1 questions addressed what are the options for reducing pollutant inputs to lake tahoe? pollutant...

1Questions Addressed

What are the options for reducing pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe?

Pollutant Reduction Opportunities

2

Review Pollutant Reduction Opportunity analysis approach

Highlight PRO project findings

Discuss planning level implementation recommendations and overall recommended strategy


3What are the options for reducing pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe?

Pollution Reduction Opportunity Project

Primary Objective: Quantify potential pollutant load reduction opportunities


Analysis Opportunities

Quantify potential basin wide solutions

Assess cumulative benefits and relative costs

Establish basin wide assessment methods

Provide foundation for implementation planning


Analysis Limitations

Analysis not applicable to project scale

Limited to quantifiable actions

Emphasis on water quality

Limited time, resources, and effectiveness data


Project Team

Source Category GroupsAtmospheric DepositionUrban Runoff and GroundwaterForest RunoffStream Channel Erosion

Source Category Integration Committee

Technical Reviewers

Focus Team


Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Development Process

Step 1: Pollutant control option selection and screening

Step 2: Site scale analysis Treatment Tiers

Step 3: Basin-wide extrapolation Pollutant reduction estimates Cost


Atmospheric Deposition Primary Pollutant Sources

Mobile Emissions (Nitrogen)

Dust (Fine Sediment)


Atmospheric Deposition Pollutant Control Opportunities

Emissions – control NitrogenReduce VMT:

incentives and transit

Dust control – reduce Fine SedimentEfficient roadway sweepingSwitch to deicersPave or gravel unpaved

surfaces


Forest Upland Primary Pollutant Sources

Unpaved roads

Disturbed areas

Forest management


Forest Upland Pollutant Control Opportunities

Unpaved roadway BMPs

Mulch/till recreation areas

Restore legacy roads and trails

Advance BMPs for forest management work


Urban & Groundwater Primary Pollutant Sources

Impervious surface runoff

Erosion

Traction abrasives

FertilizersFine Sediment Particle Number Estimates

(particles less than 20 micrometers): Percent Contribution per Source Category

Atmospheric Deposition

15%

Non-urban Upland

9%

Urban Upland 72%

Stream Channel Erosion

4% Shoreline Erosion < 1%


Urban & Groundwater Pollutant Control Opportunities

Source control methods

Remove impervious cover

Runoff infiltration

Storm water treatment

Fertilizer management


Stream Channel Erosion Primary Sources

Emphasis on bank erosion only

Upper Truckee River

Ward Creek

Blackwood Creek


Stream Channel Erosion Pollutant Control Opportunities

Full unconstrained restoration

Targeted bank and bed protection

A mix to restoration and bank protection


Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Project Summary

Analysis represents average load reductions and costs

Basin wide estimates offer relative benefit comparisons

Urban Uplands and Atmospheric controls appear to be largest opportunity

Forest practices and stream restoration efforts remainimportant treatments

17

Implementation Scenarios

Source Category Group load and cost estimates are the foundation of basin-wide implementation options

Three different implementation “scenarios” were developed and presented to Focus Teams and the Pathway Forum

Focus Team and Forum feedback helped narrow the options to a single basin- wide recommended strategy

18

Forest Upland Implementation

Load reduction opportunities are relatively limited

Additional reduction efforts do not appear cost effective

Current practices effectively reduce loads

What strategy should we implement to reduce pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe?

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Tier 1 Tier 2 P&T Tier Tier 2* Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget

< 20 micron sediment particle reductions Phosphorus reductions Nitrogen reductions Total 20 year cost (Million $)

Urban & Groundwater Atmospheric* Forested Uplands Stream Channel

* Atmospheric pollutant controls included revenue generating transit programs. The cost shown for Tier 3 includes the net of costs and revenues. Tier 2 analysis projected a net income from these programs, however, for the overall analysis these revenues are assumed to offset the cost of controls.

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

20-Y

ear Cost

(M

illions)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget


Urban & Groundwater Atmospheric Forested Uplands Stream Channel


19

Forest Upland Implementation Recommendation

Restore/maintain roads as planned

Revegetate/treat disturbed lands

Treat forest soils

Achieve ~1% reduction in total fine particle budget

Estimated Cost: $120M Capital, $4.5M Annual O&M


20

Stream Channel Restoration

In-channel sources are small

Restoration is cost effective

Restoration offers multiple benefits

Restoration likely provides additional water quality benefits


$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


20-Y

ear Cost

(M

illions)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




21

Stream Channel Restoration Recommendation

Continue current restoration activities

Support monitoring and research


Estimated Cost: $40M Capital


22

Atmospheric Deposition Implementation


Addressing mobile sources does not significantly reduce particle loads

Mobile source controls are expensive

Good opportunity to reduce particle loads by targeting dust sources

23

Atmospheric Deposition Recommendation

Focus on dust control measures

Continue VMT reduction efforts


Estimated Cost: $45M Capital, $0.4M Annual O&M


24

Urban Runoff and Groundwater Implementation

Significant particle reductions can be achieved through innovative practices

Pump and treat technologies hold promise

Finer scale planning is needed to refine implementation approach

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


20-Y

ear Cost

(M

illions)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 2* Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget





25

Urban Runoff and Groundwater Recommendation

Continue to implement known technologies

Move toward more innovative practices and intensive operations and maintenance


Estimated Cost: $1.3B Capital, $6M Annual O&M


26

Recommended Strategy Summary

Options to meet clarity challenge are few

Implementation approach emphasizes cost effective measures to reduce atmospheric dust sources

Innovative measures will be needed to achieve necessary particle load reductions from urban areas

Finer scale jurisdiction and/or subwatershed planning is needed to refine actual implementation options and expected load reductions

27

Charting a course to

Clarity

28

Time Sequence - Move Forward & Innovate

28What strategy should we implement to reduce pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe?

29

The Clarity Challenge: Reverse clarity decline and measurably improve clarity

1968 1988 2008 2028 20XX

ME

TE

RS

ME

TE

RS

FE

ET

FE

ET

20

30

40

60

80

100

120

standard

ExistingCondition

1st Clarity

Challenge

YearYear

30

Treatment Tiers


Represent different levels of effort and cost

3 tiers for each source category

Each tier is unique

Several exceptions

31

Tiers : Atmospheric Deposition


$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


20-Y

ear Cost

(M

illions)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




Tier 1: baseline – no reduction calculated

Tier 2: reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by 10%

Tier 3: reduce VMT by 25% and increase stationary source controls

Cost offsets

32

Tiers : Urban runoff and groundwater


Tier 1: enhanced version of the EIP

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 2* Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Total Tie

r C

ost (M

illion $

)

Reductio

n a

s P

ercent o

f E

ntir

e P

ollutant B

udget




Tier 2: advanced practices, applied more aggressively in a project area

Tier 3: Pump and treat system complemented by advanced practices

33

Tiers : Forest runoff


$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


20-Y

ear Cost

(M

illions)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




Tier 1: surface treatments and (currently) required management practices

Tier 2: mulch treatments and full management practices

Tier 3: tilling and full restoration to “native” conditions

34

Tiers : Stream channel erosion


Tier 1: full restoration unconstrained

Tier 2: mix of restoration and stabilization, constraints considered

Tier 3: bank stabilization, no floodplain reconnection $-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Tota

l Tie

r Cost

(M

illion $

)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


20-Y

ear Cost

(M

illions)

Reduct

ion a

s Perc

ent of Enti

re P

olluta

nt Budget




3535

What about impervious coverage?

Approx. 2% increase in particle loading at full build out under current rules

Development under current regulations helps control pollutants

3636

What about impervious coverage? An increase or decrease in allowable coverage

Changing impervious cover significantly affects fine particle loading

Reducing coverage presents load reduction opportunity

36What strategy should we implement to reduce pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe?

37

Estimated Potential Load Reductions

37

38

Estimated Potential Costs

38

39

Combined Load Reductions and Costs

39

40

PCO Concepts

Screening Process

Screened PCOs

PCO Grouping Process

TreatmentTiers

A

A

BC

A

BC

Settings

Extrapolation Process•GIS•Models

Step 1: PCO Evaluation Step 2: Site-Scale Analysis

Step 3: Basin-Wide Analysis

Nitrogen Reduction

Table

Sediment Reduction

Table

Phosphorus Reduction

Table

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Load Tables

CostTables

Co

mb

ine

d R

es

ult

s

Ta

ble

s

Total 20 Year Cost Table

Capital Cost Table

O & M Cost Table

Cost-Effectiveness

Table

PCO Concepts

Screening Process

41

PCO Concepts

Screening Process


TreatmentTiers

A

A

BC

A

BC

Settings




Nitrogen Reduction

Table

Sediment Reduction

Table


Table

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Load Tables

CostTables

Co

mb

ine

d R

es

ult

s

Ta

ble

s


Capital Cost Table

O & M Cost Table

Cost-Effectiveness

Table

PCO Concepts

Screening Process

Screened PCOs

42

PCO Concepts

Screening Process


TreatmentTiers

A

A

BC

A

BC

Settings




Nitrogen Reduction

Table

Sediment Reduction

Table


Table

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Load Tables

CostTables

Co

mb

ine

d R

es

ult

s

Ta

ble

s


Capital Cost Table

O & M Cost Table

Cost-Effectiveness

Table

PCO Concepts

Screening Process

Screened PCOs

4343

Implementation Scenario Summary


1 questions addressed what are the options for reducing pollutant inputs to lake tahoe? pollutant...

Documents

pollutant inputs

lake tahoe

transitdust control

analysis limitationsanalysis

project scalelimited

bank erosion onlyupper

bank protectionwhat

forest management workwhat