SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Maximum Daily Load
Stakeholder Process
SJR Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Steering Committee
DRAFT Meeting Notes - July 21, 1999
 By: Kevin Wolf, kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us

Attending: Al Brizard (SCFB), Earle Cummings (DWR), Chris Foe (CVRWQCB), Jay Goold (Western United Dairymen), Mary Hildebrand (SJFB), Vance Kennedy (Farm Bureau), Tom King (CVRWQCB), G. Fred Lee (Delta Keeper), Peggy Lehman (DWR), Gary Litton (UOP), Ronda Lucas (Farm Bureau), Dan Madden (City of Turlock), Paul Marshall (CalFed), Bob Murdoch (Stockton), Garner Reynolds (Modesto), Mike Schafer (Lodi), Walter Ward (Modesto ID), Kevin Wolf (facilitation and notes) Note: Did everyone sign in?
  1. Next Meetings:
    1. Steering Committee:
      August 18 (third Wednesday of the month) from 9-noon, 2500 Navy Dr. Stockton
    2. Executive Committee:
      August 4 (first Wednesday of the month) from 1:30-3:30 pm, 2500 Navy Dr. Stockton
    3. Technical Committee:
      August 13, 9-noon DWR, 3351 S Street in Sacramento. For more information contact, Peggy Lehman (916-227-7551) and Doug Brewer (916-737-3000)
    4. City Outreach Subcommittee:
      Not scheduled. It will be called on an as needed basis
    5. Agriculture Outreach and BMP Committee:
      To be decided at the August 4 Executive Committee meeting.
    6. Funding Committee:
      Meeting time and date to be determined at Executive Committee meeting)
  2. Meeting Notes
    1. Decision Making Process
      1. The steering committee unanimously approved the draft Decision Making Process as proposed by the Executive Committee. It was recognized that there were parts of the Decision Making Process which may need altering after committees begin utilizing it to make decisions. Proposed changes can be brought before the Steering Committee/Executive Committee at any time, but there will be a formal review of the process in January of 2000. Note: The Decision Making Process document will be available from the website after August 2.
      2. Meeting notes and attendance records are important to the Decision Making Process. All chairs are encouraged to, at a minimum, pass around an attendance sheet, record basic decisions and send them to the facilitator for posting to the website.
      3. Decision making by committees. The Decision Making Process allows committees to make decisions without approval of the Steering Committee if the committees have developed a work plan and budget that has been approved by the Steering Committee. Committees can make decisions that stay within the guidelines and basic directions of the approved work plans. It is anticipated that changes will need to be made after the budget is approved and if these changes don't go against the spirit of the original approved plan, committees can make changes without Steering Committee approval.
    2. Outreach to the Environmental Community
      1. There was general support for the proposal to set up a meeting with the broader environmental community to learn what they thought of the direction we are taking in this TMDL process and to invite them to be participants in the process. Kevin will draft a letter for the Executive Committee to send to the Environmental Water Caucus. The EWC is similar to the urban and agricultural water caucuses involved in the CalFed process and is composed of all major environmental organizations with a stake in the future of the Delta and Sacramento/San Joaquin watersheds.
      2. The issues that could be discussed at a meeting with the EWC include:
        1. What do they think of the decision making process including the component that anyone can challenge a consensus decision within two weeks? Will some of them participate at least in reading the meeting notes and decisions? Can the absence of any objections from them about decisions we make be interpreted as support/agreement?
        2. Will they participate and help the Steering Committee at least know of the concerns of the environmental community as we proceed? Will they send a representative to be on the Steering Committee and/or Technical Committee?
        3. How can we lessen/eliminate any surprises from the environmental community at the end of the process? It is critical that there is agreement on the research and monitoring at the beginning of the process. Are they satisfied with Dr. Lee's involvement and if he supports the research and monitoring efforts, will they? If not, how can the stakeholders learn what the environmental community's concerns are so that they can be addressed at the earliest time possible?
    3. Regional Board Requirements, Expectations, Timeline and Questions
      1. After December 2002, the Regional Board and then the USEPA will allocate the Phase I load that will contribute to resolving the low dissolved oxygen problem based on the best understanding of the data available at that time. Other TMDLs have required that all contributing stakeholders reduce their own load by an equitable percentage. The Board hopes that the Stakeholder process will provide them with a broadly supported TMDL to consider. If the Stakeholders can agree, especially with the ongoing involvement of Board staff, the Regional Board will likely accept what the Stakeholders propose.
      2. Phase II of the TMDL will begin after Phase I begins to be implemented. Phase II will likely take ten years and will rely in part on information gathered through the Phase I process. Phase II involves a more rigorous analysis of loading and solutions.
      3. If the Stakeholders cannot reach consensus, Board staff will make their own recommendation and all sides will have the opportunity to testify before the Board about staff's proposal. In all cases, the Board makes the final decision on what is presented to the USEPA for their finalization.
      4. After the Regional Board determines the TMDL, the CEQA process will begin. At this time, different alternatives will be analyzed including a Preferred Alternative and a No-Action Alternative. The CEQA process should take about one year and will utilize much of the information now being developed.
      5. One way to avoid the TMDL process is to resolve the problem. For example, Sacramento Valley rice farmers did this with their herbicide problem.
      6. Another outcome could be that waste loads are allocated by river reach with some reaches not being contributors to the load. In this scenario, each reach would be responsible for developing its own plan for reducing its load to the required level.
      7. If the development of an Adaptive Management Plan is seen as a delaying tactic, unhappy stakeholders can sue the Regional Board.
      8. Once the load allocation has been made by the RWQCB and has become an amendment to the Basin Plan, it is difficult to change. Every three years the Regional Board will review the Basin Plan and consider changes. This is when new information from ongoing research will be considered.
      9. Is there any flexibility to this three year period? What happens if new data shows that one of the parties (or even a new party) should be taking more of the load allocation and everyone else less?
      10. A while ago, the environmental community issued a 60 day notice to the USEPA on the dissolved oxygen problem in the San Joaquin. When will the EPA have an answer and provide information to the public on this issue?
      11. It would be good to get more information on how other Regional Boards are resolving TMDLs. Are there any patterns or new opportunities to consider? Dr. Lee mentioned that Orange County had an interesting example with a percentage reduction required in Phase I. (Dr. Lee, could you provide more information on this?)
      12. Another example of a Phase I TMDL is Chesapeake Bay and the state of Maryland. Maryland developed a TMDL, which allocated much of the load to agriculture and non-point sources . This resulted in a $200 million program to lower the load from these non-point sources.
      13. How do economics and the ability to pay affect the TMDL decision? Can financial constraints be included in the load allocation?
        The load allocation can include economic analysis and can be assigned based on the most cost-effective manner to reduce the load. It is not clear though where the TMDL ends and the implementation plan begins. (RWQCB staff, can you provide more information on this at an upcoming meeting?)
      14. What occurs if the RWQCB does not receive an acceptable TMDL from the stakeholders?
        The state begins a three tiered implementation plan to allocate the load and develop solutions. (Chris Foe will provide more information on this.)
      15. Are there similarities in how different Basin Plans for various loads are being developed? What can we learn from these other plans?
        (Some expressed concern that Basin Plans from outside the San Joaquin basin may not be applicable to this watershed.)
      16. The Stakeholders want to work with the Regional Board to develop a timeline and the background products needed for our TMDL.. Requested documents include:
        1. Background on TMDLs and other Basin Plans
        2. USEPA Region 9 summary of actions and plans
        3. USEPA guidance manual for Dissolved Oxygen
        4. Other?
    4. Technical Issues
      1. Steering Committee members want a better understanding of the technical and conceptual issues involved in developing the TMDL. They understand the need to analyze Best Management Practices at the same time that monitoring and research is done to determine where the load is coming from. Without the two-track process, it will be impossible to develop an implementation plan to go along with the TMDL by December 2002. They want to understand the science that underlies the direction of the monitoring and research in part so that they can determine which BMPs should be studied.
      2. A conceptual model of the factors affecting the low dissolved oxygen will benefit the stakeholders in understanding why the technical committee is pursuing the research and monitoring that they are. It will provide a framework for studying different BMPs.
      3. Agricultural Technical Research
        1. How will resources be developed to research existing information that could be helpful in determining what BMPs should be studied and how? It is estimated that this could cost $20-50,000, which is not now available. Could some of the CalFed funds be allocated to this research? The sooner this compilation of existing research and knowledge is completed, the sooner targeted research in BMPs can be implemented with the knowledge that they meet highest priority data gaps.
        2. How will the Technical Committee's research determine which sub-watersheds and ag drains are the biggest contributors to the load? Can existing information (USGS and other research) provide a preliminary estimate, which then direct future research and monitoring?
        3. How will the BMP and load research factor in the differences that occur on farms over time and through different water years? For example, crop rotation, rainfall and other factors change every year on many farms. How do these changes impact the load attributed to that piece of land. (Factors also change in urban non-point source loading sources.)
      4. Specific questions for the Technical Committees include:
        1. Will groundwater loading be included in the conceptual and computer modeling
        2. When will the Technical Committee be able to determine how to assess the load contribution from agricultural and urban non-point sources? When will they be able to determine what areas in the watershed are contributing the biggest part of the load? This information will be important in prioritizing which crops and which soils in specific drainage areas should be studied.
        3. What is the Technical Committee's preliminary budget for the next three years' research? This will help the Steering and Funding Committee's develop proposals to help obtain the needed resources.
        4. At what level could aeration alone in the deep water channel resolve the D.O. problem? How much would it cost to install and operate that many aerators? If full aeration were implemented, how would this affect the TMDL?
      5. Maps
        1. Doug Brewer of Jones and Stokes presented a map of all drains which empty into the San Joaquin River. The map of the drains is from a 1991 survey done by (which agency?). Drain locations were also recorded in the tributaries but have not been added to this map. The map will be a dynamic tool that can be upgraded with new GIS and data layers added over time. .
        2. The drainage GIS layer is not completely accurate as some drainage locations have moved, were consolidated or were never recorded in the 1991 survey The ag community offered to help clean up the map by giving it to their members to review.
        3. How valuable is it to have an accurate map of the drainage system in the watershed? What would this information be used for? What would it cost to make the map accurate? Would new field research need to be conducted?
        4. A GIS system can incorporate a great deal more information that could help with the analysis. One example mentioned was to include the locations and metadata for all the diversion points throughout the system.
        5. Tom King will provide background on the drain location map to anyone interested - where did the drainage information come from, how many square miles does it drain and all the other information collected at the time of the survey.
        6. The Technical Committee and Jones and Stokes will work together to develop a work plan for the GIS and mapping component of the technical strategic plan.
      6. Agricultural Load and BMPs
        1. Agricultural practices have change over the last ten years throughout much of the watershed. These changes may make the USGS study coordinated by Charlie Kratzner and other reports inaccurate. How significant are the changes and should they be fully incorporated into the load analysis? If so, how will this information be gathered?
        2. Irrigation methods have been changing and may affect surface and groundwater flows. For example, many vineyards and orchards have changed to drip and other less water intensive irrigation methods, especially on sandy soil.
        3. Have fertilizer application rates increased or decreased over the last ten years?
        4. What information is available from well monitoring? What well data does DWR have?
        5. Can the agricultural community help find scientists and representatives from the Dept. of Food and Agriculture to attend including the Fertilizer Research Education Program?
      7. The East Stanislaus Resource Conservation District's Dairy BMP proposal
        1. The RCD has a proposal to receive matching funds so that they can proceed with a $500,000 plus BMP study and education program for small dairies throughout the basin. Letters of support could help this project become a priority for the funding.
        2. The project would implement a suite of BMPs on a typical small dairy in the East Stanislaus RCD. Data would be gathered to determine the value of the BMPs to lowering nutrient loading in surface and sub-surface water. A second major focus of the project is to educate other dairy farmers about these BMPs and their effectiveness. Beyond the information it would provide to the TMDL, it could provide data over time on how many other farmers who visited this farm later implemented these new practices on their own dairies.
        3. The Steering Committee discussed sending a letter of support because the ESRCD proposal could provide valuable data to the TMDL and solution analysis. They supported individual organizations to send their own letters of support as soon as possible, but did not vote to write and send an official steering committee letter. Some felt an official letter of support was not wise was because it set a precedent that would make it more difficult for the Steering Committee to not write letters of support for future requests without making it look like the Committee in reality did not support the proposals.
      8. Proposal to send Peggy Lehman with Vance Kennedy to a Conference on Dissolved Oxygen
        1. Vance Kennedy proposed that $1000 be found to pay for Peggy's travel (DWR would pay for her time) to go with Vance to a national conference that could increase our understanding of biomarkers on nutrient loading sources and other research that could help us with this TMDL.
        2. Jay Goold with Western United Dairymen will commit to $500. The Farm Bureau will try to get the rest.
        3. If money is found, Peggy will go and report back to the group on her findings.
Back to Main page
Website designed by Kevin Wolf and Associates
Webmaster: Sybil Harlow