SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load Stakeholder Process

San Joaquin River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL
Technical Committee Meeting  - DRAFT Notes
 November 7, 2000

Attending: Attending: Russ Brown (JSA), Carl Chen (Systech), Phil Gittens 
(Black and Veatch), Tom Hickman (MBK, Merced ID), Alex Hildebrand 
(SDWA), Bill Johnston (Modesto ID), Charlie Kratzer (USGS), G. Fred Lee 
(chair), Paul Marshall (CALFED), Lou Regnmarten (Camp Dresser McKee), 
Alice Tulloch (Tulloch Eng.), Mark Van Camp (MBK/Merced ID), Kevin Wolf 
(facilitator and notes 530-758-4211, kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us)

Next Technical Committee Meetings:
December 13, 9 am - noon,  DWR  3251 S St, Sacramento
 
Handouts
1.  A set of plots relating the operation of the Head of Old River and South Delta barriers, pumping for export and the flows at Vernalis to UVM flows down the SJR.  Russ Brown russb@jsanet.com

2.  A paper on TMDLs by Pendergast was circulated by Fred, but hardcopies were 
not available.  If you would like this in a digital format, contact Fred at 
gfredlee@aol.com

A.  New Analysis on Flows in the Lower San Joaquin in Relation to 
Operations of the Delta Barriers.

1.  Russ Brown with Jones and Stokes provided the committee with data plots on 
the relationship of flow in the SJR at Vernalis and Stockton to the operation of the Head of Old River and Grant Line, Old River and Middle River Barriers and the export pumping rates at Banks and Tracy.    Good data from the new UVM station near Stockton is helping make this analysis possible. 

2.  Some of the relationships in the plots include:
a.  When exports are up (export rates/Vernalis flows) and Grant Line, Old and 
Middle River barriers are in place (but not the HORB), the Stockton 
Flow/Vernalis Flow ratio drops.  Between 20-40% of the river's flow gets to 
Stockton.  

b.  When the HORB is in place and export rates are normal, about 50% of the 
flow reaches Stockton.  When the HORB is not in place and exports are high, 10-
20% of the flow reaches Stockton. 

3.  Some issues about the plots and data include:
a. Russ's data shows the river not going below 100 cfs in the years he plotted. 
Some assert that it did in fact drop below this.  If this is correct, why is there a discrepancy?

b. How will the future operations of the HORB affect dissolved oxygen through 
its impact on the amount of flow that reaches Stockton?   Alex H. anticipates a 
permanent, operable barrier being built at the Head of Old River.  If this is 
done, the barrier will be much more flexible in how much water flows in any 
direction, and thus will more efficiently meet the needs of South Delta water 
users and maximize benefits for the lower river.  

c. Alex also believes that a permanent barrier operated in conjunction with the 
other S. Delta barriers will be even more effective at improving flow 
conditions in the lower river.  

d. The operation of the barriers will also impact salinity levels in the river and export facilities.  It is anticipated that operations that benefit salinity will also benefit dissolved oxygen levels.  This will need to be assessed. 

e. DWR and CALFED will be modeling the operations of the barriers and their 
different environmental and water supply impacts.   Will they also model 
scenarios that optimize benefits for the lower river's dissolved oxygen 
problem?  Will they provide information on how their different scenarios 
affect flows in the lower river?  How will the information from Carl's 
modeling get to them and vice versa?

f. There is concern that export pumping rates will likely increase in the early 
fall.  This could make it even more difficult to meet the dissolved oxygen 
standards.  How will this decision be made, by whom and when?  Will the 
decision-makers evaluate the impacts of their decision on dissolved oxygen 
levels?

g. Fred Lee raised again his concern that the dissolved oxygen stakeholders were 
missing out on opportunities to influence the decision making that is going on 
within the CALFED process; decision making that could affect flows and 
loads in the lower river, and thus dissolved oxygen levels and the levels of 
load reduction that will likely need to occur with the TMDL.  Paul Marshall 
will investigate this and return with more information at the next meeting.

h. Fred also urged that the constraints that will be placed on flow manipulation 
as a result of fisheries requirements be included in modeling runs for 
operations of the barriers and their impact on dissolved oxygen levels in the 
lower river. 

B. Strawman Issues 
1. The "strawman" load responsibility committee was requested to make a 
presentation to the Technical Committee at their December meeting.   The 
strawman committee will not likely have results sufficient to present a draft 
analysis until January.  At the December meeting Fred (and Chris Foe if 
possible) will review the basic assumptions, data and approaches they are 
using in the strawman modeling effort. 

2.  Contact Fred or Chris to be on the strawman mailing list.

C.   The CALFED 2001 Grant 
1.   Paul Marshall indicated to the group that it is almost assured that about $2 million in "directed action" funds will become available to the SJR TAC for the CALFED proposals if they are not funded already with Category III monies.   
Reasons for this optimism include:

a. CALFED has little alternative but to support this project, since it is 
specifically delineated in the Record of Decision as an area that will receive 
attention.   Failure to do so would be in violation of the ROD and the US Fish 
and Wildlife Service's biological opinion for fisheries in the delta.

b. Money (around $40 million) has been allocated for directed action projects. It is expected that the state legislature will allocate more funds in 2001.  (It is not clear how much money is available immediately and how many directed 
action proposals would need to wait for the legislature to act.)

2.  Grant Administration
a. Peggy Lehman has raised the issue about DWR's interest in continuing to be 
the administrator for the CALFED grant.  She, through Kevin, made it clear 
that DWR is not interest in continuing to be the administrator for the grant 
unless there are sufficient funds made available to DWR for support of grant-
related activities and unless DWR is doing some of the field work (which it 
presently is).  DWR administrative costs would needed to be charged at $58 
per hour, and they felt that they needed a three-quarter-time person to provide 
for grant administration-project coordination (around $75,000).   The good 
news is that there is around $70,000 in the grant now and there is a good 
chance that all the administrative costs can be financed without deducting 
from project proposals.  (For example, Peer Review might not need to cost 
$60,000.)

b. DWR also had an issue of timing since the grant contracts would likely take 
from 6-9 months to complete. If we want the scientists to be ready by July 1, 
the person would need to be hired by January 1 at the latest.  Since it takes 
DWR six to eight weeks to go through a hiring process, action needs to be 
taken ASAP.   The good news is that CALFED has hired 9 people to 
administer grants.  Paul Marshall said that one of these staff can likely be 
transferred to DWR and thus avoid the hiring delay.

c. Paul will talk with Peggy and work these issues out.  They will report back to the TAC as soon as possible if problems arise.

d. If problems arise with DWR's ability to be the Principal 
Investigator/administrator, we will pursue other organizations at our 
December 13 meeting.

E.  Education of Steering Committee on Potential Ability to Control 
Nutrients within the SJR Watershed 
1. Fred suggested to the TAC that consideration should be given to bringing 
Andrew Sharpley of the USDA in the Chesapeake Bay area and Terry Logan 
of Ohio State in the Lake Erie watershed to Stockton to present a workshop on 
nutrient control experience within their respective watersheds.   Fred reports 
that no one has been able been able to achieve greater than a 40% control of 
their nutrient loads.  These scientists can provide the best available 
information on this issue. There was general support for this suggestion.  
Kevin said he would help contact them.  It is hoped that the USDA can pay 
their expenses to attend.

2. Kevin reports that Mike McElhiney with the NRCS has been finding more 
information on the benefits of filter strips in nutrient load reduction.  Kevin 
will find out if an expert on this can also come and brief the stakeholders on 
the effectiveness of these techniques in other parts of the country.

F.  CALFED 2000 Project Report 
1. Peggy indicated, in response to questions from Kevin, that she would like the 
Technical Committee clarify what questions they want the Principal 
Investigators to answer and what data analysis should be done by each.  It was 
agreed that the TAC would address this issue at the next meeting.   

2. Kevin will ask Peggy to post the original hypotheses to the list serve.  The 
TAC members and project PIs are encouraged to post to the email list the 
questions that they would like to see addressed in the reports on this year's 
studies.  On-line discussion beforehand will help make the meeting more 
productive.

G. Implementation Planning 
1. A considerable part of the meeting was devoted to discussing the 
appropriateness of developing a Prop-13 proposal to support analyzing 
implementation options for meeting the TMDL allocation.  Prop. 13 Non-
point Source funds are available and the steering committee could apply for 
up to $200,000 as a watershed-based stakeholder group.  In addition, cities, 
water districts and other entities could apply for up to $200,000 each to assess 
their local options.  (Note:  Prop. 13 says that applicants must be members of 
a watershed organization.  Our groundrules state that an individual or 
organization can become a "voting" member by attending one meeting and 
they retain their voting membership by attending an additional meeting within 
the next 12 months.  Thus any city, water district or other interested entity 
could become a member by attending a meeting before applying by the 
February 1, 2001 deadline.)

2. Chris Foe will be asked to come to the next Steering Committee meeting and 
clarify again what the Regional Board expects of the stakeholders in 
developing an implementation plan and what are the consequences if we 
decide not to pursue doing this.   

3. Paul Marshall indicated that CALFED also expected the stakeholders to 
develop an implementation plan for solving the DO problem.  Paul will clarify 
this at the next meeting.  
 
4. Bill Johnston felt that the Regional Board would be unsuccessful in trying to 
get the irrigation districts to become the responsible entities to control 
nutrients/oxygen demand discharged from the areas to which they provide 
water.  The way the districts are organized, any district board that attempts to 
control farmers' actions on their land risks being turned over in the next 
district election.   It was not clear whether Bill felt that any attempt by districts to assist their farmers in the voluntary implementation of Best Management Practices would also be strongly opposed by farmers. 

5. Johnston also indicated that he felt that the east-side water districts were not responsible for any significant amount of nutrients/oxygen demand being 
discharged to the San Joaquin River.  The strawman analysis will help 
determine if he is correct.  Until there is some indication that the eastside is a contributor, it is unlikely that they will take any action to analyze their 
implementation options.

6. The CALFED 2001 grant proposal would advance implementation analysis in 
all the identified solution areas (i.e. aeration, flows through barrier operations, sewage treatment, land use BMPs, and riparian filter strips/wetlands).  If the stakeholders only get part of implementation analysis funds from CALFED, should they pursue gaining the missing projects from Prop. 13 grants?  If not, does this mean the stakeholders are dropping their attempt to develop an implementation plan?  Would this need to be reported to the Regional Board at their next review of the stakeholders' progress?  

7. If CALFED funds the implementation portions of the 2001 grant proposal, 
should the stakeholders pursue additional funding from the Prop. 13 funds for 
missing parts of the implementation plan?  For example, the stakeholders have 
talked about developing a program to involve sub-watershed stakeholders in 
the assessment and selection of implementation options.  Right now there are 
no funds for this program.  Prop. 13 funds could cover this.  

8. Mud and Salt Slough seem to be critically important to reducing the dissolved 
oxygen pollutant load.  It was suggested that this area be a focal point for the 
Prop-13 funding. The comment was made that, since Central Valley Regional 
Water Quality Control Board has information on salinity and selenium sources 
from this area, they could also develop information on nutrients as well.  
There was general agreement that there is need to understand the specific 
sources of N and P within the Mud and Salt Slough watersheds, as they may 
impact the concentrations of these constituents discharged in the San Joaquin 
River.   Kevin said that Dan Nelson with the San Luis Water Authority is 
attempting to schedule a meeting for the westside water districts to learn more 
about the Prop. 13 funding opportunities and about the potential impact that 
the dissolved oxygen problem might have on them. 
 
H. Miscellaneous
1. The Central Valley RWQCB is developing a non-point pollution source plan 
for the Central Valley and is asking for comments on their draft.  Karen 
Larson is the point person for the board.

2. The USGS drinking water group is doing a nutrient and total carbon analysis 
for the San Joaquin River.  They will be developing 20-year trends.  The 
results are due in summer 2001.

3. How much algae and total organic carbon that reaches the Deep Water Ship 
Channel finds its way to the export pumps via the channels of the South 
Delta?  Though some of this material settles out to the sediment, some of it 
moves downstream and is swept to the pumps in the south.  There is evidence 
that some of the material gets mineralized and is no longer a potential 
drinking water pollutant.  The CALFED 2001 proposal for monitoring in the 
south delta will help determine how much of the load is diverted south after 
moving through the DWSC and whether it causes low dissolved oxygen 
problems there.   This issue should be important to the CALFED drinking 
water group and will likely need to be investigated further.

Website designed by Kevin Wolf and Associates


Webmaster: Sybil Harlow