***Lake Tahoe Water Quality Working Group***

**[Research and Monitoring (RAM) Subcommittee]{.underline}**

**[Note Name changed to \>\>\>\>]{.underline}**

**[Lake Tahoe Interagency Monitoring Program (LTIMP)
Subcommittee]{.underline}**

# Meeting Minutes 12/7/99

**Next Meeting:** Wednesday, January 5, 2000 - 9:00am to 12:00 (or
longer as needed)

@ Lahontan conference room

In Attendance:

Robert Erlich, Lahontan RWQCB Jon Paul Kiel, TRPA

Birgit Widegren, USFS Troy Alexander, EDOT

Theresa Jones, NDOT Steve Kooyman, CSLT

Lauri Kemper, Lahontan RWQCB David Zander, CTC

Emily Husted, TRPA Charles Wolf, NDOT

Steve Paterson, EDAW John Reuter, UCD-TRG

Steve Goldman, CTC Alan Heyvaert, UCD-TRG

Vern Finney, USDA-NRCS Tim Rowe, USGS

Dick Melim, Caltrans Mark Haefer, JWA

1.  **[Review of previous meeting\'s minutes]{.underline} (10/19/99):**
    RAM meeting minutes are now posted on the USGS Lake Tahoe
    Clearinghouse website (**http://tahoe.usgs.gov**), thanks to Tim
    Rowe (TR) and Alexander Evans**-**USGS. Note the \"Richard\"
    referred to in the minutes is actually Robert Erlich (RE). In the
    Third Creek discussion, the \"he\" that spoke about conductivity as
    a parameter was Tim Rowe. Tim will update these minutes.

2.  **[What is the purpose of the RAM?]{.underline}** This question was
    posed by Steve Goldman-CTC (SG). JP Kiel-TRPA (JPK) addressed the
    question. Two documents were circulated: the RAM Draft
    Charter-Mission Statement and Objectives and the LTIMP Mission and
    Objectives. The two documents were scanned for similarities and
    differences. LTIMP has been an ongoing effort for basin-wide lake
    and tributary scale, long-term monitoring. While RAM recently
    started up to incorporate concerns with project or small watershed
    level , short-term monitoring. The purpose of RAM is to review
    proposed monitoring (project or BMP level) to ensure that new
    monitoring is integrated with other monitoring efforts at various
    scales in order to avoid duplication and to improve project design
    and operation. Lauri Kemper (LK) disagreed that the two committees
    were substantively different, and suggested that two separate groups
    are not warranted. The different scales suggest subcommittees. JPK
    commented that this is a valuable discussion that has never before
    occurred. John Reuter (JR) noted that the LTIMP has important
    history, support, name recognition and value. The group agreed. No
    \'cons\' to merging the two groups under the name LTIMP were noted,
    so the group decided to merge the two. AH proposed LTIMP as a
    project of RAM. JR was concerned that success depends on both being
    equal tasks. TR suggested having long-term and short-term goals and
    LK agreed. JPK suggested bi-annual meetings to focus on the
    long-term goals and regular monthly meetings for short-term project
    level review.

**Action Item:** Tim Rowe-USGS will work on combining the two mission
statements, goals, and objectives and will get back to the committee
next meeting.

SG was still concerned that the group does not provide substantive input
on specific projects. In the last year he has not seen any of this kind
of input from the group. He cited two examples. The Ski Run monitoring
project is in the beginning phases and input should come from the group.
All the work so far has been done by individuals, not by the group. We
need to avoid projects that make no sense. JPK suggested that the
problem with the two projects was that they were brought to the group
too late to be used in developing a protocol for project review. Steve
Kooyman (SK) felt that the problem with Ski Run is that the goals for
monitoring are too high. It is at a higher level of monitoring than
anything that the City is used to doing. Alan Heyvaert (AH) agreed that
the Ski Run monitoring plan is an attempt to ramp up, and that it will
be difficult. JR agreed that the group needs to be more responsive. SG
suggested that if the issue is the time commitments of staff, perhaps we
should pay contractors to review projects. LK agreed that the time
commitment of committee work is significant, but felt that the required
expertise exists within the group, and that resources are too scarce to
pay for consultants. SK asked if, since agency review is required
anyway, could the LTIMP review serve as the agency compliance review?
JPK answered that the agency compliance review comes later in the
process, but that a LTIMP review would help the compliance staff with
their task. Steve Paterson stated that the valuable role of the LTIMP is
coordination of monitoring, and that presentations to the group are a
good way to get that input in real time. Theresa Jones (TJ) noted her
organization wanted LTIMP to provide advice on the best use of funds
earmarked for monitoring. JR stated that the demands on the group are
perhaps too big, but that the group could provide an
objectives/checklist/boilerplate level of guidance. SG expressed his
frustration after visiting two restoration projects that simply make no
sense. How could these projects have been approved? We are not learning
from our mistakes. We need to develop a process to take a hard look at
projects. What we have now is a back door approach. LK suggested that
another working group should take on review of restoration projects,
perhaps the Stream Environment Zone (SEZ) TAC would be the appropriate
place. AH agreed and suggested that we identify categories of projects
and assign them to the various working groups. JPK noted that there were
constraints to the projects that SG visited and that those must be kept
in mind. SK stated that if we plan to ramp up in the basin, we need to
speed up, not add additional reviews. AH said that more people need to
be trained. JR noted the need for a master plan for projects. Optimizing
restoration is the key. Discussion of the role of the Integration Team
(I-Team) followed. It is intended to be mid-level management for
integration. Perhaps the I-Team needs to tackle this high level of
thinking. JPK stated that the TRPA Threshold Evaluation is driving
research needs, both short-term for \'01 and long-term for the 20-year
Plan review. JR suggested that we report to the I-Team that we need more
staff to do this important project-level work and we can\'t do it all in
this group. SG cited an example from the Columbia River where a team is
assembled by their respective agencies to see if projects make sense. We
need more staff, from all the jurisdictions, to attend these meetings.
What we really need is fewer meetings with better and consistent
attendance, not just more meetings.

> The take-home message from the group is that we identified a need for
> project level review, but that we need more bodies devoted to this
> task.

**Action Item:** Alan Heyvaert-UCD-TRG will draft a formal statement to
the I-Team for discussion at the next LTIMP meeting. LK will plant the
seed informally at the next I-Team meeting.

3.  **[Milestones discussion]{.underline} - John Paul Keil-TRPA:** The
    Lake Tahoe Water Quality Working Group Steering Committee (WQSC)
    performed the task of identifying milestones for the entire Water
    Quality Working Group. The WQSC decided that some of the milestones
    (12, 14, and 15) would best be taken on by the RAM. Milestones 14
    (current project priority methods identified) and 15 (new project
    priority methodology prepared) have since been taken back by the
    WQSC, leaving milestone 12 (existing monitoring programs shall be
    evaluated) for the RAM/LTIMP. LK noted that we had wanted the TRPA
    Environmental Improvement Project (EIP) to prioritize projects based
    on water quality objectives (relating to milestones 14 and 15), but
    it was not able to do so. So the WQSC will prioritize as best it
    can. JPK suggested that the LTIMP needed to break down milestone 12
    into tasks and to define a critical path. Is this an appropriate
    task for the LTIMP? The group agreed that it was appropriate for
    LTIMP. LK has a similar task to complete as part of her regular work
    plan, so she volunteered to take on the job of identifying and
    evaluating the monitoring projects of the past and identifying
    future monitoring needs. This task is in response to a new push for
    interagency coordination among California agencies as the California
    Department of Finance reviews requests in increase state funding to
    implement the EIP. The Federal Government and the State of Nevada
    are already looking at interagency coordination. California is a bit
    behind, but is now moving in the right direction. LK is proposing
    \$1 million per year for 10 years for monitoring BMP\'s and
    tributaries and for the clarity model. This is sparse funding and
    the effort will have to rely on volunteer monitoring.

**Action Item:** ALL members of the group will provide Lauri
Kemper-Lahohtan with a list of all current and proposed (funded)
monitoring projects, including: magnitude, term, \$/year allocated,
parameters measured, purpose, and location/scale of the project,
including the Nevada side, by 12/21/99. Theresa Jones-NDOT will contact
the appropriate Nevada staff. Lauri will contact the universities. Lauri
will distribute a spreadsheet template for the members to fill out
within the week.

(Break)

4.  **[Trout Creek Stream Restoration Monitoring Plan
    Review]{.underline} - Steve Kooyman-City of SLT.** The draft
    Monitoring Plan (dated 7/21/99) was again circulated and feedback
    again requested from the group. SK\'s goals for the monitoring
    effort are to provide data that will be useful to our overall
    understanding of the natural system. Cost estimates for the plan
    still need to be completed. It will require several different
    contracts to get the work done. He is currently getting specific
    work plan proposals from consultants and agencies. He wants the
    protocols to be approved by the scientific community so that the
    data generated will be useful to that community. The plan is going
    ahead. He needs LTIMP Committee comments on the plan ASAP. He has
    \$50K/yr for 5 years, and is seeking additional funding from all
    sources. Vern Finney had a specific comment: The goal for the
    Floodplain Soils, Nutrient Uptake section (pg. 6) is too optimistic.
    SK agreed that it is a gamble, but stood behind the effort. JR
    commended SK on the ambitious research nature of the plan. It is a
    new way of thinking about monitoring. AH noted that Vern Finney's
    (VF) expertise is extremely valuable at this point in the process.
    VF could suggest additional parameters to measure, especially to
    document the \'before\' case. LTIMP can provide guidance on
    concentrating monitoring resources into one project to provide the
    most complete data. The group agreed that the budget is small for a
    project of this scope. SG clarified that CTC doesn\'t have a \'10%
    for monitoring\' rule.

5.  **[Review of the Lake Tahoe Water Resources Symposium -- "Maximizing
    the Water Quality Benefits from Restoration Projects -]{.underline}
    November 2-4, 1999 in**

> **Kings Beach** **-- Steve Goldman-CTC:** The symposium was well
> attended with over 210 attendees there. The panel discussions started
> with state, bi-state, and Federal enthusiasm, followed by a local
> (county, general improvement districts, and city) reality check. LK
> reminded the group that while the funding is now in the pipe, one
> purpose of the symposium was to keep the enthusiasm up. The problem of
> a lack of maintenance and monitoring and funding was a consistent
> theme. There is also a concern of available resources within the Lake
> Tahoe Basin as the need to ramp up for EIP projects is approaching. JR
> suggested that the LTIMP could answer questions about the need for
> maintenance with monitoring data. LK stated that the Counties are
> monitoring their facilities at a road-crew level to determine the
> needed frequency of maintenance, and that they have Maintenance
> Efficiency Plans.

6.  **[Round Robin]{.underline}:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  **Theresa Jones-NDOT** told the group about a Seattle study that
    Amir Soltani (NDOT) is participating in with the Environmental
    Evaluation Center that will compare various urban runoff systems. Is
    this group interested in having input? Yes. Is the group interested
    in a test facility in the Basin? Yes! Theresa will provided copies
    of the EvTEC draft Evaluation Plan for Stormwater Treatment Systems
    and desires comments back by December 31,1999. She will report back
    to us any further information on this.

b.  **Troy Alexander-EDOT:** Led a discussion of Angora Creek monitoring
    project, measuring input and outflow from an erosion control
    project. He requested input from the group on additional parameters
    to measure. He worries that the project is not making the best use
    of the monitoring equipment, as it is only looking at storm events.
    The group agreed to discuss this and two other projects at the next
    meeting.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  **[Next meeting/Regular meeting schedule]{.underline}:** It was
    decided that LTIMP meetings will be held the **[FIRST Wednesday of
    every month]{.underline}**, starting with Wednesday January 5, 2000.

Meeting adjourned at 12:30

Please review these minutes and contact Tim Rowe-USGS, at (775)887-7627,
fax 7629 or e-mail: <tgrowe@usgs.gov> or Robert Erlich-Lahontan at
(530)542-5433, fax 544-2272 or email: <erlir@rb6s.swrcb.ca.gov> with any
questions or corrections. Minutes prepared by Emily Husted, TRPA on
12/8/99 and slightly updated by Tim Rowe and Robert Erlich.

# HAPPY HOLIDAYS

# & 

# HAPPY 2000!!!!

**[NEXT MEETING]{.underline}:**

**[Wednesday, January 5, 2000 - 9:00 am - 12:00]{.underline} (or longer
as needed)**

**@ [Lahontan]{.underline} RWQCB conference room -- 2501 Lake Tahoe
Blvd.**

**South Lake Tahoe, CA**

**[AGENDA:]{.underline}**

1)  **Review of previous LTIMP meeting minutes --** Tim Rowe & Robert
    Erlich

2)  **Discussion of combined LTIMP/RAM Mission Statement and
    Objectives** - Tim Rowe

3)  **Discussion of Milestone 12 - Identification of existing LTIMP
    Monitoring Projects** -- Lauri Kemper

4)  **Discussion of Trout Creek Stream Restoration Monitoring Plan
    Review Comments--** Steve Kooyman

5)  **Round Robin Discussions --** as needed

6)  **Presentation of recent paper at North American Lake Management
    Society (NALMS) annual symposium in Reno December 1-3, 1999. --
    "Daily Loads and Yields of suspended sediment and nutrients for
    selected watersheds in the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and
    Nevada"** by Tim Rowe-USGS. (IF there is time)