Review Panel Comments June 2006

1. Review Panel CommentsJune 2006 • 2005 Accomplishments and 2006 Plans • Overall progress • Response to 2005 Review Panel recommendations • Sport fish sampling and advisory development • Biosentinel sampling and mercury in the food web • Risk communication/education and SH involvement • Project management • Investigators’ questions • Overall recommendations

2. 2005-2006 Progress • Considered and acted on recommendations from 2005 Review Panel meeting. • High level of positive energy among researchers, steering committee, stakeholders. • “+++” on project implementation for first year.

3. 2005-2006 Progress • Excellent reliability of analytical data: strong internal QA program increases value of data, particularly for historical/comparative purposes; inter-lab comparisons are strong. • Strong focus incorporated throughout on environmental justice concerns and community outreach. • Excellent coordination (e.g., DHS & OEHHA; OEHAA & DFG).

4. 2005-2006 Progress • Positive and active interaction with stakeholders; project activities have been modified to address SH concerns and needs. • High quality reports, summaries, presentations of data.

5. Response to Prior Panel Recommendations • Explored existing data sets and implications for current study (e.g., sampling). • Sample site selection informed with data about where people fish, data needs for advisory development (v. good coordination), etc. (impressive Matrix). • Examined relationship of mercury mining to contaminant locations (clarify source concerns, e.g., mining vs. atmospheric).

6. Response to Prior Panel Recommendations • Power of statistical tests addressed well for biosentinels. • Thoughtful approach to individuals vs. composites for biosentinels. • Developed Matrix for sport fish site-selection purposes. • Evaluate whether criteria should be further refined for accepting some sites and rejecting others (e.g. further refine quality of “fishing pressure” data; how other criteria are scaled).

7. Response to Prior Panel Recommendations • Train-the-trainer appears to be good approach. • Strong engagement of CBO’s; mini-grant program very good; for future, develop other funding sources?

8. Response to Prior Panel Recommendations • Good efforts re: regional perspective on data for advisories. • Continue considering whether Safe Eating Guidelines can be simplified further based on trends found.

9. Response to Prior Panel Recommendations • Clarified focus on methylmercury, yet pursuing other organics funding. • Using adaptive approach (e.g., white catfish, Greenville Rancheria, non-traditional species such as Asiatic clams; biosentinel site selection vis-à-vis R&R) --but need to document better. • Safe Eating Guidelines include health benefits, commercial fish, avoid larger fish.

10. Response to Prior Panel Recommendations • Effort made to relate biosentinel site selection to sites from other studies focusing on fish-eating birds, other avian species, to better understand forage and trophic level processes – could be demonstrated/documented better in written report.

11. Response to Prior Panel Recommendations • Analyzing samples in timely manner to inform future decisions. • Communication between FMP and other regional projects good; look for ways for further improvement esp. in linking study results. • Progress made on identifying end users and their information needs, and decisions to be made based on these data -- but could be improved and made more explicit.

12. Response to Prior Panel Recommendations • Continue to articulate who “audiences” and “decision makers” are to whom information should go, and what they will do with it. (Revisit re: what decisions will be made based on project data.) • Continue to consider what will be reported and on what schedule, particularly related to project goals.

13. Sport Fish Sampling and Advisory Development • Emphasis on health and consumption advisory aspects of sport fish data is appropriate given goals of project. • Consider sampling and analysis to include size ranges to develop advisories based on size. • For advisory development, length vs. concentration is important for some species but not others (e.g., not for white catfish). • Aging of fish (at same size, age may differ, may relate to environmental variables).

14. Sport Fish Sampling and Advisory Development • Need to summarize and present/use organics data that are already available. • What is the connection between OEHHA/DHS matrix vs. SFEI historical data base? Were the SFEI fish contaminant data used by OEHHA? (clarify data sources and uses in written report)

15. Sport Fish Sampling and Advisory Development • Examine data that are not corrected for differences in length-weight relationships; examine fish concentrations standardized by linear regressions and confidence intervals based on regressions. Compare with Tremblay analysis. • In Tremblay analysis, evaluate robustness of technique given sample size, differences in length-weight relationships, and other assumptions. (Concern with Type I error.) • Data tables should show sample size (n) – e.g., Figure 12 in Year 1 Annual Report Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis.

16. Sport Fish Sampling and Advisory Development • When explaining Tremblay ANCOVA data to other SH’s – will be difficult. • Endorse removing white catfish from ANCOVA analysis. • Consider predictive abilities for hypothesis-generation and future sampling decisions • Reservoir management/operation • Thermal stratification, anoxia • Use reservoir data to guide selections for future sampling

17. Sport Fish Sampling and Advisory Development • Articulate explicitly what criteria were used to select the reservoirs for sampling; clarify if selection was based solely on Matrix elements; in future, consider using predictive capability especially from regional data (e.g., SWAMP data). • Striped bass sampling: likelihood low for meaningful results from sex analysis for mercury – also for organics if composites are used. Other factors may be important (age, amount of time in Delta vs. ocean, trophic position, etc.); consider them in final design.

18. Sport Fish Sampling and Advisory Development • Develop hypotheses: e.g. potential biogeochemical mechanisms re: Central Delta observations; photodemethylation; microbial demethylation; biodilution in high-productivity waters, etc. to help interpret results, and pose possibilities for future studies. • Consider other hypotheses – ecosystem processes (e.g. tidal flooding, biogeochemistry) related to mercury changes?

19. Sport Fish Sampling and Advisory Development • Articulate clearly to stakeholders and funding agencies what would be needed to observe real trends in sport fish mercury concentrations. • Include sites that address possible behavior changes for anglers (e.g., if reservoirs have high concentrations, what are alternative locations above and below reservoir?).

20. Education and SH Involvement • Consider ways to gather more information on indicators of potential for human exposure, e.g., through creel surveys or other surveys (e.g. BRFSS) to add in pertinent questions (fish consumption: who is eating, how much, what species, etc.). • This would help risk communicators understand scope of exposure issue as well.

21. Education and SH Involvement • Post sampling maps on web site – color and black/white versions. • Continue plans for multiple focus groups within cultural groups. • Continue train-the-trainer approach, and building capacity within CBOs and communities. Explore methods to make this self-sustaining over time. • Good consideration of politics (e.g., 1 site per county) for buy-in.

22. Education and SH Involvement • Document approaches used for community engagement – what has worked and why, what has not worked; to help inform future efforts in FMP and other projects.

23. Education and SH Involvement • Include formative evaluation (during development of materials and distribution methods) as well as summative evaluation (outcomes and impacts of risk communication on awareness, attitudes, and behaviors). • Qualitative data are better than no data, and can be cost-effective in terms of evaluation.

24. Mercury in the Food Web (Biosentinels) • Keep ecosystem-level framework in mind re: mercury behavior within system • Strive to identify and understand factors controlling contamination of food webs and edible fishes; concentrate on ecosystem restoration criteria as principle emphasis. • Articulate how the work of FMP has contributed to understanding of the system, e.g.: • San Joaquin being different from the Central Delta region? • How has FMP contributed to interpretation of historical data? • How can FMP contribute more? (include a category in report: What have we learned? What else should be addressed that is not yet being addressed? Suggest future hypotheses.)

25. Mercury in the Food Web • Keep major FMP goals & mission in mind when making adaptive biosentinel sampling decisions/changes: - place primary emphasis on evaluating effects of ecosystem restoration on MeHg contamination of aquatic food webs. - assessing potential trophic transfer of MeHg to wildlife.

26. Mercury in the Food Web • Consider dropping redundant and monotonous sites to add those of more interest for scientific (or management) questions. • Clear use of hypotheses and research questions to guide work to date; use this same approach in making adaptive decisions re: changing protocol, sites.

27. Mercury in the Food Web • Outliers: demonstrate consequences of decision to exclude from calculation of means; attempt to explain why they exist, and patterns in occurrence. • Consider examining diet differences in silverside early cohort vs. late cohort to help explain differences.

28. Mercury in the Food Web • Body burden -- Biosentinel data are now presented as whole-body concentrations of total mercury. Consider also reporting biosentinel data as burden of mercury, a direct estimate of the mass of methylmercury accumulated during the life of the biosentinel organism. These data could provide insight into seasonal patterns of mercury uptake and contamination of young fish. • Consider following same silversides cohort through over time re: seasonal analyses?

29. Mercury in the Food Web • Suggest background levels of mercury based on available data; relate to issue of atmospheric deposition vs. mining issues, and what future conditions are realistically achievable.

30. Mercury in the Food Web • Stations have been selected to show regional differences, but consider similarities in systems and use these system-level characteristics to develop hypotheses and evaluate ability to classify these systems (e.g., seasonal and tidal flooding; salinity levels, etc.). • SFEI modeling should be driven by these (and other) hypotheses.

31. Mercury in the Food Web • Consider ecotoxicologial relevance: • biologically-significant shifts in concentrations? • spatial influence of a restoration project (localized effects vs. system effects)? • implications for reproductive effects on fish?

32. Mercury in the Food Web • Continue, and increase as appropriate, efforts to work with ecosystem restoration groups (restoration program agencies), for adaptive management purposes…not just adaptive research, adaptive management and on-the-ground restoration activities; Document efforts. • Good application of weight-of-evidence approach (e.g., multiple species comparisons). Include comparisons with data from other projects (e.g, aqueous MeHg concentrations).

33. Mercury in the Food Web • Keeping focus on ecosystem-oriented linkages will be important: • biogeochemistry; • coordination with other groups especially other CAL-FED projects; • developing hypotheses; • using data to make predictions.

34. Project Management • Need for additional funding (risk communication, EJ efforts, organics, to explore future hypotheses). Good efforts thus far. • Make suggestions re: standardized data reporting for all projects into future (e.g., merging fishing activity with other data sets; consistent labeling of study sites on maps, lists; etc.).

35. Project Management • FMP has diverse array of products (e.g., education materials, databases, etc.). Develop means for these to remain accessible after project ends. • Maintain and update database throughout project. Will assist inter-investigator communications.

36. Investigators’ Questions • How to best demonstrate addressing short-term goal of reducing human exposure? • Identify indicators of potential reduction in human exposure (e.g., awareness of contaminant situation; awareness of Safe Eating Guidelines; behavioral intentions; behavior change – fish consumption, fishing locations). Tie in to other survey efforts. • Evaluate effectiveness of specific communication materials/efforts. • Next step: biomonitoring of human exposure -- is human exposure declining?

37. Investigators’ Questions • Striped bass sampling? (answered earlier) • New approaches to advisory development and content? • Consider size relationships: use of regressions to developed size-based advice vs. means analysis when no size relationship. • Consider increasing regional approaches. • Attempt to move away from segmented (site-by-site) release of Safe Eating Guidelines to more coordinate statewide release of information.

38. Investigators’ Questions • Suggested goals for bioaccumulation modeling & factors to consider? • Should be hypothesis-driven as discussed earlier. • Primary use of model should be to address hypotheses and do sensitivity analyses.

39. Investigators’ Questions • Big picture for sport fish sampling plan? (?) balancing rivers vs. reservoirs – don’t emphasize run-of-river reservoirs (low retention time); select reservoirs with longer residence time, higher productivity, that stratify to anoxic conditions. (?) sampling criteria (how best to make decisions between water bodies) – see earlier comments re: refining Matrix criteria.

40. Investigators’ Questions • Recommended approaches for outreach efforts? • Explore additional funding for EJ groups. • Explore additional tribal needs/concerns. • Continue to engage CBOs. • Recommended approaches for evaluation efforts? • Evaluate and document effectiveness of specific materials and elements of outreach program, by community/audience. • See earlier comments on formative, summative evaluation.

41. Investigators’ Questions • Has Review Panel been given appropriate amount and content of materials to review progress and plans? • Provide additional time for review (1 week). • Provide presentation (Power Point) files in addition to written reports – both in advance. • High quality of presentations and reports. • Helpful for Review Panel to observe interaction with Steering Committee and stakeholders. • Consider adding summary presentations from other projects related to FMP, to illustrate linkages. • Review Panel contributions will only be proportional to the information we have in advance – including documentation of decision. • In next report, include specific section on how Review Panel comments have been considered.

42. Investigators’ Questions • Revise technical reports now vs. include in next year’s report? • Important to synthesize project data as soon as feasible. • Important to revise sampling plan as soon as possible and implement field season. • Set realistic deadline to complete synthesis report of all 2005 data; communicate target date and “final” 2005 report with Review Panel.

43. Overall Recommendations • Record explicitly how adaptive approach is being used within FMP – how 2005 data influence 2006 decisions, rationale, etc. • Maintain ecosystem perspective by considering other data being gathered (e.g., water, biogeochemistry); look for opportunities for cross-fertilization. • Develop hypotheses for future studies, and on relationships between elements of this project. • Consider including summary presentations from other, related projects at FMP annual meeting, to enhance integration of findings at ecosystem scale.

44. Overall Recommendations: Data Communication • Public consumption of information important – e.g., keep effort going on “lay” annual report. • Explore needs for available/accessible database, in addition to web-based listing at project end (especially within FMP and SH groups as project continues). • Data should be published in refereed journals – sport fish data, biosentinel data, processes of risk communication/public outreach; these are ground-breaking data and need to be in public scientific domain. • Documenting adaptive decisions and reasons for decisions will be important for both of these purposes, and for future researchers.

45. Overall Recommendations: Data Communication • Continue productive efforts with stakeholders and CBOs. • Develop holistic sense of remediation and restoration projects and relation to FMP; intensity communication efforts with groups involved with ecosystem restoration to develop a better understanding of possible ecosystem processes.

46. Overall Ratings • See other file.