Best Practices in Site Data Management, Analysis, and
2-D and 3-D Geospatial Visualization Tools from
Hazardous Waste Site Investigation Activities

Carolyn K. Offutt, ORD/NERL/ESD/LEB, Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center,

on detail from OSWER/OSRTI

Introduction

Site Assessment Managers, (SAMs), Remedial Program Project Managers (RPMs), and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) manage and analyze data to support many different
programmatic functions - predicting contaminant migration processes and pathways, assessing health and environmental risks, estimating remediation costs, and allocating
scarce clean-up resources most efficiently. Geospatial tools allow site managers to visualize complex information to support these functions. Over the last decade, geospatial
technology has come into its own as an indispensable resource of the Superfund program. This poster illustrates a sampling of best practices.

Four Quadrants of Visualization Techniques

Representative best practices are arrayed in this poster into four quadrants defined by the two dimensions of analytic complexity and accessibility.

In the lower left quadrant are FUNCTIONAL techniques. These techniques are basic workhorses that are neither
exceptionally powerful nor exceptionally accessible, but which may be all that is needed.

In the upper left quadrant are the most complex ANALYTICAL technologies. These typically demand more processing
power or more extensive data than are commonly needed for functional techniques. They are also typically less
accessible to wide audiences.

In the lower right quadrant are the INTERACTIVE technologies, whose value is in making functional techniques widely
and easily accessible via the Internet. Interactive technologies are needed for wide communication of functional
information among stakeholders and the public.

In the upper right are the INNOVATIVE technologies that provide both analytical complexity and accessibility. These
include methods for making complex analyses widely accessible, such as to the public.



ANALYTICAL

Practices that require more complex analyses and/or more extensive data

X
QJ

Q_

E

o
o

A3
O

'¦P

TO
C
<

Wf

Visualizing detailed
local geology &
contaminant data
reveal risks (e.g..
groundwater
contamination via
containment layer
hole).

Visualizing spatial
extent of

contamination using
sample data helps
eslimate mass and

volume of
contamination

Statistical analyses ol well sample
data slww highest contaminant
uncertainties (fed areas), and help
in Sitting new welt locabons
accurately & cost-etfectwety

INNOVATIVE

Practices thai deliver more powerful analytic capabilities to users over the Web

indus«on of interactive 3-D
mode«s within Web-based irte
duia management systems
gives useirs arcsss to the
results o1 complex analyses

n



Various web technology
(e g , lAfeh-based GtS) allow
users to- thare site-specific
dala without tfw need for
expensive or complicated
software

Using web'Cased GlS, wth interactive
query capability, users perform
complex spatial & rtsfc analyses
without (raining on multiple tools

FUNCTIONAL

Practices that provide basic presentations of eommonty-used
geospatial site information

Mapping mtAi-ptogram
info (0 g . Superfund
RCRA) ovef
population/land use

(Jensaty maps shows





m

• v'

-"V-X

wheat land remediaGon
coutd contribute to new
economic development

Mapping area-wide
Superfund s»tes thai
are treating
groundwater for VOCs
shows potential tor
ccst-sha~ng aooti

prefects

I 1	 'J'".:.].iJ In b_

GJS contouring software
shows sile contamination and
potential off-site nsks

INTERACTIVE

Practices that Web-enabte functional types of analyses to aid community

involvement activities

•V-sw

•





•



:-iJ! '

; '
J /

L	

. ... ¦ i ¦



YWjb.bssed tools sucfi as
GATHER allow (he pubiscto
find sites near them and
183m about their ament
status.

LT-nS

Qnkne dotwrtenl libraries

fj allow project team
members from dflerenl
places )o collaborate
efficiently and more cost
effective^

FIELDS provides a free & easy
interface to combine sample
data wlh GIS, quickly s»tcw>ng
contamnnaljon extent

Accessibility

What is a Visualization "Best Practice"?

in this poster, a "best practice" is a technology that helps site managers:

1)	accomplish something of programmatic value that could not otherwise be done, and/or

2)	reduce the cost or improve the quality of an analysis done by other means.

Geospatial analysis is entering the mainstream of environmental information management
because it does both these things.

Geospatial Technology Supporting Programmatic Needs

At its best, the strength of geospatial visualization is its immediacy (i.e., its ability to clarify complicated issues and
focus attention on what is most important more quickly than could be done otherwise). In reviewing best practices,
two themes emerge:

1)	variations in the analytic complexity of different available technologies, and

2)	variations in the accessibility of these technologies to different audiences.

A geospatial technology does not have to be the most complex or the most accessible to qualify as a best practice.
It must simply offer the right combination of complexity and accessibility to fulfill a particular programmatic need.

Notice: Although this work was; reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may licit necessarily reflect official Agency policy. Mentionof trade names cr commercial products does not constitute endorsement cr recommendation by EPA for use.

j epascienceforumj^^-iC"

5.	2	Collahoratiue Science	/	t \

XJ

PROtfc «

Collaborative Science
for Environmental Solutions

y m


-------