RE: Maps: How can we help people find environmental information?

[Mike Meuser <meuser@mapcruzin.com>]

Hi - EPA does have their enviromapper on line.  The hud maps are
working now as well.  Problem with these national maps that
use EPA data is that there is a great deal of inaccuracy in the
reported longitude and latitudes used to locate the facilities
or contaminated sites geographically.  I did the interactive maps
for the first two years of EDF's Chemical Scorecard (Note that 
I had NOTHING to do with their current implementation.  We
spent a great deal of time relocating TRI facilities that were
obviously hundred or thousands of miles out of whack, but we 
still got emails from folks telling us that such and such
a site was on the other side of Boston, etc.  In this case, TRI,
the data is self-reported by industry.  They are required by
law to be accurate, but there seems to be no enforcement.

RTK net has always been my best source for data to map because
you can get all the fields you want if they exist in one fell
swoop as opposed to EPA's limited number of fields, limited
number of queries and results -- infinite ways of bogging down
access to raw data.  Unfortunately though RTK does not have
geographic information for all their databases.  Since EPA was
shutdown for "security reasons" the raw facility data behind
envirofacts has been unavailable to the public.  This data did
include geographical locating data for all facilities in
envirofacts.  Without this it is near impossible for anyone but
EPA to map at the national level.  Of course, given the 
inaccuracies, maybe that's not so bad.  Just don't trust what
you see.

Given this, mapping happens best at the regional level.  I've
done a lot of this work and it is successful because local folks
can say, "that's not right" and I can respond and correct.  I 
don't think this happens with national level maps. But the trend
towards less raw data and more interpreted (e.g. limited) data
is progressing, making it more and more difficult to do regional
maps with supposed publicly available data.  FOIA is sometimes
the only alternative.  Foia doesn't always work.  An example.

Last year I was interested in obtaining EPA's CEP data so I could
map the concentration of HAPs in the air around the US.  At
the last minute the CEP data was shelved because air boards
claimed they didn't reflect recent improvements in air quality.
I submitted a FOIA and received the data.  This year I began
about 4 months ago asking for the new CEP, run with more recent
1996 data.  I thought it made sense to see what these improvements
were.  One of my EPA contacts said, "yes, the CEP has been run
with the new data".  Another said they'd send it.  I got it and
it was a reduced "urban haps" data set.  I queried and the 
response was, "that's all we modelled" yet the first guy said
they modelled all the HAPS they modelled last year!!  So, when
I submit my FOIA what will happen?  Will I get the same wrong
CD again.

Bottom line is that local mapping works best.  EPA's non-
enforcement of reporting requirements like the locational
data on TRI reports makes doing this difficult.  EPA's 
shelving of data due to political pressure that was created
at public expense keeps important health-protective information
out of the public realm.  EPA's fragmentation of data makes
it difficult.  The move towards more and more interpreted (meaning
hard or impossible to get at) rather than raw data makes
it difficult.  EPA could do much more towards making the
regional mapping of all toxic releases and sources doable, but
the trend has been to make it increasingly difficult.  I guess
it keeps folks like me in business sort of, but it's not the
business we should be in.  Some of my regional projects
are at http://www.mapcruzin.com/projects/ if you are interested.

Here's a funny one. For months I've been asking various epa
employees when the raw state TRI data files will be available.
They've been available in dbf format every year.  My response
is "it's available now, see the TRI explorer" or somesuch.
When I say that's not what I'm looking for, I'm referred to
envirofacts or get the same earlier answer again.  It's like
the contact people are not even aware that there was (is?)
real raw data available.

EPA - A question.  It's been 6 months since the shutdown.
Will you ever put everything back online?  Have you solved
your "security" problems?  Hurting communities need to know.

Mike