-----Original Message-----
From: NOLNACSJ@aol.com [mailto:NOLNACSJ@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:01 PM
To: VOLMONITOR
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage

Kelly, I recently received an email from MA Coastal Zone Management who has offered to train a small number of our area (Cape Cod) water quality monitoring volunteers on how to use a new data management tool (MS Access based) they developed under one of their programs. This "tool" may be helpful to you regarding your efforts, but I do not know much more about it right now. I recommend you contact Bruce Carlisle at MA CZM for more information. His email address is: Bruce.Carlisle@state.ma.us

Hopefully, I did not just cause him to become inundated with emails......

Judy Scanlon
Freshwater Monitoring Coordinator
Orleans Water Quality task Force

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:36:34 -0400
From: "J. Kelly Nolan, EST Coordinator" <ESTeam@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage

NYS doesn't use nor apply any weight to any volunteer monitoring data or from any other source i.e. college/universities, organizations, and or private companies in preparing its 303(d) list. "The fact is, no matter how good the data volunteers - or anyone else - collects, it is DEC's role to evaluate the data and make an assessment that is consistent with assessments throughout the state." This means the NYS DEC is the only one who gathers the data for determining the 303(d) list and needless to say the NYS DEC Division of Water, a small but dedicated staff, cannot possibly assess all of NYS waterways. Volunteer data and any other sources of data or reports are lucky to be used for the preparation of the States 305(b) reports.

HBRW is not using STORET.

Regards,
Kelly

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:42:29 -0700
From: Revital Katznelson <Rk@rb2.swrcb.ca.gov>
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage and data quality management (DQM)

Kelly I think you hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

It is not the role of the "data users" (e.g., regulators in charge of 305(b) reporting or 303(d) listing/de-listing) to assess the reliability and quality of data submitted by citizen monitoring groups. We simply
cannot expect them to. Generally, users of monitoring data appreciate reliable, defensible, and usable data, but the tools to communicate these quality attributes often lack clarity and consistency, especially
where field activities are concerned. In the absence of unambiguous communication tools and understandable reporting formats, assumptions about data quality are often made on the basis of other notions. Too often, users choose data based on who collected the data, whether they were adequately trained, whether they used established protocols, and whether they had an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan in place. This "programmatic" approach, which relies on external perception of merit, does not provide the data user with the relevant facts regarding the actual quality of specific data sets or individual results.

In California we have recently begun implementing a data quality management (DQM) system which allows for each data point to "speak for itself." I got into it several years ago when I looked for a system
that will provide for the primary data management functions of documentation and quality assessment. I couldn't find any (STORET was not the answer either), so I started developing our own. We apply this
DQM system for individual, small-scale monitoring projects, i.e., manageable chunks of monitoring efforts. Today the DQM is an assemblage of tools and guidance all "talking to each other" and all revolving around a set of "placeholders" for information that needs to be captured and manipulated. The placeholders are all packaged in what I call the DQM Project File and includes the Results (Result is the outcome of a measurement or analysis) and all their descriptors. Essentially, the Project File is a simple Microsoft Excel workbook with multiple spreadsheets that hold the Results, the measurement information (i.e., the unique identity of the instrument or kit used, as well as its features and specifications), and the quality of the measurement (i.e., instrument-specific calibration, accuracy checks, and precision records). All this information is used - at the Project level and by Project personnel - to calculate error, validate the data, and generate qualifiers. When submitted to the data users, the results can be accompanied by a clearly defined set of qualifiers that inform the user about the range of associated error, whether the data have been validated, and whether they are supported by adequate documentation. Last time I sent a full DQM Project File to our Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, they had to look at a very small number of fields to quickly see all they need to know about the data. Needless to say, they were very happy to pick and choose what they can use to fit their
different needs.

Bonus: The Project File also contains placeholders for "data retrieval handles" that allow the user to sort, filter, and pool individual results based on the monitoring intent (e.g., characterization or capture of worst-case scenario), sampling design (e.g., probabilistic or deterministic), station type (e.g., outfall or
creek), conditions during sampling (wet or dry weather), etc.

I have a NWQMC 2002 paper on DQM and I can easily email it to interested folks -
Revital

=======================================================
Revital Katznelson, Ph.D.
Regional Citizen Monitoring Coordinator
State Water Resources Control Board

Mailing address:
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland CA 94612
Office Phone: (510) 622 2470
Cell Phone: (916) 947 4816
Fax: (510) 622 2460
Email: rk@rb2.swrcb.ca.gov
Clean Water Team website: www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/volunteer.html

From: Rich Schrader [mailto:res13131@cybermesa.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:51 PM
To: VOLMONITOR
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage

My understanding is similiar to Rita Jack's, that if you can get your data into a format that your state and it indicates impairment that they must look at it for preparing the 303(d) list. Thus, some volunteer monitoring trainers provide databases (or even excel templates) that can dump data into Storet. EPA Region 8 and the Montana Volunteer Water Monitoring Project have been developing these tools which are on the verge of being widely used by tribes and watershed groups/teachers.

My sense is that this approach - non-STORET interface with STORET compatibility is the best direction to take if you want your state to use your data in enforcing the Clean Water Act. As usual, it depends on your monitoring goals .
-- Rich

________________
Richard Schrader
River Source
1803 1/2 Agua Fria
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505-992-0726 wk
www.riversource.net

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:39:17 -0400
From: "J. Kelly Nolan, EST Coordinator" <ESTeam@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage

As I've previously mentioned, in NYS even if its in the same format following the same QA/QC NYS DEC will not use it for 303(d) listing. They may look at it... but they will not use it.

Going back to my original request: Where can I get the data bases or excel templates that are user friendly for data storage?

Kelly

From: "Alison L. Reber" <alison@streamlink.org>
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage
To: VOLMONITOR <volmonitor@lists.epa.gov>

I hate to ask newbie questions but I got on this list serv so I could get a better feel for what's happening outside the (occasional) alternate reality we call Kansas. Are the data in STORET subject to quality assurance? I can't see how data could legitimately be used for in a 303(d) without this initial step. The other question that seems looming is WHO determines the impairment or threatened status and HOW is the determination made for water bodies shown in STORET?

Here there's no shortage of 303(d) listings but there does seem to be a shortage of people who are willing to accept and pursue the long-term value of addressing problems in the "headwaters" as well as the mainstems. I can see that in states with very minimal 303(d) lists, being able to garner compulsory attention to impaired areas is a pretty valuable asset.

The program I work for, Kansas StreamLink, is almost exclusively an educational tool. We are trying to get communities (REAL people) tied into identified local (as in "this REALLY is YOUR problem") water quality issues. The 303(d) and the TMDL Implementation Plans are primary documents we put in the hands of our teams as we try to push them beyond casual (but protocol compliant, of course :) stream sampling excursions. For us, working through the schools seems to be a steady and reliable system for maintaining direct community connections.

I know this time of the year is pretty intense but I'd love to hear about some of the other programs out there. -Alison Reber

PS I'm not sure if someone from Kansas can credibly use the term "headwaters" but "uplands" just seems almost comical....

KS StreamLink
414 East 9th Street Lawrence, KS 66044-2629
785-840-0700 fax 785-843-6080
streamlink@streamlink.org www.streamlink.org

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:51:26 -0400
From: Liu.Ed@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage

Good for you Alison -- Just know that you are doing the right thing. Don't expect to hear that from the DC EPA people for various reasons, the most important that contentious issues has kept any administration from bringing to the congress a revision of the clean water act since 1987. That is three cycles of the usual reauthorization (5 yrs)of major agency legislation. In sum, we are stuck in approaches that are nearly 20 years old.

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:18:40 -0400
From: Geoff Dates <gdates@rivernetwork.org>
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage

Alison,

You may know all this, or have received similar replies, but here’s my take on it. Impairment determinations based on data in STORET (or whatever data storage system the state is using) are usually made based on the state’s assessment protocol or assessment methodology. In some states, this is a separate document. In others, it’s described in the 305b report or 303d guidance, or something similar. It usually takes the form of a “use support” determination: Fully Supporting, Partially Supporting, or Not Supporting the uses designated in the water quality standards and the conditions needed to support them described by the water quality criteria. For example, the aquatic life use is not supported if greater than 10% of the samples for dissolved oxygen violate the 6 mg/l criterion for a cold water fishery. The assessment protocol should also describe the data and data quality requirements needed for both 305b and 303d (e.g. minimum # of samples, age of data, etc.).

Once a water body is determined to not be supporting its designated uses, it may or may not go on the 303d list. Again, the assessment methodology should describe the conditions under which an impaired water body would not go on the 303d list. In PA, for example, there are 3 reasons why an impaired water would not go on the 303d list:

1) The impairment is not being caused by a pollutant as defined in the Clean Water Act. Impairment can result from physical barriers, exotic species, prolonged drought and other sources. DEP does not place these waters on the list since there is no pollutant load to allocate through the TMDL process.
2) Impairments are being, or will be, addressed by required pollution control efforts. DEP determines that eliminating the impairment is better addressed through existing enforcement and compliance pollution control efforts. 3) The waterbody already has an EPA-approved TMDL developed for identified causes of impairment. However, these waters remain in the 305(b) report as impaired until the designated use is fully supported.
(Note: this is from 1999, things may have changed).

Each state is different and I’m not familiar with Kansas, but try to get a copy of the assessment protocol.

--
Geoff Dates
River Watch Program Director
River Network
Home Office:
6 Poor Farm Road
Hartland Vt 05048
802-436-2544
email: gdates@rivernetwork.org
River Network Web Site: www.rivernetwork.org

Rich Schrader <res13131@cybermesa.com>
To: VOLMONITOR <volmonitor@lists.epa.gov>
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage

Alison,
Look what a storm of competing visions you provoked !!!

Tina Laidlaw of EPA Region 8 has an excel template and access database format that seems robust and is STORET compatible using an SIM interface that uploads the data to STORET. The tool was developed for tribes and comes along with training for the tribal monitoring audience. I've got a copy but don't feel at liberty to share sinces it's not my tool to hand out. You might try to contact Tina Laidlaw (Montana office) directly or wait for a response from her (I think she's on this listserve since she turned me on to it).

Rich
________________
Richard Schrader
River Source
1803 1/2 Agua Fria
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505-992-0726 wk www.riversource.net

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:11:45 -0500
From: "Alison L. Reber" <alison@streamlink.org>
Subject: [volmonitor] State 303ds

Thanks for the information, Geoff! The 303d determinations for Kansas' 305b report are technically made exclusively by our Dept. of Health & Environment even if identical protocols are used. This is consistent with what Kelly in NYS is saying as well. I know Kentucky incorporates Water Watch data into their 305b - that must have been either a legislative feat or sheer desperation to stay out of court! It sounds like states are free to make their designated use impairment determinations as per their established & EPA accepted (?) prerogative, I mean, protocols - murky water to say the least!

Explaining all this to an arm chair audience is very difficult since there are so many twists and turns in the strands of information. I see the drama in it all but most find it pretty dry. (as in the Sahara!) -A



Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:50:07 -0400
From: Linda Green <lgreen@uri.edu>
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: State 303ds
X-Sender: lgr4576u@postoffice.uri.edu
To: VOLMONITOR <volmonitor@lists.epa.gov>
Cc: "Alison L. Reber" <alison@streamlink.org>
Reply-to: VOLMONITOR <volmonitor@lists.epa.gov>
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-volmonitor-42079B@lists.epa.gov>
Original-recipient: rfc822;kfstepenuck@facstaff.wisc.edu

Hi Alison,
Just wanted to let you know that RI incorporates the volunteer monitoring data from the URI Watershed Watch program into its 305b report, and relies on it for 303d listing for locations and parameters we monitor. As a matter of fact we are in the midst of a 5 year grant from RI DEM where they provide us with a list of lakes/ponds with no/little/old monitoring information. We recruit volunteers to join URIWW and monitor these locations so that RI DEM will have data on which to base 303(d) list or not-listing. This was after we did a QA/QC assessment of our monitoring and successfully compared it side-by-side on-site with "professiional" monitoring.

I represent the volunteer monitoring community on the National Water Quality Monitoring Council and have appreciated all the comments on this situation. And its not just volunteer monitoring. I know of 2 unnamed state environmental agencies that are unable/unwilling to use US Geological Survey monitoring data for their assessments.

Linda Green
Program Director,
URI Watershed Watch
URI Cooperative Extension
Natural Resources Science Department
College of the Environment and Life Sciences
1 Greenhouse Road, CIK
Kingston, RI 02881
401-874-2905 voice
401-874-4561 fax
http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/ww/html/ww.html
http://www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:42:08 -0600
From: Laidlaw.Tina@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Data storage

EPA Region 8 has developed an Excel template that can be uploaded to a website (managed by Gold Systems) and migrated to STORET. The template tries to explain and simplify the requirements for metadata (data about your data). The web address is: http://www.goldsystems.com/reg8tribes/reg8_tribes.

There are several other tools (STORET compatible web-entry tool for small data sets, access databases, etc) for getting data into STORET. If your goal is to have a state consider your data, I would encourage you to consider making your data STORET compatible and be sure to include the metadata describing your data.

Building upon Geoff's email that explains how states conduct assessments - I think it is important to clarify the distinction between state uses of "data" versus "assessments". As Geoff explained, most states have assessment methodologies that explain (some in clearer terms than others) the data requirements and process used to establish whether a waterbody is meeting its designated uses. In most states, the only entity making those "assessment" calls is the state environmental agency. Whether or not a state chooses to use volunteer data to make the use assessment (determination of fully supporting, not supporting) is based, in part, on the state's described assessment methodologies and the explanation of the level of rigor needed for the data. Some states even specify the format needed for submitting data.

Thanks my two cents.
Tina

Tina Laidlaw
USEPA Montana Office
10 West 15th Street, Suite 3200
Helena, MT 59626
406-457-5016

 

Updated Friday, 05-Jun-2009 13:49:22 CDT