This web site was copied prior to January 20, 2005. It is now a Federal record managed by the National Archives and Records Administration. External links, forms, and search boxes may not function within this collection. Learn more.   [hide]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

FINAL MINUTES FROM MEETING

METHODS AND DATA COMPARABILITY BOARD

AUGUST 30 – SEPTEMBER 1, 1999

DENVER, CO

 

 

A total of 32 participants attended parts of the meeting either by phone or in person.  Federal agencies represented included USEPA, USGS, NSCOE, NOAA, DOD, and DOE.  States represented included Virginia, Delaware Basin (New Jersey), Wisconsin, and New York.  Other monitoring interests represented were ASTM, Standard Methods, AMSA, CMA, Argonne National Laboratory, Waste Policy Institute, ETCC, Dynecorp, Merck Co., Hach Co., East Bay MUD, Montgomery Watson, Tetra Tech, and Catalyst.

 

NEMI Workgroup

 

A proposal/workplan will be prepared to describe a 3 phase approach to implementing NEMI. A complete list of fields, tables, linkages for EMMI and EMSD will be sent to Sullivan/House at USGS for use in preparing the workplan draft. Nutrient and Biology Workgroups will send their NEMI fields to Sullivan/House as soon as possible. The Workplan draft will be revised for review by the entire workgroup by the end of October. Sullivan/House will send the Workgroup a list of data elements for NEMI based on information received from EMMI/EMSD.

 

It will be necessary to ensure that the NEMI is consistent with the WQDE Workgroups elements and definitions (data dictionary).  WQDE and Biology Workgroup will provide initial information for sample collection methods needed by NEMI.

 

Nutrient Methods Workgroup

 

NOAA is initiating its own pilot for laboratory performance of nutrient methods following a PBMS approach.

 

All agreed that standard NEMI fields apply to nutrients as well.  Populating the performance fields is another matter.  Other fields previously identified were: (1) hazardous waste byproduct, (2) date of inception/last revision, and (3) ambient vs. compliance sample.  These could be incorporated into existing NEMI fields.  Tetra Tech will help populate fields for a few methods and distribute for Board review by 10/30/99.

 

Rather than design a nutrient pilot now, the following tasks will be done with Tetra Tech’s help: (1) review and compile performance characteristics for published nutrient methods; (2) identify concerns with nutrient method practices and relate to issues such as TMDLs and EPA’s nutrient strategy; (3) consider the type of DQOs and MQOs current nutrient methods are capable of meeting; and (4) minimum QC requirements.

 

 

 

USGS - DuPont CRADA

 

Bill Battaglin presented a summary of results thus far on the herbicide study.  Over 200 samples in nine large and 69 smaller drainage basins in the midwest were analyzed.

 

Ed Furlong presented a summary of the method development process used to achieve lower herbicide detection levels.  Two publications describing the methods have been written and approved and two reports are planned.  USGS is currently working on methods for degradation products.  Bill will coordinate with Charlie to get next report out for Board review.

 

Outreach

 

The Workgroup reviewed and revised the letter that will be sent to various water resource organizations introducing our website and requesting a link.  The table of organizations for letter distribution will be updated based on contributions from Dunn, Peters, and Berger.  An email with the attached letter and table will be sent to Council and Board members requesting additional organizations for the table.

 

A link will be made from the public Board web site to the Conference 2000 site.  The public web site indexing will be increased and tested prior to the next meeting.  We should get logos from all Board participant organizations for web site.

 

Peters will send copies of Board power point presentations to Tetra Tech so that they can prepare a Board overview power point presentation for Board or Council members to use.  A Board display and fact sheet should be prepared for Conference 2000.  The display should include a computer for web site demos and copies of Board publications and recruitment package.  Printing and distribution of the Fact Sheet will require resources.  The existing Tetra Tech work assignment includes Fact Sheet development.

 

We should include a regular agenda item on presentations recently given. Email Peters any presentations previously presented.

 

WQDE Workgroup

 

The workgroup has developed a draft set of generic data elements.  A draft set of selection criteria were also circulated.  These materials have been developed with an eye to several existing federal/state data systems.  A set of proposed selection criteria was circulated prior to the conference call as a follow-up from the last meeting on June 23, 1999.

 

NWQM 2000 Conference

 

Jerry Parr is offering a  presentation on PBMS. Andy and Jerry will discuss organizing a session/workshop on PBMS which will include the Parr presentation and the MDCB “reservoir dog” presentation. Larry Keith is also considering presenting a workshop on DQOs and a presentation on NEMI. Chuck Job has submitted an abstract for a workshop on WQDEs. Jerry Diamond will prepare an abstract for a presentation on the biology Workgroup efforts. The Outreach Workgroup will discuss what should be included in a Board display and the possibility of preparing a current Fact Sheet on the Boards activities.  We need to finalize what other abstracts will be submitted on behalf of Board activities.  Abstracts are due 10/15/99.

A key-note speaker for the conference still needs to be found.  Forward ideas to Charlie.

 

 

PBMS Workgroup

 

We need to publish latest version of the PBMS issue paper.  Jerry and Andy will explore options.

 

Nutrients were mentioned as a possible pilot at the previous Board meeting in Cincinnati.  There is wide public interest, in terms of the Clean Water Action Plan, TMDLs, and Nutrient Criteria.  The Workgroup therefore initially pursued developing a pilot design for nutrients.  After more discussion, a nutrient pilot was considered to be perhaps overly ambitious.  Rick Dunn suggested COD as a possible pilot because there’s an alternate proposed Hach method (that reduces mercury waste components), that has been subjected to EPA’s ATP process, and there are interested parties.  All agreed that a COD pilot was likely to be a quicker “success story” for the Board than a nutrient pilot at this time.  Rick, Andy, Cliff, and Jerry will discuss the issues and draft a potential pilot design for Board review by 10/30/99.

 

Matt explained that ETT can help set-up CRADAs for the Board.  Specifically, they can:  (1) develop the CRADA scope of work; (2) take care of letters of intent to get all participants working together; and (3) identify potential partners.

 

Accreditation Workgroup

 

The outline of the issue paper on federal lab accreditation has been annotated with information sent from various sources.  A strategy was identified to complete a draft position paper.  The Workgroup addressed the EPA Performance testing/evaluation issue assigned at the last Board meeting. There are 5 primary issues to address with EPA: 1) re-evaluate proposed acceptance criteria evaluation mechanism, 2) provide guidance to States on compounds not currently covered, 3) provide guidance to NIST to ensure validity of their evaluation, 4) consider use of more realistic concentrations, 5) consider enhancements to program to reflect existing conditions.  The workgroup will write up these issues and share them with EPA. A Conference call will be held with EPA and the Workgroup to discuss the issues. NELAC will be sent the issues to determine their stance. Based on information from these discussions the Workgroup will draft a short PE position paper.

 

Biological Methods Workgroup

 

Mike Miller discussed progress he has made on the field sampling method NEMI database.  He has so far concentrated on wadeable stream benthic macroinvertebrate collection methods although he compiled an extensive literature database for other types of systems and fauna/flora.  Tetra Tech will assist Mike in finalizing fields and information for a few methods by 9/30/99.  Chris Ingersoll reviewed his draft toxicity test database

 

It was agreed that NEMI fields should be designed so that most of the maintenance falls on the organization developing or putting out the method and not the Board.

 

Tetra Tech will work with Chris to finalize tox method fields by 9/30/99.  Donna Francy reviewed progress made on microbiological methods.  Many of the NEMI fields suggested by the Workgroup appear to apply to the Cryptosporidia and fecal coliform methods examined. Tetra Tech will assist Donna in getting information into NEMI fields by 11/15/99.  Jerry will make up a matrix of tentative NEMI fields and examples of information for different types of biological methods by 9/23/99.  NEMI fields need to be finalized by 9/30/99.  An EPA Workgroup, the Biology data standards committee, is attempting to determine CAS numbers for Biology, based on the International Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) framework.  The Biology Workgroup needs to coordinate with ITIS to specify

 

Board Funding and Priorities

 

Priorities appear to be appropriate.  Bob Berger can arrange discussions with WERF on PBMS pilots.  It would be helpful to have a CRADA person there as well.  We need to have some information prior to the next Steering Committee conference call 10/5/99.

Board Business

 

Charlie is updating the Board roster as some delegates have appointments ending soon.  A matrix for roster rotation/continuity will be developed by Charlie.


 

NNational Methods and Data Comparability Board

Meeting Minutes

Denver, CO  August 30 - September 1, 1999

 

 

Participants: Herb Brass, Merle Shockey, Charlie Peters, Ed Santoro, Richard Ayers, Bob Berger, Andy Eaton, Cliff Annis, Harold Aroudel, Chuck Spooner, Rick Dunn, Larry Keith, Matt Brinn, Ann Strong, Charlie Patton, Jerry Parr, Adriana Cantillo, Chuck Job, Robin Nissan, Elane Streets, Bernie Malo, Steve Moulton, Harry House, Mike Miller, Chris Ingersoll, Donna Francy, Jerry Diamond, Jim King, Al Driscoll, Bill Battaglin, Ed Furlong, Dan Sullivan (by phone)

 

The Agenda for this meeting is included in Attachment A.

 

Announcements

 

·                      Barbara Erickson and Bob Carlson have resigned as delegates of the Board, both for work-related reasons.  Bob is willing to continue with work groups. We wish them both the best of luck.

 

·                      Merle is temporarily acting as laboratory director for the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver and will, therefore, need to step-down as Co-chair.  Charlie Peters will take over the duties of Co-chair.  In the interim, Tetra Tech will fill in for some of Charlie’s Executive Secretary duties.

 

·                      Abstracts for the National Water Quality Monitoring Conference in Austin, TX are due by October 15, 1999.  The conference will be held April 25-27.  Contact Charlie or Jerry for more information.

 

NELAC/ELAB Progress on PBMS

 

Jerry Parr gave a presentation on the current status of PBMS in NELAC and in EPA.  A copy of the presentation will be available on the Board’s web site soon.  Jerry emphasized that there are presently no rules for method validation, QC requirements, and other aspects closely related to PBMS.  Herb noted that hard pilot data are needed to reduce or solve the polarized discussions concerning PBMS.  In this vein, we need to get information from the new ASTM-D34 validation framework work group.

 

PBMS Workgroup

 

            Reservoir Dog

 

We need to publish latest version of the PBMS issue paper.  Jerry and Andy will explore options.

 

Pilots and Funding

 

Cliff contacted CMA regarding possible funding sources.  Responses have not been very encouraging thus far.  Merck might be willing to fund pilot studies.  CRADAs appear to be a potentially useful and appropriate funding mechanism.

 

What is the goal of a Pilot PBMS study?

 

·                      Encourage use of better, cheaper, faster methods.

 

·                      Use data previously collected by other organizations.

 

·                      Eliminate nay-saying.

 

Success measures or “goals” identified in the PBMS position paper (reservoir dog) were:

 

·                      DQOs and MQOs established

 

·                      Validated method available

 

·                      Performance adequate for DQOs/MQOs

 

·                      Reference materials available

 

·                      Method ruggedness demonstrated

 

·                      Liability determination clarified

 

·                      Comparability of sampling methods for ambient monitoring.

 

Nutrients were mentioned as a possible pilot at the previous Board meeting in Cincinnati.  There is wide public interest, in terms of the Clean Water Action Plan, TMDLs, and Nutrient Criteria.  The Workgroup therefore initially pursued developing a pilot design for nutrients.

 

Scenario: Assume certain standard or action concentration (e.g., 10 ppb total phosphorus as in the Florida Everglades)

 

DQOs:             (1) Identify if the standard is exceeded with 95% confidence.

(2) Detect a 2 ppb change in concentration over time with 95% confidence.


MQOs identified to meet DQOs were identified as follows:

 

Parameter

MQO

 

Sensitivity

 

1 ppb

 

Precision

 

± 100% @ 1 ppb; ± 20% @ 10 ppb

 

Bias

 

80-120% @ 10 ppb; Detection - 200% @ 1 ppb

 

Interferences

 

5% false positives and false negatives @ 10 ppb

10% false positives and false negatives @ 1 ppb

 

Applicability

 

freshwater; with median TSS, TDS, pH, etc. values

 

Range

 

1 - 200 ppb

 

All of the above MQOs take into account sampling as well as laboratory error.  Sampling error includes that associated with preservation, handling, and storage.

 

For a PBMS pilot, we need to pick the best method and generate QC data to demonstrate a validated method that meets MQOs, or to demonstrate that there isn’t a validated method available.

 

How does one prove that a method meets MQOs?

 

Jerry Parr suggested the following analyses at a minimum:

 

2 spikes (in reagent water) @ 2 ppb; result ± 1 ppb

2 spikes (in reagent water) @ 10 ppb; result ± 1 ppb

2 spikes (in reagent water) @ 100-150 ppb; result ± 10 ppb

1 PE sample in “real life” matrix; result ± 1 ppb

 

The Workgroup offered the following additions:

 

1 sample (real matrix) that typically has 2-5 ppb; result ± 1 ppb

1 spike sample (real matrix) 5-10 ppb; result ± 1 ppb

 

The Office of Water ATP approach is somewhat different.  It may be advisable to design a pilot that examines both types of approaches.

 

For a nutrient pilot, a CRADA could involve dischargers, state agencies, EPA region, WERF, AWWARF, and industry.

 

After more discussion, a nutrient pilot was considered to be perhaps overly ambitious.  Rick Dunn suggested COD as a possible pilot because there’s an alternate proposed Hach method (that reduces mercury waste components), that has been subjected to EPA’s ATP process, and there are interested parties.  All agreed that a COD pilot was likely to be a quicker “success story” for the Board than a nutrient pilot at this time.  Rick, Andy, Cliff, and Jerry will discuss the issues and draft a potential pilot design for Board review by 10/30/99.

 

Matt explained that ETT can help set-up CRADAs for the Board.  Specifically, they can:

 

·                      develop the CRADA scope of work

 

·                      take care of letters of intent to get all participants working together

 

·                      identify potential partners.

 

Accreditation Work Group

 

The outline of the issue paper on federal lab accreditation has been annotated with information sent from various sources.  A strategy was identified to complete a draft position paper.

 

·        A Draft of the abstract and sections 1 and 2 of paper will be prepared by Peters for review. These sections will be about 2 pages long.

 

·        Ardourel (BQS, GD), Peters (BRD, NPS), Brass (EPA), Nissan (DOD), Verwolf (DOE), and Strong (COE) will provide information regarding types of analyses done by various Federal laboratories (compliance/ambient, range of analytes, emphasis) to Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech  will review this information, canvas the internet for other Federal labs, and prepare a general 2 page summary of Federal lab efforts for section 3 of the paper.

 

·        Tetra Tech will develop a definition of performance standards for water labs from the NELAC and E4 definitions as an introductory paragraph to section 4 of the paper. Malo (ASTM), Brass (EPA GLP) will provide information on standards in use by those programs and provide to Tetra Tech to summarize along with information already provided in outline. Tetra Tech will attempt to answer each of the 3 questions posed in the outline (primary users – regulatory, etc; Features – what targeted; merits/limitations) and compare similarities and differences between programs. This section will be about 7 pages long.

 

·        Tetra Tech will draft section 5, a summary of current laboratory accreditation programs, from information in outline, from the internet, and from information Ardourel/Driscoll, Brass ((EPA Forensics), Simmons (NELAP) send. Answer 4 questions posed in the outline (primary users, features, costs, merits/limitations) for each program. Include discussion of double blinds? Section 5 draft will include about a half page for each program.

 

·        After these section drafts are prepared (by next Board meeting) the work group will revise and draft section 6 – recommendations for federal lab accreditation.

 

The Work group addressed the EPA Performance testing/evaluation issue assigned at the last Board meeting. There are 5 primary issues to address with EPA: 1) re-evaluate proposed acceptance criteria evaluation mechanism, 2) provide guidance to States on compounds not currently covered, 3) provide guidance to NIST to ensure validity of their evaluation, 4) consider use of more realistic concentrations, 5) consider enhancements to program to reflect existing conditions.

 

The workgroup will write up these issues and share them with EPA. A Conference call will be held with EPA and the work group to discuss the issues. NELAC will be sent the issues to determine their stance. Based on information from these discussions the work group will draft a short PE position paper.

 

Biological Methods Workgroup

 

Field Sampling Methods

 

Mike Miller discussed progress he has made on the field sampling method NEMI database.  He has so far concentrated on wadeable stream benthic macroinvertebrate collection methods although he compiled an extensive literature database for other types of systems and fauna/flora. Eventually, we need to expand the NEMI-type database for estuarine/marine systems and large rivers. 

 

Chuck Spooner will send Mike and Ed Santoro estuarine/marine EPA methods. 

 

For wadeable streams, Mike indicated that the NEMI database will focus on grab samplers, kick-nets, and artificial substrates as these are the most commonly used methods.  He suggested that processing time be used as a field in addition to holding time.  Alternatively, processing time can be incorporated into the Effort category/field.  Chuck noted that the CWAP specifies many coastal issues and the Council has an active workgroup in that area.  We need to coordinate activities with the Council Workgroup down the road.  Tetra Tech will assist Mike in finalizing fields and information for a few methods by 9/30/99.

 

Chris Ingersoll reviewed his draft toxicity test database.  He noted that many specifics of the method have changed due to updates and one needs to be sure the methods in the database are current.  His experience suggests a large database maintenance cost.  It was agreed that NEMI fields should be designed so that most of the maintenance falls on the organization developing or putting out the method and not the Board.  However, we still need to collect information on contacts for method updating and caution the user on accuracy of information, give the user contacts in the database.  For ruggedness in the database, could indicate whether method was subjected to inter-laboratory testing (yes or no).  Precision and sensitivity are still problematic fields.  Tetra Tech will work with Chris to finalize the fields by 9/30/99.

 

Donna Francy reviewed progress made on microbiological methods.  Many of the NEMI fields suggested by the Workgroup appear to apply to the Cryptosporidia and fecal coliform methods examined.  Much of the information on the comments section can be moved to fields such as Effort/Relative Cost, interferences, or method specific requirements.  For analytical capability required in the method, may be useful to categorize methods in steps between presence/absence up to quantitative.  Tetra Tech will assist Donna in getting information into NEMI fields by 9/30/99.

 

NEMI fields considered for all biological methods thus far are: (1) parameter, (2) species, (3) method source, date/version, (4) endpoint, (5) units, (6) method description, (7) matrices, (8) sensitivity, (9) interferences, (10) method requirements**, (11) type of sample?, (12) precision*, (13) sample preservation, (14) holding time, (15) sample preparation, (16) QC requirements**, (17) ruggedness, (18) relative cost/effort/expertise-training, (19) references/contacts.

_________

*   difficult fields to populate

** fields that may need the most updating

 

Jerry will make up a matrix of tentative NEMI fields and examples of information for different types of biological methods by 9/23/99.  NEMI fields need to be finalized by 9/30/99.

 

Merle shared an email he received concerning benthic invertebrate field test comparisons between emap/remap and nawqa protocols in the Western Region.  The Biology Workgroup needs to follow up on this.

 

An EPA work group, the Biology data standards committee, is attempting to determine CAS numbers for Biology, based on the International Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) framework.  The Biology Workgroup needs to coordinate with ITIS to specify taxonomic codes for species as appropriate.

 

NEMI Work Group

 

The Workgroup discussed background of the NEMI concept and the relationship to EMMI and EMSD. A proposal/workplan will be prepared to describe a 3 phase approach to implementing NEMI. A complete list of fields, tables, linkages for EMMI and EMSD will be sent to Sullivan/House at USGS for use in preparing the workplan draft. Nutrient and Biology work groups will send their NEMI fields to Sullivan/House as soon as possible. The Workplan draft will be revised for review by the entire workgroup by the end of October. Sullivan/House will send the work group a list of data elements for NEMI based on information received from EMMI/EMSD.  Updates will be made on about a semi annual basis once initially populated. Only about 350 water laboratory analytical methods (about 1600 exist) will be included in this workplan.

 

Discussed the 3 phases of the workplan:

1)      database design, data dictionary, move data in, add Discover tool , deliver prototype for review and revision.

2)      Add more data, final modifications to search approach, determine where to house the database and how to maintain it.

 

3)   Add more data, and perhaps move NEMI to a new server.  Outline the NEMI maintenance approach.

 

The workplan will be written for FY00 and FY01.

 

In Phase I, there needs to be coordination between Biology, Nutrients, Radiation Methods, and NEMI to work out the data structure.  For the final workplan, need to include a brief introduction describing what NEMI is and why the need, as well as timeline and costs by 9/30.  We need to be honest about implications for future costs in Phase 3 (e.g., maintenance costs).  Perhaps give a range of costs for Phase 3.

 

Establishing and maintaining hot links in NEMI will be problematic.  This typically requires a lot of upkeep because link addresses change so frequently.

 

Steering Committee will help guide NEMI pilot implementation – House, Sullivan, Keith, King, Thompson, Streets/Scandora, Peters, Brass, Spooner plus any other groups providing funding.

 

WPI has a small EPA grant to begin work on field analytical methods. Field analytical and sample collection methods will be added in a future draft, Other matrixes will be added after that.

 

Workgroup will need to develop consensus algorithms/approaches to populating some of the fields.  A NEMI data dictionary needs to be prepared.

 

There is $75 to $100 K available to work on NEMI this year.  More may be available from ASTM, WERF, AWWARF, and other sources. Malo will provide a template for mini proposal needed by ASTM.

 

It will be necessary to ensure that the NEMI is consistent with the WQDE work groups elements and definitions (data dictionary).  WQDE and Biology work group will provide initial information for sample collection methods needed by NEMI.

 

The Board and the NEMI workgroup will maintain control of what methods are added to NEMI. Methods for NEMI must be documented in the literature.

 

Nutrient Methods Workgroup

 

Adriana noted that NOAA is working with NRC Canada that supplies certified stable reference materials for nutrients in seawater.  NOAA is initiating its own pilot for laboratory performance of nutrient methods following a PBMS approach.  Labs choose the method they will use given a certain known range of nutrient concentrations and salinity.  Salinity methods/measures, Adriana noted, are another issue.

 

Profound statement: You get much better cooperation on analytical work between nations than you do between states.                        Ed Santoro

 

All agreed that standard NEMI fields apply to nutrients as well.  Populating the performance fields is another matter.  Other fields previously identified were: (1) hazardous waste byproduct, (2) date of inception/last revision, and (3) ambient vs. compliance sample.  These could be incorporated into existing NEMI fields.

 

Tetra Tech will help populate fields for a few methods and distribute for Board review by 10/15/99.

 

Rather than design a nutrient pilot now, the following tasks will be done with Tetra Tech’s help: (1) review and compile performance characteristics for published nutrient methods; (2) identify concerns with nutrient method practices and relate to issues such as TMDLs and EPA’s nutrient strategy; (3) consider the type of DQOs and MQOs current nutrient methods are capable of meeting; and (4) minimum QC requirements.

 

Several other ideas were mentioned as activities for the nutrient focus.  Pre-Pilot comparing standard practices for measuring phosphorus against standards:  How many samples are needed to meet DQOs? 

 

·        Study on filtration/chilling as alternative preservative

·        Nutrients chapter for criteria strategy and review of methods

·        Nutrient DQOs and TMDLs

·        Take WI pilot further

·        Develop an issue paper to evaluate the need for a PBMS nutrient study focused on TMDLs.

·        Review how have methods been validated historically

·        Establish reference methods via literature search

·        Performance of alkaline persulfate versus kjeldahl nitrogen

 

Other possible tasks for the work group to pursue will be compiled and sent to nutrients work group to determine interest level and whether or not to continue as a work group at this time.

 

USGS - DuPont CRADA

 

Bill Battaglin presented a summary of results thus far on the herbicide study.  Over 200 samples in nine large and 69 smaller drainage basins in the midwest were analyzed.  Each site was sampled twice — right after a rainfall event when stream flow exceeded the 50th percentile.  Stream samples had more detects than groundwater samples but most DuPont herbicides were relatively low in concentration.  Other, more widely used herbicides such as atrazine, alachlor, and acetochlor were more common and in higher concentration.  Glyphosate herbicides (Monsanto) appear to be taking over more market share — less DuPont herbicide being used which may account for some of the low concentrations observed.  Bill will get Charlie a copy of this presentation for distribution on the Board web site.

 

Ed Furlong presented a summary of the method development process used to achieve lower herbicide detection levels.  Two publications describing the methods have been written and approved and two reports are planned.  USGS is currently working on methods for degradation products.  Bill will coordinate with Charlie to get next report out for Board review.

 

Outreach

 

The Workgroup reviewed and revised the letter that will be sent to various water resource organizations introducing our website and requesting a link.

 

The table of organizations for letter distribution will be updated based on contributions from Dunn, Peters, and Berger.  An email with the attached letter and table will be sent to Council and Board members requesting additional organizations for the table.  After the table is completed and the letters sent, the outreach work group will prioritize the organizations and make follow-up phone calls.

 

A link will be made from the public Board web site to the Conference 2000 site.

 

Board members should send any newsletters, publications, proceedings, presentations, etc prepared on Board activities to Peters for inclusion on the Public website.

 

Peters will send copies of Board power point presentations to Tetra Tech so that they can prepare a Board overview power point presentation for Board or Council members to use.

 

A Board display and fact sheet should be prepared for Conference 2000.  The display should include a computer for web site demos and copies of Board publications and recruitment package.  Printing and distribution of the Fact Sheet will require resources.  The existing Tetra Tech work assignment includes Fact Sheet development.

 

The public web site indexing will be increased and tested prior to the next meeting.

 

Board members should provide information on pertinent upcoming meetings and conferences to Peters for distribution to the Board.

 

We should include a regular agenda item on presentations recently given. Email Peters any presentations previously presented.

 

The Board Outreach Workgroup needs to meet with the Council Outreach workgroup to determine how best to coordinate efforts.

 

We should get logos from all Board participant organizations for web site.

 

WQDE Work Group

 

Water Quality Data Elements Committee — Conference Call Summary (Aug. 31, 1999)

 

The workgroup has developed a draft set of generic data elements.  A draft set of selection criteria were also circulated.  These materials have been developed with an eye to several existing federal/state data systems.  A list with several of these data systems is shown below.  The bold-faced abbreviations or acronyms are used in the subsequent summary.

 

 

                                                     Select Data Systems or Initiatives

 

These have been used to define current working lists of data elements and criteria or could be used for comparison purposes to refine notions of a “core” list of elements and criteria.

 

NWIS  (or USGS)

USGS National Water Information System II replaces NWIS I and the WATSTORE system.  A major source of flow and other hydrology data.  See list included below from Glenn Patterson. Also see the overview at <http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/watershed/Proceed/briggs.html>.  There is a WEB-based version of NWIS (NWIS-W) at this url <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis‑w/US/>.USGS Contact: Alan Lumb

 

STORET

Focus is on “modernized STORET” as opposed to “legacy” STORET (similar to USGS and NWIS versus WATSTORE).  EPA preparing a data elements summary list.  Goos background information at the following url <http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/STORET/descript.html>

 

ITFM

Useful Information in final reports, especially in several Appendices (e.g, Appendix M).  On the WEB at the following url <http://h2o.usgs.gov/public/wicp/appendixes/index.html>.

 

MSDE

Minimum Data for Groundwater Data.  Contact C. Job.

 

National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD)

Required under SWA Reauthorization.  Overview at the following  url <http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/standard/pp/ncodpp.html>.  Contact: C. Jobs

 

Unregulated Contaminant (Monitoring) Rule (UCM or UCMR)

SDWA also requires revisions of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) — information at the following url <http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/standard/pp/ucmpp.html>. Contact: C. Job.

 


CALFED

The CALFED Bay‑Delta Program, a cooperative effort among state and federal agencies and California’s environmental, urban and agricultural communities, was initiated in 1995 to address environmental and water management problems for the Bay‑Delta system.  Overview at the following url <http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/calfed.html>.  EPA Region 9 for contact.

 

Section 319 National Monitoring Program (NPS 319)

The Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects comprise a small subset of NPS pollution control projects funded under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act as amended in 1987. The goal of the program is to support 20 to 30 watershed projects nationwide that meet a minimum set of project planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation requirements designed to lead to successful documentation of project effectiveness with respect to water quality protection or improvement. Overview at the following url <http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/sec319.html>

 

Permit Compliance System (PCS)

EPA OECA.  Regulatory enforcement oriented.  “Monitoring Data” components abstracted in several other databases and in BASINS.

 

EMAP — contact: Bob Shepanek, ORD

 

Chesapeake Bay Program.  Contact: Ricky Banner/C. Spooner. A list (data element dictionary) available on some WEB page — but Spooner will check to see if this is their most current list.

 

Other large Regional./State System?? E.g., from TVA or efforts in South Florida?

 

NEMI (National Environmental Monitoring Initiative or Index)

National Environmental Monitoring Initiative aims to integrate and coordinate environmental monitoring and related research through government and private‑sector collaboration, in order to enhance the utility of existing networks and programs.  Development of the National Environmental Monitoring Initiative is under the leadership of the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, in the White House Office of Science &Technology Policy. An overview of 34-35 federal systems is available. <http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/welcome.html>

 

A set of proposed selection criteria was circulated prior to the conference call as a follow-up from the last meeting on June 23, 1999.  This draft list is given below:

 

                                  Selection Criteria for "Core" Water Quality Data Elements

 

The Water Quality Data Elements Committee developed proposed selection criteria for "core" water quality data elements on June 23, 1999, as follows:


The purpose of the selection criteria is to allow comparison with other data sets at the level of the sample test result by:

 

(1)        Providing the answer to or creating the possibility to answer the basic questions of:

a.    What is being measured? (Perhaps overlaps with f below?)

b.    What is the constituent's concentration?

c.    Where was the sample taken?

d.    When was the sample taken?

e.    What is the type of water source? (e.g., waterbody type; surface water versus groundwater)

f.     Is there co-occurrence with other chemical, physical or microbiological parameters?

g.    Why was the sample collected?

h.   How was the sample obtained?

i.   What is the level of confidence in the reported results for the range of methods used, including, at a minimum, QA/QC data? (And how this would apply to derived measures or metrics?)

 

(2)        Identifying the originating organization (i.e., allowing the possibility of request for additional data) (or changes in previous data entries)

 

Some points were then raised.

 

Some were concerned that the Committee define its purpose as sticking to the definition of a set of CORE elements (especially for data elements). If the list was too large (for instance, some draft materials would produce a list with about 63 data elements), then this would put people off and make it harder to get buy-in. Others thought this was a reasonable idea as an ultimate goal — but at this time its was perhaps better not to worry too much about immediately pruning down the list(s). The draft list(s) should be compared against a set of actual major data systems to see how to pick a cut-off point.  Some felt that certain existing lists/systems were already pretty close to a set of core elements (e.g., maybe NCOD?).

 

The Workgroup noted that lists of elements/criteria should make it easy to tell if a site were a “clean” site (e.g., an reactively undisturbed “reference” site).  The aim also seems to be to include both “natural” waters as well as treated water.

 

A set of “minimum data elements” was prepared by the USGS based on their NWIS data system. This data element summary is included in Attachment B. 

 

National Water Quality Monitoring Conference

 

Jerry Parr is offering a  presentation on PBMS. Andy and Jerry will discuss organizing a session/workshop on PBMS which will include the Parr presentation and the MDCB “reservoir dog” presentation. Larry Keith is also considering presenting a workshop on DQOs and a presentation on NEMI. Chuck Job has submitted an abstract for a workshop on WQDEs. Jerry Diamond will prepare an abstract for a presentation on the biology work group efforts. The Outreach work group will discuss what should be included in a Board display and the possibility of preparing a current Fact Sheet on the Boards activities.  We need to finalize what other abstracts will be submitted on behalf of Board activities.  Abstracts are due 10/15/99.  Charlie indicated that we may need to review up to 20 abstracts on methods issues.  The Steering Committee will coordinate the review of abstracts as needed.

 

We should encourage NELAC to submit abstracts.  Bart Simmons may be a good presenter or could help coordinate participation by NELAC.  Charlie will contact Bart and also contact NELAC to see if they could link to the conference on their web site.  Charlie Patton may do a paper on nutrient methods.  Could use abstracts on the following:

 

NEMI framework for biological methods

DQO process for biological methods

NEMI database and purpose

Data elements framework and purpose

Plenary paper on defining method comparability-process, ideas, framework that need to be present to ensure comparable monitoring data.

 

Should use the conference to pull in new people, organizations, especially southwest interests.

 

A key-note speaker for the conference still needs to be found.  Forward ideas to Charlie.

 

Board Funding and Priorities

 

Priorities appear to be appropriate.  Bob Berger can arrange discussions with WERF on PBMS pilots.  It would be helpful to have a CRADA person there as well.  We need to have some information prior to the next Steering Committee conference call 10/5/99.

 

Chuck suggested that pilots might be higher priority than NEMI in terms of building public support.  We need to build excitement before building obligations.  Current Board priorities as submitted to the Council are: NEMI, PBMS Pilot, Accreditation Paper, Website, biology and nutrient workplans for pilots.

 

Cliff noted that the NWQM conference needs to convey that the Board is a collaboration of organizations and that’s how change can happen.

 

Jerry is pursuing a WERF RFP that involves, among other things, setting DQOs for biological assessments and Effluent Toxicity testing.  He suggested involving the Board as a peer reviewer in the project.  Jerry, Charlie, and Herb will discuss this further.

 

Possible contributors to a nutrient CRADA include WERF, national pork producers, broiler council, national assn of state dept of agriculture, AWWARF, EPA – nutrient criteria strategy, USGS – NAWQA, ASWIPCA, Phosphorous mining, fertilizer/agricultural chemical association, NRCS, Dairy and Cattlemans Association, and Instrument manufacturers.  Also, it may be useful to look into SERDP.gov as a possible funding mechanism.

 

Board Business

 

Minutes from last Board meeting in Cincinnati should be available soon.  Charlie is updating the Board roster as some delegates have appointments ending soon.  A matrix for roster rotation/continuity will be developed by Charlie.  Chuck encouraged keeping delegates on if at all possible for continuity and efficiency.  Bob Berger said that he would need to go off the Board after his 2-year term but will be able to serve on workgroups and conference calls.

 

Roundtable

 

Prefer to have Workgroup meeting times staggered to avoid conflicts. 

 

Should there be a nutrients workgroup?  The Board needs a nutrient focus but most participants felt that it was probably unnecessary to have a separate workgroup. 

 

Need to stay flexible and revise priorities and organizational framework as needed. 

 

Tetra Tech could use more specific guidance from Board on priorities and tasks to serve the Board better.

 

Do we need a separate biology workgroup or just a biology focus?  We could use more expertise at the table for workgroup meetings.

 

Encourage greater participation from experts in the area where meetings are held to further cooperation, buy-in, and better products.

 

Need more state involvement with the Board.  Identify value added for pilots, etc., particularly for states.

 

O:\Fy1999 (Oct. 98 on)\Monitoring\C800‑11‑02 (Minutes)\Minutes_8_30_99.wpd


APPENDIX  A

 

Interagency Methods and Data Comparability Board

 

August 30th – September 1st 1999 Meeting Agenda

 

USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL)

 

Denver Federal Center

 

 

 

Meeting Goals:

 

·         Develop Workgroup funding proposals and related contacts

·         Prepare Federal Lab Accreditation position paper

·         Prepare draft letter to EPA concerning performance evaluation

·        Develop PBMS Pilot Test ideas

·        Refine NEMI workplan, position paper and next steps

·        Develop distribution list for public Web site

·        Revise letter to organizations concerning website links

·        Develop “Core” WQDE

·        DuPont CRADA update

·        Determine Board role in the 2000 NWQM Conference and abstracts to prepare for submittal

·        Develop FY00 Delegates and Alternates roster

 

 

Conference call in phone number – 703 648 4848

            (access codes for each session provided below)

 

 

 

August 30th, Monday

 

 

13:00 –13:30      Welcome/Introductions, discuss agenda

Training Room, Charlie notetaker

 

13:30 – 14:00     NELAP Presentation       Jerry Parr                                                                                                         Training Room, Charlie notetaker

                                   

14:00 – 17:30     Accreditation Workgroup Meeting                                                                                                            Main Conf Room, Charlie notetaker, 3 conf lines -40780

 

14:00 – 17:30     PBMS Workgroup Meeting

Training Room, Jerry notetaker, 3 conf lines -40781

 

 

August 31st, Tuesday

 

 

08:00 – 08:15     Discuss Meeting Objectives

Training Room

 

08:15 – 11:15     NEMI Workgroup Meeting                                                                                                                      Main Conf Room, Charlie notetaker, internet access, 5 conf lines -40785

 

08:15 – 11:15    Biology Workgroup Meeting                                                                                                                     Training Room Room, Jerry notetaker, 5 conf lines -40786

 

11:15 – 13:00     NWQL Tour

 

13:00 – 13:30    Order in working lunch

Training Room

 

13:30 – 14:30    CRADA Presentations

Training Room, Charlie notetaker

                                   

Concentrations of Sulfonamide, and Imadazolinone Herbicides in Storm Runoff

from 70 streams, outflow from 5 Reservoirs and groundwater from 25 wells in

the Midwestern USA, 1998 - Bill Battaglin

 

Routine determination of sulfonylurea, imadazolinone, and sulfonamide herbicides at nanograms-per-liter concentrations by solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry – Ed Furlong

 

 

14:30 - 17:30     Outreach Workgroup Meeting

Conf Room D1, Charlie notetaker, 3 conference lines - 40782

 

14:30 – 17:30    WQDE Workgroup Meeting

Main Conf Room, Chuck Job notetaker, 10 conference lines -40783

 

14:30 – 17:30    Nutrients Workgroup Meeting

Training Room, Jerry notetaker, 3 conference lines -40784

 

17:30                Adjourn

 

September 1st, Wednesday

 

 

08:00 – 09:00     Workgroup follow up meetings/coordinated meetings

Main Conf Room, Training Room, Conf Room D1

 

09:00 – 10:00     NWQL QAQC activities -Terry Shertz

Training room, Charlie notetaker

 

10:00 – 12:00     Workgroup report backs

Training Room, Charlie notetaker

 

12:00 – 13:00     Order in working Lunch

 

13:00 – 14:00      Discuss Boards involvement in 2000 NWQM Conference

Training Room, Charlie notetaker

 

14:00 – 15:00     Discuss Board Funding

Training Room, Charlie notetaker

 

15:00 – 16:00     Board Business

Training Room, Charlie notetaker

 

16:00 – 16:30     Roundtable

Training Room, Charlie notetaker

 

16:30                Adjourn

 

 

 

 

 

Number at the NWQL where you can be reached : 303 236 2000

 

 

 

 

 


APPENDIX  B

 

Contact: Glenn G. Patterson, Hydrologist         

 

SUGGESTED MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS

BASED ON US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM

AND THE NATIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT

 

(July1, 1999)

 

A. INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE

 

1. Site name

 

Definition:         Name of sampling site

Examples:         Pine Creek near Hillsboro; Mill Valley Municipal Well no. 3;

Davis Spring near Simpsonville, Sam Turner domestic well

 

2. Latitude

 

3. Longitude

 

4. Lat‑Long accuracy

 

Definition:  Numeric code to designate the degree of accuracy of the

Lat‑Long

 

5. Site type

 

Definition:         The location type for the site

Examples:         Stream, well, spring, distribution system, lake, ocean,

canal

 

6. Primary use of site

 

Definition:         Primary reason for the site's existence, or primary use of

the water

Examples:         Contamination monitoring well, public supply well, streamflow

gage

 

7. Raw or treated

 

Definition:         Designation as to whether the sampled water is raw or treated


ADDITIONAL DATA ELEMENTS FOR WELLS

 

8. Depth to top of uppermost open interval

 

Definition:         Distance, in feet, from top of casing to top of  upper

screen or open interval

 

9. Depth to bottom of lowermost open interval

 

Definition:         Distance, in feet, from top of casing to bottom of lowermost

screen or open interval

 

10. Elevation of top of casing

 

11. Elevation accuracy

 

B.  INFORMATION ABOUT THE SAMPLE

 

1. Sampling entity identification

 

Definition:  Name of the organization responsible for obtaining the

sample

Example:  U.S. Geological Survey

 

2. Begin date

 

Definition:         Date withdrawal of water for this sample commenced

 

3. End date

 

Definition:         Date withdrawal of water for this sample ended

 

4. Sampling depth

 

Definition:         Depth, in feet below top of casing or land surface, to

point at which sample was withdrawn, or designation for depth‑integrated

sample.

 

5. Reason for sampling

 

Definition:         Reason for taking the sample

Examples:         Contaminant monitoring, State ambient network, compliance

monitoring, trip blank

 

6. Sampling method

Definition:         Method used to obtain the sample

Examples:         Automatic sampler, grab sample, 24‑hour composite, isokinetic

sampler

 

INFORMATION ABOUT THE ANALYSIS

 

1. Filtered or unfiltered

 

2. Parameter name/code

 

3. Parameter  value and units

4. Data‑quality indicator

 

Definition:         Code to designate accuracy of the parameter value

 

5. Date of analysis

 

6. Name of lab

 

7. Method code

 

8. Minimum detection level

 

The Committee then went element-by-element through a table of proposed data elements.  Comments on some of the items are indicated in yellow-line.  In the last column of the table, Committee members filled in applicable SELECTION CRITERIA.  For instance, an entry such as “1c” would refer to the criterion (see list above): “Where was the sample taken?”  Examples of actual data systems were also added in this column. The original table contained 47 data element “rows.”  Additional data elements were discussed tapping other lists or materials — which would bring the total number of data elements up to around 63.  A few of these “extra” items are noted at the end of the table.

 

 

 

TABLE 1

Discussion Draft  1/22/99

 Recommended Data Elements

for

Water Quality Monitoring Results

 

 

* ITFM Appendix M

Recom-mended Data Elements

 

Selction

Criteria

Check-off Column

(refer to attached criteria)

 

#

 

Data Element

 

Definition

 

Releted Reference Name

 

Write in applicable criteria

 

1

 

Sampling Station/Facility Identification Number

 

The code used to identify each sampling station/facility.  The code begins with the standard two-character postal State abbreviation; the remaining seven (?) characters are unique to each sampling station/facility.   The same identification number must be used consistently through the history of monitoring to represent the sampling station/facility.

 

Site name, Site number

 

1c

1f

 

2

 

Sampling Station/Facility Type

 

The location type represented by the sample.  The valid choices are:

(a)  Finished/treated drinking water

       (i)  Finished Water from treatment system

       (ii)  Entry Point to the distribution system after

              treatment

(iii)               Within the Distribution System

       (iv)  End of the Distribution line with longest

               residence time

       (v)  Household/drinking water tap

       (vi) Unknown

       (vii) Other

(b) Ambient/Raw/untreated water

      (i) Dedicated monitoring station

(A) Stream

(B) Lake

(C) Wetland

(D) Reservoir

(E) Ocean-coastal

(F) Ocean-open

(G) Well

(H) Spring

(I) Precipitation

     (ii) Temporary monitoring station

(A) Stream

(B) Lake

(C) Wetland

(D) Reservoir

(E) Ocean-coastal

(F) Ocean-open

(G) Well

(H) Spring

(G) Precipitation

(c) Biological

     (i) Point

     (ii) Transect

 

Site type

 

1e

1c

1h

UCM

USGS

MSDE

 

  3

 

Reason for Sample Collection

 

Regulatory:

(a) Safe Drinking Water Act - Regulated Contaminant Compliance

(b) Safe Drinking Water Act - Unregulated Contaminant

(c) Clean Water Act

     (i) Routine Compliance

     (ii) Pollution Event

     (iii) Storm Event

(c) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

       (i) Reconnaissance

       (ii) Routine Compliance

       (iii) Pollution Event

(d) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

       (i) Reconnaissance

       (ii) Routine Compliance

       (iii) Pollution Event

(e) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

       (i) Reconnaissance

       (ii) Routine Compliance

       (iii) Pollution Event

(f) Food Quality Protection Act

(g) Other

Non-regulatory:

(h) National Water Quality Assessment (US Geological Survey)

       (i) Reconnaissance

       (ii)Pollution event

       (iii) Storm Event

(i) State Water Quality Assessment (Include pick list of States)

       (i) Reconnaissance

       (ii)Pollution event

       (iii) Storm Event

(j) Research

(k) Volunteer

(l) Other

          (ii) Pollution event

          (iii) Storm event

 

 

 

1a

 

 4

 

Water Source Type

(Perhaps collapse into #2 ???)

 

The source type represented by the sample.  The valid choices are:

(a)  Surface water.

(b)  Ground water.

(c) Precipitation/Atmospheric

 

Water body type

 

1e

UCM

 

 5

 

Water Body/Aquifer Name

 

Name of the lake, stream, river, estuary, aquifer or other water feature related to the physical site.

 

Water Body Name/

Aquifer Name

 

1e

MSDE

1c

 

 6

 

River Reach Code

 

Code representing a section of a river or stream defined by the components of the River Reach File 3 (RF3) file.

 

USEPA River Reach Code

 

1e

1a

 

 7

 

Sample medium code*

 

Alphanumeric code that designates the environmental material about which results are reported from either direct observation or collected samples; for example, water, tissue, and/or sediment.

 

Sample medium code

 

1a

NEMI

 

 8

 

Substrate Code*

 

Code that represents the material to which sessile organisms are attached.

 

Substrate Code

 

1a

 

 9

 

Sample Identification number

(Perhaps could be “created” by combining other data elements ??)

 

A unique identifier assigned by the sampler (or sampling organization) for each sample.

 

Sample Number

 

1d

1f

UCM

 

 10

 

Sample Collection Date

 

Date sample was collected, reported as two digit month, two digit day and four digit year.

 

Collection end date

 

1d

1f

UCM

USGS

MSDE

 

11

 

Sample Collection Method

 

The method used to collect the sample.

 

Sample Collection Method

 

1h

1c

USGS

NEMI

 

12

 

Sample Collection Depth

 

The depth at which a sample was collected fro a well or other source of water.

 

Sample Depth

 

MSDE

 

13

 

Collection Depth Unit of Measure

 

The Unit of Measure (UOM) for the depth at which a sample was collected from a well or other source of water.

 

 

 

1i

 

14

 

Number of Samples Composited

 

Indicates the number of samples combined to produce the composite

 

 

 

1h

1i

 

15

 

Sample Type

 

The type of sample collected.  Permitted values include:

(a)  Reference Sample

(b)  Field Sample (standard sample)

(c)  Confirmation Sample

(d)  Field Blank

(e)  Equipment Blank

(f)  Split Sample

(g)  Replicate Sample

(h)  Spiked Sample

 

QC Sample type

 

 

 

 16

 

Taxonomic Key*

 

Alphanumeric designation for the unique, official scientific name of a biological organism and its position in the taxonomic nomenclature hierarchy.

 

Taxo-nomic Key

 

 

 

 17

 

Biological part code*

 

Alphanumeric code that designates the identification of the specific anatomical part of an organism that is being measured; for example, liver, heart, cell wall, or whole organism.

 

Biological part code

 

 

 

18

 

Latitude of Sampling Station/Facility

 

The location of each source intake, well or wellfield centroid, and treatment plant associated with a sample expressed as decimal degrees

 

 

 

 

 

 19

 

Longitude of Sampling Station/Facility

 

The location of each source intake, well or wellfield centroid, and treatment plant associated with a sample expressed as decimal degrees

 

 

 

 

 

 20

 

Latitude/Longitude Accuracy*

 

Quantitative measurement of the amount of deviation from true value present in a measurement that describes the correctness of a measurement.

 

Latitude/

Longitude Accuracy

 

 

 

 21

 

Latitude/Longitude Method*

 

Procedure used to determine the latitude and longitude, includes the reference datum.

 

Latitude/

Longitude Method*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 22

 

Altitude*

 

Vertical distance from the National Reference Datum to the land surface, reference mark, or measuring point at the site (feet or meters).

 

Altitude

 

 

 

 23

 

Altitude Method*

 

Method used to determine the altitude value, including the National Reference Datum on which the altitude is based.

 

Altitude Method

 

 

 

 24

 

Bottom Depth*

(combine with 24 ??)

 

Depth of water column at station, measured from the surface of the water to the sediment/water interface.

 

Bottom Depth

 

 

 

 25

 

Well Depth*

 

Depth of the completed well below the land surface, in feet or meters.

 

Well Depth

 

MSDE

 

 26

 

Well open interval, bottom*

 

Bottom of the open or screened interval of the well (feet or meters below land surface).

 

Well open interval, bottom

 

1c

MSDE

USGS

 

 27

 

Well open interval, top*

 

Top of the open or screened interval of the well (feet or meters below land surface).

 

Well open interval, top

 

1c

MSDE

USGS

 

28

 

Contaminant

(or Constituent)

 

Need to be able to indicate filtration method(s)

 

The contaminant for which the sample is being analyzed.

 

Constitu-ent

 

ITFM

UCM

MSDE

USGS

NEMI

 

 29

 

Analysis Date

 

(Can sometimes be different than sample date)

 

Date that the analysis was completed in 2‑digit month, 2‑digit day, and four digit year.

 

Analysis End Date

 

MSDE

USGS

 

 30

 

Analytical Results - Sign

 

An alphanumeric value indicating whether the sample analysis result was:

(a)  (<) less than means the contaminant was not detected according to the required minimum reporting level (i.e., MRL) at the time of analysis.

(b)  (=) equal to means the contaminant was detected according to the  to the required minimum reporting level (i.e., MRL) at the time of analysis.

 

Value Quali-fier(s)

 

1b

UCM

 

31

 

Analytical Result - Value

 

The actual numeric value of the analysis.

To include Density for microbes.

 

Value

 

1b

UCM

MSDE

USGS

 

32

 

Unit of Measure

 

The unit of measurement for the analytical results reported. (e.g., µg/L, pCi/L, CFU/mL, etc.)

 

 

 

1b

UCM

USGS

 

33

 

Analytical Method Number

 

The method number of the analytical method used.

 

Analytical Method; Method Refer-ences

 

1i

UCM

MSDE

NEMI

USGS

 

34

 

Detection Level

 

Detection level is referring to the detection limit applied to both method and equipment.  Detection limits are the lowest concentration of a target analyte that a given method or piece of equipment can reliably ascertain and report as greater than zero (i.e., Instrument Detection Limit, Method Detection Limit, Estimated Detection Limit).

 

Detection Level Value

 

1i

UCM

MSDE

USGS

NEMI

 

35

 

Detection Level Unit of  Measure

 

(Can get very involved; for instance, USGS uses their LTMDL approach)

 

The measurement units used to express the concentration, count, or other value of a contaminant level.

(e.g., µg/L, pCi/L, CFU/mL, etc.)

 

 

 

1i

UCM

 

36

 

Detection Level Method*

 

Method for determining the detectable quantity of a constituent on the basis of laboratory conditions, analytical method, and/or field conditions.

 

Detection Level Method

 

1i

NEMI

 

37

 

Reporting Level

 

If the lowest numerical value that a laboratory can report reliably for a test result based on the laboratory’s experience with the method and equipment is different that the Detection Level, then it should be reported as the Reporting Level.

 

 

 

1a

1b

UCM

 

38

 

Reporting Level Unit of Measure

 

The measurement units used to express the concentration, count, or other value of a contaminant level.

(e.g., µg/L, pCi/L, CFU/mL, etc.)

 

 

 

1i

UCM

 

39

 

Analytical Precision

 

Precision is the degree of agreement among a set of repeated measurements and is monitored through the use of replicate samples or measurements.  Precision is expressed as:

(a)     Standard Deviation (SD)

    SD = [{ (xi ‑ avg x)2} / (n‑1)]

(b)  % Relative Standard Deviation (RSD),

    % RSD = (SD / mean concentration) x 100  , or

(c)  Relative Percent Difference (RPD),

    RPD = [(X1 ‑ X2) / {(X1 + X2)/2}] x 100

 

Precision of Value

 

1i

UCM

NEMI

 

40

 

Analytical Accuracy

 

Accuracy is a measure of confidence in a measurement and can be assessed by calculating:

(a)   % deviation

    % deviation = [(average x - true value) / true value] x 100; or

(b)  % recovery (Rec)

    % Rec = [(amt. found in Spiked sample ‑ amt. found in sample) / amt. in spiked sample] x 100

Accuracy describes how close a result is to the true value measured through the use of spikes, surrogates, standards, or PE samples.

 

Bias of Value

 

1i

UCM

NEMI

 

41

 

Presence/Absence

 

Chemicals: Presence- a response was produced by the analysis (i.e., greater than or equal to the MDL but less than the MRL)/Absence- no response was produced by the analysis (i.e., less than the MDL).

Microbes:  Presence- Indicates a response was produced by the analysis /Absence- indicates no response was produced by the analysis.

 

 

 

1b

UCM

 

 

42

 

Sample Analysis Average Period

 

(Delete ??? — related to the analysis, not the data)

 

Indicates the period over which a running average was calculated:

(a) year

(b) Quarter

(c) month

(d) week

(e) daily

(f) hourly

 

 

 

1b

1i

 

43

 

Sample Analysis Measurement type

 

(Delete ??? — related to the analysis, not the data)

 

(a) Direct Measure

(b) Arithmetic Mean

(c) Running Average

(d) Percentile

 

Result Type

 

1b

1i

 

44

 

Sample Result Valid Indicator

 

Indicates whether the sample met all Quality Assurance and Quality Control Standards

 

 

 

 

 

45

 

Study/Report Reference

 

(Published Methods ??)

 

Title, Reference Number, Author(s), Date, Address to receive copy of study/report

 

 

 

Keep but modify

 

 

 46

 

Laboratory

 

(How to handle mobile “field untis”???)

 

Laboratory conducting the testing, including:

Laboratory name and identification number

 

 

Analyzing Lab

 

MSDE

USGS

 

 47

 

Laboratory Address

 

The laboratory location including: Laboratory address, city, state, zip code, telephone number

 

 

 

2

 

 

48

 

 

FIPS information or ECOREGION

 

 

 

 

 

ITFM

 

 

49

 

HUC; Habitat Info

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITFM

 

50

 

 

Sample batch ID; Information on sample spiking methods

 

 

 

 

 

UCM

USGS

 

51

 

 

Sampling entity; filter pore size; source for published method

 

 

 

 

 

NEMI

 

52

 

 

Sample preservation

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

See C. Job on additional informaiton for items 48-63 added at last minute.


                                              Additional Discussion and Summary Notes

 

The workgroups covered ways to combine a set of proposed data elements with a set of listing criteria.  The goal is to arrive a a core set of data elements.  Eventually, any “consensus” set of data elements will need to be related to elements included in NEMI.  The final set of core elements should be kept a “lean” as possible to make it easier to “sell” the idea to organizations operating major data systems or other groups setting up new data systems.  To make sure there is a good rationale for including (or not including) items in a core list of data elements, it would be useful to carry out a comparison of any proposed lists with the content of several major data systems.

 

A comparison of proposed data elements with major data systems should help reveal what is involved in sharing data between these systems.  This comparison would highlight challenges involved in reconciling any new lists with established data standards.  These themes of data sharing and the proper application of data standards is related to the larger concerns of the Council.  There was consensus that there is a great need to achieve better use of existing information: a set of data criteria or standards should not always be equated with starting from scratch to gather new data.  Performance-base methods/standards should emphasize the effective use of existing data systems wherever possible.

 

In carrying out summaries of existing major data systems, a table along the following lines might be helpful:

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATA SYSTEMS

 

DATA ELEMENT CATEGORIES

 

GENERIC NAME

 

NWIS

 

STORET

 

Etc.

 

Etc.

 

(1a)

What is being measured

 

Sample Location

 

?

 

Sample Location

 

 

 

 

 

Substrate Type

 

?

 

Substrate Type

 

 

 

 

 

(1b)

What is the constituent concentration?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


HomeReturn to the Minutes Page