Program leads at Granite Canyon and UC Davis presented a proposed sampling and budget plan for SPOT and took SRC input on priorities and trade‑offs.

The plan and costs: Khan described a table used for planning that lists analytes, per‑sample prices and proposed sampling frequencies. Key numbers presented during the meeting include a 90‑site network (40 tier‑2 urban sites), a plan to sample 65 sites for Hyalella toxicity in the coming year (40 core tier‑2 plus rotated sites), and an intended reduction of some suites to longer cycles (PCBs and organochlorines on a 5‑ to 10‑year cycle focusing on hotspots). The team quoted a new metals suite price (five metals) of about $700 per sample (previously shown in program materials as about $306), and an NTA per‑sample price of roughly $3,530 (pilot price cited as $3,000). Khan noted some targeted costs are rising and recommended focusing on tier‑2 hot spots for expensive suites.

Pyrethroids and fipronil: The team recommended continuing pyrethroid monitoring at 40 tier‑2 urban sites in 2025 and debating the temporal scale thereafter. SRC members urged considering DPR priorities and TMDL areas when selecting the 40 sites. On fipronil, committee members noted possible wastewater and recreational sources (pet treatments, dog swimming, sewage treatment plant inputs) and asked staff to explore whether wastewater contributions explain some detections.

Metals and the brake‑pad rule: Participants discussed copper and zinc monitoring in the context of California’s vehicle brake‑pad regulations and potential tire‑derived zinc sources. Several SRC members urged continuing relatively frequent copper monitoring to detect the management response to the copper brake‑pad law and suggested focusing additional sampling in watersheds and locations most relevant to sensitive fish populations.

Budget tradeoffs and deliverables: Panelists said they will continue to produce academic manuscripts but are seeking resources for more accessible products (GIS visualizations, fact sheets, a possible dashboard or fact‑sheet template), and recommended partnering with regional boards and other state programs (CEC, DWQ, DTSC) to leverage funding for extra samples or NTA runs. Several SRC members proposed a centralized, annually updated dashboard or links between SPOT deliverables and the State Water Board/SWAMP webpages so regional managers can access interpreted results.

Ending: The committee generally supported the proposed 65‑site toxicity frame and a tier‑2 focus for targeted chemistry while urging that QA/QC documents (for both targeted and NTA methods) be finalized and shared before program data are used for regulatory comparisons or trend assertions.