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 CBOs 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 RR) --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
  SHs 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 purposesnot 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 dont
  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
  years 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.