SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Maximum Daily Load
Stakeholder Process

San Joaquin River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Stakeholders
Pollutant Exchange Committee
Meeting Notes February 16, 2000

 Attending: Chris Foe, Sue Gornick, G. Fred Lee, Paul Martin, Bob Murdoch, Garner Reynolds, Chris Savage, Herb Stone, Alice Tulloch, Kevin Wolf (facilitation and notes) (Note: Is anyone missing from this list?)

Next Meeting: March 15, 2000 12:30-2:30 pm, 2500 Navy Dr, Stockton Bring a brown bag lunch

  1. Committee Short-term Objectives (3 months)
    1. The committee decided to focus its work over the next three months on how pollutant exchange programs could benefit from the CalFed 2001 and other research grant opportunities. Issues such as: theoretical and practical guidelines, principles, administrative rules, etc will wait until after this short term objective is met.
    2. Some of tasks needed to meet this short-term objective include:
      1. Create hypothetical examples for exchange programs. Three conceptual programs are described below. It is hoped that these brief descriptions will stimulate stakeholders and others to expand on these examples, provide other possible programs, and help think through the research and monitoring needed to have any of these programs be considered as part of the Implementation Plan by Dec. 2002. (Note: In writing up B-D below, I incorporated my own thoughts with that from discussion at the Pollutant Exchange Committee meeting and from other Stakeholder meetings. Kevin)
      2. Develop an Evaluation Matrix for the different Pollutant Exchange methods. Such a matrix, with numerical weighting of importance would be a valuable tool for determining which method the Steering Committee should choose. (Alice Tulloch will help draft this.)
        Matrix parameters could include:
        • Monitoring cost
        • Legal ramifications
        • Baseline allocation impacts
        • Technical ability to implement
        • Ability to do interpollutant trades (eg N for P for Temp for Flow)
        Key principles that could include:
        • Voluntary BMPs
        • Equity
        • Understandable
        • Practical
        • Supported by sound science
        • Economic feasibility
        • Accountability could trades be accounted for
      3. Paul Martin will get the names of New Mexico researchers who are developing Pollutant Exchange programs there.
  2. The Sub-Watershed method
    1. In this type of pollutant exchange program, each sub-watershed would have a targeted base level of load that it was allocated through the TMDL. Each watershed would have to develop its own plan for meeting that load allocation. One permutation has this lead into the Individual Site model. Another method would divide the load by industry and land use in the watershed and have these entities work as a group to meet targeted load reduction levels. A pollutant exchange program would allow these groups to do more than required with the financial help of other entities that did not or could not fully meet their load targets. Some how these loading entities (e.g. crop, dairy, and cattle associations, cities, counties, CalTrans, state parks and habitat owners, and others) that did not or could not reduce their load would have to be able to raise the funds to pay some other entity to reduce theirs more than required.
    2. Research and Monitoring Impacts
      1. Monitoring and research components in the CalFed 2000 and 2001 grants could be used to help confirm the loading amounts in these water year types for each subwatershed. New monitoring data and historic information would be used to calibrate the computer model. These grants might not cover all the monitoring needed and should be discussed by the technical committee.
      2. The algal and detritus loading, growth and decay elements that are being added to the Stockton computer model in the CalFed 2000 grant can be extended throughout the watershed to give a distance and time relationship of load to low DO in the ship channel.
      3. The model could add components that estimate the impacts of high water temperatures and sediment loads from each subwatershed. Before this is done, the base model could be run just to determine if temperature reduction would provide real benefits. If so, analysis could be done on whether sediment reduction would decrease heat absorption (which may be offset by increased light and algal growth), riparian habitat for temperature reduction, land use modification for water drainage temperature reduction, etc.
  3. The Individual Site method
    1. In this pollutant exchange program, the TMDL allocates loads based on land use for non-point sources and NPDES permits for source loads. For example, a matrix could be devised in which different land uses on different soils could be attributed a percent of load by acre in each sub watershed within the SJR. A set of BMPs could be modeled so that if certain ones of them were applied on every acre, the load would be sufficiently reduced. This amount becomes the baseline load around which trading occurs. Every land owner with the identified soil and land use would be expected to have implemented the BMPs or pay into a pollutant exchange fund or buy credits from trades being offered in some type of market structure. Land owners could get help paying for their own BMPs by subsidizing them through doing more than required and have an NPDES discharger, other land owner or other identified responsible party such as diverters or exporters pay them for their exchange “credits”.
    2. Research and Monitoring Impacts
      1. A GIS based model that ultimately links into surface water, groundwater, land use, stormwater and other maps and layers for the watershed will be needed. Many of the GIS databases and layers may already be developed. The data inventory work being proposed in the CalFed 2000 grant could pay for this inventorying and help develop an understanding of how much it would cost to develop new GIS to supplement existing GIS in the watershed. The City of Stockton’s model could provide a base upon which the GIS model could interact and run hypotheses.
      2. The computer modeling components described in 2a and 2b in the Sub-Watershed method are applicable here.
  4. Flows and Residence Time
    1. The stakeholders presently do not know how the Regional and State Boards will rule on the role upstream diversions, Delta exports and Deep Water Ship Channel depth will have in the TMDL and Implementation Plan. It is possible that these stakeholders will be required to help with the solution. If so, it may be that their preferred method for achieving their part of the TMDL is to pay for nutrient and organic detritus load reductions or water temperature or other improvements elsewhere in the watershed that compensate for continuing their operations as is. Once their percentage of the load is determined, they can buy credits to off set their impacts or do more than the baseline requirement and get paid to do so through the pollutant exchange program. Establishing the baseline for flows and exports creates interesting options. For example, if the baseline was established on 1999 flows and exports and in the future, diverters had to leave more flow in the river July through November for endangered salmon and steelhead requirements, they could be compensated for their additional flows from the exchange program for the benefits it would provide to others load contributors.
    2. Research and Monitoring
      1. The computer model will help develop the basic relationship of the impacts of diverters, exports and channel deepening to low dissolved oxygen levels. (The political process will determine how to put a cost on those impacts in the TMDL)
      2. Once the contribution to the load is allocated, exporters, diverters and the beneficiaries of the Deep Water Ship Channel could participate in either version of the pollutant exchange program.
Website designed by Kevin Wolf and Associates
Webmaster: Sybil Harlow