Priority: low
Updating:

This HowTo describes how we will report to categorical site owners about site characterization and test results. Routine aspects are on paper once per year; notable analytical results may trigger out-of-cycle communications.

Change log:

When Who Comment
2023 01 13 Sp17 First version partial.
2023 06 04 Sp17 Fleshing out toward DEC review.
2023 06 21 Sp17 Markdown conversion, minor edits.

Related HowTos:

1. Objectives of categorical reporting:

  • Mobilize site level data interpretation.
  • Inform categorical owners about results, with interpretations, and how we understand their sites.
  • Trigger information corrections and updates from categorical owners.
  • Provide input to annual reports to DEC.

2. Timing of Reports:

  • Initial report in early 2023, covering 2022 data before DEC pesticide results are back (unless DEC surprises with early results)

  • Annual reports.

3. Content of routine reports

Header: Owner or other contact person name and address. Who wrote the report; contact info for them.

Maps (excerpted from the site QGIS file):

  • Soil
  • Sampling and pesticide use locations
  • We have a QGIS point layer with all sampling points at all sites. Initially this is a CSV export from the tabular database, but it could be referred to in the tabular database directly from QGIS. The table contains columns:
    • Latitude
    • Longitude
    • Anonymous and confidential site IDs.
    • Point ID within site, can be of the form “Golf-2, Well-1”.

Possible additions:

  • Role within site
  • Reference upgradient point: site and point ID
  • Category of site: one of ten (eight groundwater categoricals, long terms, lakes)
  • Kind of point: monitor well, irrigation well, potable well, pond, tile drain, …
  • Depth of well below surface
  • Elevation of land at point
  • Disclosable to DEC?
  • Disclosable to public?
  • For wells,
  • Date entered into database
  • Date of last update
  • Person doing last update (cornell NetID)

Tables from tabular database:

  • Analytical results: Field and Cornell lab measurements
  • Interpretive notes on Field and Cornell lab measurements
  • Analytical results pesticides
  • Interpretive notes on pesticides
  • NRCS soil types present
  • Monitoring point characteristics

We have made a SQL query from the tabular database containing all analytical results for the site, and exported the results to an Excel file. We added pivot tables and a pivot chart to the Excel file. Excel’s pivot table interface allows these to be drilled down to individual wells or to all sampling points at a site, or all sampling points at multiple sites if we group sites of the same owner for reporting.

Narrative interpretations.

What to communicate when there are notable results: …

In subsequent reports, it will probably be useful to repeat earlier cycle test results rather than only those from the current year.

4. Transmitting reports to categorical owners/representatives

We snail mailed, emailed, or hand carried the 2022 reports to each site contact. There were no surprising results thus there was not any cause yet for controversy. Owners asked in person acknowledged receiving them.

Paper seems a preferred medium to electronic.

The first reports were split into two parts, one containing maps and field+anion+cation results and another containing pesticide results. These are better done together.