Attendees: Maile Gee (CCC), David Moore (MEC), John Johnsen (Hart Crowser), Kathryn Curtis (POLA), Steve Bay (SCCWRP), Mitzy Taggart (HtB), Paul Johansen (POLA), Rick Cameron (POLB), Michael Lyons (RWQCB), Nick Buhbe (Ogden), Steven John (EPA)

Meeting Purpose: Discussion of whether database to be prepared for sediment quality data should be expanded upon to address the needs of other CSTF Subcommittees for a database.

Meeting Notes:

(a) Watershed subcommittee wants to integrate stormwater data into a database. Information would include water and sediment chemistry.

(b) Los Angeles Regional Board database is "fairly functional" at this point in time with the structure in place, and includes facility data (i.e., monitoring requirements, reporting requirements). This is a relational database with query tools. The database acronym is SWIM – Surface Water Information Management. There is some actual data incorporated from hand loading of data, although the system allows for directly loading data from the monitoring reports, provide information is submitted in proper format.

The Regional Board system is separate from the State Board and is farther along in it/s development.

Stormwater data is included in the Regional Board database to facility the identification of areas in which high loading levels of contaminants occurs.

(c) Objective of the CSTF watershed subcommittee database would be to facility coordinating stormwater contamination with contaminated sediment quality and attempting to link discharges with sediment quality. Caution is needed, as discharge inputs are usually seen as surface layer impacts while the sediment quality evaluations typically look at a larger profile of the accumulated sediment. This was cited as an example of why the CSTF database would need to include safeguards to reduce the possibility of inappropriate queries, linkages, and correlations. Specific "canned queries" will need to be provided by the CSTF to the consultant in charge of setting up the database.

(d) The question before the CSTF is whether we should establish a "global" database, of which some smaller subset would be used as the sediment quality database for setting sediment quality values (SQVs). Should the CSTF create one database with full sets of data, or two separate (e.g., a sediment database, watershed database) that can be linked at some future date.

The sediment subcommittee believes that it makes sense to combine the efforts – to make this a living, long-term database with greater utility than the single function of being used to set SQVs.

(e) The SWIM might have limited potential to maintain metadata. The need to standardize QA/QC, metadata sets for all the CSTF data would be necessary for the dredging data to have the same level of QA/QC as monitoring data, etc. The consultant in charge of setting up the CSTF database would be responsible for QA/QC of the data, identifying gaps and communicating back to the CSTF and the data producers.

(f) Compatible formats would be necessary for all the data – longitude and latitude documentation, mapping projections, etc. CSTF would need to prepare a standard data reporting format – as has been done by the LA Regional Board. Minimum standards for data would need to be set as well as what conversions would be necessary (so that data is directly comparable). The sediment subcommittee would coordinate the various data gathering efforts.

(g) The goal for the CSTF database -- data in one place; formatted consistently; adequately documented. Need to collect data (fill data gaps) and build the database independent of, but compatible with Regional Board effort.

(h) Question of long-term database management would be addressed at a later point by the CSTF management or the executive committees. Also would need to explore the possibility of some other entity assuming responsibility for maintaining the database.

Using PSDDA as an example, SQVs are dynamic in nature and need to be re-evaluated and revised periodically as new data are compiled. PSDDA has revised the SQVs on a regular basis as new sediment quality data are produced. SQVs in southern California would need to be revised in a similar manner, so funding would be necessary to maintain and expand the database. Additional future funds would be needed to conduct future re-evaluations of southern California SQVs (possible linkage with TMDL effort).

(i) Sediment subcommittee agreed to revise Study 6 to incorporate the watershed subcommittee database interests.

(j) RFP would include – use of EMAP or SWIM; list of e-data; list of data CSTF can provide; list of data consultant would need to gather.

(k) Steve Bay and Paul Johansen will take the first cut at the RFP – attempting to have it ready by early September. Key Tasks for Study 6 to be captured in the RFP: (1) develop standard database format; (2) integrate existing electronic data into this standard database format (e.g., create the CSTF database); (3) compile non-electronic data to fill data gaps (from reports, etc., that have been identified by the CSTF subcommittees) into the proper format, and meld the data into the database; and (4) prepare a template for future data submittals (similar to the template prepared by Regional Board)..

(l) Steve Bay will revise the draft SOW for Study #7, based on feedback from the subcommittee and peer reviewers, and redistribute to the subcommittee.

(m) When the draft RFP is available, a sediment subcommittee meeting will be scheduled, likely for early September.