D. Data Validation and Usability

D. Data Validation and Usability

D1. Data Review, Verification, and Validation

Data review and validation services provide a method for determining the usability and limitations of data and provide a standardized data quality assessment. Verification of new model components or parameters

(when applicable) improves the predictive capabilities of new models or modified existing models. Experienced professionals will be used in the data review, compilation, and evaluation phases of the study. GAEPD will be responsible for reviewing data entries, transmittals, and analyses for completeness and adherence to QA requirements. The data will be organized in a standard database on a computer. A screening process that scans through the database and flags data outside typical ranges for a given parameter will be used. Values outside typical ranges will not be used to develop model calibration data sets or model kinetic parameters.
Field staff, laboratory bench chemists, and data entry staff are each responsible for verifying that all records and results they produce or handle are completely and correctly recorded, transcribed, and transmitted. Each staff member and analytical Unit Supervisor is also responsible for ensuring that all activities performed (sampling, measurements, and analyses) comply with all requirements outlined in the QAPP, Laboratory QAP, and individual sampling SOPs.
The Unit Coordinators are responsible for final verification and validation of all results.

D1.1. Guidance Documents

Documents used to review, verify, and validate data are as follows:

• 
  Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.03 Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards
  
• 
  Most current version of Georgia’s 305(b)/303(d) List of Waters
  
• 
  SOP for Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia (Mar. 2007)
  
• 
  SOP for Periphyton
  
• 
  Program SOP#EPD-WPMP-1 Planning & Document Protocols for Water Quality Assessments (Dec. 2007)
  
• 
  Program SOP#EPD-WPMP-2 Surface Water Sampling (Rivers and Streams) (Jan. 2008)
  
• 
  Program SOP#EPD-WPMP-3 Chlorophyll-a Sample Collection and Processing (Jan. 2008)
  
• 
  Program SOP#EPD-WPMP-4 Lake Profiling and Composite Sample Collection (Jan. 2008)
  
• 
  Program SOP#EPD-WPMP-5 Waste Water Sampling (Jan. 2008)
  
• 
  Program SOP#EPD-WPMP-6 Streamflow Measurements (Jan. 2008)
  

D1.2. Sample Collection Procedures

For acceptable biological data, samples are collected according to protocols described in the SOP for Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia (March 2007). Chemical and bacteriological samples are collected according to protocols for specific water types as described in the Program SOPs referenced above.

D1.3. Sample Handling

For acceptable biological data, samples are handled and processed according to protocols described in the SOP for Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia (March 2007). Chemical and bacteriological samples are handled according to protocols for specific water types as described in the Program SOPs referenced above.

D1.4. Analytical Procedures

For acceptable biological data, samples are analyzed according to protocols described in the SOP for Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia (March 2007). All bacteriological and chemical samples are analyzed according to methods described in the GAEPD’s Laboratory QA Plan (GAEPD, 2007) and in accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20^th Edition (APHA, 1998).

D1.5. Quality Control

Quality control procedures described in the SOP for Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia (March 2007), Program SOPs listed above, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20^th Edition (APHA 1998), GAEPD Laboratory QA Plan (GAEPD 2007) shall be followed for resulting data to be acceptable for use in water quality assessments and TMDL development.

D2. Validation and Verification Methods

The Project Manager will review or oversee review of all data related to the project for completeness and correctness. The Project Manager will resolve these issues with the modeling and monitoring team.

D2.1. Model Data Verification

Raw data received in hard copy format will be entered into a standard database. All entries will be compared to the original hard copy data sheets by the team personnel. Screening methods will be used to scan through the database and flag data that are outside typical ranges for a given parameter. Data will also be manipulated using specialized programs and Microsoft Excel. A percent of the calculations will be recalculated by hand to ensure that correct formula commands were entered into the program. If 5 percent of the data calculations checked are incorrect, all calculations will be rechecked after the correction is made to the database. Data quality will be assessed by comparing entered data to original data; performing the data and model evaluations described in Sections A.7, B.5, and C.1; and comparing results with the measurement performance or acceptance criteria summarized in the data review and technical approach documentation to determine whether to accept, reject, or qualify the data. Results of the review and validation processes will be reported to the Project Manager.

D2.2. Chemical Data Verification

Chemical data are verified according to the GAEPD Laboratory QA Plan (GAEPD, 2007). GAEPD laboratory personnel are responsible for verifying chain-of-custody, receipt log, calibration logs, and all applicable quality assurance protocols are properly followed for chemical and bacteriological analyses.

D2.3. Process for Validating and Verifying Data

The GAEPD Laboratory validates results by periodically comparing computer calculation with hand-calculated results. A second analyst and a supervisor review all results before results are reported. The GAEPD’s QA Plan (GAEPD, 2007) provides additional information.

D2.4. Biological Data Verification

All biological data are verified through quality control checks described in Chapter 4 of the SOP for Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia (March, 2007). Biological data are verified and scoring checked by WPMP staff before entry into the Ecological Data Application System (EDAS) according to protocols described in the SOP for Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia (March, 2007).

D2.5. Process for Resolving Issues

Table 18 details the data quality check-points, person responsible for verification and how issue is resolved.

D2.6. Laboratory Issues Documentation

Issues with the GAEPD or other contracted laboratories analyses results are documented in the Verification database. A copy of the Chemical and Bacteriological Results Verification Audit Form is included in Appendix E. After data issues have been resolved by the GAEPD or other laboratory, data in the LIMS and/or WRDB are to be appropriately flagged or discarded.

D3. Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives

All data quality indicators will be calculated at the completion of the data analysis phase. Measurement quality requirements will be met and compared with the DQOs to confirm that the correct type, quality, and quantity of data are being used for the project. The interpretation and presentation stage includes inspection of the form of the results, and the meaning and reasonableness of the computation results and post-simulation analysis.

D3.1. Reconciliation of Project Results with Data Quality Objectives

These data and data collection by other organizations (e.g. USGS, EPA, GAEPD contractors, etc.) will be subsequently analyzed and used by the GAEPD for water quality assessments, TMDL development, stream and lake standards modifications, and permit decisions. Data quality will be reconciled with objectives of the project following the procedures outlined in Section B.10 and with the following.

D3.1.1. Chemical and Bacteriological Data Reconciliation

When chemical and bacteriological data are received from the GAEPD or other laboratories, the Survey Crew Leader and Database Manager review the data for unusual or unlikely results (outliers). The appropriate laboratory manager is contacted by email regarding any questionable results. The Laboratory Manager reviews the analyses, blank logs analyses, and data recording errors and responds by email. Survey Crew Leader and Database Officer make corrections on associated paperwork and data entry.

D3.1.2. Biological Data Reconciliation

When biological data are received by AMU staff, taxa lists and biological index scoring is reviewed. If discrepancies in scoring are found, AMU contacts the taxonomist that identified the sample to discuss differences. After mutual agreement is reached, all paperwork is corrected and data are entered into the Ecological Data Application System (EDAS).

D3.1.3. Field Data Reconciliation

When field data are received, measurements will be reviewed by the Project technical staff. Field staff will be contacted concerning any questionable information. Field staff will review equipment calibration logs and field notes to determine data quality. Project staff will make corrections and/or flag data on associated paperwork and data entry.

D3.2. How Data Limitation Will Be Reported

Electronic chemical, bacteriological, biological, and habitat assessment data are obtained by data users from the GAEPD. Chemical and bacteriological data limitations are marked in the GOMAS by the appropriate flag (Section B4.3). Biological and habitat assessment limitations are noted in the GOMAS comments section. Limitations are also recorded in the field notes stored in the watershed files.

D3.3. Data Rejection

In the event data cannot be reconciled with DQO, it is removed from the data set. If possible, additional monitoring is conducted. Project staff will be responsible for ensuring data reconciliation or data removal if reconciliation is not possible. The guidance document used to reconcile data is the Guidance for Data Quality Assessment – Practical Methods for Data Analyses EPA QA/G-9 (USEPA, 2000).

REFERENCES

APHA, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20^th edition.

American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Georgia Rules, Chapter 391-3-6, revised August 2013.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan, August 2007.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Standard Operating Procedures EPD-WPMP-1 through 6, December 2007 and January 2008.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia, March 2007.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Safety Manual, Atlanta, GA, 1990.
Lumb, A.M., R.B. McCammon, and J.L. Kittle, Jr. 1994. User’s Manual for an Expert System (HSPEXP) for Calibration of the Hydrologic Simulation ProgramBFortran. U.S. Geological Survey Water‑Resources Investigations Report 94‑4168. 102 pp.
Myers, D.N., and Wilde, F.D., 1997, National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, Chapter A7, 38p.
OEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Association Between Nutrients, Habitat and the Aquatic Biota in Ohio Rivers and Streams. Technical Bulletin MAS/1999 1-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, OH.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Draft Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process, 2nd ed. EPA 841-D-99-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process (G-4). EPA 600-R-96-055. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, QA/R-5. EPA 240-B-01-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC.
United States Government Printing Office, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, 1996.
University of Georgia, Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratory, Feed and Environmental Laboratory, Quality Assurance Plan for the Analysis of Coliform Bacteria in Water, December 2007.
University of Georgia, Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratory, Laboratory Quality Assurance Project Plan, Dec. 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,

EPA-600/ 4-79-020. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

APPENDIX A

Organization Chart for Water Quality Modeling

Karen Gardner of EPA Region IV will serve as the EPA project officer (PO) for any water quality modeling projects funded by federal 106 or 604(b) funds. While the water quality modeling work is technically being administered by GAEPD, since it may be funded using federal funds, EPA retains signatory and approval authority for its performance. The EPA PO, with the assistance of EPA’s Region IV QA officer (QAO), Marilyn Thornton, will review and approve the QAPP. Additional EPA QA Officers responsibilities may include conducting external performance and system audits and participating in EPA QA reviews of the study.

• 
  Providing oversight for analytical model design, model selection, data selection, model calibration, model validation, and adherence to project objectives.
  
• 
  Reviewing and approving the project work plan, QAPP, and other materials developed by a contractor to support the project.
  
• 
  Coordinating with contractors, reviewers, and others to ensure technical quality and contract adherence.
  

The GAEPD Project Managers responsible for day-to-day activities are Josh Welte for Water Quality Modeling and Ted Hendrickx, for TMDL Modeling. EPD may also employ contractor assistance for additional modeling. Contract documents will require adherence to a QAPP. Josh Welte and Ted Hendrickx supervise the overall project, including study design and model applications. Specific responsibilities include the following:

• 
  Coordinating project assignments, establishing priorities, and scheduling.
  
• 
  Ensuring completion of high-quality projects within established budgets and time schedules.
  
• 
  Acting as primary point of contact for the Program Manager.
  
• 
  Providing guidance, technical advice, and performance evaluations to those assigned to the project.
  
• 
  Implementing corrective actions and providing professional advice to staff.
  
• 
  Preparing or reviewing preparation of project deliverables, including the QAPP and other materials developed to support the project.
  
• 
  Providing guidance on development of new site-specific models and peer review of GAEPD-developed models.
  
• 
  Providing QC evaluations to ensure that QC is maintained throughout the data collection and analysis process, including reviewing site-specific model equations and codes (when necessary) and double-checking work as it is completed.
  
• 
  Providing support to GAEPD in interacting with the project team, technical reviewers, and others to ensure that technical quality requirements of the study design objectives are met.
  

The GAEPD QA Officer is Susan Salter, whose primary responsibilities include the following:

• 
  Providing support to the Managers in preparation and distribution of the QAPP.
  
• 
  Reviewing and approving the QAPP.
  
• 
  Monitoring QC activities, as necessary, to determine conformance.
  

If contractors are used, the contractor Project Lead (PL) will supervise the overall project, including study design and model applications. Specific responsibilities of the PL include the following:

• 
  Coordinating project assignments, establishing priorities, and scheduling.
  
• 
  Ensuring completion of high-quality projects within established budgets and time schedules.
  
• 
  Acting as primary point of contact for the Project Manager.
  
• 
  Providing guidance, technical advice, and performance evaluations to those assigned to the project.
  
• 
  Implementing corrective actions and providing professional advice to staff.
  
• 
  Preparing or reviewing preparation of project deliverables, including the QAPP and other materials developed to support the project.
  
• 
  Providing guidance on development of new site-specific models and peer review of GAEPD-developed models.
  
• 
  Providing support to GAEPD in interacting with the project team, technical reviewers, and others to ensure that technical quality requirements of the study design objectives are met.
  

If contractors are used, the contractor QA Officer primary responsibilities include the following:

• 
  Providing support to the PL in preparation and distribution of the QAPP.
  
• 
  Reviewing and approving the QAPP.
  
• 
  Monitoring QC activities to determine conformance.
  

Contractor (if used) and EPD modeling staff will be responsible for the development of model input data sets, calibration and validation of the model, application of the model results, and writing of a final report. They will implement the QA/QC program, complete assigned work on schedule and with strict adherence to the established procedures, and complete required documentation. Other technical staff will perform literature searches; assist in secondary data collection, compilation, and QA review; and aid in completing draft and final modeling reports, which will support draft and final TMDL reports developed by GAEPD.