United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Ground-Water Protection (WH-550G)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 440/6-88-005
June 1988
Office of Water
&EPA
EPA Workshop to Recommend
A Minimum Set of Data Elements
for Ground Water
Workshop Findings Report
-------
EPA WORKSHOP TO RECOMMEND
A MINIMUM SET OF DATA ELEMENTS
FOR GROUND WATER
WORKSHOP FINDINGS REPORT
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
August, 1988
-------
PREFACE
This document summarizes the results of a workshop held in Washington,
D.C. on June 6-8, 1988.
The Environmental Protection Agency sponsored the workshop and
wishes to extend its appreciation to the individuals who attended the
workshop and the organizations they represent. A list of who participated
in the workshop is included in this report.
The Agency personnel responsible for planning and overseeing the
workshop were Ms. ,Marian Mlay, Dr. Norbert Dee, and Garyle Miller of the
Office of Ground-Water Protection.
Contract support was provided by American Management Systems, Inc.
and IGF Incorporated under contracts 68-01-7281 and 68-C8-0003.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The Ground-Water Data Requirements Analysis which was completed in April
of 1987 recommended actions be taken to improve EPA's capabilities in three
critical areas: data management standards, policy, and guidance; data access
and automation; and data analysis. Because data management standards are the
fundamental building blocks necessary for use and sharing of ground-water data
to make more informed decisions, one of the Office of Ground-Water
Protection's initial efforts was to begin the development of these standards.
The first step in this process is the identification and agreement within the
Agency on a minimum set of data elements to be used in ground-water data
collection. Once the minimum set of data elements has been selected the
development of appropriate standards, formats, and policy can follow.
The project to develop a minimum set of'data elements was initiated in the
fall of 1987. A Work Group consisting of representatives from EPA program
offices, States, Regions, and other Federal Agencies was formed to provide
information on current practices concerning the use of ground-water data
elements, and to recommend to EPA a minimum set for ground-water data. The
Work Group recommendations for this minimum set are provided in this report.
Definition and Purpose
The minimum set of data elements is defined as those elements necessary to
use data from wells and springs across ground-water related programs. It is
the common set of elements which forms the basis for making ground-water
decisions. Individual programs can, however, add elements to this base to
meet their special program needs.
In addition, this minimum set is characterized by elements that:
o Are needed to communicate ground-water data across programs,
o Are common to all programs, but completely adequate for some
programs,
o Provide a road map to other data, and
o Provide a link between water quality and well location
information.
-------
The Work Group successfully reached consensus on a minimum set of data
elements for ground water, as follows:
Latitude
Longitude
Method of Measure for Latitude/Longitude
Source Agency for Latitude/Longitude Data
State FIPS Code
County FIPS Code
Altitude
Unique Well/Spring and Facility ID
Use of Well
Depth of Well at Completion
Depth to Top of Open Interval
Depth to Bottom of Open Interval
Location of Log
Type of Log
Source Agency for Sample Data
Sample Date
Parameter Measured
Concentration/Value (in standard units)
Confidence Factor (including field and lab quality assurance)
Sample ID
Depth to Water
Measurement Quantification
A number of implementation issues were identified by the Work Group that
would need to be resolved if a decision to implement the minimum set of data
elements were made by the EPA, including:
o The need for EPA to determine the degree of commitment
within the Agency and how it would be implemented across EPA
programs,
o The need for the commitment and cooperation of all other
relevant Federal agencies to ensure the collection of a
minimum set of data elements for ground water,
o The need to develop as soon as possible a data dictionary
containing definitions of the elements. Early development
of the dictionary would increase the probability of its
incorporation into many data management systems currently
under development,
o The need to develop a common format for key minimum data
elements to compensate for the present lack of data
standardization, and
-------
The need to establish links among key ground-water data
systems which would allow data managers to store data
locally but easily transfer data among systems.
-------
TABLE OF CONTESTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND WORKSHOP BACKGROUND ' 1
II. HOW THE WORKSHOP WAS CONDUCTED 2
III. FINDINGS RELATED TO THE MINIMUM S.ET OF DATA
ELEMENTS FOR GROUND WATER 3
A. Organization of Discussion Topics 3
B. Workshop Results on the Selection of a Minimum
Set of Data Elements 3
C. Minimum Set of Data Elements Discussion
Highlights 4
D. Reaching Consensus on a Minimum Set of Data
Elements 7
IV. FINDINGS RELATED TO PROGRAMMATIC AND TECHNICAL
ISSUES CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM
SET OF DATA ELEMENTS 9
A. Results of Session A: Programmatic, Organiza-
tional Issues Associated with Deciding Whether
to Implement the Minimum Set 9
B. Results of Session B: Technical Implementation
Issues 10
C. Specific Implementation Suggestions 11
D. Final Review of Minimum Set of Data Elements .. 12
APPENDIX A: Workshop Attendees
APPENDIX B: Preliminary List of Data Elements for a Minimum Set
APPENDIX C: Statements of Meaning for Elements in Recommended
Minimum Set of Data Elements
-------
MINIMUM SET OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR GROUND WATER:
WORKSHOP FINDINGS REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION AND WORKSHOP BACKGROUND
The protection of our nation's ground-water resources is receiving
widespread attention at all levels of government; accurate and accessible
ground-water data are essential to the effective protection and management
of these valuable resources. As part of the continuing implementation of
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Ground-Water Protection Strategy
and Ground-Water Monitoring Strategy, a Ground-Water Data Requirements
Analysis was completed in 1987. An issue consistently identified during the
conduct of the requirements analysis was the need to improve access to
ground-water data.
In response to this issue, EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection has
been engaged in an ongoing project to identify the tools and mechanisms
necessary to provide access to ground-water data across offices and programs
--at both the State and Federal level -- and to improve the consistency of
the data collected. In the fall of 1987, a Work Group consisting of
representatives from EPA program offices, States, Regions, and other Federal
agencies was formed to provide information on current practices concerning
the use of ground-water data elements, and to recommend to EPA a minimum set
of data elements for ground water. To facilitate the Work Group's efforts,
EPA conducted a workshop to discuss development of a minimum set of data
elements for ground water. The specific goals of the workshop, as stated to
the workshop participants, were:
• To achieve consensus on a minimum set of data elements
that would facilitate the collection and sharing of
ground-water and related data across agencies.
• To identify implementation issues that must be resolved
to encourage collection of a minimum set of data
elements throughout the ground-water community.
Work Group members who participated in the workshop (see Appendix A,
list of Workshop Attendees), were asked to represent not only the specific
interests of their particular State or Federal organization, but to reflect
the interests of the broader community of ground-water related programs and
agencies. The workshop, held in Washington, D.C., from June 6, 1988 through
June 8, 1988, concluded the Work Group's activities.
-------
-2-
II. HOW THE WORKSHOP WAS CONDUCTED
EPA selected a workshop structure which would maximize the interaction
of the diverse perspectives represented at the workshop. Work Group members
were divided into small "work groups" designed to generate detailed
discussion on workshop issues and provide EPA with the benefit of their
experience in ground-water data management. Briefly, the workshop consisted
of several key parts:
• Plenary Session - - All attendees were convened in an
opening plenary session to clarify the principal issues
presented in the workshop background materials (i.e.,
discussion guide, dictionary of elements, resource book)
and to prepare the workshop participants for the
detailed discussions to be held in the work groups.
• Work Group Sessions - - Workshop participants were
divided into four broadly representative work groups.
Led by a team leader from each group, work group
discussions focused on a series of topics related to the
composition and implementation of a minimum set of data
elements for ground water.
• Brief Reports of the Work Groups --At the conclusion of
each of the work group sessions, each work group
presented a brief oral report to the plenary session on
the conclusions they reached.
• Team Leaders Meeting - - The team leaders from the four
work groups developed a tentative proposal for a minimum
set of data elements for ground water during a
facilitated working lunch, which was then presented to
the entire group for its review.
• Review of Tentative Minimum Set of Data Elements for
Ground Water -- A plenary session was held to discuss
and make additions to or deletions from the minimum set
of data elements proposed by work group team leaders.
• Review of Minimum Set of Data Elements Programmatic and
Technical Implementation Issues - - Work group and
plenary sessions were held to discuss minimum set of
data elements programmatic and technical implementation
issues.
• Final Discussion -- A last plenary session of the
workshop was held to provide a forum for summary
comments on ideas raised during the workshop.
-------
-3-
III. FINDINGS RELATED TO THE MINIMUM SET OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR GROUND WATER
Workshop participants successfully developed consensus on a minimum set
of data elements for ground water. This section of the workshop findings
report:
• Documents the organizational structure used to discuss
the minimum set of data elements;
• Summarizes the results of the minimum set of data
elements selection process; and
• Highlights the key issues considered in the plenary
sessions on this topic.
A. Organization of Discussion Topics
Each work group was provided with a preliminary list of data elements
for a minimum set (see Appendix B) to serve as a basis for discussion. The
list reflected months of meetings and interviews with State and Federal
officials as well as items requested by Work Group members. To facilitate
consideration of the list, the ground-water data elements were divided into
four general descriptor groups:
• Geographic Descriptors -- Those elements that describe a
place, a region, an area, or a point in relation to the
earth's surface.
• Well/Spring Descriptors - - Those elements that describe
various features of a well or spring.
• Sample/Analysis Descriptors -- Those elements that
describe different aspects of obtaining or analyzing a
sample.
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors -- Those elements that provide
information on characteristics such as geologic
structure and topography.
B. Workshop Results on the Selection of A Minimum Set of Data Elements
Workshop participants believed that it was important to define what
they meant by a minimum set of data elements in order for that set to have
meaning. The participants agreed that the set would be characterized by
elements that:
Are needed to communicate ground-water data across programs;
Are common to all programs, but completely adequate for some
programs;
-------
-4-
Provide a road map to other data; and
Provide a link between water quality and well location
information.
The participants also agreed to define a minimum set of data elements
as: The elements necessary to use data from wells and springs across
ground-water related programs. The focus of this definition is to make more
informed ground-water decisions. Based on the above characteristics and
definition, the workshop participants selected a list of data elements for
inclusion in the minimum set of data elements for ground water. See Exhibit
1 on the following page for this list.
Subsequent to the workshop, the Office of Ground-Water Protection
(OGWP) developed for this Workshop Findings Report statements of meaning for
the minimum set of data elements. These statements, contained in Appendix
C, are intended to clarify the general meaning of the data elements as
discussed in the workshop. These statements of meaning are not intended,
however, to constitute an actual "data dictionary," an implementation
initiative suggested by workshop participants (see page 10).
C. Minimum Set of Data Elements Discussion Highlights
The workshop structure provided the opportunity for workshop
participants to discuss their preferences and concerns regarding a minimum
set of data elements in several plenary sessions. This section highlights
the general concerns and conclusions expressed in those plenary sessions.
The sessions are organized below in chronological order of their discussion.
Geographic Descriptors Plenary Session
• All work groups agreed that latitude and longitude
should be included in the minimum set of data elements.
• Participants from States that traditionally use the
Township, Range, Section, Quarter locational system
asserted that this should also be included as a
geographic descriptor, but most participants agreed this
element was not universal enough to include in a minimum
set of data elements.
-------
-5-
EXHIBIT 1
LIST OF MINIMUM SET OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR GROUND WATER
SELECTED BY WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Geographic Descriptors
Latitude
Longitude
Method of Measure for Latitude/Longitude
,Source Agency for Latitude/Longitude Data
State FIPS Code
County FIPS Code
Altitude
Well/Spring Descriptors
Unique Well/Spring and Facility ID
Use of Well
Depth of Well at Completion
Depth to Top of Open Interval
Depth to Bottom of Open Interval
Location of Log
Type of Log
Sample/Analysis Descriptors
Source Agency for Sample Data
Sample Date
Parameter Measured
Concentration/Value (in standard units)
Confidence Factor (including field and lab quality assurance)
Sample ID
Depth to Water
Measurement Quantification
-------
-6-
• Participants agreed that use of FTPS State and county
codes in conjunction with the use of latitude and
longitude serves as a good data quality assurance check.
• There was a general discussion about the possible use of
zip codes to identify the location of a well or spring.
It was determined that since zip codes can change, this
would not be a useful locational data element.
• Participants from one work group suggested that a unique
well number be used to identify all wells and springs in
a State and that this number should also be associated
with the other descriptor groups (i.e., well/spring
descriptors, sample/analytic descriptors and
hydrogeologic descriptors). This suggestion was
reinforced throughout later sessions.
Well/Spring Descriptor Plenary Session
• There was no consensus among participants on the
definitions for a variety of data elements, including
depth of well, use of well, and depth to the top/bottom
of open interval. As a consequence, many work group
members recommended the development of a data dictionary
to ensure that the data elements under consideration had
a common definition
• Some participants believed that the use of aquifer code
and hydrogeologic unit code could also be used as a good
data quality check, on the location of a well or spring.
Others noted that for some sections of the country, like
the Northwest, the aquifer is not easily identified.
• Participants noted that' there can be many different
types of logs associated with a given well and therefore
the field in a data system for "location of log" and
"type of log" should be a repeating field. Similarly,
since there can be more than one opening in a single
well, the field for "depth to top/bottom of open
interval" should also be a repeating field.
« It was evident from the discussion that participants
wanted as much well construction information as could
reasonably be made available. There was, however, great
difficulty in drawing the line defining how much data is
appropriate for a minimum set of data elements. In the
course of this discussion many participants noted that
much construction information is available in the well
log.
-------
-7-
Hydrogeologlc Descriptors and Sample/Analytic Descriptors Plenary Session
• Most participants agreed that although hydrogeologic
descriptors were informative, they were not absolutely
necessary and therefore should not be a part of the
minimum set of data elements for ground water. If they
were to be included, then only basic information or key
words (e.g., location of study, type of study and
abstract) would be necessary.
• Work groups noted again the essential need to establish
a solid link between the sample and well. It was
pointed out that USGS uses a combination of well number,
sample date, and time to provide a unique sample
identification number linking the water quality sample
to the well.
D- Reaching Consensus on a Minimum Set of Data Elements
Team Leaders' Meeting
Prior to the next plenary session, work group team leaders met to
develop a proposed minimum set of data elements for consideration by all
workshop participants. In formulating this proposal, work group team
leaders were asked to carefully consider all of the perspectives expressed
in the workshop, and in particular, to represent the views of their
respective work groups. To aid in the development of the tentative minimum
set of data elements, the team leaders developed a working definition for
that set, based on the workshop participants' discussion in previous
sessions. Team leaders then examined each element and determined whether it
met the definition of being a "necessary element to use data from wells and
springs across ground-water related programs." Using this process, the team
leaders developed a tentative minimum set of data elements to serve as a
point of departure for the plenary discussion which followed.
Minimum Set of Data Elements Plenary Session
The recommended minimum set of data elements that appears in Exhibit 1
was agreed to by workshop participants after their review and modification
of the tentative minimum set of data elements in the plenary session held
after the team leaders' meeting. Highlights of this plenary session include
the following:
• Many participants encouraged the inclusion of "Source
Agency" in the required group of data elements. The
-------
-8-
data managers in the workshop stated that an agency
source code was essential to good data management. This
recommendation was accepted by the group and Source
Agency was included in the minimum set under geographic
descriptors.
Participants believed that a unique well or spring ID is
an essential element for data use. While unable to
define the specific nature of this identifier,
participants felt strongly that without it, it would be
difficult to tie locational data to water quality data.
The definition of a minimum set of data elements is "The
elements necessary to use data from wells and springs
across ground-water related programs." The focus of
this definition is to make more informed ground-water
decisions. Some participants were concerned about the
elements necessary for entry into a computer database.
This is not a minimum set for making decisions but a
"gatekeeper" similar to a password for computer entry.
Although many participants use or create hydrogeologic
data, none of the descriptors in this category were
considered absolutely necessary to use data from wells
and springs across ground-water related programs. As a
consequence, the hydrogeologic descriptor category was
dropped from the minimum set of data elements.
Participants discussed the difficulty of providing a
unique well ID at sites with many wells. For example,
the amount and location of monitoring wells at some
sites change over time, making individual well
identification difficult. Despite these difficulties,
participants agreed the concept was important and
identified two essential characteristics for a unique
well ID: (1) the well ID should never change; and (2)
the well ID should not be duplicated.
There was a general discussion about geopositioning and
the efforts by cartographers to better define the
relationship between a real world physical location and
its map location.
*- Computer entry gatekeeper elements are: latitude, longitude, method
of measure for latitude/longitude, source agency for latitude/longitude
data, State FIPS code, county FIPS code, unique well/spring and facility ID,
source agency for sampling data, sample date, parameter measured,
concentration/value, and confidence factor.
-------
-9-
IV. FINDINGS RELATED TO PROGRAMMATIC AND TECHNICAL ISSUES CONCERNING
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM SET OF DATA ELEMENTS
After reaching tentative closure on a minimum set of data elements,
participants were asked to consider issues that would affect its
implementation. These issues were divided into two general topic areas and
discussed in separate work group and plenary sessions. Session "A" was
designed to discuss the broader programmatic, organizational, and resource
issues associated with deciding whether to implement the minimum set of data
elements. Session "B" was based on the assumption that EPA or another
agency had reached an agreement to implement a minimum set of data elements
(Session A). Therefore, Session B addressed the more day-to-day
implementation issues such as: technical issues of collection, software
access, coding, and other technical barriers to implementing a minimum set
of data elements.
A. Results of Session A: Programmatic. Organizational and Resource
Issues Associated with Deciding Whether to Implement the Minimum
Set
Plenary presentations by work groups on this topic overlapped
considerably, with most groups identifying a similar set of programmatic,
organizational, and resource issues affecting the implementation of the
minimum set of data elements. The issues presented by the work groups in
this session, as summarized below, fell into two general categories:
Federal commitment and education and training.
• Federal Commitment -- Workshop participants were
concerned that without the commitment of all relevant
Federal agencies, implementation of the minimum set of
data elements would be difficult, if not impossible. To
resolve this issue, -participants suggested that EPA
"lead by example" and demonstrate a commitment to
implementation of the minimum set of data elements by
implementing the set within its own programs. To
further demonstrate Federal commitment, participants
stated that EPA should cooperate with USGS and other
Federal agencies (e.g., NOAA, USDA) to ensure collection
and implementation of the minimum set of data elements
at the Federal level.
• Education and Training - - Workshop participants
discussed the issue of how to encourage agencies and
others in the ground-water community to collect the
minimum set of data elements. Participants agreed that
one solution was to educate Federal, State, local
government organizations, and others on the benefits of
-------
-10-
the minimum set of data elements. They stated that
education and training is a key to developing a spirit
of cooperation and a clear recognition of the benefits
accrued through the use of the minimum set of data
elements.
B. Results of Session B: Technical Implementation Issues
Workshop participants were also given the opportunity in work groups
and a plenary session to discuss the technical issues involved in the
implementation of the minimum set of data elements if the decision were made
by EPA or another agency to implement a minimum set of data elements
(Session A). It was recognized that a number of implementation issues are
affected by the practical, day-to-day factors involved in data collection,
storage, and transmission. For example, ground-water data is frequently
collected in a variety of forms using different definitions and codes.
Because many States and programs are currently developing ground-water data
management systems, workshop participants also stated that the timing of
ground-water data management initiatives is critical, i.e., rapid
implementation of a minimum set of data elements will increase the
probability of its incorporation into many data management systems currently
under development.
The workshop participants agreed that the first implementation issue
that needed to be addressed after the decision to proceed had been made was
the development of a data dictionary containing definitions of the elements
in the minimum set of data elements for ground water. While there was some
disagreement about whether the use of common codes and formats was necessary
in every case, there was consensus on the need for development of a data
dictionary as soon as possible.
In addition to the data dictionary, workshop participants commented on
technical implementation issues in the areas of data standardization, data
repositories, and organizational commitment, as summarized below.
• Data Standardization - - Workshop participants agreed
that a lack of data standardization could hinder efforts
to implement a minimum set of data elements. As
mentioned above, participants agreed that the first step
in data standardization should be the development of a
data dictionary for the minimum set of data elements.
Participants also highlighted the need for key minimum
data elements, such as latitude/longitude, date, and
altitude, to have a common format. Beyond this
agreement, there were various opinions regarding the
necessity of using common codes and formats for ground-
-------
-11-
water data. Some believed that software conversion
programs could remedy the problem of different codes.
Others felt that common codes and formats were more
important and should be developed and implemented.
• Data Repositories -- Participants noted that
implementation of the minimum set of data elements may
be hampered because there are few central storage
locations for ground-water data and a general lack of
automation of ground-water data. To improve the storage
of ground-water data, some work groups suggested EPA
should encourage the use of existing repositories,
establish links among key ground-water data systems, and
plan for the future consolidation or linkage of major
ground-water data systems. It was also noted that a
central repository for ground-water data was not
required and may be unrealistic. Rather than use a
central repository, participants emphasized that data
managers could store data locally and employ standard
communication protocols to transfer data among systems.
• Organizational Commitment --As mentioned in Session A,
workshop participants emphasized the need for EPA to
implement the minimum set of data elements within its
own programs and for USGS and EPA to obtain agreement on
collection and use of the minimum set of data elements
across their programs. Workshop participants noted,
however, that the need for organizational commitment was
not limited to the Federal and State arenas. They
stated that professional organizations would also need
to be involved in encouraging implementation of a
minimum set of data elements. Participants suggested
that organizations such as ASTM could be used to train
its members and help disseminate information about the
collection and use of the minimum set of data elements
for ground water.
C. Specific Implementation Suggestions
Throughout the discussion of implementation issues, a number of
specific implementation suggestions were agreed to by a majority of the
participants which were not related specifically to a particular issue.
These suggestions are listed below to provide examples of the types of
initiatives that participants believed would facilitate implementation of a
minimum set of data elements.
• Develop CIS capabilities applicable to ground-water
data.
• Develop implementation guidance for the minimum set of data
elements.
-------
-12-
Enhance STORET to incorporate the minimum set of data
elements.
Develop an index of ground-water data holdings in each
State.
Develop a pilot program or demonstration on the use of a
well index using a unique well or spring ID in a State.
D. Final Review of Minimum Set: of Data Elements
After discussing issues affecting implementation, workshop participants
were given a final opportunity to review and modify the minimum set of data
elements based on the implementation discussions. Although there was some
discussion of whether specific elements in the set should be excluded or
included if the minimum set of data elements were required, no additions or
deletions were made to the set agreed to the previous day.
-------
APPENDIX A
WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
-------
WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
Work Group Members
Joe Abe
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
Mail Code WH565E
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, B.C. 20460
(202) 382-4654
Bernard Baker
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13231
Austin, Texas 78711-3231
(512) 445-1425
Claud Baker
U.S. Geological Survey
1950 Constant Avenue - Campus West
Lawrence, Kansas 66046
(913) 864-4321
Don Clark
Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Room 6132
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 382-0136
Bob Clarke
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-9470
Wendy Blake Coleman
U.S. EPA
Office of Drinking Water
Underground Injection Control Branch
Mail Code WH550E
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7594
Russ Darr
Washington Department of Ecology
PV11
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 438-7067
-------
A-2
Marlyn Glasscock
Department of Environmental Regulation
Bureau of Ground-Water Protection
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
(904) 488-3601
Matthew Gubitosa
U.S. EPA
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 442-1219
Patrick Holden
U.S. EPA
Office of Pesticide Programs
Mail Code TS769C
Room 700, CM-2
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(703) 557-7328
Patricia Janssen
Department of Defense
Environmental Engineering
206 North Washington Street
Suite 100
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(202) 325-2215
Eric Koglin
U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-3478
(702) 798-2432
John Larson
Montana Department of Agriculture
Environmental Management Division
Agriculture/Livestock Building
Capital Station
Helena, Montana 59620-0205
(406) 444-2944
-------
A-3
Paul Lewis
Texas Water Commission
Hazardous and Solid Waste Division
P.O. Box 13087
Capital Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-8425
Phil Lindenstruth
U.S. EPA
Office of Information Resources Management
Mail Code PM218B
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7220
Alan Lulloff
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Ground Water Management Section
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
(608) 266-0126
Donnie McClaugherty
Department of Environmental Regulations
Bureau of Ground-Water Protection
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
(904) 488-3601
Mary Lou Melley
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Mail Code WH562A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 475-6760
Bill Melville
U.S. EPA
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-1503
Ron Mikulak
U.S. EPA
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-3866
-------
A-4
Tom Murray
U.S. EPA
Office of Toxic Substances
Mail Code TS798
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, B.C. 20460
(202) 382-3987
Diane Niedzialkowski
U.S. EPA
Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
Mail Code PM222A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4900
Rick Otis
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Mail Code WH562A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4510
Cathy Primm
Missouri Division of Geology and Land Survey
P.O. Box 250
111 Fairgrounds Road
Bolla, Missouri 65401
(314) 364-1752
Donna Runkle
U.S. Geological Survey
215 Dean McGee
Room 621
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
(405) 231-4256
Ann Ryan
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
AMXTH-TE
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010
(301) 671-3206
Susan Schreifels
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Ground Water and Solid Waste Division
520 Lafayette
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
(612) 296-8112
-------
A-5
Paul Summers
Bureau of Land Management
Mail Code D-470
P.O. Box 25047
Building 50
Federal Center
Lakewood, Colorado 80225
<303) 236-0151
Cynthia Warner
U.S. EPA
Office of Information Resources Management
Mail Code PM211D
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 475-8675
Jerry Widdowson
U.S. EPA
Office of Water
Mail Code WH547
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7818
W- Martin Williams
U.S. EPA
Office of Pesticide Programs
Mail Code TS769C
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(703) 557-2128
Walter Winn
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
6001 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 443-8061
Other Workshop Attendees
Paul Bailey
IGF Incorporated
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-1207
(703) 934-3000
-------
A-6
Norbert Dee
U.S. EPA
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Mail Code WH550G
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7077
Colt Gregory
American Management System
1777 North Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(703) 841-6318
Jack Mathias
American Management Systems
1777 North Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(703) 841-6359
Lewis Michaelson
ICF Technology Incorporated
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-1207
(703) 934-3000
Caryle Miller
U.S. EPA
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Mail Code WH550G
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7077
Marian Mlay, Director
Office of Ground-Water Protection
U.S. EPA
Mail Code WH550G
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7077
-------
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY LIST OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR A MINIMUM SET
-------
PRELIMINARY LIST OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR A MINIMUM SET
GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTOR GROUP
• Latitude
• Longitude
• Method of Measure for Latitude/Longitude
• Confidence Code for Latitude/Longitude
• Altitude
• Method of Measure for Altitude
• Confidence Code for Altitude
• State FIPS Code
• County FIPS Code
• Township, Range, Section, Quarter*
WELL/SPRING DESCRIPTOR GROUP
Unique Site Identifier
Legal Contact: Name, Address, Telephone
Date Well was Completed
Construction Method
Depth of Hole
Depth to Top of Interval
Depth to Bottom of Interval
Depth to Top of Casing
Depth to Bottom of Casing
Type of Log
Source of Log Data
Location of Well Log
Status of Well or Spring
Use of Well or Spring
Aquifer Code
Hydrologic Unit
Casing Material*
Depth of Well*
Source Agency*
SAMPLE/ANALYSIS DESCRIPTOR GROUP
Unique Sample Identification Number
Purpose of Sample
Confidence Factor
Date of Sample
Time of Sample
Method of Taking Sample
Type of Sample
Depth to Water
Date Water Level Measured
Method of Water Level Measurement
Indicates elements that were added to the list by request of a workshop
participant after reviewing the original list sent to participants prior
to the workshop being held.
-------
B-2
SAMPLE/ANALYSIS DESCRIPTOR GROUP (continued)
Source of Water Level Data
Laboratory Identification Number
Method of Analysis
Date of Analysis
Type of Analysis
Parameter Measured
Concentration/Value
Measurement Quantification
Confidence Code for Parameter Analyzed
Conduc t ivi ty*
pH*
Suspected Origin of Constituent*
HYDROGEOLOGIC DESCRIPTOR GROUP
• Type of Hydrogeologic event (A hydrogeologic study is an example
of a hydrogeologic event)
• Abstract of Hydrogeologic Event
• Location of Hydrogeologic Reports
Indicates elements that were added to the list by request of a workshop
participant after reviewing the original list sent to participants prior
to the workshop being held.
-------
APPENDIX C
STATEMENTS OF MEANING FOR ELEMENTS IN
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM SET OF DATA ELEMENTS
-------
STATEMENTS OF MEANING
The following statements of meaning are meant to provide some clarification
as to possible definitions that will be developed for the elements in the
Minimum Set of Data Elements.
Latitude
The angular distance north or south from the Earth's equator measured
through 90 degrees. The length of a degree varies from 68.704 statute
miles at the equator to 69.407 at the poles because of the flattened
configuration of the Earth. The length of a second is approximately
100 feet. [USGS]
Longitude
The angular distance, measured in degrees, due east or west from the
prime meridian that runs between the north and south poles and passes
through Greenwich, England. The length of a degree varies from 69.65
statute miles at the Equator to zero miles at the poles. The length of
a second is a little over 100 feet at the equator and about 78 feet at
the 40 degree latitudinal parallel which passes through the approximate
middle of the United States. [USGS]
Method of Measure for Latitude/Longitude
The method used to determine the latitude/longitude such as surveyed,
from a USGS quad sheet, and so forth.
Source Agency for Latitude/Longitude Data
The Agency that reported the data.
State Federal Information Processing Standard Code (FTPS)
An established standard that is a two digit number representing the
state in which the well or spring is physically located.
County Federal Information Processing Standard Code (FIPS)
An established standard that is a three digit number of the county or
county equivalent in which the well or spring is physically located.
Altitude
The altitude of the land surface at the well or spring above or below
mean sea level, in feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
-------
C-2
Well/Spring and Facility Identification
An identification to be developed for each well or spring, that never
changes and is never duplicated.
An identification, where applicable, that establishes a tie or linkage
between a well or a spring and the facility on which it is located.
Use of Well
The principal use of a well or spring or the purpose for which the well
was constructed (the former always holds precedence over the latter).
[after USGS]
Depth of Well at Completion
The elevation at the completion depth of the well in feet above or
below mean sea level (NGVD).
Depth to Top of Open Interval
Depth to the point where the opening begins, in feet below land
surface. The first section of the opening always begins at depth 0.
[after USGS]
Depth to Bottom of Open Interval
Depth to the bottom of the open interval, in feet below land surface.
[after USGS]
Location of Well Log
The physical location of the well log, such as the Agency name and
address where the log is located.
Type of Well Log
Identifies the type of well log: a physical description of the rock
cuttings of the different formations penetrated, such as a driller's
log; or a continuous recording of the electrical, radioactive, acoustic
and/or other properties of the penetrated formations, such as an
electric log.
Source Agency for Sample Data
The Agency that reported the data.
Sample Date
The date on which the sampling event occurred.
-------
C-3
Sample Identification
An identification to be developed to uniquely identify each sample
taken, it may include several factors, such as sampling purpose, field
conditions , field protocol.
Parameter Measured
The specific chemical for which an analysis is made.
Concentration/Value
The numerical value (concentration or quantity) detected by the
parameter test (in standard units).
Confidence Factor
An element that can include field and laboratory quality assurance, and
other factors that provide the degree of confidence the data source has
in the value reported.
Depth to Water
The water level at the well or spring, in feet below land surface.
[after USGS]
Measurement Quantification
A method of quantification of a parameter.
*U.S. Government Printing Office : 1988 - 516-002/80236
------- |