This document briefly describes key aspects of the data interpretation process for the RMP. It identifies specific steps in this process and places these in the overall context of the RMP's planning cycle (see Figure 1). It also summarizes important understandings among the three parties to the RMP (Regional Board, Steering Committee, SFEI) regarding their respective roles and responsibilities in data interpretation. The goal of this document is to affirm fundamental principles that provide a justification for existing procedures and also furnish guidance for the development of new procedures as needed in the future.

It is important to bear in mind that data interpretation is not an isolated technical activity within the RMP. Interpretation must address questions and issues that are of acknowledged management significance and reflect the RMP's Program Objectives. In addition, interpretation must be tightly linked to the designs of both the base program and the pilot/special studies. This is because analysis and interpretation approaches are necessarily constrained by the structure of study designs.

It is also important to recognize the wide audience for the RMP's data interpretation products and the similarly wide range of users of its raw data. This broad interest in the RMP's results increases the program's overall credibility and support among the larger community of public, scientists, regulators, and managers. This data interpretation policy is thus not meant to infringe on the RMP's existing policy of making its data available to all interested users. Rather, it is intended to clarify the process of producing the program's formal products (reports and other publications) by the core parties with a financial, regulatory, and/or management stake in the program.

back to top

 

Roles and Responsibilities

All parties to the RMP recognize the fundamental importance of data analysis, synthesis, and interpretation. The questions the RMP have been asked to address are complex, and simple presentations and/or summaries of raw data alone are not sufficient to meet either the scientific or management information needs of the participants. The success of the RMP's data interpretation efforts depends on maintaining the strengths of the existing collaborative decision-making process while recognizing the unique aspects of each parties respective role in the process. These roles and responsibilities are broadly described here in order to provide needed structure to the data interpretation process without stifling essential flexibility.

In general, SFEI performs data interpretation in response to existing management and scientific questions significant for the water quality management of the Bay. During this process, SFEI may also identify additional problems and/or questions that arise from the data analysis. To ensure a common understanding of data interpretation, the Regional Board, program participants, Committee of Science Advisors, and Technical Review Committee shall reiew SFEI's draft data interpretation products.

back to top

Regional Water Quality Control Board

While the overall regional direction toward water quality management results from a collaborative interaction among the Board, dischargers, and other interested parties, the Regional Board has the particular statutory responsibility of articulating, and then ensuring the implementation of this approach. Since the management approach helps determine the questions on which data interpretation should focus, it is appropriate that the Board also ensure that the overall boundaries and direction of the data interpretation process are in accord with this approach. Specifically, the Regional Board will:

• articulate the long-term regional approach toward water quality management
• guide, in cooperation with SFEI and the participants, the development of any needed revisions to the objectives and questions for the RMP
• define how RMP information will be used in regulatory decision making
• provide guidance about the dividing line between interpretation and policy making
• help maintain the overall focus of the RMP
• facilitate links to the Board's other water quality management efforts that relate to the Bay
• decide when certain issues are no longer of regulatory concern
• help the RMP build bridges to other agencies whose expertise will be helpful in data analysis and interpretation.

back to top

Steering Committee

As the group that funds the RMP, the Steering Committee has a natural interest in maintaining the focus, efficiency, and effectiveness of the RMP and in ensuring that data interpretation produces useful information that leads to sound management decisions by the Regional Board. The Steering Committee has the authority for managing the actual operation of the RMP and, with regard to data interpretation, will:

• raise issues important to the discharger community
• help define specific questions motivating RMP studies
• review, comment on, and confirm the data interepretation plan (with input from the Technical Review Committee)
• interact with SFEI during the data interpretation process to identify and prioritize key findings
• help identify public concerns that should be addressed when interpreting results.

back to top

SFEI

As the entity responsible for implementing the RMP, SFEI acts as the central focus of scientific and technical expertise. Specifically, SFEI will:

• draft the formal data interpretation plan and/or require this plan to be included in all RMP work plans
• ensure the appropriate scientific skills are devoted to data interpretation
• direct and/or carry out the actual data analysis, synthesis, and interpretation
• use the data interpretation process to identify new problems and issues and bring these to the attention of the Steering Committee and the Regional Board
• continually work to put RMP results in larger scientific context
• brief the Steering Committee on key findings
• establish scope of contributions from other scientists and ensure these are met.

back to top

 

Multi-year Planning Cycle

The RMP works on a multi-year planning cycle (Figure 1). Year 0 is devoted to planning and contracting for the field work to be performed in Year 1. Activity in Year 2 focuses on validating, analyzing, and interpreting data from Year 1 and publishing the Annual Report. At any one time, activities related to all three functions (planning, field work, analysis and interpretation) occur simultaneously. The result of this cycle is that data interpretation results for work being planned now will not be available for at least two years. This idealized depiction does not reflect activities underway to implement the recommendations of the Five-Year Review. Many of these are one-time efforts that fall outside the boundaries or between the cracks of the steps shown in Figure 1.

back to top

 

Figures

Figure 1. The RMP's multi-year planning cycle; new data interpretation activities in bold italics.

	Year 0 Contracting track	Year 1 Implementation track	Year 2 Interpretation track
Jan.	Annual Meeting State objectives & questions	Begin field work	Annual Meeting
Feb.	Determine Pilot/Special Study needs
Mar.			Receive Year 1 draft pieces (thru July) Data validation (thru July)
April	Publish Pilot/Special Study RFPs		Table of contents  Review interpretation plan
May	Draft implementation plan with interpretation plan		Data analysis & synthesis (thru Sept.)
June	Publish Base Program RFPs
July			First installment, finalize contents Brief SC on major issues
Aug.			Prepare second installment (thru Sept.)
Sept.	Finalize implementation plan and interpretation plan		Send out final installment
Oct.	Select contractors Begin prep. for Year 1 work
Nov.			Comments due Revisions (thru Dec.)
Dec.		Complete field work	Final Report to printer

 

back to top