RMP Steering Committee April 21, :00 AM 3:10 PM

Transcription

1 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page Central Ave Richmond, CA RMP Steering Committee April 21, :00 AM 3:10 PM WEBEX Info Call-in toll number, Access code: AGENDA 1. Introductions and Review Agenda 10:00 Tom 2. Decision: Approve Meeting Summary from January 29, 2015 Steering Committee Meeting Materials: See pages 6-11 Mumley 10:05 Tom Mumley Desired outcome: Approval of meeting summary *Note: The Action Item regarding the Set-Aside Funds for a Program Review will be addressed at the October SC meeting. 3. Information: TRC Meeting Summary Topics discussed at the December TRC meeting included: the Bay Margins Sediment Study, the State of the Estuaries Report and Conference, the workplan for unused stormwater monitoring funds, and the RMP Charter. 10:10 Phil Trowbridge Materials: See pages Desired Outcome: Informed committee 4. Information: RMP Financial Update for 2015 Quarter 1 The RMP Financial Update report summarizes the balance of budgeted and reserved RMP funds as well as its cash position. Materials: See pages :20 Lawrence Leung Phil Trowbridge Desired outcome: Informed committee - 1 -

2 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 2 5. Decision: Approve Consent Calendar Items Request to establish a Monitoring Contingency Set-Aside Fund Request to merge various Set-Aside Funds Process for requesting Undesignated Funds 10:35 Phil Trowbridge Items on the Consent Calendar are routine topics that need approval from the Steering Committee but are not expected to need discussion. Each item is clearly described in a position paper. At the beginning of the agenda item, the Chair will ask if any Steering Committee Representatives want to discuss any of the items. If no one requests a discussion, all of the items will be voted on with one motion. Items requiring discussion will be pulled out, discussed, and voted on separately. Materials: See pages Desired outcome: To approve the items on the Consent Calendar 6. Decision: Approve Fee Schedule for Cooling Water Participants for At the 1/29/15 Steering Committee meeting, it was decided that the 2015 fees for Cooling Water participants should not be refunded but that a fee reduction should be considered for 2016 and A subcommittee was formed to develop a proposal to be considered by the SC at the next meeting. This ad hoc subcommittee met twice and reached consensus on a proposal to reduce the Cooling Water participant fees from 4% of the RMP budget in 2015 to 2% in 2016, 1.5% in 2017, and 0.5% in The RMP will have to adjust to a revenue shortfall of $292,000 over three years but it will be phased in gradually. As agreed at the January SC meeting, the fees for other RMP participants will not be affected. 10:45 Thomas Mumley Materials: See pages Desired outcome: To approve the fee schedule for Cooling Water participants as recommended by the ad hoc subcommittee - 2 -

3 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 3 7. Decision: Approve Proposal for Bay Margins Sediment Study and Request for $86,370 of Undesignated Funds Bay margins (i.e., mud flats and adjacent shallow areas of the Bay) are more productive and highly utilized by biota of interest (humans or wildlife) than the open Bay areas. This study will provide a spatially distributed unbiased characterization of surface sediment contamination and ancillary characteristics within shallow Central Bay margin areas. The data will be used to investigate spatial distributions of pollutants, watershed influences, and regional trends. This study will complement targeted studies to link watersheds, known contaminated margins, and the open Bay, much of which will be focused in Central Bay. 11:15 Don Yee Phil Trowbridge The study will be completed over two years. In 2015, all of sediment samples will be collected in order to lower field costs and to reduce temporal variability. In 2016, the data analysis and reporting will be completed. The annual costs for 2015 and 2016 will be $226,370 and $31,100, respectively. The total cost for the two-year program will be $257,470. The approved 2015 RMP budget contains $140,000 for this effort. Another $120,000 for the margins study is expected to be in the 2016 RMP budget. Therefore, between the 2015 and 2016 funds, there will be sufficient funds for the study. However, because most of the expenses will be in 2015, the Steering Committee will need to authorize adding $86,370 of Undesignated Funds to the 2015 budget. This amount will be returned to Undesignated Funds from the 2016 budget. On 3/11/15, the TRC recommended that the SC approve this study. Materials: See pages Desired outcome: Approval of the Bay Margins Sediment Study and request for $86,370 in Undesignated Funds 8. Decision: Approve Workplan for Carryover Funds from the 2014 Stormwater Monitoring Budget Due to the drought, less storm sampling has been completed in the last three years than planned. The result is that a total of $133,000 of funds budgeted for stormwater sampling were not spent in The Small Tributary Loading Strategy Team requests that the $133,000 of carryover funds be retained for answering stormwater management questions through a combination of five project tasks that link to key management questions. Progress and outcomes from the mix of projects completed will be reported back to the TRC and the SC during regular quarterly updates. Any funds not fully expended by December 31 st 2015 would then be rolled back into RMP Undesignated Funds. On 3/11/15, the TRC reviewed the list of proposed activities for the funding and reached consensus that all five were worthwhile. 11:50 Lester McKee Materials: See pages Desired outcome: Approval of workplan for $133,000 of carryover stormwater monitoring funds. Lunch Break 12:00-3 -

4 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 4 9. Information: Update on the RMP Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) Program For the past decade the RMP has been making a concerted effort to identify problem CECs. Bay water quality managers and RMP scientists have developed a tiered scheme for prioritizing CECs that is used to guide decisions on monitoring and management. Early identification of these problem CECs and quick action to nip them in the bud is an optimal and cost-effective strategy for protecting water quality. This is especially true in an ecosystem like the Bay, which is a long-term sink for persistent contaminants, with recovery taking decades or centuries when the contamination is extensive. This update will provide an overview of the RMP s emerging contaminants strategy and tiered risk framework, an update on current projects, and a sneak peak at proposed studies for :30 Rebecca Sutton Desired outcome: Informed committee 10. Decision: Approve the RMP Charter The draft RMP Charter was presented to the Steering Committee on 1/29/15. The draft Charter was widely distributed for review during the month of February. Comments were minimal except for a few comments regarding designated seats for representatives from a non-governmental organization on the SC and TRC. Most commenters were in favor of a NGO representative on the TRC, but not the SC. The Charter has been revised to reflect this position and the other comments received. 1:15 Rich Wilson Materials: See pages Desired outcome: Approval of RMP Charter 11. Decision: Speakers and Topics for the RMP Annual Meeting portion of the State of the Estuary Conference The 2015 RMP Annual Meeting will be held on the second day of the 2015 State of the Estuary Conference (9/18/15). The RMP is able to plan one hour of plenary speakers and back-to-back concurrent sessions in the afternoon for RMP-related topics. An ad hoc subcommittee of RMP representatives serve on the Steering Committee for the State of the Estuary Conference. This ad hoc group has met three times to develop a proposed list of RMP plenary speakers and concurrent session topics. 2:15 Phil Trowbridge Materials: See page 81 Desired outcome: Approval in concept of the proposed RMP plenary speakers and the concurrent session topics with authorization to an ad hoc subcommittee to work out remaining details. 12. Discussion: Status of Deliverables, Action Items, Communications Calendar, and Upcoming Meetings Materials: See pages Desired outcome: To inform the committee about RMP deliverables (especially the Pulse), upcoming communications products, and upcoming meetings and the new website to share updates and scheduled meetings 2:45 Phil Trowbridge Jay Davis - 4 -

5 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page Discussion: Planning Alternative Dates and Agenda Topics for the July and October Steering Committee meetings The next two SC meetings are scheduled for 7/21/15 and 10/20/15. Some people have conflicts with these dates. Please check your schedule and be prepared to discuss your availability for alternative dates for these meetings. In addition, please think of scientific topics that you would like to be on the agenda for future meetings. 3:00 Jay Davis Desired outcome: To set the dates for the July and October Steering Committee meetings and to identify program updates and topics that the Committee would like on the agenda for future meetings. 14. Discussion: Plus/Delta 3:10 Thomas Mumley 14. Adjourn 3:10-5 -

6 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 6 DRAFT For SC Review RMP Steering Committee Meeting January 29, 2015 San Francisco Estuary Institute Meeting Summary Attendees SC Member Affiliation Representing Present Jim Ervin City of San Jose POTW Large Yes Dan Tafolla Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District POTW Small Yes Karin North** City of Palo Alto POTW Medium Yes Adam Olivieri BASMAA / EOA, Inc. Stormwater Yes Peter Carroll Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Refineries Yes (By Phone) John Coleman Bay Planning Coalition Dredgers Proxy Rob Lawrence US Army Corps of Engineers USACE No VACANT Industry David Frandsen NRG Energy Cooling Water Yes Tom Mumley* SFB Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Board Yes * Chair, ** Vice Chair Guests and Staff Phil Trowbridge (SFEI) Jay Davis (SFEI) Adam Wong (SFEI) Austin Perez (BPC) for John Coleman Mike Connor (EBDA) Lawrence Leung (SFEI) Jim Kelly (SFEI) Warner Chabot (SFEI) Rich Wilson (CCP) 1

7 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 7 DRAFT For SC Review 1. Introductions and Review Agenda There were no questions regarding the agenda. Peter Carroll connected via telephone. 2. Decision: Approve Meeting Summary from November 13, 2014 Steering Committee Meeting and Multi Year Planning Workshop Tom Mumley relayed that the level of detail in the summary and minutes was appropriate. Items for Approval: Adam Olivieri moved that the November 13, 2014 Steering Committee Minutes and the November 13, 2014 Multi Year Planning Workshop Summary be approved. Karin North seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously by all present members. Action Items: Post November 13, 2014 SC and Multi Year Planning Workshop meeting summaries to the website. 3. Information: TRC Meeting Summary Phil Trowbridge gave a brief summary of the TRC Meeting held on December 10, The TRC discussed the study designs for PCB monitoring in priority margin areas and probabilistic sampling of sediments in margin areas. Updates since the meeting were that Jay Davis met with the PCB team for discussion on margin units program design. No questions were raised. 4. Decision: 2014 Budget Status, Incomplete 2014 Projects, and Funds to be Carried Over to the 2015 Budget Phil Trowbridge described the tasks from 2012, 2013, and 2014 that were being proposed for carry over to the 2015 budget (Page 27 of the Agenda Packet). The first recommended action, for 2012, was to authorize carryover of $10,596 in labor funds for the PFC manuscript and $32,000 in subcontractor funds with Deltares for nutrient related modeling. The second recommended action, for 2013, was to authorize the carryover of $15,933 in labor funds for nutrient modeling tasks, $61,350 in subcontractor funds with Deltares for nutrient related modeling, and $47,041 in subcontractor funds with UC Santa Cruz for algal biotoxin monitoring. The third recommended action, for 2014, was to authorize the carryover of $361,115 in labor funds, $769,051 in subcontractor funds, and $124,286 in direct expense funds from the 2014 RMP budget. The 2014 budget will end at least $153k under budget and these cost savings will be added to the Undesignated Funds. The largest savings came from changing the design of Status and Trends (S&T) Program, which netted $118k in savings for the year. The details of these numbers can be found on page 29 of the agenda packet. There was a discussion about the savings within the S&T Program in 2014 and how it relates to planned expenses for probabilistic monitoring for margins sediments in In 2014, the S&T costs were $118k less than budget due to implementing the changes to the S&T design. The 2015 budget includes lower S&T monitoring costs for the routine monitoring (due to the design changes) plus $120k 2

8 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 8 DRAFT For SC Review allocated for margins monitoring. The 2015 S&T and margins monitoring are all funded out of 2015 fee revenue. The $118k saved from S&T in 2014 is not needed to fund the 2015 margins monitoring. Therefore, the $118k in savings from 2014 S&T will be added to the Undesignated Funds. The group also discussed $133k of 2014 funds from stormwater monitoring that was not performed due to the drought. These funds have been carried over for now. The Small Tributary Loading Strategy Team will prepare a proposal for the use of those funds to address stormwater management questions. The proposal will be presented to the TRC and then the SC for approval. Mike Connor requested staff to prepare a proposal for how to spend Program Review Set Aside Funds or to release these funds. Items for approval: Adam Olivieri moved that the first recommended action be authorized. Karin North seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. Adam Olivieri moved that the second recommended action be authorized. Karin North seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. Adam Olivieri moved that the third recommended action be authorized. Karin North seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. Action Items; Prepare a proposal for $133k of unused 2014 stormwater monitoring funds for the TRC to review and the SC to approve (Lester McKee) Add a discussion regarding RMP Program Review funds to an upcoming SC agenda (Phil Trowbridge) 5. Decision: Outline and Budget for 2015 Pulse Report Jay Davis presented a Draft Outline for the 2015 Pulse (Page 36 of the AP). Taking into consideration feedback from the previous meeting, he targeted a reduced budget (from $165k to $125k) and a more attainable timeline. The proposed Pulse would have less text than in the past, with infographics focusing on new information for pollutants. The group decided on having two articles: (1) an overview of Management Issues including a section on the many priority pollutants that are no longer of concern, and (2) a forward looking article about what possible changes lie ahead, and how monitoring efforts might change to keep stakeholders informed and prepared. Jay was given the go ahead to work on making a more in depth outline. Tom Mumley, Karin North, Jim Ervin, and Mike Connor agreed to be a subcommittee providing guidance on further development of the outline. Action Items: Distribute expanded outline for the Pulse Report to the subcommittee (Jay Davis) 3

9 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 9 DRAFT For SC Review 6. Decision: Request to merge Set Aside Funds and to establish a Monitoring Contingency Fund Due to time constraints this item was moved to the next meeting. 7. Decision: 2015 Multi Year Plan, 2015 Program Plan and 2015 Detailed Workplan Phil Trowbridge gave a quick summary of the three documents, their purposes and scopes. The Multi Year Plan is a long range planning document that sets the approximate funding level for different RMP priorities (e.g., S&T monitoring, special studies etc.). The Program Plan is an overview of the budget and priorities for RMP actions in the current year. The Detailed Workplan is essentially the Program Plan plus the detailed budget and deliverables associated with each line item. Phil recommended that the Program Plan was redundant given that all of the information in this report was also in the Detailed Workplan. The committee agreed that the Program Plan was no longer necessary. Additionally, the committee requested that the Detailed Workplan for 2016 be prepared in conjunction with the budget, to provide additional context to each line item. 8. Decision: Fees for Cooling Water Participants David Frandsen requested reduced fees for NRG as the lone representative of the Once Through Cooling (OTC) dischargers paying into the RMP. Phil Trowbridge presented the staff recommendation that the 2015 fees for NRG should not be changed, but that the Steering Committee should discuss reducing the fees for NRG for the remaining years that it will be in RMP (2016 and 2017). The group decided that the 2015 fees should not be refunded but that a fee reduction should be considered for 2016 and A subcommittee was formed, consisting of David Frandsen, Tom Mumley, Jim Kelly, and Phil Trowbridge, to develop a proposal to be considered by the SC at the next meeting. The proposal will contain the base fee for NRG and the date when OTC discharges must have ceased to avoid paying fees for The to be determined shortfall in fee revenue for 2016 and 2017 will be either made up from Undesignated Funds or budget cuts. The fees for other RMP participants will not be changed for 2016 and A discussion about fees for 2018 and onward was tabled until later, with the understanding that OTC discharger fees are not expected after Action Items: Prepare a proposal regarding fees for 2016 and 2017 to be paid by NRG (Phil Trowbridge) 9. Discussion: Presentation of Draft RMP Charter Rich Wilson from the Center for Collaborative Policy at Sacramento State presented the first draft of the RMP Charter, with a focused discussion on several points in need of resolution. The group worked through several sections of the Charter and agreed on the following. 4

10 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 10 DRAFT For SC Review Composition SC is reasonably balanced, no need to change current number of seats for stormwater POTWs can be restructured to BACWA principals and associates Remove industrial dischargers seat from SC composition Current TRC structure is ok, no need to match the SC structure TRC will serve as an advisory body, not a decision making body ( recommendations, not decisions ) TRC will not vote to make recommendations, rather will use an informal process to reach consensus While attendees may participate in discussions, seated TRC members will be responsible for making recommendations for SC consideration If TRC recommendations are skewed due to lack of attendance, those not in attendance will be afforded an opportunity to weigh in on preliminary recommendations Additional stormwater seat on the SC can be considered in the future as needed Addition of industry seat on the SC can be reconsidered in the future as needed TRC composition, active participation and recommendation making protocols may benefit from further discussion Information sharing Merge multiple existing lists to create a large Interested Parties list For matters that require SC approval, only SC members would be contacted, with the responsibility of conveying constituent sentiment falling on each individual member. Participant group representatives are responsible to communicate relevant RMP information to their respective constituencies. Nutrient Management Strategy Section accurately captures RMP/NMS interaction and how NMS will work Provide additional contextual information for reader (e.g. when NMS began; when/how RMP/NMS interaction began) Fees Strike current comment in appendix re: redistribution of fees based on drop off of stakeholder interest group If stakeholder interest group leaves, RMP will discuss and determine how best to allocate fees Charter formatting issues Make sure to date charter upon approval, and thereafter when revisions are made and approved Do not continue document pagination into appendices Phil Trowbridge will send out the revised Charter to the SC and TRC for additional comments. Phil reminded the group that comments on the draft were due within the next two weeks. Action Items: 5

11 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 11 DRAFT For SC Review Revise Charter and distribute to SC and TRC for additional comments (Phil Trowbridge) 10. Discussion: Topics for SOTE Conference The group discussed ideas for the plenary speakers for the State of the Estuary Conference. Warner Chabot introduced the topic, explaining that the scope of the meeting was broader geographically than in years past, and that the theme was possibly looking at the future of the Estuary on a 50 or 100 year timescale. The group brainstormed several candidates for Warner and others to call. The discussion on the afternoon sessions that the RMP has more direct control over was left for a later meeting. 11. Discussion: Topics for Estuary News It was decided to address this topic via Discussion: Status of Deliverables, Action Items, and Upcoming Meetings Phil Trowbridge presented an updated version of the Deliverable Stoplight report to the committee, as well as updates on action items. There was discussion about the new format. Tom Mumley stated that all red flag items should have a specific plan and a date certain when they will be complete. Also, the Quarterly Updates would be more appropriately called Program Updates. 13. Discussion: Planning agenda topics for March and June meetings It was decided to address this topic via Discussion: Plus/Delta The group reviewed agenda items from the current meeting that were delayed or moved to an discussion. The next scheduled SC meeting is April 21, Phil agreed to send calendar invites for the rest of the 2015 SC meetings to SC Representatives and to post meeting information on RMP website. Action Items: Send calendar invites for the rest of the 2015 SC meetings to SC Representatives (Phil Trowbridge) Post meeting materials on RMP website (Phil Trowbridge). 6

12 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 12 DRAFT For TRC Review RMP Technical Review Committee Meeting March 11, 2015 San Francisco Estuary Institute Meeting Summary Attendees TRC Member Affiliation Representing Present Nirmela Arsem EBMUD POTWs Yes Rod Miller SFPUC POTWs Yes Tom Hall EOA, Inc. South Bay Dischargers Yes (By Phone) Amy Chastain City and County of San Francisco CCSF Yes Eric Dunlavey City of San Jose City of San Jose Yes Bridgette DeShields* Integral Consulting Refineries Yes VACANT Industry NA VACANT Cooling Water NA Chris Sommers BASMAA (EOA, Inc.) Stormwater Yes John Prall Port of Oakland Dredgers No Rob Lawrence US Army Corps of Engineers USACE No Karen Taberski SFB RWQCB Water Board Jan O Hara Alternate Luisa Valiela US EPA US EPA IX Yes * Chair Guests and Staff Phil Trowbridge (SFEI) Jay Davis (SFEI) Rebecca Sutton (SFEI) Don Yee (SFEI) Adam Wong (SFEI) Meg Sedlak (SFEI) Lester McKee (SFEI) Ian Wren (Baykeeper) 1

13 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 13 DRAFT For TRC Review TRC Meeting Summary- Rough Draft 1. Introductions and Review Agenda Bridgette DeShields The group verbally approved the day's agenda. 2. Decision: Approve Meeting Summary from December 10, 2014 Bridgette DeShields The group had no comments about the meeting summary from the previous TRC meeting on December 10, Rod Miller moved to approve the December 10, 2014 Technical Review Committee Meeting Summary; Bridgette DeShields seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously by all present members. 3. Information: SC Meeting Summary from January 29, 2014 Phil Trowbridge Phil Trowbridge gave a quick summary of the Steering Committee Meeting summary highlighting three items. The SC reduced the budget for the Pulse to $125k and narrowed its scope. The Multi year plan was approved, and has been made available at the bottom of the RMP home page ( rmp ). The draft Charter has been sent out for comment; there are important sections about TRC voting and membership, which were addressed later in the day. 4. Decision: Proposal for Bay Margins Sediment Study Don Yee/Phil Trowbridge Don Yee presented the Special Study proposal for the Characterization of Sediment Contamination in Central Bay Margin Areas. He explained that the focus area will be the Central Bay, though it is an area that reaches further south compared to the Water Board definitions of the region. The group discussed the exclusion criteria for sample sites as well as inclusion criteria for pre existing data that will supplement the new sampling efforts. Jan O'Hara wanted to be sure that SFEI staff were aware that the Water Board has staff working on compiling a spatial layer that includes Envirostor data. Rod Miller asked about analysing for the 40 RMP congeners as opposed to the full suite of 209. Phil explained that the savings would only enable the sampling of a handful of extra sites, and that the potential value of the extra congeners was worth the slight loss of spatial coverage. Ian Wren asked about adding PAHs to the list of target analytes. Phil explained that PAHs would have cost approximately 2

14 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 14 DRAFT For TRC Review $35k, which did not fit into the project's budget. However, there will be extensive samples for archive taken at each site, enabling future analysis. Phil briefly went over the budgeting structure for the project; all of the field sampling is proposed for 2015, with analysis in This means that the SC will have to approve the use of 2016 funds for use in The group discussed the timeline for reporting, with the decision made that, in order to inform the RMP workplan for 2017, a presentation of preliminary data should be made to the TRC in March The group came to consensus that the proposal was approved and ready to go to the SC for final approval. Action Items: Don Yee with contact Jan O Hara to get compiled data on PCBs from Envirostor. These data will be used to determine if any older data can replace new sites. Don Yee will update the margins proposal before sending it to the SC. (1) Add exclusion criteria for sites that are too deep (e.g., in channels); (2) Add a simple definition of the habitat that will be sampled (e.g., mud flat); (3) Add the definition of Central Bay and clarify that is is not the same as the RB2 definition; (4) Add deadlines to the reporting section March 2016 for presentation of preliminary data and lessons learned to the TRC, December 2016 for final report. 5. Discussion: Review draft State of the Estuary Report (SOTER) and update on Pulse Jay Davis Jay Davis gave an overview of the format of the upcoming State of the Estuary Report. He highlighted the fact that data from the Delta would be included, and that the Pulse would serve as a companion piece, with coordinated content and visual design. He focused on the high level overview of the indicators for water quality, along with the graphics that will appear in the summary report. The general feedback was that there will need to be some tweaking of the language in the high level overview, and that the positioning and grouping of the graphics, especially for toxicity, will have to be considered carefully. A few specific comments were: add a note on the graph that the cause of sediment toxicity is unknown; clarify all of the factors leading to good/fair/poor classifications; and place water and sediment toxicity graphs on the same page. Jay asked for full comments by March 20. Next Jay discussed the 2015 Pulse. Per the direction of the SC, it will be more streamlined, with less text and greater space devoted to infographics. There will be two articles, one focused on the current state of affairs, and one on Bay water quality in There will also be short sections for updates on 11 different priority contaminants. There were some concerns about using the Heal the Bay scorecard for pathogens due to the way the data were grouped by season (not by antecedent rainfall). There was also a recommendation to just link 3

15 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 15 DRAFT For TRC Review to the report card rather than incorporating the data. Jay asked the committee members to contact him via if there were key reviewers missing from any of the articles or contaminant updates. Action Items: Jay will send out figures from each section for the committee to review and ask for comments by 3/20/ Information: Update on 2014 Results for PFCs in Seal Blood Meg Sedlak Meg Sedlak presented a presentation on the highlights of the upcoming manuscript on perfluorinated compounds in San Francisco Bay wildlife. 7. Discussion: Update on State of the Estuary Conference and RMP Annual Meeting Planning Phil Trowbridge Phil Trowbridge described the three proposed talks for the RMP Plenary session at the State of the Estuary Conference as well as several possible alternative topics. The group agreed that the proposed talks on the future of wastewater treatment and recycling, green infrastructure and stormwater management, and green chemistry, represented good choices. For the afternoon concurrent sessions, the group agreed that a current state of water quality in the estuary session was an obvious choice, and that a water quality infrastructure planning theme would be good for the second session. Additionally they agreed that David Senn should be approached to propose a potential third session on nutrients in the Bay. The group did not favor sessions on the The Present of Green Infrastructure and Water Recycling in the Bay Area or The Present and Future of Water Quality in the Bay. The group identified a number of potential speakers for each session, which were recorded by Phil in the conference planning document. The committee also provided feedback that the registration process for RMP members to attend the RMP Annual Meeting to be better organized and streamlined. It was confusing the last time. Action Items: Phil will talk with Dave Senn about proposing a concurrent session on Nutrients, or perhaps just giving a talk during water quality session. 4

16 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 16 DRAFT For TRC Review 8. Decision: Request to retain unused 2014 POC loads budget for supporting tributaries loadings management questions at the discretion of the STLS team Lester McKee/Chris Sommers Lester McKee presented a draft proposal for the use of $133k in unused funds from previous years wet weather sampling efforts due to drought conditions. The committee agreed that all five proposed items seemed worthwhile. The next steps is for the STLS Team to develop a workplan for presentation to the SC. After the April 1 STLS meeting, Lester and Chris Sommers will deliver a proposal memo to the TRC (by 4/7/15) for review. The final proposed workplan will be included in the SC agenda package on April 14. Action Items: Lester will work with the STLS Team to develop a workplan to present to the TRC by 4/7/15 and then the SC by 4/14/15 with deliverables and budget. 9. Discussion: RMP Charter and Proposal to Change RMP Workgroups and Science Advisors Phil Trowbridge Phil Trowbridge opened a discussion on the section of the draft charter with two topics that were relevant the TRC: membership/defined seats and voting. Regarding membership/defined seats, the group reached consensus on the following: Anyone who wants to participate in TRC meetings should be able to and the TRC should be able to add members without SC approval. How to achieve these goals was less clear. The group discussed the following options without reaching consensus on the best one: Keep the current defined seats Add a seat for an NGO to the current list of defined seats Not have defined seats but expect that all RMP groups represented on the SC will also participate at TRC meetings. Let participation during the year define membership. Regarding voting, the general agreement was that the proposed language was satisfactory. The TRC would not vote but would rather reach consensus or, if consensus could not be reached, express minority/majority opinions in the meeting summary. Phil also presented proposed changes to the workgroup and strategy team structure. The group agreed with the changes in principal, with the following caveats. A PCB workgroup will need to have a local team that meets more often than the full group. The Mercury workgroup will be suspended rather than dissolved, with the understanding that it will be brought back in the future. Action Items: 5

17 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 17 DRAFT For TRC Review Phil will work on language in the Charter to address comments from the TRC regarding defined seats. Phil will modify the roster of Workgroups and Science Advisers per the proposal as modified by the TRC and develop a new organization chart showing the RMP committees, workgroups, and strategy teams. 10. Information: Status of Deliverables, Action Items, and Upcoming Meetings Phil Trowbridge Phil Trowbridge gave updates on the late items from the deliverable report and action items list. The resulting action items were for Amy Chastain and Eric Dunlavey to update BACWA and for Phil to update the item on particle size toxicity. Phil also displayed the new website being assembled for housing TRC and SC meeting summaries, agendas, and calendars. There was feedback that the embedded smartsheet should be filterable, or split into different filtered sheets. Action Items: Phil will look into making the smartsheet reports on the website filterable and will develop instructions for adding the meeting calendar to one s personal calendar. Amy Chastain and Eric Dunlavey will followup up with BACWA regarding the need for CTR monitoring. 11. Discussion: Planning agenda topics for June, September, and October meetings Jay Davis Jay Davis asked the committee members to communicate with him if there were any particular items that they'd like to see at future meetings. Ocean acidification, microplastics, and the nutrients strategy were both brought up as items that members would like updates on. More generally, any publication (either in Estuary News or for journals) should have a preliminary presentation of some sort to the committee. 12. Discussion: Plus/Delta Bridgette DeShields Item deferred. 6

18 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 18 DATE: April 14, 2015 TO: FROM: RMP Steering Committee Philip Trowbridge and Lawrence Leung RE: Updated Summary of RMP Budget (Years 2012 to 2015) period ending 3/31/15 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update of budgets and expenses for all open RMP budget years ( ) and the balances of reserve funds. All of the values presented are current as of 3/31/15. RMP 2015 BUDGET Revenue Most of the fees for the 2015 RMP budget have been collected except three quarterly payers ($83,162 outstanding, expected by end of May), CalTrans ($80,323 expected by November), Treasure Island ($5,711), and Mooring Road Neighborhood Association ($1,100.75). The lead representative of the Mooring Road Neighborhood Association cannot pay the small $1, bill and informed the Water Board that billings would need to be sent to individual homeowners who dredged. Determination of each individual homeowner is pending. The time spent on coordination of these funds is approaching the value of the bill. In addition to the 2015 RMP fees, Treasure Island fees for 2010 ($5,733) and 2011 ($5,576) are also delayed. The Navy acknowledged their process is a bit complicated. Expenses Overall, expenses are tracking well relative to budget. After the first quarter of the year, 23% of the funds have been spent and no tasks are over budget. Figure 1 shows a comparison of expenses to budget by category. For more detailed information on budgets and expenses by line item, please refer to Table 1. The expenses by labor, subcontractors, and direct costs are: Labor: Expended 18% of the labor budget (i.e., $411,562 of $2,247,917) Subcontractors: Expended 33% of the subcontractor budget (i.e., $385,015 out of $1,150,108) Direct Costs: Expended 8% of the direct cost budget (i.e., $15,898 out of $195,125)

19 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 19 2 UPDATED SUMMARY OF RMP BUDGET (YEARS 2012 TO 2015) Requests During the April 21, 2015 meeting, the Steering Committee will be asked to authorize adding $86,370 of Undesignated Funds to the 2015 budget for the Bay Margins Sediment Study. This amount will be returned to Undesignated Funds from using the funds allocated to the Bay Margins Sediment Study in the 2016 budget. PRIOR YEAR RMP BUDGETS ( ) Budget lines continue to be open for some tasks from the 2012, 2013, and 2014 RMP budgets. The tables in Attachment 1 show the balances and status for labor and subcontractor budgets that have been carried over from prior years. Overall, $288,564 of labor, $720,936 of subcontracts, and $93,093 of direct costs remain to be spent from these budgets. RESERVE FUNDS Dedicated Set-Aside Funds The RMP has several dedicated set-aside funds. The purpose of these funds are to spread out the cost of large projects across multiple budget years. The current balance of all Set-Aside funds is $306,154. The current balance of each set-aside fund is shown on Table 2. Dedicated Dredger Reserve Fund The Dredger Reserve balance through 3/31/15 is -$76,943 (a deficit). Table 3 and Figure 2 show the dredger surplus (deficit) by year. The reserve balance became negative in the 2015 budget year because there was a shortfall in dredger fees collected of $164,777 but there was only $87,834 in the Dredger Reserve Fund. Undesignated Funds The RMP has a policy to maintain a cash reserve of at least $200,000 to allow for response to unanticipated funding needs or revenue shortfalls. Any remaining Undesignated Funds are available for spending at the discretion of the Steering Committee. Figure 3 shows how the balance of Undesignated Funds has changed over time. The current balance of Undesignated Funds through 3/31/15 is $684,801. Table 4 shows the withdrawals and deposits in the Undesignated Funds during the last two budget years. OVERALL BUDGET SUMMARY Table 5 provides a summary of RMP budgets, expenses, and reserve funds across all years.

20 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 20 3 UPDATED SUMMARY OF RMP BUDGET (YEARS 2012 TO 2015) Figures Bay RMP 2015 Expenses Versus Budget through 3/31/15 1. Program Management Budget Expenses 2. Governance 3. Data Management 4. Annual Reporting 5. Communications 6. S&T Monitoring 7. Special Studies $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 Thousands Figure 1: Bay RMP 2015 Budget. Budget and expenses through 3/31/15 by category.

21 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 21 4 UPDATED SUMMARY OF RMP BUDGET (YEARS 2012 TO 2015) Figure 2: Bay RMP Dedicated Dredger Reserve Fund. Yearly and running surplus (deficit) from 2003 through 3/3/15.

22 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 22 5 UPDATED SUMMARY OF RMP BUDGET (YEARS 2012 TO 2015) Figure 3: Bay RMP Undesignated Funds. Balance over the past two budget years. The height of the bar shows the total balance of the Undesignated Funds. However, the bar is color coded to indicate the RMP policy that $200,000 of the Undesignated Funds should not be spent.

23 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 23 6 UPDATED SUMMARY OF RMP BUDGET (YEARS 2012 TO 2015) Tables Table 1: Bay RMP 2015 Budget. Budget and expenses through 3/31/15 by line item Category 1. Program Management Line Item Budget Approved Budget Adjustment Budget Final Actuals thru 3/31/15 % Expended A. Program Planning $50,000 $0 $50,000 $4,509 9% B. Contract and Financial Management $187,100 $0 $187,100 $29,180 16% C. Technical Oversight $50,000 $0 $50,000 $3,489 7% D. Internal Coordination $90,000 $0 $90,000 $13,210 15% E. External Coordination $30,000 $0 $30,000 $3,447 11% F. Safety Training $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 0% G. Administration $19,700 $0 $19,700 $1,427 7% 2. Governance A. SC meetings $66,500 $0 $66,500 $12,426 19% B. TRC meetings $81,500 $0 $81,500 $9,444 12% C. WG meetings $81,500 $0 $81,500 $12,293 15% 3. Data Management D. External Science Advisors $50,000 $0 $50,000 $830 2% A. Data Processing, Quality Assurance, and Upload to CEDEN $160,000 $0 $160,000 $64,119 40% B. Database Maintenance and Online Data Access $140,000 $0 $140,000 $32,174 23% C. Quality Assurance System $25,000 $0 $25,000 $3,905 16% D. Updates to SOPs and Templates $30,000 $0 $30,000 $8,480 28% 4. Annual Reporting A. Pulse or Pulse Lite Report $165,500 ($40,500) $125,000 $11,831 7% B. Annual Meeting $73,900 $0 $73,900 $3,202 4% 5. Communications C. Annual Monitoring Report $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 0% D. Updates to Copper SSO and Dredged Material Thresholds $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 0% A. Communications Plan Implementation $22,000 $0 $22,000 $1,109 5% B. Stakeholder Engagement $42,000 $0 $42,000 $2,383 6% C. Responses to Information Requests $10,000 $0 $10,000 $2,415 24% D. Fact Sheets and Outreach Products $10,500 $0 $10,500 $1,029 10% E. Support for "Estuary News" $18,500 $0 $18,500 $10,622 57% F. Presentations at Conferences and Meetings $48,000 $0 $48,000 $4,488 9% G. RMP Website Maintenance $15,000 $0 $15,000 $1,910 13% H. RMP Website Redesign $0 $0 $0 $0 I. Products for New Media $0 $0 $0 $0 6. S&T Monitoring A. Field Work and Logistics $175,000 $0 $175,000 $603 0% B. USGS Sacramento Support $250,000 $0 $250,000 $250, % C. USGS Menlo Park Support $173,000 $0 $173,000 $86,500 50% D. Water Chemistry Monitoring $45,000 $0 $45,000 $0 0%

24 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 24 7 UPDATED SUMMARY OF RMP BUDGET (YEARS 2012 TO 2015) Category Line Item Budget Approved Budget Adjustment Budget Final Actuals thru 3/31/15 E. Water Chemistry CTR Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 % Expended F. Bird Egg Monitoring $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 0% G. Sample Archive $18,000 $0 $18,000 $0 0% H. Planning for Bay Margins Sediment Study $20,000 $0 $20,000 $17,049 85% I. Bay Margins Sediment Study $120,000 $0 $120,000 $238 0% J. Analysis of S&T Impacts, Changes, and Data $15,000 $0 $15,000 $1,892 13% 7. Special Studies EC Microplastics Monitoring $9,000 $0 $9,000 $7,822 87% EC Strategy Support $20,000 $0 $20,000 $3,354 17% EC Wastewater Monitoring $55,000 $0 $55,000 $49,642 90% Nutrient Modeling Program Development Nutrient Moored Sensor Program Development Nutrients High-Frequency Mapping Study $165,000 $0 $165,000 $0 0% $190,000 $0 $190,000 $35,784 19% $115,000 $0 $115,000 $0 0% PCB: PMU Conceptual Model $85,000 $0 $85,000 $7,925 9% Selenium Delta Fish Derby Monitoring $20,000 $8,950 $28,950 $6,177 31% Selenium Information Synthesis $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 0% Selenium Strategy Team Meeting $10,000 $0 $10,000 $2,919 29% Selenium Sturgeon Tissue Plug Monitoring $23,000 $0 $23,000 $0 0% STLS Regional Watershed Model $35,000 $0 $35,000 $241 1% STLS Strategy Coordination $26,000 $0 $26,000 $5,516 21% STLS Trends Strategy $35,000 $0 $35,000 $0 0% STLS Wet Weather Characterization $374,000 $0 $374,000 $98,890 26% Grand Total $3,624,700 ($31,550) $3,593,150 $812,474 23%

25 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 25 8 UPDATED SUMMARY OF RMP BUDGET (YEARS 2012 TO 2015) Table 2: Bay RMP Dedicated Set-Aside Funds. Balances as of 3/31/15. Reserve Type Purpose Balance Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Aquatic Toxicity $0 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Bivalve Monitoring $0 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Cormorant Monitoring $0 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund NIST Archive $0 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Program Review $88,179 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund S&T Data Management $0 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund S&T Fieldwork and Logistics $0 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Sediment Benthos $30,900 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Sediment Chemistry $0 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Sediment Toxicity $25,750 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Sport Fish Monitoring $0 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Tern Monitoring $50,625 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Water Chemistry $110,700 TOTAL $306,154 Table 3: Bay RMP Dedicated Dredger Reserve Fund. Yearly surplus (deficit) and total surplus (deficit) as of 3/31/15. Dredger Reserve Year Surplus/Deficit 2015 $ (164,777) 2014 $ (97,614) 2013 $ (8,359) 2012 $ 120, $ (19,480) 2010 $ 115, $ (59,576) 2008 $ 97, $ 29, $ (19,324) 2005 $ 104, $ (42,352) 2003 $ (132,894) TOTAL $ (76,943)

26 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 26 9 UPDATED SUMMARY OF RMP BUDGET (YEARS 2012 TO 2015) Table 4: Bay RMP Undesignated Funds. Withdrawals and Deposits during the last two budget years and total balance as of 3/31/15. Budget Year Deposit or Withdrawal Authorization Date of Authorization Amount Comment 2014 Withdrawal Steering Committee 10/15/2013 ($121,610) Special Studies recommended by TRC plus $24k for EC monitoring and $25k for Selenium strategy development Withdrawal Steering Committee 5/6/2014 ($50,000) ebook for RMP Update Report 2014 Withdrawal Steering Committee 5/6/2014 ($10,680) Additional S&T sportfish tissue analyses 2014 Withdrawal Steering Committee 5/6/2014 ($20,000) Margins Planning 2014 Deposit 5/15/2014 $16,205 Treasure Island funds 2014 Withdrawal Steering Committee 7/15/2014 ($26,000) Analysis of PFCs in sediment and seal tissue 2014 Withdrawal Steering Committee 7/15/2014 ($23,000) 2014 Selenium in Sturgeon Plug Study 2014 Deposit 1/15/2015 $6,000 Unused funds for 2014 Selenium Plug Tissue Sampling ( /046) 2014 Deposit $2,629 Interest windfall for 2014 (interest above budgeted amount) 2014 Deposit $10,197 Budgeted surplus for 2014 budget 2014 Deposit Steering Committee 1/29/2015 $153,628 Released funds from the 2014 budget per 1/28/15 Budget Memo to the SC. $2,852 Released funds from the 2014 budget after 3/31/ Withdrawal 2015 Withdrawal Steering Committee Steering Committee 7/15/2014 ($134,000) Funding for 2015 Special Studies. Approved to put this amount into the 2015 budget from Reserve. 11/13/2014 ($76,941) Funds to cover shortfall in Dredger revenue 2015 Withdrawal Steering Committee 1/15/2015 ($8,950) Funds for sturgeon fin ray analyses for selenium. Approved by . Partially offset by $6000 of unused 2014 funds for the sturgeon plug sampling returned to Undesignated Funds on 12/31/ Deposit $0 Projected end of year budget balance TOTAL BALANCE as of 3/31/15 $684,801

27 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 27 Table 5: Steering Committee RMP Budget Summary as of 3/31/15 Budget and Current Expenses Year Budget Item Approved Funds to be Expended Balance Expended Budget Expended $ $ $ % by Labor 2,247, ,562 1,836,355 18% 6/30/ Subcontracts 1,150, , ,093 33% 6/30/2016 Direct Costs 195,125 15, ,227 8% 6/30/ Total 3,593, ,475 2,780,675 23% 6/30/2016 Labor 361,115 85, ,015 24% 12/31/ Subcontracts 769, , ,052 21% 5/31/2015 Direct Costs 124,286 31,193 93,093 25% 6/30/2015 Contingency 50, ,000 0% 3/31/ Labor Labor 15,933 10,596 5,159 8,821 10,774 1,775 32% 83% 6/30/2015 9/30/2015 Subcontracts Subcontracts 108,391 32,000 24, ,884 32,000 23% 0% 5/31/2015 5/31/2015 Prior Years Work-to-Complete Total 1,471, ,779 1,152,593 22% 6/30/2016 Cash, Set-Asides, and Undesignated Funds as of reporting date Item $ Notes Cash on Hand 4,924,224 Total Current Liabilities (figures above) (3,933,269) '13-'14 Water Chemistry (110,700) Program Review (88,179) TBD; previously $125K, $37K approved withdrawal 5/6/14 '13-14 Tern Monitoring (50,625) TBD 2013 Sediment Benthos (30,900) TBD 2013 Sediment Toxicity (25,750) TBD Set- Asides Undesignated Funds 684,801 RMP SC has set a policy to maintain a minimum balance of $200K of Undesignated Funds Plus Accounts Receivables & Interest: Anticipated Collections by '10-11 Treasure Island (U.S. Navy) 11,309 Unknown Undesignated Funds after Collections 696,110

28 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 28 Attachment 1 Carryover Labor from Prior Year RMP Budgets: Budgets, Balances, and Expected Completion Date 2012 RMP Task Budget Remaining Work to be Completed Date to be Completed Unencumbered 4. SPECIAL STUDIES 4.3 ECWG: Monitoring PFCs in Bay Biota $46,390 $1,775 $1,775 9/30/15 $0 Manuscript prepared, under final review, to be submitted in April. TOTAL $46,390 $1,775 $1,775 9/30/15 $0 Rationale 2013 RMP Task Budget Remaining 4. SPECIAL STUDIES Work to be Completed Date to be Completed Unencumbered 4.6 CF: Shared Modeling Proposal $30,000 $10,774 $10,774 6/30/15 $0 Rationale Tactical plan developed. Will use these funds for model planning and implementation. Deadline extended to 6/30/15 to match State Fiscal Year (SFY is used by the Nutrient Steering Committee) RMP Task Budget Remaining 2. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT & SYNTHESIS TOTAL $30,000 $10,774 $10,774 6/30/15 $0 Work to be Completed Date to be Completed Unencumbered 2.3 Information Dissemination $136,000 $4,215 $4,215 6/30/15 $0 2.4 Annual Reporting - Annual Monitoring Results 2013 $20,000 $7,126 $7,126 6/30/15 $0 Rationale Received final technical reports from NIST. In order to make the results accessible to most readers, RMP is producing a 4 page fact sheet. The fact sheet was distributed to ECWG and TRC for review in March and will be finalized in April and 2014 Annual Monitoring Report delayed due to staffing changes. New staff will be hired in April The report is expect to be half as expensive as budgeted. 3. STATUS & TRENDS MONITORING 3.3 Sportfish $45,800 $30,858 $30,858 12/31/15 $0 This is a multi-year study so the task must be kept open into SPECIAL STUDIES 4.1 EC: Alternative Flame Retardants $40,262 $12,551 $12,551 12/31/15 $0 This is a multi-year study so the task must be kept open into EC: EC Strategy Update $20,000 $2,202 $2,202 1/31/15 $0 4.7 STLS: Stormwater Loads Monitoring in Rep. Watersheds $224,199 $18,571 $18,571 6/30/15 $0 Report delayed from 12/31/14 to 2/28/15. A proposal will be developed for any potential cost savings from not being able to complete all stormwater sampling events due to the drought. 4.8 STLS: Develop and Update Spreadsheet Model - Yr5 $30,000 $22,467 $22,467 6/30/15 $0 Report delayed from 9/30/14 to 6/30/15 due to staffing changes. 4.9 STLS: Land use/ Source Specific EMC $80,000 $21,862 $21,862 6/30/15 $0 Funds held in reserve for task 4.9 if needed Nutrients: Program Management $20,000 $161 $0 3/31/15 $ Nutrients: Monitoring Program Development $42,000 $34,679 $34,679 6/30/15 $ Nutrients: Stormwater Measurements $10,000 $9,958 $9,958 6/30/15 $ Nutrients: Modeling $100,000 $99,246 $99,246 12/31/15 $ Dioxin: Sportfish Monitoring $4,000 $3,925 $3,925 12/31/15 $0 Deadline exteneded to 6/30/15 to match State Fiscal Year (SFY is used by the Nutrient Steering Committee) Report due date changed from 12/31/14 to 6/30/15 to allow for public release of data (expected Q1 2014). These funds will be used for nutrient modeling after the 2013 nutrient modeling funds are exhausted. This is a multi-year study so the task must be kept open into Dioxin results will be reported with the sportfish report Selenium: 2014 Plug Sampling $13,900 $8,357 $8,357 6/30/15 $0 This is a multi-year study so the task must be kept open into ALL OTHER TASKS $2,692 $0 1/15/15 $2,692 Delayed billing in prior period not as high as anticipated. TOTAL $786,161 $278,868 $276,015 12/31/15 $2, TOTAL $862,551 $291,417 $288,564 12/31/15 $2,852

29 Attachment 1 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 29 Carryover Subcontracts from Prior Year RMP Budgets: Budgets, Balances, and Status Project Year Cont # Contractor Project Title Amount Billed Balance Project Mgr Start Date Expire Type of Date Agency Deltares PSSS Modeling $ 32,000 $ - $ 32, Phil Trowbridge 10/1/2014 5/31/2015 Private Open UCSC PSSS Nutrients Algal Biotoxins TOTAL $ 32, $ - $ 32, /31/2015 Contract Status $ 65,000 $ 42, $ 22, Phil Trowbridge 1/1/2013 4/30/2015 University Open Deltares PSSS Modeling $ 61,350 $ - $ 61, Phil Trowbridge 10/1/2014 5/31/2015 Private Open USGS SIU PSSS Benthic Recovery Study PSSS Alternative Flame Retardants TOTAL $ 126, $ 42, $ 83, /31/2015 $ 150, $ 46, $ 103, Phil Trowbridge 3/31/2014 3/15/2017 Federal Signed $ 53, $ 53, Phil Trowbridge 5/1/2014 4/30/2015 University Signed AMS S&T AMS $ 142, $ 131, $ 10, Phil Trowbridge 3/1/2014 2/1/2015 Private Signed SJSURF S&T Sport Fish $ 101, $ 10, $ 90, Phil Trowbridge 4/1/2014 6/30/2015 University Signed UCD PSSS Moderate Toxicity $ 30, $ 19, $ 10, Phil Trowbridge 6/1/2014 4/30/2015 University Signed CSUS PSSS Program Review $ 36, $ 26, $ 9, Phil Trowbridge 6/9/2014 6/30/2015 University Signed Deltares PSSS Modeling $ 6, $ 6, Phil Trowbridge 10/1/2014 5/31/2015 Private Signed Brooks Rand S&T Brooks Rand $ 15, $ 15, $ (111.00) Phil Trowbridge 7/1/2014 6/30/2015 Private Signed CCSF S&T CCSF $ 4, $ 4, Phil Trowbridge 7/1/2014 6/30/2015 University Signed EBMUD S&T EBMUD $ 67, $ 67, Phil Trowbridge 8/1/2014 6/30/2015 County Signed AXYS S&T AXYS $ 17, $ 16, $ 1, Phil Trowbridge 7/1/2014 6/30/2015 Private Signed AXYS PSSS Dioxin in Sport Fish $ 20, $ 20, Phil Trowbridge 8/1/2014 9/30/2015 Private Signed AXYS S&T Sport Fish $ 8, $ 8, Phil Trowbridge 8/1/2014 9/30/2015 Private Signed UF PSSS Bioanalytical Tools $ 26, $ 4, $ 21, Phil Trowbridge 7/1/ /31/2015 University Signed SCCWRP PSSS Bioanalytical Tools $ 30, $ 30, Phil Trowbridge 7/1/ /31/2015 JPA Signed AXYS PSSS Seal Serum $ 4, $ 4, $ (102.85) Phil Trowbridge 9/15/2014 3/31/2015 Private CLOSED USGS PSSS Selenium Study $ 1, $ 1, Phil Trowbridge 9/1/2014 3/31/2015 Federal pending 2014 PO2054 GGWS PSSS POC Monitoring $ 4, $ $ 3, Jennifer Hunt 9/27/2013 5/31/2015 Consultant Signed 2014 PO2076 Don Stevens PSSS Margins Planning $ 4, $ 4, $ Phil Trowbridge 8/1/2014 6/30/2015 Consultant Signed

30 Attachment 1 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 30 Carryover Subcontracts from Prior Year RMP Budgets: Budgets, Balances, and Status Project Year Cont # Contractor Project Title Amount Billed Balance Project Mgr Start Date Expire Type of Date Agency Contract Status 2014 PO2080 UCR S&T Sport Fish $ $ $ 0.44 Phil Trowbridge 9/1/2014 3/31/2015 University CLOSED 2014 Unallocated S&T unallocated $ 161, $ 161, pending 2014 TOTAL $ 886,780 $281, $605, /15/ TOTAL $ 1,045,130 $324, $720, /15/2017

31 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 31 Consent Calendar Memo #1 DATE: April 10, 2015 TO: FROM: RE: RMP Steering Committee Philip Trowbridge, RMP Manager Set Aside Fund for Monitoring Contingency Recommendation Approve the transfer of $50,000 unused monitoring contingency funds from the 2014 budget to a Designated Set Aside Fund for Monitoring Contingency. Approve the purpose for and process by which these funds may be used. Explanation The 2014 RMP budget contained $50,000 for monitoring contingencies. These funds were not used. Rather than releasing these funds to the Undesignated Funds pool, we are recommending that the $50,000 be placed in a Dedicated Set Aside Fund for Monitoring Contingencies for use in 2015 or future years. It is administratively easier to have money for monitoring contingencies in a Set Aside Fund than to keep adding and subtracting it from yearly budgets. The purpose and process for using these funds is outlined on the second page. 1

32 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 32 Proposed Purpose and Process for the Set Aside Fund for Monitoring Contingency Purpose The Set Aside Fund for Monitoring Contingency may only be used for unexpected monitoring costs or opportunities that arise during the course of the year after the RMP budget has been approved. Process Withdrawing Funds For expenses greater than $10,000, the RMP Manager must obtain prior approval from the Steering Committee. For expenses up to $10,000, the RMP Manager may act without prior approval from the Steering Committee, under the following circumstances: A strategically important sampling opportunity arises (e.g., due to rare weather events or a chance to leverage other monitoring efforts); A mechanical failure during field sampling necessitates rapid action to repair or replace equipment in order to maintain the sampling schedule; or An unexpected event that, in the judgment of the RMP Manager, requires immediate action. Should the monitoring contingency funds be obligated by the RMP Manager under these circumstances, the RMP Manager would inform the Steering Committee via and provide a justification. The Steering Committee would then provide feedback at the next scheduled meeting on the appropriateness of the decision to maintain clear expectations for use of these funds. Depositing Funds If Monitoring Contingency funds are used during a year, the RMP Manager will seek Steering Committee approval to replenish the Set Aside Fund up to the $50,000 balance when requesting approval for the following year s budget. 2

33 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 33 Consent Calendar Memo #2 DATE: April 10, 2015 TO: FROM: RE: RMP Steering Committee Philip Trowbridge, RMP Manager Consolidating the Existing Set Aside Funds for Monitoring Recommendation Approve the merger of Designated Set Aside Funds for water chemistry ($110,700), bird egg monitoring ($50,625), sediment benthos ($30,900), and sediment toxicity ($25,750) into a single Designated Set Aside Fund for Status & Trends Monitoring with a balance of $217,975. Explanation Over the years, the RMP has accumulated 17 different Set Aside Funds. The purpose of these funds are to spread out the cost of large projects across multiple budget years. For example, sport fish monitoring is conducted every five years and typically costs $150k for field and lab work. By contributing $30k to the Set Aside Fund for Sport Fish Monitoring each year, the cost of the program is spread across five budget cycles. The full list of set aside funds and their current balances after the 2015 budget is shown in Table 1. The past practice of maintaining separate set aside funds for specific monitoring activities has become very difficult to administer. The current design for Status and Trends (S&T) monitoring calls for different monitoring activities to occur on different schedules. As a result, the RMP needs to both contribute to and withdraw from monitoring set aside funds in any given budget year. For example, in 2014, the RMP used $454k from certain set aside funds to pay for 2014 monitoring and then contributed $161k to other set aside funds for future monitoring. It is not efficient to keep track of these cash flows into and out of set aside funds in the same year. 1

34 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 34 The S&T Program was designed to be implemented as a whole, rather than separate pieces. S&T monitoring activities for water, sediment, bivalves, sport fish and avian eggs are planned through Smoothing out the cost of each separate piece of the S&T Program is unnecessarily complicated. The overall goal of smoothing out the yearly costs of Program could be more efficiently achieved using a single Set Aside Fund for S&T Monitoring. Table 2 shows how a single set aside fund could be used to smooth out the costs of the whole program between 2015 and The RMP would need to save $200,000, $125,000, and $225,000 in 2016, 2017, and 2020, respectively, in the Set Aside Fund. These funds plus the starting balance would be used to partially offset S&T costs in the other years. Table 1: RMP Set Aside Funds Balances as of January 1, 2015 Set Aside Fund Balance Aquatic Toxicity $0 Bivalve Monitoring $0 Causes of Sediment Toxicity $0 Cormorant Monitoring $0 Fish Contamination $0 Guadalupe Loads $0 Large Tributaries $0 NIST Archive $0 Program Review $88,179 S&T Data Management $0 S&T Fieldwork and Logistics $0 Sediment Benthos $30,900 Sediment Chemistry $0 Sediment Toxicity $25,750 Sport Fish Monitoring $0 Tern Monitoring $50,625 Water Chemistry $110,700 2

35 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 35 Table 2: Proposed Schedule for Using and Saving Set Aside Funds for S&T Monitoring Year S&T Expense Set Aside Funds Set Aside Funds Used Saved S&T Funds Needed Set Aside Funds Balance 2014 actl $993,352 $416,700 $161,100 $737,752 $297, bdgt $861,000* $79,075 $0 $781,925 $217, fcst $622,436 $0 $200,000 $822,436 $417, fcst $741,280 $0 $125,000 $866,280 $542, fcst $1,110,862 $225,000 $0 $885,862 $317, fcst $1,039,753 $150,000 $0 $889,753 $167, fcst $687,053 $0 $225,000 $912,053 $392, fcst $992,188 $75,000 $0 $917,188 $317, fcst $1,098,498 $175,000 $0 $923,498 $142, fcst $1,047,508 $120,000 $0 $927,508 $22,975 Notes: *includes $50k for CTR monitoring which was part of the design but was not funded in the 2015 budget. There is also $88,179 in another Set Aside Fund for the Program Review. These funds are not recommended to be merged with the others since they are for a fundamentally different purpose. 3

36 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 36 Consent Calendar Memo #3 DATE: April 10, 2015 TO: FROM: RE: RMP Steering Committee Philip Trowbridge, RMP Manager Process for Allocating Undesignated Funds The RMP maintains a balance of Undesignated Funds. Currently, requests for these Undesignated Funds are brought before the Steering Committee on an individual, as needed requested basis. There is concern that the Undesignated Funds are not being allocated strategically because each request is evaluated independently and without context. Therefore, the Steering Committee Chair requested RMP staff to develop a process to facilitate strategic decisions. Proposed Process 1. Create a Set Aside Fund for Monitoring Contingency that can be used for time sensitive monitoring activities. (see memo #1 for details) 2. Reformat the Budget Update Report so that it includes both the current balance of the Undesignated Funds and a list of all deposits and withdrawals made in the preceding 12 months. This information will provide the Steering Committee with the context needed to make strategic decisions about requests for Undesignated Funds. This process will streamline approvals of small requests for time sensitive monitoring, while giving the Steering Committee sufficient context for reviewing larger requests for Undesignated Funds.

37 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 37 Summary of Consent Calendar Requests Regarding Reserve Funds Reserve Type Purpose Current Balance Proposed Balance Comments Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Monitoring Contingency $50,000 Create with left-over 2014 funds Dedicated Set-Aside Fund S&T Monitoring $217,975 Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Sediment Benthos $30,900 $0 Merge into S&T Monitoring Set-Aside Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Sediment Toxicity $25,750 $0 Merge into S&T Monitoring Set-Aside Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Tern Monitoring $50,625 $0 Merge into S&T Monitoring Set-Aside Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Water Chemistry $110,700 $0 Merge into S&T Monitoring Set-Aside Dedicated Set-Aside Fund Program Review $88,179 $88,179 Designated Dredger Reserve Designated Dredger Rese $0 $0 Undesignated Funds Undesignated Funds $682,567 $682,567 Approval process proposed TOTAL $988,721 $1,038,721

38 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 38 DATE: April 3, 2015 TO: FROM: RE: RMP Steering Committee Philip Trowbridge, RMP Manager RMP Fees for Once Through Cooling Water Dischargers Request Reduce the RMP fees for the Pittsburg Power Plant from the current 4% of the RMP budget to 2% in 2016, 1.5% in 2017, 0.5% in 2018, and 0% in 2019 and thereafter, as long as the cooling water discharge from this facility ceases by December 31, Explanation Once Through Cooling (OTC) dischargers pay 4% of the total RMP fees. There is only one discharger in this category currently, the Pittsburg Power Plant (PPP). The representative from PPP has requested that the plant s contribution be reduced from 4% to 1% of the total RMP fees because the plant has reduced the use of OTC significantly and is required to abandon OTC discharges by 2017 (but PPP will have a NPDES permit through 6/30/18). On January 29, 2015, the Steering Committee decided not to reduce PPP s fees for the 2015 budget, but agreed to consider a lower fee for The Steering Committee also decided that whatever decision was made about PPP s fees in would not increase the fees for other RMP participants during this period. An ad hoc subcommittee, consisting of David Frandsen, Tom Mumley, Jim Kelly, and Phil Trowbridge, was formed to develop a proposal. The subcommittee met twice and reached consensus on a proposal to reduce the PPP fees to 2% of the RMP budget in 2016, 1.5% in 2017, and 0.5% in 2018 (see Table 1). The proposed fees for PPP are close to the average fee per participant of the RMP (100% divided by 66 participants equals 1.5%). Over the three year period, PPP would pay $143,485, which is 33% of what PPP would have paid if the fees had remained at 4%. The RMP will have to adjust to revenue 1

39 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 39 shortfalls but they will be phased in gradually: $70k in 2016, $91k in 2017, $130k in 2018, and $150k in 2019 and thereafter when PPP is no longer part of the program. If the cooling water discharge from PPP does not cease by December 31, 2017, the PPP fees to the RMP will be renegotiated. Table 1 : Current and proposed RMP fee structures for the Pittsburg Power Plant in Current Fee Structure Proposed Fee Structure Year Total RMP Fees PPP fee (%) PPP fee ($) PPP fee (%) PPP fee ($) RMP Shortfall ($) 2016 $3,521, % $140, % $70,420 $70, $3,626, % $145, % $54,390 $90, $3,735, % $149, % $18,675 $130,725 TOTAL $435,280 $143,485 $291,795 2

40 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 40 Bay Margins Sediment Study 4/10/15 Proposal Special Study Proposal: Characterization of Sediment Contamination in Central Bay Margin Areas Summary: Bay margins (i.e., mud flats and adjacent shallow areas of the Bay) are more productive and highly utilized by biota of interest (humans or wildlife) than the open Bay areas. This study will provide a spatially distributed unbiased characterization of surface sediment contamination and ancillary characteristics within shallow Central Bay margin areas. The data will be used to investigate spatial distributions of pollutants, watershed influences, and regional trends. This study will complement targeted studies to link watersheds, known contaminated margins, and the open Bay, much of which will be focused in Central Bay. Estimated Cost: $257,470 over two years ($226,370 in 2015, $31,100 in 2016) Oversight Group: TRC. On 3/11/15, the TRC recommended that the SC approve this study. Proposed by: Don Yee, Phil Trowbridge (SFEI) PROPOSED DELIVERABLES AND TIMELINE Deliverable Due Date Task 1. Project Management (write and manage sub-contracts, track March-May 2015 budgets) Task 2. Finalized detailed sampling plan April 2015 Task 3. Field Sampling Summer 2015 Task 4. Lab analysis Fall/winter Task 5. QA/QC and data management March 2016 Task 6. Data web upload Apr 2016 Task 7. Draft & final report Mar 2016 (preliminary), Dec 2016 (final) Background The Bay margins (i.e., mud flats and adjacent shallow areas of the Bay) are important habitats where contaminant exposure is high in some known locations, but that have been largely unsampled by the RMP, due to logistical considerations; the RMP historically focused on deep water locations, limited even after the 2002 redesign to areas accessible by a moderately large boat (~3 foot draft). Aside from the margins importance as habitats in themselves, contamination in margins may contribute to the lack of decreasing trends in biota (e.g., fish tissue) concentrations of PCBs (and other persistent bioaccumulative contaminants), despite long-term changes in sediments in some parts of the open Bay. Locations on the margins often may have a closer linkage with terrestrial sources and therefore a higher potential for showing a positive response to management actions aimed at reducing loads and impairment. Analysis of margins contaminant concentrations in the RMP Margins 1

41 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 41 Bay Margins Sediment Study 4/10/15 Proposal Conceptual Model Report (Jones et al., 2012) suggested higher and more variable concentrations in margins, but much of the previous sampling was spatially biased to include known polluted areas in the margins associated with Superfund sites and other legacy sources, while the characteristics of contamination of other sites in the Bay margins are less known. Study Objectives and Applicable RMP Management Questions This study will provide an unbiased spatially distributed characterization of surface sediment contamination and ancillary characteristics (grain size, TOC, etc.) in shallow Central Bay margin areas. According to the RMP Margins Conceptual Model Report (Jones et al., 2012), such data are needed to characterize and model contaminant risk, fate, and trends in the Bay margins. Otherwise, assessments of exposure and risks to margins biota would rely on extrapolation from data from deeper, subtidal, open water areas of the Bay, and/or biased margin cleanup target areas, neither likely representative of most locations the margins. Collection of representative margin data is the only real solution for obtaining such data. Ideally ambient margins sampling should recur regularly, as it is characterizing a relevant, evolving, and critical portion of the ecosystem. Deterministic sampling related to identifying sources, or to management in specific locations should be addressed by monitoring schemes specifically designed for those needs and are complementary. Although there are broader questions and needs for ambient margins data (paralleling those for the Bay S&T), this study has evolved from a periodic synoptic Baywide survey of margins to a single pilot effort focused on Central Bay. The power to make some comparisons (e.g., with other Bay segments, if those segments are later sampled) has been reduced, in favor of obtaining information more quickly on Central Bay, with likely the most areas surrounding potential management actions. This plan accelerates characterization of ambient Central Bay margins to be able to compare to and complement deterministic sampling at priority managed margin areas and watersheds, to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions, especially with regards to PCBs. Information needs addressed by these data include: 1. Ambient concentrations of PCBs and other contaminants in sediment in the margin areas. This information will facilitate setting achievable targets for restoration and/or load reductions. 2. Mass balance calculations for PCBs and other contaminants in margin areas to show the relative importance of watershed loads in maintaining elevated concentrations in the sediments. This information will show whether taking management actions in the watersheds has the ability to change the margin concentrations. 3. Effectiveness of on-the-ground watershed management projects at reducing loads. This information will show whether the installed technology is meeting its design specifications. 4. Screening for the existence of additional hotspots in areas that have not been sampled to date 2

42 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 42 Bay Margins Sediment Study 4/10/15 Proposal Probabilistic vs Targeted Sampling Designs Spatially distributed probabilistic sampling is the best design for Information Need #1, and would also be valuable for Information Need #4. However, the probabilistic design will take into account current knowledge, by not sampling areas with nearby comparable recent or impending/planned data (criteria for comparable and nearby described below in the section on Approach). Targeted sampling is the best design for Information Needs #2 and #3. The RMP has a special study planned to monitor PCBs in priority margin units with separate funding. That targeted study will be directly relevant to Information Need #2. In the future, when on-theground watershed management projects start, targeted performance monitoring should be required to address Information Need #3. However, even for these targeted sampling needs, ambient data are needed to provide important complementary information, e.g., for #2, to estimate mass exchanges with adjacent less contaminated areas, or for #3 to identify which locations among targeted locations are showing mostly ambient rather than site or watershed specific influences. Recommended (Modified) Probabilistic Design Concentrating all 40 margins sites into Central Bay (see Figure 1) in order to better characterize this segment since it is of primary interest for management. Due to the expected high variability in margins, especially in Central Bay, an effort that spread the sampling effort across the whole Bay was assumed to reduce uncertainty too slowly to address immediate Central Bay information needs. It should be noted that here the Central Bay sampling frame is delimited using the RMP rather than SFBRWQCB definition. Both definitions share a common northern limit running between Point San Pablo in Richmond and Point San Pedro in San Rafael. For the SFBRWQCB, the southern limit of Central Bay ends at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, whereas the RMP definition includes a portion south of the Bay Bridge, extending approximately from San Francisco Airport to Oakland Airport. These margins adjoin some older industrialized areas and thus might be expected to be of interest for legacy pollutants such as PCBs and Hg. Advantages Central Bay is of high interest for management actions. Would be better able to characterize ambient concentrations in Central Bay and allow meaningful comparisons to open bay sediment concentrations within 1-2 years. The 40 probabilistic sites can be post stratified into a few sub populations to characterize ambient concentrations in different categories or areas of Central Bay. Rapid characterization of margin areas in Central Bay would be helpful to: o illustrate the spatial patterns of margin contamination in this segment, providing context for managing contaminated areas; o understand the high PCB concentrations in fish found there; o evaluate the influence of known hot spots or the prevalence of unknown ones; and o identify candidate areas for the PCB Priority Margin Unit Study. 3

43 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 43 Bay Margins Sediment Study 4/10/15 Proposal A focused pilot effort will provide the best chance of a study that is successful in generating the information of interest, and management success can potentially be evaluated in a short time-frame. Figure 1. First 40 margin sites in Central Bay (orange symbols). Red areas are margins frame sampled. 4

44 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 44 Bay Margins Sediment Study 4/10/15 Proposal Disadvantages There is uncertainty about whether even 40 samples can adequately characterize such a diverse, fragmented, and likely heterogeneous area as the margins of Central Bay. The sampling design will not collect data from any other Bay segments in the same years. This approach will make it more difficult to compare margin areas between segments due to possible conflation of temporal and spatial differences Collection of information on margins in other segments will be delayed. Information to support margin management decisions in other segments will continue to be lacking. Approach Study Area and Sampling Locations The proposed margins sampling monitoring would include areas previously excluded from the sampling frame in the RMP S&T redesign process: areas shallower than 1 foot at MLLW, up to the unvegetated shoreline (roughly MHW). In most areas this is approximately synonymous with mudflat (if we include shallow subtidal areas in that definition). A margin sampling frame was defined in consultation with Josh Collins and the SFEI GIS team, minimizing overlap with other monitoring such as CRAM assessed wetland areas (by excluding vegetated areas) and the open water areas already in the RMP Bay S&T (areas below 1 foot below MLLW). A GRTS method was used to draw sampling locations (up to 128 per segment) from this frame for the whole Bay in an unbiased manner through consultation with Don Stevens, the environmental statistician who helped design the RMP open Bay GRTS sample draw. Although it was investigated whether or not to include areas previously skipped in the Bay S&T sampling (due to water being too shallow for the vessel to access), Don Stevens recommended that they not be added, as oversample sites already have been sampled and should be adequate for characterizing the open Bay stratum. Figure 1 shows a map of Central Bay with the first 40 margins sampling locations marked. The TRC Margins Planning Subcommittee held a teleconference to discuss criteria for rejecting sites and replacing them with oversample locations. If any of the following logistical criteria occur at the planned site coordinates: Access/safety: The site cannot be accessed safely; OR Substrate: The substrate at the site is too coarse to collect a cohesive sample, is rocky shoreline, is covered with dense aquatic vegetation, or is shell hash; OR Upland area: The planned site is in a salt marsh or upland area. If the logistical criteria are not met at the planned coordinates, the field team will be able to navigate within 50 meters of the planned site to find a suitable location with target habitat nearby. For sites that need to be relocated within the 50 meter allowable radius, to avoid biasing (e.g., always going to the deepest allowed depth) an attempt will be made to sample 5

45 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 45 Bay Margins Sediment Study 4/10/15 Proposal at the expected original depth for the site; sites that are not at their expected depth range but are still within acceptable habitat at their planned coordinates will not be relocated. If no suitable locations are found within 50 meters, the site will be rejected as not possible to sample. To the extent possible, unsampleable sites will be pre-identified through a desktop exercise from aerial imagery, and the next site in the overdraw list will be added in its place. The subcommittee also discussed and criteria for using other programs/projects data to substitute for collecting and analyzing samples from a site. Currently the USGS is collecting samples in the near field of POTW discharges in South Bay, which may overlap with RMP ambient margins sites, if this study is extended to other Bay segments. Remediation action sites may also have recent or ongoing sampling of margins sites; where sites are effectively co-located with those for other studies, the RMP will try to minimize duplication of sampling and analytical effort where possible. The following criteria were chosen to determine if existing data are sufficiently near and comparable to the desired analyses to be used in substitution to characterize a planned site: Spatial: Existing data <50 meters from the planned site (co-located); AND Temporal: Existing data <10 years old (since 1/1/06 for the 2015 season); AND Depth: Existing data 10 cm sediment depth or shallower; AND Parameters: Existing data are for at least PCBs and ancillary characteristics (grain size, TOC). Note, data planned for imminent collection (i.e., less than a year in the future) may be considered to be equivalent to existing data on hand. Plans more than a year in the future should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but risks of studies not proceeding or being significantly delayed increase the further into the future we consider. If all criteria are met, then staff will review the field and laboratory methods to determine if the existing data can be used to characterize the planned site without collecting more data. If the existing data can be used, the next site in the overdraw list will be used in the sampling plan to increase the overall sample coverage. Similar principles apply to planned sample collections at co-located (or just nearby) sites; even when the planned analyses do not overlap, requests can be made with these other studies/projects to collect additional sample material. Aside from not wasting money, the other purpose of this effort is to be coordinated with other margins monitoring efforts. Sample Size Don Stevens noted that assuming compared strata have similar variance, equal numbers of samples in each stratum would provide the greatest power to detect differences among strata. Although the Central Bay shoreline is already more urbanized than most of the rest of the Bay, a teleconference of a TRC Margins Planning Subcommittee considered the possibility of pre-stratifying within Central Bay to allocate even more sites to areas adjoining urbanized industrial areas. However, given the already small number of samples in the (presumed less variable) less urbanized areas it was decided that a pre-stratification effort could at most re-allocate around 5 sites. Discussions suggested the limited benefit of redistributing these sites was outweighed by the statistical challenges and complications it would create (e.g., if variance is not as small as expected, if we wish to explore/test different 6

46 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 46 Bay Margins Sediment Study 4/10/15 Proposal post-stratification classification schemes). Therefore, it was decided to not pre-stratify the points for this first round of sampling but to reconsider this option after the new data are evaluated. Sampling Frequency This study plan represents a single effort in Central Bay to get a broad representative characterization of Bay margins. Results from this study may point to future possibilities or needs for site investigations, or further ambient characterization to get a better understanding/statistical certainty of patterns found. Studies of margins in other segments of the Bay may be planned as well for future years using this study as a pilot of the logistics and methods for margin sampling. However, there is not yet a plan for systematic regularly scheduled sampling of the margins akin to the Bay S&T at this time. Target Analytes Sediment samples will be analyzed for grain size and ancillary parameters, mercury, methylmercury, trace metals, and PCBs (209 congeners). Extra archive samples will be collected so that additional parameters can be analyzed in the future. Budget The proposed budget for the study is shown in Table 1. The study will be completed over two years. In 2015, all 40 sediment samples will be collected in order to lower field costs and to reduce temporal variability. In 2016, the data analysis and reporting will be completed. The annual costs for 2015 and 2016 will be $226,370 and $31,100, respectively. The total cost for the two-year program will be $257,470. The approved 2015 RMP budget contains $140,000 for this effort. Another $120,000 for the margins study is expected to be in the 2016 RMP budget. Therefore, between the 2015 and 2016 funds, there will be sufficient funds for the study. However, because most of the expenses will be in 2015, the Steering Committee will need to authorize adding $86,370 of Undesignated Funds to the 2015 budget. This amount will be returned to Undesignated Funds from the 2016 budget. Efforts and costs can be scaled up or down by changing the types of analyses run, number of samples per segment in a given year, or number of segments per event. For this proposal, it was necessary to drop sediment analyses for PAHs in order to balance the budget. These analyses would add $36,000 to the cost of the study. Budget Justification Labor Costs SFEI labor costs for the planning task are for developing this proposal and a detailed cruise plan for the study. For the field work task, SFEI labor is mostly devoted to data 7

47 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 47 Bay Margins Sediment Study 4/10/15 Proposal management, managing field and lab contractors, and auditing field work. The reporting task assumes 4 weeks of work for SFEI senior scientists to prepare a report. Subcontract Costs Subcontract costs are based on quotes received from contractors. Field cost estimates were based on an estimate provided by Moss Landing Marine Labs, assuming all sampling would occur in summer 2015, concurrent with their efforts to sample for the National Coastal Condition Assessment. It will be necessary to change laboratories for the PCB analyses. EBMUD has performed the sediment analyses for PCBs in recent years but is not planning to continue this type of work. Therefore, an extra $7,200 has been allocated to complete a small interlaboratory comparison study to ensure for consistency with past results. Direct Costs The budget estimates the cost for supplies, travel, and shipping of samples to laboratories and the RMP archive. Reporting After the completion of the scheduled first round of samples (all 40 in Central Bay) these results will be formalized in an RMP technical report. The report will address two of the four high priority information needs: Ambient concentrations of PCBs and other contaminants in sediment in the margin areas. This information will facilitate setting achievable targets for restoration and/or load reductions. Screening for the existence of additional hotspots in areas that have not been sampled to date A preliminary review of the data and lessons learned will be presented to the TRC in March A draft report on the study will be produced in October 2016, with December 2016 as the target due date for final report. Information for addressing the other two priority needs (mass balance, and tracking of watershed management impacts) will be provided through other (generally more deterministically sited) studies and will not likely be ready at the time of reporting for this study. However, data from this study may help guide ongoing and future efforts in deterministically focused studies. Raw data from this sampling effort will also be reported via RMP web tools (cd3.sfei.org) and can be used for other purposes. 8

48 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 48 Bay Margins Sediment Study 4/10/15 Proposal References Jones C, Yee D, Davis JA, McKee LJ, Greenfield BK, Melwani AR, Lent MA Conceptual Model of Contaminant Fate on the Margins of San Francisco Bay. SFEI Contribution 663. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. del.pdf 9

49 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 49 Table 1: Budget for Bay Margins Sediment Study Note: Field costs assume that all 40 stations in Central Bay are visited in Planning (2015) Tasks Field Work (2015) Reporting (2016) Labor Project Staff $15,600 $13,000 $26,500 Senior Management Review $3,300 $1,550 $3,300 Project Management $0 $0 $0 Contract Management $0 $0 $0 Data Technical Services $0 $25,000 $0 GIS Services $1,100 $620 $1,300 Creative Services $0 $0 $0 IT Services $0 $0 $0 Communications $0 $0 $0 Operations $0 $0 $0 Subcontracts Contractor for field sampling $74,000 Lab for grain size and ancillary $11,000 Lab for Hg/MeHg and TE $30,000 Lab for PCBs $37,000 Lab for PAHs $0 Interlab Comparison for PCBs $7,200 Direct Costs Supplies $4,000 Equipment $0 Travel $500 Printing $0 Shipping $2,500 Other $0 Total for Task $20,000 $206,370 $31,100 GRAND TOTAL $257,470 Budget $260,000 Budget consists of: $20,000 planning task in 2015 (approved) $120,000 sampling task in 2015 (approved) $120,000 sampling task in 2016 (requested)

50 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 50 FINAL for review SC Funding Request DATE: April 09, 2015 TO: RMP Steering Committee FROM: Philip Trowbridge, RMP Manager Lester McKee, RMP Senior Scientist RE: Request to reprogram $133,000 of unused 2014 stormwater monitoring funds for other activities that support small tributaries loadings management questions Request: The Small Tributary Loading Strategy Team requests that the remaining $133k funding left over from 2014 POC loadings study be retained for answering stormwater management questions through a combination of five project tasks that link to key management questions. Progress and outcomes from the mix of projects completed will be reported back to the TRC and the SC during regular quarterly updates. Any funds not fully expended by December 31 st 2015 would then be rolled back into RMP Undesignated Funds. Explanation: During calendar years 2012, 2013, and 2014, the RMP allocated approximately $500,000 per year towards addressing the Small Tributary Loading Strategy (STLS) management questions as outlined in the STLS strategy document and Multi-Year Plan which are consistent with the first Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) issued in October 2009: STLS Q1: Impairment: Which are the high-leverage small tributaries that contribute or potentially contribute most to Bay impairment by pollutants of concern? STLS Q2: Loads: What are the loads or concentrations of pollutants of concern from small tributaries to the Bay? STLS Q3: Trends: How are loads or concentrations of pollutants of concern from small tributaries changing on a decadal scale? STLS Q4: Support management actions: What are the projected impacts of management actions on loads or concentrations of pollutants of concern from the high-leverage small tributaries and where should management actions be implemented in the region to have the greatest impact? Each year, the bulk of the funds were allocated to performing field studies at six fixed loads monitoring stations spread across the Bay Area (Marsh Creek, Richmond Pump Station, San Leandro Creek, Guadalupe River, Sunnyvale East channel, and Pulgas Creek Pump Station). Due to an unprecedented run of dry weather (range 43% to 70% of normal), the programmatic objectives for storm sampling at each site were not met with the exception of the North Richmond Pump Station. As such, a portion of the funding remained each year and was rolled over into the subsequent monitoring year with the intent to complete the project over the following winter. Consistent with previous years, for 2014, a total of $133k remained unused. 1 of 3

51 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 51 FINAL for review SC Funding Request In relation to the evolving management focus towards identifying a greater number of high leverage watersheds and source areas, the 2015 monitoring design is focused on a wet season reconnaissance-level characterization sampling approach (MQ 1). As such, the STLS requested $511k in 2015 to carry out this new style of sampling as well as continued work on the development of the regional watershed spreadsheet model (RWSM) (MQ2) and to begin development of a framework trends strategy document (MQ3) (Table 1). Due to budget constraints and competition from other important projects, the RMP was only able to allocate $470k in 2015, leaving a shortfall of $41,000. At this point the $41,000 cut has been applied to the reconnaissance stormwater monitoring task. In addition, funding allocated for the Trends Strategy component is currently not sufficient to complete any analytical work such as using statistical tools like power analysis to explore our ability to observe trends in relation to the available baseline data and management endpoints. At this time, no RMP funding has been allocated to addressing MQ4 which focuses on helping to determine which management actions may be most effective, and where in the landscape would management effort be best placed to have reasonable assurance of real and measurable load reduction outcomes. Although there are parallel efforts by BASMAA agencies on all of these management questions, the need for further RMP support for answering MQ4 was discussed at the last Sources Pathways and Loadings Workgroup meeting. The Trends Strategy analyses will be integrated into an update for the STLS Multi-Year Plan along with the revised management information needs in the reissued MRP (to be effective by late 2015 or early 2016). At its January 29, 2015, the RMP Steering Committee directed the STLS Team to prepare a proposal for the use of the left over funds to address stormwater management questions. The STLS group met to discuss priorities and generated a list of possible projects. This list was then presented to the TRC on March 11, 2015 and refined slightly. The STLS team has now crafted a detailed work plan for each of the activities that includes a budget and deliverables with deadlines. Work Plan: 1. Reconnaissance Characterization fieldwork. Up to $30k. Should climatic conditions allow in calendar year 2015, fieldwork at a greater number of wet weather POC watershed sites will be completed. This use directly addresses STLS management question (MQ) 1: Which Bay tributaries (including stormwater conveyances) contribute most to Bay impairment from POCs. It also provides data to support improved calibration of the RWSM and therefore helps to provide baseline regional loads estimates that will ultimately provide a consistent and agreed basis to support estimating the project loads reductions from management efforts (MQ4). Deliverable: Quality assured data on PCB and Hg concentrations at watershed outlets for roughly another half dozen locations for inclusion into our annual POC loading report. Due date: Report drafted each winter reporting on the previous winter season of data collection. 2. PCB source areas. $25k. BASMAA member agencies and to some extent the Water Board have been making improvements to the information on sources of PCB and Hg in various GIS databases. The goal of this task is to compile updated and improved information on source areas into one database to improve our understanding of regional scale loads 2 of 3

52 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 52 FINAL for review SC Funding Request and support management decisions. This use addresses MQ2 (regional scale loads estimated through the RWSM) and will continue to help support MQ1 and MQ4. Deliverable: Quality Assessed GIS database of PCB and Hg source areas. Due date: Fall, Statistical analyses to support Trends Strategy. $35k. Carry out technical analysis such as power analysis or other statistical methods to support the development of the Trends Strategy. This year's budget ($35k) is only enough to develop a framework for the strategy. There is not budget do much if any analytical work to test the usefulness of each proposed indicator based on currently available baseline data and future potential change. This use would support MQ3. What are the decadal-scale loading or concentration trends of POCs from small tributaries to the Bay. It would also help in the design decisions for monitoring in relation to MQ1 and preparation of the revised Multi-Year Plan. Deliverable: Tables and graphic outputs to support Strategy Development. Due date: Fall, Remote sampler pilot study support. $30k. During 2015, STLS implemented a reconnaissance sampling program that continued with the normal wet weather field staff based sampling elements but included cost saving refinements over the 2011 design (paired watershed sampling allowing for two sample sites per storm, composite sample analysis). The short coming of this design remains staff availability during storms especially during late nights, holidays and weekends when by definition, half of samples are usually taken. As such, during 2015 STLS has also been trialing of two remote sampler designs (the Walling tube and the Hamlin sampler). In an effort to develop a more cost-effective sampling method with a lower likelihood of missing critical large events, this task will test an additional type of sampler (a CLAM - continuous low-level aquatic monitoring sampler), a sampler that has applicability to sediment associated pollutants (not dissolved phase and therefore will not address all the analytes). This task aims to improve the chance of identifying high leverage watersheds (MQ1). Deliverable: Quality assured data on PCB and Hg concentrations for selected locations for inclusion into the annual POC loading report. Due date: Report drafted each winter based on the previous winter season of data collection. 5. STLS Coordination Support. $13k. The RMP has allocated $26 k annually for this support but last year this budget was insufficient. The objective of this support is to help keep all parties appraised of real-time developments and to more carefully document action items, expectations, responsible parties, and timelines based on consensus agreements at meetings using a traffic light spreadsheet as a means for tracking outcomes. In addition planning should begin for updating the Multi-Year Plan, consistent with the developing Trends Strategy and upcoming reissuance of the MRP. Agendas will consistently include standing items (5-10 minute updates on each project) and special items (that are integrative or connective or project discussions at greater detail). Budget will also be allocated to attending BASMAA Monitoring / POCs Committee meetings. Deliverable: Meeting agendas, summaries, RMP traffic light system for tracking actions. Due date: Meeting during 2015; December 31 st of 3

53 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 53 April 10, 2015 DRAFT CHARTER Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay Purpose, Organization and Governance

54 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page Introduction and Background 1.1 Purpose San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval This Charter describes the purpose and function of the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP). Established in 1993, the RMP is a collaborative effort between the San Francisco Estuary Institute, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, and the regulated discharger community. 1.2 Definitions RMP or the Program means the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay; The Regional Board means Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region; USEPA mean the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; SFEI or the Institute means San Francisco Estuary Institute; Participants means organizations that contribute to the RMP to satisfy a permit condition, the Regional Board, USEPA, and SFEI (see Appendix A); Participant Groups means groups of similar types of Participants such as publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), dredgers, stormwater agencies, industrial dischargers, cooling water dischargers, and the individual regulatory agencies; and Representative means a person who represents a particular Participant Group on a committee. Interested Parties means organizations or individuals who have expressed an interest in the Program, such as non-governmental organizations, state agencies, federal agencies, and businesses, but are not Participants as defined above. Page 1

55 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 55 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval 2.0 Guiding Principles of the Regional Monitoring Program The overarching goal of the RMP is to collect data and communicate information about water quality in San Francisco Bay in support of management decisions. The RMP was created in 1993 through Regional Board Resolution No that directed the Executive Officer to implement a Regional Monitoring Plan in collaboration with permitted dischargers pursuant to California Water Code, Sections 13267, 13383, 13268, and The goal was to replace individual receiving water monitoring requirements for dischargers with a comprehensive Regional Monitoring Program. The Program is guided by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Regional Board and SFEI, first approved in 1996 and amended at various times since (see Appendix C of this Charter). Section VIII of the MOU states the roles and responsibilities of the Regional Board and SFEI in the implementation of the Program. Participating dischargers pay fees to the Program to comply with discharge permit requirements. The cost allocation schedule for Participants is described in Appendix B. The RMP provides an open forum for a wide range of Participant Groups and other Interested Parties to discuss contaminant issues, prioritize science needs, and monitor potential impacts of discharges on the Bay. In support of the overarching goal described above, the following guiding principles define the intentions and expectations of RMP Participants. Implementation of the RMP will: Develop sound scientific information on water quality in the Bay; Prioritize funding decisions through collaborative discussions; Conduct decision-making in a transparent manner that consistently represents the diversity of RMP Participant interests; Utilize external science advisors for guidance and peer review; Maintain and make publicly available the data collected by the Program; Enhance public awareness and support by regularly communicating the status and trends of water quality in the Bay; and Coordinate with other monitoring and scientific studies in the Bay-Delta region to ensure efficiency. Page 2

56 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 56 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval 3.0 Regional Monitoring Program Governance Structure The RMP governance structure is comprised of a Steering Committee, Technical Review Committee and Workgroups. In addition, Strategy Teams are created to focus on specific program interests. SFEI serves as the Implementing Entity for the RMP. Figure 1 illustrates the RMP structure. The following sections describe the functions, roles, membership, and decisionmaking protocols of the various committees, workgroups, and teams in the RMP governance structure. 3.1 Steering Committee The Steering Committee is a formal stakeholder body, structured to represent all of the RMP Participant Groups Steering Committee Role The Steering Committee is the decision-making body for the RMP. All recommendations and information from various groups in the RMP governance structure ultimately flow to the Steering Committee to support its decision-making. Steering Committee meetings are held quarterly and in person. Meetings are open to the public. Notice is provided to nonparticipants through an Interested Parties mailing list. Steering Committee Representatives are responsible to communicate relevant RMP information to their respective constituent groups. The Steering Committee agenda packet is posted on the RMP website no less than one week before the meeting. SFEI staff attend meetings to share information, but do not participate in decision-making. Decisions are made by designated Representatives only (see sections and 3.4). The primary tasks of the Steering Committee include: Provide a management perspective that guides the direction of the RMP; Consider and decide whether to approve Technical Review Committee recommendations; Approve an annual workplan and budget; Allocate funds for key program areas and special studies; Track overall progress of the RMP; Review RMP operations and peer review processes to ensure optimal performance; and Address other administrative, strategic planning and big picture issues as needed. Page 3

57 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 57 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval Steering Committee Representatives and Commitment The Steering Committee should include Representatives from each of the following Participant Groups: 1 seat for Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) Principal POTWs; 2 seats for BACWA Associate POTWs; 1 seat for Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) representing stormwater agencies; 1 seat for the Western States Petroleum Association representing industrial dischargers; 1 seat for Bay Planning Coalition representing dredgers; 1 seat for Cooling Water dischargers; 1 seat for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 1 seat for the Regional Board. The Steering Committee may add seats for other Participant Groups or adjust the number of seats for certain Participant Groups by using its decision-making procedures to change the Charter. Each Participant Group selects their representative in a manner of their own choosing. All Representatives work in partnership to fulfill their role on the Steering Committee. Representatives have no term limits and may continue to serve indefinitely with support of their Participant Group, unless removed as described in section Representatives are expected to read the agenda package and be prepared to discuss and act on recommendations from the Technical Review Committee as well as other issues related to the Steering Committee s primary tasks. Representatives are also expected to keep their Participant Group, as well as Technical Review Committee Representatives for their same Participant Group, informed about Steering Committee activities, decisions, and outcomes, and bring constituent views into the discussion in an informed and transparent manner. Representatives will strive to be physically present at meetings. Conference calls and use of web-based conferencing tools afford an alternative method for Representative attendance at meetings Steering Committee Chair and Vice Chair The diversity of tasks and decision-making that falls upon the Steering Committee necessitates effective agenda planning, facilitation, and Representative participation at any given meeting. To coordinate this process, the Steering Committee will select or reaffirm a Chair and Vice Chair, during the last meeting of the calendar year, using its decision-making procedures (see Section 3.4). The Chair and Vice Chair have no term limits and may continue to serve annual terms indefinitely with support of the Steering Committee. Page 4

58 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 58 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval Meeting agendas will be developed by SFEI staff in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Steering Committee. The Chair will facilitate each meeting. If the Chair is absent, the Vice Chair will facilitate the meeting. If both the Chair and Vice Chair are absent from a meeting without notice but there is a quorum, the Representatives present will select a temporary Chair for the meeting. The Chair and Vice Chair are also responsible for maintaining consistent representation of RMP Participant Groups. This includes communication with existing Representatives to promote regular participation in RMP activities, to address when participation is lacking, and to ensure Representatives remain interested in being involved with the Program Steering Committee Alternates To ensure continuity and broad Participant Group attendance at Steering Committee meetings, Representatives are encouraged, but not required, to use Alternates on an asneeded basis. Alternates must be identified by the Representative to the RMP Manager and the Steering Committee Chair and Vice Chair in advance of a given meeting, be fully briefed by the Representative, and be able to represent the interests of the Participant Group during the meeting. Alternates are expected to be informed on RMP activities by the Representative on an ongoing basis and be fully prepared to discuss agenda items and participate in decision-making. No items addressed at previous meetings will be revisited to accommodate an Alternate Steering Committee Representative Resignation and Replacement Representatives may resign from the Steering Committee at their choosing. If this occurs, the Participant Group will be notified and will be requested to select a new Representative for the Group. The Representative will use the following steps to resign: 1. Provide written resignation communication (e.g., letter, ) to the Steering Committee Chair, Vice Chair and RMP Manager at SFEI; and 2. Notify the Representative s Participant Group Steering Committee Representative Removal Representatives are expected to uphold their commitments to actively participate in all Steering Committee meetings, review all materials in a timely and thoughtful manner, and be prepared to provide input and participate in Committee decision-making. If a Representative does not fulfill these commitments, he/she can be removed from the Steering Committee and be replaced by another person from the same Participant Group. If warranted, a Representative will be removed through the following steps: 1. The Steering Committee Chair will contact the Representative in question to better understand why he/she may not be fulfilling their commitments (as reflected in 3.1.2). 2. The Representative in question (and organization) will be allowed time (as determined by the Chair) to resolve his/her participation challenge and fulfill his/her commitments to the process. Page 5

59 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 59 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval 3. If after the prescribed period of time, the Representative in question does not resolve his/her participation challenges, the Chair will provide a removal recommendation to the Steering Committee for discussion. 4. The Steering Committee will use its decision-making procedures outlined in section 3.4 to remove the Representative and/or organization and to start Representative replacement steps Steering Committee Representative Recruitment At times, the Steering Committee Chair, Vice Chair, or SFEI staff may need to assist in the recruitment of Representatives, particularly in the event that a Participant Group does not select a Representative or for any other reason a seat remains open. Under this scenario, the Chair, Vice Chair, and RMP Manager will seek out candidates who can represent the Participant Group and are familiar with the Program. If a potential candidate is found, the Chair, Vice Chair, or RMP Manager will present the candidate to the Participant Group. The Participants in this Group will decide whether or not this person will represent them on the Steering Committee. 3.2 Technical Review Committee Similar to the Steering Committee, the Technical Review Committee is a formal stakeholder body, structured to represent the Program Participant Groups Technical Review Committee Role The Technical Review Committee provides oversight of the technical content and quality of scientific investigations conducted for the RMP and serves as an advisory body and critical link for recommendations that emanate from Workgroups and Strategy Teams and advance to the Steering Committee. Representatives are expected to possess either technical expertise or management experience on the topics under consideration by the RMP. The Technical Review Committee reviews special study proposals developed by the various Workgroups and Strategy Teams. Following a review of proposal pros, cons, and costs, the Technical Review Committee makes recommendations to the Steering Committee on which proposals should be funded. The Technical Review Committee also provides oversight for Status and Trends monitoring, reviews reports from completed studies, and reviews RMP communication products to technical accuracy. Technical Review Committee meetings are held quarterly and in-person. SFEI staff attends Technical Review Committee meetings to provide information but does not participate in the making of recommendations. Meetings are open to the public. Notice is provided to non-members through the Interested Parties mailing list. The agenda packet is posted on the RMP website no less than one week before the meeting. Technical Review Committee Representatives are responsible to communicate relevant RMP information to their respective constituent groups. Page 6

60 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 60 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval Technical Review Representatives and Commitment The Technical Review Committee consists of a diversity of technical specialists representing dischargers, regulatory agencies, and non-governmental organizations. To ensure a formalized connection between the Steering Committee and Technical Review Committee, it is desirable (but not required) that one Technical Review Committee Representative also sits on, or at least attends, the Steering Committee. The Technical Review Committee has seats for Representatives from the following Participant Groups and other parties: 3 seats for POTWs, including 1 seat for South Bay dischargers; 1 seat for Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) representing stormwater agencies; 1 seat representing refineries; 1 seat representing industrial dischargers; 1 seat representing dredgers; 1 seat representing cooling water dischargers; 1 seat for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 1 seat for the Regional Board; 1 seat for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; 1 seat for the City and County of San Francisco; 1 seat for the City of San Jose; and 1 seat for a non-governmental organization that specializes in water quality in the Bay. The Steering Committee may modify the number of seats on the Technical Review Committee by using its decision-making procedures to change the Charter. Each Participant Group selects their Representative in a manner of their own choosing. The Representatives for the City and County of San Francisco and the City of San Jose are selected by those governments. The Representative from a non-governmental organization will be recruited from an organization that: o Has focus on water quality issues in the bay; o Maintains technical knowledge and understanding of RMP related topics/issues; o Demonstrates a willingness to regularly participate in meetings and the process of making recommendations for Steering Committee consideration; and o Has been involved in RMP activities or previously expressed interest to participate in the program. All Representatives work in partnership with each other and SFEI to fulfill their role on the Technical Review Committee. Representatives have no term limits and may continue to serve indefinitely with support of their Participant Group, unless removed as described in section Page 7

61 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 61 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval Continuity of attendance at Technical Review Committee meetings by a balanced and representative array of Participant Groups is critical to produce informed and equitable recommendations. Representatives are expected to read the agenda package and adequately prepare for meetings in order to discuss agenda items and make recommendations for Steering Committee consideration. Representatives are also expected to keep their respective Participant Groups, as well as Steering Committee Representatives for the same Participant Group, informed about Technical Review Committee activities, decisions, and outcomes, and bring constituent views into the discussion in an informed and transparent manner. Representatives will strive to be physically present at meetings. Conference calls and use of web-based conferencing tools afford an alternate method for Representative attendance at meetings Technical Review Committee Chair The number and type of agenda items to be considered at each Technical Review Committee meeting requires thoughtful agenda planning, preparation of information, facilitation, and Representative participation. To coordinate this process, the Technical Review Committee will, during the last meeting of the calendar year, select or reaffirm a Chair using its decision-making procedures (see Section 3.4). The Chair may continue to serve indefinitely with support of the Technical Review Committee. Meeting agendas are developed by SFEI staff in consultation with the Chair. The Chair will facilitate each meeting. If the Chair will be absent, he/she will appoint a temporary Chair in advance of the meeting to provide facilitation. If the Chair is absent from a meeting without notice but there is a quorum, the Representatives present will select a temporary Chair for the meeting. As needed or appropriate, the Chair will attend Steering Committee meetings to explain the rationale behind recommended projects and/or studies and to answer questions Technical Review Committee Alternates To ensure continuity and broad Participant Group attendance at Technical Review Committee meetings, Representatives are encouraged, but not required, to use Alternates on an as-needed basis. Alternates must be identified by the Representative to the RMP Manager and the Technical Review Committee Chair in advance of a given meeting, be fully briefed by the Representative, and be able to represent the interests of the Participant Group during the meeting. Alternates are expected to be informed on RMP activities by the Representative on an ongoing basis and be fully prepared to discuss agenda items and participate in decision-making. No items addressed at previous meetings will be revisited to accommodate an Alternate. Page 8

62 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 62 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval Technical Review Committee Representative Resignation and Replacement Representatives may resign from the Technical Review Committee at their choosing. If this occurs, the Participant Group will be notified and will be requested to select a new Representative for the Group. The Representative will use the following steps to resign: 1. Provide written resignation communication (e.g., letter, ) to the Steering Committee Chair, Vice Chair TRC Chair, and RMP Manager at SFEI; and 2. Notify the Representative s Participant Group Technical Review Committee Representative Removal Representatives are expected to uphold their commitments to actively participate in all Technical Review Committee meetings, review all agenda materials in a timely and thoughtful manner, and be prepared to forge recommendations for Steering Committee consideration. If a Representative does not fulfill these commitments, he/she can be removed from the Technical Review Committee and be replaced by another person from the Participant Group. The Technical Review Committee will follow the protocols outlined in section and gain the concurrence of the Steering Committee to remove Representatives Technical Review Committee Representative Recruitment At times, the Technical Review Committee Chair or SFEI staff may need to assist in the recruitment of Representatives, particularly in the event that a Participant Group does not select a Representative or for any other reason a seat remains open. If recruitment is necessary, the Technical Review Committee will follow the protocols outlined in section as closely as possible. 3.3 Workgroups and Strategy Teams Various Workgroups and Strategy Teams report to the Technical Review Committee. The Workgroups and Strategy Teams serve as the basis of the bottom up planning process by meeting as needed to develop long-term RMP study plans that address high priority topics Role of Workgroups and Strategy Teams Workgroups and Strategy Teams guide the planning and implementation of pilot and special studies. Specifically, the Workgroups and Strategy Teams make recommendations to the Technical Review Committee regarding research priorities and technical products of specific Program areas. Workgroups cover broad themes (e.g., Emerging Contaminants) whereas Strategy Teams focus on more specific topics (e.g., PCB Strategy). Workgroups also provide peer review for specific Program areas. Workgroup and Strategy Team meetings are held as needed. Meetings are usually in person, but occasionally via teleconference. SFEI staff develops Workgroup and Strategy Team meeting agendas, prepares relevant materials, and facilitates the meetings. Meetings are open to the public and notice is provided to Interested Parties through the Interested Parties mailing list. The agenda packet is posted on the RMP website no less than one week Page 9

63 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 63 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval before the meeting. Conference calls and use of web-based conferencing tools afford an alternative method for attendance. Workgroup and Strategy Team Representatives are responsible to communicate relevant RMP information to their respective constituent groups. As needed, Workgroup or Strategy Team Representatives may attend Technical Review Committee meetings to explain the rationale behind proposed projects and/or studies and to answer questions Workgroup and Strategy Team Representatives and Commitment Workgroups consist of RMP Participant Group Representatives, invited scientists recognized as experts in their field (Science Advisors, see Section 3.3.3), SFEI staff, and Interested Parties. Strategy Teams consist of RMP Participant Group Representatives, local scientists, SFEI staff and Interested Parties. Each RMP Participant Group may send Representatives at its own discretion based on interest in a particular Workgroup or Strategy Team topic. Workgroup and Strategy Team Representatives are expected to keep their respective Participant Groups informed about potential studies and research topics in order to bring constituent views into the discussion in an informed and transparent manner. Representatives will strive to be physically present at in-person meetings. Representatives are not required to have Alternates. Representatives who wish to resign will notify the RMP Manager via . Participant Groups are encouraged to self-select replacements for Representatives that resign Science Advisors An important component of the RMP planning and implementation process is robust, peerreviewed science. RMP Workgroups include invited scientists that serve as external peer reviewers (Science Advisors). Science Advisors are individuals who possess expertise on topics applicable to the RMP. Each RMP science advisor is paid an annual honorarium. Science advisors have no personal interest or conflict of interest with studies performed under the RMP. Science Advisors are selected by SFEI in consultation with Steering Committee and Technical Review Committee Representatives that are knowledgeable in the subject area and then reported to the Technical Review Committee. The specific roles of Science Advisors include the following: Ensure objectivity and quality of RMP studies; Participate in Workgroup meetings and assist in the development of recommendations for pilot and special studies; and Provide input and peer review on workplans, progress of studies, and technical products. Science Advisors shall serve for 5-year terms. There is no limit to the number of terms that an Advisor may serve. A Science Advisor may resign at any time by notifying the RMP Manager. Page 10

64 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 64 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval Workgroup and Strategy Team Chairs No Workgroup or Strategy Team has an elected Chair. SFEI Senior Scientists prepare the meeting agenda and materials. The RMP Manager or Lead Scientist facilitates Workgroup and Strategy Team meetings except when the Workgroup or Team is making formal recommendations and the facilitation process in Section should be followed. This arrangement allows the SFEI Senior Scientists with expertise in the topic area to focus on technical presentations and discussion during the course of the meeting, rather than facilitating the discussion Nutrient Management Strategy In 2012, the Regional Board published the San Francisco Bay Nutrient Management Strategy 1 (NMS). Nutrient research studies began in 2013 with partial funding from the RMP and are expected to continue for at least a decade. In 2014, a governance process for the NMS was established and documented in a charter. Multiple funding sources will be pooled to support the ongoing nutrient research including: RMP funds, funds mandated by a Baywide nutrient permit 2, the Regional Board, and other entities. As laid out in its charter, the NMS Steering Committee (NSC) will provide oversight for all nutrient studies completed with these pooled funds. Given that the RMP will likely contribute funds to nutrient research for at least a decade, it is important to outline how the RMP committees will interact with the NSC. There are several connections between the RMP and the NSC. First, there should be at least one member of the NSC that also serves on the RMP Steering Committee. Second, the NMS Nutrient Technical Workgroup will serve as the forum through which RMP stakeholders can provide technical input on NMS work products, funding priorities, or other issues being considered by the NSC. Finally, both the RMP and NSC will monitor how RMP funds are spent for nutrient research. The following steps aim to clarify the roles of the two programs when RMP funds are contributed to fund NMS studies: 1. Each year, RMP Participants set the approximate funding level for future, nutrientrelated special studies. 2. Following its own charter, the NSC determines the best use of the potentially available RMP funds for studying nutrients in the Bay. 3. The NSC communicates the overall priorities and recommends nutrient projects with clearly defined deliverables to the RMP Technical Review Committee so that these studies can be included in the suite of special studies recommended to the RMP Steering Committee. If there are insufficient RMP funds available for all the nutrient Funds originating from the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Page 11

65 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 65 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval studies, the RMP will request that the NSC modify the specific proposals to match the available funds. RMP funds assigned to nutrient special studies will remain in the RMP account at the Institute but be encumbered for the specific studies. 4. Oversight of the RMP-funded nutrient studies will be the responsibility of the NSC. However, the RMP will receive progress reports prepared for the NSC, which will address both NMS and RMP reporting needs for deliverables. The RMP Steering Committee and Technical Review Committee Representatives will also be included on the mailing list when the deliverables are released for comments and when the deliverables are complete. The NSC and the RMP Steering Committee may interact regarding nutrients for other reasons besides allocating RMP funds for nutrient-related studies. For example, the NSC may recommend changes to the RMP Status & Trends Monitoring Program. If the NSC has such recommendations, an item will be placed on the agenda for the Steering Committee or Technical Review Committee (whichever is more appropriate) for discussion at the next regularly scheduled meeting. 3.4 Decision-Making In general, all RMP committees work towards consensus as a fundamental principle. The consensus-seeking decision method described in this section is most applicable, though not exclusive, to the RMP Steering Committee. Consensus is desirable, though not required, at the Technical Review Committee, Workgroups, and Strategy Teams. Varying levels of time and effort are expected to reach consensus with the highest degree of effort required by the Steering Committee Definition of Consensus Consensus means that all Representatives on the committee support a decision or recommendation, and believe that a majority of their respective constituents do as well. In reaching consensus some Representatives may strongly endorse a particular decision or recommendation while others may accept it as workable. Others may only be able to live with it. Still others may choose to stand aside by verbally noting a disagreement yet allowing the group to reach consensus without them. Any of these actions still constitutes consensus Definition of a Quorum A quorum is recommended, though not required, for Steering Committee and Technical Review Committee meetings to proceed. A quorum is a minimum of one-half of Steering Committee Representatives or Technical Review Committee Representatives present at their respective meetings, or attending via teleconference (vacant seats do not count in the quorum calculation). If a quorum is not achieved, the Steering Committee or Technical Review Committee meetings proceed and preliminary decisions (Steering Committee) or recommendations (Technical Review Committee) are made. Then, the procedures for Page 12

66 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 66 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval making decisions or recommendations between meetings (Section 3.4.5) are followed to propose the preliminary decision or recommendation to the full committee and reach a formal decision or recommendation Consensus-Seeking Decision Method The RMP consensus decision method is based on the principle of consensus with accountability. Consensus with accountability requires all RMP Representatives to try to reach consensus, while at all times supporting and expressing their self-interest. In the event a Representative must reject a proposal, that Representative is expected to provide an amendment to the proposal or an alternative proposal that attempts to achieve their interest and interests of other Representatives. At all times, Representatives will ensure they are providing input commensurate to their prescribed role and reflective of the constituency they represent. In general, all RMP committees, groups, and teams will explore agenda topics and attempt to reach consensus decisions or recommendations using the following steps: Facilitate open discussion and dialogue on key agenda items; Weigh pros and cons of proposals and/or recommendations being discussed; Give minority opinion due consideration; and Take time needed to get to consensus Steering Committee Decisions For items requiring Steering Committee decisions, the item in question will be presented and discussed. After discussion is completed, any Steering Committee Representative may make a motion for a decision, followed by a second, followed by a poll of those in favor and not in favor. If there is consensus, or lack thereof, it is noted verbally at the meeting and memorialized in the meeting summary. In the absence of consensus, the Steering Committee with a quorum will vote on a motion (see Section 3.4.4). Attendees who are not Representatives may participate in discussions, but do not weigh in on final decisions (see Section 3.4.6) Technical Review Committee Recommendations For approval of administrative decisions (see Section 3.4.4), the Technical Review Committee may express consensus through a simple, informal poll. For substantive decisions (see Section 3.4.4), the item in question will be presented and discussed among seated Technical Review Committee Representatives. After discussion is completed, consensus recommendations are made without a formal process or a vote. If recommendations do not reflect broad Representative input due to lack of attendance at a meeting, those not in attendance will be afforded an opportunity to weigh in on preliminary recommendations per the protocols that guide recommendation-making in between meetings (Section 3.4.5). Members of the public Page 13

67 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 67 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval attending the meeting can participate in discussions, but do not weigh in on recommendations (see Section 3.4.6). In the event that Technical Review Committee Representatives cannot come to consensus on a recommendation or set of recommendations, majority and minority opinions will be noted verbally at the meeting and described in detail, with attribution of seated Representative viewpoints (see Section 3.5), in the meeting summary. The Technical Review Committee Chair will coordinate with the RMP Manager to ensure that the meeting summary adequately documents majority and minority viewpoints of the seated representatives, and will utilize the meeting summary as the primary tool to communicate Technical Review Committee discussions to the Steering Committee Workgroup and Strategy Team Recommendations For approval of administrative decisions (see Section 3.4.4), the Workgroups and Strategy Teams may express consensus through a simple, informal poll. Workgroups and Strategy Teams make recommendations to the Technical Review Committee regarding use of RMP funds for proposed pilot and special studies. Before these recommendations are made, all the Principal Investigators of the proposed studies and anyone with a conflict of interest are asked to leave the meeting to allow for free discussion of the merits of the proposals. One of the Workgroup members is assigned the duty to facilitate this portion of the meeting. The RMP Manager, RMP Lead Scientist, and a RMP staff person remain to provide information and take notes. After the Principal Investigators have left the meeting, Workgroup and Strategy Team recommendations are made by consensus if possible. In the event that consensus cannot be reached, majority and minority opinions will be noted verbally at the meeting and described in detail, without attribution, in the meeting summary. The RMP Manager will utilize the meeting summary as the primary tool to communicate Workgroup or Strategy Team recommendations to the Technical Review Committee Steering Committee Voting Decision Method In the absence of consensus, the Steering Committee with a quorum will vote on a motion. For administrative decisions (defined below), the motion will pass if 50% or greater of the Representatives in attendance vote for it. For Substantive Decisions (defined below), the motion will pass if 67% or greater of the Representatives in attendance vote for it. Administrative Decisions. Administrative decisions are about the day-to-day activities (including but not limited to logistics, meeting dates and times, agenda revisions, schedules, etc.). Substantive Decisions. Substantive decisions concern financial and programmatic issues (including but not limited to budgets, contracts, policies, changes to the Charter, removal of Representatives, etc.) Page 14

68 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 68 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval In the absence of consensus, all other committees, workgroups and teams will simply document majority and minority viewpoints, verbally at the meeting and in the subsequent meeting summary, rather than voting in order to make a recommendation Decision-Making in Between Meetings Decisions or recommendations in between meetings for any committee, workgroup, or team will be made either by or, if warranted, by conference call. For decisions or recommendations by , the RMP Manager will present the Representatives with a motion and use a poll to determine if there is consensus. If one half of the Representatives reply, there will be a quorum for the decision or recommendation. If needed, the voting decision method from Section will be used for the Steering Committee to take a formal vote on the motion. The number of Representatives that reply will be considered the number of attendees for calculating percentages of the vote. Any Representative or the RMP Manager may request a conference call to make a decision or recommendation between meetings. Decisions or recommendations made by conference call would follow the same procedures as an in-person meeting. Criteria by which to forgo an decision or recommendation in favor of a conference call may include the following: Inability to make a decision or recommendation via ; Complexity of topic or length of ; and Conference call request by a Representative or SFEI staff. Decisions or recommendations made in between meetings will be reported by the RMP Manager and discussed by the committee at the following meeting. This practice allows for reconsideration of the decision if warranted and feasible. The decision or recommendation will be documented in the summary of that meeting Decision-Making and Public Engagement For major decisions or recommendations by any RMP committee, workgroup, or team, public input is desirable and beneficial. The Institute will maintain a calendar of RMP events and a broad-based list of Interested Parties to support communication with Participant Groups and the wider public. If there is significant public input at a meeting, the Chair, Vice Chair, or temporary Chair will use the following basic approach to ensure effective discussion by the RMP group and appropriate feedback from the public. The meeting agenda with substantive decisions or recommendations will be distributed to Interested Parties no less than one week in advance so that the RMP committee, workgroup, or team and public know such a decision or recommendation is pending. The Chair, Vice Chair or temporary Chair will move the committee, workgroup, or team into discussion about the decision or recommendation topic and will begin with discussion by the Representatives only. Page 15

69 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 69 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval When the committee, workgroup, or team Representatives have completed all the discussion they wish to have, the Chair, Vice Chair or temporary Chair will open the floor for public comment. Public comment will then ensue. When all Representatives of the public that wish to speak have spoken, the facilitator will check with the committee, team, or workgroup Representatives to see if they have any questions of the public. If so, Representatives will engage with the appropriate members of the public to discuss an item related to the pending decision or recommendation. When this/these discussions are complete, the Chair, Vice Chair or temporary Chair will bring the attention of the committee, workgroup, or team back to their decision or recommendation task. The Chair, Vice Chair or temporary Chair will clearly read the motion to ensure the committee, workgroup, or team knows what they are considering. The committee, workgroup, or team will then conduct decision-making and recommendation-making using the method described above. 3.5 Record Keeping SFEI staff prepares summaries for all Steering Committee, Technical Review Committee, Workgroup, and Strategy Team meetings. As noted above, decisions, recommendations, and majority/minority viewpoints on substantive issues at any RMP meeting will be noted verbally at the meeting and subsequently memorialized in the appropriate summary. Any RMP Representatives holding a minority viewpoint will have the opportunity to coordinate with SFEI staff to ensure accurate representation of said viewpoint. In general, summaries will include the following: Attendees; Decisions or recommendations made; Action items; Pros, cons, and rationale behind proposals and decisions; and Documentation of majority/minority viewpoints on decisions or recommendations. It is expected that Technical Review Committee meeting summaries will have the most level of detail, including attribution of Representative viewpoints on proposed recommendations. Steering Committee meeting summaries may follow the same general approach but have significantly less detail than Technical Review Committee meeting summaries. Workgroup meeting summaries will be similar to those for the Technical Review Committee except that comments during the anonymous review session will not be attributed to individuals. 3.6 RMP Implementing Entity SFEI is the Implementing Entity for the RMP. In this capacity SFEI largely plays a facilitative and operational role for a stakeholder-driven process that prioritizes key questions and associated scientific investigations. Operating in this context SFEI helps identify stakeholder information needs, develops scientific workplans that address these needs, and then implements these plans. SFEI is also the fiduciary agent for RMP stakeholder funds. The SFEI Board does not provide direct oversight of the RMP but does approve the yearly RMP Workplan. Page 16

70 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 70 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval SFEI Roles and Responsibilities Specific SFEI staff roles and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following: Provide fiscal, contractual, and programmatic administration; Conduct or cause to be conducted long-term monitoring of the Bay and implement special studies based on Technical Review Committee recommendations and subsequent Steering Committee approval; Organize and staff meetings of the Steering and Technical Review Committees, Workgroups, and Strategy Teams; o Prepare and disseminate information packages, meeting agendas, and announcements to all committees, workgroups, teams, and Interested Parties no less than one week before meetings, and post materials on relevant Program web pages; o Coordinate between-meeting decision-making (via or teleconference) with all committees, workgroups, and teams on an as needed basis; o Prepare and disseminate all committee, workgroup, and team meeting summaries and post on the RMP webpage and other venues as appropriate. Coordinate with other agencies or organizations which monitor the water quality of the San Francisco Bay; Report on progress in executing annual workplan on a quarterly basis; Produce an annual report which provides analysis and interpretation of the results of the Program; Make all data available for public review; Ensure that thorough technical review of reports are conducted, and that reports are made available to the public; and Organize an annual meeting of the Program Participants for the purpose of review of the Program results. 3.7 Program Review Periodically, with no fixed schedule, a Program Review of the RMP should be conducted. The Program Reviews are performed by experts in estuarine monitoring and management who are not associated with the RMP. The Steering Committee convenes these experts and provides them with a set of charge questions regarding how well the Program is achieving its mission. The specific charge questions for any given Program Review will depend on the priorities of the Steering Committee at the time. The reviewers report back to the Steering Committee with their findings. Program Reviews for the RMP were performed in 1997 and Page 17

71 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 71 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval 4.0 Charter Revisions The Steering Committee, as the primary decision-making body of the RMP, may amend this Charter by following the consensus decision method described in section 3.4 above. Charter amendments may be proposed by Steering Committee or Technical Review Committee Representatives, or SFEI staff, either during or between meetings. Any proposed amendments will be placed on the Steering Committee meeting agenda for discussion and possible action, or decided through or conference call communication if feasible and appropriate. Page 18

72 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 72 Figure 1. Governance Structure of the Regional Monitoring Program San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval

73 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 73 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval Appendix A RMP Participants POTW Dischargers Stormwater Central Contra Costa Sanitary District* Alameda Clean Water Program Central Marin Sanitation Agency Caltrans City of Benicia City and County of San Francisco City of Burlingame Contra Costa Clean Water Program City of Calistoga Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program City of Millbrae Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Prog. City of Palo Alto Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Poll. Prevention Prog. City of Petaluma San Mateo Countywide Water Poll. Prevention Program City of Pinole/Hercules Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District City of St. Helena City and County of San Francisco, PUC* Dredgers* City of San Jose* Port of San Francisco City of San Mateo Port of Oakland City of South San Francisco/San Bruno Chevron Richmond Long Wharf Terminal City of Sunnyvale Valero Refinery Terminal Delta Diablo Sanitation District Phillips 66 Rodeo Terminal East Bay Dischargers Authority* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers East Bay Municipal Utility District* *The dredgers listed pay an annual fee to the RMP. Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District There are also smaller dredgers who pay a fee to Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation District the RMP intermittently for specific dredging projects. Marin County Sanitary District #5, Tiburon Mountain View Sanitary District Industrial Dischargers Napa Sanitation District Chevron Products Company Novato Sanitation District Phillips 66 Rodeo Sanitary District Shell Martinez Refining Company San Francisco International Airport Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Sausalito/Marin City Sanitation District Valero Refining Company Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin C&H Sugar Company Silicon Valley Clean Water Crockett Cogeneration Sonoma County Water Agency Eco Services Town of Yountville USS - POSCO Industries Union Sanitary District U.S. Navy, Treasure Island Cooling Water Dischargers Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District Pittsburg Power Plant West County Wastewater Dist., Richmond Regulatory Agencies *Asterisk indicates BACWA Principals SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Page A-1

74 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 74 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval Appendix B Allocation of Costs for the Regional Monitoring Program Since at least 1996, the total cost of the Program has been set by the Steering Committee and divided up between the Participant Groups using the following percentages: Participant Group Percent of Total Program Cost Publicly Owned Treatment Works 44% Stormwater Agencies 23.5% Dredgers 17.5% Refineries and Industrial Dischargers 11% Cooling Water Dischargers 4% Each Participant Group uses a formula of its own choosing to divide up its cost allocation between the Participants in the Group. The formula used by a Group must be flexible enough to account for Participants joining and leaving the Program. The formula for a Group may be changed by the Group at any time so long as the Group as a whole contributes the full cost allocation to the Program. If all the Participants in a Participant group leave the Program, the Steering Committee will discuss and use its decision-making procedures to determine how best to allocate fees among the remaining Participants. Page B-1

75 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 75 San Francisco Bay RMP Charter 4/10/15 Version. Draft for Steering Committee Approval APPENDIX C RMP Memorandum of Understanding Page C-1

76 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 76

77 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 77

78 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 78

79 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 79

80 Bay RMP Steering Committee 4/21/15 Agenda Package - Page 80