Delta Nutrient Research Plan - California State Water Resources … · 2018. 2. 15. · Delta Nutrient Research Plan Process, Status and Schedule Janis Cooke, Ph. D. Senior Environmental

Delta Nutrient Research Plan

Process, Status and Schedule

Janis Cooke, Ph. D.

Senior Environmental Scientist, Specialist

Agenda Item # 14 Central Valley Water Board Meeting, 11 August 2017 1

Sacramento

Stockton

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (legal boundary in red)

Map: Dept. Water Resources

The Delta is complex:

Freshwater inflows

Tidal movement

Habitat variety• Deep channels• Dead-end sloughs• Shallow open water• Wetlands

Agenda Item # 14 Central 2

Low O2

Low O2

Low O2

River inputs (water, nutrients)

Schematic of nutrient-related water quality problems in Delta channels. Intensities vary by location and season.

L

I

G

H

T


Water flow, Residence time

Harmful Algae (Cyanobacteria) Blooms & Toxins

Invasive Aquatic Plants

(Macrophytes)

Low Dissolved Oxygen

Eutrophication

Nutrient-related Water Quality Issues


Ecosystem healthbalance

Adequate Base of Food Web

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

7/20/1972 3/29/1986 12/6/1999 8/14/2013

Chlorophyll in San Joaquin River @ Twitchell Island, 1975-2012

Central Valley Water Board 2014 Delta Strategic Work

Plan

Accepted Feb. 2014


Purpose of the Delta Nutrient Research Plan:

Identify research and modeling needed to determine whether water quality objectives for nutrients are needed to protect beneficial uses.

Address Nutrient-Related Water Quality Concerns:

• Harmful algal blooms (HABs)

• Invasive aquatic plants

• Low primary production

• Low dissolved oxygen


Stakeholder and Technical Advisory

Group

Charter completed July 2015

Water Board Staff

Waterways

Irrigated Agriculture

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Water Supply

Resource Management

Environmental Justice

Storm water

Interests Represented

within Advisory Group


Purpose of the Delta Nutrient Research Plan:Identify research and modeling needed to determine whether water quality objectives for nutrients are needed to protect beneficial uses.

Address Nutrient-Related Water Quality Concerns:

• Harmful algal blooms (HABs)

• Invasive aquatic plants

• Low primary production

• Low dissolved oxygen

Topics identified with Stakeholders


Form Stakeholder

Group & Science Work

Groups

White Papers

Reviews

Research Recommendations

Prioritization Process

(criteria & rankings)

Where we are:


NutrientResearch Plan

= completed steps

• Responses to nutrients depend on conditions of other factors (e.g.

light, temperature, flow, water residence time, microbes, and clams).

• Monitoring and assessment of effects of nutrients should incorporate

biological, chemical, and physical factors.

• Models are necessary tools for understanding the complex

relationships in the Delta and to test management scenarios.

Overarching Themes from White Papers


Nutrients and Invasive Plants (Macrophytes)

White Paper Findings

• Management of nutrients alone is unlikely to limit macrophytes in the Delta.

• Nutrient reduction may boost effectiveness of current macrophyte control measures.

Research Needs

• Location, timing, and extent of macrophytes

• Growth rates as functions of nutrient concentrations

• Effects of macrophytes and control measures on native species


White Paper Findings

• Light, water residence time, and temperature are keys to initiation of blooms.

• Blooms need nutrients in order to persist.

• Nutrient reduction may limit bloom duration and severity.

Research Needs

• Location, timing, and extent of HABs and their toxins

• Potential for nutrient levels or other factors to preferentially help cyanobacteria growth

Nutrients and Harmful Algal Blooms


Findings from Workshop and White Paper:

• Physical factors, biochemical processes, and phytoplankton species differences are important for interpreting field and laboratory studies.

• Consider management of both nitrogen and phosphorous

Research Needs:

• Cycling of nitrogen and phosphorous forms in various habitats

• Broader research to understand all factors that control phytoplankton and potential effects of anticipated changes (e.g., climate and nutrient management)

Nutrients and Phytoplankton


White Paper Findings:

• Harmful algal bloom and macrophyte problems occur also in drinking water system.

• Additional issues are taste and odor compounds.

• Main rivers are the primary nutrient sources to the State Water Project drinking water system.

Research Needs:

• Analyses of harmful algal blooms, macrophytes, and factors in Delta and drinking water system

• Models to examine future nutrient changes in the Delta

Nutrients and Drinking Water = Drinking water intake/pumping plant


• Multiple models will be needed.

• Also need monitoring, data sharing, interdisciplinary data analyses, and coordination.

• Model development can proceed in stages:

1. Add nutrient modules to existing flow (hydrodynamic) models.

2. Refine models and/or transfer information to newer, more complex ones.

Nutrient Modeling Approach



Hydrodynamic Model for the

Delta

Nutrients

Particle Movement

Aquatic Plants

Delta Food Web Models

San Francisco Bay Models

Simplified diagram of model components for nutrients and their effects

Form STAG & Science Work

Groups

White Papers

Reviews

Research Recommendations

Prioritization Process

(criteria & rankings)

NutrientResearch Plan

Reviews (external

panel, stakeholders)

Present to Water Board &Delta Stewardship Council

Implement Plan

What we still need to do:


Water Board Early Implementation

• Contract to support water quality modeling (joint with SF Bay Board)

• Contract to test toxicity of select herbicides to phytoplankton species

• Delta Regional Monitoring Program - nutrient data syntheses and monitoring

Opportunities for Coordination

SanFranciscoBayRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard

SanFranciscoBayNutrientManagementStrategy

November2012


Proposed

scheduleItem

October Initial Draft Nutrient Research Plan release

Oct-Nov. Stakeholder and external review of initial draft Nutrient Research Plan

December Final Draft Nutrient Research Plan release

Feb. 2018Central Valley Water Board meeting – presentation of Nutrient Research Plan and

consideration of Board Resolution to direct actions.

Spring 2018 Presentation to Delta Stewardship Council.

Timeline


11 Aug 2017 Information Item Slide Notes

1. Good afternoon, Chairman Longley and Members of the Board. I am Dr. Janis Cooke, an Environmental Scientist in the Planning Section here in Sacramento. About 1.5 years ago, I took over from Chris Foe to work on the Delta Nutrient Research Plan. My purpose today is to give you a report about that plan. I will describe the background, progress to date, and next steps. This is an information item. Staff is not recommending that you make a decision at this time.

2. First, I’ll set the stage. The focus is nutrients and their effects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. I’ll be talking broadly about nutrient issues in the Delta, but we don’t see the same problems everywhere in the Delta. Water flows and varied land uses underlie a very complex system. Freshwater flows – bring in water and nutrients; responsible for net transport through Delta. Tides are also important – responsible for mixing and dispersing water and its contents. The Delta has a wide variety of habitats, including leveed deep channels, dead-end sloughs, shallow open water, and tidal wetlands, particularly in Yolo Bypass and nearby Suisun Marsh. These habitats use nutrients and support biological communities differently. It is helpful to remember the complexity of Delta as we consider the issues and potential for management actions to be effective.

3. In this slide, I will give a general overview of nutrient-related water quality issues: A major issue is harmful algae blooms. A “bloom” is a dense collection of cells, sometimes seen as scum or mats. Some species produce toxins that cause serious harm to people, pets, and wildlife. Blooms and toxins impact drinking water supplies and recreation. This Board has heard reports of cyanobacteria blooms in water bodies in the Region; we also see problems in the Delta. Another issue is overgrowth of invasive aquatic plants (will use term “macrophytes”). Both floating and submerged non-native plants cause problems by forming dense colonies which impede navigation and water supply structures, and change clarity and water flow. Plant and algal growth causes fluctuations in dissolved oxygen. Decay of dead plant and algal materials utilizes oxygen, resulting in low dissolved oxygen conditions in the water column. There are other algae types and microscopic plants in the water column that use nutrients (I will use term “phytoplankton”). They provide food for fish and other organisms. We can monitor harmful algae, macrophytes and phytoplankton. It is also important to understand where these are being consumed. Invasive clam species in Delta and Suisun Bay have dramatically affected food web because they consume large amounts of phytoplankton. Phytoplankton also needed by small invertebrates that feed fish [symbolized by orange critter] Growth of macrophytes, harmful algae, and phytoplankton are affected by physical factors in the Delta. These include water flow, water residence time, light, and temperature. Image credits: Hyacinth: State of Victoria, Australia Dept. Agriculture Cyanobacteria: Tracy Oasis Marina, 2016

4. Nutrient-related issues divide generally into two groups. Too many nutrients can result in eutrophication, a process in which the excess nutrients cause overgrowth of plants and algae. Beginning in 1999 in the Delta, scientists at DWR observed blooms of harmful cyanobacteria (commonly called blue-green algae), particularly Microcystis. For example, on 8 August 2017, Contra Costa Department of Public Health issues a notice warning about harmful algae and toxin detected in Discovery Bay. Delta also has, in many places, excess growth of invasive aquatic plants (macrophytes). Both algae blooms and macrophytes colonies change water chemistry. Presence and decay of dense material can significantly reduce dissolved oxygen, which harms animals in the water. On the other hand, some nutrients are needed to support a healthy ecosystem. Problems related to excess nutrients in parts of the Delta need to be balanced with providing

nutrition for the base of the aquatic food web. Graph here is of concentrations of chlorophyll in the San Joaquin River in the Central Delta. Chlorophyll is a pigment in algae, so we are really measuring concentrations of phytoplankton in the water column. Since mid-1990s, notice that the peak concentrations have not been as high as in earlier years. Photo credits: Microcystis - Tracy Oasis Marina, 2016; Submerged and floating aquatic macrophytes – Calif. Dept. Boating and Waterways; Phytoplankton microscope images – C. Joab, CVRWQCB.

5. How do we address these problems holistically? In 2013, the Delta Stewardship Council adopted the Delta Plan, a management and regulatory plan for achieving co-equal goals of improving water supply reliability and the Delta ecosystem. The Delta Plan contains a recommendation for the Central Valley Water Board to develop a study plan for nutrients in the Delta. This Board accepted that recommendation. The Central Valley Water Board’s Delta Strategic Work Plan, which was accepted by this Board in 2014, identifies priority projects in the Delta. Included in the 2014 Delta Strategic Work Plan is direction to develop and implement a nutrient study plan for the Delta.

6. Staff is developing a Delta Nutrient Research Plan to fulfill part of the Water Board’s Delta priorities. The purpose of the Delta Nutrient Research Plan is to identify research and modeling needed to determine whether water quality objectives for nutrients are needed to protect beneficial uses. Following direction in the Delta Strategic Work Plan, the Nutrient Research Plan will address the following nutrient-related water quality concerns: harmful algal blooms, invasive aquatic plants, low primary production (i.e., the base of the food web), and low dissolved oxygen. By nutrients, mean nitrogen and phosphorous. These nutrients are necessary for plant and algal growth.

7. As an initial step, staff invited stakeholders to participate in a Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Group. Members of that Group represent the range of different interests involved in, and who may be affected by, water quality objectives and management of nutrients in the Delta. A formal Charter for the Group was finalized in July, 2015. The Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Group (STAG) has met 15 times and has been very helpful to Board staff. The group has provided comment and recommendations to Water Board staff on technical and policy-related topics. STAG meetings were advertised and open to public. Additionally, the Delta nutrient STAG is aiding coordination with the San Francisco Bay Water Board’s nutrient effort. There is overlap in membership between the Delta nutrient STAG and the steering committee for the Bay Nutrient Management Strategy.

8. Working with STAG, we added two topics to be covered in the Nutrient Research Plan: nutrient –related issues for drinking water issues and how to best develop numeric models.

9. The Delta Nutrient Research Plan is in progress. I am going to tell you the steps completed thus far. As I mentioned, an early step was forming the Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Group. Staff and stakeholders began by naming Science Work Groups and commissioning a white paper for each topic. White papers were written by experts, a mix of local and external people. The purpose of the white papers was to describe the state of science and identify gaps in our understanding. Science Work Groups, comprised of local researchers, were involved in planning and review of the white papers and in naming data gaps. The white papers are now complete and available on the Water Board website. From the white paper process, we now have recommendations for additional research in each topic area. Staff and stakeholders have developed a process for prioritizing research recommendations. You have the prioritization process, including critieria for prioritization and management questions, and the list of research recommendations in your handout (See Status Report for Delta Nutrient Research Plan, Agenda Item #14). The next step will be

completing the Nutrient Research Plan itself; I’ll come back to this schematic later to discuss the steps forward.

10. I am going to take a few moments to describe what we learned from the white papers. I’ll start with overarching themes, then spend a slide on each white paper. There were some points that were common to all of the white papers. Responses to nutrients depend on conditions of other factors (e.g. light, temperature, flow, water residence time, microbes, and clams). Monitoring and assessment of effects of nutrients should incorporate biological, chemical, and physical factors. Models are necessary tools for understanding the complex relationships in the Delta and to test management scenarios. Next, I have a slide for each white paper topic with more details.

11. One white paper and Science Work Group focused on nutrients and invasive aquatic plants (macrophytes). The white paper authors told us that management of nutrients alone is unlikely to limit macrophytes in the Delta. However, reduction of nutrients may boost the effectiveness of current control measures. By control measures, I refer to extensive efforts to control macrophytes with herbicides and manual removal. Department of Boating and Waterways has been managing aquatic weeds in Delta since 1983. More research is needed to understand the connections between nutrients and macrophytes. The authors recommended new research, particularly monitoring to track the location, timing, and extent of macrophyte colonies. In order to understand whether nutrient control would help the macrophyte problem, we need data on growth rates as functions of nutrients. And we lack information about the effects of both macrophytes and control measures, particularly herbicides, on native fish and other parts of the food web. Photo credits: top: South American sponge plant – Lars Anderson for Dept. Boating and Waterways; Hyacinth in 3 Mile Slough - J. Negrey, Moss Landing Marine Lab; Egeria densa – Dept. Boating and Waterways.

12. Next, I’ll discuss information from the white paper and Science Work Group about nutrients and harmful algal blooms. This Board has been hearing and reading about harmful algal blooms from staff and Exec Officer. We have seen blooms in a number of locations. These photos were taken at the Tracy Oasis Marina in August 2016. The marina is adjacent to Grant Line Canal in the southern Delta. The cyanobacteria white paper identifies five principal factors that regulate growth of cyanobacteria blooms: water temperature, water clarity and irradiance, water residence time and stratification, nutrient availability, and salinity. Light, water residence time, and temperature are key factors in initiation of harmful algal blooms. The blooms need nutrients to grow and persist. Thus, reducing nutrient concentrations could limit bloom duration and severity. The white paper and Science Work Group identified particular research needs and information gaps. They recommended more monitoring and data analyses to track locations, timing, and extent of harmful algal blooms and their toxins. Also, we need more research on the potential for nutrients or other factors to preferentially help or promote growth of harmful algal species, relative to desirable phytoplankton and plants. Photo credits: Tracy Oasis Marina, 2016

13. The next white paper is on nutrients and phytoplankton, sometimes also called the nutrient forms paper. By phytoplankton, I mean single-celled aquatic plants or algae that we want to see; important as food for tiny organisms that are then eaten by native fish. This was the most complicated white paper to produce. There has been a significant amount of research on this topic, particularly in the north Delta. Studies have reported a range of results. So, in November 2016, we hosted a day-long workshop with colleagues from the San Francisco Bay nutrient program. Presentations about local studies were given before an independent panel of national experts. This panel wrote the white paper. Key findings from the workshop

and white paper: First, understanding the physical factors, biochemical processes, and the particular phytoplankton species being studied is important for interpreting different field and laboratory studies. By physical processes, I am referring to irradiance, temperature, water movement, turbulence, turbidity, and physical features such as channel depth. White paper authors stressed that need a broad understanding of Delta features that affect nutrient distribution, concentration, forms, and biological transformations. This understanding is needed for future experiments and to interpret results of previous experiments. A second key point was that in research and planning for management, we should consider both nitrogen and phosphorous. A focus on nitrogen forms is too narrow for understanding how to further manage nutrients. For future work, the white paper authors told us we need further research on cycling between different chemical forms of nitrogen and phosphorous in the various habitats. And we need to broaden our scope of research and data evaluations in order to understand all factors that control phytoplankton growth. A broader approach is also needed in order to predict effects of anticipated changes in the Delta, such as climate change and nutrient management. The white paper authors concluded that deeper understanding is needed of the ways that physical factors, such as irradiance and hydrology, affect the responses of the Delta ecosystem to nutrients. They stressed that analyses should examine relationships between nutrients and phytoplankton in context of physical and biological factors that also determine phytoplankton growth. The authors advocated a more holistic examination of cycling and fates of different chemical forms of nitrogen, as well as phosphorous. Studies that examine biogeochemical processes will set the stage well for modeling, which is needed to predict how future events, including climate change, will affect responses to nutrients. (Phytoplankton photo credits: C. Joab, CVRWQCB)

14. The Nutrients and Drinking Water white paper was unique, in that it covered a larger area, to include the drinking water conveyance and reservoir system extending south of the Delta. White paper authors determined that problems of harmful algal bloom and macrophytes that occur in the Delta are experienced also in reservoirs and canals of the drinking water system. Harmful algal toxins are found periodically in Clifton Court Forebay in Delta, in San Luis and other reservoirs; and at some pumping plants. Additional issues for conveyance and reservoir system are taste and odor-causing compounds. These compounds are produced by cyanobacteria species that are different than those that produce toxins. Nutrient concentrations change very little in flow path from Delta, the South Bay Aqueduct, and into the California Aqueduct. The drinking water white paper echoed some of the research needs identified in other white papers for cyanobacteria and macrophytes. The drinking water white paper identified a gap in analyses of occurrence of harmful algal blooms, toxins, macrophyte colonies and their causative factors in both the Delta and drinking water system. Like other white papers, the drinking water white paper stated the need for models so that we can examine possible effects of future nutrient changes in the Delta.

15. The last white paper that I’ll summarize is about mathematical models. The other white papers and, actually scientific panels writing before we began developing the Delta Nutrient Research Plan, all call for development of mathematical models. As I described earlier, a response to nutrients, such as phytoplankton growth, is driven by multiple physical and environmental factors that interact. Responses to nutrients aren’t always direct, in that we could understand them from a graph. Mathematical models are needed to help us understand these multiple relationships. Models are also needed to be able to make predictions about effects of future changes in the Delta, such as climate change and pollution treatment. The stakeholder advisory group asked a group of experts who develop and use models to explain what is needed for a successful approach to modeling nutrients in the Delta. The authors told us that multiple models will be

needed; no one model can answer all of our likely questions. A successful modeling approach requires careful attention to monitoring and data sharing, collaborations between researchers in different fields for data analyses, and coordination for effective governance and funding. A key part of coordination is to hold regular workshops that involve participation by modelers, managers, and data collectors. Development of models is a big undertaking. The white paper authors estimated that to gather data, develop models, test, and apply them is a 10 year process. But that isn’t a cause for despair. The white paper lays out stages. In the first stage, the task is to add nutrient modules to models that already exist for hydrodynamics (i.e., flow). The second state involves refining models and/or transferring information and modules to newer, more complex models.

16. I’ll explain a little more about the recommended stages. The white paper describes the connections that should be made between models for hydrodynamics (flow rates, volumes) and others for water quality, movement of particles (that affect light in the water column), nutrient movement and chemical changes, and growth of plants, algae and phytoplankton. The goal is models for different components of the system that are interconnected and use output from each other. The foundation for water quality modeling in the Delta are the hydrodynamic or flow models. There has been lots of modeling done in the Delta, particularly for hydrodynamics. The good news is we don’t need to start from scratch. The model white paper authors recommended that we add nutrient-related components to existing models. For the boxes in color, models already exist, upon which we can build. For the components in white, new or better models are needed.

17. That concludes my summaries of the white papers. Now I’ll go back to the figure showing our process. We have completed the white papers, compiled research recommendations from the white papers, and developed a process that can be used to prioritize the recommendations. The immediate next step is to finish writing the nutrient research plan. It will be reviewed by stakeholders. We also plan to submit it for an external science review. The revised plan will be brought back to you. Because the Delta Nutrient Research Plan is a recommendation within the Delta Plan, staff also intends to present the research plan to the Delta Stewardship Council.

18. Even though the Nutrient Research Plan is under development, we are engaged in some early implementation activities. The Water Board is supporting two contracts that fit with different research needs identified thus far. We are initiating a contract for nutrient modeling in the Delta. This is a joint project with the San Francisco Bay Water Board. Nutrient models are in progress for San Francisco Bay, including San Pablo and Suisun Bays. This new contract will enable modeling effort to be extended into the Delta. The second contract is for laboratory testing of the toxicities of selected herbicides and fungicides to phytoplankton species that occur in the Delta. Finally, one of the focus areas of the Delta Regional Monitoring Program is nutrients. The Regional Monitoring Program is supporting analyses of nutrient data in the Delta going back several decades, plus new monitoring, that are very helpful. As you might expect, the list of research recommendations, which are given in your handout, is more than this agency can accomplish with available staff and funding. Staff will be seeking funding and partnerships. There are opportunities to coordinate. I won’t describe all of these in detail, but there is overlap in interest and research needs with projects being undertaken by the Bay Nutrient Management Strategy, the Delta Science Program, and the Interagency Ecological Program.

19. Here is our anticipated schedule for finishing the Delta Nutrient Research Plan. Staff’s goal is to release an initial draft of the plan. The initial draft will undergo review by stakeholders. We also intend to submit the draft Nutrient Research Plan for external review, preferably by the State Water Board’s Science Advisory

Panel for its Biostimulatory Substances Project. Following review and revisions of the report by staff, we will again bring the report to you. At that time, planned for the first Board meeting in 2018, we anticipate asking you to accept the plan and consider a Resolution to direct Staff’s further actions to implement the plan. Our goal is to present the research plan to the Delta Stewardship Council in spring 2018. This schedule, for completion of the plan within the next 6 months, is several years behind initial timeline in the Water Board’s Delta Strategic Work Plan. We spent more time up front gathering latest information in white papers and identifying specific data gaps. The original schedule contained more steps for information and review.

Documents

Delta Nutrient Research Plan - California State Water Resources … · 2018. 2. 15. · Delta Nutrient Research Plan Process, Status and Schedule Janis Cooke, Ph. D. Senior Environmental