Development of Sediment Quality Objectives for California Bays and Estuaries

1. Development of Sediment Quality Objectives for California Bays and Estuaries Scientific Steering Committee Meeting Summary August 3-4, 2004

2. Meeting Objectives • Describe program design and key work elements • Are the necessary elements included? • Are the workplans appropriate? • Develop process for SSC interaction with project team • Plan future meetings and review activities

3. Scientific Steering CommitteeMeeting Participation • Dr. Todd Bridges, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC • Dr. Robert Van Dolah, So. Carolina Inst. Mar. Resources Res. • Dr. Robert Burgess, U.S. EPA, Narragansett • Dr. Peter Landrum, NOAA, Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab • Tom Gries, Washington Dept. of Ecology • Edward Long, ERL Environmental • Chris Ingersoll, U.S. Geological Survey • Donald D. MacDonald, MacDonald Environmental Services • Gail Sloane, Florida Department of Environmental Protection • Dr. Dominic DiToro, Hydroqual Inc. • In person • By phone • Absent (Schedule conflicts)

4. Agenda Tuesday, August 3: • Overview of program objectives and issues • SWRCB: C. Beegan • SCCWRP: S. Bay • Advisory Committee: B. Bernstein • Benthic community tool development • Presentation of workplan: (A. Ranasinghe) • Discussion with SSC • Weight of Evidence Conceptual Approach: S. Weisberg

5. Agenda Wednesday August 4: • Closed session • SSC structure and process • Chemistry indicators development • Presentation of workplan: S. Bay • Discussion with SSC • Bioaccumulation studies • Presentation of workplan: B. Greenfield • Discussion with SSC • Closed session • SSC consensus comments

6. SSC Structure and Process • SSC membership fixed at current composition • Continuity of participation essential • Technical Chair: Peter Landrum • Administrative Co-Chair: ? • Meetings and feedback • 2 physical meetings/year • Presentations and develop consensus items • Independent reviews and conference calls • SSC record includes minutes, consensus points, individual comments • Coordination with other committees • Advisory Committee • Science Team

7. Program Objectives and Issues • SSC raised many of same issues identified by Advisory Committee • Applications of SQOs • Use in NPDES permits • Weight of evidence framework • Indirect effects on fish • Conflicts with existing programs/methods • SQO review/revision process • Geographic boundaries

8. Benthic Community ToolsWorkplan • Task 1: Refine existing benthic indices • Task 2: Compare and evaluate benthic tools • Task 3: Identify natural assemblages and the habitat factors that structure them • Task 4: Evaluate field sampling methods • Task 5: Develop sample processing QA procedures

9. Benthic Community ToolsDiscussion • Methods to compare/evaluate the three tools • Ability to distinguish among contamination, habitat, and seasonal factors • Influence of gear differences among regions • Coordination of index development and gear evaluation studies • Validation process and use of SQG values in tool development/validation • Procedures to evaluate/document uncertainty in assessment

10. Weight of Evidence Conceptual Approach • Multiple lines of evidence for direct effects • Chemistry • Toxicity • Benthos • Numeric response scale for each indicator (0-3) • 0 = Below level of concern • 1-2 = Intermediate response, uncertainty in significance • 3 = Strong response, high confidence in significance • Combined score indicates degree of beneficial use protection or impairment

11. Weight of Evidence Example Response Scales

12. Weight of Evidence Example Applications

13. Weight of Evidence Discussion • Use of single LOE for making decisions • Comparability of scales among indicators • Inclusion of additional indicators • Chemical exposure (e.g., body burden) • Use and weighting of multiple measures within a LOE • Phased approach options • Use with data from single vs. multiple samples • Consideration of data quality and uncertainty • Inclusion of indirect effects information and use of risk assessment format

14. Chemistry IndicatorsWorkplan • Task 1: Prepare development and validation datasets • Task 2: Develop and refine SQGs • Task 3: Evaluate SQGs • Task 4: Describe response levels

15. Chemistry IndicatorsDiscussion • Ability of equilibrium partitioning approach to protect against chronic/sublethal effects • Compensation for elevated background levels and animal adaptation • Need for rigorous data screening and validation • Impact of outliers and unusual matrix effects • Effectiveness of data normalization • Incorporation of toxicity and benthos data • Need to prioritize SQG refinement and development activities • New methods to measure chemical exposure needed

16. Bioaccumulation StudiesWorkplan • Task 1: Evaluate empirical models with statewide CA data • Task 2: Conduct site-specific case studies of mechanistic models

17. Bioaccumulation StudiesDiscussion • Appropriateness of empirical models for SQO development • Feasibility of developing a general model approach for statewide use • Insufficient time for SQO development • Tool development and case studies needed first • Inclusion of fish as targets • Need to integrate empirical and mechanistic models • Completion of 2 case studies may not be feasible

18. SSC Comments • Overall project design good • More info needed on objectives and applications • Priorities for chemicals and activities • Data QA a high priority • Address uncertainty and validation issues • Individual workplan revisions needed • Additional workplans needed • Weight of evidence approach • Toxicity indicators • Future meeting dates not determined