CWQMC Data Swaps

1. CWQMC Data Swaps Dr. Holly L.O. Huyck CWQMC Coordinator hhuyck@csd.net

2. 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

3. Portion of the Clear Creek Metadata Table on the Website

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

5. 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);

6. 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.

7. 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. • E-mail contact is much easier for data managers to handle.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Map Directory of Selected Data-Collection Sites in Colorado

11. Map Zoom-in on Denver Water Sampling Sites

12. Roberts Tunnel of DWB Selected

13. Fields for Each Site Selected • Group name and email 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, InstreamHabitat, Riparian or Wetland Habitat, Upland Habitat

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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)

17. Clear Creek Monitoring (2001)

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.  

21. 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, email. Person who supplied data. (These may differ.)

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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)