SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Maximum Daily Load
Stakeholder Process
SJR Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Steering Committee
DRAFT Meeting Notes - Draft 1 - October 20, 1999
 By: Kevin Wolf, kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us

Attending: Roger Bennett (Lathrop), Doug Brewer (JSA), Al Brizard (Farm Bureau), Carl Chen (Systech), Chris Foe (CVRWQCB), Mary Hildebrand (SJFB), Brant Jorgenson (JSA), Vance Kennedy (Farm Bureau), Tom King (CVRWQCB), G. Fred Lee (advisor to DeltaKeeper), Peggy Lehman (DWR), Ronda Lucas (Farm Bureau), Dan Madden (City of Turlock), Paul Marshall (CalFed), Paul Martin (Western United Dairymen), Frank Motzkus (Tracy), Bob Murdoch (Stockton), Casey Ralston (DWR), Garner Reynolds (Modesto), Mike Schafer (Lodi), Jeanette Thomas (SEWD ), Alice Tulloch (citizen), Edwin Van Niewanhuyse (USFWS), Walter Ward (Modesto ID), Kevin Wolf (facilitation and notes), Wayne Zipser (Farm Bureau) (Note: Please check this list of attendees. I am not sure everyone signed in or was correctly identified. Kevin)

Next Meetings:
Executive Committee - November. 3, 1999 1:30 - 3:30 pm, 2500 Navy Drive, Stockton
Steering Committee - November 17, 1999, 9 am - 12:30 pm, 2500 Navy Drive, Stockton
Technical Committee - November 9, 9 am - 4 pm, 2600 V Street. Sacramento
Central Valley RWQCB Review of Stakeholder Progress - December 10, 901 P Street Sacramento (The specific time the Board will discuss this issue will be available when the Board finalizes its agenda in November.)


  1. Election of a New Vice Chair of the Steering Committee
    1. Garnor Reynolds was nominated and elected by consensus to be the Steering Committee vice chair.
  2. Central Valley RWQCB Meeting on December 10
    1. The Regional Board required the Stakeholders to have made progress in developing the TMDL and Implementation Plan by their December 1999 meeting. Chris Foe believes that the Stakeholders have done well at making that progress and believes that the Board will agree. There is a chance that the board meeting will be cancelled because of a lack of a quorum. An update on the Board's status will be provided at the November Steering Committee meeting.
    2. Ronda Lucas will represent the Steering Committee at this meeting and present an update on the Stakeholders' progress. Other Steering Committee members are encouraged to attend. Ronda requested feedback on other issues she will present to the Board. The Steering Committee gave her the following direction:
      1. The December 2002 timeline may be difficult to achieve. The Steering Committee will have more information after its rough-cut loading analysis and peer review process and would like to provide the Board with a better assessment of its ability to meet the December 2002 timeline in about six months.
      2. Problems may arise if sufficient funds are not obtained to do the necessary research. At present, no funds have been secured for year 2001 or 2002 research (though we are eligible for additional CalFed funding). The Steering Committee is investigating numerous sources of funds and will have more information on its progress in 6-12 months.
      3. Whatever TMDL and Implementation Plan the Board adopts will need to be able to evolve as new data and research is developed. The Implementation Plan will need to be an adaptive management plan.
      4. Outreach efforts have succeeded in involving the agricultural and urban communities in the Stakeholder process but have not been successful in gaining regular attendance by a representative of the environmental community at Steering Committee meetings. Dr. G. Fred Lee has been paid with City of Turlock settlement funds to help in the Technical Committee process and be an advisor to the Delta Keeper on the technical issues. The Steering Committee will increase its efforts to invite environmental community to participate and and inform them of the process and the progress it is making.
  3. Possible Funding Sources and Funding Actions
    1. Member contributions - The cities of Turlock and Stockton have contributed cash that has been gone to fund components of the project that would not otherwise have received funding from the CalFed grant. Member contributions can help meet critically important needs that other funding sources can't. Stakeholders can also be important sources of matching funds. To gain a line item for the TMDL effort in next year's budget, some cities need to begin working on the process now. Each of the city representatives was asked to help determine how to best proceed with gaining their City Council approval of a funding line item for the TMDL process. Bob Murdoch is taking the lead for the Steering Committee on this effort.
    2. Foundations such as Packard Foundation - Research needs to be conducted to determine what foundations might fund the missing research and other components of this effort. The steps to write foundation grants are the same as are needed to write a proposal for most other funding sources - determine goals, strategies, objectives, task/action items, budget, principle investigators, subcontractors etc. A critical first step is to develop a master plan (see K below) for the TMDL implementation research and analysis.
    3. USEPA Discretionary Funds - There is an estimated $1 billion in the annual USEPA budget that can go towards special projects like this TMDL. (Much of the work in the Sacramento watershed program has been funded through USEPA discretionary funds.) Proposals need to be developed and then Congressional help obtained in order to convince the USEPA to fund such projects. Ideally, support for the funding would be bipartisan. City councils, county supervisors, the Farm Bureau, water districts, environmental organizations and other entities can provide valuable support for obtaining these funds through lobbying the USEPA and their Congressmembers. The broader the coalition, the more effective.
    4. White House Funding Sources - Some steering committee members thought that the White House might have other sources of funds that could be found for this project. The motivation comes from the Vice President wanting to win California's electoral votes in November and providing resources to the state is a time honored way to win votes in elections.
    5. 319(h) Grants - These funds are available for implementation efforts and could be used to help the Implementation Plan research. (Could someone provide more information on these? Is there a website that explains how these grants are distributed?)
    6. March 2000 Water Bond - The bond has significant levels of funding for implementation programs that would improve dissolved oxygen levels in the San Joaquin. It is not clear if any of this money could go towards implementation research but is worth investigating. We may not be able to determine this until after the bond act passes and its application procedures are clarified.
    7. Other Sources? - Any ideas for additional funding sources should be sent to Bob Murdoch who will keep a master list of options.
    8. Next Steps for Securing more Financial Support
      1. The Steering Committee discussed how to get grants written. The Executive Committee will include a grant writer as a possible budget line item. (Can Jones and Stokes fulfill this need? Can agency staff help with grant writing? Are there volunteers who will be on a grant research and writing committee?)
      2. The Technical Committee will prioritize which tasks and projects should be done first and provide guidance to the Steering Committee on which grants should be pursued. The Technical Committee will use the rough-cut loading analysis and the review of the CalFed grant as a basis for their decisions.
      3. The Steering Committee will review granting priorities and strategies at its February meeting. It may determine sooner who will be involved in actually writing and researching the grants and how this effort will be funded.
      4. The Executive Committee will determine how to reconstitute the Funding Committee, who should be asked to be on it, who might be the chair, when they next meet, and what their charge is.
  4. Funding for Ag and Environmental Involvement in the TMDL Process
    1. Ronda Lucas has taken the lead in helping find a possible agricultural representative for the Technical Committee. UC Coop Extension has been approached and is investigating its options and who among their technical experts might be available. It will take a person 2-5 days per month to participate in the Technical Committee meetings and in the work involved in between meetings. The Ag technical expert will hopefully be a key person in the development of Best Management Plan research in the agricultural arena. This will likely require additional time. Ronda will get a cost estimate for providing a technical expert to the Technical Committee. The Steering Committee will help locate resources to provide the necessary funding.
    2. In general, the Steering Committee supports funding the Agricultural and Environmental communities' expert representatives on the Technical Committee. The Steering Committee is not as clear about whether it would support funding an environmental representative to be on the Steering Committee. One of the issues raised is that the agricultural community has a number of volunteers who attend every steering committee meeting. Why can't the environmental community provide one volunteer? One response was that the environmental community is short of staff and volunteers who have the level of leadership that their involvement on the steering committee could have a significant impact on the environmental community's decisions on the TMDL. Funding could make the difference in freeing up that person's time to attend. The Steering Committee expressed appreciation for the help Dr. Lee has provided to the technical process.
  5. Environmental Community Outreach
    1. The Steering Committee would like the opportunity to meet with the Environmental Water Caucus to explain the stakeholder process and to ask for help in involving the environmental community in the process. In what areas would the environmental community like to be involved - developing the research and monitoring efforts, reviewing the computer model runs, determining what is a fair allocation of the load, or crafting the implementation plan? What concerns do environmental groups have about the stakeholder decision making process? Kevin will talk to Roberta Borgonovo to request time on an upcoming agenda.
    2. The Steering Committee directed Bob Murdoch to include all the major environmental groups that would be interested in the Dissolved Oxygen TMDL on the mailing list and to sent them all meeting notes and agendas. Kevin will ask the EWC for a list of organizations and representatives to include. Either the heads of the organizations will receive the mail or the organization's designated representative. The Steering Committee wants to document its efforts to include the environmental community in the stakeholder process.
    3. Bob Murdoch has requested that Bill Jennings provide the Steering Committee with an estimate of what the Delta Keeper would need in funding to be able to participate on the Steering Committee. As of the meeting, he has not received a response.
    4. The Steering Committee would like to include in the report to the RWQCB at its December meeting the current status of environmental involvement in the stakeholder process and of efforts that have been made to involve them.
  6. Agricultural Community Outreach
    1. Ronda Lucas and helped schedule a special briefing about the TMDL process for the agricultural community on November 8 at 10 am in Modesto (1315 K Street). All agricultural organizations, water districts and other related groups are being invited. The meeting is open to anyone who would like to attend. Steering committee members are encouraged to send their lists of organizations to include on the invitation list to Ronda as soon as possible.
    2. The meeting has the following objectives:
      1. Clarify what the TMDL and Implementation Plan process involves and what it might do.
      2. Explain the current understanding of the basic science and the importance of the rough-cut loading allocation analysis. Possibly schedule a February meeting to review the results.
      3. Request help in finding data and research that might be helpful in determining the load allocation and implementation plan. (Ronda asked the Technical Committee (Tom King?) to email her a list of data that the agricultural community might have that could be important to the scientific process.) Someone from the Technical committee should also attend the meeting who can explain the potential value of this information and data and to answer questions about data confidentiality.
      4. Improve the draft map of agricultural drains that empty into the San Joaquin River or its tributaries. Jones and Stokes will provide a map for each participant to review as well as a larger, more detailed map for the meeting. Participants will be asked to note any changes or questions on their map and return it with their name and phone numbers in case additional clarification is needed.
  7. Urban Outreach
    1. A top priority of the outreach effort is to get cities and affected urban entities to include funds in their next year's fiscal budget for the TMDL process and research. Many cities have begun their budget planning process already and action needs to be taken for this line item to be considered. Each of the city representatives on the Steering Committee was asked to report to the Bob Murdoch on the best way for their city to be approached about this - through the City Manager, City Council, public works department, or other. Bob will help coordinate any presentations needed by the cities and help recruit the necessary committee members or technical experts to attend.
    2. The RWQCB staff (Tom King) will call the cities for an update on their monitoring efforts and the status of their data. If they are not conducting all the requested research this year, what can be done to help them do this for the next two years?
    3. The Steering Committee discussed the benefits of urban interests banding together to get legislation passed that will help fund implementation research and programs. The California Association of Sanitation Agencies and the League of Cities might be helpful in any legislative lobbying effort.
  8. Industrial Community Outreach
    1. Bob Murdoch will draft a letter to be sent to industries and businesses that might be affected by the TMDL. This includes companies that are involved in pre-treatment of their effluent and NPDES dischargers. The Regional Board staff will provide a list of potentially affected businesses.
  9. Documentation of Outreach and Communication Efforts
    1. Brant Jorgenson with Jones and Stokes offered to develop and maintain a chronological file of all correspondence sent and received by any of the committees. This material will be available at steering committee meetings as a reference and provide documentation of communication efforts if needed by the RWQCB. Kevin will send out a notice to the stakeholders to cc: Brant with any outgoing correspondence so that this can be included in the file.
    2. The City of Stockton's facilitation contract includes putting material onto the www.sjrtmdl.org website. Material that could be added to the website should be sent to Kevin Wolf as an attachment via email.
  10. Data and Information Inventorying
    1. The Technical Committee approved Jones and Stokes proposal to do the data and information inventorying and has placed a high priority on accomplishing this in time to include in the peer review and rough-cut loading allocation analysis. Peggy has raised concerns about the cost and its impact on the overall budget. This will discussed further at the October 20 Technical Committee meeting. The Steering Committee asked for an update on this at their November meeting.
  11. Master Plan Update
    1. Jones and Stokes has incorporated the Technical Committee comments, including an 18 page letter from G. Fred Lee and has developed Version 4 of the Master Plan. The Technical Committee members are asked to review this version as soon as possible so that a final version can be presented to the Steering Committee at their November 17th meeting. After the Steering Committee approves the plan, it will go to the RWQCB as part of the material presented for their December Board meeting. Chris Foe will tell Doug Brewer when the final version is needed for the RWQCB. The Master Plan will be important to developing grant proposals and guiding research.
  12. Reassessing the Biological Impacts of the Dissolved Oxygen Standard
    1. In fall of 2000, the DFG will do a radio tagging of adult salmon migrating up the San Joaquin that may determine what are the factors that affect their ability to migrate to the Mokelumne, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced Rivers. Is it temperature, dissolved oxygen levels or other water quality properties? Is the current dissolved oxygen standard appropriate? Kevin will ask the DFG to provide the Steering Committee with an update on their studies, their hypotheses, methodology and timeline.
    2. Committee members expressed concern that the radio tagging study was postponed from occurring this year. They would like to find out if there is anything the Steering Committee can do to help ensure sufficient resources are available. What might delay the study again next year and what can they do to prevent this?
    3. The Radio Tagging Study may not provide sufficient information to determine whether the dissolved oxygen standard is too high or too low. How should the Steering Committee proceed to help develop a fuller study effort that can more conclusively answer these questions? This question was not answered and should be addressed at a future meeting.
  13. "Rough Cut" Loading Analysis
    (Note: The information in these notes can be further (and better) clarified in the document drafted by Russ Brown of Jones and Stokes (russb@jsanet.com or 816-737-3000) and in the integration proposal developed by Dr. G.Fred Lee (gfredlee@aol.com).
    1. Why Do a Rough Cut Loading Analysis Now?
      1. To help focus the CalFed studies in 2000.
      2. To help identify and clarify what additional studies will be needed.
      3. To provide an independent verification of the City of Stockton's (Carl Chen's) computer model.
      4. To determine the relative importance of loading sources upstream and downstream of Vernalis.
      5. To help direct Best Management Practices studies in urban and rural areas that could become part of the Implementation Plan.
    2. How Will the Analysis Be Done and Who Will Do It?
      1. The Technical Committee has assigned different parts of the analysis to different team experts (see Technical Committee October 4 notes at the www.sjrtmdl.org website.).
      2. The Technical Committee, with possible financial support from the RWQCB, has asked Dr. G. Fred Lee to integrate the information and produce a draft final report, which will be reviewed by the Committee before being presented to the Steering Committee in January 2000. The Board agreed by consensus to support the Regional Board in hiring Dr. Lee to take on this role.
    3. How Will the City of Stockton's Computer Model be Involved in the Loading Analysis?
      1. The (Carl Chen) computer model will be vitally important to integrating the complex factors affecting dissolved oxygen levels. The rough-cut "box" model will provide an independent verification of the numbers produced by the Chen model for upstream, downstream, and Sediment Oxygen Demand sources.
      2. The USEPA has not completed its process of validating the computer model but should be finished this winter or early spring. As soon as this is completed, their report will be reviewed by the Technical Committee and assessed against what was learned through the rough-cut loading analysis.
    4. How Will Stakeholders Know if the Data is Correct?
      1. All data used in the analysis process will eventually be evaluated and rated as to its value and scientific soundness. The strengths and weaknesses of the data will be as transparent as possible so that all stakeholders have equal access to this information as different computer model runs are done.
      2. The Dept. of Water Resources, the USGS and other agencies including NPDES dischargers meet strict standards for data quality and assurance.
      3. The computer model itself will help determine how sound the data is through its assessment of the Mass Balance within the system. If it doesn't balance, all data will be rechecked.
      4. The nutrient export coefficient will provide another means of assessing the data.
      5. Data providers need to have better direction from the Technical Committee on the level of detection they should be pursuing.
      6. Ongoing monitoring will help provide data over time that can help assess the validity of historic data.
  14. Update on State TMDL Legislation
    Two bills passed through the legislature and were signed by the Governor this session - SB 227 (Alpert) and AB 982 (Ducheny). To obtain the details of the legislation, download the final language from the legislative website (http://www.sen.ca.gov). Among other things, these bills advance the following:
    1. Sets up an advisory committee to assess and advice on problems that California TMDL process will have because of a lack of data and knowledge of impacts.
    2. Codifies California non-point source pollution program to ensure that a three-tier approach is used. Tier one involves voluntary implementation of BMPs. Tier three involves permits.

Back to Main page
Website designed by Kevin Wolf and Associates
Webmaster: Sybil Harlow