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
------- |