1 / 36

Status & Trends Component The Design Process

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 hydrographic region

ringo
Télécharger la présentation

Status & Trends Component The Design Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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

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

  4. Existing Segments

  5. Professional Opinions

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

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

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

  9. The New SegmentationScheme has Six Main Hydrographic Regions Rivers

  10. 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

  11. 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)

  12. Dissolved Copper WQC : saltwater = 3.1, freshwater = 9 (µg/L) Type I error rate (a) = 0.05. Dry Season: May-Oct.

  13. Sediment samples compared to the ERL guidelines. Type I error rate (a) = 0.05.

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

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

  16. Wat1 W A T E R

  17. W A T E R 5 Fixed historical stations

  18. Sed1 S E D I M E N T

  19. Sed1new S E D I M E N T 9 Fixed historical stations

  20. Sed1w/arrows S E D I M E N T

  21. S E D I M E N T 1 to 6

  22. Sed1-10

  23. S E D I M E N T 1 to 11

  24. S E D I M E N T

  25. 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

More Related