1. Monitoring Agriculture – Strategy and Results Margie Read, REAII Senior Environmental Scientist Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

2. Presentation Outline Where we were – Day 1 Addressing the challenges Using the 4 ‘C’s What we have achieved Where we go from here

3. California’s Central Valley

4. Opportunities for Compromise Formation of Coalition Groups Coalition Monitoring (phased) -- Phase I: Toxicity, Field Parameters, Flow -- Phase II: Pesticides, Metals, Nutrients Water Board Monitoring through UC –No phasing – comprehensive approach

5. Staff Leads for Coalition Management Outreach Meetings Website and E-mail notices Stakeholder Groups SWAMP Comparability Approach for Communications

6. Interest Group Agency Name Coalitions Southern San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Sacramento Valley Water Quality Westside Water Quality San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality East San Joaquin Water Quality California Rice Commission Irrigation Districts Modesto ID Merced ID Turlock ID South San Joaquin ID Active Stakeholders

7. Food and Agriculture Other Active Stakeholders Ag Commissioners State Pesticide Regulators USEPAAcademia Analytical Laboratories Consulting Firms Environmental Interests

8. Identify all monitoring activities Synchronize sampling schedules Strategize on monitoring sites Encourage SWAMP Comparability Approach for Coordination

9. Region 5 Zones 1234 # Monitoring Sites Coalition Sites43294630 Other sites53293746 Total No. Sites 96588376 # Samples Collected Discharger Sites277194528126 Other samples21813069128 Total No. Samples 495324597254 No. of Tests Performed 2351139634311664 Data, data, data…..

10. Provides common ground Baseline information (status) Identifies data gaps Identifies water quality problems Guides Program revisions Monitoring Data Value

11. Start with common ground Identify issues Developed strategy Utilize impartial review Approach for Collaboration

12. Coalitions still need to comply Program objectives Categories for Monitoring: field measures, chemistry, flow, toxicity Exceedance response SWAMP QAPP What is the same…

13. Objectives as 5 Program Questions Monitoring framework Requires electronic data submittal Clarified actions for exceedances Reduction of reporting & paperwork Monitoring Design Guidance What is different….

14. Five Program Questions 1.Is the water quality protective of beneficial uses? 2. If not, how bad is the problem? 3. What is causing the problem? 4.What are the management practices used to fix the problem? 5. Is the problem getting better as a result?

15. Monitoring Framework 1.Assessment Monitoring (status) 2.Core Monitoring (trends) 3.Special Project (resolve problems) What is Different …..

16. Current Actions…

17. Upcoming Challenges... Build efficiency in Coalition work Maximize MP implementation Develop links with new partners Expand SWAMP electronic submittals Coordinate monitoring Track Program effectiveness

18. For further information…. Program website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/ programs/irrigated_lands/index.html Monitoring data reports: http:/waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/ irrigated_lands/monitoring/index.shtml Monitoring Program documents: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrig ated_lands/coalition_group_waiver/index.shtml

19. Thank you for listening…. Margie Lopez Read mread@waterboards.ca.gov Questions?