SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load Stakeholder Process

July 11, 2000

Attending: Carl Chen (Systech Engineering), Chris Foe (RWQCB), Alex Hildebrand (SDWA), Jay Jahangiri (Port of Stockton), Charlie Kratzer (USGS), G. Fred Lee (Tech Chair), Bob Murdoch (Stockton), Tom Quasebarth (CDM), Rich Stowell (Eco:logic, Farm Bureau), Alice Tulloch (Tulloch Eng.), Kevin Wolf (facilitator and notes 530-758-4211, kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us)

September 12, 9 am noon, DWR 3251 S St, Sacramento

October 10, 9 am noon, DWR 3251 S St, Sacramento

November 14, 9 am noon, DWR 3251 S St, Sacramento

1. Environmental Setting of the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins, California - USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 97-4205 (Charlie Kratzer)

2. A Procedure to Estimate the Response of Aquatic Systems to Changes in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Inputs – National Water and Climate Center (Chris Foe

1. Upstream of Vernalis

a. Charlie Kratzer provided overheads of the USGS mapping of subwatersheds upstream of Vernalis. Some of this information can be found in the Environmental Setting document cited above. Charlie can help provide overheads of his presentation.

2. Some of the information included in the USGS mapping effort include:

• Base maps of rivers, roads, counties, cities
• Ancillary GIS maps of

c. The Orestimba Creek watershed will need to have two sets of maps, one for the irrigation season and one for the wet season. This is needed because the water district drains differently during the irrigation season.

1. Downstream of Vernalis watershed boundaries

1. Kevin reported that he has been talking with DWR, SWRCB and other organizations to find out who might have information on subwatershed boundaries downstream of Vernalis. Below is some of the information.
2. The SWRCB has groundwater contour maps that will help in the understanding of how water flows beneath the ground between the subwatersheds.
3. The Army Corps of Engineers is developing boundaries of watersheds for flood planning purposes.
4. DWR, the USFS and others have been developing maps of the upper sections of the watersheds but not for the watersheds as they enter the flat lands nearer the San Joaquin.
5. USGS has digital elevation maps.

1. Other information that will help with our subwatershed mapping efforts.

1. Water district boundaries. DWR should have this information.
2. Drainage basins. NRCS would have this information.

2. Conceptual Model/Framework

1. One suggestion is to rename this with a title such as Index to Potential Causal Factors of Low Dissolved Oxygen in the San Joaquin River. There was though, no agreement on the title.
2. The Technical Committee supported providing this information in a two page document to the stakeholder interest groups. The document should provide an appropriate introduction/preamble that explains that the document has not been prioritized as to the importance of the causal factors. It is suggested that the preamble should also explain the flow and assimilative capacity issues. This material would be part of an information tool kit that presenters of information about the TMDL could utilize.
3. Flow and Assimilative Capacity should be placed as their own major potential causal factors as opposed to just placing them as sub-causal factors beneath the main ones. The suggestion is to also leave the flow and assimilative capacity issues under the other major causal factors.

2. Synopsis of Issues

1. Fred drafted a 5-page synopsis of the key issues and conclusions of the Issues Report and continues to request technical committee members to provide feedback. He will incorporate the comments generated so far and circulate another draft to the Steering Committee.
2. There was general agreement that Fred’s 20 page summary was also a valuable tool which should be provided to the stakeholders as well.

2. Strawman Load Allocation/TMDL

1. Chris and Fred gave a brief overview of how they were planning on developing background information to the "strawman" load allocation this fall. They are forming an ad hoc group to meet on the subject. They will use the email list to inform people of meeting times and places. The meetings will be open to all but will not take the place of the Technical Committee.
2. Step 1. Determine what the unassimilated load (deficit below water quality objectives) is in the Deep Water Ship Channel. This will be important to developing a pollutant exchange program. The ad hoc group will provide their findings to the Technical Committee for their information.
3. Step 2. Assign loads at different given flows and channel depths. This will include a load assignment at a low net flow (of a few hundred cfs) and at a higher flow level equal to the highest summer/fall 7-day flow levels in the past ten years. They will use previous depths of the DWSC in Stockton SJR model to evaluate how the assimilative capacity of the SJR below Stockton has changed as a result of developing the DWSC. They will develop a process to use Kratzer’s historic (late 1980s) information of upstream of Vernalis load levels at various locations within the SJR watershed, DWRSim model results and current monitoring data as it becomes available.
4. Step 3. Determine how a Pollutant Exchange Program might work. Cities in the watershed likely will want to add additional load to the river to accommodate increasing population growth. Presently they can’t do this without doing expensive work on their sewage system to increase the quality of their effluent. A pollutant exchange program could allow them to reduce another loading source to compensate for any additional load they add to the river. Chris does not think that the Regional Board can legally allow any new or expanded NPDES discharges to the River until the TMDL is complete and accepted by EPA unless it can be shown that the proposed discharge does not contribute to the problem in any way. Any mass offset/pollutant exchange program would be part of an implementation plan. Some of the pollutant exchange issues that the ad hoc group will work on include:

• What is the currency of the exchange?
• How much more should one entity reduce load in another location in order to be allowed to increase their own load?

5. Future TAC issues

1. This fall or winter, DWR will be working on developing an operational plan for the south delta barriers and the Head of Old River Barrier. The TMDL stakeholders should be involved with this planning process to help ensure that DWR considers operational scenarios that could improve flows and reduce residence times in the DWSC. Alex and/or Kevin will check with Mike Ford to determine if it would be useful to have him brief the stakeholders on DWR’s planning efforts and options.
2. Charlie Kratzer will be completing the conversion of the USGS’s historic data on nutrient loading upstream of Vernalis into monthly figures this August. This information will then be incorporated into the "strawman" TMDL proposal being developed by Chris, Fred and an ad hoc committee. Possibly at the September Technical Committee meeting, time should be allocated for Charlie to explain his findings.
3. Reevaluating Dissolved Oxygen Standards for the lower San Joaquin River.

1. Chris said that this fall/winter he will be organizing an interagency group to recommend how to interpret the standards for dissolved oxygen. The language in the Basin Plan is fairly nebulous and eventually it will need to be explicitly defined what the compliance points and averaging periods are. The interagency team will provide advice on this.
2. A site specific objective should be developed for the DWSC after all the implementation alternatives have been priced out and shown that they are prohibitively expensive. The stakeholders should also have biological data that clearly demonstrates that the beneficial uses can be fully protected with a lower standard. At the present time, the stakeholders have neither the economic nor the biological data at this time, nor the benefits that each might provide for the aquatic environment and other beneficial uses.
3. Some of the questions the interagency group might address include: how might an average 5.0 mg/L DO standard negatively impact aquatic life compared to an "any time any place" 5.0 mg/L minimum DO level? How important is the 6.0 mg/L standard for salmon in the fall?
4. This fall or winter, the Technical Committee will discuss whether they also should investigate changing the interpretation of the standard.

5. Other Issues

1. There are no known ag drain water-sampling efforts occurring in the subwatersheds except for Orestimba Creek. It is unlikely that such sampling will occur in the future as there have not been resources allocated to do this.
2. Fred is concerned that the year 2000 monitoring program in the mainstem of the San Joaquin will not go past October. He feels that November sampling could be important. Charlie says it is difficult to change a contract at this point but it is possible. Fred thinks that the Technical Committee should investigate finding additional funds to extend the sampling effort another month. Fred will write up comments for the TAC to consider.
3. Fred is concerned about the level of research being conducted or planned on how subsurface water transport works. Some of the cities have data, especially from their land disposal sites. DWR or another agency had put in place piezometers, which are presently not being read.
4. Someone suggested that maybe a tracer study downstream of Vernalis to help understand how this information comes together.
5. Fred raised the issues of the need for funding to evaluate and write up a number of areas so that the information will be available to the steering committee for its use in TMDL allocation and in the development of an implementation plan. For example, who is going to write up a summary of downstream of Vernalis oxygen demand sources and impacts?