United States Office of Research and EPA/620/R-99/001b
Environmental Protection Development June 1999
Agency Washington DC 20460
EMAP Information
Management Plan:
1998-2001
Appendices
f 1 ~JSI
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
-------
SSBRS
!!!!Z'u*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'!i!E!i!!L!!!!!!!!!!
SSH*^
iiii i,
i!:: |SI
': ,!*!
i,;|; virv
iiii
• ti 4;
MS ..... 4,1
. .
iit i ......... I1 •,
i ''If
,1,1!' ,; "' ! , .inj, 'J, " V!!i!"':i '
.i^r^v^'iiiS'Ti;^1
- i'1' ,.,","! i' <: Hui!HlH'i| "^'i "
'i,, ..,• . .':-! ,. .• ,•
li :r|ilXitillll I
.'rrlll'i'l!,1:1 ' n I ill1!1
i I I i
l.hiili,1': '!•!;:«::
iiiii! IS;
S:
i ismii
ti! ': .
ai: a;
IJillll If: 4iii^^^^
iiii! i
ln; in iiiiiLi,^^^^^^^ i:ai!iii!;;::Jffl^^^^^^^^ I
JSiiCLi i,: ;
,,i LJijiiJ idlllli I
I
.^'iKJiiitMiiir
I
'i:W;!!*-t'"'!ii:i:fi(!t-
It
•iiiM
i!
I11''1!!!! I
I
':,.'• "!::
i I I:
;;y::,,
hi"!^'
Slil; i
•I
m
I "|ii>: ll! ! • ilia !>! I
-------
EPA/620/R-99/001b
June 1999
EMAP
Information Management Plan:
1998-2001
Appendices
by
Stephen Hale1, Jeffrey Rosen2, Dillon Scott2,
John Paul1, and Melissa Hughes3
1 Atlantic Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rl 02882
technology Planning and Management Corporation, Mill Wharf
Plaza, Suite 208, Scituate, MA 02066
3OAO Corporation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rl 02882
Contract Number 68-W5-0034
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Contents
Appendix A Essential Elements of Information Requirements Report 1
A.1 Purpose 1
A.2 EEI-1 Mission Needs Analysis 2
A.3 EEI-2 and EEI-3 Preliminary Design and Options Analysis 4
A.3.1 EEI-2 Preliminary Design and Options Document 4
A.3.2 EEI-3 Project Management Plan 6
Appendix B Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups 7
B.1 Purpose 8
B.2 EMAP and Working Group Mission and Goals ....... 8
B.3 Requirements Analysis Overview 8
B.4 ORD Regional-Scale Assessments—Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Pilot ..... 10
B.4.1 MAIA-Surface Waters 11
B.4.2 MAIA-Estuaries ............... 14
B.4.3 MAIA-Landscape Ecology 20
B.5 Intensive/Index Sites 20
B.5.1 Intensive/Index Sites Program Overview 20
B.5.2 Demonstration Intensive Sites Project 24
B.5.3 Coastal Intensive Sites Network . 29
B.6 Landscape Ecology ...-.'.— 29
B.7 Regional EMAP (R-EMAP) 46
B.7.1 R-EMAP National Coordinator's Meeting 46
B.7.2 R-EMAP Region I ............ 53
B.7,3 R-EMAP Region VIII 65
B.7.4 R-EMAP Region IX .. ; 69
B.8 Ecological Indicator Development 73
B.8.1 Ecological Indicator Development Guidelines and Documentation ......... 73
B.8.2 Aquatic Mortality Monitoring Database 78
B.9 Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources 80
B.9.1 CENR Information 80
Appendix C Inventory of EMAP Data .. 91
C.1 Purpose 91
C.2 Types, Volumes, and Status of Early EMAP (1990-1995) Resource Group Data .... 92
iii
-------
Contents
C.3 Types, Volumes, and Status of Current EMAP (1996-) Working Group Data 109
C.4 Types, Volumes, and Status of Other Data 116
Appendix D Preliminary Design and Options Document '.*... 118
D.1 Purpose .'.' • • • • 118
D.2 Option-Enhancement to EMAP Oracle Database to Handle Complex Data Types ..119
D.2.1 Option Description • 119
D.2.2 Option Analysis 121
D.3 Conclusions and Next Steps , 123
Appendix E Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Data
Management Review Team Report" 125
E.1 Bapkground 125
E^2 Review Team Comments and EMAP-IM (AED) Responses .. .".. 125
E.3 Review Team Members 143
Appendix F Overview of EMAP Information Management Policies, Guidelines, and
Standards • • • • • • 144
Introduction - ••-••• • • - • 144
Data Sharing • 145
EMAP Public Web Site 145
EMAP Data Directory 145
EMAP Data Catalog 145
F.1 ,
F.2
F.3
F.4
F.5
F.6
Further Information ........................... .... . — .......... ..... 146
Appendix G EPA IRM Vision Elements
149
Appendix H Configuration of the Computing Infrastructure of the Atlantic Ecology
Division and National EPA 151
Appendix I EMAP Archival Plan 155
1.1 Introduction -..-, • 155
I.2 Requirements for EMAP Data Storage and Usability ........ ..156
I.3 Types of Data Comprising EMAP 156
I.4 Current Digital Data Backup/Archival Scheme 156
iv
-------
Contents
1.5 Long-Term Goals for Digital Data Archives 157
I.6 EMAP Digital Archive Tape Validity Testing 158
.1.7 Migrating EMAP Data to New Hardware and Software 158
I.8 EMAP Archival Tracking System 158
Appendix J Organization of ORD Offices and Laboratories 159
Appendix K Contributors to the Development of the EMAP IM System 161
K.1 EMAP Information Management Working Group .. — 161
K.2 Contributors to EMAP Information Management, 1989-1998 161
Appendix L Partial Bibliography for EMAP IM Program .. 164
-------
-------
Appendix A
Essential Elements of Information Requirements Report
A.1 Purpose
A.2 EEI-1 Mission Needs Analysis
A.3 EEI-2 and EEI-3 Preliminary Design and Options Analysis
A.3.1 EEI-2 Preliminary Design and Options Document
A3.2 EEI-3 Project Management Plan
A.1 Purpose
EPA Directive 2182 requires that projects that meeting criteria (e.g., national in scope) that are
planning an IM system or enhancements to existing systems must address the requirements outlined
in EPA's IRM Policy Manual for Essential Elements of Information documentation. The EEI
requirements specify a number of system life cycle planning steps and justifies design and
implementation of new or enhanced EPA information systems. Three of the EEI requirements
applicable to the EMAP-IM system are fulfilled for this version of the EMAP Information
Management Plan: EEI-1, Mission Needs Analysis; EEI-2, Preliminary Design and Options
Document; and EEI-3, Project Management Plan. Description of the requirements can be found in
Volume A and Volume B of the EPA IRM System Design and Development Guidance (U.S. EPA
1993d; EEI 1998).
Fulfilling EEI-1 through EEI-3 requirements was accomplished by revising the October 1996 Draft
Information Management Plan and conducting Requirements Analysis workshops with key EMAP
Working Groups. The results of the revision and the interviews are incorporated into the body of this
EMAP Information Management Plan, as well as five appendices (Table A-l).
To avoid repetition of material already covered in the body of the Plan, appropriate sections are cited
for each EEI documentation requirement. Requirements not applicable to EMAP have been omitted,
and the reason for the omission is indicated.
-------
Appendix A, Essential Elements of Information Requirements Report
Table A-1. Coverage of EEI Requirements in EMAP IM Appendices
EEI Required Component
EEI-1, Mission Needs
Analysis
EEl-2, Preliminary Design
and Options Analysis
EEI-3, Project
Management Plan
EMAP IM Plan Section Name
and Number
Data Management Needs and
Practices of EMAP Working
Groups, Appendix B
Introduction and Approach,
Section 1
Inventory of EMAP Data,
Appendix C
Preliminary Design and Options
Document, Appendix D
Project Management and
Coordination, Section 5
EEI Requirement Fulfilled
Describes the missions and existing problems
that are to be addressed by the proposed .
system development or enhancement.
Includes detailed reports of Requirements
Analysis interviews with Working Groups
Presents a summary of the need for system
enhancement and an Initial System Concept
A high-level inventory of the major data types
generated and used in EMAP, and their
approximate volumes and status
Presents and analyzes system development
options to recommend preferred option
Specifies how the preferred option can be
implemented (project management needs)
A.2 EEI-1 Mission Needs Analysis
The purpose of the Mission Needs Analysis is to document the need for system enhancement, and
lay the foundation for the steps and tasks associated with EEI-2 and EEI-3 (Preliminary Design and
Options Document and Project Management Plan). The requirements include the following
elements:
• overview of the mission, goals, functions, processes, information flows, and problems
that underlie the need for system support and justify the need for a new or enhanced
information processing solution;
• list of users who define the system needs;
• description of existing system capabilities;
• identification and specification of the required information flow;
• preliminary specification of management requirements for information flow or
information processing, and the outputs and benefits of information for the organization's
mission and operation; and
• an Initial System Concept for meeting EMAP needs that includes a preliminary depiction
of inputs, outputs, and processes (but does not discuss specific hardware and software
solutions).
-------
Appendix A, Essential Elements of Information Requirements Report
The main product of the Mission Needs Analysis is a Mission Needs Statement. In this Plan, the
Mission Needs Statement has been subdivided into three appendices, as shown in Table A-l, and
much of the material is covered in the body of the Plan.
EEI Outline Element
1. Background
For agency and organizational mission
requiring system support—
• Mission/function statement(s)
• Organizational chart with key
functions/users identified (list of users)
• Operational environment
• Current system description, including
manual procedures
Evolution of defined need—
• New program or functions
• Enhancement/modernization of
functioning system, or
• Current performance mode and
limitations/problems
2. Information Flow and Initial System Concept
Description/documentation of information flow
including—
• Organizational data flow diagrams
• Key input processes/documents
• Primary data integration/database
functions and processes
• Key output report types and distribution
• "Mock-ups" of key output reports and
discussion of their benefits to users
Initial System Concept (ideally one page)
and related description
Section or Appendix
Section 1.1, 1.7
Section 3.2
Section 4.5
Sections 4.1,4.2,4.3, 4.4
Sections 1 and 2, Appendix B
Sections 3,4.7,4.8, 6
Section 4.7, Appendix B
.Figures 4-1,4-2.4-3, 5-2, 5-3
Section 2, Appendix B
Section 4
Section 4, Appendix B
OMITTED (too specific for this
project because EMAP outputs consist
of the use of the Directory and Web
Sites).
Section 1, Introduction and Approach;
Section 4.3, System Concept and
Overview of Technical Structure
-------
Appendix A, Essential Elements of Information Requirements Report
3. Development/Operational Constraints
User commitment, priority, discipline and
budgetary limitations—
• Policy or organizational constraints
• Information security needs based on
system sensitivity
• Timing of need
• Interface needs
• Shared data/access constraints
• Stability/flexibility of need
• Initiation of project management plan
Sections 3.2, 5; Appendix B
Section 5; Appendix B
Sections 3.5.3.5,4.5
Sections 1, 3,6
Sections 3,4
Sections 2, 3, 5; Appendix B
Sections 2, 3, 5; Appendix B
OMITTED (already included in
Section 5, Project Management and
Coordination).
A.3 EEI-2 and EEI-3 Preliminary Design and Options Analysis
The Preliminary Design and Options Analysis is intended to produce two documents specified in the
EEI guidance (Volume B): EEI-2, Preliminary Design and Options Analysis and EEI-3, Project
Management Plan.
A.3.1 EEI-2 Preliminary Design and Options Document
The purpose of the Preliminary Design and Options Document is to translate management and
functional requirements delineated in EEI-1 into operational specifications, identify and develop
system options for meeting the requirements, analyze the overall feasibility and cost-effectiveness
of the options, and choose a preferred option. The document does not describe a complete detailed
system.
The required elements for this document are outlined in Volume B, Appendix A of the EEI
Requirements, and includes:
• presentation of options for system development that satisfy the Initial System Concept;
• analysis of the benefits and costs, risks and contingencies of these options; and
• selection and justification of the most cost-effective solution.
An indication of how each requirement has been addressed, and why some components are omitted,
is presented below. Most of the required topics are included in Section 4, Technical Design; Section
6, Implementation Plan; and Appendix D, Preliminary Design and Options Document.
-------
Appendix A, Essential Elements of Information Requirements Report
Because the EMAP-IM system already exists and many of the options for system enhancements are
already in the planning stages, discussion of options is included in the body of the Plan under the
appropriate system components and activities. The EEI framework for evaluating the adequacy of
existing and planned functionality is used to evaluate the current system (see Section 4.7, System
Evaluation), and evaluate implementation of an expansion of the system's database capabilities (see
Appendix D, Preliminary Design and Options Document). An overview of other future planned
developments is presented in Section 6, Implementation (further analysis of these tasks can be added
as it becomes available).
EEI Outline Element
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Current System Description
1.3 Results of Mission Needs Analysis
1.4 Scope and Purpose
2. Option Designs
2.1 System Concept, Management Requirements
and Functional Requirements Summary
2.2 Operational Requirements Summary (General
system requirements like security, etc.)
2.3 Option Descriptions
2.3.1 Planned enhancements
2.3.2 Option for relational database
expansion
3. Options Analysis (life cycle benefits and costs,
risks and contingencies)
4. Option Recommendation (With Rationale)
Section or Appendix
Sections 1, 3, 4
Section 4
Sections 2, 5; Appendix B
Section 1
Sections 1, 3
Section 3
Section 6; Appendix D
AppendixD
Sections 4, 6; Appendix D
Section 6, Appendix D
-------
Appendix A, Essential Elements of Information Requirements Report
A.3.2 EEI-3 Project Management Plan
The Project Management Plan is intended to address management issues relating to implementation
of the system. The document must address required resources, scheduling, accountability,
organizational issues affecting information flow, data stewardship and distribution, the role of
EMAP IM, interaction between Working Groups and EMAP IM, required standards, and other
issues.
The recommended outline for EEI-3 is presented below with an indication of where each
requirement is documented in the IM Plan. Sections not applicable to EMAP IM have been omitted,
and the reason for their omission is indicated. Most of the material is covered in Section 5, Project
Management and Coordination, and Section 6, Implementation Plan.
EEI Outline Element
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Current System Overview
2. System Description
3. Project Team and Support
3.1 Roles and Responsibilities
3.2 Configuration Management
3.3 Quality Assurance/Control
3.4 Procurement Plan
4. Project Schedule And Task Description
5. Project Budget And Funding
6. Test Plan Requirements/Constraints
7. Project Constraints
8. Documentation Standards
8.1 Policy Events
8.2 Forms and Clearances
Section or Appendix
Sections 1, 3, 5
Section 2
Section 4
Sections 3, 5
Sections 3, 5
Sections 3, 5
Sections 3,4, 5
OMITTED (system procurement issues
not applicable in this version)
Section 6
OMITTED (budget and funding issues
not addressed in this version)
Appendix B.10 (description of
Requirements Analysis interview process)
Sections 4.7,4.8, 5
Section 4
OMITTED (policy events not addressed
in this version)
OMITTED (internal Agency procedures)
not addressed in this version
-------
Appendix B
Data Management Needs and Practices of
EM AP WorkingGroups
B.1 Purpose
B.2 EMAP and Working Group Mission and Goals
B.3 Requirements Analysis Overview
B.4 ORD Regional-Scale Assessments—Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Pilot
B.4.1 MAIA-Surface Waters
B.4.2 MAIA-Estuaries
B.4.3 MAIA-Landscape Ecology
B.5 Intensive/Index Sites
B.5.1 Intensive/Index Sites Program Overview
B.5.2 Demonstration Intensive Sites Project
B.5.2.1 UV-B Monitoring
B.5.2.2 Other DISPro Initiatives
B.5.2.3 Related NPS Data
B.5.3 Coastal Intensive Sites Network
B.6 Landscape Ecology
B.7 Regional EMAP (R-EMAP)
B.7.1 R-EMAP National Coordinator's Meeting
B.7.2 R-EMAP Region I
B.7.3 R-EMAP Region VIII
B.7.4 R-EMAP Region IX
B.8 Ecological Indicator Development
B.8.1 Ecological Indicator Development Guidelines and Documentation
B.8.2 Aquatic Mortality Monitoring Database
B.9 Committee on The Environment and Natural Resources
B.9.1 CENR Information
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
B.1 Purpose
This Needs and Requirements Document fulfills part 1 of the EEI-1 Mission Needs Analysis
requirements (see Appendix A, Essential Elements of Information Requirements Report) to:
• provide an overview of the mission, goals, functions, processes, information flows, and
problems that underlie the need for system support and justify the need for a new or
enhanced information processing solution;
• present a list of users who define the system needs;
• describe existing system capabilities; and
• identify and specify the required information flow.
The document presents summaries of the needs and requirements of EMAP Working Groups and
end users that were discussed in Requirements Analysis interviews (workshops and conference calls)
with EMAP Working Groups, EMAP-IM (AED), and ORD contacts. A sample of the Landscape
Ecology Requirements Analysis interview questions is presented in Table B-3 at the end of this
chapter. For Working Groups whose missions and needs are not yet fully defined, additional material
will be added in future versions of the Plan when more information is available.
B.2 EMAP and Working Group Mission and Goals
The EMAP mission and goals that underlie the needs and requirements of the EMAP—IM system are
summarized in Sections 1.4-1.7 of the Information Management Plan. Mission and goals for the
Working Groups are described in Section 2, EMAP Data, and Section B.3, Requirements Analysis
Overview.
B.3 Requirements Analysis Overview
The following subsections provide full meeting summaries from the Requirements Analysis
interviews of the Working Groups. The questions addressed in the interviews are illustrated in
Section B.4. Additional material, including information about data collection and management
activities, is summarized in Section 2, EMAP Data. A summary of data types, volumes, and status
is in Appendix C, Inventory of EMAP Data.
The principal needs and requirements are those of the EMAP Working Groups as data collectors and
users. Additional information about these needs is included in this Appendix and in Sections 2.3
(CurrentEMAP (1996-2001) Data), 3.2.2 (Primary Users), 3.3 Recommended Guidelines for EMAP
Data Sources), and 5.4 (Information Management in Working Groups).
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
The purpose of interviews was to incorporate the needs of the Working Groups and the requirements
for EMAP participation in the CENR framework into the system design. Eleven interviews were
conducted during Fall 1997-Spring 1998 as shown in Table B-l.
Interviews included a series of questions designed to understand the enhancements derived from
review of the EEI-1 requirements and included the following topics:
• Data sources and collection—data-generating projects now funded and their timetables,
and their sources of data;
• Data management—procedures for data" quality and completeness, and maintenance;
• Data products—data sets, aggregates, and analytical products, resulting publications,
interactions with other research entities, users/audience for finished products;
• Data flow—the flow of data and information from collection to QA to analysis to
aggregation, milestones of data generation and processing, what flow is needed between
Working Groups and between EMAP-IM (AED); ~
• Hardware, software, infrastructure—tools (software, methods) for producing data
analyses and aggregates, products from data analysis operational environment, status and
frequency of upgrades, required and desired functionality;
• Documentation—procedures for producing and disseminating metadata on the quality
and details of data sets;
• Data distribution—methods and formats for distribution of summary data and metadata,
primary and secondary data users, limitations/security on data sharing;
• Data archiving and storage—procedures and locations for ensuring long-term
maintenance of raw data;
• Project management—how project structures affect the success of information
management and accessibility;
• Data standards—usefulness and appropriateness of EMAP-IM system standards for
research partners to follow;
• EMAP-IM (AED) assistance—standards, resources, expertise, assistance, and guidance
desired from EMAP-IM (AED) to assist Working Groups with.information management
and accessibility; and
• EMAP-IM system design—user perceptions of adequacy of existing system features
for meeting requirements for locating pertinent data, and distributing and documenting
EMAP data.
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Table B-1. Requirements Analysis Interviews
Working Group
ORD Regional Assessments/
MAIA — Surface Waters
ORD Regional Assessments/
MAIA — Estuaries
ORD Regional Assessments/
MAIA — Landscape Ecology
Intensive/Index Sites (overview)
Intensive/Index
Sites — Demonstration Intensive
Sites Program
Intensive/Index Sites — Coastal
Intensive Sites Network
Landscape Ecology
R-EMAP Coordinator's
Conference
R-EMAP Region I
R-EMAP Region VIII
R-EMAP Region IX
Indicator Development
CENR
Participants (EMAP-IM (AED) &
ITAS contractor attended all)
ORD-Western Ecology Division
ORD-Atlantic Ecology Division
See Landscape Ecology
ORD-Gulf Ecology Division
National Park Service
ORD-Western Ecology Division
NERL Landscape Ecology staff
Regional R-EMAP Coordinators
Region I Laboratory R-EMAP staff
Region VIII R-EMAP Coordinator
Region IX R-EMAP Coordinator
ORD-Gulf Ecology Division
Tom Mace (Chair, CENR Data
Management Working Group)
Location and Date
Conference Call March 1 6, 1 998
Conference Call April 2, 1 998
Information covered as part of
Landscape Ecology interview, below
Conference Call July 24, 1 997
Conference Call April 1 3, 1 998
Project in early stages, no interview
conducted
2-day workshop at EPA Landscape
Ecology Branch, Environmental
Sciences Division, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV
September 24-25, 1997
Meeting at EPA Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC November 7, 1997
2-day workshop at EPA Region I
Laboratory, Lexington, MA September
16, 1997
Conference Call December 1 9, 1 997
Conference Call November 21, 1997
Conference Call
March 31 ,1998
Reviewed literature and memos;
personal communication December 17,
1997
The Working Groups comprise a complex network of research projects with overlapping and distinct
data needs. The following sections describe the user types or needs unique to each group.
B.4 ORD Regional-Scale Assessments—Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment Pilot
The ORD Regional Scale Assessment Pilot program in the Mid-Atlantic (MAIA) has three major
data-generating components—Surface Waters, Estuaries, and Landscape Ecology—which are
summarized in separate sections below.
10
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
B.4.1 MAIA-Surface Waters
Summary of Conference Call
March 16,1998
Participants
ORD-Corvallis
• JohnStoddard
• TonyOlsen
OAO Corp.
• Marlys Cappaert
ORD-Narragansett ,
• Stephen Hale
Technology Planning and Management Corporation. IT AS Contractor
• Jeff Rosen
• Dillon Scott '
Mission and Goals
To estimate the ecological condition of mid-Atlantic streams.
Data Collection, QA/QC, Analysis, Aggregation
The purpose of data collection in this group is to create "metrics." Metrics are characterizations of
watershed condition based on measurement of stream characteristics (physical, chemical, biological).
Metrics are an aggregation of the raw field and lab data about watershed stressors or landscape
condition (such as number of miles of roads in a watershed, or measures of the distribution of
substrate types along a particular stream reach). Metrics are created by combining raw field and
laboratory data into data aggregates with other data sources (such as land cover from Landscape
Ecology, road networks from U.S. Census TIGER data, point sources from the EPA NPDES
database, or locations of mine drainage (from a variety of sources)). Raw data include 1000's of
parameters collected at 150-200 stream stations every summer from 1993-1997. The data are
generated by EPA and non-EPA researchers, who verify and validate them and transmit them to
ORD. ORD sends the data to "Indicator Leads," the researchers in charge of developing metrics.
Data continue to be collected for 1998 and into the foreseeable future.
Data management is conducted by a combination of field and laboratory staff, Indicator Leads, and
ORD-Corvallis.
Data are stored in SAS. Codes for species and other parameters are unique EMAP codes designed
to fit the SAS field limit of eight characters (for example, the first four letters of a genus and first
four letters of species are combined to make the code for a particular specimen). Codes are
11
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
documented in the metadata. No CAS or NODC codes are used because the researchers need
intuitive naming for ease of field data recording. Coding is the responsibility of the Indicator Lead,
and EMAP has no procedures in place for updating database .codes when species or genus names are
changed by taxonomists.
The program needs to address version control, since Indicator Leads and ORD can independently
update the same version of a data sets but they do not necessarily track the changes and the resulting
differences. They have thought about addressing this problem by setting criteria for when a data set
is final.
Data Distribution
Data that will be distributed on the EMAP Public Web Site consists of watershed metrics, which will
make up a watershed characteristics database that matches each stream ID with the metrics measured
along that stretch of stream. Some of the data will be in SAS files, some in GIS (Arc/Info export)
files. Data can also be distributed in spreadsheets on request.
Data Documentation
Metadata are produced in EMAP Data Catalog format. Not all data sets have yet been fully
documented.
Descriptions of field and lab data collection and analysis methodology will be placed on the EMAP
Public Web Site in Adobe Acrobat format (.PDF). Descriptions of metrics calculations may also be
created and placed on the EMAP Public Web Site.
Metadata is targeted to users who have a good technical understanding of the data content (i.e., know
the meaning of parameters and data types).
The Working Group has found its metadata sufficient to answer users' questions about data, since
they have not received calls asking for clarification (i.e., they have distributed data to other groups
such as NAWQA, and there have been no problems).
Data Sources
MAIA Surface Waters uses a number of non-EMAP data sources in their analyses. One data set
critical to their efforts is the EPA River Reach (RF3), whose quality varies widely by region. The
Region in data had been updated, but corrected data are not available for the whole MAIA area (or
did they use RF3 data for the whole MAIA region). Surface Waters also uses data from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service's Natural Resources Inventory (NRCS 1998) and Landscape
Characterization's MRLC interpreted classified coverages of land cover (MRLC 1998b).
Data Volumes
Volume of data to be made available is anticipated to be approximately 20 MB.
12
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Users
Primary users of MAIA Surface Waters data are Indicator Leads and ORD-Corvallis who analyze
and aggregate the data for metrics development. Landscape Ecology and some R-EMAP projects are
also using the data in their assessments.
Secondary users include occasional requests from state regulatory agencies, such as:
• New York State DEC requested mercury concentrations in fish from EMAP lake
sampling data; and
• The State of Oregon requested temperature data for listing stream according to Clean
Water Act 303(d).
The metrics data from the EMAP Public Web Site is adequate for the needs of 95% of anticipated
users. There are few requests for raw data, although occasionally a landowner will ask for a list of
fish species found along a particular stretch of stream.
Software, Hardware, Infrastructure
These data are maintained by ORD-Corvallis in SAS and Arc/Info on a UNIX server (which will be
updated to NT in the future). Tabular data sets are stored in SAS in flat files and GIS data are in
Arc/Info.
Project Management
Surface Waters has had little difficulty collecting data from the field/lab staff and Indicator Leads.
The only difficulty they have is in getting data sets from other Federal programs. They suggested that
part of the difficulty is that production and delivery of data sets and metadata are not considered a
recognized deliverable in professional achievements or project management. They contrasted the
lack of standards and milestones for data and metadata delivery with the very comprehensive EPA
QAPP procedures. QAPP procedures are very comprehensive but only cover data sets until they are
through the laboratory process; in order to produce data and documentation for distribution, there
are further steps not currently acknowledged in established EPA procedures. It might be helpful to
add steps for database delivery and documentation to EPA deliverable requirements, set standards
for them, and recognize them as professional achievements.
How can EMAP-IM and the system help them?
They do not find the Data Directory very useful because when they are looking for data sets from
other Working Groups, they usually go to that part of the EMAP Public Web Site.
They do not feel that they need assistance with metadata because it is necessary to be very familiar
with data content in order to produce it, and parts of it can be produced by running a program they
have created that gets nun/max values, lat/longs, etc.
13
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Conclusions
MAJA Surface Waters is collecting stream data containing numerous parameters that are being
aggregated into metrics that indicate the ecological condition of streams in selected watersheds.
Data collection, verification, and validation are conducted by field and laboratory researchers. Data
are delivered to ORD-Corvallis, where metrics and metadata are produced and prepared for
distribution on the EMAP Public Web Site. Additional data analysis and aggregation are conducted
by Indicator Leads who develop metrics for assessing stream condition.
The Surface Waters group indicated the following obstacles to the success of their work:
• Absence of professional incentives (e.g., professional recognition/penalties) for EPA data
sets to be completed and made accessible to users beyond initial researchers;
• Early EMAP data that are not available or do not have sufficient detail (NRT); and
• Inconsistent quality of RF3 data from region to region.
B.4.2 MAIA-Estuaries
Participants
Summary of Conference Call
April 2,1998
ORD-Atlantic Ecology Division
* Stephen Hale
• John Paul
OAO Corp.
• Harry Buffum
Technology Planning and Management Corporation, HAS Contractor
• Jeff Rosen
• Dillon Scott
Mission and Goals
The mission of this group is to estimate the ecological condition of mid-Atlantic estuaries. The group
is led by Kevin Summers (GED) and John Paul (AED) and consists of a consortium of coastal
monitoring organizations (including the Chesapeake Bay Program, NOAA, and others) which have
been involved in field monitoring of mid-Atlantic estuaries over extended periods of time.
14
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data Collection
Data collection was conducted in 1997 and 1998. It focused on filling critical gaps in the early
EMAP sampling design and includes the same parameters as the 1990-1995 EMAP-Estuaries data
collection, with the addition of nutrients and some toxics (including water quality parameters,
benthic infauna, sediment toxicity (1997 only), and fish trawls (1998 only)). Data from the two years
is being combined to perform multi-year assessments. Data are collected by a combination of field
and research teams from AED and the coastal monitoring consortium. Automated field data systems
provided to researchers by AED included data entry screens in Oracle Forms that conduct visual and
range checks, and modern tracking systems that include the use of bar-coded sample IDs. However,
these tools are only used by a few of the researchers (e.g., ORD-Atlantic Ecology Division,
ORD-Gulf Ecology Division, and the National Park Service). Other groups used their own systems,
which are mostly manual and are considered by the cooperators to be adequate for their needs.
Data Management and Formats
Data collectors, including AED and the collaborating groups, are responsible for QA/QC,
management, and analysis of data they collect. Collaborating groups submit aggregate (summary)
data sets to AED in many different file formats. In order to conduct integrated assessments using all
of the data, AED will need to re-format incoming data and bring them into an internal
MAIA-Estuaries S AS database. Collaborators will submit summary data sets to AED for use in the
assessments.
Some of the stations sampled were located outside of the EMAP probability-based sampling design.
AED will add the extra stations into the assessments and develop appropriate inclusion probabilities
as appropriate. EMAP is sponsoring statistical research to determine options for including
probability-based and fixed stations data in the same analyses.
Data Standards
Samples are being analyzed by a variety of laboratories, and data should be submitted in fixed
predetermined formats. AED has established data submission, content, and format standards for
databases. These standards were approved by the researchers and analytical laboratories in the early
stages of the project, but they have not been consistently used. Collaborators submit in many
formats, and continue to develop databases and manage data according to their own needs.
Version Control
Version control at AED is now being done by keeping one Read-Only directory on the network
server for final versions of data sets. These files are only available to EPA Intranet users.
Documentation of the versions and their pedigrees are kept on paper in a file cabinet.
Data Stewardship and Long-Term Maintenance .
AED will retain long-term stewardship for the raw data it collects, the data aggregates it generates
from data sets of all collaborators, and the documentation for all of these data. Data collaborators
_
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
will retain ownership of the raw and processed data they created and will be responsible for its
long-term maintenance and accessibility.
Data Aggregation
The AED assessment team will review data submitted by collaborators and creating data aggregates
for the assessments. Data aggregates from these assessments will ultimately be posted on the EMAP
Public Web Site.
GIS coverages will also be produced. Station location data from the monitoring studies will be
entered into GIS coverages. In addition, watersheds will be delineated for the estuaries sampled (by
using the USGS Digital Raster Graphs (DRGs)). Overlays of these data will be combined in the
assessments with commonly available coverages from the MAIA Geographic Reference Database,
MAIA regional collaborators, Landscape Ecology landscape indicators, and EPA River Reach (RF3)
data for Region IE.
MAIA-Estuaries is developing a standard set of EMAP results that includes cumulative frequency
distributions with confidence intervals and estimates of aerial extent of different conditions. This
group will also be using and testing a number of environmental indices. They will continue working
on the benthic index, and will be developing a fish index and habitat index. They will also use the
Landscape Ecology landscape indicators to find associations between landscapes and the estuarine
indicators.
Data Distribution
Summary data will be made publicly accessible on the web sites of the organizations that collected
or created them (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Program). This policy allows data collectors to maintain their
own data and to ensure that duplicate data are not posted. AED will distribute summary data to
research partners via anonymous FTP sites and to the public via the EMAP Public Web Site. The
EMAP Data Directory will link users these sites. Data will be distributed in a variety of formats,
including SAS, Arc/Info export (EDO), ASCII (CSV, TXT), and Adobe Acrobat (PDF).
At the end of the MAIA program, AED will transfer the summary data and analytical tools
developed to groups in the MAIA region for their use in managing resources. Region JDJ is gearing
up to take on the responsibility for the assessment data, the methodology, and the data standards.
However, AED is responsible for the long-term maintenance of data it collected.
Research collaborators will maintain the original data on their own servers (i.e., data collected by
Chesapeake Bay Program will be accessible on their web site; data collected by AED will be main
on EMAP Public Web Site). Access to raw data will be by request.
16
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data Exchange
This Working Group needs to exchange preliminary data among researchers but cannot use the EPA
Intranet for this task because non-EPA researchers (e.g., NOAA) cannot access the network.
Preliminary data cannot be posted on the Public Web Site because it has not been through the
complete QA process. In the short-term, their goal is to distribute preliminary data to research
partners as e-mail attachments in formats compatible with group needs (SAS, CSV, ASCII, etc.).
However, improved methods of data sharing must be implemented. This gap is a major deficiency
in the current system and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. EPA's investigation of using
extranet capabilities on the EMAP Internal Web Site for making preliminary data available to
research partners would be beneficial.
Data Documentation
Not all data sets have yet been fully documented. AED is creating EMAP Data Directory and Data
Catalog (metadata) entries for data sets it collected. Documentation standards that cover most of the
Data Catalog requirements were distributed to collaborators. However, most researchers are still
analyzing data, and to date, AED has only received documentation in the form of cruise reports from
NOAA. The rest of the documentation will be done some time in the future, and AED is not certain
if collaborators will use the EMAP standards.
Data Sources
MAIA-Estuaries will use data from several sources as base maps and additional information,
including:
• EMAP Landscape Ecology indicator coverages (clipped to the USGS HUC boundaries)
that were developed for the MAIA Landscape Atlas;
• USGS Digital Raster Graphs (DRGs; 42 CDs of elevation data for all the MAIA
watersheds) to develop watershed boundaries in ARC GRID for the estuaries they
sampled; and
• Region m EPA River Reach (RF3) data (other RF3 data in the MAIA region have not
yet been updated, so they will only use this portion).
Data Volumes
Approximately one gigabyte of data could be generated and stored in each monitoring year. Estuaries
data currently consists of approximately 20 MB of SAS and Arc/Info files at AED.
Users ' ' •
In order to justify the expense and maintenance of an EMAP-M system containing these data, it will
be important to understand and serve those who will actually use the data and its documentation.
17
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Primary users of the raw data are the data collectors who conduct analyses and produce summary
data sets. Primary users of the summary data include the assessment teams at AED and GED (and
their research partners).
CB AT and MAIA will want access to processed data (mostly GIS data) to do their assessments. The
majority of assessments will be done by experienced EMAP analysts and research collaborators (e.g.,
Kent Thornton, Mike Barbour, John Scott).
The Chesapeake Bay Program will also want access to data sampled by other EMAP teams (e.g.,
AED) in Chesapeake Bay.
Algorithms, Models, Equations, and Other Tools
AED will produce methodology for integrating data from the collaborators in the assessments. The
exact approaches to be used are emerging, and ongoing research is addressing many of the issues
associated with combining data from a variety of sampling designs and different resources into
cross-resource assessments.
Additional research is ongoing on the development of environmental indicators. The indicator
development projects are being conducted by EMAP and its research partners.
AED will also conduct comparative assessments of ecological indicators (for example, AED's
assessment team is now comparing the EMAP Benthic Index with the Chesapeake Bay Benthic
Index on a site-by-site basis). Other indicators will be compared in the future as appropriate
questions are posed. Many of these questions are research questions that will be addressed as they
arise.
Software, Hardware, Infrastructure
AED is currently using a local area network tied to Microsoft NT and DEC Alpha servers. The
network is based on Microsoft NT LAN servers. AED has over 10 gigabytes of disk storage available
on the servers and additional storage capacity is added as necessary. Workstations are PC-based,
running Windows95.
Project Management
Lack of Adherence to Data Standards
The biggest obstacle to efficient processing and use of MAIA Estuaries data is that research
collaborators and contractors are not following EMAP standards and available procedures for data
collection (e.g., Oracle Forms entry screens, bar coding procedures), submission (e.g., format,
content), and documentation (e.g., EMAP Data Catalog/FGDC). These standards were approved by
the research collaborators. Collaborators use their own standards and submit summary data to AED
in many different formats. The collaborators may find it more convenient and internally logical to
18
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
use their own standards, and they may not be comfortable with using EMAP standards. They may
also see the formatting as extra work for which they are not adequately funded.
Lack of standard data formats and documentation makes it more difficult for EMAP to complete the
assessments because AED has to re-format and QA the data for its own use. In the long-term, this
lack of adherence to standards will cause problems for the EPA regions and state agencies that take
over the data from ORD in a few years. The regional agencies might not be able to handle the variety
of formats that are coming from the collaborators. Further, this problem of not following standards
will continue to be a factor in the CENR framework, in which participants take advantage of data
in existing programs, but do not dictate standards to them. The data collection tools, data forms,
sample tracking and data submission standards could be a legacy to leave to regional groups for their
future work, but it will take increased effort to get them adopted by the participants. However, when
the regions take over the data management, there may be even less leverage for requiring adherence
to minimal standards. AED will do some outreach to find ways to increase participation in the
standards.
Data Delivery by Researchers
Data delivery is more difficult in the current program than it was in the early program because
EMAP managers no longer control data collection and management, but instead depend on a
network of participating researchers to make their data accessible and understandable. ORD could
institute incentives to improve the delivery of data by researchers, including: recognizing data sets
and documentation as deliverables that receive professional credit (if this is done, it will be important
to ask researchers how they would like their data sets to be cited). The interviewees cited the Human
Genome Project's success in data delivery; it accomplishes this goal by not allowing publication of
reports in its journal before researchers have submitted their data to the central database.
How Can EMAP-IM Help Them?
The group cited several ways in which EMAP can provide assistance:
• provide EPA extranet or other solution to improve data exchange among research
partners
• encourage collaborators to follow standards ' .
• explore idea of ORD giving professional recognition for data delivery and documentation
so that it becomes a deliverable along with reports and other products
• maintain the data they collect and create in the long-term and make it accessible on
EMAP Public Web Site
• provide a directory and links to data and documentation distributed by research partners
• provide version control for its data and documentation and provide guidance to research
partners who want to use these methods
19
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
0.4.3 MAIA-Landscape Ecology
Studies being conducted by the EMAP Landscape Ecology Working Group for the MAIA project
are summarized in Section B.6, Landscape Ecology. The principal data products are landscape
indicator coverages and the MAIA Landscape Atlas, which are now available on the EMAP Public
Web Site.
B.5 Intensive/Index Sites
The Intensive/Index Sites Working Group has been subdivided into two main research areas:
• the Demonstration Intensive Sites Program (DISPro) cooperatively with the National
Park Service
• the Coastal Intensive Sites Network (CISNet) cooperatively with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
The following sections summarize the overall Intensive Sites research plans, as well as the plans of
DISPro and CISNet.
B.5.1 Intensive/Index Sites Program Overview
Participants
Summary of Conference Call
July 24,1997
ORD-Gulf Ecology Division
• Kevin Summers, EPA Intensive/Index Sites coordinator
EMAP-IM (AED-)
• Stephen Hale, EPA EMAP Information Management
Technology Planning and Management Corporation. ETAS Contractor
• Jeff Rosen
• Dillon Scott
What data collection projects are being conducted within the Intensive/Index Sites group?
There are several types of projects/data:
1. DISPro (Demonstration of Intensive Sites Project) projects at National Parks
a) UV-B monitoring at selected National Park sites
b) Routine base monitoring (mostly air quality) at National Park sites
20
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
c) Individual research projects at National Park sites through EPA grants to
external researchers (wide variety of projects, such as amphibian surveys,
nutrient deposition from air effects on local eutrophication, etc.)
2. Additional projects
a) Monitoring of selected coastal sites with National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics & Space
Administration (NASA)
What are the details of the UV-B research?
In the first active DISPro project, EMAP is working with the National Park Service (NPS) to capture
new UV-B data. UV-B data includes all information downloaded from Brewer instruments at two
types of sites: historical data from primarily urban sites (not included in EMAP) and new data from
sites in National Parks. These data will be quality assured/quality controlled and processed into
aggregate or summary results. ,
The National UV Monitoring Center (NUVMG) at the University of Georgia has historically
managed the raw data, downloading them from the instruments into a database, running QA/QC
checks, backing them up, and distributing some statistics. For new data collection efforts, NERL will
put out an RFP for capture, quality assurance, and storage of the new UV-B data. The UV-B data
managers will provide the downloaded data to ReVA and EMAP. Aggregate data created during
analysis will be managed by EMAP-IM (AED). The ultimate repository of the data is currently under
discussion. It may be placed on the EMAP Public Web Site, or it may become the responsibility of
NERL and be distributed from their EIMS. NPS is interested in accessing the summarized results,
but not in capturing and managing the data (they would like someone else to be the owner of the
database).
Both EMAP and ReVA need to use the UV-B data, so it must be accessible to both groups.
Documented standards are needed to provide convenient access to the information for both groups.
Ongoing negotiations between EMAP-IM and ReVA information management are intended to
resolve how the data will be processed and stored and documented. EMAP-IM needs to work with
Gary Collins (NERL-Cincinnati) to identify common protocols and formats so that EMAP can access
needed information from ReVA, including both the data and documentation. Currently, access to
ReVA information systems is password-protected, which limits access by EMAP researchers and
managers.
It will not be necessary to distribute the raw data, only the data that has been quality controlled, as
well as the aggregates.
21
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data documentation should include information on how the data were captured, as well as
assumptions and indications of specific conditions, the method for developing the index, and the
summary results.
AED and NERL (Gary Collins) are working on how to maintain the old UV-B data and what format
the data should be in. They are also evaluating which information should be stored online. Currently,
it appears that only two variables will be stored (total column ozone and UV-B Index). Historical
data for these two parameters only are being loaded by Technology Planning and Management
Corporation (North Carolina) into the ReVA Environmental Information Management System
(EIMS). Some subset of the data (e.g., total column ozone) is being submitted to the World Ozone
Information Center in Toronto (Ontario, Canada), where they are accessible to the general public.
What are the details of the Routine Monitoring at National Park sites?
These are mostly air quality monitoring data. Technology Planning and Management Corporation
(TPMC) and EMAP-IM (AED) should talk to John Ray (works for Kathy Tonneson at NPS Air in
Denver), who is responsible for all air monitoring data. NPS will maintain these data, and
EMAP-IM should get their protocols and QA so DISPro can access it.
What are the details of the DISPro Research Grants data management?
TPMC/EMAP-M should talk to Bill Hogsett (ORD-Western Ecology Division). EMAP-IM (AED)
will handle these data in the EMAP-IM system for conducting research on sampling design, and
establishing index sites, monitoring programs, and indicators.
What are the coastal projects in Intensive Sites?
A coastal component is currently being designed for inclusion in the Intensive Sites effort. This
component will include approximately 40 sites which will be monitored for some set of parameters.
This is a cooperative project between EMAP, NASA, and NOAA. It is anticipated that there will
soon be a request for assistance (RFA) to organize support for this effort. The contacts within NOAA
are Andy Robertson and Becky Smyth. The contact at NASA is Jim Yoder. Stephen Hale will look
into talking with participants about the data (e.g., Kennedy Space Center site).
What will be the Intensive Sites Working Group data needs?
The data needs will vary for each project. Specific plans for how the DISPro data will be integrated
and used by EMAP should be addressed to Bill Hogsett in Corvallis, and to the individual research
projects. EMAP-IM should also talk to NOAA and NASA contacts about the coastal sites.
What is the Project Management for Intensive Sites?
Each project in Intensive Sites will have its own project management, which will be coordinated by
the EMAP Intensive Sites coordinator (currently Bill Hogsett).
22
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
How can data submission by individual projects be assured?
Each group that receives funding will have written into the "special conditions" of their award the
information requirements specific to their project (it will not be included in the RFA). The data
guidelines that EMAP-IM provided to the Regional EMAP program (R-EMAP) could provide a
model for these information requirements. However, the requirements will need to be customized
for each project and each participant. Requirements should allow principal investigators to have first
priority in using the data and include a grace period in which the principal investigator has sole
access to the information for publication purposes. In the long-term, these data collected with public
monies must be made available to other researchers and the general public.
How are the data currently managed and who are the stewards of the data?
Currently, the data are being managed by the individuals within each project (i.e., University of
Georgia manages DISPro's UV-B data). It is not currently clear how the data will be managed for
other projects or how long the term of stewardship and maintenance for these data will be. The
EMAP-IM needs to identify how data will be managed and how links will be made to data sets being
maintained by the principal investigators or other organizations. The long-term disposition of the
Intensive Sites data will be investigated by EMAP-IM in further Requirements Analysis interviews
with Intensive Sites project managers (Bill Hogsett, John Ray, Jim Yoder). However, it is clear that
since these are intensive sites, the long-term maintenance of the data is critical.
NOTES:
It will be necessary to interview Bill Hogsett about the mission/goal statement for the Intensive Sites.
Kevin Summers indicated that one of the major objectives of this project was to force cooperation
between federal agencies and other organizations in the continued collection of data at Intensive
Sites and establishment of long-term trends.
It is expected that there will be DISPro meeting in November 1997 to coordinate ReVA and EMAP
efforts. Many of the issues regarding the Intensive Sites may be resolved at this meeting. Stephen
Hale will find out if EMAP-IM can talk to participants then about the data.
23
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
B.5.2 Demonstration Intensive Sites Project
The Demonstration Intensive Sites Project is a cooperative effort between the National Park Service
and ORD's Western Ecology Division.
Participants
Summary of Conference Call
April 13,1998
National Park Service
• John Ray
ORD-Western Ecology Division
• Bill Hogsett
ORD-Narragansett
• Stephen Hale
Technology Planning and Management Corporation, IT AS Contractor
• Jeff Rosen
• Dillon Scott
DISPro Mission and Goals
The Demonstration Intensive Sites Project (DISPro) will conduct monitoring at selected National
Park sites where air monitoring is ongoing. This project represents an inter-agency effort between
EPA/ORD and DOI/NPS to develop a demonstration of an intensive site network of monitoring and
research locations throughout the United States utilizing the Nation's parklands and "outdoor
laboratories." Twelve national parks were selected according to selection criteria (e.g., readily
accessible, history of monitoring data, contain a broad spectrum of ecological communities).
DISPro will focus on long-term effects research for atmospheric data (UV-B and air quality at sites
in the Parks that already have 10-15 years of data for comparison, such as air deposition). The intent
of the program is to initiate a consistent air monitoring program at each site to be followed by
monitoring within other media. In order to demonstrate the relevance of this monitoring, research
projects will eventually be initiated at all of the sites to examine the effects of environmental
stressors of importance.
General information about ongoing NPS air monitoring programs is available on the NPS web site
(NPS 1998a), plus information on the Air Resource Division web site (NPS 1998b) and the
Inventory and Monitoring program web site (NPS 1998d).
DISPro includes the following components: UV-B monitoring, routine NPS air quality monitoring,
and individual air quality research grants. The first project that will be conducted is the UV-B
24
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
monitoring and will be reviewed in the following subsection. The other projects are new to EMAP
and more information will be added as it becomes available. These projects are summarized below.
The DISPro Home Page on the EMAP web site may consist of links to other sites where data
actually reside (e.g., EMS, WOUDG, GASTNet).
B.5.2.1 UV-B Monitoring
The purpose of data collection in this group is to develop long-term monitoring databases for the
sites. The initial focus is on UV-B, but they also collect other spectral bands and UV-A that could
be used more extensively in the future.
Data Collection, QA/QC, Analysis, Aggregation
The purpose of collecting UV-B data is to measure full-sky solar UV-B and UV-A spectral flux,
from which absolute irradiance and total column ozone concentrations are calculated. The data are
intended for dissemination to government and non-government scientists and interested parties. The
effort also collects some routine air monitoring parameters (e.g., wet or dry nitrogen, ozone).
The National UV Monitoring Center (NUVMC) at the University of Georgia (NUVMC 1998)
manages the UV-B measurements from high spectral resolution spectroradiometers at 12 NPS
monitoring sites. The NUVMC is part of the UGA/EPA UV Monitoring Network (UVMN), which
operates and maintains a group of high spectral resolution spectroradiometers throughout the United
States. The NUVMC downloads data from the collection sites each night and conducts some
preliminary processing, including a screen to catch immediate problems and errors in the data, and
some validation and calculations. The result is two kinds of data files: raw data, and data that has
been through first-level error checking. NUVMC also produces plots of total UV (DUV/irradiance)
and total column ozone and places the plots on its web site. The EPA Environmental Information
Management System (REIMS) will provide data management support.
Data Distribution
The University of Georgia archives the processed raw UV-B data in a database. They also produce
DUV and ozone plots that are made available to users on a University of Georgia web site (NUVMC
1998); electronic files of the processed raw data can be obtained by request.
Long-term archiving of summary data will primarily be in the EIMS database. ReVA is now
determining a subset of parameters that will be made available on the EIMS web site. The site will
provide access to the full data set only for authorized users, not for secondary users. The EMS web
site will become the authoritative site where EMAP and NPS researchers store their improvements
to the data as they use it in analyses.
25
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
ReVA will send a QA/QC'd version of the raw data to the Canadian "World Ozone and UV
Radiation Data Centre" (WOUDC 1998) for distribution to secondary users. The WOUDC is one
of seven recognized World Data Centres that are part of the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) program. WOUDC will apply data validation and
proofing techniques that they use on their extensive data holdings. Archived data will be available
by conventional FTP access (password required) and by a direct link from the WOUDC Data web
site. The data will be redundant with that storedin EIMS, although the EBVIS version will not have
been processed with the WOUDC validation and proofing techniques. The EIMS web site will be
the preferred site for NFS and EMAP users because metadata and iterative improvements to the data
will be maintained there.
Data Integration
The current obstacles to integrating these data into EMAP assessments include:
• The data are not currently available in formats that facilitate consistent integration among
air measurements from the different researchers. Researchers must individually reconcile
data sets. The data must be made available for consistent integration among the sites,
using consistent interpolation techniques (e.g., GIS). for calculating exposures across the
parks and building maps of park species cover, location of research plots, exposure
patterns. These interpretations would be given to the Parks to give them an indication of
where the past three years of surveys had occurred for use in planning future surveys
(Parks need a way to keep consistent information from one set of researchers to the next,
with a loss of opportunity to sample in the same areas); and
• Researchers cannot easily access the hourly data, which is needed for response models
and statistical analyses (yearly averages available through AIRS are insufficient).
Data Documentation
UV-B data will be documented by the field support contractor. Documentation must include site
information (log sheets, audits, calibration records, maintenance records). The documentation will
reside on the EIMS web site. Methodology and data reduction SOPs should be written by the
contractor. The NUVMC already has something like this but more detail could be added (project
officer must decide what level is needed).
Data Sources
The Intensive Sites Working Group is not using any external data sources except that in the future,
they will use some of the data NPS has previously collected at the intensive sites.
Data Volumes
Large volumes (amounts unknown) of instrument data and data aggregates will be stored in the
EMS database.
26
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
GIS/Georeferencing
Latitude and longitude is recorded in the database for all data collection sites. The format of the
latitude and longitude is in different formats in different databases and will have to be reconciled for
use in assessments. There has not been any specific coordination on location data among the
different data collection groups. This is an important issue that will be addressed by the Working
Group in the future.
Users
There is not yet an established user community for these data except those directly involved in the
research, including:
• Brewer maintenance staff in parks;
• NUVMC University of Georgia; and
• EMAP and NFS UVB researchers (these researchers understand the instrument and can
process the data and know what to do with it).
There is no specific plan for who the users will be and what part of the database they will want to
use. The current purpose is to collect UV-B data—which is difficult to collect and not widely
available from other sources-—under an available opportunity so that it will be stored for future
projects. Potential users include:
• EMAP routine air monitoring researchers
• EMAP air monitoring grants researchers—There will be a need for most researchers
doing effects studies under EMAP air monitoring grants in the Parks to compare their
data with the DISPro data. To do this, they will need to access to the exposure data being
collected along with the UV-B data (e.g., wet or dry nitrogen, ozone). Currently,
arrangements will must be made for them to access needed data.
• EMAP Regional Assessments researchers
• EMAP assessment researchers and management
Secondary users may include those who now access the NUVMC and WOUDC sites.
Software, Hardware, Infrastructure
The equipment and software for managing these data will be taken care of at individual research and
data repository sites.
27
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
How Can EMAP-IM and the EMAP-IM System Help?
The interviewees indicated that the most useful thing will be to make the EMAP-IM system as
user-friendly as possible. They would like to have EMAP-M assistance with creating EMAP Data
Directory entries for UV-B data. They do not need assistance with routine data collection and
management, or a data repository. They would like to have links from the EMAP Public Web Site
to their data repository locations.
Interaction with Other Working Groups
Intensive Sites will interact with the Regional Assessments studies wherever there are National Parks
in the Regional Assessment pilot study area. For MAIA, the Shenandoah National Park is in the
study area; if the next assessment is out west, there will be a greater number of parks in the area,
which will potentially cover Regions VET, IX, and X.
B.5.2.2 Other DISPro Initiatives
Routine Air Quality Monitoring
This program currently has 31 sites (including the 14 DISPro sites discussed above). A contractor
(Air Resource Specialists/ARS) provides field support and data handling; checks stations every
night; puts data into an Oracle database; does four levels of data validation; and archives the data
from each level of validation. The final data set is stored in an Oracle database at ARS. ARS is
working on setting up Oracle database for Internet query; it is at the prototype and testing stage and
will eventually be open to the general public. NFS submits all ozone, sulfur dioxide, and
meteorological data to the EPA AIRS database (AIRS 1998), which is fully accessible only to users
with accounts. Data submitted to the AIRS web site is currently only available in annual summaries,
but the one-hourly data that NPS submits to AIRS will be made available within a year.
Individual Research Grants
Individual external researchers will be funded to conduct intensive sites monitoring on a wide variety
of topics (e.g., amphibian surveys, nutrient deposition from air effects on local eutrophication).
EMAP-M will handle the data and enter it into an Oracle database for use in future sampling design
and other research on setting up index sites, monitoring programs, and indicators.
B.5.2.3 Related NPS Data
EPA Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet)/National Dry Deposition Network
(NDDN) Monitoring Results of Emission Reductions
These data include dry deposition filter pack data, which can be accessed on the EPA CASTNet web
site (CASTNet 1998) and the NPS Dry Deposition Monitoring Network (NPS 1998b). In order to
access these data, it is necessary to pay for an account on the system.
28
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Wet Deposition Data
NFS wet deposition data collected at the sites may be placed on the CASTNet site in the future, or
CASTNet will provide a link to other sites where it is stored. Three of the six years of wet deposition
data are only in the AIRS database; the other three years are on the a web site at the University of
fllindis (UIUC 1).
IMPROVE Filter Pack Data
This is a joint EPA-NPS-U.S. Forest Service (USFS) program to study visibility in the Parks. The
prime contractor (University of California, Davis) makes the data available from an anonymous FTP
site for all the years of data collection. The site has ASCII files of data by individual site location.
It also has five particle measurements, four modules with filter packs that collect different things.
There are other data not currently on the FTP site that must be requested directly from ARS,
including optical measurements with nephelometers, transmissometers, and other equipment.
NPS Inventory Monitoring Program
This is biological survey data collected in the parks (e.g., amphibians). EMAP will provide common
links to these data in the future. , •
B.5.3 Coastal Intensive Sites Network
No interview was conducted. See the summary in Section 2.3.2.2 (CISNet), which was prepared
from information at the NCERQA web site (CISNet 1998).
B.6 Landscape Ecology
Landscape Ecology Working Group is based at the NERL lab but has cooperators at many sites (e.g.,
U.S. Geological Survey). The interview was conducted with NERL staff.
Participants
Summary of Workshop
September 24-25,1997
U.S. EPA Las Vegas Laboratory (NERL)
• Deb Chaloud (702)798-2333 chaloud.deborah@epamail.epa.gov
• Curtis M. Edmonds (702)798-2264 edmonds.curtis@epamail.epa.gov
• Sue Franson (702)798-2213 franson.sue@epamail.epa.gov
• Ed Furtaw (HERB-LV) (702)798-2285 furtaw.ed@epamail.epa.gov
• Daniel T. Heggem (702)798-2278 heggem.daniel@epamaiLepa.gov
• Stephen Hern (702)798-2594 hern.stephen@epamail.epa.gov
29
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• Bruce Jones (702)798-2671 jones.bruce@epamail.epa.gov
• Bill Kepner (702)798-2193 kepner.william@epamail.epa.gov
• Clay Lake (702)798-2269 lake.clayton@epamail.epa.gov
• Bob Schonbrod (702)798-2229 schonbrod.robert@epamail.epa.gov
EMAP-IM f AED)
• Stephen Hale (401)782-3048 hale.stephen@epamail.epa.gov
• Melissa M. Hughes (401)782-3184 hughes.melissa@epamail.epa.gov (OAO Corp.)
Technology Planning & Management Corporation (ITAS contractor)
• Jeff Rosen (781)544-3085 jrosen@tpmcscituate.com
• Dillon Scott (781)544-1298 dscott@tpmcscituate.com
Roles of the participants are as follows: Bruce Jones is the overall lead for the EMAP projects and
the EMAP Landscape Ecology Working Group; Robert Schonbrod is the Branch Chief for
Landscape Ecology; all other Las Vegas staff are managers of individual EMAP projects.
Purpose of the Meeting
The purpose of this meeting was to:
• establish the functional and structural requirements of information processing for the
Landscape Ecology Working Group; and
• determine the appropriateness of the Landscape Ecology requirements and the IM
planning being performed by EMAP, and the information management relationship
between the two programs.
Landscape Ecology Mission
The mission of the Landscape Ecology group is to integrate data from multiple scales (remote
sensing images and site data) to develop landscape indicators and assessment protocols for EMAP
and ReVA. Landscape indicators will be used to evaluate landscape status from 1992-1993 MRLC
imagery. Landscape Ecology will use these data and gradient studies to develop indicators. They will
evaluate the impact of landscape change by trading space (spatial variability—i.e., a gradient of
spatial variability) for time. A few indicators and assessments will involve landscape change over
a 20-year period.
For EMAP, the group will develop landscape indicators and assessments of status and trends for
selected resources of human importance (e.g., water quality, habitat quality). For ReVA, they will
use the indicators to evaluate or assess resources for their potential vulnerability to future
degradation as a result of multiple stressors (for selected resources of human importance (e.g., water
quality, habitat quality). There is a synergy between EMAP and ReVA tasks, since some of the
ReVA vulnerability assessments rely on indicators and data developed for the EMAP status and
30
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
trends. The current ReVA projects focus on streams and forests. The current Landscape Ecology
projects for EMAP include those listed in the next subsection, Studies.
Studies
Landscape Ecology is conducting two main projects for EMAP:
• Mid-Atlantic region (MAIA (U.S. EPA 1995d); and
• R-EMAP projects (in cooperation with EPA Regions; data from these projects will be
submitted to the Regions)
Q Region IV—Savannah River Landscape Analysis (lead: Deb Chaloud)
Q Region VII—Landscape Analysis and Characterization to Support Regional
Environmental Assessment Project (lead: Bruce Jones)
Q Region VIH—Integration of Upland and Riparian Stream Condition Monitoring
for Intermediately Sized Watersheds on Rangelands (leads: Anne Neale, Dan
Heggem)
Q Region IX—Bioassessment of Water Quality in the Humboldt River, Nevada
(leads: Anne Neale, Dan Heggem).
Related projects for ReVA include:
* National Water Assessment (for Office of Water); data now listed on EPA Surf Your
Watershed web site (EPA 1);
• San Pedro Basin (Arizona—Mexico) (ReVA 1998a, ReVA 1998b);
• Tensas River, Louisiana; and
• Lower Colorado River (LoCo) (planned).
Users
Landscape Ecology users include a number of research collaborators who exchange data at all stages
of the work, and a number of end users who receive data after QA/QC, aggregation, and analysis are
completed.
Primary users include:
• EMAP and ReVA scientists and analysts;
• planners at all scales (local, regional, state, federal); and
• resource managers at all scales (local, regional, state, federal).
31
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Secondary users include:
• educators;
• universities;
• public (including insurance, lawyers, media, etc.); and
• international agencies (e.g., World Bank, Mexico).
Landscape Ecology indicated that there is a critical need to support increased user requests. In
particular, they need better data distribution mechanisms (e.g., public FTP, staff support or
clearinghouse) to collaborators and end users. The Issues subsection, below, contains more
information. Interviewees also stressed access for educational users because Landscape Ecology data
products (e.g., Mid-Atlantic Landscape Atlas) are valuable outreach tools, and Landscape Ecology
staff have presented materials to schools in the past. Such materials and data could be distributed to
EPA educational programs and schools on CD-ROM and via public FTP, but currently EPA does
not allow this type of access.
Data Sources
Landscape Ecology uses data from a wide variety of local, regional, national, and international
sources, including:
• Satellite imagery, such as:
Q MRLC 1992 nationwide coverage (obtained from RTP Landscape
Characterization group)
Q NALC data (Landsat MSS) from 1970s, 1980s, 1990s (Landscape Ecology is in
charge of this database in cooperation with USGS). Currently, there is more than
0.25 terabyte (TB) of this data for the lower 48 states and Mexico (an additional
0.10 TB for Alaska and Hawaii if added to the database). The data are currently
being converted to FGDC standard format.
Q AVHRR for analyses at coarse scales;
Q Primary site data (locations, measured values), such as:
Q MRLC land cover
Q USGS 90-m DEM
Q STATSGO soils (NRCS 1:250,000 state soil data)
Q USGS DLG roads
Q U.S. Census
Q EPA atmospheric deposition
Q EPA River Reach RF3
Q USGS HUG 250; and
32
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• Early EMAP data (especially Surface Waters, Forests, Agroecosystems, Arid or
Rangelands, R-EMAP).
In the future, Landscape Ecology will also need access to:
• data from new satellite sensors;
• NDVI analyses/land cover;^
• new data layers from other agencies and independent sources (e.g., soil);
• combination of satellite imagery with radar;
• data from modernized STORET;
• distribution of historical and existing data sets on CD-ROM (e.g., Nature Conservancy);
• new process models, algorithms, etc. (need a metadata directory of them); and
• new EMAP data: Multi-Tier Design, Intensive Sites, and Regional Monitoring Pilots or
Demonstrations.
The Landscape Ecology group also identified some important data gaps that need to be filled for
them to conduct their research, including:
• large-scale wetland data;
• large-scale soil maps (especially of texture);
• forests;
• geology;
• finer-resolution air quality data;
» road networks;
• 11-digitUSGSHUCs;
• river flow rates;
• OEMs;
• wetlands;
• flood plain maps;
• SO2:NO2 at elevation;
• 1970s NALC imagery (lacks completeness of coverage); and .
33
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• water quality (USGS gauging station locations do not integrate watershed
characteristics).
The source agencies for some of these data include:
• USGS Earth Resources Observing System (EROS);
• Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM);
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);
• USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS);
• Institute del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustenable del Estado de Sonora
(IMADES);and
• Arizona State Land Department (Arizona Land and Resources Information System).
The group indicated that it is particularly important for them to have access to early EMAP data sets
in order to validate landscape indicators and assessments. However, they are currently having
difficulty accessing data such as Agroecosystems and Forests in a format and resolution appropriate
to their needs.
The quality of documentation of data sources varies widely. Less than half of all data sources are not
well documented or organized, and it can be expensive and time-consuming to .determine the
suitability of data for analysis and integration. Landscape Ecology indicated that they would like to
be able to track when and how data sources have been updated or corrected, so they can.determine
how the changes affect previous or future analyses.
There is also a lack of consistent quality and completeness of data sources. It is often difficult to
obtain data of sufficient quality for landscape analyses, or they can only get data for part of a
geographic area (e.g., for EPA River Reach data, only the Region in updated portion was detailed
enough to be used in their Mid-Atlantic project).
The longevity and quality of data stewardship also varies, and Landscape Ecology must depend on
source agencies to maintain and make their data available.
-** ' - •'
The group agreed that the EMAP Data Directory would be very useful for solving some of these
problems of locating data sources and documentation. Locating data sources is a time-consuming
task, especially for local, regional, and independent (e.g., private, such as the more than 300 aerial
photography vendors across the country) data sets. Such local sources are the most difficult to find,
and usually it is necessary to invest a large amount of time to locate them. One suggestion made was
34
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
that each time EMAP starts a new project, a page could be initiated on the EMAP web site that
would allow all participants to post and share data sources.
Data Management
Data management for Landscape Ecology is currently accomplished by the researchers, who do their
own data entry, data QA/QC, .data aggregation, data analysis, data distribution, and system
maintenance. Some support is also available from on-site contractors. Currently, they do not have
dedicated data management personnel who can support secondary data distribution, detailed
documentation, and widely accessible data archives. This arrangement successfully supports research
objectives, but does not provide sufficient resources to support distribution of data to EMAP and
other user communities (see Data Distribution and Documentation subsections, below).
Data management tools used are primarily those in the existing software (e.g., ARC/INFO, dBase).
They are planning to increase their use of Oracle RDBMS tools in the future.
The group indicated that it would be valuable to have assistance and resources for coordinating and
documenting their data management procedures—which currently vary for each project's special
needs. These resources would be helpful with: 1) providing data management training to develop
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for capture, storage, and dissemination of data; and 2)
training in the use and optimization of relational database management tools (e.g., Oracle).
Landscape Ecology will need to add data management staff in order to address these problems of
data management and distribution (see Issues subsection, below)
Data include the imagery and tabular data sets, surface maps, ARC/INFO coverages, metadata, and
processing algorithms, procedures, and programs. While it is not possible to estimate the exact
volume of each data set individually, Landscape Ecology estimates that it will be necessary to store
a total of about 0.5 terabytes +/- 0.25 (TB) per year. Currently, the database size is approximately
250 gigabytes (GB).
Data flow now includes:
• data collection—determining data needs, obtaining data from sources, collecting new
field data;
• data entry/conversion—transferring data into aform compatible with analyses and major
data sources (e.g., converting analog to digital by digitizing; re-projecting spatial
coordinates). SOPs exist for some procedures (e.g., UTM projection to
latitude/longitude);
• data verification—^conducting range checks and other minimum quality checks;
35
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• data validation—is performed while using the data (e.g., checking dates and names, and
using software which checks an image from a CD-ROM);
• data QA/QC—checking data to determine suitability for analysis/integration; SOPs exist
for some procedures;
• data analysis—using appropriate procedures/software to create indicators, conduct status
and trends, and assess vulnerability; SOPs exist for some procedures;
• data aggregation—putting data in common projections, correcting mistakes, etc. (see
Data Aggregation subsection, below);
• data distribution—transferring indicator data, atlas images, etc. to users (see Data
Distribution subsection, below);
• data storage—storing images and data on 8-mm tape archives to CD-ROM; currently
moving archives to CD-ROM; and
• data security—there is a need to control access to data sets under development.
There can be loops in this data flow; for example, when data inadequacies are found during data
analysis, it may be necessary to return to data collection or entry.
Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The ultimate responsibility for Landscape Ecology data quality and maintenance resides with the
individual project manager, as well as the working group leader, Bruce Jones (see Project
Management subsection for more information).
Landscape Ecology has SOPs for some QA/QC procedures, principally for digitizing and data
processing. They use standard existing datums and projections (e.g., NAD83) for spatial data.
Data Aggregation
Data aggregates are the major data product from Landscape Ecology, and consist of value-added
source data, (e.g., co-registered data sets, corrected images), as well as new data from analyses. Data
aggregates contain information that is frequently requested by other users. For example, Landscape
Ecology adds value to many of the data sources they use by synthesizing, correcting, and augmenting
them for their analyses. Their integration of early EMAP data sets with 1990-1993 satellite imagery
will produce aggregates of site data and surface maps that will be valuable for many future projects.
These aggregates represent new data sets, distinct from the original source, that must be documented
and cited in the Data Directory.
36
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data Products
Landscape Ecology creates a variety of data products and tools from their research that are valuable
to other researchers for site studies, regional/national assessments, status and trends, education and
outreach, and other tasks. These products will be produced in hard copy and electronic form, and
include:
Table B.2 Data Products
Models, methods, protocols,
algorithms
Programs
Surface maps (co-registered with
other spatial data)
Linked GIS data coverages
Assessments (output of analyses)
Source data sets (modified for use
in landscape analysis)
Regional & special studies results
Model output/runs stored as
primary data, model (algorithm),
and output (grid)
Metadata
Publications
Presentations to educational and
policy groups
Atlases
CD-ROMs (containing all of the
above products)
electronic .// paper
electronic
electronic // paper
electronic
electronic // paper
electronic
electronic // paper
electronic
electronic // paper
electronic // paper
electronic // paper
electronic // paper
electronic
spreadsheets, programs // publications "
C++, etc.
remote sensing images, ARC/INFO
coverages, ASCII files //Atlas maps
ARC/INFO coverages
ARC/INFO coverages, spreadsheets //
Atlases, publications
spreadsheets, ASCII, ARC/INFO
ARC/INFO coverages, spreadsheets //
Atlases, publications
spreadsheets, ARC/INFO coverages, ASCII
files
ASCII and WP files, publications
Atlases, scientific journals, symposia
proceedings
ArcView Project Files, publications, Fact
Sheets, Videos
Acrobat Page Maker Files, Publications
Acrobat Page Maker Files, ARC/lnfo Grid and
Coverage Files, ARC/INFO Export Files
(.EOO), ARCVIEW production files
Atlases are the main published products and include indicators mapped at multiple scales. An Atlas
of Chesapeake Bay has been completed (Riitters &Wickham, TVA & EPA, 1995) and contains land
cover data, indicators, and landscape assessments. The Region HI portion of the Mid-Atlantic study
has been produced as an Atlas and is now undergoing EPA pre-publication review; it will be made
available in printed and online formats. The online version of the Mid-Atlantic atlas is expected to
37
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
be greater than 1 and less than 2 GB (250 images at -2-30 MB for each image; each Atlas page is
approximately 30-40 MB), and would fill approximately 2-3 CD-ROMs.
Landscape Ecology is also planning to produce comparisons of landscape indicators and ecological
indicators from other Working Groups.
Data Exchange Among Research Partners
Landscape Ecology particularly needs to frequently exchange preliminary versions of large
geographic data sets (2-500 megabytes) with co-researchers who share primary responsibility for
new data, data aggregates, data analyses, and methodology on the project (partners include two other
EPA programs located at different sites (Landscape Characterization at RTF and USGS Reston), as
well as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), MRLC and NALC participants, Department of
Energy Oak Ridge National Lab, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Forest Service, and New Mexico
State University). The data sets must be made available to co-researchers in a short time frame (less
than one week) on an ad hoc basis. However, there is currently a bottleneck in this process because
large file sizes are often too large to transfer via email and traditional transfer media, and EPA policy
does not allow Internet access to EPA computers other than the public access server at RTF.
However, the data cannot be placed there because access to data under development must be
restricted to authorized users. The interviewees indicated that it is not adequate to have close
collaborators submitting requests and receiving data a week later. The problem has been temporarily
address by an FTP site at TV A, but EPA must find a more long-term solution. It is important to
improve this group's ability to share data with their partners, cooperators, and other groups by
providing write-access to an site where they can rapidly post large data sets (e.g., FTP).
Data Distribution
Distributing completed summary data to end users should be a priority for EMAP and other users
because the group produces a large amount of value-added data (e.g., site data mapped onto
imagery). The data are useful to all those listed in the Users subsection, and especially to research
partners and other Working Groups. Providing an efficient mechanism for distributing the data will
increase their value to EMAP and the user community.
Landscape Ecology receives many requests for their data aggregates, analyses, and models from
non-EMAP research groups and the public. Many of their completed summary data sets (e.g.,
indicator data) will be posted on the EMAP Public Web Site with links to ReVA Home Page and
the EPA Surf Your Watershed web site (SURF 1998), where data will be organized by USGS 8-digit
HUC (watershed) codes and other assessment units. The Mid-Atlantic Landscape Indicators Atlas
will also be published in the next few months in paper and electronic form, and they anticipate that
this will generate a large number of data requests. Although these data can be published at several
resolutions (thumbnail, mid-resolution, high resolution), users will still request customization or
subsets of the data. Landscape Ecology already does not have sufficient staff to fill existing data
requests, so the group discussed options for public data distribution, including:
_
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• create an EPA data download site with interfaces that allow the user to customize their
data requests
• designate a data clearinghouse that will fill requests
• privatize the data distribution
• create a data management position dedicated to maintaining monitoring data sets or
filling requests
The workshop participants mentioned two national monitoring networks as models for data
distribution:
• UK Environmental Change Network (UK Environmental Change Network 1998);
• ERIN, Australia's national monitoring data network (ERIN 1998).
Data distribution formats currently include ARC/INFO GRID export format (.EOO) and spreadsheets.
The landscape indicators and assessments may also be used in Surface Water Assessment Programs
(SWAPS) under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Documentation
The Landscape Ecology staff stressed the need for adequate documentation to be distributed with
and linked to each data product. Because there are many ways to do the same analyses (e.g., NDVI),
it is critical—-for legal and scientific purposes—to have good descriptions of data quality and
analytical procedures. Documentation should include how source data (e.g., sampling results) were
filtered for use in landscape assessments. The group receives many requests for their data from
researchers and the public, or results of analyses can end up in litigation; therefore, they feel it is
important to provide users with methods and revisions so it can be properly used and understood.
Currently, their.existing documentation fulfills minimum requirements outlined in their 1995
Mid-Atlantic work plan, and they are working towards meeting FGDC standards. They indicated that
they will need additional resources for completing Data Directory and Catalog entries (this assistance
may be provided by ReVA). They would also like to receive guidance on meeting FGDC standards.
EMAP-IM can provide examples of metadata templates and data entry tools from EMAP,
NOAA/CSC, and other sources.
Once standard documentation is made available, it will be useful for understanding data sets but also
for cataloging and accessing needed data. The FGDC documentation format will fit well into the
EMAP Data Directory and Catalog model, and FGDC documentation files could easily be linked or
converted to the Data Directory and Catalog.
39
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Software
Landscape Ecology uses both standard and custom software tools to process and analyze data,
including:
Standard
• ARC/INFO
• ERDAS
• SAS
• S +
• ENVI
• PCI
• Arc View
• Oracle
• Adobe Freelance
• Adobe Acrobat
• WordPerfect
• QuattroPro
• PKZIP and GZ1P
Custom
Programs in C and C++ written in- house and
by cooperators
LandStat/Spatial Convolution
Risk Assessment Management Software
(RAMAS)
Hardware and Infrastructure
The Landscape Ecology group currently uses a combination of UNIX and EPA DECs, but they plan
to migrate most of their processing to Windows NT systems in the near future. They will retain a
UNIX network server, and NT systems will take on more of the data processing burden. Windows
NT is viewed as a less costly, more flexible, and more user-friendly platform with adequate capacity
to support their analytical needs.
The group indicated a need for more storage capacity, especially for processed remote sensing
images. They regularly run out of disk space for these large data sets (there is now about 250 MB
of data on the server, and they will need about 0.5 terabytes +/- 0.25 (TB) per year of additional
storage space). Currently, they have to store much of the data off-line on CD-ROMs and 8mm tapes.
They also need broader Internet bandwidth and an anonymous FTP site to handle distribution of their
large data files (see Data Distribution and Issues subsections for more information).
Project Management
Responsibility for each Landscape Ecology EMAP project lies with an individual staff member, who
conducts the project and manages the data. The lead responsibility for all projects belongs to Bruce
40
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Jones, and ultimately Landscape Ecology Branch Chief Robert Schonbrod. Bruce Jones is also the
official EMAP Landscape Ecology Working Group lead, which means that the group reports directly
to the EMAP Director. The liaison between Landscape Ecology and EMAP-IM is Anne Neale.
The Landscape Ecology group is in NERL, but it has a commitment.to complete its EMAP projects
through an explicit agreement with NHEERL.
In order to exchange data with other working groups and researchers, and to deliver data and
documentation to EMAP, Landscape Ecology relies on the same project management tools as the
rest of EMAP, including: . , .
• Common goals—success of data exchange between the ReVA and EMAP projects will
be encouraged by the overlap Of data needs between these two programs. Closer ties
between NERL and NHEERL can only help this cause. Landscape Ecology also indicated
that there may soon be an across-ORD Landscape studies team, organized by Steve
Paulsen, which would provide some oversight;
• Planning tools—Landscape Ecology's commitments to EMAP are outlined in the
NERL-NHEERL agreement and are being monitored through ORD's project
management tools OMIS and GPRA;
• Good will—data and resource sharing between ReVA and EMAP .now depend largely
on good will between cooperators in the matrix management setting of EPA; and
• Funding agreements—funding is also a major factor in ensuring project success, since
NERL commitments to EMAP are explicit in the existing agreement.
Issues
A number of resource and data themes emerged as important issues that need to be resolved for
Landscape Ecology to complete their work and make data accessible, including:
1. 1990-1995 EMAP Data Sets
Landscape Ecology needs access to site data that it has been unable to obtain, including:
• EMAP Forests;
• EMAP Agroecosystems;
• several R-EMAP projects; and
• EMAP Surface Waters data collected after 1995.
41
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data Distribution and System Maintenance Support
In order to fulfill the demand for their data, manage the data, and do system maintenance,
Landscape Ecology needs increased staffing support in the form of 2-3 FTE for a system
manager, data librarian, and database programmer. The data librarian would be 1 FTE and
is needed to support creation and updating of documentation, tracking of data sets, and
distribution of Landscape Ecology data sets. The system manager would be 0.5-1 FTE and
is needed to support system maintenance. The database programmer would be 0.5-1 FTE and
is needed to support the database management needs outlined in the Data Management
subsection and item 3, below.
Data Management and Documentation Guidance and Resources
Landscape Ecology requested guidance and training in database management to support
distribution of data, procedures, and results, and development of acceptable documentation
that is compliant with EMAP and FGDC standards. Landscape Ecology currently needs
additional resources in their budget to develop documentation. The data management tools
now being used for spatial data access and analysis (e.g., ARC/INFO, ERDAS) are sufficient
for technical personnel to manage data for their own research purposes but not for
non-technical users. Support is needed to develop tools for notifying users of data
availability, content, status, and updates to data sets (version control). Managing multiple
versions of data sets is a major data management and documentation issue that will require
application of standard version control software and expertise currently not available in this
Working Group.
Data Quality
The group's primary mission is to develop landscape indicators and assessment protocols.
However, resources are needed to develop and implement a program to validate the
indicators and report the accuracy and variability of the validation.
Data Distribution
As discussed in the Data Exchange subsection above, the group needs access to an efficient
method for exchanging their large data sets in a short time frame. EMAP must find a site for
this exchange.
Data Directory Coordination between EMAP, ReVA. and NCEA
The upcoming pilot project between EMAP, ReVA, and NCEA to integrate the Data
Directory for both programs simplify access to information for Landscape Ecology and other
users.
42
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Incentives
The workshop also focused on what incentives might improve sharing data and completing
documentation throughout EMAP. A number of ideas were discussed that might be helpful in
facilitating data access:
• Data sets should be referenced deliverables or milestones that are listed as
accomplishments of a project. This feature is already in the GPRA tracking system and
should be added to the appropriate planning documents. If this idea is implemented, it
may be a good idea to conduct peer review of data sets before they are published.
• Synergy between EMAP and ReVA should be strengthened because common research
objectives encourage data sharing, accessibility, and utility.
• Additional staff should be allocated as discussed in the Issues subsection to support
database management, distribution of data and documentation, and system maintenance
for this Working Group.
• The EMAP Director could target specific dates for loading of Resource Group site data
to ensure its availability for Landscape Ecology analyses.
How Can EMAP-IM Help Landscape Ecology?
EMAP-IM can offer assistance to help resolve some of the issues raised in the workshop,
particularly in the areas of locating and documenting data sources and data products, facilitating data
exchanges, providing access to infrastructure, and providing guidance and standards for
documentation and data management. Some examples specific to Landscape Ecology include:
• Facilitate access to key EMAP data sets needed by Landscape Ecology (e.g., Forests,
Agroecosystems, Surface Waters, etc.);
• Locate, organize, and facilitate access to a wide variety of data and metadata not
currently indexed to support Landscape Ecology's work validating indicators and
assessments. This access must include an indication of the content and quality of the data
sets. Include a broad range of external data sources as Internet links and documentation
(data sets of interest to Landscape Ecology cover a wide range of topics mentioned in the
Data Sources subsection; for example, some additional data sets of interest to Landscape
Ecology would include Quonset Hut locations, pesticide use, transportation, and finer
scale data on land uses.);
• Pro vide guidance on preparing Data Directory and Catalog entries by providing examples
of existing metadata entry tools and templates;
• Provide site data handling protocols for Landscape Ecology's field data collection based
on EMAP 1990-1995 field efforts (e.g., is there a role for a "Lessons Learned" workshop
43
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
or publication on SOPs/protocols of successful approaches used in the past for data
management); guidance on use of log sheets vs. automated data collection systems;
• Provide an Internet-accessible site where Landscape Ecology data sets, protocols, etc.
could be rapidly posted for access by research partners;
• Post guidance for the following topics on the EMAP Public Web Site:
Q codes for QA, taxonomy, chemistry, etc.
Q metadata creation tools/templates
Q tools and lessons learned from 1990-1995 program;
• Keep the EMAP Bibliography up to date so that Working Groups can find publications
useful to them. In turn, Landscape Ecology and all Working Groups should send their
publication information to EMAP-IM promptly;
• Facilitate an EMAP publications clearinghouse so that different programs can find and
access useful publications;
• Assist with making the Mid-Atlantic Landscape Atlas accessible online;
• Put the data on the EMAP Public Web Site and provide linkages to ReVA and Surf Your
Watershed web sites; and *
• Support access to Landscape Ecology data and metadata.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Our discussions with Landscape Ecology revealed a dynamic group that is producing a large amount
of data and processing tools that are useful to many EMAP and outside users. This group is very
interested in participating in the EMAP/ReVA data documentation and distribution system, and it
will be a worthwhile investment to assist them with making their data and information more
accessible via the EMAP Directory and Catalog, and data download sites.
In summary, the primary needs expressed by the group included the following:
• Training and assistance with development of FGDC-compliant data documentation;
• Identification of additional resources for creating EMAP Data Directory and Catalog
entries that link the data with the users;
• Guidelines and policies on data documentation from EMAP-IM;
• An Internet-accessible site where Landscape Ecology and other EMAP data suppliers can
post large data sets for immediate access by researchers not at the Las Vegas site or with
EPA;
44
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• Access to 1990-1995 data sets and new Surface Water data for regional analyses (current
and retrospective);
• A publications clearinghouse within EMAP that can distribute publications from the
different programs;
• Assistance and/or guidance with management of (potentially) terabytes of raw and
aggregated data and imagery;
• Access to raw and spectral data for determining data usefulness to more directly measure
ecological processes (e.g., productivity derived from leaf cover index or estimates of the
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI));
• Assistance with identifying optimal tools for acquiring, managing, analyzing, and
documenting environmental information; and
• Distribution of their models, procedure, and algorithms, and access to those produced by
other programs.
It is clear from this meeting that the EMAP Data Directory and Catalog approach could be useful to
this group for:
• organizing and summarizing programs and data sets so .they are easy to locate and
understand;
• making metadata accessible to users;
» notifying users of data set corrections and updates;
• linking to existing data web sites;
• working in consortia, to locate contacts, areal coverage of data, and data updates;
• facilitating inquiries about 1990-1995 data sets; and
• listing publications.
All of the participants agreed that it is important for EMAP-IM (AED) and Landscape Ecology to
get started entering Landscape Ecology data and metadata into the EMAP Data Directory, Data
Catalog, Home Page, and Bibliography. These products will help solve some of the problems with
locating, updating, and distributing data.
45
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
B.7 Regional EMAP (R-EMAP)
Four interviews were conducted with Regional EMAP (R-EMAP) researchers. A short session at a
national meeting of R-EMAP coordinators from the EPA Regions provides an overview; and
individual interviews with three Regions were conducted to obtain more detailed information.
B.7.1 R-EMAP National Coordinator's Meeting
November 6-7,1997
Participants
U.S. BPA ORD R-EMAP Coordinator
• Anthony Carlson, Duluth (218)720-5523 carlson.anthony@epamail.epa.gov
U.S. EPA Regional R-EMAP Coordinators
• Ray Thompson, Region I (617) 860-4372 thompson.ray@epamail.epa.gov
• Darvene Adams, Region n (732) 321-6700 adams.darvene@epamail.epa.gov
• Rollie Hemmett, Region n (908) 321-6756 hemmett.roland@epamail.epa.gov
• Thomas DeMoss, Region HI (410) 573-2739 demoss.thomas@epamail.epa.gov
• Jerry Stober, Region IV (706) 355-8705 stober.jerry@epamail.epa.gov
• Arthur Lubin, Region V (312) 886-6226 lubin.arthur@epamail.epa.gov
• Charlie Howell, Region VI (214) 665-8354 howell.charlie@epamail.epa.gov
• Lyle Cowles, Region VH (913) 551-5042 cowles.lyle@epamail.epa.gov
• Jill Minter, Region VJJI (303) 312-6084 minter.jill@epamail.epa.gov
• Bob Hall, Region IX (415) 744-1936 hall.robertk@epamail.epa.gov
• Region X (not represented)
ORD
• Barbara Levinson, NCERQA (202) 260-5983 levinson.barbara@epamail.epa.gov
• Rick Linthurst, RTP (919) 541-4909 ricklinthurst@epamail.epa.gov
• Tony Olsen, Corvallis (541) 754-4790 tolsen@mail.cor.epa.gov
• Steve Paulsen, Corvallis (541) 754-4428 paulsen@mail.cor.epa.gov
• Kevin Summers, Gulf Breeze (850) 934-9244 summers.kevin@epamail.epa.gov
EMAP-IM (AED)
• Stephen Hale, Narragansett (401) 782-3048 hale.stephen@epamail.epa.gov
Technology Planning and Management Corporation, FT AS Contractor
• Jeff Rosen (781) 544-3085 jrosen@tpmcscituate.com
• Dillon Scott (781) 544-1298 dscott@tpmcscituate.com
46
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was for regional R-EMAP coordinators to meet with ORD EMAP
program directors. At the meeting, EMAP-IM (AED) gave a briefing on the status of EMAP
information management (IM) and asked for feedback on how information management can be
conducted for R-EMAP projects.
Status of Regional Studies
Each regional representative provided an update on the status of their projects and the data produced.
Region I
Please see Section B.7.2, R-EMAP Region I, for complete summary.
Region II
Round 1 was a baseline study of New York/New Jersey Harbor sediments, and has been completed
except for the report. The data from this project were managed by Versar and have now been
submitted to EMAP-IM (AED). They will be moved to the EMAP Public Web Site as soon as the
final report is finished (the report is needed to understand the data). Only the original QA'd data of
all measured constituents (e.g., PCB congeners) will be posted. Data analyses and aggregates will
not be posted because methodology can change and the results might not be considered valid in the
long term.
Round 2 continues the work in the Harbor in a trend assessment of sediment quality and
development of indicators. This work will be fully implemented in the summer of 1998 and is the
basis for the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program's long term monitoring program for the
Harbor.
Region III
Region HI studies focus on the state of streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, including all
geographic areas of the Region except the coastal plain and the Piedmont. Data have been produced
for biology, habitat, and water chemistry in watershed units. Stressors have been ranked by their
contribution to biological indicators. The results were presented to the Regional Administrator and
the Assistant Administrator for Water (Bob Perciasepe), who liked the watershed approach. This
program is now supported by the Congressmen from Pennsylvania and West Virginia in the
Highlands Action Program. The Region is also interested in learning to use landscape ecology
methods through technology transfer to results from the Landscape Ecology group. The data from
this project has been submitted to EMAP-IM for posting on the MAIA Web Site (under
construction) (MAIA 1998).
Region IV
The main effort is the Everglades Ecosystem Assessment. This is a system-wide (4000-mi2) research
and monitoring study of the Everglades ecosystem which has collected data (1993-96) relating to
47
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
mercury contamination, eutrophication, habitat alteration, and hydropattern modification issues
affecting the system. This study was initially begun to address the mercury issue. However, since the
project has developed a comprehensive database, it strongly supports the federal and state Everglades
restoration efforts and will provide a means to evaluate present and future management actions
related to the much larger restoration efforts. Planners estimate that over the next several years as
much as $12 billion will be spent to restore this system. A statistical survey design was used to select
200 canal and 500 marsh sampling stations, a quarter of which were sampled during successive wet
and dry seasons over two years. Approximately 30 parameters have been measured in water,
soil/sediment, and biological tissue which have been under analysis since sampling terminated. A
final technical report is planned for June 1998. Steve Rathbun (University of Georgia) is assisting
with statistical analysis.
Region IV has organized these data into ten spreadsheet data files which are undergoing final
QA/QC assessment and final proofing and verification (should be completed in January 1998). They
have had several requests for the database from other agencies in South Florida; however, they have
declined until the metadata can be added to support the files. The goal is to place the data on the
EMAP Public Web Site. They need guidance on what is required to get this done recognizing that
they have already done a tremendous amount of work on the database. The Region has minimal
resources to expend on database management, and they need effective EMAP guidance to allow
them to quickly complete the work so it can be released.
The Savannah River project database will probably be handled the same as that for the Everglades.
It is probably in QuattroPro and should be posted on the EMAP Public Web Site.
Region V
Art Lubin reported that the Round 1 Corn Belt project is finished, and the data are now available.
Round 2 projects are just getting started because of bureaucratic problems with setting up contracts
and cooperative agreements. The projects will develop biological indicators for watersheds and
assess the status of wadeable streams in order to understand the spatial evolution of northern lakes
and forests. They will be comparing random sites to intensive sites. Sampling will begin in Spring
1998.
No data submission standards were included in the contracts, and the project managers at Region V
will be raising data submission issues with the principal investigators at a meeting later this year.
Region VI
Studies in 1993 and 1994 focused on Toxic Substances Characterizations for Selected Texas
Estuaries, which is a follow-up to the EMAP-Estuaries (Louisianan Province) monitoring program.
The 1993 project was in Galveston Bay, the 1994 project in Corpus Christi Bay. Both projects
collected the full suite of EMAP indicators (PCBs, metals, PAHs, TBT, etc.). Data management for
48
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
the projects is being handled by Gulf Breeze in a manner similar to the EMAP Estuaries data. The
Toxic Substances studies were designed to:
• estimate the degree, extent, and potential effects of tributyl tin concentrations in
sediments of Galveston Bay and relate them to the condition of the benthic
macroinvertebrate (bottom-dwelling organism) communities;
• estimate the type and rate of fish pathologies (eye deformities, skin lesions, organ
abnormalities, etc.) found in the East Bay Bayou of Galveston Bay and relate these
pathology findings to estimated sediment toxicity and contaminant levels;
• estimate the levels, extent, and distribution of contaminants in fish and sediments in tidal
reaches of the Arroyo Colorado and the Rio Grande; and
• estimate the levels, extent, and distribution of contaminants in fish tissue and sediments
in Corpus Christi Bay.
The Galveston report has been distributed for peer review. The Corpus Christi work is still in
progress; field work has been completed.
The 1996-1997 study is the application of a probabilistic approach to determine the extent and
effects of stream habitat degradation and fish community integrity in eastern Texas streams. The
project is now being designed in cooperation with ORD-Western Ecology Division. The project is
collecting data on biological indicators, physical habitat, and water quality. This study will use
EMAP methodology to:
• evaluate the status of physical habitat and biological communities in small, perennial east
Texas streams;
• determine the extent of degradation by land use and among ecoregions;
• further refine biological criteria and habitat evaluation techniques for this region; and
• determine the prevalence of mercury contamination in fish tissue from small streams.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department River Studies Group will conduct the study. Field work
will be conducted during 1997-1999, and a final report is expected during the year 2000.
Region VI will input the data into STORET so that it may be readily aggregated with and segregated
from data sets generated through other programs (fields will be available in STORET to separate
"EMAP" and "R-EMAP" data from the other stuff).
Summaries of the two projects are available on the web (REMAP 1998a, REMAP 1998b).
49
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Region VII
Lyle Cowles reported that Round 1 focuses on the status of stream water quality of Nebraska,
Kansas, and Missouri. This project is developing an IBI for fish and habitat to give the states a
measurement tool for the health of fisheries in fresh water. They sampled water, fish tissue, and
sediment (not macroinvertebrates) for chemistry. They are now analyzing the data and will have a
draft report by March 1998. EMAP has already collected the data at Corvallis.
The Round 2 study will add a land use/land cover component to the first project for a landscape
analysis and characterization to support regional environmental assessment. They will be
collaborating with the Kansas Center for Applied Remote Sensing (KCARS) on this work.
The most recent project is resampling Nebraska streams from the Round 1 study (approximately 60
randomly selected) and assisting the state of Nebraska with using probabilistic design and EMAP
indicators for rotating basins studies. Region Vn will also be assisting the states with analyzing the
data and writing reports.
There is a variety of monitoring work being done in most of the states in Region VII. However,
because the monitoring is not coordinated spatially, temporally, or for quality or quantity, it is not
possible to use it for estimating the overall health of resources.
Region VIII
See Section B.7.3, R-EMAP Region VM, for a complete summary.
Region IX
See Section B.7.4, R-EMAP Region IX, for a complete summary.
Region X
No representative attended.
R-EMAP Information Management Issues
The EMAP Director stated that it is important for R-EMAP projects to make their data available
through the EMAP Public Web Site. After the Regional Reports, EMAP-IM (AED) gave an
overview of data management issues and asked for feedback from the Regions, and indicated that
there will be follow-up by phone after the meeting.
Since the money earmarked for data management in Round 2 was never delivered to ORD and the
Regions, participants indicated that EMAP-IM (AED) can assist with documentation and
distribution (EMAP-IM is looking for funds to add staff to assist with this work). EMAP-IM
recommended that future budgets would need to set aside 10-20% in order to handle data
management, documentation, and distribution tasks.
50
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
The IT AS Contractor (TPMC) reviewed the data management issues that EMAP needs to understand
to revise the IM Plan, including such issues as where R-EMAP data will reside and what assistance
the projects need from EMAP-IM to make their data accessible. The issues of importance include:
• Data management — how data are checked for quality and completeness;
• Data products — what data sets and other products of collection and analysis are being
produced;
• Data distribution — how data sets will be made available beyond the data collectors;
• Data Documentation — how the quality and details of data sets can be described for
future users;
• Project management — how does project structure affect the success of information
management and access; and
• How EMAP-IM can help — what resources, expertise, and guidance can be provided
to help complete R-EMAP information management.
Important points made in this discussion included:
1. The EMAP Director pointed out that for R-EMAP data to be valuable it must be well-
documented and available to researchers beyond those who collected the data. EMAP-IM
provides an option for archiving, documenting, and distributing data that researchers should
use. This effort is especially important for monitoring data sets.
2. One of the most important features of the EMAP-IM system should be simplicity — the
ability of the user to get to desired data easily through simple interfaces without
understanding the underlying complexity of the data. It is also very important for EMAP-IM
to simplify the data management and access, process for the researchers.
3. Round i projects had no contractual requirements for submitting data sets, so EMAP— IM can
assist the Regions with collecting them. Round 2 had some guidelines that were given to the
R-EMAP coordinators; Round 3 could benefit from additional planning and resources.
4. R-EMAP must do effective data management and distribution in order to be credible as a
national program. R-EMAP coordinators could benefit from guidance on when and how data
documentation should be done, especially if the project manager changes during the period
of the project.
5. Creating Data Directory entries for every R-EMAP data set should be a minimum
requirement (they only take about 10 minutes to complete). .
51
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
6. Metadata creation tools are becoming more available and improved for creating
FGDC-compliant data. R-EMAP groups can get assistance from EMAP-IM and others who
are familiar with these tools and standards.
7. The Regions do not all have sufficient hardware, software, infrastructure, expertise, and
resources to manage and distribute R-EMAP data. Some will distribute data through
partnerships with research partners and data repositories, and others will need assistance
from EMAP-IM.
8. It would be very helpful if EMAP-IM could provide data submission guidelines for
subcontractor agreements to improve the delivery of data sets.
9. A bibliography of EMAP publications and online access to electronic publications would be
extremely useful (the EMAP Director indicated that EMAP is now creating a searchable
bibliography of its publications).
10. Participants can let EMAP-IM know about non-EMAP data sets that should be tracked in
the Data Directory (i.e., a PI has a data set available on a university web site).
11. R-EMAP projects would benefit from EMAP efforts to index methods, documents, and final
reports from other Working Groups.
Conclusions and Next Steps
Although data management is stated to be an important goal of R-EMAP, additional resources are
required for coordinating data submission, management, dissemination, and analysis. It is important
to plan adequate resources to ensure that data are made available with high-quality documentation
so that the results can be aggregated for regional analysis. Each Region handles data management
differently. Although they are planning to submit data to EMAP-IM, they need guidance and
assistance from EMAP-IM on data submission, management, documentation, creation of Data
Directory entries, and distribution.
EMAP-IM will assist each region with delivering data to be posted on the EMAP Public Web Site.
The R-EMAP portion of the EMAP Public Web Site needs to be brought up to date with Round 2
projects. Ron Carlson will supply EMAP-IM with this information.
It will be important for EMAP-IM to set up links to national and regional databases where R-EMAP
projects will be storing their data. Most data on water, sediments, and biology will be entered into
modernized STORET as soon as it becomes available. Diane Switzer of Region I is well-informed
about the new STORET and is a resource for other groups on this topic. Air monitoring data from
Region I will be entered into a number of national air monitoring databases. Participants support the
_
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
idea of entering EMAP data into STORET because EPA has spent millions of dollars to update this
system and efforts are underway to accommodate biological and habitat data that are consistent with
EMAP methodologies. With the recent demise of NWIS H, USGS will likely adopt STORET as their
primary database. Fields will be available to separate EMAP and R-EMAP data from the other
program's data. Region VI will input their future data into STORET so that it can be readily
aggregated with and segregated from data sets of other programs.
EMAP-IM and the ITAS contractor followed up this meeting with phone interviews of selected
regional staff to learn more about the status of data and information management in the projects for
summaries (see Sections B.7.2, B.7,3, B.7.4).
8.7.2 R-EMAP Region I
Participants
Summary of Workshop
September 16,1997
U.S. EPA Region I Laboratory. Lexington. MA
• Diane Switzer
• Ray Thompson
• Alan Van Arsdale
Technology Planning and Management Corporation. ITAS Contractor
• Jeff Rosen
• Dillon Scott
Mission
The focus of these studies is the investigation of mercury and other toxics in fish, water column,
sediments, and atmospheric deposition in New England lakes and streams.
Data Collection Efforts
There are currently three projects in two rounds of funding.
Round 1 (1993-1994)
Fish Tissue Contamination in the State of Maine (Maine Department of Environmental Protection,
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. EPA Region I Environmental Services
Division)—
This project was designed to evaluate the distribution of mercury in surface waters, fish, and
sediments. All sampling was performed on the EMAP sample frame (developed by Tony Olson),
which originated with 1,800 lakes. Of the lakes in the original frame, 150 candidate lakes were
chosen with a goal of sampling 120-125 lakes. A total of 125 lakes were sampled over the 2 years.
53
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Most of the work was performed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (technical
contact Barry Mower) and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
Fish sampling was performed using regular long-line fishing with gill nets. The objective of the fish
collection was not to determine populations but to collect tissue specimens. Fish tissue analyses for
mercury were done on whole fish and filets to determine differences between them. For the sediment
analysis, some subset of the EMAP suite was analyzed, including lead, cadmium, and mercury.
A major outcome of the study was a Maine advisory on mercury in freshwater fish. The findings
inspired other New England states to study mercury in their own lakes and resulted in policy changes
and regulations at the state and regional levels. Each state used a different methodology based on
available funds (e.g., New Hampshire asked fishermen for samples, Massachusetts DEP and DPH
collected samples). The data were also used in regional (New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, Northeast Waste
Management Officials Association) and national (Office of Air Quality Planning) assessments, and
some link was made also with Canadian data. The work also contributed to some spin-offs including
the Casco Bay Program, the Regional Applied Research Effort (UNH, ORD), and others.
Data Types
General data types are listed below. Please see the Additional Information On Data Types
subsection, below, for more detail.
• Lake Field—Sampling Data
• Fish Collection Descriptive Data
• Water Quality Profiles
Q QA/QC data from samples run by the labs (U.S. EPA Region I, New England
Regional Laboratory; Maine Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory for
Inorganic and Organic Parameters; National Biological Survey U. of Maine
Laboratory; U. of Maine Sawyer Environmental Chemistry Laboratory)
• Organic compounds measured include:
Q Aldrin, A-BHC, B-BHC, D-BHC, G-BHC, A-Chlordane, G-Chlordane, Dieldrin,
Endosulfan I, Endosulfan n, Endosulfan Sulfate, Endrin, Endrin Aldehyde, Endrin
Ketone, Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide, DDE, DDT, DDD, Toxaphene, Aroclor
1221, Aroclor 1232, Aroclor 1242, Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, Aroclor 1260,
Aroclor 1268, Percent Surrogate Recovery, Percent Moisture, Percent Lipids
Round2(1997-)
Measurement of Mercury Deposition and Atmospheric Concentrations in New England (with
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management), and Assessment of Mercury in
54
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Hypolimnetic Lake-Bed Sediments of Vermont and New Hampshire (with Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services)—
The two Round 2 R-EMAP projects are off-shoots of the Round 1 project and will consist of two
projects now being initiated. A major objective of Round 2 is to allow testing of multiple hypothesis
regarding the air quality and the effects of atmospheric deposition on a number of species in surface
water systems. Attempts will be made to correlate atmospheric deposition with sources for
emissions. It is anticipated that the data analysis for Round 2 will be performed by a consortium of
principal investigators using ancillary funds, and that the data will be managed via the Internet and
workshops. The workshop approach will be to distribute the data with the questions that are being
asked, and then request that principal investigators perform analyses to present to their peers at the
workshop.
Round 2 will have intensive sites monitoring for ozone precipitation as well as concentration of
some species of chemicals in the precipitated water. There is no expectation that these intensive sites
will in any way be coordinated with the EMAP Intensive Sites. In addition, Round 2 will include
measurements far beyond those made in Round 1 and will not only include chemical species but also
particle analysis for two components greater than 2.5 microns and less than 2.5 microns. In addition,
cloud monitoring will be performed on Mount Mansfield. No standards are in place for this since
methodologies do not currently exist for analyzing mercury in clouds.
Data Types
Only general information is available because these projects are just beginning.
NESCAUM project—
• Anticipated mercury data to be collected in the New England region include:
Q Approximately 16 sampling locations for mercury monitoring (wet, gaseous,
particle) network
. Q Potential deposition gradients
Q Spatial and temporal patterns of deposition ,
Q Atmospheric concentration
Q Local vs. regional influences on atmospheric concentrations
Q New method for measuring mercury in mountain clouds
Q Data from new method on whether mountain-cloud impaction results in enhanced
mercury deposition at high elevations
Q Event-specific data on mercury precipitation that may be used to evaluate and
develop atmospheric transport and deposition models or that may be used in
conjunction with trajectory models, source-receptor models, and other pollutant
__
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
data to assess significance of individual source categories or source regions to
deposition in New England
New Hampshire/Vermont project—
• Location and descriptive data for 90 Vermont and New Hampshire lakes
• Total and methylmercury concentrations in water and surficial sediments in 90 lakes
• Fish-tissue mercury levels in 20 of study lakes
• Relationship between aqueous and sediment total and methylmercury concentrations,
fish-tissue total mercury concentrations, and physico-chemical lake and watershed
characteristics
• Concentrations or conditions of water chemistry parameters that mediate mercury
methylation in 90 lakes
• Evaluate (rank) potential risk of migration of total sediment mercury into water column
in methylated form
• Investigate historical deposition patterns of total mercury in dated cores from six lakes;
relate these depositional patterns to known historical events in surrounding watersheds
where possible. Also investigate deposition profile of total mercury in undated cores
from the sediments of 12 lakes (in addition to the 6 lakes above). Compare stratigraphy
of mercury from Vermont and New Hampshire lakes with that of selected Maine and
Adirondack studies
Users
R-EMAP data users include:
• Primary users:
Q R-EMAP researchers;
• Secondary users:
Q Researchers and planners doing syntheses at regional, national, international level;
and
• Data repositories:
Q Region I Laboratory
Q Mercury Deposition Network
Q University of Michigan
Q NEARDAT (George Washington University).
56
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Water research data will be used at the state level and in other research projects on those water
bodies. The water, fish, and sediment data have so far been used only by the researchers, but it is
anticipated that the data will also be used by:
• Regional offices and national R-EMAP program for regional and national assessments
• State, regional, local planners
• Watershed groups
• Legislators, policy makers
Air monitoring users include a network of collaborators who archive and use the final data and
methodology into regional information networks.
Data Sources
Round 2 will need to use information from a number of different source databases and inventories,
including local data, EMAP lakes and streams data, EMAP indices, and other EMAP approaches and
methodologies. Data will also be retrieved from the EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS), and further data will be sought for air deposition and from facilities (potential point
sources).
Interviewees emphasized the need for EMAP-IM to provide access to summaries of approaches,
equations and methodologies for developing indices—particularly the Habitat Quality Index
developed for the mid-Atlantic. The development of assessment tools has always been a strength of
EMAP and should be available to the Regions and States.
Data Management
Data are quality-assured, documented, analyzed, and maintained by the state agencies and regional
boards conducting the projects. The quality and longevity of stewardship for these databases at the
project sites is unknown and will vary by site. Round 1 data reside at MEDEP. Region Fs
understanding of the original data sets is that there is a single record for each fish sampled. Data
formats at the project site (e.g., spreadsheets, GIS coverages) are unknown. The Maine project was
required to submit data to EPA under verbal guidance from Region I through existing QAPP
requirements. Round 2 data management will be conducted by the states and NESCAUM, who will
conduct the research. Data management requirements have been discussed, but no firm plans have
been put into place. Analytical protocols have been standardized, and it is expected that this
standardization will also result in a standard for data submission. The participants will adopt the
Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) format as the standard data format. Round 2 has an
international component, since some of the work will be done around the Great Lakes, and there will
be a need to exchange data with Canadian sources. This exchange presents problems with both
57
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
methodology as well as data management since the protocols between the U.S. and Canada are not
standardized.
QA/QC'd raw data will be submitted by the project managers to Region I in ASCII format. There
have been no problems obtaining the data from Round 1 because of good long-term working
relationships between Region I and the projects (no problems are anticipated for Round 2). However,
Region IR-EMAP has sufficient resources allocated for data collection and analysis but very little
for data management and distribution. The projects will produce useful data aggregates and technical
reports that should be stored and disseminated. In addition, the water data should be entered into
STORET. However, the Region currently only has sufficient resources for storing the ASCII files.
Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control
All field QA/QC is done at the project sites, and procedures are documented in the reports and
QAPPs.
Dataproducts
Round 1 data products delivered to Region I consist of tables in technical reports and ASCII data
files.
Round 2 data products delivered to Region I will include tables in assessment reports and ASCII data
files.
Data Formats
Region I maintains the ASCII files on disk. Data formats at the project sites are unknown.
Data Distribution
It is anticipated that the water, fish, and sediment data from both Round I and Round 2 will
ultimately reside in the new STORET (STORET X) system. Region I has evaluated a prototype of
the data entry system for the STORET X and found it to be an improvement over the earlier version.
Many of the issues regarding the loading of the data and production of reports have been eliminated,
and the new system appears to be user-friendly and capable of multiple analyses.
Air data will be stored and distributed in a number of different ways, some of which are still being
worked out among the researchers and the data networks in which they participate (an upcoming
meeting will address this issue). Some of the atmospheric mercury data will be loaded into the EPA
AIRS database. Other data which are too detailed or require extensive precision and accuracy will
not fit well into AIRS, and these data are anticipated to be stored by many of the principal
investigators. Some of the air/precipitation data and metadata from Round 2 will also make its way
into the MDN and University of Michigan sites. Other atmospheric data will be transferred from the
project sites to the NEARDAT web site at George Washington University (contact is Rudy Husar).
[George Washington University is also the repository for the Ozone Transport Assessment Group
58 ~ ~~ ' ' -
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
(OTAG) data.] These data will be scattered among a number of air database repositories and will
have to be carefully tracked in the EMAP Data Directory so that users will know where to find the
data.
The lack of available resources for entering the data into sites such as STORET is also a concern.
The Region I project managers indicated that it would be helpful if EMAP-1M could make the
R-EMAP data files temporarily accessible on the EMAP Public Web Site until they can be entered
into the appropriate repositories. In the future, if the data are archived in other repositories, the
EMAP Data Directory could be linked to them.
Documentation
The cooperative agreements in Round I did not require projects to prepare metadata, so metadata will
have to be prepared by Region I from project materials (QAPPs, notebooks, databases) when data
are entered into repositories (STORET, AIRS, etc.). None of the quality assurance or documentation
of methodologies for gathering and analyzing samples is in a form amenable for electronic storage
and access. This documentation will need to be reformatted so that it is accessible via STORET or
the EMAP-IM.
Software
Data analysis takes place at the project sites. No special software is needed at Region I to store the
ASCHfiles.
Hardware and Infrastructure
Region I has sufficient Internet access and computing resources to store the ASCII files.
Project Management
Research and data management are mainly conducted by the project sites, who collect, analyze, use,
and store the data. Region I receives final reports and data and will load it into appropriate
repositories (EMAP-IM, STORET, AIRS, etc.) in the future.
The Region I project managers indicated a concern regarding program management. Currently, with
the way the money for R-EMAP is routed, the money cannot actually come to the Regions, although
the Regions are ultimately responsible for coordinating the projects. The actual project officers for
all of these projects are in ORD where the money originates. The theoretical flow of authority is from
the coordinator to the project manager to the cooperators. The real path is from the coordinators to
the cooperators with the project manager in a money management and contract management role but
not in any technical role. This is a result of the inability of the Regions to obligate funds originating
within ORD.
59
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
How Can EMAP-IM Help?
The participants were asked to evaluate the planned EMAP-IM approach for its potential usefulness
to them, and to indicate what other services EMAP-IM could provide. They indicated that it would
be a major contribution if EMAP's Data Directory can cross-reference and index data sources and
then facilitate the access to the data sources. They also indicated that posting the R-EMAP data on
the EMAP Public Web Site would be a great service if it included long-term maintenance. Long-term
maintenance would include assuring that the data were properly stored and available to interested
parties. They indicated that the Surf Your Watershed information system currently available on the
EPA Internet site would also be useful for making R-EMAP data available.
EMAP—IM could help Region I R-EMAP by providing them with data aggregates and methodology
from other EMAP efforts, especially the assessment tools (e.g., Habitat Quality Index, IB I, indices,
actual equations, other tools) discussed in the Data Sources subsection. These assessment tools are
currently difficult to locate and obtain.
EMAP—IM can also help by providing links to existing data networks (e.g., MDN, George
Washington University), and by indexing and making available those data sets (e.g., some of the air
data) that are retained only by principal investigators and not incorporated into other networks. They
would also be interested in learning more about other programs like the Great Waters program
(which include the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain).
A general observation is that STORET is likely to play a key role in much of the water, tissue, and
sediment data generated from both of these projects. The point was made that the national core
performance program requires that states generating selected data upload these data to STORET. The
Region I project managers indicated that for New England, there is currently no central information
database or server where information can be placed for access by other groups.
Other services that would be useful for EMAP-EVI to supply would be sets of standard forms,
formats for proposals, and tools for generating appropriate documentation.
The participants also are concerned that the institution of themes in Round 3 may inhibit projects
within individual regions. R-EMAP funds are the only source for conducting local and regional
monitoring and research programs. The purpose of R-EMAP is to address regional problems, so each
Region must be somewhat different. Approaches that address the needs of one Region will not
necessarily be useful to another Region. For example, Region I projects are organized around
common regional concern with mercury deposition.
A final point made by the participants is that data management for R-EMAP projects is currently not
coordinated. It is stated to be an important EMAP goal, but there are few resources for coordinating
data submission, management, dissemination and analysis.
60
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Conclusions and Recommendations
An overall observation regarding this interview was that the complexity of EMAP programs does
not seem to change with scale. Data management, particularly for Round 2 of this R-EMAP
program—-which includes multiple parameters, media, and research collaborators—is easily as
complicated as data management issues for the overall EMAP program. It would be a mistake to
assume that the requirements for information management in working groups or partner programs
is of a lesser degree of complexity and therefore less expensive to implement than those in larger
regional/national programs. Ignoring these data management issues will result in R-EMAP data sets
being dispersed with little coordination, and will result in an inability to aggregate these results
within EMAP. At the very least, R-EMAP data sets should all be indexed at a single site and
cross-referenced so related data sets can be found. In addition, data dictionaries and recommended
standards should be published with the data sets so that there is a better chance of integrating this
information into a larger context.
Additional Information On Data Types
Round 1
Maine—
• Lake Field Sampling Data
Q Lake descriptive information (locations, names, morphometric data)
Q Cation, Anion, Air Equilibrated pH, Acid Neutralizing Capacity and True Color
Data
Q Total Phosphorus
Q Dissolved Organic Carbon
Q Sediment Analysis Results
Q Sediment Percent Solids—Comparison of Split Sample Results
• Fish Collection Descriptive Data
Q Results of Analyses for Organic Compounds, Percent Moisture, and Percent
Lipids in Whole Fish
Q Mercury, Cadmium, and Lead Concentrations in Fish Tissue Composites
Q Summary of Organic Compounds Detected in Whole Fish Composites
Q Split Sample Results (Summary of Split Sample Results; Mercury and Percent
Moisture in Predator Fillets—Split Sample Results; Metals in Whole
Fish—Comparison of Split Sample Results; Organic Compounds^ Percent
Moisture, and Percent Lipids in Whole Fish—Comparison of Split Sample
Results; Metals in Sediment—Comparison of Split Sample Results
• Water Quality Profiles
61
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Q Field Duplicate Results (Summary of Field Duplicate Sample Results; Water
Quality Profile Duplicate Results; Anion and Cation Field Duplicate Results;
Total Phosphorus and Dissolved Organic Carbon Field Duplicate Results;
Sediment Field QA/QC Results
• U.S. EPA Region I, New England Regional Laboratory QA/QC Results
Q Summary of reporting limits, summary of metals analyses QA/QC, frequency of
QA/QC sample analysis for organic compounds, EPA data quality objectives, and
summary of QA/QC results for organic compounds
Q Inorganic Duplicate Samples
Q Organic Duplicate Samples
Q Inorganic Spike Samples
Q Organic Spike Samples
Qj Inorganic Reference Materials (Replicates and Percent Recoveries)
Q Organic Reference Materials (Percent Recoveries)
Q Metals in Whole Fish (EPA Splits)
Q Mercury in Predator Fillets (EPA Splits)
Q Metals in Sediment (EPA Splits)
Q Organic Compounds (EPA Splits)
' Maine Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory (HETL) QA/QC Data for Inorganic
Parameters
Q Data quality objectives for inorganic compounds, reporting limits for inorganic
compounds, frequency of inorganic QA/QC samples analyzed, and summary of
inorganic QA/QC sample results
Q Mercury in Tissue
Q Cadmium in Tissue
Q Lead in Tissue .
Q Laboratory Blanks—Metals in Tissue
Q Reference Samples in Water Matrix—Cadmium and Lead
Q Sediment Grain Size
Q Mercury in Sediment
Q Lead in Sediment
Q Cadmium in Sediment
Q Dissolved Organic Carbon
Q Total Phosphorus
Q Equipment Blanks
62
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• Maine Health and Env ironmental Testing Laboratory (HETL) QA/QC Data For Organic
Parameters
Q Frequency of organic QA/QC samples analyzed, reporting limits for organic
compounds, fish composite samples not analyzed for the 50% organic fraction,
data quality objectives and summary of organics results, duplicate sample results
for percent moisture and percent lipids, organic compound results for standard
reference material, surrogate recoveries for organic compounds in fish
Q Sample results
Q Duplicate results ,
Q Spike added
Q Spike cone, results
Q Blank cone.
Q % rec.
Q Dup. %Diff
• National Biological Survey U. of Maine Laboratory QA/QC Data
- Q Summary of QA/QC results for mercury and percent moisture in predator fillets
Q Standard Reference Material
Q Spiked Samples
Q Mercury Duplicate Samples
Q Percent Moisture Duplicate Samples
• U. of Maine Sawyer Environmental Chemistry Laboratory QA/QC Data
Q Anion and cation target holding times, method detection limits, and precision and
accuracy objectives, summary of QA/QC results for anions and cations
Q Cation Precision Calculations—1993 Samples
Q Anion Precision Calculations—1993 Samples
Q Laboratory Blanks—1993 Samples
Q Laboratory Blanks—1994 Samples
Q Cation QC Checks—1993 Samples
Q Cation QC Checks—1994 Samples
Q Anion QC Checks—1993 Samples
Q Anion QC Checks—1994 Samples
• Organic compounds include:
Q Aldrin, A-BHC, B-BHC, D-BHC, G-BHC, A-Chlordane, G-Chlordane, Dieldrin,
Endosulfan I, Endosulfan E, Endosulfan Sulfate, Endrin, Endrin Aldehyde, Endrin
63
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
.^ - - .
Ketone, Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide, DDE, DDT, DDD, Toxaphene, Aroclor
1221, Aroclor 1232, Aroclor 1242, Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, Aroclor 1260,
Aroclor 1268, Percent Surrogate Recovery, Percent Moisture, Percent Lipids
Round 2
NESCAUM project—
• Anticipated mercury data to be collected in the New England region include:
Q Approximately 16 sampling locations for mercury monitoring (wet, gaseous,
particle) network
Q Potential deposition gradients
Q Spatial and temporal patterns of deposition
Q Atmospheric concentration
Q Local vs. regional influences on atmospheric concentrations
Q New method for measuring mercury in mountain clouds
Q Data from new method on whether mountain-cloud impaction results in enhanced
mercury deposition at high elevations
Q Event-specific data on mercury precipitation that may be used to evaluate and
develop atmospheric transport and deposition models or that may be used in
conjunction with trajectory models, source-receptor models, and other pollutant
data to assess significance of individual source categories or source regions to
deposition in New England
New Hampshire/Vermont project—
• Location and descriptive data for 90 Vermont and New Hampshire lakes
• Total and methylmercury concentrations in water and surficial sediments in 90 lakes
• Fish-tissue mercury levels in 20 of study lakes
• Relationship between aqueous and sediment total and methylmercury concentrations,
fish-tissue total mercury concentrations, and physico-chemical lake and watershed
characteristics
• Concentrations or conditions of water chemistry parameters that mediate mercury
methylation in 90 lakes
• Evaluate (rank) potential risk of migration of total sediment mercury into water column
in methylated form
• Investigate historical deposition patterns of total mercury in dated cores from six lakes;
relate these depositional patterns to known historical events in surrounding watersheds
64
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
where possible. Also investigate deposition profile of total mercury in undated cores
from the sediments of 12 lakes (in addition to the 6 lakes above). Compare stratigraphy
of mercury from Vermont and New Hampshire lakes with that of selected Maine and
Adirondack studies
B.7.3 R-EMAP Region VIII
Conference Call Summary
Friday, December 19,1997
Participants
• Jill Mintner, Region VIE Coordinator
• Dillon Scott, Technology Planning and Management Corporation
Purpose
To understand R-EMAP data management for Region Vffl. ;
Studies
The studies are behind schedule because the R-EMAP coordinator position was vacant for six
months in 1997. The new coordinator is getting the projects back on track and addressing the data
documentation and distribution needs.
The Round 1 project is "Assessment of Metals Impacts in Headwaters Streams within Mineralized
Areas of the Southern Rockies Ecoregion," a study of total metals release from abandoned mines.
Its purpose is to develop a picture of the extent of the impacts, environmental indicators, and
reference conditions for mineralized streams. Sampling was completed, on an EMAP design.
Colorado State University (CSU) has now analyzed the macroinvertebrate data and worked up a
Regional Biotic Index to assess the effects of heavy metals (this work was presented at the
November 1997 Society of Environmental Toxicologists and Chemists meeting). ORD-Westem
Ecology Division collected and is analyzing data on water chemistry, fish, and sediment data. The
R-EMAP coordinator will prepare a final report on the macroinvertebrate data and will document
and archive the data. In the future, the Region will try to analyze the ORD data, put it into a report,
and document it if additional information and resources become available.
The Round 2 project is now in the early stages of planning. The potential project will focus on
grazing impacts on rangeland conditions in Utah. It is being managed by Roger Dean, who is in the
nonpoint source group at Region Vin. It has not yet been funded, but will be conducted by Utah
State University and ORD Characterization Research Division (Las Vegas, Dan Heggem), with some
65
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
involvement by the Bureau of Land Management. The project does not conform to EMAP sampling
design and is still under review.
For Round 3, Region Vm would like to accomplish the following goals:
• use a portion of the funds to complete data management and metadata for Round 1
(including producing the Final Report, and archiving and documenting the data); and
• get the States actively involved in developing monitoring design and data analysis for a
project so they are on board with sampling design, analysis, and assessment methods;
evaluate possible application of the methods to State programs.
Users
The primary users of Region VTfl R-EMAP data and Regional Biotic Index for macroinvertebrates
are:
• EMAP researchers at Universities and ORD;
• States; and
• EPA scientists and managers.
Data Sources
Southern Rockies: Most of the data were newly collected for this project. However, the Regional
Biotic Index was created using data from previous studies conducted by the principal investigator
at CSU (Will Clements).
Utah Rangelands: Region VIE has requested land cover data that will not be ready until the year
2000. The project will create a sediment transport model and collecting water chemistry data.
Region Yin will also need access to the following data for future work:
• characterization data for the Region, since the State monitoring programs only sample
impaired areas ("targeted" sampling design);
• macroinvertebrate, fish tissue, sediment data to characterize biological integrity, and
assess human health risks; and
• MRLC data for the Utah Rangelands project, to link impairment with land use, and for
relative ranking of stressors.
Region VHI would like assistance with accessing EMAP 1990-1995 data sets that are relevant to
their studies.
66
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data Management
Southern Rockies: The data are managed by data collectors (CSU and ORD). CSU uses spreadsheets
for data management and storage, and enters the data as needed, through ASCII conversion, into S AS
for analysis. The data can be provided to the Region in spreadsheet format. ORD stores their data
in SAS and converts it to ASCII for the Region. However, when they provided the ASCII files of
fish, water chemistry, and sediment data to the Region, the data could no longer be matched up to
station numbers, so the Region is trying to fix this problem now. ORD provided information about
what EMAP protocol was used for each data type, and will need to supply further information (e.g.,
laboratory, methods, analyst) and metadata about how the data were collected and processed. ORD
will also deliver the habitat data to the Region.
Utah Rangelands: Data will be managed by the data collectors. Region VHI will ensure that data and
documentation are submitted by project managers. Region Vin would like guidance from EMAP-IM
on data submission standards that could be included in the contract.
Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Southern Rockies: Data QA/QC was done by data collectors. The Region will need to examine
whether the percentage of impaired waters was calculated appropriately using EMAP statistical
methods.
Dataproducts
Products of the Southern Rockies mineralized streams study include:
• Regional Biotic Index;
• Final Report (in progress);
• Raw data and its metadata (in progress);
• Abstracts from SETAC meeting (Clements); and ,
• Published papers (Clements).
Data Distribution
Southern Rockies: Region VDI will provide long-term access to the data through the following
products:
• paper reports;
• metadata;
• archived data (in STORET and at Region);
• links from EMAP to data archives; and
67
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• EMAP Data Directory entries.
Macroinvertebrate data will be archived at Region VHI and prepared for entry into the modernized
STORET system. Data can also be made available to EMAP-IM for inclusion on the EMAP Public
Web Site, and a link could be added to STORET when those entries are made. The ORD data will
have to be cleaned up, documented, and analyzed before it is distributed.
The R-EMAP coordinator mentioned that it will be especially important to provide data to the States
in a database they can access without having to go through the Region. The States have legal
authority and responsibility for the resources, so it is important for them to see their data and the data
from other states. They are also the group that will share the data with the public. The States also
need access to the Regional Biotic Index for assessing metals-impacted streams.
Documentation
Metadata for macroinvertebrate data is being prepared by the R-EMAP coordinator and a Region
VIH data systems coordinator. ORD needs to provide metadata for their data types.
EMAP Data Directory entries will have to be prepared by the R-EMAP coordinator or the Region
VIH data analyst who is assisting with the ORD data.
Software, Hardware, Infrastructure
This project has been receiving assistance from Region V1H information systems staff on data
archiving and documentation, and so far this support has been sufficient because the project does not
generate large, complex data types. However, additional resources may be required in the future if
landscape ecology data are generated for the Utah Rangelands project.
Project Management
The R-EMAP coordinator will pull together the data, metadata, and Final Report for the Southern
Rockies study with assistance from a Region VHI data analyst. The Utah Rangelands project is being
coordinated with a colleague in the nonpoint source group at Region VHI. The R-EMAP coordinator
will ensure that R-EMAP goals are met and that data and metadata are collected for the project.
How Can EMAP-IM Help?
EMAP-IM can provide data submission standards for the Utah Rangelands study, and assist with
incorporating ORD data and metadata for the Southern Rockies study.
68
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
B.7.4 R-EMAP Region IX
Participants
Conference Call Summary
* November 21,1997
• Robert Hall, Region DC Coordinator
• Dillon Scott, Technology Planning and Management Corporation
Purpose
To understand R-EMAP data management for Region DC.
Studies
There are currently three projects in two rounds of funding.
Southern California Bight: The first study was an assessment of the Southern California Bight from
Pt. Conception to the Mexico border. An EMAP sampling design was used for this project, and
almost all of the EMAP estuaries parameters were collected. The EMAP design was also
subsequently incorporated into the new International Treatment Plant's pre-discharge monitoring
program.
Central Valley. California: The second study is in California's Central Valley, and consists of an
EMAP surface water assessment in natural streams and constructed conveyances. The EMAP
sampling design was employed here to collect the standard set of EMAP surface water parameters.
This is an area of high water demand with water supply controlled mostly by agricultural
corporations. Residence time of water is an important determinant of pollution effects; water is
generally moved among fields rapidly and spreads contaminants before they can filter out. However,
the project was unable to calculate residence time very well because irrigation managers often
change the flow in the channels. Data analysis for this project is being completed with help from
ORD-Western Ecology Division. Habitat data should be done soon.
Humboldt River. Nevada: The third project is in the Humboldt River watershed, Nevada, and focuses
on aquatic systems in the Basin and Range Province where dewatering issues are of concern. This
work is being done by Dr. Gary Vinyard, University of Nevada, Reno. The project is now in the
design phase and will be developing new EMAP protocols for arid assessments. They are now
modifying the EMAP Surface Waters sampling design for an arid habitat, and will be using the
Office of Water's Rapid Biological Assessment (Mike Barbour et al.).
Region DC is very interested in the contribution that Landscape Ecology can make with landscape
characterization (Bill Kepner). They also would like more uplands involvement.
69
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Users
The primary users of Region DC R-EMAP data are:
• EPA Region DC environmental program managers (ag team, NPDES wastewater permits,
Border, etc.);
• project researchers at Universities;
• ORD researchers at Corvallis; and
• State of California, so they can pick up the Central Valley program.
Data Sources
Southern California Bight: Pre-existing information included NPDES discharge monitoring data
from participating POTWs, as well as historical (1977, 1985, 1990) data from SCCWRP.
Central Valley. California: The only available base data was EPA River Reach (RF3) files. QA on
this data source (checking 300 sites) showed that there is a 20% error rate in the coding (e.g.,
segment coded as "natural stream" was actually a "constructed conveyance" did not exist, urbanized,
etc.).
Humboldt River. Nevada: This project is just getting started and will also use RF3 data, which is
now being QA'd.
Region DC indicated that it would be helpful to have links to relevant data on the EMAP Home Page,
since it is often difficult to locate and obtain pre-existing data, including older EMAP data and
STORET data. Any link that can connect the user with a data contact would be helpful, along with
any improvement in actually obtaining the data once it is requested.
Region DC also suggested that it would be helpful to have more imagery and land use available
during the design phase of a study, in order to understand the landscape before field work is initiated
(e.g., what landscapes you are working with, where water is found, agricultural use types). MRLC
will be useful, although the scale is too coarse for working with river reaches and site information.
For example, in the Central Valley project, they used Department of Agriculture aerial photos to find
areas with water. USGS/Menlo Park is also developing a 1:48,000 digital orthophoto set that will
be helpful.
Data Management
Data for the Southern California Bight was managed at Region DC, but the data has been transferred
to the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) organization for distribution
and archiving on the SCCWRP web site, which is linked to the EMAP Public Web Site (EMAP
1998).
70
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data entry for the Central Valley and Humboldt River projects is accomplished through automated
data collection programs on laptops provided by ORD-Corvallis, and the data will be returned to
Corvallis for archiving and distribution.
Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Data QA/QC is done by project managers, as follows:
• Southern California Bight: Larry Cooper. SCCWRP:
• Central Vallev. California: Bob Hall, U.S. EPA Region DC, Mike McDowell, EPA
Contractor, Corvallis; and
• Humboldt River. Nevada: will be done by project staff at University of Nevada, Reno.
Dataproducts
• Southern California Bight: The project produced a field data collection protocol modified
from a protocol provided by ORD-Atlantic Ecology Division that forced researchers to
collect data uniformly and reduced data entry errors. They implemented this protocol
because each data collector was entering data differently on the cruises. To find out more
about this modified protocol, contact SCCWRP 714-894-2222, or Bob Hall.
• Central Vallev. California: No supplemental data were created, but they are working with
California Fish and Game on a protocol for non-wadeable streams that will be available
soon.
• Humboldt River. Nevada: No data collected yet. They will be testing new indicators and
adapting EMAP protocols for arid environments.
Data Distribution
Data will be distributed by the site most appropriate for each data set.
• Southern California Bight: Data are now being distributed on the SCCWRP Web Site
(SCCWRP 1998).
• Central Vallev. California: Data will be given to ORD-Corvallis; who will decide on the
most appropriate repository. Mike McDowell is the lead for making this data available.
All of the data are publicly available, except for the names and addresses of landowners,
which were removed from the database. Latitude and longitude of ditch sampling sites
are still in the data.
• Humboldt River: These data will be given to ORD-Corvallis, who will decide on the
most appropriate repository.
71
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Documentation
Metadata is prepared by Region DC. SCCWRP metadata is already on their web site. Central Valley
metadata will be prepared when the data analysis is completed.
Software, Hardware, Infrastructure
Region DC has Arc/Info, Access, and other packages, but often does not have software and hardware
that can run ORD models (e.g., SAS routines). As a consequence, they have to make major
modifications (e.g., re-programming) or cannot use the model. This situation is inefficient from a
program perspective and Regions often do not have sufficient resources in R-EMAP budgets to make
the modifications or obtain the appropriate software. Money for R-EMAP/EMAP software and
hardware support has previously been allocated in OIRM budgets and should be released to the
Regions.
Region DC has adequate Internet access and computing resources to manage and store R-EMAP data
files and to access the EMAP Public Web Site.
Project Management
The R-EMAP coordinator is involved in all aspects of the projects, coordinating the researchers who
include Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), academic researchers, state agencies, and
others. The R-EMAP coordinator is also directly involved in ensuring the usability and delivery of
data.
How Can EMAP-IM Help?
Region DC agreed that the Data Directory will be useful if it can help in locating and obtaining
relevant data, including EMAP, STORET, landscape, and regional data sets. The Data Directory
should have threads that lead users to related information of interest. The Region asked that the Data
Directory be a cross-referenced directory to guide researchers to useful ORD indicators. For
example, if a project found a certain organism during sampling, the directory could guide them to
data that would indicate to what the organism is susceptible, of what it is an indicator, etc.
Problems that need to be resolved include minimizing the effort required to use baseline data and
EMAP tools:
• the Region needs assistance with obtaining land use/landscape imagery data before/
during project design phase.
• the Region needs assistance with locating and obtaining existing ORD, EMAP, and other
Federal data. The Data Directory will help, but they will need help obtaining the data.
• OIRM software and hardware funds should be released to the Regions as planned.
72
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
B.8 Ecological Indicator Development
B.8.1 Ecological Indicator Development Guidelines and Documentation
Summary of Conference Call
March 31,1998
Participants
ORD-Gulf Ecology Division
• Bill Fisher
EMAP-IM (AED)
• Stephen Hale
Technology Planning and Management Corporation. IT AS Contractor
• Jeff Rosen
• Dillon Scott
Mission and Goals
The mission of this Working Group is to oversee the application of standards to development and
evaluation of indicators (measurable or calculated parameters) according to standards that will ensure
robust and diagnostic tools that can help define the status of critical environmental resources. The
program to develop and evaluate indicators is an ORD-wide initiative, and the role of the Working
Group for EMAP will be to coordinate research and oversee evaluation of indicators being developed
by other Working Groups such as Landscape Ecology, MAIA-Surf ace Waters, andMAIA-Estuaries.
The Working Group's Draft Research Strategy (U.S. EPA, 1997c) outlines four primary goals:
• Identify indicator priorities and assessment endpoints, and use them to provide direction
to ORD indicator research and development;
• Provide a means to evaluate indicators for monitoring and assessment activities through
the Ecological Indicator Evaluation Guidelines and a peer review process refereedby the
Ecological Indicators Working Group;
• Integrate research efforts performed intramurally, extramurally. and by other agencies and
programs; and
• Ensure that ORD research is responsive to the needs of clients (Program Offices) and
users (risk assessors) by establishing and maintaining interactions with EPA regions and
program offices to remain responsive to risk assessors.
73
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Initially, research will focus on the development and characterization of indicators that emphasize
ecological components and functions to represent or reflect specific, well-known environmental
values. This focus on specific environmental values will provide direct linkage to EPA's existing
environmental risk assessment process, which incorporates an analysis of environmental values in
developing risk assessment endpoints. However, the research will also strive to anticipate
management needs for indicators of ecosystem integrity and sustainability. Several indicators will
be developed and evaluated each year. The research will be conducted by a combination of ORD
researchers and grant-funded academic researchers (through the EPA STAR grants program).
The principal activity of this Working Group in carrying out its mission will be to develop a
framework for evaluating and documenting indicators. This process will consist of an evaluation of
the indicator according to Ecological Indicator Evaluation Guidelines and a formal peer review by
a committee established by the Working Group.
The Ecological Indicator Evaluation Guidelines now being developed by Laura Jackson for the
Working Group will define 4 phases of indicator evaluation which include 15 guidelines:
• Phase 1. Conceptual Relevance, including two guidelines:
Q Relevance to an identified assessment
Q Relevance to ecological function
• Phase 2. Feasibility of Implementation, including five guidelines:
Q Data collection methods
Q Logistics
Q Information management
Q Quality assurance
Q Monetary costs
• Phase 3. Response Variability, including five guidelines:
Q Estimation of error
Q Temporal variability within field season
Q Temporal variability across years
Q Spatial variability
Q Discriminatory variability
• Phase 4. Interpretation and Utility, including three guidelines:
Q Power of detection
Q Assessment thresholds
Q Linkage to management actions
74
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Each indicator must pass sequentially through the phases and. cannot be evaluated under a later phase
until it has passed through the previous phase.
For any indicator that meets the Guidelines, the Working Group will set up an indicator evaluation
panel of scientific experts and risk assessors who can determine the strengths and weaknesses of the
indicator. The peer review process will:
• document evaluation of the indicator in an established sequence of steps (which could
be used by any organization including EPA, state agencies, etc.);
• allow future users to understand the validity, utility, and requirements for implementing
the indicator, and the data that supports it;
• establish directions for future research into the areas of indicator strengths and
weaknesses;
• allow an iterative process so that review steps will be repeated as indicators are updated
in response to reviews; and
• evaluate all documents and other products produced by the Working Group.
Data Collection, QA/QC, Analysis, Aggregation
QA/QC of indicators will consist of the evaluation by the Guidelines and the peer review process.
Data will only be collected on an as-needed basis by researchers conducting pilot studies to test their
indicators. Researchers will conduct their own data management, QA/QC, and analysis. The
Working Group does not currently have a management plan or standards for handling the data. It is
unlikely that data aggregates will be produced during indicator development and review.
Data Distribution
For information about how the indicator documentation will be distributed, see the Documentation
subsection, below.
Monitoring data used to test indicators will remain with the researchers who developed it, and there
are no plans for distributing the data sets. However, the data will be cited, documented, and given
to peer reviewers.
Documentation
The principal product of this group will be the Guidelines and the text documentation of the indicator
evaluation and peer review processes. EMAP-IM will track the documentation, which will consist
of the following text-based products: ,
The Guidelines;
75
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• Presentation of each indicator, including a description of the indicator and the responses
to the Guidelines;
• Peer reviewer summaries of the strengths and weaknesses of the indicator (for the
purpose for which it was designed); and
• Links and references to any data sources used to demonstrate and justify indicators under
the Guidelines.
Data Sources
Previously collected data sources will be used to support the indicator presentation to the peer review
panel. There will be a large variety of data sources, since indicators are being developed in a number
of selected areas of importance to EMAP:
• Forests;
• Fresh Waters (lakes, streams, wetlands);
• Estuaries and coastal wetlands;
• Landscapes (across resource types); and
• Integration of whole ecosystem.
Data sources will be obtained by researchers and are expected to come from manuscripts, field notes,
published literature, historic databases, and pilot monitoring programs. Data sources will be cited
in the indicator documentation.
Data Volumes
The volume of this text-based data will probably be in the 10's to 100's of MB.
Users
Users of the documentation will be other EMAP programs that want to use the evaluated indicators
and the Guidelines.
Exchange of data and information among indicator researchers is infrequent and takes place by direct
contact between the individuals, so they do not see a need to index data sources or provide a web site
for data exchange.
Software, Hardware, Infrastructure
The software used by the Working Group is not relevant to this analysis as long as they provide
products to EMAP-M in accessible formats for posting on the EMAP Public Web Site.
76
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Project Management
The project management structure of this Working Group is designed encourage participation by
both ORD clients and users in all stages of the indicator development and evaluation process,
including reviewing all documents produced by the Working Group (e.g., Research Strategy,
Evaluation Guidelines). This participation will be implemented in the following ways:
1. Working Group Membership. Because the Ecological Indicators research combines a
broad spectrum of ORD's ecological research activities, the membership of the Working
Group includes representatives from the National Exposure Research Laboratory
(Cincinnati), National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Research
Triangle Park), National Center for Environmental Assessment (Washington, DC), and
the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (Ada, OK). In addition, the Working
Group includes representation from Office of Research and Science Integration to assist
in responsiveness to client needs, and National Center for Environmental Research and
Quality Assurance to assist in integrating the research of academic scientists through
grant support.
2. Peer Review Panel Membership. The peer review panels will be made up of a number of
outside scientists who are potential users of the indicators. In order to develop the panels, the
Working Group is developing a formal Client Liaison Group that will bring the needs of
clients and environmental managers into the peer review process in order to ensure that
indicators are applicable to ongoing monitoring programs. The Client Liaison Group will
include state and federal risk assessors, who will be able to influence indicator evaluation by
their participation on the indicator evaluation panels. The Working Group is trying to get the
broadest possible base of participation, and have recently been conducting outreach to get
participation by all EPA Regions and program offices, states, private industry (e.g., DuPont,
the Chemical Manufacturers Association), and others. Participants can choose where they
want to provide input, and, therefore, the makeup of peer review panels will vary based on
the content of the indicator being reviewed. The group contains members from all NERL
labs; some participants are very active, others only participate on issues of special interest
to them.
The efforts of this Working Group are based on consensus—including submission of
indicators for review, and participation by reviewers. The original charter of the Working
Group was to assemble people interested in developing indicators; the evaluation process
grew out of that and has now included developing the Guidelines arid Strategy. The Working
Group is not sure if the Guidelines will be used by other organizations, but they are
beginning to apply it within ORD. They have begun evaluating sample indicators, and in the
future will be evaluating MAIA indicators (Landscape Ecology, Surface Waters, Estuaries).
Three sample indicators have already been completed and are being evaluated using the
Guidelines—Laura Jackson is directing development of the Guidelines and the sample
——
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
indicators, which are in draft stage. The process of developing and evaluating indicators will
proceed over a long period of time as new indicators are developed by researchers and
submitted for review. Indicator reviews will be initiated as needed. They are now getting
assistance from NERL senior managers Rick Linthurst and Kate Smith, who will write an
overview and fill in some gaps in the Research Strategy. The Working Group now also has
a cooperative agreement with the National Research Council covering criteria and guidelines
for good indicators.
EMAP-IM Assistance
EMAP-IM can assist by distributing this Working Group's documentation of the review process on
the EMAP Public Web Site, including the Guidelines, indicator descriptions, peer review summaries,
and links to or citations of supporting data.
EMAP-IM can also help by creating links on the EMAP Public Web Site to web sites where
non-EMAP indicators and their development are referenced.
In the future, EMAP-IM could assist in developing a tracking system (e.g., classification scheme for
indicators, events the Working Group needs to track, information about indicator development by
other agencies) similar to the Data Directory that would indicate the status, evaluation, and peer
review of each indicator and index indicators by type and resource so users can search by area of
interest. However, the Working Group feels that there are not yet enough indicators being evaluated
to justify a tracking and indexing system.
The most important activity of this Working Group and EMAP-IM is to document and distribute
the results of the indicator evaluation process so that users can understand the quality and
applicability of ecological indicators.
B.8.2 Aquatic Mortality Monitoring Database
EMAP will assist states with developing a database that incorporates tracking information about
mortalities of marine and estuarine aquatic organisms. Mortality events are important not only
because of the loss of affected organisms, but also because they may signal the presence of public
health dangers or degrading environmental conditions. Knowing the nature, extent and probable
cause can ultimately lead to actions that minimize impacts and reduce the risk of recurrence. From
an EMAP monitoring and information management perspective, consistent investigation and
documentation of mortality events and epizootics can lead to a better understanding of changing
environmental condition at different spatial scales.
This effort will be modeled on the existing Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Mortality Network (GMNET)
(coordinated by EPA's Gulf Ecology Division through the Gulf of Mexico Program). GMNET
includes mortality response teams from all five Gulf Coastal States and three Federal agencies (EPA,
78
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
USGS-BRD, and NOAA). Members of this intergovernmental network share the common goal of
documenting and understanding the causes of epizootic and mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Goals of the program are (GMNET 1998):
• Improve interstate communication among mortality response teams: this will improve
the utility of the early warning system and raise the quality of response information;
• Develop a network of scientists to provide chemical and pathological expertise to support
efforts to determine the cause of mortality events; and
• Provide place and time analyses of aquatic mortalities in the Gulf of Mexico so that the
data can be related to other important events (hypoxia, red tide, El Nino, etc.) and can
cumulatively serve as an indicator of ecological condition in the Gulf.
EMAP-IM (AED) will extend the database efforts to the Atlantic states and develop a
comprehensive database that can be used by all participants; most coastal states support mortality
response teams that investigate and determine probable cause(s) of mortality events.
This effort will involve:
• establishing communication among the states'efforts;
• merging and integrating mortality information to meet the common goal while
maintaining the identity and purpose of their individual state mandates (including
adopting standard response approaches and techniques for investigating and documenting
mortality events, and holding interstate training exercises to reinforce their use);
• collecting the same information and documenting all mortality events using the same
database format and spreadsheet;
• merging data from all five states into a regional database that can be incorporated into
a Geographic Information System (GIS) presentation and analysis;
• using the database to demonstrate regional trends, areas of high and low activity,
seasonal trends, or identify causes of mortality;
• characterizing relative conditions in the Gulf of Mexico over time and serving as a
warning if conditions start to deteriorate rapidly;
• using the data to develop an "epidemiological" (or epizootiological) approach for
understanding the environmental conditions that lead to disease and mortality;
79
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
• establishing direct cooperation among state response teams and scientists in a variety of
disciplines in order to develop the most credible and scientifically-defendable diagnostic
information; and
• extending information to the public on the Gulf of Mexico Program web site (GMNET
1998).
The desired result will be:
• high-quality regional data;
• improved reporting of mortality events by fishermen, beach-goers, boaters and residents;
• consistent and comprehensive coverage and reporting of events;
• useful information on relationships of mortalities to regional and climatic events such as
red tides, El Nino, and global climate change;
• consistent and high-quality response and reporting efforts;
• regional information and a regional perspective, created by integrating data that are
collected at state and local levels; and
• consistent documentation of mortality events, ultimately leading to the development of
early-warning, status, and condition indicators that can support efforts to maintain the
Gulf of Mexico as a productive habitat for living resources.
B.9 Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources
Stephen Hale spoke with Tom Mace (Chair, CENR Data Management Working Group) on
December 17,1997, and Jeff Rosen spoke with him on May 11,1998. The needs related to EMAP's
coordination with CENR are considered throughout the Information Management Plan, especially
in Sections 1.3 (EMAP Participation in the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources)
and 5.5.2.2 (Coordination with the Federal Interagency Committee on the Environment and Natural
Resources). CENR will adopt data standards and protocols for documenting data and facilitating
exchange, including the Global Change Research Program's Global Change Data and Information
System (GCDIS).
B.9.1 CENR Information
This section reproduces a text file provided by Tom Mace and contains detailed information about
CENR activities.
80
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data Management for Global Change Research
Policy Statements for the National Assessment Program
Subcommittee on Global Change Research—May 8. 1998
The overall purpose of these policy statements is to facilitate full and open access to known quality
data and information resulting from global change research assessments for their use with confidence
both now and in the future. These policies reflect the goals and policies of the US. Global Change
Research Program and incorporate federal laws, directives, and regulations regarding the
maintenance and dissemination of data and information in the Federal Government. These policies
are recommended for all participants in the National Assessment Program, including not only federal
agencies but state, local, tribal, foreign, educational, non-government organizations, and private
partners.
• The U.S. Global Change Research Program's National Assessment Program requires an
early and continuing commitment to the establishment, maintenance, description,
accessibility, and distribution of high-quality, data and information.
• Full and open sharing of the full suite of data and published information produced by the
Assessment Program is a fundamental objective. Data and information should be
available without restriction, on a non-discriminatory basis, for no more than the cost of
reproduction and distribution.
• There should be archival and documentation of all data sets used in and resulting from
the National Assessment Program. At a minimum, the documentation for each data set
should include a quality assessment and a citation containing the six required fields for
the Directory Interchange Format. Both should be made accessible over the Internet with
ANSI 239.50 search and retrieval standard compatibility.
• Standards used for the descriptions of individual data sets should be compatible with
those of the Global Change Master Directory. Spatial data set descriptions should also
be compatible with the Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata of the Federal
Geographic Data Committee. All data set documentation and descriptions should be
made available for inclusion in the Global Change Master Directory.
• Contributors to the Assessment Program should actively participate its Web page to share
information and coordinate the Program's disparate activities.
Data Management for Global Change Research Policy Statements
Executive Office of the President. OSTP - July 2. 1991
The overall purpose of these policy statements is to facilitate full and open access to quality data for
global change research. They were prepared in consonance with the goal of the U.S. Global Change
81
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Research Program and represent the U.S. Government's position on the access to global change
research data.
• The U.S. Global Change Research Program requires an early and continuing commitment
to the establishment, maintenance, validation, description, accessibility, and distribution
of high-quality, long-term data sets.
• Full and open sharing of the full suite of global data sets for all global change researchers
is a fundamental objective.
• Preservation of all data needed for long-term global change research is required. For each
and every global change data parameter, there should be at least one explicitly designated
archive. Procedures and criteria for setting priorities for data acquisition, retention, and
purging should be developed by participating agencies, both nationally and
internationally. A clearinghouse process should be established to prevent the purging and
loss of important data sets.
• Data archives must include easily accessible information about the data holdings,
including quality assessments, supporting ancillary information, and guidance and aids
for locating and obtaining the data.
• National and international standards should be used to the greatest extent possible for
media and for processing and communication of global data sets.
• Data should be provided at the lowest possible cost to global change researchers in the
interest of full and open access to data. This cost should, as a first principle, be no more
than the marginal cost of filling a specific user request. Agencies should act to streamline
administrative arrangements for exchanging data among researchers.
• For those programs in which selected principal investigators have initial periods of
exclusive data use, data should be made openly available as soon as they become widely
useful. In each case, the funding agency should explicitly define the duration of any
exclusive use period.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES. As reflected in the following authorities and references, the
Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. Government both recognize the need for federal
agencies to assume an active role in providing information to the public.
a. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980, as amended 1995, requires agencies to
provide for the dissemination of public information on a timely basis, on equitable
terms, and in a manner that promotes the utility of the information to the public
and makes effective use of information technology.
82
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
b. OMB Bulletin 95-01, Establishment of Government Information Locator Service
(GILS), December 7, 1994, is designed to help the public and agencies locate and
access information electronically throughout the U.S. government.
c. The White House Memorandum on the Administration of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) issued October 4, 1993, states that a commitment to
openness requires more than merely responding to requests from the public. Each
agency has a responsibility to distribute information on its own initiative, and to
enhance public access through the use of electronic information systems.
d. The Freedom of Information Reform Act (FOIA) of 1986 establishes what
agencies must make available to the public in terms of public information, agency
rules, opinions, orders, records and proceedings.
e. Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA) of 1996 mandates that agencies
make all reasonable efforts to provide information available, to requesters in the
medium of their choice.
f. Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards, September 11, 1993,
mandates easy accessibility of federal government information and services.
g. OMB Circular No. A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, June
25, 1993, states that every agency has a responsibility to inform the public within
the context of its mission. This responsibility requires that agencies distribute
information at the agency's initiative, rather than merely responding when the
public requests information.
h. Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requirements are intended
to improve federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting
a focus on results, service quality and customer satisfaction.
i. 44 United States Code Chapter 31—Records Management by Federal Agencies
requires agencies to create and maintain documents and provides the basis for
public records and information. .
j. 44 United States Code Chapters 17 and 19 define the legal requirements for
providing information to the public through the Federal Depository Library
Program.
83
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
k. Privacy Act of 1974 restricts the government's ability to disseminate information
that could invade the personal privacy of an individual. Privacy Act data cannot be
released without appropriate review.
1. Executive Order 12906, Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access;
The National Spatial Data Infrastructure, April 11, 1994, requires each agency to
document all new geospatial data it collects or produces, either directly or
indirectly, using the developing FGDC standard, and to make that documentation
electronically accessible.
84
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Table B-3. Requirements Analysis Questions from Landscape Ecology Interview
A set of requirements analysis interview questions as prepared for each Working Group. The
questions prepared for Landscape Ecology Working Group are presented here as an example.
Landscape Ecology Presentation
The purpose of the meeting is:
• To understand and document Landscape Ecology's needs for information management;
• To gather the information necessary to revise and update the Draft Information
Management (IM) Plan; •
• To evaluate the appropriateness of the Draft IM Plan to meet Landscape Ecology and
EMAP information goals;
• To address Red Team Review unresolved issues of data requirements and project
management; and
• Not to dictate information management policy or approach within Landscape Ecology.
The following data requirements questions were posed to the Landscape Ecology Working Group:
Mission & Goals
What are the mission and goals of Landscape Ecology?
Does the Landscape Ecology group have additional support documentation?, .
Research Plan
What are the major data generating projects planned?
Is the same research approach being used for all geographic regions?
In MAIA region, what geographic area has been completed and what will ultimately be
completed?
What is an "indicator coverage"?
Purpose
Who are the primary recipients of analyses and data aggregates (e.g., decision makers, policy
staff)?
What are the benefits of the data and analyses done by Landscape Ecology?
Data Sources
What data sources will be accessed and used?
What formats are these data sources in?
What are the expected uses, development, or aggregation of each data source?
85
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data Sources
What is the perceived quality and scale of these data sources?
How often are these sources accessed?
How often are they updated?
Who are the stewards of the data sources?
What are the longevity and quality of this stewardship?
What is the adequacy and accessibility of documentation of data sources?
How easily accessible are the data sources—what are the barriers?
What EMAP data are useful for Landscape Ecology?
What data types will Landscape Ecology need to exchange with other EMAP groups?
What groups collaborate with which Landscape Ecology projects?
How much effort is expended tracking down needed data sources?
How could the EMAP Data Directory or other tools be helpful in finding needed data sources?
What are the future data source needs of the Landscape Ecology group?
Data Collection
What data types will be collected and stored?
What will be the volume of these data?
What format will the data be collected and stored in?
What is collection schedule of each data type (number of sampling events, intervals, etc.)?
What data sets will be produced in the future?
Data Aggregation
What are the expected data aggregation products from the research?
What tools, analyses, and processes are used to produce these aggregates?
Can these data aggregates be shared?
Whom can/should they be shared with?
Data Gaps
What major data gaps need to be filled?
How can these data gaps best be filled?
Data Products
What types of data outputs are generated for each project (tables, GIS coverages, etc.)?
What formats/content of data products will be made available from each project?
What projection will coverages be in? vector/raster? what scale?
Users
Who are the primary data users, and what do they do with data?
Who are the secondary data users, and what do they do with data
What other users should be considered?
86
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
Data Management
How are data managed?
What is the data flow?
• data entry
• verification
• validation
• QA/QC
• security
• access
• storage
What databases and data structures are used for data management?
What data standards are used in Landscape Ecology?
What data standards would Landscape Ecology like to see EMAP adopt or recommend to other
EMAP groups?
Can EMAP-IM assist with data management, or data and metadata standards?
What is the physical location of data sets?
Where will analyses be performed?
Data Flows
What are the data flows?
• data collection (internal or external source) to data entry
• data entry to QA/QC
• QA/QC to analysis
• analysis to aggregation
• aggregation to reporting
• reporting to delivery
• delivery to distribution
• archiving
• updating
• updating to redistribution (users)
87
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
How are data exchanged between collaborators?
How are links made to other relevant data or provided for EM AP-L data?
Metadata
What are the minimum requirements/standards for documentation of collected data and data
aggregates for use within Landscape Ecology? Outside users (non-EMAP scientists, general
public, etc.)?
How are these requirements compatible with EMAP Data Catalog or FGDC?
Who is responsible for creating and making metadata accessible?
Data Access/Distribution
Which internal and external users will want data sets? How will they gain access to them?
How will preliminary data (before full QA and analysis) be made accessible to EMAP
researchers?
What other EMAP and non-EMAP groups need data from Landscape Ecology?
How will data sets be distributed to them?
How can Landscape Ecology ensure long-term access by EMAP to the data sets?
What kinds of data sharing vehicles are anticipated (e.g., EMAP Public Access Home Page,
CD-ROM)?
Is there a need for EMAP-IM support to facilitate data exchanges?
What security and data preparation issues prevent sharing and distribution of data sets, such as
issues of security, timing, or money?
What incentives can facilitate sharing and documentation of data within EMAP and between EMAP
and its partners?
Functionality
What staff are responsible for data management?
What is their allocation (full-time/part-time/etc.)?
What level of support is required?
What level of support is desired?
What software/hardware configuration is are used for accessing, storing, exchanging, and
analyzing data?
What software/hardware configuration is required?
What other features are desired?
What network configuration and operating systems are available for meeting needs of data
access, analysis, and exchange?
What configuration is required?
What other features are desired?
What Internet access and bandwidth are available? Are they adequate to support information
needs?
What media are required?
88 - "
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
What media would be desirable?
What media exist for exchange and access of internal and external data sources (tape, Internet,
client/server)?
What media are required?
What media would be desirable?
What interfaces are available to display and download metadata, tabular and spatial data to/from
other data systems? --..-.•
What interfaces would be required?
What features of interfaces would be desirable?
What plans and funding exist for upgrading existing functionality to adapt to technological change
and/or to implement the required or desired functionalities discussed above?
Project Management/Administration
What is the project management structure of the Landscape Ecology group?
What is the EMAP or Landscape Ecology project management relationship with cooperating
groups?
Who is ultimately responsible for Landscape Ecology data quality and maintenance?
Who is the Landscape Ecology liaison with EMAP-IM?
Who decides about data flows, release, security?
What are the key functions of staff that generate, analyze, manage, use data?
Data Directory
Who in the research group or ORD will create and update Data Directory entries?
How can EMAP—IM assist with transfer of entries to the EMAP Data Directory?
What does Landscape Ecology need from EMAP-IM?
&
• Access to new images and data from download sites, and processed images with
appropriate documentation
• Access to ground-truthing data
• Directory of and access to available 1990-1995 data sets
• Access to other data specified in Research Plan
Role of EMAP-IM
How would a directory or clearinghouse help Landscape Ecology's efforts?
What would make it easier for Landscape Ecology to participate actively in the EMAP-IM
system?
Should EMAP-IM store and manage data sets of interest to EMAP that have no long-term steward
and incorporate them into database, Directory, and Catalog?
89
-------
Appendix B, Data Management Needs and Practices of EMAP Working Groups
What EMAP-IM needs from Landscape Ecology
Access to EMAP data and metadata
• Dkectory entry information for data sets
• Metadata for each data set
• Bibliography
• Electronic publications
• Designated liaison
Meeting Summary
Summarize information heard during meeting for preliminary approval by participants
• What is the IM Plan for Landscape Ecology?
• How well does EMAP-IM plan support Landscape Ecology's objectives?
• Does the current EMAP-IM project management approach give Landscape Ecology
access to the data and resources it needs?
• Are Landscape Ecology and EMAP-IM approaches flexible enough to meet user needs
and evolve with changing technologies?
• How will they fare given pertinent management issues and existing IM frameworks?
Next Steps
• Prepare summary of this EMAP research group meeting and send it to participants for
review
• Interview other EMAP research groups about their data and system needs
• Revise IM Plan in accordance with EMAP research groups feedback and system needs
• Distribute revised IM Plan for review
• Prepare final IM Plan in response to review
• Begin IM planning for 1998-2001
90
_
-------
Appendix C
Inventory of EMAP Data
C.1. Purpose
C.2 Types, Volumes, and Status of Early EMAP (1990-1995) Resource Group Data
C.3 Types, Volumes, and Status of Current EMAP (1996-) Working Group Data
C.4 Types, Volumes, and Status of Other Data
C.1 Purpose
This document fulfills part 3 of the EEI-1 documentation requirements by providing a information
about EMAP data types (see Appendix A, EEI Requirements Report). This section presents a
high-level inventory of data types, estimated volumes, status, and repositories. The inventory of
Resource Group 1990-1995 data is very detailed because the projects are completed and all of the
data resides in ORD or with close collaborators. Data for the 1996-2001 Working Groups are less
well known because most of the projects are in their early stages and much of the data is being
collected in partner agencies in many different formats, not all currently specified or known to
EMAP-IM. Resource Group was obtained from the EMAP Public Web Site (EMAP 1998) and from
an interview with the Forests Resource Group data manager. Working Group information was
obtained during Requirements Analysis interviews and information provided by the research groups.
The level of information provided in this appendix is the most detailed available at this writing (June
1998) and is adequate to allow EMAP to design the IM system to anticipate maj or data exchange and
storage needs because most of the data will not be stored in the EMAP system. More information
about Working Group data products will be added in future versions of the Plan as it becomes
known.
91
-------
co
Q
Q_
LU
CD
o"
x
(0
ts
Q
Q.
3
O
O
Q)
O
O
(0
0)
cr
55s
o
o>
o
o
111
(0
UJ
«»—
o
0)
I
C
(Q
«T
o>
(0
.1
OJ
(J
CO
2
CO
CO
•o
CO
2
ta
§.
CD
cc
oximate Data Volumes |
Q.
Q.
*•*
CO
Q
s.
•a
CO
CD
&
H
d>
0)
s
CO
a
,0
o
•a
CO
0)
g
>.
•O
3
t*^
CO
a
3
0
a
3
O
CO
CD
DC
CD
CO
.a
CD
5
.0
n
CL
<
LU
111 records-71 27 bytes I
101 records-6518 bytes
1 t
O T-
OJ OJ
^
o
CO
S-
c
o
to
o
3
c
_o
to
CO
1
CO »_
2 °
l.i
**~ **•?
e
1 1
w "~™
CO CO
Q> ^
^2
CO
*n
CO
"*l*
UJ
CD
1
1
102 records-6644 bytes
110 records-7062 bytes
CM CO
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
0
1 2
2 =5
.= 3
gj
^ *
§"TI
*
»5
CD (Q
"j— fl)
CO _c^
11
0
o
c
1
a.
—
CB
»
C
*nt
^?
>
CO CO
II
CO 00
OJ O
CM IO
OJ CO
cb cb
•2-E
0 0
o o
£ £
^ 5
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
•^^
o
<
"-"
0
"5
cr
0
_c
c
o
to
55
co-
£l-°
-21!
|"S |
a> co co
>» CO ^
CO 5 (rt
in
_» > —
CO «Q jO
w c w
81 8
103 records-8666 bytes
1 1 0 records-921 9 bytes
CM CO
OJ OJ
£|
0
SCO CO CO
CD CD CD
*•?•?•?•
^2 XI J2 -Q
CM CO CD O
CD •* CO OJ
CO i— IO h»
CO 00 Op OO
.±2
.cj
Q
C
CD
CD
CO
ii
CO CO
5- oj
CO CO
II
O 0
o o
£ £
CM O
O T-
OJ O>
OJ OJ
92
-------
i
o
D_
111
O
I
O
x
TJ
CD
a.
a.
•a
ita, Continue
w
o
Q.
1
0)
O
o
to
d>
QC
U)
I
8
T"
Q.
IU
i
"5
CO
2
CO
•o
c
(0
3
"3
8
d
«5
c/5
c
IB
O
13
0
01
OC
in
Data Volume
oximate
Q.
15
w
U.
•o
CO
tuf
CO
2
—
O
1
Q
•o
e
a
0
•a
a
O
1
a
OC
gggg
— fo ^T dr CO CQ QQ CO
?°«P? $ coco?
CO CO CO CO 1111
•HTS'H'S -8-8-8-8
oooo oooo
I) CD CD CO OOOO
^ w L_ w COQ>COCO
LO O O> ^J" w w w i-
s. ^ G) G) G) G) Q)
G> G) G> G) G) G) G) G)
I
= B
1 <,
— CO
5 .£
1 1
g »
CO U-
CO CO CO CO
fffi
A A -Q .a
co co T— ^*
CM CO T- CO
CO CO CO CO
^ "S "S "2
oooo
So o o
Q) CD CD
i- T- CO O
1- O O T-
O i- CM CO
O) O) O) O)
O> O> O) O>
^.
1
'c
3
£
|
."i
U.
••
CO CO CO
1010-1--° ca ^ ^ y;
OI^COCM i^coroco
CMCM'*'- l^-COCOCO
i- O O T- CM CM CM CM
VVVT cbcbcbu)
cocococa 'O'O'P'P •. •
"S "2 ^ "S oooo
OOOO OCDCDCD
CDCDCDCU ,'-*-'-*-
'-'-'-'-•lOCMoeo
•i-i-COO T-TfO>CO
i-oo-t- mcoocM
OT-CMCO o i— CM co
§CT> O) O> O> O) O) O>
CJ> O) O5 ' G) G) G> G>
^^
a —
•S 1
CD <
-— % o *^^
O ca co
CO =" "c =
-5 c^ 1 1
£•
-------
ro
CO
UJ
O
S.
CO
CO
2
CO CO O)
8888 S
£2 £ £ -
T- -^- CO O OO
T- O O T- CO
_ ^ 51 5 -A
O> O> O> O5 O)
O>
CD
OJ O> O> OJ O> O
o
CO
•5 Sf
8.
^ 2
Q- O
i- <0
5SP •§,
eg
'
;<3
to
.E o
94
-------
rd
O
D_
UL1
"5
O
X
73
CO
I
at
3
S
to
1
CO
£•
o
1
Q.
CD
e
CO
o
6
3
0
proximate Data
<
CO
£
I
•a
CO
i
.^
1
a
c
1
o
•o
CO
o
•o
CO
a.
3
S
a
CD
2
1
o>
— St
•• ° 2 S
i^ LLJ 155
Q '•§ "§ -Q
£ _« <0 5
E ^ .2 o
1 Q .2 S
3 CC > 3
CO O Q Q-
records-27KB
records-15KB
CM CO
^f T"
co co
*
CO
cr
S
-. §
Stations (ASCII;
Vertical profile \
Surface
S
1 1
"£ I "S TO
O CO C C
rf'w-B1?
iiii
| 8||
Si III
d>
u
c
^
s
a.
8 1
« 1
I i
m
m .'S ^
CO S A
1 1 1
1 • • 8 £
U Q) i "
1 ^ i
^^
o -=•
1 1
tf>
Qj W*
>« .2
*o £
*s CD
1 -s
1 1 1
CO CD CD
CO CO
. 2"
fl"- « II
i w"2 l^-jg
t- ig Q)
a?"° w t!!
llljll
llllll
1 II 8 Si
5records-81KB
S
CM
CD
s abundanc
o
Demersal speci
i
I
o>
2 records-64KB
1
1
O)
c
CO
CD
Demersal speci
records-8KB
1
0
CO
'£
c
Demersal comr
records- 11 KB
00
ity (ASCII)
c
Benthic commu
7records-188KB
00
s
O^™
CO
^
abundance I
fM
Benthic specie:
0 records-235KB
S
o
CO
"— "
abundance
CD
13
O
"5L
£
o
'•£
CD
m
CM
1
o
£
00
co
Q
'^
ize compos!
CO
Sediment grain
5records-139KB
S
CM
I
^»
I Tissue chemist
95
-------
•a
a>
c
o
O
S
CO
Q
Q.
1
CO
o
u.
3
O
CO
0)
cc
IO
en
en
I
o>
Q.
I|
"£
"C
CO
1U
«*—
0
CO
3
S
CO
•a
03
oT
CO
E
3
"o
>
in
S
£
CM
O
CO
3
.**
CO
CO
•a
CO
1"
o
a.
CO
QC
CO
a>
3
O
2
CO
Q
0)
"5
E
X
g
a.
Q.
<
, -
CO
E
1
•a
ca
1
75
CO
CO
Q
c
_O
S
3
a
•a
g
CO
£
t—
>,
•o
3
4^
CO
a
3
s
a
8
o
ca
CO
DC
>,
05
o a.
0 <
.. O 5 CD
3o|S5
O *^ c ^
I ^ .2 .U
1 D •- 3
§ CC > 3 '
CO O Q Q.
CD CQ CD
•* CD r--
ca m m m § m CQCQCQ m m m °? °- rr §§§ CQCQCQ
to cb co cb co cb cbcbcb cb cb cb ooo cococo cocbco
"O T3 "O "O "O "O "O "O ^3 "O "O ^D OOO "O ^D ^3 ^3 "O ^3
w £^ C v™ ' *— ^~ • ^~ ^ ^~ t~w^ (Ucucu ^~ ''•^ '^^ ' ^ ^~* ^~
OOOOOO OOO OOO £.£li:l OOO OOO
OOOOOO OOO OOO __._. OOO OOO
CBOJCDCDCDCD CDCDCD (BCOO) §COO CD COOJCB
OOOOOO OOO OOO °°- °°. °4. ^ 000 OOO
Ot-OO-r-O Oi-O Oi-O OT-O i- OCMO Ot-O
•AcvlCO-AcMCO t-CNJCO -^CVICO -r-CMCO T- i-CMCO -r-CMCO
O> O) C3> O> O) O) G> C7> O) G3 O> O) O) O O> O> O> O> C3> G) O) O)
O) O) G) O) O) G> G) O> G3 O> G) G> G) G> G3 G> G) G) G> G) G> G3
^T"
o _
CO =-0
tlT , O 'co
— £r = co o
== - — - o • CD _.r^ C ft *—
oo £ "S ^ co ii o
1 1 ll i • 1 II l|
5525 > CQ co co co • co &
S . 2"
^ "Uo>>»>"5_ "o
CO — :o^— °^O frt
W -|— ^" ^ «* ^rj J3 •*•• "tS
5 ° *D)^ "S "•«= CD "co* "O
co c a „ gj * is Q) ^-
^ :•§ "i^ f, g"o •§ § §
c P^ 'H ^ ? CO ^ Jn ^^ *^^
§gcD15E5:sEl~c!>:S
^.£(Dfg_5__'*i*-,l.:S
05 ^ *rrf ® -2 ^ j5 ^ -§ 1 >
^SlISlSlE^f
c
I Is
to "5 •£
3 *•? ?
4^ 3 O
(0 O C
iu -a a.
96
-------
UJ
•5
O
x
TJ
ffi
I
•o
CD
S3
1
3
Q.
1
0
0)
3
O
(O
CD
oc
-— *.
tus of Early EMAP (1990-1995
S
to
•a
a
m
CD
3
O
^^
m
%,
3.
3
35
a
o
*s
»
i.
£
3
Approximate Data Volum
Data Set Type and Format
§
1
Q
•o
§
0
f
2
CO
Q.
3
i
cc
CD
m CD ^
CM o m
CO IO CM
CO CO "D
"S "2 o
§ § £
CO U) GO
§58
i ii
^~*.
nthic species abundance (ASCII
CD
CD
!991-100records-6KB
!992-110records-7KB
!993-100records-5KB
nthic community (ASCII)
£0
1 990-499 records-41 KB
!991-633records-51KB
1 992-692 records-54 KB
^*
S
mersal abundance by trawl (ASi
CD
Q
1 991-100 records-6KB
!992-110records-7KB
!993-100records-6KB
mersal community (ASCII)
CD
Q
CD CD CD
IN. 00 CO
III
O O O
CD CD CD
§O O
T- 0
o> o> o>
o> o> o>
o
CO
to
1
o
CD
1991-6812 records-526KB
1992-10,890 records-852KB
1 993-7007 records-541 KB
sue chemistry codes
.2
i-
97
-------
I
Q
Q_
LLJ
O
I
o"
x
T3
13
0>
o
U
CO
Q
a.
I
a
CO
i
CO
•a
co
co
to
_3
O
S
CO
Q
S
To
I
a.
a.
|
co
EQ
» «
•S c\i
8 -S
£ o
CO m
CM
OO
CO 73
"
o
CM
co
73
o
o
£
O
eo
CO
O
O
£
o
CM
m
:*:
-------
i
o
D_
i
LU
•s
1
o
X
'•a
o
O)
ui
w
"S
K
1
CO
o
1
•o
18
&
i
O
ro
CO
CO
*:
oo
CO CM
CO
i 8
8 2
£ §
.8 3
in co
m
:*
i^
GO
o
CO
f-
ffl
•8
£
I
CM
m
i£
o
(D
CM
m
CO
•
8
£
CO
LO
CM
I
N.
CO
1
£
CD
.&'
CO
S.
<°
T3
•1
CO
i
CO
o
i? IS
E.= J.= =
o
§..
CO
CD
CO
I
IT
co --i- co -i-
.£ CD .S CD
O 73
o
• CO
.2 <.
CD CD
*O -^
co .2
S >.
o -a
CD CD CD CD *O CD
3- N 3 N CD N
CO *w . (O *C .C *C
CO CO CO CO CO CO
i-1 il II
U. CO U. CO > CO
-------
CO
Q
Q_
UJ
"S
I
O
c
CD
a
-g
3
_C
"g
8
of
1
Q.
1
O
CD
O
CC
rly EM AP (1990-1 995)
Status of Ea
I
co
^
OT
(D
?
u
2
13
55
•o
c
CO
o
*•#
"35
o
n.
CD
CC
CO
CD
E
"o
CO
Approximate Da
et Type and Format
CO
£
15
Q
C
O
•S3
s
Q
T3
C
CO
CD
|
TO
Q.
1
a
1
o
CO
CD
CC
m
in
A
^
o
u
£
en
in
CM
CO
counts summarized by
Zooplankton
o
i
1
CD
CO
CM
T—
CO
"S
8
£
CO
OJ
in
metrics summarized by
Zooplankton
o
<
1
CO
i
o
£
CM
O>
CO
O
CO
CO
CD
CO
C
Zooplankton
CO
m
o>
CO
•s
o
o ,
£
o
g
o
CO
c
O)
'55
CD
•o
c.
_o
ffl
.0
CO
m
i
•o
c
CO
CO
CD
_*
JO
TJ
CD
Q.
Northeast sa
oundaries (ARC/INFO
watershed b
c
CD
100
-------
ca
c3
Q_
^^
LU
•s
Appendix C, Inventory
^
3
*J5
i
s
i
a.
1
a
CD
O
S
oc
^""^
§
i
a>
Status of Early EM AP (19!
•o
(0
CO-
CD
jj
S
£
CM
U
at
i
t»
CB
r
si.
CO
0
Q.
O
OC
CO
3
"o
>
5
Approximate I
to
o
Data Set Type and F
Duration
•D
CB
CD
|
•o
55
Q.
1
O
8
§
oc
CD
s • . ..
.a
CD
a 5
2jj
«<^
E 0-
|<
CO LU
£
C
^ S"
< 5 CO
' * '- ^2
m S2-O
CD CO CO
8co co cocxc* co co .2 .2 co co
CD CD CD . >. CD CD
•«?• •*? -5T -t— -t?^-r* -f -f .Q .Q t* •£*
>> >. .Q >< >•>•>•>
^ J2 co .Q j^o^- o^tjainT^-^'^
rs ^.^ ?~- O -f .^ '-, CD CO Mk
T— in co "*"" 'CO ^^««— >» i^ o> jii 2:1 t— o>
CO CM > r^- OO-tf-Q^CO^-t— O
CM 1^ CO 1^1 CM_ -IT O • •* '"1 *"1 2° !*• °1 !*•:
SG>" •*- ^ co" - Q. co ^"* ^ fc fc c\T co
co o o> incox coooo01-0-!^^
co m Z in ^cooi ocMincoi-'i-co
CO — g
o =: eo "*• " ^
"P i_ c g c1 ,-
co o - o • • = g- o §
co §- -2 §> c =5 § g
f. § 0 0= -2 08 | 6=
i a ' i -2 I ci o o
§ 11 1 i. o 1 1 §
-3 i 5 | £ s :-= D? |
>, = o T CD Q. ^ — _ £
1 1 1 * 1 1 r i-i | q 8
» EJ |= 1= 1 | I 1| | = Q. 5
| II 1.1 -.1 1 * i-gf-S5iluo<<>. l
£ IS 5 •*? «§" « w §• - o a gg)5Qs2:55 E
o zs QOC race 5 uuloc'cot-a: o
! * * • 1
IcIlsLl^i^l
O) .O ^^ 73 .S CD .t± m CO .^ g CD
'wpeSSco'oco'ro.ScBfflZ
§ g E w c-o §-.£ ^5 £ S-O
0)
-------
•o
§
.£
c
o
o
CO
«•-•
Q
Q.
1
(5
3
O
CO
CD
CC
to"
o
1990-19
^•^
Q.
S
CO
UJ
•s
CO
i
CD
eo~
o
E
3
O
>
c/T
1:
CM
O
CO
i
0)
•a
c
CO
2
°5>
o
0)
CC
CO
CO
J3
O
^
S
73
Q
Approximate
73
1
•o
c
CD
a
3
2
o
1
o
CO
CC
CO
*
CM_
a>
in
c
o
'o
CD
CC
l_
-------
Repository and Status
I:
to
E
3:
•a
at
i
«"
s
Q.
1
o
8
O
to
0)
i
Q
m
to
'x
2
0.
Q.
10
"CO
£
5
s
Q.
<
Ul
_>.
.2
•5
(O
s
(/)
•o
CO
8"
_3
O
w
o>
I
C4
U
e and Fo
Data Se
a
1
I
Q
"CJ
o>
103
-------
CO
75
Q
D_
<
111
I
I
o"
x
I
CD
a
T3
CD
3
O
O
OS
15
o
Q.
0
u.
a
CD
2
3
O
CO
a>
a:
ST
a>
en
5
o
a>
T*
"»•••»
|
Ul
_>.
.1
•5
CO
s
CO
•o
CO
8"
3
O
>
co"
a>
&
CM
o"
CO
3
CO
CO
c
CO
£•
o
To
o
a.
CD
tr
CO
i
I
CO
a
0
IS
"x
s
a.
a.
to
E
£
t Type and
£
CO
to
Q
c
O
1
O
•o
c
CO
CD
ft
H
•o
i
o.
3
e
o
CD
5*
3
o
CO
0)
EC
<
CO CO
^.s
CO O
111 1
w ^.-^ »-
P .a 'o
~ CD >»
co ^ 53 z
CO
CO
03
CD
i
j= co
'c :=
CO •>
E^^
O
•C CD CO
(D g> CO —
•S CO 2 CD C
g _o c w o to
§ E "o '5 « S
{Q -""• *_M CO i* -Co
D) - 2 S CD C §
C O CD Q. O ili
Q. "Q. iC °° ° "m
2 1 I s 1 -i1 i
u co «*S o ic: .— o
CD
CO 0
O c '?
o ^
CO -.-3
°- '5 -0 15 ^
Ills 8
illl ?
12 CD CO 'C >
® 3 Q.O> O
Z D" O
-------
<0
CD
I
cc
(0
o
CL
S
UJ
"o
0>
O
CD
I
•o
I
O
o
2"
CO
Q
0.
i
a
a>
|
o
8
m
en
en
en
en
$
s
UJ
_>.
iS
"S
in
%
si
•a
ce
oT
0)
_3
O
8"
o
S
Q
S
(0
'x
S
Q.
£
CD
O
O
m
;= CD
« i*:
«<*
I-i
co 10
CD co
co
O
O
co
CD
ggS
111
OOP
o o w
eu
co T-
1
CO
0
CD
O C
S 8
>- m
i- •-
i- CM
10 m
§
«>"
-a
C
8
m
>-
CO
m
CD
co en
:*: CM
>
?
W
a.
I
O
i
§
to
£
5
1
o
105
-------
D_
UU
CD
_C
O
x
"g
CD
•g
3
.£
"c
o
0
I
s
Q.
3
2
(3
0)
o
if
o
(0
s
K-
01
0
CO
1
(A
•o
c
CO
o
«-•
CO
o
Q.
o
cc
CO
o
E
J3
O
S
15
0
1
"x
o
Q.
o.
^nf
CO
1
T3
CO
Data Set Type
c
.0
•J3
S
3
Q
•o
C
CO
a.
i^*
^
•o
3
Q.
3
S
1
3
O
CO
0)
CC
m
CO oo
CD t^- CD CD CD CO JI
« AT T ^T-a
to 13 CO CO CO CO t
•S o"E "H "S'S 8
SO O O O O CD
CD O O O O
CD ^" CD CD CD CD IO
v. IO *- *~ *~ *" ^
co co m f^ co f- •*
rr CM CM CM h- CM T-
S
OJ
T3
"a
*-» « "3
m ^3 -, - W
C3> _- -rj CO CO -n
S | J 1 . Ill
ill ifi || ||j,
en o [^ © ro fy, ^.^ . . K ^^ ^^ f— ^^
106
-------
1
a.
UJ
o
C>
Q.
^
111
•5"
U
"o
CO
5
(0
C.2 Types, Volumes, and
w
55
•o
eo
"55
o
Q.
C?
0
3
"5
^*
S
S
£
E
"x
S
Q.
<•
to
§
£
c
CO
0)
f
75
(0
to
a
Study Type and Duration
Q.
1
O
fl>
§
3
O
CC
£•
1
§-c? J
£ ui Ji '
Q 3 Z .
J jjitffl L t««i let ji
£o-o£S«^|o:| «iE«'2£j2oto!.g!d§,«
o'0)t80^oSgo|>'£l":"go)EooELa-0)£---aCj
«.SsS-l?2|tSp§-2-§»S-2c5-Q|:gii-53 ^gol-S &3^ B^-'Sl-S-iliiS^I-
~* rj)10 • * S*^ S- c — — C &S 5? S2 3'S m 2*0 S-OJ-S.S^
2co-ee<5^? '5.? 8 co .S> co co So .2 '5o>«P|S«'a>-o
H2£S8a:g-§«§gE.fc£s-5lEoiroSScS£E
0) : .
1
CO
d>
O)
§
cc
107
-------
Q
CL
<
2
LU
CD
o"
X
TJ
0}
0.
•a
o
o
U
of
s
Q.
O
a
CD
U
O
ID
CD
DC
in
O)
Early EM AP
CO
i
CO
•o
CO
U)
-------
a.
i
in
"o
|
O
x
73
CD
CL
Q.
2
a
O)
c
X
o
o>
UJ
4-1
I
3
O
•5
(I)
•o
C
(0
<0
0)
eo
CJ
1
«
55
•o
§
£>
s
8
Q.
0
cc
«
0
E
3
|
1
0
CO
E
°x
|
m
£
•0
Data Set Type an
c
0
S
3
Q
e
CO
Q.
*
f
55
a
3
2
o
O
e
3
tr
a.
>»s
J>w S
8 "2 .a
c " 5
lit
55(2
S
1
CO T5
0>£
'S 2
^
O ce
tic counts (ASCII)
lie metrics (ASCII)
CD CD
ca m
o ' £
0 «°
i >i S?
G? w O}
**? liO CD T"
_CO p CD CO
0 2 C O)
o J= .0 •r-
__ S2 "S o
O) CD •*- »•—
f— jj ^ .
HE!
- « cS i
3§.'5g
c
o
o> S.
0 i 5
••• ^ ^s
Q 0g
ogS
ill
O
W _ . » _
? '8 8 8
s s ^ s.
« i 1 1
^ 8 E c
-«± jz jr jr
5 .S2 .22 .22
& U. U- u.
§
^;
—
£
IE
o>
'5
1
o
^ 1
c O 2*0 o co O
-5-CO 3-co ,nco £ co
W < « < 0 < t5 S
IE |E .|| ^ . g,
2^3 co^o cots -^ "°
8^2 O ^ -C ^ C .2
•D o -a o -o 1 -J5
(D 0) T3 QJ = c
gN =.N ON = |
= E=E c5E Sn =
i| §§••«§ ^s .i
U- co U. co ? co X 2^ CO
109
-------
Q
a.
Ill
«4—
O
I
O"
x
TJ
(D
a.
Q.
•o
CD
3
C
o
O
a
(9
Q
Q.
3
0
O
D)
_C
O
i
id Status of Current EMAP ('
CO
co~
0>
a
uT
0)
1-
m
(j
3
1
W
CO
£«
2
CD 3 "5 <
co co uj > co m C
i1 .s »
2 1 § S i f §
S!!JS|*
"2 E a »a-',g
Ullisi
ffl co £ 5 E •- ro
ra 2 co " 2^-s^
gi3s£i«tt
••= i * s 2: « ° °
oQ. SCD^CIS^OO
ggiSiiii
Oiu Q.T- o-.Sd-C.
13
c:
_o
«• ^
- c
2 fl)
X £ m
O w —
ill
,
O ^ c
co = . c w
-^ < O o <
= •— ' CO •= "-"
8s- - S s g >
<^ _6_S8|- §
^^^§<§lil §
S >. S" co •r' • co ja .0 a, 2
•SFo<^^ilo'SS m£
•8 i ^ -t 1 .2 § 1 -| «
, 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 i
§ i | g- 8 i ^ i i gs-- S
•— -= £ :5 £ £ *- O ^
r^Tj-S-c; c cc c'arn M
- CD CD .2 .2
-------
ffl
LU
"o
o
X
T3
0)
a.
a.
1
c
3?
c
O
O
of
i
Q.
3
0
a
o>
o
*••*
1
en
a>
T—
id Status of Current EMAP
- ^
a
in
CD
3
1
«T
1
I—
«
0
(0
3
3
CO
c
10
^^
o
M
(O
0
a>
cc
CO
CD
3
O
>
1
Q
Q)
1
c
'x
o
a.
Q«
<
E
h.
O
Data Set Type and F
c
o
1
o
IB
C
CO
CO
£
£
1
Q.
3
o
o
01
esouro
QC
0>
CO
•8
5
.y
3
Q.
O.
^
LU
TJ
CD
E
•§
CO
CD
J3
1
CB
•CB
•o
t_
S CO
CB O>
o a>
=0 '~
_c c
e
CB
4-rf
T3
i- «
S JJ
Approximately .5 GB indica
Arc/Info export and ASCII f
|- 8
"" S >
5 « CO
Landscape
region and 1
indicator Gl
CO >
c 5
.2 —
g J, uj
Q « S.
cc E §
S« '8
< CD TJ
115
E
< ®
C HI y)
•2 *o co . +*
E +3 gj CD
*
m E 2 E i'w" O £ ~ Q.
ZD-OLU =5 IB. =
o> .>•
O'S'O'XCDct-m'^^
i E^S£!J=CD'JJE^" "**
J II Si II £1 Si 1
Cffl'Cc'cB-— <">ScflO §
•B « -B •'•§ >•§ -| 3 E D = §
oo 4S ^ "3C* CD Q- •*— *~~ "S -*— • "o
— ^ ^^, 2 Q- ® ^ "O ^ t5 5 - CD
O O) — " . o _— "^ J;r © s---'* ^r (D "ti
« '•§ 2 -~;O <2 -a § gj £ E
™ ^ ^3 C i • 0) ^ X ^*J C3J J? W
C_^ HI ^j Q ^_ ^^ ^ flj ^7^ ^^ ^j . j tl
r- CD
§ CDS
CO T3 ><
*- <» 'X .2
y 5 o Q
•• CD O *~ • ^^
CD .i: N Q C
> Q O c g,
lllili i
mil i
Q- j CD co O O c
c c? g O H Z .2
•5 s: S CO CO co -S
sbott-G-Ci z
'J3
EC
CD CB _
'S CO «
m « "^
S CO 3
CB JC Q . — .
O 2 "° O>
'c .2 S "
ii||
_
CO
•c
«
CD
ll
(0 1
e (i> CO
I S3
rr\ CQ ro CQ • rn pn
— . _ ^ — _
^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^
in P 10 CD CM •»-
^-— »
>"
0>
o
(D T-
co ^
S CD ^- * ^. C3i
? 1- ' cd .E . j= j;
I iL § I f 1
•o" E o> -a •§ .2 ^_
S !i-|. II 1
m • '• 0 O - LU co o O
m
2
O)
1
"CB
CD
Q
111
-------
Q
Q.
<
IE
ill
o
O"
x
*o
§
_c
'c
o
o
CD
1
Q.
3
8
o
O>
_C
™
O
^
- , ~
S
O)
T~"
Ul
f Current
o
CO
55
•a
c
CO
to"
CD
_3
H
0
CO
1
55
T3
CO
2-
o
an
CO
o
Q.
CD
DC
CO
CD
E
"5
>
S
Q
\pproximate
-^%
•••*
00
E
1
•o
CO
H
0
tn
3
Q
C
Study Type and Duratio
Q.
3
Q
S
a
ssource
w
DC
m
1 < < <: ^ ^ ^
iri Z Z Z Z Z Z
So" S
SJ *- co 'co
m -^ >, "S CD
D> O) *- ,-^ •*£ ±Z
CCO CD CO 5
^, '-C -J= c ~ Q 3
P CO CO — CO »;
O5 CD m O CD ^ :=
O5 Q. Q. "2 ^0 ^
C- o o 2 , -3 z 5
c = "S — ^ -?
BD)^*f\ COCD
CD -K "-1 •:= > co
C XI g £f £ CD
1 -1 i I>1 III 1
O < > cco"cn H & I
CD
.0
£
CD
05
•S'
CO
°* CO
15 £
0 «
"*3 Q
CO CD
Z 5
•o
m co
— CD
ca S S;
"ca <» —
"O "O C
0
Z
m
S
o
CO
"S o
S o
.t! t-
03 0^
•^mlT
11-
-SE^
O O CD
E •*= =5
o>S w
.£ co co
"5 S 15
S.« 0
x13 2
uj -S £.
5K "P
Data sets in a variety of
disciplines from individual!
funded researchers (e.g.,
amphibian surveys, nutriei
deposition and
eutrophication)
— CO
CO -y
~ m
To S
CD O
m
C (0 0)
a> d) co
j= 55 a:
_co
£
13
CD
C
E
CD
^
T3 CD
c s
S,
•a
CD
c
3
5
CD
2
a.
o
Z
CD
CO
!c
13
T3
CD
C
S
"5
T3
C
„ ^2 co"
Monitoring at 41 sampling
sites of a variety of disci-
plines (e.g., anthropogenic
stressors; temporal & spat
variability of measurement
development of indicators;
development of remote
sensing capability)
CO
•*-•
0) O
+* •*•*
= 55
112
-------
CO
05
Q
O.
UJ
o
CO
Q.
?
3
C
e
o
o
of
1
Q.
3
2
C3
o>
!5
o
X
i
a.
^
HI
'c
i
a
i^
o
in
to
•*•*
CO
•0
CO
in
a>
C.3 Types, Volum
3
5
CO
•a
CO
2
o
a.
0)
DC
(0
0
3
o
"^
€
Q
to
'S
S
a.
_
(0
1
TJ
CO
i
s
CO
a
c
0
Study Type and Durati
Q.
3
g
(3
i
o
in
9)
CC
w
CO
CD
5
.2
3
QL
Q.
m
§O5
^
.£ £ '5
§ e -°
'[f-i o
e-s.l
*""" C -™ n?
s 's -2 «
<" "O CL S
O 3 £ "5
i'sss
73
1
X]
1
CD :
CO
cb c
o .2
of
-<° 0
O--i=
T— ^
*~
c- co "g OT ° ^ 2
col i^iii isii
0)
00.
"5 2
0 0>
ll
CO
JD
O>
O
3
Q.
CL
LLJ
CO
CD
rr*
g
Q.
c
_co
.2
§.
CO
C
CO
«
13
Q
S"
w
o>
^,
CD
O
0
in
CM
TJ
"o
_0>
'5*
w
Q-
Landscape indicator GIS
coverages, processed
remote sensing images,
landscape assessments.
O)
o
o
&
0)
Q,
CO
U
ID
•a
2
CD -S -3 »
CD M ? "S °> 3
'C ._- ' CD CD .£ ill co m" z m
O)
c
'o
O)
O
isI-S
CD > C
"|a |
.C w
8 2 §
CD CD • — •
0 CD £?•§
SIP
•JO ^5 _
^
Two to three monitoring
projects in each of 10 EP
Regions.
o
HE .Q
-------
T3
CD
3
IS
0
o
S
CO
Q
&
2
(3
O)
2
i
I
en
y*^
id Status of Current EMAP i
c
CO
«T
CD
E
I
w
m
§;
w
o'
o> "0
i .-in i
S CO til _ co co
W .Q CC § CD CB I? CL _..
^3 CD O '•& -C "Jg (Q ^ flj
c S>c0g^Q2Z2a.
£• ~ _; g-Eoo g -5 2
O "§ *— O X c ,*) ^
1 tlrfliil
I
to "2
a) ®
E o
3 >
o §
> 0
2 CD'
(0 CO
Q C3
0)
^•j "O
1 1_
S Bo
Q. E CO
« is
13
§
5 11
c £ o
03 Q> O
1: i is co
co co ®
C8 ° CO ••
« ^-s
Q c'co-g
£ co co
i CD <°
c
o -B ^ 2
l iiiil i
"n ® ^?? C /•? o lj^*
2 W w O o tO
£ ft O C3 Q «^ "~
a> ^ S S'S.^'c'f.l
t
55 0 CD
2 E • • •
a. _
o c
t3 —
^ o>
Q) 0>
o CC
3 a.
0 <
s
K* ui
i
cc
m CD
CD CO O5 OJ
^ *L CM CM
cp IY Y V
co co cb co
o o o o
o o o o
CD 0} CD CO
CO CO CO CO
CO CO CO CD
All data sets in ASCII
Station Location data
Station Visit data
Water Quality Surface data
Water Quality Bottom data
|1
O "^
-*1- >.
« s
"rrt £2
11
J o
s >-
c
O
o>
CD
CC
CL
*4
S
UI
cc
SS CD g
ro en ^ CD CO en CQ
CO CO tn ^ ^ **•" ^
/ft /A T^ ^^ ^^ T™" '^
TJ "a fc
•E •£ .i .i -S _ o .§
c«SS -D-O 9-<2 o TJ
CDloCO Ofl) E(0 -^
-------
•o
CD
~
O
o
a~
CO
Q
D.
1
O
CO
•_2
o
T
CO
en
en
si*
O.
<
; of Current EM
CO
Us
55
e
§
CO
CD
.3 Types, Volum
u
CO
2
to
55
•o
c
CO
o
.«•*
o
Q.
CD
DC
0)
0)
"o
I
4)
I
X
2
Q.
Q.
<
•S
CB
E
o
u.
•o
ita Set Type an
CO
Q
C
O
Type and Durati
>>
•a
55
a.
1
C3
CD
Q
3
8
0)
DC
®
CO
r»
CD
^J
O
5
o_
o_
^£
«
in
CD
T3
g>2 ' 1.
CO O "0
S? m S £0
Co a. CD Q. tp
®2 ^.4. Q. 'T ^^ ^ ^
OLU o*- •§ •»-• ' '& • £
CO CO CO CO CO
S -2
**~ £Z
-Jll S-L
till! Hi!
.— W LU Q-f— W r~
O
IS • •
-
§
O)
CD
DC
a.
g£
111
EC
§ ii oi •
CO CO T} CO CO "O CO
"E "5 c3 "E "E o "E
o o o . o o o o
00 CD 0 0 CD 0
£CD ^ CD CD ^ CD
>- T- <~ "- •* "-
SO) CO IO >- PJ O)
o -sr j- .•* in o
T—_t— . T- • T-
_ .
CO ^
f "1 t it i
O co 3 ja CD o
T_ CD c < J= Q
i i § s^ s
.58E « S 83 8
III i If! f
> m m u. L- iT
115
-------
CO
Q
O.
<
UJ
"5
o"
x
Q.
a.
CO
1
•a
c
a
o
CO
0
CL
CD
OC
to
fl)
ffl E
3 3
si °
O CO
U «
- Q
*•* O
Q |
Q. £
3u
7C
2 2
0 £
o> ^j;
o
3" s
O5 ro
0) JcE
— 0
Q. U.
< T3
id Status of Current EM
Data Set Type am
CO
of c
CD O
E s*
- 1
> Q
«r "O
0 ^
* 1
to £"
0 £.
•n
1
Q.
g
o
CD
2
i
CO
Q)
OC
2
<*> ST
f> QJ
CD 0>
1
fc.^ ^
§0
coS
CO CO CO CO
O Q) QJ W (D
^t ^* ^» .M ^»
^ ^ -U >•» JJ
t*~ CD C3> O>
•^" CO 00 rr CO
T— h^ CM ^ CO
O> CM CO" "X CO
CD O i— P- ^*
£^
s=- O
" S?
CO 5.
-2 5£. >>
CO •"*•••• «^_ ^^
Q = £" . •—
t3 en ."2 TT E s="
,S< E $ J2 0
f a g t S s?
i: ^ ° « § "^
oO -S to » 5
=a I 3 s o
Ii i i '« e
?i m co i- u- O
^
o>
i—
o
CD
O)
00
CD
T^
fsT
1
X *-
0~ wl
wl « 2
«> O « Q-
c 9 •£
0. C _ U
-------
o
x
T3
0)
Q.
D.
(C
*rf
OS
Q
O
5
««—
o
V)
(0
CO
•o
c
(0
IK
(0
0)
o
O
«
55
•a
c
CO
2-
"to
0
Q.
0)
DC
(0
CD
£
3
O
M*
iroximate Date
U*
Q.
<
CO
£
o
It
^^
•o
CO
CD
"S
CO
i
c
o
1
fcn
3
O
•o
C
CO
0)
CL
>•
|—
TI
I
a.
3
S
a
H
o
M
0)
oc
T3
CO
CD
.C
£
"co
__ £
0 £
"<0
"CJ iii ^™** w^ Cw Qj
f>>^* £
7 cocococococo co q)q>cDcDCD CD Q
3) , CO O O) i- O> i- CM CT
^ T- CM CM •* 2! SI h- CT
£•"§*
."'£>, CO
p CD ^ CD
O ^"* ^ C CD •—
lj I
CO " i O 5 CD ® (D ""* W J^
*C fl^l ^^ P ^rt P CJ ^^ C - Q) "^ ^™ CO
O n 1 CO CO Ll- CO i (73 5 ^ O Z Q-
"T,
_2 C CD
-2 W .. S
*~ ffl C '
™ "co "= co
C3 CO §"O>
CTJ '^
C C C *rt
cd *~™ • "^
fli e? ^ "^ "en
ff C -m ' ^O -^
ill -5. 1
III ll
m
•® CQ i
co is: i-
C0?2 CO
111 I
> o S o
£ 8 2
CD *- CO
>°m ^
CO
g
*1 1- 1
18S 5T|
|8* 8«
£? CD .N O £
1 S | o I
C T3 £ CO C
sl & ss
O U- CO 0. O
•
117
-------
Appendix D
Preliminary Design and Options Document
D.1 Purpose
D.2 Option-Enhancement to EMAP Oracle Database to Handle Complex Data Types
D.2.1 Option Description
D.2.1.1 Data Directory and Data Catalog Enhancements
D.2.1.2 EMAP Public Web Site Enhancements
D.2.1.3 EMAP Internal Web Site Enhancements
D.2.2 Option Analysis
D.2.2.1 Online Resource Availability and Maintenance
D.2.2.2 System Configuration and Connectivity
D.2.2.3 Flexibility of Design to Adapt to Future Technological and
Program Changes
D.2.2.4 User Satisfaction
D.2.2.5 Benefits and Costs
D.2.2.6 Risks and Contingencies
D.2.2.7 Recommendation for Implementation
D.3 Conclusions and Next Steps
D.1 Purpose
The existing EMAP-IM system is considered robust and flexible enough to be enhanced to meet
current EMAP requirements. However, to have a system capable of supporting a national data
integration program over an extended period, it is necessary to plan for options and vision of the
possible future needs of the program. The current EMAP system only uses the Data Directory portion
of the early EMAP Oracle Information Management System (U.S. EPA 1994b). As the program
evolves, it may be desirable to add new functionality. The need for additional components will
depend on factors such as the volume and variety of data collected by new field programs.
This document fulfills EEI-2 documentation requirements by reviewing future options for enhancing
the EMAP-IM system as requirements evolve. The option is described and analyzed for feasibility,
cost effectiveness, and the manual and automated functions needed for the option to work. The
118
-------
Appendix D, Preliminary Design and Options Document
options description is conceptual and does not specify a detailed system design. Rapid changes in
information technology mean that detailed specifications should be delayed until implementation is
imminent to ensure that the most effective hardware and software are utilized. EMAP should not
limit its success by specifying these details prematurely.
D.2 Option-Enhancement to EMAP Oracle Database to Handle Complex
Data Types
The current EMAP-IM system provides a useful index to the complex array of data types from
research partners, but it is not configured for storing and disseminating actual data sets in a
searchable database. If EMAP expands its role in storing and distributing EMAP data, it will need
to enhance the system to enter data sets into a relational database so they can be queried by end users.
This option explores development of a more sophisticated system to handle more complex data
types, which include tabular data sets, maps and GIS coverages, remote sensing indicators models,
complex electronic documents, and combinations of the above.
The option presented here would be an extension to the existing system. It would be implemented
in response to EMAP program needs as they evolve with the EMAP research strategy and the CENR
framework, which would generate a greater complexity and variety of data types, generators, and
users. Since Working Group research plans are in their formative stages, additional requirements will
arise and will be considered in future versions of this Plan. Further requirements from national and
international standards and monitoring committees will also be addressed in the future.
D.2.1 Option Description
Under this option, the Data Directory would still form the core of the system and perform its current
function of providing access to data. EMAP data would still be managed at distributed sites and
made available via the Internet. However, the system would need to add a combination of data access
techniques, such as:
• storage of data in relational databases with SQL access;
• storage of documents in native formats, (e.g., Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, other word
processors);
• data in ASCH (e.g., CSV) format;
• map data stored in spatial databases for ad hoc queries; and
• maps stored as objects for downloading on request.
Implementation of this option could involve implementing an object-oriented data base accessible
through Web server interfaces. Object-oriented technology would improve the system's capability
_.;•r-
-------
Appendix D, Preliminary Design and Options Document
to handle the variety of data formats and links that EM AP researchers are generating. Object-oriented
databases are currently widely used as optimal data management tools for heterogeneous data sets
like those in EMAP. In this model, different types of electronic files in many formats would be
treated as objects and tracked in the Data Directory. The object-oriented model would add
functionality to the Directory to cross-reference related file types to one another and link different
elements of complex documents (i.e., the text, graphics, maps, tables, images, video, and audio of
a document could be managed as separate files but related together for user access). The Web server
tools would allow the system to be queried directly by users.
These changes would require EMAP-1M to develop additional standards for data storage, naming
conventions, and other standards. These requirements would increase the complexity of the system
and therefore increase the difficulty in implementing and maintaining such a system. However, a
system of this type would give greater flexibility and the ability to organize a variety of different
types of information in a readily accessible and maintainable form.
D.2.1.1 Data Directory and Data Catalog Enhancements
Under this option, enhancements to the Data Directory and Data Catalog would include:
• documenting database structures;
• developing a comprehensive Data Dictionary; and
• making the Data Directory directly accessible to the Internet through web server tools to
ensure access to a wider audience.
D.2.1.2 EMAP Public Web Site Enhancements
Under this option, the need for duplication of information between the EMAP Public Web Site and
the EMAP Internal Web Site would be reduced. The tools required to maintain the EMAP Public
Web Site would be similar to those currently being used to maintain the EMAP Internal Web Site.
Specifically, data and metadata could reside in databases maintained on the Internal server and be
accessible via Web interfaces. Interfaces on the public site could be used to generate SQL code
which would then be fulfilled by the database engine on the internal site. Security for databases and
data objects would be performed using the native tools of the data management system as well as
the public access site. Releasing data to a wider audience would simply mean changing the level of
security on a data file or a data record.
D.2.1.3 EMAP Internal Web Site Enhancements
For this option, the integration of Web server technology, HTML, and database structures should
result in a system in which access to the databases can be controlled without isolating the internal
web site and its useful information. The information which is currently distributed via the EMAP
120
-------
Appendix D, Preliminary Design and Options Document
Intranet would be available as password protected files, accessible through a number of levels of
password protection.
This option would add the following products and functionality to the EMAP system:
• improved access on EMAP Public Web Site to Directory and Catalog;
• FTP site for transferring files among participants;
• a web site more integrated with the information system being used to organize and
manage the data; and
• implementation of a map server (e.g., MapObjects, Maps On Demand) or spatial data
engine for distributing geographic coverages.
D.2.2 Option Analysis
This section provides analysis of the described option according to EEI requirements.
D.2.2.1 Online Resource Availability and Maintenance
Maintenance for a system as described in this option is extensive, requiring a sophisticated staff,
knowledgeable in the scientific information being disseminated. Within this scenario, the analysis
and processing of the data are still done at individual programs and analysts' computers. This option
would not include the generation, dissemination and maintenance of analysis tools. The expertise
for interpreting and aggregating results would not be included in the system or its direct support staff.
The additional complexity of the information system would eliminate some of the version control
problems in the current system. It is likely, however, that some flat files as currently used would
remain in the system since they are the most effective way for distributing simple data files.
Controlling access to a wide variety of resources within a complex system makes security
management issues more difficult. Specifically, the accessibility to raw versus QA' d data would have
to be controlled via security tools. The system would have to be configured to ensure that different
levels of access are available to control the level of data accessibility that different users would
experience. Access control would have to be implemented for each data set generated and for each
level of processing and aggregation applied to a data set. This would be a significant undertaking and
would require at least one dedicated staff member.
D.2.2.2 System Configuration and Connectivity
Using this option, data availability would be controlled by EMAP-IM (AED) through the EMAP
Public Web Site. All data would be available for read-only access to anyone through a Web browser.
EMAP—IM (AED) would be responsible for identifying major user categories and could control
access to files and database entries using these user group categories. Primary data users, including
121
-------
Appendix D, Preliminary Design and Options Document
principal investigators from other organizations, could be given access to data by password.
Secondary users would access a combination of databases and data objects including text files,
complex documents, and flat files. The Data Directory would remain the main tool for locating data
sets of interest. However, hyperlinks and text searches could also be implemented. Cross-references
between the Data Directory, databases, data objects, and hypertext documents could be implemented
using standard web site and database technology. Documentation would be cross-referenced with
the Data Directory and also within the actual databases containing summary information.
The implementation of a Z39.50 compliant directory will help EMAPIM from two perspectives.
First, the EMAP Data Directory will be made available to a wider audience as part of the Z39.50
international network of interoperable directories. Second, EMAP data would be more easily located
by users outside EMAP who are performing Z39.50 queries and searches.
D.2.2.3 Flexibility of Design to Adapt to Future Technological and Program Changes
To ensure that the system can be expanded and enhanced, it is preferable to use industry-standard
software, hardware and standards. Use of standard products like Oracle, web browsers, standard
HTML, Z39.50, and other industry standards will.make enhancements easier because the technology
is readily available at low cost. This option presents a model for managing complex data that is also
compatible with the information management technology used by most data clearinghouses (e.g.,
CEESIN) for effective data delivery. Implementation of this option according to such widely accepted
models would ensure easy expansion of the system. As new capabilities emerge, it is likely that the
expansion and enhancement of standard systems would be considered by vendors and developers.
D.2.2.4 User Satisfaction
This option would improve access to EMAP information for all users because it allows components
maintained on the internal site to be served to the public access site without the current duplication
and conversion of components, and isolation of the internal site. Data exchange and distribution
would be improved as data access for users is simplified. The underlying system would be more
complex and require more maintenance, but data access would be simplified because the Data
Directory and the data would be co-located (logically). Increased standardization would simplify
accessing and combining data from different programs. Readily available documentation would
improve the probability of the data being used properly. Compatibility with Z39.50 would make a
wider range of data accessible for users through searches and result in more potentially pertinent data
being located with each search. This option would also eliminate the current deficiency in the system
whereby partners who are not EPA employees are unable to access data under development.
D.2.2.5 Benefits and Costs
As indicated above, this option would improve and simplify user access to EMAP data. Additional
costs to implement this option include personnel costs, hardware costs, and software costs. The
object-oriented model, implemented with web server tools, will allow retrieval of a greater variety
122
-------
Appendix D, Preliminary Design and Options Document
of data types with greater specificity than is possible in the current EMAP-IM system. In addition,
tools for delivering specialized data (e.g., GIS) can be incorporated, and improved searching and
on-demand mapping could be added. Approximately two additional technical workers would be
required over the current staffing levels. One person would act as the database administrator for the
system, taking responsibility for security and consistency of the database designs. The second person
would be responsible for interface development and support. Existing staff would still be required
for system maintenance, data maintenance, data librarian, user support, and program management.
D.2.2.6 Risks and Contingencies
A system of this type would require significant commitment on the part of all participants to adhere
to established standards. Database designs would have to be well established and followed in order
for data to loaded and made available via the central system. Data could still be managed in a
distributed mode, but this would require professional database administrators accessible for each site.
If the data are managed in a distributed mode, there are risks that the entire database will not be
searchable. In addition, network problems could result in unacceptable performance. Combining data
from disparate designs, sampling plans, and analytical methods can be difficult. The data cannot be
used effectively without extensive documentation. Contingencies could include centralization of all
data sets that are pertinent to the EMAP database on a nightly basis or based on last time of update.
These backups could be invoked in the case of major network failures. Backups of all data files could
be made on all participating nodes interested in acting as backup sites.
D.2.2.7 Recommendation for Implementation
It is likely that the EMAP system will need to move to a more robust information system as the
program continues to grow. The option discussed in this section could be implemented if the users
find it difficult to access and effectively use data once they have been located using the Data
Directory. This is likely to be the case when data with different formats are combined for complex
analyses. Design of the database structure may need to consider segregating data by program and
sampling plan, resulting in many discrete entities. Integrating the disparate data types will be
difficult. Emphasis will be placed on linking the data with the appropriate metadata. Getting all the
data to fit into a single structure is not the most important issue and is considered secondary to
facilitating appropriate access by users.
D.3 Conclusions and Next Steps
This option will likely be implemented over the next few years. It is a logical next step and will keep
EMAP current with emerging information management requirements and efforts to integrate EMAP
into the larger environmental monitoring community.
EMAP will also begin exploring methods for facilitating access to other major environmental
information systems including (but not limited to):
123
-------
Appendix D, Preliminary Design and Options Document
• EMS;
• STORET;
• Envirofacts;
• NAQWA;
• ESDIM;and
• CffiSlK
EMAP will coordinate with other parallel efforts underway to develop data directories for
monitoring data, including the EPA Environmental Information Management System (EIMS)
directory.
124
-------
E.1
E.2
E.3
Appendix E
Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program: Data Management Review Team Report"
Background
Review Team Comments and EMAP-IM (AED) Responses
Review Team Members
E.1 Background
The May 1996 version of the EMAP Information Management Plan was reviewed by an EMAP Data
Management Review Team, who submitted their comments to EMAP-IM (AED). EMAP-IM
(AED) revised the Plan in response to these comments to produce the October 1996 (U.S. EPA
1996a) version and inserted comments about the changes to the body of this review. Additional
changes were made to the Plan to produce the current version, which incorporates the results of the
Requirements Analysis interviews; further comments have been inserted into this review based on
the new version. Responses to the reviewer comments are listed in two different typefaces, as
follows:
Original Review Team comments (plain typeface)
EMAP-IM (AED) responses, December 1996 (italic typeface) ,
EMAP-IM (AED) RESPONSES, September 1998 (ITALIC TYPEFACE, ALL CAPS)
E.2 Review Team Comments and EMAP-IM (AED) Responses
We appreciate the time the Review Team spent reviewing the EMAP Information Management Plan
and their recommendations that have resulted in an improved Information Management Plan.
The Information Management (IM) Plan has been revised to reflect comments from the Review Team
and is in final form with regard to Phase I of EMAP IM. This Plan will continue to be updated as
EMAP evolves. Certain aspects of EMAP IMfor Phase II and Phase III are not yet completely
defined. Finalization of the EMAP Research Plan (U.S. EPA 1996a) and the subsequent
125
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
implementation plans from the new EMAP Working Groups that identify the IM requirements of the
revised EMAP will help refine the scope of the IMPlan. ORD Division representatives on the EMAP
Information Management Working Group will assist in writing sections pertaining to those parts
of the new program for which their Division have responsibility. The Plan will be forwarded to the
ORD Senior Information Resources Management Officer and the ORD Information Management
Strategic Plan group for review and comment.
We have responded to all of the Review Team's recommendations. Most of these recommendations
are reflected in the revised Plan; a few recommendations pertain to information management
practices of the entire Office of Research and Development and are more appropriately addressed
in the new ORD Information Management Strategic Plan (U.S. EPA 1996c).
The following text in normal font is from the Nov 1, 1996" EMAP Data Management Review Team
Report"; the text in italics is the AED/NHEERL response. References are made to sections of the
revised IM Plan where the Review Team's comments are addressed.
Summary of Recommendations *•
The review committee decided to address the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) as three distinct phases of activity that are in different stages of development and whose
information needs vary from known to uncertain. The committee believes that it is important to
consider the current status of each the three phases in developing the information management plan.
The uncertainties in the requirements for Phase IH require a strong and defined program management
plan. In general the committee feels that since Phase I is well understood, the plan should be revised
to clarify and clearly define the data requirements, system structure and users, and begin entering the
EMAP data from 1990 through 1995. Before Phases n and m of the information management plan
can be implemented the committee believes that considerable effort must be made to define the
database size, the users and their various needs, links and interfaces with other systems, and
development of a clear management plan. The remainder of this report provides more detailed
recommendations and discussions of actions to be taken in the areas of defining requirements,
system architectures, administrative interfaces, and the development of the management plant.
Introduction
The redirection of the EMAP program from its original design as a national monitoring program to
one focusing on developing a better scientific understanding of environmental measurements and
their meaning in assessing ecological conditions, required a revision in the approach to information
management. The EMAP Data Management Review Team met on May 22-23., 1996 to review the
EMAP Information Management Plan: 1996-1998 prepared by the National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. The basic charge to the review team was "to determine
if the information management approach being proposed to address the new direction of EMAP is
consistent with and appropriate for addressing the information management needs of the research
126
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
program." The review team was to consider whether the goals and data management needs for
EMAP have been defined and adequately described, are the system resources (e.g., hardware,
software, personnel, etc.) sufficient, and are the organization and management roles and
responsibilities as described adequate to support the task.
The revised EMAP is an interagency endeavor which is still evolving. Many uncertainties exist
regarding all the active participants (e.g., Federal agencies, EPA organizations, extramural
researchers) in the program, what data will be generated and by whom, and who all the ultimate users
of the data might be. These uncertainties make it very difficult to design the information
management system and presented difficulties in evaluating the overall approach. The review team
decided to address the EMAP program as three distinct phases that are in different stages of
development and whose information management needs vary from known to uncertain. Phase I
focuses on storing and managing the data collected in the original EMAP program between 1990 and
1995. This component of the program is known andean be very well defined. Phase n involves the
handling of data currently being collected at Index Sites and regional studies such as the
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) study. Phase m of the EMAP (EMAP2) is still being
planned as an interagency effort through the Committees on the Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR). Uncertainties such as the specific data to be collected, entered and maintained in any
EMAP2 information management system add to the difficulty in designing the ultimate data
management system.
Just to clarify: For Phase I (the EMAP 1990-1995 data), we include the EMAP Data Directory and
Catalog and the EMAP home page activities that are an integral part of managing and distributing
those data. For Phase II, we add data management activities from all of the new EMAP Working
Groups, which include—in addition to index sites and regional studies—ecological indicator
research, multi-tier design, and REMAP. Most of the Phase II studies will be pilot projects or
integral parts of the CENR (Phase III).
The review committee believes that it is important to consider the current status of each the three
Phases in developing the information management plan, and that the uncertainties in the
requirements as EMAP2 develops requires a strong and defined program management plan.
The IMPlan has been revised to reflect the three Phases suggested by the Review Team. More detail
has been added (Section 5, Project Management and Coordination) about the current status of each
of the three phases.
[IN THE FINAL PLAN, CENR IS NOT REFERRED TO AS PHASE III BECAUSE IT IS AN
ONGOING EFFORT THAT IS PART OF PHASE II AND FUTURE EMAP PLANNING. ISSUES OF
CENR INVOLVEMENT ARE CLEARLY EXPLAINED IN THE PLAN AND HANDLED AS AN
ONGOING ISSUE IN SUCH SECTIONS AS: APPROACH (2.4), USERS (4.2.2); DATA SOURCE
TRACKING REQUIREMENTS (4.4.1); DATA STANDARDS (4.4.3); DATA DIRECTORY, DATA
127
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
CATALOG, AND WEB SITE FUNCTIONALITY (5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3); PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
(6.7.2, 6.7.3), AND IMPLEMENTATION (7.1.3, 7.1.5, 7.2.5, 7.2.7, 7.4, 7.5). J
The EMAP Research Plan (U.S. EPA 1997a) has been revised and will be supplemented with more
detailed EMAP research implementation plans with input from each of the new EMAP Working
Groups. These implementation plans for each new Working Group should address descriptions of
new data types, volumes, and collection schedules. The IM plan was revised based on the Review
Team recommendations; it will be updated after the EMAP Research Plan and Working Group
implementation plans are completed (as details of Phase II and Phase III become available).
[INFORMATION ABOUT THE NEW DATA TYPES AND NEEDS OF EACH WORKING GROUP
HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM WORKING GROUP IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND
REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS INTERVIEWS AND ARE NOW INCLUDED IN SECTIONS 3,4, AND
6.J
Development of a program management plan will be discussed with EMAP managers. The EMAP
Director position has now been filled, and this issue will be discussed with him.
[A PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN IS PRESENTED IN SECTIONS 6 AND 7 OF THE PLAN
THAT DISCUSSES THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND RESOURCE ISSUES RELATED TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.]
In general, the committee recommends that since Phase I is well-understood, the plan should be
revised to clarify and clearly define the data requirements, system structure, and users and begin
entering the EMAP data from 1990 through 1995.
Phase I requirements, system structure, and users have been clarified and defined in the Plan
(Sections 2.1, 6.3).
We are focusing on the known requirements of Phase 1:1990-1995 data, data distribution via the
EMAP homepage, and the Data Directory. The process of loading EMAP 1990-1995 data sets and
metadata files to the EMAP home page is well under way. A status report on availability of these
data has been included in the Plan (APPENDIX C, INVENTORY OF DATA TYPES).
Before Phases II and IE of the information management plan can be implemented the committee
believes that considerable effort must be made to define the database size, the users and their various
needs, links and interfaces with other systems, and development of a clear management plan.
The Information Management Working Group (IMWG) will coordinate with other EMAP Working
Groups to help them define their IM needs as their program plans evolve. AED will use the
Information Technology Architecture Support (ITAS) contract to help scope out Phase II and III
128
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report" '
needs and requirements and to incorporate this information into an update of the Plan, targeted/or
1997B8. This will include information on data types, volumes, and collection schedules for Phases
II and III.
[PHASE I AND II NEEDS HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS INTERVIEWS.
THEY ARE PRESENTED IN SECTIONS 3 (DATA) AND 4 (REQUIREMENTS), AND APPENDIX
A (NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT.]
The IMWG includes members who are also on the CENR Task Force on Data Management; these
people will help identify CENR IM requirements that EMAPIM could address.
More information on program management has been added to the Plan (Section 6). Recommend-
ations regarding program management have been brought to the attention of the EMAP managers.
The remainder of this report provides more detailed recommendations and discussions of actions to
be taken in the areas of defining requirements, system architectures, administrative interfaces and
the development of the management plan.
Requirements
Design of an Information Management System (IMS) requires knowledge of the types and amounts
of data to be stored and the ease of accessibility intended for primary and secondary users. The IMS
Plan presently lacks sufficient specificity for practical guidance. In terms of Phase I the needs are
undoubtedly known to EMAP, but are not specified in the IMS plan. The Phase n needs may be
relatively simple but should be documented. The Phase HI needs are vague because no one knows
the EMAP responsibilities under the CENR-inspired monitoring of Index sites.
More detail has been added to the plan about the types and amount of data in Phase I [APPENDIX
C, INVENTORY OF DATA TYPES]. The EMAP Research Plan to be used for Phases II and III is
not detailed enough to determine whether the simple approach planned for Phase I—a Data
Directory, and data sets and metadata files accessible through the EMAP homepage—is adequate
or whether the Phase II and III data sets to be managed are of sufficient size and complexity that a
more complex Oracle database management system would be required.
[THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION ABOUT PHASE II DATA TYPES, VOLUMES, AND
STATUS ARE SUMMARIZED IN APPENDIX C, INVENTORY OF DATA TYPES. OPTIONS FOR
EXPANDING THE CAPACITY OF THE EMAP IM SYSTEM TO MANAGE COMPLEX DATA
TYPES ARE EXPLORED IN APPENDIX D, PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND OPTIONS ANALYSIS.]
PHASE II IS STILL IN A DESIGN PHASE AND THE VOLUMES OF DATA TO BE MANAGED,
AND THE ANALYSES THAT WILL BE PERFORMED ON THE DATA ARE STILL NOT
COMPLETELY DEFINED. SOME OF THESE UNKNOWNS WILL NOT BE CLEARLY
UNDERSTOOD UNTIL SOME TIME IN FY1999.
_____ __ . _ . __
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
Phase I
The objective of Phase I is to get all the historic EMAP-collected data of 1990-1995 into a single
and readily accessible database. The first order of business is not IMS design but simply getting all
the data into the existing database.
The objective of Phase I is to make the 1990-1995 data publicly available on the Internet (EMAP
WWW site). A database to put all the data* into—in the sense of a database managed by database
management system software such as Oracle—does not exist. This has been clarified in the revised
Plan. The process of loading 1990-1995 EMAP data to the EMAP home page is well underway.
The committee probably has little idea of how much data EMAP does.
Recommendation: The IMS plan should contain listings of the datasets that constitute the EMAP
database, their approximate sizes when full, and estimates of how much data still need to be added.
An inventory and a status report on 1990-1995 data sets are being updated as the information is
gatheredfrom the old Resource Groups; these reports have been included in the Plan [Appendix C,
Inventory of EMAP Data! .
Since the primary users, EMAP scientists, have written reports based on stored data, it is obvious
that they can extract data. It is evident from the EPA Region in Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
(MAIA) that at least one secondary user has extracted data. It was stated in the plan that EMAP has
shed a prior IMS feature that provided users with statistical tools.
Recommendation: Further simplification of the system may be in order. EMAP is encouraged to
solicit comments from potential secondary users on their success in getting the data they sought and
difficulties encountered.
Providing access to data sets and metadata files via the EMAP public access World Wide Web home
page is quite straightforward; it is not anticipated that it could be simplified muchfurther. However,
users of the system will be solicited for their suggestions for improvements.
Once the data are available on the EMAP Web Site, the problems of secondary users accessing data
should be solved. The Web Site includes a comment section where users can respond with questions
or comments. The comment later in this report regarding user advisory groups will be discussed
with the EMAP managers.
130
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report" .
Phase II
The IMS is ambiguous on whether the data base will manage data that were not generated by
EMAP-funded projects. The plan recognizes the environmental assessments such as the MAIA use
more than just EMAP data. The plan needs to be clear, however, that EMAP will provide a directory
of monitoring datasets compiled by other federal, state, and local agencies but will not provide the
raw data. Users on the Internet will be linked to those other datasets.
Recommendation: It should be clearly stated in the IMS plan that EMAP does not intend to manage
data that were not collected with EMAP funds.
This has been clarified in the Plan ([SECTION 2.5.2]).
The IMS is not clear on the detail that EMAP intends to provide for these non-EMAP data bases.
Since this could range from the complete metadata for each data base to only a data set name, there
is a need for specificity here. It appears that EMAP intends to provide the metadata for all the data
bases for which it provides link. Since the metadata is already residing with the raw data in the host
server, this would be an unnecessary redundancy.
METADATA REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING SPECIFIED BY BOTH EMAP AND THE GENERAL
USER COMMUNITY. MINIMAL METADATA WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL DATA SETS.
UNLESS MINIMAL DOCUMENTATION is AVAILABLE FOR A DATA SET, IT WILL NOT BE
MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE EMAP IM SYSTEM. IN SOME CASES, THE EMAP IM
TEAM WILL DEVELOP THE MINIMAL DOCUMENTATION FOR ORPHAN DATA SETS.
Recommendation: The plan should specify how much detail EMAP intends to provide for
non-EMAP data bases, and should evaluate the need to include metadata contained in the linked data
base.
RESOLVED THROUGH RECOMMENDATION OF USING THE FGDC STANDARD, WHICH
INCLUDES MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS.
Only Directory information on other databases will be provided. Table 5-2 has been added to the
Plan that lists the Data Directory fields. EMAP does not intend to provide metadata for the
databases for which the EMAP home page provides a link. This has been clarified in the IM Plan
{SECTION 2.5.2, EMAP-IM APPROACH]. Table 5-1 shows what EMAP-IM features (Directory,
Catalog, data sets, links) are to be used with different sources of data has been added to the Plan.
The IMS contains wording to the effect in the plan that EMAP will provide instructions to other
monitoring programs so that their data meet certain standards. This could be a mammoth task that
breeds only resentment and eventual disregard among the "guided" agencies.
131
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
Recommendation: EMAP should make clear statements about what data standards it intends to
recommend for non-EMAP databases.
EMAP will provide guidance to EMAP-funded programs, not to non-EMAP monitoring programs.
Guidance to the latter is coming from the multi-agency CENR monitoring framework. This has been
clarified in the Plan [SECTION 4.4.3].
WHEREVER APPLICABLE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS WILL BE
ADOPTED. THE EMAP WEB SITE WILL CONTAIN LINKS TO DESCRIPTIONS OF THE
ADOPTED STANDARDS. IN SITUATIONS WHERE CENR HAS ADOPTED STANDARDS, EMAP
WILL ADHERE TO THESE STANDARDS AND WILL ALSO TRY TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH
OTHER REGULARLY USED STANDARDS.
Phasein
The requirements for data to be collected in 1996 and thereafter are unknown and may remain so for
some time. There are three sources of new data; the Regional EMAP programs, the principle
investigator-initiated research to be funded by EMAP, and data gathered at Index sites as defined by
the CENR. It would seem that EMAP should manage whatever data are collected under its
sponsorship. However, not all REMAP data are in that category, not all PI data will be applicable
to environmental assessments, and many agencies aside from EPA will be gathering data at Index
sites.
Recommendation: The data management requirements for Index Sites may defy definition at this
point but some attempt could be made to delimit the other Phase HI needs.
The revised EMAP Research Plan, with implementation plans for the new EMAP Working Groups,
should help clarify this. The EMAP IMWG intends to meet with the other EMAP Working Groups
and to use the HAS contract support to help define the IM needs of Phase III.
THE NEW PLAN CONTAINS INFORMATION ABOUT NEEDS OF PHASE II AND BEYOND
(SECTION 4), AND EXPLORES FUTURE OPTIONS FOR MEETING THESE NEEDS AND
OTHER POTENTIAL NEEDS THAT RESULT FROM PROGRAM EXPANSION (APPENDIX D,
PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND OPTIONS ANALYSIS)
Architecture
It is essential to view and understand the current architecture for EPA's existing systems that may
provide a base for further development. A number of specific actions should be taken to enhance the
system's architecture:
Recommendations:
Any reusable "modules" of the system should be ported into the redesigned system.
132
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
More information has been added on the Oracle development work done prior to 1996 and how it
is being used (Section 5.2). •
Populated databases should also be ported to updated/upgraded database structures.
Data from the Data Directory database were ported over to the revised Data Directory (Section
5.4.1).
The network configuration, the software and hardware configuration (including future host machines
and operating systems), socket level functionality, user interfaces, database access, and resulting data
flows must be clearly documented and evaluated for migration, integration, implementation, and
extensibility.
More information has been included on the existing EPA computing infrastructure—computers,
software, networks, personnel (App. C—THIS INFORMATION IS NOW IN SECTION 5,
TECHNICAL DESIGN).
Planning for external technological innovations should also be considered.
EMAP, through the Laboratory Divisions and with supportfrom the Enterprise Technology Services
Division of OIRM, will stay abreast of new technological developments in the hardware and
software used (Oracle, SAS, Arc/Info, World Wide Web) and in advances made by others in
managing scientific databases (Section 4.4.4). We will apply these to the EMAP system when
practical.
The resources necessary for accurate system documentation should be established and acquired.
EMAP has used Oracle CASE tools for system documentation.
No structural diagrams or words describing thoughts and/or plans for distributed architecture were
apparent. Gateway access among computer systems must be carefully designed. Web links do not
constitute a distributed system.
More detail has been added (Section 5, FIGURE 5-3). Links to other Web sites are not what was
meant by distributed. What was intended to be described was the existing database management
systems at the various EPA Labs; this has been clarified (Section 2:5.2).
Economies of scale and relationships among metadata components must be streamlined. Draw
directly from data to populate inventory, catalog, and directory, or minimally draw directly from the
data to populate the inventory; draw directly from the inventory to populate the catalog; and draw
directly from the catalog to populate the directory.
133
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
We explored development of a combined Data Directory/Data Catalog database. The Data Catalog
is the metadata that the user needs in order to use the data wisely. Database design for the Catalog
was done by the former central EMAP-IM group; however, this was never implemented in Oracle.
Instead, the program used ASCII text files; some of these were,loaded to Oracle Book, which is a
hypertext-based product. The advantage of a combined Data Directory/Data Catalog database is
that common fields—such as the contact telephone number—need to be modified in only one place.
However, the Catalog is mostly text-based, so this advantage does not often apply. Also, we expect
to have far more Data Directory entries for data sets than we expect to have for actual data sets in
our possession (thereby requiring the Catalog information). It is much easier to acquire Directory
information than it is to acquire the full set of Catalog information.
Our plan is to keep the Catalog separate from the Directory and to produce the Catalog in ASCII
text (a WordPerfect template is used) and then mark the text up in the HTML format. As we are not
expecting our users to have access to Oracle Book, but rather to use Web browsers, this should be
a practical approach. The EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) is currently
exploring an Oracle implementation of the Data Catalog. This will be evaluated for potential
application to EMAP. We are also keeping track of what the NOAA Coastal Services Center in
Charleston has done to extend the FGCD metadata standard to field sampling data, and the use of
metadata entry tools (NOAA 1996). Future updates to the EMAP IM Plan will reflect any changes.
AT THE TIME OF THIS WRITING, MANY TOOLS HAVE EMERGED TO STANDARDIZE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF METADATA. IN ADDITION, THE FGDC STANDARD HAS EMERGED AS
A CORE SET OF DOCUMENTATION ELEMENTS WHICH CAN BE USED AS A POINT OF
DEPARTURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE DOCUMENTATION. FGDC
WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED TO DOCUMENT SPATIAL DATA COVERAGES BUT IS BEING
EXPANDEDTO DEAL WITH OTHER DATA TYPES. AS THIS STANDARD AND THE TOOLS
AVAILABLE TO USE IT CONTINUE TO GROW, EMAP AND MOST OTHER PROGRAMS WILL
ADOPT THE STANDARD AS THEIR DATA CATALOG FORMAT. FGDC IS SET UP AS A
HYPERTEXT FILE WITH TAGS THAT CAN BE USED EFFECTIVELY WITH HTML OR SGML.
IN ADDITION, HYPERTEXT WILL BE VERY COMPATIBLE WITH EXTRACTING SOME
INFORMATION AND LOADING IT INTO A DIRECTORY OR INVENTORY DATA BASE. THIS
IS POSSIBLE BUT IS NOT AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS RECOMMENDED BY THE REVIEW
TEAM ESPECIALLY IN REFERENCE TO THE INVENTORY, IN WHICH SOME DESCRIPTION
OF THE PROGRAM IS REQUIRED THAT IS NOT LIKELY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
DOCUMENTATION. IN ADDITION, MANY PROGRAMS OVERLAP AND DIFFERENT NAMES
ARE USED FOR THE SAME PROGRAM (ESPECIALLY AS THEY CHANGE THEIR NAMES
OVER THE YEARS).
No database schema was included in the IMS. A data base schema and data dictionary constitute the
foundation of a stable information base that will permit portability and access by an expanding and
134
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
demanding user population. Decisions on maintaining the metadata and/or the actual data in the
database are critical in the schema.
The Entity-Relationship Diagram (Fig. 5-4) and associated Table 5-2 for the Oracle Data Directory
have been included in the Plan.
The IMS should clearly state the standards with which the EPA wishes to comply. Choosing
standards that permit compatibility with other search and retrieval or analysis packages could provide
considerable savings. Also, choose flexible, interoperable standards that allow evolution with
changing demands. Example: Choose an "attribute set" standard used by Z39.50. As the Z39.50
upgrades to include numeric and geographical searches, the information collected and held in the
appropriate format (fields) can permit immediate search and retrieval.
EMAP will follow applicable EPA and federal IM standards. EMAP is using the EPA public access
World Wide Web server at Research Triangle Park, NC, as the site where users will do searches,
and will encourage RTF to make their. WAIS (Wide-Area Information Server) software Z39.50
compliant. EMAP has adopted the restricted vocabulary from the Global Change Master Directory
to be used in the EMAP Data Directory (Section 5.4.1, 5.4.3,).
Develop partnerships with other Federal agencies that are performing similar work. Cooperative
agreements and good planning can permit the integration of technology developed elsewhere without
the need to duplicate effort.
We have contacted NASA about the Global Change Master Directory, use of a restricted vocabulary
keyword set, FGDC compliance, and use of DIP entry tools on the World Wide Web. This is reflected
in the Plan (Section 5.4.1).
We will work with the CENR Task Force on Data Management, via the EMAP Information
Management Working Group members on the Task Force, to coordinate with other agencies
(Section 6).
"Maintenance" should be considered when developing an architecture. Developing reusable tools
can expedite the completion of work.
Tools for making Data Directory entries are being revised/developed. These include an Oracle
Forms 4.5 client application and a Web form to capture directory information that is later loaded
to the Oracle database (Section 4.3).
[THE EMAP IM SYSTEM COMPONENTS REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT ONGOING COMMITMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO MAINTAIN CONTENT, AND PERIODIC UPGRADES TO
HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
135
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS. THIS INFORMATION IS REVIEWED IN SECTIONS 6
(PROJECT MANAGEMENT) AND 7 (IMPLEMENTATION).
Administrative Interface
Review against Office of Research and Development (ORDX Agency and Federal requirements
The ORD Five-Year Information Resources Management (IRM) plan, the Agency Five-year IRM
Strategic Plan, numerous Agency IRM policies and procedures, currently catalogued as EPADOC
by the Architectural Management and Planning Branch, as well as Federal Information Management
Regulations (FIRMR, FAR) are in place to provide a road map as well as an architectural framework
for designing new or improving current information systems in the Agency. The review shows
attention paid to the public access and public information policies proscribed in the above mentioned
documents, but the life cycle methodology and data management system rigor necessary is not
evident.
These requirements were addressed by the peer-reviewed 1994 EMAP Information Management
Strategic Plan (Shepanek 1994) and earlier life cycle documents (e.g., U.S. EPA 1991). The current
Plan does not discuss any new system elements that were not included in the old EMAP IM system
and covered by the previous documents. AED will use the ITAS contract support to address life cycle
requirements for data from the new EMAP Working Groups. (SEE APPENDIX H, EEI
REQUIREMENTS REPORT)
The ORD Senior Information Resource Management Officer has appointed a representative from
ORMA (Office of Resources Management and Administration) to the EMAP Information
Management Working Group (IMWG). This person will be the liaison between EMAP and ORMA,
OIRM, and other federal information management standards. This person can help EMAP stay
informed of the latest changes in federal information management standards and could help update
the EMAP IM Plan to meet those standards.
The ORD Information Management Strategic Plan (U.S. EPA 1996c), currently in draft stage, will
be a key document. Updates to the EMAP IMPlan will show how EMAP IM fits under the umbrella
of the ORD IM Strategic Plan as it evolves.
Two of the Agency's eight IRM vision elements of public access and EPA access have been
addressed in part; however, the vision elements of data integration, environmental information, a
solid IRM foundation, reduction of reporting burden, electronic management, and communications
have not been addressed fully.
Recommendation: The IMS should address the six vision elements cited above.
136
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
We will ask ORMA to review and help update the IM Plan after the EMAP Research Plan is
finalized. Specifically, the ORMA representative on the EMAP IMWG could assist in addressing all
eight of these elements in the next update of the Plan.
ALL EIGHT ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN APPENDIX I OF THE PLAN.
Use of Agency Resources
A wide variety of resources are available within the Agency to organizations contemplating a new
information system or the redesign of one that exists. These resources reside primarily within the
OIRM) and its counterpart office within ORD, the Management and Information Systems Staff
(MISS). The Senior Information Resource Management Officer (SIRMO) has dual responsibilities
as the MISS staff chief providing the necessary review and integration function for information
systems throughout ORD, and considering all necessary information system interfaces with the
Agency as a whole. Economies of scale must be leveraged as human and financial resources shrink,
and the SIRMO provides the system integration and review function necessary to new and renewed
information systems endeavors.
No evidence exists that the renewed EMAP system was reviewed by the ORD SIRMO, nor that these
services were requested from the SIRMO. These review services are the mission of the SIRMO and
are a critical part of insuring user group representation, particularly secondary users in Program and
Regional Offices. In particular, life cycle methodology corresponding to a multi-year budget,
multi-year schedule as well as integrating this system with current systems is lacking in the IMS. The
SIRMO provides the necessary coordination to insure that infrastructure requirements are met, and
cost/benefit analyses have been performed to the extent necessary to field such a system.
Recommendation: The revised IMS should be submitted to the SIRMO for review. The EMAP
system as it stands today should receive no additional funding for further development until a
complete and thorough SIRMO review has been undertaken.
The May 14,1996 draft of the EMAP IM Plan was not submitted to the ORD SIRMO because of its
incomplete state. Itwas incomplete because the EMAP Research Plan (U.S. EPA 1996a), andEMAP
Working Group implementation plans, were not sufficiently detailed to be able to specify the new
EMAP IM requirements. The May 14 draft was prepared to see if the general approach to EMAP
IM was acceptable. After the EMAP Working Group implementation plans are completed, and the
ITAS contract support has helped define EMAP Phases II and III IM needs, we will ask ORMA to
review and help update the Plan. '
Management
The plan lacks adequate descriptions of the management infrastructure to implement the EMAP IMS.
Almost all problems encountered during development and operation, such as cost over-runs,
__ _ . __
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
schedule delays, technical glitches, and inadequate performance, stem directly from poorly defined
management organization or processes. A solid, well-organized management infrastructure has the
capability to detect and correct minor problems before they balloon into major program issues. The
management infrastructure maintains the focus and discipline necessary to keep the EMAP IMS on
track and on schedule. The Implementation Plan must lay out the EMAP IMS management
infrastructure as well as the technical implementation.
EMAP uses a matrix management approach implemented through Division line management.
Project management is an issue that is common to many other ORD information management
systems and is being addressed at a higher level by the Information Management component of the
ORD Strategic Plan (U.S. EPA 1996c).
Recommendation: The committee suggests adding the following items to the Implementation Plan:
Organization Hierarchy—The Implementation Plan should contain the organizational hierarchy for
the personnel in EMAP IMS. The hierarchy should emphasize the official reporting structure—who
works for whom. In this context, reporting structure refers to who pays a person's salary and signs
his performance evaluation.
This has been clarified in the revised Plan (Section 7).
THE IM SYSTEM IS ONLY WHAT IS BEING DEVELOPED AT AED THROUGH THE EMAP
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP.
Functional Breakdown—The Implementation Plan should contain a mapping of personnel to
functions, deliverables, and requirements. Essentially, this clearly defines development
responsibility, eliminating the possibility of duplication or gaps.
This will be shown for Phase I in the next update to the Plan; other Phases will be added later
(SECTION?).
Multi-year Schedule—The Implementation Plan should contain a multi-year schedule clearly
identifying EMAP IMS deliverables. The schedule should include the name and length of those
development tasks that define the critical path. The schedule should also clearly identify the number
of days of "slack" between the critical path and the product delivery dates. The schedule should also
identify regular, formal design reviews associated with each product deliverable. The schedule
should cover a five-year period, updated at the start of each fiscal year.
The revised Plan has more details on the schedule (Section?). However, details of the nature called
for by the recommendation will not be available until the EMAP Research Plan, and the
implementation plans supporting that plan—along with their multi-year schedules—are finalized.
138
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
Formal design reviews for each deliverable may be more than is necessary for the EMAPIM system,
which is envisioned to be rather simple, consisting largely of data sets and metadata file accessible
through the EMAP home page.
Multi-year Budget—The Implementation Plan should contain a multi-year budget. The budget
should clearly identify the funds required for each system deliverable. The budget should clearly
identify the funds required for normal operations, such as data ingest, maintenance, data delivery,
user support, etc. The budget should also clearly identify the programmatic cash reserve to handle
contingencies. The budget should cover a five-year period, updated at the start of each fiscal year.
The revised Plan has more details on the budget (Section 7). However, details of the nature called
for above will not be available until the EMAP Research Plan, and the implementation plans
supporting that plan, are finalized.
Management Processes—The Implementation Plan should contain descriptions of the basic
processes to explain how the system works. For example, handing someone a copy of the
Constitution would not help him to get a new law passed. The process descriptions should include
basic configuration and version control of data content, software, and documentation. The process
descriptions should include identification, allocation, and control of critical resources, in this case,
probably data storage and processing. The process descriptions should include acceptance criteria
and procedures for standards selection, design review, and design implementation. The process
descriptions should also cover writing of documentation, and training of personnel and users. The
process descriptions should identify and define any required control boards and advisory groups.
IT CAN BE DONE BY RESTRICTING THE "SYSTEM" TO WHAT EMAP-IM (AED) WILL DO.
The Plan has been revised (Section 6), but the management process discussed in the
recommendation is probably more detailed than would be required for EMAP IM.
Interface Listing—The Implementation Plan should contain a listing of interfaces between the
EMAP IMS and other organizations, both internal and external to EPA. The interface listing should
clearly identify functional (system-to-system) and communication (group-to-group) interfaces. The
Implementation Plan should clearly define the interface boundary and what gets transferred into or
out of the EMAP IMS. The EMAP IMS should avoid duplicating the management processes when
listing communication interfaces. Each interface should apply to one, and only one, organization or
system external to the EMAP IMS. Detailed descriptions of the interfaces belong in separate
documents and not the Implementation Plan.
As these interfaces become more clearly defined, from the new EMAP Working Groups or from
activities of the CENR, we will include descriptions in the IM Plan.
139
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
User Group Representation—The Implementation Plan should contain a listing of all user advisory
groups. The Implementation Plan should define the role, purpose, and product for each advisory
group. The Implementation Plan should clearly identify when these groups meet in the master
schedule. The Implementation Plan should identify the general membership of each advisory group
(but not specific names). The Implementation Plan should map the advisory groups to the target user
groups and the management processes.
At this time, EMAP does not have any specific user advisory groups. There were such groups in the
early EMAP, consisting of personnel from EPA program offices, EPA regional offices, other
agencies, and academia. This recommendation will be discussed with the EMAP managers.
Management Issues
The EMAP IMS must also face several serious management issues:
Work Force Fragmentation—The EMAP IMS has too many people working too little time each. The
Implementation Plan identifies several individuals who devote as little as 10% of their time (0.1
FTE) to the EMAP IMS—only 4 hours per week. These individuals would barely have enough time
to attend a meeting and make a few phone calls, let alone to do any serious system development.
Also, these individuals will constantly get "pulled off onto "higher priority" projects, further
reducing EMAP IMS development time. Lastly, the time devoted to integration increases
exponentially with the number of people on a project. Individuals that devote only a small portion
of their time to a project then become a burden, not an asset.
Recommendation: The EMAP IMS should have fewer people devoting more of their time to system
development. No individual should devote less than half of his time (50% or 0.5 FTE) to EMAP IMS
development.
The recommendation will be discussed with EMAP managers.
Systems Integration—The EMAP IMS lacks people devoted to integrating the pieces into a single
system and making it work. The different components under development by separate organizations
(internal and external to EPA) will not magically fit together into a unified system.
Recommendation: The EMAP IMS should assign a single person the responsibility of systems
integration. Systems integration is not a part-time job for a system of this size. This person must
devote his full time (100% or 1 FTE) to the task of systems integration.
Computer science support positions are provided to ORDfacilities through on-siteADP contractors.
The recommendation will be discussed with EMAP managers.
140
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
Leadership—The EMAP IMS does not have a clearly identified leader. Without clear and strong
leadership, the program will fail.
Recommendation: The EMAP Program should assign a person as Project Manager for the EMAP
IMS. Project Manager is not a part-time job for a system of this size. The Project Manager must
devote his full time (100% or 1 FTE).
The recommendation will be discussed with EMAP managers.
Authority and Responsibility—The EMAP IMS Project Manager has .responsibility to implement
the program, but does not have clear authority over budget, schedule, and personnel. Without this
authority, the program will fail.
Recommendation: Place authority for personnel, budget, schedule, and technical content directly
under the EMAP IMS Project Manager. Authority over personnel means the Project Manager signs
yearly performance evaluations. Authority over .budget means the project manager signs the
paperwork controlling who gets what funds and when. Control over schedule and content means the
Project Manager signs the paperwork setting requirements, passing design reviews, and approving
product milestones.
The Chair of the Information Management Working Group does not have any supervisory control
over any members of the Group. A major portion of the IM work for EMAP is conducted by
personnel on EPA contracts (different contracts at the various Divisions). It would be illegal for
these contract personnel to be under supervisory control of the EPA EMAP IMS Project Manager.
The recommendation will be discussed with EMAP managers.
Budget and Resources—The Implementation Plan completely lacks any justification for the EMAP
IMS budget, even though the EPA spends $1 million per year on it. The money devoted to system
support and maintenance ($ 100k) appears extraordinarily high. The apparent data volume and ingest
rate do not justify purchasing $130k in new hardware.
THIS IS CONTRADICTORY TO POINTS RAISED ABOVE ABOUT PERSONNEL, COMPLEXITY
AND SIZE OF SYSTEM.
Recommendation: The Implementation Plan should contain justification for each line item in the
EMAP IMS budget. The EMAP IMS should reduce the system support and maintenance to about
$ 10-20 k per year. The EMAP IMS should defer any new hardware purchases until Fiscal Year 1997,
at the earliest.
No hardware purchases were made in 1996. The budget, and justification, are more clearly
delineated in the revised Plan (Section 6).
141
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Data Management Review Team Report"
References
NOAA. 1996. Metadata resources fact sheet. NOAA Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC.
Shepanek, R. 1994. EMAP Information Management Strategic Plan: 1993-1997. EPA/620/R-94.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1991. EEI-1 Mission Needs Statement EMAP. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July
1991.
U.S. EPA. 1996a. (in prep). EMAP Research Plan (July 1996 draft). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ORD, NHEERL, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. (in prep.). ORD Information Management Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
142
-------
Appendix E, Responses to "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
. Data Management Review Team Report"
E.3 Review Team Members
Name
David Kleffman
Nancy Wentworth
Robert King
Charissa Smith
Dwight Clay
Michael Slimak
Lola Olsen
Kevin Schaefer
Thomas O'Connor
John Briggs
Jim Slack
Institution
US EPA, ORD, National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance,
Washington, DC
US EPA, ORD, National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance,
Washington, DC
US EPA, Office of Water/STORET, Washington, DC
US EPA, ORD, Office of Resources Management and Administration, Washington, DC
US EPA, Office of Information Resources Management, Research Triangle Park, NC
US EPA, ORD, National Center for Environmental Assessment Washington, DC
National Aeronautical & Space Administration, Greenbelt, MD
National Aeronautical & Space Administration, Washington, DC
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, N/ORCA, Washington, DC
US Geological Survey, Reston, VA
US Geological Survey, Reston, VA
143
-------
Appendix F
Overview of EMAP Information Management
Policies, Guidelines, and Standards
F.1 Introduction
F.2 Data Sharing
F.3 EMAP Public Web Site
F.4 EMAP Data Directory
F.5 EMAP Data Catalog
F.6 Further Information
F.1 Introduction
This document briefly describes the information management policies, guidelines, and standards of
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Many of the EMAP
documents referenced can be found on the EMAP Public Web Site (EMAP 1998). The EMAP Policy
Statement is given in Section 1.
Research conducted by EMAP is increasingly dependent on data sets that are collected and managed
by other organizations. A major challenge in conducting ecological assessments is the acquisition
and integration of data of varying ownership, format, quality, and degree of documentation (ESA,
1995; NRC, 1995a). The difficulty is reduced as data sources move toward common standards, data
directories, and data descriptions (Chinn and Bledsoe, 1997; Williams, 1997; Barton, 1996, 1997;
LTER, 1995; CENR, 1994; FGDC, 1994). Many useful guidelines and standards have evolved from
the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP, 1995a, 1995b). These developments allow
researchers to more easily find, understand, and download data of interest. The increasing use of
World Wide Web browsers as a common user interface to distributed databases, that use a variety
of software packages and database structures, also helps.
There are three basic components to the EMAP information management system: a Data Directory,
a Data Catalog (metadata), and the actual data sets (U.S. EPA 1996a). The Data Directory keeps
track of all data sets of interest. Some of these data sets are in the possession of EMAP and are on
EMAP web sites; other data sets are managed and described by other organizations. The different
data sources handle the data using a variety of software and hardware. The Data Catalog contains
144
-------
Appendix F, Overview of EMAP Information Management Policies, Guidelines, and Standards
information (metadata) about data sets in the possession of EMAP so that a user can understand
enough about the methods, assumptions, and quality to use the data appropriately. With a Web
browser, users locate data sets of interest by querying the Data Directory; they then download the
selected files, along with the accompanying metadata files that provide the user with the context and
assumptions under which the data were collected. Subsequent manipulation and analysis of data sets
are under control of the user, using tools of their choice.
F.2 Data Sharing
Data collected with EPA funds must be made accessible (U.S. EPA 1997a; 1995b). EMAP-funded
data are made available directly through the EMAP Public Web Site or through an arrangement
whereby the data collectors place the data on their,own web site (U.S. EPA 1997b). A hold-back
period can be used before public release to allow principal investigators time to publish results.
F.3 EMAP Public Web Site
. &
The EMAP Web pages are on the EPA public access World Wide Web server
(http://www.epa.gov/emap). Guidelines for making data available on this site are given in Strebel
and Frithsen (1995a), as updated by U.S. EPA (1997c). Data sources have a wide degree of freedom
in software used (ASCII files for tabular data and Arc/Info export files for GIS data are common)
and in how.they structure the data sets, although certain minimal formats are encouraged (such as
use of the federal Integrated Taxonomic Information System species codes). Division Director (or
equivalent) approval is required to publish data on the EPA public access Web server.
F.4 EMAP Data Directory
The EMAP Data Directory lists data sets identified to be of interest to EMAP researchers. Not all
of these are in the possession of EMAP. The Directory, originally based on NASA Directory
Interchange Format, or DIP (NASA 1991), has been updated to comply with FGDC standards
(FGDC 1994) so that the Data Directory and Data Catalog together meet the FGDC contents
standard. EMAP guidelines are given in Frithsen and Strebel (1995) and Frithsen (1996a, 1996b),
as updated by U.S. EPA (1996b).
F.5 EMAP Data Catalog
The EMAP Data Catalog provides information about the data, such as a description of the methods
used or notes on data quality. Guidelines for preparing catalog metadata are given in Strebel and
Frithsen (1995b) and Frithsen (1996a), as updated by U.S. EPA (1996c). EMAP does not place any
data set on the Public Web Site without the accompanying metadata.
145
-------
Appendix F, Overview of EMAP Information Management Policies, Guidelines, and Standards
November 1997
F.6 Further Information
Connect to the EMAP Public Web Site (http://www.epa.gov/emap/) or contact one of the following:
Stephen Hale
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI02882
Email: hale.stephen@epamail. epa.gov
Telephone: 401-782-3048
FAX: 401-782-3030
References
Melissa Hughes
OAO Corporation
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, EH 02882
Email: hughes.melissa@epamail.epa.gov
Telephone: 401-782-3184
FAX: 401-782-3030
Barton, G. 1996. NOAA Environmental Services Data Directory. Earth System Monitor,
December 1996. 6-8.
Barton, G. 1997. NOAA and the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Earth System Monitor
7(3), March 1997.
CENR. 1994. The U.S. Global Change Data and Information System Implementation Plan. A
report by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and
Technology Council, Washington, D.C.
Chinn, H. and Bledsoe, C. 1997. Internet access to ecological information—the US LTER
All-Site Bibliography Project. BioScience 47(l):50-57.
ESA. 1995. Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Future of Long-Term
Ecological Data. Vol. 1. http://www.sdsc.edu/~ESA
FGDC. 1994. Content standards for digital geospatial metadata, June 8,1994. Federal
Geographic Data Committee, Washington, DC.
Frithsen, J. B. 1996a. Suggested modifications to the EMAP data set directory and catalog for
implementation in US EPA Region 10. Draft, June 10,1996. Report prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC., by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
146
-------
Appendix F, Overview of EMAP Information Management Policies, Guidelines, and Standards
Frithsen, J. B. 1996b. Directory Keywords: Restricted vs. unrestricted vocabulary. Draft, May 21,
1996. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC., by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Frithsen; J. B., and D. E. Strebel. 1995. Summary documentation for EMAP data: Guidelines for
the information management directory. 30 April 1995. Report prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP), Washington, DC. Prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
GCRP. 1995a. GCDIS Implementation 1995. Vol. I—Interagency Implementation. U.S. Global
Change Research Program. Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National
Science and Technology Council, Washington, D.C.
GCRP. 1995b. GCDIS Implementation 1995. Vol. If—Agency Implementation. U.S. Global
Change Research Program. Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National
Science and Technology Council, Washington, D.C.
LTER. 1995. Draft proceedings of the 1995 Long-Term Ecological Research Data Management
Workshop, July 27-29, 1995, Snowbird, Colorado.
NASA. 1991. Directory Interchange Format Manual; Version 4.0. NASA, National Space
Science Data Center, Greenbelt, MD. December 1991.
NRC. 1995. Finding the forest in the trees: The challenge of combining diverse environmental
data. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 129 pp.
Strebel, D. E., and J. B. Frithsen, 1995a. Guidelines for distributing EMAP data and information
via the Internet. April 30,1995. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), Washington, DC.
Prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Strebel, D. E., and J. B. Frithsen, 1995b. Scientific documentation for EMAP data: Guidelines
for the information management catalog. Draft: April 30,1995. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems and Quality
Assurance, Washington, DC. Prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Providing information to decision makers to protect human health and the
environment. Information Resources Management Strategic Plan. EPA-220-B-95-002.
April 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Administration and Resources
Management, Washington, DC. ,
147
-------
Appendix F, Overview of EMAP Information Management Policies, Guidelines, and Standards
U. S. EPA. 1996a. EMAP information management plan. Draft, Oct 30, 1996. U. S. EPA,
NHEERL, Narragansett, RI.
U. S. EPA. 1996b. Addendum to: Guidelines for the information management directory. U. S.
EPA, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.
U. S. EPA. 1996c. Addendum to: Guidelines for the information management catalog. U. S.
EPA, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. 1997 update to ORD's strategic plan. EPA/600/R-97/015. Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1997b (in prep). EMAP Research Plan (March 1997 draft). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ORD, NHEERL, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U. S. EPA. 1997c. Update to: Guidelines for distributing EMAP data and information via the
Internet. U. S. EPA, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.
Williams, N. 1997. How to get databases talking the same language. Science 275:301-302.
148
-------
Appendix G
EPA IRM Vision Elements
This appendix outlines how the EMAP-IM system addresses the EPA IRM Vision Elements (IRM
1998).
1. Public Access. The EMAP-IM system components (including the Data Directory, web sites,
data standards) disseminates and provides electronic access though a widely available
medium (Internet). This access allows users to educate and empower themselves because the
information is organized into categories (e.g., EMAP program names, geographic regions,
sample media, information product type) that deliver the full range'of EMAP products,
including data, metadata, and publications. EMAP-EM information will become even more
accessible as system components are made more compatible with tools and standards of other
relevant groups such as CENR through application of Web technology, and Z39.50 and
FGDC standards.
2. EPA Access. The EMAP-IM system components are available to all EPA employees
through existing desktop technology. They supply EMAP researchers and EPA managers
with technical tools, guidance, resources, and interfaces to access EMAP information for
decision making and research planning. All categories of EMAP information are available
through this access mechanism to provide an information library based on commonly
understood features of the environmental monitoring program.
3. Data Integration. Indexing of data sources and metadata in the EMAP Data Directory
supports comprehensive environmental protection by increasing user access to available data.
EMAP's adoption of standard directory tools (e.g., Z39.50, Global Ghange Master Directory
keyword identifiers) recommended by CENR will support this access. The use of standard
World Wide Web technology that is currently implemented by many other leading
environmental information programs (e.g., LTER, FGDC) will ensure adequate reporting,
organization, and display of available EMAP information to potential users.
4. Environmental Information. The availability of EMAP information through the EMAP
Data Directory and EMAP Public Web Site support the EMAP mission, i.e., to collect data
to fill gaps and to share useful data collected by others by tracking externally managed
information and allowing exchange of data among research partners. This availability will
149
-------
Appendix G, EPA IRM Vision Elements
allow program managers to determine requirements for data collection (data gaps) and
identify existing useful information resources.
Solid IRM Foundation. The EMAP-IM system is based on a solid IRM foundation
endorsed by EPA (i.e., Web-based indexing of distributed data) that is flexible and robust
enough to efficiently meet the evolving mission and needs of EMAP. Open participation in
planning this system is ensured by review of the Information Management Plan by the
Review Team, the IMWG, SIRMO/OIRM, and the Working Groups. Recommended data
standards for EMAP data sources that are in accordance with EMAP and CENR standards
provide a foundation for delivery of quality data and metadata. Maintenance of the Data
Directory by the experienced EMAP-IM (AED) staff will ensure the integrity of information
tracking (e.g., maintaining accurate knowledge of the quality, location, and access methods
for distributed data).
Reduce Reporting Burden. The Web-based EMAP-IM system reduces reporting burden
by allowing EMAP to reference information that is already maintained at other locations. The
EMAP Public Web Site reduces reporting burden by making EMAP publications available
in electronic formats that users can read and download without making requests to EPA
offices. The EMAP-IM system offers opportunities to automate many of the processes
associated with data delivery; currently, data collection with electronic instrumentation is
automated, and EMAP is adding electronic tools for creating metadata and Data Directory
entries, and for reporting of data and metadata updates.
Electronic Management. The EMAP—EVI system is adopting the latest Web-based tools to
allow its users to conduct all transactions electronically. The EMAP Public Web Site allows
users to access data without requiring delivery of printed reports, mailing of materials.
Communications. The system primarily allows users to find the information they need
without intervention by data managers. Transmitting valuable information about completed
data sets from the original researchers to the users, and cross-referencing information in
related disciplines and geographic regions to improve cross-discipline uses of data will
greatly improve the system. In addition, the EMAP-IM system's capabilities for
"people-to-people" electronic communications is being enhanced. The ability of researchers
to exchange data electronically is now limited by the lack of a site accessible to non-EPA
research partners; this deficiency results in time delays and additional data conversion efforts
that hinder research efficiency. Plans are in place to improve data exchange mechanisms for
these non-EPA partners.
150
-------
Appendix H
Configuration of the Computing Infrastructure of
the Atlantic Ecology Division and National EPA
Figures on the following pages show the configuration of the EPA Wide Area Network that is
referred to in Section 4.5 (System Configuration), and the hardware at the Atlantic Ecology Division
where the EMAP-IM system is housed.
151
-------
Appendix H, Configuration of the Computing Infrastructure of
the Atlantic Ecology Division and National EPA
NATIONAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK CONFIGURATION
Draft: EPA/EMAP Computing Environment
Figure H-1. Intelligent Information Network Deployment
152
-------
Appendix H, Configuration of the Computing Infrastructure of
the Atlantic Ecology Division and National EPA
INTELLIGENT INFORMATION NETWORK DEPLOYMENT
Figure H-2. National Data Communications Network Configuration
153
-------
Appendix H, Configuration of the Computing Infrastructure of
the Atlantic Ecology Division and National EPA
Figure H-3. EPA (AED) Hardware Architectural Design
154
-------
Appendix!
EMAP Archival Plan
1.1 Introduction
I.2 Requirements for EMAP Data Storage and Usability
I.3 Types of Data Comprising EMAP
1.4 Current Digital Data Backup/Archival Scheme
1.5 Long-Term Goals for Digital Data Archives
1.6 EMAP Digital Archive Tape Validity Testing
1.7 Migrating EMAP Data to New Hardware and Software
1.8 EMAP Archival Tracking System
1.1 Introduction
This section of the EMAP Information Management Plan addresses the long-term archival of media
for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Media are defined to include
any information that is considered to have inherent value to EMAP» which may be categorized into
both analog and digital data. EMAP data are stored at the Atlantic Ecology Division (AED) data
center in Narragansett, Rhode Island, and include a variety of physical documentation, inventories,
data, metadata, and other material. A subset of these data is stored at EPA's National Computer
Center at Research Triangle Park in North Carolina (RTP). EMAP digital data includes all data and
processes needed to support storage, search, and data retrieval.
Described in this plan are the data storage and usability requirements for EMAP, the types of EMAP
media, and AED's archival and tracking plan. Under development is the EMAP Archival
Preservation and Tracking System (EAPTS), a new system that is functionally superior to the current
system. This system shall address the preservation of analog and digital archives, the media validity
testing, and the tracking of the media life cycle from archive creation through validity testing.
155
-------
Appendix I, EMAP Archival Plan
1.2 Requirements for EMAP Data Storage and Usability
EMAP monitoring data are important enough to have a separate backup and archival plan, exclusive
from data supporting other endeavors. EMAP data, metadata, documents, and applications must be
usable decades from now, even as changes occur in hardware, software, and operating systems. Data
must be made available when needed, and must be made fully recoverable in the event of online
storage failures. In addition, all data that supports EMAP, including documentation and supporting
software applications, will be maintained and tracked.
1.3 Types of Data Comprising EMAP
Much of the existing analog data is in the form of design documentation originating from EMAP
Central (Phase 1) Information Management. This data will be integrated into the current AED EMAP
archives. As shown in Table 1-1, digital data supporting EMAP include image; varieties of textual
information; proprietary spatial data formats such as ARC/INFO coverages; SAS and Oracle
database programs, data, and the metadata that describes the logical and conceptual structures of
records; and web media containing images, ASCII data sets and HTML files.
Table 1-1. EMAP Media Types on AED Storage Devices
Operating System
Data Stores
Programs
Web Media
NT
SAS
SAS, Oracle
(none)
NT
ARC/INFO
ARC/INFO
(none)
UNIX
Oracle
Oracle
Graphic, ASCII, HTML
I.4 Current Digital Data Backup/Archival Scheme
EMAP data, programs and web media are managed from the production LAN at AED. All data on
the AED LAN are backed up daily to 8mm tape. Although maintained on different operating
platforms, all data are centrally backed up to "save sets." These "save sets" are archived weekly and
removed to an off-site location as part of AED's disaster recovery plan.
EMAP digital data are stored hi data centers at both AED and RTP. Subsets of information that
comprise the AED EMAP Home Page are routinely transferred as needed to the RTP public access
web server. To support the plan for long-term digital data archives, a process is under development
to automate the collection and transfer of the RTP EMAP exhibit (a subset of the AED EMAP
exhibit) back to AED for incorporation into the EMAP monthly archive set.
156
-------
Appendix I, EMAP Archival Plan
No EMAP digital data shall be stored permanently on an EMAP custodian's local disk drive. All
data, metadata, and applications will be stored on the LAN disks, according to EPA policy, to ensure
that these data get properly backed up and archived.
1.5 Long-Term Goals for Digital Data Archives
EMAP media shall be managed independently, shall be routinely archived, and shall be routinely
tested to verify that archived digital data has not degraded. In addition, in compliance with EPA
policy, all official records created or collected shall be inventoried at least triennially, in order to
provide a complete and comprehensive accounting of the Agency's holdings. Further, in
coordination with the AED Records Management Program, all records shall be managed according
to EPA's Information Resources Management Policy, as documented in the U.S. EPA Directive
2100, Chapter 10 (U.S. EPA 1996h). Accordingly, records management consists of three basic
stages: creation, active maintenance and use, and disposition. The records life cycle is initiated by
the creation, collection or receipt of records in the form of data or documents in the course of
carrying out EPA's administrative and programmatic responsibilities. The life cycle continues
through the processing and active use of the information in the record, until the record is determined
to be inactive. The final step in the life cycle is disposition which frequently includes transfer to
inactive storage, followed by transfer to the National Archives Records Administration (NARA) or
destruction. Once the disposition of EMAP records are considered inactive, all digital records
maintained under the program shall be provided to NARA for permanent retention (U.S. EPA
1996h).
Archive tape sets will be created and compared in duplicate. One archive tape set shall be stored
on-site in an environment-controlled and hazard-proof area, and the other tape set shall be likewise
stored at an off-site location.
The entire EMAP digital data collection will be archived monthly to a medium with an archive
durability rating of 20 years or more. The media currently in use is 8mm tape. All data written to tape
will be automatically verified as part of the archive process by reading and checking the data
immediately after it is written. If the verify pass fails due to a tape defect or hardware error, then the
problem will be resolved and the process restarted.
A tape subsystem's ability to recover data depends upon the combination of error detection and error
correction techniques, including use of parity, cyclic redundancy checks (CRCs), error detection
codes (EDCs), and error correction codes (ECCs). The sophistication and robustness of the methods
used determine the ability to detect and/or correct. The goal at AED is to leverage state-of-the-art
technology in tape error detection and error correction to maximize tape archive recovery reliability.
157
-------
Appendix I, EMAP Archival Plan
1.6 EMAP Digital Archive Tape Validity Testing
All practical archive systems are subject to media degradation. Consequently, the EMAP archive
plan includes routine tape testing and media renewal as necessary. Each archive tape set is a
candidate for routine media validity testing. Testing of tape archive sets will be done twice annually
to verify readability, and to verify that there has been no degradation of the media. This procedure
shall involve both tape sets in the selected archive set. Ten percent of the entire collection of
archived tapes shall be tested annually. Archive set selection shall be determined randomly from two
categories of tape sets; a young category and an older category of tape sets, where the older category
shall be weighted heavily for selection. After the selected tape set is written back to disk, it will be
verified to be exactly identical to the data on tape. If the verify pass fails, the tape will be recreated
from the duplicate tape set, such that the archive set once again comprises two error-free copies.
Archive tape validity testing shall include the monitoring of tape error rate against thresholds of
advertised engineering estimates. Tape error rate is defined as the average number of errors that can
be expected per unit of information processed. When observed tape error rate approaches error rate
thresholds, tapes will be re-written to create a new tape archive set.
1.7 Migrating EMAP Data to New Hardware and Software
It is an inescapable fact that all EMAP digital archives will eventually need to be converted from the
system originally used to create them to some new technology. This will happen because the original
system will become obsolete, unsupported, and eventually unavailable in the market place. As
system architectures change—hardware (e.g., servers, tape systems, etc.); software (e.g., operating
systems, application programs, etc.); and backup/archive media (e.g., tapes, CDs, etc.)—all EMAP
data archives shall be recreated, shall be thoroughly tested to verify readability, and shall be verified
that no data has degraded. If there are architectural changes made to the system and if there are
system dependencies under which EMAP and its hardware and/or software components operate, it
will be recorded in the EAPTS archival tracking system database, and shall be addressed
appropriately.
1.8 EMAP Archival Tracking System
A database application shall be developed to maintain, track and report on the various components
of the EMAP analog and digital archives. The proposed database shall include structures sufficient
to identify an analog or digital resource, including software and version dependencies, its storage
location, as well as archive set hardware and software dependencies and testing history.
15S
-------
Appendix J
Organization of ORD Offices and Laboratories
159
-------
Appendix J, Organization of ORD Offices and Laboratories
Office of Research and Development
Office of Science
Policy
Assistant Administrator for Research
and Development
National Center for
Environmental
Assessment
Deputy Director for
Management
National Center for
Environmental Assessment •
Washington, DC
National Center for
Environmental Assessment "
Cincinnati, OH
National Center for
Environmental Assessment "
RTP.NC
National Center for
Environmental Research and
Quality Assurance
H Deputy Director for
Management
Environmental
Engineering
Research Division
Environmental
Sciences Research
Division
Peer Review
Division
Quality Assurance
-
-
-
Division
_L
National Health and
Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
RTP.NC
•Research
Coordination
Deputy Director for
Management
Planning and]
laUonStaff j
National
AccountabilKyand
Resources
Manaoement Staff
National Outreach
and Information
Technology Staff
Associate
Director for
Ecology - RTP,
Atlantic Ecology
Division
Narragansett, Fd
Gulf Ecology
Division
Gulf Breeze, FL
Mid-Continent
Ecology Division
Duluth, MN
Western Ecology
Division
Corvallis, OR
Associate
Director for
Health RTP.NC
Environmental
Careinogenesls •
Division RTP.NC
Experimental
Toxicology
Division RTP, NC
Human Studes „
Division
Chapel Hill, NC
Neurotoxicology
' Division
RTP.NC
Reproductive -
Toxicology
Division RTP.NC
Office ol Resources
Management and
Administration
National Exposure
Research Laboratory
RTP.NC
< Deputy Directorfbr
Management
• Program Operations
Staff
Atmospheric 1
Modeling Division r—
RTP, NC 1
Human Exposure
and Atmospheric
Sciences Division
RTP.NC
Environmental
Las Vegas, NV
^•^
Ecological Exposure
Research Division
Cincinnati, OH
Ecosystems
Research Division
Athens, GA
Microbiological and
Chemical Exposure
Assessment
Research Division
Cincinnati. OH
_L
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, ON
Deputy Director for
Management
Resource Operations
Staff
Technology
Coordination Staff
Washington, DC
Air Pollution Prevention
and Control Division
Duluth,MN
Land Remediation and
Pollution Control Division
Cincinnati, OH
Subsurface Protection
and Remediation Division
ADA. OK
Sustainable
Technology Division
Cincinnati, OH
Technology Transfer
and Support Division
Cincinnati. OH
Water Supply and
Water Resources
Division
Cincinnati. OH
160
-------
Appendix K
Contributors to the Development of the EMAP IM System
(in alphabetical order)
K.1 EMAP Information Management Working Group
Gary Collins
Sidney Draggan
Virginia Engle
Pat Gant
Stephen Hale
Linda Harwell
•Stephen Lozano
John Macauley
Anne Neale
Tony Olsen
John Paul
Larry Rossner
Denice Shaw
Robert Shepanek
Charissa Smith
Timothy Snoots
Allen Sparks
NERL, Cincinnati
Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC
NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze
NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Annapolis
NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett
NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze
NHEERL, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth
NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze
NERL, Environmental Sciences Division, Las Vegas
NHEERL, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis
NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett
NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett
NERL, Research Triangle Park and Washington, DC
NCEA, Washington, DC
ORMA, Washington, DC
SC Dept. of Marine Resources, Charleston, SC
NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze
K.2 Contributors to EMAP Information Management, 1989-1998
We regret that this list is not complete but acknowledge the others who contributed to the EMAP
Information System development:
Matt Adams
Scott Augustine
Debra Battista
Warren Beer
Dave Bender
CSC
US EPA
CSC, ROW Sciences
USEPA
OAO
161
-------
Appendix K, Contributors to the Development of the EMAP IM System
Chuck Berry
Bob Booher
Jim Brown
Harry Buffum
Marlys Cappaert
Jon Clark
Dwight Clay
Mickey Cline
Paul Cole
Gary Collins
Randy Comeleo
Lawrence Cooley
Jane Copeland
Nancy Cunningham
Sidney Draggan
Virginia Engle
Ted Ernst
Ann Fields
Sue Franson
Jeffrey Frithsen
Donald Fulford
Pat Gant
Brian Goodno
Steve Greenfield
Stephen Hale
Linda Harwell
Karl Hermann
George Hess
Mason Hewitt
Melissa Hughes
Julie Irwin
Robert Isaak
Dave James
Linda .Kirkland
Bruce Kissinger
Chuck Liff
Jane Lovelace
Stephen Lozano
John Macauley
Mark Madsen
Doug Mann
Patricia Martel
CSC
Dyncorp Viar
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
OAO
OAO
TPMC
US EPA
US EPA
TPMC
US EPA
OAO
CSC
CSC, ROW Sciences, OAO
OAO
US EPA
US EPA
MET
George Mason University
US EPA
Versar, US EPA
US EPA
US EPA
CSC
US EPA
US EPA
US EPA
US EPA
North Carolina State University
US EPA
CSC, ROW Sciences, OAO
Lockheed
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Lockheed
US EPA
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
University of Nevada at Las Vegas, US Forest Service
TPMC
US EPA
US EPA
US EPA ,
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
OAO
,16,2
-------
Appendix K, Contributors to the Development of the EMAP IM System
Nina Mata
Scott McAskill
Mary Messinger
Kathy Moore
Gene Myers
Anne Neale
Jim Nee
Tony Olsen
John Paul
Janis Peterson
Ann Pilli
Steven Rego
Tom Richter
Victoria Rogers
Jeffrey Rosen
Larry Rossner
John Schweiss
Tony Selle
Walter Shackleford
Denice Shaw
Robert Shepanek
Rod Slagle
Charissa Smith
Timothy Snoots
Allen Sparks
Donald Strebel
Jim Thomas
Carol Thompson
Helene F. Thoreson
Mark Tooley
Timothy Wade
Donald Worley
Bionetics, TPMG
OAO
TPMC
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
US EPA
US EPA
TPMC
US EPA
US EPA
OAO
CSC
US EPA
OAO
Lockheed
CSC, AMS and TPMC
US EPA
US EPA
US EPA
US EPA
US EPA
US EPA
Lockheed
US EPA
SC Dept. of Marine Resources
US EPA
Versar
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
DRI
Versar
North Carolina State University
US EPA
US EPA
163
-------
Appendix L
Partial Bibliography for EMAP IM Program
Boyd, J.L. and R.L. Slagle. 1993. EMAP Prototype core DCD system users guide. Prepared by
the Lockheed Environmental Systems and Technologies Company, Las Vegas, Nevada,
January 3, 1993. R-files. 5/93
Buffum, H. and S. Hale. 1997. MAIA-Estuaries 1997 laboratory data format and transmittal
guidelines. Atlantic Ecology Division, NHEERL, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Narragansett, RI. 11 p.
Buffum, H. and S. Hale. 1997. MAIA-Estuaries 1997 summary database data format and transfer
guidelines. Atlantic Ecology Division, NHEERL, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Narragansett, RI. 33 p.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. 1991. A desktop information and mapping
system for near coastal areas of the mid-Atlantic United "States: Supporting EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, MD.
Franson, S.E. 1990. Data confidentiality in the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP): Issues and recommendations. Revision 0, June 13, 1990. R-1854.
12/92
Franson, S.E. 1991. Proposed policy and rationale: Use of data collected under the auspices of
the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Draft July 1991. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC. R-1854. 12/92
Frithsen, J.B. 1996. "Suggested modifications to the EMAP data set directory and catalog for
implementation in US EPA Region 10. Draft, June 11,1996." Report prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC., by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
164
-------
Appendix L, Partial Bibliography for EMAP IM Program
Frithsen, J.B. 1996. "Directory Keywords: Restricted vs. unrestricted vocabulary. Draft, May 21,
1996," Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC., by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Frithsen, J.B. and D.E. Strebel. 1995. Summary Documentation for EMAP Data: Guidelines for
the Information Management Directory. April 30, 1995. Report prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and research Program
(EMAP), Washington, DC. Report prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Frithsen, J.B., D.E. Strebel and H.F. Thoreson. 1992. Detailed Documentation of Data Sets for
Scientific Assessments: Initial Guidance and an Example. September 30, 1992. Report
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and
Research Program, Las Vegas, NV. Report prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Hale, S.S., M.H. Hughes, J.F. Paul, R.S. Mcaskill, S.A. Rego, D.R. Bender, N.J. Dodge, T.L.
Richter, and J.L. Copeland. 1998. Managing scientific data: The EMAP approach.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51:429-440.
Kissinger, B. 1993. Information Management Proof of Concept, Architecture Standards. Draft,
Version 1.0, February 18, 1993. Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Arlington, VA.
Mann, D.D. and R. Shepanek. 1995. EMAP Information Management Virtual Repository (Final
Draft), April 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
Mata, N. 1991. Standard operating procedures for EMAP information management technical
workgroups. TS-PIC-91383. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Warrenton, VA.
Mata, N.J. 1993. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Geographic reference
Database Development Plan. TS-PIC-93401. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478. R-1853. EMAP-IM. 1/93.
Puterski, R., J.A. Carter, M.J. Hewitt, H.F. Stone, L.T. Fisher, and E.T. Slonecker. 1990. GIS
Technical Memorandum 3: Global positioning systems technology and its application in
environmental programs. Report completed for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract 68-CO-0050. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, NV. R-EMAP-GIS-BOOK, 9/92.
Rosen, J.S., J. Beaulieu, M. Hughes, H. Buffum, J. Copeland, R. Valente, J. Paul, F. Holland, S.
Schimmel, C. Strobel, K. Summers, K.J. Scott, and J. Parker. 1990. Environmental
. _
-------
Appendix L, Partial Bibliography for EMAP IM Program
Monitoring and Assessment Program data base management system for Near Coastal
Demonstration Project. EPA/600.X-90/207. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett,
RI.
Shepanek, R. 1994. EMAP Information Management Strategic Plan: 1993-1997.
EPA/620/R-94/017. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
Shepanek, R. and D.D. Mann. 1995. EMAP Information Management Standards Manual (Final
Draft) April 1995. Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project and 11 others. 1995. Information
Management Plan for the Southern California Bight Pilot Project. Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, CA.
Strebel, D.E. and J. B. Frithsen. 1991. Handling Supporting Information for EMAP External
Data Sets. December 31, 1991. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Research Program, Las Vegas, NV. Report
prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Strebel, D.E. and J.B. Frithsen. 1995. Scientific Documentation for EMAP Data: Guidelines for
the Information Management Catalog. Draft April 30, 1995. Report prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and research Program
(EMAP), Washington, DC. Report prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Strebel, D.E. and J.B. Frithsen. 1995. Guidelines for Distributing EMAP Data and Information
via the Internet. April 30, 1995. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring and research Program (EMAP), Washington, DC.
Report prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Thoreson, H.F., D.E. Strebel and J.B. Frithsen. 1992. User requirements for Directory
Interchange Formats for EMAP. September 30,1992. Report prepared for the U.S. .
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Research Program,
Las Vegas, NV. Report prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
TPMC. 1994. User Interaction and Planning Support for EMAP-M, Technology Transfer
Design Workshop Notes. February 7, 1994. ITAS8-286. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Prepared by Technology Planning and Management Corporation,
Durham, NC. :
, —
-------
Appendix L, Partial Bibliography for EMAP IM Program
U.S. EPA. 1988. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: The Data Set Index (DSI).
Preliminary Draft, November 10,1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Atmospheric Research and Environmental Assessment Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park,NC.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Conceptual Design for the EMAP Information System. Preliminary Draft, April
11, 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atmospheric Research and
Environmental Assessment Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. R-2054. 4/92
U.S. EPA. 1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Information Management
Committee Charter. EPA/600/X-89/000. June 1990. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV. EMAP-IM, 4/92,
Shelf.
U.S. EPA. 1990. EEI-1, Mission Needs Statement EMAP. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C. R-2058. 9/98
U.S. EPA. 1990. Good automated laboratory practices: Recommendations for ensuring data
integrity in automated laboratory operations with implementation guidance. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, OIRM. Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Information Management
Committee Charter. EPA/600/X-89/000. June 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. R-2055. 4/92
U.S. EPA. 1991. EEI-1 Mission Needs Statement EMAP. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Summary of the Proof of Concept Joint Application Design (JAD) Session.
September 25, 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1993. EMAP Information Management Task Group, System Life Cycle Management
Studies Manual, (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Summary of the Proof of Concept Joint Application Design (JAD) Session U.
January 15,1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
167
-------
Appendix L, Partial Bibliography for EMAP IM Program
U.S. EPA. 1993. IMC Project Planning Requirements. Draft, February 25, 1993. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC. R-2056. 9/98.
U.S. EPA. 1993. EMAP M POC Standards Manual. Draft, July 1993. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. 1993. EMAP Information Management Task Group, System Life Cycle Management
Studies Manual, (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1994. User Guide, Prototype System for Online Access to the EMAP-Estuaries
Database. Version 0.2, June 15, 1994. (Draft version for test users only.) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett,
RI. R-2059. 9/98.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Data Catalog and Dictionary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1994. User's Guide for EMAP IM System—12/8/94. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Users guide for the EMAP UVI System: Alpha Version. Draft, January 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. R-Shelf.
U.S. EPA. 1995. EMAP Information Management Policies and Procedures. Draft, May 1995.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Administration and Resources Management, National Data Processing
Division, Research Triangle Park, NC. R-2057. 9/98
U.S. EPA. 1996. EMAP Information Management Plan, October, 1996 draft. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1996. EMAP Data Management Review Team Report, July 2, 1996 draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Addendum to: "Guidelines for the information management directory," U.S.
EPA NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI, •..
168
-------
Appendix L, Partial Bibliography for EMAP IM Program
U.S. EPA. 1996. Addendum to: "Guidelines for the information management catalog," U.S. EPA
NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): Cumulative
Bibliography, 1989-1996. Draft, March 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. R-2024. 5/97.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Update to: "Guidelines for distributing EMAP data and information via the
Internet," U,S. EPA NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.
T&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1999 - 7SO-10U00056
-------
------- |