Sharing is Caring: Collaborative
efforts in data management between
Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky
November 2012
Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists Association
Lara Panayotoff
Kentucky Division of Water
Department for Environmental Protection
To Protect and Enhance Kentucky’s Environment
Acknowledgements
Alabama
Mississippi
Kentucky
Lisa Huff*
Gina LoGuidice*
Vickie Hulcher
Kayren Pittman
Natalie Segrest*
Valerie Alley
Melissa Miracle
CJ Watts
Jessica Schuster*
Jo Blanset
Susan Cohn*
Lisa Hicks*
Lara Panayotoff*
* SWPBA members
Kentucky DEP
Just crunch some numbers, will ya?
Binders Full of Data
• Excel Spreadsheets (so…
•
•
•
•
many… spreadsheets...)
Program-specific Access
databases (all different)
Hard Copy Reports
Various Files in Numerous
Locations
Stuff no one even knows about
• Fixed monitoring
networks
• Intensive watershed
surveys and studies
• Complaints, spills
•
•
•
•
Sample results
Field observations
Species data
Station Information
Data System ‘Must Haves’
 Accommodate most/all current routine
monitoring data
 Flexible
 Reflect current work processes
 User friendly
 Documentation of data quality and usability
 Easy to get data out
 Promote efficient flow to WQX
Alabama Water-Quality Assessment &
Monitoring Data Repository (ALAWADR)
 2008 demo at
SWPBA
 ORACLE
database
 Web-based user
interface
 Based on
STORET design
and data
requirements
ALAWADR Design Framework
Field Measurements & Observations
Sample Collection
Water
Sediment
Biological Tissue
Bioassessment
Fish Community
Macroinvertebrate Community
ALAWADR Design Framework
Physical Measurements
Categorical Observations
Chemical Analyses (water, sediment, biological tissue)
Taxonomic Composition
Development Time and Cost
 Initial Planning – 2001-2007
 Initial Development – May 2007
 Initial Implementation – May 2008-2009
 Historical Data Migration - 2007-2010
 Data Flow to EPA WQX – 2011
 Contractor/ In-House IT Staff /In-House
Scientists
 ~$1.2 - $1.5 Million+
Data System ‘Must Haves’
  Accommodate current routine programs
   Flexible / expandible
  Reflect current work processes

User friendly
   Documentation for data quality / usability

Easy to get data out
   Promote efficient flow to WQX
environmental Surface water Portal for
Information (enSPIRE) - Mississippi
 Initiated development 2009
 ~$500k contractor work
 ~2 FTEs in-house staff time
 Main enhancements:
 Data assessment module
 Enhanced mapping capability
 Alternate data entry modes
 Alternate mode of LIMS data transfer
Kentucky Water Quality Data for
Environmental Monitoring (K-WADE)
 Initiated development late 2010
 ~ $350k contractor time
 ~2 FTEs in house staff time
 Main enhancements:
 Expanded biology modules
 Enhanced stations mapping
 Usability/user-friendliness
 Off-site partner agency users
Kentucky Enhancements
Algae Bioassessment Activity
 Accommodates QC
samples and replicates
 captures all details needed
for quantitative cell counts
 results file import available
Kentucky Enhancements
Mussel Bioassessment Activity
 individuals
details
 csv file
import
available
Kentucky Enhancements
Taxon Attributes (Traits)
 taxon traits list and value choices fully customizable
Kentucky Enhancements
 station creation tools
 display station search results
Kentucky Enhancements
 Off-site partner agency users (former EDAS partners)
 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources
 Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission
 US Forest Service (Daniel Boone National Forest)
 Remote log-in nuts and bolts
 Reference table management
 Sensitive location
 Joint projects
Benefits of Cooperation
 Comfort-level with a basically working system
and an experienced contractor
 Money and time could be spent mainly on statespecific needs and expanded functionality
 $1.5 million vs <$0.5 million
 Take advantage of partner states’ unique
capabilities and expertise
 Cross-pollination of ideas, troubleshooting,
problem solving
Challenges
 Alabama would like to incorporate some of KY and
MS enhancements, but will take time & $$
 Further development desired in some areas where
one state has made headway but others lagging
 QA tools
 reporting and querying
 better indexing to assessments/ assessment units
 more efficient data entry, including portable module
 taxonomic nomenclature and traits tracking
The Future?
 Continued grant support to pay for sharing
enhancements
 Support for joint work sessions to troubleshoot
and design new modules
 Technical assistance?
 Benefits to EPA and stakeholders
 Comparability, timely and more uniform flow to
WQX, data integrity
Lessons Learned
 Significant time investment for program staff
(like biologists being dragged off the ‘scope and
out of the field)
 Data management system decisions can cross
over to work process decisions
 Time spent on ensuring good design is worth it,
because the interface can always be tweaked
Thanks!