San Franscisco Estuary Project - CCMP

"It is not only what we do,
but also what we do not do,
for which we are accountable."

- Moliere

Introduction

The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) presents a blueprint to restor, maintain, and protect the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary's natural resources. The CCMP is the first comprehensive plan aimed at improving resource protection throughout the entire Bay-Delta Estuary. And, just as designing a blueprint is the first step in building a home, completing the CCMP is the first phase in improving our efforts to restore and protect the Estuary.

Implementation is the key to the Plan's success. Its recommended actions must be carried out, which will require ongoing commitment from the entities responsible for implementation. Some actions can be implemented by existing agencies under existing authority. Other actions can be implemented under existing authority, but will require additional resources. Some actions call for changes in federal or state legislation.

The cornerstones of effective implementation are:

Early implementation efforts;
An organizational structure that will promote a continued partnership and that will sustain commitments toimplementation;
A strategy for implementation;
A means to monitor the effectiveness of the Plan's actions; and
A way to ensure broad public support for and involvement in realizing the Plan's goals.

These aspects of implementation will be critical to fulfilling the CCMP's stated vision.

Early Implementation Efforts

To promote the implementation of actions needed to restore and protect estuarine resources, the National Estuary Program has encouraged estuary projects to carry out actions prior to the completion and adoption of CCMPs. The San Francisco Estuary Project has achieved early implementation through various means, including demonstration projects. Demonstration projects, which are scaled-down versions of CCMP actions, are intended to test the cost and effectiveness of solutions to priority problems. Demonstration projects also encourage agencies, businesses, environmentalists, and other groups to begin implementation.

In 1992, the Estuary Project sponsored a network of demonstration projects that use various approaches to watershed protection, recognizing that such approaches will be key mechanisms for implementing other CCMP actions. This network of nine projects will: 1) improve environmental conditions; 2) institutionalize management arrangements for CCMP implementation; 3) enhance coordination and technical transfer of current watershed management efforts; and 4) encourage increased public and private efforts to cooperatively protect critical estuarine resources.

The projects involve:

Evaluating aquatic and riparian resources for inclusion in a system of stream preserves;
Supporting efforts to improve monitoring and research;
Using Geographic Information System capabilities to improve resource management;
Improving grazing management to minimize impacts;
Encouraging citizen monitoring of streams in Santa Clara County;
Promoting institutional arrangements to improve watershed management;
Promoting erosion control on vineyards damaged by phylloxera;
Promoting habitat restoration at the Cosumnes River Preserve; and
Developing improved agricultural management methods.

Over the past five years, the Estuary Project has funded other demonstration projects to:

Enhance and restore five wetland areas in San Francisco Bay;
Evaluate the effectiveness of constructed wetlands designed to trap stormwater pollutants;
Develop management practices to control pollutant runoff at gasoline fueling stations;
Create an opportunity to reuse dredged material;
Prepare model ordinances for local wetlands protection; and
Develop a wasteload allocation for South San Francisco Bay.

Implementation Oversight Structure

The federal Clean Water Act directs participants in the National Estuary Program to "develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the [CCMP] by the states as well as federal and local agencies participating in the conference; [and to] monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the plan.. ."

The recommendations in this CCMP will require action from most of the resource management and environmental regulatory authorities that have jurisdiction in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. To be effective, these implementation efforts must be closely integrated and coordinated among the variety of public, private, local, state, and federal organizations responsible for managing the Estuary.

Therefore, the Management Committee proposed an implementation structure that will be committed to carrying out the actions in the CCMP and will be responsible for overseeing and coordinating implementation activities. This structure reflects the alliance among the public, the environmental community, industry, and the many levels of government that will carry out this Plan.

To develop an implementation structure, the Management Committee first established goals that reflect its desire to create a structure that will support efficient implementation and productive public participation in decision making. The implementation structure should:
1. Promote a continuous federal/state/local/private/public partnership in protection and restoration activities;

2. Provide effective public involvement in decision making;

3. Promote an efficient process for decision making consistent with number 2 above;

4. Promote efficient coordination of CCMP implementation;

5. Promote scientific credibility; and

6. Ensure high-level political/governmental commitment.

The Executive Council will have primary responsibility for implementing the CCMP. The Implementation Committee will coordinate implementation activities under the broad policy direction of the Executive Council. The Implementation Committee will convene subcommittees and working groups as necessary.

Friends of the San Francisco Estuary will implement the CCMP's Public Involvement and Education Program and will provide public review and involvement in overall CCMP implementation. The Science/Technical Comm1ittee will ensure that the CCMPs Research and Monitoring Program is carried out and will provide technical support for implementation activities.

The Individual Elements of the Implementation Structure

The Executive Council
The Executive Council will:

1. Provide broad policy direction;

2. Approve priorities for CCMP implementation;

3. Approve CCMP workplans and budgets (for federal and non-federal funding);

4. Seek and develop funding sources to carry out the CCMP;

5. Act as a clearinghouse for funding sources;

6. Obtain and direct internal resources for CCMP implementation;

7. Seek changes in legal authorities as necessary for implementation; and

8. Approve CCMP changes that further the goals of the CCMP

The Management Committee approved by vote the following composition for the Executive Council:

Regional Administrator, U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Region IX;
Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rcgion 1;
Secrctary, California Environmental ,Protection Agency;
Secretary, California Resources Agency; and
A Local Elected Official (to be jointly selected by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Sacramento Council of Governments).

The Implementation Committee
The Implementation Committee will:

1. Coordinate implementation activities of responsible entities;

2. Obtain commitments from all sectors implementing CCMP actions;

3. Identify barriers to CCMP implementation;

4. Develop remedies that remove barriers to implementing the actions;

5. Assure that plans identified in the CCMP are developed by responsible entities;

6. Recommend changes to the CCMP to the Executive Council through a joint meeting with Friends of the San Francisco Estuary;

7. Develop CCMP workplans and budgets for Executive Council approval;

8. Recommend broad priorities for CCMP implementation;

9. Identify and seek changes in legal authorities in conjunction with the Executive Council, as necessary for implementation; and

10. Develop policies for approval by the Executive Council.

The Implementation Committee will have 20-25 members and will be composed of:

Key local, state, and federal government representatives:
Three environmental/conservation representatives (to be selected by the current environmental/conservation representatives on the Management Committee);
Three business/water/discharger representatives (to be selected by the current business/water/discharger representatives on the Management Committee); and
One fishery representative (to be selected by the current fishery representatives on the Management Committee).

Friends of the San Francisco Estuary (Friends)
Friends of the San Francisco Estuary will:

1. Provide a public involvement and review function to the Executive Council regarding CCMP implementation;

2. Recommend changes to the CCMP to the Executive Council through a joint meeting with the Implementation Committee;

3. Function as a watchdog and advocate for implementation of the CCMP;

4. Ensure that the Public Involvement and Education portion of the CCMP is carried out; and

5. Recommend legislative changes to the Executive Council and Implementation Committee.

Friends will include representatives from the following groups.

Local government/civic;
Environmental/conservation;
Business/water/discharger; and
State/federal agencies.

Science/Technical Review Committee (San Francisco Estuarine Institute)

The San Francisco Estuarine Institute will provide the scientific and technical review function for CCMP implementation. The San Francisco Estuarine Institute (SFEI) will receive funding from many sources and carry out many activities. Consistent with this, SFEI will have its own board composition.

With respect to the CCMP, the SFEI will:

1. Carry out the Regional Monitoring Strategy (RMS);

2. Coordinate and implement the Research and Monitoring portion of the CCMP;

3. Provide technical support for CCMP implementation activities;

4. Alert the Implementation Committee to new scientific data related to CCMP implementation; and

5 Recommend changes to regional monitoring.

Composition: 1. Eight Member Board of Directors:

Regional Administrator, U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Region IX
Secretary, California Resources Agency
Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency
Four elected from among the membership of the SFEI Policy Advisory Panel (two representing the regulated community, local government/special districts, and two representing conservation and recreation)
One ex-officio member from the Technical Advisory Panel

2. Policy Advisory Panel:

Ten governmental members
Twelve non-governmental members

3. Technical Advisory Panel

Up to twenty researchers from universities, agencies, and other private or public organizations

Preliminary Implementation Strategy

Successful implementation of the CCMP hinges on the will and ability of public and private entities to carry out its recommended actions. To supplement information contained in the CCMP and to facilitate its implementation, SFEP staff and state and federal agency personnel have developed a Preliminary Implementation Strategy (Preliminary Strategy).

The Preliminary Strategy details the current and projected involvement required of implementing agencies. Based upon the priorities and schedules provided by federal and state agencies, the Preliminary Strategy establishes categories for CCMP actions. It lists potential financial resources available to implement the actions, presents potential ways to generate revenues to finance actions, and identifics actions that will require additional resources, new moneys, and/or new authorities before they can be implemented. It is anticipated that the members of the implementation oversight structure will use the Preliminary Strategy to develop a more complete implementation program.

This section of the Implementation Chapter provides an overview of the more detailed Preliminary Implementation Strategy. Included in this section are discussions of:

The level of agency involvement with CCMP actions;
Some of the projected costs of the proposed activities;
Potential sources for generating revenue;
A mechanism for allocating resources (the Estuary Investment Fund); and
Financial incentives.

Levels of Implementation
Many actions within the CCMP will require the participation of public sector agencies. SFEP staff contacted all state and federal agencies listed as implementing agencies to determine their ability to implement the CCMP, the projected cost, and their current and projected level of involvement with implementation of CCMP actions.

According to agency personnel, many CCMP actions are already in progress. Many others could be implemented through a re-direction of funds or with existing funds. Therefore, a critical aspect of this Preliminary Strategy focuses on improving interagency coordination and on re-directing existing resources.

For example, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is already re-directing funds. Fees charged to dischargers that were used to monitor discharger locations have been reallocated to programs designed to monitor the overall health of the Estuary. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is also considering a similar re-direction of discharger fees. Other opportunities may exist to re-direct funds into more urgent or effective programs within agencies.

Costs of Implementing the CCMP
To develop costs, staff contacted state and federal agencies listed as implementing entities within the CCMP. The agencies provided a projected cost for performing the given action. Some costs are shown in ranges or are tied to other actions or programs within the CCMP. All cost figures contained within the CCMP represent direct costs, i.e., costs directly associated with implementing; the action, such as labor or equipment.

Staff were unable to determine costs to local agencies due to the many different entities involved in Estuary management. (The majority of actions that call for local agency involvement are in the Water Use and Land Use Programs. The Land Use Program recognizes that local government will need financial assistance to undertake certain CCMP actions. Therefore, several Land Use actions specifically address this financial need.) Costs to private entities have also not been determined. To be implemented, some actions within the CCMP will require significant capital investment. For example, fish screens improvements for the state and federal water projects in the Delta are estimated to cost $30 million (see Aquatic Resources Action 4.5). Control measures to reduce pollutant urban runoff could cost upwards of $36 million (see Pollution Prevention Action 2.4). The cost of purchasing refuge lands for wildlife protection is estimated at $237 million (see Wildlife Action l .2). Costs for public involvement and education programs could range between $1 and$S4 million annually (see Public Involvement and Education Program). The estimated cost for implementing all CCMP actions (excluding Aquatic Resources Program) is $1,588,809,000, based on projected twenty-year costs.

Developing Revenues for the CCMP
The goal of the Preliminary Implementation Strategyis to identify sources or potential sources of funding for each action. The Preliminary Strategy also suggests a possible source of funding or potential new funding mechanisms to fill gaps where funding is either insufficient or unavailable.

Proposed funding sources are expected to meet the following criteria: Equity

To provide equity, there must be a correlation between the people or groups that are providing the funds and the people who are either causing the problem being addressed or who will benefit from the action.

Efficiency

To promote efficiency, the amount it costs to raise funds from a given revenue source must be appropriate to the quantity of funds being raised. In addition, the revenue source must be capable of raising the funds required in a timely fashion.

Revenue Sources
Based on the criteria of equity and efficiency, the most promising revenue sources identified by the Planning Subcommittee and analyzed by outside financial consultants are discussed below.

Water Diversion Fee

This would involve a flat-rate surcharge on all waters diverted from the Central Valley water systems. For example, in a normal year, approximately sixteen million acre-feet are diverted. A surcharge of $1 per acre-foot would produce about $16 million per year. This source of revenue could be used to implement water-related CCMP actions, such as fish screens, pollution abatement, or water reclamation.

Real Estate Transfer Surcharge

This would involve a charge to the gross value of real estate sold in the twelve Estuary Counties. It would be administered as a part of the existing real estate transfer fee charged at the county level. The average dollar value of real estate transferred and subject to the existing fee in the twelve-county area is approximately S70 bilion per year.

For example, a rate of $.0003 per $1,000 transferred would produce a stream of revenues of approximate]y $21 million per year. At this rate, the surcharge would amount to $60 on a home sal of $200,000. This source of revenues could be applied to the land-based CCMP actions, such as wetlands acquisition, wildlife habitat acquisition or restoration, and on-land disposal of dredged materials for habitat construction or restoration.

Urban Water Users' Surcharge

This source would app]y a charge to those water districts with a large base of urban customers in the twelve-county region. With approximately 2.5 million acre-feet going to urban users, the surcharge would be relatively small compared to other existing charges. For example, a charge of $4 per acre-foot per year would produce a revenue stream of $l0 million per year. At this rate, the average family would pay approximately $4 per year. This source of revenue could be applied to urban area-related CCMP actions, such as stormwater management, pollution control, and public involvement programs.

Pollution Discharge Surcharge

This would apply a surcharge to all holdcrs of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in the twelve-county Bay-Delta region. This permit allows the holder to discharge wastewater into the Estuary. The surcharge would be in addition to fees that each permit holder already pays. This surcharge could be a flat amount for each permit holder or could be based on the quantity of discharge. Because there are only 301 NPDES permit holdcrs in the Bay-Delta region, a new discharge fee would probab]y not generate substantial revenues relative to the other sources discussed above. The Preliminary Implementation Strategy provides a more detailed analysis of these potential sources of revenue.

Capital Projects
For large capital cost actions, public borrowing can be a means of providing funds for both public and private sector actions. This could involve the use of existing borrowing authorities or new bond measures designed in part to address CCMP costs that may still require a funding source. Inventories should be conducted to identify local, regional, and state borrowing capacity that has been approved by the voters but has not yet been expended. Such funds may be suitable for CCMP implementation.

Estuary Investment Fund
One potential funding mechanism identified in the Preliminary Implementation Strategy is the establishment of an Estuary Investment Fund (Fund), which would allow funds to be accumulated and directed to certain uses as appropriate to CCMP requirements. The Fund could provide a mechanism for the financial management necessary to implement the CCMP.

For example, a governmental entity or private sector firm could obtain funds (grants, loans, etc.) from the Fund to assist in implementing an action in the CCMP.

The Estuary Investment Fund would operate as a coordinating vehicle. It would ensure that financing of CCMP projects occurs in a systematic manner. This coordinating role could ensure that: a) funds flow to projects in the amount necessary and in a timely fashion; b) alternative funding sources have been evaluated, and funds are actually needed for the requestcd project (i.e., as compared to using other types of incentives or an existing program); c) overlaps and duplication are minimized among the many units of government and private sector organizations; and d) other expenditures in the Estuary area that are not part of implementing the CCMP are consistent with the CCMP.

In another role, the Fund could operate as a source of funds to fill gaps between other sources of funds and the funds needed to carry out CCMP actions. Funds could be provided as grants, cost sharing, or loans, depending upon the project and the criteria for financial support. Enabling legislation or initiative language may be required to institute the Fund.

Financial Incentives to Encourage Private Sector Implementation of the CCMP In recent years, there has been growing interest in pursuing "nonconventional" policies to encourage private sector actions that protect and enhance environmental quality. This is not to suggest that more conventional command and control technologies are no longer appropriate. However, in certain situations, alternative approaches may lead to better results. For example, in some instances, conventional regulations discourage the private sector from using technologies that provide greater levels of control because no financial incentives exist that encourage businesses and industries to exceed their control targets.

The private sector can help carry out many CCMP actions. In some cases, it can implement these actions without any further assistance or regulation. In other instances, the private sector may need technical or finallcial assistance to implement the actions.

The CCMP describes private scctor incentives that either create a revenue source that could be used to finance the CCMP or that achieve CCMP objectives without additional governmental spending. Examples include developing an improved program to provide tax incentives that would encourage landowners to preserve wetlands in perpetuity or assisting private sector groups in developing the most effective joint-ventures with water pollution abatement programs.

The government could assist private sector actions by providing some type of financial assistance (such as grants, cost-sharing, or low-cost loans) that would initiate the action. Fines and penalties could be used as disincentives to discourage unwanted behavior.

The implementing entity should work closely with the private sector to identify opportunities for creative incentives and for removing barriers that might be preventing CCMP implementation. Industries and businesses affected directly or indirectly by CCMP implementation should be included in the process to determine the most efficient and cost-effective method for carrying out the Plan.

Regional Monitoring

In the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, monitoring includes the collection of environmental information, such as the number and health of the fish residing in the Estuary, the quality and quantity of fresh water flowing into the Estuary system, and the types and amounts of pollutants. Currently, more than seventy Estuary monitoring programs are being conducted for a number of diverse applications--each with different design, sampling, analysis, and data reduction requirements. The limited scope of some monitoring programs makes it difficult to compare results between different studies. In addition, programs are sometimes poorly linked and lack a coordinated Estuarywide approach.

To assist in coordinating research and monitoring programs, the San Francisco Estuary Project has fostered the development of a Regiona1 Monitoring Strategy (Monitoring Strategy). Project staff have worked with representatives of government agencies and scientific institutions to establish the Monitoring Strategy, which fulfills an action rccommended in the CCMP's Research and Monitoring Program.

Implementation of the Monitoring Strategy will strengthen the Estuary Project's continuing effort to promote environmentally sound management of the Bay and Delta by improving the ability to define human-induced stresses on the Estuary, helping to assess the effectiveness of current Estuary management, and monitoring the long-term health of the Estuary. The Monitoring Strategy will also aid in identifying overlapping program elements and areas not being adequately examined. As new programs are instituted by legislation or regulatory requirements, the Monitoring Strategy will provide a framework for integration and implementation of these programs in the most efficient and usefill manner.

The Regional Monitoring Strategy is centered around the five key management issues initially identified by the SFEP Management Conference and addressed in the CCMP. These are:

Increased pollutants;
Increased dredging and waterway modification;
Decline of biological resources;
Intensified land use; and
Freshwater diversion and altered flow regime.

The primary purposes of the Regional Monitoring Strategy are to:

Provide information to assess the effectiveness of management actions that have been taken to improve conditions in the Estuary and to protect its resources; and
Evaluate the ecological "health" of the Estuary and enhance scientific understanding of the ecosystem.

Development of the Regional Monitoring Strategy
The Monitoring Strategy builds on the information presented in the Status and Trends Reports, which describe the ecological problems of the Estuary and identify information needs. The Monitoring Strategy specifies monitoring objectives for each management issue. Because several methods were used to develop these objectives, differences are evident in both their level of detail and their breadth.

The Project held technical workshops specifically to develop monitoring objectives for three of the management issues: increased pollutants, dredging and waterway modification, and wetlands. The format, number, and technical background of participants varied in all workshops, but a common purpose was to build upon the work presented in the Status and Trends Reports and to define monitoring objectives and corresponding monitoring variables.

The Project also sponsored a series of four workshops to evaluate the responses of estuarine biota and habitats to various conditions of salinity and flow. Through these workshops, participants identified monitoriln needs for the management issue of freshwater diversion and altered flow regime. The Interagency Ecological Study Program (IESP) is currently revising its existing monitoring program. This program will form the basis of much of the aquatic resources monitoring efforts in the Estuary.

For the most part, the monitoring objectives presented in the Monitoring Strategy are defined in terms of existing conditions in the Estuary. The intent of these objectives is to detect the direction and magnitude of change from existing conditions. The long-term challenge must be to restore and maintain conditions in the Estuary that will support healthy fish and wildlife populations.

To accomplish this, a regional monitoring program developed from the Monitoring Strategy must, at some point, specify ecological objectives (or assessment endpoints and corresponding monitoring variables. Setting these ecological objectives is a risk management task that involves defining reference conditions, as well as balancing costs and ecological risks. Existing water quality criteria and proposed sediment criteria are examples of ecological objectives that can be used in a regional monitoring program. Similar ecological objectives (or assessment endpoints) must be developed for aquatic resources, wetlands, land use, and other monitoring program elements. Because these endpoints have not been defined, their specification for a regional monitoring program represents a long term challenge. The Monitoring Strategy provides a starting point for discussion between the technical experts and resource managers on the selection of thresholds or endpoints, as well as levels of challge that must be detected by a regional monitoring program to guide management decisions.

Principles Upon Which the Monitoring Strategy is Based
Sevcn fundamental principles define the purpose of the monitoring effort, the relationship between monitoring and research, and the short- and long-term goals of the monitoring effort in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. These principles also determine the nature and scope of the proposed Regional Monitoring Program.

1 . Monitoring is focused on the development of data that will provide information on status and trends in the Estuary. While there is a need for basic research in the Estuary, the goal of the proposed monitoring program is to provide fundamental information describing the current status and trends of specified habitats and resources. Measurement variables are limited to those that are easily interpretable.

2. There must be a commitment to the development of an integrated program.

The Regional Monitoring Program must incorporate existing and planned monitoring efforts (or elements from these programs) to minimize duplication of effort, maximize the development of essential information, and reduct the cost of the monitoring effort.

The Regional Monitoring Stategy will facilitate the adoption of standard protocols for sampling, analytical procedures, and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) methods. To ensure that the data collected by different groups participating, in the monitoring program are directly comparable, performance-based, standardized sampling, analytical, and QA/QC protocols must be employed.

The standardization and coordination of existing sampling efforts among local, state, and federal agencies will allow long-term sharing and use of all data collected as part of Regional Monitoring Program.

3. A data and information plan must be developed to ensure access to essential information.

Historical monitoring data from the Estuary are not readily available, and essential quality assurace information necessary to evaluate the comparability of data sets is often not preserved. A data and information management system must be developed to ensure access to monitoring data.

4. A coordinating entity must be created to manage regional monitoring.

During the Regional Monitoring Workshop in October of 199l, participants agreed that an entity is needed to coordinate regional monitoring and research. The entity would also act as a "clearinghouse" for data and information collected by the various agencies and organizations performing monitoring in the Estuary. The CCMP also recommends the establishment of such an entity. Therefore, the Monitoring Strategy proposes that the San Francisco Estuarine Institute serve as this coordinating entity.

5. A complementary special studies (or research) program is needed because regional monitoring alone will not provide insights into causc-and-effect relationships among human actions and environmental responses.

The special studies program will assist regional scientists in their interpretation of monitoring information and will link effects with their most probable causes. Then managers can target specific remedial and preventive actions that will have the most beneficial environmental effects. In addition, scientists and managers periodically have the need to investigate new potential problems (and solutions) that require short-term, intensive, and immediate study.

6. A regional assessment of the monitoring data is needed to determine the ecological health of the Estuary.

Every year, an annual report should be developed from an interpretation of the most current monitorig data. Scientists and managers should decide upon a suite of diagnostic indicators that will provide the entire community with an instantaneous picture of the overall status of the Estuary's physical, chemical, and biological resources. To accomplish this, interpretation plans must be prepared concurrently with the development of the various technical protocols.

7. A successful monitoring program for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary must have the active participation of the managers and scientists at all the key agencies, organizations, private enterprises, and the public.

A comprehensive monitoring program can only be accomplished by the involvement and cooperation of the myriad agencies and organizations currently performing or overseeing the monitoring in the Estuary. The managers and scientists must periodically review the goals and technical merits of programs with the valued and needed input of the public.

Monitoring Program Evaluation
One of the most important steps in the design of a monitoring program is providing for evaluation of expected performance. Without this evaluation, there is a risk of either collecting and analyzing too few samples to detect statistically significant temporal/spatial trends or analyzing an excessive number of samples. Therefore, the Monitoring Strategy sets forth design specifications that can be used in conjunction with historical data to evaluate the expected performance of altermative monitoring designs.

Resolving Overlaps and Gaps in Monitoring Efforts and Information Needs
Overlaps and gaps in data have arisen because monitoring programs were developed to fill the specific information needs of a particular agency in a particular part of the Estuary. The Regional Monitoring Program must integrate, coordinate and consistently collect physical, chemical, and biological data at defined locations on defined synchronous schedules using standard, performance-based protocols. This approach will:

Reduce duplication in sampling efforts;
Fill data gaps due to incomparable methods and timing of sampling;
Increase the efficiency of collecting, checking, and sorting data;
Facilitate the time and cost of sharing and analyzing data; and
Allow testing of meaningful correlation among several parameters measured over time.

The Role of Special Studies
To solve problems identified in the Estuary, monitoring and special study (research) efforts must be integrated and coordinated toward a common goal. Special studies can provide information essential to understanding the Estuary and its associated watersheds and for developing management options for the long-term protection of the Estuary.

The role of special studies related to monitoring is two-fold. First, it is to provide specific information necessary to make interpretations of changes and relationships observed in the descriptive monitoring data. Second, special studies must provide specific information that is critical in delineating cause-and-effect relationships when monitoring and other data indicate that adverse changes are occurring. Currently, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence from ongoing monitoring to begin focusing specific special studies.

Special study priorities must be established early. Otherwise, special studies will consist of an unfocused and fragmented pattern of agency-sponsored, short-term contract projects. The Regional Monitoring Strategy therefore recommends that first priority be given to filling data gaps needed to make accurate assessments of the status of habitats and resources, to understand cause-and-effect relationships, and to adequately detect and interpret changes observed in the regional monitoring data.

Data and Information Management
Development of a data and information management strategy is a key undertaking in the development of a regional monitoring, program. The plan for submitting, checking, sorting, updating, retrieving, analyzing, and reporting data is as important to the success of the program as is collecting the data. The need to assimilate, integrate, and disseminate information gathered during the characterization process, as well as from future monitoring efforts, requires the development of a sound, comprehensive data and information management component.

Education and Public Outreach
While volunteer programs to monitor natural resources have been in practice for some time, they have only recently come to the fore in agency monitoring and public outreach. Citizen monitoring has also become a focus of the San Francisco Estuary Project and is addressed in other sections of the CCMP. The Public Involvement and Education Program recommends increased support of citizen monitoring programs, agency involvement in citizens' monitoring, and overall expansion of public involvement in the monitoring process. (See the Public Involvement and Education Program for more details.)

The Regional Monitoring Strategy recommends that CCMP actions regarding citizen monitoring be adopted and implemented as soon as possible. Citizen monitoring programs represent an excellent and largely untapped source of information and can greatly enhance agency efforts.

For additional detail, please refer to the separate Regional Monitoring Strategy.

Public Involvement

Public participation has been essential to all aspects of the San Francisco Estuary Project since the Project began more than five years ago. More than one hundred people representing, a variety of interests have been directly involved in the cooperative effort to develop the CCMP.

These community leaders have identified critical areas of concern, determined the scope of scientific studies, developed policies and recommendations for corrective action, and formed a structure for overseeing implemcntation of the Plan. Together, they have created a new vision for the San Francisco Estuary, with goals, objectives, and specific actions to restore and preserve its health and productivity.

Recognizing the importance of the public's involvement in caring for the Estuary, the Projcct created educational materials to focus public attention on the Estuary's problems and promote informed activism. The Projcct encouraged citizen volunteers to participate in hands-on activities to restore and protect the Estuary.

As the Project moves into the implementation phase, it will be essential to continue this unique public/private partnership. New opportunities will be creatcd for the public to become more actively involved in policy making, management, protection, and restoration of the San Francisco Estuary and to participate directly in the oversight of CCMP implementation.

The public must come to realize the importance of this magnificent Estuary and choose to become personally involved in its proteetion. Only then will people fully embrace the Plan, then actively promote it, use it, enforce it, watchdog it, invest in it, finance its continuance, and ensure its ultimate success.

The actions recommended in the Public Involvement and Education Program will build public awareness of and appreciation for the many beneficial uses of the Estuary. In turn, the public will build support for CCMP actions that ensure the Estuary's restoration and continued protection. The Public Involvement and Education Program also links concerned members of the public and policy-makers and assists those generating information about the San Francisco Estuary in providing news and data to the general public.

Friends of the San Francisco Estuary (Friends) will implement the CCMP by:

1. Ensuring that the activities recommended in the Public Involvement and Education Program of the CCMP are carried out.

Friends will develop:

Educational materials for youth, the general public, and decision-makers;
Regionwide outreach programs;
An informational hotline and newsletter;
Community-designed model projects; and
Informational materials that support multicultural understanding of the CCMP's goals and actions.

Friends will serve as a public involvement and education resource for local, state, and federal governmental agencies involved in implementing the CCMP. In addition, it will actively support the environmental programs of other organizations that are consistent with the goals of the CCMP.

Friends will encourage the public to become directly involved in restoring the Estuary through hands-on activities, such as creek and wetland restoration projects, storm drain stenciling, citizen monitoring programs, recycling, and beach clean ups.

2. Functioning as an advocate and watchdog for CCMP implementation.

Friends will educate and mobilize constituencies and the interested public to actively push for implementation of CCMP actions. Once actions are underway, Friends will serve as a mechanism by which the public can monitor the program's effectiveness. Progress reports and recommendations for CCMP changes will be presented at a biennial State of the Estuary Conference for those involved in CCMP implementation, the general public, scientists, and decision-makers.

3. Providing the public involvemet and review function within the CCMP institutional implementation structure.

Friends will ensure that there is an opportunity for the public to have direct, meaningful participation in decision making and CCMP implementation oversight activities. Friends will also ensure that the broad public constituency contained within the SFEP Management Conference will have an opportunity to review and comment on the effectiveness of CCMP implementation activities and recommend changes to the CCMP.

4. Recommending and initiating legislative changes to facilitate implementation of the CCMP.

Friends will be responsible for developing a legislative strategy to keep legislators informed. Actions could include briefing legislators and staff, testifying at hearings, and proposing appropriate state and federal legislation as needed to implement the CCMP.

Previous Page
CCMP Main Page| SFEP's Main Page|

Appendices
References| Glossary| Clean Water Act| Gaps in Knowledge| San Francisco Estuary Project Staff

Pages 187-202