INCORPORATING MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE INTO SEDIMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES

1. INCORPORATING MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE INTO SEDIMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES Scientific Steering Committee Meeting July 26, 2005

2. TOPICS FOR TODAY • Issues raised at last SSC meeting • Approach to validating the MLOE framework • A new issue associated with missing data • Expansion of the MLOE framework to indirect effects

3. BASICS OF THE MLOE FRAMEWORK • Three lines of evidence • Represent a continuum from exposure to effect • Four categories for each LOE • MLOE merged into a station assessment • Integration accomplished through classifying all possible combinations • 4x4x4 tables • Reference • Marginal deviation from reference • Moderate effect • Severe effect • Unimpacted • Likely unimpacted • Inconclusive • Possibly impacted • Likely impacted • Clearly impacted

4. CHEMISTRY: Moderate Effect Toxicity Benthos

5. ISSUES RAISED AT LAST SSC MEETING • Should LOE be weighted equally? • Chemistry is the stressor being regulated • Benthos are the endpoint of interest • Toxicity tests are the easiest to interpret • Ensure that there is a place for ancillary data in the assessment framework • Can you separate classification and uncertainty?

6. STATION ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES • Unimpacted • Likely unimpacted • Inconclusive • Possibly impacted • Likely impacted • Clearly impacted

7. SEPARATING CLASSIFICATIONAND UNCERTAINTY • Three types of uncertainty • Data quality for a particular data set • Confidence in particular indicators / thresholds • Level of agreement among individual LOE • Our feeling: Best dealt with as a narrative aspect of the implementation guidance

8. CHEMISTRY: Minor Deviation Toxicity Benthos

9. SEPARATING CLASSIFICATIONAND UNCERTAINTY • Three types of uncertainty • Data quality for a particular data set • Confidence in particular indicators / thresholds • Level of agreement among individual LOE • Our feeling: Best dealt with as a narrative aspect of the implementation guidance

10. TOPICS FOR TODAY • Issues raised at last SSC meeting • Approach to validating the MLOE framework • A new issue associated with missing data • Expansion of the MLOE framework to indirect effects

11. VALIDATION • Repeatability • Are replicate samples at a site classified the same? • Consistency in distribution among individual LOE • SQO application in water bodies of “known” condition

12. KNOWN CONDITION • Use Bay Protection and Cleanup Program assessment to identify compromised water bodies • That program had targeted data collection to identify hot spots • Use chemistry and toxicity to identify cleanest waterbodies • Use data from sites where only part of the triad is available • Screen these waterbodies further based on land use • Confirm the list using Stakeholder Advisory Committee feedback

13. TOPICS FOR TODAY • Issues raised at last SSC meeting • Approach to validating the MLOE framework • A new issue associated with missing data • Expansion of the MLOE framework to indirect effects

14. NEW ISSUE • How should the MLOE framework be applied in habitats where we have not yet developed interpretational tools? • Differs from situation where data were not previously collected, but could be collected • When tools are available for two LOE, apply the modified assessment framework that was developed for the unavailable data situation • When tools are for only available for one LOE, use that LOE in a screening mode • Apply BPJ to other LOE when screening indicates the necessity • BPJ may require additional data collection to establish site-specific reference condition

15. TOPICS FOR TODAY • Issues raised at last SSC meeting • Approach to validating the MLOE framework • A new issue associated with missing data • Expansion of the MLOE framework to indirect effects