cv-salts executive committee meeting committee...cv-salts committee rosters voters...

One or more Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board members may attend.

CV-SALTS Executive Committee MeetingWednesday, March 30, 2016 – 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM

Sacramento Regional Sanitation District Offices – Valley Oak Room 10060 Goethe Rd, Sacramento 95827

Teleconference (641) 715-3580 Code: 279295#

Go-To-Meeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/232263365

Posted 03-20-16 – Revised 03-29-16

AGENDA

1) Welcome and Introductions – Chair (15 mins.)

a) Committee Roll Call and Membership Roster

b) Review/Approve Executive Committee February Meeting Notes

c) Technical Project Schedule

2) AID Management Zone Archetype - Richard Meyerhoff (2.5 hrs.)

Collaborative Approach to Regional Water Issues – Chris Kapheim, General Manager,Alta Irrigation District

AID Management Zone Archetype Study, Review and Discussion of Findings and LessonsLearned – Karen Ashby, Tom Grovhoug

o Handout 1 AID Scenarioso Handout 2 Table C-1 Methodology Matrixo Handout 3 AID Management Zone Report Section 9

11:30 am to 1:00 pm - Lunch on Your Own

3) AID Management Zone Archetype - Richard Meyerhoff (2 hrs.)

Continued Review and Discussion of Findings and Lessons Learned – Karen Ashby, TomGrovhoug

o Link to Presentation File: Management Zone Archetype Study: Alta IrrigationDistrict (AID)

4) Set next meeting dates: 2016

April 8th TBD: Admin Meeting, or Project Committee, or Small Group Meeting – 1:00-2:30

WEDNESDAY, April 27th Executive Committee Meeting, Half-Day

THURSDAY, April 28th Executive Committee Policy SessionCV-SALTS meetings are held in compliance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act set forth in Government Code sections 11120-11132(§ 11121(d). The public is entitled to have access to the records of the body which are posted at http://www.cvsalinity.org

PACKAGE

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/232263365

http://www.cvsalinity.org/index.php/docs/agendas-notes-and-materials/meeting-materials/3227-aid-presentation-to-cvsalts-march-30-2016-management-zone-archetype-study/file.html

http://www.cvsalinity.org/index.php/docs/agendas-notes-and-materials/meeting-materials/3227-aid-presentation-to-cvsalts-march-30-2016-management-zone-archetype-study/file.html

http://www.cvsalinity.org/

CV-SALTS Committee Rosters

Voters Category/Stakeholder Group Name 10-Sep 21-Oct 22-Oct 6-Nov 18-Nov 19-Nov 4-Dec 14-Jan 15-Jan 12-Feb 24-Feb 25-Feb 11-Mar 29-Mar 30-Mar

1 Central Valley Water Board Pamela Creedon ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Central Valley Water Board Jeanne Chilcott ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 State Water Resources Control Bd. Darrin Polhemus ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔3 Department of Water Resources Jose FariaAlt Department of Water Resources4 US Bureau of Reclamation Michael Mosley ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 Environmental Justice Laurel Firestone ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 Environmental Water Quality TBD

CV Salinity Coalition1 So. San Joaquin WQC Casey Creamer ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 City of Stockton Robert Granberg ✔ ✔3 California Cotton Growers Chris McGlothlin ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔4 City of Fresno Steve Hogg5 CA Leaque of Food Processors Trudi Hughes ✔Alt CA Leaque of Food Processors Rob Neenan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 Wine Institute Tim Schmelzer ✔Alt Wine Institute Chris Savage7 City of Tracy Erich Delmas ✔ ✔ ✔Alt City of Tracy Dale Klever8 Sacramento Regional CSD Lysa Voight ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Sacramento Regional CSD Carolyn Balazs ✔ ✔ ✔9 San Joaquin Tributaries Authority Dennis Westcot ✔10 City of Modesto Gary DeJesus11 California Rice Commission Tim Johnson ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔12 City of Manteca Heather Grove13 Tulare Lake Drainage/Storage District Mike Nordstrom ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔14 Western Plant Health Assoc. Renee Pinel ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔15 City of Vacaville Royce Cunningham ✔16 Dairy Cares J.P. Cativiela ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Dairy Cares Paul Sousa ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔17 Westlands Water District Jose Guiterrez

Comm. Chairs/Co-chairs 1 Chair Executive Committee Parry Klassen, ESJWQC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 Vice Chair Executive Committee Debbie Webster CVCWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Technical Advisory Committee Roger Reynolds, S Engr. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Technical Advisory Committee Nigel Quinn, LBL ✔4 Public Education and Outreach Joe DiGiorgio ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 Economic and Social Cost Committee David Cory, SJVDA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 Lower San Joaquin River Committee Karna Harrigfeld, SEWD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings - 2015 - 2016Executive Committee Membership

3

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Committee Rosters

Last First Organization 10-Sep 21-Oct 22-Oct 6-Nov 18-Nov 19-Nov 4-Dec 14-Jan 15-Jan 12-Feb 24-Feb 25-Feb 11-Mar 29-Mar 30-Mar

Archibald Elaine CUWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Ashby Karen LWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Barclay Diane SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Bell Nicole KRWCA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Buford Pam CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Cady Mark CDFA ✔ ✔ ✔

Cehrs David KRCD ✔ ✔ ✔

Clary Jennifer CWA ✔

D'Adamo Dee Dee SWRCB ✔

Deeringer Andrew SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔

Delehant Gail ✔

Dickey John Plantierra ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Doduc Tam SWRCB ✔ ✔

Dunham Tess Somach Simmons ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Escobar Juan DWR ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Shahla Farahnah SWRCB ✔

Fuentes Robert Leadership Counsel ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Gallock Charlotte WWD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Garcia Rick CRC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Gonzalez Armando Occidental Oil & Gas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Grovhoug Tom LWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Houdesheldt Bruce NCWA/Sac Valley WQC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Jensen Ryan CWC ✔ ✔

Johnson Alex Freshwater Trust ✔

Johnson Michael LSJRC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Kihara Annalisa SWRCB

Kimmelshue Joel LANDIQ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Kretsinger Grabert Vicki LSCE ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Kubiak Rachel Western Plant Health Assoc. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Kuzelka Timothy CWC ✔ ✔ ✔

Laputz Adam CVRWQCB ✔ ✔

Larson Bobbi CASA ✔ ✔

LeClaire Joe CDM Smith ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Lilien Jonathan Chevron

Link Adam CASA ✔ ✔

Longley Karl CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

McGahan Joe SJVDA

Meeks Glenn CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Meyerhoff Richard CDM Smith ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Moore Tim Risk-Sciences ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

O'Brien Conor CDFA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Okita David ✔

Pirondini Tony City of Vacaville ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Pritchett Gregory Chevron

Pulupa Patrick CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Pitcher Jennifer West. States Petroleum ✔ ✔ ✔

Rempel Jenny CWC ✔ ✔

Rodgers Clay CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Safi Sam SacRegional CSD ✔

Schmid Andrea Plantierra ✔

Schultz Paul CDM Smith ✔ ✔ ✔

Seaton Phoebe CRLA ✔

Segal Daniel Chevron

Stamps Alicia Kennedy/Jenks ✔ ✔

Tellers Josie City of Davis ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Thomas Bill KRCD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Thorme Melissa Downey Brand ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Tillman Stephanie LANDIQ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Tristao Dennis J.G. Boswell

Wackman Mike ✔ ✔ ✔

Zimmerman Christie Valley Water Mgmt. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS:

Participant Names CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings -2015 - 2016

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meeting - Summary Action Notes

For February 24, 2016 – 1:00 PM to 2:45 PM Webinar Format

Attendees are listed on the Membership Roster AGENDA 1) Welcome and Introductions

a) Committee Chair Parry Klassen brought the meeting to order, and roll call was completed.

2) Surveillance and Monitoring Plan (SAMP) Webinar

Joe LeClaire and Richard Meyerhoff presented the Surveillance and Monitoring Program (SAMP) – Draft Project Deliverables: Policy Implications and Technical Basis. Some of the comments or concerns expressed by committee members were:

o Discuss the possible need for development of a surface water component in the future. o In response to a concern regarding variability in units of how the data was being reported, Joe

and Richard confirmed that issue had been resolved in the last version of the database and is routinely double checked.

o Laurel Firestone and Karl Longley expressed a preference for SAMP to use a shallow/deep network for monitoring vs. the production zone.

o Draft an estimate of the additional costs for a higher number of wells that would provide greater quality assurance in areas of the shallow zone with high variability.

o If the confidentiality issue regarding well information is still hindering CV-SALTS progress, Laurel Firestone asked if someone from the committee could work with her to help resolve the problem ASAP with the State Board.

o Debbie Webster expressed support for the proposed establishment of a SAMP project committee or small work group to work through implementation issues.

o At the request of the committee, Richard and Joe will provide an initial rough estimate of costs for establishment of the network.

o J.P. Cativiela expressed the concern that by focusing on wells that are already being sampled, it builds a bias into program that is skewed toward dairies.

Joe suggested that they could turn off the criteria in the GIS tool and select random wells in each grid to remove some of the bias.

Next Steps

o Joe and Richard will prepare answers to questions/concerns raised and get back with committee members. The responses will also be included in the report Joe is drafting.

o The report is estimated for completion in 2-3 weeks. o Members were asked to email any additional questions to Joe and Richard with a cc to Roger

Reynolds.

3) Set next meeting date Executive Committee Policy Meeting February 25th, 9-3 The next Admin Meeting will be March 11th.

PACKAGE

http://www.cvsalinity.org/~cvsalt321/index.php/docs/committee-document/technical-advisory-docs/3204-surveillance-and-monitoring-plan-samp-draft-project-deliverables-02-24-16/file.html

http://www.cvsalinity.org/~cvsalt321/index.php/docs/committee-document/technical-advisory-docs/3204-surveillance-and-monitoring-plan-samp-draft-project-deliverables-02-24-16/file.html

2016 Technical Project Schedule_032816.Docx

2016 Technical Project Schedule

Development of Draft SNMP (Technical Sections)

• Submitted to Project Committee (PC) on January 27

• Comments to Larry Walker Associates (LWA) Team by March 1

• Final SNMP Sections to CV-SALTS – targeting Mid/End April based on comments received

Alta Irrigation District (AID) Management Zone Archetype Report

• To be submitted to PC and AID Stakeholders – February 15

• Comments to LWA Team by March 15

• Discussion of policy-related findings at March 30 Executive Committee Policy meeting

• Final AID Report – Targeting April 15 (dependent on receipt of final comments)

Development of AID Extreme Management Scenario (additional analysis requested by AID

stakeholders)

• Discussion of preliminary findings at March 30 Executive Committee Policy meeting

• To be submitted to PC and AID Stakeholders – April 6

• Comments to LWA Team by April 25

• Final Analysis – Targeting Early May (dependent on receipt of final comments)

Development of the High Resolution Mapping

• Call with PC to discuss upper/lower/production zone definition/delineation approach – January 29

• Summary definition of upper/lower groundwater system – February 12

• Submittal of Draft High Resolution Maps/supporting data deliverables to PC – April 15

• Comments from PC by April 25

• Final to CV-SALTS Project Committee/AID Stakeholders (maps, supporting data) – May 13-31

Tulare CEQA/Economics Analysis and Staff Report

• Preliminary draft submitted to project proponents/technical project manager – March 1

• Comments from project proponents/Ken Schmidt – March 18

• Draft Report for Regional Board staff review – March 25

Nitrate Implementation Measures Study (NIMS)

• Submittal of Draft Report to PC – January 28

• PC teleconference to discuss report – February 5

• Additional stakeholder outreach (Community Water Center) – February 24

• Final NIMS Report (with Comment/Response Summary) – Targeting delivery to Roger Reynolds the

Week of March 28

Surveillance and Monitoring Plan (SAMP)

• Discussion of policy-related elements in draft report – February 24

• Draft report to submitted to Project Committee – by April 1

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

1

A collaborative approach to regional water issues

Chris M. KapheimGeneral Manager,

Alta Irrigation DistrictMarch 2016

Agricultural Water Management Plans

3616 AWMP, 1999

X7-7 AWMP, 2012

X7-7 AWMP, 2015

Agricultural Water Management Plans can be view or downloaded on our

website atwww.altaid.org

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

2

3616 Agricultural Water Management Plan, (1999)

Volumetric pricing and turnout measurement (Year 2000)

Water banking

Water efficiency/conservation

Strategic Planning (2000-2006) Focus on the question: What is the current

and past role for the district versus the futurerole?

Develop priorities for the district Emphasis on water quality solutions Conjunctive use Evaluate all sources of water supply Evaluate efficiency in water use Evaluate ability to communicate with a diverse

public

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

3

Cutler and Orosi PUD’s Water Concerns (2005) Concern over long-term drinking sustainability

Joint Board Meeting on August 4, 2005

Authorized a $75,000 Study in 2006 to Evaluate Drinking Water Options Alta ID ($25,000) Cutler PUD ($25,000) Orosi PUD ($25,000)

New AID Mission Statement was adopted in May 16, 2007

Support conjunctive use

Address water quality solutions

Address storm water impacts

Enhance regional role as a water resource agency

Enhance transparency and communication

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

4

Water Banking

Proposition 13 Funding (DWR) Harder Pond Water Bank Completed 2008

Proposition 50 funding (State Board) Traver Pond Water Bank Completed 2012

Conserved yield to serve disadvantaged communities

X7-7 Agricultural Water Management Plans, (2012 & 2015)

Focus on water efficiency and conservation

Regional water quality issues and solutions Drinking water project Cost effective implementation

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

5

Regional Drinking Water Project Service Area Map (CWC)

Regional Drinking Water Project Cont’d Engineering Study Initial Study Completed in February 2015 Addendum Completed in September 2015 Water Supply Cost (Fig.1) Total Project Cost (Fig.2) Estimated per month Water User Cost (Fig.3) Remaining Engineering Items to be Completed

(Fig.4)

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

6

Water Supply Costs (Fig.1)

Total Project Cost (Fig.2)

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

7

Estimated Remaining Costs (Fig.3)

Schedule (Fig.4)

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

8

Regional Drinking Water Project Cont’d

Governance RCAC as the facilitator Estimated completion, September 2016

Groundwater Management

Formation Kings River East GSA MOUs were signed with 15 local agencies Public Hearing was held on March 17, 2016 Letter-of-Intent to form a GSA was filed on

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Legislation

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

9

SB 37 (Author: Vidak; Co-authors: Senator Fuller, Assembly Members Mathis, Salas) Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee

Governance (Fig.5)

Governance (Fig.5)

PACKAGE

3/28/2016

10

Participation in Regional Water Management Planning

Connection between drinking water and GSA governance

Collaborative effort to achieve groundwater sustainability through SGMA

Effective implementation of water quality solutions

Balance urban, agricultural and environmental water interests

PACKAGE

0. Baseline1. Greater Irrigation Efficiency

& Artificial Recharge2. Post-Regulatory, Lower N

Loading

3. Irrigation Efficiency, N Loading, & Artificial Recharge

Changes4. Extreme No-Agriculture8

Recharge & Irrigation Efficiency1 Existing ↑ Existing Existing ↑ Existing ↓↓ Existing

Stormwater Recharge Current projects Add IRWMP recharge projects2 Current projects Add IRWMP recharge projects2 Add IRWMP recharge projects2

Shifts in Irrigation Systems 0% drip irrigation 80% drip irrigation3 0% drip irrigation 80% drip irrigation3 NO Agricultural Irrigation

Source Water Modification Existing sourcesBring in water from outside

current boundary4 Existing SourcesBring in water from outside

current boundary4 NO Agricultural IrrigationGroundwater-Surface Water

application50%/50% blend 50%/50% blend 50%/50% blend 50%/50% blend NO Agricultural Irrigation

Nitrogen Loading to land3 Existing Existing ↓ Existing ↓ Existing ↓↓ Existing

Dairy General Order Before Before After5 After5 No DairiesIrrigated Lands Regulatory

ProgramBefore Before After6 After6

No Irrigated Lands

Land UsesMost recent DWR

Land useMost recent DWR Land use Most recent DWR Land use Most recent DWR Land use Native Vegetation and Urban Only

POTW Effluent 25 mg/L Nitrogen 25 mg/L Nitrogen 10 mg/L Nitrogen 10 mg/L Nitrogen 10 mg/L NitrogenPOTW Loading to Land Current loads Current loads Current loads Current loads Current loads

Crop Yield & UptakeYields and uptake as

determined by SWAT7

Yields and uptake as determined by SWAT7

Yields and uptake as determined by SWAT7

Yields and uptake as determined by SWAT7 No agriculture

6 - Reduction in loading rates as described in Appendix B7 - Crop yield and uptake are determined by crop growth models contained in SWAT, in response to climatic, fertility, moisture, and other conditions. 8 - Extreme scenario assumptions - Replace all irrigated lands & dairy with native plant communities (as may establish under these conditions); Retain all other land cover classes as they are; Remove irrigation; Remove fertilization and amendments; Retain POTW loading inputs as they are; Retain stormwater recharge with the current IRWMP projects; Summarize over the 10-year and 30-year model timeframe

Salt and Nitrate Management Scenarios

1 - Increased irrigation efficiency means decreasing overall recharge to groundwater2 - IRWMP recharge projects 33, 34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 138 3 - N loading to land depends on fertilization decisions. N loading to groundwater is indirectly affected, but depends on many other modeled factors, such as the amount and timing of leaching water relative to root zone N concentration patterns.4 - Shift from groundwater to more dilute surface water supply would reduce TDS load. Not completed in this study (see text).5 - Reduction in loading rates to land application fields as described in Appendix B

PACKAGE

# Data Characteristics

1Sufficient Recent and Historical Data (no

large gaps in time period, e.g. 10+ years)

2Data Contains Large Spatial Gaps (is more

than half the area not covered?)

3 Percent Of Wells With Construction Info

4Percent of Wells With Accurate Locations

(<100m error)

Basic Statistical Analyses

5 By Region

6 By Areal Hydrologic Zones

(e.g. subbasins)

7 By Vertical Hydrologic Zones

Spatial Analysis

8 Declustering Data with Grid

9 Interpolation

Visual Trend Analyses

10Plot Time Series of All Well Data Within

Region


Areal Hydrologic Zones (e.g. subbasins)


Vertical Hydrologic Zones

13 Plot Time Series of Representative Wells

Statistical Trend Analyses

14Parametric Tests for Trend (T test,

Regression, Correlation)

15Non-Parametric Tests for Trend (Kendall

Tau, Spearman's Rank)

16 Regional Kendall Test

18

Volume Weighted Assimilative Capacity

Ambient conditions for a location can be determined on a depth/aquifer basis and be combined to obtain a volume

weighted ambient value to calculate an assimilative capacity for the production zone.

Example for a 700ft production zone with shallow and deep ambient groundwater quality:

Shallow (0-200ft) Ambient = 12 mg/L NO3-N Deep (200-700ft) Ambient = 4 mg/L NO3-N

(12mg/L x 200ft) + (4mg/L x 500ft) / 700ft = 6.3 mg/L NO3-N

10 mg/L NO3-N - 6.3 mg/L NO3-N = 3.7 mg/L NO3-N

Ass

imila

tive

Cap

acit

y 17

Regulatory Limit (concentration units) - Ambient GW Quality (concentration units)= Assimilative Capacity (concentration

units)

Example: 10 mg/L NO3-N - 4 mg/L NO3-N = 6 mg/L NO3-N

1Not applicable or limited utility pending data limitations

Abundant Data Adequate Data Limited Data1

Abundant Data

Better representation

Better representation

Better representationSufficient

representationMay not be suitable

Calculating Assimilative Capacity

Assessment of Data Adequacy

Spatial Methods for Determining Ambient Groundwater Quality Conditions

Temporal Methods for Determining Groundwater Quality Trends

Abundant Data Adequate Data



Sufficient




Sufficient

representation

Adequate Data

Me

tho

do

logy

Op

tio

ns

Limited Data1





May not be suitable


representation

Potential data gap and/or

skewed interpretation


representationPotential for bias

Abundant Data

DRAFT

Methodology Matrix

Abundant Data Adequate Data Limited Data1



Limited Data

Yes Yes No

No No

<10%

>50% 10-50%

Yes

>50% 10-50%


representationPotential data gap

<10%

Adequate Data Limited Data1



PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Alta Irrigation District 99 March 28, 2016 Management Zone Archetype Analysis – Draft Report

Lessons Learned and Recommendations 9

The AID MZ archetype was developed to:

c. Establish a salt and nitrate management area (zone) consistent with the expected framework for developing a local/regional SNMP; and

d. Test the application of selected policies, data analysis methods, and salt and nitrate management approaches that are currently being considered by CV-SALTS.

Based on the results from the AID MZ archetype analysis, lessons learned and recommendations were identified for additional approaches and considerations that could be useful during the development and/or implementation of local/regional SNMPs. The lessons learned and recommendations are organized according to the following major elements of an SNMP, which are relevant to the AID MZ and future SNMPS and MZs.

7. Salt and nitrate management goals and objectives;

8. Boundary delineation;

9. Basin/subbasin characterization, including groundwater quality characterization (i.e., ambient groundwater quality, trends and assimilative capacity) and land cover and soils;

10. Tools for assessing salt and nitrate source loading, salt and nitrate fate and transport, and future assimilative capacity estimates;

11. Impact of a range of management scenarios on groundwater quality; and

12. Monitoring and other considerations related to ongoing salt and nitrate management.

SALT AND NITRATE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 9.1For the AID archetype, salt and nitrate management goals were developed in coordination with stakeholders using a targeted approached focusing on the highest priority issues within the area. Although the goals are non-binding, they assisted the stakeholders in providing a context within which to test the various salt and nitrate management options and/or policies that could be established for the AID MZ. The goals broadly focus on: 1) supporting sustainable management of surface water and groundwater supplies, and 2) protecting surface water and groundwater quality and beneficial uses.

It is recommended that groups developing local/regional SNMPs or MZs consider the following:

1. Conduct outreach efforts to ensure the appropriate stakeholders are part of the SNMP/MZ planning process.

2. Determine an appropriate planning horizon. As seen with the AID results, 10 and 20 year timelines were relatively short to evaluate the effectiveness of management scenarios. Other considerations include ranges from 10, 20, 50, and 100 years and/or comparisons amongst those timeframes. Pending the hydrogeologic setting, current groundwater quality conditions and future land and water use management strategies, long planning horizons may be beneficial.

3. Establish short and long-term goals in the context of currently observed conditions in the SNMP/MZ, monitoring needs, planned land use and water resources development and

PACKAGE


management, and overall sustainable management and groundwater quality and beneficial use protection objectives.

4. Coordinate SNMP/MZ goals with other basin/subbasin goals (i.e., SGMA GSP, IRWMP, ILRP, etc.).

5. Consider goals that deal directly with protecting and/or improving groundwater quality in the vicinity of drinking water supplies for urban and rural communities.

6. Develop details at the scale needed to accomplish the desired SNMP/MZ objectives. It may be helpful to coordinate with SGMA GSAs related to development of quantifiable objectives, and interim milestones and thresholds to ensure such measures are reasonable and feasible on the timelines being proposed.

BOUNDARY DELINEATION 9.2The delineation of a SNMP or MZ boundary should be defined to achieve the salt and nitrate management objectives at local/regional scales and can either be pre-selected without technical analyses or selected after technical analyses are conducted.

For the AID archetype, the boundary was pre-selected, thus this determination was based on a jurisdictional boundary instead of technical analyses. The archetype study area was expanded as a result of the ultimate interest in using a groundwater flow and transport model as a tool for assessing short and long-term salt and nitrate management strategies or scenarios. The AID MZ modeled area was greater in area than the MZ area based on hydrologic considerations and groundwater modeling requirements. The development of such modeling tools for future local entities interested in testing short and long-term salt and nitrate management scenarios will benefit from a more regional approach. This may include use of a modeling tool that allows consideration of a range of parameters and strategies. Modeling tools may have their own constraints; however, they can be used to inform other planning and implementation needs.


1. Identify the key drivers for the delineation of the horizontal and vertical boundaries for the local SNMP (including the physical setting, political/institutional, regulatory, management, and/or existing or planned analysis tools). Additional factors to consider when delineating an MZ area are included in the Preliminary Draft SNMP, Appendix D (2016). Local and regional entities would benefit by selecting SNMP areas that align with other water resources planning efforts such as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2014 (SGMA) Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) and/or Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs), which often have monitoring programs and/or other data collection efforts that may inform the SNMP. Similarly, other planning efforts that have resulted in knowledge about surface water and/or groundwater quality in a local/regional entity’s area can provide important foundational information for the development of an MZ and/or local SNMP.

2. Consideration of factors such as current groundwater quality conditions and trends and future water resources management strategies can help inform the selection of the SNMP/MZ area. For example, an MZ that has too small a boundary may be constrained by the benefits recognized at a larger scale, such as with the implementation of groundwater recharge projects located outside the MZ area. Selection of a larger area

PACKAGE


may afford additional management strategy and/or regulatory flexibility compared with smaller SNMP/MZ areas. On the other hand, too large an SNMP/MZ area may overly complicate the implementation of effective management strategies.

3. Develop a preliminary physical conceptualization of the SNMP/MZ area, such as defining the horizontal and vertical delineations of the upper, lower, and production zone areas of the aquifer system. More details on the physical delineation of the aquifer system may be needed for applying selected tools to analyze management scenarios. However, an initial understanding the groundwater quality for the SNMP/MZ area will help inform the overarching salt and nitrate management objectives and approaches.

4. Identify hydrogeologic factors associated with the structure of previous existing modeling platforms (e.g., land surface/loading models, existing groundwater models, etc.) that will need to be considered when newly defined MZs are created and whether such models are applicable for SNMP/MZ purposes.

5. Unless an SNMP/MZ area is aligned with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) basin or subbasin boundaries (i.e., as currently designated or as may be approved under the SGMA boundary modification process), an SNMP/MZ area should not be referred to as a basin. The California Water Code makes reference to DWR basins in a very specific context, it would be confusing to create new “basins” or “subbasins” at the local level simply for the purposed of the SNMPs. As needed, areas of analysis for SNMPs could, alternatively, be referred to as subareas or MZs.

BASIN/SUBBASIN CHARACTERIZATION, INCLUDING GROUNDWATER 9.3QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION AND LAND COVER AND SOILS

Groundwater Quality Characterization 9.3.1The acquisition of all available data, and, in particular, for wells of known construction, makes an important difference in the understanding of ambient groundwater quality, assimilative capacity, and historic trends.

For the AID archetype, a confidential database (CDWSAP) providing accurate locations of public supply wells and well construction information was obtained for the archetype analyses. While not exhaustive, the database contains an inventory of drinking water supply wells with accurate locations obtained by GPS, and the associated perforations and depth of the wells. This database was used to update locations of CDPH wells within the AID modeled area and to identify which portions of the aquifer system the water quality results represent for those wells that have well construction information. The ability to use this confidential information greatly improved the groundwater quality database in the model area vicinity.

Few water quality tests from irrigation wells were available for the AID modeled area. In lieu of direct measurements of irrigation wells, groundwater quality data for other well types were used in combination with the limited irrigation well water quality data to estimate groundwater quality for the production zone of the aquifer system.

While the groundwater quality dataset for the AID modeled area was deemed adequate for assessing ambient conditions and assimilative capacity, data gaps were present. There was adequate data coverage for the AID modeled area, but some areas have better coverage than

PACKAGE


others. In terms of historical data availability, there is a much greater amount of data available in recent years from 2000-2015.

Additional data gaps include the need for a better understanding of irrigation well water quality as well as location/construction information from more wells for model calibration. Few groundwater quality tests were available for irrigation wells; therefore, irrigation well production water was estimated using other groundwater quality data sources. For model calibration, wells with construction information (top and bottom perforated interval), a precise well location, and several water quality tests (greater than 10 tests) from 1991 to 2000 were used to calibrate the model by comparing known water quality with modeled water quality. While wells with these criteria were available for most of the modeled area, there are data gaps in the west and south that do not have wells for model calibration.


1. Assess the distribution of groundwater quality data in the context of the physical conceptual model recommended above, i.e., distribution of wells with available data, precision of well location information, construction information for the monitored wells, historical record for the monitored wells, types of monitored wells, etc.

2. The stakeholders involved in the development of a SNMP/MZ should obtain construction data for drinking water wells and other monitored wells as early as possible (this process can take three to six months or more to complete) in order to improve the efficiency of the data analysis and characterization effort.

3. Identify data gaps and develop a plan to address data gaps as needed relative to the goals, objectives, and management strategies for the SNMP/MZ.

Additionally, the AID ambient groundwater quality and assimilative capacity analyses illustrated the utility of higher resolution detail for the various zones of the groundwater system. The additional groundwater quality detail used for the AID MZ allowed a greater spatial understanding of current groundwater quality conditions, trends, and assimilative capacity based on actual groundwater quality observations. When groundwater quality data are averaged and aggregated over a local or regional area, the details that help inform the SNMP/MZ entity of the effectiveness of management strategies and particularly areas that remain in balance, improve and/or become impaired will be obscured with aggregated types of methodologies and visualizations.


1. Develop and utilize higher resolution details at a level appropriate to the data available.

2. Utilize the distribution of available data to determine whether data gaps need to be addressed.

3. Utilize higher resolution details to determine ambient groundwater quality and assimilative capacity.

Land Cover and Soils 9.3.2Future refinements of water, salt, and nitrate balances should update the representation of recently converted land cover classes, especially when changes are likely to have a strong influence on results.

PACKAGE


For the AID archetype, available information was used to characterize land cover and soils characteristics in the MZ area. Real land cover is dynamic, but data related to land cover are less so. The CVHM model employs DWR land cover data to represent most irrigated lands that comprise most of the Central Valley acreage.


1. Refine land use classes for mixed or blended classes of crops (e.g., other row crops);

2. Aggregate land use classes with small percentages of total land use and loading where possible;

3. Perform sensitivity analyses for soil classes and parameters and refine soil data from STATSGO, if appropriate, to the more detailed SSURGO mapping and parameters;

4. Refine land use classes for Urban, Commercial, and Industrial related to imperviousness; and

5. Check land use class parameters against actual documented characteristics and practices.

TOOLS FOR ASSESSING SALT AND NITRATE SOURCE LOADING, SALT 9.4AND NITRATE FATE AND TRANSPORT, AND FUTURE ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY ESTIMATES

Assessing Surface Loading to Groundwater 9.4.1For the AID archetype, available information was used in conjunction with the SWAT model to estimate hydraulic, salinity, and N loadings from root zones to the groundwater basin under different management scenarios. This information was used as input to the predictive model.

Nitrogen leaching rates responded as expected to more efficient use of fertilizer and irrigation water. This suggests that, in relative terms, ongoing actions to implement N management improvements through the Dairy General Order and Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, should have the desired effect of reducing N loading from irrigated lands (including dairy land application areas). Some additional reductions in N leaching, as well as TDS loading, should result from anticipated shifts to more efficient irrigation systems. However, it may be important to offset reductions in hydraulic loading on agricultural lands with increases in high-quality recharge at some locations. Otherwise, despite loading reductions, the concentration of recharge could increase.

Salt and nitrate loading are the primary drivers for the AID MZ computations, or any related type of analysis. Therefore, more accurate data regarding this loading will make future analyses more reliable.


1. Utilize the best available data for actual applied water quality (surface and groundwater qualities applied to lands, and the proportions of each source employed for irrigation).

2. Use best available data for actual (organic and inorganic) fertilizer and amendments applied to each land cover class. The amount of N is the most critical parameter, but as analyses become more refined, it would become helpful to know field-specific rates, forms, and timing of application and verify through comparing estimated fertilizer application with fertilizer sales/use data.

PACKAGE


3. Refine nitrogen loading parameters for dairy solids to include forms of nitrogen.

4. Assess regional variations in gaseous N losses (volatilization, denitrification) in soils and aquifers.

5. Conduct refinements with focus on calibrating and validating crop models for Central Valley agricultural systems to ensure that crop functions, such as ET and N uptake, are accurately predicted. For example, compare modeled plant N update with harvest data and harvest N content data. This will improve the ability to predict loading with greater absolute accuracy.

6. Relatively smaller loading sources, such as urban land uses and septic systems, deserve more detailed development such as building POTW and recharge land uses into the SWAT model to avoid the need for post-processing.

Groundwater Flow and Quality Modeling 9.4.2During the course of groundwater model development and application there will likely be hydrogeologic factors associated with the structure of existing modeling platforms that will need to be considered when newly defined MZs are created. These may include the addition of model layers to add to the understanding of the subsurface heterogeneity, as well as the addition or movement of groundwater production wells and alteration of pumping amounts for both agricultural and domestic uses to better reflect local conditions. Refining a pre-existing model grid using a smaller scale may also be helpful. Changes may also be necessary to adjust or refine land cover and water application rate differences between a pre-existing model and one used for SNMP/MZ purposes.

The hydrogeologic settings in many parts of the Central Valley, especially the central to southern parts of the Valley including the AID area, are such that a significant amount of recharge occurs in a vertically downward direction – salt and nitrate move down into the lower part of the aquifer system. Other California groundwater basins, such as in the Santa Ana Region, where smaller alluvial river valleys involve more overland recharge and flushing and dilution of salts within a smaller overall groundwater basin are suited to analysis using different tools than those needed for the hydrogeologic settings typical of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin where some of the more challenging salt and nitrate issues are occurring.


1. Modeling tools for SNMP/MZ analyses and assessment of future management actions can be simpler or more complex, i.e., tools might include GIS relational models, spreadsheet mass balance computations, and/or groundwater flow and transport models. The latter is typically useful for more complex basins/subbasins, and or areas where groundwater quality in one or more parts of the aquifer system is already significantly impaired. A simpler model (a spreadsheet) may be appropriate when groundwater quality in the SNMP/MZ area is generally good and planned management strategies and analysis of future conditions is more straightforward. Even simpler modeling tools still benefit from the use of higher resolution details, particularly when predictions are made.

2. The groundwater transport modeling could be refined to better account for local distribution of nitrogen, salt, and recharge inputs and flow field effects due to pumping and other water management scenarios.

PACKAGE


3. Existing groundwater model platforms should be evaluated for their utility for application to salt and nitrate planning and management. For areas where no model has been developed, CVHM could be considered for use, or local entities may choose to develop their own local model with another modeling approach.

4. A modeling tool that can simulate very long timeframes and accommodate a wide variety of variables may be needed to effectively assess the potential effectiveness of proposed management strategies.

5. If the groundwater flow and transport model domain encompasses the MZ boundary as well as a buffer of the surrounding area in order to minimize boundary effects, the SNMP/MZ stakeholders should reach out to other key stakeholders in the surrounding areas to ensure that they are involved and understand the analyses that are being conducted as well as the results of such analyses (especially since the surrounding areas could be included in key graphics, maps, etc. summarizing the results).

IMPACT OF A RANGE OF MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS ON GROUNDWATER 9.5QUALITY

An analysis of several management scenarios was performed using the AID MZ model to evaluate the effects of short and long-term strategies for managing salt and nitrate in the AID MZ. This analysis indicated that, even after 100 years, the aggressive management scenario resulted in minimal differences in ambient groundwater quality compared to the baseline.


1. Use a predictive modeling tool to evaluate different management scenarios for their planning area to understand the effect of those management practices on the quality of groundwater over time. The development and use of predictive modeling tools provides information that is of high value to answer key questions pertaining to groundwater management plan development, and is otherwise, unavailable.

2. Work with stakeholders (including stakeholders involved with other programs, such as ILRP, Dairy, SGMA GSPs) to identify meaningful management alternatives for their planning area. Consider both planned changes and aggressive future management alternatives to allow an understanding of the ability to achieve groundwater objectives in the future.

3. Ensure that there is an adequate assemblage of data for the development and use of predictive modeling tools.

4. Develop model scenarios that clearly delineate changed conditions between scenarios (i.e., overly complicated scenarios with too many variables may make it more difficult to interpret the results).

5. Focus on management options that deal directly with beneficial use protection, given the difficulty in changing ambient groundwater quality in the short term. Projects to replace impaired drinking water supplies should be prioritized.

MONITORING AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO ONGOING 9.6SALT AND NITRATE MANAGEMENT

PACKAGE


For the AID archetype, readily available monitoring data were used for the data analyses, characterization of existing conditions, and modeling efforts. The AID archetype demonstrated different techniques to extrapolate the available data to address areas that are lacking data. Depending on the level of analysis required, identified data gaps may or may not be important to fill.


1. Improve management zone/aquifer-specific monitoring to fill essential data gaps. The existing monitoring network(s) should be assessed to determine whether the network(s) will satisfy longer-term water quality monitoring interests and needs, for example:

a. Can baseline conditions be adequately described in the vicinity of a planned project that involves recycled water use or other management actions?

b. Are monitoring wells optimally located relative to key sources of community groundwater supplies in relation to significant recharge areas?

2. Evaluate the historical data record for existing monitoring wells with respect to its suitability to adequately characterize present groundwater quality conditions. This includes the following characteristics:

a. Construction information for monitored wells such that the groundwater quality data can be appropriately used to represent the corresponding parts of the aquifer system;

b. Spatial distribution is adequate to establish ambient groundwater quality conditions and preliminarily assess assimilative capacity; and

c. The historical period provides some indication of whether trends are stable, improving, or degrading.

3. Coordinate with other existing monitoring programs (e.g., GAMA, ILRP, Dairy, IRWMP, SGMA GSP), including emphasis on the design of a network at the basin/subbasin scale that can be used to assess regional trends in salt and nitrate while factoring in data collected under the regulatory purview of site-specific discharges (e.g., POTW, food processor, septic systems, etc.)

4. Local entities (SNMPS/MZs), whenever possible, perform their own monitoring or in coordination with other local/regional programs. Outreach efforts by local managing entities will facilitate the identification of existing monitoring efforts that can be coordinated and datasets can be combined datasets for ambient water quality, trends, and assimilative capacity analyses.

5. SNMP/MZ determines what is appropriate to its area that is representative of relatively shallower and deeper parts of the aquifer system (i.e., upper, lower and production zones).

6. SNMP/MZ monitoring plans and subsequent reports should proactively work to demonstrate sufficient monitoring at the program outset and/or steps that the SNMP/MZ entity will take to dynamically evolve the program (i.e., fill data gaps as they are able).

CONCLUSION 9.7

PACKAGE


The work performed under the AID archetype provided valuable information to inform the larger CV-SALTS Central Valley SNMP and Basin Plan amendment effort. The archetype identified issues and demonstrated needs that will confront local/regional groups during the development of SNMPs and MZs.

Importantly, the AID archetype demonstrated that attainment of water quality objectives in ambient groundwater may not always be possible, assimilative capacity may not be available, and management philosophies, and that the regulatory framework must be adapted to this potential legacy condition in some areas of the Central Valley.

Given the diversity of conditions throughout the Central Valley, the findings from the AID archetype will not be indicative of other areas. However, the basic methodology for characterizing conditions, performing data analysis, developing and using predictive management models, and the development of appropriate management plans suited to local realities should be of benefit valley-wide.

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Meeting Calendar

1 2 3 Light Red conflicts

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January is a Thursday/Friday

1 1 2 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 1 2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wed/Thurs 4th or 3rd

3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dark Green Exec Comm Policy

4 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 9 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Fridays at 1:00 pm

5 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 10 28 29 14 27 28 29 30 31 Lt. Green Hatch Exec Comm Admin

6 31 or State Board Presentation

Yellow Salty 5

4 5 6 Lower SJ River Committee

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat TAC Meeting

14 1 2 23 1 2 3 4

15 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 25 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Regional Board Presentation TBD

17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

18 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 26 27 28 29 30

23 29 30 31 Wednesday Meetings are DRAFT

May be held by Webinar or

7 8 9 in person in Sacramento half day

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

27 1 2 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 36 1 2 3

28 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 33 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 37 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

29 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 34 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 38 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

30 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 35 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 39 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 36 28 29 30 31 40 25 26 27 28 29 30

32 31

10 11 12

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

40 1 45 1 2 3 4 5 49 1 2 3

41 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 46 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 50 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

42 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 47 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 51 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

43 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 48 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 52 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

44 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 49 27 28 29 30 53 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

45 30 31

Notes/Key

January February March

April May June

September

October November December

2016

July August

2/26/2016

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meeting - Summary Action Notes

For February 25, 2016 – 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM

Attendees are listed on the Membership Roster

AGENDA

1) Welcome and Introductions a) Executive Committee Chair Parry Klassen brought the meeting to order, and roll call was completed. b) Casey Creamer moved, and Mike Nordstrom seconded, and by general acclamation the November 18th

& 19th, and January 14th & 15th, meeting action notes were approved. c) Richard Meyerhoff presented the updated Technical Project Schedule.

a. NIMS met on 2/24 for discussion, report will be finalized based on comments received and estimated to be out around mid-March.

b. SAMP was discussed also on 2/24, draft also anticipated for mid-March. c. REMINDER: Comments on draft sections of SNMP are due no later than March 1st.

2) Nitrate Permitting Strategy for Groundwater

3) Linking the Nitrate Permitting Strategy to NIMS

The committee discussed the most recent revision to the Proposed Permitting Strategy for Nitrate to Discharges to Groundwater. Some of the feedback offered on the revision:

Clarification needed on whether focus is on management zones or point discharges.

Fully capture the concept of trends/trending in water quality.

Really stress the 3 phase program of implementation.

Recommendation from the group should be participation in a management zone is a choice, not a mandate.

LSCE is ready to do the calculation of assimilative capacity, but is waiting for the policy direction from the committee.

What effect does the formation of a management zone have on everyone in the wider subbasin?

o When proposing a management zone, you are petitioning for a piece of the assimilative capacity at the subbasin level. This helps to avoid a hidden disincentive for management zone formation.

Are there requirements to do restoration? Or is there only restoration when there is no assimilative capacity?

o Does the strategy include a clear mechanism for addressing legacy and/or hot spot restoration?

Insert placeholders for references to requirements cited in other documents (NIMS and Management Zone).

Page 6 of 14: Under Preliminary Assessment insert “4) Documented or anticipated user impacts.”

Also on Page 6 of 14 in the table insert “ACP may be required.”

With such a complicated document consider

May be more productive in a smaller group

A big picture overview, or a clearly stated principles document, may be helpful 4) Set next meeting dates: 2016

The next Admin Meeting will be March 11th. March Policy Meetings will take place on Tuesday (3/29) and Wednesday (3/30).

http://www.cvsalinity.org/index.php/docs/agendas-notes-and-materials/meeting-materials/3199-2016-technical-project-schedule-020916/file.html

http://www.cvsalinity.org/index.php/docs/agendas-notes-and-materials/meeting-materials/3202-snmp-nitrate-chapter-25feb2016/file.html

http://www.cvsalinity.org/index.php/docs/agendas-notes-and-materials/meeting-materials/3202-snmp-nitrate-chapter-25feb2016/file.html

cv-salts executive committee meeting committee...cv-salts committee rosters voters...

Documents