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 ------- |