The Clean Estuary Partnership and the RMP Comparing

The Clean Estuary Partnership and the RMP Comparing two stakeholder programs producing science in support of policy James M. Kelly, Chair Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Director of Operations Central Contra Costa Sanitary District

Today’s Presentation • • • Compare RMP to CEP Origin of CEP Mission of the CEP Approach to the Task Accomplishments to Date Upcoming Events

Fundamental Questions RMP CEP • Are beneficial uses of the Bay protected • What needs to be done to protect beneficial uses of the Bay?

CEP vs. RMP CEP (2001) RMP (1993) What started it? Stakeholder initiative Regional Board Order (13267 letter) Who runs the show? Executive board with 1 Steering committee with representative for each core broad stakeholder partner representation Who does all the work Subcommittees, workgroups, and contractors Level of funding $1, 500, 000 /yr (subject to adjustment pending fiscal realities) $3, 000 / yr (relatively stable) How Information is used Develop plans to protect and improve the health of the Bay Characterize the health of the Bay

Why Clean Estuary Partnership • Bridge RMP and RWQCB via a Stakeholder Process

The Clean Estuary Partnership • Three core partners: – SFRWQCB, Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, and BACWA • Additional support – Western States Petroleum Association • Participation in committees and workgroups – Port of Oakland, Bay Planning Coalition, and (recently) Clean South Bay, Clean Water Action, Environmental Coalition for Water, Baykeeper • Established through an MOU adopted in 2001

What the CEP is About • Science in support of water quality planning – TMDLs – Site Specific Objectives – Adaptive Implementation • Stakeholder control – Executive Management Board – Technical Committee • Pollutant-specific workgroups – Administrative Committee – Outreach committee

CEP Mission Statement Use sound science, adaptive management, and public collaboration to develop and implement technically valid and cost-effective strategies (including TMDLs) that result in identifiable, sustainable water quality improvements for San Francisco Bay

What the CEP’s Mission Means • The science supporting policy decisions comes from your program: – Instead of from a “black box” • Stakeholders have a forum for talking to the regulators – Outside the hearing room – In the long-term • Stakeholders are part of the solution – Bay Area rate payers are environmental stewards – The CEP is a way for them to take some credit for their stewardship

Characteristics of a Successful CEP • • • Results Oriented Truth Seeking Consent Based Adaptable Cost-effective

Initial Program Goals • Establish a process for collaboration • Implement high priority projects • Develop 5 -year Work Plan

What the CEP does • Addresses pollutants of concern in Bay identified through 303 -d listing process • Identifies information gaps that need to be filled to develop, adopt, and implement TMDLs and other policies and plans • Finds ways to fill those gaps, either through directly funding projects, or by seeking to match information needs with the appropriate external programs

Some examples • Directly Funded Projects – Lower Guadalupe River Loads Monitoring (first year) – Mercury Source Assessment – Mercury Implementation Planning – Mercury Conceptual Model – Investigation of PCBs in near-shore sediments and Bay-watershed interfaces • Coordination with external programs – Lower Guadalupe River Loads Monitoring (subsequent years) – Comments submitted on CALFED Ecosystem restoration program – Participation in development and review of CALFED Science mercury strategy – Coordination with RMP workgroups and committees

Successful Collaboration • Facilitate dialogue and build consensus among CEP partners and other stakeholders • Use joint fact-finding to build technical consensus • Frame issues to build mutually acceptable agreements

Joint Fact-Finding • Avoid pitfalls of “adversary science” • Enable direct dialogue among neutral scientific experts, decision-makers and stakeholders • Jointly frame questions • Create opportunity for stakeholders to nominate scientific experts

Approach to TMDL Development • Keep it simple - A model is only as good as it is understandable • Sound science Joint fact-finding produces study designs Produce authoritative, reliable and publicly available data • Work collaboratively Everyone is an environmental steward

Accomplishments to Date • Functioning collaborative process and administrative structure (www. cleanestuary. org) • Products in support of the mercury TMDL – Mercury source assessment – Implementation approach for inactive mines, urban runoff, and other sources • • Working on PCB TMDL projects CU/NI Diazinon Consultations with Stakeholders

Upcoming Events • • • Five-Year Work Plan Establishing peer review process Mercury TMDL Final Project Report PCB TMDL Preliminary Project Report PCB TMDL Final Project Report Legacy Pesticides, Dioxin, Se