ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 12 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 2Stream gain from groundwater and stream seepage represent the interaction of surface water and groundwater. Differences between the scenarios are related to differences in streamflows and long-term average groundwater elevations. Projected scenarios and even current condition averages represent lower groundwater levels, causing less stream interaction. 3 Local tributaries include Bear Creek and related streams, Little Johns Creek, Duck Creek, and Lone Tree Creek.4Other subbasins include the Cosumnes, Modesto, South American, Solano, East Contra Costa, and Tracy Subbasins. Stream-aquifer interaction with the other subbasins was included for streams on the boundaries of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. 5Runoff to the stream system is due to precipitation. As urban areas are assumed to have greater runoff of precipitation (due to more paved areas), the changes in runoff between the model scenarios are due to differences in the urban areas in the scenarios, as well as the amount of precipitation occurring. The historical calibration, with both less precipitation (due to more dry years than wet in the 28-year period) and smaller urban areas, has a corresponding smaller runoff. The current conditions scenario uses urban areas at the end of the historical calibration, while the projected scenario includes urban buildout to sphere of influence or general plan boundaries and therefore has more runoff. 6Return flow to the stream system is due to applied water, either surface water or groundwater used for agricultural or municipal purposes. Differences between the scenarios is primarily related to the urban growth in the projected conditions scenario causing higher urban demand and therefore correspondingly higher applied water to meet that demand resulting in greater urban return flows (i.e., discharge of treated wastewater).
7Stream outflows occur at the edge of Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin at the confluence of the San Joaquin and Mokelumne Rivers. 8Surface water diversions shown in this table are the volumes of water taken directly off the river prior to any losses due to evaporation or canal seepage. These numbers do not include surface water directly diverted from simulated stream nodes (i.e., water taken off Stanislaus River occurs just upstream in the Subbasin). Differences between scenarios are due to differences in historical, current, and planned surface water diversions. 9Riparian intake from streams is the portion of the riparian vegetation evapotranspiration met by streamflows. Differences between scenarios may be due to availability of streamflows or extent of riparian vegetation, which may be affected by growth in urban areas.
10Summations in table may not match the numbers in the table. This is due to the rounding of model results. 11Values smaller than 500 AF/year are represented by a dash (-).
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 13 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 Table 6: Average Annual Water Budget in ESJWRM Version 3.0 – Land Surface System (AF/year) Component
Historical
Conditions
(AF/year)
Current
Conditions
(AF/year)
Projected
Conditions
Baseline
(AF/year)
Projected
Conditions
Baseline With
Climate
Change
(AF/year)
Hydrologic Period WY 1996 -
2023
WY 2019 -
2023
55 Years (WY
1969-2023)
55 Years (WY
1969-2023)
with 2070 CT
Model Version
Historical
ESJWRM
Version 3.0
Historical
ESJWRM
Version 3.0
ESJWRM
PCBL Version
3.0 ESJWRM
PCBL-CC
Version 3.0
Inflows
Precipitation1 988,000 1,063,000 992,000 1,087,000
Total Surface Water Supply2 568,000 562,000 525,000 525,000 Agricultural 512,000 497,000 452,000 452,000
Urban and Industrial 56,000 65,000 73,000 73,000
Total Groundwater Supply3 732,000 830,000 799,000 879,000 Agricultural 666,000 777,000 732,000 812,000
Urban and Industrial 66,000 53,000 67,000 67,000
Riparian Intake from Streams4 30,000 26,000 26,000 29,000 Total Inflow10 2,318,000 2,481,000 2,342,000 2,521,000
Outflows
Evapotranspiration5 1,309,000 1,352,000 1,302,000 1,384,000 Agricultural 1,006,000 1,080,000 999,000 1,089,000
Municipal and Domestic 59,000 58,000 80,000 81,000
Refuge, Native, and Riparian 243,000 213,000 214,000 214,000 Runoff to the Stream System6 629,000 741,000 656,000 753,000 Return Flow to the Stream System7 96,000 95,000 111,000 112,000 Agricultural 22,000 22,000 25,000 26,000
Municipal and Domestic 75,000 73,000 86,000 86,000
Deep Percolation8 275,000 284,000 270,000 268,000
Precipitation 60,000 53,000 55,000 52,000
Applied Surface Water - Agricultural 85,000 82,000 73,000 70,000 Applied Surface Water - Urban and Industrial 9,000 11,000 12,000 11,000 Applied Groundwater - Agricultural 111,000 129,000 119,000 125,000 Applied Groundwater - Urban and Industrial 11,000 9,000 11,000 10,000 Other Flows9 8,000 9,000 4,000 5,000
Total Outflow10 2,318,000 2,481,000 2,342,000 2,521,000 ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 14 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 Notes:
1The projected conditions scenarios utilize the same 55 years of hydrology (water years 1969-2023) with perturbations in the climate change scenario causing more precipitation. The historical calibration has a shorter hydrologic period (28 years from 1996-2023) with slightly less precipitation on average. Current conditions represent recent years with 2 wet years (2019 and 2023) and 3 dry or critical years (2020, 2021, and 2022).2Total surface water supply shown in this table is the volume of surface water diverted or transported to meet agricultural and urban demands minus estimated losses due to evaporation or canal seepage.
Differences between scenarios are due to differences in current and planned surface water deliveries. 3Total groundwater supply in the scenarios is calculated based on meeting remaining demands after surface water deliveries occur. Differences in demand largely drive the amount of groundwater pumped. 4Riparian intake from streams is the portion of the riparian vegetation evapotranspiration met by streamflows. Differences between scenarios may be due to availability of streamflows or extent of riparian vegetation, which may be affected by growth in urban areas.
5Evapotranspiration is the demand required by agricultural land (i.e., crops); municipal and domestic areas (i.e., industrial and urban demands); and refuge, native and riparian areas. Differences in evapotranspiration are largely related to differences in urban areas between the scenarios and the loss of agricultural or native/riparian land as urban growth occurs. 6Runoff to the stream system is due to precipitation. As urban areas are assumed to have greater runoff (e.g., more paved areas), the changes in runoff between the model scenarios are due to differences in the urban areas in the scenarios, as well as the amount of precipitation occurring. The historical calibration, with both less precipitation and smaller urban areas, has a corresponding smaller runoff. The current conditions scenario uses urban areas at the end of the historical calibration, while the projected scenario includes urban buildout to sphere of influence or general plan boundaries and therefore has more runoff. 7Return flow to the stream system is due to applied water, either surface water or groundwater used for agricultural or municipal purposes. Differences between the scenarios is primarily related to the urban growth in the projected conditions scenario causing higher urban demand and therefore correspondingly higher applied water to meet that demand. 8Deep percolation is the amount of infiltrated water ultimately reaching the groundwater aquifer. The source of the water may be from precipitation or 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 the infiltration parameters related to land use.
9Other Flows captures the gains and losses due to land expansion and temporary storage in the root-zone and unsaturated (vadose) zones.
10Summations in table may not match the numbers in the table. This is due to the rounding of model results.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 15 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 Table 7: Annual Average Water Budget in ESJWRM Version 3.0 – Groundwater System (AF/year) Component
Historical
Conditions
(AF/year)
Current
Conditions
(AF/year)
Projected
Conditions
Baseline
(AF/year)
Projected
Conditions
Baseline With
Climate
Change
(AF/year)
Hydrologic Period WY 1996 -
2023
WY 2019 -
2023
55 Years (WY
1969-2023)
55 Years (WY
1969-2023)
with 2070 CT
Model Version
Historical
ESJWRM
Version 3.0
Historical
ESJWRM
Version 3.0
ESJWRM PCBL
Version 3.0
ESJWRM
PCBL-CC
Version 3.0
Inflows
Deep Percolation1 275,000 284,000 270,000 268,000
Precipitation 60,000 53,000 55,000 52,000
Applied Surface Water - Agricultural 85,000 82,000 73,000 70,000 Applied Surface Water - Urban and Industrial 9,000 11,000 12,000 11,000 Applied Groundwater - Agricultural 111,000 129,000 119,000 125,000 Applied Groundwater - Urban and Industrial 11,000 9,000 11,000 10,000 Stream Seepage2 236,000 267,000 298,000 330,000
Dry Creek 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Mokelumne River 125,000 135,000 150,000 160,000
Calaveras River 37,000 37,000 39,000 41,000
Stanislaus River 36,000 55,000 67,000 82,000
San Joaquin River 37,000 37,000 40,000 45,000
Other Recharge 170,000 174,000 165,000 168,000
Carriage/Canal Recharge 103,000 109,000 98,000 98,000
Managed Aquifer Recharge 5,000 9,000 11,000 11,000
Reservoir Seepage 17,000 14,000 14,000 14,000
Ungauged Watershed Drainage 45,000 42,000 45,000 48,000 Subsurface Inflow3 176,000 188,000 204,000 222,000
Cosumnes Subbasin 28,000 34,000 35,000 35,000
Sierra Nevada Mountains 55,000 54,000 57,000 55,000
Modesto Subbasin 30,000 32,000 37,000 41,000
South American Subbasin 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Solano Subbasin 19,000 19,000 22,000 27,000
East Contra Costa Subbasin 9,000 10,000 11,000 13,000
Tracy Subbasin 31,000 34,000 37,000 44,000
Total Inflow5 857,000 912,000 937,000 988,000
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 16 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 Component
Historical
Conditions
(AF/year)
Current
Conditions
(AF/year)
Projected
Conditions
Baseline
(AF/year)
Projected
Conditions
Baseline With
Climate
Change
(AF/year)
Outflows
Groundwater Outflow to Streams2 75,000 63,000 57,000 53,000 Dry Creek6- - - -
Mokelumne River 14,000 13,000 10,000 8,000
Calaveras River 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Stanislaus River 28,000 18,000 17,000 16,000
San Joaquin River 31,000 31,000 29,000 27,000
Groundwater Pumping4 732,000 830,000 799,000 879,000
Agricultural 666,000 777,000 732,000 812,000
Urban and Industrial 66,000 53,000 67,000 67,000
Subsurface Outflow3 96,000 104,000 110,000 111,000
Cosumnes Subbasin 27,000 32,000 36,000 37,000
Modesto Subbasin 40,000 44,000 44,000 46,000
South American Subbasin6 1,000 1,000 - -
Solano Subbasin 11,000 11,000 11,000 10,000
East Contra Costa Subbasin 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Tracy Subbasin 16,000 14,000 17,000 16,000
Total Outflow5 903,000 997,000 965,000 1,043,000
Change in Groundwater Storage (Inflows Minus Outflows)
Change in Groundwater Storage5(48,000) (89,000) (30,000) (56,000) Notes:
1Deep 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.
2Stream gain from groundwater and stream seepage represent the interaction of surface water and groundwater. Differences between the scenarios are related to differences in streamflows and long-term average groundwater elevations. 3The goal of projecting inter-basin flows is to maintain a reasonable balance between the neighboring groundwater subbasins.
The resulting projected conditions scenario flows are within 10-15% of historical calibration flows, considered a reasonable range given the availability of projected land use, population, surface water delivery, and groundwater production data from areas outside of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Continuing inter-basin coordination may refine these numbers. 4Groundwater pumping is estimated by the ESJWRM based on the need for additional water to meet remaining demands after surface water deliveries occur. Differences in demand largely drive the amount of groundwater pumped. 5Summations in table may not match the numbers in the table. This is due to the rounding of model results. 6Values smaller than 500 AF/year are represented by a dash (-).
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 17 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024
2. GROUNDWATER STORAGE
2.1 Overview of Recommended Corrective Action #4
The following is the text included in Section 6 of DWR’s 2023 Determination Letter:
Department staff recommend the GSP provide a revised estimate for the reduction of groundwater storage volume that is considered an undesirable result. Alternatively, the GSP could highlight how the maximum reduction of groundwater storage related to the chronic lowering of groundwater level minimum thresholds would not result in significant and unreasonable impacts related to groundwater storage and omit the 23 MAF estimate.
2.2 2020 Approach
In the original 2020 GSP, the undesirable result for reduction of groundwater storage was defined as the following:
The threshold at which sustained groundwater storage volumes are insufficient to satisfy beneficial uses over the planning and implementation horizon of the GSP.
The undesirable result threshold was then identified by first evaluating how much of the aquifer supports beneficial uses, or pumping. The zone of pumping was estimated to occur within the shallowest 23 million acre-feet (MAF) of the aquifer. Therefore, the undesirable result for reductions in storage was set at 23 MAF.
Modeling in Historical ESJWRM Version 1.1 indicates that over the historical simulation period 1996-2015, total storage does not vary by more than 0.1 percent per year. Therefore, it is assumed that undesirable results for groundwater levels would be expected to occur long before undesirable results for reduction in storage were to occur. Groundwater levels sustainable management criteria were therefore assumed to be protective of undesirable results in groundwater storage, and as a result, the groundwater level sustainable management criteria were used as a proxy for groundwater storage.
2.3 2024 Updated Approach
DWR has asked for a revision to the 23 MAF undesirable result or a better justification for how reductions in storage are related to groundwater levels sustainable management criteria. The 2024 GSP Amendment combined the two suggestions. A new revised undesirable result for reductions in storage was determined based directly on the estimated change in storage that would occur when an undesirable result is occurring for groundwater levels.
2.3.1 Continue Using GWLs as a Proxy
In the 2024 GSP Amendment, updated modeling still indicates that there is still very little variation in total storage over the historical simulation period. Therefore, the same conclusion from the 2020 GSP remains - that the Subbasin is much more likely to experience an undesirable result for groundwater levels long before an undesirable result for groundwater storage is triggered. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels is directly related to overdraft conditions. If an undesirable result for groundwater levels occurs first, then mitigation will be activated to respond to the undesirable result, effectively making groundwater level ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 18 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 sustainable management criteria already protective of the beneficial uses of groundwater noted in the original undesirable result definition for reduction in storage. Lastly, groundwater levels are directly measurable and groundwater storage is not. Given these conditions, it is reasonable to continue using groundwater levels as a proxy for reductions in groundwater storage.
2.3.2 Revise Undesirable Result
While groundwater levels will continue to be used as a proxy, the threshold at which an undesirable result occurs for groundwater storage can be revised based both on the 2024 updated modeling and using a more direct connection to the undesirable result for groundwater levels. The following approach was taken to revising the 23 MAF undesirable result for reductions in groundwater storage:
1. Simulate new model scenarios under which an undesirable result occurs for groundwater levels.
This involves selecting various groupings of five (5) representative monitoring network (RMN) wells at which to simulate artificially dropping the groundwater levels in the wells to their respective minimum thresholds. The various well groupings were chosen based on the following factors:
o Proximity to the Subbasin’s groundwater depression
o Historical sustainable management criteria performance o Spatial distribution throughout the Subbasin.
2. The Projected Conditions Baseline with Climate Change (PCBL-CC) Version 3.0 scenario was used to simulate the projected undesirable result for groundwater levels scenario. The undesirable result for groundwater levels is defined as 25% of the groundwater level RMN dropping to their minimum threshold for two consecutive years. In the test scenarios for this analysis, pumping was synthetically induced at the five selected wells in order to ‘artificially’ lower groundwater levels. This approach was iterated across a range of various groupings of selected wells and a range of different pumping rates, until undesirable results for groundwater levels occurred in each scenario.
3. The resulting reduction in groundwater storage from each of these test scenarios was recorded and used to establish the revised undesirable result for reduction in groundwater, based on the estimated reductions in groundwater storage when an undesirable result for groundwater levels is occurring.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show examples of two different well groups chosen to simulate lowering groundwater levels. Well Group A in Figure 1 includes a mix of wells that are likely and not likely to exceed their minimum threshold. Well Group B in Figure 2 shows a mix of wells that are not likely or unlikely to exceed their minimum threshold. Both well groups include a well that is within the Subbasin’s groundwater depression.
Table 8 shows an example of the corresponding storage reductions associated with Well Group A and Well Group B scenarios across different artificial pumping rates at those locations. Artificial pumping rates were determined based on average or maximum known (and modeled) pumping rates of production wells within the Subbasin.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 19 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 20 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 Figure 1: Well Group A Locations of Simulated Drawdown
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 21 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 Figure 2: Well Group B Locations of Simulated Drawdown
Table 8: Example Groundwater Storage Reductions Across Test Scenarios Average Pumping
(35 AF/month)
Maximum Pumping
(250 AF/month)
Well Group A 10.6 MAF 13.0 MAF
Well Group B 10.6 MAF 12.9 MAF
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 22 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024 The reductions in storage associated with the groundwater level minimum threshold exceedance scenarios varies across the various test scenarios from 10 MAF to 13 MAF. This is consistent with typical results in numerical groundwater modeling where the reductions in storage associated with an undesirable result for groundwater levels varies based on which wells drop experience exceedances and where they are located within in the Subbasin. Therefore, a range in reduction of storage is appropriate to describe an undesirable result, defined by the upper and lower bounds of this groundwater level minimum thresholds analysis.
The revised undesirable result for reductions in groundwater storage is therefore considered to be between 10 to13 MAF. Defining a range in storage for the undesirable result acknowledges the uncertainty associated with the model in terms of storage. Since the climate change scenario was used, it also allows for consideration of the uncertainty associated with how extreme impacts of climate changes may be and where impacts within the Subbasin.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2024 GSP Update 23 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 4: Water Budgets and Groundwater Storage November 2024
3. REFERENCES
Woodard & Curran. (2024). August 30, 2024. 2024 Model Documentation Update.
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 5 – Interconnected Surface
Waters/ Sustainable Management Criteria
TO: Paul Gosselin, California Department of Water Resources Deputy Director CC: Ashley Couch, on behalf of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority PREPARED BY: Liz DaBramo, Leslie Dumas/Woodard & Curran DATE: November 2024
RE: Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Response to DWR’s July 6, 2023 Approved Determination Letter for the 2022 Revised GSP - Technical Memorandum 5, Response to DWR Recommended Corrective Action No. 6
On July 27, 2022, the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) submitted the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Revised June 2022 Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP or Plan) for the San Joaquin Valley – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin (Subbasin) to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in response to DWR’s incomplete determination on January 28, 2022. In its July 6, 2023 determination letter, DWR staff concluded that the GSAs had taken sufficient actions to correct deficiencies identified by DWR and approved the 2022 Revised Plan (see Appendix 3-B in the GSP). In Section 6 of the determination letter, DWR staff also identified recommended corrective actions (RCAs) for the GSAs to address by the Plan’s first periodic evaluation.
This technical memorandum (TM) is in response to RCA #6 related to interconnected surface water. This TM is organized into the following sections:
1) Overview of Recommended Corrective Action #6
2) Quantify Timing, Location, and Volume of Depletions
3) Identify Undesirable Results
4) Update Representative Monitoring Network for ISW
5) Establish Sustainable Management Criteria for ISW
6) Engage with Impacted Parties
7) References
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
1. OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION #6
The following is the text including in Section 6 of DWR’s 2023 Determination Letter:
Department staff understand that estimating the location, quantity, and timing of stream depletion due to ongoing, Subbasin-wide pumping is a complex task and that developing suitable tools may take additional time; however, it is critical for the Department’s ongoing and future evaluations of whether GSP implementation is on track to achieve sustainable groundwater management. The Department plans to provide guidance on methods and approaches to evaluate the rate, timing, and volume of depletions of interconnected surface water and support for establishing specific sustainable management criteria in the near future. This guidance is intended to assist GSAs to sustainably manage depletions of interconnected surface water. In addition, the GSA should work to address the following items by the first periodic evaluation:
a. Work to establish undesirable results, minimum thresholds, and measurable objectives consistent with the GSP Regulations. Measurable objectives are to use the same metric used for minimum thresholds, including quantifying the location, quantity, and timing of depletions of interconnected surface water due to groundwater extraction. Consider utilizing the interconnected surface water guidance, as appropriate, when issued by the Department.
b. Continue to fill data gaps, collect additional monitoring data, and implement the current strategy to manage depletions of interconnected surface water and define segments of interconnectivity and timing. The monitoring network should be updated to reflect any corresponding changes and approaches. c. Prioritize collaborating and coordinating with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies as well as interested parties to better understand the full suite of beneficial uses and users that may be impacted by pumping induced surface water depletion within the GSA’s jurisdictional area.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
2. APPROACH TO RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION #6
The 2020 GSP and 2022 Revised GSP both used the chronic lowering of groundwater levels as a proxy for interconnected surface waters. While both GSPs included efforts to map stream connectivity to the groundwater system, new data and associated model updates made to address DWR’s Recommended Corrective Actions allowed for the re-evaluation of this mapping using the latest available data. Additionally, efforts were made during the 5-year periodic evaluation process to develop new sustainable management criteria (SMC) and a representative monitoring network (RMN) specific to interconnected surface water systems.
3. QUANTIFY TIMING, LOCATION, AND VOLUME OF DEPLETIONS
3.1 Definitions
Interconnected surface waters (ISWs) are surface water features that are hydraulically connected by a saturated zone to the groundwater system. In these systems, the water table and surface water features intersect at the same elevations and locations. Interconnected surface waters may be either gaining or losing, wherein the surface water feature itself is either gaining water from the aquifer system or losing water to the aquifer system. As described in Depletions of ISW: An Introduction (DWR, 2024), the first of three guidance documents on ISWs released by DWR, the consideration and interpretation of ISWs can be based on five example cases of nearby groundwater elevation data (Figure 5 of Depletions of ISW: An Introduction). Of the examples provided, Figure 5d is most applicable to Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin due to a lack of shallow monitoring wells and associated historic data near the rivers and creeks in the Subbasin.
Source: Depletions of ISW: An Introduction (DWR, 2024)
This lack of shallow groundwater level data near surface water courses translates to a low degree of confidence in model calibration around these surface water features and therefore uncertainty around what is or is not a connected reach or model node.
GSP regulations require the identification of ISWs within a basin (and therefore identification of the degree of connectivity) and an estimate of the timing and quantity of depletions of those systems, where depletions are defined as “conditions where groundwater pumping results in reductions in flow or water levels of ISW.” However, the DWR guidance document notes that “the definition above differs from how depletions may be defined in other hydrologic contexts, where they can refer to any surface water losses without considering the cause.” A good faith effort was conducted to isolate stream depletions in the Eastern San ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Joaquin (ESJ) Subbasin due solely to groundwater pumping by comparing (1) pumping and no-pumping scenarios and (2) a pumping “pulse” scenario to examine the delayed impact of pumping on stream depletions, both using the integrated Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model Version 3.0 (ESJWRM).
However, the analyses resulted in an inconclusive understanding of depletions due to pumping since an equilibrium was not reached within the simulation period and depletions were heavily influenced by initial and boundary conditions. Therefore, the analyses relied on the standard definition of depletions as stream losses to the aquifer system regardless of cause. This allows the GSAs to have more confidence in the results and to be able to manage and report depletions in future Annual Reports without limitations and uncertainties from the existing toolset. At the time of this writing, the additional pending guidance documents from DWR (Techniques for Estimating Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water and Examples of Approaches for Estimating Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water) had not yet been released. The timing, location, and volume of depletions in the ESJ Subbasin will be revised at a later time in coordination with further guidance from DWR.
3.2 Connectivity
This section details the assumptions and findings about interconnectivity and gains/losses of streams within the Subbasin. As previously mentioned, the updated historical and projected conditions baseline versions of the ESJWRM Version 3.0 were used to analyze stream-aquifer interactions.
Stream connectivity was analyzed by comparing monthly groundwater elevations from the historical calibration of the ESJWRM to streambed elevations along the streams represented in ESJWRM, displayed in Figure 1. Layer 1 groundwater levels were used since the new model Layer 1 in ESJWRM represents the shallow, generally unconsolidated sediments where stream-aquifer interaction is occurring. Connected streams were defined as Layer 1 groundwater levels at or above the streambed elevation at least 75 percent of the time. The 75 percent threshold was used for the purpose of comparative analysis only. The definition of ISWs is not limited to surface waters that the ESJGWM indicates are connected to the shallowest modeled groundwater level at least 75 percent of the time. The GSAs understand that an ISW may be seasonally connected and/or connected in only wetter water year types. The GSAs currently do not have sufficient data to determine if or when streams or reaches are connected to the groundwater table with this level of granularity. The GSAs will be collecting more data with the new ISW monitoring wells to help inform this analysis going forward. As described later in the report, in the meantime the GSAs have established MOs and MTs based on maintaining groundwater levels at or above 2015 levels, which should avoid undesirable results to ISW that could occur if groundwater levels dropped below the 2015 levels.
Figure 2 illustrates the simulated, historically 75 percent connected streams in blue. The connected streams are the Mokelumne River, Stanislaus River, and lower San Joaquin River. Streams that are not connected (again, using the 75 percent connectivity comparison point) are Dry Creek, Calaveras River, and Mormon Slough. Other smaller creeks are not represented in ESJWRM due to data limitations and a lack of stream gage data, making it challenging to simulate and calibrate stream-aquifer interactions. As such, these smaller creeks have not been included in this analysis and are noted as a data gap.
To support the understanding of connectivity and the relationship with ISW, the percentage of time that streams are connected by node in ESJWRM is displayed in Figure 3. In the historical model, most of the connected streams are connected at least 80 percent of the time, with the not connected streams connected ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 less than 20 percent of the time. These results support the use of 75 percent as the comparison point for connectivity, as most streams would still be classified the same way (connected or disconnected) even if the threshold for connectivity were reduced to below 20 percent. However, many streams or reaches that are connected less than 75 percent of the time, and thus not termed “75% connected,” may be connected seasonally and/or only in wetter water year types and may be considered ISW.
Stream connectivity was also analyzed under current conditions (Water Year 2020 through 2024 in the historical ESJWRM model) and for Water Year 2015. As shown in Figure 4, there are no significant differences in simulated stream connectivity between historical and current conditions. Water Year 2015, on the other hand, shows that a portion of the Mokelumne River becomes connected less than 75 percent of the time just upstream of the confluence with Dry Creek (Figure 5). Water Year 2015 represents dry conditions with low groundwater levels after a multi-year drought. These conditions are later referenced in Section 0 when discussing ISW Sustainable Management Criteria (SMCs).
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 1: Stream Reaches in ESJWRM
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 2: Historical Surface Waters Connected with the Groundwater System at least 75% of All Months in ESJWRM
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 3: Percentage of Time Stream is Connected – ESJWRM Historical Conditions ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 9 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 4: Current Condition Surface Waters Connected with the Groundwater System at least 75% of All Months in ESJWRM
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 10 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 5: Water Year 2015 Surface Waters Connected with the Groundwater System at least 75% of All Months in ESJWRM
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 11 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
3.3 Stream Gains and Losses
Disconnected streams will always be losing streams, but interconnected streams may be either losing or gaining, depending on the surface water and groundwater conditions. Groundwater discharge from the aquifer is primarily through groundwater pumping; however, groundwater also discharges to streams where groundwater elevations are higher than the streambed elevations and stream levels or stage. Figure 6, from DWR’s Depletions of ISW: An Introduction (DWR, 2024), illustrates connected gaining streams (on the left) where groundwater levels are higher than the stream stage, and losing streams (on the right) where groundwater levels are lower than the stream stage.
Figure 6: Diagram of Gaining and Losing Connected Streams Figure 7 illustrates the historical simulated average annual volume of stream gains and losses by stream node for the period from Water Year 1996 through 2023. While the model shows that the Mokelumne River is a connected river in most years based on the 75 percent comparative point, it is losing water from the stream to the aquifer system upstream of the Cosumnes River, and gaining water from the aquifer system downstream of the Cosumnes River, on average. The model shows that portions of the Stanislaus River are gaining upstream near New Melones Reservoir and downstream near the confluence with the lower San Joaquin River, on average. The lower San Joaquin River is gaining in many sections near the confluence with the Stanislaus River, Calaveras River, and in the Delta region. Figure 8 shows the simulated average annual volume of stream gains under current conditions (Water Year 2020 through 2023). The trends are very similar to historical gains and losses, with the exception of the Stanislaus River, which has a high number of stream nodes in the center portion of the river that are losing under current conditions.
In addition to the volume of stream gains and losses, the percentage of time that streams are gaining in the model is also displayed in Figure 9. Dry Creek, the Calaveras River, and Mormon Slough are rarely gaining because they are not connected reaches. Although the upstream portion of Mokelumne River is connected based on the 75 percent comparative point, the reach is losing water the majority of the time.
The lower Mokelumne River, lower San Joaquin River, and upstream and downstream sections of the Stanislaus River are gaining a majority of the time and the central portion of the Stanislaus River gains infrequently in ESJWRM.
The stream gains and losses can also be viewed graphically. Figure 10 displays the simulated average annual stream gains by river between Water Year 1996 and 2023. Note that these stream gains only reflect the stream-aquifer interactions on the Eastern San Joaquin side of the streams, if a stream is located along a boundary of the Subbasin. Bear Creek is excluded from the figures because there is minimal simulated ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 12 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 stream-aquifer interaction. The model shows that the Mokelumne River is losing over 100 thousand acrefeet per year (TAFY) on average. Although the portion of the Mokelumne River downstream of the confluence with the Cosumnes River is gaining on average, the stream losses in the upstream portion of the Mokelumne River significantly outweigh the downstream gains. The San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers are losing 5.8 TAFY and 7.8 TAFY, respectively, on average in the ESJ Subbasin. The Calaveras River is not a connected reach and is losing over 30 TAFY.
Figure 11 shows the timeseries of annual stream gains and losses in the Subbasin for each river between Water Year 1996 and 2023 in ESJWRM. It reveals that the San Joaquin River and Stanislaus River can be either net gaining or losing rivers depending on the water year. On the other hand, the Mokelumne River and Calaveras River are always losing, and lose more during wet water years when the stream stage is higher from greater flow in the rivers.
Figure 12 summarizes the simulated average annual stream gains by river in the ESJ Subbasin by water year type. For all rivers except the Stanislaus River, streams lose more in wet years because of higher stream flows. The San Joaquin River is actually net gaining in below normal (BN), dry (D), and critical (C) water year types because it is a connected river, has numerous upstream sources, and groundwater levels are relatively higher than the low stream stage in these year types. The Stanislaus River does not have a clear trend by water year type because it is a connected river that is affected by both changes in stream stage and groundwater levels dynamically from the reservoir to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.
In addition to examining the stream depletions on an annual basis, simulated stream-aquifer interactions can be discerned on a monthly basis. Figure 13 displays the timeseries of monthly stream gains and losses by river in the Subbasin from ESJWRM. There is a seasonal and annual fluctuation in gains and losses; the simulated average monthly gains are summarized in Figure 14 by quarter and river. The greatest losses occur during winter months when there is more flow in the river channel. The lower San Joaquin River and Stanislaus River gain during the irrigation season (July through September) since they are connected rivers, and the stream stages drop more quickly during the irrigation season relative to groundwater levels which decline at a slower rate.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 13 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 7: Historical Average Annual Stream Gains by Stream Node in ESJWRM ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 14 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 8: Current Conditions Average Annual Stream Gains by Stream Node in ESJWRM ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 15 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 9: Percentage of Time that Streams are Gaining – ESJ Historical Conditions ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 16 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 10: Average Annual Simulated Stream Gains by River in Eastern San Joaquin – Historical Figure 11: Annual Stream Simulated Gains by River in Eastern San Joaquin – Historical -35.8
-1.9
-110.4
-5.8 -7.8
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0 Calaveras Dry Mokelumne San Joaquin Stanislaus
TAFY
Average Annual Net Stream Gains, by River in ESJ
(WY 1996-2023)
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0 50
TAFY
Annual Net Stream Gains, by River in ESJ
(1996-2023)
Calaveras Dry Mokelumne San Joaquin Stanislaus
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 17 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 12: Average Annual Simulated Stream Gains by River and Water Year Type in Eastern San Joaquin – Historical
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0 20
40 W AN BN D C W AN BN D C W AN BN D C W AN BN D C W AN BN D C Calaveras Dry Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
TAFY
Average Annual Net Stream Gains, By River in ESJ, by WY Type (WY 1996-2023)
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 18 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 13: Monthly Simulated Stream Gains by River in Eastern San Joaquin – Historical -30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 5
10 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TAF/month
Monthly Net Stream Gains, by River in ESJ
(WY 1996-2023)
Calaveras Dry Mokelumne San Joaquin Stanislaus
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 19 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 14: Average Monthly Simulated Stream Gains by River and Quarter in Eastern San Joaquin – Historical
4. IDENTIFY UNDESIRABLE RESULTS
The undesirable result related to depletions of interconnected surface water is defined in SGMA as:
Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water. Major rivers and streams that potentially have a hydraulic connection to the groundwater system in certain reaches are the Calaveras River, Dry Creek, the Mokelumne River, the San Joaquin River, and the Stanislaus River. Many of the smaller creeks and streams are substantially used for the conveyance of irrigation water and these systems have not been considered in the analysis of depletions.
If depletions of interconnected surface water were to reach levels causing undesirable results, impacts could include reduced flow and stage within rivers and streams in the Subbasin to the extent that insufficient surface water would be available to support diversions for agricultural or urban uses or to support regulatory environmental requirements. These effects could result in decreased surface water diversions and/or changes in irrigation practices and crops grown and could cause adverse effects on property values and the regional economy. Reduced flows and stage, along with potential associated changes in water temperature and quality, could also negatively impact aquatic species and habitats in the rivers and streams -12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
4 Calaveras Dry Mokelumne San Joaquin Stanislaus
TAF/month
Average Monthly Net Stream Gains, by River in ESJ, by Quarter (WY 1996-2023)
Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 20 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 and along the riparian environments. Federally threatened aquatic species include California Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), and southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). All freshwater species in the Subbasin are listed in Appendix 1-G of the 2022 Revised GSP.
Minimum flow requirements are defined for the Calaveras, Mokelumne, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Rivers; these requirements are met through the management of operations at upstream reservoirs, including New Hogan Reservoir, Camanche Reservoir, Woodbridge Dam, New Melones Reservoir. Table 1 summarizes the major rivers in the Subbasin along with contributing upstream reservoirs, operators, primary water users, and flow requirements that could be affected by significant and unreasonable stream depletions.
Additionally, Figure 15 visualizes the major compliance locations and diversions. Note that most compliance points and diversions (Camanche Dam on the Mokelumne River, New Hogan Reservoir on the Calaveras River, and Goodwin Dam on the Stanislaus) are upstream of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin and are therefore unaffected by management actions in the Subbasin.
The Subbasin GSAs are also prioritizing collaborating and coordinating with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies, as well as other interested parties, to better understand the full suite of beneficial uses and users that may be impacted by pumping-induced surface water depletion within the GSA’s jurisdictional area and to look for opportunities to coordinate in projects and actions to support interconnected surface waters. As previously mentioned, impacted parties include surface water diverters, reservoir owners and operators, groundwater dependent ecosystems, fish and freshwater species, and adjacent groundwater subbasins. Section 7.7 of the 2024 Amended GSP describes GSA engagement and outreach plans.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 21 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Table 1: Summary of Major Rivers and Flow Considerations River Reservoir Operator Flow Requirements and Notes Primary Surface Water Diverters
Mokelumne River
Camanche
Reservoir
(Pardee
Reservoir
upstream)
East Bay
Municipal
Utility District
There are regulated releases at Pardee Dam, Camanche Dam, and Woodbridge Dam. Minimum flows below Camanche
Dam range from between 100 to 325 cubic feet per second (cfs), as specified in FERC 2916‐029, 1996 Joint Settlement Agreement. The minimum flows below the Woodbridge
Diversion Dam range from between 25 to 300 cfs. Camanche Reservoir must maintain at least 28 TAF of hypolimnium
water below 16.4 degrees C through October. Camanche
Dam releases will not decrease by more than 50 cfs/day (OctMarch) or 100 cfs/day (all other times).
EBMUD, Woodbridge
Irrigation District, North
San Joaquin Water
Conservation District,
Jackson Valley
Irrigation District (at
Pardee)
Calaveras River
New Hogan
Reservoir
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Minimum instream flow requirements are established by the Calaveras River Habitat Conservation Plan. New Hogan Dam releases 75-250 cfs during irrigation season and 20-85 cfs non-irrigation seasons. There is a minimum flow of 10 cfs at the Bellota Diversion Facility for fish ladder operation. There is a minimum guaranteed continuous instream flows in
Calaveras River at Shelton Road of 20 cfs.
Stockton East Water
District, Calaveras
County Water District
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 22 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 River Reservoir Operator Flow Requirements and Notes Primary Surface Water Diverters
Stanislaus River
New
Melones
(Tulloch and
Goodwin
Dam downstream)
US Bureau of
Reclamation
The instream flow compliance location is downstream of
Goodwin Dam, which is just downstream of New Melones
and Tulloch Reservoir and where water is primarily diverted.
Minimum releases are made as required by SWRCB D-1422,
the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Water Quality
Control Plan, and the Central Valley Project OCAP Biological Opinions.
South San Joaquin
Irrigation District,
Oakdale Irrigation
District,
San Joaquin River
Collects
many
regulated
tributary
rivers
The flow compliance location is at Vernalis. The new flow objectives are to “[m]aintain inflow conditions from the San Joaquin River watershed to the Delta at Vernalis sufficient to support and maintain the natural production of viable native San Joaquin River watershed fish populations migrating
through the Delta.” The numerical objectives are still being litigated and have not yet been enforced.
Many upstream
diverters
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 23 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 15: Surface Water Impacted Parties
Undesirable results would occur if there were significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users and uses of the surface water, including disconnecting stream reaches that were previously connected.
Water Year 2015 is used as a reference point in the analyses since it was a dry year after a multi-year drought and hydrologic conditions, including stream depletions, put challenges on the surface water operations systems at that time. Additionally, SGMA regulations state “The plan may, but is not required to, address undesirable results that occurred before, and have not been corrected by, January 1, 2015.” [California Water Code Section 10727.2(b)(4)]. Despite the challenging conditions in Water Year 2015, no undesirable results related to stream depletions occurred since minimum instream flow requirements and agreements were met and the GSA Project Management Committee reported no significant and unreasonable depletions.
Additionally, the Chinook salmon population was recovering after a decline in the late 2000s, as shown in Figure 16. However, the population dynamics of Chinook salmon are not dependent solely on streamflow ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 24 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 depletions and do not reflect survival rates or spawning success, and therefore cannot be used solely as an indicator of ISW undesirable results.
Figure 16: Chinook Salmon Population on Connected Rivers in Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin As a reference point for the sustainable management criteria, simulated stream connectivity and gains and losses in the Fall of Water Year 2015 are displayed below in Figure 17. The Stanislaus River, lower San Joaquin River, and portions of the Mokelumne River are connected based on the 75 percent comparison point. Note that a portion of the Mokelumne River became not connected in Water Year 2015 as compared to historical conditions. Figure 18 shows the annual stream gains and losses in Water Year 2015. Lastly, Figure 19 summarizes the volume of stream reach gains and losses in Water Year 2015. Most stream losses occurred on the Mokelumne River, with fewer stream losses on the Calaveras River and Stanislaus River. In Water Year 2015, the lower San Joaquin River is net gaining. All of these results are derived from modeled stream-aquifer interactions in ESJWRM.
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
1960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020 In-River FIsh Population
Chinook Salmon Fish Population
Stanislaus River Mokelumne River
2015
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 25 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 17: Water Year 2015 Surface Waters Connected with the Groundwater System at least 75% of All Months in ESJWRM
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 26 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 18: Water Year 2015 Average Annual Stream Gains by Stream Node in ESJWRM ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 27 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 19: Annual Stream Simulated Gain in Water Year 2015 by River in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin
5. UPDATE REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING NETWORK FOR ISW
5.1 Fill Data Gaps
As stated in Depletions of ISW: An Introduction (DWR 2024), quantifying and managing interconnected surface waters and stream depletions is inherently challenging for water managers due to the dynamic nature, inability to directly observe stream depletions, and data gaps. In Section 4.7.3 of the 2022 Revised GSP, interconnected surface water was highlighted as a data gap due to a lack of data from shallow monitoring wells near streams. Several actions were identified in the 2020 GSP and 2022 Revised GSP to fill these data gaps and improve the understanding of stream aquifer interactions. Table 2 lists these actions and their status.
-20,329
-1,311
-102,173
15,016
-19,466
-120,000
-100,000
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000
0 20,000
40,000
Calaveras Dry Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
AFY
Annual Net Stream Gain, by River in ESJ
WY 2015
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 28 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Table 2: Status of Actions to Fill ISW Data Gaps, 2022 Revised GSP 2020/2022 GSP Action
to Fill Data Gap
Status and Notes
Proposed new shallow groundwater
monitoring wells
Complete. Five (5) new wells were funded by the DWR
Proposition 1 Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant and were constructed in 2022. These wells are included in the ISW Representative Monitoring Network.
Mokelumne River Loss Study NSJWCD is continuing to work on strategic plan and funding options for the implementation of this Project.
ESJ WRM Model Recalibration Complete. The model recalibration was completed in 2024 and provides an enhanced understanding of the stream-aquifer interactions, which is analyzed and reported in this TM to support the 5-Year GSP update.
In addition to the 2020 and 2022 GSP data gap actions, the GSAs have examined supplementary streamflow and groundwater level data, in addition to other possible monitoring locations, to better understand stream-aquifer interactions outside of the representative monitoring network.
Streamflow at active stream gages in and near the Subbasin is collected for ISW analysis and ESJWRM model calibration. Figure 20 displays the stream gages used for ESJWRM model calibration and Table 3 lists the location and period of record of these stream gages. Attachment 1 includes the daily streamflow of these gages in standard and log basis, for reference.
Table 3: List of Stream Gages in Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Gage ID Gage Name Latitude,
Longitude
Period of Record Monitoring
Agency
MRS Mormon Slough at Bellota 38.054, -121.012
12/10/1997 -
7/29/2024 CDEC
OBB
Stanislaus River below
Orange Blossom Bridge 37.791, -120.765
1/1/1984 -
7/29/2024 CDEC
11290000 Tuolumne River at Modesto
37.627153, -
120.9843777
4/1/1940 -
7/28/2024 USGS
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 29 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Gage ID Gage Name Latitude,
Longitude
Period of Record Monitoring
Agency
11303000 Stanislaus River at Ripon
37.72965078, -
121.1104934
10/1/1940 -
7/28/2024 USGS
11303500 San Joaquin River at Vernalis
37.6760406, -
121.2663293
10/1/1923 -
7/28/2024 USGS
11323500
Mokelumne River below
Camanche Dam
38.2261111, -
121.0233333
10/1/1904 -
9/30/2023 USGS
11325500
Mokelumne river at
Woodbridge
38.15852914, -
121.3035592
6/1/1924 -
9/30/2023 USGS
11329500 Dry Creek near Galt
38.24797116, -
121.2268913
10/1/1926 -
12/6/1997 USGS
11336000
Consumnes River at
McConnell
38.3579675, -
121.343839
10/1/1941 -
10/15/1982 USGS
In addition to stream gages, the GSAs are utilizing data that are being collected elsewhere to help the understanding of ISW conditions and stream depletions. Figure 21 depicts wells that are within three miles of a connected river, are monitoring wells, have shallow wells depths (100 feet or less), and have recent groundwater level observations (at least one observation since the start of Water Year 2015). Note that some of these wells fall outside of the Subbasin. These wells are not part of the Representative Monitoring Network for ISW and are identified solely to provide supplemental groundwater level data to support further stream depletion analysis, as needed.
The GSAs acknowledge that data gaps continue to exist relative to monitoring for ISW-related impacts. The GSAs have worked to fulfill commitments to address identified data gaps and will continue to collect additional monitoring data and define segments of interconnectivity and timing as part of GSP implementation. Before the next 5-year Periodic Evaluation in 2030, it is expected that DWR will release the outstanding interconnected surface water (ISW) guidance documents, additional groundwater level data for the new ISW representative monitoring wells will have been collected, and the ESJWRM model will have been enhanced to allow for a reevaluation of the streams and creeks included in the ISW analysis, the definition of the ISW undesirable result, and the subsequent ISW sustainable management criteria.
The following section details recent updates to the ISW representative monitoring network to include the newly constructed ISW monitoring wells. These previous efforts and a commitment to continued monitoring and analysis directly address RCA #6b.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 30 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 20: Streamflow Gages in and Adjacent to the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 31 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 21: Supplemental Groundwater Level Monitoring Wells for ISW Analysis
5.2 Representative Monitoring Network
The Subbasin GSAs have established a new Representative Monitoring Network (RMN) specifically for ISW.
The RMN includes the newly constructed ISW shallow monitoring wells near streams that were installed specifically to address data gaps around understanding stream-aquifer dynamics. It also includes the new multi-completion Delta Well that was funded by the Subbasin’s Sustainable Groundwater Planning Proposition 68 grant funding and constructed in 2024. The siting of the newly constructed wells is discussed in Attachment 2, Technical Memorandum: Data Gap Identification in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin.
Lastly, the ISW RMN includes a subset of the groundwater level (GWL) RMN wells that are within five miles of connected surface waters. Only one well (the shallowest well in a gap area) was selected from the GWL ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 32 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 RMN along the Mokelumne River since there are the new ISW wells along other sections of the Mokelumne River. Wells from the GWL RMN were selected for their thorough and recent groundwater level observations and known perforations. A five-mile buffer was selected to include a larger subset of GWL RMN wells which can reveal pumping trends on a regional scale, since pumping influences stream depletions. The ISW RMN wells were selected to reflect both shallow, dynamic interactions between streams and the aquifer, as well as deeper regional pumping trends. Table 4 lists the RMN for ISW, including the well names, locations, perforation information, adjacent stream, and SMC category. Figure 22 shows the ISW RMN by SMC category (new ISW well or GWL RMN), and Figure 23 illustrates the ISW RMN with the well names labeled.
Table 4: ISW RMN
Well ID Latitude,
Longitude
Well Perforations
(feet below
ground surface)
Nearest Adjacent
Stream Well Category
Well A
38.23583,
-121.41869 14 – 31.5 Mokelumne River New ISW Well
Well B
38.245966,
-121.217862 25 – 35 Dry Creek New ISW Well
Well C
38.20457,
-121.09278 15 – 30 Mokelumne River New ISW Well
Well E
38.15838,
-121.14675 35 – 50 Mokelumne River New ISW Well
Well G
37.86248,
-120.77601 26 – 41 Little Johns Creek New ISW Well
Delta Well
38.1229,
-121.4932
125 – 150,
275 – 300 Mokelumne River New ISW Well
04N05E36H003
38.1559,
-121.3727 50 – 112 Mokelumne River GWL RMN
Swenson-3
38.0067,
-121.3458 194 – 204 San Joaquin River GWL RMN
Frankenheimer
(01S10E26J001M)
37.8163,
-120.8321 323 – 599 Stanislaus River GWL RMN
Burnett (OID-4)
37.7909,
-120.86752 168 – 249 Stanislaus River GWL RMN
02S07E31N001
37.7136,
-121.2508 130 – 226 San Joaquin River GWL RMN
02S08E08A001
37.781,
-121.1142 50 – 180 Stanislaus River GWL RMN
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 33 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 22: ISW RMN by SMC Category
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 34 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 23: ISW RMN
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 35 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
6. ESTABLISH SMCS FOR ISW
Sustainable Management Criteria (SMCs) were established for the ISW RMN to avoid undesirable results related to stream depletions. Groundwater levels are used as a metric for the ISW SMCs. Groundwater level data are used to calculate water table gradients and, therefore, the volume of water gained and lost. Without additional DWR guidance and more certainty around stream depletions due to pumping with the existing modeling toolset, the SMCs rely on the best available information at the time of analysis. The ISW SMCs using groundwater levels as a metric aim to be “sufficiently protective to ensure significant and unreasonable occurrences of [stream depletions] will be prevented,” as prescribed in the DWR’s Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater: Sustainable Management Criteria (DWR, 2017).
The SMCs for existing wells with historically observed groundwater levels are described below in Section
6.1. The process for establishing ISW-specific SMCs for new wells without historically observed groundwater levels is discussed in Section 6.2.
6.1 SMCs for RMN with Historical Groundwater Level Data There are six wells in the ISW RMN with historical groundwater level data, as displayed in Figure 22 and discussed in Section 5.2. In lieu of refined data and certainty in stream depletions, the SMCs at representative monitoring wells with historical groundwater level data are set to be the same as the SMCs for groundwater levels. According to the DWR’s Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater: Sustainable Management Criteria (DWR, 2017), “To use the minimum thresholds for chronic lowering of groundwater levels as a proxy for interconnected surface water, the stream depletions which would occur when undesirable results for groundwater levels are reached must not be significant and unreasonable.” The following sections detail the justification that SMCs for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels for wells in the ISW RMN is protective of undesirable stream depletions.
Stream-aquifer interactions were examined under a hypothetical Projected Conditions Baseline (PCBL) – Minimum Thresholds scenario with the addition of climate change and additional pumping to drive groundwater levels to their minimum thresholds. The undesirable result for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels is defined as groundwater levels in 25 percent of the RMN wells dropping to their minimum thresholds for two consecutive years. In the test scenarios conducted for the analyses, pumping was artificially induced at five selected wells in order to “force” groundwater levels to decline. Many iterations of different combinations of wells were explored, and the version selected for the ISW analysis was the most extreme version since it had the highest induced pumping volumes with wells closest to interconnected streams.
The resulting stream-aquifer interactions in ESJWRM were analyzed in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario and compared to 2015 conditions: (1) spatial stream connectivity, (2) average annual stream gains and losses, and (3) seasonal stream gains and losses. While this TM just includes comparisons to Water Year 2015, since that water year is used as the basis for undesirable results as described in Section 4, Attachment 3 includes the same comparisons to historical and current conditions for reference. The toolset to thoroughly evaluate the impacts on stream temperatures was beyond reach at the time of this analysis; however, changes in stream gains and losses were used to inform potential impacts on stream temperatures.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 36 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
6.1.1 Stream Connectivity
Connected stream reaches in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario based on the 75 percent comparison point are the Mokelumne River, Stanislaus River, and lower San Joaquin River, as displayed in Figure 24.
Figure 25 illustrates the stream locations that were 75 percent connected in Water Year 2015 and disconnected under the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario in ESJWRM. The major connected stream reaches – Mokelumne River, Stanislaus River, and lower San Joaquin River – remain 75 percent connected.
This means that the chronic lowering of groundwater levels SMCs are protective of stream connectivity and do not cause streams to lose connection. Note that there is a single stream node on Dry Creek that is connected in Water Year 2015 and disconnected in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario, but the remainder of the creek is disconnected in historical and current conditions and in Water Year 2015 in ESJWRM.
Figure 26 displays the percentage of time that the Subbasin’s 75 percent connected streams are gaining in the PBCL-Minimum Thresholds scenario in ESJWRM. Figure 27 compares the difference in the percentage of time that the 75 percent connected streams are connected between the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario and Water Year 2015. Areas in blue are connected more frequently in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenarios and areas in pink are connected less frequently in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario as compared to Water Year 2015 conditions. The frequency of connection in Water Year 2015 is based on the number of connected months out of the 12 months in that water year. The model shows that the Mokelumne River is connected more frequently and greater than 80 percent of the time under the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario, showing an improvement in stream conditions compared to Water Year 2015. The Stanislaus River is connected slightly less frequently in the central portion of the reach; however, the stream is still connected in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario at least 80 percent of the time. There are minimal differences in other stream reaches. Simulated comparisons to historical and current conditions are included in Attachment 3.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 37 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 24: PBCL-Minimum Thresholds Surface Waters Connected with the Groundwater System at least 75% of All Months in ESJWRM
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 38 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 25: Locations Where ISWs were 75% Connected or Not Connected in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds Scenario compared to Water Year 2015 in ESJ WRM ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 39 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 26: Percentage of Time Streams are Connected – ESJWRM PCBL-Minimum Thresholds Conditions
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 40 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 27: Difference in the Percentage of Time Streams are Connected between PCBL-Minimum Thresholds Scenario and Water Year 2015 in ESJWRM
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 41 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
6.1.2 Annual Stream Gains and Losses
In addition to looking at the stream connectivity, the impact on stream gains and losses were evaluated.
Figure 28 displays the average annual stream gain for each river under historical conditions, Water Year 2015, and in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario in ESJWRM. Water Year 2015 shows the smallest volumes of stream losses (or most stream gains for the lower San Joaquin River) compared to historical and PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenarios. There are greater stream losses in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario, particularly on the Mokelumne River and Stanislaus River. This is expected since the PCBLMinimum Thresholds scenario intentionally increases pumping to reduce groundwater levels.
Figure 29 displays a similar figure but shows the stream gains and losses as a percentage of stream inflow in ESJWRM. Note that Dry Creek was excluded because of misrepresentative ratios of accretions and depletions due to low stream flows. As a proportion of stream inflow, the stream losses on Calaveras River and Mokelumne River are less in the PCBL-Minimum Threshold scenario than in Water Year 2015 and are similar to historical trends. The model shows that the Calaveras River has a ratio higher than 100 percent since the stream accretes runoff from precipitation, increasing the total stream inflow, which is later seeped.
The Stanislaus River loses slightly more, increasing from 10 percent in Water Year 2015 to 14 percent in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario. One potential cause for the increase on the Stanislaus River is the boundary conditions with the Modesto Subbasin as simulated by ESJWRM. While induced pumping occurs only in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario, there are additional stressors on the system from climate change in the Modesto Subbasin that are driving groundwater levels lower outside of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, resulting in additional depletions. Under ideal circumstances, the neighboring subbasins will reach sustainability in concert with Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin; however, the modeling assumptions assume the worst-case scenario.
Figure 30 and Figure 31 visualize the results of the analysis spatially. Figure 30 illustrates the average annual stream gains and losses in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario. The model shows the greatest stream losses occur on the upper Mokelumne River, central portion of the Stanislaus River (halfway between Goodwin Dam and the confluence with the San Joaquin River), and the lower San Joaquin River just upstream of the confluence with the Calaveras River. Dry Creek and the Calaveras River are losing slightly less from the stream system, on average. The lower Mokelumne River, upstream and downstream segments of the Stanislaus River, and lower San Joaquin River all experience net stream gain from the aquifer system.
This generally occurs in areas with high groundwater levels.
Figure 31 shows the differences in average annual simulated stream gains between the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario and Water Year 2015. The areas with more pink show greater losses in the PBCLMinimum Thresholds scenario. The model shows the greatest difference in stream losses occurs in the central segment of the Stanislaus River. As previously discussed, this increase could be partially driven by the impacts of simulated climate change across the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin boundary in the Modesto Subbasin as simulated by ESJWRM.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 42 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 28: Average Annual Simulated Stream Gain by River in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Figure 29: Average Annual Simulated Stream Gain as a Percentage of Streamflow by River in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin
Note: Dry Creek was excluded due to low and zero stream flows skewing the resulting ratios. -180,000
-160,000
-140,000
-120,000
-100,000
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000
0 20,000
40,000
Calaveras Dry Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
AFY
Average Net Stream Gain, by River in ESJ
Historical (1996-2023) WY 2015 PCBL CC MT
-66%
-34%
2% 2%
-137%
-55%
10%
-10%
-77%
-44%
1%
-14%
-160%
-140%
-120%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
Calaveras Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
Percent
Average Net Stream Gain as Percentage of Streamflow, by River in ESJ Historical (1996-2023) WY 2015 PCBL CC MT
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 43 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 30: Average Annual Simulated Stream Gains in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds Scenario ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 44 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 31: Difference in Average Annual Simulated Stream Gains between PCBL-Minimum Thresholds Scenario and Water Year 2015
Note: Negative numbers (pink) indicated additional stream losses under the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds Scenario
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 45 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
6.1.3 Seasonal Stream Gains and Losses
It is important to look at seasonal stream flows and depletions since beneficial users of the stream rely on stream flows during specific times of year. For example, surface water diverters generally divert water during the irrigation season. Additionally, fish spawning and rearing are critical time periods for aquatic health.
Groundwater dependent ecosystems rely on high groundwater levels in the summertime when precipitation declines.
Figure 32 below shows the stream gains and losses for each river in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin by quarter for historical conditions, Water Year 2015, and the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario in ESJWRM.
Note that the y-axis of the chart shows the average monthly stream gains for the months within that quarter specifically for the stream-aquifer interactions within the ESJ Subbasin. There are additional stream losses in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario for all rivers in all quarters compared to historical conditions and Water Year 2015 (with the exception of the Calaveras River in the Fall, which is not a connected river).
Specifically, the Mokelumne River and Stanislaus River in the model see the greatest increase in stream losses under the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario in all quarters. As previously discussed, this is expected since the PBCL-Minimum Thresholds scenario artificially increases pumping to drive down groundwater levels.
Figure 33 shows the stream gains as a percentage of stream inflow by quarter for each model scenario and timeframe. Note that Dry Creek was excluded because misrepresentative ratios of accretions and depletions due to low stream flows. The simulated results show that the Calaveras River has a ratio higher than 100 percent since the stream accretes runoff from precipitation, increasing the total stream inflow, which is later seeped. This is especially evident in the Fall of 2014 (in Water Year 2015) when the stream inflows are relatively low, and the Calaveras River is seeping runoff into the aquifer system. Stream losses as a proportion of streamflow are generally equal to or less than Water Year 2015 or historical conditions in all quarters.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 46 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 32: Average Simulated Monthly Net Stream Gain by River in Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin -20,000
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0 5,000
Calaveras Dry Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
AF/month
October-December
-20,000
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0 5,000
Calaveras Dry Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
AF/month
January-March
-20,000
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0 5,000
Calaveras Dry Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
AF/month
April-June
-20,000
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0 5,000
Calaveras Dry Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
AF/month
July- September
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 47 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 Figure 33: Average Simulated Monthly Stream Gain as a Percentage of Flow by River in Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Note: Dry Creek was excluded due to low and zero stream flows skewing the resulting ratios. -400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
Calaveras Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
Percent
October - December
-400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
Calaveras Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
Percent
January - March
-400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
Calaveras Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
Percent
April - June
-400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
Calaveras Mokeulmne San Joaquin Stanislaus
Percent
July - September
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 48 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
6.1.4 Conclusions
The ISW SMCs for wells with historical groundwater level observations are the same as those for the chronic lowering of groundwater level SMCs for representative monitoring wells with historic data. The analysis to justify that the groundwater level SMCs are protective of stream depletions compared stream-aquifer interactions (stream connectivity, stream gains and losses, and stream gains and losses as a percentage of streamflow) of historical and Water Year 2015 conditions to a PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario.
The PCBL-Minimum Thresholds model scenario artificially induces additional pumping to lower groundwater levels to their minimum thresholds, “forcing” undesirable results. The result of the analysis showed that the groundwater level SMCs used as ISW SMC keep connected streams connected based on the 75 percent comparison point. While stream losses increase when groundwater levels drop, the percentage of stream losses as a percentage of stream inflow is similar to historical and Water Year 2015 conditions. The Stanislaus River shows higher stream losses as a proportion of streamflow, from 10 percent in Water Year 2015 to 14 percent in the PCBL-Minimum Thresholds scenario. However, the influence of climate change on groundwater levels in the neighboring subbasin could be driving additional stream depletions from lower groundwater levels due to climate change. The seasonal analysis of stream-aquifer interactions revealed similar trends by quarter. These additional stream losses do not cause undesirable results because the percentage of stream losses as a percentage of streamflow is generally equal to or better than Water Year 2015 conditions, and therefore the Subbasin did not “experience” undesirable results (as discussed in Section 4).
Understanding stream depletions due to pumping remains a data gap, despite recent progress and updates.
The ISW SMCs established here will be reconsidered after additional DWR guidance on the subject has been released.
6.2 SMCs for New Wells
The ISW RMN includes new monitoring wells that have been recently constructed specifically to collect data to better understand stream-aquifer interactions. Table 5 summarizes the construction information for the new monitoring wells. These new wells fill a data gap as discussed in Section 5.1; however, there are insufficient groundwater level observations to establish SMCs for these new wells. Bi-annual collection of groundwater levels at these sites will continue to fill the data gap. Some wells will have transducers installed using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding allowing for more frequent groundwater level observation collection to enhance understanding of stream-aquifer interactions and model calibration. SMCs will be established at these representative monitoring sites after at least four years of data have been collected, including data for at least one wet year and one dry or critical year during that time period. If wet and dry/critical years do not occur during this initial period, then additional years of data collection may be required before establishing SMCs.
Minimum Thresholds for these and other new wells that may be constructed in the future will be established based on adjusted recent groundwater levels from a dry/critical year. The adjustment of groundwater levels is the difference in simulated groundwater levels in ESJWRM between Water Year 2015 (a dry year) and the recent dry/critical year when groundwater level observations are measured. The calculation for the Minimum Threshold is:
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑
= 𝑂𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑟𝑦/𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑊𝐿 − (𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐺𝑊𝐿𝑠 − 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 2015 𝐺𝑊𝐿𝑠)
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 49 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024 As a hypothetical example, suppose Water Year 2027 is a critical year and the observed groundwater elevation for Well C is 75 feet mean sea level (msl) in 2027. Assuming that the simulated groundwater elevations in ESJWRM at Well C increase by 8 feet between 2015 and 2027. The Minimum Threshold would be 75 feet minus 8 feet, or 67 feet msl.
Conversely, Measurable Objectives will be established from an adjustment in groundwater levels from a wet year. The adjustment will add the difference in simulated groundwater levels from ESJWRM between Water Year 2011 (a wet year) and a recent wet year when groundwater level observations are collected. The calculation for Measurable Objectives is:
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑂𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠
= 𝑂𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝐺𝑊𝐿 + (𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐺𝑊𝐿 − 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 2011 𝐺𝑊𝐿𝑠)
As a hypothetical example, suppose Water Year 2026 is a wet year, and the observed groundwater elevation for Well C is 82 feet msl that year. Suppose that the simulated groundwater elevations in ESJWRM at Well C decrease by 15 feet between Water Year 2011 and 2026. The Measurable Objective would be 82 feet minus negative 15 feet, equaling 97 feet msl.
In the absence of historical data, this methodology is meant to estimate historical conditions as closely as possible.
Table 5: New ISW Wells’ Drill Date, Perforation, and Groundwater Depth Well ID Drill End
Date
Well Perforations (feet
below ground surface)
Groundwater Depth (at
drill date, feet)
Ground Surface
Elevation (ft msl)
Well A 11/15/2022 14 – 31.5 15
Well B 11/16/2022 25 – 35 50.5
Well C 11/17/2022 15 – 30 16 94.4
Well E 11/21/2022 35 – 50 51.5 89
Well G 11/18/2022 26 – 41 26 214.5
Delta
Well
8/23/2024 125 – 150,
275 – 300
11.4 – Shallow
28.2 – Deep
ft msl – feet mean sea level
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 50 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
6.3 2024 Amended GSP ISW SMCs
The ISW SMCs, including the Minimum Thresholds, Measurable Objectives, and Interim Milestones, are summarized below in Table 6. As previously discussed, SMCs for new ISW RMN wells will be established after a minimum of four years of groundwater level data have been collected. The ISW SMCs for wells with historical groundwater level data available are the same as the chronic lowering of groundwater level SMCs for the same wells; these SMCs have been shown to protective of connected surface waters and will not result in significant and unreasonable undesirable impacts for stream depletions, as described in Section
6.1. Table 6: ISW SMCs
Well ID
Minimum
Threshold
(ft msl)
Measurable
Objective (ft
msl)
Interim Milestones (ft msl)
2025 2030 2035
Well A New well – need to collect data
Well B New well – need to collect data
Well C New well – need to collect data
Well E New well – need to collect data
Well G New well – need to collect data
Delta Well New well – need to collect data
04N05E36H003 -31.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1
Swenson-3 -26.6 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3
Frankenheimer (01S10E26J001M) 43.7 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7
Burnett (OID-4) 60.8 79.7 79.7 79.7 79.7
02S07E31N001 0.8 12.3 13.8 13.8 13.1
02S08E08A001 0.6 24 22.2 22.2 23.1
ft msl = feet mean sea level
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 51 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
7. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin GSAs are making significant progress on improving the understanding of and proactively managing interconnected surface waters and stream depletions. This technical memorandum summarizes a robust analysis of stream-aquifer interactions conducted using the existing modeling toolset, given the absence of DWR guidance on the subject. The GSAs are continuing to work towards filling ISW data gaps, including the recent construction of six new monitoring wells that are included in the ISW RMN. Additionally, the recalibration and introduction of a new shallow alluvium stratigraphic layer in ESJWRM supports a better analysis of stream-aquifer interconnectivity.
The 2024 Amended GSP includes a dedicated ISW RMN (Chapter 4 of the Amended GSP). The SMCs for new ISW-specific wells will be developed after at least four years of groundwater level observations have been collected. The SMCs for existing wells draw upon existing thresholds from the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability criterion. Groundwater level SMCs have been shown to be protective of groundwater dependent ecosystems and domestic wells, and this report reveals that they are also protective of stream depletions. Streams that are 75 percent connected historically and in Water Year 2015 remain connected in a hypothetical model scenario that artificially lowers groundwater levels to minimum thresholds. When groundwater levels lower to minimum thresholds, there are additional stream losses, especially on the Mokelumne River and Stanislaus River. However, as a percentage of streamflow, they are generally equal to or less than historical or 2015 conditions in all seasons.
Next steps for the Subbasin GSAs include engaging with entities to improve the understanding of impacts on beneficial users of interconnected surface waters, additional data collection for existing and new wells, possible revisions of the ISW SMCs following release of DWR guidance documents on the subject, and refining the ESJWRM and analyses based on newly collected data to reevaluate the ISW undesirable result and SMCs in the next 5-year Periodic Evaluation in 2030.
ATTACHMENT 2
ESJ 2025 GSP Update 52 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 5: Interconnected Surface Water November 2024
8. REFERENCES
California Department of Water Resources. (2017). “Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater: Sustainable Management Criteria.” November, https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-GuidanceDocuments/Files/BMP-6-Sustainable-Management-Criteria-DRAFT_ay_19.pdf California Department of Water Resources. (2024). “Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water: An Introduction.” February,
https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/CNRA/2024/02/21/file_attachments/2790386/depletion sofisw_paper1_intro_draft.pdf
Setka, Jose D. (2024). “East Bay Municipal Utility District comments on the Development of Flow Criteria for Priority Streams.” 16 April,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/flow_objectives/docs/j ose_setka.pdf
The Nature Conservancy. (2024). “Statewide Status.” Casalmon.org, https://casalmon.org/statewide-status/#all-species
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 1 – DAILY STREAMFLOW AT MAJOR STREAM GAGES IN ESJ
SUBBASIN
ATTACHMENT 2
1 10
100
1000
10000
Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Stanislaus River - Gage OBB
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Stanislaus River - Gage OBB
ATTACHMENT 2
0.1 1
10 100
1000
10000
100000
1940194319461949195219551958196119641967197019731976197919821985198819911994199720002003200620092012201520182021 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Stanislaus River - Gage 11303000
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
1940194319461949195219551958196119641967197019731976197919821985198819911994199720002003200620092012201520182021 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Stanislaus River - Gage 11303000
ATTACHMENT 2
1 10
100
1000
10000
100000
19231927193119351939194319471951195519591963196719711975197919831987199119951999200320072011201520192023 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - San Joaquin River - Gage 11303500
0 10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
19231927193119351939194319471951195519591963196719711975197919831987199119951999200320072011201520192023 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - San Joaquin River - Gage 11303500
ATTACHMENT 2
0.1 1
10 100
1000
10000
100000
190419081912191619201924192819321936194019441948195219561960196419681972197619801984198819921996200020042008201220162020 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Mokelumne River - Gage 11323500
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
190419081912191619201924192819321936194019441948195219561960196419681972197619801984198819921996200020042008201220162020 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Mokelumne River - Gage 11323500
ATTACHMENT 2
0.1 1
10 100
1000
10000
100000
1924192819321936194019441948195219561960196419681972197619801984198819921996200020042008201220162020 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Mokelumne River - Gage 11325500
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1924192819321936194019441948195219561960196419681972197619801984198819921996200020042008201220162020 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Mokelumne River - Gage 11325500
ATTACHMENT 2
0.01 0.1
1 10
100
1000
10000
199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Mormon Slough - Gage MRS
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Mormon Slough - Gage MRS
ATTACHMENT 2
0.01 0.1
1 10
100
1000
10000
100000
192619291932193519381941194419471950195319561959196219651968197119741977198019831986198919921995 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Dry C NR Gale - Gage 11329500
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
192619291932193519381941194419471950195319561959196219651968197119741977198019831986198919921995 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Dry C NR Gale - Gage 11329500
ATTACHMENT 2
0.01 0.1
1 10
100
1000
10000
100000
Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Cosumnes River - Gage 11336000
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Cosumnes River - Gage 11336000
ATTACHMENT 2
1 10
100
1000
10000
100000
19401943194619491952195519581961196419671970197319761979198219851988199119941997200020032006200920122015201820212024 Cubic feet per second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Tuolumne River - Gage 11290000
0 10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
19401943194619491952195519581961196419671970197319761979198219851988199119941997200020032006200920122015201820212024 Cubic feet per second (CFS)
Date
Stream Flow - Tuolumne River - Gage 11290000
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2 – TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: DATA GAP IDENTIFICATION IN
THE EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN SUBBASIN
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3 – ADDITIONAL MAPS COMPARING STREAM-AQUIFER INTERACTIONS UNDER PROJECTED CONDITIONS BASELINEMINIMUM THRESHOLDS SCENARIO COMPARED TO
HISTORICAL AND CURRENT CONDITIONS
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
2024
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment
Complete Appendices November 2024
APPENDIX 3-H.
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA FOR GROUNDWATER LEVEL
MINIMUM THRESHOLDS
ATTACHMENT 2
CASGEM ID Local ID GSA Well is Located In
Historical
Drought
Low (2015)
(ft msl)
Total Well
Depth (ft
bgs)
Calculated
Buffer (ft
msl)
Depth of
10th
Percentile
Nearby
Domestic
Well (ft
msl)*
Historical
Drought
Low +
Buffer (ft
msl)
Minimum
Threshold
(ft msl)
Measurable
Objectives
(ft msl)
Current
Condition
(2013-2016)
(ft msl)
378824N1210000W001 01S09E05H002 Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District -8.6 256.0 54.3 -49.8 -62.9 -49.8 -8.6 -8.7 379316N1211665W001 01N07E14J002 Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District -49.9 176.0 44.0 -129.0 -93.9 -93.9 -49.9 -49.9Not in CASGEM Lodi City Well #2 City of Lodi 0.6 No Data 35.0 -56.3 -34.4 -34.4 0.6 0.6Not in CASGEM Manteca 18 City of Manteca 2.8 No Data 21.8 -58.2 -19.0 -19.0 2.8 9.1 380067N1213458W003 Swenson-3 City of Stockton -19.3 204.0 7.3 -97.4 -26.6 -26.6 -19.3 -19.3 378163N1208321W001 01S10E26J001M Eastside San Joaquin GSA 81.7 No Data 38.0 0.0 43.7 43.7 81.7 81.7 378846N1208816W001 01S10E04C001M Eastside San Joaquin GSA 76.4 No Data 21.7 0.0 54.7 54.7 76.4 78.0 380206N1210943W001 02N08E15M002 Linden County Water District -63.2 403.0 74.5 -124.1 -137.7 -124.1 -63.2 -63.2 Not in CASGEM #3 Bear Creek Lockeford Community Services District -51.8 No Data 22.0 -122.9 -73.8 -73.8 -51.8 -49.3 381843N1212261W001 04N07E20H003M North San Joaquin Water Conservation District -35.5 180.0 45.0 -110.3 -80.5 -80.5 -35.5 -35.5 380909N1212153W001 03N07E21L003 North San Joaquin Water Conservation District -51.5 No Data 42.5 -109.4 -94.0 -94.0 -51.5 -51.5382345N1212261W001 - 06 NSJWCD-01 North San Joaquin Water Conservation District NA 1255.0 NA NA NA NA NA NANot in CASGEM Hirschfeld (OID-8) Oakdale Irrigation District 31.5 No Data 23.6 -11.5 7.9 7.9 31.5 31.5 377909N1208675W001 Burnett (OID-4) Oakdale Irrigation District 79.7 249.0 18.9 28.2 60.8 60.8 79.7 79.7377136N1212508W001 02S07E31N001 South Delta Water Agency 12.3 226.0 11.5 -62.5 0.8 0.8 12.3 13.8 377810N1211142W001 02S08E08A001 South San Joaquin GSA 24.0 180.0 23.4 -42.2 0.6 0.6 24.0 22.2 380578N1212017W001 02N07E03D001 Stockton East Water District -61.7 484.0 52.0 -122.8 -113.7 -113.7 -61.7 -61.7 379661N1210011W001 01N09E05J001 Stockton East Water District -22.6 750.0 120.2 -86.8 -142.8 -86.8 -22.6 -20.2 379976N1212308W001 02N07E29B001 Stockton East Water District -80.4 202.0 60.6 -130.1 -141.0 -130.1 -80.4 -49.8379794N1211083W001 - 05 SEWD-01 Stockton East Water District NA 1650.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 381559N1213727W001 04N05E36H003 Woodbridge Irrigation District -5.1 112.0 26.0 -63.9 -31.1 -31.1 -5.1 -5.1 381317N1213524W001 03N06E05N003 Woodbridge Irrigation District -14.1 292.0 21.0 -55.3 -35.1 -35.1 -14.1 -14.1 381816N1213723W001 04N05E24J004 Woodbridge Irrigation District -6.2 190.0 25.0 -65.5 -31.2 -31.2 -6.2 -6.2 *Data source for domestic and municipal well depths is the California DWR Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR) N/A = Not Applicable
ATTACHMENT
2 2024
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment
Complete Appendices November 2024
APPENDIX 3-I.
HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING GROUNDWATER MINIMUM
THRESHOLDS AND MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
2024
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment
Complete Appendices November 2024
APPENDIX 3-J.
DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT 2
BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN
GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION R-24-02
ADOPTING PROGRAM FOR DRY DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION
WHEREAS, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (“Authority”) is a Joint Powers Authority created by the 16 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (“GSAs”) overlying the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin to coordinate the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”) and activities thereunder as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”).
WHEREAS, SGMA encourages GSAs to include in their GSP implementation measures that provide mitigation for undesirable results of overdraft, including the failure of domestic water supply wells due to overdraft pumping occurring after January 1, 2015; WHEREAS, the GSA’s in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin have not experienced significant dry well reports as reported by the State of California Dry Well Reporting System or as reported by individuals within the GSAs;
WHEREAS, nevertheless the GSA’s desire to establish a single program, to be operated through the Authority, that can be used to provide emergency, interim and longterm mitigation assistance for owners and other persons who experience a failure of a domestic water supply well due to overdraft pumping within the subbasin; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Authority that:
1. The attached Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Program for Domestic Well Mitigation is hereby adopted and approved. The Program establishes the rules and procedures to be used by the Authority and its members to address mitigation for failure of domestic water supply wells caused by groundwater overdraft occurring after January 1, 2015.
2. The Program shall be implemented by the Authority and coordinated through the designated Authority Secretary.
3. The DRY WELL MITIGATION FUND (FUND) is hereby created with a funding target in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000.00).
Initial funding shall be raised from GSA Member dues as part of the Authority’s annual budget and apportioned to Member GSAs using the Authority’s annual budget allocation formula.
4. Program activities and funding needs shall be reviewed annually and updated as needed with the understanding that this is an evolving situation and there is a need to establish an initial Program and then adjust as the GSA Members learn more about the needs of the community.
ATTACHMENT 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this_ day of ___ 2024, by the following vote of the Board of Directors of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, to wit:
AYES: Jason Colombini, Mike Henry, Robert Holmes, Dante Nomellini, Christy McKinnon, Keith Bussman, Mitchell Maidrand, Mel Panizza, John Herrick, Myron Blanton, Eric Thorburn, Alan Nakanishi, and David Breitenbucher.
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: George Biagi, Michael Blower, Paul Canepa, Anthony Carrasco, Kevin Jorgensen, Trais Kahrs, Mel Lytle, Scot Moody, Robert Rickman, Reid Roberts, Eric Schmid, Grant Thompson, Gary Tofanelli, Jose Valente, Andrew Watkins, and Dan Wright.
✓dif��
Robert Rickman
Chairman, Board of Directors
Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater
Authority
ATTEST: Fritz Buchman, C.E., P.E., CFM
Secretary, Board of Directors
Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater
Authority
11 September
ATTACHMENT 2
122776153.2 0082836-00001
Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Program for Domestic Well Mitigation (draft 08/08/24, approved by the ESJGWA on __________)
1. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY LIMITS: This Program provides emergency, interim and financial mitigation for domestic water supply wells that have been determined to have failed due to groundwater overdraft conditions occurring since January 1, 2015.
2. DRY WELL MITIGATION FUND: The Authority shall establish a DRY WELL MITIGATION FUND (FUND) with a funding target in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000.00).
2.01 Initial funding shall be raised from GSA Member dues as part of the Authority’s annual budget and apportioned to Member GSAs using the Authority’s annual budget allocation formula.
2.02 By action of the Authority Bord of Directors, the Fund may be replenished by utilizing reserves or additional Member dues as part of the Authority’s annual budgeting process or as a budget amendment.
2.03 Should the Fund fall below ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00), GSA Members will meet and confer in good faith to determine the appropriate funding mechanism, replenishment amount, and GSA Member allocation methodology prior to Fund replenishment.
3. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND CLAIMS ASSISTANCE: Authority and GSA Members shall assign staff or representatives (collectively herein referred to as “staff”) to engage in public outreach to give notice to domestic well owners and residents of their right to request assistance under this Program, and how to apply for assistance.
3.01 Outreach: Staff will perform outreach to populations likely to require assistance under this Program and create fliers, social media posts and website links to publicize this Program. The above fliers shall be posted at appropriate locations such as County Environmental Health Departments, GSA offices, Farm Bureau locations, community organizations and City and County Public Works and Utility Offices. The Authority may also contract with non-governmental organizations to assist with outreach.
3.02 Development of an Application for Assistance: Staff will develop a simple application from for residents applying for assistance under this Program. Pertinent information submitted with the application form may include contact information, location of the well, age of the well, well construction information such as total depth of the well, screen intervals, annular seal depth, and date the well first failed to produce water or meet water quality standards. Applicants will be strongly urged to provide evidence such as official lab results, declarations from a licensed well driller identifying the cause of the well failure (if available), and all other evidence in ATTACHMENT 2
122776153.2 0082836-00001
applicant’s possession that the failure was caused by overdraft pumping (i.e. depth to water measurements, nearby wells, etc.).
3.03 Filing Applications for Assistance: Staff will assist residents with filing the request for assistance called for in this Program. The Authority may also contract with non-governmental organizations to assist residents with filing claims.
4. CLAIMS PROCESS:
4.01 Limitations Period: All claims brought under this Program must have accrued after January 1, 2015. Claims brought that accrued between January 1, 2015 and the adoption of this policy shall be brought within six months of the adoption of this policy. The limitations period for claims brought after the adoption of this policy shall be the limitations process and period provided by the California Government Tort Claims Act (Government Code Section 810 and following).
4.02 Technical Review Committee: A Technical Review Committee will be formed to review each application under this Policy. The Technical Review Committee shall consist of the following members:
4.02.1 The District Engineer for the GSA where the well is located.
4.02.2 A licensed hydrologist hired by the Authority on an eligibility list preapproved by the ESJGWA Steering Committee.
4.02.3 A registered Environmental Health Specialist from the County Environmental Health Department in which the well is located.
4.02.4 The well owner, agent (i.e. well driller, independent consultant, attorney, or designated representative), or environmental justice advocate selected from a list compiled by the ESJGWA Steering Committee.
4.02.5 A technical representative designated by a Member GSA that is not the GSA for the area in where the well is located. The Steering Committee will vet and compile a list of names of eligible technical representatives from Member GSAs and assign a person from this list to serve on the Technical Review Committee on a rotating basis.
5. Interim Remedies: The Authority will work with county Office of Emergency Services where the well is located, other non-governmental agencies, or directly with vendors to ensure the applicant is provided an interim water supply to all applicants with a reasonable facial complaint for damages. An interim water supply consists of bottled water intended to meet drinking water and cooking needs while the claim is reviewed and processed. If the claim is approved, the Authority will ensure that an interim water supply will continue until the selected mitigation is complete.
ATTACHMENT 2
122776153.2 0082836-00001
6. Claims Subject to Mitigation: The following claims are eligible for mitigation assistance under this Program:
6.01 Well Failures caused by declining water levels that were caused by overdraft pumping that occurred after January 1, 2015.
6.02 Well Failures due to water quality problems caused by overdraft pumping that occurred after January 1, 2015. Water quality problems means well water that exceeds State or Federal maximum contaminant levels. Water quality problems that are not the result of overdraft pumping shall not be subject to mitigation under this Program. Eligibility for an alternative water supply such as bottled water may be available through CV-Salts.
6.03 Well failure due to subsidence caused by overdraft pumping that occurred after January 1, 2015.
7. Claim Administration:
7.01 Notice of Claim: Claims must be submitted in the form of a completed application to:
Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority
Director of Public Works, San Joaquin County
PO BOX 1810
Stockton, CA 95201
Or in-person:
Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority
Director of Public Works, San Joaquin County
1810 E. Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95201
7.02 The Secretary of the Authority is authorized to summarily reject any claim if and only if, the well failure can be remedied by replacing failed electrical or mechanical pump components without needing to re-drill the well.
7.03 The Technical Review Committee shall have authority to conduct its own investigation of the evidence including contracting with hydrogeologists and well drillers, researching county well records and requesting records from the applicant.
7.04 The Technical Review Committee will draft a written technical memorandum recommending how, whether and to what extent to mitigate a claim, if any, within 15 days of receipt of the application together with any additional information requested by the Technical Review Committee.
7.05 The Technical Committee will forward its Technical Memorandum and Recommendation for funding/mitigation to the GWA Steering Committee. The ATTACHMENT 2
122776153.2 0082836-00001
GWA Steering Committee will issue a final written decision on the Claim within 40 days of receipt of the Technical Review Committee’s memorandum. The written decision will be provided to the Claimant via mail at the address located in the Application on the date it is issued.
7.06 The GWA Steering Committee may decide to provide complete or partial mitigation for a particular Claim based on the Committee’s determination of the percentage of responsibility for the well failure related to groundwater pumping as opposed to other contributing factors, such as the age or construction of the well.
7.07 A Claimant may appeal a decision of the GWA Steering Committee by submitting a written appeal to the GWA Board Chair within 30 days of the mailing date of the GWA Steering Committee Decision. The appeal shall contain a copy of the original application, the Technical Memorandum and the Steering Committee Decision and state the basis for the appeal.
7.08 The GWA Board Chair shall agendize the appeal for the next quarterly GWA Board Meeting that is at least 15 days after receipt of the appeal and provide written notice and the agenda to the appellant.
7.09 The GWA Board of Directors shall act on the appeal and issue a written decision.
The decision of the GWA Board of Directors shall be final.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment
Complete Appendices November 2024
APPENDIX 5-A.
LIST OF DMS DATA TYPES
ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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 ATTACHMENT 2
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
0.0625millimeters
Surface Water Quality Suspended solids remaining after ignition, water, unfiltered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Suspended solids, water, unfiltered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Tantalum,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality tau-Fluvalinate,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality tau-Fluvalinate,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Tebupirimfos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tebupirimphos oxygen analog,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tebuthiuron,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tefluthrin acid benzyl ester,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tefluthrin acid pentafluorobenzyl ester,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tefluthrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Tefluthrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Tefluthrin,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Temephos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Temperature,air degrees Celsius
Surface Water Quality Temperature,water degrees Celsius Surface Water Quality Terbacil,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Terbacil,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Terbufos oxygen analog sulfone,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Terbufos,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter ATTACHMENT 2
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Terbuthylazine,surrogate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter) percent recovery Surface Water Quality Terbuthylazine,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tetrachloroethene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tetrachloromethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tetramethrin,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Tetramethrin,suspended sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Thiobencarb,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Thorium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Tin,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Titanium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved (native water), field,recoverable,dry weight percent
Surface Water Quality Titanium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Toluene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Topical quality-control data purpose code Surface Water Quality Total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonia + organicN),water,filtered,analytically determined milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonia + organicN),water,unfiltered,analytically determined milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Total nitrogen,bed sediment,total, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Total nitrogen,water,filtered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Total nitrogen,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter Surface Water Quality Total nitrogen,water,unfiltered milligrams per liter as nitrate
Surface Water Quality Toxaphene,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality Toxaphene,bed sediment,recoverable,dry weight micrograms per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Toxaphene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality trans-1,2-Dichloroethene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality trans-Chlordane,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality trans-Nonachlor,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality trans-Permethrin,bed sediment smaller than 2 millimeters,wet sieved (native water),field,recoverable,dry weight
micrograms per
kilogram
Surface Water Quality trans-Propiconazole,water,filtered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Triallate,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tribenuron-methyl,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tribromomethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Tribuphos,water,filtered,recoverable micrograms per liter ATTACHMENT 2
Data Type Parameter Unit
Surface Water Quality Tribuphos,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Trichloroethene,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Trichlorofluoromethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Trichloromethane,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Triclopyr,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Trifluralin, water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Trifluralin,water,filtered (0.7 micron glass fiber filter),recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Trihalomethanes,water,unfiltered,maximum summation micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Turbidity, water, unfiltered nephelometric turbidity units
Surface Water Quality Turbidity,water,unfiltered Jackson Turbidity Units Surface Water Quality Type of quality assurance data associated with sample code Surface Water Quality Type of replicate code
Surface Water Quality Uranium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Vanadium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Vanadium,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Vinyl chloride,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Water present,biota,tissue, recoverable, dry weight percent Surface Water Quality Xylene (all isomers), water, unfiltered, recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Ytterbium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Yttrium,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Zinc,bed sediment smaller than 62.5 microns,wet sieved, filed, total digestion, dry weight milligrams per kilogram
Surface Water Quality Zinc,bed sediment,recoverable, dry weight milligrams per kilogram Surface Water Quality Zinc,suspended sediment,recoverable micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Zinc,water,filtered micrograms per liter Surface Water Quality Zinc,water,unfiltered,recoverable micrograms per liter ATTACHMENT 2
APPENDIX 6-A.
ADDITIONAL PROJECT AND MANAGEMENT ACTION
PROJECTS
Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Complete Appendices November 2024
ATTACHMENT 2
This appendix includes projects and management actions that were approved by the ESJGSA Board of Directors at their September 11, 2024 meeting. At the meeting, the Board approved by resolution the addition of 5 projects to the GSP. These projects include:
• Mariposa Drain Water Delivery Improvement Project – Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District GSA
• South System Pipeline Phase 4 Improvement Project – North San Joaquin Water Conservation District GSA
• Q/Qc Conjunctive Use Project – South San Joaquin GSA
• SSJID Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project – South San Joaquin GSA • Clements Road Pipeline Project – Stockton East Water District The South System Pipeline Phase 4 Improvement Project is already included in the 42 projects listed in Table 6-1 and is discussed in Section 6.2.4.5 of the GSP. The other four projects are new additions that are not included in Table 6-1, nor in the writeups in the GSP, but are summarized below.
The addition of these four Category B projects have the potential to bring an additional 9,781 AF/year of recharge benefit to the Eastern San Joaquin subbasin. Combined with the 42 Category B projects already identified in Table 6- 1, these 46 projects result in a total maximum benefit of 531,766 AF/year in groundwater offset/recharge/conservation that could potentially be made available to the Subbasin if funding and water rights are secured.
ATTACHMENT 2
Project
Name Project Type Project Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting
and
Regulatory
Process1
Maximum
Recharge
Benefit
(AF/year) Capital Annual O&M
Additional Category B Projects - projects that are not anticipated to advance in the next five years, but may be implemented in the future, particularly if Category A projects do not fully achieve stated recharge and/or offset targets or do not produce a response as simulated in the model.
Mariposa Drain
Water Delivery
Project
In-lieu
Recharge
CSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Planning To Be
Determined
$300,000 To Be
Determined
Not
determined
5,000
Q/Qc
Conjunctive
Use Project
In-lieu
Recharge
SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Design 2025 $4.5 million To Be
Determined
CEQA/NEPA
(MND/ISMND),
Power
(Modesto
Irrigation
District), Road
Encroachment
Permits,
SWPPP
1,081
SSJID
Advanced
Metering
Infrastructure
Project
In-lieu
Recharge and
Water Use
Efficiency
SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Late Planning 2025 $5 million $350,000 Not
determined
2,500
Clements Road
Pipeline Project
In-Lieu
Recharge
SEWD Groundwater
levels
Planning 2025 $2.5 million To Be
Determined
Not
determined
1,200
Total Additional Category B Projects 9,781
Total Category B Projects (including 4 new projects) 531,766 ATTACHMENT 2
Mariposa Drain Water Delivery Project
CSJWCD receives federal contract water from New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River. This water is released to SEWD via Goodwin Tunnel and then to Farmington Dam. Stored water from the dam is then released to Rock Creek which flows to Little Johns Creek, and then into Temple and Duck Creek. Water is pumped from these three creeks to serve farms via both developed and non-developed facilities of CSJWCD at each pump site. One such system is the 6.6- mile-long Mariposa Drain Delivery System. Currently, there are four fixed-speed pumps used to lift water from Little Johns Creek into the Mariposa Drain Delivery System for water deliveries. Downstream demands are impossible to meet with four fixed speed pumping systems, unless over-pumping is performed, which is nearly always the case. Such over delivery is an inefficient use of both electricity and water as unused water is lost at the end of the delivery system.
This project would convert two of these pumps to variable speed drive pumps and automate the first downstream gate structure to communicate with the newly converted pumps. These changes will help better regulate flows to more closely match downstream demands, thereby reducing over-commitment of water and improving service to customers. To better match downstream demand with flow will free up ditch capacity that will then be used to serve additional agricultural land, further offsetting groundwater use with surface water deliveries. Future phases of this project would include the automation of the other check structures and two downstream lift stations in the Mariposa Delivery system to further enhance water control and conservation of both water and electricity.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Central San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: In-Lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 5,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: The project is still in the initial planning stages and will move forward as funding becomes available.
CSJWCD is applying for a WaterSmart Grant to fund the first phase of this project.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting and regulatory process for this project has not been determined.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The initiation and completion dates for this project are currently unknown.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset up to 5,000 AF/year in groundwater pumping in CSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project relies on this use of surface water from the New Melones Unit Central Valley Project. The surface water source is based upon a contract with the United States for delivery of surface water from the New Melones Unit of the Central Valley Project. The contract is long-term; however, water availability is subject to drought conditions. This is an existing water right.
Legal Authority: The Water Code, Division 21 §74000 et seq. authorizes CSJWCD to acquire, sell, and distribute water and fix rates for service throughout the District.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $300,000 in capital costs. Annual operations and maintenance costs are unknown at this time. Costs for this project would be met by grant funding.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Category B project and may move forward as funding becomes available. Category B projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Category A projects. As scenarios change, the project can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation include securing funding. Project may be implemented on a smaller scale depending on use of water by other projects in ATTACHMENT 2
the District.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of this project will be based on funding availability.
Q/Qc Conjunctive Use Project
SSJID has identified several projects aimed at enhancing irrigation service demand, capacity, and the cost-effectiveness of implementation. One high-priority project is the construction of a regulating basin at the District’s Lateral Q and Lateral Qc junction. The project involves the construction of a new 18.4-acre lined operating regulating basin with a storage capacity of 60 acre-feet, a new water service turnout, and a Q-Qc lateral interconnection. The project will be equipped with SCADA technology to provide better measurement and control to ensure supply matches demand.
The Project will enable the delivery of surface water to areas currently reliant on groundwater. The project would reduce operational spills by 650 AF/year, reduce agricultural demands by 40 AF/year, and replace 1,081 AF/year of groundwater use with surface water, thereby conserving groundwater for drought periods. The total water supply benefits will be 1,771 AF/year. The project will benefit agricultural, rural and urban water users.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: In-Lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 1,081 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: The project is at the 70% design stage. The initial study was completed in 2023, and SSJ GSA has executed a Property Purchase Agreement with the local landowner.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: CEQA/NEPA - MND/ISMND, Power through Modesto Irrigation District, roads encroachment permits through San Joaquin County, SWPPP Time-table for Initiation and Completion: Construction on this project is expected to begin as soon as Fall of 2025.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset up to 1,081 AF/year in groundwater pumping in the District’s extent. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: SSJID holds pre- and post-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. These are existing water rights.
Legal Authority: SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law. SSJID has an executed land purchase agreement to buy the property required for the project.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $4.5 million in capital costs.
Annual operations and maintenance costs are unknown at this time. Costs for this project would be met by grant funding, district capital reserves, and through rate payers.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Category B project and may move forward as funding becomes available. Category B projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Category A projects. As scenarios change, the project can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management.
ATTACHMENT 2
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of this project will be based on bids received, and final award by the Board of Directors.
SSJID Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project
SSJID is proposing the use of real-time flower meters, equipped with telemetry, on more than 400 service connections.
This installation would improve on-farm water management and reporting of water use to the District. This would allow for higher accuracy and precision for surface water deliveries made to District customers. Additionally, the District would make this information available to the customers, allowing for customers to see near-real time pumping volumes. This improvement is anticipated to provide 5-6% of water savings to customers, resulting in 2,500 AF of groundwater offset annually.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: In-Lieu Recharge and Water
Use Efficiency
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 2,500 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities by improving water use efficiency.
Project Status: The project is in the late planning stages. SSJ GSA is finalizing the equipment specifications and cost estimates.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting and regulatory process for this project has not been determined.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: Equipment procurement for this project is expected in Fall 2025.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset up to 2,500 AF/year in groundwater pumping by improving water use efficiency. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will improve water use efficiency of existing water. The District will use the Irrigation Operations and SCADA work force to install.
Legal Authority: SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law. SSJID has executed Right to Enter Agreements with customers.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $5 million in capital costs. Annual operations and maintenance costs are estimated at $350,000. Costs for this project would be met by grant funding, district capital reserves, and through rate payers.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Category B project and may move forward as funding becomes available. Category B projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Category A projects. As scenarios change, the project can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of this project will be based on approval by the Board of Directors.
ATTACHMENT 2
Clements Road Pipeline Project
This project is a continuation of the Water Supply Enhancement Project which aims to enhance water supply accessibility for on-farm in-lieu recharge by distributing surface through the proposed Clements Gravity Pipeline. By providing surface water to farmers who currently lack access, the project will reduce groundwater overdraft in these regions. Additionally, this project will provide a more resilient water delivery to urban customers in drought periods by providing surface water in addition to groundwater for conjunctive use. The estimated water offset is 1,200 acre-feet per year, depending on the water year type.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Stockton East Water District
Project Type: In-Lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 1,200 AF/yr Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: The project is still in the initial planning stages and will move forward as funding becomes available.
SEWD is applying for a WaterSmart Grant to fund this project.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting and regulatory process for this project has not been determined.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The initiation and completion dates for this project are currently unknown.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset additional groundwater pumping in the SEWD service area. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: The identification of water source will occur as project develops.
Legal Authority: SEWD is a local agency with its own enabling legislation established to serve water for agricultural and municipal demands. SEWD is also a GSA with authority on groundwater pumping.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $2.5 million in capital costs.
Annual operations and maintenance costs are unknown at this time. Costs for this project would be met by grant funding, and District funds.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Category B project and may move forward as funding becomes available. Category B projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Category A projects. As scenarios change, the project can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation include securing funding. Project may be implemented on a smaller scale depending on use of water by other projects in the District.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of this project will be based on funding availability.
ATTACHMENT 2
This page is intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment
Complete Appendices November 2024
APPENDIX 6-B.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.6 – DEMAND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment 1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Demand Management Program November 2024 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 6 – DEMAND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
TO: Paul Gosselin, California Department of Water Resources, Deputy Director CC: Ashley Couch, on behalf of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority PREPARED BY: GSA Legal Representation & Emily Honn, Woodard & Curran REVIEWED BY: Katie Cole and Leslie Dumas, Woodard & Curran DATE: November 2024
RE: Demand Management Program in Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin
1. PURPOSE
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are directing groundwater basins to include a “Demand Management Program” in their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) as a backstop to achieving the basin’s sustainability goal. Their reasoning is that surface water availability and the funding and actual completion of projects and management actions (PMAs) to use more surface water (in-lieu of groundwater) are uncertain. The State wants to see that each basin has a detailed plan in place to allocate and impose pumping restrictions if needed to prevent undesirable results.
The 2020 Eastern San Joaquin (ESJ) Subbasin GSP noted that “…if the projects do not progress, or if monitoring efforts demonstrate that the projects are not effective in achieving stated recharge and/or offset targets, the GWA will convene a working group to evaluate supply-side and demand-side management actions such as the implementation of groundwater pumping curtailments, land fallowing, etc.” And it was subsequently identified in the 2022 Revised GSP that mandatory demand reductions may be considered as an adaptive management strategy for the ESJ Subbasin. In the 2024 Plan Amendment, a new management action is being added to describe the development of a demand management program that can be used as a backstop, if necessary, to achieve and/or maintain the Subbasin’s sustainability goal.
It is the still the overall theme and goal of the ESJ GSP to first implement supply projects to manage overdraft and reach basin sustainability. The Demand Management Program is a management action intended to respond to direction provided by the State and outline the demand side actions that would be taken if supply side actions are not effective in meeting overall basin sustainability goals.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment 2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Demand Management Program November 2024
1.1 Strategies to Reduce Groundwater Use
There are two principal ways to reduce reliance on groundwater as the GSP is implemented:
1. Decrease demand
2. Increase supply
Reducing groundwater demand can be done through a variety of different strategies, including changes to cropping, land fallowing, land repurposing, and conservation. Strategies to increase supply have been identified by the GSAs and are included in Chapter 6 of the GSP as projects. These projects either directly recharge groundwater with surface water or provide surface water to meet groundwater demand so that groundwater pumping is reduced without changing the land use or total water demand (in-lieu recharge).
To date, the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin GSP has focused on implementing projects to address overdraft.
For the ESJ Subbasin, the schedule of implementation, source, and timing of the funding, design, and ultimately construction of some of the PMAs, poses uncertainties in terms of realizing the benefits of those projects in the expected timeline. For this reason, the GSAs are developing a demand management program as a backstop. The GSAs can adjust the demand management program as the projects are implemented.
2. GROUNDWATER DEMAND REDUCTION TARGET
Without consideration to the possible (and uncertain) impacts of climate change, the Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) Version 3.0 indicates that the Subbasin needs to reduce groundwater use by approximately 95,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) in order to achieve an annual 0 AF change in storage.
In other words, to halt the continued downward decline in groundwater storage, 95,000 AFY of groundwater offset is estimated to be required. Given the inherent uncertainties with groundwater models and other factors (cropping patterns, hydrology, etc.), the GSAs are using 95,000 AFY as an initial demand management target for planning purposes, using results from ESJWRM Version 3.0. The 2024 Model Documentation TM, included in Appendix 2-C to the 2024 GSP Amendment, provides additional detail on the model assumptions used to derive this targeted reduction value.
Notably, the ESJWRM estimates that the annual overdraft in the basin is approximately 30,000 AFY, which is approximately one-third of the estimated pumping reduction required to achieve a 0 AF change in storage. The relationship between annual basin overdraft and annual pumping reduction is not a one-toone relationship in numerical modeling. This is because pumping (or lack of pumping) may cause changes in groundwater levels that impact head gradients in other inflows or outflows in the model. Less pumping near a stream, for example, would raise groundwater levels and may induce additional outflow to the stream. More pumping on the edge of the Subbasin might lower groundwater levels and induce additional inflow from surrounding subbasins. Iterating across a variety of different demand reduction scenarios demonstrates the simulated relationship between pumping reduction and resulting change in storage within the Subbasin. Figure 1 shows the results of these iterations plotted on a single graph.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment 3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Demand Management Program November 2024 FIGURE 1: AVERAGE ANNUAL CHANGE IN STORAGE UNDER VARIOUS LEVELS OF DEMAND
REDUCTION
Figure 1 assumes a future Baseline condition of pumping projected from DWR’s 2022 land use map-derived cropping patterns and urban pumping records. The simulations used to estimate the average annual change in storage associated with each pumping reduction level assume no Category A project has been implemented.
Groundwater recharge associated with the implementation of Category A projects would be credited towards the 95,000 AFY reduction target. This includes projects contained in the 2024 GSP Amendment, and any new project that would be added to the Category A PMA list in the future. ESJWRM currently assumes that the Subbasin will implement the Category A projects listed in the 2024 GSP in the next five years.
Projects are comprised of both in-lieu recharge projects and direct recharge projects. Projects identified as Category A projects1 in the 2024 GSP Amendment are expected to have a large range of groundwater storage contributions based on future hydrology assumed between 2025 and 2030. On average, across all 1 Category A projects are defined as those that are likely to advance by 2030, and have secured necessary water rights, permits, or contracts.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment 4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Demand Management Program November 2024 year types, the Category A projects are expected to contribute 67,000 AFY of surface water to the basin, either directly or via in-lieu use of surface water. Table 1 shows the expected average contribution to groundwater storage to be achieved Category A projects, by project type and by water year type, in acrefeet per year.
TABLE 1: ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF CATEGORY A PROJECTS
Project Type
Water Year
Type
Average
Contributions
to
Groundwater
Storage (AFY)
In-Lieu Recharge
Drought 30,000
Dry 36,000
Normal 65,000
Wet 69,000
Average 50,000
Direct Recharge
Drought 7,000
Dry 10,000
Normal 24,000
Wet 27,000
Average 17,000
Over 55 years of hydrology simulated in ESJWRM Version 3.0, it is expected that, on average, the Category A projects recharging 67,000 AFY of surface water into the ESJ Subbasin will result in 33,000 AFY of annual demand offset after accounting for recharged water lost to other subbasins and streams. This remaining water in storage will offset pumping and would be directly credited against the total 95,000 AFY deficit.
The Demand Management Program will lay out how the Subbasin will make up the difference between the expected average annual 33,000 AFY of demand offset resulting from Category A project implementation and the estimated 95,000 AFY of total demand reduction currently estimated to be necessary to achieve zero AFY change in storage. Generally, the GSAs have agreed to allocated between themselves the responsibility for reducing groundwater demands in the Subbasin by 56,000 AFY, or the amount of pumping reduction needed to address the -13,000 AFY average annual change in storage. . The remaining 6,000 AFY of pumping reductions represents an approximate margin of error due to modeling. This difference could be met with more demand reduction or more direct or in-lieu recharge from projects. Figure 2 shows a visualization of how the 95,000 AFY of groundwater demand reduction would generally be addressed.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment 5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Demand Management Program November 2024 FIGURE 2: PORTION OF STORAGE DEFICIT MET BY PMAS OR DEMAND REDUCTION
3. DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FRAMEWORK
3.1 Overview
The GSAs and ESJGWA have committed to adopting a Demand Management Program (DM Program) by December 31, 2027. The Program will have the following elements:
• Stated goal of total demand reduction to achieve a modeled zero change in groundwater storage conditions by 2040, implemented either by PMAs that directly recharge groundwater or provide surface water to meet groundwater demand so that pumping is reduced without changing the land use; or reducing pumping through changes in cultivated agriculture, land fallowing or land repurposing that reduces the total demand for water, or a combination of both. • The DM Program will include strict timelines for phased implementation so that if deadlines for PMA implementation are not met, the GSA will immediately implement the adopted reduced pumping requirements.
• The Demand Management goal will be imposed upon individual GSAs on a pro-rata basis in relation to their contribution to the identified basin overdraft at the time the program is implemented. • The Demand reduction goal will be updated annually based on model runs and updated data and assumptions.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment 6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Demand Management Program November 2024 • The GSAs will agree on an initial allocation of responsibility for reducing demand within their GSA areas by December 31, 2026.
o The GSAs agree that this allocation of responsibility is not a determination of rights to pump or rights to specific types of groundwater, is not an admission by any party, and is for planning purposes only.
o At the same time, this initial allocation agreement shall also include an agreement on a process to track GSA water budgets consistently across the Subbasin, with actual data reported annually that is shared with all GSAs in the subbasin. • Each GSA with allocated responsibility must adopt an enforceable demand management program within their GSA by December 31, 2027 and begin implementation by December 31, 2028. Failure to do so may result in referral to a dispute resolution process, creation of a management area, or other action by the other GSAs for legal or equitable remedy.
3.2 Adaptive Management Approach
Adaptive management is a key component of the DM Program. A program that is flexible and developed to adapt to changing conditions will be the most effective. The unknown factors in meeting the demand management goals may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Hydrology of the next five years: The benefits (recharge) accrued from PMAs vary based on the availability of surface and storm water over the next few years, as shown in Table 1. Projects that rely on excess surface water to be implemented will not produce benefits in drought years. • Implementation schedule of identified PMAs: It is unknown what legal, financial, or environmental hurdles could delay the implementation of PMAs. These delays could be specific to a GSA, or the Subbasin as a whole. For example, the Covid-19 pandemic caused significant delays in project implementation that were not anticipated at the time that the 2020 GSP was developed. • Estimation of PMA Contributions: Not all projects may be able, once implemented, to produce the anticipated benefits estimated during the planning process, even without project delays. • Model Uncertainty: Through future monitoring, the GSAs will be able to assess model uncertainty and improve model estimations as new data becomes available.
Given these unknowns, the DM Program will be adapted on an annual basis. Each year, the hydrologic conditions will be evaluated through the existing annual report process. Progress toward reaching PMA goals will be reported by GSAs as well. The ESJWRM flow model will be updated annually to incorporate the latest hydrologic conditions and demand assumptions. It will then be used to calculate a new demand reduction target. Through this iterative approach the Subbasin will be able to adjust the approach to the natural conditions and accommodate any project delays.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment 7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Demand Management Program November 2024
3.3 Schedule
In anticipation of reaching sustainability by 2040, Table 2 shows the proposed schedule of the DM Program over the next 15 years, organized by obligations on the part of the GWA and individual GSAs.
TABLE 2: ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Year Eastern San Joaquin GWA Individual GSAs
2025 • Refine model as part of, or just following,
the development of the annual report.
• Develop process for recalculating target
pumping reduction annually.
• Develop approach for annual allocation
of reduction among GSAs based on
hydrology, PMA implementation, and
other ongoing groundwater demand
management efforts.
• Monitor and report groundwater
conditions, as required.
• Implement PMAs and track benefits.
2026 • Refine model, if needed, and recalculate
target pumping reduction.
• Test and refine annual process for
recalculating target pumping reduction.
• Test and refine approach for annual
allocation of reduction among GSAs.
• Monitor and report groundwater
conditions, as required.
• GSAs agree on initial allocation of
responsibility by December 31, 2026.
• GSAs implement PMAs and track
benefits.
2027 • Monitor and report groundwater
conditions, as required.
• Each GSA with allocated responsibility
must adopt an enforceable DM Program
within their GSA by December 31, 2027.
• GSAs implement PMAs and track
benefits.
2028 • Subbasin will initiate the 2030 GSP
Update.
• Monitor and report groundwater
conditions, as required.
• GSAs implement DM Program by
December 31, 2028.
• GSAs implement PMAs and track
benefits.
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Amendment 8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Demand Management Program November 2024 Year Eastern San Joaquin GWA Individual GSAs
2029 • Develop the 2030 GSP Periodic
Evaluation and GSP Amendment (if
needed), including detailed description
of the implemented DM Program.
• Monitor and report groundwater
conditions, as required.
• First year of DM Program
implementation, if needed.
• GSAs implement PMAs and track
benefits.
2030 • Submit 2030 GSP Periodic Evaluation and
GSP Amendment (if needed) to DWR.
• Monitor and report groundwater
conditions, as required.
• GSAs implement PMAs and track
benefits.
2031-
2039
• Evaluate progress toward sustainability in
2035 GSP Periodic Evaluation and
determine prescriptive plan for
addressing remaining overdraft by 2040.
• Monitor and report groundwater
conditions, as required.
• Continue to implement DM Program and
adapt as necessary each year.
• GSAs implement PMAs and track
benefits.
2040
Subbasin reaches sustainability.
ATTACHMENT 2