1
Clean Lakes Program
1990 Annual Report
<*4
.***&<*
-------
I
-------
Clean Lakes Program
1990 Annual Report
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Office of Water
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D.C.
1991
-------
I
Prepared by The Terrene Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
EPA Regional Clean Lakes coordinators contributed the information for
this Clean Lakes Program Annual Report.
The report was compiled by EPA Headquarters Clean Lakes Program staff;
Susan Ratcliffe, project officer.
Lura Taggart Svestka of JT&A, inc., designed and produced the report.
Cover photo of Pyramid Lake, Arizona, by Terri Hollingsworth.
Distributed by the
TERRENE
INSTITUTE
1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 802
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-8317
Fax: (202) 466-8554
ii
-------
Contents
Introduction 1
Region I 4
Region II 7
Region III 9
Region IV 11
Region V 13
Region VI 16
Region VII 18
Region VIII 22
Region IX 25
Region X 27
Regional Offices and Coordinators 31
iii
-------
-------
1
Introduction
The Clean Lakes Program moved into the
final decade of the century clearly commit-
ted to supporting total lake and watershed
management from initial diagnosis through post-
restoration monitoring. Continuing its grass-roots
orientation as the Federal partner in State lake pro-
tection programs, the Clean Lakes Program covered
the entire scope of its mandate in 1990.
The 102 newly awarded Clean Lakes cooperative
agreements encompassed all four phases of the pro-
gram:
• State/Tribal Lake Water Quality Assessments
(LWQAs): must be performed biennially by
States or Tribes to attain or maintain eligibility
for Clean Lakes Program funding. In submit-
ting their 1990 Clean Water Act section 305(b)
reports (April 1990), States were to include the
information required by section 314. The Na-
tional Water Quality Inventory Report that
contains this information is now being pre-
pared.
• Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies (Phase I): must
be completed first, to determine the actual
work that needs to be done under a Phase II.
• Restoration/Implementation Projects (Phase
II): put into effect the recommendations of the
Phase I studies.
• Post-restoration Monitoring Studies (Phase
III): determine through monitoring the longev-
ity, progress, and success of the Phase II
project.
Forty-four States, one territory, and 15 Indian
Tribes received financial assistance in Fiscal Year
1990 totalling slightly more than $12 million. Diag-
nostic/Feasibility Studies (Phase I) constituted
more than half the agreements, slightly less than a
third of the financial assistance. About half the Fed-
eral funds went into Restoration/Implementation
Projects (Phase II). Lake Water Quality Assessments
and Post-restoration Monitoring Studies together
accounted for less than $1 million with 14 awards.
Most significantly, however. Native American
Indian Tribes dramatically increased their partici-
pation in the program. Fifteen Tribes became
eligible for—and received—Clean Lakes financial
assistance this year, in contrast to three the previ-
ous year and only one in 1987.
Percentage of Clean Lakes FY 90 funds spent on project
types.
LWQA
5%
Phase
55%
Phase
36%
State/Tribal Lake Water Quality Assessments
Phase I — Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies
Phase II — Restoration/Implementation Projects
Phase III — Post-Restoration Monitoring Studies
-------
Virgin
Puerto Rico isiands
States marked with dots received Clean Lakes FY 90 cooperative agreements.
Indian Tribe Agreements
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
which administers the Clean Lakes Program, main-
tains a special policy for Native American Indian
Tribes that enables a Tribe to be treated as a State.
This reflects EPA's recognition of Tribal govern-
ments as independent authorities for reservation
affairs—sovereign entities, not political subdivisions
of States. Thus, a Tribe designated as a State may
apply for and receive grants to conduct Clean Lakes
and other EPA water quality projects on Tribal lands.
(This report associates the Tribes with States simply
for geographical reference.)
During Fiscal Year 1990, two California Tribes—
the Colorado River Indian Tribes and the Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe—were given State status and
each received $100,000 to conduct Phase I diagnos-
tic-feasibility studies. The Colorado River Tribe will
use the funds to study water quality on Deer Island
Lake and 12-Mile Lake, while the Fort Mojave Tribe
will employ the funds for similar studies of Twin
and Long lakes.
Another Tribe designated as a State in 1990, the
Pueblo of Acoma, received $455,454 in Phase II
funding to restore Lake Acomita in New Mexico.
Seventy-seven percent of the LWQA awards
were to Indian Tribes. The Red Lake, White Earth
and Mille Lacs Bands of the Minnesota Chippewa
Tribes continued their Lake Water Quality Assess-
ments. Nine other Tribes—the Poarch Band of
Creek Indians (Alabama), the Eastern Band of
Cherokees (North Carolina), Wind River Tribe
(Wyoming), Blackfeet Tribe (Montana), Turtle
Mountain Chippewa Tribe (North Dakota), South-
ern Ute Tribe (Colorado), Nez Perce and Coeur
d'Alene Tribes (Idaho), and Klamath Tribe (Ore-
gon)—received a total of $362,596 in FY 1990 to
begin or continue LWQAs. This accounted for 53
percent of the LWQA financial assistance.
-------
FY1990 CLEAN LAKES AWARDS
Uke Water Quality Assessments 13 $ 685,066
Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies 60 $ 4.386,323
Restoration/Implementation Projects 25 $ 6,649,002
Post-Restoration Monitoring Studies 4 $ 439,875
TOTAL 102 $12,133.266*
* Remaining funds from FY 89 allocation included.
Other Program Activities
Information and education are the cornerstones of
the Clean Lakes Program, which continues to sup-
port the transfer of technical information to the
States and citizens. The Program participates in na-
tional and international conferences and citizen
workshops, publishes manuals and other materials,
and continues to support the Clean Lakes Clearing-
house database.
Conferences
• Enhancing States' Lake Management Pro-
grams: This May 1990 conference in Chicago
focused on stormwater management and local
nonpoint source issues. Clean Lakes Program
regional and headquarters staff participated in
the sessions.
• International Lake & Reservoir Symposium:
More than 600 people attended the North
American Lake Management Society's 10th an-
nual symposium, which brings together the
citizen and lake association community with
the academic, governmental, and business in-
terests concerned with lake issues.
• Regional Workshops: The Clean Lakes Pro-
gram continued to support and participate in
workshops for citizens interested in learning
how to protect and manage their lake/reser-
voir resources. Georgia conducted such a
workshop in May, followed by Pennsylvania
and Michigan in June. Although regional in na-
ture, all these workshops led to the formation
of State lake associations.
Publications
• Lake & Reservoir Restoration Guidance Man-
ual: The second edition of this popular guide
for the lake community was completed, and
several thousand have already been distrib-
uted. The original authors
revised and updated the
information contained in
the Manual, to assure its
continued applicability to
lake restoration.
Monitoring Lake & Reservoir Restoration:
This first technical supplement to the Lake &
Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual was pre-
pared and distributed this
year. A second technical
supplement is now under-
way.
Clean Lakes Demonstration Program: 1989
Annual Report to Congress: Section 314(d) of
the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act
established a demonstration program to de-
velop pollution control techniques for lakes
that could serve as models for similar restora-
tion projects on other lakes. This report
summarizes the status of each demonstration
project and describes the work undertaken by
the EPA Clean Lakes Program as well as by
others involved in these projects.
Clean Lakes Clearinghouse
EPA continued to respond to requests for informa-
tion from citizens, lake associations, States, and
others throughout the Nation. Two staff with library
and database expertise maintain the Clearinghouse,
continually screening and inputting new material.
-------
1
Region I
Every State in Region I participated in the
Clean Lakes Program during Fiscal Year
1990, with two—Maine and New Hamp-
shire— beginning post-restoration monitoring pro-
jects this year. The Region worked closely with the
States in managing the program's activities, particu-
larly in
Q Guiding the States' preparation of financial
assistance applications to ensure
consistency and high quality;
Q Conducting technical reviews and making
funding recommendations for all Clean
Lakes Program applications;
Q Awarding nine new Clean Lakes
cooperative agreements with the States;
Q Managing 37 active projects to ensure that
interim goals were being accomplished,
time requirements met, and special grant
conditions followed;
Q Visiting many Clean Lakes Phase II projects
to verify progress toward completion of
lake restoration; and
Q Reviewing and providing comments on
sub-State agreements to ensure regulatory
control for the maintenance of take projects.
Such supervision is essential to preserving
a lake's water quality once restoration has
been completed.
*• Success Story
• Regional Office
Success Story: Lake
Lashaway, Massachusetts
The story of Lake Lashaway—the first Clean Lakes
project in Massachusetts—began when residents
around the lake found a new way to use their old
bedsprings.
During the 1970s, homeowners living beside
Lake Lashaway were dragging their old bedsprings
along the shoreline in a desperate effort to remove
tangled masses of vegetation that hampered access
to the lake. The lake suffered from nutrient loading
and suspended solids both from its periphery and
its large watershed; fanwort and bushy pondweed
covered much of the surface.
By 1978, aesthetic and recreational activities
were so diminished that the Lake Lashaway Com-
munity Association and the two towns bordering
the lake joined forces to fund a eutrophkation
study. In March 1980, EPA agreed to award Phase I
Clean Lakes financial assistance to complete a feasi-
bility study, and, a year later, approved a Phase II
award to restore the lake.
The major components of the Phase II project
were the design and construction of a lake level
-------
Region I — Active Projects
STATE PROJECT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Connecticut Statewide LWQA
Bantam Lake Phase II
CandlewoodLake Phased
Lake Warramaug Phased
Maine Statewide LWQA
China Lake Phase II
Lake Cobbossee Phase II
Long Lake Phase I
Webber Lake Phase II
Three Mile Pond Phased
Massachusetts Statewide LWQA
LakeBuel Phased
Lake Cochituate Phase II
Dunn's Pond Phase II
Hill's Pond Phased
Lower Mystic Lake Phase II
Porter Lake Phase II
Sluice, Flax, and Floating Bridge Ponds . Phase If
Spy Pond Phase II
Eagle Pond Phase II
Whitman's Pond Phase II
New Hampshire Statewide LWQA
Beaver Lake Phase I
Mendum's Pond Phase I
Webster Lake Phase I
Rhode Island Statewide LWQA
Lake Washington Phase I
Olney Pond Phase I
Vermont Statewide LWQA
Lake Champlain Phase I
FY 1990 Awards
AMOUNT ($)
Maine Chickawaukie Lake Phase II 141.190
Medawaska Lake Phase I 88,830
Cochnewagon Lake Phase III 68,348
New Hampshire Beaver Lake Phase I 27,225
Robinson/
Otternick Ponds Phase I 99,999
KezarLake Phase III 121,577
Rhode Island Watchaug Pond Phase I 100,000
Vermont Lake Chemplain Phase I 120,000
Lake Bomoseen* Phase II 588.000
TOTAL $1,355,169
* Demonstration project
-------
Taken just prior to
drawdown of the water
level, this photo shows the
outlet control structure at
the south end of Lake
Lashaway, including the
fenced catwalk, sluice
gate valve, and outlet
chamber. Photo by
Robert C. Haynes.
control structure to facilitate drawdown. Construc-
tion began in September 1982, and the sluice gate
that controlled the new outlet structure was opened
80 days later. A full 8-foot drawdown had to be
postponed for two years until a retention dam was
built to protect the wetlands that bordered the in-
flowing tributary.
The outlet structure's effect on the lake was dra-
matic and unequivocal. Before construction,
nuisance macrophytes covered 70 percent of the
lake; by the winter of 1984-85, the drawdown re-
sulting from the new structure had decimated the
two populations of macrophytes that had marred
the lake.
During six continuous years of winter draw-
down, Lake Lashaway has remained free of
nuisance macrophytes. Aesthetic and recreational
activities have rebounded, as has shoreline man-
agement. In 1985, the two towns bordering the lake
established a new beach, and the lake association
built a permanent boat ramp in 1987 after comple-
tion of a State-funded dredging project. Sail and ski
club activities are in full swing, and the Massachu-
setts Bass Fishing Club has put Lake Lashaway
back on its regular tournament circuit. Moreover,
annual operation and maintenance costs associated
with the control structure are negligible.
-------
Region II
The use of weed harvesting as a lake man-
agement technique spawned much interest
in Region II this year; the Region visited a
number of lake communities in both New York and
New Jersey to provide information on weed har-
vesting. Other activities in Region H's management
of the Clean Lakes Program included:
Q Management of New York's Onondaga
Lake, including convening the Onondaga
Lake Management Conference, awarding a
$500,000 demonstration grant to help
finance the conference's work; reviewing
research proposals, and beginning a Phase I
study;
Q Completion of Phase II projects in New
Jersey's Etra Lake and Iroquois Lakes;
D Completion of LWQA assessments in New
York, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico; and
D Site visits to several lakes in New York and
New Jersey to demonstrate the
effectiveness of weed harvesting.
• Regional Office
A weed harvester at work.
-------
Region II — Active Projects
STATE
Puerto Rico
New Jersey
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Lake La Plata Phase II
Allerttown Lake Phase
Lake Hopatcong Phase II
Deal Lake* Phased
Greenwood Lake Phase II
Saratoga Lake Phase II
Irondequoit Bay Phase II
BelmontLake Phased
Van Cortlandt Park Lake Phased
Collins Lake Phased
FY1990 Awards
AMOUNT (I)
412.440
New Jersey
New York
Manahawkin Lake Phase II
Lake Cnamplain Phase!
LakeOnondaga Phased
Lake George Phase II
134.860
500,000
25,000
TOTAL
•Demonstration project
8
-------
Region III
^k Clean Lakes project in Maryland was com-
/ ^k pleted during Fiscal Year 1990, as manage-
.X .^Lment of the Clean Lakes Program in Region
III included the following activities:
3 Completion of the technical review, grant
application, and funding recommendations
for Delaware's LWQA;
Q Completion of the Loch Raven Clean Lakes
Project in Maryland;
O Participation by EPA Clean Lakes staff in a
workshop on the Loch Raven project
conducted by the Maryland Department of
the Environment;
a On-site visits to Lakes Wallenpaupack and
Nockamixon in Pennsylvania; and
3 Completion of sampling for West Virginia's
LWQA.
•*• Success Story
• Regional Office
Region III—Active Projects
STATE PROJECT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Maryland Loch Raven Reservoir Restoration/Implementation
Pennsylvania Lake Nockamixon Restoration/Implementation
Lake Wallenpaupack Restoration/Implementation
Virginia Lake Chesdin Restoration/Implementation
Rivanna Reservoir Restoration/Implementation
Big Cherry Reservoir Diagnostic/Feasibility Study
Delaware Silver Lake Diagnostic/Feasibility Study
FY 1990 Awards
AMOUNT ($)
Delaware Lums Pond Phase I 39,769
Silver Lake Phase II 101,202
Pennsylvania Lake Jean Phase I 64,600
Lake Ontelaunee Phase I 100,000
Lake Luxembourg Phase t 44,000
Lake Wallenpaupack Phase II 240,529
Virginia Big Cherry Reservoir Phase II 32,000
West Virginia Hurricane Lake Phase I 45,500
TOTAL $667,600
-------
Success Story: Lake
Nockamixon, Pennsylvania
Created by the Pennsylvania Department of Human
Resources (DER) in 1973, Lake Nockamixon is a
1,500-acre reservoir located in Nockamixon State
Parkin upper Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The lake
is one of the most popular recreational facilities in
eastern Pennsylvania, drawing fishing, sailing, and
hiking enthusiasts to its waters, which are also a po-
tential water supply.
Since its creation, Lake Nockamixon has been
plagued by low dissolved oxygen concentrations,
high nutrient levels, and algal blooms. Excessive
nutrients from agriculture, erosion, and a large
wastewater treatment facility caused most of the
lake's water quality problems. In response to public
outcry over the poor quality of the water and fish-
ery, the DER appropriated funds to conduct a Phase
I study of the lake. The study recommended up-
grading the wastewater treatment facility and
implement agricultural BMPs to reduce the sus-
pended sediments and phosphorus in the agricul-
tural runoff.
To implement the recommendations, a multi-
agency steering committee was formed. The
committee included representatives of the Bucks
County Conservation District (BCCD), DER, the
Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Pennsylvania Bu-
reau of State Parks, Pennsylvania Game Commis-
sion, Bucks County Health Department, USDA's
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), USDA's Agricul-
tural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS), and the local farmers' association. The
steering committee met every six to eight weeks for
about a year to exchange information, solve prob-
lems, and ensure that the Phase I recommendations
were carried out.
A Federal grant funded the upgrading of the
wastewater treatment plant so that the facility
could reduce the phosphorus in the effluent. And in
1988, the BCCD obtained Phase II funding to imple-
ment agricultural BMPs. Conservation measures
were instituted on 95 percent of the cropland and
pasture land upstream from and draining into the
lake.
10
-------
Region IV
A great deal of citizen concern about the de-
eriorating water quality of Georgia's
akes—particularly West Point Lake, recipi-
ent of Atlanta wastewater—spawned interest in
protective measures for the State's lake resources.
Region IV was instrumental in the production of
landmark water quality standards that were enacted
as part of historic water protection legislation
passed by the Georgia General Assembly. Other ac-
complishments of the Region's Clean Lakes Pro-
gram during Fiscal Year 1990 included:
Q Assisted in drafting landmark lake water
quality standards for Georgia that were
subsequently enacted by the Georgia
General Assembly;
Q Managed 18 active projects, completing
LWQAs in Alabama and Florida and a
Phase II at Lake Jackson (Florida);
3 Awarded financial assistance for
diagnostic/feasibility studies on a large
interstate lake—West Point,
with approximately 23,000
acres in Georgia and
approximately 3,000 acres in
Alabama—that has been
significantly affected by point
source pollution (nutrients) and
toxics; and
O Supported work on several
lakes with major nonpoint
source problems that seriously
affect their area's economies:
Georgia's Lakes Lanier (38,000
acres) and Walter F. George
(45,000 acres) have a combined
visitor day total of 25.6 million
per year; fishing in Alabama's
Lake Weiss (30,000 acres) is
estimated to contribute $11
million to the local economy.
To encourage the development of university lim-
nology programs, States in this Region have
subcontracted LWQA studies and/or Phase I activi-
ties to several colleges or universities, including
'Regional Office
Florida State University, University of Georgia, La
Grange College (Georgia), Auburn University (Ala-
bama), the University of Southern Mississippi,
Tennessee Technical University, and Murray State
University (Kentucky). North Georgia College at
Dahlonga also will be doing some work under an ar-
rangement with the University of Georgia.
11
-------
Region IV — Active Projects
PROJECT
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Statewide LWQA (completed)
STATE
Alabama
Florida Statewide LWQA (completed)
Lake Jackson Phase II
LakeMunson Phase!
Georgia Statewide LWQA
l-ake Jackson Phase I
Kentucky Statewide LWQA
Mississippi Wolf Lake Phase I
Moon Lake Phase I
Lake Washington Phase I
North Carolina Statewide LWQA
ijmstead State Park Lake Phase It
3igLake Phase II
South Carolina Statewide LWQA
Lake Edgar A. Brown Phase I
Tennessee Cove Lake Phase I
Fall Creek Lake Phase I
FY 1990 Awards
AMOUNT ($)
Alabama Weiss Reservoir Phase I 100,000
West Point Lake Phase I 100,000
Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Ala.) LWQA 10,000
Florida LakeLawne Phase I 100.000
Georgia West Point Lake Phase I 100,000
LakeLanier Phase! 100,000
Lake Walter F. George Phase I 100,000
Mississippi Statewide LWQA 100,000
North Carolina High Rock Lake Phase I 100,000
Long Lake Phase I 100,000
Big Lake Phase II 100.000
Eastern Band of Cherokees (N.C.) LWQA 15,000
South Carolina LakeBowen Phase I 100,000
Goose Creek Reservoir Phase I 25,200
Tennessee Statewide LWQA 100,000
TOTAL $1,250.200
12
-------
Region V
R»ion V works with many State, Federal,
id local organizations—including several
hippewa Indian Tribes— in fulfilling the
mandates of the Clean Lakes Program. The Region
co-sponsored a third annual national meeting for
State lake managers and also participated in annual
State lake association conferences. The Region's ac-
tivities during Fiscal Year 1990 included:
Q Co-sponsoring the National State Lake
Managers/Nonpoint Source Conference
held in Chicago;
Q Participating in annual conferences
convened by the Illinois Lake Management
Association, the Indiana Lake Management
Association, the Michigan Lakes and
Streams Association, the Ohio Lake
Management Society, and the Michigan
Lake Management Society;
3 Continuing to work with State agencies, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and local
organizations to implement the Sauk Lake
Demonstration Project in Minnesota;
3 Working with the Red Lake, White Earth,
and Mille Lacs Bands of the Minnesota
* Success Story
• Regional Office
Chippewa Indian Tribes to develop
laboratory quality assurance programs for
their LWQAs; and
-1 Managing 86 Clean Lakes grants and
beginning to close out several.
13
-------
Region V — Active Projects
PROJECT
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
STATE
Illinois Statewide LWQA
LakePitlsfield Phase!
Lake Springfield Phase II
Skokie Lagoons Phased
HerrickLake Phase!
Charleston Side Channel Phase!
McCullom Lake Phase!
Lake Pickneyville Phase I
Frank Molten State Park Lakes Phase III
Indiana Statewide LWQA
Skinner Lake Phase II
Michigan Statewide LWQA
Lake Lansing Phase III
Elk River Chain of Lakes Phase!
Lake Mitchell Phase!
Minnesota Statewide LWQA
Big Stone Lake Phased
Clearwater Chain of Lakes Phase II
Chippewa Tribe Lakes (Minn.) Phase!
Golden Lake Phased
LakeRipley Phase I
Tanner's Lake Phase I
Medicine Lake Phase II
Moore Lake Phase II
LakeRiley Phase II
Upper & Lower Prior Lakes Phase I
Sauk River Chain of Lakes Phase!
Big Kandiyohi Lake Phase I
French Lake Phase!
East Side Lake Phase!
Florence Lake Phase I
Long Lake Phase I
Aligamet Lake Phase I
Bemidji/lrving Lakes Phase!
Grove Lake Phase!
Sallie/Detroil Lakes Phase I
Sauk Lake Phase!
White Earth Chippewa Tribe (Minn.) LWQA
Red Lake Chippewa Tribe (Minn.) LWQA
Mille Lacs Chippewa Tribe (Minn.) LWQA
Bay River Chain of Lakes (Minn.) Phase I
Ohio Statewide LWQA
Winton Lake Phase I
SippoLake Phase I
Wisconsin Statewide LWQA
LakeComus Phased
Delavan Lake Phase II
Lake Henry Phased
LakeNoquebay Phased
Milwaukee Urban Lakes Phase II
Upper Willow Reservoir .Phased
Bass Lake Phase!
Pickerel/Crane Lakes Phase I
Wind Lake Phase!
8 Lakes Phase III
14
-------
Region V — FY 1990 Awards
STATE
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
TOTAL
PROJECT
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMOUNT (I)
Chicago Park Lagoons Phase I 50,000
Sherman Park Lagoon Phase II 100,000
Skokie Lagoons Phase II 430,341
East & West Paris Lakes Phase! 40,000
Lake Lou Yeager Phase I 50,000
Portage Lake Phase! 30,000
Marble-Coldwater Chain of Lakes .... Phased 115,000
East & West Glen Lakes Phase I 27,000
HamlinLake Phase I 47,250
HigginsLake Phase I 24,760
Morrison Lake Phase II 125.306
Long Year Lake Phase I 50,000
Koronis-Rice Lakes Phase! 50,000
Dillon Reservoir Phase I 50,000
Indian Lake Phase I! 165,000
Twin Lakes Phase III 124,950
Fish Lake Phase I 15,950
DelavanLake Phase II 468,000
Bass Lake Phase I 10,993
$1,974.550
Success Story: Lake
McCarrons, Minnesota
Lake McCarrons, an 81-acre lake in suburban St.
Paul, had been suffering from algal blooms, weed
growth, low hypoHmnetic dissolved oxygen, exces-
sive nutrient loadings from the watershed and lake
sediments, and excessive sediment deposition in the
lakebed. To combat these problems, a Phase I study
of the lake recommended construction of a sedimen-
tation basin, six small wetland treatment chambers,
and storm sewer sump to trap sediment. The Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency and the City of
Roseville used a $194,316 Phase II Clean Lakes
award to implement those recommendations.
Post-implementation evaluation of the treatment
system by the Metropolitan Council of the Twin
Cities showed encouraging results. Although the
lake's water quality and trophic state did not
change, the detention system and wetland treat-
ment chambers did reduce loadings of total
phosphorus and total dissolved phosphorus, as
well as several other pollutants.
Analyses of 21 storms that occurred from Sep-
tember 1986 to June 1988 showed that the treatment
system had cut total phosphorus loadings 78 per-
cent from pre-treatment levels. Total dissolved
phosphorus had dropped 53 percent; total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, 85 percent; total volatile and suspended
solids, 94 percent each; chemical oxygen demand,
93 percent; nitrate, 63 percent; total nitrogen, 83
percent; and total lead, 90 percent.
IS
-------
Region VI
The first Native American Indian Clean
Lakes project in Region VI began during
Fiscal Year 1990. Three national demonstra-
tion projects are also among the active projects man-
aged by Region VI. This year the Clean Lakes
Program in the Region included the following activ-
ities:
Q Guiding the States' preparation of project
applications to ensure high quality,
competitive applications;
Q Visiting Oklahoma's Lake Hefner to
observe LORAN bathymetric mapping
techniques and lake monitoring procedures;
Q Visiting Oklahoma's Northeast Lake to see
part of the watershed, and observe
dredging operations and the final stages of
the project;
Q Conducting technical reviews, making
funding recommendations, and awarding
funds for six new Clean Lakes projects;
Acomita Lake
*
NEW MEXICO
* Success Story
• Regional Office
O Managing 19 active projects, including
three national demonstration projects, to
ensure that workplan requirements and
grant conditions were met; and
G Beginning the first Native American Tribes
Clean Lakes project in the Region by
awarding funds for a Phase II project to the
Pueblo of Acoma to restore Acomita Lake.
16
-------
Region VI — Active Projects
FY 1990 Awards
Pueblo of Acoma
(New Mex.)
LakeAcomita Phased
Meadow Lake Phase I
Lake Eufaula Phase I
LakeChichasha Phase!
Statewide LWQA
Lake Worth* Phased
91,330
1,723,706
TOTAL
•Demonstration project
STATE
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
PROJECT
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Beaver Lake* Phase!
City Lakes Phase II
Statewide LWQA
LakeMcGaffey Phase!
Statewide LWQA
Northeast Lake Phase II
Lake Lawtonka Phase II
Lake Ellsworth Phase I
Lake Hefner Phase I
Grand Lake o' the Cherokees Phase I
Lake Houston* Phase I
Lake Worth* Phase)
Town Lake Phase 1
AMOUNT <$)
455.454
62,730
100,000
93,286
Success Story: Acomita Lake,
Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico
Acomita Lake is a 70-acre reservoir with a 17-square-
mile watershed located on the Pueblo of Acoma
about 20 miles west of Grants, New Mexico. Com-
pleted in 1939, the dam that created the reservoir
was originally built to store irrigation water diverted
from the Rio San Jose. In 1961, the Pueblo began
stocking rainbow trout, and the lake was managed
for put-and-take fishing as well as irrigation water
storage.
When the lake's water quality deteriorated to the
point that it could no longer sustain a trout fishery,
the lake was drained. A Phase I-equivalent study
concluded that the lake was suffering from exces-
sive sedimentation and nutrient loading from the
Rio San Jose, which was receiving treated waste-
water discharges from the town of Grants. To solve
the problem, the Acoma Pueblo used EPA funds to
build sediment retaining structures in the lake wa-
tershed in 1985.
Building on this success, the Pueblo of Acoma
was given State status in August 1990—one of the
first Tribes in the program's history to be so desig-
nated—and became eligible for Clean Lakes
assistance, which was awarded in September 1990.
The Tribe received funding for a Phase II project
that includes designing a constructed wetlands in
the upper reach of the reservoir, dredging the reser-
voir to remove accumulated sediments and
increase depth, and instituting restorative mea-
sures. The latter are designed to help the lake once
again become a high quality fishery. To that end,
the Clean Lakes project is being coordinated with a
Bureau of Native American Affairs dam restoration
project.
17
-------
Region VII
The Clean Lakes Program in Region VII
worked with all its States and many citizen
groups to meet the needs of the Region's
lake resources. Active management of ongoing pro-
jects and outreach to begin new projects and volun-
teer monitoring programs took priority. In addition
to developing guidelines for State applications for
Clean Lakes funds, the Region began tracking these
projects with a computerized system. Other Fiscal
Year 1990 activities included:
Q Preparing detailed regional guidelines for
fiscal year 1990 application development to
ensure that grant applications would be
consistent with regulations and program
intentions. These guidelines included
checklists to rate project merit and application
quality and completeness so applications
could be ranked for funding;
Q Awarding supplemental funding for Iowa's
LWQA to develop and implement a
comprehensive monitoring strategy
(including volunteers) for glacial lakes in
northwestern Iowa;
Q Announcing FY 1990 awards with press
conferences and site tours. Thes? events not
only generated positive publicity for the
Clean Lakes Program, EPA, States, and local
project sponsors, but also kicked off the
information and education activities for each
project;
Q Actively managing 15 ongoing Clean Lakes
projects, including visits to 10 projects, and
quarterly reviews of each project for
compliance with scheduled woikplans and
grant conditions;
Q Implementing a Clean Lakes Program
computerized tracking system;
Q Planning and providing funding for two
conferences slated for 1991: a regional lake
management conference in Des Moines
June 10-12; and "Water Quality Issues of
the 1990s" sessions for the April conference
of the Kansas Water Pollution Control
Association.
* Success Story
• Regional Office
Q Encouraging initiation of volunteer
monitoring programs throughout the region.
These included programs for Cedar Rapids
and Corydon Lake, Iowa; the Iowa Great
Lakes; and areas in Nebraska and Missouri. In
addition, the Region encouraged
incorporation of citizen monitoring
components into new Clean Lakes projects;
J Providing guidance and funding for the
video, "Lake Restoration: an Investment That
Pays Off," by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources;
-I Adding lake management and wetlands
components to FY 1991 State-EPA agreements,
and working with wetlands and nonpoint
source program staffs to add wetlands and
nonpoint source components to Clean Lakes
projects; and
Q Participating in a field trial of a Soil
Conservation Service procedure to evaluate
the trophic condition of waterbodies based
on assessments of watershed activities and
management alternatives.
Success Story: Iowa's Clean
Lakes Program
The Clean Lakes Program has been a key factor in
improving the water quality of Iowa's lakes. In the
past decade, over $6 million of Clean Lakes Program
funding has been matched by State and local funds
18
-------
Region VII — Active Projects
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
TOTAL
PROJECT
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Statewide LWQA
Ahquabi Lake Phase II
Black Hawk Lake Phase II
Iowa Lake Phase I
Pine Lakes Phase I
Swan Lake Phase II
Union Grove Lake Phase II
Statewide LWQA
Lone Star Lake Phase II
Statewide LWQA
Springfork Lake Phase I
Swope Park Lake Phase II
Statewide LWQA
Lower Elkhorn Lakes Phase I
Salt Valley Lakes Phase I
FY 1990 Awards
AMOUNT ($)
Statewide LWQA 4.500
Little Wall Lake Phase I 34,118
Lake Ahquabi Phased 24,000
Lake Miami Phase I 15,925
Herington Reservoir Phase I 73,432
Ford County Lake Phase II 231,825
Lamar Lake Phase I 68,000
Jacomo/Prairie Lee Lakes Phase I 100,000
RothwellLake Phase I 47,000
Papio Lakes Phase I 77,000
Summit Lake Phase I 26,600
$702,400
to develop and/or implement plans to protect and
restore 13 Iowa lakes. The projects have leveraged
funds from other sources to ensure cost-effective
water quality protection and improvement, demon-
strated better ways to prevent pollution and restore
lakes, and generated considerable local interest and
support for lake restoration and management. Two
of Iowa's successful Clean Lakes projects, Swan
Lake and Green Valley Lake, are highlighted here.
SWAN LAKE
Turbidity, sedimentation, nuisance algal blooms,
and frequent winter fishkills plagued Swan Lake, a
130-acre lake in west central Iowa—until a protec-
tion and restoration plan by the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources and Carroll County was devel-
oped and implemented with the help of Clean Lakes
Program funding.
To begin the $601,500 Phase II renovation proj-
ect, Swan Lake was drained in 1982. The lake was
deepened and dredged material was placed in the
upper end to create a wetland. The restored lake
was reduced to 116 acres and deepened from a
maximum of 6 feet to a maximum of 15 feet (an av-
erage of 4 to 6 feet). While the lake was drained, an
aeration system and 72 units of fish habitat were in-
stalled. The entire shoreline was riprapped and 10
fishing jetties were built to increase water depth
near the shore, improve shore angling areas, and re-
duce wind-generated sediment suspension. In
19
-------
addition, two new water sources—a well and a tile
line—were installed. In 1985, the lake was stocked
with sport fish.
The project also included measures to minimi/e
future nonpoint source pollution on the lake. These
included construction of diversion terraces to con-
trol erosion and runoff, establishment of grassed
waterways, and the setting aside of highly erodible
lands under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Conservation Reserve Program.
The project has significantly reduced Swan
Lake's sedimentation and turbidity, and ensured
survival of the lake's fish populations. These im-
provements in turn have produced significant
social and economic benefits for the area surround-
ing the lake. In 1990, visits to Swan Lake State Park
were up 170 percent from the number of visits in
1986, and camping in the park more than doubled
Fishing use—and success—dramatically increased following restora 'ion
of Swan Lake, which now has the highest standing stock oflargemouih
bass of any Iowa state lake surveyed.
during the same period. Between 1982 and 1989,
the number of anglers at the lake increased more
than sevenfold, and the catch increased fivefold be-
tween 1986 and 1990. The lake now has the largest
standing stock of largemouth bass of any State lake
surveyed in Iowa.
Moreover, the increase in angling value alone
offset the project's cost in only two years. From
1987 through 1990, the value of fishing at Swan
Lake exceeded $1.75 million. Between 1986 and
1990, concession income at the park quadrupled;
camping receipts in 1990 were 2.5 times higher than
those of 1986.
Swan Lake angling value, 1986-1990.
Millions
2
Frequent fishkills plagued both Swan and Green Valley lakes
before restoration.
1990
Project Cost
Angling Value
20
-------
GREEN VALLEY LAKE
Green Valley Lake, a 428-acre lake built in 1952 in
south central Iowa, suffered from numerous water
quality problems. Watershed erosion delivered sedi-
ment and nutrients to the lake, resulting in
sedimentation, nuisance blue-green algal blooms,
odors, dissolved oxygen deficiencies, fishkills, and
fishery degradation.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources used
$368,484 of a Clean Lakes award plus matching
State and local funds to implement a two-part pro-
gram to reduce the amount of eroded soil and
associated nutrients entering the lake.
With the cooperation of the Union County Soil
Conservation District and funds from the Iowa De-
partment of Agriculture and Land Stewardship and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Depart-
ment first implemented best management practices
(BMPs) in the agricultural watershed surrounding
the lake. Landowners paid 25 percent of the costs.
Limestone aggregate dikes were then built in the
two major arms of the lake to retard flow so that
sediment and nutrient loading to the lake would
decline. The dikes were effective sediment and nu-
trient traps, and also helped retard resuspension of
sediment in the upper arms of the lake.
The project decreased sediment delivery to
Green Valley Lake by half. Water quality improved
significantly: total phosphorus, ammonia, and or-
ganic nitrogen concentrations all decreased; chloro-
phyll a concentrations dropped fourfold; blue-
green algae abundance decreased 20-fold; and fish
growth rates increased. These changes brought a
positive response from the public: fishing hours in-
creased 1.5-fold, and swimming activity by nearly
fivefold.
GREEN VALLEY LAKE
U.S. 34
State 25
2.5 miles
Shelter-"""^ -\
. . . •Picnic \
Latrine *n* Latrine
Latrine
oat Ramp
Beach &
Bathhouse
/^Shelter
Camping \pOt~;—-Picnic
NLatrine Area
Shower & Toi et
21
-------
Region VIII
Seven new Qean Lakes projects began in Re-
gion VIII during Fiscal Year 1990, four of
them LWQA awards to Native American In-
dian Tribes. As an integral component of managing
11 active projects, the Region visited project sites to
verify progress. In addition, management of the
Clean Lakes Program in Region VIII included the
following activities:
Q Conducting technical reviews a nd making
funding recommendations for all Clean
Lakes Program applications;
Q Awarding financial assistance for seven
new Clean Lakes Program projects and one
continuing research program;
Q Awarding four LWQA grants to Native
American Indian Tribes;
Q Managing 11 active projects to ensure that
interim goals were being accomplished,
time requirements met, and special grant
conditions followed; and
Q Visiting project sites to verify progress.
Success Story: Deer Creek
Reservoir, Utah
Deer Creek Reservoir, a 2,965-acre impoundment in
northern Utah, has long been an important source of
hydroelectric power and drinking and irrigation
water, as well as a significant recreational and
wildlife area for the region. However, until recently
the reservoir's water quality was adversely affected
by both point and nonpoint pollution sources, re-
sulting in algal blooms and high nutrient levels. A
Phase I Clean Lakes study determined that the total
annual phosphorus load needed to be reduced by 45
percent—about 11,149 kg per year—to reduce the
rate of eutrophication in the reservoi r.
The Phase I study identified several sources of
the phosphorus: wastewater treatment facilities,
dairies and feedlots, erosion, fish hatcheries, urban
stormwater runoff, irrigation practices, and urban
development. The dairy farmers and feedlots alone
-*r Success Story
• Regional Office
Percent of Sum Important Species Index by Group In
Deer Creek Net Plankton.
100
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
•ICynanophyta EElChlorophya E3 Diatoms
were contributing about 3,000 kg per year, and
were targeted for Phase II Clean Lakes assistance
awarded in 1985.
The Phase II program funding enabled the dairy
farmers to institute best management practices
such as piping open ditches and streams through
corrals and pastures, installing off-stream watering
troughs, building manure bunkers to contain
wastes, installing waste ponds with systems for liq-
uid waste application, and fencing stream corridors
to prevent cattle from entering the water.
22
-------
Region VIII — Active Projects
STATE PROJECT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Colorado Statewide LWQA
Sloan Lake Phase II
Bear Creek Reservoir Phase I
North Dakota Blue-green algae Special Study
South Dakota Statewide LWQA
Big Stone Lake Phase II
Lake Herman Phase II
Utah Statewide LWQA
Deer Creek Reservoir Phase II
Scofield Reservoir Phase II
Pineview Reservoir Phase I
FY 1990 Awards
AMOUNT ($)
Southern Ute Tribe (Colo.) LWQA 7,200
Blackfeet Tribe (Mont.) LWQA 36,000
Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe (N.Dak.) LWQA 17,365
South Dakota Punished Woman's Lake Phase II 200,000
Campbell Lake Phase I 100,000
Hendricks Lake Phase I 100.000
Swan Lake Phase I 100,000
Utah East Canyon Reservoir Phase I 100,000
Utah Lake Phase I 100,000
Salem Lake Phase I 35,000
Wind River Tribe (Wyom.) LWQA 74,936
TOTAL $805,501
Deer Creek Reservoir Average TSI Values.
60
55
50
45
i i
40
1980 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
23
-------
Post-implementation loading estimates show that
the Phase II project has reduced phosphorus loading
to the reservoir by 1,000 kg per year. Other major
phosphorus decreases have resulted from the aban-
donment of two wastewater treatment plants,
construction of fish hatchery detention ponds, and
operation of the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. When additional reductions expected from
the filling of a reservoir upstream from Deer Creek
are realized, the original phosphorus reduction goal
of 11,149 kg per year will have been met.
In the meantime, total phosphorus concentra-
tions in the lake have declined over the past few
years, and water quality has improved signifi-
cantly. Algal species composition has shifted away
from blue-green dominance toward a community
dominated by diatoms and green algae, which is in-
dicative of better water quality. In addition, the
overall average trophic state index has declined.
24
-------
Region IX
Work with Native American Indian Tribes
figured prominently in this Region's ac-
tivities during Fiscal Year 1990, with the
Region advising the States and Tribes on applica-
tions that resulted in two new diagnostic/feasibility
studies on Indian lands. Ongoing management of
the Clean Lakes Program in Region IX also included
the following activities:
G Providing guidance to the States and
Native American Indian Tribes in
developing the Clean Lakes project
applications and work programs for the
fiscal year 1990 funding cycle;
Q Managing five ongoing Clean Lakes
projects, including site visits to several;
G Awarding financial assistance to nine new
Clean Lakes projects.
San Francisco
CALIFORNIA
• Regional Office
Region IX — Active Projects
PROJECT
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
STATE
Arizona Statewide LWQA
Roosevelt Lake Phase I
Painted Rocks Lake Phase I
California Statewide LWQA
Nevada Statewide LWQA
FY 1990 Awards
AMOUNT ($)
Arizona Rainbow Lake Phase I 100,000
California Clear Lake Phase I 100,000
Eagle Lake Phase I 96,000
Lake Naciminento Phase I 76,216
Guajome Lake Phase I 90,000
Big Bear Lake Phase I 98,656
Colorado River
Indian Tribes Deer Island and Twelve Mile Lakes . . . Phase I 100,000
Fort Mojave Indian
Tribe Twin Lakes and Long Lake Phase I 100.000
Nevada Cave Rock Lake (Lake Tahoe) Phase II 92,628
TOTAL $853,500
25
-------
Success Story: Colorado River
Tribes' and Fort Mojave
Tribe's Clean Lakes Programs
This year, two Indian Tribes—the Colorado River
and the Fort Mojave—applied for and received sta-
tus as States. The EPA designation enabled the Tribe
to directly receive $200,000 for two Clean Lakes
Phase I projects without having to enter into a sub-
State agreement. Among the first in the program
ever awarded to Native American Indian Tribes,
these awards reflect EPA's Native American policy,
which recognizes Tribal governments as sovereign
for reservation affairs.
To further support the effort, Region IX has es-
tablished a Native American work group to
improve coordination among EPA offices and the
Tribes. In addition, a strong outreach effort by the
Water Management Division's senior staff resulted
in the Tribes' involvement in the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram.
The Tribes will use the awards to conduct Phase
I diagnostic-feasibility studies on four lakes, all in
Arizona. The Colorado River Tribes will focus on
Deer Island Lake and Twelve-Mile Lake, while the
Fort Mojave Tribe will concentrate on Twin and
Long Lakes.
Regional Administrator Daniel W, McGovern (left) and Tribal Chairman
Daniel Eddy, Jr., sign the Colorado River Tribes'historic application for
State status. Photo by Jim Tiffin, Parker Pioneer, Parker, Ariz.
26
-------
Region X
During fiscal year 1990, the Region X Clean
Lakes Program provided financial and
technical support to a wide range of pro-
jects, including activities on small community lakes
as well as major interstate watersheds. Specific ac-
tivities included the following:
Q Approving LWQA grants for three Native
American Tribes;
ZD Funding four new Phase I projects;
U Managing 19 ongoing Clean Lakes projects
and closing out one project;
O Managing a study of a large watershed
extending over three States, with the Lake
Pend Oreille Clean Lakes project in Idaho
at its center;
3 Co-sponsoring the fourth annual
Washington State Lake Protection
Association Conference in Spokane;
* Success Story
• Regional Office
Q Requiring that a total maximum daily
load/wasteload allocation be submitted to
EPA upon completion of all new Phase I
projects;
D Visiting four Clean Lakes projects; and
3 Managing a Phase III study on the
long-term effectiveness of alum treatment.
fep
Early in April 1990, representatives from the Departments of
Ecology and Wildlife and the Water Research Center surveyed
Giffin Lake's algae, which smothered the lake by June.
-------
Region X — Active Projects
STATE PROJECT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Idaho Statewide LWQA
Lake Pend Oreille* Phase I
Oregon Statewide LWQA
Devil's Lake Phased
Sturgeon Lake Phase II
Washington Statewide LWQA
l.ake Fenwick Phase I
GiffinLake Phase I
Green Lake Phase II
Moses Lake Phased
Pine Lake Phased
* section 525 project
FY 1990 Awards
AMOUNT ($)
Idaho Winchester Lake Phase II 167,212
Cocolalla Lake Phase! 56,424
Crystal Springs Phase II 45,000
Nez Perce Tribe (Idaho) LWQA 50,735
Coeurd'Alene Tribe (Idaho) LWQA 90,000
Oregon Devils Lake Phase II 104,127
Sturgeon Lake Phased 30.137
Wamath Tribe LWQA 61,360
Washington American Lake Phase I 100,000
Washington Lakes Phase III 125,000
TOTAL $829,635
Success Story: Giffin Lake,
Washington
Giffin Lake is a prime fishing, naturalist, and water-
fowl area in south central Washington, The lake is
popular with senior citizens and the disabled be-
cause of its easy access, and with bird watchers
because it is adjacent to a State wildlife refuge.
In addition, dairy and croplands are an impor-
tant part of the watershed. With so many users and
visitors, it is no surprise that as weeds grew on the
lake, so did the volume of complaints to the Wash-
ington Department of Wildlife.
In the past, short-term or piecemeal solutions,
such as herbicides, had been used to control the
weeds. But as the situation grew more complex
and the complaints more numerous, the Depart-
28
-------
ment of Wildlife decided to use the comprehensive
approach of the EPA Clean Lakes Program.
The Department of Wildlife realized that the
challenging diversity of the lake's users repre-
sented an opportunity. The Department turned
their complaints into action by including the di-
verse lake interests in an advisory committee that
includes representatives from the South Yakima
Conservation District, the Yakima Farm Bureau,
Drainage Improvement District #12, the Mid-Co-
lumbia Walleye Club, Audubon Society, Washing-
ton State Water Research Center, Yakima County
Senior Information and Assistance Program, and
the Washington Department of Ecology.
Although the Giffin Lake Phase I study is only a
year old, EPA and the Department of Wildlife are
optimistic about its prospects for success because
this Clean Lakes project addresses the social as well
as the biological complexities of the Giffin Lake
community.
29
-------
-------
1
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Regional Clean Lakes Coordinators
Region 1
CT, ME, MA, NH, Rl, VT
Warren Howard
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA - Region I
Room 2103
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Tel: (617)835-3515
Fax: (617} 835-4940
Region II
NJ, NY, PR, VI
Terry Faber (2WM-WSP)
U.S. EPA-Region II
Room 805
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Tel: (212)264-8708
Fax: (212) 264-2194/8100
Region III
DE, DC, Mb, PA, VA, WV
Hank Zygmunt (3WM10)
U.S. EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: (215)597-3429
Fax:(215)597-3359
Region IV
AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
Howard Marshall
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Tel: (404)257-1040
Fax: (404) 347-3269
Region V
IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH, Wl
Tom Davenport (5WQS-TUB)
(Don Roberts)
U.S. EPA - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: (312)886-0209
Fax: (312)886-1420
Region VI
AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
Mike Bira (6VV-QS)
U.S. EPA - Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Tel: (214)655-7140
Fax: (214)655-6490
Region VII
IA, KS, MO, NE
Donna Sefton
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA - Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: (913)551-7500
Fax: (913)551-7765
Region VIII
CO, MT. ND, SD. UT. WY
David Rathke (8WM-WQ)
U.S. EPA - Region VIII
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Tel: (303)330-1574
Fax: (303)330-1647
Region IX
AS, AZ, CA, GU, HI, MP, NV, TT
Wendell Smith (W-3)
U.S. EPA - Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415)744-2018
Fax: (415)484-1078
Region X
AK, ID, OR, WA
Judith Leckrone (WD-139)
U.S. EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206)339-6911
Fax: (206)339-0165/0139
-------
TERRENE
INSTITUTE
100(1 Connecticut Avenue, NTAV.
Suite 802
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-8317
Fax: (202) 466-8554
------- |