Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
I. Title Page (1 page maximum)
Title:
Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
Subtheme:
Principal Investigator and
Receiving Institution
Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics Directed Action
Rick Susfalk
Desert Research Institute
2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512
Phone: 775-673-7453 Fax: 775-673-7363
E-mail: rick.susfalk@dri.edu
Sudeep Chandra
Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences University of
Nevada, Reno, NV 89512
Phone: 775-784-6221 Fax: 775-784-4583
E-mail: sudeep@cabnr.unr.edu
Co-Principal Investigator <add
more rows as needed>
Alan Heyvaert
Desert Research Institute
2215 Raggio Drive Parkway, Reno, NV 89512
Phone: 775-673-7322 Fax: 775-673-7363
E-mail: alan.heyvaert@dri.edu
John Reuter
UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center
University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616
Phone:530-304-1473 Fax: 530-754-9364
E-mail: jereuter@ucdavis.edu
S. Geoffrey Schladow
UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center
University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616
Phone:530-752-3942 Fax: 530-754-9364
E-mail: gschladow@ucdavis.edu
Marion Wittmann
UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center
291 Country Club Drive, Incline Village NV 89451
Phone: 775-881-7560 Fax: 775-832-1673
E-mail: mwittmann@ucdavis.edu
Grants Contact Person
Funding requested:
Total cost share (value of
financial and in-kind
contributions):
Scott Hackley
UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center
291 Country Club Drive, Incline Village NV 89451
Phone:530-881-7560 Fax: 530-832-1673
E-mail: shhackley@ucdavis.edu
Yvonne Rumbaugh
Desert Research Institute
2215 Raggio Parkway Reno, NV 89512
Phone: 775-673-7366 Fax: 775-673-7363
Email: Yvonne.Rumbaugh@dri.edu
$ 180,000
$ 45,930
1
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
II. Proposal Narrative (up to 7 pages, single-spaced, 10 point font minimum)
II.a. Project abstract (1 paragraph summary for public distribution)
The nearshore environment of a lake ecosystem often remains a poorly studied area despite its importance to overall
biodiversity and function of the lake. This is also true for Lake Tahoe where the nearshore environment also
possesses important aesthetic and economic significance for tourism as visitor and resident interactions with the lake
occur primarily in the nearshore. While there have been potential improvements to the open water habitat (e.g.
clarity) of the lake, basin managers are now turning their attention to understanding nearshore processes. The
objective of this proposal is to provide basin management agencies with science-based recommendations for the
development of a long-term management and monitoring program for Lake Tahoe’s nearshore environment. In
particular, this study will focus on the evaluation of environmental indicators that can be used by managers to assess
if nearshore desired conditions are being attained. We propose to review and synthesize existing nearshore science,
management objectives, and current conditions in order to develop a conceptual model that relates nearshore
environmental processes with the desired conditions identified by basin management agencies. Potential indicators
will be evaluated for their scientific relevance, feasibility for implementation, and their ability to support
management objectives. Scientifically defensible numeric or narrative standards will be suggested where possible.
Lastly, a monitoring plan based on these indicators will be developed that addresses the natural temporal and spatial
variability found within the nearshore environment. One important facet of this project will be the close
collaboration with Nearshore Agency Working Group through a series of meetings and interactions to define,
discuss, and contribute to this project’s deliverables. A public forum will be held near the end of the project to
obtain stakeholder input for consideration in the final report.
II.b. Justification statement: explain the relationship between the proposal and the subtheme(s)
Most visitor and resident experiences at Lake Tahoe occur within or close to the nearshore environment, and
conditions there translate directly into public perception of lake conditions. Environmental conditions in the
nearshore have changed over time in response to natural and anthropogenic factors. These changes have included
heavy growth of periphyton (attached algae) on rocks, piers, and other hard substrate in portions of the lake
(Hackley et al. 2004, 2007), and the establishment and spread of invasive fish species such as the common carp,
largemouth bass, and bluegill (Reuter and Miller 2000), invasive aquatic plants such as water milfoil and curly leaf
pondweed, and most recently benthic invertebrates such as the Asian clam (Wittman 2008a,b). Anthropogenic inputs
of pollutants are the greatest in the nearshore, including elevated turbidity associated with some urbanized areas
(Taylor et al. 2004, Susfalk et al, 2009), elevated concentrations of gasoline components in and near marinas (Allen
et al. 1998; Miller et al. 2003, Rowe 2010), and the accidental release of raw sewage such as the 2005 Kings Beach
spill. Increased activity in the nearshore zone is anticipated in the coming years, with more residents and visitors
projected, including a 30 percent increase in boat traffic and up to 1000 more buoys (TRPA 2006). Despite its
economic importance and significance to the overall biodiversity and function of the lake, the nearshore
environment at Lake Tahoe has received little study compared to the surrounding watersheds and the lake’s open
waters. A coordinated management plan and monitoring program is needed for Lake Tahoe’s nearshore zone that
recognizes, addresses, and protects its unique nature.
II.c. Concise Background and Problem Statement
Lake Tahoe’s nearshore environment has historically received less attention than the surrounding watershed and
mid-lake environments. Often, the nearshore zone has been perceived simply as a conduit transporting sediment and
nutrients from the watershed into Lake Tahoe’s open-waters. Implicit in this view was the assumption that changes
in mid-lake water quality and changes in nearshore water quality would reflect each other, occurring over
comparable time scales. However, many of the processes that drive conditions in the mid-lake environment are
different than those found in the nearshore environment. Mid-lake clarity, for example, is predominantly controlled
by the concentration and size distribution of fine, inorganic particles (< 16 microns) (Swift et al. 2006) whereas the
nearshore is that portion of the lake where most biological processes and interactions occur. Biological assemblages
within the nearshore include attached algae, aquatic plants, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish communities that
utilize this area for rearing and production. Furthermore, the mid-lake environment represents a longer-term, more
integrated response to changes that occur throughout the Lake Tahoe basin, whereas nearshore responses can be
localized and rapid due to its shallow depth and proximate location adjacent to the shoreline and watershed inputs.
Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the same management strategies and indicators of environmental condition
1
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
would function equivalently for both the nearshore and mid-lake environments.
A large portion of the urban landscape at Lake Tahoe is located adjacent to the nearshore. Recent studies conducted
as part of the Lake Tahoe TMDL have shown the importance of runoff from these urban areas as sources of
nutrients and other pollutants to the lake and its nearshore region (Lahontan and NDEP, 2010). Additionally, during
the last two decades, several nonnative species have become established in the nearshore zone and are thought to
play a important role in mobilizing nutrients for nearshore periphyton and phytoplankton production (Walter 2000).
Eurasian watermilfoil and curly leaf pondweed species were first detected in the 1990’s and have since spread
rapidly by out-competing native macrophyte populations (Dr. Lars W. Anderson, USDA-ARS Exotic and Invasive
Weed Research Lab, UC Davis). Native benthic macroinvertebrate species have also declined (Chandra et al.
unpublished), while nonnative species such as the Asian clam and signal crayfish are increasing in density and
range. Warmwater, nonnative fish species have also become established in the nearshore environment (Reuter and
Miller 2000; Kamerath et al. 2008), reducing or eliminating native species populations.
The optical clarity of nearshore water is important not only for its aesthetic value to residents and tourists, but also
due to the potential effects of reduced sunlight on native fish and macroinvertebrate populations. For example
recent research suggests that optical properties may be tied to the survival of native and nonnative fishes
(Williamson, et al. unpublished data). Nearshore water clarity has been found to be extremely variable, and
perimeter surveys have linked elevated nearshore turbidity levels with developed areas (Taylor et al., 2004; Susfalk
et al., 2009). Furthermore, ongoing studies have suggested that the average annual maximum periphyton biomass
measured as chlorophyll-a concentration has been 3- 6 times higher in areas of increased development (Hackley et
al. 2004, 2007).
Given the evidence of recent changes occurring within the nearshore environment, the challenges with measuring
and managing those changes, and the high visibility of that environment to visitors and residents, there is clearly an
urgent need to evaluate and synthesize the information available from multiple scientific disciplines. The main goal
of this comprehensive evaluation is to develop scientifically sound indicators of condition that will guide
management strategies and preserve the public’s expectations of ecological quality and aesthetics within Lake
Tahoe’s nearshore environment.
II.d. Goals, objectives, and hypotheses to be tested
The main goal of this project is to assist Lake Tahoe basin agencies in developing a science-based approach to longterm management and monitoring of the lake’s nearshore ecology and aesthetics.
This project is designed to: 1) review, synthesize and report on existing nearshore science and management
information, including out-of-basin literature (as appropriate), in-basin literature and reports, current standards,
goals, and beneficial uses as documented during the Pathway process and previously designated by basin managers;
2) assist basin agency staff with their development of future desired conditions for the nearshore; 3) develop a
conceptual model of processes and interactions that affect nearshore quality and management; 4) evaluate the
suitability of measurable parameters for their potential use as indictors and thresholds; 5) develop narrative or
numeric targets for the identified indicators when scientifically justified and based on existing data, and; 6) develop
a monitoring plan framework that supports management objectives and addresses the natural temporal and spatial
variability found in the nearshore environment.
This project is structured to provide a comprehensive and integrated baseline set of nearshore information with
scientific evaluation that will enable basin managers to develop a long-term nearshore management and monitoring
plan.
II.e. Approach and Science Team Background
II.e.1. Proposed Tasks
Task 1. Synchronize scope and deliverables with funding and basin agencies
The collaborative nature of this directed action will require further refinement of scope and deliverables between the
sponsor, the Nearshore Agency Working Group, and the investigators represented here, henceforth referred to as the
2
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
Science Team. This proposal highlights the following RFP objectives: 1) synthesize and review nearshore science
and management objectives to develop recommended indicators; 2) prepare a monitoring and evaluation plan to
assess long-term status of the nearshore, and; 3) evaluate how new proposed indicators would compare to existing
indicators. We propose a project meeting with those listed above to discuss how the remaining RFP objectives (4 identify land use impacts that affect the nearshore, and 5 - how to control these impacts) could be addressed given
time and funding constraints. This kickoff meeting would produce a list of final deliverables, a Statement of Work
for the Science Team under this proposal, and develop an agenda of expected interactions between the Nearshore
Agency Working Group and the Science Team.
Task 2. Review and synthesis Task 2.a. Review and synthesis of nearshore science. A current need for managers at Lake Tahoe is a comprehensive summary of past and ongoing research, and
available datasets related to the nearshore. Therefore, we intend to aggregate all pertinent Tahoe nearshore literature,
and to summarize these results with a full assessment of available information, including any relevant out-of-basin
nearshore studies. This information will be used to synthesize current knowledge of nearshore ecology and
aesthetics, including delineating existing knowledge gaps. This task will be approached by assigning relevant
nearshore subjects amongst the members of the Science Team based on their specialty. In coordination with the
Nearshore Agency Working Group, the Project Administrator will obtain all nearshore related scientific reports that
have been previously generated for the various management agencies and then each Science Team member will
review these and other appropriate literature and synthesize the results. An overall summary and integration of the
individual nearshore topic areas will then be written by the Project Administrator in collaboration with the rest of the
Science Team.
The Science Team consists of several researchers that have been conducting science on nearshore processes in the
Basin for years, and therefore have direct access to the datasets and reports that will be incorporated into this review
as well as the expertise and experience to synthesize the results. Several of the main topic areas represented by the
Science Team include periphyton (attached algae), macrophytes, invertebrates, benthic macroinvertebrates,
nearshore fish populations and dynamics, sediment conditions, nearshore clarity, hydrodynamics, and physical
processes. Topic areas will include (but are not limited to):
Periphyton: The accumulation of attached algae on rocks, piers and other hard bottom substrates is arguably the
most obvious indicator of Lake Tahoe’s declining water quality for the largely shore-bound population. Thick
expanses of biomass carpet the shoreline in places, creating a sharp contrast to the deep-blue color of the open water,
and beaches can be fouled when this material dies and breaks free. The use of periphyton as an indicator of
nearshore condition has been considered important for decades and most recently was represented as part of the
Pathway 2007 Technical Water Quality Working Group’s consideration of desired lake condition. Periphyton
biomass monitoring data (as Chlorophyll a; with AFDW or LOI also measured since 1989), for 0.5m depth, natural
rock substrate, is available for: 1982-85 (Loeb et al., 1986a); 1989-92 (Tahoe Research Group, unpublished data);
2000-2004 (Reuter, 2001; Hackley et al., 2004) and 2005-2009 (Hackley et al., 2007, 2008, 2009). From 5-10 of the
following routine sites were monitored: Rubicon Pt., Sugar Pine Pt., Pineland, Tahoe City, Dollar Pt., Incline West,
Incline Condo, Sand Pt., Deadman Pt. and Zephyr Pt. Data is also available from monitoring done along South
Shore during 2008-2009 for a SNPLMA Nearshore Study. Examples of additional information on the spatial
distribution of biomass are included in Loeb (1980, 1986b), Leonard and Goldman (1981), Goldman et al. (1982),
Reuter (1983), Aloi (1986), and Aloi et al. (1988).
Native and non-native macrophytes: Since first identification of the invasive macrophytes Eurasian watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum) and curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) in Lake Tahoe, these species have spread
to new locations on an annual basis and are out-competing native macrophyte populations. Invasive macrophytes are
linked to non-native warm water fish populations in that they provide habitat in unprotected areas of the nearshore
of the lake. Increased invasive plant abundances in Lake Tahoe can be linked to increased invasive warmwater
species establishment (Kamerath et al. 2008; Kamerath 2009) that can affect biotic and abiotic nearshore conditions,
including aesthetic values. Members of the UCD-UNR team represented here are working with basin plant
management groups on issues related to chemical and non-chemical control of these species.
Native and non-native benthic macroinvertebrates: Benthic macroinvertebrates are also currently experiencing
significant population level shifts. Native species have declined since surveys in the 1960s (Chandra et al.
unpublished) as non-native species such as the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) and signal crayfish (Pacifasticus
3
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
lenisculus) are increasing in density and range within Lake Tahoe (e.g. Wittmann et al, 2008a,b). Shifts between the
native and non-native benthic ecology will likely impact nutrient cycling, species composition, water quality and
clarity and fishery health. Current scientific experimentation for the management of these species by members of the
UCD-UNR team represented here is aimed at the reduction of population densities to reduce ecological and aesthetic
impacts (i.e., algal blooms) as a result of these invasions.
Native and non-native fisheries: Lake Tahoe’s fish population has changed over the last 50 years. Native forage fish
which live in the nearshore are thought to have declined 10 fold between the 1960’s and 1990’s (Thiede, 1997).
Urbanization has played a role as littoral fish communities utilize natural or human constructed (e.g. piers or
retaining walls) rocky substrates for spawning beds as gravel is a limiting factor in the littoral zone (Beauchamp et
al. 1994). Changes in the nearshore may also affect migrations, as native fish and nonnative crayfish are known to
make seasonal migrations from the nearshore to the sublittoral part of the lake (Thiede, 1997). In the mid to late
1970’s and again in the late 1980’s, a variety of nonnative species were found in the nearshore environment (Reuter
and Miller 2000). Warmwater fish introductions were illegal and thought to be the result of anglers eager to catch
these fish. Members of the UNR-UCD team represented here have been examining the expansion and impact of
warmwater fishes in the nearshore environment and have found warmwater fish at 58% of the their monitored study
sites in recent years. The entire nearshore was found to be thermally suitable for spawning by warmwater fish, and
that future establishment is limited by the distribution of aquatic vegetation. The movement and establishment of
warmwater fishes is still in its early stage of establishment and fish exhibit generally slower growth rates allowing
for basin agencies to manage these populations before they establish.
Nearshore sediment conditions: Nearshore substrate conditions reflect the characteristics of terrestrial inputs and
lake hydrodynamic conditions as well as directly influence the distribution of benthic organisms and fisheries
habitat. Nearshore substrate conditions are a visible and tactile feature that varies considerably around the lake from
predominantly coarse-grained sands, to boulders and cobbles, to fine-grained organic rich silt-clay muds. In many
cases, the type of runoff from urban environments may link directly to degraded nearshore substrate and water
quality conditions; it will be important to consider the relationship between these factors in the development of
appropriate indicators for nearshore condition.
Nearshore clarity and physical processes: Nearshore water clarity has been previously investigated on a basin-wide
scale using perimeter surveys (Taylor et al., 2004; Susfalk et al., 2009). The spatial variability they found implies
that future nearshore clarity standards must be balanced to retain the public’s expectation of excellent water clarity
at pristine, undisturbed locations while recognizing that some degradation occurs off of urbanized areas. Recently,
members of the Science Team represented here have begun to investigate the linkages between on-shore activities
and nearshore clarity (e.g. Schladow et al., SNPLMA Round 8) and monitoring approaches that could be used for
the long-term assessment of nearshore water clarity (Susfalk et al., 2009). The variability of nearshore clarity and
water quality are due to several processes, including physical forcing (e.g. meteorology), lake currents, geographic
features (e.g. embayments), type of bottom substrate, seasonal fluctuations in the hydrologic cycle, locations of
streams and urban stormwater discharges, and nearshore storage and buffering capacities. Although many of these
physical processes are not indicators of nearshore conditions themselves, they do directly impact the temporal and
spatial representativeness of environmental indicators and must be considered.
A synthesis of what is known about each topical area, such as those provided above, along with an integration of
how these areas may contribute to our understanding of nearshore processes will be determined after synthesis. For
example, previous research suggests that nearshore substrate may dictate biological distribution of fishes and
crayfish while recent research suggests clarity may also play a role in governing ecological dynamics. The Science
Team will integrate an understanding of these processes based on the conceptual model (see below).
Task 2.b. Review of current agency standards, goals, beneficial uses, and monitoring
Current nearshore regulations, management objectives, beneficial uses, and results from agency-run monitoring
programs will also be collated and presented. The Project Administrator, in coordination with the Nearshore Agency
Working Group, will be obtain pertinent documents from the management agencies and distribute them to the
Science Team. They will be reviewed to assess perceived deficiencies, discrepancies, and knowledge gaps. This
information will also be used to inform the conceptual model (Task 3b) and during the evaluation of potential
indicators (Task 4). Nearshore clarity and fisheries provide examples. For clarity, current nearshore aesthetics
thresholds differ between management agencies and are not enforceable due to subjective definitions (Taylor, et al.,
2004; Susfalk et al., 2009). For fisheries, the Pathway 2007 Fisheries and Wildlife Technical Working Group
4
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
identified scientific and threshold gaps for Lake Tahoe’s fishery, including the need to determine the impacts of new
nonnative fish invaders and the development of biological indicators for nearshore. Preliminary work by coInvestigator Chandra has indicated that decreases in water transparency are likely to create a refuge that may
increase the suitable spawning habitat for UV-sensitive invasive species highlighting the need to take an
multidisciplinary approach in the development of new standards and indicators.
Task 3. Conceptual model
A conceptual model will be developed that characterizes our current understanding of processes that affect nearshore
quality and relates them to the desired conditions. The model will be based on the review and synthesis of available
literature and research (Task 2) and will be used evaluate potential indicators (Task 4).
Task 3.a. Model context and definitions
Several pieces of information will be needed prior to developing a conceptual model for the nearshore zone. First, a
technical definition of the nearshore environment will be developed in conjunction with the Nearshore Agency
Working Group. Existing definitions (e.g. TRPA 2008) of the nearshore will be evaluated, and included to the extent
possible. Second, current nearshore conditions will be evaluated based on the project and data synthesis from Task
2a. Third, we will assist the Nearshore Agency Working Group, where possible, in their identification and
development of future desired objectives and conditions.
Task 3.b. Develop a conceptual model
The conceptual model will illustrate a variety of interactions that occur in the nearshore environment as influenced
by different components. An example of a conceptual model that can be used for the nearshore is presented in
Figure 1. This example is used only for illustrative purposes, but does contain many of the components and linkages
that would be expected to be included in the conceptual model developed for this task. Overarching components are
arranged on the outside of the figure, while individual processes that affect nearshore conditions are arranged inside.
The “Management” component refers to the regulatory actions implemented to achieve the desired conditions and
objectives. “Actions” include both natural and anthropogenic activities that are capable of impacting the nearshore
zone through specific “Stressors”. “Impacts” refers to the response of the environment to individual stressors.
Lastly, “Monitoring” provides the ability to both inform on management actions and evaluate environmental
impacts. Sub-models would be developed, as needed, to provide more detailed relationships for these overarching
components or to provide finer resolution linkages for the biological, chemical, and physical processes that occur in
the nearshore environment.
Task 4a. Indicator and Target Evaluation
Our objective for this task is to provide a series of recommendations that are based on data and scientifically
defensible principles. The Science Team will discuss the pros and cons of each recommendation with agency staff
during Working Group-Science Team meetings as well as during a Public Workshop, but implementation of these
recommendations will exclusively be a policy decision made by the agencies.
A list of potential indicators will be developed based on our review of available data and desired conditions, with
collaboration by the Nearshore Agency Working Group. Examples of potential biological, chemical, and physical
indicators that could be evaluated are presented in Figure 2. Potential indicators will be evaluated through a generic
pathway, outlined in Figure 3. First, each potential indicator will be evaluated within the context of the conceptual
model to determine its relationship to desired conditions and whether it can link to management decisions. Second, it
will be evaluated based on the weight of scientific evidence, including: (1) ability to adequately quantify levels and
changes characteristic of that observed in the nearshore; (2) ability to provide acceptable readings under temporally
and spatially variable conditions present nearshore-wide around the lake; (3) previous experience of its use at Lake
Tahoe or in other lakes; (4) availability of existing baseline data, and; (5) the cost-effectiveness and relative ability
to physically implement an associated monitoring plan. If a potential indicator is determined to not be acceptable,
potential actions will be discussed that could lead to it’s future re-evaluation. If a potential indicator is determined
acceptable, water quality targets will be developed as narrative, numeric, or no target. A numeric approach will be
taken only if there is a reliable and supporting base of data for that indicator. Typically, but not always, narrative
standards can be used when the supporting data base is insufficient. If there is insufficient information, a “no target”
recommendation will be made including a discussion of additional actions that could be taken to minimize
knowledge gaps, potentially leading to a future re-evaluation of the target.
5
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
Periphyton can be used as an example where the development of numeric standards may be practical now, as
significant monitoring data exists. The following approaches are specific for attached algae, but similar tactics could
be taken for other indicators when numeric targets are considered appropriate (perhaps nearshore clarity). Numeric
value(s) can be based on: (1) replicating conditions some time in the past when water quality was in a desirable
condition; (2) nuisance levels or values considered harmful to aquatic biota or environmental function supported by
scientific literature; (3) examination of current high quality, reference conditions (i.e. what are the levels in those
portions of the water body not affected by pollutants); (4) statistically-derived values based on the existing data that
reflect the desire not to exceed a given value over a certain percent of time (e.g. values can not exceed the 90th
percentile of the existing data base, single annual maximum value, annual average, baseline values will be met
during specific time periods, spatially resolved values based on location, etc.); (5) models, and; (6) in the case of
aesthetic beneficial uses, the selection of values can be based on the public perception of acceptable conditions. A
preliminary evaluation of these approaches and their applicability for Lake Tahoe was discussed by UC Davis
periphyton researchers (Hackley et al. 2004) and these researchers have already initiated a public perception survey.
For any given potential indicator, there will be a number of factors to consider in this evaluation, particularly
changes that occur on different spatial and/or time scales. Periphyton, to continue the example, experiences
changing growth rates throughout the season and by location. Therefore biomass, as an indicator target, could be
evaluated as: (1) amount/concentration of material within a prescribed area; (2) presence of biomass found at a
location or during a season when it historically did not occur; or (3) spatial extent of its distribution. Our intent is to
consider all pertinent factors such as these in order to provide basin agencies with multiple indicators and standards
to select from.
Task 4b. Development of a Nearshore Quality Index
Classification of a lake’s trophic status is not based on a single indicator or measurement, rather, a number of water
quality parameters and lake conditions need to be considered. Various attempts have been made to bundle a number
of the measurements into a more general status of lake condition. For example, the Lake Evaluation Index (LEI)
(Porcella et al. 1980) is based on a mathematical aggregation of TP or TN, chlorophyll, Secchi depth, dissolved
oxygen and macrophyte coverage. We propose to evaluate the feasibility of creating a single Integrated Nearshore
Quality Index that could be used to convey the general status of the nearshore. This Index would incorporate several
specific indicators and consider spatial and seasonal representativeness.
Task 5. Monitoring Plan
The framework for a nearshore monitoring plan will be developed with the goal of quantifying status and long-term
trends. This plan will be based on scientifically defensible approaches that support the desired conditions assessment
for achieving management objectives and will include monitoring of selected indicators (Task 4a) as well as
supporting the development of the Integrated Nearshore Quality Index (Task 5). This plan will be designed to
address both the temporal and spatial complexities inherent in the nearshore environment and will consider current
monitoring efforts.
Task 6: Communication with Agencies and the Public
Collaboration between the Science Team and the designated agency representatives will be essential for developing
useful indicators of nearshore conditions. This process is expected to require frequent communication about the
development of recommendations for nearshore monitoring and potential indicators. To facilitate this process, the
Science Team will designate a Project Administrator whose role will be: 1) to serve as the day-to-day point of
contact between agency work group members and the Science Team; 2) to assemble information and provide
meeting coordination within the Science Team and with participating agencies and the public; 3) to represent the
Science Team at agency meetings; and 4) to provide general project administration (e.g., supplying quarterly reports,
budget updates, etc). Communications within the Science Team will be facilitated by the Project Administrator,
including regularly scheduled conference calls and periodic project meetings.
We anticipate up to five meetings between the entire Science Team and agency personnel during the course of the
project. Meetings will be held when specific, previously agreed to milestones have been passed or if there is a need
by the Science Team to interact with or require feedback from agency work group members as a group. We propose
the following milestones that will trigger these meetings:
Meeting 1. Finalize project work plan, timeline, milestones, and deliverables (Task 1).
Meeting 2. After information/data review and synthesis (Task 2) and during the development of the conceptual
6
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
model (Task 3).
Meeting 3. During the indicator and target evaluation (Task 4).
Meeting 4. After evaluation of indicators (Task 4) is complete and during the development of a monitoring plan
(Task 5).
Meeting 5. Agency public workshop to discuss the project findings and draft recommendations (Task 6).
These milestones are designed to review existing progress on the Task in question as well as to develop consensus
between the Science Team, the Tahoe Nearshore Agency Working Group, and the Sponsor on the path forward for
the next Task.
II.e.2. Overview of the Science Team
The Science Team will consist of multidisciplinary experts at several research institutions, having a wide range of
experience in nearshore ecology and aesthetic conditions, with an accumulated 122 years of working at Lake Tahoe
(Figure 4). Dr. Richard Susfalk is a surface water hydrologist specializing in water quality and soil biogeochemistry,
and will act as Project Administrator with overall project responsibility. Team Members include: Dr. Sudeep
Chandra, a limnologist specializing in nearshore ecology as well as native organisms (invertebrates and fishes) and
nonnative fishes; Mr. Scott Hackley, a limnologist with expertise in periphyton and water quality; Dr. Alan
Heyvaert, an aquatic ecologist and biogeochemist; Dr. John Reuter, a limnologist specializing in biogeochemistry,
water quality and watershed management; Dr. Geoff Schladow, a physical limnologist and lake modeler; and Dr.
Marion Wittmann, an aquatic invasive species ecologist. Short biographies of each Science Team member relevant
to this proposal are presented in Figure 4. Scientists in other areas of expertise also will be consulted as necessary.
II.f. Relationship of the research to previous and current relevant research, monitoring, and/or
environmental improvement efforts
This was specifically addressed under Task 2a in Section II.e.1.
II.g. Strategy for engaging with managers and obtaining permits
This was specifically addressed under Task 6 in Section II.e.1.
II.h. Description of deliverables/products and plan for how data and products will be reviewed and
made available to end users
The main deliverable will be one or more report(s) including:
 Review and synthesis of existing nearshore literature and research projects
 A technical definition of the nearshore environment and delineation of current nearshore conditions
 A conceptual model that characterizes current knowledge regarding the factors, activities, and actions that
impact nearshore desired conditions
 Suitable biological, chemical, and physical parameters that could be used as nearshore indicators
 For each indicator, a numeric, narrative, or no target recommendation and justification based on existing
knowledge
 An analysis of the difference between existing and recommended indicators
 The development of an integrated index that reflects basin-wide nearshore quality
 A nearshore monitoring plan and associated budget that addresses scientific and management requirements
 A technical review of the report(s) by scientists with the appropriate expertise identified by the Tahoe
Science Consortium.
Participation with basin agencies will be facilitated through close collaboration with the Nearshore Agency Working
Group, as previously described throughout this proposal. The draft report will be made publically available on the
Tahoe Integrated Information Management System (TIIMS.org) for a 1-month period of public and agency
comment and technical review. A public workshop will also be held during this timeframe to disclose project
findings and draft recommendations. Comments will then be incorporated into the final document that will be
delivered by the end of the project. The final report will also be made available on TIIMS.org.
7
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
III. Schedule of Major Milestones & Deliverables
Projects should not expect to begin before June 1, 2010 at the earliest. Note that it is the responsibility of
the project proponent to coordinate with appropriate agency representatives or partners and secure any
agreements or approvals necessary prior to initiating research.
Milestone/Deliverables
Prepare progress reports
Task 1; Science Team
and Agency Working
Group Meeting #1
Task 2
Task 3
Science Team and
Agency Working Group
Meeting #2
Science Team and
Agency Working Group
Meeting #3
Task 4
Science Team and
Agency Working Group
Meeting #4
Task 5
Draft Report
Start
Date
6/2010
End
Date
4/2012
3/2011
8/2011
9/2011 Indicator Evaluation
11/2011 Review Task 4; discuss development of the
monitoring plan.
8/2011
1/2012
12/2011 Development of a monitoring plan
Delivery of Draft Final Report for public and agency
comment and technical review
2/2012 Public workshop discussing results (Science Team
and Agency Working Group Meeting #5)
3/2012 Revision of Final Report
4/2012 Project close-out and final report submitted
Description
Submit brief progress report to Tahoe Science
Program coordinator by the 15th of July, October,
January, and April. Prepare summary of annual
accomplishments in January.
6/2010 7/2010 Finalization of Work Plan -- discussion of scope,
milestones, deliverables and agreement of a finalized
Statement of Work.
7/2010 11/2011 Review and Synthesis of existing literature and data.
10/2011 3/2011 Development of a conceptual model
11/2011 12/2011 Review Task 2 deliverables; discuss technical
definition of the nearshore environment; discuss
current and desired conditions; review draft
conceptual model.
4/2011 5/2011 Review Task 3; discuss approach to indicator
evaluation.
Public Workshop
1/2012
Revision of Final Report
Project Close-out
1/2012
8
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
IV. Literature cited/References (Up to 2 pages)
Allen, B.C., J.E. Reuter, C.R. Goldman, M.F. Fiore and G.C. Miller. 1998. Lake Tahoe motorized watercraft - an
integration of water quality, watercraft use and ecotoxicology issues. John Muir Institute for the Environment, University
of California, Davis. 37 p. Contribution # 001-1998.
Aloi, J.E. 1986. The Ecology and Primary Productivity of the Eulittoral Epilithon Community: Lake Tahoe, CaliforniaNevada. Doctoral thesis, University of California, Davis, 245 p.
Aloi, J.E., S.L. Loeb, and C.R. Goldman. 1988. Temporal and spatial variability of the eulittoral epilithic periphytn, Lake
Tahoe, California-Nevada. J. Freshwater Ecol. 4(3): 401-410.
Beauchamp, D. A., P. E. Budy, B. C. Allen and J. M. Godfrey (1994). Timing, Distribution, and Abundance of Kokanees
Spawning in a Lake Tahoe Tributary. Great Basin Naturalist 54(2): 130-141.
Cloern, J. 2001. Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 210: 223-253.
Goldman, C.R., R.P. Axler and J.E. Reuter. 1982. Interagency Tahoe Monitoring Program Water Year 1981 Preliminary
Report. Ecological Research Associates, in cooperation with Tahoe Research Group. 203p.
Hackley, S.H., B.C. Allen, D.A. Hunter and J.E. Reuter. 2004. Lake Tahoe water quality investigations: algal bioassay,
phytoplankton, atmospheric nutrient deposition, periphyton, final report: May 1, 2002 – March 31, 2004. Tahoe Research
Group, University of California, Davis.
Hackley, S.H., B.C. Allen, D.A. Hunter and J.E. Reuter. 2007. Lake Tahoe water quality investigations: algal bioassay,
phytoplankton, atmospheric nutrient deposition, periphyton, final report: July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2007. Tahoe
Environmental Research Center, University of California, Davis. 121p.
Hackley, S.H., B.C. Allen, D.A. Hunter and J.E. Reuter. Wittman, M.; J. Reuter, G. Schladow, S. Hackley, B. Allen, S.
Chandra, and A. Caires. 2008. Lake Tahoe water quality investigations: algal bioassay, phytoplankton, atmospheric
nutrient deposition, periphyton, annual report: July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008. Tahoe Environmental Research Center,
University of California, Davis. 67p.
Hackley, S.H., B.C. Allen, D.A. Hunter and J.E. Reuter. 2009. Lake Tahoe water quality investigations: algal bioassay,
phytoplankton, atmospheric nutrient deposition, periphyton, annual report: July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009. Tahoe
Environmental Research Center, University of California, Davis. 68p.
Kamerath, M, S Chandra, and BC Allen. 2008. Distribution and abundance of warmwater, vertebrate invaders in Lake
Tahoe. Aquatic Invasions. 3: 35-41.
Kamerath, M. 2009. Predicting Establishment and Impact of Warmwater Non Native Fishes in a Large, Sub-Alpine,
Oligotrophic Lake. Master's thesis. University of Nevada, Reno. 90 p.
Lahontan Water Board [Lahontan] and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection [NDEP]. 2010. Lake Tahoe Total
Maximum Daily Load Technical Report. Lahontan Water Board, South Lake Tahoe, California, and Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection, Carson City, NV. 340 p.
www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/tmdl/lake_tahoe/
Leonard, R.L. and C.R. Goldman. 1981. Interagency Tahoe Monitoring Program First Annual Report, Water Year 1980.
Tahoe Research Group, University of California, Davis.
Loeb, S.L. 1980. The Production of the Epilithic Periphyton Community in Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada. Doctoral
thesis, University of California, Davis. 165p.
Loeb, S.L., J.E. Aloi and S.H. Hackley. 1986a. Littoral zone investigations, Lake Tahoe 1982-85 periphyton. Institute of
Ecology, University of California, Davis. 158p.
Loeb, S.L. 1986.b Algal biofouling of oligotrophic Lake Tahoe: causal factors affecting production. Pp. 159-173. In
9
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
L.V. Evans and K.D. Hoagland, eds., Algal Biofouling. Elsevier Sciencs (Pub.) B.V. Amsterdam.
Miller, G. C., C. Hoonhout, E. Sufka, S. Carol, V. Edirveerasingam, B. C. Allen, J. E. Reuter, J. Oris, M. S. Lico 2003.
Environmental Assessment of the Impacts of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Lake Tahoe and Donner Lake. Final
Report to the California State Water Resources Control Board, March 2003.
Newton, J., T. Mumford, J. Dohramann, J. West, R. Llanso, H. Berry, and S. Redman. 1998. A Conceptual Model for
Environmental Monitoring of a Marine System Developed for the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound
Research ‘98 Proceedings, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (Olympia, WA).
URL:http://www.monitor2manage.com.au/userdata/downloads/p/Puget%20Sound%20Environment%20monitoring%20model.pd
f [accessed March 31, 2010].
Porcella, D.B., D.P. Larsen and S.A. Peterson. 1980. Index to evaluate lake restoration. J. Environ. Eng. Division 106 (6):
1151-1169.
Reuter, J.E. l983. Inorganic nitrogen metabolism in the periphyton communities of N-deficient, oligotrophic lakes. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of California, Davis. 216 pp.
Reuter, J.E. 2001. Lake Tahoe Water Quality Investigations by the U.C. Davis, Tahoe Research Group, Annual Progress Report
May 1, 1999 – April 31, 2001. Tahoe Research Group, University of California, Davis.
Reuter, J.E. and W.W. Miller. 2000. Aquatic resources, water quality and limnology of Lake Tahoe and its upland watershed,
pp. 215-399. In: The Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment (ed.) D. Murphy and C. Knopp. Vol. 1. United States Department of
Agriculture – Forest Service.
Rowe, T.G. 2010. Monitoring gasoline and gasoline-derived compounds for the Shorezone Water-Quality Monitoring Program in
Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada. 5th Biennial Lake Tahoe Basin Science Conference. March 16-17, 2010. Incline Village,
NV.
Susfalk, R.B., A. Heyvaert, T. Mihevc, B. Fitzgerald, and K. Taylor. 2009. Linking On-Shore and Near-Shore Processes: NearShore Water Quality Monitoring Buoy at Lake Tahoe. . Report to the Nevada Division of State Lands.
Swift, T.J., J. Perez-Losada, S.G. Schladow, J.E. Reuter, A.D. Jassby and C.R. Goldman. 2006. Water clarity modeling in Lake
Tahoe: Linking suspended matter characteristics to Secchi depth. Aquatic Sciences. 68:1-15.
Taylor, K. R. Susfalk, M. Shanafield and G. Schladow 2004. Near-shore Clarity at Lake Tahoe: Status and Causes of Reduction.
Report to Lahontan Region of the California Water Quality Control Board, the Nevada Division of State Lands, and the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency.
Thiede, GP. 1997. Impact of lake trout predation on prey populations in lake tahoe: A bioenergetics assessment.
Thesis. Type. Utah State University.
[TRPA] Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2008. Shorezone and Lakezone Permit Application and Information Package. URL:
http://www.trpa.org/documents/currentapps/Shorezone_Project_Application.pdf [Accessed: March 31, 2010].
[TRPA] Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2006. Shorezone EIS. URL: http://www.trpa.org/default.aspx?tabid=350 [Accessed:
March 31, 2010].
Walter, K. M. 2000. Ecosystem Effects of the Invasion of Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) at Lake Tahoe, CANV. M.S. thesis, University of California, Davis.
Wittman, M.; J. Reuter, G. Schladow, S. Hackley, B. Allen, S. Chandra, and A. Caires. 2008a. Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea)
of Lake Tahoe: Preliminary scientific findings in support of a management plan. UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research
Center and University of Nevada, Reno. URL: http://terc.ucdavis.edu/research/AsianClam2009.pdf [Accessed on March 29,
2010.]
Wittmann, M., S. Chandra, J. Reuter, G. Schladow, S. Chilton, T. Thayer, Nicole Cartwright, D. Smith, David Catalano, Kim
Tisdale, Elizabeth Harrison. 2008b. Development of Asian clam control and monitoring plan strategies for Lake Tahoe.
University of California at Davis, Tahoe Environmental Research Center and University of Nevada – Reno, Department of
Natural Resources. 19 p.
10
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
V. Figures (optional, up to 6 total) for project locations, schematics, sample outputs, etc. Figures do
not count toward page limits unless they are embedded in the narrative.
Figure 1. Example conceptual model for the nearshore environment. This figure represents many of the
basic components and relationships that will be included in the actual conceptual model developed in
Task 3. It is an example only and is not meant to be comprehensive. Modified from Cloern (2001) and
Newton et.al. (1998).
11
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
Figure 2. Potential nearshore environment indicators broken down by type.
12
Proposal: Evaluation of Nearshore Ecology and Aesthetics
Figure 3. Task outline (left) and conceptual approach for indicator evaluation (right, in blue).
13