SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Maximum Daily Load
Stakeholder Process

San Joaquin River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Technical Committee
Draft Meeting Notes - Draft 1 - November 9, 1999
By: Kevin Wolf, kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us

Attending: Doug Ball (USBR), Doug Brewer (JSA), Ed Dammel (SacState), Chris Foe (RWQCB), Brant Jorgenson (JSA), Vance Kennedy (Farm Bureau), Tom King (RWQCB), Charlie Kratzer (USGS), G. Fred Lee (DeltaKeeper advisor), Peggy Lehman (CWR), Gary Litton (UOP), Paul Marshall (CalFed), Frank Motzkus (Tracy), Casey Ralston (DWR), Wangteng Tsai (Systech), Alice Tulloch (Tulloch Engineering), Erwin Van Nieuwenhuyse (USFWS), Kevin Wolf (facilitation and notes)

  1. Next Technical Committee Meetings
    1. November 30, 9 am - noon, 2600 V St, Sacramento (Meeting objectives include:)
      1. Advance our understanding of the loading analysis. Prepare for the next meeting when the box model and rough-cut are fully integrated.
    2. December 13, 9 am - 4 pm, 2600 V St, Sacramento. (Meeting objectives include:)
      1. Finish reviewing each component of the "box model" of factors affecting low dissolved oxygen.
      2. Integrate the components and determine the basic results. Provide sufficient information that Dr. Lee can write the synthesis report.
  2. CalFed Grant Issues
    1. Peer Review
      1. The Technical Committee supported allocating up to $10,000 from the Reimbursable Budget toward the Peer Review process. (The total Peer Review budget will likely cost more but can be taken out of the save administration costs and come under the normal budget.)
      2. The Peer Review will take place in mid-March after work plans have been developed by the subcontractors and reviewed by the Technical Committee. Because DWR needs to begin processing sub-contracts in February in order to have funds available in June, a March Peer Review will limit what recommendations can be incorporated into the work plans. (DWR needs roughly four months after receiving work plans to have the funds available.)
      3. The Peer Review recommendations can still be useful but they will not be able to change the overall dollar amount allocated to a sub-contractor nor change the major objectives of their work. (Peggy, is this correct?) The Technical Committee's review and development of the work plans in January and February will be critically important.
      4. All Technical Committee members are encouraged to recommend scientists and engineers who would be good candidates for the Peer Review panel as soon as possible. Send these recommendations to Kevin.
      5. Chris Foe and the Regional Board staff will develop a proposal for organizing the logistics and other aspects of the Peer Review process. (Chris, is this correct?)
    2. Literature and Data Review/Inventory
      1. The Technical Committee supported JSA's proposal ($22,000) to conduct the literature and data review and develop an inventory/catalog of this information.
      2. The committee asked JSA to obtain data sets whenever they could easily do this while conducting this project. JSA will include the location of the material in the metadata that they put together on all the information they locate.
      3. JSA will not be able to organize, format and QA/QC the data so that it is ready to be used in the computer modeling within this budget. The inventory will help the Technical Committee determine which legacy datasets they should invest in and then JSA will provide a cost estimate to do that work.
      4. JSA will be able to begin work immediately after the Steering Committee approves this line item in their November 17 meeting and can complete the work by the new year.
    3. Data Management
      1. The IEP has already been approved to spend $19,000 for the data management aspect of this work. In their original estimate they did not include some of the work that will be needed in 2000 with the new studies that will be conducted then. It is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the cost for this new work because the specific work plans and the data development that will occur with those work plans has not been finalized and won't until March.
      2. For place holding purposes, the Technical Committee should allocate an additional $15-20,000 (though it might be significantly less) from the freed up Administration funds for this line item.
      3. It is unknown at this time whether any of the IEP work on the data management will need funds from the Reimbursable Budget.
    4. DWR Assistance (Casey Ralston)
      1. The Technical Committee supported allocating $12,000 from the reimbursable budget for Casey Ralston's work in assisting Peggy and the DWR in various aspects of the project. Given the enormous savings ($140,000) gained from having DWR be the administrating agency, this was an easy request for the Committee to grant.
    5. Temperature "Rough Cut" Analysis
      1. Ed Dammel, assistant professor of engineering at Sacramento State, requested $21,000 in funds for the "Development of Heat Balance Methodology for Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel." $6000, which would need to come from the Reimbursable Budget would go to a graduate student to begin work January 1. $15,000 would be for Ed to be able to reduce his teaching work next semester in order to devote time to this work. Ed can wait for this funding so it can come from the regular budget.
      2. The Committee liked what Ed proposed but wanted more details. Ed sent this information on November 12 via email. The Committee is to comment on the details, and if there are no serious objections, this proposal will be forwarded to the Steering Committee for their approval on November 17.
    6. Computer Modeling
      1. The Technical Committee did not make a decision on funding improvements to the computer model with the Reimbursable Budget. There are a variety of ways in which the computer model could help in the analysis that needs to be done to best direct future monitoring and research. After the rough-cut loading analysis is drafted, the committee will be able to provide Systech with more specific objectives for cost estimates.
      2. The Systech model can be further validated and improved by running it with 1995 (and 1999) data. The committee did not finish its discussion on when these runs should be done.
      3. Technical Committee members are requested to provide Sytech (and the committee) with suggestions for what computer runs would be worth developing within the next few months (and over the long-term).
    7. Contingency Funding
      1. There was discussion but no conclusion on how much of the Reimbursable Budget should be kept for unanticipated critical needs. Such needs include the possibility of spending more for the Peer Review process and investigating spring algal blooms. The Technical Committee will finalize what it might leave in this line item when it decides how much to invest in early computer modeling work.
      2. $50,000 out of the $86,000 Reimbursable Budget will have been allocated if the Committee does not object to the Temperature proposal.
  3. Issues with the CalFed Grant
    1. Timeline for the Commencement of Regular Work
      1. DWR will need approximately four months from when it receives subcontractor work plans and other documents to the time it can authorize work to begin. The DWR will work to advance this contract as quickly as possible but faces a number of internal changes in structure and process that presently forces this length of time.
      2. June was identified as the time that many projects should begin. To accomplish a June 1 time line, work plans and documentation should be presented to DWR by February 1. Kevin will work with Peggy to craft a more detailed proposal for accomplishing the different tasks needed to make this timeline. This will be reviewed at the next Technical Committee meeting.
    2. Changing the Contract After It is Approved
      1. Paul Marshall explained that CalFed had three categories of contract changes, each one triggering different levels of review. Increasing the budget was the most difficult ant that took only a week or so for a decision to be made. CalFed staff can authorize changes in work plans and grant objectives within a few days. Whole areas of the grant can be changed or eliminated if that is what the Technical Committee (with approval by the Steering Committee) thinks is the best use of the funds based on their scientific analysis.
      2. DWR is constricted in what it can change once it signs agreements for work plans with subcontractors. Changes can be made to the work plans but not the amount of money that would go to the subcontractor. (Peggy can you clarify this? I imagine that work plan changes can become expensive if the subcontractor has bought equipment and made other expensive commitments that would need mitigation if the contract was cancelled or changed. Could DWR write a clause that did not make the work plans final until sometime in April? I think you said April would give most contractors sufficient time to become prepared. We need to be able to allow the Peer Review process to have some impact on the work plans, if not on the broad categories of investigation and who we contract with. What language could DWR use to facilitate this need for flexibility?)
    3. Developing Subcontractor Work Plans
      1. The Technical Committee did not finalize how it would work with the subcontractors to develop their work plans but did agree to the following:
        1. Subcontractors will be asked to submit their work plans in early January with the caveat that they may be dramatically changed, even postponed or eliminated. Since the subcontractors already wrote proposals that were included in the original grant, this request was not thought to be onerous nor cause them much additional work.
        2. Work plans should include the main and sub-hypotheses that that are being advanced with their studies. In the CalFed proposal, all hypotheses were grouped on one page and not identified as to which project each corresponded to. The hypotheses and the reasonableness of the studies to test each is critical to the Committee's ability to judge the importance or appropriateness of the work plans. (For example, some Committee members have asked if the Biomarker Studies would be able to advance issues around the quantification of loads and chemicals or will such studies only be able to identify their presence and origin.)
      2. The Technical Committee expressed interest in holding workshops on specific areas of the grant proposal (e.g. S.O.D. and Biomarkers) before the subcontractors redid the work plans. These workshops should follow completion of the rough-cut analysis. This leaves the month of January to hold hese workshops. Kevin and Peggy will include this when developing a timeline for getting the material DWR needs to begin their internal process.
    4. Should DWR have a Single Major Subcontractor?
      1. Peggy brought up the proposal that Systech (or JSA?) be DWR's major/sole sub-contractor and that they subcontract to everyone else. This would save DWR time and effort and could speed up the process and timeline for final approval of the contract.
      2. Concerns were raised about the additional cost this might entail. This item was postponed until Peggy and Systech could provide more information.
  4. Rough Cut Loading Analysis
    1. Timeline
      1. November 15 - Comments on all drafts should be provided to Fred and sjr-tech-com .
      2. November 30 - Next meeting on these issues.
      3. December 6 - UOP provides committee with the draft analysis of its SOD work
      4. December 13 - All day meeting to finalize integration of the elements
      5. December 15-20 - Fred provides a draft synthesis report for Committee Review
      6. January 3 - Technical Committee members provide review via email to Fred and list
      7. January 15 - Final report ready to mail to Steering Committee members for Jan. 19 meeting
    2. Loading from the Turning Basin (TB)
      1. This was one of the meeting's more debated subjects. Issues included:
        1. Algae in the Turning Basin can swim and are not the same as the bulk of the algae in the San Joaquin which do not swim and die when they hit the deeper, darker waters of the Deep Water Ship Channel. Swimming algae can provide more oxygen than they respire in deep water. How much of the algal load from the TB is from swimming versus non-swimming species?
        2. Is the TB a source or sink for BOD and oxygen? How many different locations (deep and shallow) in TB have been sampled? Could it be a source in one area and a sink in another?
        3. What percentage of the TB is flushed each day and refreshed on tidal flows?
        4. Should we invest more time and money determining this as part of the rough-cut analysis? How important is this?
        5. Is sediment in the TB resuspended so often that it loses its oxygen demanding load more quickly than where new material is being deposited in the main channel amd where the sediment is not stirred up so often?
      2. Gary and Peggy will provide an estimate of the load and source of load entering the river from the Turning Basin based on their studies. It was not clear how many of the above questions they will be able to address.
    3. Sediment Oxygen Demand
      1. Gary Litton was only able to provide a small amount of the information he has been collecting. Some of the questions and issues brought up in this area include:
        1. There is evidence of a lot of mixing in the water column. What is the significance?
        2. There is not a high level of confidence in the existing analytical tools being used in the SOD studies. Should a piston system for taking core samples be utilized?
        3. What is velocity of water along the bottom of the river and channel?
        4. How often do ships come through the channel? What size are they and when do they usually arrive (time of day)?
        5. How much oxygen demand is exerted from sediment itself? (Dome method might be useful.)
        6. How important is resuspension of sediments from tides, ship wakes and other activities and events?
    4. Tidal Impacts
      1. Peggy gave a summary of the 12-hour tidal study of spring tides (greatest difference between rise and fall, during new and full moons). Some of the issues that committee members had included:
        1. This study should also be done on a 25-hour cycle. (Peggy, were you going to be able to do this?)
        2. Does the Spring tide provide significant deposition of before ebb tide flows take over? Does Spring tide lead to a net deposition of sediment oxygen demanding material? (Peggy says that there is deposition on a flood tide
        3. Do neap (very low) tides do the opposite?
        4. What are the settling velocities and rates during different tidal events?
        5. Can the Systech model be run with steady state dynamics of flows? Can it utilize the DWR tidal model runs to estimate concentrations over dynamic steady state conditions?
        6. Calculate the average tidal flow over three months and compare this on any particular day's data. How different is this?
        7. What is the movement of the tides (and deposition rates) at each monitoring station in the lower river?
    5. Loads at Vernalis/Mossdale
      1. Tom King provided a written summary and overheads of his studies and calculations on loads coming in from upstream. Issues and questions that arose include:
        1. What would occur with chlorophyll data for loads in August, September and October if it was incorporated in this analysis? Compare this to BOD at Mossdale and Vernalis.
        2. Incorporate UVM (I can't remember what this stands for) flows in the Ship Channel.
        3. Recheck flow at Vernalis and Mossdale.
        4. Since depth was a variable with loads and DO levels changes between 1 and 2 feet below the surface, how much mixing occurs in the water column and how important is this to the process? How are Stanislaus River flows incorporated? It is expected that the right bank of the SJR will have more Stanislaus flow than the left bank? Does the sampling locations make a difference?
        5. Should more data be gathered from French Camp Slough? This slough provides about 5% of the flow and peaks at around 85 cfs. If the load was very high at certain times, it could be a factor, but how much impact could it have and is it worthwhile investing in additional studies given all the other demands on resources?
  5. Bin Issues and Questions
    1. The Committee needs to standardize the terminology used by members and in different studies. For example, positive values should be for downstream flow and negative values for upstream flow. All monitoring sites should use coding that does not lead to confusion and is standardized with IEP, CMARP and other larger efforts. For example R 1-6 were used for different sites in different D.O. studies. This is confusing. It was not clear how this standardization would occur.
    2. How much water gets into the Turning Basin from the Sacramento River? What role does Sacramento River water play in dissolved oxygen levels and conditions when it enters the lower SJR at 14-Mile Slough? What percentage of its flow then is exported via Disappointment Slough upstream?
    3. Doug Ball (USBR) says that historical profiles from the 1970's are available. This information could be useful to SOD and other studies. Doug also has a good memory of studies that have occurred over the last few decades.
    4. Run the Systech model to predict dissolved oxygen at the top and bottom of the water column and compare this to the results Peggy has been developing from last summer's research.
Back to Main page
Website designed by Kevin Wolf and Associates
Webmaster: Sybil Harlow