Connecticut Data Collaborative, Jeniam Foundation Water Quality Data Workshop Meeting Notes 4/12/13 Two major opportunities •
•
Technological – Data is out there being displayed in different ways which might become more useful with Weave Coordination – Groups with or gathering data can provide further integration in reporting of water quality data What the models need to do •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overall system needs to be easy to use Have a specific predefined set of indicators Make data compelling and visualization easy to produce and use Show uncertainty of models, could be part of the metadata Keep consistent frameworks Adaptive management, usually missing monitoring section of process o Management scheme, test output and adapt fixes Important to be able to breakdown data by river/stream segment Watersheds/data can’t stop at county, town, state or other boundaries Baseline parameters •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen PH End load Flow data Nitrogen •
•
•
•
•
Phosphorous Temperature Macros Bacteria o E Coli Connectivity QAPP – Quality Assurance Protection Plan, EPA o Layers of data based on certification levels, possible metadata item o Certain equipment is required to obtain certain data Issues and Challenges •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Input of data is difficult due to resources Custom datasets and systems up being unused Hard to tell what data is good Current data is not in useful formats Discouraging to see data and projects fall apart – Could be good to have a central transparent place to have all data EPA WQX STORET database system is cumbersome to use EPA and DEEP has a lot of data, difficult to access specific data Hard to known which department at DEEP to contact for the right data At the national level, challenges include inconsistency of data state by state •
•
o Makes it difficult to visualize and compare at various geographic levels or across states Urban v. rural watersheds will have different outcome, data and usage factors Delisted segment data is not available Pilot Projects •
•
•
•
•
•
Want to relate temperature to geology Rainfall data, historic v. current, regional patterns Assessment of state monitoring stations Stream quality Temporal comparisons Sewage treatment plants, monthly reports (Comes in on paper, possibly electronically) Other Opportunities •
•
•
•
•
•
•
See-­‐Click-­‐Fix type system o Register observations from citizens o Citizens can feel they are making change Records of who is studying what, what is out there, reports, data and formats (WiKi possibility) MS4 – Report of end of storm drain data Real time data entry, visualized quickly for specific groups and the public Reporting in a digital format, not PDF, or make PDF digital Examine environmental health Effect of soil on water quality – nutrients Questions received by groups •
•
Is this system improving? (River, bay, etc.) What has happened over time? o The best currently produce are a series of snapshots over time. More complex output is a challenge due to data and technical issues Next steps •
•
•
•
Build basic pieces through team effort, communication forums Determine what information should be included from the beginning (standard parameters measured -­‐ QUAPB) WiKi structured updates of baseline data of who is doing what* Brainstorming of starter projects, case examples, prove the model Water Quality Data Workshop -­‐ April 12, 2013 -­‐ Attendees In Person X X X X X X X X X X Online X X X X Name Marry Pelletier Jeff Yates Dick Harris Pete Fraboni Nikki Cantatore Alisa Phillips-­‐Griggs Curt Johnson Donald Pryor Joe Rudek Trip Killin Jim Farnam Eric Smith Eudald Larga Patrick Hegge Margret Minor Thomas Steinke Pat Young Jane Brawerman Matt Dodge Mark Tedesco Jamie Alonzo Jamie Vaudry Group Park River Watershed Revitalization Initiative Fairfield County Community Foundation Harbor Watch Program of EarthPlace Harbor Watch Program of EarthPlace Harbor Watch Program of EarthPlace Farmington River Watershed Association CT Fund for the Environment Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Defense Fund Jeniam Foundation Farnam Associates, LLC Farnam Associates, LLC Fanam Associates, LLC Farnam Associates, LLC River Alliance of Connecticut Fairfield Conservation Department Eight Mile River Wild and Scenic Watershed CT River Coastal Conservation District City of Middletown USEPA Norwalk Maritime Center Uconn Notes from Curt Johnson via Email A few thoughts that may help your crew frame and flag on-­‐going issues regarding this ambitious undertaking regarding water quality. My geographic focus is tidally affected water and perhaps the waters just upstream of the tidal influence along the Sound. I tie the discussion to some of the largest issues affecting the Sound from an ecological and human use perspective: 1. Hypoxia or Low Oxygen in the open Sound: Seasonal low oxygen (hypoxia) has long been recognized as the largest limiting factor to ecological health in the Sound. Seasonal monitoring of hypoxia IN THE OPEN SOUND has been a focus of the LISS for over 20 years, and comprises a solid data set, along with some other parameters. Monitoring has been performed by the CT DEEP and to lesser degree by NEWIPCC and the Interstate Sanitation group. The Science and Technical Advisory Committee or STAC is currently working hard to review monitoring protocols for the open Sound. Contacts: Mark Tedesco (Director LISS) and Jim Latimer (EPA scientist assigned to STAC) also see CT DEEP LIS and LISS web site. 2. Embayment and Harbor Monitoring: While water quality in the open Sound is relatively well understood, we do not have any consistent sampling, protocols or data display for the currently rather disjointed citizen based monitoring that occurs in some harbors and bays throughout the Sound. As a result of CAC advocacy, the LISS issued an RFP last year to the Norwalk Aquarium who is pulling together a recommended framework for coordinated citizen based water quality monitoring and data management within the Sound. Contact: Jamie Alanzo (Norwalk Aquarium) who is working with scientist Jamie Vaudrey (UConn, Avery Point). Note – this is a bi-­‐state LIS effort. 3. Tracking down bacteria sources from storm sewers. Beach closings are a major problem in LIS, with well over 150 beach closing days in the past few years. This is an issue that the public really cares about. Background levels of bacteria at beaches are regularly monitored by local (CT) or county (usually NY). The only compilation of this data is done by NRDC as part of their annual beach closings report, released in July but focusing on the previous summer – for example this July’s release will report on closings during the summer of 2012. A critical monitoring activity that can track and eliminate major sources of bacteria flow during dry weather is sampling of dry weather flows from storm water outfalls. While towns are obligated to do this work under our Clean Water Act (as part of their “MS4) permits, few are doing it, and less are reporting. There is only one NGO undertaking this activity – Contact: Dick Harris/HarborWatch/EarthPlace. Save the Sound will be beginning a pilot of this activity this summer in Westchester County. 4. LIS is a Living Thriving Place – Monitoring Creature Abundance: Increasingly, our shore residents are teaming up with scientists to monitor all kinds of important coastal wildlife. Some for decades (Audubon bird counts); many in the past decade (horseshoe crabs/Project Limulus; aerial extent of eelgrass (NY Cornell University/Sea Grant); marsh migration/changes (LISS research grants); blue crab abundance (Tim Visel, Sound School); some uncoordinated efforts at terrapin turtle abundance). Associated, we have one of the best data sets of fish abundance over time in the open Sound through the work of Penny Howell and the DEEP marine fisheries trawl sampling. However, we have very limited knowledge of trends in bottom fish abundance in harbors. A pretty solid dataset developed by HarborWatch for a couple of harbors (I believe Norwalk/Stamford) indicate very disturbing downward trends in both abundance and diversity over a two decade period. Old historic data from DEEP trawls completed in the ‘80’s/’90s exists for bottom fish sampling in some additional harbors – which could then be compared to any new sampling undertaken. This could give us a much better understanding of what is happening to fish populations in near shore areas.