1 Update on Small Tributaries Loading Strategy Richard Looker, Chris Sommers, Arleen Feng, Jay Davis, and Lester McKee Sources Pathways and Loadings Workgroup December 8, 2008 Item #5

2 Impetus Recommendation from the closed session of May 2008 Workgroup meeting Consistent with development of other RMP strategies –Mercury strategy –Dioxin strategy –Modeling strategy meeting meeting Item #5

3 Progress: meeting highlights Agreement to collaboratively write a long-term strategy document Water Board agreed MRP monitoring requirements would be coordinated with STLS An agreement on a high priority question: What is the relative contribution of each watershed to impairment in the Bay? Acknowledgement of the need to understand hydrology, hydraulics, and landscape to guide monitoring and modeling efforts Agreement that top priorities are: –Modeling at watershed and land use scale as it will be essential to answering management questions –Establishing long-term monitoring stations to support model development –A preliminary draft of a phased series of STLS development tasks, including information review for watershed prioritization Item #5

Meeting Highlights Water Board statement of information needs regarding small tributary loads Plan for moving forward on several fronts Item #5

5 ActionWhoWhen STLS Documentation Determine format needed for documentation of the STLS effort. Arleen Feng et al discuss with Tom Mumley, Shin Roei Lee, Dale BowyerSep/Oct, 08 Watershed Prioritization scope Develop a proposal for TRC/SC review – John to meet with other modelers John Oram, Lester McKee, Jay Davis11/01/2008 Watershed Prioritization work Complete analysis and write reportJohn Oram 01/01/ /01/09 STL Strategy draft Write 2-3 page document and send out for review Richard Looker, Chris Sommers, Jay Davis, Lester McKee09/15/08 STL Strategy finalAddress reviewer commentsLester McKee, Jay Davis10/15/08 Workplan draft Meeting with Stein and Stenstrom; consider different tools, presentation on prioritization, presentation on prop 13 ranking info Small tributaries loadings strategy teamEarly Nov 2008 SPL meetingPresent draft WorkplanLester McKee To be determined (Nov, 2008) Workplan finalLester McKee, Jay DavisLate May 2009

6 RMP Strategy Format 1.Questions 2.Five-year Plan and Budget Item #5

7 STLS Questions 1.Impairment: Which are the high-leverage small tributaries that contribute most to Bay impairment by pollutants of concern? 2.Loading: What are the average annual loads or concentrations of pollutants of concern from small tributaries to the Bay? 3.Trends: How are loads or concentrations of pollutants of concern from small tributaries changing on a decadal scale? 4.Support for Management Actions: What are the projected impacts of management actions on loads or concentrations of pollutants of concern from the high- leverage small tributaries and where should management actions be implemented in the region to have the greatest impact? Item #5

8 Five-year Plan and Budget: Example

9 Desired Input 1.Comments on the existing questions 2.Are we missing anything important? 3.Comments on path forward Item #5

10

11

12

13

14 Item #5 REVISED ActionWhoWhen STLS Documentati on Determine format needed for documentation of the STLS effort. Arleen Feng et al discuss with Tom Mumley, Shin Roei Lee, Dale BowyerSep/Oct, 08 Watershed Prioritizatio n scope Develop a proposal for TRC/SC review – John to meet with other modelers John Oram, Lester McKee, Jay Davis Dec 2008 – Pending TRC approval Watershed Prioritizatio n work Complete analysis and write reportJohn Oram Complete by May 2009 STL Questions draft Write 2-3 page document and send out for review Richard Looker, Chris Sommers, Jay Davis, Lester McKeeNovember 08 STL Questions finalIncorporate commentsLester McKee, Jay DavisDecember 08 Workplan draft 1)Small Group meet with Stein and Stenstrom; 2)Write draft strategy (including general tasks)STLS Team SPL meetingPresent draft WorkplanLester McKeeNext Meeting Workplan finalLester McKee, Jay DavisLate May 2009

15 Comments received via Jim Kuwabara –Is there a reference that describes how the RMP quantifies impairment of an ecosystem. If so, it should be cited in Item 1 of this document – –Strategies would be more easily evaluated if the existing problems and prioritization of those problems were defined –The assumption here [for this strategy] may be that decreased pollutant loading decreases impairment. That might be true for a limiting nutrient or bioavailable form of a toxicant –In the context of RMP goals how does load regulation and monitoring manage ecosystem impairment? For example, the load of dissolved methylmercury to the South Bay water column is some function of the repartitioning and transformation of mercury from the rivers and tributaries, along with benthic (internal) sources –Is the goal of reducing ecosystem impairment defined here as the management of riverine load, the total load, or how that total load finally gets transferred to sentinel species? That clarification would be useful Item #5