Lake Tahoe Water Clarity Project

Lake Tahoe Water Clarity Project

Spaky Ching

Student, UC Berkeley

Annie Lu


Christine Stontz


Lake Tahoe

Source: http://www.adventuresofreno.com/wordpress/wp-

content/uploads/2010/04/Fannette_Island_Emerald_Bay_Lake_Tahoe_California.jpg

Contact information:

Spaky Ching [email protected]

Christine Stontz [email protected]

Annie Lu [email protected]

Lands that would be impacted:

For this project, the Lake Tahoe basin will be impacted. Both urban and non-urban areas will be

affected by the construction of bioretention ponds and revegetation with native plants. The

region is located on the border of California and Nevada and includes the Tahoe National Forest.

Executive Summary

This document outlines a project that will take place in the Lake Tahoe basin to improve

the lake’s water clarity. The Lake Tahoe basin consists of 323,200 acres, 80,800 of which are

considered urban and 242,400 of which are considered non-urban. The area acts as a filtration

system for the water that enters Lake Tahoe.

The basin is a popular tourist destination due to its beautiful alpine surroundings. Thus,

the area’s economy is largely based on revenue generated from recreational activities during the

summer and winter months. This seasonal employment has contributed to the higher

unemployment rate of the area relative to the state. Moreover, the influx of visitors during tourist

seasons increases the environmental degradation in the basin. More runoff from sediments and

nutrients are generated, causing the lake’s water clarity to drop. Data from the Univeristy of

California, Davis supports this: 40 years ago clarity reached down to approximately 100 m,

compared to recent clarity values of approximately 60-70 m.

To improved Lake Tahoe’s water clarity, this project centers around filtration and

revegetation of both urban areas and non-urban areas. Filtration will be conducted through the

construction of bioretention ponds while revegetation will make use of native plants. Both

methods are to reduce the amount of sediment runoff, nitrogen runoff, and phosphorus runoff.

Goal programming was used to minimize the total deviation in sediment runoff reduction,

nitrogen runoff reduction, phosphorus runoff reduction, and cost from target values established

through scientific literature. A budget of $149,375,000 for this project was determined by finding

applicable annual and one-time funding sources through the Tahoe Environmental Improvement

Program.

Goal programming showed that the best solution satisfied the objective function and met

two of the four target values (sediment runoff reduction and cost). This solution stated that

bioretention ponds should be constructed on approximately 45,000 acres of urban land and on

approximately 112,000 acres of non-urban land, and that revegetation will take place on

approximately 35,000 acres of urban land and on approximately 130,000 acres of non-urban

land. Both a quarterly financial analysis for a two-year period and an annual financial analysis

for a five-year period were conducted. As this is not a project intended to generate revenue, the

financial analyses focused on how much funding would remain. The analyses showed that

$166,483,000 would remain after five years; in present-day dollars this is $150,788,782.40. This

shows that the project will not operate at a loss.

Introduction

Lake Tahoe is admired for its clarity and beautiful alpine surroundings. Most of the

terrain is mountainous (with peaks more than 10,000ft). On the border of California and Nevada,

one-third of the basin is in Nevada and two-thirds are in California. The basin is bounded by the

Sierra Nevada to the west and the Carson Range to the east.

During the second half of the 20th century, the decline in Lake Tahoe’s water clarity has

become a major concern. The long-term trend toward of decreasing water clarity is strongly

linked to runoff from urban and forest sources in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Water clarity is the

primary measure of the basin’s health, as it reflects water quality. It is estimated that in 10 years

the lake will lose its blue brilliance. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, such as sedimentation and

nutrient runoff, is contributing to the decline in Lake Tahoe's water clarity. Fine sediments

become suspended and decrease lake clarity, while nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen

promote excess algal growth that further decreases clarity.

To improve water quality, sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus runoffs to the lake should

be reduced. To do this, installation of filtration systems and revegetation can be applied to both

the urban and nonurban area of the Lake Tahoe basin.

Geography/ Geology

Lake Tahoe is located along the border of California and Nevada. About 1/3 of the basin

is in Nevada and 2/3 is in California. The basin is bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the west and

the Carson Range to the east. The Lake Tahoe Basin was formed by geologic block (normal)

faulting about 2 to 3 million years ago. The down-dropping of the Lake Tahoe Basin and the

uplifting of the adjacent mountains resulted in dramatic topographic relief in the region.

Mountain peaks rise to more than 10,000 ft (3,048 m) above sea level. The surface of Lake

Tahoe has an average elevation of about 6,225 ft (1,897 m).

Lake Tahoe is the second deepest lake in the United States and the tenth deepest in the

world, with a maximum depth measured at 1,645 ft (501 m), average depth of 1,000 ft (305 m).

The depth of Lake Tahoe changes every day as the lake level changes. The deepest measurement

from the 1998 bathymetric survey was 1,637 ft (499 m) deep.

Lake Tahoe is about 22 mi (35 km) long and l2 mi (19 km) wide and has 72 mi (116 km)

of shoreline and a surface area of 191 mi2 (495 km2). The floor of the Lake Tahoe Basin is at an

elevation of about 4,580 ft (1,396 m), which is lower than the surface of the Carson Valley to the

east! With an average surface elevation of 6,225 ft (1,897 m) above sea level, Lake Tahoe is the

highest lake of its size in the United States

The water temperature near the surface generally cools to 40 °F to 50 °F during February

and March and warms to 65 °F to 70 °F during August and September. Below a depth of 600 to

700 ft (183 to 213 m), the water temperature remains a constant 39 °F.

Lake Tahoe has a water clarity of about 70 ft (21 m) deep. The clarity has reduced from

greater than 100 ft (30.5m) since readings began in the late 1960's. The last published annual

average Secchi depth reading was 67.7 ft (20.6m) in 2006.

Lake Tahoe was occupied by the Washoe Tribe for many centuries. The Washoe Indians

were hunting and fishing in the area long before General John C. Fremont encountered it in 1844

during his exploration of the Far West. Since then, public appreciation of Lake Tahoe has grown.

Efforts were made during the 1912, 1913, and 1918 congressional sessions to designate the basin

as a national park but were unsuccessful.

Native Species

As part of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem, Lake Tahoe ecology is dominated by Sierra

mixed conifer species (Pseudotsuga mensiesii, Abies concolor, Pinus ponderosa, etc.). They can

be found here in addition to smaller, more landscaping-ready plants such as Sierra gooseberry,

rubber rabbitbrush, and pinemat manzanita.. Plants native to the area tolerate nutrient-poor soils,

harsh winters, and a short growing season. Their deep root systems also help to stabilize slopes

and soils. As part of the solution, planting native vegetation will be considered to reduce the

amount of runoff into Lake Tahoe. Using native species will decrease the chance of impacting

the environment further through the introduction of invasive pests and plants.

Climate

Lake Tahoe has what is known as snowy highland climate. The winters in the area tend to

be cold, especially during the nighttime and the summers can be hot but mostly stay moderate

especially when you average daytime and nighttime temperatures in Lake Tahoe weather. The

hottest month of the year is July while the coolest is January. Snowfall happens every month of

the year except for July and August. The hottest temperature in the area is 99 °F. During the

winter, the coldest temperature recorded is -29 °F. However, even in July, there have been

temperatures below freezing. The coldest July temperature ever recorded was 25 °F.

(laketahoeweather.net) Mean annual precipitation ranges from over 55 inches (1440 mm) for

watersheds on the west side of the basin to about 26 inches (660 mm) near the lake on the east

side of the basin. Most of the precipitation falls as snow between November and April, although

rainstorms combined with rapid snowmelt account for the largest floods.

Economic Issues

Much of Lake Tahoe’s economy revolves around recreation. One of agencies that helps

manage recreation is the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). Visitors from around

the country and the world are attracted to Lake Tahoe to enjoy a variety of recreational activities.

The scenic quality of Lake Tahoe and its surrounding landscape make visiting the Lake Tahoe

Basin a one-of-a-kind experience. The LTBMU contributes to the Lake Tahoe Basin’s scenic

quality through the conservation and management of vegetation, waterways, infrastructure, and

recreation. Recreation opportunities supported by interpretation and conservation education

enrich the recreation experience and contribute to enhancing the public’s environmental literacy.

The Lake Tahoe Basin’s economy is driven largely by recreation and tourism. The LTBMU

plays an important role in providing outdoor recreation opportunities and preserving the scenic

quality of the Tahoe Basin’s lands and waterways.

Within the Lake Tahoe Region in 2006, the accommodation and food services industries

accounted for the greatest share of labor income, followed closely by government. The

unemployment rate for the LTR (Lake Tahoe Region) was lower than both California and

Nevada; however, it exceeded the unemployment rate for the Greater Lake Tahoe Area (GLTA),

which had the lowest unemployment rate of the four regions. The higher unemployment rates on

the south shore may be explained by the greater degree of employment being occupied by the

arts, entertainment and recreation industries, which are subject to the seasonal influx of visitors.

Employees in these industries often work seasonally.

Social Issues

Lake Tahoe remained exceptionally clear for decades. It was only with population increase

that clarity began to diminish. The watershed acted as its own water purification system, as

streams and creeks would slowly remove suspended particles from the water flowing into the

lake. When humans began to visit the area, these streams and creeks became disturbed, freeing

particles from creek beds and allowing them to flow into the lake. Traffic from highways and

roads has increased over the last 50 years, and lake water clarity has suffered because of it.

While the economy depends on tourism if it is to remain healthy, these tourists increase the

amount of people trafficking the area. A solution must be found that will limit or reduce the

amount of pollutant runoff into the lake while still allowing humans to enjoy the area.

Because the Lake Tahoe basin is populated by humans, social issues are interlinked with

environmental issues. How the human population manages itself directly affects the health of the

surrounding ecosystem, which is reflected in the clarity of the lake. There are about 22000

people who live in the city of South Lake Tahoe, though anthropogenic effects can be seen

around the entire lake perimeter.

Environmental Issues

For the past 100 years, the Lake Tahoe region has faced environmental degradation in

water clarity and the health of the surrounding forests. Water clarity is the primary measure of

the basin’s health, as it reflects water quality. It is estimated that in 10 years the lake will lose its

blue brilliance. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, such as sedimentation and nutrient runoff, is

contributing to the decline in Lake Tahoe's water clarity. Fine sediments become suspended and

decrease lake clarity, while nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen promote excess algal

growth that further decreases clarity. These disturbances are a result of human impacts including

clearcut logging, fire suppression, channelization of streams and rivers, and rapid urban

development. Forest harvest operations generate income for the area despite being a source of

pollution. The Forest Service has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Tahoe Regional

Planning Agency to facilitate cooperation, support and assistance towards reaching common

goals.

Objectives:

To maximize the reduction of pollutant runoff from both urban and nonurban area in Lake

Tahoe:

- Maximizing Reduction of Sediment Runoff

- Maximizing Reduction of Nitrogen Runoff

- Maximizing Reduction of Phosphorus Runoff

And possibly:

- Minimizing Cost

Reduction Methods In order to reduce the amount of pollutant runoff into Lake Tahoe, two strategies can be

considered. The first strategy is the installation of filtration systems; these filtration systems will

be bioretention ponds. These ponds can be constructed on both urban and non-urban land.

Bioretention ponds reduce the amount of sediment in water by 90%, the amount of nitrogen by

49%, and the amount of phosphorus by 76% (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

2012). These percentages are the same for both urban and nonurban situations.

The second strategy is to revegetate urban and non-urban land, with different results in

each. Revegetation in urban areas will consist of planting seeds within private property, parks,

and other areas with exposed soil. In order to reduce cost, urban revegetation will not involve the

destruction of areas that are already paved or developed. The agency will purchase seeds in bulk

and allow property owners and private organizations to choose which species they desire. The

purchased seeds will only be native species so that invasive plants and pests do not become an

issue. Revegetation in non-urban areas will consist of planting native seedlings. Revegetation in

these non-urban areas will not be restricted to clearcut or deforested sites; every non-urban acre

is a candidate for revegetation, though areas with high tree densities will not receive as many

seedlings. By revegetating the land, erosion will be reduced and therefore pollutant runoff will

also be reduced.

Research Methods Because there are multiple objective measures, goal programming is used to find the best

satisfying solution under priorities of the goals. Hence, each of the four measures (maximizing

reduction of sediment runoff, maximizing reduction of nitrogen runoff, maximizing reduction of

phosphorus runoff, and minimizing the cost) is given a goal or target value to be achieved. An

objective function will be formulated for each objective. A solution that minimizes the

(weighted) sum of deviations of these objective functions from their respective goals will be

found.

Decision Maker

The decision maker in this situation is the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, an organization

dedicated to improving the environmental conditions of the Lake Tahoe basin.

Assumptions

1. When prioritizing a variable, its weight will be 1 and all other weights are 0. For example, if

prioritizing sediment, wS is equal is 1 while wN, wP, and wC are equal to 0.

2. The decline of the water quality is assumed to be only due to the sediment and nutrients runoff

from both urban and nonurban sources.

Data

Contribution to Goals

Many studies have been done that assess pollutant runoff into Lake Tahoe. One such

study examined how revegetation would affect sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus runoff; both

urban and non-urban sites were investigated. The results of this study were used when

determining the contribution of revegetation improvements to the overall goals. For instance, it

was found that revegetation methods in the entire non-urban area reduced total sediment runoff

by 3.00 tons/year. This figure was found by extrapolating the average findings at a few non-

urban sites to the total non-urban area (Garcia 1988). For the purposes of this plan, it was then

converted to metric tons and divided by the total number of non-urban acres surrounding Lake

Tahoe (242400 acres). This resulted in the knowledge that revegetating non-urban areas would

reduce sediment runoff into Lake Tahoe by 1.1225x10-5metric tons/acre/year. This is the

contribution that revegetation makes to the goal of sediment reduction in non-urban areas. This

same method was applied to find the contribution that revegetation makes to the goals of

sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus runoff reduction in both urban and non-urban areas. Data

from Garcia’s study was converted into units of metric tons/acre/year. In the case of urban sites,

the figure was divided by the total number of urban acres surrounding Lake Tahoe (80800 acres

instead of 242400 acres). Also, the study measured nitrogen and phosphorus levels in units of

pounds/year instead of tons/year. Pounds were converted into metric tons for this plan. For

instance,

Revegetating urban areas:

Sediment reduction = (230 tons/year * 0.907 metric tons/ton)/80800 acres

=0.002582 metric tons/acre/year

Nitrogen reduction = (47 lbs/year * 0.000453 metric tons/lb)/80800 acres

=2.635x10-7 metric tons/acre/year

Phosphorus reduction = (2.8 lbs/year * 0.00453 metric tons/lb)/80800 acres

=1.569x10-8 metric tons/acre/year

The same operations were performed for non-urban areas.

In order to determine the contribution that bioretention ponds (the filtration method) make to

the reduction of sediment and nutrient runoff, information was found on retention ponds.

According to an EPA resource, retention ponds remove about 90% of sediment, 49% of nitrogen,

and 76% of phosphorus from water flowing through them (National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System 2012). In regards to the Lake Tahoe region, other studies have analysed the

total amount of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus runoff into the lake from both urban and

non-urban sites. The values from these studies were converted into metric tons/acre/year and

multiplied by the appropriate percentage. This yielded the amount of pollutant reduction that

filtration methods contribute to the goals. For instance, it was found that 5200 metric tons/year of

sediment runoff into Lake Tahoe came from urban sources (USDA 2010). This number was

multiplied by 90% to determine the effect of filtration on the reduction of sediment runoff; the

result was then divided by 80800 acres to account for the total number of urban acres in the

region. Based on this method, it was found that filtration in urban areas would reduce sediment

runoff by 0.05792 metric tons/acre/year. This is the contribution of filtration to the reduction of

sediment runoff in urban areas. Following this strategy,

Filtering non-urban areas:

Sediment reduction = (11700 metric tons/year * 90%)/242400 acres

= 0.04344 metric tons/acre/year

Nitrogen reduction = (240 lbs/year * 0.000453 metric tons/lb * 49%)/242400 acres

= 2.1977x10-7 metric tons/acre/year

Phosphorus reduction = (8.1 lbs/year * 0.000453 metric tons/lb *76%)/242400 acres

= 1.1504x10-8 metric tons/acre/year

The same operations were performed for urban areas. Nitrogen and phosphorus values were

found from Garcia’s 1988 report, while sediment levels were obtained from the USDA’s report.

Target Values: Pollutant Reduction

Pollutant levels in recent years have exceeded levels from the past. This increase in pollutant

concentration has decreased water clarity. In order to increase water clarity back to a

historical standard, current runoff levels must be reduced. These target amounts of runoff must

then be maintained if the lake is to remain clear for years to come.

As of today:

The total sediment runoff into Lake Tahoe per year is 16900 metric tons/year (USDA 2010).

The total nitrogen runoff into Lake Tahoe per year is 125 metric tons/year (State Water

Resources Control Board 2011).

The total phosphorus runoff into Lake Tahoe per year is 30 metric tons/year (State Water


The total current sediment runoff should be reduced by at least 45% in order to control the rate of

increase of total sediment runoff to the lake. This percentage figure was found in a study done by

the EPA that examined historical water clarity and pollutant runoff (State Water Resources

Control Board 2011). In order to find the target level of sediment reduction, the current level of

runoff was multiplied by the desired percentage reduction (16900 metric tons/year * 45%). This

is the minimum amount of sediment reduction required to meet the goal of long-term pollutant

reduction. For instance,

Total sediment runoff reduction >= 16900 metric tons/year * 45%

>= 7605 metric tons/year

The total nitrogen runoff should be reduced by at least 25% of the total (State Water


Total nitrogen runoff reduction >= 125 * 25%

>= 31.23 metric tons/year

The total phosphorus runoff should be reduced by at least 45% of the total (State Water


Total phosphorus runoff reduction >= 30 * 24.5%

>= 7.35 metric tons/year

Target Values: Cost

The target value of cost was found by determining the amount of funding available for the

project. Sources of funding include public, private, state, and federal agencies. The total amount

of funding available for the first year is the sum of all one-time contributions ($116,050,000) and

the first year of annual contributions ($33,325,000). The result is the budget for the installation

of improvements, $149,375,000 (Environmental Improvement Plan 2001). Thus, the total

combined cost of retention ponds and revegetation must not exceed $149,375,000.

Decision variables:

X1= acres of urban area where filtration will be applied

X2= acres of urban area where revegetation will be applied

X3= acres of non-urban area where filtration will be applied

X4= acres of non-urban area where revegetation will be applied

Goal of Variables:

S- = shortage of reduction in sediment runoff in metric tons

S+ = surplus of reduction in sediment runoff in metric tons

N- = shortage of reduction in nitrogen runoff in metric tons

N+ = surplus of reduction in nitrogen runoff in metric tons

P- = shortage reduction in phosphorus runoff in metric tons

P+ = surplus reduction in phosphorus runoff in metric tons

C- = shortage of cost

C+ = surplus of cost

wS-........wC

+ = are constant weights, to make all weighted deviations commensurate and to express

the relative importance of each goal.

Objective function:

Minimize total deviation from all goals Z

Min Z = wS-S- + wS

+S++ wN-N- + wN

+N+ + wP-P- +wP

+P++ wC-C-+ wC

+C+

Since the project concerns about underachieving the sediment reduction, nitrogen reduction and

phosphorus reduction goals but not about exceeding them, so S-, N- and P- only need to be in our

objective function. At the same time, the cost should be kept low. Therefore, C+ , but not C-,

should be in our objective function.

In summary, the relevant expression of the objective function for this project is:

Min Z = wS-S- + wN

-N- + wP-P- + wC

+C+

Constraints:

1. Sediment Runoff Reduction (metric tons/ yr): 0.057920792X1+ 0.002581807X2+ 0.043440594X3+ 1.12252E-05X4+ S- - S+ = 7605

2. Nitrogen Runoff Reduction (metric tons/ yr): 7.96675E-08X1+ 2.63502E-07X2+ 2.19772E-07X3+ -7.66213E-0705X4+ N- - N+ = 31.23

3. Phosphorus Runoff Reduction (metric tons/ yr): 3.06784E-08X1+ 1.5698E-08X2+ 1.15044E-08X3+ 1.17548E-07X4+ P- - P+ = 7.35

4. Cost ($/ yr): 2400X1+ 100X2+ 240X3+ 75X4+ C- - C+ = 149375000

Results

Four solutions were found that each seek to achieve different goals.

1. Maximizing reduction of sediment runoff

To prioritize sediment runoff reduction, the shortage weight of sediment runoff reduction, S-, is

set to be 1, while the rest of the weights is set to be 0.

For urban land, 45471.63117 acres of the available urban land would be applied filtration, while

35328.36883 acres would be revegetated.

For nonurban land, 112304.5352 acres would be applied filtration, while 130095.4648 acres

would be revegetated.

The weighted sum of surplus and shortage totals, Z, would be minimized to 0.

Sediment runoff reduction: The goal of having 7605 metric tons of sediment runoff reduced each year would be met with no

shortage.

Nitrogen runoff reduction: The nitrogen reduction goal would not be met. Only 0.137293965 metric tons of nitrogen runoff

would be reduced each year, which would give a shortage of 31.09270604 metric tons/ year.

Phosphorus runoff reduction: The phosphorus reduction goal would not be met. Only 0.018534076 metric tons of phosphorus

runoff would be reduced each year with a shortage of 7.331465924 metric tons/ year.

Cost: The cost would be $149375000, which is the same as the target.

2. Maximizing reduction of nitrogen runoff

To prioritize nitrogen runoff reduction, the shortage weight of nitrogen runoff reduction, N-, is

set to be 1, while the rest of the weights is set to be 0.

For urban land, 53528.26087 acres would be applied filtration, while 27271.73913 acres would

be revegetated.

For nonurban land, the whole available area would be revegetated.

The total weighted surplus would be 0, while the total weighted shortage would be 31.03281937.

The sum of surplus and shortage totals would be 31.03281937. The weighted sum of surplus and

shortage totals, Z, would be 31.03281937.

Nitrogen runoff reduction: The goal of having 31.23 metric tons of nitrogen reduced each year would not be met. Only

0.197180631 tons of nitrogen would be reduced each year with a shortage of 31.03281937 tons

per year.

Sediment runoff reduction: The sediment runoff reduction goal would not be met. Only 3173.530633 metric tons of

sediment runoff would be reduced each year with a shortage of 4431.469367 metric tons/ year. .




3. Maximizing reduction of phosphorus runoff

To prioritize phosphorus runoff reduction, the shortage weight of phosphorus runoff reduction, P-

, is set to be 1, while the rest of the weights is set to be 0.


be revegetated.


The total weighted surplus would be 0, while the total weighted shortage would be 7.32. The

sum of surplus and shortage totals, Z, would be 7.32.

Phosphorus runoff reduction: The goal of having 7.35 metric tons of nitrogen reduced each year would not be met. Only

0.030563975 metric tons of phosphorus runoff would be reduced each year with a shortage of

7.319436025 metric tons/ year.


sediment runoff would be reduced each year with a shortage of 4431.469367 metric tons/ year.


0.197180631 metric tons of nitrogen would be reduced each year with a shortage of 31.03281937

metric tons per year.


4. Minimizing Cost

To prioritize minimizing the cost, the surplus weight of cost, C+, is set to be 1, while the rest of

the weights is set to be 0.


be revegetated.


The total weighted surplus would be 0, while the total weighted shortage would be 0. The sum of

surplus and shortage totals, Z, would be 0.

Cost: The cost would be 149375000, which is the same as the target.




sediment runoff would be reduced each year with a shortage of 4431.469367 metric tons/ year.


0.197180631 metric tons of nitrogen would be reduced each year with a shortage of 31.03281937

metric tons per year.

Business Plan

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the intended plan for the Lake Tahoe basin. The Lake Tahoe basin

consists of 323200 acres, 80800 of which are considered urban and 242400 of which are

considered non-urban. The area acts as a filtration system for the water that enters Lake Tahoe.

Funding for this project will come from public, private, state, and federal agencies. While

much of this funding is issued at one time, a portion of it is generated on an annual basis. The

funds will be used to implement filtration and revegetation methods that will increase lake water

clarity.

Projects will be constructed by local crews that are contracted. Payment of these crews is

included in the cost of the projects. Future efforts to monitor and maintain the sites will be

undertaken by UC Davis students, as the university already has an established monitoring

program of the lake. They will be provided a portion of the overall funds for equipment and

labor.

After the first year, in which improvements are constructed, there will be no remaining funds.

Every year after that year will see at least $33,273,400 in remaining funds. At the end of five

years, a total of $166,483,000 will be remaining in funds.

Introduction

This is a business plan to estimate the costs and benefits of implementing water clarity

projects in the Lake Tahoe basin, which is located on the border of California and Nevada. The

goal of the plan is to ensure that the costs can be met with the available funds. The water clarity

improvements will consist of bioretention ponds and the revegetation of the land. These

strategies will reduce the amount of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus runoff into Lake Tahoe.

With the increase in water clarity, the region will be able to maintain its high rate of tourism, the

main sector of its economy.

Funding will come from private, public, state, and federal resources and can be a one-

time or annual contribution. The states of California and Nevada both have a Tahoe License

Plate Program, and these programs generate funds on an annual basis. Likewise, certain tax

initiatives have been set up in both states to help fund the Environmental Improvement Program

(EIP). Contributions that will occur only once are programs such as research grants and private

foundations.

The Lake Tahoe basin is high elevation (about 6200 ft), and therefore is generally cold.

Snow can be expected to occur in every month except July and August, while temperatures in

these months can reach as high as 99୦F. Temperature fluctuations do not affect the amount of

pollutant runoff into the lake, and both strategies of pollutant reduction will be effective

throughout the year.

Market/Interest Groups/Stakeholders

With the Lake Tahoe basin being such a popular destination for recreational activities, it

is not surprising to hear that there are various stakeholders interested in the well-being of the

area. Starting with the businesses in the area, there are those involved in recreational activities

such as kayaking, boating, skiing, and snowboarding. To accommodate the tourists, various

hotels and rental cabins fill the area. Recognizing the added pressures that increasing tourism can

have on the environment, concerned residents have taken to starting organizations dedicated to

taking care of the area’s environment. One such organization is Keep Tahoe Blue, whose focus is

to maintain the clarity of the lake. In addition, both state and local governments are also

interested in the lake. The Tahoe License Plate program is run by both the California government

and the Nevada program; it is designed to raise funds to support environmental projects in the

Tahoe region. Local governments respond to the desires of residents and propose tax initiatives

and fees as possible funding sources for environmental projects. To support these projects is the

University of California, Davis that conducts research on the lake and collects data on its

condition.

Products and Services

Services gained by this plan are water filtration through the use of revegetation and

bioretention ponds. These methods will enhance the basin’s ability to filter the water that enters

Lake Tahoe, thereby improving water clarity. Water clarity is an important aspect of tourism, as

tourists often use the lake directly or indirectly (boating, kayaking, and enjoying views while

skiing).

Marketing and Sales Strategy

The biggest attraction to the Lake Tahoe basin is the beauty of the lake and its surroundings.

Improving the lake’s water clarity will attract more tourists to the area, increasing profits for

businesses and helping to keep residents employed. As such, it is important to emphasize this

point to encourage constant support from businesses, residents, and the different levels of

government to maintain investments in projects that improve Lake Tahoe’s water clarity. Thus,

our marketing and sales strategy would focus on how improving the lake’s water clarity will

ultimately benefit every individual and organization that resides in the area.

Organization and Management

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is the main decision maker for this project. The

organization did not officially exist until the 1960s when Congress ratified the agreement

between the California and Nevada governments to establish an agency to look after the Tahoe

area. TRPA became the first bi-state regional environmental planning agency in the country. The

agency’s goals follow the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact that delineates that a balance

should be obtained between the quality of the natural environment and the human-made

environment. The Compact also gives TRPA and its governing board the authority to adopt

environmental quality standards and to enforce ordinances to maintain these standards. TRPA

continues to work with various groups to restore and enhance Lake Tahoe.

Financial Analysis 1. Quarterly Financial Projections for Two Years

All four solutions required the same amount of money for implementation and future

monitoring costs. At the end of two years, all four plans have identical amounts of funds

remaining.

Maximizing Sediment Reduction

Maximizing Nitrogen Reduction

Maximizing Phosphorus Reduction

Minimizing Cost

2. Annual Projections to Five Years with Cash Flow and Budget Analysis

All four solutions required the same amount of money for implementation and future

monitoring costs. At the end of five years, all four plans have identical amounts of funds

remaining.

Maximizing Sediment Reduction

Maximizing Nitrogen Reduction

Maximizing Phosphorus Reduction

Minimizing Cost

3. Capital Requirements and Funding

In order to achieve the plan’s objective, a budget of $149,375,000 was determined for the

first year. This funding will pay for the construction and establishment of bioretention ponds and

revegetation. The costs for each of these strategies have been factored into the optimization plan,

and the costs consist mostly of labor and plant prices. Depending on whether the site is urban or

non-urban, the cost is different. Both strategies are less expensive if undertaken on non-urban

land.

In the first year after the projects have been established, monitoring efforts will be made.

Two researchers from UC Davis, which already has a group studying Lake Tahoe’s water clarity,

will be paid to monitor the water for five days of every month. They will each be paid $20/hour.

Additionally, this plan accounts for the purchase of five monitors of each type of pollutant: five

sediment monitors, five nitrogen monitors, and five phosphorus monitors. The plan also factors

in the cost of a research boat, its trailer, fuel, and maintenance costs. Every year after the first

year of monitoring, the same amount of money will be spent on employing the researchers,

maintaining the boat, and paying for fuel. The planned budget allows for the purchase of one of

every monitor every year.

Funding that remains after every year will be saved for future projects. Stochastic events

such as storms or fires may require the re-establishment of either filtering systems or

revegetation. The extra funding will help pay for these unforeseen circumstances.

Funding for the project is from the Environmental Improvement Program; the EIP has

approximately $2 billion set aside for projects to improve Lake Tahoe environment. This funding

comes from public, private, state, and federal sources in the form of tax initiatives and donations.

In the instance of tax initiatives, funding is generated on an annual basis. In the case of

donations, the sums are contributed only once (in year zero). These are the programs and

initiatives that are directly related to this plan and will support the clarity improvement efforts.

Costs One-Time Annual

Sediment Monitor 4000 800

Nitrogen Monitor 2500 500

Phosphorus Monitor 1500 300

Boat Cost 18000 1800

Trailer 1000

Fuel 2000

Annual Research Labor 19200

Total Costs 29000 22600

Discussion Each solution generated from goal programming prioritized one target over the other three.

Looking at the results, it is clear that the best option is the solution that prioritized the reduction

in sediment runoff. This solution was able to meet two of the four targets: cost and sediment

reduction. The achieved levels of nitrogen and phosphorus reduction were also fairly close to the

target levels. The objective function was also minimized to zero. As such, bioretention ponds

should be constructed on approximately 45,000 acres of urban land and on approximately

112,000 acres of non-urban land; revegetation will take place on approximately 35,000 acres of

urban land and on approximately 130,000 acres of non-urban land.

References

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. "Approval of Amendments to the Water

Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region to Incorporate a Total Maximum Daily Load and

TMDL Implementation Plan for Fine Sediment Particles, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus

for Lake Tahoe." CA Lake Tahoe TMDL Board Docs. United States Environmental Protection

Agency, 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 12 May 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/CA-

LAKETAHOETMDL-BOARDDOCS.pdf>.

California Tahoe Conservancy. "Environmental Improvement Program." California Tahoe

Conservancy Environmental Improvement Program. CA.GOV, n.d. Web. 12 May 2013.

<http://tahoe.ca.gov/environmental-improvement-program.aspx>.

California Water Boards, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. "Pollutant Reduction

Opportunities." Pollutant Reduction Opportunities. NDEP, 2008. Web.

<http://ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/file/pollutant_reduction_opportunities08p.pdf>.

EIP Division. "The Cooperative Effort to Preserve, Restore, and Enhance the Unique Natural and

Human Environment of the Lake Tahoe Region." Environmental Improvement Program. Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency, 25 Apr. 2001. Web. 12 May 2013.

<http://www.trpa.org/documents/docdwnlds/EIP/volume3.pdf>.

Garcia, Kerry T. 1988. Effect of erosion-control structures on sediment and nutrient transport,

Edgewood Creek drainage, Lake Tahoe Basin, Nevada, 1981-83. US Geological Survey.

Hymanson, Zachary P. "An Integrated Science Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: Conceptual

Framework and Research Strategies." An Integrated Science Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin:

Conceptual Framework and Research Strategies. United States Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, May 2010. Web. 12 May 2013.

<http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr226/psw_gtr226.pdf>.

Nevada Tahoe Resource Team. "Nevada Division of State Lands - Nevada Tahoe Resource

Team." Nevada Division of State Lands - Nevada Tahoe Resource Team. Nevade Division of

State Lands, Oct.-Nov. 2012. Web. 12 May 2013. <http://lands.nv.gov/program/tahoe.htm>.

Office of Water Programs, California State University, Sacramento. "Bioretention." TC-32

Bioretention. California Stormwater Quality Association Alifornia Stormwater BMP Handbook,

Jan. 2003. Web. 12 May 2013.

<http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/TC-32.pdf>.

Placer County News. "Permit To Reduce Tahoe Pollution Approved By Supervisors." Permit To

Reduce Tahoe Pollution Approved By Supervisors. Placer County News, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 12

May 2013. <http://www.placer.ca.gov/News/2013/February/Tahoe.aspx>.

Scott H. Hackley, Brant C. Allen, Debbie A. Hunter, John E. Reute. "Lake Tahoe Water Quality

Investigations." Task 3 - Algal Growth Bioassays - 2011. Tahoe Environmental Research Center

http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/CA-LAKETAHOETMDL-BOARDDOCS.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/CA-LAKETAHOETMDL-BOARDDOCS.pdf

http://ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/file/pollutant_reduction_opportunities08p.pdf

http://lands.nv.gov/program/tahoe.htm

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/TC-32.pdf

http://www.placer.ca.gov/News/2013/February/Tahoe.aspx

University of California, Davis, 1 Dec. 2011. Web.

<http://terc.ucdavis.edu/publications/2011_LakeTahoeWaterQualityInvestigations.pdf>.

Smith, Douglas F. "Lake Tahoe: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Particulates." PowerPoint

Presentation - Doug_smith. Lahontan Water Board, 9 Feb. 2006. Web.

<http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/atmospheric/presentations/doug_smith.pdf>

State Water Resources Control Board. "The Lake Tahoe Maximum Daily Load." Lake Tahoe

TMDL Program Cac_208_09_final. State Water Resources Control Board, Nov. 2010. Web. 12

May 2013.

<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/tmdl/lake_tahoe/docs/cac_208

_09_final.pdf>.

Stover Seed Company. "Species List." Request List. Stover Seed Company, n.d. Web. 12 May

2013. <http://www.stoverseed.com/websearch/specieslist.cfm>.

Stubblefield, A.P., J.E. Reuter and C.R. Goldman. 2009. Sediment budget for subalpine

watershed, Lake Tahoe, California, USA. Catena 76: 163-172.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. "Tahoe in Depth." Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. N.p.,

2001. Web. 12 May 2013. <http://www.trpa.org/default.aspx?tabid=227>.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. "THE LATEST CLARITY MEASUREMENT." Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2011. Web. 12 May 2013.

<http://www.trpa.org/default.aspx?tabindex=2>.

Tahoe Science Consortium. "General Technique Report." An Integrated Science Plan for the

Lake Tahoe Basin: Conceptual Framework and Research Strategies - Science-Plan-Chapter-4.21.

Tahoe Science Consortium, Oct. 2011. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://tahoescience.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/10/Science-Plan-Chapter-4.21.pdf>.

United State Department of Agriculture Forest Service. "Lake Tahoe Basin Mgt Unit -

Planning." Lake Tahoe Basin Mgt Unit - Planning. USDA, June 2012. Web. 12 May 2013.

<http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ltbmu/landmanagement/planning>.

United State Environmental Protection Agency. "EPA - Stormwater Menu of BMPs." EPA -

Stormwater Menu of BMPs. Web. 12 May 2013.

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=factsheet_results>.

USGS. "Facts About Lake Tahoe." Facts about Lake Tahoe. USGS, 13 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 May

2013. <http://tahoe.usgs.gov/facts.html>.

Vitousek, Peter M.; Melillo, Jerry M. "Nitrate Losses From Disturbed Forests: Patterns and

Mechanisms." Latest TOC RSS. Society of American Foresters, 1 Dec. 1979. Web. 12 May 2013.

<http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/fs/1979/00000025/00000004/art00016>.

http://www.stoverseed.com/websearch/specieslist.cfm

http://www.trpa.org/default.aspx?tabindex=2

http://tahoescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Science-Plan-Chapter-4.21.pdf

http://tahoescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Science-Plan-Chapter-4.21.pdf

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ltbmu/landmanagement/planning

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=factsheet_results

http://tahoe.usgs.gov/facts.html

Western Regional Climate Center. "TAHOE, CALIFORNIA." - Climate Summary. Western

Regional Climate Center, 31 Mar. 2013. Web. 12 May 2013. <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-

bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8758>.

Date post:	25-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	christine-stontz
View:	138 times
Download:	1 times