United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off Ice of
Ground-Water Protection
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Information
Resources Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
May 1987
&EPA
Water
Ground - Water Data
Requirements Analysis
-------
GROUND-WATER DATA REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
This document was prepared as the result of a joint
effort between the Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Ground-Water Protection, Marian Ml ay,
Director, and the Office of Information Resources
Management, Edward J. Hanley, Director. Key
contributors to this effort include:
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Norbert Dee
Caryle Miller
Office of Information Resources Management
Thomas E. Kern
Gordon Schisler
Constance Tasker
Contract support was provided under GSA contract
GS-OOK-85AFD-2777, Task W6800-035
May 1987
-------
1
Ground-Water Data Requirements Analysis Project
-— EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -—
1. BACKGROUND
The Office of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) and the Office of
Information Resources Management (OIRM) are jointly conducting an analysis of
EPA’s ground-water data management requirements. The project describes the
information needs of EPA and state decision makers, identifies existing data
management policies and systems, and recommends specific projects to improve
ground—water data management. This study is part of the continuing
implementation of EPA’s Ground-Water Protection Strategy and Ground-Water
Monitoring Strategy.
The study focuses on the key role played by the states in implementing
the nation’s environmental programs. By focusing on the federal/state
partnership in the area of ground-water data management, the project promotes
the Agency’s objective of “environmental federalism” and reinforces the
state/EPA data management pilots being performed in each region.
1.1 Study Objectives
The objective of this study is to define a management framework and
data utility that EPA and states can use to store, share, and manipulate
ground—water data to support better environmental decision-making, and to
identify specific initiatives by which this framework can be implemented.
1.2 Approach of the Study
The ground-water data requirements developed in this study are based on
over 300 structured interviews conducted nationwide with EPA Headquarters,
Regions, state and local governments, and other federal agencies. The work
included a review of the relevant literature, documentation and demonstrations
of existing ground-water data systems.
A Ground-Water Data Requirements Analysis Policy Committee -- comprised
of senior managers from EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, ASIWPCA, and states --
provided overall direction for the work. All detailed findings, conclusions,
and recommendations developed during the project were thoroughly reviewed by a
staff-level EPA work group.
The project began by assessing how EPA and state decision makers now
use ground—water data to make decisions and defining key unmet needs. The
analysis of these requirements against existing EPA and state ground—water
data practices and systems led to the development of a series of conclusions
and recommendations in areas such as data standards and policy, data access
and sharing, data automation, and data analysis. These findings were used to
develop a set of initiatives to improve ground—water data management.
-------
2
2. REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Ground—water data management is growing more important and complex.
Because environmental programs have focused on ground—water for a
relatively short period, EPA has only recently begun to assess ground-water
issues, such as data management, on an Agency-wide basis.
Ground-water data management is becoming increasingly more difficult as
a result of organizational and programmatic changes in several areas:
• Progrartluatic growth
• Cross-program interactions
• Organizational diversity
• Volumes of data.
EPA must act quickly to provide the necessary leadership to Regions, states,
localities, and others to avoid development of duplicative, incompatible
procedures and systems and implement a common approach to ground-water data
management.
2.2 EPA and states have equivalent needs to store, access, and analyze
ground-water data.
Together, EPA and the states implement the nation’s ground-water
protection and clean—up programs. EPA and the states both have operational
responsibilities that require the use of ground-water data, such as issuing
permits, selecting inspection targets, identifying areas of vulnerability and
contamination, pursuing enforcement actions, and planning and executing site
clean—ups. Because EPA and the states make similar decisions, efforts are
ongoing In several states to integrate ground-water data across all relevant
environmental programs, including drinking water, pesticides, RCRA, and well
permitting. The focus of the state programs is currently operational support.
Similarly, EPA Regions -- in the role of program oversight and, in some
cases, program operations -- have a need for ground-water data. In addition,
EPA laboratories need accurate water quality data for research and special
studies. EPA Headquarters needs information to analyze long-term trends,
evaluate program effectiveness, and develop standards, policy, and guidance.
2.3 The most important ground-water data requirements can be best satisfied
through management Initiatives -- not a new data system.
Investments in management, data standards, procedures, and training
will yield greater pay-off S than would a new computer system. The key
characteristics of ground-water data management today are:
• There are no common standards or formats for collecting and
storing ground—water data.
-------
3
• Ground-water data is stored in many locations, organizations,
files, and formats and little data is automated.
• The volume of ground-water data is large and growing rapidly.
• EPA Regions and states vary widely in their ground—water data,
management procedures and systems.
2.4 Decision makers need improved capabilities in three areas -— data
access, data retrieval, and data analysis.
Three major needs were consistently identified by the interviewees:
• Improved access to ground-water data. There are four general
types of ground-water data: (1) well descriptors, such as well
location, type, purpose, elevation and status; (2) hydrogeologic
descriptors, such as geologic structure, stratigraphy, and
topography; (3) water quality/sample descriptors, such as sample
type, sample identifiers, and analytic method; and (4) related
descriptors, including site descriptors, health effects, and
demographic data. Ground-water data users need access to these
four major data types to support program operations, but there are
currently several barriers which prevent data access, including:
—- Lack of common data standards, formats, and guidance for
ground-water data collection and storage
-- Lack of knowledge on available sources of ground-water data
—— High “transaction costs” of physically retrieving and
interpreting the data.
The ability to access data collected by other programs is one of
the most important requirements of ground-water data users.
Decision makers stressed the need to base their actions on all
relevant information, not just data collected by a single program.
• Easier retrieval of ground-water data. While enormous amounts of
ground-water data are collected from ambient ground-water
monitoring networks, site monitoring reports, and special studies,
data is not readily available. The users need to retrieve data
from their own programs and sources to perform trend analysis used
to Identify potential problem areas and analyze program
effectiveness. Barriers to easier retrieval include physical
distance, lack of training, hardware incompatibilities, missing
documentation, and limited resources for user support.
• Simple data analysis. EPA Regions and states stressed the need
for basic data manipulation and analytic capabilities, not highly
sophisticated features. Decision makers in states and EPA Regions
need basic analytical tools, such as trend analysis, statistics,
business graphics, and simple maps. Most users have a limited
ability to take advantage of advanced tools such as complex models
-------
4
and three-dimensional mapping. In contrast, EPA Headquarters
users are more often interested in additional sophistication for
detailed site-specific studies and regional or national surveys.
2.5 Enhanced ground—water data management procedures wifl apply to new
information, not historical data.
EPA, states, localities, contractors, and regulated facilities have
collected tremendous volumes of ground-water data. For example, a single RCRA
facility can have dozens of wells, each being monitored for dozens of
parameters on a quarterly basis; some RCRA land disposal sites are so complex
and important that EPA has already accumulated many linear feet of manual
ground—water data files for a single facility. This volume of ground-water
data will grow rapidly as EPA and the states implement new or expanded
programs (such as underground storage tanks and Superfund amendments) that
stress ground-water protection and clean-up.
The quality and format of this data varies widely. Many different
organizations collect and store ground-water data, each using their own
scientific and management practices. In addition, some earlier data
collection and laboratory analysis practices have produced data of unknown
quality. It may be possible to clean up some of the historical data, but the
costs would be high and the returns uncertain. Therefore, new ground-water
data management procedures will apply only to newly collected information.
2.6 Investments in data standards and policies are essential to further
promote effective sharing and use of ground-water data.
A fundamental building block necessary for sharing ground-water data is
common standards and formats for the collection and storage of ground—water
data. Ground-water data users, especially in the field, require the ability
to share and integrate ground-water data across programs.
One major barrier to sharing data across programs is the lack of common
data standards and formats. Many programs use different pararneteric codes to
Identify ground-water contaminants. With standardized codes information
collected by different programs could be integrated more easily. Standards
may exist within a program such as the Superfund contract laboratory program
and the chemical parameter codes associated with STORET, but they are not
uniform across all programs. The results are a reduction in the quantity and
value of data that Is shared and barriers to integration of data to meet
operational requirements to access, retrieve, and analyze ground-water data.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
Several alternative scenarios were identif led for improving
ground-water data management, ranging from the continuation of existing
activities to undertaking a set of new and ambitious Initiatives to create a
fully integrated ground—water data environment. In reviewing these options,
the EPA and state managers that constitute the Ground-Water Data Requirements
Analysis Policy Committee reached a consensus on several topics:
-------
5
• Investments in improved ground—water data management are necessary
and justif led, although improvements should be phased in over time
to limit risk and minimize disruption.
• Existing and proposed projects for improving ground—water data
management must be carefully coordinated and managed to maximize
their pay—off.
• New ground—water data standards and practices must be voluntarily
adopted by states, EPA Regions, and EPA program offices —- they
cannot be imposed effectively from above.
where
guidance;
area, a
activities
Figure 1
implemented
ground-water
begin as soon
Based on the Policy Committee’s input, there are three critical areas
action is required: (1) data management standards, policy, and
(2) data access and automation; and (3) data analysis. In each
specific project or projects are recommended based on EPA ’s current
and the potential for increased effectiveness and efficiency.
identifies seven of the most important initiatives that should be
beginning in the next one-to—two years to begin improving
data management. Early planning of these initiatives should
as practical to support the required budgeting actions.
3.1 Data Management Standards, Policy, and Guidance
Data management standards, policy, and guidance are the rules that
determine how ground—water data is collected and stored. Users cannot now
easily combine or aggregate ground-water data from different sources because
it is stored in a variety of formats using incompatible codes and conventions.
3.1.1 Current EPA Activities in this Area
Full utilization of the ground-water data generated from existing EPA,
state, and local programs will require a coordinated approach to collecting
and storing such data. Ground—water data includes well descriptors,
hydrogeologic descriptors, ground-water quality/sample descriptors, and
relat d descriptors. Although EPA has not been organized to manage
ground-water data as a shared resource, there are significant efforts
currently underway to enhance ground-water data integration and use. These
efforts when linked with the new projects recommended here will combine to
remove one of the major barriers to sharing ground-water data.
OIRM has initiated several projects which focus specifically on data
standards:
• An agency-wide
and under review.
data standards policy is currently in draft form
• Data standards
areas, including
chemical substance
policy guidelines are being
facility Identification,
code, and electronic data
developed in specific
geographic location,
transmi ssion.
-------
6
Figure 1
Selected Investments to Improve Ground-Water Data Management
Investment
Fiscal Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1. Ground-Water Data
Standards
2. STORET Enhancements
3. Baseline Report
(Catalogue) on Ground-
Water Data Sources
4. Catalogue of Ground-
Water Data Sources
5. Catalogue of Ground-
Water Data Analysis
Tools
6. GIS Planning and
Development
7. Ground-Water Data
Management Conference
—
-------
7
3.1.2 Reconinended Initiatives
It is recommended that EPA compliment its current efforts by pursuing
several additional initiatives in data management standards, policy, and
guidance:
• Establish a ground-water data standards work group. The work
group would be chaired by OGWP with membership from OIRM, states,
key EPA offices, and other Federal agencies. Its charter should
be to define and clarify specifically where ground-water data
standards and quality assurance/quality control guidelines are
needed (such as well descriptors, hydrogeologic descriptors, and
water quality/sample descriptors) in light of factors such as
cost-effectiveness and program—specific needs. This would be
coordinated with the Office of Research and Development (ORO) and
the program offices in the development of their data quality
objectives.
• Develop standard record formats. After the work group has defined
the data standards, a standard record format would be developed
for each of the relevant types of ground-water data. These
formats would provide consistency in how key ground-water data
would be recorded either in automated or manual systems. Standard
record formats allow states and others to develop and use their
own system and still provide EPA, when requested, compatible data.
• Improve STORET to store new QA/QC data. Ground-water data which
meets the data standards developed by EPA and which elects storage
in STORET, will need to be stored separately from historic data.
Over time this process will produce a data base which meets the
“good housekeeping seal of approval”.
• Hold data management conferences, presentations, and workshops.
In order to educate the states on the application and use of
ground-water data standards and formats, workshops and conferences
will be held, perhaps coordinated with the second ASIWPCA
integrated data management conference. In addition, such training
presentations may also focus on the use of other EPA or federal
agency data bases which store ground-water data. EPA recognizes
the importance of training (“technology transfer”) in ensuring
that improved standards and procedures are effectively implemented
in states and EPA Regions.
3.2 Data Access and Automation
Data access is the ability to obtain and use data from other
organizations, possibly including ground-water data bases tailored to
program-specific needs. Most ground-water data Is now stored in manual files,
with access and retrieval complicated by a lack of knowledge of the locations
and characteristics of that data.
3.2.1 Current EPA Activities in this Area
EPA recognizes that ground-water data is generated by many different
Federal, state, and local programs and offices. This diversity of data
-------
8
sources can make accessing needed information difficult. Even where data
sources are known, transactions costs associated with accessing data are high.
There are no current efforts agency wide to establish a method to inventory
and locate ground—water data sources. Inaddition, several states currently
use STORET for the storage and manipulation of ground-water data. To assist
STORET ground-water data users, OGWP has prepared a manual that defines the
procedures for entering ground-water data into STORET. This manual has been
distributed to the states, EPA Regions, and other federal agencies.
3.2.2 Recommended Initiatives
It is recommended that EPA:
Develop a Baseline Report (Catalogue) on ground-water data
sources. A “how to” catalogue of relevant EPA, major state, and
other national ground-water data systems and sources is
recommended. The catalogue would define the location and types of
data available from key ground-water data sources. Should this
approach prove successful other catalogues may be developed. For
example, a catalogue on available analytic tools or data stored in
manual files may prove of value. Users of the baseline catalogue
would be surveyed to evaluate how well it responds to their needs
and to suggest future initiatives to further improve access to
ground-water data.
. Improve STORET user-friendly access and retrieval capabilities.
OIRM should identify specific enhancements to STORET to improve
user access, storage, and analytical capabilities, including the
development of user-friendly interface to aid the non-computer
professional. In addition, STORET will be modified to provide for
consistency with EPA’s ground-water data standards.
3.3 Data Analysis
Data analysis is the manipulation of raw ground-water data to identify
trends or patterns in ground-water quality. Data analysis tools include
statistics, modelling, mapping, report generation, and graphics.
3.3.1 Current EPA Activities In this Area
There are several initiatives to enhance the EPA’s ground-water data
analysis capabilities. For example, the RCRA Ground—Water Task Force is
implementing a PC-based workbench to support RCRA site management by storing
and analyzing RCRA monitoring data, generating reports, and modelling
migration of subsurface contaminants. It provides two—dimensional mapping
capabilities to display the various data themes stored In the computer memory.
With the Improvement of geographic information system (GIS) technology,
many states are moving ahead with the development of state-based geographic
information systems. EPA’s Office of Information Resources Management
recognizes the benefits of this emerging technology and is currently
developing a GIS policy statement for the IRM Steering Committee and Is
working with ORD and OPPE to prepare a more detailed GIS guidelines document.
-------
9
EPA is conducting GIS development and pilot projects in Region IV (Atlanta),
ORD/EMSL (Las Vegas), the Chesapeake Bay Program, and the Corvalis Laboratory
(acid deposition).
3.3.2 Recomended Initiatives
The growing volume and complexity of ground-water data has led many
states to investigate the use of analytic tools for the manipulation of
ground—water data. Several states have pursued the investigation of GIS
capabilities. The study team proposes some activities to examine and evaluate
the role of GIS’s in the manipulation and analysis of ground-water data.
• Geographic Information Systems. There are several ongoing
activities in the states and Regions, at EPA Laboratories, and
Headquarters, which will better define any new needs in GIS.
Further initiatives should await the Spring ‘87 release of the
Agency’s GIS Policy and Guidelines as well as the results of
OIRM’s GIS requirements analysis. Possible future initiatives
might include the development of “centers of excellence” to
promote use of GIS by EPA offices, acquisition of common data
bases and other resources on a centralized basis for use by GIS
managers, and promotion of linkages between EPA and state GIS
applications.
3.4 Management Actions Needed to Improve Ground-Water Data Management
This summary has stressed the importance of management actions over the
need for new technology and systems. In addition, the effective
implementation of these initiatives requires the attention, support, and
participation of the senior management at EPA. Specifically EPA can:
• Develop a work group with representation from each AA level
office. The existence of a work group for these initiatives
provides one unified, centralized, coordinating and planning focus
in the area of ground-water data management. Such a group will
require the active high-level participation of EPA senior managers
to develop consensus on ground-water data management issues and
problems. Cross-agency representation ensures that these efforts
are coordinated with other efforts which may be pursued in each
Office.
• Maintain the existing policy conmiittee under OIRM/OGWP.
Ground-water data management issues affect EPA Headquarters,
Regions, states, and localities. Policy Committee oversight and
direction ensures that the initiatives are coordinated with EPA
policy directives. Members on this committee should be rotated to
ensure broad participation In the effort.
• Provide core funding for OGWP and 0 1R14. Key projects should
receive core funding for OGWP and OIRM to ensure ground-water data
management Initiatives retain the agency-wide perspective and
focus required.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOR
GROUNDWATER DATA REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Project Background and Approach I-i
1k. Project Background 1-2
B. Study Purpose 1-3
C. Project Methodology 1-4
II. Findings and Conclusions 1 1-1
A. General Types of Ground-water Data Required, Data
Volume, and Use 11-3
B. Findings Related to Ground-Water Data Management,
Standards, Policy, and Guidance 11-10
C. Findings Related to Access and Automation of
Ground-Water Data 11—15
0. Findings Related to Ground-Water Data Analysis
Capabilities 11—20
III. Alternatives For Improving Ground-Water Data Management 1 1 1-1
A. Overview of Data Management Scenarios 1 1 1-1
B. Scenario A -- Continue Current Activities; No Major
New Initiatives 111—4
C. Scenario B -- Put in Place Basic Building Blocks for
Improved Ground-Water Data Management 111-8
D. Scenario C -- Integrate Ground—Water Data Capabilities
in Selected Areas 11146
E. Scenario 0 -- Achieve Fully Integrated and Consistent
Data Management 111-24
IV. Recoaiiiendations IV-1
A. Decision Framework IV-1
B. EPA Should Implement Scenario B -- Put in Place Basic
Building Blocks for Improved Ground-Water Data Management
-- Over the Next Three Years IV-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
V. Implementation Plan V-i
A. Initiatives in Data Management Standardc, Policy and
Guidance v-i
B. Initiatives in Data Access and Automation V-2
C. Initiatives in Data Analysis V-5
-------
EXHIBITS
Il—i Key Findings and Their Iniplications for Ground-Water
Data Management
What Types of Ground-Water Data are Needed
Priority for Ground-Water Data Sharing
I l l-i Key Initiatives By Scenario 111-3
111—2 111—6
111—3 111—7
111—4 I ll—lU
III-5A
‘Il—li
III—5B 111—13
II1—5C 111—15
111—6 111—18
III—7A
111-19
111—78 111—21
I1I—7C 111—22
111—8 111—25
III-9A
111-26
III—9B 111—27
III-9C 111—28
11-2
11-3
PAGE
11-2
11-4
11-9
Scenario A: Initiatives and Impact
Scenario A: Initiatives and Current Activities
Scenario B: Initiatives and Impact
Scenario B: Data Management Standards, Policy and
Guidance Initiatives
Scenario B: Data Access and Automation Initiatives
Scenario B: Data Analysis Initiatives
Scenario C: Initiatives and Impact
Scenario C: Data Management Standards, Policy and
Guidance Initiatives
Scenario C: Data Access and Automation Initiatives
Scenario C: Data Analysis Initiatives
Scenario 0: Initiatives and Impact
Scenario D: Data Management Standards, Policy and
Guidance Initiatives
Scenario D: Data Access and Automation Initiatives
Scenario D: Data Analysis Initiatives
Iv— 1
Critical Near-Term Initiatives for Scenario B
IV-4
-------
I—1
CHAPTER I. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND APPROACH
The Office of Ground Water Protection (OGWP) and the Office of
Information Resources Management (OIRM) are jointly conducting an effort to
define ground-water data management requirements for the Environmental
Protection Agency. This ground-water requirements analysis document is the
result of over 300 interviews with EPA, State and local officials responsible
for ground—water related activities. It defines key ground—water requirements
and presents several alternative scenarios for improving ground-water data
management, ranging from the continuation of existing activities to
undertaking a set of new and ambitious initiatives to create a fully
integrated ground-water data environment.
This document is accompanied by an Executive Summary which presents a
brief outline of key ground—water data management requirements and initiatives
to strengthen ground—water data management for EPA and States. It also
includes a valuable set of appendicles which provide the analytic basis for
the study and offer insights Into the key program decisions supported with
ground-water data. The chapters following the Executive Summary provide a
detailed review of study findings and conclusions and are organized in the
following manner:
• Chapter I: Project Background and Approach -- Provides an overview
of the project purpose, structure and methodology.
• Chapter II: Findings and Conclusions -- Presents the ground-water
data, organizational, and functional requirements within the
framework of four major areas.
—- Types of Ground—Water Data Required
—- Ground-Water Data Management, Standards, Policy, and Guidance
—- Access to and Automation of Ground-Water Data
—- Ground-Water Data Analytic Capabilities
• Chapter III: Alternatives for Improving Ground-Water Data
Management -- Provides an analysis and discussion of four possible
alternatives or scenarios for addressing ground-water data
management requirements.
• Chapter IV: Recommendations -- Presents report recommendations.
-------
1—2
• Chapter V: Implementation P1
for implementation by the
Committee and the associated
• AppendiCieS: Appendicies
findings, conclusions,
AppendiCies D, E, and
understanding of the data
with ground—water data,
each major EPA program.
the initiatives selected
Data Requirements Policy
A-G -- Provides the analytic basis for the
and recommendations of this study.
F are particularly useful, providing an
elements required, key decisions supported
and major ground—water related issues for
The Ground—Water Data Requirements Analysis was
cooperative effort by the Office of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) and the
Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM). A Policy Committee
COMMITTEE CO-CHAIRS
• Ed Hanley
• Marian Mlay
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
• Mary Blakeslee
• Brooks Bowen
• Ron Brand
• Ed Conley
• Tom Devine
• Jim Ferguson
• Carol Finch
• Joe Franzmathes
• Philip Ross
• Roberta Savage
• John Skinner
O Steve Wassersug
• Susan Wayland
• Marcia Williams
Project support was provided by an OGWP/OIRM workgroup with the contract
an —- Presents
Ground-Water
implementation schedule.
A. Project Background
comprised of senior state
conducted
as a
and EPA officials
activities provided project direction and oversight. Policy Committee Members
included:
for ground-water protection
assistance of American Management Systems, Inc. (AMS).
-------
1-3
B. Study Purpose
There is a strong belief that ground-water data needs cut across EPA and
State programs. EPA needs ground-water data to operate non—delegated
programs, conduct program oversight, and develop regulations and policy.
States and localities need ground-water data to Implement EPA-delegated and
unique local programs and to develop their own policies and regulations. To
support these functions, a significant amount of ground-water data is
collected, stored, and analyzed for each program.
Although EPA has not been organized to manage ground-water data as a
shared resource, there are significant opportunities for improving
ground-water data management and sharing to support decision—making by EPA and
States. The purpose of this study is to define a management framework and
data utility that EPA and States can use to store, share, and manipulate
ground-water data to support better environmental decision making. The
components of the ground-water management framework are shown in the following
figure.
COMPONEiVTS OF GROUND-WATER MANAGEMEPQT FRAMEWORK:
EPA/State
Data Standards,
Fcrmats, & Policies
Manua1 Files
Data Sharing
ri’i’ ii
EPA 0/W
Data Systems
Technical Support
& Guidance
Other 0/W
Data Systems
Data Analytical Tools
1iii11I’
-------
1-4
C. Project Methodology
The ground-water data requirements developed in this study are based upon
over 300 structured interviews conducted nationwide with EPA Headquarters,
Regions, state governments, local governments and other federal organizations
(see Appendix A, Interviewees For Ground-Water Requirements Analysis).
In addition the study team reviewed the relevant literature and documentation
(see Appendix B, Documents Reviewed for Ground-Water Requirements Analysis)
and attended demonstrations of existing ground-water data systems. The study
teams progress was monitored by the Policy Committee.
Upon completion of a thorough review of the relevant documents and
systems, the project study team proceeded to conduct over 300 structured
interviews and develop a general framework for the analysis. The project
schedule is displayed on the Gantt chart seen on the following page.
-------
1—5
Task Complete
Project Schedule
OTR 1 T oii 2 1 om 31 QTR 41 0Th 1 I m 21 QTR
1. Orientation
2. Information
Collection
3. Evaluation
4. Detailed
Requirements
Analysis
5. Implementation
Options
Policy Committee
Meetings
___ A Policy Committee
Meetings
The analytic framework developed was based upon several key principles:
• Management, standards and policies, training and organizational
Infrastructure are more important than technology.
• The most important ground-water data requirements can be best
satisfied through management initiatives -- not a new data system.
• New Initiatives MUST facilitate both State and EPA environmental
decision—making.
• EPA and states have equivalent needs to store, access, and analyze
ground-water data for effective operation of ground-water protection
programs and will adopt new initiatives because it is in their best
interests to do so.
• The solution Is long-term In nature but significant improvements can
be made in the near term.
Task in Progress
I
A
A
A
-------
1-6
Ground-water data management requirements were then developed within the
following framework:
• Identify key ground-water data elements and volume required to
support environmental decision making across EPA/State programs.
• Develop ground-water data management, standards, policy and guidance
issues within ground—water related programs.
• Identify ground-water data access, sharing, and automation issues.
• Identify key ground-water data analysis and manipulation issues.
All findings, conclusions, and recommendations developed as a result of
this study were thoroughly reviewed by the EPA work group and the Policy
Committee. Both the work group and Committee were key participants in the
study providing substantial direction and oversight to ensure all relevant
ground-water protection issues were addressed.
-------
n—i
CHAPTER II: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The findings and conclusions in this chapter provide the basis for actions
the Agency considers essential to the protection of groundwater. EPA’s
Ground-Water Protection Strategy seeks to build up institutional capability In
the States and within EPA to cope with ground-water problems on a
comprehensive basis. The Strategy promotes greater consistency and coherence
among EPA programs aimed at protecting ground water and will initiate new
steps to deal with major forms of ground—water contamination not now fully
controlled. The core elements of the strategy are to:
• Strengthen State ground-water programs
• Cope with currently unaddressed ground—water problems
• Create a policy framework for guiding EPA programs
• Strengthen internal ground—water organization.
Pursuant to this overall direction, the Agency’s Ground—Water Monitoring
Strategy focuses on the actions necessary to implement these objectives and
upon the fundamental activities of ground-water monitoring. The entire
ground-water data requirements analysis project addresses one of the key
action items identif led in the monitoring strategy -- characterizing and
improving ground-water data management.
To provide a framework, the findings and conclusions are organized Into
four areas: (1) types of ground-water data required, volume, and use; (2)
ground-water data management policies and procedures; (3) access to and
automation of ground-water data; and (4) ground-water data analysis
capabilities. These categories are also the basis for the data management
scenarios presented In Chapter III.
Exhibit Il—i summarizes key study findings and their implications for
ground-water data management. The remaining sections of this chapter explain
In more detail the study’s findings In the four key areas mentioned.
-------
Exhibit 11-1
Key Findings and Their Implications
for Ground-Water Data Management
/ I ey Findings
• State operational environmental managers are the primary users of ground-water data.
• States and other users vary significantly in their levels of sophistication in ground-water
data management.
-- Some states are relatively advanced and self-sufficient.
-- Many states are unsophisticated and seek support and guidance.
• The volume of ground-water data being generated is large and is growing rapidly --
due to Federal programs and state initiatives.
• Ground-water data is stored in many different locations, files, organizations, and formats.
-- Decision makers may not know about all relevant sources of data.
-- The “transaction costs” of obtaining data are usually high.
• Relatively little ground-water data is currently automated.
• The most critical requirement is to share data for program operations and decision making --
especially within a state. Sharing of key well and facility data has the highest pay-off.
Sharing of water quality data is less important.
• The general types of data and analytical capabilities required by decision makers are often
similar across different programs.
• The required level of quality assurance/quality control varies by decision and program
function. Most organizations are comfortable with the data that they collect, but are
uncertain of the reliability of data from other programs.
• The most important analytic needs are for easy access to more data and simple analytical
tools -- not sophisticated capabilities.
11—2
• To be most useful, ground-water data must be related spatially.
-------
11—3
A. General Types of Ground-Water Data Required, Data Volume, and Use
For purposes of this study, “ground-water data” is broadly defined as the
types of ground-water related information -- well descriptors, hydrogeologic
descriptors, water quality and sample descriptors, and related data -— that
EPA and state environmental decision makers need. This section discusses key
findings and conclusions concerning the types of ground-water data required,
the volume of data generated, and how that information is used.
1. The types of ground-water data collected across ground—water
protection programs are similar and include four basic data classes:
-- Well descriptors
-- Hydrogeologic descriptors
-- Water quality/sample descriptors
—- Related data (e.g., site descriptors, weather).
These four data classes include the information most often needed to
support program operations. While not all programs need exactly the same data
elements or level of detail, they all use data from most of these categories.
The most common data requirements include:
• Well Descriptors ... such as location (e.g., latitude and
longitude), depth, type, elevation, construction method, casing
material, screen size and material, and age.
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors ... such as geologic structure (e.g., Karst
region), topography, and aquifer characterization
• Water Quality/Sample Descriptors ... such as contaminant names and
concentrations, sample type, sample protocol, sample date and time,
laboratory name, analytic method, and sampling organization
s Related Data ... site descriptors, land use/land cover, location of
other relevant facilities, and demographic patterns.
The data elements needed to support decision making are listed in Appendix C,
List of Key Ground-Water Data Elements.
Program requirements for these different data types vary according to
mission and function, however, several general uses can be identified (see
Exhibit 11-2). EPA and states collect and analyze ground-water data to:
-------
Exhibit 11-2
WHAT TYPES OF GROUND-WATER DATA ARE NEEDED?
DATA TYPES GENERAL USES
I. WELL DESCRIPTORS
• Well location
• Water level
• Depth to ground-water
• Aquifer code
• Water quantity
• Driller t s log
• Well chracteristics/status
• Well status
II. HYDROGEOLOGIC DESCRIPTORS
• Geologic structure
• Aquifer characterization
• Topography
• Soil Characteristics
Ill. WATER QUALiTY/SAMPLE DESCRIPTORS
• Sample identifers
• Sample protocol
• Sample type
• Analytic method
• Water quality
W. RELATED DATA
• Location of other regulated facilities
• Other point/nonpoint sources of
• contamination
• Site descriptors
• Meteorlogic data
• Location of other wells
• Health effects
• Land use/land cover
• Environmental fate
• Demographic data
Needed to help interpret ground-water quality data; provides knowledge
of well location; indication of construction integrity; helpful in aquifer
and area geologic characterization.
Needed in site specific hydrogeologic assessments performed to determine
direction, magnitude and speed of contaminant transport; provides general
indication of ground-water sensitive areas.
Needed to understand and interpret nature and degree of ground-water
contamination; provide an indication of data quality; depth from which
sample was taken.
Needed to identify other sources of contamination; provides context for
evaluation of clean-up alternatives; provides site characterization and
health effects data for contamination assessment.
*Pk Refer to Appendix A for Complete List of Data Elements
-------
11—5
• Assess sites’ hydrogeologic characteristics.
• Identify areas vulnerable to ground-water contamination.
• Determine the type and extent of ground-water contamination at a
site, facility, or well.
• Help evaluate various site clean-up alternatives.
Each program’s use of ground-water data is described in Appendix F, Questions
and Answers About Ground-Water Data Management Issues by Program.
2. States are the primary users of ground-water data.
In most cases, it is the States —- not EPA — - that implement and
operate the nation’s environmental programs that address ground water. States
play a key role in two areas:
• National environmental programs. For programs such as the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program, Underground Injection
Control (IJIC), and Underground Storage Tanks (UST), EPA delegates
authority for activities such as permitting and inspection to States
with approved programs. EPA encourages States to seek delegation,
although the number of delegated States varies from program to
program; for example, every State has delegation for drinking water,
while the UST program is so new that no State has yet received formal
delegation. States also play an active role in national programs
(such as Superfund and pesticides) without extensive delegation
features.
• State—specific programs. In addition to national environmental
programs, many States have developed their own programs to protect
local ground-water resources. Such programs -- from ground-water
discharge permitting to chemigation and zoning programs - - confirm
that States are the most important users of ground-water data.
Because of their leading role in Implementing environmental programs,
States most often have responsibility for those functions requiring use of
detailed ground-water data -— issuing permits, identifying inspection targets,
pursuing enforcement actions, and planning and executing site clean—ups.
Although EPA also uses data for these purposes, the Agency more often supports
States with guidance, oversight, and technical assistance.
-------
11-6
3. There is little need to share ground—water data among states.
States focus on environmental program operations —- permitting,
inspection, enforcement, and clean-up. Data needs to support program
operations tend to be limited to a specific site, facility, or local area.
Ground—water data from other states is of little value in supporting program
operations, except in the unusual situation in which a significant site or
problem lies near a State border.
4. Large and growing volumes of ground-water quality (parametric) data
are generated by national and state-specific programs.
As a result of regulatory reporting requirements, special studies,
and ambient monitoring activities, states and EPA Regions now obtain extremely
large volumes of ground-water data. For example, a single RCRA facility can
have dozens of wells, each being monitored for dozens of parameters on a
quarterly basis; some RCRA land disposal sites are so complex and important
that EPA has already accumulated many linear feet of ground—water data files
f or a single facility. The volume of ground-water data will grow rapidly as
EPA and the states implement new or expanded programs (such as underground
storage tanks and Superfund amendments) that stress ground-water protection.
The tremendous volume of ground-water data collected can make manual
data management and manipulation extremely difficult. If not effectively
managed, ground-water data will impose significant costs for filing, office
space, data manipulation (e.g., statistical calculations), and reproduction.
Meaningful data analysis and interpretation can become almost impossible. In
many organizations, the large volume of ground—water data is cited as a major
justification for automation initiatives.
5. The level of detailed ground-water and related data needed varies by
program and program decision.
Each program makes different decisions with ground-water data, and
accordingly requires a different level of data support. For example, the
water quality and hydrogeological information used by a delegated state to
issue a RCRA permit must be more detailed than data used by EPA to conduct a
-------
11—7
preliminary assessment of a potential Superfund site. Some decisions are
based on limited information due to the expected costs and benefits of
additional data collection; for example, a state may decide to collect limited
well descriptor data in a study to identify counties that are most vulnerable
to ground-water contamination by pesticides.
Conversely, different programs may have similar information needs if
they make similar decisions. For example, the RCRA and Superfund programs
both require detailed information about site hydrogeology to evaluate
alternative ground-water clean-up options.
6. Many decision makers want more information on the health effects of
ground-water contaminants.
Environmental managers want more detailed information about the
possible health risks associated with ground—water contamination, especially
where drinking water issues are involved. More specifically, they ask: “What
is the human health risk associated with a finding of contaminant X in a
concentration of V?° Managers did not have ready access to such information,
which is critical for risk-based decision making. Many decision makers
expressed a desire for easy access to a full range of health risk information.
7. Conclusions
The key findings about the types and use of ground-water data are:
• The ground-water data needed to support environmental decision-making
falls into four basic categories: well descriptors, hydrogeologic
descriptors, water quality/sample descriptors, and related data.
• Large volumes of ground-water quality data are generated —- and the
amount Is growing. This tremendous volume of data has significant
implications for ground-water data management.
• States are the primary users of ground-water data. EPA data
management efforts should focus on state needs.
-------
11-8
These findings lead to three major conclusions. First, large volumes
of ground—water quality (parametric) data are being generated -— even though
ground water is a relatively new focus in environmental protection. Without
better management, decision makers may soon find it impossible to access and
manipulate ground-water data. In many organizations, the large volume of data
is a major justification for automation. Many states plan to move ahead with
ground—water data management initiatives - — with or without the benefit of EPA
direction and guidance.
Second, EPA ground—water data management initiatives should focus on
the states. States are the primary recipients and users of ground-water data
and are responsible for day-to-day decision making in ground-water protection
programs. With some important exceptions, EPA Headquarters and Regions need
ground-water data for program oversight and policy development, but not for
operations. States analyze ground—water quality at key sites, issue permits,
monitor ambient ground-water quality, and perform a host of other ground-water
protection and clean-up activities. EPA should focus first initiatives
that benefit the states, next the Regions, and last EPA Headquarters.
Third, the identification of four data classes has positive implications
for ground-water data management. These data classes provide a framework for
improving the way in which ground-water data is captured, stored, and
analyzed. While programs vary in terms of the exact types and amount of data
required, they all need some information in at least one of the four major
categories. As shown in Exhibit 11—3, the most important data to be shared
across programs is well descriptor and hydrogeologic descriptor information.
-------
‘‘-9
Well Descriptors
• Location
• Construction
Characteristics
• Depth to Screen
To interpret groundwater quality data
Exhibit 11-3
PRIORITY FOR GROUND-WATER DATA SHARING
High Priority
• Attribute most important for sharing is
well location. Utility of other attributes
varies by program and decision.
High to Medium Priority
Site specifice nature of RCRA and Super-
fund sites make detailed hydrogeologic
data very important.
General hydrogeologic characteristics
are needed in identification of “ground-
water sensitive areas”
Medium to Low Priority
Few EPA delegated or state programs
are required to report parametric data;
most programs require compliance.
Ground water quality data -- or some
aggregate -- are essential for knowl-
edge of contamination at a site, facility
or within a monitoring network.
Medium Priority
Utility of these data vary by program.
Site descriptors are extremely valuable
for many programs; Land use can
help identify other sources of contam-
ination; Health effects data assists in
exposure/risk assessment.
• Geologic Structure
• Stratigraphy
• Topography
• Soils
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
To characterize hydrogeologic descriptors of site
Groundwater Quality/Sample Descriptors
0
• Water Quality
• Sample Protocol
• Analytic Method
To defme nature of groundwater contamination
Related Data
• Site Descriptors
• Land Cover/Land Use
• Health Effects
To characterize the site and effects of
site contamination
-------
11-10
B. Findings Related to Ground-Water Data Management, Standards, Policy, and
Guidance
1. Ground-water quality and related data are not collected or stored
using any standard conventions.
EPA Headquarters, Regions, and states do not use standard data
collection, coding, and reporting conventions that would facilitate sharing of
ground-water data. While standards may exist within a program -- such as the
Superfund contract laboratory program and the chemical parameter codes
associated with STORET -- they are not uniform across all programs. Many
organizations have developed unique forms, codes, and formats to meet their
own requirements. This lack of standardization reduces the value of data that
is shared and makes it difficult to integrate data from many sources.
In addition, there is no common set of data that is always collected
by different programs and organizations for every sample or well. A
fundamental problem in ground—water data management is the inability to link
ground-water quality data with other critical descriptors to enable an analyst
to interpret the data. For example, well location and depth to screen can
help determine the aquifer from which a sample was taken. Missing information
often includes well depth, location, and data type (e.g., drinking water data,
RCRA monitoring data). Similarly, limited information is often available
about the sample itself -- such as the type of sample, collection protocol,
and name of analyzing laboratory.
2. Decision-makerS did not identify data quality as a major
barrier to sound decision making. Managers understand the
limits of their own data, but data from other programs may
be questioned.
Data quality and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures
are not limiting factors in making decisions on ground-water issues. While
most decision makers want and are working to achieve improved data quality,
they cited few instances in which poor quality data led to an improper
decision or higher quality data would have resulted in a different decision.
A wide variety of QA/QC initiatives are being implemented by EPA and
states, including certified laboratories, prescribed sampling protocols,
-------
lI—li
replicate/spike sampling, formal QA/QC plans, organizational and staffing
assignments, and data verification and validation. The exact procedures vary
among organizations and there is little agreement on what QA/QC data is most
important for inclusion in a data management system. For example, some users
prefer a summary evaluation of data quality (e.g., valid for all purposes,
valid for limited purposes), while others want to review detailed QA/QC
information (e.g., laboratory testing procedures, spike/replicate sample
results, laboratory instrument calibrations) to draw their own conclusions.
3. The need for “high quality” data varies by program and decision.
The need for high quality data varies by program and by decision
within program. For example, the Superfund program requires extremely high
data quality and complete “chain of custody” procedures for data used in cost
recovery actions against potentially responsible parties. Similarly, RCRA
Part B permits include data quality assurance plans to ensure that the
monitoring data collected and submitted by facility owners and operators is
reliable for detecting significant deterioration in ground—water quality.
Where necessary, decision makers initiate special data collection programs to
ensure the availability of highly accurate, precise data.
In other cases, the requirements for data quality are less extensive.
For example, states rely primarily on data from existing wells in operating
ambient monitoring networks and conducting special surveys. Although these
existing wells often have certain features -— such as casing materials or
construction method —— that make water quality results somewhat less reliable
than data from special monitoring wells, the resulting data is of acceptable
quality for certain purposes. Decision makers often make conscious trade-offs
between the quality of ground-water data and the time and resources required
to ensure high quality.
4. Some decision makers in states, EPA Regions, and EPA Headquarters,
want “representative” aggregate (e.g., nation—wide, regional, state)
ground-water data.
Program officials at all organizational levels expressed the desire
to obtain an overview of ground—water contamination problems. These decision
-------
11—12
makers are interested in ground-water information —- well descriptors,
hydrogeologic descriptors, water quality/sample descriptors, and related data
-— that goes beyond site-specific data. At present, it is difficult to obtain
aggregate level information within a program, state, or region. Questions
such as, “How many incidents of ground-water contamination were recorded for
chemical X in 1986?”, cannot be easily answered at this time.
States are pursuing a variety of strategies in collecting
“representative” ground—water data. Some states -- such as California and
Illinois —- are implementing ambient monitoring networks based on existing
wells. Other states do not view monitoring networks as worthwhile due to
costs and other factors. In general, representative ground-water quality data
would be most useful to policy makers -- such as EPA’s Office of Policy
Planning and Evaluation and similar organizations at the state level —- by
providing more macro-level data on ground-water issues.
5. In most EPA and state programs, there is little interest In testing
for ground—water contaminants beyond those that make sense for a
particular site or study.
States and EPA Regions sample for those contaminants defined by
regulations or that are most likely to be found given the location and
features of the site and monitoring well. Although some data is available for
practically all samples (such as ph, temperature, and total dissolved solids),
there is significant diversity in the contaminants measured. For example,
wide-area surveys focus on different parameters in urban and rural areas due
to expected differences in the likely contaminants -- volatile organics in
urban areas versus nitrates and pesticides in rural areas.
6. Many states want EPA to provide additional guidance and leadership in
ground-water data management. Other states have made a significant
investment in ground—water data management procedures and would
resist major changes.
Many states have expressed a desire for EPA to provide additional
guidance and leadership in ground-water data management issues. General areas
of concern include:
-------
11—13
• Common Data Standards ... standards codes for well type, location,
chemical parameters, and other elements to promote sharing among
programs and systems.
• Quality Assurance and Quality Control Standards ... guidance on the
proper application and use of ground-water quality sampling and
analytic techniques to meet various sampling objectives and field
conditions.
• Training, Documentation, and User Support ... workshops, user
hot-lines, classroom and computer—based training, manuals and
guidance documents to ensure that available procedures, analytical
tools, systems, and data bases are properly used.
• Technical Consulting ... specialized expertise and experience to
support states and EPA Regions in establishing sound, consistent
ground—water data management procedures, policies, and systems and
in addressing specific problems.
• Promotion of Information Sharing Across Programs ... seminars,
newsletters, electronic bulletin boards, and publications to keep
different programs and organizations informed about each other’s
activities in ground-water related areas.
7. Conclusions
Key conclusions regarding ground-water data management, standards,
policies, and guidance are:
• The fundamental building blocks necessary to improve ground—water
data management begin with comon standards and formats for the
collection and storage of ground-water data.
• Data quality Issues are not a major barrier to better ground-water
data management.
• Some decision makers want representative aggregate ground-water data
-- well descriptors, hydrogeologic descriptors, water quality/sample
descriptors, and related data.
• EPA should act now to improve ground-water data management -- the
longer EPA waits, the harder it will become to change the way states
deal with ground-water data.
Ground—water data users, especially in the field, want the ability to
share and integrate ground-water data across programs. The quality of
decisions would improve If decision-makers could use all relevant Information,
-------
11-14
not just data collected by a single program. One major barrier to sharing
data across programs is the lack of common data standards and formats. For
example, many programs now use different parameter codes to identify
ground-water contaminants; if these codes could be standardized, information
collected by different programs could be integrated more easily.
In addition to establishing and using common data codes and formats,
programs need to collect a few common data elements (a minimum data set) for
every ground—water quality sample and well. For example, many programs fail
to enter a well’s location (e.g., latitude and longitude) in a way that allows
other programs to determine if that well is near any facilities of interest.
EPA standards and guidance for a “minimum data set” to be associated with each
sample and well would improve data management in this area.
Some program officials need “representative” summary ground-water
data. There is clearly a need for ground-water data that goes beyond site
specific data, yet any attempt to aggregate all ground-water data would prove
to be an overwhelming burden. Instead, the collection and compilation of key
site/facility data elements -— such as site or well location and major
contaminants found -- would facilitate policy making and other functions.
Some states are already moving ahead with their own individual
efforts to improve ground—water data management. As state investments in
policies, procedures, and systems increase, there will be an increasing
reluctance to accept and implement direction and guidance from EPA. For
example, once a state has established common codes and adopted data management
procedures, it will be difficult for EPA to implement changes. EPA should
move quickly to establish a common framework for improved ground—water data
management, before individual state efforts make any standardization
impossible.
-------
11—15
C. Findings Related to Access to and Automation of Ground-water Data
1. Ground—water data is generated by many different sources.
Ground-water
water quality/sample
natural result of the
programs at all levels
with the generation and
data —- well descriptors, hydrogeologic descriptors,
descriptors, and related data -— is generated as the
operation of a large number of ground-water protection
of government. EPA programs more commonly associated
use of ground-water data include:
• Solid and hazardous wastes (RCRA)
• Superfund (CERCLA)
• Underground storage tanks
• Drinking water
• Underground injection control
• Pesticides
• Toxics.
Even within these programs, ground-water data may be generated and stored by
many different organizations. For example, a RCRA permit may be developed
using data from the state, the responsible EPA Region, the regulated facility,
contractors, and other Federal agencies. Many states also implement delegated
programs in a way that expands the number of sites subject to regulatory
requirem n The Federal underground storage tank program, for example,
excludes certain classes of tanks that may be covered by state UST programs.
There are also a large
programs that do not
Examples of such programs
number of
result from
include:
• Ground-water discharge permit programs
• Public water well monitoring and contamination investigation
• Well-head and aquifer protection programs
• Land use and zoning programs.
The existence of such programs means that the data management °solution”
resulting from this project must be flexible —— a solution tailored totally to
the needs of specific Federal programs will not provide all of the
capabilities needed to support these other functions.
protection
programs.
state
the
and local ground-water
delegation of Federal
-------
11-16
Federal agencies can also be sources
example, the U.S. Geological Survey supports
agreements and collects data in its own right.
Department of Defense) are effectively part of the
of ground-water data. For
states through cooperative
Other agencies (such as the
regulated conimuni ty.
2. There are few central repositories of ground-water data. Programs
that generate data usually store that data In their own files.
There are few central, easily-accessible repositories of ground-water
data. Individual programs typically collect and store the data needed to
support their own operations. For example, states that collect ground-water
quality data in their drinking water programs usually store the data apart
from monitoring data from RCRA sites. There are typically few formal links -—
either manual or automated —- between data stored in different programs.
Some states are beginning to recognize the benefits associated with
an integrated approach to ground—water data management. For example, all
ground—water data in Minnesota is stored in a single integrated system known
as the Integrated Ground—Water Information System (IGWIS). The State of Texas
allows its program offices to voluntarily integrate ground—water data through
the use of TNRIS, the Texas Natural Resources Information System.
water
STORET
STORET
network.
functions
maintains
containing
At the Federal level, there are two major repositories of ground-
quality data —- STORET and WATSTORE. Many EPA Regions and states use
to store some of their ground-water data. For example, Georgia uses
to store water quality data from its ambient ground-water monitoring
Although STORET can support many ground—water data management
, few users take full advantage of it. The U.S. Geological Survey
the National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE),
data from USGS projects and state cooperative studies.
3. Some states have difficulty locating ground—water data within their
state. Even where data sources are known, transaction costs
associated with obtaining data from uoutsideu sources are high.
Many states are aware of the different sources of ground-water data
In various state agencies. Some states, however, do not always access all
-------
11—17
relevant ground—water data. This problem can be caused by many factors — -
including lack of necessary organization structures and responsibilities,
personnel turnover, absence of certain management processes, inexperience, and
failure to recognize the value of sharing ground—water data.
Even in states where data sources are well known, transaction costs
associated with “outside” sources are usually high. Data might be located in
unfamiliar automated systems, requiring investments in hardware and training
before it can be used. Paper files might be stored in a different building or
city. Even if the required records are physically nearby, they may not be
indexed or filed to facilitate quick and easy use.
4. Other Federal agencies have data bases containing ground-water data.
Several Federal agencies other than EPA collect and store ground-
water data -— including well descriptors, hydrogeologic descriptors, water
quality sample descriptors, and related data. These agencies and data bases
include:
• USGS -- WATSTORE. WATSTORE is a USGS data base of water
quality and use data, including daily and annual
statistics, water quality descriptions, and a well
inventory. USGS also has valuable data on topography
and other geographical features.
• Census -- Demographic Data Bases. The Bureau of Census
compiles demographic, social, and economic data
resulting from the Federal census. Such data can be
used to characterize population conditions for use in
ground-water risk assessment.
• USDA -— Soil Survey Maps. The Soil Conservation
Service maintains a soil classification data base for
selected regions of the county. This data can be used
to analyze Issues such as flooding characteristics,
depth to bedrock, and soil types.
• Other Federal Agencies. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, U.S. Army, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and other Federal agencies maintain data
bases which contain data of Interest to ground—water
programs. Some agencies’ f lies are detailed
site-specific ground-water quality and hydrogeologic
Information, while other agencies store area—wide data.
-------
11-18
5. The level of automation varies by state and by program, but few
states take an integrated approach to ground-water data management.
• Ground-water quality (parametric) data is the data class most
often automated.
• The most coninonly automated non—parametric data includes well
location, land use, and hydrogeologic data.
• Most data are not automated.
The level of ground—water data automation varies by state and by
program within states. More sophisticated states —— such as Texas, Minnesota,
and Illinois —— have automated some of their ground—water data. Some states
are also planning or implementing Geographic Information Systems (GIS). While
most states are planning at least some ground-water data automation, few
states are taking an integrated, state-wide approach. Automation often occurs
on an ad hoc, program—by-program basis. Where automated systems are used, the
most commonly automated information is ground-water quality, well location,
land use, and hydrogeologic data. Many states now use manual files to store
ground-water data, but are considering automation in selected programs.
6. States are interested in PC-based software and micro-to-mainframe
links to enhance ground—water data management.
Many users of automated ground-water data find mainframe computers
hard to access and use, slow, and expensive. Personal computers (PC ’s), on
the other hand, are often perceived as simple to learn and use, easy to
control, less expensive, and less intimidating. PC’s, however, are not easily
able to store and manipulate the large amounts of data generated by
ground-water programs. Many states want EPA to provide the ability to upload
and download data from a central data management utility. South Carolina has
already developed software to transfer data between STORET and state PC’s.
Such software could help managers supplement the limited amount of
sophisticated data processing and programming skills within their programs.
7. Some states want access to an EPA “system”, while others prefer to
develop their own capabilities.
Just as states’ data automation capabilities vary, so do their
feelings concerning a central EPA data utility. Some advanced states are not
-------
11-19
interested in participating in an EPA “system”, although they are generally
willing to share data. Other states find use of an EPA central system to be
much less expensive than developing and maintaining their own systems. For
example, Georgia and South Carolina believe that STORET has saved the time and
resources that normally would have been incurred in developing a custom
system. Similarly, EPA Regions IX and IV use STORET for certain ground-water
data management functions and are pleased with the resulting improvements.
8. Conclusions
Two major conclusions emerge from the findings in the area of access
and automation of ground-water data:
• There is a need to improve access to ground-water data and lower the
transaction costs associated with obtaining and using such data.
• To be successful, any EPA approach to ground-water data management
must recognize the significant variation in state ground-water data
management capabilities.
The ability to access and use data collected by others is the most
important requirement of ground-water data users. The quality of decisions
would be improved if decision-makers could base their actions on all relevant
information, not just the data collected through a single program.
Ground-water data is generated by many different Federal, state and
local ground-water protection programs and studies. This diversity of data
Sources can make accessing needed information difficult. For example, no
single organization is usually responsible for well location information
within a state. Inconsistent data definitions and formats and lack of
Centralized data repositories Increase the transaction costs associated with
obtaining ground—water data.
Every program has a different level of technical sophistication.
Some use program-specific PC applications for ground-water data management,
While others are planning more centralized and integrated approaches. Still
others consider manual data manipulation sufficient to meet their needs.
Accordingly, any approach to improving ground—water data management must be
flexible, providing a sound overall framework while allowing each program and
organization to decide how to make best use of the capabilities available.
-------
11-20
D. Findings Related to Ground-Water Data Analysis Capabilities
1. EPA Regions and states need basic ground—water data management and
analytic capabilities —- not highly sophisticated features.
Decision makers in states and EPA Regions need very basic analytical
capabilities (such as trend analysis, basic statistics, business graphics, and
simple maps). Most users have a limited ability to take advantage of advanced
tools -- such as complex models and three—dimensional mapping. In contrast,
EPA Headquarters users are more often interested in additional sophistication
for detailed site-specific studies and regional or national surveys.
Overall, decision makers are more interested in increasing the
amount of data available than in using better analytical tools. In
particular, sophisticated analyses and models face contraints in three areas:
• They may require more data than is readily available, especially on
site geology and hydrology.
• Staffing contraints may limit users’ ability to calibrate, run, and
interpret the results from complex capabilities.
• Many decisions may not require sophisticated analysis.
2. Sophisticated ground-water modelling is not performed routinely.
With some exceptions, EPA and states do not use sophisticated
ground-water models. With the exception of a few programs and organizations,
decision makers do not have enough data and skilled personnel to support
reliable model runs. Even where such models are used, the actual modelling
work is more often performed by contractors than by EPA or state staff.
Major exceptions in the use of ground-water flow models are found in
EPA’s Pesticides, Toxics, and Superfund programs and the US Army’s Hazardous
Waste Management program. Using contractor support or special in-house
studies, these programs have the data and staff expertise to calibrate, run,
and Interpret the results of ground-water flow models. While such modelling
capabilities are not commonly used In most programs at the present time, the
need for such features is likely to increase as ground-water programs mature.
-------
11-21
3. Users of ground-water models in states and EPA Regions want guidance
on the use and applicability of available ground-water models.
Those states and EPA Regions that perform ground-water modelling
want guidance in two areas: (1) identifying the models currently available
for use; and (2) determining which model is appropriate for a given
Situation. There are a number of different types of ground-water flow models
available —— two- and three-dimensional models; “forward—looking” models that
predict the spread of contaminant plumes from a known source and
“backtracking” models that identify the source of the pollution based on data
about the plume; and contaminant and hydrogeologic specific flow models.
Given the increasing number and diversity of ground-water flow models, many
users are unaware of all of their options in selecting a model.
In addition, each model has its own specific strengths and
weaknesses. For example, a model which is excellent for predicting the
movement of a benzene plume in sand may not be applicable for a different type
of contaminant and hydrogeology. Model users need help selecting ground-water
flow models, perhaps in the form of an index on the available models, their
strengths and weaknesses, operating instructions, and other information.
4. Most decision makers place a high priority on spatial integration
and display of ground-water and related information; some states
and Regions are proceeding with the development of GIS capabilities.
Many decision makers consider maps to be a vital output of an
improved ground—water data management capability. Ideally, mapping
capabilities should be adequate to produce on-line displays as well as printed
copies, integrating data from different sources into a single output and
allowing the user to control the types of data (e.g., topography, cultural
features, political boundaries, geology) to be displayed in two and three
dimensional color graphic formats.
Longitude and latitude are the most frequently preferred mechanism
for relating data geographically, although some data sources use other
coordinate systems that would need to be translated Into latitude and
longitude for use by a geographic information system. In addition, rough
-------
11—22
regional maps can be generated if information is referenced by township,
range, section, and (ideally) quarter-quarter-quarter -- a land ownership
reference grid that exists for most of the United States.
The need for mapping applications exists at several levels:
• Detailed site mapping ... areas of only a few square miles;
often linked to ground—water modelling; very high level of
resolution is required (e.g., locate objects to within a few
feet, show buildings and other features in outline form
rather than as points); often requires intensive,
special-purpose data collection; latitude and longitude may
not provide a sufficiently detailed coordinate system;
site-specific coordinate systems may be acceptable for
relating points within a site.
• Detailed regional mapping for special areas of concern
medium sized areas are to be mapped (e.g., counties, cities,
20 square mile parcels); may require some special data
collection, but ideally should be based on existing data.
• General mapping for background and confirmation of other
data ... medium and large areas to be mapped (e.g.,
counties, aquifers, states, 500 square mile parcels);
likely to be based almost entirely on existing data.
5. ConclusIons
These findings about ground—water data analysis capabilities
demonstrate:
• Decision makers need a set of simple ground-water data analysis and
manipulation tools -— statistical analysis, tables and data
listings, graphics, mapping -— to support program operations.
Decision makers need basic data management and analytical tools more
than sophisticated modelling or complex GIS capabilities. Many programs would
like to perform trend analysis or prepare basic listings of summary level
data, and find it difficult due to a lack of automated tools and data. Use of
complex models, statistical analysis, mapping, and other tools is currently
limited, in part because of difficulty in manually manipulating large volumes
of data. The quality of decision making would improve if appropriate
analytical tools could be more easily applied to existing ground-water data.
-------
hi—i
CHAPTER III: ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPROVING GROUND-WATER DATA MANAGEMENT
A. Overview of Data Management Scenarios
Four alternative solutions have been developed to address the data
management requirements associated with the monitoring and protection of
ground-water. These four scenarios provide EPA with a choice of options,
ranging from the continuation of existing activities to undertaking a set of
new and ambitious initiatives to create a fully integrated ground-water data
environment. The scenarios and initiatives presented here are for EPA’s
consideration and evaluation. They do not represent the selection of a
specific course of action. The final choices selected by EPA will most likely
represent a mix of the options presented in this chapter. The scenarios are:
• Scenario A: Continue Current Activities; No Major New Initiatives
• Scenario B: Put in Place Basic Building Blocks For Improved
Ground-Water Data Management
• Scenario C: Integrate Ground-Water Data Capabilities in Selected
Areas
• Scenario D: Achieve Fully Integrated and Consistent Ground-Water
Data Management
These four scenarios are alternative sets of actions by which EPA can
improve ground—water data management. The alternatives are not mutually
exclusive, but Instead represent incremental Improvements to ground-water data
management -- each scenario builds upon the initiatives In the prior scenario.
As the scenarios grow In sophistication and complexity, the resources (and
“organizational pain”) necessary for Implementation also increase. Exhibit
1 11-1 highlights the differences among the four options.
The initiatives in the four scenarios can be grouped into three major
areas: (1) data management standards, policy, and guidance; (2) data access
and automation; and (3) data analysis.
• Data management standards, policy, and guidance are the rules that
determine how ground-water data Is collected and stored. For
example, decision makers cannot now easily combine cr aggregate
ground-water data from different sources because it is stored in a
variety of formats using incompatible codes and data conventions.
-------
111-2
Exhibit ffl-1
Key Initiatives by Scenario
• Establish an EPA/State work group
• Develop comprehensive but voluntary ground-
water data standards, formats, and procedures
• Improve data access through development and use
of indexes, site/facility summaries and selected
system linkages
• Provide better access to existing systems and
documentation of existing analytical tools (e.g.,
models, statistics); GIS strategy and pilots
• “Required t ’ use of data standards, formats, and
procedures for all new national systems
• Further improvements in data access through
automation of ground-water indexes, reporting
site/facility summaries, and more extensive system
linkages
• Development of more powerful analytical
capabilities through limited investment in selected
high pay-off tools, selected GIS implementation
• “Required” use of data standards, formats and
procedures in ALL systems and data management
activities
• Linkages of all EPA, state and other Federal agency
data systems to facilitate easy access to and transfer
of ground-water data
• Development of a full array of powerful, easy to
use analytical tools for use in supporting ground-
water decision-making; widespread implementa-
tion of GIS strategy
Continue Current
Activities; No Major
New Initiatives
• No new EPA initiatives
• EPA continues implementation of existing ground-
water data management initiatives
• States and other Federal agencies pursue their own,
independent ground-water data management
initiatives
Put in Place Basic
Building Blocks For
Improved
Ground-Water
Data Management
Integrate Ground-Water
Data Capabilities
in Selected Areas
Achieve Fully
Integrated and
Consistent
Ground-Water
Data Management
-------
111—3
• Data access and automation refer to the ability of decision makers to
obtain and use data from other organizations and automate ground-
water data within their own programs. Most ground-water data is now
stored in manual files, with access and retrieval complicated by a
lack of indexes to the locations and characteristics of that data.
• Data analysis is the manipulation of raw ground-water data to
identify trends or patterns in ground-water quality. Data analysis
tools include statistics, modelling, mapping, and graphics.
In Scenario A -- Continue Current Activities; No Major New Initiatives —-
EPA, states, and other Federal agencies continue with existing initiatives,
such as EPA’s STORET enhancements, USGS’s redesign of the WATSTORE system, and
the State of Missouri’s data standards program. There is no new emphasis on
coordinating these independent, on-going initiatives or managing ground-water
data as a common resource across many programs.
Scenario B —- Put in Place Basic Building Blocks for Improved Ground—Water
Data Management -- creates a foundation for improved ground-water data
management. The emphasis is on assigning responsibilities and allocating
resources to address key tasks and problem areas, implementing selected
improvements in the current data management environment, and establishing a
common approach to ground-water data management, especially by standardizing
data management procedures, formats, policy, and guidance.
In Scenario C -- Integrate Ground-Water Data Capabilities in Selected
Areas —- automation of key data management activities is pursued for all major
program areas. The focus is on delivering improved data management
capabilities to state and EPA decision makers. To improve access and sharing
of ground-water data, high pay—off ground-water systems are linked together.
In addition, important summary level information is collected for use by EPA
and state program managers and policy makers.
Scenario —- Achieve Fully Integrated and Consistent Ground-Water Data
Management —- is the most aggressive alternative. The data management
environment from Scenario C Is used as the basis for a fully integrated
ground-water data network. The state, EPA, and other data systems that
previously operated independently are tied together to permit the electronic
transfer and sharing of ground—water data. The focus of ground-water data
management shifts from a program-by-program perspective to an integrated view.
-------
111-4
B. Scenario A - - Continue Current Activities; No Major New Initiatives
In Scenario A, there are no major new ground-water data management
initiatives. Scenario A does not represent “no action”, however -— EPA,
states, and other Federal agencies continue with existing and already-planned
efforts to improve ground-water monitoring, protection, and data management.
Exhibit 111-2 summarizes how the current data management environment will
change as a result of the existing and already-planned initiatives that
constitute Scenario A.
Exhibit 111-3 describes the many recently completed, on—going, and
currently planned initiatives that together make up Scenario A. For example,
EPA’s Office of Ground—Water Protection recently issued a ground—water
monitoring strategy and established ground-water offices in each of EPA’s ten
Regions. Similarly, the Office of Information Resources Management has
enhanced STORET to store and analyze ground-water data. In addition, OIRM is
developing information resources management policies -- covering topics such
as data standards and State/EPA data management -- that will help lay the
basis for better ground-water data management.
States, EPA program offices, and other Federal agencies are also moving
ahead with ground—water data initiatives. OSWER’s Hazardous Waste
Ground—Water Task Force is developing an automated ground-water data analysis
workstation to help hydrogeologistS and others store and manipulate
ground—water data for RCRA facilities. Some states are addressing data
management issues by implementing data standards, pilot GIS applications, and
integrated environmental data bases. Other Federal agencies -- such as USGS
and the U.S. Army -- continue to develop and enhance their own systems to
support specific ground-water functions.
These on—going efforts will yield some benefits in ground—water data
management, even without any new EPA actions. For example, EPA’s Region IV
and Region IX are improving RCRA permitting and monitoring decisions by using
STORET’s new capabilities; other EPA Regions and states use STORET to store
and analyze ground-water data in a variety of programs. In addition to using
STORET, Region IV is applying a prototype GIS to Superfund and other programs.
-------
111—5
The State of Missouri is establishing a common well coding scheme to integrate
data from various programs. The U.S. Army is enhancing an existing system
(with GIS capabilities) to help manage its RCRA and Superfund sites. Most of
these initiatives entail little organizational disruption, since each is
tailored to the specific needs and constraints of a single office or program.
For the most part, however, the improvements generated by these on—going
initiatives will be fragmented and uncoordinated. Some EPA programs will use
sophisticated ground—water data analysis tools, while others will not. Some
states —- those with the necessary resources and expertise —- i1l install
integrated information systems, while others will continue to store ground-
water data manually. The result will be wide variation in approaches to
ground—water data management and substantial duplication of effort. Perhaps
most important, these separate initiatives will do little to address decision
makers’ top priority for ground-water data -- improved access and sharing.
-------
111—6
• No new EPA initiatives. Continue current
activities.
* Current actions result in limited consistency in
data management standards, formats, and
procedures; some duplication of effort among
EPA regions and States.
£ EPA continues current activities. No new action
is taken.
• No new EPA initiatives. Continue current
activities.
* Current actions result in limited access and
sharing of critical ground-water data.
A EPA continues current activities. No new
action is taken.
• No new initiatives. Continue current activities.
A EPA continues current activities. No new action
is taken.
Scenario A: Initiatives and Impact
Exhibit ffl-2
DATA
* Current actions result in limited array of
analytical tools for ground-water decision-
making.
• Initiatives
* Impact
A Organizational Pain
-------
111—7
Scenario A: Initiatives and Current Activities
Exhibit ffl-3
POLICY f
• No new EPA initiatives
• Ground-water data accumulates in manual files at
state/program level
• Some integration of intra-state data systems
• Some interfaces between state, EPA and other
Federal data systems
• No new EPA initiatives
• OGWP implements ground-water monitoring
strategy
• Some states develop local GIS strategies/
capabilities
• Some states develop their own ground-water data
analysis tools
• No new EPA initiatives
• OIRM implements current EPA systems initiatives
• States develop local, unique data management
solutions
• Other Federal agencies continue existing ground-
water initiatives/activities
• EPA develops and issues institutional, systems and
technological policies
-------
I I 1-8
C. Scenario B -— Put in Place Basic Building Blocks for Improved Ground-Water
Data Management
Scenario B establishes the fundamental framework needed to create a
coordinated ground-water data management environment. This framework consists
primarily of:
• A consensus for common data formats and procedures to be implemented
over time. If ground-water data is to be shared effectively,
different organizations and programs must adhere to a standardized
set of procedures and formats. Examples of such standards are common
codes for certain data values (such as counties and facility
identifiers) and a small set of data elements to be collected and
stored for each facility, well, and sample (such as well location).
In Scenario B, these standards are defined as a long—term target,
although they may not all be immediately adopted by all programs and
offices.
• A clear definition of tasks, deadlines, resource commitments, and
organizational responsibilities, based on the recognition of the
importance of ground—water data as a shared resource. Scenario B
includes the development and implementation of a detailed workplan
for improving ground-water data management across all EPA programs
and responsible offices. In addition to assigning responsibilities
for each specific initiative, Scenario B confirms the on-going roles
of selected EPA offices -- primarily OGWP and OIRM -- in leading
ground-water data management at EPA. One focus of the workplan is to
ensure the active participation of states and EPA Regions in planning
and implementing specific initiatives.
• Selected investments in training, system enhancements, and pilot
projects. Existing ground-water data resources -- such as data sets,
computer systems, and analytical tools -- are not fully utilized.
Accordingly, many Scenario B initiatives are designed to help
decision makers make the most of existing capabilities. In addition,
Scenario B includes studies and pilot efforts that will assist EPA in
planning for additional improvements in ground-water data management.
Exhibit 111—4 summarizes the initiatives that comprise Scenario B and outlines
their impact on ground—water data management. Each initiative is described in
more detail in Exhibit 111—5.
In Scenario B, the initiatives already in progress -- that is, the efforts
listed under Scenario A —- continue. In addition, EPA more aggressively
directs and coordinates state, EPA, and other Federal agency activities in the
area of ground-water data management, recognizing that ground-water data is a
-------
III—9
common resource that must be shared across offices and programs. For example,
Scenario B includes developing and promoting ground-water data standards,
enhancing selected EPA systems to improve access and ease-of-use, preparing
inventories and “how-to” primers covering major national data systems and key
analytical tools, and constructing indexes to the sources of manual
ground-water data in each state.
Scenario B provides for significant improvements in ground-water data
management over the next three-to-five-years. In the short term, decision
makers will gain better access to existing data sources and analytical tools
through a combination of training, manual indexes, documentation, and software
enhancements. In addition, a framework will be established upon which future
ground-water activities and improvements can be built. Although adoption of
Common ground-water data definitions and “minimum data sets” is potentially
disruptive, Scenario B implements these standards gradually over time at the
discretion of individual programs and offices.
-------
Scenario B: Initiatives and Impact 11110
Exhibit ffl-4
ARI :AS OF ACTIONS SCENARIO B ACTIONS, BENEFITS, AND PAIN
0 :1:: eve1 : :, cm re1 iensive 1.ut v1iiiit i.i ’ gr.uncl—
water data standards, formats, and procedures
* Actions enhance ability to use data collected by
others, reduces reporting of contradictory data
MANA ; ENT, nd promotes development of compatible
STANDARDS, SYS ems
POLICY AND
GUIDANCE A Participate in EPA/State work group to develop
data standards and minimum data set and over
time modify systems to incorporate use of
common data standards and summary level
reporting
. Improve access to ground-water data across
programs through the development of a
ground-water clearinghouse and implementation
of high-payoff system linkages and enhance-
DATA ACCESS ments
AND
AUTOMATION
* Actions improve decision-making by providing
access to relevant data (sharing)
£ Participate in EPA sponsored effort to identify!
access key sources of ground-water data and
implement summary level reporting
II III UII III 1liIiiiIIlIU IlIIiIIIjjIIIIjIIjp IIIIIJIUI
• Enhance ground-water data analysis capabili-
ties through education on use of existing tools
and pilot test of GIS strategy
DATA
ANALYSIS * Actions improve awareness of analytic tools
available and pioneer efforts to generate
spatial displays of data
A Participate in GIS strategy and pilot
• Initiatives * Impact £ Organizational Pain
-------
Scenario B
Exhibit ffl-5A “I-il
Data Management Standards, Policy and Guidance Initiativesj
S Establish an EPA/state work group. First, a joint EPA/state work group
is established. This work group is comprised of representatives from
relevant offices within EPA Headquarters, EPA Regional offices, and
state agencies/programs. The function of the work group is to provide
one unified, centralized coordinating and planning focus in the area of
ground-water data management. The work group defines the priority of
the initiatives, assigns and allocates responsibilities among the
organizations involved in ground-water data management and generally
manages the implementation of the initiatives. In addition, the work
group can serve as a forum to discuss alternative approaches and resolve
resource or organizational conflicts.
• Develop and issue organization mission statements. Once established,
the first action of the work group is to define and assign
organizational responsibilities for on—going as well as the proposed
Scenario B ground-water data management initiatives. The work group
will develop and issue clear mission statements for each EPA
organization involved in ground-water. These mission statements outline
the appropriate responsibilities of each organization in the design,
development and implementation of all ground-water activities and
Initiatives. Voluntary guidelines and charters may also be developed for
the non-EPA organizations involved in ground-water data management.
• Develop standard ground-water data formats. A third initiative is the
development of standard data formats for all relevant classes of
ground-water data. This includes the identification of the data
elements required and creation of a “Minimum Data Set’ for ground-water.
The minimum data set Includes that basic information that should be
collected every time a sample is taken, a well drilled or facility
permitted. The voluntary use of the data standards and the minimum data
set by the states must be promoted extensively by the work group and
EPA.
• Develop ground-water data sumarieS. As an outgrowth of the data
standards and minimum data set, the work group will develop a set of
ground-water data summaries. The data summaries must be developed for
each EPA program, and state programs where appropriate. The summaries
are intended to provide regional and national decision-makers with key
locational and environmental data on the ground-water activities of an
EPA program. This information could be used in problem identification
and performing general environmental assessment (e.g., has ground-water
contamination increased or decreased). EPA must also promote the
voluntary use and reporting of the data summaries by programs and
Regions.
-------
Scenario B
Exhibit ffl-5A 111-12
(cont’d)
Dala Management Standards, Policy and Guidance initiativ J
• Hold data management conferences, presentations and workshops. In order
to educate the states in a variety of ground-water activities, issues
and topics, EPA will hold workshops and management conferences. These
training workshops and conferences will instruct state personnel in the
uses/applications of the data standards and summaries; provide
additional, hands-on training in STORET and other EPA or federal agency
databases (e.g., WATSTORE) as appropriate. The management conferences
will focus on explaining new EPA policies and procedures, detail planned
EPA actions in ground-water data management, address special topics and
collect input and feedback from the states on current and proposed
ground-water activities and initiatives. In addition, both the
workshops and conferences offer excellent opportunities to promote the
voluntary adoption and use of the data standards and summaries.
• Provide limited technical consulting. In this scenario, EPA also
provides some limited technical consulting and support to the states.
This assistance will focus on aiding state development of their own
ground-water data systems, policies and analytical tools. By providing
this technical support, EPA ensures that all future state systems, and
their designers, are aware of EPA standards and policies and can take
the appropriate steps to remain compatible with EPA data systems
• Increase cross—program training/support resources. EPA also increases
the amount of resources available, across all programs/offices, to
disseminate to all EPA personnel information on ground-water data
systems, activities, and initiatives. Some suggested actions in this
initiative include training in ground—water data uses/analyses,
documentation of existing EPA systems and seminars emphasizing the
cross-program nature of ground-water protection and data management.
The intent of this initiative is to educate EPA personnel and program
offices so that they can extract the maximum possible benefits from
existing ground-water systems, policies, and analytical tools.
• Assess impact of initiatives on EPA ADP resources. The last initiative
in the area of data standards is the evaluation of the impact of
scenario B on existing ADP resources. It is important to assess the
“growth” in demand for EPA systems that will be generated by the
increased promotion and enhancement of current EPA data systems. In
addition, it is necessary to begin to coordinate ground—water data
management systems requirements with overall EPA Information Resource
Management (IRM) activities to ensure that improvements in ground-water
data management are not slowed by insufficient computer processing and
storage capabilities.
-------
Scenario B
Exhibit ffl-SB 111-13
I Data Access and AutomatiOn Initiatives I
• Perform specific enhancements to selected EPA systems. EPA will first
identify specific enhancements which can be made to STORET and other EPA
Systems to improve user access, storage and analytical capabilities.
Some examples of possible enhancements include development of a
user-friendly menu interface with STORET and improvement of remote user
dial-up access to EPA systems.
• Develop an inventory and nhow_tou primer of all national ground-water
data systems. A second initiative is the development of an inventory of
relevant EPA and other national ground-water data systems. A guide will
be published detailing the capabilities, location and access
requirements and procedures for each of these systems.
• Develop links between ground-water data systems with high data utility.
In order to improve the access and transfer of ground-water data which
is already automated, EPA will establish links between selected,
ground-water data systems. The systems to be linked are those which
Contain information with the greatest potential utility to environmental
managers. These selected linkages will be Implemented by a series of
pilot tests. The knowledge and experience gained from these initial
pilots should pay dividends in the future when more data systems are
integrated.
• Establish EPA clearing-house to provide information on analytical tools
and data management systems available to states, Regions and programs.
This initiative in the area of data access and automation develops a
Clearing-house function to provide information on the analytical tools
and ground-water data management systems available for use by EPA,
Region and state ground-water protection programs. EPA should perform a
feasibility study to clearly define clearing-house functions, costs and
benefits.
• Estab1j h manual indexes to sources of ground-water data at the state
level. Another major initiative is the development of an index to
existing sources of ground-water data. This index will be established
and maintained at the state level and linked to the ground-water
clear-house. It will contain pointers to the nature and location of
ground-water data collected within the state.
Automate selected state manual Indexes. For those states which collect
large amounts of ground-water data, or have a large number of collecting
Organizations Involved in ground-water activities, automation of the
manual index is strongly recommended. Automation will reduce search time
for data sources, Improve the timeliness and currency of the index
listings and eliminate unnecessary manual files.
-------
Scenario B
Exhibit rn-SC 111-14
Data Analysis InitIatives I
• Develop a Geographic Information System (615) Strategy. As a first
step, EPA should develop a strategy for the use of GIS applications in
ground-water data management. At present, a number of states have
acquired, or plan to acquire, their own GIS applications and plan to use
them in managing environmental data on a state-wide basis. EPA at its
Las Vegas lab has been experimenting with a mixture of GIS software
packages and hardware. One of the advantages of a GIS application is
that it allows users to spatially relate land use, sampling, locational
and other ground-water data classes. Given the potential strengths of
GIS and the frequent EPA/state requirement to generate two- or
three-dimensional maps and execute ground-water flow modelling, it is
extremely important for EPA to determine if GIS has a major, small or no
role in ground-water data management. The development of a GIS strategy
will ensure that if GIS does have a role in ground-water data
management, EPA can harness and direct the development of this new
technology into those areas with the highest benefit to EPA and the
environment.
• Pilot test aspects of GIS strategy. Once EPA has developed its GJS
strategy, the next logical step Is to pilot test the strategy. This
pilot test should be performed in conjunction with one or more states
and will attempt to validate the assumptions made in the strategy
regarding the usefulness of GIS. In addition, the pilot test must test
GIS applications in the regulatory process. To present, there have been
few, if any, direct uses of a GIS application in any of the normal
regulatory activities performed by EPA. Of course, if It is decided
that GIS does not have a role in ground-water data management, then no
pilot tests should be undertaken.
• Develop an inventory and “how-to primer 0 of ground-water data analytical
tools. A third initiative in this area is the development of an
inventory of existing automated ground-water analysis tools. The
inventory will list ground-water flow models, statistical routines and
techniques and other data analysis computer software packages currently
available. The inventory will also provide information on the
appropriate contact person or organization for the analytical tool. In
addition, EPA should develop a primer on the uses of a given tool. For
example, the primer might outline the hydrogeological conditions and the
specific contaminants for which a certain ground-water flow model could
be used and the confidence level for the model’s resulting predictions.
-------
Scenario B
Exhibit llL-5C
(cont’d)
I Data Analysis Initiatives 1
• Validate high-use ground-water flow models. The last initiative for this
scenario is the validation of existing ground-water flow models. This
validation might entail conducting “live” tests of the predictive
capabilities of certain, high use models. The actual movement of a
contaminant in the subsurface can then be compared with the predictions
generated by the model. A comparison of the actual and predicted plume
movements will evaluate the validity and usefulness of the model.
-------
111-16
D. Scenario C -- Integrate Ground-Water Data Capabilities in Selected Areas
In Scenario B, EPA develops a solid foundation for ground-water data
management through improvements in three critical areas: data formats and
procedures; organizational and management infrastructure based on the
recognition of ground-water data as a common resource; and selected
investments in system enhancements, training, and analytical tools. Scenario
C is based on the adoption of Scenario B initiatives and includes the logical
next steps in most areas —- additional integration and enhancement of
ground—water data systems, further investments in training and support, more
aggressive promotion and implementation of common ground-water data standards,
and further development of more sophisticated analytical capabilities.
Exhibit 111-6 depicts how the initiatives in Scenario C will affect the
ground-water data management environment. Exhibit 111-7 describes each
initiative in more detail. In each area, Scenario C represents a more
aggressive approach than Scenario B. The scope of EPA 1 s actions in Scenario
C, however, is limited by resource constraints and a desire to avoid the
organizational disruption that would be imposed by total and immediate
implementation of ground-water data standards. For example, Scenario C
requires data standards for all new national systems, but existing systems and
programs are considered for “retro—fitting” on a case-by-case basis.
Similarly, investments in training, technical support, and system enhancements
are targeted at high pay-off areas. Additional data analysis tools (e.g.,
geographical information systems) are implemented on a pilot study basis or
only at sites where it makes sense to do so.
By implementing Scenario C, EPA could achieve a more standardized,
integrated ground-water data management environment more quickly than would be
possible with Scenario B:
• A greater proportion of ground-water data would be stored in a
consistent format ... Scenario C includes more aggressive promotion
of ground-water data standards and requires the use of EPA standards
in selected situations (i.e., for new national systems and programs).
-------
111—17
• Data would be more accessible to decision makers ... In Scenario C,
every state would use an automated index to manual ground-water
records. In addition, additional linkages would be constructed
between automated ground-water data systems.
• Powerful analytical tools would be more widely available
Scenario C initiatives include more extensive application of
geographical information systems and Incorporate additional modelling
capabilities into existing systems.
Scenario C requires more resources than Scenario B -- in several areas,
the primary difference between the two options is the level of resources
available to fund improved procedures, systems, and analytical tools.
Scenario C is also riskier than Scenario B. Because EPA would be committing
to a larger number of more complex Initiatives now, there is an Increased
likelihood that the pay—off from some efforts would not Justify the cost and
that different initiatives will be inadequately coordinated.
-------
III- 18
Exhibit ffl.6
Scenario C: Initiatives and Impact
Require use of common data standards, defini-
tions and procedures for all new national systems
and require mandatory reporting of summary
level data.
Actions ensure collection of compatible ground-
water data and facilitates transfer of data across
programs.
Implement policy directives requiring use of
common data standards and new reporting
requirements.
Automate selected clearinghouse functions for
State ground-water data sources and implement
links among selected State/Federal sources of
ground-water data.
Actions provide environmental managers with
access to additional data sources for analysis and
decision-making.
Modify existing systems to facilitate data sharing,
transfer, and exchange.
Develop more powerful analytic capabilities
through limited investments in selected high-
payoff tools, develop additional micro to main-
frame links, and implement selected GIS
applications.
Actions provide States with automated access to
fundamental data analytic and manipulation
tools and leverages use of personal computers.
Develop user friendly “front-ends” to existing
systems and enhance existing analytic tools
available (e.g., automate RCRA Students
T-Test).
.
*
A
*
A
*
A
• Initiatives
* Impact
A Organizational Pain
-------
Scenario C
Exhibit ffl-7A 111-19
Data Management Standards, Policy and Guidance Thitiativesi
• Require use of data standards, formats, and procedures for all new
national systems and require the mandatory reporting of ground-water
suninary data for ground-water related programs. Scenario B developed
and established the voluntary use and reporting of the ground-water data
summaries for each program. In Scenario C, EPA and delegated state
programs are required to report summary level ground-water data (e.g.,
water quality, site and facility information) to the extent possible by
regulation, grant guidance, etc. For example, such summary data may
include state incidents of well contamination or background water
quality at RCRA facilities. The amount of data required would be
relatively small (e.g., one page per site, updated on an annual basis),
but would help ensure that “pointers 0 to relevant ground-water data
exist at a single source.
Initially, the data summaries are to be reported manually by the
programs, or states, to the Region, and there assembled and forwarded to
EPA Headquarters. The electronic transfer of this information should be
implemented as soon as possible where capabilities exist and It Is
cost-justified to do so.
• Hold data management conferences, presentations, and workshops to
encourage Intra-state Integration of ground-water data. Many sources of
ground-water data are outside the control of EPA delegated programs
(e.g., State Geologic Survey, County Health Department), but many of
these “outside” programs and organizations generate, collect and store
ground-water data. To emphasize the importance of a coordinated
approach to ground-water data management, EPA will expand the number and
the nature of its training workshops and conferences. As in Scenario B,
these workshops and conferences will continue to address the use of the
data standards, data summaries and technical issues and concerns, but
stress intra-state cooperation, integration, and coordination. Such an
approach may include the creation of a single office to coordinate and
collect ground-water data within the state or even the development of an
integrated ground-water data management system.
• Provide ADP technical consulting services to assist state programs in
the development of ground-water data management systems. In Scenario B,
technical consulting assistance focused upon state development of
ground-water data requirements and proper use of common data standards
and formats within each program. In Scenario C, technical consulting
services are expanded to focus upon the development 0 f state progran
systems. The goals of such assistance are to encourage the automation
of ground-water data and help the state implement tools that effectively
support program operations using EPA data standards and common formats.
Services provided to the states include Support In the development of
state requirements analysis studies, evaluation of different data
management systems and systems project management/development tools and
techniques.
-------
Scenario C
Exhibitffl-7A 111-20
(cont’ d)
(Data Management Standards, Policy and Guidance Initiative j
• Provide guidance to states In the development of micro-based program
specif IC application software for use in ground—water related programs.
The fourth initiative provides technical guidance to states in the
acquisition and development of micro-computer software. Many states
would like the capability to locally manipulate ground-water data and
micro—computers provide an excellent mechanism to perform this local
analysis. However, in many cases, the states and programs are unaware
of the existence of computer resources which could provide these key
analytical capabilities. Also, some states may not have in place the
necessary resources (e.g., hardware, software) to implement local
ground-water data analysis. Lastly, the data analytical tools required
may not exist. In all three of these cases, EPA will provide the
assistance necessary for states and programs to implement the local
analysis and manipulation of ground-water data. Some examples of EPA
aid to be provided as part of this initiative include assisting states
in the identification of any special programmatic needs, determining if
there are existing vendor products which can meet these needs and
guidance in the development and/or acquisition of suitable software.
• For automated systems, publish ground-water technical data interchange
standards to make utilities available to a wide variety of terminals
(e.g., such a data exchange standards would aflow the exchange of
information between state systems and STORET). In this initiative EPA
supports the sharing of data between different systems, through the
publication of technical specifications for EPA and other national data
systems. These standards would define ground—water data exchange formats
for magnetic tape, floppy diskette, and telecommunication protocols. In
addition, standards are developed to ensure that ground-water data
systems are readily accessible to a wide range of computer terminals and
micro-computer workstations. These standards establish one national set
of “rules” to guide the electronic transfer of ground-water data among
any state, EPA or other Federal agency data systems.
-------
Scenario C
Exhibit ffl-7B 111-21
I Data Access and Automation Initiatives
• Automate state ground—water data sources indexes. In Scenario B, manual
indexes to existing sources of ground-water data for each state and for
major sources of ground-water data available outside state programs
(e.g. USGS atlas, USDA soil maps) were developed. Automated indexes
were developed for states which collect large amounts of data. In
Scenario C, the remaining manual state indexes are converted to
automated indexes with the capability of searching for ground-water data
based upon a number of key descriptors (e.g., aquifer, contaminant,
location, program). Automation of state ground-water data indexes will
improve search time for index entries, facilitate the identification of
cross—organization and cross-program data sources and eliminate
unnecessary manual files. As part of this initiative, EPA provides
grants and technical support to aid in the state Index conversion
effort.
• Develop and Implement links between selected, high pay-off state and
federal sources of ground-water data. In Scenario B, a number of high
pay-off, ground-water data systems were identified (e.g., STORET,
WATSTORE). As part of that scenario, links were proposed between these
high pay-off systems in order to facilitate the electronic transfer of
data, increase the amount of ground-water data automated, Improve data
analysis and retrieval and gain valuable experience in interconnecting
data systems. The majority of the systems targeted for linkage in
Scenario B were national systems. In Scenario C, EPA develops automated
links between all major, Important national ground-water data systems
and key state data systems (e.g., state of Minnesota, state of Texas,
etc.). Linkages may be Implemented in the form of a common
user-friendly gateway to various systems, data sharing/exchange to
collect all useful information Into a single data base (e.g., WATSTORE,
STORET) or other techniques.
-------
Scenario C
Exhibit ffl-7C 1-22
I Initiatives r i
• Enhance relevant EPA systems (e.g., FINDS, IRIS, STORET,) by providing
user—friendly access tools, Improved data manipulation capabilities and
other enhancements. In Scenario B, the focus of data analysis
improvement was on the identification and dissemination of information
on existing analytical tools and systems. One of the Initiatives
proposed was an inventory of currently available tools and a “how-to°
primer on their use. In this scenario, EPA targets selected
program-specific analytical procedures for automation (e.g., the RCRA
Student’s I Test). The implementation of these new capabilities might
include the development of new EPA systems/software to execute the
analysis, enhancements to existing EPA data systems, the introduction of
user friendly front-ends to existing systems to encourage their
utilization (e.g., system menus, ‘ 1 bundled” data analysis routines) and
other actions.
• Develop micro to mainframe upload/download links for state users of EPA
utilities. In the discussion of data access and automation issues for
Scenario C, it was proposed that EPA provide assistance to states who
are developing ground-water related micro-computer applications. Many
states are pursuing the development of these applications. While
central storage of ground-water data is desired, most interviewees
preferred to manipulate the data locally on their own workstations. In
order to implement this type of data system configuration, it is
necessary to electronically transmit data back and forth between
locations. The process of extracting data from a centralized mainframe
computer and transmitting it to a local workstation (e.g., IBM XI) is
called downloading. Sending local data for storage into a mainframe
computer is termed uploading. Many states and EPA programs, have
requested the development and implementation of such upload/download
computer software. EPA can improve the frequency and efficiency of
automated ground-water data analysis by playing an active role in the
development, standardization and distribution of such data transfer
software. EPA activities may include assisting states In defining their
requirements, working with vendors in the development/testing process
and subsidizing the issuance of software to states.
• Implement or test as appropriate selected portions of GIS strategy
(e.g., develop state pilot). In Scenario C, selected aspects of the EPA
Geographic Information System (GIS) strategy are implemented. The GIS
strategy was originally developed and pilot tested in Scenario B. In
Scenario C, the GIS strategy is revised to reflect experience gained in
-------
Scenario C
Exhibit ffl-7C 111-23
(cont’d)
I Data Analysis Initiatives
the pilot tests. Then, the individual components of the strategy are
evaluated considering their utility and contribution to the improvement
of ground-water data management. Those aspects of the strategy which
offer immediate utility and high pay-off are implemented. The remaining
portions of the GIS strategy are deferred. Of course, If it was
determined in Scenario B that GIS has no role in ground-water data
management, this initiative is not undertaken in Scenario C. Similarly,
if based upon the pilot tests, It is determined that there are no
immediate gains from implementing the GIS strategy, then this initiative
is not pursued.
-------
111-24
E. Scenario D -- Achieve Fully Integrated and Consistent Ground-water
Data Management
Scenario El presents EPA with the most aggressive approach to improving
ground—water data management. Scenario D assumes that the initiatives
proposed in Scenarios B and C in the areas of data management standards, data
access and automation, and data analysis are successfully implemented.
Scenario D focuses on the integration of independent state and federal
ground-water systems into a single national ground—water data network,
primarily through two rnechanisnis:
• Mandatory use of applicable technical formats and data standards
An integrated and consistent ground-water data network must be based
on the many systems that states and federal agencies use to store the
ground-water data that they collect. In order to share data
successfully, these different systems must communicate with each
other using a common set of technical formats and data standards
defined and promoted by EPA.
• Routine access to data from all significant automated systems ... A
truly integrated ground-water data network must provide decision
makers with easy access to data from all major sources of
information. Through physical sharing of copied data or
computer-to-computer access, the national network must provide users
with all relevant data, regardless of the system in which it was
originally stored.
Such a network would facilitate the electronic transfer and reporting of
ground-water data and provide users throughout the nation with easy, rapid
automated access to the ground-water data available. At the same time,
Scenario 0 is the costliest and riskiest of the four options. Exhibit 111-8
outlines key initiatives in Scenario 0 and their impact while exhibit 111—9
provides a detailed presentation of all initiatives in the scenario.
-------
Scenario D: Initiatives and Impact 111-25
Exhibit ffl-8
• Require use of common data standards, defini-
tions, and procedures for use in all appropriate
EPA and EPA-funded State ground-water
systems. Require routine transfer of ground-
water data to EPA ground-water data utility.
* Action implements common framework for
management of ground-water data for State and
EPA systems and creates central repository of
key data elements.
A Requires major modification of existing systems
and procedures and for all program areas.
• Provide for full integration and sharing of
ground-water data among organizations and
systems.
* Action provides automated access and interfaces
to all major sources of ground-water data for
use in program management and decision-
making.
A Requires a substantial investment in automated
systems at State and Federal level.
• Implement full array of powerful, easy-to-use
analytic tools for use in supporting ground-
water decision-making widespread implemen-
tation of GIS.
* Action provides ready access to the analytic
tools required to support ground-water program
decisions. Spatial display of ground-water data
will significantly enhance cross-program
analysis of ground-water data.
A Requires a substantial investment in a new
technology by EPA and participating States.
Program offices must provide data themes for
use in various GIS applications.
I
DATA
AUF(
• Initiatives
* Impact
A Organizational Pain
-------
ScenarioD III 26
Exhibit ffl-9A -
Data Management Standards, Policy and ( 3uidance JniUative
• Require use of all applicable data standards, formats, policies and
procedures for use In all EPA-funded state ground-water system. In
Scenario B, EPA and the states developed a set of common ground-water
data standards and a minimum data set to be associated with the
collection of ground-water quality data. These common standards and the
minimum data set were required for use in all new ground-water data
systems supported with EPA funding.
Scenario 0 requires the use of ground-water data management standards,
policies, and procedures in all new and existing EPA-funded systems and
data collection efforts, both within EPA and In the states. These
requirements are imposed as appropriate through grant guidance,
regulations, contract terms, etc., and includes the revision of existing
systems and procedures to meet the necessary standards. This conversion
of existing systems to incorporate ground-water data standardization may
require large scale system design and development efforts. The
EPA/state work group will be responsible for defining the necessary
modifications, the establishment of a general approach and workplan and
the assignment of organizational responsibilities to oversee this
initiative.
• Require transfer of data into the EPA ground-water data utility for
EPA—funded ground-water data collection. In this initiative all EPA and
state programs are required to transfer a minimum data set to the EPA
ground-water data management utility. The transfer of this data will
ensure widespread data availability, access, and sharing. The transfer
of the minimum data set is achieved electronically and is facilitated by
use of the EPA common ground-water data standards, policies, and
procedures. The transfer is required to the fullest extent possible
through regulations, grant guidance, contract terms, technical guidance
and other mechanisms.
• Provide cross-program resources and support. In Scenario 0 the emphasis
is placed upon a cross-program and cross-organizational approach to
ground-water data management. EPA allocates resources to ground-water
activities in the areas of technical support, training, user assistance,
documentation, and guidance. For example EPA might establish a common
ground-water “help center t ’ to act as a focal point for use of other
federal agency systems (e.g. USGS, Census, NASA), ground-water modelling
expertise, technical consulting to states and other functions. The
EPA/state work group will take the lead in the development of additional
training courses, the improvement of system documentation, analysis of
appropriate data management tools and techniques, and the identification
of new initiatives to improve ground-water data Integration.
-------
Scenario D
Exhibit ffl-9B 111-27
I Data Access and Automation Initiatives I
• EPA develops Interfaces to routinely transfer data between EPA
ground-water utilities and other state or federal systems. In Scenarios
B and C, a number of ground-water data systems were linked to improve
remote access to ground-water data and facilitate data exchange,
transfer and sharing among organizations. Specifically, Scenario B
implemented links between EPA and other national ground-water data
systems (e.g. STORET, WATSTORE). Scenario C linked these national data
systems with selected, high pay—off state ground-water data systems. In
Scenario D, EPA implements and operates interfaces to routinely transfer
data between all significant EPA ground-water utilities and other state
or federal ground-water systems. The result is an extensive data
sharing mechanism among EPA, state and other Federal ground-water
protection programs.
• EPA continues to enhance EPA systems to provide for routine data
transfer and access. All EPA and state programs are required to
transfer a minimum data set and the ground-water data summaries to the
EPA ground-water data management utility. The EPA/state work group, in
association with the individual states and programs, Is responsible for
the design, development and implementation of all systems-related
enhancements necessary to permit the electronic transfer of this
ground-water data.
• Automate the collection of data sunmiaries required of EPA programs and
delegated states. EPA automates the collection of data summaries
required from EPA programs and delegated states. In Scenario B, the
data summaries were developed and their voluntary use and reporting
encouraged. In Scenario C, voluntary reporting became mandatory, but
data collection and reporting was primarily manual. In Scenario D, data
summary reporting is automated for every EPA and delegated state
program. The reporting procedure does not change. The Region still
collects and forwards the data summaries, however this data is now
transferred electronically to the EPA ground-water data utility.
-------
ScenarioD 111-28
Exhibit 1ll-9C
I Data Analysis Initiatives I
• Implement all cost-justified aspects of the GIS strategy. The EPA GIS
strategy was developed and pilot tested as part of Scenario B. In
Scenario C, EPA implemented the high pay-off, immediate Impact segments
of the strategy. those portions of the GIS strategy lacking immediate
benefit were deferred. In Scenario D, EPA implements its overall GIS
strategy in all geographical areas where benefits out—weigh costs. It
Is important to note that many states, programs and EPA Regions may have
already implemented GIS capabilities/applications of their own. When
EPA presents its national GIS strategy, it may be necessary to develop
links between its master GIS and these other GIS applications to
facilitate the integration of GIS data. In addition, the EPA/state work
group should take the lead in enforcing compatibility, consistency, and
non—duplicative data collection and entry among these various GIS
applications.
• Develop ground-water analytical tools which permit the cross-program and
cross-organizational analysis of ground-water data by EPA and states.
In Scenario C, EPA first addressed the creation of new analytical tools
for ground—water data analysis, but the focus in Scenario C was on the
development of tools for program-specific data analysis procedures. In
Scenario D, the ground-water data management environment has changed
significantly. Now, EPA has established an integrated, nationally
oriented ground-water data management environment. Data Is collected,
reported and stored across different programs, states, Regions and
federal agencies. The next step Is to develop automated tools which can
draw upon this cross-program and cross-organizational data to perform
analyses. The EPA/state work group will identify the ground-water
activities which can benefit from this type of analysis, define the
necessary specific analytical tools and supervise the development and
implementation of those tools which can be justified on a cost/benefit
basis. These tools will be developed for and reside on the EPA national
ground-water data utility but will be accessible by all state, regional
and national ground-water analysts.
-------
‘v —i
CHAPTER IV: RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Decision Framework
EPA has the opportunity to improve the quality of environmental decision
making by enhancing ground-water data management. In the past, the Agency has
not been organized to manage ground-water data as a shared resource. EPA
should take action now, however, to respond to the new requirements imposed by
the growing importance and complexity of ground-water data management.
Failure to act promptly will lead to duplication of effort, incompatible
procedures and systems, and greater barriers to data sharing and access.
The study team has identified four alternative scenarios for meeting these
new requirements:
• Scenario A: Continue Current Activities; No Major New Initiatives
• Scenario B: Put in Place Basic Building Blocks for Improved Ground-
Water Data Management
• Scenario C: Integrate Ground-Water Data Capabilities In Selected
Areas
• Scenario D: Achieve Fully Integrated and Consistent Ground-Water
Data Management
These four scenarios provide a range of options, from continuing existing
activities to undertaking a set of new and ambitious Initiatives to create an
integrated ground-water data management network. The alternatives are not
mutually exclusive —- each consists of many different projects and actions,
with the more aggressive options building on the accomplishments of previous
scenarios.
In acting on the results of this study, EPA decision makers should address
two Issues. First, which scenario should EPA attempt to achieve over the next
three to five years? In other words, what is the target for ground-water data
management In the next few years, in light of resource constraints, current
-------
IV-2
data management practices and systems, and other factors. Second, what
specific projects and initiatives should be started now to begin moving EPA in
the right direction? There is no need to develop a totally comprehensive,
detailed plan for all actions over the next five years, but selected high
pay—off initiatives should be clearly identified and begun.
B. EPA Should Implement Scenario B —— Put in Place Basic Building Blocks for
Improved Ground-Water Data Management -— Over the Next Three Years
The study team recommends that EPA implement Scenario B (Put in Place
Basic Building Blocks for Improved Ground—Water Data Management) over the next
three years. At the end of that period, the Agency should conduct a formal
re-assessment of progress to date and develop a new 3-year action plan for
implementing additional improvements in ground-water data management.
Scenario B is an intermediate approach. It requires EPA to take new
action in selected areas and to consider ground-water data as a critical
shared resource -- unlike Scenario A (Continue Current Activities; No Major
New Initiatives), which involves no such changes 4 Compared to Scenario C
(Integrate Ground-Water Data Capabilities in Selected Areas) and Scenario D
(Achieve Fully Integrated and Consistent Ground—Water Data Management),
however, Scenario B consists of fundamental management initiatives to be
implemented gradually, rather than more ambitious automatation efforts to be
completed more quickly.
In particular, the following factors were of primary importance in the
study team’s decision to recommend Scenario B:
• Although Scenario A will generate some improvements, it fails to
establish a common approach to managing ground-water data. As a
consequence, the resulting improvements will be fragmented and
uncoordinated. In fact, Scenario A does little or nothing to address
decision makers’ top priority for ground-water data —- improved
access and sharing.
• The initiatives that comprise Scenario B are critical to Scenarios C
and 0 as well. In implementing Scenario B over the next three years,
EPA builds a foundation for attaining improvements in the longer run.
-------
IV.-3
• Scenario a is less risky than Scenarios C or D. Scenario B provides
for fewer, less ambitious projects, and consequently involves less
likelihood of failure. The risks of Scenarios C and 0 are especially
increased by the need to implement certain initiatives very quickly
and to coordinate many related projects.
• In Scenario B, new data standards and practices are implemented
voluntarily by states, EPA program offices, and EPA Regions.
Scenarios C and 0 require that some or all of these changes be
implemented on a mandatory basis. Accordingly, Scenario B entails
less organizational disruption than more aggressive alternatives.
Exhibit IV—1, shown on the following page, depicts the nature and timing
of critical near-term Scenario B initiatives in three areas - — common data
standards, improved access to ground w t r data across programs, arid enhanced
ground-water data analysis capabilitjes• As shown in Exhibit IV -1, the study
team also recommends a formal re-assessment of progress to date at the end of
Fiscal 1989; that evaluation is to be used to develop a new action plan for
review and approval by the Ground-Water Data Requirements Policy Committee.
rn summary, Scenario B will yield critical improvements in ground_wa
data management with a minimum of organization disruption and risk. If
additional initiatives are determined to be necessary or beneficial, Scenario
B can be used as a foundation for implementing additional improvements in the
future.
-------
Exhibit IV -!
Deve1op
rt IStandan1s
Improve Access
‘o Ground-Water
Across
Ground-
!ater Data
1 Analysis
‘ilities
Develop standard ground-water data definitions, minimum
data set, and summaly site/fa ility reporting requirements.
As appiopriate, begin to implement common standards
in program systems and procedures.
‘ ,W’,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 j/iWi’
Develop an tion plan P ° P Ir kmem manual or ajeomated ground-
studies for ground-water data sowce üxiexes in all states.
indexes.
,f f,’)WT,’,’ fI’I’,W#’ ’d’f/ f / ,,,,,,,,,fff ff f fffffffffff ff1i
Plan for, design, and begin implementing enhancements and linkages to major, high
pay offEPAandOth&datasYSt .
Prepareanddistnbu$ean
inventoiy and primer on
existing high pay-off
analytical tools.
3,w,w..mi
Develop a strategy and conduct pilot tests for the application of Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) technology.
Formal re-a e ment
of progre to date;
Policy Comnittee
revie s and approv
new 3-year action
-------
v-i
CHAPTER V: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Ground-Water Data Requirements Analysis Policy Committee has reviewed
the alternatives for improving ground—water data management and reached
consensus on a set of specific initiatives to provide the fundamental building
blocks to enhance ground-water data management in the follow areas:
• Data management standards, policy, and guidance
• Data access and automation
• Data analysis.
This chapter descrIbes the implementation plan developed for these key
Initiatives. The implementation plan describes the near term actions -- those
scheduled to occur in FY 87 through FY 90 -- for each activity.
A. Initiatives in Data Management Standards, Policy, and Guidance
Data management standards, policy, and guidance are the rules that
determine how ground-water data is collected and stored. One of the major
barriers to effective ground-water data management identif led in this study Is
lack of common data standards among EPA Headquarters, Regions, and states.
Data collection, codlpg, and reporting conventions are not uniform across all
programs. This lack of standardization makes It difficult to integrate data
from many sources and reduces the value of data that is shared.
1. Develop Ground—Water Data Standards
Perhaps the most important initiative is the development of standard
data formats for all relevant classes of ground—water data. Key tasks in this
Initiative Include:
• Establish an EPA/State/Other Federal Agencies work group
to provide one unified, centralized coordinating and planning
-------
V-2
source in the area of ground-water data management. This
group would direct the task of developing a consensus on
ground-water data standards.
• Document Current Standards Across Different Programs ... to
determine the basis for the development of common data
standards and record formats for manual and automated
systems.
• Develop Conunon Data Standards and Record Formats ... to
provide a common basis for the storage of the four major
types of ground—water data. This task would identify the
critical data elements for each ground-water data type and
define common standards.
• Develop a Minimum Data Set for Ground-Water Data ... to
ensure uniformity in the collection and storage of
ground-water data. The minimum data set includes that basic
information (e.g., well location, sample method, etc.) that
should be collected every time a sample is collected, a well
drilled or facility permitted.
• Analysis of Needs for Minimum Conunon Reporting Requirements
to assess requirements for standard ground—water
reporting requirements (e.g., at the site level) across all
programs to facilitate cross-program coordination.
2. Hold a Ground-Water Data Management Conference and Other Workshops
In order to inform the states and others in a variety of ground—water
activities, issues, and topics, EPA will sponsor a ground—water data
management conference (perhaps in conjunction with other groups). The
conference will help EPA, states, and other groups understand the purpose and
uses of the ground—water data standards and formats and provide additional,
hands-on training in STORET and other EPA or federal agency databases. The
conference will focus on the explanation of new EPA policies and procedures,
detail planned EPA actions in ground-water data management, address special
topics, and collect input and feedback from the states on current and proposed
ground-water activities and initiatives.
B. Initiatives in Data Access and Automation
Data access and automation refer to the ability of decision makers to
obtain and use data from other organizations and automate ground-water data
-------
V-3
within their own programs. This study found that most ground-water data is
now stored in manual files, with access and retrieval complicated by the lack
of indexes to the locations and characteristics of that data. Ground—water
data within one state may reside with several different organizations, from
the Department of Public Health to the State Geologic Survey, making data
collection most difficult. Where automated data does exist, users were
frequently not aware of its availability or of the specific access procedures
necessary to obtain it.
The Policy Committee selected three initiatives to improve the
accessibility of ground—water data to EPA and state decision-makers: (1)
develop STORET enhancements; (2) develop a catalogue of ground-water data
sources; and (3) develop a baseline report on ground-water data sources.
1. Develop STORET Enhancements
STORET currently serves as a repository for ground-water data of many
states and EPA Regions. Enhancement of STORET to more readily accept and
easily retrieve ground-water data would provide states with a more
user-friendly tool for collecting, storing, and manipulating ground-water
data. Possible task areas in this effort include:
• Identify Appropriate Enhancements ... to ensure more
efficient and effective utilization of existing and
planned capabilities.
• Develop User—friendly Menu Structure ... to facilitate
access for the non-computer professional.
• Enhance Remote User Dlal—up/ Coniiiunications •.. to
Improve access for remote users, including
upload/download capabilities.
• Modify STORET Input and Update Processing ... to ensure
data quality. Software will be developed to provide
routine error checking to better regulate STORET
ground-water data quality.
• Continue Training in Use of STORET for Ground-Water Data
Management ... to provide users with full awareness of
the system’s capabilities.
-------
V-4
2. Develop a Baseline Report (or Catalogue) on Ground—Water Data Sources
The Ground-Water Data Requirements Analysis study found that there
are few central repositories of ground-water data. Individual programs
typically collect and store the data needed to support their own operations.
At the state level, some states have begun efforts to develop an integrated
approach to ground-water data management. For example, Minnesota is
developing the Integrated Ground-Water Information System (IGWIS) and Texas
has the Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS). At the Federal
level there are two major repositories of ground water quality data - - STORET
and WATSTQRE. A “how-toe catalogue on existing ground—water data sources and
systems would facilitate data access. Activities on this project include:
• Develop Inventory of Relevant EPA, Major State, and
Other National Ground-Water Data Systems and Sources
to provide environmental decision makers with location
of available automated data.
• Identify Data Types Stored in Each Source and System
to enable ground-water data users to more quickly
identify the type of ground-water data available (e.g.,
well descriptors, hydrogeologic descriptors, water
quality/sample descriptors, and related descriptors).
• Provide a System Characterization ... detailing system
capabilities, location, access requirements, point of
contact, and other relevant information for all systems
In the catalogue.
3. Develop Catalogue of Ground-Water Data Sources
Should the Baseline Report or Catalogue prove successful, that basic
information could be enhanceth To supplement the information available from
automated ground-water data sources and systems, an index or catalogue of
existing sources of ground—water data is a useful tool. The catalogue would
contain pointers to the location (e.g., State Geologic Survey, Department of
Agriculture) of ground-water data collected within a state or EPA Region. Key
activities include:
• Select Pilot States ... to develop the proper mix of states
(e.g., including advanced states as well as those with more
fundamental needs) for participation in development of a
pilot catalogue.
-------
V-5
• Develop Pilot Catalogue .... to provide pointers to the
various data types and sources of ground-water data within a
state.
• Evaluate Catalogue and Continue to Full Implementation
to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the pilot project
and implement an appropriate set of catalogues nationwide.
C. Initiatives in Data Analysis
Data analysis refers to the manipulation of raw ground-water data (e.g.,
water quality/sample descriptors, well descriptors) to Identify trends or
patterns in ground-water quality. Data analysis tools include statistics,
modelling, mapping, and graphics. The development of these tools and the
education of the user community could enhance the quantitative basis for
ground-water decision making. There are two major initiatives in this area:
(1) development of a catalogue of ground-water analytic tools; and (2)
geographic information system projects, studies, and pilots.
1. Develop a Catalogue of Ground-Water Analytic Tools
Based upon an evaluation of the utility of the ground-water data
sources catalogues EPA may proceed with the development of an Inventory of
existing automated tools. Decision makers need the right tools to analyze
ground-water data. This Initiative develops a catalogue of existing
ground-water data analysis tools. Key activities Include:
• Development of an Inventory of Existing Automated Tools
to establish a baseline for the development of additional
capabilities and provide a convenient reference for the user
community.
• Validate High-Use Ground-Water Flow Models ... to ensure that
the models currently used provide accurate predictive
capabilities and to provide guidance to users on the
advantages of various models in different situations.
• Develop a Catalogue of Ground-Water Analysis Tools ... for
use by ground-water data users. For each tool, the catalogue
would Include the tool’s purpose (e.g., modelling,
statistical analysis), a contact person and organization,
data requirements, and other general information.
-------
V-6
2. Conduct Geographic Information System (GIS) Projects/Studies/pilots
EPA Is currently developing an Agency policy on GIS applications. In
addition to the development of an overall policy and guidance statement, EPA
will consider GIS applications in ground-water data management. Given the
potential strengths of GIS and the frequent EPA/state requirement to generate
maps overlayed with relevant data themes (e.g., soils, topography, facility
location), It Is important for EPA to determine the role of GIS in ground-
water data management. To this end EPA will conduct a series of projects,
studies, and pilot efforts to determine the role of GrS applications in
ground-water data management.
A preliminary schedule for the implementation of these initiatives is
provided below.
Actions Required from EPAJStates
G d -WaaManagen lnitiaüv c
FY87
FY88
FY89
FY90
I I I
I I I
I II
I I I
.
.
.
.
.
.
Develop 01W Data Standards and Formats
STORET Enhancements
Data Sources Report (Baseline)
Catalogue of 01W Data Sources
Catalogue of GIW Analytic Tools
GIS Projects/Studies/Pilots
—
-
0
.
01W Data Management Conference
.
Periodic Reassessments
p
p.
------- |