Chapter 6. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP

INTRODUCTION the CMARP will report and from which it will receive direction and funding authorization. The CMARP Phase 1 report states that the This body might be a continuation of the Steering Committee will develop current policy group, a newly comprised recommendations for creating an Board, an existing agency or a new institutional structure to implement the organization. This institution is referred to CMARP over the long-term. These as the Decision-making Body, and the recommendations would emphasize long-term monitoring, assessment and flexibility. They would be made after review research program is referred to as CMARP. of the strengths and weaknesses of large Use of this term does NOT imply that it is scale environmental monitoring programs organized and governed in the same both locally and around the country, after fashion as the CMARP Steering Committee consulting with the agencies and used for Phase II. The term Monitoring, stakeholders involved in CALFED and the Assessment and Research Organization organizations that would be expected to (MARO) is used, loosely, to cover any participate as partners within CMARP. possible arrangement, from an interagency While progress has been made in reviewing working group to a newly formed Institute; it large-scale environmental monitoring is the organization that will be responsible programs and in consulting with for implementing CMARP. The CMARP participating agencies, partner agencies and Team refers to all scientists and other stakeholders, these external evaluation and personnel working on CMARP, including consultation processes have not been those formally within the MARO, and in the completed. Thus, the recommendations of larger body of CMARP participants and this Chapter are considered preliminary. contractors.

The characteristics or attributes CMARP ATTRIBUTES OF A CMARP participants believe that the program should INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE display and the functions they believe the structure needs to perform are listed. This Discussions among the workgroup Chapter describes the elements needed of participants and with those interviewed led a management structure to ensure that the to the conclusion that certain principles or functions are carried out and the processes primary sets of attributes ought to underlay that the structure will need to implement to all deliberations on institutional structure for ensure that the attributes are obtained. the program. Any recommended Largely because the long-term institutional structure for CMARP must arrangements for the implementation of the address these principles. CALFED program have not yet been determined, CMARP participants believe Responsiveness to Management Needs-- that the final form of the CMARP The primary purpose of CMARP is to Institutional Structure cannot be resolved at provide the information and scientific this time. Issues upon which additional interpretations and advice necessary for input would be helpful have been identified. CALFED to fully implement its preferred alternative, including the common Because of the uncertainty about the long- programs, and for the public and term CALFED Institutional Structure, this government agencies to evaluate the Chapter uses several terms, which need success of CALFED. The ability of the definition. It is presumed that there will be program to provide the kind of information some CALFED sanctioned body to which needed by managers as they move forward

Chapter 6 119 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP through the decision process is, therefore, sensitivity to accountability, which requires: paramount. The types of management  easy access to all of the data and needs to which the CMARP must respond information upon which decisions are include: based.  documenting compliance with regulatory  collaboration among scientists, standards, stakeholders and resource managers.  detecting and reporting trends in  an open, consistently applied and environmental condition, transparent process for setting program  measuring CALFED program priorities and making funding decisions. performance,  cost-effectiveness achieved by building  providing timely information for upon existing programs and by decisions, and employing competitive solicitation  collaborating with management to processes. execute active adaptive management. Some of these attributes stand in opposition Scientific Quality – The importance and to each other. For example, independence cost of the decisions to be made in the implies an absence of control while CALFED process and the demands of the responsiveness requires a degree of control adaptive management require that these be over program decisions. Over-emphasis on based upon the best scientific information cost-effectiveness may threaten that can be made available. CALFED commitment to scientific excellence. managers need to be assured that the Responding to urgent management needs scientific work they are funding, and upon could threaten the commitment to long-term which they will be relying, is of the highest monitoring. The greatest challenge in the quality possible. Quality will be enhanced by: implementation of CMARP will be to  Scientific competence and credibility achieve the appropriate balance among achieved through publication of results these competing principles. in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Scientific breadth and depth resulting FUNCTIONS OF THE CMARP from a broad mixture of disciplines and INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE expertise represented in the MARO and the CMARP Team. Perhaps the first question to address in  Independence such that CMARP considering an institutional structure for scientists have the ability to determine implementation of CMARP is what it is that how best to do their work and be free of CMARP must do for CALFED. The attempts to influence their findings, CALFED Decision-making Body will need achieved at least in part by extensive information to answer short-term questions use of external scientific review. before proceeding with the staged decision-  Commitment to long-term monitoring, making process, and measurement of the assessment and research to reduce long-term conditions in the Bay-Delta and uncertainty. associated performance measures to determine whether individual projects Accountability -- Accountability initiated by the common programs are encompasses responsiveness and quality, successful and whether the problems of the but also includes the concepts of cost- Bay-Delta are being solved. The principle effectiveness, transparency of process, and function of CMARP is, therefore, to manage participation. There appears to be strong the direction of the monitoring, assessment support for a substantial increase in funding and research program to provide this for monitoring, assessment and research. essential information. With additional funding is an increased

Chapter 6 120 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP CMARP will also be the scientific arm of probability that the Monitoring, Assessment CALFED and will be prepared to assist in and Research Program will achieve the the design of the adaptive management desired attributes and can fit into any program. This assistance must come from number of structural approaches. These individuals who understand experimental elements collectively would comprise the design and the design of field programs. In MARO: addition to analyzing trends, CMARP must 1. Science Review Board, advisory to be prepared to initiate scientific research, highest Decision-making Body for including monitoring, modeling, and data CALFED. analysis, to determine whether things are 2. A highly visible position of changing and what effect the CALFED Chief Scientist with direct access to actions have had. Although this will not decision-makers. always be possible, it should be the idea 3. A highly qualified team of scientists and behind all of the performance assessment. support staff to assist and advise the Chief Scientist, which is referred to as The functions that the institutional structure the Core Technical Staff. created for CMARP must carry out include 4. A Science Coordination Team, made up the following: of individuals from the agencies and  designing and directing the monitoring, organizations responsible for assessment and research program, implementing major elements of the  collecting, managing and distributing monitoring, assessment and research data, program.  analyzing and interpreting data, and reporting the findings, Science Review Board -- The Science  orchestrating external scientific review Review Board will play an important role in of projects and programs, and guiding the Decision-making Body with  collaborating with management on regard to its use of science in adaptive adaptive management. management and decision-making. Because science inherently produces It is assumed that some new core uncertain results, often complicated by organization or organizations would need to contentious debate among conflicting be created, whether through formal or interpretations, the Decision-making Body informal means, to serve as the recipient for may need assistance in understanding the CALFED funding and to serve as the focal quality and usefulness of the information point for accountability. These general upon which they are asked to make functions require that several tasks be decisions. The Science Review Board will carried out by the MARO and some by the help the Decision-making Body make these broader additional array of individuals and judgments. The Science Review Board will organizations that make up the CMARP also assist in using scientific information to Team. The Structures and Processes evaluate whether the CALFED program is discussed below illustrate by whom and reaching its dual goals of improving water how these functions might be carried out. supply and restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem. It would ask such questions as ELEMENTS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL “Is the condition of the Bay-Delta system STRUCTURE improving?” “Is the CALFED program using adaptive management experimentation Given the need for the functions described effectively to reduce uncertainty and above, certain elements of an institutional improve management?” This level of review structure will be needed. The following addresses not the quality of the scientific elements will serve to increase the

Chapter 6 121 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP program per se, but the use of science in Team that reports to the Chief Scientist, an the management program. arm’s length relationship between the Board and the Chief Scientist should be The Science Review Board should include a maintained. combination of prominent scientists who have expertise in CALFED-type programs Chief Scientist -- Scientific leadership is and issues, but do not work in the area, and key to the success of CMARP, and is more prominent scientists with local experience important than any other aspect of the and expertise who are independent of organizational structure set up to operate or CALFED agencies and stakeholders. govern the program. While it is possible that this leadership will emerge from within The development of the Science Review the agencies and organizations that will be Board needs to provide both for some participating in CMARP, or from a stability and for turnover and fresh ideas coordinating committee created to guide and viewpoints. Staggered terms of 3-5 CMARP, it is just as likely that it will not. An years would provide this. The Board needs endeavor of the magnitude and importance both to be allowed the highest degree of of CMARP must have strong leadership. independence, yet be able to work closely Providing a position of Chief Scientist will and hold the trust and respect of the help ensure high levels of credibility and CALFED Decision-making Body. It is accountability. Regardless of the particular suggested that professional societies such arrangement chosen, numerous individuals, as the American Fisheries Society, the agencies, and organizations will be involved Estuarine Research Federation, the in CMARP. Without a central figure National Academy of Sciences, the National charged with making the program work and Science Foundation, or the Wetlands producing results, it will be very difficult to Society would make nominations to the determine where responsibility for problems Board. The Board should select new Board or deficiencies in the program lies. members itself; it should be self-renewing. The Decision-making Body should have the This individual will need the breadth and power to veto a proposed nominee, but not depth of understanding of environmental to make the selection. This leaves the and related sciences to be able to fashion a question of the original selection of the program that entails all of the subject matter Board. The solicitation of an original slate described in other sections of this report. of candidates could be contracted to the He or she will need to have the credibility National Academy of Sciences or some and enthusiasm to inspire the confidence of other well-respected and neutral group of all of the scientific personnel working on eminent scientists. CMARP, whether or not those scientists work directly for him or her. He or she must Since the primary source of information for be able to identify and draw upon the the Science Review Board will be CMARP, expertise of scientists from around the judgments on the quality, breadth, and country as well as those locally to assist in applicability of the work done by CMARP peer review and external review processes. will, to some extent, be a necessary by- This individual will need extraordinary product of the Science Review Board’s communication skills in order to understand principle role. The Decision-making Body the needs of decision-makers, relay may also look to the Science Review Board scientific findings to them in understandable for assistance in evaluating the quality and terms, and communicate with public effectiveness of CMARP. Since this audiences and scientists from a variety of exercise will, to a degree, involve evaluation disciplines. He or she must be able to of the talents and judgment of the Chief simultaneously speak the truth and maintain Scientist and the Science Coordination the trust and confidence of all of the

Chapter 6 122 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP stakeholders. Finally, he or she must be at Chief Scientist should have a fairly free least a bit of an iconoclast, and be willing to hand (subject, of course to budgetary challenge the paradigms that influence our limitations) in assembling this team; he or current understanding of the Bay-Delta she ought to be able to ‘recruit’ from within system. agencies (as well as from external organizations). This team would advise and The Chief Scientist will report to the head of assist the Chief Scientist in the agency or organization in which his or  developing the annual work plan to her position resides and also directly to the address monitoring, assessment and CALFED Decision-making Body. Duties of research needs, the Chief Scientist will include the following:  help to develop and lead research 1. Be responsible for the overall direction programs in conjunction with extramural and quality of the monitoring, researchers, assessment and research program.  form working teams to operate 2. Assemble and direct a Core Technical monitoring programs which are largely Staff that can provide the type of agency-conducted, analysis and interpretation of monitoring  nurture partnerships with scientists in information discussed in Chapter 5. other research organizations, 3. Chair a Science Coordination Team  critically review and analyze CALFED- designed to keep all of the agencies and and non-CALFED-funded monitoring- organizations that implement elements program data, of the program working collaboratively.  work with data generators to interpret 4. Identify (through communication with the and produce publishable findings based Decision-making Body, Science Review on current data, and Board, Stakeholder Advisory  report periodically and as needed to the Committee, etc.) the management Decision-making Body and the public. issues that need to be addressed through CMARP. This team will consist of a number of highly 5. Identify and help resolve technical qualified scientists representing a broad controversies, through consensus array of expertise in the environmental building, where possible. sciences. It would be desirable to have a 6. Produce an annual work plan of mix of individuals that includes some that monitoring, assessment and research to have extensive experience within the Bay- be approved by the Decision-making Delta system and that have developed Body. relevant expertise working in other systems, 7. Ensure that the external review and some that are well-established in their functions are carried out, supported, and fields and others who are at the beginning heeded. of their careers. One way to ensure that a 8. Convene an Annual Science continual stream of new thinking and Conference. approaches flows into the Core Technical Staff would be to assign a number of time- The Chief Scientist has the ancillary duty of limited postdoctoral positions to the team. interacting with the regulatory agencies. The scientific staff would also need various There is a feedback loop with the regulatory forms of support, including technical, data agencies such that regulatory monitoring management, graphics, and administrative. might be improved, and the information produced feeds and affects the regulatory Science Coordination Team – The process. agencies and organizations (including Core Technical Staff -- A team of stakeholder organizations) that currently individuals to assist the Chief Scientist as a conduct major monitoring, assessment and core staff needs to be assembled. The

Chapter 6 123 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP research programs will need to play an 7. annual Science Conference, and important role managing the comprehensive 8. stakeholder advisory mechanisms. program proposed by this document. These are the programs upon which CMARP will Control of Money Flow and Budgeting of need to be built. The comprehensive Funds -- The MARO will need to serve the program will result from the combination of function of distributing the funds allocated these programs and the new efforts initiated for research and monitoring and accounting in directed response to CALFED needs. In for the funds and the work done. To ensure some cases, especially where expansion or accountability and to give CMARP the redirection of existing efforts is required to opportunity to have a coherent program, it make the CMARP program work, these will be desirable for the flow of money to same agencies and organizations will need CMARP for the CALFED funded portion of to be involved in helping to craft the the program be directly from the Decision- changes and will need to be conducting making Body to the organization that additional work. This team will be the houses and provides administrative support mechanism by which the Chief Scientist to the Chief Scientist. The MARO should keeps all of these efforts moving in a have the authority to make grants and coordinated fashion, and ensures contracts and should be provided with the cooperative working relationships among all necessary administrative support. of the partner organizations within the CMARP Team. The team will be CMARP will have to continually undergo responsible for helping to develop the evaluation and adjustment to ensure that it annual work program for CMARP. Because is accomplishing its goals. This future each of the elements of the CMARP development will have to take place within program will undergo periodic review, the the MARO. While the program activities membership of this team will have to be should be planned on a multi-year basis, kept flexible, allowing for adding new there will be an annual budgetary cycle for members when a new player is identified, or CALFED appropriations. CMARP will have dropping off an organization that no longer to be translated into annual work plans (that is playing a pivotal role. would contain the annual increment of multi- year monitoring and research elements) each year so that it can be submitted to the PROCESSES Decision-making Body for review, approval and funding. There are several processes by which the structures described above will carry out the Some limitations should be set on the way functions of CMARP. Commitment to these the total amount of funding available for processes is as important to the success of monitoring, assessment and research is CMARP as the structures set up to operate spent. First, it is clear from the remainder of them. Critical processes include: the CMARP report that monitoring, 1. control of money flow and budgeting of assessment, and research will be needed. funds, It would be counterproductive to make 2. external scientific review of programs, dramatic shifts year to year in the proportion proposals, and products, of funding between these three major 3. partnerships between internal and activities. Over time, as understanding of external scientists, management, the system increases and monitoring 4. science management partnership for methods become more efficient, there may adaptive management, be a gradual shift to providing a larger 5. resolving technical conflicts portion of the funding to assessment and 6. data collection, data management and research. It will also be important to reserve information handling, some portion of the budget for “urgent

Chapter 6 124 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP management needs”. From time to time, expert external review panels to delve in unanticipated situations will occur that may depth into questions about the program as a demand an immediate response by whole, or about a specific program element. mobilizing special studies to enable rapid It may be desirable, for example, to call a response to acute management issues. panel of experts on fish population This should be taken into account during dynamics to advise the MARO and to budget planning such that CMARP can review how well CMARP is monitoring fish respond quickly to such situations without populations. The Chief Scientist may also causing irreparable harm to long-term trend choose to make use of intensive workshops monitoring or multi-year research programs to address a specific issue. For example, if that have already been put into place. A the CMARP funded several years of goal should also be set for a continuing, research exploring Fish-X2 relationships, significant proportion of funding to be spent the Chief Scientist might want to organize a externally to the MARO in grants to workshop involving local researchers who researchers in universities, non- had been working on these problems and a governmental organizations and the private number of outside experts to address sector. 1) whether the questions had been solved sufficiently, 2) whether additional resources External Scientific Review – The should be applied to the problem, and credibility, quality and timeliness 3) directions that future research effort of the external review of the ought to take. science used by and produced by the CALFED program is key Proposal Selection to achieving numerous desired The CMARP work program will involve work attributes. It will be essential to done internally by its Core Technical Staff, assure that funds are effectively work done by agencies and organizations spent, that information produced participating on the Science Coordination is of high quality, that the Team, work done externally by universities, program is responsive to agencies, non-governmental organizations, management needs, and that and the private sector, and projects the program does not become involving collaboration among parties insular but remains open to new “internal” and “external” to the CMARP ideas. Such review is required Team. It will involve a combination of at three points in the monitoring program elements, research development and projects, and projects involving original implementation of the program: approaches to assessment of existing data 1. review of the overall direction and sets. The Chief Scientist will need to quality of CMARP, develop processes that ensure that ALL 2. selection of research proposals and projects and program elements funded by monitoring program elements, and CALFED would be subject to essentially the 3. review of CMARP products. same proposal solicitation and review process, regardless of source. To do this Program Review will require instituting an objective process External program review involves review of for the anonymous peer evaluation of the overall quality and direction of CMARP. proposals for new monitoring, assessment It addresses the questions “is CMARP and research that is efficient and achieves providing the scientific information needed broadest acceptance of the process within for CALFED management decisions?” “Is it the CALFED community. asking the right questions?” “How well can  Research Proposal Solicitation—A list it answer these questions?” The Chief of approved management and study Scientist may wish to form one or more questions will be developed by the

Chapter 6 125 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP Chief Scientist, Core Technical Staff, pending support from the Program or and Science Coordination Team with personal or institutional stake in the input from managers, field scientists, outcome). and stakeholders. The Chief Scientist would prepare one or more Proposal The members of the Peer Review Solicitation Packages designed to Coordination Panel will be tasked with solicit proposals for addressing the soliciting and overseeing the identified study questions. The anonymous external (mail) review of Proposal Solicitation Packages would proposals. Each member will solicit be designed to allow for and encourage reviews by at least three experts for multi-year, collaborative projects. The each proposal within his/her specialty solicitation process will also provide for areas, then summarize and prioritize the projects that might be termed member’s findings for presentation to assessment, in that they may be the other members of the Panel. focused on original analyses of existing Reviewers will score the proposals, data rather than original fieldwork. The based on their scientific merit and the Chief Scientist will also recommend the relevance to the Proposal Solicitation criteria to be used in proposal Package. When all reviews have been evaluation. received, the proposals will be ranked by the Peer Review Coordination Panel  Proposal Review Process—It will be the based on the external mail reviews and job of the Chief Scientist to see that the Panel's own evaluation. The Peer appropriate and qualified reviewers are Review Coordination Panel will develop identified and that the process is done an overall prioritization of the proposals professionally. The Chief Scientist will and will make funding recommendations rely upon a two-tiered review system: to the Chief Scientist for his or her 1. a Peer Review Coordination Panel review of the recommendations. Until with members reimbursed for their the Decision-making Body is constituted, time, and the Chief Scientist will submit the 2. a large group of pre-qualified CMARP annual work program to the technical experts who provide the CALFED Integration Panel for approval. first level of anonymous review (these reviewers will be offered The Peer Review Coordination Panel honoraria for their services). will be modeled after that used by the Exxon Valdez Restoration Program. In The Peer Review Coordination Panel the Exxon Valdez Program, the Peer would comprise a group of 10-15 Review Panel meets annually for technical experts, nominated by the several days to review the entire annual MARO. The members should be active program, including progress on multi- estuarine, freshwater, fisheries, wildlife, year projects and all of the new or watershed research proposals that have been submitted for scientists/engineers who have a high funding. Reviewers serve for several degree of stature, are well connected years, allowing them to become familiar with other scientists in their respective with the goals and management needs fields, represent different specialties of the program’s decision-makers and within these fields, and have some the strengths and weaknesses of the familiarity with the San Francisco Bay- monitoring, assessment and research Delta watershed system. The Chief programs. In addition to passing Scientist would ensure that Peer Review judgment on individual projects as Coordination Panel members have no proposed, they make suggestions to conflicts of interest (e.g., current or augment weak but high priority projects

Chapter 6 126 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP by combining projects, bringing in ultimate process for doing this will be the additional experts to assist in certain peer review process that attends publication projects, and suggesting how to of the results in scientific journals. Another, redesign certain projects for future more preliminary step will need to be reconsideration. In this fashion they provided. Getting papers published in peer help to ensure that the proposal reviewed literature typically takes two years solicitation, review and selection or longer; CALFED managers will often process results in a coherent program of want or need the information produced, research rather than a collection of including an assessment of the quality of disparate projects. the information, much faster than that. The solution may be a process similar to that  Monitoring Proposal Solicitation— used by the South Florida Water Because monitoring elements may Management District. They have set up continue for a number of years with little their own quick turn-around peer review change, it may be necessary to develop process. A large slate of pre-qualified a different schedule for review of the external reviewers are available who can monitoring elements of the program provide thorough peer review on a fee-for- and the research and assessment service basis in a very short time frame. elements. Thus, major elements of the This process serves the dual purpose of monitoring program might be resolicited providing the managers with information on a five-year cycle. The Chief that they are assured is of high quality in a Scientist would direct preparation of reasonable time frame and increasing the proposal solicitation packages seeking success of District employees in publishing applicants from public and non-profit their papers. This same system could be agencies, the private sector, and applied to any information product produced academia. The package would by CMARP, even if it were not destined for describe data collection standards, publication in the peer-reviewed literature. quality assurance procedures, and data However, as a matter of principle, we delivery requirements. The Peer recommend that the program results be Review Coordination Panel would rank published to the extent practicable. applicants on the basis of their qualifications and demonstrated CMARP participants are aware that no peer performance, availability of required review process is without flaws, and that equipment and permits, the peer review and publication will not resolve effectiveness of data collection plans, all issues of quality and credibility. Nor is it and proposed cost. The Chief Scientist meant to be suggested that scientific work would select a proposed grantee from that has not been reviewed is by definition applicants with high rankings to include of poor quality. Rather, it is believed that a within the recommended work program commitment to extensive impartial review that would be submitted to the CALFED will add credibility to good work already Decision-making Body. Grantee being done and will tend to raise the performance would be evaluated standards for work done and will increase annually based on quality and timely the overall perception of quality and delivery of data prior to renewal of the credibility of the entire program. Extensive grant. peer review as suggested here will require the commitment of substantial funding and Review of CMARP Products staff support; without this support it is Review of completed projects addresses the unlikely to achieve its purpose. quality of the products produced. It asks the question, “Was the work done in a scientifically credible manner?” The

Chapter 6 127 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP Partnerships between Internal and cooperation with CMARP. If this is done, a External Scientists much larger virtual organization comprising These partnerships comprise the CMARP much more effort and expertise than Team and are based upon collaborative CALFED could ever pay for will materialize. working relationships between and If the MARO becomes known for its stature among the Chief Scientist, the Science and professionalism, other organizations will Coordination Team and the agencies want to associate themselves with it. It is and organizations conducting CALFED further possible that if the MARO funded AND non-CALFED funded establishes very high standards of environmental monitoring, assessment performance, and funds projects and and research. The CMARP inventory programs of those agencies and of monitoring programs for the Bay- organizations that meet those standards, it Delta and its tributary rivers shows the can create a situation in which all of the tremendous breadth and depth of the agencies and organizations working in the monitoring programs currently in Bay-Delta strive to meet that standard. This existence. Many individual scientists in would have a positive influence on the universities and other institutions are quality of all of the environmental carrying out research relevant to monitoring, assessment and research done CALFED needs, independent of these in this region. (This has been the monitoring programs. While many of experience of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill these efforts are not directly related to Restoration Program.) CALFED, a large number are producing data and information that is of Science-Management Partnership to tremendous value to CALFED, and may Carry Out Adaptive Management form a large portion of the Active adaptive management, if employed comprehensive program that CMARP by CALFED, will require a partnership proposes. Upon this existing between decision makers, stakeholders, framework, the CALFED funded managers of the natural resources, and monitoring, assessment and research scientists. In particular, this will mean program will be superimposed. A large bringing those responsible for the common part of the challenge of implementing programs together with the Chief Scientist CMARP will be to knit together these and the Teams that assist him or her. This disparate programs and determine partnership is necessary because policy where the most value added will result makers and stakeholders will have to be from an expenditure of CALFED willing to take short-term risks with the funding. resources, the resource manager will have to negotiate necessary agreements to A network of data sharing and research acquire the resources, and scientists will collaboration and an attitude of common have to design experiments using the purpose amongst all of these organizations resources. Successful adaptive would serve CALFED well. The Chief experiments reduce long-term risks to Scientist and the Science Coordination resources by taking carefully designed, Team could help to create such a network short-term risks. Adaptive experiments and multiply the effectiveness of their often focus on unusual conditions, and funding through a variety of means. thereby accelerate the rate of learning Applying the same review process to beyond what would naturally occur. internally and externally funded work is one such means, and providing extra-mural CMARP recognizes that while scientific funding will be another. The program input is vital in the process of proposing and should seek additional means of creating carrying out adaptive management incentives for participation in and experiments, final decisions upon whether

Chapter 6 128 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP such experiments are carried out will, in Likewise, it is not anticipated that all of the each individual case, be made by resource research needed for the program will be managers, not scientists. Passive adaptive conducted within the MARO. It will be the management and other means of modeling intent of CMARP to make wide use of and experimentation that do not put universities, non-governmental resources at risk will also be used in organizations and the private sector to attempts to reduce uncertainty wherever actually propose and carry out individual appropriate. research projects, or perhaps even larger- scale, multi-year research program Resolving Technical Conflicts— elements. The amount of research Numerous technical conflicts threaten to conducted by the organization itself, as prevent or hamper progress in reaching opposed to the entire CMARP Team will consensus on priority actions. Examples depend upon how large a scientific staff is might include the nature of the Fish-X2 created for the organization; nonetheless, relationship or the role of habitat restoration this is an activity that can go on externally in recovery of listed species. Mechanisms as well as internally. for resolving such technical conflicts are needed that focus the debate clearly on Data Analysis and Interpretation—Turning policy issues. One approach that might the data into useful information products will help to reach consensus would be to gather be one of the most important functions of technical experts with opposing views on a the MARO. While the MARO will be calling given issue in a workshop setting for the on numerous members of the CMARP express purpose of identifying specific, Team to assist in this task, it is necessary to additional, directed efforts to collect focus responsibility for the accomplishment additional data, perform additional of this task upon the MARO itself. Much of experiments, or conduct new modeling the initial analysis and interpretation may be exercises. The use of external reviewers to conducted by CMARP Team partners evaluate all existing information pertinent to responsible for the monitoring program, but a given issue might be another avenue. MARO will have a more integrative responsibility. Monitoring is an expensive Data Collection, Data Management, and activity, so the more knowledge that can be Information Handling derived from the monitoring the better. This means that individuals and small teams Data Collection, Reporting and comprising experts in the relevant discipline Management—Many agencies, who are familiar with exploratory data organizations, and individual research analysis and statistics, from either the Core scientists will be collecting data and Technical Staff or the broader CMARP providing these data and their interpretation team, should be commissioned to provide to the MARO. It is not envisioned that the ongoing and/or periodic analyses of MARO will be managing all of this monitoring data. Further description of this information, but it will have to set quality process is provided in Chapter 5 of this assurance guidelines, metadata standards, report. and reporting requirements. It will also need to set guidelines for making data Communication of Findings—A necessary available and may need to assist some function of MARO will be providing the members of the CMARP Team with this findings of monitoring, assessment and task. A certain subset of the data will need research programs to the Decision-making to actually be managed by the MARO. Data Body, to the stakeholders and to the public. management is discussed more fully in Individual researchers of the CMARP team Chapter 5. should be encouraged to communicate individual project findings, but this will not

Chapter 6 129 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP be sufficient. It will be necessary for the Provision will be made for stakeholder Decision-making Body to have help in participation in the Decision-making Body identifying, assessing, and understanding that approves the CMARP budget. Many the limitations of the best available stakeholder groups include people with information upon which decisions are considerable scientific expertise, whose based. It will need to direct reports targeted contact with CMARP staff and contractor at all segments of the CALFED community scientists will enhance the value of the to be prepared. It will also be necessary to program. Direct contact between scientists provide periodic and understandable working for stakeholder groups and CMARP briefings for the Decision-making Body and scientists should be encouraged. In the public on the implications of the work addition, responsiveness of the overall being done. Mechanisms for the reporting program will depend upon the of real-time monitoring data and annual understanding of the Chief Scientist and the reporting of status and trends of indicators Science Coordination Team of the will also be needed. These communications management questions that need to be will be built upon successful examples of addressed. A formal means, such as a existing reporting and communication. Stakeholder Advisory Committee that is given the opportunity to communicate with Annual Science Conference— the Chief Scientist concerning the Direct communication will be enhanced prioritization of management questions and among scientists and managers, content of annual work plans prior to their partnerships among participating review by the Decision-making Body would organizations can be aid in this process. An alternate approach strengthened, which will also help would be to include stakeholder build public credibility. All representatives on the Science individuals and organizations that Coordination Team. Stakeholder-funded received funding through the scientists should also be encouraged to MARO would be expected to communicate with and collaborate with participate and present their work. CMARP-funded scientists on projects. In addition, the Chief Scientist and others could discuss general QUESTIONS TO RESOLVE IN direction of the science program, DEVELOPING THE management implications of the ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE findings coming out of the work FOR A COMPREHENSIVE and what is being learned about MONITORING ASSESSEMENT the condition of the system and AND RESEARCH PROGRAM the way it functions. This conference could be an annual The basic elements discussed above will fit opportunity to publicly present into any number of structures that might be and explain how indicators are formed for the overall governance of the being used to assess “Bay-Delta CALFED program. There are a number of Health” and what the indicators decisions concerning the institutional are telling us about trends in structure that the workgroup discussed, and environmental condition. Such a which were proposed to those who were conference might incorporate interviewed. Largely because of the components of two existing uncertainty that exists concerning the successful and popular events— eventual structure for the overall CALFED The IEP Annual Meeting and the program and its decision-making process, it SFEI State of the Estuary was not possible to reach conclusions on Conference. some of these questions. The following Stakeholder Advisory Mechanisms

Chapter 6 130 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP questions represent areas where the views of reviewers would be most welcome. Some stakeholders felt strongly that the program should be closely attached to and What is CMARP’s Relationship to responsive to an Ecosystem Restoration CALFED? CMARP has been described as Authority. If the common programs are the science arm of CALFED. This implies carried out as separate independent that the relationship between CMARP and programs with different decision-making CALFED is essentially a partnership. It is a bodies, it cannot be housed within any of partnership intended to promote science- them and should be independent of any based decision-making and an adaptive common programs. approach to managing the Bay-Delta System. We have, therefore, tried to What monitoring, research, and research describe elements of an organization that functions should be centralized, and to would both be accountable and responsive what extent? The original charge to IEP, to CALFED, yet be able to carry out USGS and SFEI was to design a program monitoring, assessment and research in a that addressed all of the common programs. fairly independent manner. This is not the That does not necessarily imply that one only relationship that could be established. overall institutional structure should address It is possible to create a monitoring and all needs. A few of the stakeholders assessment program that is imbedded questioned felt strongly that CMARP should within the CALFED Decision-making body concentrate on the environmental and that only responds to specific tasks questions, and not deal with issues such as generated by program managers. It would water transfer and water efficiency. They also be possible to create a science expressed the view that these latter program that was independently funded and concerns should be monitored by different therefore completely independent of the organizations from the one primarily CALFED management structure. concerned with ecosystem conditions. Many felt strongly that there should be a To Whom or to what does CMARP monitoring program created specifically to Report? Because it is not certain how the serve the needs of an Ecosystem CALFED program in the future will carry out Restoration Authority. Most of the decision-making, it is difficult to suggest workgroup felt that there would be benefits exactly whom the Chief Scientist and the to having one comprehensive monitoring, rest of the CMARP institutional structure assessment and research program. They should report. Most workgroup members argued that many of the common programs felt that the Chief Scientist should be hired have interrelated and overlapping by and attached to some organization such information needs, that activities proposed that he or she did not have to personally to promote the objectives of one common deal with all of the administrative functions program might have adverse effects in that attend to grant-making and contract others, and these need to be assessed management. It is necessary to define a comprehensively. direct relationship between the Chief Scientist and the highest Decision-making Is a new agency or organization needed Body of CALFED, including whether it is to implement CMARP? A number of that body that is responsible for his or her stakeholders queried believed strongly that hiring and firing. This is the only way that a new organization should be established. CMARP can act as the science arm of the Workgroup members were divided on this CALFED program, and act in partnership point. It was felt by workgroup members with CALFED in promoting an adaptive that a new scientific culture needed to be approach to managing the Bay-Delta established, and this would be easier to do system. with a new organization at the core of the

Chapter 6 131 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP effort. It could be accomplished with the inclusion of the position of Chief Scientist and a commitment to extensive external and peer review. Whether or not a new organization was formed at the core of CMARP, all felt that the collaboration among the larger CMARP Team was key to success of the overall program. If a new organization is set up, care should be taken to make this organization one that enhances, rather than competes with existing programs.

Chapter 6 132 March 10, 1999 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT CMARP