scientific steering committee 26 th july 2005
DESCRIPTION
Sediment Quality Objectives for California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Benthic Indicator Development. Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005. Overview . Why Benthos and Benthic Indices? The Index Development Process Define Habitat Strata Calibrate Candidate Benthic Indices - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Sediment Quality Objectivesfor California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries
Benthic Indicator Development
Scientific Steering Committee26th July 2005
![Page 2: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Overview
• Why Benthos and Benthic Indices?• The Index Development Process
– Define Habitat Strata– Calibrate Candidate Benthic Indices– Validate and Evaluate Candidate Indices
• Proposed Next Steps
![Page 3: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Why Benthos?• Benthic organisms are living resources
– Direct measure of what legislation intends to protect
• They are good indicators– Sensitive, limited mobility, high exposure, integrate impacts, integrate
over time
• Already being used to make regulatory and sediment management decisions– Santa Monica Bay removed from 303(d) list
• Listed for metals in the early 1990’s– 301(h) waivers granted to dischargers– Toxic hotspot designations for the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup
Program
![Page 4: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Benthic Assessments Pose Several Challenges
• Interpreting species abundances is difficult– Samples may have tens of species and hundreds of organisms
• Benthic species and abundances vary naturally with habitat– Different assemblages occur in different habitats– Comparisons to determine altered states should vary accordingly
• Sampling methods vary– Gear, sampling area and sieve size affect species and individuals
captured
![Page 5: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Benthic Indices Meet These Challenges
• Benthic Indices– Remove much of the subjectivity associated with data
interpretation– Account for habitat differences– Are single values – Provide simple means of
• Communicating complex information to managers• Tracking trends over time• Correlating benthic responses with stressor data
– Are included in the U.S. EPA’s guidance for biocriteria development
![Page 6: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Overview
• Why Benthos and Benthic Indices?• The Index Development Process
– Define Habitat Strata– Calibrate Candidate Benthic Indices– Validate and Evaluate Candidate Indices
• Proposed Next Steps
![Page 7: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Define Habitat Strata
• Rationale– Species and abundances vary naturally from
habitat to habitat• Benthic indicators and definitions of reference
condition should vary accordingly
• Objectives– Identify naturally occurring benthic
assemblages, and– The habitat factors that structure them
![Page 8: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Approach
• Identify assemblages by cluster analysis– Standard choices
• Species in ≥ 2 samples• ³√ transform, species mean standardization• Bray Curtis dissimilarity with step-across adjustment• Flexible sorting ß=-0.25
• Evaluate habitat differences between assemblages– Salinity, % fines, depth, latitude, longitude, TOC– Using Mann-Whitney tests
![Page 9: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Data• EMAP data enhanced by regional data sets
– Comparable methods• Sampling, measurements, taxonomy
– OR and WA data included• Potential to increase amount of data for index development
– 1164 samples in database• Eliminated potentially contaminated sites
– ≥ 1 chemical > ERM or ≥ 4 chemicals > ERL– Toxic to amphipods– Located close to point sources– DO < 2 ppm
• 714 samples analyzed
![Page 10: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Identified Eight Assemblages
A Puget Sound Fine SedimentsB Puget Sound Coarse SedimentsC Southern California Euhaline BaysD Polyhaline San Francisco BayE Estuaries and WetlandsF Very Coarse SedimentsG Mesohaline San Francisco BayH Limnetic or Freshwater
![Page 11: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
SalinityS
alin
ity (p
su)
0
10
20
30
40
AssemblageA B C D E F G H
% Fine Sediments
Fine
sed
imen
ts (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
AssemblageA B C D E F G H
Depth
Bot
tom
dep
th (m
)
0
50
100
150
200
AssemblageA B C D E F G H
Latitude
Latit
ude
(dec
imal
deg
rees
)
30
35
40
45
50
AssemblageA B C D E F G H
![Page 12: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
![Page 13: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Overview
• Why Benthos and Benthic Indices?• The Index Development Process
– Define Habitat Strata– Calibrate Candidate Benthic Indices– Validate and Evaluate Candidate Indices
• Proposed Next Steps
![Page 14: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Six Candidate Indices
Acronym Name
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
RBI Relative Benthic Index
BRI* Benthic Response Index
RIVPACS River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System
BQI Benthic Quality Index*: Two variations
![Page 15: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Candidate IndicesComponents
Candidate Index Data
IBI Community measures
RBI Community measures
BRI-TC Species abundances
BRI-MNDF Species abundances
RIVPACS Presence/absence of multiple species
BQI Species abundances & community measures
![Page 16: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Index Development Teams
Candidate Index Index Leader Reference
IBI Bruce Thompson Thompson and Lowe (2004)
RBI Jim Oakden Hunt et al. (2001)
BRI* Bob Smith Smith et al. (2001, 2003)
RIVPACS David Huff Wright et al. 1993
BQI Bob Smith Rosenberg et al. (2004)
*: Two variations
![Page 17: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Common Definitions
• A common set of definitions were established– For “Good” and “Bad” sites
• Used in two ways– Identify data to be withheld from index development
• Subsequently used to validate index• Goal: A set of clearly affected or reference sites to evaluate
index performance– “A Gold Standard”
– Identify reference and degraded condition for index calibration
![Page 18: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Common Criteria
“Good” (Reference) Sites• Meet all the following criteria:
– Far from known point sources– Data available for sediment chemistry and at least one
amphipod toxicity test– No ERM* exceedences– No more than 3 ERL* exceedences– No toxicity
• Amphipod survival > 83%– Species abundance list does not indicate bad biology (In
progress)
*: As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ag, Zn, Hmw(8) & Lmw(11) PAH, Total PCB
![Page 19: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Common Criteria
“Bad” (Degraded) Sites• Meet both of the following criteria
– 1 or more ERM exceedences, or3 or more ERL exceedences, and
– >50% mortality in an acute amphipod test
![Page 20: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
National vs. CA dataSouthNorth
![Page 21: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Data For Benthic Index Development
Habitat# Samples
Good BadC Euhaline California Bays 85 17
D Polyhaline San Francisco Bay 18 12
E Estuaries and Wetlands 102 3
F Very Coarse Sediments 56 0
G Mesohaline San Francisco Bay 20 4
H Tidal Freshwater 65 0
![Page 22: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Data For Benthic Index DevelopmentNumbers of samples
HabitatCalibration Validation
G B G BC Euhaline California Bays 75 9 10 8
D Polyhaline San Francisco Bay 9 6 11 6
![Page 23: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
The Calibration Process
• Identify habitats with sufficient data– “Good” and “Bad” sites– For index calibration and validation
• Distribute calibration data– Teams calibrate candidate indices
• Distribute independent data for validation– Teams apply candidates to data
• Results compiled for evaluation
![Page 24: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Overview
• Why Benthos and Benthic Indices?• The Index Development Process
– Define Habitat Strata– Calibrate Candidate Benthic Indices– Validate and Evaluate Candidate Indices
• Proposed Next Steps
![Page 25: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Index Validation Approaches• Classification accuracy
– Chemistry and toxicity– Biologist best professional judgment
• Repeatability– Same day– Same site on different days
• Independence from natural gradients• Correlations with other information
– Species richness– Other indices
![Page 26: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Overall Classification AccuracyValidation Data (%)
Index Overall(n=35)
RIVPACS 83BRI-TC 77IBI 70BRI-MNDF 63BQI 63RBI 51
![Page 27: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Habitat Classification Accuracy Validation Data (%)
IndexSouthern California
(n=18)
San Francisco Bay(n=17)
RIVPACS 72 94BRI-TC 72 82IBI 67 73BRI-MNDF 56 71BQI 50 76RBI 22 82
![Page 28: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Status Classification Accuracy Validation Data (%)
Index“Good”
Sites(n=21)
“Bad”Sites(n=14)
RIVPACS 86 79BRI-TC 81 71IBI 100 29BRI-MNDF 67 57BQI 81 36RBI 52 50
![Page 29: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Potential Reasons for Low Classification Accuracy
• Do threshold and scaling problems exist?– Does an index correlate well with condition,
but an incorrect threshold lead to the wrong interpretation?
• Are chemistry-toxicity “bad” definitions inadequate?– Chemistry criteria were less stringent than
many other benthic index efforts
![Page 30: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
RIVPACS vs Amphipod Mortality - San Francisco BayA
mph
ipod
Mor
talit
y (%
)
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
RIVPACS Score-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
![Page 31: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
RBI vs Amphipod Mortality - San Francisco BayA
mph
ipod
Mor
talit
y (%
)
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
RBI Score-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0
![Page 32: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
BQI vs Amphipod Mortality - Southern CaliforniaA
mph
ipod
Mor
talit
y (%
)
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
BQI Score-20 -15 -10 -5 0
![Page 33: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Are Validation Sites Misclassified?
• Is our “Gold Standard” correct?– Are multiple indices disagreeing?– How do index disagreements relate to biology?
• Samples with multiple disagreements evaluated– Using biologist best professional judgment
![Page 34: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Disagreements with Status Designations
Number of Candidates Disagreeing
N(Σ=35)
0 8
1 9
2 5
3 6
4 4
5 2
6 1
![Page 35: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Biology Comparison
• For six of seven samples– Biologists agreed that the chemistry-toxicity
status was incorrect• All four biologists agreed for four samples• 75% agreement for other two
• “Gold Standard” is tarnished
![Page 36: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Effect of Status Changeon Overall Classification Accuracy
Index Original After Change
RIVPACS 83 83
BRI-TC 77 89
IBI 70 76
BRI-MNDF 63 74
BQI 63 80
RBI 51 63
![Page 37: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Overview
• Why Benthos and Benthic Indices?• The Index Development Process
– Define Habitat Strata– Calibrate Candidate Benthic Indices– Validate and Evaluate Candidate Indices
• Proposed Next Steps
![Page 38: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Complete the Index Validation Process
• Classification accuracy– Chemistry and toxicity– Biologist best professional judgment
• Repeatability– Same day– Same site on different days
• Independence from natural gradients• Correlations with other information
– Species richness– Other indices
![Page 39: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Biology Classification
• Panel of six external experts– Evaluate 20-25 samples– Samples where 5 of 6 experts agree will
establish a new “Gold Standard”• To be used in the same way as the chemistry-
toxicity classification
![Page 40: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Repeatability
• Identify sites where– Multiple samples were collected on the same
visit– Multiple visits to the same site
• Evaluate candidate index stability
![Page 41: Scientific Steering Committee 26 th July 2005](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081520/56815cc8550346895dcad2c5/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Summary
• We will be able to develop benthic indices for two habitats– Some indices validating well
• Validation rates with sediment toxicity and chemistry data are low– Need to re-visit our scaling methods for some indices– Need to establishing biology-based good and bad criteria
• Best professional judgment of an independent panel of experts
• Have more validation steps to complete before making final selections