Subject: Addendums and Simplifications--GWSI.LULCFS Guidance--Feb 25,1998 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:18:42 -0500 From: "Michael T Koterba, Hydrologist, Baltimore, MD" To: " , NAWQA Leadership Team, Reston, VA" , " , NAWQA National Synthesis Chiefs, Reston, VA" CC: "Michael T Koterba, Hydrologist, Baltimore, MD" Attention: Study-Unit Chiefs and Ground-Water Specialists, all NAWQA SUs: Subject: Modifications to LULC Guidance From: Michael Koterba Discussions after the release of the NAWQA Memorandum to all Study Units that directed their attention to the Required GWSI and LULC Ancillary Data and Guidance (Miller, Jan. 9, 1998), which includes those that resulted during and from the National NAWQA Meeting in Denver (February 8-11th, 1998), led to several technical and logistical simplifications in the guidance and procedures (attached below). Please read distribute these to all staff involved in the planning, implementation, or execution of the LULC work. The simplifications include (1) what to do with fields under multi- cropping or crop rotation, (2) the quality and type of material that needs to be sent to the LULCFS Central Processing Group, (3) how to determine whether or not the LULCFS has to be done for a Study-Unit or Sub-Unit Survey (SUS) well, and (4) how to handle small land-use and cover areas that occur in the buffer. The guidance below replaces that found in the draft guidance document, including the code appendix, or on the field sheet that specifically relates to these topics. The information below also now appears at the head of the draft GWSI.LULCFS guidance document. All of the simplifi- cations below will be incorporated into the final version of this and the related documents, which is slated for completion by the end of March, 1998. The original NAWQA Memorandum that identifies the location of these documents, and indicated the potential for these simplifications also is attached below. In addition to the above, the release of the guidance has led to other concerns that relate to personnel, logistics, and funding for this work. The latter appear to differ considerably among Study-Units. To better determine just what each Study Unit needs to accomplish the work, when it can accomplish this work, and how it can accomplish this work, I'll contact each Study Unit sometime during March. First contact will be with the LULC pilot Study Units, followed by contacts with the FY91 and FY94 Study Units. On the basis of the GW components that each Study Unit has either com- pleted, or still plans to complete, it would be useful if the following were known at the time I call: For EACH GW Component, and in relation to the D97 Guidance (GWSI and LULC) What was or has been done ? What has not been done ? For work undone: When could work begin ? What will it take in personnel, money, and time to complete this work ? When would material be sent to CPG ? This does not have to be a detailed analysis. The GWSI and LULC guidance provides some basic ways to estimate the above. Given what a Study-Unit already has done, however, there could be a number of shortcuts that can make use of what already has been done. Thus the need for dialogue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Addendum (3/25/97) to D97.GWSI.LULCFS.Guid.fm Item A In relation to agricultural codes, cropland--crop identification: Do not use rotational crop codes (of form "rotn"; n=1,2,3, or ...). For each agricultural field in the well buffer, identify by name and code, the crop type growing at the time water-quality samples are taken (sampling during growing season, the recommended approach)), or that was the last crop grown before water-quality samples were taken (sampling after growing season in late fall, winter or early spring, which generally is not recommended). The crop name and code are recorded on the LULCFS, Table 3; 1st Column: Land Uses and Covers: Name and (code name), and on mylar overlay. In some cases, it will be known (no guessing) that the agricultural field in question is under multi-cropping (more than one crop pro- duced during the growing season in question) or under crop rotation (different crops produced in the successive growing seasons just before that which relates to sample collection). If these other additional crops are known in relation to the field in question, list their crop codes (in Table 3, in the Source(s) of Data and Comments column, across from the crop identified as being the current or most recent in relation to water-quality sampling. Also list these additional crops by code on the mylar overlay after the code used to identify the current or most recent crop grown in re- lation to water-quality sampling. The above procedure replaces the use and all discussion and references to the use of crop rotation codes (that include coding of the form "rotn, n=1,2,3, or ... Item B In relation to material required by the Central Processing Group: Original mylars do not have to be sent. A good phototransparency (such as that used for opaque projectors) can be sent instead; provided it is clear and clean, and all marked points, lines and writing are legible. This combined with (1) the original imagery (e.g., NAPP photograph) with well location marked (clean small dot) and labelled (well id on editor's tab tape), (2) a photocopy of the nearly complete LULCFS (should mainly lack percentage coverage data for 500-m buffer), and (3) an unfolded, clean USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle sheet with well location marked and labelled (in manner similar to that for imagery) are what the CPG needs. Please send this material in an organized fashion for all wells in a given ground-water component--all material grouped by well, then combined for all wells in single shipment, that is insured and sent with return receipt upon delivery to CPG. The above procedure replaces most discussion and references in the guidance document as to how and what material should be sent to CPG. Item C. In relation to land-use and cover data required for Study(or Sub)-Unit (SUS) Wells: The GWSI requirements for Study(Sub)-Unit Survey (SUS) Wells remain unaltered in relation to the original GWSI-LULCFS NAWQA Memo (see below) and guidance documents referred to in this memo. In a follow- up NAWQA memo (see below), it was stated that it is not necessary to obtain the LULCFS data for SUS wells not affected by land use. Assuming an SUS well is not affected by land use simply on the basis of the depth to the well's open or screened interval from either the land surface, or below the water table is insufficient evidence. Nor is the presence of a confining layer alone suffi- cient evidence. Reacharge rates, pumping rates, or other factors could override the assumptions that one makes under the above conditions. The most relevant data on which to base the decision as to whether or not the well is affected by land use are water-quality data, which present multiple lines of evidence. For example, no evidence of elevated nitrates or chlorides; no detections of pesticides, volatile-organic compounds, or residues of other manufactured compounds; estimates of either ground-water age or recharge date which indicates the sampled water is NOT the result of recent recharge, and evidence of geochemical signatures in ground-water (mainly obtained from major ion analyses) collectively provide clear evidence that the water sampled is affected by land use. Retro data analysis can be useful in this regard for similar types of wells as those used in SUS. Under uncertainty (a lack of QW data such as that above that can be used to assess SUS wells), it should be assumed the LULC data could be required. Therefore, notes on land use (for example crop types) on a rough sketch of buffer area of the SUS well should be taken before or during time water samples are collected, AND a CONDITIONAL plan should exist to do LULCFS data-collection soon after water-quality data are obtained--just in case latter indicate SUS well is indeed affected by land use. If QW data indicate the LULC data-collection is not required, then this data-collection effort to do LULCFS work as outlined in guidance need not be executed. The above replaces any discussion of the LULC data required for SUS wells that appears in the GWSI and LULC guidance document. It does not mean the GWSI data requirements for SUS wells have been modified. Item D. In relation to a land-use and cover whose total area (sum of all individual areas in buffer) appears to be less than 5% of buffer area: On the transparent mylar label each such small area as to its actual land use and cover code, and also identify by code the miscellaneous category it will be grouped under: " = xxx.mis"; where "xxx" could be either "gen" (general) or a more specific miscellaneous code defined under one of the broad land-use categories--urban, agriculture, wetland, etc. (see NAWQA codes for what's been defined). Remember to include in the code on the transparent mylar whether or not each area so labelled is or isn't irrigated (I or NI), and whether its drainage is natural (ND) or enhanced (ES, EG, or ESG). For example, if rows of non-irrigated and naturally drained sweet corn occur in several parts of the 500-m buffer, but collectively they appear to occupy less than 5% of the 500-m buffer, each field would be identified on the mylar in accordance with NAWQA coding as: "crs.rwc.NI.ND"=crl.mis", which translates as "corn, sweet, row crop.not nonirrigated, natural drainage set equal to cropland, miscellaneous". On the D97LULCFS, in Table 3, under Column One, one would write "crl.mis", and continuing across the row put an "x" in the narrow column under the 500-m Buffer heading, and in the last column (Sources of Data and Comments) write the actual code name as it was written on mylar ( "crs.rwc.NI.ND"=crl.mis"). If "gen.mis" is the most appropriate code to use for the above situation, one would list the actual land-use and cover code as described above at the bottom of Table 3 below the columns, and after the appropriate buffer name instead of the last column in the table. This additional space for gen.mis is provided because of the likelihood that several different types of small land use areas cold have to be listed for some buffers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------O riginal NAWQA Memorandum That Describes GWSI and LULC Guidance >X-Sender: tlmiller@130.11.51.209 >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:29:51 -0400 >" , NAWQA 91 Study-Unit Project Chiefs, Reston, VA" , > " , NAWQA 94 Study-Unit Project Chiefs, Reston, VA" , > " , NAWQA 97 Study-Unit Project Chiefs, Reston, VA" , > " , NAWQA 91 Study-Unit Ground Water Specialists, Reston, VA" , > " , NAWQA 94 Study-Unit Ground Water Specialists, Reston, VA" , > " , NAWQA 97 Study-Unit Ground Water Specialists, Reston, VA" , > "Jeffrey T Armbruster, Asst. Reg. Hydr.-NAWQA, Norcross, GA" , > "Ivan C James II, Asst. Reg. Hydrologist-NAWQA, Denver, CO" , > "Marc A Sylvester, Asst. Reg. Hydrologist-NAWQA, Menlo Park, CA" , > "Michael C Yurewicz, Asst. Reg. Hydrol.-NAWQA, Reston, VA" , > "William G Wilber, National Synthesis Coordinator, Reston, VA" , > "Walton H Low, Staff Hydrologist, Reston, VA" , > " , NAWQA National Synthesis Chiefs, Reston, VA" >From: "Timothy L Miller, Chief, NAWQA, Reston, VA" (Timothy L. Miller) >Subject: GWSI and LULC data for NAWQA wells >Cc: "Michael T Koterba, Hydrologist, Baltimore, MD" , > "Wayne W Lapham, Hydrol(Geol) GW Spec, Reston, VA" , > "Sarahnell L Laible, Secretary, Reston, VA" , > "Rosemary Musson, Program Assistant, Reston, VA" , > "Theresa A Carr, Office Automation Asst., Reston, VA" , > "Wayne E Webb, QW Spec, Reston, VA" , > "Albert T Rutledge, Ground Water Specialist, Reston, VA" , > "Gary L Pederson, Reg QW Spec, Norcross, GA" , > "William L Cunningham, Supv. Hydrologist/GW Spec., Raleigh, NC" , > "Robert E Broshears, Reg. QW Specialist, Denver, CO" , > "Alan W Burns, Reg GW Specialist, Denver, CO" , > "Keith R Prince, Hydrologist, Menlo Park, CA" > > > >In Reply Refer To: >Mail Stop 413 > >SENT VIA EMAIL > > > MEMORANDUM > > >January 9, 1998 > > >TO: Study-Unit Chiefs (1991, 1994, 1997), NAWQA Ground-water > Specialists, National Leadership Team, National Synthesis > Project Chiefs, National Water-Quality Assessment Program > >FROM: Timothy L. Miller > Chief, National Water-Quality Assessment Program > > >SUBJECT: Required Ancillary Data (GWSI and LULC) For NAWQA Wells-- > SITE, SURFACE, WELL, AND SUBSURFACE DATA >_________________________________________________________________________ > >This Memorandum provides guidance to all study units; however, for 1994 >study units an additional Memorandum on the logistics for getting the >data assimilated in computer files will be forth coming. NAWQA >headquarters is discussing with the Iowa District, central processing >of the data, and it is just a question of their ability to accommodate > our needs, or our finding the best approach to get the work done this >fiscal year. > > >BACKGROUND >This guidance focuses on required ancillary data (well and subsurface >data) required for all wells used to collect water-quality data for the >NAWQA Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and require land- >scape data for all Study(Sub)-Unit Survey and Land-Use Study Wells. > >The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on how each >Study Unit (Pilot, FY91, FY94, and FY97) can obtain this guidance, and >the manner in which study-unit teams are to complete this guidance. > >This guidance expands on the list of required landscape, well, and >subsurface data described by Lapham and others (USGS OFR 95-398). In >addition to information expected in NAWQA well files (ibid, p. 41), >Lapham and others the described minimum data required to establish >a site in two USGS databases-- the National Water Site Inventory I >(NWIS) and the National Ground-Water Site Inventory (GWSI, ibid, >Table 11, p. 44). The authors also indicated that the landscape >classification would be revised (ibid, p.41). Plans to modify the >the required ancillary data also were described in a subsequent NAWQA >Memorandum, by Miller (June, 1996). > >The current guidance reflects the aforementioned modifications, and is >based on a pilot study by six FY94 Study Units, and extensive discus- >sions with members of NAWQA National Synthesis Teams and their support >groups. > >Detailed information on the required landscape, well, and subsurface >data, and the methods to be used to collect, compile, document, and >verify these data are provided in the guidance and related documents >which can be obtained as follows: (set up directory for GWSI.LULC, >and in that directory): > >ftp 130.11.112.1 >cd pub >cd NAWQA/GWSI.LULCFS >get D97* (or retrieve each of following individually): >D97.GWSI.LULC.guid.fm (the guidance, framemaker file, 60 pgs) >D97LULCFS.fs.fm (the revised LULC field sheet,framemaker file, 8 pgs) >D97LULC.50m.fs.fm (a template for 50-m buffer, framemaker file, 1 pg) >D97LULC.Codes.fm (the NAWQA LULC codes, framemaker file, 40 pgs) >D97LULC.ex.agric.ps (example, postcript file, color, 500-m buffer, 1p) >D97LULC.ex.urban.ps (ditto, for urban) >D97LULC.ex.min.ps (ditto, for mining) >D97LULC.ex.agric.tab.txt(table of buffer data, agric, 1p) >D97LULC.ex.urban.tab.txt(ditto, for urban) >D97LULC.ex.min.tab.txt(ditto, for mining) > >EXECUTION: >All study-unit chiefs and ground-water specialists should read the >introductory through general guidance sections for GWSI and LULC. >All ground-water field personnel should read the above, and to >extent possible, the remaining parts of this document. The first >opportunity to discuss this guidance will be at the NAWQA National >Meeting in February, 1998. A section of this meeting is being >devoted to the discussion of this document. This would be the best >opportunity to discuss the implementation of this guidance en masse. >All study-unit teams should be prepared to discuss this guidance and >their efforts to complete it during the next round of FY97 workplan >reviews. > >In general, all FY97 Study Units are expected to obtain these data >for each LUS and SUS in a timely fashion (within a year) of the time >they conduct ground-water-quality sampling for a given LUS or SUS. > >All FY94 Study Units are expected to begin to obtain these data beginning >this fiscal year for all LUS and SUS they already have conducted and >complete their efforts for all LUS and SUS within the first two years of >their LIP. All FY91 and Pilot studies are expected to begin to obtain >these data for the LUS and SUS studies they conducted during their HIP >and complete this activity within the first few years of their LIP. >For each FY91 and FY94 Study-Unit the priority is LUS first, then >SUS with nested LUS, then other SUS. As data for each LUS and SUS is >obtained, that for LULC should be sent for central processing, and that >for well and subsurface should be stored in the GWSI database. > >QUESTIONS >Questions regarding data that already have been collected are answered >in the guidance (for example, see p. 46 footnote 1). Questions concern- >ing this guidance should be sent (email) to Wayne Lapham (email), who >will forward them to Michael Koterba. Michael, will be unavailable until >the National Meeting, and address as many of these questions as he can >then. > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Follow-Up Memo On SUS Requirements