WWed States Environmental Protection Office of Water Regulations and Standard: Washington, D.C. 20460 &ER& , - ' :;.'•".;^ ' . -,-v^"-V;-;".- ' i . -; • '••• - •--, ' ' ; LE ' . -;:.:• I •' "'' .,., •-. B ES ------- FOREWORD The Clean Lakes Program is a unique government program. It is a direct, uncomplicated approach to controlling pollution, and it actually returns more dollars than the government puts into it. Designed to both protect and restore our Nation's lakes, the Clean Lakes Program operates on a cost-sharing basis, split 50/50 between the Federal Government and those concerned with an individual lake. In the 4 years the program has been in operation, it has spent some $60 million and affected over 200 publicly-owned lakes. But the real story is that, according to a recent study, the Federal money is returning more than $8 in benefits per dollar invested in the project. This booklet was written to tell you how you can use the Clean Lakes Program to either protect or restore your lake. The program is outlined step- by-step, together with an explanation of what you need to do to participate. Regional and State offices are listed with their phone numbers. You will also find a list of EPA Clean Lakes publications that you may find helpful. If this booklet encourages you to find help for a nearby lake, and if it clarifies the procedure for you, then it will have fullfilled its purpose. And ultimately, the purpose of the Clean Lakes Program itself - that of restoring this country's lakes to a useful, enjoyable state and of protecting the integrity of all our Nation's lakes. Joseph A. Krivak Director Criteria and Standards Division ------- -REVIEW NOTICE- This report has been reviewed by the Office of Water Regu- lations and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommen- dations for use. EPA 440/5-80-010 ------- The bass have left your lake, and you can hardly force a boat through the masses of weeds that are taking over. Even in the few open patches of water, you can see down only an inch or two before it becomes dark and murky. What's happening to the clean water your children used to swim in? Your lake is entering another stage in a natural process, that of eutrophication. It has become rich in dissolved nutrients, principally nitrogen and phosphorus, reducing the supply of oxygen; at the same time, sediments are building up on the bottom. Eventually, as nature takes its course, your lake will fill in, becom- ing a wetland, maybe even drying up. Unfortunately, man has unduly hastened this natural evolution. The fertilizers he uses on his crops, the sewage and industrial wastes he sends into Lakes mature naturally; this eutrophica- tion process is illustrated in sequence from left to right (above) to the final step (left). Watershed runoff (at the top of each picture) carries nutrients and sediments to the lake. Nutrients promote the growth of aquatic weeds and algae which eventually die. This decomposing organic material settles along with the sediments and fills in the lake. Man's activities in the watershed accelerate this process. ------- the waterways -- these further enrich our lakes, drastically speeding up their life cycle. The National Eutrophication Survey of the mid-1970's studied 800 of our Nation's publicly owned lakes affected by municipal wastewater dis- charges and found nearly all to be eutrophic. Our 20th century lifestyle has condensed a process that normally takes thousands of years into a few decades. Does that mean your lake is really dying? That you'd better fish and swim and even move elsewhere? Not necessarily. Man-induced eutrophication can be slowed down and controlled. You don't have to watch your lake silt in and decay -- you can clean it up and make it usable once again. You can protect the good quality of your lake. You may have heard of various treatments that restore lakes: applications of chemicals, dredging, weed harvesting. But which is best for your lake? It may be none of the above - the solution may be to keep agricultural chemicals from entering the lake. So how do you find out what will help your lake? Start on page 8 of this booklet with the phone number and address of your regional Environ- mental Protection Agency office. There you will find a person called the "clean lakes coordinator," who can help you restore your lake. WHY EPA? One of EPA's jobs, as spelled out in the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (section 314) is to protect the quality of the country's publicly owned freshwater lakes by controlling sources of pollution affecting them and by restoring lakes which have deteriorated in quality. To accomplish this, EPA administers the Clean Lakes Program to help you clean up your lake and prevent it from returning to a degraded condition. Each State actually sets up and runs its own program. EPA awards cost-sharing financial assistance to the States; they, in turn, may subcontract the work to the local level. Your State administers the Clean Lakes Program as it affects your lake - but it can only operate effectively with input from you and from others interested in safeguarding your State's publicly owned lakes. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: HOW IT WORKS Lakes projects are funded under three mechanisms called cooperative agreements (see the Federal Register, Feb. 5, 1980, Vol. 45, page 7788). It is necessary to understand them if you are to succeed in getting help for your lake. State Lake Classification Study - the first agreement, which must be completed by Jan. 1, 1982, makes your State eligible for the next two. In this survey, the State classifies by trophic condition all its publicly owned fresh- water lakes needing restoration and protection. Then, the State lists these lake projects in order of priority. Funding assistance to complete the survey is available for 70 percent of the cost, to a maximum of $100,000. The second agreement - and the first step in actually restoring your lake - is the Phase 1 Diagnostic-Feasibility Study. This study determines why your lake has problems, evaluates possible solutions, and recommends the most feasible program to protect or restore the lake's quality. Again, funding assist- ance may go to $100,000 or 70 percent of the cost. Once the Phase 1 study has been completed, Phase 2 Implementation ------- puts its recommendations into operation. This is not an automatic step; each phase must be agreed upon and approved. Phase 2 awards require a 50 percent non-Federal share - money or services that must come out of local or State pockets. That doesn't necessarily mean a huge cash outlay; some communities do much of the work with their own equipment, using private citizens and city employees. Scotia, N.Y., solved the costly problem of removing tree stumps from Collins Lake by recruiting local tow truck owners who hooked their rigs to the stumps. While the truckers pulled, community members pushed, and the stumps gave way. Citizens of Scotia, N.Y., combined their National Guard helicopters lifted sand tow trucks with community muscles bags into place to prevent further ero- to pull tree trunks from their lake. They sion at White Clay Lake in Shawano are shown here setting the tow equip- County, Wisconsin. ment in place. One of the more interesting aspects of the Clean Lakes Program is that, at a time when many Federal projects are being criticized for excessive costs, the Clean Lakes Program is returning $8.30 per Federal dollar spent - and that's counting only those benefits that can be measured monetarily. Among them are recreation, property value, flood control, agriculture, public health, and economic development. For example, the Federal share of restoring Annabessacook Lake in Kennebec County, Maine was $497,906. The benefits projected over a 10-year period (and stated in current monetary values) should be $23,246,100. THE FIRST STEPS Now that you have a basic understanding of how the Federal and State Governments can help restore your lake, contact your EPA regional clean lakes coordinator (see page 8). The first thing to ask him is whether your State has a Clean Lakes Pro- gram. Those that currently have programs are listed on pages 9 and 10. The EPA coordinator will give you the name of the State coordinator - and that's the person you really want to talk to, since your State puts its own lake restoration program together. If your State does not have a program, you need further advice from the EPA coordinator. He will be able to tell you what your State is doing - perhaps a program is just beginning. He will also know who to contact on the State level and give you pointers on how to get one started. If your State does have a program, getting your lake high on the State's priority list is the first challenge. States develop their own criteria for ranking lakes projects. This is a good point for citizen input, for you to point out the factors you believe most important to lake restoration in your State. • 3 ------- But how do you go about getting your lake ranked high on that priority list? Begin with the State coordinator, and then motivate those who represent you. Be sure you have a solid plan of action to work from, with valid evidence and convincing arguments. Above all, do not assume that because you have followed the steps out- lined by the State coordinator and filed an application to restore your lake, it will automatically be treated. GOALS TO MEET Beyond getting your lake on your State's priority list, you need to know what makes acceptable applications. National goals have been adopted for managing the Clean Lakes Program. The specific goal for 1980-85 is to protect at least one lake whose water quality is suitable for contact recreation, or to restore a degraded lake to that condition within 25 miles of every major population center. You have a chance of approval even if yours is only one of many lakes near a large city: some areas are so populous that a single lake will not meet user demand. Lake restoration will also be given priority away from the big cities, in tourist areas where seasonal populations are high, and in rural areas with a high potential for economic benefits. In addition to this goal, EPA hopes to accomplish five objectives during the same period. Projects awarded funds will be those which most completely embody these objectives: 1. Maximize publicbenefits. In Yuba County, Calif., a rooted aquatic plant had so infested Ellis Lake as to make most forms of recreation imposs- ible - swimming had been banned since 1969. The plant also threatened the $256 million annual rice industry and the State's waterways. Benefits from the $1,625,000 Clean Lakes award include savings to rice-growers of $1 million annually; prevention of the weed's expansion, a potential savings of millions to the State; recreation use-days jumping from zero to 75,000 per year; and an additional 15 acres of usable land, expected to bring the city tax revenues of $35,000 per year. These are real benefits in great demand by a large group of users - and that's what EPA is looking for in applications for Clean Lakes funds. EPA also prefers approaches that propose continuing protective measures after the project is completed, to insure long-term benefits. Once in place, pollution controls must stay in place and be regularly monitored if they are to succeed. 2. Follow integrated program approach. Because lake pollution comes from a variety of sources - farms, industry, sewage systems, and so forth - it can be attacked by a number of Federal, State, and local programs; asking other agencies to help also makes dollar sense. Another Federal agency and two State agencies are involved in a Clean Lakes grant to restore Broadway Lake in Richland County, S.C. The South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Comm- ission will administer the project. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is developing standards and specifications for sediment control and providing technical and financial assistance. EPA has four roles in the project: Stabilizing critically eroding roadbank areas; constructing 19 sediment debris basins; initiating a public education program; and supporting in-lake restoration. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control is monitoring the water before, during, and after the project is completed. ------- 3. Emphasize watershed management. Because the Clean Lakes Program is concerned primarily with long-term effectiveness, applicants must propose controlling pollutants at their source rather than simply eliminating their symp- toms in the lake. No-till farming and manure collection are examples of agri- culture practices that keep sediment and excessive nutrients out of streams. Manure storage facilities are being constructed in Maine's Cobbossee Watershed, to alleviate nonpoint agriculture runoff to the lakes. Local dairy and poultry farmers, educated to the relationship between manure management and water quality, are almost all building such facilities. As a bonus, the farmers save on purchases of commercial fertilizer because fewer nutrients are lost from the manure. DEGRADATION: A COMPLEX PROBLEM Controlling various nonpoint sources of pollution is the key to protecting or restoring a lake. This is the major thrust of the Clean Lakes Program. Urban areas complying with this objective would probably be more concerned with toxic substances, which at this point are thought to accum- ulate in lake sediments. Runoff from streets and highways often contains high concentrations of heavy metals and petroleum byproducts, including known toxics. Lake Eola in Orlando, Fla., is using Clean Lakes support to divert storm- water from parking lots and streets away from the lake and into percolation ponds and filtration trenches. Stormwater was the major source of pollution for this lake; controlling the stormwater is expected to reduce pollutants by as much as 85 percent. 4. Develop Federal-State-local partnership. Applications must specify the responsibilities of each of these jurisdictions, emphasizing how they will work together to achieve the end result. Cooperation, not duplication of effort, is the key to successfully restoring your lake. 5. Provide for project evaluation. Keeping track of what's happening in your lake, both during and following the project work, is essential not only for understanding your own lake, but for the developing science of lake restor- ation. Providing for the collection of such data is important in your application. Keep these objectives in mind as you prepare your application, particularly for Phase 2 agreements. The Clean Lakes Program is committed to accomplishing them within the 1980-85 period. ------- TOMORROW, YOUR LAKE Since 1976, EPA has awarded $60 million in over 200 projects in 43 States. They include classification grants and 102 awards to study and restore specific lakes. And the projects are succeeding. Lakes are being cleaned and kept that way. Once again, people are swimming in their clean lakes, fishing, and putting a boat into water free of weeds. The monetary benefits of the Clean Lakes projects are currently running at better than $8 per Federal dollar spent -- that's at least $4 per total project dollar. But perhaps more important than the dollar value of these Clean Lakes projects is a phenomenon a recent study describes as "an improvement in community spirit." Citizens are proud of their projects -- the community of Lake Henry in Blair, Wis., held a dedication ceremony for their restored lake. In other cases, membership in lake associations or related groups has risen dramatically. And the Clean Lakes projects apparently spark interest in other environmental activities; one town that applied for and received State aid for lakeside park improvements now is going for a Housing and Urban Development grant to attack urban problems. Satisfaction in working to restore their own lakes under Clean Lakes awards seemsto be universal. As one mayor put it, "It's the best money we've ever spent!" So before you spend it -- or start counting the return on your investment -- talk with your EPA regional clean lakes coordinator. He can be your best help at this point. He will answer your questions, give you advice, and point you in the right direction. ------- ------- REGIONAL OFFICES Region 1 JFK Federal Bldg. Boston, Mass. 02203 617-223-7210 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Ver- mont Region 2 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y 10007 212-264-2525 New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands Region 3 6th & Walnut Sts. Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 215-597-9814 Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia Region 4 345 Courtland St. N.E. Atlanta, Ga. 30308 404-881-4727 Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississ- ippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky Region 5 230 S. Dearborn Chicago, III. 60604 312-353-2000 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota Region 6 1201 Elm St. Dallas, Tex. 75270 214-767-2600 Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico Region 7 324 East 11th St. Kansas City, Mo. 64106 816-374-5493 Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska Region 8 1860 Lincoln St. Denver, Colo. 80295 303-837-3895 Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota Region 9 215 Fremont St. San Francisco, Calif. 94105 415-556-2320 Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Pacific Islands Region 10 1200 Sixth Ave. Seattle, Wash. 98101 206-442-1220 Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington ------- STATE OFFICES * Indicates States participating in the Clean Lakes Program. Alabama Water Improvement Commission State Office Bldg. Montgomery, Ala. 36120 Alaska Dep. of Environ. Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Arizona Dep. of Health Services 17110 W.Adams St. Phoenix, Ariz. 85007 *Dep. Pollution Control & Ecology 8001 National Drive Little Rock, Ark. 72209 * State Water Resources Control Board Sacramento, Calif. 9580I * Colorado Dep. of Health 4210 E. 11th Ave. Denver, Colo. 80220 * Dep. Environmental Protection State Office Bldg. Hartford, Conn. 06115 *Dep. Natural Resources & Environmental Control PO Box 1401 Dover, Del. 19901 Dep. Environmental Services 5010 Overlook Ave. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20032 *Dep. Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Fla. 32301 *Dep. Natural Resources 270 Washington St. SW Atlanta, Ga. 30334 Idaho Dep. of Health & Welfare State House Boise, Idaho 83720 * Illinois EPA 222 Churchill Rd. Springfield, 111. 62706 * Indiana State Board of Health 1330W. Michigan St. Indianapolis, Ind. 56206 *Dep. Environmental Quality Henry A. Wallace State Office Bldg. Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Dep. Health & Environment Forbes Field 740 Topeka, Kans. 66620 *Dep. Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Century Plaza-US 127 S Frankfort, Ky. 40601 * Louisiana Dep. of Natural Resources PO Drawer FC Univ. Station Baton Rouge, La. 70803 *Dep. of Environmental Protection State House Augusta, Me. 04330 * Water Resources Administration Tawes State Off. Bldg. Annapolis, Md. 21301 *Div. Water Pollution Control 110 Tremont St. Boston, Mass. 02108 * Michigan Dep. of Natural Resources Steven T. Mason Bldg. Lansing, Mich. 58926 * Minnesota Pollut. Control Agency 1935 W. County Rd. B-2 Roseville, Minn. 55113 Mississippi Air Water Pollut. Control Commission PO Box 827 Jackson, Miss. 39205 ------- *Dep. Natural Resources PO Box 176 Jefferson City, Mo. 65102 * Montana Dep. of Health & Environmental Science Capitol Station Helena, Mont. 59601 * Dep. Environmental Control PO Box 94877 Lincoln, Neb. 68505 * Div. of Environmental Protection 201 S. Fall St. Carson City, Nev. 89710 *Water Supply & Pollut. Control Div. 105 Loudon Rd. Concord, N.H. 03301 *Dep. of Environmental Protection PO Box CN-029 Trenton, N.J. 08625 Environmental Improvement Agency PO Box 968 Santa Fe, N.M. 87503 *Dep. Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, N.Y 12233 * North Carolina Dep. Natural Resources Environmental Management PO Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 North Dakota Dep. of Health 1200 Missouri Ave. Bismarck, N.D. 58505 *0hio Enviromental Protection Agency 361 E. Broad St. Columbus, Ohio 53216 *Dep. of Pollution Control PO Box 53504 Oklahoma City, Okla. 73105 *Dep. of Environmental Quality PO Box 1760 Portland, Ore. 97207 *Dep. of Environmental Resources PO Box 1467 Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board PO Box 11488 San Juan, P.R. 00916 Rhode Island Dep. Health State Office Bldg. Providence, R.I. 02908 ""Dep. of Health & Environmental Control 2600 Bull St. Columbia, S.C. 29205 * South Dakota Dep. of Water & Natural Resources Joe Foss Blvd. Pierre, S.D. 57501 *Div. Water Quality Control 621 Cordell Hull Bldg. Nashville, Tenn. 37219 * Texas Water Resources Dep. PO Box 13087 Capitol Sta. Austin, Tex. 78711 *Div. of Environmental Health PO Box 2500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 * Environmental Conservation Agency State Office Bldg. Montpelier, Vt. 05602 * State Water Control Board PO Box 11143 Richmond, Va. 23230 *Washington Dep. of Ecology PO Box 829 Olympia, Wash. 98504 10 ------- PUBLICATIONS The following publications may be obtained from your regional EPA office or, in the case of Clean Lakes and Us and Our Nation's Lakes, at minimal cost from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Clean Lakes and Us. 1979. Prepared by Environ. Resour. Unit, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, for the U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. EPA 4407 5-79-021. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Price: $1.20. Cooperative agreements for protecting and restoring publicly owned freshwater lakes: Final rule. 1980. Federal Register 45 (25):7788 (Feb. 5). (40 CFR Part 35). Economic Benefits of the Clean Lakes Program. 1980. Prepared by JACA Corp., Fort Washington, Pa., for the U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. EPA Clean Lakes Program Guidance Manual. 1980. Off. Water Regulations Standards. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, D.C. Horwitz, E. 1980. Our Nation's Lakes. Off. Water Regulations Standards. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, D.C. Lake Restoration. 1979. Proceedings of a national conference, August 22-24, 1978. Minneapolis, Minn. EPA 440/5-79-001. Off. Water Planning Standards. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, D.C. Reckhow, K.H. 1979. Quantitative Techniques for the Assessment of Lake Quality. EPA 440/5-79-015. Off. Water Planning Standards. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, D.C. STATE OFFICES (continued) West Virginia Dep. Natural Resources 1201 Greenbrier St. Charleston, W.Va,25311 'Wisconsin Dep. of Natural Resources PO Box 450 Madison, Wis. 53701 fDep. of Environmental Quality Hathaway Blvd. Cheyenne, Wyo. 82002 11 ------- |