AGENDA Executive Committee Meeting

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District  Valley Oak Room, 10060 Goethe Rd, Sacramento 95827 MAP

Teleconference available (218) 339-4600 Participant Code: 927571#

Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm

1. Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review, Approve Consent Calendar 10 min a. Review/Approve July 15, 2010 meeting notes b. Circulate the Committee Membership Roster for sign-in c. Accomplishments 1 e

2. Policy and Framework Discussion and review 1 a 40 min a. Policy and Framework opportunity and need - Concepts b. Preliminary Document Review and comments

3. Leadership Group Workshop Agenda 7 25 min a. Review Draft Agenda – discussion presentations b. Approve Summary Agenda for Workshop

4. Progress Criteria Milestones Update 1 a 15 min a. Informational update on in-kind timekeeping b. Request PEO Consider Newsletter or similar option c. Discuss progress and schedule changes

5. Receive Reports and Recommended Actions 1 c 25 min a. Economic and Social Cost/Technical Committee

i. Review/Approve Process Recommendations from Knowledge Gained ii. Beneficial Use and Objectives Phase 1 deliverables comments due 8/27/10 iii. BMP Subcommittee work products in process

b. Public Education and Outreach Committee i. Approve Final Outreach Workshop Report ii. Approve DAC Engagement Plan and Newsletter recommendation iii. IRWM Letter Coordination

c. Lower San Joaquin River Committee i. Project area, administrative record, timing and funding

d. Funding and Fundraising Subcommittee i. Funding Plan and Vision Document ii. DWR Funding Round 1 – Delta Update

6. Review Terms of Office from Standing Rules 5 min 7. Next meeting September 16, 2010, as shown on Updated 2010 Calendar 8. Executive Committee Adjourns Workplan Section ## Mission of the CVSPG: The mission of the Central Valley Salinity Policy Group is to work closely, in a collaborative manner to create a comprehensive Central Valley Salinity Management Plan.

Mission of the CVSPG Executive Committee: The mission of the Executive Committee is to provide overall direction and management for the development of a comprehensive Central Valley Salinity Management Plan. This includes strategic planning, development of studies and research, public education and outreach, and establishment of partnerships and collaborative efforts. Package Page 1

D r a f t 

July 15, 2010 - Executive Committee Meeting Notes 1

CV‐SALTS Executive Committee Thursday, July 15, 2010  1:30pm to 3:30pm 

 Attendees: See Membership Roster for attendance.     Executive Committee Chair Mona Shulman called the meeting to order at 1:35 followed by introductions of all present in‐house and on teleconference.  

1. Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review, Approve Consent Calendar a. Review/Approve June 10, 2010 meeting notes  the meeting minutes were approved by general 

acclamation. b. Circulate the Committee Membership Roster for sign‐in c. Accomplishments and Bi‐Annual Report to Regional/State Board  Daniel Cozad presented the Bi‐

Annual Report provided to the State Board members and Regional Board and its location on the web.   

2. Funding and Fundraising Subcommittee Report ( Tim Johnson) a. Recommended approach and plan and need  

Tim Johnson discussed the Subcommittees report and recommendations.  The Subcommittee recommends the review and hiring of a federal lobbyists to assist CV‐SALTS in developing the funding program for federal appropriations and grants.  There was a lot of discussion amongst the board. The next step is to discuss who to approach and what the budget is, what to ask for, and how to keep the project funded on an ongoing basis.  To get funding from Washington which is required to keep the project going, CV‐SALTS really needs to have a Federal lobbyist advocating on their issue, particularly on the impact of the magnitude on agriculture and urban areas if the situation doesn’t improve.   The plan was to get most of the dollars out of the USDA, but that money is usually already allocated. So CV‐SALTS can use a lobbyist to identify the other avenues of revenue available through the government.  Short‐term money is going to have to come from existing plans. There is planning money and there is implementation money after the basin plan amendment is developed and approved. The drive is to get money for the implementation of the basin plan amendment recommendations. Funding Approach and Plan Development (outline below to be fleshed out for review on next call) including Federal, State and Local funding the next steps are shown below:  

i. Develop initial scope of work and expectations for lobbyist ii. Interviews with federal lobbying firms (4 initial firms, Ag and water focused) iii. Solicit fundraising lobbying costs from others preliminary budget $250‐300K per year iv. Develop (via consultant) what needs to be funded for implementation in summary and detail, 

projects, research, planning and implementation v. Target analysis for funding opportunities short term and longer term 

Next conference call is August 9th with progress on the framing documents, develop a plan for phone interviews with lobbyists and bring back results to the committee. 

Package Page 2

D r a f t 

July 15, 2010 - Executive Committee Meeting Notes 2

 b. Notes on approach and Fundraising Plan 

This issue covered under 2a.  Other discussion grants ensued.  Comment about a potential funding source: Prop 84 Delta San Joaquin River and Sacramento River Water Quality Grant Program. CV‐SALTS may have some projects that would fall into this, perhaps to implement a couple of things that were in the NAWQA study. There is a public information meeting on the 29th of July, and the deadline is 13th of August for grant proposals. Information will be forwarded to Daniel.  Daniel responded that the first deadline was applicable to the Delta. The San Joaquin and Sacramento River part was going to come later, but that the 13th of August date should be used to drive the decision about what CV‐SALTS would like to do and then decide whether or not it fits.  Nigel was going to try to make the information meeting on the 29th. 

 c. Luce Environmental Science Fellowship Proposal  

The proposal approved at the last meeting was submitted. It was reviewed by the eight‐member faculty group, with great feedback and no refining questions asked, and selected as one of five that will be done starting September/October 2010. Still waiting to see which group will select it as its project.  If it goes through, the technical committee would look after monitoring and making sure the project remains on task. The scope of the proposal was to look at management practices, management alternatives, salt management activities, and their cost effectiveness and implementation effects.  

 d. Approve Updated Budget and Schedule for CAA Funding 9/7/10 Board consideration (CAA ‐ Clean up 

and Abatement Account Funding)  To bring our proposal to the executive board for approval before submitting to the State Board for the last two years of clean up and abatement funding, would have moved things to October. So the proposal was reviewed by the technical committee.  The items were divided into proposal years, although the items would take longer than a year to complete, covering the end of 2010 to 2013/14. There are two large tasks:   Collaborative surface and groundwater data collection analysis project – beginning the work of pulling that water quality data in whatever formats, to be analyzed and a decision made as to what to do to support the basin plan amendment. There is $2 million allocated for that effort.  The second task is implementation planning and analysis – put together the implementation plan, do the cost analysis, do the impact analysis, the documentation for CQWA ‐ $1.8 million. The total cost is $3 million. The costs are based on the work plan that was approved, but may not represent the sum total of all the work that will need to be done. However, the State Board strongly expects that this will be matched with in‐kind and dollar contributions of the participants and other grant monies.   Daniel asked for the executive committee to approve the proposal and report that the executive committee approved it when it’s presented September 7. It isn’t necessary to make a detailed list of the in‐kind and dollar contributions already in hand, just the indication that efforts are being made to obtain that funding.    

Package Page 3

D r a f t 

July 15, 2010 - Executive Committee Meeting Notes 3

Approved by general consensus; abstention by Darrin Polhemus  

3. Coordination of Programs a. Recycled Water Policy & Nutrient Management Coordination Presentation SWRCB (Darren Polhemus)  

The Recycled Water Policy expects all those in the state to come up with salt and nutrient management plans for all ground water basins (140‐160 identified ground water basins) in the state. The rest of the policy focuses on recycled water. The Recycled Water Policy was a stakeholder‐developed policy. It was not written by board staff.   According to the policy, salt and nutrient management plans should include: i) a limitation plan; ii) monitoring of plan which includes constituent concerns; iii) California ground water quality analysis; iv) all sources of salt and nutrients; v) basin hydrology; vi) recycled water use and storm water recharge especially in the southern areas. It doesn’t involve any management issues at this point. The concept was to refocus efforts on other areas instead of placing the entire burden of salt and nutrient management on recycled water uses. Monitoring of recycled water effects on salt and nitrate levels, a decision on what should be monitored and how it should be monitored beyond recycled water to be included in such plans is being considered by the state board.  The policy was adopted in 2009, and became effective May 2009. In July 2009, General Permit for Landscape Irrigation and Recycled Water was adopted, specifically focusing on those that use recycled water for irrigation purposes. In September 2009, there were coordination meetings between the state water boards and Water Reuse. Established a salt management coordinating group that the regional board is also working on. Also hired an recycled water ombudsman. Water Use did three kick‐off workshops across the state. In May 2010, the Nutrient Management Group did the draft basin plan amendment templates. In June, the final advisory panel report came out.  Next work will be to decide what to do with the Constituents of Emerging Concern Advisory panel in terms of how and what to recommend for monitoring recycled water, and working with DWR regarding funds to be used to develop salt and nutrient management plans, and collect more information on recycled water use to evaluate reductions in waste and how is it being used.  Darren suggested that one way for him and Recycled Water to facilitate communication and information was to develop a website and include what’s happening, what’s been done kind of information. To include links to everybody working on such plans.  

b. Working with areas that will do a SNMP Info Paper Policy Determination & R5‐2010‐0024  

The Committee members were presented with a paper that Daniel and Linda prepare about if those who are planning to do something about recycled water, what things should they be considering how does their plan fit, and a document that was approved by the board that laid out guidelines for working with organizations and people. Subplans or proposed work in individual areas need to be coordinated with CV‐SALTS. The committee members were also presented with the resolution that the Regional Board that establishes a referral process to CV‐SALTS.   Board members were asked, in light of a recent detailed request, if there was anything else they would recommend in providing information and answers to those that ask? Agreement among members that such individuals should be honestly told that CV‐SALTS does not have the answers, yet, provide them with the answers already available, and that they need to get involved in the process. 

Package Page 4

D r a f t 

July 15, 2010 - Executive Committee Meeting Notes 4

 Daniel suggested that this issue be raised with the Public Education and Outreach Committee about providing materials based on information that is already available on a website.  One member suggested that these kinds of inquiries may lead to opportunities for in‐kind services. 

 4. Progress Criteria Milestones Update (Daniel) 

a. Review DAC Representation and Outreach Plan  

Committee members were presented with a revised document based on feedback from both the Executive Committee and the Public Outreach and Education Committee. It also includes feedback from the quarterly environmental justice conference call. Feedback from this call included that CV‐SALTS is doing a great job of getting information out and at a level the lay people can understand, but lacks a list of things that would allow organizations to get involved on a smaller level. This will come from defining the process and laying out when certain things will be undertaken. Material needs to be presented in a Reader’s Digest version with fewer acronyms.  Suggestion that a newsletter be issued that will be understood by the general public put out by CVSC and CV‐SALTS that aligns with each aspect of the projects. Daniel agreed to bring it up to the Public Education and Outreach Committee.  The document included a list of resources including RCAC that will be working with CV‐SALTS in referring disadvantaged communities with salt or nutrient issues to CV‐SALTS.   The document also included a list of disadvantaged communities according to the state board within the Region 5 boundaries. The Department of Water Resources does not keep a list of disadvantaged communities; that information is maintained by the integrated water management groups, which were provided with the document along with contact information.  Most of the comments were positive. The only negative feedback came on the concept of “offsetting financial need to participate”. Daniel suggested finding other grant programs that help them participate, especially focusing on projects that would help them out of that. Recommendation that the definition and use of financial and technical assistance be redefined in terms of the help actually provided and available.   

 b. Discuss In‐kind Support and Tracking opportunities and options  

Nigel suggested that he provide templates that have been used to keep track of who participates. Daniel hoped that providing “credit” for in‐kind contributions that that in turn would generate more time investment or willingness to invest time from those involved.  Daniel suggested he look into at some online solutions and review Nigel’s templates and bring back to the committee his findings for their consideration and approval.  

5. Policy and Actions discuss Overall Approach updated (deferred)  6. Receive Reports and Recommended Actions from Economic and Social Cost, Technical, and Public Education 

and Outreach Committees (Chairs) a. Economic and Social Cost/Technical Committee 

Package Page 5

D r a f t 

July 15, 2010 - Executive Committee Meeting Notes 5

i. Presentation by Jim Martin on a UC Davis study related to a water quality salinity objective for Putah Creek. Jim presented on the methodology and asked for technical review and feedback. The model is a transient model and very technically detailed. He is expecting feedback to be returned by the 30th of July. 

 ii. Management practices evaluation approach for salt and nutrient management – providing 

work items under the management practices evaluation including the process, the type validated practices, whether the practices were new or developing, a sector schedule. Managed wetlands was added as a source. Technical effectiveness, implementability, cost effectiveness, the monitoring required, other regulatory and non‐regulatory approvals that CV‐SALTS can use, a management practice list, and management practices and technology presentations with the idea being that individual/organization be invited to present their technology to the committee for evaluation. 

 Daniel requested approval of the committee to evaluate and qualify management and technology brought to the committee, but need expectations to be set to be able to present such management and technologies to the committee for review.  Best Management Plan committee wasn’t able to find a chair and it is anticipated to split up or roll over into Phase 2 by August. 

 b. Public Education and Outreach Committee 

i. There were no written comments from the outreach meetings. By the August meeting, the final report about the feedback from the workshops will be ready. 

ii. Leveraging the salinity, salt management aspect of the California Water Plan and whether or not CV‐SALTS should be sending that information out as outreach. 

iii. Suggested that a quarterly update be issued or available, not just notes from the meetings. iv. Coordination with the leadership group. 

 c. Discuss IRWM Coordination and SWP Salinity Section (Deferred) d. Lower San Joaquin River Committee  

The meeting on the 26th will be the third meeting of the group, which will compile all the information from the Regional Board and State Board about what was going on and figuring out the next steps, and what the basin plan amendment should look like.  

e. Updates from Active Subcommittees i. BMP Subcommittee (covered earlier) 

1. Technology Review and Presentation approval ii. Pilot Lessons Learned to change name (Knowledge Gained Committee) and present report in 

August iii. Phase 1 BUOS Subcommittee Update ‐ Work will be finishing in August 

 7. Next Meeting August 12, 2010 – Final 2010 Calendar 

 8. Adjourned 

Package Page 6

13 Phil Govea City of Manteca

CV­SALTS Committee RostersExecutive Committee Membership      July Aug.Nomination Category Name and OrganizationSalinity Leadership      1 Pamela Creedon, Regional Water Quality Control Board

2 Karl Longley, Central Valley Regional Water Quality CB3 Darrin Polhemus, State Water Resources Control Board4 Jose Faria/Ernie Taylor Department of Water Resources5 Lee Mao/Lisa Holm, US Bureau of Reclamation6 TBD ‐ Environmental, Water Quality or EJ rep. 

Comm. Co‐chairs          1 Mona Shulman, Chair Executive Committee2 Linda Dorn, Vice Chair Executive Committee3 Dave Melilli, Public Education & Outreach Comm.4 Joe DiGiorgio, Public Education & Outreach Comm.5 Nigel Quinn, Technical Advisory Committee6 David Cory, Economic and Social Cost Committee

CV Salinity Coalition    1 Bobbi Larson, CASA2 Debbie Webster, CVCWA3 Dave Cory, San Joaquin River Drainage Authority4 Steve Hogg, City of Fresno5 Trudi Hughes, California League of Food Processors6 Tim Schmelzer/Chris Savage, Wine Institute7 Steve Bailey, City of Tracy8 Jeff Willett, City of Stockton9 Linda Dorn, Sacramento Regional CSD10 Dennis Westcot, San Joaquin River Group11 Nick Pinhey, City of Modesto12 Tim Johnson, California Rice Commission13 Phil Govea, City of Manteca  ,     14 Parry Klassen, East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition15 Mike Nordstrom/Doug Davis Tulare Lake Drainage/Storage 16 Karna Harrigfeld, Stockton East Water District17 Renee Pinel, Western Plant Health Association

Participants Identified: Jeanne Chilcott, CVRWQCB

Geoff Anderson, DWR Andy Malone, Wildermuth Env.Bruce Houdesheldt, NCWA/Sac Valley WQC Chad Dibble, CDFG

Dan Odenweller, RWQCB David Miller, GEI Consultants

Danny Merkely, California Farm Bureau Gary Carlton, Kennedy Jenks

Emily Alejandrino/Jim Martin, CVRWQCB Jamil Ibrahim, MWH Global

Emily Robidart Rooney, Ag Council Jay Simi, CVRWQCB

Gail Cismowski, CVRWQCB Jodi Pontureri, SWRCB

Jenny Crouse, Ironhouse Sanitary District Joe LeClaire, Wildermuth Env.

Erick Althorp SSJWQC Ken Landau, RWQCBMark Dorman, Rainsoft Water PWQA  Larry Rodriguez, Kern County WA

Mark Felton, Culligan Water and PWQA Mark Larsen, Kaweah Delta WCD

Mark Gowdy, SWRCB, Water Rights Rita Schmitt‐Sudman, WEF

Rick Staggs, City of Fresno Rob Beggs, Brown and Caldwell

Robert Chrobak and Stuart Childs Kennedy/Jenks Roberta Firoved

Travis Peterson, CVCWA Ron Crites, Brown and Caldwell

Stan Dean, SRCD Rudy Schnagl, CVRWQCB

Package Page 7

 

Straw Proposal ‐ CV‐SALTS Policy Statement and Regulatory Framework 

The following straw proposal suggests a policy statement and regulatory framework for Central Valley Water Board consideration.  The intent of the policy statement and regulatory framework is to define the Water Board’s expectations of the CV‐SALTS effort and clarify how various salinity related regulatory efforts will be addressed in both the short and long‐term.  This document is for discussion purposes only and does not represent a recommended approach of the CV‐SALTS coalition or the Central Valley Water Board. 

 

CV‐SALTS Policy Statement  

Proposed concepts to be included in a policy statement: 

‐ CV‐SALTS is a programmatic approach to developing the policies and science to create sustainable salt and nitrate management in the Central Valley. 

‐ Both regulatory and nonregulatory management options will be evaluated and a primary goal of the effort is to update the Water Quality Control Plans for both surface waters and groundwaters of the Region. 

‐ The primary focus will be on the policies and regulations that the Central Valley Water Board can establish to facilitate cost effective salinity management while protecting beneficial uses of surface and ground waters. 

‐ Water supply demands and management can significantly impact the ability to effectively manage salts, therefore, the CV‐SALTS effort will be closely coordinated with water supply management and planning efforts. 

‐ There are many parties that have a stake in how salt is managed in the Central Valley.  It is critical that all interests be heard and that the public participation process be accessible and transparent to all stakeholders.  Sustained engagement by interested parties will be vital to the successful implementation of any salinity management program adopted by the Central Valley Water Board. 

‐ The long‐term viability of portions of the Central Valley is dependent on finding cost effective and feasible methods for exporting excess salts out of the valley.  However, near term efforts must focus on minimizing salt discharges and reducing the levels of other discharge contaminants in order to reduce the costs, technical feasibility, and environmental impacts of any long‐term solutions. 

‐ It is important for the Central Valley Water Board to protect existing and potential future uses of ground and surface waters.  However, site specific data and scientific studies have not often been available to confirm that uses designated through general policies can be reasonably achieved.  The Central Valley Water Board supports efforts to develop site specific information regarding the existence or attainment of beneficial uses. 

Package Page 8

 

Regulatory Framework for Salt Management  

The Central Valley Water Board recognizes that there are many regulatory efforts that must continue to move forward as the broader salinity management plan is developed.  To support the Central Valley Water Board’s Policy, the following approach will be used to address near and long‐term regulatory issues related to salinity: 

‐ The committees and work groups of the CV‐SALTS initiative will be the primary forums for coordination of data collection, scientific studies, and policy development.  Those committees and work groups are expected to develop and implement work plans to meet their objectives.  The Executive Committee will periodically report to the Central Valley Water Board on progress in accomplishing work plan tasks. 

‐ The Central Valley Water Board intends to consider adoption of a comprehensive salinity management plan based on the work of the CV‐SALTS participants.  The components of that plan are expected to include: (1) reviewing beneficial use designations and providing documentation for any recommended changes, modifications or additions; (2) development of documentation needed to establish numerical salinity and nitrate water quality objectives for waters of the region and (3) development of the implementation program that will be used to achieve compliance with the water quality objectives.  This program will contain both regulatory and nonregulatory efforts, and will include provisions to achieve compliance if the nonregulatory efforts are not implemented.   

‐ Although the comprehensive salinity management plan will define how salt discharges will be handled over the long‐term, many discharges are confronted with challenges to meet regulatory requirements in the near term.  Also, there are a number of regulatory processes that have been initiated that need not be delayed until the comprehensive plan is adopted.  The Central Valley Water Board will continue to work with interested parties on these near‐term issues, however, the Board expects such efforts to be coordinated with the CV‐SALTS initiative.  Such coordination may include collaboration with CV‐SALTS on scientific studies or policy development or may focus on information exchange.  Near‐term salinity issues that are expected to be addressed by the Central Valley Water Board in coordination with CV‐SALTS include: salt issues that must be addressed in pending or adopted permits; basin planning efforts needed to address site‐specific issues in which the feasibility of meeting permit requirements is in question; basin planning efforts that have been ongoing; the development of salinity management or monitoring plans that are applicable to a broad area.  Examples of such near term efforts include: 

o Development of salinity and nutrient management plans for groundwaters as called for in the Recycled Water Policy.   

o Development of salinity objectives for the lower San Joaquin River.  CV‐SALTS currently has a work group focused on this effort. 

Package Page 9

 

o Implementation of the salinity control program for the San Joaquin River Basin.  This includes a Management Agency Agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and TMDL load limits that apply to both point and nonpoint source dischargers or the implementation of a real time management program. 

o Interim salt policy for waste water treatment.  CVCWA and the Central Valley Water Board are working on this policy. 

o Salt minimization plans and site specific objectives studies.  Recently adopted NPDES permits and WDRs for discharge to land include a requirement to submit salt minimization plans.  Some NPDES permits also include provisions for SSO studies.  The permittees are working on these plans and studies with Board staff input. 

o Promotion of best management practices for salinity control.  This includes establishment of a standard process for evaluation of proposed practices followed by the process of reviewing and promoting the use of effective practices.   

o Dairy nutrient management plans and salt minimization plans.  The dairy industry/ individual dairies prepare the plans for submittal to the Board.  The plans apply to over 1,400 dairies and 500,000 acres of crop land. 

o Dairy ground water monitoring.  Dairies are required to conduct ground water monitoring (salts/nitrates) and are investigating the feasibility of representative monitoring with the Central Valley Water Board. 

o Irrigated lands salinity management plans.  Several coalition groups are required to develop salinity management plans for specific watersheds.  Those coalitions have indicated they will coordinate their efforts with CV‐SALTS. 

o Irrigated lands monitoring plans.  Coalition groups are conducting surface water monitoring that includes salinity and nutrient monitoring at numerous sites.  Coalition groups have developed those plans with oversight/approval of the Central Valley Water Board. 

o Grasslands Bypass Project – WDRs and MRP order.  Although focused on selenium, many of the selenium controls have resulted in salt load reductions.  An established stakeholder group provides input on the monitoring efforts. 

o Site specific objectives/ use attainability analysis.  Historically, interested parties have provided funding to the Board for site‐specific Basin Plan Amendments, although no assurance of a specific policy outcome has been given.  The Central Valley Water Board will consider, on a case by case basis, any such requests to address site‐specific salinity issues.  Pursuing such an Amendment will be based on availability of funding for Board staff and consideration of the ability of the discharger to comply with their permit in absence of a Basin Plan Amendment. 

Package Page 10

Draft 2 8/4/10

1 | P a g e

 

Annual Salinity Leadership Group Workshop CALEPA Building 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 

Byron Sher Auditorium September, 29, 2009 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM 

Web Broadcast Link  

The Central Valley Salinity Coalition Inc. (CVSC) on behalf of the Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long Term Sustainability (CV‐SALTS) Initiative and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board, present the Annual Salinity Leadership Group Workshop. The Salinity Leadership Group is the Steering Group for the entire CV‐SALTS Initiative and is comprised of the highest level decision makers and executives of the agencies and organizations must be involved with the management of salinity and waters of the Central Valley.   

This two hour workshop will concisely present the Steering Group an overview CV‐SALTS issues and accomplishments and seeks your input on important planning decisions for the future of the Central Valley and Delta.    

Summary Agenda: 

1) Welcome and introduction – Group Co‐Chairs (State and Regional Boards) 2) CVSLG/CV‐SALTS Progress and 2011‐12 Goals‐ Pamela Creedon EO RWQCB   3) Proposed Policy Approach and Framework including discussion 4) Stakeholder Support and Proposed Funding Plan including discussion   5) CV‐SALTS Visions of the Future in Implementation including discussion  6) Salinity Leadership Group Actions  

a) The SLG endorses the Policy Approach and Framework for CV‐SALTS direction  b) The SLG endorses the Funding Approach and Plan for CV‐SALTS c) The SLG approves the 2011‐12 goals for CV‐SALTS  

This meeting will be available for internet webcast.  After the Broadcast the video will be available for viewing. 

Package Page 11

Draft 2 8/4/10

2 | P a g e

DRAFT Version 2  

CENTRAL VALLEY SALINITY LEADERSHIP GROUP WORKSHOP CALEPA Building 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 

Byron Sher Auditorium September, 29, 2009 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM 

Web Broadcast Link  

Meeting Purpose 1. High level (Executive) overview of the program  2. Present successes, accomplishments, approach and framework, and funding plan 3. Obtain Critical feedback on overall direction and goals in the following areas 

a. Policy Approach and Regional Implementation Framework b. Funding Plan, partners and sources c. CV‐SALTS Goals for Basin Plan Implementation 

 

 ANNOTATED AGENDA – Will become detailed agenda 1) Welcome and introduction (8 min) Charlie Hoppin and Kate Hart (draft statements) 2) CVSLG and CV‐SALTS Initiative Progress Determination Finding and 2011‐12 Goals‐ 

Pamela  Executive Officer RWQCB (12 min) (Accomplishments Report, 2010 criteria Summary) 

3) Moving forward ‐ CV‐SALTS  a) Policy Approach and Framework presented by (15 min) (Outline/Whitepaper)  

i) Feedback  and discussion(15 min)  b) Stakeholder Support and Funding Plan ‐ Tim Johnson (10 min) (Presentation on 

current Stakeholder, State and funding plan paper for future) i) Feedback  and discussion(15 min)  

4) Visions of the Future Implementation ‐ Bobbi or David (15 min)  i) Feedback  and discussion(15 min)  

5) Salinity Leadership Group Actions (10 min) ‐ Executive committee recommends the following actions: 

i) The SLG endorses the Policy Approach and Framework for CV‐SALTS direction  ii) The SLG endorses the Funding Approach and Plan for CV‐SALTS iii) The SLG approves the 2011‐12 goals for CV‐SALTS 

6) Closing Message (5 min) Mona Shulman or David Cory Total 2:00 hrs:min  

 Materials or Attachments  Logistics Summary Agenda to be send out August 17th  Detailed Agenda to be sent to arrive by September 17th  Reminder email September 27th  

Package Page 12

CV SALTS Initiative 2010 Progress MilestonesStakeholder (CVSC) Progress Demonstration Status Update August  2010Approved May 10, 2010 Version 5

# Timeline Activity or Effort Group Document/Event Status1 Ongoing Continue work on incomplete activities initiated prior to 2010 CVSC See below1-a Apr-09 Workplan development elements TAC Ongoing Ongoing1-e Jun-09 Public Outreach/Scoping Meeting PEOC Outreach Meeting Complete1-b Aug-09 Workplan Elements Contracting CVSC/DA BUOS Ongoing1-c Jun-09 Management Team Development CVSC Planning pending

budgetJuly

1-d Jul-09 Management Implementation CVSC Budget Approval July2 Ongoing Conduct regular meetings of working committees CVSC Ongoing Ongoing3 Ongoing Continue to update Program Coordination Matrix TAC/Exec Ongoing Ongoing4 Ongoing Add detail to the task descriptions in the CV-SALTS work plan Outline to

better illustrate the extent of work involved for each item listedTAC Ongoing July

4a Technical Committee to provide Input on Plan and general updates TAC Updated Document July

4b Add elements from the Detailed BOUS scope of work Consultant BUOS Workplan September4c Detail the rest of the CV-SALTS Workplan Outline with Cooperative Data

Collection and analysis and Implementation effortsConsultant Program Workplan 2011

5 Ongoing Link all agenda and action items to work plan tasks CVSC Complete6 Ongoing Set (by February) and pursue funding goals CVSC March to CVSC August

6a Membership Funding for CVSC/CV-SALTS CVSC Budget and Membership Guideline

April

6b Subcommittee for Funding and Fundraising Exec First Meeting Complete6c Projects and Funding Targets (outside membership) Consultant Draft Plan August7 Mar-10 Identify salinity management options/alternatives to be evaluated for

implementation planTAC July

7a Identify existing and potential salt and nitrate management alternatives and for implementation plan

BMP Subcomm.

July

7b Describe the management alternatives and compile information on BMP Augustg peffectiveness, applicibility and economics. Subcomm.

g

7c Identify screening and analytical evaluation tools for use in evaluation of Management Alternatives/Options

BMP Subcomm.

August

7c Detailed description of alternatives/options with applibility and achieveability

BMP Subcomm.

September

7d Identify screening approaches and tools for review of 7b and data requirements

BMP Subcomm.

October

7e Screen 7b items for priority and additional review Consultant November8 Mar-10 Provide an informational report to the Regional Board on the CV-SALTS

initiativeCVSC/Exec State/Regional

Board ReportMay/June

15-a Leadership Group Planning and Letters to Confirm Participants CVSC Send Letter May/June10 Jun-10 Prepare semiannual status reports on funding and progress toward

completing work plan tasks CVSC Expanded

Accomplishments report

June

10a Expanded Accomplishment Report June to State Board and Post State Board and Regional Board

June

10b Expanded Accomplishments Report December December11 Jun-10 Develop a process for coordinating with RWMG planning and

implementation projects with a nexus with salt or nutrient management, and other ongoing efforts on salinity management

CVSC Draft plan finalize with Staff support

June

11a Draft IRWM Coordination Plan (consider CalFed Salt IRWM projects) TAC Committee Ongoing

11b Mailing to IRWM Groups and Briefing at IRWM Roundtable of Regions CVSC Complete11c Solicit IRWM Projects which impact salt or nutirents, coordinate with those

who respond.CVSC September

15b Leadership Group Outreach and Invitations CVSC Send Invitation 17-Aug12 Jul-10 Identify administrative and technical program needs that could be met

through in-kind services rather than financial contributionsTAC/Exec Report to

CommitteeJuly

12a Identify administrative tasks CVSC Complete12b Identify technical program task likley to use in-kind assistance TAC July12c Develop system for tracking and evaluating in-kind support and

effectiveness EXEC and CVSC

July

Package Page 13

CV SALTS Initiative 2010 Progress MilestonesStakeholder (CVSC) Progress Demonstration Status Update August  2010Approved May 10, 2010 Version 5

# Timeline Activity or Effort Group Document/Event Status12d Solicit in-kind support EXEC and

CVSCAugust

13 Jul-10 Develop a plan to solicit meaningful stakeholder input on an ongoing basis from groups with limited financial resources (disadvantaged communities, EJ groups, etc)

Exec/PEOC Expand existing efforts and document in plan

August

13a Identify DAC representatives Exec Followup ongoing June13b Draft Plan Outline and solicit EJ and DAC feedback CVSC Review with PEOC Complete

13c Finalize plan based on feedback CVSC Exec Approval August14 Jul-10 Assess the value and applicability of the salt and nitrate source pilot

implementation study. Review approach and methodology for application of other parts of the region

TAC Review Pilot - March Draft - April

August

14a Develop Lessons Learned Committee TAC April14b Review report and approach Sub Comm. May14c Document and present approach/methodology changes for future work TAC Exec. Review August

18 Oct-10 Identify geographic data needed (Review after BUOS P-1) TAC BUOS P-1 Plus October15 Sep-10 Hold the annual meeting of the Leadership Group Exec/PEOC Meeting September16 Sep-10 Identify the near-term, intermediate, and long-term modeling and data

collection/storage needs.TAC Scoping October

16a Identify what data is needed by CV-SALTS and by local agencies EXEC/TAC Discussion September16b Assess current state programs for data storage and collection TAC Scoping Setember16c Building on task 14, and 18 review needs for BUOS Consultant Draft October16d Identify future needs based on rest of CV-SALTS Workplan Outline Consultant document 2010-201117 Sep-10 Begin work on surface and groundwater numerical objectives and modeling

sensitivity and limitationsTAC Scoping 2010-2011

17a Presentation on groundwater reglulation and objectives Regional Board

Presentation September

17b Discuss groundwater approaches and management TAC/Exec Septemberg pp g p17c Identify priority groundwater concerns/issues TAC October17d Groundwater objectives goals Exec November19 Nov-10 Complete classification of salt sources TAC Scoping * 2010-201119a19b20 Dec-10 Identify data gaps to be filled and initiate effort to develop data TAC Scoping * 2010-201120a20b9 May-10 Complete Data Management Approach TAC Scoping * December

9a Familarize participants with existing programs and options TAC Presentations August - October

9b Review options and alternatives TAC Subcommittee review

November

9c Document and present approach and needs TAC Presentation December21 Dec-10 Identify beneficial use projects to be conducted and initiate collection TAC Ongoing21a Phase 1 BUOS Study underway TAC April21b Scoping BUOS Phase 2+ TAC July21c Contracting/Implementation BUOS Phase 2+ TAC August22 Dec-10 Develop recommended process for identifying Best Practical Treatment or

Control for salinity and nitrateBMP Committee

Docmment process October

23 As needed Provide information needed for State Water Board tracking of salinity/nutrient planning being done pursuant to the Recycled Water Policy.

CVSC December Ongoing

Package Page 14

1 

 

CV­SALTS Technical Memorandum  

Date:   August 6, 2010 

To:   CV‐SALTS Technical Advisory Committee 

From:  Salt and Nitrate Sources Pilot Studies Review Knowledge Gained Subcommittee 

 

The primary objectives of the Salt and Nitrate Sources Pilot Studies Review Knowledge Gained Subcommittee (Knowledge Gained Subcommittee) are: 

A.) Review the processes used by  CV‐SALTS to manage, fund, and contract the Salt and Nitrate Sources Pilot Implementation Study (SNPS) and make recommendations to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to improve such processes for future work; and 

B.) Complete a technical review of the SNPS, as well as other recent salt and nitrate source studies including Erler & Kalinowski, Inc.’s (EKI’s) A Mass Balance Approach to Evaluate Salinity Sources in the Turlock Sub‐Basin, California (EKI’s Turlock Salinity Source Study) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Westside Salt and Nitrate Assessment, to better define the associated technical issues with developing such studies and to elucidate critical policy questions that require resolution.    

The Knowledge Gained Subcommittee has decided to phase its review and recommendations to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), starting with reviewing processes and making recommendations related to the administration and management of future projects under CV‐SALTS, based on our experience with the SNPS.   Therefore, this first technical memorandum focuses on recommending improvements to project administration.    The Knowledge Gained Subcommittee currently envisions preparing three additional memoranda focused on technical issues, as detailed at the end of the memorandum.    

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the TAC contracted for the SNPS to help assess the potential for rapid implementation of data collection and analysis methods for quantifying and validating salt and nitrate mass loadings in representative (diverse) areas of the Central Valley, and to help identify issues that may generally apply to similar efforts in other areas of the Central Valley.  The SNPS Request For Proposals (RFP) scope of work was developed by a volunteer subcommittee of the TAC, then reviewed and approved by the CV‐SALTS TAC, Executive Committee, and Central Valley Salinity Coalition (CVSC).  CVSC received eight proposals and a selection subcommittee was established to review the proposals and recommend a contractor to CVSC.  The selection committee chose Larry Walker and Associates, whose approach was to use quantitative modeling, using substantial data that had already been collected as part of previous projects completed by Larry Walker and Associates and its team members.  The final SNPS report was submitted in February 2010.  

Package Page 15

2 

 

PROCESS: Following review of the SNPS report, the TAC established a voluntary review subcommittee, (Knowledge Gained Subcommittee) to evaluate and document what CV‐SALTS learned through the experience and to examine the role of the SNPS in the development of Salt/Nutrient Management Plans and the larger CV‐SALTS program.  This is the first report of the subcommittee. 

RECOMMENDATIONS:  CV‐SALTS and the CVSC are exploring new arrangements and institutions for managing, funding, and contracting for technical work in support of a Basin Plan Amendment and associated Salinity/Nutrient Management Plan(s).  In this respect, it is valuable to examine the process that was employed in this first contracting exercise and the value of the experience and product that resulted.   The following recommendations are intended to improve the CV‐SALTS process for managing, funding, and contracting future technical work. 

1. We recommend a project subcommittee be established for each project.  The Beneficial Uses and Objectives Phase 1 Study is the first project for which a project subcommittee was established.  The project subcommittees should consist of a small, dedicated group of volunteers.  Project subcommittees can also evolve into groups of volunteers who hold valuable institutional knowledge for development of the eventual Plan(s) and Basin Plan Amendment(s).  We have identified several additional potential responsibilities for these subcommittees and support the TAC developing documentation of roles and responsibilities for project subcommittees and their members.  1.b  The Regional Board has for some time recommended and fully expects that CV‐SALTS will procure a technical project manager (TPM) to oversee the technical aspects of CV‐SALTS.  The TPM would be responsible for and involved in all technical aspects of the CV‐SALTS effort, including development of the technical parts of the CV‐SALTS work plan, contract development, preparation of scopes of work, and technical project oversight.  The TPM would interact with the TAC and project subcommittees, and report to them as needed.      

2. We recommend the project subcommittee also be charged with reviewing the project.  The TAC will benefit from technical review of work products.  With objectives and expectations established by the project subcommittee (and TAC), and engagement of the project subcommittee volunteers from the start of the project, project technical reviews should be more efficient.   

3. We recommend program expectations and deliverables be clearly established.  All projects that CV‐SALTS funds and/or manages must consider the objectives, resources, and structure of CV‐SALTS and relate back to the program.  This consideration must begin at the project conception, with the TAC.  Without clearly established program expectations and deliverables ‐ which are currently not well defined ‐ evaluation of projects may repeatedly get caught up in arguments over unresolved programmatic issues.   

4. We recommend CV‐SALTS use an RFQ and performance work statement approach to contracting.  For the SNPS, CV‐SALTS developed a scope of work prior to soliciting proposals from consultants, which included a task to develop a work plan.   The RFP process can work well, but is typically used by agencies for well defined projects with the resources available to develop comprehensive scopes of work.   In contrast, CV‐SALTS is primarily comprised of volunteers and stakeholder representatives 

Package Page 16

3 

 

so the project scopes have not been as well developed or defined.  This organizational structure and type of project does not easily lend itself to development of fully‐developed, detailed scopes of work.  Given these resource limitations and project types, we recommend that CV‐SALTS initially use a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to “pre‐screen” contractors for projects.  Many processes can be used to engage contractors, such as:  

a. Qualified and selected contractors could be requested to prepare proposals, including initial scopes of work with associated budgets and schedules that meet project goals and objectives developed by CV‐SALTS; 

b. Alternatively, a contractor could be selected based on qualifications and cost estimate to prepare a detailed scope of work. Proposals would then be solicited from additional contractors for completion of the detailed scope of work.   

c. Final selection of the contractor can then be based on contractor’s understanding of the project and goals, objectives, and makeup of CV‐SALTS.    

This approach would allow the project manager and subcommittee volunteers who are engaged in the project to focus their initial efforts on developing project objectives and desired outcomes and deliverables rather than on the methodology (scope of work) for accomplishing desired outcomes.    Many agencies use the RFQ contracting approach, which allows the selected contractor the flexibility to develop the most efficient and cost effective scope of work based on their resources, expertise, and cost goals.   

5. We recommend project expectations and deliverables be clearly established in performance work statements.  The SNPS RFP contained project‐level expectations that were met, although possibly open to some interpretation.  Clearly established expectations help direct project‐deliverable criticism towards the substantive portions of finished the products as opposed to the scope and format. This could be in the form of a project description or problem statement and a list of questions the project must answer.  The performance work statement should also discuss and spell out the expected format and intended uses for all deliverables of the project.   

6. We recommend reporting commitments be clearly spelled out.  For each project, the TAC should fully develop a project oversight plan that spells out the reporting and reviewing commitments.  The plan should detail the number of status or progress reports to be presented to the various committees and subcommittees during the course of studies. One recommended approach is to encourage scopes of work that rationally phase the project tasks with intermediate deliverables for each major task.  Intermediate deliverables would not be stand alone documentation, but would allow for periodic reporting and adaptive management of the work. The TAC must set realistic review periods, recognizing the voluntary nature of CV‐SALTS members, collectively agree that short review periods are needed and will be conformed to, or establish project subcommittees that are given authority to perform reviews and report back to the TAC.  This would benefit both consultants and the TAC, allowing consultants to clearly forecast and schedule decision points and deliverables to meet TAC expectations of review opportunities. 

Package Page 17

4 

 

7. We recommend the role of stakeholder involvement in each project be considered during scoping.  During development of project objectives, the TAC should identify potential major or key stakeholders and consider the need and value of their input to the project.  Some project stakeholders may prefer to meet independently with consultants to inform a project and the TAC may feel that the project would significantly benefit from this interaction.  In these cases, the TAC should include this interaction in their project objectives, deliverables and/or performance work statement. 

8. We recommend the TAC develop a peer review approach for the CV‐SALTS effort.  CV‐SALTS should establish and document the peer review requirements for each contracted project.  CV‐SALTS should discuss whether a peer review is a separate activity outside the project and whether it is preferable to have project contractors advise the TAC on the applicability of peer review.  Traditionally peer review is completed as a nearly last step in the Basin Plan or regulatory study process.  However, peer review feedback is often most useful when consistently applied from the development of the work planning through the completion of studies in an embedded process.  If peer review is to become an embedded process, CV‐SALTS should develop general scope and expectations of peer review processes and pursue this contract as well.  If an overall peer review approach and process is not developed, the TAC and the Subcommittees should develop it on a project basis or make a decision to leave that review to the final basin plan peer review at the Regional Board level which has the significant risk of identifying issues that extend the process. 

9. We recommend the contracting schedule be balanced with the scope and complexity:  The contracting schedule for projects should be developed with the consultant as part of the RFQ recommendation (#4 above).  In any case, more implementable schedules which consider the amount of time needed by volunteers to review proposals, to schedule meetings (discussion of proposals, interview of candidate firms), and for the CVSC to consider, negotiate and approve the project is needed.   

10. We recommend project funding be fully identified and secured prior to the start of work. While this may slow overall progress, experience here and in other regions is demonstrating contract funding commitments from both State and stakeholder sources is uncertain and does not facilitate timely payment of contractors.  Funding identified for all core elements of the scope should be identified and secured before start of work.  If the project is grant funded, the total cost of work including contingency must not change significantly from original amount agreed to by the contractor without endangering the viability of the project.  The project plan should include conditions under which a reduction in scope or suspension of project could occur if the project is funded by state grant funds that could be subject to suspension. 

11. We recommend schedules proceed as quickly as possible without sacrificing quality.  Without urgency and schedule pressure CV‐SALTS will be unsuccessful in reaching its 2013/2014 completion goals.  However, schedule pressure must be balanced with the quality of the work and quality of the documentation.  The project subcommittee should monitor the schedule and capability to deliver 

Package Page 18

5 

 

well integrated quality work product in which the stakeholders are involved and have the opportunity to review and consider the work. 

11a. The RWQCB suggests that this would also be a responsibility of the TPM. 

12. We recommend reintegrating project scopes of work into the CV‐SALTS work plan. Because each project scope of work will further develop and document work to be completed, project subcommittees should reintegrate project scopes of work into the CV‐SALTS work plan, and review the CV‐SALTS work plan to see if additional adaptations are warranted for the program or other committees.  This is especially true if recommendation #4 using a RFQ approach is implemented.  

13. We recommend the project subcommittee identify a subcommittee member to, assist contractors in communicating with the TAC.  Contractors can come into the CV‐SALTS meetings without any history and little guidance on TAC expectations.  Along with our recommendation to establish project subcommittees, we include a responsibility to assist contractors in producing the most effective presentations possible (both in message and duration).  This should result in greater efficiencies on both sides.  For Executive Committee presentations, this same volunteer could represent the TAC and present part of the presentation as a presentation from the TAC (on the decision points, recommendation, and key issues).  This will require carefully balancing, as the desired outcome is to improve the reporting process, not to micro‐manage it. 

13a. The RWQCB recommends that this could be a responsibility of the TPM. 

14. We recommend CV‐SALTS develop a Stakeholder Involvement Plan in the near future.  In coordination with our seventh recommendation, we recommend that CV‐SALTS quickly determine the role of regional and local governments and non‐governmental stakeholders in salinity and nitrate management planning and the role of CV‐SALTS in engaging, organizing, and coordinating regional planning efforts.  Upon this determination, CV‐SALTS should develop and implement a plan to engage critical stakeholders.  We believe the overall stakeholder outreach / engagement / involvement approach should consider three tiers of outreach: policy, technical, and public.  Policy, for example, could focus on reaching consensus on the role of regional/local government in salinity and nitrate management plan(s) in the ultimately proposed regulation(s).  Technical could then focus on obtaining the best available data and experts to inform regulatory development.  Public is being addressed through PEOC. 

15. We recommend RWQCB weigh in early on performance work statements.   For example, RWQCB staff are most able to assess the level of effort needed to access data collected by the RWQCB (especially hard copy data).  For projects especially dependent on RWQCB data, the RWQCB should be solicited to appoint staff to advise and assist contractors in data gathering and data requests. 

Package Page 19

6 

 

Subcommittee Next Steps:  The subcommittee has identified four discrete tasks to complete its assessment of Salt and Nitrate Source Studies.  This memorandum represents the conclusion of the first task, focused on recommending improvements to project administration.  The remaining tasks for this subcommittee are:  

2. Develop CV‐SALTS Programmatic Objectives (from the perspective of assessing the role of source studies’ information) 

September 2010 

3. Evaluate Source Studies in context of Programmatic Objectives  October 2010 

4. Develop and Recommend a Technical Framework for Regional Salt and Nitrate Management Plans 

November 2010 

 

Over the past weeks, the subcommittee has begun drafting a straw technical framework (which is intended to facilitate its fourth task), but has recently determined that the most productive review of the SNPS, as well as EKI’s Turlock Salinity Source Study and intermediate products of Reclamation’s Westside Salt and Nitrate Assessment, is to first develop the broad context of CV‐SALTS and then evaluate and describe how these studies fit into this context.  We encourage any interested parties to participate in any of these tasks. 

Subcommittee Members and Participants:  Over the past year, the Knowledge Gained Subcommittee has included: 

Bob Braun Daniel Cozad David Cory Debbie Webster Jeanne Chilcott Jim Martin Joe DiGiorgio John Dickey Linda Dorn 

Lisa Holm Melissa Turner Michael Johnson Michael Nordstrom Michel Steiger Mona Shulman Nigel Quinn Robert Smith  Rudy Schnagl 

 

Package Page 20

Central Valley Salinity Coalition Inc.  

CV­SALTS 2010 Outreach Workshops Woodland and Tulare     

Package Page 21

Table of Contents  Public Outreach Workshops Table of Contents 1  Outreach Workshop Notice ...................................................................................................... 1 2  Press Releases .............................................................................................................................       2.1      Regional .......................................................................................................................... 3       2.2      Tulare .............................................................................................................................. 5       2.3      Woodland ....................................................................................................................... 7 3  Media Articles .............................................................................................................................    3.1      Central Valley Business Times ........................................................................................ 9   3.2      Aquafornia .................................................................................................................... 11          3.3      The Davis Enterprise ..................................................................................................... 12 4  Media Outreach Report .......................................................................................................... 13 5      Outreach Map  ......................................................................................................................... 23 6      Attendees Woodland and Tulare ............................................................................................ 24 7  Presentations ..............................................................................................................................           7.1     Outreach Workshop Woodland .................................................................................... 28          7.2     Workshop Education Woodland ................................................................................... 51          7.3     Outreach Workshop Tulare ........................................................................................... 85 8      Workshop Questions ............................................................................................................. 108 9      Workshop Feedback and Comments Report ........................................................................ 112   

Package Page 22

CV‐SALTS Disadvantaged Community and Limited Financial Resource Group Communication and Engagement Plan 

1 Background and Understanding CV‐SALTS Executive Committee understands that CV‐SALTS is a technical and complex effort taking place over several years.  Because of this situation participation by Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) or financial resource limited groups (RLG) may be reduced and not produce full engagement.  CV‐SALTS has a goal to seek engagement from groups that may have these limitations and this plan seeks to further engagement through the efforts described below.  No plan or organization can fully identify all groups or fully mitigate participation difficulties; however this plan will seek to develop systems to seek the best engagement possible.  Participation and engagement of groups will differ by their interest and internal capacity to participate.  

 CV‐SALTS from the beginning has invited various groups which have limited resources to participate and attempted to assist them in participation. However, we understand that participation in CV‐SALTS can be costly in terms of use of qualified staff resources or consultants and in travel costs.  

2 Prior and Current Efforts  Communications programs which can assist LRG/DAC have been developed and are described below.  This is the first level of communication and engagement.  The plan proposes other efforts the Committees reviewed in Section 6.2. 

Email distribution is the primary method used for the transmittal of materials to all participants in CV‐SALTS.  Several DAC groups are currently included in the email list and receive meeting information and general information updated monthly or more frequently. 

To facilitate remote meeting attendance and at the recommendation of the Environmental Justice (EJ) community CV‐SALTS developed the capacity to improve conference call and web broadcast of meetings to reduce travel and allow more efficient staff use for DAC groups and all participants.  

Quarterly conference calls with primarily EJ Groups were initiated in 2008 and have been conducted most quarters.  These calls provide background, status, and attempt to explain and get feedback on the overall CV‐SALTS activities and specific studies and efforts. 

Topical or timely briefings have been provided for specific studies or issues of known interest to environmental, DAC and others.  

 

1 | P a g e  Draft LRGDAC Engagement Plan Version 5    8/9/10 

Package Page 23

3 Identification of Resource Limited Groups To date, Environmental Justice groups have identified CV‐SALTS as a priority for monitoring and participation as much as possible.  Broad based environmental groups have participated in CV‐SALTS on a limited basis especially in the Leadership Group meetings.  Other participation by DAC’s has been intermittent and mostly through outreach workshops. 

CV‐SALTS needs to identify DAC in the Central Valley which have an interest in water quality specifically salt and nitrate 

4 Understand Needs and Interests Limited understanding of the needs and interests of the EJ community has been established, however little is known about the needs and interests of other groups.  Once additional group is identified as discussed in Section 3, above a systematic method should be followed to identify the communication and engagement needs and to characterize the interests or issue inventory of the groups related to salt and nutrient issues. 

Engagement needs could include other methods of communication or participation, special meetings or briefings or other methods suggested by the groups.  A characterization of the groups’ interests or issue inventory, i.e.  specific beneficial uses, nitrates in groundwater, public health or habitat and fisheries should be established in order to allow CV‐SALTS to alert the groups of items of interest.  Interviews or questionnaires may be utilized for the development of the issue inventory and engagement needs. 

Based on the needs and interests specific studies or sections of studies may be more likely to attract DAC and RLG.  If these can be identified and scoped they should be brought to the Technical or Executive Committee for prioritization. 

5 Two Way Communications Communication is essential to engagement and being able to communicate to and receive information from the groups may be different than for others.  Meeting times, languages, and other specifics may be identified in discussions with the groups and those that work with them.  Outreach efforts may need to be modified or developed to communicate effectively with leadership from the DACs. 

6 Engagement Enhancement Efforts 

6.1 Group Identification and Development The Committee has identified several methods for efficient identification of DACs in the Central Valley which are likely to have an interest or concern with salt and nitrates.  Additional, method sources will be document if received from Committee Members.  The sources and contact methods will be documented and the appropriate committee or group will be charged with implementing them within budget or through in‐the kind contributions.  

2 | P a g e  Draft LRGDAC Engagement Plan Version 5    8/9/10 

Package Page 24

Development process and efforts based on the Committee recommendations including the following sources of water and salt/nitrate DAC groups include: 

1. Maintain contact with Gita Kapahiat ‐ SWRCB the Liaison to DACs – the SWRCB Public Communities are shown in Attachment 1, CV‐SALTS Committees should evaluate efforts to involve these communities. 

2. Contact DWR IRWM requests from DAC groups qualifying for funding – Individual IRWM areas manage their DAC contacts, no current clearing house of this information is expected.  Future request to IRWM groups is planned, see 3 below. 

3. Public Education and Outreach committee recommendations to be incorporated 

6.2 Engagement Needs, Communication Methods and Issues Inventory Based on feedback from the committee and from existing EJ and DAC contacts, a systematic process will be developed by the Committee to request and document engagement needs, issues inventory and alternate methods of communication when funding is available.  This will be conducted with Committee assistance and may include telephone interview, written survey or other methods and combinations of methods to identify and document the needs, issues and communication methods. 

6.2.1 Communications and Information Level Current EJ and DAC group representatives requested a level of information that is not currently available for CV‐SALTS.  This high level summary with specific actions and dates would form an intermediate level of information between the current levels.  Currently available are information for participants in the CV‐SALTS programs and information for the general public or water community.  These levels are described in great detail and the Education and Outreach Committee should evaluate this recommendation.  

Participant – Monthly agenda’s and reports, detailed technical and policy information as it is developed or encountered by the committees.  Most participants will find this information the right level and timing.   

New Summary Technical and Policy – Monthly to quarterly information keyed to decision points in timing and initiation of actions.  The communication would attempt to summarize the information and issues and document decisions and actions.  Limited Financial Resource and EJ groups would appreciate this level of information to spend less time and to better assist CV‐SALTS. 

Public Information – Quarterly to annual timed information geared to the general public in factsheets and videos and outreach workshops.  This level may be more useful for most DAC groups. 

6.2.2 Additional Actions  Based on the development the following actions should be undertaken by the committee or CV‐SALTS.  

• Maintain contact with Gita Kapahiat ‐ CV‐SALTS Committees should evaluate efforts to involve these communities 

3 | P a g e  Draft LRGDAC Engagement Plan Version 5    8/9/10 

Package Page 25

• Direct contacts with Regional Acceptance Process approved IRWM groups to request identify water related DACs – contacts provided by DWR Shown Attachment 2 

• Continue to expand DAC list and continue to compile needs or issues where found 

6.3 Engagement Expectations The as the needs of these communities are better understood the Committee should document the engagement expectations for the groups based on the information in 6.2.  Because different groups will be more or less inclined to be engaged it should not be assumed all identified groups will be equally engaged in CV‐SALTS efforts and goals.  The expectation of engagement should be characterized and documented for each group.  Success of the Engagement Enhancement Efforts should be judged based on these expectations. 

6.4 Participation Assistance and Engagement Enhancement The Committee may wish to consider specific assistance to these groups which respond to the information developed in 6.2.  Examples of assistance may include the following: 

• Materials translation to appropriate languages, if additional languages are identified CV‐SALTS will seek assistance in translation. 

• Consider study adaptation to simplify and summarize technical and complex information into a more summarized and easier to understand format 

• Review needs and types of technical assistance may need and who can provide that assistance in technical areas.  Other resources for this include IRWM funding and technical assistance capacity. 

• If requested and depending on the issues and needs CV‐SALTS may wish to consider identifying sources of financial assistance for travel, study review or other participation where beneficial. 

• Other methods for assistance may be developed and considered by the committee from the efforts in 6.2. 

6.4.1 Outreach Resources The following organizations were identified as part of the current outreach work and development process of this plan.  They offer different services that may be of assistance to DAC groups in the Central Valley related to water.  The Committee should continue to add to the list as groups are identified.  Contact information and brief summary of their assistance is shown below. 

Self‐Help Enterprises  Jessi Snyder , Community Development Specialist  Tel 559‐802‐1693, jessis@selfhelpenterprises.org  Self‐Help Enterprises assists communities with housing and infrastructure development primarily in the area from Merced to Bakersfield,  they volunteered to help communities with water and wastewater issues to understand needs and funding assistance with water supply and quality needs and are a resources for outreach in communities they already work with. 

 

4 | P a g e  Draft LRGDAC Engagement Plan Version 5    8/9/10 

Package Page 26

Rural Community Assistance Corporation  http://www.rcac.org/doc.aspx?76   Karen McBride, Rural Development Specialist (916) 447‐9832 Ext. 1012 karenm@rcac.org RCAC assists communities with development of facilities and to assure adequate water supply and wastewater facilities.   RCAC is willing to help communities in the Central Valley with their priority water related needs, which can include nitrate and salinity treatment or management efforts.  RCAC also can assist with coordination and technical assistance to communities who request the support. 

Community Water Center ‐ 311 W. Murray Ave. Visalia, CA 93291  info@communitywatercenter.org   Tel: 559‐733‐0219 http://www.communitywatercenter.org/ CWC assists communities primarily with water quality related issues related to nitrates and pesticides and are a resources for outreach in communities they already work with. 

Environmental Justice Coalition for Water ‐ 309 Alameda Blvd. West Sacramento, CA 95691 Tel:  916‐371‐3853 http://www.ejcw.org/   EJCW assists communities with water quality related issues including nitrates and pesticides statewide in advocacy and are also resources for outreach in communities they already work with. 

    

5 | P a g e  Draft LRGDAC Engagement Plan Version 5    8/9/10 

Package Page 27

7 Attachment 1 DAC Communities Based on the 2000 Census these Central Valley Communities fall below the 80% Median Household Income Level and Qualify as DACs. 

Community Census Designation Population MHI Taft Heights CDP CDP 1,865 $37,684Hanford city CDP 41,686 $37,582Independence CDP CDP 574 $37,500North Auburn CDP CDP 11,847 $37,493Colfax city City 1,496 $37,391Atwater city City 23,113 $37,344Plymouth city City 980 $37,262Sacramento city City 407,018 $37,049Temelec CDP CDP 1,556 $36,964Vallecito CDP CDP 427 $36,875Nevada City city City 3,001 $36,667Placerville city City 9,610 $36,454Diamond Springs CDP CDP 4,888 $36,449Penn Valley CDP CDP 1,387 $35,962Jackson city City 3,989 $35,944Byron CDP CDP 916 $35,938Chilcoot-Vinton CDP CDP 387 $35,938Rail Road Flat CDP CDP 549 $35,938East Quincy CDP CDP 2,398 $35,648Merced City 210,554 $35,532Mokelumne Hill CDP CDP 774 $35,526Ione Band of Miwok TDSA TDSA 8 $35,500Arbuckle CDP CDP 2,332 $35,463Stockton city City 243,771 $35,453Bakersfield City 661,645 $35,446Laton CDP CDP 1,236 $35,408Fowler city City 3,979 $35,280Middletown CDP CDP 1,020 $35,278Colusa city City 5,402 $35,250Mechoopda TDSA TDSA 3,198 $35,217Riverdale Park CDP CDP 1,094 $35,217Fresno City 922,516 $34,960East Sonora CDP CDP 2,078 $34,922Wheatland city City 2,275 $34,861Selma city City 19,444 $34,713Reedley city City 20,756 $34,682Auberry CDP CDP 2,053 $34,621Foresthill CDP CDP 1,791 $34,348Redding City 163,256 $34,335Redding city City 80,865 $34,194North Lakeport CDP CDP 2,879 $34,155Loyalton city City 862 $34,063Parkwood CDP CDP 2,119 $34,018Isleton city City 828 $33,958Beale AFB CDP CDP 5,115 $33,944

6 | P a g e  Draft LRGDAC Engagement Plan Version 5    8/9/10 

Package Page 28

12 | P a g e  Draft LRGDAC Engagement Plan Version 5    8/9/10 

8 Attachment 2 IRWM Contacts for DAC Outreach Based on the 2009 Regional Acceptance Process these are the Points of Contact for IRWM Planning Groups in the Central Valley by Watershed Region. 

#  Reg.   IRWM Region  POC 1  SAC  American River Basin  Rob Swartz, Principal Project Manager 2  SAC  Cosumnes, American, Bear, Yuba (CABY)  Katie Burdick, Executive Director 3  SAC  Northern Sacramento Valley Four County   Vickie Newlin, Assistant Director 4  SAC  Sacramento Valley (NCWA)  Todd Manley, Government Relations 5  SAC  Upper Feather River Watershed  Brian Morris, General Manager 6  SAC   Upper Pit River Watershed  Todd Sloat Watershed Coordinator 7  SAC   Upper Sacramento‐McCloud  Sandra Spelliscy, Executive Director 8  SAC  Westside (Yolo, Solano, Napa, Lake, Colusa)  Donna Gentile, Administrative Coordinator 9  SAC  Yuba County  Scott Matyac 

10  SJ  Merced  Hicham Eltal, MAGPI Chairman 11  SJ  Mokelumne/Amador/Calaveras  Rob Alcott 12  SJ  Southern Sierra  Bobby Kamansky, Project Manager 13  SJ  Tuolumne‐Stanislaus  Pete Kampa, General Manager 14  SJ  Westside – San Joaquin  Ara Azhderian, Water Policy Administrator 15  SJ  East Contra Costa County  Fran Garland 16  SJ  Eastern San Joaquin  C. Mel Lytle, Ph.D., Water Resources  17  SJ  Madera  S. Greg Farley, Madera County Engineer 18  SJ  Central California  Brenda Ostrom, Project Manager 19  TL  Kern County  Lauren Bauer 20  TL  Poso Creek  Paul Oshel, District Engineer 21  TL  Tule  David L. Hoffman 22  TL  Upper Kings Basin Water Forum  David Orth, General Manager 23  TL  Kaweah River Basin  Dennis R. Keller 

 

Package Page 29

August 3, 2010 American River Basin IRWM Rob Swartz, Principal Project Manager Regional Water Authority 5620 Birdcage Street, Ste 180 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 Dear Mr. Swartz, The release of the final IRWM Plan Guidelines and PSP’s marks a busy time for IRWM planning groups across California. Because the future of many watersheds in the Central Valley is tied to water supply and water quality we want to provide you with assistance in your planning efforts in the areas of salinity and nitrates/nutrients. The 2009 California Water Plan Update includes a new chapter on Salt and Salinity Management. For your convenience, the chapter is attached to this letter. This chapter, along with the other strategies, must be considered in the preparation or updates of your IRWM plans. Please review the strategy section and if you have any questions feel free to contact Daniel Cozad of the Central Valley Salinity Coalition dcozad@cvsalinity.org or Gail Cismowski at the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (gcismowski@waterboards.ca.gov). The Guidelines and PSP documents specifically address salinity and recommend the inclusion of salt and nutrient management efforts as part of your IRWM planning. We recommend that you include a scope and budget for salt and nutrient management planning in your planning grant and that you coordinate closely with CV-SALTS on your progress. Within the Central Valley, CV-SALTS is the coordinated planning effort being utilized to provide consistency when updating Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) requirements for salt and nutrients. Draft guidelines for prioritizing areas and data needs for regional salt and nitrate evaluations are anticipated in mid-September. We encourage you to participate in the development of these guidelines and use them during your planning. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board will be expecting your plans to incorporate efforts related to salt and nutrient management. The Department of Water Resources Final Plan Guidelines require all Resource Management Strategies, including salinity management, to be considered in IRWM planning. If you need help developing a scope for your workplan as part of the planning grant or wish to participate more closely with CV-SALTS do not hesitate to contact Daniel Cozad (888) 826-3635.

Example Only

Package Page 30

Thank you for your efforts to integrate your region’s water related needs and we look forward to working with you in the future.

Mona Shulman Chair CV-SALTS Executive Committee Pamela C. Creedon Executive Officer Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Cc: Tracy Billington Chief Financial Assistance Branch Daniel Cozad Executive Director, Central Valley Salinity Coalition

Example Only

Package Page 31

• Held our first organizational meeting – Jun 3rd in Modesto

• Part of the Committee met on June 30th to hear a review of what was available to the Committee from the Regional Board

• June 30th review showed that the LSR Committee would have to make some tough

decisions but the Committee is not prepared to do so yet.

• Group met again on July 26th in Modesto and discussed the area to be studied, the constraints in the CAA funds for the areas studied, the need to build on previous work and not repeat efforts done in the TMDL and SWRCB salinity objectives work.

• Committee heard an update on the SWRCB process for setting salinity standards at

Vernalis as we can not proceed effectively until that process is established.

• Committee reviewed its options for completing the AGR salinity study for the LSJR as done by the Regional Board staff in conformance with the Hoffman study. The committee was disappointed that it was not completed by the Reg Board as there is no such expertise in the Committee and now CAA funds may be needed to complete the report.

• Committee began a discussion of Beneficial Use designations and agreed to move

forward with this portion of the study while we are preparing a workplan for the other elements of a basin plan amendment. Several work assignments were given for review of BUs prior to the next committee meeting.

• The committee realizes that moving forward prior to the BU study being completed by

Kennedy Jenks and the second phase of the BU Study being completed raises a rise of not being consistent. However it was agreed that we could not wait for that portion of the work to be completed prior to moving on.

• The committee had extensive discussions on how to prepare a report that can be used as a

basin plan amendment without any experience doing one. We felt there would need to be extensive guidance from the Regional Board staff on this.

• In addition, it was clear that we will need periodic legal advice and guidance as we move

forward in this process and the Committee is seeking concurrence from the Executive Committee that this can be provided by either the State Board or Regional Board.

• Another major issue raised was how to hold a public process as we develop draft portions

of the Basin Plan Amendment. Regional Board staff will look into the use of the lyris list service for basin plans as an alternative. There was also discussion of how to have more active involvement from the environmental community in the plan development and not just in the comment period.

• Our next committee meeting is scheduled for 30 August and we invite anyone to join us,

but only come if you plan to dig in, roll up your sleeves and help with the work the committee needs to accomplish.

Package Page 32

CV‐SALTS Vision V‐3    1 | P a g e  

Salt and the Central Valley: Crisis or Opportunity? (Intro 1) Water is the livelihood and lifeline of the Central Valley. It quenches the fertile valleys that feed our nation and much of the world. It supports growing populations of families and the commerce, manufacturing and industry that come with them. But look along some irrigation fields, vacant lots, even in the yards of some homes and you will witness patches of crystalline deposits, “white death” as it is called in this region, more commonly known as salt. (Intro 2) Salt is an essential mineral for life. But in excess, it can poison drinking water, ruin farmland, and at its worst: leave entire regions unable to support human habitation. End of alternative introductions here. Remaining text below For decades, salts and nitrates have leached and become concentrated in the soil and groundwater of this basin, with no way to get out. The deposits come from fertilizers used on crops; the residue from the processing of the Valley’s bountiful yield, the growing and processing dairy products; beef, dairy, swine, poultry and other livestock operations; detergents, soft water conditioners and wastewater from homes, industries and businesses; and storm runoff from streets, yards, and fields. More than 1.5 million tons of salt are deposited in the Central Valley each year at an estimated annual cost of $544 million to residents and industry, according to a 2009 study by U.C. Davis, “Economic Impacts of Central Valley Salinity.” If nothing is done to address the situation, the study forecasts direct costs associated with salinity tripling to $1.5 billion a year statewide by 2030. This is collective problem that needs a collaborative solution. Our focus is on planning, for effective and practical regulation.

Package Page 33

CV‐SALTS Vision V‐3    2 | P a g e  

Photo here of an example of the problem or solutions outlined on this page.

Photo here of an example of the problem or solutions outlined on this page.

There are many ways to address the problem. CV-SALTS and the Central Valley Salinity Coalition are evaluating three options: OPTION ONE: Status Quo What would happen if we did nothing additional to address the problems of salinity in the Central Valley? Already, the increased salinity is having an impact on environmental, social and economic factors in the valley. Environmental: Elevated concentrations of salt and nitrates contaminate the soil and groundwater, often acting as a poison to certain plants and the animal species that depend on them. In extreme cases, increased salinity can create a moonscape appearance similar to that of the Dead Sea, the most saline water body on Earth with concentrations of salt reaching 10 times that of the ocean in its depths. There are no animals living in the waters, only a few species of bacteria and algae survive there. In the Central Valley, concentrations of salt have posed problems for certain crops. Salinity also contaminates the groundwater, requiring water districts to seek alternate, more expensive sources or to charge higher rates in order to take on more expensive treatment processes that sometimes still leave the liquid coming out of the tap unfit to drink. Social: Increased salinity can require lifestyle changes for the people who live or do business in the Central Valley. Restrictions on certain water softeners, certain detergents, and even the amount of food waste you put through your garbage disposal have been proposed. Industries such as food processors are being watched to determine the impacts of their wastewater discharges. In order to meet the growing demand for food in our world, agriculture is

Package Page 34

CV‐SALTS Vision V‐3    3 | P a g e  

being forced to seek out new and innovative irrigation techniques and cropping strategies to address the problem and still meet the growing demand for food in our world. Economic: All this adds up to a cumulative effect that stretches beyond the borders of the Valley. “Failure to control salinity will result in the continued decline of Central Valley water quality and an increase in costs to all water users, eventually creating even greater hardship for the environment, agriculture, industry, municipal utilities, and the economy of the Valley and the State,” the U.C. Davis report stated. The research team put the direct annual costs of these problems at as much as $1.5 billion a year by 2030. Residual impacts to the Central Valley could reach $2.2 billion annually, with loss-of-income impacts on the entire State of California hitting as much as $3 billion a year, the university found. That’s not the end of it. Projected impacts to the Central Valley, coupled with the loss-of-income effect on the state would lead to a reduction in the manufacture of goods and services: as high as $8.7 billion a year for the state. Doing nothing is an option that regulatory agencies will ultimately not allow, due to the catastrophic impacts projected..

* * *

OPTION TWO: Manage salinity at its source What if Central Valley residents, businesses and industry adopted practices that reduced the amount of salts and nitrates going into the basin? The more water consumed in the Central Valley, the higher the concentrations of salt and nitrates generally become. This formula becomes especially problematic as the region grows in population and industry and agriculture work harder to boost productivity to meet a growing international demand for food. Current and developing technology and practices offer solutions to keep the salt and nitrates out of the soil and groundwater. Some of these even present opportunities to generate revenue for the region through the sale of highly concentrated salt water, called brine, for industrial and other uses.

Photo or graphic describing problem or solution on this page

Ripple Effect: California’s manufacturing sector could lose up to $8.7 billion annually

Package Page 35

CV‐SALTS Vision V‐3    4 | P a g e  

Photo/graphic here of an example of the problem or solutions outlined on

this page.

Some of these approaches include: Lifestyle Shifts: Simple steps taken at home, such as using drier sheets instead of fabric softener, using water softeners with replacement filter cartridges, or limiting your use of the garbage disposal can have a collective impact on the reduction of salts in the water. Very important for a very significant reduction of salinity, particularly nitrate, is limiting the use of pesticides and fertilizers at home and in agricultural, and the use of organic practices where possible. Salinity Management: There are a number of techniques available to managing salinity through collection and evaporation. Many of these approaches create barriers that block nitrates and salts from entering the soil and groundwater below. The water is collected and can either be allowed to evaporate, or be used for beneficial purposes such as irrigation for salt-tolerant crops like those grown for biofuels or aquaculture. Effluent Treatment: Wastewater and runoff, called effluent, contributes to the region’s high salinity levels by washing detergents, pesticides, and other high-salt contents into the water supply. When the salt and nitrate levels become high, water agencies can either treat the water or allow it to evaporate in detention basins, leaving concentrated deposits behind. Brine Storage and Recovery: Concentrated brine could be a marketable commodity in the future, and storage may be a desirable medium-term option. Brine could be stored in deep oil well zones and in areas where the groundwater is already highly saline, such as in the Tulare Lake Basin. Storing the brine would preserve a potentially valuable commodity for the region as new technologies increase demand for the product. Explore developing technology: Innovation is producing new and effective ways to treat effluent, including membrane processes that allow for the conversion of brine into marketable products that are extracted from the brine, and leaving fresh water in its place. Commercial-grade zinc and other minerals can be mined from brine, and the water itself can be used as a cooling liquid for energy generation projects. In California’s Imperial Valley, a mineral recovery project creates jobs and increases revenue for eight geothermal power plants operating along the Salton Sea. Separating salts, nitrates and other minerals from brine could spark new industry for the Central Valley region. Many consider salinity management, as outlined above, a critical step to protecting the future of the valley, and to addressing California’s dire water needs.

Package Page 36

CV‐SALTS Vision V‐3    5 | P a g e  

By beginning the long journey today towards effective salinity management, the Central Valley will begin to address the problem, and establish opportunities for innovative approaches that can be carried into the future. Marketing elements from brine creates new industry and enhances the fresh water supply.

* * *

OPTION THREE: Manage salinity at its source, collect and export brine What if brine effluent and its byproducts were collected, separated and transported for sale or disposal as far off as the ocean? A third option takes the concepts of managing salinity and seeks beneficial solutions that can either generate revenue or lead to the successful export of salts and nitrates from the Valley. Because of the collective nature of the problem, a collaborative approach involving communities, industry and agriculture would achieve solutions through regional systems that reduce the economic impacts to any single user. Government, nonprofits and businesses would work together in partnership to develop and implement these programs that manage, reclaim and may ultimately dispose of brine to the ocean. Discharge Stations: One or several discharge stations could be set up throughout the Central Valley to treat the brine and separate marketable materials from it. Transport: Treated effluent could be sold for irrigation of salt-tolerant crops, for industrial purposes, or it could be processed even further for ocean discharge cleaner than wastewater currently piped to the same ocean outfalls. • The transport of brine or saltwater can be cheaper than the conveyance of wastewater

because it can be moved using less energy through smaller pumps, pipes and infrastructure.

• Existing pipelines and rights-of-way may reduce the cost of this option significantly.

Use of existing underutilized wastewater outfalls (ocean disposal pipelines) can further reduce costs and even improve the ocean discharge outfall itself through better cleaning flows and lower concentrations of marine contaminants.

Materials Recovery: Salts, minerals and brine recovered from the separation process at discharge stations could result in a marketable commodity for the Central Valley Region. In other regions of California, these programs have had the effect of bringing together communities, businesses and industry stakeholders together in developing together

Package Page 37

CV‐SALTS Vision V‐3    6 | P a g e  

regions uses for the byproducts expands on the concepts of managing salinity, and includes the idea of shipping effluent to discharge stations for disposal, treatment or export out of the region. For example, fresh water could be extracted from brine, leaving behind mineral and liquid concentrations that are anticipated to become marketable commodities for the future.

Discharge stations set up throughout the Central Valley would create new economic opportunity for the region.

* * * What can you do to help? We need your help in providing a voice for your community, your business or industry. Membership in the Central Valley Salinity Coalition (CVSC) is open to public or private entities that use waters of the Central Valley or are engaged in the management of salinity in the region. Primary membership is from water and wastewater agencies and associations, irrigation and water districts, and business associations that use water or are sources of salts. Members of the public not wishing to join the coalition can participate in ongoing workshops and help keep others informed in order to assure participation from the people who live and work in the Valley. Input and participation from a variety of stakeholders is essential to developing solutions that will provide the greatest benefit at the least cost to those impacted by the problem. Contributions for membership are based on the size of the entity, and fees are negotiable subject to Board approval. Contributions generally range from $10,000 to $100,000. Contributions of $25,000 or more qualify donors for one of the 18 Board of Directors positions. Future year costs are not expected to rise due to membership growth and grants. Benefits of Membership: Members work directly to develop the regulation, policy and implementation plans for salinity management for the Central Valley. They decide on future management programs and develop relationships with other critical water and resource management entities in the region. • Members will oversee the allocation of $5 million in grant funds from the State Water

Resources Control Board for the project. CVSC Members and CV-SALTS participants will provide data, in-kind services and local information that will enable planning to address scientific and sociological aspects and needs of any given project.

• All partners will be expected to contribute funding for implementation projects.

Package Page 38

CV‐SALTS Vision V‐3    7 | P a g e  

• A dedicated source of matching funds is needed to secure State funding from grants, bonds and loans for salt management projects, anticipated to exceed $100 million. Interim funding and a new funding initiative from the federal government will be required for planning and implementation.

We invite you to become a part of the solution. For more information, visit www.xxxxxx.com or call NAME HERE at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

** *

About CV-SALTS Central Valley-Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) is a collaborative, stakeholder-led initiative resulting from a comprehensive effort by state and regional water boards. Its mission is to identify developing scientific and policy approaches in order to set reasonable yet effective water quality regulations and solutions for salts and nitrates within the Central Valley. A project of the Central Valley Salinity Coalition, CV-SALTS began in 2006 as vehicle for identifying a collaborative approach to address the growing problem.

Package Page 39

CV SALTS ‐ Standing Rules for Committees and CV Salinity Coalition        Approved 2‐18‐09 CV­SALTS Salinity Leadership Group (formerly Salinity Policy Group) 

Purpose  The Salinity Leadership group, was created to provide a high level of leadership to set the overarching vision for the broad multiyear effort to accomplish salinity and nutrient management in the Central Valley.  The group brings broad and diverse representation to oversight of the efforts.   

This group will meet approximately once per year to provide broad direction and support for the overall mission.  The mission of the Central Valley Salinity Leadership Group is to work closely, in a collaborative manner to create a comprehensive Central Valley Salinity Management Plan. 

Membership  The Salinity Leadership Group shall be made up of one principal member from each organization that is significantly concerned with water supply and quality in the Central Valley. Member representation is solicited from the following categories: 

• State Agencies • Federal Agencies • Local Government • Water and Irrigation Districts • Industry  • Public Interest and Academic • Out of Region Groups • Associations 

 Non‐voting alternates may be included to ensure participation provided that only one representative votes on any issue.  Members may be added by the Executive Committee as they are identified and ratified by the Group at its next meeting.  Attachment A shows the current membership of the Salinity Leadership.  Membership is expected to change from meeting to meeting due to changes in organization leaders and other circumstances. The Leadership Group may appoint up to 6 members of the Executive Committee.  Leadership Group Co‐Chairs are appointed one from the State Water Resources Control Board and one from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.  The Terms of office for the Co‐chairs and appointed Executive Committee members shall be two (2) years.  Successors may serve the remaining portion of a term and be eligible for appointment to another term.  

Executive Committee  

Purpose  The Salinity Leadership Group established an Executive Committee that shall oversee the activities of the other committees in coordination with the Central Valley Salinity Coalition to achieve the mission of 

CV‐SALTS Draft Committee Standing Rules approved  2‐18‐2009                                                                     1 

 Package Page 40

the group.  This committee is the primary governance committee for the CV‐SALTS initiative and functions in close coordination with the Central Valley Salinity Coalition. 

Membership The Executive Committee shall be composed of the following:  

• One Co‐chair of the Salinity Leadership Group 

• Six appointees of the Salinity Leadership Group who shall represent the following:  

o The State Water Resources Control Board 

o The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

o The Department of Water Resources (or another State agency)  

o The Bureau of Reclamation (or other federal agency) 

o A representative from the environmental community, with a focus on environmental justice or aquatic ecosystems 

o A member representing environmental water quality or public policy groups. 

• The Co‐chairs of all Standing Committees, up to a total of 6 members. 

• Board Members of the Central Valley Salinity Coalition, up to a total of 18.   

The total number of members of the Executive Committee is limited to 30.  Nominations to the committee shall be approved by vote of the committee. 

Within these limitations and to the extent practical, the Executive Committee should be constituted so as to reflect the diversity of public agency, industry, business, hydrologic basins, water users and dischargers, as well State, federal and environmental and public policy groups.  These memberships will not be exclusive; a member of the Leadership Group may also be a member of the Salinity Coalition Board of Directors or Chair of another Committee, and may represent more than one industry, area or agency.  The membership and Co‐chairs shall be documented in a manner similar to the format shown in Attachment B. 

A Graphic showing the Executive Committee and other Committees with the Salinity Leadership Group is shown below: 

CV‐SALTS Draft Committee Standing Rules approved  2‐18‐2009                                                                     2 

 Package Page 41

 

Powers and Reporting The Executive Committee shall act as the ongoing governing board of the CV SALTS Initiative and shall assume such other responsibilities required to accomplish the mission, delegated to it by the Salinity Leadership Group or requested by the Central Valley Salinity Coalition.  The Chair of the Executive Committee or any person designated by the Chair, shall report to the Salinity Leadership Group, at each regular meeting of the Salinity Leadership Group.  Actions of the Executive Committee shall be by majority of the members in attendance voting in favor of a proposed action.  Any action lacking majority approval may be referred to one or more committees for additional review and recommendations.   

Term of Office The term of office of persons appointed to the Executive Committee shall be two (2) years and shall commence on January 1 or the first meeting of the calendar year of the year appointed and shall terminate on December 31 two (2) years later.  Modifications to these standing rules may be made by a majority vote of the Executive Committee following 30 days notice to all the members. 

Meetings Meetings of the Executive Committee shall be held as needed, at such time and place as determined by the Chair as necessary to accomplish work needed by the Salinity Leadership Group, the standing committees and the Central Valley Salinity Coalition. Special meetings of the Executive Committee may 

CV‐SALTS Draft Committee Standing Rules approved  2‐18‐2009                                                                     3 

 Package Page 42