Phase I study State groundwater data management system ; final report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

PHASE1 STUDY-
STATE GROUNDWATER DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

FINAL
REPORT

Submitted
to
State of Maine
Land and Water Resources Council
Data Management Committee

Prepared
by
Mark A. Jadkowski

January 1987

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION. CENTER

JAMES W. SEWALL COMPANY

- ----------
GB
1025 PO. Box 433
M2 Old Town, ME 04468 Tel. (207) 827 4456
J32
1987

PHASE 1 STUDY
STATE GROUNDWATER DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

FINAL
REPORT

Submitted
to
State of Maine
Land and Water Resources Council
Data Management Committee

Prepared
by
Mark A. Jadkowski

January 1987

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER

JAMES W SEWALL. COMPANY

GB
1025 PO Box 433
M2 Old Town, ME 04468 Iel. (207) 8 456
J32
1987

PHASE1 STUDY-
STATE GROUNDWATER DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

FINAL
REPORT

Submitted
to
State of Maine
Land and Water Resources Council
Data Management Committee

Prepared
by
Mark A. Jadkowski

January 1987

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

JAMES W SEWALL,. COMPANY

P0 Box 433
Old Town, ME 04468 Tel. (207) 827 4456

Financial assistance for this report was provided by a grant from
Maine's Coastal Program, through funding provided by the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource
Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Currently, twenty-five state and federal groundwater programs
generate groundwater information. The types of data generated
include (1) ownership information, (2) map locations, (3) water
quality information, (4) well construction and installation
information, (5) well yields, (6) hydrogeologic descriptions, and (7)
delineations of bedrock fractures and sand and gravel aquifers.

Most information is filed manually. For large data bases,
searches through these files are very cumbersome. Requests for
information are difficult and expensive to fulfill. Complicated
sorts of the type needed to analyze trends in the quality and
quantity of the State's groundwater resources are practically
impossible.

A number of computerized data management systems are also
used to manage groundwater related information. They include
FRAMEWORK, WATSTORE, HONEYWELL DM-IV, MEGIS, BURROUGHS
DataManager and RBASE 400, LOTUS, D-BASE 111, PCS, STORET,
and a number of un-named IBM PC-XT systems. These vary in
capability from simple data storage and retrieval to sophisticated
geographic information system functions.

In general, little compatibility exists between groundwater
data management systems currently in use. The lack of a common
data organization scheme is the principal cause of this, and is a
major obstacle to the development of an integrated and mutually
accessible groundwater data management system.

A number of opportunities currently exist to improve
accessibility to groundwater information. Suggestions on how to
take advantage of these are made in this report. These range in
complexity from a simple groundwater newsletter and information
index to implementation of a geographic information system to
sort data based on map location. The costs of implementation also
vary a great deal. However, each suggestion contributes greatly to
overall data accessibility. We recommend that the State give
serious consideration to all low-cost/high-'benefit opportunities
for improving accessibility to data.

Current data management systems are used primarily for data
storage and retrieval. Needs which are hot being efficiently met
include (1) comprehensive knowledge of what groundwater
information is available in Maine, (2) access to the most up-to-
date information available, (3) ability to answer inquiries and
satisfy requests for data, (4) trend analysis of regional
groundwater quality and quantity, (5) performance monitoring of
pollution abatement systems and remedial containments, (6) rapid
access to information for emergency response to hazardous
materials spills, and (7) automated analysis and map-making from
previously mapped information. In addition to these present needs,
a number of additional data management requirements can be
anticipated because of possible future groundwater programs.

Specific system functions and features required to fulfill
Maine's 'groundwater data management needs are given in Section
VI of this report. This list can be used to evaluate possible
software/hardware configurations which may come under
consideration in Phase 11.

In general terms, two viable data management configurations
should be considered by the State. These are (1) adopt one
comprehensive data management system capable of handling most
groundwater data, and phase out use of existing systems-over time;
or (2) continue use and development of separate data management
systems, but tie them together using a geographic management
information system (GIS) to index data.

These configurations are similar in that both will provide the
State with geographic information management (GIS) capabilities
and computerized storage and retrieval of groundwater data.
However, a single system is better suited for complex queries and
data analyses. It is also easier to operate. Several systems tied
together by a GIS, on the other hand, would best utilize the effort
that has already been made to computerize some data. This
configuration would also allow agencies total control over data
formats and portions of the system could be implemented quickly.
In addition, we believe that a Phase 11 analysis will confirm that
the former of these options is considerably more costly than the
latter.

We recommend that the Phase 11 contractor continue to solicit
involvement from the agencies and groundwater personnel involved
in Phase 1. Their participation was essential to the development of
the ideas presented in this report. It is certain that as this
project proceeds, they will wish to revise some of the
requirements documented here. In addition, their involvement will
be a necessary ingredient in gaining the cooperation of individual
agencies, and commitments to a mutually accessible groundwater
data management system at the user level.

As with most other computer programs, the usefulness of any
system adopted by the State will depend primarily on the
competency of those using and maintain 'ing it. Based on our
experience, the true costs of training or hiring competent
personnel are frequently grossly underestimated. Phase 11 should
provide an accurate cost analysis. In addition, a cost/benefit
analysis of contracting an experienced outside party to provide
information management services should also be developed.

We recommend that steps be initiated to insure the continued
utility of a data management system once it has been implemented.
These steps may include (1) designation of, an individual to be
charged with overall coordination of the system; (2) formation of a
group responsible for ensuring that the system continues to meet
the needs of users; (3) implementation of a Memorandum of
Agreement among agencies involved with groundwater which
recognizes the need for cooperation to insure the - continued
success of the system; and (4) funding at an adequate level to
maintain the data base, coordinate groundwater data reporting, and
train personnel.

Table of Contents

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i
List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. Groundwater Data in Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Ill. Current Forms of Groundwater Data Management 5
IV. Accessibility to Groundwater Data . . . . . . . . 11
V. State Groundwater Data Management Needs . . . . . 16
VI. Required System Functions and Features . . . . . . 20
V 11. Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . 20

Appendix A - Key Agencies and Groundwater Personnel
Appendix B - Synopses of Findings Listed by Agency

List of Tables

Table 1. Index to programs which generate groundwater
information, data categories, and current data
management systems in Maine . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. List of groundwater data categories . . . . . . 6

Table 3. Sources and users of groundwater data in Maine 12

Table 4. Suggested actions for improving accessibility to
groundwater data among agencies . . . . 13

Table 5. List of current groundwater data management and
analysis needs not being met at the present time 18

Table 6. Anticipated additional data management
requirements that may be necessary because of
possible future programs . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 7. Specific system functions and features
required to fulfill Maine's groundwater data
management needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CERCLA- Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
DAFRR - Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural
Resources
DEP - Department of Environmental Protection
DFA - Department of Finance and Administration
DHS - Department of Human Services
DOC - Department of Conservation
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
GIs - Geographic Information System
MDOT - Maine Department of Transportation
MEGIS - Maine Geographic Information System
MGS - Maine Geological Survey
PCs - Permit Compliance System
PUC - Public Utilities Commission
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SPO - State Planning Office
USGS - United States Geological Survey

1. Introduction

Eight state and federal agencies are major generators and/or
users of groundwater information in Maine: Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), Department of Agriculture, Food
and Rural Resources (DAFRR), Department of Human Services
(D H S), Department of Conservation/ Maine Geological Survey
(M G S), Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT), Public
Utilities Commission (PUC), State Planning Office (SPO), and U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). A number of these agencies are
proceeding with computerized data management. Most groundwater
data management systems are designed to meet the specific needs
of individual agencies.

Statewide, however, groundwater information can be most
useful when it is mutually accessible by all of the generators
and/or users of data. Current groundwater data management
systems do not provide this accessibility.

The Maine Land and Water Resources Council is an interagency
coordinating body of the State Planning Office composed of the
Commissioners and Directors of State agencies that use, manage,
and regulate the State's natural resources. Its Standing Committee
on Data Management is committed to improving the effectiveness
and overall coordination of the State's natural resources data
management systems. Accordingly, the Groundwater Interagency
Coordination Subcommittee of the Groundwater Standing
Committee and the Data Management Committee of the Council
initiated this study to analyze existing groundwater data
management systems and data management needs within the
agencies that are currently collecting and/or using groundwater
information.

The objectives of this study are to (1) evaluate how existing
data management systems are currently being used to support
State efforts to manage Maine's groundwater, (2) identify what
new arrangements will be needed to implement any further
management programs now under consideration by the council, and

(3) serve as the foundation for a subsequent Phase 11 effort which
will include the technical design of a mutually accessible State
groundwater data management system.

In order to achieve the above objectives, accurate up-to-date
information on agencies' needs was required. A questionnaire was
designed to determine (1) what types of groundwater -data are
generated and how it is managed, (2) which agencies are outside
users of this data, (3) which agencies are sources of groundwater
data, (4) what opportunities exist for improving accessibility to
groundwater data among agencies, (5) what resources are available
for data management, (6) what needs are met by current
groundwater data management systems, (7) what needs are not
being met by current data management systems, (8) what data
management functions and features would be most desirable, (9)
what additional requirements might arise due to anticipated- future
programs, (10) if there are any contractual bounds in effect that
might restrict data management options, and (11) what the costs
are of maintaining current data management systems.

Most questionnaire respondents were contacted in person. The
names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of key
groundwater personnel are given in Appendix A. An agency-by-
agency synopses of the responses to the questions posed are given
in Appendix B.

The following sections provide a statewide analysis of
questionnaire responses. They provide information on (1) the types
of groundwater data in Maine, (2) current forms of groundwater
data management, (3) accessibility to groundwater data, (4) State
groundwater data management needs, (5) desirable functions and
features of a mutually accessible groundwater data management
system, and (6) conclusions and recommendations on how to
proceed with Phase 11.

111. Groundwater Data in Maine

Six state and federal agencies are involved in programs which
generate groundwater data. These are (1) Department of
Environmental Protection, (2) Department of Conservation/ Maine
Geological Survey, (3) Department of Human Services, (4) Maine
Department of Transportation, (5) Public Utilities Commission, and
(6) U.S. Geological Survey. The groundwater programs administered
by each are listed in Table 1 together with categories of data
collected.

All groundwater information collected in Maine consists of a
location (geographic index) and data related to that location
(relational data). For example, well locations are related to
ownership data, and sand and gravel aquifer areas are related to
predicted well yields and other other types of information. These
types of data are sometimes referred to as "geo-referenced" or
"geo-coded".

The techniques necessary to manage geo-referenced
information depend on the type of geographic index required to
represent the location, the category of relational data at that
location, and record and file expandability requirements. The
implications of each of these factors are explained below.

Type of aeograghic map index
0 Sites at which groundwater data is available can be repre-
sented on a map by either a point, line, or an area. For ex-
ample, well locations are represented by a point, but bed-rock
fractures are delineated by lines. Each of these distinct map
indexes and the relational data corresponding to them require
special management techniques.

Groundwater data category
0 Distinct categories of relational data require a range of
special storage formats. For example, water quality reports
can involve many parameters, sample collection notes and
chain of command, and other information. On the other hand,
well yields consist of simple numerical figures. Each of these
requires a particular storage and reporting format, and also

Data Collection Data Data Management
Agency Program Categories System

DEP [1) Sand and Salt Storage 0 ML M Manual,
Pile Monitoring (W)* FRAMEWORK (IBM PC)
[2] Sand and Gravel 0 ML M Manual, WATSTORE,
Aquifer Mapping (W)* STORET
[3) Waste Discharge Ua (W) 0 M cl WY Manual, PCs
[4) Complaint Response (W) 0 V40 Manual
[5] Licensing & Enforc. (L) 0 ML WQ CI HG Manual,HONEYWELL DPS/6
[61 RCRA Facilities (O&H) 0 %G Manual,HONEYWELL DPS/6
(7] Superfund Sites (O&H) 0 M Manual
[8] Gil Storage Sites (O&H) 0 HONEYWELLDM-IV
[91 Oil Spill Sites (O&H) 0 VyQ Manual, IBM PC

IVIGS (10] Sand and Gravel ML M WY HG AA Manual
Aquifer Mapping *
[11] Bedrock Aquif.Mapp. ML WY WL BF Manual, BURROUGHS
[121 High Groundwater ML WY BF AA Manual
Transmissivity Mapping
[13] Regional Lineament Maps ML WY BF AA Manual
[14] Well Information 0 ML cl WY WL HG BURROUGHS DataManager

DHS [151 Public Water Dev. 0 ML M C1 WY WL Manual
[16] Public Water Monitoring 0 ML M Manual, IBM PC
[17) Private Well Analyses 0 M Manual, IBM PC

IVIDOT (18] Sand and Salt Storage 0 M cl LOTUS (IBM PC)
(191 Preconstruction Info 0 V%Q C1 Manual
[20) Pollution Claims 0 %a Manual
121) Exploratory Borings VVL FIG Manual

PUC (22] Water Utilities 0 WY D-SASE III (IBM PC)

USGS [23] Basic Data Collection M L V%Q W_ HG WATSTORE(PRIME)
[241 Well Information 0 ML Cl WY WL WATSTORE(PRIME)
(251 Hydrology Studies Prog.* 0 ML VvQ Cl WY WL WATSTORE(PRIME)

(O&H) - DEP Oil & Haz. Mat Bureau (L) - DEP Land Bureau (W) - DEP Water Bureau
AA - Aquifer Areas BF - Bedrock Fracture Cl - Well Construction/installation
HG - Hydrogeologic Description ML -Map Location 0 - Ownership WL - Water Levels
WQ- Water Quality VVY - Well Yield * - Multi-Agency Programs

Table 1. Index to programs which generate groundwater information, data
categories, and current data management systems in Maine. Index numbers (1-
25) are used for reference throughout this report. Data categories are explained
in Table 2.

special computer coding to facilitate data sorts and other
queries.

Record and file size.
Data volume and record expandability requirements, must
also be considered in a data base architecture. For example,
some groundwater monitoring wells. have water quality data
generated on an on-going basis (growing record size), but well
ownership is recorded once only (fixed record size). The
former case requires a system configuration that permits data
file expandability, while the latter does not.

Geographic indexes, data categories, and record and file sizes
pertaining to data generated in Maine are listed in Table 2. More
detailed information can be found in Appendix B.

IIIII. Current Forms of Groundwater Data Management

Descriptions of the data management systems currently being
used by state and federal agencies in Maine can be found in
Appendix B. A comprehensive summary list was given in Table 1.
The following sections discuss (1) manual filing of groundwater
data, (2) computerized systems currently used, and (3)
compatibility of existing data management systems.

Manual EUng

Most of the State's groundwater data is managed manually.
Bedrock fractures and aquifer boundaries are drawn on maps.
Locations of some wells are also drawn on maps. Written forms
with relational data are filed. When data is needed, a manual
search must be made to locate it and retrieve it.

For large manual data bases, such as DHS well analyses
records, searches are very cumbersome. Requests for information
are difficult and expensive to fulfill. Complicated sorts of the
type needed to analyze trends in the quality and quantity of the
State's groundwater resources are practically impossible.

Geographic Groundwater Record/
Index Data Category File Size Comments

PONT - Construction and Fixed Includes monitoring and water wells. Con-
Installation (CI) struction, installation notes, materials,
depth, diameter, etc.

- Hydrogeologic Fixed Generally from test pits, test borings, and
Descriptions (HG) well drillers logs.

- Map Location (ML) Fixed Locations are marked on 71/2USGS maps
or Delorme Maine Atlas.

- Ownership (0) Fixed Includes well owner or facility owner,
address, job numbers, and other administra-
tive information. Generally includes town
name where the well or facility is located.

- Water Levels (WL) Growing Well water levels, depth to water in test pits
or test borings, well drawdown. Should be
referenced to a common datum.

- Water Quality (WQ) Growing Variable numbers of parameters. Can include
sampling information, chain of custody, lab
methods, and other quality control
information.

- Well Yield (WY) Growing Individual wells or well clusters.

LINE - Bedrock Growing Continually updated
Fractures (BF) and refined.

AREA - Aquifer Growing Sand and gravel aquifer boundaries, recharge
zones, and zones of high transmissivity.
Drawn on maps. Partially derived from well
information and test pits and borings.
Continually updated and refined.

Non-point Pollution Growing Agricultural fertilizer and pesticide
usage, land application of sludges and
waste waters. Considered to be land

Table 2. List of groundwater data categories. Distinctions are made within geographic
indexing requirements, data categories which will require special formats, and file or record
size requirements.

Computerized Systems

The degree to which computers are used for groundwater data
management varies from agency to agency. System capabilities
also vary. The following sections summarize the systems
currently in use.

Department of Environmental Protection
0 The Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control utilizes
a Honeywell mainframe data base (DM-IV) for oil storage tank
registration. The system, which is also used by MDOT, may
ultimately list 20,000-30,000 tank owners and locations.

0 EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) is used for storage
and retrieval of permit compliance information generated by
the Bureau of Water Quality Control. The system resides on
EPA's IBM national computer in North Carolina. Data is entered
through "batching" of information. That is, data is entered on
the DEP's Honeywell mini-computer, then electronically
transferred to PCS. This system can also be used interactively.

0 DEP's sand and salt pile inventory program resides on the
FRAMEWORK data base and is used to store map location and
ownership information for wells near storage facilities. The
program, which resides on an IBM PC-XT, is used by the Bureau
of Water Quality Control.

Maine Geoloaical Survey
0 Maine Geological Survey's greatest data management asset
is the Maine Geographic Information System (MEGIS).
Currently, the system is being utilized in a limited manner for
bedrock aquifer mapping, and in a groundwater protection
planning demonstration project.
MEGIS is comprised of several software modules which
support digitizing, editing, and map making. Polygon, line and
point information can be digitized from existing maps or aerial
photographs. The digital files can be edited to correct
mistakes, and updated to include new or additional information.
Later, when a "hardcopy" is desired, the system can be used to
produce high quality maps of resources or areas of interest.

MEGIS also allows assignment of identifiers, or attributes,
to mapped information. Often, just a number is used.
Attributes allow system users to distinguish between
features, such as lines that are roads and lines that are
streams, or polygons that are aquifers and polygons that are
not. Attributes can also be used to cross-index mapped
features to relational information stored in an outside data
base. For instance, a map polygon delineating geographic
extent of a sand and gravel deposit can be indexed to aquifer
characteristics such as transmissivity, expected well yield,
and water quality parameters stored in another data
management system.
Since MEGIS is not directly linked to a relational data base
and lacks many analytical functions, it is not a GIS in a true
sense of the term. Rather, it is a digital mapping system.
Complex analysis of data is not possible with MEGIS except at
high cost in time and money.
All digitizing, editing and mapping functions are performed
at DOC in Augusta, but MEGIS software resides on an IBM 3033
at the University of Maine. The system utilizes Tektronix
graphics terminals, a Talos digitizer, and a Houston DP8 drum
plotter.

0 MGS utilizes five Burroughs B-26 Mini-Workstations. Each
workstation supports Burroughs DataManager and RBASE 4000
relational information management systems. Currently, MGS is
using these workstations to store relational data
corresponding to geographic information stored on MEGIS.
Burroughs systems are also used to manage well information.

Department of Human Services
0 IBM PC-XT micro-computers are used to manage public and
private water supply administrative information used for
billing and mailing and, in the case of public supplies, for
reporting water quality violations.

0 DHS has been conceptualizing possible comprehensive
groundwater data management arrangements for some time and
is anxious to implement one. Overall, a desirable system would
consist of two components: one for managing data collected six

months prior and another for long term archiving and retrieval.
The first component would involve at least one mini-computer
at the Public Health Laboratory. The computer would be used to
track test kits, track laboratory samples, and manage
laboratory results. Information not more than, six months old
would be kept on-line and thus immediately accessible from
remote terminals or through a micro-computer.
The second component would involve microfiching, and
long term storage on computer media which could be accessed
by different agencies through the State's IBM mainframe. Data
need not be immediately accessible, but the system should
have the capability of satisfying inquiries within a reasonable
period of time.

Maine Department of Transportation
0 LOTUS is used on an IBM PC-XT for storage and spreadsheet
analysis of DOT sand and salt storage facility information.

Public Utilities Commi@sion
0 Annual reports submitted by water utilities contain
information on total groundwater usage and individual well
production. These figures are computerized on an IBM PC-XT
using Water Utility Data Base, a customized version of D-BASE
Ill.

U.S. Geological Survey
0 USGS utilizes its Water Data Storage and Retrieval System
for management of most groundwater data. The system resides
on the Agency's Boston Prime Computer. It consists of several
files which are grouped and stored by common characteristics
and data collection frequencies. Additional data files can be
added as needed. Currently, files are maintained for the
storage of (1 ) s u rf ace-wate r, qual ity-of -water, and
groundwater data measured on a daily or a continuous basis,
(2) annual peak values for strearnflow stations, (3) chemical
analyses for surface or groundwater sites, (4) water data
parameters measured more frequently than daily, (5) geologic
and inventory data for groundwater sites, and (6) summary data
on water use. In addition, an index file of sites for which data
are stored, in the-system is also maintained.

WATSTORE allows extensive statistical analyses of data to
be performed with the Statistical Analysis System (SAS).
Queries are also possible. Data can be displayed in computer
printed tables and graphs, and also in the form of two-
dimensional contour plots and three-dimensional plots.

0 WATSTORE is based on INFO, a proprietary relational data
base management program. USGS also utilizes ARC/INFO, an
integrated geographic information management system.
ARC/INFO is also based on INFO, but the program includes many
mapping functions not found in WATSTORE. Since both
ARC/INFO and WATSTORE utilize INFO formats, relational data
files can be shared by the two systems.
The Water Resources Division Augusta office has one direct
line to the USGS Prime computer in Boston. This line provides
"sixteen multiplexed ports which give the agency personnel
remote access to both WATSTORE and ARC/INFO. However,
most GIS functions must be performed in Boston because of
mapping hardware requirements.
Recently, the Augusta office has made a request for an IBM
PC-AT based version of ARC/INFO. If purchased, the PC version
would act as a satellite workstation to the Boston ARC/INFO
-system. This arrangement would provide the office with in-
house analytical and mapping capabilities.

Corngatibility of Existing Data Management Systems

The term "compatibility" is difficult to define. In computer
jargon, two or more systems are generally compatible if data can
be transferred between them in a usable format. In an operational
sense, groundwater data management systems would, at minimum,
have to share some common scheme in which information was
organized and cross-indexed to other data. Given this commonality
and a sufficient effort, data could then be transferred from one
.system to another. This being possible, the -systems could then be
integrated.

Much of the groundwater data in Maine is organized first by the
name of the town where the site is located, then by owner,
facility name, or project number. Most other forms of data share
no organizational features at all. Given this situation, we conclude
that little compatibility exists between systems.

The lack of a common data organization scheme is a major
obstacle to the development of an integrated and mutually
accessible groundwater data management system. Possible
solutions to this problem are presented in the following sections.
IV. Accessibility to Groundwater Data

The development of sound recommendations for a truly
accessible management system requires knowledge of what
personnel are involved with groundwater d ata, and a n
understanding of the interactions between agencies that use data
and those that generate data. It also requires that all possible
ways of improving accessibility to groundwater information be
considered. The following sections deal with these prerequisites.

Interactions Between Data Sources and Users

Names and affiliation of key groundwater personnel are given
in Appendix A. The flow of information between agencies that
generate groundwater data and those that use it are shown in Table
3. Additional information can be found in Appendix B.

Opportunities for Improving Data Accessibility

Ten opportunities for improving accessibility to groundwater
data were identified during interviews with agency personnel.
These are summarized in Table 4 together with a list of agencies
which might benefit from each. The recommendations range in
complexity from a simple newsletter to a geographic information
system. The costs of implementation also vary a great deal.
However, each contributes greatly to overall groundwater data
accessibility. In this case, cost is not proportional to potential
benefit. A discussion of the recommendations follows.

Sources of Groundwater Data

DEP MGS QHS MDOT PUC USGS
DEP 1,2,3, 10,11 23,24,
4,5,6, 12,13, 16,17 18 25
7.8. 9 14
10,11, SEE .. 23,24,
MGS
... .............
12,13, ............ .
25
2,6,7
NOTE 2
14

DHS 1,6,7, 15,16,
...................
.....................
10
8,9 17
....... ..... ......
...................
Users -
Of MDOT 1,2,6, 10,11, SEE 18,19,
Ground- 7,8 14 NOTE 2 20,21
water
Data PLJC 23,24,
1,2 10 22 25

...........
10,11,
........ . 23,24,
ILISGS SEE
..........
.......... . .
2
X
.. ........
12,13, ::-...._........ 22
NOTE 2 25
:1 ...........
...........
............
...........
...........
14

DAFRF
5

SPO SEE SEE SEE SEE 22 23,25
NOTE 1 NOTE I NOTE 1 NOTE 1

EPA 2,3,
15
6,7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........
OTH 1,2,3, 10,11, 15 16, 18,19, 23,24,
4,5,6, 12,13 17' 20,21 22- 25
7.8,9 14 1 1 1

NOTE I - Site specific figures on yield or water quality are rarely used. Rather,
SPO is interested .in statewide or regional summaries.
NOTE 2 - This data is useful, but seldom used because DHS files are difficult to sort.

Table 3. Sources and users of groundwater data in Maine. Index numbers
refer to data from specific groundwater programs. An explanation can
be found in Table 1. The user category "OTHER" includes consulting
engineers and hydrogeologists, attorneys, regional planning and conser-
vation commissions, private citizens, etc.

Beneficiary
Action Agencies

. Publish a State groundwater newsletter to enhance communica- DEP,MGS,DHS, MDOT
tion and cooperation between groundwater personnel. PUC,SPO,USGS, Others

0 Index all past and present groundwater programs. Include data DEP,MGS,DHS,MDOT,
categories, dates, personnel, location of data files, etc. A Key PUC,SPO,USGS, Others
person should be charged with keeping this index up-to-date.

0 Include a geographic information system component in future DEP,MGS,DHS,MDOT,
programs. The exact role of the GIS might differ from project to PUC,SPO,USGS, Others
project, but it should, at a minimum, serve as a tool for deter-
mining availability of groundwater data near a map location.
Tabular attributes assigned tolocations with available data should
include dates, program name, data categories, data format,
location of data file, and cross-references.

0 Develop and standardize a system for determining map locations DEP, DHS, DOT, PUC
of wells and test pits and borings. It should be easy to use and
include some measure of confidence.

. Computerize DHS water quality analyses of private and public DEP, IVIGS, DHS,MDOT,
wells. All records should be indexed by map location. SPO, USGS, Others

0 DEP, DHS, and MDOT should standardize water analysis report DEP, DHS, DOT
forms. Reports should include map location, ownership, and basic
water quality parameters. Quality assurance information such
as sampling method, chain of custody, laboratory name and
analytical technique should also be recorded.

. Develop capabilities for laboratories to deliver results in the DEP,DHS,USGS,EPA
above format and also transfer data in STORET, PCS, and
WATSTORE formats.

. Improve accessibility to STORET, PCS and WATSTORE by estab- DEP, DHS, EPA
lishing interactive links to EPA's national computer, and USGS's
regional computer and; providing training for designated personnel.

. Develop data file translators for transfer of information between MGS, PUC, USGS
MEGIS and ARC/INFO, and between BURROUGHS system and
WATSTORE and ARCANFO.

. Results of groundwater investigations which are conducted by DHS
DEP as follow-up to violation reports should be circulated to DHS.

Table 4. Suggested actions for improving accessibility to groundwater data among agencies.
Potential beneficiaries of each action are also listed.

All groundwater professionals in Maine would benefit from
better flow of information pertaining to groundwater programs
in the State. An informal newsletter can be used to enhance
communication, and increase cooperation between groundwater
personnel.

A central groundwater program index and a "key contact"
position can be used to provide access to information on data
availability. The index should include data types, dates, names,
location of data files, etc. An index would also provide an
element of continuity to knowledge about the States
groundwater data. In many instances, when a key groundwater
professional leaves State employment, knowledge about
availability of data and its location is lost.

0 As mentioned earlier, current data management systems
lack the commonalities in organization required for compat-
ibility. A geographic information system component should be
included in all future. programs to tie data to a common map
base. The exact role of the GIS might differ from project to
project, but it should, at a minimum, serve as a tool for
establishing the availability of data at a map location. Map
location, then, can be used as a basic organizational unit that
will permit integration of relational data bases containing
well yield, water quality, hydrogeology, and other types of
information. Tabular attributes assigned to locations should
include dates, program names, data categories, data formats,
location of data files, other management systems, and cross-
references.

0 In order to implement the previous suggestion, and also the
next one, a standardized system has to be developed for
determining map locations of wells and test pits and borings.
This system must be designed such that homeowners, with no
map-reading experience, are able to indicate the locations of
wells when submitting water quality samples. Some measure
of confidence should be recorded with each location. In
addition, this system must be such that map coordinates (UTM
or lat/long) can be easily determined and the locations
digitized.

0 C u rrently, DHS is computerizing administrative
information pertaining to private and public well water
analyses. In addition, the corresponding test results should
also be computerized. All records should be indexed by map
location. Both measures increase the ability of other agencies
to obtain frequently needed groundwater quality information.

0 A standardized water quality analysis reporting format
should be utilized by DEP, DHS, and MDOT laboratories. It
should include map location, ownership, and basic water
quality parameters such as temperature, pH, conductivity, BOD,
etc. Quality assurance information such as sampling method,
laboratory name and analytical technique should also be
recorded. A reporting format that incorporates these elements
would add reliability to the data and make it more useful to
others.

State laboratories should have the capability to directly
transfer data from the above format to either STORET, PCS, or
WATSTORE. This will eliminate duplicate data entry and the
corresponding potential for error.

A great deal of the State's groundwater information has
already been entered on EPA's PCS and STORET, and USGS's
WATSTORE data management systems. These are open to use by
State agencies. However, State groundwater personnel lack the
training necessary to take full advantage of these systems. In
addition, the computers which support the software are
difficult to access because of poor communication links. These
systems, therefore, go largely unused. The usefulness of PCS,
STORET, and WATSTORE can be improved by establishing
interactive links to EPA's national, and USGS's regional
computers, and by training designated personnel in the use of
these systems.

A data file translator is currently being developed to allow
transfer of map features (points, lines, areas, and ID) between
MEGIS and ARC/INFO. -A similiar translation should be
developed to allow transfer of relational data between
BURROUGHS system programs and WATSTORE and ARC/INFO.

0 Results of groundwater investigations which are conducted
by DEP as follow-up to violation reports should be circulated
back to DHS. This will insure that DHS files are complete.

V. State Groundwater Data Management Needs

An assessment of data management needs must include (1)
needs met by current data management systems, (2) current data
management and analysis needs not being met, and (3) anticipated
additional data management requirements. These are discussed in
the following sections.

Needs Met by Current Data Management Systems

Currently, the uses of both manual - and computerized data
management systems are limited primarily to storage and
retrieval of information. In most cases, particularly manual files,
rapid retrieval of information is not possible. This is largely
because these systems do not easily lend themselves to sorts and
other, more sophisticated, queries and data management and
analysis functions. These must, for the most part, be done
manually. This is not to say that basic information needs cannot be
met using current systems. They are met somehow, just not in the
most effective and efficient manner.

Current Data Managemen t and Analysis Needs Not Being Met

During interviews with users of groundwater information, a
number of data management and analysis needs which are not
currently being met were identified. These needs are listed in
Table 5 together with reasons why they are not being met and the

agencies which are affected. These are discussed below in more
detail. Possible management options which address data
accessibility needs were discussed in Section IV. Options which
address data management and analysis problems are presented in
Section VI.

0 There is a need for comprehensive knowledge of what
groundwater information is available in Maine. Poor
communication between groundwater professionals and the
lack of a central data availability reference are prime reasons
why this need is not presently being met. A state groundwater
newsletter, central groundwater information index, and geo-
referencing availability of data are a few options for dealing
with this problem.

0 A number of agencies require access to the most up-to-
date groundwater information available. This need is not being
met largely for two reasons. First, there is a lack of
commitment to groundwater data management from some
agency administrators. Secondly, current data management
systems do not allow quick 'data entry, easy updates, or timely
transmittal of information. A number of the specific data
management functions and features and recommendations
discussed in sections V1 and VII address these problems.

0 Many agencies are unable to answer departmental,'
interagency, and outside inquiries about availability of data in
a timely manner. This is primarily because current data
management systems, particularly manual systems, do not
allow easy sorting of relevant information. This problem is
most acute at DHS. When data is available, often it is difficult
to retrieve, and agencies lack the personnel resources to
satisfy requests. In order to remedy this problem, data must be
computerized and organized based on map location. A
commitment must also be made to properly train personnel.

0 The State's need to monitor spatial and temporal trends in
groundwater quality and quantity is not being met. This is
largely because the State's groundwater data is managed in a
manner that does not allow easy sorting and repor ting of the

Data Management/Analysis Agencies
Needs Not Currently Met Cause Affected

. Comprehensive knowledge of what ground- Poor communication and lack DEP,MDOT,
water information is available in Maine. of a central data index. SPO,USGS

* Access to the most up-to-date Current data management MGS,DEP,
groundwater information available. do not allow quick data entry, MDOT
easy updates, or timely trans-
mittal of information.

0 Answer departmental, interagency, and Difficulty of locating and DEP,DHS,
outside inquiries, and satisfy requests for sorting manual files. MGS,MDOT
groundwater data.

9 Analyses and reporting of regional Current data management DEP,DHS,
groundwater quality and quantity trends. systems do not allow easy SPO,MDOT,
sorting and reporting of PLJC,USGS
relevant

. Performance monitoring of NPDES pollution Current data management DEP,EPA
abatement systems and remedial contain- systems don't allow easy trend
ments for oil and hazardous materials. analysis of water quality in
nearby wells.

0 Rapid access to accurate information on Lack of a comprehensive geo- DEP
hydrogeology, land use, well locations, referenced data management
etc. for emergency response to hazardous system..
materials spills.

. Mutual access for MGS and USGS to each Incompatibility of data manage- MGS,USGS
other's groundwater information. ment systems.

* Automated analysis and map-making from MEGIS lacks classification MGS
previously mapped information (analytical schemes and other analytical
GIS functions). tools needed to manipulate
relational information.Current
software is not adequate for
analysis of complex data sets.

Table 5. List of current groundwater data management and analysis needs not being met at
the present time. Major reasons why these needs aren't being fulfilled and agencies which
are affected are also given.

needed information. An integrated data management system
capable of performing complicated queries, analyses, and
reporting would be an extremely valuable tool for this purpose.

Groundwater monitoring is conducted for detection of
failed National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems
(NPDES) and remedial containments for oil and hazardous
materials regulated by DEP. Trend analysis of water quality in
monitoring wells may in some instances reveal problems prior
to large scale release of pollutants into the environment.
However, ongoing trend analysis is time consuming and
expensive if done using current data management systems
(particularly manual files).

0 Rapid access to accurate information on hydrogeology, land
use, well locations and other parameters is a prerequisite to
timely and effective emergency response to spills of hazardous
materials. Currently, DEP is unable to manage relevant data
effectively due to lack of a geographic information system.

MGS and USGS require mutual accessibility to each others'
computerized groundwater data. This is not possible- at
present due to the lack of data file translators which permit
the transfer of information between MEGIS and ARC/INFO, and
BURROUGHS software and WATSTORE and ARC/INFO.

MGS requires a geographic information system capable of
automated analysis and map-making from previously mapped
information. Full GIS capabilities would streamline the
Ag e n cy's day-to-day activity of preparing groundwater
resources maps. Although MEGIS allows many mapping
functions, the system lacks the classification schemes and
other analytical tools needed to manipulate relational data in
an efficient manner and then map the results. Complex
analysis of data is not possible except at high cost in time and
money.

Anticil2ated Additional Data Management Requirements

In addition to present needs, a number of additional data
management requirements can be anticipated because of possible
future groundwater programs. These are summarized in Table 6.
More detailed information about possible future programs can be
found in Appendix B.

V1. Required System Functions and Features

Specific system functions and features required in order to
manage Maine's groundwater data are summarized in Table 7. The
rationale for these can be found in the previous sections and in
Appendix B. This list can be used as a checklist to evaluate
possible software/hardware configurations which may come under
consideration in Phase 11.

V11. Conclusions and Recommendations

The State should consider taking actions to implement a
groundwater newsletter, central information index, and
standardized data reporting formats. In addition, information
should be filed by map location whenever possible. These
suggestions involve relatively little expense, but will yield
significant improvements in data accessibility.

With regard to a data management system, two viable
alternatives exist for the State to consider. These are (1) adopt
one comprehensive data management system capable of handling
most groundwater data, and phase out use of existing systems over
time; or (2) continue use and development of separate data
management systems, but tie them together using a GIS to index
information.

A comprehensive groundwater data management system would
consist of one basic software package. It would have to posess the
ability to perform GIS functions and the ability to store large
volumes of relational data in a variety of formats. A single system
has a number of potential advantages. Since all data files could be
accessed by the software, the configuration would be inherently

Additional Groundwater Data Future
Management Requirement Program(s) Agencies

Expandability to accomodate additional Mandatory reporting by well DEP, MGS, DHS,
well information (i.e. additional wells, drillers. Wellhead protection.' MDOT
water quality parameters, well yield Well construction regulations.
data, well construction and installation Regulation of non-waste hazard-
data, hydrogeologic descriptions, etc.) ous materials. Amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Merging groundwater data with infor- Groundwater protection DEP, MGS, SPO,
mation on land use and infrastructure, planning. Resource manage- LISGS
zoning and permitting, surface water, ment
topography and other ancillary data.

Cross-referencing water quality analy- Increased precision and sensi- DEP, DHS
ses to physical descriptions of wells. tivity of laboratory methods.

Identification of past water analyses Changes in state and federal DEP, DHS
reports with parameters over safe safe drinking water standards.
standards.
Tracking frequency and nature of Groundwater protection DEP, MGS, SPO
contamination problems in different planning.
groundwater protection zones.

Modeling groundwater flow, contami- Resource management DEP, MGS
nant transport, salt water intrusion, LJSGS
well drawdown, and surface/ground-
water interactions; and ability to
perform geostatistical analysis.

o Groundwater supply vs. demand Resource management SPO, PUC,USGS
analyses.

o Economic analyses (i.e. drilling, Resource development SPO, PUC
pumping and treatment costs)

0 Areal analyses of non-point pollution Agricultural regulation DEP,DAFRR,

o Regional access to groundwater infor- Groundwater protection DEP, MGS, SPO
mation and limited GIS capabilities. planning. Wellhead
protection.

Table 6. Anticipated additional data management requirements that may be necessary
because of possible future programs. Agencies which might be involved are also listed.

Data Management
Function or Feature

. Ability to store, update, edit, and retrieve mapped information together with correspon-
ding relational data (e.g. monitoring well locations together with corresponding water
quality data).
. Ability to cross-reference relational data (e.g. water quality, yield, and construction
information for the same well).
* Expandability to permit management of information from new programs and data that is
generated on an ongoing basis (e.g. regular water quality monitoring).
. Ability to communicate with State IBM and Honeywell mainframe computers (State
Computer Compatibility Standard).
0 Operational compatibility with other State data management systems, particularly other
natural resource systems, and laboratory data management systems.
* File translators that permit data exchange with WATSTORE, ARC/INFO, STORET, PCS and
management systems used by neighboring states.
0 Ability to incorporate NCIC digital map products which contain information on political
boundaries, land use, transportation, hydrography, topography, and other data.
Easy, accurate, efficient and localized data entry. Sampling personnel should enter sample
and location information, lab should enter analysis results, etc.
Quality assurance procedures to insure that information stored in the system is of known
reliability.
Ability to schedule acquisition of monitoring well samples, and identification of wells not
sampled on time.
Automatic updating of a central index or directory of all data in the system.
Ability to perform queries to locate available groundwater data near or at specified
locations.
Ability to query well data for specific water quality parameters, then compare these to
allowable standards, and report location and ownership of polluted wells.
Ability to query permit and facility licensing data in order to locate point and non-point
sources of pollution near wells or areas of interest.
Ability to query and analyze multiple groundwater data layers with information on well
construction, hydrogeology, well yields, water quality, etc. This might involve many
combina tions of parameters from any of these layers, and also location and timeframe
constraints.
Programming tools for developing specialized functions (rating schemes, economic
evaluations, lab calculations, etc.)
0 Flexibility to produce custom reports, graphs, and maps, based on the results of complex
queries and analyses. These should facilitate identification of spatial and temporal trends.
* Ability to link the data management system to outside software (groundwater models,
statistical packages, etc.).
. Regional access points to the system, perhaps with limited GIS capabilities.
0 System should be user friendly and production oriented.
. Vendor commitments to user training, continued user support, and software maintenance.

Table 7. Specific system functions and features required to fulfill Maine's groundwater data
management needs.

well-suited to complicated queries and analyses. In addition,
personnel would require training in the use of only one software
package.

In order for a comprehensive system to effectively fulfill'the
State's needs, the use of existing manual and computerized data
management systems would have to be phased out. Otherwise, the
data base would be incomplete or data would be stored by several
systems with duplication of effort. Since some agencies will be
reluctant to give up use of recently implemented data management
software, a relatively long transition period may be required for
such a system to become fully operational

A comprehensive data management system would require either
(1) one centralized mainframe or mini-computer which could
support multiple users and handle large amounts of data, or (2)
several compatible mini and micro computers running the same
software. Each of the smaller computers could be operated and
maintained by key agencies, but still linked or networked together.
From a user's point of view, the principal difference between the
two hardware configurations would be the speed with which
complicated sorts and analyses could be carried out. One larger
computer would be considerably faster than a group of smaller
computers.

An alternative to one comprehensive software package is to
continue use and development of separate data management
systems, and tie them together using a GIS as an "umbrella" index
program. This umbrella program would store information on the
availability, location, and format of groundwater data in the State,
but not necessarily store all of the data itself. The exact role of
the GIS might differ from project to project, but it would at
minimum, serve as a tool for tying available groundwater data to a
map location (e.g., UTIVI or lat/long) and provide information on the
whereabouts and form of the data. For other projects, the GIS
would be used to store this information, but in addition, it could
also be used to store, analyze, and map the data itself.

This configuration has a number of advantages. Portions of the
system could be implemented independently over relatively short
periods of time. The overall. system would be decentralized, with
separate elements located at strategic locations. This would
allow individual agencies control over their own data formats, and
also provide greater flexibility for scheduling usage of equipment.
This type of configuration would also take advantage of the effort
already spent on computerizing groundwater data.

In an operational environment, users of multiple groundwater
data management systems which are integrated with a GIS may
find several disadvantages. First, they will require knowledge of
how each system is operated. Secondly, since not all data file
structures will be compatible, this configuration will be limited in
its ability to efficiently perform complicated queries and analysis.

These configurations are similar in that both provide the State
with GIS capabilities and computerized storage and retrieval of
groundwater data. However, a single s ystem is better suited for
complex queries and data analyses. It is also easier to operate.
Several systems tied by a GIS, on the other hand, would best utilize
the effort that has already been made to computerize some data.
This configuration would also allow agencies total control over
data formats and portions of the system could be implemented
quickly. In addition, we believe that a Phase 11 analysis will
confirm that the former of these options is considerably more
costly than the latter.

The distinction between the above alternatives may prove to be
somewhat academic in the course of Phase 11. The selection of a
system may be influenced as much by the availability of suitable
software as by the precise specifications of the State. No single
system will satisfy all of the requirements documented in this
report, and vendors' willingness to customize software generally
comes at a substantial cost. Phase 11 should be entered with a
willingness to negotiate and accept compromises between
functional requirements and system configurations.

We recommend that the Phase 11 contractor continue to solicit
involvement from the agencies and groundwater personnel involved
in Phase 1. Their participation was essential in development of the
ideas presented in this report. It is certain that as this project
proceeds, they will wish to revise some of the requirements
documented here. Their participation will be essential in
evaluating the ability of specific software/hardware
configurations to meet these needs and in developing the
compromises discussed above. All compromises should be skewed
heavily to favor their needs. Finally, and most importantly, their
involvement will be a necessary ingredient in gaining the
cooperation of individual agencies, and commitments to a mutually
accessible groundwater data management system at the user level.

As with most other computer programs, the usefulness of any
system adopted by the State will depend primarily on the
competency of those using and maintaining it. Based on our
experience, the true costs of training or hiring competent
personnel are often underestimated during acquisition of GIS and
other data management systems. Phase 11 should provide an
accurate cost analysis. In addit.ion, a cost/benefit analysis of
contracting an experienced outside party to provide information
management services should also be developed.

We also recommend that steps be initiated to insure the
continued utility of a data management system once it has been
implemented. These steps may include (1) designation of an
individual to be charged with overall coordination of the system;
(2) formation of a group responsible for ensuring that the system
continues to meet the needs of users; (3) implementation of a
Memorandum of Agreement among agencies involved with
groundwater which recognizes the need for cooperation to insure
the continued success of the system; and (4) funding at an adequate
level to maintain the data base, coordinate groundwater data
reporting, and train personnel.

APPENDIX A

KEY AGENCIES AND GROUNDWATER PERSONNEL

A-1

CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF (DOC)
Maine Geological Survey (MGS)
State House Station 22, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-2801
Walter Anderson, State Geologist
Marc Loiselle, Senior Geologist
Maine Geographic Information System (MEGIS)
State House Station 22, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-2801
James Rea, Natural Resources Analyst Programmer

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF (DEP)
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House Station 17, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-3355
Peter Garrett, Senior Geologist
William Aldrich, Geologist
Norman Marcotte, ESS IV.
James Tibbetts, ESS 11.
Gardner Hunt, Director, Division of Laboratory and Field
Services
Bureau of Land Quality Control
State House Station 17, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-2111
Mark Hyland, Director, Division of Technical Services
Florence Hoar, Senior Geologist
Dave Dominie, Director, Division of Licensing and Review
Bureau of Oil* and Hazardous Materials Control
State House Station 17, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-2651
George Seel, Director, Div. Remedial Planning and Tech.
Services
Hank Aho, ESS IV.
Scott Whittier, ESS IV.
Michael Barden, ESS 11.
Cheryl Fontaine, Geologist
Division of Computer Services
State House Station 17, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-2691
Ron Dolan, Systems Group Manager

A-2

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF (DFA)
Bureau of Data Processing'
State House Station 61, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-2666
Valton Wood, Systems and Program Manager
Bernard Beaulieu, Project Leader

FOOD, AGRICULTURE AND RURAL RESOURCES, DEPT. OF
(DAFRR)
State House Station 28, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-3511
Esther Lacognata, Director, Bur. Agriculture and Rural
Resources
Frank Ricker, Director, Soil and Water Conservation
Commission
Paul Beers, State Soil Scientist

HUMAN SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF (DHS)
157 Capital Street, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-3826
Donald Hoxie, Director, Division of Health Engineering
Charles Rossoll, Engineering Hydrologist
Kenneth Meyer, Drinking Water Program

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (PUC)
State House Station 18, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-3831
Raymond Hammond, Senior Utility Engineer

STATE PLANNING OFFICE (SPO)
State House Station 38, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-3261
Paul Dutram, State Groundwater Coordinator
Holly Dominie, Supervisor, Natural Resources Unit
Karen Massey, Director, Land and Water Resources Council

A-3

TRANSPORTATION, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF (MDOT)
State House Station 16, Augusta ME 04333
Telephone (207) 289-2661
John Dority, Director, Highway Maintenance and Operations
Chris Olsen, Supervisor, Well Claims
Melvin Morgan, Geotechnical and Materials Engineer
(Bangor Office, Tel. (207) 941-4545)

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
Water Resources Division
26 Ganneston, Augusta, ME 04330
Telephone (207) 622-8208
Derrill Cowing, Chief, Maine Office
Thomas Maloney, Supervisory Hydrologist

A-4

I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
I SYNOPSES OF FINDINGS
LISTED BY AGENCY
I
I

I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B-1
I -

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Current Groundwater Programs

Bureau of Water Quality Control
0 Sand and Salt Storaae Pile Monitorina. Currently, there
exist 763 sand and salt piles which are registered with the
Bureau of Water Quality Control. On the average, two private
wells are sampled near each pile. Samples are tested for h igh
levels of sodium and/or chloride. Results are manually filed at
DEP. Locations of tested wells are recorded on USGS 71/2 or
15 minute quad maps, depending on availability, and the
DeLorme Maine Atlas. Location and owner of each well are
stored on an IBM PC-XT micro-computer using FRAMEWORK, a
data management program. Future plans include addition of
water quality analysis results to this system.
[contact: Stephen Groves, William Aldrich, Peter Garrett]
0 Sand and Gravel A!quifer M Fifty nine sand and
gravel aquifer maps have been generated by a cooperative
project between the Bureau of Water Quality Control, MGS and
USGS. As part of this study, background levels of inorganic
water quality parameters were determined for 100 wells.
Locations of test wells are shown on sand and gravel aquifer
maps available from MGS. Water quality parameters are
manually filed at DEP. Results are also sent to USGS for entry
in WATSTORE, and subsequently to EPA for storage in STORET.
See USGS Synopsis for information on WATSTORE. While both
WATSTORE and STORET allow computerized data management,
both systems are slow and difficult to use. Therefore, data
management functions performed by DEP remain manual.
[contact: Stephen Groves, William Aldrich, Peter Garrett]
0 Waste Discharge Licenses. The Division of Licensing and
Enforcement oversees thirty to forty discharge licenses which
require groundwater monitoring of three to twenty wells each.
Samples are analyzed for water quality parameters. Physical
well descriptions, and in rare cases pumping yields are
reported. All information is manually filed by town and
owner at the Division's Augusta office. Periodic groundwater
mon.itoring data is entered in the computerized Permit

B-2

at the Division's Augusta office. Periodic groundwater
monitoring data is entered in the computerized Permit
Compliance System (PCS).
(contact: James Tibbetts, Norman Marcotte]
0 Coml2laint Resl2onse. Groundwater quality informa-tion is
sometimes generated thr ough the complaint response
activities of the Bureau. Most investigations are conducted by
regional offices, and generally involve private wells. Results
are filed by well owner's name at the regional offices. All data
management functions are manual.
(contact: Stephen Groves, William Aldrich, Peter Garrett]
Other. Groundwater related information is sometimes
generated by miscellaneous projects which involve DEP. Data is
gen.eraly manually filed. A radon study coordinated by the Land
and Water Resources Center at the University of Maine is an
example of one such project.
[contact: Stephen Groves, Willaim Aldrich, Peter Garrett]

Bureau !2f Land Quality Control
0 Licensina and Enforcement. The Bureau of Land Quality
Control generates groundwater information through its
licensing and enforcement functions. Groundwater monitoring
is often required near landfills, transfer stations, sludge
lagoons, septic sites, and storage tanks. Water quality data,
boring logs, and well installation logs are filed manually by
facility operator name or municipality. The Division of
Technical Services functions as a central repository.
[contact: Mark Hyland, Florence Hoar, David Dominie]

Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control
0 RCRA Facilities. About a dozen industrial facilities
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) monitor groundwater. An average of twelve sampling
wells are located at each site. Water quality results are
manually filed at DEP by facility name. Facility owners also
manage their own groundwater monitoring data. Some of it
could be obtained on floppy discette.
[contact: George Seel]

B-3

Superfund Sites. Over a dozen hazardous- waste dumps in
Maine are listed as either Federal or State Superfund Sites.
Each has three or more groundwater monitoring wells which
are sampled irregularly and tested for water quality
parameters of interest. Results are filed manually under site
name.
[contact: George Seel, Hank Aho]
0 Oil Storage Sites. The Bureau of Oil and Hazardous
Materials Control has developed a computerized listing (DM-IV)
of oil storage sites in Maine. This consists of an interactive
data base system for storage and retrieval. It will also be
used by MDOT for location of tanks. Sites are. identified by
owner name or town in the manual files and by a code number
in the computerized files. Ultimately, as many as 20,000-
30,000 underground storage tanks could listed. Currently, 100
newer facilities have mandatory groundwater monitoring
systems. However, facility owners are not required to submit
laboratory results to DEP.
(contact: George Seel, -Scott Whittier]
0 Oil Sgill Sitea. Over 100 oil spill sites exist throughout
Maine. Most sites are monitored with three to fifteen wells
which are sampled irregularly by DEP. At several sites, private
wells, contaminated or at risk, are sampled on a regular
(monthly or quarterly) schedule. The home owner samples his
own well, then sends the sample to DHS for laboratory analysis
Results are sent to DEP and the homeowner. Results are
indexed by site name and have in the past been filed manually
at DHS and DEP. More recently these results and other related
analyses have been complied in spreadsheet format on an IBM
PC-XT [contact: George Seel, Cheryl Fontaine, Scott Whittier,
Michael Barden]

Outside Users of DEP's. Groundwater Data

0 MDOT: The Location and Environment Division is a frequent
user of groundwater data associated with sand and salt piles
(approximately 140 of the 763 registered piles belong to
MDOT). The Division also uses DEP's oils storage site data.

B-4

MGS: Maine Geological Survey uses information on RCRA
facilities and Superfund sites which are located near sand and
gravel aquifers.
0 EPA: Groundwater information about RCRA facilities,
CERCLA sites, and waste discharge are routinely sen't to EPA,
Boston. Some of this data is subsequently stored in STORET.
0 Attorneys and Consultants: Many forms of groundwater
data are requested by attorneys and by engineers and
consulting hydrogeologists. Referrals are often made to DHS
and MGS.
0 Public Interest Group-s: Groups such as Maine People's
Alliance and the Natural Resource Council of Maine
occasionally request groundwater quality information.

Outside Sources of Groundwater Data Used by DEP.

� MDOT: Sand and salt storage pile water quality monitoring
data generated by the Location and Environment Division
� MGS: Aquifer maps and well logs provided by drillers
0 DHS: Water quality analyses for public and private wells
� USGS and EPA:

Opportunities for Improving Accessibility to Groundwater
Data Among Agencies

0 DHS's filing system for water quality analyses of private
wells should provide easier access to data. Specific
recommendations include geographic indexing of well
locations, and computerization of water quality results.
0 Standard "forms" for recording water analysis results
should be developed and used by DEP, DHS and other agencies.
At a minimum, the forms should identify location, owner, and
basic water quality information (i.e. conductivity, temperature,
PH, etc.). Quality assurance information such as sampling
method, chain of custody, laboratory name and analytical
technique should also be recorded.
0 When key groundwater professionals leave MGS, DEP and
DHS much information is lost (location of records, availability
of maps, etc.). A scheme should be developed to minimize
these losses (e.g. indexing of' all available information).

B-5

Designated personnel should 'be trained in use of EPA's
STORET and PCs and USGS's WATSTORE data bases.

Available Data Management Resources

0 The Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control utilizes
a Honeywell mainframe data base (DM-IV) for oil storage tank
registration. The Bureau has one full time data entry person.
0 EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCs) allows storage and
retrieval of permit compliance information generated by the
Division of Licensing and Enforcement. The system resides on
EPA's IBM national computer in North Carolina. Data is entered
into this system through "batching" of information. That is,
data is entered on the department's Honeywell mini-computer,
then electronically transferred to PCs. Data can also be
entered in an interactive mode.
0 EPA's water quality data management program STORET can
be used via remote terminal from DEP. The Department's IBM
PC-XT's can also access STORET. The system is slow and
difficult to use, but offers access to vast amounts of
information. The slowness and difficulty of the STORET
system can be attributed to three factors: (1) STORET is an
older style batch type system, (2) lack of personnel trained in
the use of STORET, and (3) a poor communications link to
STORET's computer.
DEP plans to establish a dedicated link to EPA's IBM
national computer at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, to
improve communication ($10-15K). This will allow one 9600
baud, one 4800 baud and one 2400 baud links to STORET and
PCs. In addition, EPA has proposed revisions to make the
software more interactive and user-friendly. If enacted, both
measures should increase the desirability of using STORET and
PCs.
0 DEP's Division of Computer Services offers custom
software development and data entry 'services. Both must be
scheduled in advance and a priority system is used when
necessary.
[contact: Ron Dolan, Wayne Gallant]

B-6

DEP's Honeywell also supports it's own data management
program, and additional programs MISH (data reporting) and
QRP (query and reporting). The Honeywell is accessible by
approximately thirty remote terminals throughout DEP.
0 DEP utilizes over a dozen IBM PC-XT micro-computers. At
least one is located at each regional office with no modems
installed at this time. Sand and salt pile inventory program,
FRAMEWORK, resides on the PCs. The PC's can also be used as
terminals to access software on DEP's Honeywell, EPA's IBM
and VAX, or the University of Maine's IBM computers.

Needs Met by Current Groundwater Data Management
Systems

0 Paper files allow manual storage and limited retrieval of
groundwater information. Manipulation of manually filed data
is generally necessitated by DEP's regulatory and enforcement
functions.
0 FRAMEWORK provides storage and retrieval of owner and
location of sand and salt storage piles.
A computerized system allows storage and retrieval of
registered oil storage tanks.
0 PCS provides storage and retrieval of discharge monitoring
reports for sites regulated under the National Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). It is also used as source of
information for mandatory reporting to EPA.
0 EPA's STORET provides storage and retrieval and sorting of
water quality data. This system has been in existence for over
ten years but is used very little by DEP for reasons stated
earlier.
0 USGS's WATSTORE is used for storage (not retrieval) of
groundwater quality data related to the State's sand and. gravel
aquifer mapping project.

Needs Not Being Met By Current Data, Management Systems

0 Many departmental, interagency, and outside inquiries for
groundwater information cannot be satisfied because of the
difficulty of locating and manually sorting files (particularly
within the Bureau of Water Quality Control).

B-7

Long term monitoring for groundwater contamination
around sand and salt piles is needed. Currently, monitoring
results are not stored in a format that lends itself to easy
trend analyses.
0 Current data management methods do not lend themselves
to monitoring performance of NPDES pollution abatement
systems or remedial containments for oil and hazardous
substances. Detection of a failing system requires regular
trend analysis of water quality parameters.
9 In general, there is a lac k of accurate information on what
groundwater quality information is available from various
state agencies. In some instances, regional DEP offices are
unaware of each others data. This sometimes results in
duplication of effort.
0 Efficient and timely emergency response to hazardous
materials spills which may contaminate groundwater
resources requires immediate access to accurate information
on hydrogeology, land use, well locations, utilities, etc.
9 The Clean Water Act (Section 305-B) requires statements
on regional and statewide trends in groundwater quality
biannually. Manual filing and retrieval of information makes
formulation of such statements very difficult.

Desirable Data Management Functions and Features

Any data management system should allow easy, accurate
and efficient data entry. Sampling personnel should enter
sample information, lab personnel should enter analysis
information, etc..
� Computerized laboratory calculations and direct reporting
of results.
� Locating wells and corresponding data by geographic
coordinates and geographic proximity: for example, a
system, user should be able to determine what type of
groundwater data is available within a mile radius of a
given site.
� Scheduling acquisition of monitoring well samples, and
identification of wells which have not been sampled on
time.

B-8

0 Sort records by water quality parameter, location, or
geologic setting to determine trends.
0 Comparison of water quality parameter concentrations to
safe drinking water standards.
Determination and display of spatial and temporal trends in
groundwater information (e.g. contaminant plume maps,
histograms, etc.).
A system should provide programming tools for developing
limited but specialized functions such as statistics,
ratings, etc.
Compatibility with USGS'S WATSTORE system (to whatever
degree possible)
Quality assurance procedures to insure that information in
the system meets specified standards.
Any system should be accessible from DEP's field offices.
User training, continued user support, and software
maintenance.

Additional Requirements Due to Anticipated Future
Programs

Wells having parameter concentrations over safe drinking
water standards should be easily ideritified and flagged along
with corresponding owner information. This is especially
important when changes in safe drinking water standards
warrant examination and evaluation of old records. EPA or
State safe drinking water standards should also be maintained
in the system.
Mandatory reporting of physical well information (logs) by
drillers might necessitate additional data management
requirements.
0 Wellhead protection programs will require accurate
inventories wells and potentially threatening past and present
land use activities.
0 Anticipated saltwater intrusion -problems in southern
Maine might require modeling of groundwater flow and well
drawdown.

Non-point po'llution problems from agricultural and sludge

B-9

disposal activities might require areal rather that site
specific analyses.
0 Future regulation of non-waste hazardous materials will
require groundwater quality monitoring near storage facilities.
.6 A need to consider groundwater and surface water
resources together might necessitate analytical tools within
the database for modeling the interaction between the two
resources.
0 Laboratory testing techniques are capable of detecting
many water quality parameter concentrations in parts per
trillion. Such small concentrations are easily affected by
physical well characteristics such as method of construction,
inner casing material, type of grout and filter pack material.
In order to account for these interactions, physical infor-
mation about individual wells will have to be stored together
with lab results.

Contractual Bounds on Data Management

0 DEP is not under any formal contractual bounds with regard
to data management. However, the Department is honoring
Agreements of Understanding with EPA and UGSG which
necessitate some degree of compatibility with STORET, PCS
and WATSTORE. DEP must also adhere to State computer
compatibility standards.

Cost of Maintaining Current Data Management Systems

The costs of maintaining current manual groundwater data
files are impossible to evaluate because of a lack of record
keeping. Likewise, it is impossible to estimate costs
associated with poor decision-making or duplication of effort
resulting from lack of accurate knowledge about what
groundwater data is available.
0 EPA's STORET is used at no charge, but data entry and
equipment costs must be considered. An anticipated cost of
$10,000-15,000 for a direct data link with EPA should also be
considered.

B-1 0

The Bureau of Water Quality Control utilizes one person,
one-third to one-half time, for groundwater, data entry. The
Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control also employs one
person, full time, for data entry on underground oil storage
tanks and quality control.

Other

a EPA has selected Georgia for development of a "model" data
base integration system. The purpose of this project is to
demonstrate that different data management programs can be
tied together by an "umbrella" system. Maine has recently been
selected to be a model State for EPA's Region 1.

B-1 1

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
MAINE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Current Groundwater Programs

0 Sand and Gravel and Significant Aquifer MapaLa@L Fifty-
nine sand and gravel aquifer maps have been generated by a
cooperative project between MGS, DEP and USGS. The map
series (1:50,000 scale) depicts known deposits of coarse-
grained surface material that in all probability can supply
useful volumes of groundwater. Predicted well yields are also
shown. Corresponding to each map is a report with information
pertaining to wells, springs, test borings, test pits and other
geologic information. Maps and reports are manually filed by
index number. Recently, MGS has begun digitizing maps
covering York County, as part of a demonstration project of the
Maine Geographic Information System (MEGIS).
[contact: Walter Anderson]
0 Bedrock Aquifer Mapping. MGS has begun a bedrock aquifer
mapping project in conjunction with USGS. Locations of wells
are determined from the Delorme Maine Atlas. Each wells is
assigned an identification number (attribute). The ID numbers
are associated with yield, depth to bedrock and other physical
parameters stored using Burroughs DataManager. Ultimately,
maps showing aquifer boundaries will be generated from this
data.
[contact: Walter Anderson, Marc Loiselle]
0 High Groundwater Transmissivity Mal2gina. Potential
zones of high bedrock aquifer transmissivity have been
delineated on nine USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Also
shown are bedrock linear features and high and low yield wells.
[contact: Walter Anderson, Marc Loisellel
0 Regional Lineament Maps. Bedrock linear features,
locations of high yield wells, and zones of groundwater
recharge are being delineated on 1:250,000 scale maps of
Maine. This project will be completed in October, 1986.
contacts: Walter Anderson, Marc Loiselle]

B-1 2

Well Driller's Information. MGS acts as a central
repository for well information voluntarily provided by
drillers. More than 20,000 records exist with information
about aquifer characteristics and well yields. The location of
each well is determined on the Delorme Maine Atlas. Location,
driller, well number, well type, depth, estimated yield, and
other information are stored on a Burroughs Mini-Workstation
using Burroughs Data Base.
[contact: Walter Anderson]
0 Miscellaneous Prowects. MGS is frequently a consultant on
projects administered by other agencies. For instance, MGS
has worked with DEP on salt and sand storage pile studies,
with DAFRR on a pesticide study, and with DHS on numerous
water quality studies. Information generated by these projects
is usually managed by the administrating agencies.
[contact: Walter Anderson]

Outside Users of MGS's Groundwater Data

0 State Agencies. DEP, DHS, PUC, SPO, DARFF, LURC and other
state agencies are frequent users of MGS's groundwater data.
Sand and gravel aquifer maps are perhaps the most often used
source of information.
0 Federal Aaencies. USGS relies heavily on hydro-geologic
data gathered by MGS. Other federal agencies also utilize MGS
data.
0 Consultants. Engineers and consulting hydrogeologists are
frequent users of all forms of groundwater data.
0 Land Use Planners. Municipal and Council of Government
planners use sand and gravel aquifer maps for land use zoning.
0 Others. MGS is a source of groundwater information to
universities, hospitals, public interest groups, and many
others.

Outside Sources of Groundwater Data Used by MGS

0 Maine Geologic Survey uses relatively little groundwater
information outside of what is generated through its own
programs.

B-13

Opportunities for Improving Accessibility to Groundwater
Data Among Agencies

0 Groundwater data could be made more accessible if
programs were formulated to include a GIS component. The
exact role of the GIS might differ from project to project, but
should, at minimum, serve as a tool to geographically index
groundwater information. Then future data users would be able
to make inquiries about availability of information by
providing the coordinates of an area of interest and a search
radius.
0 MGS and USGS work closely on many projects. Both would
benefit if groundwater information could be easily transferred
between MEGIS and Arc/Info, a GIS used by the U.S. Department
of Interior. Currently, a file translator is being developed at
University of Maine to partially satisfy this need. The
software will enable MEGIS to read and write NCIC Digital Line
Graph (DLG) data file structures which can already be handled
by Arc Info and a number of other systems. However, the DLG
format permits translation of mapped information only.
Relational information will still. have to be manually
transferred [contact: Thomas Brann, UM].
0 Both MSG and USGS would also benefit if groundwater data
was easily transferable between Burroughs Data Base and
WATSTORE. However, there are no immediate plans to develop
this link.

Available Data Management Resources

Maine Geological Survey's greatest data management asset
is MEGIS. The system is comprised of several software
modules which support digitizing, editing, and map making.
Polygon, line and point information can be digitized from
existing maps or aerial photographs. The digital files can be
edited to correct mistakes, and updated to include new or
additional information. Later, when a "hardcopy" is desired,
the system can be used to produce high quality maps of
resources or areas of interest.
MEGIS also allows assignment of identifiers, or attributes, to
mapped information. Often, just a number is used. Attributes

B-1 4

allow system users to distinguish between features, such as
lines that are roads and lines that are streams, or polygons
that are aquifers and polygons that are not. Attributes can
also be used to cross-index mapped features to additional
information stored in an outside relational data base. For
instance, a map polygon delineating geographic extent of a
sand and gravel deposit can be indexed to aquifer
characteristics such as transmissivity, expected well yield,
and water quality parameters stored in another data
management system.
It should be pointed out that because MEGIS is not directly
connected to a relational data base, the system is not a true
GIS. It lacks classification schemes and other basic analytical
tools needed to manipulate relational information. This
software is not adequate for analysis of complex data sets.
All digitizing, editing and mapping functions are performed at
DOC in Augusta, but MEGIS software resides on an IBM 3033 at
the University of Maine. The system utilizes Tektronix graphics
terminals, a Talos digitizer, and a Houston DP8 drum plotter.
One experienced operator is dedicated full-time to the system
[contacts: James Rea, Marc Loiselle].
0 MGS utilizes five Burroughs B-26 Mini-Workstations. Each
workstation supports Burroughs Data Base, a relational
information management system. Currently, MGS is using this
system to store relational data corresponding to geographic
information stored on MEGIS.
0 USGS offers cooperative programs through which MGS could
gain access to WATSTORE. Currently, MGS does not participate
in this program.
Data entry personnel are occasionally available.

Needs Met by Current Data Management Systems

0 Paper files allow manual storage and limited retrieval of
groundwater information. Manipulation of manually filed data
is generally necessitated by MGS projects and outside requests
for information.

B-1 5

IVIGS generates a great deal of mapped information. The
agency is-exploring and demonstrating the utility of MEGIS for
developing and updating maps related to groundwater
resources.
16 Burroughs Data Base allows storage, retrieval, and sorting
of well information provided by drillers. This data base
contains a wealth of data which will be utilized in future
groundwater projects.

Needs Not Being Met By Current Data Management Systems

Current data management systems, particularly manual
files, do not allow quick data entry, easy updates, or timely
transmittal of information.
0 IVIGS data management systems need to be compatible with
USGS. The current lack of compatibility is most acute when
the two agencies are involved in cooperative projects which
require mutual access to information.
0 Development of maps from information stored in a GIS
requires classification schemes and other analytical tools to
manipulate relational information. MEGIS does not provide for
this. In addition to limitations in its ability to manage rela-
tional information, the system is difficult to use. Currently, it
is unclear if MEGIS will satisfy long term needs of IVIGS.

Desirable Data Management Functions and Features

- Compatibility with USGS and neighboring state data
management systems.
0 A system should be simple but flexible enough to permit
development of software for specific applications.
0 Efficient data entry, easy updating, and timely
information retrieval.
0 Quality assurance procedures to insure.that information in
the system meets specified standards.
0 Sort by h ydrogeologic parameter, location, or geologic
setting to permit inquiries and determination of spatial
and temporal trends.
0 Polygon to grid to polygon conversion.
0 Ability to analyze multiple data layers simultaneously.

B-16

GIS capability to incorporate NCIC digital map information
such as land use, hydrography, elevation, etc.
User training and software maintenance and service
commitments from vendors.

Additional Requirements Due to Anticipated Future
Programs

0 Future sand and gravel aquifer projects might necessitate
groundwater flow modeling or contaminant transport modeling.
0 A geostatistical analysis capability might be needed at
some point.
0 A statewide aquifer protection planning project, if
implemented, would utilize a GIS for information processing
and mapping.

Contractual Bounds on Data Management

* MGS has contracted with the University of Maine to provide
maintenance of MEGIS software.

Cost of Maintaining Current Data Management Systems

The costs of maintaining current manual groundwater data
files are impossible to evaluate because of a lack of infor-
mation. Likewise, it is not possible to estimate the cost of
using Burroughs Data Base for managing water well
information provided by drillers.
MEGIS operates on an annual budget of $60,000 per year.
This figure accounts for maintenance, computer time',
communications, supplies, and one full-time operator. The
cost of using the system is approximately $41 per hour.

Other

0 The State should consider acting to improve its position on
USGS's priority list for development of 7.5 minute cultural and
hydrographic DLG products. These digital map layers delineate
transportation, land use, streams, lakes, ponds and other
features of interest to many within State government. It made

B-17

available, DLG's would be a valuable source of information
which could easily be incorporated in a state geographic
information system.
0 MGS should have some control over who has immediate
access to its information. Its obligation to provide such
access differs between state and federal agencies and the
public.

B-1 8

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Current Groundwater Programs

0 Public Water Supply Development Public water s 'upplies
are defined as those which serve more than twenty-five people
or those which provide fifteen or more service outlets. New
public groundwater supplies must be tested for turbidity,
coliform bacteria, hardness, volatile organic compounds,
radioactivity, and a number of inorganic parameters prior to
source approval. Safe yield and cone of influence must be
determined for gravel wells, using preliminary and prolonged
pump tests. This information is manually filed. Physical well
descriptions, when available, are also filed.
[contact: Donald Hoxie, Charles Rossoll, Kenneth Meyer]
0 Public Water Supply MonitaLLM. Over 2000 public water
supplies exist in Maine. Many of these depend on groundwater.
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that the quality of these
sources be tested on a regular basis. All public supplies must
be tested annually, some are required to test for bacteria more
frequently. Annual tests are done for sodium and nitrate.
Tests for organic and inorganic parameters are done every
three years, while radioactivity is checked every four years.
There is little quality control on this data.
Laboratory results were, at one time, 'stored on the State's
IBM mainframe computer. That program has since been
discontinued and the old records are archived on computer
tapes.
Currently, laboratory results are manually filed and
microfilmed. However, administrative information is stored on
an IBM PC-XT. This data includes ownership, town name and
map location (manual files only), sampling rates, what
parameters are tested, and what parameters are found to be in
excess of safe drinking water standards. All violations are
reported to EPA. Hazardous waste violations are also reported
to DEP.
[contact: Donald Hoxie, Charles Rossoll, Kenneth Meyer]

B-1 9

Private Water Well Analyses. The agency performs 7000-
8000 private water analyses each year. Samples are taken by
well owners, who also provide a limited description of the
well. Primary parameters of interest include nitrate and
bacteria. There is no quality control on this data since well
owners are not trained in proper sampling procedures and
seldom provide accurate information on physical well
characteristics.
Laboratory results are manually filed and microfilmed,
first by town name where the well is located, then by owner.
Administrative information, such as owner and address, is
stored on an IBM PC-XT.
(contact: Donald Hoxie, Charles Rossoll, Kenneth Meyer]

Outside Users of DFIS Groundwater Data

State Aaencies. DEP receives, under a protocol involving
the Division of Health Engineering and the Public Health
Laboratory, copies of reports which show detection of
hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds. MDOT depends on
DHS for laboratory analysis of groundwater samples thought to
be contaminated by road salt and for pre-construction
evaluations. PUC, MGS and DAFRR are occasional users of DHS
files.
Federal Aaencies. EPA receives and computerizes notices
of public water supplies not- meeting safe drinking water
standards. USGS uses water quality data in their biannual
water resource reports on Maine.
0 Consultants, Real Estate Aaents. Bankers, Lawyers. As
additional focus is put on groundwater quantity and quality,
more requests are made each year for information on wells.
DHS is required by law to make this information available to
the public.

Outside Sources of Groundwater Data Used by DHS

0 DHS often uses MGS's sand and gravel aquifer and bedrock
aquifer maps. The agency also uses DEP's information on
possible pollution threats, e.g. sludge spreading programs,
hazardous waste sites, etc.

B-20

Opportunities for' Improving Accessibility to Groundwater
Data Among Agencies

Currently, anyone wishing to obtain groundwater
information from DHS must spend considerable time manually
searching files. An ability to carry out computerized sorts and
retrieval of well analysis records would greatly enhance the
Agency's ability to provide timely access to data.
0 The Agency is searching for a systematic method of
obtaining more precise well locations from owners, but an
adequate procedure has not yet been developed. The current
lack of precise geographic reference greatly limits the utility
of any future data management system, regardless of its
sophistication.
0 Results of groundwater investigations which are conducted
-by DEP as follow-up to violation reports are rarely circulated
back to DHS. The Agency's files are therefore incomplete.

Available Data Management Resources

0 DHS Public Health Laboratory utilizes a. Honeywell Level 6
mini-computer. It has not yet been decided how or if this
computer will be integrated into a data management system.
0 IBM PC-XT micro-computers are used to manage public and
private water supply administrative data.
DHS has one full-time and two part-time data entry
personnel working on water supply information.

Needs Met by Current Data Management Systems

Paper files and microfilm allow manual storage and
retrieval of groundwater quantity and quality data, and
physical well information. The effect of physical well
characteristics on samples is an important element in the
interpretation of water quality results.
0 Microfilm is being used as a long term storage media in the
likely event of future EPA laboratory audits. Microfiche will
replace microfilm sometime in the future.

B-21

IBM micro and mainframe computers are used for storage
and retrieval of administrative information used for billing and
mailing and, in the case of public supplies, for reporting water
quality violations.

Needs Not Being Met by Current Data Management Systems

0 Manual files do not allow timely retrieval of groundwater
information. This problem is made worse by the 'lack of
precise data on private well location.
9 Regional analysis of groundwater can be very difficult and
expensive if files must be searched manually for relevant
information. This limits the State's ability to manage safe
pumping yields and groundwater in general.

Desirable Data Management Functions and Features

DHS has been conceptualizing possible data management
arrangements for some time. Overall, a desirable system
would consist of two components: one for managing data
collected six months prior and another for long term archiving
and retrieval. The first component would involve at least one
mini-computer at the Public Health Laboratory. The computer
would be used to track test kits, track laboratory samples, and
manage laboratory results. Information not more than six
months old would be kept on-line and thus immediately
accessible from remote terminals or through a micro-
computer.
The second component would involve microfiching, and
long term storage on computer media which could be accessed
by different agencies through the State's IBM mainframe. Data
need not be immediately accessible, - but the system should
have the capability of satisfying inquiries within a reasonable
period of time.
Data management functions which would be most useful
include (1) storage of quality assurance information along with
laboratory results; (2) sorts by water quality parameter,
hydrogeologic setting, well type, and geographic proximity; (3)

B-22

comparisons of water analysis results to safe drinking water
standards; (4) determination of spatial and temporal trends in
water quantity and quality; (5) and ability to produce
customized reports.
GIS capabilities would be useful for reviewing proposed
development activities near watersheds and aquifers which
feed public and private water supplies.

Additional Requirements Due to Anticipated Future
Programs

0 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act will increase
the number of water quality parameters for which public wells
are tested. Regulatory changes like this necessitate the use of
flexible formats for coding information in data management
systems.
0 Future wellhead protection programs will require accurate
inventories of wells and their locations.
0 Private well construction practices might be regulated by
the State sometime in the future. If so, physical well
information will be generated. Subsequently, this information
will have to be managed by the State. -
0 Classification schemes designed for groundwater
protection might necessitate incorporation of physical well
data and groundwater quality results in a State GIS.

Contractual Bounds on Data Management

* There are no formal contractual bounds which might
restrict data management options.

Cost of Maintaining Current Data Management Systems

0 The costs of maintaining manual data management systems
are impossible to evaluate because of a lack of information.
0 Use of IBM mainframe and PC-XT computers for
management of administrative information involves one full-
time and two part-time data entry personnel. Computer costs
are not available.

B-23

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Current Groundwater Programs

0 Sand and Salt Storage Facility Ranking. Currently, MDOT
stores road sand and salt at 140 locations throughout Maine.
These storage facilities are being ranked in terms of their
impact on the environment. As part of the ranking procedure,
water samples are taken by MDOT technicians from wells near
storage facilities and tested for sodium and chloride by DHS.
Conductivity measurements are also made. Well type and
location relative to storage facility are carefully noted. All
field and lab records are manually filed. Much of this
information is also managed on an IBM PC-XT with LOTUS, a
commercially available spreadsheet program.
[contact: William Reid, Chris Olson]
0 Precons1ruction Information. Prior to many road
construction projects, MDOT conducts groundwater quality
studies to establish existing water quality. Sodium and
chloride concentrations are of prime concern. Most laboratory
analyses are done by DHS. Laboratory reports, together with
available well construction details and well location are
manually filed by town name and job number.
[contact: William Reid, Chris Olson]
0 Pollution Claims. MDOT responds regularly to private
claims for compensation for wells polluted by construction and
maintenance activities. The Agency's response to such claims
often involves groundwater monitoring to confirm or establish
source(s) of contamination. All records are manually filed by
name of well owner.
[contact: William- Reid, Chris Olson]
s Exploratory Borings. Much geologic information is
generated by MDOT's exploratory soil borings. Depth to
groundwater is routinely recorded. All information is manually
filed by town name and project number.
[contact: Melvin Morgan]

B-24

Sp6cial Proiects. Groundwater data are sometimes gener-
ated by special projects administered by MDOT. Information is
manually filed by title of study and by location.
[contact: William Reid, Christine Olson]

Outside Users of MDOT Groundwater Data

DEP. The Bureau of Water Quality Control is a user of DOT's
sand and salt storage facility monitoring data.
0 Consultants and Attorneys. Engineers, hydrogeologists, and
attorneys are frequent users of all types of groundwater data.

Outside Sources of Groundwater Data Used b y MDOT

0 DEP. The Bureau of Water Quality Control has its own sand
and salt storage pile monitoring program. Data generated as
part of this program is also used by MDOT.
MGS. Well driller's information and sand and gravel aquifer
maps are used regularly by MDOT.

Opportunities for Improving Accessibility to Groundwater
Data Among Agencies

DHS's filing system for water quality analysis of private
wells should provide easier access to data. Specific
recommendations include geographic indexing of well
locations, and computerization of water quality results.
Laboratory results also suffer from lack of quality control.
Uncertainties are largely due to well sampling irregularities
which are beyond the Agency's control. In addition, all private
well records should indicate if the data can be used for public
information.
0 The creation of a central groundwater information index
and a "key contact" position would improve acce.ssibility to
data among agencies. It would also provide an element of
continuity to knowledge about the State's groundwater data.
Currently, when a key groundwater professional leaves state
employment, knowledge about availability of data and its
location is lost.

B-25

Available Data Management Resources

0 MDOT utilizes approximately twenty-five IBM PC-XTs or
compatibles. These support D-BASE III data base management
and LOTUS spreadsheet programs.
0 The agency is installing AT&T mini-computers in each of
its regional offices. These run under UNIX operating systems
and will be tied to the State's IBM mainframe.
0 DOT's Computer Services Division employs several analysts
who are available for software development. The Agency also
employs college students knowledgeable in computers during
summers and holidays for programming and data entry.

Needs Met by Current Data Management Systems

0 Paper files allow manual storage and retrieval of
groundwater data and well construction details.
LOTUS is used on an IBM PC-XT for storage and spreadsheet
analysis, of sand and salt storage facility data.

Needs Not Being Met by Current Data Management Systems

0 Manual files do not allow timely retrieval of groundwate r
information. The cost of manually sorting files greatly limits
the Agency's ability to establish regional background water
quality conditions and extent of groundwater contamination
problems. In addition, these files are very susceptible to "mix-
ups" that result in loss of information.

Desirable Data Management Functions and Features

0 Sort data by location, type of pollution, and timeframe.
0 Identify potential point and non-point sources of pollution
near wells.
0 Form data summaries and statistics.
0 Determine and display spatial and temporal data trends.
Any system must be user-friendly.

B-26

Additional Requirements Due to Anticipated Future
Programs

An underground storage tank inventory and monitoring
program is anticipated sometime in the near future. The
program will involve groundwater quality monitoring near
tanks located on MDOT maintenance lots and rights-of-way.
The resulting laboratory data will require management.
0 Unanticipated special studies will necessitate flexibility
in any data management system.

Contractual Bounds on Data Management

0 There are no formal contractual bounds which might
restrict data management options.

Cost of Maintaining Current Data Management Systems

0 The costs of maintaining manual data management systems
are impossible to evaluate because of a lack of information.
Agency personnel spend -a lot of time helping others locate
groundwater information.
0 Use of an IBM PC-XT computer for management and analysis
of sand and salt storage facility data involves one part-time
student position. Computer costs are unavailable.

B-27

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Current Groundwater Programs

0 Water Utilities. Approxi m ately 150 publicly and privately
owned water utilities depend on groundwater to some extent.
Annual reports submitted by these utilities to PUC contain
information on total groundwater usage and individual well
production. These figures are computerized on an IBM PC-XT
using Water Utility Data Base, a customized version of D-BASE
111. Much of this information is of questionable quality because
of reporting irregularities. Currently, the Agency is contacting
utilities in order to verify reported well yields.
[contact: Raymond Hammond]
0 Other. Among other miscellaneous groundwater
information, PUC files contain reports on old groundwater
favorability studies. These discuss the suitability of
subsurface sources as new drinking water supplies. Reports
are manually filed.
[contact: Raymond Hammond]

Outside Users of PUC Groundwater Data

SPO. Water utility reports are used as a source of
information for reports on Maine's resources.
0 'USGS. Data on surface water and groundwater usage is
used to compile biannual reports on Maine's water resources.
0 Water Associations. Maine Water Utilities Association and
Maine Rural Water Association utilize water usage data.

Outside Sources of Groundwater Data Used by PUC

0 DEP, DHS. MQS. Water quality information and sand and
gravel aquifer maps are used for groundwater favorability
studies.
0 USGS. Water usage information is exchanged regularly
between the two agencies.

B-28

Opportunities for Improving Accessibility to Groundwater
Data Among Agencies

0 Standardization of well terminology will lead to better
communication regarding groundwater betwe6n agencies.
0 Direct access to WATSTORE would improve accessibility
to USGS's groundwater information. .

Available Data Management Resources

0 PUC has a network of IBM PC-XT and PC-AT computers. D-
BASE III is available for data management.
0 Two full-time programmer analysts are available for
software development.

Needs Met by Current Data Management Systems

Manual files provide storage of annual reports and
groundwater favorability studies.
0 Water Utility Data Base (D-BASE 111) supports the Agency's
efforts to regulate utilities and manage groundwater supplies.
This system provides summary and reporting functions.

Needs Not Being Met by Current Data Management Systems

0 DHS data manage ment procedures do not allow an efficient
way in which to monitor water quality trends. In many cases,
early identification of contamination problems can lead to
more timely remedial response and lower cleanup costs.
In order to effectively regulate water utilities, accurate
information is needed on groundwater usage, well drawdown,
specific yield, and numbers of people served by water utilities.

B-29

Desirable Data Management Functions and Features

0 A system should allow data sorting and economic analysis.
For example, the Agency is often interested in consumption per
customer and investment per customer. In one report these
might be needed for a six month period, in another report for a
one year period, or a ten year period in still another. A system
should be flexible enough to provide these types of statistics.

Additional Requirements Due to Anticipated Future
Programs

0 Many utilities will increase their future dependence on
groundwater. The decision to do so will be based on the
economics of treating surface water vs. drilling wells and
pumping. Accessibility to all available information on
groundwater will be needed for these analyses.
As subsurface sources increase in importance, proper
allocation of groundwater will be needed. The State will play a
key role in this. Accurate information on usage, specific
yields, well drawdown, and water quality will be required in
order to effectively manage this resource. In. short, this will
necessitate a statewide groundwater information system.

Contractual Bounds on Data Management

0 There are no formal contractual bounds which might
restrict data management options.

Cost of Maintaining Current Data Management Systems

Information was entered into PUC's Water Utility Data Base
at a cost of about $600. Computer costs are unavailable.

B-30

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD,
AND RURAL RESOURCES

Current Groundwater Programs

0 Site Location- Appligation Review. DAFRR's Soil and Water
Conservation Commission is one of a number of review
agencies for site location permit applications. These are
received by DEP's Bureau of Land Quality Control and circulated
for review and comments. Though these applications address
potential impact on groundwater, no new data is generated by
DAFRR.
[contact: Frank Ricker, Paul Beers]

Outside Users of DAFRR Groundwater Data

0 Outside users of groundwater data are referred to MGS, DEP
or other agencies.

Outside Sources of Groundwater Data Used by DAFRR

0 Groundwater data needed for site location reviews is
included with permit applications. This information is
provided to DEP, and subsequently DAFRR, by the permit
applicant.

Opportunities for Improving Accessibility to Groundwater
Data Among Agencies

0 Standardization of data collection procedures would
improve accessibility to groundwater information.

Available Data Management Resources

The Department utilizes a Burroughs mainframe computer
with a number of remote terminals. The Burroughs supports R-
Base, a commercially available data base management program.

B-31

DAFRR's Board of Pesticides Control has access to Purdue,
University's National Pesticide Registration System (NPRS).
This is a central repository for information on pesticide
solubilities, health risks, and other factors related to
groundwater pollution.

Needs Met By Current Data Management Systems

a The Agency does not manage groundwater data.

Needs Not Being Met By Current Data Management Systems

a The Agency does not manage groundwater data.

Desirable Data Management Functions and Features

DAFRR's recommendations for specific functions include
sorting of groundwater data by geographic proximity; sort by
sodium ion concentration, biological oxygen demand, and PH;
and map generation.
0 A groundwater data management system should be
compatible with other natural resource data systems.

Additional Requirements Due to Anticipated Future
Programs

0 Pesticide and animal waste pollution problems might
result in additional groundwater monitoring requirements
sometime in the future. These would necessitate additional
data storage capabilities, and probably a capacity to manage
data at the county level.
0 A proposed agricultural irrigation study for Aroostook
County would also necessitate additional data storage
capacity.
0 Growing interest in the effectiveness of spreading sludge
wastes on agricultural land (land treatment) might warrant
accessibility to DEP groundwater quality data.
& A groundwater classification system is currently being
developed as part of the State's natural resource protection
efforts. This classification scheme could be most effectively

B-32

implemented if a GIS is used for data storage and retrieval,
updating, analysis and map generation. In addition,
implementation of a groundwater protection plan will
necessarily start at the local level. Thus, the State should
consider the need to provide municipalities and other
interested groups some type of remote accessibility to GIS
capabilities.

Contractual Bounds on Data Management

0 There are no contractual bounds which might restrict data
management options.

Cost of Maintaining Current Data Management Systems

There are no costs since DAFRR does not manage
groundwater data.

B-33

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
BUREAU OF DATA PROCESSING

NOTE:
The Bureau of Data Processing is not directly involved with
groundwater data. However, the Agency does offer a number of
data management resources which are relevant to this study.
These are discussed below. [contacts: Val Wood, Bernard Beaulieu].

Current Groundwater Programs

None

Outside Users of the Bureau's Groundwater Data

0 None

Outside Sources of Groundwater Data Used by the Bureau

None

Opportunities for Improving Accessibility to Groundwater
Data Among Agencies

The Bureau of Data Processing could act as a centralized
access point to computerized groundwater information.

Available Data Management Resources

Honeywell System

� Hardware -- 3 DPS 8/52 CPU's, 4 communication
processors, 25 disk drives, 16 tape drives, 3 1200 LPM
printers, 5 job entry computer systems, and 450 remote
terminals throughout the State.
0 Operating System -- GCOS-8
� Data Management Software
Data Manager (DMIV) - Data base accessible from
remote terminals.

B-34

Integrated Data Store (IDS-11) - Allows an integrated
data base to be accessed by many users.
Data Summarization and Report Generation
Query and Reporting Processor (QRP) - Designed re-
trieval and report generation software.

IBM System

� Hardware 1 4381 Model 3 CPU, 4 communication
processors, 17 disk drives, 6 tape drives, 1 high speed
printer, 2 job entry computers, and over 400 terminals
throughout the State.
0 Operating Systems -- VM/XA SF, VM/SP, MVS/XA, OSVS1
� Data Management Software
Scientific Information and Retrieval System (SIR)-
An integrated hierarchical data base management sys-
tem with an easy to learn, integrated programming
language.
The Bureau is committed to acquiring a relational
data base sometime in the future.
� Statistical Analysis and Reporting Software
* Easytrieve Plus - A report generation and sorting system
* Statistical Analysis System (SAS) - An integrated sys-
tem for data management and statistical analysis.
The State's IBM mainframe has the capability of sup-
porting MEGIS.

Other Computers

Northern Telecom (Data100) mini computers
0 IBM PC, PC-XT, and PC-AT personal computers
0 Burroughs B25 personal computers
0 AT&T 7300 Unix personal computers

Relevant Services

0 Custom development of data management and application
software
0 Software Support
0 Training

B-35

Microcomputer Rental
0 Resource Library
0 Data entry
0 Magnetic Tape Storage

Needs Met By Current Data Management Systems

0 The Bureau does not manage groundwater data.

Needs Not Being Met By Current Data Management Systems

0 The Bureau does not utilize groundwater data.

Desirab-le Data Management Functions and Features

0 The State's computer compatibility standards require that
all new equipment be compatible with the State's IBM and
Honeywell mainframes (e. g. Model 3270 terminals).
Furthermore, the Bureau- feels that a groundwater data
management system should be housed on one of these
computers, so that it can be accessed through the many remote
terminals already in place throughout the State. The Bureau
would not be receptive to the addition of a third computer
specifically for groundwater data management.

Additional Requirements Due to Anticipated Programs

0 There is a trend toward increased public utilization of
state information. This will necessitate consideration of
technical features which provide accessibility and at the same
time some degree of privacy.

Contractual Bounds on Data Management

0 The Bureau has contracted the Computer Center, located. in
Falmouth, Maine for long term data entry services.

B-36

Costs of Maintaining Current Data Management Systems

The following are 1986 unit costs for services provided the
Bureau of Data Processing.

Personnel --
*Sr. Computer Programmer $ 19.25
*Prograrnmer Analyst 21.25
*Systerns Analyst 23.75
*Systerns Project Leader 26.00
*Systerns Group Manager 28.50

Personal Computer Rental
*IBM PC/XT with color monitor $375./month
*IBM PC/XT with monochrome 325./month
*IBM 3270PC 375./month
*Burroughs B25 450./month
*Burroughs B25 with graphics 525./month

Data Entry
*Per hour keypunch -or DatalOO $ 15.00
data entry computer

Computer Hardware
*Session Connect Time $ 0.00
*Dial up access 0.00
*Dedicated Communication Ports 350.00/month
*Electronic Mail 0.00
*Page Printing per page .025
*Printing per line Honeywell .00107
*Printing per line IBM .0012
*Disk Storage Honeywell 2.54/MB
*Disk Storage IBM 3.697/MB
*Usage rates for other items such as CPU time and
tape drives can be obtained by calling 289-3631.

B-37

Other

0 Additional information can be found in a User Reference
Guide, 1986, available from the Bureau of Data Processing.

B-38

STATE PLANNING' OFFICE

Current Groundwater Programs

0 Statewide Coordination of Groundwater Programs. SPO is
charged with coordination of interagency groundwater
programs. This involves one full-time "State Groundwater
Coordinator" who works with professionals and committees to
promote interdepartmental cooperation and communication
between professionals. This individual also acts as a central
source of information on groundwater laws, zoning, variances,
etc. [contact: Paul Dutram)
0 Groundwater Protection Planning. Development of a
planning process for groundwater protection is currently
underway at SPQ. A draft methodology for community level
aquifer protection planning consists of (1) formation of a
groundwater committee, (2) informing the public, (3) gathering
existing data, (4) inventorying well locations and potential
contamination sources, (5) data evaluation, (6) public
education, (7) selection of groundwater protection plan
options, (8) identification of land use conflicts, (9)
identification of regulatory conflicts, and (10) protection plan
implementation. The proposed planning process depends
largely on existing forms of groundwater information.
[contacts: Paul Dutram, Holly Dominie]
0 State Groundwater Data Manaaement System. This report
is the first phase of the State's effort to establish a
groundwater data management system. The project is
administered by the Data Management Committee of the Maine
Land and Water Resources Council through the State
Groundwater Coordinator. The purpose of this study is to
determine and document what groundwater data management
practices are being used in Maine, analyze existing and future
groundwater data management needs, develop general
recommendations for a mutually accessible State groundwater
data management system, and to serve as -a model for other
natural resources data management systems. Phase 11, as
proposed, will consist of development of specific data
management options which meet the needs documented in this

B-39

report. Phase III will be the implementation of a system.
[contact: Paul Dutram, Karen Massey]

Outside Users of SPO Groundwater Data

0 SPO does not act as a source of groundwater quality or
quantity data. Outside users are referred to MGS, DEP, or other
agencies.

Outside Sources of Groundwater Data Used by SPO

0 SPO utilizes information on groundwater programs and
projects carried out by virtually all other State agencies.
Actual figures on yield or water quality of specific wells are
rarely used. Rather, the Agency is interested in statewide or
regional summaries.

Opportunities for Improving Accessibility to Groundwater
Data Among Agencies

0 Improved accessibility to EPA's STORET system would be
of benefit.
0 DHS data should be indexed by geographic location and
stored on computer in order to facilitate sorting and
information retrieval.
0 A State groundwater newsletter would enhance
communication and cooperation between groundwater
professionals.

Available Data Management Resources

Access to the State's IBM and Honeywell mainframe com-
puters
Five Victor model 9000 micro-computers
Eight AT&T model 6300 IBM-compatible micro-computers
One Apple Macintosh personal computer

B-40

Needs Met by Current Data Management Systems

No groundwater data management systems are utilized by
SPO.

Needs Not Being Met by Current Data Management Systems

0 Accurate knowledge of what groundwater data exists in the
State is critical to the Agency's coordinating and planning
eff o rts. Currently, no index exists.
0 SPO is unable to incorporate accurate information on
Maine's groundwater quality or quantity in its biannual natural
resource reports. This is principally due to the lack of a
management system which permits analysis of all available
groundwater data.
0 -A data management system would also enable SPO to set
priorities for providing assistance to towns for aquifer
protection planning. This could be accomplished by sorting
existing information to identify towns with water supplies
already affected by pollution and those that are very
susceptible to contamination.

Desirable Data Management Functions and Features

� Sort by hydrogeologic parameter, location, or geologic
setting to permit inquiries and determination of spatial
and temporal trends. For example, sorting of data to
determine how many wells are going out of circulation
within a certain region
� Identification and flagging of water quality reports that
indicate possible contamination problems within certain
geographic areas
Correlation of land use and population statistics, and other
useful data with groundwater resource information

B-41

Additional Requirements Due to Anticipated Future
Programs

0 SPO's proposed groundwater protection planning meth-
odology largely consists of analysis of mapped hydrogeologic
and land use information. The result will be a set of
groundwater resource maps, land use classification maps, and
threat maps. Incorporating a GIS component in the State's
groundwater data management system will facilitate this
process, particularly if the data base can be linked to existing
permit and regulatory activities (e.g. site location permits,
RCRA facilities, etc.).
0 Groundwater protection planning will be implemented at
the town level. Therefore, accessibility to groundwater
information must be decentralized. Regional planning or
conservation commissions or regional DEP offices could well
provide remote access to a State groundwater information
system.
0 SPO will be a repository for hydrogeologic and land use
data generated by towns in the course of local groundwater
protection planning.
0 After groundwater protection plans have been
implemented, ongoing efforts should be made to gauge their
effectiveness. This should include tracking the frequency and
nature of contamination problems that occur in different
protection zones.

Contractual Bounds on Data Management

0 There are no contractual bounds which may restrict data
management options.

Costs of Maintaining Current Data Management Systems

0 There are no costs since SPO does not manage groundwater
data.

B-42

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION,- AUGUSTA, MAINE

Current Groundwater Programs

0 Basic Data Collection' Network. USGS performs long term
monitoring of groundwater throughout the nation. The Agency's
primary objectives are to gage the effects of climate, terrain,
and man-made stresses on groundwater availability. Depth to
water and well drawdown are of primary interest. The Maine
monitoring network presently consists of about twenty wells.-
Ultimately, it*will be expanded to forty wells. This program
utilizes the Agency's Water Data Storage and Retrieval System
(WATSTORE) for information management.
Water levels at most wells are monitored continuously for
the entire period of record. However, only five day high values
are retained on WATSTORE for long term storage. Measurement
frequencies of wells placed to gage the effects of terrain are
sometimes reduced to twice monthly.
Groundwater quality monitoring is a secondary objective.
However, at least two chemical analyses are performed on each
well: one at high and the other at low water level. Results of
these also are stored in WATSTORE.
[contact: Derrill Cowing, Thomas Maloney]
0 Well Information. Information from three to four thousand
wells inventoried during hydrologic studies is being entered
into WATSTORE. Included are parameters such as aquifer type,
depth of well, depth to water, well type, and pumping yield.
When completed, this data base will be a valuable source of
groundwater information.
[contact: Derrill Cowing, Thomas Maloney]
0 Hydrologic Studies Program. USGS, MGS, and DEP cooperate
on a variety of groundwater related projects, including the
sand and gravel aquifer mapping program. Information collected
for these projects include seismic and other geophysical data,
test hole logs, and water level
and water quality data from observation wells. Maps, data and

B-43

interpretative reports resulting from projects are published,
distributed and filed manually, but numerical and descriptive
information is entered. into WATSTORE whenever possible.
[contact: Derrill Cowing, Thomas Maloney]

Outside Users of USGS's Groundwater Data

a USGS groundwater data is utilized by federal agencies,
state agencies, regional planning groups, commercial interests,
consultants, and private citizens. Generally, the information
requested by outside users, if available, can be found in
appendices to water resources reports and on maps.

Outside Sources of Groundwater Data Used by USGS

� MGS. Many projects are done in cooperation with MGS.
� DEP. Groundwater quality data is sometimes generated by
joint USGS/DEP/MGS projects.
� QHS. Public and private water analysis results contain
information particularly useful to USGS. However, these
are seldom used because of a lack of adequate site
location information.

Opportunities for Improving Accessibility to Groundwater
Data Among Agencies

0 DHS water quality files should be geographically indexed
and computerized.
0 Laboratories should have the capability of delivering
analytical results in formats readily accessible by STORET and
WATSTORE.
0 A central geographic index to groundwater data availability
would greatly improve accessibility.
0 Accessibility could also be improved through better
communication between groundwater professionals.

B-44

Available Data Management Resources

0 USGS's Boston Prime computer supports WATSTORE. The
system consists of several files which are grouped and stored
by common characteristics. A site information file is
maintained for all sites which have data stored in the system.
Currently, files are maintained for the storage of (1) surface-
water, quality-of -water, and groundwater data measured on a
daily or a continuous basis, (2) annual peak values for
strearnflow stations, (3) chemical analyses for surface or
groundwater sites, (4) water data parameters measured more
frequently than daily, (5) geologic and inventory data for
groundwater sites, and (6) summary data on water use.
Additional data files can be added as needed.
WATSTORE allows extensive statistical analyses of data to
be performed with PSAT, a statistical system developed at
Princeton University, or the Statistical Analysis System (SAS).
Sorts are also possible. Data can be displayed in computer
printed tables and graphs, and also in the form of two-
dimensional contour plots.
WATSTORE is based on INFO, a proprietary relational data
base management program. USGS also utilizes ARC/INFO, an
integrated geographic information management system.
ARC/INFO is also based on INFO, but the program includes many
mapping functions not found in WATSTORE. Since both
ARC/INFO and WATSTORE utilize INFO formats, relational data
files can be shared by the two systems.
The Water Resources Division Augusta office has one direct
line to the USGS Prime computer in Boston. This line provides
remote access to both WATSTORE and ARC/INFO. However,
most GIS functions must be performed in Boston because of
mapping hardware requirements.
Recently, the Augusta, office has made a request for an. IBM
PC-AT based version of ARC/INFO. If purchased, the PC version
would act as a satellite workstation to the Boston ARC/INFO
system. This arrangement would provide the office with in-
house analytical and mapping capabilities.
0 Another important groundwater data service provided by
USGS is the National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX). NAWDEX
is a national confederation of water-oriented organizations

B-45

working together to improve access to water data. No data is
stored in NAWDEX. Rather, its objective is to assist users of
water data in the identification, location, and acquisition of
needed data.
NAWDEX consists of member organizations from the water
data community. These organizations are linked so that their
water data holdings may be readily exchanged for maximum
use. A central Program Office coordinates this linkage and
provides overall management of the program.
The Program Office encompasses four major areas of
operation: (1) maintaining an internal data center, including
access to automated data processing facilities for
maintenance and use of its information files; (2) indexing
water data held by participating organizations; (3) providing
facilities and personnel for responding to requests for data;
and (4) formulating recommended water data handling and
exchange standards.
0 In addition to having access to the above, the Augusta
office has an IBM PC-AT computer and a Hewlett Packard
plotter.

Needs Met By Current Groundwater Data Management
Systems

WATSTORE is used for storage and retrieval, statistical
analyses, and sorting by geographic proximity. WATSTORE
water quality file data are readily accessible through STORET.
0 ARC/INFO is used for geographic information management
and mapping.

Needs Not Being Met By Current Data Management Systems

WATSTORE and ARC/INFO seem to satisfy current needs.
Desirable Data Management Functions and Features

See above discussions of WATSTORE and ARC/INFO.

B-46

Additional Requirements Due to Anticipated Future
Programs

0 USGS involvement in Maine's bedrock aquifer mapping
project will necessitate some degree of data format'
compatibility between ARC/INFO and MEGIS (or visa versa).
Availability of surface and groundwater will be a future
resource management issue that will necessitate better water
usage information.
0 Determination of the contribution of groundwater to
surface water networks during low flow periods and draughts
will require accurate delineation of subsurface recharge areas,
flow patterns, discharge areas, and water usage.

Contractual Bounds on Data Management

0 The U.S. Department of Interior is committed to using
Prime computers and ARC/INFO.

Cost of Maintaining Current Data Management Systems

0 The Water Resources Division in Augusta spends $60,000
annually on WATSTORE. This figure accounts for data storage,
retrieval, and analyses costs for 50 stream gages, 20 wells, 20
water quality stations, data management and computer
analysis for all project activities, and a historical data base.
It also includes capital costs and system maintenance.

Other

a Groundwater information stored in a data management
system should be of known reliability.
0 Training of water sample collection personnel and regular
quality control reports from State laboratories are desirable.

B-47

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
@--_-_-P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
n 3 6668 14102 8771 @ I