Teams consolidate statewide sewage-service boundaries and addresses but note gaps in permits and addresses

The advisory group reviewed the project's spatial-mapping work to attribute populations and community characteristics to wastewater systems and facilities.

Dan Coffey and Greg Pierce described a multi-source consolidation approach: where available, collection-system shapefiles (service-area polygons) will be used to attribute climate and socioeconomic data; where polygons are not available, the team will use facility points/addresses and consider drawing buffers (sized by flow or population) or matching to governing jurisdictions.

Status and coverage: Dan Coffey said the combined dataset currently contains about 862 unique collection systems representing roughly 85% of systems in the state after the December 31 data deadline. He warned of nontrivial consolidation work: "Different approaches have used identifiers inconsistently," Coffey said, citing misspellings, abbreviations, fragmented polygons and inconsistent identifiers across source datasets that require manual reconciliation.

Address challenges: leads said some WDR facilities list PO boxes or have incomplete addresses and that the team has manually reviewed several hundred facilities using online mapping to resolve many of these, but a small number remain unresolved. The team will contact regional boards for cases where public records fail to yield a confident location.

Implications for analysis: project staff stressed mapping will not be used to change inadequacy flags but is essential for risk-variable attribution (environmental and socioeconomic indicators), solution identification and costing. Members suggested parcel datasets, sewer-management plans, permit addresses and city boundaries as useful supplementary sources.

Next steps: staff will continue consolidation, apply rules to minimize redundant overlapping areas without losing coverage, and will invite regional boards to flag obvious location errors in the review worksheets.