EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 440/5-85-033
Water
Clean Lakes
program
-------
Clean Lake
a review of tl
Igjilr
-------
EPA 440/5-85-033
Prepared under contract 68-01-6986 for the
U S. Environmental Protection Agency Research
and technical information by Battelle Columbus
Division; reviewed by Criteria and Standards Di-
vision, Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
ards, U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Manuscript and design by JT&A, Inc. Approval
for publication does not signify that the con-
tents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
-------
introduction
Like the air we breathe, a lake is a familiar, commonplace natural resource.
Most of us live near a lake, enjoying its beauty as we drive by, sometimes
boating or fishing in its waters. Some of our drinking water comes from
lakes and that may be our most conscious dependency on our lake resources.
Nonetheless, that dependency is real. Lakes are essential in our ecosystem.
Their waters are home to many fish, wildlife, and plants.
And, like all nature, lakes change over time. As they grow older, lakes accumu-
late nutrients and silt, eventually evolving from lakes to wetlands to dry land.
Called eutrophication, this natural process normally takes hundreds of years.
But humans—with their detergents, their fertilizers, their wastes, their build-
ing, farming, and mining—have dramatically speeded up this aging process.
"Cultural eutrophication," the term now used to describe these human effects,
has destroyed hundreds of U.S. lakes and put thousands of others at risk. Sixty-
eight percent of the 800 lakes studied by the National Eutrophication Survey
(1972-77) were eutrophic to some degree.
The symptoms of such premature aging are easily recognized: masses of
plants that prevent a boat or a swimmer from moving through the water,
green scums on the water surface, odors from decaying plants, reduced lake
depth, dead fish, taste problems in a municipal water supply.
These problems do not necessarily signal the death of a lake; rather, they call
for analysis and treatment. The relatively new science of limnology (the study
of lakes) has proven that wise management can retard eutrophication and sig-
nificantly prolong a lake's life. Within the past decade a Federal program has
demonstrated how limnological techniques can be used to restore deteriorat-
ing lakes.
From 1920 to 1930, Lake Como
in Hokah, Minnesota, virtually
disappeared under sediment
washing down nearby slopes.
Erosion was not controlled when
farming and timbering activities
disturbed the land's natural
-------
CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM: ITS EVOLUTION
The Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Lakes Program began in 197!
when Congress appropriated $4 million to develop a national program to dem
onstrate cleanup activities for protecting publicly-owned freshwater lakes un
der section 314 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment
(PL. 92-500).
Recognizing the importance of lakes to the American public and the need t
protect and restore them, section 314 encouraged the States to (1) survey am
classify their publicly-owned lakes according to trophic condition, (2) define pol
lution problems, (3) develop pollution control and restoration programs, and (4
execute lake restoration and eutrophication control projects.
Because the science of lake restoration was still in its early stages, the firs
step was to identify techniques to improve or restore lake quality. From 1975
through 1978, EPA distributed $35 million in research and development grants.
Demonstration projects funded by these grants proved that techniques ex-
Candlewood Lake, Connecticut
(left) and Wilson Pond, Maine
(right)
isted that would restore degraded lakes, and that lake restoration should be-
come an integral part of a national water quality management strategy.
The program structure
Having established the need and demonstrated some effective restoration
techniques, in February 1980, EPA issued Clean Lakes regulations that set up a
three-part program:
Classification survey: States were to identify and rank their lakes accord-
ing to trophic conditions. If they wished to remain eligible for section 314
funds, they had to complete the survey.
Phase I: Funds were to be awarded for diagnostic/feasibility studies on lakes
determined by each State to be in greatest need. The study would analyze a
-------
ake's condition and determine the causes of eutrophication and the proce-
ures necessary to protect and restore its quality.
Phase II: In this final step, funds were to be awarded to implement proce-
lures recommended by the Phase I study. Most of the Clean Lakes funds go
ito this phase, the actual restoration and protection.
A public/private partnership
Seated to assist the States both financially and technically to set up their own
Drograms, the Clean Lakes Program has matched State and local funds to ac-
:omplish each project. Federal funds have been limited to 70 percent of the
:ost of the State classification survey and a similar percentage of the Phase I
study. Neither could exceed a total of $100,000 in Federal funds. The Federal
share of Phase II could be as great as 50 percent of the cost of restoration.
Each State administers its own program, applying to the EPA regional office
:or grants for those lakes that meet the criteria both of its own classification
Hawaii is in Region IX, Alaska, Region X, Puerto Rico, Region
Some States have more Phase ll's than Phase I's because all demonstration
pro|ects (1976-8) were classified as Phase ll's
FIGURE 1.—Location of Clean Lakes Projects. Fractions used within
States indicate number of Phase I studies (top) and number of
Phase n projects (bottom).
-------
TAILE 1.- Annual clean Lakes Federal grant awards by type of project.
PHASE 2
YEAR
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Total
CLASSIFICATION
SURVEY
S 466,737
1,366,918
1,475,539
491,719
$3,800,911
PHASE 1
STUDY
$ 199,768
1,068,006
4,305,616
2,543,856
65,750
$8,182,996
INITIAL
FUNDING
S7,976,751
7,181,689
8,059,472
3,325,493
5,403,230
3,991,438
2,299,874
5,442,515
1,082,069
$44,762,531
ONGOING
PROJECTS
$591,690
6,885,436
6,338,029
5,993,922
2,440,126
8,992,063
700,126
670,504
3,917,931
$36,529,827
TOTAL
$7,976,751
7,773,379
15,611,413
12,098,446
17,178,307
9,467,139
8,992,063
3,000,000
6,178,769
5,000,000
$93,276,267
study and of EPA. Since 1980, EPA has emphasized Phase II projects and in the
last 3 years (1983-85) funded only one Phase I study (see Table 1). That study of
the Chippewa Tribe Lakes located on a Minnesota Indian reservation was part
of EPA's Indian Initiative Program.
Crass roots involvement is key to the Clean Lakes Program, which is designed
to respond to local needs. Citizen complaints about their lake may be the first
step toward securing a Clean Lakes grant. Because of the requirement for a
State/local 50 percent match, local community support is vital Most projects
receive their institutional foundation and financial support from some local
unit of government, such as a city/county lake board or watershed district
In States that fund Clean Lakes projects, citizen commitment may be in the
form of persuading their State legislators to appropriate monies to match the
Federal funds. Frequently, however communities raise their own matching
funds, sometimes using the familiar bake and garage sale route. Waupaca (Wis-
consin) Inland Lakes Protection and Rehabilitation District raised $85,000 to
help fund the restoration of Mirror and Shadow Lakes. In Massachusetts the
town of Billerica matched EPA and State contributions to restore Nutting Lake
and also supplied dredge operators.
In-kind services frequently are used as part of the match. The Swan Lake
Improvement Association (South Dakota) donated most of the labor and equip-
ment used to riprap (build erosion barriers) the shoreline. Scotia, New York
citizens put their muscles behind privately-owned tow trucks to pull tree trunks
from Collins Lake.
Community support goes beyond the restoration effort itself. To increase
environmental awareness. Lake Henry Protection and Rehabilitation District in
Wisconsin produced a documentary film on the project's effects. Many lake
communities support routine water quality monitoring programs. Property
owners in Maine's Cobbossee Watershed District regularly monitor their lakes;
other lake associations schedule monitoring workshops to recruit new volun-
teers.
-------
CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM GOALS
Public benefits
Nearly every American has some contact with lakes: one-third live 5 miles or
less from a lake—99 percent live within 50 miles of a publicly-owned freshwater
lake. Aware that all Americans can benefit from the Clean Lakes Program, EPA
in 1980 set its goal as protecting or restoring at least one lake with water
quality suitable for contact recreation within 25 miles of every Standard Metro-
politan Statistical Area (SMSA) population center. By 1985, of the 159 projects
funded for Phase II, 126 were within the 25-mile SMSA limits (see Table 2).
In determining the public benefits of a proposed project, EPA considers such
factors as
1. Public access to the lake,
2. Numbers and economic structure of the nearby population,
3. Public transportation to lake,
4 Whether other relatively clean publicly-owned freshwater lakes are
within 50 miles,
5. Restoration to benefit the public at large and not individual land-
owners.
An integrated program approach
Because lake pollution comes from many sources, restoration projects are en-
couraged to combine the resources of all available Federal, State, and local
programs to provide the most comprehensive pollution abatement possible. In
some cases, this means, for example, section 314 funds could be used only if
industries in the watershed were in compliance with National Pollution Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that control point sources of pollu-
tion.
The integrated program approach encourages cooperation. For example, in
addition to a Clean Lakes grant to improve the water quality of the Charles
River in Boston, funds authorized by section 201 of the Clean Water Act helped
solve sewer problems, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built a new dam.
Many groups, both public and private, were involved in the restoration of
Lake Kampeska in the Prairie Lakes region of northeastern South Dakota:
• The East Dakota Conservancy Sub-district, a 12-county water resource
planning and development agency, gave $10,000, applied for and administered
the Clean Lakes grant, collected water quality samples, and served as project
coordinator.
• The private lake association raised $15,000, prepared and secured ease-
ments, held public information meetings, and provided a pontoon boat for the
multiagency selection of project sites.
• The city of Watertown provided $16,000 and the city's Parks and Recrea-
tion Department managed the construction contracts.
• Codington County contributed $16,000.
• The First Planning and Development District helped prepare the grant
application and set up project meetings.
• The State Department of Came, Fish, and Parks gave $10,000, developed
final engineering plans, supervised project construction, secured permits (un-
der section 404 of the Clean Water Act) from the Corps of Engineers, and
provided transportation for multiagency inspection of completed project
works
-------
TABLE 2.-Ctean Lakes Phase n restoration projects by Region and state; standard MM
ifffinf'iC^Bj'i £nv i*Mjrai^jti^»OT m^^tiijfa^ *^fc a^tlijut «v£ ««W ffiBiu
aeniiTiea tor projects wivnin Z 5 ullies Or an 5M!
(Maine
Cobbossee 1
Cobbossee 2
Little
Sabattus
Salmon
Sebasticook
Webber
Vermont
Bomoseen
Morey
New Hampshire
Kezar
Connecticut
0 i,^
Candlewood Lakes
Waramaug
Massachusetts
Big Alum
Charles River
Cochituate
Dunn
Lashaway
Lower Mystic
Morses
Nutting
Porter
Spy
Whitman's
New York
Anne Lee
Belmont
Buckin^iam
Collins Park
Delaware Park
59th street
Hampton Manor
Hyde Park
Irondequoit Bay
Iroquots
Ronkonkoma
Saratoga
Scudders
Steinmetz
Tlvolt Lakes
Washington Park
New Jersey
Allentown
Etra
Hopatcong
North Hudson Park
Weequahic
REGION I
Lewiston-Auburn
Lewiston-Auburn
Lewiston-Auburn
Lewiston-Auburn
Lewiston-Auburn
—
—
_
—
—
... ,
waterpury
Brldieport-Norwalk-Stamford
Waterbury
Worcester
Boston
Boston
—
Worcester
Boston
Boston
Boston
—
Boston
Brockton; Boston
Total pop. 1.8 million
REGION II
Albany-Schertectady-Troy
Nassau-Suffolk
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
New York
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Buffalo
Rochester
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Nassau-Suffolk
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Nassau-Suffolk
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
Trenton; Long Branch-Asbury
Park; New Brunswick-Perth
Amboy-Sayreville
Newark
Jersey City
Newark
*Total pop, 9.4 million
Pennsylvania
North Park
Maryland
Columbia lakes
Loch Rawn 1
Loch ia^en 2
Wsterftrt
Virginia
Chesdin.
AccQtlrtk
Rlvawa 2
North Carolina
Mystic - ", •
South Carolina
SroiKji&ay,
Florida -
Apopto '
Etta .:
Jackson
Ohio
Summit -
Indiana
Skinner
Illinois
Frank Hoiton
Johnson Sauk Trail
Lake of the Woods
Le-Aqua-Nd
SteMe Lagoons
Minnesota
Albert L«a
Big stone
Chain of Lakes
Clear
Cteafwster Chain
Como
Golden
Hyland
Long
McCarron
Moore
Penn
Phalen
Wisconsin
Bugle
Comus
Elk Creek
Half Moon
Henry
Lilly
Little Muskego
stropolitan statistical areas (SMSA) a
EH.- ; ,"
, pcriniu HI
Ptefaurgh • " '
Baltimore; WBshjngeort, DC-MD-
VA -,,'.'
,- Baltimore. Vort^tw,
•' ''BSfclffOrfefKfe^A'
OC-MD.
.'VA • ''•-'--. .-• -
fitet^SI*s6^"i4 i^flyTV'^n^'itsit ti|gi4f¥K'l*t*
„ fi^J^i^i-^**^*"'* !?T**"*'"'* tfil"Ht ^"iSst* **<&"
|*|rt|*^ttft|C|jI *' ' I
Washington, QO MD-VA
•»»-
, !*Tcital"pi»:ilf Dillon,
RFCIONIV •• '.'-'" "' "" . • '
•• ' &sht\«tle;
11 , • , .. '. '"
~~ Orlandp
' . ' ' '1 atffltssriA tttetiw lajfcSs *
TalWhisseg •' ~'~
. Total pop: .9 miion
, REGION V :
Akronj canton; cieveiand
ft Wayne
St Louis
Chamoaidrt-Urtjsrta>
Btoomin^ton-Norfi^al* Decatur
Rcckf ord . ' '
Chicago
_
—
Minneapolls-St. Paul .
— •
St. Cloudj MttnewofeSt. Paul
Mlnneapoiis-St, Paul
Mtnrteapcls-St PaUf
MtnneapoJFtt-St, Paul
MlitrtesapQis-St'Paul
Mlnneipols-St. Paul
Mlnneapolis-St. P§y|
Wnneapolis-St. Paul
Mirmeapotis-St Paul
LaCrasse
-.? '-
EU Claire
£u Ctaire
La Cross©
Kenosfta; Racine
Milwaukee; Racine
Dashes indicate project is not within 25 mites of an SMSA,
-------
Marinuka
Milwaukee Park
Mirror/Shadow
Noquebay
Upper Willow
White Clay
Michigan
Big
Lansing
Pontiac
Reeds
La Crosse
Milwaukee; Racine
Appleton-Ashkosh
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Detroit; Flint
Lansing
Detroit
Grand Rapids
"Total pop. 8.4 million
Colorado
Sloane
Utah
Deer Creek
Panquitch
Scofield
Denver
Provo-Orem; Salt Lake City
Provo-Orem
* Total pop. .9 million
REGION IX •
REGION VI •
Louisiana
City Lakes
Oklahoma
Ada City
Northeast
Olverholster
Paul's Valley
Sunset
Texas
Baton Rouge
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
California
Ellis
Gibralter
Lafayette
Stafford
Tahoe
Temescal
Nevada
Tahoe/lncline Village
Tahoe/Kingsbury Grade
Sacramento
Santa Barbara; Oxnard-Ventura
San Francisco-Oakland; Vallejo-
San Francisco-Oakland; Vallejo-
Fairfield
Sacramento; Reno, NV
San Francisco-Oakland; San Jose;
Stockton
Reno; Sacramento, CA
Reno; Sacramento, CA
Total pop. 3.4 million
*Total pop. 1 .4 million Washington
Missouri
Creve Coeur
Finger Lakes
Swope Park
Vandalia Reservoir
Iowa
Blue
Green Valley
Lenox
Manawa
Oelwein
Swan
Union Grove
Kansas
Ford County
Lone Star
North Dakota
Mirror
Spintwood
South Dakota
Big stone
Capitol
Cochrane
Covell
Herman
Kampeska
Oakwood
Swan
Sylvan
Montana
REGION VII ' -
St. Louis
Boone
Kansas City
—
Sioux City, IA-NE
—
_«,
Omaha, NE-IA
Waterloo-Cedar Falls
—
Waterloo-Cedar Falls
—
Douglas; Topeka; Kansas City
*Total pop. 1.9 million
—
_
—
Stoux Falls
Sioux Falls
—
#**•
Stoux Falls
Rapid City
Ballmger Seattle-Everett
Campbell-Erie —
Fenwick Seattle-Everett; Tacoma
Green Seattle-Everett
Liberty Spokane
Long Seattle-Everett
Medical Spokane
Moses Richland-Kennewick
Pine Seattle-Everett
Sacajawea Portland, OR-WA
Spada/Chaplain Seattle-Everett
Thurston County Tacoma
Wapato Tacoma
Vancouver Portland, OR-WA
Oregon
Commonwealth Portland
Devils Salem
Mirror Eugene
Sturgeon Portland
Idaho
'Total pop. 1.7 million
* Population totals are for SMSA's listed
only and do not include rural and
unincorporated environs or towns outside
the SMSA's listed. Because St. Louis appears
in both Regions V and VII, its population is
not counted in Region V.
Total pop. nationally of SMSA's within 25
miles of a Clean Lakes restoration project:
31. 5 million
-------
Wyman Lake, Maine
• The Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) developed
some of the preliminary project plans and participated in selecting project
sites.
• EPA provided $74,310 cost-sharing funds.
• Before the project began, the five local and State organizations devel-
oped and signed a memorandum of agreement to reduce misunderstandings
as the project progressed.
watershed management
Because long-term effectiveness is the major concern, applicants must propose
controlling pollutants at the source, largely through watershed management,
rather than simply eliminating their symptoms in the lake. Annually, 4 billion
tons of sediment wash into lakes and streams: sediment generated by activi-
-------
les in the watersheds such as farming, construction of roads and buildings,
nining, and urban stormwater runoff. This sediment may also carry nutrients,
:oxic chemicals, and pathogens.
Watershed management might include no-till farming, manure collection, or
Dther agricultural best management practices to prevent sediment and nutri-
=nts from entering lakes. In urban areas, preventive practices could include
septic tank management ordinances, alternative wastewater treatment sys-
tems, and stormwater control.
In St Louis County, Missouri, dredging Creve Coeur Lake was only one ele-
ment in a comprehensive water quality management program that included
many other activities:
• A regulation adopted in 1975, the St. Louis County Stormwater Detention
Design Criteria, required that runoff be controlled during construction and per-
manently afterwards. This regulation has reduced sediment and nutrient load-
ing to the lake, as have other regulations targeting nonpoint source pollution.
• A series of river flood control levees was installed in conjunction with the
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, under a section 201 facility plan,
identified specific problems associated with the sanitary sewer system serving
the lake's drainage area and suggested ways to correct them.
• St. Louis County removed many residences and their septic systems lo-
cated adjacent to the lake.
• A second regional agency, the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council,
developed a plan under section 208 of the Clean Water Act that indicated that
the existing treatment facility should be expanded and updated.
Federal/State partnerships
This partnership was part of the regulations: no Clean Lakes grant could be
awarded without the State's active participation.
States have developed their own legislation to establish and manage State
clean lakes programs to be consistent with the lessons learned from the Fed-
eral demonstration program. These legislative proposals have been used by
many States to create a mechanism for funding the Clean Lakes Program.
Massachusetts is an example of a State that has developed its own clean
lakes program based on the Federal model. Washington and Wisconsin are
among the 13 other States that have developed their own lake restoration
programs.
program and project evaluation
Although State or local project officers file reports that summarize and evalu-
ate the projects with EPA regional coordinators, who make them available to
EPA Headquarters, much of the data is incomplete. Some States are conduct-
ing long-term monitoring of their projects. In recent years, reduced funds and
limitations on their use have prompted greater concentration on projects
themselves and less on data collection. Data on the effectiveness of individual
projects are therefore incomplete, and long-range assessments of the restora-
tion techniques have not been made by EPA.
-------
$20 Million
STATUS: AS THE DECADE ENDS
The numbers
From 1975 to 1985, EPA funded 313 Clean Lakes studies and projects totalling
more than $93 million in Federal dollars. Nearly twice that figure was spent on
lake restoration when the matching State and local funds are considered. Al-
though the classification surveys and diagnostic/feasibility studies are consid-
ered vital to the Program, restoration itself has been emphasized: 4 percent of
the Federal funds have been awarded to surveys, 9 percent to Phase I and 87
percent to Phase II restorations (see Fig. 3).
Phase I awards have averaged $73,000 in Federal funds; Phase ll's, $515,000
The level of funding for Phase II varied widely, however, from $10,000 for Coch-
rane Lake (South Dakota) to over $7 million for Vancouver Lake (Washington).
Federal grant awards have ranged from an initial $8 million (1976) to a high
of $17 million in 1980, and a low of $3 million in 1983. The 1984-86 appropria-
tions have been $5 million annually.
Forty classification surveys, 114 Phase I studies, and 159 Phase II projects
have been funded (see Table 3).
Forty-seven States and Puerto Rico have participated in the program to
some extent, excluding only Alabama, West Virginia, and Hawaii Most of the
project funds have been awarded to States in Regions I, II, V, and X (see Fig. 2)
primarily because these regions have many lakes needing restoration, as well as
matching funds available and organizations prepared to participate in the proj-
ects.
Thirty-nine States and Puerto Rico performed classification surveys using
Federal funds. The number of lakes surveyed, as identified in 31 of the surveys
totalled 5,921. The States used several criteria (see Table 4) to select lakes to be
surveyed.
Region
X
FIGURE 2.—Total Clean Lakes Federal funding by EPA Region as of
June 1985.
10
-------
TABLE 5.— crean LaKcS (program federal runus oy sti
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
west Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
National Totals
CLASSIFICATION
SURVEY
—
—
100,003
87,400
—
100.000
100,000
74,500
97,558
100,000
_
99,681
100,000
—
100,000
—
99,943
100,000
99,800
46,831
100,000
100,000
100,000
57,688
95,559
100,000
§5,167
100,000
100,000
58,572
99,330
—
100,000
—
SS,921
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
—
92,244
100,000
84,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
98339
100,000
—
100,000
100,000
3,800513
rte and type of project: 1 975-1985.
DIAC./FEAS.
(PHASE i)
—
212,455
457,700
_
98,000
500,000
80,124
—
142,987
-_
— .
99,690
195,411
274,117
65,024
202,865
100,000
1QG.Q00
117,33f
1S9.4Q0
419,117
150,971
236,743
_
260,000
100,000
_
197,686
409,251
—
548,632
_
70,000
17,104
39,037
700,000
411,520
100,000
95,946
74,200
—
100,000,
178,365
61,301
177,120
281,866
195J52
412,366
—
100,000
—
8,182,9*
RESTORATION
(PHASE II)
—
__
_
_
6,921,471
280,000
1,114,107
_
2,255,iei
—
_
115,000
2,003,002
§03,241
4,557,334
502,850
_
1.42S.OOO
; ijsasto
wtoto
4.874J93
5,1S2,I25
7,007,929
—
1,517,720
238,900
—
96,600
2,504,307
_
7,368,689
725,714
21,080
96,200
903,567
613,200
361,360
<_
—
496,770
1,664,225
—
19Q,QO§
375.150.
272,014
1JiS,145
18,980,793
—
4,i88,1SO
_
81,292,358
TOTAL FUNDING
Au PROJECTS
0
212,455
557,700
87,400
7,019,471
880,000
1,295,031
74,500
2,495,711
100,000
S
314,351
3,298,413
7?7,36t
'T^JIS-
1S9,I43
1,625fl»
' '2»Q77,7tt
1,716,541
, '
. '3,441^4;
7,344,672
57JB88.
1,873,079
438,900
55,167
394,286
3,013,565
S8,S72'
g,016,iS1
725,714
191,010
342,554
1S9.1S8
1,703,567
1,124,720
195,946
74,200
,
1,864,221
'
351,301
652^270
653,880
2,263,031
1f,493,15S
0
4,888,150
100,000
03,276,267
Not all projects funded have been completed.
11
-------
TABLE 4.-Major criteria used to rank lakes in state Classification Surveys.
STATE
Arkansas1
Arizona'*
California
Colorado3
Connecticut1
Delaware
Florida
Georgia1
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana2
Maine2
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri2
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico1
New York
North Carolina1
Ohio
Oklahoma1
Oregon1
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
south Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont1
Virginia
Washington1
Wisconsin1
Wyoming
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
n
it
it
if
it
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
•»
*
*
*
*
•*
if
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
if
it
it
it
*
*
*
ir
it
it
*
*
*
*
it
*
*
it
*
it
*
it
it
Classification survey did not provide criteria used or lakes were not ranked.
'Classification survey report not available for review.
12
-------
The States also used various methodologies to determine a lake's trophic
state (the degree of eutrophication). Twenty-two States used either Carlson's
Trophic Index alone or in conjunction with another model, and at least six other
methods were employed. The surveys were designed to give the States a data
base for ranking their lakes according to need of restoration.
Not all States submitted a final survey by the January 1, 1982, deadline;
some that received funding for Phase I and II apparently without doing the
survey had used their own monies rather than Federal funds to complete the
survey. Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Wyo-
ming conducted classification surveys but have received no project funds (see
Table 5).
The limitations
The regulations prohibit Phase II funds from being used to control point source
discharges where they could be treated under sections 201 (construction
grants) or 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) of the Clean
Water Act. Lakes used solely for drinking water are excluded from the pro-
gram
The regulations also prohibit funding for techniques that only temporarily
alleviate the symptoms of eutrophication. Such treatments (harvesting and
chemical application for weed control, for example) are funded only in conjunc-
tion with other techniques or if they are considered to be the most energy
efficient or cost effective and will provide long-term improvement.
Lake restoration has taken longer than anticipated. The regulations required
that Phase II projects be completed within 4 years: most have gone beyond
that, with several taking as long as 10 years (Table 5). Phase I's have averaged 3
years.
An aerial view dramatizes the
extent of algal growth in this
recreational area.
-------
The results
WATER QUALITY BENEFITS
Although difficult to quantify, the Clean Lakes Program can be measured by
the effects of several specific projects:
• Liberty Lake in Washington boomed economically following a lake restora-
tion project; the lake now is a focal point for a residential and commercial
development designed for the specific environment. Several large high-tech
industries have located there.
• Increased employment and income following a Clean Lakes project have
added approximately $90,000 annually to the regional economy around Anna-
bessacook and Cobbossee Lakes in Maine.
• Because of improved water quality, property values demonstrably in-
creased at Liberty and Medical Lakes in Washington and South Dakota's Lake
Kampeska.
• A 1980 EPA study of 28 lake restoration projects estimated property
value increases ranging from $2 million to $22 million at each lake.
• Enhanced water quality resulting from a project at Le-Aqua-Na Illinois has
increased the use of the recently constructed swimming beach
Pneuma
dredging at
Gibralter Lake,
California
PUBLIC BENEFITS
Public concern about lake eutrophication has been cited as a significant factor
prompting action in more than 75 percent of the projects. Public education
programs are developing at the State level and particularly in communities
closely linked with lakes. For example, in response to the interest in lake quality
generated by the program, Minnesota has developed both a statewide media
campaign informing the public of the causes and cures of lake problems and a
lake management handbook.
14
-------
Monitoring activities often
include reading clarity by drop-
ping a Secchi disk, an activity
that can be carried out by volun-
teers. Below: More complicated
analyses for water quality indi-
cators must be done in laborato-
ries. To verify accuracy paired
samples may be taken for com-
parison.
Lake property owners are forming associations, on the local. State, and na-
tional level to develop preventive protection programs for their lakes. Where a
lake is threatened, these citizens focus on retarding its degradation. Where it
has been restored, they work to prevent a return to eutrophic conditions.
CATALYST FOR ACTION
The Clean Lakes Program has served as the stimulus for lake protection and
restoration efforts by providing the framework on which citizens and local gov-
ernmental agencies have built viable programs. By giving citizens a way to
clean up their own lakes, the program has begun building a Federal-State-
citizen partnership that includes governmental agencies with diverse responsi-
bilities at all levels.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SCIENCE OF LAKE RESTORATION
The 10-year-old program has advanced the science of lake restoration in three
ways:
• Developed a better understanding among the public, legislators, regula-
tors, and scientists of the causes and effects-and costs-of lake eutrophica-
tion.
• Recorded detailed information about successful restoration measures
that can serve as models for planning other projects. Examples: streambank
protection on Lake Henry, Wisconsin, and land use practices and costs to con-
trol sediment and nutrient deposition in Skinner Lake, Indiana.
• Developed new restoration techniques. Examples: improved bottom sedi-
ment dredging in Cibralter Lake, California; nontraditional chemical controls
such as the potassium permanganate used to supplement alum on Long Lake,
Minnesota; and hypolimnetic aeration in Lake Waramaug in Connecticut.
15
-------
The future
The Clean Lakes Program has begun the process of reversing the decline in a
small number of this Nation's lakes. As this first decade of the program ends,
however, surveys of the status of lake eutrophication indicate that it can be
regarded as a beginning only.
In a 1983 national survey by the North American Lake Management Society,
the responding 38 States reported more than 9,000 lakes with excessive nutri-
ent levels; more than 12,000 with noxious weed and algae growths; and almost
4,200 (4 million acres in surface area) with impaired use. All but one State (Geor-
gia) reported serious effects from nonpoint source pollution: 14 said over 75
percent of their lakes were seriously affected.
A year later, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA) estimated that four times more lakes had deterio-
rated in quality (1.7 million acres) than had improved between 1972 and 1982.
In 1985, ASIWPCA reported that 39 percent of this country's lakes and reservoirs
are affected by nonpoint source pollution. A similarly high figure (40 percent) was
reported by the National Fisheries Survey conducted by EPA and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The Nation's lakes continue to be threatened, but the Clean Lakes Program
has demonstrated techniques that can both help overcome these problems
and prevent them from developing.
16
-------
TABLE s.-ciean Lakes Program Phase 11 project
and in progres
s: number of projects completed
s.
STATUS OF PHASE II PROJECTS
STATE
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
lowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
TOTAL
(REGION)
(IX)
(VIII)
(1)
(IV)
(X)
(V)
(V)
(VII)
(VII)
(VI)
(1)
(111)
(1)
(V)
(V)
(VID
(VJII)
(DO
(II)
(II)
(It)
(IV)
(VIII)
(V)
(VI)
(X)
(III)
(IV)
(VIII)
(VI)
Will)
ID
(III)
(X)
(V)
COMPLETED
3
—
3
—
1
1
4
_
—
2
1
3
1
6
3
1
2
-
—
11
1
-
—
-
1
7
1
—
1
1
4
9
67
IN PROGRESS
3
1
3
-
1
4
-
3
2
1
5
3
8
3
7
1
—
-
1
5
5
-
2
1
5
3
1
1
2
—
3
1
3
10
4
92
TOTAL
6
1
3
3
1
5
1
7
2
1
7
4
11
4
13
4
1
2
1
5
16
1
2
1
5
4
1
1
9
1
3
2
4
14
13
159
Phase I
_ Classification
Surveys
FIGURE ^-Distribution of Clean Lakes Progr
17
-------
Restoration Techniques
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHOICES
Studies during the late 1960's and early 1970's proved the usefulness of some
lake restoration techniques, the failure of several, and the need for further
research into others. Research into the influence of phosphorus on lakes even-
tually proved the phosphorus-limiting factor to be the prime design criterion
for lake restoration. The object of these designs was either to reduce phos-
phorus in the water or directly control algae or macrophytes.
Restoration techniques are selected according to the physical characteristics
of the lake and its water quality problems. Nutrients, algal blooms, macro-
phytes, and sedimentation were by far the most common problems in the
program's first decade. A number of the restoration techniques used in the
Clean Lakes projects concentrated on solving these problems (see Table 6).
Lake treatment can be divided into two broad categories: watershed mea-
sures (in itself an overall objective), and in-lake treatment. Watershed measures
include identifying and treating pollutant sources before the pollutants enter
the lake, whereas in-lake measures are used on lakes that are overloaded with
sediment or plants. In-lake techniques are most effective when used after or in
conjunction with external source controls.
The most effective lake restoration involves a combination of watershed and
in-lake measures. Although dredging, watershed management, and diversion
have been the principal techniques used during the first decade of the pro-
gram, a number of techniques work, depending on the lake's condition.
IN-LAKE TREATMENT
Dredging
In-lake dredging removes enriched bottom sediment, a primary symptom of
advanced eutrophication. The accumulation of sediment is often accelerated
by human activities in the watershed. Dredging always deepens a lake, and
usually reduces internal nutrient cycling from the sediments, but is only mar-
ginally successful at controlling aquatic plant growth. In any event the input of
nutrients and sediment from the watershed must be reduced to extend the
effectiveness of sediment removal.
18
-------
Lake restoration takes many
forms, some of them quite at-
tractive. The pagoda-like struc-
ture shown at left aerates oxy-
gen-poor water drawn from the
depths of a Connecticut lake.
Below: The off-site effects of
dredging must be carefully
considered in lake restoration
projects. Dredged materials
such as these from Lilly Lake,
Washington, must be transferred
to a safe disposal area.
19
-------
Record levels of alum (light
areas in foreground) were dis-
persed in the Medical Lake,
Washington, restoration project.
Right, alum treatment equipment
is silhouetted against Annabes-
sacook Lake, Maine.
ADVANTAGES
• Increases depth and volume, permitting increased recreational uses.
• Removes nutrient-rich sediment, reducing nutrient recycling.
• Removes nuisance aquatic plants that usually interfere with boating
and fishing and contribute nutrients to sediments as they decay.
DISADVANTAGES
• Dredged materials are difficult to dispose of and may pose environ-
mental concerns.
• Operation of the dredge may temporarily degrade water quality by
increasing suspended solids and nutrients.
• Cost is among the highest of all treatment techniques.
• Dredging operation may temporarily reduce recreational activities
(boating, fishing, swimming).
Lilly Lake is a small lake (37 ha) in southeastern Wisconsin. In 1977, the maxi-
mum water depth was 1.8 m, with up to 10.7 m of a lightweight organic sedi-
ment. Periodic winter fishkills and dense growths of macrophytes in the sum-
mer restricted recreation. During 1978-79, approximately 684,000 cubic
meters (m3) of sediment were removed by hydraulic dredging at a cost of
$707,000. Funding was from State, local, and Federal sources. Following the
dredging project, lake usage, including water skiing and sailboating, increased
significantly and beach usage rose by a factor of 10. While fishing did not im-
prove, fish management practices have changed, and the outlook is promising.
20
-------
Some of the sediment removed from the lake was dried and later added to
soil, where it was successfully used for growing corn. No harmful effects of
sediment application were noted.
Dredging isn't always effective. Lake Apopka in Central Florida, at 12,500
hectares the fourth largest in the State, has an average depth of less than 2 m.
Dredging would have cost an estimated $127 million, plus the cost of disposing
of 222 million m5 of organic sediments. It was concluded that dredging would
not benefit the lake and probably would further degrade its water quality.
Nutrient inactivation
Nutrient inactivation involves adding a specific chemical to lake water to chemi-
cally or physically remove nutrients, thus making them unavailable to plank-
tonic algae. Phosphorus is frequently targeted because usually it can be re-
duced sufficiently to limit plant growth. Chemical precipitation with aluminum
sulfate is common. Phosphorus adheres to alum particles, causing it to sink to
the bottom, thereby reducing the amount of bioavailable phosphorus in the
water column. The aluminum hydroxide blanket formed at the sediment-wa-
ter interface also prevents phosphorus recycling from the sediment. Sodium
aluminate fly ash, and zirconium also have been used experimentally. A combi-
nation of aluminum sulfate and sodium aluminate moderates pH shock during
treatment. Fly ash is not recommended because of the high concentration of
toxic metals. Effectiveness depends on the dose level, water alkalinity, and
amount of source control.
ADVANTAGES
Good longevity of effectiveness if external sources are controlled.
Can remove phosphorus, color, turbidity, algae, bacteria, viruses, and
some dissolved organic compounds.
Produces extremely clear water
Acts very quickly.
Moderate cost per unit of improvement.
DISADVANTAGES
• May produce toxic conditions to fish at reduced pH's, thus some con-
cern about use in acid deposition areas.
• Long-term effects upon the lake ecosystems are not well understood
because the technique is relatively new.
The water quality of Medical Lake in eastern Washington has continually im-
proved since a whole-lake application of 936 metric tons of liquid alum in 1977
to disrupt an internal phosphorus cycle that was partly responsible for the
lake's eutrophic condition. This unusually high dosage—more alum per cubic
foot than ever used on any other lake on record—was necessitated by the
lake's extremely high alkalinity. The treatment has substantially reduced phos-
phorus concentrations and algal standing crops and increased water clarity.
Aquatic macrophyte harvesting
This technique involves mechanically harvesting nuisance aquatic vegetation.
Harvesting usually does not remove enough nutrients to control eutrophica-
tion It is most effective where the nutrient input is low and a high biomass of
macrophytes can be removed.
21
-------
RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
(D
3
$
1
S3
3|
!§
3
3*
WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
•a
s
*
•a
3
cr
-------
estoration techniques used in the Clean Lakes Program.
in
LU
_i
O
oc
0.
>
_J
§
ttf
in
1-
4
>
ft
?,
ill
H
§
i
o
1-
$
' 1
Septic System
Leachate
Oxygen Depletion
High Bacterial
Populations
urban Runoff
"
Runoff
Sedimentation
Macropnytes
_ -
Algal Blooms
Fish Kills
Nutrients
Diversion
Dilution
Drawdown
introduction of
Non-Native Species
Artificial (Aeration)
Destratlflcatlon
Sediment Traps
Shoreline
Stabilization
Aquatic Plant
Harvesting
Nutrient Management
Sediment Removal
Chemical Treatment
Hypoilmnetlc
Discharge
|
}
•
i
..». i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
t
•
*
I
*
•
•
|
• 1
—
*
*
•
•
•
•
•
l
•
—
•
•
i
•
i
1
I
|
•
i
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
L»
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
»
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
23
-------
ADVANTAGES
• Reduces vegetation, oxygen stress, and fishkills associated with decay-
ing vegetation.
• Increases open water
• Improves aesthetics.
• Introduces no foreign chemical substances.
• Proper cutting frequency and depth may reduce plant biomass over
longer term.
DISADVANTAGES
• Temporary, must be repeated.
• Usually does not control eutrophication.
In Lake Noquebay, Wisconsin, excessive macrophyte growth had almost
stopped swimming, skiing, and boating, and severely reduced the quality of
fishing in the lake. Intensive harvesting not only significantly increased recrea-
tional opportunities, but also retarded further macrophyte growth. Lake users
Plant harvesting at Lake
Lansing, Michigan
and residents completely supported the harvesting, continuing the project af-
ter Federal and State aid ended.
Although long-term trends in plant regrowth are impossible to determine
after 3 years of harvesting in Lake Bomoseen, Vermont, recreational users are
very satisfied with the harvesting program. In addition, harvested macrophytes
may be used locally as fertilizer and soil conditioner
24
-------
Biological control
Biological control employs fish or viruses to attack unwanted aquatic vegeta-
tion Fish with voracious appetites for aquatic vegetation such as white amur
(grass carp) and alewives are sometimes introduced into affected waters.
ADVANTAGES
• No chemicals or mechanical devices employed.
• Supplements more commonly-used techniques.
DISADVANTAGES
• May increase turbidity.
• May alter game fish populations.
• May migrate to nontarget areas.
Planktivorus alewives were introduced into Little Pond, Maine, a water supply
lake, to reduce the zooplankton population that was plugging screens in fau-
cets and washing machines and causing bad tastes and odors as the zooplank-
ton decayed in the distribution lines. Harvesting of adult alewives was also in-
tended to remove phosphorus. Complaints about the water soon dropped to
nearly zero; the amount of chlorine used for water treatment dropped more
than half. The project did not have an efficient mechanism for removing the
adult alewives, however; hence, that portion failed. This project did demon-
strate that alewives are an effective alternative to using copper sulfate, the
chemical commonly used to control taste and odors in water supplies.
Grass carp's appetite for cer-
tain plants has helped eliminate
unwanted vegetation in several
U.S. lakes.
Aeration
Aeration increases the dissolved oxygen content of a lake, especially the bot-
tom waters. Eutrophic lakes commonly experience semi-annual periods of oxy-
25
-------
gen depletion in deep waters resulting from microbial decomposition of or-
ganic matter. This lack of oxygen can kill fish.
ADVANTAGES
• Benefits biological community.
• Improves water quality by limiting nutrient release.
DISADVANTAGES
• Alleviates the symptom, but not necessarily the cause, which may lie
in the watershed rather than the lake.
• Must be done on a continuing intermittent basis, i.e., when oxygen
levels decline.
• May be costly, both in equipment and ongoing operation.
Mirror Lake sits at the edge of Waupaca, Wis., side-by-side with Shadow Lake.
The lakes are popular recreational areas. Mirror's poor water quality—caused by
excess nutrients that encourage noxious algae and low oxygen level—also af-
fected water quality in Shadow Lake. Aeration used for short periods in spring
and fall helped mix the lake and improve oxygen levels. Health effects im-
proved also, with reports of infections from contact with Mirror Lake water
falling to zero after restoration. Residents estimated that fishing, swimming,
and boating on the restored lake would make Mirror's facilities nearly twice as
valuable to them.
Drawdown
This involves draining a lake to expose the bottom to the drying effects of the
atmosphere and sunlight. The sediment then collapses under its own weight
and consolidates (a permanent rearrangement of the sediment's physical struc-
ture that helps stabilize it). Normally, drawdown is done in the winter
ADVANTAGES
• Deepens the lake via sediment consolidation.
• Improves the substrate for rooted aquatic macrophyte growth, pro-
viding suitable game fish breeding grounds, and a habitat that will
increase the diversity of benthic invertebrates.
DISADVANTAGES
• Not suitable for all climates.
26
-------
• Not suitable for all soils or geographic areas.
• Treats symptoms primarily; must be used in conjunction with water-
shed management.
A summer drawdown of Long Lake in western Washington lowered the lake
level by 6 feet. Although actual sediment compaction was minimal and there-
fore less effective in nutrient release, the macrophyte standing crop was re-
duced by about 84 percent.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Sediment control
Sediment control takes many forms and, if effective, would eliminate the need
for many other restoration efforts. Sediment controls may include
• stormwater management
• agriculture management
• bank stabilization and riprapping
• river flood controls
• sedimentation traps
• runoff diversions
• vacuum street sweeping
• redesigned streets and parking lots
• swale construction
• closed storm drains
• careful precautions involved with all construction
Swan Lake in South Dakota is a unique example of low-cost shoreline stabiliza-
tion. This project riprapped 5,550 feet of shoreline at a cost of $29,000 (S5.22/
linear foot). The project differed from standard riprapping in that rock was
added to existing rock in the shoreline with no bank modification, and volun-
teer labor was used almost entirely.
Another approach was used at Clear Lake, Minnesota, where nutrient-laden
runoff in the city's storm sewer was diverted into a peat marsh to remove
nutrients and suspended solids by filtering through percolation before pump-
ing the water into the lake. Although preliminary studies showed up to 98
percent of the phosphorus could be removed by this method, the actual rate
has been 52 percent—probably because the slow percolation in the marsh
results in water topping the dikes, and the fact that the pumping station's
sampling method did not yield representative phosphorus values. However,
Clear Lake's water quality has improved significantly and the treatment marsh
continues to reduce the nutrient concentrations in the lake.
The Clean Lakes Program did not focus on watershed management during
this first decade, because many lakes were experiencing problems that de-
manded immediate attention. Some had suffered for years as dumps for in-
dustrial and municipal wastes—and desperately needed restoration.
Now that these wastes—and other point sources—have been largely con-
trolled through National Pollutant Discharge System permits, EPA will encour-
age future attention to intelligent watershed management practices that will
protect this Nation's lakes from pollution.
27
-------
Case studies
COBBOSSEE WATERSHED
Description: Located approximately 50 miles north of Portland, Maine, the
watershed consists of a chain of 24 lakes and ponds, ranging in size from 30 to
2,259 hectares. Three of these lakes—Annabessacook, Cobbossee, and Pleasant
Pond—show signs of cultural eutrophication and represent significant regional
water resource problems.
History: Water quality concerns have focused on Annabessacook, whose tribu-
taries serve as conduits for municipal and industrial effluents. From 1964 to
1972, lakeshore property owners treated the lake with algacides and tried two
small-scale aerations. The treatments did not reduce eutrophication.
In 1970, property owners along the Annabessacook and Cobbossee began
working with the Southern Kennebec Regional Planning Commission to develop
a comprehensive strategy for lake restoration. Recognizing that a single institu-
tion would provide a more efficient approach to lake management than would
the 27 separate governmental units then involved, these citizens created the
28
-------
Cobbossee Watershed District. Authorized by the Maine legislature in 1971, the
District began operating the following year.
Formed to protect, improve, and conserve the lakes, ponds, and streams of
the Cobbossee Watershed for the public health and welfare and benefit of
residents and property adjacent to its waters, the District is authorized to do
any and all things necessary to improve water quality.
The District has assumed a central role in managing the watershed (see
Fig. 4).
The three major functions assumed by the District under its legislative char-
ter-governmental liaison, public interaction, and technical support—provide a
comprehensive basis for planning, data acquisition, financial and political sup-
port, and building programs necessary for a successful lake restoration pro-
gram.
Numerous organizations, both governmental and private, are either closely
involved in the restoration effort or affected by it. For example, farmers and
the Soil Conservation Service of the Agriculture Department (USDA) often inter-
act without the District's direct intervention primarily because of prior pro-
grammatic relationships such as USDA's cost-sharing programs. However, al-
most all interactions with specific lake restoration objectives involve the
District.
29
-------
Excess nutrients can danger-
ously accelerate the natural
cycles of a lake. In response to
the nutrients, algae are likely to
reproduce beyond the system's
ability to sustain the growth
rate. Excessive algal popula-
tions draw too much oxygen
from the system and the break-
down of dead algae further
depletes oxygen. In summer and
winter, when many lakes stratify
by thermal layers and bottom
waters are normally low in
oxygen, this stress on the oxygen
resource can lead to periodic
flshkills.
Runoff management was an
early component of Cobbossee 's
manure storage system. Soil-
based nutrients in the watershed
had long overenriched Annabes-
sacook Lake.
30
-------
The future is part of a good
restoration program. Cobbos-
see 's manure storage program
helps prevent further nonpoint
source pollution from the agri-
cultural watershed. This control
also makes in-lake treatments
more likely to succeed.
Restoration: The District first conducted a study to determine the principal
reasons for the eutrophic condition of the lakes. The study identified two ma-
jor sources of phosphorus loading: (1) internal recycling of nutrients from the
bottom sediments of Annabessacook Lake, which directly affected the lake and
indirectly affected Cobbossee and Pleasant Pond located immediately down-
stream; and (2) nonpoint source runoff from agricultural lands in the water-
shed
The local communities in the watershed, with Federal construction grants
funding, diverted municipal and industrial wastewater to reduce external phos-
phate loading of Annabessacook Lake.
A Clean Lakes Program grant of $278,000 in 1977 helped the District develop
and implement a comprehensive restoration program for Annabessacook, Cob-
bossee, and Pleasant Pond, with assistance from the Maine Department of En-
vironmental Protection. From 1978 to 1984, the District received an additional
$570,000 in Federal grant monies for a restoration and protection program for
the chain of lakes forming the Cobbossee watershed.
The restoration included hypolimnetic application of alum in Annabessacook
Lake to inactivate nutrients and implementation of agricultural best manage-
ment practices to control agricultural pollution in the direct drainages of all 15
lakes in the Cobbossee watershed.
From a technical standpoint, both methods proved effective. Water column
nutrient levels in Annabessacook Lake were dramatically reduced, visibility in-
creased markedly, and the frequency of algal blooms decreased. In addition,
recent monitoring indicated a trend toward improvement in Cobbossee Lake
and Pleasant Pond.
Perhaps the most critical role in effectively using these restoration tech-
niques, however, was the role played by the District itself. It developed a variety
of programs to encourage community involvement. These programs included
slide shows and bus tours for farmers to demonstrate the effectiveness of
manure-handling systems, workshops on stormwater runoff management and
erosion control, publication of quarterly notes on water quality/land use link-
ages, inspection programs, direct mail fund raising, and volunteer help with
water quality monitoring and in-lake restoration efforts.
31
-------
Each of these activities has led to demonstrable improvements in the resto-
ration program. For example, farmers were reluctant to invest a substantial
amount of their own funds in manure-handling facilities without being able to
see how the systems would improve on-farm efficiency as well as reduce nutri-
ent export. The efforts of the District in making this information available con-
tributed to the large percentage of farmers signing up for the waste manage-
ment program.
Another example of the District's effectiveness in ensuring the restoration
program's continued success was the training and employment of local volun-
teers in restoration activities. Their assistance is continuing through an ongoing
monitoring program. The District has helped keep the community informed of
progress, has removed barriers between formal units of government, has man-
aged friction between different groups, and generally has fostered the realistic
perception of progress toward water quality goals. This perception is impor-
No swimming today—noxious
vegetation crowds out recreation
(above). Cobbossee Watershed
District continually monitors
water quality as part of its long-
term program to maintain hard-
won improvements in area
lakes. Note the Secchi disk in
the foreground near the basket;
the disk measures clarity.
32
-------
Engineering
Contractors
The
Cobbossee
Watershed
District
Farms
Lakeshore
Property
Owners
Tourists
Industry
Maine Dept. of
Environmental
Protection
Municipalities
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Regional
Planning
Commission
Counties
U.S. Dept.
of
Agriculture
FIGURE 4.—Role of the Cobbossee watershed District in lake
management.
tant to ensure that the participants understand the long-term nature of the
lake restoration process.
The Cobbossee Watershed District has assumed a critical role in lake restora-
tion and protection efforts in the Cobbossee watershed. Although water qual-
ity has improved in Annabessacook, Cobbossee, and Pleasant Pond, the District
recognizes that wise management is essential if the water quality is to be pro-
tected from the effects of development in the watershed. District personnel
are encouraging best management practices and continuing to monitor water
quality.
In addition, District responsibilities have broadened to include regional zoning
and code enforcement and permitting of private sewage systems. Recently,
the District has become involved in a restoration project on Cochnewagon Lake
supported by a $75,000 Clean Lakes grant.
33
-------
MIRROR AND SHADOW LAKES
Description: Mirror and Shadow Lakes are small, glacier-formed lakes located
in east central Wisconsin within the city of Waupaca. As a result of their urban
character, both lakes became eutrophic as indicated by increased sedimenta-
tion rates, nutrients, sediment organic matter, and the occurrence of algae
typifying eutrophic conditions.
History: By the late 1960's, lakeshore property owners around Mirror Lake
were experiencing the aesthetic and odorous effects of winter fishkills and
excessive algal growth. Subsequent investigations indicated that most of the
problem was caused by storm sewer discharges into the lakes and, to a lesser
degree, internal nutrient recycling and oxygen depletion resulting from algal
decay.
In response to these concerns, the city of Waupaca created an inland LaKes
Protection and Rehabilitation District in 1974, the first year Wisconsin law au-
thorized the creation of special purpose units of government to identify and
remedy lake problems. With the technical assistance of the Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, the District's proposed program consisted of three
components:
1. Elimination of the major source of external phosphorus loading by diver-
sion of the storm sewers around the lakes,
2. Reduction of internal phosphorus loading by water column phosphorus
precipitation and lake bottom sealing with alum,
3. Aeration of Mirror Lake to promote turnover, which is hindered by the
excessive depth (13 meters) of the lake
Treating Mirror Lake with alum
34
-------
Aeration helped mix Mirror
Lake water and rebalance the
oxygen budget.
Restoration: EPA awarded a lake restoration grant of $215,000 to the District
through the Department of Natural Resources for this project. The Depart-
ment of National Resources awarded an additional $130,000 and the Lake Dis-
trict raised $85,000 to help fund the restoration project.
Treatment techniques combined the elimination of nutrient sources in the
watershed with treatment of the symptoms and the lake itself. The use of
multiple restoration techniques usually is more successful than reliance on a
single technique. In this instance, recovery times calculated for Mirror and
Shadow Lakes using only the reduction of external loading from the sewer
diversion, ranged from 8 to as long as 34 years, depending on the sediment
phosphorus release rate estimates used. Therefore, some type of internal
source control was required in addition to external source controls.
This restoration effort was exceptional in terms of the effort expended to
provide an excellent scientific basis for determining the causes of the lakes'
eutrophic condition, for selecting particular restoration techniques and meas-
uring their effectiveness, and for calculating the project's economic benefits to
the community. The effects of the restoration were evaluated for 3 years after
their implementation.
In 1972 and early 1973, storm sewer runoff and other hydrologic inputs to
the lakes were monitored. The impacts of the storm sewers on the phosphorus
budget proved very significant. In 1972-73, prior to diversion, the storm
sewers contributed 65.8 percent of the phosphorus load to Mirror Lake. The
storm sewer diversion conducted in 1976 reduced the external phosphorus
loading by 65 percent in Mirror Lake and 58 percent in Shadow Lake. External
nitrogen leaching was reduced by 27 percent in Mirror Lake, and chloride con-
centrations have declined in both lakes.
However, it was shown that using diversion as the only restoration technique
would require very long recovery times. Experiments done with in situ cham-
bers of phosphorus remineralization indicated substantial hypolimnetic loading
during the stratified period with subsequent availability for algal blooms.
35
-------
To improve the water quality more rapidly, it was necessary to reduce the
internal phosphorus loading, which was contributing 15 kilograms (kg) annually
to Mirror Lake and 40 kg to Shadow Lake, equivalent to the loading from exter-
nal sources prior to stormwater diversion. Bench-scale tests showed that alum
would be effective (greater than 90 percent reduction in releases); in fact, dis-
solved and total phosphorus measurements following alum treatment sug-
gested greatly reduced phosphorus concentrations. The total phosphorus con-
centrations in Mirror Lake at spring turnover have been on the order of 20
micrograms of phosphorus per liter (^g P/L) compared to previous values as
great as 90 ^g P/L.
With the greatly reduced sediment phosphorus release following alum treat-
ment, algal species diversity increased, the zooplankton community declined in
size, and the benthic population of Chaoborus greatly increased in size. Primary
productivity in Mirror Lake decreased from 210 grams of Chaoborus per square
meter (am2) in 1978 to 130 grams C/m2 (38 percent) in 1981. Consequently, the
sedimentation rates of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dropped as did the
size of the vernal phytoplankton standing crop (as measured by cell volumes
and chlorophyll concentrations), all signs of a practically and technically success-
ful program.
Even with the storm sewer diversion and alum treatment completed, certain
factors inherent in Mirror Lake, such as its small surface area, shallow depth,
and location in a depression, made it unlikely that the lake would completely
mix in the fall, thus becoming susceptible to fishkills. Fall destratification (aera-
tion) of Mirror Lake was probably the single most important restoration step in
preventing winter fishkill.
An intensive evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the lake restora-
tion measures conducted on Mirror and Shadow Lakes revealed not only that
the measures proved successful, but also that the combination of all three
techniques was much more effective than only one of the restoration tech-
niques would have been. It is expected that the lake restoration work per-
formed on Mirror and Shadow Lakes will maintain these lakes in their present
condition for many years to come.
The Mirror and Shadow Lake projects were also successful from a cost-share
perspective. Funding for the program was shared by several levels of govern-
ment (Federal, 50 percent State, 30 percent; local, 20 percent). They also
shared responsibility for local control and problems. While tourists use the lakes
to some extent and second home owners are a significant factor in the local
economy, these two user groups constituted less than 15 percent of the total
36
-------
user-days surveyed in 1978. Thus, local residents constituted by far the largest
portion of the user community and therefore bore some of the financial bur-
den.
The efficiency of the Mirror and Shadow Lake project was evaluated using
cost-benefit analysis. The basic premise of the model was that water resource
projects have a value to the general public that is adequately reflected in mar-
ket prices of properties situated near the resource. The empirical model had
•two postulates—one, changes in property values result from perceived
changes in water quality by area residents, and two, the impact on property
values decreases as distance from the lake increases. (Recreational benefits ac-
cruing to transient visitors or to residents some distance from the lake who
use only the swimming beach must be valued by another means.)
Seven water quality parameters were incorporated into an overall water
quality index for the model: (1) industrial wastes in the water, (2) debris in or on
the water, (3) water clarity, (4) presence and extent of algae growth, (5) water
odor, (6) wildlife support capacity, and (7) recreational opportunities as a func-
tion of water level. Other factors incorporated in the model included public
access, water body type, and distance from major population centers. The per-
iod of analysis was 34 years, corresponding to the longest time period for a
change in water quality to occur Depending on the discount rate used for
computing net present value, benefit-cost ratios ranged from 2.38 to 1.78.
In summary, the lake restoration program on Mirror and Shadow Lakes incor-
porated a vigorous data collection and interpretation effort to select appropri-
ate multiple restoration techniques. Care was taken to install, apply, and oper-
ate the restoration methods, and to evaluate what proved to be their
successful use. Project costs were shared by the local community, the State of
Wisconsin, and the Federal government, thereby allowing the benefits and
costs to be allocated more equitably. Finally, on a benefit-cost basis, the proj-
ects are expected to deliver significantly greater than one dollar in benefits for
every dollar expended.
WITH AERATION AND CIRCULATION
CIRCULATION
t
Reduces Nutrients
Decreases Algal Growth
Decelerates
Nutrient Release
Raises
Transparency
Impedes Nuisance
Blue-Green Algae
t
Louers Chances
of Surface Scums
CDC
cix
Replenishes Oxygen in
Lower Zone
Maintains Deeper Region
Suitable for Benthic
Community, Planktonic
Animals and Fishes
Allows Full
Recreation
Increases Bacterial
Digestion of
Organic Wastes
May Increase the
Abundance of Game Fish
37
-------
LIBERTY LAKE
Description: Liberty Lake is a heavily used 289 ha (713-acre) lake located
approximately 18 miles east of Spokane, Washington. The watershed basin of
Liberty Lake is one of the most scenic areas in the Spokane region. Much of the
watershed is comprised of rolling hills and relatively undisturbed forest.
History: Liberty Lake was a popular resort community early in the 20th cen-
tury when a railroad ran from Spokane to Liberty Lake to accommodate sum-
mer visitors who owned or rented homes along the lake. However, as early as
the 1940's the water quality began to deteriorate and, by the 1960's, the com-
munity around the lake began to show signs of economic stagnation resulting
primarily from reduced water clarity and the massive blooms of blue-green
algae that restricted recreational uses of Liberty Lake in the summer
These conditions caused a concerned citizens' group, the Liberty Lake Home-
owners Association, to initiate a study to identify the cause of the water qual-
ity problem and develop a plan to improve conditions. The results of the study
indicated that Liberty Lake was being affected by high nutrient loads from a
variety of sources, including tributaries, septic tank seepage, urban runoff, and
poor solid waste disposal.
Restoration: A Clean Lakes award of nearly $578,000 in 1977 started the
restoration process.
In 1978-79 the Liberty Lake Sewer District funded the first restorative proce-
dure—a collection system—by issuing sewer bonds. By diverting 95 percent of
the domestic sewage away from the lake basin, this procedure alone reduced
the amount of phosphorus entering the lake via ground water from 150-300
kg to approximately 25 kg per year
Another restoration measure implemented at Liberty Lake was diversion of
spring flood waters from a marsh on the southeastern shore of the lake-
reducing phosphorus inflow via surface waters from 132 kg in 1978 to 54 kg in
1980. Although this has prevented the high flows that would have brought
high levels of nutrients into the lake, the diversion system has not been trou-
ble-free. Two years after the diversion structure was built, the West and East
Fork dikes broke down and the resulting scouring problems increased the ratio
of phosphorus load to annual flow volume. Therefore, phosphorus inflow in
1981 rose to 350 kg, but declined the following year to 150 kg. The deteriora-
tion of the two dikes is a recurring problem.
The Liberty Lake project underscores the effects of the dynamic and com-
plex marsh/channel system as well as the need for an annual maintenance pro-
gram and permanent structures to assure continuing success.
Internal nutrient cycling from nutrient-rich sediments and aquatic macro-
phytes were also identified as an important nutrient source; additional Federal
funding of $546,000 from 1980 to 1981 was directed toward removing nutri-
ents and macrophytes by dredging the lake bottom. Although many valuable
lessons were learned, the dredging did not significantly improve the water
38
-------
Liberty Lake has helped revital-
ize the area's recreation and
land values.
quality nor reduce the macrophyte biomass. However, a desired species shift in
the macrophytes appears to be in progress.
Statistical tests on Carlson Trophic State Indices data reveal a significant dif-
ference between the 4 years prior and 4 years immediately following restora-
tion. Finding that 1984 was the most improved year, the project report con-
cludes that it has taken 4 years for the restoration measures to effect a
statistically significant change in the lake's trophic status.
With watershed management guidelines and environmentally knowledgeable
residents, the community of Liberty Lake has seen dramatic changes. The lake
restoration experience has enhanced recreation opportunities, increased prop-
erty values and the economic viability of the area, and, probably most impor-
tantly, improved the quality of life to the extent that the area's image has
benefited substantially.
Liberty Lake is "becoming an exciting place because successful things have
happened here," according to one Liberty Lake resident who has seen lake res-
toration activities improve the community of Liberty Lake. "Residents have a
different philosophy about the lake now. They have been educated about the
lake and are sensitive about its use."
With the restoration of the lake and the resulting higher environmental qual-
ity of the area, the Liberty Lake region has experienced dramatic planned
growth With the lake as a focal point, several highly desirable high-tech indus-
tries have located in the area, citing the area's high quality of life and recrea-
tional opportunities, aesthetics, and ambience. Further development is planned
for the near future—including bike trails, a second 18-hole golf course, and a
regional shopping center.
Property values have increased tremendously. Homes that previously sold for
$20,000 in the mid-1970's are now commanding over $125,000. In addition, the
Spokane County Board of Commissioners has approved a proposal to construct
a planned community with approximately 3,000 homes. Called The Homestead,
the community will include an industrial area, shopping facilities, land for parks,
schools, and office and professional buildings.
Other benefits of lake restoration at Liberty Lake include increased recrea-
tional use of the lake for boating and other activities. According to one Liberty
Lake resident, boating and swimming are limited now only by access to the
39
-------
Stormwater flow measurement
lake. Spokane County Park, 1,215 ha (3,000 acres) on the lake's eastern shore,
provides swimming access to the lake in addition to facilities for picnicking,
hiking, and camping. Park officials believe that a 15 percent increase in visitors
can be attributed to the lake restoration. Boating access to the lake is limited
to a public ramp managed by the Washington State Came Department and a
private ramp at Sandy Beach Resort.
Placing a dollar value on benefits realized at Liberty Lake because of restora-
tion activities is difficult because of the variety and scope of economic and
public benefits. Some can be measured: increased property values, secondary
economic benefits resulting from increased recreation on the lake, and the
many others associated with clean high-tech industry moving into the commu-
nity.
Other benefits cannot be quantitatively measured: the education of the resi-
dents as to the environmental sensitivity of the lake and its watershed, and
the higher quality of life and new spirit that accompanies a successful restora-
tion project.
The development of watershed guidelines to manage the basin should insure
the continued realization of benefits of Liberty Lake restoration for years to
come.
Sampling continues through ice
cover in the Liberty Lake proj-
ect, but alum treatment waits
for the thaw.
40
-------
NUTTING LAKE
Description: Nutting Lake is a small lake (32 ha) with a .44 square kilometer
watershed located entirely within the town of Billerica, Massachusetts. The lake
is divided into two different sized basins by a major highway. As is frequently
the case with eutrophic inland lakes, its perimeter is completely surrounded by
summer cottages that have been converted into year-round homes.
History: Around the turn of the century. Nutting Lake was a popular resort
area for Bostonians, and up until the late 1950's was an extremely valuable
resource for the community of Billerica. By the late 1970's, the condition of
Nutting Lake had deteriorated to the point that citizens of Billerica became
concerned about the long-term future of the town's valuable resource. The
Billerica Conservation Commission was formed and became the focal point of
the town's concerns and efforts.
The lake had become a classic urban eutrophic lake exhibiting such character-
istics as dense watershed development, unrealized recreational potential, high
nutrient concentrations from inadequate septic systems and storm sewers, al-
gal blooms, a layer of thick organic sediment, and substantial growths of sub-
merged and emergent aquatic plants. These features were compounded by
Nutting Lake's natural setting: shallow depth, high surface-to-volume ratio, and
thin stony soils underlain by igneous bedrock, which both enhanced erosion
and prevented retention of nutrients by the soils.
In 1974, the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control began study-
ing the eutrophication of Nutting Lake and investigating the available lake res-
toration options. In 1977, the Conservation Commission with the assistance of
the Northern Middlesex Region Planning Commission applied for a Clean Lakes
grant
Restoration: The program was designed to remove sediments and aquatic
plants by dredging and to develop a watershed management program aimed
primarily at sewering the homes in the watershed, controlling nutrient input
by street cleaning, and limiting further watershed development by land acquisi-
tion. In addition, the Billerica Conservation Commission developed a plan for
providing the watershed's residents with an educational program designed to
help them manage the watershed by changing their lawn care, gardening, and
construction activities.
EPA approved the concept of dredging and watershed management and
from 1977 through 1982 provided approximately $490,000 in Federal grant
monies. The town also sought financial assistance from the Massachusetts Divi-
sion of Water Pollution Control and the Massachusetts Water Resources Com-
mission. The Water Resources Commission agreed to participate in the project
and to fund the demonstration of the dredge spoils disposal.
In addition, the town of Billerica raised the necessary funds to match the EPA
and State contributions. The town also agreed to supply dredge operators for
the duration of the dredging program as an in-kind service. Finally, the Billerica
Conservation Commission arranged to sell the dredge spoils, primarily for use
41
-------
Nutting Lake's restoration ex-
panded to include dredging this
nearby pond to remove sediment
that had run off from Nutting
Lake.
as a soil conditioner, for approximately $1/cubic yard, which provided the proj-
ect with slightly more than $200,000 in revenue to nelp offset the restoration
costs.
By 1980, 90 percent of the watershed's residents had been connected with
sanitary sewers and approximately 100,000 cubic yards of organic sediments
had been removed from the west basin of the lake. These interim improve-
ments resulted in several significant changes; the dissolved oxygen profile im-
proved markedly in the west basin, water clarity improved slightly, and, for the
first time in years, ice fishing once again became popular as a result of the
improved fishing.
As of 1985, about 300,000 cubic yards of sediments had been removed from
Nutting Lake and a 12-15 foot deep channel about 200 yards wide is being
excavated to enhance flow between the east and west basins. Virtually every
home in the drainage basin is now connected to the sanitary sewage system as
are most storm sewers. The water quality benefits have been dramatic. Total
coliform counts have been reduced from as high as 27,000/100 milliliter (ml) to
about 1,000/100 ml, and plant growth in the dredged areas is virtually nonexist-
ent. Water quality has improved so markedly that a public beach is now being
constructed to take advantage of improved swimming conditions. Fishing,
both in the summer and winter, has greatly improved through natural repro-
duction of the native fish stocks leading to plans to stock the lake with hatch-
ery-reared fish. One of the most significant effects of the program has been
the increase in property values adjacent to the lake.
The restoration of Nutting Lake is now 90 percent complete and will be fin-
ished in February 1986. A post-restoration program will be initiated at that
time to document improvements in water quality. With the watershed man-
agement plan implemented and most of the nutrient-laden sediments re-
moved. Nutting Lake is a good example of how dredging combined with water-
shed management can dramatically improve water quality and result in
benefits to the public.
42
-------
£17
-------
Resources
Further information on the projects and techniques described in this
book may be obtained from the publications listed here.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Lakes Program, WH-
585, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 245-3036. (Free)
Quantitative Techniques for the Assessment of Lake Quality (EPA 440/5-79-015)
Clean Lakes and Us (EPA 440/5-79-021)
Modeling Phosphorus Loading, etc (EPA 440/5-80-011)
Your Lake and the Clean Lakes Program (EPA 440/5-80-010)
Clean Lakes Program Strategy (EPA 440/5-80-014)
The Economic Benefits of the Clean Lakes Program (EPA 440/5-80-081)
North American Lake Management Society, P.O. BOX 217, Merrifield,
VA 22116.
*Lake Restoration, Protection and Management (Vancouver 1982) ($4) (EPA 440/5-
83-001)
*Lake and Reservoir Management (Knoxville 1983) ($20) (EPA 440/5-84-001)
*Lake and Reservoir Management: Practical Applications (McAfee-1985) ($20)
*Lake and Reservoir Management (Lake Geneva 1986) ($20)
U.S. EPA, CERI, 26 west St. Clair, Cincinnati, OH 45268. (Free)
Lake Data Analyses and Nutrient Budget Modeling (K.H Reckhow) (EPA 600/3-81-
011)
Precipitation and Inactivation of Phosphorus with Aluminum and Zirconium Salts
(CD Cooke)(EPA 600/3-81-012)
Sediment Removal as a Lake Restoration Technique (SA Peterson) (EPA 600/3-81-
013)
Evaluation of Aeration/Circulation as a Lake Restoration Technique (R A Pastorok
T.C. Cinn, M.W. Lorenzen) (EPA 600/3-81-014)
Sampling Strategies for Estimating the Magnitude and Importance of Internal Phos-
phorus Supplies in Lakes (R E. Stauffer) (EPA 600/3-31-015)
The Dilution/Flushing Technique in Lake Restoration (E.B. Welch) (EPA 600/3-81-016)
Sediment Covering as a Lake Restoration Technique (C.D. Cooke) (EPA 600/J-81-178)
Lake Level Drawdown as a Macrophyte Control Technique (G D Cooke) (EPA 600/J-
81-179)
Restoration of Medical Lake (Capsule Report) (EPA 625/2-80-025)
Restoration of Lake Temescal (Capsule Report) (EPA 635/2-80-026)
Lake Restoration in the Cobbossee Watershed (Capsule Report) (EPA 625/2-80-027)
National Technical information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650.
'Restoration of Lakes and Inland Waters (Portland, ME-1980); paper $39- microfiche
$4, (Ask for PB82-158478) (EPA 440/5-81-010)
44
-------
Clean Lakes Program Manual; paper $21, microfiche $4. (Ask for PB82-140815) (EPA
440/5-81-003)
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402.
*Lake Restoration (MinneapoliS'1978) (GPO #055-001-01084-2, EPA 440/5-79-
($7.50) 001)
Our Nation's Lakes ($6.00) (GPO #055-000-00197-9; EPA 440/5-80-
009)
*Proceedings of conferences either sponsored or co-sponsored by the Clean Lakes
Program.
For further information on specific projects, contact the EPA Region in
which the project is located. Write to U.S. EPA, Water Management
Division, at the addresses listed. Refer to Figure 1 to identify Regional
divisions of States.
REGION I
John F. Kennedy
Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
(617)223-7210
REGIC M II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
(212)264-2525
REGION III
Curtis Bldg
6th & Walnut Sts
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215)597-9814
REGIC N IV
345 Courtland St NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 881-4727
REGION V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-2000
REGION VI
First International Bldg.
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75270
(214)767-2600
REGION VII
726 Minnesota Ave
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)236-2800
REGION VIII
Lincoln Tower Bldg.
1860 Lincoln St
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 837-3895
REGION IX
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)974-8135
REGION X
1200 Sixth Ave
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)442-1220
For information concerning policy and the Program in general, write to
Criteria & Standards Division (WH-585)
U S Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St SW
Washington, DC 20460
45
-------
Photo credits
Cover photo by Thomas U Cordon
Title page photo by Susan Braun-
ing, Battelle Columbus Division
Page 2: left: Candlewood Lake
Authority; right Thomas U
Cordon
Page 8: Thomas U Cordon
Page 14: Spencer Peterson
Page 15: Jim Loya
Page 16- Jonathan Simpson, Can-
dlewood Lake Authority
Page 19. left. Thomas U. Gordon,
right- Spencer Peterson
Page 22: left. Spencer Peterson,
right: Thomas U Cordon
Page 24- Spencer Peterson
Page 25- Department of Fisheries
and Aquaculture, University of
Florida
Page 26. Thomas U. Gordon
Page 28 Thomas U. Gordon
Page 29- Thomas U Gordon
Page 30' left Thomas U. Cordon
Page 32. above. Thomas U. Gor-
don; below- Jim Loya
Page 34. Spencer Peterson
Page 35 Spencer Peterson
Page 37- Lake Barcroft Watershed
Improvement District
Page 39: Michael A Kennedy Engi-
neers
Page 40 Michael A. Kennedy Engi-
neers
Page 42: Richard S. McVoy
Page 43- Thomas U. Gordon
Acknowledgements
The following contributed both
to the preparation and review
of this book; Spencer Peterson,
Andrea Hall, Sally Marquis,
Donald Roberts, Janis Jeffers,
Frank Lapensee, Judith Taggart,
and Susan McMillan.
------- |