SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Maximum Daily Load
Stakeholder Process
San Joaquin River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL
Technical Committee Meeting DRAFT 1 Notes CALFED 2001 Grant
April 4, 2000

Note: These notes are supplemented by the proposals and background material presented by proponents and principals. I attempted not to duplicate that material. If you think anything should be added or clarified, please let me know. Thank you.

Attending: Attending: Brian Bergamaschi (USGS presentation only), Doug Brewer (JSA), Russ Brown (JSA), John Flemming (Meade Hunt and Western United Dairymen), Alex Hildebrand (SDWA and BDAC), Brant Jorgenson (JSA), Charlie Kratzer (USGS), Peggy Lehman (DWR), Casey Ralston (DWR), Perry Standish-Lee (Black and Veatch), Rich Stowell (Eco:logic, Farm Bureau). Kevin Wolf (facilitator and notes 530-758-4211, kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us)

Next Technical Committee Meetings:
 Computer Modeling Integration Sub-committee - April 13, 1:30-4:30 1416 Ninth Street Room 210

CalFed 2001 Grant Development April 25, 9 am 3 pm. Location to be determined.

Peer Review Workshop to be scheduled for June

Material presented for the meeting included:
  1. Pilot of Pure Oxygen Diffuser Ship to Reverse DO sag in the Stockton Deep Water Channel. Perri Standish-Lee and Dr. Alex Horne and Dr. Les Lampe; Black & Veatch
  2. Adjustments in 2000 CALFED Grant Task Allocation. Russ T. Brown; Jones & Stokes
  3. The Use of Constructed Wetlands to Reduce Agriculture Drainage Nutrient Loading to the San Joaquin River. Perri Standish-Lee & Dr. Alex Home; Black & Veatch
  4. Assessment of the Impact of Dry Weather Flows in the Modesto Stormwater Collection System on the San Joaquin River. Perri Standish-Lee and Dr. Alex Horne; Black & Veatch
  5. Historical Water Quality Data Atlas; Russ T. Brown
  6. Proposed Field Testing of Corps of Engineers Stockton Jet Aeration Device; Jones & Stokes
  7. Deep Water Ship Channel and San Joaquin River Water Quality Sampling City of Stockton Workplan Outline; Jones & Stokes
  1. PEER REVIEW
    1. Panelists
      1. Computer modeling - Jerry Orlob (UC Davis and Orlob and Associates)
        1. The Technical Committee recognizes that Dr. Orlob works as a consultant to South Delta Water District and there might be the perception of a conflict of interest. The Committee though believes that Dr. Orlob will not shy away from being upfront and direct with his concerns and comments. He is a highly regarded expert who brings real knowledge of modeling issues involved with the delta as well as background in algae physiology, carbon modeling, and flux of material in/out of the estuary. The Committee unanimously recommends Dr. Orlob.
      2. Tim Hollibough (University of Georgia)
        1. The Committee is pleased that Dr. Hollibough has agreed to be on the peer review panel. Dr. J. T. Hollibough is assistant director of marine studies at the University of Georgia. He is a world expert on bacteria and has directed studies on both bacteria, phytoplankton and nutrient dynamics in the SF Bay region over the past 15 years. He is currently a principal investigator on an ongoing CALFED grant to look at bacteria utilization of dissolved organic matter in the San Joaquin River.
      3. Alan Jassby (UC Davis and Washington)
        1. Dr. Jassby has agreed to be on the panel but he will need to respond in writing as he won't be able to be there in person. His expertise is in algal biomass and carbon mass balance.
      4. Overall Dissolved Oxygen Load Allocation Expert
        1. The top candidate is Wes Jarrell who headed up the DO work for Port of Portland problem. He is now at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The Committee would be very please if Dr. Jarrell would participate.
        2. Other candidates with experience similar to Dr. Jarrell may also be needed if he declines. The search is still on so please send your recommendations to the list.
      5. "BOD" Expertise
        1. Because Biochemical Oxygen Demand is very problematic in how it can be interpreted, the committee, at the suggestion of Rich Stowell has started using the term "Factual" Oxygen Demand. We will continue to gather some BOD measurements, but hope to tackle the main issue of how to divide the biochemical oxygen demand into algae and its breakdown products versus terrestrial organic material through other methodologies. Tracers and bacterial analysis are two that we are considering. Getting at this percentage breakdown of the load will be a major goal of 2001 studies. Thus we do not feel it to be an important component for peer review this year.
      6. S.O.D Expertise
        1. Most of the SOD components have been removed from the grant. Gary Litton's work will continue with Peggy gaining information about algal species composition of sediment samples. Most of the Peer Review panelists will have some experience with SOD. Two of the major SOD experts will likely be part of the CalFed 2001 grant Berelson and ?) . Thus the committee did not think that it was a priority to include a SOD expert on the review panel.
    2. Schedule
      1. Kevin will work with the panelists to determine the time in June that works best for them. Two possible dates include: June 13-14, 14-15 and June 19-20. Kevin will inform the committee as soon as dates are set. If anyone can't make any of these dates, please let me know and we will add it to the date considerations.
    3. Modeling Peer Review
      1. A separate modeling workshop will be organized to bring in outside experts and review the modeling components that we will be pursuing in 2000. Thus Dr. Orlob would be the only modeling expert on the Peer Review Panel and we do not expect the panel to cover all the modeling issues.
      2. Issues that will be covered in more depth at the modeling workshop include:
        1. Trial time
        2. Algal breakdown (can this be modeled?)
        3. Settling and resuspension
        4. Where B.O.D. is going
        5. Incorporating right variables
        6. Hydrodynamics
        7. Transport issues
        8. What implementation of model could mean?
  2. TRACER RESEARCH PRESENTATION
    1. Note: Brian Bergamaschi from the USGS will send his presentation overheads to the list. I am not going to try to cover his material here. Kevin
    2. General Concerns on Tracers
      1. Can they be used to quantify load amounts from different sources?
      2. What degree of certainty do we need to divide out aquatic V. terrestrial organic material? What degree of certainty can tracers provide?
      3. Could tracer research lead to more regulatory control?
      4. Tracers all have pitfalls. How do we evaluate the results?
  3. CALFED 2000 GRANT
    1. Weekly sampling in ship channel by City of Stockton and Upstream Modeling
      1. The Technical Committee supported postponing upstream modeling and using the funds to match the City of Stockton and continue 1999 weekly sampling in 2000. Reasons included:
        1. Continuing the extra monitoring Stockton did in 1999 will be important to model calibration, baseline data, upstream of Channel Point monitoring sites, and top and bottom of channel data. Stockton will provide a $50,000 match to the grant. This extra monitoring is above and beyond what is needed to meet Stockton's NPDES permit.
        2. The upstream modeling will be a high priority in the 2001 grant. The decision on funding could come as early as Sept. As soon as the decision is made, the committee will advance payment from the 2001 reimbursable 10% to pay for the modeling we pulled from the 2000 grant.
        3. Kevin will help organize and facilitate a modeling meeting to help integrate the DWRSIM and TMDL modeling efforts. The meeting will occur on April 13. The information from the meeting will help form the foundation of the 2001 work plan and budget and be presented to the Technical Committee at their April 25 meeting.
    2. Data Atlas
      1. The Committee decided to not include $ 50,000 to develop an "atlas" of important data and the tools needed for stakeholders to be able to analyze the data on their own. The major reasons for this decision included:
        1. The IEP will provide datasets in Access formats, which should be a useful format to all the stakeholders. The data will be online so it can be universally accessible.
        2. The stakeholder constituents will need a variety of tools to analyze the load allocation and implementation options in 2002. We can include in the CalFed 2001 grant a data atlas type tool for accessing and analyzing the important information and meet our 2002 needs. In the meantime, the Technical Committee can use the IEP datasets and the datasets developed as part of the modeling work.
    3. Process on the rest of the grant
      1. Peggy sent out a timeline for finalizing the components of the 2000 grant. Almost all work plans have been sent to her and she is working with the project leaders to develop a final draft. She will send these to the sjr-tech-com after April 12.
      2. Peggy drafted the following timeline for finalizing the 2000 grant.
        1. April 12: Submit peer review material to TAC for evaluation. This will include: 1)CALFED 2000 grant workplans, 2) Reports from the research last fall, 3) GFred Lee load allocation summary and 4) instructions to reviewers.
        2. April 21: Technical Team submit comments and questions on peer review material.
        3. week of April 24: Team meeting to discuss and finalize peer review material.
        4. May 5: Comments incorporated into review material
        5. May 8: Send review material to peer review team
  4. CALFED 2001 Grant Note: We did not review the modeling and other proposals that were reviewed at the March 23 meeting. All of the proposals will be reviewed once more on April 25 at which time the basic dollar amounts and work plans for the 2001 grant will be finalized.
    1. Recirculation of flow at the Head of Old River Barrier (HORB)
      1. The committee likes this proposed pilot project and supports its further development. (See proposal for more details.) Some monitoring and issues that should be addressed in the pilot project includes:
        1. Monitor load pumped up the Old River into the SJR
        2. Monitor D.0. in the South Delta before and after recirculation occurs.
        3. Monitor the effects on fish and invertebrates. If a screw pump or a low-level pump is used (as is likely given the low lift), it might not have much entrainment losses.
        4. Whose take permit will this work be under? The assumption here is that some take will occur with the recirculation and a take permit may be needed.
        5. Why was the Grant Line Barrier operated in the way it has been? Will this continue in 2000 and 2001? Its operation has a dramatic affect on residence time.
      2. Kevin is in contact with Mike Ford, the Chief of DWR's Delta Planning Branch in the Planning Office and has asked him if his department would be the principal investigator of this study. He will inform the committee as soon as he hears. If not DWR, the Technical Committee will search for another agency or a consulting firm that would like to head this up and fully develop the proposal for inclusion in the grant.
      3. Kevin sent a letter to the DWR modeling department to pursue their help in accessing or developing model runs for different recirculation and barrier operation scenarios so that the flow data can be entered into the DO model. Generally, the Technical Committee is looking for the following model runs:
        1. Inflow without barrier April- November
        2. Inflow with tidal barriers operation
        3. Inflow with HORB
    2. Aeration
      1. The Technical Committee wants to include in the 2001 grant a pilot project to test the latest in aerators and their effectiveness in the DWSC.
      2. In 2000, JSA will use roughly $10,000 in CalFed 2000 funding to review the literature and recommend the aerator that would be best to test and a methodology for measuring its effectiveness.
      3. The CALFED 2001 grant will be written in such a way that the test program done in 2001 will evolve from the analysis done in 2000.
      4. Perri and JSA will talk about how they might either collaborate on an aeration proposal or develop separate ones for the committee's consideration. One thought is for JSA to do the monitoring and evaluation and Black and Veatch to set up and operate the pilot program.
      5. Some issues for the aeration pilot project to consider include:
        1. Potential impacts on source water including zooplankton populations
        2. Fish entrainment issues
        3. Work that the USACE might have done in other parts of the country
        4. The possible need for a take permit?
        5. Will manufacturers help with study of field data?
      6. How might nitrogen levels in the water be impacted
    3. Load Management from Non-point sources
      1. Overview
        1. Non-point source control and load reduction needs to be evaluated to have a legally defensible EIR/EIS on the final implementation alternative. In general the Technical Committee wants to have the stakeholders by sub-watershed determine how they want to divide up the load that the technical process will allocate to them.
        2. The farm community will not be enthusiastic about taking on this task until it is much more scientifically provable how much of the load comes from them and from what sources. Unfortunately it won't be until the end of 2001 that the Technical Committee will reach a reasonably solid level of certainty.
      2. Developing Non-Point Source Analytical Tools
        1. It is unlikely that enough monitoring will occur before 2002 for the sub-watershed stakeholders to identify the specific contributors to their load allocation. Yet they must determine how to allocate their load to their stakeholders by the end of 2002. The Technical Committee would like to include in the CALFED 2001 grant funding for a set of tools that will allow the subwatershed stakeholders to evaluate their load using historic data only.
        2. GIS were thought to provide the best long term tools for ongoing analysis over the next 3-10+ years the TMDL process will probably be continuing. USGS and other agencies have many of the GIS layers that could feed into a BASIN or WARM type GIS interface. Some of the layers that will likely be useful include: land use including furrow and perennial crops, fertilizer use, soil types, urban stormwater runoff, wetlands and riparian corridors, groundwater levels and quality data, and maybe more.
      3. Constructed wetlands
        1. Perri presented a proposal to evaluate the benefits of a pilot project constructed wetlands. The Technical Committee felt that this might be useful if it was coordinated with a drainage with a high level of water quality data and with a willing participant who put resources to make it happen in their jurisdiction. One example is the City of Modesto in the watershed upstream of their drinking water reservoir. Without this type of partner and project, the Technical Committee was discouraged with how difficult it would be to develop a pilot wetlands construction period that could provide meaningful data before 2002.
        2. The Committee thought a better approach would be to evaluate state of knowledge on wetland and riparian benefits to water quality, especially as studied in the Central and San Joaquin Valleys. Perri will present a proposal to conduct this evaluation. She will include a component to review wetland interaction with groundwater where much bacterial activity occurs which may benefit nutrient load reduction.
      4. Evaluate BMPs
        1. The Technical Committee thought it would be unlikely that they could develop meaningful proposals to evaluate the quantitative reduction in nutrient loads that different BMPs could produce on different ag and urban activities in time for the CALFED 2001 grant. For this reason, they want to focus on an inventory of BMPs and an evaluation of the state of knowledge on nutrient and terrestrial organic load reduction from the literature and on-farm practices with an emphasis on the San Joaquin watershed.
        2. The Technical Committee suggested that the ag community select a proponent of the inventory and literature evaluation who can do this work. Kevin will talk to Ronda and Mike McElhiney about this. Rich will also pass this along.
      5. Other
        1. A comprehensive survey of small/large Ag drains might be important.
        2. Economic analysis for feasibility review needs to be included in most projects and studies.
Website designed by Kevin Wolf and Associates
Webmaster: Sybil Harlow