes' water quality, enabling the agencies to
identify and rank lakes according to trophic conditions.
The demonstration projects and information on lake conditions estab-
lished an information base for developing a national Clean Lakes Strategy,
as well as a baseline for evaluating future lake conditions.
During this same period, the National Eutrophication Survey (con-
ducted from 1972 to 1977) found that 68 percent of the 800 lakes studied
were eutrophic to some degree, emphasizing the need for urgent attention.
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 42
-------
• 1980 to 1987: Establishment and implementation of the National
Clean Lakes Strategy — focus on lake restoration. In 1980, the Clean
Lakes Program's focus changed from research and development to lake res-
toration. In August of that year, EPA issued its Clean Lakes Program Strategy
and regulations (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart H) for the national program's ad-
ministration. These moved the program direction from research and develop-
ment to an operational program of financial and technical assistance.
The regulations stipulated that only States were eligible to receive the
Federal Clean Lakes awards. But in response to initial concerns, EPA al-
lowed States to arrange financing of the non-Federal share of project costs
through agreements with other entities, including municipalities, busi-
nesses, individual citizens, citizen organizations, and lake associations.
In the Clean Lakes Program Strategy, EPA established more specific
program goals. The Agency realized it did not have enough resources to
apply to all lakes. So one new goal was aimed at protecting at least one lake
with water quality suitable for recreational purposes, within 25 miles of
every U.S. population center (usually a Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area [SMSA]). The goal included restoring a degraded lake to recreational
use, if necessary.
EPA also announced five program objectives:
1. Select projects to maximize public benefits;
2. Follow an integrated program approach;
3. Emphasize watershed management;
4. Develop active State involvement and maintain a Federal-State
partnership; and
5. Conduct continuous program and project evaluation.
The Clean Lakes Program goals and objectives established during this
timeframe have continued to provide guidance to States when preparing
cooperative agreement applications, and to EPA in evaluating the applications.
The North American Lake Management Society was also formed during
this period, receiving its charter in September 1980 during an international
symposium cosponsored by EPA and the European Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Created to promote better under-
standing for the protection, restoration, and management of lakes and then-
watersheds as ecological units, NALMS has worked closely with EPA to fur-
ther the objectives of lake protection and restoration.
National and regional NALMS conferences have provided opportunities
for Federal, State, and local water quality management officials, members of
the academic and consulting communities, and the public to come together
to share technical information and experience.
From 1982 to 1987, EPA published the proceedings of NALMS' annual
conferences in partial fulfillment of the Clean Water Act, section 3040),
which requires EPA to publish a report every two years on the protection
and restoration of the Nation's freshwater lakes.
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 43
-------
• 1987 to present: Implementation of the National Clean Lakes Strategy
under the expanded mandates of the 1987 Water Quality Act. A sig-
nificant redirection of the Clean Lakes Program occurred under the 1987
Water Quality Act, which amended the 1972 Clean Water Act This redirec-
tion placed new demands on States and EPA Under the new acf s section
314, each State wishing to remain eligible for Clean Lakes funding had to
submit information once every two years on its lakes' conditions, as part of
a mandated water quality report. The report was to include
o a revised Lake Classification Report;
e a list of threatened and impaired lakes and lakes not meeting
water quality standards or that will require controls to maintain
standards;
9 lake pollution control procedures, restoration plans for degraded
lakes, and methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful
effects of acidity in lakes; and
• an assessment of the status and trends of lake water quality.
Tables 3 and 4 show the lake restoration and protection management
techniques planned or implemented by Clean Lake Projects. The tables
classify each technique as an in-lake technique (Table 3) or a watershed
treatment (Table 4). The relative percent frequency of each management
technique is also shown.
Table 3.—Lake Restoration Management Techniques Used in the Clean Lakes
Program, In-Lake Techniques
RELATIVE % OF USE OF
TECHNIQUE/DESCRIPTION ALL IN-LAKE TECHNIQUES
Excess sediments removed/dredged
Water level drawn down to desiccate and/or remove aquatic plants
Aquatic macrophytes harvested to remove nuisance growths of plants
34%
11%
10%
Phosphorus precipitated/inactivated with aluminum salts to control
phosphorus 70//0
Herbicides applied to control aquatic plants
Sand or other filters used to clarify water
Bottom barriers installed to control nutrient cycling in lake
Lake water destratified
Nutrient rich waters diluted by flushing
Hypolimnion (bottom) aerated to seal phosphorus in bottom sediments
Food chain manipulated
Oxygen-depleted hypolimnion water withdrawn
7%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
Non-native species introduced lo control nuisance aquatic macrophyte
growth (e.g., grass crap) 1%
Other in-lake treatment applied 21%
History and Structure Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992 Page 44
-------
Table 4.—Lake Restoration Management Techniques Used in the Clean Lakes
Program, Watershed Treatments
TECHNIQUE/DESCRIPTION
RELATIVE % OF USE OF ALL
WATERSHED TREATMENTS
Shoreline erosion controls implemented, including riprapping
20%
Best management practice installed (unspecified type)
18%
Sediment pond or detention basis installed to trap sediment before
entering lake
Erosion control practice installed (unspecified type)
Water diverted from lake to treatment system
Conservation tillage used
Animal waste management practices installed or improved
Road or skid trails managed to control erosion and/or runoff
Land surface roughened to control erosion
11%
10%
3%
2%
1%
1%
Redesigned streets or parking lots to reduce runoff < 1 %
Integrated pest management practices applied <1 %
Porous pavement used <-) %
Ofherwatershed controls
15%
The Water Quality Act also required EPA to develop a lake restoration
guidance manual for distribution to the States (to be updated biennially) and
to establish a Clean Lakes demonstration program. Section 518(e)
authorized EPA to treat qualified Native American Tribes as States, thereby
making them eligible for direct assistance under the Clean Lakes Program.
The 1987 amendments also added a new program to address nonpoint
source pollution of streams and rivers. Under section 319, States were re-
quired to assess navigable waterways significantly polluted by nonpoint
sources, and to implement management programs to address nonpoint
source pollution. A watershed approach was to be used, if practicable. The
integration of the 314 and 319 programs is becoming a key ingredient to
resolving many U.S. lakes' environmental problems.
To meet the new amendment mandates, EPA convened a Clean Lakes
Work Group in May 1987. At that meeting, representatives of States, Tribes,
NALMS, EPA, and others developed the Clean Lakes Program Guidance.
The Guidance advocates an integrated program approach and the develop-
ment of a State Clean Water Strategy incorporating a State's lake manage-
ment program into its overall water quality management. The Guidance
stresses the need for Clean Lakes projects to be developed and imple-
mented on a watershed basis, and authorizes EPA to issue Lake Water
Quality Assessment grants (to help States meet section 314 obligations) and
Phase HI Post-Restoration Monitoring grants (to advance lake restoration
science).
As part of the Clean Lakes Program redirection, EPA began to place a
greater emphasis on technical assistance to State lake water quality manag-
ers to help them assess, restore, and maintain their lakes' quality. Working
History and Structure Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992 Page 45
-------
Since 1980, the
North American
Lake Management
Society has
sponsored local and
regional conferences
to help protect and
restore North
American lakes.
JlffiS1 *
^^fflnSiiFter" *" ff', \
with NALMS, then with the Terrene Institute, EPA published two editions
of the Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual, followed by the
technical supplement Monitoring Lake and Reservoir Restoration, and a
voluntary monitoring manual for citizens. Two more technical supplements
will be published in 1993 — one on fisheries management in lakes and
reservoirs, the other on toxic substances in lakes and reservoirs. EPA also
gave NALMS grants to conduct a series of regional and State workshops for
lake water quality managers.
During this period, work began on developing the Clean Lakes Clearin-
ghouse, a bibliographic database of up-to-date information on lake restora-
tion and protection techniques. The Clearinghouse began operations in
1989, moving to Terrene the following year as part of a partnership to con-
tinue the development and marketing of the database.
In FY1988, Congress did-not appropriate any funds for Clean Lakes as-
sistance to States. The halt in funding — the only one in the Program's his-
tory — was a major setback for States and Tribal governments that were
ready to start new assessment and restoration projects. Without Federal
funding for new grant initiatives, Clean Lakes efforts focused on ongoing
restoration projects and technical assistance begun in 1987.
hi May 1988, EPA cosponsored the first National Conference on En-
hancing States' Lake Management Programs. The largely nontechnical con-
ference allowed Federal, State, local, and Tribal water quality managers to
share valuable information. The conference has been held annually since
then, under EPA cosponsorship.
The funding situation changed dramatically in 1989, when Congress ap-
propriated $12.5 million for the Clean Lakes Program. This allowed the pro-
gram to move beyond just funding projects for individual lakes to providing
assistance for assessing restoration techniques and to conducting broad-
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 46
-------
based studies of lake conditions. Citizens were encouraged to play a more
direct role in caring for their lakes. For the first time, three Phase III grants
were awarded to States to conduct post-restoration monitoring studies of
completed restoration projects.
The first LWQA grants — totalling more than $3.9 million — were
awarded, to 40 States and three Tribes. About $2.6 million was also awarded
in 42 Phase I grants. Several public workshops were conducted around the
country to encourage and help citizens actively participate in the manage-
ment of their lakes.
The Clean Lakes Program moved into the 1990s with a much clearer
vision of how to support total lake and watershed management, from initial
diagnosis through post-restoration monitoring. In 1990, 44 States, one ter-
ritory, and 15 Tribes received financial assistance totalling slightly more
than $12 million.
• More than half of the total funding (55 percent) went to Phase II
Implementation projects, and 90 percent of the Phase II amount
went to new projects.
• Grants for Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies constituted more than
half of the agreements, and about 36 percent of total funding.
• Fourteen awards were given for Lake Water Quality
Assessments and Post-Restoration Monitoring (Phase III), with
77 percent of the LWQA awards given to Tribes.
Citizen involvement in lake management was also supported in FY1990,
through EPA-NALMS cosponsored workshops in Georgia, Pennsylvania,
and Michigan. As had been true at prior meetings in Virginia, Ohio, and
Washington, the workshops led to the formation of State lake associations.
In FY 1991 and FY 1992, Congress appropriated $7 million each year. In
FY 1991, the funds went to 113 awards — 45 for Diagnostic/Feasibility
Studies (Phase I), 23 new Implementation (Phase ID projects, and 42 LWQA
agreements. Several EPA Regions funded voluntary citizen monitoring
programs through LWQA grants and sponsored training workshops. The
Clean Lakes Clearinghouse also received funds, which were used to make
its data available on floppy disks on a subscription basis.
(Citizens involved in lake
management can often put old
tools to new work: the Hackney
sickle bar was introduced to
farmers in 1903.
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992 Page 47
-------
Funding
As this description has clearly demonstrated, the Clean Lakes Program has
not enjoyed a consistent funding base over time. State funding assistance
dropped from $20.3 million in FY1980 to $3.4 million in FY1983, rose in FY
1984, dropped slightly in FY 1985, and so on (see Fig. 1).
As knowledge of the Nation's lake water quality conditions has ad-
vanced and as the needs of States and local communities have changed, the
allocation of Clean Lakes Program funds has changed considerably. The
program initially focused on research and gathering information, but as
Clean Lakes has evolved, water quality restoration and protection measures
have received more resources.
From 1981 to 1986, funding restrictions limited Clean Lakes assistance
largely to cooperative agreements for lake restoration projects. Little fund-
ing was available to strengthen lake management programs and research,
and funding virtually stopped for Phase I studies and classification activities.
A brief summary of those years follows:
H FY 1981: EPA gave $11.1 million to States for lake diagnostic and
restoration projects — $3.1 million for Phase I studies and $8.0
million for Phase II restoration projects. It was the last year of
funding for lake classification surveys.
• FY 1982: Congress appropriated $9.4 million for the Clean Lakes
Program but directed EPA to allocate funds to complete work on
ongoing Phase II projects only. For this year, EPA funded Phase II
work to complete 25 ongoing lake implementation projects.
• FY 1983:The program received $3 million in appropriations. EPA
was directed to give highest priority to completion of ongoing
Phase II projects. EPA received 34 applications for assistance,
totalling more than $9 million.
• FY 1984: Congress appropriated $5 million for State Clean Lakes
assistance, with $1 million more earmarked for lake management
research. EPA directed most of this funding to Phase II projects,
after receiving 32 applications totalling $7.7 million. One Phase I
award was to perform a diagnostic/feasibility study on the Chip-
pewa Tribe Lakes in Region V as part of EPA's Indian Initiative
Program.
H FY 1985: EPA requested $2.5 million for the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram; Congress appropriated $5 million. All funding was directed
to Phase II projects.
• FY 1986: EPA provided about $5.1 million in assistance for 22
Phase II projects; 10 were new restoration projects.
In recent years, EPA has provided assistance for comprehensive assess-
ments of lake water quality under the Water Quality Act of 1987, and for the
evaluation of the effectiveness of lake restoration projects.
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 48
-------
25,000,000
20,000,000 -
15,000,000-
O)
.E
T3
C
LL 10,000,000-
5,000,000-
0
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
Fiscal Year
Figure 1.—Total EPA funding for Clean Lakes assistance, 1976 to 1991.
Conclusion
As the Clean Lakes Program approaches its second decade, the program
has remained fundamentally unchanged in its underlying philosophy: effec-
tive lake and watershed management must be based on participation and
commitment at local and State levels and on addressing the causes of en-
vironmental problems rather than the symptoms alone.
History and Structure
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992 Page 49
-------
Resources
Bachmann, R.W., M.R. Johnson, M.V. Moore, and TA Noonan. 1980. Clean Lakes Clas-
sification Study of Iowa's Lakes for Restoration. Iowa State Univ. Ames.
Baker, LA and E.B. Swain. 1989. Review of lake management in Minnesota. Lake
Reserv. Manage. 5(2):1-10.
Barten, J. 1982. Nutrient removal from urban stormwater by wetland filtration: the Clear
Lake restoration project. Pages 23-29 in Proc. N. Am. Lake Manage. Soc. 2nd Annu.
Conf. Lake Restor. Pfot. Manage. Oct. 26-29. Vancouver, BC, Can.
Connor, J.N. and M.R. Martin. 1989. An assessment of sediment phosphorus inactiva-
tion, Kezar Lake, New Hampshire. Water Resour. Bull. 25(4): 845-53.
Hall, AC., SA Peterson, J. Taggart, G.M. DeGraeve, and B.W. Vigon. 1987. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Lakes Program: 1975-1985. Lake Reserv.
Manage. 3:127.
Heiskary, SA and C.B. Wilson. 1989. The regional nature of lake water quality across
Minnesota: an analysis for improving resource management. J. Minn. Acad. Sci.
55(1): 71-77.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Illinois Water Quality Report — 1988-
1989. IEPA/WPC/90-160. Div. Water Pollut Control. Springfield.
Kirschner, R.J. 1991. In Proc. NatL Conf. Enhanc. States' Lake Manage. Progr. May
1990. Chicago, IL.
Metcalf & Eddy. 1991. Clean Lakes Program Evaluation for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region I. Wakefield, MA.
McVoy, R. and R. Haynes. 1990. NALMS' history: a decade remembered. Lake Line 10
(8): 8-23.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1990. Oklahoma 1990 Lake Water Quality Assess-
ment Executive Summary. Oklahoma City.
Payne, F.E., C.R. Laurin, K.W. Thornton, and G.E. Saul. 1991. A Strategy for Evaluating
In-Lake Treatment Effectiveness and Longevity. Terrene Inst. in coop. N. Am. Lake
Manage. Soc., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Clean Lakes Program Strategy. EPA
440/5-80-014. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington, DC.
. 1987. Clean Lakes Program Guidance. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington, DC.
. 1990. The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual, 2nd Edition. EPA-
440/4-90-006. Prepared by Terrene Inst. for Off. Water. Washington, DC.
. 1990. Clean Lakes Program 1989 Annual Report. N. Am. Lake Manage. Soc.
Washington, DC.
. 1991. Clean Lakes Program 1990 Annual Report. Prepared by Terrene Inst. in
coop, with Off. Wetlands Oceans Watersheds. Washington, DC.
. 1991. The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview. EPA/503/9-92/001.
Off. Water. Washington, DC.
1992. Clean Lakes Program 1991 Annual Report Prepared by Terrene Inst. in
coop, with Off. Wetlands Oceans Watersheds. Washington, DC.
Resources
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 50
.
-------
Persons Contacted During This Review
Terry Anderson, Supervisor of Standards and Specifications Section, Kentucky Department
for Environmental Protection, Division of Water.
Loren Bahls, Head of Ecosystem Management Section, Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Services, Water Quality Bureau.
Don Bonneau, Fisheries Research Supervisor, Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
Fisheries Bureau.
Mike Bira, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI.
Paul Brakhage, Program Specialist, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control,
Surface Water Section.
David Buzan, Coordinator of Texas Watch Program, Texas Water Commission.
Jody Connor, Director of the Limnology Center, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, Biology Bureau.
James Cooper, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
Mark Corley, Executive Assistant, South Carolina Land Resources Commission.
Jeff Dennis, Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Water Bureau.
Terry Faber, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II.
Charles Fredette, Supervisory Sanitary Engineer, Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Management.
William H. Funk, Director, State of Washington Water Research Center.
Virginia Garrison, Supervisor of Lakes and Ponds Management Program,
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Division.
Nancy Goggin, Clean Lakes Coordinator, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control.
Gregg Good, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
Will Hansen, Citizens for Big Stone Lake, Minnesota/South Dakota.
Lance Himmelberger, Pennsylvania Department of Health.
Terri Roltingsworih, formerly with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division.
MarkHolston, Information Director, Flathead (Montana) Basin Commission.
Warren Howard, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I.
Mary Jaynes, Environmental Biologist, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Division ofEnvironmental Management.
Alan Jeffries, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation.
Robert Johnson, (former President of North American Lake Management Society), Air and
Waste Management Association.
Jake Kara, Environmental Coordinator, Klamath Tribe, Oregon.
Robert Kirschner, Principal Environmental Planner, Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission.
Frank Lapensee, Clean Lakes Program Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
Judith Leckrone, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X.
Christine Lehnertz, Tribal Water Qualify Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VIII.
Resources
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 51
-------
Paul Dllebo, California Department of Health.
Andrew Manus, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
Sally Marquis, Regional Lakes Expert, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X.
Howard Marshall, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IV.
Kim McKee, Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Financial Assistance
Program.
Richard McVoy, (farmer president of North American Lake Management Society),
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Limnology Group.
Brian Mrazik, Chief of New Hampshire/Vermont District, U.S. Geological Survey, New
Hampshire/Vermont District.
Harvey Olem, Olem Associates, Virginia.
Dave Olsen, Director, Carroll County Conservation District, Iowa.
Joe Peterson, President of the Preservation Association of Devils Lake, Oregon.
Spencer Peterson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Research
Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon).
Herman Phelps, Candlewood Lake Authority, Connecticut.
Susan Ratcliffe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division.
David Rathke, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII.
Teena Reichgott, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III.
Donald Reuter, Public Information Officer, North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation.
Don Roberts, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V.
Jerry Schoen, Coordinator, The Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership.
Donna Sefton, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII.
Robert Seyforth, Mississippi Department of Pollution Control.
Jon Simpson, Former Executive Director, Candlewood Lake Association, Connecticut.
Shon Simpson, Water Quality Division Manager, Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
EricSmeltzer, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
Wendell Smith, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX.
Thomas Smythe, Water Resources Engineer, Lake County (California) Flood Control &
Water Conservation District.
Kathy Stecker, South Carolina Water Pollution Control Department, Water Quality
Management Division.
MarkTomasek, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Water Quality.
Judith Taggart, The Terrene Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kenneth Toppin, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, New Hampshire/Vermont District.
Milton Upton, Lake Committee, Lake Delavan, Wisconsin.
TomWardeU,La&e George (New York) Park Commission.
Christopher Deere, Lake Onondaga Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II.
Mork Winn, Georgia Environmental Protection Division.
Hank Zygmunt, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III.
Resources
Clean Lakes Program Review, 1992
Page 52
-------
-------
-------
-------
t» -o
CO CD
s ^3sim
—*» frt < J J H " •
2;
~»
I?
^- (
< c
a
(D
CO
CD
------- |