San Francisco Bay Through the RMP Lens

3. San Francisco Bay Through the RMP Lens Jerry R. Schubel for the Entire Review Panel 4 May 2004

4. San Francisco Bay Through the RMP Lens Jerry R. Schubel for the Entire Review Panel 4 May 2004

5. What Did We Find? • Success at the 10-year mark and maturation into one of the most successful regional environmental monitoring programs in the nation. • The unusual partnership of a regulatory agency, the regulated community, and an independent scientific institution has demonstrated that “adaptive management” can work.

6. How Did We Do Our Work? • We were selected by RMP Steering Committee. • Robert Berger (retired, EBMUD) • John Conomos (Interim Director, Bay-Delta Science Consortium) • Perry Herrgesell (Chief, CA Dept of Fish & Game, Central Valley Bay-Delta Branch) • Alan Mearns (Senior staff scientist, NOAA) • Jerry R. Schubel, chair (President, Aquarium of the Pacific) • Stephen Weisberg (Executive Director, SCCWRP)

7. How Did We Do Our Work? • To evaluate RMP’s response to the recommendations of the first Five-Year Review Panel. Is it on track? • To evaluate the transparency of the RMP’s governance. Do the stakeholders understand how decisions are made? • To evaluate opportunities for collaboration with other monitoring programs and integration of their findings into a comprehensive and coherent interpretive summary of the Bay’s health. If this is not SFEI’s role, then whose is it? • To evaluate the RMP’s progress in addressing the biological effects of the chemicals it is monitoring. Is the RMP effectively tracking the consequences of contamination of toxics in the Bay? • To identify and explore opportunities for the RMP and SFEI over the next 5-10 years. What are the new challenges that will face future environmental managers in the future, and how can the RMP help them? • Agreeing on the Job of the Second Five-Year Review.

8. How Did We Do Our Work? 3. We interviewed stakeholders: RMP participants, managers, scientists, and environmentalists. • Geoff Brosseau (Executive Director, BASMAA) • Leo O’Brien (Executive Director, Bay Keeper) • Kevin Buchan (Western States Petroleum Assn, Steering Committee) • Jay Davis (RMP Manager, SFEI) • Daniel Oros (Environmental Scientist, SFEI) • Sam Luoma (Lead scientist, CDBA) • Jim McGrath (Port of Oakland, Steering Committee) • Chris Sommers (Senior scientist, EOA Inc.) • Michael Stanley-Jones (Executive Director, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition) • Karen Taberski (SF Bay RWQCB) • Will Travis (Executive Director, BCDC) • David Tucker (City of San Jose; BACWA, Chair; RMP Technical Committee & CEP Committee) • Chuck Weir (General Manager, East Bay Dischargers Authority; SFEI Board Member; RMP Steering Committee) • Dyan Whyte (SF Bay RWQCB) • Bruce Wolfe (Executive Director, SF Bay RWQCB) • Nancy Yoshikawa (EPA)

9. How Did We Do Our Work? 4. We had a lot of discussion among Panelists. 5. We created a draft report that was endorsed by all members of the Panel. There is no minority report. The report is being reviewed by participants and stakeholders. 6. We will consider those comments received by 31 May 2004 and prepare a final report to be issued no later than 30 June 2004.

10. Executive Summary

11. Executive Summary • RMP responded appropriately to the recommendations of the first Five-Year Review Panel. • The changes resulted in: • a clarification of goals and objectives • significant modifications of technical aspects of the program, including • sampling design • incorporation of new strategies for adding new elements to the RMP program to respond to new or changed environmental management needs • efforts to enhance collaboration with other Bay Area monitoring programs.

12. Executive Summary • Other changes in the RMP focused on ensuring that the RMP remains relevant. • 3 most important include increased emphasis on: • assessing biological effects of the chemicals RMP monitors • the transformation of data into information by synthesizing RMP data and information with those from other sources • developing mechanisms to ensure that RMP data and information are incorporated into the appropriate management decision-making processes • These efforts should receive even greater emphasis in the future.

13. Executive Summary • Continued evolution of the RMP as one of the nation’s best regional environmental monitoring programs is coupled tightly to the evolution of SFEI. • We were impressed with the new leadership of SFEI and encourage support for his efforts.

14. Responsiveness of RMP to Recommendations of the First Five-Year Review

15. First Five-Year Review Recommendations • Sorted Into 3 Bins: • Fundamental activities • Activities recommended for gradual implementation • Actions recommended for simple and direct implementation

16. Fundamental Activities RMP Should: • Clarify its goals and objectives and the roles of contributing parties. • Expand the set of core questions. • Re-evaluate the monitoring and research designs. RMP’s Response: • Major changes of Program goals and objectives published • Five-Year plan now updated annually • Procedures for “ID-ing” and developing Pilot and Special studies published • Topical Work Groups formed and addressed specific topics • Clear internal guidance codified on how Pilot and Special Studies are linked directly to the basic Monitoring Program

17. Activities for Gradual Implementation RMP Should: • Integrate other data for a more comprehensive appraisal • Assess sources and develop mass balances • Define impacts of contaminants on Bay resources and beneficial uses • Test seasonality of the RMP data • Determine rates of particle burial • Normalize contaminant concentrations to suspended solid concentrations RMP’s Response: • “Sources, Pathways, and Loadings Work Group” created • Developed conceptual and numerical mass balance budge models to set priorities for data acquisition, literature reviews, and a Ten-Year Synthesis of contaminants in the Bay • “Exposure and Effects Work Group” • Five-Year effects study plan, exposure and effects studies • “Design Integration Work Group” • Mass Budget Modeling • On a Bay-wide average, sediments are eroding, not accumulating

18. Actions for Simple and Direct Implementation 21/24 recommendations implemented. • Information dissemination and communication significantly improved. • Continuing progress of entire program is clear. • Specific actions on data quality control and management. • Advanced planning and conduct of work group and steering committee meetings appear to be routine. • Five-Year plan revised annually.

19. Transparency of RMP Governance: Can I See What’s Going On?

20. Transparency of RMP Governance First Five-Year Review Panel recommended: • Roles, responsibilities, and authorities of RMP’s members be better described • Formal decision-making procedures be detailed • Means to address and resolve conflict about the program’s overall direction be developed

21. Transparency of RMP Governance RMP’s Response: • Pilot and Special Study Selection Procedures, 2000 • Defines roles/responsibilities of: • RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board) • SC (Steering Committee) • TRC (Technical Review Committee) • SFEI staff • Describes each decision-making step, and potential application and integration into RMP’s base monitoring program. • Stakeholders felt program governance was sufficiently and appropriately circumscribed.

22. A Monitoring Report Card for the RMP

23. Transparency of RMP Governance First Five-Year Review: • “Consensus decision-making may in fact limit the ability of the organization to move decisively and make needed changes” and “can become more important to the coalition than identifying and resolving differences of opinion”. • Consensus decision-making has been remarkably successful in the past, but achieving such success in the future may be more difficult.

24. Collaboration with Other Programs and Integration of Data and Information

25. How good is the RMP at collaborating and at integrating data from other programs? • The Three C’s: • Communication • Cooperation • Collaboration • RMP has effectively used feedback mechanisms between management questions and monitoring information to adjust and adapt the program.

26. Collaboration and Integration Strong collaborations: • USGS (US Geological Survey) • CEP (Clean Estuary Partnership) • NOAA/EPA Meeting participation and collaborative projects. Sharing is the norm: workgroups, tasks, projects. NOAA/EPA collaboration: EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program).

27. Collaboration and Integration Collaborations With Opportunities For Improvement: • SWAMP (State-Wide Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program) • NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) • CBDA (California Bay-Delta Authority, formerly CALFED) • California Coastal Conservancy SWAMP, NPDES – to strengthen collaboration, additional meetings in planning stages CBDA, Coastal Conservancy – better collaboration is seen by RMP staff as a challenge, will require focused efforts and additional technical staff

28. Collaboration and Integration Collaborations that need work: • IEP (Interagency Ecological Program) • LTMS/DMMO (Long-Term Management Strategy/Dredged Materials Management Office) RMP and IEP staff attend each other’s meetings but no major projects shared. Dredging community desire better linkage of RMP with LTMS and DMMO. Modest study of dredged material planned for 2004.

29. How Much Progress Has Been Made in Assessing Biological Effects?

30. Progress in Assessing Biological Effects? • RMP has been a “showcase” for toxics monitoring. • However, the program needs to move towards generating more bio-effects information: • if and how toxicants are affecting organisms in the system • how toxicants affect human health, either directly or via seafood consumption

31. Progress in Assessing Biological Effects? • Exposure and Effects 5-Year Pilot Study (2001) • Has potential to produce useful information • May be reasonable to divert money from other parts of RMP to expand this effort • Too early to judge • Early formative stages of implementation, good early step • Exposure and Effects Work Group • Birds Working Group • Seal Working Group • Toxicity Working Group • Important to add a Fishery Working Group

32. Progress in Assessing Biological Effects? • The program has made a good start, but much remains to be done. • Need to: • Make explicit the questions/hypotheses • Be sure collected data can answer the questions • Make explicit how results will be integrated into broader activities in the region (i.e. RWQCB), regulatory activities, and IEP programs. • A significant task–but RMP should give this a priority, even if it means reallocation of existing efforts--$$!

33. Opportunities, Conclusions, and Recommendations

34. Opportunities, Conclusions, and Recommendations • RMP is technically sound and meeting its present goals. • RMP responded well to recommendations of First Five-Year Review. • Our biggest concern: The program must continue to evolve to ensure long-term relevance. So: • Increase the number of applications in which RMP data are used. • Collect new types of data.

35. Increasing Data Applications TMDL process • Create a formal relationship with CEP to enhance the value of RMP data in the TMDL process. • Ensure that any such relationship leverages, rather than replaces, current RMP objectives.

36. Increasing Data Applications Establish thresholds for evaluating data types • Sediment quality guidelines • State of CA developing sediment quality criteria that may drive 303(d) listings and required sediment clean-up activities • SFEI should become actively involved in that development process by assessing whether the total sediment data base is adequate to establish diagnostic sediment quality criteria. This will benefit the RMP. • Develop standards or guidelines for any type of data RMP collects. • Trends information is interesting, but its value increase significantly when they can be interpreted in the context of agreed-upon thresholds • RMP should increase interaction with SWRCB and other major monitoring entities in the state

37. New Data Types Put more emphasis on biological effects! • A relatively high percentage of funds (perhaps as high as 50%) should be allocated toward the inclusion of biological measurements. • Loss in power for assessing trends in chemicals is small vs. value added to chemical data by having biological information. • This program needs to be developed in a very deliberative way exploiting the experiences in other systems. Water column contaminant concentrations • More biologically-available

38. New Data Types Process studies that provide greater understanding of how conditions have changed or are likely to change in the future. • Different from measurements RMP has made in the past: shorter term and with a greater research emphasis. RMP should create partnerships that leverage the core program. • These partnerships would provide continual infusion of new ideas into the program and enhance funding agency interest.

39. Other Conclusions and Recommendations

40. Other Conclusions and Recommendations • Add a representative of the environmental community to the RMP Steering Committee. • RMP should continue its transition from data collection towards synthesis of those data and transformation into informational products that will aid decision-making. • RMP participating organizations should encourage SFEI to broaden its role beyond data collection to data integration for SF Bay. • Foster a more formal relationship between RMP and CEP.

41. Other Conclusions and Recommendations • The leadership of the RMP and the SFEI should work together to identify the unique niche that SFEI could play in the community of Bay Institutions. The Panel believes that niche lies where science, management, and policy intersect! • Timely transformation of data into information to meet needs of different stakeholder groups. • Identify, describe and explain environmental trends. • Development of periodic report cards on the quality of the Bay. • Integration/synthesis of data and information from all relevant sources to address specific environmental management issues. • Convene, structure, and facilitate forums to explore and evaluate policy options without becoming an advocate for any of them.

42. Summary • In summary, the second Five-Year RMP Review Panel is enthusiastic about the RMP –what it has done, what it is doing, and what it can become in the future. • It is clearly one of the best regional coastal environmental monitoring program in the Nation. • To remain one of the best, it must continue to evolve. That evolution is coupled tightly to the evolution of SFEI as an important coastal research institution regionally, nationally, even globally.

43. Since We Wrote Our Report • U.S. Ocean Policy Commission has gone to the Governors. • The call for strong regional monitoring programs and for a strong national ocean monitoring program. • California is fortunate to have several strong regional monitoring programs. RMP is one of them.

45. Thank You!