SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Maximum Daily Load
Stakeholder Process

San Joaquin River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Technical Committee
Draft Meeting Notes - Draft 1 - October 20, 1999
By: Kevin Wolf, kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us

Attending: Doug Ball (USBR), Doug Brewer (JSA), Randy Brown (DWR), Carl Chen (Systech), Chris Foe (RWQCB), Brant Jorgenson (JSA), Vance Kennedy (Farm Bureau), Tom King (RWQCB), G. Fred Lee (DeltaKeeper advisor), Peggy Lehman (CWR), Gary Litton (UOP), Ronda Lucas (Farm Bureau), Paul Marshall (CalFed), Frank Motzkus (Tracy), Bob Murdoch (Stockton), Casey Ralston (DWR), Garner Reynolds (Modesto), Erwin Van Nieuwenhuyse (USFWS), Kevin Wolf (facilitation and notes)

Next Technical Committee Meetings
November 8, 9 am - 4 pm, 2600 V St, Sacramento (email Doug Brewer to order lunch - dougb@jsanet.com)
Meeting objectives include:
  1. Analyze and integrate the information provided by the different lead persons into the rough-cut loading analysis. Provide enough information so that Dr. Lee can advance the summary document. Clarify what additional information is needed to complete the report by January 1.
  2. Determine the $86,000 budget priorities that need to be funded before DWR has the CalFed funds in its budget and available. Essentially this means reviewing proposals and deciding on projects that need to be worked on before March or April, which may be how long it takes full funding to be available. Budget items include: data management, data and literature inventorying, the peer review process and other tasks. Proposals with budgets and line items should be made available the week before to the sjr-tech-com list.
  1. CalFed Grant Issues
    1. The Technical Committee voted unanimously to have DWR be the contract manager of the CalFed grant and sign all needed contracts necessary to have the funds added to their budget.
    2. CalFed's expectations of the grant
      1. Paul Marshall said the grant's purpose is to help gain the data and analytical tools needed to determine a load allocation for low dissolved oxygen levels in the lower San Joaquin River. CalFed supports changes occurring in the budget and work plan with the approval of the Technical and Steering Committees.
    3. CalFed Grant Contract Issues
      1. Timeline
        1. The Secretary of the Interior through the USBR signed the documents that release the CalFed grant money to DWR.
        2. Randy Brown has signed a document that allows DWR to accept the funds. But the contract has not been finalized and signed.
        3. DWR can only make available funds after it signs and internally processes the contract and moves the money into their accounts.
        4. The contract outlines the list of deliverables, starting dates, reimbursement, and other items. The contract is expected to be signed before November 19. After this it will likely be another two or more months to transfer and internally process all the documents.
      2. DWR Roles and Responsibility
        1. In signing for the contract, DWR becomes responsible that the funded studies are done right and that CalFed's (and the public's) money is not wasted. DWR wants the science to be technically sound and that the most important work is prioritized and done.
        2. DWR assumed the grant's contract manager role when it was decided that the 20% Sacramento State University was charging for grant administration ($144,000) was too high. The Contract Manager is responsible for overseeing the work of the contractors and each individual Principal Investigator. This person ensures that quarterly and annual reports are done well and on time. The contract administration includes confirming budgets and expenses,
      3. DWR Administrative Costs
        1. Randy Brown said that DWR would absorb the contract management and administrative staff time in DWR's overhead. Some minor amount of money might be used for a student assistant to help in this area. Overall Randy stated that almost all of the $144,000 would be freed up from the original budget's administrative overhead costs. Thus there wasn't a need to advance funding for this in a year 2000 Budget Change Proposal.
      4. The Technical Committee's Role in Grant Administration
        1. The Technical Committee clarified that it would take a proactive role in helping ensure that the collaborators (subcontractors) would fulfill their administrative tasks in a timely and effective manner. If this is successful, much of the contract management work can be minimized.
        2. The Technical Committee will use email and meetings to keep up with the contractors and allow all of the committee members to know how each contractor is doing in terms of meeting their approved work plan.
      5. Principal Investigator
        1. There is funding in the grant for Peggy Lehman to be the Principal Investigator. There is not the funding for her to be the contract manager. In addition she has specific responsibilities in the Phytoplankton studies. Peggy will provide a better estimate of her tasks and time allocations for her Principal Investigator role as it all the tasks come together. (Peggy said afterwards that there might be funds available from this line item.)
      6. Payment of Outside Contractors
        1. JSA indicated that DWR could avoid sole source problems if the potential contractors were named on the grant proposal. This insight came from another CALFED grant to DWR which had several subcontractors named on the grant. (Note: Randy Brown looked into this and it appears to work. The CALFED review process seems to take the place of a typical RFP/RFQ process.)
      7. Grant Decision Making
        1. Randy Brown stated that the DWR would support changing the grant budget and the decision making of the Technical Committee as long as the Steering Committee approves.
        2. The Technical Committee clarified that it will pursue reaching consensus on the budget changes and other research priorities and will pass its recommendations to the Steering Committee for final approval.
        3. If there is division in the Technical Committee over how to prioritize the budget or advance the work plan, the Steering Committee will make the final decision.
      8. Reimbursement of Work Done Before Final Contract Signed with CalFed.
        1. Randy clarified that DWR can advance money when DWR officially adds the funds to its budget after they signed the contract with the USBR. They can help with meeting internal needs before the contract is signed knowing that the funds are on the way. The can be reimbursed under the 10% ($86,000) rule.
        2. Stockton restated that it would advance all $86,000 if it were assured it would be repaid after the contract is finalized and funding becomes available.
        3. Kevin will work with Peggy to develop a budget options document that will help the Technical Committee make this decision on November 9.
    4. Literature and Data Review
      1. Peggy raised concerns about funding the $22,000 proposal by Jones and Stokes to do the literature and data review over the next couple of weeks. She wants to review the overall budget to determine if how this fits into the overall budget. (It is also possible for DWR to hire a student assistant to inventory the data for significantly fewer funds.) She will investigate this more and prepare information for November 9.
      2. Other Technical Committee members worried about how the delay could harm the timeline. (Dr. Lee stated afterwards that the rough cut load allocation will be done with this year's information so locating historic data and literature will not be so important to this effort.) There could be some benefits to completing this before the peer review process occurs.
      3. Doug Brewer stated that if DWR thought the $22,000 bid was too high, they should find an alternative means of getting the work done and proceed as quickly as possible. JSA does not want to be the reason this review effort did not proceed in a timely manner.
    5. Data Management
      1. Peggy was concerned that Karl Jacob's proposal for IEP's management of the database did not include work for 2000 data. She learned after the meeting that Karl would be returning with additional line items that could increase costs $10,000 or more. He won't be able to give final estimates until the 2000 monitoring and research plans are completed
      2. Karl will email the final proposal to the technical committee email list. The Technical Committee will use this information at its November 9 meeting.
    6. Scientific Review Panel
      1. Chris Foe explained how the Regional Board and agency team used the Peer Review process in an exemplary way as part of the mercury study program for the Sacramento River. He explained that there were a number of important steps to take to make the process worthwhile:
        1. The Peer Review team should be composed of some of the best scientists in the nation who provide a well-rounded view of the technical and theoretical issues. The team should be solicited as many months in advance as possible and should be paid an honorarium for their involvement. He supports having the peer review members be selected by the Technical Committee and reviewed by the Steering Committee.
        2. The Peer Review team should critically analyze both the rough-cut loading analysis and the tasks, work plans and methodologies that will be pursued in the monitoring, research and analysis process for the CalFed grant. Ideally, they would review more than this year's CalFed funded program but our overall scientific strategy for resolving the technical issues.
        3. The Peer Review team should receive key documents (e.g. work plans, budgets, background material, reports etc) a few weeks before the meeting. The meeting should be scheduled in February or March 2000 in order to have their review before the CalFed budget and work plan are finalized. (This might be difficult to do given the work involved.)
      2. Who should manage the Peer Review process?
        1. There is a lot of work involved in administering a successful Peer Review process. Chris Foe will provide the Technical Committee with information on how they accomplished their work and the tasks that were involved.
        2. We should budget around $40,000 for the whole project which includes administrative costs, honorariums, travel etc for both the initial and follow up meetings and work. (This money was not in the original budget but can come from the administrative savings that occur because DWR will be the contract manager.)
        3. Once the job description is clarified with the help of the RWQCB staff, we will put out a proposal for work to the Muir Institute, collaborating agencies and other possible candidates. (Note: Please let the If any organization would like to do this as an in-kind contribution. Hopefully someone will rise up to be responsible for this effort. This issue will be on an upcoming Technical Committee meeting agenda. Note: Paul Marshall will check to see if CalFed could help administer the peer review process.


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