SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load Stakeholder Process

San Joaquin River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL 
Steering Committee Meeting Notes - Draft 1
July 18, 2000

Attending: Al Brizard (Stanislaus Cnty Farm Bureau), Judith Buethe (Public 
Relations), Jim Curtis (Kennedy/Jenks), Don Dodge (Stockton MUD), Vincent 
Dykzeul (Stanislaus F.B.), Chris Foe (CVRWQCB), Sharla Hardy (Stockton 
Public Works), Mary Hildebrand (SJFB), Bill Johnston (Modesto ID), Vance 
Kennedy (citizen), G. Fred Lee (chair Tech Com), Dan Madden (City of 
Turlock), Paul Martin (WUD), Frank Motzkus (Tracy), Joe Pimentel (Western 
United Dairymen), Garner Reynolds (Modesto), Wayne Smith (Stockton Public 
Works), Herb Stone (Wet Industry Dischargers), Kevin Wolf (facilitation and 
notes, kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us 530-758-4211)

Upcoming Meetings:
Executive Committee – August 3, 2000  1:30 – 3:30 pm,  2500 Navy Drive, 
Stockton

Steering Committee  - August 16, 2000, 9 am – 12:00 pm,  2500 Navy Drive, 
Stockton 

Pollutant Exchange Committee – August 16, 12:30-2 pm, 2500 Navy Drive, 
Stockton

Technical Committee – Sept. 7, 9 am –12:30 pm,  DWR- 3251 S Street, 
Sacramento

Material Handed Out at Meeting:
1. Draft #8 of City and County Outreach and Education Brochure, Judith 
Buethe (jbuethe@pacbell.net, 209-464-8707)
2. “Evaluation of Nutrients and Oxygen Demanding Substances in the San 
Joaquin Basin”, A copy of the material presented by Charlie Kratzer to the 
Peer Review Panel.
3. Draft 2 of the Conceptual Model Framework for the SJR TMDL for 
Dissolved Oxygen, Kevin Wolf 
4. “Environmental Setting of the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins, California by the 
USGS in 1998”, Charlie Kratzer

A. Brochure Review
1. The Steering Committee read through the first three pages of the brochure 
and provided  comments, which were noted by Judith.  These comments will 
result in Draft #9, which she will circulate for review by email.

2. Future brochures targeted to other interest groups will be drafted once this 
main brochure is finalized.  (Note:  It would be helpful for the different 
interest group representatives to provide Judith with a draft introduction 
section.  If you have already written documents to your constituents about 
the TMDL issue and its potential impacts, please send those along to Judith 
as well.  Kevin)

B. Peer Review
1. Discussion of the peer reviews comments was postponed until the August 
meeting as their final review of the drafts are not scheduled to be returned to 
Peggy until later in July.  

2. Issues that were raised by the meeting participants include:
a. The City of Stockton owns the computer model that Systech Engineering has 
been developing.  It is in the public domain.  The City would like to have 
support to write documentation for the model that allows other stakeholders 
to use it more easily and be more confident in the meaning of the results they 
obtain.  Stockton is concerned that if others sufficiently change their model, 
it should no longer be identified as coming from the City’s efforts.   

b. The Steering Committee should be briefed about the benefits and limitations 
of the computer modeling efforts some time this fall or winter.  

c. How important will be groundwater and surface water drainage information?  
There are broad geographic areas with little or no data.  It may not be 
possible to monitor and gain important missing data before the TMDL needs 
to be finished.

C. “Strawman” Loading Analysis

1. Chris Foe and Fred Lee briefed the committee on their plan to utilize historic 
information and existing analytical tools to provide an estimate of how much 
load reduction might be needed from different sources and subwatersheds 
upstream and downstream of Vernalis. 

2. The analysis will be clearly identified as being only a non-binding estimate 
based on existing information.  New information and better modeling tools 
may significantly change the final numbers. Other assumptions will also be 
clarified.

3. An ad hoc committee headed by Chris and Fred will meet regularly this 
summer and fall to draft the analysis.  The technical committee will have an 
opportunity to review the draft before it is presented to the Steering 
Committee.  

4. Steps the strawman committee will take in developing the analysis include:

a. Step 1:  Determine the deficiency in pounds of oxygen in different areas of 
the river.  This will help determine how much correction of the problem is 
needed in pounds per day of oxygen at different flows and temperatures.  
(Chris thought that they could develop a number that was within 20-30% 
accurate.)

b. Step 2:  Determine what subwatersheds and other sources are responsible for 
different percentages of the oxygen deficit and loading problem.  First, 
responsibility will be divided between upstream and downstream of 
Vernalis.  Where possible, it will be subdivided by river stretch and 
subwatershed.   Average water flow years will be used in the calculations. 

c. Step 3:  Use the computer model to calculate deficits in August and October 
assuming loads are constant.   Eventually use the model to calculate impacts 
of the Deep Water Ship Channel’s depth and increased volume.  

5. Flow inputs are controversial.  Modeling will eventually produce load 
estimates under different flow scenarios that are then run through the 
computer model. Bill Johnston will provide the flow schedule used in the 
recent SWRCB rulings on VAMP and other SJR flows.  (Note:  Flows in a 
No Action Alternative in an EIR on the final implementation plan will likely 
be based on the existing condition of flows in 2003.  What will those flows 
be?  It might be valuable to start a list of all potential actions that might 
affect the baseline flow condition in 2003 and track them over time.)

6. Critical events where the dissolved oxygen plummets will be difficult to 
model and predict.  These will likely have to be ignored in this stage of the 
TMDL analysis.

7. Pollutant exchange scenarios will also benefit from the “strawman’ analysis.  
It may be that the only cost-effective way for cities to gain the ability to 
expand or maintain their sewage load and thus accommodate additional 
development is through a pollutant exchange program the lowers the overall 
load in the river.   In another example, the Port of Stockton may have to 
mitigate any aggravation of the DO problem that dredging of the harbor and 
channel might cause.  A pollutant exchange program could provide the 
means to make this mitigation the most cost-effective. 

8. The “strawman” analysis results should have the data parameters and 
confidence intervals clearly explained so that the public understands how to 
evaluate the results. The assumptions, the sources of data and lack of data, 
other monitoring and analytical issues should all be clearly explained in the 
“strawman” report. 

D. Reviewing Dissolved Oxygen Standards

1. Chris Foe announced that he and the Regional Board would be developing 
an Interagency Task Force to reevaluate the DO standards.  Included on the 
Task Force would be the USFWS, NMFS, CDFG, USEPA, SWRCB and 
other agencies.  Chris hopes their report will be available for the Technical 
Committee and then the Steering Committee’s review in the next 6-9 
months.  Only after public review would the report be presented to the 
Regional Board. 

2. One of the tasks that will be done in the analysis is to review dissolved 
oxygen standards and reasoning from across the country, especially in 
similar types of conditions.  
 
E. RWQCB August  4 meeting
1. Ronda :Lucas was not able to provide a draft written document for the 
Steering Committee to review.  It is hoped that she will be able to do this by 
email next week. She will have 2-5 minutes to provide a verbal explanation 
to accentuate the written report.  She should focus on the process-related 
issues.

2. Chris is developing a written a staff report to the board.  He will share this 
with the committee before the meeting.

F. City Funding
1. Between $25,000 and $30,000 is available from Modesto, Turlock and Tracy 
to help in the stakeholder process in fiscal year 2000/2001.  The sooner it is 
requested for specific projects the better.  If it is not used this fiscal year, not 
all of it may be forwardable to the next year.

2. The Steering Committee did not finalize how to allocate the money.  The 
cities would prefer an allocation, which limits paper work and provides some 
explainable benefits back to their constituents.  Two major areas for funding 
were discussed.

a. Public education.  The city funds could finance the consulting costs 
associated with pulling together presentations and meetings with farmers, 
crop associations, water districts, cities, businesses, industries and others this 
winter.  Each of the targeted groups could provide in-kind resources in terms 
of meeting facilities, invitations and outreach, and more. These meetings 
could be important to sparking additional funds because of increased 
awareness and action by these groups.  Judith will help develop a proposed 
work plan and budget for such a project. 

b. Strawman TMDL.  Step 3 (see above) of the strawman analysis will require 
additional funding (around $20,000?).  A strong draft analysis could be a 
valuable tool to convincing different responsible parties to get involved and 
begin providing resources now to the process.  The educational funding may 
be available from other sources. One of the problems with this proposal is 
how the cities could get the funds to the modeling effort.  Proceeding by 
sending funds through the City of Stockton will be problematic.  It would be 
easier if the cities could write a check directly to the modeling consultants 
for specific parts of the modeling project.  The strawman committee will 
investigate how this might be done.

3. The Executive Committee will review this further at their August meeting 
and potentially provide the Steering Committee with a recommendation for 
their August 16 meeting.  

G.  Miscellaneous

1. The USEPA’s recent Final TMDL Rule will be linked to the SJR TMDL 
website as soon as it is available on-line and someone sends Kevin the 
address.

2. The Steering Committee was apprised of the value of their individual 
participation in other processes that will likely affect the dissolved oxygen 
load allocation and implementation plan.   CALFED’s committees on 
operations, “gaming” of flow scenarios for the delta, drinking water quality 
including Total Organic Carbon and nutrients are especially important to 
have a voice.

3.  How will the Regional Board account for planned growth and the safety 
margin as it determines the final load allocation?  Can cities improve their 
discharged product so that it is so clean they can put unlimited amounts of 
water into the river?  If so, would the TMDL have no affect on their future 
growth potential?

4. Maps are needed for outreach and educational efforts.  Maps of the 
subwatersheds, cities, water districts, major drains, county lines, Port of 
Stockton, Old River, Vernalis, Mossdale and other attributes can hopefully 
be provided by Jones and Stokes.

Website designed by Kevin Wolf and Associates


Webmaster: Sybil Harlow