CWQMC Data Swaps Dr. Holly L.O. Huyck CWQMC Coordinator

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
West Virginia Department of Agriculture Water Quality Monitoring Program 2009 Photo by Paul Morley.
Advertisements

SWAMP Team Members Contact Information Karen Taberski: , Nelia White:
Volunteer Water Monitoring Support through the UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education Nancy Turyk Citizen-Based Monitoring Conference August 2004.
Yakama Nation Pacific Lamprey Recovery Project Core Data And Monitoring Framework.
Chain of Custody Records Proper Documentation Techniques Dr. Richard Medina Environmental Testing and Consulting, Inc.
2009 Water Quality Monitoring Report – Fish Creek Vaughn Hauser, B.Sc. Naomi Parker, B.Sc., BIT, CEPIT.
Nelly Smith EPA Region 6. - Develop or revise bacteria reduction program for consistency with new TMDL requirements and allocations - Develop or revise.
Tributary Workgroup Case Study. Outline for presentation Why Coordinate? Approach of SW Tributary workgroup SW Tributary Workgroup progress and next steps.
Texas Stream Team …is a joint partnership with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, U.S. EPA Region VI, Texas State University-San Marcos, and numerous.
Koktuli River Instream Flow Reservation Cathy Flanagan Bristol Bay Native Association.
Common Monitoring Parameters. Step 1 Consider purpose/objectives of monitoring Assess use attainment Characterize watershed Identify pollutants and sources.
Assessing Aquatic Ecosystems & Measurement. Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment The health of an aquatic ecosystem can be determined by examining a variety of.
Water Quality Monitoring and Parameter Load Estimations in Lake Conway Point Remove Watershed and L’Anguille River Watershed Presented by: Dan DeVun, Equilibrium.
Water Quality Monitoring and Parameter Load Estimations in Lake Conway Point Remove Watershed, L’Anguille River Watershed, and Bayou Bartholomew Presented.
Water Monitoring. What/Why? Water testing Identifying water content Allows scientists to have a full understanding of what is affecting their stream or.
Prof. Vishnuprasad Nagadevara Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
Water Quality Monitoring : Galla Creek Bayou Bartholomew L’Anguille River Presented By: The Ecological Conservation Organization.
July 16, 2002 Colorado Water Quality Monitoring Council An Activities Report to the National Water Quality Monitoring Council by Holly Huyck, Steve Lohman,
Temperature of Stream Site (upstream to downstream) Temperature ( °C )Average ( °C ) °C °C °C °C °C °C According to.
Central Valley Regional Data Center Field Data Entry Training.
Water-Quality Monitoring for Environmental Management and Source-Water Protection U.S. Geological Survey New England Water Science Center in cooperation.
Page 1 CONSULTANCY AND RESEARCH IN AQUACULTURE AND THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT A Company in the NIVA-group Methodology for Environmental monitoring of aquaculture.
Roger Miller, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Barry Jackson, USGS Arkansas Water Science Center ARKANSAS EXCHANGE NETWORK FOR GROUNDWATER-QUALITY.
Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Introduction Georgia Adopt-A-Stream 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. SW Suite 1462 East Atlanta, Georgia
DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, PRIMARY INDUSTRY, FISHERIES AND RESOURCES Mine Site Water Quality Monitoring Michael.
TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONPARTNERS DOWNLOAD DATA Download water quality data in MS Excel, CSV, TSV, and KML formats. Learn how to use the portal and data.
Name of presenter Date of presentation.  To help preserve and protect Wisconsin’s over 15,000 lakes and 86,000 miles of rivers.
Hydrostatic Testing Draft General Permit Draft Permit Stakeholder Outreach Meeting April 23, 2015 Moderated by: Lillian Gonzalez, Unit Manager, Permits.
Developing Monitoring Programs to Detect NPS Load Reductions.
Dr. Matt Helmers Assistant Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer Dept. of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Iowa State University How is.
What is a Watershed? Goals for this module Discuss the goals and objectives of the project Discuss the goals and objectives of the project Learn who.
Water Quality Data, Maps, and Graphs Over the Web · Chemical concentrations in water, sediment, and aquatic organism tissues.
Nicole Reid, Jane Herbert, and Dean Baas MSU Extension Land & Water Program W. K. Kellogg Biological Station Transparency tube as a surrogate for turbidity,
Module 10/11 Stream Surveys Stream Surveys – February 2004 Part 1 – Water Quality Assessment.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water-Quality Monitoring: Data Collection and Analysis Strategies for Designing Program.
Temperature Measured with a thermometer Units are ◦C
Collaborative Water-Quality Monitoring in the Big Thompson Watershed Juliane B. Brown USGS-BTWF Liaison Colorado District Rob R. Buirgy BTWF Coordinator.
Using STORET Data to Characterize Your Watershed 1 Webcast on June 21, 2007 Randy E. Hill IT Project Manager, EPA Monitoring Branch Dwane Young IT Specialist,
QA/QC Assessment of Lay Monitoring in Rhode Island Elizabeth M. Herron, Linda T. Green & Arthur J. Gold URI Watershed Watch University of Rhode Island.
NWQMC July 26, 2005 Developing A National Water Quality Monitoring Network Design.
1. Measuring Soil Quality Soil quality integrates the physical, chemical, and biological components of soil and their interactions. Therefore, to capture.
STORET 1001 and the State of Utah Monitoring Strategy Today you will see: –What kind of attributes are available in STORET –How results, stations, and.
Adem.alabama.gov ADEM’s Monitoring Summary Reports Alabama – Tombigbee CWP Stakeholders Meeting Montgomery, Alabama 3 February 2010 Lisa Huff – ADEM Field.
September 2012 Developed by Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department at Purdue University and Department of Regional Infrastructures Engineering.
Delaware’s Non-Tidal Monitoring Update for CY 2011 February 8,
Debra Harrington and Haizhi Chen FDEP Groundwater Protection June, 2005 HYDROPORT RETRIEVAL APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENTS.
Snapshot Event Monitoring Results for the Clackamas River Watershed Presented by PSU SWRP Summer Capstone August
Monitoring Directory Tutorial.
1 Nov 8, 2001 STORET For Managers. 2 STORET Ambient Water Quality and Biological Data.
North Creek Water Quality Prepared by Jon Rogers and Carie McCoy.
Integrating a Continuous Water Quality Monitoring Network into Texas’ Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program Jill D. Csekitz, Aquatic Scientist Texas.
Warm Up Complete the text dependent questions for the Water Scarcity text. Do your own work. Homework: Read 16C-21C answer ?’s 1-3, 5 p22C Read 24C-31C.
STREAM MONITORING CASE STUDY. Agenda  Monitoring Requirements  TMDL Requirements  OCEA Initial Monitoring Program  Selection of Parameters  Data.
Water Quality Investigations How Does Land-Use Impact Water Quality? Mitigating Water Quality – Current Issues July 9, 2015 Jim Kipp, Associate Director.
Current EFR synthesis database design Sites Site web sites Contacts Site disclaimers & agreements Status of data Basins Disturbances Disturbance details.
Think about answering the questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Before your volunteers begin collecting data.
In pairs… Discuss and write down ways you think we can detect pollution in: – Air – Soil – Water.
Connie Brower NC DENR Division of Water Resources.
Stream Monitoring Vocabulary Review As each slide is presented: (in 3 table groups (Group 1: tables 1, 2, 3 – Group 2 is tables 4 & 5, Group 3 is tables.
EVALUATING STREAM COMPENSATION PERFORMANCE: Overcoming the Data Deficit Through Standardized Study Design Kenton L. Sena (EPA VSFS Intern), Joe Morgan,
Watershed Management Plan Summary of 2014 Activities/Progress Presented by: Matthew Bennett, MS December 2014.
Middle Fork Project AQ 11 – Water Quality Technical Study Plan Report Overview March 10, 2008.
Cara Cowan Watts Graduate Student Biosystems Engineering
Nebraska Water Quality Index
Public Meeting February 19, 2009
مقدمة تصميم الاعتيان 1) اختيار محطات الاعتيان 2) تحديد تواتر الاعتيان
Why Use Them? By: Marcy Bolek – Alloway
Agenda Item 6: Review of the list of priority substances (Decision 2455/2001/EC) EAF(9)-06/02/INERIS - Data processing - preparation for data collection.
Marco island water quality monitoring
Module 1b – ICIS Permitted Features
Presentation transcript:

CWQMC Data Swaps Dr. Holly L.O. Huyck CWQMC Coordinator

CWQMC Data Swaps January 2001: Clear Creek Watershed and Henderson site metadata March 2002: South Platte Basin data needs swap May 2002: South Platte Basing metadata swap

Portion of the Clear Creek Metadata Table on the Website

Fields on CC Metadata Table Agency and contact Number of sites Frequency of sampling Start/end dates Data storage format Parameters (listed individually) Additional information

May 2002 Swap Meet Metadata Requested 1. Sampling locations and formats (e.g. dot-on-a-map, Lat/Long, UTM, address, all-of-the-above); 2. Period-of-record for the sampling, from what date to what date (or present); 3. Frequency of sampling—both number of times per year and specific months; 4. Parameters (SPECIFIC lists may include physical parameters, DO, organics, metals, pesticides, major ions, nutrients, hardness, biological, habitat, physical);

May 2002 Swap Meet Metadata Requested (continued) 5. Data Quality Objectives (indicate whether for research project, permit compliance, trend analysis, reconnaissance, or other-please specify); 6. Database format (EXCEL, ACCESS, STORET, NWIS, hand-written, combination); 7. Contact information for someone who works with the database; 8. Note whether SOP (sample/lab protocols) are written; 9. Lat/long. for plotting on a map of the South Platte Basin—sent to USGS electronically.

Advantages of Metadata Swaps List requested is simple and allows for different monitoring styles and objectives. Providing metadata is much less onerous. Data remain property of monitoring group that still controls access. contact is much easier for data managers to handle.

Disadvantages of Metadata Swaps Information provided on the website is limited. Definitions vary among groups (e.g. major vs. minor cations) Still need to contact each group to obtain the actual data. Data remain in different formats.

South Platte Basin Map Format Uses web-based mapping technology for on-the-fly map enlargements. Sites are listed by group/agency. Click on site to obtain a table of metadata. Table has a link to variables list for definitions of parameter groups.

Map Directory of Selected Data-Collection Sites in Colorado

Map Zoom-in on Denver Water Sampling Sites

Roberts Tunnel of DWB Selected

Fields for Each Site Selected Group name and contact Site:Stream Name or Description Period of Record & Number of Samples Chemical: Field Parameters,Hardness, Major ions, Nutrients, Organics, Minor and Trace Elements, Pesticides, Chemistry of Sediments Biological: Fish Assemblages, Macro-invertebrates, Micro-invertebrates, E.coli or Fecal Colliform, Aquatic Vegetation, Other Physical: Flow, Temperature, Secchi Depth, Turbidity, Sediments, Instream Habitat, Riparian or Wetland Habitat, Upland Habitat

Lists of Variables That Occur under the Current Fields (via hot link at bottom of main table) Chemical Variables Field parameters: pH, DO, conductivity, etc. Major ions: major cations and anions, including Fe, Mn, but NOT nutrient-related ions. Nutrients: all forms of nitrogen and phosphorous (including iron). Organics: TOC, TOD. Minor and Trace elements: minor elements, and metal (EXCEPT for Fe and Mn). Chemistry of Sediments: analyses of the sediments themselves, as opposed to water chemistry.

Variables Continued Biological Variables Fish Assemblages: includes all types of fish, also analyses of fish tissues. E. coli or Fecal Coliform: any analysis of all forms of E. coli or fecal colliform. Physical Habitat Sediments: amount of sediment - bedload or suspended sediments.

Results of Swaps Clear Creek: 21 groups/projects reporting ~130 sites excluding Superfund 109 sites related to Superfund (sampled 1-5x) Include nutrients, metals, sediments, fish, flow South Platte: additional 10 groups ~900 sites (past and current)

Clear Creek Monitoring (2001)

Metadata Swap Process Iterative process (Clear Creek added 5 groups over 12 months.) Groups range from federal agencies to local volunteer watershed coalitions. Best response from established groups and agencies; also better if paid people are involved. (All-volunteer groups are less responsive.) Best response is to one-page request; 3-page data needs request received very few responses.

Metadata Swap Process (continued) Try three contacts per new group. Personal acquaintance improves responses. “Cold calls”  45% response on S. Platte. ~1/2 of electronic responses occur after the swap; used in addition to swap minutes. Swap is a “round-robin,” with each group presenting its metadata and comments.

Recommended CWQMC Shared Database Information General comments. This simplification of STORET and the NWQMC recommended fields is considered to be the MINIMUM amount of information to make the databases useable for comparisons among databases. Fields focus on chemical data, and should be modified to accommodate biological data by the Aquatic Life Committee. This list does not specify the design of the database.

Recommended Minimum Data Fields (MDE’s) Project Name: character field. Project agency name: unique name for each agency or group. Project Description: memo-type field that can include whatever comments are desired. Project Purpose: character field with,e.g. basic screening, regulatory compliance, site trends. Project QA/QC: memo-type field with # of field duplicates, field blanks, analytical lab name, and corrective actions for problems—e.g. bad blanks. ProjectContact: Name, address, telephone, . Person who supplied data. (These may differ.)

MDE’s (continued) Station ID: character field, no duplicates allowed. Station Name: character field. If no name exists, can just repeat the station ID. Station Type: stream, well, lake, canal, etc. Station Latitude: standardize this as Degree-Minute-Second or decimal degree. Station Longitude: standardize this as Degree-Minute- Second or decimal degree. Location Datum: NAD27 or NAD83. Define which datum was used for lat./long. (e.g. pre-1983 USGS maps would be NAD27; GPS systems should tell users which datum was used.) Location Description: memo-type field with local permanent landmarks or other descriptive comments—e.g. sample in the thalweg, upstream of bridge.

MDE’s (continued) Sample ID: character field, must be a unique identifier. Sample Date: representative date or date that sample collection was started. Sample Time: representative time or time that sample collection was started (military time). Sample Type: grab, composite; if composite, code for duration of composite (hours, days, etc). SampleMedium: water, sediment, fish tissue, etc. SampleDepth: character field that contains depth, or range in depth. SampleDepth Units: meters, feet, etc.

MDE’s (continued) Result Name: e.g. pH, Temp., Calcium, Nitrate, etc. Result Value: measured characteristic. Prefer numeric field, but could be character field. Result Units: degrees, mg/l, ppm, ppb, ug/l, etc. Result Fraction: total, total recoverable, dissolved (filter size?), etc. Result Detection Limit: Result Detection Limit Units: mg/l, ppb, etc. Result Comments: memo-type field to include user-defined information, e.g. whether the result is an estimate, average, less than (for below detection limit), how user made an average, sample preparation, analytical method, etc.

Responses to MDE’s Even one page of MDE’s is onerous to some people, including state agencies. NWQMC’s MDE’s are overwhelming to all but a few swap participants. Common MDE’s are a major challenge, much less finding a common format! Tradeoff between participation and complexity of swaps. ($$$ and time issues)