Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Management Coalitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Third‑party coalitions and conservation groups describe data management, QA/QC and outreach challenges
Summary
Coalitions, third‑party groups and nonprofit data managers described how they collect, QA/QC and batch-upload INMP and well data, and flagged mismatched crop names, units errors and the need for crop‑specific removal coefficients as barriers to consistent statewide analysis.
Sarah Lopez, executive director of Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc., told the expert panel that third‑party groups and coalition data managers play a central role in converting farmer interviews and farm records into INMP line items and that data quality improves when submissions pass through a QA/QC pipeline before GeoTracker upload.
The nut graf: Preservation Inc and coalition consultants said the dataset is the single most complex ILRP data source and that errors such as reporting fertilizer material rather than pounds of nitrogen, inconsistent crop names and missing acreage are common; they recommended standardized reporting templates and assistance for small growers who lack digital capacity.
Lopez said Preservation Inc runs multiple intake formats — a GeoTracker web form, an “easy form” Google survey and Excel spreadsheets — then QA/QC and batch upload the data to GeoTracker. She told the panel that error rates are roughly twice as high for records that go directly into GeoTracker without a coalition‑level check. “Calculation errors play a significant role in the very high and very low reports,” Lopez said, citing examples such as growers reporting pounds of material instead of pounds of N.
Presenters from the Colorado River Basin and other coalition managers said small and diversified farms, nurseries and containerized operations pose special problems for a single, one‑size‑fits‑all reporting template. MLJ Environmental and coalition staff urged investment in outreach, a help desk and tailored tools; they also flagged a lack of locally developed crop‑removal coefficients in desert growing areas as a gap for accurate A−R calculations.
Ending: Coalition and third‑party speakers offered to continue assisting growers, to expand QA/QC checks, and to provide cleaned field‑level datasets on request; they asked the panel to consider the practical burden on small growers and to recommend phased, supportive compliance pathways rather than single, statewide prescriptive forms.
