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

• Are beneficial uses of the Bay protected

CEP

• 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 representative for each core partner

Steering committee with broad stakeholder representation

Who does all the work Subcommittees, workgroups, and contractors

Subcommittees, workgroups, and contractors

Level of funding $1,500,000 /yr (subject to adjustment pending fiscal realities)

$3,000,000 / 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

• Results Oriented

• Truth Seeking

• Consent Based

• Adaptable

• Cost-effective

Characteristics of a Successful CEP

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