Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
I. Title Page (1 page maximum)
Title:
Evaluating Field and Laboratory Data for Developing
Surrogate Indicators to Monitor Fine Sediment in the Tahoe
Basin
Subtheme this proposal is
responding to <choose only
1 primary subtheme,
although proposals may
address other subthemes>
Primary subtheme: 4c (Development of Robust Methods for
Evaluating Fine Sediment Concentration and Loads). Secondary
subthemes: 2b (Quantifying the Benefits of Urban Stormwater
Management) and 4b (Identifying Environmental Indicators and
Development of Approaches for Monitoring and Evaluation)
Principal Investigator and
Receiving Institution
Dr. Alan Heyvaert
Desert Research Institute
2215 Raggio Parkway
Reno, NV 89512
Phone: 775-673-7363
Fax: 775-673-7363
Email: alan.heyvaert@dri.edu
Dr. John Reuter
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: 530-304-1473
Fax: 530-753-8407
Email: jereuter@ucdavis.edu
Dr. Masoud Kayhanian
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue, Ghausi Hall
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: 530-752-8957
Fax: 530-752-7872
Email: mdkayhanian@ucdavis.edu
Dr. Nicole Beck,
2ndNature, LLC
500 Seabright Ave, Suite 205
Santa Cruz, CA, 95062
Phone: 831-426-9119
Fax: 831-426-7092
Email: nbeck@2ndnaturellc.com
Ms. Yvonne Rumbaugh
Desert Research Institute
2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512
Phone: 775-673-7366
Fax: 775-673-7363
Email: yvonne.rumbaugh@dri.edu
$249,909
Co-Principal Investigator
Co-Principal Investigator
Co-Principal Investigator
Grants Contact Person
Funding requested:
Total cost share (value of
financial and in-kind
contributions):
$2,147
(additional 20% if issued as cooperative agreements)
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
II. Proposal Narrative (up to 7 pages, single-spaced, 10 point font minimum)
II.a. Project abstract (1 paragraph summary for public distribution)
The Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has determined that a 60–70% reduction in fine sediment
particles will be needed to achieve a Lake Tahoe clarity target of 30 meters. Reliable and economical methods to
monitoring and quantify the loading of fine sediment particles to the Lake are needed in order to track pollutant
load reductions over time resulting from water quality improvement projects. The goal of this research is to
provide basin management agencies with science-based final recommendations for analytical methods and
surrogate indicators of particle concentrations and characteristics appropriate to regulatory purposes and relevant
to improved measurement and tracking of fine particle loading in the Tahoe Basin. Agency representatives will
work in close collaboration with the project scientists to evaluate the available data, determine the quality of
existing relationships between surrogate quantification techniques and associated particle numbers, and then
provide recommendations for field and laboratory assessment of particle numbers and suitable proxies. The project
scientists assembled for this directed action have extensive experience in water quality sampling, particle size
analysis, and fine particle data evaluation, having worked on the TMDL and its associated tools, as well as with
several of the agencies and key stakeholders in the Tahoe Basin.
II.b. Justification statement: explain the relationship between the proposal and the subtheme(s)
It has long been recognized that enhanced nutrient loadings have caused increased algae growth and diminished
clarity in Lake Tahoe (Goldman, 1974; 1988; 1994), More recently, however, increasing amounts of fine sediment
particles (FSP <16 microns) in suspension have been implicated as one of the main reasons for clarity loss (Jassby
et al., 1999; Swift, 2004; Swift et al., 2006). Summarizing the main sources of pollutant loadings into Lake Tahoe,
the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Technical Report has determined that urban areas are responsible for
about 70% of fine sediment particle (FSP) loading and that a 60–70% reduction in FSP will be needed to achieve a
Lake Tahoe clarity target of 30 meters (Lahontan and NDEP, 2010).
In order to track pollutant load reductions over time as a result of water quality improvement actions to achieve the
TMDL goals, resource managers, researchers and modelers need a suite of feasible, reliable and economical
indicators to quantify the loading of fine sediment particles to the Lake. The characterization of fine particle
concentrations and loads can be conducted using a variety of sampling, processing, and analytical methods
(Kayhanian et al., 2005; Heyvaert et al., 2010). However, the analysis of actual particle numbers, particle size
distribution, and associated particle characteristics can be time consuming and expensive (2NDNATURE, 2010).
Therefore, cost-effective and reliable proxies for analytical techniques that count particles are needed to
supplement the existing protocols and analyses. These methods should be reliable and precise, and the outputs
should provide reasonable correlations to number of particles <16um. These proxies should also be able to be
directly incorporated into the Lake Tahoe TMDL Management System and the Lake Clarity Crediting Program.
The goal of this research is to provide basin management agencies with science-based final recommendations for
analytical methods and surrogate indicators of fine particle concentrations that will be appropriate for regulatory
purposes and relevant to improved measurement and tracking of fine particle loading in the Tahoe Basin. Given
the breadth of issues related to particle characterization and reporting for Lake Tahoe pollutant reduction and
management, this proposal will be developed as a directed action that integrates with the implementation of the
Tahoe TMDL and the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP). While an overall design for anticipated research
and synthesis is provided below, the intent of this directed action is for the project scientists to work closely with
agency representatives throughout the project period to define, discuss, and assemble the project deliverables.
II.c. Concise background and problem statement
The Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program has recently published a series of documents that:
(1) identify the pollutants of concern, quantify their sources, and determine appropriate loading targets (Lahontan
and NDEP, 2010); (2) quantify pollutant reduction opportunities (Lahontan and NDEP, 2008a); and (3) develop an
integrated water quality management strategy for load reductions (Lahontan and NDEP, 2008b). Integral to these
efforts is the need for a scientifically-supported, agency-vetted series of protocols for assessing and reporting fine
particle concentrations and their characteristics for both regulatory and management purposes.
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
Standard methods currently exist for reporting a variety of parameters relevant to particle concentrations or
characteristics, including total suspended solids (TSS: SM 2540-D, EPA 160.2), suspended sediment
concentrations (SSC: ASTM D3977), turbidity (SM 2130-B, EPA 180.1), and particle size distribution (PSD: SM
2560, ASTM C1070). None of these used in isolation are entirely adequate for providing accurate particle numbers
<16um in stormwater at Tahoe. However, opportunities exist to integrate the results of the above analytical
techniques and correlate them to expected particle numbers per volume.
While several research groups in the Lake Tahoe Basin are currently engaged in projects that are investigating fine
particles in stormwater to better inform management applications (e.g. the Pollutant Load Reduction Model
(PLRM), the Lake Clarity Model, the Lake Clarity Crediting Program, and the Tahoe Regional Stormwater
Monitoring Program), there needs to be a coordinated linkage between the quantification and reporting techniques
being considered. This proposal brings those research groups together in a collaborative manner to work with the
agencies to meet their needs. A preliminary assessment has been conducted as part of the Tahoe Basin Particle
Size Analysis and Protocol Development Project (Heyvaert et al., 2010), in which a set of recommendations are
provided for the analysis and reporting of fine sediment particles in Tahoe lake, stream, and stormwater samples.
However, these recommendations must be reviewed and expanded upon in the context of anticipated regulatory
requirements and management needs for the Tahoe TMDL. That is the purpose of this directed action, in which
agency representatives from the EIP and TMDL programs will work in close collaboration with the project
scientists to evaluate the available data, determine the quality of existing relationships between cost-effective FSP
(<16um) quantification techniques and associated particle numbers, provide recommendations on appropriate FSP
data collection, develop focused analysis and reporting techniques based on data needs, and identify future FSP
research and data needs to improve our confidence in the ability of cost-effective proxies to predict particle
numbers, particle size distribution and other physical characteristics. We suggest that without this type of
integrated effort the ability to provide TMDL credits for FSP will face significant difficulties.
Of particular interest is the use of surrogate measurements for estimating fine particle concentrations. Since the
TMDL defines a credit for FSP in terms of particle number (one clarity credit = 1.0 x 1016 particles ≤16 µm in
diameter), monitoring values will need to be expressed in this fashion or should be convertible to these numbers.
Developing particle number relationships with surrogate metrics would be of immediate use in reducing analytical
costs associated with stormwater monitoring and BMP performance evaluations. It could also provide a means for
field tracking fine particle concentrations and real-time continuous monitoring. One promising approach that has
been investigated on a preliminary basis is the use of turbidity measurements as an indicator of fine particle
concentrations (Kayhanian et al., 2005; 2NDNATURE, 2010; Heyvaert et al., 2010). While each study has taken a
slightly different approach, the results are encouraging (e.g. Figures 1-4). Translating this relationship into a metric
suited for regulating fine particle concentrations, however, should be done in the context of an agency-directed,
science-based review of all factors that may compromise interpretation of results and set limits on its application
across different venues. For example, it is well known that measurements of turbidity samples with different
laboratory and field instruments do not necessarily provide equivalent results (Gray and Glysson, 2003; Anderson,
2004). Recommendation of specific instrumentation, field sampling, and sample handling methods would reduce
this analytical error in the Tahoe Basin. Furthermore, the relationship between fine particle concentrations and
turbidity may yield site- and/or condition-specific equations (see Figure 2), which suggests that the conditions and
methods by which these or other surrogates may be correctly used must be reviewed and specified in advance,
including any QA/QC requirements for calibrating and maintaining surrogate metrics for monitoring and
regulating pollutant loads in the Tahoe Basin.
Another example of the type of issue that must be addressed collectively by agency representatives and the
scientists represented in this proposal is the adoption of suitable laboratory standards as quality control samples for
the analysis of fine particle concentrations. This has been discussed in Heyvaert et al. (2010), along with some
recommendations for potential standards, but these must first be vetted against reporting requirements and then
tested with each applicable instrument at different laboratories. Furthermore, a program must be established to
provide consistent standards and to review results across participating laboratories and instruments to assure longterm consistency in terms of accuracy, precision, and scale differentials. The Tahoe Regional Stormwater
Monitoring Program (RSWMP) would be an appropriate mechanism for administering these analytical QA/QC
protocols once they have been fully developed by this directed action working group.
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
No single method alone can answer all questions relevant to particle size analysis and the water quality conditions
of runoff and receiving waters in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Instead it will be a combination of approaches that
provides the most appropriate quantification of FSP for different types of samples and monitoring needs. As new
methods are advanced they must be assessed in the context of the growing body of available data on fine particles
at Lake Tahoe. Data from these methods are not necessarily equivalent, and usually derive from a distinct set of
assumptions on composition, density, shape, aggregation, size range, etc. These assumptions must be evaluated,
especially as they relate to verification of the Particle Converter that the TMDL and crediting program currently
use for translating between mass and number of fine particles (<16 µm). There will be a continuing need to
evaluate any assumptions associated with sampling, measuring, and reporting of fine particle concentrations and
characteristics, which should be done in the framework of an agency and science vetted assessment of methods,
data representation, and conversions appropriate for reporting results by different approaches. By defining the
limits and standards of current methods, along with a set of criteria for adopting new approaches, it will be easier
to readily incorporate additional information as it becomes available.
Finally, the fine particle data and surrogate methods developed by this proposed effort must be directly applicable
to the models and the management tools used in restoration design and evaluation at Tahoe, particularly the
TMDL, the PLRM, the Lake Clarity Model, and the Lake Clarity Crediting Program. The research scientists and
agency representatives assembled for this proposal represent a core unit that has been and will continue to be
directly involved in the development and application of these models and tools. Thus, we can speak collectively
and directly toward the relevance and applicability of different approaches. This will facilitate informed technical
discussions to identify priority needs and develop the specific information and data required for issuing a coherent
set of monitoring recommendations and protocols for fine particle assessment. Furthermore, several of these
individuals have been active in development of the Tahoe RSWMP, and they can represent that perspective and
subsequently distribute these products and deliverables to the broader stakeholder community through RSWMP.
II.d. Goals, objectives, and hypotheses to be tested
As part of a directed action, in which agency representatives work closely with the researchers to identify and
decide upon specific priorities and work products, this proposal will outline the general approach and some initial
issues that may be considered for priority evaluation. The intent is not to specify each research task at this time but
to develop a framework within which the researchers and agency representatives can collectively operate to
identify specific priorities, questions, needs, products, regulatory requirements, and options.
Goal: Provide Tahoe Basin agencies and science community with recommended techniques and analytical
protocol to convert between turbidity, total and size-fractioned mass, and number of particles (<16 um) using the
best available existing data and priority investigations.
The work described in this proposal is related to two main objectives: (1) provide the Tahoe Basin management
and implementation community with a set of science-based monitoring and analysis protocols that are appropriate
and defensible as part of a regulatory and crediting system for fine particle concentrations and loads; and (2)
facilitate implementation of these recommendations and future advances in fine particle monitoring as part of a
Basin-wide program for assessment and reporting that functions within the context of the TMDL Management
System and considers the requirements for both TMDL and EIP implementation and assessment. Hypotheses will
be generated in the context of the meetings between the agency representatives and this science team, as described
below.
II.e. Approach, methodology and location of research
Task 1. Review and adjust scope and deliverables with basin agencies.
The collaborative nature of this directed action as a jointly orchestrated effort between the sponsor, agency
representatives, and researchers identified in this proposal will require further refinement of goals and objectives,
details and specific actions for the scope and deliverables. Therefore, our initial task will be a joint project meeting
with this group to discuss the current state of knowledge on fine particle characterization and reporting at Tahoe,
agency expectations for fine particle monitoring and reporting in the context of anticipated regulations and
management needs, potential surrogates for fine particle monitoring, prioritization of actions for developing
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
accredited protocols, and approaches for the direct use of FSP reduction data into the Lake Tahoe TMDL
Management System.
The product from this meeting will be a summary of clearly documented goals and objectives and the tasks to be
performed, given available resources to meet these needs. Based on these discussions a task-by-task budget
breakdown will be developed to facilitate decisions on funding allocations, and opportunities to leverage existing
resources and studies will be identified. Additional meetings may be necessary between the project PI and agency
representative(s), with participation of the funding organization, to refine the prioritization of tasks and
deliverables to reflect a synthesis of both the science and agency perspectives. This will be distributed for final
approval by the project members of both groups (science team and agency representatives).
The overall approach in this project is to 1) provide a synthesis of existing methods and data, 2) develop draft
recommendations based on that information, 3) identify information gaps relevant to implementation of the
recommendations, and 4) work with agency representatives to prioritize the issues that may need to be addressed
through further investigation. Given the tight timeline expected of this directed action, some of these steps may be
conducted in parallel, rather than sequentially. See Figures 5 and 6 for proposed steps in this process.
Task 2. Synthesis of available methods and science on fine particle characterization.
While the amount of data collected at Lake Tahoe on fine particle concentrations and characteristics is growing
(2NDNATURE, 2010; Heyvaert et al., 2010), these efforts have not been targeted toward a regulatory
environment nor have they been well integrated within the TMDL format. In this regard several issues must be
addressed to assure that credible methods are applied in a consistent manner with a defensible scientific basis.
We anticipate the following issues are likely to be relevant to this review and synthesis. This is not a
comprehensive list, and we anticipate agency perspectives are likely to submit additional issues or variations on
these issues for consideration. In the meantime, this list provides a basis for initial discussion and review with
agency representatives.
a)
Particle numbers and FSP as mass. Although the Lake Clarity Model and the TMDL rely on particle
numbers for estimating fine sediment loading and reduction targets, the PLRM uses a mass concentration
of fine sediment particles (FSP ≤ 16 µm as mg/L); this is subsequently converted to particle number using
a simple algorithm established as part of the TMDL. It is important to determine in much greater detail
whether the relationship between mass and particle number is sufficiently robust for regulatory and
management purposes, especially as it relates to the TMDL Particle Converter. Additionally, we must
determine if fractional TSS filtration can be used in place of particle size distribution analysis using more
costly, laser-based techniques, and if so recommend a suitable method for fine particle fractionation.
b) Field turbidity sensors, instrument turbidity measurements, and fine particle concentrations. There
are many different types of turbidimeters, including dynamic (in situ submersible) turbidity sensors and
static (bench top or portable) meters. These different turbidimeters do not necessarily produce equivalent
data, even when calibrated to the same standards. Therefore, not only must the relationship between fine
particle concentration and turbidity be developed or refined for this project, but the sensors and meters
must be defined in terms of application, operational parameters, and conversions. Furthermore, the
procedures for developing rating curves (fine particle concentration vs. turbidity) must be fully defined,
and may be unique to specific sites or conditions, which must be specified. Our intent is to develop a
universal equation relating turbidity to fine particle concentrations. If developing a universal equation is
impossible, then separate equations will be prepared and recommended with instructions for their
development and calibration as necessary.
c)
Assumptions in particle size analysis, including particle shape, density, composition, and settling
velocities across different size classes. Results from particle size analysis derive from certain
assumptions, which vary by technique and instrument. These assumptions must be explicit and their
potential effects on interpretation of resulting data should be explored, especially as they relate to use of
the Particle Converter that the TMDL and crediting program currently use to translate between mass and
number of fine particles (<16 µm). If necessary, representative fine particle (<16 µm) mass from different
monitoring locations could be analyzed for density measurements and composition in terms of organic or
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
inorganic material. The shape of particles is usually not spherical and if this information is necessary it
can be determined for representative samples using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) available at
UC Davis and DRI.
d) Reference Materials (RM) and Quality Control Samples (QCS). While some materials are available
for calibrating and testing analytical procedures for particle size distributions (PSD), there are no existing
environmental standards for checking absolute particle counts across the full range of sizes relevant to
Lake Tahoe studies (0.5–63 µm, with particular emphasis on the 0.5–16 µm range). Most PSD reference
materials are milled products, generally garnet, glass beads, or polymer microspheres in known
dimensions designed for very narrow particle size distributions. It would be desirable to have a more
representative internal RM that covers a wider size distribution. We have used a Yolo silt loam material
and Arizona Road Dust ISO materials for these purposes, yet none of these yield absolute particle counts.
If particle numbers are a regulatory metric, then we must identify and develop appropriate reference
materials.
e)
Holding time. Generally, it is impractical to analyze samples immediately after sampling. Experiments
conducted at Tahoe and elsewhere (Li et al., 2006; Heyvaert et al., 2010) show that particle size
distributions can change rapidly after sample collection, with significant differences evident within six
hours after collection. Are these changes in particle size distribution (and particle numbers) of a degree
that is relevant to regulatory and management requirements? If so, what options are available to deal with
this issue? Gentle sonication may be sufficient to restore initial distributions, or it may be possible to
develop a relationship between time and total PSD number or volumetric concentration that would yield a
correction factor to convert measurement values back to the original time when samples were collected.
f)
Sample collection, processing, splitting, and compositing methods. Event mean composite (EMC)
samples are generated as a cost effective approach for representing aggregate runoff conditions. However,
this process requires subsampling and sample splitting for various analyses (turbidity, PSD, TSS, etc.).
What are the effects of typical sample processing techniques on fine particle results? Does this introduce
unnecessary bias or variation, and what can be done to reduce any error associated with these procedures?
Both automatic sampler and grab sampling have been used to generate composite samples on which PSD,
turbidity and TSS results could be compared. Analysis of these results and additional data would indicate
the most suitable technique(s) to recommend for sample collection, processing and compositing.
g) Pollutants associated with fine particles. Other regulated contaminants, like phosphorus, could be
correlated with particle size. Can particle size distributions and turbidity be used with sample mass
calibration in different size categories to estimate associated pollutants?
Task 3. Design and conduct field and laboratory tests on priority issues.
Acknowledging the constraints of available resources, selected priority issues that lack sufficient scientific basis,
as determined in the synthesis and review of available data and information (from Task 2), will be investigated by
this research team. For example, at a minimum it is expected that the relationship between fine sediment
concentrations and turbidity measurements with in situ sensors and static laboratory turbidimeters will be the
subject of investigation within this proposal. However, the specific approach for the experimental design and
testing of this issue would be developed in collaboration with the agency and sponsor representatives to assure that
the resulting data and reporting contribute directly to products that are applicable by the agencies in their
implementation of permits and associated requirements for monitoring. Identification and testing of suitable
reference material is another area that is likely to be investigated in this study, but the approach will be developed
in collaboration with agency representatives. Any other priority issue would also be developed collaboratively.
Task 4. Develop draft final recommendations for fine particle monitoring and reporting.
In addition to materials produced for scheduled meetings between the science team and the agency representatives
(as described below in II.g), the science team will produce a summary each quarter of any preliminary
recommendations for monitoring, analyzing and reporting of fine particle data and corresponding turbidity or
alternate surrogate(s), incorporating the results from field or laboratory investigations developed as priority issues
(in Task 3) to improve confidence and reliability of measurements. Ultimately, in collaboration with the agency
representatives, these recommendations will be compiled into a comprehensive set of protocols that can be
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
incorporated directly into permit requirements and long-term basin monitoring programs (e.g., RSWMP and
LTIMP). The content of this technical document will be consistent with guidance provided by the Status and
Trend Monitoring and Evaluation Program.
Task 5. Agency review and public stakeholder workshop.
The draft final recommendations and scientific findings will be presented to Tahoe Basin stakeholders in a public
workshop. Both the science team and agency representatives will work collaboratively in the development and
execution of this workshop and in response to questions and suggestions for final recommendations. The
regulatory agencies and sponsor will also make arrangements for final technical review of the recommendations
and monitoring requirements.
II.f. Relationship of the research to previous and current relevant research, monitoring, and/or environmental
improvement efforts
The proposed project will provide information needed for the Pollutant Load Reduction Model, the Lake Clarity
Crediting Program, the Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSWMP) and the Lake Tahoe TMDL
Management System, all developed in support of lake and watershed restoration as programmed within the EIP.
This project will use information from previous monitoring and research projects in the Lake Tahoe basin,
including the Pilot TMDL Stormwater Monitoring Program, the PLRM Development Project (nhc et al. 2009),
previous studies related to BMP evaluation, as well as the many research projects done since fine particles were
first identified as a pollutant of concern (Jassby et al. 1999). This project also will build upon information
developed from other SNPLMA projects awarded to DRI, UC Davis, and 2NDNATURE, which were funded to
assemble available particle size data and test analytical methods for developing preliminary protocols (Heyvaert et
al., 2010), and to acquire fine particle data on Characteristic Runoff Concentrations (CRCs) and Characteristic
Effluent Concentrations (CECs) used in the PLRM (2NDNATURE, 2010). Ongoing SNPLMA projects are in
progress at UCD and DRI to determine sources of fine sediment in highway runoff using fingerprinting
techniques, and to help establish relationships between turbidity, fine sediment and natural removal mechanisms.
Any information collected by these studies will be directly available to help develop relationships between fine
sediment particle numbers and other important water quality characteristics, such as turbidity, total and size
fractionated suspended solids, and nutrients and metals loading associated with fine particles. This information
will be needed for improved management models, performance monitoring, and pollutant crediting assessment.
The analysis of alternative approaches for estimating fine particle counts (number) has direct and immediate
applicability to the implementation of RSWMP monitoring design and BMP programs such as the USFS and CTC
erosion control grants. As feasible, any existing resources and research will be leveraged by the project scientists
on this proposal to support priority investigations.
II.g. Strategy for engaging with managers and obtaining permits
We believe this directed action approach will be an effective means for developing improved guidance on the
measurement and reporting of fine particle concentrations and characteristics in the Lake Tahoe Basin. We have
contacted agency staff at the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (H. Schembri), the Nevada Division
of Environmental Protection (J. Kuchnicki), the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (S. Romsos), and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (W. Loftis) to verify their participation and the direct executive input from these
agencies in this process. We will continue to interact with the representatives of these organizations as well as with
the SNPLMA PSW program manager, the TSC director, and Tahoe RSWMP representatives.
Collaboration between the science team and designated agency representatives will be essential for identifying
priority issues related to particle size analysis and the investigation of potential surrogate metrics. This process is
expected to require frequent communication about the development of recommendations and tests. To facilitate
this process, the lead PI will serve as 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. Regular
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
communication between the science team and agency representatives will be essential to assure that development
of products fully meet agency needs. Therefore, quarterly documentation of products then in progress will be
provided, and the project PI will deliver resulting agency comments and suggestions to the science team for
review. The agency representatives will be considered active partners in this process, and will have an obligation
to collaborate on a regular and timely manner, as will be specified in Task 1 scoping.
We anticipate at least four meetings between the entire Science Team and agency personnel during the course of
the project. These meetings will be held when specific, previously agreed to milestones have been passed and draft
materials have been delivered, or if there is a need by the Science Team to interact with or require feedback from
the agency work group members as a group. We propose the following milestones that will trigger these meetings:
•
Meeting 1. To discuss overall project work plan, timeline, milestones, and deliverables (Task 1).
•
Meeting 2. After the compilation of information/data review and synthesis (Task 2) to discuss any
additional information needs and the development of investigation protocols for priority issues (Task 3).
•
Meeting 3. To present and discuss the results of priority investigations and resulting recommendations
(Task 4).
•
Meeting 4. Agency public workshop to present the project findings and draft recommendations (as Task
5). This would probably happen in the context of an RSWMP meeting, or equivalent.
These meetings should be facilitated by the TSC director or other designated representative, and the science team
will provide draft deliverables for agency review at least one week in advance of each meeting.
Fixed site equipment is already installed at several locations from previous or ongoing studies, so new permits are
not anticipated. However, appropriate agencies will be contacted if site plans are revised or new installations
become necessary. Existing resources will be used as feasible to support any priority investigations.
II.h. Description of deliverables/products and plan for how data and products will be reviewed and made
available to end users
The main deliverables will be a series of technical memos and white papers resulting in one or more report(s),
including:
•
Review and synthesis of available literature and data needed to evaluate targeted issues (from Task 2).
•
Experimental design for addressing priority issues that have been identified as requiring additional
investigation (from Task 3).
•
Draft final recommendations for monitoring, analyzing and reporting of fine particle data and
corresponding turbidity or alternate surrogate(s), presented as a technical report that documents the
development of proposed indicators and associated methods, as well as a justification of why these
indicators were deemed appropriate (from Task 4).
•
A technical review of draft final recommendations by scientists with the appropriate expertise identified
by the Tahoe Science Consortium and collaborating agencies (from Task 5), followed by final revisions
to the technical report.
•
Besides the local workshops and symposium, we plan to present the results at the ASCE Environmental
and Water Resources Institute (EWRI) annual conference. In addition, we anticipate at least one peer
reviewed journal publication from this research study. These combined efforts will add a further layer of
review and make the recommendations more credible.
A final report, consisting of the peer-review recommendations and any supporting materials will be posted to the
Tahoe Integrated Information Management System (TIIMS) and provided to jurisdictional representatives through
RSWMP.
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
III. Schedule of major milestones/deliverables
Projects should not expect to begin before June 2011. However, if necessary, this directed action could be started
sooner than June 2011. See Figures 5 and 6 for the proposed steps in this process, including iterative reviews. A
focused, shorter-term project is the objective, to the extent possible. Thus, the unusually tight schedule proposed
below.
The project scientists assembled for this proposal have conducted or contributed to most of the work done on fine
particle assessment for the Tahoe TMDL and its associated tools. It was considered important to engage these
researchers in the directed action, which is intended to be a flexible framework within which to engage with
agency representatives to identify and to best meet their priority needs on this issue.
Milestone/Deliverables
Prepare progress reports
Start Date
6/2011
End Date
12/2012
Annual accomplishment
report
6/2011
12/2012
Task 1
6/2011
9/2011
Scope adjustments. Preliminary review of
information and options for work plan.
Agency and science team
meeting #1
6/2011
9/2011
Finalization of work plan: discuss scope, priorities,
milestones, deliverables, final statement of work,
and timeline.
Task 2
6/2011
3/2012
Comprehensive review and synthesis of available
literature and data pertaining to priority issues.
Agency and science team
meeting #2
12/2011
3/2012
Review Task 2 deliverable(s) and discuss priorities
for further investigation, readjust work plan and
scope.
Task 3
10/2011
9/2012
Experimental design and testing to address priority
issues.
Agency and science team
meeting #3
6/2012
9/2012
Review and discuss the results of priority
investigations and resulting recommendations.
Task 4
6/2012
9/2012
Draft final recommendations for monitoring and
analysis methods.
Agency and science team
meeting #4
9/2012
12/2012
Stakeholder workshop to present draft final
recommendations.
Revision of Final Report
9/2012
12/2012
Respond to technical peer-review and revise final
report.
Project Closeout
3/2013
Description
Submit brief progress reports to Tahoe Science
Program coordinator by the 15th of July, October,
January, and April.
Prepare annual summary of accomplishments in
September.
Project closeout and final report submitted.
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
IV. Literature Cited
2NDNATURE. 2010. PLRM v.1, Focused Stormwater Monitoring to Validate Water Quality Source Control and
Treatment Assumptions. Final Technical Report. March 2010.
Anderson, C.W. 2005. Turbidity (version 2.1): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, section 6.7, 64 p.
Goldman, C.R. 1974. Eutrophication of Lake Tahoe, Emphasizing Water Quality. NTIS, EPA Report EPA-660/374-034. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 408 p.
Goldman, C.R. 1988. Primary productivity, nutrients, and transparency during the early onset of eutrophication in
ultra-oligotrophic Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33(6, part 1):1321-1333.
Goldman, C.R. 1994. Lake Tahoe: A microcosm for the study of the impact of urbanization on fragile ecosystems,
p. 93-105. In R.H. Platt et al. (eds.), The Ecological City. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.
Gray, J.R. and G.D. Glysson. 2003. Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Workshop on Turbidity and Other
Sediment Surrogates, April 30−May 2, 2002, Reno, Nevada.U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1250, 56 p.
Jassby, A.D., C.R. Goldman, J.E. Reuter, and R.C. Richards. 1999. Origins and scale dependence of temporal
variability in the transparency of Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada. Limnol. Oceanogr., 44, 282-294.
Heyvaert, A., D. Nover, T. Caldwell, W. Trowbridge, G. Schladow, and J. Reuter. 2010. Assessment of Particle
Size Analysis in the Lake Tahoe Basin, Draft Final Report. Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, and University of
California, Davis, CA. August 6, 2010.
Kayhanian M., T.M. Young, and M. K. Stenstrom. 2005. Small Particles and the Associated Constituents in
Highway Runoff: Methodology and Preliminary Results. Final draft report prepared for the California Department
of Transportation, Report No. CTSW-RT-06-73-23.1. Sacramento, California.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP). 2008a. Lake Tahoe TMDL Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Report March 2008 v2.0. Lahontan Water
Board, South Lake Tahoe, California, and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Carson City, NV. 267 p.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP). 2008b. Integrated Water Quality Management Strategy Project Report. Lahontan Water Board, South
Lake Tahoe, California, and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Carson City, NV. 100 p.
Li Y., S. L. Lau, M. Kayhanian, and M. K. Stenstrom. 2005. Particle Size Distribution in Highway Runoff.
Environmental Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 9, 1267-1276.
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (nhc), Geosyntec Consultants, and 2NDNATURE. 2009. PLRM Model
Development Document. Prepared for the Lake Tahoe Basin Storm Water Quality Improvement Committee. South
Lake Tahoe, CA.
Swift, T.J. 2004. The aquatic optics of Lake Tahoe, CA-NV. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis,
212 pp.
Swift, T. J., J. Perez-Losada, S.G. Schladow, J. E. Reuter, A.D. Jassby and C.R. Goldman. 2006. Water Quality
Modeling in Lake Tahoe: linking suspended matter characteristics to Secchi depth. Aquatic Sciences 68, 1-15.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control 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.
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
V. Figures (optional, up to 6 total).
Figure 1. Total particles between 0.45 to 16 µm in Tahoe stormwater samples versus turbidity. Number of particles
calculated from LS-13320 data assuming spherical shape and constant density of 2.65 g/cm2. Data derived from
the analysis of over 750 samples at fifteen stormwater sites around the Tahoe Basin monitored during WY03
through WY09 (Heyvaert et al., 2010) using equivalent equipment and methods.
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
Figure 2. Example of fine particle data (from Figure 1) separated by site, showing that differences exist in the
relationship (regressions) between turbidity and particle concentration. Increasing sample numbers do not
necessarily improve this relationship, as the lowest R2 values are associated with sites having the largest sample
numbers. Whether these differences are relevant to regulatory requirements is to be determined in discussion with
agency representatives as part of this directed action.
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
Figure 3. Field turbidity of urban stormwater samples versus fine sediment particle (FSP) concentration in mass,
as estimated from particle size distribution (PSD) data (2ndNature, personal comm., 2010).
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
Figure 4. Field turbidity of stream samples versus fine sediment particle (FSP) concentration in mass, as estimated
from particle size distribution (PSD) data (2ndNature, personal comm., 2010).
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
Figure 5. Flowchart for Phase 1 steps in the directed action proposal.
Proposal: Tahoe Research Supported by SNPLMA 2010
Figure 6. Flowchart for Phase 2 steps in the directed action proposal.