United States Office of Water Regulations EPA 440/5-80-014
Environmental Protection and Standards August 1980
Agency Criteria and Standards Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water
vvEPA Clean Lakes Program
Strategy
-------
CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM. STRATEGY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
-------
PREFACE
The Clean Lakes Program began as a series of
demonstration projects with emphasis on research
and development. Now that it is a fully operational
program, a strategy has been developed which will
provide long-range direction to assist participants
with program planning over the 1980-1985 period.
As the initial step in strategy development, a chal-
lenging goal, toward which progress is readily mea-
surable, has been established within the broad man-
dale of section 314 of the Clean Water Act. This goal is
to protect at least one lake with water quality suitable
for contact recreation, or to restore a degraded lake to
that condition, within 25 miles of every major popula-
tion center. Meeting this goal will require a Federal
investment of $ 150 million.
Five specific objectives have been defined; orient-
ing program activities to attainment of them will
ensure that all efforts are directed toward reaching
thegoal.
1. Select projects to maximize public benefits;
2. Follow integrated program approach;
3. Emphasize watershed management;
4. Develop active State involvement and main-
tain Federal-State partnership; and
5. Conduct continuous program and project
evaluation.
As a starting point for the 1980-1985 effort. Head-
quarters and Regional Office tasks have been identi-
fied which will contribute to achievement of the objec-
tives. These are now being initiated; others may be
added to the list as the program proceeds.
Because EPA will manage the Clean Lakes Program
in accordance with these objectives, States should
use them in formulating their own strategies and work
plans.
Steven Schatzow
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Regulations and Standards
-------
CONTENTS
Preface 4
Introduction 7
Program History 8
State Lake Classification Survey 10
Phase 1 - Diagnostic - Feasibility Study 10
Phase 2 - Implementation 10
Program Goals 10
Program Objectives 10
Select Projects to Maximize Public Benefits 10
Follow Integrated Program Approach 12
Emphasize Watershed Management 13
Develop Active State Involvement and Maintain
Federal-State Partnership 15
Conduct Program and Project Evaluation as
Continuing Management Function 16
Resource Needs 16
Program Funding 16
Operational Tasks (by objective) 17
Appendix A - Clean Lakes Program Contacts 20
Appendix B - Clean Lakes Program Publications 20
-------
INTRODUCTION
Section 314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972(P.L. 92-500) directed the
United States Environmental Protection Agency to
assist the States in implementing methods and proce-
dures to control sources of pollution affecting the
quality of freshwater lakes and to restore lakes which
have deteriorated in quality. This was a broad man-
date to undertake a responsibility of unknown but
potentially immense magnitude, for there are more
than 35,000 publicly owned lakes in the United
States. The National Eutrophication Survey, which
began in 1972, investigated 800 selected lakes and
found nearly all of them to be eutrophic. While data
are generally lacking, it is suspected that many of the
urban lakes are adversely affected by toxic pollutants,
and it is probable that the beneficial use of several
thousand lakes is impaired by water quality problems.
Toxics identification and cleanup efforts for urban
lakes will receive priority attention in the Clean Lakes
Program. However, P.L 92-500 provided no timeta-
bles, priorities, standards, or measures of success to
guide the Agency in meeting the section 314
requirements.
The regulations which now govern the Clean Lakes
Program became effective on February 5, 1980. They
define the amounts and types of financial assistance
to be made available, application procedures, review
criteria, project requirements, and a timetable for
EPA used a helicopter to land on lakes and take water samples and measurements for the National Eutrophication
Survey. The survey studied about 800 publicly owned lakes with municipal wastewater input and found nearly all of
them suffering from some degree of eutrophication.
-------
participation. The purpose of this strategy is to give
further direction to the program over the next 5 years.
It reviews the program's history in order to provide
background for decisions affecting its future
progress. It also addresses overall goals and specific
objectives and the decisionmaking criteria, funding
priorities, and operational tasks necessary to attain
them. The strategy should be a key document in
coordinating Clean Lakes efforts with other programs
to which it may be complementary; the Construction
Grants Program, the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), Water Quality Manage-
ment Planning, Water Resources Planning, and the
Rural Clean Water Program are examples.
EPA has developed a significant amount of data and
plans regarding the control of nonpoint sources of
pollution. The Clean Lakes Program is using the data
to implement both rural and urban nonpoint source
watershed programs. For this purpose, the strategy
should also be useful to a number of Federal agencies,
including the Water Resources Council and the De-
partments of Interior, Army, and Agriculture, as well as
to other sections within EPA. By providing both
present policy guidance and a long-range perspec-
tive, the strategy can maximize the benefits of the
Clean Lakes Program by enabling all participants to
anticipate and plan for long-term needs.
PROGRAM HISTORY
The legislation that came to be section 314 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments Df
1972 (P.L. 92-500) was drafted and introduced in
the Senate by Senators Walter F. Mondale (D-Minn.)
and Quenton Burdick (D-North Dak.) Mondale arid
Burdick, both coming from States with abundant
lakes resources, were impressed with the fragility of
lake systems and the tremendous impact that human
cultural activities were having on these resources.
Many of the lakes in their States were already in a
degraded condition that made them unfit for recrea-
tional activities or other uses. They wanted to drama-
tize to the Congress and the Federal Government the
importance of lake resources to the American publ c,
and the need to protect and restore them for public
use and benefit.
The language adopted by Congress and included in
P.L. 92-500 as section 314 sets forth the principal
administrative and technical requirements associated
with developing a national program to enhance the
quality of freshwater lakes. These requirements were
retained unchanged in the Clean Water Act of 1977
(P.L. 95-21 7). Section 314 requires a State to survey
its publicly owned freshwater lakes and report tie
results to EPA. After establishing an understanding of
the problem, the States are to define the pollutant
loading problems of their lakes, develop plans to
control the sources of pollution, and then implement
both watershed and in-lake measures to improve lake
quality. The Clean Water Act requires the Federal
Government to develop and implement a program of
financial assistance to carry out the provisions of a
national lake protection and restoration effort. EPA is
fulfilling this mandate with the Clean Lakes Program.
EPA encountered some fundamental problems in
implementing section 314. There were serious ques-
tions about the adequacy of the technology available
to address lake eutrophication and pollution prob-
lems and these led to concerns about
cost-effectiveness. A widely-held opinion was that
lake quality would be protected or improved through
the implementation of other pollution control actions
authorized by P.L. 92-500 — namely, aggressive
implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (section 402) and the construc-
tion of municipal wastewater treatment systems un-
der grants through section 201. These uncertainties
led the Agency to assign a low priority to the Clean
Lakes Program from 1972to 1975.
Continued public interest and demonstrations of
the need for Federal assistance prompted the Con-
gress to add a $4 million supplemental appropriation
to EPA's budget in fiscal year 1975 to implement the
provisions of section 314. In response to the congres-
sional appropriation, and because of the Agency's
continued uncertainty about the feasibility and scope
of a national lakes program, EPA chose to distribute
these funds in the form of demonstration grants.
During the next 3 fiscal years, through 1978, EPA
continued to receive independent appropriations to-
talling $36.3 million. In fiscal years 1979 and 1980,
the Agency asked for and obtained an additional $30
million to support the Clean Lakes Program. From
1975 to June 1980, EPA has received 261 applica-
tions and awarded 209 grants in 44 States and Puerto
Rico for a total of $61.2 million. In parallel with the
demonstration grant program, EPA committed $2.3
million of Clean Lakes funds to a research and devel-
opment effort designed to assess the effectiveness of
lake restoration technology.
The experience gained since 1975 has enabled EPA
to answer many of the questions initially raised about
the technical feasibility of lake restoration and to
ascertain its importance as an integral part of a na-
tional water quality management strategy. The dem-
onstration grants have provided sufficient evidence
that there are proven techniques to improve the qual-
ity of lakes. Moreover, it is necessary that these
techniques be applied, for it is now clear that the
problems facing the Nation's lakes cannot be solved
by NPDES and the Construction Grants Program
alone.
In January 1979, the Agency proposed a regula-
tion to administer the Clean Lakes Program as an
integral part of Federal and State water quality
management programs. The regulation requires that
Clean Lakes Program activities be included in State
water quality management work programs which are
submitted annually to EPA for approval. EPA pub-
lished regulations in early February 1980, changing
the direction of the Clean Lakes program from a series
of demonstration projects to an operational program
of financial and technical assistance to the States to
control sources of water pollution for the protection
and improvement in quality of their publicly owned
freshwater lakes. The program will now operate
Ducks (opposite page) poke among
beer cans, bread wrappers, and
other refuse in a degraded lake.
8
-------
-------
through three types of cooperative agreements. Only
the States are eligible for these awards, although they
may enter into substate agreements for any portion of
the work.
State Lake Classification Survey
States that wish to participate in.the Clean Lakes
Program must establish and submit to EPA by
January 1, 1982, a classification, according to
trophic condition, of their publicly owned freshwater
lakes that are in need of restoration or protection.
States that have not met this requirement by
January 1, 1982, will not be eligible for Phase 1 or 2
Federal financial assistance under section 314 until
they have complied with it. Funding assistance equal
to 70 percent of the cost, up to a maximum of
$100,000, is available.
Phase 1: Diagnostic-Feasibility Study
The Clean Lakes Program will financially assist a
State in conducting a diagnostic-feasibility study 1:0
investigate the existing or potential causes of decline
in a publicly owned lake's quality, evaluate possible
solutions to existing or anticipated pollution prob-
lems, and recommend the most feasible program 1.0
restore or preserve the quality of the lake. Funding
assistance equal to 70 percent of the cost is available.
Phase 2: Implementation
A Phase 2 cooperative agreement is to be used for
implementing recommended methods and proce-
dures for controlling pollution entering the lake ard
restoring the lake. Phase 2 awards require a 50
percent non-Federal share. Final engineering design
and implementation of pollution control and/or
in-lake restoration measures are eligible.
EPA is considering for FY 1981 and beyond, a fourth
type of award specifically designed for intensive mon-
itoring of perhaps 10 percent of the implementation
projects. The projects would be carefully selected to
evaluate those lake restorative techniques that have
little documentation on their capabilities ard
effectiveness.
PROGRAM GOALS
The goal of the Clean Lakes Program is to imple-
ment, through assistance to the States, methods and
procedures to control sources of pollution to the
Nation's publicly owned freshwater lakes and to re-
store those lakes which are degraded in quality. Rec-
ognizing, however, that this applies to all publicly
owned lakes and that there may be several thousand
in immediate need of corrective or preventive action,
the program has established for itself a more specific
goal. The goal is to protect at least one lake whose
water quality is suitable for contact recreation, or to
restore a degraded lake to that condition, within 25
miles of every major population center. A population
center, in this context, usualjy is a Standard Metropoli-
tan Statistical Area (SMSA).
However, this definition will be applied with discre-
tion in selecting projects for funding. Some SMSA's
are so populous that a single clean lake would not be
sufficient to meet user demand. Conversely, in
SMSA's near the ocean beaches, bays, large rivers, or
the Great Lakes, there may be little demand for lake
protection or restoration. In vacation and tourist areas
where seasonal populations are high, and in other
situations where lake water quality is important to
regional economy and quality of life, projects may
warrant priority equal to that accorded urban lakes.
More explicit guidance on this aspect of project solu-
tion will be developed, but the need for flexibility will
never be eliminated.
This goal is presently receiving attention through
the Administrator's Urban Initiative, which included
funding 10 urban Clean Lakes projects in the fall of
1979. Critical to the accomplishment of the goal will
be successful efforts to reduce or eliminate toxic
pollutant problems which affect many urban lakes.
While urban lake cleanup will receive initial priority,
the importance of public recreation lakes in rural
areas is recognized. Those rural lakes which exhibit
unique features requiring restoration or protection
and which have a high use will also receive early
attention.
The goal is challenging but attainable. It is consis-
tent with both the overall goal set by Congress in the
Clean Water Act and EPA's need to maximize the
benefits obtained from the relatively small appropria-
tions received to date. Furthermore, unlike the Act's
goal statement, it is finite, and progress toward attain-
ing it is measurable.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
To ensure that all program activities are oriented
toward attainment of the goal, five specific objectives
have been set:
1. Select projects to maximize public benefits;
2. Follow integrated program approach;
3. Emphasize watershed management;
4. Develop active; State involvement and main-
tain Federal-State partnership; and
5. Conduct continuous program and project
evaluation.
EPA will manage the Clean Lakes Program in accor-
dance with these objectives, attempting at each deci-
sion point to contribute to the achievement of as many
of them as possible. From the standpoint of the States
and their component governments, the most direct
result of this policy will be that the projects selected
for cooperative agreement awards will be those which
most completely embody the five objectives. Conse-
quently, States should use them in managing their
own programs and preparing applications for section
314 assistance. Each objective is described in more
detail in the subsections which follow.
Objective 1: Select Projects to Maximize >
Public Benefits
A recent study of completed and ongoing projects
funded under section 314 has shown that recrea-
tional and other benefits resulting from restoration
and/or protection of lakes in or near urban areas or in
10
-------
regions with large populations of seasonal residents
or tourists tend to be significantly higher than those
from projects conducted elsewhere. Where larger
numbers of people live or vacation within easy access
to a lake, the number of users and thus the magnitude
of public benefits are higher. The supply of
high-quality lake recreational resources is often
smaller, and the demand for them greater, in the
metropolitan area. In populartouristorvacation areas,
local and regional economies may be directly depen-
dent on lake water quality. The Clean Lakes Program
has consequently established the policy of giving
preference to lakes in or near such areas in the
competition for Federal funds. This policy should
contribute to maximizing program benefits now, and
increasingly so in the future as higher energy costs
and scarcity of fuel cause more Americans to take
advantage of recreational opportunities nearer home.
Fortunately, 99 percent of us live within a 50-mile
radius of at least one publicly owned lake. Half of the
U.S. population lives within 5 miles of a publicly
owned lake.
Other benefit-maximizing procedures are being em-
phasized in the program. First is the pre-award assess-
ment of potential benefits. Only those proposals that
completely articulate lake quality problems and pro-
posed solutions will compete successfully for the
available section 314 funds. The regulations require
that applicants describe the benefits being impaired
because of degraded water quality, the extent of
public access to the lake, and the public benefits
which a pollution control and/or lake restoration
project would generate. In reviewing this portion of an
application, EPA will be looking for convincing evi-
dence that a project on the lake can be expected to
yield benefits which are real and accessible, of which
there is not an excessive supply, and for which there is
existing or potential demand by a large group of
prospective users.
In addition, EPA will give priority to projects in which
the State's proposed program for continuation of
protective or restorative measures after project con-
clusion gives the best assurance that public benefits
will be sustained over the long term. Therefore, EPA
will be looking for Clean Lakes projects which have a
comprehensive maintenance program to ensure that
pollution controls which are implemented during the
project remain effective. Section 314 projects often
yield dramatic and immediate results, but it is equally
important to see that the benefits are of a lasting
nature. Only through these activities can EPA hope to
maintain or improve the current EPA cost to public
benefits ratio of 8 to 1 that has been demonstrated
with Clean Lakes projects.
The section 314 regulations also direct EPA to
consider energy-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
m-lake alternatives in making funding decisions. The
Clean Lakes Program currently relies on the efforts of
the Agency's Office of Research and Development
and consultants active in lake restoration to provide
answers to questions about the feasibility, efficiency,
and effectiveness of restoration techniques. As more
1 1
-------
research findings and demonstration project results
are accumulated, decisions on cost-effectiveness and
energy-efficiency will be able to be made with greater
certainty.
Objective 2: Follow Integrated Program
Approach
Evidence of the strong environmental appeal that a
lake has comes from current and proposed Clean
Lakes projects. The Clean Lakes Program has a sub-
stantial waiting list of projects which becomes more
impressive when it is realized that sponsors must be
responsible for 50 percent of the project costs. It is our
intent to take advantage of this support by condition-
ing the award of Federal lake dollars on communities'
willingness to take responsibility for other
water-related environmental concerns.
The pollution problems in many lakes come from a
variety of sources and might well be attacked by a
number of effective Federal, State, and local pro-
grams. Ideally, the polluted lake can serve as the point
of focus, or tangible reason, to coordinate all of these
efforts. While the Clean Lakes projects show immedi-
ate and measurable improvements in water quality
and use, outputs and benefits can be many times
greater if lake projects are coordinated with other
related programs. Providing treatment for sewage
from lakeshore homes under section 201, or the
building/rehabilitation of a lakeside park, are just a
few of numerous opportunities to compound benefits
of a Clean Lakes project. Such project cooperation
can also lead to reduced costs to all parties.
EPA is directing more and more of its attention to the
toxics waste problem in a number of its programs.
This is also the direction which the Clean Lakes
Children cavort in sparkling lake
waters (above) while sailboaters
(right) take advantage of the recrea-
tion offered by an urban lake. Tourist
areas draw summer crowds suffi-
cient to warrant lifeguards (opposite
page).
12
-------
projects are taking since urban lakes have the same
toxics problems as the environment in which they are
located. Every project in an urban area, and those in
rural areas where toxics problems are suspected will
have appropriate toxics data collected in the diagnos-
tic phase of the preimplementation planning. Where
that analysis indicates toxics problems exist, the im-
plementation plan must provide for restorative and
preventive measures.
The Clean Lakes Program will effect coordination by
restricting Federal lake funds to areas that are apply-
ing an integrated program approach. A State will not
be able to obtain section 314 funds for use in a
watershed where industries are not in compliance
with NPDES permits and compliance schedules, or
where a community's municipal discharge is in viola-
tion of Federal law and compliance is not anticipated
in the near future (e.g., if the community ranks very low
on the State construction grants priority list). The
section 314 regulations have incorporated these
requirements.
All future Phase 1 grant recipients will be required
to examine the coordinated approach to implement
lake protection and restoration. In addition, EPA will
continue to push for better integration/coordination
of both in-house and other Federal programs through
the mechanism of Memorandas of Understanding
(MOU's) and Interagency Agreements.
On a less formal level, the Clean Lakes Program will
continue to rely on its regional coordinators and
project officers to encourage and work toward inte-
gration of programs with the lake as the focus. By
providing active management at project locations,
project officers put themselves in a position to under-
stand the environmental, technical, and budgetary
problems that States and local communities face. A
process is started that enables the Region to be able to
anticipate what needs to be done from the Federal
level to improve the implementation of the program at
the State and local levels. Contacts with State count-
erparts facilitate coordination of State involvement.
The emphasis will be on helping the communities
integrate their programs.
A good example of program integration exists be-
tween the Clean Lakes Program and the Water Quality
Standards Program. At the lake proposal stage,
project officers work with their water quality stan-
dards counterparts to ensure that the proposed scope
of work will not violate water quality standards. In
addition, if the application proposes a higher water
quality use for the lake following implementation, the
project officer will condition the award on the State's
upgrading of the lake standards to this new use.
Conditioning the award in this manner insures that the
State will maintain the lake at the quality suitable for
the new use or face a standards violation.
Objective 3: Emphasize Watershed
Management
Lake restorative measures if not accompanied by
13
-------
watershed controls which eliminate the source of tho
problem, will offer only temporary relief. While n
number of projects require point source controls, it i:>
nonpoint source problems which most often are tho
continuing cause of degraded lakes. Water quality
management plans developed by State and local
agencies have provided much information regarding
the causes of nonpoint source pollution and manage-
ment practices to control those sources. The Clean
Lakes Program provides the institutional framework
through which the Agency can implement nonpoint
source plans on a watershed basis. A few projects;
utilizing these watershed controls have been com-
pleted and a larger number are underway. Both rural
and urban nonpoint source control programs will
receive additional emphasis through this strategy
document.
Awarding applications that utilize protective or res-
torative techniques which will remain effective over
the long term has always been an objective of the
Clean Lakes Program. In-lake techniques, such as;
weed harvesting and dredging, while producing an
immediate lake quality improvement, are rarely
cost-effective by themselves in the long run. It is;
therefore our policy to give greater consideration to
applicants that propose protective and restorative
techniques which operate by controlling pollutants ai:
their sources rather than controlling their symptoms
in the lake. These techniques tend to be most effective
on a watershed-wide basis. The application of agricul-
tural and silvicultural best management practices that
keep sediment and nutrients out of streams - no-till
farming, manure colled ion, contour plowing, grassed
waterways, and maintenance of vegetative cover, for
example - offers great promise for keeping rural
lakes healthy. For lakes in urbanized areas, septic
system management ordinances, alternative waste-
water treatment systems, and stormwater control
techniques can all help stop the accumulation of
pollutants.
The principal problems affecting the Nation's lakes
are nutrient enrichment and inorganic sedimentation.
Lake quality enhancement and protection with re-
spect to these two polluting substances must be
addressed on a watershed basis, and work in the
watershed to control sources of pollution must begin
before or at the same time as any in-lake restorative
measures are undertaken if lake improvement is to be
sustained. Conversely, implementing source controls
in the watershed is rarely sufficient to return a de-
graded lake to an acceptable condition in a reasona-
ble amount of time. Some in-lake activity is usually
necessary. The section 314 regulations recognize this
relationship by restricting the award of funds for
in-lake measures which are strictly palliative to situa-
This culvert carries stormwater runoff from a city into a nearby lake in a scene duplicated countless times across this
country. With the water come toxics and oil from the streets and nutrients from fertilized yards and gardens.
14
-------
Direct runoff from this watershed affects the quality of the reservoir by carrying large volumes of sediment from
erodable areas.
tions where pollution sources in the watershed have
been controlled as completely as is practical.
Objective 4: Develop Active State Involve-
ment and Maintain Federal-State
Partnership
The new regulations place additional responsibility
on the Regions, particularly the project officers. Active
participation by the States is required. It is only
through a Federal, State, and local partnership that
the objectives of the Clean Lakes Program can be
achieved.
Regional offices have an important role in project
management. Regional project officers must be pre-
pared to provide onsite assistance, when required, to
assure project objectives are met. Regions must allo-
cate the amount of staff resources that will allow the
program to function at a viable level. This means an
aggressive approach to the Agency zero-based-
budgeting (ZBB) process, spelling out in detail in the
workload analysis everything that is included in
project officer management.
Another area of major regional office responsibility
is assistance to States in establishing effective State
Clean Lakes Programs. Most States are currently not
in a position to match section 31 4 awards with State
funds because of the absence of suitable State appro-
priations. States are aware of the effectiveness of
Clean Lakes Projects to implement a comprehensive
approach to pollution abatement on a watershed
basis and are eager to participate. However, it is
necessary that the matching portion of section 314
funding agreement be picked up. In most cases, local
agency or general public support of this magnitude
cannot be achieved. Therefore, States should work to
develop appropriate and effective State program leg-
islation to implement and manage State Clean Lakes
Programs consisterit with section 314 of the Clean
Water Act and EPA regulations. This includes prepar-
ing State work programs that include a priority rank-
ing of lake restoration projects. The regional Clean
Lakes coordinators should work closely with State
counterparts in developing legislation, regulations,
guidelines, strategies, and operating and manage-
ment procedures.
When cooperative agreements are awarded to
States with active lakes programs and funds are
passed on to substate agenctes by interagency agree-
ment, the EPA and State project officers should coor-
dinate their functions to avoid duplication of effort
and confusion in communications at the project level.
15
-------
Objective 5: Conduct Program and
Project Evaluation as a Continuing
Management Function
All programs must have a reliable evaluation and
feedback mechanism in order to function most effec-
tively: evaluation to ascertain that policy direction is
correct, that appropriate technology is being applied
and desired results are being obtained; and feedback
to provide the evaluated information to those who cire
responsible for making program modifications. These
interrelated evaluation efforts will operate continu-
ously in the Clean Lakes Program.
The keys to successful evaluation are the regional
coordinators. They, alono/with their counterparts in
States with active programs, are in the best position to
assemble information on the progress and results of
projects. From the application stage through projeict
operation and maintenance (including watershed
management activities), they should check each
project with respect to the four other objectives de-
scribed above, the section 314 regulations, and other
related environmental goals. Is program integration
occurring? Are EPA priorities such as toxic pollution
being addressed? Are all appropriate project alterna-
tives being examined objectively? Are there any rec nr-
ring problems, such as difficulty obtaining contrac-
tors for particular types of projects? Are the monitor-
ing data being collected useful to the program? Are
the projected benefits in fact being realized? Answers
to these and other questions must be transmitted in
two directions - to the State and EPA project officers
for use in managing individual projects, and to EPA
Headquarters to be used in administering the national
program.
Headquarters is responsible for evaluating the di-
rection of the program on an annual basis. Relying
primarily on feedback from the Regions, midyear
evaluations, 304(j) state-of-the-art reports, and project
evaluation reports, Headquarters staff will monitor
progress toward the overall goal established for the
Clean Lakes Program. Progress toward the objectives
which have been set as requirements necessary to
meet that goal will also be assessed, but Headquarters
will be alert to the possible need to change one or
more objectives if achievement of them is not contrib-
uting to attainment of the overall goal.
Two other areas of general program evaluation will
be undertaken. The first of these is evaluation of the
effectiveness of various restorative and protective
techniques. The second is assessment of the overall
social and economic benefits being generated by the
Clean Lakes Program. The socioeconomic effort will
involve determining the public's goals for the pro-
gram, the extent to which the program has been
successful in meeting these goals, the reasons lor
success or non-success and the types of lake restora-
tive or protective projects that should be funded in the
future. Water quality improvements will be linked to
quantified public benefits. Results of both these evalu-
ative activities will be provided in the form of technical
manuals and guidelines to State and local applicants,
to regional program managers and others involved in
the program for use in developing applications, detsr-
mining priorities, selecting projects for funding, aid
measuring results of implementation
RESOURCENEEDS
To meet the goals of the strategy within the an-
nounced schedule, additional resources at both the
Federal and State levels are required. The competition
for the people and funds that are required to meet our
water quality goals will continue. Few programs will
obtain resources in the magnitude that program man-
agers believe is required. The FY-81 ZBB decision
provides for an increase to an average of 2 person-
years per Region. There will be no increase in Head-
quarters staff. To meet the goal of providing at least
one lake for public recreation use within 25 miles of
every major population center will require $150 mil-
lion in section 31 4 funds. The present Federal appro-
priation is approximately $ 1 5 million annually. If the
funding level remains constant only 35 percent of the
goal would be reached by 1 985 with full attainment of
the goal not realized until the mid-1990's. Additional
funds would be required to fund needed projects in
rural areas. While present personnel resources can
cover modest increases in Federal financial support to
States, effective program management will require
more personnel, especially at the regional level, if
funds are increased significantly.
The new regulations require that States assume a
lead role in development and implementation of the
program. A number of States have developed State
programs and can probably handle increases in Fed-
eral support with litlle or no additional personnel.
Other States just embarking on their own State pro-
grams will need at least a modest staff to develop and
implement their prog rams.
PROGRAM FUNDING
Since February 5, 1980, Regions have controlled
the administration and management of the section
31 4 awards. Headquarters has retained responsibility
for national policy dire'Ction and management evalua-
tion. Appropriations of section 314 funds will remain
in a central Headquarters account. However, separate
regional targets are being developed and dissemi-
nated to Regions for them to draw upon as they make
funding decisions. Headquarters will maintain a mod-
est allocation for special projects of national
significance.
The objective of having a funding allocation is to
provide an equitable distribution of section 314funds
to States with approved methods and procedures for
lake restoration and protection. Providing targets al-
lows the Regions flexibility in negotiations with States
for lake restoration projects and increases regional
capability to forecast workloads and develop appro-
priate personnel plans for annual budget submis-
sions. Early disclosure of the funding targets allows
the Regions time to help States develop realistic Clean
Lakes priorities in State water quality workplans and,
if appropriate, the State/EPA agreements. Regions
will be expected to obligate funds in a timely fashion
and will be provided with a specific date by which
their target allocations must be obligated. After that
date any unobligated funds will be made available to
those regions requiring additional funds.
16
-------
OPERATIONALTASKS
A set of operational tasks which must be accom-
plished in order to attain the seven objectives has
been identified. Those prefixed with "H" are Head-
quarters responsibilities, and those with "R" are to be
carried out by the Regions.
The set of activities should be considered as a basic
list. As the program proceeds and the results of
ongoing evaluation are assembled and reviewed, new
tasks will undoubtedly be identified and existing tasks
may be modified.
Objective 1: Select Projects to Maximize
Public Benefits
«-
The tasks which pertain to this objective are primar-
ily those involving policy guidance and development.
H Developguidanceon:
• Regional allocation of funds;
• Application of project re-
view criteria and weighting
factors;
Schedule
October 1980
October 1980
H Develop Clean Lakes Program
Users Manual
H Conduct the 1980 International
Lake Restoration Symposium
H/R Conduct regional grants
management technology trans-
ferworkshops.
R Work with States and local com-
munities to develop best possible
applications.
R Assure that priority projects are
included in SEA's.
September 1980
September 1980
Fall 1980
Each Fall/Winter
Each Spring
Objective 2:. Follow Integrated Program
Approach
Develop guidance on integrating
section 314 with other funding
sources.
Review Federal programs for co-
ordination potential, and negoti-
ate MOU's with appropriate
in-house and other Federal pro-
Schedule
September 1980
October 1980
Rain, snow, and melting ice carry sediment from farms into the waterways draining the watershed. Sediment from
agricultural runoff is a major contributor to lake degradation.
17
-------
grams. Develop MOD with HUD
and HCRS (Department of the
Interior).
R Each Region fund one implemen- January 1981
tation project involving com-
bined funding with other Federal
programs in FY-8 1
Objective 3: Emphasize Watershed
Management
The tasks associated with this objective comple-
ment some ofthose in Objectives 1 and 2.
Assist in:
Develop guidance on watershed
management.
Establish review process to evalu-
ate watershed management in
project applications
Schedule
October 1980
January 1981
Objective 4: Develop Active State Involve-
ment and Maintain Federal-State
Partnership
Applicable tasks include many of the project review
and State coordination functions, primarily at the
regional level but with Headquarters support.
Develop model legislation and
other guidance for use by States
in establishing Clean Lakes
programs.
Work with States and local units
to develop best possible applica-
tions to assure that priority
projects are included in SEA's.
Schedule
February 1981
Ongoing
Evaluating the current State program
limitations.
Establishing! the best mix of State level financial
and technical assistance, including field and
laboratory capabilities, to be provided to local
agencies to improve publicly owned freshwater
lakes.
Preparing policy, guidance, and technical assis-
tance to help local agencies to understand lake
pollution problems; to develop appropriate
measures to combat lake pollution problems;
and to seek financial assistance to implement
lake pollution control and restorative
procedures.
Assessing the magnitude and location of in-
place toxic pollutants and toxics loading to
publicly owned freshwater lakes, including
groundwater and tributary streams. Existing
data bases should be evaluated and supple-
mented with on-site monitoring programs at
significant lake resources that pose human
health hazards.
Developing (or Devaluating) procedures to
place projects (both phase 1 and.phase 2) on
State priority lists for receiving EPA section
314 funding assistance. Toxics pollution con-
trol and cleanup should be given special con-
sideration along with specific requirements
stated in 40 CFR 35.1600.
Surveying the State public to determine the
projects where local interest and funding are
available to implement controls on pollution
affecting publicly owned freshwater lakes.
These resulls should be reflected in State
priority lists.
Assisting in development of State priority lists
(phase 1. and phase 2) for receiving section 314
funding assistance.
Preparing annual work programs that include
the implementation of pollution controls (on a
watershed basis) and in lake restorative proce-
dures for lakes on the State priority list as
required by 40 CFR 35.1620-5.
R Review and prepare recommen -
dation for each application
H Reviewandprovidefunding
decision to Region
Within 30 days
of receipt of
application
Within 60 days
of proposal
receipt
Objective 5: Conduct Program and
Project Evaluation as a Continuing
Management Function
H Develop long-term economic
evaluation guidance for Clean
Lakes projects.
Schedule
. December 1980
Recording his perception on a
sketchpad, this artist measures the
aesthetic value of this lake.
-------
H Track status of grant
information and obligation of
program funds
H Develop an annual Clean Lakes
Program report
R Monitor ongoing projects.
R Where economic and technical
data gaps are recognized, negoti-
ate with States necessary moni-
toring amendments
R Once operational, maintain
GICS and STORE!systems.
R ProvidesupporttoClean
Lakes Program in the ZBB
process.
H Evaluate regional and Headquar-
ters Clean Lakes Program
management.
Periodically as
appropriate
Each FY Complete
by November
Ongoing
As needed
Fall 1980 and
semi-annual
thereafter.
February-June
annually
Annually
1 Expand selection criteria beyond nutrients
In addition, the Office of Research and Development (ORD)
is developing information on monitoring and evaluative
techniques. The Office of Regulation and Standards (OWRS)
has arranged the ORD activities in priority fashion according
to their ability to meet the OWRS Clean Lakes Program
Evaluation three-part objective: to determine (1) the effec-
tiveness of various lake restorative techniques; (2) the
duration of effectiveness; and (3) the benefits of the projects.
Included below are the outputs essential to meet OWRS
needs.
• Project Selection:
• Water Quality Indicators
1 Determine effectiveness
measures
2- Develop use-related indices
of restorative
Source Control and Watershed Management
1. Evaluate sources as contributors and develop
methodology for setting control priorities"
2. Evaluate source control data
3. Develop optimum source control selection
method
4. Evaluate feasibility of wetlands for waste treat-
ment, wastewater effects on wetlands, artificial
wetlands, toxic effects on wetlands
Evaluate Ongoing Techniques'
1 Nutrient controls
2. Dredging
3. Other m-lake techniques
Monitoring:
1. Develop optimum sampling designs
Socioeconomics:
1 Identify types of human impacts which can
resultfrom 314 projects
2 Develop methodology to list human impacts
which can satisfactorily be valued in standard
economic terms
3. Design an assessment-selection-evaluation
system.
This peaceful view of Lake Tahoe, on the California-Nevada border, is deceiving, for pollution is becoming a major
problem for the lake. Hordes of weekend visitors and growing demand for housing have created the pollution that could
destroy Tahoe.
19
-------
APPENDIXA
Clean Lakes Program Contacts
For more information about the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram contact the Water Division Director in the U.S;.
EPA Region in which your State is located.
National Office
Director, Criteria and Standards Division
U.S. EPA WH-585
Clean Lakes Program
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)472-3400
Region I
Water Division Director, EPA
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Mass.
(617)223-5137
Region II
Water Division Director, EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
(212)264-1833
Region III
Water Division Director, EPA
Curtis Building
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
(215)597-3425
Region IV
Surveillance and Analysis
Division Director, EPA
College Station Rd.
Athens, Ga. 30601
(404) 546-3136
Region V
Water Division Director, EPA
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, III. 60604
(312)353-2167
Region VI
Water Division Director, EPA
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Tex. 75270
(214)767-2624
Region VII
Water Division Director, EPA
324 East 11th Street
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
(816)374-5429
Region VIII
Water Division Director, EPA
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colo. 80203
(303)327-4963
Region IX
Water Division Director, EPA
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
(415)556-7554
Region X
Water Division Director, EPA
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Wash. 98101
(206)442-1086
APPENDIX B
Clean Lakes Program Publications
Clean Lakes and Us
Quantitative Techniques for the
Assessment of Lake Quality
Lake Restoration - Proceedings of a
National Lake Conference
Economic Benefit of the
Clean Lakes Program
Clean Lakes Program Regulation
40 CFR 35.1600 Subpart H
Our Nation's Lakes
EPA Clean Lakes Program Guidance Manual
Your Lake - And The Clean Lakes Program
If you are interested in obtaining any of these
documents, call the Clean Lakes Program Office at
(202)472-3400orwriteto:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Lakes Program (WH-585)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
20
-------
21
-------
22
------- |