orvallis
nvironme
esearch
aboratory
EVALUATION OF LAKE RESTORATION
.METHODS: PROJECT SELECTION
By Dr. Donald B. Porcella and
Dr. Spencer A. Peterson
Criteria and Assessment Branch
CERL-034
v^/
200 S.W. 35th STREET
CORVALLIS, OR. 97330
^A^^A^^A^
A, A_ A.
-------
EVALUATION OF LAKE RESTORATION
:ME;f^6f)S: PROJECT SELECTION
By Dr. Donald B. Porcella and
Dr. Spencer A. Peterson
Criteria and Assessment Branch
CERL-034
May 1977
-------
THE SELECTION OF SPECIFIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
FOR DETAILED EVALUATION OF
LAKE RESTORATION METHODOLOGY
by
Dr. Donald B. Porcella
and
Dr. Spencer A. Peterson
CorvaTlis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
-------
THE SELECTION OF SPECIFIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FOR DETAILED
EVALUATION OF LAKE RESTORATION METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
Implementation of P.L. 92-500, Sections 314/104(h), (the Clean
Lakes program) is part of a major Federal, State and Local effort to
clean up the Nation's polluted lakes. Under this program, State and
Local governments are encouraged to classify lakes according to their
trophic status, identify problems contributing to a poor trophic status,
and then to design a project which will control the problem sources to
restore or protect water quality of the lakes. Federal grants for these
projects (Demonstration Grants) are awarded through the states and
funded on a 50:50 matching basis to those projects which qualify.
Guidance for the preparation of demonstration grant applications under
the "Clean Lakes Program" is outlined in a recent EPA publication (EPA,
1976).
Most of the lake restoration techniques being employed under the
"Clean Lakes Program" are relatively untested and thus experimental in
nature. Therefore, it will be beneficial to evaluate demonstration
projects which are funded. These evaluations will be administered by
the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory (CERL) and funded as
research grants. Application for these evaluation funds may be made
according to guidelines issued by CERL (Maloney, 1976). The objectives
of the evaluation projects will be 1) to determine the effectiveness of
various techniques to improve the quality (usefulness) of a specific
lake and 2) to compare the relative effectiveness of these techniques in
different lakes. Some lakes will be evaluated in terms of sociological
and economic aspects as well as limnologically. Funding constraints
prohibit detailed evaluations of all demonstration projects; thus a
representative sample will be selected from those which are funded. The
goals of this paper are 1) to describe an experimental design rationale,
and 2) to describe a process by which candidate lakes were selected for
in-depth assessments.
-------
An experimental design was formulated to categorize lake restora-
tion techniques according to the primary mode of treatment (source
control, in-lake control, and problem treatment). This provided a "lake
restoration classification" scheme. Then based on the needs of the
experimental design and the constraint of limiting the number of fund-
able projects (approximately 20), a rating system for selecting candi-
date lakes was devised, and a selection was made. The rationale that
went into the experimental design and the lake selection are described
in the following section.
-------
CATEGORIZATION OF LAKE RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
Relating Lake Response to Manipulations
A variety of techniques have been developed for restoring lake
systems or preventing their degradation (Peterson et al., 1974; Dunst et
al., 1974) (Table 1). These can be broadly grouped into three categories
based on a nutrient-loading concept: input or source control, in-lake
controls, and problem treatment techniques. The first category applies
to inputs of materials such as water, sediments, nutrients, heavy metals,
toxicants, and litter and refuse. The second category includes 1)
morphological effects such as dredging or deepening caused by raising
of the outlet structure; 2) changes in mixing patterns; 3) interruption
of nutrient or metals cycling. The third category tends toward the
treatment of symptoms rather than sources and will likely require continuous
treatment.
Source Controls
Source controls include treatment of inflows by sedimentation ponds
or basins, chemical treatments to remove nutrients or heavy metals, and
the construction of wetlands so that "biological filtration" of materials
carried in streams, runoff, groundwater inflows or point sources (e.g.,
wastewaters and stormwater) occurs. Diversion of inflow is a common
alternative to treatment but requires either makeup water or consequent
increase of residence time and/or decrease in volume. Watershed activities
can be modified and hence materials input modified by the application of
land use restrictions, best land use practices, non-point source control
or treatment, and stream management. Control of activities adjacent to
the lake shore (riparian) are similar in intent to watershed management
but may have more direct influence on lake dynamics. Product modification
or regulation (detergent phosphorus bans, pesticide bans, industrial
product or process bans and/or fines) is an applicable lake restoration
technique but is usually separated in time and space from the effects
being observed and is not considered herein. Also, treatment plant effluent
controls are considered to be covered under other sections of the Law. Thus,
although advanced waste treatment of such effluents might be a part of an
overall plan for lake restoration, that segment of the project would not be
funded under the Clean Lakes program.
-------
Table 1. Classification of Lake Restoration Techniques
I. Source Controls
A. Treatment of inflows
B. Diversion of inflows
C. Watershed management (land uses, practices, nonpoint source
control, regulations and/or treatments).
D. Lake riparian regulation or modification
E. Product modification or regulation
II. In-Lake Controls
A. Dredging
B. Volume changes other than by dredging or compaction of
sediments
C. Nutrient inactivation
D. Dilution/Flushing
E. Flow adjustment
F. Sediment exposure and dessication
G. Lake bottom sealing
H. In-lake sediment leaching
I. Shoreline modification
J. Riparian treatment of lake water
K. Selective discharge
III. Problem Treatment (directed at biological consequences of lake
condition)
A. Physical techniques (harvesting, water level fluctuations,
habitat manipulations)
B. Chemical (algicides, herbicides, piscicides)
C. Biological (predator-prey manipulations, pathological
reactions).
D. Mixing (aeration, mechanical pumps, lake bottom modification)
E. Aeration (add DO; e.g. hypolimnetic aeration)
-------
In-Lake Controls
Some in-lake manipulations are directed primarily at the physical
characteristics of lakes (depth, volume, circulatory patterns) while
others are directed primarily at materials cycling (nutrient regeneration,
organo-metal complex release), but some manipulations affect both categories
at the same time. For example, dredging affects lake morphology by
deepening the lake, but it also involves removal of nutrient rich organic
sediments and aquatic weeds in the dredging of littoral areas. Volume
changes typically result from changes in outlet structures, but changes
in inflow or outflow could also result in volume changes, especially for
reservoirs.
Nutrient inactivation precipitates water column nutrients to the
sediment phase. Some "sealing" of the sediments can result from the
application of precipitants. Dilution with high quality water and
subsequent flushing of material through the lake system can be effective
in reducing in lake problems. Flow adjustments are a special subcase of
dilution/flushing and result from changes in lake volume which in turn
require makeup flows to maintain satisfactory lake residence time or
lake volume for downstream or riparian uses.
Measures directed at sediments as a source (at least seasonally) of
recycled materials to the water column include sediment exposure and
dessication, lake bottom sealing, and leaching of sediments in situ.
Exposure and dessication may be a prelude to dredging; i.e. drying of
sediments after drawdown followed by bulldozing has similar effects to
dredging, since volume changes and removal of sediments and associated
materials occur.
Shoreline modification includes riprap, breakwaters, and diking of
bays which are intended to prevent shoreline erosion or to minimize the
shoreline sinuosity effects on lake surface area, e.g. littoral productivity,
evaporation surfaces, "dead volumes" (do not mix with lake), etc. This
technique does not include riparian control activities.
-------
Treatment of lake water, directed at a specific water mass, can be
a reasonable alternative to total lake treatment for inactivation (preci-
pitation) of specific materials. Similarly, selective discharge is
directed at a specific water mass (e.g. hypolimnetic discharge to downstream
users).
It is possible that the cost-effectiveness of most of these in-lake
manipulations can be improved by selective application to parts of the
lake system. For example, dredging can be applied to littoral or pelagic
sediments depending on the lake problem and the purposes of the manipula-
tions; nutrient inactivation can be applied to hypolimnetic waters only,
so that chemical costs are minimized.
Problem Treatment
These controls are palliative but may be useful as stopgap measures
in cases where cost precludes more fundamental changes or as part of a
more extensive treatment. They can be divided into physical, chemical,
and biological techniques on the basis of how they are applied to the
lake system. In most cases the use of palliative methods is restricted
for lake restoration under the PL 92-500 Matching Grants program (Section
314). In most instances application for funds to harvest aquatic plants,
treat with algicides or herbicides, or to aerate would be acceptable only
as part of a more comprehensive plan (multi-manipulation). Mixing by
aeration or pumps may improve lakes which have poor water quality caused
by the development of anaerobic conditions typically resulting from
vertical or horizontal stagnation. Addition of oxygen, usually by
hypolimnetic aeration, can also ameliorate the effects of anaerobic
conditions, i.e. nutrient regeneration from sediments.
-------
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF LAKE RESTORATION EVALUATIONS PHASE
Funded Projects
As of September, 1976, 49 proposals concerning 57 lakes had been
funded (awarded or pending award) by the USEPA as well as 4 specific
evaluation projects for 5 of the demonstration lakes. For those proposals
containing data on the lakes involved, a log-probability graph of area
and volume shows that a wide variety of morphological types have been
included in the set of funded projects (Figure 1).
The number of approaches shown in Table 2 indicates the variety of
problems and unique characteristics of the various lakes and their
basins. The particular approach selected for each demonstration reflects
the availability of local resources, understanding of the limnology of
the specific lake system, and the specific uses intended for the lake.
A minimal amount of limnological data will be collected on all of
these demonstration projects (Table 3) as part of the demonstration.
These data will provide some measures of the before and after effects of
lake restoration, but in order to understand the actual cause and effect
relationship (i.e. to achieve the two objectives stated in the Introduction),
additional data and analyses are required.
Ideally, one should analyze a set of lake systems having only one
type of manipulation. However, local agencies are concerned primarily
with achieving a measurable degree of restoration, not evaluating the
efficacy of a given manipulation. Thus, funded demonstration grants
cover a broad spectrum of manipulations and combinations of manipulations
(Tables 2 and 4) with an average of 2.3 techniques per lake. Those lakes
receiving only single manipulations are shown in Table 5. Since the
objective of the evaluation program is to provide an overall assessment
of various lake restoration techniques, an evaluation of only the 12
lakes with single manipulations would be insufficient. Thus it is desir-
able to evaluate a number of lakes with multi-manipulation projects as
well as some of the single manipulations.
-------
PROBITS
VARIABLE 2
1.283E 00
7.125E-01
6E
-7.125E-01
-1.425E 00
1 2
11
ill
AREA
R- .9754
2
111
1 1
12
2
2
21
1 1
12
2
11
12
11
21
1 11
1 1
1 1
9.169E-01 3.201E 60 S.£77E 00 7.962E
VARIABLE 1
, acres
1.025E 01
PROBITS
VARIABLE 2
1.268E 00
7.045E-01
6£ 00
«
-7.045E-01
-1.409E 00
VOLUME
•
R« .9670
1 1
1 1
2
1 1
2
2
11
11
11
il
1
2
2
2
1 1
2
11
11
11
11
2.970E 08 5.192E 60 7.660E 60 9.822E 00 1.204E"ei
VARIABLE 1
log,0volume, acre-feet
FIGURE 1. Log-normal distribution of funded lakes in the lake
restoration program based on morphological features.
-------
Table 2. Funded (.iw.irdcd or pendino award) demonstration
projects have <> wide variety of manipulation types
(as designated in Table 1)
Project. state
Demarissocata. HE
llellesley. MA
Cochituate. MA
Boston, MA
Brocton, I1A
Scotia, NY
Islip, NY
Buffalo, NY
East Greenbush, NY
Albany, HY
Albany, NY
Schenectady. HY
Charlottesville, VA
Baltimore, ltd
Tallahassee, FL
Tallahassee, FL
Albert Lea, KN
Chain of Lakes, MN
•
Wheatland, WI
Eau Claire, WI
Uaupaca, VII
Wheatland, III
Maple Run. MN
Vlaseca, MN
Fort Wayne, IN
Marionette, WI
Arden Hills, MN
Minn-St. Paul, MN
Blair, WI
Madison, WI
Mason, MI
Bloomington, MN
Pauls Valley, OK
Lenox, I A
Oelwein. IA
Brookings, SD
Water town, SD
Brookings, SD
Viborg, SD
Lafayette, CA
Oakland, CA
Marlon, CA
Port Orchard, WA
Vancouver, WA
Beavcrton, OK
Spokane, WA
Medical, WA
Moses, KA
Everett, WA
Nit!iients In parentheses are an integral part of a major treatment.
-------
Table 3. Monitoring Requirements Attached to Each Lake
Restoration Demonstration Grant to Provide
Minimum Limnological Evaluations (EPA, 1976)
After the initial ten percent (10%) advance payment of EPA
grant funds, future grant payments will be contingent upon monthly
monitoring at appropriate test sites of the following parameters
1. Ammonia and Nitrate Nitrogen
2. Kjeldahl Nitrogen
3. Total and Dissolved Phosphorus
4. Temperature
5. Transparency (Secchi Disk)
6. Dissolved Oxygen
7. ' Chlorophyll a_
8. pH
9. Alkalinity
10
-------
Table 4. Compilation of project lakes according to
manipulation type of Table 1
Type of
Treatment
IA
IB
1C
ID
Total of
IIA
IIB
IIC
IID
HE
IIP
IIG
IIH
II-I
IIJ
UK
Total of
IIIA
IIIB
me
HID
HIE
Total of
Lakes in treatment type (key from Table 2, Region-Number)
I-3a I-3b I-3c I-5a I-5b II-2 III-l IV-2 V-l V-7 V-ll
VII-2 VIII-1 IX-2 X-l X-4
1-4 II-3a II-3b II-7 III-l V-2a V-4 V-5a V-5b V-8 V-9
V-10 V-12
1-2 II-3a II-3b III-2 IV-1 V-l V-2b V-9 V-ll V-13 V-14
VI-1 VIII-4 IX-3 X-l X-7a X-7b
1-2 V-13 V-16 VIII-4
Source Controls
1-2 I-5a I-5b II-l II-3b V-3 V-6 V-10 V-ll V-13 V-15 V-16
VII-1 VII-2 IX-2 IX-3 X-2 X-3
IX-2
1-2 V-3 V-5a V-5b V-9 IX-1 IX-2
X-l X-3 X-4 X-5
II-3a II-3b V-7 X-2 X-3 X-6
V-4 V-12 V-16
II-3a II-3b II-4 II-5 II-6 II-7 IV-1 V-7 IX-2 X-l X-4
V-15 IX-2
II-l VIII-2 VIII-3a VIII-3b VIII-4 IX-3 X-3 X-4 X-7a
IX-2
in-lake controls
1-2 I-3a I-3b I-3c V-8 V-9 V-10 X-l
1-1 V-16
1-4 III-l IH-2 V-4 V-5a V-7 V-16 IX-2
IX-1
Problem Treatments
Total
in type
16
13
17
4
50
18
1
11
6
3
11
2
0
9
0
1
62
8
0
2
8
1
19
Total of all manipulations 131
-------
Table 5. Lakes receiving only one manipulation
Treatment Lakes (data from Tables 2 and 4) Total in type
IA
IB
1C
ID
IIA
IIB
IIC
IID
HE
IIP
IIG
IIH
II-I
IIJ
UK
IIIA
IIIB
me
HID
HIE
VIII-1
V-2a
V-2b V-14 VI-1 X-7b
V-6 VII-1
X-5
X-6
VIII-2
1-1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
Total 12
12
-------
By classifying the demonstrations into the three "lake restoration
classifications," it is possible to group the many manipulations into
a limited number of similar types and thus to approach the set of lakes
in the manner of an experimental design. The basis for the design
depends on three assumptions: 1) treating manipulations in terms of
their effect is a valid approach, 2) unlike lakes can be standardized
using a mass-balance modeling approach (Vollenweider, 1975; Dillon and
Rigler, 1974; Larsen et al 1975), or a "Lake Quality Index" approach
(Shapiro, 1975; Brezonik, 1976); and 3) the relative quantitative impacts
of the manipulation can be determined.
Assuming that the foregoing approach is valid for the set of lakes
and manipulations that have been funded, the data in Table 4 were handled
as a standard factorial design (Table 6). It can be seen that at least
two manipulation types (source controls, in-lake controls), and the
combination of these two types provide a large sample size; 35 projects
and 41 lakes. This design will be used to develop a set of candidate
lakes suitable for detailed evaluation.
13
-------
Table 6. An experimental design for funded
demonstration projects as of September, 1976*
I
Source Controls
II
In-Lake Controls
III
Problem Treatment
11-2, IV-2, V-l, 1-5(2), 11-3(2), II-7
I. Source V-2(2), V-14, IV-1, V-4, V-5(2), V-ll,
Controls VI-1, VIII-1, X-7(2) V-12, V-13, VII-2,
VIII-4, IX-3, X-4
1-3(3), 1-4, III-l
III-2, V-8
8 Projects,10 Lakes 13 Projects, 16 Lakes 5 Projects, 7 Lakes
II. In-Lake
Controls
II-l, II-4, II-5, II-6,
V-3, V-6, V-15, VII-1,
VIII-2, VIII-3(2), X-2,
X-3, X-5, X-6
14 Projects, 15 Lakes
IX-1
1 Project, 1 Lake
III.
Problem
Treatment
1-1
1 Project, 1 Lake
1,11.Source
& In-Lake
Controls
1-2, V-7, V-9, V-10
V-16, IX-2, X-l
7 Projects. 7 Lakes
*Number in parenthesis is number of lakes in project.
14
-------
SELECTION OF LAKES FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
All lake restoration projects funded (awarded or pending award) as
of September 1976 were rated and ranked in priority order. Numerical
'ratings were assigned according to 1) the quality of the baseline data
available, 2) the length of time and frequency of baseline data collection,
3) the probability of measurable short term response, 4) the potential
for quantification of the changes of phosphorus loading on a short and
long term basis and 5) the number of manipulations proposed (Table 7).
1) Quality of baseline data refers to the type of measurements
which have been made on the lake and to what degree these data might be
useful in assessing the changes in lake quality as a result of the
proposed restoration. In general the information most useful would
include Secchi disk transparency; temperature; dissolved oxygen; algal
speciation and/or chlorophyll a^ levels; macrophyte distribution, speciation,
and density; benthos and fish data; bacterial levels and sediment nutrient
concentrations. All will assist the researcher in evaluating the effects
of the lake restoration manipulation. However, central to these evaluations
is the overriding need to develop accurate data on input-output nutrient
loading and in-lake nutrient concentrations. Phosphorus is the one
thread of commonality woven throughout the variety of restoration
projects being proposed.
2) Length of time and frequency of data collection are important to
an evaluation of lake quality change because these data represent a
baseline from which to measure changes. This baseline ideally should
cover a year or more in time and should have been gathered with adequate
frequency to depict the condition of the lake over a reasonable period
of time (e.g. an annual cycle). This is of particular importance during
the "growing season" or during the period when the nuisance problem is
most prevalent. A great amount of data may have been collected on some
lakes over a short period of time or sporadically over a long period of
time. While both types of data are valuable in some respects, they are
of limited use to the researcher attempting to assess trends of change
in the lake due to a restoration manipulation.
15
-------
Table 7. Lake Ranking Parameters and Combining Formula To
Select Candidate Lakes For Full-Scale Evaluations
I Relative Quality of Baseline Data =
Measured
Parameters pts
Secchi Disk
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Nutrients (lake)
Nutrients (Inlet-Outlet)
Algae or Chloro.
Macrophytes
Sediment Measurements
Benthos & Fish
Bacteria
Minimal
(2)
X
X
X
Poor
(4)
X
X
X
X
Fair
(6)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Good
(8)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Excellent
(10)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
II Time Frame of Baseline Observations = X-
Time (yrs)
points
<0.5 or sporadic
0.5-1.0
1-3
4-7
8-10
III Prediction of Time Required to Demonstrate Measurable Change = X3
Time (yrs)
points
>2
1-2
0
5
10
IV Estimated Potential for Measurable Change in Phosphorus Content of the Lake (Less than 2 years) =
Percent Reduction of Phosphorus in the Lake points
60-100
40-60
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
10
8
6
4
2
0
V Estimated Potential for Measurable Change in Phosphorus Content of the Lake (Greater than 2 years)
Percent Reduction of Phosphorus in the Lake
points
60-100
40-60
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
VI Complexity of Manipulations in the Proposed Treatment Technique = k
Number of Manipulations Proposed
10
8
6
4
2
0
Weighting factor (k)
1
2
3
4
>5
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.05
Formula for Combining Lake Ranking Parameter:
where Y = weighted points (50 max)
Y = 1/3 (2X1 + X2) + 2X3 + k(X4 + Xg)
-------
3) Probability of measurable short term response refers to the
time frame within which it is estimated that a lake will show signifi-
cant response (change in lake quality) as a result of the lake restor-
ation technique applied. This is a factor based on literature and the
experience of CERL staffers familiar with lake restoration techniques.
In order to be practical, it was decided that a positive, measurable
change must occur within two years of the lake restoration.
4) The potential for quantification of the changes of phosphorus
loading on a short and long term basis represents an attempt to assess
all the projects in terms of a single variable. Phosphorus was used
since it is the most common limiting nutrient and usually the primary
target of lake restoration. In cases where changes in phosphorus
loading as a result of manipulation might be measured with ease, relative
to other lakes, those lakes would receive a higher rating in this
category.
5) The number of manipulations in a multi-manipulation treatment
technique becomes important in evaluating effectiveness of the lake
restoration project. As the number of manipulations increases, it
becomes more difficult to attribute success or failure of a project
proportionally to each of the manipulations. This becomes an even more
complex problem when one attempts to meet the second objective of the
evaluation—comparison of the relative effectiveness of various techniques
in different lakes. Therefore, as the number of manipulations on a
given lake increases, the usefulness of the demonstration in terms of
evaluating a specific treatment technique decreases, and it is rated
lower.
Ranking the lake projects by this system resulted in a priority
list of lakes falling into the three basic categories of the experi-
mental design (Source Controls, In-lake Controls, and Problem Treat-
ment). The highest ranking projects on the list were grouped according
to the experimental design. Unfortunately, there were too many projects
of some types (notably source control and dredging) in given blocks of
the experimental design. Therefore, some projects in these blocks were
eliminated and the next highest ranking project added until the desirable
17
-------
mix of projects consistent with the experimental design was achieved.
The resultant list of 18* candidate evaluation projects is shown in
Table 8. The same lakes are shown in Table 9 to indicate their position
within the experimental design. Figure 2 shows that the subset of
candidate lake projects is representative of the entire set of funded
projects in terms of their area and volume (compare to Figure 1).
*18 projects were considered optional at this date to allow for additions
of desirable projects at a later date to reach the goal of approximately
20 evaluations.
18
-------
Table 8. Candidate Evaluation Projects
REGION
II
II
III
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VII
IX
X
X
X
X
X
LAKE
Collins Park
Ronkonkoma
Loch Raven
Long Lake
White Clay
Mi rror/Shadow
Little Muskego
Lilly
Fountain
Lansing
Clear
Lenox
Lafayette
Long Lake
Liberty
Medical
Moses
Vancouver
STATE
AREA
VOLUME
New York
New York
Maryland
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Michigan
Minnesota
Iowa
California
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
(acres)
54
225
1895
184
240
13/42
506
88
555
450
611
33
125
339
781
167
6800
2600
(acre-fi
432
2700
45000
2208
3200
326/741
7170
415
3330
2486
10682
99
3700
2180
16750
5060
126000
5200
19
-------
PROBITS
UARIABLE 2
1.2Q2E 00
6.675E-01
OE 03
-6.675E-01
-1.335E 00
AREA
R= .9760
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 '
1
1
2.534E 08 4.0-44E 00 5.680E 00 7.189E 00 8 699E 00
UARIABLE 1
log-,garea, acres
PROBITS
UARIABLE 2
1.202E 00
6.675E-01
OE 00
-6.675E-01
-1.335E 00
VOLUME
R* .9558
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.5S5E 00 6.31 IE 00 8.169E 00 9.885E 00 1.160E 01
\ UARIABLE 1
log-|nvolume, acre-feet
FIGURE 2. Log-normal distribution of area and volume
of candidate restoration evaluation lakes.
20
-------
Table 9. Experimental Design of Candidate Lake
Restoration Evaluation Projects
SOURCE
DREDGING
INLAKE NUT.
INACT.
OIL/
FLUSH
OTHER
SOURCE
Fountain, Mn
Ronkonkoma NY
Clear MN *
White Clay WI**
Loch Raven MD
INLAKE
DREDGING
Long MN
Lansing MI
Muskego HI
Collins*
Park NY
Lenox, IA
NUT. INACT.
Mi rror/
Shadow WI*
Liberty WA
Lilly WI*
Medical WA
Lafayette
CA
OIL/FLUSH
Vancouver
WA
Moses WA
OTHER
Long (fcitsap
Co) WA (draw-
down, dredge,
nut. Inact,
NPS)
*Funded
**Aeration also
21
-------
SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
An experimental design was prepared to guide the process of selecting
lakes for evaluation by grouping demonstration projects according to similar
effects. Lake restoration demonstration projects were rated for their
suitability for detailed evaluation. The projects were then ranked, and
candidates for evaluation were selected in accordance with the experimental
design. Thus predominant and apparently practicable restoration techniques
will be evaluated in terms of their effects on single lakes and on their
comparative effects on different lakes.
The next steps in the evaluation program are to develop a means for
comparing different lakes on a limnological basis (e.g. a lake quality
index or a mass balance modeling approach) and development of utility
functions which relate beneficial uses to specific lake quality parameters.
Discussions of these steps will be presented along with data needs,
analytical approaches, and expected results in subsequent papers.
22
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Brezom'k, P. L. 1976. Trophic classifications and trophic state
indices: rationale, progress, prospects. Rept. No. ENV-07-
76-01. University of Florida. Gainesville. 45 p.
Dillon, P. J. and F. H. Rigler. 1974. A test of a simple nutrient
budget model predicting the phosphorus concentration in lake
water. J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 31: 1771-1778.
Dunst, R.C. et al. 1974. Survey of lake rehabilitation techniques
and experiences. Tech. Bull. No. 75. Dept. of National Res.
Madison, Wisconsin. 179 p.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Guidance for the Preparation
of Lake Restoration Grant Applications. Office of Water Planning
and Standards, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. 13 p.
Larsen, D. P., K. W. Malueg, D. W. Schults and R. M. Brice. 1975.
Response of eutrophic Shagawa Lake, Minnesota, USA, to point -
source, phosphorus reduction. Verh Internat. Verein. Limnol.
19: 884-892.
Maloney, T.E. 1976. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Lake Restoration
Demonstration Projects. CERL publication No. 001. Corvallis
Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon 97330. 12 p.
Peterson, J. 0., S. M. Born, R. C. Dunst. 1974. Lake rehabilitation
techniques and experiences,. Wat. Res. Bull., 10: 1228-1245.
Shapiro, J. 1975. The current status of lake trophic indices - a
review. University of Minnesota. In press.
23
-------
Vollenwe1der9 R. A. 1975. Advances in defining critical loading
levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Memorie dell
'Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia "Dott Marco de Marchi"',
Pallanza. Mem. 1st. Ital. Idrobiol., 33: 53-83. '
24
------- |