&EPA
United Statea
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office yf Water iPA-440/B-8i^P03
Rea.ylet.lon9 and Standartfa Peceinber 1989
Waanlnojen. O.C. 80400
Water
Clean Lakes
Program Guidance
Manual
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This manual was prepared by JACA Corp., Fort Washington, PA, for the Clean Lakes Program,
under the direction of James R. Jowett. It was produced under EPA Contract Number 68-03-2673,
administered by the Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Research Infor-
mation, Cincinnati, Ohio. Major sections were contributed by:
F.X. Browne and Associates, Lansdale, PA
Biocentric, Inc., St. Paul, MN
G. Dennis Cooke, Kent State University, Kent, OH
E.D. Oriscoll and Associates, Oakland, NJ
Enwright Laboratories, Inc., Greenville, SC
T. Lloyd Associates, Philadelphia, PA
Patrick L. Brezonik, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Much of the research on which the reviews of lake restoration technology herein are based was con-
ducted by the EPA Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 The Clean Lakes Program 1
1.2 Purpose of this Manual 1
1.3 Using the Manual 2
1.4 Updates and Revisions 2
2.0 THE CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM 3
2.1 Legislative Basis 3
2.2 Program Regulations 3
2.3 Overview of the Program 3
2.3.1 Goals 3
2.3.2 Objectives 4
2.3.3 Types of Financial Assistance Available 4
2.3.4 Eligibility for Assistance 4
2.3.5 Application Procedure 4
2.3.6 Application Review 7
2.3.7 Limitations and Conditions on Awards 7
2.4 Program Results 7
3.0 LAKE AND RESERVOIR ECOLOGY 9
3.1 Introduction 9
3.2 Characteristics and Classification of Lakes 9
3.2.1 Origins of Lake Basins 9
3.2.2 Trophic State of Lakes 9
3.2.3 Lake Stratification 11
3.2.4 Biological Communities of Lakes 12
3.2.5 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Conditions in Lakes 13
3.3 Indices for Measuring Eutrophication 14
3.4 Management of Lakes 15
4.0 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 17
4.1 Overview 17
4.2 Pollutant Load Estimation 18
4.2.1 Unit Aereal Loading Method 18
4.2.2 Flow/Concentration Techniques : 20
4.3 Sources of Pollutant Loads 20
4.3.1 Atmospheric Sources 21
4.3.2 Point Sources 23
4.3.3 Nonpoint Sources 24
4.3.3.1 Forests 24
4.3.3.2 Agriculture (Cropland and Range Land) 25
4.3.3.3 Urban Runoff 28
4.3.3.4 Other Nonpoint Sources 29
4.3.4 Special Localized Sources 29
4.3.4.1 Septic Tanks 29
4.3.4.2 Landfills 30
4.3.4.3 Construction 30
4.3.5 Internal Lake Sources 30
4.4 Control Measures for Watershed Management 30
4.5 Institutional Considerations 31
4.5.1 Institutional Roles and Responsibilities 31
4.5.2 Institutional Evaluation Methodology 32
4.5.3 Examples of Management Institutions 33
5.0 IN-LAKE RESTORATION TECHNIQUES 34
5.1 Introduction 34
5.2 Aeration and Artificial Circulation 35
5.3 Dilution/Flushing 36
5.4 Phosphorus Precipitation or Inactivation 37
-------
iii
Section Page
5.5 Lake Level Drawdown 38
5.6 Sediment Covering 40
5.6.1 Fly Ash 40
5.6.2 Sheeting Materials 40
5.7 Sediment Removal 41
5.8 Harvesting 42
5.9 Biological Controls - 44
5.9.1 Herbivorous Fish • 44
5.9.2 Biomanipulation 44
6.0 GENERAL PROGRAM POLICIES 46
6.1 Policies on Eligibility for Assistance 46
6.1.1 Eligible Recipients 46
6.1.2 Public Ownership and Access 46
6.1.3 Recreational Value 46
6.1.4 Requirement for State Classification Cooperative Agreements 47
6.2 Policies on Maximization of Public Benefits 47
6.2.1 Selection of Projects Near Population Centers 47
6.2.2 Pre-Award Assessment of Benefits 47
6.2.3 Continuation of Benefits 47
6.3 Long-Term Water Quality Management vs. Short-Term Improvement 47
6.4 Integration and Coordination With Other Programs 48
6.4.1 Restriction of Awards 48
6.4.2 Promote Study of Coordinated Approach During Phase 1 48
6.4.3 Certifications of Consistency and Compliance 48
6.5 Funding 48
6.5.1 Funding Levels 48
6.5.2 Regional Allocations 48
6.5.3 State Priority Assignments 48
6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation 49
6.6.1 Project Monitoring 49
6.6.2 Monitoring at the Regional Level 49
6.6.3 Monitoring the National Program 49
6.6.4 Evaluating Existing and Emerging Technology 49
6.7 General Program Administration 49
6.7.1 EPA Headquarters Role 49
6.7.2 EPA Regional Office Role 50
6.7.3 State Clean Lakes Programs 50
7.0 LAKE CLASSIFICATION SURVEYS 51
7.1 Summary 51
7.2 Scope of Lake Classification Surveys 51
7.3 Use of Lake Classification Survey Data 52
8.0 PHASE 1 DIAGNOSTIC-FEASIBILITY STUDIES 53
8.1 Definition and Purpose 53
8.2 Types of Funding Assistance 54
8.3 Applying for Phase 1 Assistance 54
8.4 Application Review Criteria 55
8.5 Conditions on Award 56
8.6 Conducting the Phase 1 Study 56
8.6.1 Detailed Work Plan 56
8.6.2 Study of Lake and Watershed Natural Characteristics 57
8.6.3 Study of Lake and Watershed Social, Economic, and Recreational Char-
acteristics 57
8.6.4 Lake Monitoring 57
8.6.5 Watershed Monitoring 57
8.6.6 Data Analysis 58
8.6.7 Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 58
8.6.8 Selection of a Watershed Management and Lake Restoration Program 58
8.6.9 Projection of Benefits 58
-------
iv
Section Page
8.6.10 Environmental Evaluation 59
8.6.11 Public Participation 59
8.6.12 Reports 60
9.0 PHASE 2 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS 61
9.1 Purpose and Definition 61
9.2 Types of Assistance 62
9.3 Contents of Application 63
9.4 Review Criteria 63
9.5 Limitations on Awards , 63
9.6 Conditions on Awards ' 63
9.7 Monitoring Requirements 64
9.8 Watershed Management and Lake Restoration Methodologies 64
9.9 Cost Evaluation 64
9.10 Environmental Evaluation 64
9.11 Public Participation 64
9.12 Project Schedule 65
9.13 Awards •„ 65
9.14 Report Requirements 65
10.0 LAKE AND WATERSHED MONITORING AND DATA ANALYSIS 66
10.1 Introduction 66
10.2 Lake Monitoring 66
10.2.1 Lake Monitoring Program Design 67
10.2.2 Physical Measurements 67
10.2.3 Chemical Measurements 69
10.2.4 Biological Measurements 69
10.3 Stream Monitoring 70
10.3.1 Stream Monitoring Methodologies 70
10.3.2 Developing a Stream Monitoring Program 71
10.3.3 Manual vs. Automatic Monitoring 72
10.3.4 Equipment Requirements 72
10.4 Quality Assurance 73
10.5 Land Use Monitoring 74
10.6 Data Management and Analysis 74
10.6.1 Manual Versus Computerized Data Management 74
10.6.2 Analysis of Lake Data 75
10.6.3 Analysis of Stream Data 76
10.6.4 Calculation of Annual Nutrient Budget 76
10.6.5 Prediction of the Effects of Watershed Management and Lake
Manipulation 76
10.7 Reporting Monitoring Data 81
11.0 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 82
11.1 Non-Federal Match 82
11.2 Combination With Other Complementary Efforts 94
11.3 Sources of Additional Information 94
12.0 HYPOTHETICAL LAKE PROJECTS 95
12.1 Example 1 — Phase 1 Diagnostic-Feasibility Study 95
12.1.1 Introduction 95
12.1.2 Historical Background 95
12.1.3 Phase 1 Application 96
12.1.4 Project Activities 96
12.1.4.1 Consultant Selection 97
12.1.4.2 Lake Monitoring 97
12.1.4.3 Stream Monitoring 97
12.1.4.4 Land Use Monitoring 97
12.1.4.5 Miscellaneous Monitoring 97
12.1.4.6 Data Analysis 97
12.1.4.7 Management Plan Development 98
12.1.5 Financial Considerations 98
12.2 Example 2 — Phase 2 Implementation Program 100
-------
Appendices
A Glossary of Lake and Watershed Management Terms A-1
B Clean Lakes Program Regulations B-1
C Nonpoint Source Loadings and Watershed Management Techniques C-1
C1 Nonpoint Source Loadings C-1
C2 Watershed Management Practices C-11
C3 Institutional C-20
D Reserved D-1
E Protocol for the Conduct of Phase 1 Diagnostic-Feasibility Studies and Environ-
mental Evaluations E-1
F Choosing Among Alternatives F-1
G Instructions for Reporting Water Quality Monitoring Data and Administrative
Information G-1
H Technical and Financial Assistance Programs H-1
Federal/Regional Programs H-1
Programs Providing Labor H-23
Technical Assistance/Information Programs H-24
State/Local Programs H-28
I Consultant Selection Procedures 1-1
J References J-1
-------
TABLES
Table Page
3-1 Major Processes Involved in the Formation of Lake Basins 10
4-1 Approximate Relationship Between Unit Aereal Loadings From Nonpoint Sources . 19
4-2 Comparison of Study Results Agricultural Nutrient Yields 19
4-3 Typical Treatment System Performance Municipal Wastewaters 22
4-4 Typical Industrial Effluent Concentrations Approximate Mean Effluent Characteristics 23
4-5 Estimated Average Erosion Rates 25
4-6 Acres Receiving Fertilizer and Average Fertilizer Rates of Four Crops in the United
States in 1974 27
4-7 Manure Characteristics 28
4-8 Functions of a Management Agency 31
5-1 Responses of Some Common Nuisance Aquatic Plants to Lake Level Drawdown .. 39
7-1 Information to be Supplied for Each Lake in a Typical State Classification Survey .. 51
8-1 Phase 1 Diagnostic-Feasibility Study Outputs 54
8-2 Outline for Part IV Program Narrative 55
8-3 Phase 1 Application Review Criteria 56
8-4 Required Content of Environmental Evaluation 59
9-1 Required Contents of Phase 2 Application 62
9-2 Phase 2 Application Review Criteria 63
10-1 Morphometric and Hydraulic Parameters for Lake Analysis 68
10-2 Physical and Chemical Parameters for Trophic Condition Analysis 69
10-3 Biological Measurements for Lake Monitoring 70
10-4 Summary of Quantitative Definitions of Lake Trophic State 76
10-5 Common Forms of Loading/Concentration Models Based on Phosphorus Mass
Balance 77
10-6 A Comparison of Empirical Models 78
10-7 Empirical Relationships Between Phosphorus Concentration, Chlorophyll a, Secchi
Disk Depth, and Hypolimnetic Oxygen Depletion Rate 80
11-1 States with Programs to Match Clean Lakes Funds 82
11-2 Summary of Federal, State, and Regional Programs 83
12-1 Phase 1 Outline 96
12-2 Characteristics of Lake James , 96
12-3 Lake James Phase 1 Funding Sources 96
12-4 Lake James Annual Phosphorus Loading 98
12-5 Lake James Phase 1 Budget 99
12-6 Characteristics of Johnson Lake 100
12-7 Financing for Johnson Lake Projects 102
C1-1 Relationships Between Pollutant Loads and Flow Volume (Flow) Developed Using All
of the EPA Urban Rainfall-Runoff Data Base C-8
C1-2 Urban Pollutant Loading Factors as a Function of Land Use C-9
C1-3 Nonpoint Source and Urban Stormwater Emission Rates C-9
C1-4 Delivery Ratios for Various-Sized Drainage Sub-Basins C-10
C2-1 Best Management Practices for Forestry C-14
C2-2 Cropland Erosion Control Practices C-15
C2-3 Runoff Control Practices C-16
C2-4 Nutrient Loss Control Practices C-17
C2-5 Pesticide Loss Control Practices C-18
C2-6 Combined Sewer Overflbw Practices C-19
C2-7 Some Separate Storm Runoff Controls C-19
C3-1 Standard Form for Summarizing an Organization, Its Areas of Interest, Authorities,
and Programs Relating to Watershed Management C-20
C3-2 Ideal Characteristics of Watershed Institutional/Management Arrangements C-21
-------
vii
Table
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
G-1
Sample Description of Public Access Points
Historical Statistics on Lake Uses
Other Publicly-Owned Lake Resources in the Region
Point Source Inventory
Watershed Use and Nonpoint Source
Morphometric and Hydraulic Lake Monitoring Requirements
Physical and Chemical Lake Monitoring Requirements
Biological Measurements Required for Lake Monitoring
Projection of Benefits from Lake Restoration Project
Sample Proposed Phase 2 Budget
Hypothetical Restoration Attributes
Performance Measures by Alternative
Weights by Alternative
Performance Measures of Each Alternative Converted to Utility
Total Utility of Each Alternative
Activity Codes
Page
E-3
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E-9
E-9
E-18
E-20
F-6
F-7
F-7
F-7
F-8
G-2
-------
viii
FIGURES
Figures Page
2-1 Cooperative Agreement Application Process: Classification Surveys and Phase 1
Studies 5
2-2 Cooperative Agreement Application Process: Phase 2 Implementation Projects .... 6
3-1 Annual Temperature Cycle in a Dimictic Lake 11
3-2 Lake Food Web 12
4-1 Time Scales of Water Quality Impacts 18
4-2 Effect of Nonpoint Source — Type and Area on Lake Surface Loading Rates 21
4-3 Sediment Delivery Ratio for Fairly Homogeneous Basins 27
4-4 Projected Variation in Soil Erosion 27
4-5 Urban Stormwater Quality 29
5-1 Hypolimnetic Aeration System 35
5-2 Artificial Circulation 36
5-3 Chemical-Dispensing System and Barge 38
5-4 Cutterhead Dredge 41
8-1 Example of Phase 1 Schedule Format 57
10-1 Typical Nutrient Concentration-Stream Discharge Relationship 70
10-2 Trophic State in Response to Phosphorus Loading 75
C1-1 Discharge and Nutrient Concentration Versus Time for a Hypothetical River C-2
C1-2 The Basic Configuration of a Box Plot and Comparison of the Plots Processing Signifi-
cant Different Medians C-3
C1-3 Box Plots of Nitrogen Export Coefficients from Various Land Uses C-4
C1-4 Box Plots of Phosphorus Export Coefficients from Various Land Uses C-4
C1-5 Relationships Between General Land Use and Total Nitrogen and Inorganic Nitrogen
Concentrations in Streams C-5
C1-6 Relationships Between General Land Use and Total Phosphorus and Orthophos-
phorus Concentrations in Streams C-6
C1-7 Location Map for Cities with Rainfall-Runoff Quality Data (Quality Cities) and
Rainfall-Runoff Data (Quantity Cities) C-7
C1-8 Location of NURP Prototype Projects C-8
C1-9 Range of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentrations in Different Waters C-10
C1-10 Applicability of Runoff Models to Various Problem Contexts C-12
C3-1 Evaluation Analysis of Management Agencies C-21
E-1 Historical Trends in Lake Use and Water Quality E-5
E-2 Typical Procedures for Volumetric Determination E-10
E-3 Typical Sample Identification Label E-15
E-4 Sample Schedule E-20
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Clean Lakes Program
Section 314 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500)* directed the United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency to assist the States in con-
trolling sources of pollution which affect the
quality of freshwater lakes, and in restoring lakes
which have deteriorated in quality. EPA is fulfill-
ing this mandate with the Clean Lakes Program,
which provides technical and financial assis-
tance to the States to:
1. Classify publicly owned freshwater lakes
according to trophic condition;
2. Conduct diagnostic studies of specific pub-
licly owned lakes, and develop feasible pol-
lution control and restoration programs for
them;
3. Implement lake restoration and pollution
control projects.
Assistance is made available to the States
through the EPA Regional Offices in the form of
cooperative agreements. Because program
funds are limited, and the number of publicly
owned lakes with present or potential water
quality problems is large, awards must be made
selectively. Projects chosen for funding are
those which maximize public benefits. Such
projects meet three general criteria.
First, projected public benefits must be signifi-
cant. A lake to be studied and restored or pro-1
tected should be one which can provide benefi-
cial uses to a large number of people.
Second, the water quality improvement must
be long term, to insure lasting benefits. EPA will
not support restoration measures which merely
ameliorate symptoms of pollution in a lake. In-
stead, the Agency emphasizes watershed man-
agement — a comprehensive effort to identify
and eliminate present or potential causes of lake
water quality deterioration. Pollution is to be
controlled at its source, not in the lake. When
pollutant sources are being controlled, however,
in-lake restoration techniques to speed recovery
are also eligible for funding.
Finally, projects should promote integrated,
coordinated water quality management. Other
Federal, State and local programs can supple-
ment the Clean Lakes Program. For example, the
201 Construction Grants Program can comple-
ment a lake restoration agreement by helping
municipalities eliminate pollution from domestic
sewage. U.S. Department of Agriculture assis-
tance is available to farmers to implement
agricultural pollution control measures, supple-
menting Clean Lakes Program watershed man-
agement. Combining water quality management
resources in this way enhances the effectiveness
of expenditures under any single program.
1.2 Purpose of this Manual
The regulations governing the Clean Lakes
Program became effective on February 5,1980.*
This manual has been prepared to guide the
States in developing their own lake restoration
and protection programs, in obtaining Federal
Clean Lakes Program assistance, and conducting
lake projects in accordance with those regula-
tions. Policy, procedures, and technology are
discussed, making this manual useful to State
environmental and natural resources agency of-
ficials, whether their responsibilities are techni-
cal or administrative. '
The manual is also intended to be used by oth-
er governmental agencies which may carry out
lake projects under subagreements with the
State. Watershed or lake associations and other
groups of concerned citizens, who often initiate
a lake project, will also find the manual useful. It
will help them understand causes of lake prob-
lems and how to work with governmental agen-
cies to solve them.
•Now known » the Claan Water Act of 1977 IP.L. 95-217).
•to CFR 35 Subpan H. reproduced in Aooendu B to this manual.
-------
1.3 Using the Manual
Section 2.0 describes the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram, its history, and results. The section pro-
vides sufficient information for anyone with only
a general interest in the program. For those who
are or intend to become involved with the pro-
gram, Section 2.0 should be treated as an intro-
duction to the program regulations, "Coopera-
tive Agreements for Protecting and Restoring
Publicly Owned Freshwater Lakes" (40 CFR 35
Subpart H}, reproduced in Appendix B.
Research and experience in limnology, lake
restoration, and water quality management have
produced a substantial body of useful scientific,
technological, and institutional information.
Much of it is reviewed in Sections 3.0, 4.0, and
5.0. Section 3.0 presents topics in lake ecology
which are fundamental to an understanding of
lake water quality management. Section 4.0 cov-
ers watershed management. Its content is
supplemented by details on nonpoint sources
and management practices found in Appendix C.
Selected restoration techniques are the subject
of Sections 5.0 and its corresponding Appendix
D.
Sections 6.0 through 9.0 deal with the
opportunities available through the Clean Lakes
Program and the procedures which must be fol-
lowed to take advantage of them. General pro-
gram policy is the subject of 6.0. It should be re-
quired reading for State officials who administer
lake restoration and protection programs; the in-
formation it contains on program strategy and
goals and objectives is important to anyone de-
veloping State priority lists, preparing applica-
tions for funding, and coordinating lakes work
with other environmental programs. Sections
7.0,8.0 and 9.0 each cover a form of Clean Lakes
Program financial assistance—State classifica-
tion surveys, diagnostic-feasibility studies
(Phase 1), and implementation (Phase 2), respec-
tively. Each section discusses purpose, applica-
tion procedures, review criteria, types of funding
assistance, and project scope and conduct.
Two appendices are associated with Section
8.0 to assist with Phase 1 diagnostic-feasibility
studies. Appendix E gives step-by-step instruc-
tions on fulfilling each requirement of a Phase 1
study. Appendix F covers cost-effectiveness
analysis as it pertains to selection of lake restora-
tion and pollution control measures from the list
of alternatives developed in a Phase 1 study.
Physical, chemical, and biological monitoring
of the lake and watershed is required in both
Phase 1 and Phase 2. However, it is a topic of
such importance and complexity that a separate
section, 10.0, is devoted entirely to it. Purpose
and design of monitoring programs, alternative
methods of sample collection, and data analysis
and interpretation are discussed. Appendix E,
the Phase 1 protocol, contains procedural infor-
mation on monitoring which is pertinent to both
Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects and should be read
in conjunction with Section 10.0. Section 11.0
provides a guide to other technical and financial
assistance programs that can supplement or
provide non-Federal matching funds for Clean
Lakes projects. Local, regional, State and Federal
programs are summarized in the section, and
Appendix H describes these programs in detail.
Section 12.0 consists of Phase 1 and Phase 2
hypothetical case studies. The hypothetical ap-
plications included will serve as models to assist
States in applying for cooperative agreement
awards.
Four other appendices have been included.
Appendix A is a glossary of specialized terms
used in lake and watershed management. Ap-
. pendix G contains instructions and suggested
formats for reporting water quality monitoring
and baseline data, and administrative informa-
tion to EPA. Appendix I contains guidance on se-
lecting consultants. Appendix J is a list of
references used in preparing the manual or rec-
ommended as sources of additional information.
1.4 Updates and Revisions
This manual has been produced in loose-leaf
form so that it can be easily amended. EPA plans
periodic updates to reflect advances in the
state-of-the-art and changes in Clean Lakes Pro-
gram regulations.
Because the manual was prepared to be of
practical use to all participants in the Clean Lakes
Program, EPA would like to receive any sugges-
tions for changes which would improve its use-
fulness. The best source of such suggestions is
feedback from the users themselves. You are en-
couraged to submit comments and recommen-
dations to:
Chief, Clean Lakes Section (WH-585)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
2.0 THE CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM
This section summarizes the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram — its legislative basis, regulations, pro-
gram description, application procedures, and
results to date.
2.1 Legislative Basis
Section 314 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 is
the legislative basis for the Clean Lakes
Program.
SEC. 314.
(a) Each State shall prepare or establish, and
submit to the Administrator for his approval —
(1) an identification and classification ac-
cording to eutrophic condition of all publicly
owned freshwater lakes in such State;
(2) procedures, processes, and methods
(including land use requirements), to control
sources of pollution of such lakes; and
(3) methods and procedures, in conjunc-
tion with appropriate Federal agencies, to re-
store the quality of such lakes.
(b) The Administrator shall provide financial
assistance to States in order to carry out meth-
ods and procedures approved by him under this
section. The Administrator shall provide finan-
cial assistance to States to prepare the identifica-
tion and classification surveys required in
subsection (a)(1) of this section.
(c)(1) The amount granted to any State for any
fiscal year under this section shall not exceed 70
per centum of the funds expended by such State
in such year for carrying out approved methods
and procedures under this section.
(2) There is authorized to be appropriated
$50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973; $100,000,000 for the fiscal year 1974;
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year 1975;
$50,000,000 for the fiscal year 1977; $60,000,000
for the fiscal year 1978; $60,000,000 for the fiscal
year 1979; and $60,000,000 for the fiscal year
1980 for grants to States under this section.
These sums shall remain available until expend-
ed. The Administrator shall provide for an equi-
table distribution of such sums to the States with
approved methods and procedures under this
section.
2.2 Program Regulations
Rules and regulations governing "Cooperative
Agreements for Protecting and Restoring Public-
ly Owned Freshwater Lakes" became effective
February 5, 1980 as Subpart H to Part 35 of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. They cov-
er all aspects of the Clean Lakes Program in
detail except for State lake classification surveys,
which were described in a notice of availability
of grants assistance published July 10, 1978 in
the Federal Register. Both of these documents
have been reproduced as Appendix B to this
manual.
2.3 Overview of the Program
2.3.1 Goals
The goal of the Clean Lakes Program is to im-
plement, through assistance to the States, meth-
ods and procedures to control sources of pollu-
tion to the Nation's publicly owned freshwater
lakes and to restore degraded lakes.. Recogniz-
ing, however, that this applies to all publicly
owned lakes and several thousand may need im-
mediate action, the program has established, a
more specific goal for the 1980-1985 period. The
goal is to protect at least one lake whose water
quality is suitable for contact recreation, or to re-
store a degraded lake to that condition, within 25
miles of every major population center. A popu-
lation center, in this context, usually is a Stand-
ard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) as
defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. How-
ever, this definition will be applied with discre-
tion in selecting projects for funding. Some
SMSAs are so populous that a single clean lake
would not be sufficient to meet user demand.
-------
Conversely, in SMSAs near the ocean beaches,
bays, large rivers, or the Great Lakes, there may
be little demand for lake protection or restora-
tion. In vacation and tourist areas where season-
al populations are high, and in other situations
where lake water quality is important to regional
economy and quality of life, projects may war-
rant priority equal to that accorded urban lakes.
More explicit guidance on this aspect of project
selection will be developed, but the need for
flexibility will never be eliminated.
2.3.2 Objectives
To ensure that all program activities are ori-
ented toward attaining the 1985 goal, EPA has
set five specific objectives:
1. Select projects to maximize public benefits;
2. Integrate program with other environmen-
tal and water quality programs;
3. Emphasize watershed management;
4. Develop active State involvement and
maintain Federal-State partnership;
5. Conduct continuous program and project
evaluation.
EPA will manage the Clean Lakes Program in
accordance with these objectives, attempting in
each decision to achieve as many as possible.
From the standpoint of the States, this policy will
insure that the projects selected for cooperative
agreement awards will be those which most
completely embody the five objectives. Conse-
quently, States should use them in managing
their own programs and preparing applications
for Section 314 assistance. Each objective is dis-
cussed in more detail in Section 6.0 of this
manual.
2.3.3 Types of Financial Assistance
Available
The Clean Lakes Program operates through
three types of cooperative agreements.
State Lake Classification Survey. States that
wish to participate in the Clean Lakes Program
must submit to EPA by January 1,1982, a classi-
fication, according to trophic condition, of pub-
licly owned freshwater lakes in need of restora-
tion or protection. Not all publicly owned lakes
need be surveyed, but survey results for priority
lakes and the procedure used to select these
lakes must be presented. States will not be eligi-
ble for Phase 1 or 2 Federal financial assistance
until they have complied with this requirement.
Funding assistance equal to 70 percent of the
cost, up to a maximum of $100,000, is available.
Section 7.0 of this manual is devoted to Lake
Classification Surveys.
Phase 1 — Diagnostic Feasibility Study. The
Clean Lakes Program will financially assist a
State in conducting a diagnostic-feasibility study
to investigate the existing or potential causes of
decline in a publicly owned lake's quality, evalu-
ate possible solutions to existing or anticipated
pollution problems, and recommend the most
feasible program to restore or preserve the qual-
ity of the lake. Funding assistance equal to 70
percent of the cost is available, up to a maximum
of $100,000 per study. Section 8.0 of this manual
discusses Phase 1 studies in detail.
Phase 2 — Implementation. A Phase 2 coopera-
tive agreement is to be used for implementing
recommended methods and procedures for con-
trolling pollution entering the lake, and for re-
storing the lake. Phase 2 awards require a 50
percent non-Federal share, but this can often be
made up in services-in-kind. Costs for final engi-
neering design as well as actual implementation
of pollution control and/or in-lake restoration
measures are eligible. Phase 2 agreements fol-
low Phase 1 studies or equivalent investigations.
However, initiation of Phase 2 is not automatic;
each phase must be applied for separately, and
each application is considered on its own merits.
Section 9.0 provides more details concerning
Phase 2 projects.
2.3.4 Eligibility for Assistance
States are the only eligible applicants for
Clean Lakes Program assistance. Cooperative
agreements will be awarded to the State agency
designated by the governor. However, a State
may in turn make funds available to a substate
agency for all or any portion of a specific project.
For a project to be eligible, the lake concerned
must be freshwater and nontidal. It may be natu-
ral or manmade, but it must have recreational
value and be accessible to the public byway of
publicly owned land. If fees are charged for pub-
lic use, they must be for maintaining recreational
facilities or managing water quality on publicly
owned lakes in the State.
2.3.5 Application Procedure
Clean Lakes Program cooperative agreements
are administered at the EPA Regional Office lev-
el. States should submit applications to the ap-
propriate Regional Office for review by the water
divjsion staff. Applications are also reviewed at
EPA Headquarters and, in the case of Phase 2
projects, are sent to the U.S. Department of the
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA's Environ-
mental Research Laboratory at Corvallis, Or-
egon, and to two peer reviewers (a group of lake
restoration and protection experts selected for
this purpose). Based on these reviews, award
decisions are made in the Regional Office.
Figures 2-1 and 2-2 are flow diagrams of the
application and review process. Sections 7.0,
8.0, and 9.0 discuss application and review pro-
cedures for each of the three types of coopera-
tive agreements.
-------
EPA Regional Ofltee
PruvMoB Tflchnfcfll
Assejtejiui on I
Local or County
Government. Regional
WOM Agency. Lake
Request
Reviewed
by State
State Prepares and
Submits Application
Sufficient
Priority
Assistance tor
Lake Problem
•;,;:;;>••,
Application
Received at
EPA Region
EPA Region
Appecaftn Review
Recommendation
Request For Com
HHtnwnt
EPA-HQ
Application
Complete
7
EPA Region
Review
; :•:: -;-.-. .~ ...... . ..v';< .;.. ,_;... ..... :»..
'•-'•",'••<:"• "" V ^P
... ;. .. •, : •;,.i:.- \t,
EPA-HQ Sends
EPA Region
Offer
of Award
to
State
Accepta or
Declines Offer
HO
Concurs with
Region
EPA-HO
Review
Memo and
CommknentNo
to
EPA-HO and EPA
Region Rosowo
and Reach
EPA Region
Approves or
Disapproves
Revision
State Requests
Special Agreement
CondUon RevWon
' *?; ' i
I ,.,. " ,,, ..;,; ; ;.,= .. ';.. ,a
Figure 2-1. Cooperative Agreement Application Process: Classification Surveys and Phase 1 Studies.
^ - •'
-------
*&•
EPA Regional Offfc*
Provkto. T»chWc«l
onRaquaat
State Praparaa
andSubmfta
Appacatkm for
AaaManC*
Sufficient
Priority
<* 3. •.» .- ?*».••.•• • •
EPA-HQ
Preliminary
R«vi«w
Forward
Al
to EPA
EPA-HQ and
ftoghm MacuM
and Raaoaia
Stata
Accapta or
Decline* Offer
OUarof
Award to
Condtton nOMHOn
Figure 2-2. Coopmti** Agiwntnt AppUcttion Proc***: Ph*** 2 implementation Project*.
-------
2.3.6 Application Review
Phase 1 and Phase 2. When reviewing applica-
tions, EPA and outside reviewers apply nine spe-
cific criteria.
1. Technical feasibility;
2. Lake ecosystem improvements anticipated;
3. Fish and wildlife habitat improvements
anticipated;
4. Extent of public benefits;
5. Consideration of open space policies of the
Clean Water Act [Sections 201 (f) and (g),
208(b)(2)(A)];
6. Reasonableness of costs;
7. Means for controlling adverse environmen-
tal impacts;*
8. State priority ranking;
9. Proposed operation and maintenance
program.
In addition, compatibility with the five objec-
tives listed in 2.3.2 are assessed during the re-
view process.
2.3.7 Limitations and Conditions on Awards
There are certain restrictions on the Regional
Administrator's ability to award a cooperative
agreement to a given State, regardless of the
technical merits of the application. Some are ad-
ministrative, to encourage intergovernmental
cooperation and coordination among various
water quality programs, and to avoid expendi-
tures on ineligible items. Others are technical, to
eliminate from the Clean Lakes Program types of
lake restoration activities which do not contrib-
ute to attaining the overall objectives (40 CFR
35.1650-2).
1. State lakes programs must be incorporated
in State-EPA Agreements (SEAs).
2. Phase 2 must implement the recommenda-
tions of Phase 1, or a similar diagnostic-
feasibility investigation.
3. Other authorized, planned, or ordered con-
trol measures for pollution sources affect-
ing the lake (i.e. under sections 201, 208,
and 402 of the Clean Water Act) must be im-
plemented on schedule.
4. No costs for controlling point sources sub-
ject to control under Sections 201 and 402
may be included.
5. The Act's open space policies must be con-
sidered in any wastewater management ac-
tivities the State is implementing in the
watershed.
6. Palliative approaches, such as weed har-
vesting, chemical treatment, or aeration,
cannot be funded unless they are the most
cost-effective or energy-efficient restora-
tion approaches, and unless pollution
• Noi consifle'eo loi Phase i
sources in the watershed have been con-
trolled as much as is practicable.
7. Costs may not be included to desalinize
normally saline lakes, purchase or lease
land solely to provide public access, carry
out activities resulting from litigation
against the recipient by EPA, or implement
. environmental impact mitigative measures
not identified in the work plan.
Awards are made subject to certain general
conditions (40 CFR 35.1650-3). For all types of as-
sistance, the States must accept responsibility
for payment of the non-Federal share of project
costs. In the case of Phase 1 studies, there are
three additional conditions.
1. The EPA Project Officer must approve the
State's program to provide physical, chemi-
cal, and biological data on the lake before
the State can begin other work.
2. Before selecting the best plan for lake resto-
ration or protection, the State must submit
an interim report to the EPA Project Officer,
including an evaluation of alternatives and
a summary of public involvement.
3. The EPA Project Officer must approve the
selected plan before additional work can
proceed.
Phase 2 projects are subject to the following
conditions:
1. The monitoring program must be approved
by the EPA Project Officer before any other
work begins.
2. The State must maintain all control meas-
ures throughout the duration of the project,
and any equipment purchased for at least
its depreciable life.
3. If higher water uses are achieved by the
project, State standards must be upgraded
to reflect this fact.
4. Mitigation measures for primary adverse
environmental impacts must be included in
the project.
5. In accordance with the National Historic
Preservation Act, work shall be stopped or
work plans modified to protect any unre-
corded archaeological sites encountered.
6. Wherever Section 404 permits are required,
the State shall obtain them before begin-
ning work.
Other project-specific conditions may be in-
cluded in cooperative agreements when appro-
priate.
2.4 Program Results
.Since the first Clean Lakes project began in
1975, 200 awards have been made, totalling $60
million in Federal funds. There are currently 35
classification surveys, 71 Phase 1 Diagnostic-
Feasibility Studies, and 105 Phase 2 projects in
progress. Clean Lakes projects are distributed
over 43 States.
-------
8
A recent study (JACA Corp., 1980) of 28 of the
older implementation projects showed that the
program is producing public benefits in 12 cate-
gories: recreation, aesthetics, flood control, eco-
nomic development, fish and wildlife, agricul-
ture, public health, commercial fishing, water
supply, education and research and develop-
ment, pollution reduction, and miscellaneous
items such as resource recovery and reduced
management cost. Expressing in monetary
terms those benefits which could be so meas-
ured showed a return of more than $8 for each
Federal dollar expended, or over $4 per total
project dollar. In addition, the program seemed
to be almost universally popular with those who
had participated in it, and in many cases,
projects funded under it had stimulated other
community improvement activities.
-------
3.0 LAKE AND RESERVOIR ECOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to provide an un-
derstanding of some basic properties of lakes,
emphasizing factors which affect water quality. It
is intended as an introduction to limnology for
readers with no background in this subject, but it
may also be useful as a review to readers with
some experience in lake studies.
3.2 Characteristics and Classification of
Lakes
The lakes and reservoirs of the United States
are diverse. They occur in many shapes and
sizes and in a wide variety of landscapes. The
chemical compositions of their waters range
from very soft, comparable to rainwater, to
dense brines which are many times more con-
centrated than seawater. Some lakes are darkly
stained by leachate from vegetation or soils,
while others are clear. Hydrology is also quite
variable: in some lakes the volume of water is re-
placed rapidly, every few days or so, but at the
other extreme, water replacement in some large,
deep lakes takes centuries. In terms of biological
condition, lakes range from nearly sterile envi-
ronments to systems which produce much plant
and animal life. A wide variety of intermediate
conditions of productivity can be found, along
with a great diversity of plant and animal com-
munities. Lakes are heterogeneous, and because
of this it is difficult to make generalizations about
them.
The development of lake classification
schemes played a prominent role in the early
stages of modern limnology, as scientists at-
tempted to organize their knowledge about
lakes. Limnologists have classified lakes accord-
ing to all major physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal properties, as well as their origins. Such
schemes help categorize our knowledge of lakes,
and they often provide a conceptual framework
for developing theories on the behavior of lakes
as systems. From a practical viewpoint, classifi-
cation schemes are useful in identifying and de-
scribing lakes, because a given category calls to
mind a variety of properties that a lake is likely to
have. Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that
classifications are not ends in themselves but
are meant to serve as useful organizing tools.
3.2.1 Origins of Lake Basins
Natural lakes are formed both by sudden
events and by gradual processes that act over
the course of centuries. Hutchinson (1957), who
presented the most thorough modern analysis
of the ways that lakes are formed, divided these
formative processes into 76 categories within 11
major classes. The most important classes for
U.S. lakes are described in Table 3-1.
3.2.2 Trophic State of Lakes
Limnologists classify lakes according to their
biological productivity as measured by physical,
chemical, and biological parameters. The lakes
with the lowest concentrations of plant nutri-
ents, and hence with the lowest levels of biologi-
cal productivity, are called "oligotrophic" (oligo
means "few" or "scant" and trophic refers to
food). In contrast, eutrophic lakes have high lev-
els of plant nutrients, and as a result have high
levels of biological productivity. Lakes with char-
acteristics between oligotrophic and eutrophic
are 'called mesotrophic. The term ultraoligo-
trophic is sometimes used for lakes on the
lowest extreme of the scale while the term
hypereutrophic is used for the other extreme.
In actual practice there is a continuum in lake
types, so that these separations are artificial. It is
only recently that quantitative criteria have been
proposed for each category. It should be empha-
sized that within a classification such as eutro-
phic, there is a broad range in water quality from
those lakes with the highest levels of productiv-
ity to those with the lowest. For this reason,
quantitative measures of trophic state are need-
-------
10
Table 3-1
Major Processes Involved in the Forma'tion of Lake Basins
Process
Comment*
Examples
Tectonic Formed by movements of the earth's crust: slow uplift,
earthquakes, faulting, and tilting of fault blocks.
Glacial Formed by ice scour of rock basins, by damming of val-
leys by glacial deposits, or by melting of large,, isolated
ice blocks in glacial deposits.
Volcanic Formed in craters of extinct volcanoes, in depressions of
irregular lava flows, or by lava damming a valley.
Solution Formed directly by carbonation and solution of limestone
by percolating groundwater and/or subsequent collapse
of gradual settling of ground, forming sinkholes.
Fluviatile • Formed by action of flowing waters.
Manmade Reservoirs formed by damming rivers causing water to
fill a valley, excavation lakes dug to obtain minerals
(limestone, phosphate) or fill to build up adjacent low
lands.
L. Okeechobee. Fla.
L Tahoe, Calif./Nev.
Michigan and most lakes in Wis., Minn.,
Mich.
Crater L., Oreg. Yellowstone L., Wyo.
Many lakes in peninsular Fla.
Oxbow lakes along major rivers.
L. Mead, L. of the Ozarks, limestone quarries,
phosphate ' pit lakes, borrow pit lakes,
millponds.
Source: Adapted Irom Hulchinson. 1957.
ed to characterize a lake.
The past histories of lakes have been studied
by examining sediment cores for chemical com-
position and the remains of plants and animals.
These studies have shown many lakes that were
initially oligotrophic have become eutrophiic
through time (hundreds or thousands of years).
The term eutrophication was used to describe
this change in trophic state. For some time it was
thought that this process was an inevitable, one*
way change like ecological succession in terres-
trial environments; however, it is now known
that this is not the-case. A brand new lake in a
region with high nutrient concentrations in
runoff will be eutrophic from the start, while
some very old lakes have been shown to change
their trophic state back and forth between
oligotrophic and eutrophic in response to chang-
ing environments. It has also been found that
lakes can undergo very rapid eutrophication in
response to man-caused increases in nutrients
and sediments. For example, Lake Erie has
undergone changes in trophic state, such as in-
creased plankton populations, decreased water
transparency, more severe oxygen reductions in
the hypolimnion, and changes in fish species
composition, in a period of a few decades rather
than centuries. This rapid, man-caused change is
often called cultural eutrophication.
The trophic state of a lake is determined by a
large number of factors including latitude, alti-
tude, climate, watershed characteristics, soil
types, human activities, and lake morphometry.
Three broad factors seem to be most important.
These are climate, nutrient supply, and lake
depth. Lakes in cold climates tend to be less pro-
ductive due to colder temperatures and a shorter
growing season; other things being equal,
warmer climates promote more eutrophic condi-
tions. Mean depth (ratio of lake volume to lake
surface area) is an extremely important physical
variable in determining trophic state. In general,
the most oligotrophic lakes are also the deepest
— Lake Superior and Lake Tahoe, for instance —
and the very eutrophic lakes tend to be quite
shallow. While depth plays some role in holding
down summer temperatures in the deepest lakes
and thus reducing the rate of biological produc-
tion, its greatest effect seems to be in reducing
nutrient concentrations. Whether a given nutri-
ent comes from surface runoff, point source pol-
lution, or diffusion from the bottom sediments,
the greater the mean depth of a lake, the greater
the nutrient dilution.
Recent quantitative studies have confirmed
long-held ideas that the amount of plant
biomass in a lake during the summer peak is de-
termined by. the quantity of nutrients available. It
has also been found that for most lakes phos-
phorus is the limiting element. However, nitro-
gen is sometimes limiting, more often in the
Western United States than in the East. Experi-
ments with pristine Canadian lakes have shown
that an oligotrophic lake can be almost immedi-
ately changed into a eutrophic lake by adding in-
organic phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers and
that it rapidly reverts to the oligotrophic state if
the fertilizer supply is cut off. This confirms other
studies that show that a continuous supply of
phosphorus and nitrogen is necessary tp main-
tain the concentrations of those elements in the
water column. Sediments release some nutri-
-------
11
ents, but in the long term more materials move
to the sediments than come out; the sediments
thus serve as net nutrient traps rather than
sources. An exception would be where nutrient
input has significantly decreased. In this case
there may be a net movement of nutrients back
to the lake water, particularly in shallow lakes or
in lakes that had received heavy nutrient loading
from sewage effluents for a long period of years.
Dredging is sometimes used to remove such
nutrient-rich sediments to reduce this backflow.
In the course of a lake's history, the three
broad factors — climate, nutrient supply, and
depth — interact to determine lake trophic state.
Since most particulate materials will not leave a
lake basin once they have entered, the mean
depth steadily decreases. The rate of change will
vary from lake to lake depending upon such fac-
tors as the credibility of the soil, the amount of
runoff, and the ratio of watershed area to lake
surface area. Other things being equal, the con-
tinuing loss of lake depth will lead to more eu-
trophic conditions because the dilution capacity
diminishes. Climate, however, may change dur-
ing the life of a lake with consequent changes in
lake temperatures, wind mixing, and runoff
amounts that may influence the trophic state.
Nutrient inputs may also change, and not neces-
sarily in a predictable manner. For example, in
the life of a glacial lake basin, the nutrient inputs
may change as the raw glacial till is developed
into a mature soil profile under the influence of
climate and vegetation. Human activities in the
watershed may make significant changes in the
nutrient input and hence the trophic state of
lakes.
3.2.3 Lake Stratification
Many lakes experience thermal stratification.
In its simplest form, it consists of a layer of
warm, relatively light water at the surface and a
cold and dense layer on the bottom, separated
from each other by a transition layer with a
strong temperature gradient. Limnologists call
the upper layer the "epilimnion," the middle lay-
er the "metalimnion" (thermocline in older ter-
minology), and the bottom layer the "hypolim-
nion." The density gradient in the metalimnion
prevents the waters of the epilimnion from circu-
lating any deeper, thus sealing off the
hypolimnion from the lake surface.
In the northern temperate regions, say Minne-
sota or Michigan, most deep lakes have two peri-
ods of circulation per year and thus are called
"dimictic." In a typical cycle the lake is
unstratified in the early spring just after the ice
has melted. Water temperatures are uniform
from surface to bottom, and wind energy suffi-
cient to completely mix the lake in what is called
the "spring turnover." Dissolved salts and gases
are evenly distributed throughout the water col-
umn. As the season progresses, solar radiation
causes the surface water to warm more rapidly
than the underlying water, and the resulting
temperature gradient produces a density gradi-
ent that resists vertical mixing. A typical thermal
stratification is produced, with a well-mixed
epilimnion but a more or less stagnant
metalimnion and hypolimnion. (Figure 3-1)
o 4 »
04 « 11 ie >o
WM* Strlllticitton
Figure 3-1. Thermal Stratification and Turnover in
Lakes.
With cooler weather in the fall, the lake begins
to lose heat and surface temperatures drop. The
wind is able to mix the Jake progressively deeper
and the density gradient weakens. Eventually
the metalimnion erodes and the entire lake circu-
lates in the "fall turnover." The lake is now com-
pletely mixed again.
The second stratification in the annual cycle of
a dimictic lake occurs because of a peculiar prop-
erty of water — it is most dense at 4° C. When
cooled below that temperature, its density de-
creases. Thus when the lake freezes or ap-
proaches freezing, an inverse stratification can
develop with warmer water at the bottom.
The above pattern is modified in both colder
and warmer climates. In the far north or at very
high altitudes the ice may not melt until mid-
summer, and there is a short circulation period
following by refreezing. These lakes are called
cold monomictic because they circulate only
once a year. In contrast, in the southern United
States where lakes do not freeze, the fall turn-
over is merged with the spring turnover into one
-------
12
long period of circulation. These lakes are called
warm monomictic. Shallow lakes and lakes pro-
tected from the wind may not stratify at all.
The significance of stratification in eutrophic
lakes is that no exchange of dissolved gases,
such as oxygen and carbon dioxide, is possible
between the hypolimnion and epilimnion. Dur-
ing the summer, organic material produced in
the epilimnion settles into the hypolimnion and
bottom sediments where it is decomposed by
biological action. Dissolved oxygen is consumed
in the decomposition process and cannot be re-
placed; light usually cannot penetrate sufficient-
ly deep in a eutrophic lake to permit photosyn-
thesis and the accompanying release of oxygen
.takes place in the hypolimnion. It is not uncom-
mon for complete oxygen depletion to develop
during summer stratification. When it does, it
persists until fall turnover.
Oxygen depletion may also occur under the
ice in eutrophic lakes which stratify in the winter.
Decomposition and respiration continue to con-
sume oxygen, while light penetration, and thus
photosynthesis, are reduced by ice and snow.
Shallow lakes with heavy snow cover are par-
ticularly susceptible.
3.2.4 Biological Communities of Lakes
The biota of lakes are organized through two
fundamental natural properties: the flow of en-
Figure 3-2. Lake Food Web.
ergy from the sun through food webs, and the
cycling of nutrient elements (e.g., carbon, nitro-
gen, phosphorus, iron, sulfur) that form organ-
isms and organic matter.
Plants and animals are described and catego-
rized by their functions in food webs. Algae and
macroscopic plants absorb sunlight and convert
the light energy into the chemical energy
contained in the organic molecules (sugars, pro-
teins, fats, and other cellular constituents) that
they manufacture through photosynthesis.
Plants form the base of a complex web of food
and energy transfers among groups of organ-
isms labeled herbivores (plant feeders), carni-
vores (animal feeders), omnivores (plant and
animal feeders), and detritivores (organisms that
consume nonliving organic matter). The food
web also is sometimes divided into producers
(plants), consumers (zooplankton, other inverte-
brates, and fish), and decomposers (primarily
bacteria that complete nutrient cycles by con-
verting dead organic matter back into inorganic
forms).
Energy is derived by the consumers and
decomposers from the oxidation of organic mat-
ter to carbon dioxide, water, and other inorganic
substances via the oxygen-consuming process
of respiration. The energy derived from respira-
tion by organisms is used for their maintenance,
activity, and growth. There is a one-way flow of
energy through the food web — energy, in the
form of unusable heat, is dissipated at each step
in the oxidation process. However, the elements
that comprise the organic matter in the food web
can be reused. Nutrient cycles convert elements
from inorganic to organic forms and back again;
the study of nutrient cycles is an important part
of aquatic ecology.
Some nutrients, such as nitrogen and carbon,
have complex cycles that include volatile and
gaseous compounds and thus involve atmos-
pheric, as well as terrestrial and aquatic phases.
Other essential elements, such as phosphorus
and potassium, have no volatile forms, and their
cycles involve living and nonliving forms in the
soil and water. The availability of these elements
depends on such processes as weathering of
rocks and minerals, whereas volatile elements
may be abundant and readily available in the
atmosphere.
The food web of a lake (Figure 3-2) can be di-
vided into two parts: the littoral (shallow) sys-
tem and the pelagic (deep water) system. The lit-
toral food web occurs in the shallow, near-shore
area, and its primary producer component is
dominated by rooted macrophytes ("aquatic
weeds"), including emergent, submergent, and
floating varieties. The littoral community re-
ceives the inflow from streams and stormwater
runoff; soil, leaves, and other land-based pollut-
ants tend to accumulate in this area. The domi-
-------
13
nant energy pathway of the littoral food web is
the detritivore food chain; the macrophytes tend
not to be consumed directly (except by water-
fowl and terrestrial animals only partially de-
pendent on the aquatic food web), but die and
their dead organic matter (detritus) is then con-
sumed. The littoral and pelagic food webs are
interconnected in two principal ways. First,
some of the dead macrophyte matter is trans-
ported to the open (deep) water by currents and
wave action. There it is decomposed, and the nu-
trients that are released stimulate growth of
planktonic algae. Second, the littoral zone serves
as a source of food and as a spawning area for
fish that also inhabit the open water areas.
In the deep open water, phytoplankton
(planktonic algae) are the base of the food web.
Zooplankton (microscopic animals) and small
fish graze on the algae, and in turn the
zooplankton are grazed by fish. Death and set-
tling of the remains of food web organisms into
the bottom sediments act as a net loss of nutri-
ents from the open water. The cycle is closed by
release of soluble nutrients to the overlying wa-
ter during decomposition. This process is not
complete, however; lakes act as net nutrient
sinks, storing through sediment accumulation.
Littoral vegetation is desirable for several rea-
sons. It serves as a spawning area for fish and as
a food source and refuge for small fish. More-
over, the littoral vegetation is a buffer between
the open water planktonic algae system and the
land (and nutrient inputs from the watershed). In
the absence of littoral vegetation, a lake is likely
to have higher concentrations of algae, lower
water clarity, and fewer game fish. The abun-
dance of littoral vegetation is related to the
amount of shallow water and the light that
reaches the bottom sediments in the shallow
areas. In lakes with high nutrient inputs, aquatic
weeds can grow to excessive proportions and be
a severe nuisance to swimmers and boaters. In
other lakes, nutrient enrichment leads to an in-
crease in algae, which decrease water clarity,
leading to a loss of littoral vegetation. .
Predicting which type of plants (macrophytes
or algae) will dominate in a given lake is difficult,
but the trend usually is unidirectional and not
easily reversed. Once algae dominate a lake, the
intense shading they cause tends to prevent the
reestablishment of littoral vegetation. Incoming
soil turbidity, motor boat disturbances in shal-
low lakes, and activities of bottom-feeding fish
can transform a lake from a macrophyte-
dominated to an algae-dominated system.
3.2.5 Physical, Chemical, and Biological
Conditions in Lakes
By now it should be apparent that the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of lakes
are related so intimately that a change in one will
surely lead to changes in the other two. For ex-
ample, a chemical factor such as increased plant
nutrients increases algal populations (a biologi-
cal factor) which in turn increases turbidity and
reduces light penetration (physical factor). The
importance of understanding this interrela-
tionship cannot be overstressed, because the
concept is critical for effective lake management.
As previously noted, oligotrophic lakes are
usually characterized in the following manner:
1. Low nutrient concentrations;
2. Low biological productivity;
3. Clear water;
4. Dissolved oxygen throughout the water
column.
In eutrophic lakes, these features are just the
opposite, and mesotrophic lakes would be
somewhere in between. One should remember,
however, that all lakes, especially eutrophic
lakes in northern climates, exhibit considerable
seasonal variation. The worst problems associ-
ated with eutrophication (odors, fish kills, dense
growths of vegetation, etc.) usually occur during
warm weather months. In cold weather, the
most eutrophic lakes may resemble mesotrophic
or even oligotrophic water bodies, as low light
intensities and low temperatures slow down bio-
logical processes. Under heavy snow cover,
however, low light intensities may cause photo-
synthetic oxygen production to be lower than
the oxygen consumption by decaying plant ma-
terials. This can result in a complete loss of dis-
solved oxygen, and fish kill, particularly in shal-
low lakes.
During summer months, the surface waters of
highly eutrophic lakes are turbid and may smell
of decaying organic matter. Filamentous algae
and aquatic plants such as water milfoil
(Myriophyllum), various pondweeds (Potomo-
geton sp.) and Anacharis often form tangled
mats of vegetation across the surface, thus limit-
ing the use of the lake for boating and swim-
ming. Algal mats or dense blooms of
phytoplankton diminish or destroy the appear-
ance of lakes, but more important are numerous
species that cause taste and odor problems in
drinking water: certain blue-green algae, for ex-
ample, impart a musty odor to water. Other al-
gae emit toxic substances that may kill other
forms of aquatic life.
These are not the only problems aquatic vege-
tation causes. Dense growths of rooted aquatics
or algae can cause daily fluctuations in the con-
centration of dissolved oxygen: during daylight
hours at the height of the growing season, sur-
face water often becomes saturated and some-
times supersaturated with dissolved oxygen giv-
en off by green plants; however', at night when
no oxygen is being produced, respiration by
aquatic plants and animals can deplete the sup-
ply sufficiently to cause a fish kill. Even a series
of warm cloudy days may be enough to reduce
dissolved oxygen to undesirable levels and
cause poor water quality.
-------
14
Low species diversity and high biomass are
common features of eutrophic lakes. Poor water
quality has much to do with this; many sensitive
species are eliminated or greatly reduced when
water quality conditions become unfavorable.
Almost always, however, a few more tolerant
species become abundant because of lack of
competition or predator pressure. Thus, eutro-
phic lakes support unbalanced communities
characterized by large numbers of a relatively
few species. Energy becomes blocked in lower
levels of the food web instead of flowing
smoothly through it, because many of the algae
and rooted aquatic plants found in highly eutro-
phic lakes are also the ones least favored by
plant-eating animals.
The interrelationships of physical, chemical,
and biological processes are also responsible for
nutrient recycling, one of the most difficult prob-
lems to deal with in lake management. As Hutch-
inson (1969) points out, the biological character-
istics of a lake appear to result only partly from
the nutrient supply contained in its water; the to-
tal potential supply of nutrients in the lake sys-
tem is more important than the concentration at
any given time. Concentrations of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and other nutrients dissolved in
lake water will be low if most of the supply is
locked up elsewhere in the system. Besides the
water column, nutrients may be stored in plant
and animal tissue or in the bottom sediments.
What makes their elimination or reduction so dif-
ficult in lake management is that during one sea-
son of the year they may be predominantly in
one location (i.e., tied up in living tissue) and in
another, elsewhere (i.e., the bottom sediments).
In some lakes, recycling is responsible for
maintaining high nutrient concentrations even
when external sources are eliminated.
Limnologists have shown that phosphorus,
which of all the nutrients is the one most likely to
be in shortest supply in freshwater lakes, is in
constant flux. In surface waters with both an
abundance of phytoplankton to take up the
phosphorus and large numbers of decomposing
organisms (bacteria and fungi) to decay dead tis-
sue, phosphorus can be recycled in a matter of
minutes.
Phosphorus also is recycled at the bottom of
lakes but at a much slower rate. There, the re-
mains of dead plants and animals rain down
more or less continuously and are decomposed.
Liberated phosphorus may diffuse into the
overlying water or become bound (at least tem-
porarily) in the sediments. Its fate is very much
dependent on prevailing physical and chemical
conditions on the bottom. If oxygen is present,
as is the case in most oligotrophic lakes and oth-
er lakes which are not stratified, phosphorus
tends to combine with iron and precipitate out of
solution as insoluble ferric phosphate. Absence
of oxygen, a common condition at the bottom of
eutrophic lakes in summer, causes phosphorus
to remain in solution. While the lake remains
stratified, concentrations of phosphorus, nitro-
gen; and other nutrients continue to build in the
hypolimnion, and mixing (spring and fall turn-
over of dimictic lakes) causes an upsurge of nu-
trient rich bottom water which then becomes
available to plankton. This results in algal
blooms typical of eutrophic lakes.
Nutrient control is a very important element of
any lake management program. For a program
to be effective, the limiting nutrient — the one in
shortest supply — must be identified and con-
trolled. Plants require 20 different elements for
growth, but only two, nitrogen and phosphorus,
are likely to be in short supply. The question of
which nutrient is limiting has great practical im-
portance, because control of the limiting nutrient
will directly affect plant growth. Identifying the
limiting nutrient is discussed further in Section
10.0 and Appendix E.
Appendix J lists a number of references con-
taining a great deal more information on
limnology than can be presented here. Wetzel
(1975), Ruttner (1963), Hutchinson (1957, 1966,
1975), Cole (1980), and Valentyne (1974) are rec-
ommended for those who would like to read fur-
ther on the subject.
3.3 Indices for Measuring Eutrophication
Because of the intimate interrelationship be-
tween physical, chemical, and biological condi-
tions in lakes, a wide variety of indices of trophic
condition can be measured. Indices have been
based on Secchi disk transparency, hypolimnetic
oxygen depletion, nutrient concentrations, and
biological parameters including species abun-
dance and diversity. Much work has been done
to correlate one parameter with another. For ex-
ample, chlorophyll a concentrations have been
correlated with phytoplankton populations. Wa-
ter quality scientists have narrowed down the
long list of trophic indicators to a few that are re-
lated directly to eutrophication and that can be
measured in quantitative terms. The major tro-
phic indicators in use are: Secchi disk
transparency, nitrogen and phosphorus concen-
trations, and the concentration of chlorophyll a.
These four parameters, described in more detail
in Section 10.0, measure physical, chemical, and
biological manifestations of trophic state. Gener-
ally accepted ranges for them are now available
for oligotrophic and eutrophic conditions
(Carlson, 1979; Uttormark, 1979; and Reckhow,
1979).
Secchi disk transparency measures the clarity
of water. The Secchi disk is a white disk (or white
and black in quadrants), 20 centimeters in diam-
eter, which the investigator lowers into the water
on a calibrated line to the point where it disap-
pears. It is then raised until it just reappears and
the average of the two depths (usually ex-
-------
15
pressed in centimeters or meters) is the Secchi
disk transparency. In a lake where the suspend-
ed matter is formed primarily by in-lake
processes (i.e., algal growth) and where external
sources of turbidity (e.g., clay) are unimportant,
Secchi disk transparency is an indirect and in-
verse measure of algal biomass. Values less
than about 1 meter are associated with
hypereutrophic conditions. Transparency values
for lakes range from about 40 meters to about 10
centimeters (Hutchinson, 1957).
A large number of factors besides algal stand-
ing crop affect Secchi disk transparency. Aside
from clay turbidity, the most important
(non-trophic state) factor is dissolved organic
color, which in high concentrations, can result in
transparency values in the "eutrophic" range (<
2 m) (Carlson, 1973), even in the absence of algal
turbidity. Consequently, interpretation of
transparency information as a measurement of
trophic conditions must be done cautiously. On
the other hand, Secchi disk transparency is an at-
tractive (and widely-used) indicator because of
its simplicity and ease of measurement. It also
correlates well with the public's perception of
water quality.
Phosphorus is usually the most important nu-
trient controlling lake productivity; therefore, to-
tal phosphorus (i.e., the phosphorus present in
both inorganic and organic, dissolved and sus-
pended forms) is an important measure of tro-
phic state. Total phosphorus concentrations in
lakes (expressed in terms of elemental phospho-
rus) range from micrograms per liter (jig/I = 1
part per billion) in ultraoligotrophic lakes to sev-
eral milligrams per liter (parts per million) in
some hypereutrophic lakes. The dividing line be-
tween oligotrophic and mesotrophic lakes is
usually regarded as about 10 p.g/1 and between
mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes as about 20
M.g/1. In some cases a high phosphorus concen-
tration may not produce a corresponding high
level of productivity, such as where inorganic
turbidity causes light limitation or where nitro-
gen is limiting.
Nitrogen is an important plant nutrient, but
limnologists have done little to develop quanti-
tative trophic criteria for nitrogen concentra-
tions. In part, this situation reflects the general
attitude that phosphorus is the most common
nutrient factor controlling trophic state, but it
also attests to the considerably more complicat-
ed chemistry and biology associated with nitro-
gen, and the greater difficulty involved in con-
trolling its sources. However, in recent years,
investigators have recognized that a significant
fraction (albeit a minority) of lakes are nitrogen
limited, and therefore criteria for nitrogen as a
trophic indicator may be developed in the next
several years.
Chlorophyll a, the principal photosynthetic
pigment in plants, has been found to be a useful
indicator of algal biomass. There are several
problems in relating chlorophyll a concentra-
tions to the biomass of algae, but this parameter
is more convenient and more easily quantified
than other measures such as counting the num-
ber of individuals in a unit area. Average (sum-
mertime) chlorophyll a concentrations of 5 to 10
p.g/1 are considered the dividing range between
oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes (Carlson, 1973).
In the National Eutrophication Survey of lakes
in the coterminous 48 States, 574 lakes were
classified as to trophic state. Only 5.4 percent
were classified as oligotrophic, 17.8 percent as
mesotrophic, while the remaining 77.8 percent
were classified as eutrophic (Bachmann, 1980).
While this was not a random survey, the propor-
tions are probably representative of the water
bodies used by the public. This indicates that
many lakes have water quality problems; how-
ever, it should be pointed out that not all eutro-
phic lakes are impaired. From a fisheries stand-
point, eutrophic lakes have higher rates of
production than oligotrophic lakes though the
species composition is different. Indeed, fertiliz-
ers have been used as a fisheries management
tool to increase fish production in some inten-
sively harvested waters. There is, of course, a
limit, such as lakes choked with higher aquatic
vegetation or with oxygen depletions that cause
massive fish kills. The degree of eutrophication
needs to be considered in evaluating a lake.
3.4 Management of Lakes
Some general principles for lake management
and for restoring water quality in degraded lakes
can be derived from the fundamentals of
limnology discussed in preceding sections. First,
as Hutchinson (1960) pointed out, the productiv-
ity of a lake is set by the simultaneous operation
of a number of factors, only one of which is nu-
trient supply. Other important factors include
morphometry, climate, and hydrology. Second,
nutrient supplies are derived from sources exter-
nal to the lake (the surrounding watershed) and
also from internal sources (the lake sediments);
consequently, any long-term management pro-
gram must deal with both sources. Also, to be ef-
fective, programs must be designed to over-
come the causes of eutrophication rather than
dealing simply with the symptoms.
Where possible, the best way of reducing nu-
trient inputs to lakes is through diversion. The
restoration of Lake Washington by diverting
sewage effluents away from the lake is a classic
example of a successful project. The next choice
for reducing nutrient loading is through water-
shed management. Management involves many
aspects, including: (1) controlling land-use prac-
tices; (2) developing programs to minimize loss
of soil and fertilizer from agricultural lands; (3)
treating streams to remove nutrients (e.g., by
passing them through wetlands); (4) installing
-------
16
sewage treatment systems to remove nutrients
from waste water; and (5) developing laws and
ordinances (e.g., to limit use of phosphate deter-
gents, or to prohibit septic tanks in areas where
soils have poor retention capacity for phospho-
rus). Details are discussed in Section 4.0.
For lakes with a significant, internal source of
nutrients, the management program should in-
clude in-lake treatment to supplement water-
shed controls. Because of the costs involved,
in-lake treatment usually is feasible only in small
lakes. Removal of nutrient-rich or otherwise pol-
luted sediments by dredging is a common resto-
ration procedure. Chemical treatment of lake wa-
ter with alum to precipitate phosphate and form
a barrier for its release from the sediment has
been attempted with varying degrees of success
in several lakes.
-------
4.0 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
17
4.1 Overview
Water quality or aesthetic problems which oc-
cur in lakes can be associated with one or more
specific contaminants present in the lake waters
at concentrations which are high enough to
cause objectionable conditions. Contaminants
enter the lake either directly through precipita-
tion and atmospheric dry fall, or in solution or
suspension through surface or groundwater
inflows. In some cases, contaminants which
have entered the lake earlier, and accumulated
in sediments, may be recycled to overlying
waters.
If restoration is to be effective, the watershed
management program must address the follow-
ing issues:
A. What is the specific problem to be
corrected?
B. Which contaminants are the principal
contributors to that problem?
C. What are the total mass loads of the se-
lected contaminant which enter the lake
within a time frame characteristic of the
•problem?
D. What are the sources of these loads, and
the relative amounts contributed by each
source?
E. What is the cause-effect relationship be-
tween load magnitude and problem
intensity?
F. What degree of load reduction will pro-
vide an acceptable lake response, i.e.,
how much contaminant input can be tol-
erated without causing objectionable
lake responses?
G. Which load sources are controllable in
principle; which must be classified
uncontrollable?
H. For the controllable sources:
1. What management practices/control
measures are available?
2. Which are practical in the basin be-
ing studied, given site, institutional
or other constraints?
3. What are the performance character-
1 istics and costs for controlling the
contaminant?
4. What is the comprehensive manage-
ment program which will provide the
degree of reduction in load desired,
and at what overall cost?
Water quality problems which can impair or
deny desired beneficial uses of a lake can in-
clude any of the following: excessive coliform
bacteria levels which restrict contact recreational
use; floating debris and oil slicks which reduce
aesthetic quality; biodegradable organic matter
(BOD) which depletes dissolved oxygen re-
sources; dissolved solids and heavy metals, and
similar compounds which degrade the potable
water supply; nutrients which accelerate the
process of eutrophication; and silt which de-
creases water depth. To efficiently address and
resolve lake water quality problems, it is impor-
tant that the analyst have a clear idea which spe-
cific problem(s) and contaminants must be ad-
dressed. This obviously impacts any data
collection program to be designed, but will also
determine the method of problem analysis and
the management practices considered.
The Clean Lakes Program focuses on lakes
with recreational value, and excludes those used
only for water supply (Section 6.0). Further, it is
principally geared to eutrophication problems,
although not to the exclusion of other problems
which impair the recreational value. This empha-
sis is justified by the fundamental differences of
such adverse recreational use effects as exces-
sive biostimulation, high coliform bacteria
counts, and unsightly floating debris. All are sig-
nificant in terms of recreational use. However,
problems caused by conforms, floatables and
oxygen depletion are not cumulative. Their im-
pacts are relatively short term (days to weeks) as
-------
18
shown by Figure 4-1 (Oriscoll and Mancini,
1979), so that the lake does not "remember" pol-
lutant loads of this type which entered the pre-
vious year or season, or even during the pre-
vious storm. Eutrophication, in contrast, is
cumulative; each year that excessive nutrient
levels, sediment loads [including paniculate
forms of organics (BOD) and nutrients], plankton
and macrophyte growth are permitted to occur,
the difficulty of arresting the rate of enrichment
increases, and moves the lake closer to the point
at which the process may become practically
irreversible.
In this chapter, the discussion of watershed
management has been structured around the as-
sumption that the problem identified for a lake
(Item A) is one of excessive biostimulation of
plankton and/or rooted aquatic plants. The
contaminants (Item B) have been identified as ni-
trogen and phosphorus; phosphorus has been
determined to be of principal concern because
(1) it is expected to be the nutrient in shortest
supply, and (2) it is most amenable to control
(Reckhow et at., 1980). The general discussion,
the procedural guidance presented, and the sup-
porting references can, with appropriate modifi-
cations, be applied to other contaminants as
well. The user is cautioned, however, that de-
tailed adjustments of monitoring or analysis pro-
grams will often be desirable where the basic
problem has temporal and spatial scales for res-
olution that differ significantly from nutrient/
.eutrophication problems.
This section addresses Items C and D in
subsection 4.3. Procedures for addressing Items
E and F are discussed in Sections 3.0 and 8.0.
With the information developed from these ac-
tivities, watershed management approaches can
be examined (Items G and H) using the guidance
SECONDS
ID" 10* 10* 10* IP7 10* 10*
I I
OAT MONTH TEAR
WEEK SEASON DECAOB
Figure 4-1. Time Scales of Water Quality Impacts.
Source: DriscoJI and Mancini. 1979.
presented in subsections 4.4 and 4.5 of this
section.
4.2 Pollutant Load Estimation
The importance of accurately estimating the
pollutant loads entering the lake cannot be over-
emphasized. It is neither a simple nor a particu-
larly straightforward task, but correct manage-
ment decisions, and quite possibly the ultimate
success of the restoration, will be influenced by
this effort. Of equal importance with a reliable
estimate of the total load is a reasonably accu-
rate determination of its distribution among var-
ious contributing sources. This is important for
the following reasons:
— Some sources are more controllable than
others.
— Different management practices/control
measures apply for different sources.
— Control efforts should be preferentially di-
rected at the sources which are most
significant.
The choice of"- terminology, "estimate of
loads" and "reasonably accurate," is deliberate.
Nonpoint source (NFS) loads cannot be meas-
ured directly because (1) they are generated over
a broad area, and typically enter the lake at many
locations, and (2) the principal driving force
transporting nonpoint source pollutants to the
lake is precipitation, which is extremely variable.
Even in situations where the major input to a
lake is from one or a few tributaries, the variabil-
ity of rainfall and stream flow is such that even
an elaborate monitoring effort for a year or more
provides no a priori assurance that test results
will translate directly to specific loads. For exam-
ple, the nutrient load of interest in a lake analysis
is usually a long term annual average load. Mon-
itoring results from any particular year (a
drought period, for example) may not be a good
representation of the long term average.
With few exceptions, defining pollutant loads
for a lake analysis and projections, and for the
watershed management evaluation, will require
a suitable methodology (calculation technique)
to convert specific land use, water quality,
hydrologic and precipitation measurements to
pollutant loads on a time scale selected for anal-
ysis of lake responses. There is fairly extensive
literature on and experience with such method-
ologies and the loading functions to be used
with them. Appendix C includes an overview of
such methodologies and references for the user
to secure detailed information on them.
Either of two basic techniques can be used by
load estimation methodologies applicable for a
Clean Lakes study effort.
4.2.1 Unit Areal Loading Method
Unit area! loads are representative values of
the amount of a specific chemical constituent ex-
ported from a land area of a certain size over
-------
19
some period of time. Such values are variously
referred to in the literature as area loads, area!
loading rates, unit loads, and export coefficients.
Dimensional terms also vary widely (Ib/acre/day,
tons/sq.mile/year, grams/sq.meter/year, kilo-
grams/hectare/year), but are readily convertible
by application of the appropriate dimensional
conversion factors. The term "export coeffi-
cient" has been adopted in this discussion to ex-
press unit area! rates, because it has found gen-
eral acceptance in lake analysis and because it
emphasizes the fact that the values expressed
represent what leaves the land surface. This may
be different than the load to the lake where dis-
tances between source and lake are great and at-
tenuation during transport may occur.
With this technique, representative export co-
efficients for the pollutant(s) of concern are as-
signed to each land activity within the water-
shed, together with the size of the area of each
land use. The product of area and export
coefficent provides the total contribution from
each source, and the total loading to the lake is
the sum of the contributions from all areas.
Table 4-1 summarizes one set of export coeffi-
cients which have been reported (U.S. EPA,
1976a). The pool of data on such values contin-
ues to grow; as this data base increases, esti-
mates improve in accuracy and refinement as
additional land use detail and geographic
differences are reflected. A considerably refined
set of estimating values based on the work of
Reckhow et al. (1980) is presented in Appendix
C. Table 4-1 indicates the sigr • oant differences
between the major sources ana the wide range
in reported values for any single category or
source. Much of the reported variation will be
dui: to differences between individual areas
(ty.. of crop, land slope, tyr^ of soil, etc.); much
will oe due to climatologicei differences, either
of a general nature (regional differences), or as a
result of the particular conditions which pre-
vailed at the time test data were developed.
Another influence on the range of export coef-
ficients, inherent in a data base compiled from
numerous literature reports, is the monitoring
procedures under which the data were obtained.
Table 4-2 illustrates the significant differences
Table 4-1
Approximate Relationship Between Unit Aereal Loadings from Nonpoint Sources
Average (Kg/ha/yr)
Forest"
Range/Pasture3
Cropland"
Urban"
Feedlots"
Precipitation*"
Lake Sediments'1
Aerobic Conditions
Anaerobic Conditions
TN
2.5
5
10
5
1.000
10
—
—
TP
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.8
250
0.25
20
150
TSS
250
400
1,600
2,000
—
—
—
—
Range (Kg/ha/yr)
TN
1 -10
2-10
1 -40
2-20
700-1,500
1-100
—
—
TP
0.005 - 1
0.2 - 0.6
0.03 - 0.7
0.25 - 5
100-400
0.05 - 1
5-40
100-200
TSS
40-400
10- 1,000
300 • 4,000
200 - 5.000
—
—
—
—
8 Applied to watershed area.
" Applied to lake surface area.
c For 102 cm 140") per year.
Note: For g,rams/m2/year. divide by 10.
Source: Adapted Iron U.S. EPA M976a).
Table 4-2
Comparison of Study Results Agricultural Nutrient Yields
Nitrogen Kg/ha/yr Phosphorus Kg/ha/yr
Scale of Study
Seepage Studies
— Lysimeter
—Tile Drainage
Runoff Studies
—Surface Runoff from Small
Test Plots
Drainage Area Studies
—Stream Sampling
Nutrient
Form
Total
Inorganic
Total
Inorganic
Total
Inorganic
Number . Number
of of
Studlaa Mean Range Studies Mean
15
28
25
14
23
17
Comparison
30 0.3
20 0.3
30 1
1 0.01
10 1
7.5 1
of Mean Yields
Nitrogen
Total Inorganic
Seepage Studies
Small Test Plots
Drainage Areas
30
30
10
20
1
7.5
-110 9 1
- 80 6 0.5
•250 16 6
-5 — —
- 40 35 0.5
- 20 9 0.15
Phosphorus
Total Inorganic
1 0.5-
6 —
0.5 0.15
Range
0.05 - 7.5
0.01 -2.5
0.1-30
0.03 - 2.5
0.03 - 0.6
Source: Adapted from citation m U.S. EPA I1976al.
-------
20
that can result in data derived from small test
plots compared with larger study areas.
The unit areal loading technique for estimat-
ing pollutant loads is simple to apply and quite
suitable for initial screening. It can provide early
estimates of the order of the nutrient load to a
lake to support initial analysis of lake impacts,
and it can (together with a delineation of water-
shed land uses) help the analyst identify the rela-
tive importance of different watershed sources,
and thereby provide focus for subsequent
efforts.
Because it will usually be quite difficult to ef-
fectively reflect specific local characteristics of
the study site, or important precipitation, or
stream flow conditions, alternative load estimat-
ing techniques should be used to supplement
the preliminary analysis.
4.2.2 Flow/Concentration Techniques
These techniques (examples of which are
identified, discussed briefly, and referenced in
Appendix C) essentially define the characteristic
concentration of the specific pollutant in the
runoff from each source. Flows which emanate
from specific watershed sources are defined,
and the pollutant load contributed by that source
is calculated from the product of flow and con-
centration. Where correlations between flow and
concentration exist, they are employed.
There are a number of advantages to a Clean
Lakes study in this approach. They include:
1. Available historical data, which can signifi-
cantly enhance study efforts, will exist as
flow and concentration measurements.
2. Monitoring programs conducted as part of
the study will'measure flow and concentra-
tion (see Section 10.0).
3. Normal temporal differences which are im-
portant in an analysis can be addressed
readily. These include annual, seasonal, or
short term differences in precipitation,
stream flow, and land use activities (e.g.,
farming). This approach imposes no con-
straints on the time scale selected for the
analysis so that it responds best to the time
scale of the problem. It is adaptable to eval-
uating annual or seasonal nutrient loads, or
storm event coliform loads.
4. Localized differences and spatial effects can
be accommodated more readily. For exam-
ple, leachate from a landfill or septic tanks
will vary in significance depending on dis-
tance from the lake, and the amount of rain-
fall for the period being evaluated.
Pollutant loads will vary on an annual basis
(wet vs. dry years), on a seasonal basis (normal
precipitation and stream flow variation), and on
a daily basis (storm events). A procedure which
is adapted to any of these temporal scales pro-
vides a desirable degree of flexibility for a Clean
Lakes study. Detailed guidance on suitable
methodologies of this type is available in a num-
ber of publications (U.S. EPA, 1976a; U.S. EPA,
1977) developed for EPA to support the 208 pro-
gram activities. They are discussed further in Ap-
pendix C.
4.3 Sources of Pollutant Loads
A pollutant may be introduced to a lake direct-
ly, for example, by atmospheric dry-fall or by
spills or dumping. Most, however, are carried in
by the water entering the lake: direct precipita-
tion on the lake surface, ground water seepage,
or surface water inflows.
Surface water enters a lake through the major
tributary streams which feed the lake and also by
overland flow or through smaller drainage chan-
nels. These waters carry contaminants which
have eroded or leached from the watershed.
Even under natural conditions, i.e., without hu-
man cultural activities, these waters would carry
contaminants. Cultural activities, however, tend
to increase the quantity of contaminants trans-
ported into the lake and also add different types
that might not otherwise occur. Just as different
land characteristics of the drainage area, e.g.,
forest vs pasture, influence the mobility of the
contaminants, and therefore the amount contrib-
uted from the watershed, different types of cul-
tural activities in these watersheds also affect
the type and amount of pollutants contributed.
Because some sources tend to contribute
more of certain pollutants than others, and be-
cause the feasibility of controlling pollutants dif-
fers according to sources, it becomes important
to determine the relative loads of problem pol-
lutants from different sources and then identify
the most important ones to control.
To estimate total loads, and to determine the
relative distribution among major sources, the
following initial breakdown is recommended:
1. Atmospheric Sources (direct to lake sur-
face)
— Dry fall
— Precipitation
2. Point Sources '
— Municipal wastewater
— Industrial wastes
3. Nonpoint Sources
— Forest
— Agriculture (cropland and range land)
— Urban (storm runoff and combined
sewer overflow)
— Other
4. Special Localized Sources
— Septic tanks
— Feedlots
— Landfills
— Construction activities
5. Internal Lake Sources
— Sediments
-------
21
A further degree of breakdown may be appro-
priate where the contributing area for a particu-
lar source is large and/or the relative proportion
of the load from that source is large. Examples
would include further classification of an urban
area into residential, commercial, industrial, in-
stitutional and parkland; or subdividing an agri-
cultural source into row vs non-row crops, or
type of crop. This additional effort should be un-
dertaken only when it will improve the reliability
of estimating pollutant load, or evaluating the
feasibility of control. The greatest attention
should be to sources that comprise major areas
and major fractions of total or controllable loads.
Nutrient loading rates per unit area of lake sur-
face are a common basis for estimating the se-
verity of expected water quality impacts in a lake
eutrophication analysis. Figure 4-2 illustrates the
importance of the area of the watershed sources
in terms of the surface area of the lake which re-
ceives the drainage. For this figure, loading rates
have been converted to grams/square meter/
year (= 1/10 X Kg/ha/yr), since these dimension-
al terms are more commonly used in lake analy-
sis. Nonpoint source loads, plotted for each of
the land uses shown, are the average values
listed in Table 4-1; each line represents a wider
band, within which actual local loading rates are
likely to fall. For lakes between about 5 and 50
meters deep, most of the methodologies for esti-
mating trophic state (e.g., Vollenweider, Dillon,
Reckhow, etc.) will define "critical" loading rates
to the lake surface in the approximate range of
0.05 to 0.5 gm/m2/year.
An initial estimate of the potential significance
of a particular source can be obtained with Fig-
ure 4-2 from the ratio of the watershed area dedi-
cated to that source, to the lake surface area.
Each of the major source classifications is dis-
cussed briefly below. The discussions include
identification of the relevant features of each
use, references for additional information on the
source, and procedures (methodologies) for esti-
mating loadings. Typical pollutant loadings from
the source, and its subdivisions, where appropri-
ate, are presented for comparison purposes. Ap-
pendix C presents detailed summaries of load-
ing functions (export values) for various sources
(i.e., land use/activity).
4.3.1 Atmospheric Sources
Pollutants which enter the lake surface directly
from the'atmosphere do so either as dry-fall, or
dissolved or suspended in rainfall. Monitoring
devices which exclude precipitation from the
dry-fall collecting chamber, and cover the pre-
cipitation chamber during dry periods, measure
the two components separately. Bulk precipita-
tion measurements collect both components in-
LAKE SURFACE NUTRIENT LOADING RA.TE
GRAMS P/SQ. METER/YEAR
. § b P Z
o -• •» -• -« o o
/
/
FEEDLOTS
/
/
/
/
/
f
t
A
/.' ' /
01 .01 .1
SURFACE AREA RATIO
/
\f//
'//
'/
/
////
V/
w
y/
URBAN
/ CROPLAND
y RANGELANO
/ FOREST
10 100 1000
WATERSHED LAND AREA
LAKE SURFACE AREA
Figure 4-2. Effect of Nonpoint Source—Type and Area on Lake Surface Loading Rates.
-------
22
discriminately and record the combined atmos-
pheric contribution.
Some typical values and ranges for nutrients
carried by precipitation are found in Table 4-1.
Comparison of these figures with unit a real
loadings shows that direct precipitation exhibits
low to moderate unit loads. Where the water-
shed is large relative to the lake surface, direct
precipitation inputs will typically be a relatively
small percentage of the total load, and site spe-
cific refinements of atmospheric source esti-
mates may be assigned low priority. For study
areas where the ratio of watershed area to lake
surface area is low, then improved site-specific
estimates are more important.
As illustrated by Figure 4-2, nutrient loadings
to a lake from direct precipitation are likely to be
a significant component of total load, when wa-
tershed area is less than 10 or 20 times greater
than lake surface area. However, the wide range
in possible loading rates — including direct pre-
cipitation loads — will influence the actual point
where this ratio becomes significant in a local
area.
Atmospheric dry-fall is subject to significantly
greater regional and climatological influence
and can contribute a major portion of atmos-
pheric loads. For example, a phosphorous load-
ing budget for Lake George, N.Y. (Auterbach,
1979), showed estimates of dry-fall to be about
three times greater than estimates for direct
precipitation.
A source of data on atmospheric pollutant
loads, available to supplement any State or local
program operating in a Clean Lakes study area,
is the National Atmospheric Deposition Program
(NADP), also known as the Acid Rain Program.
An extensive monitoring station network has
been established, and has been collecting data
since 1979. In cases where a project determines
the need to supplement information available
through the NADP, manuals (NADP, 1980) pre-
pared by this program can be helpful. In addi-
tion, the U.S. Geological Survey and EPA's Na-
tional Urban Runoff Program (NURP) are
monitoring wet and dry-fall at a number of sites
around the country, and should be considered a
potential source of information on determining
local atmospheric source loads.
Atmospheric source loads must be defined for
each study to accurately establish total loads to
the lake. The reliability of this estimate, and
hence the appropriate level of effort, will be
Table 4-3
Typical Treatment System Performance—Municipal Wastewaters
Effluent Characteristics lmg/1)
Number
—
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
BOD5
210
130
100
45
25
20
15
10
10
10
5
5
3
20
15
—
TSS
230
100
50
60
30
20
15
20
20
10
5
5
5
20
15
—
COD
400
250
185
90
50
45
35
35
45
45
25
30
10
45
46
—
Total
P
11
9
2
8
2
7
2
8
8
1
1
0.5
0.5
—
6
—
NH3-N
20
20
20
18
18
17
17
2
1
2
20
1
1
17b
2C
1
—
NO3-N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
1
18
0
1
1
0
8
—
UOD"
406
286
241
150
120
107
100
24
20
24
99
12
12
107
27
—
Description of System
Raw Waste Characteristics
Primary
Primary and Metal Salt Addition (FeCl_3l
Primary and Trickling Filter
Primary and Trickling Filter with Metal Salt (FeCL3)
Primary and Activated Sludge
Primary, Activated Sludge. Metal Salt (Alum)
Primary, Activated Sludge/Nitrification
Primary, Activated Sludge, Nitrification, Denitrification
Primary Metal Salt Addition (Alum), Activated
Sludge/Nitrification Filtration
Preliminary, Two-Stage Lime, Filtration, Carbon Adsorption
Primary Metal Salt Addition (Alum), Activated Sludge,
Nitrification, Denitrification, Polymer, Filtration
Primary Metal Salt Addition (Alum), Activated Sludge,
Nitrification, Oenitrification, Polymer, Filtration. Carbon
Adsorption
Small-Flow Treatment Systems, i.e.. Package Plants
—Extended Aeration Plant 0.01-0.1 mgd; contact stabiliza-
tion plant 0.1-1.0 mgd
Oxidation Ditch; C. 05-10 mgd (designed for nitrogen re-
moval)
Land Application
8 UOO - Ultimate Oxygen Demand - (1.5 « BOD^ + (4.57 x NH3-N).
" Contact Stabilization.
c Extended Aeration.
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand.
TSS - Total Suspended Solids.
COO - Chemical Oxygen Demand.
Note: Treatment systems 1 to 12 include disinfection, sludge .handling, miscellaneous structures, and support personnel.
Source: U.S. EPA |1976al.
-------
23
strongly influenced by the size of the watershed
relative to the lake surface area.
. Although 208 and Clean Air programs may re-
duce local contributions, atmospheric loads
probably should be considered to be "uncontrol-
lable" within the context of a Clean Lakes study,
on the basis tha.t the spatial scale and time frame
of such programs must encompass a large por-
tion of the country and probably require decades
to implement.
4.3.2 Point Sources
All point source discharges of municipal or in-
dustrial wastewaters are covered by EPA's Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), and are regulated by permit. Permit
conditions specify maximum allowable flows
and mass loadings (and/or concentrations) for a
list of specific pollutants. Pollutants on the per-
mit list vary somewhat according to the particu-
lar source, and include those which are signifi-
cant components of that source.
Point source pollutant loadings can be deter-
mined from actual data. Self-monitoring and
routine reporting of wastewater discharge flow
and quality are basic requirements of the NPDES
permit, and results should be readily obtainable
from EPA Regional Offices.
For perspective and illustrative purposes, Ta-
bles 4-3 and 4-4 present some quality character-
istics typical of municipal wastewater discharges
and some classes of industrial wastes. As
shown, effluent quality for some contaminants
will vary with the degree of treatment applied.
These tables provide an initial sense of the po-
tential significance of a particular point source,
given the size and nature of the operation, so
that subsequent efforts may be prioritized and
directed.
The analyst should be aware that specific
contaminants may not be regulated for a particu-
lar point source discharge, and hence may not
be covered by the NPDES monitoring and re-
porting requirements. For example, paper mills
are typically deficient in nutrients — to the extent
that nitrogen and phosphorus are usually added
for effective operation of biological waste treat-
ment systems. Thus effluents will usually con-
tain residual concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus, and could provide appreciable
mass loadings to the lake. For this reason, point
source loadings for any parameters not routinely
reported should be established.
Point sources are to be one of the more readily
controllable pollutant loading sources. They rep-
resent a concentrated, accessible source legally
bound to greater degrees of treatment where it
Table 4-4
Typical Industrial Effluent Concentrations
Parameter
Approximate Mean Effluent Characteristics (ma/1)a
Food
Textile*
Paper
Chemicals Petroleum Metal
BPT-1977
TSS
BOD5
COD
TDS
Cl
Total-P
Total-N
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Oil
BAT- 1983
TSS
BOD5
COD
TDS
Cl
Total-P
Total-N
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Oil
40"
29"
135
—
565
• 17
50
—
—
—
10"
10"
7"
48
—
565
1.2
9"
—
—
—
10"
49"
22"
225b
700
25
. 2
2
.03
5
.005
10
8"
11b
72"
700
25
2
2
.03
5
.005
10
58".
39"
156
3,785
135
—
—
—
_
—
—
23"
22"
88
3,785
135
—
—
— .
—
—
—
.40"
30"
1,400"
4,350
—
5
20
2"
0.25"
.225"
15"
13"
15"
460b
4,350
—
3
3
1"
.25b
.05"
3
10b
15"
102b
—
70
5"
5"
5b
26"
—
—
—
28
—
—
—
1.35"
20b
38"
—
—
—
.50
62b
,25b
.25"
.15"
5b.
5b
4b
—
—
—
0
5b
Ob
Ob
0"
5b
8 Represents an approximate estimate of the mean effluent concentrations lor each industry. The pollutant concentration could vary widely within an industry as a result of varying
water usages.
D Concentrations developed from effluent guidelines which exist for these parameters: other concentrations were obtained from any existing treatment plant data found in the
Development Document.
-------
24
can be demonstrated that it is (a) necessary to
protect water quality and (b) cost-effective com-
pared with treatment of nonpoint sources.
4.3.3 Nonpoint Sources
As stated earlier, estimation of site-specific
nonpoint source loads is not straightforward,
nor is the determination of either the extent to
which they can be controlled or the most effec-
tive watershed management plan. Determina-
tion of nonpoint source loads, which may in-
volve designing effective monitoring programs,
evaluating data for estimating loads on the de-
sired time scale, and developing an effective
management plan for their control, will frequent-
ly prove to be among the more challenging tasks
for a Clean Lakes study.
An effective monitoring program which char-
acterizes important local features of the study
area will be critical, and given the diffuse nature
of nonpoint sources and normal time and bud-
get constraints, considerable attention will be re-
quired, not only to optimize this effort, but even
to make it effective. In addition, it is unlikely that
monitoring data (.and historical data) will directly
reflect the pollutant loads required in the analy-
sis. In most cases, such data will provide the nec-
essary site-specific information required to de-
velop load estimates on the time and space scale
required for analysis of lake impacts, and for the
evaluation of control alternatives.
Detailed guidance on estimating procedures
and designing monitoring programs is provided
by a number of reports and EPA manuals (U.S.
EPA, 1976a; U.S. EPA, 1977; Reckhow, 1979). A
careful review of these and other pertinent publi-
cations is recommended.
Some 225 planning studies under the 208 pro-
gram have been performed, placing significant
emphasis on nonpoint sources. These studies,
many of which are continuing, may provide use-
ful references for Clean Lakes studies. For specif-
ic-.information on selected sources, Federal or
State agencies may provide information, guid-
ance, reference material or direct assistance. Ex-
amples include:
-1. U.S. EPA (Headquarters and Regional
Offices)
2. State Environmental Protection Agencies
3. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conserva-
tion Service)
4. U.S. Forestry Service/State Forestry Groups
5. Urban Planning Agencies (Local and
Regional)
6. Bureau of Mines
7. Corps of Engineers
8. U.S. Geological Survey
9. NOAA (climate and precipitation records)
Specific guidance for contact with some of these
groups is provided in a U.S. EPA publication
(1976a), and with EPA Regions for guidance on
others.
Brief discussions are presented here on each
of the major categories of nonpoint sources. The
intent, within the scope of this manual, is to
highlight the salient features of each source,
identify some of the important general consider-
ations, and refer the reader to available docu-
ments that provide greater detail and more
in-depth discussion.
4.3.3.1 Forests. Forested watersheds in an
undisturbed condition (not necessarily virgin
forests) are generally lowest of all nonpoint
source categories in export of pollutants. Further
control of undisturbed forests is not usually con-
sidered; runoff flows and pollutant concentra-
tions are low enough that further reduction
would very likely be technically unrealistic
and/or costly.
Pollutant loads from forested areas will vary
with climate, type and age of trees, type of soil,
and topography of the area. Nutrient export co-
efficients covering a variety of such conditions
are given in Appendix C.
The harvesting of trees and subsequent
reforestation, can increase the potential for pol-
lutant export. Some typical activities include:
1. Construction, use and maintenance of ac-
cess roads and skid trails
2. Timber harvesting
3. Reforestation, including associated site
clearing
4. Burning
5. Chemical application of fertilizers and
pesticides
6. Nonsilvicultural activities such as camping,
recreational travel, fishing, hunting and
livestock grazing.
Because of the very high degree of
site-specificity, there are no typical values for ex-
port of various pollutants which can be present-
ed for various silvicultural activities. Normally,
only a very small percentage of the total forested
watershed is subjected to a particular activity at
any one time, and such activities are not a per-
manent feature of the area. Recovery of an area
is relatively short in relation to the overall cycle,
so that within 2 to 6 years most areas have re-
turned to the equivalent of an undisturbed con-
dition. In addition, during a recovery period,
some partial degree of protection is provided.
Because of these factors, and because actual
contribution of pollutants will be strongly influ-
enced by the location of the activity in relation to
topography, soil characteristics, and proximity
to streams, pollutant contributions from
silvicultural activities must be evaluated on a site
specific basis.
General procedural approaches are presented
in several EPA documents (U.S. EPA, 1976a; U.S.
EPA, 1977). A detailed procedure for evaluating
nonpoint source loads from silvicultural activi-
ties has been developed in a handbook by the
-------
25
U.S. Forest Service (Currier et al., 1974). The sa-
lient features of this procedure are described in
Chapter 19 of the proceedings of a recent waste
management conference (Loehr, et al. 1979).
To illustrate the relative potential for the var-
ious silvicultural practices to export pollutants.
Table 4-5 summarizes estimated average ero-
sion rates in different "Land Resource Areas"
within the State of Louisiana, showing the esti-
mated percentage of each area on which specific
practices take place. The different Land Resource
Areas are characterized by differences in rainfall,
topography, and soil type. Erosion rates were
calculated, in this case by a modification of the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), except that
field evidence was used for estimates for skid
trails and access roads, for which the equation
does not work well.
The other major potential source of pollutants
from silviculture is from applications of fertiliz-
ers and pesticides. Fertilizers applied to forest
lands can enter water bodies by direct applica-
tion or by leaching through the soil. The poten-
tial for direct introduction to surface waters is
normally restricted to aerial applications. Almost
all the fertilizer applied to a given site reaches
the forest floor with no appreciable loss due to
volatilization or interception by the forest cano-
py. Once on the forest floor, there is normally no
loss by overland flow. Studies have shown that
forest soils have the capacity to tie up many
times the amount of fertilizer normally applied,
which virtually eliminates any significant water
body contamination by leaching.
Pesticides used in forest management include
insecticides and herbicides. Their potential im-
pact on water quality depends on their mobility
and persistence, and on the accuracy of place-
ment and orientation to streams. Insecticide use
on forest lands has been tightly regulated in re-
cent years. Most insecticides in use are relatively
immobile and short-lived. Chlorinated hydrocar-
bons are more of a problem because of toxicity,
persistence, and biomagnification, but are rarely
used, and subject to EPA approval. Herbicide
compounds in use are generally not very toxic
and do not biomagnify. Herbicides are usually
more mobile than insecticides; even so, move-
ment is usually measured in terms of only inches
or a few feet. Characteristics are specific to the
compounds in use, so that the compounds actu-
ally applied should be identified in order to prop-
erly evaluate impacts.
The most significant potential vehicle for
transport of either applied chemicals or naturally
occurring compounds into receiving waters,
thus appears to be through erosive action. Load
estimating techniques for forested areas and the
impact of silvicultural activities are most appro-
priately those which address and evaluate
site-specific differences in erosion.
4.3.3.2 Agriculture (Cropland and Range Land).
Cropland is one of the most significant potential
sources of nutrient and silt to lakes. Unit loading
rates tend to be high, and relatively large por-
tions of the watershed will often be devoted to
agricultural activities. A wide variation in nutri-
ent export is possible. In addition to the common
factors of soil type, slope, proximity of water
Table 4-5
Estimated Average Erosion Rates'
Fore*t Condition
Recoverv""
Period -
(Yean)
Tons/Acrt/Year0
Land Resource Area
B
% of Area In Indicated Use
Land Resource Area
Tons/Acre/Year0
I B C D
Natural
Logging
(Timber Harvest)
.0004 .015 .004 .004
.045 .101 .106 .016
5.2
6.3
6.4
* Louisiana Forested Areas
^ Average (or Southern States.
c Susoendw Solids. To convert to kQ/ha/vr. multiply by 2238.
Source (Alan H ptummer Associates. 1979)
4.6
Skid Trails
Access Roads
Chop or Chop and Burn
Shear and Windrow
Burn
Grazing
4
4
3
4
...... 3
14.0
23.0
.07
.40
.05
.048
36.2
86.8
.32
2.73
.075
.045
30.3
52.9
.176
2.40
.036
.016
1.0
2.6
.066
.386
.026
.016
0.2
0.06
1.4
1.9
0.4
9.1
0.3
0.06
1.4
0.4
7.7
28.0
0.3
0.07
1.0
1.0
8.0
14.0
0.2
0.06
1.4
0.4
11.6
53.0
-------
26
courses, and climate, the type of crop,
cultivation technique, and length of growing cy-
cle strongly influence the erosive potential and
hence the tendency for export of pollutants. The
use of fertilizers and pesticides is common, and
the care and timing of applications have an im-
portant effect on export of these chemicals.
A useful and well developed methodology ex-
ists for evaluating the relative tendency of crop-
land to export pollutants under various sets of
site-specific conditions. This methodology is the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) developed
and applied for many years by the Soil Conser-
vation Service (SCS) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. The equation is:
A = RKLSCP
where: A = Average annual soil loss in
tons/acre
R = Rainfall and runoff erosivity
index
K = Soil erodability factor
LS = Dimensionless topographic fac-
tor representing the combined
effects of slope length and
steepness
C = The cover and management
factor
P = Factor for supporting practices
An extensive data base exists to support the
estimation of numerical values for each of the
factors in this equation, either on a regional ba-
sis, or on a site-specific basis when appropriate
local data are available.
The application of this equation appears in
many publications, and it is incorporated in a
number of watershed load-generating math-
ematical models. Perhaps the most appropriate
initial references for a Clean Lakes Program
analyst to examine are the Areawide Assess-
ment Procedures Manual (U.S. EPA, 1976a) and
Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Method
for Non-Designated 208 Areas (U.S. EPA, 1977).
These references discuss the application of this
equation to estimation of pollutant export, de-
scribe a methodology for applying it, and
present summary tables and graphs to assist in
the estimation of the various factors in the equa-
tion. Annotated bibliographies for further refer-
ence are also included.
A comprehensive source of information relat-
ing to evaluation of loads and approaches to
control will be found in the joint EPA/USDA doc-
ument, Control of Water Pollution From Crop-
land (1975).
The user should be cautioned, however, that
the basis for the technique, as developed by
SCS, was for evaluation of the effect of various
agricultural practices and site characteristics on
the erosion of topsoil. In its basic form, it ad-
dresses the potential for precipitation to dis-
lodge and transport (erode) soil particles, and
makes no statement concerning export from the
immediate area through entry into water
courses and transport by stream flow to more
distant water bodies.
In the adaptations which address water quality
effects, various empirically derived factors are
applied:
1. Sediment delivery ratio—estimates the
percentage of the soil dislodged which will en-
ter the stream. Figure 4-3 relates this factor to
soil type and the relative proximity of streams.
2. Enrichment ratio—estimates the nutrients
and other chemicals exported to water bodies
as a function of the sediment transport.
These ratios are relatively crude approxima-
tions, and are difficult to estimate reliably for
site-specific conditions. For this reason, and also
because loads can be modified significantly dur-
ing transport by a stream to a lake some distance
away, this methodology will be less reliable as
an estimator of loads to a lake than would moni-
toring of flow and quality of lake inflows. With-
out site-specific calibration, it probably offers no
improvement in reliability of lake loadings over
the use of unit areal loading rates (export values
per list in Appendix C).
The USLE does, however, have considerable
value in a watershed management study for a
Clean Lakes Project. With local estimates for the
factors in the equation, it provides a sound basis
for estimating the relative contributions to be ex-
pected from various segments of the watershed.
Where an independently derived estimate of to-
tal loads has been obtained, estimates of loads
from individual segments can be determined. In
addition, the relative effect of different practices,
and the expected relative distribution of loads
during different times of the year can be estimat-
ed. Where the relationship to total load has been
established, changes in total load can be
estimated.
Figure 4-4 projects variation in erosion poten-
tial (and hence nutrient or pollutant export) de-
rived from the USLE. Monthly variations in rain-
fall characteristics, and changes in ground cover
over the crop cycle can be defined and an esti-
mate made. One obvious value of such an exer-
cise is the insight it can provide for designing of
an effective monitoring program. The accuracy
of an estimate of annual loads to a lake will be
greatly enhanced where monitoring efforts con-
centrate on the period where the major portion
of the exported load is expected.
Fertilizers are now used abundantly on com-
mercial crops in the United States. The potential
for pollution will generally be highest where
large areas are treated with high application
rates of fertilizers. Table 4-6 summarizes on a na-
tional basis the percentage of the total crop
which is treated with chemical fertilizer and the
national average application rate (U.S.
EPA/USDA, 1975).
-------
27
I/DRAINAGE DENSITY. KILOMETERS'/KILOMETER
0.1 1.0 10 100 200 600
SILTY CLAY
PREDOMINANTLY SILT
0.02
0.1 1.0 10 100
I/DRAINAGE DENSITY. (SQUARE MILES/MILE OF STREAM)
SOURCE: U.S. EPA(1976a)
400
Figure 4-3. Sediment Delivery Ratio for Fairly Homogeneous Basins.
Source. U.S EPA. 0976a)
TIME OF YEAR
Local practice could differ significantly from
these averages. Nutrients can be applied singly
or in combination, and the relative amounts of N
and P will vary with the formulation used.
Phosphorus moves primarily by erosion be-
cause phosphate adsorbs strongly on soil parti-
cles. Although some soluble phosphorus com-
pounds do move in runoff water, the amount
exported via this route is usually small because,
even when soluble orthophosphate is used in a
fertilizer application, it soon converts to insolu-
ble forms in the soil (U.S. EPA/USDA, 1975).
Where nutrient contributions to a lake from
cropland are expected to be an important com-
ponent of the total input to a lake, it will be im-
portant to determine the relative amounts of
land devoted to specific crops. The type of crop
FaWe 4-6
Acres Receiving Fertilizer and Average Fertilizer Rates
of Four Crops in the United States in 1974
Hectares
Harvested Percent Fertilized Rate (kg/ha)
Figure 4-4. Projected Variation in Soil Erosion.
Source U-S EPAH976JI
Crop
Corn
Cotton
Soybeans . .
Wheat ... .
(million)
25.8
5.3
.. 21.3
26.0
N
94
79
22
66
P
87
58
28
46
N
115
87
17
51
P
30
26
20
19
-------
28
grown (and this may involve a 2 or 3 year rotat-
ing cycle) determines the extent and duration of
ground cover, and also the type and quantity of
applied fertilizer.
Livestock can be a significant source of nutri-
ents to surface waters, whether they are grazing
on pastureland or being raised in confinement
(feedlots or buildings, such as dairy barns). Ta-
ble 4-7 presents typical values of manure pro-
duction and manure nutrient content for various
domestic animals. The extent of nutrient trans-
port from pastureland depends on the kinds and
number of animals, their density on the pasture,
proximity to receiving waters, topography, and
weather conditions. Confined operations usually
involve larger numbers of animals, and, because
the large amounts of manure they produce are
almost always disposed of on nearby land, they
can cause more serious water quality problems.
In the northern states, winter spreading of ma-
nure on frozen ground or snow, followed by high
nutrient export during thaw and runoff, has been
identified as the cause of nutrient enrichment in
a number of lakes. Provision of adequate winter
storage to allow spreading to be postponed until
weather conditions permit expeditious incor-
poration into the soil has proved to be an appro-
priate management practice.
Farmland is a potentially significant source of
lake nutrients. It is also a potentially controllable
source though it may be difficult institutionally
to control. The well developed methodologies
Table 4-7
Manure Characteristics
Animal
Dairy cattle
Beef canla
Swine
Nursery pig
Growing pig
Finishing pig
G estate sow
Sow & liner
Boar
Sheep
Poultry
Layers
Broilers
Horse
Metric equivalents: 1 Ib
Source: Neotune. 1976
Size
libs)
150
250
500
1000
1400
500
750
1000
1250
35
65
150
200
275
375
350
100
4
2
1000
- 0,454 Kg
Total
manure
production
(Ib/diy)
12
20
41
82
115
30
45
60
75
2.3
4.2
9.8
13
8.9
33
11
4.0
0.21
0.14
45
Nutrient
Content
N(lb/day) Pllb/day)
0.06
0.10
0.20
0.41
0.57
0.17
0.26
0.34
0.43
0.016
0.029
0.068
0.090
0.062
0.23
0.078
0.045
0.0029
0.0024
0.27
0.010
0.020
0.036
0.073
0.102
0.056
0.084
0.11
0.14
0.0052
0.0098
0.022
0.030
0.021
0.076
0.026
0.0066
0.0011
0.00054
0.046
for evaluating export potential under different
conditions should permit a fairly reliable analy-
sis of this source for use in the lake restoration
effort.
The use of pesticides (especially herbicides) in
agricultural operations has increased sharply in
the last 3 decades. Many investigations of the
presence of pesticides in runoff from treated
land have been reported. Nearly all lead to the
same general conclusion: except when heavy
rainfall occurs shortly after treatment, concen-
trations are very low and the total amount of
pesticide that runs off the land during the crop
year is less, often much less, than 5 percent of
the application. Where chemicals are highly tox-
ic and persist for long times, even these low lev-
els may be of concern. However, many agricul-
tural chemicals are not acutely toxic, do not
persist from one crop season to the next, and do
not accumulate in the food chain (EPA/USDA,
1975). More detailed information in this refer-
ence will assist site-specific evaluations of po-
tential for concerns, and estimates of export with
local knowledge of pesticide type, application
timing and rate, soil type, etc.
4.3.3.3 Urban Runoff. Urban runoff pollutant
loads and control approaches have been studied
extensively over the past decade. A substantial
data base on pollutants in urban runoff has been
assembled (Huber et al., 1979), and a number of
methodologies for projecting urban stormwater
loads have been developed, tested and applied.
The AAPM, various user support documents for
EPA stormwater management models (Lager et
al., 1976; Heany et al., 1976; Heany and Nix,
1977), and a statistical method for assessment of
urban stormwater (Oriscoll et al., 1979) describe
•procedures for estimating stormwater loads for
urban areas.
Because of the variability of rainfall, and the
apparently random factors influencing the mag-
nitude of loads which result from individual
storms, the observed data on pollutants are
quite variable. Nevertheless, typical ranges can
be established, and mean values for the concen-
tration of specific pollutants will provide reason-
able estimates for loads on an annual cycle
when matched with the amount of rainfall which
reaches a water body as runoff. Figure 4-5 sum-
marizes data on urban stormwater concentra-
tions of specific contaminants. While various lo-
cal factors may influence typical values for an
area (e.g., land use distribution), the major dis-
tinction in the pollutant levels in urban runoff is
on the basis of the type of conveyance system
used. Differences in concentration levels in ur-
ban runoff discharged by separate storm sewers
or combined sewer overflows are shown by this
figure.
Unit area! loadings of phosphorus from urban
runoff are relatively high, in comparison with
other nonpoint sources. Combined sewered
-------
29
areas may generate three or four times greater
phosphorus loads than separately sewered
areas. The significance of urban runoff as a load
source for a lake will depend on the relative size
of the urban area in relation to the overall water-
shed, and the type of stormwater conveyance
system it has.
The possibility for controlling urban
stormwater exists, although probably on a
site-specific basis. Control of combined sewer
overflows (CSO) is, at the present time, likely to
be more feasible, because (a) discharges will be
concentrated at a limited number of locations
(the overflow locations); (b) several Control de-
vices have been tested and demonstrated, and
performance characteristics established; (c) in-
stitutions exist (201 agencies) for implementing
decisions for control; (d) EPA policy is to control
such discharges where they adversely affect wa-
ter quality and uses; and (e) controls can be
funded through the 201 construction grants
program.
Separate stormwater discharges are usually
more difficult to control because sources are dif-
fused over the urban watershed and controls
may have to be applied in many locations. In ad-
dition, cost and performance characteristics of
potential controls are not well defined, nor is
there any current provision in the 201 construc-
tion grants program for funding separate
stormwater controls. EPA's National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) intends to determine
the cost and performance of suitable control
measures, so that at least some of the con-
^s~co° «£&N Set ""oSSi.
M»U 1,
PARAUETER
• TOftUWATIft HU\IO" POOM THU U«*T|
Figure 4-5. Urban Stormwater Quality.
Sourca: Lager 01 al.. 1977.
straints should be reduced by 1982, when this
program is completed.
4.3.3.4 Other Nonpoint Sources. Other
nonpoint sources or activities (such as mining,
hydrologic modifications, irrigation returns, re-
siduals management) may be important in some
areas. The AAPM (U.S. EPA, 1976a) discusses
these sources, and includes references and an
annotated bibliography directing the user to oth-
er publications which address these load
sources.
4.3.4 Special Localized Sources
A number of sources of nutrients and other
pollutants have a potential for high loading rates
on a unit area! basis. In many cases, because of
the small fraction of total watershed area associ-
ated with these activities, they will prove to be
relatively minor contributors to the total load en-
tering a lake. Local conditions, however, can
give them great significance; and, because of
their potential for high load contributions, they
should receive consideration. In small water-
sheds, or where the activity is close to the lake or
to feeder streams, such sources can be quite im-
portant. They tend to be more subject to control,
principally because they are restricted to limited
areas.
4.3.4.1 Septic Tanks Under normal condi-
tions, septic tank/tile field disposal systems in
good operating condition will be a negligible
source of pollutants (particularly phosphorus) to
surface waters. The degree of treatment pro-
vided by the system and the limited mobility of
phosphorus in the soil drain field are such that
septic tanks, as a source of lake loadings, can be
ignored except where drain fields are close to
the lake or a direct feeder stream (100 meters), or
where systems are failing and significant
amounts can reach water courses through
overland flow.
An important element that determines wheth-
er a septic tank system (tank and drain field) will
be in good operating condition is whether it is
regularly and frequently maintained. In systems
with, leach fields, layers of essentially impervi-
ous organic matter build up under the field and
prevent downward seepage. This may slowly
create a perched water table (the familiar soggy,
green lawn), and nutrient discharge to the lawn
surface. Rain may then wash across the sloped
lawn into roadside ditches, and thence to receiv-
ing waters.
Procedures for estimating septic tank contri-
butions are described by Rodiek (1979) and
Reckhow et al. (1980), and incorporate informa-
tion on the number of persons per residence, the
percentage of time the residence is occupied,
and the soil type and condition.
A preliminary estimate may identify the rela-
tive significance of septic tank sources to the to-
tal nutrient budget, and hence the importance of
-------
30
more careful evaluation, by estimating an upper
bound for such sources based on an annual per
capita contribution of total phosphorus. Typical
estimates for such loads (Rodiek, 1979) are:
1. 1.6 kg (per person per year) with phospho-
rus based detergents
2. 0.5 kg (per person per year) without
detergents.
When appropriately factored by time in resi-
dence at the site, this provides an upper limit for
phosphorus contribution, assuming there is no
removal by the septic/soil system. In cases
where this contribution may not be sizeable, ad-
ditional information on site conditions such as
age of system, size of system, and water table
depth will be required to estimate removals
which take place. Dye tests or the use of
flow-through fluorometers may be employed to
provide additional information.
4.3.4.2 Landfills. This is a potential source
which may or may not be significant in a particu-
lar study. The size and age of the landfill are im-
portant, but of greatest significance is the drain-
age pattern, the location of the water table, the
practices employed, and the imperviousness of
the soil. Site-specific monitoring of leachate or a
nearby water course is required to estimate
loads which may be contributed by landfill
operations.
4.3.4.3 Construction. Construction activities
associated with housing, highways, dams, and
stream channel improvements are usually in
progress in some part of a watershed. The most
significant aspect of construction activities for a
lake study is the fact that any particular construc-
tion project is temporary. The time scale of inter-
est in defining lake nutrient loadings is quite
long in relation to the normal period of active
construction. Thus, while it may be instructive to
estimate load inputs from construction in
progress during the study, the analyst should be
principally concerned with estimating the aver-
age intensity of such activity (percent of water-
shed area under construction) in recent history,
and anticipated in the future.
Sediment is the principal contaminant export-
ed to water courses by construction activities,
and control tends to be practical and reasonably
effective. A number of activities inherent to con-
struction, other than earth moving and exposure
of ground surfaces, may contribute other
contaminants. Housing and temporary sanitary
facilities for workers, topsoil movement and
storage, pesticide use, seeding and fertilizing,
access roads, storage and use of petroleum
products, and trash disposal all increase the po-
tential for contaminants other than sediment.
The significance of these will vary widely on a
site-specific basis.
4.3.5 Internal Lake Sources
Although this assessment is more properly
part ofthe lake water quality evaluation, it is ap-
propriate to identify it here in a discussion of nu-
trient sources which contribute to an annual load
balance.
In addition to nutrient influx from external
sources, the nutrient status of lakes depends
also on the degree of internal nutrient recycling
that occurs. It is well established that, on an an-
nual basis, most lakes are nutrient traps; they re-
ceive nutrients in excess of the amount dis-
charged through their outlets. These nutrients
are stored in bottom sediments, and the large
amounts typically found there attest to the trap-
ping efficiency of lakes (Uttormark, 1979).
Seasonal changes in near-sediment condi-
tions can cause the release of nutrients to
overlying waters where they may remain for
several months, to be redeposited in the sedi-
ments later. Thus, superimposed on the net an-
nual flux of nutrients to the sediments are sea-
sonal surges of release and deposition. Nutrient
recycling is likely to be most important in eutro-
phic lakes, where it reinforces already high nutri-
ent levels and provides a buffer that may resist
lake restoration efforts.
Anaerobic conditions in bottom waters en-
hance the transfer of nutrients from sediments
to overlying waters. Exchange rates for
anaerobic systems are known to be several
times as large as those for aerobic systems. The
order of magnitude of sediment release rates
which have been identified (Thomann, 1980)
range from 0.5 to 5 gram/m2/year under aerobic
conditions to 10 to 20 gram/m2/year for anaero-
bic conditions.
Another dimension of this process is the addi-
tion of nutrients to surface waters from littoral,
or shallow water sediments. Although exchange
rates may be smaller than for deepwater sedi-
ments, the surface waters are normally well
mixed, eliminating any inhibition due to stratifi-
cation, and the net effect may be very significant.
In addition, under some circumstances, rooted
aquatic plants serve as nutrient pumps, expedit-
ing the exchange process (Uttormark, 1979).
4.4 Control Measures for Watershed
Management
The concept of watershed management by ap-
plying BMPs (Best Management Practices) is di-
rected at reducing pollutant loads at the source,
or intercepting them upstream in the drainage
system. Among the potential BMPs, some "soft"
structural control measures are included, such
as retention basins. The BMP concept is to apply
control measures at multiple locations through-
out the watershed, or that portion of it which
contributes the loads most significant to water
quality.
An important feature of using BMPs to control
nonpoint source loads is that to be effective they
must be applied broadly, over a significant part
-------
31
of the area of the source selected for control. For
example, street sweeping must reach a large
proportion of the urban streets, at a high enough
frequency to achieve significant reductions; ero-
sion control must be practiced on a large enough
segment of an agricultural area to obtain desired
load reductions.
Management practices tend to be quite specif-
ic to the nature of the source, that is, the land use
or activity. In addition, many control measures
which generally apply for a particular source
may not be usable in a specific watershed, due
to local conditions, the selection of cost-
effective management practices will, therefore,
be a strongly site-specific exercise, and one
which requires a good knowledge of local
conditions.
Management practices which are "best" for
reducing the export of pollutants are not neces-
sarily those which are "best" economically for
the land uses affected. For example, buffer strips
between cropped areas and stream courses
would reduce pollutant export, but also reduce
the acreage in productive use for the farmer.
Such factors must be taken into account in de-
veloping of an equitable, practical watershed
management plan. Local or regional agencies
that understand the watershed and the interests
involved should always be involved in water-
shed management planning. Examples include
Soil Conservation Districts for agricultural
sources, 208 planning agencies for urban areas,
and Drainage Districts. While some control pro-
grams are being implemented by enactment of
ordinances (principally in urban areas), effective
programs for many of the nonpoint source cate-
gories will depend on cooperative approaches.
In general, BMPs are free. For many, operation
and maintenance must be recognized and pro-
vided for. For some techniques, disposal of re-
siduals must be considered. If these aspects are
neglected, it is not reasonable to expect that re-
moving pollutants, or preventing their genera-
tion, will continue at whatever initial levels are
achieved.
Appendix C lists management practices and
control measures that have been suggested, and
tested in many cases, for the control of nonpoint
source loads. The lists are organized by source
type. Because of the great variety, simple gener-
alizations on performance capabilities or appli-
cability either cannot be made or would not be
very instructive. The user is referred to EPA man-
uals or other literature sources for the detail nec-
essary to evaluate those that will be applicable in
the local watershed.
4.5 Institutional Considerations
A critical element of an effective watershed
management program will be the attention giv-
en to institutional considerations. The technical
aspects of a Clean Lakes study may identify the
nonpoint source loads which are important to
control and define feasible methods for effecting
the necessary control. However, unless these de-
cisions can be carried out in a timely and effec-
tive manner, watershed control will never
progress beyond the planning stage. Institution-
al structures in the watershed are of major im-
portance for the long-term protection of lakes
through watershed management.
Institutions having the required status and au-
thority in a study area may be public or private.
They must be capable of coordinating, financing,
managing, and monitoring, and they must have
the authority and resources to execute neces-
sary watershed management measures. Institu-
tions may offer positive and/or negative incen-
tives that stimulate the installation, mainte-
nance, and continued operation of physical
control measures (Bailey and Waddell, 1979).
An effective institutional structure may or may
not exist in a Clean Lakes study area. Where one
does not, new organizations may be needed to
solve certain watershed problems. Development
of a suitable institutional structure may prove to
be complex due to watershed size, geographic
and political diversity, existing institutions with
water quality management responsibilities in
the watershed, and the absence of a single co-
ordinating organization with oversight responsi-
bilities. There is room for innovation in institu-
tional as well as technical aspects of watershed
management, although the establishment of
nev, institutions may prove to be time-
consuming and not politically expedient.
4.5.1 Institutional Roles
and Responsibilities
Table 4-8 lists some of the activities and re-
Table 4-8
Functions of a Management Agency
General Coordination and Management of Watershed
Programs
— Maintain formal and informal working relationships
among institutions
— Program evaluation, including monitoring and
revisions
Fiscal Management
— Incurrence of long-term indebtedness
— Acceptance and utilization of grants
— Ability to raise revenues
Develop and Conduct Public Education and Public Participa-
tion Programs
Apply Implementation Incentives, and/or Exert Regulatory
Force Where Voluntary Efforts are not Effective
Perform or Contract for Necessary Technical Services
— Design, construction, operation, and maintenance of
physical control measures
— Technical evaluation of water quality and effectiveness
of program
Develop and Maintain a Comprehensive Watershed Data
Base, Including Water Quality and Watershed Related In-
formation, Required for Effective Continuing Planning and
Management'
-------
32
sponsibilities of a single agency, or cooperating
agencies, pertinent to managing a watershed to
control nonpoint source loads.
Certain Government agencies at the Federal,
State, regional, or local levels may already have
water quality/watershed-related management
responsibilities that apply to the watershed.
These agencies may have some or all of the fol-
lowing capabilities that cduld be integrated into
the watershed management program:
1. Regulating activities and requiring certain
practices and techniques (e.g., sediment
and erosion control programs).
2. Providing economic assistance or tax ad-
vantages to activities which institute con-
trol practices.
3. Providing technical assistance.
4. Carrying out educational programs to gain .
acceptance and aid in implementing
controls.
5. Accepting responsibility for implementing
specific runoff and other control programs.
6. Providing planning activities for water qual-
ity management, land use, population,
.housing, economic growth, etc.
Homeowners and other citizens' organizations
often implement and enforce self-imposed re-
strictions and covenants, providing high levels
of citizen participation, undertaking public edu-
cation, and conducting other necessary activities
at the community and neighborhood level.
Certain new and innovative management in-
stitutions, with either single or multiple mis-
sions, are being tried throughout the Nation.
Quasi-governmental public organizations, such
as stormwater drainage utilities and lake man-
agement districts, are being designed to operate
under specific objectives that directly impact wa-
tershed management. Various approaches are
reported for agriculture (Bailey and Waddell,
1979; Holmes, 1979) and for urban sources
(Thurow and Earley, 1975; Kaiser et al., 1974).
General documentation of institutional ap-
proaches for water quality management and
their legality are also reported (Government Fi-
nance Research Center, 1980b; Environmental
Law Institute, 1977). The Great Lakes Program,
under EPA's guidance, has also implemented a
variety of institutional approaches, with a range
of results (U.S. EPA, 1978c).
Regardless of the ability of institutions to ad-
minister various aspects of watershed manage-
ment, designation of a single overall manage-
ment agency or organization may be necessary
(Ford and Papke, 1977) to:
1. Prevent overlap in planning, control, and
management activities, and to make opti-
mal use of available resources.
2. Act as a single coordinating point for focus-
ing watershed activities.
3. Serve as the repository for watershed and
lake information useful in management
activities.
4. Monitor progress in lake restoration and
watershed implementation activities.
5. Be responsible for managing any kind of
technical and financial assistance provided
from outside sources.
6. Minimize negative impacts in areas other
than water quality management.
7. Be responsible for adjusting the manage-
ment program as progress is made toward
water quality goals and as conditions
change which may affect the implementa-
tion plan.
To be successful, general management must
include the three basic functions of program su-
pervision and coordination, fiscal management,
and continuing planning. However, each func-
tion may contain a number of specific elements
or activities that may be shared in various ways
between a single management institution and
the decentralized operating agencies, or among
a group of decentralized agencies. Obviously,
the size and complexity of a watershed manage-
ment program and available resources will dic-
tate the character of an organization, its powers
and abilities.
4.5.2 Institutional Evaluation Methodology
Institutional/management arrangements should
receive consideration similar to that applied for
the assessment of pollutant loads, evaluation of
control measures, and selection of a technical
strategy for management. The ultimate objective
of watershed management program design is
the proposal of an integrated package of phys-
ical controls, implementation measures, and in-
stitutional arrangements that will control the en-
try of pollutants into the lake. Institutional
arrangements should be evaluated both sepa-
rately and in conjunction with the physical and
implementation measures to successfully inte-
grate all components into a "workable"
program.
Specific guidelines are inappropriate for insti-
tutional planning because of the high degree of
site-specificity of a local watershed, the institu-
tions, and the individuals involved. However, the
planning process and analysis should be man-
aged within the scope of resources available,
should involve both policymakers and the pub-
lic, establish a need for action, fully integrate the
various disciplines contributing to the effort, em-
phasize the simplest analysis methods needed,
fully consider financial aspects, and assign insti-
tutional responsibilities as appropriate (Govern-
ment Finance Research Center, 1980a).
The procedures for review, evaluation, and se-
lection of an appropriate institutional framework
-------
33
are similar to those for physical controls, and in-
clude the following elements:
V Review of existing watershed institutional/
management framework.
2. Specify "ideal" institutional arrangements.
3. Evaluate existing agencies and organiza-
tions for:
a. Effectiveness in accomplishing water
quality objectives.
b. Potential for expanded or modified fu-
ture role.
4. Evaluate new and innovative institutional
structures.
5. Select most "implementable" institution(s)
for implementation.
Procedures for review, evaluation and identifi-
cation of an appropriate institutional framework
are discussed in Appendix C.
4.5.3 Examples of Management
Institutions
Management institutions operating in a water-
shed management program may range from the
older, well-established government agencies at
the Federal, State, and local levels to new agen-
cies or organizations. The well-established gov-
ernment agencies operate under a hierarchy
with geographic jurisdictions and program ob-
jectives that rarely coincide exactly with those of
a watershed and its management program. The
new institutions may be established with more
limited and specific responsibilities oriented to a
watershed, its boundaries, and its residents and
users.
There are a growing number of examples of
management institutions which could serve as
models or provide guidance for addressing local
situations. Some examples are identified and
discussed briefly in Appendix C.
-------
34
5.0 IN-LAKE RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
5.1 Introduction
A fundamental objective of the Clean Lakes
Program is to maximize the public benefits
which can be obtained with the funds available.
One aspect of the strategy for attaining that ob-
jective, discussed in Section 6.0, is to select
projects which will yield long-term improve-
ments in and/or protection of lake quality. This
means that funding preference will be given to
projects which eliminate pollutant sources and
reduce pollutant loading, in contrast to projects
relying solely on in-lake activities to ameliorate
the symptoms of lake degradation without at-
tacking its causes. In other words, EPA empha-
sizes lake watershed management in making
funding decisions.
This policy does not mean that in-lake restora-
tion techniques will not be supported. Dredging,
aeration, nutrient inactivation, and the other
techniques described in this section are impor-
tant lake restoration tools in two situations:
1. When sufficient pollutant reduction is being
accomplished in the watershed to allow de-
sired lake quality to be maintained, but re-
covery from the degraded condition will be
slow or will not occur simply as a result of
watershed management.
2. When material accumulated in the lake con-
stitutes a significant source of pollutants
which is independent of controllable activi-
ties in the watershed.
The first situation may be seen in a lake which
has become so shallow because of sediment
transport from the watershed that rooted aquatic
plants occupy much of its surface area and pre-
clude swimming and boating. To maintain
long-term lake quality, erosion and sedimenta-
tion must be controlled. However, when that is
accomplished, the plants may continue to per-
sist due to shallowness and accumulated nutri-
ents in the sediment. Dredging to a specific
depth could create a light-limited environment
and remove nutrients so that plants could not
reestablish themselves. This would eliminate
them, and erosion control will then prevent their
recurrence.
An example of the second situation is a lake
which contains a layer of nutrient-rich bottom
sediments from which phosphorus, the lake's
limiting nutrient, is returned to the lake column
in sufficient quantity to promote nuisance algal
blooms. If there are no existing large phospho-
rus sources in the watershed, or if the most
cost-effective means of reducing phosphorus
loading to acceptable levels is to eliminate the
in-lake source, dredging or bottom sealing could
be supported by the Clean Lakes Program.
The first situation is the one most often en-
countered, where in-lake techniques are applied
in conjunction with watershed management.
The other two are, in a sense, special cases of
the first, since they imply that pollutants from
the watershed have already been properly man-
aged and will not cause a quick recurrence of
water quality problems. The basic principle to be
kept in mind in any lake program is that
long-term, cost-effective improvement is almost
always associated with management of the land
and diversion or treatment of polluted incoming
water.
The purposes of this section are to introduce
in-lake techniques on which sufficient evaluation
has been conducted to enable definitive conclu-
sions, and review the state of knowlege on their
applicability and effectiveness in lake protection
and restoration. The reader is urged to consult
the scientific articles referred to in the text. In
particular, the following recent papers are funda-
mental to an in-depth understanding of the var-
ious techniques: aeration, Pastorok, etal. (1980);
dilution/flushing, Welch (1980); dredging, S.A.
Peterson (1980); nutrient inactivation, Cooke and
Kennedy (1980); biological controls, Cooke,
(1980a); sediment covering, Cooke (1980b); lake
level drawdown, Cooke (1980c) and Schuytema
(1977); harvesting, Burton, et al. (1979). Most of
these are reviews or research on lake restoration
-------
conducted or supported by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development, Corvallis Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Herbicides have not been reviewed or de-
scribed in the manual. There are no registered
chemicals which provide lasting control of
weeds and algae, and in most cases these toxic
chemicals release nutrients, cost a large amount
for very temporary relief, and require the pres-
ence of a licensed operator who may not be
available when needed. Moreover, they can
leave persistent residues which can be harmful
to non-target species. Reliance on herbicides will
require regular, expensive re-treatment, and at-
tendant undesirable side-effects. Herbicides are
specifically not recommended as the basis of
any long-term plan to obtain relief from nui-
sance weeds and algae. If they are ever applied,
it is urged that only EPA registered chemicals be
used, and that a licensed, insured operator be
employed.
As a guide to parts of this section most appro-
priate to individual lake improvement needs,
lakes which have problems of excessive shal-
lowness and/or rooted aquatic plants may bene-
fit most from dredging, harvesting, sediment
covering or lake level drawdown, while lakes
which have excessive algae may respond to
dilution/flushing, nutrient inactivation, or aer-
ation. In some cases a combination of proce-
dures may prove to be most beneficial. One pro-
cedure, biological controls, is relatively new; the
introduction of organisms to lakes to control ex-
cessive vegetation remains highly experimental.
5.2 Aeration and Artificial Circulation
In stratified eutrophic lakes, the amount of or-
ganic matter that enters the hypolimnion is very
large (from dead algae, weeds, animal feces,
etc.). Bacterial decomposition consumes the dis-
solved oxygen shortly after thermal stratification
in the spring, and oxygen is not restored to these
waters until after lake circulation in the fall.
There are a number of undesirable conse-
quences of low or zero oxygen in the
hypolimnion. Plant nutrients are released from
bottom sediments, and compounds such as
methane, iron, manganese, and hydrogen sul-
fide accumulate. The nutrients may be mixed
into the upper, lighted epilimnion at turnover
and stimulate alga! blooms. Water withdrawn
from the hypolimnion for drinking or industrial
use may have undesirable taste and odor. The
deep, cold water becomes unfit for survival of
cold water fishes such as trout and salmon, and
for benthic invertebrates. Only a few organisms
can tolerate anoxic conditions for prolonged pe-
riods, and fish generally do not thrive in habitats
where dissolved oxygen is less than 5 mg/l.
Hypolimnetic aeration introduces oxygen to
the hypolimnion only, while artificial circulation
mixes the entire water column. These tech-
niques free the water of taste and odor, improve
the fishery and/or prevent winter fish kills, and
attempt to control algae by either controlling nu-
trient release from bottom sediments by intro-
duction of oxygen, or by circulating cells to
depths where low light will limit growth. In
hypolimnetic aeration, air or oxygen is injected
into the deep water without disrupting thermal
stratification, whereas in artificial circulation air
is introduced with sufficient force to overcome
the density differences between the two layers
so that the entire water column circulates.
These two lake improvement procedures have
been described in detail with regard to design,
effectiveness, and shortcomings by Lorenzen
and Fast (1977) and Pastorok, et al. (1980).
Hypolimnetic aeration can be accomplished by
several devices described by Fast and Lorenzen
(1976), but most commonly, compressed air is
injected into the hypolimnion at the bottom of an
air-lift system. Water is forced up a tube to the
lake surface and then returned to the
hypolimnion by the same tube (Figure 5-1). Oxy-
genation and loss of hydrogen sulfide, ammo-
nia, and other gases to the atmosphere occur at
the top of the air-lift tube at the lake surface.
Pastorok, et al. (1980) and Fast (1979) report that
this design is the least expensive and most
efficient.
Hypolimnetic aeration is effective in removing
compounds like iron and hydrogen sulfide,
which add taste and odor to drinking and indus-
: l_bOW£B UPWQJ-TUM
FLOATATION UNTT
Figure 5-1. Hypolimnetic aeration system (Fast, 1979).
-------
36
trial water. Sufficient aeration may lower phos-
phorus concentration in the hypolimnion as
well, but there is little documentation regarding
a simultaneous decline in algae in the
epilimnion. However, zooplankton (grazers on
algae) might invade the oxygenated
hypolimnion and perhaps escape the intense
visual predation by fish during the day in the
epilimnion. At night these grazers could return
to the epilimnion and thus exert some control
over algal biomass.
Hypolimnetic aeration can create a cold water
fishery, or a "two-story" fishery with warm wa-
ter species in the upper water and cold water
species in the deep. Winter fish kills may be pre-
vented if sufficient organic matter is consumed
in an oxygenated hypolimnion in the summer
and oxygen demand under the ice in winter is
thereby lowered. Hypolimnetic aeration is used
for prevention of winter fish kills and general im-
provement of fisheries and not for control of
algal blooms.
Artificial circulation is usually accomplished
by injecting air at a high rate (about 9.2
m3/minute per 106 m2 of lake surface or 1.3
ft3/acre/min.) into the deepest portion of the lake,
using a perforated pipe (Figure 5-2). The
Figure 5-2. Artificial Circulation (Fast, 1979).
circulator is used intermittently once circulation
has been achieved (identical temperature from
top to bottom). A frequent problem is insuffi-
cient rate of air flow. Pastorok, et al. (1980) rec-
ommend that circulation be accomplished early
in the season before full thermal stratification is
achieved to avoid the circulation of nutrient-rich
hypolimnetic waters which could bring about an
algal bloom.
Artificial lake circulation or destratification,
like hypolimnetic aeration, will remove those
compounds which give taste and odor to drink-
ing water. The effect of circulation in controlling
algae has been variable, even though phospho-
rus concentration may decline. Pastorok, et al.
(1980) report that in only 19 of 30 cases in which
mixing was complete was algal biomass re-
duced. In part this failure to achieve any control
of algae may be caused by factors which in-
crease nutrient release from lake sediments,
such as an increase in density of burrowing or-
ganisms, higher water temperature, or acceler-
ated decomposition of organic matter after cir-
culation. There can be a shift in dominant algal
species from nuisance blue-greens to more ac-
ceptable green algae, even if the total amount of
algae does not decline. If zooplankton do in-
crease by escaping visual fish predation in deep-
er, dark waters, then their nighttime grazing may
control algae somewhat.
Artificial destratification may benefit a warm
water fishery by expanding the habitat and the
abundance of fish food organisms, but there is
little documented evidence of this.
Several adverse effects may occur with artifi-
cial destratification, according to Pastorok, et al.
(1980). These include increased turbidity if sedi-
ments are disturbed, stimulation of an algal
bloom by bringing nutrients into upper lighted
waters, creation of gas bubble disease in fish
from increased dissolved nitrogen concentration
in the water, and fish kills from a sudden de-
crease in dissolved oxygen in the epilimnion fol-
lowing the introduction of oxygen-free
hypolimnetic waters to the rest of the lake. Most
adverse effects result from improperly executed
aeration or circulation, such as placement of the
air diffuser too far from the lake bottom,
undersizing or oversizing the capacity of the
aerator, or mixing of oxygen-free water with a
small epilimnion.
In summary, both techniques succeed in re-
moving taste and odor, and in creating new fish
habitat. Limitation of algal growth may not
occur.
5.3 Dilution/Flushing
These lake improvement techniques are
aimed at reducing the quantity of nuisance
blue-green algae by either flushing them out of
the lake with large volumes of introduced water,
or by controlling algal population growth rate by
introducing enough low nutrient water to reduce
the concentration of a limiting nutrient. Effective
dilution requires that the inflow water have a
much lower concentration of the limiting nutri-
ent than the lake water. For flushing to be sue-
-------
37
cessful, the water exchange rate must approach
alga! growth rates (i.e. complete water replace-
ment every 2 to 3 weeks). Domestic water sup-
ply, artesian wells, and nearby rivers are among
the possible water sources. Flushing requires
high volumes of water, and the outlet structure
of the lake must be examined and found ade-
quate before proceeding. Erosion around dams
could cause dam collapse. Moreover, high flows
from the lake's outlet stream may have
undesirable effects downstream. Finally, seep-
age lakes may not have an outlet, or the outlet
may be very small and inadequate for the vol-
ume needed to accomplish sufficient dilution or
flushing.
There have been very few reported uses of
these techniques, partly because of the
unavailability of low nutrient water, or of water
sufficiently free of toxins to be introduced to a
lake. However, dilution/flushing operates as a
natural control of algae in many lakes. Dilution
and flushing have been reviewed by Welch
(1979, 1980). The dilution technique has been
shown to be effective in controlling blue-green
algae in Moses and Green Lakes, Washington
(Welch, 1980). In one season at Moses Lake, the
algal growth rate was reduced after dilution wa-
ter exceeded about 50 percent of lake volume.
Blue-green algae growth declined as the amount
of dilution increased, and they ceased to grow
when lake water remaining reached 20 percent.
This response was due in part to a decrease in
nitrogen content of the lake and to instability in
the water column which favored non-buoyant al-
gae, such as diatoms and green algae. But, un-
less water is continually added, blue-green
blooms will return. Welch (1980) suggests that
dilution water be added at continued low rates
rather than a large amount followed by little or
none. While blue-greens' growth decreased as
dilution increased, diatom growth rate often im-
proved, and Welch speculates that the effect of
dilution in Moses Lake was not caused by nutri-
ent limitation but by dilution of inhibitory sub-
stances excreted by blue-greens.
Cost of these techniques depends upon the
supply of water, its proximity to the lake, and the
availability of facilities. Welch (1980) states that
if domestic water is available, then lake improve-
ment may be possible for less than $100,000 for
construction and first year maintenance and op-
eration. Costs should be far less if artesian wells
can be drilled along the lake shore.
5.4 Phosphorus Precipitation or
Inactivation
Nutrient inactivation/precipitation is a lake im-
provement technique which has been used ex-
clusively to control or lower the concentration of
phosphorus in the water column and thereby
control the amount of planktonic algae. Inactiva-
tion is an attempt at long-term control by stop-
ping the release of phosphorus from lake sedi-
ments, while precipitation is the removal of
phosphorus from the water column. Inactivation
is almost always the recommended procedure.
The element most often used to attempt inacti-
vation or precipitation is aluminum. This tech-
nique has been reviewed in depth by Cooke and
Kennedy (1980a,b) and Kennedy and Cooke
(1980); their reports contain technical details of
dose, side-effects, case histories, costs, and ap-
plication procedures.
Nutrient inactivation or precipitation can only
be effective in lakes from which significant in-
puts of nutrients have been eliminated. The tech-
niques are presently used only for algal control,
not for control of rooted aquatic plants. Both
ponds and lakes have benefited from it, particu-
larly those which flush slowly and stratify. There
has been little published experience with the
technique in thermally unstratified, highly-
mixed lakes. Lake size does not seem to be an
important factor since large areas have been
treated [120 hectares (300 acres) in Lake
Annabessacook, Maine].
Adding liquid aluminum sulfate and/or sodi-
um aluminate has been the most frequently
used method of precipitating or inactivating
phosphorus. These salts work in three ways: by
forming aluminum phosphate, by entrapping
phosphorus-containing particles in the water
column, and by adsorbing phosphorus to the
surface of aluminum hydroxide (the main chemi-
cal product of the precipitation reaction). The
aluminum hydroxide is formed as a floe, or visi-
ble particles, in the water. The floe settles
through the water column (removing suspended
material on the way), and covers the sediment
with a blanket of aluminum hydroxide. Water so
treated becomes almost instantly clear, and if
sufficient aluminum hydroxide has been depos-
ited on the sediments, it has a sealing effect.
Phosphorus recycling from the sediments is
greatly reduced, phosphorus concentration in
the water remains low, and the water continues
to be clear. The floe eventually (several months)
consolidates with the sediments and is no longer
visible.
The amount of aluminum added to the water
is the factor which separates phosphorus pre-
cipitation from phosphorus inactivation. In the
former procedure, just enough aluminum is add-
ed to surface water to remove phosphorus from
the water column. The exact amount is deter-
mined in jar tests. In such cases, dose is small,
little if any control of release from lake sedi-
ments is achieved, there are few risks of
side-effects, and long-term control of algae usu-
ally does not occur. Precipitation or phosphorus
removal is recommended only for situations in
which the sediments are not a significant source
of phosphorus. Phosphorus inactivation is rec-
ommended for most other situations, since
-------
38
phosphorus release from eutrophic lake sedi-
ments usually is a major source of this essential
element for growth of algae and may delay lake
recovery for many years after external sources
have been controlled or diverted.
Phosphorus release is controlled for long peri-
ods (years) by the aluminum hydroxide layer,
but serious side-effects, especially low pH and
high dissolved aluminum concentration can oc-
cur if too much aluminum sulfate is added.
Cooke and Kennedy (1980a) and Kennedy and
Cooke (1980) have found that this problem can
be avoided and long-term control of phosphorus
release still achieved if aluminum sulfate is add-
ed to the deep water of the lake until the pH. falls
to 6.0. This pH is not excessively low for aquatic
organisms, and dissolved aluminum will be at
levels well below those which could be toxic to
fish. In the case of softwater lakes, a mixture of
sodium aluminate and aluminum sulfate can be
used; the pH decline is thereby avoided entirely,
and no toxic level of dissolved aluminum devel-
ops. A simplified procedure for dose determina-
tion has been described by Kennedy and Cooke
(1980).
Nearly, all application equipment is modeled
after the barges used at Horseshoe Lake, Wis-
consin in 1970 (J. 0. Peterson, et al. 1973). An
on-board tank is used to store liquid aluminum
sulfate (two tanks if sodium aluminate is also to
be added), and the material is pumped from the
tank, along with water, to an application mani-
fold (see Figure 5-3). Some have applied the
chemical to the lake surface, particularly if pre-
cipitation of phosphorus is the objective, while
others have lowered the manifold to deeper wa-
ter, usually to control phosphorus release from
sediment. Modifications of this procedure have
included an on-shore storage tank and an
across-the-lake pipeline to refill (Cooke, et al.
T978). Others have suggested that small lakes or
ponds could be treated by spraying from shore
with high velocity pumps. Control of algae in
ponds (May, 1974) has also been achieved by
suspending blocks of ferric alum in the water
column, an application method which should re-
ceive additional study.
Adequate cost analyses are not available, in
part because of the great variability among treat-
Figure 5-3. Chemical-dispensing system and barge
(Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories).
ments and the changing costs of chemicals and
labor (Funk and Gibbons, 1979). Cooke and Ken-
nedy (1980a) report that labor was 1 to 2
man-days per hectare, and equipment and
chemical costs ranged from $400 to $500/hectare
in the small sample of lakes for which data are
available.
The longest reported monitoring to assess
longevity of phosphorus control after inactiva-
tion with aluminum sulfate is at Dollar and West
Twin Lake in Ohio (Cooke, et al. 1978; Cooke and
Kennedy, 1980a,b), where phosphorus concen-
tration and algal biomass were reduced for at
least 6 and 5 years, respectively.
No deleterious effects to animals have been
reported in lake treatments in which dose
ranged from 0.5 to 26 grams of aluminum per
cubic meter. However, there was a significant
change in the species composition of the algae
and zooplankton following the treatment at West
Twin Lake, Ohio (Cooke and Kennedy, 1980a).
This effect may be caused by changes in their
nutrition and not by toxicity. Lake waters have
remained so clear in some treated lakes that sig-
nificant increases in rooted aquatic plants have
occurred.
In summary, inactivation of phosphorus re-
lease from sediments with aluminum salts ap-
pears to be a successful technique for lowering
phosphorus concentration to levels limiting to
algal growth when used in conjunction with a
program to manage phosphorus income from
the watershed. Costs are not well documented,
but the technique has longevity (at least 5 to 6
years) and there are no known deleterious
side-effects to biota if proper procedures for
dose determination and application are
followed.
5.5 Lake Level Drawdown
Lake level drawdown is a multipurpose lake
improvement technique. It has been used to at-
tempt control of nuisance rooted plants, to man-
age fish, to consolidate flocculent sediments by
dewatering, to provide access to dams, docks,
and shoreline stabilizing structures for needed
repairs, to permit dredging using conventional
earthmoving equipment, and to facilitate appli-
cation of sediment covers. The procedure is of-
ten an inexpensive one which can be effective in
aquatic plant control where susceptible species
are present and where rigorous conditions of dry
cold or heat can be achieved for 1 to 2 months.
Cooke (1980c) provides.a detailed review of the
technique.
Two case histories will serve to describe
drawdown's effectiveness in controlling rooted
plants. Beard (1973) reported that 42 percent
[303 hectares (750 acres)) of Murphy Flowage,
Wisconsin was obstructed to the extent that fish-
ing was not possible. Potamogeton robbinsii
(Bobbin's pondweed) was the dominant nui-
-------
39
sance plant, and the sub-dominants were
Nuphar sp. (water lily), Ceratophyllum demer-
sum (coontail), Potamogeton natans (floating-
leaf pondweed), and Myriophyllum sp. (water
milfoil). In 1967 and 1968 the level was lowered
1.5 meters (5 feet) from November through
March, and restored in April. There was 92
percent reduction in area covered by plants after
drawdown, and all plant species were controlled
or eliminated. Fishing became possible in 87
percent of the area previously covered by
the plants. In 1969 Potamogeton natans,
Megalondonta beckii (bur marigold), A/a/as
flexilis (naiad) and Potamogeton diversifolius
became abundant but had a less serious effect
• on fishing than previous plants. In this case, nui-
sance rooted plants were controlled by a winter
exposure of sediments, and areas previously
closed to fishing were opened. However, an
algal bloom occurred in August of the year after
drawdown._
Lantz, et al. (1964) and Lantz (1974) used
drawdown in Louisiana reservoirs to control
aquatic plants and manage fish. Susceptible
plant species were controlled but resistant ones
increased in abundance. Winter drawdowns re-
moved sunfish and shad and summer
drawdowns prevented spawning. Fish abun-
dance and size increased in reservoirs where
there were 5 or more consecutive years of fluctu-
ation of water level.
There is little information about the effective-
ness of drawdown in controlling common aquat-
ic plants. Table 5-1 lists those species which
have been clearly shown to be controlled, those
which have no response, and those which in-
crease after drawdown. Cooke (1980c) summa-
rizes available information on the responses of
63 aquatic plants to drawdown.
Table 5-1 emphasizes the need to identify nui-
sance plants before attempting to achieve con-
trol by drawdown and exposure. The technique
is species-selective, and several workers have
reported that if species resistant to drawdown
Table 5-1
Responses of Some Common Nuisance
Aquatic Plants to Lake Level Drawdown
A. Increased in Abundance After Drawdown
1. Alternanthera philoxeroides (alligator-weed)
2. Najas flexilis (naiad)
3. Potamogeton spp. (most species of pond weed
increase or do not change)
B. Decreased in Abundance After Drawdown
1. Chara vulgaris (muskgrass)
2. Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth)
3. Nuphar spp. (water lily)
C. No Change or Clear Response After Drawdown
1. Cambomba caroliniana (fanwort)
2. Elodea canadensis (elodea)
3. Myriophy/lm spp. (milfoil)
4. Utricularia vulgaris (bladderwort)
Source Modified from Cooke. 1980c
are present, they can spread rapidly upon
refilling.
Failure to achieve plant control can result not
only from the presence of resistant species but
also from failure to achieve sufficient dewater-
ing of lake sediments. Without adequate
dewatering, vulnerable reproductive structures
are not sufficiently exposed to lethal freezing or
heat. This problem is especially likely to arise in
seepage lakes, where sediments may remain
moist throughout winter or summer months, al-
lowing otherwise susceptible plants to survive. It
is not known whether a winter 'drawdown is
more effective than a summer one since there
are so few quantitative reports about either.
Lake level drawdown may have other benefi-
cial effects in addition to controlling nuisance
rooted vegetation. Fishing is said to be improved
by removal of vegetation, and by concentrating
small fish into smaller volumes of water where
predation by gamefish can be more intense.
Flocculent lake sediments can lose enough wa-
ter to become hard and capable of supporting a
standing swimmer. Turbidity and concentration
of nutrients for algae, which may be partly
caused by disturbance of flocculent sediments
by waves and motorboats, may be reduced. In-
stallation of sediment covering (see section 5.6)
and repair of dams, docks, and beaches may be
greatly facilitated by a drawdown. Vegetation
maintained to attract waterfowl, such as emer-
gent rooted plants, may be enhanced by
drawdown. Finally, because plants can contrib-
ute to the recycling of essential algal nutrients
from the sediments to the water column, plant
destruction by drawdown may retard this
process.
Several negative aspects of lake level
drawdown have been observed. Blooms of nui-
sance algae have occurred in lakes and reser-
voirs after drawdown, possibly caused by miner-
alization of nutrients in organic-rich sediments
or to an absence of some competitive effect from
rooted plants. Some workers have feared fish
kills, particularly during a summer drawdown
when oxygen consumption in a smaller volume
of water could deplete oxygen, but there have
been few reports of significant fish mortality fol-
lowing drawdown. One negative aspect of
drawdown which may affect fish is the destruc-
tion of food animals which live in shallow lake
sediments. Hardening of exposed mud may also
retard re-invasion of these animals, but reports
of enhanced fishing in Louisiana reservoirs sug-
gests that these potential problems may not be
of significance. Failure of the lake or reservoir to
refill may be caused by insufficient watershed
drainage area, drought, or delay in closing the
dam until too late in the season. Continued low
lake levels, especially during summer months,
could affect water levels in potable water wells.
In summary, lake level drawdown can effec-
-------
40
tively control susceptible nuisance plants and
can provide several other important lake im-
provement benefits. Negative effects are possi-
ble but can be minimized by attempting control
of only susceptible species and by observing
other important factors, such as adequate water
for prompt lake refill. Several years of drawdown
may be required, particularly in areas where wet,
mild winters occur and dry freezing conditions
are not achieved throughout the exposed areas.
5.6 Sediment Covering
Application of materials over lake sediments
has been used primarily to control growth of
rooted plants and to retard the release of plant
nutrients to the water column from nutrient-rich
mud. Among the materials which have been
used are polyethylene sheeting, fly ash, and
fiberglass screens. The following paragraphs
discuss some of the most widely used materials.
Further details are available in a review of the
topic by Cooke (1980b).
5.6.1 Fly Ash
The particles collected by electrostatic
precipitators in the smoke stacks of coal-fired
power plants are known as fly ash. Fly ash has
been evaluated as an agent to retard phospho-
rus release from lake sediments and thereby
control algal production. Large amounts are pro-
duced annually in the United States and else-
where, and part of the disposal problem could
be alleviated if the material were found to be ef-
fective in lake improvement. Fly ash will adsorb
phosphorus, and because of its cement-like
properties when mixed with water, it will form a
seal over lake sediments.
Fly ash has been evaluated in laboratory and
field experiments, primarily by Tenney and
Echelberger (1970), Yaksich (1972), and Theis, et
al. (1979). While laboratory studies revealed that
fly ash might be effective in lakes, it was suspect-
ed that the high pH created when it is added to
water, plus the possible release of toxic heavy
metals (such as boron, molybdenum, selenium,
arsenic, and mercury), could create deleterious
conditions for lake flora and fauna. The two re-
ported field tests of fly ash (Hampton, 1972;
Theis, et al. 1979) caused extensive mortality
among fish and fish food organisms associated
with an apparent increase in heavy metal con-
centrations. Further experiments may explain
these observations and lead to a method of
using fly ash without adverse impact to lake
ecosystems, but at the present time, it should
not be used in lakes.
5.6.2 Sheeting Materials
Polyethylene, polypropylene, fiberglass and
other sheeting materials have been tested over
lake sediments to control nuisance rooted
plants. While expensive, they can be highly ef-
fective and have the important advantage of be-
ing semi-permanent. The most recent experi-
ments .with these materials, reviewed in Cooke
(1980a), include Mayer (1978), Armour, et al.
(1979), Cooke and Gorman (1980), and Perkins,
et al. (in press).
Armour, et al. (1979) examined five com-
pounds: black polyethylene sheets, polyethyl-
ene tarps, Hypalon (a synthetic rubber material),
PVC (polyvinyl chloride), and Permealiner (a
semi-permeable black polypropylene). These
materials have to be weighted and perforated to
allow escape of gases which would otherwise lift
them from the lake bottom. Plants often grow
through the perforations. Black polyethylene,
polyethylene tarps, and Hypalon were hard to
handle because of weight and/or buoyancy, and
the black polyethylene sheeting was easily
dislodged by waves or boats. Silt can accumu-
late on the sheeting and permit new plants to
grow. Costs ranged from $12,500/hectare for
black polyethylene to $59,400 for Hypalon, mak-
ing their use prohibitive except in small areas.
PVC-coated fiberglass screen with a mesh size
of 62 apertures per cm2 (400/in2) has been evalu-
ated by Mayer (1978) and Perkins, et al. (1980),
and both found it to be easily applied and effec-
tive for the duration of emplacement. Re-
growths, even after removing the material after
just one month of cover, were not great. This
suggests that small amounts of screen might be
used to treat large areas by moving the screen
from one place to another. The screen is an-
chored to the sediments with weights and/or
stakes and is permeable to gases. As with other
screens, silt may eventually accumulate on it
and regrowth occur. Mayer suggested periodic
removal and repositioning to overcome growth
on the screen. Costs (1980) are about $22,000 per
hectare ($8,700/acre).
Another material which is permeable to water
and to gases from the sediments and is effective
in controlling rooted aquatic plants, is black
polypropylene (Cooke and Gorman, 1980). This
material is applied like fiberglass screen, and
cost $6,500 per hectare ($2,600/acre) in 1978.
Impervious sheeting, such as black polyethyl-
ene, has been suggested for controlling nutrient
release from lake sediments, but recent experi-
ences with impervious sheeting indicate that ex-
pense, difficulty in application, and im-
permeability to gases would make this use
impractical. Clay and sand have also been sug-
gested as possible agents to retard weed growth
and nutrient release, but so few experiences
with these materials have been reported that
recommendations for their use are as yet
impossible.
In summary, sediment covering retards rooted
plant growth, but only screen and sheeting ma-
terials have been shown to be both effective and
ecologically safe. Because most of these materi-
als are very expensive, it is recommended that
-------
41
they be used selectively — around docks, beach-
es, or boating areas, for example — rather than
in the entire shallow area of the lake. Unless
siltation is rapid, one installation may last sever-
al years before plant growth can begin on top of
the sheeting.
5.7 Sediment Removal
One of the most frequently prescribed treat-
ments for lakes with excessive shaltowness
and/or rooted nuisance plants is sediment re-
moval or dredging (Figure 5-4). This procedure
has also been thought to be important in
long-term control of nuisance algae by removing
nutrient-rich lake sediments, and valuable as a
means of removing sediments which have been
contaminated with toxic materials. Reviews of
this lake improvement technique have been con-
ducted by S. A. Peterson (1979, 1980), from
whom much of the following discussion is
drawn.
Sediment removal is an expensive operation,
requiring that the lake manager consider several
important questions before proceeding. Some of
them require extensive research at the site in
question, but such research is an important first
step in assuring an effective operation.
1. What are the sources of silt and plant nutri-
ents to the lake, and how fast are they en-
tering the water column?
There are very few lakes for which an ade-
quate measure of the inflow and outflow of silt
has been made, yet this step is essential. A sedi-
ment removal operation will prove to be
short-lived and futile if significant sources of silt
remain after dredging. The first steps in im-
provement of excessive shallowness by sedi-
ment removal .•>re to develop a plan to control
silt income ana :o estimate how fast the lake will
refill with sediment after the removal operation.
It was once thought that problems with algae
in lakes could be solved solely by diverting nutri-
ents. We now know that lake sediments can be
an important source of nutrients to algae, and
this is the basis for the lake improvement tech-
nique known as nutrient inactivation. Removal
of these sediments by dredging can also bring
about relief from nuisance algae. But before this
is done, it is important to determine the signifi-
cance of lake sediments as a contributor of nutri-
ents to the water column in relation to other
sources. Thus an annual budget of nutrients
should be determined and supplemented with
experiments on nutrient release, before remov-
ing sediments to control algae. Either of these
procedures will involve estimating the signifi-
cance of internal and external sources of nutri-
ents to the water column. (See Section 10.0 and
Appendix E for guidance on nutrient budget
calculations.)
2. If lake sediments are an important nutrient
source, then how much will have to be re-
moved? If rooted plants are a problem as
well, what new lake depth should be at-
tained by sediment removal to control
them through light limitation?
The first question may be answered by deter-
mining nutrient release potential of lake sedi-
ments from several depths in a sediment core.
Many lakes have had a recent history of exces-
sive silt and nutrient income, represented by a
relatively thin layer of nutrient-rich sediments.
Figure 5-4. Cutterhead dredge (Peterson, 1979).
-------
42
Below these sediments may lie soils of far less
enrichment potential, and sediment removal for
algal control could stop there. A similar ap-
proach might be taken for toxic substances.
Many aquatic biologists believe that light pen-
etration is one of the most important determi-
nants of the depth to which rooted aquatic plants
will grow. To control them by sediment removal
means that water clarity measurements must be
made to determine maximum depth of growth.
At present, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (S. A. Peterson, 1980) estimates the
maximum plant growth depth by the equation:
Maximum depth of growth = 0.83 + [1.22x
average summer water clarity (Secchi disk)
in meters].
3. What negative environmental problems
may be encountered with sediment remov-
al, both in the lake and at the sediment dis-
posal site?
Resuspension of fine particles and plant nutri-
ents associated with them may increase algal
growth and oxygen consumption. Toxic sub-
stances may be released to the water column.
Sediment removal, particularly if the entire lake
basin is dredged, will also destroy the communi-
ty of benthic organisms which are important to
the fish community. However, this latter prob-
lem appears to be temporary, and enhanced
fishing may occur after re-establishment of the
fish food organisms.
At the disposal site, problems with dike failure
and insufficient capacity are common. The dis-
charge from the site may be high in nutrients or
toxic substances, thus requiring treatment. It
should be noted that fill permits are required by
the Army Corps of Engineers where an adjacent
wetland or waterway is to be used for disposal.
4. What sediment removal techniques are
best, which lakes will benefit most, and
what will it cost?
Lake level drawdown (see subsection 5.5) can
be used to expose lake sediments for removal by
conventional earthmoving equipment. Exposure
and drying has the additional advantage of
hardening of flocculent lake sediments and
causing some deepening.
Sediment removal is usually accomplished
with a hydraulic dredge, fitted with a cutterhead.
These can remove 1,000 m3 per hour (35,000
ftVhour), but can also create turbidity and
resuspension of nutrients and toxic materials.
More expensive equipment (in terms of costs
per unit of material removal per time) is avail-
able where avoidance of resuspension is
required.
Lakes which are good candidates for sediment
removal include those for which deepening will
immediately restore an impaired recreational
benefit such as boating, and those in which
surficial sediments are significant nutrient
sources. Whether sediment removal can be ac-
complished at reasonable cost depends on
whether adequate disposal areas are available.
Sometimes productive uses can be made of the
material which is removed, offsetting some of
the project costs. In few cases will cost-effective
sediment removal be possible where control of
silt and nutrients from external sources has not
been achieved. With some lakes, particularly
those where the drainage basin is 20 or more
times the lake area, sufficient control of erosion
and nutrients from the land may not be possible.
Costs of sediment removal vary widely from
project to project, and range .between $1.00 and
$15.70 per cubic meter ($0.76 to $12.00 per yd3).
Peterson (1979) estimated mean cost by geo-
graphic region, since disposal costs and other
variables change regionally. They are: Great
Lakes area, $1.34/nr ($1.02/yd3); Northwest,
$2.36/m3 ($1.80/yd3); Central States, $2.49/m3
($1.90/yd3); and Northeast, $5.63/m3 ($4.30/yd3).
Lakes with high silt income and deposition may
benefit in the short run, but the treatment is not
likely to be cost-effective.
Is sediment removal effective? Peterson (1980)
examined the results of 64 removal projects in
the United States. As with many other lake im-
provement procedures, extensive published in-
formation is not as yet available, but certain con-
clusions are possible. Removal for deepening
purposes is effective, but the rate of transport of
new materials to the lake will determine duration
of effectiveness. Controlling rooted plants by
deepening is not well documented. Where toxic
substances are involved, costs may be more
than double those for uncontaminated material
because of the extra care required during remov-
al and disposal to minimize release of toxics to
surface or groundwater. Where removal to con-
trol nutrient release is the object, success will be
directly related to control of external nutrient
sources, and to the extent to which the sedi-
ments are an important contributor of nutrients
to the water column.
5.8 Harvesting
Aquatic plant harvesting is a procedure to cut
and remove (usually) vegetation, giving the lake
user immediate relief from conditions impairing
swimming, boating, and water-skiing. In few in-
stances could harvesting, by itself, be called a
lake restoration technique, since it does not af-
fect external sediment and nutrient income or al-
ter conditions for re-growth, such as shallow-
• ness and nutrient-rich lake sediments. As with
any other in-lake technique, diversion of sedi-
ment and nutrients is essential for long-term
lake improvement.
A commonly-used method for controlling ex-
cessive aquatic plants is herbicide treatment.
Harvesting is at least as effective, is no more ex-
pensive, and has several distinct advantages
-------
43
over the introduction of toxic chemicals. The.
procedure is target specific, and the time and
place of harvesting are decided by lake users.
The nuisance is immediately removed, and with
it a certain quantity of plant nutrients. No poi-
sons are introduced and no toxic residues re-
main. The lake can remain open during harvest-
ing. The plants do not remain in the lake to
decompose, remove oxygen, and release nutri-
ents which may stimulate algae growth. Finally,
the harvested weeds may be used for compost,
mulch, methane production, etc.
There have been several recent reports about
harvesting. Among them are Burton, et al.
(1979), Carpenter and Adams (1977), Wile (1978),
and a volume issued by the Institute for Environ-
mental Studies at the University of Wisconsin
(Madison) (1979), The following summary is
drawn from these and other recent sources.
There are two general types of weed harvest-
ing systems, those which cut plants, and those
which cut and then remove the cut material. Low
cost systems simply cut the vegetation; removal
occurs after wind and currents move the floating
vegetation to shore or to a barrier at the lake's
outlet. This type of system is not recommended
for lakes in which current is unpredictable (such
as natural lakes and many impoundments) since
the cut vegetation will ultimately sink, decom-
pose, release nutrients, and consume oxygen.
The other system cuts plants to a depth of about
1.5 meters (5 feet), and a conveyor removes the
cuttings to a holding area on the harvester. Cut
plants are then transported to shore by the har-
vester, or to a second vessel which takes them to
shore while the harvester continues to cut. This
system has a high initial cost but removes the
vegetation from the lake at a rate of 1 to 3 hec-
tares per day (4 to 6 acres).
Disposal of cut vegetation is often mentioned
as a problem with harvesting. Apparently such
problems rarely materialize, since many
lakeshore residents have found the material to
be valuable as mulch or compost. Wile, et al. .
(1978) report that experimental composting of
milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.) resulted in a material
which performed as well as standard green-
house material, if high pH and salt content were
lowered.
Harvesting can contribute to long-term lake
restoration if the amount of nutrients removed in
the cut vegetation exceeds the lake's net nutrient
income. Burton, et al. (1979) provide a chart
which shows how much plant material must be
harvested for a given net phosphorus income.
These data indicate that few eutrophic lakes can
be restored by harvesting, although significant
amounts of nutrients may be removed.
Regrowth after harvesting is usually delayed,
and cutting and harvesting in one year tend to
inhibit regrowth in subsequent years. Deeper
cuts (nearer sediments) are more effective in
controlling regrowth, and multiple harvests in
one season are better than a single early-season
harvest. Thus, while harvesting is not often a
long-term restoration method, it is clearly an ef-
fective lake improvement procedure which gives
the user immediate access to the water without
the problems associated with toxic chemicals.
The adverse effects of harvesting are not well-
known, but a detailed report of our current
knowledge is available (Carpenter and Adams,
1977) and is the basis of this summary. Harvest-
ing constitutes habitat removal, and with it will
come a reduction in species of the shallow area
of the lake, particularly of animals such as snails,
insects, and worms. The adverse impact on fish
abundance appears to be slight (Wile, 1978) and
only small fish are removed by the harvester [12
to 190 millimeters (0.5 to 7 inches) in length].
Fish growth rates may increase, and fish may in-
creasingly turn to algae grazers (zooplankton) in-
stead of snails and insects. Algal blooms often
occur after harvesting, and this may be caused
by elimination of competition from the rooted
plants, or by the removal of the algae grazers by
fish. Another adverse impact may occur if vege-
tation at incoming streams is removed, since
this vegetation probably removes nutrients and
traps silt.
The cost of harvesting is greatly affected by
the high initial cost of the equipment, but actual-
ly seems to compare favorably with herbicides.
Several authors (see the Wisconsin report) have
provided cost summaries. Costs per hectare
range from $173 to $250 ($70 to $100 per acre),
including labor (often well over half the cost),
equipment, depreciation, and disposal. It should
be noted that some American-made harvesting
equipment has appreciated in price since pur-
chase and also that operating costs go down as
total harvest goes up. Costs can be reduced by
designing an efficient cutting-transport plan and
by purchasing equipment of size appropriate to
the area to be harvested.
In summary, harvesting is effective in remov-
ing vegetation from lakes at the time and place
desired by lake users, without the adverse im-
pacts cf herbicides. Costs are as low as for herbi-
cide treatment and, with the possible exception
of algal blooms, few adverse environmental Im-
pacts have been observed. Regrowth of plants !•
slowed by multiple cuts and the amount of
plants in subsequent years is less. Harvesting ll
not a long-term lake restoration procedure un-
less the amount of nutrients removed with the
vegetation exceeds the net nutrient income to
the lake. It will provide immediate relief from
nuisance plant growth and improve recreational
uses of the lake.
It should be noted that the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram considers harvesting to be a palliative ap-
proach to lake restoration in most cases, and
therefore rarely eligible for financial assistance.
-------
44
5.9 Biological Controls
Biological control of rooted aquatic plants and
algae through the grazing activities of such or-
ganisms as fish or insects is one of the more re-
cent experimental approaches to controlling ex-
cessive vegetation. With few exceptions, such as
insect control of alligatorweed, biological con-
trol organisms are being viewed by aquatic sci-
entists with caution since the introduction of ex-
otic species to our Nation's waters could cause
more problems than it solves. A well-known ex-
ample is the common carp, which was brought
to this country as a food organism but has prob-
ably caused as much damage as benefit. Scien-
tists are therefore attempting to evaluate bio-
logical control species in a step-by-step fashion.
Recent reviews of progress are provided in
Schuytema (1977) and Cooke (1980a).
There are several different types of organisms
presently being evaluated. A fungus which at-
tacks water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) has
given good results, and insects have been re-
leased which give at least local control of both
water hyacinth and alligatorweed (Alternanthera
philoxeroides). This section, however, is con-
fined to a discussion of two biological control
methods, plant-eating fish and the manipulation
of algal-grazer food webs, which are very prom-
ising as widely applicable means of controlling
rooted plants and algae.
5.9.1 Herbivorous Fish
Tilapia mossambica (Mozambique mouth-
brooder) and 7*. zillii have been suggested as
possible controls of algae and certain rooted
plants. They thrive only in warm water (greater
than 10° C or 55° F). T. zillii has become a nui-
sance in Florida where it was introduced to test
its ability to control rooted plants. These fish are
not now recommended for controlling nuisance
plants.
The white amur or grass carp (Ctenopharyn-
godon idella Val.) has been widely recognized in
Europe and the United States as a plant control
agent. This animal, a native of the Amur Basin in
China and Siberia, consumes nearly all forms of
vegetation and will also eat aquatic invertebrate
animals. It grows rapidly, resists low tempera-
tures, and can withstand low dissolved oxygen
concentrations. The fish are usually stocked at a
density of 100 to 250 kilograms per hectare (90 to
220 Ibs/acre) of 1- to 2-year-old animals. It
should be noted that complete eradication of
plants may occur at the upper end of the stock-
ing range, and the fish will then turn to shore
grasses and invertebrate animals. They prefer
soft plant tissues and filamentous algae and will
avoid other plants such as milfoil (Myriophyllum
sp.) unless there is no other choice.
Evaluation of the fish is now in progress
throughout the United States. Grass carp have
apparently succeeded in Red Haw Lake, Iowa
(Mitzner, 1978) and in various Arkansas lakes
(Bailey, 1978). Rooted plants in the Iowa lake
were reduced, fishing was said to be improved,
and other potential side-effects such as algal
blooms or interference with game fish did not
occur. At present, only a few States allow pos-
session of grass carp, except for experimental
purposes.
However, because of the amur's spread by
mail order and other means, and its promotion
in the popular press (Whiting, 1980), the fish is
found throughout the Mississippi River Basin, in
the Ohio and Missouri Rivers, and in Florida and
Georgia rivers. Most fish have come from Arkan-
sas, a State in which they are the primary means
of aquatic plant control in public waters. In spite
of very stringent environmental requirements
for successful reproduction, the grass carp is be-
lieved to be able to spawn in U.S. waters (Stan-
ley, 1976).
Concern about grass carp comes from past ex-
perience with exotic animals such as the com-
mon carp. The role of grass carp in cycling of
plant nutrients and thus in promoting algal
blooms needs further research. In Europe, grass
carp are notorious spreaders of fish disease
(Bardach, et al. 1972). For example, Riley (1978)
has found a tapeworm which is a serious fish
pest in Europe in some grass carp from Arkan-
sas. This finding suggests that the parasite could
spread in this country. Some (Bailey, 1978) re-
port no interference with game fish, while others
(Forester and Lawrence, 1978) found significant
declines in populations of bluegills and
red-eared sunfish which were reared with grass
carp. These and other concerns are sufficient to
restrict the general use of grass carp for plant
control until more research has been completed.
5.9.2 Biomanipulation
Shapiro, et al. (1975) coined the term "bio-
manipulation" to describe several lake improve-
ment techniques, including altering the food
web of the lake to favor that portion of the ani-
mal community which grazes on algae. Bio-
manipulation of food webs may be particularly
useful in those situations where diversion of nu-
trient income is insufficient to lower in-lake con-
centration and thereby control algal growth.
The next level in the food web which depends
on planktonic algae is the small, free-floating
animal called zooplankton. This grazer is an im-
portant food source of bluegills, pumpkinseed,
crappie, perch, shad, and other fish. In many
lakes, huge populations of small fish exist and
their predatory activities are so intense that few,
if any, grazing zooplankton are found in the sum-
mer. There is good evidence to support the view
of Shapiro, et al. (1975) that, in some water bod-
ies, if the dominance of these small fish can be
greatly reduced, grazing zooplankton can be-
-------
45
come a significant force in controlling algae and
higher water clarity will result. These grazing
fish could be controlled or eliminated by intro-
ducing predators, or by eliminating all fish, fol-
lowed by a balanced restocking. Elimination of
all fish would have the additional advantage of
removing carp (Cyprinus carpio), bullheads and
other fish which recycle nutrients from the sedi-
ments to the water column. Biomanipulation is
in the experimental stage at this time, but it is a
promising approach which avoids the introduc-
tion of an exotic fish and could improve water
clarity and sport fishing.
In summary, biological controls of nuisance
plants and algae are largely undeveloped lake
improvement techniques. In the southern part of
the United States, advances have been made
with insects and plant pathogens, but these are
largely unavailable to the general public at this
time and are aimed at specific problems of
alligatorweed and water hyacinths. Herbivorous
fish may become an important tool in plant con-
trol, but the present widespread shipment and
use of grass carp is being done without sufficient
knowledge of possible adverse effects, and
should be stopped until more information is ob-
tained and shared with the public and the scien-
tific community.
-------
46
6.0 GENERAL PROGRAM POLICY
Among the sections of the Clean Water Act
which establish Federal assistance programs,
section 314 is one of the briefest and least de-
tailed. In contrast to section 208, for example,
where much of the content of the areawide plan-
ning studies is specified by Congress, 314 sets
forth three goals, directs the Administrator to
make financial assistance available to the States,
and authorizes funding. Consequently, develop-
ing rules and regulations for the Clean Lakes
Program involved many policy decisions. Since
the regulations became effective, EPA has estab-
lished additional policy guidance in the form of a
5-year strategy for operation of the Clean Lakes
Program.
It is important that anyone involved with the
program be aware of the program policies —
both those implicit in the regulations and those
stated explicitly in the regulations or elsewhere
— for they affect allocation of available funds;
review of applications; award of cooperative
agreements; establishment of conditions on
awards; monitoring and evaluation of results;
and general program administration.
The purpose of this section is to review and
explain Clean Lakes Program policy. The regula-
tions, 40 CFR 35 Subpart H, will be cited but not
quoted in the course of.the discussion; they are
reproduced in Appendix B. The policies are
grouped in seven categories:
1. Eligibility.
2. Benefit maximization.
3. Long-term management vs. short-term
improvement.
4. Integration and coordination with other
programs.
5. Funding.
6. Monitoring and evaluation.
7. General program administration.
6.1 Policies on Eligibility for Assistance
6.1.1 Eligible Recipients
Section 314 restricts recipients of cooperative
agreement awards to States. To not preclude ac-
tive participation by local government, a signifi-
cant factor in the success of the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram to date, the regulations permit (and EPA
encourages) local government contributions to-.
ward the State's share of the costs. Moreover,
through a substate agreement, a regional or lo-
cal unit of government may perform some or all
of the lake work under a cooperative agreement
(40 CFR 35.1615).
6.1.2 Public Ownership and Access
A basic requirement for eligibility is that the
lake be open and accessible to the public and
that access be across publicly owned land (40
CFR 35.1605-3). Some flexibility is possible when
the lake is in the public domain but all shoreline
is privately owned. In such cases, the State must
document long-term leases and easements
which insure public access, and the access
points must be marked with signs. The intent of
this regulation is to insure that the benefits of a
lake restoration or protection project are in fact
enjoyed by the public, and not merely by owners
of lakefront property. Public access must be pro-
vided independently of a Clean Lakes Project;
Section 314 funds may not be used to purchase
or lease property solely to provide access [40
CFR 35.1650-2(b)(7)].
6.1.3 Recreational Value
Included in the definition of "freshwater lake"
(the only lakes eligible for section 314 assis-
tance), is the requirement that the lake have rec-
reational value (40 CFR 35.1605-2). This is con-
sistent with the intent of Congress, as expressed
in the overall goals of the Clean Water Act: "...
water quality which provides for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife
and provides for recreation in and on the wa-
ter..." [Section 101(a)(2)]. Lakes which are
used only for public water supply are ineligible
for section 314 assistance (programs under the
Safe Drinking Water Act assist drinking water
supply projects; many water supply functions,
-------
47
including reservoir maintenance, can often be
paid for through water bills).
6.1.4 Requirement for State Classification
Cooperative Agreements
Beginning January 1, 1982, States wishing to
obtain EPA financial assistance for Phase 1 and
Phase 2 projects must first have submitted to
EPA a classification of their priority publicly
owned lakes in need of protection or restoration
and an explanation of the rationale for selecting
the lakes surveyed (40 CFR 35.1620-6). The intent
of this requirement is to improve the information
base used to assess national need and to assign
priorities to applications, so that section 314
funds can be requested and allocated on the
soundest possible basis. To encourage comple-
tion of these classification surveys, EPA plans to
make cooperative agreements available for
them only until September 30, 1981.
6.2 Policies on Maximization of Public
Benefits
Because program funds are limited, EPA
awards cooperative agreements to maximize
public benefits. This has several specific policy
implications which are discussed in the next
three sections.
6.2.1 Selection of Projects Near Population
Centers
A recent study of projects funded under sec-
tion 314 has shown that recreational benefits re-
sulting from restoration and/or protection of
lakes in or near urban areas, or in regions with
large populations of seasonal residents or tour-
ists tend to be significantly higher than those
from projects conducted elsewhere (JACA Corp.,
1980). Where larger numbers of people live or
vacation within easy access to a lake, the num-
ber of users and thus the magnitude of public
benefits is higher. The supply of high-quality
lake recreational resources is often smaller, and
the demand for them greater, in the metropoli-
tan areas. In popular vacation areas, local and re-
gional economies may directly depend on lake
water quality. The Clean Lakes Program conse-
quently gives preference to lakes in or near such
areas in the competition for Federal funds. This
policy should contribute to maximizing program
benefits now, and increasingly so in the future,
as higher energy costs and scarcity of fuel cause
more Americans to take advantage of recreation-
al opportunities nearer home. Fortunately, 99
percent of Americans live within a 50-mile radius
of at least one publicly owned lake.
6.2.2 Pre-Award Assessment of Benefits
Only those proposals that completely articu-
late lake quality problems and proposed solu-
tions will compete successfully for the available
section 314 funds. The regulations require that
applicants describe the benefits being impaired
because of degraded water quality, the extent of
public access to the lake, and the public benefits
which a pollution control and/or lake restoration
project would generate [40 CFR 35 Subpart H Ap-
pendix A 1:(a)(3), (5), (7); (b)(2)]. In reviewing
this portion of an application, EPA will be look-
ing for convincing evidence that the lake project
will yield benefits which are real and accessible,
which are in short supply, and for which there is
existing or potential demand by a large group of
prospective users [40 CFR 35.1640-1 (a)(4)]. Ap-
pendix E discusses methods of demonstrating
prospective benefits.
6.2.3 Continuation of Benefits
EPA favors projects in which protective or res-
torative measures will continue after project
conclusion to sustain public benefits over the
long term. Therefore, EPA will be looking for
Phase 2 Clean Lakes Projects which have a com-
prehensive maintenance program to ensure that
pollution controls, once implemented, remain
effective [40 CFR 35.1640-1(a)(9)). Section 314
projects often yield dramatic and immediate re-
sults, but it is equally important to see that the
benefits are of a lasting nature. Only through
these activities can EPA hope to maintain or im-
prove the current 8 to 1 public benefits to EPA
cost ratio that has been demonstrated with
Clean Lakes Projects (JACA Corp., 1980).
6.3 Long-Term Water Quality
Management vs. Short-Term
Improvement
Selecting projects that use protective or resto-
rative techniques which will remain effective
over the long term has always been an objective
of the Clean Lakes Program. In-lake techniques,
such as weed harvesting and dredging, while
producing an immediate lake quality improve-
ment, are rarely cost-effective by themselves in
the long run. It is therefore EPA policy to give
preference to applicants that propose protection
and restoration techniques which control pollut-
ants at their sources rather than control their
symptoms in the lake. These techniques tend to
be most effective on a watershed-wide basis.
The application of agricultural and silvicultural
best management practices that keep sediment
and nutrients out of streams — no-till farming,
manure collection, contour plowing, grassed
waterways, and maintenance of vegetative cov-
er, for example — offers great promise for keep-
ing rural lakes healthy. For lakes in urbanized
areas, septic system management ordinances,
alternative wastewater treatment systems, and
erosion and stormwater control techniques can
all help stop the accumulation of pollutants.
The principal problems affecting the Nation's
lakes are nutrient enrichment and inorganic
sedimentation. These two polluting substances
-------
must be addressed on a watershed basis; work
in the watershed to control them must begin be-
fore or at the same time as in-lake restorative
measures are undertaken if lake improvement is
to be sustained. However, implementing source
controls in the watershed may not always be suf-
ficient to return a severely degraded lake to an
acceptable condition in a reasonable amount of
time. Some in-lake activity is then necessary.
The section 314 regulations recognize this rela-
tionship by permitting the use of program funds
for in-lake measures which are strictly palliative
but restricting such awards to situations where
pollution sources in the watershed have been
controlled as completely as is practical [40 CFR
35.1650-2(b)(5)].
6.4 Integration and Coordination With
Other Programs
A way to maximize water quality improvement
nationwide is to coordinate Clean Lakes funds
with other environmental quality management
activities. The pollution problems in many lakes
comf from a variety of sources and might well
be attacked by several Federal, State, and local
programs. Ideally, the polluted lake can serve as
the focus of all these efforts. While the Clean
Lakes projects show immediate and measurable
improvements in water quality and use, outputs
and benefits can be many times greater if lake
projects are coordinated with other related pro-
grams. Providing treatment for sewage from
lakeshore homes under section 201, implement-
ing agricultural pollution controls, or building or
rehabilitating a lakeside park, are just a few
opportunities to compound benefits of a Clean
Lakes project. Such project cooperation can also
reduce costs. Section 11.0 and Appendix H con-
. tain more detailed information on programs
with good potential for coordination with Clean
Lakes projects.
6.4.1 Restriction of Awards
One of the ways in which the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram will effect this coordination is by limiting
award of Federal lake funds to areas that are ap-
plying an integrated watershed management ap-
proach. Before making an award, the Regional
Administrator must determine that any water
pollution control measures in the lake's water-
shed authorized under section 201, included in
an approved 208 plan, or required by section
402, have been completed or are proceeding on
approved schedules [40 CFR 35.1650-2(b)(2)].
6.4.2 Promote Study of Coordinated
Approach During Phase 1
Under the present Clean Lakes Program Strat-
egy, funding preference will be given to appli-
cants who propose to examine the coordinated
approach as an alternative for implementing
lake protection and restoration measures. In ad-
dition, EPA will continue to push for better inte-
gration of both in-house and other Federal pro-
grams through the mechanisms of Memoranda
of Understanding (MOUs) and Interagency
Agreements, formal acknowledgements among
agencies of their intent to cooperate to achieve
common goals.
6.4.3 Certifications of Consistency and
Compliance
Another method to promote coordination is to
insure that the proposed project is consistent
with the State Water Quality Management work
program and Comprehensive Outdoor Recrea-
tion Plan (if completed) and that it will use and
not duplicate work completed under section 208.
Consequently, States are required to include cer-
tifications of those relationships in Phase 1 and
Phase 2 applications [40 CFR 1620-2(a), (b)(4),
and (c)(2)].
6.5 Funding
6.5.1 Funding Levels
The 50 percent Phase 2 matching requirement
could be reduced to 30 percent under section
314. However, section 314 funds are limited, and
the 50-50 cost-sharing permits more projects to
be funded. There is no evidence that a higher
Federal share would elicit greater participation
in the program. Furthermore, EPA has found that
the 50 percent level necessitates a real State
(and often local) commitment to the project
which improves the chances of its successful im-
plementation and continued maintenance.
6.5.2 Regional Allocations
Target amounts of Clean Lakes funds will be
established annually for each EPA region on the
basis of State forecasts. This is consistent with
the decentralization of the application review
and selection process to the regional offices. It.
facilitates negotiations with the States and puts
the regional offices in a better position to fore-
cast workloads and obtain necessary manpower
and other resources. The targets will be based
on State forecasts of Clean Lakes funding needs.
However, competition for program funds is in-
tense. If target amounts are not met in some Re-
gions early each fiscal year, unobligated funds
will be redistributed to Regions with more Clean
Lakes activity. Because of this situation, it is im-
portant that States develop quality applications
and submit them to the regional offices as soon
as possible, preferably before the beginning of
the fiscal years in which funding is desired.
6.5.3 State Priority Assignments
The assignment of State priority is a key step
in the application procedure. Priorities are as-
signed annually in the work plan submitted to
the Regional Administrator by each State [40
CFR 35.1620-5(a)(1)]. Realizing that reasons for
-------
49
altering priorities may arise during the course of
a year, EPA allows modification of the list when-
ever there is sufficient justification. For example,
new data may indicate that a lower priority
project will produce greater public benefits than
originally thought, making it more attractive
than one of higher priority from the standpoint
of maximizing benefits. Also, matching funds
may become available for a lower priority lake,
through local contributions, before they can be
obtained for one of higher priority.
6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation
It is EPA policy to maintain active monitoring
and evaluation at project and program levels
and in the area of research on lake protection
and restoration technology.
6.6.1 Project Monitoring
Monitoring Phase 2 projects after completion
is necessary to determine the effectiveness of
Clean Lakes expenditures in improving water
quality and providing public benefits. Post-
project monitoring must continue for at least
one year; the actual details and schedule of the
monitoring program must be approved by the
EPA project officer before other Phase 2 work be-
gins [40 CFR 35.1650-3(c)(D). The program must
include a reliable means of transmitting moni-
toring information to the Project Officer. Cooper-
ative agreement recipients are required to report
water quality data and administrative informa-
tion for input to EPA's STORE! (Storage and Re-
trieval) and GICS (Grants Information Control
System) data management systems. Appendix
G contains instruction and suggested formats
for this purpose.
6.6.2 Monitoring at the Regional Level
Regional Clean Lakes coordinators, along with
their State counterparts, are in the best position
to assemble information on the progress and re-
sults of projects. From the application stage
through project operation and maintenance (in-
cluding watershed management activities), they
should check each project with respect to the six
other objectives described above, the section
314 regulations, and other environmental goals.
Is program integration occurring? Are EPA
priorities such as toxic pollution being ad-
dressed? Are all project alternatives being exam-
ined objectively? Are there any recurring prob-
lems, such as difficulty obtaining contractors for
particular types of projects? Are the monitoring
data being collected being put into STORET and
GICS in the Regional Office, and are the data
useful to the program? Are the project benefits
being realized? Answers to these and other
questions must be transmitted in two directions
— to the State and EPA project officers for use in
managing individual projects, and to Headquar-
ters to be used in administering the national pro-
gram. Workshops and conferences will be
scheduled to help accomplish this exchange of
information.
6.6.3 Monitoring the National Program
Headquarters evaluates the program annually.
Relying primarily on feedback from the Regions,
midyear evaluations, 304(j) state-of-the-art re-
ports, project evaluation reports, and analytical
printouts from GICS and STORET, Headquarters
staff monitors progress toward the overall goal
established for the Clean Lakes Program.
Progress toward specific program objectives are
also assessed, and Headquarters may change an
objective if it is not contributing to attaining the
overall goal.
6.6.4 Evaluating Existing and Emerging
Technology
The section 314 regulations also direct EPA
to consider cost-effectiveness and energy-
efficiency of in-lake alternatives in making
funding decisions. The Clean Lakes Program cur-
rently relies on EPA's Office of Research and De-
velopment and lake restoration consultants to
answer questions about the feasibility, efficiency
and effectiveness of restoration techniques. As
more research findings and demonstration
project results are accumulated, decisions on
cost-effectiveness and energy-efficiency can be
made with greater certainty, and States will have
more information to use in developing restora-
tion and pollution control programs for their
lakes.
As findings are generated, EPA will publish
them through its technology transfer program
and through additions to Sections 4.0 and 5.0
and Appendices C and D of this manual.
6.7 General Program Administration
It is only through a Federal, State, and local
partnership that the objectives of the Clean
Lakes Program can be achieved.
6.7.1 EPA Headquarters Role
In addition to overall program monitoring and
evaluation described in subsection 6.6, EPA
Headquarters is responsible for the following
functions:
1. Developing model legislation and other
guidance for use by Regions in helping
States establish lake programs.
2. Developing guidelines for quality assur-
ance and economic benefits assessment.
.3. Obtaining appropriate fiscal year appro-
priations.
4. Developing national initiatives.
5. Developing national program guidance and
policy.
6. Conducting technical reviews of applica-
tions for Regions.
-------
50
7. Interacting with EPA Office of Research and
Development in evaluating lake diagnostic,
restorative, and protective technology.
8. Reporting annually on the Clean Lakes
Program.
9. Tracking the status of grant information
and obligation of program funds.
6.7.2 EPA Regional Office Role
The Regional Offices are the keys to maintain-
ing the Federal-State partnership, because they
perform most of the day-to-day administrative
and technical assistance functions. In addition to
the. monitoring responsibilities described in
subsection 6.6, the Regions:
1. Award and administer cooperative agree-
ments.
2. Work with States in developing State pro-
grams, including preparing model legisla-
tion and regulations, priority lists, and an-
nual work programs.
3. Assist States and local governments in pre-
paring applications.
4. Conduct technical reviews and funding rec-
ommendations for all applications.
6.7.3 State Clean Lakes Programs
EPA strongly encourages States to establish
their own Clean Lakes Programs. Most States
are currently not in a financial position to match
section 314 awards with State funds. However,
States are aware of the effectiveness of Clean
Lakes Projects and are eager to participate.
Therefore, it is necessary that their ability to
match section 314 funding be developed. Since
support of this magnitude usually cannot be
achieved on the local agency or general public
level, State program legislation must be devel-
oped to implement and manage State Clean
Lakes Programs consistent with section 314 of
the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations. This
includes preparing State work programs that in-
clude a priority ranking of lake restoration
projects. The Regional Clean Lakes coordinators
should work closely with their State counter-
parts in developing legislation, regulations,
guidelines, strategies, and operating and man-
agement procedures.
-------
51
7.0 LAKE CLASSIFICATION SURVEYS
7.1 Summary {
On July 10, 1978, the EPA announced (in the
Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 132, page
29617ff) the availability of financial assistance
for performing statewide lake classification sur-
veys. The announcement, reprinted in Appendix
B, stated that EPA will provide financial assis-
tance to States to:
1. Identify and classify publicly owned
freshwater lakes according to trophic
condition;
2. Establish a priority ranking for lakes deter-
mined to be in need of restoration or pro-
tection; and
3. Conduct feasibility studies to determine
methods and procedures to protect or re-
store the quality of priority lakes.
Federal funding equal to 70 percent of the sur-
vey costs, but not exceeding $100,000 per sur-
vey, must be matched by 30 percent non-Federal
funds or in-kind services.
The EPA regulations covering cooperative
agreements for lake restoration and protection
require that States wishing to remain eligible for
section 314 financial assistance establish a pro-
cedure for determining the priority of freshwater
publicly owned lakes for restoration, and classify
those needing protection or restoration accord-
ing to trophic level by January 1, 1982 (40 CFR
35.1630). State and EPA personnel will use this
classification and priority ranking system to de-
cide which lakes will receive funding for Phase 1
and Phase 2 programs.
7.2 Scope of Lake Classification Surveys
The scope of lake classification surveys varies
from State to State, depending on the number
and characteristics of the lakes, the existing lake
data base, and the State's geographical location.
For instance, some States have surveyed many
of their lakes in the past and have a good lake
data base. Consequently, these States may de-
cide to perform in-depth diagnostic studies on
one or more lakes which received a high priority
for restoration. On the other hand, some States
have a very poor lake data base and may decide
to perform less detailed surveys of many lakes.
The content of a typical classification survey is
given in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1
Information to be Supplied for Each Lake in a Typical State Classification Survey'
Official name.
Geographical location (including latitude and longitude of lake center).
Summary of available chemical and biological data demonstrating current water quality.
Indication of inclusion in EPA National Eutrophication Survey.
Indication of public ownership.
Description of impaired recreational values, and causes of impairment.
General physical characteristics of the lake.
Watershed description.
Major point source discharges.
Major nonpoint pollution sources.
Identification of cognizant 208 planning agency(ies).
Description of local interests in and resources committed to restoring the lake.
Indication of probable protection and restoration measures required.
•43 FR 29617. : '
-------
52
7.3 Use of Lake Classification Survey Data
The classification and the priority ranking sys-
tem developed by a State will be included in the
annual work program which the State must sub-
mit to the EPA Regional Administrator each year.
The work plan will list, in priority order, the co-
operative agreement applications that will be
submitted by the State for Phase 1 and 2 projects
during the coming fiscal year. This information
will assist EPA in allocating its financial re-
sources to maximize public benefits derived
from the Clean Lakes Program.
A prospective applicant for a Phase 1 or a
Phase 2 project can use the lake classification
survey data to learn the priority ranking of his
particular lake, and determine the lake and wa-
tershed data available for it. This enables the ap-
plicant to estimate his chances of being funded
in a particular fiscal year. If the priority is low, the
applicant may be able to obtain additional data.
at its own cost, to convince the State and EPA to
move it to a higher place on the priority list. If, on
the other hand, additional data do not justify a
higher ranking, the applicant may decide not to
prepare an application, and thus avoid wasting
time and. resources.
Lake and watershed data in the classification
survey can be invaluable to anyone preparing a
Phase 1 application. The data may satisfy some
of the information requirements on the Phase 1
application (described in Section 8.5 of this man-
ual). In this case, knowing which required items
are missing will assist the applicant in conduct-
ing whatever studies may be needed to com-
plete the application. The data will also be useful
in developing the Phase 1 work plan; they can be
used to satisfy some Phase 1 requirements and
to identify any additional background informa-
tion that may be needed for the particular lake
being studied.
-------
53
8.0 PHASE 1 DIAGNOSTIC-FEASIBILITY STUDIES
8.1 Definition and Purpose
A diagnostic-feasibility study is a two-part
study designed to determine a lake's current
condition and to develop a proposed program
for lake restoration and protection.
The diagnostic portion is a data gathering and
analysis effort. It involves collecting sufficient
limnological, morphological, demographic, and
socioeconomic information about the lake and
its watershed to answer four questions:
1. What is the present condition of the lake
ecosystem?
2. How does, or will, this condition affect lake
uses, and how important are these affected
uses to the region?
3. What are the primary pollutants currently
(or potentially) affecting the ecosystem?
4. What are the sources of these pollutants,
and how much of each pollutant does each
source contribute?
The feasibility portion of a Phase 1 study ex-
tends from the diagnostic work. Its purpose is to
identify and evaluate possible techniques for re-
storing and/or protecting lake water quality to
maximize public benefits; to provide sufficient
technical, environmental, socioeconomic, and fi-
nancial information to enable decision-makers
to select the most cost-effective techniques; and
to develop a technical plan for using the tech-
niques selected. The principal questions to be
answered in the feasibility study are:
1. What measures are available to restore or
protect desired water quality in the lake?
2. Which alternative is the most cost-effective,
taking into account not only anticipated wa-
ter quality effects but also costs, public
benefits, and any adverse environmental,
social, or economic impacts?
3. What public benefits may be anticipated
from the lake restoration or protection
project?
4. How will the proposed project be imple-
mented — technically, financially, and
institutionally?
5. What provisions will be made to ensure
that the benefits will be sustained after the
project is completed?
A feasibility study must be accompanied by an
environmental evaluation. The evaluation is not
limited to the natural environment; it must con-
sider potential impacts on people, housing, land
use, agriculture, open space, and cultural re-
sources, as well as energy, air quality, noise, lake
ecology, floodplains, and wetlands.
Appendix A of 40 CFR 35 Subpart H (repro-
duced in Appendix B of this manual) states the
specific requirements for the study, and Appen-
dix E of this manual describes in detail how each
requirement is to be met. The requirements are
-------
54
Table 8-1
Phase ^ Diagnostic-Feasibility Study Outputs
A. Diagnostic Study
1. Identification and location of lake
2. Geological description of drainage basin
3. Description of public access to lake
4. Description of user population
5. Summary of historical lake uses
6. Explanation of any adverse impacts of lake degradation peculiar to segments of user population
7. Discussion of alternative sites for lake users in region
8. Inventory of point source discharges in watershed
9. Description of land uses and related nonpoint source pollutant loadings in watershed
10. Discussion and analysis of historical and current limnological data
11. Lake's biological resources
B. Feasibility Study
1. Pollution control and restoration alternatives considered and selected
2. Benefits expected to result from project
3. Proposed Phase 2 monitoring program
4. Proposed Phase 2 work schedule and budget
5. Sources of Phase 2 matching funds
6. Relationship to other programs
7. Summary of public participation
8. Plan for post-project operation and maintenance
9. Required permits
C. Environmental Evaluation
summarized in Table 8-1. The remainder of this
section concerns applying for, planning, and
completing a Phase 1 study.
8.2 Types of Funding Assistance
Federal awards of up to 70 percent of study
costs, with a maximum of $100,000 per award,
are available to support Phase 1 diagnostic-
feasibility studies. A minimum of 30 percent of
the total study costs must be provided from
non-Federal sources, such as State, county, or
local agencies. Non-Federal contributions may
be cash or in-kind services. (Obviously, studies
costing more than $142,860 will require a
non-Federal contribution of more than 30
percent because of the $100,000 limit on Federal
awards). Section 11.0 contains information on
possible sources of matching funds and also de-
scribes programs which may provide money
and services to augment the scope of Phase 1
studies.
8.3 Applying for Phase 1 Assistance
A State may apply to the EPA Regional Office
for Phase I assistance, using Standard Form 424
(EPA Form 5700-33) which is in five parts:
1. Parti — Application.
2. Part II — Project Approval Information.
3. Part III — Budget Information.
4. Part IV — Program Narrative.
5. Part V — Assurances.
The application content is prescribed in 40 CFR
35.1620-2. In addition to the approvals contained
in Part II, the State must certify that the project is
consistent with the State Water Quality Manage-
ment work program and, if it has been complet-
ed, the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recrea-
tion Plan (SCORP). These certifications should
be supplied as an attachment to Part II. States
should also note that priority rating requested in
Part II must be supplied. Otherwise, with the ex-
ception of Part IV, the form and its attached
instructions are self-explanatory. Examples of
completed applications accompany the case
studies in Section 12.0.
Standard Form 424 does not contain rigid for-
mat requirements for the Part IV Program Narra-
.tive because its content should be specific to the
program under which funds are being request-
ed. For the Clean Lakes Program, Part IV is to
contain a narrative statement of the procedures
to be used in conducting the Phase I study. It
also must include details and justification sup-
porting the budget request in Part III. Certain
easily-obtainable descriptive information on the
lake and its watershed is required, and there are
also a number of optional items, more difficult to
obtain, which should be included to assist EPA in
its review. All requirements for Part IV are de-
scribed in the regulations; the outline in Table
8-2 is to be followed in completing a unified
presentation.
It is important to keep in mind that an objec-
tive of the Clean Lakes Program is to maximize
public benefits. Consequently, successful appli-
cations will be those with well-substantiated nar-
rative statements which clearly demonstrate
present or potential loss of public benefits
caused by water quality problems, and which
describe well-conceived programs for protecting
or restoring benefits.
-------
55
8.4 Application Review Criteria A prospective applicant should also be aware
of EPA's 5-year strategy for the Clean Lakes Pro-
A prospective applicant for Phase 1 funding gram. This strategy was developed to maximize
assistance would be wise to become familiar the benefits from available limited funds. It in-
with the criteria EPA uses in reviewing applica- eludes policies which explain why certain types
tions. They are specified in 40 CPR 35.1640-1 and of projects may be more likely to be selected for
summarized in Table 8-3. These criteria will be funding than others. In general, selection is
applied to each application received. based not only on technical merit and other cri-
Table 8-2
Outline for Pan IV Program Narrative
A. Lake Description
1. Legal name
2. Location
3. Physical characteristics
a. Morphometry
b. Hydrology
c. Stratification
4. Physical, chemical, and biological data summary
a. Physical data — temperature, transparency, etc.
b. Chemical data — nutrients, pH, dissolved oxygen, etc.
c. Biological data — phytoplankton, macrophytes, invertebrates, fishes, waterfowl, and other wildlife
B. Watershed Description*
1. Size
2. Topography, geology, soils
3. Land uses
4. Population
C. Public Access, Benefits, and Recreational Use
1. Type and amount of public access
2. Present lake uses
3. Impairment of recreational uses due to water quality
4. Public benefits anticipated from pollution control or restoration
D. Pollutant Sources and Existing Control Practices*
1. Point sources
a. Identification of discharges in watershed
b. Control measures (give NPDES number)
c. Estimated contribution to lake pollutant loading
2. Nonpoint sources
a. Identification of major sources in watershed
b. Control measures implemented
E. Scope of Proposed Project
1. Work plan development
2. Study of lake and watershed characteristics
3. Study of social, economic, and recreational characteristics
4. Lake monitoring program
5. Watershed monitoring program
6. Data analysis
7. Development and selection of alternatives
8. Selection and development of watershed management and lake restoration program
9. Projection of benefits
10. Environmental evaluation
11. Public participation
a. Program for public involvement
b. Local interest groups already committed to project
12. Reports
F. Project Schedule
1. Milestones, including key points for public involvement
2. Bar chart
G. Project Budget
1. Itemized cost estimate
2. Justification of costs
3. Non-Federal fiscal resources
• Optional information; include if available.
-------
56
teria in Table 8-3 but also upon population densi-
ty, socioeconomic conditions, and regional sup-
ply and demand for water-based recreation (see
Section 6.0).
There is no specific deadline for submitting
Phase 1 applications. However, funds are limited
and competition for them is so intense that there
is a backlog of applications at the end of each fis-
cal year awaiting funding in the following year.
Consequently, Clean Lakes Program funds tend
to be completely obligated earlier in the fiscal
year than is the case in many other programs.
Applications should be submitted as early as
possible.
8.5 Conditions on Award
In addition to the general conditions which
pertain to all EPA grants. Phase I cooperative
agreements are subject to three conditions es-
tablished in 40 CFR 35.1650-3.
First, when an award is made, the recipient
must complete development of the physical,
chemical, and biological data collection compo-
nents of the work plan and receive project officer
approval before beginning any other work under
the grant.
Second, before selecting any pollution control
or restoration alternatives, the recipient of Phase
1 assistance must submit an interim report to the
project officer discussing all available alterna-
tives and summarizing public participation and
comment.
Third, when the techniques to be used have
been selected, they must be approved by the
project officer before any further work is accom-
plished under the agreement.
8.6 Conducting the Phase 1 Study
Although a Phase 1 study can be divided into
two parts for discussion purposes, many aspects
of the work are so interdependent that they
should be integrated. This is because the diag-
nostic portion of the study provides site-specific
data which is used in the feasibility portion. Fac-
tual information for the Phase I study consists of
primary data collected in the field and laboratory
and secondary data collected from libraries and
Government agency files. Finally, after all the
data have been gathered, they must be analyzed
and the results integrated so that alternative res-
toration and protection approaches can be
explored.
The study, as described in 40 CFR 35 Appendix
A and detailed in Appendix E of this manual, can
be accomplished by a program comprised of the
following activities:
1. Development of a detailed work plan.
2. Study of the natural characteristics of the
lake and watershed.
3. Study of social, economic, and recreation-
al characteristics of the lake and watershed.
4. Lake monitoring.
5. Watershed monitoring.
6. Data analysis.
7. Development and evaluation of restora-
tion alternatives.
8. Selection and further development of wa-
tershed management and lake restoration
plan.
9. Projection of benefits.
10. Environmental evaluation.
11. Public participation.
12. Public hearing (when appropriate).
13. Reports.
EPA expects all Phase 1 studies to be complet-
ed within 3 years.
8.6.1 Detailed Work Plan
The purpose of the detailed work plan is to de-
scribe the work needed, and provide a schedule
for its performance. The work plan should be of
sufficient detail to enable the EPA Project Officer
to understand the specific activities to be per-
formed, follow the progress of the study, and
make any necessary initial or mid-course modifi-
Table 8-3
Phase 1 Application Review Criteria
A. Technical Assessment of Proposed Study Approach to Meet EPA Requirements (See Appendix A of 40 CFR 35)
B. Estimated Lake and Watershed Improvements
1. Improvement in Lake Water Quality
2. Reduction in Pollutant Loadings
3. Improvement in Fish and Wildlife Habitat
4. Improvement in Sport and Commercial Fishery
C. Anticipated Benefits to the Public
1. Adequacy of Public Access to Lake
2. Extent of Public Benefit.
0. Consistency with Clean Water Act
E. Reasonableness of Costs
F. Probability of Success
G. State Priority Ranking of Program
H. Means for Controlling Anticipated Adverse Environmental Impacts
-------
57
cations. A typical work plan should identify and
tr;efly describe each activity to be carried out..
Relationships to and, especially, dependence
upon other activities should be stated. Also, the
specific outputs of the activity should be listed.
The schedule can most easily be shown as a bar
chart (Gantt chart) with start and finish dates for
each activity, as illustrated by Figure 8-1.
1981
Activity JFMAMJJ..
A. Develop detailed
work plnn , . , , ^^^
B. Design lake mon-
itoring program . . ^B,^^
C. Conduct lake mon-
D. Collect regional
socioeconomic
^ ^^*
. Start
1/1/81
1/1/81
. 3/1/81
3/1 5/8 1/
Finish
1/31/81
2/28/81
3/1/82
4/30/81
Figure 8-1. Example of Phase 1 Schedule Format.
8.6.2 Study of Lake and Watershed
Natural Characteristics
The study of lake and watershed characteris-
tics can often be accomplished through collect-
ing and analyzing secondary data — data al-
ready available from other sources including
State Lake Classification Surveys, EPA's Nation-
al Eutrophication Survey, 208 plans, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey and Soil Conservation Service
maps, photographs, and publications, and State
fisheries records. (Primary data, in contrast, are
new data to be obtained directly from field and
laboratory studies.) Typical secondary data
needed to characterize the lake and watershed
include:
V Physical lake characteristics (area, volume,
depth, mean flow, etc.)
2. Chemical and biological lake characteristics
(dissolved oxygen, temperature, nutrients,
chlorophyll a levels, phytoplankton, fish
populations, etc.).
3. Watershed characteristics (drainage area,
land use, topography, geology, and soils).
4. Pollutant sources (point sources, septic
tanks, nonpoint sources, groundwater,
etc.).
When secondary sources have been exhaust-
ed, the resulting body of data should be com-
pared with the requirements described in Ap-
pendices B (regulations) and E (Phase 1 study
protocol, which also contains more details on
data sources and collection methods). Any defi-
ciencies in the required data will have to be
remedied by collecting primary data.
8.6.3 Study of Lake and Watershed Social,
Economic, and Recreational Charac-
teristics
Most of the social, economic, and recreational
information is likely to be available from second-
ary sources. It includes:
1. Historical lake uses;
2. Previously identified problems (fish kills,
taste and odors, water-borne illnesses, loss
of recreation potential, etc.);
3. Socioeconomic structure of the communi-
ty, and how the lake relates to it;
4. Public access and recreational uses.
Appendix E of this manual provides more de-
tails on requirements and sources.
Evaluation of the secondary data, described in
8.6.2 and this subsection, provides the basis for
designing the primary data collection activities
and analyzing the results. It also provides guid-
ance in locating the lake and watershed monitor-
ing sites. For example, existing land use data
show major land uses in the watershed. Know-
ing these land uses provides a rationale for mon-
itoring specific tributaries and other critical areas
in the watershed. Because Phase 1 studies have
a limited level of funding (e.g., $100,000 of Fed-
eral funds), the selection of representative sam-
pling sites is critical.
8.6.4 Lake Monitoring
Primary data will be collected by monitoring
the lake and watershed. In general, lake monitor-
ing is performed to define the trophic state of the
lake and to characterize its hydrological and eco-
logical dynamics. This is accomplished by meas-
uring physical, chemical, and biological param-
eters in the lake (e.g., nutrients, chlorophyll a,
phytoplankton, dissolved oxygen-temperature
profiles). Section 10.0 is devoted entirely to the
subject of monitoring. Appendix E contains addi-
tional details on how the monitoring require-
ments of 40 CFR 35 are to be met.
8.6.5 Watershed Monitoring
Watershed monitoring is performed for many
reasons. One example is determining annual nu-
trient and hydrological budgets for a lake. Moni-
toring can also be used to determine the nutrient
or sediment contribution from different land
uses, groundwater, septic tanks and other
sources, if information more precise than that
obtainable using land use data and loading coef-
ficients is necessary. To calculate the annual wa-
tershed contribution of a specific substance,
both dry and wet weather monitoring of tributar-
ies and land areas are required. Concentrations
in monitoring wells, in areas around septic
tanks, and from point sources are also neces-
sary. Section 10.0 and Appendix E should be
consulted for more details.
-------
58
8.6.6 Data Analysis
Primary and secondary data are analyzed to
provide the basis for the feasibility portion of the
Phase 1 study. Types and methods of analyses
vary depending on the nature of the lake and its
problems. In every case, however, the overall
process involves:
1. Demonstrating the relationships among
present or potential water quality problems
and impaired lake uses.
2. Determining the causes of water quality
problems.
3. Quantifying the contributions of pollutant
sources to water quality degradation.
Typical analyses which will have to be per-
formed in nearly every case are hydrologic
budget, limiting nutrient identification, budget of
significant pollutants, development of pollutant
loading water quality relationships, and determi-
nation of loading reductions necessary to
achieve water quality objectives.
Section 10.0 provides guidance on analysis of
lake and watershed monitoring data. Appendix E
contains additional information on the analysis
of all types of data collected during the diagnos-
tic portion of a Phase 1 study.
8.6.7 Development and Evaluation of
Alternatives
The feasibility study involves developing alter-
native management programs based on the re-
sults of the diagnostic study. Alternatives can
include best management practices, lake resto-
ration methods, or both.
The process begins with three questions:
1. Where, in the watershed or lake, can
present or potential sources of problem
pollutants be controlled to the extent deter-
mined to be necessary in the diagnostic
portion of the study?
2. What alternatives are available to control
them?
3. What additional in-lake conditions will have
to be corrected to restore the lake, and what
alternatives are available to accomplish
restoration?
Once a preliminary list of alternatives has
been compiled, each can be evaluated in terms
of cost, reliability, technical feasibility, energy
consumption, and social, economic, and envi-
ronmental impact. Appendix F provides guide-
lines for this cost-effectiveness analysis. Alterna-
tives for watershed management and in-lake
restoration are reviewed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0,
respectively.
In evaluating the cost-effectiveness of an alter-
native, one shpuld be careful to do it in the con-
text of the project and not in the abstract. For ex-
ample, street sweeping and catch basin cleaning
may be easier and less expensive than certain
agricultural best management practices. Howev-
er, if a 30 percent reduction in total phosphorus
loading to the lake in question is required and
the phosphorus budget shows that 60 percent of
the input to the lake is from agricultural sources
and 40 percent from urban runoff, it is likely that
agricultural controls will be more effective.
Moreover, achieving a 50 percent reduction in
agricultural phosphorus loading will probably be
more cost-effective than trying to obtain a 75
percent reduction in urban phosphorus sources.
8.6.8 Selection of a Watershed Manage-
ment and Lake Restoration Program
The evaluation of available alternatives should
be presented in a format which will be easily us-
able by those who must make the final selection
and by the public, which must be given an op-
portunity to provide comments at this stage. Ap-
pendix F contains suggestions for this
presentation.
When the selection has been made, the pro-
gram must be described in detail. Where appli-
cable, preliminary engineering drawings should
illustrate the construction aspects of the project.
For generalized (rather than site-specific) water-
shed management practices, priority ranking
and scheduling of controls for specific
sub-basins or land uses should be described in-
stead of detailed design and implementation
data. The institutional approaches and strategy
that will be used to implement the management
program should be emphasized. A description of
applicable best management practices (BMP's),
however, should be categorized according to
land uses within the watershed. Where possible,
the controls should also be keyed to specific
sub-basins or land characteristics (such as slope,
soil type, ground water level). For all aspects of
the program, a quantitative estimate of the pol-
lution control effectiveness and anticipated lake
water quality improvement should be provided.
Once the EPA project officer has approved the
selection, work can proceed on developing other
details of the program which are required out-
puts of Phase 1:
1. Phase 2 monitoring program.
2. Phase 2 schedule and budget.
3. Sources of non-Federal funds for Phase 2.
4. Relationship of Phase 2 plans to other
programs.
5. Operation and maintenance plan.
6. Required permits.
These items are discussed in detail in Appen-
dix E.
8.6.9 Projection of Benefits
A key factor in the decision to award Phase 2
funds will be the public benefits anticipated from
the project. Projected benefits should be devel-
oped during the feasibility portion of the Phase 1
study.
-------
59
A convincing demonstration of benefits is one
which shows:
1. The relationship between anticipated water
quality impacts and lake uses.
2. The existence of demand for the new, im-
proved, or protected uses.
3. The adequacy of public access to those
uses.
4. The absence of excess capacity at alterna-
tive sites in the region which offer similar
uses.
The demonstration should conclude with a
quantitative projection of benefits, compared to
baseline usage. (Note that if the project is de-
signed to protect existing uses, projecting bene-
fits involves comparing the existing lake usage
with a projected decline in usage in the absence
of the project.) Appendix E contains additional
guidance on benefits projection.
8.6.10 Environmental Evaluation
An environmental evaluation of the proposed
pollution control or restoration program is re-
quired in a Phase 1 study. Much of it will have
already been completed during the evaluation of
alternatives, since socioeconomic and environ-
mental impacts are part of the cost-effectiveness
analysis. What remains to be done is to docu-
ment those impacts for the selected program
and to develop and describe mitigative meas-
ures for adverse impacts. Table 8-4 can be used
as a checklist to ensure that the 14 specific topics
which must be addressed in a evaluation are
properly covered. Appendix E discusses each
topic in detail.
Although the required content of the evalua-
tion is presented in simple question form, the
applicant should provide a narrative statement
explaining his "yes" or "no" answer to the ques-
tions, at least for those questions applicable to
the proposed project. Where the question is ob-
viously not applicable to the proposed project,
the applicant may provide a simple "no" (mean-
ing no adverse impact) answer. Whenever a
"yes" (meaning there will be an adverse impact)
answer is given, the applicant should explain the
nature and extent of the proposed adverse im-
pact, how it can be mitigated or avoided, and if it
is possible to do so.
8.6.11 Public Participation
Clean Lakes projects are subject to the require-
ments of 40 CFR 25, "Public Participation in Pro-
grams Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and
the Clean Water Act." These regulations state
EPA's objectives for public participation:
1. To assure that the public has the opportu-
nity to understand official programs and
proposed actions, and that the Government
fully considers the public's concerns;
2. To assure that the Government does not
make any significant decision on any activ-
ity covered by this part without consulting
interested and affected segments of the
public;
3. To assure that government action is as re-
sponsive as possible to public concerns;
4. To encourage public involvement in imple-
menting environmental laws;
Table 8-4
Required Content of Environmental Evaluation
Will the project displace people?
Will the project deface existing residences or residential areas?
Will the project be likely to lead to changes in established land use pattern or an increase in development pressure?
Will the project adversely affect prime agricultural-land or activities?
Will the project adversely affect parkland, public land or scenic land?
Will the project adversely affect lands or structures of historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural value? •
Will the project lead to a significant long-range increase in energy demands?
Will the project adversely affect short-term or long-term ambient air quality?
Will the project adversely affect short-term or long-term noise levels?
If the project involves the use of in-lake chemical treatment, will it cause any short-term or long-term adverse effects?
Will the project be located in a floodplain?
Will structures be constructed in the floodplain?
If the project involves physically modifying the lake shore, its bed, or its watershed, will the project cause any short-
er long-term adverse effects?
Will the project have a significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, wetlands or other wildlife habitat?
Will the project adversely affect endangered species? •
Have all feasible alternatives to the project been considered in terms of environmental impacts, resource commitment, public
interest, and cost?
Are there other measures not previously discussed which are necessary to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from the
project? Describe.
-------
60
5. To keep the public informed about signifi-
cant issues and proposed project or pro-
gram changes as they arise;
6. To foster a spirit of openness and mutual
trust among EPA, States, substate agen-
cies, and the public; and
7. To use all feasible means to create
opportunities for public participation.
The regulations also spell out the general re-
sponsibilities for public participation which must
be met by EPA, State, interstate, and substate
agencies.
The regulations which govern the Clean Lakes
Program highlight three areas of Phase 1 studies
in which public involvement is required (40 CFR
35.1620-4):
1. In developing, evaluating, and selecting
alternatives;
2. In assessing potential adverse environmen-
tal impacts; and
3. In identifying measures to mitigate any
adverse impacts that were identified.
Fact sheets or summaries are to be distributed
at least 30 days before selecting a proposed res-
toration method, and a public meeting is to be
held before the selection is made. An advisory
group is not required but should be formed if
public interest warrants. A formal public hearing
is not generally required during a Phase 1 study,
unless dredging or some other activity involving
significant modification of the environment is
being recommended as the restoration method.
The need for a hearing will be determined by the
EPA project officer.
The critical aspects of effective public partici-
pation are to establish the groundwork for it ear-
ly, to integrate it into the project, and to demon-
strate responsiveness to the inputs it provides.
Appendix E provides guidance on establishing
and conducting effective public participation un-
der a Clean Lakes Cooperative Agreement.
A summary of public participation is a require-
ment of the Phase 1 output. Appendix E de-
scribes its content.
8.6.12 Reports
Required Phase 1 reports in addition to the
public participants summary are:
1. Semi-annual progress and expenditure
reports.
2. Financial status reports.
-------
61
9.0 PHASE 2 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
9.1 Purpose and Definition
The purpose of a Phase 2 cooperative agree-
ment is to implement recommended methods
for controlling nonpoint source pollutants from
entering a lake, to implement in-lake methods to
improve lake quality, or to implement a combi-
nation of pollution and in-lake restoration
measures.
Control of nonpoint source pollutants can be
achieved by implementing specific elements of a
watershed management program. A watershed
management program, as described in Section
4.0, identifies the sources and levels of pollu-
tants, indicates required reductions in these pol-
lutants, and presents a set of control practices
for obtaining these reductions. (The final prod-
uct of a Phase 1 diagnostic-feasibility study
should be a watershed and lake restoration man-
agement program providing control and restora-
tion activities for the lake and its watershed.)
The watershed management program for a
given lake may include:
1. Nonpoint source controls, or best manage-
ment practices (BMPs), for various land
uses and activities.
2. Control of storm sewer discharges.
3. Reduction in wasteloads from industrial
and municipal point sources.
Phase 2 cooperative agreements support
BMPs to control pollution from stormwater
runoff and other nonpoint sources. They may
not be used to control industrial or municipal
point sources, since there are other active State
and Federal programs for this purpose.
If restoration of, or pollution control for, a giv-
en lake necessitates reduction of point source
loadings, this can be accomplished by:
1. Enforcement action by the State or EPA
against municipal or industrial dischargers
which are not complying with their NPDES
permits;
2. Establishment of more stringent permit re-
quirements by the State through develop-
ment of wasteload allocations. In this case,
dischargers may be in compliance with
their present permits, but a further reduc-
tion in point source loadings has been
shown to be a cost-effective method of lake
restoration or protection.
Federal assistance under the 201 Construction
Grants Program is available to municipal
sewage treatment plants to upgrade treatment.
Pollution control financing at reduced interest
rates, industrial development bonds, and Small
Business Administration loans may be used by
'industrial dischargers.
Watershed management measures that can be
funded by a Phase 2 cooperative agreement in-
clude specific best management practices, such
as sedimentation basins, grassed waterways,
street sweeping and other practices described in
Section 4.0 and Appendix C. Other watershed
management practices funded by Phase 2 agree-
ments include ordinances and environmental
education programs.
Specific in-lake restoration techniques can
also be funded through a Phase 2 cooperative
agreement. The applicant, however, must show
that the causes of the deteriorated lake condi-
tions have been or are being eliminated or re-
duced to the greatest extent practicable. The
purpose of Phase 2 is long-term protection and
restoration of publicly-owned lakes; in-lake
measures to alleviate symptoms without consid-
ering the upstream or shoreline causes of the
problems will not be supported.
Various lake restoration methods that can be
funded by Phase 2 programs are described and
evaluated in Section 5.0 and Appendix D. The
lake restoration methodologies presented in this
manual are not all-inclusive; they reflect the
present state-of-the-art in lake restoration. Other
methodologies can be used if the applicant can
show that they may be effective. Periodic lake
-------
62
treatments, such as applying copper sulfate for pasture, residential development and roadways.
algal control, are not eligible for funding under The management plan may also include the de-
Phase 2 programs since they merely treat the velopment of land use and erosion control ordi-
problem rather than its cause. nances, and educational programs. However, it
Many lakes may require the implementation of may require only a relatively small in-lake resto-
both watershed management practices and ration effort, such as aeration of a small bay or
in-lake restoration measures. The specific re- dredging of several lake inlets.
quirements will vary depending on the size and A hypothetical Phase 2 case study is presented
characteristics of each lake and its watershed, in Section 12.0. The regulations which pertain to
the nature and severity of the problem, socio- Phase 2 cooperative agreements are in 40 CFR
economic conditions, climate, and institutional 35 Subpart H, reproduced in Appendix B to this
structure. For instance, in a small urban lake, a manual.
relatively small watershed management pro-
gram consisting of street sweeping and storm .
sewer relocation may be sufficient to reduce pol- 9-2 TVPes °* Assistance
lutant loadings to acceptable levels. However, a Phase 2 implementation program awards are
large in-lake effort, such as dredging of the en- made on a 50/50 funding basis (i.e., requiring a
tire lake, may be necessary to restore desired 50 percent non-Federal share). Unlike the Phase
lake uses impaired by the accumulation of pol- 1 awards which have an upper limit of $100,000
lutants from previous years. in Federal funds per project, Phase 2 awards do
On the other hand, a large lake with a large not have an upper limit.
watershed may require a large and comprehen- The availability of non-Federal matching funds
sive watershed management program com- may be a practical constraint in some cases. The
prised of nonpoint source controls for cropland, 50 percent State or .local share, however, may
Table 9-1
Required Contents of Phase 2 Application
A. State Priority Ranking
1. State Classification of Lake
2. State Priority Ranking of Lake
B. State Certifications
1. State Water Quality Management Work Plan Compliance
2. 208 Water Quality Management Plan Consistency
3. Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Compliance
C. Diagnostic Information On Lake and Watershed
1. Physical Characteristics of Lake
2. Chemical Characteristics of Lake
3. Biological Characteristics and Resources of Lake
4. Watershed Characteristics
5. Public Access and Recreational Use
6. Pollutant and Hydrologic Budgets
7. Point Source Inventory
8. Nonpoint Source Inventory
9. Trophic Classification of Lake
1.0. Pollutant Reduction Requirements
0. Feasibility Information
1. Summary of Available Pollution Control and Lake Restoration Alternatives
2. Description of Proposed Program
3. Proposed Program Benefits
4. Phase 2 Implementation Schedule
' 5. Phase 2 Budget
6. Description of Non-Federal Funding Sources
7. Relationship of the Proposed Project to Other Pollution Control Programs.
8. Public Participation Program
9. Post-Project Operation and Maintenance Plan
10. Phase 2 Monitoring Program
11. Phase 2 Evaluation Plan
E. Environmental Impact Evaluation
1. Environmental Impact Evaluation Checklist (Table 8-4)
2. Narrative Statements for Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures
f. Applicable Permits or Permit Applications •
1. Section 404 Corps of Engineers Dredging Permit
2. State Permits
-------
63
consist of cash, equipment, materials, in-kind
services, rental values and depreciation.
9.3 Contents of Application
As in the case of Phase 1 applications, Phase 2
funding, requests are to be made to the EPA Re-
gional Office on Standard Form 424 (EPA Form
5700-33). All applications must contain the infor-
mation and certifications listed in Table 9-1.
If an applicant has completed a Phase 1
diagnostic-feasibility project, the final report of
the Phase 1 project should be included as the
Part IV Program Narrative in the Phase 2 applica-
tion. If an applicant has not performed a Phase 1
project, the Phase 2 application must include es-
sentially the same information required from a
Phase 1 diagnostic-feasibility study (see Section
8.0), presented in the same order as in Table 9-1.
Such a study defines the lake water quality prob-
lems, identifies their causes, and recommends
measures for pollution control and lake restora-
tion. Both the State and EPA need this informa-
tion to evaluate the proposed Phase 2 program,
and to develop a priority ranking relative to other
Phase 2 applications on a State, regional and na-
tional basis. (Specific program review criteria
are presented in Section 9.4.)
If all the information required in Appendix A of
40 CFR 35 is not available, the applicant can ob-
tain this information at his own expense by per-
forming a lake and/or watershed study, or obtain
the information with Federal cost-sharing (at 70
percent) by performing a Phase 1 diagnostic-
feasibility study. Section 8.0 and Appendix E to
this manual explain Phase 1 information require-
ments. If all but a few required items are avail-
able, an applicant may be permitted to obtain
the missing information in the initial stage of the
Phase 2 project.
A sample Phase 2 application appears in Sec-
tion 12.0.
9.4 Review Criteria
Application review and evaluation will be per-
formed as described in 40 CFR 35.1640 (see Ap-
pendix B) and summarized in Table 9-2. These
review criteria will be applied to each application
as it is received. There is no specific deadline for
submitting Phase 2 applications; however, appli-
cations received early in the fiscal year may have
a higher probability of being funded. Competi-
tion for Clean Lakes Program funds is so intense
that there is a backlog of applications at the end
of each fiscal year awaiting funding during the
next one. Consequently, funds tend to be com-
pletely obligated in this program earlier in the
year than in many other programs. Applications
should be submitted as early as possible.
In addition to the criteria in Table 9-2, EPA will
examine each application from the standpoint of
the policies embodied in the 5-year strategy for
the Clean Lakes Program. These are discussed in
Section 6.0.
9.5 Limitations on Awards
Before approving an application the EPA Re-
gional Administrator must ensure that the limita-
tions presented in 40 CFR 35-1650-2 (see Appen-
dix B of this manual) are met. The Regional
Administrator must determine that:
1. All application requirements are met;
2. The State/EPA Agreement (SEA) or Water
Quality Management Work' Program in-
cludes the section 314 Clean Lakes
Program;
3. The Phase 1 project report (if a Phase 1
project was performed) was used in the
Phase 2 application, and the program pro-
posed for implementation is the one select-
ed under Phase 1;
4. Pollution control measures authorized by a
201 Facilities Plan or 208 Wastewater Man-
agement Plan or required in 402 NPDES
permits are complete or are being imple-
mented in the watershed;
5. The project does not include control of
point sources which can be handled under
Sections 201 or 402;
6. Open space policies required by the Clean
Water Act have been considered;
7. The project does not include ineligible
costs as described in 40 CFR 35.1650-2.
9.6 Conditions on Awards
In addition to EPA's general grant conditions,
Phase 2 cooperative agreements are awarded
Table 9-2
Phase 2 Application Review Criteria
A. Technical Feasibility of Program
B. Estimated Lake and Watershed Improvements
1. Improvement in Lake Water Quality
2. Reduction in Pollutant Loadings
3. Improvement in Fish and Wildlife Habitat
4. Improvement in Sport and Commercial Fishery
C. Anticipated Benefits to the Public
1. Adequacy of Public Access to Lake
2. Size and Economic Structure of Lake User Population
3. Availability of Public Transportation to Lake
4. Availability of Other Lakes within 50 Mile Radius
5. Extent of Public Benefit
D. Financial Feasibility
• 1. Reasonableness of Proposed Costs
2. Probability of Program Success
3. Benefit/Cost Analysis
E. State Priority Ranking of Program
F. Anticipated Adverse Environmental Impacts
G. Proposed Operation and Maintenance Program
H. Compliance with 201 and 208 Open Space Policies
-------
64
subject to the following conditions (40 CFR
35.1650-3)
1. The State must monitor the project to pro-
vide adequate data on effectiveness;
2. All pollution control measures implement-
ed under the agreement must be main-
tained at least at the same level of efficien-
cy throughout the project as they were at
the time of implementation;
3. State water quality standards shall be up-
graded if higher quality uses are achieved
because of the project;
4. Any equipment purchased shall be proper-
ly maintained for at least its depreciable life
and shall remain a part of the project;
5. The State must carry out mitigation meas-
ures for any primary adverse environmen-
tal impacts which occur;
6. Work shall be stopped or modified as nec-
essary to protect any unrecorded archae-
ological sites discovered;
7. Necessary permits must be received before
any disposal of dredged or fill material is
initiated.
9.7 Monitoring Requirements
Each Phase 2 cooperative agreement-requires
that a limited monitoring program be performed
throughout the project and for at least one year
after restoration or after pollution control de-
vices have been placed in operation. The pur-
poses of the monitoring are: to provide suffi-
cient data to redirect the project if necessary, to
ensure that project objectives are achieved, and
to evaluate the effectiveness of the methods be-
ing implemented. The Phase 2 monitoring pro-
gram should be designed, whenever possible, to
measure conditions prior to, during, and after
project implementation.
Specific monitoring guidelines are presented
in Appendix A of 40 CFR 35 Subpart H (see Ap-
pendix B of this manual). These guidelines are
expanded and discussed in Section 10.0 and Ap-
pendix E. They should be used as a guide in de-
signing a Phase 2 monitoring program, not as an
absolute requirement. Each Phase 2 monitoring
program will be designed based on the
site-specific characteristics of the lake and its
watershed. It should also be based on the specif-
ic lake restoration or watershed management ac-
tivities being performed. EPA project officer ap-
proval is required.
9.8 Watershed Management and Lake
Restoration Methodologies
A description and brief evaluation of water-
shed management practices and lake restoration
• methodologies are presented in Sections 4.0 and
5.0, respectively. More detailed information on
specific best management practices and lake
restoration methodologies is presented in Ap-
pendices C and 0, respectively.
The management practices and restoration
methodologies presented in this manual are
intended to provide an overview of the state-of-
the-art practices; they are not intended to be
all-inclusive. Other feasible management and
restoration practices may be available and may
be applied in a Phase 2 program.
Since it is not possible to provide in-depth de-
scriptions and evaluations of management and
restoration practices in this manual, the appli-
cant is encouraged to seek additional informa-
tion in the many references provided.
9.9 Cost Evaluation
Application review criteria contained in the
Clean Lakes Program Regulations include an
evaluation of the reasonableness of the pro-
posed Phase 2 costs relative to the proposed
Phase 2 activities. This evaluation must consider
the likelihood that the project will succeed and
produce public benefits.
Prior to submitting a formal Phase 2 applica-
tion, the applicant should perform a cost evalua-
tion of the proposed project to determine wheth-
er the proposed costs justify the potential
benefits. Appendix E contains useful information
for this analysis.
9.10 Environmental Evaluation
As part of the application. Phase 2 applicants
must submit an evaluation of the environmental
impacts of the proposed project. This require-
ment is normally fulfilled as a part of a Phase 1
study. However, there are situations where the
necessary diagnostic and feasibility information
was obtained in some way other than under a
Phase 1 cooperative agreement. In such cases,
the applicant should meet the environmental
evaluation requirements described in Subsec-
tion 8.6.10 and Table 8-4 in the Phase 2
application.
All Phase 2 applications must describe alterna-
tives considered for the project. Each alternative
should be described in terms of its environmen-
tal impacts, the resources that would have to be
committed, the public response to the alterna-
tive (obtained through the public participation
process), its cost, and the reasons for rejecting
the alternative.
9.11 Public Participation
The applicant must encourage public partici-
pation in the evaluation of alternative watershed
management and lake restoration programs as
required under 40 CFR 1620-4. The Phase 2 appli-
cation must describe the public participation ac-
tivities related to the proposed project. The ap-
plication must also summarize the applicant's
response to all public comments received..All
written comments received by the applicants.
-------
65
concerning the project, must be included in the
Phase 2 application.
Since Phase 1 studies require formal public
participation activities, including at least one
public meeting, a summary of the Phase 1 public
participation program (including public com-
ments and applicant's responses) will be suffi-
cient to meet the Phase 2 application public par-
ticipation requirements. Where a Phase 1 study
has not been performed, the applicant must pro-
vide an opportunity for public review of the pro-
posed project [40 CFR 1620-4(c)(2)]. Moreover,
when major construction, dredging, or other sig-
nificant activities are proposed, or when EPA de-
termines it to be necessary for other reasons, the
applicant must hold a public hearing to discuss
the proposed project.
In summary, the goals of public participation
activities should be: to make the public aware of
the proposed project, obtain and respond to
public comments on the project, and document
all public participation activities so that they can
be used in the Phase 2 application.
9.12 Project Schedule
In general, Phase 2 projects should not exceed
4 years unless the EPA Regional Administrator
approves a longer period. The 4 year period
should include pre-project monitoring, project
implementation, post-project monitoring, project
evaluation, and final report preparations.
9.13 Awards
The EPA will notify the applicant, usually with-
in 90 days after receiving an application, that the
project is approved, disapproved, or returned
due to lack of available funds. Disapproved ap-
plications may be resubmitted as new applica-
tions if the State or local applicant resolves the
issues identified by the EPA.
9.14 Report Requirements
Report requirements for Phase 2 projects are
presented in 40 CFR 35.1650-6 (see Appendix B
of this manual). Progress reports (due quarterly
or less frequently depending upon the complex-
ity of the project), financial status reports, and a
final report are required.
-------
66
10.0 LAKE AND WATERSHED MONITORING AND DATA ANALYSIS
10.1 Introduction
General information on monitoring require-
ments of the Clean Lakes Program are presented
in paragraphs (a)(10) and (b)(3) of Appendix A to
40 CFR Part 35 Subpart H (see Appendix B to this
manual). However, to be effective, it is important
that a specific monitoring program be designed
for each Clean Lakes project. The regulations
should be considered as guidelines for design-
ing an effective monitoring program; they may
be modified or supplemented to meet project-
specific needs, with EPA project officer approval.
Monitoring programs designed for Phase 1
and Phase 2 projects will be different because
the objectives are different. A Phase 1 monitor-
ing program should be designed to facilitate di-
agnosis of the lake's problems and evaluation of
alternative protection and restoration proce-
dures. Monitoring data will thus be used to iden-
tify the lake's trophic condition, identify problem
pollutants and quantify their sources, and devel-
op a management program for the lake and wa-
tershed. A Phase 2 monitoring program, on the
other hand, should be designed to assist in eval-
uating the effectiveness of lake protection and
restoration procedures and the benefits pro-
duced by the project.
The purpose of this section is to explain Clean
Lakes Program monitoring requirements and to
present guidelines for monitoring program de-
sign and data management and interpretation.
Much of the discussion will be in the context of a
Phase 1 study, since monitoring is usually more
extensive than in Phase 2, and the monitoring re-
quirements for Phase 2 vary widely with the
types of restoration activities being implement-
ed. However, the general principles covered are
applicable to both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Appen-
dix E, a protocol for the conduct of Phase 1 stud-
ies, contains step-by-step instructions on collect-
ing the data required for Phase 1 in the
regulations.
A forthcoming publication in EPA's Ecological
Research Series (Reckhow, in press) covers the
subjects of sampling design for in-lake monitor-
ing and nutrient budget development, data anal-
ysis and presentation, lake water quality
indicies, and lake trophic state monitoring in
considerably more detail than is possible in ei-
ther this section or Appendix E. Investigators
should obtain a copy of it for use in preparing
and executing those aspects of their project
work plans.
10.2 Lake Monitoring
Lake monitoring includes the measurement of
basic physical and chemical parameters, such as
surface area, volume, inflow and outflow,
transparency, nitrogen and phosphorus, sus-
pended solids, pH, and alkalinity. These param-
eters describe the environment that influences
the trophic condition of a lake. Inflow and
outflow are used to determine residence time,
which, in combination with volume and surface
area, is a principal determinant of the lake's ca-
pacity to assimilate nutrients and other materials
transported from the watershed. Nitrogen and
phosphorus are major plant nutrients. Suspend-
ed solids provide an indication of the extent of
soil transport from the watershed. Alkalinity and
hydrogen ion concentration (pH) not only deter-
mine how other chemicals behave in or affect
the lake, but, to a great extent, what plants and
animals can live in it.
Vertical temperature and dissolved oxygen
profiles are also measured; they provide impor-
tant information on thermal stratification and
mixing and on the occurrence and extent of oxy-
gen deficits, and thus the quality of the lake as
habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Biological lake parameters include chlorophyll
a, algal cell counts and genera, macrophytes,
and bacteria. Chlorophyll a, a green pigment
produced by all algae, serves as a simple yet ef-
fective standardized measure of algal biomass.
Algal cell count provides another measure of the
-------
67
algal population, and with identification to ge-
nus, gives an indication of the algal diversity. For-
instance, healthy lakes usually have a high algal
diversity, that is, many genera of algae present
at one time; eutrophic lakes, however, usually
are dominated by one or a few algae during the
period of elevated biological activity. In fact,
many eutrophic lakes are dominated by
blue-green algae during the late summer and
early fall. Macrophyte analyses, usually per-
formed by visual observation or photography of
the lake, show the extent and variety of rooted
aquatic plants. The composition and relative
magnitude of the algae and macrophyte popula-
tions in a lake are two indicators of its trophic
condition.
Bacterial analyses in a lake can include fecal
coliform, total coliform, and fecal streptococcus.
All of these bacteria are indicator organisms;
most are harmless, but their presence indicates
the possible presence of pathogenic (disease
producing) bacteria. The ratio of fecal coliform to
fecal streptococcus can be used to indicate
whether the observed bacteria levels are caused
by human activities (wastewater discharges,
septic tanks) or stormwater runoff (animal
wastes).
10.2.1 Lake Monitoring Program Design
In designing a lake monitoring program, con-
sideration should be given to the type of project
and proposed activities, the available technical
and financial resources, the lake and watershed
characteristics, and the data requirements and
data collection techniques (described in Appen-
dix E).
In generaK a Phase 1 study will require a
larger, more detailed lake monitoring program
than'a'typical Phase 2 project. This is because a
Phase 1 monitoring program is usually per-
formed to answer many questions — existing
trophic state, identity, magnitude and sources of
pollutants, potential response to pollutant reduc-
tions — whereas a typical Phase 2 monitoring
program is usually performed to answer only
one — the response of the lake to watershed
management or in-lake restoration activities.
In addition, the activities being carried out in
the project influence the monitoring program.
For example, if dredging is contemplated, sedi-
ments must be analyzed. Where chemical appli-
cation is a recommended restoration measure,
pilot tests and bioassays are necessary to deter-
mine dosage rates which are both effective and
ecologically acceptable.
The project applicant should avoid the pitfall
of over-designing the lake (or watershed) moni-
toring program at the expense of other equally
important project tasks. Too often a dispropor-
tionate amount of a project's resources is
budgeted for field monitoring and laboratory
analysis, and an insufficient amount is budgeted
for project administration, quality assurance,
data interpretation, and management plan de-
velopment. The best data are useless if re-
sources are not available to properly analyze and
interpret them and apply the results.
The final considerations in designing a lake
monitoring program are the lake and watershed
characteristics. The number of lake stations, the
depths sampled, and the parameters measured
all depend on them. Additional sampling sites
may be needed where the physical characteris-
tics of the lake (shape, depth, location of tributar-
ies, flow patterns, etc.) create hydrologic or
limnologic sub-basins. Basically, this means that
additional sites should be monitored if one site
is insufficient to adequately characterize the
physical, chemical, and biological conditions of
a lake. Differences in lake sites can be caused by
lake shape and depth, the influence of tributar-
ies, point and nonpoint discharges, in-lake cur-
rents, wind currents, and many other factors.
When uncertain as to the number of sites need-
ed, existing lake data from several sites and
sampling dates may be statistically analyzed. If
these data do not exist, then new data from mul-
tiple sites and dates must be collected for analy-
sis. If statistically significant differences do not
exist among several sites, the EPA Project Offi-
cer should be contacted for approval of a reduc-
tion in the number being sampled. (See Appen-
dix E for several examples of lakes requiring
multiple lake monitoring sites.) It is important,
however, to recognize that monitoring design is
fundamentally a statistical problem. Reckhow
(1980) and Chapra and Reckhow (1981) provide
statistical guidance and examples that address
this topic.
If a lake is subject to significant public contact
or is fished for consumptive purposes, consider-
ation should be given to including both standard
bacteriological analyses (total and fecal coli-
form, fecal streptococcus) and fish flesh analy-
ses for heavy metal and organic contamination.
Fish flesh analyses are usually expensive and
should be added only if there is some specific
cause for believing fish contamination or food
chain biomagnification may be a problem.
Other analyses such as organics and heavy
metals should be performed on water and sedi-
ment samples if, like the fish flesh analysis, there
is a reason for believing there may be a problem
(e.g., industrial discharges, pesticide runoff).
Each Clean Lakes project is different due to its
specific objectives, available resources and lake
characteristics, and, as such, each project should
have its own individual monitoring program,
based on its own specific needs and characteris-
tics. EPA Project Officer approval of the monitor-
ing program is required before sampling is
initiated.
10.2.2 Physical Measurements
Physical features of a lake include morpho-
-------
68
metry, hydrology, temperature, and light pene-
tration. Table 10-1 lists the physical parameters
that should be determined for a lake. Appendix E
describes specific methods for collecting field
data and performing the necessary calculations
to meet the requirements in the table.
Lake surface area may be measured by
planimetry from an accurate map of the lake.
The determination of lakevolume and mean and
maximum depths requires a map with bottom
contours (bathymetric map). If one has not al-
ready been prepared, a bathymetric survey must
be performed. The survey method selected
should depend on the accuracy required (dredg-
ing projects require more precise maps) and the
available funds. A sophisticated survey of a large
lake is usually very expensive since it requires
surveying the lake, installing survey stakes,
renting an expensive sonar unit, and expending.
a considerable amount of time in performing the
survey. For many lakes, a satisfactory bathymet-
ric survey can be performed manually with a
sounding line to measure depth and an accurate
map to estimate position.
Mean depth, maximum depth, and volume
can be determined from the bathymetric and
surface area maps, using procedures described
in Appendix E. This information is important for
calculating residence time, developing suggest-
ed maximum phosphorus loading rates, and de-
signing pollution control and lake restoration
measures.
A lake's hydraulic budget is used in calculating
nutrient budgets and selecting and designing
pollution control and restoration alternatives.
This budget, discussed further in Appendix E, is
normally quantified on the basis of the height of
water spread over the entire lake surface enter-
ing or leaving the lake in a year's time. The stor-
age term is positive if the level increases in the
period and negative if it decreases.
The most general expression of a lake's hy-
draulic budget is:
where:
AS = change in storage
P = precipitation
I = inflow from surface
streams
U = subsurface inflow
through lake
bottom
E = evaporation
O = flow through surface
outlet
R = outflow through lake
bottom.
After the surface outflow is established, the
water residence time and its reciprocal, the
flushing rate, may be calculated (see Appendix
E). These rates are variables in a number of mod-
els which may be used to analyze lake and wa-
tershed data during a Phase 1 study (see
Subsection 10.6).
Temperature-depth profiles should be deter-
mined for the lake at each in-lake sampling sta-
tion. Temperature profiles are normally deter-
mined by electronic probe, often in conjunction
with a dissolved oxygen or multiple-variable
probe. They are used to determine the extent of
stratification and identify the boundaries be-
tween epilimnion, metalimnion, and hypolim-
nion in stratified lakes.
The Secchi disk measurement is a simple but
effective and widely-used method of determin-
ing the transparency in a lake by measuring the
depth below the surface at which a 20-cm disk
can be seen. While not a direct measure of light
penetration, it does have some relationship to it;
the Secchi disk depth has been shown to ap-
proximate the level of penetration of 5 to 15
percent of solar radiation of visible wavelengths
TaWe 70-7
Morphometric and Hydraulic Parameters for Lake Analysis
Quantity
Lake Surface Area
Mean Depth
Maximum Depth
Lake Volume
Hydraulic Budget:
Precipitation
Groundwater Inflow
Evaporation
Surface Outflow
Groundwater Outflow
Water Storage
Water Residence Time
Flushing Rate
Temperature
Secchi Disk Depth
Symbol
A
z
Zm
V
P
U
E
O
R
S
T
P
T
SD
Unit of
Measurement
Hectares or Square Meters
Meters
Meters
Cubic Meters
Meters/year or Volume/year
Meters/year or Volume/year
Meters/year or Volume/year
Meters/year or Volume/year
Meters/year or Volume/year
Meters/year or Volume/year
Years
Year~'
Celsius
Meters
-------
(Hutchinson, 1957). Consequently, the Secchi
disk gives an underestimated but useful indica-
tion of the depth at which algae and macro-
phytes will grow. It is also a relative measure of
turbidity caused by algae and/or suspended
sediment. Secchi disk readings range from a few
centimeters in highly turbid lakes to over 30 me-
ters in extremely clear ones (Hutchinson, 1957).
10.2.3 Chemical Measurements
Chemical measurements include regular mon-
itoring of constituents in the water column of a
lake, plus sediment analyses under certain cir-
cumstances. Required chemical parameters and
the procedures for analyzing them are presented
in Table 10-2. Sample collecting, handling, and
analysis are discussed in more detail in Appen-
dix E.
Table 10-2
Physical and Chemical Parameters
for Trophic Condition Analysis
Quantity
Temperature
Secchi Disk Transparency
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Alkalinity (Total)
Dissolved Orthophosphate-Phospnorus
Total Phosphorus
Ammonia—Nitrogen
Nitrite—Nitrogen
Nitrate—Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Dissolved oxygen is the amount of oxygen in
solution in the water and thus available to aquat-
ic organisms. It is sometimes described in terms
of "percent saturation," the concentration
present as a percentage of the equilibrium
amount that can be dissolved in the water at am-
bient water temperature and atmospheric pres-
sure. Supersaturated conditions (greater than
100 percent) are often observed during daylight
hours when algal biomass is high. Oxygen de-
pletion results when plant and animal respira-
tion and decay of organic material remove dis-
solved oxygen from water faster than it is
replaced by reaeration or photosynthesis. Con-
centrations below 4.0 mg/l are generally recog-
nized as unsuitable for maintenance of popula-
tions of most species of fish and other aquatic
life (NAS-NAE, 1972),
Hydrogen ion concentration, or pH, influences
the solubility and chemical form of many other
substances in the lake. Some toxic substances
are more harmful to aquatic life at one pH than
another. The composition of lake plant and ani-
mal communities is strongly influenced by pH.
For this reason, alkalinity is an important param-
eter; it indicates the degree of buffering, or the
ability of the lake to resist biologically disruptive
variations in pH resulting from introduction of
acids, bases, or salts into its waters.
Dissolved orthophosphate is thought to ap-
proximate the soluble reactive phosphorus that
can be immediately used by photosynthetic or-
ganisms. Total phosphorus includes orthophos-
phate, hydrolyzable phosphorus (polyphos-
phates), and organic phosphorus in the soluble
or paniculate forms. Non-reactive forms may be
converted to dissolved orthophosphate (the re-
active form) by biological decomposition and
chemical reactions.
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is a measurement of
free ammonia plus organic nitrogen com-
pounds. Organic Kjeldahl nitrogen is thus the
difference between total Kjeldahl nitrogen and
ammonia.
Nitrite, which readily oxidizes to nitrate, is pro-
duced by bacteria-mediated oxidation of ammo-
nia. Conditions rarely exist where it is an impor-
tant constituent. Ammonia tends to
predominate in anaerobic waters, and nitrate un-
der aerobic conditions. Both ammonia and ni-
trate are readily usable by photosynthetic organ-
isms (Hutchinson, 1957).
Table 10-2 presents the minimum number of
chemical parameters needed to evaluate the
nutrient-related trophic condition of a lake. Other
parameters should be measured if specific lake
problems are observed or suspected. For in-
stance, toxicity problems would require the
measurement of heavy metals, pesticides, or
other appropriate toxic parameters.
Bottom sediment core samples should be col-
lected and analyzed when dredging is being con-
sidered as a restoration technique. A sediment
nutrient profile is needed to specify the amount
of dredging required to eliminate nutrient-rich
material. Sediment samples must be analyzed
for phosphorus, nitrogen, heavy metals, and
synthetic organic chemicals, as appropriate,
using methods approved by the EPA Project Offi-
cer. Regulations further require that an
elutriation test be performed for the same con-
stituents according to procedures developed by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see Appendix
E). This test is designed to help predict what sub-
stances may be released from the sediment dur-
ing dredging and after the dredged material is
placed at its disposal site. Stauffer (1980) de-
scribes sampling methods useful for the analysis
of bottom sediments.
10.2.4 Biological Measurements
In studying a lake for a Phase 1 or Phase 2
project, the phytoplankton characteristics of the
lake should be examined. It is also important
that macrophyte coverage be determined and
biological resources such as fish populations be
-------
70
assessed. Standard bacteriological analyses
should be performed when the lake is used for
contact recreation or fishing. Where the latter
use occurs, the suitability of fish flesh for human
consumption should be checked if toxic pollut-
ants are known or suspected to be present in the
lake. Biological measurements of secondary im-
portance include primary productivity measure-
ments and population studies of the zooplankton
and benthic macroinvertebrates. Table 10-3
summarizes typical biological measurements for
a lake. More details on methodology are pre-
sented in Appendix E.
Table 10-3
Biological Measurements for Lake Monitoring
Measurement
Test
Algal Pigment
Algal Genera Identification
and Cell Densities
Algal Cell Volumes
Limiting Nutrient
Macrophyte Identification
and Coverage
Bacteriological
Fish Flesh Analyses
Chlorophyll a
Counting Chamber
Calculation from densities
and average cell volume
Algal Assay Bottle Test or
Total N: Tola I P Ratio
Observation and
Photography
Fecal Coliforms
Heavy Metals; Synthetic
Organic Chemicals
The phytoplankton population must be meas-
ured in terms of chlorophyll a, cell densities, and
volumes of the major genera. Cell volumes can
be determined by multiplying cell densities by
factors derived from direct optical measure-
ments of the volume occupied by individual
algal cells of each major genus. Samples for
these analyses should be collected as outlined in
Appendix E.
The nutrients required for algal growth are
carbon (C), oxygen (O), hydrogen (H), nitrogen
(N), phosphorus (P), and a variety of other ele-
ments in trace amounts. C, H, O, and the trace
elements are almost invariably present in
quantities that are more than adequate. In
freshwater lakes P or, much less frequently, N is
the nutrient that is in shortest supply relative to
the nutritional needs of algae; it is the "limiting
nutrient." Algal growth may stop when the avail-
able amount of the limiting nutrient is exhaust-
ed, regardless of how abundant the other nutri-
ents may be. The most precise method for
determining the limiting nutrient is an algal as-
say bottle test, described in more detail in Ap-
pendix E and the reference cited. A less reliable
but usually satisfactory method is to calculate
the total N: total P ratio in the water (see 10.6.2
and Appendix E).
10.3 Stream Monitoring
10.3.1 Stream Monitoring Methodologies
In a Clean Lakes Project, stream monitoring is
usually performed to calculate a nutrient budget
or to evaluate watershed management practices.
In either case, the basic concept is to obtain suffi-
cient data to calculate nutrient loadings to the
lake. This entails calculating the amounts of nu-
trients transported, for which both flow and con-
centration data are needed. If the appropriate
conversion factors are used, transport may be
calculated as the product of flow and concentra-
tion. However, since concentration and flow
samples are not always taken concurrently (e.g.,
preferred sampling methods include continuous
flow monitoring with periodic concentration
sampling), transport determinations are some-
times more representative when statistical esti-
mation methods (e.g., regression) are employed
(Reckhow, 1979b; Reckhow and Chapra, 1981).
Stream data should be collected in both dry
and wet weather, since the annual nutrient trans-
port by a stream is the sum of the dry weather
(baseflow) loadings and the wet weather (or
stormwater runoff) transport. Dry weather
stream conditions are usually characterized by
steady-state or quasi-steady-state conditions —
that is, conditions where stream flow and nutri-
ent concentrations are relatively stable and do
not fluctuate significantly. Wet weather condi-
tions, on the other hand, are characterized by
dramatic changes in stream flow and nutrient
concentrations illustrated in Figure 10-1.
O
e
HI
O
C
<
O
. tfl
5
Dlaaolved Fraction
.{ .
1_ _i_ i
Figure 10-1.
TIME (hours) - -
Typical nutrient concentration-stream
discharge relationship.
-------
71
Both dissolved and participate fractions re-
spond to storm events differently. The initial in-
crease in streamflow is often associated with a
decrease in the dissolved nutrient fraction. This
decrease is attributed to the dilution effect of the
greater runoff volume, resulting in the lowest
dissolved concentration at the peak of the
hydrograph. As flow rates decrease, the dis-
solved component tends to gradually increase to
concentrations approaching that of the pre-
sto rm baseflow conditions. For the particulate
(or sediment) fraction, a different response is
evident. During the initial rapid rise of the
hydrograph, the particulate component in-
creases dramatically, often reaching a maximum
concentration preceding peak flow. This phe-
nomenon, often referred to as "first flush," is the
result of the dislodging of particulate matter
from the land surface during the initial stages of
runoff, leaving little material for transport at later
periods. Regardless of where the particulates
"peak out" relative to the hydrograph peak, a de-
crease in flow is accompanied or preceded by a
decrease in particulate concentration (Reckhow
et al., 1980).
Because of steady-state dry weather condi-
tions, dry weather stream, monitoring can usual-
ly be accomplished by collecting a grab water
sample and measuring stream flow concurrently
on a basis ranging from once per week to once
per month, depending on the variability of the
stream and the available project resources. It
should be noted, however, that this method
does not permit calculation of the precision of
the transport estimate. Therefore, it is preferable
that, whenever possible, flow be continuously
monitored. Transport and transport precision
may then be estimated statistically (Reckhow
and Chapra, 1981). Data collected from frequent
sampling at the beginning of a study may pro-
vide the basis for requesting the EPA Project Of-
ficer's permission to reduce the sampling fre-
quency later on.
Wet weather monitoring is more complex than
dry weather monitoring primarily because of the
time-variable flow and concentration conditions
that occur. Stormwater runoff is the excess rain-
fall that runs off the land surface, and is a func-
tion of amount, intensity, duration and spatial
distribution of rainfall. It is also a function of soil
type, soil moisture, cover, slope and tempera-
ture (season of the year). Other factors, such as
man's activities, also influence the amount and
quality of stormwater runoff. Because of the
complexity of stormwater runoff, the sampling
methodology used to collect stormwater sam-
ples is extremely important.
Grab sampling is usually inappropriate for wet
weather stream sampling because the concen-
trations of most materials vary with stream flow
or discharge. Flow-proportional composite sam-
pling is the usual method for wet weather condi-
tions. There are a number of ways it can be ac-
complished, either manually or automatically;
they are discussed in Appendix E.
10.3.2 Developing a Stream Monitoring
Program
Like the design of a lake monitoring program,
the design of a stream monitoring program must
consider the project objectives (Phase 1, Phase
2, level of detail required, etc.), available re-
sources (funds, equipment, laboratory, technical
expertise, etc.), and watershed characteristics
(number of major tributaries, land use, point
sources, etc.). The stream sites should be select-
ed to provide the maximum amount of useful
data or information subject to the level of effort
or cost that may be allocated to sampling. Exist-
ing data suggest that the frequency of non-storm
event concentration sampling be once every two
to four weeks for sampling and information effi-
ciency (Reckhow, 1979b). Spatial coverage
among tributaries is a function of magnitude,
variability, and cost (or ease) of sampling. This
can be interpreted to mean that more sampling
should occur in tributaries that transport large
quantities of phosphorus, or in tributaries that
exhibit great variability in phosphorus transport,
or in tributaries that are sampled at low cost. The
basic stream monitoring program, therefore,
should include the major inflows and outflows
for the lake. And, as discussed in previous sec-
tions, both dry and wet weather monitoring
should be performed.
Existing sources of data should not be over-
looked. They include U.S. Geological Survey
stream flow and quality data, State pollution and
water resources agency data, and water treat-
ment plant monitoring data. At a minimum, they
will be helpful in designing a stream sampling
program, and they may eliminate the need for
some additional data collection.
In selecting a specific stream site, the follow-
ing general criteria should be considered (Shel-
ley, 1977):
— Accessibility and safety.
— Absence of extraneous or confusing
inflows or waste streams, or other condi-
tions which may make the sample
unrepresentative.
— Sufficient distance downstream from tribu-
tary inflow or-other discharges to ensure
proper mixing at the site.
— Location whenever possible in a straight
length of channel.
— Location where there is sufficient turbu-
lence, to produce adequate mixing and
avoid the possibility of sedimentation.
— Location cost-effective relative to installa-
tion costs versus data needs.
It will usually not be possible to monitor all the
tributaries entering some lakes, but the
hydrological and water quality data can some-
-------
72
times be transferred to ungaged streams using
regression analyses and other statistical
relationships.
10.3.3 Manual vs. Automatic Monitoring
Manual monitoring is collection of discrete
samples and flow measurements by a field tech-
nician. The samples may be composited prior to
analysis or analyzed separately. Automatic mon-
itoring usually involves an automatic water sam-
pler coupled to a recording flow meter to collect
either discrete or flow-proportional composite
samples and to measure flow continuously. The
decision whether to sample manually or to use
automatic samplers is not straightforward, and
many projects require a combination of the two.
The following criteria may be useful in deciding
when to apply each method:
Manual Sampling
— Usually best for collecting biological or
sediment samples, for infrequent collec-
tion of samples, for investigating special
incidents, and for sites that are inappropri-
ate for automatic samplers.
— Usually best for conducting wet weather
studies of medium to large streams where
the stream hydrograph is relatively long
(requiring several days or more to rise and
fall).
— Suitable at times for monitoring direct
runoff from an undeveloped or agricultural
. area if the storm hydrograph is long.
— Usually required for sampling large rivers,
estuaries, and lakes.
— Requires that field personnel be trained in
order to provide reproducible results.
— Usually has higher personnel costs than
automatic sampling.
— Does not require the purchase of sophisti-
cated sampling equipment.
Automatic Sampling
— Best for sampling small streams and direct
runoff sites where the storm hydrograph is
relatively short, having a quick rise and fall.
— Indicated where frequent sampling is
required at a site, where long-term com-
positing is needed, and where simulta-
neous sampling at many sites is necessary
(Shelley, 1977).
— Usually recommended for outfall or treat-
ment plant monitoring where 24-hour (or
greater) composites are required.
— Usually requires less personnel time, but
there may be a need for periodic (often dai-
ly) site visits and equipment maintenance
and repair.
— Equipment is subject to vandalism.
— Usually requires some manual sampling to
check the operation and accuracy of the
equipment and to measure parameters
that are perishable or cannot be meaning-
fully measured from samples collected by
automatic equipment (e.g., pH, tempera-
ture, dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria).
10.3.4 Equipment Requirements
Typical equipment requirements for a Phase 1
study (and some types of Phase 2 projects) in-
clude an automatic sampler, recording flow me-
ter, primary flow measuring device (weir, flume,
etc.), rain gage, and dry/wetfall sampler. These
instruments are coordinated to provide the infor-
mation necessary to evaluate dry and wet
weather loadings to a lake, including rainfall
(rain gage), stream or runoff flow (flow meter),
chemical water quality (sampler), and loading
contribution from airborne contaminants and
rainfall (dry/wetfall sampler).
Samplers: There are many automatic samplers
commercially available. The better models can
be programmed to operate in any one of several
sampling modes. Most can be operated from
flow or volume signals transmitted from a flow
meter. Samplers usually can be ordered to oper-
ate from AC or DC power, and can be either port:
able or fixed installation. Capital costs range
from $500 to $5,000 (1980 prices), depending on
the manufacturer and the options included on
the sampler. A listing of manufacturers and char-
acteristics of samplers, and criteria for selecting
among them, is presented in the report by Shel-
ley (1977).
Desirable features of an automatic sampler
include simplicity of maintenance and trouble-
shooting, availability of parts, availability of
service and repairs by the manufacturer, and the
inherent reliability of the sampler. As a general
rule, complexity of design should be avoided
even at the expense of some flexibility in opera-
tion; a reasonably representative sample collect-
ed most of the time is preferable to a very repre-
sentative sample collected only 10 percent of the
time (Shelley, 1977). Specifications of samplers
from several manufacturers should be carefully
reviewed and demonstrations requested prior to
selecting a given sampler.
Flow Meters and Measuring Devices: Mea-
surement of stream flow is usually accom-
plished by installing either a manual or automat-
ic stage measuring device at a selected stream
station. Over a period of time designed to obtain
both low and high stream flows, the stage height
(water level) of the stream is measured along
with stream flow, and a relationship between
stage height and stream flow is statistically
established.
The stream flow is usually calculated by meas-
uring the stream velocity and depth at various
locations across the stream with a current meter.
The cross-sectional area of the stream is calcu-
lated from the depth and stream width data.
Stream flow is then calculated using the continu-
ity equation:
-------
73
Q = AV
where Q = stream flow
A = cross-sectional stream area
V = average stream velocity.
Manual stage measurement devices include a
simple staff gage installed adjacent to the
stream bed or a drop line that is usually attached
to a bridge. Both of these devices only provide
instantaneous stage readings and thus require
increased personnel time to obtain sufficient
stream flow data.
Automatic stage height recorders are prefer-
able and should be installed whenever time and
resources permit. They can provide continuous
stream flow measurements during both dry and
wet weather, insuring that the wet weather data
needed to calculate annual nutrient loadings to a
lake are available. Manual stream flow measure-
ment is a less reliable way to obtain an adequate
number of observations because of the unpre-
dictable nature of rains, the discomfort and haz-
ard factor in making measurements during
storm events, and the time-variable nature of
wet weather flow which necessitates measure-
ments at intervals during a storm. Rains that oc-
cur on weekends, holidays and during the night
are often not measured when manual methods
are used.
Measuring stormwater runoff from various
land uses or from small sub-basins can be ac-
complished by monitoring stage heights as de-
scribed above if channel conditions are suitable
and stable. However, direct stormwater runoff
from small catchments is usually measured by
installing primary measurement devices such as
weirs and flumes. These devices provide the
flow rate if the height of flow through the device
is known. The height of flow is usually measured
with a portable water level meter and recorder.
10.4 Quality Assurance
No monitoring effort can be better than its
quality assurance program. Every Clean Lakes
Program project is required to have a quality as-
surance program for both field and laboratory
activities which complies with the Quality Assur-
ance Program Plan developed by EPA's Office of
Water Regulations and Standards.
Quality assurance seeks to establish the accu-
racy and precision of measurements and to
maintain high standards for both. It also seeks to
maximize the completeness, representativeness,
and comparability of all data collected. Accuracy
refers to the degree of agreement between a
measurement and its true value. Any dis-
crepancy is known as error. Errors may be sys-
tematic, i.e., due to procedural or equipment fail-
ures, or random. Random errors may arise from
many potential causes, which are largely
undefinable and outside the observer's control.
Precision refers to the reproducibility of a meas-
urement when repeated on identical samples,
regardless of its proximity to true value. Com-
pleteness is a measure of the amount of valid
data actually obtained compared to the amount
expected. Representativeness means the degree
to which data accurately and precisely describe a
characteristic of the system under study. Com-
parability is a measure of the confidence with
which one data set can be compared to another.
To meet OWRS requirements, the work plan
and operating procedures for each Clean Lakes
project must incorporate quality assurance con-
siderations at four stages in the monitoring pro-
gram: planning and design, field activities (data
gathering), laboratory activities (data analysis),
and data management.
Planning and design is the basic stage where a
study's objectives are established, and plans are
made to meet these objectives. The following
considerations are important in this process:
1. The intended use of the data, including one
or more of:
a. Screening—determines the presence or
absence of specified pollutants at desig-
nated sites;
b. Quantitative estimation—determines
the concentration of pollutants found in
screening;
c. Problem characterization—uses data
from (a) and (b) to characterize prob-
lems, conditions, and trends at the
project site;
d. Regulatory development—leads to reg-
ulations or appropriate measures to
deal with the problems;
e. Enforcement—puts into effect and
maintains regulatory measures
developed.
2. The assurance of representative sampling
to ensure that the study objectives are met.
Decisions to be made include determining
what types of material are to be sampled
(soil, water, sediments, etc.), under what
conditions (weather, flow, etc.), at which
sites, how often, and for how long.
3. Planning for sufficient and proper specific-
quality assurance activities throughout the
study.
Field activities (data gathering) must be con-
ducted in a prescribed manner to ensure that the
samples obtained at the project site are of appro-
priate quality and reliability. EPA has standards
for equipment, instruments, and containers, and
for sampling techniques, recording, preserva-
tion, packaging, and identification.
Laboratory activities (data analysis), after the
samples are shipped to the laboratory, also fall
under the quality assurance guidelines. Require-
ments include:
1. Use of proper preparation, analytical, and
documentation methods;
2. Use, calibration, and maintenance of
-------
74
EPA-approved laboratory instruments and
equipment;
3. Maintenance of an adequate procedural QA
program, which incorporates reference
samples, quality control samples, correct
statistical procedures, reviewing of results,
training, trouble-shooting, documentation,
and evaluations of the laboratory by out-
side analysts.
After data have been collected and analyzed,
they must be properly managed. This includes
submission for entry into EPA's STORE! system
(see Appendix G). Quality assurance is vital here
also, as data can be lost or misinterpreted, and
errors can be introduced during this process.
The data analyst and the person who enters the
data into the storage system must make proper
checks at all data handling points. In addition,
the data must be recorded on, and transferred
and reduced from, the original lab bench data
sheets in a complete and accurate manner. They
must be organized into a logical and acceptable
standard format, be periodically checked, and be
retained, in original form, in a permanent file.
The data storage and information system must
be capable of receiving, screening and validat-
ing, preparing, sorting, and inputting the data.
The system must also be able to relate the data
to the quality control measures used in the data
gathering and analysis processes. The data
should be made readily available to potential
users.
Details on the various aspects of quality assur-
ance are presented in Appendix E. States should
work with EPA Project Officers in formulating
quality assurance procedures for Clean Lakes
projects.
10.5 Land Use Monitoring
Land use monitoring may be performed in a
Phase 1 study to determine and compare nutri-
ent loadings contributed by various land uses.
Although there is much national data of this kind
in the scientific literature (see Appendix C and
Reckhow, et al. 1980), site-specific monitoring is
sometimes advisable if the land use, associated
activity, or regional characteristics are signifi-
cantly different than those reported in the litera-
ture. It must be noted, too, that use of literature
export coefficients (as opposed to direct sam-
pling of nutrient loading) represents a cost sav-
ings in data acquisition that may be at the ex-
pense of increased planning risk because of
nonrepresentativeness of the export coeffi-
cients. Also, the implementation of a watershed
management plan is usually more acceptable to
public officials and citizens when data obtained
in the lake's own watershed are available to sub-
stantiate the management plan. Another reason
for land use monitoring is that national loading
values are frequently vague concerning actual
site conditions (slope, soil type, etc.), and this
limits their transferability. Reckhow et al. (1980)
is one exception in that export coefficients are
tabulated along with important characteristics of
watersheds studied.
Land use monitoring is usually accomplished
by selecting representative sites and installing
primary flow measuring devices, automatic
samplers and flow recorders as discussed in
Section 10.4. Manual monitoring is not recom-
mended unless the area is relatively large, rural
or agricultural in nature, and has a long storm
hydrograph (lasting several hours or longer).
Sites should be selected so that the
stormwater drains to one discharge point, avoid-
ing the need to install more than one monitoring
station per land use site. The selected land use
should be representative of existing or projected
land uses in the watershed. In selecting a site,
consideration should be given to slope, soil type,
drainage density, development density, percent
impervious area, activity, and other factors. The .
sites should be monitored for at least one year to
measure seasonal differences caused by
changes in temperature, ground cover, and land
use activities.
10.6 Data Management and Analysis
10.6.1 Manual Versus Computerized Data
Management
An early decision in the experimental design
of a lake management program involves wheth-
er the data collected will be logged and analyzed
by manual or computerized techniques. This de-
cision depends largely on the amount and type
of data that will be generated, the objectives of
the program, the type of expertise available and
the project budget.
Manual data management is recommended,
in general, when the data set will not be large
and when many different types of data must be
logged, necessitating numerous formats, each
with its own computer programming require-
ments. It is especially important to adopt and
use well-organized record-keeping practices
when data are handled manually. In contrast to
the computerized alternative, manual data man-
agement requires more specific attention to
carefully prepared records, which will often not
be analyzed for months. It is wise to produce du-
plicates of all hard-copy records and store them
in separate locations to reduce the risk of data
loss.
Relative to computerized, the advantages of
manual data management include its simplicity,
less need for technician training, and lower cost
(when data are not profuse). On the negative
side, manual data handling can be unwieldy and
inflexible and can require burdensome typing
when data are assembled for presentation in a
report.
Computerized data management should be
considered when the data set will be large and
-------
75
when similar types of data allow relatively sim-
ple programming formats. A major advantage of
computerized data handling is the flexibility to
apply readily available numerical analysis and
statistical packages to analyze data trends and
interrelationships. Other prepared programs are
also marketed to perform the basic task of filing
data, and these should be investigated before a
programming effort is undertaken. In addition to
the advantages rendered by these develop-
ments, computerization can also quickly
produce data tables for placement in reports.
10.6.2 Analysis of Lake Data
Chief concerns of lake data analysis are to de-
termine the trophic state; to evaluate
phytoplankton growth patterns in response,
principally, to the limiting nutrient; and to identi-
fy and quantify other water quality problems.
More fundamentally, the data set must also be
reduced to express the key variables in terms of
a few well-chosen summary statistics (e.g.,
mean and range). This latter requirement is nec-
essary partially to serve the aforementioned pur-
poses and partially to apply the predictive meth-
ods discussed in Section 10.6.5. Reckhow (1980)
and Reckhow and Chapra (1981) contain exten-
sive presentations on the statistical methods im-
portant in analyzing and summarizing lake qual-
ity data.
An initial data analysis requirement is to iden-
tify the limiting nutrient. Properly performed,
algal growth bioassays usually clearly reveal the
nutrient, almost always phosphorus or nitrogen,
which is limiting to phytoplankton growth. Addi-
tional evidence can be obtained by comparing
the weight ratio of total nitrogen to total phos-
phorus in the water to the typical ratio of these
elements in algal tissue, approximately 15 to 1.
When the N:P ratio is less than 15:1, nitrogen is
probably the limiting nutrient; when it exceeds
15:1, the limiting nutrient is probably phospho-
rus (Porcella, et al. 1974).
The parameters which are mostjmportant to
characterize on the basis of seasonal patterns
and mean values are:
— Total soluble reactive phosphorus (dis-
solved orthophosphate phosphorus)
— Total phosphorus
— Chlorophyll a
— Seechi disk depth.
The behavior of dissolved orthophosphate
during the prime growing season is indicative, to
a degree, of the level of phytoplankton produc-
tivity. Phosphorus depletion often occurs during
algal blooms in eutrophic lakes, when concen-
trations are reduced by "luxury" consumption,
in excess of needs, by algal cells.
Winter total phosphorus concentration is
widely used in trophic state classification sys-
tems and simple predictive models developed
for phosphorus-limited waters. Although
phytoplankton cannot immediately use all the
forms of phosphorus represented in the total
phosphorus measurement, its adoption for
these purposes presumes that solubilization be-
tween winter and spring or summer will make
available at least some phosphorus initially held
in forms other than dissolved orthophosphate.
Common trophic state classification schemes
and models are also based on summer chloro-
phyll a concentration and Secchi disk depth, as
measures of algal biomass and its visible effects.
Trophic state can be projected on the basis of
nutrient loading by means of the graphical tech-
nique of Vollenweider (1975) (Figure 10-2). The
graph permits placing a lake in oligotrophic,
mesotrophic, or eutrophic categories depending
on mean depth (z), hydraulic residence time (Tu>)
and annual phosphorus loading (see Subsection
10.6.4). One must note, however, that this is sim-
ply a graphical presentation of the input-.output
model (Subsection 10.6.5), and thus it contains
considerable prediction uncertainty.
An alternative to the projection of trophic state
using an empirical loading model is to relate in-
take data to trophic state. These trophic state
definitions are based on total phosphorus, chlo-
rophyll a, Secchi disk depth, primary productiv-
ity, and indicator organisms, especially algae.
They have been developed by many investiga-
tors but have been summarized by Welch (1980).
EXCESSIVE UOAD84O-
EUTROPMiC ZONE
LOAWNO
O.1
10
100
1000
OLIQOTROPHIC ZONE z/tu (m/yr)
Figure 10-2. Trophic state in response to phosphorus
loading (Vo/lenweider, 1975).
-------
76
Table 10-4 presents some of the various quanti-
tative definitions. The choice between a trophic
state assessment based on an empirical loading
model or one based on in-lake data must be
made on the basis of data availability and the
purpose for trophic state determination. When
indifferent about the use of these two ap-
proaches, the in-lake data base is preferable be-
cause it entails less prediction error.
Table 10-4
Summary of Quantitative Definitions
of Lake Trophic State
Characteristic
H9 TP/1 (Winter)
jig Chlorophyll a/1 (Summer)
m Secchi Disk Depth (Summer)
Primary Productivity:
mg C/m2/day
M.g C/m2/yr
Ollgotrophy*
£ 10-15
s~ 2-4
2: 3-5
30-100
7-25
Eutropny"
£ 20-30
a 6-10
s 1.5-2
300 - 3000
75 • 700
Mesotroohv exists between the limits for oligotroohv and euuoohy.
The phosphorus loading, phosphorus concen-
tration, chlorophyll a, Secchi disk depth, primary
productivity, and indicator organism criteria pre-
sented in Table 10-4 can be applied indepen-
dently to estimate the trophic state of a lake
being considered for restoration. More impor-
tantly, they can be used to set targets for reduc-
tion of nutrient loadings by watershed manage-
ment, and for water quality improvement
through a combination of management and ap-
plication of in-lake treatments.
When public health problems associated with
contact recreation exist, results of bacterial anal-
yses on lake water can be helpful in identifying
causes in the watershed. Fecal coliform/fecal
streptococcus ratios (FC/FS) and their use as in-
dicators are listed below:
— > 4.0 indicates pollution derived from hu-
man wastes.
— 2.0-4.0 suggests a predominance of human
wastes in pollution.
— 1.0-2.0 represents a "gray" area of uncer-
tain interpretation. Samples should be tak-
en nearer the suspected source of
pollution.
— 0.7-1.0 suggests a predominance of live-
stock or poultry wastes in mixed pollution.
— < 0.7 indicates pollution derived from live-
stock or poultry.
10.6.3 Analysis of Stream Data
Analysis of stream data usually emphasizes
the calculation of nutrient arid sediment trans-
port by summing both dry-weather and wet-
weather (stormwater runoff) values. Dry-weath-
er transport can be calculated using several
methods, depending on the available data and
the degree of accuracy desired. If continuous
flow data are available, the annual loading is
best calculated using the statistical method of re-
gression analysis (Reckhow and Chapra, 1981).
This method allows the analyst to examine the
relationship among flow, concentration, and
loading. If a statistical relationship (correlation)
exists, then this can be exploited in a superior
model for loading. If no correlation exists among
flow, concentration, and loading, the annual
loading can be calculated by multiplying the nu-
trient concentration by the stream flow. This can
be done by calculating an average annual con-
centration, applying it to the daily base flow, and
summing the individual results.
For wet-weather transport, it is usually neces-
sary to develop statistical relationships between
nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff
(Browne and Bedient, 1977). If continuous flow
data are available, these loading relationships
can be applied to the stormwater volumes meas-
ured over the year. The total wet-weather
(nonpoint source) stream loading is calculated
by adding the loadings from individual storms.
The total annual loading is calculated by adding
the dry- and wet-weather loadings.
If continuous flow data are not available, sta-
tistical relationships must be developed be-
tween stream flow and rainfall (usually the dry-
weather flows can be estimated based on weekly
or monthly measured flows), using existing ob-
servations of flow. After wet-weather flows are
calculated, the above loading/runoff relationship
can then be applied to the predicted stream
flows to estimate the annual nutrient transport.
10.6.4 Calculation of Annual Nutrient
Budget
The annual nutrient budget will usually consist
of the following: stream inputs, direct drainage
area input, point source inputs, septic tank and
groundwater inputs, dryfall and wetfall (atmos-
pheric) inputs, and other miscellaneous inputs.
Whenever possible, the specific sources should
be measured to provide specific data based on
the annual period monitored. If unavailable,
some of the sources can be estimated using lit-
erature values (Reckhow, et al. 1980) or method-
ologies used in the EPA National Eutrophication
Study (Working Paper No. 75, 1975).
The annual nutrient budget should be stan-
dardized for the average year based on past rain-
fall records. For instance, if rainfall was lower
then the annual average, the nonpoint source
loading should be adjusted upward to account
for this. The annual budget should reflect a typi-
cal year in the watershed. Nutrient budget calcu-
lations are described in Appendix E.
10.6.5 Prediction of the Effects of
Watershed Management and Lake
Manipulation
With the rapid advances in knowledge con-
cerning lake ecology in the past 15 years came a
-------
77
desire by many scientists to construct math-
ematical models of natural systems which would
allow prediction of the consequences of altering
conditions. These models are of two fundamen-
tal types:
— Deterministic, in which model components
are assumed to be fixed in value. Error and
variability are ignored in model applica-
tions, leading to fixed value predictions.
— Stochastic, in which natural variability
and/or modeling error are incorporated
into the modeling process. Predictions may
be expressed probabilistically or in other
forms that reflect the inherent uncertainty.
Deterministic models range from quite simple
algebraic expressions of a single phenomenon
to highly sophisticated, multi-parametric com-
puterized models which link the various
ecosystem compartments. These advanced sim-
ulation models, of course, require far more data
to use than the simpler alternatives. Even with
their complexity and supposed generality, they
do not always do a better job of representing
specific aspects of the more complicated natural
system than well-conceived and properly used
elementary models. This manual will discuss
only simple and widely verified deterministic
models. As will be more specifically emphasized
in the discussion, these models have definite
limitations in both applicability and capability.
They must therefore be used with great care and
applied by scientists very familiar with their
theoretical and empirical bases.
Several researchers-have developed simple
models linking phosphorus concentration and
loading on the basis of a linear first order differ-
ential equation expressing the phosphorus mass
balance in a lake:
where:
P = total phosphorus (usually
taken as mean concentration
during the winter equilibrium'
condition between fall and
spring turnovers, in mg/m3 or
ng/D
= P loading (mg/m2/yr)
= lake surface area (m2)
= phosphorus sedimentation
rate (yr-1)
= annual outflow rate (m3/yr)
= lake volume (m3)
= mean depth (m)
= flushing rate (yr'1)
L
A
Q
V
z
P
Table 10-5 lists the basic mechanistic forms of
the steady state solution to a phosphorus mass
balance like that presented above. These mecha-
nistic models may be applied after empirical es-
timation of the model parameters (a, R, and Vs).
In addition to the original sources given in Table
10-5, Welch (1980) summarizes the models and
their backgrounds, and Reckhow (1979a) de-
scribes and compares a number of them.
Table 10-5
Common Forms of Loading Concentration Models
Based on Phosphorus Mass Balance
Form
P- L
p_U1 - R)
P - v L Q
Reference
Vollenweider
(1969)
Dillon (1975)
Chapra (1975)
Remarks
R = phosphorus
retention
coefficient
(1 _ total export
total loading
V$ = apparent
settling velocity
(m/yr)
QS = areal water loading
(m/yr)
The steady-state solution of the model is de-
veloped under the following assumptions:
1. The lake is completely mixed at all times.
2. The rate of supply of phosphorus, the flush-
ing rate, the lake volume, and the sedimen-
tation coefficient are constant through
time.
3. The outflow P concentration equals the lake
P concentration.
4. The lake is in steady state; that is, phospho-
rus concentration does not change over
time.
While there is probably no lake in which these
assumptions hold at all times, empirical fitting of
the model to a broad range of lakes has shown
that the models will produce usable results (with
broad confidence limits) even when the assump-
tions do not hold. Judgment is obviously needed
in the application of these models.
The actual use of the simple input-output
models (Table 10-5) requires an estimate of the
sedimentation coefficient (a), or the phosphorus
retention coefficient (R), or the apparent settling
velocity (Vs). If one has made a complete phos-
phorus budget for a lake, they can be calculated:
-------
78
els typically run about ± 30 percent. As a result,
model selection criteria may be less based on
comparative errors and more based on a match
between the model development data set char-
acteristics and the application lake characteris-
tics. The comparisons in Table 10-6 provide
some guidance for model selection (from
Reckhow, 1979a).
The primary use of these models in a lake
management program is to predict the effects of
changes in nutrient loading, hydraulic flushing
rate, or mean depth on lake phosphorus levels
and hence trophic state. To that end, Reckhow
and Simpson (1980) and Reckhow, et al. (1980)
provide a step-by-step procedure for the predic-
tion of lake phosphorus concentration, and the
estimation of the prediction error, associated
with land use changes. Also included in
Reckhow, et al. (1980) is a thorough compilation
of phosphorus export coefficients. Because of
the possible effects of internal phosphorus load-
ing from the sediments, the models should work
best in projecting the impacts of increased load-
ing such as might be found when an expanding
city has a sewage plant effluent flowing into a
lake. Next in effectiveness will be the impact of
eliminating relatively short-term increases in nu-
trient loading such as the diversion of sewage
effluents from Lake Washington in the 1960's
(Edmondson, 1970). On the other hand, lakes
that have been very heavily loaded over long pe-
riods of time may not demonstrate the calculat-
ed drop in phosphorus concentration. In Lake
Trummen in Sweden, for instance, it was neces-
sary to dredge out the nutrient-rich sediments
before significant improvements were noted
(Bengtsson, et al. 1975).
It has been suggested (Schindler, et al. 1977)
that there is an equilibrium-type of relationship
between the phosphorus concentration in the
water and the phosphorus in the sediments. If
enrichment lasts for only a relatively short peri-
od of time, the mixture of the recent sediments
with those lying deeper dilutes the nutrient-
release potential of the surface sediments so
that, with a reduction of nutrient inputs, the in-
ternal loading from the sediments will not main-
Table 10-6
A Comparison of Empirical Models
Model
Constant Vs
1) Vollenweider
Vs = 10 m/yr
2) Chapra
Vs = 16 m/yr
3) Dillon & .
Kirchn.er
Vs = 13.2
m/yr
Constant
Jones &
Bachmann
= 0.65 yr'1
Rp • Regression
1) Kirchner &
Dillon
RKO
2) Larsen &
Mercier
RLM
Data Base
Unspecified
14 Canadian
Shield lakes
12 Canadian
Shield lakes
51 natural
lakes, primarily
north
temperate
14 Canadian
Shield lakes
20 north
temperate
lakes, pri-
marily oligo-
trophic
Known
Constraints'
Unknown
P < .015 mg/l
LT/z < .050 mg/l
P < .015 mg/l
LT/z < .050 mg/l
Unknown
P < .015 mg/l
LT/z < .050 mg/l
P < .012 mg/l
LT/z < .025 mg/l
Consideration
Known Blase*' of Uncertainty
Not evaluated Not considered
Not evaluated Not considered
Not evaluated Not considered
Not evaluated Not considered
Significant
underestima- Not considered
tion of P in
lakes with
LT/z > .300 mg/l
Significant Not considered
underestima-
tion of P in
lakes with
LT/z > .300 mg/l
Comment*
Based on the range of
apparent settling
velocities observed in
natural lakes (Reck-
how. 1977). these
models will probably
overestimate P in
lakes with high z/T
and underestimate P in
highly enriched
lakes.
This model will
probably overestimate
P in shallow lakes with
high values of z/T.
RLM was found (Reck-
how, 1977) to be less
biased than R^rj for
phosphorus-enriched
lakes.
-------
79
tain previously high concentrations in the lake
water. On the other hand, if high loadings have
been maintained for a long period of time, high
sediment concentrations may feed nutrients
such as phosphorus back into the water and
maintain the high phosphorus concentrations in
spite of reductions in loading.
If internal loading as described above is not
thought to be a problem, if the flushing rate is
expected to remain constant, and if a reliable es-
timate of present phosphorus loading exists
then it is possible to estimate the effect of a nu-
trient reduction without using one of the empiri-
cal equations. In the basic input-output model
the phosphorus concentration is directly propor-
tional to the loading rate. If P0 is the present
phosphorus concentration, L0 the present load-
ing rate, and Lr is the nutrient loading rate after a
nutrient reduction program, then the new phos-
phorus concentration (Pr) will be given by: Pr =
P?(IVL0). This procedure can be used in the plan-
ning stages to estimate the effects of a particular
nutrient reduction program. It should be kept in
mind that because of year-to-year variations
within a lake system, a nutrient reduction should
be significant (say at least 50 percent) if the ef-
fects are to be noticeable by the public. For lakes
with very high algal levels (75 percent mg/m3
chlorophyll a) even greater reductions may be
necessary due to the nature of the relationship
between Secchi disk transparency and chloro-
phyll a concentrations.
By solving the basic equation for the loading
rate (L), the models can be used to estimate
phosphorus loading when other quantities have
been measured. This method of establishing P
loading may be considered when support is in-
sufficient to allow direct measurements or indi-
rect estimates based on land use. This procedure
may also be used as a rough check on other
methods of estimating loading rate. It should be
kept in mind that the confidence limits on load-
ing estimated in this manner will be broad and
the resulting value should be considered as an
order of magnitude estimate.
Discussion of predictive models to this point
has been confined to phosphorus loading and
concentration relationships. Several statistical
expressions have also been proposed to relate
phosphorus, chlorophyll a (chl a) and Secchi disk
Table 10-6
A Comparison of Empirical Models (Continued)
Model
Reckhow Models
1) Quasi-
General
Model
2) Oxic,
z/T < 50 m/yr
lakes
3) z/T > 50 m/yr
lakes
4) Anoxic lakes
*
Walker Model
Data Base
47 north tem-
perate lakes
33 north
temperate
lakes
28 north
temperate
lakes
21 north
temperate
lakes
105 north
temperate
lakes
Known
Constraints'
P < .135 mg/l
LT/z < .298 mg/l
Qs < 187 m/yr
P < .060 mg/l
LT/z < .298 mg/l
P < .135 mg/l
LT/z <. 178 mg/l
z < 13 m
T < 0.25 yr
.017 mg/l
-------
80
depth (SD). These appear in Table 10-7. The
equations are available to estimate chlorophyll a
and Secchi depth after phosphorus is estab-
lished, either through measurement or by calcu-
lation using the models in Table 10-5. Estimated
values may then be compared with the defini-
tions of trophic state in Table 10-4. Alternatively,
the data in the oligotrophy column of Table 10-4
may be selected as a restoration target and the
regression equations solved for the phosphorus
concentration goal to pursue. It may be noted
that the linear regression equations of Dillon and
Rigler (1974) and Jones and Bachmann (1976)
closely correspond, although their bases are
somewhat different. While both explain a high
percentage of the variation in the dependent
variable, the confidence limits reported by Dillon
and Rigler demonstrate that forecasts made
using the equation could be substantially in er-
ror, so that a lake predicted to improve in trophic
state might not do so in reality.
Canfield (1979) has shown that these equa-
tions do not work well for artificial lakes. This is
apparently the result of higher levels of inor-
ganic particles that reduce light penetration and
algal production.
Vollenweider (1976) extended his phosphorus
loading concept presented earlier to include its
Table W-7
Empirical Relationships Between Phosphorus Concentration. Chlorophyll a, Secchi Disk Depth,
and Hypolimnetic Oxygen Depletion Rate
Equation
Remark*
Log(Ch) a) = 1.449 Log(P) - 1.136 Dillon and Rigler (1974)
Log(Chla) = 1.46Log(P) - 1.09
SO
7.7
Jones and Bachmann (1976)
Carlson (1977)
Chi a'
N/P12
Percent variation explained = 90.3
Predicted Confidence Limits
(Chi s)
0.75
5.61
21.2
57.8
95%
0.27-2.08
2.06-15.3
7.69-58.4
20.6-162
50%
1.06-2.53
4.00-7.87
15.1-29.8
40.8-81.9
Summer TP concentrations used
Percent variation explained = 90.3
Indicates that most change
in SO occurs when chl a < 20 (ig/l,
with little'additional deterioration
of visibility above that level.
Log SO = -0.359 Log |(L(P)/q,/
(1 + z/q.l] - 0.259
Rast and Lee (1978)
Correlation coefficient = 0.77
Some chlorophyll a values
reported were summer means
while others were annual
means.
Log SO = -0.359 Log l(L(P)/q,/
(1 + z/q.)| + 0.925
Rast and Lee (1978)
Relationship holds only for
lakes where the primary
factor controlling water
clarity is phytoplankton
and for lakes whose exces-
sive phosphorus loadings
are not manifested in the
form of macrophytes.
Log HOD = 0.491 [(L(P)/q,/
(1 + Z/Q.H
Rast and L«e (1978)
Since the oxygen depletion
rate is expressed on an
area! basis, it can be
applied to any hypolimnetic
volume, regardless of size
or oxygen content
Proxic
Reckhow (1978)
105 ,-2.49 L2.00q- 1.78
Proxic is tna probability that
a lake will not develop anoxic
conditions in the hypolimnion.
This model was developed from
a data set of 55 north temper-
ate lakes (with t > 3.0 m,r >
0.26 yr, and 1 < q, < 60 m/yr).
-------
81
effect on chlorophyll a levels in lakes and reser-
voirs. This was done in order to produce a rela-
tionship which is more useful for water quality
management purposes by making it possible to
quantitatively predict the change in response of
a certain eutrophication parameter for given
loadings rather than forecasting the change
which will occur in the more subjective classifi-
cation of trophic status. Rast and Lee (1978), un-
der the United States portion of the OECD (Or-
ganization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) eutrophication project, have fur-
ther extended the Vollenweider relationship to
include the impact of a geomorphologically nor-
malized phosphorus load on the Secchi disk
depth and the hypolimnetic oxygen depletion
rate. Recently, Vollenweider (1979) has formulat-
ed a similar relationship between phosphorus
load and the primary production levels in a lake.
In addition, Lee and Jones (1979) have added the
natural fish yield to the list of parameters which
can be appropriately modeled by this approach.
Caution must be observed in applying these re-
lationships, however, since their breadth of cov-
erage (loading to biomass) necessarily incorpo-
rates substantial prediction error.
10.7 Reporting Monitoring Data
It is important for overall project evaluation
and for continuing assessment of lake restora-
tion and protection technology that water quality
and pollutant source monitoring data be assem-
bled in a centralized location. EPA's STORET
data management system is being used for this
purpose. Appendix G contains instructions and
data reporting formats which will facilitate data
compilation by States and entry by EPA Regional
Offices.
-------
82
11.0 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
As discussed in earlier sections, the Clean
Lakes Program provides up to $100,000 per
award and requires a 30 percent non-Federal
share for Phase 1 diagnostic-feasibility studies.
Phase 2 awards are available for pollution con-
trol and/or in-lake restoration methods; there is
no specified maximum, but they require a 50
percent non-Federal share. Thus, significant
amounts of money must be supplied by State,
local, or private sources. As a general rule, Fed-
eral grant programs or other Federal moneys
cannot be used to supply the State and local
share; however, two exceptions do exist. The ex-
ceptions are the General Revenue Sharing Funds
from the Department of the Treasury and the
Community Development Block Grants from the
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, both of which may be used as a part of the
State and local matching funds for the Clean
Lakes Program.
State technical and administrative assistance
may be used as an in-kind match.
As can be seen in Table 11 -2, most States have
indicated that they do provide technical assis-
tance which can be used as an in-kind match.
Such State services as water quality monitoring
and installation of monitoring equipment, labo-
ratory services, and analysis of data can and
have been used as the in-kind match. These ser-
vices can also be provided at the local level and
may include donated time and equipment from
qualified local sources. Specific reference to
using in-kind services is made in the hypotheti-
cal case in Section 12.0 of this manual.
Table 11-1
States with Programs to Match Clean Lakes Funds
11.1 Non-Federal Match
A number of States have set up specific pro-
grams to be used as non-Federal matching funds
for the Clean Lakes Program. Others have pro-
grams which, although not specifically designed
for that purpose, could be used to provide the lo-
cal match (see Table 11-1). In the State/local sec-
tion of the matrices, in Table 11-2, under the
"Federal Program Matched" column, the phrase
"314" denotes States with funded programs
specifically designed to match the Clean Lakes
funds, and "314 possible" denotes States where
program funds may provide the match under
certain conditions. Thirty-two States do not pro-
vide matching funds. Consequently, local units
of government must provide all the matching
funds for the Clean Lakes Program. However,
Specifically
Designed Programs
Connecticut
Florida
Massachusetts*
Maine*
Minnesota
New Jersey
North Carolina
Oregon'*
Puerto Rico
South Dakota
Washington**
Wisconsin
Programs Applicable
Under Certain Conditions
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Montana
Nebraska
Rhode Island
•Proposed.
•Proposed. Phase 2 only.
-------
Table 11-2
Summary of Federal. State and Regional Programs
FEDERAL
PROGRAMS
DEPARTMENT
AGENCY
PROGRAM NAME
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL
STABILIZATION AND
CONSERVATION
SERVICE
Walei Bank Program
Rural Clean Water
Program
Agricultural Conservation
Program IACPI
FARMERS HOME
ADMINISTRATION
Farm Ownership Loans
Irrigation. Drainage and
Other Soil and Water
Conservation Loans
Recreation Facility Loans
Resource Conservation
and Development Loans
Sal and Water Loans
Water and Waste Disposal
Systems tor Rural
Communities
Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Loans
Business and Industrial
Loans
Area Development
Assistance Planning
Grants
FOREST SERVICE
Forestry Research
Cooperative Forestry
Assistance
DEPARTMENT
AGENCY
PROGRAM NAME .1
SCIENCE AND
EDUCATION
ADMINISTRATION
Agricultural Research —
Basic and Applied
Research
Cooperative Forestry
Research
SOIL CONSERVATION
SERVICE
Great Plains Conservation
Resource Conservation
and Development
Watershed Prevention and
Flood Prevention
Plant Materials lor
Conservation
Resource Appraisal and
Program Development
Rural Abandoned Mine
Program
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
Economic Development
- Public Works and
Development Facilities
Economic Development
— Public Woiks Impact
Projects
Grants to States — Titles
J. II. III. IV. and IX
Activities
8
-------
Table 11-2
Summary of Federal. State and Regional Programs (Continued)
s
DEPARTMENT
AGENCY
PROGRAM NAME
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
OFFICE OF
EDUCATION
Environmental Education
DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
Comprehensive Planning
Assistance (701)
Community Development
Block/Entitlement Grants
Community Development
Block Grams/Small Cities
Program
DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF SURFACE
MINING
RECLAMATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
Regulation ol Coal Mining
HERITAGE
CONSERVATION AND
RECREATION
SERVICE
Land and Water
Conservation Fund Grants
Urban Park and Recieation
Recovery Program
WATER AND POWER
RESOURCES SERVICE
Small Reclamation
Protects
U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Fish Restoration (Dingell-
Johnson Program)
DEPARTMENT
AGENCY
PROGRAM NAME
Wildlile Restoration
(Pntman-Robenson
Program)
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
COAST GUARD
Pollution by Oil and
Hazardous Substances —
liability
SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION
Water Pollution Control
Loans (WPCI
Regulatory Loans IREGOI
Business Pollution Control
Financing Guarantee
WATER
RESOURCES
COUNCIL
Water Resources Planning
(Title III)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT
Construction Grams lor
Wastewater Treatment
Works
Water Pollution Control -
Slate and Interstate
Program Giants
Water Pollution Control —
State and Arejwide Water
Quality Management
Planning Agency
-------
Table 11-2
Summary of Federal. State and Regional Programs (Continued)
Stale Underground Water
Source Protection
Program Grants
Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Program Support Grants
Solid Waste Management
Demonstration Giants
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
Environmental Protection
— Consolidated Research
Grants
SoW Waste Disposal
Research Grants
Water Pollution Control
Research. Development
and Demonstration Grants
OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
Loan Guarantees lor
Construction ol Treatment
Works
REGIONAL
PROGRAMS
DEPARTMENT /|
AGENCY Ig
PROGRAM NAME /I
APPALACHIAN
REGIONAL
COMMISSION
COASTAL PLAINS
REGIONAL
COMMISSION
FOUR CORNERS
REGIONAL
COMMISSION
NEW ENGLAND
REGIONAL
COMMISSION
OLD WEST
REGIONAL
COMMISSION
OZARKS
REGIONAL
COMMISSION
PACIFIC
NORTHWEST
REGIONAL
COMMISSION
SOUTHWEST
BORDER
REGIONAL
COMMISSION
UPPER GREAT
LAKES REGIONAL
COMMISSION
-------
TaWe 11-2
Summary of Federal. State and Regional Programs (Continued)
STATE/LOCAL
PROGRAMS
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
STATE OF ALABAMA
STATE PUBLIC HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
314 Clean Lakes Program
STATE OF ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
314 Clean Lakes Program
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Outdoor Recreation. Open
Space and Historic
Preservation Development
Fund
STATE OF ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICES
314 Clean Lakes Program
ARIZONA OUTDOOR
RECREATION
COORDINATING
COMMISSION
Stale Lake Improvement
Fund
STATE OF
ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF
POLLUTION CONTROL
AND ECOLOGY
314 Clean Lakes Program
DEPARTMENT OF
LOCAL SERVICES
Local Government Water.
Sewer and Solid Waste
Management Systems
Revolving Fund
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
Arkansas Water Development
Fund
• - 314 Prggftm
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
GAME AND FISH
COMMISSION
Matching Federal Funds
STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD
314 Clean Lakes Program
Clean Water and Water
Conservation Bond Law of
1978
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
Pollution Cleanup and
Abatement Account
Sites Closure and
Maintenance Revolving
Account
DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES
AND CALIFORNIA
RECLAMATION BOARD
Stale Aid Program; Federal
Flood Control Proiecls
POLLUTION CONTROL
FINANCING AUTHORITY
Pollution Control Financing
Authority Loan Program
WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION BOARD
Recreation and Fish and
Wildhle Enhancement Bond
DEPARTMENT OF
PARKS AND
RECREATION
1380 Bond Act
Roberti Z'berg Urban Open
Space and Recreation
Program
STATE OF
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
3)4 Clean LaVes Program
1 - 314 Program match
X X
-------
Table 11-2
Summary of Federal. State and Regional Programs (Continued)
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
SOIL CONSERVATION
BOARD
STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Lakes Management Program
Weed and Algae Control
Program
Wildlife Refuges. Fish
Spawning Areas and Heluges
STATE OF
DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
314 Clean Lafces Program
STATE OF FLORIDA
STATE DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION
Water Resources Restoration
and Preservation Program
Pollution Control Measures
and Devices (Bond Program)
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Florida Recreation
Development Assistance
Program
Florida Boating Improvement
Fund
STATE OF GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
314 Clean Lakes Program
Economic and Environmental
Grant Program
XX X X
X X
C • Ctni Fto*Y«urM*n«ni
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
Emergency Grant Program
Georgia Heritage Trust
Program
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND WELFARE
314 Clean Lakes Program
DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES
Water Resources Loans and
Grants Program
DEPARTMENT OF
PARKS AND
RECREATION .
Idaho Waterways
Improvement Fund
Technical Assistance
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Lakes Program. Planning
Section
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Division ol Water Resources
STATE OF INDIANA
STATE BOARD OF
HEALTH
314 Clean Lakes Program
STATE OF IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
314 Clean Lakes Program
XF XXXXXX
-------
Table 11-2
Summary of Federal, State and Regional Programs (Continued)
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
STATE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
Boating Fund
DEPARTMENT OF SOIL
CONSERVATION
Slate Cost Share Fund
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
STATE OF KANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT
314 Clean bates Program
FISH AND GAME
COMMISSION
Community lake Assistance
Project ICLAPI
WATER RESOURCES
BOARD
Slate Financial Assistance
STATE OF KENTUCKY
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
314 Clean Lakes Program
Community Flood Damage
Abatement Program
AREA DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICTS
AIM Development Fund
COUNTY JUDGES
Economic Aid
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
314 Clean Lakes Program
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
314 Clean Lafces Program
DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION
Land Use Regulation
Commission
Municipal Recreation Fund
Land and Water Conservation
Program — Boating Facilities
STATE OF
MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
314 Clean Lafces Progiam
Program Open Space
STATE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH
Water Ice and Sewerage
Program
STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ENGINEERING
Eutiophication and Nuisance
Aquatic Vegalion Control
Program
Massachusetts Lakes
Program
Accelerated Water Pollution
Control Program
Research and Demonstration
Pioiecls and Facilities
F . Fedv* OoUll
s
-------
Table 11-2
Summary ol Federal. State and Regional Programs (Continued)
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS
Sell-Help Program
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
Urban Self-Help Program
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
314 Clean Lfkes Program
Urban Recreation Program
STATE WATERWAYS
COMMISSION
MICHIGAN — LOCAL
LEVEL
COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
Inland Lake Level Act
Inland Lake Improvement Acl
STATE OF
MINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL
AGENCY
Late Improvement Grams
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
Cost Share Program
Lakeshore. Sireambank and
Roadside Erosion Program
Flood Control Program
STATE PLANNING
AGENCY
Legislative Commission on
Minnesota Resources Fund
SMSA'3 Regional Program I X | X
I I |X|
C *
D • Draa Piynwus/Contncti
F - Fodettf Do**n
. L - IwxJ Acquafljon Or*
" S •
I I I I I I" I
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
ELIGIBLE
PROJECTS
ELIGIBLE
RECIPIENTS
STATE
DEPARTMENT /s
PROGRAM NAME (f
MINNESOTA — LOCAL
LEVEL
METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL
Parks and Open Space
Program
WATERSHED DISTRICTS
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Hennepin County LaVe
Improvement 'Funds
STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
314 Clean Lakes Program
STATE OF MISSOURI
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Water Pollution Control
Program
Water Development Fund
STATE OF MONTANA
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCES
314 Clean Lakes Program
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
AND CONSERVATION
Renewable Resource
Development Program
Conservation District Financial
Aid Program
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Montana Coal Board Financial
Aid Program
• - 314 Prcqtjm Mjlch
-------
Table 77-2
Summary of Federal, State and Regional Programs (Continued)
STATE
DEPARTMENT
. PROGRAM NAME
STATE OF NEBRASK
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
311 Clean Lakes Program
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural Resources
Development Fund
Water Conservation Fund
GAME AND PARKS
COMMISSION
Land and Water Conservation
Funds
STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION &
NATURAL RESOURCES
314 Clean Lakes Program
Reforestation Assistance
Slata Bonds Program
STATE OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE
WATER SUPPLY AND
POLLUTION CONTROL
COMMISSION
Lakes Management Program
STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Lanes Management Program
Green Acres Land Acquisition
and Recreation Opportunities
Program
Aid for Urban Environmental XX X XX
Concerns I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
P - Prot«n,
T - totfmcjl «&MUiic« onty
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
State Aid to Local
Environmental Agencies
STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT
314 Clean Lakes Program
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Lana and Watar Conservation
fund •
INTERSTATE STREAM
COMMISSION
Water Research Conservation
and Development Fund
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
314 Claan Ufr.es Program
Slate Aid for Comprehensive
Study
STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Grants for Water Resource
Development Projects
County Allocation Fund
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
Grants tor Small Watershed
Projects
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Erosion Control Equipment
• - 314 Piogwn nvtcfi
F - Foda'al oooai
-------
Table 11-2
Summary of Federal. State and Regional Programs (Continued)
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
STATE OF NORTH
DAKOTA
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
314 Clean Lates Program
STATE WATER
COMMISSION
Stale Water Commission
Contract Fund
GAME AND FISH
DEPARTMENT
Game and Fish Department
Private Land Habitat
Improvement Fund
STATE OF OHIO
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
3M Clean Lakes Program
Emergency Village Capital
Improvement Rotary Fund
ind
Water and Wetlands
Preservation Program
Slate Aid Program
State Cost-Share Program lor
Construction Improvements
WATER DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
Loan and Grant Program
STATE OF
OKLAHOMA
DEPARTMENT OF
POLLUTION CONTROL
314 Clean Lakes Piogram
STATE OF OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
314 Clean Lakes Program
X F
Ft • Red MUla u» ««ductoni
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
STATE PARK
DEPARTMENT
State Grant-in-Aid
STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES
314 Clean Lafces Program
Storm Water Management
Program
Land and Water Conservation
and Reclamation Fund
PUERTO RICO
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY BOARD
314 Clean Lakes Program
Pollution Control Facilities are
Loan Program
RECREATION
DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
Land and Water Conservation
Fund
STATE OF RHODE
ISLAND
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
314 Clean Lakes Program
Recreation Development
Funds
Division of Fish and Wildlile
DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION
Statewide Planning Program
• 314 Progrwn nuicn
• 314 Ptogtvn milch POU4M
5 - Suit c»of*cii
-------
Table 11-2
Summary of Federal, State and Regional Programs (Continued)
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF .
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
314 Clean Lakes Piogram
STATE OF SOUTH
DAKOTA
DEPARTMENT OF
WATER AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
State Lakes Protection and
Rehabilitation Giants
STATE OF
TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
314 Clean Laves Program
STATE OF TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES
314 Clean-Lakes Piogram
DEPARTMENT OF
PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Local Parks and Recreation
and Open Space Program
STATE OF UTAH
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
314 Clean Laves Program
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Community Impact Fund
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION:
DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES
Lakes and Ponds Program
Aquatic Nuisance Control
Program
DEPARTMENT OF
FOREST. PARKS AND
RECREATION
State Matching Funds
STATE OF VIRGINIA
STATE WATER
CONTROL BOARD
314 Clean Lakes Program
COMMISSION OF
OUTDOOR RECREATION
Virginia Outdoors Fund
Recreation Services Section
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY: WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
AGENCY
Lake Restoration Program
(Referendum 26 Funds)
State Grant Program
(Referendum 38 Funds!
INTERAGENCY
COMMITTEE FOR
OUTDOOR RECREATION
Recreation Grants-m-Ajd
PARK AND RECREATION
COMMISSION
ParVs and Recreation
Consultation
• • 314 Proyum rtmch
• -314 Progtwn mcich p
-------
Table 11-2
Summary of Federal. State and Regional Programs (Continued)
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
DEPARTMENT OF GAME
Habitat Development
Progiam
STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
3M Clean Lakes Program
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
WEST VIRGINIA WATER
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
Small Business Pollution
Control Financing PfOgfam
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OF ECONOMIC AND
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Community Partnership
Giants and Loans Program
STATE OF
WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Study and Implementation
Grants
Wisconsin Funds
Outdoor Recreation Action
Program
Boating Recreation Program
BOARD OF SOIL AND
WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICTS
Sal and Water Conservation
Slate Aid Progiam
Soil and Water Conservation-
Agricultural Nonpomt Source
Water Pollution Grants
Not Participating
STATE
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM NAME
STATE OF WYOMING
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
314 Clean Lakes Program | X
STATE
PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE
-------
94
11.2 Combination With Other
Complementary Efforts
In addition to providing direct matching funds,
other programs at the Federal, regional, and
State levels can be coordinated with Clean Lakes
projects by providing funds for activities that are
not directly a part of the work funded under sec-
tion 314. These are also summarized in Table
11-2. As an example, the Clean Lakes Program
regulations specifically exclude costs for control-
ling point source discharges, where the sources
can be alleviated by permits issued under either
section 402 of the Clean Water Act, or by the
planning and construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities under section 201 of the Act. Nev-
ertheless, it is recognized that such control of
point source discharges is extremely important
in the lake restoration process, and that where
possible, this work should be coordinated with
Clean Lakes projects. Thus, while references to
section 201 programs are not included in the
State program sections of the matrix, it is impor-
tant to check with the appropriate program office
to determine their applicability to Clean Lakes
restoration.
Other examples are recreational facilities de-
velopment programs, such as the Land and Wa-
ter Conservation Program under the Department
of the Interior's Heritage Conservation and Rec-
reation Service. They may not be used to pro-
vide matching funds to a Clean Lakes project,
but activities funded under them can greatly en-
hance the benefits obtainable with Clean Lakes
funds. Again, as with 201, no reference appears
in the matrix to these LAWCON programs.
Department of Agriculture programs, especial-
ly in the Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service, the Farmers Home Administration,
and the Soil Conservation Service, are other ex-
amples of funded programs which may be used
with the Clean Lakes Program. It is important to
remember that applications for Clean Lakes
projects proposing coordination with other com-
plementary activities will receive more favorable
consideration for funding by EPA.
11.3 Sources of Additional Information
Written descriptions of Federal, regional, and
State programs can be found in Appendix H to
this manual. The Federal programs are divided
into three sections: those providing financial as-
sistance; those providing technical, information-
al, or advisory services; and those providing la-
bor. Programs providing financial assistance to
be coordinated with the Clean Lakes Program
have been summarized in the matrices in this
chapter. The matrices indicate the department,
agency, and program identification; type of as-
sistance; type of projects which are eligible for
the funds; and the eligible recipients. This infor-
mation, along with the total obligations for fiscal
year 1980, average project size, and various ap-
plication information, has been obtained from
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(available in major libraries, or may be pur-
chased from the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office). Where neces-
sary, the matrices have been supplemented by
data obtained directly from program managers.
Two other Federal programs are not included
in the matrix but may be useful. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has a program which is pri-
marily research-oriented, dealing with projects
such as aquatic plant control, beach erosion con-
trol, flood control, debris clearance, and channel
straightening. This assistance is usually in the
form of technical consulting and research by
Corps personnel.
The other Federal program which does not ap-
pear in the matrix is the General Services Ad-
ministration's Disposal of Federal Surplus Real
and Personal Property Programs. This program
provides for the transfer of property such as
abandoned military installations from the Feder-
al government to eligible recipients. The transfer
is usually on a specialized basis and depends on
the location of the proposed project.
Information concerning State and regional
programs was obtained from interviews with
State and regional officials. These programs are
described in Appendix H, and presented in the
matrices in this section.
State program descriptions in this manual are
not as complete as those at the Federal level be-
cause organizing and identifying activities at the
State level is more difficult. Where possible, in-
formation concerning Federal programs which
can be matched with State programs is given in
the matrix along with an indication of the maxi-
mum amount of State funds which can be
provided.
-------
95
12.0 HYPOTHETICAL LAKE PROJECTS
This section presents two hypothetical exam-
ples that illustrate typical procedures and activi-
ties involved in applying for and performing
both Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. They have
been developed to illustrate the use of material
presented elsewhere in this manual (specifically,
Section 8.0 — Phase 1 Studies; Section 9.0 —
Phase 2 Programs; and Section 11.0 — Technical
and Financial Assistance Programs).
— Example 1 — A Phase 1 diagnostic-
feasibility study of an Oregon lake which
requires a complete Phase 1 monitoring
program. Both watershed management
and in-lake restoration programs to pro-
tect and restore the lake are described.
— Example 2 — A Phase 2 implementation
program for a relatively large rural lake
in Wisconsin, requiring both watershed
management and in-lake restoration ac-
tivities to restore and protect the lake.
Although hypothetical, these examples are
based on real experiences. The technical and fi-
nancial assistance programs described are actu-
al programs.
12.1 Example 1 — Phase 1 Diagnostic-
Feasibility Study
12.1.1 Introduction
This hypothetical project illustrates a typical
Phase 1 diagnostic-feasibility study that includes
lake and watershed monitoring over a period of
1 year. The study illustrates how lake problems
lead to the design and implementation of a
Phase 1 study, consisting of:
1. Development of a detailed Phase 1 work
plan
2. Study of lake and watershed character-.
istics
3. Study of social, economic, and recrea-
tional characteristics of the lake and
watershed
4. Lake monitoring
5. Watershed monitoring
6. Data analysis
7. Development and evaluation of alterna-
tives
8. Selection and development of water-
shed management and lake restoration
programs
9. Projection of benefits
10. Environmental evaluation
11. Public participation
12. Preparation of reports.
12.1.2 Historical Background
Lake James, located in Brown County, Ore., is
a multipurpose man-made lake which provides
recreation (boating, fishing, camping, and swim-
ming) for the citizens of Brown County and the
City of Francis. It is also used as the primary po-
table water supply for these areas. Half of the
population uses Lake James for water supply,
while the other half uses private wells.
In 1968, algal blooms appeared in late summer
and early fall. During these periods occasional
taste and odor problems occurred in the drinking
water, resulting in frequent citizen complaints. In
1969 a small fish kill occurred in the lake near the
dam; personnel from the Brown County Water
and Sewer Authority investigated the fish kill
and decided that low dissolved oxygen condi-
tions were the probable cause.
Although Authority personnel tested water
withdrawn daily from the lake for turbidity, col-
or, and several other parameters related to water
treatment, neither they, nor the Brown County
Soil and Water Conservation District, had ever
collected quantitative and definitive data on the
trophic condition or nutrient loading of the lake.
In response to continued and increasing citizen
concern over the allegedly deteriorating condi-
tion of the lake, the Conservation District, Brown
County Water and Sewer Authority, and the City
of Francis approached the State of Oregon about
submitting an application for a Phase 1 diagnos-
tic-feasibility study.
-------
96
12.1.3 Phase 1 Application
At the request of the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, the three agencies devel-
oped a draft Phase 1 application based on EPA
regulations published in the Federal Register (40
CFR Part 35 Subpart H — see Appendix B of this
manual); the application was prepared on OMB
Standard Form 424 (EPA Form 5700-33). The re-
quired program narrative provided the informa-
tion listed in Table 12-1 (see Table 8-2 in Section
8.0 for a detailed outline).
The application also contained an introductory
chapter that presented an overview of the lake,
its location, problems, proposed activities, and
project participants.
Table 12-1
Phase 1 Outline
Lake description
Watershed description
Public access, benefits, and recreational use
Pollutant sources and existing control practices
Scope of proposed project
Project schedule
Project budget
The cost estimate prepared by the Conserva-
tion District, Authority, and City indicated they
would need $131,000 to perform a sufficiently
comprehensive study. Oregon DEQ's Clean
Lakes Program budget had been fully obligated
to other lake projects. However, the three agen-
cies who had initiated the request for the study
did not want to wait until the next fiscal year to
begin work. Consequently, they provided the
matching amount to the State as shown in Table
12-3.
The draft application was reviewed by the
State of Oregon; the DEQ staff, in turn, informal-
ly discussed it with the Clean Lakes coordinator
in the EPA Region X Office. Authority, Conserva-
tion District, and City personnel met with State
and Region X EPA personnel several times to
discuss and modify the Phase 1 application.
The final application was prepared by the
State, which added the priority ranking of the
project and their certification that the project
was consistent with the State Water Quality
Management Work Plan, the approved 208 Wa-
ter Quality Management Plan, and the State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. The
State then submitted the application to EPA Re-
gion X, with recommended approval and
forwarded the application to EPA Headquarters
for its review. Headquarters concurred with the
Region, and Region X issued an offer of award to
the State. After notifying EPA of its decision to
accept the award, Oregon DEQ signed a substate
agreement with the Brown County Soil and Wa-
ter Conservation District, the agency which
would administer the project.
Table 12-2
Characteristics of Lake James
Location: Brown County, Ore.
Lake Characteristics:
Surface Area
Volume
Mean Depth
Maximum Depth
Stratified
Lake Problems:
Algal Blooms of Anabaena sp.
Depressed Oxygen Conditions
Taste and Odor Problems
Watershed Characteristic*:
Drainage Area
Tributaries
Mean Flow Through Lake
Land Use:
Forest
Wetlands
Open/Transitional
Developed
Pastureland
Cropland
Point Sources:
Municipal
(entering through tributaries)
Industrial
Public Access and Use:
Public Access Areas
Uses
162 ha
5.4 x 10"m3
3.4m
6.8 m
Yes
620 km2
4 major streams
360cfs(10m3/sec.)
40%
5%
8
8%
27%
12%
3
2
4
Boating, Fishing,
Camping, Swim-
ming, Potable Wa-
ter Supply
12.1.4 Project Activities
The Phase 1 study was designed to obtain data
on the trophic condition of Lake James, to define
the sources and magnitude of the nutrient and
sediment loadings to the lake, to evaluate the
need for reductions in these loadings and the ex-
pected response of the lake, to evaluate the need
for in-lake restoration, and to develop a water-
shed and lake management program.
Table 12-3
Lake James Phase 1 Funding Sources
U.S. EPA Cooperative Agreement $ 91,700
Brown County Conservation District • 21,000
Brown County Water and Sewer
Authority 4,300
City of Francis 14,000
Phase 1 Total $131.000
-------
97
12.1.4.1 Consultant Selection Since neither
the District, Authority, nor City personnel were
experienced in limnology and watershed man-
agement, they decided to retain a consultant to
assist them in developing the detailed work plan
and conducting the study. The District followed
the procurement guidelines provided in the Fed-
eral Register (40 CFR Part 33—Subagreements)
entitled "Minimum Standards for Procurement
Under EPA Grants." These guidelines follow
those published by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in OMB Circular A-102. Of the
three methods of procurement (small purchase
procedure, formal advertising, and negotiation),
they decided to use negotiation. They mailed re-
quests for qualifications to 10 firms, reviewed
the qualifications and interviewed three firms.
They asked each firm to indicate its specific ex-
perience in the following areas:
1. Physical, chemical, and biological lake
studies
2. Nonpoint source studies, including setting
up automated monitoring stations and
stream gaging stations
3. Analyzing the trophic condition of lakes
4. Analyzing wet and dry weather data to cal-
culate a reliable annual nutrient and sedi-
ment loading budget
5. Evaluating best management practices and
in-lake restoration techniques
6. Analyzing institutional approaches for im-
plementation of proposed management
and in-lake restoration activities
7. Assisting in public participation activities
8. Knowledge of, and experience with, the
EPA Clean Lakes Program.
They selected a consultant who demonstrated
experience in all of these areas. The consultant's
first task was to assist in preparing a final de-
tailed work plan.
This type of sampling was done to define any
vertical variations in water quality.
During each sampling period, water samples
were collected at each sampling depth for
chemical analyses. Water quality parameters
which were measured in the field included pH,
conductivity, Secchi disk reading, temperature,
and dissolved oxygen (using a combination
temperature—DO probe). Water samples collect-
ed from the 1/2 meter depth were also analyzed
for chlorophyll a and algal genera.
12.1.4.3 Stream Monitoring. Stream gaging
stations were installed on the two major tributar-
ies to the lake and at the lake's outlet. These
three stations were selected because they ac-
counted for nearly 90 percent of the flow into
Lake James. Also, wet weather conditions could
be monitored manually due to the relatively
large size of the streams. During select storm
events, flow-composited water samples were
collected and sent to the laboratory for chemical
analysis.
Dry weather stream samples were collected
monthly and analyzed for the same parameters
as the wet weather samples.
12.1.4.4 Land Use Monitoring. Stormwater
runoff was monitored from several land uses
(residential, cropland, and pastureland) to deter-
mine the relative magnitude and form of nutrient
loadings. A flow recorder (bubbler type) and
automatic water sampler used to monitor
Stormwater runoff from each land use were pro-
grammed to collect samples for incremental
changes in flow.
12.1.4.5 Miscellaneous Monitoring. Sedi-
ment samples were collected from the lake bot-
tom at the three lake stations and analyzed for
organic and nutrfent content. Water samples
were also collected from selected wells in the
watersh.
12.1.4.2 Lake Monitoring Because of the
lake's long, narrow shape, three sampling sta-
tions were located on it. After the EPA project of-
ficer approved the monitoring program, moni-
toring was initiated. Samples were collected
monthly from September through April and bi-
weekly from May through August. Because the
lake experiences stratification, several depths
were sampled at each station. These sampling
depths were located at 1/2 meter below the sur-
face, 1/2 meter above the bottom, and at one or
two intermediate points, depending on depth.
A bathymetric survey was performed by divid-
ing the lake into 300 meter segments, using a
surveying crew to install stakes on both sides of
the lake to guide a boat equipped with a
high-accuracy depth meter (with printout).
12.1.4.6 Data Analysis. Lake, watershed,
land use, and other associated data were ana-
lyzed to determine the present trophic condition
and the sources of nutrients entering the lake.
The annual phosphorus loading to Lake
-------
98
James, presented in Table 12-4, indicates that
nonpoint sources account for 72 percent of the
loading and one point source (ABC Foods Co.)
accounts for 21 percent of the loading. Although
both Doe River and Lesser Creek have about the
same drainage area, the phosphorus loading
from Doe River is significantly higher, indicating
that the phosphorus export per unit of land area
is much higher for Doe River. Review of the land
use data indicated that Doe River has more in-
tense land use than Lesser Creek:
Land UM
Undeveloped
Pasture
Cropland
Developed
Doe River
40%
20%
20%
20%
Lesser Creek
75%
18%
6%
1%
Analysis of the watershed and land use moni-
toring data showed that developed land has the
greatest phosphorus loading rate:
Land Use
Developed
Agriculture
Undeveloped
Phosphorus Loading (Ib/ac/yr)
1.4
0.3
0.2
Table 12-4
Lake James Annual Phosphorus Loading
Source)
% of Total
A. Tributaries (Nonpoint Source)
Ooe River 36
Lesser Creek 27
Minor Tributaries and Immediate Drain-
age 9
8. Municipal STP's
Towson 1
Anderson School 1
Midway 1.5
C. Industrial
ABC Food Co. 21
Midway Machine Co. 1
D. Septic Tanks 2
E. Direct Precipitation 0.5
100.0
High N/P ratios indicated that phosphorus was
consistently the limiting nutrient. This agreed
with past algal assays performed by the EPA as
part of the National Eutrophication Study.
Application of the Vollenweider-Dillon empiri-
cal phosphorus loading model to the lake indi-
cated that the lake is eutrophic and that the an-
nual phosphorus loading would have to be
reduced to significantly improve water quality.
12.1.4.7 Management Plan Development. Re-
sults of the study indicated that both lake and
watershed management would be needed to re-
store the lake and protect it from further
degradation.
Because of the large size of the watershed, im-
plementation of management practices will be a
continuous process and will take many years.
Therefore, the management plan includes lake
treatment, water plant treatment, and watershed
management. The plan includes the following
activities:
1. Upgrade existing water treatment plant to
add activated carbon for taste and odor
control (not funded by 314).
2. Install compressed air aeration system in
. lake near the dam and water intake.
3. Implement agricultural best management
practices through existing local, State, and
Federal programs (e.g., ASCS-ACP Pro-
gram and other options discussed in Sec-
tion 11.0).
4. Implement roadway and highway best
management practices in cooperation with
the State highway department.
5. Enforce existing construction erosion con-
trol ordinance.
6. Develop and implement a runoff control or-
dinance for all new developments.
7. Develop and implement an environmental
education program.
8. Install innovative nonpoint source controls
for developing areas.
9. Reduce phosphorus discharge of the ABC
Food Co. (not funded by 314).
At the completion of the study, a final report
was prepared, organized according to the infor-
mation requirements in Appendix A to the regu-
lations (40 CFR 35 Subpart H). Because it thus in-
cluded not only the study findings but also the
proposed Phase 2 monitoring program, funding
sources, work plan, the results of public partici-
pation, and the environmental assessment, it
could be directly incorporated into a Phase 2 ap-
plication. This would reduce the cost and time
needed to apply for implementation funding and
would expedite review of the application.
The Authority and City decided to seek State
and Federal funding to implement the plan. A
Phase 2 implementation application will be sub-
mitted to obtain matching funds to install: (1) an
aeration system, (2) agricultural best manage-
ment practices, (3) roadway best management
practices to control erosion and runoff, (4) spe-
cial best management practices in the Doe River
subbasin (the major source of phosphorus load-
ing to the lake); and to develop an environmen-
tal education program.
12.1.5 Financial Considerations
The Phase 1 budget, presented in Table 12-5,
indicates that the Conservation District provided
-------
in-kind services for constructing and installing
three stream stations (two inlets and one outlet)
and for engineering and administrative services.
The Water and Sewer Authority provided addi-
tional engineering services and field assistance
in water sampling and land use data collection.
The City provided laboratory facilities and a lab
technician; however, $10,700 worth of laborato-
ry equipment had to be purchased to perform all
the lab tests. The City also contributed in-kind
services of technical staff and a citizens advisory
group who provided technical overview of the
project.
Consulting services, obtained by the Conser-
vation District and paid for with EPA funds, to-
talled $60,100. The remainder of the cooperative
agreement moneys were used to purchase
equipment and supplies.
Table 12-5
Lake James Phase I Budget
A. In-Kind Services:
1. Brown County Soil and Water Conservation District:
Construction and installation of three stream gaging stations
Engineering — 40 hr». @ $25.00 .
Administration — 80 hrs. @ $25.00
Total District
2. Brown County Water and Sewor Authority
Field Assistance (labor) — 200 hrs. @ $15.00
Engineering — 52 hrs. @ $25.00
Total Authority
3. City of Francis
Laboratory services (based on personnel time and hourly cost)
In-kind labor of citizens on technical review committee — 40 hrs.
@ $25.00
Total City
Total In-Kind Services
3,000
1.300
21,000
4,300
14.000
$39,300
B. Consultant:
Develop detailed work plan $ 1,000
Study lake and watershed characteristics 4,000
Perform land use analysis 3.000
Monitor lake water quality and biology 10,000
Monitor dry and wet weather stream flow water quality 8,000
Monitor stormwater runoff from land uses 5,000
Monitor sediments 2,000
Monitor groundwater quality 3,000
Analyze lake and watershed data 7,000
Define and evaluate watershed management alternatives, pre-
pare environmental assessment, and recommend plan of ac-
tion 8,000
Prepare final report presenting study results and management al-
ternatives
Assist in public participation activities
Total Consultant
$60,000
C. Equipment end Supplies
Recording flow meters for gaging stations (three)
Recording flow meter for land use monitoring
Automatic water sampler
Laboratory equipment
Field and laboratory supplies
Total Equipment
Phase I Total
$31.700
$131.000
-------
100
12.2 Example 2 — Phase 2 Implementa-
tion Program
Johnson Lake is a heavily used recreational
lake in Wisconsin. On summer weekends, the
lake attracts fishermen, sailors, and swimmers.
Water-skiing and diving are also popular. While
the general water quality of Johnson Lake was
good, it was threatened by agricultural runoff,
septic tank seepage, and municipal and com-
mercial wastewater discharges. Late summer
blooms of blue-green algae were common re-
cently, and problems with aquatic weeds were
experienced near the shore. The lake users and
the Office of Inland Lake Renewal in the Wiscon-
sin Department of Natural Resources were con-
cerned about deterioration of the water quality
of the lake and decided that steps should be tak-
en to protect and enhance Johnson Lake.
To that end, the local lake users and the DNR
undertook a restoration and protection project.
The Johnson Lake Public Inland Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District was formed under
provisions of Chapter 33 of the Wisconsin Stat-
utes. The local district was formed by the per-
sons within the Johnson Lake watershed directly
affected by its condition and willing to help solve
the problems.
The lake district was formed with the aid of
University of Wisconsin-Extension specialists
who provided information on the formation and
operation of lake districts. The Wisconsin State
legislature has mandated the Extension to pro-
vide educational leadership for the lake manage-
ment program. Chapter 33 also provided for a
partnership between the lake district and the
DNR in which the Office of Inland Lake Renewal
provided technical and financial assistance to
lake management plans.
Subsequently, a Phase I Diagnostic-Feasibility
Study was conducted on Johnson Lake and its
watershed. The study focused on estimating hy-
draulic and nutrient budgets for the lake, meas-
uring existing lake water quality, and identifying
major water quality problems. The results of that
study are summarized in Table 12-6.
Based on the study results, the DNR Office of
Inland Lake Renewal concluded that nutrient in-
flux from the watershed was causing excessive
and undesirable growth of algae and rooted
aquatic vegetation. It was also determined that
phosphorus was the limiting plant nutrient.
The DNR report suggested that a comprehen-
sive lake restoration and protection project be
undertaken to improve and preserve the water
quality of Johnson Lake. The plan was to limit
nutrient influx and sedimentation and to treat
specific in-lake problems (weeds and hypolim-
netic oxygen depletion). Additionally, water pol-
lution abatement projects to address the prob-
lem of upstream point sources of pollution were
recommended.
The nutrient budget calculations performed as
part of the diagnostic-feasibility study indicated
that the major phosphorus sources to Johnson
Lake were agricultural runoff (30 percent),
wastewater treatment plants (35 percent), and
malfunctioning septic systems (10 percent). It
was estimated that the contribution from
nonpoint agricultural runoff could be halved
through best management practices. An addi-
tional 10 percent could be eliminated by upgrad-
ing faulty septic treatment systems. Improving
existing wastewater treatment plants upstream
of Johnson Lake could reduce phosphorus load-
ing by 20 percent. An overall 45 percent reduc-
tion in phosphorus would, it was calculated, sig-
nificantly improve lake water quality.
On behalf of the Johnson Lake Protection and
Rehabilitation District, the Wisconsin DNR ap-
plied to the U.S. EPA for matching funds to con-
duct a Phase 2 Lake Restoration Project. The
project design stressed curbing the influx of
phosphorus from the watershed, supplemented
by in-lake remedial measures. An important
management proposal was to contain barnyard
manure from the watershed's numerous dairy
farms during the winter to prevent it from run-
Table 12-6
Characteristics of Johnson Lake
Lake Characteristics
Surface area
Volume
Mean depth
Maximum depth
Stratified
Lake Problems:
Late summer blooms of blue-green
algae
Aquatic weed growth
Hypolimnetic oxygen depletion
Watershed Characteristics:
Drainage area
Tributaries
Land Use:
Forest
Wetland
Open/Transitional
Developed
Pastureland
Cropland
Point Sources of Water Pollution:
Municipal
Other WWTP's
Other Nonpoint Sources of Water
Pollution:
Private septic tanks
(cottages and resorts)
Public Access and Use:
Public access areas
Uses
384 hectares
40 x 10a m3
10m
15 m
Yes
570 km2
2 major streams
3 minor streams
35%
10%
5%
15%
25%
10%
1
2
Multiple
1
Boating, Fishing,
Camping, Swimming,
Resort Area
-------
101
ning into the lake with snowmelt from still frozen
fields in the spring.
The application to conduct a Section 314 Clean
Lakes project requested 50 percent Federal
matching funds for a project costing $666,667.
The Wisconsin State legislature had provided $2
million for the biennium with the provision that
no grant exceed 10 percent of available State
funds. Therefore, $200,000 of State money was
available, and a local contribution of $133,333
was required. The local contribution was raised
by taxing all taxable property within the district
at a rate of 2.5 mills of assessed valuation, the
maximum rate provided for in Chapter 33 to car-
ry out lake projects. Equalized assessed valu-
ation of taxable property within the district to-
taled approximately $54 million. The 2.5 mill
rate, therefore, just allowed for financing this
project and annual operating expenses of the
lake district. Region V of EPA approved the appli-
cation and awarded a cooperative agreement to
Wisconsin.
One of the lake district's first actions was to
purchase about 40 hectares of land to develop
grass waterways and buffer strips. This was
funded as part of the Section 314 project. The
grass buffer strips would absorb much of the
phosphorus contained in the runoff water before
it reached Johnson Lake. A system of check
'dams was also constructed in areas prone to
rapid runoff and consequent erosion to prevent
sediment from reaching the lake.
Also contributing to sediment infilling of John-
son Lake was a localized problem associated
with streambank erosion in one of the tributar-
ies, Silver Creek. Gradual accumulation of sand,
silt, and detritus at the mouth of the creek had
formed a delta. A streambank stabilization pro-
gram was instituted to reduce that erosion and
sediment transport. Areas of severe streambank
erosion were riprapped or sloped, seeded, and
mulched to stabilize the banks.
In-lake treatment measures for Johnson Lake
included hypolimnetic aeration and localized
dredging. Aeration was performed during the
late summer periods when the deep waters be-
came anoxic. Increased oxygen concentrations
in the hypolimnion of Johnson Lake would re-
duce nutrient release from sediments and im-
prove fish habitat.
Shallow weed beds in areas of extensive rec-
reational use were excavated to a depth at which
most rooted aquatic plants were not expected to
grow. Because the dredging was localized in
near-shore areas, conventional earthmoving
equipment could be used, reducing cost and
spoil disposal problems.
The Johnson Lake watershed had an approved
208 agricultural nonpoint sources plan and
qualified for financial assistance to cost-share in-
stallation of best management practices. Deci-
sions were made by the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, the local Soil and Water Conservation
District, Wisconsin Extension, and the area Re-
gional Planning Commission, identifying the
best systems for individual farms. In cooperation
with the individual farmers involved, applica-
tions were submitted by the local Soil and Water
Conservation District for Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service (ASCS) money to
build manure storage facilities through the Agri-
cultural Conservation Project program.
The manure storage facilities were cost-shared
under provisions of a pooling agreement be-
tween ASCS, State of Wisconsin, Johnson Lake
District, and the individual farmers. Six storage
facilities were built for a total cost of $72,000.
The ASCS fund would cover 75 percent of the
cost of the storage structures to a maximum of
$3,500 each and the Wisconsin Fund contributed
up to an additional $4,000 per project, with the
total grant (ACP + Wisconsin Fund) being no
greater than 70 percent of the total project cost.
The Wisconsin Fund cost-shared the purchase of
transfer equipment (pumps, pipelines, etc.) as
well as the basic storage pit, items not eligible
for cost-sharing through ASCS. The remainder
of the cost of the manure storage facilities was
shared equally by the Johnson Lake district and
the individual farmers.
Recreational access to Johnson Lake was
deemed to be insufficient and a new park that in-
cluded a boat launching facility was established.
A 2-1/2 hectare parcel of land was acquired for
$20,000. That purchase, not eligible for 314
funding, was made through the Federal Land
and Water Conservation Program of the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, the Wis-
consin Outdoor Recreation Action Program, and
a 25 percent local match. Associated boat
launching facilities within the new park were
funded through the Wisconsin Boating Recrea-
tion Program. A boat ramp and parking area for
eight combination car-trailer units cost an addi-
tional $10,000 and was cost-shared 50:50 by
State and local participants.
Many of the cottages that ring Johnson Lake
were found to have failing septic tank systems
that contributed to the phosphorus load of the
lake. The failure of those systems was caused by
overloading and progressive clogging of the in-
filtrative surfaces of the soil absorption systems.
Cost-effectiveness analyses of the various alter-
natives for small wastewater treatment systems
showed that small diameter gravity sewer col-
lection of septic tank effluent with soil absorp-
tion disposal was the best solution to the septic
tank problem.
Groundwater was determined to flow through
the lake from north to south. Therefore, the sep-
tic tanks serving cottages on the north shore of
the lake were connected to a collection system
that conveyed the effluent to a single large ab-
sorption field west of the lake. This project was
-------
102
conducted in cooperation with the County
zoning administrator and sanitarian who
checked the adequacy of each septic tank before
it was hooked up to the collection system.
The cost of this project was financed by the
lake district through the U.S. EPA Section 201
Grants Program for construction of treatment
works. The project qualified as an innovative
treatment technique and, as such, was eligible
for 85 percent Federal cost-sharing. The 15
percent local contribution was raised by issuing
general obligation bonds that mature after a pe-
riod of 5 years at an interest rate of 8 percent per
annum.
In a rural area upstream of Johnson Lake, a
cheese factory discharged whey wastes into a
nearby ditch, eventually reaching a stream lead-
ing to Johnson Lake. At the urging of the John-
son Lake District and the Wisconsin ONR, the
cheese factory operators applied for and re-
ceived a guaranteed/insured loan through the
Farmers Home Administration, Business and In-
Table 12-7
Financing for Johnson Lake Projects'
I. Section 314.PROJECT BUDGET
Breakdown of Tasks:
Hypolimnetic aeration
Dredging
. Stream bank stabilization Irip-rapping, sloping, mulching, seeding) and erosion
control (acquisition and development of grass waterways and buffer strips)
Financial Breakdown:
Johnson Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Total
Total
$220,563
123,582
322,522
$133,333
200,000
333,334
$666,667
$666,667
II. MANURE STORAGE FACILITIES
Financial breakdown:
ASCS/ACP
Wisconsin Funds
Johnson Lake District
Farmer landowner
Total
Total
t 21,000
24,000
13,500
13.500
$ 72,000
$ 72.000
III. RECREA TIONAL ACCESS DEVELOPMENT
Project Elements:
Park land acquisition — 10 acres @ $2,000/acre
Boat ramp installation and associated parking facilities
Financial Breakdown:
Federal Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service program
Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation Action program
Wisconsin Boating Recreation program
Total
Total
Financial Breakdown:
Wisconsin Fund
City of Knauerville
Total
Total
$ 20,000
10,000
$ 10,000
5.000
10,000
$1,632,000
1,088.000
$30,000
$ 30,000
IV. SEPTIC TANK IMPROVEMENTS WITH EFFLUENT DIVERSION AND TREATMENT
Total $346,000
Financial Breakdown:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Sec. 201) $294,100
Johnson Lake District . 25,950
Cottage landowners 25,950
Total $346,000
V. CHEESE FACTORY SPRINKLER IRRIGATION DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Guaranteed/insured loan to cheese factory operators for $50,000 from FmHA
through Business and Industrial Loans Program.
VII. KNAUERVILLE WWTP IMPROVEMENTS
$2,720,000
$2,720,000
'Including Sect on 3U r«na Dotation and protection project and allied water pollution abatement projects.
-------
103
dustrial Loans Program. With that money, the
cheese factory installed a spray irrigation system
to dispose of wastes on adjacent land. Hay was
harvested off that land and sold for cattle feed.
The loan made to the cheese factory was
$50,000. No State or lake district funds were in-
volved in this project.
The final phase of the Johnson Lake project in-
volved upgrading the wastewater treatment
plant of the City of Knauerville, upstream of
Johnson Lake on Silver Creek. That phase of the
project replaced the existing raw sewage stabili-
zation pond discharging to the creek with an acti-
vated sludge treatment system followed by sand
filtration, chlorination, and disposal by infiltra-
tion-percolation.
The project was carried out with Wisconsin
Fund moneys, since the priority of the
Knauerville project was too low, according to the
State's ranking system to qualify for Federal Sec-
tion 201 funds. The Municipal Construction
Grants Program of the Wisconsin Fund provided
60 percent of the project cost. The local share of
the project cost was borne by the City of
Knauerville and financed through the sale of mu-
nicipal revenue bonds to be paid back by a prop-
erty tax. Total cost of improvements to the
Knauerville WWTP was $2.72 million. The mu-
nicipality share was $1.088 million. A summary
of the financing for the Johnson Lakes projects is
in Table 12-7.
-------
A-1
Appendix A
GLOSSARY OF LAKE AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT TERMS
Aeration: A process in which water is treated
with air or other gases, usually oxygen. In lake
restoration, aeration is used to prevent
anaerobic condition or to provide artificial
destratification.
Algal bloom: A high concentration of a specific
algal species in a water body, usually caused by
nutrient enrichment.
Algicide: A chemical highly toxic to algae.
Alkalinity: A quantitative measure of water's ca-
pacity to neutralize acids. Alkalinity results from
the presence of bicarbonates, carbonates,
hydroxides, salts, and occasionally of borates,
silicates, and phosphates. Numerically,- it is ex-
pressed as the concentration of calcium carbon-
ate that has an equivalent capacity to neutralize
strong acids.
Allpchthonous: Describes organic matter pro-
duced outside of a specific stream or lake
system.
Alluvial: Pertaining to sediments gradually de-
posited by moving water.
Artificial destratification: The process of induc-
ing water currents in a lake to produce partial or
total vertical circulation.
Artificial recharge: The addition of water to the
groundwater reservoir by activities of man, such .
as irrigation or induced infiltration.
Assimilation: The absorption and conversion of
nutritive elements into protoplasm.
Autochthon: Any organic matter indigenous to a
specific stream or lake.
Autotrophic: The ability to synthesize organic
matter from inorganic substances.
Background loading of concentration: The con-
centration of a chemical constituent arising from
natural sources.
Base flow: Stream discharge due to ground-
water flow.
Benthic oxygen demand: Oxygen demand exert-
ed from the bottom of a stream or lake, usually
by biochemical oxidation of organic material in
the sediments.
Benthos: Organisms living on or in the bottom
of a body of water.
Best management practices: Practices, either
structural or non-structural, which are used to
control nonpoint source pollution.
Bioassay: The use of living organisms to deter-
mine the biological effect of some substance,
factor, or condition.
Biochemical oxidation: The process by which
bacteria and other microorganisms break down
organic material and remove organic matter
from solution.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), biological
oxygen demand: The amount of oxygen used by
aerobic organisms to decompose organic mate-
rial. Provides an indirect measure of the concen-
tration of biologically degradable material
present in water or wastewater.
Biological control: A method of controlling pest
organisms by introduced or naturally occurring
predatory organisms, sterilization, inhibiting
hormones, or other nonmechanical or non-
chemical means.
Biological magnification, biomagnification: An
increase in concentration of a substance along
succeeding steps in a food chain.
-------
A-2
Biomass: The total mass of living organisms in a
particular volume or area.
Biota: All living matter in a particular region.
Blue-green algae: The phylum Cyanophyta,
characterized by the presence of blue pigment in
addition to green chlorophyll.
Catch basin: A collection chamber usually built
at the curb line of a street, designed to admit sur-
face water to a sewer or subdrain and to retain
matter that would block the sewer.
Catchment: Surface drainage area.
Chemical control: A method of controlling pest
organisms through exposure to specific toxic
chemicals.
Chlorophyll: Green pigment in plants and algae
necessary for photosynthesis.
Circulation period: The interval of time in which
the thermal stratification of a lake is destroyed,
resulting in the mixing of the entire water body.
Coagulation: The aggregation of colloidal parti-
cles, often induced by chemicals such as lime or
alum.
Coliform bacteria: Nonpathogenic organisms
considered a good indicator of pathogenic bac-
terial pollution.
Colorimetry: The technique used to infer the
concentration of a dissolved substance in solu-
tion by comparison of its color intensity with that
of a solution of known concentration.
Combined sewer: A sewer receiving both
stormwater runoff and sewage.
Compensation point: The depth of water at
which oxygen production by photosynthesis and
respiration by plants and animals are at equilib-
rium due to light intensity.
Cover crop: A close-growing crop grown prima-
rily for the purpose of protecting and improving
soil between periods of permanent vegetation.
Crustacea: Aquatic animals with a rigid outer
covering, jointed appendages, and gills.
Culture: A growth of microorganisms in an artifi-
cial medium.
Denitrification: Reduction of nitrates to nitrites
or to elemental nitrogen by bacterial action.
Depression storage: Water retained in surface
depressions when precipitation intensity is
greater than infiltration capacity.
Design storm: A rainfall pattern of specified
amount, intensity, duration, and frequency that
is used as a basis >"or design.
Detention: Managing stormwater runoff or sew-
er flows through temporary holding and con-
trolled release.
Detritus: Finely divided material of organic or in-
organic origin.
Diatoms: Organisms belonging to the group
Bacillariophyceae, characterized by the presence
of silica in its cell walls.
Dilution: A lake restorative measure aimed at re-
ducing nutrient levels within a water body by the
replacement of nutrient-rich waters with
nutrient-poor waters.
Discharge: A volume of fluid passing a point per
unit time, commonly expressed as cubic meters
per second.
Dissolved oxygen (DO): The quantity of oxygen
present in water in a dissolved state, usually ex-
pressed as milligrams per liter of water, or as a
percent of saturation at a specific temperature.
Dissolved solids (DS): The total amount of dis-
solved material, organic and inorganic,
contained in water or wastes.
Diversion: A channel or berm constructed across
or at the bottom of a slope for the purpose of in-
tercepting surface runoff.
Drainage basin, watershed, drainage area: A
geographical area where surface runoff from
streams and other natural watercourses is car-
ried by a single drainage system to a common
outlet.
Dry weather flow: The combination of sanitary
sewage and industrial and commercial wastes
normally found in the sanitary sewers during the
dry weather season of the year; or, flow in
streams during dry seasons.
Dystrophic lakes: Brown-water lakes with a low
lime content and a high humus content, often se-
verely lacking nutrients.
Enrichment: The addition to or accumulation of
plant nutrients in water.
Epilimnion: The upper, circulating layer of a
thermally stratified lake.
Erosion: The process by which the soils of the
earth's crust are worn away and carried from
one place to another by weathering, corrosion,
solution, and transportation.
Eutrophication: A natural enrichment process of
a lake, which may be accelerated by man's ac-
tivities. Usually manifested by one or more of
the following characteristics: (a) excessive
biomass accumulations of primary producers;
(b) rapid organic and/or inorganic sedimentation
and shallowing; or (c) seasonal and/or diurnal
dissolved oxygen deficiencies.
Fecal streptococcus: A group of bacteria normal-
ly present in large numbers in the intestinal
tracts of humans and other warm-blooded
animals.
First flush: The first, and generally most pollut-
ed, portion of runoff generated by rainfall.
Flocculation: The process by which suspended
-------
A-3
particles collide and combine into larger parti-
cles or floccules and settle out of solution.
Gabion: A rectangular or cylindrical wire mesh
cage (a chicken wire basket) filled with rock and
used to protect against erosion.
Gaging station: A selected section of a stream
channel equipped with a gage, recorder, and/or
other facilities for determining stream discharge.
Grassed waterway: A natural or constructed
waterway covered with erosion-resistant
grasses, used to conduct surface water from an
area at a reduced flow rate.
Green algae: Algae characterized by the pres-
ence of photosynthetic pigments similar in color
to those of the higher green plants.
Heavy metals: Metals of high specific gravity, in-
cluding cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, mercury. They are toxic to many organisms
even in low concentrations.
Hydrograph: A continuous graph showing the
properties of stream flow with respect to time.
Hydrologic cycle: The movement of water from
the oceans to the atmosphere and back to the
sea. Many subcycles exist including precipita-
tion, interception, runoff, infiltration, percola-
tion, storage, evaporation, and transpiration.
Hypolimnion: The lower, non-circulating layer of
a thermally stratified lake.
Intermittent stream: A stream or portion of a
stream that flows only when replenished by fre-
quent precipitation.
Irrigation return flow: Irrigation water which is
not consumed in evaporation or plant growth,
and which returns to a surface stream or
groundwater reservoir.
Leaching: Removal of the more soluble materi-
als from the soil by percolating waters.
Limiting nutrient: The substance that is limiting
to biological growth due to its short supply with
respect to other substances necessary for the
growth of an organism.
Littoral: The region along the shore of a body of
water.
Macrophytes: Large vascular, aquatic plants
which are either rooted or floating.
Mesotrophic lake: A trophic condition between
an oligotrophic and an eutrophic water body.
Metalimnion: The middle layer of a thermally
stratified lake in which temperature rapidly de-
creases with depth.
Most probable number (MPN): A statistical indi-
cation of the number of bacteria present in a giv-
en volume (usually 100 ml).
Nannoplankton: Those organisms suspended in
open water which because of their small size.
cannot be collected by nets (usually smaller than
approximately 25 microns).
Nitrification: The biochemical oxidation process
by which ammonia is changed first to nitrates
and then to nitrites by bacterial action.
Nitrogen, available: Includes ammonium, nitrate
ions, ammonia, and certain simple amines read-
ily available for plant growth.
Nitrogen cycle: The sequence of biochemical
changes in which atmospheric nitrogen is
"fixed," then used by a living organism, liberat-
ed upon the death and decomposition of the or-
ganism, and reduced to its original state.
Nitrogen fixation: The biological process of re-
moving elemental nitrogen from the atmos-
phere and incorporating it into organic
compounds.
Nitrogen, organic: Nitrogen components of bio-
logical origin such as amino acids, proteins, and
peptides.
Nonpoint source: Nonpoint source pollutants
are not traceable to a discrete origin, but gener-
ally result from land runoff, precipitation, drain-
age, or seepage.
Nutrient, available: That portion of an element
or compound that can be readily absorbed and
assimilated by growing plants.
Nutrient budget: An analysis of the nutrients en-
tering a lake, discharging from the lake, and ac-
cumulating in the lake (e.g., input minus output
= accumulation).
Nutrient inactivation: The process of rendering
nutrients inactive by one of three methods: (1)
Changing the form of a nutrient to make it un-
available to plants, (2) removing the nutrient
from the photic zone, or (3) preventing the re-
lease or recycling of potentially available nutri-
ents within a lake.
Oligotrophic lake: A lake with a small supply of
nutrients, and consequently a low level of prima-
ry production. Oligotrophic lakes are often char-
acterized by a high level of species
diversification.
Orthophosphate: See phosphorus, available.
Outfall: The point where wastewater or drainage
discharges from a sewer to a receiving body of
water.
Overturn, turnovers: The complete mixing of a
previously thermally stratified lake. This occurs
in the spring and fall when water temperatures
in the lake are uniform.
Oxygen deficit: The difference between ob-
served oxygen concentrations and the amount
that would be present at 100 percent saturation
at a specific temperature.
Peak discharge: The maxi'mum instantaneous
flow from a given storm condition at a specific
location.
-------
A-4
Percolation test: A test used to determine the
rate of percolation or seepage of water through
natural soils. The percolation rate is expressed
as time in minutes for a 1-inch fall of water in a
test hold and is used to determine the accept-
ability of a site for treatment of domestic wastes
by a septic system.
Perennial stream: A stream that maintains water
in its channel throughout the year.
Periphyton: Microorganisms that are attached to
or growing on submerged surfaces in a
waterway.
Phosphorus, available: Phosphorus which is
readily available for plant growth. Usually in the
form of soluble orthophosphates.
Phosphorus, total (TP): All of the phosphorus
present in a sample regardless of form. Usually
measured by the persulfate digestion procedure.
Photic zone: The upper layer in a lake where suf-
ficient light is available for photosynthesis.
Photosynthesis: The process occurring in green
plants in which light energy is used to convert in-
organic compounds to carbohydrates. In this
process, carbon dioxide is consumed and oxy-
gen is released.
Phytoplankton: Plant microorganisms, such as
algae, living unattached in the water.
Plankton: Unattached aquatic microorganisms
which drift passively through water.
Point source: A discreet pollutant discharge
such as a pipe, ditch, channel, or concentrated
animal feeding operation.
Population equivalent: An expression of the
amount of a given waste load in terms of the size
of human population that would contribute the
same amount of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) per day. A common base is 0.17 pounds
(7.72 grams) of 5-day BOD per capita per day.
Primary production: The production of organic
matter from light energy and inorganic materi-
als, by autotrophic organisms.
Protozoa: Unicellular animals, including the cili-
ates and nonchlorophyllous flagellates.
Rainfall intensity: The rate at which rain falls,
usually expressed in centimeters per hour.
Rational method: A means of computing peak
storm drainage runoff (Q) by use of the formula
Q = CIA, where C is a coefficient describing the
physical drainage area, I is the average rainfall
intensity, and A is the size of the drainage area.
Raw water: A water supply which is available for
use but which has not yet been treated or
purified.
Recurrence interval: The anticipated period in
years that will elapse, based on average prob-
ability of storms in the design region, before a
storm of a given intensity, and/or total volume
will recur; thus, a 10-year storm can be expected
to occur on the average once every 10 years.
Sewers are generally designed for a specific de-
sign storm frequency.
Riprap: Broken rock, cobbles, or boulders placed
on earth surfaces, such as the face of a dam or
the bank of a stream, for protection against the
action of water (waves).
Saprophytic: Pertaining to those organisms that
live on dead or decaying organic matter.
Scouring: The clearing and digging action of
flowing water, especially the downward erosion
caused by stream water in sweeping away mud
and silt, usually during a flood.
Secchi depth: A measure of optical water clarity
as determined by lowering a weighted Secchi
disk into a water body to the point where it is no
longer visible.
Sediment basin: A structure designed to slow
the velocity of runoff water and facilitate the set-
tling and retention of sediment and debris.
Sediment delivery ratio: The fraction of soil
eroded from upland sources that reaches a con-
tinuous stream channel or storage reservoir.
Sediment discharge: The quantity of sediment,
expressed as a dry weight or volume, transport-
ed through a stream cross-section in a given
time. Sediment discharge consists of both sus-
pended load and bedload.
Septic: A putrefactive condition produced by
anaerobic decomposition of organic wastes,
usually accompanied by production of malodor-
ous gases.
Standing crop: The biomass present in a body of
water at a particular time.
Sub-basin: A physical division of a larger basin,
associated with one reach of the storm drainage
system.
Substrate: The substance or base upon which an
organism grows.
Suspended solids: Refers to the paniculate mat-
ter in a sample, including the material that set-
tles readily as well as the material that remains
dispersed.
Swale: An elongated depression in the land sur-
face that is at least seasonally wet, is usually
heavily vegetated, and is normally without
flowing water. Swales conduct stormwater into
primary drainage channels and provide some
groundwater recharge.
Terrace: An embankment or combination of an
embankment and channel built across a slope to
control erosion by diverting or storing surface
runoff instead of permitting it to flow uninter-
rupted down the slope.
Thermal stratification: The layering of water
bodies due to temperature-induced density
differences.
-------
A-5
Thermocline: See metalimnion.
Tile drainage: Land drainage by means of a se-
ries of tile lines laid at a specified depth and
grade.
Total solids: The solids in water, sewage, or oth-
er liquids, including the dissolved, filterable, and
nonfilterable solids. The residue left when a
sample is evaporated and dried at a specified
temperature.
Trace elements: Those elements which are
needed in low concentrations for the growth of
an organism.
Trophic condition: A relative description of a
lake's biological productivity. The range of trop-
hic conditions is characterized by the terms
oligotrophicfor the least biologically productive,
to eutrophic for the most biologically productive.
Turbidity: A measure of the cloudiness of a liq-
uid. Turbidity provides an indirect measure of
the suspended solids concentration in water.
Urban runoff: Surface runoff from an urban
drainage area.
Volatile solids: The quantity of solids in water,
sewage, or other liquid, which is lost upon igni-
tion at 600° C.
Waste load allocation: The assignment of target
pollutant loads to point sources so as to achieve
water quality standards in a stream segment in
the most effective manner.
Water quality: A term used to describe the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics
of water, usually with respect to its suitability for
a particular purpose.
Water quality standards: State-enforced stan-
dards describing the required physical and
chemical properties of water according to its
designated uses.
Watershed: See drainage basin.
Weir. Device for measuring or regulating the
flow of water.
Zooplankton: Protozoa and other animal micro-
organisms living unattached in water.
-------
B-1
Appendix B
CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM REGULATIONS
(1) Cooperative Agreements for Protecting and
Restoring Publicly Owned Freshwater Lakes
(40 CFR 35 Subpart H, February 5, 1980).
(2) Availability of Clean Lakes Grant Assistance
(Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 132, pp.
29617-8, July 10, 1978).
-------
7788 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 25 / Tuesday. February 5. 1960 / Rules and Regulations
comments IB appropriate. Comments
with respect to cost limits for a given
location should be sent to the address
Indicated above.
A Finding of Inapplicability respecting
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, has been made In accordance
with HUD procedures. A copy of this
Finding of Inapplicability will be
available for public Inspection during
regular business hours in the Office of •
the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of
General Counsel, Room 5218, 451 7th
Street. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20410.
Accordingly, the per unit cost
schedules setting Prototype Cost Limits
for Low-Income Housing are amended
as follows:
At 24 CFR Part 841. Appendix A.
Prototype Cost Limits for Low-Income
Public Housing, revise the per unit cost
schedule for elevator dwellings, as
shown on the prototype per unit cost
schedule. Region X Kennewick.
Washington.
(Sec. 7(<0. Department of HUD Act 42 V3.C.
3535(d): Sec. 6(b) U A Homing Act of 1937,42
U.S.C 1437(d))
blued at Waihlngton, D.C on January 28,
1960.
Lawrence B. Simons,.
Aaiittant Secretary for Homing-Federal
Hooting Commiuioner.
MgtonX
UtfO 30.600 »MO-
(FR Doc. tO-SUi Filed t-t-Ot MS
SB-UNO COM 4310-0 M«
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
35 CFR Part 253
Panama Canal Commission Personnel
Matter*
AGENCY: Secretary of the Army.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Panama Canal Act of
1979. Pub. L No. 96-70, 93 StaL 452.
creates two statutory positions in the
Panama Canal Commission: A Chief
Engineer and an Ombudsman. This rule
, excludes those positions and their
principal assistants from the Merit
• System established pursuant to section
10 of an Act of July 25,1958, Pub. L No.
85-550,72 Stat. 408 and continued under
Title 2, Canal Zone Code, Section 149,
76A Stat. 18, and section 1214 of the
Panama Canal Act of 1979. The rule will
also exclude the positions from various
other provisions of the employment
system applicable to employment in
Federal agendes In the Republic of
Panama. Because this rule pertains to
personnel matters of the Panama Canal
Commission it is unnecessary to Issue a
notice of proposed rulemnking under
Title ft. U.S.C. Section 553.
EFPlcnvi DATE January 13,1980,
ADDRESS: Department of the Army.
Washington. D.C 20310.
POM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Colonel Michael Rhode, Jr.. Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (CW).
Washington. D.C 20310; telephone (202)
695-1370.
Adoption of ApMffK^1***1^
Accordingly, effective January 13,
1980. 35 CFR 253.8(b) is amended by
adding a new subparagraph (14) to read
as follows:
|2SM bdwlone.
(14) The positions in the Panama
Canal Commission of Ombudsman,
Chief Engineer. Assistant to the
Ombudsman, and Deputy Chief
Engineer.
• • • 0 • '
(Panama Canal Act of OTi. see. 1212.93 StaL
462,465:35 CFR 251 J(a)(l))
OlfloriL. Alexander. PV
Secretary of the Amy.
(PI Doe. B-SBO FIM S-frtt Ml m]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 3C
[FRL 13SS-4]
Cooperative Agreements for
Protecting and Restoring Publicly
Owned Freshwater Lakes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Final rule. , .
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
policies and procedures by which States
may enter into cooperative agreements
to assist in carrying out approved
methods and-procedures for restoring
publicly owned freshwater lakes, and.
protecting them against degradation, as
authorized by section 314 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C 1251 et seq.). This
regulation was proposed on January 29,
1979 (44 PR 5685) for a sixty-day public
comment period. EPA received 48 letters
of comment which we have considered
in developing this regulation.
•FPicnvl DATE This regulation governs
only clean lakes cooperative agreements
which are awarded after February 5,
1880. Cooperative agreements and •
grants that are awarded before February
5,1980, will continue according to their -
original terms subject to the regulations
under which the funds were awarded.
Clean lakes applications received before
February 5,1980 will be processed
according to past procedures.
ADDRESSES: Comments submitted on
these regulations may be Inspected at
the Public Information Reference Unit.
EPA Headquarters, Room 2922,
Waterside Mall. 401M Street. SW_
Washington. D.C 20460, between 8 a.m.
and 4 pjn. on business days.
POM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph A. Krivak, Criteria and
Standards Division (WH-485).
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C 20460. Telephone:
(202) 755-0100.
SUPPLEMCNTARY INFORMATION: This
"cgulation contains the policies and
procedures governing the provision of.
federal financial assistance to States for
the protection and restoration of
publicly owned freshwater lakes as
authorized by the dean Water Act (33
U.S.C 1261 et sec.) Section 314. The
program Is called the clean lakes
program.
The Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act natures all Federal :
Agencies to classify each assistance
transaction as either a grant or a
cooperative agreement EPA will award
grants when little Federal Involvement
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 25 / Tuesday. February S, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 7789
In the project is expected, and
cooperative agreements when
significant Federal involvement 1*
anticipated. We expect significant EPA
Involvement In all Clean Lakes projects
and have designated cooperative
agreements as the appropriate award
instrument
Section 314 requires each State to
prepare and submit a report to'EPA
including: (1) An identification and
classification of all publicly owned
freshwater lakes in that State according
to eutrophic condition; (2) procedures, •
processes, and methods (including land
use requirements) to control sources of
pollution of these lakes: and (3) methods
and procedures, in conjunction with.
appropriate Federal agencies, to restore
the quality of these lakes. Section 314
also provides financial assistance to
- States to Implement lake restoration and
protection methods and procedures
approved by the Administrator.
Pub. L. 95-217. amended section 314(b)
of the Clean Water Act by adding the
following: "The Administrator shall
provide financial assistance to States to
prepare the identification and
classification surveys required in
subsection (a)(l) of this section." On
July HX1078, EPA published a notice of
availability in the Federal Register for
States to: identify and classify their
publicly owned freshwater lakes
according to trophic condition, establish
priority rankings for lakes in need of
restoration: and conduct diagnostic-
feasibility studies to determine methods
and procedures to protect or restore die
quality of those lakes (43 FR 29617).
Total assistance of up to $100.000 Is
available to each State for this lake
classification survey. No award can
exceed 70 percent of the eligible cost of
the proposed project
EPA carefully evaluated the .
performance of the dean lakes program
during 1977 to determine how H might be
improved. Based on this evaluation, we
developed the revised procedures
contained in this regulation. We
published the proposed sectk>» 314
regulation, in the Federal Register {44 FR
5685) on January 29.1979, for a sixty-day
public comment period. In addition, we
sent approximately 1000 copies of the
proposed rule to the people identified on
the current mailing list of the
Environmental Resources Unit of the
University of Wisconsin—Extension, to
State agencies, environmental interest
groups and specific requestors. The
official comment period closed on .•
March 30.1979. aad EPA has received 4ft
comment letters. . ..-
The following discussion responds to
the comments received on the proposed
regulation and is arranged to the order
of. the sections of the regulation.
Changes made in the final form of the
regulation in response to public
comment are discussed. Our responses
to significant comments that did not
lead to changes are also discussed.
Definitions
FreahwatecJake
Some commenters believed that the
definition of freshwater lake (9 35.1605-
2} should not include a limiting value for
total dissolved solids (TDS). Section 314
allows funding only for publicly owned
"freshwater" lakes. Since TDS is found
In various scientific texts as a measure
to distinguish freshwater from brackish
water and saltwater, we believe it Is
relevant. We have selected a value of 1
percent TDS which is ten times the
value used on page 306 in the Water
Encyclopedia. Water Information
Center. Inc., Port Washington, New
York. 1970. We used the high value so
that freshwater lakes that have received
a high TDS loading B result of irrigation
return flows and other land management
practices (primarily in the far West) can
be eligible.
Publicly owned freshwater lake
Several comments concerned the
definition of "publicly owned freshwater
lake" (8 35.1605-3). We proposed that a
publicly owned freshwater lake is. "[a]
freshwater lake that offers public access
to the lake through publicly owned
contiguous lands so that any member of
the public may have the same or
equivalent opportunity to enjoy
privileges and benefits of the lake as
any other member of the public or as
any resident around the lake." We
understand that a lakeshore property
owner stands to receive greater benefit
from a lake than a day visitor. We have
omitted reference to the lakeside
resident bat we are still concerned
about the potential for the clean lakes
program providing benefits to the
lakeshore property owner rather than
the general public. However, since
projects demonstrating the greatest
pabHc Beuefts wMl receive the highest
priority under the review criteria In
135.1640-1. we do not expect problems.
Other commenters questioned the
appropriateness of requiring publicly
owned contiguous land as the public
access point We believe the
requirement is necessary to ensure that
the public maintains unrestricted use of
a laka after It is improved. Even so, in
some cases where publicly owned • • '
contiguous land Is not available,4h»
laka may have substantial public use
and benefit One State Indicated that by
State statute all lakes greater than 10
acres surface area are in the public
domain even if the shoreline is totally
private. The State statute also
guarantees that public access will be
provided. In these cases EPA will
require the State to define exactly where
the public access points are. and to
provide written agreements between the
State and particular private property
owners specifying the conditions and
limitations of the public access. We will
also require permanent signs to show
the public access points and specify any
lake use limitations. Similarly, States
could negotiate long terms leases or
similar arrangements with private land
owners, including private non-profits
groups, to provide the necessary public
access points. Again, we will require
signs to indicate the limitations and
extent of the public access. These
arrangements would have to be
completed before the award.
Eligibility
Some commentiera suggested that
section 314 cooperative agreements
should continue to be awarded to local
agencies. They contend that otherwise,
there will be a substantial erosion of the
grassroots orientation of the program.
We support the need to keep a
grassroots thrust in the clean lakes
program because of the voluntary nature
of this assistance program. However,
section 314 permits award of assistance
only to States. Even so, since some
States may not provide all
support required in clean lakes
cooperative agreements, local agencies
may provide the required remaining
matching funds. We believe this funding
'partnership will preserve the grassroots
nature of the program. We will work
with the appropriate State agencies to
assure that, they mlnlmlm associated
paperwork and "redtape." and provide
clear concise guidance to local agencies.
This will help to maintain the
enthusiasm and Involvement of local
agencies.
EPA received several comments,
concerning the eligibility of Indian
Tribes for section 314 funding. The
commenters were concerned that
because Indian lands do not fall under
the dominion of State Government
Tribal Governments may not be able to
participate in this program. The
statutory requirements of section 314
restricts award of assistance only to
States. Section 35.1615 allows States to
make financial arrangements with
agencies located within the State
Including Indian Tribes to support lake
restoration projects.
Some commenters objected to EPA's
policy of not awarding assistance for
lakes that are used only as drinking
-------
7790 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 25 / Tuesday, February 5, I960 / Rules and Regulations
water supplies. EPA has operated under
this policy since the first awards under
the clean lakes program in January 1978.
We believe that the primary purpose of
section 314 Is to implement the goals of
the Clean Water Act stated in section
101(a) as they relate to publicly owned
freshwater lakes. Section 101(a)(2)
states that it is the national goal
that wherever attainable, an interim
goal of water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish.
shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water be
achieved by July 1,1983." (emphasis
added) The conference committee report
of the 95th Congress, first session
(House Report No. 95-830) made special
note on page 94 in the comments of
changes made to the Clean Water Act
by the 1977 Amendments, that EPA
should give special attention to restoring
lakes which offer the potential for high •
utility as recreation areas. In keeping
with the existing EPA policy and in
support of the Congressional Intent we
do not believe it Is appropriate to allow
funding of projects for lakes that are
used only as drinking water supplies. •
Other funding sources are available to
assist municipalities and States with
protecting or improving drinking water
supplies. Most communities accomplish
this by assessing an appropriate water
users fee under a regular billing
procedure to support reservior and
processing plant operation and
maintenance costs. Also, a portion of
city and county taxes is likely to be used
for such high priority community
expenses.
Funding Level*
In the preamble of the proposed
regulation, we requested comments on
the proposed phasing of clean lakes
cooperative agreements and the funding
levels designated for each. The
seventeen commenters who responded
did not present persuasive arguments
that the program would be more
effective if the proposed matching
requirements were reduced. •
We continue to believe that the 50
percent matching requirement requires
sufficient State/substate (non-Federal)
commitment to assure the best project Is
implemented and proper maintenance of
the project is continued after
implementation is complete.
Lake Classification Requirement
1 A number of the comments concerned
J 35.1630, requiring States to classify
their publicly owned freshwater lakes In
need of protection and restoration by
January 1,1962 In order to be eligible for
funding support after that date under
section 314. As explained In the
preamble of the proposed rule, this
requirement does not mean that all of a
State's publicly owned freshwater lakes
must be surveyed, but a State must
provide EPA with survey results of their
priority lakes and the rationale for
selecting the lakes surveyed. Other
comments concerned EPA financial
assistance to the States to perform the
lake classification requirement. EPA will
continue to award this cooperative
agreement to States on a one-time-basis,
under the July 10,1976, Federal Register
notice, until September 30,1981.
Approximately 20 States applied for this
funding assistance. Most projects will be
conducted over 18 months. We will
restrict funding of this activity to a one-
time award until all States electing tou
participate have initiated .these efforts,
and we have reviewed the overall
program results.
Monitoring
A few commenters suggested the EPA
should make available a third award
phase for intensive monitoring of
perhaps 10 percent of the
implementation projects. The projects
would be carefully selected to evaluate
those lake restorative techniques that
have little documentation on their
capabilities and effectiveness. Although
committed to strengthen the
understanding of procedures to protect
and restore the quality of the Nation's
lakes, we continue to believe that some
monitoring of each project during and
after project implementation will
provide us with a better review of
program effectiveness than intensive
monitoring in a few projects. However.
we are encouraging EPA's Office of
Research and Development to conduct a
greater number of intensive
investigations of lake protection and
restoration techniques under the 104(h)
authority of the Clean Water Act We
believe this approach will be responsive
to both the program needs and the intent
of the legislation.
Application and Priority
Several commenters asked how many •
Phase 1 and Phase 2 project applications
an Individual State could submit for
funding consideration. The regulation
does not specify a number. However, all
applications must receive a State
priority and we will consider the State
priority placed on an application along
with the other criteria presented In
5 35.1640-1 when developing funding
recommendations. We do foresee
instances where, after considering all of
these factors, a State may receive more
than one of each type of cooperative
agreement >" • .
6-1
A significant number of comments
where received on the required content
of Phase 1 project applications. Most of
these comments indicated that the
information required is excessive and
costly to assemble or obtain. As
discussed in the preamble of the
proposed rule, we believe that this
information should be readily available
to States and local agencies. No study or
water quality monitoring is necessary to
obtain the information since only the
presentation of existing information is
required. Furthermore, the information
required in Phase 1 applications is
precisely the Information that
participating States are required to
assemble under their lake classification
surveys conducted under the July 10,
1978, Federal Register notice.
We have reduced the mandatory
information required in Phase 1
applications in response to those
comments. Although not mandatory,
S 35.1620-2(b) still Includes a list of
information that EPA believes should be
in a Phase 1 application to allow EPA to
effectively evaluate project applications
and make funding decisions.
Applications describing a proposed
project in more complete terms may
receive higher rating when evaluated
according to the review criteria in
S 35.1640-1.
EPA received four comments on the
State requirement to set priorities on
Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects as stated
in 8 35.1620-5. The commenters were
concerned principally with the State
capability to foresee specific projects 12
to 18 months in advance in sufficient
detail to allow them to apply realistic
funding priorities. We understand the
problems associated with these
procedures and realized that projects
and associated priorities set more than a
year in advance are subject to change.
In { 35.1620-5 we have allowed States to
alter project priority lists with a
minimum of State effort. We need the
information contained on State priority
lists to determine program needs. We
also need it to provide a basis for
adjusting our workforce to match the
identified workload.
Allotment
• In the preamble of the proposed
regulation we request comments
regarding the allocation of clean lakes.
program appropriations to assure an
equitable distribution of funds among
the States. We received 6 comments on
this Issue; 4 supporting the status quo,,
one supporting the specification in the
regulation of an annual deadline for
application submission, and (he other
suggesting that an allocation of
appropriations be made directly to the '
-------
Federal Register f Vol. 45. No. 25 / -Tuesday, February 5. M80 / Rules 4nd Regulations 7791
States, although no formula was
proposed. EPA's Office of General
Counsel (OGC) and Greats
Administration Division (GAD)
suggested that a Regional allocation
formula be considered as a means of
providing equitable funding distribution.
Despite the relatively small amount of
program appropriations, we believe an
allocation procedure has considerable
merit The advantages include: Regional
flexibility in the negotiations with States
for lake restoration projects, and better
Regional capability to forecast
workloads and develop appropriate
manpower plans for annual budget
submissions. Considering the
advantages mentioned above, EPA will
provide each Regional office a resource
target from the section 314 appropriation
based on State's Identification of clean
lakes work in the State WQM work
programs. The State identification will
consist of a two year forecasting of
clean lakes applications, with funding;
needs, as part of the annual work
program. The summation of these .
forecasts, coupled with the
Congressional appropriation, will permit
EPA to provide equitable resource
targets. Regional offices will use these
targets to negotiate projects within each
•State*' '
Targeting, based upon two year
forecasting in work programs, will take
effect in fiscal year 1982. For fiscal year
1981, EPA will target resources based on
State-supplied information in existing
State/EPA agreements, WQM work
programs, and from the WQM Needs
Survey.
Review Criteria
We have changed the application
review criteria presented under
{ 35.1640-1 to reflect several comments.
We have added a criterion to emphasize
the Importance of improving fish and
wildlife habitat and improving the
populations of fish species,
A few commenters questioned the
applicability of application review
criteria 135.1640-l(a)(4)(U-4v). We
believe that these criteria should be
considered by States to judge the cost of
a project In relation to public benefits
derived, e.g., the more persons using a
restored or protected lake the greater
the benefits from the expenditure of
public funds. Further, persons with low
Incomes cannot travel easily to lakes for
recreational purposes unless the lakes
are close to have sufficient public
transportation to them. Such factors
should be considered in the decision
making process. This component is not
intended to preclude lakerin rural
settings from receiving financial
assistance under the clean lakes •
program.
The project award procedures under
S 35.1650 have been changed. All EPA
funding decisions will be made in the.
-EPA Regional office by officials
designated by the Regional
Administrator. Program guidance and
technical assistance will be supplied by
EPA Headquarters, and all project
applications will receive Headquarters
review and technical recommendations.
Limitations on Award
1 Most comments on } 35.1650-2 were
editorial and only minor changes in the
language of this section have been
made. Specific comments questioned the
exclusion of aquatic plant harvesting as
a lake restoration procedure. Section
35.1650-2(b)(5) does not exclude aquatic
plant harvesting from supportable lake
restoration programs. However, we '
•believe that aquatic plant harvesting is
only a temporary restorative measure in
cases where pollution control measures
are not Implemented in the watershed to
the greatest practicable extent Even in
cases where such pollution controls are
in^lace, nutrient loading to the lake
may be so great that harvesting aquatic
vegetation may be required regularly to
allow use of the lake. We will not
generally consider a project for aquatic
plant harvesting unless it will result In
long lasting improvements.
A few commenters were confused
regarding the relationship between~208
State and areawide wastewater '
management planning and the eligibility
of a State to receive section 314 support
Section 208 planning does not have to be
approved for a State to receive clean
lakes assistance. If a 208 plan has been
approved, the pertinent and applicable
pollution controls identified in the 208
plan must be included in a clean lakes
Implementation plan. If a 208 plan has
not been approved but has been
developed, the pertinent and applicable
pollution controls identified In the 208
plan should be included in the clean
lakes project If there is no 208 planning,.
then the lake protection and restoration
procedures developed under a section
314 project should be consistent with
208 planning procedures so that the lake
restoration planning can be Included in
any future 208 planning activities for the
particular lake area.
In order to assure that these * \
procedures are followed. States must
certify under i 35.1820-2(8). that a
project is consistent with the State
Water Quality Management work
program (see fi 35.1513). Under
\ 35.1820-2(b). Phase 1 applications
shall include written certification from
the appropriate areawide or State 208
planning agency that work conducted
under Ihe proposed project will not
duplicate work completed under any 208
planning grant and that the applicant
proposes to use any applicable
approved 208 planning in the clean lakes
project design. Under 9 35.1620-2(c),
Phase 2 applications must contain
written certification from appropriate
areawide or^tato 208 planning agencies
that the proposed Phase 2 lake
restoration proposal is consistent with
any approved 208 planning.
One commenter suggested that 314
funding should be restricted so>that it is
not used to enhance boating or onshore
recreational opportunities. EPA did not
'include these restrictions in the
regulations for a variety of reasons.
Lakes are traditionally used as
recreational sites by the general public
and the degradation of those '
recreational sites through water
pollution prompted the Congress to
include section 314 in the Clean Water
Act. EPA is supportive of the multiple
use concept'in the use of public funds.
Frequently, the heavy use of the
immediate lake shore will promote
excessive pollutant loading, e.g..
sediment and plant nutrients. In some
cases, outright purchase of these lands
to provide buffer strips Is the most
effective method of pollution control
Often lake shores can be used for low
intensity recreational activities.
Similarly, land abutting the lake may be
purchased to provide an area to build a
lake treatment structure and these areas
should be considered for recreational
opportunities.
Since recreational opportunities and
water quality can sometimes be
improved by removal of accumulated
lake sediments. It would be
Inappropriate for EPA to ban dredging
as an element of a comprehensive lake
restoration project solely because It
would benefit recreational activities.
As a means to assure that adverse
environmental impact mitigation
procedures are implemented In a lake
restoration project we have removed
the 20 percent restriction on the cost of
mitigation activities.-All necessary
mitigation activities should be Included
in the project If mitigation costs are
excessive, then the public benefits,
. when evaluated against project costs,
will be lower and a proposed project
will have lower priority for funding.
Conditions on Award
Numerous commenters were .
concerned about payment of the non-
Federal share of a project by the State.
We have modified S 35.1650-3(a)(2) to
allow a State to arrange financing
through substate financial agreements.
-------
7792 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 5, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
We understand that In many instances
Ideal agencies will be providing some or
all of the required non-Federal matching
share for clean lakes projects. It should
be noted that as the only eligible award
recipient, the State assumes the ultimate '
responsibility for the non-Federal share.
Some commenters argued that the
monitoring program required under
Appendix A (b)(3) Is defined too rigidly.
We agree, so we have modified the
regulation to allow States and project
officers to negotiate a program that is
appropriate for each project
Most commentera on the award
conditions believe the requirement that
' States must maintain a project for ten
years after a project is completed is
excessive. We believe.that States should
agree to an operation and maintenance
program that would assure that effective
pollution controls are .maintained to
maximize the benefits in relation to the
cost of the project We believe that 10
years is a reasonable amount of time.
Because we have no data to defend the
coat effectiveness of this condition, it
has been modified to cover only the
project period We believe the
commitment by a State to an effective
operation and maintenance program In
the post project period is important and
should be given special consideration in
the evaluation of project proposals.
Therefore, the evaluation criteria have
been modified in 8 3S.164O-1 to include
an-assessment of the adequateness of
the proposed post project operation and
maintenance program.
We have changed section 35.1650-3(b)
to allow Phase 1 recipients to negotiate
with the project officer the project scope
of work that is stated in section (a)(10)
of Appendix A. Many commenters
argued that the information required by
section (a)(10) should be determined on
a case by case basis. We believe that
flexibility is desirable and will minimize
project costs without sacrificing
program integrity and public benefits.
Similarly, we have modified { 35.1650-
3(c) to allow flexibility on the design of
Phase 2 monitoring programs to fulfill
the requirement of section (b}(3) of
Appendix A. Again, EPA project officer
approval is required before the scope of
work can be modified.
EPA received a significant number of
comments on the reporting requirements
in 9 35.1650-5. The commenters were
critical of the number of reports required
and the amount of information required
in Phase 1 project progress reports.
Accordingly, we have modified the'
reporting requirements so that Phase 1
reports are only required semi-annually.
and the final report wifl be the only
Phase 1 report requiring the submission
of water, quality datsvThe frequency of
Phase 2 reporting will not exceed
quarterly and will be based on the
complexity of the project. The reporting
requirement will be stipulated in the
cooperative agreement
Several commenters requested
clarification of subsection (a)(7) of
Appendix A. We believe that recipients
end EPA should have sufficient
information about the usability of other
lakes in proximity to the project lake to
evaluate the benefits in relation to the
costs of a proposed project. The funds
available to support lake protection and
restoration activities are limited.
Information required by subsection
(a)(7) should be helpful to States in
establishing priorities for projects. The
regulations do not require States to
conduct exhaustive surveys of lake
resources within a 80 kilometer radius of
the project lake, but we do need an
understanding of similar lake use
opportunities in that distance to assure
appropriate use of public funds.
A few comments concerned the
procedures used to determine the
limiting nutrient in lakes. Section (a)(10)
of Appendix A requires the calculation
of total nitrogen to total phosphorus
ratios and/or the use of the algal assay
bottle tests. One commenter stated that
the algal assay bottle test should be a
required procedure. Although the bottle
test is an excellent Investigative
procedure, we believe that many States
lack the appropriate equipment to
perform these analyses and the costs
would be excessive in some cases.
Other commenters suggested that other
forms of nitrogen and phosphorus
should be used to calculate the N/P
ratio. We are aware of the significant
controversy over the appropriateness
and reprodudbillty of tests using other
fractional chemical forms of these
nutrients. EPA believes that at this time,
the total nitrogen and total phosphorus
ratio is the most desirable test
Appendix A calls for the measurement .
of several chemical forma of these
nutrients. Investigators and EPA may
wish to calculate other ratios in addition
to total nitrogen to total phosphorus
using these measurements.
Since the publication of the proposed
rules, EPA's Administrator on June 14,
1979. signed a memorandum to assure
that all environmental measurements
done with EPA funding result in usable
data of known quality. Any clean lakes
cooperative agreements, awarded after
OMB approves the-Administrator's
directive under the Federal Reports Act
win contain a condition requiring
compliance. . .
State/EPA Agreement
In these and other regulations, we are
developing the concept of a State/EPA
Agreement. The Agreement will provide
a way for EPA Regional Administrators
and States to coordinate a variety of
programs under the Clean Water Act
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act..the Safe Drinking Water
Act and other laws administered by
EPA. This subpart governs only that part
of the State/EPA Agreement which
relates to cooperative agreements under
the clean lakes program. Other programs
included in the State/EPA Agreement
will be governed by provisions found
elsewhere in this chapter. Beginning in
FY1980, State programs funded under
section 314 of the Act will be part of the
State/EPA Agreement and the.State/
EPA Agreement must be completed
before grant award EPA.will issue
guidance concerning the development
and the content of the State/EPA
Agreement
Regulatory Analysis
We have determined that this
regulation does not require regulatory
analysis under Executive Order 12044.
Evaluation
Section 2(d)(8) of Executive Order
12044 requires that each regulation be
accompanied by a plan for evaluating a
regulation after it issued. In order to '
comply with this requirement EPA will
conduct an evaluation of this regulation
which will either be presented in the
section 304(j) report which Is scheduled
to be published in December 1981, or
published separately.
Dated: January 2B. I960.
Douglas M Costto,
Administrator.
PART 35, SUBPART H ADDED
EPA Is amending Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by adding a new
Subpart H to Part 35 to read as follows:
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Subpart H—Cooperative Agreements for
Protecting and Restoring Putattdy Owned
Freshwater take*.
See.
35.1600 Purpose.
"35.1603 Summary of clean lakes astistance
program.
35.1605 Definitions.
35.1605-1 The Act
35.1605-2 Freshwater lake. , .
35.1605-3 PubJJcly owned fraahwaterlake.
35.1605-4 Nonpoiot source.
35.1605-5 EotropUc lake.
-------
Federal Register / VoV. 45. No.' 25 / Tuesday. February 5. I960 / Rules and Regulations 7793
Sec.'
35.1605-6 Trophfc condition.
35.1605-7 DeiaUnlution.
35.1605-8 Diagnostic-feasibility itudy.
35.1610 Eligibility.'
35.1613 pistribution of fund*.
35.1615 Substate agreement!.
35.1620 Application requirements.
35.1620-1 Types of assistance.
35.1620-2 Content* of applications.
35.1620-3 Environmental evaluation.
35.1820-4 Public participation.
35.1620-5 State work programs and lake
priority lists.
35.1620-6 State and local clearinghouse
procedures.
35.1630 State lake classification surveys.
35.1640 Application review and evaluation
35.1640-1 Application review criteria.
35.1650 Award.
35.165
-------
7794 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 5, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
the quality of the lake, specifying the
location and loading characteristics of
significant sources polluting the lake.
(b) The feasibility portion of the study
includes: (1) Analyzing the diagnostic
information te define methods and
• procedures for controlling the sources of
pollution: (2) determining the most
energy and cost efficient procedures to
improve the quality of the lake for
maximum public benefit (3) developing
a technical plan and milestone schedule
for Implementing pollution control
measures and in-lake*restoration
procedures; and (4] if necessary.
conducting pilot scale evaluations.
558.1610 EBgfbOty.
EPA shall award cooperative
agreements for restoring publicly owned
freshwater lakes only to the State
agency designated by the State's Chief
Executive. The award will be for
projects which meet the requirements of
this subchapter.
935.1613 attribution of fund*.
(a) For each fiscal year EPA will
notify each Regional Administrator of
the amount of funds targeted for each
Region through annual dean lakes
program guidance. To assure an
equitable distribution of funds the
targeted amounts will be based on the
clean lakes program which States
Identify in their State WQM work
programs. >
(b) EPA may set aside up to twenty
percent of the annual appropriations for
Phase 1 projects.
535.1615 Subst»*e serMmwrts.
States may make financial assistance
available to substate agencies by means
of a written interagency agreement
transferring project funds from the State
to those agencies. The agreement shall
be developed, administered and
approved in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 33.240
(Intergovernmental agreements). A State
may enter into an agreement with a
substate agency to perform all or a
portion of the work under a clean lakes
cooperative agreement Recipients shall
submit copies of all interagency
agreements to the Regional
Administrator. If the sum involved
exceeds $100,000, the agreement shall be
approved by the Regional Administrator
before funds are released by the State to
the substate agency. The agreement
shall incorporate by reference the
provisions of this subchapter. The
agreement shall specify outputs,
milestone schedule, and the budget
required to perform the associated work
in the some manner as the cooperative
agreement between the State and EPA.
935.1620 Anpirstton requirement*.
(a) EPA will process applications to
accordance with Subpart B of'Part 30 of
this sobchapter. Applicants for
assistance under the clean lakes
program shall submit EPA form 5700-33
(original with signature and two copies)
to the appropriate EPA Regional Office
(see 40 CFR 30.130).
(b) Before applying for assistance.
applicants should contact the
appropriate Regional Administrator to
determine EPA's current funding
capability.
935.1620-1 TypMOfaMtetaiK*.
EPA will provide assistance in two
phases in the clean lakes program.
(a) Phase 1—Diagnostic-feasibility
studies. Phase 1 awards of up to
$100,000 per award (requiring a 30
percent non-Federal share) are available
to support diagnostic-feasibility studies
(see Appendix A).
(b) Phase 2—Implementation. Phase 2
awards (requiring a 50 percent non-
Federal share) are available to support
the Implementation of pollution control
and/or in-lake restoration methods and
procedures including final engineering
design.
535.1620-2 Content! of appfcsttam.
(a) All applkations shall contain a
written State certification that the
project is consistent with State Water
Quality Management work program (see
§ 35.1513 of this sobchapter) and the
State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (if completed).
Additionally, the State shall Indicate the
priority ranking for the particular project
(see 135.1620-5).
(b) Phase 1 applications shall r-mtntn?
(1) A narrative statement describing the
specific procedures that will be used by
the recipient to conduct the diagnostic-
feasibility study including a description
of the public participation to be involved
(see 125.11 of this chapter):
(2) A milestone schedule;
(3) An Itemized cost estimate
including a Justification for these costs;
(4) A written certification from the
appropriate areawlde or State 208
planning agency that the proposed work
will not duplicate work completed under
any 208 planning grant, and that the
applicant is proposing to use any
applicable approved 208 planning In the
clean lakes project design; and
(5) For each lake being Investigated.
the information under subparagraph
(5)(i) of this paragraph and. when
available, the information under
subparagraph (5)(ii) of this paragraph.
(i) Mandatory information.
(A) The legal name of the lake,
reservoir, or pond.
(Bj The location of the lake within the
State, including the latitude and
longitude, in degrees, minutes, and
seconds of the approximate center of the
lake.
(C) A description of the physical
characteristics of the lake, including its
maximum depth (in meters); its mean
depth (in meters): its surface area (in
hectares); its volume (in cubic meteraj;
the presence or absence of stratified
conditions: and major hydrologic
Inflows and outflows.
(D) A summary of available chemical
and biological date demonstrating the
past trends and current water quality of
the lake.
(E) A description of the type and
amount of public access to the lake, and
the public benefits that would be
derived by implementing pollution
control and lake restoration procedures.
(F) A description of any recreational
uses of the lake that are impaired due to
degraded water quality. Indicate the
cause of the impairment such as algae.
vascular aquatic plants, sediments, or
other pollutants.
(Gl A description of the local interests
and fiscal resources committed to
restoring the lake.
(H)'A description of the proposed
monitoring program to provide the
Information required in Appendix A
paragraph (a](10) of this section.
(ii) Discretionary information. Steles
should submit this information when
available to assist EPA in reviewing the
application.
(A) A description of the lake
watershed in terms of size, land use (list
each major land use classification as a
percentage of the whole), and the
general topography, including major soil
types.
(B) An identification of the major
point source pollution discharges in the
watershed. If the sources are currently
controlled under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
include the permit numbers.
(C) An estimate of the percent
contribution of total nutrient and
sediment loading to the lake by the
identified point sources.
(D) An indication of the major
nonpoint sources in the watershed. If the
sources are being controlled describe
the control practice(s), including best
land management practices.
(E) An indication of the lake
restoration measures anticipated,
Including watershed management and a
projection of the net improvement in
water quality.
(F) A statement of known or
anticipated adverse environmental
impacts resulting from lake restoration.
-------
Federal Register / Vd 45. No. ,25 / Tuesday. Febroary S. t980 / Ruks and Regulations 7795
(c) Phase 2 applications shall include:
(1) The information specified in
Appendix A in a diagnostic/feasibility
study or its equivalent (2) certification
by the appropriate areawide or State 208
planning -agencies that the proposed
Phase 2 lake restoration proposal 1*
consistent with any approved 208
planning: and [8] copies of all issued
permits or permit applications (including
a summary of the status af applications)
that are required for the discharge of
dredged or fill material «mA»f section
404 of the Act
535.1620-3 Environmental evaluation.
Phase 2 applicants shall submit an.
evaluation of the environmental impacts
of the proposed project in accordance
with the-requirements in Appendix A of
this regulation.
5 35.1820-* PubBc participation.
(a) General. (1) In accordance with.
this Part and Part 25 of this chapter, the
applicant shall provide for, encourage.
and assist public participation in
developing a proposed lake restoration
project
(2) Public consultation may be
coordinated with related activities to
enhance the economy, the effectiveness,
and the timeliness of the effort, or to
enhance the clarity of the issue. This
procedure shall not discourage me
widest possible participation by the .
public.
(b) Phase 1. (1) Phase 1 recipients
shall solicit public comment in
developing, evaluating, and selecting
alternatives; in assessing potential
adverse environmental impacts; and -in
identifying measures to mitigate any
adverse impacts that were identified.
The recipient shall provide information
relevant to these decisions, in fact sheet
or summary form, and distribute them to
the public at least 30 days before
selecting a proposed method of lake
restoration. Recipients shall hold a
formal or informal meeting with the
public after all pertinent information Is
distributed, but before a lake restoration
method is selected. If there Is significant
public interest in the cooperative
agreement activity, an advisory group to
study the prooeM shall be formed in
accordance with the requirements of
{ 25.3(d)(4) of this chapter.
(2) A formal public hearing shall be
held if the Phase-1 recipient selects a
lake restoration method that involves
major construction, dredging, or
significant modifications to the
environment or if the recipient or the
Regional Administrator determines that
a bearing would be beneficial
(c) Phase 2. {!) A summary of the
recipient's response to all public
comments, along with copies «f any
written comments, ahail be prepared
and submitted to EPA with a Phase 2
application.
(2) Where a proposed project has not
been studied under a Phase 1
cooperative agreement the applicant for
Phase 2 assistance shall provide an
opportunity for public consultation with
adequate and timely notices'befoul
anhmftting an application to EPA. The
public shall be giuen the opportunity to
discuss the proposed project «he
alternatives, and aqy potentially
adverse environmental impacts. A
public hearing shall be held where the
proposed project Involves major
construction, dredging or other
significant modification of-the
environment The applicant shall
provide a summary of hfo reaponws to
all public comments and snbnit the
summary, along with copies
-------
7796 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 25 / Tuesday, February 5. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) the size and economic structure of
the population residing near the lake
which would use the unproved lake for
recreational and other purposes; (iii) the
amount and kind of public
transportation available for transport of
the public to and from the public access
points: (iv) whether other relatively
clean publicly owned freshwater lakes
within 60 kilometer radius already
adequately serve the population; and (v)
whether the restoration would benefit
primarily the owners of private land
adjacent to the lake.
(5) The degree to which the project
consider* the "open space" policies
contained in sections 201(f). 201 (g), and
208(b)(2)(A) of the Act
(6) The reasonableness of the
proposed costs relative to the proposed
work, the likelihood that the project will
succeed, and the potential public
benefits.
(7) The means for controlling adverse
environmental impacts which would
result from the proposed restoration of
the lake. EPA will give specific attention
to the environmental concerns listed in
Section (c) of Appendix A.
(8) The State priority ranking for a
particular project
(9) The State's operation and
maintenance program to ensure that the
pollution control measures and/or in-
take restorative techniques supported
under the project will be continued after
the project is completed.
(b) For Phase 1 applications, the
review criteria presented in paragraph
(a) of this section will be modified in
relation to the smaller amount of
technical information and analysis that
is available in the application.
Specifically, under criterion (a)(l), EPA
will consider a technical assessment of
the proposed project approach to meet
the requirements stated In Appendix A
to this regulation. Under criterion (a)[4).
EPA will consider the degree of public
access to the lake and the public benefit.
Under criterion (a)(7). EPA will consider
known or anticipated adverse-
environmental impacts Identified in the
application or that EPA can presume
will occur. Criterion (a)(9) will not be
considered
935.1650 Award.
(a) Under 40 CFR 30.345. generally 90
days after EPA has received a complete
application, the application will either
be: (1) Approved for funding in an
amount determined to be appropriate for
the project: (2) returned to the applicant
due to lack of funding; or (3)
disapproved. The applicant shall be
promptly notified in writing by the EPA
Regional Administrator of any funding •
decision*.
(b) Applications that are disapproved
can be submitted as new applications to
EPA if the State resolves the issues
identified during EPA review.
} 35.1650-1 Project period.
(a) The project period for Phase 1
projects shall not exceed three years.
(b) The project period for Phase 2
projects shall not exceed four years.
Implementation of complex projects and
projects incorporating major
construction may have longer project
periods if approved by the Regional
Administrator.
535.1650-2 UmrtiHon* on awards.
(a) Before awarding assistance, the
Regional Administrator shall determine
that:
(1) The applicant has met all of the
applicable requirements of 9 35.1620 and
5 35.1630; and
(2) State programs under section 314
of the Act are part of a State/EPA
Agreement which shall be completed
before the project is awarded.
(b) Before awarding Phase 2 projects,
the Regional Administrator shall further
determine that:
(1) When a Phase 1 project was
awarded, the final report prepared
under Phase 1 is used by the applicant
to apply for Phase 2 assistance. The lake
restoration plan selected under the
Phase 1 project must be implemented
under a Phase 2 cooperative agreement.
(2) Pollution control measures in the
lake watershed authorized by section
201, included in an approved 208 plan, or
required by section 402 of the Act have
been completed or are being
implemented according to a schedule
that is included in an approved plan or
discharge permit
(3) The project does not include costs
for controlling point source discharges
of pollutants where those sources can be
alleviated by permits issued under
section 402 of the Act or by the
planning and construction of'
wastewater treatment facilities under
section 201 of the Act
(4) The State has appropriately
considered the "open space" policy •
presented in sections 201(f). 201(g)(8)l
and 208(b)(2](A) of the Act in any
wastewater management activities
being implemented by them in the lake
watershed.
(5)(i) The project does not Include
costs for harvesting aquatic vegetation.
or for chemical treatment to alleviate
temporarily the symptoms of '
eutrophication. or for operating ana
maintaining lake aeration devices, or for
providing similar palliative methods and
procedures, unless these procedures are
the most energy efficient or cost -
effective lake restorative method, (ii)
Palliative approaches can be supported
only where pollution in the lake
watershed has been controlled to the
greatest practicable extent, and where
such methods and procedures are a
necessary part of a project during the
project period. EPA will determine the
eligibility of such a project, based on the
applicant's justification for the proposed
restoration, the estimated time period
for improved lake water quality, and
public benefits associated with the
restoration.
(6) The project does not include costs
for. desalinizatlon procedures for
naturally saline lakes.
(7) The project does not include costs
for purchasing or long termjeasing of
land used solely to provide public
access to a lake.
(8) The project does not include costs
resulting from litigation against the
recipient by EPA.
(9) The project does not include costs
for measures to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts that are not
identified in the approved project scope
of work. (EPA may allow additional
costs for mitigation after it has
reevaluated the cost-effectiveness of the
selected alternative and has approved a
request for an increase from the
recipient.)
935.1650-3 Condition* en award.
(a) All awards. (1) All assistance
awarded under the Clean Lakes program
Is subject to the EPA General Grant
conditions (Subpart C and Appendix A
of Part 30 of this chapter). (2) For each
clean lakes project the State agrees to
pay or arrange the payment of the non-
Federal share of the project costs.
(b) Phase 1. Phase 1 projects are
subject to the following conditions:
(1) The recipient must receive EPA
project officer approval on any changes
to satisfy the requirements of (a)(10) of
Appendix A before undertaking any
other work under the grant.
(2) (I) Before selecting the best .
alternative for controlling pollution and
improving the lake, as required in
paragraph (b)(l) of Appendix A of this
regulation, and before undertaking any
other work stated under paragraph (b)
of Appendix A. the recipient shall
submit an interim report to the project
officer. The interim report must include
a discussion of the various available
alternatives and a technical justification
for the alternative that the recipient-will
probably choose. The report must
include a summary of the public
involvement and the comments that
occurred during the development of the
alternatives, (ii) The recipient must
obtain EPA project officer approval of
-------
Federaj Register / Vol. 45. No. 25 / Tuesday, February 5, I960 / Rules and Regulations 7797
the selected alternative before
conducting additional work tinder the
project.
(c) Phase 2. Phase 2 projects are
subject to the following conditions:
(1) (i) The State shall monitor the
project to provide data necessary to
evaluate the efficiency of the project as
jointly agreed to and approved by the
EPA project officer. The monitoring
program described in paragraph (b](3) of
Appendix A of this regulation as well as
any specific measurements that would
be necessary to assess specific aspects
of the project must be considered during
the development of a monitoring
program and schedule. The project
recipient shall receive the approval of
the* EPA project officer for a monitoring
program and schedule to satisfy the
requirements of Appendix A paragraph
fb)(3) before undertaking any other work
under the project (ii) Phase 2 projects
shall.be monitored for at least one year
after construction or pollution confrol
practices are completed.
(2) The State shall manage and
maintain the project so thai all pollution
control-measures supported under the
project will be continued during the
project period at the same level of
efficiency as when they were
implemented. The "State will provide
reports regarding project maintenance
as required in the cooperative
agreement
(3)The State shall upgrade its water
quality standards to reflect a higher
water quality use classification if the
higher water quality use was achieved
as a result of the project (see 40 CFR
35.1550(c)(2)).
(4) If an -approved project allows
purchases of equipment for lake •
maintenance, such as weed harvesters,
ae'ration equipment and laboratory
equipment the State shall maintain and
operate the equipment according to an
approved lake maintenance plan for a
period specified In the cooperative
agreement, hi no case shall that period
be for less than the time it takes to
completely amortize the equipment.
(5) If primary adverse -environmental
impacts reach from implementing
approved lake restoration or protection'
procedures, the State shall include
measures to mitigate these adverse
Impacts at part of {he work under (he
project.
(6) U adverse impacts coord result to
unrecorded archeotogicri sites, the State
shall stop work or modify -work plans to
protect these sites in accordance -with
the National Historic Preservation Act
(EPA may allow additional costs for
ensuring proper protection -of
unrecorded archeofagical-flrlea tn the
project -area after reevduatmg
-------
7798 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 25 / Tuesday. February 5. 1980 / Rules and Regulations"
(4) A description of the size and
economic structure of the population
residing near the lake which would use
the improved lake for recreation and
other purposes.
(5) A summary of historical lake uses.
including recreational uses up to the
present time, and how these uses may
have changed because ofwater quality
degradation. . "^
(6) An explanation, if a particular
segment of the lake user population is or
will be more adversely impacted by lake
degradation.
(7) A statement regarding the water
use of the lake compared'to other lakes
within a 80 kilometer radius.
(8) An itemized inventory of known
point source pollution discharges
affecting or which have affected lake
water quality over the past 5 years, and
the abatement actions for these
discharges that have been taken, or are •
in progress. If corrective action for the
pollution sources is contemplated in the
future, the time period should be
specified.
(9) A description of the land uses in.
the lake watershed. listing each land use
classification as a percentage of the
whole and discussing the amount of
nonpoint pollutant loading produced by
each category.
(10) A discussion and analysis of
historical basejine limnological data and
one year, of current llmnoIogicaJ data.
The monitoring schedule presented in
paragraph (b)(3) of Appendix A must be
followed in obtaining the one year of
current limnological data. This
presentation shall include the present
trophic condition of the lake as well as
its surface area (hectares), maximum ,
depth (meters), average depth (meters),
hydraulic residence time, the area of the
watershed draining to the lake
(hectares), and the physical, chemical,
and biological quality of the lake and
important lake tributary waters.
Bath/metric maps should be provided. If
dredging Is expected to be Included in
the restoration activities, representative
bottom sediment core samples shall be
collected and analyzed using methods
approved by the EPA project officer for
phosphorus, nitrogen, heavy metals,
other chemicals appropriate to State
water quality standards, and persistent
synthetic organic chemicals where
appropriate. Further, the elutriate must
be subjected to test procedures
developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and analyzed for the same
constituents. An assessment of the
phosphorus (and nitrogen when it is the
limiting lake nutrient) inflows and '
outflows associated with the lake and a
hydraulic budget including ground water
flow must be included. Vertical
temperature and dissolved oxygen data
must be included for the lake to
determine if the hypolimnion becomes
anaerobic and. if so. for how long and
over what extent of the bottom. Total
and soluble reactive phosphorus (P); and
nitrite, nitrate, ammonia and organic
nitrogen (N) concentrator must be
determined for the lake. Chlorophyll a
values should be measured for the upper
mixing zone. Representative alkalinities
should be determined. Algal assay
bottle test data or total N to total P
ratios should be used to define the
growth limiting nutrient The extent of
algal blooms, and the predominant algal
genera must be discussed. Algal
biomass should be determined through
algal genera identification, cell density
counts [numbers of cells per milliliter) .
and converted to cell volume based on
factors derived from direct
measurements: and reported in biomass
of each major genus identified. Secchi
disk depth and suspended solids should
be measured and reported. The portion
of the shoreline and bottom that is
Impacted by vascular plants
(submersed, floating, or emersed higher
aquatic vegetation) must be estimated,
specifically the lake surface area
between 0 and the 10 meter depth
contour or twice the Secchi disk
transparency depth, whichever is less,
and that estimate should include an
identification of the predominant
species. Where a lake is subject to
significant public contact use or la
fished for consumptive purposes,
monitoring for public health reasons
should be part of the monitoring
program. Standard bacteriological
analyses and fish flesh analyses for
organic and heavy metal contamination
should be included.
(11) An identification and discussion
of the biological resources in the lake,
such as fish population, and a
discussion of the major known
ecological relationships.
(b) A feasibility study consisting of:
(1) An identification and discussion of
the alternatives considered for pollution
control or lake restoration and an
identification and justification of the
selected alternative. This should include
a discussion of expected water quality
improvement, technical feasibility, and
estimated costs of each alternative. The
discussion of each feasible alternative
and the selected lake restoration
procedure must Include detailed
descriptions specifying exactly what
activities would be undertaken under
each', showing how and where these
procedures would be implemented.
illustrating the engineering
specifications that would be followed
including preliminary engineering
drawings to show in detail the
construction aspects of the project, and
presenting a quantitative analysis of the
pollution control effectiveness and the
lake water quality improvement that is
anticipated.
(2) A discussion of the particular
benefits expected to result from
implementing the project, including new
public water uses that may result from
the enhanced water quality.
(3) A Phase 2 monitoring program
indicating the water quality sampling
schedule. A limited monitoring program
must be maintained during project
implementation, particularly during
construction phases or in-lake
treatment, to provide sufficient data that
will allow the State and the EPA project
officer to redirect the project if
necessary, to ensure desired objectives
are achieved. During pre-project,
Implementation, and post-project
monitoring activities, a single in-lake
site should be sampled monthly during
the months of September through April
and biweekly during May through
August. This site must be located in an
area that best represents the
limnological properties of the lake,
preferably the deepest point in the lake.
Additional sampling sites may be
warranted in cases where lake basin
morphometry creates distinctly different
hydrologic and limnologic sub-basins: or
where major lake tributaries adversely
affect lake water quality. The sampling
schedule may be shifted according to
seasonal differences at various
latitudes. The biweekly samples must be
scheduled to coincide with the period of
elevated biological activity. If possible.
a set of samples should be collected
immediately following spring turnover of
the lake. Samples must be collected
between 0800 and 1600 hours of each
sampling day unless diel studies are part
of the monitoring program. Samples
must be collected between one-half
meter below the surface and one-half
meter off the bottom,, and must be
collected at intervals of every one and
one-half meters, or at six equal depth
intervals, whichever number of samples
is less. Collection and analyses of all
samples must be conducted according to
EPA approved methods. All of the
samples collected must be analyzed for •
total and soluble reactive phosphorus;
nitrite, nitrate, ammonia, and organic
nitrogen; pH; temperature; and dissolved
oxygen. Representative alkalinities
should be determined. Samples
collected in the upper mixing zone must
be analyzed for chlorophyll a. Algal
biomass in the upper mixing zone should
be determined through algal genera
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 25 / Tuesday. February 5. 1980 / Rules and Regulations 7799
Identification, cell density counts
(number of cells per milliliter) and
converted to cell volume based on
factors derived from direct
measurements; and reported in terms of
biomass of each major genera identified.
Secchi disk depth and suspended solids
must be measured at each sampling
period. The surface area of the lake
covered by macrophytes between 0 and
the 10 meter depth contour or twice the
Secchi disk transparency depth.
whichever Is less, must be reported. The
monitoring program for each clean lakes
project must include all the required
information mentioned above, in
addition to any specific measurements
that are found to be necessary to assess
certain aspects of the project Based on
the information supplied by the Phase 2
project applicant and the technical
evaluation of the proposal, a detailed
monitoring program for Phase 2 will be
established for each approved project
and will be a condition of the
cooperative agreement Phase 2 projects
will be monitored for at least one year
after construction or pollution control.
practices are completed to evaluate
project effectiveness.
(4] A proposed milestone work
schedule for completing the project with
a proposed budget and a payment
schedule that is related to the milestone.
(5) A detailed description of how non-
Federal funds will be obtained for the
proposed project
(6) A description of the relationship of
the proposed project to pollution control
programs such as the section 201
construction grants program, the section
206 areawide wastewater management
program, the Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service and
Agriculture Stabilization and
Conservation Service programs, the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development block grant program, the
Department of Interior Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service
programs and any other local, State,
regional and Federal programs that may
be related to the proposed project.
Copies of any pertinent correspondence,
contracts, grant applications and
permits associated with these programs
should be provided to the EPA project
officer.
(7) A summary of public participation
. in developing and assessing the
proposed project which is in compliance
with Part 25 of this chapter. The
summary shall describe the matters
brought before the public, the measures
taken by the reporting agency to meet its
responsibilities under Part 25 and
related provisions elsewhere in this
chapter, the public response, and the
agency's response to significant
comments. Part 25.8 responsiveness
summaries may be used to meet
appropriate portions of these, .
requirements to avoid duplication.
(8) A description of the operation and
maintenance plan that the State will
follow, including the time frame over
which this plan will be operated, to
ensure that the pollution controls
'implemented during the project are
continued after the project is completed.
(9) Copies of all permits or pending
permit applications (including the status
of such applications) necessary to
satisfy the requirements of section 404
of the Act. If the approved project
includes dredging activities or other
activities requiring permits, the State
must obtain from the U.S. Army Corps ol
Engineers or other agencies the permits
required for the discharge of dredged or
fill material under section 404 of the Act
or other Federal. State or local
requirements. Should additional
information be required to obtain these
permits, the State shall provide it
Copies of section 404 permit
applications and any associated
correspondence must be provide to the
EPA project officer at the time they are
submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of.
Engineers. After reviewing the 404
permit application, the project officer
may provide recommendations for
appropriate controls and treatment of
supernatant derived from dredged
material disposal sites to ensure the
maximum effectiveness of lake
restoration procedures.
(c) States shall complete and submit
an environmental evaluation which
considers the questions listed below. In
many cases the questions cannot be
satisfactorily answered with a mere .
"Yes" or "No". States are encouraged to
address other considerations which they
believe apply to their project
(1) Will the proposed project displace
any people?
(2) Will the proposed project deface.
existing residences or residential areas?
What mitlgative actions such as
landscaping, screening, or buffer zones
have been' considered? Are they
included?
(3) Will the proposed project be likely
to lead to a change in established land
use patterns, such as increased
development pressure near the lake? To
what extent and how will this change be
controlled through land use planning,
zoning, or through other methods?
(4) Will the proposed project adversly
affect a significant amount of prime
agricultural land or agricultural
operations on such land?
(5) Will the proposed project result in
a significant adverse effect on parkland,
other public land, or lands of recognized
scenic value?
(6) Has the State Historical Society or
State Historical Preservation Officer
been contacted? Has he responded, and
if so. what was the nature of that
response? Will the proposed project
result in a significant adversely effect on
lands or structures of historic,
architectural, archaeological or cultural
value?
(7) Will the proposed project lead to a
significant long-range increase in energy
demands?
(8) Will the proposed project result in
significant and long range adverse
changes in ambient air quality or noise
levels? Short term?
(9) If the proposed project involves the
use of in-lake chemical treatment, what
long and short term adverse effects can
be expected from that treatment? How
will the project recipient mitigate these
effects?
(10) Does the proposal contain all the
Information that EPA requires in order
to determine whether the project
complies with Executive Order 11988 on
floodplains? Is the proposed project
located In a floodplain? If so. will the
project involve construction of
structures in the floodplain? What steps
will be taken to reduce the possible
effects of flood damage to the project?
(11) If the project involves physically
modifying the lake shore or its bed or its
watershed, by dredging, for example,
what steps will be taken to minimize
any immediate and long term advene
effects of such activities? When
dredging is employed, where will the
dredged material be deposited, what can
be expected and what measures will the
recipient employ to minimize any
significant adverse impacts from its
deposition?
(12) Does the project proposal contain
all information that EPA requires in
order to determine whether the project
complies with Executive Order 11990 on
wetlands? Will the proposed project
have a significant adverse effect on fish
and wildlife, or on wetlands or any
other wildife habitat, especially those of
endangered species? How significant is
this impact in relation to the local or.
regional critical habitat needs? Have
actions to mitigate habitat^estruction
been incorporated into the project? Has
the recipient properly consulted with
appropriate State and Federal fish, game
and wildlife agencies and with the U.S. •
Fish and Wildlife Service? What were
their replies?
(13) Describe any feasible alternatives,
to the proposed project in terms of
environmental impacts, commitment of
resources, public interest and costs and
why they were not proposed.
-------
7800 Federal Register / Vol 45. No. 25 / Tuesday. February 5. 13BO / Rofes and Regulations
(14) Describe other measures not
discussed previously that art necessary
to mitigate adverse environmental
impacts resulting from the
implementation of the proposed project
[PR Doc. 80-J394 Piled a-4-ME fttf u4
SUMO cooe MW-01-*
40 CFR Parts 51,52
[FRL-1404-*]
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration; Partial Stay of
Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Partial stay of regulations.
SUMMARY: By the administrative order
whioh appears below, EPA stays its
existing regulations for the prevention of
significant air quality deterioration, 40
CFR 51.24 and 52.21 (1978), as to any
source or modification which either (1)
would not be major under the
amendments to those regulations
proposed at 44 FR 51924 (September 5.
1979) or (2) would be located in an area
designated under Section 107 of the
Clean Air Act as nonattainment for each
pollutant for which the source or
modification would be major under the
proposed amendments.
EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of
the stay is the date of signature of this
notice. (January 30.1980)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT!
James Welgold. Standards
Implementation Branch (MD-15), Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park. N.C 27711.919/
541-5292.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June
1979, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit in a
preliminary opinion held invalid certain
key provisions of the regulations for the
prevention of significant air quality
deterioration which EPA had
promulgated approximately one year
earlier ("the 1978 PSD regulations"). See
Alabama Power Company v. Costle, 13
ERC 1225. Those regulations appear at
40 CFR 51.24 and 52.21 (1978). '
In September 1979. EPA proposed
comprehensive amendments to the 1978
PSD regulations in response to the
preliminary opinion in Alabama Power.
See 44 FR 51924. Among those
amendments are rules that would
replace the provisions the court held
invalid Also among them are important
provisions that would complement the
replacements, for example, certain da
minimia exemptions [see id. at 51037-
38). *
On December 14.1979, the Court of '
Appeals in a final opinion reaffirmed Its
earlier decisions on the validity of the
provisions al Issue In Alabama Power.
See 13 BBC 1983. Hence, when the
opinion comet into «*fft»gt, ft will tender
ineffective key elements af the 1478 PSD
regulation*.
EPA Witt be. unable to complete the •
rulemaking it began in September until
at least June 1980. The comments EPA
has received so far are voluminous and
raise important issues thai deserve
serious consideration. In addition, in
response to numerous requests, EPA
recently reopened the rjimmpn* period
for comment on the September
proposals in light of the final opinion of
the court Furthermore, EPA is
reanalyzing the proposed de minimia
exemptions ""^ completing an economic
Impact assessment of the proposals.
Finally, internal review of drafts of the
final amendments will require
considerable Hm».
To avoid the uncertainty and
confusion that would occur if the
opinion came into effect before EPA
completed the rulemaking it began In
September, EPA and many of the
petitioners in Alabama Power have
asked the court to keep the opinion from
mining into effect until June 2.1SBO, on
the condition that EPA issue the
. administrative stay which appeats
below.
The purpose of the administrative stay
is to relieve from the permitting
requirements of the 1979 PSD
regulations roughly those sources, and
modifications that would not be subject
to the permitting requirements of valid
replacement regulations that would
comport with the Alabama Power
opinion. Obviously, it would be unfair
and unnecessary to force such sources
and modifications to get a PSD permit
under the 1978 PSD regulations during
this transition period.
EPA has decided to issue the
administrative stay before the court acts
on the request of the various parties hi
Alabama Power. Many persons are
ready to begin construction of sources
and modifications that would need a .
PSD permit under the 1978 PSD
regulations, but not-under valid
replacement regulations. EPA has
concluded mat to allow the 1978 PSD
regulations te> interfere any longer with
such construction would be both unfair
and unnecessary. Hence, it is issuing the
administrative stay which appeezs .
below.
EPA regards the issuance of the
administrative stay as "nationally
applicable" "final action" within the
meaning of Section 307(b)(l) of the '
Clean Air Act (die "Act"). 42 U.S.C.
7607{b](l). EPA does not. however.
regard the stay as the "promulgation or
revision of regulations" within the
meaning of Section 307(d)(l)(n of the
Act 42 ILSC. 7607^f)(l)(r). The stay is
merely on order providing equitable
relief during the period before the
completion of the rnlemaking that EPA
began in September. The procedural
requirements of Section 307(d),
therefore, do not apply to the issuance •
of the administrative stay.'
In any event those requirements, as
weO as the notice and comment
requirements of Section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (the
"APA"), 5 U.S.C. 553. do not apply for
other reasons. First, meeting either set of
requirements would be "contrary to the
public interest" within the meaning of
Section 4(bKB) of the APA. 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), since it would unnecessarily
delay the construction of those sources
and modifications to which the stay
applies. Meeting those requirements
would also be "unnecessary" within tfie
meaning of that section, since the stay
provides relief which is generally
consistent with the final opinion of die
court in Alabama Power. Finally,
meeting those requirements would be
"Impracticable" within the meaning of
Section 4(b)(B), since U would defeat the
very purpose of the stay: to provide
relief as soon as possible and. together
with a judicial stay of the effect of the
' final opinion, free the agency to
f ?nrpitft on i^*^ mlptnalrinfl j£ began
in September. See Clean Air Act
S 3u7(d){lHN), 42 US-C. 76Q7(d)(l)(N).
For the same reasons, EPA finds that it
has good cause to make the
administrative stay immediately
effective. See APA S 4(d). 3 US.C.
553(d).
The administrative stay opens a gap
in th*- coverage of the new source
review requirements for nonattainment
areas that EPA intends to dose in the
near future through the promulgation of
final rules. In general, those
nonattainment requirements currently
do not apply to a source or modification
that although locating in an area
designated "**"aHalm««mt £gr enrfa
pollutant for which.it would be major,
would not significantly impact those
portion* of the- area where pollution
actually exceeds the appiiable national
ambient air quality standard or
standards (NAAQS). See, e.g.. 40 CFR
Part 51. Appendix S, 9 D(D). 44 FR 3283
(January 18, 1979). In establishing that
"clean pocket" exemption, EPA
assumed that PSD permitting
requirements would apply to any such
source or modification, thereby filling
the gap in tba coverage of the
-------
NOTICES
29617
Council on Environmental Quality and
the Council of Economic Advisers; and
the Director of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget. The Committee will
make recommendations to the Presi-
dent and the Congress later this year
on the desirability and possible design
of policy options Including solid waste
disposal charges, resource conserva-
tion subsidies, direct product regula-
tion, local solid waste user fees, and
other policy proposals. They would
like to Include the public In the decl-
sionmaklng process and are soliciting
views on these potential legislative ini-
tiatives.
July 3.1978.
BARBARA BLUM.
Deputy Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency.
CFR Doc 78-18816 Filed 7-7-78: 8:45 am]
[6560-Oi]
tFRL 923-5J
AVAILABILITY OF CLEAN LAKES GRANTS
ASSISTANCE
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of
Grants Assistance.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) will provide fi-
nancial assistance to States for the
identification and classification of
publicly owned freshwater lakes ac-
cording to trophic condition and the
establishment of a priority ranking for
lakes determined In need of lake resto-
ration, or the conduct of feasibility
studies to determine methods and pro-
cedures to protect or restore the qual-
ity of such priority lakes. Matching
grants (70-percent Federal/30-percent
State) are available to States for this
purpose.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10.1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Interested parties should contact the
appropriate EPA regional office (see
app. C) or Mr. Kenneth M. Mack-
enthurr. Director, Criteria and
Standards Division (WH-585). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington. D.C. 20460. 202-755-
0100. to obtain additional guidance
for the development of acceptable
proposals.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section 314(a) of the Clean Water Act.
as amended (33 U.S.C. 466. et seq.)
• states that-
Each Slate shall prepare or establish, and
submit to the Administrator for his approv-
al—U> an Identification and classification
according to eutrophic condition of all pub-
licly owned freshwater lakes In such State;
(2) procedures, processes, and methods (In-
cluding land use requirements), to control
sources of pollution of such lakes; and (3)
methods and procedures. In conjunction
with appropriate Federal agencies, to re-
store the quality of such lakes.
Section 314(b) states that the Ad-
ministrator shall provide financial as-
sistance to States for carrying out ap-
proved methods and procedures In-
cluding lake identification and classifi-
cation surveys.
EPA currently is developing regula-
tions to administer EPA grant assist-
ance under section 314. The public
notice of this 'intent was published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER (43 FR 20821.
May 15. 1978). The regulations will re-
quire the States to establish and
submit to the Agency a classification
and priority listing of publicly owned
freshwater lakes in need of restorative
action. This lake classification and pri-
ority listing would be used by the
States to implement technically feasi-
ble lake restorative methods and pro-
cedures.
Matching grants to States of up to
9100,000 Federal funds per State (70-
percent Federal/do-percent State) are
available to assist with the establish-
ment of a State's lake classification
survey and a lake restoration priority
ranking, or feasibility studies to estab-
lish methods and procedures to restore
particular lakes. The minimum
amount of work required under the
grant will consist of the survey, classi-
fication, and restoration priority rank-
Ing of significant publicly owned
freshwater lakes. A significant lake is
any lake determined by the State to
have substantial public Interest and
use, and restoration of the lake would
provide a cost-effective Increase in
public benefit. It Is expected that a
State will classify and prioritize within
2 years from the date of this notice all
publicly owned freshwater lakes
within .the State for which restorative
assistance under the EPA clean lakes
program may be requested. A final
report and two copies presenting the
classification and priority ranking is
due within 18 months from the grant
award date. Funds may be used by the
grantee to conduct diagnostic or feasi-
bility studies to determine appropriate
restorative methods and procedures on
those lakes designated with the high-
est State priorities. Fiscal year 1978 re-
sources to support this grant activity
are limited, but resources are expected
in fiscal year 1979 to continue this
effort.
Grant requests will be evaluated and
awarded on the basis of merit In comr
parison with other grant applications.
Any grants awarded must comply with
the general grant regulations in 40
CFR Part 30 and any additional grant
requirements incorporated in the
grant agreement. Semiannual progress
reports must be submitted to the
Agency project officer.
. Guidance for the development of
lake classification Information is pre-
sented in appendix A; guidance for the
conduct of diagnostic or feasibility
studies Is presented In appendix B.
Grant requests should be submitted
on EPA form 5700-33 in an original
with signature to the appropriate EPA
regional office within 30 days from the
date of this notice for consideration
for fiscal year 1978 funding. The grant
request narrative should contain the
plan of action proposed to be used by
the-State to survey their lakes, the
method to be used in establishing the
State restoration priority ranking for
the surveyed lakes, and the expected
number of lakes to be surveyed and di-
agnostic studies to be conducted. A
cost estimate and budget rationale for
conducting the lake classification
survey, establishing a priority ranking
of the surveyed lakes, and performing
specific diagnostic and feasibility stud-
ies must be included.
Interested State representatives
should contact'the appropriate EPA
regional office (see app. C) or Mr.
Kenneth M. Mackenthun. Director,
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-
585), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. 202-
755-0100, to obtain additional guid-
ance for the development of accept-
able lake classification surveys and
grant applications.
Dated: June 30; 1978.
SWEP T. DAVIS,
Acting Assistant Administrator
• for Water and Hazardous Ma-
terials (.WH-556.)
APPENDIX A
GUIDANCE POR DEVELOPMENT OT LAKE
CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION
Classifications or Inventories of eutrophic
lakes should Include necessary physical,
chemical, and biological lake characteristics
to afford a description of lake water quality
to a degree that It can be effectively utilized
by the Stale agency and EPA In setting pri-
orities on lake restoration activities and In
determining the nature and extent of'a
State's lake eutrophtcatlon problem. A sug-
gested Information reporting format Is
listed below. This format should not be con-
sidered exclusive and each State is encour-
aged to develop a precise classification
system to meet the Individual State's needs.
For each lake surveyed the report must In-
clude:
The official name of the lake, reservoir, or
pond that Is legally used to Identify It.
The location of the lake within the State,
including the latitude and longitude in de-
grees and minutes, of the approximate
i center of the lake.
A summary of available chemical and bio-
logical data demonstrating the current
water quality of the lake.
An Indication If the lake was surveyed In
the National Eutrophtcatton Survey con-
ducted by EPA.
An Indication that the lake Is publicly
owned and affords the same opportunity for
recreational usage to any citizen of the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 1M-MONDAY. JULY 10, 1971
-------
29618
NOTICES
United States as to the property owners sur-
rounding the lake.
A description of any Inherent recreational
values of the lake that are currently Im-
paired due to degraded water quality: Indi-
cate the cause of such Impairment such aa
algae, vascular aquatic plants, or sediments.
A description of the general physical char-
acteristics of the lake Including maximum
depth (In meters): mean depth (In meters):
surface area (In hectares): volume (In cubic
meters): presence or absence of stratified
conditions: and major Inflows and outflow*.
A description of the lake watershed In
terras of area, land use (list each major
land-use classification as a percentage of the
whole), and the general topography Includ-
ing major soil types.
An Identification of the major point
source pollution discharges In the water-
shed; Indicate If the source Is currently con-
trolled under the National Pollution Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES). and If
so. include the permit number.
An Identification of the major nonpolnt
pollution sources in the watershed. Indicate
U the source Is being controlled and Include
a description of the control practiced) In-
cluding best land management practice*.
A list of the name and address of any des-
ignated local or State 208 planning or man-
agement agencies with authority In the
lake's drainage basin.
A description of the local Interests and re-
source commitment In restoring the take.
An indication of the probable lake restor-
ative measures required, when applicable In-
cluding land treatment required.
APPENDIX B
CUTDAJ1C1 FOR FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Clean Lakes proposals to Implement lake
restoration methods and procedures or to
conduct diagnostic or feasibility studies
leading to such Implementation should In-
clude at least the following Information
preferably in the order presented and under
appropriate subheadings:
An Identification of the waters to be re-
stored or studied. Including their name.
State in which located, location within the
State, area, maximum depth, average depth,
detention time, and general relationship
with associated upstream and downstream
waters.
A geological description of the drainage
basin Including soil types and soil loss to
stream courses that are tributary to the
lake.
A summary of historical lake uses Includ-
ing recreational lake uses through the pres-
ent time and how these may have changed
through the years because of water quality
degradation. A statement must be made re-
garding the water use of this lake compared
to other lakes within a 50-mile radius.
An Itemized Inventory of known point
source domestic or industrial pollutions! dis-
charges affecting or which have affected
lake water quality over the past 5 years and
the abatement actions that have been
taken, are In progress, or are contemplated
within a specified time period.
An Identification and discussion of the
particular water quality problems Involved.
including historical IU available) and cur-
rent test data and llmnologlcal data to sup-
port the-water quality statement. One year.
of current baseline data should be Included.
For lake restoration project Implementa-
tion, a discussion and analysis of current ba-
seline data and a proposed monitoring or In-
vestigative program with schedule for evalu-
ation of the lake restoration project during
the period of Its Implementation and at
least one year after completion. Such data
must Include the present trophic condition
of the water body as well as Its surface area.
maximum depth, average depth, hydraulic
residence time, area of the watershed drain-
ing to the lake, and the physical, chemical.
and biological Impact of Important tributar-
ies. Bath/metric maps should be provided
and. where dredging Is part of the restora-
tion plan, representative bottom sediment
core samples and analyses for nutrient con-
tent, heavy metals, and persistent organic
chemicals must be provided. An assessment
of nitrogen and phosphorus Inflows and out-
flows associated with the lake and a hydrau-
lic budget including ground water flow must
be Included. Vertical temperature and dis-
solved oxygen data are essential and It must
be determined If the hypollmnlon becomes
anaerobic and. If so. for how long and over
what extent of the bottom. The extent of
algal blooms, and the predominant algal
species must be discussed. The portion of
the shoreline and bottom that Is Impacted
by vascular plants (submersed, floating, or
emersed higher aquatic vegetation) must be
estimated and .that estimate must Include
an Identification of the predominant spe-
cies. A detailed monitoring program will be
established for each approved project and
will be specified In any grant agreement
supporting Implementation of restorative
procedures. Periodic guidance for monitor-
Ing methods and procedures will be pro-
vided.
An identification and discussion of the
biological resources In the lake, such as fish
populations, and the major known ecologi-
cal relationships.
An Identification and discussion of the al-
ternatives for pollution control or restor-
ative action considered; and Identification
and Justification of the selected alternative
including a discussion of expected water
quality Improvement, technical feasibility.
and estimated costs.
A discussion of the particular public bene-
fits expected to result from Implementation
of the project. Including new public water
uses that may be associated with the en-
hanced water quality. •
A proposed milestone work schedule for
project completion with a proposed budget
and payment schedule relating to progress
milestones.
Evidence that all requirements of OMB
Circular A-93 have been met.
A description of pertinent relationships of
the proposed project to local, State and Fed-
eral pollution control programs, section 208
areawide wastewater management agencies.
Soil Conservation Service programs as de-
scribed by Pub. L. 83-366, Department of
Housing and Urban Development programs,
and any other local, State and Federal pro-
grams which may bear a relationship to the
proposed project.
In order to minimize the programmatic
Impacts of a project In the event that sig-
nificant adverse Impacts are expected, appli-
cants are required to submit an environmen-
tal assessment taking Into consideration the
questions listed below. In many cases the
questions cannot be satisfactorily answered
with a mere "Yes" or a "No" and may re-
quire a quantitative answer. This list Is not
exclusive and applicants are encouraged to
address other considerations which they be-
lieve apply to their project.
1. Will the proposed project result In the
displacement of any human population?
2. Will the proposed project result In the .
defacement of existing residences or resi-
dential areas? What mltlgatlve actions such
as landscaping, screening, or buffer zones
have been considered? Are they Included?
3. Will the proposed project be likely to
lead to a change In established land use pat-
terns, such as Increased development pres-
sure near the lake? To what extent will this
change be controlled through land use plan-
ning, zoning, or through other methods?
4. How does this project conform to
areawide waste treatment management
plans. If any, in accordance with section 208
of the act?
5. Will the proposed project adversely
affect a significant amount of agricultural
land or agricultural operations on this land?
6. Will the proposed project result In a sig-
nificant adverse effect on parkland, other
public land, or lands of recognized scenic
value?
7. Will the proposed project result In a sig-
nificant adverse effect on lands or struc-
tures of historic, architectural, archaeologi-
cal, or cultural value? If so has the Slate
Historical Society or State Historical Preser-
vation Officer been contacted? What reply?
8. Will the proposed project lead to a sig-
nificant long-range Increase In energy de-
mands?
9. Will the proposed project result In sig-
nificant and long range adverse changes to
ambient air quality or noise levels? Short
term?
10. If the proposed project Involves the
use of ln-lake chemical treatment, what
long and short term adverse effects are to
be expected from such treatment? How will
such effects be mitigated?
II. Is the proposed project located In a
floodplaln? If so, will the project Involve the
construction of structures In the floodplaln?
What steps will be taken to reduce the pos-
sible effects of flood damage to the project?
IX If the project Involves the physical
modification of the lake shore or Its bed,
through dredging for example, what step;
will be taken to minimize any Immediate ad-
verse effects of such activities? Have the ap-
propriate State and Federal agencies (e.g.,
0.S. Army Corps of Engineers) been con-
sulted to obtain permits or approvals for
such activities where necessary? When
dredging Is employed, where will the dredge
spoil be deposited, what will the expected
Impacts be. and what measures will be em-
ployed to minimize any significant adverse
Impacts from Its deposition?
13. Will the proposed project have a sig-
nificant adverse effect on fish and wildlife
and wetlands or any other wildlife habitat, '
especially those of endangered species?
What Is the significance of this Impact In re-
lation to the local or regional critical habi-
tat needs? Have mltlgatlve actions for habi-
tat destruction been considered? Has proper
consultation been made with appropriate
State and Federal fish, game and wildlife
agencies? What reply? ~
14. Describe any feasible alternatives to
the proposed project In terms of environ-
mental Impacts, commitments of resources
and costs and why, In balance, they were
not proposed.
15. Summarize any additional objections
and comments (Including favorable) which
have been made on this project by Federal.
State, .or local agencies and Interested per-
sons.
16. Has public comment on this propc «d
project been solicited through hearing/ md
what were the results?
FfDEKAL IEGISTEK, VOL 43, NO. 132—MONDAY, JULY 10. 197*
-------
C-1
Appendix C
C1 NONPOINT SOURCE LOADINGS
C2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
C3 INSTITUTIONAL
• Evaluation Methodology
• Examples of Management Institutions
C1 NONPOINT SOURCE LOADINGS
Introduction
This appendix presents estimates of pollutant
loads and discusses control techniques associat-
ed with lake eutrophication problems. The prob-
lems are assumed to be caused by excessive
biostimulation of plankton and rooted aquatic
plants. The contaminants of primary concern are
nitrogen and phosphorus. Information on other
contaminants will be presented if included in the
original citation.
Nutrient Input Levels
The level of nutrient input is expressed either
as a mass loading per unit of land area per unit
time or as a concentration of pollutant. Reckhow,
et al. (1980) present the most comprehensive
summary to date of nitrogen and phosphorus
loads expressed in units of kg/ha-yr. Omernik
(1977) presents the most comprehensive sum-
mary of information on nutrient concentrations.
An indirect way to* estimate nutrient loads is to
use the Universal Soil Loss Equation to predict
annual soil loss (McElroy, et al. 1976; Wisch-
meier and Smith, 1965; Davis and Nebgen,
1979). This estimate is multiplied by an enrich-
ment coefficient to determine the corresponding
nutrient load (Zison, 1980). There is no single
correct way to express the quantity of nutrient
input to a lake. Loads or concentrations may be
used given that they result from a properly per-
formed integration of the short-term fluxes into
a total annual input.
Selection of an Averaging Time
Reported literature values of nutrient fluxes
may represent short term (minutes or hours), in-
termediate (storm event, weekly, or monthly) or
longer term (seasonal or annual) averages. The
appropriate averaging time depends on the pur-
pose of the study. For analyzing nutrient inputs
to lakes, the appropriate averaging time is usual-
ly 1 year since the approximate hydraulic resi-
dence time in lakes is of this order of magnitude
and the concentration value is a long-term aver-
age. Short-term, high concentration transients
are not of primary concern.
As a general rule, the study period should be
keyed to the average time it takes a parcel of wa-
ter to travel through the lake. Reckhow (1979) re-
ports hydraulic detention times from 82 lakes
ranging from 1 day to 57.6 years.
-------
C-2
The sampling interval and duration selected
should be determined by the averaging period
which will be used to characterize input loads.
For lakes with hydraulic detention of almost a
year or more than a year, average annual inputs
are of primary concern. In this case, monitoring
efforts should cover at least 1 year, and the fre-
quency at which samples are taken should be
such that seasonal and other important vari-
ations can be adequately characterized in order
to permit a reliable estimate of annual loads. For
lakes with very short hydraulic detentions (days
or weeks), the annual average load may be less
pertinent than a monthly or seasonal average. In
such cases, a monitoring program of several
months may suffice, though this will often call
for a shorter sampling interval than would suf-
fice for annual load estimates.
Care must be taken that data from such moni-
toring efforts is evaluated properly in developing
estimates of average loadings. One common
error is introduced by not properly "flow-
weighting" observed concentrations. As an ex-
ample, the lower portion of Figure C1-1 shows a
typical hydrograph for a hypothetical river dis-
charging into a lake, based on daily streamflow
measurements that are typically available from
U.S. Geological Survey records. The upper por-
tion shows 12 measurements of nutrient concen-
trations taken every 30 days over the year. Qual-
ity data of this type may be available from EPA's
STORET data base.
A too-frequently used approach calculates the
annual flux as the product of the arithmetic aver-
age nutrient concentration measurements and
the average daily flow. This method may give
very misleading results. For example. Smith
(1976), in a study of phosphorus transport from
two New Jersey watersheds, found that a dis-
proportionate share of the total phosphorus load
was contributed by the more intense storms.
Various techniques are available for
"flow-weighting" observed concentrations, to
improve estimates of average loads. In the situa-
tion illustrated by Figure C1-1, the simplest
method would be to divide the year into 12 peri-
ods, each assumed to be characterized by one of
the concentrations plotted. The average flow for
that period is estimated and used to calculate
1/12 of the annual load. The sum of all 12 ele-
•-NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION
MEASURED EVERY 30 DAYS
100 150 200 260 300
DAY OF YEAR
360
Figure CJ-f. Discharge and Nutrient Concentration Versus Time for a Hypothetical River.
-------
C-3
ments provides one estimate of the annual load.
An alternative approach would be to analyze this •
data to define a correlation between flow and
concentration. If the data should show an ac-
ceptable correlation (limited data may result in
too much scatter to define such a relationship
with any confidence), then the annual load
would be calculated from the product of the av-
erage annual flow and the concentration corre-
sponding to that flow.
Procedures for estimating annual input levels
have been developed for suspended solids
based on many years of experience (Guy, 1964).
This data base is far better than for nutrients.
Twenty years of daily sediment measurements
are available for several streams. The compo-
nent of suspended solids which is of prime
importance for nutrient transport is the wash-
load of finer solids transported from the land
during runoff periods. Careful analysis by
Rendon-Herrero (1974) indicated that relatively
good relationships can be found between sus-
pended solids load (SS) and the storm event sur-
face runoff component of the hydrograph. The
resulting rating curve is of the form:
SS = aO"
(C1-1)
where SS = suspended solids load (mass
units per event)
Q = storm runoff (volume per
event)
a,b = coefficient
The value of b is important. If (from evaluation
of site data):
b > 1, then SS concentration in-
creases as flow increases,
b = 1, then SS concentration is con-
stant, or
b < 1, then SS concentration de-
creases as flow increases.
Assuming nutrient loads are a linear function
of suspended solids, these nutrients will be
transported in the same manner. Note that if b is
greater than 1, then the larger storms are of
prime importance whereas if b is less than 1 the
smaller storms take on greater relative impor-
.tance. This information is vital to establishing a
proper control program.
Lacking such a refined data base, local data
need to be gathered and compared to existing
numbers to derive better estimates of nutrient
loads. Prior knowledge of the area should pro-
vide good clues as to when the most significant
nutrient transfers occur, e.g., immediately after
fertilization when agricultural land is still fallow.
If the primary cause of the problem appears to
be related to soil erosion then the Universal Soil
Loss Equation should be used because it can ap-
proximate seasonal changes and the impact of
erosion control best management practices
(BMP). If septic tank seepage and/or sewage ef-
fluent appear to be of prime importance, then
unit area loading factors are appropriate.
The next subsections summarize the available
literature values. While they provide some gen-
eral information regarding nutrient levels in
similar situations, local information is essential
to a meaningful analysis.
<
MA«IUUM
VALUE
7«»
VALUE
MEDIAN
VALUE
28»
VALUE
MINIUUU
VALUE
\
}
/
•(
I
,-J
I
\ / STATISTICAL INTER-
\ / SIGNIFICANCE QUARTILE
/•-I OF THE RANOE
/ \ MEDIAN
f \
GROUP *
OROUR •
Figure C1-2. The Basic Configuration of a Box Plot
and Comparison of the Plots Processing
Significantly Different Medians (Reck-
how, et al. 1980).
Annual Unit Area Loads
(Export Coefficients)
The recently completed report by Reckhow, et
al. (1980), provides the most complete summary
of available export coefficients. Only catchments
with at least 1 year of data were included. How-
ever, the report does not indicate how the loads
were calculated. Also, the unit loads are as-
sumed to be independent of runoff. No general
procedures for accounting for catchment size are
provided. Nevertheless, a large number of
catchments are included. Thus, a good possibil-
ity exists that local study areas may be matched
with one in the Reckhow report which has simi-
lar characteristics (land use, precipitation pat-
tern, size).
General results from this study are presented
in Figures C1-3 and C1-4, following Figure C1-2,
which explains the measures of central tendency
and variability. The median load is used because
of the large amount of variability in the data. Use
-------
C-4
of the median is preferable if the coefficient of
variation (standard deviation divided by the
mean) is greater than 1.
Annual Unit Area Concentration
Omernik (1977) summarizes mean (not
median) phosphorus and nitrogen concentra-
tions based on analysis of 730 watersheds
throughout the United States. These watersheds
were sampled as part of the National Eut-
Figure C1-3. Box Plots of Nitrogen Export Coefficients
from Various Land Uses (Reckhow, et al.
1980).
rophication Survey. The results for nitrogen and
phosphorus are shown in Figures C1-5 and C1-6,
respectively.
Using mean concentration probably leads to
higher estimates than Reckhow, et al. (1980)
found because of the disproportionate influence
of a few high values of concentrations.
Figure C1-4. Box Plots of Phosphorus Export Co-
efficients from Various Land Uses
(Reckhow, et al. 1980).
-------
N
68 >90% FOREST
77 >76% FOREST
295 260% FOREST
6 276% CLEARED UNPRODUCTIVE
16 260% CLEARED UNPRODUCTIVE
103 2 MIXED
12 260% RANGE:
REMAINDER PREDOMINANTLY FOREST
17 276% RANGE
10 260% RANGE:
REMAINDER PREDOMINANTLY AGRICULTURE
144 >60% AGRICULTURE
11 240% URBAN
72 275% AGRICULTURE
74 280% AGRICULTURE
LAND USE
VS.
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN AND MEAN
INORGANIC NITROGEN STREAM CONCENTRATIONS
DATA FROM 004 'NONPOINT SOURCE-TYPE' WATERSHEDS
DISTRIBUTED THROUQHOUT THE UNITED STATES
INORGANIC NITROGEN CONCENTRATION
If
.804
.839
/
TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION
1.0
1
2.0 3.0 4.0
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
6.0
6.0
Figure Ct-5. Relationships between general land use and total nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams (Omernik. 1977).
o
01
-------
o
o>
68 2 80% FOREST
77 276%FOREST
286 2 60% FOREST
6 > 76% CLEARED UNPRODUCTIVE
16 260% CLEARED UNPRODUCTIVE
103 2 MIXED
12 2 60% RANGE:
REMAINDER PREDOMINANTLY FOREST
17 2 76% RANGE
10 > 60% RANGE:
REMAINDER PREDOMINANTLY AGRICULTURE
144 > 50% AGRICULTURE
1 1 > 40% URBAN
72 > 76% AGRICULTURE
74 2 80% AGRICULTURE
LAND USE
VS.
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND MEAN
ORTHOPHOSPHORUS STREAM CONCENTRATIONS
DATA FROM 904 'NONPOINT SOURCE-TYPE* WATERSHEDS
DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES
.014
.^ORTHOPHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION
.034
J-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION
j.161
.02
.04
.06
.08
.10
.12
.14
.16
.18
.20
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Figure C1-6. Relationships between general land use and total phosphorus and orthophosphorus concentrations in streams (Omernik, 19771.
-------
C-7
Urban Storm Water Loads
The best source of information on urban storm
runoff loads is the EPA Urban Rainfall Runoff
Data Base (Huber, et al. 1979). Quality data are
available for the eight cities shown in Figure
C1-7. These data are collected at very frequent,
e.g., 5- or 10-minute intervals to evaluate
intrastorm pollutant transport. The sampling
procedures were not set up primarily to estimate
long term loads of interest in lake eutrophication
studies.
EPA's National Urban Runoff Program is con-
ducting extensive sampling in thirty cities
throughout the United States (see Figure C1-8).
Further information regarding these ongoing
studies can be obtained from EPA Regional Of-
fices or from quarterly progress reports pub-
lished by EPA's Office of Water and Waste Man-
agement, Washington, D.C.
Smolenyak (1979) has performed a detailed
analysis of the EPA Urban Rainfall Runoff Data
Base. The general procedure he adopted was
based on the Rendon-Herrero model (Equation
C1-1), which has proved to be a good pre-
dictive equation for suspended solids, in sedi-
ment transport studies. The key to successful ap-
plication of this model is the utilization of storm
event averages, rather than instantaneous meas-
ured values. Smolenyak concluded that a single
rating curve model provided good estimates of
the relation of nutrient loads to storm event
runoff volumes. His results are presented in Ta-
ble C1-1. The rows for total nitrogen (NTOT) and
total phosphorus (TOP) are underlined. Each
data point is a storm event total for an urban
catchment. The equation for total nitrogen is:
NTOT = 0.0400 (FLOW)071 . (C1-2)
where NTOT = nitrogen load per storm
event (Ibs/acre)
FLOW = urban runoff event volume
(inches)
The exponent is less than 1, indicating that
load increases at a decreasing rate as flow in-
creases. Similar results were found for phospho-
rus. By contrast, total suspended solids (TSS) in-
crease at an increasing rate as flow increases.
This type of equation can be used if a continuous
simulation is desired.
A relatively crude model for estimating urban
loads for three land uses located in storm and
combined sewered areas was developed as part
of a national assessment (Heaney, et al. 1977).
These estimates are based on data available
through 1975. If annual pollutant loads are as-
sumed to vary as a function of population densi-
LINCOLN V
, A i )
: ^F \WEST LAFAYETTE
N / ' i««sS fM.5SOU.UV _ I.. (* (.-'•r^A/
\ / ' WICHITA > V •/ /' ^ / 'ALLS CHURCH
\ /-._ ' j •§ ! CHAMPA.ON-URBANA >.-'' vi«^'.'^\
i S. .j""'°«» 4 ! • I \.J .ENTUC^^U-r- ^DURHAM
— ^|LO8 ANQELE8 / T'[»AS~"? -.'BT.NW3 ij "NHt X' ^..-WINSTON-'sALEM
^-••—; ' '"*•— i f \ : \ r
HOUSTON
^QUALITY CITIES
{QUANTITY CITIES
Figure C1-7. Location map for cities with rainfall- runoff-quality data (quality cities) and rainfall-runoff data
(quantity cities) (Huber, et al. 1979).
-------
c-a
ty, precipitation, land use, and type of sewer sys-
tem, the following relationship may be used:
and
where
mw =
mw =
for combined
sewered areas, (C1-3)
for storm and
unsewered areas (C1-4)
mw = annual wet weather pollu-
tant load, Ib/ac/yr;
P = annual precipitation, in/yr;
.f|(POd) = population density function
for land use i (persons/
acre);
a(i,j) = coefficient for storm and
unsewered areas for pollut-
ant j on land use i, Ib/ac/yr/
in; and
p(i,j) = coefficient for combined
sewered areas for pollutant
j on land use i, Ib/ac/yr/in.
Table C1-1
Relationships Between Pollutant Loads
and Flow Volume (Flow) Developed
Using All of the EPA
Urban Rainfall — Runoff Data Base
Model Load = a(FLOW)b
Dependent Slg. Level No. of
Variable, m R* F-Tett Events
BOD
COD
NH3N
NITN
NTOT
ORGN
TOTN
OOP
TOP
TOTOP
TOTP
TPHOS
TOTS
TSS
.28
.76
.44
.80
.57
.88
.74
.83
.46
.27
.66
.91
.69
.56
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.90
.99
.99
.99
.99
80
157
20
21
103
40
37
34
119
11
53
8
41
• 260
• Rag. Coef.
a b
34.0
29.8
.215
.119
.0400
.856
.304
.0648
.0104
.0800
.426
.105
279.0
44.2
1.12
1.08
.72
.80
.71
1.04
1.07
.98
.78
.55
1.5
1.05
1.41
1.10
Source: Smolanyak 11979)
j.M.f\
Figure C1-& Location of NURP Prototype Projects (Woodward-Clyde. 1980).
-------
C-9
Tab/e C1-2
Urban Pollutant Loading Factors as a Function of Land Use
Land Uses:
Pollutants:
Population Function:
i = 1
i = 2
i = 3
i = 4
i = 1
j = 2
j = 3
j = 4
1 = 5
i = 1
i = 2.3
i = 4
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other (assume PDa = 0]
BODJotal
Suspended Solids (SS)
Volatile Solids, Total (VS)
Total P04 (as PO,)
Total N
f,(PDa) = 0.142 + 0.218 • PD;M
f,(PDd) = 1.0
f,(PDd) = 0.142
a and ft Factors for Equations: Storm factors, a, and combined factors, ft, have units Ib/ac/yr/in.
Pollutant
Storm
Areas, a
Combined
Areas, ft
1. Residential
2. Commercial
3. Industrial
4. Other
1. Residential
2. Commercial
3. Industrial
4. Other
BOD.
0.799
3.20
1.21
0.113
3.29
13.2
5.00
0.467
SS
16.3
22.2
29.1
• 2.70
67.2
91.8
120.0
11.1
VS
9.45
14.0
14.3
2.6
38.9
57.9
59.2
10.8
">,
0.0336
0.0757
0.0705
0.00994
0.139
0.312
0.291
0.0411
N .
0.131
0.296
0.277
0.0605
0.540
1.22
1.14
0.250
Source. Heany. et al. (1977)
Values of a(i,j), and p(i,j) and f^PD) are shown in
Table C1-2.
This method should only be used for a first ap-
proximation. As an example, the annual nitro-
gen load per acre for a residential area (popula-
tion density = 10 persons/acre) served by storm
sewers and receiving 30 inches per year of pre-
cipitation is:
n\ = a{1.5) (P) (.142 + .218PD,54)
= 0.131 (30) (.142 + .218 (10)54)
= 3.53 Ib/acre/yr. Since 1 Ib = .454 kg and 1
acre = .4047 ha, the load in metric units is
3.96 kg/ha/yr, about 20 percent less than
Reckhow's estimate.
rn.
Agriculture and Precipitation
In addition to Omernik (1977), the Agricultural
Research Service(1975) presents summary infor-
mation on nutrient concentrations. The results
are shown in Figure C1-9.
General Estimates
Estimates of annual nutrient loads made to
support planning activities conducted under the
2Q8 Program are shown in Table C1-3 (U.S. EPA,
1976c). These data are not as good as the later
studies.
Table C1-3
Nonpoint Source and Urban Stormwater Emission Rates (Ib/acre/yr)
Irrigation In
Western U.S.
COD
BOD
NOj-N
Total N
Total P
Sediment
Forett
.62-7.8
2.7-11.6
.027-.27
-75
Rang*
.62
.07
-750
Active
Cropland
.09-11.6
.05-2.6
-15,000
Surface
Drainage
2.7-24
.89-3.92
Sub-Surfac*
Drainage
74
37.4-166
2.7-8.9
Cropland
Til*
Drainage
.27-11.6
.009-.26
3 Dwelling Units/
Acre Sewage
Urban
196-276
27-45
6.2-8
.98-5.0
-16,000
Treated*
240.0
95.9
63.4
63.4
12.8
31.9
Untreated
1,598.1
639.3
0.0
127.8
31.9
213.1
Construction
3,000-375,000
•Standard Secondary Treatment. 60% P Removal. 85% BOD Removal. 50% Nitrification.
Hyphen (•) mwnj date unevtilable.
Source-. U.S. EPA. I1978cl
-------
C-10
Nutrient Loads as a Function of Erosion
Rates
The Universal Soil Loss Equation is based on a
far better data base than presently exists for ni-
trogen and phosphorus. Thus procedures have
been developed to estimate nutrient loads as a
function of erosion rates, predicted by the Uni-
versal Soil Loss Equation (McElroy, et al. 1976).
Davis and Nebgen in Loehr, et al. (1979) describe
how to use the "nonpoint calculator." The proce-
dure is too detailed to present here. The
interested reader is referred to the reference for
specific details. More recent estimates of nutri-
ent enrichment ratios are presented in Zison
.(1980).
Effect of Drainage Sub-Basin Size on
Sediment or Nutrient Export
Drainage sub-basin size has a significant im-
pact on the annual flux of nutrients for a drain-
age sub-basin. Because of lack of data, good re-
sults are not available directly for nitrogen and
phosphorus. However, estimates are available
for erosion as shown in Table C1-4.
This area! scaling factor is needed as part of the
USLE because the loading data are all derived
from small field level farm plots of the same
size. By contrast, the loads reported in the
eutrophication literature are for a wide variety of
catchment sizes. Table C1-4 can be used in the
absence of other data to scale direct nutrient
loading information up or down depending on
relative catchment sizes.
As an illustration of the effect of scale, the
drainage area loads of N and P are significantly
less than the field level studies (see Table 4-2).
Table C1-4
Delivery Ratios for Various-Sized Drainage Sub-Basins
Drainage Area (ha)
2.43
4.05
13.0
46.6
259
1,300
13,000
51,800
Delivery Ratio
.65
.60
.50
.40
.30
.22
.12
.03
Source: McElrov. elal 11976)
0
P
CONCENTRATION-PPM
01 0.1 1.0 10.0 10(
*
|P PRECIPITATION llllllifliN
CROPLAND RUNOFF P| y^MZM^M,"
1111111111111111111111 N NON-CROPLAND RUNOFF
P| | DRAINAGE ^^^^^^^N
).0
Figure C1-9. Range of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentrations in Different Waters (Agricultural Research Ser-
vice. 1975).
-------
C-11
Simulation Models to Estimate Nutrient
Fluxes
The information presented thus far provides a
basis for making an estimate of the steady state
nutrient flux to a lake. If a few years of data are
available it may be desirable to use a continuous
simulation model to estimate the seasonal vari-
ability in nutrient fluxes. Several of the models
shown in Figure C1-10 may be used (Huber and
Heaney, 1979). The table indicates which models
are appropriate for which problems.
Summary
A summary of currently available literature
values for estimating annual nutrient flux (load
or concentration) to a lake have been presented
for a variety of land uses. The importance of
properly using concentration and flow data to
estimate total annual fluxes has been stressed.
Also, the hydraulic detention time of the lake
should be used to obtain a rough idea of the
length of the study period needed to estimate
fluxes over a cycle. While the available data base
is growing rapidly, the need for local calibration
data is stressed in order to meaningfully evalu-
ate site specific influences.
Utilization of continuous simulation models
will add to the complexity of the study effort, but
may provide the most effective way of estimat-
ing pollutant fluxes to lakes where averaging pe-
riods of considerably less than a year are re-
quired. This may be necessary where the water
quality problem being addressed has a short
characteristic response time to input loads. Ex-
amples of such problems include violations of
California standards which cause beach closure,
and lake Dissolved Oxygen responses to soluble
BOD loads.
C2 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The observation was made in Section 4.0 of
this manual that selecting effective control tech-
niques or management practices will be a highly
site-specific task. General groupings of practices
can be made, according to the nature of the
nonpoint source or activity. Although there will
be a degree of similarity (in erosion control
measures, for example), the particular form
which a control measure takes will tend to be
quite different in application in forested, agricul-
tural, and urban watersheds. Some measures
are unique to a particular type of nonpoint
source (street sweeping for urban areas; contour
plowing for cropland). For this reason, each of
the major nonpoint sources of pollutant loads,
as delineated in Section 4.0, is discussed sepa-
rately here. Control approaches that have been
considered or applied are listed; but, because of
the degree of site-specificity, no recommenda-
tions can be made. Additional details on applica-
bility, cost, and performance of individual con-
trol measures should, be obtained from the
references cited in this manual. Details on cost
and performance are beyond the scope of a
manual of this type, but, more importantly, the
body of information on these aspects is growing
rapidly at this time. Results from individual stud-
ies and broader programs now in progress
(NURP, Clean Lakes, 208 studies, etc.) are ex-
pected to add significantly to our information
base over the next few years.
Silviculture
Control techniques can be classified as proce-
dural, preventive, or mitigative. Procedural con-
trols relate to administrative actions: for exam-
ple, evaluating alternative ways in which a
particular silvicultural activity may be carried
out, in terms of water quality effects. Preventive
controls apply to decisions on details of how to
implement activities so that pollutant export will
be minimized: for example, access roads and
trails may be rated to leave buffer strips along
streams, or avoid grades with high erosive po-
tential. Mitigative controls are physical, chemi-
cal, or vegetative measures applied to amelio-
rate problems that exist at present, or will result
even after full advantage is taken of procedural
and preventive measures: for example, careful
design and construction of stream crossings
(Currier, et al. 1974; Loehr, et al. 1979).'
Of all nonpoint sources, silvicultural activities
are among those most controllable by procedur-
al and preventive actions, principally because of
the fact that only a small percentage of a
forested area is affected at any one time, and ac-
tivities are moved successively to different areas
from time to time. Further, many of the preven-
tive activities are common sense, "good house-
keeping" type actions or decisions that can be
put into effect without an undue burden on tech-
nical or economic resources of the forester.
-------
- |j|y|]P •••^i r*.
'
APPLICABLE
LAND AREA
/ /
TEM-
PORAL
PROP-
ERTIES
/
SPE-
CIAL
PROP.
/
HYDROLOGY
/* /
HYDRAULICS
i 1
QUALITY PROCESSES
i
RESIDUALS
1
9 / / •„ 1
9
^
N
r.v, ;,/.»•.
&V&5
" r'*••*.:•
MODEL NAME
CD
lu
a
cT
CD
I
o
«
iu
lu
5
CD CD
(U CO 03
a iu *
* £ S o i 3Si*S'»>-f-ti 3*0/00
•?/« « o £/£ 505**°^ f/
o
o
o
lu
o o
to ft
Figure CJ-10. Applicability of Runoff Models to Various Problem Contexts (Huber and Heany, 1980).
-------
C-13
Specific silvicultural activities that increase
erosion potential, and for which control prac-
tices can be applied, are described briefly here.
Table C2-1 summarizes a set of management
practices by Forestry from the State of Virginia's
Best Management Practices Handbook, and a
qualitative rating of feasibility and control effec-
tiveness. Applicable BMP numbers are identified
with each of the activities in the description
below.
Roads and trails. Construction, use, and
maintenance of access roads and skid trails (for
moving logs from stump area to loading station)
expose the ground surface to erosion, and can
alter drainage patterns in a manner which may
intensify erosive forces. Control measures in-
clude routing across, rather than up and down
slopes, where possible, providing artificial drain-
age where normal patterns are disrupted seri-
ously, and restricting use during adverse weath-
er periods.
Applicable BMPs (from Table C2-1): D1, D2,
03, 018, D19.
Timber harvest. Harvesting of timber in-
creases erosion potential in cleared area by re-
moving forest canopy and exposing ground sur-
face to energy by rainfall, by disturbing ground
surface, and by increasing runoff due to reduced
evapotranspiration. Removal of trees adjacent to
streams can increase water temperature be-
cause shading is eliminated. Control measures
include leaving buffer strips near streams,
prompt reseeding of area, and runoff diversion
or impoundment in critical areas.
Applicable BMPs: D7, 08, D11, 015, 017, 018.
Reforestation. Preparation of a site for re-
planting will include combinations of the follow-
ing activities that tend to increase erosivity.
Chop, or chop and burn activities involve the
felling of remaining noncommercial trees. Mate-
rial is often burned to further clear the site. Shear
and windrow activities prepare the ground for
replanting by cutting off residual vegetation at
the ground surface, and piling the material in
rows, leaving intervening ground clear. Heavy
equipment is usually employed in these oper-
ations, and residual material is often burned.
Applicable BMPs: 04, 05, 012, 013, 014, 016,
017, 018.
Burning. This is sometimes used as a man-
agement tool and increases erosion potential by
exposing ground surface. The mobility of the re-
maining ash and the minerals it contains may be
increased.
Applicable BMP: 010.
Chemical application. Intensive timber man-
agement sometimes includes application of fer-
tilizers and pesticides. Forest fertilization of es-
tablished tree stands is reported to be growing
in the Northwest and Southwest (U.S. EPA,
1976a); but in the Northeast, there is no signifi-
cant use of broadcast fertilizer to encourage tree
growth (New England Natural Resources Center,
1977).
Applicable BMP: 06.
Nonsilvicultural activities. Activities that of-
ten occur in forested watersheds, and can con-
tribute to pollutant export, but which are not as-
sociated with silviculture operations, are
recreational activities and grazing. Camping, rec-
reational travel, and fishing and hunting are
common in many areas, and can result in prob-
lems ranging from waste disposal to site mainte-
nance. Grazing may constitute a major land use
within certain timber areas. Pollutant export con-
siderations will be similar to those discussed for
agricultural activities.
Applicable BMP: 09.
Agriculture
Agriculture management practices and control
measures can be classified according to whether
they are primarily directed to control erosion, to
reduce runoff, or to manage fertilizers or pesti-
cides. This classification scheme was adopted by
EPA/USDA (1975) in "Control of Water Pollution
from Cropland," which discusses nonpoint
source loads and their control in detail.
Management practices applicable to the con-
trol of agricultural loads are summarized in Ta-
bles C2-2 through C2-5, drawn from this source,
and. organized according to this classification.
Important interrelationships exist among the
groups and, in individual cases, may affect the
choice of a practice. For example, some erosion
control practices may result in increased chemi-
cal usage to control crop pests. Ultimate selec-
tion, therefore, will require an appropriate bal-
ancing of effects.
Erosion Control. In many situations, erosion
can be controlled with agronomic practices that
improve crop residue management, cropping
sequences, seeding methods, soil treatments,
tillage methods, and timing of field operations.
Generally, farming parallel to the field contours
will further reduce erosion. However, contouring
and some of the agronomic control practices are
not sufficient where slope length or the area
from which runoff concentrates is excessive.
They must then be supported by practices such
as terraces, diversions, contour furrows, contour
listing, contour strip cropping, waterways, and
control structures.
Table C2-2 lists the principal types of erosion
control practices and some of their favorable
and unfavorable features. Under many condi-
tions, it may be necessary to apply various com-
binations of these practices. Modifications of
specific practices within these general types af-
fect their adaptability and also their effective-
ness.
Runoff Control. Surface runoff from cropland
can rarely be eliminated. However, it can be sub-
stantially affected by agronomic and engineer-
ing practices. Land use and treatment can affect
direct runoff in two ways: (1) change the volume
of runoff, and (2) change the peak rate of runoff.
-------
C-14
Table C2-1
Best Management Practices (or Forestry
Applicability
BMP and Ease of
Number • Description Implementation
01
D2 .
D3
04
05
06
07
08
09
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
Woodland Access Roads and Trails
Design of access roads and trails to minimize erosion
and runoff.
Road Use
Regulating, reducing, or eliminating traffic on haul roads
during unfavorable weather to reduce soil erosion.
Planned Travelways
Keeping equipment from crossing streams except at
bridges, culverts, and preselected fords.
Site Preparation
Using site preparation methods that minimize erosion
and runoff. Methods include prescribed burning, me-
chanical disturbance, chemical treatments, and drainage
installations.
Tree Planting
Planting of trees using methods that minimize erosion
and runoff.
Pesticide Application
Designing pesticide application to minimize pesticide
runoff.
Forest Harvesting
Design a harvesting system that minimizes erosion and
runoff.
Revegetation
Planting vegetables such as grasses and legumes on
critical areas to stabilize the soil and reduce erosion and
runoff.
Forest Recreation
Designing forest recreational facilities to minimize ero-
sion and runoff.
Wildfire Control and Reclamation
Using wildfire control and reclamation procedures that
minimize water pollution problems.
Filter Strips
Using a barrier of perennial vegetation to filter runoff.
Brush Management .
Killing, suppressing, or managing brush by mechanical.
chemical, or biological means.
Disposal of Slash
• Keeping logging debris out of streambeds during cutting
operation.
Critical Area .Planting
Planting vegetation such as trees, shrubs, vines, and
grasses on critical erosion areas.
Open Stack Storage, Piles, and Composting
Storing forest products and residues in such a manner
as to minimize water pollutions.
Contour Plowing and Planting
Following contours when using soil-distributing equip-
ment or when planting trees.
Terrace
Using an earth embankment or channel across a slope to
control runoff.
Drainage Ditches and Dips
Proper location and design of ditches to minimize ero-
sion from runoff.
Diversion
Using a channel or a bar to divert excess runoff water.
Water Impoundment
Using a basin to provide sediment retention and flood
control
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
•
High
High
Low
Medium
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Nutrient
Control
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Sediment
Control
High
Medium
.
Medium
High
High
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
Source: Virginia Sute Water Control Board. (1979)
-------
C-15
Table C2-2
Cropland Erosion Control Practices
No.
Erosion Control
Practic*
Practice Highlights
El No-till planting in prior crop residues
E2 Conservation tillage
E3 Sod-based rotations
E4 Meadowless rotations
E5 Winter cover crops
E6 Improved soil fertility
E7 Timing of field operations
E8 Plow-plant systems
E9 Contouring
E10 Graded rows
E11 Contour strip cropping
E12 Terraces
E13 Grassed outlets
E14 Ridge planting
E15 Contour listing
E16 Change in land use
E17 Other practices
Most effective in dormant grass or small grain; highly effective in crop residues;
minimizes spring sediment surges and provides year-round control; reduces man.
machine, and fuel requirements; delays soil warming and drying; requires more
pesticides and nitrogen; limits fertilizer and pesticide- placement options; some cli-
matic and soil restrictions.
Includes a variety of no-plow systems that retain some of the residues on the sur-
face; more widely adaptable but somewhat less effective than E1; advantages and
disadvantages generally same as El but to lesser degree.
Good meadows lose virtually no soil and reduce erosion from succeeding crops:
total soil loss greatly reduced but losses unequally distributed over rotation cycle;
aid in control ol some diseases and pests; more fertilizer-placement options: less
realized income from hay years; greater potential transport of water soluble P;
some climatic restrictions.
' Aid In disease and pest control; may provide more continuous soil protection than
one-crop systems; much less effective than E3.
Reduce winter erosion where com stover has been removed and after low-residue
crops; provide good base for slot-planting next crop; usually no advantage over
heavy cover of chopped stalks of straw; may reduce leaching of nitrate; water use
by winter cover may reduce yield of cash crop.
Can substantially reduce erosion hazards as well as increase crop yields.
Fall plowing facilitates more timely planting in wet springs, but it greatly increases
winter and early spring erosion hazards; optimum timing of spring operations can
reduce erosion and Increase yields.
Rough, cloddy surface increases infiltration and reduces erosion; much less effec-
tive than E1 and E2 when long rain periods occur; seedling stands may be poor
when moisture conditions are less than optimum. Mulch effect is lost by plowing.
Can reduce average soil loss by 50% on moderate slopes, but less on steep
slopes; loses effectiveness if rows break over; must be supported by terraces on
long slopes; soil, climatic, and topographic limitations; not compatible with use of
large farming equipment on many topographies. Does not affect fertilizer and pes-
ticide rates.
Similar to contouring but less susceptible to row breakovers.
Rowcrop and hay in alternate 50- to 100-foot strips reduce soil loss to about 50%
of that with the same rotation contoured only; fall seeded grain in lieu of meadow
about half as effective; alternating com and spring grain not effective; area must be
suitable for across-slope farming and establishment of rotation meadows; favor-
able and unfavorable features similar to E3 and E9.
Support contouring and agronomic practices by reducing effective slope length
and runoff concentration; reduce erosion and conserve soil moisture; facilitate
more intensive cropping; conventional gradient terraces often Incompatible with
use of large equipment, but new designs have alleviated this problem; substantial
initial cost and some maintenance costs.
Facilitate drainage of graded rows and terrace channels with minimal erosion; in-
volve establishment and maintenance costs and may interfere with use of large
implements.
Earlier warming and drying of row zone; reduces erosion by concentrating runoff
flow in mulch-covered furrows; most effective when rows are across slope.
Minimizes row breakover; can reduce annual soil loss by 50%; loses effectiveness
with post-emergence com cultivation; disadvantages same as E9.
Sometimes the only solution. Well managed permanent grass or woodland effec-
tive where other control practices are Inadequate; lost acreage can be compensat-
ed for by more intensive use of less erodible land.
Contour furrows, diversions, subsurface drainage, land forming, closer row spac-
ing, etc.
-------
C-16
Direct surface runoff volumes can be reduced
by measures that: (1) increase infiltration rates;
(2) increase surface retention storage, allowing
more time for water to infiltrate into the soil; and
(3) increase interception of rainfall by growing
plants or residues.
Peak runoff rates can be decreased by treat-
ments that increase the hydraulic resistance of
the surface, decrease the land slope, or increase
the length of flow path. Such practices will also
generally reduce erosion.
How much direct runoff can be reduced de-
pends on the number and type of control meas-
ures used and on the characteristics of the soils
and climate of the particular location. Runoff
control measures and their highlights are sum-
marized in Table C2-3.
Nutrient Control. Nutrients are moved from
agricultural land by leaching, direct runoff, and
in association with sediment from erosion. A
number of practices will reduce direct runoff
and/or erosion and, thus, reduce nutrient trans-
port. These practices will usually be adequate for
controlling overland nutrient transport in addi-
tion to sediment and pesticide transport. Howev-
er, in some cases, such as leaching, additional
and/or alternative practices will have to be used
to achieve the desired degree of control. These
involve changing the use of nutrients. A list of
these practices and their highlights is given in
Table C2-4.
Pesticide Control. Clearly, reducing runoff or
erosion will also reduce loss of applied pesti-
cides, and practices that control runoff and ero-
sion should always be considered in pesticide
pollution control. In addition to these practices, a
number of options exist, and are often used, in-
volving manipulation of the pesticide itself.
These can be used alone or in conjunction with
the runoff and erosion control measures. Table
C2-5 lists 15 such practices divided into two
groups based on their applicability.
Obviously, good basic management of the
chemicals should be practiced wherever pesti-
Table C2-3
Runoff Control Practices
No.
R1
Runoff
Control Prictle*
Practice Highlight*
No-till planting in prior crop residues
R2 Conservation tillage
R3 Sod-based rotations
R4 Meadowless rotations
R5 Winter cover crop
R6 Improved soil fertility
R7 Timing of field operations
R8 Plow-plant systems
R9 Contouring
R10 Graded rows
R11 Contour strip cropping
R12 Terraces
R13 Grassed outlets
R14 Ridge planting
R15 Contour listing
R16 Change In land use
R17 Other practices:
Contour furrows
Diversions
Drainage
Landformlng
R18 Construction of ponds
Variable affect on direct runoff range from Increases (on soils subject to
compacthn) to substantial reductions.
Slight to substantial runoff reduction.
Substantial runoff reduction in sod year; slight to moderate reduction in
rowcrop year.
None to slight runoff reduction.
Slight runoff increase to moderate reduction.
Slight to substantial runoff reduction depending on existing fertility level.
Slight runoff reduction.
Moderate runoff reduction.
Slight to moderate runoff reduction.
Slight to moderate runoff reduction.
Moderate to substantial runoff reduction.
Slight increase to substantial runoff reduction.
Slight runoff reduction.
Slight to substantial runoff reduction.
Moderate to substantial runoff reduction.
Moderate to substantial runoff reduction.
Moderate to substantial reduction.
No runoff reduction.
Increase to substantial decrease In surface runoff.
Increase to slight runoff reduction.
None to substantial runoff reduction. Relatively expensive. Good pond sites
must be available. May be considered as a treatment device.
-------
C-17
cides are used, whether or not runoff control
measures are necessary. Pesticides should al-
ways be used strictly in accordance with instruc-
tions on their labels; to do otherwise is illegal.
The chemicals should be stored so as to mini-
mize the hazard of possible leakage, and con-
tainers should be disposed of after use in accor-
dance with accepted procedures.
Urban Runoff
Although there is some overlap, control meas-
ures differ for combined sewer overflows (CSO),
and for urban runoff from storm sewers in an
area where sanitary sewage is conveyed by a
separate collection system. This distinction is
useful because the analyst will normally find it
desirable to consider both load estimation and
evaluation of management opportunities from
each of these areas independently. It has been
noted (Chapter 4) that the magnitude of pollu-
tant loads is distinctly different for each; addi-
tionally, the institutional approaches for man-
agement will usually be sufficiently different to
warrant separate consideration.
Urban runoff controls which have been pro-
posed, tested, or actually installed tend to be
more oriented toward structural measures than
is the case for other nonpoint sources. Separate
lists of typical management practices are pro-
vided for CSOs and for separate storm sewers.
The user should recognize that, despite the cate-
gory to which a control measure is assigned in
the lists, many are potentially applicable in ei-
ther category. The practices tend, however, to be
more practical or cost-effective in the category of
urban load in which they appear. Street sweep-
ing, for example, could be practiced in a CSO
area. However, since diluted raw sewage tends
to contribute most of thd pollutants discharged
Table C2-4
Nutrient Loss Control Practices
No.
Nutrient
Control Practice
Practice Highlights
N1
Eliminating excessive fertilization
May cut nitrate leaching appreciably, reduces fertilizer costs; has no affect
on yield.
Leaching Control
N2 Timing nitrogen application
N3 Using crap rotations
N4 Using animal wastes for fertilizer
N5 Plowing under green legume crops
N6 Using winter cover crops
N7 Controlling fertilizer release or
transformation
Reduces nitrate leaching; increases nitrogen use efficiency; Ideal timing
may be less convenient.
Substantially reduces nutrient Inputs; not compatible with many farm enter-
prises; reduces erosion and pesticide use.
Economic gain for some farm enterprises; slow release of nutrients; spread-
Ing problems.
Reduces use of nitrogen fertilizer; not always feasible.
Uses nitrate and reduces percolation; not applicable in some regions; re-
duces winter erosion.
May decrease nitrate leaching; usuajly not economically feasible; needs ad-
ditional research and formation development.
Control of Nutrient* In Runoff
N8 Incorporating surface applications
N9 Controlling surface applications
N10 Using legumes In haylands and
pastures
Decreases nutrients In runoff; no yield effects; not always possible; adds
costs In some cases.
Useful when incorporation Is not feasible.
Replaces nitrogen fertilizer; limited applicability; difficult to manage.
N11
Control of Nutrient Lose by Erosion
Timing fertilizer plow-down
Reduces erosion and nutrient loss; may be less convenient.
-------
C-18
from CSOs, it would be expected that street
sweeping would be less effective in a CSO area
than in a separately sewered area where street
surfaces provide a major component of the pol-
lutant loads. Exceptions exist, as in the case
where a particular pollutant (say, lead from ve-
hicular traffic) originating on street surfaces is of
concern. A similar rationale can be applied in
evaluating the other measures listed.
Structural controls will tend to be more appli-
cable for CSO areas for two reasons. These dis-
charges tend to be more localized, concentrated
in a limited number of discharge points at which
controls can be placed. Also, the higher loading
rates that they represent tend to make the more
costly structural approaches practical to
consider.
Combined Sewer Overflows. Combined sew-
ers convey sanitary sewage to sewage treatment
plants during dry weather. During storms, they
additionally collect stormwater, and to the limit
of the hydraulic capacity provided, they carry a
mixture of sanitary sewage and stormwater.
Stormwater inflows are many times the normal
rate of sanitary sewage flows. To avoid flooding,
regulators are installed which permit overflows
to provide hydraulic relief. A list of control mea-
Table C2-5
Pesticide Loss Control Practices
No.
Pesticide
Control Practice
Practice Highlights
Broadly Applicable Practices
P1 ' Using alternate pesticides
P2 Optimizing pesticide placement with
respect to loss
P3 Using crop rotation
P4 Using resistant crop varieties
PS Optimizing crop planting time
P6 Optimizing pesticide formulation
P7 Using mechanical control methods
P8 Reducing excessive treatment
P9 Optimizing time of day for pesticide
application
Applicable to all field crops; can lower aquatic residue levels; can hinder de-
velopment of target species resistance.
Applicable where effectiveness is maintained; may involve moderate
cost.
Universally applicable; can reduce pesticide loss significantly; some
indirect cost if less profitable crop is planted.
Applicable to a number of crops; can sometimes eliminate need for in-
secticide and fungicide use; only slight usefulness for weed control.
Applicable to many crops; can reduce need for pesticides; moderate
cost possibly involved.
Some commercially available alternatives; can reduce necessary rates
of pesticide application.
Applicable to weed control; will reduce need for chemicals substantial-
ly; not economically favorable.
Applicable to insect control; refined predictive techniques required.
Universally applicable; can reduce necessary rates of pesticide
application.
Practices Having Limited
Applicability
P10 Optimizing date of pesticide application
P11 Using integrated control
P12 Using biological control methods
P13 Using lower pesticide application
rates
P14 Managing aerial applications
PIS Planting between rows in minimum
tillage
Applicable only when pest control is not adversely affected; little or no cost
involved.
Effective pest control with reduction in amount of pesticide used; pro-
gram development difficult.
Very successful in a few cases; can reduce insecticide and herbicide
use appreciably.
Can be used only where authorized; some monetary savings.
Can reduce contamination of nontarget areas.
Applicable only to row crops in nonplow-based tillage; may reduce
amounts of pesticides necessary.
-------
C-19
sures suitable for such discharges is presented
in Table C2-6.
In many cases, the condition of these regula-
tors will warrant careful attention. Poor mainte-
nance can often result in discharges even during
dry weather. In addition, regulator settings will
often have been made in the past to minimize
the potential for upstream flooding, and to re-
duce the hydraulic load reaching the treatment
plant. An appreciable reduction in overflow
loads may be possible by adjusting the regula-
tors to increase the combined sewage routed to
the treatment plant.
Descriptions of control measures listed in Ta-
ble C2-6, and information on cost and perfor-
mance are provided in a number of references
(for example, A Statistical Method for Assess-
ment of Urban Stormwater — EPA 1979; U.S.
EPA 1976a).
Separate Storm Runoff. Some types of con-
trol measures which have been considered for
management of separate storm runoff are listed
in Table C2-7. Urbanizing and newly developing
areas may be more amenable to the imposition
of controls than will be the older, developed
areas. Physical constraints such as available
space and competing land use will be less of a
factor in newly urbanizing areas, and existing or-
dinances dealing with construction, runoff, and
erosion control will often be adaptable to water
quality purposes.
EPA's National Urban Runoff Program is in-
vestigating cost and performance of a variety of
control measures for runoff from separate storm
sewers (Woodward-Clyde, 1980).
Table C2-6
Combined Sewer Overflow Practices
STORAGE BASINS — intercept and retain CSOs for return to sewers during dry periods, or equalize flows for more efficient
treatment prior to discharge.
SEDIMENTATION — provides gravity settling of suspended solids. Chemical coagulation may be employed to enhance re-
moval efficiency.
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION — separates solids by flotation and surface skimming. Uses less area than sedimentation.
Chemical coagulation may be used.
SWIRL CONCENTRATOR — developed for CSO applications; compact device; separates senleable solids and floatable
material.
HELICAL BEND SEPARATOR — developed for CSO applications; provides solids separation; installed in line; low head.loss.
SCREENS AND MICROSCREENS — remove particles by straining; wide range of apertures from several inch openings to very
fine mesh (23 micron). Finer screening devices are mechanical.
DISINFECTION — with chlorine or other agents. Required facilities include chemical feeders, mixing, and contact chambers.
SEWER FLUSHING — removes solids accumulations which occur at critical points in sewer system in advance of scour during
storm runoff.
STREET FLUSHING — transports street surface contaminants to sewer during dry weethar when they will reach treatment
plants without overflow.
Table C2-7
Some Separate Storm Runoff Controls
STREET SWEEPING — includes sweeping of parking lots, to remove accumulations of dust, dirt, and debris.
CATCH BASIN CLEANING — removal of accumulations on a regular basis to maintain ability to intercept solids.
ELIMINATE CROSS-CONNECTING — illegal connections of sanitary sewage can significantly increase strength of storm
sewage.
PERMEABLE SEWERS AND CATCH BASINS — in areas with soil of sufficiently high permeability, runoff flow and loads can
be attenuated.
DETENTION BASINS — various types; provide for sedimentation, percolation, or increased evaporation to reduce flows and
loads. Flow reductions may help to reduce subsequent erosion.
WETLANDS TREATMENT— routing storm flows through an area of vegetation in a controlled manner, to remove nutrients.
metals, and solids.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ORDINANCES — can reduce runoff loads by reducing liner accumulations, controlling fertilizer
applications, eliminating dumping of oil or other objectionable materials.
-------
C-20
C3 INSTITUTIONAL
INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Suggested procedures for review, evaluation,
and selection of an appropriate institutional
framework are similar to those for physical con-
trols. The steps in an evaluation procedure are
the following:
1. Review of existing watershed institutional/
management framework
2. Specify "ideal" institutional arrangements
3. Evaluate existing agencies and organiza-
tions for:
a. Effectiveness in accomplishing water
quality objectives
b. Potential for expanded or modified fu-.
ture role
4. Evaluate new and innovative institutional
structures
5. Select most "workable" institution(s) for
implementation.
These procedures are briefly described below:
Step 1: Review of Existing Institutional/
Management Framework
A detailed understanding of the existing
institutional/management situation operating
within a watershed is a prerequisite to develop-
ing recommendations for a new or revised pro-
gram. Specific information is needed about each
agency and organization — whether govern-
mental, quasi-public, or citizen-directed — that is
affected by, or potentially affects, water quality
management activities.
Prior to gathering detailed data, a preliminary
screening process should be followed to elimi-
nate any uninvolved agencies or organizations,
thereby reducing the overall scope of work.
Table C3-1 is an example of a standard form
used by the State of Nevada in evaluating organ-
izations for runoff and erosion control (Nevada,
1976). Also, it may be helpful to develop a flow
chart or otherwise diagram the existing in-
stitutional/management framework in the
watershed indicating not only the organization
but also its functions as they relate to watershed
management.
Step 2: Specify "Ideal" Institutional
Arrangements
Since the assessment of institutional arrange-
ments is primarily qualitative and no single solu-
tion exists for proper watershed management, a
set of preferred institutional characteristics
should be developed. A list of those characteris-
tics that should be considered is presented in Ta-
ble C3-2. No single agency is likely to possess all
of these characteristics. A more realistic ap-
proach would involve a combination of existing,
and perhaps new, agencies organized into a
comprehensive institutional framework under
the desired watershed management objectives.
This list of characteristics should be compared
with the results of procedural Steps 3 and 4 to
select the most workable strategy in Step 5.
Step 3: Evaluate Existing Agencies and
Organizations
Each of the existing agencies and organiza-
tions identified in Step 1 should be evaluated for
its effectiveness in accomplishing the watershed
management program's stated objectives, and
its potential for accepting and maintaining an ex-
panded or modified role in future management
activities. Such an evaluation is qualitative and
subjective at best. An existing program may be
regulatory or nonregulatory (voluntary), each re-
quiring a slightly different approach. Examples
of program evaluations for sediment and ero-
sion control and runoff and erosion control are
presented in Martin and Helm (1980) and
Table C3-1
Standard Form for Summarizing an Organization, Its Areas of Interest,
Authorities, and Programs Relating to Watershed Management
Agency (Organization) Name
Area Office Address
Telephone
Agency Organization (Structure or Hierarchy)
General Type of Activity
Authority and Legislation (in area of water quality management)
Specific Programs Related to Water Quality Management
Agency Views on Specific Problems Identified
Effectiveness of Programs
Controls or Techniques Applying or Responsible for Applying
Manpower and Budget Levels
Deficiencies in Existing Authorities, Manpower, or Budget
-------
C-21
Table C3-2
Ideal Characteristics of Watershed
Institutional/Management Arrangements
Provide the earliest control.
Provide long-term self-sustaining and control management.
Factor social and economic considerations into technical implementation.
Require little paper work.
Provide rapid procedures for program operation.
Provide comprehensive monitoring and data collection for adequate management and decision-making.
Provide continuous and rapid analysis and dissemination of data and other watershed program information.
Be flexible in allowing proper application to local situations.
Must be willing to accept institutional responsibilities and act on them.
Provide adequate education of management functions, operations, progress in problem alleviation, and achievement of ob-
jectives to watershed residents, users, technical professionals, and elected officials.
Provide baseline levels of control.
Closely approximate existing authorities and program objectives by using existing authorities, if possible; provide for mean-
ingful public participation.
Provide continuing program review, evaluation, and updating.
Be comprehensive in watershed coverage where similar problems exist throughout.
Assure that agencies establish and maintain formal and/or informal coordination and working relationships.
Provide for adequate regulatory authority where voluntary approaches are not successful.
Provide adequate levels of technical assistance in program implementation and monitor progress in lake response.
Accept responsibility for implementing specific control measures, where appropriate.
Provide adequate long-term planning for watershed management.
Provide economic assistance, tax advantages, or other incentives where-necessary to achieve implementation.
Provide adequate fiscal management with the objective of minimizing the financial resources required to attain water'qualitv
levels.
Must possess sufficient independence to guide in making proper watershed-wide choices.
Nevada (1976), respectively. Ideally, evaluations
should be performed both in the field, where the
implementation is evident, and in-house; how-
ever, resources often will not allow such a de-
tailed analysis. As an alternative, an evaluation
team may be organized with representatives
from the agency involved, local elected officials,
technical professionals, and other individuals
from outside the agency including interested
citizens and those directly affected by the agency
activities, e.g., homebuilders. This evaluation
team can provide insight into agency operations,
successes and failures, and results.
Figure C3-1 presents the basic questions to be
considered in evaluating an agency's or organi-
zation's authority and program. Each institution
must be assessed for its powers, capabilities,
constraints, and financial status. In its Program
Guidance Memorandum SAM-31 (November,
1978), EPA has provided guidance in the neces-
sary elements of a regulatory program that can
be helpful in evaluating such a program.
ANALYSIS OF AUTHORITIES AND PROGRAMS
ARE THEY x^gs ^ ARE THEY V^X ARE THEY
THERE? v f GOOD? __> >v ENOUGH?
1 1
£NO} (NO) (N
T
?
IDENTIFY IDENTIFY IDENTIFY
WHY DEFICIENCIES DEFICIENCIES
p 1.1
DEVELOP NEW CONTROL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS
SOURCE: (NEVADA-1076)
Figure C3-1. Evaluation Analysis of Management Agencies.
Source. Nevada 0976).
-------
C-22
Specific points to be considered include:
.— .Program's effectiveness
— Legal authorities
— Rules and regulations
— Administrative procedures
— Operating procedures
— Resources (budget, staff, training, etc.)
— Management characteristics
— Field implementation, inspection, and en-
forcement procedures
— Planning
— Program monitoring, evaluation, and
revisions
— Education, both technical and public
— Technical implementation problems.
To be successful, the agency must be willing
to accept and work toward watershed manage-
ment objectives, and be capable, through its au-
thorities and programs, to conduct implementa-
tion and/or other management activities.
Step 4: Evaluate New and Innovative
Institutiopal Structures
A variety of single and multipurpose institu-
tional agencies and organizations are being tried
throughout the country. Examples include the
creation of stormwater drainage utilities such as
the one in Bellevue, Wash., and Lake Manage-
ment Districts as in Wisconsin. Other
multipurpose, quasi-public community and
homeowners associations with technical
operations-maintenance personnel may have
the potential to carry out certain lake and water-
shed management responsibilities. A brief dis-
cussion of some of these institutions follows in
this appendix. The main purpose of this step is
for the analyst to become familiar with potential
institutions that may be applied in a watershed
to manage water quality. EPA's Clean Lakes and
208 Programs have published success stories
and new forms of institutional/management
frameworks. A major question to. ask about
these new innovative institutions, their authori-
ties, and programs is, "Are they legal?" (Envi-
ronmental Law Institute, 1977).
Step 5: Select the Most Workable
Institutions for Implementation
When the data gathering and assessment
steps (1-4) have been completed, the compari-
son and selection of the most workable institu-
tions and management structure components
can proceed. The following are basic questions
that should be asked in the selection and final
design of an institutional program:
— Solution strategies recommended for cor-
rection or problems?
— Program revisions
— New program additions
— Old program deletions (i.e., what will
be done?)
— How will recommended strategies be car-
. ried out (description)?
— Where will they be implemented (scope of
application)?
— Who will perform them (responsible
participants)?
— What will they cost (resource commit-
ments)?
— How will they be paid for (sources of
commitments)?
— When will they be carried out (timing or
phasing)?
— How will the public be involved and made
knowledgable about the program?
— How will the program be monitored, and
who will be responsible for it?
— Program monitoring for effectiveness
and degree of implementation (annu-
al progress reports as a minimum).
Comparison of various alternative structures
may be based on the characteristics listed in
Step 3 above. However, alternative institutional/
management structures will not be generated in
all cases. A single, clearly defined framework
may evolve during the data gathering and as-
sessment steps. Use of existing institutions,
after proper evaluation, is by no means a poor
solution if watershed management can be suc-
cessfully applied.
EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTIONS
A classic example of an innovative institution
established nationwide over 40 years ago, is the
Soil Conservation District (Williams and Lake,
1979). Introduced to the States as model legisla-
tion in 1937 by President Franklin Roosevelt, the
conservation movement began by creating con-
servation districts as political subdivisions in
most States. Since that time, over 3,000 districts
have been created under State law. Although the
State laws vary, the purpose of these districts is
the same everywhere:
1. To focus on land, water, and related re-
source problems
2. To develop programs to solve these
problems
3. To enlist support and cooperation from all
public and private sources to accomplish
their goals.
Also of primary importance is the fact that dis-
tricts are managed by local citizens who know lo-
cal problems; they are staffed by trained
professionals. Local districts are supported tech-
nically by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Soil Conservation Service. If an SCD exists in the
watershed under study, it may be an ideal insti-
tution to form the basis for a framework to solve
agriculture and urban/urbanizing watershed
problems.
-------
C-23
One innovative concept that has the potential
to significantly contribute to watershed manage-
ment is a stormwater drainage utility. Important
pioneering work has been under way in estab-
lishing a utility by the City of Bellevue, Washing-
ton. Bellevue is a community with a population
of 70,000 located on the shore of Lake Washing-
ton. To address the significant ecosystem prob-
lems that exist, Bellevue established the drain-
age utility to continuously monitor runoff, work
towards a low-impact runoff transport system,
and create incentives for applying good man-
agement practices in the community. To ade-
quately fund the utility, a small, special-purpose
tax was charged to all property owners based on
total area owned and population density rather
than impervious surface owned. This was con-
sidered the most representative means of taxing
a community with single-family, multiple-family,
and commercial dwellings — all prominent land
uses in the watershed.
Other more recent examples of the
stormwater drainage utility are also found in the
State of Washington, including King and Clark
Counties (Government Finance Research Center,
1980c). In its application to a local government,
this concept may require a new way of thinking
on the part of the government and its agencies.
The Lake Management District, another inno-
vative concept, originated in Wisconsin where
enabling legislation provided for a. system of dis-
tricts with powers to implement and fund man-
agement programs. The primary objective of the
district is to protect and restore the lake quality.
Nationally, the complexity of districts varies
from more complex ones in Wisconsin to
simpler examples in Pennsylvania and Califor-
nia. To be effective, this approach may require
State enabling legislation and a strong local
commitment.
Another form of management institution that
holds potential for lake watershed management
is the homeowners or community association.
These bodies often have powers delegated to
them by the State or local governments that al-
low control of open space and park lands and fa-
cilities, as well as certain lakes. They often have
full management and operations staffs as well as
operating budgets that make them potentially
ideal as lake watershed management authori-
ties. With adequate professional assistance,
such organizations could adopt standard man-
agement functions for both the lake and its wa-
tershed. Funding for such organizations is usual-
ly provided for by a fixed annual assessment on
the value of each resident's property, the imme-
diate beneficiary of lake improvements.
An excellent example of one such organization
is the Westlake Lake Management Association
Inc. of Westlake Village, Calif. (Hanson, Bigelow,
1977). The Westlake Village Association has fully
accepted the management responsibility for its
lake and watershed.
Another example of management responsibil-
ity being accepted by such an organization is the
Columbia Parks and Recreation Association in
the new town of Columbia, Md. (Howard County
Dept. of Public Works, et al. 1979). The Columbia
Association, in accepting responsibility for
managing its three major lakes and several small
ponds, has hired a resident staff ecologist as wa-
tershed manager. With the results of its Section
314 Phase I study (now in progress), The Colum-
bia Association will be able to not only monitor
the lakes and tributary streams but also imple-
ment a complete management program. This
will probably involve property owners in the wa-
tershed and a combination of existing agencies
with water quality management responsibilities.
Although a watershed management program
may not, in itself, be a regulatory activity, tools
exist by which local or State governments can
better control certain land uses and watershed
activities. Many governmental bodies have es-
tablished ordinances to manage stormwater
runoff, erosion and sedimentation, flood plains,
and wetlands, among others.
-------
D-1
Appendix D
(RESERVED)
-------
E.I
Appendix E
PROTOCOL FOR THE CONDUCT OF PHASE 1 DIAGNOSTIC-FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
INTRODUCTION
This protocol describes the procedures which
are to be used in obtaining and presenting the
information required in a Phase 1 Diagnostic-
Feasibility Study. It is organized in the same
manner as Appendix A to 40 CFR 35 Subpart H,
which describes the required Phase 1 outputs.
For each subheading from Appendix A, the pro-
tocol defines the requirement, lists potential
sources of existing information to meet the re-
quirement, identifies methods of developing any
additional information needed, and describes
the form in which the information is to be
presented.
The user should note that, with two excep-
tions, the requirements in 40 CFR 35 Subpart H
Appendix A are minimum requirements which
are to be addressed in any Phase 1 study or
equivalent diagnostic-feasibility study. Informa-
tion is to be'presented in the order in which it is
given, and in the format described in this proto-
col. Additional material beyond the minimum re-
quirements should be incorporated in consistent
format where logically appropriate. The pre-
scribed methods must be followed unless the
EPA Project Officer approves alternative
procedures.
The limnological data requirements described
under (a)(10) and (b)(3) may be modified, and
frequently are, to suit the needs of a specific
project. EPA Project Officer approval must be ob-
tained for any such modification. Once the
limnological data collection program has been
determined, however, the applicable portions of
this protocol must be followed.
Sources of all information presented must be
given in the text or in footnotes to text or tables.
REQUIREMENTS FOR DIAGNOSTIC-
FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
(a)(1) Lake Identification and Location
Correct identification and location of informa-
tion is essential for program administration and
for storage and retrieval of study results.
Requirements:
A. Official name of lake
B. State and county in which located
C. Name of nearest municipality
D. Latitude and longitude of lake center
E. EPA Region
F. EPA major basin name and code
G. EPA minor basin name and code
H. Names of major tributaries
I. Name of water body which receives lake's
discharge
. Approved State water quality standards for
the lake.
Sources and Methods:
Items A through D are available in State Lake
Classification Survey, if completed. Otherwise,
they are to be obtained from U.S. Geological
Survey 7.5-minute or 15-minute quadrangle
maps.
-------
E-2
Items E through G may be obtained from EPA
Project Officer.
Items H and I may be read from USGS quad-
rangle maps.
Item J may be obtained from the State water
pollution control or water resources manage-
ment agency.
Format:
The required information is to be listed in the
following format:
Lake Name:
State:
County:
Nearest Municipality:
Latitude/Longitude: (expressed to nearest
second)
EPA Region:
EPA Major Basin Name: Code:
EPA Minor Basin Name: Code:
Major Tributaries:
Receiving Water Body:
Water Quality Standards:
— Designated Uses
— Applicable Criteria
In addition, a locating map must be included
which shows the lake and its geographical set-
ting, including State, county, and municipal
boundaries, tributaries, and receiving waters.
(a)(2) Geological and Soils Description of
Drainage Basin
The lake and its drainage basin must be de-
scribed in terms of geology, groundwater hy-
drology, topography, and soils.
Requirements:
A. Geological Description. Describe drainage
basin in terms of predominant rock types
— igneous, metamorphic, and consolidat-
ed or unconsolidated sedimentary. Identi-
fy, locate, and describe geologic forma-
tions which are aquifers hydraulically
connected to the lake or which may consti-
tute sources of materials important in the
lake, water chemistry (e.g., limestone,
phosphate rock, exposed coal deposits).
B. Groundwater Hydrology. Describe lake in
relation to drainage basin groundwater hy-
drology. Does the lake recharge aquifers
through exfiltration? Does it receive
groundwater discharge directly? How sig-
nificant is groundwater compared to sur-
face water in the lake's water budget?
C. Topography. The terrain can be described
qualitatively, but quantitative information
on slopes should be included.
D. Soils. The major soils in the drainage basin
should be identified and described in terms
of permeability and erodability. Soil loss to
water courses should be estimated.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
Items A and B may be obtainable from USGS
and State Geological Survey publications, 208
water quality management plans, regional en-
vironmental plans, environmental impact
statements for other projects in the area, well
records, and completed studies by local and
State universities. The information is to be
• presented in descriptive paragraphs. Maps
must be included whenever there are more
than one or two formations, recharge areas, or
aquifers to be described.
Item C may also be available in completed
studies described for A and B. If not, slopes
can be estimated from contour maps as per-
centages (the units of change in elevation per
100 units of horizontal distance) by counting
the number of contour intervals within a con-
venient length on a scale. For example, on a
USGS map of scale 1:24,000 (2,000 feet = 1
inch), five 20-foot contour intervals within
one-half inch would represent a 10 percent
slope:
5x20 ft 100
= 10%
0.5 x 2000 ft
1,000
Each subbasin within the lake drainage area
should be described in terms of shape. The re-
sults may be presented in a slope map, distin-
guishing at least three categories correspond-
ing to gentle, moderate, and steep slopes (e.g.,
s 10 percent, 11-20 percent, > 20 percent; ac-
tual percentages vary depending on the topo-
graphic characteristics of the region). The per-
centage of each subbasin in each category
must be tabulated.
For Item D, soils maps and descriptions are
contained in USDA Soil Conservation Service
soils surveys, available from SCS or the coun-
ty conservation district. Soil losses may have
been estimated by the Conservation District or
as part of a 208 water quality management
plan. If not, estimates can be made using mod-
els such as the Universal Soil Loss Equation as
part of the analysis of nonpoint sources to be
undertaken in (a)(9).
(a)(3) Description of Public Access
The benefits to be realized from a Phase 2
project depend in part on the extent of public ac-
cess to the lake.
Requirements:
A. Identification and location of public access
points.
B. Description of access points in terms of re-
sponsible agency, type, size, facilities, ca-
pacity, seasonal limits on use, hours of op-
eration, purposes of any fees charged.
-------
E-3
C. Routes and distances to access points from
major population cente.-s.
D. Public transportation availability, including
schedules, fares, and service areas.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
A map of the lake must be prepared for item A.
Information is available from the governmen-
tal agencies responsible for operation of the
various access points.
Item B information, available from the same
sources, must be shown in tabular form, fol-
lowing the example in Table E-1. If any of the
access points are located on privately-owned
land, the conditions under which public use is
permitted should be described.
Item C can be obtained from and shown on a
regional highway map, on which the popula-
tion centers, access points, and routes have
been highlighted. Public transportation sys-
tems must also be mapped, and the other in-
formation under Item D must be included in an
accompanying table. (The Item C and D maps
may be combined if the result is not
confusing.)
(a)(4) Description of Size and Economic
Structure of Potential User Population
Information on public access is not meaning-
ful without information on potential lake uses.
Requirements:
A. Size of resident population using or poten-
tially using the lake
B. Size of any significant seasonal user popu-
lation increment within 80 km
C. Distribution of population — major cen-
ters, population densities
D. Pertinent economic characteristics, includ-
ing as appropriate:
1. General income levels
2. Major employment sources
3. Chronic unemployment
4. Housing shortages
5. Urban blight
6. Relationship of lake to local economy
(water supply, tourism, commercial
fishing, sport fishing, real estate
values).
Sources and Methods:
Information to meet all requirements is avail-
able from U.S. Bureau of the Census; State, re-
gional, county, and city planning or economic
development agencies; recreation agencies;
bureaus of tourism; and Chambers of Com-
merce. Frequently there are unpublished but
readily available data that provide more detail
than found in publications. This is particularly
true in the case of the census, where popula-
tion and economic statistics are reported by
county, municipality, and metropolitan statis-
tical area, but are tabulated by much smaller
census tracts and blocks. Tract and block infor-
mation is available on computer tape.
Format:
Statistics may be presented in tabular or
graphic form, as appropriate. Population lends
itself to tabular presentation, while population
distribution is easily shown on a bar graph.
Economic information which is not statistical,
such as descriptions of housing or of urban
problems, may be presented in narrative form.
Table E-;
Sample Description of Public Access Points
Name
North Landing
West Park
New State
Park
Responsible
Agency Type
Boro of Boat Launch
Lakeville
Lakeside Town Park
Township
State Oept. State Park
of Outdoor
Recreation
Land Lake
Area Frontage
(he) (m)
0.3 22
2.1 60
62.0 ' 250
Types and Capacities
of Facilities
Launching ramps (2) with capacity for
boats up to 25 ft. long, 3 ft. draft* •
Parking for 40 vehicles
Picnic tables (20)
Nature center
Jogging trail
Volleyball and tennis courts
Parking for 150 vehicles
Campsites (25)
Launching ramp with capacity for small
outboards
100 m public beach
Marshland bird sanctuary
Food concession (swimming season
only)
•Launching fee ol $2 00 used lor seasonal maintenance of launching facilities.
-------
E-4
(a)(5) Summary of Historical Lake Uses
Comprehensive baseline information on his-
torical uses and their relationship to water qual-
ity problems is indispensable for the projection
of potential benefits needed to justify a Phase 2
award, and for assessment of actual results from
restoration or protection.
Requirements:
A. Inventory of present and past lake uses
B. Statistics on present and historical usage,
by type of use
C. Analysis of relationship between historical
trends in lake water quality, uses, and
usage.
Sources and Methods:
Possible lake uses include, but are not limited
to:
— Recreation — on lake and adjacent public
lands, broken down by specific type, e.g.,
swimming, boating, water skiing, fishing,
ice fishing, camping, picnicking, jogging,
etc.
— Aesthetic enjoyment — enhancement of
. activities, other than recreation on the lake,
by visual amenity the lake provides
— Flood control
— Fish and wildlife propagation and/or
maintenance
— Water supply (potable, industrial,
agricultural)
— Power generation
— Commercial navigation
— Research and education
— Commercial fishing.
Lake usage is defined as the magnitude of par-
ticipation in a given use. For recreational and
aesthetic uses, it is measured in user-days.
Other usages are measured in units appropri-
ate to the specific use:
— Flood control — flood storage volume in
m3
— Fish and wildlife — area of habitat in hec-
tares, species present, population sizes,
etc.
— Agriculture — annual volume of irrigation
water, and/or hectares of irrigated land
— Water supply — population served
— Power generation — thousands or millions
of kilowatt-hours per year
— Commercial navigation — cargo tonnage
(metric tons) or value per year
— Research and education — number of
projects, number of students
— Commercial fishing—value of annual
catch, weight of annual catch.
General uses of any public lake are usually
known by the State environmental, natural re-
source, water resource, or recreation agency.
More detail, such as types of recreation or
types of fishing, may have to be obtained from
specialized or local sources, such as county or
municipal park and recreation departments.
State fish and game commissions, or lake
associations.
Any organization operating any type of facility
on the lake is a logical source of statistics on
the facility's usage. They should be asked to
provide estimates if they do not have exact in-
formation. Annual usage data are usually suf-
ficient, but the investigator should be alert to
seasonal variation which may reflect water
quality degradation. For example, total park
usage may be nearly the same for two differ-
ent years, but usage during the swimming
season may be much lower in one of them be-
cause of an algal bloom. In such a case, it
would be important to record swimming sea-
son usage as well as total annual usage.
To demonstrate the effects of water quality
changes on uses and usage, all available years
of usage data should be examined for trends,
both in lake use and in specific uses. These are
compared to trends in historical water quality,
based on data obtained from State water qual-
ity agencies, county or local environmental or
public health offices, lake associations, etc. Lo-
cal newspapers may be good sources of the
dates of specific events, such as algal blooms,
fish kills, and herbicide treatments. Any appar-
ent relationships should be identified, either
by inspection, statistical techniques such as
regression analysis, or (if adequate data are
lacking) qualitative observations.
Format:
Use and usage information is to be reported in
tabular form, as illustrated in Table E-2 for a
lake with a single access point, also used for
water supply. Trends in use and usage related
to water quality should be presented in the
clearest and most convincing manner. In an
ideal situation, graphs such as the one in Fig-
ure E-1 can be prepared. However, sufficient
data are often not available, and a narrative
presentation may have to be used instead.
Whenever trend information is presented, it
must be accompanied by a discussion which
explains the relationships believed to exist
and which identifies any extraneous influ-
ences which may be reflected in the data. In
Figure E-1, for example, it is apparent that
changes in water quality reflected in Secchi
disk transparency have led to a decline in
swimming and fishing. Total park usage statis-
tics are included in the figure to show that the
reduction in swimming and fishing was not
the result of an overall decline in the use of the
lakeside park, which also provides camping
and other recreational opportunities. Camping
appears unrelated to the water quality
-------
E-5
changes experienced to date; in fact, it in-
creased in recent years, probably because of
increased use by nearby residents in response
to rising gasoline costs. Public water supply
customers increased through 1976, then be-
gan to decline slowly. It should be important
to discuss general population trends in the
area as part of any argument that this decline
resulted from taste and odor problems caused
by algal blooms.
(a) (6) Population Segments Adversely
Affected by Lake Degradation
The Phase I study agency should be alert to
differential impacts of lake degradation among
population groups and should explain any that
are discovered. For example, a deteriorating
fishery may affect a group of economically dis-
advantaged persons who fish to supplement
family food supplies, or it may cause boat rent-
als, and tackle and bait shops to go out of busi-
ness. As another example, loss of contact recrea-
tional uses may deprive local children of their
primary summer recreational opportunity, espe-
cially in economically depressed areas.
Requirements:
Identification, description, size, and location of
any population segment which has been or
will be more adversely affected by lake
degradation.
Sources and Methods:
Information on this subject may be hard to ob-
tain, but lake association members, park offi-
cials, fishery department personnel, planning
agencies, police, and others whose work in-
volves observation of activities around the
lake may be able to provide opinions if quanti-
tative data do not exist. Housing or redevelop-
ment agencies, welfare officials, and civic as-
sociations are also likely information sources.
Format:
This information can be presented in narrative
form.
(a) (7) Comparison of Lake Uses to Uses of
Other Lakes in Region
In considering a lake for a Phase 2 award, it is
necessary to know whether there are other
opportunities for the same uses available to the
same population.
Requirements:
A. Summary of statistics on other publicly-
owned lakes within 80 km of lake under
study, including: extent of public access,
uses available to the public (with capacity
of facilities if information is available), and
summary of available usage data.
B. Discussion of relationship of lake under
study to other lakes.
4m «
Average
S«cchl
Oiih 2m
kUy-8tDt*mb*r
0
4'
•"« si '
FliMno s; i
5 '
7
11
10'
Totil Pirk •
Ui.g. o I 9
•- 5
7
C.molno j0*
3-
7
Public ' 3
Suopiy ? *'
2
r-^ .^r;^.
^s^ ^^^ I
^^.^-^ V
\ __
3 74 76 79 77 75 79
' ,,
^^
\. ""*>.
^V^ { , — .-
3 74 79 7B 77 79 70
•" ' '• ..-
3 74 79 re 77 79 70
'
1 74 79 76 77 79 79
Figure E-1. Historical Trends in Lake Use and Water
Quality.
Table E-2
Historical Statistics on Lake Use
Annual Usage3
UM
Swimming''
Fishing
Boating •
Camping
Nature Study
Water Supplyd
1973
4,800
3.200
c
1,100
c
2,200
1974
5,000
3,400
c
1,300
c
2,490
1975
4,700
3,000
c
1,200
c
2,610
1976
3.500
' 4,000
c
1,250
c
2,800
1977
1,800
3.800
c
1.100
c
2,800
1978 .
2.200
3.500
c
1.200
c
2.780
1979
2,000
2.700
c
1,400
C
2,700
0 in usei-davs oer year except where specified.
6 Mav iS-Seotemoer 15 season
c No seoaraie records availaDie
° Population served (esiimaiec as 3 5 • number or households)
-------
E-6
Sources, Methods, and Format:
Lakes within an 80-km radius can be displayed
using an accurate State or regional map,
which should be included in the Phase 1 re-
port. The other information required in item A
can be shown in a table such as Table E-3.
The investigator is not expected to study each
lake but should base the material in the table
on existing information. County, State, and re-
gional transportation, park and recreation, and
fishery officials are logical sources.
The table should be accompanied by a brief
discussion of the lake under study, compared
to the other lakes, in terms of present and po-
tential uses, water quality problems, and ex-
tent and convenience of public access. If statis-
tics are available on regional supply versus
demand for lake-based recreation, they should
be included here.
(a) (8) Inventory of Point Source Pollution
Discharges
In evaluating the likelihood of success of a res-
toration project, it is important to know the sta-
tus of point source discharges to the lake or its
tributaries. The characteristics of those dis-
charges, and the time period during which they
have existed, may yield information on pollut-
ants present in the lake or in its sediments. Fur-
thermore, because Clean Lakes funds are not
used for point source abatement, which is cov-
ered under other EPA programs, the decision to
award a Phase 2 grant depends in part on wheth-
er point source pollution is being adequately
managed in the watershed. If it is not, the invest-
ment in nonpoint source controls and in-lake
restoration measures could provide only
short-term benefits, or none at all.
Requirements:
A. Names and NPDES permit numbers of
point sources which affect or may have af-
fected (within past 5 years) the lake. In-
clude major storm and combined sewer
outfalls
B. Name of receiving water body for each
C. Location of discharge points
D. Discharge characteristics:
— Seasonal or year-round
— Average daily flow
— Discharge constituents and concentra-
tion or mass per day
E. Abatement actions or other modifications
completed, ongoing, or contemplated,
with actual or projected completion dates.
Sources and Methods:
Sources for this information include the EPA
regional office, the State water pollution con-
trol agency, and, in the case of publicly owned
treatment works, the municipalities or authori-
ties responsible for their operation.
Format:
The point source inventory is to be presented
in tabular form, accompanied by a map of the
watershed showing discharge points. Table
E-4 is an example.
(a) (9) Land Uses and Nonpoint Pollutant
Loadings
A map and description of watershed land uses
provides information which can be used to esti-
mate nonpoint source pollution loadings and to
define the task of watershed management.
Requirements:
A. Land uses in the watershed. The land use
classification should include at least the
following:
— Agriculture — cultivated
— Agriculture — noncultivated
— Agriculture — livestock production
— Residential — low density
— Residential — high density
— Commercial
— Industrial
— Transportation
— Forest
— Other open land
— Water.
B. The area of each land use as a percentage
of the total drainage area.
Table E-3
Other Publicly-Owned Lake Resources in the Region
(Total number of lakes = 13)
Description of
Public Acc««*
Use* Available to Public
Public
U*ag«
County parks (2)
Public landings (15)
Federal Wildlife Sanctuary (1)
Swimming, fishing, picnicking
Boat launching
Nature study and photography only
52,000*
6,000"
120,000"
In usof-days per year.
bln visitor-days oer year.
-------
E-7
C. Land use map. This is an optional require-
ment. It is not necessary when the water-.
shed is almost entirely in a single land use,
nor will it be helpful when several land
uses are so mixed throughout the water-
shed that a single list of categories by per-
centage provides an adequate description.
A map should be included when the land
use mix varies among subwatersheds, so
that the nonpoint source contribution from
one subwatershed could be expected to be
significantly different from that construct-
ed by another one. It is usually not possible
to produce a useful map when the lake
watershed is extremely large, as in an
on-stream impoundment or the lowermost
lake in a chain of lakes. Judgment must be
exercised in deciding how much detail to
include in such cases. For example, land
uses in the direct drainage area and in
tributaries flowing directly to the lake
might be described in detail, while land
uses upstream along the main channels or
in the direct drainage areas of lakes higher
up in a chain might be summarized.
D. Nonpoint source pollutant loading by land where
use category. (When a map showing land
use by subwatersheds is produced,
nonpoint source loadings should also be
estimated for each subwatershed.)
Sources and Method:
Sources of land use information include
areawide water quality management planning
agencies and regional or county planning
commissions. Information can also be taken
directly from aerial photographs available
from Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and
county or regional planning agencies. The
U.S. Geological Survey's LUDA program,
which uses multi-spectral scanner imagery,
produces land use maps and tabulations
which may be useful for this purpose, depend-
ing on the size and complexity of the
watershed.
Pollutant loading estimates for the various
land use categories may be available from
completed 208 planning work at the cognizant
areawide water quality management planning
agency. If not, values per unit area found in the
scientific literature may be used; Section 4.0
and Appendix C to this manual contain some
of this material and provide references to oth-
er sources of it. Factors used in their sources
must be stated in this section.
Specific soil loss estimates for agricultural
land, large construction sites, and other land
uses characterized by large amounts of open
land can be developed using the Universal
Soil Loss Equation.
A = RLSKCP
A = soil loss per unit area
R = rainfall factor
L = slope length
S = slope steepness
K = credibility factor
C = cropping and management
P = conservation practices
Assistance in developing these estimates can
be obtained through the county conservation
district or directly from USDA Soil Conserva-
tion Service. Wischmeier and Smith (1965)
and Wischmeier, et al. (1971) are useful
references.
Table E-4
Point Source Inventory
Name NPDES #
West Boro STP 281473321
Acme Battery Co. None
Cooperative Food 213256101
Processors. Inc.
Municipal Outlet ' None
#3
Receiving
Water
North Branch
North Branch
Lake
Lake
S/C/I" Discharge Flow"
C 200 m3/day
C 10 m'/dBY
Sc 500 m3/day
1" 1.2x108m3/vr
Consti-
tuent*
BOO,
SS
N
P
Pb
SS
BOD5
SS
BOD,
SS
N
P
Cone/Mass
18.0 mg/l
40.0 mg/l
3.0. mg/l
5.0 mg/l
3.0 mg/l
200.0 mg/l
20.0 mg/l
55.0 mg/l
2,500 kg/yr
28.000 kg/yr
800 kg/yr
350 kg/yr
Abatement Actions
Meets current efflu-
ent limitations
Plant closed 6/76
Plan to shift to
land application
8/81
Diversion to South
River recommended
for Phase 2
« Seasonal: C - Continuous, I - Intermittent.
^Average daily flow, exceot whgra noted.
.
"Municipal storm 'sewer flow and loadings art annual averages
-------
E-8
Lake water quality monitoring results will
demonstrate which pollutants are the primary
causes of lake degradation. This information
can be used in conjunction with the land use
data, to decide whether tributary or sub-basin
monitoring will be necessary to determine
loadings of major nonpoint pollutants more
precisely. Watershed monitoring is discussed
in detail in Section 10.0 of the Guidance
Manual.
Format:
All required information, except the optional
land use map, is to be included in a single ta-
ble. Table E-5 is an example. Loadings must be
presented in kg/yr,
raWe E-5
Watershed Land Use and Nonpoint Source
% Water- Loading
Land Use Area (ha) shed Constituent IkgxIO'/yr)
Agriculture:
Cultivated 370
Noncultivated 410
Residential:
Low density 120
High density 20
Forest 170
Water 10
37 BODS
SS
Total N
Total P
41 BOOS
SS
Total N
Total P
12 BODS
SS
Total N
Total P
2 BODS
SS
Total N
Total P
17 BODS
SS
Total N
Total P
1 None
4.1
600.0
4.1
2.0
0.4
120.0
0.4
0.2
1.4
48.0
4.8
2.0
1.1
6.7
0.3
0.1
0.0
12.7
0.1
0.0
None
Methods and information sources used in de-
veloping the pollutant loading estimates must
be described in a narrative accompanying the
map and table. If watershed monitoring and/or
modeling is employed to develop site-specific
information, methods and results must be pre-
sented separately in this section.
(a)(10) Baseline and Current Limnological
Data
An investigator must develop a data base to
permit selection of appropriate lake restoration
and protection alternatives and to provide a
baseline for evaluation of changes in lake water
quality resulting from them. This base should in-
clude a review of historical data and one year of
current limnological data. The data should be
sufficient to provide a means of assessing the
lake's current trophic status.
Requirements:
A. Summary analysis and discussion of his-
torical baseline limnological data.
B. Presentation, analysis, and discussion • of
one year of current baseline limnological
data.
C. Trophic condition of lake.
0. Limiting algal nutrient.
E. Hydraulic budget for lake.
F. Phosphorus budget (and a nitrogen budget
when nitrogen is limiting nutrient) for lake.
Because each lake ecosystem is unique,
limnological data needed vary from project to
project. However, to maintain minimum
standards for diagnostic studies and to facili-
tate subsequent project and overall program
evaluation, a basic set of requirements has
been established for all projects. These re-
quirements, and the procedures used to fulfill.
them, may be supplemented or modified
whenever it is appropriate to do so. Approval
of such modification by EPA Project Officer is
mandatory.
Tables E-6, E-7, and E-8 list the specific types
of information to be developed in the baseline
lake monitoring program.
Sources:
Potential sources of existing data, and in some
cases, continuing monitoring data, include:
— State Lake Classification Surveys
— National Eutrophication Survey
— U.S. Geological Survey
— National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration
— U.S. Soil Conservation Service
— U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
— U.S. EPA regional offices and STORET data
base
— State agencies with responsibilities corre-
sponding to the Federal agencies listed
above
— County health agencies
— Areawide water quality management
agencies
— Water and wastewater treatment plant
operators
— Research and educational institutions.
Methods:
Surface Area. The surface area is determined
by planimetering the lake surface boundary as
-------
E-9
shown on appropriate scale maps or aerial
photographs, or by planimetering the contour
line of its maximum surface elevation if only
contour maps are available. If the lake or pond
was surveyed during its construction, surface
area data may be available from the agency re-
sponsible for the lake or pond's design. If fre-
quent or significant fluctuations in surface ele-
vations occur seasonally, the lake surface area
should be determined at maximum and mini-
mum water surface elevations.
Table E-6
Morphometric and Hydraulic Lake
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Unit of Measurement
Surface area
Maximum depth
Average depth
Volume
Hydraulic residence time
Area of watershed
ha
nr1
years
km2
Table E-7
Physical and Chemical Lake Monitoring Requirements
Quantity
Temperature
Secchi Disk Transparency
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Alkalinity (Total)
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus0
Total Phosphorus
Ammonia — Nitrogen
Nitrite — Nitrogen
Nitrate — Nitrogen
Organic Kjeldahl
Symbol
—
SD
DO
PH
ALK
P04-P
TP
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N
N-ORG
Unit of
Measurement
degrees Celsius
m or cm
mg/l
—
mg/l as CaCOj
M.g/1 or mg/l as P
p.g/1 or mg/l as P
p.g/1 or mg/l as N
p.g/1 or mg/l as N
p.g/1 or mg/l as N
ng/l or mg/l as N
Analytical
Methods"
—
—
360.1, 360.2
150.1
310.1. 310.2
365.1,365.2, 365.3
365.1. 365.2. 365.3,
350.1, 350.2, 350.3
354. 1b
352.1 b
351.1,351.2.351.3,
365.4
351.4
References listed are from U.S. EPA (I979cl.
blt is usually adequate to measure nitrate and nit me in combination.
Methods 353.1. 353.2. and 353.3 yield nitrate + nnme.
C0efmed as dissolved onhoptiosphato phosphorus.
Table E-8
Biological Measurements Required for Lake Monitoring
Measurement
Primary Requirements:
Algal Pigment
TMt
Chlorophyll a
Unit of
Measurement
ng/i
Analytical
Method3
1002 G
Remarks
Test samples from epilim-
Algal Genera Cell Densities Counting Chamber no./ml
Algal Cell Volumes Calculation from densities mm3/!
and average cell volume
Limiting Nutrient
Mecrophyte Coverage
Bacteriological
Fish Flesh Analyses
Algal Assay Bottle Test or —
Total Nitrogen: Total
Phosphorus Ratio
Observation and Photo-
graphy
Percent Cover-
age (each major
species)
Fecal Coliforms
Heavy Metals
Synthetic Organic
Chemicals
no./lOO ml
mg/kg
mg/kg
1002 F
1002 H.2
802
1004
909 C
nion.
For each major genus.
For each major genus;
optical measurements of
individual cell volumes
required.
As a proportion of lake
surface area between 0
and 10 meter depth con-
tour or twice Secchi disk
depth, whichever is less.
When used for contact
recreation or fishing.
When lake is used for
fishing.
s iisied are rrom American Public Health Association (1975).
-------
E-10
Maximum Depth. The maximum depth of a
pond or lake in meters should be determined
from contour maps, or in situ by means of a
fathometer or sounding line.
Volume. The volume of a lake or pond is de-
termined from measurements made in the
field or from contour maps. When no contour
map exists, the procedure is to measure
depths along cross sections at appropriate in-
tervals throughout the lake or pond. This bot-
tom profile data can be used to prepare a
bathymetric map. In a long, narrow lake, the
profile data can also be used directly to deter-
mine volume by taking the sum of the prod-
ucts of cross-sectional areas and intervals
between cross sections. This procedure, de-
picted in Figure E-2a, should be followed for
the entire lake or pond. Note that the area cal-
culations for each subarea noted in Figure E-
2a may require use of formulas for area of rec-
tangle, trapezoid, and triangle.* If significant
water level fluctuations occur in the project
area, the volumes should be calculated based
on the extreme water levels expected.
The more common method of determining
volume is to measure the surface area of each
contour by planimetry, calculate the volume
•Rectangle: length of the base x height; trapezoid: [(sum of the two parallel sides) x
height) -i- 2: tnangie: (base x height) + 2.
between each pair of contour lines, and sum
the results, as shown in Figure E-2b.
Average Depth. The average depth in meters
is obtained by dividing the water volume by its
surface area. The average depth may be affect-
ed by extremes in water level fluctuations.
Hydraulic Residence Time. The hydraulic
residence time is the theoretical time required
to displace the lake or pond volume based on
the flow from the water body. It is calculated
by dividing the lake volume by the annual wa-
ter outflow. Consideration should be given to
computing hydraulic residence times on a sea-
sonal basis if outflows vary significantly dur-
ing the year.
The influence of groundwater inflows on the
hydraulic residence time may be estimated
from the net difference between mean inflows
from all surface water sources and rainfall,
and mean discharge and evaporation. The
U.S. Geological Survey may have inflow/
outflow data available from monitoring sta-
tions in the tributaries and discharges of larger
lakes and reservoirs. Rainfall and evaporation
data are available from the climatological data
reported by the National Weather Service for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration. Mean annual lake evaporation in the
United States can be found in Todd (1970). A
CROSS SECTION*!. ARE*
WATERSURFACE
TOTAL AB6A.AlV«
1*1
TOTAL AREA = li»l,.
» SUMMATION
n> NUMBER OF SUBDIVISIONS
!• AREA OP AN INDIVIDUAL
SEGMENT
VOLUME
n
TOTAL VOLUME • J] (A X L)
i:1
TOTAL VOLUME:
(A, i
£• SUMMATION
n- NUMBER OF SECTIONS
A» CROSS SECTIONAL AREA
LI LENOTN BETWEEN SECTION
Figure E-2a. Typical Procedures for Volumetric
Determination.
SECTION
CONTOUR
ELEVATION
A
a
c
0
ACRES
FLOODED
0
b
c
a
INTERVAL
STORAGE
,^x.-«.
-------
E-11
computational method for net evaporation
loss for a specific reservoir is described by
Stall (1964). An introduction to literature and
methodology describing groundwater flow
measurements can be found in Freeze and
Cherry (1979). Stephenson (1971) has exten-
sively investigated groundwater flows in rela-
tion to lakes.
Area of Watershed. The watershed area
draining to a lake or pond should be deter-
mined by planimeter from appropriate scale
contour maps or aerial photographs and
should be expressed in square kilometers. The
divide between the lake's drainage area and
adjacent basins should be followed, beginning
at the lake outlet, extending to the uppermost
reaches of the basin, and returning to the out-
let on the other side of the lake area. If a con-
tour map is not available, an estimate of the
drainage area may be made by planimetering
the area equidistant between two waterways
draining in opposite directions.
Chemical and Biological Data Collection. Ta-
bles E-6, E-7, and E-8 include citations for the
specific procedures to be followed in perform-
ing chemical and biological analyses. Litera-
ture that contains information on sampling
and analytical techniques follow. These
references should be examined to provide in-
sight into the requirements of lake investiga-
tion, to provide standardized investigative
methods and procedures, and to provide qual-
ity control of data collected.
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 600/4-79-020 (March 1979).
Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for
Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters
and Effluents. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, EPA 600/4-73-001 (July 1973).
Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. Fourteenth Edition
(1975) American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association, Water
Pollution Control Federation.
Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preser-
vation of Water and Wastewater. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, EPA
500/4-76-049 (September 1976).
Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in
Water and Wastewater Laboratories. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
600/4-79-019 (March 1979).
Quantitative Techniques for the Assessment
of Lake Quality. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, EPA 440/5-79-015 (January
1979).
Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the
Environment. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, EPA 600/8-78-017 (December
1978).
Algal Assay Procedure Bottle Test. National
Eutrophication Research Program, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, 200 S.W. 35th
Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97330 (August
1971).
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Dis-
charge of Dredged or Fill Material into Navi-
gable Waters. Miscellaneous Paper D-76-17,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, P.O. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss.
39180 (May 1976).
Mackenthun, K. M. 1973. Toward a Cleaner
Aquatic Environment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, GPO
Catalogue Number EPA.2:AG2, Stock Num-
ber 5501-00573.
Station Selection. Lake sampling station se-
lection depends in large measure on the phys-
ical arrangement of the lake and on the type of
information to be derived. Station identifica-
tion is an early step in developing a monitor-
ing program, and it is one of the more impor-
tant decisions.
The regulations require at least one station
"that best represents the limnological proper-
ties of the lake, preferably the deepest point in
the lake." Other stations may be necessary to
fully describe the environmental conditions
within a lake. It is imperative that a stream
sampling station be located near the mouth of
each tributary to the lake in order to obtain
loading information and that a station be lo-
cated near the lake's outfall. The effluent from
a natural lake usually will give a good compos-
ite of the surface waters of the lake. The dis-
charge from a reservoir penstock located be-
low the thermocline will show water quality in
a portion of the hypolimnion during periods of
stratification.
Sampling Frequency. The lake monitoring
program should include sampling at least
monthly from September through April and
biweekly from May through August. Sampling
times should be arranged to coincide with any
seasonal turnovers and to include periods of
elevated biological activity, as well as periods
when such activity is minimal. Although sam-
ples are to be routinely collected during the
daylight hours (0800 to 1600) some samples
should be collected during the early morning
hours to determine if a significant fluctuation
in dissolved oxygen concentration occurs.
Vertical Sampling Depths. The regulations
specify that samples must be collected be-
tween one-half meter below the surface and
one-half meter from the bottom, and must be
-------
E-12
collected at intervals of every one and one-half
meters, or at six equal depth intervals, which-
ever number of samples is less. These vertical
profile samples must be analyzed for all pa-
rameters listed in Table E-7.
Water Transparency. Secchi disk measure-
ments in meters must be made at all sampling
stations in the lake during each sampling peri-
od when the lake is not in-covered. This is a
disk, 20 cm in diameter, with four equal sec-
tions alternately white and black that was used
by Secchi in 1865 in determining the
transparency of the water in the Mediterra-
nean Sea. The disk is lowered into the water
from the side of a boat opposite that of the sun
and the depth at which it disappears from view
is noted. It is then raised and the depth noted
when it reappears. The mean of the two
depths is the limit of visibility.
Limiting Nutrient. As discussed in Section
10.6.2, the ratio of total nitrogen to total phos-.
phorus in the epilimnion can often be used to
determine the limiting nutrient. A ratio of 15:1
is regarded as the dividing point; below it, ni-
trogen is probably limiting, while above it,
phosphorus is the likely limiting nutrient. The
further the actual ratio is from 15:1, the more
reliable the conclusion of the analysis. Thus, if
the ratio is 10:1 or less, it is fairly certain that
nitrogen is the limiting nutrient. A ratio of 20:1
or greater is a strong indication that phospho-
rus is limiting (Porcella, et al. 1974). An algal
assay bottle test is advisable to determine the
limiting nutrient when the ratio is near 15:1.
See EPA (1971 and 1978) for test procedure.
Nutrient Budget. An annual nutrient budget
for the lake and watershed is determined from
water quality and flow data collected at signifi-
cant inflow and outflow points (including at-
mospheric contribution and groundwater flow
where significant). An annual budget can be
constructed by adding together all nitrogen or
phosphorus inflows to the lake (in kilograms),
and determining the respective amounts re-
moved through lake discharge. The difference
is that which remains in the lake, or in some
cases, that which may be contributed to the
discharge by lake bottom sediments. Kilo-
grams per day in flowing water at any time can
be calculated by multiplying the constituent
concentration in milligrams per liter by the
flow in cubic meters per day and dividing the
result by 1,000. Nutrients contained within the
lake can be estimated from literature values of
the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations
in fish, plankton, and vascular plants, and from
analyses of water and benthic sediments,
when the respective quantities or masses are
known or can be estimated. Obviously, the ac-
curacy of any nutrient budget is enhanced as
more data are collected.
Composite Samp/ing. In collecting data on
wet-weather nutrient transport in tributaries, it
may be appropriate to employ flow-propor-
tional composite sampling. Some types of
automatic sampling equipment can accom-
plish this mechanically, following operating
instructions supplied with the samplers. In
cases where compositing must be carried out
by hand, the following example may be help-
ful. Assume a storm event was monitored by
collecting discrete 200 ml samples during the
storm hydrograph. If the peak flow recorded
during the storm was 10 cfs, the proportioning
system shown below could be set up and used
to volumetrically develop a flow-proportional
composite sample.
Flow (cfs)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Typical Compositing System
Volume of Sample to Add (ml)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
If five 200 ml samples were collected at the
flows shown below, a composite sample with a
total volume of 363 ml would be created and
submitted to a laboratory for analysis, using the
proportioning system established.
Example
Amount of
Sample No. Stream Flow (cfs) Sample Composited (ml)
5.0
7.5
9.5
8.2
6.1
50
75
95
82
61
363
Algae. Samples collected from the epilim-
nion must be analyzed for chlorophyll a. Algal
genera should be identified and total numbers
and biomass determinations should be made
for each genus (Table E-8). Methods for mak-
ing these determinations are discussed in EPA
(1973) and American Public Health Association
(1975). Helpful suggestions also may be found
in Mackenthun (1973). Transects aid in sam-
pling the plankton population. Because of the
number of analyses necessary to appraise the
plankton population, however, more strategic
points usually are sampled, such as water in-
takes, a site near a dam in the forebay area or
discharge, constrictions within the water
body, and major bays that may influence the
main basin. Because of significant population
variations, plankton samples should be taken
vertically at several depths.
-------
E-13
Vascular Plants. Vascular aquatic plants
need to be surveyed during their active grow-
ing period when the population is at a peak. A
mapping of aquatic plants growing between
the 0 and 10-meter depth contours, or twice
the Secchi disk depth (whichever is less) with
an indication of predominant species and their
relative abundance should be done for future
comparisons to record relative changes in the
vascular plant population. A mapping of the
deep water attached plants such as Chara may
be accomplished with the use of one of the
sampling dredges. Generally, mapping of the
vegetation can be accomplished satisfactorily
with a boat reconnaissance survey and fre-
quent inspection stops in the littoral area of a
standing water basin during the peak of the
summer vegetative growing season. Aerial
and ground photography, scuba diving, and
State fishery agency surveys are useful means
of documenting plant coverage and density.
Core Samples and Benthic Sediments. If, in a
diagnostic study, dredging is expected to be
included in the restoration activities, repre-
sentative core samples of bottom sediments
must be collected. The operation of a Phleger
type coring device is described on page 1067
of American Public Health Association (1975).
When such a core is obtained, a plunger con-
structed to fit the diameter of the core sam-
pling tube can be inserted into the bottom end
of the tube to extrude the sediments from the
top of the tube. In this manner, a precise layer
of sediment may be collected for analysis. Al-
though not oriented toward the freshwater en-
vironment, helpful information on core sam-
pling is provided in an EPA publication
(1978b).
Benthic sediments should be analyzed for total
phosphorus, total nitrogen, those heavy met-
als that may be suspected to be present in
above normal concentrations because of pol-
lution, and persistent synthetic organic chemi-
cals'if suspected to be present. The determina-
tion of percent volatile solids in bottom
sediments is a helpful indicator of sediment
quality if dredging and disposal of dredged
material is a consideration.
In a dredging operation, there is concern
about constituents that may be disturbed dur-
ing the process and liberated into the water
column or leached from spoil at the disposal
site. To test the potential for such liberation,
the sediments are elutriated and the elutriate
obtained is analyzed for the appropriate con-
stituents as above. The elutriate sample prep-
aration procedure is described in U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (1976). In performing the
elutriate procedure, the following steps are
necessary:
1. Sediment samples from the dredging site
should be taken with a grab sampler or cor-
er in such a manner to ensure that their
characteristics are representative of the
proposed dredging site. Approximately 1
gallon of sediment should be collected; if
the samples are to be analyzed for trace
organics or a large number of constituents,
a proportionately larger initial sample
should be collected. The samples should be
placed in airtight plastic bags or jars (or in
glass storage containers if trace organic
analyses are to be performed). Care should
be taken to ensure that the containers are
completely filled with sample and that air
bubbles are not trapped in the container.
2. The samples'should be stored immediately
at 2 to 4° C. They must never be frozen. The
storage period should be as short as possi-
ble to minimize changes in the characteris-
tics of the sediment. It is recommended that
samples be processed within one week of
collection.
3. Subsample approximately 1 liter of sedi-
ment from the well-mixed original sample.
Mix the sediments and unfiltered dredging
site water in a volumetric sediment-to-
water ratio of 1:4 at room temperature (22
± 20° C). This is best done by the method of
volumetric displacement. One hundred ml
of unfiltered dredging site water is placed
into a graduated Erlenmeyer flask. The
sediment subsample is then carefully add-
ed via a powder funnel to obtain a total vol-
ume of 300 ml. (A 200-ml volume of sedi-
ment will now be in the flask.) The flask is
then filled to the 1,000-ml mark with
unfiltered dredging site water, which pro-
duces a slurry with a final ratio of one vol-
ume sediment to four volumes water. If the
volume of water required for analysis ex-
ceeds 700 to 800 ml, the initial volumes
should be proportionately increased (e.g.,
mix 400 ml of sediment and 1,600 ml of dis-
posal site water). Alternatively, several 1-li-
ter dredged material/dredging site water
slurries may be prepared as outlined
above, and the filtrates combined to pro-
vide sufficient water for analysis.
4. (a) Cap the flask tightly with a non-
contaminating stopper and shake vigorous-
ly on an automatic shaker at about 100 ex-
cursions per min. for 30 min. A
polyfilm-covered rubber stopper is accept-
able for minimum contamination.
(b) During the mixing step given in para-
graph 4(a), the oxygen demand of the
dredged material may cause the dissolved
oxygen concentration in the elutriate to be
reduced to zero. This change can alter the
release of chemical contaminants from
dredged material to the disposal site water
-------
E-14
and reduce the reproducibility of the
elutriate test. If it is known that anoxic con-
ditions (zero dissolved oxygen) will not oc-
cur at the disposal site or if reproducibility
of the elutriate test is a potential problem,
the mixing may be accomplished by using
the compressed air mixing procedure in-
stead of the mechanical mixing described
in paragraph 4(a). After preparation of the
elutriate slurry, an air-diffuser tube is in-
serted almost to the bottom of the flask.
Compressed air should be passed through
a de-ionized water trap and then through
the diffuser tube and the slurry. The flow
rate should be adjusted to agitate the mix-
ture vigorously for 30 min. In addition, the
flasks should be stirred manually at 10-min.
intervals to ensure complete mixing.
5. After shaking or mixing with air, allow the
suspension to settle for 1 hour.
6. After settling, carefully decant the
supernatant into appropriate centrifuge
bottles. Centrifuge. The time and rpms dur-
ing centrifuging should be selected to re-
duce the suspended solids concentration
• substantially, and therefore shorten the fi-
nal filtration process. After centrifuging,
vacuum or pressure filter approximately
100 ml of sample through a 0.45 micron
membrane filter and discard the filtrate. Fil-
ter the remainder of the sample to give a
clear final solution (the standard elutriate)
and store in the dark at 4° C in a clean,
noncontaminating container.
7. Analyze as soon as possible for major con-
stituents using accepted procedures.
8. Prepare and test the elutriate in triplicate
and report the average concentration of the
three replicates as the concentration in the
standard elutriate.
Public Health Concerns. If there is a potential
concern relating to public health, a diagnostic
lake evaluation should include standard bacte-
riological analyses (American Public Health
Association, 1975). Microbiological methods
for monitoring the environment have been
published by EPA (1978a). Whenever the po-
tential public health hazards include toxic sub-
stances, fish flesh should be analyzed for toxic
organic and heavy metal contamination. There
are no standardized methods per se, but a
method for wet digestion of fish tissue for
heavy metal analyses has been described by
Chernoff (1975).
Quality Assurance. Because of the impor-
tance of analyses in determining practical
courses of action that may be followed, quality
assurance programs to insure the reliability of
the water data are essential.
Quality assurance programs have two primary
functions in the laboratory. First, the programs
should continually monitor the reliability (ac-
curacy and precision) of the results reported;
i.e., they should continually provide answers
to the question: "How good (accurate and pre-
cise) are the results obtained?" This function is
the "determination" of quality. The second
function is the "control" of quality. To illus-
trate the distinction between the two func-
tions, the processing of spiked samples may
be a determination of measurement quality,
but the use of analytical grade reagents is a
control measure.
The analytical methods used should be care-
fully documented. Any deviation from a cited
standard method must be recorded. Docu-
mentation of measurement procedures used
in arriving at laboratory data should be clear,
honest, and adequately referenced; and the
procedures should be applied exactly as
documented.
Quality assurance procedures have been pub-
lished in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency (1979b).
A primary requisite of quality assurance in
field sampling is that standard routines are de-
veloped and explicitly written. The duty of the
quality assurance coordinator is to distribute
the procedures to all personnel and to offer
training in their application.
A second need is for frequent and proper cali-
bration of sampling and flow metering equip-
ment. The best advice in this regard is to fol-
low manufacturers' recommendations. Cal-
ibration should be performed systematically
and the results of all calibrations and equip-
ment checks should be permanently recorded.
Placing a clearly written calibration procedure
with each piece of apparatus is highly
recommended.
Control checks should be performed to evalu-
ate the performance and reliability of the sam-
• pie collection and handling program. The fol-
lowing procedures provide a check on some
aspects of sampling:
1. Duplicate samples — Duplicating auto-
matically collected or grab samples on a
random basis provides a precision check.
2. Split samples — Subdividing samples for
analysis in different laboratories provides
an accuracy check.
3. Spiked samples — Adding known
amounts of particular constituents to ac-
tual samples or blanks is another tech-
nique for evaluating accuracy.
4. Sample preservation blanks — Adding
preservatives to blanks in normally used
concentrations reveals any effects pre-
servatives may be exerting on results.
Any contribution by preservatives is then
-------
E-15
subtracted from real sample values. As a
general rule, preservatives should be re-
plenished at least every two weeks.
A minimum of seven sets each of comparative
data for duplicates, split samples, spikes, and
preservative blanks should be collected to
define accuracy and precision levels for data
validation.
All sample containers must be fully and prop-
erly labelled to insure proper handling during
transportation and laboratory analysis. A sam-
ple label should be designed at the start of the
project. Labels can be printed on water-
resistant, adhesive-backed paper, or on a
tie-on tag. Mark with an indelible pen.
Sample labels must contain at least the follow-
ing information:
1. A unique number for each and every
sample
2. Collection date and time
3. Sampling site
4. Sampling depth
5. Type of sample (composite or grab)
6. Name of sampling technician.
Additional items such as the preservative used
and the analyses to be performed may also be
placed on sample labels. A check-off system is
a convenient method of designation for these
purposes. Figure E-3 presents an example of a
sample label.
Study:
Station:
TP
P04
TKN
NH3
N03/N0,
TSS
IDS
Chlor a
pH
Cond
Alk
Acid
Turb
Color
Fe
Mn
Data: ' Time:
_^DIserete Composite
BOD Total Colif.
COD Feeal Colif.
TOC Fecal Strep.
Metals Other
Technician!*):
Remarks/Preservative:
Figure E-3. Typical Sample Identification Label.
Field notes should be recorded in a field
notebook at the time samples are collected.
For wet weather sampling, waterproof
notebook paper should be used. Field records
should contain the following information:
1. Unique sample or log number
2. Sample collection date and time
3. Source of sample (name, location, depth,
and sample type)
4. Preservative used
5. Analyses required
6. Results of any analyses conducted in the
field
7. Weather, flow, or other conditions that
may affect results
8. Serial numbers on seals and sample
transportation cases
9. The recorder's signature.
Preservatives are often necessary to retard
biological or chemical changes or to keep cer-
tain constitutents in solution until analyses
can take place. Preservative techniques in-
clude pH control, chemical addition, refrigera-
tion, and freezing. Because changes can only
be retarded and not stopped, each analysis
must be conducted within a specified time
span, depending on the analysis. EPA (1979c)
lists recommended preservatives and maxi-
mum holding periods for common consti-
tuents.
Format:
Basic data for a lake, including physical infor-
mation, should be presented in concise tabu-
lar form. For the physical, chemical, and bio-
logical information, organization of the cjata in
some orderly form is the first step in their
interpretation.
Data should be combined for individual sta-
tions for interpretation. A basic table displays
the data for each station arranged chrono-
logically by date of collection in the first col-
umn, followed by columns indicating time of
collection, flow, and the concentrations of var-
ious water quality constituents.
Data for one or more years on a year-round
basis, or for some other protracted period,
should be separated into segments of similar
flow and temperature combinations. Year-
round data may be separated by seasons. Data
that are obtained daily or several times weekly
may be separated by months, or combinations
of two or three months with similar stream
flow and temperature characteristics. The dis-
charge of a seasonal industrial waste may
govern the separation of data. Data for the
same month from two, three, or more years
may be combined. The important guiding
principle is to include sufficient data for statis-
tical reliability within relatively limited ranges
of stream, lake, or pond characteristics. In a
lake or pond environment it is often advanta-
geous to group the data according to depth.
strata.
In essence, data organization involves the
least complex arrangement and display of the
data that will aid in the interpretation of water
quality, and facilitate an understanding of the
water quality within a lake.
Where historic data are available on the tem-
perature and dissolved oxygen profiles within
a lake, for example, comparative calculations
for water quality constituents among specific
-------
E-16
years can be made of the volume of water
within a particular portion of the profile.
Through such a method, a judgment can be
reached on the degree of eutrophic advance-
ment within the water body.
(a)(11) Biological Resources and Ecological
Relationships
Information on lake biological resources and
relevant ecological relationships is essential for
three purposes:
1. Assessment of the effects of present or po-
tential water quality problems on lake biota
2. Projection of benefits from lake restoration
and/or protection
3. Evaluation of any adverse impacts of possi-
ble restoration techniques on the lake
ecosystem.
Requirements:
A. Composition of lake fish fauna, in terms of
dominant species and estimated
populations
B. Identification and approximate numbers of
waterfowl supported by the lake, indicating
whether use is seasonal, year-round, or
during migration only
C. Identification of other wildlife in any way
dependent on the lake
0. Discussion of the relationships of the or-
ganisms identified in A, B, and C to the rest
of the lake ecosystem, in terms of habitat,
spawning or breeding grounds, and food
chains
E. Comments on the effects of water quality
problems on biological resources, both di-
rect (such as low dissolved oxygen or toxic
pollution) and indirect (habitat degrada-
tion, loss of food organisms).
Sources and Methods:
Since this type of information is difficult and
expensive to obtain through field data collec-
tion, investigators should make maximum use
of existing information. Likely sources
include:
— State Lake Classification Survey
— U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
— U.S. Heritage Conservation and Resource
Service
— State outdoor recreation department
— State environmental and/or natural re-
source agency
— State fish and game departments
— County park and recreation department
— Lake associations
— Sportmen's associations
— Naturalists' organizations (Audubon Soci-
ety, etc.)
— Research and education institutions.
Much of the material obtained from these
sources will be qualitative or approximate —
for example, creel census data on fish rather
than actual in-lake population estimates, or
lists of bird sightings with opinions as to rela-
tive abundance, rather than counts. As much
information of this type as possible should be
obtained. With the assistance of local experts
such as the regional officials of the State fish
and game department, it can usually be inter-
preted to provide an adequate description of
biological resources.
If information is totally lacking, simple field
observations, such as creel census and bird
counts, should be relied on as much as possi-
ble. The Clean Lakes Program does not require
quantitative fish sampling or extensive sur-
veys of benthic organisms, and it is advisable
to avoid them because of time and expense
except in projects where the information is
essential.
In describing ecological relationships, local ex-
perts are again good sources of information.
University faculty in biology or fish and
wildlife management should be able to assist
in determining the habitat and food require-
ments of the important lake organisms. Two
useful references in this regard are Martin, et
al. (1951) and Sculthorpe (1967).
Format:
Organisms which are important in the lake's
biological resources should be listed with
common and scientific names, in groups (fish,
waterfowl, mammals, etc. in separate lists).
Whatever information on population size is
available — relative abundance, number per
unit area, annual catch, etc. — should be in-
cluded in the list. A narrative evaluation of bio-
logical resources should accompany the list.
The basis for a discussion of major ecological
relationships is to be a table showing the food
and habitat requirements of each important
organism. Narrative should be supplied to
highlight relationships, to comment on how
well the ecosystem is fulfilling the needs of the
important organism, and to describe ways in
which the lake's water quality problems may
be affecting its biological resources. (Some of
the last item may have been covered under
(a)(5) and may be cross-referenced in this sec-
tion of the report.)
If quantitative sampling of fish or benthic or-
ganisms is required, appropriate references
cited in (a)(10) above should be consulted.
(b) (1) Pollution Control and Restoration
Procedures
The feasiblity study portion of a Phase 1
project begins with a discussion of alternatives
considered and a justification of the alternative
selected.
-------
E-17
Requirements:
A. Alternative techniques considered
B. Expected water quality improvement, tech-
nical feasibility, environmental impacts,
and estimated cost of each alternative
C. For each feasible alternative, a detailed de-
scription of activities to be undertaken and
a quantitative analysis of pollution control
effectiveness and anticipated lake water
quality improvement.
Sources and Methods:
Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this manual include re-
views of pollution control and lake restoration
techniques and provide references for more
detailed information. These materials serve as
the basis for compliance with requirements A
and B, above.
Alternatives considered to be feasible after the
initial evaluation must be examined more in-
tensively. This examination includes a descrip-
tion of activities necessary to implement the
alternative, in sequence, including how and
where they would be carried out. Examples of
engineering specifications, including prelimi-
nary engineering drawings showing any con-
struction aspects of the alternative, must be
prepared for each. A quantitative assessment
of the pollution control effectiveness and an-
ticipated lake water quality improvement must
also be submitted for each feasible alternative.
Information on effectiveness is presented in
Sections 4.0 and 5.0 and Appendix C, as well
as in references cited therein. However, addi-
tional analysis requiring nutrient loading and
trophic state models may be necessary. Sec-
tion 10.0 provides an introduction to such
techniques.
Selection of a preferred alternative requires
application of procedures such as those out-
lined in Appendix F. The selection made must
be justified in detail, and the selection process
must provide for full public participation as de-
scribed under (b)(7), below.
Format:
Each alternative considered should be de-
scribed in a brief paragraph. Information re-
quired under item B can be summarized in a
table, with accompanying narratives or notes
to expand on or highlight table entries, as nec-
essary. Information for item C must be pre-
sented in a separate narrative and set of
drawings and calculations. Methods and
sources of information used in the analysis
should be documented meticulously.
Before final selection of a preferred alterna-
tive, the results of (b)(1), including necessary
public participation [see (b)(7)], must be present-
ed to the EPA Project Officer in an interim report,
and no further work may be conducted on the
Phase 1 study until Project Officer approval is
received.
(b)(2) Benefits Expected From Restoration
It is a policy of the Clean Lakes Program that
projects be selected to maximize the net public
benefits which can be obtained from the limited
funds available. A restoration project demon-
strated in the Phase 1 study to be scientifically
excellent may not be selected for a Phase 2
award unless the Phase 1 report also contains a
well-developed projection of significant public
benefits.
Requirements:
A. Statement of project objectives in terms of
benefits
B. Discussion of relationship between pro-
posed restoration actions and anticipated
water quality changes
C. Discussion of relationship of benefits to
water quality changes
D. Quantitative estimation of benefits
Sources and Methods:
A convincing demonstration of potential pub-
lic benefits begins by stating the project objec-
tive in terms of benefits. Benefits take various
forms, but all involve positive changes in lake
use where use is defined broadly to include
aesthetic enjoyment and lakeside uses, such
as nature study, picnicking, and hiking:
— Preservation of existing uses which would
otherwise be degraded or eliminated by
deteriorating water quality — e.g., sailing
which would become impossible because
of shoaling in the absence of erosion con-
trols to be developed and implemented in
the watershed.
— Improvement in an existing use — e.g., ad-
dition of gamefish to a panfish fishery be-
cause of elimination of dissolved oxygen
depletion, or decrease in water treatment
cost following elimination of algal blooms.
— Increases in user-days for an existing use
— e.g., more swimming days possible be-
cause of beach ck sings eliminated
through abatement of bacterial contamina-
tion from stormwater.
— Addition of new uses — e.g., nature study
programs for city schools following resto-
ration of degraded fish and wildlife habitat
in an urban lake.
Any given project may produce benefits
through one or more of these changes in use.
The specific benefit goals should be stated by
type and < uantity (such as user-days, surface
area, etc.). Appendix F to this manual contains
suggestions and examples for identifying,
defining, and quantifying objectives.
The water quality changes expected from the
proposed activity should have been docu-
mented under (b)(1) above. The next step is to
show the relationship between the anticipated
water quality changes described under (bid)
-------
E-18
and the changes in lake uses. The foundation
for this discussion should have been estab-
lished in the response to (a)(5), in which
changes in use because of water quality deg-
radation were summarized. Here, the types of
arguments to be presented are illustrated by
the following:
The proposed watershed management
plan for Lake "X" is expected to reduce
total phosphorus loadings by 50
. percent, which in turn should make it
possible to maintain total P concentra-
tions below 0.010 mg/l. Since phos-
phorus is the limiting nutrient, this
should lead to prevention of summer
blue-green, algae blooms. As a result,
more balanced food-chains will be es-
tablished for fish, and the diurnal dis-
solved oxygen extremes which' have
made it impossible to maintain bass
populations in the lake will be eliminat-
ed. Upon completion of the project, the
State fish and game agency will stock
the lake with 18,000 fingerlings each
year for three years and anticipates be-
ing able to maintain reproducing popu-
lations which will support up to 10,000
user-days of fishing per season.
Such a statement depends heavily on the wa-
ter quality discussion in (b)(1) and on knowl-
edge available from literature or from experts
on the water quality requirements for particu-
lar uses.
The conclusion of a successful benefits dem-
onstration is a quantitative projection of bene-
fits, compared to baseline lake usage. This in-
volves more than simply projecting the
changes in use which will be possible after the
project is completed. It is necessary to show
that there is demand for the new, improved, or
protected uses — that they will actually be tak-
en advantage of by a significant number of
people. Historical usage statistics [(a)(5)| and
the size of the region's population [(a)(4)| are
the basic data for this discussion. Park and rec-
reation officials and regional planning agen-
cies may have models and statistics on recrea-
tion demand which can be helpful. The extent
to which capacity is fully used at other lakes in
the region is one type of useful information
they may be able to supply.
Accessibility to the lake [(a)(3)| and availability
of alternative sites for the same uses [(a)(7)j
are also components of the benefits estima-
tion. The first determines how easily the po-
tential user population will be able to take ad-
vantage of the uses afforded by the restored
lake. The second is important in deciding
whether supplies of those uses are already
adequate in the region or not.
Appendix F to this manual, which concerns se-
lection of project alternatives, contains expla-
nations of several methods for estimating and
evaluating benefits which can be applied to
this benefit demonstration.
Format:
Parts of requirements A, B, and C may be met
by cross-referencing Sections (a)(3), (a)(4),
(a)(5), (a)(7), and (b)(1) and extracting perti-
nent information from them. The format for A,
B, and C may be primarily narrative, with ta-
bles where appropriate (as in showing the re-
lationships between lake uses and water qual-
ity, for example). Items D and E, however,
should be presented in a table similar to Table
E-9, with notes and narrative to explain meth-
odology, identify sources, and highlight find-
ings. (The hypothetical project to which Table
E-9 applies is expected to eliminate swimming
and beach closings, add trout to the lake fish-
ery, create a wildlife sanctuary and nature
study in the process of developing a marsh
which will reduce pollutant loadings in
stormwater, as well as reduce water treatment
costs.)
Table E-9
Projection of Benefits from Lake Restoration Project
Use
Category
Swimming
Fishing
Nature Study
Water Supply
Total Benefits
Benefit
Type"
3
2
4
2
Baseline
Usage"
60,000
4,000
0
300"
Projected
Usage"
70,000
4,000
5,000
3003
Change
In
Usage"
+ 10,000
0
+ 5,000
0
Value of
Annual
Baseline
Usage0
120,000
8,000
0
-750,000
Value of
Annual
Projected
Usage'
140,000
12,000
5,000
-730,000
Value of
Annual
Increment0
20,000
4,000
5,000
20,000
Value of
Benefit"
140,000
28,000
35,000
140,000
$343,000
a 1 - existing use protected; 2 • existing use improved. 3 • increase in usage of existing use, 4 - now use.
0 In annual user-days unless otherwise soecified.
c In current dollars.
d Net present value over duration of benefits, m current dollars.
• Utif* * 10a.
-------
E-19
(b)(3) Phase 2 Monitoring Program
A Phase 1 report must include a monitoring
program to be implemented in connection with
any Phase 2 work undertaken. Post-project mon-
itoring information is essential for project and
overall program evaluation. As in the case of
Phase 1 monitoring, requirements may be modi-
fied with EPA Project Officer approval.
Requirements:
A. Monitoring program based on same pa-
rameters as Phase 1 program described in
(a)(10) and Section 10.0.
B. Provision for continued monitoring for at
least one year after construction or pollu-
tion control practice implementation is
completed.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
The difference between the Phase 2 monitor-
ing program and the (a)(10) baseline data col-
lection is in the use to which the data are put,
rather than the types and extent of data to be
collected. The diagnostic baseline data are to
be used to determine the limnological condi-
tions of a lake that needs to be restored. The
Phase 2 monitoring program data are to be
used to determine the relative response of the
lake ecosystem to restorative actions that have
been taken. These differences will be reflected
in the Phase 2 monitoring program design in
several ways.
— The list of chemical and biological param-
eters will usually be different, emphasizing
those which are expected to change and
those which may change as a result of the
project. For example, if phosphorus load-
ing reduction in the watershed is the sole
pollution control objective of a project, the
frequency of sampling other parameters
such as nitrogen and suspended solids can
be reduced. Conversely, if in the course of
Phase 1 a new pollutant was identified
which was not included in routine monitor-
ing, that parameter should be included in
the Phase 2 program.
— Change in station location. Phase 1 work
may have identified specific pollutant
sources which are to be controlled and
should be monitored closely, necessitating
new stations. On the other hand, Phase 1
may have shown that in-lake water quality
was less variable from one site to another,
allowing the number of stations to be
decreased.
— Change in sampling frequency. Sampling
frequency may be reduced if the Phase 1
results show little variation within a given
season. Sampling frequency may be in-
creased in other cases, to sample numer-
ous storm events, for example, if nonpoint
source control is a major component of the
Phase 2 project.
The description of the Phase 2 monitoring pro-
gram must include station locations, with lati-
tude and longitude, sampling frequency, sam-
pling depths, and parameters to be analyzed. It
must also set forth the arrangements made for
post-completion monitoring, including
responsible agencies, reporting arrange-
ments, and funding sources.
(b)(4) Schedule and Budget
Requirements:
A. Proposed milestone work schedule
B. Proposed budget
C. Proposed payment schedule.
Methods and Format:
The Phase 2 project proposed at the conclu-
sion of the Phase 1 study should be broken
down into its component restoration activities,
and a schedule and budget prepared for each.
For example, a project may consist of water-
shed management to control erosion and
sedimentation, implementation of agricultural
best management practices to eliminate pollu-
tion from cattle feedlots, and dredging and nu-
trient inactivation to correct problems caused
by those pollutant sources in the past. Every
project also includes project management or
administration and water quality monitoring,
which should also be shown as separate com-
ponents.
In developing the schedules, it will usually be
helpful to both the reviewers of the application
and the project manager to further subdivide
the major components into logical work ele-
ments. Thus, dredging may be divided into en-
gineering and design, construction (of berms,
dikes, pump stations, etc.), and dredging oper-
-------
E-20
ations. A simple bar chart (Figure E-4) is suffi-
cient for the schedule; the start and finish
dates of work elements and any other mile-
stones, such as public meetings or report sub-
missions, should also be listed.
The budget for each restorative activity should
be itemized in sufficient detail so that review-
ers can identify the costs of each restorative
activity and assess the reasonableness of the
application for funding assistance. Table E-10
is an example. Note that a different budget
breakdown — into categories such as person-
nel, equipment, supplies, contractual, con-
struction, and indirect costs — is required as a
part of the standard application for Federal as-
sistance (see Section 12.0 for an example).
To assist EPA in planning for disbursement
and in monitoring projects, a schedule of pay-
ments should be developed, by relating the
budget to the schedule and estimating the
amount of expenditures for each project
quarter.
(b)(5) Sources of Matching Funds
The ability of the Phase 2 applicant to obtain
the necessary non-Federal funds for the project
is a consideration in project review and selec-
tion.
Requirements:
Detailed description of how non-Federal funds
will be obtained.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
The Phase 1 report should include details on
sources of these funds and mechanisms for
obtaining them. The extent to which the funds
are earmarked for, or committed to the project
. should be noted. Section 11.0 of this manual
contains an extensive listing of possible
matching fund sources. A table showing
sources and anticipated amounts is to be pre-
pared for this section.
(b) (6) Relationship to Other Pollution
Control Programs
In keeping with Clean Lakes Program strategy
(see Section 6.0 of this manual). Phase 2 projects
are expected to follow an integrated approach.
They are to be coordinated with other activities
dealing with water-related concerns. Other pro-
grams not necessarily related to water quality
management may enhance the benefits to be
realized from lake restoration and should be
Table E-10
Sample Proposed Phase 2 Budget
Watershed Management:
Develop controls $ 30,000
Implement controls 10.000
Agricultural BMP:
Identify practices 10,000
Implementation 150,000
Dredgipg:
Engineering 10,000
Construction 10,000
Operations 80,000
$ 40,000
160,000
100,000
Nutrient Inactivation:
Pilot testing
Design
Application
Monitoring 13 years &• $5,000)
Project Management
Total Estimated Cost
5.000
5.000
20,000
30,000
15,000
60,000
$406,000
Watershed Management:
Develop controls
Implement controls
Agricultural BMP:
Identify practices
Implement practices
Dredging:
Engineering
Construction
Operations
Nutrient Inactivation:
Pilot testing
Design
Application
Monitoring:
Project Management:
1981
J FMAMJ JASOND
^—
,
t
Start
1/1
5/1
1/1
3/1
1/1
4/1
7/1
1/1
3/1
10/1
1/1
1/1
Finish
4/30
12/31
2/28
10/31
3/31
6/30
9/30
2/28
4/30
11/15
12/31
12/31
Figure E-4. Sample Schedule
-------
E-21
used wherever possible. In the course of the
Phase 1 study, all such opportunities for coordi-
nation should be investigated, and documenta-
tion of the results should be included in the
report.
Requirements:
Description of project's relationship to other
programs.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
Some of the obvious programs with which a
lake restoration or protection project should
be coordinated are:
— Construction Grants Program (201)—can
provide funding for municipal point source
abatement in the watershed
— Areawide Water Quality Management
Planning (208)—Federally assisted com-
prehensive studies of water quality prob-
lems, often resulting in various nonpoint
source management practices and imple-
mentation plans
— Soil Conservation Service — provides tech-
nical assistance to farmers and municipal-
ities through conservation district, also
funds various small flood control projects,
soil and water conservation programs, and
watershed management
— Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service—provides financial assistance to
farmers implementing conservation and
agriculture pollution control practices
— HUD Community Development Block
Grants—may be used for a variety of pur-
poses, including watershed management,
stormwater management, and lakefront
development projects
— Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service—has programs for parkland acqui-
sition and development which may com-
plement lake restoration
— Various State programs may provide funds
for land acquisition, recreational facilities
development, pollution control, lake diag-
nostic studies, floodplain management,
flood control, erosion control, etc.
Section 11.0 of this manual contains more ex-
tensive information on programs in which a
Clean Lakes grantee might be interested.
The output of this section is to be a listing of all
programs considered and a chart or table
showing those with which the project will be
coordinated and the method and nature of that
coordination.
(b) (7) Public Participation Summary
Clean Lakes projects are subject to the require-
ments of 40 CFR 25, "Public Participation in Pro-
grams Under the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
Clean Streams Act," which is a good source of
information on conduct of public participation.
These regulations state EPA's objectives for pub-
lic participation:
(1) To assure that the public has the oppor-
tunity to understand official programs and
proposed actions and that the government ful-
ly considers the public's concerns;
(2) To assure that the government does not
make any significant decision on any activity
covered by this part wi:-out consulting
interested and affected segments of the
public;
(3) To assure that government action is as
responsive as possible to public concerns;
(4) To encourage public involvem|fit in im-
plementing environmental laws;
(5) To keep the public informed about sig-
nificant issues and proposed project or pro-
gram changes as they arise;
(6) To foster a spirit of openness and mutu-
al trust among EPA, States, substate agencies
and the public; and
(7) To use all feasible means to create
opportunities for public participation, and to
stimulate and support participation.
The regulations also spell out the general re-
sponsibilities for public participation which must
be met by EPA, State, interstate, and substate
agencies.
Requirements:
Compliance with public participation require-
ments is to be documented in the Phase 1
study report in a summary which also meets
the requirements of the "responsiveness sum-
mary" required under 40 CFR 25.8 at specific
decision points — in this case, lake restoration
method selection — which must accompany a
Phase 2 application.
Methods and Format:
The regulations which govern the Clean Lakes
Program highlight three areas of Phase 1 stud-
ies in which public involvement is required (40
CFR 35.1620-4):
(1) In developing, evaluating, and selecting
alternatives;
(2) In assessing potential adverse environ-
mental impacts; and
(3) In identifying measures to mitigate any
adverse impacts that were identified.
Fact sheets or summaries are to be distributed
at least 30 days before selecting a proposed
restoration method, and a public meeting is to
be held before the selection is made. An advi-
sory group (40 CFR 25.3) is not required but
should be formed if public interest warrants. A
formal public hearing meeting the require-
ments of 40 CFR 25.5 is not generally required
during a Phase 1 study, unless dredging or
some other activity involving significant modi-
-------
E-22
fication of the environment is being recom-
mended as the restoration method.
The summary of public participation is to be a
narrative describing:
— Matters brought before the public
— Measures used to meet public participation
requirements (e.g., meetings, hearings, ad-
visory groups, newsletters, news media,
etc.)
— Public response
— Agency's response to significant comments.
(b) (8) Operation and Maintenance Plan
One of the conditions of Phase 2 awards is that
the Stale must "manage and maintain the
project so that all pollution control measures ...
will be continued during the project period at the
same level of efficiency as when they were im-
plemented" (40 CFR 35.1650-3). In addition,
among the application review criteria is an eval-
uation of the State's operation and maintenance
program for continuation of restorative or pro-
tective measures after project completion (40
CFR 35.1640-1). Consequently, an effective op-
eration and maintenance (O&M) plan should be
developed during the Phase 1 study and thor-
oughly described in the report.
Requirements:
A. Operation and maintenance requirements
for each component of the project
B. Proposed duration of the O&M program,
with justification
C. Agencies which will be responsible for
O&M
D. Measures for implementing the plan and
ensuring it is followed
E. Funding sources.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
Depending on the restorative techniques pro-
posed, the O&M plan may be simple or quite
complex. For example, if hypolimnetic aer-
ation is the only technique to be applied, the
O&M plan need only be concerned with desig-
nating an agency to operate and maintain the
equipment and with identifying a source of
funds to pay O&M costs. At the other extreme,
a restoration project depending heavily on wa-
tershed management requires an O&M plan
which addresses continuing efforts to imple-
ment controls through legislation, technical
assistance, education, and voluntary coopera-
tion; monitoring and enforcement of manage-
ment practice implementation; and continu-
ation and funding for all of the above.
Item A is to be presented in tabular form.
Items B and 0 may be narrative. Item C is to be
a table listing participating agencies and their
responsibilities. Item E is.to be a list of funding
sources and projected amounts to be obtained
for each.
(b) (91 Copies of Permits or Pending
Applications
Some lake restoration measures require per-
mits from Federal, State, or local agencies. Most
obvious are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permits for discharge of dredged material, which
are required under Section 404 of the Clean Wa-
ter Act. Dredging itself requires a Corps permit if
it might affect the navigability of navigable wa-
ters. In addition, State approval is usually re-
quired for channel modification, alterations to
dams or inlet or outlet structures, or chemical
applications.
Requirements:
During the Phase 1 study, all permit require-
ments should be identified and, when the res-
toration alternative has been selected, the per-
mit application process should be initiated.
Format:
Copies of permits, applications, and other per-
tinent correspondence, and information on the
status of all applications, should be included in
the Phase 1 report.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
An environmental evaluation of the selected
restoration or protection alternative(s) must be
included as a Phase 1 study output. There are 14
topics which are required to be addressed; other
subjects may be relevant to particular projects
and should be covered as appropriate. The eval-
uation should be clear and concise, since it will
be used by decision-makers in selecting projects
for Phase 2 funding.
(c) (1) Displacement of People
Certain projects, especially those involving
dredge spoil disposal or construction of
stormwater diversion systems, may displace
people from residences or places of business.
Requirements:
Where any individuals will be displaced, infor-
mation on numbers, location, and socioeco-
nomic characteristics should be supplied.
Measures planned for relocating these per-
sons or otherwise mitigating the adverse im-
pact on them should be outlined.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
The extent of displacement, if any, is to be de-
termined by comparing design drawings with
property ownership maps. Affected areas are
to be shown on a map. The characteristics of
the affected population may be obtained from
local or county planning agencies. This infor-
mation should be tabulated and- discussed
briefly. Proposed mitigative measures should
be outlined in narrative form.
-------
E-23
(c) (2) Defacement of Residential Areas
Defacement of residences or residential areas
may include adverse visual impacts of structures
or spoil areas, taking of land for construction or
spoil deposition, and increases in ambient noise
levels resulting from equipment operation.
Note that a restoration project often has the
opposite effect, enhancing the attractiveness of
a residential area rather than detracting from it.
A positive impact of this sort should also be
documented in the environmental evaluation.
Only if there is no effect one way or the other
should a simple statement of no impact be sup-
plied in response to this question.
Requirements:
The extent of any potential defacement must
be described. The description should include
the nature of the impact, whether it is
long-term or short-term, location and num-
bers of residences and residents affected, and
the degree to which they are affected (which
may vary depending on proximity to the cause
of the impact). Mitigating measures consid-
ered, such as visual screens, buffer zones,
noise barriers, and re-landscaping, should be
discussed and the selected ones identified.
Positive impacts should be documented
similarly.
Sources. Methods, and Format:
Aerial photographs, usually obtainable from
planning agencies, provide the best base for
identifying impacts in this category. Project
features can be drawn on a transparent
overlay to the photograph, and potentially af-
fected residences identified. The properties
thus identified must then be visited. The ex-
tent of impact to be estimated is to be on a
map, using zones of impact which are based
on proximity to the affecting facility and type
of impact. For example, the most severe im-
pact zone might be "unobstructed view, 10 db
increase in noise level." A zone of impact
would be "obstructed view, 5 db increase."
Numbers of residences and persons affected
are to be tabulated and keyed to the map.
(c) (3) Changes in Land Use Patterns
Very often, creation of or improvement in a
scenic or recreational resource, or the removal
of an environmental nuisance, will lead to indi-
rect impacts in the form of changes in land use
patterns. These may include construction of fa-
cilities to provide lodging for transients, sale and
development of nearby property for develop-
ment in response to property value increases or
heightened demand for housing, and construc-
tion of transportation, utilities, and commercial
facilities to meet the needs of the larger numbers
of people thus attracted to the area. All of these
lead to reduction in amounts of open space.
Requirements:
The nature and extent of land use effects must
be projected. In many cases, however, they
can be managed to the community's benefit,
through planning and zoning, preservation of
priority open space through public purchase
. or easement, or innovative techniques includ-
ing transfer of development rights. The meas-
ures proposed to control these kinds of indi-
rect impacts, the methods of implementing
them, and the responsible agencies should be
described.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
Local, county, or regional land use plans pro-
vide information on projected or desired fu-
ture land uses in the absence of the project.
Aerial photographs for various years are the
best sources of historical trends in land use.
Land use changes resulting from the project
cannot be predicted with complete certainty.
However, the types of development likely to
occur as a direct or indirect result of the
project can be envisioned — new access
points; recreational facilities, new housing,
new accommodations for tourists and vaca-
tioners, widened roads, gasoline stations,
campsites, etc. The comparison of projected
numbers of new users to existing usage levels
is the basis for estimating demand for new
facilities.
Where new development will go is a function
of available land, existing zoning, and proxim-
ity and accessibility to users. Likely areas are
to be delineated on a map and the probable
types of development identified for each.
In a descriptive paragraph, the ability of the
community to manage and guide any
projected changes should be assessed, based
on interviews with local planning and zoning
officials as well as elected municipal officials.
Plans or recommendations for utilization of
particular land use .control techniques should
be explained.
(c) (4) Impacts on Prime Agricultural Land
Loss of the use of prime agricultural land is a
manor of national concern. It may come about
through direct or indirect impacts.
Requirements:
Assessment of the magnitude of any losses of
two types of land:
— Prime agriculture land, whether in agricul-
tural use or in open space
— Other agricultural land currently in agricul-
tural use.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
The local conservation district can assist in
identifying prime agricultural land, which is
defined in terms of soil type and topography.
Land in agricultural use has already been de-
-------
E-24
termined as part of the land use inventory
(a)(9). If no impact on agricultural land is
projected, a simple statement to that effect is
sufficient. Otherwise, the area affected (in hec-
tares) and the permanence of the impact
should be discussed. If positive impacts are
anticipated, such as the use of dredge spoil as
a soil conditioner, they should also be
described.
(c)(5) Impacts on Parkland, Other Public
Land, and Scenic Resources
In most cases, a lake restoration project will
have positive impacts on these resources.
.Requirements:
Note any impacts that are projected. In those
few cases where adverse impacts are unavoid-
able, as when public land must be used for
spoil disposal, a description of the impacts
should be provided. The impacts may be miti-
gated or offset, by the purchase of other land
for public use, for instance, and any such
measures proposed should be discussed.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
Unless there are significant.impacts in the
form of changes in area or location (which are
to be shown on maps), the information can be
presented in narrative form. Local park and
recreation officials are good information
sources. Reference should be made to the sec-
tion on changes in land use patterns [(c)(3)], if
any of the indirect impacts or mitigating meas-
ures covered in that section involve public
land or scenic resources.
(c)(6) Impacts on Historic, Architectural,
Archaeological, or Cultural Resources
Requirements, Sources, Methods, and Format:
As a matter of routine, the State official re-
sponsible for preservation of historical and ar-
chaeological sites must be contacted during a
Phase 1 study unless no construction or other
land-disturbing activity is contemplated. If
there is a local or county historical society, it
too must be notified of the proposed restora-
tion project. The results of these contacts
should be documented. Should the conclusion
be that the selected lake restoration or protec-
tion measures will affect a site of importance,
the site or sites must be shown on a map and
possible alternatives and mitigating measures
must be considered and described in this sec-
tion of the Phase 1 report.
(c)(7) Long Range Increases in Energy
Demand
Restoration alternatives which involve aer-
ation, pumping, maintenance dredging, harvest-
ing, or chemical treatments on a continuing ba-
sis may cause increases in energy demand over
a period of time. •
Requirements:
Increases in energy usage should be calcu-
lated and included in the report. Any energy
savings, such as those resulting from a water-
shed management program which eliminates
or reduces the frequency of maintenance
dredging, should also be noted.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
Equipment manufacturers and design engi-
neers can provide information on energy con-
sumption by equipment used in lake restora-
tion or pollutant control. Increases or
decreases are to be measured in kilowatts and
shown in tabular form.
(c)(8) Changes in Ambient Air Quality or
Noise Levels
Short-term impacts on ambient air quality or
noise levels are those associated with the con-
duct of the restoration work itself. Long-term im-
pacts may result from operation of compressors,
pumps, or other equipment installed during the
project, or from changes in the usage of the lake
— increased vehicular traffic at the access
points, for example, or more intensive power
boat use.
Requirements:
Any short- or long-term changes in air quality
or noise levels must be discussed in the con-
text of data on pre-project noise and air quality
conditions.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
Information on ambient air quality can usually
be obtained from State environmental agen-
cies or local or regional air management agen-
cies. Ambient noise levels must be measured
in decibels using noise level meters if noise
impacts of the project are expected to be sig-
nificant. Traffic volume must be projected if
vehicle traffic is expected to increase substan-
tially as a result of the project, since it forms
the basis of projections of traffic-related noise
and air quality impacts. EPA models such as
HIWAY can be used to predict traffic-related
air quality impacts, where this is a significant
issue (see Zimmerman and Thompson, 1975).
Results are to be shown on a map, with an ac-
companying discussion of methods, sources,
and findings. This information can usually be
obtained from the State environmental
agency.
(c)(9) Adverse Effects of Chemical
Treatment
Requirements, Sources, Methods, and Format:
The selection of in-lake chemical treatment as
a restoration alternative should be preceded
by a review of the literature on the ecological
impacts of the compounds proposed for use.
When there is insufficient information in the
-------
E-25
literature to determine the likely impact on
lake ecology, it is advisable to conduct
bioassays (American Public Health Associ-
ation, 1975), using representative lake organ-
isms, to determine whether the chemical will
be toxic to non-target organisms at the con-
centrations which will exist in the lake after
treatment. If no chemicals will be used, that
fact should simply be noted.
Results are to be summarized in narrative
form with any appropriate tables.
(c)(10) Compliance with Executive Order
11988 on Floodplain Management
Lake restoration may involve activities which
take place in, or result in modifications to, a
floodplain. When this is proposed, Executive Or-
der 11988 must be complied with. E.O. 11988's
purpose is:
... to minimize the impact of floods on human
safety, health and welfare, and to restore and
preserve the natural and beneficial values
served by floodplains. ...
Before awarding Phase 2 funds for a restora-
tion project, EPA must determine whether the
proposed action would occur in a floodplain, as
defined on a HUD floodplain map or a more de-
tailed map if available. (In the absence of either,
accepted hydrologic techniques should be fol-
lowed in delineating the floodplain.) If it would,
EPA must first consider alternatives "to avoid
adverse effects and incompatible development
in the floodplain." The agency may approve the
proposed action, if it is the only practicable alter-
native, but must then design the project to
"minimize potential harm to or within the
floodplain." It must also circulate a notice ex-
plaining the reasons for permitting location
within the floodplain.
Requirements:
Sufficient information in the Phase 1 report to
meet these E.O. 11988 requirements. Conse-
quently, part of the Phase 1 study must include
determination of the location of proposed con-
struction or modifications with respect to
floodplain boundaries. If no such activities are
proposed within the floodplain, that fact
should be stated and no further information
need be supplied. Otherwise, the State should
project the impacts of the action on flooding
safety and floodplain ecology. It should also
discuss alternatives outside the floodplain and
demonstrate why these are not acceptable. Fi-
nally, it should outline mitigating measures to
minimize potential harm.
Sources and Methods:
The best sources of floodplain boundary loca-
tions are the floodplain maps prepared for the
National Flood Insurance Program. Some mu-
nicipalities may have delineated floodplains
independently, for other purposes, and their
information is also useful. Standard engineer-
ing techniques can be applied in forecasting
impacts on flooding (see Chow, 1964).
(c){11) Dredging and Other Channel, Bed,
or Shoreline Modifications
The discharge of dredged or fill material is
managed through Section 404 of the Clean Wa-
ter Act. A permit for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United States is re-
quired from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of the Army, (33 CFR 323). Guide-
lines to be applied in the issuance of permits for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
waters of the United States at specified disposal
sites appear in the 40 CFR 230. The water quality
considerations associated with the water dispos-
al of dredged material are specifically addressed
in the latter document. Wetlands receive special
protection. Certain testing procedures are re-
quired in most projects to determine the accept-
ability of dredged material for discharge to
water.
Requirements:
When dredging is employed as a part of the
lake restoration process, the potential for
harm to those parts of the lake ecosystem not
being dredged must be minimized, in consid-
ering the removal of certain very toxic depos-
its, for example, a determination must be
made that the process of removing will not
pose potential for greater environmental harm
than leaving such sediments in place.
The selection of a suitable disposal site for the
discharge of the dredged material is a determi-
nation that must be considered early in the
planning process. Several alternative disposal
sites should be considered and discussed in
the restoration project proposal. The relative
environmental impacts, practicability, and
costs for each alternative should be discussed
in sufficient detail to allow a reader to reach a
reasoned conclusion.
Upland disposal is always an alternative, but
transportation costs for such disposal may
make it unrealistic. Open water disposal may
be an alternative, but a Section 404 permit
would be required and the Guidelines in 40
CFR 230 must be followed. The same is true
for disposal into any wetlands such as
swamps, bogs, or marshes.
When disposing of dredged material, adverse
environmental impacts to the waters of the
United States should be minimized. Best man-
agement practices to prevent such impacts are
technically feasible and available (EPA, 1979a).
Such practices fall into the categories of mini-
mizing the impairment of water flow or circu-
lation through properly locating and orienting
masses of dredged material and providing
-------
E-26
flow through such materials; controlling ex-
cess sediment loads or turbidity increases;
and ensuring containment of potential pollut-
ants within the mass of discharged material.
When ecologically important habitats must be
severely damaged in order for the lake restora-
tion project to be completed, it should be de-
termined that the environmental value of the
restored lake will exceed the environmental
cost of the damaged habitat. When such is the
case, and the restoration project moves for-
ward, the potential for replacement, reloca-
tion, or reconstruction of the damaged habitat
should be considered and discussed. All of
these factors are described in the Best Man-
agement Practices Guidelines (EPA, 1979a).
Several U.S. Army Corps of Engineers publica-
tions are very helpful in the ecological evalua-
tion of proposed discharges of dredged or fill
material (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976,
1977). These documents provide information
on the effects of dredged materials discharge
and on the various tests that may be used to
predict such effects. These tests include the
elutriate test procedure, algal assay proce-
dure, benthic bioassay procedure, total sedi-
ment analysis procedure, community struc-
ture determination procedure, and
assessment of bioaccumulation potential (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1976).
(c)(12) Adverse Effects on Wetlands and
Related Resources
Executive Order 11990, signed May 24, 1977,
provides for the protection of wetlands. In order
to fulfill its intent, each Federal agency must:
avoid direct or indirect support of new construc-
tion in wetlands wherever there is a practicable
alternative; minimize the destruction, loss, or
degradation of wetlands; and preserve and en-
hance their natural and beneficial values. The
agency may take into account economic, envi-
ronmental, and other pertinent factors (42 FR
26961, May 24, 1977).
Requirements:
Wherever wetlands are involved in a lake res-
toration project, as a filtering and treatment
system for nonpoint sediments and nutrients
that otherwise would reach the lake; as a site
for the discharge of dredged material; or as
they may be affected by an altered water level,
the Environmental Protection Agency must be
provided certain specific information. Such in-
formation includes a description of potential
alternatives to the involvement of wetlands,
along with their estimated economic afid envi-
ronmental costs. Alternatives may include oth-
er sediment and nutrient treatment measures,
such as the construction of a sedimentation
basin and vegetation nutrient utilization belt in
the drainageway, or an embankment to pre-
vent wetland flooding. The relative environ-
mental damage to any wetland through its use
as presented in the project design should be
discussed. All wetlands are valuable environ-
mental resources; some may exceed others in
relative worth.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
Applicants should describe the wetlands in-
volved, their size, relative environmental val-
ue, relationship to the lake being restored, pre-
dominant vegetation types, an'd other unique
features that make them valuable, irreplace-
able aquatic resources. Any anticipated
adverse effects that implementation of the
proposed restoration project may have on
wetlands should be discussed, however re-
mote the potential. Such adverse effects
would include filling, draining, water level
fluctuation, or the introduction of pollutants as
a result of direct or indirect restoration activi-
ties. When adverse effects or wetlands de-
struction are discernible, describe fully those
measures that will be taken to mitigate dam-
ages that may occur or to control such dam-
age beyond the minimum necessary to com-
plete the lake restoration project. Consult with
State and Federal fish, game, and wildlife
agencies about the particulars of the project
and request their views in writing. Include
such views in the project proposal and discuss
the relative merits of any negative comments
in the proposal. Discuss the relative signifi-
cance of any adverse impacts as weighed
against the critical habitat needs of the
geographical region. Compare the relative
area of habitat destruction against the area of
similar habitats in the region.
An effort similar to the above should be under-
taken in relation to any adverse effects on fish
and wildlife that can be anticipated as a result
of project completion. Such would include po-
tential effects on spawning areas or activities,
availability of the respective food supplies,
habitat destruction or improvement for partic-
ular species of the fish or other wildlife com-
munity as a whole.
The potential project effects, direct or indirect,
on any designated endangered species should
be discussed. The Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 -1543) provides for regulations that
protect endangered and threatened species. It
is essential that the existence of any such spe-
cies be ascertained and noted in a project pro-
posal, as well as any potential project effects
on such species. Such species are listed
through the Federal Register process. Addi-
tional information on endangered species can
be obtained from the Endangered Species Of-
fice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Washington, O.C.
20240.
-------
E-27
(c)(13) Feasible Alternatives to Proposed
Project
A lake restoration project involves a consider-
ation of benefits to the community of public us-
ers as a result of environmental enhancement,
potential degradation of any ecosystem or por-
tion thereof, a balancing of economic costs
against environmental and social benefits, and
the institution of measures to mitigate environ-
mental damages that may arise through project
implementation. The pros and cons of alterna-
tives to the chosen plan of restorative action
should be considered and discussed in the
project proposal.
There may be alternatives to the entire project
or to certain geographic portions of the project.
Does the project need to be done, or to be fully
completed as planned? Will other nearby lakes
not serve the user needs adequately without re-
storing this particular water body? Which of all
potential alternatives would be expected to pro-
vide the greatest environmental benefits?
Requirements:
All such feasible alternatives, including no ac-
tion, should be discussed in the project pro-
posal in terms of their impacts if implemented,
their relative value in terms of the greatest
good for the greatest number of people, and
their relative economic cost. A statement
should be included explaining why a discuss-
ed alternative was rejected in the overall plan
of action.
Sources, Methods, and Format:
This requirement can be met through narra-
tive based heavily on (b)(2) and the preceding
subsections of (c).
(c)(14) Other Necessary Mitigative Measures
Requirements:
This section includes any other actions that
. have not previously been discussed but that
are necessary to mitigate adverse environ-
mental impacts resulting from the implemen-
tation of the proposed project. An example
might be the effects of drawing down a lake on
other waters within the drainageway. Will the
quality of the water receiving the lake draw-
down water be impaired by the proposed ac-
tion? What actions have been taken or need to
be taken to mitigate the potential impairment?
What is the assurance that such mitigative
measures will prove successful? What is the
time frame for their accomplishment? Has the
cost for these actions been included in the
project cost?
-------
Appendix F
CHOOSING AMONG ALTERNATIVES
F-1
Choosing the best of several lake restoration
project designs involves three steps: .
1. Defining the objectives to be served by the
restoration project.
2. Defining one or more technically feasible
project designs which would meet the
objectives.
3. Evaluating each design alternative in terms
of the objectives stated in Step 1 and
choosing the one which most effectively
meets the objectives at least cost.
Each step is briefly elaborated below. There is
a vast literature on the subject of defining objec-
tives, developing alternatives, evaluating these
alternatives, and finally choosing the best. This
appendix gives only a general introduction and
refers the reader to other publications for greater
detail. Lake restoration planners are not required
to follow the methods suggested in this appen-
dix, or any other particular procedure, as long as
the approach used is logically defensible and
satisfies the various policies and requirements
described in this manual [especially items (b)(1)
and (b)(2) in Appendix E].
Objectives
Since it is a policy of the Clean Lakes Program
to select projects which provide high net bene-
fits to the public, the objectives of a project
should be formulated in terms of such benefits.
In the broadest sense, public benefits are any-
thing to which members of the public attach val-
ue. Since something may have positive or nega-
tive value, there can be both positive and
negative public benefits.
Examples of benefits related to Clean Lakes
projects might be:
— Upgrading lake fishery from panfish to
gamefish (positive benefit)
— Creation of a school nature study program
around the lake ecosystem (positive
benefit)
— Enhancement of the aesthetics of an urban
lake (positive benefit)
— Using a valued open space to dispose of
sediment dredged from a lake (negative
benefit)
— Increasing taxes to finance a project (nega-
tive benefit)
— Increasing-tourism by providing attractive
recreational facilities (positive or negative
benefit depending on individual attitudes).
To quantitatively indicate the future value or
benefit of a project, estimates of anticipated
changes in the levels of activity are often devel-
oped. However, two prominent problems arise
in using activity to indicate value. One is that
while activity indicates the existence of value,
the two are not synonymous. For instance,-two
individuals may swim at a lake having a relative-
ly crowded beach. One may consider the experi-
ence delightful because he enjoys the opportuni-
ty to interact with others. The second may prefer
swimming in relative isolation and uses the
crowded beach only because no other is avail-
able. The value is considerably lower for the sec-
ond person than for the first, even though they
may swim an equal amount of the time. The
planner needs to recognize that the amount of
value created by a project will vary from one
type of activity to another and from person to
person.
-------
F-2
The second problem in inferring value from
activity arises from the fact that the correlation
between the two is not perfect. Consider an ur-
ban lake that serves as an aesthetic focal point
for commuters and others who drive along its
shores daily. With increased pollution, the lake
may become odorous and unattractive, but there
is no change in traffic patterns. After restoration,
traffic may still be unchanged although individu-
als find the drive far more pleasing and valuable
than before. In this case, the activity of driving is
motivated by values other than the aesthetics of
the lake, even though the aesthetic values in-
volved are significant.
Alternative Designs
There are usually a number of ways to achieve
specific objectives or benefits. Some alternatives
may be so obviously inferior that they can be re-
jected out of hand immedately. Others may be
eliminated because their technical feasibility or
reliability is questionable. However, usually sev-
eral alternatives are real contenders for the best
way to achieve the objectives. A representative
set of these contenders should be defined and
analyzed in sufficient detail so that the alterna-
tive finally chosen clearly is the best one avail-
able. The Phase 1 report (Phase 2 proposal)
should document the various alternatives by de-
scribing their relative strengths and weaknesses
and showing in what ways the one chosen is
superior.
Evaluation
Each alternative selected for analysis should
be evaluated to develop the following informa-
tion for a Clean Lakes proposal:
— The relationship between proposed resto-
ration actions and anticipated water quality
changes, including technical feasibility and
reliability
— The relationship between anticipated water
quality changes and estimated benefits
— The cost of obtaining the water quality
changes
— A quantitative statement of the estimated
benefits.
Procedures for developing information in the
first three categories are described in detail in
Appendix E. Development of quantitative esti-
mates of benefits is described next.
Benefits are the values derived from various
types of activity. Therefore, estimates of the
benefits from a lake restoration are found by first
estimating changes in activities which will result
from the restoration, wherever it is possible to
make such estimates. The activities may be of
any sort: aesthetics, fishing, water supply, tour-
ism, etc. The restoration may effect activities in
any of four ways:
— Preservation of existing activities which
would otherwise be degraded or eliminat-
ed by deteriorating water quality.
— Improvement in an existing activity.
— Increases in an existing activity.
— Addition of new activities.
Any given project may produce benefits through
one or more of these changes in activity.
The specific benefits anticipated from a lake
restoration must be stated by type and quantity.
Estimating these changes in activity begins with
a review of the statistics on historical activities
(Appendix E (a)|5)]. Ideally, this information is in
the form of time trends that show increases or
decreases over time, as in Table E-2. Trends
need to be projected into the future on the basis
of the attributes of the lake's surrounding area
(water quality, facilities, access, etc.), the size
and character of the region's population (in-
come, age, or other demographic variables) [Ap-
pendix E (a)(4)], and the availability of substitute
sites for the various uses [Appendix E (a)(7)).
Some projections may be available from other
agencies. For instance, regional planning agen-
cies, park departments, and fish and game
departments often estimate future activity by
type. These estimates may need to be updated
or modified, but they do provide a beginning
point. In some cases, new activities can be antici-
pated on the basis of definite commitments of
other agencies. Perhaps the county parks depart-
ment will agree to develop or expand a park on
the lake if the lake is improved, or the school dis-
trict may be eager to institute a nature study pro-
gram if a suitable area is made available. Finally,
the lake restoration planner may need to devel-
op his own forecasts of activities. The Water Re-
sources Council (1979,1980) provides some sug-
gestions for forecasting recreation and environ-
mental quality. The important point is that future
activities need to be estimated as thoroughly
and precisely as possible within a reasonable
cost. There are some changes in a lake which
may not be measurable by changes in activity
but which are benefits, either positive or nega-
tive, nonetheless. An approach to measuring
such changes is described under Number 4 of
the Multiattribute Utility Analysis in this
appendix.
With activity estimates in hand the next step is
to estimate the value of the activities. There are
two general approaches to estimating value
which are quantitative, flexible, and comprehen-.
sive and which also rest on a formal theory of
value and choice; these are economics and
multiattribute utility measurement. The basic
ideas in each are the same; each individual has a
desired set of values which can be satisfied to
varying degrees by different experiences and the
values can be numerically described to reflect
the individuals' preferences. Both approaches
follow the same general steps of problem-
solving: defining the problem, and identifying
-------
F-3
the decisionmakers, alternatives, and values rel-
evant to the problem. It is in the last step that the
two approaches diverge. Economics uses the
process of exchange between buyers and sellers
to elicit values. Multiattribute utility measure-
ment goes directly to the individuals involved
and, in effect, asks them to state their prefer-
ences. Each of these approaches has its
strengths and weaknesses. A great many of the
goods and services we value in the United States
are traded in well organized markets. In the proc-
ess, values are elicited in the form of prices.
However, many items which we value highly are
not exchanged in the marketplace. Examples rel-
evant to the Clean Lakes Program include
wildlife refuges, park facilities, fish and game
management, and pollution control. In these
cases, society obtains the goods and services ei-
ther by providing them through public and pri-
vate nonprofit agencies or by legal or adminis-
trative requirements. In some of these cases,
values can still be identified through reference to
the marketplace. In others, such an approach is
hopeless. Multiattribute utility measurement is a
means of quantifying values which are either un-
available or too expensive to obtain from the
marketplace. It also provides a means for meas-
uring benefits which do hot necessarily manifest
themselves as changes in activity.
In evaluating the public benefits associated
with lake restoration alternatives, either eco-
nomic or multiattribute utility measurement pro-
cedures may be appropriate, and often a combi-
nation of both may be best. This could mean
using economics for those values readily obtain-
able through market analysis, such as lakeshore
property value. Multiattribute utility measure-
ment could be used for values far removed from
a market, such as the value of a nature study pro-
gram. What is essential is to use whatever tech-
nique best captures the values of the people in-
volved as they relate to the alternatives being
evaluated, to present the results in a form useful
to decisionmakers, and to clearly document the
methods used in the Phase 1 report.
Economic Benefit Estimation
Much has been written on applying economics
to the evaluation of public projects. The Water
Resources Council (1979) has reviewed this lit-
erature and made recommendations and re-
quirements for the use of economic analyses by
Federal agencies involved in developing water
resources. Lake restoration planners are not re-
quired to follow WRC guidelines, but they may
prove helpful. Broadly speaking, the Council has
decided that certain values can validly be ex-
pressed in economic terms. Examples of such
values are agricultural development, flood con-
trol, and recreation. Values which the Water Re-
sources Council (1980) believes cannot be valid-
ly expressed in economic terms include those
associated with ecological, aesthetic, and cultur-
al aspects of the natural and human environ-
ment. The Water Resources Council neither rec-
ommends nor requires any procedures for
evaluating such values. Instead, it leaves the
procedure up to the decisionmakers involved.
Multiattribute Utility Analysis
A modern review of the formal multiattribute
utility theory as well as some applications are
provided by Keeney and Raiffa (1976). A shorter
description is contained in Seaver, et al. (1979).
Another leader in the field is Edwards (1977 and
1979).
Techniques of multiattribute utility analysis
vary in rigor and complexity. All follow the same
general steps to identify and quantify benefits or
values: (1) identify the individuals or groups
whose values are relevant; (2) identify the char-
acteristics or attributes of the alternatives which
are relevant to the individuals; (3) rank and
weight the various attributes on a numeric scale;
(4) determine the utility of each alternative de-
sign for each attribute; (5) calculate the total util-
ity, or value, of each alternative; and (6) recon-
cile differences among individuals to arrive at a
final value for each alternative.
These six steps are described in more detail in
the following descriptions drawn from Edward's
work; they relate to the simpler analytical meth-
ods. The methods may not be- appropriate in
some projects, may be adapted for some, and
may be perfectly suited for others. Scope and
budget will largely dictate how rigorously they
can and should be applied. It would be helpful in
any application of these procedures to obtain the
advice of an experienced individual to avoid var-
ious pitfalls which may invalidate the results.
Some of those pitfalls are described in the sec-
tion Additional Considerations.
1. Identify Stakeholders
Within the community, a number of individu-
als will be interested in the project because they
have some value or values which will be affected
by it. These individuals are termed stakeholders.
Some may be organized into groups, such as
chambers of commerce, conservation groups,
lake associations, boards of realtors, or into
agencies including planning commissions and
State and Federal environmental or natural re-
source departments. All stakeholders should be
represented in the evaluation process. Consider-
able care needs to be exercised so as not to
leave out significant interests who might later
cry foul.
2. Identify Relevant Attributes
The watershed's features combined with the
actions to be taken to improve or protect water
quality will affect stakeholders in various ways.
Identifying them will lead to a list of characteris-
tics or attributes of the project that are signifi-
-------
F-4
cant to the stakeholders. Since it is entirely pos-
sible that stakeholders may not immediately see
all attributes that are of concern to them, techni-
cians may need to suggest some attributes.
However, it is the stakeholders who make the fi-
nal judgments of what is and is not relevant. Ex-
amples of attributes might be aesthetic quality,
number of recreational users, value of lakeshore
property, tourist income in the community, eco-
logical impact of the disposal of dredge spoils,
total project cost, and the local share of project
cost.
3. Rank and Weight Attributes
At this stage, each stakeholder ranks the list of
attributes in order of importance. Then the stake-
holder indicates the importance that each at-
tribute has relative to each of the other
attributes. This is done by assigning to the least
important attribute a weight of 10 (10 is used
rather than 1 to allow later judgments to be fine-
ly graded and still be made integers). Then the
next least important attribute is assigned a
weight which reflects how much more important
it is than the prior attribute. If it is twice as impor-
tant, its number is 20. This procedure is followed
through the entire list of attributes. Each subse-
quent determination must be checked several
ways to insure consistency. For example, if At-
tribute C is weighted 40 because it is twice as im-
portant as 6, then the stakeholder is also pre-
pared to say that C is four times as important as.
A, whose number is 10. The set of importance
weights thus obtained is added, and each weight
is divided by the sum in order to normalize the
numbers so that they add up to 1.0.
It is important to remember that the assign-
ment of rank and weights should be carried out
in the context of the problem and the alterna-
tives at hand. The stakeholders' perceptions of
the severity of the problem and the range of
amelioration possible under the alternative ac-
tions being considered are key ingredients in
this step. Stakeholders are not asked to decide
the relative importances of aesthetics and fish-
ing, for instance, in the abstract. Their task, in-
stead, is to determine the emphasis to be given
to changes in aesthetic attractiveness and fish-
ing, knowing the current aesthetic condition of
the lake, the state of its fishery, and the best and
worst results which can be expected given the
list of alternatives being considered. Therefore,
the performance measures described under
Step 4 must be available for use in Step 3 as
well.
4. Assess Attribute Utility
This step assesses the utility of each alterna-
tive design — the extent to which the alternative
provides satisfaction in each attribute category.
To do this, a "performance measure" for each
attribute is determined. For example, if aesthetic
character is due to algal concentration, it could
be measured in terms of the amount of chloro-
phyll a Which would result from each alternative.
Numbers of swimming user-days is another ex-
ample of a performance measure which might
be applied to a set of lake restoration alterna-
tives. The best and worst performance figures
for all alternatives with respect to a given at-
tribute can be plotted as 1.0 and 0.0, respective-
ly, on the utility axis of a graph. In the case of the
chlorophyll a example, the functional relation-
ship of utility and the performance measure
might look like the following graph.
-AIMnwtM A
10 20
uO"
CHLOROPHYLL A
The utility of three possible alternatives would
be as shown: A would-be 1.0, since it resulted in
the least amount of chlorophyll a; B would be
0.6; and C would be 0.0. If the attribute being
considered was fishing, the graph might look
like the following, with the best alternative pro-
viding the most fishing days.
1.0
UTILITY
900 1000 1SOO 2000
FISHING-DAYS
Two other types of curves are:
UTILITY
UTILITY
MEASURE
MEASURE
Fortunately, in the many cases previously ana-
lyzed, it has been found that the precise shape of
the curve is not very important as long as there
are a number of attributes and stakeholders. In
such cases, a linear approximation is acceptable.
Using the simplified curves requires identifying
only the location of the endpoints (and, in the
case of the last two types, the peak) to define the
entire curve.
5. Total Utility of Each Alternative
With the utility curves and attribute weights in
hand, the value stakeholders place on alterna-
tives can be calculated by using the curve to de-
-------
F-5
termine the utilities associated with the various
attributes, multiplying the attribute utilities by
the attribute weights, and summing the products
for each alternative. A somewhat more compli-
cated process termed the multiplicative rule is
appropriate in some situations (Keeney, 1974).
6. Reconciling Differences
When only minor differences occur among the
values of the various stakeholders; a simple av-
erage may be taken with no great disagreement.
If such a procedure is considered inappropriate,
some process must be used to reduce the
differences. This process should actually begin
during Steps 2 and 3, when the importance of
the attributes to each stakeholder is defined. Ide-
ally, differences can be examined through
feedback and a consensus can be reached, or at
least the differences can be reduced (Edwards,
1977; Aschenbrenner, 1976; Bauer and Wege-
ner, 1975a). There is no guarantee, however, that
a consensus will be reached, nor should there
be, since the essence of the procedure is to ex-
press individual values. Nevertheless, since a
single value is needed for each alternative
project design, some form of compromise must
be struck.
In practice, the six steps described are often
repeated several times, successively refining the
information needed to choose the best alterna-
tive. In the following example, the steps are
identified each time they occur to illustrate the
iterative nature of the process.
Example of Multiattribute Utility Analysis
Assume that a lake undergoing Phase 1 study
once had well-established bass fishing that dete-
riorated during a ten-year period of intensive
residential development in the watershed. The
loss of bass fishing to the community (Step 1)
was the reason the State decided to apply for
Phase 1 assistance. Results of the diagnostic
portion of Phase 1 showed that the causes of this
loss had been caused by increased levels of silt
and organic material accompanied by higher
water temperature. Most of the sediment had
entered during housing and road construction,
but storm sewers continued to transport silt and
organic debris to the lake.
The State defines the goal of the anticipated
Phase 2 project as the restoration and mainte-
nance of conditions suitable for bass fishing
(Step 2). The responsible regional planning
agency refines this goal, based on the supply of,
and demand for, recreational fishing, to be the
development of a fishery which will sustain
4,000 angler-days annually. Limnologists deter-
mine the requirements of these goals to be:
— Clean sand bottom in shallows for bass
spawning
— Maximum depth in excess of 4-1/2 meters
for at least 1 hectare.
Through the use of bathymetric maps, sedi-
ment cores, and simplified models, the following
actions are specified:
— Removal of 10,000 m3 of sediment from
deeper portions of the lake
— Removal of 0.5 m of silt in shallow portions
— Prevention of additional sediment accu-
mulations.
Possible techniques can now be identified. In
this example they might include:
— Hydraulic dredging
— Drawdown and excavation '
— Maintenance dredging
— Stormwater diversion
— Stabilization of steep slopes
— Settling basins on tributaries
— Silt traps at storm sewer outfalls
— Erosion controls for new construction
— Street sweeping.
These techniques are combined in various
ways to define the alternative plans from which
a final selection will be made:
— Alternative A: Complete drawdown and ex-
cavation, stormwater diversion, and tribu-
tary settling basins.
— Alternative B: Partial drawdown and exca-
vation, stormwater diversion, hydraulic
dredging, and tributary settling basins.
— Alternative C: Partial drawdown and exca-
vation, hydraulic dredging, silt traps, street
sweeping, slope stabilization, and tributary
settling basins.
— Alternative D: Partial drawdown and exca-
vation, hydraulic dredging, stormwater di-
version, and erosion controls.
— Alternative E: Do nothing.
The following monetary costs are developed
for each of the techniques:
— Complete drawdown and excavation —
$150,000
— Partial drawdown and excavation, plus hy-
draulic dredging — $200,000
— Stormwater diversion—$500,000
— Silt traps, street sweeping, and slope stabi-
lization—$150,000 capital costs plus
$30,000 net present value for 10 years op-
eration and maintenance costs — $180,000
— Tributary settling basins — $50,000 capital
costs plus $12,000 net present value for 10
years — $62,000
— Development and implementation of ero-
sion controls — $10,000 initial cost plus
$25,000 net present value for 10 year* —
$35,000
•r— Restocking lake with bass — $10,000
Other consequences associated with the var-
ious techniques are:
— Complete drawdown and excavation: Se-
vere disruption of aquatic ecosystem, tem-
porary loss of all lake benefits for one sea-
son, severe truck traffic and noise in
-------
F-6
residential area, and taking of 3 hectares
for spoil disposal.
— Partial drawdown and excavation plus hy-
draulic dredging: Disturbance of aquatic
ecosystem, temporary loss of all lake bene-
fits for a half season, moderate traffic and
noise in residential area due to disturbance
in pipeline construction and operation, and
taking of 3 hectares for spoil disposal.
— Stormwater diversion: Noise and disrup-
tion of traffic during construction, slight
disruption of stream ecosystem at outfall
point, loss of 30 mature street trees.
— Silt traps, street sweeping, and slope stabi-
lization: Slight noise and parking inconve-
nience, localized disturbance during
construction.
— Tributary settling basins: Localized disturb-
ance of stream biota, slight noise and other •
construction disturbance.
From the various consequences of each tech-
nique, a tentative list of attributes is distilled
(Step 2).
The results of the analysis to this point are dis-
tributed and public meetings are held. There are
two results. An additional attribute is identified:
property owners, particularly on the lakeshore,
consider the lake in its present state of
eutrophication to be an eyesore. The project will
improve the aesthetic quality of their lives by
greatly reducing algal blooms on the lake (Step
2). The second result is that several stakeholder
groups emerge in addition to EPA and the local
and State agencies which initiated the Phase 1
study: (a) fishermen, (b) conservationists, (c)
lakeshore residents, and (d) general residents
(StepD.
Fishermen generally favor the project. Conser-
vationists are concerned over the various nega-
tive environmental impacts, particularly those
associated with dredge spoil deposition.
Lakeshore residents generally favor the project
but are concerned about the costs in terms of
property taxes. General residents have the same
attitudes as lakeshore residents, but since they
do not live on the lake, they will receive less of
the aesthetic benefit.
Individuals who are respected in the commu-
nity and who identify with these various groups
agree to participate in the multiattribute utility
measurement (Step 1). The four stakeholder
groups and their representatives are ratified at
another public meeting. The list of attributes is
also discussed at the meeting. Some are consid-
ered unimportant by some people, but no one
suggests any additional attributes. Consequent-
ly, the list is accepted as comprehensive (Step 2).
The final list of attributes is shown in Table
F-1.
Before the ranking and weighting of these
attributes, engineers, limnologists, and other
technicians review the alternatives to identify a
performance measure associated with each at-
tribute and the level of that performance meas-
ure expected to result in each design alternative
(Step 3). The results are as follows, and are sum-
marized in Table F-2:
— Improved bass fishing is measured in
angler-days. All four alternatives are de-
signed to provide the same output, 4,000
angler-days annually, so this is the upper
limit. The lower limit is the current situa-
tion, which is 500 angler-days.
— Improved lake aesthetics will result pri-
marily from lower algal concentrations.
There will still be some minor blooms
during the summer, but they will be few-
er in number and less noticeable. The
performance measure chosen is average
summer chlorophyll a concentration.
The upper limit, 30 u.g/1, assumes no res-
toration project. The lower limit, 2 u.g/1, is
associated with Alternative B.
— The temporary loss in lake use would
mean no boating or fishing of any kind.
The loss is measured in months ranging
from 12 to zero.
— Traffic congestion and noise during con-
struction is measured in the number of
blocks affected. The intensity of the con-
gestion and noise level will vary with the
type of activity and thus to some degree
with the alternatives. However, the great-
est congestion and noise is associated
with excavation and hydraulic dredging,
which are about equal. Consequently,
the only variation recognized is in the
residential area affected. The upper limit
is determined to be 20 square blocks, the
lower limit to be zero with no project.
— The maximum number of street trees
lost is 30; the minimum is zero.
— Disruption of the lake and stream
ecosystems occurs because the aquatic
habitat for various life forms is disturbed.
The total number of species of flora and
fauna impacted is large. However, the
disturbance is temporary and all life
forms are expected to return to a normal
state soon after the project is completed.
Nevertheless, public expression of con-
cern for this impact indicates that even
Table F-1
Hypothetical Restoration Attributes
Improved bass fishery
improved lake aesthetics
Temporary loss of lake use
Traffic congestion and noise during construction
Loss of street trees
Disruption of lake and stream ecosystems
Spoils disposal area
Cost of project
-------
F-7
temporary disruption is undesirable, just
as is true for residential traffic and noise.
It is finally decided to represent the se-
verity of disruption on a scale from 0 to
10. The disruption associated with Alter-
natives A through E is 10, 7, 6, 5, and 0,
respectively.
Spoil disposal area. All four project de-
signs involve the same amount of spoil
to be disposed of in the same location.
The upper limit is therefore three hec-
tares, and the lower limit is zero.
— Cost of the project ranges from $762,000
for Alternative B to zero for no project.
The performance measures are discussed with
each representative stakeholder. All agree that
the measures are adequate for linear representa-
tions of utility (Step 4). Each stakeholder is then
asked to arrange the attributes in order of impor-
tance, assigning a value of 10 to the least impor-
tant and scaling the others accordingly (Step 3).
This process is carried out in such a way that the
weights assigned to the attributes are consis-
tent. Thus, if Attributes A, B, and C have weights
Table F-2
Performance Measures By Alternative
Alternative
Attribute
. Bass fishery (angler-days)
Aesthetics (jig chlorophyll a)
Loss of lake use {months)
Traffic and noise (blocks)
Trees (each)
Disruption of aquatic system (index)
Spoil disposal (hectares)
Cost ($1.000)
A
4,000
3
12
20
30
10
3
722
B
4,000
2
6
20
30
7
3
762
C
4,000
4
6
15
0
6
3
442
0
4,000
3
6
15
30
5
3
735
E
500
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
of 10, 20, and 50, respectively, then B is twice as
important as A, C is 2-1/2 times as important as
B, and five times as important as A.
As one would expect, the weights vary from
stakeholder to stakeholder. After some discus-
sion about the reasons for their differences, the
group agrees that a simple average adequately
represents the combined attitudes of the group
(Step 6). .
The results are then normalized so the weights
add up to 1.0, as shown in Table F-3.-After the
utility curves are constructed, the attribute utility
for each alternative is derived (Step 4; see Table
F-4).
Attribute
Table F-3
Weights by Alternative
Weight
Bass fishery
Aesthetics
Loss of lake use
Traffic and noise
Trees
Disruption of aquatic system
Spoil disposal
Cost
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.02
0.10
0.18
VOQ
Table F-4
Performance Measures of Each Convened to Utility
Alternative
Attribute
Bass fishery
Aesthetics
Loss of lake use
Traffic and noise
Trees
Disruption of aquatic system
Spoil disposal
Cost
A
1.00
0.96
.0
0
0
0
0
0.05
B
1.00
1.00
0.55'
0
0
0
0
0
C
Utility
1.00
0.93
0.50
0.25
1.00
0.40
0
0.42
D
1.00
0.96
0.50
0.25
0
0.50
0
0.04
E
0
0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-------
F-8
The utilities in Table F-4 can also be derived al-
gebraically as follows. The most and least desir-
able level of each attribute in Table F-2 are as-
signed utilities of 1.0 and 0, respectively. The
intermediate levels of the attributes are assigned
utilities through a linear function connecting the
most and least desirable levels. For instance, the
attribute aesthetics has a most desirable level of
2 n.g chlorophyll a and a least desirable level of
30 M-g- These levels are assigned utilities of 1.0
and 0, respectively. The utility of intermedia.te
levels is found by the formula:
„ - u.
where x is the chlorophyll a level in the alterna-
tive under consideration. Thus, Alternative C
with 4 u.g chlorophyll a has a utility of:
1 = 1.0-1^1=0.93
t f.O I
The total value of each alternative is then cal-
culated by multiplying each attribute utility in
Table F-4 by the appropriate weight and sum-
ming up (Step 5; see Table F-5). For instance, the
utility of alternative A is found as follows: UA -
0.30(1.00) + 0.20(0.96) + 0.18(0.05) = 0.501.
From Table 5, it can be seen that the alternative
with the highest value is C. It can also be seen
that Alternative A is not significantly better than
doing nothing (Alternative E).
Additional Considerations
The foregoing example is simplified in var-
ious ways to convey the essential ideas without
undue complications. Several of the more seri-
ous simplifications are discussed below.
No account is taken of uncertainty. All the per-
formance measures estimated are subject to er-
rors. Some of these errors may be inconsequen-
tial, others may be significant. For instance, it is
unlikely that the number of trees removed would
differ very much from the estimates. However,
the number of angler-days, quantity.of chloro-
phyll a, and other variables may be subject to
great uncertainty. To deal with this uncertainty,
probability estimates should need to be devel-
oped (Edwards, Guttentag, and Snapper, 1975).
This could require considerable additional tech-
nical work, but it may be necessary.
The process of arriving at a consensus on
group weights was easily obtained in the exam-
ple. However, this is not always the case; sharp
differences may occur that are not easily re-
solved through discussion. In such cases, the
community may have to resort to more elabo-
rate processes.
None of the estimated benefits, other than
cost of the project, is measured in economic
terms. It is quite likely that, in a real case, bene-
fits such as angler-days or lakeshore residents'
aesthetic gains could be quantified in economic
terms. For instance, angler-days could be as-
signed a unit-day value from the Water Re-
sources Council procedures, or a travel cost ap-
proach might be used. Lakeshore property value
increases might be used to reflect residential
aesthetic benefits. If judged to be valid, such pro-
cedures can give useful information. However,
unless all benefits can be estimated in dollar
units, the community must eventually combine
those which are measured in dollars with those
which are not. The final result may differ signifi-
cantly from one reached by going directly to util-
ity from performance measures such as number
of angler-days.
The example assumed linear relationships be-
tween the upper and lower limits of the perfor-
mance measures. In a real case, this simplifica-
tion should be tested by observing how a
departure from linearity, particularly in those
attributes with large weights, would affect the fi-
nal outcome. If the ranking of the alternatives is
sensitive to departures from linearity, one of two
procedures should be adopted. Either nonlinear
functions should be derived as illustrated in Ed-
wards (1977), or the better alternatives may be
Table F-5
Total Utility of Each Alternative
Alternative
Attribute
Bass fishery
Aesthetics
Loss of lake use
Traffic and noise
Trees
Disruption of aquatic system
Spoil disposal
Cost
A
B
C
0
E
Weighted Utility Values
0.300
0.192
0
0
0
0
0
0.009
0.300
0.200
0.025
0
0
0.006
0
0
0.300
0.186
0.025
0.025
0.050
0.008
0
0.076
0.300
0.192
0.025
0.025
0
0.020
0
0.072
0
0
0.050
0.100
0.050
0.020
0.100
0.180
Total Utility
0.501 0.531 . 0.670 O.S59 0.500
-------
F-9
judged sufficiently close in overall value that it
makes little difference which is chosen.
The lake restoration planner needs to be
aware of possible value or environmental de-
pendence among attributes. Two attributes are
value-dependent if the utility attached to one at-
tribute depends on the performance measure of
the other attribute. In the example, none of the
attributes was value-dependent. Thus, the utility
attached to disruption of residential tranquility
through traffic and noise was independent of the
amount of disruption to the aquatic ecosystem,
and vice versa. This may not be the case. A resi-
dent disturbed by disruption of the aquatic
ecosystem who then has to deal with the traffic
and noise around his home may react very nega-
tively. This reaction may be much larger than the
sum of hi? reactions to each type of disruption
considered alone. The effect of value depend-
ence is to increase the error between the true
value of an alternative and the calculated value
obtained using the additive rule described
above. In other words, the calculated value be-
comes a poorer approximation to the true value
as the amount of value dependence in the prob-
lem increases. Nevertheless, the approximation
may still be reasonably good, particularly if the
underlying (true) utility functions are monotonic
(Gardiner and Edwards, 1975). The multiplicative
rule accounts for some forms of value depend-
ence (see p. 289 in Keeney and Raiffa, 1976).
Environmental dependence arises when the
performance measures of two or more attributes
are correlated. Suppose it were possible to
achieve any amount of improvement in bass
fishing from zero to 10,000 angler-days. Sup-
pose also that to increase the number of
angler-days, the disruption of the aquatic
ecosystem had to increase correspondingly. The
two performance measures would be perfectly
correlated: one could not be obtained without
the other. The significance of environmental de-
pendence is that it presents opportunities to re-
duce the number of attributes explicitly recog-
nized. Disruption of the aquatic ecosystem is
such a case. Conceivably, each species and habi-
tat could be listed as a separate attribute. To do
so would enormously increase the technical
work involved in defining performance meas-
ures and ranges. It would also greatly increase
the work required of each' stakeholder in
defining weights. Since all the species and habi-
tats are disrupted in more or less the same way,
they can be grouped together, as in the example.
However, care must be taken to insure that
stakeholders understand the details of such
groupings sufficiently to correctly identify their
weights.
-------
G-1
Appendix G
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REPORTING WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA AND
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
The Grants Information and Control System
(GICS) and the Storage Retrieval System
(STORET) are the two on-line data management
systems currently used by the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram Office. Basic information on each clean
lakes project is stored in these systems. GICS is
used for administrative and financial informa-
tion; STORET is used for scientific and technical
information. To expedite the collection of data,
grant applicants and grantees are required to
submit information on specially designed com-
puter forms. This manual has been developed to
assist applicants and grantees in completing
these forms.
There are three basic information packages:
application information, award information, and
quarterly updates. 'Each package contains two
parts: a GICS part and a STORET part. Only the
GICS portion is required for classification sur-
veys. When a grant id awarded, the award pack-
age will be forwarded to the grantee along with
the quarterly update package. Upon receipt, the
award package must be completed and mailed
to the project officer. At the close of each quar-
ter, the quarterly updates must be completed
and sent to the project officer.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Only one box should be used for each letter.
The numbers appearing after each item are com-
puter transaction numbers; they do not indicate
the number of spaces or the order of appear-
ance. Do not enter information in the shaded
boxes marked blank. Be sure to print all entries
as clearly as possible. If the information is not
available, an N/A should appear as the entry.
Since the data bases are not linked and the ter-
minal operators are different for each system,
the same entry may appear in both portions. Re-
fer to the sample forms at the end of the appen-
dix that have been completed for the hypotheti-
cal phase 2 project in Section 12.
-------
G-2
GICS APPLICATION INFORMATION AND STORET BASELINE INFORMATION
GIGS
DO NOT FILL
Project name 20
Project type 87
Total cost 28
EPA funds requested 19
Lake name G1
Nearest city 39
County 15
Survey list ranking 59
Survey year 57
Applicant Name 12
Address 51
City 14
State 13
Zip 52
Representative 11
Areawide planning agency 36
Problem Description 41, 4x
Objective 42, 4Y
Restorative activities, code, cost
IN ANY INFORMATION IN THE BOX MARKED
FOR EPA USE ONLY
Enter the .name of the project.
Enter C for classification (Note: for classification surveys, only
items 20, 87, 19, 12, 51, 14, 13, 52 and 11 must be completed),
1 for Phase 1 diagnostic/feasibility studies, or
2 for Phase 2 implementation.
Enter the total projected cost of the project: EPA funds plus
State and local contributions.
Enter the amount requested from EPA.
Enter the name of the lake which is being restored or studied.
Enter the name of the city that is closest to the lake.
Enter the county in which the lake is located.
Enter the number of the lake from the priority list for lake resto-
ration developed during the classification survey.
Enter the year the priority was assigned.
Enter the name of the applicant.
Enter the applicant's address.
Enter the applicant's city.
Enter a two letter abbreviation for the applicant's State. Contact
the regional Clean Lakes Coordinator for the approved State
abbreviation.
Enter the applicant's zip code.
Enter the name of the individual who is responsible for the
application.
Enter the name of the 208 planning agency that is responsible
for the watershed and the lake.
Describe as briefly and accurately as possible water quality
problems and the resulting impairment of lake use.
Describe as briefly and accurately as possible the benefits that
will be restored and the method that will be used to restore
them.
Briefly describe each proposed restorative activity that will be
used on the lake or watershed, enter the code for the activity
(Table G-1), and the projected cost of the activity.
Activity Codes
In-Lake Activities
Watershed Activities
01-Dredging
02-Drawdown
03-Hypolimnetic Drawoff
04-Hypolimnetic Aeration
OS-Whole-Lake Aeration
06-Destratification
07-Biological Manipulation
08-Lake-Level Control
09-Chemicai Nutrient Inactivation
10-Dilution
11-Bottom Sealing
12-Chemical Plant Removal
13-Mechanical Plant Removal
14-Other
15-Urban BMP's
16-Agriculturel BMP's
17-Sediment Control Structures
18-Streambank
.19-Chemical Treatment of Inflows
20-Stormwater
21-Biofiltration
22-Oil Traps
23-Public Education
24-Other
Please sign the form legibly and enter your phone number. You may be contacted if there are errors
or unrecognizable entries.
-------
G-3
STORET
DO NOT FILL IN ANY INFORMATION IN THE
BOX MARKED FOR EPA USE ONLY
The storet baseline information forms can be used to enter data from a single station or several
stations and data that has been averaged for several stations or one station over a period of time.
Storet Page 1 Station Description
The information on this form should be com-
pleted only if you have never entered baseline
information for this station before. If the station,
or stations, are part of a diagnostic/feasibility
study, the station description, lake morpho-
metry, and watershed information should be
completed only once. All water quality data is
entered on the "P" and "D" cards.
The following descriptive information is re-
quired for both baseline and monitoring
stations:
A Card
7-8
17-19
25-61
74-77
EPA REGION — Enter the number of
the EPA Region where the lake is
located (e.g. "01" for Region I,
"10" for Region X).
Unlocking Key—In cases where data
must be kept confidential, a three
digit code has been provided to the
regional EPA offices to safeguard
against unauthorized storage and
retrieval of water quality data. The
STORET coordinator will provide
the code for these columns. If data
is not confidential, leave these col-
umns blank.
Individual Storing Data — The name,
location, and telephone number of
the person storing station location
information should be entered
here.
Lock After Date — This is a sampling
date after which data cannot be re-
trieved unless the Unlocking Key is
given. Columns 74 and 75 specify
the year, and columns 76 and 77
specify the month after which data
cannot be retrieved. For example,
a code of 6801 indicates that data
stored after January of 1968 can-
not be retrieved unless the
Unlocking Key is given. If data is
not to be locked, code these col-
umns with: 9999. In virtually all
cases, this field should have the
"9999" code.
Tcard
1-79 The following entries are used to de-
scribe the station type. For exam-
ple, if the sampling station is in a
lake, AMBNT/LAKE is coded into
columns 1-10 on the T Card,
AMBNT/LAKE for lake stations
AMBNT/RESERV for reservoir
stations
AMBNT/STREAM for river or
stream stations
AMBNT/SPRING for spring
stations
AMBNT/WELL for well stations
AMBNT/CANAL for canal or
drain stations
AMBNT/LND for soil samples or
crop samples subjected to tox-
ic materials
PIPE/SEWER/MUN/OUTFL for ef-
fluent samples from storm-
water sewers or combined
sewers
PIPE/NTRTMT/MUN/OUTFL for
samples from untreated mu-
nicipal waste discharges
PIPE/TREATD/MUN/OUTFL for
effluent samples from a mu-
nicipal wastewater treatment
plant
PIPE/NTRTMT/IND/OUTFL for
samples from untreated indus-
trial discharges
PIPE/TREATD/IND/OUTFL for ef-
fluent samples from an indus-
trial effluent subjected to
treatment
PIPE/PTRTMT/IND/OUTFL for
pretreated industrial effluents
discharging into a municipal
sewer
PIPE/NTRTMT/AGRI/OUTFL for
samples from agricultural ac-
tivities, silvicultural activities,
or feedlots
PIPE/TREATD/AGRI/OUTFL for
effluent samples from agricul-
tural activities, silvicultural ac-
tivities, o'r feedlots subject to
treatment
-------
G-4
SCard
4-5 Lake abbreviation (LAKE ABB). Enter
a two letter abbreviation for the
lake. If this abbreviation is not
unique, a different abbreviation
will be assigned by the STORET
coordinator; you will be informed
of the new abbreviation promptly.
9-10 Station number (STA No.). The sta-
tion number pertains to the sam-
pling locations for the chemical pa-
rameters only.
a) Sampling network: Each station
must be described individually.
A unique number must be as-
signed to each station in the
network.
b) Single sample: Enter 01 for a
single station.
c) Several grab samples: If the
baseline data was collected at
several unidentified locations
and averaged, enter AV for the
station number.
d) Single grab sample: If a single
grab sample from an unidenti-
fied location exists, enter 00 for
the station number.
68-69 Lake location State (ST.). Contact the
regional Clean Lakes Coordinator
for the State code number.
70-72 Lake location county (COUNTY).
Contact the regional Clean Lakes
Coordinator for the county code
number.
Header Card 0
7-12 Latitude (LATITUDE)—Enter the lati-
tude of the station to the nearest
second. If the baseline data was
collected at one or several uniden-
' tified locations and averaged, en-
ter the latitude of the center of the
lake.
14-20 Longitude (LONGITUDE^-Enter the
longitude of the station to the
nearest second. If the baseline data
was collected at one or several un-
identified locations and averaged,
enter the longitude of the center of
the lake.
Header Card 3
4-27 Station location major basin name.
The name of the major basin can
be obtained by contacting the re-
gional Clean Lakes Coordinator.
28-67 Station location minor basin name.
The name of the minor basin can
be obtained by contacting the re-
gional Clean Lakes Coordinator.
68-69 Major basin location code (MAJ.)
Contact the regional Clean Lakes
Coordinator for the major basin
code.
70-71 Minor basin location code (MIN.).
Contact the regional Clean Lakes
Coordinator for the minor basin
code.
72-73 Sub basin location code (SUB.). En-
ter the sub-basin location code if
available from the regional Clean
Lakes Coordinator.
Header Card 4
4-45 Lake name. Enter the full name of the
lake.
Storet Page 2
Header Card 5 (Header card 5 consists of 15
separate lines of'information. The line num-
bers are alpha-numeric and are entered in col-
umn 79. These line numbers consist of the nu-
meral 0 through 9 and the letters J through N.
Column 80 is always coded with the numeral
5.)
line 05
16-25 Surface Area (SRF AREA). Enter the
surface area of the lake. Specify
the unit of measurement. Hectares
(ha) are preferred.
38-53 Mean depth (MEAN DEPTH). Enter
the average depth of the lake.
Specifiy the unit of measurement.
Meters (m) are preferred.
65-78 Maximum depth (MAX DEPTH). En-
ter the maximum depth of the lake.
Specify the unit of measurement.
Meters (m) are preferred.
line 15
17-25 Volume of lake (VOL OF LK). Enter
the volume of the lake. Specify the
unit of measurement. Million cubic
meters (mem) are preferred.
43-53 Volume of hypolimnion in summer
(VOL OF HYPO SUM). Enter the
volume of the hypolimnion during
the summer. Specify the unit
of measurement. Million cubic
meters (mem) are preferred. If
the lake is unstratified enter
UNSTRAT.
64-78 Residence time (RES TIME). Enter the
residence time for the lake. Specify
the unit of measurement.
-------
G-5
line 25
20-53 Limiting nutrient and method (LIM
NUT/METH). Enter the standard
chemical abbreviation for the limit-
ing nutrient and the method that
was used to determine which nu-
trient was limiting.
72-78 Percent of lake covered by macro-
phytes (PCT LK COV MACRO). En-
ter the percent of the total surface
area of the lake that is covered by
macrophytes. Generally this infor-
mation can be obtained by deter-
mining the depth of macrophyte
growth and calculating the surface
area within this depth. This surface
area is then divided by the total
surface area and multiplied by 10.0.
line 35
24-78 Trophic classification and method
(TROPH CLASS/METH). Enter the
trophic classification (eutrophic,
mesotrophic, oligotrophic) of the
lake and the method used to deter-
. mine the classification.
(No entries are required on line 4; lines 5-J
have been used to form a table of point source
information)
line 55-J5
7-19 Point sources (POINT SOURCES). En-
ter the names of the major point
sources discharging to the lake
and its tributaries. Major storm
sewer and combined sewer out-
falls should be included.
21-29 NPDES number (NPDES NO.). Enter
the NPDES number (National Pol-
lution Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem) for each point source listed in
the column marked point sources.
If no number has been assigned
enter NONE.
31-39 Receiving water (REC WATER). Enter
the name of the receiving water for
each point source discharge.
41-42 River mile (RM). Enter the distance in
miles from the mouth of the tribu-
tary to the point source discharge.
44-48 Flow in cubic feet per second (Q
CFS). Enter the flow of the point
source discharge in cubic feet per
second.
50-57 Frequency of flow (FREQ FLO). Enter
the frequency of flow of the point
source discharge if it is intermit-
tent. For example, if a discharge
occurs twice -a day for 4 hours or
once a day for 8 hours, the entries
would be 2XD/4H and 1XD/8H
respectively.
59-66 Standard Industrial Classification
Code (SIC CODE). Enter the SIC
code for the point source. The SIC
code can be obtained from "The
Standard Industrial Classification
Manual" published by the Office of
Management and Budget. Most li-
braries will have a copy of this
manual. The regional Clean Lakes
Coordinator may also be contacted
for this information.
68-78 Corrective actions and date (COR
ACT/DTE). List any corrective ac-
tions for the point source dis-
charge and the date. For example,
if a sewage treatment plant will be
upgraded by the construction of
tertiary treatment in 1987 enter
TERT 87.
line L5-N5 (lines L-N have been used to form a
table of nonpoint source information; line K5
will be completed later)
7-10 Nonpoint source discharges (NPS).
Use the following codes to enter
the major types of nonpoint source
discharges to the lake and its
tributaries:
AGR for agricultural
DEV for urban, residential, major
highways, airports, and rail-
roads
FOR for forests
OPN for other open land, e.g.
parks, wetlands, and unde-
veloped land
MIN for mining, e.g. strip mines,
quarries, etc.
11-18 Percent area (PCT/AREA). Enter the
percent of the total watershed that
is covered by the types of nonpoint
sources listed in column 7-10.
20-28 Receiving water (REC WATER). Enter
the name of the receiving water for
each nonpoint source discharge
listed in column 7-10.
line K5
40-46 Watershed area (WS AREA). Enter
the watershed area. Specify the
unit of measurement. Hectares
(ha) or square kilometers (skm) are
preferred.
56-62 External phosphorus loading (EX P
LOAD). Enter the phosphorus load-
ing to the lake in kilograms per day
(kg/d).
72-78 External nitrogen loading (EX N LD).
Enter the nitrogen loading to the
lake in kilograms per day (kg/d).
-------
G-6
line L5-M5
43-78 Major inflows and outflows (MAJ
32-78 IN/OUT). Enter the names of all tri-
butaries flowing into the lake fol-
lowed by a slash (/) and all major
outflows from the lake.
line N5
43-78 Soil types (SOIL TYPES). Enter the
three digit codes for the major soil
types in the watershed. The codes
are standard soil conservation ser-
vice codes and can be obtained
from the SCS regional office or th«
county soil survey.
Please sign the form legibly and enter your
phone number. You may be contacted if there
are errors or unrecognizable entries.
Storet Page 3
Page 3 consists of P and D card information. The
P card is used to identify specific water quality
parameters which were sampled for at the sta-
tions under consideration. Water quality param-
eters are identified by a five digit numeric code
(e.g. pH has the code: 00400), which will be sup-
plied by the project officer. Up to 14 parameters
can be coded on the first P card. If more than 14
parameters need to be coded, one continuation
card may be used for 16 additional parameter
codes.
Parameter card (P card). The parameters and
the parameter codes will be specified by the
project officer. If there is more than one line of
parameter codes a C must appear in space 80
of the first line. The remaining parameter
codes can then be entered on the following
• line.
1-4 'P', This must be coded in the first
four columns of the first P card.
This is not coded on the continu-
ation card.
5-6 . Depth code (DPTH CODE). The depth
code pertains to the sample depth
for each parameter. If the sample is
from the bottom, enter B in space 5
and a D in space 6. If the sample
was obtained at some other depth,
leave space 5 blank and enter a D
in space 6. The actual depth will be
entered on the D card. If the depth
is unknown or the sample is from a
stream, leave space 5 and 6 blank.
7-76 The five digit parameter codes are
entered in this field.
77-79 Blank
80 Code the letter "C" if there is to be a
continuation card. Otherwise,
leave blank.
Data Card (D card). This card is used to enter
the values for the parameters specified on the
proceeding P card. The data values follow the or-
der of the parameters on the P card.
Parameter values on the D card must be sepa-
rated by commas. Also, the last character on a D,
or the continuation of a D card must be a com-
ma. If more than one D card is needed, the addi-
tional values can be entered on a succeeding
card, starting in the first column. Parameter val-
ues cannot be split between D cards.
In the case where a parameter value is miss-
ing, a comma is coded on the D card at the posi-
tion of the missing value.
6-7 Lake or stream abbreviation (LAKE
OR STR'M ABB). Enter the abbre-
viation for the lake or stream stat-
ed in space 4-5 of the S card.
8-10 Enter baseline or monitoring (ENTER
BSE or MOM). Enter BSE.
11-12 Station number (STA NO.). Enter the
station number stated in space
9-1 Oof the S card.
15-20 The date that the sample was taken,
giving the year, month, and day of
collection.
21-80 The values of the parameters sam-
pled for are entered in this space. If
the letter "D" was coded in column
6 of the P card, the depth at which
the sample was taken is entered
starting in column 21.
Please sign the form legibly and enter your
phone number. You may be contacted if there
are errors or unrecognizable entries.
• The cards which are required for entering
parametric data are the A card, followed by the P
card, followed by the D card(s). When submitting
monitoring reports, the A card needs to be in-
cluded only once with each group of reports. On
the other hand, it is likely that it will be necessary
to have more than one P card. In this case, a new
P card must be created whenever (a) the order of
the parameter codes is changed or (b) there are a
greater or fewer number of parameter codes
than on a proceeding P card. Also, a new D card
will have to be made whenever (a) the station,
(b) the date, or (c) the depth is changed. As an
example, assume that a lake with five stations is
sampled on two different dates. Each station has
two samples collected'whenever it is sampled;
one at the surface and one at the bottom. Also,
all five stations sample the same parameters. In
this case, only one P card is required. However,
20 D cards are necessary (5 stations per collec-
tion date x 2 samples per station x 2 collection
dates = 20 samples or D cards). If different pa-
rameters had been sampled for on different
dates, then additional P cards would be required.
-------
G-7
GICS AWARD INFORMATION
DO NOT FILL IN ANY INFORMATION
IN THE BOX MARKED FOR EPA USE ONLY
Enter the name of the project.
Enter the name of the applicant.
Enter the applicant's address.
Enter the applicant's city.
Enter a two. letter abbreviation for the applicant's State. Contact
the regional Clean Lakes Coordinator for the approved State
abbreviation.
Enter the applicant's zip code.
Enter the name of the individual who is responsible for the
application.
Enter the restorative activites that will be used on the lake or wa-
tershed, the code (Table 1, page 3) for the activity, the
projected cost, the projected starting date (year, month) and
the projected date of completion (year, month). Enter
CHANGE in the space (01-010) for any restorative activity that
was described on the application but will not be used.
Please sign the form legibly and enter your phone number. You may be contacted if there are errors
or unrecognizable entries.
Project name 20
Applicant name 12
Address 51
City 14
State 13
Zip 52
Representative 11
Restorative activities, code, cost,
projected start and completion
GICS QUARTERLY UPDATE AND STORET MONITORING DESCRIPTION
The quarterly updates must be submitted at the close of each quarter.
GICS
Project name 20
Applicant name 12
Address 51
City 14
State 13
Zip 52
Representative 11
DO NOT FILL IN ANY INFORMATION IN THE BOX
MARKED FOR EPA USE ONLY
Enter the name of the project.
Enter the name of the applicant.
Enter the applicant's address.
Enter the applicant's city.
Enter a two letter abbreviation for the applicant's State. Contact
the regional Clean Lakes Coordinator for the approved State
abbreviation.
Enter the applicant's zip code.
Enter the name of the individual who is responsible for the
application.
Cumulative payments requested
to date:
Non EPA
EPA
Restorative activities, code, cost,
actual start, actual completion
Recreational benefits ac-
crued 43, 42
Date
Enter the total amount of money requested from all non-EPA
sources to date.
Enter the total amount of money requested from EPA to date.
Enter the restorative activities that are being used on the lake or
watershed, the code (Table 1, page 3) for the activity, the actu-
al cost, the actual starting date for activities underway or com-
pleted, and the actual completion date for activities that have
been completed. Enter CHANGE in the space (01-010) for any
restorative activity that was described on the application but
will not be used.
Briefly describe any recreational benefits accrued to date. List
only those benefits that have been realized as a result of the
restorative activities.
Enter the date the forms are completed.
Please sign the form legibly and enter your phone number. You may be contacted if there are errors
or unrecognizable entries.
-------
G-9
STORE!
DO NOT FILL IN ANY INFORMATION IN THE
BOX MARKED FOR EPA USE ONLY
Station description information for monitoring
stations is essentially the same as for the
baseline stations discussed above. One differ-
ence is that the 5 cards, which contain
morphometric and watershed information, do
not have to be filled out. Also, if the monitoring
stations are to be the same as the baseline sta-
tions (which is highly desirable) it is only re-
quired to change "BSE" to "MON" on the S
Card. Consequently, for a monitoring station, the
only cards required are the A, T, S, 0, 3 and 4
cards.
Entering water quality data on the P and D
cards is identical to the procedure discussed
previously.
SAMPLE FORMS
The forms on the following pages have been
completed for the hypothetical Phase 2 project
that was described in Section 12. The EPA USE
ONLY section of some of the forms will be com-
pleted by the Clean Lakes Coordinator before
you receive them. Do not enter any additional in-
formation in this section. The following forms
have been included:
1. Johnson Lake Phase 2 GICS and STORET
application information. (The STORET
baseline description was developed during
Phase 1 but has been included in the Phase
2 application.) Three baseline stations were
used. Only station 1 is included in the sam-
ple. Two consecutive sampling dates (April
7, 1979 and May 7, 1979) are described.
2. Johnson Lake award information.
3. Johnson Lake quarterly update. Only sta-
tion 2 monitoring information for April 12,
1981 is included.
-------
Q-9
GICS APPLICATION INFORMATION
FOR EPA USE ONLY
SERIAL NUMBER 01 M o»
iii i i i i an E
PROJECT OFFICER 02
D| Uk; kill/
PROGRAM CODE 01
REGION NUMBER 17
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY M
APPLICATION RECEIVED DATE at
I I I I I I I
PROJECT STATE u
GRANT/RECORD TYPE M
GRANT/PROJECT DESCRIPTION to
J
O
y
V
S
O
V
L
A
K
£
ft
£
S
r
O
\
PHASE CODE i?
TOTAL COST tl
GRANT AMOUNT REQUESTED OF EPA It
f6TfeT6T6T6T7| I M
PROJECT LAKE NAME K
Sf
PROJECT CITY NAME it
'Mm*!
J_L
COUNTY NAME
\K[H]AW\*]*Wl\ltt*\T\\\ M
SURVEY LIST RANKING tt
SURVEY YEAR 17
I I I I I M 1
1*1 I
APPLICANT NAME It
STREET ADDRESS OR P.O. BOX ti
CITY NAME 14
ZIP CODE u
REPRESENTATIVEili
|5l3|7ToT/| I I I
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AGENCY M
DUMMY_RECORO
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A
D
A
Q
e
<;
u
P
x
A
i.
i
r
£
>
i
r
c
S
T
£
w
ff
D
E
K
S
€.
£
i
O
A
?
r
A
f
e.
N
N
P
4
L
*
W
-------
G-10
GIGS AWARD INFORMATION
FOR EPA USE ONLY
SERIAL NUMBER 01 94
UM3IVUI7I [£0 Jo
PROJECT OFFICER 02
AMENDMENT
DESIGNATOR 01
o| |s|(/|*.H/|v|/f |/v| | | | |
AWARD DATE v«
\8\o\o\s\z\7\
PROJECT PERIOD
|a|o[o[7[o|/|8|3|o|6|3|o|
TOTAL COST
,-ROGRAMCODE 02
PROJECT STATE 11
REGION NUMBER 17
EPA GRANTS ASSISTANT
EPA FUNDS AWARDED THIS ACTION Ji GRANT/RECORD TYPE 04
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY o<
|j|3|j|3|3|¥|
BUDGET PERIOD
|8|o|o|r|o|/ |g|3|o|6|3|o|
EPA PROJECT COST »
|3|3|3|3|3M m
GRANT/PROJECT DESCRIPTION w
7 O H H S O A/ LAKE. RE.STOA.4-Tt ON
£ C T
APPLICANT NAME
M |O|.£|P|T| \o\f\ \M\A\T\U\*\A\I.\ \R\e\s\o\u\K\c\e\s\ \ \
ADDRESS
\6\Q\*\ k|5|O|
CITY
STATE 11
|*| I I I M I I IT1
ZIP 91
i i I
REPRESENTATIVE
A
N
N
0
H
K.
U
i.
&
R
1
£.
5
e
M
T
A
S
A
O
r
£
/
0
R
i.
R
A
l
A
r
Z-
(r
CODE COST
^0
1
1
¥
B
6
3
3
0
y
^
y
i
i
5
¥
i
5
I
PROJECTED
START
g
8
8
I
1
O
0
o
0
6
3
6
PROJECTED
COMPLETION
8
8
S
l
3
i
0
o
o
9
3
fe
608 5*3-
-------
STORET BASELINE INFORMATION
FOR EPA USE ONLY
AGENCY CARD
t — «
1|2|C|LL|K
ION}
7— •
'1
» — 16
Mil III
UN
LOCK*
KB *
17
1
MO
19
20 — 24
MM
25
£|D||<.|AX£ kl'Me /|*M*
T
(A CARD)
'I
o
H
6
o\a
-Hi
3
-1*
-------
DESCRIPTIVE PARAGRAPH CARDS (HEADER CARD 5)
TTTTT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY
151*
»H'I N«H*I
|M|E|A|.! |D|E|P|T|HJ l/H^TTTTf
MA|X|JO|E|P|T|H| 1/lsH I I I I |
UNI
mi
OF L K
I I I H°M |°H |H|V|P|O| HuH |/|oHcM
.•M«iT.'Hi| lol.l/UM 11 I I
IS
n
HB3
71 71 —
LI
T H
L\G\A\L\ ASS \A
C T L
KMc|oU>|A|c|R|oM8||||l
25
III
R|0|p|Hnc|L|A|s|s[/|M|E|T|H|1fH^|o|H//M
35
>8i4M«) WATERSHED INFORMATION
I — ft 7 — 19 21
TTTTT
p|o|.HT| |s|o|u|R|c|e|s|
2t 11
TfflT
39 41 42 44 — 41 50
H
H
m
IDIE
R EC
TE
FlSl
FREQ FLO SIC CODE COR ACT/DTE4S
21 —
Mill
«KKMgM ICN
HIM II
'TOEfrWo
SB
II —
JILL
Is! hkl^l
>I^HB|9|7|7|
II
C//£M
£CU
80
65
mu
H^klyl |c|^H«|g| I I
1*2OV2/
^I«M I4»l
0-05
202 2
S PRAY I\
7 S
HULL
8 5
mn
n
95
mini
J S
(BLAH*.)
I —
67— til
2ft 29 11 11
1940 — 46 41
35 M — 62 64
— 7ft 79ftO
11111 H>|.| H-=M'I«M-M I"I-H H'l'l-hl 11 W( H-H«I l3bH»H*H I-H M M°l I-H^'111 H«l H M°l I'I-H*I4WF
mu
fW*
10
LL
M[A[J| |I|N[/|O|U|T( ]f^£\S\r\ \C\R\ \A\qD\ \H\A\J\K\ |c[/?[/|/>l[o|o|s|£| \C\R\ \
L s
rrrri
HI
?@
XAt
LL
MS
n
TTTTT
^T
A\LL
SOIL TYPES
cUtMzl.Mfl
MS
«.„ .o. 60g 5^3-g^y/
-------
PARAMETER CARD (P CARD)
^To|Q|6|6|o|7My|o|7Ho|6|z|0|o|c>|0|7|8|3|2|2N3|o|o|V|o|0|o|o|y|/|0|0|okH5|o|c>|3|c>|o| II I I II I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I
n
lilllll
DATA CARD (D CARD)
CNTCM
MON
Oft
f«r«r MUST Bf FOUOWFD ar
IMIMI MM MINI IIMIII INI II lilllll II I I I I I I I I I [ nil 1 11II II I I I I I I I I I MINIMI
111
11
H
NIMH Mil IIIIIMIIIIII Mil II IIMIIIMII MlllllTrillllilllHIIMIIlillll MINI
I I
l 1 1 II I II I I II II 1 1 I I I MM Mill 1 1 II I I I 1 1 I I I II ITTTTT
11
MMMMIMM
111
Tiiiiiiiiiinmmiiiii
HIM 1111 M inn M MM 11 M ITTTI n M i n ill
11
11
n
III II Mill II MM II
TTTTTF
H
IM MM MM II MM II MIM Mil II IIII111111 1111" 111 11 11111 1111111111 11111111111ITTT
i M 111111 M 11 M 11 M 1111111 M M M 111111111111 M 1111 MM i MM i M 1111 M 1111
608 5*3- 8Z?/
IONATUIIB Of PBIIIOH COMrkBTINa FIIOM
-------
G-14
GICS QUARTERLY UPDATE
FOR EPA USE ONLY
SERIAL NUMBER 01
1 1 1
III 1
PROJECT OFFICER
1 1 1 1
1 1 1
AMENDMENT
M DESIGNATOR 01
nn n
u
1 III
PROGRAM CODE 01
d]
REGION NUMBER 17
CD
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY M
PROJECT STATE 31
CD
GRANT/PHOJECT DESCRIPTION m
T
o
n
N
s
o
H
t-
A
^
E
*
E
5
r
0
A
A
T
/
o
A/
/»
4
0
J
E.
APPLICANT NAME u
[iv(/ [s
C \O\U\S\I |/V| \D\£\P\T\ \0\f
M/|*|r|?|E
5
c
T
O |(/|*|c|£|S|
ADDRESS 91
¥
«'
0
M/v|/
V
£.
R
s
I
r
y
\A\V\E
CITY M
M|4|/> |/
s
0
N
REPRESENTATIVE II
-------
STORET MONITORING INFORMATION
FOR EPA USE ONLY
•0« IBLUHKI "y,
1 • 7 — 1 t — II 17
12CL|L|K || Mill
,
A|M|B|N|TI/|L A|K|E | | |
LAH«
ON «TA.
1 JMoMz Ml II II
LATITUDE LONQITtl
(ZfRO FILL) iZfftO Fl
dd mm u ddd mn
1 4 7 t 9 10 11 12 14—14 17
1 1 1 1 *l23!' 3l5e°|0|8/
114 —
t|*|/<|£ |M|/ c\m 6\ty\
1 1 4
J JJOHN[S|O|W ]t 4|*|E|/|J
AGENCY CARD (A CARD)
IT (BIAN/O
— It 20 — 24 29 —
| I | 1 f|0| kU
-------
PARAMETER CARD (P CARD)
n
MI M iMI ii 111INN i i iiimnrr
DATA CARD(D CARD)
NTKII
MOM
'OH
MTC
OATI/OKFTH/PAIIAMITKIt VALUB*
ICACH CHJttr MUST Bl fOUOWtD flf A COUUA)
M>|/M.|o|>|obl,|o|Mo|/l*ll3U|ci.MoM>|g|.M^I^»M-M^hI.T^
^ I I 11
II I III MM I MM I I MM 11 IIII I I II MM I I I I 11 III I I I I I II11 I MM 1111 I I 1111 11 11 ITTTTT
II
H
III II IIIIIIILll
II 1111 11111 1111 11 1
II ll.l 11 II11 I 11 nTTTTI I 111T ITTTTT II n IN I 11 I I I 11 11 i I I I I I I 11 11 I I I I
ILL
1L
lilliinTTTTIITIIIIIIIIIIIIMIilimilllllMMI
1111111 111111111111111 1111111 n 1111111
n
IL
11
mi illinium iiiim i iirrnii 111 n n 11111 n n m n n n n n MM i n
11
Mill MM MINIM MM II MINI
I M I M 1 1
11
111
Jill
IIIIIIIIITrnriTTllTlirTTTTTTTTTIIMMMimMMIirrTTTllMMMMMMMMMMM
608
OP rmm*om COMFL>TIH« rnoM
-------
H-1
Appendix H
TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
FEDERAL/REGIONAL PROGRAMS
Federal Level: Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS)
1. Water Bank Program. Project grants, adviso-
ry services and counseling are available under
ten-year agreements made with landowners and
operators of specified types of wetlands in des-
ignated migratory waterfowl nesting and breed-
ing areas. The landowners must agree not to
drain, burn, fill or otherwise destroy the wetland
character of such areas nor to use the areas for
agriculture. Participants must undertake needed
land and water management measures.
Grants have ranged from $4 to $55 per acre.
FY 80 estimated obligations are $10,000,000.
The program is announced through news me-
dia and letters to eligible participants in desig-
nated areas. The applicant must develop an ap-
proved conservation farm plan with the local
Soil and Water Conservation District. Once the
plan has been developed, proof of compliance is
required. Ten-year agreements may be renewed
if mutually agreed to at the rates offered by the
Secretary of Agriculture. The ASCS county com-
mittee must approve applications within the
county allocation of Federal funds for that pur-
pose. No deadlines for application have been es-
tablished.
Contact: Information can be obtained from the
county ASCS office or the state ASCS office.
2. Rural Clean Water Program. Cost-shared
grants are available to test administrative, engi-
neering and management systems designed to
improve water quality in rural areas, for exam-
ple, by cleaning up animal wastes.
Grants are funded at a maximum rate of 75%
of project cost. The maximum amount provided
is $50,000 per application. Contracts must be
signed covering three to ten years. Estimated FY
80 obligations are $50,000,000.
Contact: Information can be obtained from the
county ASCS office or the State ASCS office.
3. Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP).
Project grants are available to individuals or
groups establishing approved conservation
practices on agricultural land. The program
works to help solve critical soil, water, wood-
land, and pollution abatement problems on
farms and ranches. Responsibility for upkeep
and maintenance rests with program partici-
pants. Assistance is not available for projects pri-
marily designed to bring new land into produc-
tion. Payment rates range from 30 to 90 percent
depending on priority of the proposed conserva-
tion practices. Individual agreements have
ranged from $3 to $3,500 with the average being
$573. Pooled agreements have ranged as high as
$10,000. ACP funds have been awarded to indi-
vidual farmers or ranchers whose conservation
practices have been supported at the 50 percent
level by the Environmental Protection Agency's
Clean Lakes Program. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $190,000,000.
Any person who is an owner, landlord, tenant,
or sharecropper on a farm or ranch and who
bears part of the cost of an approved conserva-
tion practice may apply for cost-share assistance
under this program. Funds are available to farm-
ers and ranchers in all States, Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands.
Eligible persons may make applications at any
time of the year with approval or disapproval
normally taking 30 to 60 days. The ASCS county
-------
H-2
committee must approve applications at least .in
part within the county allocation of Federal
funds for that purpose.
Contact: Information can be obtained from the
county ASCS office or the state ASCS office.
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
1. Farm Ownership Loans. Guaranteed/insured
loans are available under this program to be
used for providing water and water facilities,
providing basic soil treatment and land conser-
vation measures, providing financial assistance
for recreational enterprises on farms, for buying
and developing land to be used for forestry pur-
poses, and for financing pollution abatement
and control facilities. Funding limits are $200,000
for insured loans and $300,000 for guaranteed
loans. The average assistance program is
$60,000, with the range being $16,000 to
$200,000. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$800,000,000. Repayment schedules may be up
to 40 years in length.
Applicants must be unable to obtain adequate
credit from other sources at reasonable terms,
be a U.S. citizen and possess legal capacity to in-
cur the loan obligations, show debt repayment
ability and reliability, managerial ability, and
have the necessary experience, training and
managerial ability to operate a family farm or a
nonfarm enterprise. Other restrictions on com-
bined indebtedness of the applicant apply. As-
sistance is authorized for all States, Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
the northern Mariana Islands.
Certification as to the eligibility of the appli-
cant is made by a local county committee of
three persons. Applications are considered by
the committee within 30 days from the date of
application. Loan application for a guaranteed
loan is made with the lender.
Contact: Inquiries should be made with the
county FmHA office. Information can also be ob-
tained from State FmHA offices.
2. .Irrigation, Drainage and Other Soil and Water
Conservation Loans. Guaranteed/insured loans
are available for irrigation, drainage or other soil
conservation measures serving farmers or rural
residents. Repayment of the loans may be made
over a period of up to 40 years. Financial assis-
tance has ranged from $32,000 to $612,000 with
an average of $254,210. FY 80 obligations are es-
timated to be $7,400,000.
Public or quasi-public bodies and not-for-prof-
it corporations serving open country and rural
towns up to 10,000 population may apply for
these loans. The applicant must be unable to ob-
tain needed funds from other sources at reason-
able rates or terms and must have the legal ca-
pacity to borrow, repay and pledge security for
the loans and to operate any facilities or services
being developed. The proposed project must pri-
marily serve farmers or other rural residents. As-
sistance is available in all States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
northern Mariana Islands.
Up to 60 days is required for review of project
proposals by State, metropolitan and local units
of government before an application is filed. Ap-
plications are subject to State and areawide
clearinghouse review. An environmental impact
assessment and environmental impact state-
ment are required for this program.
Contact: Applicants should contact their coun-
ty FmHA member or the FmHA State office.
3. Recreation Facility Loans. Guaranteed/insured
loans are available to develop land and water re-
sources; repair and construct buildings; pur-
chase land, equipment, livestock and related rec-
reational items; and pay the necessary operating
expenses for recreational enterprises. Camp-
grounds, stables, swimming, tennis and shoot-
ing facilities, vacation lodging, lakes and ponds
for recreational uses, docks, nature trails, hunt-
ing facilities and winter sports areas may utilize
these loans. Financial assistance has ranged
from $20,000 to $100,000. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $2,400 000.
Farm and ranch owners or tenants who wish
to convert all or a portion of their farms into out-
door recreational enterprises to supplement or
supplant income are eligible for these loans.
The applicant must be unable to obtain ade-
quate credit from other sources at reasonable
terms, be a U.S. citizen and possess legal capac-
ity to incur the obligations of the loan. The appli-
cant must also show repayment ability; reliabil-
ity and managerial ability and industry; be
engaged in farming; have the experience or
training to be successful in the proposed recrea-
tional enterprise; and meet certain other credit
and total indebtedness restrictions.
Eligibility certification is made by a local coun-
ty committee of three persons. Applications are
considered by the committee within 30 days
from the date of application. Application for the
guaranteed loan is filed with the lender.
Contact: Applicants should contact their local
county FmHA office or the appropriate FmHA
State office.
4. Resource Conservation and Development
Loans (RC&D Loans). Under this program,
guaranteed/insured loans are available for rural
community public outdoor waterbased recrea-
tional facilities, soil water development conser-
vation control and use facilities, shift-in-land use
facilities, community water storage facilities,
and special purpose equipment to carry out the
above purposes. The project must be located in
an authorized RC&D area. A loan for a single
RC&O measure cannot exceed $500,000. Aver-
age project assistance has been $82,000 with the
range from $2,400 to $250,000. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $2,400,000. Sponsoring public
agencies and local nonprofit corporations in au-
thorized RC&D areas may be eligible for loan as-
-------
H-3
sistance if they have authority to borrow funds,
repay the loan and pledge security for the loan
and operate the facilities and services provided
and are financially sound and able to provide ef-
ficient service. Assistance is authorized in ap-
proved RC&D areas in all States, Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands.
Applications are subject to State and areawide
clearinghouse review. An informal preappli-
cation conference is recommended and an envi-
ronmental impact assessment is required. Ap-
proval or disapproval by the FmHA State
director normally requires 30 to 90 days.
Contact: Inquiries should be directed to the
FmHA county or district office. Information can
also be obtained from the appropriate FmHA
State office.
5. Soil and Water Loans (SW Loans). Guar-
anteed/insured loans are available for carrying
out basic land treatment practices; establishing
pastures and farm forest; improving irrigation;
developing water supplies for home use and
livestock; acquiring water rights; restoring and
repairing ponds, tanks, ditches and canals for ir-
rigation; digging ditches and installing drain tile;
developing ponds and water control structures
for fish production; and carrying out pollution
controls and abatements on farms. Loans which
are scheduled for repayment over periods of up
to 40 years have averaged $17,000 per project
and have ranged from $3,300 to $100,000. FY 80
estimated obligations are $53,000,000.
Individual farm owners and tenants, eligible
farming partnerships-cooperatives or domestic
corporations are eligible for loans providing they
are unable to obtain credit from other sources
under reasonable terms and conditions. Appli-
cants must be United States citizens and have
the legal capacity to incur the obligations of the
loan; must show repayment ability, reliability,
managerial ability and industry; and have the
necessary experience, training and managerial
ability to carry out the proposed operation. Oth-
er total indebtedness restrictions apply to this
project. Assistance may be given to eligible ap-
plicants-in all States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is-
lands, Guam, American Samoa, and the north-
ern Mariana Islands.
Eligibility certification is made by a local coun-
ty committee of three persons with applications
being considered by the committee within 30
days from date of application.
Contact: Inquiries should be directed to the
FmHA county office or the appropriate FmHA
State office.
6. Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural
Communities. Project grants and guaranteed/
insured loans are available for the installation,
repair, improvement, or expansion of rural water
facilities or waste disposal facilities including the
collection and treatment of sanitary, storm and
solid wastes. Loans have ranged from $50,000 to
$20,917,000 with an average of $499,445. Grants
have ranged from $5,000 to $3,500,000, the aver-
age being $273,545. FY 80 estimated obligations
are $700,000,000 for loans and $300,000,000 for
grants. Funds are eligible for joint funding with
other eligible Federal programs as specified in
OMB Circular No. A-111 regulations. Grants may
not exceed 75 percent of eligible project devel-
opment costs.
Municipalities, counties and other political
subdivisions of a State; associations; cooper-
atives; not-for-profit organizations; and federal-
ly-recognized Indian tribes are eligible for assis-
tance provided the service area does not include
any city or town with a population greater than
10,000. The applicant must be unable to finance
the project without outside assistance and must
have the legal authority to construct, operate
and maintain the proposed facility and obtain,
secure and repay the proposed loan. Assistance
is authorized for rural areas in all States, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Preapplications are subject to State and
areawide clearinghouse review. Standard appli-
cation forms are required. Plans and specifica-
tions must comply with State and .local health
and pollution regulations. An environmental im-
pact assessment is required. Approval/disap-
proval time normally takes from 30-90 days.
Contact: Applicants should contact their local
county FmHA office.
7. Watershed Protect/on and Flood Prevention
Loans. Guaranteed and insured loans are avail-
able to help sponsors provide the local share of
the cost of watershed works of improvement for
flood prevention, irrigation, drainage, water
quality management, sedimentation control, fish
and wildlife development, public water-based
recreation, and water storage and related costs.
Total outstanding loans for any one watershed
cannot exceed $10,000,000. Loans have ranged
from $4,000 to $5,450,000 with an average of
$318,000. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$20,000,000.
Applicants must be a sponsoring local
nonprofit organization operating within the wa-
tershed area with authority under State law to
obtain, give security for and raise revenues to re-
pay the loan. Assistance is available in all States,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Applications are subject to State and areawide
clearinghouse review. An environmental impact
statement is required. Approval/disapproval
time normally takes 30-90 days.
Contact: Inquiries should be directed to the
FmHA county office in which the watershed is
located.
8. Business and Industrial Loans. Guaranteed/
insured loans are available under this program
for financial assistance by FmHA or in joint fi-
nancing with other Federal, State, private, and
quasi-public financial institutions. Loans are
-------
H-4
made to business and industry to help in im-
proving the economic and environmental cli-
mate in rural communities. This includes pollu-
tion abatement and the conservation,
development and utilization of water for agricul-
ture. A series of restrictions relating to the im-
pact of the proposed project on the employment
and production characteristics of the applicant
are required. FmHA insured loans may be made
in connection with the funds provided by the ap-
plicant or other sources. Matching funds are not
required. Applicants are required to provide a
minimum of 10 percent equity. The range of fi-
nancial assistance varies from $11,000 to
$33,000,000, with an average of $824,000. FY 80
estimated obligations are $1,000,000,000.
Applicants may be a cooperative corporation,
partnership, or other legal entity organized and
operated on a profit or nonprofit basis, an Indian
tribe, a municipality, county or other political
subdivision of a State, or an individual in rural
areas. Assistance is available in all States, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa
or the northern Mariana Islands, in areas other
than cities having a population of more than
50,000 or areas adjacent to urbanized and urban-
izing areas with a population, density of more
than 100 persons per square mile.
Applications are subject to State and areawide
clearinghouse review. An environmental assess-
ment and environmental impact statement are
required. Final approval by the State director
normally requires 60 to 90 days.
Contact: Applicants should contact their local
county FmHA office or the appropriate FmHA
State office.
9. Area Development Assistance Planning
Grants. Under this program, project grants are
available for the development of comprehensive
planning for rural areas, for revising existing
plans and/or for insuring an integrated useable
package to support the development of some as-
pect of a comprehensive planning process. Spe-
cial consideration is given to those planning ef-
forts which affect the unemployed, the under-
employed, those with low family incomes, or
minorities. Grants normally range from $3,750 to
$50,000, with the average FY 79 grant being
$35,000. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$6,000,000. Grants may not exceed 75 percent of
the total funds required for the planning project.
The grantee's 25 percent share may be met by
cash, services or a combination of both. Funds
are eligible for joint funding with other eligible
Federal programs as specified in OMB Circular
No. A-111 regulations.
Local governmental units, substate district or-
ganizations, areawide comprehensive planning
agencies, regional and local planning commis-
sions. State governments, federally-recognized
Indian tribes, and public quasi-public or private
nonprofit organizations having authority to pre-
pare comprehensive plans for rural develop-
ment are eligible for these funds. However, the
applicant must have authority to receive and
spend Federal and other funds and to contract
for planning purposes. The area covered may
not include any area in any city or town which
has a population of more than 10,000 people.
Preapplication forms must be submitted to
county or State FrnHA offices. Notice of action
taken on preapplication will be within 45 days of
date of receipt. Applications are submitted to the
FmHA national office and are subject to State
and areawide clearinghouse review. An environ-
mental impact assessment is required.
Contact: Applicants should contact their local
county FmHA office or the appropriate FmHA
State office for information.
Forest Service
1. Forestry Research. Project grants are available
for research in the fields of timber management,
watershed management, forest range manage-
ment, wildlife habitat management, and other
forest-related areas. Grants have ranged from
$2,000 to $100,000, with $20,000 being the aver-
age. FY 80 estimated obligations are $2,500,000.
Funds are eligible for joint funding with other eli-
gible Federal programs as specified in OMB Cir-
cular No. A-111 regulations. The applicant's con-
tribution is negotiated.
Applicants must certify that they are a
nonprofit institution of higher education or a
nonprofit organization whose primary purpose
is the conduct of scientific research. Grants may
be made to State agricultural experiment sta-
tions, state and local governments, U.S. territor-
ies, nonprofit institutions or organizations.
A complete research proposal explaining in
detail the work to be undertaken must be sub-
mined. Proposals from State agencies or organi-
zations must be coordinated with a governor-ap-
pointed coordinating agency. Coordination is
not required on applications from other sources.
Approval or disapproval normally takes 120
days.
Contact: Initial contact for grants should be
made to directors of regional experiment sta-
tions or the director of the forest products
laboratory.
2. Cooperative Forestry Assistance. Grants are
available under this program to assist in the ad-
vancement of forest resources management on
nonfederal forest lands. The improvement and
maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat, produc-
ing and distributing tree seeds and seedlings,
and reforestation are examples of appropriate
uses of these grants. Typical programs have
ranged from $40,000 to $5,000,000 with the aver-
age program receiving $800,000. FY 80 estimat-
ed obligations are $36,188,000.
Landowners of nonfederal lands, rural com-
munity fire fighting forces, urban and municipal
-------
H-S
governments and other State and local agencies
acting through State foresters or equivalent
State officials may receive these funds. State for-
estry or equivalent state agencies in all States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, the northern Mariana Islands, the trust
territories of the Pacific Islands, and the territor-
ies and possessions of the United States are eli-
gible. This program is considered suitable for
joint funding with closely related Federal pro-
grams in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-
111.
Applications are made by the States to the For-
est Service. Approval or disapproval time ranges
from 10 to 30 days. Applications are subject to
State and areawide clearinghouse review. An
environmental impact statement is required
whenever pesticides are to be used.
Contact: Regional and area State and private
forestry offices of the Forest Service can supply
information concerning this program.
Science and Education Administration
1. Agricultural Research — Basic and Applied Re-
search (RMA Act — Agricultural Omnibus Bill).
Project grants are available for making agricul-
tural research discoveries and for evaluating al-
ternative ways of attaining goals. Patents result-
ing from research are available for licensing
without charge. The program is also designed to
disseminate technical information. Results of the
research are available to the public upon request
after public disclosure. Previous research has in-
cluded the development of management prac-
tices for removal of nutrients from municipal
wastewater and water conservation through irri-
gation scheduling schemes. Grants have ranged
from $15,000 to $113,500. The average has been
$75,132. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$195,000.
For grants, only nonprofit institutions of high-
er education or nonprofit organizations with the
primary purpose of conducting scientific re-
search are eligible. All persons are eligible for re-
ceiving technical information including those lo-
cated in the U.S. territories.
A grant review board considers each proposal,
evaluating applicant qualifications in line with
research to be undertaken.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the Science and Education Administration re-
gional offices. In Washington, D.C., contact the
Department of Agriculture, Science and Educa-
tion Administration, Washington, D.C. 20250,
(202) 436-8403.
2. Cooperative Forestry Research (Mclntire-
Stennis Act). Formula grants are available for
forestry research- at certified State institutions.
Among the categories which can be included in
this research are the management of forest and
related watershed lands to protect resources
against floods and erosions; the management of
forest for outdoor recreation; and the improve-
ment of food and habitat for wildlife. Financial
assistance to State institutions has ranged from
$24,923 to $342,588, with an average of
$158,333. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$9,700,000.
State institutions must be certified as eligible
by a State representative designated by the gov-
ernor of each State. The program is available in
all States as well as Guam, Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands.
Funds can be expended only on projects ap-
proved by the Science and Education Admin-
istration.
Contact: Department of Agriculture, Science
and Education Administration, Washington, D.C.
20250, (202) 447-4423.
Soil Conservation Service
1. Great Plains Conservation. Cost-share funds
are available in the form of direct payments for
enduring soil and water conservation measures
determined to be needed to protect and stabilize
farm or ranching units against climatic and ero-
sion hazards of the Great Plains area. Measure
must be applied in accordance with a conserva-
tion plan for the entire operating unit. Auxiliary
features may be included in the plan for agricul-
ture-related pollution abatement, enhancement
of fish, wildlife and recreational resources and
promotion of economic use of land. Up to
$25,000 per landowner or operator is available
for a contract period running from three to ten
years. In FY 79, the average payment was esti-
mated to be approximately $10,000. FY 80 esti-
mated obligations are $10,263,000 for direct pay-
ments and $8,426,000 for salaries, expenses and
other costs. Cost sharing to participant ranges
from 80 percent of the cost (in case of urgently
needed work for land stabilization) to 30 percent.
Applicants must have control of the land for
the period of the contract running from a mini-
mum of three years to a maximum of ten years.
Application is made to the Soil Conservation
Service District conservationist serving the
county in which the operating unit is located.
The multi-county area conservationist or the
area in which the participating county is located
serves as the contracting officer. Approval or
disapproval time depends upon volume of appli-
cations, backlog of pending applications and
SCS staff availability.
Contact: Contact the State conservationist for
the Soil Conservation Service in the ten Great
Plains States where the program operates for
more information. District conservationists for
SCS can also be contacted.
2. Resource Conservation and Development.
Project grants are available to assist local people
in RC&D areas in initiating and carrying out long-
range programs of resource conservation and
development. Technical and financial assistance
is available for the planning and installation of
approved measures specified in RC&D area
-------
H-6
plans for such purposes as flood prevention,
sedimentation and erosion control, public water-
based recreation, fish and wildlife develop-
ments, agricultural water management, water
quality management, and control and abate-
ment of agriculture-related pollution. Local or
State agencies must provide land rights needed
for the installation of all measures except for rec-
reation and fish and wildlife developments
where financial assistance may be available for
up to 50 percent of the cost of land rights acqui-
sition. RC&D assistance may be provided for up
to 100 percent of construction costs of flood pre-
vention measures. Local or State agencies gen-
erally must provide for 50 percent of construc-
tion costs of agriculture water management, fish
and wildlife and recreation structures, and must
provide for operation and maintenance and for
all needed water rights. Loan assistance may be
provided for the local share of measure cost.
Range of financial assistance has been $2,000 to
$250,000 with an average of $50,000. FY 80 esti-
mated obligations are $2,943,000.
State and local governments and nonprofit or-
ganizations with authority to plan or carry out
activities related to resource use and develop-
ment in multi-jurisdictional areas are eligible for
these funds. This program is available in all
States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Applications are subject to State and areawide
clearinghouse review. Standard application
forms are required. An environmental impact
statement may be required if the proposed
measures are likely to significantly affect the
quality of'the environment, create significant
public interest, or result in controversy.
Contact: Information can be obtained from
State and field offices of the Soil Conservation
Service. For loans, contacts should be made with
the Farmers Home Administration office serving
the county in which the project will be located.
3. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
(Small Watershed or PL-566 Program). Project
grants, advisory services and counseling are
available for the planning, designing and install-
ing of watershed works. Funds are available to
share the cost of flood prevention, irrigation,
drainage, sedimentation control, and public wa-
ter-based fish and wildlife and recreation pro-
grams. For construction costs, program funds
may pay 100 percent for flood prevention, up to
50 percent of agricultural water management,
public recreation and fish and wildlife projects,
and none of the costs for certain other
nonagricultural water management purposes.
All of applicant's installation costs are eligible
for program loans. Reimbursable advances are
available for preservation of sites and future mu-
nicipal water supply. Projects have ranged in
size from $20,000 to $13,000,000 with an average
of $2,000,000. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$167,524,000 for watershed and flood preven-
tion programs and $10,500,000 for watershed
planning.
Any State agency, county or group of coun-
ties, municipality, town or township. Soil and
Water Conservation District, flood prevention or
flood control district, or nonprofit agency with
authority under State law to carry out, maintain
and operate watershed works are eligible for as-
sistance under this program. Watershed area
must not exceed 250,000 acres. The program is
available in all States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands.
Potential applicants must notify State plan-
ning and development clearinghouses that they
intend to apply for assistance. Up to 60 days is
allowed for review. Applications are subject to
State and areawide clearinghouse review. Envi-
ronmental impact statements are required on all
projects determined to be Federal action that
significantly affects the environment.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the Soil Conservation Service State office. At the
Federal level, information may be obtained from
the Department of Agriculture, Administrator,
Soil Conservation Service, P. 0. Box 2890, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20013, (202) 447-4531.
4. Plant Materials for Conservation. This pro-
gram offers the sale, exchange or donation of
plant materials to be used in all phases of the
soil and water conservation program. Over 140
varieties of grasses, legumes and shrubs are
readily available for conservation purposes
through this program. Uses include erosion
control, sediment reduction, roadside and
streambank protection, surface mined land
reclamation, wildlife food and cover, and beauti-
fication.
Cooperating State and Federal agencies and
cooperators of conservation districts interested
in field testing plants for conservation purposes
are eligible for this program. The program is
available in all States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands.
Applications are made to the local Soil Conser-
vation. Service office.
Contact: For information concerning this pro-
gram, contact the Technical Service Centers, the
Soil Conservation Service State offices and the
Soil Conservation Service field offices. Federal
level information may be obtained from the De-
partment of Agriculture, Administrator, Soil and
Conservation Service, P.O. Box 2890, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20013, (202) 447-4531.
5. Resource Appraisal and Program Develop-
ment (Resources Conservation Act — RCA). Un-
der this project, grants and technical information
are available relating to the appraisal of natural
resources, development or updating of conser-
vation district programs that utilize RCA generat-
ed information and for carrying out State and na-
tional RCA activities. In FY 79, projects' grants
ranged from $13,000 to $122,000, with an aver-
-------
H-7
age of $45,000. FY 80 estimated obligations for
salaries and expenses are $4,309,000. Grants are
not available for FY 80.
Soil and water conservation agencies, local
conservation districts and other appropriate
State natural resource agencies may be eligible
for funds under this program. Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands conservation districts also
may apply.
A grant agreement approved by the Soil Con-
servation Service State conservationist must be
signed between the administering agency in the
State and the SCS. When available, funds are
committed by the SCS State conservationist.
Contact: Inquiries should.be directed to the
Soil Conservation Service State office.
6. Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP). Di-
rect payments for specified use and advisory
services are available for conservation practices
determined to be needed for the reclamation,
conservation and development of up to 370
acres per owner of rural abandoned coal mine
lands and waters affected by coal mining activi-
ties. Eligible projects are limited to practices that
will provide land stabilization, erosion and sedi-
ment control, and development of soil, water,
woodland, wildlife, reclamation resources and
agricultural productivity of such lands. This pro-
gram may cost-share up to 80 percent, depend-
ing on the income-producing potential of the re-
claimed land. For acreages in excess of 120
acres, the cost-sharing rate is reduced by up to
0.25 percent per acre. Initially, cost-share rates
will range from 25 to 100 percent. The range of
projects is from $5,000 to $196,000, with an aver-
age of $100,000. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$2,685,000.
Persons, groups or units of government who
control or own surface or water rights of aban-
doned coal lands and water affected by coal min-
ing before August 3, 1977, are eligible to apply
for these services and funds.
The applicant must develop a reclamation
plan with the assistance of the Soil Conservation
Service. Public entities are subject to State and
areawide clearinghouse review. Reclamation by
individual land users on private land is excluded
from such review. An environmental impact as-
sessment is required.
Contact: Inquiries concerning this program
should be made to the local office of the Soil
Conservation Services.
Federal Level: Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
1. Economic Development — Grants and Loans
for Public Works and Development Facilities.
Project grants and direct loans are available un-
der this program to assist in the construction of
public facilities needed to initiate and encourage
long-term economic growth in designated geo-
graphic areas where such growth is lagging be-
hind the rest of the Nation. Included in the quali-
fied public facilities are water and sewer
systems. The basic grant rate may be up to 50
percent of the project cost. Severely depressed
areas that cannot match Federal funds may re-
ceive supplementary grants to bring the Federal
contribution up to 80 percent of the project cost.
Designated Indian reservations are eligible for
100 percent assistance. Financial assistance has
ranged from $5,000 to $7,138,000 with the aver-
age being $580,000. FY 80 estimated obligations
are $196,005,000 for grants, no funds available
for loans. This program is considered suitable
for joint funding with closely related Federal fi-
nancial assistance programs as specified in OMB
Circular No. A-111.
States, local subdivisions thereof, Indian
tribes, and private or public nonprofit organiza-
tions or associations representing a redevelop-
ment area or a designated Economic Develop-
ment Center are eligible for grants and loans
under this program.
Preapplication coordination takes place be-
tween the Economic Development Administra-
tion representative and the applicant and com-
munity leaders. A preapplication conference
may be required. Applications are subject to
State and areawide clearinghouse review. Envi-
ronmental impact assessments and statements
are necessary. Normally approval or disapproval
occurs within 90 days of acceptance of the
application.
Contact: Information can be obtained from the
EDA regional offices or from the Department of
Commerce, Office of Public Investments, Eco-
nomic Development Administration, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20230, (202) 377-5265.
2. Economic Development — Public Works Im-
pact Projects. Project grants are available under
this program for the construction of public facili-
ties such as water and sewer systems. The basic
grant rate for special impact areas is 80 percent
except for Indian areas where the rate can be 100
percent. The local matching share may be
waived if the appropriate entity can demonstrate
that it has exhausted its effective taxing and/or
borrowing capacity. Priority is given to projects
of $600,000 or less. The average project has re-
ceived $220,000. This program is suitable for
joint funding with closely related Federal finan-
cial assistance programs, in accordance with the
provisions of OMB Circular No. A-111.
States and their local subdivisions, Indian
tribes and private or public nonprofit organiza-
tions representing a redevelopment area for a
economic development center are eligible for
this program.
Preapplication coordination takes place be-
tween the Economic Development Administra-
tion representative and the applicant and com-
munity leaders. A preapplication conference
may be required. Applications are subject to
-------
H-8
State and areawide clearinghouse review. Envi-
ronmental impact assessments and statements
are necessary. Approval or disapproval general-
ly occurs within 90 days of acceptance of the
application.
Contact: Information can be obtained from the
regional or local office of the Economic Develop-
ment Administration.
3. Grants to States for Supplemental and Basic
Funding of Titles I, II, III, IV, and IX Activities
(Section 304 Grants). Project grants and direct
loans are available under this program to con-
struct such public works as water and sewer sys-
tems. The intent of the program is to provide
funds which will enable governors to select
projects which will assist in the construction of
public facilities and other projects which meet
the criteria of Titles I, II, III, IV, and IX and are
needed to initiate or enhance long-term eco-
nomic growth in areas of their States where such
growth is lagging. The State must make a contri-
bution equal to at least 25 percent of the 304
funds used for supplemental grants and direct
grants or loans. Financial assistance has ranged
from $1,000 to $976,000. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $20,000,000.
This program is considered suitable for joint
funding with closely related Federal financial as-
sistance programs in accordance with the provi-
sions of OMB Circular No. A-111.
States, local and subdivisions, Indian tribes,
and private or public nonprofit organizations or
associations representing a designated redevel-
opment area or center are eligible to receive
public works grants and loans.
Governors select projects to be funded from
the moneys allocated to their jurisdictions. After
selection by the governors, the eligibility and
compliance of the project for assistance is deter-
• mined by the regional director of the Economic
Development Administration. Applicants must
prepare and submit profile information and
preapplication forms. State and areawide
clearinghouse reviews are required. Environ-
mental assessments are required to determine if
an environmental impact statement is needed.
Approval or disapproval normally takes 90 days
after a governor has submitted a proposal.
Contact: Information on this program can be
obtained from the State Economic Development
or information agency or from the appropriate
regional office of the Economic Development
Administration.
Federal Level: Department of Education
Office of Education
1. Environmental Education. Project grants are
available to support research, development, pi-
lot and demonstration projects designed to im-
prove public understanding of environmental is-
sues as they relate to the quality of life. Such
projects shall support the development of edu-
cational processes dealing with man's relation-
ship with his natural and man-made surround-
ings and include such topics as the relationship
of pollution to the total human environment.
Supportable activities include development of
curriculum material, training for educational and
noneducational personnel, community educa-
tion projects, and elementary and secondary
education programs. This program is considered
suitable for joint funding with closely related
Federal financial assistance programs in accor-
dance with OMB Circular No. A-111. The range
of financial assistance has been $7,000 to
$150,000 with an average of $42,700. FY 80 esti-
mated obligations for grants are $3,500,000. The
Federal dollar contribution to any project under
this program will not exceed 80 percent of the
project cost for the first year, 60 percent of the
first year project cost for the second year and 40
percent of the first year project cost for the third
year. The exception are general projects for eval-
uation, dissemination, curriculum development
and workshop projects which are eligible for 100.
percent funding.
Applicants for grant awards may be institu-
tions of higher education, State or local educa-
tional agencies and other public and nonprofit
private agencies, organizations and institutions
including libraries and museums who have been
organized and active for at least one year.
Standard application forms are furnished by
the agency. Applications are subject to State and
areawide clearinghouse review. Application
deadlines are published in the Federal Register,
with the approval or disapproval requiring four
to five months.
Contact: Guideline priorities and funding crite-
ria are available from Department of Education,
Office of Environmental Education, Washington,
D.C. 20202, (202) 245-9231. Applications must be
sent to the Department of Education, Application
Control Center, Washington, D.C. 20202.
Federal Level: Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Community Planning and Development
1. Comprehensive Planning Assistance (70 J).
Project grants are available under this program
to strengthen planning and decisionmaking ca-
pabilities of State chief executives, local govern-
ments and areawide planning organizations. A
broad range of planning and management ac-
tivities may be supported by these grants includ-
ing the improvement, development and imple-
mentation of comprehensive plans incorporat-
ing land use and housing elements. The pro-
gram is suitable for joint funding with closely
related Federal financial assistance programs in
accordance with OMB Circular No. A-111. FY 80
estimated obligations are $42,500,000. The State
may apply for these funds for planning assis-
-------
H4
tance to local governments for State, interstate,
metropolitan, district, or regional activities.
Grants may not exceed two-thirds of the cost of
the assisted project.
Local governments, counties, and non-metro-
politan areawide planning organizations gener-
ally apply through their State planning agencies.
Other applicants having special planning needs
may apply directly to the appropriate HUD re-
gional and area office or voluntarily agree to ap-
ply through the State. Applications are subject to
State and areawide clearinghouse review. An
environmental assessment must be prepared
when the program will result in development
plans or policies for land use, major community
facilities, utility and transportation systems, or
the protection of natural areas. A historic preser-
vation assessment is required of all develop-
mental plans or programs likely to have an effect
on historic preservation areas. Application dead-
lines are set pursuant to an annual department
schedule for administrative actions. Time be-
tween applications and approval or disapproval
normally is three months.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the appropriate HUD area office concerning this
program.
2. Community Development Block Grants/
Entitlement Grants. Under this program, for-
mula grants are available for cities to undertake
a wide range of activities directed toward neigh-
borhood revitalization, economic development,
and provision of improved community facilities
and services. Specific activities that can be car-
ried out with Block Grant funds include acquisi-
tion of real property, provision of public facilities
and improvements such as water and sewer fa-
cilities, streets and neighborhood centers. Block
Grant funds are available to pay for certain pub-
lic services which are necessary or appropriate
to support other Block Grant activities. Cities
have the discretion to design programs and es-
tablish priorities for the use of funds so long as
programs conform to the statutory standards
and program regulations. Community Block
Grant funds have been used in some cases to
provide the local matching share for Clean Lakes
Programs. All projects or activities must either
principally benefit low and moderate income
persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of
slums and blight, or meet other community de-
velopment needs having a particular urgency.
Entitlements are based on a formula using fac-
tors of population, overcrowded housing, extent
of poverty, age of housing and growth lag. FY 80
estimated obligations for grants are
$2,753,838,000.
Cities with SMSA's in excess of 50,000 popula-
tion, urban counties, and cities with population
under 50,000 which are central cities in SMSA's
are entitled to receive funds as determined by a
statutory formula.
Environmental impact statements are neces-
sary for this program. Applications are subject to
State and area clearinghouse review. Every year
the localities submit an Annual Community De-
velopment Program, an Annual Housing Action
Program, a series of certifications regarding oth-
er Federal requirements. Every third year, local-
ities submit a community development and
housing plan and a housing assistance plan. Ap-
plications are approved in the HUD area office
and must be submitted according to published
schedule. Approval or disapproval time is nor-
mally within 75 days.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the appropriate HUD area office concerning this
program,
3. Community Development Block Grant/Small
Cities Program (Small Cities). Under this pro-
gram, project grants are available to assist com-
munities in providing a suitable living environ-
ment and expanded economic opportunities
principally for persons with low or moderate in-
comes. Acquisitions, rehabilitation or construc-
tion of public works facilities such as water and
sewer, .which affect public health or safety, are
among the activities funded under this program.
It is considered suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal financial assistance pro-
grams in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-
111. Single purpose or comprehensive pro-
grams can be funded. In 1978, the average single
purpose program received $284,000 while the
average comprehensive program received
$500,000. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$929,662,000.
All States, counties and units of general local
government, except metropolitan cities and ur-
ban counties, may apply for small cities grants.
The applicant must file a preapplication. This
will result in an invitation to submit a full appli-
cation if it rates, high enough. Full application
will be reviewed to assure that it meets all re-
quirements, including an acceptable strategy for
meeting the needs of low and moderate income
families. An environmental impact statement is
necessary. Applications are subject to State and
areawide clearinghouse review and must be
submitted according to the published regula-
tions schedule. Notification of approval or disap-
proval normally will be within 75 days.
Contact: Information concerning this program
may be obtained from the appropriate HUD area
office.
Federal Level: Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement
1. Regulation of Surface Coal Mining and Sur-
face Effects of Underground Coal Mining. Project
grants and direct payments are available under
this program to protect society and the environ-
ment from adverse affects of surface coal minino
-------
H-10
operations. Grants are available for preparation
of permanent program applications to the Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment, for incremental State costs of enforcing
Federal interim standards, equipment needs,
permanent program development, and many
other aspects of regulating surface impacts of
coal mining. Small operator assistance is limited
to paying the cost of determining probable
hydrologic consequences in a statement of the
results of test borings and core samples. Techni-
cal assistance is available on any aspect of regu-
lating surface impacts of coal mining. Perma-
nent program development grants are limited to
80 percent of costs in the first year, 60 percent in
the second, and 50 percent thereafter. Interim
program grants range from $38,200 to
$2,133,000 with an average of $290,329. Pro-
gram development grants have ranged from
$20,000 to $1,565,600 with an average of
$378,134. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$22,680,000 for interim program grants,
$4,000,000 for program development grants and
$25,000,000 for small operator assistance.
State governor-designated agencies, small op-
erators and coal mining operations are eligible
for funding under this program. Eligibility for
small operator assistance is determined by pro-
duction of less than 100,000 tons of coal annual-
ly at all mining locations.
Small operators are required to submit assis-
tance applications. For State grants, approval of
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and En-
forcement Headquarters or by the Office of Sur-
face Mining Reclamation and Enforcement re-
gional directors is required. Both the State and
small operator applications must meet specific
criteria described in the Federal Register, Vol-
ume 42 Number 239 dated Tuesday, December
13, 1977. Estimated time for approval or disap-
proval is one to three months.
Contact: Copies of regulation and applications
are available from the Department of the Interi-
or, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and En-
forcement, Washington, D.C. 20240. Other infor-
mation may be obtained from the State grants
and small operator assistance office and techni-
cal assistance from the technical services and re-
search office.
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
1. Outdoor Recreation — Acquisition, Develop-
ment and Planning (Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund Grants). Project grants are available to
provide for the preparation of comprehensive
statewide outdoor recreation plans and acquisi-
tion and development of outdoor recreation
areas and facilities for the general public. The
grants may be used for a wide range of outdoor
recreation projects such as picnic areas, inner-
city parks, campgrounds, tennis courts, boat
•launching ramps, bike trails, and support facili-
ties such as roads and water supply. Facilities
must be open to the general public and not limit-
ed to special groups. Development of basic fa-
cilities rather than elaborate facilities is favored.
Grants are also available to States for revising
and updating existing State outdoor recreation
plans, preparation of new plans, and for
statewide surveys, technical studies, data collec-
tion, and analysis. The program is considered
suitable for joint funding with closely related
Federal financial assistance programs in accor-
dance with OMB Circular No. A-111. Not more
than 50 percent of project cost may be federally
financed for projects using grants under this pro-
gram. However, under certain conditions, all or
part of the project sponsor's matching share
may be from certain other Federal assistance
programs such as Title One community develop-
ment, Appalachian and all other regional com-
missions. Financial assistance under this pro-
gram has ranged from $150 to $5,450,000 with
an average of $68,178. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $300,000,000.
For planning grants, only the State agency for-
mally designated by the governor or State law as
responsible for the preparation and mainte-
nance of the statewide comprehensive outdoor
recreation plan is eligible to apply. For acquisi-
tion and development grants, the designated
agency may apply for assistance for itself or on
behalf of other State agencies or political subdi-
visions such as cities, counties and park districts.
Indian tribes which are organized to govern
themselves and perform the function of a mu-
nicipal government also qualify for assistance.
Project proposals are submitted to this agency
through the State liaison officer designated by
the governor. Proposals are reviewed by the re-
gional office where final action is taken. Applica-
tions are subject to State and areawide clearing-
house review. The applicant is required to
furnish basic environmental information or eval-
uation. An environmental impact statement may
be required. Approximately 120 days are needed
following the application for approval or disap-
proval of acquisition and development projects,
60 days for planning projects.
Contact: Information may be. obtained from
the regional offices of the Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service or from the Department
of the Interior, Division of State Programs, Heri-
tage Conservation and Recreation Service,
Washington, D.C. 20243, (202) 343-7801.
2. Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program.
Project grants are available to economically
hard-pressed communities for rehabilitation of
existing indoor and outdoor recreation facilities,
demonstration of innovative ways to enhance
park and recreation opportunities and develop-
ment of recreation plans. Rehabilitation funds
may be used to improve park landscapes, build-
ings and support facilities and can be used for up
to 70 percent of the project if 30 percent is sup-
-------
H-11
plied locally. Innovation grants (also available
for up to 70 percent of the project) can cover
costs of personnel, facilities, equipment,, sup-
plies or services designed to demonstrate inno-
vative, cost-effective ways to enhance park and
recreation opportunities at the neighborhood
level. Recovery action program grants can be
used for up to 50 percent of the development of
local park and recreation system recovery plans.
State, local and private funds, as well as Federal
General Revenue Sharing (Treasury Depart-
ment) and Community Development Block Grant
(Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment) program funds may be used as a part of
the local match. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$125,000,000.
Eligible cities and counties must meet certain
need, economic and physical distress and condi-
tion of urban recreational facilities and systems
requirements. Jurisdictions within SMSA's may
apply for these funds even though they do not
meet the eligibility requirements if their requests
are in accord with the intent of this program.
Preapplications are submitted to the appropri-
ate HCRS Regional office. Proposals are re-
viewed by the regional office and certified if they
meet legal standards. Certified proposals are
evaluated and ranked three times a year, with
the highest priority proposals submitted to
HCRS in Washington, D.C., for further review
and ranking. Applications are subject to State
and areawide clearinghouse review. Approval or
disapproval normally requires up to 30 days. The
formal application process must be completed
within 120 days of notification of the tentative
grant offer.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the regional offices of the Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service or from the Department
of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recre-
ation Service, Urban Programs, 440 G Street
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20243, (202) 343-5791.
Water and Power Resources Service
(formerly Bureau of Reclamation)
1. Small Reclamation Projects (Small Project
Loans). Project grants and direct loans are
available to public nonfederal organizations for
rehabilitation and betterment or construction of
water resource development projects. Projects
can be single-purpose irrigation or drainage or
multipurpose including flood control, fish and
wildlife, recreational development, municipal
and industrial water supplies. Construction
grants can be made for costs allocated to flood
control and for a portion of the costs allocated to
fish and wildlife enhancement and recreation de-
velopment. The applicant must prepare the loan
application report, and provide water rights and
rights-of-way costs. Loans have ranged from
$700,000 to $17,000,000 with an average of
$8,200,000. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$46,879,000 for grants and loans.
Applicant must file notice of intent to apply for
a loan with the appropriate regional office of the
Service. Applications are subject to State and
areawide clearinghouse review. Copies of the
notice must also be forwarded to local offices of
the Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers
for flood control, the Environmental Protection
Agency and State clearinghouse. An environ-
mental impact assessment is required. Engineer-
ing and economic application reports are pre-
pared by the applicant with assistance, if
needed, from the appropriate regional office of
the Service. Approval or disapproval generally
takes more than one year.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the regional directors of the Service or from the
Department of the Interior, Senior Staff Assistant
for Water Operations, Water and Power Re-
sources Service, Washington, D.C. 20240, (202)
343-5471.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1. Fish Restoration (Dingell-Johnson Program
or D-J Program). Under this program, formula
grants are available to support projects designed
to restore and manage sport fish populations for.
the preservation and improvement of sport fish-
ing and related uses. Approved activities include
land acquisition, development, research and co-
ordination. Projects are reimbursed for up to 75
percent of the total cost. No State may receive
more than 5 percent or less than 1 percent of the
total apportioned. Forty percent is allocated on
the basis of land and water area of the State and
60 percent on the basis of paid fishing license
holders. Financial assistance has ranged from
$271,000 to $1,355,000 in 1971, with the
average being $501,850. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $30,417,772.
Participation is limited to State fish and
wildlife agencies in States that have passed laws
for the conservation of fish including the prohibi-
tion against diversion of license fees paid by
fishermen for purposes other than the adminis-
tration of the State fish and wildlife agency.
Standard application forms are furnished by
the agency. Applications are subject to State and
areawide clearinghouse review. Environmental
assessments are required where actions signifi-
cantly affect the human environment. Grantee
may document the initial program by submis-
sion of a satisfactory comprehensive long-range
plan or a project application. Average approval
or disapproval time is 8 days after the applica-
tion is made.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the regional offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
2. Wildlife Restoration (Pittman-Robertson Pro-
gram or P-R Program). Formula grants are
available under this program to support projects
for restoring or managing wildlife populations
-------
H-12
and the provision of public use of these re-
sources or the provision of facilities and surveys
for hunter safety programs. Approved activities
include land acquisition, development, research,
and coordination. States may be reimbursed up
to 75 percent of the total project cost. No State
may receive more than 5 percent or less than
one-half of one percent of the total apportioned.
Fifty percent of the apportionment is based on
the land area of the States and fifty percent on
the basis of paid license holders. Project finan-
cial assistance has ranged from $466,880 to
$3,886,480 in FY 79, with an average of
$1,522,200. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$93,974,102 for grants.
Participation is limited to State fish and
wildlife agencies in States that have passed laws
for the conservation of wildlife including a prohi-
bition against diversion of license fees paid by
hunters for purposes other than administration
of the State fish and wildlife agency. Puerto Rico,
Guam and the Virgin Islands are also eligible.
Standard application forms are furnished by
the agency. The grantee may document the ini-
tial program by submitting a satisfactory com-
prehensive long-range plan or by submitting a
project application furnished by the Service. En-
vironmental assessment is required where ac-
tions will significantly affect the human environ-
ment. Applications are subject to State and
areawide clearinghouse review. Regional direc-
tor approves or disapproves the comprehensive
long-range plan and individual proposed
projects in an average of 8 days of receipt of the
proposal.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the district offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Federal Level: Department of Transporta-
tion
Coast Guard
1. Pollution by Oil and Hazardous Substances —
Liability. Section 311 (k) of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act (as amended by Clean Water
Act of 1977) established a revolving fund in the
Treasury at a level of $35 million for the purpose
of carrying out the provisions of subsections (c),
(d), (i), and (I) of the Act. Those subsections au-
thorize the Coast Guard or its delegate to re-
move or arrange for removal of any oil or haz-
ardous substance discharged into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States, adjoining
shorelines, or waters of the contiguous zone.
That authority may also act whenever it deter-
mines that there is a substantial threat of such a
discharge. Rules and regulations concerning
control of pollution by oil and hazardous sub-
stances, discharge removal, and liability were
published in the Federal Register on March 25,
1976 (41 FR 12628). The regulations prescribe
notification procedures in event of an oil or haz-
ardous substance discharge, the procedures for
the removal of a discharge of oil, and the costs
that may be imposed or reimbursed for the re-
moval of a discharge of oil or hazardous sub-
stance. Subsection (k) authorizes appropriation
of such sums as may be necessary to keep the
Pollution Fund at a level of $35 million.
Contact: Coast Guard district offices and EPA
regional offices.
Federal Level: Small Business Admin-
istration
1. Water Pollution Control Loans (WPCJ. Direct
loans and guaranteed/insured loans are pro-
vided to qualified small businesses for making
additions to or alterations in their equipment
and facilities including the construction of
pretreatment facilities and interceptor sewers or
their methods of operation to comply with Water
Pollution Control requirements established un-
der the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Loans will be limited to $500,000 unless substan-
tial hardship is proven. SBA share of guaranteed
loans may not exceed 90 percent. Financial as-
sistance has ranged from $5,687 to $470,000
with an average of $124,510.
Applicants must be a small business concern
likely to suffer economic injury in complying
with requirements established under the Federal
Water Pollution .Control Act. The program is
available to each State, the District of Columbia
and all territories and possessions of the United
States.
Applicant must submit necessary information
to the regional administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency to allow evaluation and is-
suance of a statement that such additions or al-
terations are necessary and adequate to comply
with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Ap-
plications are filed with the Small Business Ad-
ministration field office serving the area where
the business is located. The EPA review is com-
pleted within 45 days of the receipt of the com-
pleted application unless a public hearing is nec-
essary.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the regional administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
2. Regulatory Loans (REGO). Direct loans and
guaranteed/ insured loans are available to assist
a small business concern in making additions to
or alterations in its plant, facilities or methods of
operation to meet requirements imposed by any
Federal law or by any State or local law. Personal
and business assets and other means of obtain-
ing credit at reasonable terms must be' utilized
where feasible. Maximum Small Business Ad-
ministration guarantee is 90 percent.
Most small businesses that suffer substantial
economic injury as a result of any regulation or
order described above are eligible for assistance
under this program.
-------
H-13
Financial action can be taken on an application
any time after an authorized government agency
has imposed an order and certified that the pro-
posed changes constitute compliance. Applica-
tions are filed in the field office of the Small Busi-
ness Administration serving the territory in
which the applicant's business is located. Ap-
proval requires approximately 30 days from date
of application acceptance.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the field offices of the Small Business Adminis-
tration or from the Small Business Administra-
tion, Office of Disaster Loans, 1441 L Street
Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20416, (202) 653-
6830.
3. Business Pollution Control Financing Guaran-
tee (Pollution Control Financing). Guaranteed/
insured loans are available to help small busi-
nesses meet pollution control requirements and
remain competitive. Financial assistance has
been given up to $5,000,000 with $1,000,000 be-
ing the approximate average. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $50,000,000. To be eligible, a
small business must require pollution control fa-
cilities or equipment but be at operational or fi-
nancial disadvantage for obtaining such, yet
have willingness of local bond issuing authority
to fund such facilities or equipment through a
qualified contract and bond sale with Small Busi-
ness Administration's guarantee.
The application is prepared in conjunction
with the sponsor, the securities underwriter, the
bond issuing authority, and the bond legal coun-
sel. Application is made to the Small Business
Administration, which requires from 3 to 10
working days for approval or disapproval.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the Small Business Administration, Pollution
Control Financing Division, Office of Special
Guarantees, 1441 L Street Northwest, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20416, (202) 653-6083.
Federal Level: Water Resources Council
1. Water Resources Planning (Title Ill-Water Re-
sources Planning Program). Under this program,
formula grants are available to provide for in-
creased participation by States in water and re-
lated land resources planning. The Federal and
nonfederal matching share must be for reason-
able expenses clearly allocatable to the State
comprehensive water and related land resources
planning effort. Consultant services are eligible
to the extent that development of trained State
personnel for comprehensive water and related
land resources planning is not impaired. Federal
or .nonfederal matching shares can be used for
expenses, for preparing plans and specifications
for construction, or for the actual construction of
specific projects. These matching shares can be
used for meeting a State's share of the cost of Ti-
tle II River Basin Commission's or for matching
Federal funds under any other Federal aided pro-
gram. This program is considered suitable for
joint funding with closely related federal finan-
cial assistance programs in accordance with
OMB Circular No. A-111. Up to 50 percent of the
cost of carrying out an improved State program
may be provided by the Council. Assistance pro-
grams have ranged from $37,080 to $88,400 with
an average of $55,820. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $20,000,000 for grants.
The fifty States, District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and northern
Mariana Islands are eligible for funds under this
program. The applicant must be a.State agency
designated by law or the governor to administer
the State's water and related land resources
planning.
Standard application forms must be used in
this program. Applications are subject to State
and areawide clearinghouse review. The director
of the Water Resources Council makes final deci-
sions as to approval of applications, which are
due 90 days.after Council publication (usually
February) of tentative allotments to States. Ap-
proval or disapproval normally requires 30 to 90
days after, receipt of the application.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the Water Resources Council, State Programs Di-
vision, 2120 L Street Northwest, Washington,
D.C. 20037, (202) 254-6446.
Federal Level: Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water and Waste Management
1. Construction Grants for Wastewater Treat-
ment Works. Project grants (cooperative agree-
ments) are available for the construction of mu-
nicipal wastewater treatment works including
privately owned individual treatment systems if
a municipality applies on behalf of a number of
such systems. Such works may serve all or por-
tions of individual communities, metropolitan
areas or regions. The project may include but
may not be limited to treatment of industrial
wastes. The program is considered suitable for
joint funding with closely related Federal finan-
cial assistance programs in accordance with
OMB Circular No. A-111. The grant may be for 75
percent of eligible project costs or 85 percent for
innovative or alternative technology projects.
Programs have ranged from $675 to
$290,800,000 with an average of $4,000,000. FY
80 estimated obligations are $4,400,000,000.
Any municipality, inter-municipal agency.
State, or interstate agency having jurisdiction
over waste disposal is eligible for assistance un-
der this program. It is available to each State, the
District of Columbia, and each territory or pos-
session of the United States.
Preapplication assistance is available through
the State water pollution agency or the appropri-
ate EPA regional office. Applications must be
submitted through these agencies. Applications
-------
H-14
are subject to State and areawide clearinghouse
review. An environmental assessment is re-
quired which may lead to the requirement for an
environmental impact statement. Approval or
disapproval normally requires 90 days.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the State water pollution control agency or the
appropriate EPA regional office.
2. Water Pollution Control— State and Interstate
Program Grants (106 Grants). Formula grants
are available under this program for the estab-
lishment and maintenance of adequate meas-
ures for prevention and control of water pollu-
tion. Broad support is available for permitting,
pollution control studies, planning, surveillance,
and enforcement. Advice and assistance is avail-
able to local agencies. Training and public infor-
mation are also available. Funds cannot be used
for construction, operation or maintenance of
waste treatment plants nor for costs financed by
other Federal grants. This program is considered
suitable for joint funding with closely related
Federal financial assistance programs in accor-
dance with OMB Circular No. A-111. Financial as-
sistance has ranged from $85,400 to $3,086,000
with an average of $938,000. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $48,730,000 for grants. State and
interstate water pollution control agencies are
eligible for funding under this program. It is
available to each State, the District of Columbia,
and all territories and possessions of the United
States.
Informal meetings are held between the re-
gional office and State applicant agency con-
cerning program preparation. Applications are
subject to State and areawide clearinghouse re-
view. Completed application forms must be sub-
mitted to the appropriate EPA regional office.
Grants Administration Branch. Suggested dates
of submission are June 1 for draft State/EPA
agreements and no later than September 1 for fi-
nal State/EPA agreements. Approval or disap-
proval time normally takes 30 days.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the appropriate EPA regional office.
3. Water Pollution Control — State and
Areawide Water Quality Management Planning
Agency (Section 208 Grants). Project grants are
provided to areawide and State planning agen-
cies to develop a water quality management
plan for the area or areas approved by the appro-
priate regional EPA administrator. This program
is considered suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal financial assistance pro-
grams in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-
111. The Federal assistance rate is 75 percent for
all grants. The range of financial assistance has
been from $100,000 to $4,000,000 with an aver-
age of $440,000. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$40,000,000.
This program is available to a local or regional
planning agency designated by the governor or
appropriate local officials and approved by the
administrator of EPA as the official areawide
waste treatment management planning agency.
The program is available to each State, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and all territories and posses-
sions of the United States.
Preapplication coordination with the appropri-
ate regional EPA office is recommended. Appli-
cations are subject to State and areawide
clearinghouse review. Standard application
forms are furnished by the agency. Grant appli-
cations are submitted to the appropriate EPA re-
gional administration office. In the case of an
area designated by the governor, the application
and supporting data must be submitted by the
State reviewing agencies prior to submission to
EPA. In interstate cases, the application must be
submitted to the governor of the State wherein
the greatest portion of the planning area lies.
Grant applications must be submitted according
to dates established by the regional EPA admin-
istrators. Approval or disapproval time normally
is 45 days.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the regional EPA offices.
4. State Underground Water Source Protection
Program Grants. Under this program project
grants are available for the development and im-
plementation of underground injection control
programs adequate to enforce the requirements
of the State drinking water act. Federal assis-
tance is limited to 75 percent of eligible costs,
not to exceed the State allotment. This program
is considered suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal financial assistance pro-
grams in accordance with OMB Circular No.
A-111. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$7,795,000.
State agencies designated by the governor or
the chief executive officer by. one of the States,
the District of Columbia or any of the U.S. terri-
tories or possessions which has been listed by
the EPA administrator as requiring an under-
ground injection control program are eligible for
funding under this program.
Preapplication coordination with appropriate
regional offices is recommended. Grant applica-'
tions are submitted to the appropriate EPA re-
gional administrator. Applications are subject to
State and areawide clearinghouse review. Ap-
proval or disapproval time is approximately 45
days.
Contact: Applicants should contact the appro-
priate EPA regional office for information con-
cerning this program.
5. Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Program Support Grants. Formula grants and
project grants are available to assist in the devel-
opment and implementation of State and local
programs and support rural and special commu-
nities in programs and projects leading to the so-
lution of solid waste management problems. As-
-------
H-15
s'istance includes support of facility planning,
feasibility studies, expert consultation, surveys
and analysis of market needs, marketing of re-
covered resources, technology assessment, le-
gal expenses, construction feasibility studies,
source preparation projects, and fiscal or eco-
nomic investigation or studies. Funds may be
used by special communities for conversion, im-
provement or consolidation of existing solid
waste disposal facilities or for construction of
new facilities. Assistance is also available to low
population municipalities for closing or upgrad-
ing existing open- dumps or meeting require-
ments of restrictions on open burning or other
requirements arising under the Clean Air Act or
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This
program is considered suitable for joint funding
with closely related Federal financial assistance
programs in accordance with OMB Circular No.
A-111. The Federal share of a project may be up
to 75 percent although 100 percent may be
funded for conducting inventories of open
dumps. Financial assistance has ranged from
$71,500 to $1,318,200 with an average of
$250,000. FY 80 estimated obligations are
$85,050,000. State and substate solid waste
agencies, authorities and organizations in all
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Mariana Islands are eligible for funding under
this project.
The standard application forms furnished by
the agency are required for this program.
Preapplications for resource conservation and
recovery projects are solicited in the Commerce
Business Daily and evaluated with published cri-
teria. Requests for application forms and com-
pleted applications are submitted to the appro-
priate EPA regional grants administration office.
The staff at the appropriate office is available to
assist in preparation of the application. Applica-
tions are subjected to administrative evaluation
to determine adequacy in relation to grant regu-
lations and to technical and program evaluation.
Approval or disapproval time ranges from 30 to
90 days depending upon the type of application.
Applications are subject to State and areawide
clearinghouse review. Environmental impact as-
sessments may be required for implementation
projects involving major construction or siting.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the appropriate EPA regional administrator.
6. Solid Waste Management Demonstration
Grants. Project grants are available to promote
the demonstration and application of solid waste
management and resource recovery technology
and assistance which preserve and enhance the
quality of the environment and conserve re-
sources and to conduct solid waste manage-
ment and resource recovery studies, investiga-
tions and surveys. This program is considered
suitable for joint funding with closely related
Federal financial assistance programs in accor-
dance with OMB Circular No. A-111. Resource
recovery system demonstration projects may be
funded up to 75 percent by this Federal program.
Construction of new or improved solid waste
disposal facilities serving an area of only one
municipality may be funded up to 50 percent of
eligible project costs, or 75 percent in any other
cases.
State, interstate, municipal, intermunicipal, or
other public authorities and agencies are eligible
for the various components of this program. In
addition, public or private colleges and universi-
ties and private nonprofit agencies and institu-
tions are eligible for the resource recovery sys-
tems demonstration projects or for the
construction of new or improved solid waste dis-
posal facilities. All States, the District of Colum-
bia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the northern Mariana Is-
lands are eligible for assistance under this pro-
gram.
Standard application forms are furnished by
the agency for this program. Requests for appli-
cation forms and completed applications are
submitted to the Environmental Protection
Agency Grants Administration Division. Appli-
cations are subject to State and areawide
clearinghouse review. An environmental impact
assessment is required only for major demon-
stration and construction projects. Approval or
disapproval time normally takes 90 days.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the appropriate EPA regional office.
Office of Research and Development
1. Environmental Protection — Consolidated
Research Grants. Project grants are available
under this program to support research to deter-
mine the environmental effects and control re-
quirements associated with energy, to identify,
develop and demonstrate necessary pollution
control techniques, and to evaluate the econom-
ic and social consequences of alternative strate-
gies for pollution control of energy systems.
Grants may also be used to explore and develop
strategies and mechanisms for those in the eco-
nomic, social, governmental, and environmental
systems to use in environmental management.
This program is suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal financial assistance pro-
grams in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-
111. Projects must be cost shared at a minimum
of 5 percent. Financial assistance has ranged
from $1,000 to $1,816,560. FY 79 average finan-
cial assistance was $98,304. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $20,800,000 for grants. This pro-
gram is available for public and private State
universities and colleges, hospitals, laboratories,
state and local government departments, other
public or private nonprofit institutions, and indi-
viduals who have demonstrated unusually high
-------
H-16
scientific ability. It is available to each State, ter-
ritory and possession of the United States in-
cluding the District of Columbia.
Preapplication discussion with the EPA pro-
gram office is advisable. Standard application
forms must be used. Requests for application
forms and completed applications must be sub-
mitted to the EPA Grants Administration Divi-
sion. An environmental impact assessment is re-
quired. Approval or disapproval normally takes
90 days.
Contact: Individuals are encouraged to com-
municate with the appropriate EPA regional of-
fice. For information on grant applications and
procedures, contact the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Grants Administration Division,
PM-216, Washington, D.C. 20460. For program
information, contact the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, RD-674, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202)
755-8787.
2. Solid Waste Disposal Research Grants.
Project grants are available to promote and sup-
port the coordination of research and develop-
ment in the area of collection, storage, utiliza-
tion, and salvage or final disposal of solid waste.
The program is considered suitable for joint
funding with closely related Federal financial as-
sistance programs in accordance with OMB Cir-
cular No. A-111. These grants require a mini-
mum of 5 percent cost sharing. Financial
assistance has ranged from $16,000 to $359,000
with an estimated average in FY 79 of $80,000.
FY 80 estimated obligations are $2,500,000 for
grants.
The program is available to public or private
agencies; public, private. State universities and
colleges; State and local governments; and indi-
viduals in each State, territory and possession of
the U.S. including the District of Columbia.
Preapplication discussion with the EPA pro-
gram office is advisable. Requests for required
standard application forms arrd completed appli-
cations must be submitted to the EPA Grants Ad-
ministration Division. An environmental impact
assessment is required. The range of approval or
disapproval time is 90 days.
Contact: Individuals are encouraged to com-
municate with the appropriate EPA regional of*
fice. Information concerning grant applications
and procedures may be obtained from Environ*
mental Protection Agency, Grants Administra-
tion Division, PM-216, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Program information may be obtained from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-
search and Development, RD-674, Washington,
D.C. 20460, (202) 755-8787.
•
3. Water Pollution Control Research, Develop-
ment, and Demonstration Grants. Project
grants are available under this program to sup-
port and promote the coordination and accelera-
tion of research, development, and demonstra-
tion projects relating to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of
water pollution. The program is considered suit-
able for joint funding with closely related Federal
financial assistance programs in accordance
with OMB Circular No. A-111. Grants under cer-
tain sections of this program require a minimum
of 5 percent cost sharing, while the remainder
require 25 percent cost sharing. Research grants
have ranged from $1,000 to $772,912 in FY 78
and 79 with an average in FY 79 of $91,710 and a
projected average for FY 80 of $75,000. Demon-
stration grants have ranged from $37,506 to
$9,500,000 in FY 78 and 79 with an average of
$131,330 in FY 79. FY 80 projected demonstra-
tion grant average is $100,000. FY 80 estimated
obligations are $17,668,000 for research and
demonstration grants.
This program is available to public, private,
State and community universities and colleges,
hospitals, laboratories, State water pollution
control agencies, interstate agencies, State and
local governments, other public or private
nonprofit agencies, institutions, and organiza-
tions in each State and all territories and posses-
sions of the United States including the District
of Columbia. Grants may be awarded to individ-
uals who have demonstrated unusually high sci-
entific ability. Grants under certain sections of
this program may be awarded to profit-making
organizations.
Preapplication discussion with the EPA pro-
gram office is advisable. Requests for the re-
quired standard application forms and complet-
ed applications must be submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency, Grants Ad-
ministration Division. Demonstration grant ap-
plications are subject to State and areawide
clearinghouse review. An environmental impact
assessment is required for this program. Range
of approval or disapproval time is 90 days.
Contact: Individuals are encouraged to com-
municate with appropriate EPA regional office.
Information concerning grant applications and
procedures may be obtained from the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Grants Administra-
tion Division, PM-216, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Program information may be obtained from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-
search Program Management, RD-674, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460, (202) 755-8787.
Office of Planning and Management
1. Loan Guarantees for Construction of Treat-
ment Works. Guaranteed/insured loans are avail-
able to assist and serve as an incentive in con-
struction of municipal sewage treatment works
which are required to meet State and Federal
water quality standards. The program is de-
signed to insure that inability to borrow neces-
sary funds from other sources on reasonable
terms does not prevent the construction of any
wastewater treatment works for which a grant
-------
H-17
has been or will be awarded. Applications for
loan guarantees will be limited to financing cer-
tain portions of the eligible and allowable local'
share of a grant for construction of wastewater
treatment works. EPA guarantees the loan from
the Federal Financing Bank.
A State, interstate agency, a municipality, or
an intermunicipal agency which has applied for
a construction grant under Title II of the Clean
Water Act or which has committed itself to fi-
nance the local share of any project for which a
grant has been awarded or for which an applica-
tion is being processed is eligible for funds un-
der this program. It is available to each State, ter-
ritory and possession of the United States
including the District of Columbia.
Preapplication consultation with the appropri-
ate EPA Regional Construction Grants and Grant
Administration Offices is recommended. Appli-
cation is made through the State agency to the
appropriate EPA regional office. Fees are
charged for processing of the application and for
issuance of a commitment to guarantee. If the
application is approved by the EPA administra-
tor, loan guaranteed contracts will be issued to
the Federal financing office which disperses
funds.
Contact: Contact the appropriate regional of-
fice of the EPA for information concerning this
program or Environmental Protection Agency,
Grants Administration Division, PM-216, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460, (202) 755-0850.
Regional Level: Appalachian Regional
Commission
1. Appalachian Regional Economic Develop-
ment. Grant funds are available to assist the Ap-
palachian region in preparing economic devel-
opment plans, and in promoting economic
development through public and private invest-
ment. The program works as a joint Federal-
State partnership through the Commission,
which represents selected counties in Alabama,
Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The thirteen Appalachian states are eligible for
funds under the program. Proposed projects
must be consistent with the region's compre-
hensive long-range economic development
plan. Costs are determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments.
Application must be submitted through the
State alternate to the Appalachian Regional
Commission, which is composed of the gover-
nors of the member States and a Federal co-
chairman. An environmental impact statement is
required. Decisions on policy, procedures, and
the allocation of funds are made by the Commis-
sion.
Contact: Executive Director, Appalachian Re-
gional Commission, 1666 Connecticut Avenue
Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20235, (202) 673-
7874.
2. Appalachian State Research, Technical Assis-
tance, and Demonstration Projects. Project
grants are available to sponsor research (includ-
ing investigations, studies, and demonstration
projects) or to demonstrate the feasibility of
plans and programs for concerted economic and
social development in the region. The grants are
available to the Appalachian States (Alabama,
Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia)
and local public bodies in the designated coun-
ties of those States.
Grants ranged from $3,000 to $2,000,000, aver-
aging $137,953. FY 79 obligations were estimat-
ed at $10,300,000 and FY 80 obligations are esti-
mated to be $12,000,000.
Application must be submitted through the
Appalachian State Alternates Office. Projects
must relate to the needs identified in the State
Appalachian Plan and Investment Program. Ap-
proval or disapproval usually comes within 30 to
60 days after the receipt of the application by the
Commission.
Contact: Executive Director, Appalachian Re-
gional Commission, 1666 Connecticut Avenue
Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20235, (202) 673-
7874.
3. Appalachian Supplements to Federal Grant-
In-Aid (Supplemental Grant Program). Grant-in-
aid supplements provide a portion of the local
share of Federal grant-in-aid programs in the Ap-
palachian region when the economic situation of
the community precludes it from supplying its
matching share. These supplements can be used
on programs for the construction or equipping
of facilities and the acquisition of land. Eligible
States are: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mary-
land, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
This program is suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal assistance programs as
specified in OMB Circular A-111 regulations.
Costs will be determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments, but the Federal government
will not supply more than 80% of the eligible
project costs.
States apply for the Federal grant-in-aid with
the appropriate Federal agency and obtain deter-
mination of the distribution of Federal and local
shares of financing. The project application must
be approved by the governor of the State in
which the project is located. Applications must
go through the governor's office for Commis-
sion assistance. Upon State approval, the Com-
mission determines the level of participation in
-------
H-18
the project. Time from application to approval or
disapproval ranges from 30 to 60 days.
Contact: Executive Director, Appalachian Re-
gional Commission, 1666 Connecticut Avenue
Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20235, (202) 673-
7874.
Regional Level: Coastal Plains Regional
Commission
1. Coastal Plains Regional Economic Develop-
ment. Grant funds are available to assist the
Coastal Plains region in preparing economic de-
velopment plans, and in promoting economic
development through public and private invest-
ment. The program works as a joint Federal-
State partnership through the Commission,
which represents designated counties in North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and
Virginia.
The five Coastal Plains states are eligible for
funds under the program. Proposed projects
must be consistent with the region's compre-
hensive long-range economic development
plan. Costs are determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments.
Application must be submitted through a
member of the Coastal Plains Regional Commis-
sion, which is composed of the governors of the
member States and a Federal co-chairman. An
environmental impact Statement is required. De-
cisions on policy, procedures, and the allocation
of funds are made by the Commission. Approval
or disapproval of projects usually comes 60 to 90
days after application.
Contact: Federal Co-chairman, Coastal Plains
Regional Commission, Suite 413, 1725 K Street
Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 634-
3910.
2. Coastal Plains Technical and Planning Assis-
tance. Grant funds are available to the States in
the Coastal Plains region (North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Virginia) to assist
economic programs. Eligible programs include
studies to evaluate the needs of the region, re-
search and planning, economic development
potential, and demonstration projects and train-
ing programs.
Grants ranged from $2,500 to $450,000, aver-
aging $45,000. FY 79 obligations were estimated
at $2,800,000 and FY 80 obligations are estimat-
ed to be $2,800,000.
Applications must be submitted through the
governor's representative to the Coastal Plains
Regional Commission. Projects must relate to
the needs identified in the Commission's Com-
prehensive Economic Development Plan. Ap-
proval or disapproval usually comes within 60 to
90 days of the date of application.
Contact: Federal Co-chairman, Coastal Plains
Regional Commission, Suite 413, 1725 K Street
Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 634-
3910.
3. Coastal Plains Supplements to Federal Grant-
In-Aid (Supplemental Grant Program). Grant-in-
aid supplements provide a portion of the local
share of Federal grant-in-aid programs in the
Coastal Plains region when the economic situa-
tion of the community precludes it from
supplying its matching share. These supple-
ments can be used on programs for the con-
struction or equipping of facilities and the acqui-
sition of land. Eligible States are: Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Virginia.
This program is suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal assistance programs as
specified in OMB Circular A-111 regulations.
Costs will be determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments, but the Federal government
will not supply more than 80% of the eligible
project costs.
States apply for the Federal grant-in-aid with
the appropriate Federal agency and obtain deter-
mination of the distribution of Federal and local
shares of financing.' The project application must
be approved by the governor of the State in
which the project is located. Applications must
go through the governor's office for Commis-
sion assistance. Upon State approval, the Com-
mission determines the level of participation in
the project. Time from application to approval or
disapproval ranges from 60 to 90 days.
Contact: Federal Co-chairman, Coastal Plains
Regional Commission, 1725 K Street Northwest,
Suite 413, Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 634-
3910.
Regional Level: Four Corners Regional
Commission
1. Four Corners Regional Economic Develop-
ment. Grant funds are available to assist the
Four Corners region in preparing economic de-
velopment plans, and in promoting economic
development through public and private invest-
ment. The program works as a joint Federal-
State partnership through the Commission,
which represents States in the Four Corners re-
gion including Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,
Nevada, and Utah.
The five Four Corners States are eligible for
funds under the program. Proposed projects
must be consistent with the region's compre-
hensive long-range economic development
plan. Costs are determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments.
Application must be submitted through a
member of the Four Corners Regional Commis-
sion, which is composed of the governors of the
member States and a Federal co-chairman. An
environmental impact statement is required. De-
cisions on policy, procedures, and the allocation
-------
H-19
of funds are made by the Commission. Approval
or disapproval of projects usually comes 30 to 60
days after application.
Contact: Executive Director, Four Corners Re-
gional Commission, 2350 Alamo Southeast,
Suite 303, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106,
(505) 766-2990.
2. Four Corners Technical and Planning Assis-
tance. Grant funds are available to the States in
the Four Corners region (Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, Nevada, and Utah) to assist economic
programs. Eligible programs include studies to
evaluate the needs of the region, research and
planning, economic development potential, and
demonstration projects and training programs.
Grants ranged from $1,770 to $200,000, aver-
aging $20,000. FY 79 obligations were estimated
at $1,600,000 and FY 80 obligations are estimat-
ed to be $3,700 000.
Applications must be submitted through the
governor's representative to the Four Corners
Regional Commission. Projects must relate to
the needs identified in the Commission's Com-
prehensive Economic Development Plan. Ap-
proval or disapproval usually comes within 30 to
60 days of the date of application.
Contact: Four Corners Regional Commission,
2350 Alamo Southeast, Suite 303, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87106, (505) 766-2990.
3. Four Corners Supplements to Federal Grant-
In-Aid (Supplemental Grant Program). Grant-in-
aid supplements provide a portion of the local
share of Federal grant-in-aid programs in the
Four Corners region when the economic situa-
tion of the community precludes it from
supplying its matching share. These supple-
ments can be used on programs for the con-
struction or equipping of facilities and the acqui-
sition of land. Eligible states are: Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah.
This program is suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal assistance programs as
specified in OMB Circular A-111 regulations.
Costs will be determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4, but the Fed-
eral government will not supply more than 80%
of the eligible project costs.
States apply for the Federal grant-in-aid with
the appropriate Federal agency and obtain deter-
mination of the distribution of Federal and local
shares of financing. The project application must
be approved by the governor of the State in
which the project is located. Applications must
go through the governor's office for Commis-
sion assistance. Upon State approval, the Com-
mission determines the level of participation in
the project. Time from application to approval or
disapproval ranges from 30 to 60 days.
Contact: Four Corners Regional Commission,
2350 Alamo Southeast, Suite 303, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87106, (505) 766-2990. .
Regional Level: New England Regional
Commission
1. New England Regional Economic Develop-
ment. Grant funds are available to assist the
New England region in preparing economic de-
velopment plans, and in promoting economic
development through public and private invest-
ment. The program works as a joint Federal-
State partnership through the Commission,
which represents Connecticut, Maine, Massa-
chusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.
The six New England States are eligible for
funds under the program. Proposed projects
must be consistent with the region's compre-
hensive long-range economic development
plan. Costs are determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments.
Application must be submitted through a
member of the New England Regional Commis-
sion, which is composed of the governors of the
member States and a Federal co-chairman. An
environmental impact statement is required. De-
cisions on policy, procedures, and the allocation
of funds are made by the Commission. Approval
or disapproval of projects usually comes 30 to 60
days after application.
Contact: Office of Federal Co-chairman, New
England Regional Commission, Suite 400, 53
State Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, (617)
223-6045.
2. New England Technical and Planning Assis-
tance. Grant funds are available to the States in
the New England region (Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont) to assist economic programs. Eli-
gible programs include studies to evaluate the
needs of the region, research and planning, eco-
nomic development potential, and demonstra-
tion projects and training programs.
Grants ranged from $1,000 to $150,000, aver-
aging $87,000. FY 79 obligations were estimated
at $6,200,000 and FY 80 obligations are estimat-
ed to be $6,069,000.
Applications must be submitted through the
governor's representative to the New England
Regional Commission. Projects must relate to
the needs identified in the Commission's Com-
prehensive Economic Development Plan. Ap-
proval or disapproval usually comes within 60 to
90 days of the date of application.
Contact: Office of Federal Co-chairman, New
England Regional Commission, Suite 400, 53
State Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, (617)
223-6045.
3. New England Supplements to Federal Grant-
In-Aid (Supplemental Grant Program). Grant-in-
aid supplements provide a portion of the local
share of Federal grant-in-aid programs in the
New England region when the economic situa-
-------
H-20
tion of the community precludes it from
supplying its matching share. These supple-
ments can be used on programs for the con-
struction or equipping of facilities and the acqui-
sition of land. Eligible States are: Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
This program is suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal assistance programs as
specified in OMB Circular A-111 regulations.
Costs will be determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments, but the Federal government
will not supply more than 80% of the eligible
project costs.
States apply for the Federal grant-in-aid with
the appropriate Federal agency and obtain deter-
mination of the distribution of Federal and local
shares of financing. The project application must
be approved by the governor of the State in
which the project is located. Applications must
go through the governor's office for Commis-
sion assistance. Upon State approval, the Com-
mission determines the level of participation in
the project. Time from application to approval or
disapproval ranges from 30 to 90 days.
Contact: Office of the Federal Co-chairman,
New England Regional Commission, 53 State
Street, Suite 400, Boston, Massachusetts 02109,
(617) 223-6045.
Regional Level: Old West Regional
Commission
1. Old West Regional Economic Development.
Grant funds are available to assist the Old West
region in preparing economic development
plans, and in promoting economic development
through public and private investment. The pro-
gram works as a joint Federal-State partnership
through the Commission, which represents
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dako-
ta, and Wyoming.
The five Old West States are eligible for funds
under the program. Proposed projects must be
consistent with the region's comprehensive
long-range economic development plan. Costs
are determined in accordance with Federal Man-
agement Circular 74-4 for State and local
governments.
Application must be submitted through a
member of the Old West Regional Commission,
which is composed of the governors of the
member States and a Federal co-chairman. An
environmental impact statement is required. De-
cisions on policy, procedures, and the allocation
of funds are made by the Commission. Approval
or disapproval of projects usually comes 30 to 60
days after application.
. Contact: Old West Regional Commission,
Hedden-Empire Building, Suite 228, Billings,
Montana 59101, (406) 657-6665.
2. Old West Technical and Planning Assis-
tance. Grant funds are available to the States in
the Old West region (Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming) to assist
economic programs. Eligible programs include
studies to evaluate the needs of the region, re-
search and planning, economic development
potential, and demonstration projects and train-
ing programs.
Grants ranged from $1,000 to $4,500,000, aver-
aging $60,000. FY 79 obligations were estimated
at $6,700,000 and FY 80 obligations are estimat-
ed to be $5,700,000.
Applications must be submitted through the
governor's representative to the Old West Re-
gional Commission. Projects must relate to the
needs identified in the Commission's compre-
hensive economic development plan. Approval
or disapproval usually comes within 30 to 60
days of the date of application.
Contact: Old West Regional Commission,
Hedden-Empire Building, Suite 228, Billings,
Montana 59101, (406) 657-6665.
3. Old West Supplements to Federal Grant-ln-
Aid (Supplemental Grant Program). Grant-in-
aid supplements provide a portion of the local
share of Federal grant-in-aid programs in the Old
West region when the economic situation of the
community precludes it from supplying its
matching share. These supplements can be used
on programs for the construction or equipping
of facilities and the acquisition of land. Eligible
States are: Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wyoming.
This program is suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal assistance programs as
specified in OMB Circular A-111 regulations.
Costs will be determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments, but the Federal government
will not supply more than 80% of the eligible
project costs.
States apply for the Federal grant-in-aid with
the appropriate Federal agency and obtain deter-
mination of the distribution of Federal and local
shares of financing. The project application must
be approved by the governor of the State in
which the project is located. Applications must
go through the governor's office for Commis-
sion assistance. Upon State approval, the Com-
mission determines the level of participation in
the project. Time from application to approval or
disapproval ranges from 30 to 60 days.
Contact: Old West Regional Commission,
Hedden-Empire Building, Suite 228, Billings,
Montana 59101, (406) 657-6665.
Regional Level: Ozarks Regional Commission
1. Ozarks Regional Economic Development.
Grant funds are available to assist the Ozarks .re-
gion in preparing economic development plans.
-------
H-21
and in promoting economic development
through public and private investment. The pro-
gram works as a joint Federal-State partnership
through the Commission, which represents Ar-
kansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and
Oklahoma.
The five Ozarks States are eligible for funds
under the program. Proposed projects must be
consistent with the region's comprehensive
long-range economic development plan. Costs
are determined in accordance with Federal Man-
agement Circular 74-4 for State and local
governments.
Application must be submitted through a
member of the Ozarks Regional Commission,
which is composed of the governors of the
member States and a Federal co-chairman. An
environmental impact statement is required. De-
cisions on policy, procedures, and the allocation
of funds are made by the Commission. Approval
or disapproval of projects usually comes 30 to 60
days after application.
Contact: Ozarks Regional Commission, 1100
North University Avenue, Suite 109, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72207, (501) 378-5905.
2. Ozarks Technical and Planning Assistance.
Grant funds are available to the States in the
Ozarks region (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana,
Missouri, and Oklahoma) to assist economic
programs. Eligible programs include studies to
evaluate the needs of the region, research and
planning, ecdnomic development potential, and
demonstration projects and training programs.
Grants ranged from $1,500 to $250,000, aver-
aging $35,000. FY 79 obligations were estimated
at $2,200,000 and FY 80 obligations are estimat-
ed to be $1,800,000.
Applications must be submitted through the
governor's representative to the Ozarks Regional
Commission. Projects must relate to the needs
identified in the Commission's Comprehensive
Economic Development Plan. Approval or disap-
proval usually comes within three months of the
date of application.
Contact: Ozarks Regional Commission, 1100
North University Avenue, Suite 109, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72207, (501) 378-5905.
3. Ozarks Supplements to Federal Grant-ln-Aid
(Supplemental Grant Program). Grant-in-aid
supplements provide a portion of the local share
of Federal grant-in-aid programs in the Ozarks
region when the economic situation of the com-
munity precludes it from supplying its matching
share. These supplements can be used on pro-
grams for the construction or equipping of facili-
ties and the acquisition of land. Eligible states
are: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and
Oklahoma.
This program is suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal assistance programs as
specified in OMB Circular A-111 regulations.
Costs will be determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments, but the Federal government
will not supply more than 80% of the eligible
project costs.
States apply for the Federal grant-in-aid with
the appropriate Federal agency and obtain deter-
mination of the distribution of Federal and local
shares of financing. The project application must
be approved by the governor of the State in
which the project is located. Applications must
go through the governor's office for Commis-
sion assistance. Upon State approval, the Com-
mission determines the level of participation in
the project. Time from application to approval or
disapproval ranges to three months.
Contact: Ozarks Regional Commission, 1100
North University Avenue, Suite 109, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72207, (501) 378-5905.
Regional Level: Pacific Northwest Regional
Commission
1. Pacific Northwest Regional Economic Devel-
opment. Grant funds are available to assist the
Pacific Northwest region in preparing economic
development plans, and in promoting economic
development through public and private invest-
ment. The program works as a joint Federal-
State partnership through the Commission,
which represents Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington.
The Pacific Northwest States are eligible for
funds under the program. Proposed projects
must be consistent with the region's compre-
hensive long-range economic development
plan. Costs are determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments.
Application must be submitted through a
member of the Pacific Northwest Regional Com-
mission, which is composed of the governors of
the member States and a Federal co-chairman.
An environmental impact statement is required.
Decisions on policy, procedures, and the alloca-
tion of funds are made by the Commission. Ap-
proval or disapproval of projects usually comes
30 to 90 days after application.
Contact: Pacific Northwest Regional Commis-
sion, 700 East Evergreen Boulevard, Vancouver,
Washington 98660, (206) 696-7771.
2. Pacific Northwest Technical and Planning
Assistance. Grant funds are available to the
States in the Pacific Northwest region (Idaho, Or-
egon, and Washington) to assist economic pro-
grams. Eligible programs include studies to
evaluate the needs of the region, research and
planning, economic development potential, and
demonstration projects and training programs.
Grants ranged from $2,000 to $1,000,000, aver-
aging $100,000. FY 79 obligations were estimat-
ed at $6,100,000 and FY 80 obligations are esti-
mated to be $5,600,000, exclusive of contracts.
-------
H-22
Applications must be submitted through the
governor's representative to the Pacific North-
west Regional Commission. Projects must relate
to the needs identified in the Commission's
Comprehensive Economic Development Plan.
Approval or disapproval usually comes within 60
to 90 days of the date of application.
Contact: Pacific Northwest Regional Commis-
sion, 700 East Evergreen Boulevard, Vancouver,
Washington 98660, (206) 696-7771.
Regional Level: Southwest Border Regional
Commission
1. Southwest Border Regional Economic Devel-
opment. Grant funds are available to assist the
Southwest Border region in preparing economic
development plans, and in promoting economic
development through public and private invest-
ment. The program works as a joint Federal-
State partnership through the Commission,
which represents designated counties in Ari-
zona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
The four Southwest Border States are eligible
for funds under the program. Proposed projects
must be consistent with the region's compre-
hensive long-range economic development
plan. Costs are determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments.
Application must be submitted through a
member of the Southwest Border Regional Com-
mission, which is composed of the governors of
the member States and a Federal co-chairman.
An environmental impact statement is required.
Decisions on policy, procedures, and the alloca-
tion of funds are made by the Commission.
Contact: Southwest Border Regional Commis-
sion, 100 North Stone Avenue, Suite 309,
Tucson, Arizona'85726, (602) 792-6781.
2. Southwest Border Technical and Planning
Assistance. Grant funds are available to the
States in the Southwest Border region (Arizona,
California, New Mexico, and Texas) to assist eco-
nomic programs. Eligible programs include
studies to evaluate the needs of the region, re-
search and planning, economic development
potential, and demonstration projects and train-
ing programs.
Grants ranged from $15,252 to $400,000, aver-
aging $95,000. FY 79 obligations were estimated
at $600,000 and FY 80 obligations are estimated
to be $6,500,000.
Applications must be submitted through the
governor's representative to the Southwest Bor-
der Regional Commission. Projects must relate
to the needs identified in the Commission's
Comprehensive Economic Development Plan.
Approval or disapproval usually comes within 30
to 60 days of the date of application.
Contact: Southwest Border Regional Commis-
sion, 100 North Stone Avenue, Suite 309,
Tucson, Arizona 85726, (602) 792-6781.
Regional Level: Upper Great Lakes Regional
Commission
1. Upper Great Lakes Regional Economic Devel-
opment. Grant funds are available to assist the
Upper Great Lakes region in preparing economic
development plans, and in promoting economic
development through public and private invest-
ment. The program works as a joint Federal-
State partnership through the Commission,
which represents selected counties in Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
The three Upper Great Lakes States are eligi-
ble for funds under the program. Proposed
projects must be consistent with the region's
comprehensive long-range economic develop-
ment plan. Costs are determined in accordance
with Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State
and local governments.
Application must be submitted through a
member of the Upper Great Lakes Regional
Commission, which is composed of the gover-
nors of the member States and a Federal co-
chairman. An environmental impact statement is
required. Decisions on policy, procedures, and
the allocation of funds are made by the Commis-
sion. Approval or disapproval of projects usually
comes 30 to 90 days after application.
Contact: Upper Great Lakes Regional Commis-
sion, c/o University of Wisconsin-Superior,
Hawkes Hall, Superior, Wisconsin 54880.
2. Upper Great Lakes Technical and Planning As-
sistance. Grant funds are available to the States
in the Upper Great Lakes region (selected coun-
ties in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) to
assist economic programs. Eligible programs in-
clude studies to evaluate the needs of the region,
research and planning, economic development
potential, and demonstration projects and train-
ing programs.
Grants ranged from $300 to $190,000, averag-
ing $45,000. FY 79 obligations were estimated at
$2,400,000 and FY 80 obligations are estimated
to be $2,250,000.
Applications must be submitted through the
governor's representative to the Upper Great
Lakes Regional Commission. Projects must re-
late to the needs identified in the Commission's
Comprehensive Economic Development Plan.
Approval or disapproval usually comes within 30
to 90 days of the date of application.
Contact: Upper Great Lakes Regional Commis-
sion, c/o University of Wisconsin-Superior,
Hawkes Hall, Superior, Wisconsin 54880.
3. Upper Great Lakes Supplements to Federal
Grant-ln-Aid (Supplemental Grant Program).
Grant-in-aid supplements provide a portion of
the local share of Federal grant-in-aid programs
in the Upper Great Lakes region when the eco-
nomic situation of the community precludes it
from supplying its matching share. These sup-
plements can be used on programs for the con-
struction or equipping of facilities and the acqui-
-------
H-23
sition of land. Eligible States are: Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
This program is suitable for joint funding with
closely related Federal assistance programs as
specified in OMB Circular A-111 regulations.
Costs will be determined in accordance with
Federal Management Circular 74-4 for State and
local governments, but the Federal government
will not supply more than 80% of the eligible
project costs.
States apply for the Federal grant-in-aid with
the appropriate Federal agency and obtain deter-
mination of the distribution of Federal and local
shares of financing. The project application must
be approved by the governor of the State in
which the project is located. Applications must
go through the governor's office for Commis-
sion assistance. Upon State approval, the Com-
mission determines the level of participation in
the project. Time from application to approval or
disapproval ranges from 30 to 60 days.
Contact: Upper Great Lakes Regional Commis-
sion, c/o University of Wisconsin-Superior,
Hawkes Hall, Superior, Wisconsin 54880.
PROGRAMS PROVIDING LABOR
Federal Level: Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
1. Youth Conservation Corps — Grants to States
(YCC). Grant funds are provided to assist States
in meeting the cost of projects for the employ-
ment of young men and women to develop, pre-
serve and maintain nonfederal public lands and
waters within the States. Participants must be
between the ages of 15 and 18, and must be per-
manent residents of the United States or its
territories.
Contact: Persons are encouraged to communi-
cate with regional foresters or area directors.
State foresters or directors of departments of
natural resources can also provide information.
At the Department of Agriculture, contact the
staff director of the Human Resource Programs
of the Forest Service, (202) 447-7738.
2. Young Adult Conservation Corps — Grants to
States (YACC). Project grants are provided to
States for the full cost of projects for the employ-
ment of young men and women to do conserva-
tion work and other public projects on
nonfederal public lands and waters. Persons be-
tween 16 and 23 years of age who are unem-
ployed and lawful, permanent residents or citi-
zens of the United States or lawfully admitted
refugees or parolees may apply for Corps
membership.
Contact: For State programs, information may
be obtained from regional foresters or area di-
rectors. State foresters and/or State agencies
having natural resources and conservation re-
sponsibilities, and the governor's designated
YACC program agent are also sources of
information.
Federal Level: Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
1. Comprehensive Employment and Training
Programs (CETA of 1973, as Amended). The
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
provides formula grants and project grants for
job training and employment opportunities for
economically disadvantaged, unemployed and
underemployed persons and to assure that train-
ing and other services lead to increased earnings
and enhance self sufficiency. Under this pro-
gram, youths can be employed on community
planned projects that produce tangible benefits
to the community. The projects are organized by
private, nonprofit organizations and agencies
sensitive to youth needs. Although CETA funds
cannot be used as matching funds for the Clean
Lakes Program, they can be used to provide sup-
plemental in-kind labor for coordination with the
program.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the regional Employment and Training office.
2. Employment and Training — Indians and Na-
tive Americans. Formula grants are available un-
der this program to use for employment and
.training programs and services for native Ameri-
cans. Programs include on-the-job training, pub-
lic service employment, work experience, youth
employment programs, and other job-related
training programs. This program is considered
suitable for joint funding with closely related
Federal financial assistance programs in accor-
dance with the provisions of OMB Circular No.
A-111.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration, Office of Indian and Na-
tive American Programs, 601 D Street North-
west, Washington, D.C. 20213, (202) 376-6102.
3. Senior Community Service Employment Pro-
gram (SCSEP). Formula grants and project
grants in the form of contracts are available to
promote useful part-time work opportunities (up
to 20 hours per week) in community service ac-
tivities for low income persons aged 55 years
and older who have poor employment pros-
pects. Organizations receiving project grants or
contracts may use the funds to create and pay
for part-time community service job positions.
Individuals employed under this program may
be placed in work assignments at established lo-
cal service agencies or may be given work as-
signments in connection with newly formed or
innovative.community service projects. The pro-
gram is considered suitable for joint funding
with closely related Federal financial assistance
programs in accordance with the provisions of
OMB Circular No. A-111.
-------
H-24
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration, Office of National Pro-
grams, 601 0 Street Northwest, Washington,
D.C. 20213, (202) 376-6232.
4. Special Programs and Activities for the Disad-
vantaged. Under this program, project grants
are available to provide or arrange for job train-
ing and job opportunities' for members of groups
with particular disadvantages in the general la-
bor market or in certain segments of the labor
market. These groups include displaced home-
makers, offenders, persons with limited English
speaking ability, handicapped persons, younger
persons, single persons, older persons, women,
minorities, welfare clients, persons lacking edu-
cational credentials, and persons dislocated
from their jobs as a result of plant closings, natu-
ral disasters and like circumstances. Project
grants also may be made for a wide variety of
promotional, developmental, and research-relat-
ed activities.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration, Office of National Pro-
grams, 601 D Street. Northwest, Washington,
D.C. 20213, (202) 376-6225.
Federal Level: Action
1. Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP).
Project grants are made to established commu-
nity service organizations to assist in the devel-
opment or operation of locally oriented senior
volunteer projects. This local community service
organization develops a wide variety of volun-
teer service opportunities throughout the com-
munity. Grants may be used for staff salaries
and fringe benefits, staff travel, equipment,
space costs, and related expenses, and for vol-
unteer out-of-pocket expenses. This program is
considered suitable for joint funding with closely
related Federal financial assistance programs in
accordance with OMB Circular No A-111.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
ACTION regional offices and ACTION State pro-
gram offices or from Older Americans Volunteer
Program ACTION, 806 Connecticut Avenue
Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20525, (202) 254-
7310.
2. Mini-Grant Program (Mini-Grants). Project
grants are available to provide small amounts of
money (not to exceed $5,000 per grant) to local,
public and private nonprofit organizations for
the purpose of mobilizing relatively large num-
bers of part-time, uncompensated volunteers to
work on human, social and environmental
needs, particularly those related to poverty. This
program is considered suitable for joint funding
with closely related Federal financial assistance
programs in accordance with OMB Circular No.
A-111.
Contact: Information may be obtained from
the regional offices of ACTION or from the AC-
TION Office of Voluntary Citizen Participation,
Program Operations Division, Suite 907, 806
Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Washington,
D.C. 20525, (202) 254-7262.
3. State Office of Voluntary Citizen Participation
Programs (SIOVCP). Project grants are available
to establish and/or.strengthen offices of volun-
teer services to improve opportunities for volun-
teer efforts concerned with human, social and
environmental needs, particularly those related
to poverty. This program is considered suitable
for joint funding with closely related Federal fi-
nancial assistance programs in accordance with
OMB Circular No. A-111.
Contact: Information may be obtained by con-
tacting the toll free number 800-424-8867 or AC-
TION, Office of Voluntary Citizen Participation,
Program Operations Division, Suite 907, 806
Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Washington,
D.C. 20525, (202) 254-7262.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE/INFORMATION
PROGRAMS
Federal Level: Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
1. Soil and Water Conservation. Technical assist-
ance is available for carrying out programs of
soil and water conservation. Assistance is avail-
able to individuals and groups for planning and
application of soil and water conservation prac-
tices. Technical soil and water conservation in-
formation is also furnished to units of
government.
Contact: State or Local Soil Conservation Ser-
vice office or Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Box 2890, Washington,
D.C. 20013, (202) 447-4531.
2. River Basin Surveys and Investigations.
Assistance is available to governmental units in
the collection of information regarding water
and related land resources. The program is de-
signed to improve national economic develop-'
ment and environmental quality. Special atten-
tion is given to best land management practices,
and flood control and mitigation.
Contact: State or local Soil Conservation Ser-
vice office or Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Box 2890, Washington,
D.C. 20013, (202) 447-4531.
3. Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting.
This program provides information on forthcom-
ing water supplies which are derived primarily
from snow melt. Water supply forecasts based
on hydrometeorologic data collected are used in
managing water resources. That information is
available throughout most of western United
States.
-------
H-25
Contact: State or local Soil Conservation Ser-
vice office in western states except California. In
California, contact the Department of Water Re-
sources or contact the Department of Agricul-
ture, Soil Conservation Service, Box 2890, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20013 (202) 447-4531.
4. Inventory and Monitoring. Assistance is avail-
able for the collection, interpretation and publi-
cation of natural resource data in the form of re-
source inventories. Those inventories identify
farmlands critical to the maintenance of the nat-
ural resource base and agricultural production.
Assessments of nonpoint sources of pollution
(erosion and sediment) for control planning are
also made.
Contact: State or local Soil Conservation Ser-
vice office or Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Box 2890, Washington,
D.C. 20013, (202)447-4531.
Federal Level: Department of Defense
Department of the Army, Office of the Chief
of Engineers
1. Flood Plain Management Services. This pro-
gram provides information, technical services,
and guidance necessary to promote appropriate
recognition of flood hazards in land and water
use planning and development. Flood plain and
flood hazard information are used as a basis for
planning flood plain land use, and in developing
flood plain regulations.
Contact: Nearest U.S. Army District, Attention:
FPMS or Department of Defense, Department of
the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Atten-
tion: DAEN-CWP-F, Washington, D.C. 20314,
(202) 272-0169.
Federal Level: Department of the Interior
Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service
1. Outdoor Recreation — Technical Assistance.
Services are available for the development of
outdoor recreation. Demonstration of ap-
proaches, concepts, and techniques for the solu-
tion of recreation problems is made for the
States, localities and private interests by the Ser-
vice. Advice on recreation-related matters may
also be provided when qualified staff are
available.
Contact: Regional Office of Heritage Conserva-
tion and Recreation Service or Department of the
Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service, Division of Implementation Assistance,
Washington, D.C. 20243, (202) 343-6767 or (202)
343-7967.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1. Fishery Research — Information. Information
needed for the protection and enhancement of
freshwater fishery resources is developed and
disseminated through this program. Such re-
search-expanded knowledge of fishery biology
is used to improve management of public fish-
ery resources, and to advance related private
enterprises.
Contact: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 20240,
(202) 343-2279.
2. Environmental Contaminant Evaluation. This
program seeks to disseminate information and
to provide technical assistance concerning the
effects of pesticides on fish and wildlife ecology.
The effects and potential ramifications of chemi-
cal pollutants in selected ecosystems are as-
sessed through field appraisals and monitoring.
Contact: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Ser-
vices, Contaminant Operations, Washington,
D.C. 20240, (202) 343-4034.
3. Sport Fish Technical Assistance. This program
provides technical assistance and information
useful for the management of waters for sport
fishing. Biological and environmental assess-
ments are available that make specific manage-
ment recommendations. Stocking of fishes-from
National Fish Hatcheries may be one of the man-
agement tools considered.
Contact: Local office or Department of the In-
terior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Fishery Assistance, Washington, D.C. 20240,
(202) 632-5166.
4. Wildlife Technical Assistance. This program
provides technical assistance and information
for improved management of wildlife resources
where demonstrated need for services exists.
Requests may be made for dissemination of
technical information and training by Federal
agencies and Indian tribes. Personnel will also
assist in teaching short courses.
Contact: Local office or Department of the In-
terior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Wildlife Assistance, Washington, D.C. 20240,
(202) 632-2202.
5. Wildlife Ecology Research Information. This
program conducts research concerning wildlife
resources and disseminates this information to
provide for improved protection and enhance-
ment of wildlife resources. Interested persons
may request information on any aspect of the
following research subjects: Environmental
contaminant evaluation, migratory . birds,
mammals and nonmigratory birds, animal dam-
age control, and endangered and threatened
species.
Contact: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Division of Wildlife Ecology
Research, Washington, D.C. 20240, (202) 343-
7557.
Geological Survey
1. Geologic and Mineral Resource Surveys and
Mapping. The Geological Survey provides as-
sistance in cooperative projects to prepare geo-
logic maps throughout the United States.
-------
H-26
Projects can also seek to appraise mineral and
fuel resources and to carry out research in the
field. Such work provides the physical basis for
the effective planning of programs for develop-
ment of natural resources and the efficient op-
eration of interrelated projects at Federal, State
and local levels.
Contact: Department of the Interior, Geologi-
cal Survey, National Center, 12201 Sunrise Val-
ley Drive, Mailstop 911, Reston, Virginia 22092,
(703)860-6531.
2. Cartographic Information. The Geological
Survey provides users with information about
maps, charts, geodetic control, aerial and space
imagery, and related cartographic data generat-
ed by the Federal government and State, local
and private sources. Orders are accepted and
forwarded to participating data depositories.
Contact: Local office or Department of the In-
terior, Geological Survey, National Cartographic
Information Center, National Center, 12201 Sun-
rise Valley Drive, Mailstop 507, Reston, Virginia
22092, (703) 860-6045.
3. Topographic Surveys and Mapping. The
Geological Survey works in cooperative projects
with the goal of mapping the Nation in accor-
dance with an established national standard and
to keep the maps up-to-date. Technical informa-
tion and maps produced in such projects provide
basic information for the development and man-
agement of natural resources and the efficient
planning and operation of interrelated projects
afthe Federal, State and local levels.
Contact: Department of the Interior, Geologi-
cal Survey, Topographic Division, National Cen-
ter, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mailstop 516,
Reston, Virginia 22092, (703) 860-6231.
4. Water Resources Investigations. Water in-
formation is available to provide for enhanced
economic development and best use of water re-
sources. Hydrology research is encouraged.
Projects provide basis for effective management
and development programs for natural re-
sources and efficient operation of interrelated
projects at the Federal, State and local levels.
Contact: Department of the Interior, Geologi-
cal Survey, National Center, 12201 Sunrise Val-
ley Drive, Mailstop 409, Reston, Virginia 22092,
(703)860-6921.
National Park Service
1. National Environmental Study Areas and Na-
tional Environmental Education Development
Programs. National Environmental Study
Areas are available for use by schools and other
interested groups for demonstrating natural,
social or cultural principles. Use of property, fa-
cilities and equipment, advisory services and
counseling, and dissemination of technical
information are provided for.
Contact: Regional office or Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Division of Inter-
pretation and Visitor Services, National Environ-
mental Study Areas and National Environmental
Education Development Programs, Washington,
D.C. 20240, (202) 523-5444.
2. Park Technical Assistance. Technical assis-
tance is available for the planning, developing
and managing of park and recreation areas.
Agency management, operation and mainte-
nance of park systems, historical and archeologi-
cal programs, and general development plan-
ning are covered on a site-specific basis. Indian
tribes, States and local units of government, pri-
vate, nonprofit organizations, individuals and
territories can apply for assistance.
Contact: Regional office or Service Center or
Department of the Interior, National Park Ser-
vice, Division of Federal and State Liaison,
Washington, D.C. 20240, (202) 523-5190.
3. Park Practice Program. The National Park
Service disseminates information concerning
design, operation and maintenance of parks and
recreation facilities, to park and recreation
professionals and practitioners. Publications and
program materials are used as a teaching and
reference source.
Contact: Regional or local office or Depart-
ment of the Interior, National Park Service, Divi-
sion of Federal and State Liaison, Washington,
D.C. 20240, (202) 523-5190.
4. Training Institute for Park and Recreation
Management. Assistance is provided, on a
cost-shared basis, for the preparation and pres-
entation of training courses for park and recrea-
tion departments of State and local govern-
ments. Assistance in training needs assessment
and facility development is also available.
Contact: Regional office or Department of the
Interior, National. Park Service, Division of Feder-
al and State Liaison, NPS Training Institute,
Washington, D.C. 20240, (202) 523-5190.
Federal Level: General Services Admin-
istration
1. National Archives Reference Services. A ref-
erence service is available to help the general
public make use of records and historical materi-
als of the Federal government. Information is
furnished by the National Archives, six Presiden-
tial Libraries, and 15 Federal Records Centers.
Contact: Regional office or General Services
Administration, National Archives and Records
Service, Central Reference Division, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20408, (202) 523-3218.
2. National Audiovisual Center. The National
Audiovisual Center serves as an information,
sales, loan, and technical service center for
audiovisual materials produced by or for Federal
agencies.
Contact: General Services Administration, Na-
-------
H-27
tional Audiovisual Center, Washington, D.C.
20409, (301)763-1896.
3. Federal Information Center. The Federal In-
formation Center provides a single center in
each major metropolitan area for the public to
seek information about Federal agencies. Tech-
nical information is disseminated or an accurate
referral to the office which can best assist the
citizen is made.
Contact: Local Federal Information Center or
General Services Administration, Consumer In-
formation Center, Washington, D.C. 20405, (202)
566-1794.
Federal Level: Government Printing Office
1. Depository Libraries for Government Publica-
tions. Libraries designated as depository librar-
ies receive certain government publications.
They serve as reference centers for government
documents. The purpose of this program is to
make government publications, including many
which are out of print, available for reference in
local areas.
Contact: Local Depository Library or Govern-
ment Printing Office, Library and Statutory Dis-
tribution Service, 5236 Eisenhower Avenue, Al-
exandria, Virginia 22304, (703) 557-2050.
2. Government Publications — Sales and Distri-
bution. Certain United States government publi-
cations are available for purchase through the
Government Printing Office.
Contact: Regional or local office or Govern-
ment Printing Office, Superintendent of Docu-
ments, Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 275-3345.
Federal Level: Library of Congress
1. Library of Congress Publications. Guides to
Library of Congress collections are available for
purchase from the Government Printing Office.
The purpose of this program is to provide Con-
gress, government agencies, the research com-
munity, and the general public with information
about the collections of the Library of Congress.
Contact: Library of Congress, Publishing Of-
fice, Washington, D.C. 20540, (202) 287-5093.
2. Library of Congress Research Services. Spe-
cialized reference and bibliographic services are
available in such diverse fields as American his-
tory and science. Materials covered include
manuscripts, maps, phonograph records, prints,
photographs, and motion pictures. Certain guid-
ance is offered in the identification and use of
material, and limited reference service is offered
in answer to written inquiries to correspondents.
Contact: Library of Congress, General Reading
Rooms Division, Washington, D. C. 20540, (202)
287-5530.
3. Reference and Referral Services in Science
and Technology. Reference specialists of the
Science and Technology Division of the Library
of Congress will answer, without charge, brief
technical inquiries entailing a bibliographic re-
sponse. The Division also provides free referral
service through its National Referral Center by
directing those who have a question about a par-
ticular subject to organizations or individuals
that can provide the answer.
Contact: Library of Congress, National Refer-
ral Center (referral services) or Science and
Technology Division (reference services), Wash-
ington, D.C. 20540, (202) 287-5670 or (202) 287-
5639.
Federal Level: Smithsonian Institution
1. Smithsonian Science Information Exchange,
Inc. The Exchange serves as a clearinghouse for
information about ongoing or recently terminat-
ed scientific research projects. Answers to a vari-
ety of questions may be compiled or assembled
from an indexed register of projects supported
by Federal and many nonfederal agencies. Such
information is voluntarily contributed by those
agencies. There is a charge made for the cost of
retrieving and providing information from the
file.
Contact: Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian
Science Information Exchange, Inc., Room 300,
1730 M Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036,
(202)381-4211.
Regional Level: Tennessee Valley Authority
1. Tennessee Valley Region — Water Resources
Development. Services are available for devel-
oping and operating the Tennessee River system
for navigation, flood control, and power. These
services are limited to the Tennessee Valley re-
gion, and also include related benefits of indus-
trial development, water quality management,
recreation development, and fish and wildlife
development for the social and economic benefit
of the region and in the national interest.
Contact: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knox-
ville, Tennessee 37902, (615) 632-2101.
Federal Level: Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water and Waste Management
1. Water Pollution Control — Direct Training.
The Environmental Protection Agency provides
technical courses and distributes materials for
training of individuals and organizations con-
cerned with water quality and water pollution.
Courses are offered at the National Training and
Operational Technology Center and at one re-
gional facility. Packaged courses and training
support material are developed for use by other
educational and training organizations in select-
ed water pollution control subjects.
Contact: Regional offices of the Environmental
Protection Agency or Environmental Protection
Agency, National Training- and Operational
Technology Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
-------
H-28
2. Water Quality Control Information System —
Orientation! Training Seminars, Data and Moni-
toring Publications. This program provides for
training in the use of the computer storage and
retrieval (STORED system used by OWWM for
handling water quality and management data.
Publications showing types, trends and progress
in pollution control and methods of water moni-
toring for official, technical, administrative, and
public use are also provided.
Contact: Regional offices of the Office of Wa-
ter and Waste Management, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency or Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water and Waste Manage-
ment, Monitoring and Data Support Division,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 426-7764.
3. Drinking Water Supply — Technical Assis-
tance. Assistance is available to ensure that wa-
ter supply systems serving the public meet mini-
mum national standards for the protection of
public health.
Contact: Regional offices of the Environmental
Protection Agency or Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water and Waste Manage-
ment, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 472-4160.
4. Solid Waste Management Technical Assis-
tance and Information Services. Assistance is
available to help improve solid waste manage-
ment and to develop acceptable disposal alter-
natives. Technical assistance, without charge,
can be provided on solid waste management, re-
source recovery, and resource conservation to
State and local governments.
Contact: Regional offices of the Environmental
Protection Agency. For technical assistance —
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sol-
id Waste (WH-563), Washington, D.C. 20460,
(202) 755-9125. For all other information — Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste (WH-562), Washington, D.C. 20460, (202)
755-9160.
Federal Level: Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
1. Disaster Assistance. Services and grants are
available for alleviating suffering and hardship
resulting from emergencies or major disasters
declared by the President. Contributions are
made available for suppression of natural disas-
ters, and for post-disaster repairs to, restoration
or replacement of public facilities and certain pri-
vate nonprofit facilities. Associated cleanup ac-
tivities, temporary shelter for displaced persons
and social services are also provided for.
Contact: Federal Disaster Assistance Adminis-
tration regional office or Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Federal Disaster Assis-
tance Administration, Washington, D.C. 20410,
(202) 634-7825.
STATE LOCAL PROGRAMS
State Level: Alabama
State Public Health Department
Water Improvement Commission
1. 374 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). Alabama
has not taken an active involvement in the 314
Clean Lakes Program up to the present time. The
Water Improvement Commission is the desig-
nated agency for coordinating this program in
the future.
Contact: Alabama State Public Health Depart-
ment, Water Improvement Commission, State
Office Building, Montgomery, Alabama 36130,
(205) 277-3630.
State Level: Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Control Section
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Wa-
ter Quality Control Section has responsibility for
administering the Federal 314 Clean Lakes Pro-
gram for Alaska •although at the present time
Alaska has not become involved with the pro-
gram. They have participated in 208 Planning
and have used some 208 funds for demonstra-
tion projects that have addressed nonppint
source water pollution control.
Contact: Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Water Quality Control Section,
Pouch 0, Juneau, Alaska 99801, (907) 465-2655.
Department of Natural Resources
1. Outdoor Recreation, Open Space and Historic
Preservation Development Fund. The Depart-
ment of Natural Resources provides grants for
up to 25% of the project costs to local govern-
ment units for the development and mainte-
nance of park and recreational facilities. These
funds were specifically set up to match the Fed-
eral Land and Water Conservation Program
which will pay 50% of park and recreational
projects.
Contact: Alaska Department of Natural Re-
sources.
State Level: Arizona
Department of Health Services
Bureau of Water Quality Control
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The De-
partment of Health Services administers the Fed-
eral 314 Clean Lakes Program. No State funding
programs are available at the present time for
matching moneys. It is anticipated that technical
assistance from the department and- other
sources would be utilized as an in-kind match for
future 314 Clean Lakes projects.
Contact: Arizona Department of Health Ser-
vices, Bureau of Water Quality Control, 1740
West Adam Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, (602)
255-1252.
-------
H-29
Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating
Commission
1. State Lake Improvement Fund. This state pro-
gram provides grants for up to 100% of project
costs to municipal, county, or State governmen-
tal units for boating-related projects. Costs of
land acquisition are not covered. The Outdoor
Recreation Coordinating Commission is inter-
ested in coordinating this program with 314
Clean Lakes restoration projects.
Contact: Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordi-
nating Commission.
State Level: Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The De-
partment of Pollution Control and Ecology is the
agency designated to administer the Federal 314
Clean Lakes Program. Advisory services are
available in the application process, but match-
ing moneys must be provided locally.
Contact: Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology, 8001 National Drive, P. 0.
Box 9583, Little Rock, Arkansas 72219, (501)371-
1701.
Department of Local Services
1. Local Government Water, Sewer and Solid
Waste Management Systems Revolving Fund.
This fund provides loan and grant assistance to
communities with special needs due to large
numbers of persons with low income, elderly or
unemployed or a combination of these. The
funds are used to match Federal grants or to
supplement Federal loans for the development
of water, sewer, and solid waste management
systems. The State may provide grants of up to
25% of project costs to match water and sewer
grants such as the Federal 201 Sewage Con-
struction Grants Program and up to 50% of
project costs in the form of loans for solid waste
programs. The recipient must be a public unit of
government (city, town or county) or a special
public entity such as an improvement district or
water association providing water, sewer or sol-
id waste services. Other funding sources must
be exhausted first.
Applications are submitted concurrently to the
Department of Local Services and the appropri-
ate Regional Planning and Development District
and Regional Planning Commission. Applica-
tions are also reviewed by the Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology and the Depart-
ment of Health.
Contact: Arkansas Department of Local Ser-
vices, Number One, Capitol Mall/Little Rock, Ar-
kansas 72201, (501) 371-1211.
Soil and Water Conservation Commission
1. Arkansas Water Development Fund. This
fund has provided grants primarily for water
supply projects. However, the Act authorizing
the formation of this program includes projects
related to flood control, irrigation, drainage,
navigation, recreation, and fish and wildlife as
well. It has been used to match Farmer's Home
Administration (FmHA) programs and could be a
possible match for the EPA's 314 Clean Lakes
Program if a project was considered to be of
high enough priority. Recipients must be State,
local or special purpose governmental units.
While there is no specified limit to project cost
that will be funded, most grants have ranged
from 15-20% of total project costs.
Applications should be in by June 30. Allow 6-
9 months lead time. If not funded in the year of
application, applications will automatically be
carried forward for consideration in the follow-
ing year.
Contact: Arkansas Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Commission, Department of Commerce,
1818 West Capitol, Building A, Little Rock, Arkan-
sas 72201, (501) 371-1611.
Game and Fish Commission
1. Matching Federal Funds. The Game and
Fish Commission has been empowered by the
Arkansas Legislature to spend moneys as need-
ed to match Federal grants under the Pittman-
Robertson Act or similar acts for the propaga-
tion, conservation and restoration of game and
fish. This program may provide a potential
source of funds to partially match the 314 Clean
Lakes Program if these actions are included.
Contact: Arkansas Game and Fish Commis-
sion, Game and Fish Commission Building, No. 2
Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas
72205, (501)371-1025.
State Level: California
Water Resources Control Board
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Di-
vision of Planning and Research under the Water
Resources Board is the agency designated to co-
ordinate the Federal 314 Clean Lakes Program in
California. At the present time they are able to
provide some technical assistance and advisory
services in the processing of applications but lo-
cal sponsoring governmental units must provide
the matching moneys. Nine regional water qual-
ity control boards play an active role in review-
ing proposals for projects and providing techni-
cal assistance to sponsors in their area.
Contact: California Water Resources Control
Board, Planning and Research Division, P. 0.
Box 100, Sacramento, California 95801, (916)
445-7765.
2. Clean Water and Water Conservation Bond
Law of 1978. The Water Resources Control
Board provides grants and a few loans to munici-
palities for projects involving water conservation
and wastewater reclamation. $325,000,000 has
been set aside to provide 12V2%'of the cost of
-------
H-30
sewage treatment facility construction projects
receiving Federal aid under the 201 Program.
$50,000,000 has been authorized for projects in-
eligible for Federal aid under the 201 Program.
Guidelines are being developed for these funds,
but it is anticipated that the State will provide a
minimum of 50% of the shared cost. These funds
provide a potential match for a 314 Clean Lakes
project involving nonpoint source watershed
control. They have been used to provide State
matching moneys for the Federal 208 Planning
Program.
Contact: California Water Resources Control
Board, P. 0. Box 100, Sacramento, California
95801, (916) 445-7765.
3. State Water Control Fund.
a. Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account.
This account provides funds for emergency
cleanup of oil spills and other pollution accidents
or incidents requiring immediate action. The
State contracts the work to be done from the
State operation account portion of the State Wa-
ter Control Fund.
b. Sites Closure and Maintenance Revolving
Account. This account is used by the State to
close hazardous waste sites or other hazardous
or polluted areas that have been abandoned un-
til a responsible party can be located and action
taken to have that party clean up or abate the
pollution problem.
Contact: California Water Resources Control
Board, P. 0. Box 100, Sacramento, California
95801, (916) 445-7765.
Department of Water Resources and
California Reclamation Board
1. State Aid Program: Federal Flood Control
Projects. The Department of Water Resources in
conjunction with the California Reclamation
Board provides grants and loans to local govern-
mental units for projects involving flood control
and flowage. Emphasis has been on land acqui-
sition, easements and rights-of-way. The State
will provide up to 75% of land costs and 90% of
other costs unless Federal funding is involved;
for federally-funded projects the local share is
unaffected but the State share will be diminished
to be equal to the Federal share provided. About
10% of construction funds recently have been
used to acquire easements for environmental
impact reasons or to protect the environment for
fish and wildlife enhancement. This program has
been used extensively for U.S. Corps of Engi-
neers' projects.
Contact: In the Central Valley — California
Reclamation Board, Room 335, 1416 — 9th
Street,. Sacramento, California 95814; Outside
the Central Valley — the California Department
of Water Resources, Box 388,1416 — 9th Street,
Sacramento, California 95814.
Pollution Control Financing Authority
1. Pollution Control Financing Authority Loan
Program. The Pollution Control Financing Au-
thority provides loans to individuals and profit
organizations for the construction of solid or liq-
uid waste disposal facilities including resource
recovery systems. The Pollution Control Finance
Authority also finances the construction of such
facilities and then leases them back to the appli-
cant. The need to comply with air and water
quality standards is the main criterion for eligi-
bility. Pollution abatement facilities must not im-
prove productivity; by-products must be a
means of waste disposal rather than being prof-
itable to the operation. This program may be
used in conjunction with applicable Federal
programs.
Contact: California Pollution Control Financing
Authority, 915 Capitol Mall, Room 110, Sacra-
mento, California 95814, (916) 445-9597.
Wildlife Conservation Board
1. Recreation and Fish and Wildlife Enhance-
ment Bond Act. Continual bonding issuances au-
thorized by the California Legislature and voters
have provided funding for the planning and de-
velopment of facilities for recreation and fish
and wildlife enhancement in connection with
State and local water projects. Some of these
funds are administered by the Wildlife Conserva-
tion Board largely for state water projects but
they have cooperated with local communities as
well.
Contact: California Wildlife Conservation
Board.
Department of Parks and Recreation
Office of Recreation and Local Services
1. State Beach, Park, Recreational and Historical
Facilities Bond Act of 1974. Nejedly-Hart State,
Urban, and Coastal Park Bond Act of 1976. These
Bond Acts of 1974 and 1976 provided for assis-
tance to local communities for park and recrea-
tional facility development including the costs of
land acquisition. $90,000,000 was authorized in
1974 and $86,000,000 irv1976 and was allocated
to governmental agencies on a block grant basis.
Most of these funds have been committed.
Projects are limited to outdoor facilities. A 1980
Bond Act is now before the legislature to provide
$95,000,000 to replace the Bond Acts of 1974 and
1976. The same guidelines will apply.
Contact: California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Office of Recreation and Local Ser-
vices, (916) 445-4441.
2. Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open Space and Recrea-
tion Program. This program, administered by
the Department of Parks and Recreation, pro-
vides block grants to urbanized jurisdictions and
a competitive grant program to both urban and
nonurban communities for park and recreational
facility development including land acquisition.
-------
H-31
$80,000,000 has been authorized to date for
these purposes ($10,000,000 for FY 80). Funds
may be used for both indoor and outdoor facili-
ties. The 1980 Bond Act now before the Califor-
nia Legislature is requesting an additional
$35,000,000 to extend this program.
Contact: California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Office of Recreation and Local Ser-
vices, (916)445-4441.
State Level: Colorado
Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Wa-
ter Quality Control Division is the agency desig-
nated to coordinate the Federal 314 Clean Lakes
Program for Colorado. At the present time, Colo-
rado has one 314 grant to classify the State
freshwater lakes according to eutrophic condi-
tion, has applied for several project grants and
has received an Urban Lakes Grant under the
314 Program. The matching funding for projects
will come from either local sources or an in-kind
service match using the technical assistance
available Jn the Department of Health.
Contact: Colorado Department of Health, Wa-
ter Quality Control Division, 4210 East 11th Ave-
nue, Denver, Colorado 80220, (303) 320-8333.
Soil Conservation Board
The Soil Conservation Board is the State co-
ordinating board for the local Soil Conservancy
Districts. These local districts are active in
wetland management, 208 Planning, and in ad-
ministering Federal grant-in-aid programs for
the Department of Agriculture.
Contact: Local Soil and Water Conservation
District.
State Level: Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
1. Lakes Management Program. This is a new
program, proposed in February, 1980 to the Con-
necticut State Legislature,, to provide grants
and/or technical assistance to State and local
government units for comprehensive measures
directed toward improving lake water quality.
$150,000 has been requested for FY 80 which
will provide seed money for the program with fi-
nancial commitments increasing as more lakes
are brought into the program and as actions are
taken to implement preservation and restoration
measures. This program has been designed to
match Federal 314 Clean Lakes Funds.
Contact: Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Water Compliance, State Of-
fice Building, Hartford, Connecticut 06115, (203)
566-7049.
2. Weed and Algae Control Program. This pro-
gram reimburses local governmental units or es-
tablished lake authorities for up to 100% of annu-
al costs of chemical treatment of algae and
aquatic vegetation, harvesting and minor phys-
ical measures to control weed and algae growth.
A notice is sent annually to chief elected town
officials regarding the program. Requests for re:
imbursement must be received by December 1
and be accompanied by an itemized voucher and
appropriate permits of chemical treatment if
used. When total requests exceed the total pro-
gram authorization, reimbursements are pro-
rated.
Contact: Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Water Compliance, State Of-
fice Building, Hartford, Connecticut 06115.
3. Wildlife Refuges, Fish Spawning Areas and
Refuges. The Department of Environmental Pro-
tection not only administers Federal programs
related to fish and wildlife enhancement on
State lands and refuges, but can provide techni-
cal assistance to local communities for these
purposes as well.
Contact: Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Wildlife Management, State
Office Building, Hartford, Connecticut 06115,
(203) 566-2287.
State Level: Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Fish and Wildlife Division
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Fish
and Wildlife Division of the Department of Natu-
ral Resources and Environmental Control has
been designated as the agency to coordinate the
Federal 314 Clean Lakes Program. They have
contracted with the University of Georgia to un-
dertake a classification study and prioritization
of 30 public lakes according to eutrophic condi-
tion. No financial assistance is presently avail-
able as an ongoing program; local sponsors pro-
vide matching monies; State sponsored projects
require special appropriation of moneys.
Contact: Delaware Department of Natural Re-
sources and Environmental Control, Fish and
Wildlife Division, P. 0. Box 1401, Dover, Dela-
ware 19901, (302) 678-4431.
State Level: Florida
State Department of Environmental
Regulation
Division of Environmental Programs:
Bureau of Water Management
The Bureau provides technical assistance and in-
formation based on 208 planning and assess-
ment studies. It also sets standards and adopts
regulations for water quality maintenance and
coordinates volunteer programs that might pro-
vide a potential in-kind match for the 314 Clean
Lakes Program. In addition, the Bureau adminis-
ters the Water Resources Restoration and Pres-
ervation Program.
-------
H-32
1. Water Resources Restoration and Preserva-
tion Program. The Bureau of Water Management
makes contracts for both Phase 1 feasibility and
Phase 2 implementation projects involving wa-
tershed and in-lake control, engineering design,
and development of lake/lakeshore usage using
funds from general revenues, a Pollution Recov-
ery Fund and available Federal moneys owed
from the 314 Clean Lakes Program. Moneys may
not be used for 1) construction of treatment fa-
cilities for domestic or industrial waste disposal
or 2) restoration or preservation of a water re-
source if point sources affecting it will not be in
compliance with applicable standards or pollu-
tion from nonpoint sources is not controlled or
3) temporary, palliative or cosmetic treatments
unless such treatments are part of a long-term
solution. Local, State and special purpose gov-
ernmental, units are eligible sponsors of projects.
The State will fund up to 60% of feasibility stud-
ies and 80% of the honfederally. funded part of
implementation projects. Qontracts for projects
of unusually high scientific value and exception-
al difficulty for successful restoration may be
funded up to 100%; however, only two such
projects are allowed per year.
Feasibility study applications are accepted at
any time and are awarded depending on avail-
able moneys. Implementation project applica-
tions must be received by September 1 for
funding in the following fiscal year; awards are
dependent on the problem priority and the
project's potential value as a solution, as well as
available moneys. Consideration is given to
equitable geographic distribution of projects.
Contact: Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Division of Environmental Pro-
grams, Bureau of Water Management, 2600 Blair
Stone Road, Twin Towers Office Building, Talla-
hassee, Florida 32301, (904) 488-9560.
Division of Environmental Programs:
Bureau of Drinking Water and
Solid Waste Management
This Bureau processes the sewage treatment
construction grants program (Florida does not
provide any matching grant funds), issues per-
mits and enforces water quality standards, and
provides technical assistance to local communi-
ties. In addition, this Bureau handles the Bond
Program.
1. Pollution Control Measures and Devices
(Bond Program}. This program provides loans at
low interest rates for financing pollution control
devices to local governmental units.
Contact: Florida State Department of Environ-
mental Regulation, Division of Environmental
Programs, Bureau of Drinking Water and Solid
Waste Management, 2600 Blair Stone Road,
Twin Towers Office Building, Tallahassee, Flor-
ida 32301, (904) 488-9560.
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
1. Florida Recreation Development Assistance
Program. This is a grant program to local gov-
ernmental units for park and recreational devel-
opment. The State will pay 100% of project costs
on the first $50,000 and 50% of the next $200,000
for an overall.State limit of $150,000. Projects
cannot exceed $250,000 in total costs.
Contact: Florida Department of Natural Re-
sources, Division of Parks and Recreation, 3900
Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida
32303, (904) 488-6322.
2. Florida Boating Improvement Fund. This fund
provides grant assistance for the development
of boating facilities to local govermental units.
Moneys are generated from a portion of boat
registration fees in each county.
Contact: Florida Department of Natural Re-
sources, Division of Parks and Recreation, 3900
Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida
32303, (904) 488-6322.
State Level: Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division: Water
Quality Section
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Wa-
ter Quality Section of the Environmental Protec-
tion Division is presently involved in the classifi-
cation and prioritization of lakes according to
eutrophic condition. They are able to provide
technical assistance as well as advisory services
in the processing of 314 Clean Lakes project ap-
plications, but matching moneys will have to be
provided at the local level. Phase 1 cooperative
agreements (diagnostic-feasibility studies) are
funded 70% Federal and 30% nonfederal; Phase
2 (implementation) 50/50.
Contact: Georgia Department of Natural Re-
sources, Environmental Protection Division, Wa-
ter Quality Section, 270 Washington Street S.W.,
Room 822, Atlanta, Georgia 30334.
2. Economic and Environmental Grant Program.
The Water Quality Section of the Environmental
Protectfon Division provides grants to local gov-
ernmental units for water supply and water pol-
lution control projects including sewage treat-
ment facility construction. Applicants must
provide a 50% nonstate dollar match. Federal
EPA funds are not eligible as a nonstate match.
$5,000,000 has been authorized for use in FY 80
to fund at least eight projects. The emphasis is
on aiding facility construction where major com-
munity impact has created the need for new fa-
cilities to accommodate new or expanded indus-
trial, governmental or commercial enterprises.
Contact: Georgia Department of-Natural Re-
sources, Environmental Protection Division, Wa-
ter Quality Section, 270 Washington Street S.W.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30334.
-------
H-33
3. Emergency Grant Program. The Water Qual-
ity Section administers an emergency grant pro-
gram for sewage treatment or water supply fa-
cility construction. $1,000,000 has been
authorized for use in emergency situations
where an existing facility has failed. State aid
may be up to 100% for the first $25,000 in costs
and up to 50% of costs in excess of $25,000.
Contact: Georgia Department of Natural Re-
sources, Environmental Protection Division, Wa-
ter Quality Section, 270 Washington Street S.W.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30334.
Division of Parks and Recreation and
Historic Sites
1. Georgia Heritage Trust Program. The Georgia
Heritage Trust Fund was established to identify,
protect and preserve cultural, natural and recrea-
tional areas throughout the State. A fourth of the
State moneys appropriated each year for this
program are used to provide grants to local gov-
ernmental bodies for the preservation of histor-
ic, natural and passive recreational sites. The re-
maining funds are allotted for State acquisition.
Grants to local governments for natural area
preservation use a matching formula of 30% lo-
cal, 20% State and 50% Federal Land and Water
Conservation Funds. For passive recreational
projects, the cost share formula is 40% local,
10% State, and 50% Federal. Historic preserva-
tion is cost shared 50/50 by the State and local
sponsor.
Contact: Georgia Department of Natural Re-
sources, Division of Parks and Recreation and
Historic Sites, Heritage Trust Program, 270
Washington Street S.W. 815-0, Atlanta, Georgia
30334.
State Level: Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The De-
partment of Health and Welfare is the agency
designated to process applications for the 314
Clean Lakes Program. At the present time, how-
ever, the Department is able to provide only wa-
ter quality monitoring and laboratory support to
governmental bodies and nonprofit organiza-
tions for nonpoint. source water pollution
control.
Contact: Idaho Department of Health and Wel-
fare, Division of Environment, Statehouse, Boi-
se, Idaho 83720, (208) 334-4250.
Department of Water Resources
1. Water Resources Loans and Grants Program
(Revolving Development Fund and Water Man-
agement Account). This program has largely
been concerned with water reclamation projects
deemed to be in the public interest. It provides
grants of up to $50,000 and loans up to $500,000
to eligible recipients (irrigation districts, munici-
palities, private corporations, and, in special
cases, individuals). The enacting legislation,
however, is broad enough to include studies of
lake pollution and the regulation or control of
stream flow for aquatic life, and to minimize pol-
lution and protect recreational use of waters.
Contact: Idaho Department of Water Re-
sources, Statehouse, Boise, Idaho 83720.
Department of Parks and Recreation
1. Idaho Waterways Improvement Fund. The
Waterways Improvement Fund Act of 1965 es-
tablished a fund to provide 100% grants to pro-
tect and promote safety and waterway improve-
ment. Eligible activities include creation and
improvement of boat ramps and moorings,
marking of waterways, and the purchase of real
and personal property. Average project grants
are $10,000. $300,000 has been authorized for FY
80.
Applications are accepted in April and Novem-
ber by the Department of Parks and Recreation
local County Waterways Committees.
Contact: Chairman of the appropriate local
County Waterways Committee (name may be
obtained from local County Commissioners).
2. Technical Assistance. The Public Service
Bureau of the State Recreation Division provides
technical assistance to political subdivisions and
others involved in making recreational
opportunities available to the public. Assistance
with planning, park and facility design, applica-
tion for grants-in-aid assistance, information on
the formation of recreational districts, technical
information on operation and maintenance and
access to the Division's professional library is
available.
Contact: Idaho Department of Parks and Rec-
reation, Statehouse, Boise, Idaho 83720, (208)
384-2284.
State Level: Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
1. Lakes Program, Planning Section. The Lakes
Program, Planning Section, of the Division of
Water Pollution Control has been involved in the
lake evaluation process under the 208 Water
Quality Management Planning Program and is
the designated agency to process 314 Clean
Lakes Program proposals. In 1980-81, a lake sur-
vey, classification and restoration priority rank-
ing of up to 250 publicly-owned lakes will be car-
ried out. This information will be made available
for public use in the development of funding re-
quests and lake/watershed management plans.
At the present time, however, no financial assist-
ance is available to provide matching moneys
for the 314 Clean Lakes Program.
Contact: Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Pollution Control,
Lakes Program, Planning Section, 2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706, (217) 782-3362.
-------
H-34
Department of Transportation
Division of Water Resources
The Division of Water Resources in the Depart-
ment of Transportation has been active in
projects related to flood control. They can pro-
vide technical assistance and advisory services
but require special legislative authorization to fi-
nance projects. Past projects have included the
planning, construction and maintenance of wa-
ter resource improvements and facilities in con-
nection with the development of the Kaskaskia
River Watershed, coordination with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in constructing flood
control improvements in the Blue Waters Dike
. Drainage Basin, and the development of recrea-
tional areas in conjunction with creation of a
multipurpose reservoir on Big Kinkaid Creek.
Contact: Illinois Department of Transporta-
tion, Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Lo-
cal Assistance, 2300 South Dirksen Parkway,
Springfield, Illinois 62764, (217) 782-2152.
State Level: Indiana
State Board of Health
Stream Pollution Control Board
1. 3J4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The
Stream Pollution Control Board is the designat-
ed agency to process applications for the Federal
314 Clean Lakes Program. Matching funding
must be provided locally. Emphasis in the past
has been placed on pollution prevention through
extensive classification work, the development
of lake management plans, and the use of regu-
lations (for example, the Phosphorus Control
Law, waste disposal systems regulations, etc.) to
prevent the pollution of the State's lakes. Some
in-kind services from University sources have
been used to match Phase 1 diagnostic studies.
Contact: Indiana State Board of Health,
Stream Pollution Control Board, 1330 West
Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206,
(317) 633-0100.
State Level: Iowa
Department of Environmental Quality
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Iowa
Department of Environmental Quality develops
comprehensive plans and programs for preven-
tion, control and abatement of water pollution
and aids in the establishment of standards, ob-
jectives or criteria for water quality. This agency
has responsibility for the 314 Clean Lakes Classi-
fication and Prioritization Study but does not
have financial assistance available for matching
Federal moneys. The lake classification study
has been contracted to the State Conservation
Commission and Iowa State University. The
Statewide Water Quality Management Plan has
been completed and approved by EPA and Clean
Lakes Program activities have been identified in
the five-year strategy of the Plan. The governor
will be designating the agency to coordinate the
Clean Lakes Program in the future.
Contact: Iowa Department of Environmental
Quality, Henry Wallace Building, Des Moines,
Iowa 50319, (515)281-8949.
State Conservation Commission
The State Conservation Commission.has been
active in the classification and prioritization of
Iowa lakes and in lake restoration projects in-
volving Federal 314 Clean Lakes funding. The
State financial share of these project costs has
come from general legislative appropriations
and marine fuel taxes. No ongoing program ex-
ists, however, to provide grants for these pur-
poses, and it is unlikely that lake restoration
work will be undertaken extensively in the future
except as contracted out by the Department of
Environmental Quality. Technical expertise in
this area might be of considerable value, howev-
er, to future 314 applicants.
1. Boating Fund. The State provides some grant
aid for the development of boating facilities from
funds received from marine fuel taxes. Eligibility
of recipients and project cost restrictions are
flexible.
Contact: Iowa State Conservation Commis-
sion, Waters Section, Henry Wallace Building,
Des Moines, Iowa 50319, (515) 281-3449.
Department of Soil Conservation
1. State Cost Share Fund. The Department of
Soil Conservation allocates funds to 100 Soil
Conservation Districts for cost sharing with land-
owners who construct permanent soil conserva-
tion practices. Usual cost share rate is 50%.
Landowners may receive 75% cost share assis-
tance for work done in the watersheds of desig-
nated State-owned lakes. Funding level is
$5,000,000 each year for FY 79-80 and FY 80-81.
Moneys for 75% cost sharing for State-owned
lakes may not exceed 5% of the appropriation.
The Department has four years to expend the
funds. In addition to permanent practices, the
Department may allow up to 10% of each appro-
priation to be used for incentive payments for
conservation tillage.
Contact: Iowa Department of Soil Conserva-
tion, Henry Wallace Building, Des Moines, Iowa
50319.
State Level: Kansas
Department of Health and Environment
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
administers the Federal 314 Clean Lakes Pro-
gram. No state financial assistance is available at
the present time to match the Federal moneys;
this must be provided locally. Some nonpoint
source planning and inventory of lakes is under-
-------
H-35
way utilizing Department of Health and Environ-
.ment staff.
Contact: Kansas Department of Health and En-
vironment, Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas 66620,
(913) 862-9360.
Fish and Game Commission
1. Community Lake Assistance Project (CLAP).
Utilizing moneys from fishing licenses and fees,
this project enables the Fisheries Division to pro-
vide technical assistance and fish for stocking of
lakes to local, State, and special purpose govern-
mental units. Moneys are also used to match the
Federal Dingel/Johnson Program; the State pro-
viding 25% and the Federal government 75% of
project costs.
Contact: Kansas Fish and Game Commission,
Rural Route 2, Box 54A, Pratt, Kansas 67124,
(316)672-5911.
Water Resources Board
The Water Resources Board has been con-
cerned primarily with water quantity, especially
water storage. They could become involved in
wetland management where water flow control
is important, for example, in a flood control
project. They have coordinated in the past with
the Department of Health and Environment on
planning and policy development.
1. Sfafe Financial Assistance to Certain Public
Corporations or Water Development Projects.
This program can provide reimbursement of
part of the costs for lands, easements and rights-
of-way incurred on a flood control project where
at least 20% of the benefits derived go beyond
the boundaries of such public corporation, the
project is consistent with the area water plan,
the public corporation is deemed needy of such
financial assistance for expenditures within
the fiscal year following, and where funds have
been appropriated by the legislature for such
purposes.
Contact: Kansas Water Resources Board, 503
Kansas Avenue, Topeka, Kansas 66603, (913)
296-3185.
State Level: Kentucky
Department of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Protection
Division of Water Quality
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Di-
vision of Water Quality in the Department of Nat-
ural Resources and Environmental Protection is
the agency designated to coordinate the Federal
Clean Lakes Program. They are able to provide
limited technical assistance and advisory ser-
vices to local communities in the application
process. No state funding is available.
Contact: Kentucky Department of Natural Re-
sources and Environmental Protection, Division
of Water Quality, 1065 U.S. 127 Bypass South,
Century Plaza, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, (502)
564-7885.
Division of Water Resources
1. Community Flood Damage Abatement Pro-
gram. Through this program, the Division of Wa-
ter Resources may provide grants to local gov-
ernmental units for flood prevention measures
and flood damage restoration measures. Engi-
neering design and construction projects that
would be of use in watershed control are eligi-
ble. Approximately $7,500,000 per year has been
allocated. Some funds are provided by local
communities to match the State funds; however,
the amount is flexible depending on the extent
of damage and ability of the community to pay.
These moneys have been used to match some of
the Federal Soil Conservation Service programs
administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Contact: Local Development District Office or
the Kentucky Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection, Division of Water
Resources, Old Wilkenson Street School, Wil-
kenson Boulevard, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601,
(502) 564-3980.
Area Development Districts
1. Area Development Fund. The State pro-
vides moneys by appropriation to regional plan-
ning agencies (Area Development Districts) for
use as grants-in-aid and provides technical as-
sistance to local governmental units for projects
pertaining to recreational and park facility devel-
opment. These moneys have been used in the
past to help provide matching funds for the Fed-
eral Land and Water Conservation Funds.
Contact: Local Area Development District
Office.
County Judges
1. Economic Aid (formerly: Coal Severance Mon-
ies). The county judges in Kentucky allocate rev-
enues from coal taxes as grants to local govern-
ment units for the development of recreation
and park facilities. These moneys have been
used to match the Federal Land and Water Con-
servation Funds administered by the Depart-
ment of Parks.
Contact: Local County Judge's Office.
State Level: Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Pollution Control
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Divi-
sion of Water Pollution Control in the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources is the desig-
nated agency to apply for and accept 314 Clean
Lakes Grants. There are no State funds or pro-
grams set up to match these grants at the
present time. A lake classification study was car-
ried out by the Department of Wildlife and Fish-
eries prior to the shifting of responsibility for the
Clean Lakes Program to the Department of Natu-
ral Resources.
Contact: Louisiana Department of Natural Re-
sources, Office of Environmental Affairs, Divi-
-------
H-36
sion of Water Pollution Control, P. 0. Box 44066,
Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804,
(504) 342-6372.
State Level: Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Lakes and Biological Studies
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Divi-
sion of Lakes and Biological Studies primarily
has the responsibility of lake monitoring for the
State of Maine. A classification priority system
has been developed whereby the public lakes
have been studied, classified according to eu-
trophic condition and twenty lakes have been
identified as needing work to restore their qual-
ity. This agency accepts and submits applica-
tions for the 314 Clean Lakes Program. Thus far,
matching moneys have come from local sources
including in-kind match of technical assistance
by this agency and the Soil Conservation Service.
Contact: Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Lakes and Biological
Studies, State House, Augusta, Maine 04333,
(207)289-2811.
Department of Conservation
Land Use Regulation Commission
The Land Use Regulation Commission has
regulatory control over lakes in the unorganized
portions of the State. They provide no funding
program but do have their own lakes program
which they run in coordination with the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection. This program
is primarily implemented by land use controls
supplemental with land use education efforts.
Contact: Maine Department of Conservation,
Land Use Regulation Commission, State House,
Station #22, Augusta, Maine 04333.
Bureau of Parks and Recreation
1. Municipal Recreation Fund. The Bureau of
Parks and Recreation provides small grants
(maximum project cost of $5,000) to local gov-
ernmental units for projects and programs con-
cerned with park and recreational development.
The State cost shares with the local community
50/50 on projects. $75,000 is available each year
for this program.
Contact: Maine Department of Conservation,
Bureau of Parks and Recreation, State Office
Building, Mail Station 19, Augusta, Maine 40333.
2. Land and Water Conservation Fund (Federal).
The Bureau of Parks and Recreation administers
the Federal Land and Water Conservation Pro-
gram to local governmental units for park and
recreational development. Local sponsoring
units must provide the entire 50% match except
in high priority projects involving boat facilities
for which the State is able'to contribute up to
25% of the project moneys. Check for application
filing periods.
Contact: Maine Department of Conservation,
Bureau of Parks and Recreation, State Office
Building, Mail Station 19, Augusta, Maine 40333.
State Level: Maryland
Department of Natural Resources
Water Resources Administration
1. Clean Lakes Program (Federal). No agency
has been officially designated to administer 314
Clean Lakes applications and 314 Clean Lakes
grants from the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy. The Water Resources Administration has
been involved with 208 Planning and some of
the 208 Regional Planning Commissions have
applied for and received 314 Clean Lakes
funding. At the present time, the local project
sponsor is required to provide matching
moneys.
Contact: Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Water Resources Administration,
Tawes State Office Building, Annapolis, Mary-
land 21401, (301) 269-2224.
2. Program Open Space. The Department of
Natural Resources provides financial assistance
in the form of grants (formula allotment) to local
governmental units for the development of park
and recreational facilities. Half the moneys re-
ceived by the local community may be used for
land acquisition and half for recreational devel-
opment. A 25% match is required of the local
sponsor on the portion that applies to recrea-
tional development. No match is required on the
portion for land acquisition.
Contact: Appropriate county office or Mary-
land Department of Natural Resources, Program
Open Space, Tawes State Office Building, An-
napolis, Maryland 21401.
State Department of Health
1. Water, Ice and Sewerage Program. This pro-
gram provides grants to counties and municipal-
ities for sewage and central source system de-
velopment. Moneys are to be used to provide a
matching funding for the Federal Sewage Con-
struction Grants Program (projects must qualify
for federal aid). The State will cost share 50%
(the other 50% to be provided by the local spon-
sor) of the nonfederally funded portion of project
costs on a 75% Federal grant and 75%/25%
(state/ local) on a 85% Federal grant.
Contact: Maryland State Department of
Health.
State Level: Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering
Division of Waterways
1. Eutrophication and Nuisance Aquatic Vegeta-
tion Control Program. This program involves a
preapplication and final application process in
order for a community to receive funds for con-
-------
H-37
trolling a problem in their lake. Formerly a sim-
ple weed control program, this program now
gives first priority to projects which seek to solve
the eutrophication problem at its source. The
complete span of restoration techniques are eli-»
gible for funding (about $120,000 available
statewide during FY 80). The usual applicant is a
city or town through the board of selectmen,
conservation commission, health department,
etc. This program is expected to be transferred
to the Division of Water Pollution Control in or-
der to consolidate and coordinate all lake func-
tions state-wide.
Contact: Massachusetts Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality Engineering, Division of
Waterways, Room 532, 100 Nashua Street, Bos-
ton, Massachusetts 02114, (617) 727-4797.
Division of Water Pollution Control (314
designated agency)
1. Massachusetts Lakes Program. This program
embodies the State's own program. Activities in-
clude statewide lake classification studies, diag-
nostic-feasibility studies, water assistance re-
search team surveys (WART strikes), 314
coordination and project application administra-
tion, limnological data publication, State project
priority listing, lake association assistance, co-
ordination of Federal-State-local lake rehabilita-
tion efforts, and related activities. Legislation
presently under review, if successful, would pro-
vide up to $2,000,000 in State matching funds for
314 projects as well as provide a firm legislative
mandate for administering a statewide lakes
program.
Contact: Massachusetts Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality Engineering, Division of
Water Pollution Control, P. 0. Box 545, West-
borough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) 366-9181.
2. Accelerated Water Pollution Control Program
(Ch. 21, Sect. 31). This program provides grants
to public entities representing several municipal-
ities for regional sewage and water pollution
abatement planning. Grants are not to exceed
$15,000 per public entity.
Contact: Massachusetts Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality Engineering, Division of Wa-
ter Pollution Control, 110 Tremont Street, Bos-
ton, Massachusetts 02108.
3. Research and Demonstration Projects and Fa-
cilities. The Division of Water Pollution Control
can provide technical assistance and grant aid
for studies and demonstration projects involving
innovative ways of treating sewage. Anyone
with appropriate ideas, including consultants,
universities, communities, etc., may apply.
$1,000,000 has been authorized for FY 80. In the
past, this program provided some matching
moneys for the 314 Clean Lakes Program before
emphasis shifted to sewage treatment. It is un-
likely that it will be used to match 314 funds in
the future.
Contact: Massachusetts Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality Engineering, Division of
Water Pollution Control, P. 0. Box 545, West-
borough, Massachusetts 01581.
208 Regional Planning Commissions
The 208 designated Regional Planning Com-
missions have been especially active in Massa-
chusetts and have coordinated their efforts with
the Department of Environmental Quality Engi-
neering to provide rnformation on priority lakes
and to organize public meetings to involve the
public in lake restoration plans and projects.
Contact: Local Planning Office or Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering, 208 Plan-
ning Division, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston,
Massachusetts 02108.
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Division of Conservation Service
1. Self-Help Program. The Division of Conserva-
tion Service provides grants to Municipal Con-
servation Commissions to cover up to 50% of the
costs of land acquisition for passive recreational
use. Filing deadline for applications is August 31
each year. Only land acquisition costs are eligi-
ble and only Municipal Conservation Commis-
sions may apply.
Contact: Executive Office of Environmental Af-
fairs, Division of Conservation Service, John
Saltonstahl Building, 100 Cambridge Street, Bos-
ton, Massachusetts 02108.
2. Urban Self-Help Program. The Division of
Conservation Service reimburses local Park and
Recreation Commissions of municipalities with a
population of greater than 35,000 for up to 80%
of the costs of land acquisition for park and rec-
reational facilities. Only land acquisition costs
(including appraisals) are eligible for reimburse-
ment. Applications should be in by August 31
each year.
Contact: Executive Office of Environmental Af-
fairs, Division of Conservation Service, John
Saltonstahl Building, 100 Cambridge Street, Bos-
ton, Massachusetts 02108.
Massachusetts Congress of Lake and Pond
Associations, Inc.
The major activity of the Congress is to for-
ward the cause of lakes and ponds on every
front. Their constitution states the purposes as
follows:
1. To perform all acts appropriate to a
nonprofit, scientific, literary, and education-
al corporation dedicated to the promotion
and development of environmental quality
standards essential for satisfactory life
styles and conditions in the natural com-
munity.
2. To preserve the aesthetic, recreational, and
commercial values of lakes and lakeshore
properties through the maintenance and
improvement of such environmental fac-
-------
H-38
tors as watershed ecology, water quality,
lake water levels, shoreline woodland man-
agement, agricultural soils practices, recre-
ational and residential building standards,
and related influences, such as water and
boating safety.
Barely one year old, the Congress is only just be-
ginning to grow and continuously experiments
in innovative ways to become effective for the
cause of lakes and ponds. As their expertise in-
creases the Congress should be able to contrib-
ute more and more to the State and Federal lake
efforts in Massachusetts.
Contact: Massachusetts Congress of Lake and
Pond Associations, Inc., P. 0. Box 312, Westmin-
ster, Massachusetts 01473.
State Level: Michigan
Department of Natural Resources'
Land Resource Programs Division
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The De-
partment of Natural Resources is the agency
designated to administer the 314 Clean Lakes
Program. They are able to provide technical as-
sistance to lake boards (special districts empow-
ered to assess for and engage in activities relat-
ed to lake improvement) concerning in-lake pol-
lution control measures and engineering design.
Such assistance may aid in providing an in-kind
match for federally-funded 314 Clean Lakes
projects.
Contact: Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources, Land Resource Programs Division, In-
land Lake Management Unit, Steven T. Mason
Building, Lansing, Michigan 48926, (517) 373-
8000.
Recreation Service Division
1. Urban Recreation Program. The State will
pay up to 100% of project costs on park and rec-
reational development in the eleven SMSA's in
Michigan. The State generally initiates projects
and carries out the work, turning it over to the lo-
cal community for operation and maintenance.
Contact: Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources, P. 0. Box 30028, Mason Building, Lan-
sing, Michigan 48909.
State Waterways Commission
The State Waterways Commission is active in
acquiring sites for public access to lakes and has
funding to construct and maintain facilities to
enhance access, harbor and channel usage.
Contact: Michigan State Waterways Commis-
sion.
County Board of Supervisors
1. Inland Lake Level Act. The County Board of
Supervisors, with the approval of the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, may initiate, plan,
and execute projects to control lake levels. These
projects are maintained by the county with the
limitation that the County Drain Commission can
only spend up to $1,500 without going to the
board or holding special hearings.
Contact: Local County Board of Supervisors.
2. Inland Lake Improvement Act. The County
Board of Supervisors can provide up to 25% of
the cost of lake level stabilization projects on any
public inland lake.
Contact: Local County Board of Supervisors.
State Level: Minnesota
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
1. Lake Improvement Grants-in-Aid. The Minne-
sota State Legislature has provided moneys for
lake improvement grants-in-aid. Local or region-
al units of government are eligible to apply for
these grants. State funds are available on a
matching basis for eligible projects in receipt of
a Phase 1 or 2 Federal grant pursuant to
USEPA's Clean Lakes Program (Section 314,
Public Law 95-317). For the FY 80-81 biennium,
$60,000 has been allocated for Phase 1 grants
and $985,800 is available for Phase 2 grants. The
Minnesota Pollutiori Control Agency administers
both types of grants which are generally used to
provide up to 50% of the required local funding
under the Clean Lakes Program. Allow 1Vi to 2
years lead time when applying.
Contact: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minne-
sota 55113, (612) 296-7256.
Department of Natural Resources
The Department of Natural Resources will pro-
vide technical assistance in the areas of fish and
wildlife habitat maintenance and development.
They are also responsible for the maintenance,
development, and operation of State parks.
Contact: Minnesota Department of Natural Re-
sources, Centennial Office Building, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55155.
State Soil and Water Conservation Board
In general, over 90% of the grants made by the
State Soil and Water Conservation Board are
made to private landowners or private or gov-
ernment groups. The State provides the guide-
lines for and checks the environmental impact of
proposed projects. Most projects are completed
within one to two years.
1. Cost Share Program. The State Soil and Wa-
ter Conservation Board provides grants to pri-
vate landowners for the provision of conserva-
tion measures. $1,600,000 is authorized annually
for these purposes. Priority is established by the
State on the basis of geographic need and where
moneys are distributed at the local level. South-
ern and southeastern Minnesota have been high
priority areas in the past for this type of assis-
tance.
Contact: Local Soil and Water Conservation
Office.
2. Lakeshore, Streambank, and Roadside Ero-
-------
H-39
sion Program. State grants are available for up
to 50% of project costs on nonfederally-funded
projects or up to 50% of the nonfederally funded
portion of projects qualifying for Federal aid.
Project emphasis is on the control of soil erosion
along streambanks, lakeshores, and roadsides.
Northern Minnesota has been a high priority
area for this program.
Contact: Local Soil and Water Conservation
Office.
3. Flood Control Program. The Soil and Water
Conservation Board, working with 10 counties in
southwestern Minnesota, has $152,000 to spend
annually on flood control facilities and for flood
control purposes having widespread public
benefit.
Contact: Local Soil and Water Conservation
Office.
State Planning Agency
1. Legislative Commission on Minnesota He-
sources Fund. The State Planning Agency ad-
ministers this program to provide matching
grants for the Federal Land and Water Conserva-
tion Funds. The State will provide grants to cov-
er up to 25% of project costs with the exception
that building construction may be funded at only
a 12Vi% level. $2,633,158 has been authorized in
FY 80 for use at the local level. A community rec-
reation plan that includes reference to the park
project under consideration must be on file.
Preapplication deadline is May 2; final applica-
tion deadline is October 3.
Contact: Minnesota State Planning Agency,
Parks and Recreation Grants Section, Office of
Local and Urban Affairs, Room 200, Capitol
Square Building, 550 Wabasha, St. Paul, Minne-
sota 55101.
2. SMSAs Regional Program. This program pro-
vides grants to local, municipal or county gov-
ernment units for the development of parks of
100 acres or more that have some natural ameni-
ty likely to attract people from a regional area.
The State will fund up to 50% of project cost.
Contact: Minnesota State Planning Agency,
Parks and Recreation Grants Section, Office of
Local and Urban Affairs, Room 200, Capitol
Square Building, 550 Wabasha, St. Paul, Minne-
sota 55101.
Metropolitan Council
1. Parks and Open Space Program. The Parks
and Open Space Commission provides both
technical and financial assistance in the form of
grants to local governmental units or lake asso-
ciations (public or private) for projects involving
park and recreational development and/or plan-
ning. It is possible that a project involving lake or
wetland restoration or management might quali-
fy for assistance, but the emphasis has been on
park and recreational use in the past. These
funds have been used to match 314 Clean Lakes
Grants. .
Contact: Metropolitan Council, Parks and
Open Space Commission, 300 Metro Square
Building, 7th and Robert Streets, St. Paul, Minne-
sota 55101.
Watershed Districts
The Watershed Districts have provided a limit-
ed source of funding on small lakes restoration
projects .of their own, using primarily tax mon-
ies.
County
1. Hennepin County Lake Improvement Funds.
Hennepin County has established a lake im-
provement fund that has been utilized on lake
restoration projects. Moneys could provide a
match for a 314 Clean Lakes Grant.
Contact: Hennepin County Environment and
Energy Department.
State Level: Mississippi
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Air and Water Pollution Control
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Wa-
ter Quality Management Section of the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources is the agency desig-
nated to coordinate the Federal 314 Clean Lakes
Program in Mississippi. Personnel in this Section
are presently involved in a classification study.
They are able to provide advisory services
and/or administrative assistance in the project
application and development process, but
matching funding must be supplied at the local
level.
Contact: Mississippi Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Air and Water Pollution
Control, Water Quality Management Section,
P. 0. Box 10385, Jackson, Mississippi 39209,
(601)354-2550.
State Level: Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
1. Water Pollution Control Program. The Divi-
sion of Environmental Quality has responsibility
for administering the Federal 314 Clean Lakes
Program in Missouri. At the present time, they
have undertaken a statewide lake classification
survey. No funding policies have been devel-
oped by the State; however, planning and po-
tential funding sources are being addressed. Lo-
cal funding is required on current projects. In
order to coordinate the efforts of other State and
Federal agencies that are concerned with Mis-
souri Clean Lakes Program, a Lake Restoration
Advisory Committee has been organized. The
Committee is composed of ten members with
one representative from: the Missouri Depart-
ment of Conservation; the University of Missou-
ri-Columbia; Missouri Office of Administration;
the USDA, Agricultural Stabilization Conserva-
tion Service and Soil Conservation Service; the
-------
H-40
Missouri DNR, Division of Parks and Historic
Preservation; the Missouri DNR, DEQ, Water Pol-
lution Control Program, Laboratory Services
Program, Public Drinking Water Program and
Soil and Water Program. The Committee is
chaired by Missouri's Clean Lakes Coordinator
from the Water Pollution Control Program of
DEQ.
Contact: Missouri Department of Natural Re-
sources, Division of Environmental Quality, Wa-
ter Pollution Control Program, P. 0. Box 1368,
2010 Missouri Boulevard, Jefferson City, Mis-
souri 65102, (314) 751-3241.
2. Water Development Fund. The Missouri
Clean Water Commission provides moneys to
match programs under such Federal agencies as
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Soil
Conservation Service for projects involving rec- .
reational development or water supply. No cost
share limits are specified, but usually some local
contribution is required.
Contact: Missouri Department of Natural Re-
sources, Division of Environmental Quality,
Clean Water Commission, 2010 Missouri Boule-
vard, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
State Level: Montana
Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences
Water Quality Bureau
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Bu-
reau of Water Quality is the designated grant re-
cipient and Clean Lakes coordinator for the State
of Montana. They will be undertaking a lake clas-
sification study in 1980. No specific programs
providing assistance, financial or otherwise,
have yet been developed to coordinate with the
Federal 314 Clean Lakes Program.
Contact: Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences, Water Quality Bureau,
Capitol Station, Helena, Montana 59601, (406)
449-2406.
Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation
1. Renewable Resource Development Program.
The Department of Natural Resources and Con-
servation administers a loan and grant program
for projects relating to the conservation, man-
agement, utilization, development or preserva-
tion of the land, water, fish, wildlife, recreational,
and other renewable resources in the State. In
the past, irrigation projects have been funded
primarily, but more recently these moneys have
been used for lake restoration projects as well.
Priority goes first to the provision of loans, sec-
ondly the provision of grants to projects already
receiving other assistance from sources such as
Federal programs, and lastly to projects consid-
ered worthwhile but not receiving any other
funding. In the latter case, assistance may be up
to 100% of project costs. This program could po-
tentially be used as a match for the 314 Clean
Lakes Program. Only governmental units are eli-
gible to apply; local units must be sponsored by
a State agency. $2,000,000/year has been author-
ized for expenditure under this program. The De-
partment of Natural Resources and Conserva-
tion accepts applications until July 1 of even
numbered years and then makes recommenda-
tions to the State legislature for final approval
and appropriation of moneys.
Contact: Montana Department of Natural Re-
sources and Conservation, 32 South Ewing,
Helena, Montana 59601.
2. Conservation District Financial Aid Program.
The Department of Natural Resources and Con-
servation provides financial assistance through
the State's conservation districts to ranchers and
farmers for erosion control projects and other
works of improvement for flood prevention and
the conservation, development, utilization, and
disposal of water within the district.
Contact: Local Conservation District Office.
Department of Community Affairs
1. Montana Coal Board Financial Aid Program.
The Department of Community Affairs adminis-
ters a (funding) program directly to governmen-
tal entities to assist in the alleviation of negative
impacts of coal development in three counties:
Treasure, Big Horn and Rosemount. Applica-
tions are presented to the seven-member Mon-
tana Coal Board for final approval.
Contact: Montana Coal Board, Department of
Community Affairs, 1424 — 9th Avenue, Helena,
Montana 59601.
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Parks Division: Planning and Program
Administration Bureau
Applications must be submitted by November
1 annually. Grant approval decisions are made
by February 1.
Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks, Parks Division, (Attention: LWCF
Coordinator), Helena, Montana 59601.
State Level: Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control
Water Pollution Control Division: Water
Quality Section
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Wa-
ter Quality Section of the Water Pollution Control
Division is the agency designated to coordinate
the Federal Clean Lakes Program in Nebraska. At
the present time, the State has a 314-funded lake
classification study underway. No financial as-
sistance is available from the Department to
match Phase 1 or Phase 2 grants; limited techni-
cal assistance and consultative service is pro-
vided.
Contact: Nebraska Department of Environ-
mental Control, Water Pollution Control Divi-
-------
H-41
sion, Water Quality Section, P. 0. Box 94877,
Statehouse Station, 301 Centennial Mall South,
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509, (402) 471-2186.
Department of Natural Resources
(Water Resource and Use Planning/Non-
regulatory)
1. Natural Resources Development Fund.
Grants and loans are available to State agencies
or political subdivisions having authority to de-
velop the State's water resources. Projects must
be related to the preservation and maintenance
of Nebraska's water and related land resources,
including programs for the abatement of pollu-
tion, reduction of flood damage, development of
fish and wildlife resources, promotion of public
outdoor recreational use, and the acquisition of
land for these purposes. Grants may be made to
political subdivisions when it is determined that
such an allocation will not be reimbursed from
revenue or receipts and when the program or
project appears to be of general public benefit or
as required to meet State matching funds for
Federal grants. These moneys may provide a po-
tential match for the Federal 314 Clean Lakes
Program.
Ecological and environmental consequences
of project implementation should be addressed
during application.
Contact: Nebraska Department of Natural Re-
sources, P. 0. Box 94876, Statehouse Station,
301 Centennial Mall South, Lincoln, Nebraska
68509. .
2. Water Conservation Fund. Grants are avail-
able to individual landowners for up to 75% of
the total costs for implementation of eligible wa-
ter conservation practices with priority being
given to projects providing the greatest number
of public benefits. Eligible projects include the
construction of permanent water impoundment
structures when drainage areas are less than
two thousand acres and the construction of
structures to provide temporary retention of wa-
ter and sediment. Moneys are allocated to re-
source districts for distribution.
Contact: Local Natural Resource District or Ne-
braska Department of Natural Resources, P. 0.
Box 94876, Statehouse Station, 301 Centennial
Mall South, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509.
Game and Parks Commission
The Game and Parks Commission provides
technical assistance to local communities and
sponsors workshops for those interested in park
and recreational planning and development.
They also administer the Federal Land and Wa-
ter Conservation Funds from the Department of
the Interior and its matching State program.
1. Land and Water Conservation Funds. Grants
are available to incorporated political subdivi-
sions and special purpose governmental units
such as schools and natural resource districts for
the acquisition and development of lands and
waters for recreational use. The State will pro-
vide up to 25% of total project costs (50% Feder-
al, 25% local). This program is set up to specifi-
cally match the federal program of the same
name. Of the moneys allocated to Nebraska by
the U.S. Department of the Interior, 60% are
made available to local communities (the re-
maining 40% being used for State projects).
$750,000 per year has been appropriated by the
state legislature for use as matching funding.
Applications should be received by June 30.
Contact: Nebraska Game and Parks Commis-
sion, 2200 North 33rd Street, Lincoln, Nebraska
68503.
State Level: Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Divi-
sion of Environmental Protection provides limit-
ed technical assistance and administrative ser-
vices for the Federal 314 Clean Lakes Program.
No financial assistance is available at the present
time.
Contact: Nevada Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources, Division of Environmen-
tal Protection, Capitol Complex, Carson City,
Nevada 89710, (702) 885-4670.
Division of Forestry
1. Reforestation Assistance. The Division of For-
estry in the Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources provides at-cost plant materi-
al for soil erosion control, watershed protection
and wildlife protection to both private and public
landowners.
Contact: Nevada Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry,
Capitol Complex, Carson City, Nevada 89710.
Division of State Parks
1. State Bonds Program. $5,000,000 has been
authorized for the provision of grants to munici-
palities and counties for the development of rec-
reational facilities including land acquisition.
These funds may be used to match the Federal
Land and Water Conservation Program, where-
by the State will provide 25% of the total project
cost, the U.S. Department of the Interior pro-
vides 50% and the local sponsor contributes
25%.
Applications must be received by June 15.
Contact: Nevada Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks,
Capitol Complex, Carson City, Nevada 89710.
State Level: New Hampshire
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission
1. Lakes Management Program. The Water Sup-
ply and Pollution Control Commission provides
-------
H-42
technical assistance to both private and public,
profit and nonprofit organizations. They are the
designated agency for coordinating both the
Federal 208 Planning and 314 Clean Lakes Pro-
grams. The technical assistance that they can
provide has been used to match one 314 Clean
Lakes project. No State financial assistance is
presently available or anticipated.
Contact: New Hampshire Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission, Concord, New
Hampshire 03301, (603) 271-3503.
State Level: New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Water Resources
1. Lakes Management Program. Technical as-
sistance'in the form of intensive lake/watershed
surveys, ambient monitoring, post-implementa-
tion monitoring, and guidance in applicable pro-
cedures is available and may be used as the in-
kind match for the 314 Clean Lakes Program.
Grants for up to 50% of the nonfederal match for
Phase 1 diagnostic/feasibility studies under the
314 Clean Lakes Program (see Green Acres Pro-
gram that follows for implementation projects),
are also available. Eligible recipients include lake
or watershed management associations, envi-
ronmental commissions, State and local govern-
mental units. To be eligible, a lake must be pub-
licly owned and publicly accessible. $100,000
has been authorized for 1980 Phase 1 studies.
Priority ranking of public lakes, according to evi-
trophic conditions, will be updated each year to
determine future funding allocations.
Contact: New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Division of Water Resources,
Lakes Management Program, P. 0. Box CN029,
Trenton, New Jersey 08625, (609) 292-0424.
2. Green Acres Land Acquisition and Recreation
Opportunities Program. State grants for up to
50% of project costs are available for the acquisi-
tion and development of land and water re-.
sources for recreational and conservational
purposes. Included are long-term wetland man-
agement, lake restoration, specific engineering
design, recreational improvements and bank
stabilization projects. This program has been
used to match Phase 2 implementation projects
under the 314 Clean Lakes Program (up to 40%
of project costs). Eligible recipients include lake
or watershed management associations, envi-
ronmental commissions, and State or local gov-
ernmental bodies where the lake concerned is
publicly owned and accessible. A priority rank-
ing of lakes will determine funding priority. This
program is used to match the Federal Land and
Water Conservation Program as well (see follow-
ing description).
Contact: New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Division of Water Resources,
P. 0. Box 1390, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, (609)
292-2455.
3. Aid for Urban Environmental Concerns. A
new authorization in the New Jersey 1979 Ses-
sion Laws provides grants to municipalities with
populations greater than 15,000 or 10,000/
square mile, where the number of ADC children
exceeds 350, where there is publicly-financed
housing, where the municipality's equalized tax
rate exceeds the State equalized tax rate, and
where the municipality's equalized valuation per
capita is less than the State equalized valuation
per capita. Up to $10,000/year is available to any
environmental agency to provide up to 80% of
cost of projects, including the development of
recreation areas.
Contact: New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Division of Water Resources,
P. 0. Box CN029, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
4. State Aid to Local Environmental Agencies.
Technical and grant assistance is authorized for
local environmental agencies (municipal, county
or soil conservation districts) to pay up to 50% of
project costs (not to exceed $2,500 per year to
any one agency) for any purpose that the agency
is authorized to perform by law and for the prep-
aration of the environmental index.
Contact: New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Division of Water Resources
P. 0. Box CN029, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
State Level: New Mexico
Department of Health and Environment
Environmental Improvement Division:
Water Pollution Control Bureau
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Wa-
ter Pollution Control Bureau in the Department
of Health and Environment has been given the
responsibility of coordinating the 314 Clean
Lakes Program for New Mexico. They are pres-
ently undertaking a classification study of five
New Mexico lakes/The bureau is able to provide
technical assistance as well as advisory services
that would be a potential in-kind match for the
initial diagnostic/feasibility portion of 314
projects. Matching moneys are not presently
available but may be in the future.
Contact: New Mexico Department of Health
and Environment, Environmental Improvement
Division, Water Pollution Control Bureau, P. 0.
Box 968, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503, (505) 827-
5271.
Interstate Stream Commission
1. Water Research Conservation and Develop-
ment Fund. $300,000 per year is made available
for projects seeking solutions to water shortage,
conservation and utilization problems through
research, conservation or development projects
for public benefit. Public agencies, nonprofit cor-
porations and universities are eligible to apply.
No single project may receive more than 40% of
the total available funds. No less than 40% of the
funds are allocated for conservation or develop-
-------
H-43
ment projects providing immediate solutions.
No funds may be used for water distribution sys-
tem construction.
Contact: New Mexico Interstate Stream Com-
mission, Baltan Memorial Building, Santa Fe,
New Mexico 87501.
State Level: New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The De-
partment of Environmental Conservation is the
designated Clean Lakes coordinating agency in
New York. Classification of 800 of the State's
4,000 lakes, according to eutrophic condition, is
under way. Classification is completed accord-
ing to best use. No State financial assistance is
presently available for lake restoration projects;
matching funding has been provided by local
level governments or through HUD Community
Development Grants on past projects. Depart-
ment regulatory permits are required when lake
restoration projects impact wetlands or include
dredging.
Contact: New York Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, Division of Water, 50 Wolf
Road, Albany, New York 12233, (518) 457-5447.
2. State Aid for Comprehensive Study. Grants
may be awarded for the entire cost of preparing
or updating a comprehensive study and report
for present and future collection, treatment and
disposal of sewage. Recently, this program has
also been expanded to look at residual waste
disposal and preliminary assessments of lake
quality. County units of government are eligible
to apply.
Contact: New York Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,
New York 12233, (518) 457-3495.
State Level: North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
Division of Environmental Management:
Water Quality Management Planning
Section
1. Grants for Water Resource Development
Projects. The Water Quality Management Plan-
ning Section of the Division of Environmental
Management in the Department of Natural Re-
sources and Community Development has been
designated as the State coordinating agency for
the Federal 314 Clean Lakes Program. They pro-
vide grants to units of local government for the
nonfederal share of water resource development
projects. These grants could be used to match
314 Clean Lakes projects. They will cover up to
80% of the nonfederal portion of general naviga-
tion projects, up to 25% of recreational naviga-
tion projects, 66V3% on water management
(drainage) and stream restoration projects, 75%
of the nonfederally-funded costs of protecting
privately-owned beaches where public access is
provided, and 50% of the nonfederal portion of
land acquisition and facility development of pub-
lic recreation sites. Small watershed projects re-
viewed by the State Soil and Water Conservation
Commission are not eligible.
Contact: North Carolina Department of Natu-
ral Resources and Community Development, Di-
vision of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Management Planning Section, P. 0. Box
27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, (919) 733-
6126.
Division of Environmental Management:
Environmental Planning Section
1. County Allocation Fund. The Environmental
Planning Section allocates funds to the counties
on the basis of population size for grants provid-
ing up to 25% of the cost of sewage collection
systems. Applications are reviewed April 1, July
1, September 1, and January 1.
Contact: North Carolina Department of Natu-
ral Resources and Community Development, Di-
vision of Environmental Management, Environ-
mental Planning Section, P. 0. .Box 27687,
Raleigh/North Carolina 27611.
Soil and Water Conservation Commission
1. Grants for Small Watershed Projects. The Soil
and Water Conservation Commission provides
grants to local sponsoring organizations to apply
towards the nonfederally-funded share of small
watershed projects including (1) land rights ac-
quisition for impounding or retarding water
(50%), (2) engineering fees (50%), (3) anticipated
future and present water supply needs in con-
junction with watershed improvement works
(50%), (4) installation of recreational facilities
and services (50%), (5) construction costs for wa-
ter management (drainage or irrigation) (66%%),
and (6) the conservation and replacement of fish
and wildlife habitat (75%). This program may not
be used to match the Federal 314 Clean Lakes
Program but could be coordinated with it.
Contact: North Carolina Soil and Water Con-
servation Commission.
County Commissioners
1. Erosion Control Equipment. The County
Board of Commissioners is authorized to pur-
chase equipment to be used by farmers to culti-
vate their lands in such a manner as may best
tend to prevent erosion on the basis of resale or
rental or by guaranteeing the purchase price on
equipment sold directly to farmers.
Contact: Local County Board of Commission-
ers.
State Level: North Dakota
Department of Health
Water Supply Pollution Control Division
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Wa-
ter Supply Pollution Control Division of the De-
-------
H-44
partment of Health is the coordinating agency
for the Federal 314 Clean Lakes Program. Work-
ing with regional councils, water management
boards, lake associations, and municipalities,
they provide limited technical assistance in lake
evaluation and the assessment of the probable
causes of lake problems. They also perform a
monitoring enforcement role in inspecting
feedlot and sewage disp'osal systems.
Contact: North Dakota Department of Health,
Water Supply Pollution Control Division, 1200
Missouri Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501,
(701) 224-2354.
State Water Commission
1. State Water Commission Contract Fund. The
State Water Commission is authorized to take
action to conserve water levels in the State. They
provide financial assistance for certain water re-
source projects including, but not limited to,
municipal water supply, county groundwater
surveys, legal drains, recreation reservoirs,
multipurpose reservoirs, and flood control
projects. Governmental entities, such as county
water management districts, counties, cities or
State agencies, are eligible to apply. The amount
of funding is up to the discretion of the State Wa-
ter Commission
Contact: North Dakota State Water Commis-
sion, State Office Building, Bismarck, North Da-
kota 58505.
Game and Fish Department
1. Game and Fish Department Private Land
Habitat Improvement Fund. The Game and Fish
Department is developing a new cost share pro-
gram that will provide financial assistance to pri-
vate landowners or organizations for imple-
menting conservation practices considered to be
beneficial to fish and wildlife and the manage-
ment of water quality and wetland areas. This
may include the construction of sediment dams
and feedlot management on private lands. This
could be used to match some Federal programs
in the Department of Agriculture (ASCS or ACP
for example).
Contact: North Dakota Game and Fish Depart-
ment, 2121 Lovett Avenue, Bismarck, North Da-
kota 58501.
State Level: Ohio
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Intergovernmental and
Industrial Relations
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Divi-
sion of Intergovernmental and Industrial Rela-
tions (DIGIR) is coordinating with the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources to establish a lake
priority list. At the present time, a Phase 2
project is underway in the State, and several ap-
plications for other potential projects are being
processed. Local sponsors must provide the
matching moneys; OEPA and ODNR will provide
technical assistance and advisory services.
Contact: Ohio Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, Division of Intergovernmental and Industrial
Relations, 3rd Floor, 361 East Broad Street, Co-
lumbus, Ohio 43215, (614) 466-7220.
2. Emergency Village Capital Improvement Ro-
tary Fund (EVCIRF). This fund, administered by
the Division of Intergovernmental and Industrial
Relations, provides financial aid to local govern-
mental units for the preparation of preliminary
or detailed engineering plans for improvements
to their sewerage and public water supply sys-
tem. The average $10,000 to $15,000 awarded to
project sponsors may be used to match Step 1
and 2 of the Federal Construction Grants
Program.
Contact: Ohio Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, Division of Intergovernmental and Industrial
Relations, Coordinator, State, Interstate and In-
dustrial Liaison Section, 361 East Broad Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Natural Areas and Preserves
1. Water and Wetlands Preservation Program.
Individual landowners may receive a 50% real
estate tax reduction under Ohio's Forest Tax Law
if they do not develop wetlands and streams. For
especially valuable natural areas, state and/or
federal agencies may acquire the land directly or
from other concerned interest groups such as
Nature Conservancy that have acquired the land
in advance.
Contact: Ohio Department of Natural Re-
sources, Division of Natural Areas and Pre-
serves, Fountain Square, Columbus, Ohio 43224.
Soil and Water Conservation Districts
1. State Aid Program. The Department of Natu-
ral Resources provides money and reimburse-
ments to water conservation districts for water
conservation projects. $200 is made directly
available to each district each year and up to
$8,000 in reimbursements may be made to local
sponsors. A local match is required but the.
amount is flexible dependent upon the type of
projects and beneficiaries. Emphasis is given to
stream protection.
Contact: Local Soil and Water Conservation
District or the Ohio. Department of Natural Re-
sources, Fountain Square, Columbus, Ohio
43224.
2. State Cost-Share Program for Construction
Improvements. The Department of Natural Re-
sources may cover up to 50% of the nonfederal
funding share of county projects involving the
construction of works of improvement for the
soil and water conservation districts.
Contact: Ohio Department of Natural Re-
sources, Fountain Square, Columbus, Ohio
43224.
-------
H-45
Water Development Authority
The Water Development Authority has been
active in regional water planning, flood planning
and conducting engineering studies, and they
administer the Loan and Grant Program.
1. Loan and Grant Program. The Water Develop-
ment Authority provides loans or grants to
governmental agencies for the acquisition or
construction of water management projects.
Emphasis has been on wastewater management
and water supply programs having beneficial
use, including navigational and recreational
uses of reservoirs and other impoundments.
They are authorized to assist communities in
issuing bonds.
Contact: Ohio Water Development Authority.
State Level: Oklahoma
Department of Pollution Control
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The De-
partment of Pollution Control has been designat-
ed as the State agency in Oklahoma to adminis-
ter the Federal 314 Clean Lakes Program. At the
present time, no programs are available to pro-
vide State matching funds for projects. Technical
assistance is available. A classification study is
underway under contract with the Oklahoma
Water Resources Board. Plans are under consid-
eration for several lake restoration projects
using in-kind match of department personnel
and local moneys.
Contact: Oklahoma Department of Pollution
Control, N.E. 10th and Stonewall Street, P. 0.
Box 53504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152,
(405)271-4677.
State Level: Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The De-
partment of Environmental Quality evaluated
the State's lakes in terms of water quality, identi-
fying twenty-six lakes in need of water quality
improvement. Phase 1 grant applications were
solicited from local sponsors on the fifteen lakes
most likely to benefit from the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram. The applications were rated and the top
five submitted to EPA, which committed 314
funds to all five projects. At the present time,
only limited matching funding is available from
the State for this program.
Contact: Oregon Department of Environmen-
tal Quality, Water Quality Division, 522 S.W. Fifth
Avenue, Yeon Building, Portland, Oregon 97204,
(503) 229-6065.
State Park Department
Division of Parks and Recreation
1. State Grant-in-Aid. The Division of Parks
and Recreation provides grants to governmental
units, park and recreation nonprofit districts and
port districts for the development of (preferably
new) park and recreational facilities. Land acqui-
sition and park maintenance are not eligible
costs. $500,000 was authorized in 1979 for use in
FY 80 and 81. Where no Federal funds are in-
volved, the State will cost share with the local
sponsor (50/50) or if the project is less than
$2,500, the State will pay up to 75% of the project
costs. When used to match the Federal Land and
Water Conservation Funds, the State will pay
25% (local sponsor 25%, Federal 50%) of eligible
project costs.
After funds have been authorized by the State
legislature (by July 4 on odd years), the Division
of Parks and Recreation will solicit applications.
Local sponsors are asked to express commit-
ment to apply by October 15 and then complete
applications by February 1.
Contact: Oregon State Park Department, Divi-
sion of Parks and Recreation, 525 Trade Street
S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310, (503) 378-6305.
State Level: Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
1. Land and Water Conservation and Reclama-
tion Fund. In 1968, a $500,000,000 bond issuance
was authorized by the Pennsylvania Legislature.
The $200,000,000 portion allocated to the De-
partment of Environmental Resources has been
almost entirely spent or obligated to projects in-
cluding, but not limited to, the elimination of
land and water scars from past mining oper-
ations and the prevention, control and elimina-
tion of stream pollution. The $100,000,000 por-
tion first allocated to the Department of Health
for sewage treatment facility construction is now
administered by the Department of Environmen-
tal Resources. The department or other political
subdivisions (counties, municipalities) are eligi-
ble to receive assistance. In the past this has
been an active program in wetland manage-
ment; however, very little funding remains for
future projects.
Contact: Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources, P. 0. Box 2063, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17120.
Division of Water Quality: Bureau of Wa-
ter Quality Management
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Divi-
sion of Water Quality in the Department of Envi-
ronmental Resources has been designated as
the agency to coordinate the Federal Clean Lakes
Program in Pennsylvania. Local watershed or
lake associations must initiate applications and
provide the matching moneys for projects. The
State only performs a reviewing role at the
present time.
Contact: Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources, Division of Water Quality, Bu-
reau of Water Quality Management, P. 0. Box
-------
H-46
2063, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120, (717) 787-
9614.
Division of Storm Water Management:
Technical Services Section
1. Storm Water Management Program. The
Storm Water Management Act of 1978 requires
counties to prepare watershed stormwater man-
agement plans for each designated watershed in
the county, working with neighboring counties
and municipalities when the watershed is of mu-
tual concern. Plans are then reviewed by various
planning agencies up to the regional planning
agency and finally submitted to the Department
of Environmental Resources. A public hearing is
required. Municipalities are required to adopt
and implement zoning, subdivision, building
code, erosion and sedimentation and other ordi-
nances consistent with the plan. The Department
of Environmental Resources is authorized to ad-
minister grants up to 50% of the allowable costs
of preparing the stormwater management plans.
$500,000 were authorized for FY 79. No funds,
however were authorized for FY 80. At the
present time, the Department of Environmental
Resources is preparing a priority list of counties
based on the urgency of need for planning. Such
planning will begin in counties able and willing
to commit the local funding.
Contact: Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources, Division of Storm Water Man-
agement, Technical Services Section, P. 0. Box
2357, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120, (717) 787-
6827.
Territory Level: Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board
1. 374 Clean Lakes Program (Federal), The Envi-
ronmental Quality Board is the coordinating
agency for the Federal 314 Clean Lakes Program
in Puerto Rico. They have completed a lake clas-
sification study and have been authorized to
spend $80,000 a year to match the Federal mon-
eys on future 314 Clean Lakes projects.
Contact: Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board, P. 0. Box 11488, Santurce, Puerto Rico
00910, (809) 725-0717.
2. Industrial and Environmental Pollution Con-
trol Facilities Financing Authority Loan Program.
The Environmental Quality Board administers a
loan program to industrial firms for pollution
control projects including, but not limited to, sol-
id and sewage waste disposal projects.
Contact: Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board, P. 0. Box 11488, Santurce, Puerto Rico
00910.
Recreation Development Company
1. Land and Water Conservation Fund (Federal).
The Recreation Development Company is the
agency that administers the Federal Land and
Water Conservation Program for park and recre-
ational development. Commonwealth funds are
available to provide the 50% matching moneys
but local communities are encouraged to pro-
vide some share as well.
Contact: Recreation Development Company,
P. 0. Box 2923, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00903.
State Level: Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Divi-
sion of Water Resources in the Department of
Environmental Management has been author-
ized to cooperate with the Federal government
to classify the waters of the State of Rhode Is-
land and to develop comprehensive programs to
abate and prevent pollution. At the present time,
this is the designated agency to coordinate the
314 Clean Lakes Program; however, because
Rhode Island has very few freshwater lakes, this
prograin has not had high priority for State
funding assistance and no projects have yet
been undertaken.
Contact: Rhode Island Department of Environ-
mental Management, Division of Water Re-
sources, 209 Cannon Building, 75 Davis Street,
Providence, Rhode Island 02908, (401) 277-2234.
Division of Parks and Recreation
1. Recreation Development Funds. The Division
of Parks and Recreation administers the Federal
Land and Water Conservation Program for park
and recreational development at both the State
and local levels. The Recreation Development
Fund, with moneys from State beach, park and
concession fees, is available to provide the 50%
match in State projects only. Local communities
need to provide the 50% match out of local rev-
enues. The Division of Parks and Recreation will
provide technical assistance on projects and aid
in the application procedure for Federal funding.
Contact: Rhode Island Department of Environ-
mental Management, Division of Parks and Rec-
reation, 83 Park Street, Providence, Rhode Island
02903.
Division of Fish and Wildlife
The Division of Fish and Wildlife uses hunting
and fishing license fees to match Federal pro-
grams and to run State programs relating to fish
and wildlife habitat enhancement and to acquire
land for these purposes. Moneys are not avail-
able for local use. This might be a potential
source of matching moneys for the Federal 314
Clean Lakes Program if the project were to fit
the Division of Fish and Wildlife's program
requirements.
Contact: Rhode Island Department of Environ-
mental Management, Division of Fish and
Wildlife, Washington County Government Cen-
ter, Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879.
-------
H-47
Department of Administration
1. Statewide Planning Program. The Depart-
ment of Administration is the agency involved in
the 208 Planning and 303 Basin Planning
processes. Although they do not have moneys
for the implementation of their recommenda-
tions, they could be useful in providing technical
assistance (in-kind match) for Phase 1 feasibility
studies under the Federal 314 Clean Lakes
Program.
Contact: Rhode Island Department of Admin-
istration, Statewide Planning Program, 265 Mel-
rose Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02907.
State Level: South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental
Control
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The De-
partment of Health and Environmental Control is
the agency designated to administer the Federal
314 Clean Lakes Program. They are able to pro-
vide technical assistance as well as advisory ser-
vices to local units of government in the applica-
tion process, but matching moneys must be
provided locally.
Contact: South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Co-
lumbia, South Carolina 29201, (803) 758-3944.
State Level: South Dakota
Department of Water and Natural Resources
Office of Water Quality
1. State Lakes Protection and Rehabilitation
Grants. The South Dakota Department of Water
and Natural Resources provides grants to State
and local government units for projects involved
with water quality restoration and watershed
control. Eligible projects include, but are not
limited to, the construction of sediment traps,
waterways, terraces, riprapping, the establish-
ment of buffer zones, dredging, chemical
flocculation of nutrients, lake bottom sealing,
aeration, and the preparation of construction
drawings, specifications, estimates and contract
documents as well as the costs of project super-
vision and provision of materials. $300,000 has
been authorized for FY 80 to cover up to 25% of
the costs of federally-funded projects and up to
60% of costs when Federal funding is not avail-
able. Grants may be up to 100% for projects on
lakes which are principally surrounded by State-
owned land. No more than 40% of each year's al-
location may go to one project. This program
may be used to match the Federal 314 Clean
Lakes program if the lake under consideration is
among those lakes that have been classified as
fisheries and if it provides for adequate public
access and use. No funds have been authorized
forFY81.
Projects must have the approval of the affect-
ed conservation district, have undergone a pub-
lic hearing and have been placed on the State's
project priority list. Following final adoption of
the project priority list, applicants have 60 days
to apply for Federal funds.
Contact: South Dakota Department of Water
and Natural Resources, Office of Water Quality,
Room 413, Joe Foss Building, Pierre, South Da-
kota 57501, (605)773-3351.
State Level: Tennessee
Department of Public Health
Division of Water Quality Control
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The De-
partment of Public Health, Division of Water
Quality Control, is the State coordinating agency
for the Federal 314 Clean Lakes Program. They
are presently involved in a classification study of
Tennessee's lakes. They are able to provide advi-
sory services for the 314 grant application proc-
ess. Matching funds must be provided locally.
Contact: Tennessee Department of Public
Health, Division of Water Quality Control, 621
Cordell Hull Building, Nashville, Tennessee
37219, (615)741-2275.
State Level: Texas
Department of Water Resources
Division of Construction Grants Engineer-
ing and Water Quality Planning
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Divi-
sion of Construction Grants Engineering and
Water Quality Planning in the Department of
Water Resources is the agency designated to
coordinate and apply for Federal 314 Clean
Lakes Grants. Matching moneys for Clean Lakes
projects must be provided at the local level. The
department also performs a monitoring role in
assessing lake quality on 102 reservoirs in the
State.
Contact: Texas Department of Water Re-
sources, Division of Construction Grants Engi-
neering and Water Quality Planning, P. 0. Box
13087, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711,
(512)475-3926.
Department of Parks and Wildlife
1. Local Parks and Recreation and Open Space
Program. A new program modeled around the
same guidelines as the Land and Water Conser-
vation Program but using State moneys instead
of Federal moneys and directed specifically at
projects developing park and recreational facili-
ties in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
(SMSA's) is being implemented at the present
time. The State will provide up to 50% of the
project costs. $60,000,000 per year has been au-
thorized by the legislature for this program for
the next four years. Priority is considered in
terms of how well projects meet the needs iden-
tified in the State Outdoor Recreation Plan with
water-related activities having high priority.
-------
H-48
Contact: Texas Department of Parks and
Wildlife, Grants-in-Aid Branch, 4200 Smith
School Row, Austin, Texas 78744.
State Level: Utah
Department of Health
Division of Environmental Health: Bureau
of Water Pollution Control
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Bu-
reau of Water Pollution Control in the Division of
Environmental Health is undertaking a classifica-
tion study of Utah's freshwater lakes at the
present time. They expect to be able to provide
technical assistance as well as advisory services
to local governmental units applying for Federal
314 Clean Lakes Grants in the future.
Contact: Utah Department of Health, Division
of Environmental Health, Bureau of Water Pollu-
tion Control, P. 0. Box 2500, Salt Lake City, Utah
84110, (801)533-6146.
Department of Community Affairs
1. Community Impact Fund. The Department of
Community Affairs has a limited amount of
funding ($2,000,000-33,000,000 each year) to ad-
minister as grants to local and State governmen-
tal units for studies or corrections of problems
relating to community impact. Projects may in-
clude, but are not limited to, sewage and water
pollution problems resulting from community
location near lakes and streams. Projects may be
funded up to 100%, but project size may be limit-
ed depending on available funds.
Contact: Utah Department of Community Af-
fairs, Room 110, State Capitol, Salt Lake City,
Utah 84110.
State Level: Vermont
Agency of Environmental Conservation:
Department of Water Resources
Division of Water Quality
1. Lakes and Ponds Program. The Lakes and
Ponds Program consists of three phases: 1)
lakes and ponds surveillance to monitor water
quality and identify lakes with water quality
problems, 2) lakes and ponds studies to docu-
ment in greater depth the eutrophic status of
lakes selected for Phase 1 studies under the Fed-
eral 314 Clean Lakes Program, and 3) manage-
ment and restorative action with the develop-
ment of lake management and restoration
programs including use of Phase 2 Federal Clean
Lakes Implementation Grants. In-kind services
have provided a partial match for two 314 Clean
Lakes projects.
Contact: Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation, Department of Water Resources,
Division of Water Quality, State Office Building,
Montpelier, Vermont 05602, (802) 828-2761.
2. Aquatic Nuisance Control Program. Technical
assistance and grants-in-aid are available
through this program for projects involving wa-
tershed control, in-lake control, and/or planning
that emphasizes aquatic nuisance control includ-
ing, but not limited to, rooted aquatic vegetation,
algal populations and sediment deposits. State
and local governmental units are eligible to re-
ceive aid. A local sponsor must contribute a
minimum of 25% of the project costs. This pro-
gram may be used to match the Federal 314
Clean Lakes Program (Phase 1 and Phase 2). A
preliminary biological survey is required before
release of funds.
Contact: Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation, Department of Water Resources,
Division of Water Quality, State Office Building,
Montpelier, Vermont 05602, (802) 828-2761.
Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation
Recreation Section
1. State Matching Funds. Mathing funds (20-
35% of project costs) are available to match Fed-
eral programs related to recreational develop-
ment. State and local governmental entities are
eligible.
Contact: Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation, Department of Forest, Parks and
Recreation, Recreation Section, State Office
Building, Montpelier, Vermont 05602.
State Level: Virginia
State Water Control Board
Division of Ecological Studies: Bureau of
Surveillance and Field Studies
1.3/4 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). The Bu-
reau of Surveillance and Field Studies has re-
sponsibility for coordinating the Federal 314
Clean Lakes Program. The matching moneys on
projects must be provided locally. The Bureau is
able to provide technical assistance and adviso-
ry services in the application process.
Contact: Virginia State Water Control Board,
Division of Ecological Studies, Bureau of Surveil-
lance and Field Studies, P. 0. Box 11143, Rich-
mond, Virginia 23230, (804) 257-0943.
Commission of Outdoor Recreation
Grants Section
1. Virginia Outdoors Fund. The Virginia Out-
doors Fund consists of Federal moneys from the
Land and Water Conservation Program and
State appropriated funds when available. The
Grants Section administers a reimbursable pro-
gram to cover up to 50% of the costs of park and
recreational facilities development including
land acquisition if development is to occur at
some present or future time. Sponsors (State,
municipal and county governmental units and
regional park authorities) must be capable of fi-
nancing the project while requesting periodic re-
imbursement. Eligible projects must be ap-
proved by the nine-member Commission of
Outdoor Recreation; priority is given to water-
based acquisition projects and to those projects
-------
H-49
that are communitywide in scope. Individual
projects may range in cost from a minimum of
$25,000 to a maximum of $500,000.
Contact: Virginia Commission of Outdoor Rec-
reation, Grants Section, 8th and Franklin Streets,
Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 786-1299.
Recreation Services Section
This section of the Commission of Outdoor
Recreation is the advisory and consulting por-
tion providing technical assistance to park and
recreational interests.
Contact: Virginia Commission of Outdoor Rec-
reation, Recreation Services Section, 8th and
Franklin Streets, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
State Level: Washington
Department of Ecology: Water Pollution
Control Agency
1. Lake Restoration Program (Referendum 26
Funds). In the past this program has provided
technical assistance and grants for projects in-
volved with both point and nonpoint source wa-
tershed and in-lake pollution abatement meas-
ures. State matches (up to 40% of project costs)
for lake projects funded under Section 104 (h)
(research, investigations, training and informa-
tion programs for lakes) of Public Law 92-500,
and for sewage treatment construction grants
(15%) have come from this program. For
projects not qualifying for Federal moneys, the
State has paid up to 50% of project costs. Em-
phasis now is on use of this program for waste
treatment; use for lake restoration projects is be-
ing reevaluated. Local governmental units are
eligible.
Contact: Washington Department of Ecology,
State Water Pollution Control Agency, P. 0. Box
829, Olympia, Washington 98504, (206) 753-
3886.
2. State Grant Program (Referendum 38 Funds).
Approved by the voters in November, 1980, this
new program will, over the first 2 years, phase
out the Lake Restoration Program mentioned
previously. Grants under this program may be
used for both point and nonpoint source control
and thus will be available for matching the Fed-
eral 314 Clean Lakes Program in the same man-
ner as the previous Lake Restoration Program
was used. Participation by the State of Washing-
ton in 314 Phase 1 diagnostic feasibility studies
is uncertain at present, as are funding arrange-
ments for such studies. The State does, howev-
er, intend to participate in Phase 2 implementa-
tion projects for controlling pollution entering
lakes and for restoring lakes. Project costs for
Phase 2 projects will be shared by the Federal
314 Program, the Washington Department of
Ecology, and the local project sponsors accord-
ing to a 50:40:10 ratio*. However, projects receiv-
ing moneys under the Federal Sewage Treat-
ment Construction Grants Program will no
longer receive State funds but will require a 25%
local match. Projects not receiving Federal mon-
eys will be funded up to 50% by the State.
Project requirements for the State program will
be similar to those required for the Federal pro-
gram; however, the goals of the two programs
may be somewhat different.
Contact: Washington Department of Ecology,
State Water pollution Control Agency, P. 0. Box
829, Olympia, Washington 98504, (206) 753-
3886.
Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation
1. Recreation Grants-ln-Aid. The Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) admin-
isters funds to eligible local and State agencies
to acquire and develop parks. Funds in the Out-
door Recreation Account come from voter-ap-
proved bond issues, from Initiative 215, and
from the Federal Land and Water Conservation
Fund. Local agencies eligible to receive grants-
in-aid include counties, municipalities, park dis-
tricts, park and recreation districts, and other
municipal corporations and certain Indian tribes.
Local agencies generally are expected to provide
25% of total project costs.
A current comprehensive park and recreation-
al plan and capital improvement program must
be on file with IAC. IAC planning personnel are
available to assist local communities in develop-
ing and updating their local plans.
Contact for planning: Washington Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Planning
Services Division, 4800 Capitol Boulevard,
Tumwater, Washington 98504.
Contact for grants: Washington Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Project
Services Division, 4800 Capitol Boulevard,
Tumwater, Washington 98504, (206) 753-7140.
Parks and Recreation Commission
1. Parks and Recreation Consultation. This Com-
mission studies and appraises the parks and rec-
reation needs of the State; consultation and ad-
vice is provided to political subdivisions and
other organizations based on this information.
Aid in developing recreation programs, planning
park areas or facilities or in analyzing financial
requirements is available.
Contact: Washington Parks and Recreation
Commission, 7150 Cleanwater Lane, Thurston
Airdustrial Center, Olympia, Washington 98504,
(206) 753-5763.
Department of Game
1. Habitat Development Program. Designed to
develop wildlife habitat on private and public
lands through a legal cooperative agreement be-
tween the landholder and the Department of
Game, this program provides for shrubs, trees,
grasses, legumes, and installation of watering
-------
H-SO
devices. The program, initiated at the discretion
of the Washington State Department of Game,
works in conjunction with the Federal Pittman-
Robertson Program with emphasis on upland
bird enhancement. Research and management
of urban wildlife can also be provided under the
nongame program including development work
for vegetational and aquatic alteration favorable
to birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and
nongame fishes.
Contact: Washington State Department of
Game, Game Management Division, 600 North
Capitol Way, Olympia, Washington 98504, (206)
753-5728.
State Level: West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
1. 314 Clean Lakes Program (Federal). Due to
the lack of natural lakes and trie absence of pol-
lution. West Virginia is not participating in the
EPA Clean Lakes Program at this time. The only
large lakes in West Virginia are Corps of Engi-
neer impoundments and they are presently
monitoring and maintaining water quality in
these reservoirs.
Contact: West Virginia Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Resources, 1201
Greenbrier Street, Charleston, West Virginia'
25311, (304)348-5902.
West Virginia Water Development Authority
1. Small Business Pollution Control Financing
Program. The West Virginia Water Development
Authority (WDA), in cooperation with the U.S.
Small Business Administration, is undertaking a
new program to enable credit-worthy small busi-
ness to finance water pollution abatement facili-
ties. The WDA issues pollution control revenue
bonds to finance the facilities which will be
owned by WDA and leased to small businesses
under a lease/purchase agreement. Generally,
the amount of the principal, which may be guar-
anteed, may not exceed $4,000,000. Repayment
may be up to 25 years. Commercial banks act as
sponsors of small businesses' applications for
assistance.
Contact: West Virginia Water Development
Authority, 1201 Dunbar Avenue, Dunbar, West
Virginia 25064, (304) 348-3612.
Governor's Office of Economic and
Community Development
1. Community Partnership Grants and Loans
Program. Funded by an appropriation from the
West Virginia Legislature, this program provides
funds for projects having an impact on growth
and economic development of a particular area
and stimulating the investment of private capi-
tal. Such projects as water and sewer facilities
are included. This is meant to be a secondary
source of funding for projects having other pri-
mary funding sources.
Contact: West Virginia Governor's Office of
Economic and Community Development, State
Capitol, Charleston, West Virginia 25305.
State Level: Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Inland Lake Renewal
1. Study and Implementation Grants. These
funds are available to lake districts for use in wa-
tershed control of nonpoint pollution and animal
waste, streambank stabilization, in-lake treat-
ments that are noncosmetic, and for engineering
design. They could potentially be used for
lake/lakeshore usage, education training and/or
planning purposes but generally are not. Techni-
cal assistance on study designs, data evaluation
and management options is also available.
Lakes must be accessible to the general public
via public lands or easement. $1,300,000 has
been authorized for FY 80. The State will pay up
to 60% of studies and 80% of implementation
projects; no project may receive more than 10%
of available funds. Funds may be used to match
with Federal Section 314, Clean Lakes^ funds, the
local sponsor's share ranging around 20% in this
case.
Grant applications for studies are filed prior to
October 1 and funded by April 1. Processing time
for implementation grants, for which a public
hearing is required, is usually a minimum of 6
months.
Apply to: Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Office of Inland Lake Renewal, Box
7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707, (600) 266-3125
or county extension agent.
2. Wisconsin Funds. Grant funds as well as tech-
nical assistance are available for both point and
nonpoint source water pollution abatement. The
State will pay up to 60% of the cost of municipal
waste treatment systems not receiving Federal
funds to local government units when the State
assesses and determines that need is of high pri-
ority. Waste facilities (septic tanks) may be
funded for private landowners where the re-
quest is made by the county. Finally, State
grants up to 50% of the project cost (the local
share being at least 30%) are available for imple-
menting measures to meet nonpoint source wa-
ter pollution abatement needs identified in
areawide water quality management plans (dur-
ing the 208 planning process) when requested
by the designated management agency. Focus
for this program is on providing assistance in.
critical geographic locations where watershed
problems .are most severe but control is most
feasible.
Contact: Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources, Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707 or
county extension agent.
Bureau of Aid Programs
1. Outdoor Recreation Action Program. The Lo-
-------
H-51
cal Park Aids portion of this program allocates
moneys to local county governmental units for
distribution to local communities in the form of
grants for the purpose of park development in-
cluding park facility construction, development,
and land acquisition costs. Grants may be up to
50% of project costs. $1,000,000 was allocated to
Wisconsin's counties in 1979-80 for this pro-
gram.
Across the State, six community service spe-
cialists have been designated to assist local gov-
ernmental units in the development of plans, ap-
plication procedures, etc.
Contact: Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources, Bureau of Aid Program, Box 7921,
Madison, Wisconsin 53707 for further informa-
tion!
2. Boating Recreation Program. The State pro-
vides grants for up to 50% of project costs for the
development of boating facilities. Local govern-
mental units are eligible to apply for assistance.
Contact: Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources, Bureau of Aid Programs, Box 7921,
Madison, Wisconsin 53707.
Board of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts
1. So/7 and Water Conservation — Sfafe Aid Pro-
gram. $1,000 is made available annually to soil
and water conservation districts where plans are
approved by the board for the purpose of provid-
ing technical and nontechnical services, materi-
als necessary for planning and application of
conservation measures, field equipment and
education materials. Project funding, up to 50%
of the project cost or $1,000 whichever is less, is
possible.
Contact: Local Soil and Water Conservation
District office.
-------
1-1
APPENDIX I
CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCEDURES
Both diagnostic-feasibility studies and imple-
mentation projects vary widely in size and com-
plexity. Some applicants have experts on staff
who can undertake either Phase 1 or Phase 2
work in-house, while others may find it neces-
sary to retain consultants. Consulting services
can range from the assistance of a single expert
in one aspect of a study — nonpoint source mon-
itoring, for example — to management and ex-
ecution of an entire project by an environmental
consulting firm. This appendix has been includ-
ed in the manual to assist recipients of coopera-
tive agreement awards in obtaining whatever
consulting services they may require.
Consultant selection should be performed in
accordance with the EPA regulations published
in the Federal Register (40 CFR Part 33)
"Subagreements—Minimum Standards for Pro-
curement Under EPA Grants." These regulations
indicate that, for professional services, the selec-
tion of consultant by negotiation is recommend-
ed. Competitive bidding and formal advertising
are not required in this process, but competition
appropriate to the type of project work to be per-
formed should be maximized.
The types of expertise needed for lake protec-
tion and restoration — limnology, water quality
evaluations, watershed management, nonpoint
source control, in-lake restoration procedures,
and benefits assessment— may be found at uni-
versities, public and private research organiza-
tions, environmental consulting companies, or
engineering firms. However, lake work is a spe-
cialty, and the applicant is encouraged to care-
fully evaluate the specific experience and exper-
tise of any consultant being considered,
regardless of size or reputation.
The selection procedure, which is probably the
least burdensome for the procuring agency and
prospective consultants alike, begins with the is-
suance of a brief description of the project, the
services required, and a request for statements
of qualification. This procedure should result in a
group of interested individuals, or organizations,
which can be screened to produce a list of con-
sultants to be invited for interviews. (Agencies
with first-hand knowledge of several consultants
in this field may choose to omit the request for
qualifications and proceed directly to inter-
views.)
At the interview, as well as in reviewing state-
ments of qualification, the specific questions
which should be asked of prospective consul-
tants include at least those listed below.
1. What is their experience in performing
physical, chemical and biological lake
studies?
2. What experience do they have in monitor-
ing and analyzing nonpoint sources, in-
cluding installation and operation of auto-
mated monitoring stations and stream
gaging stations (see Section 10.0 of this
manual)?
• 3. What experience do they have in analyz-
ing dry and wet weather data along with
groundwater, septic tank, dryfall and
wetfall, and point source data to calculate
an annual nutrient and sediment budget
for a lake?
-------
1-2
4. What experience and expertise do they
have in determining and evaluating the
trophic condition of lakes?
5. What experience and expertise do they
have in evaluating lake response to reduc-
tions in nutrient loadings?
6. What experience do they have in evaluat-
ing and designing best management prac-
tices (including development of runoff
control ordinances, etc.) and in-lake resto-
ration methodologies?
7. What experience do they have in analyz-
ing institutional and financial approaches
for implementing proposed watershed
management and in-lake restoration
activities?
8. Have they had experience in cost-effec-
tiveness analysis as a basis for public
agency decision-making?
9. Are they experienced in benefits assess-
ment, especially in water-related recrea-
tion projects?
10. Have they prepared environmental evalu-
ations, assessments, or impact state-
ments?
11. What experience do they have in assisting
with public participation activities?
12. What knowledge of and experience with
the EPA Clean Lakes Program do they
have?
The applicant should request specific examples
of the above experience and references to call
for verification.
One particular word of caution is warranted
because of the importance of state-of-the-art wa-
tershed management practices in lake protection
and restoration projects. The applicant should
be aware of the significant difference between
traditional stormwater management (i.e., design
of storm sewers based on standard engineering
formulas and criteria) and the performance of
nonpoint source/storm water management stud-
ies. In general, best management practices to
control nutrients and sediment in watershed
management of stormwater do not necessarily
include standard storm sewers.
-------
Appendix J
REFERENCES
J-1
Alan H. Plummer Associates, Inc. 1979. Evaluation of
nonpoint sources of pollution in Louisiana. Louisiana
Areawide 208 Study.
American Public Health Association. 1975. Standard meth-
ods for the examination of water and wastewater. 14th ed.
Washington, D.C. 1193 p.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1976. Annual
book of ASTM standards. Part 31, water, standard D, p.
1126-1167. Philadelphia, Pa.
Armour, G. D., D. W. Brown, and K. T. Marsden. 1979. Studies
on aquatic macrophytes. Part XV: An evaluation of bottom
barriers for control of Eurasian water milfoil in British Co-
lumbia. Water Investigations Board, Ministry of the Envi-
ronment, Province of British Columbia, Canada. File No.
0316533. 33 p.
Aschenbrenner, K. M. 1976. Multianribute bewertung
medizinischer therapiealternativen. Research Report, SFB
24. University of Mannheim.
Autenbach, D. B., N. C. Clesceri, and Mitchell. 1979. The im-
pact of sewers on the nutrient budget of Lake George, New
York. Fresh Water Institute Report 79-8.
Bachmann, R. W. 1980. Eutrophication: role of agricultural
sediments and chemicals. J. Water Poll. Contr. Fed. (in
press).
Bailey, G. W., and T. E. Waddell. 1979. Best management
practices for agriculture and silviculture: an integrated
overview. In R. C. Loehr, et al. Best Management Practices
for Agriculture and Silviculture. Cornell Agricultural Waste
Management Conference, Proc. Ann Arbor Science Pub-
lishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Bailey, W. M. 1978. A comparison offish populations before
and after extensive grass carp stocking. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 107:181-206.
Bardach, J. E., J. H. Ryther, and W. O. McLarnsby. 1972.
Aquaculture. The farming and husbandry of freshwater
and marine organisms. Wiley-lnterscience, New York. 808
p.
Bauer, Volker and Michael Wegener. 1975. Simulation, evalu-
ation, and conflict analysis in urban planning. Proceedings
of the IEEE 63(31:405-413.
Beard, T. 0. 1973. Overwinter drawdown. Impact on the
aquatic vegetation in Murphy Flowage, Wisconsin. Wis-
consin Debt. Nat. Res. Tech. Bull. 61. 61 p.
Bengtsson, L. 5., G. Fleischer. Lindmark, and W. Ripl. 1975.
The Lake Trummen restoration project. I. Water and sedi-
ment chemistry. Verh. Internal. Verein Limnol.
19:1080-1087.
Browne, F. X., and P. B. Bedient. 1977. Analysis of Nonpoint
Source Data. ASCE National Environmental Engineering
Conference (Nashville, Tenn.), Proc.
Bryan, E. H. 1972. Quality of stormwater drainage from urban
land. Water Res. Bull. 8 (3).
Burton, T. M., D. L. King, and J. L. Ervin. 1979. Aquatic plant
harvesting as a lake restoration technique. National Con-
ference on Lake Restoration (Minneapolis, Minn.), Proc. p.
177-185. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C. EPA-440/5-79-001.
Canfield, D. E. 1979. Prediction of total phosphorus concen-
trations and trophic states in natural and artificial lakes:
the important of phosphorus sedimentation. Ph.D. Thesis
Iowa State Univ. Ames (Catalog No. 8000120) Univ. Micro-
films. Ann Arbor. Mich.
Carlson. R. E. 1973. A review of the philosophy and construc-
tion of trophic state indices, p.1-52. In T.E. Maloney. Lake
and Reservoir Classification system. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-600/
3-79-074.
1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 22:361-369.
Carpenter, S. R. and M. S. Adams. 1977. Environmental im-
pacts of mechanical harvesting of submersed vascular
plants. Institute for Environmental Studies. Report No. 77.
Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wise. 29 p.
Chapra, S. C. .1975. Comment on an empirical method of esti-
mating the retention of phosphorus in lakes by W. B.
Kirchner and P. J. Dillon. Water Resour. Res.
11(61:1033-1034.
Chernoff, B. 1975. A Method for digestion of fish tissue for
heavy metal analyses, transactions. American Fisheries
Society. 4:803.
-------
J-2
.Chow, V. T. led.). 1964. Handbook of applied hydrology.
'McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Cole. Gerald A. 1980. A textbook of limnology. Mosby, St.
Louis, Mo.
Cdoke, G. 0. 1980a. Biological control of aquatic plant
nuisances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecol.
Res. Ser. (in review).
1980b. Covering bottom sediments as a lake restora-
tion technique. Wat. Res. Bull. 16(5). (in press).
1980c. Lake level drawdown as a macrophyte control
technique. Wat. Res. Bull. 16(2):317-322.
Cooke, G. 0., and M. E. Gorman. 1980. Effectiveness of
OuPont Typar sheeting in controlling macrophyte
regrowth after overwinter drawdown. Wat. Res. Bull.
16:353-355.
Cooke, G. 0., and R. H. Kennedy. 1980s. Precipitation and in-
activation of phosphorus for eutrophic lake restoration.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecol. Res. Ser. (in
press).
1980b. State of the art summary of phosphorus inac-
tivation as a lake restoration technique. Algae Manage-
ment and Control Workshop. Proc. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers (in press).
Cooke, G. 0., R. T. Heath, R. H. Kennedy, and M. R. McComas.
1978. Effects of diversion and alum application on two eu-
trophic lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. EPA-600-3-78-033.
Curriar, J. B., L. E. Sieverts, and R. C. Maloney. 1974. An ap-
proach to water resources evaluation of nonpoint sources
from silvicultural activities: a procedural handbook. Water-
shed Systems Department Group, U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture, Forest Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Davis, M. J., and J. W. Nebgen. 1979. Estimation of agricul-
tural nonpoint loads to the Wakasusa River Basin using the
"nonpoint calculator." In R. C. Loehr, et al. led.] Best Man-
agement Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture. Cornell
Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Proc. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor Mich.
Darrs, S. T. 1978. Regulatory program for nonpoint source
control. Revised Program Guidance Memorandum
SAM-31. Office of Water Planning and Standards, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Dillon, P. J. The phosphorus budget of Cameron Lake, Ontar-
io: the importance of flushing rate relative to the degree of
eutrophy of a lake. 1975. Limnol. Oceanog. 29:28-39.
Dillon, P. J. and F. H. Rigler. 1974. The phosphorus chloro-
phyll relationship in lakes. Limnol. and Oceanog.
19:767-773.
Driscoll, E. D., D. DiToro, M. Small. 1979. A statistical method
for the assessment of urban stormwater. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-440V3-79-023.
Driscoll, E. D., and J. Mancini. 1979. Assessment of benefits
resulting from control of combined sewer overflow. In
Benefit Analysis for CSO Control, EPA Technology Trans-
fer 201 Program Seminars. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-625/4-79-013.
Edmondson, W. T. 1970. Phosphorus, nitrogen and algae in
Lake Washington after diversion of sewage. Science.
169:690-691.
Edwards, W., M. Buttentag, and K. Snapper. 1975. Effective
evaluation: a decision theoretical approach. In E.
Streunlng and M. Guttentag (eds.). Handbook of Evalua-
tion Research. Vol. 1. Sage Publications.
Edwards, W. 1977. Public values: how to use multiattribute
utility measurement for social decision making. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. SMC-7I5):
326-340.
1979. Multiattribute utility measurement: evaluating
desegregation plans in a highly political context. In R,
Perloff (ed.). Evaluator Interventions: Pros and Cons. Sage
Publications.
Environmental Law Institute. 1977. Legal and institutional ap-
proaches to water quality management planning and im-
plementation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Fast, A. W. 1979. Artificial aeration as a lake restoration tech-
nique. National Conference on Lake Restoration (Minne-
apolis, Minn.) Proc. p. 121-131. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-440/5-79-001.
Fast, A. W., and M. W. Lorenzen. 1976. Synoptic survey of
hypolimnetic aeration. J. Env. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. Civil
Eng. 102:1161-1173.
Ford, J. W., and G. R. Papke. 1977. Background report on al-
ternative institutional frameworks for water quality man-
agement. Areawide Clean Water Planning, Northeastern Il-
linois Planning Commission.
Forester, J. S., and J. M. Lawrence. 1978. Effects of grass
carp and carp on populations of bluegill and largemouth
bass in ponds. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 107:172-175.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Funk, W. H., and H. L. Gibbons. 1978. Lake restoration by nu-
trient inactivation. National Conference on Lake Restora-
tion (Minneapolis, Minn.) Proc. p. 141-151.
Gardiner, P. C., and W. Edwards. 1975. Public values:
multiattribute utility measurement for social
decision-making. In M. F. Kaplan and S. Schwart (eds.). Hu-
man Judgement and Decision Processes. Academic Press.
Government Finance Research Center, Municipal Finance Of-
ficers Association. 1980a. Environmental planning: the
role of financial analysis. Financial Management Assis-
tance Program (draft).
1980b. Financial and institutional considerations in
water quality planning: an annotated bibliography. Finan-
cial Management Assistance Program (draft).
1980c. Planning for urban stormwater management:
financial issues and options. Financial Management Assis-
tance Program (draft).
Guy, H. P. 1964. An analysis of some storm-period variables
affecting stream sediment transport. U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Prof. Paper 462-E. 46 p.
Hampton, T. K. 1972. Evaluation of the effects on biotic com-
munities of fly ash reclamation. M. S. Thesis. Univ. of
Notre Dame.
Hanson, W. A., and F. Bigelow. 1977. Lake management case
study: Westlake Village, California. Urban Land Institute,
Washington, D.C. Technical Bulletin #73.
Heaney, J. P., W. C. Huber, S. J. Nix. 1976. Stormwater man-
agement model: level I — preliminary screening proce-
dures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washing-
ton, D.C. EPA-600/2-76-275.
Heaney, J. P.. W. C. Huber, M. A. Medina, Jr., M. P. Murphy,
S. J. Nix, and S. M. Hassan. 1977. Nationwide evaluation of
combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater dis-
charges. Volume II. Cost Assessment and Impacts. U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/2-77-064b.
Heaney, J. P. and S. J. Nix. 1977. Stormwater management
model: level I — comparative evaluation of
storage-treatment and other management practices. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/2-77-083.
Holmes, B. H. 1979. Institutional bases for control of
nonpoint source pollution under the Clean Water Act —
with emphasis on agricultural nonpoint sources. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Washington, D.C.
Howard County Department of Public Works, Columbia Parks
and Recreation Association, Baltimore Regional Planning
Council. 1979. Columbia lakes study, vol. 3, findings and
recommendations.
Huber, W. C. and J. P. Heaney. 1980. Operational models for
stormwater quality management. In M. R. Overcash, and J.
-------
J-3
W. .Davidson (eds.) Environmental Impact of Nonpoint
Source Pollution. Ann Arbor Science Publishers. Inc., Ann
Arbor, Mich. 1980.
Huber. W. C., J. P. Heaney, K. J. Smolenyek, and D. A..
Aggidas. 1979. Urban rainfall runoff — quality data base.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/8-79-004.
Hutchinson. G. E. 1957. Geography and physics of lakes.
Wiley-lnterscience, New York. 672 p.
'1966. Introduction to lake biology and the
limnoplankton. Vol. I Wiley-lnterscience, New York. 1115 p.
1969. Eutrophication, past and present. In
Eutrophication causes, consequences, correctives. Nation-
al Academy of Science, Washington, D.C.
1975. Limnological biology. Vol. II. Wiley-
lnterscience, New York. 660 p.
.Institute for Environmental Studies. 1979. Aquatic plants,
. lake management, and ecosystem consequences of lake
harvesting. J. E. Breck, R. T. Prentki, and 0. L. Loucks [eds.l
University of Wisconsin, (Madison).
JACA Corp. 1980. Economic benefits of the clean lakes pro-
gram. Fort Washington, Pa.
Jones, J. R., and R. W. Bachmann. 1976. Prediction of phos-
phorus and chlorophyll levels in lakes. Jour. Water Poll.
Contr. Fed. 48:2176- 2182.
Kaiser, E., K. Elfers, S. Conn, T. Reichart, N. Holfschmidt, R.
Stanland. 1974. Promoting environmental quality through
urban planning controls. University of North Carolina, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
EPA-600/5-73-015.
Keeney, R. L. 1974. Multiplicative utility functions. Oper-
ations Research. 22:23-34. Mass. lost. Tech. Cambridge.
Keeney, R. L., and Howard Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with multi-
ple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wi-
ley and Sons.
Kennedy, R. H., and G. D. Cooke. 1980. Aluminum sulfate
dose determination and application techniques. Interna-
tional Symposium for Inland Waters and Lake Restoration.
Portland, Maine. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ecol. Res. Ser. (in review).
Kirchner, W. B., and P. J. Dillon. 1975. An empirical method
of estimating the retention of phosphorus m lakes. Water
Resources Res. 2:182.
Lager, J. A., K. Didriksson, G. B. Otte. 1976. Development and
application of a simplified stormwater management mod-
el. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. EPA-600/2-76-218.
Lager, J. A.. W. G. Smith, W. G. Lynard, R. M. Finn, and E. J.
Finnemore. 1977. Urban stormwater management and
technology: update and users guide. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA^600/8-77-014.
Lantz, K. E. 1974. Natural and controlled water level fluctu-
ation in a backwater lake and three Louisiana impound-
ments. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Comm., Baton.
Rouge, La. 36 p.
Lantz. K. E., J. T. Davis, J. S. Hughes, and J. E. Shafer. 1964.
Water level fluctuation — its effectiveness on vegetation
control and fish population management. Southeast
Assoc. Game and Fish Comm., Proc. 18:483-494.
Larsen, D. P., and H. T. Mercier. 1976. Phosphorus retention
capacity of lakes. J. Fish. Res. Bd., Canada. 33:1742-1750.
Lee, G. F., and R. A. Jones. 1979. Paper prepared for the
Amer. Fish. Soc. Bethesda, Md.
Loehr, R. C.. 1974. Characteristics and comparative magni-
tude of non-point sources. Jour. Water Poll. Control. Fed.
46(8): 1843-72.
Loehr, R: C., D. A. Haitn, M. F. Walter, C. S. Martin. 1979. Best
management practices for agriculture and silviculture. Cor-
nell Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Proc.
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Lorenzen, M. W., and A. W. Fast. 1977. A guide to
aeration/circulation techniques for lake management. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Ecol. Res. Ser.
600/3-77-004.
Mackenthun, K. M. 1973. Toward a cleaner aquatic environ-
ment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. EPA. 2: AG2.
Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American
wildlife and plants: a guide to wildlife food habits. Dover
Publications, New York.
Martin, S. R., and J. M. Helm. 1980. Evaluation and revision
and sediment and erqsion control programs in urbanizing
areas for nonpoint source management. Nonpoint Pollu-
tion Control: Tools and Techniques for the Future Sympo-
sium (Gettysburg, Pa.), Proc. (publication pending).
May. V. 1974. Supression of blue-green algal blooms in
Braidwood Lagoons with alum. J. Austr. Inst. Agric. Sci.
40:54-57.
Mayer, J. R. 1978. Aquatic weed management by benthic
semi-barriers. J. Aquat. Plant Mgmt. 16:31-33.
McElroy. A. D., S. Y. Chiu. J. W. Nebgen.-A. Aleti. F. W. Ben-
nett. 1976. Loading functions for assessment of water pol-
lution from nonpoint sources. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington. D.C. EPA-600/2-76-151.
Middlebrooks. E. J., D. H. Falkenborg, and T. E. Maloney
[eds.] 1976. Biostimulation and nutrient assessment. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Mitzner, L. 1978. Evaluation of biological control of nuisance
aquatic vegetation by grass carp. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
107: 135-145.
National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 1980. NADP field
observer's construction manual. Washington, D.C.
National Eutrophication Research Program. 1971. Algal As-
say Procedure Bottle Test. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
Oreg.
Nevada, State of. 1976. Water quality impacts of
land-disturbing activities. Interim Report to Evaluation and
Development of Institutional Systems for Environmental
Management.
New England Natural Resource Center. 1977. Forest prac-
tices, water quality, and 208 plans in the northeast. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Regions I, II, and III.
Omernlk, J. W. 1977. Nonpoint source-stream nutrient level
relationships, a nationwide survey. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. EPA-600/3-77-105.
Pastorok, R. A., T. C. Gin, and M. W. Lorenzen. 1980. Evalua-
tion of aeration/circulation as a lake restoration technique.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecol. Res. Ser. (in
review).
Perkins. M. A., H. L. Boston, and E. F. Curren. 1980. The use of
fiberglass screens for control of Eurasian Watermilfoil. J.
Aquatic Plant Mgmt. 18:13-19.
Peterson. J. O.. J. J. Wall. T. L. Wirth. and S. M. Born. 1973.
Eutrophication control: Nutrient inactivation by chemical
precipitation at Horseshoe Lake, Wisconsin. Tech. Bull. No.
62, Wis. Dept. Nat. Res., Madison, Wis.
Peterson, S. A. 1979. Dredging and lake restoration. National
Conference on Lake Restoration (Minneapolis, Minn.),
Proc. p. 105-114. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington. D.C. EPA-440/5-79-001.
1980. Sediment removal as a lake restoration tech-
nique. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecol. Ril.
Ser. (in review).
Rast, W. and G. F. Lee. 1978. Summary analysis of (ha North
America (U.S. Portion) OECO eutrophication project: nutri-
ent loading — lake response relationships and trophlo
state indices. Corvallis, Oreg. EPA-600/3-78-008.
Reckhow. K. H. 1977. Phosphorus models for lake manage-
ment. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University.
1978. Lake quality discriminant analysis. Water
Resour. Bull. 14(4):856-867.
-------
J-4
1979a. Quantitative techniques for the assessment of
lake quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, D.C. EPA-440/5-79-015.
19795. Sampling design for lake phosphorus budg-
ets. Symposium on the Establishment of Water Quality
Monitoring Programs (Minneapolis, Minn.) Proc. p.
285-306. American Water Resources Association.
_. 1980. Lake data analysis and nutrient budget model-
ing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. (in press).
Reckhow, K. H., M. N. Beaulac, and J. T. Simpson. 1980. Mod-
eling phosphorus loading and lake response under uncer-
tainty: a manual and compilation of export coefficients.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
EPA-440/5-80-011.
Reckhow, K. H., and S. C. Chapra. 1981. Engineering ap-
proaches for lake management. Vol. I. Data analysis and
empirical modeling. Vol. II. Mechanistic modeling. Ann Ar-
bor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Reckhow, K. H., and J. T. Simpson. 1980. A procedure using
modeling and error analysis for the prediction of lake
phosphorus concentration from land use information. Can.
Journ. Fish, and Ag. Sci. 37(9): 1439-1448.
Rendon-Herrero, 0. 1974. Estimation of washload produced
on certain small watersheds. Jour. Hyd. Div. Vol. 100. HY7.
Riley, D. M. 1978. Parasites of grass carp and native fishes in
Florida. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 107:207-212.
Rodiek, R. K. 1979. Some watershed analysis tools for lake
management. National Conference on Lake Restoration
(Minneapolis, Minn.) Proc. p. 85-94. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-440/5-79-001.
Ruttner, F. 1972. Fundamentals of limnology. Vol. III. 3rd ed.
University of Toronto, Canada.
Seaver, D. A., R. V. Brown, V. N. Campbell, J. W. Ulvila, and J.
0. Chinnis, Jr. 1979. Applications and evaluation of divi-
sion analysis in water resources planning. Technical Re-
port 79-2. Decision Science Consortium. Inc. Falls Church.
Va. 67 p.
Schindler, D. W., R. Hesslein, and C. Kipphut. 1977. Interac-
tions between sediments and overlying waters in an ex-
perimentally eutrophied precambrian shield, p.235-243. In
H. L. Golterman led.I Interactions between Sediments and
Fresh Water. Internal. Sympos. (Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands), Proc., W. Junk, the Hague.
Schuytema, G. S. 1977. Biological control of aquatic
nuisances — a review. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Ecol. Res. Ser. EPA-600/3-77-084.
Sculthorpe, C. D. 1967. The biology of aquatic vascular
plants. St. Martins Press, New York.
Shannon, E. E., and .P. L. Breznik. 1971. Eutrophication analy-
sis: a multivariate approach. J. San. Engr. Div. Amer. Soc.
Civil Eng. Proc. Vol. 98, No. SA1. p. 37.
Shapiro, J., et al. 1975a. Biomanipulation: an ecosystem ap-
proach to lake restoration. Symposium on Water Quality
Mgmt. through Biological Contr., U.S. EPA and Univ. of
Flor. Proc. p. 85-96.
Shelly, P. 1977. Sampling of water and wastewater. U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA-440/5-79-015.
Smith, V. H. 1976. Storm-derived losses of phosphorus and
their significance to annual phosphorus export from two
New Jersey watersheds. M.S. Thesis. Rutgers Univ., New
Brunswick, N.J.
Smolenyak, K. 1979. Urban wet-weather pollutant loadings.
Master of Engineering Thesis. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville,
• Fla.
Stall. J. B. 1964. Low flows of Illinois streams for impounding
reservoir design. Illinois Department Registration and Edu-
cation. Bull. 5.
Stanffer, R. E. 1980. Sampling strategies for estimating the
magnitude and importance of internal phosphorus sup-
plies in lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Stein, J. A., ed. 1973. Handbook of phycological methods.
Cambridge University Press.
Stephenson, D. A. 1971. Groundwater flow system analysis
in lake environments, with managments and planning im-
plications. Water resources Bull. 7: 1038.
Tenney, M. W., and W. F. Echelberger, 1970. Fly ash utiliza-
tion in the treatment of polluted waters. Bureau of Mines
Circ. 8488, Ash Utiliz. Proc., p. 237-265.
Theis, T. L., R. W. Greene, T. W. Sturm, D. F. Spencer, P. J.
McCabe, B. P. Higgins, H. Young, and R. L. Irvine.' 1979.
Treatment of Lake Charles East, Indiana, sediments with fly
ash. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. EPA-60/3-79-060.
Thomann, R. V. September 1980. Personal communication.
Thurow, C. W., D. Earley. 1975. Performance controls for sen-
sitive lands: a practical guide for local administrators. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/ 5-75-005.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Undated. Ecological evalua-
tion of proposed discharge of dredged or full material into
navigable waters: Interim guidance for implementation of
Section 404(b)(1) of Public Law 92-500 (Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments of 1972). Miscellaneous
paper 0-76-17. Environmental Effects Laboratory. Vicks-
burg, Mississippi.
1976. Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of
dredged or fill material into navigable waters. Miscella-
neous paper. D-76-17, Vicksburg. Mississippi.
_. 1977. Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of
dredged material into ocean waters. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency/Corps of Engineers Technical Committee
for Dredged and Fill Material. Environmental Effects Labo-
ratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (USDA/USEPA). 1975. Control of water pollu-
tion from cropland. USDA, Report No. ARS-H-5-1; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/ 2-75-026a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Biological field
and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of sur-
face waters and effluents. Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/4-73-001.
1976a. Areawide assessment procedures manual.
Volumes l-ll. Municipal Environ. Res. Lab., Cincinnati,
Ohio. EPA-600/9-76-014.
1976b. Handbook for sampling and sample preserva-
tion of water and wastewater. Washington, D.C.
EPA-500/4-76-049.
1976c. Land use-water quality relationship. Water
Quality Management Guidance. WPD 37-60-2. Washing-
ton,'D.C.
_. 1977. Water quality assessment: a screening method
for nondesignated 208 areas. Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/9-77-023.
_. 1978a. Microbiological methods for monitoring the
environment. Washington, D.C. EPA-600/ 8-78-017.
_. 1978b. Procedures for Quantitative Ecological As-
sessments in Intertidal Environmental. Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/3-78-087.
.. 1978c. Voluntary and regulatory approaches for
nonpoint source pollution control. Water Quality Planning
Conference (Chicago, III.), Proc. EPA-905/9-78-001.
1978d. The Selenastrum capricornutum Printz algal
assay bottle test, experimental design, application, and
data interpretation protocol. EPA-600/9-78-018.
_. 1979a. Best management practices guidelines, dis-
charge of dredged or fill materials. Office of Water Plan-
ning and Standards, Washington, D.C. EPA-440/3-79-028.
1979b. Handbook for analytical quality control in wa-
ter and wastewater laboratories. Environ. Monit. and
Supp. Lab., Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/4-79-109.
-------
J-5
1979c. Lake restoration. National Conference (Minne-
apolis. Minn.). Proc. EPA-440/5-79-00.
_. 1979d. Methods for chemical analysis of water and
wastes. Environ. Monit. and Supp. Lab. Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600/4-79-020.
1979e. Quantitative Techniques for the assessment of
lake quality. Washington, D.C. EPA-440/5-79-015.
Uttormark, P. 0.1973. TSI and LCI: A comparison of two lake
classification techniques, p. 101-140. In T.E. Maloney. Lake
and Reservoir CJassification Systems. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-600/
3-79-074.
1979. General concepts of lake degradation and lake
restoration. National Conference on Lake Restoration (Min-
neapolis, Minn.), Proc. p. 67-70. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-440/
5-79-001.
Valentyne, J. R. W. 1974. The algal bowl: lakes and man.
Ottowa Dept. Environ. Fisher, and Marine Serv. Fisheries
Research Board. Misc. Publ. 22. Canada.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979. Best management
practices handbook: forestry. Planning Bulletin 317. Com-
monwealth of Virginia, Richmond.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1969. Possibilities and limits of elemen-
tary models concerning the budget of substances in lakes.
Arch. Hydrobiol. 66:1-36.
1975. Nutrient input-output models with special refer-
ence to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology.
Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 37:53-83.
1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for
phosphorus in lake eutrqphication. Mem. 1st. Ital. Idrobiol.
33:53-83.
_. 1979. Da Nahrstoffbelastungs konzept als Grundlage
fur den extern en Eingriff in den Eutrophierungs prozeb
stehender Gewassen und Talsperren. Symposium des
Wahnbacktalsperrver — bandes Veroffentichung der
Vortrage. Z. F. Wasser-und Abwasser-Forschung. 12, Jahr-
gang Nr 2/79.
Water Information Center. 1970. The water encyclopedia. D.
K. Todd led.) Port Washington, New York. p. 91.
Water Resources Council. 1979. Procedures for evaluation of
national economic development benefits and costs in wa-
ter resources planning. 18 CFR Part 173.
1980. Environmental quality evaluation FR 45(190):
64414-64446. September 29.
Welch, E. B. 1980. The dilution/flushing technique in lake res-
toration. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecol. Res.
Ser. (in review).
1979. Lake restoration by dilution. National Confer-
ence on Lake Restoration (Minneapolis, Minn.). Proc. p.
133-139. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washing-
ton, D.C. EPA-440/5-79-001.
Whiting, B. 1980. The amazing, misunderstood white amur.
Mother Earth News 63:34-55.
Wile, I., J. Neil, G. Lumes, and J. Pos. 1978. Production and
utilization of aquatic plant compost. J. Aquat. Plant Mgmt.
16:24-27.
Williams, R. E., and J. E. Lake. 1979. Conservation district in-
volvement in 208 nonpoint source implementation. In R.
C. Loehr, et al. Best Management Practices for Agriculture
and Silviculture. Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference Proc. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.. Ann
Arbor, Mich.
•Wischmeier, W. H., C. B. Johnson, and B. V. Cross. 1971. A
soil-erodibility monograph for farmland and construction
sites. J. Soil and Water Cons. 26(5).
Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith. 1965. Predicting
rainfall-erosion losses from cropland east of the Rocky
Mountains. Agr. Handbook 282. U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Washington. D.C.
Woodward-Clyde, Inc. 1980. National urban runoff program,
quarterly program report. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Yaksich, S. M. 1972. The use of particulates to control phos-
phate release from eutrophic lake sediments. Ph.D. Thesis,
Univ. of Notre Dame.
Zimmerman, J. R., and R. S. Thompson. 1975. User's guide
for hiway: a highway air pollution model. National Envi-
ronmental Research Center. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA-650/4-75-008.
Zison, S. W. 1980. Sediment-pollutant relationships in runoff
from selected agricultural, suburban, and urban water-
sheds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Ga.
EPA-600/3-80-022.
•UAOOVIRNMENTfMINTINO OFFICE: 1981 5*1-082/221 1-)
------- |