Status Trends Component The Design Process Sarah Lowe

  • Slides: 36
Download presentation
Status & Trends Component The Design Process Sarah Lowe, Bruce Thompson, Rainer Hoenicke, Jon

Status & Trends Component The Design Process Sarah Lowe, Bruce Thompson, Rainer Hoenicke, Jon Leatherbarrow, Robert Smith, Don Stevens, Cristina Grosso, and the DIWG

Design Process Review and evaluate the hydrographic regions Determine the number of samples per

Design Process Review and evaluate the hydrographic regions Determine the number of samples per hydrographic region Develop an optimum sampling design to address the new RMP objectives Select the sampling locations

Review and Evaluate the Hydrographic Regions Evaluating the existing segmentation scheme Soliciting the professional

Review and Evaluate the Hydrographic Regions Evaluating the existing segmentation scheme Soliciting the professional opinions Performing our own analyses

Existing Segments

Existing Segments

Professional Opinions

Professional Opinions

Cluster Analysis Results Temperature salinity DO DOC TSS p. H Graphical Analysis Results Temperature

Cluster Analysis Results Temperature salinity DO DOC TSS p. H Graphical Analysis Results Temperature salinity Water Quality data source: RMP and BPTCP (1989 -1998)

Cluster Analysis Results % Fine sediment TOC Graphical Analysis Results % Fine sediment TOC

Cluster Analysis Results % Fine sediment TOC Graphical Analysis Results % Fine sediment TOC Sediment Quality data source: RMP, BPTCP & DWR (1991 -1998)

Expert Opinion Water Cluster 5 Water Graphical 1 1 Sediment Graphical 0

Expert Opinion Water Cluster 5 Water Graphical 1 1 Sediment Graphical 0

The New Segmentati on Scheme has Six Main Hydrograp hic Regions Rivers

The New Segmentati on Scheme has Six Main Hydrograp hic Regions Rivers

We determined the final number of samples per region based on: Statistical power analyses

We determined the final number of samples per region based on: Statistical power analyses for key contaminants when compared to specific guidelines Regional Board priorities Funding

Key contaminants were compared to specific guidelines Water: compared dissolved copper to the CA

Key contaminants were compared to specific guidelines Water: compared dissolved copper to the CA Toxics Rule – WQC Sediment: compared copper, mercury and total PAHs to the Effects Range Low guidelines - ERL (Long et al. 1995)

Dissolved Copper WQC : saltwater = 3. 1, freshwater = 9 (µg/L) Type I

Dissolved Copper WQC : saltwater = 3. 1, freshwater = 9 (µg/L) Type I error rate (a) = 0. 05. Dry Season: May-Oct.

Sediment samples compared to the ERL guidelines. Type I error rate (a) = 0.

Sediment samples compared to the ERL guidelines. Type I error rate (a) = 0. 05.

Numb er of S A M P L E S Suisun San Pablo Bay

Numb er of S A M P L E S Suisun San Pablo Bay W=4 S=8 l l l W=4 S=8 l Central Bay Rivers ll ll Water: 33 total Sediment: 49 total South W=10 Bay S=8 l W=6 S=8 Lower South l Bay ll ll

Sampling Plan Annual sampling (during the dry season) Measure priority pollutants & ancillary measures

Sampling Plan Annual sampling (during the dry season) Measure priority pollutants & ancillary measures effects (toxicity) bivalve bioaccumulation

W A T E R Wat 1

W A T E R Wat 1

W A T E R 5 Fixed historical stations

W A T E R 5 Fixed historical stations

S E D I M E N T Sed 1

S E D I M E N T Sed 1

S E D I M E N T 9 Fixed historical stations Sed 1

S E D I M E N T 9 Fixed historical stations Sed 1 new

S E D I M E N T Sed 1 w/arrows

S E D I M E N T Sed 1 w/arrows

S E D I M E N T 1 to 6

S E D I M E N T 1 to 6

Sed 1 -10

Sed 1 -10

S E D I M E N T 1 to 11

S E D I M E N T 1 to 11

S E D I M E N T

S E D I M E N T

• Defined the major hydrographic regions using a weight-of-evidence approach • Used statistical

• Defined the major hydrographic regions using a weight-of-evidence approach • Used statistical analyses and management needs to determine best sample size per region • Developed a random sampling design with good spatial coverage