Review Panel Comments June 2007

1. Review Panel CommentsJune 2007 • 2006 Accomplishments and 2007 Plans • Overall progress • Response to 2006 Review Panel recommendations • Biosentinel monitoring • Mercury in Central Valley sport fish • Developing safe eating guidelines • SH involvement and risk communication / reducing exposure • Coordination with other projects • Project management and reporting • FMP Legacy • Report Card

2. 2006-2007 Progress • Considered and acted on recommendations from 2006 Review Panel meeting. • High level of accomplishment from all components of the research team • Indications of positive relationships with stakeholders / steering committee • “Excellent” on project implementation for second year.

3. Response to 2006 Review Comments • Explicit, thoughtful, frank comments in response to review panel • Useful summary lists of response to review comments in separate reports • Would have been useful to have summary within presentations as well (briefly)

4. Biosentinel Monitoring • Excellent report and research accomplishments • Excellent effort responding to comments from Review Panel and others in region • Important to publish in peer-reviewed journal as soon as possible; be careful with dual-publication concerns re: technical reports

5. Biosentinel Monitoring • Facilitate managers’ use of findings – craft 1-2 page summary with findings and specific, management-relevant recommendations • Include recommendations re: major factors to consider in restoration projects to reduce mercury impacts (e.g., inundation timing and frequency, acreage or depth of flooding, dry vs. wet areas, etc.) • Develop short, clear recommendations (e.g., provide specific recommendations for filling, timing re: wetland inundation, based on mercury data)

6. Biosentinel Monitoring • You have demonstrated value of biosentinel monitoring • Exploratory approach useful for idea-generation; advance to stronger hypothesis-testing with field data and statistical analysis • Develop hypotheses useful to managers: what choices do they have? Inform those choices (e.g., where to flood, when to flood, etc.)

7. Biosentinel Monitoring • Protocol document on recommendations for sampling should help managers understand where biosentinels will be useful and where not • Protocol document should be question-driven – for what types of questions will this protocol be useful? • Express strengths and limitations of biosentinel monitoring – what this approach can tell you, what it cannot tell you (e.g., methylmercury export from wetlands)

8. Biosentinel Monitoring • Findings are consistent with other regions (e.g., inundation events) – in reporting (and hypothesis-building/testing) draw linkages to these other studies • Maximum water level has been important in other studies as correlate of temporal variation; Comment on value of using maximum water level or area inundated as an indicator • See existing data on drawdowns (e.g., hydroelectric reservoirs) in relation to FMP data

9. Biosentinel Monitoring • May be most important to identify what is really controlling methylation (e.g., biogeochemical processes) rather than mercury sources per se; amount of mercury may not be critical if not bioavailable • So, integrate biosentinel data with data from other studies on methylation processes to strengthen interpretations of biosentinel data

10. Biosentinel Monitoring • Use of extended seasonal sampling is good • Good strategy to concentrate sampling in short time frame to minimize temporal variation (include in final report) • Good strategy to rule out outliers due to other factors (e.g., bioenergetics, migration), but always test hypotheses re: outliers and record decisions made • Recommend a time interval after episodic event to capture “worst case” that may be most important to wildlife

11. Biosentinel Monitoring • Separate out prickly sculpin age classes to get more from data set to enhance interpetation of sculpin data? • Take a hard look at value of shrimp analyses, or should that effort be expended on other species? If expend effort on shrimp, identify reasons for mercury variability in shrimp • Consider reduction of silversides sample sizes; variation was small; consider power implications, resource savings

12. Biosentinel Monitoring • Consider ecotoxicological relevance: identify samples with concentrations of mercury that may be toxicologically significant to predators – e.g., based on literature re: what levels are biologically significant (e.g., what levels produce adverse effects in dietary exposure in lab experiments? What are the local predator-prey interactions to consider?) • Combine biosentinel data with data from other ongoing studies, especially related to biogeochemical processes related to methylmercury production

13. Mercury in Central Valley Sport Fish • Progress very good; appropriate modeling efforts; data of high analytical quality and value • Input from prior reviewers (panel and stakeholders) has been incorporated well • Useful data on spatial and inter-specific variation in sport fish contamination

14. Mercury in Central Valley Sport Fish • Evaluate effect of larger fish on estimates (effect of 75% rule) compared to using predetermined size range • Continue hypothesis-driven exploration of data (e.g., controls on mercury in fish) • Move beyond examining only linear relationships; nature is not necessarily linear

15. Mercury in Central Valley Sport Fish • In exploratory analyses correlating fish mercury measurements to individual landscape features, intense search for patterns may result in apparent (but inaccurate) correlations • Relationships between ecological parameters are not necessarily linear; existence of non-monotonic relationships between ecological parameters requires examination of relationships between multiple parameters simultaneously

16. Mercury in Central Valley Sport Fish • Make comparisons with biosentinel data – what implications do those data have for sport fish data and programs? (address in final report) • Consider for overall FMP what are most important factors to be considering – e.g., understanding of biogeochemical processes, flooding, etc. • Be more explicit in report what changes have been made in one component of the FMP program to address suggestions from other FMP components (e.g., Fishing Activities report recommended sampling in non-traditional sites, every county, etc.) – maintain a record of those suggestions were accepted or rejected

17. Mercury in Central Valley Sport Fish • What are your expectations for capturing temporal variation? Is there temporal variation in sport fish concentrations, and what implications may that have for advisories? • Are differences in sites related to shifts in prey items? • Rejection of growth dilution as a causal factor is a good example of subjecting data to a defensible analysis to rule out certain explanations

18. Mercury in Central Valley Sport Fish • How important is it to evaluate how much variation in LMB concentrations is due to diet? • Explain explicitly what has been done to search for patterns in large data bases (what did you reject, etc.?) • What predictive capability do FMP data provide? If couple modeling with database, will it be possible to predict future conditions? • What can be predicted for other areas and species in current time frame?

19. Developing Safe Eating Guidelines • Very responsive to comments from panel and stakeholders • Good coordination with DHS and Fish and Game • Good attempts to discern what stimulated stakeholder involvement in workshops (e.g., with LSAG meeting) • Excellent effort in keeping up to date with omega-3 info and IOM report • Good to incorporate health benefits; aim to move toward more quantitative approach in future • Regional analysis is good approach

20. Developing Safe Eating Guidelines • Possible to consider omega-3 levels in CA fish? (If low in omega-3’s would borderline contaminant fish be moved to more restrictive category?) • Evaluate how well community leaders with whom you interact are able to reach high fish consumers • Evaluate how much fish consumers are actually eating – will help evaluate impacts of advisories, and also help inform what outreach is needed re: meal size (and frequency)

21. Developing Safe Eating Guidelines • Moving toward consistency in meal size between dietary guidelines and fish consumption guidelines is a good goal • Accept that there will be challenges in being the pace-setter in questioning the standard of an 8 oz. meal size • Be clear in communication that eating 8 oz. is equivalent of two meals, based on national AHA guidelines • Conduct formative evaluation on how different groups respond to green vs. green/yellow; how they interpret 3 oz meal size vs. 8 oz; how they may respond to outreach on meal size, such as photos, etc.

22. Developing Safe Eating Guidelines (Matrix procedure for prioritization and selection of sampling sites) • Site selection matrix is quite thoughtful and explainable • Impressive coordination among groups, consensus decisions • Keep record of those sites that would have been sampled had more resources been available, for future sampling • Could better training be given to those asked to rate fishing pressure?

23. Stakeholder Involvement and Risk Communication • Impressive activities, number of people involved and reached • Good interaction with fish sampling decisions re: site selection • Excellent efforts to secure funds for grants to CBOs • Providing stipends for participation in LSAG, etc. is quite appropriate • What are the evaluation efforts for CBO work on mini-grants? Report on evaluation.

24. Stakeholder Involvement and Risk Communication • Good efforts at evaluating how members view Steering Committee and LSAG; for LSAG data, follow up to understand the reasons for the “somewhat effective” responses and potential improvements • Keep building relationships to try to identify where/how to find and tailor outreach for subsistence fishers (what leads you to believe there are substantial subsistence fishers? – follow up on those leads)

25. Stakeholder Involvement and Risk Communication • Training for Trainers (T4T) program evaluation was useful, demonstrated some real successes (even though some aspects unexpected) – important contribution to risk communication knowledge base; include in final report • Revise T4T and mini-grant CBO programs based on experience from years 1 and 2 (simplify message) • After revision of T4T program, re-evaluate

26. Stakeholder Involvement and Risk Communication • Other formative evaluation should be done, with selected groups: e.g., green/light green vs. yellow/red • For example, green/light green boxes on revised Delta sign do not include meals/time recommendation (red boxes do); evaluate whether it would help to add meals/time to these boxes to reduce the confusion expressed

27. Stakeholder Involvement and Risk Communication • Make tough decisions re: expending resources on evaluation even if that means fewer “activities” at this time (prioritize resources) • FMP groups (SC, LSAG, scientists, agencies) need to agree on expectations for evaluation and what questions are realistic to address • Evaluation should focus on formative questions to help finalize design of risk communication materials that would be used beyond FMP; and on summative evaluation outcomes logical to expect in short time frame and indicators of potential for longer-term change (e.g., if “awareness” is not achieved, “behavior change” is impossible to achieve) – e.g. why spend $$ on translating Hmong fact sheets if community responds best to personal interaction?

28. Stakeholder Involvement and Risk Communication • Holistic concept of healthy eating can serve as a framework in which fish consumption recommendations can be integrated • Recognize that messages have different purposes – some risk communication may result in more political action/attention

29. Stakeholder Involvement and Risk Communication • Issue final report • Case studies (reflection on process, outcomes) • Formative evaluation activities and results (e.g., focus groups) • Materials developed – how, why, content, etc. • Summative evaluation (who has been reached by materials; what impact on awareness, knowledge, short-term behavior) • Lessons learned, including what has been gained by working with CBOs, successful and unsuccessful engagement mechanisms • Will help you articulate your key findings and what you have learned

30. Coordination with Other Projects • Integrate FMP findings with relevant data from other CALFED studies to strengthen interpretation of results – commit resources to doing this during final project year • Prompt all CALFED-funded scientists to develop consensus statement across all projects • NEXT STEP: Lead into an exposure study via human biomonitoring (prioritize most likely groups to be high, e.g tribal members, women of childbearing age, “subsistence” anglers) – identify if genuine concern is warranted; avoid needless alarm toward human populations

31. Project Management and Reporting • Enhance impact of project products • Develop email distribution list to announce release of new publications and reports • Issue news releases and host roll-out events re: release of major reports • Tailor reports and presentations to the audience • Assess this with stakeholders; experts within stakeholder communities may respond well to semi-technical information; general audiences may need fewer x-y graphs, etc.

32. Project Management and Reporting • CBO participation in meeting makes a contribution; involvement is essential – consider ways to strengthen this • Consider strategies for strengthening relationships with Steering Committee, so members interact with FMP team and attend meetings • Nurture communication among FMP team

33. Project Management and Reporting • Data management plan for internal data appears strong • SFEI web-accessible data will be a useful resource and is essential to leaving a strong legacy • Nest QA data within records, for posterity • Consider whether FMP data can be located easily as a subset within SWAMP to facilitate access (e.g., to biosentinel data) • Consider extent to which managers (and other end users) will require training to access and use this information, and develop means to deliver this training

34. Project Management and Reporting: Public Report • Make writing accessible to public audiences • Have user groups review draft report • Minimize use of acronyms (define those used) and use of undefined technical terms • Consider engaging a professional writer or editor familiar with translating technical information for general audiences • Make format accessible and useful to public audiences (and other stakeholders with limited time) • Executive Summary (2 pages) as insert and stand-alone • Chapter Summary (1 page) for each section within Report (e.g., Background, Findings, Implications, Next Steps) – replace “Highlights” • Executive Summary(ies) in other languages – within report, and separately

35. Project Management and Reporting: Public Report • Include “why is FMP important for California and Californians” • Include specifics re: next steps for coming year • Include contact information for inquiries or to request more information • Include recommendations, suggestions re: what individuals can do to take action (to reduce exposure, reduce mercury, increase political attention, etc.) • Good to highlight ultimate goal – mercury reduction to alleviate need for reduced fish consumption

36. Project Management and Reporting: Technical and Peer-Reviewed Reports • Make peer-reviewed publication a priority for FMP • Reserve time and funds from project implementation to ensure goals for achieving peer-reviewed publications, proper analyses, etc. (save money now and reserve that to pay for staff time later)

37. Project Management and Reporting: Technical and Peer-Reviewed Reports • Technical reports planned – • Risk communication/SH involvement final report essential: process as well as outcomes (inform future efforts) • Final Project Report should be integrative, not just reporting pieces of project separately • Manuscripts planned – • Consider manuscript on biosentinels as indicators (rationale, approach, findings, utility)

38. Legacy of the FMP • Have achieved an adaptive program; good example for others • Address how FMP is related to other projects in region • Much has been accomplished, but CA leadership and decision makers needs to understand there is still much to be done • Review Panel may be engaged to contact CALFED and others regarding importance of future studies

39. Legacy of the FMP • Ensure monitoring efforts continue into future • Ensure managers (and other stakeholders) are able to access and use databases • Peer-reviewed publications are critical for scientific legacy • Document “science on call” process and recommendations for specific cases, as examples for future collaborations between scientists and managers