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 Committee Meeting 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 Tools Workplan 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 Tools Discussion 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. Score Chemistry (ERM-Q) Toxicity (% survival in amphipod test) Benthos (IBI) 3>1.0<20%0 20.4 – 1.020 – 70%1 – 2 10.05 – 0.470 – 90%2 – 3 0<0.05>90%>3 Weight of Evidence Example Response Scales

12. Weight of Evidence Example Applications ChemToxBenthos Sum of Scores Conclusion 1001Not Impaired 0224Uncertain confirm results 3227Impairment 2-- 2Need other LOE

13. 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 Weight of Evidence Discussion

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

15. Chemistry Indicators Discussion 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 Studies Workplan Task 1: Evaluate empirical models with statewide CA data Task 2: Conduct site-specific case studies of mechanistic models

17. Bioaccumulation Studies Discussion 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