Manteca City Council
July 19, 2022

126 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 2-4Wells within WaterBearing Zones Why was Intermediate and Deep Zones combined? Clarifying Edit Intermediate and deep zones were combined in Table 2-4 due to trends in the data. Consider for further definition in future updates to the GSP. 127 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.1.9.2.3.1Geologic Formation Water Quality
The oxidation of pyrite and other sulfide minerals would produce sulfuric acid which would manifest as a lower pH. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. 13 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 128 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin What type of conditions since redox is an abbreviation for reduced versus oxidized conditions - oxygen absent versus oxygen present? Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Source (Izbicki et al., 2008) indicates arsenic release in the absence of oxygen. 129 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin The focus of this paragraph is odd. The atmosphere is comprised of 78% nitrogen and the soils and underlying rock in the upland watersheds appears to absorb and store nitrogen. The real important issue is the occurrence of nitrate in the subbasin. How much nitrate occurs in the Mokelumne River (and other rivers) as that surface water enters the subbasin? Why is nitrate omitted from the list of anions in the next paragraph? Why wasn't a box-and-whisker diagram prepared for nitrate to show its variations between 2005 and 2017? Basin Setting Comment noted. Additional data on nitrate in the Subbasin is included in Section 2.2.4.2 (Nitrate). Nitrate was left off the list of water quality parameters in Section 2.1.9.2.3.1 (Geologic Formation Water Quality) as it is covered by separate monitoring and regulation programs. 130 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.1.10HCM Data Gaps Water quality of three zones in principal aquifers Clarifying Edit Edited text in Section 2.1.10 (HCM Data Gaps): Water quality of three zones in principal aquifer. 131 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Groundwater Level Data
Additional groundwater level data near major creeks and rivers such as the Mokelumne River to improve quantification and understanding of subsurface flows between subbasins and for surface water-groundwater interactions Clarifying Edit Edited text in Section 2.1.10 (HCM Data Gaps): Additional groundwater level data near major creeks and rivers to improve quantification and understanding of subsurface flows between groundwater subbasins and surface water-groundwater interaction. 132 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Subsurface Conditions
Why east side of basin, which is bedrock in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains? More attention is needed along the boundary with the Cosumnes and South American Subbasins to the north.

Clarifying Edit Comment noted. The eastern area, though largely bedrock, lacks monitoring wells, as discussed in Chapter 4 (Monitoring Network), and data. 133 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figure 2-34: Hydrographs of Selected Wells
SGMA requires the same datum and scaling for hydrographs (to the extent possible). The 10 hydrographs use different horizontal and vertical scales. The horizontal scales varied from starting years between 1950 and 1973 and the ending years between 2014 and 2017 which produced a span of 43 to 67 years. The span of the vertical scales varied between 18 and 180 years. What are the depths of these 10 wells?What zones do these wells represent?Why weren't wells 04N08E06C002 and 04N05E10K001 identified as representative monitoring wells, given their proximal location to the northern boundary of the subbasin?
Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted for consideration in updates to the GSP. It is beyond the scope of the GSP to include this information. 134 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figure 2-35: Groundwater Elevations 1940-2018, (a) Box-and Whisker Plot with Precipitation Difficult plot due to overlapping lines. Change to scale of the second vertical axis to shift the precipitation line above the box-and-whiskers. Average annual precipitation line is not provided, as stated in third note.What about showing the water year type? Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted. Scales on the plot were updated. Water year types and annual total precipitation can be found in Figure 2-71. 135 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.2.1.2Current Groundwater Elevations
Why are 2016 data omitted from current conditions?Historical data are 1996 to 2015. Current data are only 2017? Clarifying Edit Groundwater level data represented the latest complete records available at the time of the analysis for the GSP. The DMS will ensure that data is kept up-to- date for future analyses and updates to the GSP. 136 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.2.1.2.1Vertical Gradients Vertical gradients only show potential for groundwater flow. An aquitard would prevent that vertical flow. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Aquitards would prevent vertical flow, but are not common in Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. 137 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.2.1.2.1Vertical Gradients Vertical gradients only show potential for groundwater flow. An aquitard would prevent that vertical flow. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Aquitards would prevent vertical flow, but are not common in Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. 138 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figures 2-40 to 2-49: Nested Well Hydrographs
SGMA requires the same datum and scaling for hydrographs (to the extent possible). The 10 hydrographs use different horizontal and vertical scales. Use of the scales would allow the magnitude of the gradients to be evident between locations and allow comparison of the record of data. Mechanics - Graphics Scales on the hydrographs were standardized for consistency. 139 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.2.2Groundwater Storage
Figure 2-50 is not effective at showing anything - just a big blue rectangle with a slightly irregularly top'-0.91 / 53 *100 = -1.7%Reduction in storage really only began in 2008 when the value became negative and stay negative thereafter. The average change in storage would be -0.11 MAF/yr for that 8-year period.

Mechanics - Graphics The figure has been developed to show the impact of groundwater extraction on overall amount of fresh groundwater in storage. The potential for undesirable results associated with groundwater accessibility are addressed through the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Sustainability Indicator. 140 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 2-5: Summary of Chloride Data by Decade
The table shows that minimum, average, and median values are all less than 250 mg/L.How do the depth intervals relate to the zones in the principal aquifer? Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Table 2-5 shows chloride measurements by decade, but has no component related specifically to well depth. 141 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 2-6: Summary of Chloride Data by Depth (1940s-2010s) The table shows that minimum, average, and median values are all less than 250 mg/L.How do the depth intervals relate to the zones in the principal aquifer? Clarifying Edit
Comment noted. Table 2-5 shows chloride measurements by well depth, with depths ranging from 0 to over 500 feet deep. These wells may be from any of the principal aquifer zones, depending where in the Subbasin they are located. From Figure 2-54, as most of the wells with depth data are in the City of Stockton area, the wells are likely in the intermediate or deep zones according to cross-section B-B' in Figure 2-20. 142 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Chloride data
Table 2.6 shows that 3,566 samples out of a total of 6,931 samples lack depth data but these data are not limited to only concentrations greater than 250 mg/L.The no-depth well group does have the highest range but the 100-foot well group has a much higher median value, a higher minimum, and a comparable average relative to the no-depth well group.

Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Consider for analysis in future updates to the GSP. 143 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.2.4.1.2Total Dissolved Solids According to the USGS (Hem, 1985), "Organic matter, if present, may be partly volatile, but it is not completely removed unless the residue is strongly ignited." Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Consider for analysis in future updates to the GSP. 14 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 144 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figure 2-57: Maximum TDS Concentrations in Shallow Wells 2015-2018 Figure explanation says shallow wells are less than 200 feet but Table 2.7 show depth ranges of 0-100', 100-250', 250-500', and >500', which is not consistent.How do the depth intervals relate to the zones in the principal aquifer? Clarifying Edit
Figure 2-57 shows TDS concentrations in shallow wells (wells shallower than 200 feet), while Figure 2-58 shows concentrations in deep wells (wells deeper than 200 feet). Table 2-7 is the tabulated date behind the two figures (2-57 and 2-58). The well depths are likely in the shallow or intermediate zones of the principal aquifer, based on the depths presented in cross-section C-C' in Figure 2-21. 145 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figure 2-58: Maximum TDS Concentrations in Deep Wells 2015-2018 Figure explanation says deep wells are greater than 200 feet.What about intermediate wells? Mechanics - Graphics The analysis only differentiates between deep wells (greater than 200 feet) and shallow wells (less than 200 feet). 146 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 2-10: MCLs for Common Petroleum Hydrocarbons and MTBE Why are the units for xylene mg/L when the other organics are ug/L? The change seems disingenuous. Clarifying Edit Confirmed MCLs in California Regulations Related to Drinking Water from the SWRCB. Units in table are correct. 147 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 2-11: MCLs for Common Synthetic Organic Constituents TCE may have been used early in the dry cleaning industry but dry cleaners seem to be the dominant source for PCE plumes. Clarifying Edit Edited sources for PCE in Table 2-11 (MCLs for Common Synthetic Organic Constituents): Used as a solvent in manufacturing facilities, dry cleaners, printing shops, and auto repair facilities. 148 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figure 2-67: Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) Dark subbasin boundary line obscures the color-coded lines Mechanics - Graphics Changed the order of the layering so that the subbasin boundary does not obscure the NCCAG indications. 149 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.3.3 Use of the ESJWRM and Associated Data in Water Budget Development Historical Water Budget was established for 20 years (WY 1996 to 2015).Projected Water Budget was produced for the implementation period, starting in 2020, based on a 50-year previous hydrology (1969 to 2018).Why is Current Water Budget based on a 50-year period (1969 to 2018) when SGMA requires the use of "the most recent hydrology, water supply, water demand, and land use information."?I'm thinking a Current Water Budget would be for 2016 and 2017 (maybe 2018) to be consistent with Section 2.2.1.2 - Current Groundwater Elevations.

Water Budget
The current text, tables, and figures for the water budget meet the requirements of the GSP. As described in Section 2.3.4.2 (Assumptions Used in the Current Water Budget), the current conditions scenario uses current estimates of water demand and supplies along with 50 years of historical hydrology to see the long-term impact of current demand and supply on the Subbasin. 150 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 2-12: Summary of Water Budget Assumptions (Historical, Current, and Projected Periods) Hydrologic Years: 50-year period for Current Water Budget is not consistent with SGMA requirement.All other entries say current and refer to recent information - no the past 50 years.Note 3 refers to "pre-drought level (assumed water year 2013)". WY 2013 was a critical WY.

Water Budget
1) The current text, tables, and figures for the water budget meet the requirements of the GSP. As described in Section 2.3.4.2 (Assumptions Used in the Current Water Budget), the current conditions scenario uses current estimates of water demand and supplies along with 50 years of historical hydrology to see the long-term impact of current demand and supply on the Subbasin. 2) Even though water year 2013 was designated a critical water year in terms of hydrology, the drought regulations had not largely impacted urban water users yet, so 2013 urban demand (per capita water use) was assumed to represent normal/pre-drought urban demand conditions. 151 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.3.4.2 Assumptions Used in the Current Water Budget
The 50-year period is not consistent with SGMA requirement. Water Budget The current text, tables, and figures for the water budget meet the requirements of the GSP. As described in Section 2.3.4.2 (Assumptions Used in the Current Water Budget), the current conditions scenario uses current estimates of water demand and supplies along with 50 years of historical hydrology to see the long-term impact of current demand and supply on the Subbasin. 152 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.3.5 Water Budget Estimates Riparian intake from streams is evapotranspiration outflow from the stream system. How can it also be an inflow? Clarifying Edit The stream water budget is a balance on water in streams and the land surface water budget is a balance on water used on lands. Water comes from the stream system to meet the riparian demand occurring in the land surface system, so is an outflow from the stream system and an inflow to the land surface system.
153 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 2-15: Average Annual Water Budget – Groundwater System The proportions of water in the budgets don't vary more than a few percentage point which is likely due to the long-term overlapping periods of data. See previous comments on the use of a 50-year period for current conditions.Totals for main categories of inflow and outflow don't match table totals (due to rounding [?]). Tables 2-13 and 2-14 may exhibit similar discrepancies.

Water Budget Added a footnote to Tables 2-13 to 2-17 clarifying that: Summations in table may not match the numbers in the table. This is due to the rounding of model results. 154 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figures 2-72 to 2-80 Magnitude of average annual volumes would be more easily perceived if the vertical scale was the same for each plot. Mechanics - Graphics Scales have been changed to be consistent within scenarios for each of the stream, land surface, and groundwater system figures. 155 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 2-16: Average Annual Values for Key Components of Historical Water Budget by Year Type How can the average of three AN years be less than one BN year? Is math correct? Mechanics - Graphics Footnote on Table 2-16 addresses this comment: There was only one below normal year in the historical calibration, so averages are just based on model results for that single water year. Since there wasn't any more below normal years to use in the average, results the below normal water year type do not follow expected trends.
156 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.3.5.4Projected Water Budget Estimates
Section needs a figure for projected groundwater budget similar to the historical conditions of 1996 to 2015 (Figure 2-51) and for climate change (Figure 2-102).

What about groundwater budget information for Wys 2016, 2017, and 2018? Water Budget The current text, tables, and figures for the water budget meet the requirements of the GSP. The current version of the model includes data through water year 2015 (September 2015). Future refinements to the model will include data updates to include 2016 through 2018. 157 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.3.6 Sustainable Yield Estimate
This statement actually implies that groundwater levels will decline until 2045 (2020 + 25 = 2045), which would not be consistent with SGMA's prohibition of "chronic lowering of groundwater levels" which would continue to cause groundwater to flow from the adjacent subbasins and limit their ability to achieve sustainable management, unless ESJ successfully implements all of their projects and management actions.

Clarifying Edit 25 years was edited to 20 years in the text in Section 2.3.6 (Sustainable Yield Estimate). 15 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 158 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Does this 50-year average approach really support operations within this sustainable yield within the 20-year planning and implementation horizon? The sustainable yield would appear to range from 643,000 AF/yr to 715,000 AF/yr to 787,000 AF/yr. Table 2-17 says the 50-year total groundwater supply is 801,000 AF/yr, which is 86,000 AF/yr greater than the sustainable yield. Text on page 2-148 also refers to 801,000 AF/yr as private groundwater production.

Water Budget
The sustainable yield scenario of the ESJWRM tests if a simulated demand reduction is sustainable over 50 years of varying hydrologic data. The 20-year implementation period was included to allow for changes to occur in the Subbasin before 2040 and for groundwater levels to continue to drop. The text in Section 2.3.6 (Sustainable Yield Estimate) was edited to clarify that demand reductions slowly ramp up over the 20-year period: In order to account for the challenges of implementing the GSP, this Plan assumes future operations include a ramping up of demand reduction actions (e.g., projects that reduce groundwater pumping or increase recharge) for a 20-year period and groundwater levels will continue to decline until 2040. 159 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Does this 50-year average approach really support operations within this sustainable yield within the 20-year planning and implementation horizon? The sustainable yield would appear to range from 643,000 AF/yr to 715,000 AF/yr to 787,000 AF/yr. Table 2-17 says the 50-year total groundwater supply is 801,000 AF/yr, which is 86,000 AF/yr greater than the sustainable yield. Text on page 2-148 also refers to 801,000 AF/yr as private groundwater production.

Water Budget
The sustainable yield scenario of the ESJWRM tests if a simulated demand reduction is sustainable over 50 years of varying hydrologic data. The 20-year implementation period was included to allow for changes to occur in the Subbasin before 2040 and for groundwater levels to continue to drop. The text in Section 2.3.6 (Sustainable Yield Estimate) was edited to clarify that demand reductions slowly ramp up over the 20-year period: In order to account for the challenges of implementing the GSP, this Plan assumes future operations include a ramping up of demand reduction actions (e.g., projects that reduce groundwater pumping or increase recharge) for a 20-year period and groundwater levels will continue to decline until 2040. 160 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figure 2-82: Dry Creek Hydrograph
Why is a 54-year period (1964 to 2018) used in the projection when the previous text referred to a 50-year period (1696 to 2018)? Shouldn't the time scale be 2020 to 2070 or Year 1 to 50, beginning in 2020?Same questions for Figures 2-84, 2-86, 2-88, and 2-90.

Climate Change Edits made to Figures 2-82, 2-84, 2-86, 2-88, and 2-90 so time scale shows the 50-year period of the simulation period. 161 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.3.7.4 Eastern San Joaquin Water Budget Under Climate Change Does municipal groundwater pumping increase to total? Climate Change In the climate change scenario, groundwater pumping to meet agricultural and residential needs is calculated by the model based on meeting remaining demands after appropriate surface water delivery is made to respective areas. Demand in areas with no access to surface water is completely met by groundwater pumping. Pumping occurring within city limits may need to increase to meet the urban demands not met through surface water. 162 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figure 2-102: Groundwater Budget
– Climate Change
Scenario
Cumulative change in groundwater storage continues to decline for the 50-year period which is not consistent with the SGMA prohibition of reduction in groundwater storage. Climate Change
Consistent with regulations, the 2070 climate change sensitivity analysis on the projected conditions scenario was used to better understand trends and inform planning. Due to the uncertainty around climate projections in the 2070 timeframe, the ESJGWA Board determined the projected conditions scenario was most appropriate for analyzing sustainable yield and a zero change in storage in the GSP implementation time period beginning in 2040. Climate change will continue to be evaluated with every update to the GSP and estimates of projects and management actions will continue to evolve with refinements to the model. Comment noted for follow up in next round of model refinements and updates to analyses. 163 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figure 3-2: Location of Representative Monitoring Wells for Groundwater Levels Groundwater along the northern boundary are monitored by two shallow CASGEM wells (Wells 04N07E20H003 and 04N05E24J003) that are 3.3 to 4.2 miles south of the Cosumnes Subbasin. These wells are located ~8 miles apart along the 26-mile E-W subbasin boundary (excludes 4-mile N-S boundary with Amador County).

Additional monitoring wells should be installed along to the boundary to cover the entire length, including deeper wells, to better define cross boundary flow, vertical gradients, and the surface water-groundwater interaction.

Monitoring Network
As described in Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) and shown in Figure 4-3, additional groundwater monitoring wells are planned for the Subbasin to fill recognized data gaps. Two of these wells are adjacent to Dry Creek and will provide data relevant to stream-aquifer interaction, as well as subsurface flows across the groundwater subbasin boundary shared with Cosumnes Subbasin. One of the wells, a deep nested well, was included in the TSS funding application and is located along the boundary shared with Cosumnes Subbasin (about midway along the portion of Dry Creek bordering the Subbasin). The second well along Dry Creek is shallow and will be funded by the ESJGWA. Additional information will be provided by wells installed and maintained along the boundary by the GSAs within the Cosumnes Subbasin, which will also be incorporated into future GSP updates. The text in Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) was updated to reflect additional details about the proposed new monitoring wells and locations of the TSS wells. 164 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 3-1: Minimum Thresholds for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels The MT for well 04N07E20H003 was confirmed at -81.7 feet MSL by the GSP methodology, but the MT (-31.2 feet MSL) for well 04N05E24J003 was found to be lower by 1.4 feet or -29.8 feet MSL. Appendix 3-A shows a 25-foot buffer compared to the 23.6-foot buffer derived from the difference between the highest and lowest values. The MOs were confirmed for the two wells (Table 3-2). Use of these management criteria will further reduce groundwater levels and storage along the northern boundary of the subbasin and cause groundwater from the Cosumnes Subbasin to flow into the ESJ Subbasin due to this generous management criteria. Recent groundwater levels (Mar/Apr-19) are 13 and 17 feet above their respective MOs and 58 and 41 feet above their respective MTs (Wells 04N07E20H003 and 04N05E24J003). Use of this criteria will allow the further lowering of groundwater levels and the reduction in storage, which will cause additional groundwater flow from the Cosumnes Subbasin, especially during a long-term period of drought.Note that the method for establishing the MT buffer is somewhat different for each well, which adds a bias to values. For well 04N07E20H003, the buffer was based on the difference between the highest groundwater level (WL), which occurred during Mar-84 (during an above normal [AN] WY, following the wettest WY on record and a wetter AN WY), and the lowest WL during Oct-16. For well 04N05E24J004, the highest and lowest WLs occurred during Mar-97 and Oct-15, respectively. The historical water budget period was established for 1996 to 2015, so the highest and lowest WLs should be restricted to that period (See attached Figures 1 & 2). In addition, Appendix 3-B provides hydrographs with MT and MO lines for a date range beginning in 1990.This uniform criteria should be applied to all representative WL monitoring wells.

Groundwater Levels
1) This response assumes the commenter to have confirmed the minimum threshold and measurable objective for well 04N07E20H003. For well 04N05E24J003, the commenter notes the measurable objective is confirmed correct, but the minimum threshold is not. It is assumed the commenter is referring to well 04N05E24J004 because well 04N05E24J003 is not used. The discrepancy noted in the comment is in the source of data from which the calculations are made. Local San Joaquin County well data was used to calculate the buffer and a minimum threshold of -31.2 ft MSL for 04N05E24J004. The measurable objective of -6.2 ft MSL was calculated from CASGEM data for well 04N05E24J004. Where available, CASGEM data was consistently used to calculate measurable objectives and local agency data was consistently used to determine the historical range buffer, as the local datasets typically had a longer monitoring record. 2) The ESJGWA supports using the minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator as written. The current approach was developed recognizing that the aquifer is heterogeneous, and the criteria as written accounts for the varying responses to hydrology that occur in different locations across the Subbasin. The intent of adding a buffer of 100 percent of the historical range to the historical drought low is to reflect this varying hydrology, as areas far from surface water will respond/fluctuate differently than areas close to surface water. It is recognized that the monitoring wells have different periods of record. The methodology uses available data from 1990 to 2019 to set these criteria. 3) In evaluating flow gradient changes between subbasins, the ESJGWA's focus is on long-term change in groundwater elevation, rather than temporary fluctuation in periods of drought. The ESJGWA will continue to coordinate with neighboring subbasins as they develop their plans and establish sustainable management criteria, such that no subbasin is preventing another from achieving sustainability. Because neighboring subbasins are largely on the 2022 timeline for GSP development, it is too speculative at this time to determine how inter-basin flows will be affected. 165 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 3-3: Interim Milestones for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Current groundwater levels (WL) are set at values for Fall 2015. For well 04N05E24J004, the "current" WL, MO, and all interim milestones are -6.2 feet MSL. The WL declined further in fall 2016 to -4.2 feet MSL and then varied from

6.3 feet MSL in fall 2017 and 3.3 feet MSL in fall 2018.For well 04N07E20H003, the "current" WL was -35.5 feet MSL, just above the MO of -36.7 feet MSL, and the first two interim milestones equal -35.5 feet MSL ("current WL") and the third milestone allowed a WL decline to -36.1 feet MSL. The WLs declined during the fall 2016 to -36.7 feet MSL (MO) and then rose thereafter to -32.8 feet MSL during fall 2017 and -31.4 feet MSL during fall 2018.

Groundwater Levels Correct, the current groundwater levels are set at values for Fall 2015 for almost all wells. This is noted in a footnote in Table 3-3. The four wells using an average groundwater level for current are indicated with "**". 166 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

3.2.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage
DWR has classified the ESJ Subbasin as overdrafted.The text does not provide a direct rebuttal to this classification or address the contributions of groundwater from the adjacent subbasins which should be an undesirable result of overpumping.

Groundwater Storage See Master Response 4 - GW Storage. 167 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin The text does not address the contributions of groundwater from the adjacent subbasins which should be an undesirable result of overpumping. How much groundwater would move into the ESJ Subbasin from adjacent subbasins if the storage were reduced by 1.2 MAF to down to 30 MAF? Groundwater Storage See Master Response 4 - GW Storage. 168 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 3-4: Interim Milestones for Degraded Water Quality The measurable objective for TDS is 600 mg/L - the recommended secondary MCL plus a 100-mg/L buffer. TDS currently ranges from 280 to 510 mg/L (average: 370 mg/L) at the 10 representative monitoring wells. The interim milestones allow incremental increases of TDS over the 20-year period, ranging from 5 to 29 percent (average: 15%), where lower-TDS wells have greater increments and higher-TDS wells have lower increments. This approach appears to encourage the degradation of water quality as an objective.

Groundwater Quality
The measurable objective is close to the SMCL of 500 mg/L and significantly below the upper limit SMCL of 1000 mg/L and is considered protective of beneficial uses. Having measurable objectives somewhat above current conditions provides the GSAs with flexibility through the implementation horizon, while being protective of drinking water and agricultural water supplies. 16 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 169 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

3.2.5 Land Subsidence
The text fails to acknowledge the continuous GPS station (P309 - Linden) in the subbasin and the 5 other stations in adjacent subbasins, which be used to interpolate subsidence within the subbasin. Additional GSP stations could be installed in the subbasin. Subsidence The ESJGWA supports the use of existing monitoring stations and InSAR data currently referenced in the GSP for the evaluation of subsidence, and believe the conditions of the subbasin do warrant the creation of new subsidence stations at this time. The GSP has been updated to reference the UNAVCO continuous GPS stations in Section 1.2.2.4 (Land Subsidence Monitoring): UNAVCO’s Plate Boundary Observatory Program – Reporting since 2004, the UNAVCO (formerly University Navigation Satellite Timing and Ranging or NAVSTAR Consortium) Plate Boundary Observatory network consists of a network of about 1,100 continuous global positioning system (CGPS) and meteorology stations in the western United States to measure deformation resulting from the constant motion of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates in the western United States. Stations located within the Subbasin contain data from at least 2006 to current and include station P309 located east of Linden and station P273 located west of Lodi. Other stations are also available in nearby Subbasins. GSP subsidence analyses have been conducted using satellite-based methods over limited time periods, as described below. 170 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

4.3 MONITORING NETWORKS FOR DEGRADED WATER QUALITY
Anions should include nitrate as well as bicarbonate & carbonate, chloride, and sulfate. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Water quality monitoring will test for a variety of contaminants. 171 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

4.3.5 Spatial Density of Groundwater Quality Monitoring Wells Make appropriate revision in Section 8, page 8-6 Clarifying Edit Edited References to delete 2010b (2016b is the correct reference to the monitoring network BMP), make formerly 2010c references into 2010b, and edit references in Section 4.3.5 (Spatial Density of Groundwater Quality Monitoring Wells) to 2016b. 172 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

6.2.1 Project Identification Project is affordable and coste-effective (highest lowest unit cost per volume water savings) Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 173 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

6.3 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
All of these activities are required by SGMA so they aren't really management actions (reduced pumping, fallowing, … ) as intended by SGMA Plan Implementation The ESJGWA treats management actions as generally administrative, locally implemented actions that the GSAs could take that affect groundwater sustainability. Language was added to the GSP (Section 6.3 Management Actions) referencing existing conservation management actions occurring in the Subbasin (including Urban Water Management Plans and Agriculture Water Management Plans). More information on management actions will be added if the ESJGWA determines pumping reductions or others are needed to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin. 174 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Table 7-2: Costs to GSAs and GSP Implementation Costs
$0.8M to $2.0M is quite excessive, as if the GSP will be done over. Annual reports will provide a significant foundation for the 5-year evaluation and the cost might be only $200K to $300K - hopefully a lot less.Other costs should be reviewed closely to ensure reasonableness.

Plan Implementation
The cost estimates for implementation actions are conservative planning-level estimates that will be refined once additional specifics have been determined. The ESJ ESJGWA Plan Implementation Ad-Hoc Committee has been convened for this purpose and is meeting on an approximately weekly basis to actively identify next steps and form recommendations that will allow for refinement in GSP implementation cost estimates. 175 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

7.6 DEVELOPING 5-YEAR EVALUATION REPORTS
$0.8M to $2.0M is quite excessive, as if the GSP will be done over. Annual reports will provide a significant foundation for the 5-year evaluation and the cost might be only $200K to $300K - hopefully a lot less.Other costs should be reviewed closely to ensure reasonableness.

Plan Implementation
The cost estimates for implementation actions are conservative planning-level estimates that will be refined once additional specifics have been determined. The ESJ ESJGWA Plan Implementation Ad-Hoc Committee has been convened for this purpose and is meeting on an approximately weekly basis to actively identify next steps and form recommendations that will allow for refinement in GSP implementation cost estimates. 176 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

7.3.1 Monitoring
Won't the field crew and their equipment be used for sampling ($57K to $60K) and sampling costs are really laboratory costs ($24K to $30K)? Will CASGEM continue to exist after full implementation of SGMA? Plan Implementation Section 7.3.1 (Monitoring) has been updated to change the line item previous identified "Sampling costs" to "Laboratory costs". The form that the future CASGEM program will take after SGMA implementation is unknown at this time. 177 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

7.6.3 Reconsideration of GSP Elements
Why waste resources on a new index when a 118-year index is already available for the San Joaquin Valley?(Sacramento Valley index is 113 years long and is mostly consistent with the San Joaquin Valley index.) Clarifying Edit The San Joaquin Valley index is not based only on data local to the Subbasin. The ESJGWA Board will evaluate available indices' methodologies and determine whether or not to develop a new water year index. 178 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin ES-5. EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
California has three secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) standards for TDS, all based on aesthetic considerations such as taste and odor, not public health concerns. These are 500 mg/L (recommended limit), 1,000 mg/L (upper limit), and 1,500 2,500 mg/L (short-term limit). Clarifying Edit Edited Section ES-5 (Existing Groundwater Conditions) to correct the short-term SMCL for TDS and clarify the text: These are 500 mg/L (recommended limit), 1,000 mg/L (upper limit), and 1,500 mg/L (short-term limit). 179 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin ES-5. EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Replace with:Surface waters can be hydraulically interconnected to the groundwater system, where the baseflow is derived from the aquifer (gaining stream) or the stream can lose surface water to the aquifer. If the water table beneath the stream goes down excessively as a result of groundwater pumping, the stream may disconnect from the underlying aquifer.

Clarifying Edit
Edited text in Section ES-5 (Existing Groundwater Conditions): Surface waters can be hydraulically interconnected with the groundwater system, where the stream baseflow is either derived from the aquifer (gaining stream) or recharged to the aquifer (losing stream). If the water table beneath the stream lowers as a result of groundwater pumping, the stream may disconnect entirely from the underlying aquifer. Major river systems in the Subbasin are highly managed to meet instream flow requirements for fisheries, water quality standards, and water rights of users downstream. 180 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin ES-10. PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
All of these activities are required by SGMA so they aren't really management actions (reduced pumping, fallowing, … ) as intended by SGMA Plan Implementation The ESJGWA treats management actions as generally administrative, locally implemented actions that the GSAs could take that affect groundwater sustainability. Language was added to the GSP (Section 6.3 Management Actions) referencing existing conservation management actions occurring in the Subbasin (including Urban Water Management Plans and Agriculture Water Management Plans). More information on management actions will be added if the ESJGWA determines pumping reductions or others are needed to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin. 181 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin ES-12. FUNDING Some costs need a closer look, especially the 5-year updates. Plan Implementation The cost estimates for implementation actions are conservative planning-level estimates that will be refined once additional specifics have been determined. The ESJGWA Plan Implementation Ad-Hoc Committee has been convened for this purpose and is meeting on an approximately weekly basis to actively identify next steps and form recommendations that will allow for refinement in GSP implementation cost estimates. 182 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Cross Section B-B' Elevation scale is shown to vary from 2500' to 0' [msl]. The correct elevation range should be 900' msl, based on Figure 22, to a deep negative elevation. Mechanics - Graphics The level of detail in the GSP is appropriate for a conceptual model of the Subbasin. The image resolution of the cross-sections was increased to help with zooming in on small areas. 183 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figures 29a to 29f: Cross Sections
The upper limits of the elevation scale vary from 1800' to 3000'. The correct elevation range should be 900' msl, based on Figure 22, to a deep negative elevation. Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted. The model report was finalized in August 2018 and was included as an appendix in the GSP to provide an explanation of the development and calibration of the historical model. The model documentation will be updated as updates to the model are made in the future. 17 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 184 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figures 29a: Cross Section
Section A-A' is located somewhat north of GSP Section A-A'. The GSP section shows the sedimentary formations thinning eastward on top of bedrock. Whereas, the model section shows over 1000 feet of sediments along the eastern boundary of the model. This extra thickness in the model provides additional groundwater storage which could contribute to a false sense of sustainability.

Model Uncertainties
Sustainability is measured through field monitoring and comparison with minimum thresholds, allowing for identification of sustainable conditions. The current model thickness is consistent with the DWR’s C2VSim model and is an area for enhancement in model refinements. New monitoring wells shown in Figure 4-3 in Section 4.71 (Plan to Fill Data Gaps) will help refine the model thickness through new information about the aquifer on the eastern side of the Subbasin. Comment noted for follow up in next round of model refinements and updates. 185 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

2.9Model Layering
Layer 1 thickness ranges from 34 to 966 feet and Layer 2 thickness ranges from 50 to 540 feet. Layer 1 is thickest within the north-central and along the eastern boundary, and the latter condition seems unusual and is not explained by the report. Layer 2 is thickest within the south-central area and this condition seems reasonable.

Clarifying Edit Comment noted. The model report was finalized in August 2018 and was included as an appendix in the GSP to provide an explanation of the development and calibration of the historical model. The model documentation will be updated as updates to the model are made in the future. 186 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin Figure 23: Layer 1 Thickness&Figure 24: Layer 2 Thickness The thickness of Layer 1 is divided into five categories but the range of the first and last categories are significantly different from the middle 3 categories. The span of the first category is 196 feet and the last category is 520 feet, compared to the 60-foot spans of the middle categories. For comparison, the thickness of Layer 2 is divided into six categories with spans between 60 and 90 feet (average: 73 feet). These large differences within Layer 1 contribute to the uncertainty in the model output.

Clarifying Edit Comment noted. The model report was finalized in August 2018 and was included as an appendix in the GSP to provide an explanation of the development and calibration of the historical model. The model documentation will be updated as updates to the model are made in the future. 187 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

3.3.2Groundwater Pumping
City of Galt is located along the northern boundary of the subbasin and produces groundwater for its customers. The model should acknowledge and include the City's groundwater production. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. The model report was finalized in August 2018 and was included as an appendix in the GSP to provide an explanation of the development and calibration of the historical model. The model documentation will be updated as updates to the model are made in the future. 188 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin

4.7Final Calibration Parameters
Why does the Corcoran Clay vertical K values apply to Layers 3 and 4 when the aquitard is situated between Layers 1 and 2? Clarifying Edit Comment noted. The model report was finalized in August 2018 and was included as an appendix in the GSP to provide an explanation of the development and calibration of the historical model. The model documentation will be updated as updates to the model are made in the future. 189 Rodney Fricke
GEI on behalf of Sacramento County GSA - Cosumnes Subbasin The GWA Board adopted a preliminary schedule for project implementation. Project implementation is scheduled to begin in 2020, with full sustainability implementation by 2040. Mechanics - Text Comment noted. Sentence is discussing that full project implementation will be by 2040 (also when sustainability will be achieved). 190 Grace Su EBMUD 2.1.1.1 The text says that a large number of wells do not have construction depth or screen interval information. Were only the wells with construction information used to prepare the GW elevation contour maps for each principal aquifer? Clarifying Edit Comment noted. It is unclear what maps the commenter is referring to. The contour maps in Chapter 2 (Basin Setting) only relate to groundwater elevation information, which was available at wells even if construction information was not available. 191 Grace Su EBMUD 2.1.4.2
Please modify the discharge values from Camanche Reservoir discussed in the third and fourth sentence of this paragraph. Releases from the Camanche Reservoir could be as low as 100 cfs during critically dry years and up to 5,000 cfs during the wet season. Since the Camanche Dam was completed in 1964, the maximum daily release from the Camanche Reservoir has not exceeded 5,000 cfs. The Mokelumne River flows recorded below Camanche Dam prior to 1964 are not representative of flows observed after the dam was built.

Clarifying Edit
Edited text in Section 2.1.4.2 (Major Hydraulic Features) to correct maximum and minimum Camache Reservoir releases: Flow in the Mokelumne River below the Camanche Reservoir varies seasonally and is dependent on discharges from the on-stream reservoir, from less than 200 AF/day during the dry season to 9,900 AF/day during the wet season. These flows correlate to discharges from as low as 100 to no more than 5,000 cfs collected by the USGS below the Camanche Dam.
192 Grace Su EBMUD 2.1.9.2.1 What is the basis for the statement that the horizontal hydraulic conductivity values in the model are considered low? If the conductivities are higher, what implications would that have on the results? Clarifying Edit Higher hydraulic conductivities in ESJWRM would have significant impact on the movement of groundwater in the Subbasin. Hydraulic conductivities will be further evaluated as the model is updated in the future. Edited text in Section 2.1.9.2.1 (Aquifer Parameters and Production Zone Well Capacities) to remove portion of sentence with the comment that horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the model is considered low. 193 Grace Su EBMUD 6.2.5.3 Please change "will" to "may" in this sentence: The longer term project may use the same concept… Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 194 Grace Su EBMUD 6.2.5.3 EBMUD is requesting that this sentence be removed as it does not accurately reflect the terms of the existing Agreement. Clarifying Edit Comment addressed in text. 195 Grace Su EBMUD 7.4.1 EBMUD would like to be informed as the Mokelumne River Loss Study Project moves forward and is interested in being a participant and in providing technical input. Projects and Management Actions This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 196 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Introduction, Paragraph 2 "Is comprised of" misrepresents the meaning of "comprise." Preferable: "The GWA is composed of 15 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies" or the "The GWA comprises 15 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies." The same is true for the other two uses of "comprise" in this paragraph. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 197 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Introduction, Paragraph 2 SGMA wanted to see an advisory group that included a wide range of stakeholders. This was not supposed to be just outreach to stakeholders to tell them what was being decided. Maybe you want to mention at the end of this paragraph that "Some input from the Sustainability Workgroup (described below) has also been incorporated into the GSP." Outreach Added to ES-3 (Outreach Efforts): from the Workgroup was presented to the ESJGWA Board and has also been incorporated into the GSP.198 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-2 Bulletin 118 and updated--Do you mean "as" updated? Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.199 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-3 Please delete "all" in the first sentence. The stakeholder engagement strategy is far from inclusive. Also, mention that this is a 24-member Workgroup. Clarifying Edit Edits made. Groundwater Sustainability Workgroup is 23 members. 200 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-4 On the third line, please insert "the" before "San Joaquin River." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.201 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-5 The last sentence in this paragraph seems unnecessarily vague. What effects has the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (note correct name for the Delta) had on groundwater levels in the Subbasin? What surface water has been imported for in-lieu use? Clarifying Edit Edited text in ES-5 (Existing Groundwater Conditions): The western and southern portions of the Subbasin have experienced less change in groundwater levels, in part due to the minimal groundwater pumping in the Delta area to the west and the import of surface water for agricultural and urban uses. 202 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-5 "Concerns" and "maximum" misspelled. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.203 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-5 In the last sentence, "have not been able to be tied"--SOMEONE's analysis has not tied elevated concentrations of other constituents to groundwater management activities. I think the water quality argument will be vulnerable here, and it would be best to mention from the beginning whatever data or prior analysis you have to support this assertion. Groundwater Quality Language was added to ES-5: Existing Groundwater Conditions stating: The GSP establishes ongoing monitoring of salinity, arsenic, nitrate, and a number of other common water quality constituents to fill data gaps and identify potential trends of concern. 204 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-5 Need to correct spelling of "volume" and "concern" in the last sentence of the paragraph. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.205 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-5 The Delta is properly referred to as "the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta." (Do a search of this for the whole document.) Also, third line, "alternations to," do you mean "alterations to"? Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 206 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-6 The prior bulleted list is preceded by a statement with a colon. The bulleted item here isn't part of a list. This statement could be made part of the paragraph. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.207 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-7 Reading that the annual groundwater overdraft is projected to increase to approximately 57,000 AF/year with climate change is likely to send the reader back to find out what the current overdraft is, but I don't see that number above, only a statement that the Subbasin has been overdraft for many years. For comparison purposes, provide an average or range of current overdraft. Also, briefly, what is it about climate change that will lead to greater overdraft? Clarifying Edit Edited text in ES-7 (Water Budgets) to clarify climate change analysis: The projected Subbasin water budget was also evaluated under climate change conditions, which simulate higher demand requiring increased groundwater pumping despite more precipitation and streamflows. The climate change scenario used for the analysis was the 2070 central tendency climate change scenario prescribed by DWR. The overdraft modeled under climate change conditions is simulated to increase above projected conditions without climate change. 208 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-8, next to Figure ES-6 Line 5, delete "from" before "participating GSA." It isn't necessary. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.209 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure ES-6 This map needs a legend for what kinds of wells the different shapes represent. Mechanics - Graphics Figure represents total pumping by all types of wells. Comment addressed in text. 18 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 210 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-9 After the link, you might tell the reader to use the Guest login. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. There is a "Guest Login" button at the DMS link.211 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-10 "modification of levels of pumping reduction" is confusing. You could just say, "These additional evaluations may lead to pumping modifications associated with the attainment of reliability." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.212 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-10 Delete "several," which suggests a small number. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.213 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-10 "The initial set of projects WAS reviewed" or "The projects WERE reviewed" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.214 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-10 "Planned projects are anticipated to provide enough water to offset the projected 2040 supply imbalance of ______ AFY." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 215 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant ES-12 It isn't clear how the two bulleted points ("Developing" and "Evaluation") relate to the paragraph that introduces them. Also, "Evaluating" would be the correct parallel to "Developing." Clarifying Edit Deleted bulleted points as not relevant to the surrounding text. 216 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.1.1 Introduce the earlier GBA here to distinguish it from the GSA. There was initial confusion; also, the GBA was responsible for much of the prior planning effort, and you will reference it at 1.1.4.3. ". . . fits in with these prior planning efforts, including the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Authority (GBA), building on existing local management. . . ." Clarifying Edit Comment noted.217 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.1.4 Change 15 to 16 for number of GSAs and add back in Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.218 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant In the second sentence, the references to "currently" and "in 2010" in the same sentence are confusing. "The District provides water and wastewater service to approximately 3,200 residents (as of 2010) in the unincorporated…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 219 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant "to meet domestic and industrial needs in the City"--which City? Both the City of Escalon and the City of Tracy are named in this sentence. Clarifying Edit Edited text in Section 1.1.4.3 (Description of Participating Agencies): The City of Escalon is selling its allotment of treated water to the City of Tracy but intends to construct a pipeline to convey SSJID water to meet domestic and industrial needs in the City of Escalon (SSJID, 2015b). 220 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Delete "with" before "overlaps." "The SEWD GSA covers 101,000 acres of the District"--meaning unclear. Is this 101,000 acres that are not part of another GSA? Insert "is" between "and" and "provided" at the end of the third line. Last line--"...two efforts preceding the current GWA that focused..." Mechanics - Text Edits made to text to clarify SEWD acreage.221 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Add back Woodbridge Irrigation District. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 222 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant I believe that Thornton should be added as an unincorporated community. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.223 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.1.1 "…within the region that includes the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin." (Only one of these state parks is actually in the Subbasin.) Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.224 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.1.5 On the first reference to the ESJWRM, write out "Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model" so that the reader doesn't have to refer to the list of acronyms. This is a fairly important model not mentioned earlier. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.225 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.7.4 "with sufficient accuracy"--sufficient for what? This is extremely vague. If you can without misrepresentation, stop this point after "customers". Otherwise, clarify. Clarifying Edit Language of "with sufficient accuracy" came from California Water Code §10608.48(b). Edited text in Section 1.2.2.7.4 (Agricultural Water Management Plans) to clarify: Measure the volume of water delivered to customers with sufficient accuracy to comply with requirements of the California Water Code (CWC). 226 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.8 No pipelines? At the top of the next page, we learn that OID has over time replaced unlined laterals with PVC pipelines. Clarifying Edit Edited text in Section 1.2.2.8 (Canal Diversions and Seepage): All of the major irrigation districts utilize a combination of natural watercourses, canals, and pipelines to distribute surface water diversions to their customers. 227 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.8 "105 miles are inconsistent"--meaning unclear. Please clarify. Clarifying Edit Edited text in Section 1.2.2.8 (Canal Diversions and Seepage): While the entire lateral system historically consisted of open, unlined ditches, 100 miles of the laterals have been converted to pipelines; 105 miles are open, concrete-lined ditches; and the rest remain unlined. 228 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.9 "…for a total recharge volume of about 65,000 AF since the inception of the project." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.229 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.3.1.1 Sources are provided for all the other plan information in this section. What is the source of information for the San Joaquin County General Plan? Would it be appropriate to move "(SJC, 2016b)" to the end of this sections as "(San Joaquin County, 2016b)"? And what does "b" refer to? Mechanics - Text Moved reference to San Joaquin County General Plan (SJC, 2016b) to end of section as commenter suggested. 230 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.3.1.8 "may have to abandon a large number of wells as sources of potable water due to contamination,…"--What kind of contamination? This is relevant to the Water Quality Sustainability Indicator. Groundwater Quality Language was added to indicate that this is a result of localized contamination. 231 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.3.5 This sentence says that there has been "at least one meeting". The next sentence refers to "these meetings." These statements need to be consistent. Mechanics - Text Edits made to text to clarify inter-basin coordination meetings. 232 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.1.4 End of 7th line, change "comprised" to "consisting." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.233 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant " Delete. This sentence is redundant. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.234 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.1.4.2 Change "15" to "16" and change "have" to "has"--"Each. . .has a voice. . .and has appointed". Correct parallelism of bulleted list: Approving budgets, Proposing guidance, Adopting rules, Approving any contracts, Reporting to, Approving and implementing a GSP. For second bulleted list, Recommending for both bullets. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 235 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.1.4.3 Add (CDWA) after the agency name to conform to the style for the other agencies. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.236 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Delete "comprised of"--"Eastside San Joaquin GSA is a partnership…." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.237 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Second to last line, insert "the" before "Calaveras River". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.238 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant First line, substitute "and" for "that"--"and extends…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.239 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Change "is comprised of" to "consists of" or "comprises." For a correct usage of "comprise," see the OID description directly above this entry. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.240 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant "Almost 7,000 acres of San Joaquin County plus Cal Water are combined in San Joaquin County No. 2 GSA." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.241 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Substitute "encompass" (as in the SDWA description) for "is comprised of." "Comprise" is not the most accurate word to use in the first bulleted paragraph below. Better: "The cities of Manteca, Ripon, and Escalon account for approximately 20,000 acres of the District area." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.242 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Substitute "on" for "to"--"Exercise the powers conferred on GSAs by SGMA." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.243 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2 For consistency: add (DWR) after Department of Water Resources; insert Water Data Library before (WDL), add (CV-SALTS) after Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability. Also, for Dairy CARES--Cares is apparently not an acronym. The correct term is Dairy Cares. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.244 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.2.3 Remove the "s" from "creates." The subject/verb agreement is "differences…create". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.245 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.2.6 Change "off" to "on"--"was developed based on a detailed water quality analysis…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.246 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.8 Substitute "the entire lateral system historically consisted of open, unlined ditches" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 247 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.8 Second paragraph on the page, 3rd line, substitute "estimated" for "considered." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 19 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 248 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.9 Delete the second "Figure 1-16" in the first sentence, at the end. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.249 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.2.9 Add" has"--"Since 2003, SEWD has operated…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.250 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.3.1.1 Change this to "Stakeholder input informed…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.251 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.3.1.5 Insert "input from"--"...the 1991 General Plan was informed by input from community members…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.252 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.2.3.1.5 Dangling modifier--the General Plan is not the primary source of water supply. But also, groundwater is no longer the primary source of water supply for Lodi, which now gets about 50% of its water most of the time from surface supplies through an agreement with WID. Delete the phrase "As the primary source of water supply for the City of Lodi" and begin the sentence with "The General Plan..." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 253 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.3.1 Delete "of" after "hold." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.254 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.3.4.2 Delete "relied" and insert "the Workgroup"--"…to promote stakeholder input and relied upon the Workgroup when developing…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.255 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.3.4.2 Delete "and"--"members from a variety of organizations who represent one or more…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.256 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.3.4.3 Two sentences have been telescoped here. Change to "detailing a stakeholder engagement strategy developed to achieve…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.257 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.3.4.4 There were no prior GWA engagement efforts (because there was no prior GWA). For "GWA", substitute "Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin engagement efforts…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.258 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 1.3.4.5 Delete the apostrophe in "Manufacturers." They don't use it. The name style in Table 1-4 is correct. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.259 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.4.3 "…restricted to metamorphic or pre-Tertiary sedimentary material and that, whereas…" Something is missing here; "that" doesn't make sense in this context. Clarifying Edit Removed "that, whereas" from sentence in Section 2.1.4.3: These soils tend to be darker and heavier than the Stanislaus and Mokelumne River fan soils likely due to the source area being restricted to metamorphic or pre-Tertiary sedimentary material and the Mokelumne and Stanislaus Rivers received large contributions from a granitic source (CA DWR 1967). 260 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.4.3 "Pre-Modesto formations" are mentioned here, but I didn't see those defined earlier, and the Geologic Time Scale in Figure 2-5 appears not to be designed to include them. They are referenced again in Section 2.1.4.5.1. "During the Pleistocene Epoch when the Modesto and Riverbank formations were deposited..." Can you provide a second Time Scale showing more detail for the Pleistocene? Basin Setting The pre-Modesto formation is earlier in the Pliocene era, as seen in Table 2-2. The geologic time scale in Figure 2-5 is sufficient for the purposes of the discussion in the GSP. 261 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.5 This paragraph refers the reader to Figure 2-15 and also refers to "the Central Valley geomorphic province and the granitic Sierra Nevada Geomorphic province." However, neither of these provinces is identified in Figure 2-15. Also, it would be helpful to have Figure 2-15 on the same page as this discussion. Mechanics - Graphics Comment addressed in text. 262 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.5 The sentence refers to the Mehrten and Laguna formations, but these have not been introduced earlier, so the reader has no context in which to place them. As with the Pre-Modesto and Riverbank formations mentioned in 2.1.4.3 and 2.1.4.5.1, a geologic time scale should be provided. Clarifying Edit A geologic time scale is included as Figure 2-5. A stratigraphic column is included that associates the time scale with the names and characteristics of each formation, as Table 2-2. Figure 2-5 and Table 2-2 are introduced in Section 2.1.2. 263 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-2 This footnote says that "Figure 2-5 contains time scales corresponding to formations." It does not. As noted above, the time scale needs more detail for local formations for the Tertiary and Quaternary periods. Mechanics - Text Comment noted. The level of detail in Figure 2-5, along with the text descriptions of the formations is sufficient. 264 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-2 The table says that the Eocene is "Unimportant to fresh water basin except as possible contaminant source." Is saline water the only contaminant, or are there other possible contaminants? Any mention of contaminants is likely to be a red flag relative to groundwater quality discussions. Clarifying Edit Removed in response to comment. 265 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.5.1.1 and 2.1.5.1.2 Again, if a figure like 2-5 is going to be provided, it should include all the formations referenced in the text. Mechanics - Graphics This figure is a geologic timescale meant to serve as a reference for the reader. Only those time periods relevant to the formations in the subbasin are referenced in the text. 266 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.5.1.3 It appears that these local formations are spatial rather than (or in addition to) temporal. Figure 2-16 is intended to show these formations, but it is VERY hard to read, with excessive grid detail that doesn't appear to be relevant to showing the major formations. Mechanics - Graphics This figure is a geologic map that is georeferenced from the references noted at the bottom. The figure was reimported into the document at a higher resolution. 267 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.5.1.4 Need different visuals for all formations listed under 2.1.5.1 Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted for consideration in updates to the GSP. It is beyond the scope of the GSP required by SGMA. 268 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.6 This sentence concludes with "for the east side of the Great Valley." "Great Valley" is not a term that has been used in this document previously, and it is not a commonly used term in this state. In fact, it isn't clear what it means. Does it refer to California's Central Valley? To the San Joaquin Valley? Clarifying Edit Term was clarified in the text. 269 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.7 This sentence, at the top of page 2-38, says that water wells and oil and gas wells are "indicated by an asterisk on the cross-sections." The asterisks are completely illegible. In fact, the cross-sections are impossible to read. Mechanics - Graphics Figures were reimported at a higher resolution. 270 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.7 The sentence at the bottom of the second paragraph on page 2-38 says, "The analysis inferred formation contracts in place where this data was limited..." Can you explain what "formation contracts" are? Or do you mean that the formation contracts (decreases in size)? Clarifying Edit This comment points out a typo in the text as written. Comment addressed in text. 271 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.1.4 The sentence refers to the condition of the Corcoran Clay "as depicted on Figure 2-22", but it is very hard to discern anything in Figure 2-22. Mechanics - Graphics This figure was reimported into the document at a higher resolution. Cross-sections were developed to represent the basin scale and not intended to provide specific information on individual well level stratigraphy. 272 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-3 Since there is no list of definitions, define "Aquifer Field" in the text or in a footnote to this table. Mechanics - Text Edited heading for Table 2-3 to remove reference to aquifer field. 273 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.1 "The natural geochemical effects on water quality result to mobilize the elemental makeup of sediments"--meaning unclear. Please rephrase to clarify. Mechanics - Text Edited text to clarify: The natural geochemical effects on water quality release the elemental makeup of sediments (i.e., metals and other ions). 274 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.1 This sentence sounds awkward and unnecessarily legalistic, and it doesn't clearly apply to the rest of the section. That is, it isn't clear that the two lists that follow are intended to summarize the general water quality of principal aquifers; that seems to be covered in the next sections. Can you say this? "General water quality of principal aquifers is summarized in the following sections, as required by 23 CCR ...." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 275 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.1 The sentence says that nitrate (should be lower case) "is well understood as a result of fertilizer application". Actually, nitrate is well understood as a result of studies of the consequences of its agricultural use in fertilizer application. The following sentence says that "Naturally occurring nitrogen must also be discussed to have a complete understanding of the natural conditions" in the Subbasin. A better transition: "Nitrogen also occurs naturally in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Extensive work..." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 276 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.2 Suggested rewrite for easier reading: "Evaluating the historical trends of these parameters is not straightforward. GAMA records include some groundwater quality results for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin going back to the 1940s. However, a thorough analysis requires a large amount of data on all the major cations and anions mentioned above. A large number of measurements of this kind were taken from 2005 to 2017, as shown in Figure 2-27. Data from 2018 are not included because at the time of writing, that data was incomplete." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.
277 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.2 Delete "a better idea" and just say "an idea," since there is not actually any other idea for "better" to refer to. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 278 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.2 Regarding the Trilinear Diagrams, is it customary to present these without a legend for the symbols? Mechanics - Graphics Comment addressed in text. 279 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2 "e" in "The" should not be boldfaced. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 280 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.2 Delete "is comprised of" and substitute "consists of". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 281 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.2 Add "s" to "source" for correct subject/verb agreement, and add "the" before Sierra Nevada"--"The material sources…are the Coastal Ranges and the Sierra Nevada…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 282 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.3 Changes "vary" to "varies" for correct subject/verb agreement--"The origin…varies in geologic time…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 283 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.4.1 Change "and" to "to"--"Ground surface elevations vary…from almost 1,000 feet…to around sea level…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 20 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 284 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.4.2 Add "the" before both "Stanislaus River" and "Mokelumne River". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.285 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.4.2 Delete "the" before "10 watersheds". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.286 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.4.3 Change "Figure 3-9" to "Figure 2-9". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.287 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.4.4 Add "the" before "Stanislaus River". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.288 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.5 Lower case "f" in "Mehrten and Laguna formations" and "Riverbank and Modesto formations." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.289 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.5.1.6 Substitute "consists" for "as consisting." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.290 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-18 Add "Water" to title--"Base of Fresh Water Elevation Contours and Stockton Fault" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 291 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9 First bullet--"Shallow Zone that consists of" (replace "is comprised of"); Second bullet--"Intermediate Zone that consists of" (replace "is comprised of"). The third bullet is already correct. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.292 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.1 Insert "of" after "depth" in each case--"Depth of discrete layers…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.293 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.1.1 Insert "and" after "geologic formations"--"…are present west of the older geologic formations and extend across…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.294 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.1.1 "gpd/ft"--gallons per day per foot? "gpd" is not on the list of acronyms. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.295 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.1.4 Substitute "have" for "has"--"…thickest sequences…and overbank fines…have been observed." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.296 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2 Change "Recognition of" to "Recognizing" so that this bullet point reads like a sentence, as the others to. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.297 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.1 Replace "comprised of" with "encompassing." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.298 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.1 Change "are" to "is"--"The distribution…is provided…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.299 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.1 Replace "which encompasses" with "which includes." In the next sentence, change "is" to "are" for correct subject/verb agreement--"natural geochemical effects" is the subject of this clause. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.300 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.1 Delete "also" between "rocks" and "have". There is no other condition to which this clearly refers. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.301 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.1 "…is characterized by Metzger and others in a 2012 study, Test Drilling…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.302 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.1 Insert "is" between "and" and "hazardous"--"…is naturally occurring..and is hazardous…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.303 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.9.2.3.1 Write out San Joaquin County instead of using SJC. (It is nice not to expect the reader to refer to the acronym list for everything.) Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.304 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.1.10 "actions" should be plural--"…"a significant impact on how projects and management actions in one part of the basin…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.305 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.3 This section misrepresents the situation in the Delta by suggesting that barriers have been installed to prevent seawater intrusion. No barriers prevent the inland movement of seawater into the Delta; it does occur, and managing it is an ongoing challenge. If you need a reference, I can provide one. Correction: "While the Delta ecosystem evolved with a natural salinity cycle that brought brackish tidal water in from San Francisco Bay, levees installed to allow development of agriculture, followed by development and operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, have altered the inward movement of seawater through the Delta. Current management practices endeavor to maintain freshwater flows through a combination of hydraulic and physical barriers, and alterations to existing channels." Change "alternations" to "alterations of existing channels". I don't see the Water Education Foundation listed under References. Also, in the last sentence in this paragraph, delete "sources" and change "are" to "is"--"...salinity in the Subbasin is due to other factors..." Clarifying Edit
Edited text in Section 2.2.3 (Seawater Intrusion) to remove reference to barriers in the Delta preventing seawater intrusion and based on other commenter suggestions: While the Delta ecosystem evolved with a natural salinity cycle that brought brackish tidal water in from the San Francisco Bay, levees installed to allow development of agriculture, followed by development and operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, have altered the inward movement of seawater through the Delta. Current management practices endeavor to maintain freshwater flows through a combination of hydraulic and physical barriers and alterations to existing channels (Water Education Foundation). Portions of the Subbasin do, however, experience water quality issues related to salinity, which are addressed under the water quality section (Section 2.2.4.1). As described in Section 2.2.4.1, salinity in the Subbasin is due to other factors and are not the result of seawater intrusion. Citation for Water Education Foundation reference added in the text. 306 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.1.1 The sentence says that additional measurements above 250 mg/L are scattered throughout SJC (I would just write out San Joaquin County), but the figure does not show any measurements outside the Subbasin. Mechanics - Text To be consistent with the extent of data shown Figure 2-52, deleted portion of sentence mentioning measurements in the remainder of San Joaquin County. 307 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.4.1 This sentence says that groundwater monitoring and evaluation has resulted in removal of contaminant sources and implementation of remedial activities. That isn't something that just monitoring can do. When groundwater monitoring and evaluation identified point source locations for contamination, the City of Lodi initiated remedial activities. Mechanics - Text Edited text to clarify meaning: Since the discovery of these plumes in the 1980s, groundwater monitoring and evaluation at point source locations has led to the implementation of remedial activities such as the installation of groundwater extraction and remedial systems, implementation of a Salinity Reduction Plan, and mandated WDRs (RWQCB, 2012). 308 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.4.1 This entire section appears to contradict the claim in 2.2.4.4 that point source contamination has not been found to be related to groundwater management activities in the Subbasin. Broadly, for ALL similar statements (for example at 2.2.4.2 and 2.2.4.3), there needs to be a clear explanation of what "related to groundwater management activities" actually means. Groundwater Quality See Master Response 3 - WQ. 309 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.4.2 This sentence says that sites are doing investigation and remediation. The same statement is made in 2.2.4.4.3 and 2.2.4.4.4 . What is meant by sites? WHO is doing the investigation and remediation? Is this the responsibility of site owners? The RWQCB? Please name an agent or agents for these activities. Clarifying Edit Sites include individual areas with active, potential, or past contamination issues found in the RWQCB's GeoTracker or DTSC's EnviroStor databases. The responsible party for the site is usually the owner or operator who may be responsible for cleanup of the site. More information is available online regarding GeoTracker and EnviroStor 310 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.1.1 Replace "with" with "that have"--"10 wells that have periods…and that are relatively…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.311 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-35 Delete comma after "line". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 312 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.1.2 Substitute "to" for "and" in this clause--"…the lateral gradient ranges from approximately 21 ft/mi...to 16 ft/mi…" A range is always "from x…to y" (or "is between x and y"). Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.313 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4 Constituents "are related to..." or "relate to…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.314 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.1 IMPORTANT: There is no San Joaquin Delta, at least not in California. The San Joaquin River and the Sacramento River meet to form the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. That is the correct name. I recommend doing Find for the whole GSP document to be sure that all of these uses of the name are correct. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.315 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.1 "Emplace" means to put into position. Suggested revision: "Evaporation of groundwater in discharge areas introduces naturally occurring soluble salts into Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta sediments." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.316 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.1 Comma after second "aquifer"--"This results in a saline aquifer underlying the freshwater aquifer, and well pumping can result…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.317 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.1.1 Change "have" to "has" in the last line--"…the number of measurements…has decreased…" (It is the number, not the measurements, that has decreased.) Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.318 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.2 Write out "San Joaquin County" here, since it is part of the name of the Coalition. Otherwise, it sounds like SJC and the Delta Water Quality Coalition are two separate entities. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 21 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 319 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.4.1 Delete "and" after "closure" and insert a comma--"…now has regulatory closure, with cleanup moving…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 320 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.4.2 Substitute "At" for "Of"--"At these sites, petroleum hydrocarbon constituents…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.321 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.4.3 Substitute "At" for "Of"--"At these sites, pesticides…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.322 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.4.4.4 Substitute "At" for "Of"--"At these sites, the most common constituents…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.323 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.5 Revise this sentence as follows: "There are no historical records of significant and unreasonable impacts from subsidence in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 324 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.8 Revise this sentence as follows: "A working group consisting of DWR, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Nature Conservancy (TNC) developed the NCCAG database by reviewing publicly available state and federal agency datasets…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 325 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.8 Typo: Should be "The Plan identifies GDEs as NCCAG-identified areas that meet all of the criteria below." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.326 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.8 Comma needed after "region" to prevent misreading, plus "s" on "plant"--"Oak trees are considered the deepest-rooted plants in the region, with a root zone…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.327 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.2.8 Add "to be"--"…are assumed to be unable to access…and to be dependent on…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.328 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.1 The relationship between these two ideas is not causal but coordinate. Revision: "This process is new and has been developed under time constraints; the water budget assumptions will be refined in the future…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.329 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.4.2 "Therefore, groundwater pumping to meet agricultural and rural residential needs is calculated by the model based on meeting remaining demands after appropriate surface water delivery is made to respective areas." Please explain what is meant by "appropriate surface water delivery" and which areas are "respective" (and of what they are respective). Clarifying Edit Edited text in 2.3.4.2 and 2.3.4.2: Therefore, groundwater pumping to meet agricultural and rural residential needs is calculated by the model based on meeting remaining demands after surface water deliveries are made. 330 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5 Do you want to add "including urban runoff" to the third bullet? Urban runoff is discussed in detail in Footnote 5 of Table 2-13. Clarifying Edit Runoff to the stream system is only due to precipitation. The note in Table 2-13 focuses on urban areas, they are the largest contributor to runoff as there is more rainwater runoff from paved areas as opposed to areas with soil. Clarified this in note 5 on Table 2-13. 331 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-13 To begin with, please put the table and the footnotes on facing pages. The Hydrologic Period row should show parallel information: For Historical: Water Years 1996-2015 (20-Year Period); for Current: Water Years 1969-2018 (50-Year Period); for Projected, Water Years 1969-2018 (50-Year Period). Without this information, it is hard to fairly evaluate the table in general and Footnote 1 in particular. In Footnote 5, "The historical calibration, with both less precipitation and smaller urban areas..."--since this represents a yearly average, explain why there is less precipitation. Finally, if surface water is diverted from one part of the Subbasin and delivered to another part of the Subbasin, does that show up somewhere here? Does that warrant a footnote? Mechanics - Graphics
1) Edited hydrologic period rows as suggested by commenter. 2) Clarified note 5 in Table 2-13 to describe why the historical simulation has less average rainfall: The historical calibration, with both less precipitation (due to more dry years than wet in the 20-year period) and smaller urban areas, has a corresponding smaller runoff. 3) For a subbasin-wide water budget, there is no distinction in where surface water is diverted from versus delivered to. For the purposes of the stream system balance, the only concern is how much surface water was taken off of streams within the Subbasin. 332 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-14 Same comments as for Table 2-13 with respect to headings and footnotes. Mechanics - Graphics Edited hydrologic period rows as suggested by commenter. 333 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-15 Same comments as for Table 2-13 with respect to headings and footnotes. Also, footnote 1 says that differences in scenarios are related partly to "differences in the infiltration parameters related to land use." This need to be explained. Also, please provide a footnote explaining why no South American Subbasin outflows are shown. Mechanics - Graphics 1) Edited hydrologic period rows as suggested by commenter. 2) Clarified description of deep percolation in note 1 in Table 2-15: Deep percolation is the amount of infiltrated water ultimately reaching the groundwater aquifer. The source of the water may be from precipitation, as well as either applied surface water or groundwater used for agricultural or urban and industrial purposes. Differences between scenarios are related to differences between these sources of water and differences in urban versus agricultural land use totals. 3) Added note 8 to Table 2-13 and note 11 to Table 2-15: Values smaller than 500 AF/year are represented by a dash (-). 334 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-15 Footnote 4 refers to MAR projects. I'm pretty sure those weren't mentioned earlier in the document. Section 2.3.4.3 would be a logical place to do that. Mechanics - Text A section was added to Chapter 6 to discuss Flood-MAR. 335 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-72 Labels on the bar graph should correspond to the discussion in the text above the graph. Thus, the right-hand bar, for Inflow (and these are actually Surface Water Inflows), would show "Upstream Reservoir Releases" or "Reservoir Releases" rather than "Stream Inflows" for the green section (the source of the majority of inflows). The orange section of the bar would be "Runoff of Precipitation." The yellow section would be "Return Flow of Applied Water." Another color needs to be used for "Stream Gains from Groundwater," as this is MUCH too dark to read. For the Outflow bar, the gray section should be labeled "Downstream Outflows," or better, "San Joaquin River and Mokelumne River Outflows," as in Figure 2-78. The light blue section is "Stream Seepage to Groundwater." Where are "Surface Water Diversions"? Mechanics - Graphics Dark colors were made lighter. Labeling is consistent with DWR's Water Budget Best Management Practice. 336 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5.1, 2.3.5.2, 2.3.5.4 (Should 2.3.5.4 actually be 2.3.5.3?) For ALL the water budget figures, I encourage using a scale for Average Annual Volume that is the same for all hydrologic periods and all systems. This will be inconvenient in terms of document spacing, but it will convey much more clearly the water budget situation across scenarios and will improve the credibility of the document. It is not usually the intention to mislead with this kind of graphic presentation, but that is frequently the effect. Mechanics - Graphics Scales have been changed to be consistent within scenarios for each of the stream, land surface, and groundwater system figures. 337 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-73 Inflow categories in the bar graph correspond to the descriptions in the text except that "Total" is not necessary for either Surface or Groundwater Supply. The dark blue background, both here and in subsequent Land Surface System figures, makes the text too hard to read and should be lightened. For Outflow, the orange area should be "Surface Runoff of Precipitation," and the yellow area should be "Return Flow of Applied Water." Mechanics - Graphics Dark background was made lighter. Labeling is consistent with DWR's Water Budget Best Management Practice. 338 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-74 Inflow categories in the bar graph correspond to descriptions, except that "Change in Groundwater Storage" is misleading. This is actually a deficit and should be identified that way, and a number could be put on it in the text , which just says "…the inflows do not meet the entire groundwater demand." The amount of the deficit is listed in the text for the current average (on page 2-129) and for the projected average (on page 2-132). Alternatively, you could omit that category from the bar graph and show that the Inflow bar is actually lower than the outflow bar. This would be an honest representation of the situation. Tucking the gray bar in the middle appears deceptive. For the Outflow bar, the orange section should be "subsurface Outflow to Neighboring Basins." Mechanics - Graphics The description of "change in groundwater storage" is consistent with DWR's Water Budget Best Management Practice. 339 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-75 See Comment #9 for Figure 2-72. Labels should be consistent between text and graph and across graphs. Also, keep Inflow discussion first, as in the prior discussion and to align with the fact that Inflows are shown in the left-hand bar. This will mean deleting "These" from the beginning of the paragraph directly above. Mechanics - Graphics Labeling is consistent with DWR's Water Budget Best Management Practice. 340 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-77 Again, don't bury "Change in Groundwater Storage" in the middle. Call it a deficit, and show it at the top of the bar. It is already identified in the text as 48,000 AF/year. Also, in the text, refer to groundwater use as "Groundwater pumping," as is done in the bar graph and also in the discussion on page 2-124. Using the word "production" looks like an attempt to disguise what is actually going on. Mechanics - Graphics The description of "change in groundwater storage" is consistent with DWR's Water Budget Best Management Practice. 341 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-78 As in Figure 2-72, the Inflow categories are "Reservoir Releases," "Runoff of Precipitation," "Return Flow of Applied Water", and "Stream Gains From Groundwater." Outflow categories are "San Joaquin River and Mokelumne River Outflows", "Stream Seepage to Groundwater", and "Riparian Intake from Streams." But again, surface water diversions are missing from the Outflow bar. The text mentions distribution to local growers of 370,000 AF/year. What about urban diversions? Mechanics - Graphics Labeling is consistent with DWR's Water Budget Best Management Practice. 342 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-79 See Comment #11 on Figure 2-73 for both Figure 2-76 and Figure 2-79. Mechanics - Graphics Dark background was made lighter. Labeling is consistent with DWR's Water Budget Best Management Practice. 343 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-80 and accompanying text Again, don't bury "Change in Groundwater Storage" in the middle, and do call it a Deficit. In the text, (first paragraph) use "groundwater pumping" instead of "groundwater production." Mechanics - Graphics The description of "change in groundwater storage" is consistent with DWR's Water Budget Best Management Practice. 344 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-17 Where do the numbers for the last row, "Change in Groundwater Storage" come from? They don't appear to arise from anything else in the table, where everything is in balance. Should that row be separated from the rest of the table? Clarifying Edit The change in groundwater storage is the difference between groundwater system inflows and outflows. It is a separate category and necessary to balance the groundwater water budget. In Table 2-17, added heading above row for "Change in Groundwater Storage" specifying a separate section for "Inflows Minus Outflows". 345 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.7.2 "…to ensure the resolution would be reasonable…"--What is meant by "resolution" in this context? Clarifying Edit Replaced "resolution" with "results" in text in Section 2.3.7.2 (DWR Guidance). 346 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-100 This title is misleading. Climate change will not produce more groundwater. The title should be "Simulated Changes in Groundwater Pumping due to Climate Change." Delete "production" from the Note. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 347 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-12 "Future evapotranspiration rates are assumed to remain the same as historical." Do you want to add any qualifying statement here about climate change? Clarifying Edit Added text to note 2 of Table 2-12: For the current and projected water budgets, future evapotranspiration rates are assumed to remain the same as historical. The impact of climate change on evapotranspiration is evaluated separately in Section 2.3.7. 22 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 348 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-12 Note that there's an error here for Reference source not found. Mechanics - Text Removed unlinked reference from text. 349 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.4.1 Change "was" to "were"--"…flow estimates…were used…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.350 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.4.1 To be consistent, write out all district names, or don't write out any of them. Also, "including" implies that not all entities are listed. If they are all listed, delete "including" and use a colon after "Subbasin." If you include acronyms after names (which is actually a good idea), put them in parentheses rather than brackets. Brackets are correctly used in the section above for parenthetical references within parentheses. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 351 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.4.3 Change "was" to "were"--"...projections…were estimated…" (The noun with which a verb grammatically agrees is frequently not the closest noun.) Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.352 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5 Fourth bullet, add "the" between "to" and "stream". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.353 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5 "are provided herein" sounds stiff and formal, which is not the tone of the document overall. Suggestion: "…scenarios are provided below, with results summarized in Table 2-13 and Table 2-15." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 354 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5.1 "…the water budget presented in Table 2-12…" Table 2-12 is a summary of water budget assumptions. It doesn't appear to be a water budget. Also, delete "of" between "estimates" and "contributions"--"…the water budget…not only quantifies…but also estimates..." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.355 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5.1 Delete "formerly" from this sentence. It is already clear that previous efforts have given a different estimate. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.356 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5.1 NSJCGBA is not on the list of acronyms, and I am not aware of such an entity. Does this refer to a groundwater management plan by the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority? ESJCGBA should be on the list of acronyms, as well as GBA. Mechanics - Text NSJCGBA stands for Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority, which is a previous groundwater management effort.357 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5.1 Sentence is awkward. Suggested revision: "The timing of these changes was often independent of hydrologic conditions…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.358 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-16 Footnote 6: Substitute "are" for "is"--"Differences…are more related…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.359 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-16 Footnote 3: Revise: "…averaging of the resulting agricultural demand is less a function of water year type than of the time in the simulation when that water year fell." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.360 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5.2 Substitute "consist of" for "are comprised of." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.361 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5.4 (This section should probably be 2.3.5.3.) Change "meets" to "meet" and delete the second "more of"--"…there is more precipitation and surface water to meet the water demand…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.362 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.5.4 Insert a comma between "averages" and "and"--"…to calculate meaningful averages, and the supplies and demands are…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 363 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.6 Delete "use of"--"…a range of assumptions (from high-end estimates to low-end estimates)…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 364 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 2-18 "Reference ET"--Use "Eto" as provided in the list of acronyms. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.365 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.7.3.1 HUC is not on the list of acronyms. Write out "Hydrologic Unit Code" here or include that in the acronyms. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.366 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.7.3.1.1 WY is not on the list of acronyms. Write out "Water Year" here or include that in the acronyms. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 367 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.7.3.1.1 This sentence is hard to read, but I think what is meant is "…the projected condition scenario and the with-climate-change scenario." Add the hyphens. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 368 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.7.3.1.2 Should be "Streamflows" (plural) to agree with "and those derived using…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.369 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.7.3.2 Insert "are" between "and" and "spatially"--"…are available on a monthly time step and are spatially defined…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.370 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.7.3.2.1 Words appear to be missing. "…were assumed to have a monthly precipitation…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.371 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 2.3.7.3.2.2 Change "are" to "is"--"Refinement…is shown…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.372 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.1 Define "planning and implementation horizon." Clarifying Edit Added text to Section 3.1 (Sustainability Goal) to define the planning and implementation horizon: The planning and implementation horizon includes a 20- year implementation period until 2040 where sustainability is achieved and a 50-year planning period where pumping is maintained within the sustainable yield. 373 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.1 Define "implementation period." Clarifying Edit Added text to Section 3.1 (Sustainability Goal) to define the planning and implementation horizon: The planning and implementation horizon includes a 20- year implementation period until 2040 where sustainability is achieved and a 50-year planning period where pumping is maintained within the sustainable yield. 374 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.2.1.2 Avoid using the passive voice to disguise a source of responsibility. WHO has estimated groundwater demand, and HOW? This information is central to the case we are making. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed through edits to text in response to another comment.375 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.3.1.1 "…so a nexus must be present between groundwater conditions and groundwater pumping activities." In plain English, what does this mean? Clarifying Edit Language was modified in Section 3.2.3.1.1 (Description of Undesirable Results (Degraded Water Quality) to indicate new monitoring efforts in the Subbasin that will occur as part of the Broad monitoring network for Water Quality) and to highlight coordination efforts with existing regulatory agencies to determine if existing regulatory requirements are met. Language stating no nexus was removed and replaced with language stating that new monitoring efforts and coordination with existing regulatory agencies will allow the GSAs to determine if groundwater pumping activities are contributing to undesirable effects related to degraded water quality. 376 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.3.1.2 "…and where these concentrations are the result of groundwater management activities." What kind of activities? How will we know? Clarifying Edit The ESJGWA supports the sustainable management criteria for degraded water quality. Groundwater management activities refer to non-natural sources of salinity, such as irrigation return water or movement of groundwater if due to groundwater pumping. 377 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.6.2 To avoid obscurity associated with use of the passive voice: "In discussions of interconnected surface water, the GWA Board, Advisory Committee, Workgroup members, and GSA staff did not indicate significant and unreasonable depletions, either currently or historically. Based on this input, this GSP assumes that historical conditions are protective of beneficial uses...." I suggest adding "however" at the beginning of the last sentence: "However, if groundwater levels were to fall lower than historical levels..." Regarding "qualified below", where? In the next paragraph? Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.
378 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.1.1 It is worth providing some representative dates for historical data available in this Subbasin, especially since it is noted later that CASGEM data goes back to 2009. Let's not miss any opportunity to note that groundwater conditions have been monitored in this Subbasin for quite a long time. Clarifying Edit 1) Comment noted. Groundwater level data discussed in Chapter 2 (Basin Setting). 2) Removed "since 2009" from Section 4.1.2 (Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Levels) as it was misleading and indicated that CASGEM only included measurements more recent than 2009: Of the 107 wells in the broad monitoring network, 76 wells included are wells used in CASGEM, a monitoring program that has tracked seasonal long-term groundwater elevation trends in the Subbasin.
379 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.3.1 "Wells with historically "low" TDS concentrations…" What does this mean? Why is "low" in quotation marks? Quotations marks are sometimes used this way when the writer wants to put distance between the implied meaning and the actual situation. That would be unwise in this case. Clarifying Edit Removed quotes around "low" in Section 4.3.1 (Representative Monitoring Network for Groundwater Quality). 380 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.3.1 and 4.3.4 Section 4.3.1 lists the City of Lodi as one of the agencies monitoring and managing wells for groundwater quality, but the City of Lodi is not shown in Table 4-5. The text should explain why not. Meanwhile, City of Lodi is listed in Table 4-7, but there is a footnote that TDS has not been regularly monitored at White Slough sites. Should this footnoted information appear in Section 4.3.1 as well? Mechanics - Text Comment noted. City of Lodi is not mentioned in Section 4.3.1 and is not included in Table 4-5. The City of Lodi has wells in the broad monitoring network for groundwater quality, discussed in Section 4.3.2. 381 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.7.1 Do you mean "guide for selection of wells" rather than "guide for collection of wells"? Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 382 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Section 3 Introduction Delete "meetings" after "Workgroup". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 23 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 383 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.1.1.1 Delete "of" after "Reduction". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.384 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.1.1.3 Sentence is awkward and hard to read. Revision: "Undesirable results due to future chronic lowering of groundwater levels could result from the following: insufficient pumping offset/reduction in the basin that results in localized or basin-wide groundwater level lowering; or delays in implementation of GSP programs or projects due to increased demand or regulatory, permitting, or funding obstacles." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 385 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.1.2 Substitute "showed" for "evidenced." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.386 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.1.2 "…dewatering of domestic wells is a potential undesirable result that could be used to confirm the adequacy…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.387 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.1.2 "…to account for the fact that domestic wells may have been drilled…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.388 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.1.3 "…the difference between the minimum threshold and the measurable objective." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.389 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.2.1.4 Make this all one sentence--no period after "years", and separate with semi-colons--"…effects could include running out of fresh groundwater to access in drought years; increased cost of access; reduction in beneficial uses, such as domestic supply; and changes to agriculture." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.390 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.2.3 This refers the reader to Section 3.2.5.3, but that section just sends the reader somewhere else. It should probably refer to Section 3.2.1.3, where measurable objectives and interim milestones for lowering of groundwater levels are discussed. Also, insert "as" between "milestones" and "for". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.391 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.3.1.4 Add "s" after "effect" and insert a comma and "which" after "supplies"--"…the effects would potentially include…to access alternate supplies, which can be unaffordable…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 392 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.3.1.4 Add "or" after "practices"--"…changes in irrigation practices or crops grown,…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.393 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.3.3 Delete "are" after "uses" in the last line--"…will protect landscape uses against impacts…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 394 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.4.1.1 Use the correct name for the Delta: "the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.395 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.4.1.3 Use the correct name for the Delta: "the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta". Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.396 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.4.1.4 Add "or" after "practices"--"…changes in irrigation practices or crops grown,…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.397 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.5.2 Add "in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin"--"…declines in groundwater levels in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin have not resulted…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 398 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.5.3 The last line refers the reader to Section 2.2, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions. It should probably refer to Section 3.2.1.3. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.399 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.6.1.2 Add "in" to clarify parallelism, and use semicolons to make this sentence easier to follow--"…if depletions resulted in the release of stored surface water…; in the decrease of acreage…; in the reduction in availability…; or in the elimination…." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.400 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.6.1.4 Correct parallelism: "…insufficient surface water would be available to support diversions for agricultural or urban uses or to support regulatory environmental requirements." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.401 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 3.2.6.1.4 Substitute "pumping" for "production" and correct the parallelism: "This could result in increased groundwater pumping, changes in irrigation practices and crops grown, and adverse effects to property values and the regional economy." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 402 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.1.1 Add "the" between "in" and "production"--"…represent overall conditions in the production zone…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.403 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.1.1 Substitute "insight into" for "insightful information about"--"…may provide insight into groundwater dynamics…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.404 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.1.2 Correct the parallelism of the numbered items: "1. They use an existing data source…2. They provide reliable…3. They are in many cases new, having been constructed…" Also correct the parallelism for the second numbered list, on page 4-4, by making the first item a sentence, as the others are: "1. They use an existing data source and have a historical data record;" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 405 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.1.2 Make this two sentences: "…San Joaquin County's Flag City wells). These will be monitored…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 406 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.1.3 Correct agreement: "using a CASGEM-approved … method…" or "using CASGEM-approved…methods…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 407 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.1.3 Add an "s" to "include"--"…measurement equipment…includes…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 408 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.1.5 Change "were" to "was" for correct subject/verb agreement: "…spatial location…was based…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 409 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.3 Change "are" to "is"--"the representative monitoring network is used…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 410 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.3.1 Add comma, and "they" in the second sentence: "These wells are equipped…consistent measurements, and they represent…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 411 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.3.5 Revision: "The representative monitoring network consists of a total of 10 monitoring wells, a density of 0.8 wells per 100 square miles." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 412 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.3.5 Add "s" to "meet"--"The total number…meets DWR's recommendations…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 413 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 4.7 Insert "a" between "present" and "limitation"--"…wells present a limitation…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 414 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.1 Correct spelling of "offset" to "offset." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 415 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.1 Third bullet: correct spelling to "cost-effective." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 416 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.3 For correct subject/verb agreement, change "were" to "was"--"The initial set…was reviewed…" Next sentence, change "are" to "is"--"A final list…is included…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 417 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant PLEASE PROVIDE A MAP SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF THE PROJECTS. Projects and Management Actions A map of project locations has been added to Section 6.1.2 (Projects). 418 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 6-1 Suggest footnoting the annual cost of Project 4 to explain why it is so much higher than the others. (Mostly annual cost of water purchase.) Mechanics - Text Description in text in Section 6.2.4.4 for Project 4 clarifies the estimated costs for this project. 419 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Table 6-1 For Project 11, Current Status, change "partied" to "parties." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 420 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Various In most of the project descriptions that follow, subject/verb agreement needs to be corrected in one of these ways: "The estimated cost for this project includes…" or "The estimated costs for this project include…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 421 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.3 "Installation" is the subject of the sentence. Everything between that and the verb is part of a modifying phrase. So the verb must be "is", not "are"--"Installation…is in the planning stage." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 24 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 422 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.4 Suggest inserting "reduced" before "availability" to better reflect the meaning of the sentence--"The reduced availability…would be the only potential cause for a reduction in SWFT production." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.423 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.5 Insert "been" between "has" and "completed"--"…project has been completed…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.424 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.5 Insert "been" between "has" and "completed"--"…project has been completed…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.425 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.5 Insert "been"--"Construction for this project has been completed" (or "is complete"). Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.426 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.6 Change "has" to "have"--"until 7 years…have elapsed." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.427 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.6 Delete "s" on "on permits", or delete "a." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.428 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.7 Delete "at"--"Design for this project is 60 percent complete…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.429 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Various For most of the Time-Table statements that follow, insert "was" before "initiated" or substitute "began." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.430 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.8 Substitute "overlie" for "overly. Insert "subject to" between "and" and "historical"--"…dependent on groundwater and subject to historical overdraft…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.431 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.8 For "implemented," substitute "done," or say that a review "may be required." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 432 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.4.8 Last line, insert hyphen between "as" and "needed"--"…on an as-needed basis…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.433 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.5.1 Correct punctuation: "The contract project is long-term; however, water availability…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.434 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.5.1 Add "the" between "with" and "landowner." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.435 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant 6.2.5.3 Change "withdraw" to "withdrawal" and change the second "pumping" to "pumped"--"NSJWCD will control the withdrawal of the banked water…and then conveying the pumped groundwater…." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.436 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 4-3 Praise up front: Some of the graphics in this document are very good, and could serve as a model for others that are not so good. Figure 4-3 is sharp, and the colors and shapes can be adequately differentiated. It is worth bearing in mind that fairly or not, every unclear graphic is likely to be perceived as intentionally deceptive. Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted. No edits made to text. 437 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 1-3 Colors, especially in the legend, are hard to distinguish, and of course Woodbridge Irrigation District will need to be added back. Also, not every area has a corresponding number. Would broadening the color scale from blue/green help? Mechanics - Graphics Woodbridge Irrigation District was added back into the figure. All areas have corresponding numbers. Blue/Green color scale is intentional to accommodate for color blindness. 438 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 1-4 Legend and logo are fuzzy. Sacrifice the second frame? Mechanics - Graphics This figure was reimported into the document at a higher resolution. 439 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 1-5 Colors for East Contra Costa and Tracy subbasins are hard to differentiate, and Tracy and Cosumnes are too similar. I-5 symbol is fuzzy. Mechanics - Graphics Darkened the borders around neighboring groundwater subbasins. Reimported the map at a higher resolution. 440 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 1-7 County boundaries are not adequately distinguishable from other lines. Sacrifice the second frame? Mechanics - Graphics Reimported at higher resolution. As there is no inset map, it is unclear which second frame is being referred to in the comment. 441 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 1-8 Fuzzy. Also, the colors make it hard to distinguish SDACs from DACs at this scale. Make it bigger if possible. Mechanics - Graphics Added darkened outlines to the DAC and SDAC polygons. Reimported into document at higher resolution. 442 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 1-9 Sacrifice the second frame to gain a little size? The map on the facing page doesn't have it. Here and afterward, favor a slightly larger map over a second frame for the figure. Mechanics - Graphics This map does not have a second frame. Unclear what this comment is referring to. 443 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 1-10 Numbers for roads and highways are fuzzy. Mechanics - Graphics This figure was reimported into the document at a higher resolution. 444 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 1-11 Fuzzy. Also, Lakes and Waterways are too similar in color to Carnegie SVRA, even though the latter has a border. Mechanics - Graphics This figure was reimported into the document at a higher resolution. 445 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-3 Highway symbols could be sharper. Landscape orientation is good. Mechanics - Graphics This figure was reimported into the document at a higher resolution. 446 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-6 Really nice. Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted. No edits made to text.447 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-7 Identify Bear Creek, as in Figure 1-5. Mechanics - Graphics Bear Creek was labeled like in Figure 1-5. 448 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-8 Some colors are too similar for adjacent watersheds, and blue is always problematic if it is also used for Lakes and Waterways. Mechanics - Graphics Colors that were similar were changed in adjacent watersheds. 449 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-9 Too small; it is very difficult to read city names. Given general layout issues on this and the following page, there probably isn't much that can be done about this. Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted. No edits made to text. 450 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-10 A bit fuzzy. Especially since there is room, show this with a landscape orientation. Mechanics - Graphics This figure was reimported into the document at a higher resolution. 451 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-11 A lot of place and feature names on this map are virtually illegible, and the legend is too small. Figure 2-12 is only slightly better. Maybe nothing can be done about this. Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted for consideration in updates to the GSP. This figure cannot be edited to improve legibility. 452 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-13 Fuzzy. Mechanics - Graphics This figure was reimported into the document at a higher resolution. 453 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-16 The underlying grid distracts from the formations this figure is intended to show, which are hard to distinguish at best. Some colors in the legend are too similar--how is Valley Springs distinguished from Tulare? The letters on the color blocks are illegible, and they are important because they are referred to in the Table that follows. Road and highway designations on the map are fuzzy. Why is the word "Flood" floating on the right in Calaveras County? Mechanics - Graphics Removed unnecessary labels. Reimported into document at a higher resolution. The geology map is georeferenced from the original source and cannot be edited. 454 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-17 It looks like most of the map units shown in the legend are not features of this subbasin, so maybe this could be simplified by including only those that are. Letters on the color blocks are illegible. It is hard to tell where the Stockton Arch is. Part of the name of "Bear" on the right is missing. Would it be possible to lay the map unit colors and detail over a map with less fuzzy place-name detail and just major roads and water features? Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted. This map is georeferenced from it's original source and cannot be edited. 455 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figures 2-20 to 2-22 Most of the detail in these cross-sections is completely illegible. Of course most readers will not care about the individual well identifiers, but if this information is important enough to include in the GSP (and it is referred to several times in the text--for example, some of these well identifiers apparently have asterisks), then it is important enough to be legible. Using the full page instead of allowing large margins might help a bit, as would putting each cross-section on its own page. Could the legends go underneath instead of beside the cross-sections? Mechanics - Graphics Figures reimported at a higher resolution into the document. 456 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figures 2-23 and 2- 24 Well depth colors are indistinguishable, and identifiers could be sharper. Bigger might be better. Landscape orientation would help. Mechanics - Graphics Changed well depth color ramp to be more distinguishable and increased size of symbol. Also changed color ramp of the aquifer elevations so that symbols are easier to distinguish. 457 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-26 There is certainly room here for a landscape orientation, which has just been used for Figure 2-25. Mechanics - Graphics If there is no issue with reading the map, the orientation of the map was not changed. 25 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 458 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-27 Should definitely be shown in landscape. There is room. Mechanics - Graphics Figure placed in landscape. 459 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-28 Why no legend? Is everyone supposed to know what these symbols represent? Mechanics - Graphics Clarifying text was added to Section 2.1.9.2.3.2 (Ion Composition).460 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-31 Different chloride concentrations are impossible to distinguish. I'm working from a hard copy, and just to be sure that I wasn't quibbling about something that would be visible in a different medium, I downloaded this figure and expanded it to fill my desktop computer screen. I still can't tell the difference in concentrations. Don't use a graded color scale? Mechanics - Graphics The color ramp of the concentrations was changed and the size of the points was increased for clarity. 461 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-32 See comments for Figure 2-31. There is room for landscape orientation for both these figures, but that alone won't solve the problem. Mechanics - Graphics The color ramp of the concentrations was changed and the size of the points was increased for clarity. 462 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-34 This figure is remarkably legible, given the detail it has to convey. The legend is nice and sharp. Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted. No edits made to text. 463 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figures 2-37 and 2- 38 Use landscape orientation. Maybe we'll be lucky and they will end up on facing pages. Mechanics - Graphics If there is no issue with reading the map, the orientation of the map was not changed. 464 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-39 Correct name of Swenson Gold Course well. It is Swenson Golf Course. Landscape? Mechanics - Graphics Spelling error fixed. 465 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-50 This figure is misleading in an important way. The subbasin has a large enough change in groundwater elevation that DWR has put us in the critical overdraft category, but all that shows here is a faintly wavy line at the top of the graph. A separate graph showing everything above 50 MAF at a different scale would more honestly illustrate the situation. Mechanics - Graphics The figure has been developed to show the impact of groundwater extraction on overall amount of fresh groundwater in storage. The potential for undesirable results associated with groundwater accessibility are addressed through the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Sustainability Indicator. 466 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-51 In the legend, green and blue, and brown and pink, are too difficult to distinguish, although they work OK in the chart itself. Make the boxes bigger? Landscape orient this figure? Mechanics - Graphics Figure placed in landscape. 467 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figures 2-52 and 2- 53 Landscape for both? Mechanics - Graphics Placed in landscape. Reimported Figure 2-53 at a higher resolution. 468 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-54 Yellow hard to see, orange impossible, especially if it is in a city. Landscape? Mechanics - Graphics Changed color ramp in the figure to be more visible. Also enlarged the size of the points. 469 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figures 2-55 through 2-58 Symbols for different levels of maximum TDS are indistinguishable. (Figure 2-58 is slightly sharper than the others.) Compare to Figure 4-3. Landscape? Mechanics - Graphics These 4 figures were reimported into the document at a higher resolution to help distinguish between the different levels. 470 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-64 Road identifiers are REALLY fuzzy, and county names and other features are almost illegible. Numbers in the legend are fuzzy. Is this partly the result of merging the regular subbasin map with InSAR data? Mechanics - Graphics This figure was reimported into the document at a higher resolution to help distinguish between the different levels. 471 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figures 2-65 and 2- 66 Landscape? Mechanics - Graphics Figures were reimported at a higher resolution.472 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figures 2-67, 2-68, and 2-69 Yellow is too hard to see. Figure 2-68 is also fuzzier than the other two. Mechanics - Graphics The two figures with yellow indicating Vegetative areas were changed to orange (2-67 and 2-69). Figure 2-68 was reimported into the document at a higher resolution. 473 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-101 This figure warrants its own page, with larger boxes to make the colors in the legend distinguishable. Add labels on the right side of the graph above and below the middle line for Demand and Supply, and split the legend identifiers accordingly to help the reader match them to the colors on the graph. Mechanics - Graphics Figure was placed on its own page and made larger in response to this comment. 474 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-102 Again, the colors in the legend are hard to differentiate, although they work reasonably well in the graph itself. Mechanics - Graphics Put this figure on its own page and made the page landscape. 475 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 3-2 Colors for Select Unincorporated Communities and Cities are too hard to differentiate. Mechanics - Graphics Select Unincorporated Communities was in the legend in error. 476 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figures 4-1 and 4-2 Fuzzy. Compare to Figure 4-3. Mechanics - Graphics Figures were reimported at a higher resolution.477 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Figure 2-18 In earlier comments, I suggested adding "Water" to the title between "Fresh" and "Elevation." If you do that, add "Water" in the legend also. Mechanics - Graphics Comment addressed in figure. 478 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant The case for setting minimum thresholds only for salinity based on the fact that other constituents of concern are managed through existing management and regulatory programs is not persuasively supported in the GSP. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Groundwater Quality See Master Response 3 -- Water Quality. 479 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Prefer the active voice to the passive voice to make clear who is responsible for the content of assertions. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Clarifying Edit Edits made throughout GSP to remove passive voice. 480 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Include more information about public water systems. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Basin Setting 1) An appendix has been added to the GSP which documents the 432 community water systems that received hard copy outreach materials throughout the GSP development process. Section 1.3.4.4 (Stakeholder Database) was updated to list the dates that outreach materials were mailed to community water systems. An analysis was performed to map community water systems that are DAC or SDAC areas, and the results of this analysis are presented in the added appendix. 2) Section 1.3.1 (Beneficial Uses and Users in the Subbasin) was updated to include community water systems and reference the added appendix. 481 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant Propose a Subbasin-wide well permitting standard that will address sustainability goals, or provide a justification for not doing so. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Well Permitting Well permitting requirements for San Joaquin, Calaveras, and Stanislaus counties are identified in Section 1.2.3.4 (Well Permitting) of the GSP. An additional subsection has been added to include Sacramento County well permitting requirements. GSAs do not have well permitting authority, unless as authorized by the respective county. SGMA does not provide a GSA with the authority to issue or regulate permits for the construction, modification, or abandonment of groundwater wells, but maintains the authority for well permitting activities with the county. (Water Code, § 10726.4(b).) A GSA may request the county provide the GSA with notice of any permit applications (10726.4(b)) and a GSA may impose spacing requirements on new well construction (10726.4(a)(1)). The ESJGWA will continue to coordinate with its member GSAs that are well permitting agencies. Language has been added to Section 4.7.1 (Plan to Fill Data Gaps) referencing applicable Calaveras County, Stanislaus County, and San Joaquin County monitoring well drilling standards. 482 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant
Nitrates: 2.2.4.2 says, “Increased nitrate concentrations have not been found to be related to groundwater management activities in the Subbasin.” This statement does not define “groundwater management activities” and does not identify those responsible for the finding of no relationship. Meanwhile, other evidence appears to contradict the assertions. Prior to the assertion above, in the same paragraph, is the statement that “recent nitrate measurements above the MCL correspond to the overall historical trends and highlight areas with elevated Nitrate concentrations in more recent years.” What is the evidence that these elevated concentrations are unrelated to groundwater management? The superficial treatment of dairies in the GSP is notable given the fact that milk was San Joaquin County’s second top commodity in 2017. This is relevant to the discussion of nitrates as well as point source contamination (see below). Dairies are confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and CAFOs are linked to nitrates in water. Was any effort made to track nitrate relative to dairy operations? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Groundwater Quality See Master Response 3 -- Water Quality. 26 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 483 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant
Arsenic: 2.2.4.3 says, “Increased arsenic concentrations have not been found to be related to groundwater management activities in the Subbasin.” Again, the statement does not define “groundwater management activities” and does not identify those responsible for the finding of no relationship. Meanwhile, 4.3 says “Arsenic will be monitored for information purposes and to track trends in arsenic concentrations. The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) does not include sustainability goals, measurable objectives, or minimum thresholds for arsenic.” Why does the GWA plan to monitor arsenic if it is unrelated to groundwater management? Is it likely that goals, objectives, and minimum thresholds will be set later on the basis of monitoring? The rationale for not setting minimum thresholds for arsenic, nitrogen, and sulfate (at 3.2.3.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results) is that “these constituents are managed through existing management and regulatory programs within the Subbasin.” For example, the GSP mentions monitoring through the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Dairy program. The GWA will rely on “coordination with existing agencies” to ensure that regulations are being met. “Additionally, SGMA does not give GSAs land use authority, so a nexus must be present between groundwater conditions and groundwater pumping activities.” We need to explain what “nexus” refers to in this context. Also, how will the GSA coordinate with existing agencies? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Groundwater Quality See Master Response 3 -- Water Quality. 484 Jane Wagner- Tyack Communication Consultant
Point Sources: As with nitrate and arsenic, the GSP provides no convincing support for the statement at 2.2.4.4 that “Point source contamination has not been found to be related to groundwater management activities in the Subbasin.” In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Section 1.2.2.2.4, Division of Drinking Water, says, “DDW data was used in the development of this GSP to identify point-source contamination areas.” However, the use of that data appears to have been restricted in the GSP, which notes (2.2.4.4) that “point sources include leaking underground storage tanks, landfills, historical dry cleaners, and others” (emphasis added). CAFOs are point sources under NPDES regulations. Figure 2-62 accompanying the point source discussion shows only Active Investigation and Remediation Sites, not all pointsource contamination areas, and the discussion focuses on fuel sites. The claim that “Point source contamination has not been found to be related to groundwater management activities in the Subbasin” is clearly contradicted by 2.2.4.4.1, which discusses plumes that have been publicized. (It would be better not to introduce this section with the word “publicized,” which suggests that the plumes are included in the GSP primarily because people already know about them.) Groundwater Quality
Language was added to Section 2.2.4.4 (Point Sources) stating that new projects undertaken by GSAs as part of GSP implementation will evaluate contaminant plume movement in a CEQA document, and management through existing regulatory agencies was highlighted. The sentence: "Point source contamination has not been found to be related to groundwater management activities in the Subbasin" was deleted. The description of plumes as "publicized" was retained, as this language was developed in coordination with City of Lodi representatives to best reflect water quality conditions in the GSA. 485
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates 2.3
Differences in demand largely drive the amount of groundwater pumped, and sustainability cannot be met if the largest outflow of the water budget, groundwater pumping, is estimated solely based on consumptive use methodology as closure to the groundwater water balance. If this information is available, it should be used. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER]
Water Budget This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 486
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates 2.3 A water budget should also be developed to address reasonably foreseeable drought conditions. Water Budget All of the model scenarios include a broad range of different hydrologic years, discussed in 2.3.2 (Identification of Hydrologic Periods). Several major drought events were included as part of the 50-year hydrologic period from water year 1969 through 2018 and in the historical simulation period from water year 1996 through 2015. Tables 2-16 and 2-17 summarize some of the water budget components (including precipitation) by San Joaquin River Index water year type for the historical and projected conditions model simulations. 487
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates Figures 2-37 and 2- 38
In contrast to the draft GSP’s analysis presenting the groundwater water budget as relatively in balance, the GSP also acknowledges the large groundwater depression in the central portion of the Subbasin (GSP Figures 3-37 and 3-38). Long-term trends from 10 wells distributed across the Subbasin with periods of record greater than 40 years show that groundwater elevations have declined over time throughout most of the Subbasin. The average groundwater decline was quantified as -0.5 ft/yr for the period 1996-2015. However, due to the fact that this analysis only includes two wells near the cone of depression, the investigation should be expanded to focus on additional wells located within the sphere of influence of the problem area. However, due to the fact that this analysis only includes two wells near the cone of depression, the investigation should be expanded to focus on additional wells located within the sphere of influence of the problem area. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Basin Setting
The two wells near the cone of depression are from Figure 2-34, which shows hydrographs from select representative wells distributed across the Subbasin.

These wells are just a small subset of those used to create Figures 3-37 and 3-38, which show the groundwater elevations in First Quarter 2017 and Fourth Quarter 2017, respectively. These maps were created using groundwater elevations from all available wells with data for those time periods. 488
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates Figure 2-39
This is also true for the Vertical Gradient analysis provided in draft GSP Section 3.4.1.2.1, which lacks any wells located in the southern portion of the Subbasin (GSP Figure 3-39). Groundwater conditions in additional wells should be depicted in the GSP and monitored in order to track the occurrence of undesirable groundwater effects. Additional wells would also assist in tracking the benefits of recharge [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Basin Setting
Figure 2-39 shows the current multiple completion wells in the Subbasin. The vertical gradient analysis lacks wells in the southern portion of the Subbasin because there weren't nested wells in that area with sufficient historical data. If a need for more nested and/or clustered monitoring wells is recognized, the monitoring network will be reevaluated as updates to the GSP occur. 489
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates Figures 2-37 and 2- 38 Furthermore, draft GSP Figures 3-37 and 3-38 lack districts and landmarks, making it difficult to interpret the location and detail of the groundwater depression, including the overlying water agencies. In addition, indicating groundwater levels below ground surface (BGS), rather than above mean sea level (MSL) would be helpful to better understand groundwater conditions. Mechanics - Graphics City boundaries and labels were added to address the comment. Redoing the analysis for DTW in addition to GWE is beyond the scope required in the GSP. 490
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates Multiple
The draft ESJ GSP unduly minimizes Subbasin challenges related to groundwater storage and overdraft... Thus, while DWR has listed the ESJ Subbasin as critically overdrafted, the ESJ GSP appears to claim that the Subbasin has a nearly balanced water budget and there are minimal problems with groundwater overdraft. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Groundwater Storage See Master Response 4 - GW Storage. 491
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates 2.3
The ESJ Draft GSP also quotes a series of different groundwater overdraft values, leading to unnecessary confusion regarding conditions in the Subbasin. The Annual Water Budget in Table 2-15 is averaged over the entire basin, with a change in groundwater storage of 41,000 AF/year (1996-2015), 48,000 AF/year (past 50 years) and 34,000 AF/year (future 50 years). However, under DWR’s intermediate climate change scenario, the annual groundwater overdraft will increase to 57,000 AF/year, from the previous estimate of 34,000 AF/year. Without climate change, the GSP Executive Summary states that, to reach sustainability, the basin must offset and/or recharge approximately 78,000 AF/year [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Water Budget The multiple overdraft values are for the different modeling scenarios required by SGMA regulations. The ESJGWA supports the description of the Subbasin water budget in the GSP. 492
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates 2.3.7
The ESJ Draft GSP should acknowledge the reality of climate change scenarios prescribed by DWR, and highlight the fact that the estimated groundwater pumping offsets and/or recharge of 78,000 AF/year is a conservative estimate that may in reality be closer to 101,000 AF/year (calculated by increasing the change in groundwater storage from 34,000 AF/year (projected conditions for 50-year period) to 57,000 AF/year (climate change scenario).

Climate Change
Consistent with regulations, the 2070 climate change sensitivity analysis on the projected conditions scenario was used to better understand trends and inform planning. Due to the uncertainty around climate projections in the 2070 timeframe, the ESJGWA Board determined the projected conditions scenario was most appropriate for analyzing sustainable yield in the GSP implementation time period beginning in 2040. Therefore, climate change was not included in the sustainable yield analysis or the estimated amount of direct or in lieu recharge and/or reduction in pumping needed for the Subbasin to reach sustainability. Climate change will continue to be evaluated with every update to the GSP and estimates of projects and management actions will continue to evolve with refinements to the model. Comment noted for follow up in next round of model refinements and updates to analyses. 493
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates 6.2.4.8
The ESJ GSP should expand Project 8 to include additional water transfers within the Subbasin for recharge. The ESJ GSP should expand Project 8 to include additional water transfers within the Subbasin for recharge. In addition, Project 8 should not be limited to transfers solely from OID and SSJID to the SEWD and CSJWCD service areas. Instead, all lands subject to declining groundwater levels (GSP Figures 3-37 and 3-38) and with at least Moderately Good recharge potential (GSP, Figure 2-14) should be included. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Projects and Management Actions See Master Response 5 - Projects. 494
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates 6.2
The GSP should also promote smaller recharge projects whereby water users may divert surplus surface water supplies for recharge on their own lands. This could be accomplished, for instance, by the creation of a program within the GSP that landowners could join if specified criteria are met. Creation of such a program would assist smaller recharge projects with completion of complex permitting and review requirements. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Projects and Management Actions
1) GSP projects have been proposed by individual GSAs and will be implemented at the GSA level. Although the ESJGWA does not have authority to direct project design or implementation, the ESJGWA's role will be to oversee essential project coordination by identifying where projects would be beneficial, synthesize how GSAs are doing projects, and make sure that GSA projects are getting the Subbasin to sustainability. 2) Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge (Flood-MAR) opportunities will be considered through ongoing coordination with existing agencies. Flood-MAR is an integrated and voluntary resource management strategy that uses flood water resulting from, or in anticipation of, rainfall or snow melt for managed aquifer recharge (MAR) on agricultural lands and working landscapes, including but not limited to refuges, floodplains, and flood bypasses. Flood-MAR can be implemented at multiple scales, from individual landowners diverting flood water with existing infrastructure, to using extensive detention/recharge areas and modernizing flood management infrastructure/operations (Source: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Flood-MAR). 3) See also: Master Response 5 - Projects. 27 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 495
Laura Folglia, Katrina Arredondo, Olin Applegate
Larry Walker Associates 6.2 The efficacy of these projects in their potential to recharge the aquifer should be analyzed using a model scenario with the GSP Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM). Projects and Management Actions This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 496 David Simpson NSJWCD NA Woodbridge ID and recharge projects within the District need to be included in the Final GSP. Projects and Management Actions Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) was part of the ESJGWA when projects were solicited, and WID did not propose any GSP projects at that time. WID's existing projects are captured in the Water Budget. 497 David Simpson NSJWCD NA
The GSP should contain a statement of concern relating to SWRCB plans to reduce flows available for use by 40-60%. The GSP references climate change yet a far greater threat to sustainability in the basin is the reallocation of surface water flows currently being undertaken by the SWRCB. The Draft GSP assumes constant or increased availability of surface water yet the SWRCB has threatened to take 40-60% of the currently available flow in several key rivers. With reduced availability of surface water for existing uses and groundwater recharge, there is little to no hope of achieving groundwater sustainability without massive new infrastructure, draconian pumping restriction and increased regulation.

Plan Implementation
1) The ESJGWA acknowledges that there are many factors that could affect the availability of surface water and that has to be evaluated by GSAs in the implementation of projects. The process of providing annual reports to DWR and of GSAs self-reporting to the ESJGWA will allow the ESJGWA to update the Plan and adjust the implementation course as needed based on conditions. The GSP allows project implementation to be updated as needed, and it is currently too speculative to say what the impact will be from the proposed SWRCB regulation, as the SWRCB has not yet determined how the regulation will be been implemented. 2) A data gaps and uncertainties subsection was added to Chapter 7 (Plan Implementation): The ESJGWA acknowledges that there are many factors that could affect the availability of surface water, including the SWRCB plans to reduce flows available for use by 40-60% as part of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan Update). Such regulations will need to be evaluated by GSAs in the implementation of projects. The process of GSAs providing biannual reports will allow for the ESJGWA to update the Plan and adjust the implementation course as needed based on conditions. The GSP allows project implementation to be updated as needed, and it is currently too speculative to say what the impact will be from the Bay-Delta Plan Update regulation, as the SWRCB has not yet determined how the regulation will be been implemented. 498 David Simpson NSJWCD Potential Projects Lakso should be spelled Lakso. Manaserro should be spelled Manassero. Clarifying Edit Comment addressed in text. 499 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta
Restore the Delta observes in Table 2-17 (p. 2-133) of the Draft GSP Chapter 2 finds that in wet years groundwater storage is projected to increase by an annual average of 52 TAF; 23 TAF in above normal years; and decrease by 7 TAF in below normal years, 44 TAF in dry years, and 39 TAF in critically dry years. Overall, over the 50-year planning horizon of the Draft GSP, groundwater storage in the Subbasin is projected to decrease an average of 34 TAF. Over 50 years, this is a cumulative loss of stored freshwater of about 1.7 MAF. This is a much smaller amount than other groundwater sustainability agencies are contemplating elsewhere in California, but it still represents a cumulative loss to storage in our Subbasin. This is about 3.2 percent of the total subsurface freshwater storage of 53 MAF cited elsewhere in the Draft GSP.

Groundwater Storage See Master Response 4 - GW Storage. 500 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta If neighboring subbasins do less to recharge their underground supplies hypothetically it would mean that the GWA would have to do more, and vice-versa, to avoid undesirable results. Restore the Delta urges the GWA to recognize this interrelationship more explicitly and to adopt a policy of encouraging neighbors to do their fair share of net recharge (combining “additional recharge or pumping reduction”) activities as they implement their GSPs. Plan Implementation As neighboring plans are developed, the ESJGWA will be reviewing and providing input. The ESJGWA will review and will provide comment on neighboring Subbasins' GSPs if their plans adversely affect our ability to achieve sustainability. 501 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta We recommend also that the Final GSP incorporate reviews of what neighboring GSAs and their GSPs are contemplating in this regard so that readers of the GWA’s GSP understand what this “neighborhood baseline” consists of when it comes to assessing undesirable results indicators and evaluating the success or failure of neighbors’ implementation projects. Interbasin Coordination As the neighboring groundwater subbasins are not designated as critically overdrafted, their GSPs are on a later timeline, so analyses are not available for direct comparison. The ESJGWA will continue to coordinate with neighboring basins as more information is available. 502 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta
Restore the Delta is by and large disappointed with the Draft GSP’s climate change analysis. The Draft GSP provides no broad overview of what effects climate change is likely to have on Subbasin groundwater resources. There is not even a summary of the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment commentary on what effects are expected in California as we step-by-step enter that climate future. Instead, the Draft GSP presents only a turgid, technical description of its use of DWR climate-change models and the results of those models. This should have been limited to an appendix, and the results simply summarized in the Draft GSP. Instead, the modeling results are presented with little context. The state has presented a comprehensive, region-by-region analysis of climate change effects, and the Draft GSP needs to apply it—both to educate the Subbasin publics (including disadvantaged communities) and to place DWR-based climate change analytic results in context. As drafted, the climate change analysis has been done; GSA staff can check the box for providing a minimally adequate GSP to the state. The water users of the Subbasin deserve more, however. They deserve a Final GSP that tells them what the analysis means for the future of Subbasin groundwater resources and communities, and how it plays out relative to each of the sustainability indicators the Draft GSP puts forward.

Climate Change The ESJGWA has noted the resource provided and has determined that it is not necessary to include a summary of the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment. The climate change analysis meets the requirements of the GSP. Climate change will continue to be evaluated with every update to the GSP. 503 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta Figure 2-37 and 2-38 When compared with the groundwater elevation maps that show the cones of depression (Figures 2-37 and 2-38), it is evident that the cones of depression are located directly beneath the Calaveras River and Mormon Slough, which are losing streams—their flows are now disconnected from the groundwater system, as shown in Figure 2-66 (p. 2-99). There also appears to be a portion of a cone of depression beneath Dry Creek near to the Mokelumne River as well, though this is not labeled with the same color as the cone of depression in the Eastern San Joaquin basin. This means that there is great potential for saltwater intrusion, which the draft GSP gently acknowledges. Net subsurface flow is from the west to the east. But the draft GSP is silent about the ecological consequences of having losing streams spanning the groundwater basin. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Interconnected Surface Water
Comment noted. As stated in the GSP, seawater intrusion is not present in the Subbasin and is not anticipated to occur; however, minimum thresholds and measurable objectives have been established to be protective in the event that sea level rise ever does occur. The ecological consequences of losing streams is the Subbasin requires further study. Groundwater provides benefits to gaining streams through additional baseflow and through influences on water chemistry and temperature.
504 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta Figure 1-8 Disadvantaged communities are forced to live with existing disadvantaged streams—losing streams. The Draft GSP appears to do little to rectify these existing undesirable conditions—undesirable at least from the standpoint of the disadvantaged communities forced to live without healthy riverine ecosystems and recreational and angling beneficial uses of them in their midst. Projects and Management Actions The ESJGWA acknowledges conditions of overdraft and in response has identified projects that will recharge and/or offset up to 78,000 AFY to meet the Subbasin's sustainable yield. As groundwater levels stabilize, the gradient pulling water from losing streams will decrease when compared to conditions without such actions. The ESJGWA has not identified losing streams as a significant and unreasonable negative impact. See Master Response 2 - ISW. 505 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta
This particular indicator lacks any recognition of the differential impact of falling groundwater elevations on disadvantaged communities relative to other groundwater pumpers like cities and agricultural enterprises. While the plan identifies disadvantaged communities (which we note above), it does not correlate explicitly the degree to which disadvantaged communities in the Subbasin are predominantly reliant on municipal/public or private water systems, or whether they are predominantly reliant on private wells. The Draft GSP provides no policies or program recommendations and needs that would address the question: if these conditions develop where disadvantaged residents lose their pumped groundwater supplies, what steps will the GWA take to mitigate such events and recover the utility of their public/private systems or wells? The Draft GSP would, it appears, wait until impacts on disadvantaged and other communities occur before any actions to prevent such occurrences would be taken. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Projects and Management Actions
The ESJGWA supports using the minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator as written. SGMA does not require zero impact, and the ESJGWA has determined that it is not considered significant and unreasonable for wells belonging to the shallowest 10 percent of domestic wells to be dewatered, as the wells that are likely to be dewatered are those that are 50 years or older, have reached the end of their usable life, and would need to be replaced anyway. Data collected on Stanislaus County rural domestic wells that were dewatered in years 2014-2016, showed that the average depth of wells reported as dewatered was 91 ft bgs, and that 60 percent were shallower than 100 ft bgs. Additionally, the average well age for wells reported as dewatered was 55 years, and 52 percent were older than 50 years old.

There are various well impact mitigation programs in place, therefore there were no changes were made to the GSP. 506 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta
The Draft GSP recognizes just “increase in pumping costs due to greater lift” as an undesirable result relating to lowered groundwater elevations. The Draft GSP fails to provide any cost threshold beyond which point the GWA would presumably act on this triggered indicator. What level of cost increase is reasonable due to greater lift needs? Do public and private well systems need to be treated differently from a cost standpoint than single private wells? Will increased costs for wells operated by members of disadvantaged communities be treated the same or differently than other systems? Restore the Delta recommends that they should be treated differently so that ability to pay is taken into account. Just as important, what remedial action does the GWA commit to in order to stem impacts to disadvantaged community groundwater users when pumping costs rise? In short, whose groundwater pumping costs are going to be the GWA’s yardstick for determining undesirable results, and what actions will the GWA commit to in redressing undesirable results? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Plan Implementation
Given the high number of variables involved, a cost threshold for was not developed for increases in pumping costs due to greater lift as part of the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels sustainability indicator undesirable result. The ESJGWA will continue to coordinate with its GSA members that are well permitting agencies. 507 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta For the lowering of groundwater elevation and reduction in groundwater storage indicators, the definitions in the Draft GSP are too vague about which beneficial uses have to be affected by the undesirable result. There needs to be more clear specification of undesirable results in relation to specific beneficial uses. If the GWA means “all beneficial uses” for these indicators, then state “all beneficial uses.” As worded, these indicators give the GWA license to pick favored beneficial uses over others. Groundwater Levels 1) Language was added to Section 3.2.1.1.1 (Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels, Description of Undesirable Results) referencing GSP Section 1.3.1 (Beneficial Uses and Users in the Subbasin). A bullet was added to identify impacts to environmental uses and users, including interconnected surface waters and GDEs, as a potential undesirable result identified by stakeholders during GSP development. Additionally, language was added to Section 3.2.1.1.4 (Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels, Potential Effects of Undesirable Results) to identify potential effects of undesirable results related to GDEs as a data gap. Text was added to refence the new shallow monitoring program in Section 4.7 (Plan to Fill Data Gaps) as a plan to obtain additional information. 2) Language was added to Section 3.2.2.1.1 (Reduction in Groundwater Storage, Description of Undesirable Results) referencing GSP Section 1.3.1 (Beneficial Uses and Users in the Subbasin). 28 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 508 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta
The Draft GSP confidently states that “there is a large volume (approximately 53 million acre-feet [MAF] of freshwater in storage” in the Subbasin, and there appears to be very little fluctuation historically in this volume on a percentage basis. The Draft GSP states that “it is roughly estimated that groundwater demand for beneficial use occurs within the top 23 MAF of the Subbasin.” (p. 3-10) No geographic description of where this 23 MAF occurs is provided. The “threshold” for undesirable result in the Draft GSP on the storage indicator then becomes “when storage is insufficient to satisfy beneficial uses within the Subbasin. Therefore, undesirable results would occur if groundwater storage were reduced to less than 30 MAF.” (Ibid.) Here the Draft GSP fails to connect the already existing undesirable results noted above with this level of groundwater storage in the Subbasin (that is, the cone of depression with the presence of losing streams immediately overlying them, for example, and their occurrence immediately beneath and down-gradient of disadvantaged communities in the Subbasin). The Draft GSP takes current groundwater storage at 53 MAF as an acceptable baseline when it actually represents a storage level that is undesirable given existing surface and subsurface conditions. Restore the Delta urges the GWA to rethink, redefine, and redraft this particular indicator discussion so that existing undesirable conditions can experience recovery and restoration to sustainable conditions as the GSP planning and implementation horizon plays out.

Groundwater Storage See Master Response 4 - GW Storage. The cone of depression is evaluated and discussed in the Section 2.2 (Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions) of the GSP. Groundwater storage is evaluated at a subbasin scale. 509 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta
We ask a similar question as above of the GWA: if a toxic plume suddenly spikes at three or more of the ten water quality monitoring wells, is the Draft GSP to be interpreted as meaning that the GWA would wait up to two years before taking any kind of action to protect public health and safety and address the contamination? Why does this indicator even have a time/duration threshold before enabling the GWA to identify, prevent, or mitigate an undesirable result? As with the cost discussion, what actions does the GWA commit to in order to stem the breaching of the minimum water quality thresholds it has put forward? Would it really allow saltwater intrusion, for example, to proceed for two years before acting to push back the isohaline toward the Delta? That would cost a lot more in water injections and scarce dollars, for example, than if authority for action contained in the Draft GSP allowed more prompt assessment and prevention of saltwater intrusion. [SEE MORE SPECIFCS IN COMMENT LETTER] Sustainable Management Criteria
Sustainable management criteria and the choosing of minimum thresholds are meant to be representative of not only one point in time, but of long-term conditions in the Subbasin. By looking at two consecutive years, rather than a single year, we can remove short-term/outlier measurements and determine if conditions are reflective of longer-term trends. Furthermore, the nature of the definition of undesirable results do not preclude early action if deemed warranted by the GSAs. 510 Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla Restore the Delta
The remaining three indicators in the Draft GSP address sea water intrusion, land subsidence, and depletion of interconnected surface water. Restore the Delta feels that these three indicators in the Draft GSP would all benefit from similar critical review and treatment (including redefinition to include existing undesirable baseline conditions) that we have outlined above for the first three indicators; indeed, our specific comments on reconnecting losing streams to groundwater systems apply to Section 3.2.6 on depletion of interconnected surface water, including our comments about the relationships of disadvantaged communities to these natural hydrologic systems.

Sustainable Management Criteria
The ESJGWA supports the sustainable management criteria as written. The purpose of the criteria is to identify what is significant and unreasonable with a focus on long-term conditions in the Subbasin. The GSAs of the ESJGWA can decide to take action at any point when established thresholds are violated. 511 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 7.2 There was a much more robust discussion about funding the development of the GSP than for implementing the GSP. Table 1 below provides a summary of the GSA’s areas and composition, both factors with groundwater extraction volumes should be considered when determining GSP implementation contributions. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Plan Implementation This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 512 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 7.5 Whether or not coordination between the 15 GSAs continues during implementation will be in large part determined by what this Ad Hoc Committee reports to the GWA for their consideration. It is expected that this report will be made available either in September 2019 GWA agenda materials or at the September 2019 GWA meeting. In either case long after comments on the draft GSP are due in August 2019. The postponing of these important governance and funding discussions creates a situation of urgency which will likely preclude widespread public outreach and consideration of beneficial users’ comments. The deficiencies related to individual GSA water budgets casts serious doubts about how funding allocations will be made so that basin-wide monitoring and implementation activities are accomplished. A frequent comment has been, why should we fund someone else’s misuse and lack of planning when we have been funding efficiency improvements all along. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER]
Plan Implementation This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 513 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group n/a Early on Stakeholder Workgroup members expressed frustration that specific technical information was not available for review in advance of meetings; that during meetings new information was made available on PowerPoint slides only; that meetings were rushed because there was an emphasis on presenting information rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue that could be communicated to the GWA. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Plan Implementation This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 514 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 1.2.3.4 The GSP Wellhead protection areas and recharge areas Section 1.2.3.4, addresses wellhead protection programs in San Joaquin County, Calaveras County, and Stanislaus County. The discussion regarding wellhead protection areas seemed to be restricted to annular seals on wells which do prevent surficial contamination from entering the aquifer. No analysis was offered as to the variation of well construction standards and location requirements that might relate to wellhead protection areas. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Basin Setting
Section 1.2.4 (Additional GSP Elements) provides GSAs an opportunity to discuss additional Plan areas, including wellhead protection areas and well construction policies. The ESJGWA identified these topics as relevant and important to the Subbasin as addressed in Section 1.2.3.4 (Well Permitting). Analysis on variation of well construction standards and location requirements relating to wellhead protection areas can be considered in future updates to the GSP. 515 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group n/a Despite the fact that GSAs are able require water management devices on non-de minimis water wells no metering of wells of any size was proposed in the draft GSP… The Delta-Sierra Group recommends that the largest non-de minimis extraction wells be metered with an annual reporting requirement. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Plan Implementation This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 516 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 2.1.4.5.3 A generalized map was provided of potential recharge areas as shown below, but a map identifying existing recharge areas that substantially contribute to the replenishment of the groundwater basin was not found in the draft GSP... SGMA requires that a map identifying existing and potential recharge, and specifically identifying the existing recharge areas that substantially contribute to the replenishment of the groundwater basin. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Basin Setting A map of existing groundwater recharge areas is presented in Figure 2-13 and a map of potential groundwater recharge areas is presented in Figure 2-14. Added to text to Section 2.1.4.5.1 (Description of Recharge Areas) clarifying that higher percolation indicates more recharge and referencing the existing conjunctive use programs (including direct recharge) described in Section 1.2.2.9: The higher percolation areas are those that substantially contribute to the replenishment and recharge of the Subbasin. Section 1.2.2.9 includes text and a figure (Figure 1-16) of existing conjunctive use programs, including current direct recharge occurring in the Subbasin. 517 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 3.2.6 The GSP noted in section 3.2.6 Depletion of Interconnected Surface Water that “quantification of depletions is relatively challenging and requires significant data on both groundwater levels near streams and stage information supported by groundwater modeling. "Without restricting the installation of wells within areas of influence that intersect surface waterways, further depletion of interconnected surface waters will continue. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Well Permitting Well permitting requirements for San Joaquin, Calaveras, and Stanislaus counties are identified in Section 1.2.3.4 (Well Permitting) of the GSP. An additional subsection has been added to include Sacramento County well permitting requirements. GSAs do not have well permitting authority, unless as authorized by the respective county. SGMA does not provide a GSA with the authority to issue or regulate permits for the construction, modification, or abandonment of groundwater wells, but maintains the authority for well permitting activities with the county. (Water Code, § 10726.4(b).) A GSA may request the county provide the GSA with notice of any permit applications (10726.4(b)) and a GSA may impose spacing requirements on new well construction (10726.4(a)(1)). The ESJGWA will continue to coordinate with its member GSAs that are well permitting agencies. Language has been added to Section 4.7.1 (Plan to Fill Data Gaps) referencing applicable Calaveras County, Stanislaus County, and San Joaquin County monitoring well drilling standards. 518 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 3.2.1 The draft GSP uses groundwater level minimum thresholds as a proxy for the depletion of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator. As such, the minimum thresholds for the interconnected surface water sustainability indicator are the same as the minimum thresholds for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator. The use of the existing representative groundwater level monitoring wells is inadequate to assess whether or not surface waters are depleted by groundwater extraction wells near surface waterways. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Interconnected Surface Water See Master Response 2 - ISW. 519 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 2.2.7 The significant reduction of GDEs as compared to the NCCAG database was related to co-occurrence of surface water sources including irrigation canals. The Delta-Sierra Group objected in February 2019 to the disqualification of local ecosystems as GDEs if sources other than groundwater are available... As no sustainable management criteria are required for GDEs, the Delta-Sierra Group recommends that a less restrictive method be used if reductions to the NCCAG are desired, and that the Nature Conservancy and California Department of Fish and Wildlife be consulted. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] GDEs See Master Response 1 - GDEs.
520 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 2.2.4 The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin groundwater quality is negatively impacted by contaminates not currently proposed for monitoring or inclusion in the Data Management System. Nitrate contamination is a significant problem in agricultural areas related to the handling of wastes and applications of fertilizers. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Groundwater Quality See Master Response 3 -- Water Quality. 29 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 521 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group n/a
An important part of the initial steps of implementation will be to have several workshops for beneficial users that are interested in accessing the database and creating reports or accessing pre-made report formats. Probably those staff that will be inputting data will also require training. Ideally, as work continues with the database, methods to incorporate contaminant data stored by the State of California in various databases can be explored. Another possibility is that GSAs exercise their powers and authorities to require that other groundwater management data be included in an expanded database. Fees could be charged of those with reportable results to submit to the database. The fees could offset time required by staff to input the data. Perhaps, San Joaquin Environmental Health could administer the database because they already have access to small water system monitoring data under permit. Those using groundwater and those making important planning decisions would benefit from a centralized location for groundwater quality. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] DMS This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 522 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group n/a
Staff involved with the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) well monitoring suggested that conditions could exist that more frequent monitoring may be necessary to capture valid seasonal fluctuations. Consideration should be given to the sampling of representative groundwater level compliance wells quarterly, a reduction of the DWR monthly monitoring suggestion. Semi-annual monitoring may miss transient changes in response to unseasonable conditions. Understanding these transient changes may help refine the conceptual model. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Monitoring Network The ESJGWA Board determined semi-annual sampling was appropriate as it will capture seasonal highs and lows. If a need for more frequent monitoring is recognized, the monitoring frequency will be reevaluated as updates to the GSP occur. 523 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group n/a
The August 2018 Model Report included a reference to an April 25,2018 Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model IDC Workshop that was not noticed or advertised despite stakeholder collaboration being the first topic discussed. Going forward as the model is refined under contract, the Delta-Sierra Group suggests that model refinement include multiple opportunities for interested parties that are stakeholders to become more familiar with the model. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER]
Model Refinements This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 524 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 2.3 This statement is confusing especially given the description of the model results under climate change, as it is unclear which number is being referred to: "This number is larger than the estimated annual overdraft of the projected conditions scenario due to the integrated nature of the groundwater subbasin." [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Water Budget 1) Consistent with regulations, the 2070 climate change sensitivity analysis on the projected conditions scenario was used to better understand trends and inform planning. Due to the uncertainty around climate projections in the 2070 timeframe, the ESJGWA Board determined the projected conditions scenario was most appropriate for analyzing sustainable yield in the GSP implementation time period beginning in 2040. Therefore, climate change was not included in the sustainable yield analysis or the estimated amount of direct or in lieu recharge and/or reduction in pumping needed for the Subbasin to reach sustainability. Comment noted for follow up in next round of model refinements and updates to analyses. 2) Added text to Section 2.3.6 (Sustainable Yield Estimate) clarifying which numbers are being discussed: This number (78,000 AF/year) is larger than the estimated annual overdraft of the projected conditions scenario (34,000 AF/year) due to the integrated nature of a groundwater subbasin. 525 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group 2.3 Under the intermediate climate change scenario prescribed by DWR, the depletion in aquifer storage is expected to increase by about 68 percent to an average annual storage change of 57,000 AF/year, from 34,000 AF/year in the projected conditions scenario. If the 68 percent is applied to 78,000 AF/year, deficient an additional 53,000 AF/year will be needed and the planned projects projected to achieve sustainability included in the GSP will be insufficient. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Projects and Management Actions Consistent with regulations, the 2070 climate change sensitivity analysis on the projected conditions scenario was used to better understand trends and inform planning. Due to the uncertainty around climate projections in the 2070 timeframe, the ESJGWA Board determined the projected conditions scenario was most appropriate for analyzing sustainable yield in the GSP implementation time period beginning in 2040. Therefore, climate change was not included in the sustainable yield analysis or the estimated amount of direct or in lieu recharge and/or reduction in pumping needed for the Subbasin to reach sustainability. Climate change will continue to be evaluated with every update to the GSP and estimates of projects and management actions will continue to evolve with refinements to the model. Comment noted for follow up in next round of model refinements and updates to analyses. 526 Mary Elizabeth Sierra Club, Delta-Sierra Group n/a As of 8.25.19, the Notice of Intent to Adopt GSP was not forwarded to the ESJ interested parties list although interested parties were directed to the esjgroundwater.org website for meeting information and public hearing dates. The Notice of Intent to Adopt GSP did include email addresses of GSA representatives in addition to mailing addresses and FAX numbers. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Outreach This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 527 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.1.1 Add Ag Water Management Plans and General Plans to the list. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.528 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.1.4 Suggest mentioning that Lathrop signed on to the JPA then voluntarily withdrew citing the Basin Boundary modification approved by DWR. Clarifying Edit Text added to Section 1.1.4 (Agency Information). 529 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.1.4 Suggest referencing Memorandum of Agreement between Cal Water and County Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Consider for inclusion in future updates to the GSP. 530 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.1.4 WID reinstatement as a GSA Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.531 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Throughout Replace GWA with ESJGWA Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.532 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.1.4.2 Should also reference the JPA document posted to www.esjgroundwater.org Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Future is ESJGWA is currently unknown. Consider for future updates to the GSP.533 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.1.4.3 Escalon is contracted to receive treated surface water from SSJID but has yet to install infrastructure to connect to the system. Clarifying Edit Edited text for SSJID in Section 1.1.4.3 (Description of Participating Agencies): SSJID in 2005 began the delivery of up to 32,000 AF/year currently (and up to 43,000 AF/year in Phase II) of treated surface water from Woodward Reservoir to the cities of Manteca, Lathrop, and Tracy for the SCWSP with Escalon to receive water in the future (Eastern San Joaquin County GBA, 2014). 534 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.1.4.4 Sentence should read: The ESJGWA's JPA calls out the following powers granted to GSA's by SGMA. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.535 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Figure 1-4 Include DWR Subbasin Basin Numbers for San Joaquin Basin and 5-22.01 Mechanics - Text Comment noted. DWR subbasin numbers already included in the text in Section 1.2.1.1 (Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features). 536 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Figure 1-5 Include DWR Subbasin Basin Numbers for San Joaquin Basin and all adjacent basins. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. DWR subbasin numbers already included in the text in Section 1.2.1.1 (Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features). 537 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Figure 1-6 Sac Co. and San Joaquin Co/ shades are too similar. Clarifying Edit Edited county colors in figure.538 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Figure 1-10 Call out USDA CropScape 2015 as Data source. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. USDA CropScape 2015 discussed in text in Section 1.2.1.1 (Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features): In the 2015 CropScape dataset, fruit and nut trees comprised 37 percent, and vineyards comprised 24 percent, of the irrigated crops in the Subbasin. Alfalfa and irrigated pasture were the next most dominant crop type, comprising 11 percent of irrigated crops in the Subbasin (USDA, 2015). 539 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Figures 1-11 and 1- 12 Call out DWR WDL as data source. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. DWR's WDL discussed in text in Section 1.2.1.1 (Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features).540 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.2.2.1.1 Might want to call out that the Board of Supervisors of San Joaquin County also act as the Board of Supervisors of the SJCFCWCD. The SJC Public Works Department also staffs the SJCFCWCD. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Consider for inclusion in future updates to the GSP.541 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.2.2.1.1 Technically, the SJCFCWCD should be called out, not SJC. Mechanics - Text Comment noted. Change heading for Section 1.2.2.1.2 to San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and edited text to reflect the change. 542 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.2.2.1.5 Not a Technical Review Committee. Participants possessed technical expertise sch as staff and consultants representing many of the GSAs forming the ESJGWA. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Edited text in Section 1.2.2.1.5 (Data Received Directly from GSAs) to remove mention of the GBA's Technical Review Committee. 543 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.2.2.8 replace "PVC" with "buried" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 544
Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.2.3.1.8 Checking with Ripon on GP description Clarifying Edit Comment noted. 545
Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.2.3.4.1 Confirm and insert that Municipal codes prohibit private supply wells. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Consider for inclusion in future updates to the GSP. 546 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.2.4 The GP Update is complete so the opportunity to comment is actually through the discretionary approval process which includes CEQA, Planning Commission, appeals, etc. Clarifying Edit As the 2016 San Joaquin County General Plan update is complete, deleted the sentence from Section 1.2.4 (Additional GSP Elements) discussing it as an opportunity to comment on land use planning. 547
Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.3.1 Delete "of" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 30 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 548 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 1.3.4.3 Suggested Edit: and/or their preferred mode of communication Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.549 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.2.1.1 Consistency: SJCFCWCD is the CASEGEM Entity and the SJC Public Work staffs the SJCFCWCD which is a separate legal entity. Mechanics - Text Edited text for consistency: SJC’s monitoring well data comes from the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SJCFCWCD). 550 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Figure 2-6 Suggest deleting figure 2-4 and reference on page 2-4. Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted. This figure provides the number of chloride measurements at GAMA Monitoring Sites. 551 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Table 2-1 Suggest clarifying the numbers as the drainage area or sub-watershed area vs. watershed area. There may be some confusion as to watershed area vs sub-watershed area . Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Text considered clear enough in the distinction between watershed areas and the larger Subbasin. 552 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Figure 2-8 Same comment above. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Text considered clear enough in the distinction between watershed areas and the larger Subbasin.553 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.1.4.3 "MWD" should be "MWH" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.554 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.2.1.2 Suggest describing measurements as Spring and Fall rather than by quarter. Mechanics - Text Edited text: Current groundwater elevation conditions, for the purposes of this Plan, have been characterized as First Quarter 2017 (recent seasonal high, measured in Spring 2017) and Fourth Quarter 2017 (recent seasonal low, measured in Fall 2017) groundwater elevation measurements. 555
Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.2.9 See attached spreadsheet of polygons that have been investigated by staff and determined to be non-GDE's. The attached spreadsheet lists the reason for the determination. Mechanics - Graphics Commenter indicated that comment was addressed in other changes made to GDE section. 556 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Table 2-12 See Table note 5: Reference error Mechanics - Text Removed unlinked reference from text. 557
Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.4.3 Suggest referencing IDC in Model Report. Clarifying Edit Add references to Sections 2.3.4.2 and 2.3.4.3 to the model report for more detail of ESJWRM private groundwater pumping estimation: Additional details on the estimation of private groundwater pumping in ESJWRM can be found in the published model report (Appendix 2-A). 558 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.5.1 Replace with "The ESJGWA selected" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.559 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.5.1 Replace "…potential significant effects…" with "… a calculated increase…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.560 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.5.1 Replace "…may be due to a shift to…" with "… are the result of converting from groundwater use to surface water supplies…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.561 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Table 2-16 Replace 2nd sentence in footnote 3 with : As agricultural land use continually evolves through changes in crop types and urbanization over the historical calibration, averaging of the resulting agricultural demand is less a function of water year type and rather dependent more on when in the simulation that year type fell. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.562 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Table 2-16 Replace footnote 4 with: "Urban demands in the Historic Water Budget are reported values from cited sources. Averaging urban demands by year type may not explicitly depict urban growth patterns during the historical model period" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.563 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.5.2 Replace "basin" with "Subbasin" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.564 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.5.2 Ad to beginning of sentence: The analysis fixes the land use to current conditions and is based on… Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.565 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.5.2 Replace "The almost" with "Approximately" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 566 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.5.2 I'm not sure what this sentence means if you've defined the current condition as 2014 land use and 2015 population Mechanics - Text Edited text to clarify: The current conditions scenario simulates 50 years of hydrology with conditions approximately reflective of current Subbasin management and activities. 567 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.5.4
Replace two sentences with: An important assumption made in the project water balance analysis that due to projected urban growth, agricultural acreage is expected to decrease by approximately 40,000 acres. While there is agricultural growth anticipated in the eastern areasof the Subbasin and potential conversion of existing agricultural land to permanent irrigated crops, no reliableprojections were available to include in the simulation; therefore, no additional agricultural land growth was added tothe projected conditions scenario.

Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.
568 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.6 Replace "be impacted" with "vary due to a number of proposed management actions resulting in increased groundwater levels...". Impacted only sounds negative. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.569 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 2.3.7.1 an analysis was performed for the Subbasin evaluating the projected water budget with and … Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 570 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.1.2 Delete "scenarios" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.571 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.1.2 Suggested re-write: Previously adopted groundwater-related panning documents were reviewed including the … These documents provided a starting point for setting minimum thresholds. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 572 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.1.2 The reference to Fall 1992 actually was developed as part of the 2007 IRWMP and was used as the basis for comparison in a subsequent Programmatic EIR.. Mechanics - Text Comment noted. Though Fall 1992 was initially identified in the 2007 IRWMP as having the lowest elevations in the subbasin at that time, it was used again in the more recent 2014 IRWMP update. 573 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.1.2 Proposed re-write: The GWA Board determined that dewatering of domestic wells may be a potential is undesirable result that and could potentially be used to confirm the adequacy of the minimum threshold methodology. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.574 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.1.2
Suggest replacing with: A radius of 3 miles around each representative monitoring well was used to identify the 10th percentile domestic well construction depth. For representative monitoring well 03N07E21L003, a 2-mile radius was used due to variations in groundwater levels due to its proximity to the Mokelumne River. The 3-mile radii (including the 2-mile radius of monitoring well 03N07E21L003) of each representative monitoring well, includes an average of 400 domestic wells each capturing approximately 76 percent of the domestic wells in the OSWCR dataset.

Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.
575
Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.1.2
Consider re-write: Domestic well data obtained from the OSCWR dataset is sparsely populated with information on total casing depth, screening intervals, and the age of the well. The 10th percentile well depth was chosen due to the uncertainty in the database and to account for domestic wells that may have been drilled to a very shallow depth prior to the current well drilling standards enforced by local jurisdictions and/or have reached the end of their lifecycle. The10th percentile domestic well depth for groundwater levels is protective of 90 percent of the domestic wells in the OSCWR dataset and is used as the minimum threshold for determining if a decline in groundwater levels is significant and unreasonable under SGMA.

Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.
576 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.1.2 Consider adding the OSCWR domestic well depth dataset to the Appendix. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Consider for inclusion in future updates to the GSP.577 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.2.1.1 Delete: "The undesirable result related to reduction in groundwater storage is defined in SGMA as: Significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 578 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.2.1.1 Consider replacing with "The ESJGWA has determined that an undesirable result for the reduction of groundwater storage is experienced if sustained groundwater storage volumes are too low to satisfy beneficial uses within the Subbasin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 579 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.2.1.2 It is estimated that overlying pumpers have limited access equating to approximately the shallowest 23 MAF of groundwater storage in the Subbasin; therefore an undesirable result would occur if groundwater storage levels were depleted by 23 MAF. Groundwater Storage Language updated in the GSP to indicate 23MAF reduction as definition of undesirable result for the Reduction in Groundwater Storage sustainability indicator, rather than the subbasin having reached 30MAF remaining. 31 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 580 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.2.1.3 Suggested edit: Depletion of 23 MAF within the SGMA panning horizon of 2040 is highly unlikely. There would need to be an event of a catastrophic nature or prolonged and exaggerated increases in the mining of groundwater, extreme and severe drought, or other major changes in groundwater management over time could to cause a depletion of groundwater storage to a significant and unreasonable level. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 581 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.2.1.4 Suggest adding degradation of produced water quality from groundwater sources Clarifying Edit Edited text in Section 3.2.2.1.4 (Potential Effects of Undesirable Results): If groundwater levels were to reach levels causing significant and unreasonable undesirable results, effects could include degradation of produced water quality from groundwater sources; running out of fresh groundwater to access in drought years; increased cost of access; and reduction in beneficial uses, such as domestic supply and changes to agriculture. 582 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.2.2 Suggest replacing "… until storage reached 30 MAF..." with "...until storage was depleted by 23 MAF…" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 583 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.3.1.1 "cities" should be Cities and add SJCFCWCD Mechanics - Text Comment noted. No edits made to text.584 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.3.1.2 Give examples of groundwater or water management activities that causes groundwater quality degradation. Clarifying Edit The ESJGWA supports the sustainable management criteria for degraded water quality. Groundwater management activities refer to non-natural sources of salinity, such as irrigation return water or movement of groundwater if due to groundwater pumping. 585 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.3.1.3 Suggest adding that increases in salinity only occurred in parts of the Subbasin Clarifying Edit Edited text in Section 3.2.3.1.3 (Potential Causes of Undesirable Results) to indicate that salinity is only a concern in part of the Subbasin: Within the Subbasin, there are localized concerns related to salinity along with three primary sources of salinity, as discussed in Section 2.2.4 of this GSP. 586 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.3.1.4 Replace first part of first sentence with: The potential effects of degraded groundwater quality would include: Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.587 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.3.2 Suggested edits: A minimum threshold of 1,000 mg/L was selected based on stakeholder concerns for drinking water and agricultural beneficial uses. The minimum threshold selected by the GWA Board was also informed by stakeholder input. There was a meeting held in Fall 2018 with GSA representatives from San Joaquin County, City of Lodi, City of Manteca, City of Stockton, and Cal Water and an additional meeting with agribusiness members of the Stakeholder Workgroup. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.588 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.5.1.4 Replace unrecoverable with irrecoverable Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.589 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 3.2.6.1.2 Proposed re-write: An undesirable result will have been deemed to occur if depletions resulted in an impact to a senior water right holder such as if the release of stored surface water occurred in higher frequency and volume to meet fish and wildlife requirements or a decrease in the amount of supply available for a senior water right holder including riparian diverters, or a potential reduction in acreage of groundwater dependentecosystems.

Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.
590 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 4. Replace "GWA" with "ESJGWA" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.591 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 4.1.2 Suggested edit: Of the 107 wells in the broad monitoring network, 76 wells included are wells used in CASGEM… Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.592 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 4.3.3 SJc also has a monitoring protocol and safety manual which could be referenced in the GSP and also update at a later date possibly to include data handling and database management.. Monitoring Network Comment noted. The current monitoring protocols meet the requirements of SGMA. 593 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 4.7.3 Suggest reiterating the monitoring frequency for all well categories. Quarterly for representative wells for levels; semi-annually for broad network for levels, and both representative and broad network for water quality. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. Consider for inclusion in future updates to the GSP.594 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 4.7.1 Reference also Calaveras, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties applicable monitoring well drilling standards. Well Permitting Language has been added to Section 4.7.1 (Plan to Fill Data Gaps) referencing applicable Calaveras County, Stanislaus County, and San Joaquin County monitoring well drilling standards. 595 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 5. Replace "GWA" with "ESJGWA" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.596 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Table 5-4 San Joaquin County should be San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text. 597 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 6. Replace "GWA" with "ESJGWA" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.598 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 6.2.6.5 The project is called the Division 9 Project Mechanics - Text Comment noted. 599 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Table 6-2 Table needs an update of upcoming Important Dates Clarifying Edit Updated Table 6-2 with more recent dates for the various funding mechanisms.600 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 7. Replace "GWA" with "ESJGWA" Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.601 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA Table 7-2 Some costs appear low. Discussions are ongoing as to governance, costs, and accountability measures. Costs should be re-estimated higher to avoid sticker shock later during implementation. Projects and Management Actions The cost estimates for implementation actions are conservative planning-level estimates that will be refined once additional specifics have been determined. The ESJ ESJGWA Plan Implementation Ad-Hoc Committee has been convened for this purpose and is meeting on an approximately weekly basis to actively identify next steps and form recommendations that will allow for refinement in GSP implementation cost estimates. 602 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 7.4.1 Suggest lumping the study in with Model Refinements in section 7.4.2. Also suggest study could be expanded to include other rivers. Projects and Management Actions The Mokelumne River Loss Project description text has been moved to Chapter 6 (Projects and Management Actions) based on direction from the ESJGWA Board provided at the September 11, 2019 Board meeting. At this time, no projects have been proposed to study other rivers in the Subbasin. However, further model refinement efforts will verify and validate model calibration at points across the subbasin. 603 Brandon Nakagawa SSJGSA 7.9 GSP Implementation funding lacks specifics. The ESJGWA Board may wish to bolseter and affirm the funding commitment in the resolution when adopting/affirming the GSP. Plan Implementation The cost estimates for implementation actions are conservative planning-level estimates that will be refined once additional specifics have been determined. The ESJ ESJGWA Plan Implementation Ad-Hoc Committee has been convened for this purpose and is meeting on an approximately weekly basis to actively identify next steps and form recommendations that will allow for refinement in GSP implementation cost estimates. 604 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 1.2.2.4 This sentence does not make sense. Suggest revision to: "There has been no documented subsidence reported within the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed through edits to text in response to another comment.605 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 1.2.3.4.1` A more accurate statement would be "San Joaquin County has established water well standards for new wells that define property line setbacks . . . ETC." as these requirements apply only to new wells. Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.606 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 2.3.4.1 This is not entirely accurate, streamflows entering the subbasin do induce regulated releases from respective reservoirs, but also include inflow from unregulated streams downstream of regulating reservoirs. This should be noted. Clarifying Edit Deleted sentence in Section 2.3.4.1 (Assumptions Used in the Historical Water Budget) to remove confusion and clarified text: Upstream reservoirs regulating streamflows into the Subbasin include Pardee and Camanche on the Mokelumne River; New Hogan on the Calaveras River; and New Melones, Tulloch, and Goodwin on the Stanislaus River. As reservoir releases are regulated, no changes to the historical operations of the reservoirs are assumed. 607 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 2.3.4.1 Stockton East Water District should be included in the list of districts with riparian diversions off major streams. Clarifying Edit Data from C2VSim for Calaveras River riparian diversions includes those diversions going to SEWD. 608 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 2.3.4.1 Data on private pumping is available from Stockton East Water District, was provided to the consultant, and is more accurate that that calculated by the consumptive use methodology. Water Budget Comment noted for follow up in next round of model refinements. Added text to Section 2.3.4.1 to clarify that private groundwater pumping was estimated the same way across the subbasin for consistency: Data on private pumping was not available on a consistent basis across the model, so private pumping was estimated as that which would be required to meet agricultural and rural residential water needs as calculated by the ESJWRM model based on consumptive use methodology (Refer to the ESJWRM documentation for details). 32 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 609 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 2.3.4.2 The cited stream flow data does not include inflow into the Calaveras River below New Hogan Dam, including Cosgrove Creek and others. Similarly, the data list does not include flow for other nonregulated reservoirs in the watershed. Water Budget Streams simulated directly in ESJWRM include Dry Creek, Mokelumne River, Calaveras River, Stanislaus River, and San Joaquin River. All other stream flows, including tributaries to these streams, are estimated in the model. If any of these tributaries have long-term flow data available, they may be considered for direct simulation in future updates to the model. 610 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 2.3.4.2 Stockton East Water District should be included in the list of districts with riparian diversions off major streams. Clarifying Edit Data from C2VSim for Calaveras River riparian diversions includes those diversions going to SEWD.611 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 2.3.4.2 Data on private pumping is available from Stockton East Water District, was provided to the consultant, and is more accurate that that calculated by the consumptive use methodology. Water Budget Comment noted for follow up in next round of model refinements. Added text to Section 2.3.4.2 to clarify that private groundwater pumping was estimated the same way across the subbasin for consistency: As private groundwater pumping was estimated by ESJWRM in the historical calibration, there is no local estimate of current private groundwater pumping available on a consistent basis across the model. 612 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 2.3.4.3 Stockton East Water District should be included in the list of districts with riparian diversions off major streams. Clarifying Edit Data from C2VSim for Calaveras River riparian diversions includes those diversions going to SEWD. 613 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 2.3.4.3 Data on private pumping is available from Stockton East Water District, was provided to the consultant, and is more accurate that that calculated by the consumptive use methodology. Water Budget Comment noted for follow up in next round of model refinements. Added text to Section 2.3.4.2 to clarify that private groundwater pumping was estimated the same way across the subbasin for consistency: As private groundwater pumping was estimated by ESJWRM in the historical calibration, there is no local estimate of projected private groundwater pumping available on a consistent basis across the model. 614 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 6.2.4.2 More accurately, these are existing surface water entitlements under contract. Clarifying Edit Comment noted. 615 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 6.2.4.6 Grammatical correction - the word "a" should be deleted before the word "streambed." Mechanics - Text Comment addressed in text.616 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Section 7.9 The sentence should be rewritten to state: "Prior to implementing any fee or assessment program, the GSAs would complete a rate assessment study or other analysis if required by consistent with the regulatory requirements." Clarifying Edit Edited text in Section 7.9 (GSP Implementation Funding): Prior to implementing any fee or assessment program, the GSAs would complete a rate assessment study or other analysis if required by the regulatory requirements. 617 Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District GSA Table 7-4 In the first and third boxes under "Certainty" the Proposition 218 process should be qualified with "if applicable." Clarifying Edit Comment addressed in text.618 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC Any water sustainability plan to be considered must take into consideration that many farmers are abandoning lower-priced crops like alfalfa and silage corn to seek higher-priced food crops that may be less tolerant to the salinity levels typical of recycled water (See Project 19/Manteca Recycled Water Project as described on pages 6- 28 and 6-29 of the GSP) [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Groundwater Quality The ESJGWA considers minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater quality to be protective of agricultural uses. During GSP development, GSAs provided anticipated future crop type information for assessment with a general consensus that uncertainty in market demands is too high to consider future crop types into land use estimates. Language was added in Section 3.2.3.2 (Degraded Water Quality Minimum Thresholds) to include information on salinity tolerances of Subbasin crops.
619 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC Open canals currently being utilized in the sandy area of the sub-basin must by properly managed and maintained to offset the potential effects of sedimentation and erosion. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 620 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC TLG believes that channel flow deficiencies and back-water effects in and along the South Delta need to be fully considered and mitigated as part of any GSP to be considered. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 621 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC
The uncertainties as detailed on pages 2-134 and 2-151 of the GSP appear to be especially important when considering Section 6.2.6.6 of the GSP describes project #23 (SSJID Storm Water Reuse) which may find it difficult to drain any and all potential storm water drainage flows to be created along and through the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (“SSJID”) distribution system to the San Joaquin River via the French Camp Outlet Canal. (See page 6-32 of the GSP). TLG also believes that SSJID drainage into the San Joaquin River may also prove problematic at other San Joaquin River outlet locations currently being considered. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk
There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 622 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC
What drainage and backwater effects may be created in conjunction with GSP Projects #19, 22, and 23? …. TLG believes that this can only be accomplished by putting an end to the continuing delays and immediately performing a full and comprehensive environmental review. This should be performed in conjunction with an updated general plan and related environmental justice element that fully considers and mitigates for the growing storm water, waste water, potable water, irrigation water, transportation, and transit needs affecting the areas in and along the South Delta. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk
There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 623 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC How will what appears to be a very real potential for unresolved and continuing sedimentation and climate change issues in and along the South Delta be considered and allowed for in the final Mossdale Tract Drainage Plan? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 624 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC
How can local, regional, state, and federal authorities work closer together to create an updated water plan that provides water deliveries at the local, regional, and state level while protecting the urban and rural areas along the South Delta from any increases to flood water, storm water, waste water, and other hydrology-related impacts that may be created? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk
There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 33 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 625 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC What effect will the Daniels Street extension have on stormwater drainage flows currently being drained in and along the French Camp Outlet Canal? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 626 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC
What effect will the proposed formation of the San Joaquin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (“SJCFCWCD”) Zone 9 Flood Conveyance and Levee Maintenance Benefit Assessment District (and related projects) have on changing drainage patterns and associated outfall locations currently existing and relied upon by the South San Joaquin Irrigation District and its members? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk
There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 627 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC What effect will filing and/or extending an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the Recycled Water Project have on sustaining total potable and irrigation water (i.e.. groundwater and surface water) volumes available to the urban and rural areas in and around Lathrop and Manteca? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Projects and Management Actions SGMA looks at the basin-scale. Project impacts will be evaluated; it is the GSA's responsibility to meet project-level environmental regulations. CEQA compliance will be done at the GSA level. 628 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC
What short term and/or long range changes to flood water, storm water, waste water, potable and irrigation water delivery, and other hydrology related drainage and conveyance patterns may be irreversibly altered due to approval of the proposed Raymus Expressway roadway alignment as detailed in the 5/22/19 Manteca General Plan Land Use Alternative Maps “A” or “B”? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk
There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 629 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC Will drainage impacts in and along the South Delta be reduced or adversely affected due to any future improvements to be considered in association with the Upper Jones Tract (RD 2039)/Lower Jones Tract (RD 2038) consolidation? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 630 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC Are local authorities aware that SSJID Drain #11, in its present form, has deviated from a course that appears to be called for in Enclosure 16 ? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 631 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC Will any and all flow impedances and back water effects be considered as part of any drainage analysis to be performed? ( See Enclosures 14 & 15 ) [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 632 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC For what purpose are San Joaquin County land use and/or zoning reclassifications in and along the South Delta being considered? ( See Enclosure 17 ) [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Projects and Management Actions Some of the more specific processes can be addressed through land use decision making processes. There is a SGMA requirement to coordinate in land use policy development, and GSAs will comply with the requirement to coordinate with land use development partners. 633 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC If the French Camp Outlet Canal (FCOC) is abandoned or no longer able to accept drainage flows from the developing areas of Zone 34, where will Zone 34 storm water be drained to? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 634 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC What effect will any public facility/infrastructure rehabilitation or improvement projects in and along Little Johns Creek have on the continued operation of the FCOC as well as other upstream and downstream areas to be affected? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Projects and Management Actions SGMA looks at the basin-scale. Project impacts will be evaluated; it is the GSA's responsibility to meet project-level environmental regulations. CEQA compliance will be done at the GSA level. 34 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 635 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC
Are the effects of climate change and unresolved sedimentation issues along the South Delta being fully considered while making the assumption that the water surface elevation in the San Joaquin River at the railroad bridge crossing near the Oakwood Lake Water District storm drain outfall is: (a) 20.6 feet for a 10-year event; (b) 28.0 feet for a 100-year event; (c) 29.0 feet for a 200-year event. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk SGMA looks at the basin-scale. Project impacts will be evaluated; it is the GSA's responsibility to meet project-level environmental regulations. CEQA compliance will be done at the GSA level. 636 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC In the event of a right bank San Joaquin River or Stanislaus River levee breach, how will flood waters be drained from the urbanizing and non-urbanizing areas south of Manteca? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 637 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC
When considering the magnitude of 100-year, 200-year, or other periodic levels of flood events that are expected to occur, isn’t it likely that water elevations (NAV D88 datum) on the land side (east of the San Joaquin River in the areas south of Manteca) could exceed the 29’-0” elevation as forecasted in the Request for Proposal? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER]
Flood Risk
There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 638 Martin Harris Terra Land Group, LLC
What facilities and other actions are planned to safeguard and protect our local urban and rural communities against the unplanned release of right bank San Joaquin River levee breach flood waters that historically accumulate and rise in height against the South Manteca portion of the RD 17 dryland cross levee? [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] Flood Risk
There are several ongoing efforts in the Subbasin for stormwater and flood work, including through regional flood control agencies as well as planning and implementation activities. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) covers San Joaquin County with the exception of a few select city areas and aims to address flood protection in the area it covers. Projects SJAFCA has worked on include flood walls, levees, detention basins, and other flood control improvements. SB 985 (Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1)), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. SWRPs are intended to develop multiple benefit projects for upcoming funding opportunities. SWRP projects can include benefits such as improved storm drainage, reduced impervious surfaces, flood protection, etc. Areas in the Subbasin have developed stormwater management plans and programs, including the City of Stockton and City of Manteca. 639
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Public and Agency Comment Disposition/Coordination
The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”) development process could be improved with greater integration of public comments into the GSP. Specifically, there should be a disposition process for both oral and written comments. In addition, engagement and coordination with adjacent agencies/ subbasins should be clearly documented. The subbasin planning processes in our region will benefit from greater coordination, and doing so will be essential to completing successful GSPs.

Outreach This has been noted as a future item for consideration as the GSAs move into GSP implementation. 640
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches

2.1.10 HCM Data Gaps
The draft GSP has significant and critical gaps in understanding of conditions, which contributes to inadequate modeling. The data gaps identified in the draft GSP include the following: —Water quality of principal aquifers —Aquifer characteristics —Groundwater Level Data —Groundwater Quality Data —Subsurface Conditions This extensive list of missing data indicates that the technical fundamentals of the subbasin's hydrologic and water quality are absent, that the ongoing lack of data collection and analysis is problematic, and calls into question the basis for establishing reliable and defensible thresholds.

Model Uncertainties The HCM data gaps identified in the GSP are areas where sufficient data was either unavailable or nonexistent at the time the GSP was put together and the model was calibrated. The model will continue to be refined with every update to the GSP and as data becomes available to fill in any data gaps. 641
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Proposed Monitoring Well Network
To rectify data gaps, a concerted program to resolve data gaps should be developed, funded and implemented. Further, these data gaps preclude the ability to track consistency with the GSP, and ultimately to ensure sustainability. furthermore, there are significant defects in the GSPs proposed monitoring approach. Monitoring Network The ESJGWA is committed to resolving the data gaps identified during the GSP development process. The Prop 68 funds are designed to help address identified data gaps and the current application focuses on groundwater flow in the northwestern portion of the Subbasin with plans for additional monitoring wells in that area. As discussed in Section 7.6.4 (Monitoring Network Description), a program may be developed for the GSP update to help fill new or remaining data gaps.
642
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Sampling frequency was reduced to 2 events a year for ‘representative’ monitoring wells. This seems far too infrequent, given the DWR documented ‘critically overdrafted’ basin condition, existing cones of depression, and the limited number of monitoring wells proposed . (Discussed at July 10, 2019 GWA Board Meeting.) DWR has identified that the well sampling frequency should be based on groundwater conditions and hydrogeologic understanding. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/BMP2-Monitoring-Networks-and-Identification-of-Data-Gaps.pdf Monitoring Network Frequency of groundwater level monitoring is cited in the Draft Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps Best Management Practice. While semiannual monitoring is required for groundwater levels, DWR guidance recommends monthly sampling of groundwater levels for the Subbasin based on aquifer type, volume of long-term aquifer withdrawals, and recharge potential. The ESJGWA Board determined semi-annual sampling was appropriate as it will capture seasonal highs and lows and that additional monitoring would not necessarily provide additional information on trends. If a need for more frequent monitoring is recognized, the monitoring frequency will be reevaluated as updates to the GSP occur. 643
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches The draft GSP approach in number, location and frequency of sampling of wells appears to be inconsistent with the DWR BMPs. Generally, there are too few wells, and they are spatially dispersed outside of the cone(s) of depression over a very large subbasin, and limited sampling frequency will make it difficult to track the sustainability criteria and associated thresholds, the effectiveness of the GSP, and to begin to detect impacts to Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs).

Monitoring Network
The ESJGWA Board supports the inclusion of the monitoring network as presented and approved it in July 2019. If a need for more detail is recognized, the monitoring network will be reevaluated as updates to the GSP occur. Data gaps are discussed in Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) and include a plan for the drilling of up to 12 additional monitoring wells to help resolve identified gaps in well locations. Frequency of groundwater level monitoring is cited in the Draft Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps Best Management Practice. While semi-annual monitoring is required for groundwater levels, DWR guidance recommends monthly sampling of groundwater levels for the Subbasin based on aquifer type, volume of long-term aquifer withdrawals, and recharge potential. The ESJGWA Board determined semi-annual sampling was appropriate as it will capture seasonal highs and lows and that additional monitoring would not necessarily provide additional information on trends. 644
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Figure 2-37
Only one large cone of depression, an area of significantly reduced water table elevation, is identified in the GSP. This singular feature differs from previous analyses in the Cosumnes and South American subbasins; and, the degree of resolution of the data presented makes it difficult to tell if there are one or more distinct cones in the central part of the subbasin, but in any case the model shows depletion along Staten Island.

Basin Setting
Added text to Section 2.2.1.2 (Current Groundwater Conditions) referencing the localized depression forming across the Cosumnes-Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin boundary and clarifying that the central depression in the Subbasin is most significant to achieving sustainability in the Subbasin: A localized depression area is shown expanding from Cosumnes Subbasin across Dry Creek to Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin in Fourth Quarter 2017. However, from the perspective of the entire Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, the central pumping depression east of the City of Stockton is most significant to achieving sustainability in the Subbasin. 35 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 645
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Figure 2-37 Figure 2-38,
The model(s) appear to show groundwater elevation declines in the Delta, including Staten Island. These data need further investigation since that condition seems unlikely and not supported by DWR and other groundwater elevation analyses. ESJ consultants were asked to explain why there were so many apparent discontinuities from the adjacent subbasin documented depressions, and the apparent errors in reporting of groundwater elevations in the Delta. For example, there are inexplicably irregular patterns of groundwater elevations shown for the Delta. The response was that the model itself had some challenges in development and that stakeholders could ignore those results. There is apparently limited quality control in the modeling effort, and erroneous results were not identified in the draft GSP. To the extent the GSP continues to rely on this modeling, it should identify where and how the data is not considered accurate. Or, if there are significant caveats, how and where those apply.

Model Uncertainties
Groundwater conditions in the Delta area are not depressed and are not contributing to the overall groundwater issues in the Subbasin. During the development of the model there was not sufficient data in terms of groundwater usage and/or long-term trends in groundwater levels that would support detailed calibration of the model in the Delta area. Therefore, in consultation with the stakeholders representing the Delta area, the level of effort in calibrating the model for that area was minimized and more effort was put into the calibration of the central portion of the Subbasin. Depending on the quality of additional data that could become available, further refinements in calibration could be performed during the next round of model refinements. 646
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Sections 3.4-9 At the July 10, 2019 GWA Board Meeting, the consultants discussed use of The Nature Conservancy-initiated GDE assessment approach, “somewhat,” but that in any case that their analysis was “consistent.” The approach to GDEs should be clearly disclosed in the GSP. GDEs Section 2.2.7.1 (Methodology for GDE Identification) was updated to better articulate the methodology used and the describe data gaps within the NCCAG dataset. 647
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Figure 3-64 Figure 3-65
Similarly, Interconnected Surface Waters (ISW) analysis in the draft GSP shows portions the sloughs as being variously ‘always losing’ and ‘always gaining’ around the perimeter of Staten Island. Yet, these gaining sections (all at or below sea level) are further identified ‘disconnected’ from the groundwater system. When asked about this obvious error in groundwater depletion modeling below sea level for several streams and Delta sloughs, the staff response was that it appears to be a modeling calibration error. It seems unlikely that these data were reviewed before publication. If they were reviewed, it would be expected that the text of the draft GSP would explain why it was incorrect or uncertain and how that was being resolved. This discrepancy raises concerns about the quality and the reliability of the GDE and ISW analyses.

Model Uncertainties See Master Response 2 - ISW.
648
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches The draft GSP has set water quality standards for salinity intrusion that appear inconsistent with meeting environmental and agricultural beneficial uses, and protecting crops from yield losses associated with cumulative impacts of salinity. The GSP sets the isocontour line for reporting at 500 mg/L, ostensibly “same as Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for chloride.” (P. 12 July 10, 2019 GWA Board Meeting.) The Chloride SMCL set by the USEPA is 250 mg/L: https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/drinking-water-regulations-and-contaminants https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/dwtable2018.pdf Seawater Intrusion The seawater intrusion chloride isocontour is intended to monitor for a seawater intrusion front. Harm related to agricultural crops, as well as drinking water supplies is address through the Degraded Water Quality Sustainability Indicator. 649
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches The SMCL for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) set by the USEPA is 500 mg/L: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-03/documents/cfr-2011-title40-vol23- part143.pdf However, the GSP set the measurable objective at 600 mg/L for TDS and the minimum threshold for TDS at 1,000 mg/L., double the SMCL. This measurable objective is above the SMCL, and the maximum threshold is not protective of drinking water supplies and agricultural uses. By the time water quality has reached the measurable objective it is unlikely to be used for potable water, and places agriculture at risk from yield losses.

Groundwater Quality
The ESJGWA considers minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater quality to be protective of drinking water supplies and agricultural uses, as secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL) are established for aesthetic reasons such as taste, odor, and color and are not based on public health concerns. The three levels of SMCLs for TDS are: Recommended (500 mg/L), Upper (1,000 mg/L), and Short Term (1,500 mg/L). Language was added in Section 3.2.3.2 (Degraded Water Quality Minimum Thresholds) to include information on salinity tolerances of Subbasin crops. 650
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches The subbasin’s GSP defined minimum threshold for chloride has been set at 2,000 mg/L, well above the limits for harm for many agricultural crops. http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/cooperative-extension/irrigation/drought-tips/water-quality-guidelines-trees-and-vines https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/catalog/files/project/pdf/pnw597.pdf Seawater Intrusion The seawater intrusion chloride isocontour is intended to monitor for a seawater intrusion front. Harm related to agricultural crops, as well as drinking water supplies is address through the Degraded Water Quality Sustainability Indicator. 651
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches The minimum threshold is set at 1,000 mg/L for TDS, also at or above the level of impact to agricultural most agricultural crops. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/programs/cass/pdf/Phase1/ATechapdxTDS.pdf Groundwater Quality The minimum thresholds are intended to define levels that are significant and unreasonable and are not the desired state of the subbasin. The ESJGWA considers minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater quality to be protective of agricultural uses. Language was added in Section 3.2.3.2 (Degraded Water Quality Minimum Thresholds) to include information on salinity tolerances of Subbasin crops. 652
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches The monitoring triggers in the draft GSP for chloride and TDS are too high to avoid undesirable effects, and do consider leaching fractions or soil salinity accumulation rates in its assumptions that further chronic reductions in crop productivity and other negative impacts would be avoided. The analysis in the draft GSP does not appear to follow a best available science (BAS) approach. For instance, the draft GSP fails to disclose that the levels of TDS identified as acceptable are associated with levels found to have a 50% yield loss of crops.

Groundwater Quality
The minimum thresholds are intended to define levels that are significant and unreasonable, and are not the desired state of the subbasin. The ESJGWA considers minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater quality to be protective of agricultural uses. Language was added in Section 3.2.3.2 (Degraded Water Quality Minimum Thresholds) to include information on salinity tolerances of Subbasin crops. 653
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches The trigger at 400% SMCL would clearly cause negative impacts to domestic well users drinking water quality. The threshold for chloride is impermissibly high and would cause degradation of existing water quality, and potentially institutionalize unsustainable and undesirable water quality. Seawater Intrusion The seawater intrusion chloride isocontour is intended to monitor for a seawater intrusion front. Harm related to agricultural crops, as well as drinking water supplies is address through the Degraded Water Quality Sustainability Indicator. 654
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Figure 2-31
The well network and associated chloride concentrations used in the analysis do not adequately represent Delta locations or the potential for associated sea/brackish water intrusion into shallow groundwater. Significantly more wells at various depths are required to show current conditions, and to detect future impacts within the Delta.

Monitoring Network
Data gaps are discussed in Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) and include a plan for the drilling of up to 12 additional monitoring wells to help resolve identified gaps. Two of these wells are shallow and planned for locations along San Joaquin River in the Delta and, if constructed, would provide more data on both water quality and groundwater levels in the Delta. 655
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Figure 2-52 Figure 2-53
Where chloride concentrations are described, there are a disproportionate amount of observations above 250 mg/L. in the Delta.

If this threshold were approved it is possible that agricultural groundwater users would not be able to use this water for crops without reductions in productivity, and that continued irrigation with this water could reduce the ability to continue farming current crops. This standard is entirely inappropriate for drinking water quality.

Seawater Intrusion The seawater intrusion chloride isocontour is intended to monitor for a seawater intrusion front. Harm related to agricultural crops, as well as drinking water supplies is address through the Degraded Water Quality Sustainability Indicator. 36 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 656
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Section 3.2.3.1.2
Whatever the particular standard, protection from seawater intrusion is reliant on the ability of the subbasin to detect undesirable effects. For the entire ESJ subbasin, the draft GSP provides: “Undesirable results occur during GSP implementation when more than 25 percent of representative monitoring wells (3 of 10 sites) exceed the minimum thresholds for water quality for two consecutive years and where these concentrations are the result of groundwater management activities.” Seawater Intrusion The ESJGWA has determined this to be protective as representative monitoring locations as SGMA is intended to manage at the basin scale. 657
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches Given the limited number of monitoring wells over a vast area, this standard is inadequate for the detection of a groundwater impact. The standard would require the source of the exceedance to be known, and that source to be the ‘result of groundwater management activities’; that there is a monitoring well in proximity, that the exceedance in detected in the twice a year sampling; that two additional wells are located in the proximity and have similar detections with similar identified causes; and, moreover that those detections happen over two years. Those conditions are obviously unlikely to ever be met; the proposed well monitoring network appears to be so dispersed to ensure that exceedances could only be met at one well at the most.

Monitoring Network
The ESJGWA Board supports the inclusion of the monitoring network as presented and approved it in July 2019. If a need for more frequent monitoring or more monitoring wells is recognized, the monitoring program and groundwater quality sustainable management criteria will be reevaluated as updates to the GSP occur. The broad monitoring network for groundwater quality will also be evaluated to test for the extent of exceedances and will help indicate if the monitoring program should be reexamined in future updates to the GSP. 658
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches The draft GSP is lacking in available data and an adequate proposed monitoring approach. The draft GSP should be modified and updated to include reasonable, scientifically supported thresholds, better track sustainability, and meet SGMA statutory requirements. The draft GSP should also be updated to clarify where the data and the visualizations are not accurate and what process will be applied to improve them.

Monitoring Network
The ESJGWA recognizes a number of data gap areas related to GDEs, interconnected surface waters, and overall monitoring network coverage, as discussed in Section 4.7 (Data Gaps). The plan is supported by the best available data and science and meets the requirements of SGMA. The ESJGWA Board supports the inclusion of the monitoring network as presented and approved it in July 2019. 659
Chris Thomas [email protected] /[email protected] Northern Delta Sustainability Agency/NDGSA Associate Member Staten IslandConservation Farms and Ranches The salinity and TDS limits are not likely to meet sustainability and could allow significant degradation of water quality if applied. Groundwater Quality The ESJGWA considers minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater quality to be protective of agricultural uses. Language was added in Section 3.2.3.2 (Degraded Water Quality Minimum Thresholds) to include information on salinity tolerances of Subbasin crops. 660 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy has thoroughly reviewed the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Draft GSP. We appreciate the work that has gone into the preparation of this plan. However, we consider it to be inadequate under SGMA because the basis for removing the majority of the potential GDEs identified in the NC Dataset from further consideration and management as GDEs is not scientifically supported, and could lead to significant and unreasonable impacts. Based on the available data, the removed polygons should be retained and managed as potential GDEs in the plan. If further analysis were to provide substantial evidence that groundwater level declines would not result in an adverse impact to the species in these ecosystems, then consideration could be given to removing them at that time; however, no such evidence has been presented in the draft GSP.

GDEs See Master Response 1 - GDEs.
661 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy N/A Considering Nature under SGMA: A Checklist "Environmental User Checklist" [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN ATTACHMENT A IN COMMENT LETTER] GDEs The methodology presented in the Environmental User Checklist goes above and beyond the requirements of SGMA and can be evaluated in future iterations of the GSP as determined by the ESJGWA. The ESJGWA considers the methodology used in the GSP to be appropriate at this time given the existing data gap limitations, and can be refined further in future GSP updates. 662 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 1.3.1 Caswell Memorial State Park is incorrectly referred to as being located outside the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. The following additional protected lands are located near surface waters within the Subbasin that may be interconnected with groundwater, and/or may rely at least partly on groundwater to support vegetation and sensitive natural communities. These protected lands represent potential beneficial users of groundwater: Durham Ferry State Recreational Area, a small portion (approximately 200 acres) of San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge, Army Corps Park, Vernalis Riparian Habitat (Public Conservation Lands), Seegers Preserve, Cabral Island Preserve, Machado Preserve, Hansen Preserve, Micke Grove Park and Zoo, Oak Grove Regional Park, Nakagawa Preserve, El Rio Farms Preserve, Lodi Lake Nature Area, Woodbridge Regional Park, Woodbridge Ecological Preserve, White Slough WA, Nuss Farms, Beck Preserve, Hilder Preserve, Staten Island Ranch, Burchel Preserve, and Ishizuka Preserve. The authors referred to the San Joaquin County General Plan documents, including background reports, for information regarding these important resources. These potential beneficial groundwater users should be described in the text on pp. 1-18 and shown in Figure 1-11. Please include a description recognizing all of the protected areas in the Subbasin and their beneficial groundwater uses. Section 2.2.8 includes a geospatial analysis that removes managed wetlands from consideration as GDEs. The managed wetlands in the Subbasin should be identified in this section.

Clarifying Edit
1) Caswell Memorial State Park is within the Subbasin. Section 1.2.1 (Description of Plan Area) includes text that it is the only State Park within the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin boundary. 2) Comment noted. This information (potential beneficial groundwater users) is beyond the scope of the GSP. Consider for inclusion in future updates to the GSP. 663 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 1.2.1 Critical habitat is known to exist for protected aquatic species, such as California Tiger Salamander, Steelhead, Delta Smelt, Giant Gartersnake and California Red-Legged Frog in and around the Subbasin (https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77). There are likely ongoing monitoring programs associated with critical habitat areas and the protected lands. Please include a description of these habitat areas, and associated programs and requirements pertinent to ISWs, GDEs and wetlands. Identify areas where critical habitat exists and overlaps with ISWs and GDEs.

GDEs The comment request goes above and beyond the requirements of SGMA and can be evaluated in future iterations of the GSP as determined by the ESJGWA. 664 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 1.2.2 Per the GSP Regulations (23 CCR §354.34 (a) and (b)), monitoring must address trends in groundwater and related surface conditions (emphasis added). In order for this section to provide the appropriate context and help assure integration of GSP implementation with other ongoing regulatory programs, this section should describe the following: - Monitoring activities and responsibilities by State, Federal and local agencies and jurisdictions related to aquatic resources and GDEs that could be affected by groundwater withdrawals should be discussed. Section 1.2.2.6 states that there are no agencies that do monitoring specific to surface-groundwater interconnection. While this may be technically correct insofar as it relates to hydrogeologic monitoring, it ignores ongoing monitoring programs related to the state of aquatic resources and GDEs that could be affected by groundwater withdrawals, and that are a direct indicator of potential undesirable results. For example, there are likely ongoing monitoring programs associated with the protected lands listed in our comments to Section 1.3.1, and other open space or preserve areas that may be monitored by public, private or nonprofit entities. A discussion of monitoring programs related to GDEs and ISWs should be included. - The lack of existing hydrologic monitoring of surface-groundwater interconnection is a significant data gap as it relates to classification and management of GDEs and should be identified as such and further discussed and addressed in the appropriate subsequent sections of the GSP. - Monitoring activities and responsibilities related to instream flow and water quality requirements under applicable Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses, Biological Opinions and other regulations or programs are relevant and should be identified. Please include a discussion of water flow and quality monitoring requirements pertinent to ISWs.

Monitoring Network
1) The GSP monitoring network section meets the requirements of SGMA regulations. Publicly available data through other monitoring programs was reviewed for the GSP and will be utilized in future updates. 2) Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) was updated to specifically include interconnected surface water as a data gap. Many of the 12 proposed monitoring wells discussed in Section 4.7 are specifically located near streams with the intent of enhancing the monitoring and analysis of interconnected surface water. 665 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 1.2.3 This section should include a discussion of General Plan goals and policies related to the protection and management of GDEs and aquatic resources that could be affected by groundwater withdrawals, rather than being limited to goals and policies directly related to groundwater resources alone. Section 1.3.1 correctly identifies environmental uses of groundwater as including “…species and habitat reliant on instream flows, as well as wetlands and GDEs,” and yet Section 1.2.3 and Appendix 1-E do not identify any General Plan policies related to these resources. Section 1.2.3 should identify if there are any Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) within the Subbasin and if they are associated with critical, GDE and/or ISW habitats. Appendix 1-E should identify General Plan policies related to wetlands, riparian habitat, streams, aquatic habitat, and related threatened and endangered species. Section 1.2.3.2 should include a discussion of the relationship of GSP implementation to General Plan goals and policies related to GDEs and aquatic habitat; and also address how GSP implementation will coordinate with the goals of any HCPs or NCCPs.

GDEs The GSP includes General Plan goals and policies the ESJGWA has determined to be relevant to the GSP. This plan identifies GDEs as a beneficial use and there will be additional coordination and refinement of GDE data gap areas as the plan is refined. 37 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 666 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 1.2.3.4 This section should include a discussion of the following: - Future well permitting must be coordinated with the GSP to assure achievement of the Plan’s sustainability goals. - The State Third Appellate District recently found that Counties have a responsibility to consider the potential impacts of groundwater withdrawals on public trust resources when permitting new wells near streams with public trust uses (ELF v. SWRCB and Siskiyou County, No. C083239). The need for well permitting programs to comply with this requirement should be stated. - Section 2.3.3.3 discusses potential exemptions from the Stanislaus County Groundwater Ordinance but does not mention the fact that applicants who are not exempt are required to provide substantial evidence that their proposed extraction will not result in undesirable results, including significant and unreasonable impacts to GDEs and surface waters.

Well Permitting
1) Well permitting requirements for San Joaquin, Calaveras, and Stanislaus counties are identified in Section 1.2.3.4 (Well Permitting) of the GSP. An additional subsection has been added to include Sacramento County well permitting requirements. GSAs do not have well permitting authority, unless as authorized by the respective county. SGMA does not provide a GSA with the authority to issue or regulate permits for the construction, modification, or abandonment of groundwater wells, but maintains the authority for well permitting activities with the county. (Water Code, § 10726.4(b).) A GSA may request the county provide the GSA with notice of any permit applications (10726.4(b)) and a GSA may impose spacing requirements on new well construction (10726.4(a)(1)). The ESJGWA will continue to coordinate with its member GSAs that are well permitting agencies. Language has been added to Section 4.7.1 (Plan to Fill Data Gaps) referencing applicable Calaveras County, Stanislaus County, and San Joaquin County monitoring well drilling standards. 2) Section 1.2.3.4.3 (Well Permitting, Stanislaus County) has been updated to include language on procedures for applicants not exempt from the Stanislaus County Groundwater Ordinance.
667 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.1.7 Please clearly state whether localized perched aquifers are present in the basin. Include example near-surface cross section details that depict the conceptual understanding of shallow groundwater and stream interactions at different locations, including perched and regional aquifers. Basin Setting The level of detail in the GSP is appropriate for a conceptual model of the Subbasin.668 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.1.8.2 The Bottom of the Basin Boundary was defined by the base of freshwater, which was mapped 45 years ago and pumping since then has very likely resulted in shift in the isohaline contouring in the basin. Defining the bottom of the Subbasin based on geochemical properties is a suitable approach for defining the base of freshwater, however, as noted on page 9 of DWR's Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model BMP (https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/BMP_HCM_Final_2016-12-23.pdf) "the definable bottom of the basin should be at least as deep as the deepest groundwater extractions". Thus, groundwater extraction well depth data should also be included in the determination of the basin bottom. This will prevent the possibility of extractors with wells deeper than the basin boundary from claiming exemption of SGMA due to their well residing outside the vertical extent of the basin boundary. Also, pumping saline groundwater and desalinating it will become increasingly economical under SGMA due to pumping restrictions in the basin.

Basin Setting The location and depth of the base of freshwater was confirmed by the values presented in the California Department of Conversation DOGGR wells. Comment noted for follow up in next round of GSP refinements and updates. 669 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.1.10 The Hydrologic Conceptual Model identified several data gaps including the following for groundwater level data: - Depth- or zone-specific water levels to assess vertical interconnection, including zones within the Principal Aquifer. Nested monitoring wells would be helpful near surface water to show how pumping is impacting surface water flows and GDEs. - Additional shallow groundwater data near surface waters and NCCAGs. - Additional groundwater level data in the east and northwest areas of the Subbasin. - Additional groundwater level data near the Mokelumne River to improve quantification and understanding of subsurface flows.

Of these, the second data gap is the information that is most critical to identifying GDEs or potential GDEs and understanding their characteristics.

GDEs
Comment noted. As GDEs are a recognized data gap in the GSP, the list of identified GDEs will continue to be refined. Language was added to Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) to identify NCCAG areas removed through the GDE analysis are data gaps areas requiring further refinement. The purpose of this is to identify potential existing GDEs that may have been incorrectly eliminated through this screening process. 670 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.1.4.2 This section should discuss (or reference the sections discussing) the following: - Specific ISWs, including the extent of both gaining and losing reaches. - In-stream flow requirements in each of the interconnected rivers/streams including the amount, time of year when the flow minimum is specified, the duration, the freshwater fish species for which it applies, associated permits that set forth the requirements, and the regulating agency setting forth the compliance requirements. - Areas of critical habitat that exist within rivers and streams.

Interconnected Surface Water See Master Response 2 - ISW. 671 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.1.5 Table 2-2 states that Holocene Stream Channel Deposits are generally not saturated except by the San Joaquin River. Based on the available data, it would be expected that the stream channel deposits associated with the other ISWs in the Subbasin would be saturated near those streams and rivers. Clarifying Edit Removed in response to comment. 672 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.1.9.2.2 This section focuses on groundwater flow direction and defers further discussion of groundwater conditions to Section 2.2, which does not provide information on historical groundwater-surface water interaction. This section should include a discussion of historic groundwater-surface water interaction. Interconnected Surface Water See Master Response 2 - ISW 673 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.2.6 - The determination as to whether or not a stream reach is interconnected or disconnected was made based on whether modeling conducted for the GSP indicated that it is interconnected more than 25 percent of the time. Even if the stream is only connected 25% of the time, it is still connected, and that short period of connectivity may be during critical times for select species or provide a cooling or biogeochemical effect during a critical period. Please describe the technical basis for selecting a 25 percent interconnection threshold, and how it will adequately protect the environmental beneficial uses of surface water in potentially interconnected surface waters from significant and unreasonable impacts related to groundwater extraction. - Shallow groundwater monitoring data near surface waters and NCCAGs are identified as a data gap in Section 2.1.10, and the use of the Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) to determine the percentage of time that stream reaches are groundwater connected entails inherent uncertainty. The potential presence of shallow or perched aquifers near the rivers is not assessed or discussed in the GSP. Groundwater modeling conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), DWR and others (e.g., JJ&A, 2018) has considered some river reaches shown as disconnected in Figure 2-66 (pp. 2-99) to be groundwater-connected. No data or discussion is presented regarding the potential groundwater connection of other streams associated with significant wetland and riparian resources, including Pixley Slough, Mormon Slough, Littlejohns Creek, Bear Creek, Potter Creek, Duck Creek and Lone Tree Creek. As such, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the designation of interconnected and disconnected surface water resources in Figure 2-66. The uncertainty regarding the groundwater interconnection of streams in the Subbasin should be identified as a data gap.

Interconnected Surface Water See Master Response 2 - ISW. 674 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.2.7 This section includes the incorrect statement that SGMA does not require sustainable management criteria to be established for the management of GDEs. Section 1.3.1 of the GSP states that beneficial users of groundwater and ISWs include “environmental users of groundwater, including species and habitat reliant on instream flows, as well as wetlands and GDEs.” Undesirable results under SGMA include chronic lowering of groundwater levels resulting in significant and unreasonable depletion of supply for beneficial groundwater users, including GDEs. Undesirable results also include depletion of ISWs resulting in significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water, including wetlands and GDEs. The incorrect statement that SGMA does not require the establishment of sustainable management criteria for GDEs should be removed.

Clarifying Edit
Clarified text in Section 2.2.7 (Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems): SGMA requires the identification of GDEs. SGMA does not require that additional sustainable management criteria be established to specifically manage these areas, but rather includes GDEs as a beneficial user of water to be considered when developing other sustainable management criteria. 38 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 676 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.3.5 The following items related to GDEs, wetlands and riparian areas should be clarified or considered:- “Riparian intake from streams” is identified as a stream system water budget component and is defined as the portion of riparian evapotranspiration (ET) met by streamflows. Please include an explanation of the approach to determining the amount of riparian ET demand met by streamflow vs. groundwater evapotranspiration. - Groundwater outflow to ET does not appear to be identified as a groundwater budget component (for example see Figure 2-74, p. 2-125). In addition, the ET demand of natural vegetation does not appear to be considered in water supply and demand calculations (for example see Table 2-16, p. 2-126). Since GDEs (including wetlands, riparian vegetation, phreatophytes and other communities) are recognized as beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin, it is appropriate to include them in these calculations.

Water Budget
1) Riparian evapotranspiration is included in the water budget (part of “Refuge, Native, and Riparian Evapotranspiration” in Table 2-14) and simulated in the model. Both streamflow and groundwater can contribute to meeting riparian evapotranspiration demand and the amount of demand met by each component is estimated directly by the model. “Riparian Intake from Streams” in Tables 2-13 and 2-14 includes all surface water and groundwater contributing to riparian demand through stream-aquifer interaction. The ESJWRM model does not have the level of detail to determine how much groundwater is consumed by riparian demand. 2) Groundwater outflow to evapotranspiration is not directly included as a water budget component and is simulated indirectly in ESJWRM through stream-aquifer interaction and seepage of pumped groundwater. 3) Wetlands, GDEs, riparian vegetation, and native (or natural) vegetation are recognized as beneficial users and are included in the water budget, though not separated out and are part of “Refuge, Native, and Riparian Evapotranspiration”. There is not enough information at this time to determine how much groundwater is consumed by each of these demands. 4) This GSP recognized GDEs as a data gap in both the determination of GDEs in the Subbasin as well as the simulation of GDEs in the model. In the model, GDEs are broadly assumed to be represented as native vegetation as they are not specifically included in land use surveys. This representation removes the realistic variation of rooting depths across GDEs and we will consider the specific simulation of GDEs in future updates to the model. Comment noted for follow up in next round of model refinements and updates. 677 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 3.1 The Sustainability Goal is defined as being “ … to maintain an economically-viable groundwater resource for the beneficial use of the people of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin … .” Since GDEs, are recognized as beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin, they should be mentioned in the Sustainability Goal. Sustainable Management Criteria The ESJGWA Board determined the sustainability goal meets the requirements of SGMA. GDEs are included in Section 1.3.1 (Beneficial Uses and Users in the Subbasin) and considered as an undesirable result in the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels sustainability indicator in Section 3.2.1. As groundwater levels are a key indicator in achieving the Subbasin's sustainability goal, the sustainability criteria should help prevent adverse effects on GDEs. 678 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 3.2.1.1.1 This section only describes undesirable results relating to human beneficial uses of groundwater and neglects environmental beneficial uses that could be adversely affected by chronic groundwater level decline. On page 3-5 in Section 3.2.1.2, impacts to GDEs are correctly identified as an undesirable result potentially associated with chronic groundwater level decline. Please add “potential adverse impacts to GDEs” to the list of potential undesirable results presented in Section 3.2.1.1.1.

GDEs Language was added to Section 3.2.1.1.1 to include: Adverse impacts to environmental uses and users, including interconnected surface waters and groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs). 679 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 3.2.3.1.1 This section only describes undesirable results in terms of total dissolved solids concentrations and related impacts. The section should be modified to state that overpumping and dewatering of aquitards has been identified as a potential source of elevated arsenic concentrations above drinking water standards in San Joaquin Valley aquifers. The following is a link to a paper by Smith, Knight and Fendorf (2018) titled “Overpumping leads to California groundwater arsenic threat”:
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04475-3).

Groundwater Quality Comment noted. Thank your providing a link to the arsenic paper. Text was added to Section 3.2.3.1.1 (Description of Undesirable Results) to discuss management of arsenic and nitrate. 680 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 3.2.6.1.1 This section states that undesirable results related to surface water depletion were defined and evaluated only for major streams and rivers including the Calaveras River, Dry Creek, Mokelumne River, San Joaquin River, and Stanislaus River. The section goes on to state that many of the smaller creeks and streams are solely used for the conveyance of irrigation water and these systems have not been considered in the analysis of depletions. Contrary to these statements, surface water resources in these creeks support significant recognized aquatic habitat, wetlands and riparian zones that represent potential environmental beneficial uses and users of groundwater. A number of these streams are associated with designated protected lands. The analysis for potential depletion of ISWs in Section 3.2.6 should include all beneficial users of surface water that could be affected by groundwater withdrawals, including environmental beneficial users along creeks, even if the creeks are interconnected less than 75% of the time.

Interconnected Surface Water
1) The ESJGWA recognizes that interconnected surface water is a data gap area and supports the use of groundwater levels as a proxy as the best information currently available. The ESJGWA has identified a need for future study and refinement will continue coordination efforts to better inform conditions. 2) Language has been added to Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) identifying interconnected surface water as a data gap area for future study and refinement. It also has been updated to clarify and better articulate the ESJGWA's focus on installing additional monitoring wells near streams, which can be evaluated for use as representative monitoring wells in the future. 681 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 3.2.6.1.2 The section states that “undesirable results would occur if groundwater extractions depleted interconnected streams and there was not sufficient surface water to supply … fish and wildlife demands.” This definition of undesirable results is overly narrow and recognizes only a limited subset of the environmental beneficial users of ISWs. A more complete definition would be that undesirable results would occur if groundwater extraction resulted in a depletion of surface water that caused significant impacts to aquatic species or wildlife, or degradation of GDEs. Please expand the definition of undesirable results to include all of the environmental beneficial uses and users of ISWs, and expand the analysis in Section 3.2.6, as appropriate.

Interconnected Surface Water
Comment noted, the ESJGWA supports the definition of undesirable results provided in the GSP, which identifies GDEs and freshwater fish and wildlife species as beneficial users. The ESJGWA will continue to collect data to better inform connectivity conditions in the Subbasin. 682 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 3.2.6.1.3 The potential effects of undesirable results on environmental beneficial users are not described. Please expand the section to describe the potential effects of undesirable results on all beneficial uses and users of ISWs, including environmental uses and users. The GDE Pulse web application developed by The Nature Conservancy provides easy access to 35 years of satellite data to view trends of vegetation metrics, groundwater depth (where available), and precipitation data. This satellite imagery can be used to observe trends for NC dataset polygons within the Subbasin. Over the past 10 years (2009-2018), some NC dataset vegetation polygons have experienced adverse impacts to vegetation growth and moisture in the western portion of the Subbasin. An example screen shot from the GDE Pulse tool is presented below. Please review these spatial patterns and, where possible, correlate them with water level trends. Any indications of adverse trends and any data gaps should be identified. [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER] GDEs 1) Language was added to Section 3.2.6.1.1 to reference Section 1.3.1 (Beneficial Uses and Users in the Basin). 2) Language was added to Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) to indicate that the ESJGWA would evaluate using the GDE Pulse Tool and other tools to monitor GDEs.GDEs See Master Response 1 - GDEs.

The GSP relies on the NCCAG database developed by TNC for the DWR to identify potential GDEs, and then provides a framework for removing most of these areas from further consideration. It appears that the preliminary desktop analysis documented in the draft GSP resulted an excessive elimination of the NC dataset polygons mapped in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. In particular, the methods used to confirm whether or not polygons in the NC Dataset are connected to groundwater in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin are highly flawed. We have the following comments on the proposed approach:

The GSP takes the approach of removing NCCAGs with “access to alternate water supplies” from consideration as GDEs, and states that in order to be considered GDEs, “there must not be alternate water supplies”. Alternate water supplies are assumed to include potential sources of surface water including managed wetlands, irrigated agricultural fields, perennial surface water sources, and other unspecified sources determined by stakeholders on a case-specific basis. This approach is inappropriate and deficient for several important reasons:- There is no hydrologic analysis or empirical data provided as a basis for the proposed buffer zones. The hydrologic connectivity between a GDE and a nearby alternative water source is highly dependent on local conditions and can vary seasonally and by year type. In the case of managed wetlands, no consideration is given to the nature of the wetland and surrounding area, the source and frequency of inundation, the soil types, and other features that would be needed to understand the hydrologic connectivity between the wetland and the surrounding area, or even whether the wetland itself it groundwater dependent for a portion of the year. Similarly, no information is given to the topography and hydrology surrounding irrigated agricultural fields, the soil types involved, irrigation practices, whether irrigation is likely to be curtailed during dry years or during certain crop rotations, and other relevant factors. The hydrologic connectivity of perennial surface water sources cannot be assessed without specific knowledge of the water source, topography and soil conditions. In summary, the adequacy of generic buffer zones to assure GDE access to surface water is unsubstantiated. - No information is provided regarding the species residing in the GDEs, their sensitivity to groundwater level declines, or the extent of their reliance on groundwater vs. the proposed “alternate water supplies.” - There is no evidence of consultation with the regulatory agencies responsible for the protection and management of these resources in the establishment of the proposed framework. It does not appear that any habitat assessments have been conducted. - Ecosystems often rely both on groundwater and surface water to meet their water needs (see Best Management Practice #3 in Attachment C of this letter). The availability of “alternate water supplies” to provide some portion of a GDE’s water demand does not mean all of its water needs can be met through alternate supplies (i.e., without reliance on groundwater). - Groundwater pumping depletes ISWs under both gaining or losing conditions, and GDEs may rely on the interactions of surface water to [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN COMMENT LETTER]
675 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 2.2.8 39 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 684 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 4.1 and Section 4.6 The GSP proposes to use groundwater level monitoring for chronic groundwater level decline as a surrogate for monitoring the depletion of ISWs. We have the following comments.- The areas identified as potential GDEs in the GSP are located near the western boundary of the Subbasin. Only one of the representative monitoring wells appears to be located near those areas (Figure 4-1 on p. 4-5). Very few of the remaining monitoring wells are located near potential ISWs and GDEs. Specific monitoring should be described to further evaluate, monitor, manage and protect areas with ISWs and GDEs.- Per the GSP Regulations (23 CCR §354.34 (a) and (b)), monitoring must address trends in groundwater and related surface conditions (emphasis added). Groundwater level monitoring alone may be insufficient to establish a linkage between groundwater extraction and potentially resulting impacts to environmental resources associated with GDEs and ISWs. The cause-effect relationship between groundwater levels and the biological responses that could result in significant and unreasonable impacts to ISWs and GDEs depends on a number of complicated factors, and this relationship is not characterized or discussed. As such, it is not possible to determine whether the proposed monitoring, minimum thresholds and measurable objectives are sufficiently protective to ensure significant and unreasonable impacts to GDEs and ISWs will be prevented. The GDE Pulse interactive mapping application provides an example of a linkage between groundwater level data and GDE health that could be used to incorporate remote sensing into an efficient and incisive monitoring program. Please provide an explanation how groundwater levels will specifically be used to assess adverse impacts to GDEs and ISWs, and identify any data gaps and how they will be addressed.

Interconnected Surface Water See Master Response 2 - ISW. 685 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 4.7
Twelve new monitoring wells are proposed to measure groundwater levels and quality in critical areas where data are sparse. These include increased coverage near streams, Subbasin boundaries, and in the central area of groundwater depression. We have the following comments.oLocadons should be prioridzed near high value or sensidve resources that are vulnerable to significant and unreasonable impacts, such as near the protected lands identified in our comments on Section 1.3.1 or the GDEs identified in the Subbasin. In addition to the major streams and rivers in the subbasin, impacts to smaller creeks and wetland areas should be considered, as these may be the most vulnerable resources. Please discuss the results of a resource assessment or consultations with resource managers that demonstrates a sufficient number of wells is proposed to address data gaps near GDEs and ISWs, and that they are being sited where they will provide the most benefit. Alternatively, please outline the process by which this will be accomplished.- As discussed in our comments above, please address how the need to link and correlate groundwater level declines to biological responses, and significant and adverse impacts to GDEs and ISWs will be addressed.- Well sites near ISWs should be selected at varying distances from streams and completed as vertically-nested clusters to capture the lateral and vertical gradients between the pumped depths in the aquifer system and the shallow groundwater aquifers that are in communication with ISWs or GDEs. There is a need to enhance monitoring of stream flow and vertical groundwater gradients by installing more stream gauges and clustered/nested wells near streams, rivers or wetlands. Ideally, colocating stream gauges with clustered wells would enhance understanding about where ISWs exist in the basin and whether pumping is causing depletions of surface water or impacts on beneficial users of surface water and groundwater.- Addressing data gaps is typically iterative and it is not reasonable to expect it will be a one-time process. Please describe the process by which data gaps will be identified and addressed on an ongoing basis.

Monitoring Network
1) Comment noted for consideration as proposed monitoring well locations are finalized and future updates to the monitoring network is considered.

Interconnected surface water was a major consideration in the placement of the proposed wells and almost all of the locations are very close to either major or minor streams. The two wells included in the TSS application are both deep, nested wells located near streams (Dry Creek and Calaveras River) and are anticipated to be drilled within a year. 2) The impact of groundwater level declines to beneficial users, as well as the effect of interconnected surface water and GDEs, will be considered in updates to the GSP and in the annual reports. 3) Comment noted for consideration as proposed monitoring well locations are finalized and future updates to the monitoring network (including evaluating the need for the installation of stream gauges) is considered. 4) The ESJGWA is committed to resolving the data gaps identified during the GSP development process. As discussed in Section 7.6.4 (Monitoring Network Description), a program may be developed for the GSP update to help fill any new or remaining data gaps. Data gaps will be continually reevaluated and addressed in updates to the GSP and in annual reports.
686 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 5.3, Table 5.3 Table 5.3 indicates that data regarding streamflow and GDEs is not currently included in the proposed Data Management System. Per the GSP Regulations (23 CCR §354.34 (a) and (b)), monitoring must address trends in groundwater and related surface conditions (emphasis added). You cannot manage what you do not measure. Please discuss which monitoring data for “related surface conditions” will be gathered and incorporated in the DMS to assess potential significant and unreasonable impacts to environmental beneficial uses and users.

DMS
Surface water data, including streamflow and water quality, is readily and publicly available online and has not be separately added to the DMS, though the system is set up to store streamflow and many other different types of data. Streamflow and surface water gage data was used both to build and calibrate the model, as well as in various analyses for the GSP. All groundwater level monitoring data will be evaluated for analysis of groundwater-surface water interaction and other surface conditions. As GDEs are a recognized data gap in the GSP, additional data may be collected that will be considered for addition to the DMS. 687 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 7.3.1 This section lists the key components involved in implementation of the monitoring network. Groundwater levels and monitoring will occur semi-annually, but no other information is given. Section 6.3 states that “additional management activities are discussed in Chapter 7: Plan Implementation”, and would include monitoring groundwater use through use of satellite imagery. However, Chapter 7 does not discuss using imagery or any remote sensing, which is a great tool for monitoring ecosystem health of GDEs and ISWs. Please clarify the potential use of imagery as a monitoring tool, and expand it to monitoring surface indicators of ISW and GDE ecosystem health.

Monitoring Network While there are currently no specific plans regarding the use of imagery is a monitoring tool, any publicly available tools will be evaluated for use in updates to the GSP. The text in Section 6.3 was edited to remove a mention of satellite imagery. 688 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 7.3.2.2 This section describes what current groundwater conditions and monitoring results will be included in the annual monitoring report. Please specifically address ecosystem health of GDEs and ISWs as a surface indictor to subsurface conditions. This can be done using GDE Pulse, remote sensing, imagery or other feasible methods. Monitoring Network While there are currently no specific plans regarding the use of imagery is a monitoring tool, any publicly available tools, including GDE Pulse, will be evaluated for use in updates to the GSP. 683 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 3.2.6.2 The GSP proposes to use the Minimum Thresholds and Measurable Objectives associated with Chronic Decline in Groundwater Levels as a proxy for management of depletion of ISWs, and concludes that these criteria will be protective of the depletion of ISWs and prevent significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial surface water uses and users. This conclusion is not adequately supported by data and/or consultation with the agencies that are responsible for the regulation of GDE habitats. We have the following comments:- The section states that current or historical issues associated with depletion of ISWs were not indicated to be significant and unreasonable based on discussions at GWA Board, Advisory Committee, and Workgroup meetings and through input from GSA staff, and that it was therefore assumed that historical conditions are protective of beneficial uses. It does not appear that any consultation occurred with the Federal, State and local agencies responsible for management and regulation of environmental beneficial uses of ISWs, or with the private parties, agencies and NGOs involved in managing the protected lands listed in our response to Section 1.3.1. In addition, no reference is made to the review of supporting documents for General Plan Conservation or Land Use Elements, or to the review of environmental management studies and documents such as Biological Assessments, Biological Opinions, HCPs or other studies regarding the current and historical conditions of the beneficial uses being evaluated. Please provide a more thorough explanation of the basis for the assumption that current and historical groundwater level conditions are protective of beneficial uses related to ISWs. Data gaps should be acknowledged.- The GDE Pulse web application developed by The Nature Conservancy provides easy access to 35 years of satellite data to view trends of vegetation metrics, groundwater depth (where available), and precipitation data. This satellite imagery can be used to observe trends for NC dataset polygons within the Subbasin. Over the past 10 years (2009-2018), some NC dataset vegetation polygons have experienced adverse impacts to vegetation growth and moisture in the western portion of the Subbasin. Please review these spatial patterns and, where possible, correlate them with water level trends. Any indications of adverse trends and any data gaps should be identified. - The section discusses future use scenarios, associated groundwater level declines and ISW depletions on a broad level. The potential effects of these declines on environmental beneficial uses, including GDEs, are not discussed. In addition to discussion of potential adverse effects at a general level, a conclusion that significant adverse impacts are unlikely generally requires more site- and resource-specific analysis. Please include a discussion of the potential for adverse effects of surface water depletions on environmental resources, as well as a reasoned analysis of the likelihood of their occurrence under future scenarios. The lack of site-specific data to draw conclusions about specific environmental beneficial users should be recognized as a data gap.- Please expand the analysis of potential undesirable results to include all environmental beneficial uses and users, including those associated with more local streams and creeks.- The statement that an additional depletion of the surface water due to groundwater pumping of 50,000 acre-feet per year is not significant and unreasonable needs to be further analyzed. The conclusion is based on analyzing the estimated depletion as a percentage of total surface water discharge. The significance of such a depletion relative to specific beneficial uses and users will depend on its distribution throughout the surface water system. Even a modest amount of depletion may have a significant local adverse effect. The limitations of broad conclusions regarding basin-wide surface water flow depletions should be recognized and any data gaps identified.

Interconnected Surface Water See Master Response 2 - ISW. 40 ESJ Public Comments Response
Comment # Commenter Commenter Organization Section, Figure, or Table Number Comment Category Response to Comment 689 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 6.2.1 The Subbasin includes many GDEs and ISWs which represent beneficial uses and users of groundwater, and which include potentially sensitive resources and protected lands. Environmental resource protection needs should be considered in establishing project priorities. In addition, consistent with existing grant and funding guidelines for SGMA-related work, priority should be given to multi-benefit projects that can address water quantity as well as providing environmental benefits or benefits to disadvantaged communities. Please include environmental benefits and multiple benefits as criteria for assessing project priorities.

Projects and Management Actions See Master Response 5 - Projects. Multi-benefit projects will be pursued when feasible. 690 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Table 6.1
Table 6-1 lists potential projects and the Measurable Objective that is expected to benefit. Only water level benefits are listed, but maintenance or recovery of groundwater levels, or construction of recharge facilities, also will have environmental benefits in many cases. From the table, it is not possible to distinguish the full range of project benefits or how the projects will be prioritized. It would be advantageous to demonstrate multiple benefits from a funding and prioritization perspective.

Projects and Management Actions
Comment noted. The text in Chapter 6 (Projects and Management Actions) provides summaries of all potential SGMA projects, including expected project benefits. 691 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 6.2.4 - For the projects already identified, please consider stating how ISWs and GDEs will benefit or be protected, or what other environmental benefits will accrue. - If ISWs will not be adequately protected by those listed, please include and describe additional management actions and projects targeted for protecting ISWs.- Recharge ponds, reservoirs and facilities for managed stormwater recharge can be designed to include elements that act functionally as wetlands and provide a benefit for wildlife and aquatic species. In some cases, such facilities have been incorporated into local HCPs, more fully recognizing the value of the habitat that they provide and the species they support. For projects that will be constructing recharge ponds, please consider identifying if there will be habitat value incorporated into the design and how the recharge ponds will be managed to benefit environmental users.- Specific examples of how project descriptions may be refined to incorporate environmental benefits include the following:
- Project 21: Winery Recycled Water will recycle winery wastewater and reuse it for irrigation and in-lieu recharge, or the water will be put into ponds. Please consider identifying what proportion of water will be put into ponds for direct recharge that could also provide a benefit for wildlife and aquatic species.- Project 23: SSJID Stormwater Reuse will capture stormwater for reuse and recharge. Project 18: Farmington Dam Repurpose Project proposes to more than double storage in Farmington Basin for water supply. Please consider assessing ways in which these projects could also provide enhanced wildlife and aquatic species benefits. - For examples of case studies on how to incorporate environmental benefits into groundwater projects, please visit our website: https://groundwaterresourcehub.org/case-studies/recharge-case-studies/E698 Projects and Management Actions
1) GSP projects have been proposed by individual GSAs and will be implemented at the GSA level. Although the ESJGWA does not have authority to direct project design or implementation, the ESJGWA's role will be to oversee essential project coordination by identifying where projects would be beneficial, synthesize how GSAs are doing projects, and make sure that GSA projects are getting the Subbasin to sustainability. Multi-benefit projects will be pursued when feasible. 2) Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge (Flood-MAR) is an integrated and voluntary resource management strategy that uses flood water resulting from, or in anticipation of, rainfall or snow melt for managed aquifer recharge (MAR) on agricultural lands and working landscapes, including but not limited to refuges, floodplains, and flood bypasses. Flood-MAR can be implemented at multiple scales, from individual landowners diverting flood water with existing infrastructure, to using extensive detention/recharge areas and modernizing flood management infrastructure/operations (Source:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Flood-MAR). 3) See also: Master Response 5 - Projects. 692 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy Section 6.3
This section lists only administrative actions the GSA will undertake to implement the GSP, and does not identify the management actions to be taken if to assure SGMA compliance if monitoring data indicate that measurable objectives or interim milestones are not being achieved. An adaptive management approach, where monitoring data are used to assess results and inform refinement of the management approach is typically specified. Please identify what management actions will be taken if monitoring data indicate that Measurable Objectives or Interim Milestones are not being achieved, or undesirable results are imminent.

Projects and Management Actions See Master Response 5 - Projects. 693 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy N/A IDENTIFYING GDEs UNDER SGMA Best Practices for using the NC Dataset [SEE MORE SPECIFICS IN ATTACHMENT C IN COMMENT LETTER] GDEs Comment noted, this is not a requirement of SGMA and can be evaluated in future iterations of the GSP as determined by the ESJGWA. Language was added to Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) to indicate that the ESJGWA would evaluate using the GDE Pulse Tool and other tools to monitor GDEs. 694 Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy N/A
GDE PulseA new, free online tool that allows Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to assess changes in groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) health using satellite, rainfall, and groundwater data. [SEE SPECIFICS IN ATTACHMENT D IN COMMENT LETTER] GDEs Language was added to Section 4.7 (Data Gaps) to indicate that the ESJGWA would evaluate using the GDE Pulse Tool and other tools to monitor GDEs. 695 Joey Giordano The Wine Group Figure ES-6 On Figure ES-6, I would recommend adding the total for each column/section of the bar graph below the text for each section (i.e. "Pumping under Projected Conditions XX,XXX AF". The figure has less value when you have to rely on the units on the y-axis rather than having the totals for each section explicitly marked. Mechanics - Graphics Comment noted. This is beyond the scope of the GSP. 696 David Weisenberger Banta-Carbona Irrigation District on behalf of Tracy Subbasin GSAs Table 2-15 Table 2-15 on page 2-121 of the Draft GSP indicates that the Tracy Subbasin has historically contributed 35,000 acre-feet while it is projected to increase to 41,000 acre- feet of subsurface inflow annually to the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin. These figures have not been documented or confirmed by those GSAs participating in preparation of the Tracy Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). This line should be footnoted to indicate that these figures will be further refined upon completion of the Tracy Subbasin GSP in January of 2022, and coordination of these figures with the Tracy Subbasin GSAs. Clarifying Edit Added to note 6 on Table 2-15 to clarify that subsurface flows are an important component of continuing inter-basin coordination: Continuing inter-basin coordination may refine these numbers. 41 This page is intentionally left blank.

Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Complete Appendices November 2019
APPENDIX 1-K.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A GSP

ATTEST:

CLERK

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Lockeford Community Services District
Joseph Salzman
Printed Name
District Mananger
Title
POBox 809
Address
Lockeford CA 95237
City IState/Zip
[email protected]
Email
n/a
Fax

ATTEST:
_______________________________________
CLERK
_______________________________________

AGENCY LEGAL NAME
_______________________________________
By: Signature Date
_______________________________________
Printed Name
_______________________________________
Title
_______________________________________
Address
_______________________________________
City/State/Zip
_______________________________________
Email
_______________________________________
Fax
South San Joaquin GSA
Brandon W. Nakagawa
Water Resources Coordinator
11011 E. HWY 120
Manteca, CA. 95336
[email protected]
(209) 249-4659

AGENCY LEGAL NAME
_______________________________________
By: Signature Date

This page is intentionally left blank.

Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Complete Appendices November 2019
APPENDIX 2-A.

EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN WATER RESOURCES MODEL
(ESJWRM) REPORT
Eastern San Joaquin
Water Resources Model (ESJWRM)
AUGUST 2018

EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN WATER RESOURCES MODEL
(ESJWRM)
Final Report
August 2018
Prepared by
San Joaquin County i Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Goals of Model Development ...............................................................................................1-1

1.2 Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin.........................................................................1-1

1.3 Local Coordination ..............................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Model Platform ...................................................................................................................1-2

2. MODEL DEVELOPMENT...........................................................................................................2-4

2.1 Model Input Data ................................................................................................................2-4

2.2 Model Grid and Reporting Units............................................................................................2-5

2.3 Stream Configuration and Stream Inflow ...............................................................................2-6

2.4 Precipitation .......................................................................................................................2-8

2.5 Root Zone Soil Parameters..................................................................................................2-8

2.6 Land Use and Cropping Patterns..........................................................................................2-9

2.7 Evapotranspiration ............................................................................................................2-11

2.8 Drainage ..........................................................................................................................2-12

2.9 Model Layering .................................................................................................................2-12

2.10 Small-Stream Watersheds .................................................................................................2-13

2.11 Boundary Conditions .........................................................................................................2-13

2.12 Initial Conditions ...............................................................................................................2-14

3. WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND DATA.......................................................................................3-1

3.1 Agricultural Water Demand ..................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Urban Water Use ................................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Water Supply Summary.......................................................................................................3-2

3.3.1 Surface Water...........................................................................................................3-2

3.3.2 Groundwater Pumping...............................................................................................3-6

3.4 Water Supply Sources.........................................................................................................3-7

3.4.1 Delta Areas ..............................................................................................................3-7

3.4.2 Woodbridge Irrigation District .....................................................................................3-8

3.4.3 City of Lodi ...............................................................................................................3-8

3.4.4 North San Joaquin Water Conservation District............................................................3-8

3.4.5 Lockeford Community Services District .......................................................................3-9

3.4.6 Calaveras County......................................................................................................3-9

3.4.7 Stockton Area ...........................................................................................................3-9

3.4.8 Stockton East Water District.......................................................................................3-9

3.4.9 Linden County Water District....................................................................................3-10

3.4.10 Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District .......................................................3-10

3.4.11 South San Joaquin Irrigation District .........................................................................3-10

3.4.12 City of Lathrop ........................................................................................................3-11

3.4.13 City of Manteca.......................................................................................................3-11 San Joaquin County ii Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

3.4.14 City of Ripon...........................................................................................................3-11

3.4.15 City of Escalon........................................................................................................3-11

3.4.16 Oakdale Irrigation District.........................................................................................3-12

3.4.17 Cosumnes Subbasin ...............................................................................................3-12

3.4.18 Modesto Subbasin ..................................................................................................3-12

3.4.19 Riparian Diverters ...................................................................................................3-12

4. MODEL CALIBRATION.............................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Model Calibration................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Calibration of the IDC and Root-Zone Parameters..................................................................4-1

4.3 Calibration of Surface Water Features ..................................................................................4-2

4.4 Calibration of Water Budgets................................................................................................4-3

4.4.1 Land and Water Use Budget ......................................................................................4-3

4.4.2 Groundwater Budget .................................................................................................4-4

4.5 Groundwater Level Calibration .............................................................................................4-5

4.6 Measurement of Calibration Status .......................................................................................4-6

4.7 Final Calibration Parameters................................................................................................4-6

4.8 Sensitivity Analysis..............................................................................................................4-7

4.8.1 Sensitivity Analysis Results ........................................................................................4-8

5. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................5-1

6. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................6-1 TABLES
Table 1: ESJ Subbasin GSAs and Member Agencies
Table 2: Physical Model Boundaries
Table 3: ESJWRM Major Model Data
Table 4: Model Subregions and Subareas
Table 5: Summary of ESJWRM Stream Inflow Data
Table 6: Land Use Categories
Table 7: Summary of ESJWRM Surface Water Deliveries
Table 8: Summary of ESJWRM Well Pumping
Table 9: Summary of ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges
Table 10: Range of Aquifer Parameter Values

FIGURES
Figure 1: ESJ Subbasin with County Lines
Figure 2: Groundwater Subbasins
Figure 3a: ESJ Subbasin Major Water Purveyors
Figure 4: ESJWRM Boundaries
Figure 5: ESJWRM Grid Development Features
Figure 6: ESJWRM Elements
Figure 7: ESJWRM Subregions
Figure 8: ESJWRM Subareas
Figure 9: ESJWRM Streams and Stream Inflow Locations
San Joaquin County iii Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 10: ESJWRM Average Annual Precipitation
Figure 11: ESJWRM Annual Rainfall
Figure 12: ESJWRM Hydrologic Soil Group
Figure 13: ESJWRM General Land Use in 1995 DWR Land Use Survey Figure 14: ESJWRM General Land Use in 2015 CropScape
Figure 15: ESJWRM ESJ Subbasin Annual General Land Use
Figure 16: ESJWRM Cropping Pattern in 1995 DWR Land Use Survey Figure 17: ESJWRM Cropping Pattern in 2014 Land IQ
Figure 18: ESJWRM Cropping Pattern in 2015 CropScape
Figure 19a: ESJWRM Annual Cropping Pattern – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 20: ESJWRM Annual Evapotranspiration
Figure 21: ESJWRM Surface Water Drainage Watersheds
Figure 22: ESJWRM Ground Surface Elevation
Figure 23: ESJWRM Layer 1 Thickness
Figure 24: ESJWRM Corcoran Clay Depth to Top
Figure 25: ESJWRM Corcoran Clay Thickness
Figure 26: ESJWRM Layer 2 Thickness
Figure 27: ESJWRM Layer 3 Thickness
Figure 28: ESJWRM Layer 4 Thickness
Figure 29a: ESJWRM Cross Section A - A’
Figure 30: ESJWRM Small Watersheds
Figure 31: ESJWRM Initial GW Levels (Fall 1994)
Figure 32: ESJWRM Annual Population by Urban Center
Figure 33: ESJWRM Annual Per Capita Water Use by Urban Center Figure 34: ESJWRM Surface Water Diversion Locations
Figure 35: ESJWRM Groundwater Production Wells
Figure 36: ESJWRM Riparian Surface Water Diversion Areas Figure 37: ESJWRM Field Capacity
Figure 38: ESJWRM Wilting Point
Figure 39: ESJWRM Total Porosity
Figure 40: ESJWRM Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Figure 41: ESJWRM Pore Size Distribution Index
Figure 42a: ESJWRM Agricultural Water Demand – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 43a: ESJWRM Urban Water Demand – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 44: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges
Figure 45: ESJWRM Stream Bed Hydraulic Conductivity
Figure 46a: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Streamflow – Dry Creek near Galt Figure 47a: ESJWRM Agricultural Land and Water Use Budget – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 48a: ESJWRM Urban Land and Water Use Budget – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 49a: ESJWRM Groundwater Budget – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 50: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Calibration Wells
Figure 51a: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Contours (Fall 2015) Figure 52a: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #1 Figure 53: ESJWRM ESJ Subbasin Groundwater Level Histogram Figure 54: ESJWRM ESJ Subbasin Groundwater Level Scatter Plot Figure 55: ESJWRM Parametric Grid
Figure 56: ESJWRM Layer 1 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Figure 57: ESJWRM Layer 2 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity San Joaquin County iv Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 58: ESJWRM Layer 3 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Figure 59: ESJWRM Layer 1 Specific Storage
Figure 60: ESJWRM Layer 2 Specific Storage
Figure 61: ESJWRM Layer 3 Specific Storage
Figure 62: ESJWRM Layer 1 Specific Yield
Figure 63: ESJWRM Layer 2 Specific Yield
Figure 64: ESJWRM Layer 3 Specific Yield
Figure 65: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Figure 66: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity – Relative Root Mean Square Error Figure 67: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Figure 68: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity – Relative Root Mean Square Error Figure 69: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Specific Storage – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet) Figure 70: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Specific Storage – Relative Root Mean Square Error Figure 71: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Specific Yield – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet) Figure 72: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Specific Yield – Relative Root Mean Square Error Figure 73: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Streambed Conductance – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Figure 74: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Streambed Conductance – Relative Root Mean Square Error

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Presentations to Technical Review Committee Appendix B: ESJWRM IDC Technical Memorandum
Appendix C: ESJWRM Calibration Wells
San Joaquin County v Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AF and AFY Acre-Feet and Acre-Feet Per Year
ASTM American Standard Testing Method
AWMP Agricultural Water Management Plan
C2VSim California Central Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model Cal Water California Water Service Company Stockton District CALSIMETAW California Simulation of Evapotranspiration of Applied Water CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CCWD Calaveras County Water District
CDEC California Data Exchange Center
CFS Cubic Feet per Second
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System County San Joaquin County
CSJWCD Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District
CVHM Central Valley Hydrologic Model
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ESJ Subbasin Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin
ESJWRM Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model
ET Evapotranspiration
ETAW Evapotranspiration of Applied Water
GBA Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority GMS Aquaveo Groundwater Modeling System
GPCD Gallons Per Capita Per Day
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSE Ground Surface Elevation
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWA Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority
IDC IWFM Demand Calculator
IGSM Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
IWFM Integrated Water Flow Model
KH Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity
KV Aquifer or Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity
LCSD Lockeford Community Services District
LCWD Linden County Water District
MAF and MAFY Million Acre-Feet and Million Acre-Feet Per Year METRIC Mapping Evapotranspiration at High Resolution with Internalized Calibration NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NSJWCD North San Joaquin Water Conservation District
OID Oakdale Irrigation District
OSWCR Online System for Well Completion Reports
PRISM Precipitation-Elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model San Joaquin County vi Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
PSDI Pore Size Distribution Index
RMS Root Mean Square
SEWD Stockton East Water District
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SS Aquifer Specific Storage
SSJID South San Joaquin Irrigation District
SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database
STATSGO2 Digital General Soil Map of the United States
SY Aquifer Specific Yield
TAF and TAFY Thousand Acre-Feet and Thousand Acre-Feet Per Year USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WDL Water Data Library
WID Woodbridge Irrigation District
San Joaquin County vii Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In December 2015, San Joaquin County (County) applied for Proposition 1’s Counties with Stressed Basins Grant and received approval for $499,900. With a fifty percent cost share with the California Department of Water Resources, the County executed a contract with Woodard & Curran (formerly RMC Water and Environment), on September 13, 2016 to begin work on a hydrologic model for the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin. The purpose of the resulting model, the Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM), is to support activities in long-term management of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin at the local scale, specifically focusing on meeting the goals and requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

A technical committee provided quality assurance and technical support throughout the project, resulting in a groundwater model widely accepted by local shareholders and public agencies. The committee was an informal group consisting of technical representatives from local agencies, consultants with knowledge of the area, representatives for neighboring groundwater subbasins, Department of Water Resources (DWR) staff, and San Joaquin County personnel. Local agencies with consistent representation included San Joaquin County, Woodbridge Irrigation District, City of Lodi, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, Lockeford Community Services District, Calaveras County Water District, City of Stockton, California Water Service Company Stockton District, Stockton East Water District, City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, City of Escalon, Oakdale Irrigation District, and Stanislaus County.

The Main Project Team included:
• Woodard & Curran (formerly RMC Water and Environment) o Alyson Watson, Project Principal
o Ali Taghavi, Project Manager
o Sevim Onsoy, Project Support
o Jeanna Long, Data Management System Lead
o Sara Miller, Project Engineer
• NV5
San Joaquin County ES-1 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) was developed to evaluate the surface water and groundwater resources in the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin (ESJ Subbasin) during recent historical hydrologic conditions. This period covers water years 1995 through 2015, and includes several above normal and wet years, as well as the most recent drought conditions. The model is designed to simulate the regional water resources conditions in the ESJ Subbasin, including the land surface processes, groundwater operations, stream and river systems, and the interaction between these resources.

Development of the ESJWRM occurred in an open and
transparent process over approximately 24 months, starting in September 2016. Model development was a collaborative process between San Joaquin County staff, local water agencies, and Woodard & Curran, as consultant and developers of the model. The model was developed by partial funding from the Department of Water Resources (DWR), and as such, the DWR staff were engaged and collaborated in development of the model.

A technical committee provided quality assurance and technical support throughout the project, resulting in an integrated water resources model widely accepted by local shareholders and public agencies. The committee was an informal group consisting of technical representatives from local agencies, consultants with knowledge of the area, representatives from neighboring groundwater subbasins, DWR staff, and San Joaquin County personnel. Local agencies with consistent representation included San Joaquin County, Woodbridge Irrigation District, City of Lodi, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, Lockeford Community Services District, Calaveras County Water District, City of Stockton, California Water Service Company Stockton District, Stockton East Water District, City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, City of Escalon, Oakdale Irrigation District, and Stanislaus County.

ESJWRM development followed a robust process as shown below. Modeling needs were established in early 2015, shortly after the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

Subsequently, modeling goals and objectives were discussed and established, and San Joaquin County was successful in securing funds through Proposition 1 to begin development of the model.

ESJWRM development required a significant amount of data and information, including hydrologic, hydrogeologic, topographic and soil conditions, land use and cropping patterns, urban and agricultural water demand, urban and agricultural water supplies, surface water conveyance and distribution systems, groundwater infrastructure and extraction, and irrigation practices. The following figure shows the type San Joaquin County ES-2 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
of data and information needed to develop the model. A collaborative process was followed to collect and analyze, fill data gaps, and develop proper assumptions for the use, context, and accuracy of the data, before analyzing and properly formatting the data for input in the model.

Once the model was constructed, appropriate state-of-the-art scientific and engineering protocols and guidelines were utilized to calibrate the model to ensure that:
• Water budgets generated by the model represent the regional and local understanding of the agricultural and urban entities represented in the model. The model-generated water budgets showing water demand and supply and the groundwater system are prepared and reported on both monthly and annual scales for urban and agricultural entities as well as at the subbasin scale. • Monthly groundwater levels generated by the model at select observation wells throughout the subbasin closely follow the long-term annual trends and short-term seasonal fluctuations that are recorded and reported at the observation wells.
• Monthly streamflow generated by the model at select gauging stations closely follow the high and low flows as reported.

The calibrated ESJWRM provides detailed conditions of the ESJ Subbasin over the calibration period of water years 1996 through 2015. This calibrated model can be used for understanding subbasin characteristics and the effects of historical surface water and groundwater operations as well as irrigation practices or urban operations on the groundwater and surface water resources in the ESJ Subbasin. These include:
• Historical and current levels of development
• Subbasin operations under natural conditions
• Nature, extent, and rates of stream-aquifer interaction San Joaquin County ES-3 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
• Effects and benefits of upstream regulation of rivers on the operations of the groundwater subbasin
• Effects of operations of regional water supply projects, including conjunctive use, on subbasin conditions
• Evaluation of water quality conditions in the subbasin Additionally, the calibrated model can be used to develop baseline conditions representing projections of land use, population growth, water demand, and water supply conditions, as estimated based on local and regional planning activities. The baseline model, as a robust, defensible, and detailed tool, may be used for assessing the current and projected water resources conditions in the basin to support various local and regional planning projects and programs,
such as the development and implementation of a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). ESJWRM may
also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of different projects that may be proposed through the GSP
development process. The fine scale of the model also
provides the opportunity for individual Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to evaluate the effects
of ESJ Subbasin conditions on smaller GSA areas.

Some of the key features of the ESJWRM are as follows:

Model Platform
The model code platform is the DWR’s Integrated Water Flow Model (IWFM-2015). This code platform was developed by DWR to simulate the integrated hydrologic conditions of a groundwater basin, with interactions between the surface water, groundwater, and stream system. The code platform has specific strengths in the calculation of agricultural water demand in a predominantly agricultural area, such as the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. The code platform is supported by the DWR modeling support staff for local and regional applications, including SGMA implementation.

Model Area
The model covers the entire area of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, as defined by DWR Bulletin 118, as well as the areas of the Modesto and Cosumnes Groundwater Subbasins (the basins immediately north and south of the ESJ Subbasin). The model area is subdivided into small units (elements). A comprehensive integrated hydrologic process and analysis is conducted at each model element, and surface water and groundwater flows are calculated and simulated across elements, and throughout the entire model area on a monthly time step, in such a way that mass balance is preserved every month. Additionally, each element represents the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions of the subsurface environment as represented by four model layers in a conceptual context.

Project Evaluations

SGMA, IRWM, GWMP
Groundwater Banking
Water Availability
Groundwater
Sustainability
Urban Water Supply
Storm water and
Recycled Water
Opportunities
Hydro-Economic
Evaluations
Project Beneficiary
Assessment
San Joaquin County ES-4 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Hydrology
The model contains 50 years of hydrologic period (water years 1969 through 2018), which provides opportunities to assess the basin conditions during above normal, below normal, and drought periods.

The model is calibrated during the period of 1996-2015, during which there are more robust and defensible data available for model calibration. In addition, the model includes major and minor rivers and creeks in the area and calculates stream-aquifer interaction along the major rivers and creeks. The minor creeks and canals represented in the model are used for conveyance of irrigation water and drainage.

San Joaquin County ES-5 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Model Subareas
The model elements are aggregated into larger geographic areas, which represent individual agricultural and urban entities (Subregions) and larger planning areas (Subareas). These larger areas can be used to prepare model input data and to analyze model generated water budgets for planning purposes.

San Joaquin County ES-6 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Land Use and Agricultural Cropping Pattern
A key data set used in the model is the distribution of land between agricultural, urban, native, and riparian land use categories, as well as acreages of major crops in the agricultural lands. This information is prepared and processed based on land use surveys prepared and reported by the DWR (DWR, 1993- 2000), remote sensing data from the United States Department of Agriculture called CropScape (USDA NASS, 2007-2015), and the DWR Land IQ dataset (DWR, 2014). This information was compiled, analyzed, and evaluated for each model element; compared and cross-checked with data and information from the agricultural entities; and finalized for use in the model.

San Joaquin County ES-7 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Water Budgets
The model produces water budgets for land surface processes, including an estimate of urban and agricultural water demands, and water supplies. In addition, the model produces water budgets for the groundwater system, including groundwater pumping to meet irrigation demand and urban water needs, deep percolation from rainfall and irrigation applied water, subsurface flows from neighboring groundwater subbasins and the Sierra Nevada foothills, seepage from unlined conveyance canals, and flows between the stream and the aquifer system. The model can present this information on both a monthly and annual basis. Local operations data and information was collected from various water users and model parameters were adjusted to calibrate the model outcome to the reported values. Model calibration was conducted in an open and transparent process to ensure that the water budgets and model calibration results are properly representing the conditions of the groundwater basin to the extent that information is available.

An annual representation of the groundwater budget can reveal overall changes in groundwater storage, as depicted in the chart below. Uncertainties are inherent in every data set and calculation. Through a systematic sensitivity analysis, the range of impacts of uncertainties on model calculations was quantified.

Knowledge of this range of uncertainties can assist in providing flexibility in decisions that rely on model results. The average annual depletions in groundwater storage for the historical period of 1996-2015 is estimated to be about 24,000 to 70,000 acre-feet per year (AFY), with an average depletion of 47,000 AFY.

Groundwater Levels
The model-calculated groundwater levels are calibrated to observed groundwater levels at key wells over time. The typical goal of this calibration process is to adjust hydraulic parameters that influence the movement of groundwater such that the groundwater levels calculated by the model at the specific observation wells throughout the model area track short-term seasonal fluctuations and long-term trends as closely as possible. A typical model produced result is shown in the chart below. Once calibrated, the model produces regional groundwater levels for select points in time, as shown in the figure below. Model calibration statistics are represented in the following figures, which indicate that 75% of model calculated groundwater levels are within 10 feet of reported observations, and 97% are within 20 feet of reported observations. Given the uncertainties in the measurement of reported values, as well as uncertainties in model calculations, and expected calibration results for similar models as reported in the scientific communities, this statistic represents a very good model performance.

San Joaquin County ES-8 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Streamflows
The model calculates flow of water in the stream system throughout the basin. Streamflows are subject to the diversion of water for beneficial agricultural uses or urban consumption, return flows from irrigation practices, runoff of rainfall, as well as gains and losses due to interaction with the groundwater system. The model stream system is calibrated to reported flows at the downstream gauging stations. The chart below shows the comparison between model calculated streamflow and gauge records on Mokelumne River at Woodbridge. The results indicate that the model is capable of simulating both the low and the high flows reasonably well.

San Joaquin County ES-9 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Conclusions and Recommendations
The ESJWRM, in its current state, is a robust, comprehensive, defensible and well-established model for assessing the water resources in the ESJ Subbasin under historical and projected conditions. The following recommendations are to be considered for further refinements and enhancements of the model:
• Continue engagement with local groundwater users and managers. Continue working with local agencies and groundwater users in ESJ Subbasin to further understand the local operations of the groundwater system and improve representation of groundwater users in the ESJWRM. • Refinement of boundary flows. The current boundary flows at the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the model area are based on an older version of the C2VSim with adjustments made based on initial groundwater levels assumed for the beginning of the model (October 1994). DWR is currently in the process of updating the C2VSIm model. Once the latest fine grid version (C2VSim-2015) is publicly available, boundary flows for the ESJ model area should be verified and updated, as necessary.
• Enhance variability of potential evapotranspiration. The current version of the IDC used for estimation of the consumptive use of crops in the ESJWRM uses monthly potential ET values that are the same for all years during the model period. Given that there may be annual variability in the potential ET data with possible effects on the annual estimation of crop water demand, it is recommended to use more detailed data with temporal variability to develop a full time series of ET values for use in the model.
• Refine surface water deliveries in Cosumnes and Modesto Subbasins. The surface water deliveries in the Cosumnes and Modesto Subbasins are currently at the subregion level and do not have the detailed spatial resolution of other areas within the ESJ Subbasin. This data may need to be verified and updated as modeling efforts in those subbasins progress to meet the requirements of SGMA.
• Update C2VSim based on ESJWRM. The fine grid version of C2VSim was developed by the DWR to evaluate the integrated surface water and groundwater conditions at a regional scale; whereas, the ESJWRM is capable of evaluation at the local scale. To increase the accuracy of regional groundwater conditions in the fine grid C2VSim, the County is encouraged to work with DWR to provide data and information for further refinement and update of C2VSim in the ESJWRM area. • Develop model update schedule. In order to keep the ESJWRM up-to-date and current for analysis of water resources and especially for supporting SGMA implementation, it is recommended that the model be updated every 3 to 5 years. A possible update schedule can be kept consistent with the GSP updates, with a lead time of 2 to 3 years relative to the GSP update schedule.

San Joaquin County 1-1 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Goals of Model Development
The Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) was developed primarily to evaluate the current and recent historical groundwater conditions of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin (ESJ Subbasin) and simulate various future condition scenarios as part of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) preparation process under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). ESJWRM will also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of different projects that may be proposed through the GSP development process. The fine scale of the model also provides the opportunity for individual Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to evaluate the effect of changing ESJ Subbasin conditions on smaller GSA areas.

1.2 Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin
The ESJ Subbasin underlies portions of San Joaquin, Calaveras, and Stanislaus counties, with the majority of the area in San Joaquin County (Figure 1). San Joaquin County is located in the northeastern San Joaquin Valley and contains portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

In 2014, the ESJ Subbasin was categorized as a high priority groundwater subbasin under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. The ESJ Subbasin has been identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as critically overdrafted and is included in the List of Critically Overdrafted Basins finalized in January 2016. As a critically overdrafted subbasin, GSAs in the ESJ Subbasin must develop a GSP by January 31, 2020 that details how the ESJ Subbasin will be managed in a sustainable manner by 2040. The other groundwater subbasins immediately surrounding the ESJ Subbasin are not critically overdrafted except for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Figure 2).

The major municipalities in the ESJ Subbasin are the cities of Lodi, Stockton (including California Water Service Company Stockton District or Cal Water), Lathrop, Manteca, Ripon, and Escalon. The major agricultural water providers in the ESJ Subbasin include Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID), North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), Stockton East Water District (SEWD), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD), South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID), and Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). The major municipalities and agricultural water providers are all GSAs. Other agencies which supply water or have land use authority within the ESJ Subbasin and have been designated as GSA’s are San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County (in combination with CCWD and Rock Creek Water District), Calaveras County Water District (CCWD), North and South Delta Water Agencies, Lockeford Community Services District (LCSD), and Linden County Water District (LCWD). The 17 GSAs covering ESJ Subbasin and their corresponding member agencies are listed in Table 1. The water purveyors are shown in Figure 3a and the GSAs are shown in Figure 3b.

Table 1: ESJ Subbasin GSAs and Member Agencies
GSA Member Agency
Central Delta Water Agency Central Delta Water Agency
Central San Joaquin Water
Conservation District Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District City of Lathrop City of Lathrop
City of Lodi City of Lodi
San Joaquin County 1-2 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
GSA Member Agency
City of Manteca City of Manteca
City of Stockton City of Stockton
Eastside San Joaquin GSA
Calaveras County Water District
Stanislaus County
Rock Creek Water District
Linden County Water District Linden County Water District Lockeford Community
Services District Lockeford Community Services District North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District North San Joaquin Water Conservation District Oakdale Irrigation District ESJ
Subbasin GSA Oakdale Irrigation District
San Joaquin County San Joaquin County
San Joaquin County No. 2 San Joaquin County
Cal Water
South Delta Water Agency South Delta Water Agency
South San Joaquin GSA
South San Joaquin Irrigation District
City of Ripon
City of Escalon
Stockton East Water District Stockton East Water District Woodbridge Irrigation
District
Woodbridge Irrigation District

1.3 Local Coordination
The development of the ESJWRM took place in an open and transparent process. The 17 GSAs of the ESJ Subbasin coordinate SGMA activities through the formation of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (GWA). The Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority (GBA) was the organizational structure for agency coordination of water resources activities before SGMA regulations and the formation of the GWA. Many of the GBA/GWA agency members participated in a Technical Review Committee, which acted as the forum to review model input data and assumptions, as well as calibration results. The Technical Review Committee helped to facilitate major modeling decisions, provided input data, and reviewed results. The monthly Technical Review Committee meetings were open to all interested parties and generally consisted of technical representatives from local agencies, consultants with knowledge of the area, representatives for neighboring groundwater subbasins, DWR staff, and San Joaquin County personnel. Presentations given to this group are included in Appendix A and highlight major model configuration decisions, data analysis, and draft model results.

Local agencies with consistent representation at the Technical Review Committee meetings included San Joaquin County, WID, City of Lodi, NSJWCD, LCSD, CCWD, City of Stockton, Cal Water, SEWD, City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, SSJID, City of Escalon, OID, and Stanislaus County.

1.4 Model Platform
The ESJ Subbasin has been modeled since the mid-1980s. In 1993, as part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s American River Watershed Investigation, an integrated model was developed based on the Integrated San Joaquin County 1-3 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Groundwater and Surface Water Model (IGSM) code. This model was developed in coordination with the San Joaquin County (County) and DWR and was used to analyze several conjunctive use programs and projects. In 2001, the San Joaquin County IGSM model was converted to a DYNFLOW platform (a proprietary finite element groundwater flow model) and was used for the County’s Water Management Plan (CDM, 2008). The model originally simulated a period of October 1969 through September 1993 and was updated in 2007 for the Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) to simulate hydrologic conditions through September 2006. The proprietary nature of DYNFLOW makes the model not suitable to support subbasin analysis as part of GSP development per SGMA requirements.

With the award of Proposition 1’s Counties with Stressed Basins Grant, the determination was made to combine data from the older models into a new, local-scale model using DWR’s code that updated and replaced IGSM, called Integrated Water Flow Model (IWFM). IWFM is an open-source, finite element simulation code that supports triangular and quadrilateral elements (Dogrul et al., 2017a). It was specifically designated in GSP regulations as being supported by DWR for water budget development and SGMA compliance. It is also the code used for DWR’s California Central Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model (C2VSim), the fine grid version of which is being refined and enhanced by DWR to support SGMA activities throughout the Central Valley at the regional scale (Brush et al., 2013). C2VSim was developed using the same methodology and source data as were ESJWRM’s datasets. To maintain consistency, ESJWRM relies on C2VSim for many of its datasets.

The IWFM Demand Calculator (IDC) is the stand-alone root zone component of IWFM that simulates land surface and root zone flow processes (Dogrul et al., 2017b). It calculates agricultural and urban water demands using inputs including climate conditions, soil parameters, and land use types and distribution.

It can be run separately or combined with IWFM. IDC data development and results in this documentation are included as part of all other IWFM datasets and results. The IDC major data pieces and draft results were initially presented in a February 1, 2018 Technical Memorandum (Appendix B).

At the October 26, 2016 Technical Review Committee meeting, the decision was made to keep the model domain the same as for the DYNFLOW model. The County’s DYNFLOW model included the ESJ Subbasin, as well as the Cosumnes Subbasin to the north and the Modesto Subbasin to the south. The ESJ Subbasin is the primary model area and the secondary model area includes the Cosumnes and Modesto Subbasins.

The physical model boundaries are included in Table 2 and shown in Figure 4.

Table 2: Physical Model Boundaries
Boundary Entire Model Primary Model Area
(ESJ Subbasin)
North Cosumnes River Dry Creek and County Boundary
(including Mokelumne River)
East Sierra Nevada Foothills Sierra Nevada Foothills
South Tuolumne River Stanislaus River
West San Joaquin River San Joaquin River
San Joaquin County 2-4 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

2. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
This section presents the source and analysis of input data used in the development of ESJWRM. This includes spatial and temporal information for hydrologic and hydrogeologic data sets included in the model, as well as physical parameters and assumptions.

2.1 Model Input Data
The historical ESJWRM simulates water years 1995 through 2015 (October 1, 1994 through September 30, 2015). All data and computations are performed on a monthly time step. IWFM model files and corresponding major data sources and report sections are referenced below in Table 3.

Table 3: ESJWRM Major Model Data
Major Data
Category Minor Data Category Data Source Report Section Hydrogeological
Data
Geologic Stratification C2VSim 2.9
Aquifer Parameters USGS Texture Model 4.7
Stream Data
Stream Configuration C2VSim & San Joaquin
County 2.3
Stream Inflow USGS & USACE Stream
Gauges 2.3
Calibration Gauges USGS & CDEC Stream
Gauges 4.3
Hydrological Data Precipitation PRISM & CalSIMETAW 2.4
Agricultural Water
Demand
Land Use
DWR
CropScape
Land IQ
Ag Commissioner’s Report
Local Information

2.6 Evapotranspiration
C2VSim
METRIC
Local Information

2.7 Soil Properties SSURGO & STATSGO2 2.5
Urban Water
Demand
Population U.S. Census Bureau &
Local Information 3.2
Per Capita Water Use Local Information
(UWMPs) 3.2
Water Supply
Groundwater Pumping Local Information 3.3.2
Surface Water
Deliveries Local Information 3.3.1
Other
Boundary Conditions C2VSim & Local
Information 2.11
Initial Conditions C2VSim 2.12
Small Watersheds C2VSim 2.10
Calibration Wells DWR & Local Information 4.5
San Joaquin County 2-5 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
The hydrologic period used to build the model data files was water years 1969 through 2018 (October 1, 1968 through September 30, 2018). This allows for future work to use a longer model run time using actual historical rainfall and stream inflow records.

2.2 Model Grid and Reporting Units
The finite element grid was developed using Aquaveo’s Groundwater Modeling System (GMS) software.

The grid includes quadrilateral and triangular elements based on selected input lines and control points.

Features included in the development of the model grid are shown in Figure 5 and included:
• Groundwater subbasin boundaries
• Hydrologic and hydrogeologic features (i.e., major and minor streams, reservoirs/lakes, and outcroppings)
• City spheres of influence boundaries
• ESJ Subbasin GSA boundaries
• County boundaries
• Subsurface flow patterns
• Other boundaries
The model grid contains 16,054 elements and 15,302 nodes with an average element area of 76.5 acres (Figure 6). The average node spacing is 0.37 miles overall, ranging from about 0.28 miles near hydrologic features to 0.42 miles in other areas. There was a 0.75-mile buffer included around the streams to transition from the finer to coarser node spacing. Primary objectives during grid development were to maintain a manageable number of elements and nodes, to optimize resolution for data analysis, to contain a finer resolution along rivers to allow for better simulation of stream-aquifer interaction, to optimize the model run time, and to streamline model output.

The model elements are grouped into 20 model subregions that are used to organize input data for the model and report standard model output water budgets (Figure 7). Subregion borders were delineated using boundaries including city spheres of influence, water agencies, subbasin, and county lines. These subregions are aggregated into 8 larger units (model subareas), which are the primary units to present results and are used for basin-scale planning (Figure 8). ESJ Subbasin, the primary model area, is made up of 6 subareas and 18 subregions or a total of 772,377 acres (about 1,207 square miles). The entire ESJWRM area covers 1,228,194 acres (about 1,919 square miles). A description of model subregions, including the subarea they are part of and the number of model elements they contain, is in Table 4.

Table 4: Model Subregions and Subareas
Subregion
Number Subregion Name Subarea Name and Number
Number of
Elements
1 North Delta North Delta
Subarea (#1) 872
2 Woodbridge North Subarea
(#2)
485
3 Lodi 104
4 North San Joaquin 1,969
San Joaquin County 2-6 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Subregion
Number Subregion Name Subarea Name and Number
Number of
Elements
5 Calaveras Calaveras
Subarea (#3) 664
6 Stockton
Central
Subarea (#4)
1,074
7 Stockton East 1,314
8 Central San Joaquin 929
9 Lathrop
South Subarea
(#5)
119
10 Manteca 224
11 South San Joaquin East 632
12 Escalon 33
13 Oakdale West 128
14 South Delta 254
15 South San Joaquin West 74
16 Ripon 86
17 Stanislaus Stanislaus
Subarea (#6)
1,312
18 Oakdale East 332
19 Cosumnes Cosumnes
Subarea (#7) 2,378
20 Modesto Modesto
Subarea (#8) 3,071

2.3 Stream Configuration and Stream Inflow
The model hydrology is represented by 25 model stream reaches, which are largely defined to start and/or end at confluences. Major streams include Cosumnes River, Dry Creek, Mokelumne River, Bear Creek, Calaveras River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, and San Joaquin River (Figure 9). Many of these streams route water along connecting sloughs and canals, including Pixley Slough, Mosher Creek, Potter Creek, Mormon Slough, and Diverting Canal. As described in Section 2.2, the model grid was designed to include other hydrologic features such as major reservoirs or other important streams that may be simulated in ESJWRM in the future. Hydrologic features used during grid development (i.e., reservoirs and minor streams) include Camanche Reservoir, Duck Creek, Farmington Flood Control Basin, French Camp Slough, Little Johns Creek, Lone Tree Creek, Modesto Reservoir, Tracy Lakes, and Woodward Reservoir (Figure 5 and Figure 9). These hydrologic features represent important drainage and conveyance water courses in the model, while the model streams interactively simulate flows and stream-aquifer interaction at every model stream node.

The streams and creeks are represented in the model by 1674 stream nodes on a quarter-mile interval.

The number of stream nodes and their refined resolution provide increased accuracy when depicting stream-groundwater interaction. Physical characteristics, including the stream invert elevation, channel width, and a stream flow rating table, were obtained from the closest C2VSim stream nodes and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Elevations Models (DEM).

Time series of stream inflow data is available from 7 USGS and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) gauging stations. This data is consistent with C2VSim streamflow data (Brush, 2013). A table of stream input data and a map of available stream gauge locations may be found in Table 5 and Figure 9.

San Joaquin County 2-7 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
There was not sufficient data available for Bear Creek to generate a full time series record and it is only receiving runoff and/or drainage from nearby model elements.

Table 5: Summary of ESJWRM Stream Inflow Data
Stream Stream
Node Source Gauge Name Period of Record
Average
Annual
Streamflow
(acre-feet)
Cosumnes
River 1 USGS
USGS 11335000:

Cosumnes River at
Michigan Bar, CA
October 1907 to
present/ongoing 365,000
Dry Creek 140
USGS
Estimated in C2VSim by
correlation with USGS
11329500: Dry Creek near
Galt, CA
Not continuous
October 1926 to
December 1997
25,000
USGS
Estimated in C2VSim by
correlation with USGS
11335000: Cosumnes
River at Michigan Bar, CA
Used October 1987 to
September 1995 and
January 1998 to
present/ongoing
Mokelumne
River 290 USGS
USGS 11323500:

Mokelumne River below
Camanche Dam, CA
October 1904 to
present/ongoing 525,000
Calaveras
River 758
USGS
USGS 11308900: Calaveras
River below New Hogan
Dam near Valley Springs,
CA
February 1961 to
September 1990
151,000
USACE New Hogan Dam releases October 1990 to
present/ongoing
Stanislaus
River 1033 USGS
USGS 11302000:

Stanislaus River below
Goodwin Dam near
Knights Ferry, CA
February 1957 to
present/ongoing 575,000
Tuolumne
River 1248 USGS
USGS 11289650:

Tuolumne River below
Lagrange Dam near
Lagrange, CA
October 1970 to
present/ongoing 835,000
San Joaquin
River 1497 USGS
USGS 11303500: San
Joaquin River near
Vernalis, CA
October 1923 to
present/ongoing 3,089,000
ESJWRM also specifies how water routes at forks in the rivers. Ten percent of Bear Creek flows through Pixley Slough before returning to Bear Creek, while 90% continues in Bear Creek. Eighty percent of Calaveras River flows through Mormon Slough and the Diverting Canal before returning to Calaveras River, while 20% continues in Calaveras River.

San Joaquin County 2-8 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

2.4 Precipitation
Rainfall data for the model area is derived from the PRISM (Precipitation-Elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model) database used in the DWR’s CALSIMETAW (California Simulation of Evapotranspiration of Applied Water) model. The database contains daily precipitation data from October 1, 1921 on a 4-kilometer grid throughout the model area. ESJWRM has monthly rainfall data defined for every model element in order to preserve the spatial distribution of the monthly rainfall. Each of the model elements was mapped to the nearest of 364 available PRISM reference nodes, uniformly distributed across the model domain. The resulting average annual precipitation is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 11 shows the annual rainfall in the model area and the cumulative departure from mean, which is an indication of long-term rainfall trends in the area. The minimum precipitation during the simulation period was in water year 2007 with 8.0 inches, while the maximum occurred in water year 1998 with 28.5 inches. The average precipitation was 15.1 inches, with 9 above average and 12 below average simulation years.

2.5 Root Zone Soil Parameters
The soil properties specified in the model are field capacity, wilting point, total porosity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and pore size distribution index (PSDI). A recent update to IWFM added the capability to specify a separate saturated hydraulic conductivity for areas covered by rice or wetlands, which prevents the overestimation of deep percolation during periods of ponded water. All the soil properties are used to determine the soil types and characteristics of each model element.

DWR’s IWFM Soil Data Builder (DWR, 2017) was used in conjunction with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) (USDA, 2017a) soil data to determine the five soil properties for each model element. The IWFM Soil Data Builder extracts the SSURGO data relevant to the model area (in this case, 6 counties) and associates it with each grid element. For ESJWRM elements where SSURGO data was incomplete, USDA’s Digital General Soil Map of the United States (STATSGO2) data were used instead (USDA, 2017b). In total, a little over 3,500 elements (about 22% of all elements) used STATSGO2 data for at least one of the parameters. Editing of soil parameters is a standard part of IDC calibration and the final soil parameter values and their spatial distributions are discussed and shown in figures in Section 4.2.

Model elements are associated with the four hydrological soil groups according to their runoff potential and infiltration characteristics. ESJWRM elements with their corresponding hydrologic soil group are shown in Figure 12. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (USDA NRCS, 2009) defines these hydrological soil groups as follows:
• Group A – Soils in this group have low runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water is transmitted freely through the soil. Group A soils typically have less than 10 percent clay and more than 90 percent sand or gravel and have gravel or sand textures. Some soils having loamy sand, sandy loam, loam or silt loam textures may be placed in this group if they are well aggregated, of low bulk density, or contain greater than 35 percent rock fragments. • Group B – Soils in this group have moderately low runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water transmission through the soil is unimpeded. Group B soils typically have between 10 percent and 20 percent clay and 50 percent to 90 percent sand and have loamy sand or sandy loam textures.

San Joaquin County 2-9 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Some soils having loam, silt loam, silt, or sandy clay loam textures may be placed in this group if they are well aggregated, of low bulk density, or contain greater than 35 percent rock fragments. • Group C – Soils in this group have moderately high runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water transmission through the soil is somewhat restricted. Group C soils typically have between 20 percent and 40 percent clay and less than 50 percent sand and have loam, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, and silty clay loam textures. Some soils having clay, silty clay, or sandy clay textures may be placed in this group if they are well aggregated, of low bulk density, or contain greater than 35 percent rock fragments.
• Group D – Soils in this group have high runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water movement through the soil is restricted or very restricted. Group D soils typically have greater than 40 percent clay, less than 50 percent sand, and have clayey textures. In some areas, they also have high shrink-swell potential.

2.6 Land Use and Cropping Patterns
For the model to calculate water supply requirements, every model element needs to have land use defined for every year of the simulation. ESJWRM includes 23 irrigated crop categories and 4 general land use categories. All of the irrigated crop categories except for rice are simulated as non-ponded crops, meaning they are grown without standing water. Rice is simulated as both no decomposition (assumed 20% of total rice area) and flooded decomposition (assumed 80% of total rice area) to represent the current understanding of local growing practices. The general land use categoriesinclude urban landscape (e.g., residential areas, golf courses, and school fields), water surface (e.g., streams, lakes, and reservoirs), riparian vegetation (e.g., native vegetation located near surface water), and native vegetation. The irrigated crop categories were combined into 6 high-level groupings of crops with similar water use or irrigation practices. Table 6 lists the land use categories.

The crop categories are identical to those in C2VSim, except that ESJWRM breaks out almonds, cherries, pistachios, and walnuts as individual categories. This was done at the request of the Technical Review Committee based on the importance and amount of these crops in the ESJ Subbasin.

Spatial land use data was used to specify land use types and crop acreages for each model element for each year. The three major reference sources include DWR land use surveys, CropScape, and Land IQ. As crop categories were not consistent across all the land use data sources, individual mappings matched up each crop type to model land use category.

DWR conducts periodic land use surveys for each county that include over 70 different crop categories, as well as urban and native vegetation, for each parcel or field (DWR, 1993-2000). DWR land use surveys have high accuracy due to extensive ground truthing. For ESJWRM, the land use surveys by county were merged and assumed to represent water year 1995 in the model. The surveys used include:

1. San Joaquin County (1996)

2. Sacramento County (1993)

3. Amador County (1997)

4. Calaveras County (2000)

5. Stanislaus County (1996)
San Joaquin County 2-10 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Data for water years 2007 through 2015 are from the USDA’s remote sensing CropScape data (USDA NASS, 2007-2015). CropScape includes 256 land use categories that come from annual satellite imagery collected during the growing season on 30-meter by 30-meter pixels. Based on reports on the CropScape website, the level of accuracy for this data is about 85-97% for crop-specific land cover categories. Although this level of accuracy is relatively high, the accuracy varies depending on many factors, including the time of the satellite image, growing season timing, cloud cover, type of crop, and maturity state of the crop.

DWR retained Land IQ to develop a statewide assessment of agricultural land use in summer 2014. Land IQ used remote sensing methods to collect and process the data at the parcel scale, which was then ground truthed for a reported overall accuracy of 96.6% (DWR, 2014). In ESJWRM, this data was used as verification of CropScape 2014 data and, in some cases, as replacement or enhancement of the CropScape data. Land IQ did not include a native vegetation category, so any blank land was assumed to be native vegetation.

Table 6: Land Use Categories
Land Use Type Model Category Grouped Categories
Irrigated Crops
Almonds
Cherries
Citrus & Subtropical
Other Orchard
Pistachios
Walnuts
Fruit and Nut Trees
Vineyards Vineyards
Alfalfa
Pasture
Alfalfa and Irrigated
Pasture
Grain Grain
Corn
Cotton
Dry Beans
Field Crops
Safflower
Sugar Beets
Field Crops
Cucurbits
Onion & Garlic
Potatoes
Tomato Fresh
Tomato Processing
Truck Crops
Truck Crops
Rice Rice
Other Land Use
Urban Landscape
Water Surface
Riparian Vegetation
Native Vegetation
San Joaquin County 2-11 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Local data and knowledge was also utilized to refine and correct, when necessary, the cropping acreages developed based on the DWR land use surveys and CropScape years. To fill the gap between 1995 and 2007, all land use and crop categories were interpolated at the spatial resolution level of the model element. Thus, the geographic distribution of interpolated land use and cropping patterns are honored.

Consistent mappings were developed to link crop categories from the various data sources to model categories based on previous work done for C2VSim. Adjustments were made, as needed, at the element level to ensure that the land use and cropping pattern trends over time are reflective of local data. These adjustments were mostly based on local knowledge and information received from various entities, including irrigation districts, water districts, and municipalities.

Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the spatial distribution of the major land use categories in the ESJ Subbasin for 1995 and 2015. Figure 15 shows the annual trends of land use categories in the ESJ Subbasin.

Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18 show the spatial distribution of the irrigated crops for 1995, 2014, and 2015. Figure 19a-19g show the annual cropping patterns, by high level categories, for the entire ESJ Subbasin and major model subareas.

Overall, land use trends from 1995 through 2015 show significant increases in total and irrigated agricultural acreage, with about 384,000 irrigated acres in ESJ Subbasin at the beginning of simulation and about 398,000 acres with agricultural production by 2015. This change from native to agricultural area brings additional stresses on the hydrological system, particularly as the majority of this increase comes from conversion to higher water permanent crops, particularly vineyards, almonds, and walnuts. This translates to a higher water requirement, largely provided either by groundwater or surface water, though changes in irrigation methods may mitigate some of the increased water need due to land use changes.

Not all the subareas show an increase in agricultural land; many remain relatively consistent through the entire simulation period. When there was a decrease in agricultural land, there was a compensating increase in urban land, indicating the expansion of urban areas.

2.7 Evapotranspiration
The crop evapotranspiration (ET) requirement is an important factor in agricultural demand estimation.

Every ESJWRM land use category (except for water surface) plus small-stream watersheds must have average monthly values used for the entire simulation. To allow for spatial variability within the model, ET rates are also defined by model subregion.

The ET values are based on a variety of sources, including locally-developed data for the SSJID and the OID Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMPs) (SJJID, 2015; OID, 2016) and averages for DWR’s CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information System) Zone 12 developed using the Mapping Evapotranspiration at High Resolution with Internalized Calibration (METRIC) methodology, which is a remote-sensing based technology to estimate crop actual ET. Based on discussions with locals (pers. comm. Jennifer Spaletta representing NSJWCD and Bryan Thoreson representing SSJID), deficit irrigation of vineyards was simulated in ESJWRM with reference to the growing season ET values in the Lodi area (Prichard).

In IWFM, ET represents the net vertical water flux from the land surface and root zone through the upper model boundary. Figure 20 shows the range in annual evapotranspiration rates from the various sources for the 27 categories. Final model ET depends on the model subregion, with SSJID and OID using their locally-developed ET rates and the remainder of the model using the METRIC data.

San Joaquin County 2-12 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

2.8 Drainage
Surface water drainage (e.g., runoff from rainfall and excess applied water) for each model element is assigned to a stream node representing where the drainage ultimately flows to. These drainage patterns were delineated using the USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset for 12-digit hydrologic units, also called subwatersheds. Each 12-digit hydrologic unit located within the model boundaries was associated with the model stream node it ultimately drained into through both visual analysis as well as information provided on the subwatersheds. Elements falling within the hydrologic units were assigned to the model stream node indicating the ultimate surface water drainage direction. A total of 94 unique stream nodes receive surface water drainage in ESJWRM from 79 subwatersheds. Figure 21 shows these stream nodes and the subwatersheds mapped to the model elements.

2.9 Model Layering
The subsurface zone is characterized by four model layers (three freshwater aquifers and one saline aquifer) representing the different geology from the ground surface to the bedrock. A small portion of the southwestern part of the subbasin has a confining unit of Corcoran Clay. The layering extents and thicknesses are all consistent with C2VSim. Descriptions of each of the model layers are listed below, from top to bottom.
• Layer 1: Layer 1 represents the top unconfined portion of the aquifer. The ground surface elevation (GSE), or the top of Layer 1, comes from the USGS DEM at a resolution of 10 meters.

The bottom of Layer 1 is defined as the top of Corcoran Clay where the confining unit exists or else as the bottom of Layer 1 in C2VSim. The layer thickness is limited by the stream invert elevation and ranges from 34 to 966 feet. The GSE is shown in Figure 22 and thickness of Layer 1 is shown in Figure 23.
• Aquitard 1: Corcoran Clay (i.e., E Clay) separates Layers 1 and 2 in a small portion of the southwest corner of the model. The extent, thickness, and depth of the Corcoran Clay originated from the Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM) Spatial Database. The depth to the Corcoran Clay, ranging from 20 to 280 feet below the GSE, is shown in Figure 24 and the thickness of the Corcoran Clay, ranging from 10 to 160 feet, is in Figure 25.
• Layer 2: Layer 2 represents the primary pumping layer and is beneath the confining layer where Corcoran Clay exists. Layer 2 is principally bounded on the top by the bottom of Layer 1 or the bottom of Corcoran Clay (where it exists) and on the bottom by Layer 2 in C2VSim. The thickness of Layer 2, ranging from 50 to 540 feet, is in Figure 26. • Layer 3: Layer 3 extends to the base of fresh water. Information used in developing the bottom of Layer 3 includes data from Steven Springhorn of DWR’s North Central Regional Office, Christopher Olvera of DWR’s South Central Regional Office, and Williamson et al. 1989. The thickness of Layer 3, ranging from 50 to 1,335 feet, is in Figure 27.
• Layer 4: Layer 4 consists of the saline water ranging from the base of fresh water to the base of continental deposits and is a current non-production zone. Information used in developing the bottom of Layer 4 includes Page’s 1974 Base and Thickness of the Post Eocene Continental Deposits in the Sacramento Valley and the thickness of the aquifer developed by Williamson et al. 1989. The thickness of Layer 4, ranging from 50 to 2,250 feet, is in Figure 28.

Cross sections of the model layering in various locations across the model extent can be seen in Figure 29a-29f.

San Joaquin County 2-13 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

2.10 Small-Stream Watersheds
The inflow from the eastern boundary of the model (i.e., Sierra Nevada foothills) originates from both gauged and ungauged watersheds. The simulation of gauged watersheds (i.e., stream inflows into the model) was discussed in Section 2.3 and shown in Figure 9. The simulation of the ungauged watersheds is explained in this section.

Flow from ungauged small watersheds is estimated based on precipitation rates and characteristics assigned to each identified ungauged watershed. A portion of flow from the small watershed enters the model area as surface runoff and flows to simulated streams. The remaining small watershed inflow infiltrates to groundwater.

ESJWRM simulates the ungauged eastern inflow using 39 distinct small watersheds (Figure 30), consistent with those on the eastern boundary of C2VSim. These were delineated originally from the USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset.

All subsurface inflows from these small watersheds are routed to model Layer 1 along specified groundwater nodes (Figure 30), with a user-defined maximum percolation rate at each node. Excess flows that do not infiltrate to groundwater enter the simulated streams at user-specified locations (Figure 30) delineated using a similar methodology to the drainage pattern discussed above in Section 2.8. The hydrologic conditions of these small watersheds used to estimate the subsurface and surface flows are represented using site-specific parameters (e.g., precipitation, surface layer soil parameters, runoff coefficient) based on C2VSim.

2.11 Boundary Conditions
As discussed in the previous section, inflows along the eastern boundary are represented using small watersheds. Boundary conditions define the subsurface inflows from all other boundaries of the model (i.e., northern, western, and southern), as well as areas with known groundwater levels.

Time series general head boundary conditions representing groundwater levels outside of the model area were defined for 596 boundary nodes on the northern, western and southern limits (i.e., along Cosumnes, Mokelumne, San Joaquin, and Tuolumne Rivers). Groundwater flow at the model boundaries was quantified based on the groundwater gradient across the model boundary. The head inside the model area is simulated by ESJWRM and the head outside the model area is based on historical groundwater elevation data from DWR’s Water Data Library (WDL).

Additional groundwater boundary conditions were defined to simulate known groundwater elevationsfor the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and lakes or reservoirs (reservoir locations shown in Figure 5). ESJWRM specifies high groundwater levels at or near zero feet for 60 groundwater nodes representing the edges of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Using data available in C2VSim, seepage from Camanche Reservoir was represented by specifying the full time series of groundwater levels for the 270 groundwater nodes representing the reservoir. The other reservoirs in the model were not included in C2VSim, so did not have boundary conditions available to estimate reservoir seepage. Instead, Woodward Reservoirseepage is included as a stream diversion from Stanislaus River (see Section 3.3.1). Farmington Flood Control Basin is used primarily for flood control purposes. Any recharge is incidental to the operation of the dam and is currently not included in ESJWRM. Modesto Reservoir, as it is located outside of the focus area of ESJ Subbasin, was not simulated.

San Joaquin County 2-14 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

2.12 Initial Conditions
Groundwater heads for each model node and each layer at the beginning of the simulation (i.e., October 1, 1994) were developed using the DWR’s WDL database and San Joaquin County’s database of historical groundwater monitoring. Over 1,100 wells with data for Fall 1993, Fall 1994, or Fall 1995 were compiled and interpolated to create a raster representing initial groundwater levels for each model groundwater node. Due to the lack of information on well perforation and even depth for many of the WDL and San Joaquin County monitoring locations, the groundwater heads for each model layer are assumed to all begin at the same value. This assumption means the model needs about a year for groundwater levels to stabilize, so model results focus on water years 1996 through 2015 (a 20-year period). The initial conditions for ESJWRM representing October 1, 1994 are shown in Figure 31.

San Joaquin County 3-1 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

3. WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND DATA
The following sections describe the data and methodology for the ESJWRM water demand and supply calculations. Agricultural and urban demand are calculated in the IDC portion of IWFM. Agricultural and urban supply are specified in IWFM’s groundwater pumping and surface water diversion data.

3.1 Agricultural Water Demand
Agricultural water demand is the amount of irrigation water that is required to satisfy the crops evapotranspiration requirement. The IWFM Demand Calculator or IDC is designed to estimate the agricultural water demand for each model element through consumptive use methodology. The IDC calculations rely on model input data for historical crop acreage, irrigation practices (e.g., return and reuse fractions, irrigation period), soil moisture requirements, effective rainfall (the portion of rainfall available for crop consumptive use), crop evapotranspiration, and localized soil parameters. This data was compiled, analyzed, synthesized, and processed for input in ESJWRM.

Precipitation, land use, evapotranspiration, and soil properties are discussed in the relevant sections in Chapter 2. Irrigation period, using data from C2VSim, defines irrigation as either on or off for each crop and each month of the model simulation period. These were vetted and revised as necessary by the Technical Review Committee to better represent local practices in the ESJWRM area. Most trees are assumed irrigated from April through October (with almonds and pistachios from February through October), vineyards from May through October, most field crops from May through September, and most truck crops from April through September. Crops with irrigation assumed year-round include citrus and subtropical trees, irrigated pasture, alfalfa, and onions and garlic. Fractions to represent return flow (i.e., irrigation flow following the model drainage pattern discussed in Section 2.8) and reuse (i.e., the fraction of applied irrigation water to be reused for irrigation) are from C2VSim and are defined by subregion. For all ESJWRM, agricultural lands are given a 1% return flow and 1% reuse factor and urban landscape areas are assumed to have 15% return flow and 0% reuse.

3.2 Urban Water Use
IDC calculates urban demand based on per capita water use, population, and the breakdown of indoor versus outdoor water use by month. Figure 32 shows the annual population trends for each urban center.

Figure 33 shows the annual per capita water use values of these urban centers used in the calculation of urban water demand.

Population and per capita water use for the major urban areas were largely provided directly by the urban areas or were obtained from the respective Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP). Additional annual population, including an estimate for rural urban areas, came from the United States Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance. Monthly per capita water use, commonly reported in gallons per capita per day (GPCD), was generally estimated for each urban entity using the annual population and monthly urban water use (provided by cities based on water delivery records). To estimate the urban water demand of rural domestic water areas, the average major urban area GPCD was combined with estimated rural population.

It was assumed that an annual average of 60% of urban water was used indoors and 40% was used outdoors. The monthly fractions entered into the model had the majority of urban water demand due to San Joaquin County 3-2 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
indoor activities from November through March and up to a maximum of 60% of urban water used outdoors for the remainder of the year.

The indoor/outdoor breakdown received concurrence from the urban water providers who attended the Technical Review Committee meetings. Population and per capita water use data were reviewed by the major urban areas and confirmed at the meetings (pers. comm. Kathryn Garcia from Lodi, Andrew Richle from Lodi, Michael Bolzowski from Cal Water, Greg Gibson from Lathrop, and Elba Mijango from Manteca).

3.3 Water Supply Summary
Both the agricultural and urban demands estimated by IDC are primarily met through the IWFM representation of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Other sources of water simulated in IWFM to meet demand include precipitation and existing moisture in the soil.

3.3.1 Surface Water
Historical surface water diversions for the simulation period were compiled from a combination of sources discussed in more detail in Section 3.4, including gauge data, water rights reports, UWMPs, AWMPs, and other sources. Some diversions were estimated based on historical demands. A summary of diversions simulated in the model is provided in Table 7, along with fractions for recoverable loss (i.e., percolation or canal seepage), non-recoverable loss (i.e., evaporation), and delivery (i.e., amount delivered is equal to the total amount minus the recoverable and non-recoverable losses).

The monthly data for all these diversions came from local agencies or C2VSim (Modesto Subbasin diversions and riparian diversions) as discussed in more detail in Section 3.4. Many diversions provide water across model subregions, so deliveries are assigned to a group of elementsrepresenting the delivery area. Diversions either are taken out of streams at specified model streams nodes or are imported into the model area (i.e., diversion location occurs upstream of stream inflow gauge). Figure 34 shows the stream nodes where diversions occurred.

Table 7: Summary of ESJWRM Surface Water Deliveries
ID Description Diversion
Location Delivery Area Use
Fraction Average
Annual
Diversion***
(acre-feet)
Data
RL* NL** Delivery Source
1 Mokelumne River
to Woodbridge ID
for Ag
Mokelumne
River at Lodi
Lake
Element group
representing
Woodbridge
Irrigation
District
Ag 30% 2% 68% 56,700 WID
2 Mokelumne River
to City of Lodi (by
agreement with
Woodbridge ID)
Mokelumne
River at Lodi
Lake
Lodi Sphere of
Influence Urban 3% 1% 96% 5,000 WID
San Joaquin County 3-3 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
ID Description Diversion
Location Delivery Area Use
Fraction Average
Annual
Diversion***
(acre-feet)
Data
RL* NL** Delivery Source
3 Mokelumne River
to City of Stockton
for Delta Water
Supply Project (by
agreement with
Woodbridge ID)
Mokelumne
River at Lodi
Lake
Element group
representing
Stockton area
minus Cal Water
Urban 3% 1% 96% 5,400 WID
4 Mokelumne River
to Contra Costa
WD (by
agreement with
Woodbridge ID)
Mokelumne
River at Lodi
Lake
Export out of
model Urban 0% 0% 100% 2,000 (one year only) WID
5 Mokelumne River
to North San
Joaquin WCD For
Ag
Mokelumne
River between
Camanche
Reservoir and
Lodi Lake
Element group
representing
North San
Joaquin WCD
Ag 10% 2% 88% 2,200 NSJWCD
6 Calaveras River to
Bellota Pipeline to
Stockton East WD
WTP for M&I
Calaveras River
at split with
Mormon
Slough
Stockton Sphere
of Influence Urban 3% 1% 96% 15,800 SEWD
7 Calaveras River to
Calaveras County
WD for Ag
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Calaveras
Subregion
(Subregion 5)
Ag 9% 1% 90% 1,100 CCWD
8 Calaveras River to
Stockton East WD
for Ag
Calaveras River
at split with
Mormon
Slough
Element group
representing
Stockton East
Water District
agricultural
customers
Ag 40% 5% 55% 42,600 SEWD
9 Calaveras River to
Farmington
Groundwater
Recharge Program
Calaveras River
at split with
Mormon
Slough
Element group
representing
recharge
locations
Ag 100% 0% 0% 1,300 SEWD
10 San Joaquin River
at Empire Tract to
City of Stockton
for Delta Water
Supply Project
San Joaquin
River at Empire
Tract just after
junction with
Bear Creek
Element group
representing
Stockton area
minus Cal Water
Urban 3% 1% 96% 7,800 City of
Stockton
San Joaquin County 3-4 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
ID Description Diversion
Location Delivery Area Use
Fraction Average
Annual
Diversion***
(acre-feet)
Data
RL* NL** Delivery Source
11 San Joaquin River
to North Delta
San Joaquin
River near
North Delta
Subregion
Element group
representing
North Delta
Ag 5% 1% 94% 107,000 Estimated
by model
12 San Joaquin River
to South Delta
San Joaquin
River near
South Delta
Subregion
Element group
representing
South Delta
Ag 5% 1% 94% 14,200 Estimated
by model
13 Farmington
Reservoir via
Lower Farmington
Canal to Peters
Pipeline to
Stockton East WD
WTP
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Stockton Sphere
of Influence Urban 3% 1% 96% 33,300 SEWD
14 Farmington
Reservoir via
Lower Farmington
Canal to Stockton
East WD for Ag
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Element group
representing
Stockton East
Water District
agricultural
customers
Ag 15% 2% 83% 5,300 SEWD
15 Farmington
Reservoir via Little
Johns Creek and
Lower Farmington
Canal to Central
San Joaquin WCD
for Ag
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Element group
representing
Central San
Joaquin WCD
Ag 28% 2% 70% 38,800 SEWD
16 Stanislaus River to
Farmington
Groundwater
Recharge Program
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Element group
representing
recharge
locations
Ag 100% 0% 0% 3,000 SEWD
17 Woodward
Reservoir to South
San Joaquin ID for
Ag
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Element group
representing
South San
Joaquin ID
minus Division 6
Ag 21% 6% 74% 195,300 SSJID
18 Stanislaus River at
Goodwin Dam to
Oakdale ID for Ag
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Element group
representing
Oakdale ID
Ag 16% 1% 83% 111,100 OID
San Joaquin County 3-5 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
ID Description Diversion
Location Delivery Area Use
Fraction Average
Annual
Diversion***
(acre-feet)
Data
RL* NL** Delivery Source
19 Woodward
Reservoir Seepage
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Element group
representing
Woodward
Reservoir
Ag 100% 0% 0% 17,500 SSJID
20 Woodward
Reservoir to Nick
C. DeGroot WTP
to City of Manteca
for M&I
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Manteca Sphere
of Influence Urban 3% 1% 96% 6,300 AWMP/UWMP
21 Woodward
Reservoir to Nick
C. DeGroot WTP
to City of Escalon
for M&I
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Escalon Sphere
of Influence Urban 3% 1% 96% 0
AWMP/
UWMP
22 Woodward
Reservoir to Nick
C. DeGroot WTP
to City of Lathrop
for M&I
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Lathrop Sphere
of Influence Urban 3% 1% 96% 1,100 AWMP/UWMP
23 Woodward
Reservoir to Nick
C. DeGroot WTP
to City of Ripon
for M&I
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Ripon Sphere of
Influence Urban 3% 1% 96% 0
AWMP/
UWMP
24 Tuolumne River to
Modesto ID
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Element group
representing
Modesto ID
Ag 15% 3% 82% 307,600 C2VSim
25 Tuolumne River to
City of Modesto
(via Modesto ID)
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Element group
representing
City of Modesto
Urban 5% 1% 94% 30,600 C2VSim
26 Cosumnes River to
Riparian for Ag
Along
Cosumnes
River near
confluence
with
Mokelumne
River
Element group
representing
riparian
diverters
Ag 10% 2% 88% 4,300 C2VSim
27 Dry Creek to
Riparian for Ag
Approximately
midway along
Dry Creek
Element group
representing
riparian
diverters
Ag 10% 2% 88% 6,000 C2VSim
San Joaquin County 3-6 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
ID Description Diversion
Location Delivery Area Use
Fraction Average
Annual
Diversion***
(acre-feet)
Data
RL* NL** Delivery Source
28 Mokelumne River
to Riparian for Ag
Approximately
midway along
Mokelumne
River
Element group
representing
riparian
diverters
Ag 10% 2% 88% 9,700 C2VSim
29 Calaveras River to
Riparian for Ag
Calaveras River
at split with
Mormon
Slough
Element group
representing
riparian
diverters
Ag 10% 2% 88% 20,400 C2VSim
30 Stanislaus River to
Riparian for Ag
Approximately
midway along
Stanislaus River
Element group
representing
riparian
diverters
Ag 15% 3% 82% 20,700 C2VSim
31 Tuolumne River to
Riparian for Ag
Approximately
midway along
Tuolumne River
Element group
representing
riparian
diverters
Ag 15% 3% 82% 2,500 C2VSim
32 San Joaquin River
to Riparian for Ag
San Joaquin
River near
confluence
with Tuolumne
River
Element group
representing
riparian
diverters
Ag 15% 3% 82% 6,200 C2VSim
33 Woodward
Reservoir to South
San Joaquin ID
Division 6 for Ag
Import (outside
of ESJWRM)
Element group
representing
South San
Joaquin ID
Division 6
Ag 15% 2% 83% 5,200 SSJID
*RL = Recoverable Loss (canal seepage or recharge)
**NL = Non-Recoverable Loss (evaporation)
*** Averages calculated only for years with diversions occurring (i.e., non-zero average)

3.3.2 Groundwater Pumping
Groundwater pumping within ESJWRM is separated into well- or element-based pumping. The former largely includes district-operated wells that feed into the surface water supply network, while the latter includes estimated private groundwater pumping.

District pumping (or well pumping) is specified monthly throughout the simulation period. Data was provided by local agencies and included well locations, depths and perforations, use (agricultural or urban) and historical monthly pumping records. Table 8 lists the number of wells by type and agency included in ESJWRM. Figure 35 shows all the district pumping wells (separated by agricultural and municipal wells) in ESJWRM.

San Joaquin County 3-7 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Table 8: Summary of ESJWRM Well Pumping
Agency
Number of
Urban
Pumping Wells
Number of
Agricultural
Pumping Wells
Average Annual
Urban Pumping
(acre-feet)
Average Annual
Agricultural Pumping
(acre-feet)
Cal Water 56 --- 9,600 0
Escalon 4 --- 1,400 0
Lathrop 6 --- 2,200 0
Linden County WD 4 --- 450 0
Lockeford CSD 4 --- 530 0
Lodi 29 --- 15,200 0
Manteca 15 31 9,500 1,300
Oakdale ID --- 24 0 5,800
Ripon 9 9 3,900 1,100
SEWD 5 --- 3,100 0
SSJID --- 28 0 5,200
Stockton 37 --- 9,300 0
Total Average Annual Pumping (acre-feet) 55,180 13,400
Private groundwater pumping quantities on an individual well basis are largely unknown, though aggregate estimates for private pumping are often included in planning documents (e.g., AWMPs, UWMPs, groundwater management plans). Therefore, private agricultural pumping in ESJWRM is estimated by IWFM on an element basis by assigning two virtual wells at the centroid of each model element. One well represents private agricultural pumping and one well represents rural residential pumping. These wells are used to calculate any additional pumping necessary to meet the agricultural and urban demand estimated by IDC for an element after district pumping and surface water has been distributed.

The perforation interval, which dictates the layers a simulated well extracts water from, were assigned separately to the agricultural and domestic (i.e., rural residential) wells. All agricultural wells were assumed to pump 40% from Layer 1 and 60% from Layer 2. Rural residential wells used a statistical analysis of perforation interval developed for C2VSim. Perforation interval data was compiled by DWR using data from the CASGEM and Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR) databases. Simulated perforation intervals were assigned as the 5th and 95th percentiles of the well perforation interval data for each township/range block.

3.4 Water Supply Sources
This section provides a detailed description of the sources of water supply (both surface water and pumping) occurring in ESJWRM.

3.4.1 Delta Areas
The North Delta and South Delta Subregions (Subregion 1 and 14) are mostly assumed to cover the portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta overlying the ESJ Subbasin. As discussed at the Technical Review Committee meetings, the majority of the agricultural water demand in these areas is known to be entirely served by surface water taken off the San Joaquin River. Therefore, almost all of the agricultural demand is assumed to be supplied by the San Joaquin River (Diversion #11 and #12 for North Delta and San Joaquin County 3-8 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
South Delta, respectively). A small portion of the agricultural land is assumed to rely on groundwater via element pumping. All of the urban demand is supplied by small, private residential wells and is estimated in ESJWRM using element pumping.

Though Subregions 1 and 14 are assumed to represent the Delta, elements in Subregions 1 and 14 receive surface waterfrom other diversions unrelated to the assumed riparian Delta diversions. A portion of WID’s delivery area extends into Subregion 1 and is supplied by WID’s diversion off the Mokelumne River (Diversion #1) as discussed in Section 3.4.2. Portions of other riparian diversions discussed in Section

3.4.19 extend into Subregions 1 and 14, specifically Dry Creek (Diversion #27) in Subregion 1 and San Joaquin River (Diversion #32) in Subregion 14.

3.4.2 Woodbridge Irrigation District
WID receives water from the Mokelumne River, which is provided to its agricultural customers through a distribution canal network or is sold to nearby municipalities. Through agreements, Lodi and Stockton use some of WID’s surface water right beginning in water years 2013 and 2012, respectively (Diversion #2 and #3). In water year 2013, WID supplied Contra Costa Water District with a one-time transfer of 2,000 AF (acre-feet), represented by Diversion #4. Diversion #1 delivers water to the element group representing WID’s service area, which spans portions of Subregion 1, most of Subregion 2, part of Subregion 3, and a small area of Subregion 6. The scale of the ESJWRM element grid is not refined enough to simulate deliveries on the parcel scale, so model elements may include parcels which do not in actuality receive surface water from WID.

Some of the agricultural demand (largely native landscape) adjacent to streams is met by the riparian diversion from Mokelumne River (Diversion #28) as discussed in Section 3.4.19. All remaining agricultural demand is estimated in ESJWRM as element pumping. All urban demand is likewise element pumping.

3.4.3 City of Lodi
The City of Lodi purchases surface water from WID, which it takes from the Mokelumne River adjacent to the city. Diversion #2 supplies part of the urban demand beginning in water year 2013, with all of the previous demand being met exclusively by groundwater. 29 municipal wells are simulated in the model, with at least 3 becoming inactive during the simulation period. Since Lodi began receiving surface water, its supply mix has steadily decreased its reliance on groundwater, from 100% of the urban demand in water year 2012 to 55% of the demand in water year 2015, with its increase in surface water use.

The agricultural land surrounding the current city boundaries is supplied by either WID on the west or NSJWCD to the east. Though the agricultural demand in these areas is small, WID’s Diversion #1 or NSJWCD’s Diversion #5, along with the riparian diversion from Mokelumne River (Diversion #28) (see Section 3.4.19), are able to supply some of the agricultural demand adjacent to Lodi. The city’s wastewater treatment plant, located to the west of the city in Subregion #1, is surrounded by fields irrigated using recycled water from the treatment plant. Any additional agricultural or urban demand is estimated in ESJWRM as element pumping.

3.4.4 North San Joaquin Water Conservation District
NSJWCD receives water from the Mokelumne River, which is provided to its agricultural customers as Diversion #5. Historically, NSJWCD has not used its entire water right allotment and did not divert any water towards the end of the simulation (starting water year 2013).

San Joaquin County 3-9 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Some of the agricultural demand adjacent to water is met by the riparian diversions from Dry Creek (Diversion #27) and Mokelumne River (Diversion #28) (see Section 3.4.19). Any additional agricultural demand is estimated in ESJWRM as element pumping, while small domestic urban demand is met by element pumping.

3.4.5 Lockeford Community Services District
LCSD is located within ESJWRM Subregion 4 and is surrounded by agricultural land under NSJWCD. LCSD has 4 municipal pumping wells used to meet all the urban demand generated by its customers. Some of the agricultural demand is met by the riparian diversion from Mokelumne River (Diversion #28) (see Section 3.4.19), while the remaining is met by element pumping.

3.4.6 Calaveras County
Only a small portion of Calaveras County extends into the ESJ Subbasin and the land is mostly unirrigated or native vegetation with small residential pockets and some irrigated agricultural parcels. CCWD uses a small amount of Calaveras River water for agricultural demand in the ESJ Subbasin (Diversion #7).

Additional agricultural demand is met by the riparian diversion from Calaveras River (Diversion #29) (see Section 3.4.19) or element pumping. All the residential demand is met by element pumping.

3.4.7 Stockton Area
The Stockton area includes service areas of both the City of Stockton as well as Cal Water. San Joaquin County also manages water for several unincorporated areas in and around the city.

Both the City of Stockton and Cal Water purchase surface water for urban use from SEWD. The water originates from either the Calaveras or Stanislaus Rivers and is delivered to customers after treatment at the SEWD water treatment plant (Diversion #6 and Diversion #13). Additionally, Stockton began the Delta Water Supply Project in water year 2012 and built a water treatment plant, providing another source of surface water for the area from San Joaquin River at Empire Tract (Diversion #10) and Mokelumne River via agreement with WID (Diversion #3).

Stockton, Cal Water, and San Joaquin County maintain pumping wells for urban water use. Due to the scale of the element grid, many of the San Joaquin County areas were too small to be simulated separately from Stockton or Cal Water. Thus, San Joaquin County groundwater pumping is instead estimated by element pumping in ESJWRM. Stockton itself has 37 municipal wells in the area, though only about 14 are still active at the end of the simulation. Cal Water maintains a separate delivery area and operates 56 wells to meet urban demand, though only about 20 wells are active at the end of ESJWRM’s historical simulation. Due to the complexity of the water supply in the area, the supply mix for urban water use in ESJWRM is difficult to separate by agency, though for the entire area is, on average, 70% surface water and 30% groundwater pumping with the reliance on groundwater decreasing toward the end of simulation due to the construction of the Delta Water Supply Project.

One riparian diversion from Calaveras River (Diversion #29) provides water to areas adjacent to the river (see Section 3.4.19). Additional agricultural demand may be met by surface water from WID (Diversion #1) where it extends into the northern part of the Stockton area or SEWD (Diversion #8 and Diversion #14). Any additional agricultural demand occurring in the area is supplied by the estimated element pumping.

3.4.8 Stockton East Water District
San Joaquin County 3-10 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
SEWD receives water from both Calaveras River (i.e., New Hogan Lake) and Stanislaus River (i.e., New Melones Lake) and sells water to its customers for both agricultural and municipal purposes. Agricultural water is delivered directly to customers scattered across the district area (model Subregions 6 and 7).

Municipal water, as discussed in Section 3.4.7, is routed to SEWD’s water treatment plant and is sold to the City of Stockton and Cal Water. Beginning in water year 2003, SEWD has operated groundwater recharge projects near its water treatment plant, utilizing water taken from both the Calaveras and Stanislaus Rivers.

In Table 7, SEWD’s two urban diversions are Diversion #6 and Diversion #13, the two agricultural diversions are Diversion #8 and Diversion #14, and the two diversions used for recharge are Diversion #9 and Diversion #16. One riparian diversion from Calaveras River (Diversion #29) provides water to areas adjacent to the river (see Section 3.4.19). SEWD operates 5 urban pumping wells in the vicinity of the water treatment plant that are mixed with the surface water for use in the Stockton area and are utilized rarely (only during water year 2015 during the simulation period of ESJWRM). Any additional agricultural or urban demand is met by element pumping.

3.4.9 Linden County Water District
LCWD is located within ESJWRM Subregion 7 and is surrounded by agricultural land under SEWD. Though it receives no surface water, LCWD has 4 municipal pumping wells to meet all the urban demand generated by its customers. By the end of the simulation, only 2 of the wells are still active.

3.4.10 Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District
CSJWCD receives water from Stanislaus River (i.e., New Melones Lake) (Diversion #15) that is used for agricultural demand in model Subregion 8. Any additional agricultural demand is estimated as element pumping by ESJWRM. All the private residential urban demand is likewise calculated as element pumping.

3.4.11 South San Joaquin Irrigation District
SSJID’s service area covers the agricultural lands around the cities of Manteca, Ripon, and Escalon. SSJID provides water to agricultural customers within the district using water from the Stanislaus River (taken out at Goodwin Dam) and then stored in Woodward Reservoir just east of the district’s area in Stanislaus County. Diversion #17 represents the agricultural diversion from Woodward Reservoir that is delivered to SSJID’s customers through its series of canals covering the district. Based on communication with SSJID, one portion of SSJID, Division 6 (formerly Division 9), began receiving more surface water beginning in water year 2011. An increase in surface water to Division 6 (near Ripon in Subregions 15 and 16) is simulated using Diversion #33. Diversion #19 represents the seepage from Woodward Reservoir as SSJID had monthly data estimating the groundwater recharge due to the reservoir. Diversion #30 simulates the riparian diverters along Stanislaus River (see Section 3.4.19).

SSJID maintains 28 agricultural wells located in and around the City of Manteca to augment their surface water supply. Any remaining agricultural demand in the district is met by element pumping estimated by ESJWRM.

The Nick C. DeGroot Water Treatment Plant located at Woodward Reservoir was constructed as part of the South County Water Supply Project through the collaboration of SSJID and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Manteca, and Tracy. Beginning in water year 2005, surface water deliveries from the treatment plant began to Lathrop, Manteca, and Tracy with Escalon deliveries to begin in the future (currently San Joaquin County 3-11 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Escalon’s allotment is sold to Tracy). Ripon potentially may be added to the project at a later point. These deliveries are simulated in ESJWRM as Diversion #20 (Manteca), #21 (Escalon), #22 (Lathrop), and #23 (Ripon). Urban demand in these areas in discussed further in the relevant sections below. Any private residential demand estimated by ESJWRM in SSJID is met by element pumping.

3.4.12 City of Lathrop
Lathrop has 6 municipal pumping wells, one of which was inactive for the entire simulation period but may come back online for future use. The city began receiving surface water from the South County Water Supply Project in water year 2005 (Diversion #22) and will receive a higher allotment in future phases of the project.

Since Lathrop began receiving surface water and normalized for the drought, its supply mix has steadily decreased its reliance on groundwater, from 100% of the urban demand in water year 2004 to an average of 74% of the demand after the South County Water Supply Project began (ranging from 53% to 92% at the peak of the drought).

The small amount of agricultural demand in the vicinity of Lathrop is supplied by element pumping in ESJWRM. Recycled water is utilized for some fodder crop irrigation and will be incorporated in baseline runs of the model.

3.4.13 City of Manteca
Manteca has 15 active municipal wells that provide water for urban use and 31 active agricultural wells used to irrigate city landscaping. Agricultural land near the city is irrigated by SSJID’s diversion from Stanislaus River (Diversion #17). Starting in water year 2005, Manteca began receiving water from the South County Water Supply Project (Diversion #20). Additional agricultural and urban demand not met by the mix of groundwater pumping and surface water supply is estimated in the model as element pumping.

Since Manteca began receiving surface water, its supply mix has steadily decreased its reliance on groundwater, from 100% of the urban demand before water year 2005 to an average of 62% of the demand after.

3.4.14 City of Ripon
Ripon has 9 municipal pumping wells, at least 5 of which remain active at the end of the historical simulation. In addition, Ripon has 3 agricultural wells used for the city’s non-potable system and 6 nonpotable wells owned by Nestle. The groundwater pumping is augmented by SSJID’s diversion from Stanislaus River (Diversion #17) used for agricultural land surrounding the city. The city is currently not receiving surface water for municipal use from the South County Water Supply project, but may pursue that possibility in the future (Diversion #23). Currently, all the urban demand is met by groundwater pumping.

Adjacent to the Stanislaus River, some elements are receiving water for agricultural purposes from the Stanislaus River riparian diversion (Diversion #30) as discussed in Section 3.4.19.

3.4.15 City of Escalon
Escalon has 4 municipal pumping wells, at least 3 of which remain active at the end of the simulation.

Starting in water year 2005, the city was eligible to receive water from the South County Water Supply Project (Diversion #21), but has yet to build the pipeline necessary to take advantage of the allotted San Joaquin County 3-12 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
surface water. Currently, Escalon sells its allotment to the City of Tracy (located in San Joaquin County but outside of the ESJ Subbasin).

Agricultural land near the city is irrigated by SSJID’s diversion from Stanislaus River (Diversion #17) as discussed in Section 3.4.19. Any remaining agricultural demand is supplied using ESJWRM’s element pumping estimates.

3.4.16 Oakdale Irrigation District
OID takes surface water from Stanislaus River at Goodwin Dam that splits from SSJID’s water to go into OID’s distribution system to supply to agricultural users (Diversion #18). The district’s delivery area is spread between elements in ESJWRM Subregions 13, 18, and 20. Additional agricultural water comes from OID’s 24 wells spread around the district’s area.

3.4.17 Cosumnes Subbasin
As it is outside of the model focus area of ESJ Subbasin, the only diversions simulated in the Cosumnes Subbasin in ESJWRM are the riparian diversions from Cosumnes River (Diversion #26) and Dry Creek (Diversion #27) (see Section 3.4.19). Any additional agricultural or urban demands are met in the model by element pumping.

3.4.18 Modesto Subbasin
Three riparian diversions extend to elements in the Modesto Subbasin—Stanislaus River (Diversion #30), Tuolumne River (Diversion #31), and San Joaquin River (Diversion #32) (see Section 3.4.19). Additional agricultural surface water comes from the Tuolumne River to Modesto Irrigation District using data in C2VSim (Diversion #24). OID’s delivery area extends into the Modesto Subbasin and receives a portion of OID’s diversion off Stanislaus River (Diversion #18). Any remaining agricultural demand is supplied by ESJWRM-calculated element pumping.

Urban demand in the Modesto Subbasin is largely met using element pumping, except in the area of the City of Modesto, which receives surface water from Tuolumne River (via Modesto Irrigation District) in Diversion #25, with data from C2VSim.

3.4.19 Riparian Diverters
C2VSim includes surface water diversions to non-district riparian water users along simulated streams.

This information (diversion volumes, locations, and delivery areas) was pulled from C2VSim and used to simulate riparian diversions in ESJWRM. These diversions are from Cosumnes River (Diversion #26), Dry Creek (Diversion #27), Mokelumne River (Diversion #28), Calaveras River (Diversion #29), Stanislaus River (Diversion #30), Tuolumne River (Diversion #31), and San Joaquin River (Diversion #32). The riparian lands receiving these diversions are shown in Figure 36.

San Joaquin County 4-1 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

4. MODEL CALIBRATION
The goals of model calibration are (1) to achieve a reasonable water budget for each component of the hydrologic cycle modeled (i.e., land and water use, soil moisture, stream flow, and groundwater) and (2) to maximize the agreement between simulated and observed groundwater levels at selected well locations and simulated and observed streamflow hydrographs at selected gauging stations. These objectives are achieved through verification of the model input data and adjustment of model parameters.

4.1 Model Calibration
Model calibration begins after data analysis and input data file development is completed. The calibration effort can be broken down into subsets that align with packages within the IWFM platform. As an integrated groundwater model, the results of each part of the simulation are dependent on one another.

The model calibration can be considered a systematic process that includes the following activities:
• Calibrate hydrologic demand
• Calibrate surface water features
• Calibrate overall water budgets for the model area
• Calibrate simulated groundwater levels to observed groundwater levels • Compare calibration performance with the calibration targets • Conduct additional refinements to model as necessary
ESJWRM was calibrated to local data and knowledge, surface water flows, groundwater hydrographs, and groundwater contours. The sources used to check model results include local knowledge (mainly gathered during Technical Review Committee meetings), AWMPs, UWMPs, other local planning efforts, measured groundwater levels and contours, and observed streamflow data.

Due to uncertainty in the initial conditions, a one year “ramp up” period is included to allow groundwater levels to stabilize. Thus, the model calibration period for the ESJWRM is October 1995 through September 2015 or water years 1996 through 2015 (20 years).

4.2 Calibration of the IDC and Root-Zone Parameters
The goal of the IDC calibration process is to determine reasonable urban and agricultural demand and develop the components of a balanced root zone budget. IDC calibration serves as the foundation of the IWFM calibration as demand estimated translates directly to groundwater pumping, which is the primary stress on the groundwater system. This part of the calibration effort focused primarily on refining individual budget items while maintaining reasonable root zone parameters.

The calibrated IDC was used to estimate monthly agricultural water demand at each model element during the model hydrologic period. To adjust agricultural demand, elemental root zone parameters, particularly the soil hydraulic conductivity and the pore size distribution index, were adjusted in accordance with the hydrologic soil group and subregion. Spatial representation of these calibrated parameters is shown in Figure 37 though Figure 41. The IDC model was calibrated to agricultural water use values reported by irrigation districts in their AWMPs and then checked against local data with input from irrigation district representatives and consultants (pers. comm. Doug Heberle from WID, Jennifer Spaletta representing San Joaquin County 4-2 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
NSJWCD, Tom Flinn from NSJWCD, Peter Martin from CCWD, Cathy Lee from SEWD, Manuel Verduzco from SEWD, Sam Bologna from SSJID, Peter Rietkerk from SSJID, Bryan Thoreson representing SSJID, Emily Sheldon from OID, Eric Thorburn from OID, and Byron Clark representing OID). Figure 42a-42n show the agricultural water demand, unit agricultural water use, and unit evapotranspiration of applied water (ETAW) estimates by the total ESJ Subbasin area and major subareas. Differences in the charts between the subregion and subareas is due the differences in cropping patterns and evapotranspiration rates, which drive the estimation of agricultural demand. The difference between the two unit water use columns provide an indication of the efficiency of agricultural practices in the subregion or subarea.

Overall, the estimated agricultural demand reflects the same variability seen in irrigation practices and major crops from area to area within the ESJ Subbasin.

Figure 43a-43g show the model estimated annual urban demand for the total ESJ Subbasin area and subareas. Urban demand reflects the population and per capita water use defined for each urban area and estimated for the remaining rural residential areas.

4.3 Calibration of Surface Water Features
The ESJWRM simulates streamflow in 39 small watersheds and several major rivers and creeks across the model domain.

As discussed in Section 2.10, small watersheds are used to simulate inflows into the model from ungauged watersheds. The small watershed contributions are split between surface water runoff that enters the stream system, percolation that occurs during transport to the streams, and baseflow entering the groundwater system at the model boundary. Groundwater level hydrographs along the model boundary selected for groundwater level calibration (Section 4.5) were referenced to confirm and edit, as necessary, the various parameters of the small watersheds.

Streamflow calibration is primarily performed by comparing the simulated streamflow with local data from 11 stream gauges (Table 9 and Figure 44). Data for these gauges came from USGS or the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC). Two of these stream gauges (Mokelumne River below Camanche Dam and San Joaquin River near Vernalis) are duplicates of gauges used to estimate stream inflow into the model area and were not referenced for streamflow calibration and only verification of model setup.

Table 9: Summary of ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges
Stream Stream
Node Agency Gauge Name Period of Record
Cosumnes
River 98 USGS USGS 11336000: Cosumnes River at McConnell, CA October 1941 to
October 1982
Dry Creek 222 USGS USGS 11329500: Dry Creek near Galt,
CA
October 1926 to
December 1997
Mokelumne
River*
290 USGS USGS 11323500: Mokelumne River
below Camanche Dam, CA
October 1904 to
present/ongoing
Mokelumne
River 382 USGS USGS 11325500: Mokelumne River at Woodbridge, CA June 1924 to
present/ongoing
Mokelumne
River 501 USGS USGS 11336930: Mokelumne River at Andrus Island near Terminous, CA July 2006 to
present/ongoing
San Joaquin County 4-3 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Stream Stream
Node Agency Gauge Name Period of Record
Mormon
Slough 876 USACE CDEC MRS: Mormon Slough at Bellota December 1997 to present/ongoing Stanislaus
River 1067 DWR CDEC OBB: Stanislaus River at Orange Blossom Bridge January 1993 to
present/ongoing
Stanislaus
River 1186 USGS USGS 11303000: Stanislaus River at Ripon, CA October 1940 to
present/ongoing
Tuolumne
River 1382 USGS USGS 11290000: Tuolumne River at Modesto, CA April 1940 to
present/ongoing
San Joaquin
River*
1497 USGS USGS 11303500: San Joaquin River
near Vernalis, CA
October 1923 to
present/ongoing
San Joaquin
River 1597 USGS USGS 11304810: San Joaquin River below Garwood Bridge at Stockton, CA December 1995 to
present/ongoing
*Same as stream inflow gauge, so not used for calibration and included as verification of model setup Stream flow calibration included refinement of the stream bed hydraulic conductivity originally from C2VSim (Figure 45). Simulated stream flows were compared with observed records and exceedance charts were also used to check the model performance when simulating high and low flows at each gauge location. Calibration results for select stream gauges are included in Figure 46a-46j.

4.4 Calibration of Water Budgets
The aim of the calibration process is to ensure the accurate representation of the hydrologic characteristics of the groundwater basin, confirmed through the analysis of the resulting water budgets.

A water budget balances all supplies, demands, and any subsequent change in storage occurring within that specific portion of the hydrologic cycle. IWFM automatically outputs budgets at the subregion scale for processes involving groundwater, the surface layer, streams, the root zone, small watersheds, and the unsaturated zone. IWFM can output select budgets down to a single element or any specific grouping of elements.

During this step of the calibration process, model results are reviewed and summarized into monthly and annual (by water year) budgets. The most important budgets reviewed for calibration are the groundwater budget and the land and water use budget. After extensive budget analysis, key model datasets and parameters are adjusted, particularly groundwater aquifer parameters, to better match local budgets from AWMPs or other planning efforts. The ESJWRM water budget results are summarized in the following sections.

4.4.1 Land and Water Use Budget
The land and water use budget includes two different versions, agricultural and urban, and represents the balance of the IDC-calculated water demands with the water supplied. Both the agricultural and urban versions include the same components that make up the water balance:
• Inflows:
o Demand (either agricultural or urban)
o Surplus (if applicable)
San Joaquin County 4-4 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
• Outflows:
o Groundwater pumping
o Surface water deliveries
o Shortage (if applicable)
The average annual water demand for the subbasin within the calibration period was 1.2 million acre-feet (MAF), consisting of approximately 1.1 MAF agricultural demand and 0.1 MAF urban demand. This demand was met by approximately an average annual of 0.50 MAF of surface water deliveries (0.45 MAF of agricultural and 0.05 MAF of urban deliveries) and was supplemented by approximately 0.69 MAF of groundwater production (0.62 MAF of agricultural and 0.07 MAF of urban pumping). The annual estimated land and water use budgetsfor the calibration period are presented in Figure 47a-47g and Figure 48a-48g, showing the agricultural and urban, respectively, demands and water supplies in the ESJ Subbasin and its component subareas. Due to uncertainties in the reported and estimated values of agricultural and urban water supplies, as well as respective estimates of the demands, there are some imbalances between the demand and supply values. These imbalances are shown as surplus or shortage and are typically less than 10% of the reported supplies, and within the margin of errors of the analysis.

4.4.2 Groundwater Budget
The primary components of the groundwater budget, corresponding to the major hydrologic processes affecting groundwater flow in the model area, are:
• Inflows:
o Deep percolation (from rainfall and excess irrigation applied water) o Gain from stream (or recharge due to stream seepage)
o Recharge (from other sources such as irrigation canal seepage and recharge ponds) o Boundary inflow (from outside the model area)
o Subsurface inflow (from adjacent subregions)
• Outflows:
o Groundwater pumping
o Loss to stream (or outflow to streams and rivers)
o Boundary outflow (to outside the model area)
o Subsurface outflow (to adjacent subregions)
• Change in groundwater storage (either an inflow or outflow) The groundwater budget consists of inflows to and outflows from the groundwater system. Figure 49a49g show the annual components of the groundwater budget, including cumulative change in groundwater storage for ESJ Subbasin. Primary components of the groundwater budget are as follows:
average annual groundwater pumping is estimated to be 0.70 MAF, which is offset by approximately 0.22 MAF of deep percolation from rainfall and applied water, net gain from stream of 0.15 MAF, recharge from conveyance and unlined canals of approximately 0.12 MAF, and a total net subsurface inflow of San Joaquin County 4-5 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
approximately 0.16 MAF from neighboring subbasins and foothills. The cumulative change in groundwater storage is calculated from the change in groundwater storage. Due to inherent uncertainties in data and assumptions used in the model, approximations used in representing physical features in the aquifer system, and uncertainties in the model calibration, all budget components have some degree of uncertainty. A sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the sensitivity of the model results to the changes in each of the key model parameters. Given the overall range of uncertainties, the long-term average annual depletion in groundwater storage in ESJ Subbasin during the model historical period is estimated to range between 24 to 70 TAF, with an average of approximately 47 TAF per year.

4.5 Groundwater Level Calibration
Like streamflow calibration, the goal of groundwater level calibration is to achieve reasonable agreement between the simulated and observed values (in this case, groundwater levels at calibration wells). Within the ESJWRM, over 3,000 wells were evaluated for developing groundwater observation locations to track ESJWRM’s calibration at both a regional and local scale. The records for these wells were obtained from San Joaquin County’s monitoring database, DWR’s CASGEM program, and local monitoring wells from the City of Lodi and Oakdale Irrigation District. The calibration wells were selected based on their period of record, spatial distribution across the model, representativeness of good indicators of model responses to the various stresses, availability of observation data, and trends of nearby wells. Though a working set of 160 wells was tentatively selected initially, this was narrowed to an ultimate set of 70 wells that are representative of the long-term conditions of groundwater levels both at a local and regional scale in ESJWRM. These 70 calibration wells are shown in Figure 50 with information tabulated in Appendix C.

Simulated groundwater levels are calibrated to observed levels through adjustments to hydrogeologic parameters or aquifer parameters including hydraulic conductivity, specific storage, and specific yield (discussed in Section 4.7). The goal of groundwater level calibration is to achieve the maximum agreement between simulated and observed groundwater elevations at calibration wells while maintaining reasonable values for aquifer parameters. The groundwater level calibration is performed in two stages:
• The initial calibration effort is focused on the regional scale to verify hydrogeological assumptions made during data development and confirm the accuracy of general groundwater flow vectors.

During this iteration, simulated groundwater elevation trends, flow directions, and groundwater gradients are compared to measured data. DWR’s groundwater level contours for spring and fall many years starting in the 2010s were used to evaluate ESJWRM’s groundwater contours from matching time periods. Figure 51a-51d show the resulting ESJWRM groundwater level elevations (average of the top 2 layers of the model where most of the pumping in the subbasin occurs) compared to DWR contours for 4 different seasons and years: Spring 2011, Fall 2013, Spring 2015, and Fall 2015. Fall 2015 also represents the end of simulation groundwater levels. • The second stage of calibration of groundwater levels is to compare the simulated and observed groundwater level at each calibration well. This comparison provides information on the overall model performance during the simulation period. The simulated groundwater elevations at the 70 calibration wells were compared with corresponding observed values for concurrence in longterm trends as well as seasonal fluctuations.

Discussed further in the next section (Section 4.6), the results of the groundwater level calibration indicate that the ESJWRM reasonably simulates the long-term hydrologic responses under various hydrologic conditions. Figure 52a-52r show a selection of calibration wells (1 representing each ESJ Subbasin model San Joaquin County 4-6 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
subregion or 18 wells) with their resulting groundwater level hydrographs. All 70 calibration well hydrographs are included in Appendix C.

4.6 Measurement of Calibration Status
The ESJWRM calibration status was measured using two metrics: the groundwater level trend and the relationship between simulated and observed groundwater levels. The statistics were evaluated to meet the American Standard Testing Method (ASTM) standard. In addition to quantifiable metrics, the ESJWRM calibration was evaluated by generating reasonable regional groundwater flow directions and producing realistic water budgets.

The “Standard Guide for Calibrating a Groundwater Flow Model Application” (ASTM D5981) states that “the acceptable residual should be a small fraction of the head difference between the highest and lowest heads across the site.” The residual is defined as the simulated head minus the observed head. An analysis of all calibration water levels within the model indicated the presence of 200+ feet of water level changes.

Using 10 percent as the “small fraction”, the acceptable residual level would be 20 feet. Calibration goals for the groundwater level residuals were set such that no more than 10 percent of the observed groundwater levels would exceed the acceptable residual level of 20 feet. • 75% of observed groundwater levels are within +/- 10 feet of its respective simulated values • 97% of observed groundwater levels are within +/- 20 feet of its respective simulated values • 99% of observed groundwater levels are within +/- 30 feet of its respective simulated values The residual histogram for the ESJ Subbasin is shown in Figure 53. Additionally, a scatter plot of simulated versus observed values is shown in Figure 54.

4.7 Final Calibration Parameters
The initial aquifer parameters for the ESJWRM came from DWR’s texture model values extracted to C2VSim coarse grid nodes. These coarse grid nodes formed a parametric grid covering the model area and reflected the scale at which parameters were adjusted throughout the calibration process. The grid was slightly modified to cover the entire ESJWRM model along the boundaries and additional nodes were added or moved within areas of the model to provide better control (Figure 55). The parameters resulting from the calibration process are listed in Table 10.

Table 10: Range of Aquifer Parameter Values
Stream Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4
Horizontal Hydraulic
Conductivity (ft/day) 11.5 – 72.7 6.4 – 44.8 1.1 – 4.6 1.8 – 5.2 Vertical Hydraulic
Conductivity (ft/day) 0.005 – 0.14 0.004 – 0.07 0.004 – 0.05 0.004 – 0.15 Corcoran Clay Vertical
Hydraulic Conductivity
(ft/day)

3.6 x 10-4 –

1.5 x 10-3

3.6 x 10-4 –

1.5 x 10-3

3.6 x 10-4 –

1.5 x 10-3

3.6 x 10-4 –

1.5 x 10-3
Specific Storage
(unitless)

8.55 x 10-5 –

1.57 x 10-4

4.18 x 10-6 –

1.97 x 10-4

4.21 x 10-6 –

2.05 x 10-4

2.53 x 10-5 –

1.75 x 10-4
Specific Yield (unitless) 0.04 - 0.10 0.04 – 0.09 0.04 – 0.09 0.05 – 0.09 San Joaquin County 4-7 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity – The hydraulic conductivity (KH) in the ESJWRM varies across the horizontal direction and across model layers. The fully calibrated values remain descriptive of the initial hydrogeologic analysis, range from 1.1 ft/day to 72.7 ft/day, and the spatial distribution is represented in Figure 56 through Figure 58.

Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity – Primarily a constraining factor across the Corcoran Clay in the small portion of the model underlain by it, the Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (KV) facilitates the separation between the unconfined and confined aquifers within the ESJWRM. The KV values of the Corcoran aquitard is found to be less than one one-thousandth of the horizontal conductivity of the surrounding aquifer systems. For those parts of ESJWRM without Corcoran Clay, the KV controls the flow of groundwater between the materials making up the different modeled aquifer layers.

Specific Storage – Specific Storage (SS) is used to represent the available storage at nodes in a confined aquifer, where the hydraulic head is above the top of the aquifer. Specific Storage is the unit volume of water released or taken into storage per unit change in head. Calibrated specific storage values range from 4.18 x 10-6to 2.05 x 10-4, as shown in Figure 59 through Figure 61.

Specific Yield – Specific Yield (SY) is representative of the available storage in an unconfined aquifer and defined as the unit volume of volume released from the aquifer per unit change in head due to gravity.

Calibrated specific storage values range from 0.04 to 0.10 and are shown in Figure 62 through Figure 64.

4.8 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is an important step in the model development process. It is defined as “the study of distribution of dependent variables (e.g., groundwater elevations in a groundwater model) in response to changes in the distribution of independent variables, initial conditions, boundary conditions, and physical parameters” (AWWA, 2001). In general, a sensitivity analysis of an integrated groundwater and surface water model is performed for the following purposes:
• To test the robustness and stability of the model by establishing tolerance within which the model parameters can vary without significantly changing the model results; • To understand the impact of inaccuracies in input data on model results (e.g., how model results can change because of a 10% error in the estimation of agricultural pumping); and • To develop an understanding of the relative sensitivity of the components of the hydrologic cycle and data, so that an effective data collection and monitoring plan can be developed.

A sensitivity analysis was performed using the ESJWRM to assess the sensitivity of model results to specific model parameters and input data. Two different metrics were selected to measure the sensitivity of the ESJWRM. A sensitivity metric is a single number derived from the ESJWRM results and has a unique value for each model run corresponding to a given set of data or parameter value. The sensitivity metrics used here:
• Average groundwater elevation in the study areas, and • Average root mean square (RMS) error aggregated from selected calibration wells.

Average groundwater elevation in the study areas is defined as a three-way average of simulated groundwater elevations at model nodes. The average is taken over the model layers, model nodes, and time.

San Joaquin County 4-8 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
This can be mathematically expressed by:

𝐻̅ =
1 𝑀
∑ 𝐻𝑘
𝑀
𝐾=1
Such that,
𝐻𝑘 =
1 𝑁
∑[
1 𝐿
∑ℎ𝑗
𝐿
𝑗=1
]
𝑖
𝑘 𝑁
𝑖=1
Where,
M total number of simulation time steps,
Hk average head in the model area at k-th time step,
N number of model nodes,
L number of model layers in aquifer,
Hj groundwater elevation at layer j, and
i, j, k are indices for node, layer, and time, respectively.

The average RMS error at selected calibration wells is defined as the average of individual RMS error at each calibration well. The RMS error at a calibration well is defined as follows:

𝑅𝑀𝑆𝑤 = √{
1 𝑁
∑[ℎ𝑘,𝑤
0 − ℎ𝑘,𝑤𝑠
]
2 𝑁0
𝑘=1
}
where,
N0 is the number of observations at well k,
ℎ𝑘,𝑤
0 is the observed groundwater elevation at time step k, at well w, ℎ𝑘,𝑤
𝑠
is the simulated groundwater elevation at time step k, at well w.

4.8.1 Sensitivity Analysis Results
Adjustments of aquifer parameters, and the analysis the resulting groundwater head, was performed at all groundwater nodes within the model domain. Similarly, streambed conductance was analyzed at all model stream nodes. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the ESJWRM for the following parameters with results discussed below.

Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity – The sensitivity of the ESJWRM to changes in hydraulic conductivity are presented in Figure 65 and Figure 66. Reduction of hydraulic conductivity to one-fourth of the calibrated value results in 10.13 feet higher groundwater levels in the model, whereas increases to hydraulic conductivity decrease the average groundwater levels by 2.05 feet. Changes to horizontal hydraulic conductivity have small impacts to RMS values.

San Joaquin County 4-9 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity – The sensitivity of the ESJWRM to changes in vertical hydraulic conductivity are presented in Figure 67 and Figure 68. Reduction of this parameter to one-fourth of the calibrated value results in 10.34 feet higher groundwater levels in the model, whereas increases to the vertical hydraulic conductivity decrease the average groundwater levels by 4.80 feet. Changes to vertical hydraulic conductivity have very little impact on RMS values.

Specific Storage – The sensitivity of the ESJWRM to changes in specific storage are presented in Figure 69 and Figure 70. Reduction of specific storage to one-fourth of the calibrated value results in approximately

12.64 feet higher groundwater levels in the model, whereas increases to specific storage decrease the average groundwater levels by 1.49 feet. Changes to specific storage have very little impact on RMS values.

Specific Yield – The sensitivity of the ESJWRM to changes in specific yield are presented in Figure 71 and Figure 72. Reduction of specific yield to one-fourth of the calibrated value results in 11.67 feet higher groundwater levels in the model and increases to specific yield increase the average groundwater levels by 1.82 feet. Changes to specific yield have slight impacts to RMS values.

Streambed Conductance – The sensitivity of the ESJWRM to changes in streambed conductance are presented in Figure 73 and Figure 74. Reduction of conductance to one-fourth of the calibrated value results in 8.09 feet higher groundwater levels in the model, whereas increases to conductance decrease the average groundwater levels by 5.09 feet. Changes to streambed conductance have slight impacts to RMS values.

The results of the sensitivity analysis for the ESJWRM indicate that the model is a stable model and the system responds in the expected manner because of changes in aquifer parameters and other input data.

San Joaquin County 5-1 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The ESJWRM, in its current state, is a robust, comprehensive, defensible and well-established model for assessing the water resources in the ESJ Subbasin under historical and projected conditions. The following recommendations are to be considered for further refinements and enhancements of the model:
• Continue engagement with local groundwater users and managers. Continue working with local agencies and groundwater users in ESJ Subbasin to further understand the local operations of the groundwater system and improve representation of groundwater users in the ESJWRM. • Refinement of boundary flows. The current boundary flows at the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the model area are based on an older version of the C2VSim with adjustments made based on initial groundwater levels assumed for the beginning of the model (October 1994). DWR is currently in the process of updating the C2VSIm model. Once the latest fine grid version (C2VSim-2015) is publicly available, boundary flows for the ESJ model area should be verified and updated, as necessary.
• Enhance variability of potential evapotranspiration. The current version of the IDC used for estimation of the consumptive use of crops in the ESJWRM uses monthly potential ET values that are the same for all years during the model period. Given that there may be annual variability in the potential ET data with possible effects on the annual estimation of crop water demand, it is recommended to use more detailed data with temporal variability to develop a full time series of ET values for use in the model.
• Refine surface water deliveries in Cosumnes and Modesto Subbasins. The surface water deliveries in the Cosumnes and Modesto Subbasins are currently at the subregion level and do not have the detailed spatial resolution of other areas within the ESJ Subbasin. This data may need to be verified and updated as modeling efforts in those subbasins progress to meet the requirements of SGMA.
• Update C2VSim based on ESJWRM. The fine grid version of C2VSim was developed by the DWR to evaluate the integrated surface water and groundwater conditions at a regional scale; whereas, the ESJWRM is capable of evaluation at the local scale. To increase the accuracy of regional groundwater conditions in the fine grid C2VSim, the County is encouraged to work with DWR to provide data and information for further refinement and update of C2VSim in the ESJWRM area. • Develop model update schedule. In order to keep the ESJWRM up-to-date and current for analysis of water resources and especially for supporting SGMA implementation, it is recommended that the model be updated every 3 to 5 years. A possible update schedule can be kept consistent with the GSP updates, with a lead time of 2 to 3 years relative to the GSP update schedule.

San Joaquin County 6-1 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

6. REFERENCES
American Water Works Association (AWWA), 2001. Water Resources Planning. Manual of Water Supply Practices (M50) Second Edition.

ASTM D5981. Standard Guide for Calibrating a Groundwater Flow Model Application.

Brush, Charles F, 2013. Historical Rim Inflows, Surface Water Diversions and Bypass Flows for the California Central Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model (C2VSim), Version 3.02-CG. http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/modeling/hydrology/C2VSim/download/C2VSim_ Historical_Flows_Diversions_Final.pdf.

Brush, Charles F, Emin C Dogrul, and Tariq N Kadir, 2013. Development and Calibration of the California Central Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model (C2VSim), Version 3.02-CG. http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/modeling/hydrology/C2VSim/download/C2VSim_Model_Report_201 6-03_vR374.pdf.

CDM, 2008. Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority Integrated Conjunctive Use Project: Groundwater Model Documentation for IRWMP Simulations Technical Memorandum.

Dogrul, Emin C., Tariq N. Kadir, and Charles F. Brush, 2017a. Integrated Water Flow Model Theoretical Documentation (IWFM-2015), Revision 630. http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/modeling/ hydrology/IWFM/IWFM-2015/v2015_0_630/downloadables/IWFM-2015.0.630_Theoretical Documentation.pdf.

Dogrul, Emin C., Tariq N. Kadir, and Charles F. Brush, 2017b. DWR Technical Memorandum: Theoretical Documentation and User’s Manual for IWFM Demand Calculator (IDC-2015), Revision 63. Bay-Delta Office, California Department of Water Resources. http://baydeltaoffice. water.ca.gov/modeling/hydrology/IDC/IDC-2015/v2015_0_63/index_ IDCv2015_0_63.cfm.

Department of Water Resources (DWR). Land Use Surveys. Downloaded various counties and years from 1993-2000. http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/lusrvymain.cfm Department of Water Resources (DWR). Statewide Crop Mapping 2014. Downloaded for three groundwater subbasins in model area. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/.

Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2017. IWFM Soil Data Builder with GIS User’s Manual. Version

1.0.41. http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/modeling/hydrology/IWFM/SupportTools/index_ Support Tools .cfm.

Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC), California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo.

California Evapotranspiration Data. CIMIS Zone 12, Water Balance Data, Sprinkler Irrigation, Typical Year. http://www.itrc.org/etdata/index.html.

Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), March 2016. 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan. Prepared by Davids Engineering. http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/docs/2016/Oakdale% 20ID%20201 5%20AWMP.pdf.

Page, R.W., 1974. Base and thickness of the Post-Eocene continental deposits in the Sacramento Valley, California. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 73-45.

Prichard, Terry L. Winegrape Irrigation Scheduling Using Deficit Irrigation Techniques. University of California, Davis. http://ucanr.edu/sites/ce_san_joaquin/files/ 35706.pdf.

San Joaquin County 6-2 Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID), December 2015. 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.

Prepared by Davids Engineering. http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/docs/2015/ plans/SSJID%20AWMP%202015%20FINAL.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2017a. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey SSURGO Database. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2017b. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey United States General Soil Map. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Cropland Data Layers. Downloaded 2007-2015. USDA-NASS, Washington, DC. https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2009.

National Engineering Handbook Part 630. Chapter 7: Hydrologic Soil Groups.

Williamson, A.K., D.E. Prudic, and L.A. Swain, 1989. Ground-water flow in the Central Valley, California.

USGS Professional Paper 1401-D.

San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018

FIGURES
Figure 1: ESJ Subbasin with County Lines
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 2: Groundwater Subbasins
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 3a: ESJ Subbasin Major Water Purveyors
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 3b: ESJ Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 4: ESJWRM Boundaries
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 5: ESJWRM Grid Development Features
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 6: ESJWRM Elements
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 7: ESJWRM Subregions
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 8: ESJWRM Subareas
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 9: ESJWRM Streams and Stream Inflow Locations
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 10: ESJWRM Average Annual Precipitation
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 11: ESJWRM Annual Rainfall
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 12: ESJWRM Hydrologic Soil Group
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 13: ESJWRM General Land Use in 1995 DWR Land Use Survey San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 14: ESJWRM General Land Use in 2015 CropScape
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 15: ESJWRM ESJ Subbasin Annual General Land Use
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 16: ESJWRM Cropping Pattern in 1995 DWR Land Use Survey San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 17: ESJWRM Cropping Pattern in 2014 Land IQ
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 18: ESJWRM Cropping Pattern in 2015 CropScape
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 19a: ESJWRM Annual Cropping Pattern – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 19b: ESJWRM Annual Cropping Pattern – Subarea 1 (North Delta Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 19c: ESJWRM Annual Cropping Pattern – Subarea 2 (North Subarea) Figure 19d: ESJWRM Annual Cropping Pattern – Subarea 3 (Calaveras Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 19e: ESJWRM Annual Cropping Pattern – Subarea 4 (Central Subarea) Figure 19f: ESJWRM Annual Cropping Pattern – Subarea 5 (South Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 19g: ESJWRM Annual Cropping Pattern – Subarea 6 (Stanislaus Subarea) Figure 20: ESJWRM Annual Evapotranspiration
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 21: ESJWRM Surface Water Drainage Watersheds
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 22: ESJWRM Ground Surface Elevation
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 23: ESJWRM Layer 1 Thickness
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 24: ESJWRM Corcoran Clay Depth to Top
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 25: ESJWRM Corcoran Clay Thickness
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 26: ESJWRM Layer 2 Thickness
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 27: ESJWRM Layer 3 Thickness
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 28: ESJWRM Layer 4 Thickness
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 29a: ESJWRM Cross Section A - A’
Figure 29b: ESJWRM Cross Section B - B’
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 29c: ESJWRM Cross Section C - C’
Figure 29d: ESJWRM Cross Section D - D’
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 29e: ESJWRM Cross Section E - E’
Figure 29f: ESJWRM Cross Section F - F’
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 30: ESJWRM Small Watersheds
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 31: ESJWRM Initial GW Levels (Fall 1994)
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 32: ESJWRM Annual Population by Urban Center
Figure 33: ESJWRM Annual Per Capita Water Use by Urban Center San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 34: ESJWRM Surface Water Diversion Locations
Diversion
#26
Diversion #27
Diversion
#11
Diversion
#10
Diversion
#12
Diversion
#32
Diversion
#30
Diversions
#5 and 28
Diversions
#1, 2, 3,
and 4
Diversions
#6, 8, 9,
and 29
Diversion
#7
Diversion
#31 Diversions
#24 and 25
Diversions
#13, 14,
15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23,
and 33
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 35: ESJWRM Groundwater Production Wells
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 36: ESJWRM Riparian Surface Water Diversion Areas San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 37: ESJWRM Field Capacity
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 38: ESJWRM Wilting Point
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 39: ESJWRM Total Porosity
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 40: ESJWRM Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 41: ESJWRM Pore Size Distribution Index
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 42a: ESJWRM Agricultural Water Demand – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 42b: ESJWRM Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 42c: ESJWRM Agricultural Water Demand – Subarea 1 (North Delta Subarea) Figure 42d: ESJWRM Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW – Subarea 1 (North Delta Subarea)
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 42e: ESJWRM Agricultural Water Demand – Subarea 2 (North Subarea) Figure 42f: ESJWRM Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW – Subarea 2 (North Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 42g: ESJWRM Agricultural Water Demand – Subarea 3 (Calaveras Subarea) Figure 42h: ESJWRM Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW – Subarea 3 (Calaveras Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 42i: ESJWRM Agricultural Water Demand – Subarea 4 (Central Subarea) Figure 42j: ESJWRM Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW – Subarea 4 (Central Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 42k: ESJWRM Agricultural Water Demand – Subarea 5 (South Subarea) Figure 42l: ESJWRM Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW – Subarea 5 (South Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 42m: ESJWRM Agricultural Water Demand – Subarea 6 (Stanislaus Subarea) Figure 42n: ESJWRM Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW – Subarea 6 (Stanislaus Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 43a: ESJWRM Urban Water Demand – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 43b: ESJWRM Urban Water Demand – Subarea 1 (North Delta Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 43c: ESJWRM Urban Water Demand – Subarea 2 (North Subarea) Figure 43d: ESJWRM Urban Water Demand – Subarea 3 (Calaveras Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 43e: ESJWRM Urban Water Demand – Subarea 4 (Central Subarea) Figure 43f: ESJWRM Urban Water Demand – Subarea 5 (South Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 43g: ESJWRM Urban Water Demand – Subarea 6 (Stanislaus Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 44: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 45: ESJWRM Stream Bed Hydraulic Conductivity
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 46a: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Streamflow – Dry Creek near Galt Figure 46b: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Exceedance – Dry Creek near Galt San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 46c: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Streamflow – Mokelumne River at Woodbridge
Figure 46d: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Exceedance – Mokelumne River at Woodbridge
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 46e: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Streamflow – Mormon Slough at Bellota Figure 46f: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Exceedance – Mormon Slough at Bellota San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 46g: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Streamflow – Stanislaus River below Orange Blossom Bridge
Figure 46h: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Exceedance – Stanislaus River below Orange Blossom Bridge
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 46i: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Streamflow – San Joaquin River below Garwood Bridge at Stockton
Figure 46j: ESJWRM Stream Calibration Gauges Exceedance – San Joaquin River below Garwood Bridge at Stockton
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 47a: ESJWRM Agricultural Land and Water Use Budget – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 47b: ESJWRM Agricultural Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 1 (North Delta Subarea)
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 47c: ESJWRM Agricultural Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 2 (North Subarea) Figure 47d: ESJWRM Agricultural Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 3 (Calaveras Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 47e: ESJWRM Agricultural Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 4 (Central Subarea) Figure 47f: ESJWRM Agricultural Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 5 (South Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 47g: ESJWRM Agricultural Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 6 (Stanislaus Subarea)
Figure 48a: ESJWRM Urban Land and Water Use Budget – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 48b: ESJWRM Urban Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 1 (North Delta Subarea) Figure 48c: ESJWRM Urban Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 2 (North Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 48d: ESJWRM Urban Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 3 (Calaveras Subarea) Figure 48e: ESJWRM Urban Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 4 (Central Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 48f: ESJWRM Urban Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 5 (South Subarea) Figure 48g: ESJWRM Urban Land and Water Use Budget – Subarea 6 (Stanislaus Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 49a: ESJWRM Groundwater Budget – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 49b: ESJWRM Groundwater Budget – Subarea 1 (North Delta Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 49c: ESJWRM Groundwater Budget – Subarea 2 (North Subarea) Figure 49d: ESJWRM Groundwater Budget – Subarea 3 (Calaveras Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 49e: ESJWRM Groundwater Budget – Subarea 4 (Central Subarea) Figure 49f: ESJWRM Groundwater Budget – Subarea 5 (South Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 49g: ESJWRM Groundwater Budget – Subarea 6 (Stanislaus Subarea) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 50: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Calibration Wells
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 51a: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Contours (Fall 2015) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 51b: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Contours (Spring 2015) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 51c: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Contours (Fall 2013) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 51d: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Contours (Spring 2011) San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 52a: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #1 Figure 52b: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #2 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 52c: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #3 Figure 52d: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #4 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 52e: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #5 Figure 52f: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #6 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 52g: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #7 Figure 52h: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #8 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 52i: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #9 Figure 52j: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #10 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 52k: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #11 Figure 52l: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #12 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 52m: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #13 Figure 52n: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #14 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 52o: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #15 Figure 52p: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #16 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 52q: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #17 Figure 52r: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Hydrograph #18 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 53: ESJWRM ESJ Subbasin Groundwater Level Histogram Figure 54: ESJWRM ESJ Subbasin Groundwater Level Scatter Plot San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 55: ESJWRM Parametric Grid
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 56: ESJWRM Layer 1 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 57: ESJWRM Layer 2 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 58: ESJWRM Layer 3 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 59: ESJWRM Layer 1 Specific Storage
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 60: ESJWRM Layer 2 Specific Storage
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 61: ESJWRM Layer 3 Specific Storage
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 62: ESJWRM Layer 1 Specific Yield
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 63: ESJWRM Layer 2 Specific Yield
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 64: ESJWRM Layer 3 Specific Yield
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 65: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Figure 66: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity – Relative Root Mean Square Error
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 67: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Figure 68: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity – Relative Root Mean Square Error
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 69: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Specific Storage – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Figure 70: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Specific Storage – Relative Root Mean Square Error San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 71: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Specific Yield – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Figure 72: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Specific Yield – Relative Root Mean Square Error San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure 73: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Streambed Conductance – Difference in Average Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Figure 74: ESJWRM Sensitivity Analysis of Streambed Conductance – Relative Root Mean Square Error

woodardcurran.com

COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS

EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN WATER RESOURCES MODEL
(ESJWRM)
Final Report
August 2018
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
APPENDIX A: PRESENTATIONS TO TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
APPENDIX B: ESJWRM IDC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
February 2018 1
Technical Memorandum
SGMA Readiness Project
Subject: Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model
Agricultural and Urban Demand Estimates (Task 2 Deliverable) Prepared For: San Joaquin County
Prepared by: Sara Miller
Reviewed by: Ali Taghavi
Date: 2/1/2018
Reference: 0541002 Task 2
1 Introduction
The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to document the data and information used in analyzing land surface processes, to briefly discuss the analytical tools used, and to present estimates of the agricultural and urban water use in the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin (ESJ Subbasin) as part of the development of the Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM).

The IWFM Demand Calculator (IDC) (Dogrul et al., 2017) is used to estimate the agricultural and urban water use in the ESJ Subbasin portion of ESJWRM. IDC, the stand-alone version of the Integrated Water Flow Model’s (IWFM) root zone component, calculates agricultural and urban water demands with major inputs including climate conditions, soil parameters, and land use types and distribution. The hydrologic period of the ESJWRM spans from October 1994 though September 2015 and covers water years 1995 through 2015.

The ESJWRM boundaries include the ESJ Subbasin (primary model area), as well as the Cosumnes Subbasin to the north and the Modesto Subbasin to the south. The model network is a Finite Element based grid that contains 16,054 elements and 15,302 nodes. The model elements are grouped into 20 model subregions that are used to organize input data for the model and to report standard model output water budgets (Figure 1). These subregions are aggregated into 8 larger units (model subareas) used to output model results for basin-scale planning (Figure 2). ESJ Subbasin, the primary model area, is made up of 18 subregions and is the focus of this Technical Memorandum. 2 Technical Review and Oversight
The development of the ESJWRM, including the development and calibration of IDC, is taking place in an open and transparent process. The Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority (GBA) was the organizational structure for model development coordination before the creation of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (GWA). The GBA’s Ad Hoc Technical Review Committee was the forum to review model input data and assumptions, as well as calibration results. The monthly committee meetings were open to all interested parties and generally consisted of technical representatives from local agencies, consultants with knowledge of the area, representatives for neighboring groundwater subbasins, DWR staff, and San Joaquin County personnel.

Local agencies with consistent representation included San Joaquin County, Woodbridge Irrigation District, City of Lodi, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, Lockeford Community Services District, Calaveras County Water District, City of Stockton, Cal Water, Stockton East Water District, City of SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 2
Lathrop, City of Manteca, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, City of Escalon, Oakdale Irrigation District, and Stanislaus County.
3 Land Use
Spatial land use data was used to develop land use and crop acreages for each model element. Model element acreages were then aggregated by subregion for reporting and verification purposes.

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) conducts periodic land use surveys for each county that include over 70 different crop categories, as well as urban and native vegetation (DWR, 1993-2000). DWR land use surveys by county were merged and assumed to represent water year 1995 in the model. The surveys used include:

1. San Joaquin County (1996)

2. Sacramento County (1993)

3. Amador County (1997)

4. Calaveras County (2000)

5. Stanislaus County (1996)
Data for water years 2007 through 2015 are from the United States Department of Agriculture’s remote sensing CropScape data (USDA NASS, 2007-2015). CropScape includes 256 land use categories that come from annual satellite imagery collected during the growing season on 30 meter by 30 meter pixels. Based on reports on the CropScape website, the level of accuracy for this data is about 85-97% for crop-specific land cover categories. Although this level of accuracy is high, the accuracy varies depending on many factors, including the time of the satellite image, growing season timing, cloud cover, type of crop, and maturity state of the crop.

DWR retained LandIQ, LLC to develop a statewide assessment of agricultural land use in summer 2014.

LandIQ used remote sensing methods to collect and process the data, which was then ground truthed for a reported overall accuracy of 96.6% (DWR, 2014). In ESJWRM, this data was broadly used as verification of CropScape 2014 data and, in a few specific cases, as replacement or enhancement of the CropScape data.

Local data and knowledge was also utilized to refine and correct, as needed, the cropping acreages developed based on the DWR land use surveys and CropScape years. ESJWRM includes 23 irrigated crop categories and 4 general land use categories. The irrigated crop categories were combined into 6 high-level groupings of crops with similar water use or irrigation practices. Table 1 lists the land use categories.

To fill the gap between 1995 and 2007, all land use and crop categories were interpolated at the spatial resolution level of the model element. Thus, the geographic distribution of interpolated land use and cropping patterns are honored. Adjustments were made, as needed, at the element level to ensure that the land use and cropping pattern trends over time are reflective of local data. These adjustments were mostly based on local knowledge and information received from various entities, including irrigation districts, water districts, and municipalities.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the spatial distribution of the major land use categories in the ESJ Subbasin.

Figure 5 shows the annual trends of land use categories in the ESJ Subbasin.

Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8 show the spatial distribution of the irrigated crops for 1995, 2014, and 2015. Figure 9a-9m show the annual cropping patterns, by high level categories, for the ESJ Subbasin and those major model input subregions that are not predominantly urban centers (i.e., all subregions in the primary model area except subregions 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 16).

SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 3
Table 1: Land Use Categories
Land Use Type Model Category Grouped Categories
Irrigated Crops
Almonds
Fruit and Nut Trees
Cherries
Citrus & Subtropical
Other Orchard
Pistachios
Walnuts
Vineyards Vineyards
Alfalfa Alfalfa and Irrigated
Pasture Pasture
Grain Grain
Corn
Field Crops
Cotton
Dry Beans
Field Crops
Safflower
Sugar Beets
Cucurbits
Truck Crops
Onion & Garlic
Potatoes
Tomato Fresh
Tomato Processing
Truck Crops
Rice Rice
Other Land Use
Urban Landscape
Water Surface
Riparian Vegetation
Native Vegetation
4 Urban Demand
IDC calculates urban demand based on per capita water use, population, and the breakdown of indoor versus outdoor water use by month. Figure 10 shows the annual population trends for each urban center. Figure 11 shows the annual per capita water use values of these urban centers used in the calculation of urban water demand. Figure 12a-12g show the model estimated annual urban demand for predominantly urban subregions and the total ESJ Subbasin area.

Population and per capita water use for the major urban areas were largely provided directly by the urban areas or were contained in Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs). Additional annual population, including an estimate for rural urban areas, came from the United States Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance. Monthly per capita water use, commonly reported in gallons per capita per day (GPCD), was generally estimated for each urban entity using the annual population and monthly urban water use (provided by cities based on water delivery records). To estimate the urban water demand of rural domestic water areas, the average major urban area GPCD was combined with the estimated rural population.

It was assumed that an annual average of 60% of urban water was used indoors and 40% was used outdoors.

The monthly fractions entered into the model had the majority of urban water demand due to indoor activities from November through March and up to a maximum of 60% of urban water used outdoors for the remainder of the year.

SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 4
The indoor/outdoor breakdown received concurrence from the urban water providers who attended the Ad Hoc Technical Review Committee meetings. Population and per capita water use data were reviewed by the major urban areas and confirmed at the meetings (pers. comm. Kathryn Garcia, Andrew Richle, Michael Bolzowski, Greg Gibson, and Elba Mijango).
5 Agricultural Demand
IDC estimates agricultural water demand based on model input data for evapotranspiration (ET), monthly precipitation, return and reuse fractions, irrigation period, land use and cropping acreages, and soil properties (e.g., hydraulic conductivity, pore size distribution index, etc.). This data was compiled, analyzed, synthesized, and processed for input in ESJWRM.

The ET requirement is based on a variety of sources, including locally-developed data for the South San Joaquin Irrigation District and the Oakdale Irrigation District Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMPs) (SJJID, 2015; OID, 2016) and averages for DWR’s CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information System) Zone 12 developed using the METRIC methodology, which is a remote-sensing based technology to estimate crop actual ET. Based on discussions with locals (pers. comm. Jennifer Spaletta and Bryan Thoreson), deficit irrigation of vineyards was simulated in ESJWRM with reference to the growing season ET values in the Lodi area (Prichard). Figure 13 shows the range in annual evapotranspiration rates from the various sources for the 27 model land use categories.

Monthly rainfall data was derived from the PRISM (OSU, 1970-2015) database and mapped to the model element in order to preserve the spatial distribution of the monthly rainfall over the model hydrologic period of 1995 through 2015. Figure 14 shows the annual rainfall in the model area and the cumulative departure from mean, which is an indication of long-term rainfall trends in the area.

The soil properties included in the model for each element are field capacity, wilting point, total porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and pore size distribution index. The soil survey geographic (SSURGO) database was downloaded first from the Web Soil Survey and any gaps in data were filled in using the General Soil Map of the United States (STATSGO2). These spatial datasets were averaged over each model element using IWFM’s Soil Data Builder with GIS tool available at http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/modeling/ hydrology/IWFM/SupportTools/index_SupportTools.cfm.

IDC was used to simulate the monthly agricultural demand estimates for each model element. The IDC model was calibrated to agricultural water use values reported by irrigation districts in their AWMPs and then checked against local data with input from irrigation district representatives and consultants (pers. comm. Doug Heberle, Jennifer Spaletta, Tom Flinn, Peter Martin, Cathy Lee, Manuel Verduzco, Sam Bologna, Bryan Thoreson, Emily Sheldon, Eric Thorburn, and Byron Clark). ESJWRM as a whole will undergo a more rigorous calibration process comparing model streamflow and groundwater levels to actual observed data.

The calibrated IDC was used to estimate monthly agricultural water demand at each model element during the model hydrologic period. The element-level estimates were then aggregated to report the information for each model subregion. Figure 15a-15n show the agricultural water demand, unit agricultural water use, and unit evapotranspiration of applied water (ETAW) estimates by the total ESJ Subbasin area and the subregions with irrigation districts who participated in the IDC development and calibration process.

The IDC model will be integrated with the comprehensive IWFM model, ESJWRM, to simulate the surface water and groundwater conditions in the ESJ Subbasin.

SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 5
6 References
Department of Water Resources (DWR). Statewide Crop Mapping 2014. Downloaded for three groundwater subbasins in model area. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/.

Department of Water Resources (DWR). Land Use Surveys. Downloaded various counties and years from 1993-2000. http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/lusrvymain.cfm Dogrul, Emin C., Tariq N. Kadir, and Charles F. Brush, August 2017. DWR Technical Memorandum:

Theoretical Documentation and User’s Manual for IWFM Demand Calculator (IDC-2015), Revision 63. Bay-Delta Office, California Department of Water Resources. http://baydeltaoffice. water.ca.gov/modeling/hydrology/IDC/IDC-2015/v2015_0_63/index_ IDCv2015_0_63.cfm.

Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC), California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo.

California Evapotranspiration Data. CIMIS Zone 12, Water Balance Data, Sprinkler Irrigation, Typical Year. http://www.itrc.org/etdata/index.html.

Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), March 2016. 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan. Prepared by Davids Engineering.
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/docs/2016/Oakdale%20ID%20201 5%20AWMP.pdf.

Oregon State University (OSU). PRISM Climate Group. Downloaded 1970-2015. http://prism.oregonstate.edu.

Prichard, Terry L. Winegrape Irrigation Scheduling Using Deficit Irrigation Techniques. University of California, Davis. http://ucanr.edu/sites/ce_san_joaquin/files/ 35706.pdf.

South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID), December 2015. 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.

Prepared by Davids Engineering. http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/docs/2015/ plans/SSJID%20AWMP%202015%20FINAL.pdf.

Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

Cropland Data Layers. Downloaded 2007-2015. USDA-NASS, Washington, DC. https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/.

SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 6
Figure 1: Model Subregions
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 7
Figure 2: Model Subareas with Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 8
Figure 3: General Land Use in 1995 DWR Land Use Survey
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 9
Figure 4: General Land Use in 2015 CropScape
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 10
Figure 5: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin General Land Use Acreages 0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Land Use Acreage
Water Year
Urban
Landscape
Water Surface
Riparian
Vegetation
Native
Vegetation
Irrigated Crops
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 11
Figure 6: Cropping Pattern in 1995 DWR Land Use Survey
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 12
Figure 7: Cropping Pattern in 2014 LandIQ
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 13
Figure 8: Cropping Pattern in 2015 CropScape
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 14
Figure 9a: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 9b: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 1 (North Delta Subregion) 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 15
Figure 9c: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 2 (Woodbridge Subregion) Figure 9d: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 4 (North San Joaquin Subregion) 0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 16
Figure 9e: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 5 (Calaveras Subregion) Figure 9f: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 7 (Stockton East Subregion) 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 17
Figure 9g: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 8 (Central San Joaquin Subregion) Figure 9h: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 11 (South San Joaquin East Subregion) 0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 18
Figure 9i: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 13 (Oakdale West Subregion) Figure 9j: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 14 (South Delta Subregion) 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 19
Figure 9k: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 15 (South San Joaquin West Subregion) Figure 9l: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 17 (Stanislaus Subregion) 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 20
Figure 9m: Irrigated Crop Acreages- Subregion 18 (Oakdale East Subregion) Figure 10: Urban Population Centers in Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Irrigated Crop Acreage
Water Year
Truck Crops
Rice
Field Crops
Grain
Alfalfa and
Irrigated
Pasture
Vineyards
Fruit and Nut
Trees
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Urban Population
Water Year
Cal Water
Escalon
Lathrop
Linden County
Lockeford
Lodi
Manteca
Ripon
Stockton
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 21
Figure 11: Urban Per Capita Water Use in Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 12a: Urban Demand- Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Urban Per Capita Water Use (GPCD)
Water Year
Cal Water
Escalon
Lathrop
Linden County
Lockeford
Lodi
Manteca
Ripon
Stockton
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Urban Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 22
Figure 12b: Urban Demand- Subregion 3 (Lodi Subregion)
Figure 12c: Urban Demand- Subregion 6 (Stockton Subregion) 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Urban Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Urban Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 23
Figure 12d: Urban Demand- Subregion 9 (Lathrop Subregion) Figure 12e: Urban Demand- Subregion 10 (Manteca Subregion) 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Urban Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Urban Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 24
Figure 12f: Urban Demand- Subregion 12 (Escalon Subregion) Figure 12g: Urban Demand- Subregion 16 (Ripon Subregion) 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Urban Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Urban Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 25
Figure 13: Annual Crop Evapotranspiration
Figure 14: Annual Precipitation
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Cumulative Departure from Mean
Precipitation (inches)
Annual Precipitation (inches)
Water Year
Annual Precipitation
Cumulative Departure from Mean
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 26
Figure 15a: Agricultural Demand- Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 15b: Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW- Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin 0 200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Agricultural Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Feet
Water Year
Unit Ag Water Use Unit ETAW
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 27
Figure 15c: Agricultural Demand- Subregion 2 (Woodbridge Subregion) Figure 15d: Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW- Subregion 2 (Woodbridge Subregion) 0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Agricultural Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Feet
Water Year
Unit Ag Water Use Unit ETAW
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 28
Figure 15e: Agricultural Demand- Subregion 4 (North San Joaquin Subregion) Figure 15f: Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW- Subregion 4 (North San Joaquin Subregion) 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Agricultural Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Feet
Water Year
Unit Ag Water Use Unit ETAW
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 29
Figure 15g: Agricultural Demand- Subregion 7 (Stockton East Subregion) Figure 15h: Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW- Subregion 7 (Stockton East Subregion) 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Agricultural Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Feet
Water Year
Unit Ag Water Use Unit ETAW
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 30
Figure 15i: Agricultural Demand- Subregion 11 (South San Joaquin East Subregion) Figure 15j: Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW- Subregion 11 (South San Joaquin East Subregion) 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Agricultural Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Feet
Water Year
Unit Ag Water Use Unit ETAW
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 31
Figure 15k: Agricultural Demand- Subregion 13 (Oakdale West Subregion) Figure 15l: Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW- Subregion 13 (Oakdale West Subregion) 0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Agricultural Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Feet
Water Year
Unit Ag Water Use Unit ETAW
SGMA Readiness Project
IDC Development and Surface Water Budget
February 2018 32
Figure 15m: Agricultural Demand- Subregion 18 (Oakdale East Subregion) Figure 15n: Unit Agricultural Water Use and ETAW- Subregion 18 (Oakdale East Subregion) 0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Agricultural Demand (Acre-Feet)
Water Year

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Feet
Water Year
Unit Ag Water Use Unit ETAW
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
APPENDIX C: ESJWRM CALIBRATION WELLS
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-1: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Calibration Wells
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Table C-1: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Calibration Wells
Hydrograph
ID
ID by
Model
Subregion
Well Name Well Source Agency* Well Type Depth Screening Intervals
1 101 05N05E32M001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Stockwatering 145 Unknown 2 102 04N05E10K001 CASGEM SJCFCWCD Residential 115 90/115 3 103 04N04E24F001M Voluntary DWR Observation 20 Unknown 4 201 04N05E13H001 CASGEM SJCFCWCD Irrigation 190 50/190 5 202 04N06E29N002 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 475 204/475 6 203 04N06E34J002 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 466 94/167, 172/466
7 204 03N05E13L001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 65 Unknown 8 205 03N06E17A004 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Unknown 128 60/128 9 301 Lodi Well 7 Local Agency City of Lodi Production 422 142/422 10 302 Lodi Well 2 Local Agency City of Lodi Production 315 109/310 11 303 Lodi G-25B Local Agency City of Lodi Observation 150 140/150 12 304 Lodi MW-19 CASGEM SJCFCWCD Observation 73 58/73
13 401 05N07E34G001M Voluntary DWR Irrigation 590 Unknown 14 402 04N06E12N002 CASGEM SJCFCWCD Irrigation 320 104/320 15 403 04N07E33H001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 104 Unknown 16 404 04N07E36L001 Voluntary DWR Irrigation 565 Unknown 17 405 04N08E32N001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation Unknown Unknown 18 406 03N06E24M003M Voluntary DWR Irrigation 237 156/237 19 501 CCWD 010 CASGEM CCWD Observation 390 Unknown
20 502 CCWD 006 CASGEM CCWD Observation 230 Unknown
21 601 02N06E18K001M Voluntary DWR Unknown 650 Unknown
22 602 02N06E26H001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation Unknown Unknown 23 603 01N06E05H001 Voluntary DWR Irrigation 315 235/277 24 604 01N06E12G001 Voluntary DWR Irrigation 230 210/230 25 605 01N07E32A001 Voluntary DWR Irrigation 232 178/232 26 606 01S06E02G002 Voluntary DWR Irrigation 135 101/135 27 701 02N08E03G002 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Residential 125 Unknown 28 702 02N08E18C001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 544 Unknown 29 703 02N07E29B001 CASGEM SJCFCWCD Irrigation 202 130/202 30 704 02N08E33E001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 168 Unknown 31 705 01N07E01M002 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 364 104/108 32 801 01N09E06N001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 300 92/300 33 802 01N08E29M002 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 460 Unknown 34 803 01N08E26A002 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 216 176/216 35 804 01N09E22G002 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 340 Unknown 36 805 01S08E05R001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Unknown 125 Unknown San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Hydrograph
ID
ID by
Model
Subregion
Well Name Well Source Agency* Well Type Depth Screening Intervals
37 806 01S09E05H002 CASGEM SJCFCWCD Irrigation 256 148/256 38 901 01S06E11E001M Voluntary DWR Irrigation 185 Unknown 39 902 01S06E15F001M Voluntary DWR Residential 188 160/184 40 903 01S06E26K001M Voluntary DWR Irrigation 248 191/195 41 1001 01S07E18L001M Voluntary DWR Residential 248 144/154 42 1002 01S07E27K001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 300 120/300 43 1003 02S06E11J001 Voluntary DWR Irrigation 165 Unknown 44 1101 01S07E25R001M Voluntary DWR Irrigation 130 Unknown 45 1102 02S08E08A001 CASGEM SJCFCWCD Irrigation 180 50/180 46 1103 02S08E12D001 Voluntary DWR Residential 82 72/82 47 1104 01S08E25Q001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 450 Unknown 48 1105 01S09E33J002 Voluntary DWR Residential 95 88/95 49 1301 01S09E21J002 CASGEM SJCFCWCD Irrigation 223 195/223 50 1302 01S09E24R001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 264 176/264 51 1401 02S07E31N001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 226 130/226 52 1402 03S07E06Q001 Voluntary DWR Stockwatering 71 Unknown 53 1501 02S07E22N002 Voluntary DWR Irrigation 162 52/162 54 1502 02S07E26B001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Irrigation 386 56/386 55 1601 02S07E12R001 Voluntary SJCFCWCD Residential 310 Unknown 56 1701 01S10E04C001 Voluntary DWR Unknown Unknown Unknown 57 1702 01S10E23H001M Voluntary DWR Irrigation 300 Unknown 58 1703 01S10E28J001 Voluntary DWR Unknown Unknown Unknown 59 1801 1S10E16Q1-18 Voluntary DWR Irrigation 299 Unknown 60 1802 01S10E26J001M CASGEM Stanislaus
County Unknown Unknown Unknown
61 1901 05N06E08R001M Voluntary DWR Irrigation Unknown Unknown 62 1902 06N07E08R001M Voluntary DWR Residential 332 Unknown 63 1903 05N07E10D001M Voluntary DWR Residential 260 180/260 64 1904 07N08E36B001M CASGEM SSCAWA Observation 15 Unknown 65 2001 03S08E23H001M CASGEM MID Irrigation 467 Unknown 66 2002 American 208 CASGEM MID Irrigation 320 Unknown
67 2003 03S10E17K001M CASGEM MID Irrigation 476 116/400 68 2004 Birnbaum OID-03 CASGEM STRGBA
GSA Irrigation 293
55/110,
147/154,
170/175,
185/200,
238/250,
265/270,
285/293
San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Hydrograph
ID
ID by
Model
Subregion
Well Name Well Source Agency* Well Type Depth Screening Intervals
69 2005 03S11E27G003M CASGEM STRGBA
GSA Irrigation 248 Unknown
70 2006 Paulsell 2 OID-12 CASGEM STRGBA
GSA Irrigation 815 132/159, 160/815
* CCWD = Calaveras County Water District
DWR = Department of Water Resources
MID = Modesto Irrigation District
SJCFCWCD = San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District SSCAWA = Southeast Sacramento County Agricultural Water Authority STRGBA GSA = Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association GSA San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-2: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #1 Figure C-3: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #2 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-4: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #3 Figure C-5: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #4 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-6: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #5 Figure C-7: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #6 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-8: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #7 Figure C-9: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #8 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-10: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #9 Figure C-11: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #10 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-12: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #11 Figure C-13: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #12 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-14: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #13 Figure C-15: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #14 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-16: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #15 Figure C-17: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #16 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-18: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #17 Figure C-19: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #18 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-20: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #19 Figure C-21: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #20 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-22: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #21 Figure C-23: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #22 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-24: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #23 Figure C-25: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #24 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-26: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #25 Figure C-27: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #26 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-28: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #27 Figure C-29: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #28 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-30: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #29 Figure C-31: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #30 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-32: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #31 Figure C-33: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #32 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-34: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #33 Figure C-35: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #34 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-36: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #35 Figure C-37: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #36 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-38: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #37 Figure C-39: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #38 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-40: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #39 Figure C-41: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #40 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-42: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #41 Figure C-43: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #42 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-44: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #43 Figure C-45: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #44 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-46: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #45 Figure C-47: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #46 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-48: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #47 Figure C-49: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #48 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-50: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #49 Figure C-51: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #50 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-52: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #51 Figure C-53: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #52 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-54: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #53 Figure C-55: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #54 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-56: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #55 Figure C-57: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #56 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-58: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #57 Figure C-59: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #58 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-60: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #59 Figure C-61: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #60 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-62: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #61 Figure C-63: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #62 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-64: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #63 Figure C-65: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #64 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-66: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #65 Figure C-67: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #66 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-68: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #67 Figure C-69: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #68 San Joaquin County Woodard & Curran
ESJWRM Report August 2018
Figure C-70: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #69 Figure C-71: ESJWRM Groundwater Level Hydrograph – Calibration Well #70 This page is intentionally left blank.

Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Complete Appendices November 2019
APPENDIX 3-A.

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA FOR CHRONIC LOWERING OF

GROUNDWATER LEVEL MINIMUM THRESHOLDS
CASGEM ID Local ID GSA Well is Located In
Historical
Drought Low
(1992 or 2015-16)
(ft bgs)
Historical
Drought Low
(1992 or 2015-16)
(ft msl)
Year of Historical
Drought Low
Total Well Depth
(ft bgs)
Calculated
Buffer (ft msl)
Depth of 10th
Percentile
Nearby Domestic
Well (ft bgs)*
Depth of 10th
Percentile
Nearby Domestic
Well (ft msl)*
Depth of 10th
Percentile
Nearby
Municipal Well (if
applicable) (ft
msl)*
Historical
Drought Low +
Buffer (DTW) (ft
bgs)
Historical
Drought Low +
Buffer (ft msl)
Minimum
Threshold (ft
msl)
Measurable
Objectives (ft
msl)
Average
Groundwater
Elevation (ft msl)
Most Recent
Recorded
Groundwater
Elevation (ft msl)
378824N1210000W001 01S09E05H002 Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District 127.0 -19.6 1992 256.0 54.3 150.4 -49.8 N/A 181.3 -73.9 -49.8 -19.6 3.3 -17.6 379316N1211665W001 01N07E14J002 Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District 124.0 -70.4 1992 176.0 44.0 149.0 -129.0 N/A 168.0 -114.4 -114.4 -70.4 -43.5 -57.4 Not in CASGEM Lodi City Well #2 City of Lodi 56.6 -3.5 1992 No Data 35.0 96.0 -56.3 -157.2 91.6 -38.5 -38.5 -3.5 13.8 0.6 Not in CASGEM Manteca 18 City of Manteca 41.0 5.8 2016 No Data 21.8 100.0 -58.2 -120.1 62.8 -16.0 -16.0 5.8 8.2 4.8 380067N1213458W003 Swenson-3 City of Stockton 23.3 -19.3 2015 204.0 7.3 100.0 -97.4 -254.4 30.6 -26.6 -26.6 -19.3 -16.3 -15.2 378163N1208321W001 01S10E26J001M Eastside San Joaquin GSA 100.9 81.7 2015 No Data 38.0 320.2 15.1 N/A 138.9 43.7 43.7 81.7 99.7 87.7 380206N1210943W001 02N08E15M002 Linden County Water District 153.5 -69.7 2016 403.0 74.5 205.0 -124.1 N/A 228.0 -144.2 -124.1 -69.7 -41.7 -69.7 Not in CASGEM #3 Bear Creek Lockeford Community Services District 152.0 -50.3 2016 No Data 22.0 168.0 -122.9 N/A 174.0 -72.3 -72.3 -50.3 -45.6 -46.3 381843N1212261W001 04N07E20H003M North San Joaquin Water Conservation District 114.2 -36.7 2016 180.0 45.0 138.0 -110.3 N/A 159.2 -81.7 -81.7 -36.7 -15.6 -34.8 380909N1212153W001 03N07E21L003 North San Joaquin Water Conservation District 115.5 -57.5 1992 No Data 42.5 156.4 -109.4 N/A 158.0 -100.0 -100.0 -57.5 -35.0 -46.8 Not in CASGEM Hirschfeld (OID-8) Oakdale Irrigation District 100.5 31.5 2015 No Data 23.6 144.0 -11.5 N/A 124.1 8.0 8.0 31.5 44.2 31.8 377909N1208675W001 Burnett (OID-4) Oakdale Irrigation District 108.2 79.7 2015 249.0 18.9 135.0 28.2 N/A 127.1 60.7 60.7 79.7 90.1 80.1 377136N1212508W001 02S07E31N001 South Delta Water Agency 11.0 13.0 1992 226.0 11.5 95.0 -62.5 N/A 22.5 1.5 1.5 13.0 14.6 16.0 377810N1211142W001 02S08E08A001 South San Joaquin GSA 49.4 24.0 2016 180.0 23.4 104.0 -42.2 N/A 72.8 0.6 0.6 24.0 29.1 23.0 380578N1212017W001 02N07E03D001 Stockton East Water District 137.0 -79.7 2016 484.0 52.0 170.0 -122.8 N/A 189.0 -131.7 -122.8 -79.7 -46.0 -71.7 379661N1210011W001 01N09E05J001 Stockton East Water District 207.0 -51.1 1992 750.0 120.2 198.0 -86.8 N/A 327.2 -171.3 -86.8 -51.1 -15.2 -16.3 379976N1212308W001 02N07E29B001 Stockton East Water District 122.5 -80.4 1992 202.0 60.6 165.0 -130.1 N/A 183.1 -141.0 -130.1 -80.4 -51.7 -47.4 381559N1213727W001 04N05E36H003 Woodbridge Irrigation District 30.0 -5.1 2015 112.0 26.0 83.0 -63.9 N/A 56.0 -31.1 -31.1 -5.1 5.6 6.4 381317N1213524W001 03N06E05N003 Woodbridge Irrigation District 42.0 -14.1 2015 292.0 21.0 77.4 -55.3 N/A 63.0 -35.1 -35.1 -14.1 -9.8 -7.0 381816N1213723W001 04N05E24J004 Woodbridge Irrigation District 30.0 -6.2 2015 190.0 25.0 75.5 -65.5 N/A 55.0 -31.2 -31.2 -6.2 3.5 5.3 *Data source for domestic and municipal well depths is the California DWR Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR)N/A = Not Applicable Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Complete Appendices November 2019
APPENDIX 3-B.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING

WELL HISTORICAL HYDROGRAPHS

This page is intentionally left blank.

Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Complete Appendices November 2019
APPENDIX 4-A.

BROAD MONITORING NETWORK FOR GROUNDWATER

LEVELS WELL INFORMATION
Local Well ID CASGEM Site Code Monitoring Agency*
Well
Depth (ft.) Screen Interval (ft.)
CASGEM Wells
02S10E02P001M 377843N1208435W001 Stanislaus County Unknown Unknown 01S10E27Q001M 378138N1208591W001 Stanislaus County 234 118–158 CCWD 008 380867N1209233W001 CCWD Unknown Unknown
CCWD 002 381036N1208903W001 CCWD 260 Unknown
CCWD 009 381042N1209111W001 CCWD 240 140–240
CCWD 014 381511N1209406W001 CCWD 360 275–355
CCWD 017 381783N1208162W001 CCWD 67 51.5–66.5
CCWD 015 381986N1209661W001 CCWD 340 150–340
02S10E05N001M 377860N1209016W001 Stanislaus County 475 98–232 OID-17 378112N1208251W001 Stanislaus County 720 190–310 Searway Dom 378164N1206958W001 Stanislaus County Unknown Unknown 01S10E21A001M 378402N1208710W001 Stanislaus County 400 Unknown 01N10E32Q001M 378874N1208954W001 Stanislaus County Unknown Unknown 01N07E19G001M 379209N1212476W001 SJCFCWCD 185 165–185
Sonora Rd #5 378521N1207663W001 Stanislaus County 220 60–220 02S07E11N002M 377708N1211790W001 SJCFCWCD 79 50–79
01S09E29M002M 378189N1210150W001 SJCFCWCD 132 120–132
01S09E21J002M 378312N1209797W001 SJCFCWCD 223 195–223
01S08E14B001M 378562N1210588W001 SJCFCWCD 396 244–396
01S09E02R001M 378734N1209447W001 SJCFCWCD 280 127–280
01N09E29R001M 379039N1210005W001 SJCFCWCD 700 100–700
01N07E26H003M 379061N1211661W001 SJCFCWCD 194 160–194
01N09E30C005M 379133N1210282W001 SJCFCWCD 376 340–376
01N08E22J001M 379200N1210700W001 SJCFCWCD 250 190–250
01N08E16H002M 379367N1210944W001 SJCFCWCD 420 120–180
01N09E17M001M 379370N1210162W001 SJCFCWCD 345 204–345
01N08E16G001M 379381N1210983W001 SJCFCWCD 296 112–120
01N09E17D001M 379428N1210162W001 SJCFCWCD 220 99–220
01N08E11L001M 379472N1210711W001 SJCFCWCD 372 168–372
01N07E11L001M 379487N1211759W001 SJCFCWCD 356 196–204
02N07E32M002M 379782N1212375W001 SJCFCWCD 270 164–175
03N08E22A001M 381008N1210810W001 SJCFCWCD 700 100–700
03N07E23C002M 381016N1211791W001 SJCFCWCD 248 152–248
04N07E17N001M 381919N1212436W001 SJCFCWCD 290 100–290
04N05E13H001M 381990N1213727W001 SJCFCWCD 190 50–190
04N06E12N002M 382041N1212799W001 SJCFCWCD 320 104–320
04N05E10K001M 382107N1214297W001 SJCFCWCD 115 90–115
Lodi WSM 05 380799N1213850W001 SJCFCWCD 20 5-20
CCWD 003 380914N1209167W001 CCWD 300 240–300
Lodi WSM 15 380943N1213991W001 SJCFCWCD 20 5-20
Lodi WSM 10 380982N1213658W001 SJCFCWCD 40 20–40
CCWD 001 381042N1208903W001 CCWD 240 176–180
Lodi WSM 17 381160N1213339W001 SJCFCWCD 59 34–54
Lodi MW-11 381287N1212851W001 SJCFCWCD 55 40–55
C-1 380078N1211315W001 SJCFCWCD 480 440–480
Foothill MW-2R 380313N1209362W001 SJCFCWCD 300 240–280
Local Well ID CASGEM Site Code Monitoring Agency*
Well
Depth (ft.) Screen Interval (ft.)
Foothill MW-3 380362N1209379W001 SJCFCWCD 295 270.96–289.89 Foothill MW-1 380402N1209279W001 SJCFCWCD 215 190–210
DWS-IPS 380438N1214959W001 SJCFCWCD 90 70–90
Lodi WSM 13 380751N1213908W001 SJCFCWCD 20 5-20
Lodi RMW2 380794N1214137W001 SJCFCWCD 17 16.82–16.83
Lodi WSM 02 380877N1213898W001 SJCFCWCD 20 5-20
Lodi WSM 11 380880N1213523W001 SJCFCWCD 50 25–50
North G-6 380926N1211057W001 SJCFCWCD 168 138–158
North G-4 380943N1211057W001 SJCFCWCD 170 129.5–169.5
Harney MW-3 380951N1211370W001 SJCFCWCD 148 95–145
North G-3D 380960N1211057W001 SJCFCWCD 167 127.5–166.5
North G-1 380962N1210966W001 SJCFCWCD 160 130–160
Harney MW-4 380964N1211407W001 SJCFCWCD 144 88–135
North G-5 380971N1211057W001 SJCFCWCD 170 129.5–169.5
Harney MW-2 380982N1211333W001 SJCFCWCD 147 93–143
Lodi WSM 01 380986N1213869W001 SJCFCWCD 20 5-20
Harney MW-1 381024N1211355W001 SJCFCWCD 159 100–150
Lodi WSM 19 381130N1214087W001 SJCFCWCD 31 6-26
Lodi MW-19 381181N1212736W001 SJCFCWCD 73 58–73
Lodi MW-16 381211N1212856W001 SJCFCWCD 60 45–60
Lodi MW-13 381291N1212688W001 SJCFCWCD 62 47–62
Lodi MW-08 381338N1212785W001 SJCFCWCD 55 40–55
02S10E10M002M 377766N1208657W001 Stanislaus County 225 Unknown 01S10E34R001M 377985N1208524W001 Stanislaus County Unknown Unknown 01S10E26J001M 378163N1208321W001 Stanislaus County Unknown Unknown OID-16 378088N1208895W001 Stanislaus County 280 55–72
OID-5 378130N1209240W001 Stanislaus County 502 120–245
01S10E19L001M 378332N1209185W001 Stanislaus County 390 60–68 Sonora Rd #8 378589N1207522W001 Stanislaus County 155 90–155 Olive #2 377952N1207505W001 Stanislaus County 575 292–312 Local Wells
Well 1 n/a SJ County Flag City 170 120–170
Well 2 n/a SJ County Flag City 180 130–180
Well 3 n/a SJ County Flag City Unknown Unknown
Stockton 10R n/a City of Stockton 277 177–277
Stockton 28 n/a City of Stockton 278 178–278
Stockton SSS8 n/a City of Stockton 277 177–277
Manteca 15 n/a City of Manteca 265 140–265
Manteca 16 n/a City of Manteca 304 137–294
Manteca 17 n/a City of Manteca 372 110–362
119-075-01 n/a Cal Water 310 176–276
119-059-01 n/a Cal Water 520 169–269
119-069-01 n/a Cal Water 530 180–280
Lodi Well #5 n/a City of Lodi 230 Unknown
Lodi Well #7 n/a City of Lodi 422 Unknown
Lodi Well #11R n/a City of Lodi 465 140–462
Local Well ID CASGEM Site Code Monitoring Agency*
Well
Depth (ft.) Screen Interval (ft.)
Clustered and/or Nested Wells
CCWD 004 381272N1209322W001 CCWD 435 415-435
CCWD 005 381272N1209322W002 CCWD 365 355-365
CCWD 006 381272N1209322W003 CCWD 230 210-230
CCWD 007 381272N1209322W004 CCWD 110 90-110
CCWD 010 381628N1209292W001 CCWD 390 370-390
CCWD 011 381628N1209292W002 CCWD 350 250-270
CCWD 012 381628N1209292W003 CCWD 135 115-135
Sperry-1 378972N1212936W001 SJCFCWCD 460 440-460
Sperry-2 378972N1212936W002 SJCFCWCD 282 262-282
Sperry-3 378972N1212936W003 SJCFCWCD 124 114-124
STK-7.1 379814N1212031W001 SJCFCWCD 665 545-565
STK-7.2 379814N1212031W002 SJCFCWCD 435 415-435
STK-7.3 379814N1212031W003 SJCFCWCD 305 270-295
STK-7.4 379814N1212031W004 SJCFCWCD 183 145-165
STK-4-1 379815N1212032W001 SJCFCWCD 560 540-560
STK-4-2 379815N1212032W002 SJCFCWCD 360 340-360
STK-4-3 379600N1213136W001 SJCFCWCD 220 200-220
STK6-1 379949N1213426W001 SJCFCWCD 618 540-560
STK6-2 379949N1213426W002 SJCFCWCD 470 450-470
STK6-3 379949N1213426W003 SJCFCWCD 260 240-260
STK2-1 380561N1212772W001 SJCFCWCD 635 615-635
STK2-2 380292N1212772W001 SJCFCWCD 540 520-540
STK2-3 380561N1212772W002 SJCFCWCD 300 280-300
STK2-4 380561N1212772W003 SJCFCWCD 220 200-220
Lodi SMW-1A 381147N1212722W001 SJCFCWCD 115 105-115
Lodi SMW-1B 381147N1212722W002 SJCFCWCD 210 200-210
Lodi WMW-2A 381164N1212792W001 SJCFCWCD 189 179-189
Lodi WMW-2B 381164N1212792W002 SJCFCWCD 214 204-214
Lodi WMW-2C 381164N1212792W003 SJCFCWCD 241 231-241
Lodi WMW-2D 381164N1212792W004 SJCFCWCD 293 283-293
Lodi WMW-1A 381203N1212787W001 SJCFCWCD 150 140-150
Lodi WMW-1B 381203N1212787W002 SJCFCWCD 205 195-205
Lodi WMW-1C 381203N1212787W003 SJCFCWCD 242 232-242
Lodi MW-21A 381227N1212718W001 SJCFCWCD 76 66-76
Lodi MW-21B 381227N1212718W002 SJCFCWCD 102 92-102
Lodi MW-21C 381227N1212718W003 SJCFCWCD 128 118-128
Lodi MW-24A 381269N1212711W001 SJCFCWCD 70 60-70
Lodi MW-24B 381269N1212711W002 SJCFCWCD 106 95.5-105.5
Lodi MW-24C 381269N1212711W003 SJCFCWCD 124 114-124
Lodi MW-25B 381292N1212757W001 SJCFCWCD 96 86-96
Lodi MW-25C 381292N1212757W002 SJCFCWCD 158 148-158
STK5-1 382476N1213481W001 SJCFCWCD 580 560-580
STK5-2 380292N1213481W001 SJCFCWCD 430 410-430
STK5-3 380292N1213481W002 SJCFCWCD 230 210-230
STK1-1 385330N1213710W001 SJCFCWCD 880 860-880
STK1-2 385330N1213710W003 SJCFCWCD 540 520-540
Local Well ID CASGEM Site Code Monitoring Agency*
Well
Depth (ft.) Screen Interval (ft.)
STK1-3 385330N1213710W004 SJCFCWCD 380 360-380
STK1-4 385330N1213710W005 SJCFCWCD 240 220-240
STK1-5 385330N1213710W002 SJCFCWCD 68 58-68
Swenson-1 380067N1213458W001 SJCFCWCD 502 482-502
Swenson-2 380067N1213458W002 SJCFCWCD 314 294-314
Swenson-3 380067N1213458W003 SJCFCWCD 204 194-204
* CCWD = Calaveras County Water District
* SJ County Flag City = San Joaquin County Flag City
* SJCFCWCD = San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District This page is intentionally left blank.

Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Complete Appendices November 2019
APPENDIX 5-A.

LIST OF DMS DATA TYPES
Data Type Parameter Unit
Groundwater Level Depth to Groundwater feet
Groundwater Level Groundwater Elevation feet
Groundwater Quality 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (111-TCA) micrograms per liter Groundwater Quality 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (123-TCP) micrograms per liter Groundwater Quality Aggressiveness Index-
Groundwater Quality Aluminum micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Antimony micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Apparent Color-
Groundwater Quality Arsenic micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Arsenic micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Arsenic picocuries per liter
Groundwater Quality Barium parts per billion
Groundwater Quality Barium micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Benzene micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Beryllium micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Bicarbonate (HCO3) milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Boron micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Cadmium micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Calcium parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Calcium milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Carbonate (CO3) milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Chloride milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Chloride milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Chloride parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Chlorine milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Chromium parts per billion
Groundwater Quality Chromium micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Conductivity @ 25C micromhos per
centimeter
Groundwater Quality Copper parts per billion
Groundwater Quality Copper micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Corrosivity-
Groundwater Quality Cyanide micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) micrograms per liter Groundwater Quality Fluoride parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Fluoride milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Gross Alpha Activity picocuries per liter Groundwater Quality Hardness parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Hexavalaent Chromium (CR6) micrograms per liter Groundwater Quality Hexavalaent Chromium(CR6) micrograms per liter Groundwater Quality Hydroxide (OH) milligrams per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Groundwater Quality Iron micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Laboratory pH-
Groundwater Quality Laboratory Turbidity nephelometric turbidity unit
Groundwater Quality Lead micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Magensium parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Magnesium milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Manganese micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Mercury micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) micrograms per liter Groundwater Quality Methylene Active Blue Substances milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Nickel micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Nitrate (as N) milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Nitrate (as N) parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Nitrate (as N) micrograms per liter Groundwater Quality Nitrate (as N)O4 milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Nitrate (as N)O5 milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Nitrate (as N)O6 milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Nitrate (NO3) milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Odor Threshold (60'C)-
Groundwater Quality Perchlorate micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Perchlorate micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Potassium parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Potassium milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Selenium micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Silver micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Sodium parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Sodium milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Specific Conductance microohmns
Groundwater Quality Specific Conductance micromhos per
centimeter
Groundwater Quality Specific Electrical Conductivity (SC) UMHOS/CM Groundwater Quality Specific Electrical Conductivity (SC) micromhos per centimeter
Groundwater Quality Sulfate parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Sulfate milligrams per liter
Groundwater Quality Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) micrograms per liter Groundwater Quality Thallium micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Total Alkalinity parts permillion
Groundwater Quality Total Alkalinity (CaCO3) milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Total ANIONS, meq/L micromhos per
centimeter
Data Type Parameter Unit
Groundwater Quality Total ANIONS, meq/L micromhos per
centimeter
Groundwater Quality Total ANIONS, meq/L micromhos per
centimeter
Groundwater Quality Total CATIONS, meq/L micromhos per
centimeter
Groundwater Quality Total CATIONS, meq/L micromhos per
centimeter
Groundwater Quality Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Total Hardness (calc.) milligrams per liter Groundwater Quality Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) parts per billion Groundwater Quality Trichloroethylene (TCE) micrograms per liter Groundwater Quality Turbidity -
Groundwater Quality Uranium picocuries per liter
Groundwater Quality Vanadium parts per billion
Groundwater Quality Vanadium micrograms per liter
Groundwater Quality Zinc micrograms per liter
Precipitation Average Air Temperature °F
Precipitation Precipitation inches
Precipitation Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) Inches permonth Streamflow Streamflow cubic feet per second
Surface Water Quality (E)-Dimethomorph,water,filtered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality (Z)-Dimethomorph,water,filtered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,1,1-Trichloroethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,1,2-Trichloroethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,1-Dichloroethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,1-Dichloroethene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 1,2-Dibromoethene, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,2-Dichlorobenzene, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,2-Dichlorobenzene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 1,2-Dichloroethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,2-Dichloropropane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,2-Dimethylnaphthalene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality 1,3-Dichlorobenzene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality 1,3-Dichloropropene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,4-Dichlorobenzene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 1,4-Naphthoquinone,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 1,6-Dimethylnaphthalene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 1-Methyl-9H-fluorene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 1-Methylphenanthrene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 1-Methylpyrene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 1-Naphthol,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2-(4-tert-Butylphenoxy)-cyclohexanol,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2, 4-DB,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2,2-Biquinoline,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2,3,6-Trimethylnaphthalene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2,4,5-T,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2,4,5-T,surrogate,Schedule 9060/2060, water, filtered percent recovery Surface Water Quality 2,4,5-T,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2,4,5-T,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2,4-D,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2,4-D,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2,4-D,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2,4-Dinitrotoluene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2,5-Dichloroaniline,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2,6-Diethylaniline,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2,6-Dinitrotoluene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2-[(2-Ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino]-1- propanol,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2-Amino-N-isopropylbenzamide,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2-Chloro-2 6-diethylacetanilide,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-striazine,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2-Chloro-6-ethylamino-4-amino-striazine,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2-Chloronaphthalene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2-Chlorophenol,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2-Ethyl-6-methylaniline,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2-Ethylnaphthalene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 2-Fluorobiphenyl,surrogate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters, wet sieved (native water), field percent recovery Surface Water Quality 2-Hydroxy-4-isopropylamino-6-ethylamino-striazine,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality 2-Methylanthracene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 3-(Trifluoromethyl)aniline,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 3,4-Dichloroaniline,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 3,5-Dichloroaniline,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 3,5-Dimethylphenol,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 3-Hydroxy carbofuran,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality 3-Nitrotoluene,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality 3-Phenoxybenzyl alcohol,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 4-(Hydroxymethyl) pendimethalin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 4,4-Dichlorobenzophenone,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 4-Chloro-2-methylphenol,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 4-Chlorophenyl methyl sulfone,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 4H-Cyclopenta[def]phenanthrene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 9,10-Anthraquinone,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality 9H-Fluorene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Acenaphthene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Acenaphthylene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Acetochlor oxanilic acid,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Acetochlor sulfonic acid,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Acetochlor,water,filtered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Acid neutralizing capacity,water,unfiltered, inflection-point titration method (incremental titration method)
milligrams per liter as
calcium carbonate
Surface Water Quality Acid neutralizing capacity,water,unfiltered,fixed endpoint (pH 4.5) titration
milligrams per liter as
calcium carbonate
Surface Water Quality Acid neutralizing capacity,water,unfiltered,fixed endpoint (pH 4.5) titration, laboratory
milligrams per liter as
calcium carbonate
Surface Water Quality Acifluorfen,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Acridine,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Agency analyzing sample code
Surface Water Quality Alachlor oxanilic acid,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Alachlor sulfonic acid,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Alachlor, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Alachlor,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Aldicarb sulfone,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Aldicarb sulfoxide,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Aldicarb,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Aldrin,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Aldrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Aldrin,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Alkalinity,water,filtered, inflection-point titration method (incremental titration method), field
milligrams per liter as
calcium carbonate
Surface Water Quality Alkalinity,water,filtered,Gran titration, field milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate
Surface Water Quality Allethrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Allethrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality alpha-Endosulfan, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality alpha-Endosulfan,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality alpha-Endosulfan,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality alpha-Endosulfan,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality alpha-HCH,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality alpha-HCH,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality alpha-HCH-d6,surrogate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters, wet sieved (native water), field percent recovery
Surface Water Quality alpha-HCH-d6,surrogate,Schedule 2002/9002,water,unfiltered percent recovery Surface Water Quality alpha-HCH-d6,surrogate,Schedule 2003, water, filtered percent recovery Surface Water Quality alpha-HCH-d6,surrogate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter) percent recovery Surface Water Quality Aluminum,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight percent
Surface Water Quality Aluminum,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Aluminum,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Aluminum,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Aluminum,water,recoverable, dry weight micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Ametryn,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Aminomethylphosphonic acid,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Ammonia plus organic nitrogen,water,filtered milligrams per liter as nitrogen
Surface Water Quality Ammonia plus organic nitrogen,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter as nitrogen
Surface Water Quality Ammonia,water,filtered milligrams per liter as nitrogen
Surface Water Quality Ammonia,water,filtered milligrams per liter as NH4
Surface Water Quality Ammonia,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter as nitrogen
Surface Water Quality Ammonia,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter as NH4
Surface Water Quality Analytical reference number,Schedule 2501 Surface Water Quality Anthracene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Antimony,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Arsenic,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Arsenic,bed sediment,total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Arsenic,suspended sediment,total micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Arsenic,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Arsenic,water,unfiltered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Atrazine,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Atrazine,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Azinphos-methyl oxygen analog,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Azinphos-methyl,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Azobenzene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Barban,surrogate,Schedules 2060/9060, water, filtered percent recovery Surface Water Quality Barium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Barium,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Barium,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Barium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Barium,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Barometric pressure millimeters ofmercury Surface Water Quality BDMC,surrogate,water, unfiltered percent recovery Surface Water Quality Bed sediment,sieve diameter percent smaller than

0.0625millimeters
Surface Water Quality Bed sediment,sieve diameter percent smaller than

0.125millimeters
Surface Water Quality Bed sediment,sieve diameter percent smaller than

0.25millimeters
Surface Water Quality Bed sediment,sieve diameter percent smaller than

0.5millimeters
Surface Water Quality Bed sediment,sieve diameter percent smaller than 1millimeter
Surface Water Quality Bed sediment,sieve diameter percent smaller than 2millimeters
Surface Water Quality Bed sediment,sieve diameter percent smaller than 4millimeters
Surface Water Quality Bed sediment,sieve diameter percent smaller than 8millimeters
Surface Water Quality Bendiocarb,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Benfluralin,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Benomyl,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Bensulfuron-methyl,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Bentazon,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Benzene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Benzo[a]anthracene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Benzo[a]pyrene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Benzo[b]fluoranthene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Benzo[c]cinnoline,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Benzo[ghi]perylene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Benzo[k]fluoranthene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Benzyl n-butyl phthalate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Beryllium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Beryllium,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Beryllium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Beryllium,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality beta-Endosulfan,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality beta-HCH,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Bicarbonate,water,filtered,inflection-point titration method (incremental titration method) milligrams per liter
Surface Water Quality Bicarbonate,water,unfiltered,fixed endpoint (pH 4.5) titration,field milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Bicarbonate,water,unfiltered,inflection-point titration method (incremental titration method) milligrams per liter
Surface Water Quality Bifenthrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Bifenthrin,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Bifenthrin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Biochemical oxygen demand, water, unfiltered, 5 days at 20 degrees Celsius milligrams per liter
Surface Water Quality Biomass,periphyton,ash free dry mass grams per squaremeter Surface Water Quality Biomass,periphyton,ash weight grams per squaremeter Surface Water Quality Biomass,periphyton,dry weight grams per squaremeter Surface Water Quality Biomass,plankton,ash weight milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Biomass,plankton,dry weight milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Biomass/chlorophyll ratio,periphyton number Surface Water Quality Biomass/chlorophyll ratio,plankton number Surface Water Quality Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Bismuth,bed sediment smaller than 177 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Bismuth,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Boron,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Boron,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Boron,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Bromacil,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Bromide, water, filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Bromodichloromethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Bromomethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Bromoxynil,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Butylate,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality C8-Alkylphenol,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Cadmium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Cadmium,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Cadmium,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cadmium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cadmium,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Caffeine,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Caffeine-13C,surrogate,Schedule 9060/2060, water, filtered percent recovery Surface Water Quality Calcium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight percent
Surface Water Quality Calcium,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Carbaryl,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Carbaryl,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Carbaryl,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Carbazole,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Carbofuran,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Carbofuran,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Carbon (inorganic plus organic), bed sediment, total, dry weight grams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Carbon (inorganic plus organic),bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight grams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Carbon (inorganic plus organic),bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved (native water), field,recoverable,dry weight percent Surface Water Quality Carbon (inorganic plus organic),suspended sediment,total milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Carbon dioxide,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Carbonate,water,filtered,inflection-point titration method (incremental titration method) milligrams per liter
Surface Water Quality Carbonate,water,unfiltered,fixed endpoint (pH 8.3) titration,field milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Carbonate,water,unfiltered,inflection-point titration method (incremental titration method) milligrams per liter
Surface Water Quality Carbonate,water,unfiltered,inflection-point titration method (incremental titration method),field
milligrams per liter as
calcium carbonate
Surface Water Quality Carbophenothion,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Carbophenothion,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cerium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Chemical oxygen demand, low level, water, unfiltered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Chloramben methyl ester,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chlordane (technical),bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Chlordane (technical),water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chlordane plus degradates,bed sediment,recoverable,maximum summation, dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Chloride,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Chlorimuron-ethyl,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chlorobenzene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chloroethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chloromethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chloroneb,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Chlorophyll a,periphyton,chromatographic-fluorometric method milligrams per squaremeter
Surface Water Quality Chlorophyll a,phytoplankton,chromatographic-fluorometric method micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chlorophyll b,phytoplankton,chromatographic-fluorometric method micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chlorothalonil,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Chlorpyrifos oxygen analog,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chlorpyrifos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chlorpyrifos,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chromium(VI),water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chromium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Chromium,bed sediment,recoverable milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Chromium,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chromium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chromium,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Chrysene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality cis-Chlordane,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality cis-Nonachlor,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality cis-Permethrin,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality cis-Permethrin,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality cis-Propiconazole,water,filtered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Clopyralid,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cobalt,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Cobalt,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cobalt,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cobalt,water,unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Copper,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Copper,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Copper,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Copper,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Copper,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cyanazine,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cyanazine,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cycloate,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cyfluthrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Cyfluthrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Cyfluthrin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Cypermethrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Cypermethrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Cypermethrin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality DCPA monoacid,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality DCPA,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality DCPA,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality DDT plus degradates,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),recoverable,minimum summation, dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality DDT plus degradates,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),recoverable,minimum summation, dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Deltamethrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Deltamethrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Desulfinylfipronil amide,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Desulfinylfipronil,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Diazinon,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Diazinon,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Diazinon,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Diazinon-d10,surrogate,Schedule 2002/9002,water,unfiltered percent recovery Surface Water Quality Diazinon-d10,surrogate,Schedule 2003, water, filtered percent recovery Surface Water Quality Diazinon-d10,surrogate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter) percent recovery Surface Water Quality Diazoxon,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Dibenzothiophene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Dibromochloromethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dicamba,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Dicamba,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dichlobenil,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dichlorodifluoromethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dichloromethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dichlorprop,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dichlorprop,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dichlorvos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dicrotophos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dieldrin,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Dieldrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Dieldrin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dieldrin,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Diethyl phthalate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Dimethenamid oxanilic acid,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dimethenamid sulfonic acid,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dimethoate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Dimethyl phthalate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Di-n-butyl phthalate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Di-n-octyl phthalate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Dinoseb,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Diphenamid,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Discharge cubic feet per second
Surface Water Quality Discharge cubicmeters per second
Surface Water Quality Discharge,instantaneous cubic feet per second Surface Water Quality Discharge,instantaneous cubicmeters per second Surface Water Quality Dissolved oxygen,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Dissolved oxygen,water,unfiltered percent of saturation Surface Water Quality Dissolved solids dried at 180 degrees Celsius,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Dissolved solids,water tons per day Surface Water Quality Dissolved solids,water,filtered tons per acre-foot Surface Water Quality Dissolved solids,water,filtered,sum of constituents milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Disulfoton sulfone,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Disulfoton sulfoxide,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Disulfoton,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Diuron,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Endosulfan ether,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Endosulfan sulfate,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Endrin,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Endrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Endrin,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality EPTC,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Esfenvalerate,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Esfenvalerate,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Esfenvalerate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Ethalfluralin,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Ethion monoxon,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Ethion,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Ethion,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Ethion,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Ethoprop,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Ethylbenzene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Europium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Fenamiphos sulfone,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fenamiphos sulfoxide,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fenamiphos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fenpropathrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Fenpropathrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Fenthion sulfoxide,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fenthion,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fenuron,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fipronil sulfide,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fipronil sulfone,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fipronil,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Flufenacet oxanilic acid,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Flufenacet sulfonic acid,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Flumetralin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Flumetsulam,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fluometuron,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Fluoranthene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Fluoride,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Fonofos oxygen analog,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fonofos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Fonofos,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Gage height feet
Surface Water Quality Gage height,above datum meters
Surface Water Quality Gallium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Gallium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Germanium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Glufosinate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Glyphosate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Gold,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Hardness,water milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate
Surface Water Quality Heptachlor epoxide,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Heptachlor epoxide,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Heptachlor epoxide,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Heptachlor,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Heptachlor,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Heptachlor,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Hexachlorobenzene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Hexazinone,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Holmium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Hydrogen ion,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Imazaquin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Imazethapyr,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Imidacloprid,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Inorganic carbon, bed sediment, total, dry weight grams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Inorganic carbon,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight grams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Inorganic carbon,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved (native water), field,recoverable,dry weight percent Surface Water Quality Inorganic carbon,suspended sediment,total milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Iprodione,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Iron, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Iron,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight percent
Surface Water Quality Iron,bed sediment,total digestion,dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Iron,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Iron,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Iron,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Isodrin,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Isofenphos,surrogate,Schedule 1319, water, unfiltered percent recovery Surface Water Quality Isofenphos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Isophorone,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Isoquinoline,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality lambda-Cyhalothrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality lambda-Cyhalothrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality lambda-Cyhalothrin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Lanthanum,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Lead,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Lead,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Lead,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Lead,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Lead,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Lindane,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Lindane,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Lindane,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Lindane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Linuron,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Linuron,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Lithium, suspended sediment, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Lithium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Lithium,bed sediment,dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Lithium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Lithium,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Loss on ignition of suspended solids, water, unfiltered milligrams per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Magnesium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight percent
Surface Water Quality Magnesium,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Malaoxon,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Malathion,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Malathion,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Malathion,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Manganese,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Manganese,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Manganese,bulk atmospheric deposition,suspended,micrograms per liter micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Manganese,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Manganese,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Manganese,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality MCPA,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality MCPB,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Mercury,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Mercury,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Mercury,biota,tissue,recoverable,dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Mercury,solids,total,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Mercury,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Mercury,suspended sediment,total nanograms per liter Surface Water Quality Mercury,water,filtered nanograms per liter Surface Water Quality Mercury,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Mercury,water,unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Metalaxyl,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Metalaxyl,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methidathion,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methiocarb,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methomyl,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methomyl,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methyl cis-3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1- carboxylate,water,filtered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methyl paraoxon,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methyl parathion,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Methyl parathion,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Methyl parathion,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Methyl trans-3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1- carboxylate,water,filtered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methyl trithion,bed sediment,dry weight,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Methyl trithion,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methylene blue active substances, water, unfiltered, recoverable milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Methylmercury,solids,total,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Methylmercury,suspended sediment,total nanograms per liter Surface Water Quality Methylmercury,water,filtered, recoverable nanograms per liter Surface Water Quality Metolachlor oxanilic acid,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Metolachlor sulfonic acid,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Metolachlor, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Metolachlor,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Metribuzin, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Metribuzin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Metsulfuron-methyl,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Mirex,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Mirex,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Mirex,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Molinate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Molybdenum,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Molybdenum,suspended sediment,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Molybdenum,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Molybdenum,water,unfiltered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Myclobutanil,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality N-(4-Chlorophenyl)-N-methylurea,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Naphthalene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Napropamide,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Neburon,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Neodymium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Nickel,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Nickel,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Nickel,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Nickel,water,filtered micrograms per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Nickel,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Nicosulfuron,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Niobium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Nitrate plus nitrite,water,filtered milligrams per liter as nitrogen
Surface Water Quality Nitrate plus nitrite,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter as nitrogen
Surface Water Quality Nitrate,water,filtered milligrams per liter as nitrogen
Surface Water Quality Nitrate,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Nitrite,water,filtered milligrams per liter as nitrogen
Surface Water Quality Nitrite,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Nitrobenzene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Nitrobenzene-d5,surrogate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters, wet sieved (native water), field percent recovery Surface Water Quality N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality N-Nitrosodiphenylamine,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Noncarbonate hardness,water,filtered milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate
Surface Water Quality Noncarbonate hardness,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate
Surface Water Quality Norflurazon,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality o, p-DDD,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable, dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality o, p-DDE,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable, dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality o, p-DDT,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable, dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality o, p-Methoxychlor,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality O-Ethyl-O-methyl-Spropylphosphorothioate,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Organic carbon, bed sediment, total, dry weight grams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Organic carbon,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight grams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Organic carbon,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved (native water), field,recoverable,dry weight percent Surface Water Quality Organic carbon,suspended sediment,total milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Organic carbon,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Organic carbon,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Organic nitrogen,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Organic nitrogen,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Orthophosphate,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Orthophosphate,water,filtered milligrams per liter as phosphorus
Surface Water Quality Oryzalin,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Oxamyl,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Oxychlordane,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Oxyfluorfen,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality p, p-DDD,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable, dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality p, p-DDD,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality p, p-DDD,water,unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality p, p-DDE,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable, dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality p, p-DDE,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality p, p-DDE,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality p, p-DDE,water,unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality p, p-DDT,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable, dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality p, p-DDT,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality p, p-DDT,water,unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality p, p-Methoxychlor,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality p, p-Methoxychlor,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality p, p-Methoxychlor,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality p,p-Ethyl-DDD, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality p,p-Ethyl-DDD,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Paraoxon,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Parathion,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Parathion,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Parathion,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Particulate nitrogen,suspended in water milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality PCB congener 14,surrogate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters, wet sieved (native water), field percent recovery Surface Water Quality PCB congener 204,surrogate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters, wet sieved (native water), field percent recovery Surface Water Quality PCBs,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality PCBs,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality PCBs,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality p-Cresol,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Pebulate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Pendimethalin,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality Pentachloroanisole,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Pentachloronitrobenzene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Permethrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Permethrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality pH,water,unfiltered, field standard units Surface Water Quality pH,water,unfiltered., laboratory standard units Surface Water Quality Phenanthrene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Phenanthridine,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Phenol,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Phenothrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Phenothrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Pheophytin a,periphyton milligrams per squaremeter
Surface Water Quality Phorate oxygen analog,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Phorate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Phorate,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Phosmet oxygen analog,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Phosmet,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Phosphate,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Phosphorus,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight percent
Surface Water Quality Phosphorus,water,filtered milligrams per liter as phosphorus
Surface Water Quality Phosphorus,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter as phosphorus
Surface Water Quality Phosphorus,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter as phosphate
Surface Water Quality Picloram,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Picloram,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Polychlorinated naphthalenes,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Polychlorinated naphthalenes,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Potassium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight percent
Surface Water Quality Potassium,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Profenofos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Prometon,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Prometon,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Prometryn,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Prometryn,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propachlor,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propanil,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propargite,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propazine,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propetamphos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propham,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propham,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propiconazole,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propoxur,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Propyzamide,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter
Surface Water Quality p-Terphenyl-d14,surrogate,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters, wet sieved (native water), field percent recovery Surface Water Quality Pyrene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Quinoline,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Ratio of particulate nitrogen to particulate organic carbon number Surface Water Quality Resmethrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Resmethrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Sample purpose code
Surface Water Quality Sample source code
Surface Water Quality Sample volume,Schedule 1319 milliliters Surface Water Quality Sample volume,Schedule 2001 milliliters Surface Water Quality Sample volume,Schedule 2003 milliliters Surface Water Quality Sample volume,Schedule 2010 milliliters Surface Water Quality Sample volume,Schedule 2050 milliliters Surface Water Quality Sample volume,Schedule 2051 milliliters Surface Water Quality Sample volume,Schedules 2002 and 9002 milliliters Surface Water Quality Sample volume,Schedules 2060 and 9060 milliliters Surface Water Quality Sample weight,Schedule 2501 grams Surface Water Quality Sampler type code
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Sampling condition code
Surface Water Quality Sampling method code
Surface Water Quality Scandium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Selenium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Selenium,bed sediment,total digestion,dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Selenium,suspended sediment,total micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Selenium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Selenium,water,unfiltered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Set number lab code 0113
Surface Water Quality Set number lab code 0114
Surface Water Quality Set number Schedule 2001
Surface Water Quality Set number Schedule 2010
Surface Water Quality Set number Schedule 2050
Surface Water Quality Set number Schedule 2051
Surface Water Quality Set number Schedule 2002
Surface Water Quality Set number,Schedule 1319 code
Surface Water Quality Set number,Schedule 2060 lab code 9060 Surface Water Quality Set number,Schedule 2502
Surface Water Quality Siduron,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Silica,water,filtered milligrams per liter as SiO2
Surface Water Quality Silver,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Silver,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Silver,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Silver,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Silvex,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Silvex,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Silvex,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Simazine,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Simazine,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Simetryn,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Site visit purpose code
Surface Water Quality Sodium adsorption ratio,water number Surface Water Quality Sodium fraction of cations,water percent in equivalents ofmajor cations
Surface Water Quality Sodium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight percent
Surface Water Quality Sodium,water,filtered milligrams per liter Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Specific conductance,water,unfiltered microsiemens per
centimeter at 25
degrees Celsius
Surface Water Quality Specific conductance,water,unfiltered, laboratory microsiemens per
centimeter at 25
degrees Celsius
Surface Water Quality Strontium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Styrene, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Sulfate,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Sulfometuron-methyl,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Sulfotepp,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Sulfur,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight percent
Surface Water Quality Sulprofos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Suspended sediment concentration milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Suspended sediment discharge tons per day Surface Water Quality Suspended sediment,sieve diameter percent smaller than