Characterization Workgroup Meeting Minutes January 30, 2008 Present: Leonard Schugam (MDE) Jamie Mitchell (HRSD) Greg Allen (US EPA) Hannah Bracken (CRC) Don Smith (VA DEQ) A.K. Leight (NO A A) Robert Hoke (Dupont) Rick Hoffman (VA DEQ) Fred Pinkney (USFWS) Action Items: ¦ Compile a list of states' wildlife protective values for contaminants in fish tissue. - Fred, Hannah, others? ¦ Obtain updated tissue data sets from MD, VA, DC. - Hannah ¦ If Triad data is ready, test a few systems, run scenarios to determine whether decision rules are appropriate and ready to be used. -Hannah, Workgroup ¦ Provide bullhead biomarker data. - Fred ¦ Edit decision rules: -Hannah, approval by Workgroup • Address circumstances where multiple sites within a segment show different results or where separate bioassays at one site have different results. For sediment toxicity, an average score can be calculated, the group might consider weighting scores if one species is more sensitive. (Amp. Abdita is noted to lack sensitivity), • Use averaging for B IBI+ scoring or consider counting degraded IBI scores without averaging. • Address weighting to account for metrics without data within a segment. ¦ Meet w/ Jackie J., Roberto L., and/or Dan D. Discuss use of Discriminate Tool - Greg/Hannah ¦ Provide biomarkers data spreadsheet - Fred ¦ Investigate ecological health reference concentrations - Fred ¦ Complete data entry into database, test run rules - Hannah ¦ Match data with CBP segments and see if it is workable, workgroup can make a decision from that point. - Hannah/workgroup ¦ Make a decision regarding inclusion of mainstem segments. - Workgroup Timeline: 1 Month: Address decision rule issues. Enter biomarkers and tissue data to database. 2 Months: Run data. Prepare file for each river/segment and mainstem and provide to workgroup for review. Apply conclusion, start work on document. Reconvene workgroup. Chesapeake Bay Program A Watershed Partnership ------- Agenda Item and Desired Outcome Notes Background The Characterization Workgroup (CWG) reconvened after a long recess during which data was submitted. To refresh continuing members and for the benefit of new members the workgroup discussed the 1999 Characterization and the purpose of the next phase. The purpose of this iteration of the Characterization is to update the 1999 map and fill in segments previously uncategorized due to lack of sufficient data. It will reflect data collected between 1997 and 2007. The workgroup's history was reviewed: Decision rules were developed by the workgroup by 2006. Data was published through 2007 that will be included in this iteration of the Characterization. Progress since last meeting: -building database to finish project and possibly apply other uses -data published and submitted for use -close to point where we can run decision rules against data Current Needs: -review decision rules and ensure they are appropriate. -decide how we will present outcomes Reconciling differences between our Decision Rules and Don Smith's Rules Characterization method used by VA DEQ: DEQ's evaluation is based on sediment quality triad. The decision matrix was inherited from Mark Richards. The Benthic IBI and associated data was the primary driver for characterization of stations. Impairment on the IBI leg of the triad holds greatest weight in making determinations. Individual stations, rather than regions, are assigned to categories. ERMq was also evaluated and considered. What Don Smith uses in VA is similar to the Characterization Workgroup's framework, but does not have additional metrics such as water column or biomarkers. Beginning in 2005, DEQ Benthic IBI results were submitted to Dan Dauer to apply the discriminate tool. The workgroup discussed the differences and similarity. The methods were determined to be similar. Greg posed the question, is there a reason to rewrite our rules so they more closely match DEQ's? Workgroup decision - No reason to limit this Characterization exclusively to triad results. Reviewing Decision Rules Decision Rules developed by workgroup through 2006 were reviewed. Consideration of human health impacts within decision rules was discussed. The decision is human health concerns will not be addressed through the Characterization, unless the workgroup decides there is a need to revisit purpose of Characterization. Fred: The Reference Concentrations identified for ecological receptors may not be appropriate. States' wildlife criteria may be a better potential source for RC's. The workgroup discussed whether enough data would be available to maintain all categories. Data is limited for biomarkers/delts category to a small number of rivers for bullheads. It may be possible use mummichog data in Elizabeth River but different reference points will be needed. ------- Decision rules can incorporate a normalizing factor to keep scores comparable where data for one or more categories is and is not available for a particular segment. The Discriminate Tool will only be usable for CBP generated B IBI data or others that collected all necessary parameters. The confidence interval for the tool can be adjusted as the workgroup sees fit (uses 50% confidence interval generally, Don Smith used 90%) CWG discussed why metals measurements are not averaged in the same way we will average other scores. Doing so might dilute hot spot signals. Database discussion CWG discussed the Toxics Database populated primarily with data from the previous characterization effort. This database is still provided on the current CBP website. There was concern regarding what will happen with this database, it was a big effort and can provide insight to temporal trends. The Characterization will utilize data beginning in 1997 including that available from the toxics database. The new database being developed to store data for this characterization and apply decision rules to can be incorporated into, or incorporate the toxics database if that is necessary/desired. The purpose of the new database is to simplify the characterization effort, not to replace the entire toxics database. Segmentation Question for CWG: Should segmentation follow previous characterization scheme or CBP standard segmentation? Decision: Apply rules to data first to see what is feasible, some smaller segments may not have enough data under CBP segmentation. Timeline 1 Month: Address decision rule issues. Enter biomarkers and tissue data to database. 2 Months: Run data. Prepare file for each river/segment and mainstem and provide to workgroup for review. Apply conclusion, start work on document. Reconvene workgroup. ------- |