Sharing is Caring: Collaborative efforts in data management between Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky November 2012 Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists Association Lara Panayotoff Kentucky Division of Water Department for Environmental Protection To Protect and Enhance Kentucky’s Environment

Acknowledgements Alabama Lisa Huff* Gina LoGuidice* Vickie Hulcher Kayren Pittman Mississippi Natalie Segrest* Valerie Alley Kentucky Melissa Miracle CJ Watts Jessica Schuster* Jo Blanset Susan Cohn* Lisa Hicks* Lara Panayotoff* * SWPBA members Kentucky DEP

Just crunch some numbers, will ya?

Fixed monitoring networks Intensive watershed surveys and studies Complaints, spills Sample results Field observations Species data Station Information Binders Full of Data Excel Spreadsheets (so… many… spreadsheets...) Program-specific Access databases (all different) Hard Copy Reports Various Files in Numerous Locations Stuff no one even knows about

Data System ‘Must Haves’ Accommodate most/all current routine monitoring data Flexible Reflect current work processes User friendly Documentation of data quality and usability Easy to get data out Promote efficient flow to WQX

Alabama Water-Quality Assessment & Monitoring Data Repository (ALAWADR) 2008 demo at SWPBA ORACLE database Web-based user interface Based on STORET design and data requirements

ALAWADR Design Framework Field Measurements & Observations Sample Collection Water Sediment Biological Tissue Bioassessment Fish Community Macroinvertebrate Community

ALAWADR Design Framework Physical Measurements Categorical Observations Chemical Analyses (water, sediment, biological tissue) Taxonomic Composition

Development Time and Cost Initial Planning – Initial Development – May 2007 Initial Implementation – May Historical Data Migration Data Flow to EPA WQX – 2011 Contractor/ In-House IT Staff /In-House Scientists ~$1.2 - $1.5 Million+

Data System ‘Must Haves’   Accommodate current routine programs    Flexible / expandible   Reflect current work processes  User friendly    Documentation for data quality / usability  Easy to get data out    Promote efficient flow to WQX

environmental Surface water Portal for Information (enSPIRE) - Mississippi Initiated development 2009 ~$500k contractor work ~2 FTEs in-house staff time Main enhancements: Data assessment module Enhanced mapping capability Alternate data entry modes Alternate mode of LIMS data transfer

Kentucky Water Quality Data for Environmental Monitoring (K-WADE) Initiated development late 2010 ~ $350k contractor time ~2 FTEs in house staff time Main enhancements: Expanded biology modules Enhanced stations mapping Usability/user-friendliness Off-site partner agency users

Kentucky Enhancements Accommodates QC samples and replicates captures all details needed for quantitative cell counts results file import available Algae Bioassessment Activity

Kentucky Enhancements individuals details csv file import available Mussel Bioassessment Activity

Kentucky Enhancements Taxon Attributes (Traits) taxon traits list and value choices fully customizable

Kentucky Enhancements station creation tools display station search results

Kentucky Enhancements Off-site partner agency users (former EDAS partners) Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission US Forest Service (Daniel Boone National Forest) Remote log-in nuts and bolts Reference table management Sensitive location Joint projects

Benefits of Cooperation Comfort-level with a basically working system and an experienced contractor Money and time could be spent mainly on state- specific needs and expanded functionality $1.5 million vs <$0.5 million Take advantage of partner states’ unique capabilities and expertise Cross-pollination of ideas, troubleshooting, problem solving

Challenges Alabama would like to incorporate some of KY and MS enhancements, but will take time & $$ Further development desired in some areas where one state has made headway but others lagging QA tools reporting and querying better indexing to assessments/ assessment units more efficient data entry, including portable module taxonomic nomenclature and traits tracking

The Future? Continued grant support to pay for sharing enhancements Support for joint work sessions to troubleshoot and design new modules Technical assistance? Benefits to EPA and stakeholders Comparability, timely and more uniform flow to WQX, data integrity

Lessons Learned Significant time investment for program staff (like biologists being dragged off the ‘scope and out of the field) Data management system decisions can cross over to work process decisions Time spent on ensuring good design is worth it, because the interface can always be tweaked

Thanks!